History of ideas of interdisciplinarity: Transition from an idealistic,iIntegrative approach to a pragmatic, problem-solving one

Darzi, Gh.

doi:10.22035/isih.2020.3626.3809

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Author

Gh. Darzi

. Assistant Professor of Quran and Hadith, Institute of Quran Miracle, Shahid Behesti University, Tehra, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22035/isih.2020.3626.3809

Abstract

Interdiaciplinarity is one of the most significant phenomena of our time, but it is not an easy task to come up with a coherent and precise definition. Evidently,the reason is the wide variety of opinion among the experts in this field. A historical approach toward the most practical definitions of interdisciplinarity and its different types can be very advantageous in this regard. The present research has aimed to show that that , in its early stage, interdiscipllinarity was merely an idealistic concept which was related to the development of 'unified science'. However, the more we move to the present time, the more tangible problems from the world outside we can deal with. Three main insights into the concept of interdisciplinary are based on "Epistemic breaches", "degree of integration", and "the purpose of interdisciplinary research" and illustrate the afore-said conceptual transition. In the latter type, interdisciplinary researches are observed on the basis of their applicability. In the first two types, however, epistemological and knowledge-related issues are at stake. The most recent concept of "Transdisciplinarity" is also entirely based on the degree of applicability and locality of the issues in question. In the first type, we will face "crossing the boundaries of knowledge" and in the second one, we will "cross the field of knowledge". Among these terms, "multidisciplinary" has been far less controversial and there is a relatively good agreement on it. In this way, the co-operation of the disciplines is minimal.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Interdisciplinary

References

‌Bahrani, M. (2014). Rešte, miyānrešte va taqsimbandi-ye olum [Discipline, interdiscipline and classification of knowledge]. Interdisciplinary studies in the Humanities, 5(2), 37-59. doi: 10.7508/ISIH.2014.18.003

Darzi, Gh. (2018). Esteāre va miān reštegi: Bayāne mavārede kārbaste eteārehā dar pajüheshe miān reštei [Metaphor and interdisciplinarity: Explaining the metaphors application in the interdisciplinary research]. Tehran, Iran: Institute for social and Cultural Studies, 10(2), 1-26. doi: 10.22035/ISIH.2018.277

Darzi, Gh., Gharamaleki, A, F., Pahlevan, M. (2013). Güne šenāsi-ye motāleāt-e miān rešt’e -ye Qur’ān-e karim [Typologies of Quranic Interdicsiplinary Studies]. Tehran, Iran: Institute for social and Cultural Studies, 5(4), 1-26. doi: 10.7508/ISIH.2014.20.004

Khorsandi Taskooh, A. (2008). Goftmān-ye miyānrešte’i-ye dāneš [Interdisciplinary discourse of knowledge]. Tehran, Iran: Institute for social and Cultural Studies.

Khorsandi Taskooh, A. (2009). Tanavo’e günešenānkhti dar āmüzeš va pajüheš miān reštei [Variety of Typologies in Interdisciplinary Education]. Tehran, Iran: Institute for social and Cultural Studies, 1(4), 57-83. doi:10.7508/ISIH.2009.01.001. doi: 10.7508/ISIH.2009.04.003

Motamedi, A., Yamani Düzi Sorkhābi, M., Khorsandi Taskooh, A., Arefi, M. (2019). Seyr-e tahavvol-e Güne šenāsi-ye pajüheš-e miān rešt’e: Motāle’I tārikhi-tabāršenāsāne [The Evolution of the Typology of Interdisciplinary Research: A Historical-genealogical Study]. Tehran, Iran: Institute for social and Cultural Studies, 5(4), 1-32. doi: 10.22035/ISIH.2019.2929.3266.

Tofighi, j. Javedani, H. (2008). Motāleāt miān reštei: Mafāhim, rüykardhā, didinešenāsi va günešenāsi [Interdisciplinary Courses: Concepts, Approaches, Genealogy, and Typology]. Tehran, Iran: Institute for social and Cultural Studies, 1(1), 1-17. doi:10.7508/ISIH.2009.01.001

Boden, M.A. (1999). What is interdisciplinarity? In: R. Cunningham (ed.) Interdisciplinarity and the organization of knowledge in Europe (pp. 13–24). Luxembourg: Offi ce for Offi cial Publications of the European Communities.

Boix Manzila,V (2005). Assessing Student Work at Disciplinary Crossroads. Change, January/Febrary, 14-21. doi: 10.3200/CHNG.37.1.14-21

Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., Keil, F., Phol, C., Scholtz, R. W., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In R. In ‘tVeld (Ed.), Knowledge democracy, consequences for science, politics and media (pp. 125–152). Dordrecht: Springer. 0.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_11

Clarke, S., Walsh, A. (2009). Scientific Imperialism and the Proper Relations between the Sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23, 195–207. Doi: 10.1080/02698590903007170

Clarke, S., Walsh, a,. (2013). Imperialism, Progress, Developmental Teleology, and Interdisciplinary Unification. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 27, 341–351. doi: 10.1080/02698595.2013.825493

Cohen, E., Lloyd, S. (2014). Disciplinary evolution and the rise of the transdiscipline. Informing Science. International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 17, 189-215.

Defila, R., & Di Guilio, A. (1999). Evaluating trandisciplinary research. Panoroma Special Issue, 1, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1496361

Dupré, J. (1995). Against Scientific Imperialism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2, 374–381.

Fernández P.M. (2016). Economics Imperialism in Social Epistemology: A Critical Assessment. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 46(5): 443–472. doi: 10.1177/0048393115625325

Fine, B. (1999). The Question of Economics: Is it Colonizing the Social Sciences?. Economy and Society 28: 403–425. doi: 10.1080/03085149900000011

Fine, B. (2002). Economic Imperialism: A View from the Periphery. Review of Radical Political Economics 34: 187–201. doi: 10.1177/048661340203400205

Gibbons, M., Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. SAGE Publications London. Thousand Oab, New Delhi, 1994. doi: 10.4135/9781446221853

Graff, Harvey j. (2015). Undisciplining Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in the Twentieth Century, Johns Hopkins University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221853

Hirsch Hardon, G. Pohl, Ch. Scheringer, M. (2009). Methodology of transdisciplinary research, in Unity of Knowldgw (In Transdisciplinary Research for Sustaintibility, Vol. II, EOLSS Publishers Co Ltd.

Jantsch, E. (1970/1972). Inter- and transdisciplinary university: A systems approach to education and innovation. (Originally published in Policy Sciences 1970). Higher Education, 1, 7–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.1947.tb02067.x

Kidd, Ian James. (2013). Historical Contingency and the Impact of Scientific Imperialism. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 27, 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2013.825494

Klein, J.T. & Newell, W.H. (1997). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In J.G. Gaff, J.L. Ratcliff & Associates (Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and change (pp. 393-415). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Doi: 10.1021/ed074p493

Klein, J.T. (2017). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity: The Boundary Work of Definition. in The Oxford Hanbook of Interdisciplinarity, Editor-in-Chiefed by: Robert Frodeman, Oxford University Press, second edition, 20102017, pp. 15-34. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.001.0001

Klien, J.T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory and Practice. Dtroit: Wayne State Universirty. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480120121049