Three Problems of Interdisciplinarity

Avant, Vol. XIII, No. 1, https://doi.org/10.26913/ava202206
published under license CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Yvan I. Russell orcid-id
Middlesex University London
yvanrussell@gmail.com

Received 16 March 2022; accepted 17 June 2022; published 9 August 2022.
Download full text


Abstract: Interdisciplinarity is widely promulgated as beneficial to science and society. However, there are three quite serious problems which can limit the success of any interdisciplinary research collaboration. The first problem is expertise (it takes years of effort to cultivate a deep knowledge of even one discipline). The second problem is comprehensibility (experts in different disciplines do not reliably understand each other). The third problem is service (in a given interdisciplinary endeavour, it often occurs that one discipline benefits and the other discipline does not benefit). This essay is an elaboration of these three problems. Parallels are drawn between translation between languages and translation between disciplines.

Keywords: interdisciplinary; collaboration; research; expertise; academia


Bibliography

Andersen. H. (2016). Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 56, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.006
 
Aram, J. D. (2004). Concepts of interdisciplinarity: configurations of knowledge and action. Human Relations, 57, 379-412.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704043893
 
Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2002). A model scholar: Herbert A. Simon (1916-2001). Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 49, 1-17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00055-0
 
Bessant, K. C. (2018). The relational fabric of community. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-56042-1
 
Brown, R. L. (2020). Why philosophers and scientists should work together. The Biologist, 67, 6-7.
 
Bullock, K., & Bunce, A. (2020) ‘The prison don’t talk to you about getting out of prison’: on why prisons in England and Wales fail to rehabilitate prisoners. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 20, 111-127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818800743
 
Bunch, A. W. (2014). National Academy of Sciences “standardization”: on what terms? Journal of Forensic Sciences, 59, 1041-1045.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12496
 
Campitelli, G., & Gobet, F. (2008). The role of practice in chess: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 446-458.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.006
 
Carson, L., Bartneck, C., & Vogas, K. (2013). Overcompetitiveness in academia: a literature review. Disruptive Science and Technology, 1, 183-190.
https://doi.org/10.1089/dst.2013.0013
 
Cobley, p. (2008). Culture: definitions and concepts. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (pp. 1-7). London: Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecc173
 
Cooke, S. J., Nguyen, V. M., Anastakis, D., Scott, S. D., Turetsky, M. D., Amirfazli, A. et al. (2020). Diverse perspectives on interdisciplinarity from members of the College of the Royal Society of Canada. Facets, 5, 138-165.
https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2019-0044
 
Darden, L., & Maull, N. (1977). Interfield theories. Philosophy of Science, 44, 43-64.
https://doi.org/10.1086/288723
 
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683-703). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796.038
 
Feldon, D. F. (2016). The development of expertise in scientific research. In R. Scott & S. Fosslyn (Eds.), Emerging trends in the social and behavioral Sciences (pp. 1-14). London: Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0411
 
Fraknoi, A. (2007). The music of the spheres in education: using astronomically inspired music. Astronomy Education Review, 5, 139-153.
https://doi.org/10.3847/AER2006009
 
Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40, 35-41.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543
 
Freeth, R., & Vilsmaier, U. (2019). Researching collaborative interdisciplinary teams: practices and principles for navigating researcher positionality. Science & Technology Studies, 33, 57-72.
https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.73060
 
Frodeman, R. (2014). Sustainable knowledge. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137303028
 
Fuller, S. (1991). Disciplinary boundaries and the rhetoric of the social sciences. Poetics Today, 12, 301-325.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1772855
 
Gana, F. L., Saadee, F., & Russell, Y. I. (2022). Gender differences in childhood anxiety in relation to school performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 24, 291-296.
 
Gobet, F. (2016). Understanding expertise: a multidisciplinary approach. London: Palgrave.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-57196-0
 
Gobet, F., & Chassy, P. (2009). Expertise and intuition: a tale of three theories. Minds and Machines, 19, 151-180.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-008-9131-5
 
Grimstad, M. B., Lohndal, T., & , Åfarli, T. A. (2014). Language mixing and exoskeletal theory: a case study of word-internal mixing in American Norwegian. Nordlyd, 41, 213-237.
https://doi.org/10.7557/12.3413
 
Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2016). Interdisciplinary success without integration. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6, 343-360.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0139-z
 
Hamet, P., & Tremblay, J. (2017). Artificial intelligence in medicine. Metabolism, 69, S36-S40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2017.01.011
 
Hazen, R. H. (2012). The story of Earth: the first 4.5 billion years, from stardust to living planet. New York: Penguin.
 
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39, 79-88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011
 
Jackson, F. H., & Kaplan, M. A. (2001). Lessons learned from fifty years of practice in government language teaching. In J. E. Alatis, & A. Tan (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1999: language in our time (pp. 71-87). Washington: Georgetown University Press.
 
Jacobs, J. A., & Frickel, S. (2009). Interdisciplinarity: a critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 43-65.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115954
 
Kahn, J. (2011). The two (institutional) cultures: a consideration of structural barriers in interdisciplinarity. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 54, 399-408.
https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2011.0028
 
Keestra, M. (2017). Metacognition and reflection by interdisciplinary experts: insights from cognitive science and philosophy. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 35, 121-169.
 
Khilji, S. (2014). Human aspects of interdisciplinary research. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 3, 2-10.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJGBR-12-2013-0090
 
Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, S116-S123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010
 
Klein, J. T. (2017). Typologies of interdisciplinarity: the boundary work of definition. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.) (pp. 21-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.013.3
 
Leigh, J. & Brown, N. (2021). Researcher experiences in practice-based interdisciplinary research. Research Evaluation, 4, 421-430.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab018
 
MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, 195, 697-720.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4
 
Mäki, U. (2016). Philosophy of interdisciplinarity. What? Why? How? European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6, 327-342.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0162-0
 
Murray, W. B. (2015). Astronomy and rock art studies. In C. L. N. Ruggles (Ed.), Handbook of archaeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy (pp. 239-249). London: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8_10
 
Newell, W. H. (2007). Decision-making in interdisciplinary studies. In G. Morçöl (Ed.), Handbook of decision making (pp. 245-264). New York: Marcel Dekker.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420016918.ch13
 
Pan, L., & Katrenko, S. (2015). A Review of the UK’s interdisciplinary research using a citation-based Approach. London: Elsevier.
 
Pettit, C. (2015). One-man multidisciplinarian. Nature, 525, 319-320.
https://doi.org/10.1038/525319a
 
Phelps, S., Ng, W. L., Musolesi, M.. & Russell, Y. I. (2018). Precise time-matching in chimpanzee allogrooming does not occur after a short delay. PLoS One, 13, e0201810.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201810
 
Phelps, S., & Russell, Y. I. (2015). Economic drivers of biological complexity. Adaptive Behavior, 23, 315-326.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712315593607
 
Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81, 719-745.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2
 
Robertson, L. P., & Russell, Y. I. (2016). Age and gender differences in smiling and laughter: the power asymmetry hypothesis retested. Human Ethology Bulletin, 31, 5-14.
https://doi.org/10.22330/heb/311/005014
 
Russell, Y. I. (2011). Prehistoric stone tools, chess expertise, and cognitive evolution: an experiment about recognizing features in flint debitage. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 249-269.
https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.9.2011.3.3
 
Russell, Y. I., Call, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Image scoring in great apes. Behavioural Processes, 78, 108-111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2007.10.009
 
Russell, Y. I., & Gobet, F. (2012). Sinuosity and the affect grid: a Method for adjusting repeated mood scores. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 114, 125-136.
https://doi.org/10.2466/03.28.PMS.114.1.125-136
 
Russell, Y. I., & Gobet, F. (2013). What is counterintuitive? Religious cognition and natural expectation. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 4, 715-749.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-013-0160-5
 
Russell, Y. I., Gobet, F. & Whitehouse H. (2016). Mood, expertise, analogy, and ritual: an experiment using the five-disk Tower of Hanoi. Religion, Brain, & Behavior, 6, 67-87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2014.921861
 
Russell, Y. I., Stoilova, Y., & Dosoftei, A.-A. (2020). Cooperation through image scoring: a replication. Games, 11, 58.
https://doi.org/10.3390/g11040058
 
Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2017). Does far transfer exist? Negative evidence from chess, music, and working memory training. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 515-520.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417712760
 
Schmidgen, H. (2018). The last polymath. Nature, 561, 175.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06613-9
 
Schmidt, J. C. (2008). Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity: an attempt to provide a classification and clarification. Poiesis & Praxis, 5, 53-69.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-007-0037-8
 
Sugimoto, C. R., & Weingart, S. (2015). The kaleidoscope of interdisciplinarity. Journal of Documentation, 71, 775-794.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2014-0082
 
Tanesini, A. (2018). Intellectual humility as attitude. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96, 399-420.
https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12326
 
Terjesen, S., & Politis, D. (2015). In praise of multidisciplinary scholarship and the polymath. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14, 151-157.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0089
 
Tharanathan, R. M., Yashoda, H. M., & Prabha, T. N. (2006). Mango (Mangifera indica L.), “the king of fruits” – an overview. Food Reviews International, 22, 95-123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/87559120600574493
 
Tracanelli, C. (Ed.). (2016). Insight guides city guide Paris (16th ed.). London: Doring Kindersley.
 
Wade, A. D., Beckett, R., Conlogue, G., Garvin, G., Saleem, S., Natale, G., Caramella, D., & Nelson, A. (2019). Diagnosis by consensus: a case study in the importance of interdisciplinary interpretation of mummified remains. International Journal of Paleopathology, 24, 144-153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2018.10.007
 
Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I., & d’Este, P. (2015) Does interdisciplinarity research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal and distal interdisciplinarity. PLoS One, 10, e0135095.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135095

Comments are closed.