The power of diverse teams is something I’ve touched upon a number of times over the years, and so potent are these interdisciplinary teams that something known as cluster hiring has emerged as a phenomenon in higher education.  It’s a practice that emerged in the late 1990s and seeks to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration by bringing together experts from a range of fields to tackle various grand challenges of their age.

New research from the University of California, Riverside explores the pros and cons of what is an increasingly popular practice.  The researchers surveyed a few hundred cluster hires from 20 universities spread across the United States.

They then compared this with the research output of these institutions to gauge whether they were more productive, both in terms of the quantity and quality of their research.  The analysis revealed a general lack of evidence supporting cluster hiring in terms of its ability to encourage multi-disciplinary collaboration.

“Most respondents indicated that their cluster group did not have an agreed-upon agenda (60 percent), and a similar majority said they collaborated with others in their cluster group less than 10 percent of the time (62 percent),” the researchers say. “Indeed, nearly one quarter of respondents (23 percent) said they did not collaborate at all with members of their cluster group.”

An ambivalent picture

By and large, the researchers found an ambivalent picture, with many revealing that a lack of adequate lab space or a shared research agenda tended to hobble many collaborative efforts.  This led many commentators to complain about the lack of organizational structure in cluster groups.

The study suggests that Penn State was the most effective user of cluster hiring, due in part to their long-term approach to talent acquisition, and the strategic deployment of the approach in areas where a comparative advantage already existed.  It was also common for clusters to have clear expectations from the outset, which helped to eliminate any tensions from arising.

“Such planning is far removed from most of what we observe in our survey responses, and in our interviews with administrators and cluster leads,” the researchers explain. “The majority of our respondents participated in groups that … operate more like small departments than as cohesive research units, with participating professors interacting and collaborating infrequently as they pursue their individual research careers.”

So it’s perhaps fair not to rule out the effectiveness of cluster hiring entirely, but to urge universities to do a better job of implementing the approach.