Next Article in Journal
Rethinking Science Education Practices: Shifting from Investigation-Centric to Comprehensive Inquiry-Based Instruction
Previous Article in Journal
Early Determinants of Intergenerational Upward and Downward Educational Mobility
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/educsci15010072
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Interdisciplinary Approaches in Doctoral and Higher Research Education: An Integrative Scoping Review

by
Kritika Rana
1,2,*,
Sarah J. Aitken
3,4 and
Ritesh Chimoriya
2,3,4
1
Translational Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
2
Philanthropy Research Collaboration, Auburn, NSW 2144, Australia
3
Concord Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Concord, NSW 2139, Australia
4
Concord Institute of Academic Surgery, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, NSW 2139, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(1), 72; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010072
Submission received: 20 November 2024 / Revised: 30 December 2024 / Accepted: 10 January 2025 / Published: 13 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Higher Education)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Interdisciplinary approaches are increasingly integral in doctoral and higher research education, addressing complex global challenges through collaborations across disciplines. This review investigates the benefits, challenges, and educational impact of interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral research. This scoping review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and uses an integrative narrative synthesis. The review was conducted using four major academic databases (ERIC, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) with an exploratory search using keywords related to interdisciplinary approaches, doctoral studies, and academic collaborations. The review synthesized evidence from studies published in English, focusing on interdisciplinary research in doctoral education, with no restrictions on study design. Eligibility criteria were based on the SPIDER tool (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research Type). The search was completed on 25 September 2024. The initial search retrieved n = 954 articles, with n = 167 articles being reviewed for the integrative synthesis. The review included studies that examined interdisciplinary collaborations in doctoral research, highlighting the benefits such as skill versatility, career readiness, and research adaptability. The challenges discussed included academic culture differences, communication barriers, and institutional silos. The role of academic institutions and supervisors in supporting interdisciplinary research through fostering collaborative environments was emphasized. The review provides insights into how interdisciplinary approaches can enhance doctoral education, preparing graduates to tackle global challenges. It highlights the need for improved integration of interdisciplinary practices in doctoral research and outlines future directions for fostering interdisciplinary collaborations in higher education.

1. Introduction

In the ever-evolving landscape of academic research, interdisciplinary approaches have emerged as a beacon of innovation and progress. The integration of multiple disciplines in doctoral research fosters a holistic understanding of complex issues, along with paving the way for groundbreaking discoveries that transcend traditional boundaries (Vienni Baptista et al., 2023; Vienni-Baptista et al., 2023). At the core of interdisciplinary research lies the convergence of diverse perspectives, methodologies, and theories drawn from various fields (Tobi & Kampen, 2018; Vienni-Baptista et al., 2023). This fusion enriches the research process and cultivates a breeding ground for creativity and critical thinking. Doctoral candidates engaged in interdisciplinary research are often at the forefront of addressing some of the most pressing global challenges, such as climate change, urban planning, and public health crises, demonstrating the far-reaching implications of their work (Rana et al., 2022; Rana et al., 2020; Tobi & Kampen, 2018).
Interdisciplinary knowledge provides a crucial response to critiques of traditional discipline-based knowledge production, which frequently falls short in addressing the complex nature of real-world problems (Albert et al., 2020; Holland, 2013; Vienni Baptista et al., 2023; Vienni-Baptista & Pohl, 2023). Despite its increasing significance, a critical question remains unanswered regarding the most effective ways to organize interdisciplinary curricula to achieve productive learning outcomes (Borrego & Newswander, 2010). Doctoral programs have been criticized for inadequately preparing graduates to thrive in a global, complex, and interdisciplinary environment (Manathunga et al., 2006). The doctoral degree is often a reflection of a disciplinary identity, with universities structuring learning experiences, faculty employment, departmental organization, and funding allocations around rigid disciplinary boundaries (Manathunga et al., 2006). This traditional approach does not necessarily equip students to engage in collaborative, interdisciplinary knowledge activities that are essential for success in the twenty-first century (Borrego & Newswander, 2010; Manathunga et al., 2006).
The path to successful interdisciplinary research is fraught with obstacles (Manathunga et al., 2006). The integration of different disciplines requires navigating a complex maze of differing terminologies, epistemologies, and methodological approaches (Dalieva, 2023; Graff, 2015). Moreover, traditional academic structures and funding mechanisms are predominantly oriented toward discipline-specific research, posing significant challenges for interdisciplinary scholars in terms of recognition and support (Grove, 2017; Lyall, 2019; Woelert & Millar, 2013). The supervisory relationship, which is the backbone of most graduate programs, can also be complicated by interdisciplinary research (Vanstone et al., 2013). Interdisciplinary doctoral supervision introduces complexities such as cross-disciplinary co-supervision, varying theoretical orientations on supervisory committees, and differing approaches to the doctoral research process (Lee, 2009; Nisselle & Duncan, 2008; Vanstone et al., 2013; Wisker, 2012).
Despite the growing importance of interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral research, there remains a gap in understanding how these approaches are effectively integrated into doctoral programs and the specific benefits and challenges they present. A previous review identified the lack of a clear definition for interdisciplinary research, leading to the development of a proposed definition to guide decision makers and researchers in identifying key competencies and structures (Aboelela et al., 2007). Similarly, some evidence has been synthesized in integrated perspectives from researchers, managers, and policy-makers to better understand the organization of interdisciplinary research, serving as a first step toward creating more accurate metrics to measure the phenomenon, though further research is needed (Siedlok & Hibbert, 2014; Wagner et al., 2011). Specifically, in terms of doctoral education, a recent scoping review highlights that research-intensive universities are promoting interdisciplinary doctoral programs to address complex problems, emphasizing the need to understand the unique challenges and requirements of interdisciplinary students and supervisors for effective supervision and successful outcomes (Vanstone et al., 2013). However, a limited amount of research has addressed how academic institutions and supervisors can better support interdisciplinary research to optimize learning outcomes and overcome institutional and methodological barriers. This paper aims to explore the expansive landscape of interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral research, examining the synergistic benefits that arise from such collaborations while also acknowledging the hurdles that must be overcome. Through a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature, this study seeks to provide a narrative synthesis of the role and impact of interdisciplinarity in shaping the future of doctoral research and, by extension, advancing pedagogical approaches in research curriculum design. By understanding the distinct needs and challenges faced by interdisciplinary students and their supervisors, we can ensure that interdisciplinary graduate supervision is conducted in a positive and effective manner, eventually enhancing the quality and impact of doctoral research in an increasingly competitive academic landscape.

A Theoretical Framework for Guiding Interdisciplinary Research

The investigation of interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral education is grounded in several key theoretical frameworks that foster collaboration, innovation, and critical thinking. Foundational theories, such as Interdisciplinarity Theory, Transformative Learning Theory, and Social Constructivism, provide valuable insights into integrating diverse perspectives to address complex research challenges (Klein, 2005; Mezirow, 2018; Vygotsky & Cole, 2018). These frameworks shape the structure and pedagogy of interdisciplinary education, enhancing both student learning and research outcomes through a multifaceted approach. Interdisciplinarity Theory emphasizes the integration of diverse disciplinary knowledge to address complex societal challenges, promoting innovative solutions while also highlighting the difficulty of maintaining depth within each discipline (Klein, 2005). Transformative Learning Theory encourages doctoral students to critically engage with varying perspectives, hence fostering both personal and intellectual growth (Mezirow, 2018). Social Constructivism underscores the importance of collaborative interactions in knowledge creation, emphasizing that such processes can be demanding yet are essential for effective interdisciplinary research (Vygotsky & Cole, 2018). Examples of key theoretical frameworks that may guide interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral and higher research education, along with their relevance as identified in this literature review, are outlined in Table 1.

2. Methods

This review was conducted according to a protocol prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, and the synthesis was performed as per the previously reported integrative synthesis (Cronin & George, 2023; Moher et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021). This study is a rapid integrative scoping review using narrative synthesis to investigate interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral research, integrating both qualitative and quantitative methods to provide a comprehensive analysis of the benefits, challenges, and impacts of interdisciplinary collaborations. Due to the breadth and scope of approaches to doctoral research, the application of a rapid scoping review methodology allowed for an efficient summary of current evidence, with sufficient detail to explore key frameworks related to interdisciplinary approaches.

2.1. Research Questions

The scoping review was developed with three research questions to be answered, and a common theme for data synthesis was developed with the aim of addressing the following research questions:
RQ1: How does interdisciplinary research in higher education and doctoral programs contribute to the understanding and resolution of complex research issues?
RQ2: What are the benefits and challenges of adopting an interdisciplinary approach in higher education research, particularly in doctoral studies?
RQ3: What is the role of academic institutions and research supervisors in facilitating and supporting interdisciplinary research in higher education and doctoral programs?

2.2. Literature Search

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to gather and analyze relevant research on interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral studies. This review utilized four major academic databases: ERIC, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. To ensure a thorough search, a range of keywords was employed, including “Interdisciplinary Approaches”, “Doctoral Studies”, “PhD”, “Academic Collaboration”, “Methodological Integration”, and “Innovative Scholarship”. An exploratory search using these terms was performed across the selected databases to identify peer-reviewed studies, articles, and reports. This search aimed to capture a broad spectrum of literature, providing a foundation for understanding the current landscape and trends in interdisciplinary doctoral research, as outlined in Appendix A. The search was conducted on 25 September 2024.

2.3. Eligibility Criteria

The review employed an examination of existing research, guided by the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research Type) tool to establish eligibility criteria. Publications were included if they specifically addressed interdisciplinary approaches, focused on doctoral or higher research education contexts (e.g., PhD programs, MPhil programs, or postgraduate research programs), were peer-reviewed, and published in English. The sample (S) comprised studies investigating interdisciplinary methodologies within doctoral or higher education settings, exploring both benefits and challenges. The Phenomenon of Interest (PI) centered on interdisciplinary collaborations and integrative research practices in doctoral studies. No specific study design (D) was stipulated, allowing the inclusion of a diverse range of research approaches. Evaluation (E) focused on the insights provided within each study on the impact, efficacy, and obstacles related to interdisciplinary approaches. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods Research Types (R) were included to ensure a comprehensive synthesis of evidence, as detailed in Table 2.

2.4. Study Selection

All studies identified from the electronic databases, theses, and manual searches were imported into reference management software (Endnote X9) for duplicate removal, screening, and selection. Two reviewers (K.R. and R.C.) independently assessed the studies based on the eligibility criteria, with the initial screening being carried out by title and abstract. Both reviewers underwent formal training to ensure consensus in the study selection process. Studies deemed potentially eligible were then read in full by the reviewers (K.R. and R.C.). In cases of uncertainty regarding eligibility, the study authors were contacted for additional information, although no studies required this step. Any disagreements between the reviewers were resolved through consensus, with input from a third co-author (S.J.A.). A flow diagram of the literature search and study selection process in the integrative synthesis was also created and presented in the results (Haddaway et al., 2022).

2.5. Data Collection Process and Data Items

Data from the included studies were extracted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers (K.R. and R.C.), with any subsequent disagreements being resolved through discussion with a third reviewer (S.J.A.). The information extracted from the studies focused on key findings related to the research questions RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3. The findings were then collated using the theoretical framework for guiding the data synthesis. The synthesis of common findings was conducted by a reviewer (K.R.) and cross-validated by another reviewer (R.C.). This process ensured a rigorous and accurate interpretation of the evidence related to the interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral research. A quality assessment was not performed, as the primary aim of this integrative scoping review was to map the breadth of evidence across a broader scope.

2.6. Researcher’s Positionality

All the authors have held leadership and governance positions related to doctoral and higher degree research education, as well as supervised numerous cross-disciplinary research students at various universities in Australia while conducting the research. Author K.R. has served as a member of the Research Committee (Academic Senate Standing Committee) and the Research Studies Committee at Western Sydney University. Author S.J.A. is currently the Head of Specialty of Surgery at the University of Sydney and Co-chair of the Concord Institute of Academic Surgery, Sydney Local Health District. Author R.C. has been a member of the Academic Senate, the Senate Education Committee, and the Medicine and Health Cluster Teaching and Learning Committee at Western Sydney University. These positions held by the authors have contributed to their lived expertise and interpretation of this topic, facilitating enhanced scope and prioritization, and ensuring relevance of included studies.

3. Results

The initial search retrieved a total of 954 articles from the electronic database search, as outlined in Appendix A. Of these, 69 were from ERIC (via ProQuest), 73 from PubMed, 515 from Scopus, and 297 from Web of Science, covering the period up to 25 September 2024. After removing 253 duplicates, 701 full-text studies were assessed, and 167 articles were thoroughly reviewed for this integrative synthesis as shown in Figure 1.

3.1. Drivers Behind Pursuing of Interdisciplinary Research

Numerous studies have identified that interdisciplinary research is gaining unprecedented importance in both academic and professional spheres, driven by the growing complexity of global challenges (Manathunga et al., 2006; Committee on Science, Public Policy & Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2005). The nature of these challenges often extends beyond the scope of any single discipline, necessitating insights and expertise from a diverse range of fields (Klein, 2008; Vienni Baptista et al., 2023). This trend also highlights the urgent need for interdisciplinary approaches in research, especially in doctoral and higher-degree studies, which are cornerstones in terms of producing new researchers (Boon & Van Baalen, 2018; Manathunga et al., 2006). One of the key fundamental reasons for the rising importance of interdisciplinary research is the intricacy of modern problems (Boon & Van Baalen, 2018; Tobi & Kampen, 2018). Issues such as climate change, urban planning, public health crises, technological innovation, and social inequality are multifaceted and may not be adequately addressed through a singular disciplinary lens (Rana et al., 2022; Thomas et al., 2020). Interdisciplinary research combines diverse perspectives, theories, and methodologies, which enhances the understanding and management of complex issues (Menken & Keestra, 2016). The growing complexity of contemporary challenges and advancements drives the need for interdisciplinary research. Interdisciplinarity Theory emphasizes that combining knowledge and methods from various disciplines fosters a deeper understanding of multifaceted issues. By integrating diverse perspectives, researchers can develop innovative solutions that no single discipline could address alone, highlighting the importance of collaborative, cross-boundary work in solving complex problems (Klein, 2005). Moreover, interdisciplinary approaches are increasingly recognized for their ability to produce more comprehensive and effective solutions (Manathunga et al., 2006; Menken & Keestra, 2016). By integrating knowledge from various disciplines, researchers can develop innovative strategies that may not emerge within the confines of a single field (Thomas et al., 2020). It also fosters creativity, encourages the exploration of uncharted territories, and leads to groundbreaking discoveries (Vienni Baptista et al., 2023). For students pursuing doctoral and higher-degree studies, engaging in interdisciplinary research provides numerous benefits (Vanstone et al., 2013). It broadens intellectual horizons, equips students with a versatile skill set, and prepares them for a wide array of career paths. This approach is also found to align with the priorities of many funding agencies that increasingly emphasize the value of research transcending traditional disciplinary boundaries. Moreover, in the professional context, the demand for individuals who can navigate and integrate diverse knowledge areas is also on the rise (Vanstone et al., 2013). Employers value the unique perspectives and problem-solving skills that interdisciplinary researchers bring to their organizations (Miller & Mansilla, 2004).

3.2. Benefits of Interdisciplinary Approaches in Doctoral Research

Interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral research provide numerous benefits that are essential in today’s rapidly evolving academic and professional landscapes. Engaging in interdisciplinary research fosters the development of broader skill sets, enhances creativity, and enables researchers to address complex questions more holistically (Borrego & Newswander, 2010; Bridle et al., 2013; Manathunga et al., 2006). This integrative approach not only enriches the research experience but also prepares doctoral candidates for diverse career paths (Bridle et al., 2013). A significant advantage of interdisciplinary research is the increased opportunity for innovation and collaboration. By merging concepts and methodologies from various fields, researchers are encouraged to think beyond the confines of a single discipline, which fosters the emergence of novel ideas and solutions. Transformative Learning Theory underscores how engaging with different disciplines can lead to transformative personal and professional growth (Mezirow, 2018). Students are encouraged to critically reflect on their assumptions, broaden their perspectives, and develop new ways of thinking. This process not only enhances their academic expertise but also prepares them to navigate the complexity of real-world issues, making them more adaptable and innovative researchers. The importance of the benefits of interdisciplinary research is further illustrated in Table 3, which also highlights the relevance and impact of interdisciplinary research in doctoral education.

3.3. Challenges in Interdisciplinary Research

Despite its numerous advantages, interdisciplinary research presents distinct challenges that can hinder its effectiveness. One major issue is the integration of varied methodologies and theoretical frameworks from multiple disciplines, which can lead to potential conflicts. Additionally, administrative and institutional structures are often designed around specific disciplines, presenting hurdles in terms of support, resources, and publication opportunities (Grove, 2017; Lyall, 2019; Woelert & Millar, 2013). Despite its many benefits, interdisciplinary research faces the key challenges of communication barriers between disciplines and resistance to crossing traditional academic boundaries. Social Constructivist theory suggests that knowledge construction is inherently social, and interdisciplinary work can sometimes struggle with integrating varied disciplinary languages and frameworks (Vygotsky & Cole, 2018). Effective interdisciplinary collaboration requires overcoming these barriers by fostering shared understanding and common ground through collaborative learning and mutual respect for diverse perspectives. Apart from communication barriers, cultural differences and the balance between depth and breadth in expertise further complicate collaborative efforts (Lyall, 2019). Some of the challenges associated with interdisciplinary research in doctoral education and higher research education are presented in Table 4. Recognizing and addressing these obstacles is crucial for researchers, academic institutions, and funding agencies in terms of enabling effective interdisciplinary collaboration.

3.4. The Role of Academic Institutions and Supervisors

There are diverse benchmarks that dictate the success of interdisciplinary research, which can be explained by numerous theories, some of which are outlined in Table 1. For instance, ‘Communities of Practice’ by Wenger (2011) emphasizes that learning occurs within social groups. Academic institutions can further support this by fostering environments that encourage cross-disciplinary communication, offering joint programs and facilitating networks that connect researchers across fields to share insights and resources, forming a social group. Similarly, the role of supervisors is critical, as they can help doctoral students engage in these communities to deepen their knowledge through ongoing interactions. Based on the integrative synthesis, Figure 2 summarizes the role of academic institutions and supervisors in supporting interdisciplinary research.
Academic institutions, particularly universities, have a unique capability to establish dedicated centers and platforms focused on interdisciplinary research. These specialized centers can act as a nexus for scholars from diverse fields, enabling them to collaborate and share ideas (Bolger, 2021; Ursić et al., 2022). By bringing together experts from various disciplines, these platforms encourage a cross-pollination of knowledge, leading to innovative solutions and breakthroughs (Lyall, 2019). An essential role of academic institutions is to integrate interdisciplinary approaches into their curricula (Newell et al., 1990). This integration encourages students to think beyond the confines of their primary disciplines (Newell et al., 1990; Van den Beemt et al., 2020). Courses designed to require collaboration across different fields foster a broader understanding and appreciation of diverse perspectives and methodologies (Cooke et al., 2020). This approach not only enriches the student learning experience but also prepares them for the collaborative nature of modern research and problem-solving (Graesser et al., 2018).
Providing specific funding opportunities for interdisciplinary projects is essential in incentivizing researchers to engage in such undertakings (Bromham et al., 2016; Lyall et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2021b). Academic institutions can offer grants, scholarships, and access to unique research facilities specifically earmarked for interdisciplinary work (Grove, 2017; Tash, 2006). This financial support is crucial for the development and sustainability of research that spans multiple disciplines, as it often requires resources that are not readily available within a single department. Moreover, academic institutions play a vital role in fostering a culture that values and rewards interdisciplinary research (Quan-Haase et al., 2022; Tash, 2006). This can be achieved through various means, including recognition programs, hosting interdisciplinary conferences, and encouraging publications that focus on collaborative research (Hara et al., 2003; Novak et al., 2014; Committee on Science, Public Policy & Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2005). By promoting such a culture, institutions help break down the traditional silos of academic disciplines, encouraging a more holistic and inclusive approach to research. Streamlining administrative processes to support interdisciplinary projects is another key function of academic institutions (Cummings & Kiesler, 2005). This includes easing the bureaucracy around cross-departmental collaborations, which can often be a significant hurdle in the pursuit of interdisciplinary research (Cummings & Kiesler, 2005; Malone & Crowston, 1994). By simplifying these processes, institutions enable researchers to focus more on their work and less on navigating administrative challenges.
Supervisors play a critical role in guiding students through the complexities of interdisciplinary research, as summarized in Figure 2. They provide mentorship in integrating methods and theories from various disciplines, helping students to develop a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of their research topics (Vanstone et al., 2013; Whitelock et al., 2008). This mentorship is vital in navigating the challenges and opportunities that interdisciplinary research presents. Additionally, supervisors can facilitate networking opportunities for students by connecting them with experts in other fields (Nisselle & Duncan, 2008). Exposure to a broader range of insights and methodologies is invaluable for students engaged in interdisciplinary research, as it expands their perspectives and equips them with a diverse set of tools and approaches (Nisselle & Duncan, 2008; Vanstone et al., 2013). It is also important for supervisors to foster an environment where intellectual risk-taking is valued (Whitelock et al., 2008; Wisker, 2012). Encouraging students to explore unconventional ideas and approaches not only drives innovation but also helps students to develop the confidence and resilience needed for groundbreaking research (Whitelock et al., 2008). By nurturing a culture of experimentation and openness, supervisors empower students to push the boundaries of traditional research and contribute original insights to their fields.
In interdisciplinary research, supervisors must ensure that students maintain a balance between breadth and depth of knowledge. While having a broad understanding of multiple disciplines is important, maintaining sufficient depth in their primary discipline is crucial for the credibility and rigor of their research (Whitelock et al., 2008; Wisker, 2012). This balance is key to the success of interdisciplinary projects (Wisker, 2012). Moreover, supervisors play a vital role in guiding students through the ethical considerations and practical challenges associated with interdisciplinary research, such as data sharing and collaboration agreements. This guidance ensures that the research meets high ethical standards while effectively addressing the practicalities of working across various disciplines. By helping students navigate these complexities, supervisors contribute to the integrity and applicability of interdisciplinary research, ultimately enhancing its impact and relevance in addressing real-world challenges.

3.5. Case Studies of Interdisciplinary Approaches

Interdisciplinary research is increasingly recognized as a crucial component of higher education, providing innovative solutions to complex societal challenges. Several studies identified in this literature review exemplify effective interdisciplinary approaches across various contexts, illustrating their potential to foster collaboration and generate impactful outcomes. The study by White and Deevy emphasizes the growing significance of interdisciplinary research in higher education, particularly within institutes evolving toward a more research-oriented framework, such as Technological Universities in Ireland (White & Deevy, 2020). This case study focuses on an Irish Institute of Technology transitioning to a Technological University, highlighting how design methods can effectively cultivate an interdisciplinary research culture. The authors underscore the utility of design in creating a unified research identity, facilitating cross-discipline understanding through visual tools such as standardized brand identities and research exhibitions, and employing co-design strategies for collaborative policy development. This approach not only leads to an inclusive, cross-disciplinary dialog but has also directly contributed to the formation of new interdisciplinary projects and the establishment of a four-year institutional research policy. The study illustrates the vital role of design methods in bridging diverse academic fields, encouraging collaborative innovation, and addressing complex societal challenges in a rapidly changing educational landscape.
Another significant study conducted by the Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience (IPN) at Georgetown University (Washington, DC, USA) highlights the critical role of professional development alongside scientific training in doctoral education (Ullrich et al., 2014). This study also emphasizes the importance of fostering a well-rounded professional identity for doctoral students. Drawing from the outcomes of the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID), the program emphasizes preparing doctoral students to become ‘stewards of the discipline’. Through a series of activities focused on leadership, communication, ethics, collaboration, and mentorship, the IPN integrates professional skills into its curriculum. These initiatives not only enhance students’ scientific expertise but also ensure that their broader professional development is not overlooked. Importantly, data from the program reveal that incorporating these activities into doctoral training does not negatively impact traditional academic outcomes, illustrating the value of this holistic approach in developing well-rounded scientists capable of addressing complex challenges across multiple domains.
The case study conducted by Austin, Park, and Goble presents a transition from interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary research within the context of health ethics in Canada (Austin et al., 2008). The study highlights the progression from a multidisciplinary approach where multiple disciplines contribute their knowledge and methods to a transdisciplinary approach characterized by the integration of these disciplines into a coherent whole. The research process involved an interpretive analysis of healthcare scenarios and a thematic analysis conducted by a diverse team of clinicians and scholars from various fields. The project encountered challenges inherent in collaborative research, such as finding a shared language, managing diverse perspectives, and creating a safe and respectful environment for dialog. These challenges were addressed through strategies such as using metaphors, engaging in authentic dialog, and facilitating a process where conflicting assumptions could be explored and resolved. Although this study is not specific to doctoral education, it underscores the importance of transdisciplinary research in addressing complex issues in health ethics, reflecting the intricate and multifaceted nature of healthcare itself.

4. Discussion

This study highlights the growing importance and effectiveness of interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral education, emphasizing their ability to address complex societal challenges that extend beyond the scope of individual disciplines. Case studies included in the study illustrate the value of interdisciplinary collaboration, such as the role of design methods in fostering research cultures at evolving academic institutions and the integration of professional development alongside scientific training. Furthermore, academic institutions and supervisors play a crucial role in supporting interdisciplinary research by providing platforms for collaboration, funding opportunities, and mentorship. Despite the numerous benefits, challenges such as methodological integration, communication barriers, and institutional structures persist, requiring targeted strategies to enable effective collaboration and innovation.
As interdisciplinary research in doctoral studies continues to evolve, it is essential for academic institutions to adapt and enhance their support mechanisms. This adaptation includes establishing more interdisciplinary platforms, integrating collaborative methodologies into curricula, and providing targeted funding, all while fostering a culture of collaboration (Lyall et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2021b; Vienni Baptista et al., 2023; Vienni-Baptista et al., 2023). Institutions must prioritize the development of environments that encourage interdisciplinary inquiry, enabling scholars to engage across boundaries and share resources effectively. There is also a growing need for specialized training and education programs tailored to interdisciplinary research skills, encompassing not only technical competencies but also emotional, social, cultural, and contextual factors (Menken & Keestra, 2016; Rana et al., 2023). Concurrently, policy changes and strategic shifts in funding are essential to better accommodate and encourage interdisciplinary research (Grove, 2017; Louvel, 2016; Committee on Science, Public Policy & Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2005). Funding bodies and policymakers must recognize the unique needs and contributions of interdisciplinary projects, adapting their criteria and support mechanisms to facilitate these endeavors (Louvel, 2016; Committee on Science, Public Policy & Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2005).
The rapid advancement of technology presents new opportunities for enhancing interdisciplinary research. The use of digital tools, data analytics, and collaborative platforms can significantly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of research efforts, allowing for more dynamic interactions among researchers from diverse fields. These technological advancements can streamline processes and improve data sharing, ultimately fostering greater collaboration. Strengthening and expanding collaborative networks within and beyond academia, including partnerships with industry, government, and non-profit organizations, can further broaden the impact of interdisciplinary research (Brown et al., 2019; Quan-Haase et al., 2022; Ursić et al., 2022). Moreover, emphasizing diversity and inclusivity is crucial not only in terms of disciplinary representation but also in ensuring the involvement of researchers from various backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives (Reich & Reich, 2006). This inclusive approach ensures a more comprehensive range of viewpoints and solutions.
Interdisciplinary research in doctoral studies is essential for developing innovative solutions to complex global challenges. Despite challenges such as methodological diversity and institutional barriers, the benefits of this research paradigm, particularly in fostering diverse perspectives and enhancing problem-solving skills, are significant (Lyall, 2019; Morse et al., 2007; Vienni Baptista et al., 2023; Vienni-Baptista et al., 2023). The future of interdisciplinary research will depend on stronger institutional support, policy adaptations, and embracing technology, with a focus on inclusivity and addressing pressing global challenges. A key focus of future interdisciplinary research should be on addressing global challenges such as climate change, public health crises, and social inequality (Rosenfield, 1992; Smith et al., 2023). Additionally, the development of new metrics and assessment tools is essential for comprehensively evaluating and documenting the effectiveness of interdisciplinary approaches, thereby showcasing their value in addressing complex societal challenges. Aligning research efforts with these significant issues can substantially contribute to global well-being and societal progress (Smith et al., 2023). Ultimately, cultivating interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral and higher research education will enhance the impact of research initiatives and contribute to transformative solutions that benefit society as a whole.
This scoping review offers several strengths, including its comprehensive approach to mapping the broad landscape of interdisciplinary doctoral research by synthesizing both qualitative and quantitative studies. The use of established theoretical frameworks, such as Interdisciplinarity Theory and Transformative Learning Theory, enhances the depth and relevance of the findings, providing valuable insights into the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary approaches. However, there are also notable limitations. The inclusion of diverse study designs could introduce heterogeneity, complicating the synthesis of the findings. Additionally, the review’s focus on English-language publications may exclude valuable research published in other languages, limiting the breadth of evidence. Lastly, while the rapid scoping review methodology allowed for efficiency, it may have compromised the opportunity for a more in-depth exploration of specific interdisciplinary research practices across disciplines.

5. Conclusions

Interdisciplinary research is vital in addressing complex, multifaceted global challenges that transcend the boundaries of individual disciplines. This approach fosters innovation and creativity by merging diverse theories that emphasize the integration of knowledge across disciplines, promote critical thinking and intellectual growth, highlight the importance of collaboration, and support knowledge sharing among interdisciplinary teams, methodologies, and perspectives. These combined elements enhance both research quality and relevance in real-world applications. The benefits of interdisciplinary research are particularly evident in doctoral and higher education, where it equips students with a versatile skill set, expands career pathways, and aligns with the evolving demands of both academia and industry. However, this approach also presents challenges, such as methodological integration and institutional support, which must be carefully managed to ensure successful collaboration and meaningful outcomes. Academic institutions and supervisors play a crucial role in overcoming these barriers by providing resources, fostering a supportive research culture and guiding students through the intricacies of interdisciplinary work. As interdisciplinary research continues to gain momentum, its potential to drive impactful, comprehensive solutions to global issues underscores its importance in shaping the future of research and education.

Author Contributions

All authors were involved in the conceptualization and design of the study. R.C. and K.R. conducted the literature search. All authors were involved in the integrative synthesis of the findings. K.R. drafted the manuscript. S.J.A. and R.C. critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. This research is conducted as part of the Scholarship, Partnerships and Research for Knowledge (SPARK) initiative under the Philanthropy Research Collaboration. Open access article processing charges and in-kind logistical support has been provided by Philanthropy Research Collaboration.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge all members of Philanthropy Research Collaboration (previously known as Philanthropy Nepal Research Collaboration) for their support and assistance in completing the project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Search conducted on four databases for the integrative scoping review (dated 25 September 2024).
Table A1. Search conducted on four databases for the integrative scoping review (dated 25 September 2024).
DatabaseSearch StrategyTotal Number of Articles
ERIC (via ProQuest)(“Interdisciplinary Approaches” OR “Interdisciplinary Research” OR “Academic Collaboration” OR “Integrated Learning” OR “Cross-Disciplinary”) AND (“Doctoral Education” OR “PhD” OR “Research Education” OR “Graduate Education” OR “Higher Research Education”)69
PubMed(“Interdisciplinary Approaches”[Title/Abstract] OR “Interdisciplinary Research”[Title/Abstract] OR “Academic Collaboration”[Title/Abstract] OR “Integrated Learning”[Title/Abstract] OR “Cross-Disciplinary”[Title/Abstract]) AND (“Doctoral Education”[Title/Abstract] OR “PhD”[Title/Abstract] OR “Research Education”[Title/Abstract] OR “Graduate Education”[Title/Abstract] OR “Research Education”[Title/Abstract])73
Scopus(TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Interdisciplinary Approaches”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Interdisciplinary Research”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Academic Collaboration”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Integrated Learning”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Cross-Disciplinary”))
AND
(TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Doctoral Education”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“PhD”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Research Education”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Graduate Education”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Higher Research Education”))		515
Web of ScienceTS = (“Interdisciplinary Approaches” OR “Interdisciplinary Research” OR “Academic Collaboration” OR “Integrated Learning” OR “Cross-Disciplinary”)
AND
TS = (“Doctoral Education” OR “PhD” OR “Research Education” OR “Graduate Education” OR “Higher Research Education”)		297
Total articles identified from the database954
Total unique references (removal of duplicates)701

References

  1. Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., Haas, J., & Gebbie, K. M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1p1), 329–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Albert, M., Friesen, F., Rowland, P., & Laberge, S. (2020). Problematizing assumptions about interdisciplinary research: Implications for health professions education research. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 25(3), 755–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Austin, W., Park, C., & Goble, E. (2008). From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary research: A case study. Qualitative Health Research, 18(4), 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Benson, M. H., Lippitt, C. D., Morrison, R., Cosens, B., Boll, J., Chaffin, B. C., Fremier, A. K., Heinse, R., Kauneckis, D., & Link, T. E. (2016). Five ways to support interdisciplinary work before tenure. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6, 260–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bhaskar, R., Frank, C., Hoyer, K. G., Naess, P., & Parker, J. (2010). Interdisciplinarity and climate change. Transforming knowledge and practice for our global future (Vol. 1). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolger, P. (2021). Delivering on the promise: How are sustainability research institutes enabling interdisciplinary research? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 22(8), 167–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Boon, M., & Van Baalen, S. (2018). Epistemology for interdisciplinary research—Shifting philosophical paradigms of science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 9(1), 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2010). Definitions of interdisciplinary research: Toward graduate-level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bridle, H., Vrieling, A., Cardillo, M., Araya, Y., & Hinojosa, L. (2013). Preparing for an interdisciplinary future: A perspective from early-career researchers. Futures, 53, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Broto, V. C., Gislason, M., & Ehlers, M.-H. (2009). Practising interdisciplinarity in the interplay between disciplines: Experiences of established researchers. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 922–933. [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, R., Werbeloff, L., & Raven, R. (2019). Interdisciplinary research and impact. Global Challenges, 3(4), 1900020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bruzzese, J.-M., Usseglio, J., Goldberg, J., Begg, M. D., & Larson, E. L. (2020). Professional development outcomes associated with interdisciplinary research: An integrative review. Nursing Outlook, 68(4), 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Campbell, L. M. (2005). Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology, 19(2), 574–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Clark, S. G., & Wallace, R. L. (2015). Integration and interdisciplinarity: Concepts, frameworks, and education. Policy Sciences, 48, 233–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Committee on Science, Public Policy & Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cooke, S. J., Nguyen, V. M., Anastakis, D., Scott, S. D., Turetsky, M. R., Amirfazli, A., Hearn, A., Milton, C. E., Loewen, L., & Smith, E. E. (2020). Diverse perspectives on interdisciplinarity from members of the college of the royal society of Canada. Facets, 5(1), 138–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cronin, M. A., & George, E. (2023). The why and how of the integrative review. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 168–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dalieva, M. (2023). Navigating the interplay of terminology, language, and knowledge. Academia Repository, 2(11), 24–27. [Google Scholar]
  21. Daniel, K. L., McConnell, M., Schuchardt, A., & Peffer, M. E. (2022). Challenges facing interdisciplinary researchers: Findings from a professional development workshop. PLoS ONE, 17(4), e0267234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(2), 59–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Graff, H. J. (2015). Undisciplining knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in the twentieth century. JHU Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Grove, L. (2017). The effects of funding policies on academic research. University College London. [Google Scholar]
  25. Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(2), e1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hinds, P., Liu, L., & Lyon, J. (2011). Putting the global in global work: An intercultural lens on the practice of cross-national collaboration. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 135–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Holland, D. (2013). Integrating knowledge through interdisciplinary research: Problems of theory and practice. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hora, M. T., & Millar, S. B. (2023). A guide to building education partnerships: Navigating diverse cultural contexts to turn challenge into promise. Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  30. King, N. B. (2016). Justice, evidence, and interdisciplinary health inequalities research. In Understanding Health Inequalities and Justice: New Conversations across the Disciplines (pp. 213–234). University of North Carolina Press. [Google Scholar]
  31. Klein, J. T. (2005). Integrative learning and interdisciplinary studies. Peer Review, 7(4), 8–10. [Google Scholar]
  32. Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S116–S123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. König, B., Diehl, K., Tscherning, K., & Helming, K. (2013). A framework for structuring interdisciplinary research management. Research Policy, 42(1), 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Krishnan, A. (2009). What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lee, N.-J. (2009). Professional doctorate supervision: Exploring student and supervisor experiences. Nurse Education Today, 29(6), 641–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lin, H. (2008). Opportunities and challenges for interdisciplinary research and education. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 37, 83. [Google Scholar]
  37. Louvel, S. (2016). Going interdisciplinary in French and US universities: Organizational change and university policies. In The university under pressure (pp. 329–359). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lyall, C. (2019). Being an interdisciplinary academic: How institutions shape university careers. Springer. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Marsden, W., & Meagher, L. (2013). The role of funding agencies in creating interdisciplinary knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Tait, J., & Meagher, L. (2011). Interdisciplinary research journeys: Practical strategies for capturing creativity. Bloomsbury Academic. [Google Scholar]
  41. Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 26(1), 87–119. [Google Scholar]
  42. Manathunga, C., Lant, P., & Mellick, G. (2006). Imagining an interdisciplinary doctoral pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Menken, S., & Keestra, M. (2016). An introduction to interdisciplinary research: Theory and practice. An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research, 1–128. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mezirow, J. (2018). Transformative learning theory. In Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 114–128). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  46. Miller, M., & Mansilla, V. B. (2004). Thinking across perspectives and disciplines (Goodwork project report series, 9). Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education. [Google Scholar]
  47. Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin, F. S., III, & Redman, C. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269, w264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Morse, W. C., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Force, J. E., & Wulfhorst, J. (2007). Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting interdisciplinary graduate-student team research. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Newell, W. H., Doty, W. G., & Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinary curriculum development. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 69–86. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/William-Newell-2/publication/260676721_Interdisciplinary_Curriculum_Development/links/02e7e531f811b5b887000000/Interdisciplinary-Curriculum-Development.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2024).
  51. Nisselle, A. E., & Duncan, R. E. (2008). Multiple supervisors from multiple disciplines: Lessons from the past as multidisciplinary supervision becomes the way of the future. Traffic (Parkville), 143–166. Available online: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A192853047/AONE?u=anon~73f786a3&sid=googleScholar&xid=89d0f22a (accessed on 29 December 2024).
  52. Novak, E., Zhao, W., & Reiser, R. (2014). Promoting interdisciplinary research among faculty. The Journal of Faculty Development, 28(1), 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  53. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Palmer, C. L. (1999). Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(3), 242–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Quan-Haase, A., McLaughlin, R., & McCay-Peet, L. (2022). Building social media interdisciplinary research teams across academia, industry, and community: Motivations, challenges, and policy frameworks. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods (pp. 40–53). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rana, K., Page, A., Kent, J. L., & Arora, A. (2022). Pathways linking housing inequalities and health outcomes among migrant and refugee populations in high-income countries: A protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Rana, K., Poudel, P., & Chimoriya, R. (2023). Qualitative methodology in translational health research: Current practices and future directions. Healthcare, 11(19), 2665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Rana, K., Shrestha, V., & Chimoriya, R. (2020). The effect of housing on health and challenges of demographic changes. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 20, 75–82. [Google Scholar]
  60. Reich, S. M., & Reich, J. A. (2006). Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: A method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 35(11), 1343–1357. [Google Scholar]
  62. Siedlok, F., & Hibbert, P. (2014). The organization of interdisciplinary research: Modes, drivers and barriers. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(2), 194–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Smith, K., Singh, M. I., & Breeze Ceballos, C. (2023). An Interdisciplinary approach to the grand challenges: Tackling the climate crisis using multisolving. Journal of Social Work Education, 59(sup1), S148–S156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sun, Y., Livan, G., Ma, A., & Latora, V. (2021a). Interdisciplinary researchers attain better long-term funding performance. Communications Physics, 4(1), 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sun, Y., Livan, G., Ma, A., & Latora, V. (2021b). Interdisciplinary researchers attain better performance in funding. arXiv, arXiv:2104.13091. [Google Scholar]
  66. Tash, W. R. (2006). Evaluating research centers and institutes for success! Bill Tash. [Google Scholar]
  67. Thomas, J. A., Williams, M., & Zalasiewicz, J. (2020). The anthropocene: A multidisciplinary approach. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  68. Tobi, H., & Kampen, J. K. (2018). Research design: The methodology for interdisciplinary research framework. Quality & Quantity, 52(3), 1209–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Trinh, M. P., Kirsch, R., Castillo, E. A., & Bates, D. E. (2022). Forging paths to interdisciplinary research for early career academics. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(2), 318–335. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ullrich, L., Dumanis, S. B., Evans, T. M., Jeannotte, A. M., Leonard, C., Rozzi, S. J., Taylor, C. M., Gale, K., Kanwal, J. S., Maguire-Zeiss, K. A., Wolfe, B. B., & Forcelli, P. A. (2014). From student to steward: The Interdisciplinary Program in Neuroscience at Georgetown University as a case study in professional development during doctoral training. Medical Education Online, 19(1), 22623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ursić, L., Baldacchino, G., Bašić, Ž., Sainz, A. B., Buljan, I., Hampel, M., Kružić, I., Majić, M., Marušić, A., & Thetiot, F. (2022). Factors influencing interdisciplinary research and industry-academia collaborations at six european universities: A qualitative study. Sustainability, 14(15), 9306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Vajaradul, Y., Aroonsrimorakot, S., Laiphrakpam, M., & Paisantanakij, W. (2021). Key steps and characteristics for successful interdisciplinary research: An analytical review. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 16(2), 73–85. [Google Scholar]
  73. Van den Beemt, A., MacLeod, M., Van der Veen, J., Van de Ven, A., Van Baalen, S., Klaassen, R., & Boon, M. (2020). Interdisciplinary engineering education: A review of vision, teaching, and support. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(3), 508–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vanstone, M., Hibbert, K., Kinsella, E. A., McKenzie, P., Pitman, A., & Lingard, L. (2013). Interdisciplinary doctoral research supervision: A scoping review. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(2), 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Vienni Baptista, B., Fletcher, I., & Lyall, C. (2023). Understanding interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. In Foundations of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Bristol University Press. [Google Scholar]
  76. Vienni-Baptista, B., & Pohl, C. E. (2023). Exploring interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity as knowledge regimes: A heuristic tool for disentangling understandings in academia and policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 49(6), 1309–1348. [Google Scholar]
  77. Vienni-Baptista, B., Fletcher, I., & Lyall, C. (2023). Foundations of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A reader. Policy Press. [Google Scholar]
  78. Vygotsky, L., & Cole, M. (2018). Lev Vygotsky: Learning and social constructivism. In Learning theories for early years practice (pp. 68–73). SAGE Publications Inc. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wagner, C. S., Roessner, J. D., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., Rafols, I., & Börner, K. (2011). Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. National Science Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  81. White, P., & Deevy, C. (2020). Designing an interdisciplinary research culture in higher education: A case study. Interchange, 51(4), 499–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Whitelock, D., Faulkner, D., & Miell, D. (2008). Promoting creativity in PhD supervision: Tensions and dilemmas. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(2), 143–153. [Google Scholar]
  83. Wisker, G. (2012). The good supervisor: Supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. Bloomsbury Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  84. Woelert, P., & Millar, V. (2013). The ‘paradox of interdisciplinarity’ in Australian research governance. Higher Education, 66, 755–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 00072 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the literature search and the study selection process in integrative synthesis.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the literature search and the study selection process in integrative synthesis.
Education 15 00072 g001
Education 15 00072 g002
Figure 2. Summary of the role of academic institutions and supervisors in supporting interdisciplinary research.
Figure 2. Summary of the role of academic institutions and supervisors in supporting interdisciplinary research.
Education 15 00072 g002
Table 1. Examples of theoretical frameworks that may guide interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral and higher research education.
Table 1. Examples of theoretical frameworks that may guide interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral and higher research education.
Theoretical FrameworkCore ConceptsApplication in Interdisciplinary EducationStrengthsLimitations
Interdisciplinarity Theory (Klein, 2005)Interdisciplinarity Theory focuses on integrating knowledge, methods, and approaches from multiple disciplines to solve complex problems, fostering collaboration and creating new insights by combining different perspectives. Provides a framework for structuring doctoral education programs that combine perspectives from different academic fields to tackle multifaceted research questionsPromotes creativity, fosters innovation, and addresses complex real-world issuesChallenges in balancing depth and breadth of knowledge across disciplines
Transformative Learning Theory (Mezirow, 2018)Transformative Learning Theory emphasizes the process of changing one’s worldview through critical reflection and experience. It involves questioning assumptions, gaining new perspectives, and applying those insights to personal growth and social action.Facilitates personal and intellectual growth among doctoral students by exposing them to diverse disciplinary perspectives, encouraging critical thinking and transformation of worldviewFosters critical thinking, promotes intellectual transformation, and is adaptable to interdisciplinary contextsCan be time-consuming and emotionally challenging for novice learners
Social Constructivism (Vygotsky & Cole, 2018)Social Constructivist theory posits that knowledge is constructed through social interactions and cultural contexts with emphasis on collaborative learning, where individuals build understanding by engaging with others, sharing experiences, and negotiating meaning within a community.Encourages interdisciplinary collaboration in research, where students co-create knowledge through engagement with diverse academic and research communitiesEmphasizes collaboration, promotes co-construction of knowledge, and is adaptable to interdisciplinary teamworkRelies heavily on effective collaboration and communication, and may be difficult in competitive academic environments
Communities of Practice (Wenger, 2011)This framework indicates ‘Communities of Practice’ are groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion for a particular topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis. These communities can exist in professional, academic, or informal contexts, and they play a crucial role in collaborative learning and knowledge-building.In doctoral education, interdisciplinary communities of practice encourage knowledge sharing and mutual learning, fostering a collaborative research cultureEncourages collaboration, and enhances knowledge sharing across disciplinesRequires sustained engagement from all members, and there is risk of dominance by established disciplines
Complexity Theory (Mason, 2008)Complexity Theory emphasizes the interconnectedness and dynamic nature of systems, where small changes can lead to significant, unpredictable outcomes, highlighting the non-linear relationships and emergent behaviors within complex systems.Applies to interdisciplinary research by viewing complex academic problems as systems requiring input from multiple disciplines for understanding and solutionsProvides a holistic view of problems, and fosters system-level understandingManaging complexity in research projects can be challenging, and interdisciplinary collaboration may slow progress
Mode 2 Knowledge Production (Nowotny et al., 2003)Mode 2 Knowledge Production refers to a model of knowledge creation that is transdisciplinary, collaborative, and context-driven, where knowledge is socially distributed, application-oriented, and interdisciplinary, involving various stakeholders and practical applications outside traditional academic settings. Aligns interdisciplinary doctoral education with societal demands by focusing on problem-solving and applied research in collaboration with different disciplinesApplication-oriented, responsive to societal needs, and fosters interdisciplinary teamworkMay create tension between applied research and traditional academic norms
Table 2. Eligibility criteria according to SPIDER criteria.
Table 2. Eligibility criteria according to SPIDER criteria.
SPIDER ComponentCategorization KeyDefinition
Sample (S)Studies focusing on interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral or higher research education (e.g., PhD, MPhil programs)Studies that specifically examine interdisciplinary collaboration and approaches within the context of advanced academic programs
Phenomenon of Interest (PI)Interdisciplinary collaboration and integration of methodsResearch that explores how interdisciplinary methods and collaborations are integrated and applied in doctoral education contexts
Design (D)Broad range of study types (qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods)No specific study design is required, allowing for a variety of approaches such as case studies, experimental designs, or observational studies
Evaluation (E)Benefits, challenges, and outcomes of interdisciplinary educationAnalysis focusing on the documented advantages, challenges, and outcomes associated with interdisciplinary approaches in doctoral education
Research Type (R)Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods researchA combination of qualitative (e.g., interviews, case studies), quantitative (e.g., surveys, statistical analysis) and mixed-methods research to provide a comprehensive view
Table 3. Benefits of interdisciplinary research in doctoral education and higher research education.
Table 3. Benefits of interdisciplinary research in doctoral education and higher research education.
BenefitDescription
Broader perspective and innovationInterdisciplinary research encourages thinking beyond the confines of a single discipline (Committee on Science, Public Policy & Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2005). This broadened perspective fosters innovation, as researchers integrate concepts and methodologies from various fields, leading to novel ideas and solutions (Lyall et al., 2011; Committee on Science, Public Policy & Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2005).
Enhanced problem-solving skillsComplex modern problems often cannot be solved through a single-disciplinary lens. Interdisciplinary research cultivates the ability to analyze issues from multiple viewpoints, enhancing problem-solving skills (Vanstone et al., 2013).
Improved research qualityCombining methods and theories from different disciplines can lead to more robust and comprehensive research. This improves the quality of research findings, making them more relevant and impactful (Lyall et al., 2011).
Better preparation for the job marketThe job market has begun to increasingly value versatility. Doctoral candidates trained in interdisciplinary research are well prepared for a range of careers, as they possess skills that are applicable in multiple fields (Lin, 2008; Committee on Science, Public Policy & Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2005).
Networking and collaboration opportunitiesInterdisciplinary research often involves collaboration with experts from different fields. This not only enriches the research experience but also expands professional networks, which can be beneficial for future career opportunities (Broto et al., 2009; Bruzzese et al., 2020).
Increased funding opportunitiesMany funding agencies now prioritize research projects that address complex societal challenges which often require interdisciplinary approaches. This trend opens up more funding opportunities for interdisciplinary research (Lyall et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2021a, 2021b).
Development of transferable skillsSkills such as critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability, honed through interdisciplinary research, are highly transferable and valuable in numerous professional settings (Lyall et al., 2011; Vanstone et al., 2013).
Addressing global challengesInterdisciplinary research is vital for addressing global issues such as climate change, public health, and social justice, as these challenges encompass multiple domains (Bhaskar et al., 2010; King, 2016; Menken & Keestra, 2016).
Table 4. Challenges of interdisciplinary research in doctoral education and higher research education.
Table 4. Challenges of interdisciplinary research in doctoral education and higher research education.
ChallengesDescription
Methodological integrationDifferent academic disciplines often employ distinct research methodologies and epistemological approaches. Integrating these can be challenging, as it may require reconciling conflicting theories or methods (Clark & Wallace, 2015; Miller et al., 2008).
Communication barriersEffective communication is essential in interdisciplinary research. However, the use of discipline-specific jargon and concepts can lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations among team members from different backgrounds (Vajaradul et al., 2021).
Institutional structuresAcademic and research institutions are frequently structured around specific disciplines, which can create administrative and structural barriers to complicate interdisciplinary research, such as difficulties in securing funding or obtaining appropriate departmental support (Krishnan, 2009; Morse et al., 2007).
Early-career concernsEarly-career researchers may hesitate to pursue interdisciplinary research due to concerns about how their work will be evaluated for tenure or promotion (Benson et al., 2016; Bridle et al., 2013; Trinh et al., 2022). Additionally, publishing interdisciplinary research can be challenging, as many journals cater to specific disciplines (Campbell, 2005; Daniel et al., 2022).
Funding challengesSecuring funding for interdisciplinary research can be challenging, as many funding bodies are organized along disciplinary lines. This can make it difficult to find appropriate funding sources that value and support interdisciplinary work (Bromham et al., 2016).
Risk of superficialityThere is a risk of superficiality in interdisciplinary research, as it requires breadth across multiple disciplines. Researchers must find a balance between the depth of expertise in their primary field with the breadth needed to effectively collaborate across disciplines (Palmer, 1999).
Cultural differencesDifferent disciplines often possess unique cultures, norms, and expectations. Navigating these cultural differences and fostering a collaborative environment can be challenging (Hinds et al., 2011; Hora & Millar, 2023; Reich & Reich, 2006).
Time investmentInterdisciplinary research typically requires more time and effort for collaboration, coordination, and integration of diverse perspectives (König et al., 2013). This significant investment can be particularly demanding in the early stages of a project.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rana, K.; Aitken, S.J.; Chimoriya, R. Interdisciplinary Approaches in Doctoral and Higher Research Education: An Integrative Scoping Review. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010072

AMA Style

Rana K, Aitken SJ, Chimoriya R. Interdisciplinary Approaches in Doctoral and Higher Research Education: An Integrative Scoping Review. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(1):72. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010072

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rana, Kritika, Sarah J. Aitken, and Ritesh Chimoriya. 2025. "Interdisciplinary Approaches in Doctoral and Higher Research Education: An Integrative Scoping Review" Education Sciences 15, no. 1: 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010072

APA Style

Rana, K., Aitken, S. J., & Chimoriya, R. (2025). Interdisciplinary Approaches in Doctoral and Higher Research Education: An Integrative Scoping Review. Education Sciences, 15(1), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010072

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop