These findings may seem counterintuitive: Why should those who exhibit high scientific performance be penalized? However, if we think of some dynamics of the academic world, this behavior may appear more than understandable. Indeed, it is a fact that the niche of the most authoritative and productive scientists tends to have a marked influence on the future of scientific and humanistic disciplines, just think of the processes for choosing priority research areas, the exploration of paths of renewal and the possibility of mobilizing more resources.
Such positions, when filled by interdisciplinary scientists, are therefore seen by colleagues as a significant threat to the status quo. Conversely, interdisciplinary scientists with an average track record are perceived as relatively harmless and, in some cases, as potential opportunities to enrich the scientific domain by introducing new ideas and methods.
Such behavior does not only occur in academia. In many contexts where new candidates are admitted to closed entities, such as in professions and organisations, evaluators act as “gatekeeper”, discriminating against candidates who do not match the ideal archetype to preserve the boundaries and identity of the entity they represent. There is therefore a fundamental compromise between conservatism and renewal in evaluation processes, especially in academic ones. Elite members of the discipline may legitimately be concerned with maintaining the stability of their disciplinary domain.
However, when they are invested with a role of “gatekeeper”, the innovation and renewal of the discipline they represent could inevitably suffer. Developers of accreditation processes should therefore consider corrective measures, for example by making it clear that interdisciplinary scientists should benefit from “positive discrimination”, given their potential innovative value, or by including in accreditation evaluation committees not directly involved in the status quo .
This study adds to an already large literature in favor of a cautious approach to interdisciplinarity. While researchers may feel freer to venture outside their own disciplines, the social cost of crossing disciplinary boundaries should not be underestimated. A more precise assessment of this cost and the conditions under which it occurs can in part help university decision-makers design more attractive interdisciplinary initiatives. Until this is done, the innovation we want to pursue will continue to be undermined.