Search for a command to run...
Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is vital for tackling complex global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss. Despite its prominence as a research approach, both expertise and experience in IDR are often lacking in projects or programs aiming to address these challenges. This results in a gap between an ideal type of doing IDR and the actual implementation of IDR in practice. This paper addresses this disconnect, drawing on insights from an IDR program, the Blue-Green Biodiversity (BGB) Initiative, in Switzerland. We propose a typology of IDR practices based on our case study: (1) Ideal IDR, where experience in ID practice and expertise in ID scholarship are both leveraged and ID scholars are fully integrated throughout the whole duration of an IDR project; (2) Pragmatic IDR, where experience in ID practice is leveraged by scholars who have conducted IDR in the past, but have only minimal or no formal training and thus only minimal or no expertise in ID scholarship; (3) On-the-go IDR, where emerging ID challenges are tackled, often mid-project, by consulting ID experts or relevant ID scholarship, thus counteracting missing experience in ID practice; and (4) Muddle through IDR, where upcoming ID challenges are addressed ad hoc with no experience in ID practice and only little or no formal training or expertise in ID scholarship. By contrasting empirical practices drawn from our case study with ideal types from IDR scholarship, we provide actionable guidance for more effective IDR, fostering better alignment between the theory and practice of IDR. • Addresses the gap between an ideal type of interdisciplinary research (IDR) and its actual implementation in practice. • Develops a typology of IDR practices based on an empirical case study. • Distinguishes “ideal”, “pragmatic”, “on-the-go” and “muddle through” IDR practices. • Identifies conditions, limitations and potentials related to the four types. • Provides actionable guidance for more effective IDR practices.
Published in: Environmental Science & Policy
Volume 177, pp. 104342-104342