How to Assemble an Interdisciplinary Dream Team

Understanding interdisciplinarity

Interdisciplinary science is on the rise, and globally, scientists have begun to appreciate the importance of integrating multiple disciplines for solving fundamental problems (Sun et al., 2021). However, interdisciplinary research is still a topic of confusion, and several aspects of it are underdiscussed. There are several terms thrown around- interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and so on. But what exactly is the difference between them?

Multidisciplinary studies aim to utilize perspectives, techniques, and thought processes from more than one discipline to study a broad subject. This generates new insights into a subject, but maintains the academic rigor and a distinct voice of every discipline. Transdisciplinarity goes a step ahead and uses not only academic disciplines, but also societal entities. Interdisciplinarity aims to use multiple disciplinary insights and integrate them together to generate novel insights, which were not possible by either of the disciplines on their own (Team Interdisciplinary and Community Engaged Learning, Utrecht University).

Let’s try to understand this with a classic example. Surely you must have heard the story of blind people trying to make sense of an elephant. The story involves 6 blind people touching an elephant and trying to understand what it must look like. One person holding the trunk claims that the elephant looks like a snake, while the one holding the leg claims that it looks like a pillar. If we develop a similar analogy for scientists of different disciplines trying to understand how an elephant looks, we can appreciate the importance of multidisciplinarity. One discipline studies the length of pillars and is very good at understanding the legs of the elephant. On the other hand, a discipline that can measure the curvature of snakes can give some good insights into the trunk of the elephant. A team effort by several such disciplines can be a good approach to unravel the exact structure of the elephant. If you have a team where every discipline studies the whole elephant and measures whatever they specialize in (curvature, length, etc.), then you provide a good multidisciplinary environment. You have a team that has understood several characteristics of the elephant and has contributed to the development of several disciplines. However, when you have one more team member, who may not have expertise in either of the fields but has a basic understanding of multiple of them, they can make some interesting insights from all the studies. That member can observe that there are 4 pillars of exactly the same size, one highly curved snake-like structure, and so on. Then that member can make sense of the elephant structure by having a basic understanding of multiple disciplines. This is interdisciplinarity, where individual disciplines lose their rigor and their voice, but their integration yields novel and more useful insights into the problem being explored.

 

Building an interdisciplinary team

Performing research in an interdisciplinary setting is challenging. This often involves going outside the “comfort zone” of your discipline for every member involved. Hence, planning is a critical step, not only alongside the team, but also in the process of building the team. Now, the team planning depends on the type of questions you would like to answer, and the type of expertise you need. A more common type of interdisciplinary team is often seen when 2 or more labs collaborate on a certain topic, where every lab has a distinct expertise. Institutes with scientists from different disciplines are more fertile for such kinds of collaborations, because they typically tend to reduce the distance factor amongst the team. Here, the lab (supervisor, researchers, or students) taking the initiative for the collaboration should carefully think about the requirements and challenges for all parties involved. Having a collaborator in proximity is highly beneficial, but should not be the sole factor for a collaboration (Zhao et al., 2026). Additionally, the initial meetings with the collaborating parties are crucial to set valid expectations and goals for the team. Here, people with a “T-shaped expertise” could be the most valuable additions (Johnston, 1978). This basically implies people who have a deep understanding of one discipline (the vertical line of T) while also having a basic understanding of multiple disciplines (the horizontal line of T). These individuals could help integrate insights from multiple disciplines, while also contributing with their own expertise. These people can add a true interdisciplinary character to the study. Albeit being discussed in the context of a collaborative context, these aspects are also relevant for building an interdisciplinary team in other settings (such as a young PI starting their own interdisciplinary lab or a company building a new team for solving a relevant problem).

Time scale is an important part of the expectations that should be discussed when initiating such a study. Different disciplines operate at different time scales, and a mutual respect for this is essential to ensure a sustainable collaboration. Additionally, it is important that every part of the team and every discipline is compensated/rewarded for their contributions in a proportionate and egalitarian sense. The team lead/s should ensure that the teammates feel valued within the interdisciplinary environment, and that one discipline is not at a disadvantage compared to the others. Other important factors about building a team are to ensure that there is a common scientific method that the team uses. Different disciplines often have their own assumptions on certain aspects of their field. It is absolutely possible for an expert to forget a basic assumption of their field, and upon being challenged by someone from another field, there could be disparities and scientific disagreements. Hence, assumptions about the system, techniques being used and other such modus operandi should be well discussed in an egalitarian language. The structure of the team should also be well defined, to avoid any conflicts in the future. Suitability of the structure of the team often depends on cultural factors of the teammates involved. Some cultures appreciate a flat hierarchy, whereas some appreciate a steeper hierarchy. These decisions need to be taken by the team builder, considering the cultural and societal backgrounds of the people involved.

 

Creating a common ground for the team

A good team is now assembled for an interdisciplinary project. But what’s next? There needs to be a common ground for everyone to be on. Setting aside differences, the team must develop a common denominator to focus on similarities, rather than differences (Team Interdisciplinary and Community Engaged Learning, Utrecht University). William Nevell describes four techniques for the same (Nevell, 2007).

• Redefinition: This involves redefining common concepts across disciplines, whereby discipline-specific jargon is replaced with a common language, understandable by all the teammates. An example can be understanding the behavioural economics of cooperation in animals by defining the system of interactions analogous to a hawk-dove game or a prisoner’s dilemma.
• Extension: This involves extending the meaning of an idea beyond a single discipline, and extending it into another discipline/s. An example can be understanding complex biochemical pathways as enzymatic steps in metabolism, and then extending this visualization to model their rates and gain quantitative understanding of their dynamics.
• Organization: This involves organizing the flow of knowledge and generation of insights across the disciplines involved in the study. An example can be an organization where one teammate develops a new material to grow plants in, and another teammate studies the effect of plant growth on this material in the context of its development and phenotypes.
• Transformation: This involves addressing contradictions by questioning the dichotomy, and rather placing the multiple disciplinary insights upon a continuum. For e.g., a chemist may think of a reaction as not thermodynamically favoured, but a plant biologist may observe this reaction to still affect the physiology of the plant. Then, a transformative common ground is to realise that the reaction may not be favoured globally, but may have a certain subcellular location where the localized environment makes it favourable, whereby it can affect the plant physiology.

These techniques are important for creating a common ground between people from two or more disciplines, working on similar problems. It is essential that certain members (generally the team initiators) act as a glue for the team by creating a common ground for them. A shared philosophy, mutual respect, and effective communication can help sustain interdisciplinary teams, and can help us study systems that an individual discipline is insufficient in characterizing.

 

Outlook

The goal of any interdisciplinary team is to go a step beyond either of the disciplines. Investing some time in thinking about a good team can go a long way in building one and, more importantly, sustaining one. Interdisciplinary work comes with its own challenges and rewards. It is essential to understand the challenges well, and have reasonable expectations of the rewards. If planned and executed well, this interdisciplinary team of blind scientists can very well understand how the elephant looks.

 

References

Sun, Y., Livan, G., Ma, A. et al. Interdisciplinary researchers attain better long-term funding performance. Commun Phys 4, 263 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-021-00769-z

https://www.uu.nl/en/education/educational-development-training/knowledge-dossiers/interdisciplinary-education-and-cel/multi-inter-and-transdisciplinarity-what-is-what

Zhao, Y. Does distance influence international collaboration among scientists? Evidence from library and information science. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 13, 462 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06767-2

D. L. Johnston, “Scientists Become Managers-The ‘T’-Shaped Man,” in IEEE Engineering Management Review, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 67-68, Sept. 1978, doi: 10.1109/EMR.1978.4306682.

https://www.uu.nl/en/education/educational-development-training/knowledge-dossier/integrating-multi-disciplinary-insights-by-creating-common-ground

W. H. Newell, “Decision-Making in Interdisciplinary studies,” In: G. Morcol, Ed., Handbook of Decision-Making, Marcel Dekke, New York, 2007, pp. 245-265

Nancarrow SA, Booth A, Ariss S, Smith T, Enderby P, Roots A. Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work. Hum Resour Health. 2013 May 10;11:19. doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-11-19. PMID: 23663329; PMCID: PMC3662612