Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts

The paper addresses the central challenge of integration in inter- and trans-disciplinary (ITD) research, defining integration as processes and outputs that combine perspectives across disciplines and among research, policy, and practice to develop comprehensive understandings and socially robust solutions to complex problems. The authors pose the overarching question, “What are integration experts?” and argue for establishing academic careers for such experts who specialize in leading, administering, managing, monitoring, assessing, accompanying, and advising integration in ITD projects and programs. To explore the nature and roles of integration experts, the authors organized a workshop at the ITD 2019 Conference (Gothenburg, Sweden) with 47 participants and 8 organizers from diverse disciplines, regions, institutions, and roles. They summarize results around four subquestions: roles, motivations, personal qualities/expertise, and career challenges, and triangulate insights with literature from ITD, SciTS, and STS. The study’s purpose is to illuminate integration expertise, discuss unintended consequences of professionalizing it, and suggest concrete ways to support integration experts in academia.

Integration is widely recognized as a key challenge and determinant of success in ITD research. The literature highlights multiple meanings and dimensions of integration (cognitive, social, emotional) and its occurrence across phases of ITD projects, producing outputs such as frameworks, methods, and tools. Prior work addresses: frameworks for cross-disciplinary integration (O'Rourke et al., Pohl et al.), challenges of leading integration (Tress et al.; Hoffmann et al.), necessary expertise (interactional, referred) and roles (Bammer; Defila & Di Giulio), and methods to support integration (dialogue methods, quality criteria). The paper positions integration experts within related communities and roles (SciTS, STS; knowledge brokers, boundary spanners, Third Space Professionals), noting persistent issues in recognition, evaluation, and reward structures for ITD work. The literature also flags risks in ITD careers: job insecurity, miscategorization as service roles, and difficulty aligning with discipline-centric evaluation criteria. This study contributes by empirically synthesizing workshop-based insights with these literatures to elaborate the nature, roles, expertise, and career contexts of integration experts.

Design: A qualitative workshop study conducted at the ITD 2019 Conference, titled “Is there a new profession of integration experts on the rise?”. Participants: 47 attendees and 8 organizers from diverse disciplines (e.g., environmental sciences, engineering, anthropology, philosophy, economics), regions (Europe, Australia, North and South America, Africa), institution types (research institutes, institutes of technology, traditional universities, universities of applied sciences), and roles (vice president for research, ITD center/lab directors, professors, group leaders, postdocs, PhDs, research assistants), plus networks (ITD Alliance, INSciTS, i2S, AIS). Participation did not require being an integration expert; interest in the topic sufficed. Procedures: The workshop combined think-pair-share and world café methods. Think-pair-share asked participants: “How do you (or others) conceive your role regarding integration in ITD projects or programs?” (5 min individual, 20 min pair discussion, 15 min plenary sharing). World café: two rounds; participants discussed one of four subquestions for 20 minutes per round, rotating tables: (1) roles of integration experts; (2) motivations; (3) personal qualities and expertise; (4) career challenges. Data collection and analysis: Discussions were audio recorded with consent; sticky notes produced by participants were also collected. Materials were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2008). Findings were triangulated with relevant ITD, SciTS, and STS literature. An illustrative case (Box 1) from the “Wings” ITD program was used to detail the daily work and dual service/research roles of integration experts and the use of reflective tools (e.g., Theory of Change; a five-question reflection tool) to manage cognitive, social, and emotional integration challenges.

• Roles of integration experts: They assume multiple, shifting roles depending on purpose, scale, and context, including Bridge Builders, Boundary Crossers, Translators, Catalysts, Facilitators, Contributors (intellectual scholarship), Mediators (addressing power and conflict), Advisors (coaching and capacity building), and Evaluators (monitoring and assessing integration and outputs). Roles can be distributed across a small complementary team to mitigate overload.
• Motivations: Intrinsic drive to “take ITD seriously,” address complex societal and environmental problems, generate socially robust solutions, foster societal change, and engage with the intellectual and practical challenge of integration. Positive reinforcement arises when integrated outcomes are recognized by teams.
• Personal qualities and expertise: Openness, curiosity, creativity, sociability, persistence, patience, reflexivity, modesty, humility; willingness to be vulnerable; tolerance for ambiguity and instability; optimism and trust in the process; big-picture/holistic thinking. Crucially, interactional expertise (ability to speak across fields) and referred expertise (experience contributing in some field applied to another) are key; contributory expertise in every integrated field is not required. Essential abilities include reflective practice, lowering ego, understanding disciplinary worldviews, and constructive conflict navigation, leveraging “creative tension.” A central challenge is balancing closeness to and distance from the topic to earn respect without narrowing openness.
• Career challenges: Discipline-centric structures and evaluation criteria foster “box-ticking” cultures that do not fit hybrid roles, producing “in-betweenness,” liminality, and invisible leadership with “responsibility without authority.” Career paths are unmapped, requiring individuals to “carve out their own niche”; risks include job insecurity, burnout, and being perceived as pursuing “academic suicide” with low chances for tenure. Misclassification as mere coordinators/administrators diminishes intellectual contributions. Lack of permanent positions and long-term funding leads to attrition and erosion of ITD-specific expertise.
• Daily work illustration (Wings case): Integration experts simultaneously hold service (designing/facilitating ToC processes) and creative research roles (linking disciplinary perspectives, developing integrative frameworks), manage increased workload, and use reflective tools to navigate cognitive, social, and emotional dimensions (e.g., balancing heterogeneity/homogeneity to avoid counterproductive discomfort or understimulation).

The findings address the core question—what integration experts are and do—by detailing a multi-role, multi-competency profile that extends beyond coordination to substantive intellectual contributions in knowledge production and evaluation. Integration experts are pivotal to realizing the integrative potential of ITD projects by designing and facilitating processes, bridging perspectives, managing conflicts, and producing integrated outputs. Yet, current academic structures, evaluations, and career paths inadequately recognize or reward these contributions, leading to liminality and attrition. The paper discusses potential unintended consequences of establishing careers for integration experts: (1) demanding dual expectations of disciplinary excellence and integration leadership risk burnout; (2) professionalizing into a standalone discipline could isolate experts from the enculturation necessary for interactional expertise; (3) team members might offload integration responsibilities onto designated experts, undermining mutual learning. The results underscore the need for systemic reforms—funding, metrics, communities, and institutional dialogues—to legitimize and support integration expertise while maintaining collaborative ownership of integration across teams.

The study articulates the role, motivations, competencies, and challenges of integration experts and calls for establishing academic careers that recognize and support integration as central to ITD success. It proposes four complementary actions: (a) create an international Community of Practice under the ITD Alliance to foster peer exchange, visibility, and structural transformation ideas; (b) systematically study integration-expert and related hybrid careers to document pathways, best practices, and successful permanent roles; (c) explicitly fund integration positions and activities and align ITD metrics to evaluate integration quality and outputs; (d) strengthen collaborative dialogue with institutions and funders to share evidence and lessons, catalyzing the creation and legitimation of academic positions. Ultimately, to address pressing societal and environmental challenges, academia must “integrate its integrators.” Future research should empirically investigate career trajectories, institutional change levers, evaluation frameworks for integration, and team-level strategies that distribute integrative roles without overburdening individuals.

The study is based on a single workshop (47 participants, 8 organizers) with self-selected attendees from diverse but primarily academic contexts, with minimal representation from funding agencies (only one participant noted). Findings derive from qualitative content analysis of recorded discussions and workshop artifacts, triangulated with literature, and may not capture all potential consequences or perspectives on integration careers. Roles and contexts vary across institutions and projects; generalizability is therefore limited. The authors explicitly note they do not claim to cover all unintended consequences. Data are not publicly available but can be requested from the corresponding author.