Advertisement

The University and Interdisciplinarity

  • Francis X Remedios
  • Val Dusek
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is on Fuller’s view that the university is the premier site of knowledge production for the public good. Fuller defends the university against the impact of neoliberalism in which clients influence how academic knowledge is produced. In this context “interdisciplinarity” becomes a battleground. Fuller prefers a version of interdisciplinarity that is regenerative of the university in which academics reach beyond their own fields to a neoliberal version of interdisciplinarity in which academics work in teams for clients on projects. With agent-oriented social epistemology, Fuller’s view of interdisciplinarity is that it is internal to agent to organize the disciplines versus object-oriented social epistemology in which disciplines are organized externally by experts. Fuller’s view of interdisciplinarity is contrasted to Frodeman’s view of transdisciplinarity.

Keywords

University Interdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity Frodeman 

References

  1. Aschoff, J. (1960). Exogenous and Endogenous Components in Circadian Rhythms. Cold Spring Harbor Symposium Quantitative Biology, 25, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtel, W. (1993). Integrating Sciences by Creating New Disciplines: The Case of Cell Biology. Biology and Philosophy, 8, 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, F. A., Jr. (1960). Response to Pervasive Geophysical Factors and the Biological Clock Problem. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia in Quantitative Biology, 25, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, F. A., Woodland Hastings, J., & Palmer, J. D. (1970). The Biological Clock: Two Views. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chargaff, E. (1980). “Gullible’s Travels,” and “Matches for Hersostratus”. In Heraclitean Fire (pp. 100–103). New York: Warner Books.Google Scholar
  6. Darden, L. (2005). Relations Among Fields: Mendelian, Cytological and Molecular Mechanisms. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darden, L., & Maull, N. (1977). Interfield Theories. Philosophy of Science, 44, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deevey, E. (1960). The Hare and the Haruspex: A Cautionary Tale. American Scientist, 48(3), 415–430.Google Scholar
  9. Edmunds, L. N., Jr. (2012). Cellular and Molecular Bases of Biological Clocks: Models and Mechanisms for Circadian Timekeeping. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Foster, R. G., & Kretzman, L. (2005). Rhythms of Life: The Biological Clocks That Control the Daily Lives of Everything. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Frodeman, R. (2013). Sustainable Knowledge: A Theory of Interdisciplinarity. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  12. Frodeman, R. (2014). Sustainable Knowledge: An Exchange, Davis, Dieleman, Frodeman, Remedios, Riggio, Simbürger, Suomela. https://social-epistemology.com/2014/03/15/sustainable-knowledge-an-exchange-davis-dieleman-remedios-riggio-simburger-suomela/#more-5189
  13. Fuller, S. (1996). Social Epistemology and the Recovery of the Normative in the Postepistemic Era. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 17(2), 83–97.Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, S. (2000, February 22). E-mail to Remedios.Google Scholar
  15. Fuller, S. (2002). Social Epistemology (2nd ed.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fuller, S. (2007). New Frontiers in Science and Technology Studies. New York: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fuller, S. (2009). The Sociology of Intellectual Life. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Fuller, S. (2010). Science. Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  19. Fuller, S. (2011). Humanity 2.0: What It Means to Be Human Past, Present and Future. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller, S. (2014a). Comments to J. Britt Holbrook ‘Fuller’s Categorical Imperative: The Will to Proaction’. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 2(11), 20–26. http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-13K
  21. Fuller, S. (2014b). Social Epistemology: The Future of an Unfulfilled Promise. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 3(7), 29–37. http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-1wG
  22. Fuller, S. (2016). The Academic Caesar: University Leadership Is Hard. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuller, S (2017). The Case for Academic Caesars. Times Higher Education Magazine. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/case-academic-caesars
  24. Fuller, S., & Collier, J. (2004). Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: A New Beginning for Science and Technology Studies (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.Google Scholar
  25. Guston, D. H. (2002). Secularising Science? Futures, 34, 197–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hinton, P. (2013). The Mass Observers: A History, 1937–1949. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holbrook, J. B. (2013). Fuller’s Categorical Imperative: The Will to Proaction. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 2(11), 20–26. http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-13K
  28. Levins, R. (1968). Evolution in Changing Environments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lowrey, P. L., Menaker, M., et al. (2000). Positional Synthenic Cloning and Functional Characterization of the Mammalian Circadian Mutation tau. Science, 288(5465), 484–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Menaker, M. (1968). Extraretinal Light Perception in Sparrow, I. Entrainment of the Biological Clock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 59(2), 414–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mirowski, P. (2009). Science-Mart. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mirowski, P., & Sent, E.-M. (2007). The Commercialization of Science, and the Response of STS. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science & Technology Studies (3rd ed., pp. 635–690). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pittendrigh, C. S. (1960). Circadian Rhythms and Circadian Organization of Living Systems. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia in Quantitative Biology, 24, 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Remedios, F. (2003a). Legitimizing Scientific Knowledge. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  35. Remedios, F. (2003b). Fuller and Rouse on the Legitimation of Scientific Knowledge. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 33(4), 444–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Remedios, F. (2009). Fuller and Mirowski on the Commercialization of Scientific Knowledge. In J. van Bouwel (Ed.), The Social Sciences and Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Remedios, F. (2015). Knowing Humanity in the Social World: A Social Epistemology Collective Vision? In J. Collier (Ed.), The Future of Social Epistemology: A Collective Vision (pp. 21–28). London: Rowman and Littlefield International.Google Scholar
  38. Rose, S. (2011). Practicing Biochemistry Without a License. EMBO Reports, 12(5), 381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Speier, F. (2015). Big History and the Future of Humanity. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. von Humboldt, W. (1970). On the Spirit and the Organizational Framework of Intellectual Institutions in Berlin. Minerva, 8, 242–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiner, J. (1999). Time, Love, and Memory: A Great Biologist and His Quest for the Origins of Behavior. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis X Remedios
    • 1
  • Val Dusek
    • 2
  1. 1.EdmontonCanada
  2. 2.University of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations