Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Importance of Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization

Abstract

This book will investigate the possibility that a new approach to knowledge organization is better suited to a contemporary academy characterized by an increased emphasis on interdisciplinarity. The knowledge organization systems (KOSs) that are most widely used in the world were developed when a discipline-based view of the universe of knowledge was common within both information science and the wider academy (see Miksa 1992). To set the stage for our analysis, it is first necessary that we define interdisciplinarity (and disciplines) and discuss the increased importance of interdisciplinarity within both the academy and the world at large. The first several sections of this chapter address definitional matters. The next several sections detail the increased importance of interdisciplinary scholarship, its value for scholarly discovery, and the place of interdisciplinarity within the academy and society. The chapter closes by outlining how we can explore in the rest of the book the ways in which knowledge organization should best facilitate interdisciplinarity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We draw on Repko (2012) extensively in this chapter. As the first textbook on how to perform interdisciplinary research it summarizes an extensive and diverse literature.

  2. 2.

    The ‘About Interdisciplinarity’ website of the Association for Interdisciplinary Studies (AIS 2013) surveys the literature on best practices for interdisciplinary research and public policy. It also provides best practices for interdisciplinary teaching and administration. Notably, those who teach and administer the growing number of interdisciplinary courses and programs also need enhanced access to both the literature on interdisciplinarity itself (dispersed across many fields) and literatures from diverse fields.

  3. 3.

    Interviewing participants is an oft-used method to find out their positions regarding their specialties and their contributions to the research project, and to harmonize positions. For instance, in a project on ecosystems-based management (EBM) the interviewees were asked about ‘what kind of information is needed to support the EBM here? Is that information being collected? How are you using the social and ecological data that you are collecting? And what is the definition of EBM that you are using here?’ (Sievanen et al. 2011, 317). Similar questions can be applied to other topics.

  4. 4.

    Nicolescu sees complex plurality and open unity as two facets of the same reality. Reality is multidimensional and it is articulated in levels, levels of reality that have no limitation; the set of levels constitute the transdisciplinary object.

  5. 5.

    They focus on the cognitive aspects of disciplines. Sugimoto and Weingart (2015) survey also the social, historical, communicative, and narrative nature of disciplines.

  6. 6.

    Already in 1992, Hurd found that virtually half of the journals cited by chemists at her research university were from outside chemistry. She thus urged against discipline-based libraries and for better search tools to aid interdisciplinary science.

  7. 7.

    Glassick et al (1997, 9) worried that the ‘scholarship of integration’ was under-appreciated in the academy. They argued that this was needed to overcome the fragmentation and isolation of disciplines, and to make connections within and across disciplines. In their view, scholars of integration would make bits of disciplinary knowledge more meaningful to non-specialists, and would bring new insights to disciplinary research.

  8. 8.

    The five were: when a field draws on many others; when a field influences many others, when a subject is studied by many fields, when a certain property is investigated in many fields, and when a subject is studied collaboratively by many disciplines.

  9. 9.

    In the 2001 issue of Issues in Integrative Studies, William H. Newell argued that the essence of interdisciplinarity is coping with complexity; while respondents generally appreciated that complex problems (defined by Newell as containing non-linear relationships between variables) were especially suited to interdisciplinary analysis, they doubted that complexity so defined was necessary for interdisciplinary analysis.

  10. 10.

    This was indeed the purpose of the interwar ‘unity of science ’ movement. See Neurath et al. 1937–8). Szostak (2014c) notes that the interdisciplinary coherence sought by that movement can instead be achieved organizationally through KOS.

  11. 11.

    There are also questions of funding. Craig et al. (2005, 372) discuss the issue of ‘interdisciplinary overhead.’ An interdisciplinary project may require significant funding. If this is not achieved, individual scholars may work independently with little attempt at integration.

  12. 12.

    Though beyond the scope of this book, it should be appreciated that bibliometric analysis is of particular importance in the realm of interdisciplinary research. Diversity and network cohesion have been chosen as indicators for ID research measurement (Rafols and Meyer 2010). Elleby and Ingwersen (2010) recommend the study of citedness ratios in comparing interdisciplinary research with research evaluation in general.

References

  • Alrøe HF, Noe E (2014) Second-order science of interdisciplinary research: a polyocular framework for wicked problems. Constr Found 10(1):65–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Apostel L (1972) Conceptual tools for interdisciplinarity: an operational approach. Interdisciplinarity. Problems of teaching and research in the Universities, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, pp 141–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Association for Interdisciplinary Studies (AIS) (2013) About interdisciplinarity. www.oakland.edu/ais/

  • Augsburg T, Henry S (eds) (2009) The politics of interdisciplinary studies. McFarland Press, Jefferson, NC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolo L, Trimble AM (2000) Heterogeneous structures database: vocabulary mapping within a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional research group. In: Beghtol C, Howarth LC, Williamson N (eds) Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization. Proceedings of the sixth international ISKO conference. Ergon Verlag, Würzburg, pp 118–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates MJ (1996) Learning about the information seeking of interdisciplinary scholars and students. Libr Trends 45(1):155–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Beers P, Boots P (2009) Eliciting conceptual models to support interdisciplinary research. J Inform Sci 35(3):259–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beghtol C (1995) ‘Facets’ as undiscovered public knowledge: S.R. Ranganathan in India and S. Guttman in Israel. J Doc 51(3):194–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2012) Methods for transdisciplinary research: a primer for practice. Campus, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy L (1968) General system theory: foundations, development, applications. Braziller, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brome V (1963) The problem of progress. Cassell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulick S (1982) Structure and subject interaction. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke P (2012) A social history of knowledge, 2: from the Encyclopédie to Wikipedia. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Carp R (2001) Integrative praxes: learning from multiple knowledge formations. Issues Integr Stud 19:71–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty T, Kumar S, Reddy MD, Kumar S, Ganguly N, Mukherjee A (2013) Automatic Classification and Analysis of Interdisciplinary Fields in Computer Sciences. In: International conference on social computing (SocialCom) 2013., pp 180–187

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Civallero E (2010) UDC biology revision project: first stage: class 59 vertebrates. Extensions Corrections UDC 32:9–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Cory KA (1997) Discovering hidden analogies in an online Humanities database. Comput Human 31(1):1–12

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Craig BF, Peterson TR, Hamlyn EJ (2005) Interdisciplinarity and team dynamics. In: Sadalla E (ed) The U.S.—Mexican border environment. Dynamics of human-environment interactions. San Diego State University Press, San Diego, pp 371–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlherg I (1994) Domain interaction: theory and practice. Adv Knowl Org 4:60–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Darbellay F, Moody Z, Sedooka A, Steffen G (2014) Interdisciplinary research boosted by serendipity. Creativity Res J 26(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies R (1989) The creation of new knowledge by information retrieval and classification. J Doc 45(4):273–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CS, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Winowiecki L, Bosque-Pérez N (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57(1):55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elleby A, Ingwersen P (2010) Publication point indicators: a comparative case study of two publications point systems and citation impact in an interdisciplinary context. J Inform 4:512–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2009) ERA indicators and monitoring. Expert Group Report, October 2009. http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/pdf/eraindicators&monitoring.pdf

  • Foster AE, Ellis D (2014) Serendipity and its study. J Doc 70(6):1015–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox MJ, Olson H (2012) Feminist epistemologies and knowledge organization. In: Smiraglia RP, Lee H (eds) Cultural frames of knowledge. Ergon Verlag, Würzburg, pp 79–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchsman K (2012) Interdisciplines and interdisciplinarity: political psychology and psychohistory compared. Issues Integr Stud 30:128–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Glassick CE, Huber MT, Maeroff GI (1997) Scholarship assessed: evaluation of the professoriate. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnoli C (2006) The meaning of facets in non-disciplinary classification. In: Budin G, Swertz C, Mitgutsch K (eds) Knowledge organization for a global learning society: proceedings of the 9th ISKO conference. Ergon, Würzburg, pp 11–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnoli C (2014) Boundaries and overlaps of disciplines in Bloch's methodology of historical knowledge. In: Babik W (ed) Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the 13th ISKO conference, Krakow. Ergon Verlag, Würzburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon MD, Awad NF (2008) The tip of the iceberg: the quest for innovation at the base of the pyramid. In: Bruza P, Weeber M (eds) Literature based discovery. Springer, Berlin, pp 23–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd JM (1992) Interdisciplinary research in the sciences: implications for library organization. Coll Res Libr 53(4):283–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ignaciuk A, Rice M, Bogardi J, Canadell JG, Dhakal S, Ingram J, Leemans R, Rosenberg M (2012) Responding to complex societal challenges: a decade of Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP) interdisciplinary research. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4(1):147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob S (2008) Cross-disciplinarization. A new talisman for evaluation? Am J Eval 29(2):175–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz JS, Hicks D (1995) The classification of interdisciplinary journals: a new approach. Proceedings of the fifth international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics. Learned Information, Melford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel SE (1999) Interdisciplinary information searching: moving beyond discipline-based resources. In: Fiscella J, Kimmel S (eds) Interdisciplinary education: a guide to resources. College Board, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory and practice. The Wayne State University Press, Detroit

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT (1996) Interdisciplinary needs: the current context. Libr Trends 45(2):134–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT (2010) A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT, Newell WH (1996) Advancing Interdisciplinary Studies. In: Gaff JG, Ratcliff J, Associates (eds) Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp JA (2012) Plugging the ‘whole’: librarians as interdisciplinary facilitators. Libr Rev 61(3):199–214

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kockelmanns JJ (1979) Why interdisciplinarity? In: Kockelmanns JJ (ed) Interdisciplinarity and higher education. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, pp 123–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca LR (2001) Creating Interdisciplinarity: interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, TN

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenoir Y, Klein JT (eds). (2010). Interdisciplinarity in schools: a comparative view of national perspectives. Special volume. Issues Integr Stud 28

    Google Scholar 

  • León Manifesto (2007) Knowl Org 34(1):6–8. Available [with commentary] at: www.iskoi.org/ilc/leon.php

  • Looney C, Donovan S, O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Rotschy L, Bosque-Perez NA, Wulfhorst JD (2014) Using Toolbox workshops to enhance cross-disciplinary communication. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD (eds) Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 220–243

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Huertas MJ (2010) Nuevo conocimiento, innovación y sociedad: Retos para la gestion de la información. In V Reunión Internacional de Gestión de la Información y Desarrollo, Florianópolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyall C, Bruce A, Tait J, Meagher L (2011) Interdisciplinary Research Journeys. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, Huntingdon, GBR

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCay-Peet L, Toms EG (2015) Investigating serendipity: how it unfolds and what may influence it. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 66(7):1463–1476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald D, Bammer G, Deane P (2009) Research integration using dialogue methods. ANU Epress, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer E, Schroeder R (2015) Knowledge machines: digital transformations of the sciences and humanities. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Miksa FL (1992) The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification. In: Williamson NJ, Hudon M (eds) Classification research for knowledge representation and organization: Proceedings of the 5th international study conference on classification research, Toronto. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 101–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin E (1995) Sobre la interdisciplinariedad. Revista Complejidad 1:0. http://www.pensamientocomplejo.com.ar/docs/files/morin%5Fsobre%5Fla%5Finterdisciplinaridad%2Epdf

  • Murphy J (2003) Information-seeking habits of environmental scientists. Issues Sci Technol Librarianship 38(Summer), http://www.istl.org/previous.html

  • National Academy of Science, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine (2005) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation (2011) Rebuilding the mosaic. Report. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsf11086/nsf11086.pdf

  • Neurath O, Carnap R, Morris C (1937–8) International Encyclopedia of unified science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell WH (2001) A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues Integr Stud 19:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolescu B (1996) La Transdisciplinarité: Manifeste. Editions du Rocher, Mónaco

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissani M (1997) Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: the case of interdisciplinary knowledge and research. Soc Sci J 34(2):201–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ørom A (2003) Knowledge organization in the domain of art studies: history, transition and conceptual changes. Knowl Org 30(3-4):128–143

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD (eds) (2014) Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahre R (1996) Patterns of knowledge communities in the social sciences. Libr Trends 45(2):204–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer CL (1996) Information work at the boundaries of science: linking library services to research practices. Libr Trends 45(2):165–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer CL (1999) Structures and strategies of interdisciplinary science. J Am Soc Inf Sci 50(3):242–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer CL (2001) Work at the boundaries of science: information and the interdisciplinary research process. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer CL (2010) Information research on interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 174–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Phoenix C et al (2013) Paradigmatic approaches to studying environment and human health: (Forgotten) implication for interdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 25:218–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper K (2005) The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Porter AL, Rafols I (2009) Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81(3):719–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qin J, Lancaster FW, Allen B (1997) Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in sciences. J Am Soc Inf Sci 48(10):893–916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols I, Meyer M (2010) Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case study of bio-nanoscience. Scientometrics 82:263–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repko AF (2012) Interdisciplinary research: process and theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Roa-Atkinson A, Velho L (2005) Interactions in knowledge production. A comparative study of immunology research groups in Colombia and Brazil. Aslib Proc New Inform Perspect 57(3):200–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero-Lankao P et al (2013) ADAPTE: a tale of diverse teams coming together to do issue-driven interdisciplinary research. Environ Sci Policy 26:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein R (1989) Discovery. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter L, Hearn A (eds) (1997) Outside the lines: issues in interdisciplinary research. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Satija MP, Madalli DP, Dutta B (2014) Modes of growth of subjects. Knowl Org 41(3):195–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Searing SE (1992) How libraries cope with interdisciplinarity: the case of women’s studies. Issues Integr Stud 10:7–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiri A (2009) Exploration of interdisciplinarity in nanotechnology queries: the use of transaction log analysis and thesauri. Paper presented to the 20th Annual ASIST SIG/CR Workshop: Bridging Worlds, Connecting People: Classification Transcending Boundaries. doi:10.7152/acro.v20i1.12883

  • Sievanen L, Campbell LM, Leslie HM (2011) Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystems-based management. Conserv Biol 26(2):315–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smalheiser NR, Torvik VI (2008) The place of Literature-Based Discovery in contemporary scientific practice. In: Bruza P, Weeber M (eds) Literature based discovery. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smiraglia RP (2012) Introduction: theory, knowledge organization, epistemology, culture. In: Smiraglia RP, Lee H (eds) Cultural frames of knowledge. Ergon Verlag, Würzburg, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Song C-H (2003) Interdisciplinarity and knowledge inflow/outflow structure among science and engineering research in Korea. Scientometrics 58(1):129–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks S (2005) JISC disciplinary differences report. Rightscomm Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokols D, Hall KL, Moser RP, Feng A, Misra S, Taylor BK (2010) Cross-disciplinary team science initiatives: research, training, and translation. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp 471–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugimoto C, Weingart S (2015) The kaleidoscope of disciplinarity. J Doc 71(4):775–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson DR (1986) Undiscovered public knowledge. Libr Q 56(2):103–118

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson DR (2008) Literature based discovery: the very idea. In: Bruza P, Weeber M (eds) Literature based discovery. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson DR, Smalheiser NR, Bookstein A (2001) Information discovery from complementary literatures: categorizing viruses as potential weapons. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 52:797–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2003) A schema for unifying human science: interdisciplinary perspectives on culture. Susquehanna University Press, Selinsgrove, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2004) Classifying science: phenomena, data, theory, method, practice. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2007) Modernism, postmodernism, and interdisciplinarity. Issues Integr Stud 26:32–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2014a) Classifying for social diversity. Knowl Org 41(2):160–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2014b) Classifying the humanities. Knowl Org 41(4):263–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2014c) Skepticism and knowledge organization. In: Babik W (ed) Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the 13th ISKO conference, Krakow. Würzburg, Ergon

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2014d) Communicating complex concepts. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD (eds) Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 34–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2015a) Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary multi-method and mixed methods research. In: Hesse-Biber S, Johnson RB (eds) The Oxford handbook of mixed and multi-method research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 128–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2015b) A pluralistic approach to the philosophy of classification. Library Trends 63(3):591–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner J (2000) Can classification yield an evaluative principle for information retrieval? In: Marcella R, Maltby A (eds) The future of classification. Gower, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart P (2010) A short history of knowledge formations. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel V (2001) Complex systems in natural sciences and humanities. Scientometrics 52(3):525–529

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson P (1968) Two kinds of power: an essay on bibliographic control. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Workman TE, Fiszman M, Rindflesch TC (2014) Framing serendipitous information-seeking behavior for facilitating literature-based discovery: a proposed model. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol 65(3):501–512

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Rick Szostak

  2. Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Claudio Gnoli

  3. University of Granada, Granada, Granada, Spain

    María López-Huertas

Authors
  1. Rick Szostak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudio Gnoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. María López-Huertas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., López-Huertas, M. (2016). The Importance of Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching. In: Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30148-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30148-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30147-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30148-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation