A Persistent Divide: Why Science and Arts Researchers Struggle to Collaborate in Universities
In academic institutions worldwide, interdisciplinary research is often championed as a key driver of innovation, capable of tackling complex societal challenges that no single discipline can resolve alone. Yet, despite its promise, real-world implementation of interdisciplinary collaboration remains fraught with difficulties. A revealing new study conducted at Monash University, a leading Australian research institution, sheds light on a cultural divide between science-based and arts-based researchers that impedes fruitful cooperation across these domains. This research offers not only insights into one institution’s internal dynamics but also raises questions about broader patterns affecting universities globally.
The study employed a mixed methodology, combining extensive surveys of academic staff with in-depth interviews of senior university administrators. Findings revealed a clear asymmetry in attitudes toward interdisciplinary collaboration between the two academic cultures. While arts-based researchers exhibited openness and even eagerness to engage with scientific colleagues, the opposite was markedly less common. Science-based researchers consistently expressed reservations about collaborating with arts researchers and often questioned the rigor or relevance of arts-based scholarship. This one-sided cultural tension is a major obstacle to achieving interdisciplinary research goals.
The data suggest that entrenched disciplinary identities, or “tribalism,” persist strongly in research environments despite organizational policies promoting interdisciplinarity. Science researchers’ reluctance likely stems from a perception that arts disciplines lack methodological rigor or empirical grounding. Meanwhile, arts researchers appear less constrained by such views and may even view collaboration with scientists as a way to enhance the legitimacy and funding potential of their work. Such an imbalance in mutual perceptions undermines trust and hampers the formation of collaborative networks across the sciences and humanities.
Interestingly, university leadership at Monash seemed largely unaware of these underlying cultural divisions prior to this study. When the findings were presented to the university’s executive team in 2022, it illuminated a blind spot: institutional strategies emphasized interdisciplinary research in their mission statements and strategic plans, but failed to grapple with deeply ingrained academic cultures that resist such integration. This disconnect between policy aspirations and on-the-ground realities is an important insight for universities aiming to foster cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Further complicating the issue is the broader movement in public universities worldwide toward demonstrating societal impact, which frequently encourages interdisciplinary approaches. Increasingly, government funding bodies require universities to justify public investment by showing how research translates into real-world outcomes. Institutions with an appetite and capacity for collaboration across disciplinary boundaries may be better positioned to meet these expectations. However, as the Monash case study highlights, cultural barriers remain a potent force restricting interdisciplinary activity, potentially limiting institutional agility in response to these pressures.
The study also contextualizes its findings within a global academic workforce characterized by high mobility. Australian academics often move between institutions domestically and internationally, and the cultural dynamics identified at Monash likely mirror those at other research-focused universities. While it is difficult to generalize from one case study, the similarity of institutional profiles and workforce flows suggests these challenges are far from unique. Moreover, such cultural divides may be even more pronounced in large, high-pressure research universities than in smaller or more teaching-focused institutions.
Looking ahead, the study advocates for wider multinational and multi-institutional research to verify the extent and nuances of these disciplinary cultural fissures. Future research should incorporate a diverse range of university types—large and small, comprehensive and specialized—and span geographic and jurisdictional boundaries. Understanding whether these cultural dynamics persist differently in rural vs. urban institutions, or in contexts where teaching rather than research is prioritized, could inform tailored strategies to bridge disciplinary chasms more effectively.
The puzzling asymmetry—where science-based researchers harbor reservations about arts-based collaboration but not vice versa—calls for deeper exploration. The study speculates that arts scholars may see collaboration with scientists as a strategic move to gain credibility and improve funding prospects. To unravel these motivations and attitudes, future research should include qualitative interviews with scholars from both sides. Detailed personal narratives and reflections may reveal subtle social and epistemological factors driving these patterns.
Another unexplored dimension involves individual researchers’ prior experiences with interdisciplinary collaboration. Personal encounters—positive or negative—likely shape willingness to engage across disciplinary lines. Unpacking these subjective experiences through focused surveys and interviews may identify specific pain points or success factors that generic institutional policies overlook. Such nuanced understanding could help universities design evidence-based interventions that nurture trust and reduce perceived risks associated with crossing disciplinary boundaries.
The Monash case also spotlights the inertia embedded in academic cultures despite the fast-changing external research landscape. While the rise of data science, digital humanities, and complex systems thinking offers fertile ground for cross-disciplinary synergy, scholars anchored in long-standing disciplinary traditions may find integration challenging. Evolving academic reward systems, peer review cultures, and publication practices remain largely discipline-centered, thus reinforcing barriers to interdisciplinary engagement.
Consequently, university leaders face a critical challenge: fostering a cultural shift that complements structural reforms such as new strategic plans and interdisciplinary funding calls. Awareness-building campaigns, cross-disciplinary workshops, and leadership training can gradually erode tribal affiliations while celebrating the distinct yet complementary contributions of arts and science disciplines. Institutional incentives aligned with collaborative outputs and impact metrics will be essential to reinforce new norms.
In sum, this study from Monash University offers a revealing glimpse into the subtle and often invisible cultural forces that constrain interdisciplinary collaboration. It moves beyond simplistic calls for “breaking down silos” by documenting specific asymmetries in attitudes and behaviors between academic disciplines. Although discipline-based research remains vital, universities that fail to address these cultural barriers risk missing opportunities to leverage collective intellectual capital and increase the societal relevance of their research.
These findings resonate far beyond Australia’s shores, reminding global higher education communities that the path to interdisciplinary innovation is as much a sociocultural journey as a technical or policy challenge. As universities navigate increasingly complex external demands for research impact, cultivating genuine collaboration between arts and sciences is both an urgent priority and a delicate endeavor requiring sustained attention and creativity.
As public accountability rises and funding landscapes evolve, institutions that successfully foster a positive research culture valuing diverse disciplinary perspectives may emerge as leaders in the next era of academic discovery. In the meantime, the asymmetrical “two cultures” divide identified in this study remains a formidable hurdle—and an invitation for scholars, administrators, and policymakers to reimagine the future of university research.
Subject of Research: Cultural barriers to interdisciplinary research collaboration between science-based and arts-based researchers at Monash University and implications for broader research institutions.
Article Title: Cultural barriers to interdisciplinary research collaboration: evidence from Australia.
Article References:
Newman, J. Cultural barriers to interdisciplinary research collaboration: evidence from Australia.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 795 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05196-x
Image Credits: AI Generated
