Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 453–477 | Cite as

Epistemological or Political? Unpacking Ambiguities in the Field of Interdisciplinarity Studies

  • Dorte MadsenEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper unpacks ambiguities in the field of interdisciplinarity studies (IDS), explores where they come from and how they inhibit consolidation of the field. The paper takes its point of departure in two central fault lines in the literature: the relationship between interdisciplinarity and disciplinarity and the question of whether integration is a necessary prerequisite for interdisciplinarity. Opposite positions on the fault lines are drawn out to identify sources of ambiguities, and to examine whether the positions are irreconcilable - or disagreements that may continue to coexist in a consolidated field. It is argued that if we envisage a consolidated field of IDS, there is a need to develop common ground which calls for scholars of ID to be more explicit about the meanings they ascribe to ID than we see today when the sliding between the epistemological and political dimensions of the field may go unnoticed. It is suggested that whereas ambiguity may be unwanted in the epistemological dimension, it may be quite useful in the political dimension. A systematic comparison of opposite positions offers a common frame of reference for a more productive dialogue between different positions. The analysis shows that as to integration, the difference between opposite positions can be reconciled, whereas in the relation between interdisciplinarity and disciplinarity, the positions are antagonistic and logically exclude each other. The analysis suggests that it is the premise of integration that creates the conditions of possibility for “relabelling” interdisciplinarity and for using the “silo” for disciplines.

Keywords

Field of interdisciplinarity studies Ambiguity Hegemony Epistemology Reflexivity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Hans Krause Hansen and Dennis Schoeneborn at Copenhagen Business School as well as the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback and suggestions.

References

  1. Aboelela, S.W., E. Larson, S. Bakken, O. Carrasquillo, A. Formicola, S.A. Glied, J. Haas, and K.M. Gebbie. 2007. Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature. Health Services Research 42(1): 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barry, Andrew, Georgina Born, and Gisa Weszkalnys. 2008. Logics of Interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37(1): 20–49.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason. Information (International Social Science Council) 14(6): 19–47.  https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847501400602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc J.D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bromme, Rainer. 2000. Beyond One’s Own Perspective: The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity. In Practising Interdisciplinarity, eds. Peter Weingart, and Nico Stehr, 114–133. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bruun, Henrik, Janne Hukkinen, Katri Huutoniemi, and Julie Thompson Klein. 2005. Promoting Interdisciplinary Research: The Case of the Academy of Finland. Publications of the Academy of Finland Series no. Helsinki: Publications of the Academy of Finland.Google Scholar
  7. Buanes, Arild, and Svein Jentoft. 2009. Building Bridges: Institutional Perspectives on Interdisciplinarity. Futures 41(7): 446–454.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.01.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, D.T. 1969. Ethnocentrism of Disciplines and the Fish-Scale Model of Omniscience. In Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, eds. M. Sherif, and C.W. Sherif, 328–348. Chicago: Aldine.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2093002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canet, Émilie, and Sébastien Damart. 2016. A Study of a Rhetorical Mechanism Used in Management Concepts Development Processes. In 32nd EGOS Colloquium.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, Herbert H. 1992. Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. 2004. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11153.
  13. Dogan, Mattei, and Robert Pahre. 1990. Creative Marginality: Innovation at the Intersections of Social Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. Eisenberg, Eric M. 1984. Ambiguity as Strategy in Organizational Communication. Communication Monographs 51(3): 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freeden, Michael. 2004. Editorial: Essential Contestability and Effective Contestability. Journal of Political Ideologies.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1356931042000176697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frickel, Scott, Mathieu Albert, and Barbara Prainsack. 2016. Introduction. Investigating Interdisciplinarities. In Investigating Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Theory and Practice across Disciplines, eds. Scott Frickel, Mathieu Albert, and Barbara Prainsack, 5–24. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science—Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48(6): 781–795.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glynos, Jason, and David Howarth. 2007. Logics of Critical Explanation in Social and Political Theory. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holbrook, J. Britt. 2013. What Is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration. Synthese 190(11): 1865–1879.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Horlick-Jones, Tom, and Jonathan Sime. 2004. Living on the Border: Knowledge, Risk and Transdisciplinarity. Transdisciplinarity 36(4): 441–456.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howarth, David. 2000. Discourse. Concepts in the Social Sciences. Buckingham: Open University.Google Scholar
  22. Howarth, David (ed.). 2015. Ernesto Laclau: Post-Marxism, Populism and Critique. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Howarth, David, and Yannis Stavrakakis. 2000. Introducing Discourse Theory and Political Analysis. In Discourse Theory and Political Analysis: Identities, Hegemonies and Social Change, eds. David Howarth, Aletta Norval, and Yannis Stavrakakis, 1–23. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Huutoniemi, Katri, Julie Thompson Klein, Henrik Bruun, and Janne Hukkinen. 2010. Analyzing Interdisciplinarity: Typology and Indicators. Research Policy 39(1): 79–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs, Jerry A. 2014. In Defense of Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacobs, Jerry A., and Scott Frickel. 2009. Interdisciplinarity: A Critical Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 35: 43–65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27800068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jørgensen, Marianne W., and Louise J. Phillips. 2002. Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Justesen, Lise Nederland, and Nanna Mik-Meyer. 2012. Qualitative Research Methods in Organisation Studies. København: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  29. Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory and Practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Klein, Julie Thompson. 1996. Crossing Boundaries. Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Knowledge, Disciplinarity and Beyond. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  31. Klein, Julie Thompson. 2000. A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science. In Practising Interdisciplinarity, eds. Peter Weingart, and Nico Stehr, 3–24. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  32. Klein, Julie Thompson. 2010a. Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures: A Model for Strength and Sustainability. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Klein, Julie Thompson. 2010b. A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, eds. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham, 15–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Klenk, Nicole, and Katie Meehan. 2015. Climate Change and Transdisciplinary Science: Problematizing the Integration Imperative. Environmental Science & Policy 54: 160–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krishnan, Armin. 2009. What Are Academic Disciplines? Some Observations on Disciplinarity vs Interdisciplinarity Debate. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods: NCRM Working Paper Series 03/09. Working Paper Series March. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/783/1/what_are_academic_disciplines.pdf.
  36. Laclau, Ernesto. 1990. New Reflections on the Revolutions of Our Time. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  37. Laclau, Ernesto. 1996. Why Do Empty Signifiers Matter to Politics. Emancipation (S) 36: 46.Google Scholar
  38. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  39. Laffey, Mark, and Jutta Weldes. 2004. Methodological Reflections on Discourse Analysis. Qualitative Methods 2: 28–30.Google Scholar
  40. Lattuca, Lisa R. 2001. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among College and University Faculty. Vanderbilt Issues in Higher Education. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lattuca, Lisa R. 2003. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Grounded Definitions from the College and University Faculty. History of Intellectual Culture 3(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  42. Madsen, Dorte. 2012. Interdisciplinarity in the Information Field. In Proceedings of the 75th ASIS&T Annual Meeting., ed. A. Grove, 49:1–6. Baltimore: American Society for Information Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  43. Madsen, Dorte. 2016. Liberating Interdisciplinarity from Myth. An Exploration of the Discursive Construction of Identities in Information Studies. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67(11): 2697–2709.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Madsen, Dorte. 2018. Conspicuous by Presence: The Empty Signifier ‘Interdisciplinarity’ and the Representation of Absence. In Exploring Silence and Absence in Discourse: Empirical Approaches, eds. Melani Schröter, and Charlotte Taylor, 359–390. Cham: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64580-3_13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Messer-Davidow, Ellen, David R. Shumway, and David J. Sylvan. 1993. Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  46. Meyerson, Debra E. 1991. Acknowledging and Uncovering Ambiguities in Cultures. In Reframing Organizational Culture, eds. J. Martin, L.M.P. Frost, M. Louis, and C. Lundberg, 254–270. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Moran, Joe. 2010. Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Rourke, Michael, Stephen Crowley, Sanford D. Eigenbrode, and J.D. Wulfhorst. 2013. Enhancing Communication & Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  49. Repko, Allen F. 2012. Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory, 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  50. Salter, Liora, and Alison Hearn (eds.). 1997. Outside the Lines: Issues in Interdisciplinary Research. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine, and Dvora Yanow. 2012. Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Siedlok, Frank, and Paul Hibbert. 2014. The Organization of Interdisciplinary Research: Modes, Drivers and Barriers. International Journal of Management Reviews 16(2): 194–210.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Torfing, Jacob. 1999. New Theories of Discourse: Laclau, Mouffe and Zizek. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  54. Torfing, Jacob. 2005. Discourse Theory: Achievements, Argument, and Challenges. In Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity, Policy and Governance, eds. David Howarth, and Jacob Torfing, 1–32. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Wall, Sarah, and Irene Shankar. 2008. Adventures in Transdisciplinary Learning. Studies in Higher Education 33(5): 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weingart, Peter. 2000. Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse. In Practising Interdisciplinarity, eds. Peter Weingart, and Nico Stehr, 25–41. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  57. Weingart, Peter. 2010. A Short History of Knowledge Formations. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, eds. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham, 3–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Weingart, Peter, and Nico Stehr (eds.). 2000. Practising Interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management, Society and CommunicationCopenhagen Business SchoolCopenhagen FDenmark

Personalised recommendations