Having worked across disciplinary borders for over a decade, I am very happy to announce a ew publication that was a lot of fun to develop and write, and that is indeed very close to my heart: my conceptual guide to non-unidisciplinary research in European Studies (in the volume ‘Towards Non-Unidisciplinary Research in European Studies‘, ed. by Andreas Moberg). This article seeks to offer a hands-on, low-threshold guide for researchers, students and practitioners alike who wish to incorporate interdisciplinary elements into their work. But more than that, this is a call to rethink how we design, communicate, and build upon research in a way that fosters genuine dialogue across disciplines.
Why ‘Non-Unidisciplinary’?
You might wonder why I chose the term non-unidisciplinary over the more familiar interdisciplinary. The answer lies in nuance (and is expertly explained in the introduction to the volume by Andreas Moberg). In very brief terms, while interdisciplinarity often implies a full integration of disciplines, non-unidisciplinarity allows for flexibility – from incorporating a single concept from another field to designing a fully interdisciplinary project. It’s about opening doors, not necessarily merging rooms.
Three Dimensions of Interdisciplinary Thinking
In the guide, I provide a hands-on manual to non-unidisciplinary research. For the underlying framework of its step-by-step structure, I took inspiration from Vivien A. Schmidt’s triad of input, output and throughput legitimacy in EU governance. Namely, I suggest to think about non-unidisciplinary research from a three-dimensional perspective, bringing together:
- Input Interdisciplinarity: This is abou how we design our research and how we generate findings.
- Output Interdisciplinarity: This is about how we communicate our findings, making them accessible and relevant to scholars and practitioners beyond our own field.
- Throughput Interdisciplinarity: This is about how we can lay the groundwork for future interdisciplinary research – by others or indeed ourselves, in similar or other contexts.
The guide discusses each of these three dimensions, including practical steps, pitfalls to avoid, and strategies for reflection. My goal was to make these guidelines applicable whether you’re writing a student essay, a policy brief, or a monograph.
Lessons Learned (and Still Learning)
Writing this chapter was as much a personal journey as a scholarly one. I found myself revisiting my own disciplinary toolboxes – political science, history, and linguistics – and asking: What am I missing? What could I borrow? What could I share?
One of the most rewarding insights was realizing that non-unidisciplinarity doesn’t dilute disciplinary rigor – it enriches it. It challenges us to articulate our assumptions, justify our choices, and reflect on our methods in ways that deepen our understanding.
Finally, I’d like to add that I learned a lot from the other authors who contributed to the volume, both through their contributions and the very engaging discussions we had in the drafting and publication process. Indeed, the other chapters in the book are also immensely insightful and very engaging and simply fun to read!