Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Putting multidisciplinarity (back) on the map

  • Paper in General Philosophy of Science
  • Published:
European Journal for Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The dominant theory of cross-disciplinarity represents multidisciplinarity as ‘lower’ or ‘less interesting’ than interdisciplinarity. In this paper, it is argued that this unfavorable representation of multidisciplinarity is ungrounded because it is an effect of the theory being incomplete. It is also explained that the unfavorable, ungrounded representation of multidisciplinarity is problematic: when someone adopts the dominant theory of cross-disciplinarity, the unfavorable representation supports the development of a preference for interdisciplinarity over multidisciplinarity. However, being ungrounded, the support the representation provides for a preference for interdisciplinarity, is invalid. The issue is even more pressing because research policy makers and funding bodies are among the adopters of the theory, which means that there is a risk of (funding) policies reflecting an unjustified preference for interdisciplinarity over multidisciplinarity. This paper presents an improved version of the dominant theory of cross-disciplinarity, obtained by completing the original version with the information it was missing. Because the improved version is more neutral regarding the value of different types of cross-disciplinarity, it is better suited for use by research policy makers and funding bodies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. (https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/additional_resources/interdisciplinary_research/support.jsp)

  2. (https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/ERC_Grant_Schemes.PDF)

  3. (http://www.dfg.de/en/dfg_profile/mission/index.html)

  4. (https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18503/nsf18503.htm)

  5. (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-grants-digital-press-kit)

  6. (https://www.arc.gov.au/grants/discovery-program)

  7. (http://www.snf.ch/en/funding/programmes/sinergia/Pages/default.aspx)

  8. (https://www.keckfutures.org/)

  9. Below, ‘interdisciplinarity’ is assigned an alternative, more precise meaning than the one assigned by research-funding bodies. Until this alternative meaning is introduced, occurrences of the term are put in italics to indicate that the way in which it is used, is not the definitive way.

  10. Christian Pohl et al. (2011) explain that the ‘hyper integrative’ characterization is mostly used in the United States, while the ‘integrating non-academic disciplines’ characterization is more common in Europe. An interesting hybrid is put forward by Jahn et al. (2012).

  11. In this paper, both ‘multidisciplinarity’ and ‘multidisciplinary’ are abbreviated as ‘MD’; ‘interdisciplinarity’ and ‘interdisciplinary’ are abbreviated as ‘ID’; and ‘cross-disciplinarity’ and ‘cross-disciplinary’ as ‘CD’.

  12. Strictly speaking, William Newell’s definition should not be included in the list since it is one of interdisciplinary studies, which relates to education rather than research. However, given that Newell played an important role in establishing the framework and co-authored some important papers with Klein, his definition is nevertheless included.

  13. Repko writes about multi- and interdisciplinary studies. However, since in the 1995 paper of Nissani the metaphors apply both for CD education and research, in the quote above, ‘multi- and interdisciplinary studies’ can be replaced by ‘multi- and interdisciplinarity’.

  14. https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?type=xcut

  15. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/guides_for_applicants/h2020-guide16-erc-stg-cog_en.pdf

  16. Juxtaposition [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster Online, Retrieved October 8, 2019, from

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/juxtaposition

References

  • Andersen, H. (2013). Bridging disciplines: Conceptual development in interdisciplinary groups. In H. Frangerau, H. Geisler, T. Halling, & W. Martin (Eds.), Classification and evolution in biology, linguistics and the history of science (pp. 33–44). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apostel, L. (1972). Conceptual tools for Interdisciplinarity: An operational approach. In Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A., & Michaud, G. (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity. Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (pp. 141–185). OECD.

  • Bammer, G. (2012). Strengthening interdisciplinary research: What it is, what it does, how it does it and how it is supported. Australian Council of Learned Academies.

  • Bird, A. (2007). What is scientific progress? Noûs, 41(1), 64–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blevis, E., & Stolterman, E. (2009). Transcending disciplinary boundaries in interaction design: Breaking dominant boundaries of interaction. Interactions, September+ October.

  • Boisot, M. (1972). Discipline and Interdisciplinarity. In Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A., & Michaud, G. (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity. Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (pp. 89–97). OECD.

  • Boix Mansilla, V. B., Feller, I., & Gardner, H. (2006). Quality assessment in interdisciplinary research and education. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt, I. (2010). Beyond reduction and pluralism: Toward an epistemology of explanatory integration in biology. Erkenntnis, 73(3), 295–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J., & Williams, R. (2004). Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: The case of the fifth framework programme. Futures, 36(4), 457–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, H. C. (2013). Working alone together: Coordination in collaboration across domains of expertise. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 62–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J. I., Huutoniemi, K. I., & Thompson Klein, J. (2005). Promoting interdisciplinary research. Academy of Finland.

  • Buizer, M., Ruthrof, K., Moore, S.A., Veneklaas, E.J., Hardy, G., & Baudains, C. (2015). A critical evaluation of interventions to progress transdisciplinary research. Society & Natural Resources, 28, 670–681.

  • Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., et al. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(4), 8086–8091.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, B. C., & Pak, A. W. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), E41–E48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chon-Torres, O. (2018). Disciplinary challenges of today science. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, 3(5), 3634–3635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S. G., & Wallace, R. L. (2015). Integration and interdisciplinarity: Concepts, frameworks, and education. Policy Sciences, 48(2), 233–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cluck, N. A. (1980). Reflections on the interdisciplinary approaches to the humanities. Liberal Education, 66(1), 67–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H., Evans, R., & Gorman, M. (2007). Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 38(4), 657–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darden, L., & Maull, N. (1977). Interfield theories. Philosophy of Science, 44(1), 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, Y., de Gier, A., Verschuur, M. & De Wit, B. (2006) Bruggen Bouwen. Onderzoekers over hun ervaringen met interdisciplinair onderzoek in Nederland. RMNO – KNAW – NWO – COS.

  • Eigenbrode, S. D., O'Rourke, M., Wulfhorst, J. D., Althoff, D. M., Goldberg, C. S., Merrill, K., Morse, W., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Stephens, J., Winowiecki, L., & Bosque-Pérez, N. A. (2007). Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. AIBS Bulletin, 57(1), 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enderby, P. (2002). Teamworking in community rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 11(3), 409–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Research Advisory Board (EURAB) (2004). Interdisciplinarity in research. http://docplayer.net/10594226-Eurab-04-009-final-european-union-research-advisory-board-interdisciplinarity-in-research.html. Accessed 23 April 2018.

  • Evans, H. M., & Macnaughton, J. (2004). Should medical humanities be a multidisciplinary or an interdisciplinary study? Medical Humanities, 30, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleed, A., & Marchant, D. (2016). Interdisciplinarity: Survey report for the global research council 2016 annual meeting. Stockport: DJS Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckhausen, H. (1972). Discipline and Interdisciplinarity. In Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A., & Michaud, G. (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity. Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (pp. 83–89). OECD.

  • Hickey, G. M., & Nitschke, C. R. (2005). Crossing disciplinary boundaries in a forest research: an international challenge. The Forestry Chronicle, 81, 321–323.

  • Holbrook, J. B. (2013). What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration. Synthese, 190(11), 1865–1879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research Policy, 39(1), 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch, E. (1972). Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A. and Michaud, G. (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity. Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (pp. 97-120), OECD.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Klein, J.T. (2012). Research integration: A comparative knowledge base. In Repko, A.F., Newell, W.H., & Szostak, R. (Eds.), Case studies in interdisciplinary research (pp. 283–298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  • Klein, J. T. (2013). Communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. In M. O’Rourke, S. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode, & J. D. Wulfhorst (Eds.), Enhancing communication & collaboration in crossdisciplinary research (pp. 11–30). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Klein, J. T. (2014). Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: Keyword meanings for collaboration science and translational medicine. Journal of Translational Medicine & Epidemiology, 2, 1024–1030.

  • Kostoff, R. N. (2002). Overcoming specialization. BioScience, 52(10), 937–941.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. (1990). An historian’s theory of meaning. Talk to Cognitive Science Colloquium, UCLA, 26 April 1990. Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC 240, box 24, folder 8. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute Archives and Special Collections.

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research Programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Can theories be refuted? (pp. 205–259). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lélé, S., & Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience, 55(11), 967–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli, S. (2013). Integrating data to acquire new knowledge: Three modes of integration in plant science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(4), 503–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichnerowicz, A. (1972). Mathematic and transdisciplinarity. In Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A. and Michaud, G. (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity. Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (pp. 121-127), OECD.

  • Lyall, C., & Fletcher, I. (2013). Experiments in interdisciplinary capacity-building: The successes and challenges of large-scale interdisciplinary investments. Science and Public Policy, 40(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyall, C., & Meagher, L. R. (2012). A masterclass in interdisciplinarity: Research into practice in training the next generation of interdisciplinary researchers. Futures, 44(6), 608–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Tait, J., & Meagher, L. (2015). Interdisciplinary research journeys: Practical strategies for capturing creativity. London, New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maasen, S. (2000). Inducing interdisciplinarity: Irresistible infliction? The example of a research group at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF), Bielefeld, Germany. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practicing Interdisciplinarity (pp. 173–193). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, M., & Nagatsu, M. (2018). What does interdisciplinarity look like in practice: Mapping interdisciplinarity and its limits in the environmental sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 67, 74–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2014). Strategies for coordinating experimentation and modeling in integrative systems biology. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 322(4), 230–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. (2016). Interdisciplinary problem-solving: Emerging modes in integrative systems biology. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 401–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. M. M. C. (2008). Inter and multidisciplinarity in engineering education. International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design, 4(2), 229–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mestenhauser, J. A. (2002). In search of a comprehensive approach to international education: A systems perspective. In W. Grünzweig & N. Rinehart (Eds.), Rockin'in Red Square: Critical approaches to international education in the age of cyberculture (pp. 165–213). Münster, Hamburg, London: Lit Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. C. (1982). Varieties of interdisciplinary approaches in the social sciences: A 1981 overview. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 1, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mobjörk, M. (2010). Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: A refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures, 42(8), 866–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nancarrow, S. A., Booth, A., Ariss, S., Smith, T., Enderby, P., & Roots, A. (2013). Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work. Human Resources for Health, 11(1), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, W. H. (1992). Academic disciplines and undergraduate interdisciplinary education: Lessons from the School of Interdisciplinary Studies at Miami University, Ohio. European Journal of Education, 27(3), 211–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissani, M. (1995). Fruits, salads, and smoothies: A working definition of interdisciplinarity. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET)/Revue de la Pensée Educative, 29(2), 121–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, M. A., & Soyer, O. S. (2012). The roles of integration in molecular systems biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(1), 58–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke, M., & Crowley, S. J. (2013). Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: The story of the toolbox project. Synthese, 190(11), 1937–1954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okumus, F., & van Niekerk, M. (2015). Multidisciplinarity, tourism. In J. Jafari & H. Xiao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of tourism (pp. 1–2). Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

  • O’Rourke, M., Crowley, S., & Gonnerman, C. (2016). On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: A philosophical framework. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, 62–70.

  • Paletz, S., Smith-Doerr, L., & Vardi, I. (2010). National science foundation workshop report: Interdisciplinary collaboration in innovative science and engineering fields. Online: https://www.bu.edu/sociology/files/2011/03/nsf-workshop-report.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2020.

  • Patel, M., & Nagi, S. (2010). The role of model integration in complex systems modelling: An example from cancer biology. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, H. C. (2011). An epistemology for agribusiness: Peers, methods and engagement in the Agri-food bio system. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14(5), 11–26.

  • Petts, J., Owens, S., & Bulkeley, H. (2008). Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum, 39(2), 593–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pischke, E. C., Knowlton, J. L., Phifer, C. C., Lopez, J. G., Propato, T. S., Eastmond, A., et al. (2017). Barriers and solutions to conducting large international, interdisciplinary research projects. Environmental Management, 60(6), 1011–1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, C., Perrig-Chiello, P., Butz, B., Hadorn, G. H., Joye, D., Lawrence, R., et al. (2011). Questions to evaluate inter-and transdisciplinary research proposals, Working paper. Berne: td-net Network for Transdisciplinary Research.

  • Repko, A. F. (2007). Integrating interdisciplinarity: How the theories of common ground and cognitive interdisciplinarity are informing the debate on interdisciplinary integration. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 25, 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repko, A. F. (2008). Defining interdisciplinary studies. In A. F. Repko & R. Szostak (Eds.), Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Rosenfield, P. L. (1992). The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 35(11), 1343–1357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, F. (2009). Degrees of disciplinarity in comparative politics: Interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity and borrowing. European Political Science, 8(1), 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmann, M. (1974). Cumulation, revolution, and progress. New Literary History, 5(3), 477–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S77–S89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strober, M. H. (2006). Habits of the mind: challenges for multidisciplinary engagement. Social Epistemology, 20(3–4), 315–331.

  • Szerszynski, B., & Galarraga, M. (2013). Geoengineering knowledge: Interdisciplinarity and the shaping of climate engineering research. Environment and Planning A, 45(12), 2817–2824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorén, H., & Persson, J. (2013). The philosophy of interdisciplinarity: Sustainability science and problem-feeding. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 44(2), 337–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human Understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tress, G., Tress, B., & Fry, G. (2005). Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology, 20(4), 479–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenknecht, S. (2016). A social epistemology of research groups. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

  • Wernli, D., & Darbellay, F. (2016). Interdisciplinarity and the 21st century research intensive university, League of European Research Universities (LERU).

  • Zaman, G., & Goschin, Z. (2010). Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity: Theoretical approaches and implications for the strategy of post-crisis sustainable development. Theoretical & Applied Economics, 17(12), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Prof. Dr. Erik Weber for his help throughout the research and writing process, Prof. Dr. Michiru Nagatsu for his valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript and the two anonymous reviewers for having helped me to improve the paper substantially.

Funding

The work presented in this paper was carried out in the context of a PhD fellowship funded by the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University, Blandijnberg 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Julie Mennes

Authors
  1. Julie Mennes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Mennes.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mennes, J. Putting multidisciplinarity (back) on the map. Euro Jnl Phil Sci 10, 18 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00283-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00283-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation