Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success


Interdisciplinary research is widely considered a hothouse for innovation, and the only plausible approach to complex problems such as climate change1,2. One barrier to interdisciplinary research is the widespread perception that interdisciplinary projects are less likely to be funded than those with a narrower focus3,4. However, this commonly held belief has been difficult to evaluate objectively, partly because of lack of a comparable, quantitative measure of degree of interdisciplinarity that can be applied to funding application data1. Here we compare the degree to which research proposals span disparate fields by using a biodiversity metric that captures the relative representation of different fields (balance) and their degree of difference (disparity). The Australian Research Council’s Discovery Programme provides an ideal test case, because a single annual nationwide competitive grants scheme covers fundamental research in all disciplines, including arts, humanities and sciences. Using data on all 18,476 proposals submitted to the scheme over 5 consecutive years, including successful and unsuccessful applications, we show that the greater the degree of interdisciplinarity, the lower the probability of being funded. The negative impact of interdisciplinarity is significant even when number of collaborators, primary research field and type of institution are taken into account. This is the first broad-scale quantitative assessment of success rates of interdisciplinary research proposals. The interdisciplinary distance metric allows efficient evaluation of trends in research funding, and could be used to identify proposals that require assessment strategies appropriate to interdisciplinary research5.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Relationship between funding success and IDD score.
Figure 2: Relationship between interdisciplinarity and funding success by research division.


  1. Rylance, R. Grant giving: global funders to focus on interdisciplinarity. Nature 525, 313–315 (2015)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ledford, H. How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature 525, 308–311 (2015)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Marsden, W. & Meagher, L. The role of funding agencies in creating interdisciplinary knowledge. Sci. Public Policy 40, 62–71 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Woelert, P. & Millar, V. The “paradox of interdisciplinarity” in Australian research governance. High. Educ. 66, 755–767 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, 2004)

  6. Langfeldt, L. The policy challenges of peer review: managing bias, conflict of interests and interdisciplinary assessments. Res. Eval. 15, 31–41 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nichols, L. G. A topic model approach to measuring interdisciplinarity at the National Science Foundation. Scientometrics 100, 741–754 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Noorden, R. Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature 525, 306–307 (2015)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Porter, A. & Rafols, I. Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81, 719–745 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Porter, A. L., Roessner, J. D., Cohen, A. S. & Perreault, M. Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture. Res. Eval. 15, 187–195 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wagner, C. S. et al. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. J. Informetrics 5, 14–26 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I. & D’Este, P. Does interdisciplinary research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS ONE 10, e0135095 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang, J., Thijs, B. & Glänzel, W. Interdisciplinarity and impact: distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE 10, e0127298 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Shi, X., Adamic, L. A., Tseng, B. L. & Clarkson, G. S. The impact of boundary spanning scholarly publications and patents. PLoS ONE 4, e6547 (2009)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H. & Hukkinen, J. Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Res. Policy 39, 79–88 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J., Huutoniemi, K. & Klein, J. T. Promoting Interdisciplinary Research: The Case of the Academy of Finland (The Academy of Finland, 2005)

  17. Bammer, G. Strengthening Interdisciplinary Research: What It Is, What It Does, How It Does It and How It Is Supported (Australian Council of Learned Academies, 2012)

  18. Ma, A., Mondragón, R. J. & Latora, V. Anatomy of funded research in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14760–14765 (2015)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Helmus, M. R., Bland, T. J., Williams, C. K. & Ives, A. R. Phylogenetic measures of biodiversity. Am. Nat. 169, E68–E83 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cadotte, M. W. et al. Phylogenetic diversity metrics for ecological communities: integrating species richness, abundance and evolutionary history. Ecol. Lett. 13, 96–105 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stirling, A. A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. J. R. Soc. Interface 4, 707–719 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M. & Jones, B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342, 468–472 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Porter, A. L., Garner, J. & Crowl, T. Research coordination networks: evidence of the relationship between funded interdisciplinary networking and scholarly impact. Bioscience 62, 282–288 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Boix Mansilla, V., Feller, I. & Gardner, H. Quality assessment in interdisciplinary research and education. Res. Eval. 15, 69–74 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Haythornthwaite, C., Lunsford, K. J., Bowker, G. C. & Bruce, B. C. in New Infrastructures for Science Knowledge Production (ed. Hine, C. ) 143–166 (Idea Group, 2006)

  26. Laudel, G. Conclave in the Tower of Babel: how peers review interdisciplinary research proposals. Res. Eval. 15, 57–68 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Goring, S. J. et al. Improving the culture of interdisciplinary collaboration in ecology by expanding measures of success. Front. Ecol. Environ 12, 39–47 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the Australian Research Council for providing de-identified application data for analysis, and for their commitment to transparency and improvement of research proposal assessment. We are grateful to A. Byrne for his feedback and encouragement. We also thank M. Jennions for feedback, and G. Bammer, J. Bennett and the participants of the workshop on Interdisciplinary Research: Evaluating and Rewarding High-Quality Projects held at the University of New South Wales in August 2015.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors contributed equally to this work. L.B. conceived the project and wrote the paper; R.D. and X.H. designed, conducted and interpreted the analyses.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lindell Bromham.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Reviewer Information Nature thanks L. Amaral, M. Helmus and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Comparison of observed distribution of IDD scores to a null distribution.

a, Distribution of IDD scores for 18,476 proposals to the Australian Research Council Discovery Programme, pooled over 5 years (2010–2014). b, Null distribution of IDD scores generated by random sampling of Field of Research codes conditional on the observed frequencies of number of selected codes and percentage allocations.

Extended Data Figure 2 Distribution of IDD scores by institutional networks.

See Extended Data Table 2 for the membership of research networks. The research-intensive Group of Eight (Go8) universities submit more proposals to the Australian Research Council Discovery Programme and have higher funding success rates, but the overall patterns of interdisciplinarity scores and success rates are similar across institutions.

Extended Data Table 1 Summary of proposals submitted to Australian Research Council Discovery Programme between 2010 and 2014
Extended Data Table 2 Institutional networks
Extended Data Table 3 Effect size of interdisciplinarity on funding success in each division

Related audio

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Methods and additional references. (PDF 605 kb)

Supplementary Figure 1

The hierarchical structure of FOR codes as a dendrogram. (PDF 107 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

This file contains data on proposals submitted to ARC Discovery program 2010-2014. (XLSX 1175 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

This table contains results of the GLMM analyses. (PDF 205 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bromham, L., Dinnage, R. & Hua, X. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 534, 684–687 (2016).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing