Abstract
In this chapter, the most dominant trends in contemporary studies of interdisciplinarity are outlined. The biases and inadequacies reflected in these efforts are a central part of the motivation for this book. An account is provided of the basic characteristics of interdisciplinarity which any analysis hereof must take into account. Further, the chapter includes an account of the developments of the interest in interdisciplinarity, and how interdisciplinarity has come to be occupy such a dominant position in science and science policy today. All in all, this chapter provides an overview of the phenomenon of interdisciplinarity and how it is usually treated academically.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Among the latter I count works such as The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (Frodeman et al. 2010), Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice (Klein 1990) Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education (Kockelmans 1979). Among the former I count (in no particular order) people such as Robert Frodeman (Director of the Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity at University of North Texas), Julie Thompson Klein (Former president of the Association for Integrative Studies), Erich Jantsch, Carolyn and Muzafer Sherif, Peter Weingart (Former director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Research), William H. Newell (professor of interdisciplinary studies at Miami University as well as executive director of the Association for Integrative Studies), and others. The reader might of course disagree that these are representative for Interdisciplinarity Studies or that it is reasonable at all to postulate the existence of this group of academics.
- 2.
- 3.
Notice that in the following I will often use the phrase “interdisciplinary activities” instead of the, perhaps, more straightforward “interdisciplinary collaborations”. This is a deliberate choice, since the integration of distinct disciplines does not necessarily involve more than one person, and hence may not involve any collaboration.
- 4.
This is reminiscent of some recent discussions in philosophy warning against certain dangers of interdisciplinary collaboration. Most noteworthy, John Dupré has initiated a small field focused on so-called scientific imperialism, which is thought to involve forcing ones framework onto a domain of which one has little expertise (Clarke and Walsh 2009; Dupré 1995, 2001; Mäki 2013).
- 5.
I assume that the applications of Newtonian physics on human social change, which Kellert refers to, are more recent than Darwin.
- 6.
‘Moral philosophy’ is not restricted to ethical matters, but is more properly understood as “the science of human nature”. On the other hand, ‘experimental philosophy’ is another expression for ‘natural philosophy’, or, in present day terms, ‘natural science’. Thus, Hume aimed to apply the “scientific method” to the study of human nature.
- 7.
Some might protest against viewing Aristotle as a wannabe interdisciplinarian. Indeed, it would not be unreasonable, it seems, to take the exact opposite position: That Aristotle was perhaps the most influential early figure in the movement towards scientific specialisation.
- 8.
Or at least were more sexually attractive in the specific EEA (i.e. Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation) of the species in question. Roughly, the EEA is the environment to which a species is adapted. The intuition is that for specific traits to have evolved, they must have served a special beneficial function in a certain environment. Verbal creativity and wit may be worthless in your local discotheque (where clearly defined muscle-groups and well-placed tattoos seem to make the biggest positive difference these days) and still have served their possessor well in the EEA.
- 9.
As a general reflection—I am still not attempting to pass judgment on psychoanalysis.
- 10.
Insight A will follow shortly.
- 11.
Even though I do not think there exists a cognitive discipline as such. ‘Cognitive’ may be a free-floating additive—free for anybody to use.
- 12.
- 13.
See definition of ‘EEA’ in note 8 above.
- 14.
It is wise, though, to check quickly beneath the toilet seat before using the facilities in places such as Sydney (at least in my experience). Nevertheless, it is somewhat paradoxical that compared to snakes or spiders it is apparently far more dangerous to encounter a horse, a cow, or a kangaroo in contemporary Australia. But still these animals rarely inspire phobias.
- 15.
Superconductivity, quantum computing, laser-technology, and magnetic resonance imaging are a few examples of technology in which condensed matter physics is applied.
- 16.
In one department, they may celebrate important and influential heroes, which the “idiots” of some other departments might never even have heard of.
- 17.
Interdisciplinarity studies is closely related to science studies. Indeed, one might think of Interdisciplinarity Studies as a highly specialised branch of science studies.
References
Aldama, Frederick Luis, ed. 2010. Toward a Cognitive Theory of Narrative Acts. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Barry, Andrew, Georgina Born, and Gisa Weszkalnys. 2008. Logics of Interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37 (1): 20–49.
Bechtel, William, ed. 1986. Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Boyd, Brian. 2009. On the Origin of Stories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, Donald T. 1969. Ethnocentrism of Disciplines and the Fish-Scale Model of Omniscience. In Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, ed. Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn W. Sherif. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Carroll, Joseph. 2004. Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature. New York: Routledge.
Cartwright, John. 2007. Evolution and Human Behaviour: Darwinian Perspectives on Human Nature. 2nd ed. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chalmers, A.F. 1999. What is This Thing Called Science? 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.
Clarke, Steve, and Adrian Walsh. 2009. Scientific Imperialism and the Proper Relations Between the Sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23: 195–207.
Collins, Harry M. 1981. The Place of the Core-set in Modern Science: Social Contingency with Methodological Propriety in Science. History of Science 19 (1): 6–19.
———. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: The University of Chicago Press.
———. 1988. Public Experiments and Displays of Virtuosity: The Core-Set Revisited. Social Studies of Science 18: 725–748.
Collins, Harry M., and Robert Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296.
Crane, Mary Thomas. 2000. Shakespeare’s Brain: Reading with Cognitive Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Crane, Mary Thomas, and Alan Richardson. 1999. Literary Studies and Cognitive Science: Toward a New Interdisciplinarity. Mosaic 32 (2): 123–140.
Darden, Lindley, and Nancy Maull. 1977. Interfield Theories. Philosophy of Science 44 (1): 43–64.
Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2 vols. London: J. Murray.
Dissanayake, Ellen. 2000. Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Dupré, John. 1995. Against Scientific Imperialism. In The 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.
———. 2001. Human Nature and the Limits of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dutton, Denis. 2009. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, & Human Evolution. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Fisher, Ronald Aylmer. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Frodeman, Robert, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giere, Ronald N. 1999. Science without Laws, Science and Its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gold, S.E., and H.J. Gold. 1983. Some Elements of a Model to Improve Productivity of Interdisciplinary Groups. In Managing Interdisciplinary Research, ed. S.R. Epton, R.L. Payne, and A.W. Pearson. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Hume, David. 1738. A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects. London: Printed for John Noon.
Jantsch, Erich. 1970. Inter- and Transdisciplinary University: A Systems Approach to Education and Innovation. Policy Sciences 1: 403–428.
Kellert, Stephen H. 2009. Borrowed Knowledge: Chaos Theory and the Challange of Learning Across Desciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kitcher, Patricia. 1992. Freud’s Dream: A Complete Interdisciplinary Science of Mind. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.
———. 2007. Freud’s Interdisciplinary Fiasco. In The Prehistory of Cognitive Science, ed. Andrew Brook, 230–249. Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University.
———. 2008. Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research—A Literature Review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (2S): S116–S123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004.
———. 2010. A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ed. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kockelmans, Joseph J., ed. 1979. Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science: Foundations of the Unity of Science V. 2, No. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers. Edited by John Worrall and Gregory Currie. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lattuca, Lisa R. 2001. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among College and University Faculty. Vanderbilt Issues in Higher Education. 1st ed. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Longino, Helen. 2006. Philosophy of Science after the Social Turn. In Cambridge and Vienna: Frank P Ramsey and the Vienna Circle, ed. Maria Carla Galavotti. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
MacKenzie, Donald. 1998. The Certainty Trough. In Exploring Expertise: Issues and Perspectives, ed. Robin Williams, Wendy Faulkner, and James Fleck, 325–329. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Mäki, Uskali. 2013. Scientific Imperialism: Difficulties in Definition, Identification, and Assessment. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 27 (3): 325–339.
Mammola, Simone. 2014. Does the History of Medicine Begin Where the History of Philosophy Ends? An Example of Interdisciplinarity in the Early Modern Era. History of European Ideas 40 (4): 457–473.
McCabe, David P., and Alan D. Castel. 2008. Seeing is Believing: The Effect of Brain Images on Judgments of Scientific Reasoning. Cognition 107: 343–352.
Mitchell, Sandra D. 2002. Integrative Pluralism. Biology and Philosophy 17 (1): 55–70.
———. 2003. Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, Mary S., and Margaret Morrison, eds. 1999. Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science (Ideas in Context). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, Dominic. 2005. Can Evolution Explain Insanity? Biology and Philosophy 20: 745–766.
Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.
Nowotny, Helga. 2005. The Changing Nature of Public Science. In The Public Nature of Science under Assault: Politics, Markets, Science and the Law, ed. Helga Nowotny, D. Pestre, B. Schmidt-Assmann, H. Schulze-Fielitz, and H.-H. Trute. Berlin: Springer.
Pinker, Steven. 1997. How the Mind Works. New York: Norton.
Price, John S., and Anthony Stevens. 1999. An Evolutionary Approach to Psychiatric Disorders: Group Splitting and Schizophrenia. In The Evolution of the Psyche, ed. D. Rosen and M. Luebbert, 196–207. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Rasmussen, Nicolas. 1991. The Decline of Recapitulationism in Early Twentieth-Century Biology: Disciplinary Conflict and Consensus on the Battleground of Theory. Journal of the History of Biology 24 (1): 51–89.
Rosch, Eleanor H. 1973. Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350.
Shalinsky, William. 1989. Polydisciplinary Groups in the Human Services. Small Group Behavior 20 (2): 203–219.
Shedler, Jonathan. 2010. The Efficacy of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. American Psychological Association 65 (2): 98–109.
Strathern, Marilyn. 2004. Commons and Borderlands: Working Papers on Interdisciplinarity, Accountability and the Flow of Knowledge. Wantage: Sean Kingston Publishing.
———. 2006. A Community of Critics? Thoughts on New Knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12 (1): 191–209.
Wampold, B.E., S.L. Budge, K.M. Laska, A.C. Del Re, T.P. Baardseth, C. Fluckiger, T. Minami, D.M. Kivlighan, and W. Gunn. 2011. Evidence-Based Treatments for Depression and Anxiety Versus Treatment-as-Usual: A Meta-analysis of Direct Comparisons. Clinical Psychology Review 31: 1304–1312.
Weingart, Peter. 2010. A Short History of Knowledge Formations. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ed. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weisberg, Deena Skolnick. 2008. Caveat Lector: The Presentation of Neuroscience Information in the Popular Media. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 6 (1): 51–56.
Weisberg, Deena Skolnick, Frank C. Keil, Joshua Goodstein, Elizabeth Rawson, and Jeremy R. Gray. 2008. The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20 (3): 470–477.
Zunshine, Lisa, ed. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hvidtfeldt, R. (2018). Interdisciplinarity Studies. In: The Structure of Interdisciplinary Science. New Directions in the Philosophy of Science. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90872-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90872-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90871-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90872-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)