Should young researchers engage with interdisciplinary research?

Interdisciplinary research integrates knowledge and working across two or more academic disciplines to cover broad perspectives, skills, and interconnections in an educational setting.1 In recent years, urgent societal matters such as the Covid-19 crisis, the emerging climate crisis, and the aging population have reminded us that comprehensive and effective solutions require the integration of multiple research disciplines and governance from several institutions. This is reflected by, for example, the demand for interdisciplinary research proposals that many of the private and public funding agencies require, and by the increasing proportion of interdisciplinary publications. As early career researchers, we need to strengthen our ability to succeed in the research community along with driving our ambitious research projects, which implies lab work, data collection, research field specialization, and publishing results with the highest possible impact. Many of us are also curious to be involved in and contribute to interdisciplinary research projects which potentially have greater societal and health-related impact than classic monodisciplinary projects. However, with limited time to make a transition from an early career to an established researcher, the time commitment and risk of lower citation-driven impact (at least in the short run)2, 3 may pose a barrier against initiating and participating in interdisciplinary research projects. Even so, as early career researchers we may be less biased and less dependent on established doctrines within our field.4 As early career researchers make up most of the scientific workforce, we possess a critical mass of ideas that may be unique to our career stage. With the purpose for young researchers at the Interdisciplinary Center for Healthy Aging (CEHA) to learn more about the challenges and opportunities in interdisciplinary research, and to share their own ideas, we invited all early career researchers (MSc students, PhD students, and Postdocs) at CEHA to participate in a full day activity about interdisciplinary research. The participants from different disciplines within CEHA (molecular biology, public health, sports science, integrative physiology and metabolism, and data science) were divided into two groups, tasked to develop the frame of an interdisciplinary project aimed at achieve healthy aging for a target population in the society. At the end of the workshop, the participants presented their project ideas to each other and discussed their newly acquired experience with interdisciplinary group work, which is presented here. Typical challenges of interdisciplinary research such as difficulties in communication and collaboration across disciplines, agreeing on the premises and methods of quantification and even the understanding of words and concepts had been introduced to the workshop participants during introductory talks by senior researchers. Even so, both groups reported that they were surprised about how easy it was to agree on a focus, study intervention, and outcome for their age-related societal project and that there was a good flow in the communication. It was mentioned that openness and willingness to understand and agree with each other is crucial. However, the different background and expertise of the researchers also contributed to disagreements in the groups, such as controversies in how to measure a successful outcome of a study intervention and if inclusion and exclusion criteria should be generalized to reflect on the whole population or customized to a specific group of people. These examples reflect how early career researchers from diverse disciplines approach research questions differently. One of the participants suggested the involvement of a facilitator who encourages the researchers to “work together and not individually,” as a means to overcome misunderstandings and conflicts during interdisciplinary work. However, the difficulties and disagreements also made the discussions interesting. Several of us were uplifted by the co-creation that emerged from agreements that arose when we discussed to a point where we could understand each other. We were intrigued by new views on how to approach a project and learned to see our own work with new eyes. We also discussed if funding and publication impact in any way influenced the design of the proposed projects. Overall, both groups were relatively optimistic about the possibilities of recruiting funding for their projects and delivering publications with high impact. This was based on confidence in the project ideas with simple design and clear outcomes as well as the proposed long-term benefits from the projects on the populations, the society, and the economy. Even if funding and publication impact did not affect the design of the project protocols as such, both groups had lively discussions on these topics when speculating on the practical aspects of the projects if they would be taken further. All participants agreed that the design of a budget would impact the proposal and that the allocation of limited funding probably would lead to teamwork difficulties. We are highly aware of how difficult it is to attract large research grants and that it is almost impossible for early career researchers to be successful in recruiting funding without collaboration with established well-cited researchers. It was also assumed that having a specific journal in mind when designing the project would limit the flow of ideas. On the other side, the publication of results from a “truly” interdisciplinary project involving various methods and both qualitative and quantitative data from different fields might be difficult to integrate in scientific articles and better suited to a longer scientific report. Finally, it was raised that the strong focus on societal impact in our projects, together with outreach to media and policymakers, might partly compensate for publication impact. However, this would require a change in research culture where researchers are increasingly acknowledged not only for articles published in scientific journals, but also for direct impact on the society through other means (outreach activity, media, working with municipalities or companies etc.). The outcome of the workshop clearly showed that within a relatively limited amount of time, a small group of young researchers from different research fields can design an ambitious and relevant interdisciplinary research project which, if it woud be taken further, has potential impact on people's lives. In a real-world scenario, we believe that early career researchers who are interested in a common question could very likely, if given enough time, shape loose ideas into solid plans. Time, trust, tolerance, creativity, and vision are some of the key elements for successful interdisciplinary work and we believe that young researchers possess these traits to the same degree as senior researchers. We are busy with our projects, but we are not loaded with an indefinite number of institutional tasks and responsibilities. Also, we remain open to discuss alternative solutions to complex problems. This underscores some advantages of the involvement of young researchers in the design, planning, and execution of interdisciplinary research projects. Because interdisciplinary work can be time-consuming and difficult, sole involvement in interdisciplinary projects might be risky for young researchers who want to build a career. Therefore, it might be necessary for PhD candidates who work on large projects that involve researchers from several fields to be complemented by “safer” monodisciplinary projects. It would decrease the risk of PhD candidates to end up without publications or other reports to be evaluated. After all, interdisciplinarity it is not the primary objective and well-established monodisciplinary research environments are most essential to have successful interdisciplinary collaborations. While there is no doubt that large-scale interdisciplinary projects can greatly contribute to the advancement of each participating research area, they also hold the potential to uncover valuable hypothesis-generating associations, such as between physiological adaptations and successful aging from lifestyle interventions. Physiology is already an interdisciplinary field, involving the study of various biological disciplines such as anatomy, biochemistry, molecular biology, and neuroscience. We believe that physiology will become even more integrated with other disciplines, leading to the emergence of new research areas. Moving beyond the classical systems biology, human physiology is affected by the surrounding environment as well as our psychology. Thus, one future interdisciplinary research area may involve physiology, psychology, and environmental sciences. To aid the implementation of interdisciplinary research, more collaboration between research groups, for example, facilitated by principal investigators, is desirable. It is indeed more likely for early career researchers to be involved in research across disciplines if our supervisor/mentor is guiding us into it. We need training in interdisciplinary thinking. Such training could also be promoted by MSc and PhD courses for all students or students interested in interdisciplinary work. In today's academic research culture, large research projects that involve international funding bodies are usually commissioned to researchers with a good record of accomplishment in their own field or with other interdisciplinary projects, including previous successful intervention studies. If young researchers come up with ideas for interdisciplinary projects, and yet there is no environment that can bring them alive, there is a room for improvement. We believe that funding bodies should aid the involvement of early career researchers in the design of interdisciplinary projects. The funding is going in this direction, but there is yet no way for young researchers to compete for large research grants. Some early career researchers may be more prone to share ideas in an environment of peers, where we are not exposed to the unavoidable evaluation from senior researchers. A platform that only allows participation of early career researchers would most likely accelerate idea generation both within and between research fields, for example, by workshops or easily implementable brainstorm meetings. If such a platform would exist, project ideas developed by early career researchers could be exposed to feedback by an advisory board of senior researchers during the project development phase. Ideally, funding agencies should allocate funding to ideas within this platform to enable that research projects developed by early career researchers to come alive. Already existing interdisciplinary research platforms, for example, the University of Deusto5 and the University of Vienna6 might inspire the establishment of such platforms. In line with this, scientific societies including society-based journals such as Acta Physiologica could support interdisciplinary research performed by early career researchers via special issues and call for papers, showcasing interdisciplinary research either developed or performed by early career researchers. Journals could also invite researchers from different disciplines to contribute their knowledge and expertise on a specific matter, to promote cross-disciplinary dialog. Lastly, scientific societies could promote interdisciplinarity for early career researchers by providing training (e.g., workshops) and networking opportunities. These efforts may help break down disciplinary barriers and encourage collaboration across disciplines, universities, and countries. Many large funding organizations and journals have mission-driven strategies to promote that research reach the society and the patients. There is a genuine drive among many young researchers to work goal-oriented. We support mission-driven strategies and believe that creativity, willingness to take risks, and interaction and collaboration across disciplines are key to aid these efforts. Therefore, we believe that researchers already at an early stage should be trained in interdisciplinarity to overcome the barriers that exist between the different disciplines. As early career researchers make up most of the scientific workforce across disciplines, we possess a critical mass of ideas that may be unique to our career stage. After bringing together early career aging researchers from different fields for a workshop in interdisciplinary science, we experience a genuine drive, confidence, and creativity among young researchers to work goal-oriented and together across disciplines. Collaboration difficulties and complexities of interdisciplinary projects may pose a risk for time-restricted projects for MSc and PhD students, who should also have “safer,” monodisciplinary projects. If early career researchers on, for example, postdoctoral level should have a chance to be involved in the design of larger interdisciplinary research projects, we believe that it is necessary to establish platforms supported by funding agencies or scientific societies where senior researchers solely have advisory roles. Finally, we highly recommend the implementation of creative workshops within and across research departments, for early career researchers to generate and develop their ideas. Linn Gillberg: Writing – original draft; conceptualization; investigation; writing – review and editing; project administration. Arthur Ingersen: Writing – review and editing; conceptualization; investigation; project administration. Casper Soendenbroe: Writing – review and editing; investigation. Haboon Ismail Ahmed: Writing – review and editing; investigation. Jacob Borch: Writing – review and editing; investigation. Kristine Frøsig Moseholm: Writing – review and editing; investigation. Mette Hyldig Dal: Writing – review and editing; investigation. Olsi Kusta: Writing – review and editing; investigation. Sofie Olsgaard Bergien: Writing – review and editing; investigation. We acknowledge the Center for Healthy Aging at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. LG is supported by grants from the Danish Diabetes Academy, which is funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF17SA0031406), and the Danish Cancer Society. KFM is supported by grants from the Novo Nordic Foundation Challenge Programme: Harnessing the Power of Big Data to Address the Societal Challenge of Aging (NNF17OC0027812). Center for Healthy Aging is supported by funding from Nordea-fonden. The authors report no conflicts of interest.