Some requests are clearly tricky from the moment they are raised: “Find someone who understands both materials and clinical work,” “a doctor who has done machine learning and also understands clinical practice,” “is there anyone with a social science background who has studied this direction?” Such requests are difficult for two reasons: first, you are not quite sure which department or discipline these people are usually affiliated with; second, even if you think of one or two, you are not sure whether there are others.
Finding people becomes much easier with a different approach: instead of first thinking “who is suitable,” first define “which areas might have someone.” This is exactly the path supported by MuchSci’s talent profiles—it lays out publicly available CVs and achievements as structured fields, turning the question of “whether someone is cross-disciplinary” from a feeling into something verifiable. This article explains how to follow this path.
01 Split one area into two halves
First, look at the workflow.
▲ Figure 1 | Step 3 is key: interdisciplinary people often leave traces in the lists for both areas
The first step is to split the area apart. “Understands both A and B” is not a description that can be searched directly—it describes a person’s combined characteristics, not any single searchable criterion. Split it into two independent areas, and only then does each area have an operable description of its research field.
The second step is to find candidates for each, pulling lists separately for the two areas; there is no need to find them all at once. Expectations for this step should be lowered: the goal is not to find ten people, but to map out the active populations in both areas.
The third step is to take the intersection, and it is the most critical step on this path. Interdisciplinary researchers usually leave traces in both areas—their papers are listed under one area, and their projects under the other. People who appear on both lists are worth checking first.
The fourth step is to supplement with individual experts, identifying those who appear only on one area’s list but whose profile shows clear signs of cross-field work—for example, their educational background is in area A, while their employer is a B field institution. The fifth step is to verify affiliation, confirming whether the research direction and ongoing projects truly match, and avoiding “looks interdisciplinary but is not actually interdisciplinary.”
02 Finding by impression vs. finding by area intersection
Both paths can lead to people; the difference lies in coverage and explainability.
▲ Figure 2 | For the same goal, the difference between the two approaches lies in whether you “first think of someone” or “first define the scope”
The starting point of finding by impression is “first thinking of a specific person”, and its coverage is limited by whom you know. For recommending people within a small internal scope, this approach is highly efficient; but when finding a group of people across institutions and disciplines, it often misses more than it finds—people you do not know are simply missed.
The starting point of finding by area intersection is “first defining the scope of two areas”, and coverage is determined by the areas, not limited by personal networks. Going through both areas will noticeably reduce omissions. A more practical benefit is explainability: you can state which areas a person falls under, rather than saying “I think he should be suitable.”
The two approaches are not actually in conflict. A pragmatic way is: first use area intersection to identify a batch of candidates, then supplement with a few from impression, making use of both coverage and personal networks.
03 Interdisciplinary matching requires finding relationships between fields
For matching within a single area, looking at one field is enough; for interdisciplinary matching, you need to establish connections among several fields.
▲ Figure 3 | The basis for interdisciplinary judgment is usually hidden in “experience” and “achievements,” not in the “research area” column
The area field is the first layer: how the research area is described, and whether the descriptions of the two areas can be aligned. This layer determines the scope of initial screening.
The experience field is the second layer, and also the real anchor for interdisciplinary judgment. The major in one’s educational background, the nature of one’s employer, and even the trajectory of movement across institutions may all leave traces in the profile of “having been exposed to another area.” Many people list only one area as their research area, but their experience shows that they have crossed boundaries.
The achievement field is the third layer: whether the projects led and academic contributions span both areas. This layer is the hardest—project names and academic contributions are concrete records, and they explain more than descriptions of research areas.
Only by looking at the two layers together can you judge with reasonable confidence whether “this person understands both A and B.” This is also why MuchSci stores research areas, educational background, and employment history in three separate tables—interdisciplinary clues can never be written out by any single column; they are hidden in the gaps between columns.
04 Interface: areas and experience are both laid out clearly
The fields this judgment relies on are stored separately in the profile.
▲ Figure 4 | Research areas and educational background are presented separately, so cross-field traces can be seen at a glance
In the basic information, “research area” is listed as a separate column, while education is an independent table—school, major, and result arranged by time. Looking at the two together reveals signals such as “research area is A, educational major is B.”
The employment history section is especially useful for interdisciplinary talent search:
▲ Figure 5 | Employment history shows the trajectory of changes in institutions and positions; movement across institutions is an observable signal
Changes in the nature of an institution and switches in position type often suggest a shift or intersection in research direction. This information is usually smoothed over in a “one-paragraph bio,” but once it is split into a table by time and institution, it becomes evidence that can be compared row by row.
05 Boundaries
① This article discusses the approach to finding people and the available fields; it does not constitute a promise of results. Whether suitable people can be found depends on the availability and coverage of public information; interdisciplinary combinations are often niche groups, and the completeness of public information varies.
② Fields matching does not mean the person is suitable. The profiles organize public information and do not constitute an evaluation of anyone’s ability, a recommendation, or an endorsement; alignment between research areas and experience is only a screening clue, and the final judgment must be independently verified by the user, who bears responsibility.
③ Only public information is used. No personal privacy data is involved; when used for formal purposes such as review or recruitment, the current regulations and procedures of the relevant organization shall prevail.