What does it mean to be interdisciplinary? The case for collaboration across fields

CEGA often talks about the interdisciplinarity of our research and network. Lauren Russell, Director of Operations, explains what this really means and why it is important.

In a rural village in Northern Togo, Soumbala, a 38-year-old farmer is on his way to a funeral. He pauses to join an interview with Zoe Kahn—a recent PhD graduate of the UC Berkeley School of Information—who asks him about how he would feel if the data from his mobile phone was shared. 

Soumbala reflects. In his view, mobile money transactions reveal sensitive financial details. “The one who gives [mobile money] can be harmed if it is known in the community because it is known that he has money and gives it to others. Some may be jealous of him. But the one receiving may feel some kind of shame: people in the community will have a bad opinion of him because he depends on other people to survive.”

When asked how he would feel if this data was shared with the government of Togo, Soumbala explained: “I wouldn’t be disturbed…the government could know [because] they can’t envy me.”

Discussions of privacy often center on legal compliance and consent, dominated by industry experts. But voices like Soumbala’s—those of people whose data is most affected—are rarely included. His perspective highlights the deeply personal and social implications of data sharing and illustrates why input from diverse disciplines and communities is critical for effective innovation and interventions.

This was evident in the case of Novissi, Togo’s national cash transfer program. Qualitative research with people like Soumbala provided critical insights that complemented data science tools used to target aid and randomized evaluations used to assess impact. Together, this interdisciplinary approach ensured Novissi was both effective and attuned to local realities.

This example underscores why CEGA invests in interdisciplinary research: bringing together economists, engineers, psychologists, public health experts, and others—along with a diversity of analytical approaches—to generate evidence that supports equitable growth and reduces poverty.

Key lessons from interdisciplinary research

I spoke with CEGA researchers to explore what makes interdisciplinary research valuable—and challenging. Here are some key takeaways.

1. Better design

Researchers emphasized that their work was significantly stronger because of interdisciplinary collaboration.

In the Gridwatch project (Catherine Wolfram/Economics, Noah Klugman/Engineering, Prabal Dutta/Computer Science), engineers created a sensor to measure electric grid reliability in Ghana, while economists studied its effects on households. “Our collaboration helped us answer fundamental questions about utilities,” said Wolfram. “We couldn’t have done the research without the sensors.”

Catherine Thomas (Psychology), whose project on culturally responsive programming integrates economics, education, and public health said, “Poverty and inequality are multidimensional—the only way to address them is an interdisciplinary approach.” She emphasized that different methods serve different purposes: Qualitative research helps generate hypotheses, lab research explores mechanisms, and experiments help us understand real-world impacts.

Rebecca Zhu (Psychology) and Helen Pitchik (Public Health) collaborated on adapting child development assessments across cultures. They adopted methods common in public health but novel to psychology and vice-versa. “There were a lot of tools [from public health] that psychologists could borrow and adapt, which we did for our study,” said Zhu. “We also took a risk by writing a registered report, which is new for Public Health. Our paper was accepted prior to data collection and reviewers made suggestions about framing and methods, which strengthened our design.” 

2. More Relevant Data

Teams that include qualitative and interdisciplinary methods often gather richer, nuanced data that more accurately represents the perspectives and experiences of study participants. This can inspire new research questions, and strengthen study design. 

In our conversation, Thomas emphasized that “cultural attuneness” is critical: understanding local norms and values improves program effectiveness and reduces failure.

Format and cultural fit matter too. “While assessments are often modified for language or the objects being shown, the format itself or cultural appropriateness of the tools are often not adapted across contexts. This can lead to mismeasurement and drastically impact the efficacy of learning materials and the validity of assessment scores.” said Zhu. Their study ensured appropriateness by drawing on expertise from multiple fields, including anthropology and sociology. 

3. Greater Reach and Learning

Collaborating across disciplines also exposed researchers to new methods, audiences, and partnerships.

Noah Klugman (Gridwatch) said his social science colleagues’ field experience and their existing relationships with communities were key. “They were instrumental in teaching engineers about fieldwork: for example, the right tools, processes, people,” said Klugman. “They received fieldwork training as economists that I did not get, and I’ve gone on to train other engineers how to do it.”

The network of the economists also helped the team engage policy stakeholders like the Ghanaian government and the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

Zhu and Pitchik’s collaboration offered perspective on what would actually be interesting to their respective disciplines, expanding the reach and relevance of their work. Understanding each other’s priorities made the research stronger, they noted. “A huge strength of the collaboration was understanding what the motivation, priorities, and emphasis was for another discipline and sharing these across both,” said Pitchik.  

4. Communication Barriers

Researchers collaborating across disciplines also acknowledged the challenge of learning each other’s “language.” Words like “model” or “experiment” have different meanings across fields, but mutual respect and curiosity helped bridge the gaps. 

More so, engineers and economists often learn and think differently. “The engineering questions can be straightforward: the system, service, or device either works or doesn’t.…the social science questions about why something does or doesn’t work are often less so,” said Klugman.

“Our methods all have strengths and limitations—it’s important to bring them together in interesting new ways,” Kahn explained. “We didn’t try to fit a square peg into a round hole; we honored methodological differences.”

5. Systemic Challenges

Despite the benefits to interdisciplinary collaboration, institutional barriers remain.

Publishing norms vary widely. Economists often aim for top journals with few co-authors, while public health welcomes larger teams. “The publication question is tricky,” Wolfram explained. A junior economist typically won’t receive credit for a strong engineering publication.

To overcome this, interdisciplinary teams must intentionally navigate different publication paths and consider interdisciplinary journals or tailored papers for each field.

Funding is also a constraint. While some donors support programs like CEGA’s Psychology and Economics of Poverty initiative—designed to encourage collaborations between psychologists and economists—many funders still prioritize discipline-specific work. Expanding support for interdisciplinary research will be essential for continued progress.

A Call to Action

Shrinking foreign aid and tighter philanthropic budgets mean fewer resources for research—just as evidence is more critical than ever. Interdisciplinary approaches, particularly those leveraging novel data sources, qualitative methods, or data science tools, can generate timely and contextually relevant insights—sometimes more affordably than traditional randomized controlled trials.

Evidence is only as strong as the methods behind it. One of CEGA’s core strengths is convening diverse stakeholders to generate rigorous, policy-relevant evidence. We believe interdisciplinary research fosters innovation and learning, optimizes resources, and yields meaningful outcomes.

Let’s do more of it.