Interdisciplinarity Studies

Part of the New Directions in the Philosophy of Science book series (NDPS)


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.


  1. Aldama, Frederick Luis, ed. 2010. Toward a Cognitive Theory of Narrative Acts. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, Andrew, Georgina Born, and Gisa Weszkalnys. 2008. Logics of Interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37 (1): 20–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bechtel, William, ed. 1986. Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  4. Boyd, Brian. 2009. On the Origin of Stories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Carroll, Joseph. 2004. Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Cartwright, John. 2007. Evolution and Human Behaviour: Darwinian Perspectives on Human Nature. 2nd ed. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Chalmers, A.F. 1999. What is This Thing Called Science? 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1988. Public Experiments and Displays of Virtuosity: The Core-Set Revisited. Social Studies of Science 18: 725–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crane, Mary Thomas. 2000. Shakespeare’s Brain: Reading with Cognitive Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Crane, Mary Thomas, and Alan Richardson. 1999. Literary Studies and Cognitive Science: Toward a New Interdisciplinarity. Mosaic 32 (2): 123–140.Google Scholar
  16. Darden, Lindley, and Nancy Maull. 1977. Interfield Theories. Philosophy of Science 44 (1): 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2 vols. London: J. Murray.Google Scholar
  18. Dissanayake, Ellen. 2000. Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dupré, John. 1995. Against Scientific Imperialism. In The 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2001. Human Nature and the Limits of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dutton, Denis. 2009. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, & Human Evolution. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fisher, Ronald Aylmer. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frodeman, Robert, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Giere, Ronald N. 1999. Science without Laws, Science and Its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Jantsch, Erich. 1970. Inter- and Transdisciplinary University: A Systems Approach to Education and Innovation. Policy Sciences 1: 403–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kellert, Stephen H. 2009. Borrowed Knowledge: Chaos Theory and the Challange of Learning Across Desciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kitcher, Patricia. 1992. Freud’s Dream: A Complete Interdisciplinary Science of Mind. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2007. Freud’s Interdisciplinary Fiasco. In The Prehistory of Cognitive Science, ed. Andrew Brook, 230–249. Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 2008. Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research—A Literature Review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (2S): S116–S123. Scholar
  34. ———. 2010. A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ed. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kockelmans, Joseph J., ed. 1979. Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Lakatos, Imre. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers. Edited by John Worrall and Gregory Currie. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mäki, Uskali. 2013. Scientific Imperialism: Difficulties in Definition, Identification, and Assessment. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 27 (3): 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mitchell, Sandra D. 2002. Integrative Pluralism. Biology and Philosophy 17 (1): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ———. 2003. Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morgan, Mary S., and Margaret Morrison, eds. 1999. Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science (Ideas in Context). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Murphy, Dominic. 2005. Can Evolution Explain Insanity? Biology and Philosophy 20: 745–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Pinker, Steven. 1997. How the Mind Works. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  53. 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.Google Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rosch, Eleanor H. 1973. Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shalinsky, William. 1989. Polydisciplinary Groups in the Human Services. Small Group Behavior 20 (2): 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shedler, Jonathan. 2010. The Efficacy of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. American Psychological Association 65 (2): 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Strathern, Marilyn. 2004. Commons and Borderlands: Working Papers on Interdisciplinarity, Accountability and the Flow of Knowledge. Wantage: Sean Kingston Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. ———. 2006. A Community of Critics? Thoughts on New Knowledge. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12 (1): 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.Google Scholar
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zunshine, Lisa, ed. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations