Academic tribalism is preventing interdisciplinary research India needs

The very idea of a senior professor in languages working with a junior professor in Sociology or Anthropology is revolting to a cross-section of the faculty. Even if they join hands together, egoistic clashes almost regularly hinder the progress of their interdisciplinary initiative

By A Joseph Dorairaj

Major global concerns such as climate change, inequality, poverty, AI and automation, and displacement and migration need to be studied from an interdisciplinary perspective, for they are complex and multidimensional phenomena. For instance, issues such as displacement and migration triggered by wars or natural disasters need to be approached from multiple perspectives: Geopolitics, Geography, Human Rights, Sociology, Anthropology, Literature, and Conflict Management. But in many cases, academic tribalism, which fiercely protects disciplinary boundaries, does not encourage interdisciplinarity.

There are five major hurdles sabotaging an interdisciplinary approach to research. First, epistemological clashes between disciplines, especially over issues like “What is truth?” “Is truth singular or plural?” and “Is a data-based approach the only pathway to knowledge?” often arise when the issue at stake is interdisciplinary research.

When a student of languages looks forward to joining hands with a researcher in social sciences, say, Education or Sociology, he/she has to brace him/herself for such a clash. While researchers in the realm of humanities do not swear by numerical data, those in social sciences are driven by data, especially quantitative data. While a student of literature is comfortable with truth in the plural, a researcher in Mathematics or Chemistry is averse to the idea of calling truth plural, for empirical data would categorically determine what truth is. While this clash cannot be circumvented, a viable alternative is to go in for a mixed-methods approach synthesising quantitative and qualitative research methods, which subtly underlines that truth is not always singular and monolithic.

Second, for researchers from different domains to come together, there should be a common platform and vocabulary. Even a simple concept such as “experiment” carries different connotations to people working in diverse domains. When Gandhi titled his autobiography “The Story of My Experiments with Truth,” he was not referring to any laboratory experiment. But for those working in Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, and Life Sciences, the word “experiment” conjures a lab where researchers donning white coats handle ultrasensitive instruments with utmost care, seeking accurate and replicable data. But for someone in the humanities, “experiment” is bereft of any empirical baggage such as quantitative as well as qualitative data. When basic concepts such as “experiment,” “data,” and “truth” prove difficult to articulate, researchers, hemmed in by disciplinary boundaries, frequently struggle to find common ground. Therefore, any interdisciplinary project should, at the outset, clarify the nuanced meanings of key terms so that there is consensus, even if it is contrived, and that is the way forward.

Third, there is hardly any institutional support for interdisciplinary research, especially in terms of funding. While there are separate fund allocations for individual departments under different headings such as Seminars and Workshops, Publications, and Travel, there is no such allocation for pursuing interdisciplinary research. Individual departments would not like to part with their departmental funds, which are usually meagre, to undertake interdisciplinary research projects. As a result, interdisciplinary research suffers. Therefore, it is mandatory to set apart clearly earmarked funds to promote interdisciplinary research projects.

Fourth, there are hardly any journals dedicated to interdisciplinary research. On the one hand, there is a mandate to pursue interdisciplinarity, but on the other hand, the absence of journals specialising in interdisciplinary research turns out to be a major hurdle in promoting interdisciplinarity. To make matters worse, the editorial boards of disciplinary journals do not vigorously promote interdisciplinary enquiries for two major reasons: They are journals dedicated to advancing a particular field, not interdisciplinarity, and second, disciplinary gatekeepers are not generally favourable to interdisciplinary research but camouflage their apprehension by invoking rigorous research protocols.

Last, academia suffers from a chronic silos syndrome where departments and faculty prefer to work in isolation. To put it differently, academic tribalism is the norm. The very idea of a senior professor in languages working with a junior professor in Sociology or Anthropology is revolting to a cross-section of the faculty. Even if they join hands together, egoistic clashes almost on a regular basis hinder the progress of their interdisciplinary initiative. Therefore, drastic and calibrated steps need to be taken to nurse a culture of interdisciplinarity.

While everyone admits that interdisciplinarity is the future, very few are willing to stick their neck out and embrace it. Institutional hurdles dampen the enthusiasm of a few enterprising faculty who dare to experiment with interdisciplinarity, and as a result, their research does not translate into action. The ecosystem breeding academic tribalism needs to be challenged radically, and interdisciplinarity should be consciously promoted so that complex phenomena such as global warming and climate change, and displacement and migration are comprehensively addressed from diverse world-views. Academia should incentivise the faculty who take up interdisciplinary projects despite major challenges.

The writer is Emeritus Professor, Gandhigram Rural Institute