The dominant theory of cross-disciplinarity represents multidisciplinarity as ‘lower’ or ‘less interesting’ than interdisciplinarity. In this paper, it is argued that this unfavorable representation of multidisciplinarity is ungrounded because it is an effect of the theory being incomplete. It is also explained that the unfavorable, ungrounded representation of multidisciplinarity is problematic: when someone adopts the dominant theory of cross-disciplinarity, the unfavorable representation supports the development of a preference for interdisciplinarity over multidisciplinarity. However, being ungrounded, the support the representation provides for a preference for interdisciplinarity, is invalid. The issue is even more pressing because research policy makers and funding bodies are among the adopters of the theory, which means that there is a risk of (funding) policies reflecting an unjustified preference for interdisciplinarity over multidisciplinarity. This paper presents an improved version of the dominant theory of cross-disciplinarity, obtained by completing the original version with the information it was missing. Because the improved version is more neutral regarding the value of different types of cross-disciplinarity, it is better suited for use by research policy makers and funding bodies.

中文翻译：

---

将多学科性（背面）放在地图上

跨学科的主流理论将多学科表示为比跨学科“低”或“不太有趣”。本文认为，这种多学科性的不利表示是没有根据的，因为这是该理论不完整的结果。还解释说，多学科的不利，无根据的表述是有问题的：当某人采用跨学科的主流理论时，不利的表述支持了对跨学科而不是多学科的偏好的发展。但是，由于没有根据，该表示提供的对跨学科偏好的支持无效。这个问题更为紧迫，因为研究决策者和资助机构都在采用该理论，这意味着（资金）政策存在反映跨学科而不是跨学科的不合理偏好的风险。本文介绍了一种跨学科主导理论的改进版本，该理论是通过使用缺少的信息完成原始版本而获得的。由于改进后的版本对于不同类型的交叉学科的价值更为中立，因此更适合研究决策者和资助机构使用。