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 Perception of Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration (PIRC) Scale 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: Experiences, Motivations, Benefits, Challenges, Career Impacts, and Team Dynamics. 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.

在现实问题并未按学科范畴划分的时代，未来的科研与工程人员需通过跨学科学习与协作，理解、重构并整合复杂议题。他们将面临源自知识、技术与方法论层面的挑战，亦需应对认知、文化与认识论层面的差异。本研究旨在探究博士生的跨学科协作（Interdisciplinary Collaboration, IDC）经历，并从组织文化视角助力其更好地理解与应对上述挑战。
本研究采用收敛平行混合方法研究设计。研究人员对来自16所高校的48名博士生开展了三轮半结构化访谈，访谈数据通过MAXQDA 24进行分析。本研究使用跨学科研究合作感知（Perception of Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration, PIRC）量表开展调研，共从38所高校回收有效问卷280份，数据采用SPSS 28进行分析。
本研究探讨了博士生对跨学科协作感知的六个维度：参与经历、动机、收益、挑战、职业影响与团队动态。研究结果显示：（1）博士生对通过跨学科协作学习新知识、技能与方法论持有强烈的积极态度；（2）团队构成失衡、团队负责人经验不足、沟通误解、收益分配不合理以及署名争议是亟需重点关注的挑战；（3）清晰的职责划分、共同的责任感与分歧的有效化解是跨学科协作成功的保障。此外，博士生在跨学科协作中需应对三类不同的“语言”：专业知识差异、范式差异与认知差异。
本研究基于施奈德四核心文化理论，识别出跨学科协作的四种模式与特征：（1）控制型文化下的“任务导向、注重稳定”模式（模式1），强调纪律性、明确性与合规性；（2）协作型文化下的“人际导向、联结导向”模式（模式2），强调互动参与、信任与和谐关系；（3）能力型文化驱动的“专业导向、竞争导向”模式（模式3），强调激烈竞争与对卓越的追求；（4）培育型文化塑造的“成长导向、价值导向”模式（模式4），强调潜能的实现与可能性的探索。据此，本研究基于沙因三层次文化理论，探讨了跨学科协作的三个文化层次：外显层（人工制品与结构）、规范层（倡导的信念与价值观）以及内隐层（底层基本假设）。
本研究运用施奈德理论从静态视角分析不同核心文化对跨学科协作的影响，同时借助沙因理论从动态视角探究跨学科协作效能如何受文化分层机制约束。
综上，跨学科协作绝非不同学科的知识与研究者的简单聚合，而是一个充满张力、协商与妥协的社会文化过程。跨学科协作的成功，取决于博士生如何应对由三个相互关联层次构成的复杂挑战。对“跨学科性”概念的不同理解，可能导致处于协作场景中的博士生做出差异化决策。此类分歧并非自发产生，其深层根源在于嵌入个体与集体之中的多层次文化结构。当文化张力与中国高等教育独特的制度环境相交织时，便会形成系统性的“跨学科性悖论”。