Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Needs of Interdisciplinary Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization

Abstract

We begin this chapter by outlining a set of interdisciplinary information needs derived from our discussion in Chap. 1. We then discuss each of these in turn. We close the chapter by discussing how disciplinary scholars would be affected by the adoption of KOSs that met interdisciplinary needs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is no detailed model of interdisciplinary search practices (Palmer 2010, 182). We have thus pursued the strategy of first identifying what interdisciplinary researchers and students are trying to do, and then discussing what sort of information-seeking strategies are required.

  2. 2.

    ‘Since works on women’s health are shelved in the R’s with other medical guides, literary criticism of the works of women authors shelved in the P’s by nationality and period, studies of female psychology in the BF’s, and so on, one cannot engage in the sort of browsing and serendipitous discovery that should ideally support interdisciplinary scholarship’ (Searing 1992, 8). Arguably, though, browsing the shelves has become less important with digitization of both works and catalogues.

  3. 3.

    It is increasingly important to access ‘behind the scenes’ records of scholarship (Lambe 2011). But this is generally held in archives or online databases rather than libraries.

  4. 4.

    In a different context, Boteram and Hubrich (2010) argue that a subset of relationships is needed to provide interfaces between different classification systems).

  5. 5.

    Beghtol (1994, 143) notes that a synthetic approach is very useful in describing unreal things or processes such as (trees) (talking). She also (126) reports on research that suggests readers summarize fictional works in similar ways. She surveys many works that argue that it is both feasible and desirable to classify the relationships in fiction, though the precise classifications suggested are each problematic.

  6. 6.

    We need to embrace—and perhaps distinguish—different types of causation/influence identified by philosophers: individual instances (child kicks ball), causal laws (the laws of thermodynamics), and causal possibilities (aspirin can reduce headaches).

  7. 7.

    Most documentary reports, although usually dealing with phenomena, do so from the viewpoint of a particular activity, so both aspects are needed in order to state its “subject” (Vickery 2008).

  8. 8.

    Faceted classifications take a synthetic approach, and seek to identify the key attributes of a work. They are contrasted with the more common enumerative approach which seek to enumerate a large set of often complex subject headings. This distinction is further explored at the start of Chap. 3. See Integrative Levels Classification (2004) and Szostak (2013) respectively. See also Chap. 4 below.

  9. 9.

    Szostak (2002) developed a 12-step process for interdisciplinary analysis. It was argued that even though these steps could not all be followed exhaustively in any project, it was very important for researchers to reflect on what had been omitted. Szostak (2009) is organized around these 12 steps. Newell (2007) outlines a slightly different but complementary approach. Repko (2012) synthesizes these and other approaches, and shows how these can be applied.

  10. 10.

    Palmer notes that while vocabulary is central to the challenge of translation so also are ‘research conventions and culture.’ These will be addressed below under ‘disciplinary perspective .’

  11. 11.

    This argument is consistent with Stone’s (2014) contention that the key to successful interdisciplinary communication is an ontological emphasis on real objects in the world that we perceive in similar ways rather than the epistemological emphasis on ways of knowing favored by disciplines.

References

  • Association for Interdisciplinary Studies (AIS) (2013) About Interdisciplinarity. http//www.oakland.edu/ais/

  • Austin DW (1976) The CRG research into a freely faceted scheme. In: Maltby A (ed) Classification in the 1970s, a second look. Bingley, London, pp 158–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird D, Cohen MS (1999) Why trade? Perspect Sci 7(2):231–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates MJ (1996) Learning about the information seeking of interdisciplinary scholars and students. Libr Trends 45(1):155–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean CA, Green R, Myaeng SH (2002) Preface. In: Green R, Bean CA, Myaeng SH (eds) The semantics of relationships. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp vii–xvi

    Google Scholar 

  • Beghtol C (1994) The classification of fiction, the Development of a system based on theoretical principles. Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Beghtol C (1995) ‘Facets’ as undiscovered public knowledge: S.R. Ranganathan in India and S. Guttman in Israel. J Doc 51(3):194–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2012) Methods for transdisciplinary research: a primer for practice. Campus, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Börner K (2006) Semantic association networks: using semantic web technology to improve scholarly knowledge and expertise management. In: Geroimenko V, Chen C (eds) Visualizing the semantic web, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 183–198

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boteram F, Hubrich J (2010) Specifying intersystem relations: requirements, strategies, and issues. Knowl Org 37(4):216–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulick S (1982) Structure and subject interaction. Marcel Dekker, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousson P (2009) UDC as a non-disciplinary classification for a high school library. Proceedings of the UDC seminar 2009: classification at a crossroads. Extensions Corrections UDC 31:243–252, http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/199909

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg I (1994) Domain interaction: theory and practice. Adv Knowl Org 4:60–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis CH, Shaw D (2011) Introduction to information science & technology. ASIST Monograph Series, Medford, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison P (1997) Image & logic: a material culture of microphysics. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnoli C (2007) Progress in synthetic classification: towards unique definition of concepts. UDC seminar: the Hague. Extensions and Corrections to the UDC 29. http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/105614

  • Gnoli C (2010) Classification transcends library business. Knowl Org 37(3):223–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnoli C, Hong M (2006) Freely faceted classification for Web-based information retrieval. New Rev Hypermedia Multimedia 12(1):63–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gnoli C, Merli G, Pavan G, Bernuzzi E, Priano M (2008) Freely faceted classification for a Web-based bibliographic archive: the BioAcoustic Reference Database. Repositories of knowledge in digital spaces: proceedings of the eleventh German ISKO Conference, Konstanz. Ergon, Würzburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Green R (2008) Relationships in knowledge organization. Knowl Org 35(2/3):150–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart G, Dolbear C (2013) Linked data: a geographic perspective. CRC, Boca Raton, FL

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland B (2012) Is classification necessary after Google? J Doc 68(3):299–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland B, Nissen Pedersen K (2005) A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. J Doc 61(5):582–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoetzlein R (2007) The organization of human knowledge: systems for interdisciplinary research. Masters thesis, Media Arts and Technology Program, University of California Santa Barbara

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood WW, Wilson CS (2001) The scatter of documents over databases in different subject domains: how many databases are needed? J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 52(14):1242–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume D (2000) An enquiry concerning human understanding. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, Edited by Tom L. Beauchamp

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins WJ (1977) On the problem of ‘Aboutness’ in document analysis. J Inform 1:17–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) (2004) ISKO Italia. www.iskoi.org/ilc/

  • Iyer H (1995) Classificatory structures: concepts, relations and representation. Indeks Verlag, Frankfurt/Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Julien C-A, Tirilly P, Dinneen J, Guastavino C (2013) Reducing subject tree browsing complexity. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 64:2201–2223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory and practice. The Wayne State University Press, Detroit

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT (1996) Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleineberg M (2013) The blind men and the elephant: towards an organization of epistemic contexts. Knowl Org 40(5):340–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Knapp JA (2012) Plugging the ‘whole’: librarians as interdisciplinary facilitators. Libr Rev 61(3):199–214

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kutner LA (2000) Library instruction in an interdisciplinary environmental studies program: challenges, opportunities and reflections. Issues Sci Technol Librarianship 28. www.library.ucsb.edu/istl/00-fall/

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyle B (1960) Classification: adopt, adapt, or create?: A discussion point. Aslib Proc 12(9):317–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambe P (2011) KOS as enablers to the conduct of science. Paper presented at the ISKO-UK conference. http://www.iskouk.org/conf2011/papers/lambe.pdf

  • Landry P (2004) Multilingual subject access: the linking approach of MACS. Catalog Classif Q 37(3-4):177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langridge DW (1992) Classification: its kinds, elements, systems and applications. Bowker-Saur, London

    Google Scholar 

  • León Manifesto (2007) Knowl Org 34(1):6–8. Available [with commentary] at: www.iskoi.org/ilc/leon.php

  • Mai J-E (2008) Actors, domains, and constraints in the design and construction of controlled vocabularies. Knowl Org 35(1):16–29

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Newell WH (2007) Decision-making in interdisciplinary studies. In: Morcol G (ed) Handbook of decision-making. Marcel Dekker Publishers, New York, pp 245–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson H (2007) How we construct subjects: a feminist analysis. Libr Trends 56(2):509–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD (eds) (2014) Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer CL (1996) Information work at the boundaries of science: linking library services to research practices. Libr Trends 45(2):165–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer CL (2001) Work at the boundaries of science: information and the interdisciplinary research process. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer CL (2010) Information research on interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 174–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrault JM (1994) Categories and relators: a new schema. Knowl Org 21(4):189–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Reijnen R, Foppen R (1994) The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in Woodland, 1: evidence of reduced habitat quality for Willow Warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) breeding close to a highway. J Appl Ecol 31:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repko AF (2012) Interdisciplinary research: process and theory, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Repko AF, Szostak R, Buchberger MP (2014) Introduction to interdisciplinary studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Šauperl A (2013) Four views of a novel: characteristics of novels as described by publishers, librarians, literary theorists, and readers. Catalog Classif Q 51(6):624–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searing SE (1992) How libraries cope with interdisciplinarity: the case of women’s studies. Issues Integr Stud 10:7–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Searing SE (1996) Meeting the information needs of interdisciplinary scholars: issues for administrators of large university libraries. Libr Trends 45(2):315–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiraglia RP, van den Heuvel C (2013) Classifications and concepts: towards an elementary theory of knowledge interaction. J Doc 69:360–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spärck Jones K (2005) Some thoughts on classification for retrieval. J Doc 61(5):571–581 [Originally published, 1970]

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone DA (2014) Beyond common ground: a transdisciplinary approach to interdisciplinary communication and collaboration. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD (eds) Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 82–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenonius E (1997) Definitional approaches in the design of classification and thesauri and their implications for retrieval and for automatic classification. In: Knowledge organization for information retrieval: proceedings of the sixth international study conference on classification research, London. FID, The Hague, pp 12–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2002) How to do interdisciplinarity: integrating the debate. Issues Integr Stud 20:103–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2004) Classifying science: phenomena, data, theory, method, practice. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2007) Modernism, postmodernism, and interdisciplinarity. Issues Integr Stud 26:32–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2009) The causes of economic growth: interdisciplinary perspectives. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2010) Universal and domain-specific classifications from an interdisciplinary perspective. In: Gnoli C, Mazzocchi F (eds) Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: proceedings of the 2010 conference of the international society for knowledge organization, Rome. Ergon Verlag, Würzburg, pp 71–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2012) Classifying relationships. Knowl Org 39(3):165–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2013) Basic concepts classification. https://sites.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/rick-szostak/research/basic-concepts-classification-web-version-2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2014a) Classifying the humanities. Knowl Org 41(4):263–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2014b) Skepticism and knowledge organization. In: Babik W (ed) Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the 13th ISKO conference, Krakow. Würzburg, Ergon

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2014c) Communicating complex concepts. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD, Wulfhorst JD (eds) Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 34–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Szostak R (2015) Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary multi-method and mixed methods research. In: Hesse-Biber S, Johnson RB (eds) The Oxford handbook of mixed and multi-method research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 128–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Thellefsen M, Thellefsen T, Sørensen B (2013) A pragmatic semeiotic perspective on the concept of information need and its relevance for Knowledge Organization. Knowl Org 40(4):213–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickery BC (2008) The structure of subject classifications for document retrieval. Butterworths, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace RA, Wolf A (2006) Contemporary sociological theory: expanding the classical tradition, 6th edn. Harper-Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg BH (1988) Why indexing fails the researcher. Indexer 16(1):3–6, http://people.unt.edu/~skh0001/wein1.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesolek A (2012) Wittgensteinian support for domain analysis in classification. Libr Philos Pract 1(1):1–10, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1933&context=libphilprac

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein L (1953) Philosophical investigations. In: Anscombe GEM, Rhees R (eds) trans Anscombe GEM. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeng ML, Zumer M, Salaba A (2011) The functional requirements for subject authority records. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutes Report. DeGruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

    Rick Szostak

  2. Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Claudio Gnoli

  3. University of Granada, Granada, Granada, Spain

    María López-Huertas

Authors
  1. Rick Szostak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudio Gnoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. María López-Huertas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szostak, R., Gnoli, C., López-Huertas, M. (2016). The Needs of Interdisciplinary Research. In: Interdisciplinary Knowledge Organization. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30148-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30148-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-30147-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-30148-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation