Abstract
This chapter offers an account of the disciplinary regime, its origins, conceptual assumptions, and current breakdown. What defines disciplinarity, both historically and conceptually? What purposes did it serve? What are the forces that are bringing it to an end? This analysis emphasizes a point that is generally neglected: the crucial role played by the concept of peer review, which has functioned as the principle of governance of the disciplinary academy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
AUA, 2012. “AUA Speaks out against USPSTF Recommendations,” at http://web.archive.org/web/20120928041539/ and http://www.auanet.org/content/homepage/homepage.cfm. Captured October 1, 2012, accessed September 13, 2013.
Bush, Vannevar, 1945. Science, the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research. United States Government Printing Office, Washington.
Christensen, Clayton M., and Eyring, Henry, J., 2011. The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Chubin, Daryl and Hackett, Edward, 1990. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy. State University of New York Press.
Clark, William, 2006. Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University. University of Chicago Press.
Fish, Stanley, 2008. “Will the Humanities Save Us?” New York Times, January 6.
Forman, Paul, 2012. “On the Historical Forms of Knowledge, Production and Curation,” OSIRIS, 27: 56–97.
Frodeman, Robert, Briggle, Adam, and Holbrook, J. Britt, 2012. “Philosophy in the Age of Neoliberalism,” Social Epistemology, vol. 25, no. 3–4: 311–330.
Grafton, Anthony, 2009. “A Sketch Map of a Lost Continent: The Republic of Letters,” Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the Arts, vol. 1, no. 1, May 1.
Guston, David, 2002. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge University Press.
Harden, Nathan, 2013. “The End of the University as We Know It,” The American Interest, vol. 8, no. 3, at http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1352
Heckhausen, Heinz, 1972. “Discipline and Interdisciplinarity,” Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Holbrook, J. Britt, 2012. “Re-assessing the science — society relation: the case of the US National Science Foundation’s broader impacts merit review criterion (1997–2011),” in Robert Frodeman, J. Britt Holbrook, Carl Mitcham, and Hong Xiaonan (eds), Peer Review, Research Integrity, and the Governance of Science — Practice, Theory, and Current Discussions. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, pp. 328–362.
Holbrook, J. Britt and Frodeman, Robert, 2011. “Peer Review and the Ex Ante Assessment of Societal Impacts,” Research Evaluation, vol. 20, no. 3, September: 239–246.
IBM 2013. Bringing Big Data to the Enterprise at http://www-01.ibm.com/software/data/bigdata/, accessed date February 16, 2013.
Joy, Bill, 2000. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” Wired, 8.04, April, 2000, at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html.
Klein, Julie Thompson, 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press,
Klein, Julie Thompson, 1996. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities in the Series on Knowledge: Disciplinarity and Beyond. University Press of Virginia.
Klein, Julie Thompson, 2005. Humanities, Culture, and Interdisciplinarity: The Changing American Academy. State University of New York Press.
Laudan, Larry, 1983/1996. “The demise of the demarcation problem,” in M. Ruse (ed.), But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 337–350.
Michael McKeon, 1994. “The Origins of Interdisciplinary Studies,” Eighteenth-Century Studies, vol. 28, no. 1 Autumn: 17–28.
NSF, 2012. National Science Foundation, “Revised Merit Review Criteria Resources for the External Community,” at http://wwwnsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/resources.jsp.
NYYs 1, 2011. “U.S. Panel Says No to Prostate Screening for Healthy Men,” by Gardiner Harris, New York Times, October 6.
NYTs 2, 2103. “New Prostate Cancer Tests Could Reduce False Alarms,” by Andrew Pollack, New York Times, March 26.
NYTs 3, 2013. “Looser Guidelines Issued on Prostate Screening,” by Andrew Pollack, New York Times, May 3.
O’Rourke, Michael and Crowley, Stephen J., 2012. “Philosophical Intervention and Cross-disciplinary Science: The Story of the Toolbox Project,” Synthese [Published online 13, September, 2012], doi: 10.1007/s11229–012-0175-y. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229–012-0175-y, accessed on November 4, 2013
Pielke, R.A., Jr., 2012. “‘Basic Research’ as a Political Symbol,” Minerva, vol. 50: 339–361.
Pielke, R.A., Jr. and Byerly, R. 1998. “Beyond Basic and Applied,” Physics Today, vol. 51, no. 2: 42–46.
Polanyi, Michael, 1962. “The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory,” Minerva, vol. 1: 54–74.
Rothenberg, Marc, 2010. “Making Judgments about Grant Proposals: A Brief History of the Merit Review Criteria at the National Science Foundation,” Technology and Innovation, vol. 12: 189–195.
Sarewitz, Daniel, 1996. Frontiers of Illusion. Temple University Press.
Schrum, Ethan, 2007. “Establishing a Democratic Religion: Metaphysics and Democracy in the Debates over the President’s Commission on Higher Education,” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 3 August.
Science Progress, 2011. U.S. Scientific Research and Development 101, at http://scienceprogress.org/2011/02/u-s-scientific-research-and-development-101/, accessed date February 16, 2013.
Shattuck, Roger, 1996. Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography. New York City: St. Martin’s Press.
Stichweh, Rudolph, 2001. “History of the Scientific Disciplines,” The International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 20: 13727–13731.
Turner, Stephen, 2000. “What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different?” in Stehr, N. and Weingart, P. (eds), Practising Interdisciplinarity, University of Toronto Press, pp. 46–65.
Veysey, Laurence R., 1965. The Emergence of the American University. University of Chicago Press.
Weingart, Peter, 2010. “A Short History of Knowledge Formations,” in Frodeman, R., Klein, J.T., and Mitcham, C. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, Oxford University Press, pp. 3–14.
Winterer, Caroline, 2012. “Where Is America in the Republic of Letters?” Modern Intellectual History, vol. 9, no 3, November: 597–623.
Copyright information
© 2014 Robert Frodeman
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Frodeman, R. (2014). Disciplinarity. In: Sustainable Knowledge: A Theory of Interdisciplinarity. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137303028_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137303028_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-45405-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-30302-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)