Interdisciplinary integration has become an important pathway for original innovation, with the institutionalized promotion of interdisciplinary construction emerging as a shared trend. The dual attributes of interdisciplinary studies, specifically disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, give rise to the organizational logics of disciplines and intersections within the interdisciplinary organizational structure. The tension and balance between these logics necessitate that the organizational structure reconcile the relationships among: (1) interest-driven and task-driven approaches, (2) institutionalization and specialization, (3) the quantity and diversity of involved disciplines, (4) disciplinary independence and interdisciplinary integration, and (5) disciplinary development and talent cultivation. To achieve disciplinary outcomes while preserving interdisciplinarity, it is necessary for the interdisciplinary organizational structure to focus on integrative activities and processes. By leveraging the openness and generative nature of integration through the reorganization of disciplinary resource modules within the organizational structure, the framework maintains organic and evolutionary qualities to promote synergy between disciplines their intersections. Therefore, it can extend the lifecycle of interdisciplinary organizations and enhance the quality of interdisciplinary development.

To examine the structural characteristics of university-initiated interdisciplinary studies in Chinese higher education institutions (HEIs), this study measured the diversity and coherence of the interdisciplinary studies using official data released by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. The findings revealed that interdisciplinary interactions occur across most disciplines of HEIs, with particularly wide interdisciplinary spans emerging in social sciences. Computer Science and Management Science are prominent supporting disciplines in interdisciplinarity. Additionally, current interdisciplinary studies predominantly cluster in five domains, namely, intelligent engineering, life medicine, materials informatics, politics and economy, and history and culture. Accordingly, emerging interdisciplinary studies are anticipated in technology-humanities and social governance. It is suggested that HEIs strategically incorporate diversity and coherence considerations when formulating interdisciplinary development plans and implementing systematic top-level designs to advance categorized interdisciplinary construction.

There are various categorization systems and developmental logics regarding disciplinary intersection, ranging from multidisciplinary to transdisciplinary. At the theoretical level, this study defined disciplinary intersection in the Chinese context from the perspective of disciplinary boundaries. It contributed to distinguishing the varying levels of integration among multidisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary studies. At the practical level, taking Tongji University as a case study, this study analyzed the practical path of promoting disciplinary intersection and complementary strengths among 46 disciplines across the university through a disciplinary cluster approach. The analysis was conducted from three perspectives, including disciplinary planning, institutional optimization, and sustainable development. The study revealed that disciplinary clusters are currently evolving between the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary stages, serving as an effective pathway for disciplinary intersection. The clusters have established a sustainable cyclical framework that integrates top-down guidance with bottom-up exploration to promote disciplinary intersection and interdisciplinary integration.

High-level interdisciplinary teams are a crucial pillar for research universities aiming to advance toward the Double First-Class Initiative and to foster interdisciplinary integration. This study developed a framework for understanding the impact mechanisms and action strategies of high-level interdisciplinary team development through qualitative analysis of nine case teams from two research universities. It found that survival is an antecedent for research teams to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration, with key actors serving as a mediating variable to enhance team development. The interaction of institutions, resources, and culture shapes the development space, which in turn determines the team’s strategic space. High-level interdisciplinary teams implement action strategies, including establishing long-term mechanisms, cultivating comparative advantages, and optimizing organizational ecosystems, to achieve rapid breakthroughs. To advance the high-quality development of interdisciplinary teams, it is essential to enhance interdisciplinary integration and implement targeted, systemic, organizational, and fundamental measures across multiple dimensions, such as resources, institutions, and culture. These efforts would facilitate a multidimensional environment conducive to interdisciplinary teams’ development.

This study examined the interdisciplinary centers in 32 leading research universities in China, analyzing their construction characteristics and challenges across four dimensions: organizational structure, institutional culture, disciplinary teams, and resource tools. The findings indicated that the interdisciplinary centers in China’s leading research universities demonstrated openness during their construction process. Specifically, it was characterized by cross-regional organizational collaboration, cross-boundary institutional integration, collaboration among disciplinary teams, and complementary resource tool utilization. However, they still encountered several challenges throughout the process, such as insufficient connectivity of open spaces, limited flexibility of institutional culture, suboptimal coordination of disciplinary team composition, and constrained resource tool diversity with marginal support efficacy. This study proposed that interdisciplinary centers implement four key measures. Firstly, establish a dual-layer open organizational structure that combines physical and virtual spaces to enhance spatial flexibility. Secondly, foster an open institutional culture that deeply integrates research and education. Thirdly, build an open disciplinary team network to strengthen teaching-research collaboration. Fourthly, develop an open resource toolkit for efficient demand identification and precise resource allocation. Collectively, these measures aim to enhance the operational efficiency of interdisciplinary centers and support their deeper integration into open innovation ecosystems.

This study developed a comprehensive analytical framework integrating entry, environment, engagement, and development to empirically examine the effectiveness of doctoral training via advanced interdisciplinary platforms. The results revealed that doctoral students trained via interdisciplinary platforms demonstrated advantages over traditional disciplinary doctoral students in terms of motivation for engaging in doctoral programs, organizational support, and academic engagement. However, they demonstrated relatively lower levels of research output. The extended analysis identified insufficient supervisor support as the primary constraint affecting research output. It is imperative for advanced interdisciplinary platforms to establish high-quality, full-time supervisor teams to ensure adequate faculty support for doctoral training.

This study examined the interdisciplinary construction of integrated circuit science and engineering (ICSE) in China through a multi-case study of the 19 universities authorized to offer primary discipline degree programs. It investigated the overall objectives, teaching frameworks, and institutional mechanisms for independently cultivating outstanding engineers in the field of integrated circuit (IC). The results indicated that three key elements play a pivotal role in talent cultivation: (1) the objective of developing an integrated discipline to support collaborative innovation in the entire industrial chain, (2) the integrated teaching process combining action learning with authentic learning, and (3) the synergistic institutional innovation and innovative science-industry-education integration ecosystem. This study proposed that to improve the quality of independent talent cultivation in key and core technologies, it is urgent to reconstruct an integrated engineering curriculum system, embed authentic engineering learning environments, and build a talent cultivation ecosystem spanning the entire industrial chain.