Supporting Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research in Czechia
Requiring more disciplines in a research consortium does not produce transdisciplinary research. It produces parallel work, each field contributing from its own territory, with little genuine integration. This study examines why, and what funding agencies can do differently.
Initiative
Research & Policy Study
Partners
TAH Centre & Technology Centre Prague
Published
January 2026
Programme
STRATIN+ (Strategic Intelligence for Research and Innovation), supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (MS25001)
About the Study
What does it actually take for researchers from different disciplines to work together, not just in parallel, but in genuine integration? And how can a national funding agency design programmes that make this more likely?
These are the questions at the heart of a study TAH co-authored with Technologické centrum Praha for the Czech Technology Agency (TA ČR), as part of the strategic intelligence programme STRATIN+. The study was developed between July 2025 and January 2026 to inform the design of TA ČR’s SIGMA programme (DC5, Cross-cutting Support).
Key Findings
Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research is not about team composition; it is about how collaboration actually works. Requiring “more disciplines” in a consortium frequently produces parallel work without real integration. What distinguishes genuine IDR/TDR is a shared research question, hybrid methodology, and built-in mechanisms for ongoing synthesis across the project lifecycle.
The study finds strong motivation among Czech researchers to work across disciplines, alongside limited systemic support for doing so. The most frequently cited gaps: absence of preparatory funding phases, lack of matchmaking platforms, evaluators who assess projects through a single disciplinary lens, and institutional metrics that do not recognise the time investment that interdisciplinary collaboration requires.
Arts, humanities, and social sciences are repeatedly reduced to instrumental roles, brought in to communicate results or assess social acceptance of pre-determined technical solutions. The study recommends structural approaches, including the option of AHSS-led projects on societal challenge-oriented calls, modelled on Ireland’s COALESCE programme.
Recommendations
7 recommendations for funding agencies supporting interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research
1. Define IDR/TDR by how teams collaborate, not by how many disciplines appear in the consortium. Requiring “more disciplines” frequently produces parallel work without real integration. What matters is whether teams share a research question, develop hybrid methodology, and build in mechanisms for ongoing synthesis, not whether the application lists three fields.
2. Introduce preparatory phases before full project applications. Seed funding of 6 to 12 months allows teams to develop shared language, test collaboration dynamics, and design a realistic research framework. Programmes that skip this phase invest in teams that were never ready to integrate.
3. Evaluate collaboration quality as a separate dimension from scientific quality. Weak integration should not be compensated by disciplinary excellence in one area. Evaluators should assess whether research questions are genuinely shared, whether working packages are structured across disciplines, and whether integration mechanisms are concrete, not decorative.
4. Train evaluators specifically for IDR/TDR projects. Without targeted guidance, evaluators default to their own disciplinary standards. Short methodological training (1 to 2 hours) covering common pitfalls, disciplinary bias, undervaluing integration, applying single-field excellence criteria, significantly improves consistency and fairness.
5. Ensure arts, humanities, and social sciences play a structural role, not an instrumental one. SHUV/AHSS disciplines are routinely brought in to communicate results or assess social acceptance of pre-determined solutions. Genuine integration means these disciplines co-define research questions, co-design methodology, and co-interpret findings. For societal challenge calls, leadership by an AHSS researcher, modelled on Ireland’s COALESCE programme, is one effective structural solution.
6. Fund the process of integration, not just its outputs. Facilitation, joint reflection sessions, methodological training for team members, and coordination roles are legitimate research costs. Without them, IDR/TDR projects drift toward parallel disciplinary work. Reporting requirements should include a brief “collaboration reflection” section evaluated on quality, not just milestone compliance.
7. Build the ecosystem gradually — connect projects, not just fund them. Annual thematic gatherings for project teams, searchable databases of active IDR/TDR researchers, and matchmaking events reduce the reliance on personal networks that currently gatekeep interdisciplinary collaboration. Systemic change requires short-term piloting, medium-term network formation, and long-term normalisation of IDR/TDR across funding portfolios.
A Note on Language
The full study is currently available in Czech only, as it was commissioned as a policy document for TA ČR. An extended English abstract summarising the conceptual framework, international comparisons, and recommendations is available on request.
Authors
Marcel Kraus
TAH Centre
Ondřej Daniel
Technology Centre Prague