, Volume 190, Issue 11, pp 1857–1864 | Cite as

Philosophy of and as interdisciplinarity

  • Michael H. G. Hoffmann
  • Jan C. Schmidt
  • Nancy J. Nersessian


Academic Discipline Triple Helix Trading Zone Transdisciplinary Research Social Epistemology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A., Michaud, G. (eds) (1972) Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research in universities. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, E. (2002). Transformation of social and ecological issues into transdisciplinary research. In Knowledge for sustainable development. An insight into the encyclopedia of life support systems, UNESCO (Vol. 3) (pp. 949–963), Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  3. Böhme G., et al. (Eds.) (1983). Finalization in science. The social orientation of scientific progress. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  4. Carrier M. (2001) Business as usual: On the prospect of normality in scientific research. In: Decker M. (ed) Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment, implementation and its chances and limits. Springer, Berlin, pp 25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chubin, S., Porter, A. L., Rossini, F. A., Connolly, T. (eds) (1986) Interdisciplinary analysis and research. Theory and practice of problem-focused research and development. Mt Airy, LomondGoogle Scholar
  6. De Bie P. (1970) Problemorientierte Forschung. Bericht an die Unesco. Ullstein, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  7. Decker’s, M. (ed) (2001) Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment, implementation and its chances and limits. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (1997) Special issue on science policy dimensions of the triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Science and Public Policy 24(1): 2–52Google Scholar
  9. Frodeman, R. (2010). Experiments in field philosophy. The New York times: The stone. Retrieved from
  10. Frodeman, R., Thompson Klein, J., Mitcham , C. (eds) (2010) The Oxford Handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Funtowicz S. O., Ravetz J. R. (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 9: 739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galison P. (1996) Computer simulations and the trading zone. In: Galison P., Stump D.J. (eds) The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 118–157Google Scholar
  13. Gibbons M. et al (1994) The new production of knowledge. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Gorman M. (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Haraway D. (2003) Modest_witness@second_millennium. In: MacKenzie D., Wajcman J. (eds) The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, Berkshire, pp 41–49Google Scholar
  16. Hirsch Hadorn G. et al (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoffmann, M. H. G., Schmidt, J. C. (2011). Philosophy of (and as) interdisciplinarity. Workshop Report, Atlanta, 28–29 September 2009. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 42(1), 169–175. doi: 10.1007/s10838-011-9150-4
  18. Hottois G. (1984) Le signe et la technique. Aubier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Jantsch E. (1970) Inter- and transdisziplinarity university: A systems approach to education and innovation. Policy Sciences 1: 403–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jungert, M. (ed) et al (2010) Interdisziplinarität. Theorie, Praxis, Probleme. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  21. Kastenhofer, K., & Schmidt, J. C. (2011). On intervention, construction and creation: Power and Knowledge in technoscience and late-modern technology. In T. B. Zülsdorfer et al. (Eds.), Quantum engagements: Social reflections of nanoscience and emerging technologies (pp. 177–194). Heidelberg: AKA/IOS Press.Google Scholar
  22. Klein J. T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press, DetroitGoogle Scholar
  23. Klein J. T. (1996) Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia, CharlottesvilleGoogle Scholar
  24. Kline’s S. J. (1995) Conceptual foundations of multidisciplinary thinking. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Mittelstraß J. (1987) Die Stunde der Interdisziplinarität. In: Kocka J. (ed.), Interdisziplinarität (pp 152–158).Google Scholar
  26. NRC, National Research Council. (2003). Beyond productivity: Information, technology, innovation, and creativity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nersessian N., Patton C. (2009) Model-based reasoning in interdisciplinary engineering. In: Meijers A. (ed) Handbook of the philosophy of technology and engineering sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 687–718Google Scholar
  28. Nordmann A. (2005) Was ist TechnoWissenschaft?. In: Rossmann T., Tropea C. (eds) Bionik: Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse aus Natur-, Ingenieur- und Geisteswissenschaften. Springer, Berlin, pp 291–311Google Scholar
  29. Nordmann A. et al (2008) Philosophy of nanotechnoscience. In: Schmid G. (ed) Nanotechnology, Vol. 1: Principles and fundamentals. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 217–244Google Scholar
  30. Norton B. G. (2005) Sustainability. A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ropohl G. (2005) Allgemeine Systemtheorie als transdisziplinäre Integrationsmethode. Technik- folgenabschätzung. Theorie & Praxis 14(2): 24–31Google Scholar
  32. Rossini, F. A., & Porter, A. L. (1979). Frameworks for integrating interdisciplinary research. Research Policy, 8, 70–79.Google Scholar
  33. Schmidt J. C. (2007) Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity. An attempt to provide a classification and clarification. Poiesis and Praxis 5(1): 53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmidt J. C. (2011) What is a problem? On problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. Poiesis and Praxis 7(4): 249–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmidt J. C. (2011) Toward an epistemology of nano-technoscience: Probing technoscience from a historical perspective. Poiesis and Praxis 8(2): 103–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “Translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and Proffessionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.Google Scholar
  37. Ziman J. (2000) Postacademic science: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. In: Segerstrale U. (ed) Beyond science wars: The missing discourse about science and society. State University of New York Press, New York, pp 135–154Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael H. G. Hoffmann
    • 1
  • Jan C. Schmidt
    • 1
  • Nancy J. Nersessian
    • 1
  1. 1.Darmstadt University of Applied SciencesDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations