Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 23–46 | Cite as

Strategically Unclear? Organising Interdisciplinarity in an Excellence Programme of Interdisciplinary Research in Denmark

  • Katrine LindvigEmail author
  • Line Hillersdal
Article
  • 101 Downloads

Abstract

While interdisciplinarity is not a new concept, the political and discursive mobilisation of interdisciplinarity is. Since the 1990s, this movement has intensified, and this has affected central funding bodies so that interdisciplinarity is now a de facto requirement in successful grant application. As a result, the literature is ripe with definitions, taxonomies, discussions and other attempts to grasp and define the concept of interdisciplinarity. In this paper, we explore how strategic demands for interdisciplinarity meet, interact with and change local research practices and results of higher education and research. Our aim is to question and trace the consequences of applying the slippery and difficult term interdisciplinarity in research. The paper is based on ethnographic fieldwork in a Danish interdisciplinary research programme, where we observed and analysed practices of writing, publishing, collaboration and educational development in five different research projects. We show how the call for interdisciplinarity was mobilised in a way that rendered the incentives and motives behind the programme unclear. Furthermore, we argue that the absence of clear definitions and assessment criteria produced a dominant, all-inclusive, but vague, configuration of interdisciplinarity that affected the research outcome, and ultimately, promoted and reproduced the existing monodisciplinary research and power structures.

Keywords

Interdisciplinarity Strategic funding Research programme Research evaluation Higher education Denmark Ethnographic research Policy concepts 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This article is based on ethnographic fieldwork that was made possible by grants from the University of Copenhagen’s Excellence Programme for Interdisciplinary Research. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the members of the research projects involved, and of the individual respondents who contributed to the research. Thanks also to Professor Catherine Lyall and Dr Erika Szymanski for sharing ideas, comments and suggestions throughout the writing process. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for constructively engaging with our work.

References

  1. Adriansen, Hanne Kirstine, and Lene Møller Madsen. 2009. Studying the Making of Geographical Knowledge: The Implications of Insider Interviews. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift—Norwegian Journal of Geography 63(3): 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, Hanne. 2016. Collaboration, Interdisciplinarity, and the Epistemology of Contemporary Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Augsburg, Tanya and Stuart Henry (eds.). 2009. The Politics of Interdisciplinary Studies: Essays on Transformations in American Undergraduate Programs. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co.Google Scholar
  4. Barry, Andrew, and Georgina Born. 2013. Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences. Culture, Economy and the Social. 17459872, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Barry, Andrew, Georgina Born, and Gisa Weszkalnys. 2008. Logics of Interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37(1): 20–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bock, Klaus, John Gardner, Wim H.M Saris, et al. 2016. Mid-Term Evaluation of The UCPH Excellence Programme for Interdisciplinary Research. Midterm evaluation. University of Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. http://forskning.ku.dk/styrkeomraader/stjerneprogrammer/Midterm_evaluation_UCPH_Excellence_Programme_for_Interdisciplinary_Research.pdf, accessed August 27, 2017.
  7. Boix Mansilla, Veronica. 2006. Quality Assessment in Interdisciplinary Research and Education. Research Evaluation 15: 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brint, Steven. 2005. Creating the Future: ‘New Directions’ in American Research Universities. Minerva 43(1): 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruce, Ann, Catherine Lyall, Joyce Tait, and Robin Williams. 2004. Interdisciplinary Integration in Europe: The Case of the Fifth Framework Programme. Futures 36(4): 457–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callard, Felicity, and Des Fitzgerald. 2015. Rethinking Interdisciplinarity across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781137407962. Accessed August 15, 2016.
  11. Calvert, Jane. 2004. The Idea of “Basic Research” in Language and Practice. Minerva 42(3): 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calvert, Jane. 2006. What’s Special about Basic Research? Science, Technology, & Human Values 31(2): 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calvert, Jane, and Pablo Schyfter. 2017. What Can Science and Technology Studies Learn from Art and Design? Reflections on ‘Synthetic Aesthetics’. Social Studies of Science 47(2): 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, Paul N., Matthew S. Mayernik, Archer L. Batcheller, Geoffrey C. Bowker, and Christine L. Borgman. 2011. Science Friction: Data, Metadata, and Collaboration. Social Studies of Science 41(5): 667–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elsevier.com. 2017. Materials and Methods Articles | Research Elements. Elsevier.Com. https://www.elsevier.com/authors/author-services/research-elements/materials-and-methods, accessed September 8, 2017.
  16. Fisher, Donald, Janet Atkinson-Grosjean, and Dawn House. 2001. Changes in Academy/Industry/State Relations in Canada: The Creation and Development of the Networks of Centres of Excellence. Minerva 39(3): 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzgerald, D., M.M. Littlefield, K.J. Knudsen, J. Tonks, and M.J. Dietz. 2014. Ambivalence, Equivocation and the Politics of Experimental Knowledge: A Transdisciplinary Neuroscience Encounter. Social Studies of Science 44(5): 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flink, Tim, and David Kaldewey. 2018. The New Production of Legitimacy: STI Policy Discourses beyond the Contract Metaphor. Research Policy 47(1): 14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flink, Tim, and Tobias Peter. 2018. Excellence and Frontier Research as Travelling Concepts in Science Policymaking. Minerva.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9351-7.Google Scholar
  20. Frodeman, Robert, Julie Thompson Klein and Carl Mitcham (eds.). 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. 008018475, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gibbons, Michael. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48(6): 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gorman, Michael E. 2002. Levels of Expertise and Trading Zones: A Framework for Multidisciplinary Collaboration. Social Studies of Science 32(5/6): 933–938.Google Scholar
  24. Hicks, Diana M., and J. Sylvan Katz. 1996. Where Is Science Going? Science, Technology, and Human Values 21(4): 379–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hillersdal, Line, Bodil Just Christensen, and Lotte Holm. 2016. Patients’ Strategies for Eating after Gastric Bypass Surgery: A Qualitative Study. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 70(4): 523–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hillersdal, Line, Bodil Just Christensen, and Lotte Holm. 2017. Changing Tastes: Learning Hunger and Fullness after Gastric Bypass Surgery. Sociology of Health and Illness 39(3): 474–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Iglič, Hajdeja, Patrick Doreian, Luka Kronegger, and Anuška Ferligoj. 2017. With Whom Do Researchers Collaborate and Why? Scientometrics 112(1): 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2010. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. Transferred to digital print. London [u.a.]: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Jeffrey, Paul. 2003. Smoothing the Waters: Observations on the Process of Cross-Disciplinary Research Collaboration. Social Studies of Science 33(4): 539–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaldewey, David. 2018. The Grand Challenges Discourse: Transforming Identity Work in Science and Science Policy. Minerva 56(2): 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaldewey, David, and Désirée Schauz (eds.). 2018. Basic and Applied Research. The Language of Science Policy in the Twentieth Century. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  32. Kezar, Adrianna. 2006. Redesigning for Collaboration in Learning Initiatives: An Examination of Four Highly Collaborative Campuses. The Journal of Higher Education 77(5): 804–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kezar, Adrianna. 2012. Bottom-Up/Top-Down Leadership: Contradiction or Hidden Phenomenon. The Journal of Higher Education 83(5): 725–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee, Sooho, and Barry Bozeman. 2005. The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity. Social Studies of Science 35(5): 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis, Jamie, Andrew Bartlett, and Paul Atkinson. 2016. Hidden in the Middle: Culture, Value and Reward in Bioinformatics. Minerva 54(4): 471–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindvig, Katrine. 2018. The Implied PhD Student of Interdisciplinary Research Projects within Monodisciplinary Structures. Higher Education Research and Development 37(6): 1171–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindvig, Katrine, Catherine Lyall, and Laura R. Meagher. 2017. Creating Interdisciplinary Education within Monodisciplinary Structures: The Art of Managing Interstitiality. Studies in Higher Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1365358.Google Scholar
  38. Lyall, Catherine. 2013. The Role of Funding Agencies in Creating Interdisciplinary Knowledge. Science and Public Policy 40: 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lyall, Catherine, Ann Bruce, Joyce Tait, and Laura Meagher. 2011. Interdisciplinary Research Journeys: Practical Strategies for Capturing Creativity. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marcus, George E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moran, Joe. 2010. Interdisciplinarity. The New Critical Idiom. 007996573, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Moran, Michael. 2006. Interdisciplinarity and Political Science. Politics 26(2): 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. National Academy. 2004. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11153. Accessed September 16, 2017.
  44. Nersessian, Nancy J., and Wendy C. Newstetter. 2014. Interdisciplinarity in Engineering Research and Learning. In Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research, eds. Aditya Johri and Barbara M. Olds, 713–730. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Nowotny, Helga. 2013. Re-Thinking Science Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Olson, Rebecca E., and Caragh Brosnan. 2017. Examining Interprofessional Education Through the Lens of Interdisciplinarity: Power, Knowledge and New Ontological Subjects. Minerva 55(3): 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rabinow, Paul. 2012. Designing Human Practices : An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Repko, Allen F., and Rick Szostak. 2017. Interdisciplinary Research Process and Theory. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  49. Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strathern, Marilyn. 2000. The Tyranny of Transparency. British Educational Research Journal 26(3): 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strathern, Marilyn. 2004. Commons and Borderlands: Working Papers on Interdisciplinarity, Accountability and the Flow of Knowledge. 005091125, Wantage, Oxon: Sean Kingston.Google Scholar
  52. Strathern, Marilyn. 2010. Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Suchman, Lucy. 2013. Human-Machine Reconfigurations Plans and Situated Actions. Johanneshov: MTM.Google Scholar
  54. Svendsen, Mette N., Iben M. Gjødsbøl, Mie S. Dam, and Laura E. Navne. 2017. Humanity at the Edge: The Moral Laboratory of Feeding Precarious Lives. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry 41(2): 202–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Townsend, Tony, John Pisapia, and Jamila Razzaq. 2015. Fostering Interdisciplinary Research in Universities: A Case Study of Leadership, Alignment and Support. Studies in Higher Education 40(4): 658–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. University of Copenhagen, Research and Innovation. 2012. UCPH 2016-Funds Call. University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  57. Weingart, Peter, and Nico Stehr (eds.). 2000. Practising Interdisciplinarity. 000360626. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wichmann-Hansen, Gitte, and Kim Jesper Herrmann. 2017. Does External Funding Push Doctoral Supervisors to Be More Directive? A Large-Scale Danish Study. Higher Education 74(2): 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Willis, Paul. 2000. The Ethnographic Imagination. 002061964, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science Education, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations