Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities

Beyond mechanistic models: Interrogating three core challenges facing interdisciplinary studies in the humanities

Editor-in-Chief Lecture

Author

Ghasem Darzi

Studies Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22035/isih.2026.570
Abstract
Interdisciplinarity, as a response to the increasing complexity of human issues, has evolved from an academic ideal into an imperative in contemporary research, particularly within the humanities. The publication of this special issue, featuring seven selected articles that are the product of a lengthy process of evaluation and refinement, presents a valuable opportunity to discuss not only the achievements in this field but, more profoundly, the structural and epistemic challenges confronting such studies. What unites these articles and other pioneering theoretical works is their effort to move beyond mere celebration of this approach and enter the domain of its critique and pathology. In this journey, three fundamental challenges warrant consideration:

1.The Challenge of 'Integration': From a Unifying Ideal to Pluralist Realities
The concept of 'Integration' has for decades been considered the canonical cornerstone of successful interdisciplinary work (Rana et al., 2025; Frodeman et al., 2017). This perspective, rooted in the ideal of the unity of science, viewed success as the merging of concepts, methods, and epistemic frameworks from different disciplines. However, as seen in some of the most recent research in the field (Barry, 2020; also: Darzi, 2019) and discussed in the present article titled "Dis-integration: A Pathology of Integrative Cross-Disciplinary Models," this absolute necessity is being re-examined. Cases such as the successful collaboration in evolutionary game theory demonstrate that profound and transformative exchange between disciplines can occur without leading to their negation and complete unification (Grüne-Yanoff, 2016). Accordingly, each discipline can be transformed through this dialogue while retaining its methodological identity. This raises fundamental questions: Is integration the sole aim of all interdisciplinary research? Or can we speak of 'symbiotic successes' without complete integration? Engaging with this question, also referenced in the article "Explaining and Categorizing the Contemporary-Making Current in Theoretical Interdisciplinary Studies," is one of the distinguishing features of this issue.

2. The Challenge of the Theory-Practice Gap: From Mechanistic Processes to the Complex Lived Space
The second challenge stems from the apparent gap between the abstract level of interdisciplinary theorizing and the tangible yet ambiguous reality of research in practice. Prevailing models of the interdisciplinary research process (Repko, 2021) often outline linear, mechanistic steps, as if convergence could be achieved through a standard, prescriptive protocol. This view reveals the rigidity and lifelessness inherent in many of these models. In contrast, the reality of interdisciplinary research, as evidenced by the ethnographic study of the Chilean climate science center (Undurraga et al., 2023) and the article "Examining the Methodology of Comparative Qualitative Content Analysis," is replete with ambiguity, daily negotiation, cultural-epistemic differences, and creative adaptations. Success in this space stems less from following a predetermined template and more from communicative capacities, resilience, and collaborative work in confronting productive dissonances . This gap has rendered the methodologies taught in textbooks often inadequate for guiding researchers through the turbulent field of real-world interaction with other disciplines—a problem directly addressed by the article "The Attitudinal and Methodological Requirements and Imperatives of Interdisciplinary Theorizing."

3. The Challenge of the Disconnect Between Theorists and Field Practitioners
A direct consequence of the previous challenge is the creation of a profound divide between two communities: on one side, theorists and philosophers of interdisciplinary studies who analyze key concepts, and on the other, field researchers who, in practice and to solve concrete problems, inevitably traverse other epistemic domains (Moran, 2002). For the latter group, abstract discussions often seem esoteric, impractical, and lacking immediate necessity. This disconnect has led to a situation where a researcher, relying on intuition and general understanding, may conduct deep and successful interdisciplinary work without the slightest familiarity with the specialized literature of this field. This duality is clearly traceable in the distinction between the theoretical discussions presented in the article "A Pathology of Orientalists' Interdisciplinary Studies on the Ecology and Environment of the World" and the practical, applied necessities raised in the article "An Interdisciplinary Approach to Reading the Sense of Place from the Perspectives of Architecture and Cinema." This distance deprives theory of the richness of practical experience and strips practice of deeper theoretical insights.
The articles compiled in this special issue each respond, in their own way, to part of these threefold challenges, all signaling a move beyond mere description and into a phase of critique and solution-seeking. As emphasized in the systematic review by Rana et al. (2025) on doctoral education and underscored by Klein (2021), our task as a scholarly community is not to ignore these tensions but to acknowledge, study, and manage them. We must move towards a state where active epistemic work and sustained dialogue between disciplines replace rigid, pre-conceived models. This special issue is a step on this difficult yet essential path, with the hope of serving as a bridge between thinking about interdisciplinarity and living it within the complex, dynamic space of contemporary science.
 
 
Darzi, G. (2019). History of ideas of interdisciplinarity: Transition from an idealistic,iIntegrative approach to a pragmatic, problem-solving one. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 11(4), 1-32. doi: 10.22035/isih.2020.3626.3809
Barry, A. (2020). The politics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society.
Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Pacheco, R. C. S. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Klein, J. T. (2021). Beyond Interdisciplinarity: Boundary Work, Communication, and Collaboration. Oxford University Press.
Moran, J. (2002). Interdisciplinarity, Routledge.
Parker, M., et al. (2022). A critical review of interdisciplinary research: Integration as communion, performance and spatial politics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space.
Rana, K., Aitken, S. J., & Chimoriya, R. (2025). Interdisciplinary Approaches in Doctoral and Higher Research Education: An Integrative Scoping Review. Education Sciences, 15 (1), 72.
Repko, A. F., Szostak, R., & Buchberger, M. P. (2021). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Undurraga, T., Mudd, S., Cotoras, D. et al. “They Don't Understand Us, but We Have to Understand Them”: Interrogating the Making of Interdisciplinary Research in Chilean Climate Science. Minerva, 61, 581–606 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09495-y
Grüne-Yanoff, T. Interdisciplinary success without integration. Euro Jnl Phil Sci, 6, 343–360 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0139-z
 
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.
Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities
Volume 18, Issue 2 - Serial Number 70
Evolutions in Interdisciplinary knowledge
Spring 2026
Pages 5-6

Home

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Reviewers

Submission

Contact Us