Interdisciplinarity, History, Theory, and Practice

by Julie Thompson Klein

In this volume, Julie Klein provides the first comprehensive study of the modern concept of interdisciplinarity, supplementing her discussion with the most complete bibliography yet compiled on the subject. Spanning the social sciences, natural sciences, humanities, and professions, her study is a synthesis of existing scholarship on interdisciplinary research, education and health care. Klein argues that any interdisciplinary activity embodies a complex network of historical, social, psychological, political, economic, philosophical, and intellectual factors. Whether the context is a short-ranged instrumentality or a long-range reconceptualization of the way we know and learn, the concept of interdisciplinarity is an important means of solving problems and answering questions that cannot be satisfactorily addressed using singular methods or approaches.

331 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1990

Reviews

[Michael Burnam-Fink · Rating 4 out of 5]

Klein's Interdisciplinarity is an important look at the state of interdisciplinarity research circa 1990, but its argument is caught up in the glorious rhetoric of interdisciplinarity rather than the decidedly mixed record of actual interdisciplinary programs.

Modern interdisciplinarity has been seen as a panacea for a research endeavor which has fragmented into fiefdoms and abstractions. Interdisciplinarity is seen as a pragmatic application of scholarly inquiry to immediate ends; from sustaining fragile ecosystems, to landing on the moon, to coming to grips with rapidly changing technology. Interdisciplinarity is also a radical practice of speaking truth to power, of critical inquiry towards race and gender and imperialism. And finally, interdisciplinarity is a way to rejuvenate tired and dogmatic professors and programs.

All well and good, and the study of the history of interdisciplinary efforts through 1990 is quite strong. My problem is that Klein rather uncritically accepts Donald Campbell's "fishscale" metaphor of interdisciplinary omniscience. In Campbell's metaphor, the disciplines represent tight clusters of knowledge with large gaps of ignorance between them. By rearranging knowledge (and knowledge production) to cover the gaps, we can achieve a more comprehensive view of the world. This is an empirical claim about the structure of knowledge and the nature of problems that we face, and while it's a pretty metaphor it doesn't bear up to scrutiny. Managing the behavior of complex sociotechnical systems doesn't require further research, it's just very hard to impossible. And as for pressing social problems, usually they remain so because solving them would cost powerful people money.

Klein is right to note that the highest goal of interdisciplinary research is the synthetic integration of knowledge. But disciplines are a matter of intellectual genealogy, of things in the past that have proved durable and distinct enough to be given a name. It is possible to be integrative, synthetic, and to flow smoothly from theory to application within one discipline. And it is equally possible to combine insights and methods from many disciplines into an unbalanced hodgepodge. Interdisciplinarity in practice is fraught with hazards, from the misuse to decontextualized concepts to the need to create a sui generis framework for discourse before work even properly begins.

I'll be returning to Klein for a snappy quote (she has collected many), and a good summation of the field. But for real insight, Jacob's In Defense of Disciplines is the superior work.

[Nils · Rating 4 out of 5]

A workmanlike summary of all the various ways that interdisciplinarity has been discussed over the years, but without a firm view of its own. Doesn't miss much, except that it doesn't discuss the multidisciplinarity within disciplines (like biology, sociology, anthropology). Also, in discussion of "borrowing" across fields there is no sense of how this can involve poaching and "imperialism" in the bad sense

[Jupiter1 · Rating 1 out of 5]

One of the most boring textbooks I have ever read.