Do epistemic similarity and experiential familiarity enhance the productivity of early-career interdisciplinary researchers?

Previous studies have reported that the cognitive burdens inherent in interdisciplinary research (IDR)—such as collaborating with researchers from different disciplines or integrating diverse knowledge, methodologies, and terminology—can lead to delays in both producing and publishing research. These burdens are particularly challenging for early-career researchers compared to their senior counterparts, as they may lack sufficient research experience. However, the cognitive burdens of IDR are not always consistent; they vary depending on the epistemic similarity between integrated fields and whether early-career researchers have prior experience studying these fields. This study categorizes early-career interdisciplinary researchers into four types based on the epistemic similarity between their primary and secondary dissertation fields and their experiential familiarity with their secondary field. It compares the publication productivity of each interdisciplinary researcher type with that of mono-disciplinary researchers. Those who integrate fields that are both epistemically similar and experientially familiar, as well as those who integrate fields that are experientially familiar but epistemically dissimilar, tend to be more productive in publishing articles than their mono-disciplinary counterparts. This study contributes to the broader discussion on the relationship between IDR engagement and career outcomes for interdisciplinary researchers, particularly at the early-career stage. Additionally, the findings have policy implications for supporting and facilitating early-career researchers’ participation in IDR.