Paper short abstract:

Based on funding information and interviews with diverse actors, we present findings on how research funding criteria shape design and execution of inter- and transdisciplinary research projects. We show that singular criteria can both stimulate and constrain heterogeneous practices.

Paper long abstract:

While many research funders aim to stimulate inter- and transdisciplinary research (ITDR) through various funding instruments, little is known about those instruments shape ITDR in practice. Therefore, we set out to understand how funding requirements, funding discourses, and applicant decisions shape design and execution of ITDR. We selected two funding instruments from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) that aim to specifically stimulate ITDR. For those instruments, we analyzed call information and interviewed different actors involved in project design and execution. We observed heterogeneity of ITDR practices in cross-disciplinary and extra-academic representation, relationships, and collaboration. This heterogeneity in practices was much larger than we expected based on the funding information that was of a more singular nature. We saw that the power of funders and applicants jointly and interactively shaped those heterogeneous ITDR practices, further governed by other power forces at play in the research funding and policy landscape. For instance, for one of the instruments, NWO requires applicants to fill out a Theory of Change (ToC) format as to stimulate ITDR. This stimulated some applicants - especially those with little experience with ITDR - to approach their research fundamentally differently from how they normally would, taking the impact of their research as a starting point. However, others felt constrained by the specific ToC format NWO deployed, and felt it was too linear, limiting their ITDR projects. We argue that by exerting power funders can thus both raise the bar for ITDR, but also setting a ceiling.