In theory, interdisciplinary research should embody the connection and integration of different disciplines' tools, approaches and communities. In the literature, the concept refers to collaboration, complementarity and synthesis. However, there are instances where interdisciplinary research, whether conducted individually or collectively, faces criticism for being asymmetrical or even imperialistic. This criticism arises when social resources, epistemic frameworks, ontological views, and normative stances are unbalanced, favoring one discipline over others. In such contexts, one perspective dominates across all these dimensions, resulting in the devaluation of alternative perspectives involved in the research. This normative paper explores and provides examples of two contrasting approaches to interdisciplinarity drawn from complexity sciences: the "expansionistic" approach and the "merging" approach. The former is examined through a critical analysis of a case study on "urban science," while the latter offers a normative proposal based on examples from "computational social sciences." The article draws upon interview data and bibliographic materials, and mobilizes the concept of "boundary work" coined by Thomas Gieryn to describe the strategies employed by scientists to establish and safeguard their socio-epistemic boundaries.