Abstract
Interdisciplinary research is widely considered a hothouse for innovation, and the only plausible approach to complex problems such as climate change1,2. One barrier to interdisciplinary research is the widespread perception that interdisciplinary projects are less likely to be funded than those with a narrower focus3,4. However, this commonly held belief has been difficult to evaluate objectively, partly because of lack of a comparable, quantitative measure of degree of interdisciplinarity that can be applied to funding application data1. Here we compare the degree to which research proposals span disparate fields by using a biodiversity metric that captures the relative representation of different fields (balance) and their degree of difference (disparity). The Australian Research Council’s Discovery Programme provides an ideal test case, because a single annual nationwide competitive grants scheme covers fundamental research in all disciplines, including arts, humanities and sciences. Using data on all 18,476 proposals submitted to the scheme over 5 consecutive years, including successful and unsuccessful applications, we show that the greater the degree of interdisciplinarity, the lower the probability of being funded. The negative impact of interdisciplinarity is significant even when number of collaborators, primary research field and type of institution are taken into account. This is the first broad-scale quantitative assessment of success rates of interdisciplinary research proposals. The interdisciplinary distance metric allows efficient evaluation of trends in research funding, and could be used to identify proposals that require assessment strategies appropriate to interdisciplinary research5.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rylance, R. Grant giving: global funders to focus on interdisciplinarity. Nature 525, 313–315 (2015)
Ledford, H. How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature 525, 308–311 (2015)
Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Marsden, W. & Meagher, L. The role of funding agencies in creating interdisciplinary knowledge. Sci. Public Policy 40, 62–71 (2013)
Woelert, P. & Millar, V. The “paradox of interdisciplinarity” in Australian research governance. High. Educ. 66, 755–767 (2013)
Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, 2004)
Langfeldt, L. The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Res. Eval. 15, 31–41 (2006)
Nichols, L. G. A topic model approach to measuring interdisciplinarity at the National Science Foundation. Scientometrics 100, 741–754 (2014)
Van Noorden, R. Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature 525, 306–307 (2015)
Porter, A. & Rafols, I. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81, 719–745 (2009)
Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S. & Perreault, M. Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture. Res. Eval. 15, 187–195 (2006)
Wagner, C. S. et al. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. J. Informetrics 5, 14–26 (2011)
Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I. & D’Este, P. Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE 10, e0135095 (2015)
Wang, J., Thijs, B. & Glänzel, W. Interdisciplinarity and impact: distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE 10, e0127298 (2015)
Shi, X., Adamic, L. A., Tseng, B. L. & Clarkson, G. S. The impact of boundary spanning scholarly publications and patents. PLoS ONE 4, e6547 (2009)
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H. & Hukkinen, J. Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Res. Policy 39, 79–88 (2010)
Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J., Huutoniemi, K. & Klein, J. T. Promoting Interdisciplinary Research: The Case of the Academy of Finland (The Academy of Finland, 2005)
Bammer, G. Strengthening Interdisciplinary Research: What It Is, What It Does, How It Does It and How It Is Supported (Australian Council of Learned Academies, 2012)
Ma, A., Mondragón, R. J. & Latora, V. Anatomy of funded research in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14760–14765 (2015)
Helmus, M. R., Bland, T. J., Williams, C. K. & Ives, A. R. Phylogenetic measures of biodiversity. Am. Nat. 169, E68–E83 (2007)
Cadotte, M. W. et al. Phylogenetic diversity metrics for ecological communities: integrating species richness, abundance and evolutionary history. Ecol. Lett. 13, 96–105 (2010)
Stirling, A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J. R. Soc. Interface 4, 707–719 (2007)
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M. & Jones, B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342, 468–472 (2013)
Porter, A. L., Garner, J. & Crowl, T. Research coordination networks: evidence of the relationship between funded interdisciplinary networking and scholarly impact. Bioscience 62, 282–288 (2012)
Boix Mansilla, V., Feller, I. & Gardner, H. Quality assessment in interdisciplinary research and education. Res. Eval. 15, 69–74 (2006)
Haythornthwaite, C., Lunsford, K. J., Bowker, G. C. & Bruce, B. C. in New Infrastructures for Science Knowledge Production (ed. Hine, C. ) 143–166 (Idea Group, 2006)
Laudel, G. Conclave in the Tower of Babel: how peers review interdisciplinary research proposals. Res. Eval. 15, 57–68 (2006)
Goring, S. J. et al. Improving the culture of interdisciplinary collaboration in ecology by expanding measures of success. Front. Ecol. Environ 12, 39–47 (2014)
Acknowledgements
We thank the Australian Research Council for providing de-identified application data for analysis, and for their commitment to transparency and improvement of research proposal assessment. We are grateful to A. Byrne for his feedback and encouragement. We also thank M. Jennions for feedback, and G. Bammer, J. Bennett and the participants of the workshop on Interdisciplinary Research: Evaluating and Rewarding High-Quality Projects held at the University of New South Wales in August 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed equally to this work. L.B. conceived the project and wrote the paper; R.D. and X.H. designed, conducted and interpreted the analyses.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Additional information
Reviewer Information Nature thanks L. Amaral, M. Helmus and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Extended data figures and tables
Extended Data Figure 1 Comparison of observed distribution of IDD scores to a null distribution.
a, Distribution of IDD scores for 18,476 proposals to the Australian Research Council Discovery Programme, pooled over 5 years (2010–2014). b, Null distribution of IDD scores generated by random sampling of Field of Research codes conditional on the observed frequencies of number of selected codes and percentage allocations.
Extended Data Figure 2 Distribution of IDD scores by institutional networks.
See Extended Data Table 2 for the membership of research networks. The research-intensive Group of Eight (Go8) universities submit more proposals to the Australian Research Council Discovery Programme and have higher funding success rates, but the overall patterns of interdisciplinarity scores and success rates are similar across institutions.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
This file contains Supplementary Methods and additional references. (PDF 605 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1
The hierarchical structure of FOR codes as a dendrogram. (PDF 107 kb)
Supplementary Table 1
This file contains data on proposals submitted to ARC Discovery program 2010-2014. (XLSX 1175 kb)
Supplementary Table 2
This table contains results of the GLMM analyses. (PDF 205 kb)
PowerPoint slides
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R. & Hua, X. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 534, 684–687 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18315
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18315
This article is cited by
-
An Evolving Understanding of Sense of Place in Social-Ecological Systems Research and the Barriers and Enablers to its Measurement
Environmental Management (2024)
-
Regional and sectoral variations in the ability to attract funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program and Horizon 2020
Scientometrics (2024)
-
Promoting interdisciplinary understanding in asynchronous online higher education courses: a learning communities approach
Instructional Science (2024)
-
SciSciNet: A large-scale open data lake for the science of science research
Scientific Data (2023)
-
Pest management science often disregards farming system complexities
Communications Earth & Environment (2023)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.