Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship

2013 Edition
| Editors: Elias G. Carayannis

Interdisciplinary Research (Interdisciplinarity)

  • Markus ArnoldEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_302



From the beginning the discourse on interdisciplinarity (ID) was “a discourse on innovation in knowledge production” (Weingart 2000: 30). Its basic objective has been to make science and higher education more responsive to the complexity of life-world problems and more relevant for the public good and the legitimate needs of the society. The criticism leveled in the name of ID against the disciplinary organization of the traditional universities was summarized under the oft-cited catchphrase “Communities have problems, universities departments” (CERI 1982: 127).

The term interdisciplinarity or interdisciplinary research (ID) can be defined in two distinct but intersecting ways: interdisciplinarity means either the collaboration of researchers trained in different fields of knowledge or the integration of different concepts, methods, and data from two or more different disciplines, no matter if this interdisciplinary...

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


  1. Abbott A. The system of professions: an essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago/London: University of Chicago; 1988.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold M. Disziplin und Initiation. Die kulturellen Praktiken der Wissenschaft. In: Arnold M, Fischer R, editors. Disziplinierungen. Kulturen der Wissenschaft im Vergleich. Wien: Turia & Kant; 2004. p. 18–52.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold M. Interdisziplinarität: theorie und praxis eines forschungskonzepts. In: Arnold M, editor. iff – Interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft im Wandel. Wien-Münster: Peter Lang; 2009. p. 65–97.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold M, Dressel G. iff – Geschichte einer interdisziplinären Institution. In: Arnold M, editor. iff – Interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft im Wandel. Wien-Münster: Peter Lang; 2009. p. 17–56.Google Scholar
  5. Becher T. Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  6. Bell D. The coming of post-industrial society: a venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books; 1973.Google Scholar
  7. Braudel F. History and the social sciences. The Longue Durée. In: Braudel F, editor. On history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1980. p. 25–54.Google Scholar
  8. Briggs A, et al., editors. Interdisciplinarity. Problems of teaching and research in Universities. Paris: OECD; 1972.Google Scholar
  9. Bruun H, Hukkinen J, Huutoniemi K, Klein JT. Promoting interdisciplinary research: the case of the Academy of Finland. Helsinki: Publications of the Academy of Finland; 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ. Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems: 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. New York/London: Springer; 2012.Google Scholar
  11. CERI. The university and the community. The problems of changing relationships. Paris: OECD; 1982.Google Scholar
  12. Collins HM, Evans R. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci. 2002;32(2):235–96.Google Scholar
  13. Collins HM, Evans R. Rethinking expertise. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  14. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research et al. Facilitating interdisciplinary research 2005. Washingon, D.C.: National Academies Press: National Academy of Sciences, and National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine; 2005.Google Scholar
  15. de Gay P, et al. Doing cultural studies. The story of the Sony Walkman. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage; 1997.Google Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy. 2000;29(2):109–23.Google Scholar
  17. EU Research Advisory Board. Interdisciplinarity in research. EURAB http://ec.europa.eu/research/eurab/pdf/eurab_04_009_interdisciplinarity_research_final.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2012; 2004.
  18. Frodeman R, et al., editors. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinary. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  19. Galison P. Image and logic: a material culture of microphysics. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  20. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzmann S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary Societies. London: Sage; 1994.Google Scholar
  21. Gorman ME. Levels of expertise and trading zones: a framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Soc Stud Sci. 2002;32(5–6):933–8.Google Scholar
  22. Hackett EJ. Interdisciplinary research initiatives at the U.S. National Science Foundation. In: Weingart P, Stehr N, editors. Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press; 2000. p. 248–59.Google Scholar
  23. Huutoniemi K. Evaluating interdisciplinary research. In: Frodemann R et al., editors. The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 309–20.Google Scholar
  24. Klein JT. Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  25. Klein JT. Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottville/London: University Press of Virginia; 1996.Google Scholar
  26. Knorr-Cetina K. Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  27. Kockelmans JJ, editor. Interdisciplinarity and higher education. University Park/London: Pennsylvania State University Press; 1979.Google Scholar
  28. Krull W, Krull W. Beyond the ivory tower. Some observations on external funding of interdisciplinary research in universities. In: Weingart P, Stehr N, editors. Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press; 2000. p. 260–9.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press; 1970.Google Scholar
  30. Lamont M. How professors think: inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge-London: Harvard University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  31. Laudel G. Conclave in the tower of Babel: how peers review interdisciplinary research proposals. Research Evaluation. 2006;15(1):57–68.Google Scholar
  32. Lester RK, Priore MJ. Innovation. The missing dimension. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  33. Mansilla VB. Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration. Research Evaluation. 2006;15(1):17–29.Google Scholar
  34. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  35. Parthey H. Persönliche Interdisziplinarität in der Wissenschaft. In: Umstätter W, Wessel K-F, editors. Interdisziplinarität – Herausforderungen an die Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler. Bielefeld: Kleine Verlag; 1999. p. 243–54.Google Scholar
  36. Parthey H. Institutionalisierung disziplinärer und interdisziplinärer Forschungssituationen. Wissenschaftsforschung Jahrbuch 2010. In: Fischer K, Laitko H, Parthey H, editors. Interdisziplinarität und Institutionalisierung der Wissenschaft. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin; 2011. p. 9–36.Google Scholar
  37. Piaget J. Main trends in interdisciplinary research. London: G. Allen; 1973.Google Scholar
  38. Piaget J, et al. The epistemology of interdisciplinary relationships. In: Briggs A, editor. Interdisciplinarity. Problems of teaching and research in universities. Paris: OECD; 1972. p. 127–39.Google Scholar
  39. Stichweh R. Zur Entstehung des modernen Systems wissenschaftlicher Disziplinen – Physik in Deutschland 1740–1890. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt/M; 1984.Google Scholar
  40. Stichweh R. The sociology of scientific disciplines: on the genesis and stability of the disciplinary structure of modern science. Sci Context. 1992;5:3–15.Google Scholar
  41. Stichweh R. The multiple publics of science: inclusion and popularization. Soziale Systeme. 2003;9:210–22.Google Scholar
  42. Turner S. What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different. In: Weingart P, Stehr N, editors. Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press; 2000. p. 46–65.Google Scholar
  43. Weingart P. Interdisciplinarity. A paradoxical discourse. In: Weingart P, Stehr N, editors. Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto/Buffalo/London: University of Toronto Press; 2000. p. 25–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies (IFF), Institute for Science Communication & Higher Education Research (WIHO)Alpen-Adria University of KlagenfurtViennaAustria