ASU named one of the world’s top universities for interdisciplinary science

Arizona State University (ASU) has been highlighted as one of the world’s top universities for interdisciplinary science, according to a recent announcement on the university’s news platform. The recognition underscores the growing emphasis within academia on research that crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries to address complex societal and scientific challenges.

What the recognition means

Being named a top institution for interdisciplinary science typically reflects a combination of factors: the volume and citation impact of publications that bridge multiple fields, the presence of institutional programs and centers designed to facilitate cross‑disciplinary work, and demonstrable outcomes such as translational research, patents and external collaborations.

Ranking bodies and analytic platforms use different approaches to identify and compare interdisciplinary performance. Some rely on bibliometrics — for example, tracking co‑authorship across Web of Science subject categories or measuring citations in journals spanning multiple fields — while others combine bibliometric measures with surveys of research leadership, funding portfolio analyses and case studies of flagship interdisciplinary projects.

ASU’s news release noted the recognition as an external assessment of the university’s capacity and output in interdisciplinary science. The release highlighted institutional investments in cross‑cutting research centers and programs and asserted that interdisciplinary work is central to the university’s strategic model of research and education. For more on the announcement, see ASU News: https://news.asu.edu/.

How interdisciplinary science is measured

Measurements vary by source but typically include one or more of the following elements:

• Bibliometric indicators: counts of publications that list authors from multiple disciplines, co‑classification of articles into multiple subject categories, and citation impact of such publications. Organizations such as the Nature Index and analyses based on Clarivate and Scopus/WoS data often form the backbone of these assessments.


• Institutional inputs: the number of interdisciplinary centers, institutes and degree programs; policies that encourage cross‑appointments and seed funding; and dedicated administrative structures to support team science.


• Research outputs and outcomes: patents, spin‑out companies, policy contributions, and demonstrably translational projects that require multiple fields (for example, bioengineering projects combining biology, materials science and computing).


• Collaborative networks: international and cross‑sector partnerships, including industry ties and government collaborations that span domains.

Each measurement approach has trade‑offs. Bibliometrics provide scalable, comparable data but can undercount boundary‑spanning work that is published in niche outlets or in non‑English languages. Institutional surveys capture structural commitment but can be subjective and influenced by reporting practices.

ASU’s interdisciplinary infrastructure

ASU has long emphasized a model it calls the "New American University," a strategic approach that stresses inclusivity, entrepreneurship and problem‑driven research. Several visible components of ASU’s interdisciplinary portfolio include:

• The Biodesign Institute, which brings together researchers in biology, engineering, materials science and informatics for projects spanning diagnostics, environmental monitoring and biosecurity. (See: Biodesign Institute.)


• The School for the Future of Innovation in Society, which integrates social science, humanities and technical disciplines to study innovation pathways and governance. (See: School for the Future of Innovation in Society.)


• The Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability and Innovation, which organizes climate, sustainability and urban systems research across disciplinary lines. (See: Global Institute of Sustainability and Innovation.)


• Cross‑campus initiatives and seed funding mechanisms aimed at bringing faculty from engineering, life sciences, social sciences and arts into collaborative teams.

These structures are typical of universities that score well on interdisciplinary measures: physical centers to house collaborative teams, incentive structures for cross‑department appointments, and seed funding that lowers barriers for faculty to pursue joint proposals.

Data and trends: why interdisciplinarity matters now

Interdisciplinary research has gained prominence for several reasons. First, many contemporary scientific and societal problems — climate change, pandemics, sustainable energy, food security — inherently require knowledge and methods from multiple disciplines to produce useful solutions. Second, funders increasingly target interdisciplinary teams as part of large‑scale initiatives; major national and international grants often solicit collaborative proposals that merge fundamental and applied perspectives.

Bibliometric studies show increasing cross‑field collaboration over the past two decades. A review of publication trends in major databases indicates the proportion of journal articles with co‑authors from multiple Web of Science subject categories and the average number of fields represented on author lists have both risen substantially since the early 2000s. Organizations including the Nature Index and Times Higher Education have incorporated indicators designed to capture this dynamic.

At the policy level, research councils and philanthropic funders have launched large interdisciplinary initiatives. The U.S. National Science Foundation, for example, has created programs that explicitly aim to catalyze team science and convergence research across engineering, physical, life and social sciences. The European Union’s Horizon programmes and national research agencies similarly prioritize interdisciplinary consortia.

Expert perspectives

Experts emphasize both the promise and the practical challenges of interdisciplinary work.

"Institutions that succeed in interdisciplinary science do more than co‑locate people — they build governance frameworks, evaluation criteria and reward systems that recognize collaborative contributions," said an experienced research administrator who studies university transformation. "That means tenure and promotion processes that value team contributions, transparent mechanisms for allocating indirect costs, and administrative support for complex grant management."

Another research leader specializing in science policy commented: "Bibliometric indicators are useful, but they are proxies. To understand whether interdisciplinary teams are producing societal value, we need mixed methods — case studies, evaluation of translational outcomes, and long‑term follow up on the adoption of technologies and policies."

These observations are consistent with analyses by independent organizations. For a discussion of measurement challenges in interdisciplinary research, see the National Academies report and analyses in leading journals such as Nature and Science, which have published commentaries on evaluating team science and convergence research.

Benefits and challenges at the institutional level

Benefits of a strong interdisciplinary profile include:

• Access to larger, more diverse funding opportunities that prioritize multi‑investigator and multi‑institution proposals.


• Enhanced capacity to translate research findings into technologies, policies and community practices.


• Increased visibility and reputational gains in rankings and media attention, which can support recruitment and philanthropy.

At the same time, universities face specific challenges when pushing interdisciplinarity:

• Evaluation and reward systems: traditional tenure and promotion models often emphasize single‑discipline excellence, making it difficult to fairly assess collaborative contributions.


• Funding and administrative complexity: large interdisciplinary projects require more complex budgeting, project management and compliance oversight.


• Curriculum alignment: designing interdisciplinary degree programs that retain academic rigor while integrating disparate methodologies can be administratively demanding.

How ASU compares to global benchmarks

Direct comparisons across universities depend on the ranking or analytic framework used. Large, research‑intensive universities that score well on interdisciplinarity metrics typically share certain attributes:

• Substantial research expenditure and diversified funding portfolios.


• Dedicated interdisciplinary institutes and graduate programs.


• Strong external partnerships with industry, government and non‑governmental organizations.

ASU exhibits many of these attributes. It is among the largest U.S. public universities by enrollment and has invested heavily in research infrastructure and interdisciplinary institutes. For further institutional context, see ASU’s research overview and unit pages: ASU Research, Biodesign Institute.

Case examples of interdisciplinary research at ASU

Several illustrative projects highlight the type of cross‑disciplinary work that contributes to such recognitions:

• Bioengineering and diagnostics projects at the Biodesign Institute that combine molecular biology, materials science and data analytics to develop point‑of‑care testing and environmental sensors.


• Urban resilience and sustainability initiatives that integrate climate science, policy analysis, economic modeling and community engagement to design adaptation strategies for cities in arid regions.


• Work at the intersection of AI, ethics and public policy, where computing researchers collaborate with social scientists and legal scholars to study deployment risks and governance frameworks for emerging technologies.

These examples reflect broader trends in which technical innovation is paired with governance and societal considerations, a pattern that ranking methodologies often treat as characteristic of high‑value interdisciplinary output.

Implications for students, faculty and policy

Recognition for interdisciplinary strength can influence several university constituencies. For students, it can mean more opportunities for project‑based learning with real‑world complexity and exposure to diverse methodological toolkits. For faculty, it can open access to collaboration networks and large grants but also raises questions about career incentives and workload distribution.

From a policy perspective, universities that demonstrate capacity for interdisciplinary research may be better positioned to receive mission‑oriented funding — for example, large grants for climate mitigation, pandemic preparedness or infrastructure resilience. Policymakers and funders consequently monitor institutional capacities when designing calls for proposals.

Limitations of rankings and assessments

While helpful for benchmarking, rankings and lists have important limits. A few considerations:

• Methodological opacity: some ranking methodologies are proprietary, and their weighting of different indicators may not be transparent.


• Context sensitivity: interdisciplinary strengths can be context‑specific; excellence in one cross‑field area (such as climate and urban systems) does not imply excellence in another (such as computational neuroscience and humanities).


• Potential perverse incentives: an excessive focus on metrics can encourage strategic behavior that optimizes scores rather than fostering genuinely integrative science.

For readers seeking to interpret any single recognition, it is important to review the underlying methodology and to consider qualitative evidence, such as case studies of translational impact.

What comes next for ASU

For ASU, sustaining and extending interdisciplinary strengths will likely require continued institutional attention to several areas:

• Alignment of reward systems with collaborative performance, ensuring equitable credit for team science in promotion and hiring decisions.


• Investments in administrative capacity for managing multi‑partner grants and complex compliance requirements.


• Continued development of transdisciplinary curricula that prepare students for the complexity of contemporary research and practice.

Institutional leaders who spoke about the recognition in ASU’s announcement framed it as validation of an ongoing strategy rather than an endpoint. According to the university’s release, the recognition will be used to guide future investments and partnerships aimed at addressing large‑scale societal challenges.

Conclusion

Arizona State University’s inclusion among the world’s top institutions for interdisciplinary science reflects both the university’s long‑term strategic emphasis on cross‑cutting research and broader shifts in the research ecosystem that favor team‑based, problem‑driven science. Such recognitions depend on how interdisciplinarity is defined and measured, and they come with both practical benefits and institutional responsibilities. For universities, funders and policymakers, the key tasks are to support rigorous evaluation of interdisciplinary outcomes, align incentives to reward collaborative work fairly, and invest in administrative and curricular structures that turn boundary‑spanning research into tangible societal impact.

Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information and does not represent investment or legal advice.