Supporting Data_Interdisciplinary Collaboration of Science and Engineering PhD Students in China: An Organizational Culture Perspective_PhD Thesis

In an era when real-world problems are not organized into disciplinary categories, future scientists and engineers are expected to comprehend, reconstruct, and integrate complex issues through interdisciplinary learning and collaboration. They face challenges stemming from knowledge, technology, and methodology, as well as from differences in cognition, culture, and epistemology. This study aimed to investigate PhD students’ experiences with interdisciplinary collaboration (IDC) and to help them better understand and address these challenges from an organizational culture perspective.A convergent parallel mixed-methods research design was employed in this research. Three rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted with 48 PhD students from 16 universities. The interview data were analyzed using MAXQDA 24. The <i>Perception of Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration (PIRC) Scale</i> was used in the investigation. A total of 280 valid questionnaires were collected from 38 different universities, and the data were analyzed using SPSS 28.Six dimensions of PhD students’ perceptions of IDC were discussed: <i>Experiences, Motivations, Benefits, Challenges, Career Impacts, </i>and<i> Team Dynamics</i>. The results indicated that: (1) PhD students had a strong positive attitude towards IDC to learn new knowledge, skills, and methodologies; (2) the imbalance in team composition, inexperienced leaders, misunderstandings in communication, unreasonable distribution of benefits, and authorship disputes are the challenges that need special attention; and (3) clear division of responsibilities, a sense of shared commitment, and effective resolution of disagreements is the guarantee of IDC success. Also, PhD students should deal with different “languages” in IDC: expertise, paradigmatic, and cognitive differences.According to Schneider’s four core cultures theory, this study identified four modes and characteristics of IDC: (1) “task-focused, stability-oriented” mode under control culture (Mode 1), emphasizing discipline, clarity, and compliance; (2) “people-focused, connection-oriented” mode under collaboration culture (Mode 2), emphasizing interaction and participation, trust, and harmonious relationships; (3) “expertise-focused, competition-oriented” mode driven by competence culture (Mode 3), emphasizing intense competition and the pursuit of excellence; (4) “growth-focused, value-oriented” mode shaped by cultivation culture (Mode 4), emphasizing the realization of potential and the exploration of possibilities. Therefore, from Schein’s three-level cultural theory, three layers of IDC were discussed: the visible layer (artifacts and structures), the normative layer (espoused beliefs and values), and the tacit layer (underlying basic assumptions). Schneider’s theory was used to analyze the impact of different core cultures on IDC from a static perspective, while Schein’s theory was used to explore how IDC effectiveness was constrained by cultural stratification mechanisms from a dynamic perspective.In summary, IDC is not simply an aggregation of knowledge and researchers from different disciplines, but a socio-cultural process filled with tension, negotiation, and compromise. The success of IDC hinges on how PhD students address the complex challenges comprised of three interconnected levels. Differing understandings of the concept of “interdisciplinarity” may lead PhD students in collaborative settings to make different decisions. These disagreements do not arise spontaneously; their deep-seated roots lie in the multi-layered cultural structures embedded within individuals and collectives. A systemic “paradox of interdisciplinarity” emerges when cultural tensions intersect with the unique institutional environment of Chinese higher education.