Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.

Nicola Crowe

A Research Blog

Image of red game pieces in a group, separate from a single blue game piece

Possible but Improbable? Navigating the Challenges of Interdisciplinary Research within Academia

Interdisciplinarity is becoming an increasingly popular concept, yet there remains a lack of clear advice on how postgraduate students should plan their careers with this in mind. Hailing from an interdisciplinary research centre, I’m well aware of the perks of interdisciplinary thinking. However, having asked careers advisors, academics, and my supervisors about how to best approach an interdisciplinary research career, the common response was that ‘it won’t be easy’.

This is largely due to the ongoing tension (within academia at least) between the need for specialism and generalism. Despite universities and research councils supporting more interdisciplinary research programmes and projects, academic norms and structures continue to make interdisciplinary research an inherently difficult thing to do. This blog post introduces three major barriers that academia still needs to remove to allow interdisciplinary research to work in practice:

The Disciplinary Divide

Undoubtedly the most obvious barrier to interdisciplinary work, and the one highlighted to me most frequently, is the fact that university departments, academic journals, and research funding continue to be divided by disciplines. As a postgraduate student, I’ve constantly been asked what my academic background is and have been told that I need to retain a base discipline, regardless of the broad research skills and interests that I will develop as part of an interdisciplinary programme. Although this may differ dependent on discipline – as certain departments, like social policy, don’t require intensive foundational knowledge and so are more accessible – these structures mean that (by and large) interdisciplinary research students still need to spend time cultivating disciplinary expertise, which seems quite counterintuitive.

The Quantitative vs Qualitative Debate

Tying into the previous challenge, disciplinary preferences to teach either quantitative or qualitative methods – or at least not encourage active training in both – continue to limit potential for interdisciplinary work. With quantitative methods (that collect and analyse numerical data) and qualitative methods (that collect and analyse non-numerical data) often pitted against each other, mixed methods research (that combines both approaches) has only started to gain popularity in recent decades. Interdisciplinary research naturally encourages more creative approaches that blur these traditional methodological boundaries. However, minimal training in diverse research approaches may limit students’ ambitions.

The Emphasis on ‘Independent Study’

While real-world interdisciplinary research is all about collaboration and engagement, interdisciplinary research as a student remains a solitary pursuit. As universities are centred around independent learning and research, even interdisciplinary research degrees (like mine) that place a strong emphasis on groupwork and networking require the final thesis to be completed as a fully independent piece of work. For students without opportunities to engage in collaborative work outside of university, this could leave them very underprepared for the workplace and the reality of interdisciplinary work.

 

For me, these barriers show that – while universities and research councils are the ones that are leading the charge for interdisciplinary research – the onus remains on students to make it possible. The immense task of maintaining a specialised disciplinary base, while also learning to adopt alternative research methods and work in collaborative ways, puts a huge burden on interdisciplinary researchers – considering how challenging postgraduate study and academic research already are.

So, what should be changed, and is change even possible? As much as I enjoy the idea of interdisciplinary research, and have thrived within my PhD environment so far, I can’t help but feel pessimistic. Personally, I know that I will need to undertake a lot of training to overcome the challenges outlined above and (despite the support offered by my research centre) it feels quite overwhelming.

Over the next few years, I hope that universities can start to develop better guidance and support for students involved in interdisciplinary research. The University of Edinburgh has released a guide for interdisciplinary early career researchers, but institutions could still lean further into promoting interdisciplinary research as the norm by:

  • Encouraging (or even financially incentivising) students and early career researchers to collaborate across disciplines through coursework or extracurricular projects.
  • Delivering a minimum standard of training in both quantitative and qualitative research methods.
  • Removing (or at least lowering) expectations for academics to hold specific disciplinary experience within certain fields.

However, there is a definitely long way to go. An Ex Libris blog has identified four strategies to foster interdisciplinary research, yet practical execution remains a concern and change will require joint effort.

Due to this, I would love to hear your opinions on these challenges and how they could be overcome – whether you have personal experience of interdisciplinary research or not. Feel free to comment below or get in touch with me via LinkedIn to share your thoughts.

Neurodiversity: Master its Three Meanings

As the social model of disability provided a way to distinguish between impairments and the disablement constructed by society, critical disability studies seemed to have moved away from problematic theories of disability. However, what actually transpired was an ongoing inability to account for cognitive impairments. That was, until the concept of ‘neurodiversity’ came along.

Emerging in the late 1990s, neurodiversity has become central to the so-called second wave of critical disability studies – which aims to promote academic research into able-mindedness and cognitive impairments. Yet, as neurodiversity has also become influential within disability rights discourse, (like most good things in academia) the concept has obtained multiple meanings.

A correct understanding of each meaning of neurodiversity is increasingly important for anybody involved in disability research or activism – especially as the concept is ever-growing (at least if Google Trends is to be trusted), but often misused. This short blog post provides a quick overview to help you master the three meanings of neurodiversity:

Neurodiversity – The Noun

Not to be confused with the term ‘neurodivergent’ – which refers to brains that diverge from the norm, as through having a ‘neurodivergence’ like autism or ADHD – neurodiversity as a noun refers simply to the variation in human brains. You might have heard someone say that their ‘brain is wired differently’, and this is really all there is to this meaning – the fact that people’s brains work in different ways.

Neurodiversity – The Paradigm

Tying into disability studies theory, neurodiversity as a paradigm emphasises the variation in human brains as natural – allowing for critique of the inequalities and power imbalances that occur due to the favouring of certain types of brain function over others. Building on the social model of disability, this perspective acknowledges that disabilities can at once be both embodied by people and constructed by society, and advocates for the equal treatment of all.

Neurodiversity – The Movement

Transforming theory into action, neurodiversity as a movement advocates for the civil rights and equality of neurodivergent people. Emerging from the autism rights movement in the 1990s, the neurodiversity movement pushes for increased acceptance and accessibility for neurodivergent people – including through the use of global initiatives like Neurodiversity Celebration Week.

 

As has been hinted at within this blog post through the mention of neurodivergence and neurotypes, there is an abundance of additional terminology associated with neurodiversity beyond these three core meanings. However, as this post only intends to act as an introduction to the concept, I encourage readers to explore neurodiversity further – as through reading Dr Nick Walker’s blog, Neuroqueer, for a thorough (but accessible) overview of key terms, or the publications of Elizabeth Pellicano for insight into academic work on the topic.

Similarly, if you are interested in the neurodiversity movement’s mission to challenge discrimination against neurodivergent individuals, please consider sharing this blog post in honour of Neurodiversity Celebration Week, and looking further into the initiative. Greater understanding of neurodiversity can only aid the acceptance of all types of diversity, so I encourage you to get involved.

Key terms:

  • Able-mindedness – the socially and culturally constructed norm of a non-disabled mind.
  • Cognitive impairments – injuries or conditions that impact cognitive function.
  • Neurodivergent – people whose cognitive function differs from the socially constructed norm of able-mindedness.
  • Neurodivergence – cognitive impairments that make a person neurodivergent.
  • Social model – a framework that argues that ‘disability’ is not innate, but is constructed by the societal barriers faced by people with impairments.

References:

Botha, Monique., Chapman, Robert., Giwa Onaiwu, Morénike., Kapp., Steven K., Stannard Ashley, Abs., and Nick Walker. 2024. “The neurodiversity concept was developed collectively: An overdue correction on the origins of neurodiversity theory.” Autism 28(6), 1591-1594. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241237871.

Owens, Janine. 2015. “Exploring the critiques of the social model of disability: the transformative possibility of Arendt’s notion of power.” Sociology of Health & Illness 37: 385-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12199.

Ne’eman, Ari., and Elizabeth Pellicano. 2022. “Neurodiversity as Politics.” Human Development 66 (2): 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1159/000524277

Pellicano, Elizabeth., and Jacquiline den Houting. 2022. “Annual Research Review: Shifting from ‘normal science’ to neurodiversity in autism science.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 63 (4): 381-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13534.

Walker, Nick. 2014. “Neurodiversity: Some Basic Terms & Definitions”. Neuroqueer. https://neuroqueer.com/neurodiversity-terms-and-definitions/.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

css.php

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.

  Cancel