Cross-sectional analysis reveals academic field strongly predicts immediate faculty employment for interdisciplinary doctoral graduates, indicating traditional disciplinary hiring practices persist.
Purpose Interdisciplinary research is increasingly promoted as essential to solving society’s complex problems, yet little is known about whether doctoral graduates who most fully engage in interdisciplinary training – those completing interdisciplinary dissertations – are rewarded within academic labor markets that remain deeply disciplinary. This study aims to examine the individual and institutional factors that influence the likelihood that interdisciplinary dissertation completers in the USA obtain faculty positions immediately after graduation. Faculty employment is a critical outcome for understanding whether doctoral education reproduces the interdisciplinary capacity it seeks to build. Design/methodology/approach Using 2021 microdata from the U.S. Survey of Earned Doctorates containing 12,104 doctoral graduates across 130 institutions, hierarchical generalized linear models were estimated with graduates nested within institutions to test predictors of immediate faculty employment. Findings Broad field of study was the strongest predictor of faculty employment for interdisciplinary dissertation completers, while demographic and institutional characteristics showed limited associations once disciplinary field was accounted for suggesting that national policies promoting interdisciplinarity have not yet reshaped disciplinary hiring logics. Originality/value By focusing on interdisciplinary dissertation completers, this study extends graduate student socialization theory and provides new evidence on the alignment – or misalignment – between national policy goals promoting interdisciplinarity and the realities of academic hiring. Implications for graduate schools, departments and faculty mentoring practices are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lawrence et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: