Each discipline favors certain theories and methods and examines certain phenomena (variables). The point to stress here is that disciplinary choices are complementary: a discipline that favors quantitative methods will shun the examination of phenomena that are hard to quantify. Disciplines will adopt philosophical attitudes that accord with their choices of theory and method: quantitative disciplines tend to believe in objectivity and progress in understanding to a greater degree than qualitatively-oriented disciplines. Importantly, disciplinary perspective may be largely subconscious. It may thus guide the research and teaching choices that scholars make without them being aware of their motivations. Yet a shared disciplinary perspective has important advantages: disciplinary scholars are able to communicate easily and reliably because of their shared perspective. Inevitably, cross-disciplinary communication faces (surmountable) challenges because of differences in perspective. Disciplines also benefit from shared understandings of terms that are commonly employed within that discipline; interdisciplinary conversation suffers when disciplines either define a shared term differently or use different terms for the same purpose. O’Rourke et al (2014) discuss strategies for addressing communication challenges rooted in both terminology and perspective.
O’Rourke, M., et al. (2014). Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research, Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
For a bit more detail see Defining Disciplinary Perspective