1️⃣ ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

Context and issues — An interdisciplinarity promoted but poorly defined. Interdisciplinarity between SSH and medicine is today widely encouraged: it is required in a growing number of calls for projects and conditions certain structuring funding (§1). Its contours remain vague, the term being polysemous and sometimes confused with "pluridisciplinarity" or "transdisciplinarity" (§1). The article focuses on a specific form — the association SSH ↔ medicine — in a context marked by the rise of medical humanities and the increasing institutionalisation of SSH and nursing sciences in the health field (§8-9). The central question is not doctrinal but experiential: how do these collaborations shape the individual trajectories of researchers who experience them (§10) ?

Contributions — What interdisciplinarity does to pathways. Based on 10 interviews (5 social science researchers, 5 medical researchers), the article identifies three contrasting ways to "enter" into interdisciplinarity, then analyses co-construction as a condition for a balanced commitment and the power relations that traverse it (funding, status, legitimacy). It shows that integrated social sciences "after the fact" are confined to a peripheral role, losing their critical function (§44), that evaluation by journals and bodies rooted in a discipline pushes to " de-interdisciplinarise" the results (§58), and that a strong interdisciplinary commitment can hinder a career even as it is the statutory progression that facilitates it (§60). The final contribution is conceptual: to think of the discomfort of the "border" as an epistemological posture — a productive humility rather than a mere cost (§64).

2️⃣ KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT

1️⃣ A focused qualitative survey that is traceable. 10 semi-structured interviews conducted from March to June 2024, with 5 social science researchers (sociology, philosophy, history, anthropology, law) and 5 medical researchers (public health, haematology, psychiatry, paediatric surgery, anatomopathology), recruited by snowball sampling via ILPEM; protocol approved by the ethics committee of the University of Paris Cité (IRB 00012023-107) (§11-14, Table 1).

2️⃣ Three ways to enter into interdisciplinarity. An "expanded monodisciplinary" pathway (the anthropologist Anne Morel, who starts from solitary work and opens up to doctors then to nurses) ; an "immediately interdisciplinary" pathway (the sociologist Lydia Vial, hybrid from the master's level, in public health) ; a "disciplinary reorientation" pathway (the historian Éric Vernay, a doctor turned historian, "dissatisfied doctor") (§16-30).

3️⃣ Co-construction, implicit norm of "good" interdisciplinarity. Three forms coexist — through the project (team for the duration of a project), through co-supervision of a thesis, and "a posteriori" (late integration of a discipline). The latter is systematically opposed to the ideal: it relegates the SSH to task support (qualitative analysis, dissemination) and restrains their methodological autonomy (§38-46). The "trading zones" and informal times are described as concrete levers (§46).

4️⃣ Power relations structured by funding, status and legitimacy. In a hospital context, funding logics reinforce the dominant position of medical disciplines and restrict the critical function of the SSH (§51). The figure of the "sociologist / service psychologist" serves to validate the interdisciplinary label of a call for projects — instrumentalisation condemned even by doctors (§50). Statutory stability (PU-PH, tenured) widen the scope for manoeuvre (§59).

5️⃣ A career paradox and a re-reading of discomfort. The evaluation by journals and bodies with disciplinary grounding pushes to "de-interdisciplinarise" the productions, at the cost of an analytical impoverishment (§58); interdisciplinary engagement can hinder recognition by peers while it is precisely advancement that facilitates it (§60). The article concludes by proposing to embrace the discomfort of the " border" as epistemic humility and a resource for creativity, even to transform care practices (§62-64).

3️⃣ ACTIONS FOR LOCAL ACTORS

⚠️ Nature reserve (Framework V4). The article provides no tools, checklists or protocols directly transposable to the field of prevention or the medico-social. The suggestions below are reasoned implications of its findings, aimed at actors who build or lead health research/SHS collaborations (or, more broadly, cooperations between professional worlds). They are not presented as recommendations from the text, but as operational readings grounded in its analyses.

1️⃣ Co-construct from the response to the call for projects, not afterwards. The most robust finding of the text: an integrated discipline "a posteriori" can no longer influence orientations and is reduced to a supporting role (§43-45). Specifically: involve the SHS partners in formulating the problem and choosing the methods, upstream of the submission.

2️⃣ Name and prevent "the sociologist service effect". Identify the configurations where an SHS competence is mobilised to tick a box, without real margin (§50). Provide in the project a protected methodological space for inductive/qualitative approaches (§45).

3️⃣ Invest informal times as a device, not as a supplement. In-person meetings, breaks, shared moments function as "exchange zones" that make possible the co-construction (§46): explicitly include them in the organisation, not as "comfort".

4️⃣ Secure the people in fragile positions. The asymmetry of status weighs: a project-funded postdoc is more exposed than a permanent member (§59). Anticipate guarantees (support from a permanent member, clarification of roles) for the contractors engaged in interdisciplinarity.

5️⃣ Anticipate the cost of valorisation. The injunction to "de-interdisciplinarise" for publication undermines the results (§58). Identify in advance truly interdisciplinary supports and integrate this reformatting time into the planned workload.

6️⃣ Treat discomfort as a signal, not as failure. The feeling of "in-between" is not a dysfunction but a posture to be equipped (translation, clarification, epistemic humility) (§62-64) — also useful for any professional working at the boundary of several professions.

Unmet needs (identified by the text itself) : recruitment bias (respondents already committed to interdisciplinarity, more inclined to highlight its benefits) (§62); Franco-French anchoring (structuring role of the hospital and hospital-university statuses) calling for an inter-field and international comparison (§63).

4️⃣ ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

Internally — Health Practices 

• White paper – Inspiring practices in research "done with " (Group of 13, support Cancéropôle Est) — analysis Practices on Health : https://pratiquesensante.odoo.com/blog/announcements-28/livre-blanc-des-pratiques-inspirantes-dans-la-recherche-faite-avec-5544 (rebalancing power relations researchers/participants, co-construction — in direct resonance with §44-52)

• On the participation of children in a co-construction approach in health (C. Boutet, Les Impromptus du LPED n°9, 2025) : https://pratiquesensante.odoo.com/blog/etudes-5/de-la-participation-des-enfants-dans-une-demarche-de-co-construction-en-sante-5248 (co-construction and reflexivity in an interdisciplinary context)

Externally — guides / methodological resources post-2024 

• Inserm, Participatory research (resource page, updated 2026) : https://www.inserm.fr/nos-recherches/recherche-participative/

• The AURA Associative Movement, Practical Guide to Participatory research (online since October 2024) : https://lemouvementassociatif-aura.org/2025/05/08/guide-recherche-participative/

• J. Knight (2025), Methodologies for Research Co-creation in the Social Sciences: Insights and Recommendations From Community-Based Research, International Journal of Qualitative Methods : https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/16094069251356665

 These three external references mainly focus on theRelevance reserve (Framework V4). participatory research (researcher·s ↔ citizen·s/people concerned), an adjacent but distinct register from the object of the article, which deals with interdisciplinarity between researcher·s (SHS ↔ medicine). They are complementary on the co-construction / power relations axis, less so on the axis « interdisciplinary paths and careers ». The most directly comparable references cited in the article (Akrich et al. 2022; Balard, Kivits & Fournier 2023) are prior to 2024 and have therefore not been retained under the criterion « after 2024 ».

5️⃣ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

1️⃣ What does the article actually talk about? The effects of interdisciplinary engagement (SHS + medicine) on the paths of researcher·s: how one enters, how one collaborates, what it costs and brings. It is not a manual for interdisciplinarity (§2, §10).

2️⃣ On what empirical basis? Ten semi-structured interviews (March-June 2024), five from SHS, five from medicine, recruited via the La Personne Institute in medicine, with the agreement of an ethics committee (§11-14).

3️⃣ What is the difference between pluri-, inter- and transdisciplinarity, according to the text? The term is polysemous; the pluri/inter boundary is played out when integration becomes « proactive » (Thompson Klein), with transdisciplinarity referring to a transcendence of boundaries and a transfer of concepts (§1).

4️⃣ What is « co-construction » and why is it central? It is the principle of collaboratively developing the project (issues, methods) rather than adding a discipline at the end of the process. It serves as an implicit quality standard and as a condition for a balanced commitment (§38-46).

5️⃣ Why does the SHS " after the fact" pose a problem? Because it can no longer influence the orientations, is relegated to supplementary tasks (qualitative analysis, dissemination) and loses its critical function — a logic of " juxtaposition" rather than dialogue (§43-45).

6️⃣ What are the main identified obstacles? The funding logics that reinforce medical dominance (§51), the instrumental role of "sociologist/psychologist on duty" (§50), hospital hierarchies and workload (§53-54), the possible disqualification within its own discipline (§55-56), and the disciplinary anchoring of journals that complicates publication (§58).

7️⃣ What is the conclusive thesis? The discomfort of the "border" (neither fully inside, nor fully outside) can be embraced as an epistemological stance: a humility and creativity that, far from being a mere cost, become resources for rethinking research objects and transforming practices (§62-64).

6️⃣ REWRITING IN PLAIN LANGUAGE

What is this document?

• It is a research article.

• It talks about researchers who work together.

• Some come from medicine. Others come from the humanities and social sciences.

• The humanities and social sciences study people and society.

• Working between several disciplines is called interdisciplinarity.

What researchers have done

• The authors asked questions to 10 researchers.

• 5 researchers come from the humanities. 5 researchers come from medicine.

• They conducted these interviews in 2024.

• They wanted to understand how collaborative work changes the lives of researchers.

What they found

• One can start interdisciplinarity in several ways.

• The best is to build the project together from the beginning.

• If humanities are added too late, they have a small role.

• Then they cannot express their critical opinion.

• Money and power play a big role.

• Often, medicine has more power than the humanities.

• Working between two worlds can be uncomfortable.

• But this discomfort can also be useful.

• It helps to think differently.

To remember

• Build together, early, with respect.

• Give every discipline a real place.

• Discomfort is not always a problem. It can help.

7️⃣ CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES

• Literacy : out of scope. The text deals with disciplinary languages between researchers (translation, codes, vocabularies), not with the health literacy of the public.

• Empowerment : treated indirectly, via the disciplinary autonomy of researchers as a condition of their critical function (§48) ; no empowerment of beneficiaries.

• Participation : central in the form of co-construction between researchers (§38-46) ; it is not about citizen participation or users.

• Community health : absent ; the article does not engage the community or territorial collective dimension.

• Ethics : present and solid — protocol validated by an ethics committee (§11), reflexivity, "methodological tact" in the face of disease/death (§36), attention to asymmetries and field violence (§52).

• Human rights : not thematised as such ; the question of equity emerges through the power relations between disciplines, without a human rights framework.

• Intersectorality : to be understood here as inter-disciplinarity (SHS/medicine) rather than health-social-education inter-sectorality ; a related but distinct register.

• Partnership : finely modelled — three forms of co-construction (by project, by co-supervision of thesis, a posteriori) and their effects (§39-45) ; "exchange zones" as a framework for collaboration (§46).

• Fight against discrimination : not central ; HIV/AIDS is mentioned as an object " crystallising inequalities, violence, discrimination" that requires reflexivity (§35), without it being the focus of the article.

8️⃣ EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

Scientific relevance — high (for an exploratory qualitative study). Article published in a peer-reviewed journal (Anthropology & Health, indexed DOAJ, ERIH+, Emerging Sources Citation Index), with DOI, under open licence. Qualitative method explained, documented sample (Table 1), protocol validated by an ethics committee (§11). Dense and updated theoretical anchoring (medical humanities, sociology of professions, reflexivity). Limitations declared by the authors: small sample size (N=10) and snowball recruitment inducing a bias of self-selection (respondents already favourable to interdisciplinarity, §62); results situated within the French context, calling for an inter-field/international comparison (§63). Declared funding: Institut La Personne in medicine (author's note) — to be mentioned for the sake of transparency, with no apparent conflict of interest. Recent publication (May 2026), subsequent to the period of strong reliability of general knowledge: the analysis strictly relies on the provided text.

Operational relevance — indirect / limited. The document does not offer directly usable tools in the field of prevention or social medicine. Its practical value is reflexive and strategic: useful for those who set up or manage health/SHS research collaborations, or who work at the boundary of several professional worlds. For a classic "field" use, it must be translated (as attempted in section 3), not applied as is.

9️⃣ STRATEGIC HASHTAGS

#Interdisciplinarity #HealthResearch #HumanitiesAndSocialSciences #MedicalHumanities #CoConstruction #Reflexivity #HealthAndSociety #healthpractices

This article was developed in accordance with the Charter of the use of artificial intelligence of Health Practices. Click on the image