A totem pole? The multi-level nature of unauthorised hierarchies within academia and its impact on interdisciplinary research
Drawing on qualitative data from 51 scholars, this article examines the multi-level nature of unauthorized hierarchies in academia as significant barriers to interdisciplinary research, offering insights into their mechanisms and proposing policy measures to foster equity and collaboration.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Imagine the world of university research as a giant, bustling city. You might think it's a place where everyone works together as equals to solve big problems like climate change or disease. But according to this study, the city is actually built like a totem pole.
Some people and ideas are carved at the very top, glowing with prestige and power. Others are stuck at the bottom, invisible and ignored. This isn't just a formal rulebook thing (like who gets to be a professor); it's a sneaky, "unauthorised" system of invisible ladders that decides whose voice matters and whose doesn't.
The Invisible Ladders
The researchers, a team of six scholars from different countries, wanted to see how these ladders affect interdisciplinary research. That's a fancy way of saying: "What happens when a biologist, a poet, and an engineer try to build a house together?"
They found that even when everyone says they want to work together, the totem pole gets in the way. Here's how the "unauthorised" rules work:
- The "Hard" vs. "Soft" Science Wall: Imagine a group project where the scientists who use numbers and statistics are treated like the VIPs in the VIP lounge. They are seen as doing "real" science. Meanwhile, the researchers using stories, interviews, or art are treated like they are just playing games. One researcher shared that when working with doctors, they were told their social science work wasn't "serious" because they didn't touch patients directly. It's like being told your contribution to the team is worthless just because you aren't holding the same tool.
- The "Seniority" Gatekeepers: Think of the totem pole as a ladder where the people at the top hold the keys to the next rung. Senior professors often act as gatekeepers. They decide who gets funding, who gets to publish, and even what ideas are "allowed." One student mentioned that senior colleagues told them they were "too junior" to pursue their own cool ideas, forcing them to change their plans. It's like a coach telling a rookie they can't play the position they love, even if they're good at it.
- The "Neoliberal" Pressure Cooker: The study suggests that universities have started acting more like businesses. They are obsessed with "metrics"—counting how many papers you write or how much money you bring in. This creates a new kind of ladder where the "fastest" and "most profitable" researchers climb higher, while anyone trying to do slow, deep, or different kinds of work gets pushed down.
What the Study Doesn't Say
It's important to know what this paper isn't claiming. The authors aren't saying that all hierarchy is bad. They admit that some order is necessary, like having a team captain or a teacher to guide students. They also don't say that interdisciplinarity is impossible. They just suggest that the current "totem pole" structure makes it much harder and more frustrating than it needs to be.
They also didn't prove that every senior professor is a villain. In fact, some participants said they had great mentors who helped them. But the system itself seems to encourage the bad behavior more than the good.
The Numbers and the Evidence
To figure this out, the team didn't just guess. They ran a survey with 51 scholars who are actually doing interdisciplinary work. These weren't just random people; they were researchers from universities and NGOs, ranging from students to professors.
They asked these 51 people to share their real-life stories. The results weren't a simulation or a computer guess; they were based on the actual experiences of these 51 people. The study found that these invisible hierarchies act as a "bottleneck," slowing down collaboration and making people feel like they have to hide their true ideas to fit in.
The "Totem Pole" Effect
The main finding is that these hierarchies act like a totem pole that blocks the view. When you are stuck at the bottom, you can't see the whole picture, and you can't reach the top to share your unique perspective.
The study suggests that this isn't just about being mean; it's about how knowledge gets made. If only the people at the top get to speak, we miss out on solutions that only someone at the bottom could see. For example, a researcher might want to use a new, weird method to solve a problem, but if the "top" of the totem pole only likes old, traditional methods, that new idea gets crushed.
What Can We Do?
The authors suggest that to fix this, we need to stop building the totem pole and start building a round table. They propose:
- Creating spaces where everyone's voice is heard, not just the loudest or the highest-ranking.
- Training leaders to be more inclusive.
- Changing the rules so that doing work across different fields is rewarded, not punished.
The paper concludes that while we haven't solved the problem yet, understanding that these "unauthorised" ladders exist is the first step. If we can see the totem pole for what it is, maybe we can finally start climbing together, rather than just waiting for permission from the top.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.