There are two theories that can be applied to any discipline to evolve it past existential problems, edge theory and refinement. These concepts both have loose

There are two theories that can be applied to any discipline to evolve it past existential problems, edge theory and refinement. These concepts both have loose associations to psychology and biology. However, you have to view these as anthropocentric and not abstractly. The first, edge theory, looks at what you need to survive. If you had 0 resources to do what you do, where would you go? You would be breaking down the doors of other departments to look for funding, and as a corollary ideas as well. This isn't just about bridging disciplines, its about breaking down doors. CS is now spearheading quantum programming, not physics, CS is now at the forefront of processor architectural security, not chemistry, and so on. Being a leader not only means taking responsibility for creating problems, but being able to solve them as well. The second is refinement. To have refinement you have to have the raw materials. So what does CS look like in the wild? Simply, you have someone that tinkers at home, builds their own hardware, infrastructure, creates programmes, breaks programmes, has an innate understanding of mathematics but works hard to provide proofs, plays video games. This is the box most CS programmes set, but what do you not see? How about chemical clocks, or storing information in DNA, or using fungi as computational solvers, or using planetary science as a calendar? I guess my point here is that if you want to advance the breadth of your field, its easier to start with someone, already at the fringe. There is a curse on these ideas, so please contact me if you want to use them elsewhere.