Interdisciplinarity is often framed as crucial for addressing the complex problems of contemporary society and for achieving new levels of innovation. But while science policy and institutions have provided a variety of incentives for stimulating interdisciplinary work throughout Europe, there is also growing evidence that some aspects of the academic system do not necessarily reward interdisciplinary work. In this study, we explore how mid-career researchers in an environmental science research center in Sweden relate to and handle the distinct forms of uncertainty that arise from conflicting institutional and policy impulses. Our material suggests that interdisciplinary academics are often confronted with and at times themselves operate with a surprisingly dichotomous, value-laden view of their research practice. Disciplinarity is primarily associated with the ideals of scientific rigor, while interdisciplinarity becomes conflated with application-oriented work and a lack of ‘theory.’ We also draw attention to the underlying practical dynamics that reproduce this tension and entangle it with the very process of academic socialization. Specifically, we analyze the ambivalent consequences of the various work-arounds that researchers rely on to carve out opportunities for ongoing interdisciplinary research within heterogeneous funding landscapes. These tactics turn out to be undermined by the overriding normative power of formal career incentives at universities, which continue to emphasize the ideals of the individual high-performing academic who publishes in disciplinary journals and attracts the most selective grants. Under such circumstances, the work-arounds themselves become an insidious mechanism that allows researchers to stay in academia but systematically marginalizes their voices and epistemic ambitions in the process.

中文翻译：

---

重新规范学术生涯？瑞典环境科学研究中心的跨学科实践和职业发展

跨学科通常被认为对于解决当代社会的复杂问题和实现新的创新水平至关重要。但是，虽然科学政策和机构为刺激整个欧洲的跨学科工作提供了各种激励措施，但也有越来越多的证据表明，学术体系的某些方面不一定奖励跨学科工作。在这项研究中，我们探讨了瑞典环境科学研究中心的职业中期研究人员如何处理和处理因制度和政策冲动冲突而产生的不同形式的不确定性。我们的材料表明，跨学科的学者经常面临并有时以一种令人惊讶的二分法、充满价值的观点来看待他们的研究实践。学科性主要与科学严谨的理想联系在一起，而跨学科性则与面向应用的工作和缺乏“理论”混为一谈。我们还提请注意再现这种紧张局势并将其与学术社会化过程本身纠缠在一起的潜在实践动力。具体来说，我们分析了研究人员依赖的各种变通方法的矛盾后果，以在异质资金环境中为正在进行的跨学科研究创造机会。事实证明，这些策略被大学正式职业激励的压倒一切的规范力量所破坏，它继续强调在学科期刊上发表文章并吸引最具选择性的资助的个别高绩效学者的理想。在这样的情况下，