Abstract
This chapter summarises the main findings of the research in the book and its contribution to our understanding of interdisciplinary research. It highlights outcomes that either reinforce or call into question current thinking on the nature of interdisciplinary engagement and makes some tentative suggestions on how interdisciplinary engagement might be improved and how trainers, leaders and the researchers themselves can contribute to this. The book concludes with a plea for a significant broadening of research perspectives on interdisciplinary work and indicates what approaches this might embrace.
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
References
Aderem, A. (2005). Systems biology: Its practice and challenges. Cell, 121, 511–513.
Amey, M. J., & Brown, D. F. (2005). Interdisciplinary collaboration and academic work: A case study of a university partnership. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 102, 23–35.
Calvert, J., & Fujimura, J. H. (2011). Calculating life? Duelling discourses in interdisciplinary systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42, 155–163.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Feyeraband, P. K. (1999). Democracy, élitism, and scientific method. In J. Preston (Ed.), Paul K. Feyeraband: Knowledge, science and relativism. Philosophical Papers Volume 3 (pp. 212–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted from Feyeraband, P. K. (1980). Democracy, élitism, and scientific method. Inquiry, 23: 3–18).
Frescoln, L. M., & Arbuckle Jr., J. G. (2015). Changes in perceptions of transdisciplinary science over time. Futures, 73, 136–150.
Friboulet, A., & Thomas, D. (2005). Systems biology – An interdisciplinary approach. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 20, 2404–2407.
Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heimeriks, G. (2013). Interdisciplinarity in biotechnology, genomics, nanotechnology. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 97–112.
Heritage, J., & Maynard, D. W. (2006). Problems and prospects in the study of physician-patient interaction: 30 years of research. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 351–374.
Kitano, H. (Ed.). (2001). Foundations of systems biology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kitano, H. (2002). Systems biology: A brief overview. Science, 295, 1662–1664.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the scientists make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
O’Malley, M. A., & Dupré, J. (2005). Fundamental issues in systems biology. BioEssays, 27, 1270–1276.
Richards, K. (2009). A hard act to follow: Conference debate and student argument. In M. Gotti (Ed.), Commonality and individuality in English academic discourse (pp. 83–113). Bern: Peter Lang.
Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Moser, R. P., Feng, A., Misra, S., & Taylor, B. K. (2010). Cross-disciplinary team science initiatives: Research, training and translation. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, C. Mitcham, & J. B. Holbrook (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 471–493). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Choi, S., Richards, K. (2017). Conclusion. In: Interdisciplinary Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47040-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-47040-9_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-47039-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-47040-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)