A Chinese version of this post is available
What are fake interdisciplinary collaborations and how do they arise?
Fake interdisciplinary collaborations are a form of performative scientific behaviour that claims to be interdisciplinary but lacks knowledge integration across disciplines. There are three social mechanisms that can result in such fake collaborations.
1. Irresponsible project management
Irresponsible project management has two manifestations:
- Disciplinary compromise: because of their respective disciplinary interests, researchers from various disciplines may find it difficult to reach an agreement at the beginning of a collaboration on the research topic, core concepts, or methodological approaches. When they fail to negotiate a mutually satisfying solution and are unwilling to subordinate their expertise to merely ‘serve’ their collaborators, they may choose to temporarily set aside the disagreement and move forward with the project anyway. However, this often leads to a situation where each side works independently, without true integration.
- Underdeveloped interdisciplinary capacity: many research projects are carried out through collaboration between professors and students, especially PhD students. In some cases, professors from different disciplines come together to create a joint research proposal with an interdisciplinary theme. After securing funding, these professors often become busy with other projects and leave the responsibility of day-to-day interdisciplinary communication to students from different disciplines. However, these students usually lack the experience and ability to carry out such complex communication and coordination tasks. As a result, the project fails to achieve real knowledge integration.
In fact, successful interdisciplinary collaboration requires continuous intellectual engagement. Collaborators must work together over time to develop shared understandings as the research progresses.
2. Cognitive oversights
There are two sources of cognitive oversights:
- Semantic mismatch: researchers from different fields often assign the same words to different meanings, or different words to the same meaning. This can lead to unintended misunderstandings. Although comparing research results and expectations can help reveal these differences during the project, such problems reduce the efficiency of collaboration and may damage trust.
- Tacit knowledge: researchers may not realise the hidden assumptions of their own disciplines. These assumptions can include theoretical premises (for example, the ‘rational actor’ model in economics) or epistemological beliefs (such as the idea in computer science that everything can be quantified). When such assumptions are not made explicit, it becomes difficult to truly connect ideas across fields.
3. Disciplinary self-promotion in the name of interdisciplinarity
From a sociology of professions perspective, subfields in a discipline may use the label of ‘interdisciplinarity’ to enhance their own legitimacy, even when the actual work does not involve meaningful collaboration. When reviewing how the U.S. Social Science Research Council and its funder, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, promoted interdisciplinary research in the 1920s and 1930s, Donald Fisher (1993) provided evidence that interdisciplinarity was ironically deployed as a strategy to reform and strengthen certain disciplines, rather than a true effort to bridge different forms of knowledge.
Strategies for overcoming fake interdisciplinary collaborations
1. Overcoming cognitive oversights and underdeveloped interdisciplinary capacity
A toolkit of carefully designed methods and other resources intended to facilitate interdisciplinary and cross-sector collaboration may be helpful. These resources often include conceptual frameworks, technical methods, reflexive questions, models, and practical guidelines. They function as ‘translation tools’ that help team members from different disciplinary backgrounds overcome communication barriers. By doing so, the toolkit enables collaborators to better understand each other’s perspectives and approaches.
2. Overcoming disciplinary compromises and disciplinary self-promotion in the name of interdisciplinarity
Funding agencies and research policy makers must recognise that fake interdisciplinary collaborations are a side effect of the academic environment shaped by institutional, market, funding and research policy decisions. Reform needs to tackle factors such as academic interests and institutional structures. For example, when principal investigators must balance political discourse, resource acquisition, and scientific research, they often cannot afford to invest too much time in a single project. This kind of institutional pressure is especially pronounced in experimental sciences or for early-career researchers on the tenure track. Similarly, internal competition within disciplines creates an arena for conflict about resources and legitimacy. Such struggles are systemic, particularly in the social sciences.
Conclusion
While it is necessary for scholars to invest more time, energy, and resources for the sake of interdisciplinary collaborations, we should not blame the individuals for failing to do so without first changing the systemic conditions. This involves developing funding mechanisms and career structures that welcome interdisciplinary work. Only then will we avoid fake interdisciplinary collaborations.
Do these ideas resonate with you? Are there other factors that you have identified? What kinds of policy adjustments do you think can be made to funding mechanisms and career structures in order to better encourage scholars to engage in effective interdisciplinary collaborations? And what unintended consequences might these adjustments bring?
To find out more:
Dai, L. (2020). What are fake interdisciplinary collaborations and why do they occur? Nature Index, Comment, 4 February. (Online – open access): https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/what-are-fake-interdisciplinary-collaborations-and-why-do-they-occur
戴良灏, (2024). 走出“伪”学科交叉。中国社会科学报。(Dai, L. (2024). Beyond ‘fake’ interdisciplinary collaboration. China Social Sciences Network, Chinese Social Sciences Today.) September 27. (Online – open access): https://www.cssn.cn/skgz/bwyc/202409/t20240927_5787506.shtml
Hessels, R. S. and Kingstone, A. (2019). Fake collaborations: Interdisciplinary science can undermine research integrity. PsyArXiv. (Online – open access preprint) (DOI): https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rqwea
Reference:
Fisher, D. (1993). Fundamental development of the social sciences: Rockefeller philanthropy and the United States Social Science Research Council. The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was critically used in the proofreading of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
Biography: Lianghao Dai PhD is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Sociology, Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China. He is interested in how people understand each other and work together, and how human knowledge develops.
形成伪跨学科合作的三种社会形成机制 / Three social mechanisms leading to fake interdisciplinary collaborations
An English version of this post is available
伪跨学科合作的三种社会形成机制
何谓伪跨学科合作及其成因？
伪跨学科合作是一种表演性科研行为，其虽宣称具有跨学科属性，却缺乏实质性的知识整合。此类合作的形成主要源于三种社会机制：
1. 不负责的项目管理
不负责的项目管理既可能源于高级研究人员，也可能源于初级研究人员：
-学科妥协：因各自学科利益，不同领域研究者在合作初期常难以就研究主题、核心概念或方法论达成共识。当无法协商出令各方满意的方案且不愿屈从于”服务”合作者时，研究者可能选择暂时搁置分歧并继续推进项目。这种妥协往往导致各自为政的局面，形成伪跨学科。
-跨学科能力不足：许多项目通过师生合作开展，跨学科主题的联合研究方案获批后，不同学科的教授常因忙于其他项目，将日常跨学科协调工作交由不同背景的博士生负责。但这些学生通常缺乏开展复杂跨学科协调的能力，最终导致知识整合失败。
事实上，成功的跨学科合作需要持续的知识投入。研究者必须在项目推进过程中逐步建立共同认知框架。
2. 认知盲区
认知盲区主要来自两方面：
-语义错位：不同领域研究者可能对相同术语赋予不同含义，或用不同术语指代相同概念。这种差异虽可通过研究成果比对逐步显现，但会降低合作效率并损害信任。
-默会知识：研究者常未意识到本学科的隐含预设，包括理论前提（如经济学的“理性人”假设）或认识论信念（如计算机科学的“万物皆可量化”信念）。当这些预设未被显性化时，真正的思想交融便难以实现。
3. 学科本位主义的跨学科包装
从职业社会学视角看，学科子领域可能通过“跨学科”标签提升合法性，实则缺乏实质合作。唐纳德·费舍尔 在回顾美国社会科学研究委员会及其资助者劳拉·斯佩尔曼·洛克菲勒纪念基金会在 20 世纪 20 和 30 年代如何推动跨学科研究时，提供了颇具讽刺意味的证据：跨学科性被用作改革或加强某些学科的策略，而不是真正努力连接不同的知识形式(Donald Fisher, 1993)。
破解伪合作的对策
1. 应对认知盲区与能力不足
可开发包含概念框架、技术方法、反思性问题、模型及实践指南的“跨学科协作工具包”。这类工具作为“翻译系统”，能帮助不同背景成员突破沟通壁垒，深化相互理解。
2. 应对策略性妥协与学科本位包装
资助机构与政策制定者需认识到：伪合作实则是制度环境、市场机制、经费政策共同作用的产物。促进跨学科的改革须触及学术利益与制度结构等深层因素。例如：当项目负责人需在管理者与学者双重角色间平衡政治话语、资源获取与科研投入时，其难以为单一项目倾注足够精力——这种制度压力在实验科学或预聘制青年教师中尤为显著。学科内部的竞争更创造了一个学者间就资源与合法性的竞技场，使得学者不愿冒险从事跨学科工作。这种紧张是系统性的。
固然学者需要为跨学科合作投入更多时间与资源，但若未先改变制度环境便归咎于个人则有失公允。换言之，建立支持跨学科的经费机制与职业发展体系，才是杜绝伪合作的根本之策。
本文所议能引起您的共鸣吗？您还发现了什么其它因素可能导致伪跨学科合作呢？您认为基金委或政策制定者应该对资助机制和职业结构做出怎样的政策性调整，才能更加鼓励学者投入到真正有效的跨学科合作呢？这些调整又会带来什么非企及性后果？
This resonates. The systemic problem comes down to one simple fact for me: interdisciplinary collaboration with true knowledge integration requires time – a commodity in short supply when hustling to bring in sufficient grant funding to keep yourself and your team afloat.
This is only getting worse with proposed changes to NIH budgets and other caps on federal funding in the US. I see a great opportunity to develop innovative approaches to support the interdisciplinary, and dare I say, transdisciplinary teams that will be essential to address the complex challenges of fighting chronic disease.
Two parts of this resonate strongly with me:
1. The section on semantic mismatches and assumptions, which I think applies to the notion of “interdisciplinary work” at a higher level. Most problems and opportunities today (and possibly always) transcend the artificial disciplinary boundaries we have developed. The question may be less “how do we bring different disciplines to bear on issue X?” and more “does it still make sense to have disciplinary silos?”
2. The need for systemic approaches, in particular: “This involves developing funding mechanisms and career structures that welcome interdisciplinary work.” This is the systemic side of point 1, about what we value and the incentive structures that frame our thinking.
Thank you for pointing out some of these important issues! Inter- and trans-disciplinary work is challenging at its best but so beautiful when it happens. Setting up working assumptions through collaboration plans can help get at some of these things. Understanding the competencies required to lead teams working across boundaries and then getting lots and lots of time to practice is critical. Appreciate the post!
Thank you for your appreciation! We indeed need such kind of understandings and practice. This is what i2insights is working on. I really appreciate it too. I’d like to point out that institutional changes are also important.
This is a very important topic because it is an issue left to chance based on the assumption team goodwill will ensure it works. Almost exactly the same commentary applies to interagency projects. What it would be useful to see from the author (or others) is examples of the ‘hows’, which are only labelled in the article, they have used. Thanks for raising this important issue for all of us working in the field of interdisciplinary projects.
Thank you for your reply. I think you are right. Our interdisciplinary researches often rest on unawared assumption that participants are willing to engage in effective collaboration. When they do not, it is too easily attributed to individual shortcomings or lack of motivation. This perspective overlooks the structural conditions and the specific social mechanisms at play within them. What we need, instead, I would like to propose, is to reveal these structures and mechanisms—only then can we truly understand why certain examples succeed while others fail.