Philosophy of and as interdisciplinarity

An Erratum to this article was published on 19 March 2013

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  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, Paris

    Google 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.

  3. Böhme G., et al. (Eds.) (1983). Finalization in science. The social orientation of scientific progress. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  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 25–31

    Google 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, Lomond

    Google Scholar 

  6. De Bie P. (1970) Problemorientierte Forschung. Bericht an die Unesco. Ullstein, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  7. Decker’s, M. (ed) (2001) Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment, implementation and its chances and limits. Springer, Berlin

    Google 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): 2–52

    Google Scholar 

  9. Frodeman, R. (2010). Experiments in field philosophy. The New York times: The stone. Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/experiments-in-field-philosophy/

  10. Frodeman, R., Thompson Klein, J., Mitcham , C. (eds) (2010) The Oxford Handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  11. Funtowicz S. O., Ravetz J. R. (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 9: 739–755

    Article  Google 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 118–157

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gibbons M. et al (1994) The new production of knowledge. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gorman M. (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT Press, Boston

    Google 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 41–49

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hirsch Hadorn G. et al (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, The Netherlands

    Book  Google 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, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jantsch E. (1970) Inter- and transdisziplinarity university: A systems approach to education and innovation. Policy Sciences 1: 403–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jungert, M. (ed) et al (2010) Interdisziplinarität. Theorie, Praxis, Probleme. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt

    Google 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.

  22. Klein J. T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit

    Google Scholar 

  23. Klein J. T. (1996) Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kline’s S. J. (1995) Conceptual foundations of multidisciplinary thinking. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google 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.

  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 687–718

    Google 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 291–311

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nordmann A. et al (2008) Philosophy of nanotechnoscience. In: Schmid G. (ed) Nanotechnology, Vol. 1: Principles and fundamentals. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 217–244

    Google Scholar 

  30. Norton B. G. (2005) Sustainability. A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Ropohl G. (2005) Allgemeine Systemtheorie als transdisziplinäre Integrationsmethode. Technik- folgenabschätzung. Theorie & Praxis 14(2): 24–31

    Google 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): 53–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schmidt J. C. (2011) What is a problem? On problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. Poiesis and Praxis 7(4): 249–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schmidt J. C. (2011) Toward an epistemology of nano-technoscience: Probing technoscience from a historical perspective. Poiesis and Praxis 8(2): 103–124

    Article  Google 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.

  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 135–154

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael H. G. Hoffmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoffmann, M.H.G., Schmidt, J.C. & J. Nersessian, N. Philosophy of and as interdisciplinarity. Synthese 190, 1857–1864 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0214-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Academic Discipline
  • Triple Helix
  • Trading Zone
  • Transdisciplinary Research
  • Social Epistemology