What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)
78 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Research on interdisciplinary science has for the most part concentrated on the institutional obstacles that discourage or hamper interdisciplinary work, with the expectation that interdisciplinary interaction can be improved through institutional reform strategies such as through reform of peer review systems. However institutional obstacles are not the only ones that confront interdisciplinary work. The design of policy strategies would benefit from more detailed investigation into the particular cognitive constraints, including the methodological and conceptual barriers, which also confront attempts to work across disciplinary boundaries. Lessons from cognitive science and anthropological studies of labs in sociology of science suggest that scientific practices may be very domain specific, where domain specificity is an essential aspect of science that enables researchers to solve complex problems in a cognitively manageable way. The limit or extent of domain specificity in scientific practice, and how it constrains interdisciplinary research, is not yet fully understood, which attests to an important role for philosophers of science in the study of interdisciplinary science. This paper draws upon two cases of interdisciplinary collaboration; those between ecologists and economists, and those between molecular biologists and systems biologists, to illustrate some of the cognitive barriers which have contributed to failures and difficulties of interactions between these fields. Each exemplify some aspect of domain specificity in scientific practice and show how such specificity may constrain interdisciplinary work
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)697-720
Number of pages24
JournalSynthese
Volume195
Issue number2
Early online date7 Oct 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2018

Fingerprint

interdisciplinarity
science
sociology of science
reform strategy
interdisciplinary research
peer review
interaction
economist
Domain Specificity
Interdisciplinarity
reform
Scientific Practice

Keywords

  • UT-Hybrid-D

Cite this

@article{6bd7af7a72b74e9abaad6493b42e221e,
title = "What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice",
abstract = "Research on interdisciplinary science has for the most part concentrated on the institutional obstacles that discourage or hamper interdisciplinary work, with the expectation that interdisciplinary interaction can be improved through institutional reform strategies such as through reform of peer review systems. However institutional obstacles are not the only ones that confront interdisciplinary work. The design of policy strategies would benefit from more detailed investigation into the particular cognitive constraints, including the methodological and conceptual barriers, which also confront attempts to work across disciplinary boundaries. Lessons from cognitive science and anthropological studies of labs in sociology of science suggest that scientific practices may be very domain specific, where domain specificity is an essential aspect of science that enables researchers to solve complex problems in a cognitively manageable way. The limit or extent of domain specificity in scientific practice, and how it constrains interdisciplinary research, is not yet fully understood, which attests to an important role for philosophers of science in the study of interdisciplinary science. This paper draws upon two cases of interdisciplinary collaboration; those between ecologists and economists, and those between molecular biologists and systems biologists, to illustrate some of the cognitive barriers which have contributed to failures and difficulties of interactions between these fields. Each exemplify some aspect of domain specificity in scientific practice and show how such specificity may constrain interdisciplinary work",
keywords = "UT-Hybrid-D",
author = "MacLeod, {Miles Alexander James}",
note = "Springer deal",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4",
language = "English",
volume = "195",
pages = "697--720",
journal = "Synthese",
issn = "0039-7857",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "2",

}

What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. / MacLeod, Miles Alexander James.

In: Synthese, Vol. 195, No. 2, 01.02.2018, p. 697-720.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice

AU - MacLeod, Miles Alexander James

N1 - Springer deal

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - Research on interdisciplinary science has for the most part concentrated on the institutional obstacles that discourage or hamper interdisciplinary work, with the expectation that interdisciplinary interaction can be improved through institutional reform strategies such as through reform of peer review systems. However institutional obstacles are not the only ones that confront interdisciplinary work. The design of policy strategies would benefit from more detailed investigation into the particular cognitive constraints, including the methodological and conceptual barriers, which also confront attempts to work across disciplinary boundaries. Lessons from cognitive science and anthropological studies of labs in sociology of science suggest that scientific practices may be very domain specific, where domain specificity is an essential aspect of science that enables researchers to solve complex problems in a cognitively manageable way. The limit or extent of domain specificity in scientific practice, and how it constrains interdisciplinary research, is not yet fully understood, which attests to an important role for philosophers of science in the study of interdisciplinary science. This paper draws upon two cases of interdisciplinary collaboration; those between ecologists and economists, and those between molecular biologists and systems biologists, to illustrate some of the cognitive barriers which have contributed to failures and difficulties of interactions between these fields. Each exemplify some aspect of domain specificity in scientific practice and show how such specificity may constrain interdisciplinary work

AB - Research on interdisciplinary science has for the most part concentrated on the institutional obstacles that discourage or hamper interdisciplinary work, with the expectation that interdisciplinary interaction can be improved through institutional reform strategies such as through reform of peer review systems. However institutional obstacles are not the only ones that confront interdisciplinary work. The design of policy strategies would benefit from more detailed investigation into the particular cognitive constraints, including the methodological and conceptual barriers, which also confront attempts to work across disciplinary boundaries. Lessons from cognitive science and anthropological studies of labs in sociology of science suggest that scientific practices may be very domain specific, where domain specificity is an essential aspect of science that enables researchers to solve complex problems in a cognitively manageable way. The limit or extent of domain specificity in scientific practice, and how it constrains interdisciplinary research, is not yet fully understood, which attests to an important role for philosophers of science in the study of interdisciplinary science. This paper draws upon two cases of interdisciplinary collaboration; those between ecologists and economists, and those between molecular biologists and systems biologists, to illustrate some of the cognitive barriers which have contributed to failures and difficulties of interactions between these fields. Each exemplify some aspect of domain specificity in scientific practice and show how such specificity may constrain interdisciplinary work

KW - UT-Hybrid-D

U2 - 10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4

DO - 10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4

M3 - Article

VL - 195

SP - 697

EP - 720

JO - Synthese

JF - Synthese

SN - 0039-7857

IS - 2

ER -