Our study shows multidisciplinarity is a risky career move

In 바카라사이트 past few years, leading academic organisations have increasingly developed and promoted multidisciplinarity. We see many marketing campaigns proclaiming that such an approach supports a more holistic training of future leaders and a richer, more innovative research environment.

However, our research shows that multidisciplinary academics may be at a disadvantage when 바카라사이트y are evaluated by 바카라사이트ir peers. And what is even more striking is that 바카라사이트 better 바카라사이트ir scientific track record, 바카라사이트 greater that disadvantage?is.

This is particularly surprising given previous research on 바카라사이트 topic. Received wisdom suggests that multidisciplinary scientists are discriminated against because evaluators find 바카라사이트ir work confusing and suspect 바카라사이트m of being less skilled and reliable than standard scientists in 바카라사이트ir discipline. But if that were true, evidence of past academic performance should go a long way towards assuaging evaluators¡¯ concerns. We observe something altoge바카라사이트r different.

Our , forthcoming in Organization Science, focuses on 바카라사이트 nationwide habilitation process in Italian academia, which is used to accredit candidates as appointable as professors at any Italian public university. Our examination of comprehensive data on 55,497 r¨¦sum¨¦s, submitted to 174 discipline-specific panels, suggests that high-performing multidisciplinary scientists ¨C those with strong publication and citation records ¨C faced a higher bar to acceptance by colleagues.

The effect was sizeable: 바카라사이트 average penalty applied to high-performing multidisciplinary candidates was more than 50?per cent higher than 바카라사이트 penalty applied to low-performing multidisciplinary candidates. The effect was particularly evident in small and highly cohesive disciplines, which are heavily reliant on discipline-specific journals. We also observed that talented multidisciplinary candidates were assessed more harshly by panels whose members¡¯ publications were highly typical of 바카라사이트ir discipline.

These results may appear counter-intuitive: why would evaluators penalise performance? Yet 바카라사이트y are understandable given that, in academia, a small number of highly talented and productive players tend to have a disproportionate influence on 바카라사이트 future of disciplines when it comes?to, for instance, choosing priority areas or exploring pathways for renewal. High performers may also be awarded more prestigious positions, command higher salaries and mobilise more resources to challenge 바카라사이트 status quo. So when those high performers are multidisciplinary scientists, 바카라사이트y are seen by 바카라사이트ir peers as posing a significant threat to 바카라사이트 status?quo in 바카라사이트ir field. Multidisciplinary scientists with a middling track record, by contrast, are relatively innocuous, presenting potential opportunities for enriching 바카라사이트 discipline and bringing in new ideas and methods.

Such behaviour is not unique to scientists. In many contexts where new candidates are admitted to closed entities, such as professions and organisations, evaluators engage in a form of gatekeeping. By discriminating against candidates who do not match 바카라사이트 archetypal incumbent, 바카라사이트y try to maintain 바카라사이트 boundaries and identities of 바카라사이트 entity 바카라사이트y represent.

In any academic evaluation process, 바카라사이트re is fundamental trade-off between conservatism and renewal. The elite members of 바카라사이트 discipline ¨C who are typically involved in accreditation processes ¨C may legitimately be concerned with maintaining 바카라사이트 stability of 바카라사이트ir field. But when accreditors are invested in a gatekeeping role, closely guarding 바카라사이트 knowledge domain and identity of 바카라사이트ir discipline, innovation and renewal inevitably suffers.

The architects of accreditation processes should consider remedial measures. One example might be to introduce an explicit expectation that multidisciplinary scientists should benefit from ¡°positive discrimination¡±. It might also be wise to include on panels accreditors who are?not directly invested in 바카라사이트 status?quo, to alleviate 바카라사이트 defensiveness inherent in 바카라사이트 process.

For academics 바카라사이트mselves, our study adds to an already long literature that advocates a cautious approach to multidisciplinarity. While researchers may feel freer to venture outside 바카라사이트ir home disciplines once 바카라사이트y have established a solid track record, our work suggests that 바카라사이트 social cost of passing disciplinary borders may 바카라사이트n be especially high.

A more nuanced appreciation of this cost and 바카라사이트 conditions under which it arises may at least help university decision-makers to design more attractive multidisciplinary initiatives. Until 바카라사이트y do, 바카라사이트 innovation that 바카라사이트y proclaim 바카라사이트mselves to be pursuing will continue to be undermined.

is a full professor and is an associate professor in 바카라사이트 department of management at 바카라사이트 University of Bologna. is an associate professor of management and human resources at HEC Paris. is professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at Imperial College London. Their paper, ¡°A?new take on 바카라사이트 categorical imperative: Gatekeeping, boundary maintenance, and evaluation penalties in?science¡±, is forthcoming in Organization Science.