Research Supports

Canada’s three federal research funding agencies (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council) recognize that many research questions do not fit neatly within a single discipline [1].

Tri-Agency Definition of Interdisciplinarity:

“The agencies recognize that the terms “multidisciplinary,” “transdisciplinary,” and “interdisciplinary” have different connotations and that there may be a lack of consistency in their usage across and between research disciplines. For the purpose of this committee, “interdisciplinary” is used as an umbrella term to refer to all three concepts inclusively [2].”

To improve the assessment of interdisciplinary investigator-initiated research projects, the Tri-Agency provides applicants with three interdisciplinary committee options. These committees are relevant for SSHRC Insight Grants, SSHRC Insight Development Grants, CIHR Project Grants, and NSERC Discovery

Horizons Grants:

1. Multidisciplinary or Interdisciplinary Humanities Committee

2. Multidisciplinary or Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Committee

3. Tri-Agency Interdisciplinary Peer Review Committee (TAIPR)

This guide from the Office of Education in Research summarizes when to select each committee, common myths and mistakes to avoid, and what reviewers expect. Please see Support Programs to Advance Research Capacity’s (SPARC) new online guide.

Committee Selection

Choosing the correct committee can have a significant impact on how well your proposal is understood and evaluated at peer review. These committees were created to help ensure that applications receive appropriate expert review. Below is a comparison of the three committees.

The Three Interdisciplinary Committees

Committee	Appropriate Research	Crosses SSHRC Disciplines?	Crosses Agency Mandates?
Multidisciplinary or Interdisciplinary Humanities	Multiple humanities disciplines	Yes	No
Multidisciplinary or Interdisciplinary Social Sciences	Multiple social science disciplines	Yes	No
Tri-Agency Interdisciplinary Review	SSHRC + NSERC and/or CIHR	Yes	Yes

1. Multidisciplinary or Interdisciplinary Humanities Committee:

Best suited for projects that integrate multiple humanities disciplines but remain primarily within SSHRC’s mandate*. The project should integrate theories and methods from several humanities fields.

Example: A project that investigates how students develop ethical reasoning and cultural understanding through classroom dialogue, using integrated theories and methods from philosophy, linguistics, history, and literary studies. This project integrates multiple humanities disciplines while remaining within SSHRC’s humanities mandate.

2. The Multidisciplinary or Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Committee:

Best suited for projects integrating multiple social science disciplines but still falls completely within SSHRC’s mandate. Example: A project that investigates how school climate, peer networks, and identity development processes interact to influence students’ sense of belonging and well-being in multicultural educational settings. This project integrates multiple social science disciplines (e.g., sociology, psychology, anthropology, education, political science) while remaining within SSHRC’s social sciences mandate.

3. The Tri-Agency Interdisciplinary Peer Review Committee (TAIPR):

Best suited for projects that cross federal granting agency mandates. This committee is not simply for multidisciplinary SSHRC research. TAIPR is intended for projects that genuinely require integration across two or more of the following domains:

• Social sciences and humanities
• Natural sciences and engineering
• Health and wellness

*SSHRC is a federal research funding agency whose role is to promote and support postsecondary-based research and training in the social sciences and humanities

Example: A project that investigates how social dynamics (e.g., peer interactions, teacher practices), environmental conditions (e.g., noise, air quality, temperature), and biological stress markers (e.g., cortisol, heart rate variability) jointly shape students’ learning, attention, and well-being. This project crosses the agencies’ mandates and requires integration of social science, engineering, and health research. Each domain is essential to answering the research question. This is not a SSHRC education project with a health add-on.

Note: These examples are for illustrative purposes and do not reflect existing projects

What Makes TAIPR Different?

Unlike the two multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary SSHRC committees, TAIPR uses a shared peer review process across SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR. The key difference is that the two SSHRC multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary committees evaluate only SSHRC-mandate research, using SSHRC reviewers and SSHRC scoring. Conversely, the TAIPR committee jointly evaluates a single application, drawing reviewers from SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR. Applicants submit through the agency that best aligns with their dominant research area. The proposal is reviewed by a committee whose expertise spans all three agencies. Funding decisions remain the responsibility of the agency to which the application was submitted.

Common Myths

There are several myths about these committees that can discourage researchers from applying. These myths are based on conversations with researchers at UBC.

1. Myth: Interdisciplinary proposals are held to stricter or inconsistent criteria during peer review.

Response: These committees use a clear definition of “interdisciplinary” as an umbrella term that encompasses multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. In addition, the committees evaluate proposals based on whether they meaningfully integrate two or more Tri-Agency domains.

2. Myth: Interdisciplinary applications are judged by reviewers who lack sufficient expertise across all fields involved.

Response: In reality, these committees are intentionally composed of experts spanning social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and engineering, and health sciences, specifically to evaluate cross-disciplinary work with appropriate breadth and depth.

3. Myth: Interdisciplinary applications are disadvantaged compared to discipline-specific ones.

Response: The committees were created to ensure that projects have a robust, equitable review mechanism. For example, the committees bring together peer reviewers with broad expertise in interdisciplinary research and relevant applications together in one shared interdisciplinary peer review committee. They also consider integration of disciplines as a strength rather than a complication.

4. Myth: Applications to the multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary committees have lower success rates compared to discipline-specific committees.

Response: In the case of TAIPR, success rates were initially lower when the agencies first piloted the committee in 2021. However, success rates for all three committees have increased over time and are similar to discipline-specific committees. As an example, for the 2025 SSHRC Insight Development Grant competition, success rates for TAIPR and the two multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary committees ranged from 55 to 57% (the average success rate across all committees was 53%) [3]. Similarly, for the 2025 SSHRC Insight Grant competition, success rates for TAIPR and the two multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary committees ranged from 40 to 49% (the average success rate across all committees was 40%).

Common Mistakes

Applicants weaken their applications by:

• selecting a multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary committee simply because the project is “broad”
• confusing multidisciplinary (i.e., multiple disciplines are included but not integrated) with
• interdisciplinary (i.e., multiple disciplines are integrated to create new knowledge, methods, or frameworks) [4]
• failing to justify committee selection
• listing multiple disciplines without explaining how they are integrated
• assuming reviewers will infer interdisciplinarity

Questions to Ask Before You Apply

Before selecting an interdisciplinary committee, ask:

• Would it be challenging for my proposal to be adequately reviewed by a single discipline committee?
• Does my research genuinely integrate multiple disciplinary approaches?
• Is the interdisciplinary approach essential to answering the research question?
• Can I clearly explain why this committee is the best fit?

If the answer to these questions is yes, an interdisciplinary committee may provide a more appropriate review environment.

What Reviewers Expect to See

SSHRC requires applicants choosing a multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary committee to submit a one-page justification describing [5]:

• why a discipline-specific committee is not appropriate
• which disciplines are integrated
• what expertise reviewers should possess
• how the project combines theories, methods, or perspectives from multiple disciplines

Across all three committees, reviewers look for:

Genuine Integration:

The proposal should demonstrate integration of disciplines rather than parallel workstreams or superficial references.

Clear Rationale

Applicants should explain why interdisciplinarity is necessary; what each discipline contributes; and why no single discipline could answer the research question

Accessible Writing

Committee members may not be specialists in every discipline represented. Successful proposals define specialized terminology; avoid discipline-specific jargon; explain methods clearly; and emphasize the overarching research question.

Sources:

1. https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/interagency-research-funding/policies-and-guidelines/selecting-appropriate-federal-granting-agency
2. https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/52544.html
3. https://sshrc-crsh.canada.ca/en/competition-results/statistics.aspx
4. https://sshrc-crsh.canada.ca/en/funding/how-applications-are-reviewed/dora.aspx
5. https://sshrc-crsh.canada.ca/en/funding/opportunities/insight-grants/2026/competition/instructions/applicant.aspx#5

Recommended Next Steps

• Are any myths or preconceptions missing from our list? Please contact Nandini Maharaj
• Feel free to reach out to our team if you would like to discuss funding opportunities or grant proposals (Nandini Maharaj, Research Grants Facilitator; Hetty Mulhall, Acting Director, Research Development)