Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities

Abstract Contemporary academic research increasingly addresses problems that exceed the analytical capacity of a single discipline and therefore require diverse forms of disciplinary interaction. Although multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity have been widely examined, the quality and logic of knowledge integration within these frameworks remain in need of more precise conceptual clarification. This article focuses on three relatively underexplored yet fundamental concepts—hybridization, amalgamation, and interdisciplinary rituals—and aims to develop an analytical framework for a deeper understanding of disciplinary integration processes. The study adopts a qualitative approach based on conceptual analysis and a systematic review of relevant theoretical literature, with key works selected purposively for their conceptual relevance to disciplinary interaction models. The findings indicate that hybridization represents an in-between and often unstable mode of interaction among disciplines, enabling dialogue and cognitive exchange without full integration. In contrast, amalgamation refers to deeper and more stable forms of knowledge integration that result in the emergence of new wholes with novel properties. Furthermore, interdisciplinary rituals, understood as recurring practices in collaborative research contexts, play a significant role in stabilizing shared language and fostering collective research identity. The analysis demonstrates that the analytical application of hybridization and amalgamation is largely confined to the frameworks of multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. A clear distinction between these concepts contributes to the theoretical refinement and qualitative evaluation of integrative research practices.

Abstract In recent decades, philosophers of science have addressed the question of how science is influenced and shaped by values. This view stands in contrast to the ideal of “value-free science,” which considers the internal involvement of non-cognitive values in scientific practice to be detrimental. Today, however, this ideal has been widely criticized and is regarded as flawed. It is now accepted that values and value judgments intervene in various stages of scientific activity—from decision-making about the selection of research projects to the evaluation and acceptance of scientific results. The significance of this issue is heightened in futures studies as a value-laden science, since it is a pragmatic, human-centered, and inter/transdisciplinary field that seeks to shape and construct the future. Accordingly, this article examines the place and major roles of values in futures studies to clarify which forms of value involvement are legitimate and which are not. To address this question, two approaches are adopted: 1) presenting a typology of values according to their purposes, and 2) distinguishing between the direct and indirect roles of values. These approaches are then aligned with the literature and foundations of futures studies. Attention to these issues can provide futurists with a framework for understanding the ways in which values and their structures play a role, thereby influencing the quality, credibility, and authority of futures studies.

Abstract In recent decades, interdisciplinarity has become a central concept in the organization of knowledge, the solution of complex problems, and the reconsideration of disciplinary boundaries. However, much of the existing literature has focused mainly on knowledge integration and has paid less attention to how interdisciplinary collaborations move beyond temporary interactions and become stable and legitimate discourses within the scientific field. This article addresses this missing link by introducing the concept of interdisciplinary rituals. Its central argument is that interdisciplinary rituals consist of recurring linguistic, interactive, cognitive, institutional, identity-forming, and legitimizing patterns that enable the transition from epistemic difference to knowledge integration and interdisciplinary discourse formation.
Adopting a theoretical-conceptual approach, the article revisits the relationship between knowledge, scientific practice, and discursive stabilization through the lenses of interdisciplinarity studies, discourse theory, and ritual theory. In this framework, the perspectives of Klein and Repko on interdisciplinary integration are examined alongside the works of Foucault, Laclau, Durkheim, Turner, Goffman, and Catherine Bell on rituals as mechanisms for producing order, meaning, identity, and legitimacy. The article argues that interdisciplinarity is not simply the result of combining disciplines and methods, but depends on a process of ritualization through which repetition, recognition, norm formation, and trust shape a shared epistemic community.
Accordingly, the article proposes a conceptual model that begins with epistemic difference and culminates in interdisciplinary discourse formation. Its main contribution lies in shifting the analytical focus from integration to stabilization, and from collaboration to discourse-making.