human relations - du portfolio

http://hum.sagepub.com/Human Relations

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/57/4/379The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0018726704043893

2004 57: 379Human RelationsJohn D. Aram

Concepts of Interdisciplinarity: Configurations of Knowledge and Action

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human RelationsAdditional services and information for

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/57/4/379.refs.htmlCitations:

at DENVER UNIV on April 5, 2011hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hum.sagepub.com/

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/57/4/379

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.tavinstitute.org/index.php

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://hum.sagepub.com/content/57/4/379.refs.html


Concepts of interdisciplinarity:Configurations of knowledge and actionJohn D. Aram

A B S T R AC T Twelve faculty directors of graduate liberal studies programs

primarily in the US were interviewed by recorded telephone conver-

sation in an effort to understand how they define interdisciplinarity,

the intellectual aims to which they aspire, and their views about the

nature of reality in knowledge development. Classification of their

comments reinforces other writers’ observations that scholars differ

in the degree to which knowledge integration defines interdisci-

plinarity and they differ in the degree to which they believe

interdisciplinary knowledge is endogenous or exogenous to the

university. Based on their views of knowledge integration and the

social relevance of knowledge, four types of interdisciplinary scholars

are hypothesized. Of additional interest are the perceived functions

of interdisciplinary work and the way that these scholars by-pass

philosophical debates about the nature of reality in favor of their

practices of scholarship. Implications for the nature, meaning, and

practice of interdisciplinarity are discussed.

K E Y W O R D S epistemology � interdisciplinarity � knowledge and action �

knowledge integration � nature of reality � transdisciplinarity

Our experience and our language frequently delineate ‘in-between’ phenom-ena. International relations, interpersonal communication, intergenerationaldifferences, intercultural relationships, interfaith organizations, and manyother interstitial concepts pervade our descriptions of the world, and

3 7 9

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726704043893

Volume 57(4): 379–412

Copyright © 2004

The Tavistock Institute ®

SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks CA,

New Delhi

www.sagepublications.com

01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 379


www.sagepublications.com


advocacy of interdisciplinary work is not uncommon among personsinvolved in knowledge production. Characterizing what lies ‘in-between’things, or that which is unusual, new, or which simply just ‘doesn’t fit’ (Schiff,2001), inevitably involves considering the nature of those defining things.Consequently, interdisciplinarity appropriately begins with an inquiry intothe nature of the disciplines.

The term, ‘discipline’ is adapted from the Latin word, disciplina,meaning ‘a branch of instruction or education; a department of learning orknowledge’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989: 734–5). The term has beenused since the early Middle Ages to signify a way of ordering knowledge forteaching and learning. Until the late 1800s, college curricula in the US, withan emphasis on rhetoric, ancient languages, and moral philosophy, followedthe classical structure of the English college and its inheritance from thecategorical knowledge structure of the medieval university (Lattuca, 2001).In the late 19th century disciplinary specialization and organizationadvanced in the US due to an increasing commitment to science plus a beliefthat citizens should be enabled to participate in the economic life of thecountry through specialized education in the professions (Lattuca, 2001).

In subsequent thoughts to his classic work, The structure of scientificrevolutions, Thomas Kuhn (1974) used the term, disciplinary matrix, tospecify the meaning of ‘paradigm.’ Practitioners of a scientific specialty, inKuhn’s view, share three elements: symbolic generalizations, models, andexemplars, which represent a scientific community’s defining problems andsolutions. Kuhn paid particular attention to the ‘arsenal of exemplars’ bywhich the knowledge, the cognitive achievements, of a disciplinary group isdefined.

Interdisciplinarity, then, takes the notion of branches of knowledge asa point of departure, although some have pointed to shifting disciplinaryboundaries and to the frequently high internal differentiation of the academicdisciplines (Klein, 1996; Salter & Hearn, 1996). For our purposes, disciplinesare thought domains – quasi-stable, partially integrated, semi-autonomousintellectual conveniences – consisting of problems, theories, and methods ofinvestigation. Disciplines are quasi-stable because they are subject continu-ally to the opening of new or revised ways of framing problems, theorizing,and investigating. Because most disciplines have core and peripheral elementsas well as highly specialized sub-fields, they are only partially integrated.And, their ambiguous boundaries make them semi-autonomous. Disciplinesmay be tied together by a pattern of thought, or disciplinarian thinking,which Finkenthal (2001) defines as purposeful inquiry in the development ofconcepts far removed from direct sensory experience and expressed throughlogical if not mathematical structures. A recent line of inquiry examines

Human Relations 57(4)3 8 0

01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am 80



disciplinary work in the natural sciences in terms of cultures and practices(Messer-Davidow et al., 1993; Pickering, 1992).

Becher (1989) develops the metaphor of disciplines as ‘tribes’ of peopleinhabiting intellectual ‘territories.’ In Becher’s view, disciplines are eitherhard or soft and they are either pure or applied, depending on a series ofdimensions such as heterogeneity of interests, the potential for knowledgeaccumulation, the clarity of criteria for establishing or refuting claims, andthe strength of intellectual boundaries. Sociological factors, such as social-ization, social organization, and rewards within scientific communities arealso relevant features of disciplines (Becher, 1989).

Whitley (2000) defines the sciences as ‘reputational work organiz-ations’ engaged in knowledge production. National institutional contexts,such as changes in public funding of science after the end of the Cold Warand the emergence of new research-intensive industries, shape the resourcesand rewards that influence the intellectual and social organization of scien-tific fields. Institutional changes over recent decades have reduced the influ-ence of traditional disciplinary organizational structures and have increasedthe autonomy of individual researchers as well as the diversity of intellectualobjectives and theoretical approaches, although they may not have promotedgreater interdisciplinarity, per se.

Defining the academic structure of the university, disciplines receive aheightened sense of autonomy, definitiveness, and stability. Supported byinstitutional and professional practices, disciplines tend to reproduce them-selves. They represent the distinguishing structure of the comprehensiveuniversity today and are integral to the complexities of institutional change.

Defining interdisciplinarity

Recognizing ambiguities present in the concept of ‘discipline’ foreshadowsthe challenge of defining interdisciplinarity. Where disciplinary elements arerelatively stable, integrated, and autonomous, interaction may be more easilyperceived and defined. ‘Hard’ and ‘pure’ disciplines, in Becher’s terms, or‘tightly structured,’ in Salter and Hearn’s (1996) terms, may enhance inter-disciplinary work as changing, internally fragmented, and overlapping disci-plines weaken the ability to identify and define what is interdisciplinary. Inthis sense, disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are co-dependent (Klein,1990) and interdisciplinary insights may depend on the distinctiveness ofdisciplinary boundaries.

Summarizing a body of ‘classic’ writings on interdisciplinarity, Kleinand Newell (1998: 3) define interdisciplinary studies (IDS) as,

Aram Concepts of interdisciplinarity 3 8 1

01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 381



. . . a process of answering a question, solving a problem, or address-ing a topic too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a singlediscipline or profession. . . . IDS draws on disciplinary perspectives andintegrates their insights through construction of a more comprehensiveperspective.

This definition leaves key questions unanswered. Most importantly, why dothe authors appear to shy away from making knowledge claims for inter-disciplinarity? Is it left to the disciplines to generate knowledge or ‘insights,’while interdisciplinary work aspires solely to develop ‘a comprehensiveperspective?’ This article asks how interdisciplinary scholars define inter-disciplinary work, and whether their beliefs about what they are creating(knowledge, insights, perspectives) make a difference in their work.

Gradations of interdisciplinary integration

Conceptualizations of interdisciplinarity generally recognize differences inthe intellectual work that occurs in relation to given disciplines; some formsof interdisciplinarity involve more comprehensive, profound, or completeintegration of disciplinary knowledge and methods than other forms. Variousauthors make these distinctions, either implicitly or explicitly. Salter andHearn (1996), for example, distinguish between ‘instrumental interdisci-plinarity,’ in which scholars utilize or borrow the ideas or methods of anotherdiscipline to enhance problem solving within their home disciplines. Thisinterdisciplinary work accepts the social and institutional premises of theprevailing disciplines. A more extreme challenge to the legitimacy of thedisciplinary structure is presented in an approach, called ‘conceptual inter-disciplinarity,’ that critically examines assumptions of institutional and socialpower embedded in disciplinary work. To Salter and Hearn, interdisciplinaryapproaches reflect differing degrees of ‘challenge to the limitations orpremises of the prevailing organization of knowledge or its representation inan institutionally recognized form’ (p. 43).

Klein (1996) differentiates among instrumental interdisciplinarity,epistemological interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity, each signifying amore encompassing, deeper pattern of integration. Instrumental interdisci-plinarity involves bridge building between fields, epistemological interdisci-plinarity involves restructuring a former approach to defining a field, andtransdisciplinarity seeks a movement toward coherence, unity, and simplic-ity of knowledge.

Other characterizations of interdisciplinarity generally follow a pattern


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 382



of defining differing levels of integration of knowledge. To take severalexamples, Kockelmans (1979) distinguishes among pluridisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary work, and Stember(1991/1998) calls for intradisciplinarity, cross-disciplinarity, multidisci-plinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. Finkenthal (2001)discusses philosophical perspectives and definitions of these variousconstructs and endorses the view that addressing interdisciplinary subjectsmay be considered a ‘discipline’ in its own right, one that becomes a ‘metadis-cipline’ and a new epistemological tool.

Based on extensive interviews with 38 scholars doing interdisciplinarywork, Lattuca (2001) defines four types of interdisciplinarity – informeddisciplinarity, synthetic interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and conceptualinterdisciplinarity. Informed disciplinarity involves reaching out to otherdisciplines or being informed by them. Synthetic interdisciplinarity implies atighter linking of disciplines through courses or research questions. Coursesand research questions that cross disciplines represent transdisciplinarity, andconceptual interdisciplinarity reflects intellectual pursuits that have nocompelling disciplinary basis and that are new intellectual spaces. Lattuca’swork with interdisciplinarity appears to parallel a scheme proposed byPaxton (1996) that identifies four levels on interaction among disciplines:notice-taking of one discipline toward another, modifying one discipline asa result of contact with another, building at the interface of two or moredisciplines, and connections among the disciplines as such. All of thesetypologies share a movement from less to more knowledge integration; theyalso make evident a lack of a standard nomenclature in this area.

Toward what ends?

Accepting that interdisciplinarity encompasses differing levels of knowledgeintegration, other questions about the nature of interdisciplinary knowledgearise. The extent that science and society increasingly penetrate and influenceeach other affects one’s definition of ‘knowledge.’ A team of Britishresearchers (Nowotny et al., 2001) examine the broad social setting in whichscience and society interact, arguing that public issues and social concerns, onthe one hand, and scientific work, on the other hand, are increasingly inter-dependent, and a range of social, cultural, economic and political issuesweaken the near-hegemonic role of science. These authors call for ‘richlycontextualized, socially-robust, and epistemologically eclectic’ (p. 198) know-ledge without abandoning ‘the basic conditions which have underpinned theproduction of reliable knowledge’ (pp. 198–9). This thought endorses both


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 383



traditional and non-traditional approaches to knowledge, leaving scholarslatitude in choosing whether their intellectual ends align more with ‘richlycontextualized, socially-robust, and epistemologically eclectic’ or ‘the basicconditions . . . [in] the production of reliable knowledge’.

‘Creating knowledge’ may be taken to mean a number of differentthings. A recent study (Palmer, 2001), for example, examines researchers’practices in importing and exporting information within and between intel-lectual communities. This study presumes that ‘new knowledge’ is the endproduct of such information work. Palmer states, ‘Researchers seek, gather,mobilize, and synthesize information to work on research problems andproduce new knowledge’ (p. 29). On the other hand, over 30 years agoJantsch (1972), in the context of a study of the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development, identified inter- and transdisciplinarity interms of the action implications of purposive systems. Jantsch perceives disci-plinarity as a static approach, meaningless for understanding the universityas a purposive education/innovation system. Transcending the disciplineswould be needed to address whole system change.

Others differentiate inter- or transdisciplinarity from other types ofknowledge. Kockelmans (1979/1998) describes knowledge that is sociallyrelevant or actionable knowledge. One type of knowledge, for him, is ‘scien-tific work . . . with the intention of systematically pursuing the problem ofhow the negative side effects of specialization can be overcome so as to makeeducation (and research) more socially relevant’ (p. 71). In contrast toauthors who think of transdisciplinarity as the unification of disparate know-ledge, Kockelmans uses this term to imply the social utility of knowledge.Thus, scholars placing high importance on ‘relevance’ may seek knowledgethat transcends the disciplines, i.e. intellectual effort unbounded by the disci-plines in an attempt to be socially influential. Filemyr (1999: 8) expresses theview of interdisciplinarity as commitment to social change:

Many interdisciplinary fields, including women’s studies, environ-mental studies, peace studies, African-American studies,Latino/Chicano studies, labor studies, cultural studies, etc., haveemerged out of social, political and economic struggles of groupshistorically excluded or marginalized by the dominant discourse. Theyrepresent critical challenges to the status quo and have the potential toutilize a powerful integrative approach to knowledge as a tool forsocial engagement in order to better address social concerns.

Klein (1996) makes a related distinction between exogenous and endogen-ous interdisciplinary knowledge. Exogenous knowledge is ‘. . . created by


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 384



“real” problems of the community and the demand that universities performtheir full social mission,’ whereas endogenous knowledge is concerned with‘the production of new knowledge with the aim of realizing unity of science’(p. 12). In this view, interdisciplinary knowledge might be either endogen-ous or exogenous; the determining factor is the scholar’s purpose or intel-lectual aim. That is, the focus of the knowledge depends on the aims andintentions of the scholar.

At some point, as intellectual resources are mustered to address realworld problems, ideas of ‘inter’disciplinarity and generalizable knowledgeseem to give way to concepts of ‘trans’disciplinarity, as defined by Kockel-mans. Gibbons et al. (1994) develop the notion of teams of multiple expertsworking on a short-term basis to solve immediate problems. Upon achiev-ing specified, limited goals, the teams disband, carrying personalized asopposed to generalized knowledge from the inquiry. They term this ‘Mode2’ knowledge to distinguish it from more traditional ‘Mode 1’ academicknowledge, and they suggest that this work is ‘transdisciplinary’ in nature.Both Starkey and Madan (2001) and Tranfield and Starkey (1998) endorseMode 2 research in order to bridge a perceived ‘relevance gap’ in manage-ment research.

The notion of transdisciplinarity as cooperation by diverse academicexperts and practitioners to address real-world problems receives reinforce-ment in the need to solve large, complex, and global problems (Bill et al.,2001; Gibbons & Nowotny, 2001; Klein et al., 2001). Haberli et al. (2001)define transdisciplinarity as ‘a new form of learning and problem-solvinginvolving cooperation among different parts of society and academia in orderto meet complex challenges of society’ (p. 7). Similar to Gibbons et al. (1994),concerns for problem solving under the label of transdisciplinarity outweighthe more traditional desire to codify, articulate, and communicate knowledge.

Accepting that interdisciplinarians aspire to create knowledge, ques-tions remain, first, about persons’ definitions of interdisciplinarity in termsof the depth of integration of the disciplines, second about the extent theyseek to create endogenous versus exogenous knowledge, and third aboutwhether the type of knowledge one seeks to create is codifiable and general-izable in the sense that ‘publicness’ is inherent in its status as knowledge.

Assumptions about the nature of reality

A third theme runs through discussions of interdisciplinarity. The penetrationof society into the problems and concerns of science perceived by Nowotnyand colleagues was not solely a challenge to formal disciplines. Rather, this


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 385



line of thought represents a narrowing of the knowledge arenas in whichassumptions are present about a reality independent of the observer andwhere traditional concepts of validity and reliability apply. In other words,Nowotny et al. (2001) are commenting on the contemporary intellectualchallenge to foundational assumptions about reality.

At least some interdisciplinarians dispute attributing an autonomousstatus to any concept of reality or to presuming the universality of know-ledge. In this vein, Lattuca (2001) summarizes aspects of the post-structuralview of knowledge, ‘In literary theory poststructuralism disavows thepresumption that language provides truthful descriptions or explanations; inlinguistics it repudiates the supposition that interior dispositions rather thanthe exterior world structure communications’ (p. 15). The question iswhether the post-modern or post-structural view, what Hesse (1974) callsthe ‘revolutionizing’ interpretation of science, is more or less common amongpersons working primarily between as opposed to within disciplines.

Combatants in the ‘science wars’ line up in two general camps withrespect to assumptions about the nature of reality. Smith (1997) summarizesthe background and nature of opposing beliefs about the nature of reality,as well as an analysis of why this conflict persists. On one side are those whoendorse an objective reality that exists independent of human perception andof social conventions, such as language. For example, Bhaskar (1978) artic-ulates a version of ‘realism’ in which a continuous and stable reality existsprior to and independent of our understanding of it, although this viewpointalso differentiates between what is ‘real’ and our knowledge of this reality,which is a social product. A closely related view is the ‘essentialist’ positionthat holds that objects, including many social phenomena, have ‘certainessential properties that make them one kind of thing rather than any other’(Sayer, 1997: 456). Through theories and empirical inquiry we come toidentify these essences and to name their referent objects. Another line ofthinking argues that the fact that disciplines have had staying power overtime demonstrates their functionality in managing our interactions with theworld, giving confidence that the disciplines at least approximate the waythe world is (Azevedo, 1997). Interdisciplinary knowledge, from this perspec-tive, represents our inability to describe the world precisely and thoroughlyand to know how it works through the traditional disciplines.

Another camp generally believes that conceptions of ‘nature’ and‘knowledge’ result from our interactions with the world and among ourselvesas participants and observers, not from the ability to define or to describethe way that the world is in an independent sense. The ways that we experi-ence and name our physical and social interactions are strongly influencedby situationally specific and taken-for-granted ways of perceiving; knowledge


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 386



is always relative to those situational factors. Views of ‘reality’ are suscept-ible to a variety of historical and cultural forces, and ‘truth’ claims are inter-dependent with the nature and exercise of power. Collins (1983), advocates‘empirical relativism,’ a stance that asserts ‘radical uncertainty about howthings about nature are known’ (p. 91). Knorr-Cetina (1983) advocates aphilosophy of social constructivism which views the known world solely as‘a cultural object’ that is ‘identified and embodied in our language and ourpractices’ (p. 136). ‘Social constructivists’ and ‘relativists’ position them-selves in varying degrees of distance from the assumptions and structures ofthe traditional disciplines. Smith (1997) appears to suggest that the objec-tivist–constructivist conflict will be weakest where disciplines are discrete andintellectual boundaries are more defined and exist ‘side by side,’ and it willbe strongest when boundaries overlap. Thus, overlapping intellectualdomains aggravate philosophical conflict.

Others suggest that a strong disciplinary critique constitutes a type ofinterdisciplinary focus. Klein (1996: 15), for example, summarizes this latterposition

. . . an interdisciplinarity rooted in critical thought reinvents scholarlyand public discourse by regenerating method and epistemology. Whenintellectuality is premised on rediscovery and rethinking, resocializa-tion and reintellectualization, interdisciplinarity becomes not just away of doing things but a new way of knowing.

In a penetrating analysis, Hacking (1999) identifies three ‘sticking points’ orincommensurable views between the realist and the constructionist views ofscience. Persons holding these views differ in terms of whether an alterna-tive, equally successful science could have evolved, whether the world is oris not structured in the way that we describe it, and whether explanationsabout the stability of science are solely internal to that science or whetherthey have external, often social, origins.

Falling short of ‘a new way of knowing,’ in a later article, Smith (2002)argues that vigorous engagement between the purposes, goals and onto-logical assumptions of the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciencesconstitutes a ‘necessary condition for the emergence of new ideas and prac-tices’ (p. 18). In other words, the notion of incommensurability betweenontological views in other fields of intellectual endeavor creates an invalu-able intellectual dynamism.

What is the significance of the science wars for the study of interdiscipli-narity? We have argued that both traditional and post-modern belief systemsmake room for interdisciplinary work. The question is how interdisciplinarians


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 387



address themselves to philosophical conflicts about the nature of knowledge andof reality. Do they express a bias toward one view of reality over the other, ordo they have imaginative ways of resolving conflicting views?

Study questions

This overview of perspectives on knowledge and interdisciplinarity identifiedthree themes or issues. First, we have seen the concept of ‘interdisciplinarity’used in a number of ways, from an instrumental sense that works within adisciplinary framework to a more encompassing approach that seeks unityof knowledge. Second, we have acknowledged that scholars may have variedpurposes and may pursue different intellectual ends, generally referred to asknowledge endogenous or exogenous to the academic environment. Finally,the comments above suggest that different assumptions about the nature ofreality are embedded in the knowledge enterprise. It remains to be exploredhow interdisciplinarians view these general issues and how they describe theirviews of interdisciplinarity, their intellectual purposes, and their views aboutthe nature of reality. And, we are interested in exploring patterns of relation-ships between these dimensions. Do scholars with particular intellectualaims, for example, define interdisciplinarity or view the nature of reality anydifferently than scholars with different intellectual aims? This article reportsa dozen interviews with persons engaged in interdisciplinary scholarship. Itexplores the following questions:

1. Do respondents express different beliefs with respect to:

• definitions of ‘interdisciplinary’,• their intellectual aims or ends,• assumptions about the nature of reality?

2. Do respondents’ intellectual ends anticipate either the way they defineinterdisciplinarity or their views of the nature of reality?

3. Do different views of the nature of interdisciplinarity imply particularviews about the nature of reality?

Methods

The 20th century witnessed a counter movement to increasing disciplinaryspecialization, largely stressing the presence of elective courses and


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 388



eventually teaching from an interdisciplinary standpoint. By 1960 theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, mentionedearlier, had conducted the first international survey of interdisciplinary activi-ties, the number and variety of interdisciplinary undergraduate teaching grewdramatically in the last half-century, and interdisciplinary research centersproliferated (Klein, 1996).

The graduate component of the movement toward interdisciplinarityparallels these developments. Wesleyan University established the firstMaster of Arts in Liberal Studies program in 1952 and Graduate LiberalStudies was formally initiated in 1975 with the founding of the Associationof Graduate Liberal Studies Programs with 13 charter members (Guzman,1996). First and foremost, members of this association are connected by aphilosophy of teaching and learning. A workbook for Graduate LiberalStudies programs states

Because the explicit goal of graduate liberal studies is to provide a foun-dation for significant integration of disciplines, the educational centerof the graduate liberal studies curriculum is the multi-, cross-, or inter-disciplinary course . . . Multi-disciplinary courses encourage us to cutthrough often arbitrary boundaries and to explore the values and contri-butions of diverse modes of knowing and seeking knowledge.

(Guzman, 1996: 14)

Graduate liberal studies can be seen as a proxy for interdisciplinarity,although the concerns of its institutional representatives may be moreprogrammatic and more oriented toward teaching than the universe ofpersons who would qualify as interdisciplinary scholars, i.e. persons whoseinterests in discovery and learning lead them to transcend disciplinary bound-aries in their work. It may be concluded that member institutions and theirassociation representatives are committed to an interdisciplinary perspective,although it could not be concluded that these respondents are representativeof all interdisciplinary scholars. A sample of directors of Graduate LiberalStudies programs allows us to explore the meaning of this concept with anadmittedly unrepresentative population of interdisciplinary fields, researchinterests, or teaching programs.

Directors of master’s level liberal or interdisciplinary studies programs,primarily in the US, but also in Canada, were contacted by email and invitedto participate in an interview study of the ‘nature and meaning of interdis-ciplinarity.’ It was presumed that, of all potential populations of scholars,liberal studies program directors would (i) have established records ofscholarship, (ii) have extensive experience and success as interdisciplinary


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 389



teachers, and (iii) be experienced in articulating principles and beliefs aboutinterdisciplinarity, even in areas, such as the natural sciences, where they maynot be personally involved as scholars.

Schools offering liberal studies programs were identified from theWebsite of the full members of the Association of Graduate Liberal StudiesPrograms and current program directors were identified either throughprogram information on the Web or through phone calls. Thirty email invi-tations were sent to program directors in a cross-section of schools on thismembership list, and thirteen persons responded favorably and were inter-viewed by recorded phone call. One respondent (R1), who had no teachingexperience, had not received a doctoral degree, and was not engaged in anywritten scholarship, was omitted from the analysis, leaving a sample of 12respondents (R2–R13).

Eight of the twelve schools represented by the respondents are privateschools and four are public universities. In the Carnegie Classification ofInstitutions of Higher Education, six are rated as doctoral/research insti-tutions (three extensive, three intensive) and five are rated as Master’s I insti-tutions. Another university, not rated within the Carnegie system due to itslocation in Canada, would appear to be a doctoral/research institution. Fourschools each are located in the west (two of these in the southwest), thecentral states, and the east (two of these in the southeast). Eight respondentswere male and four were female.

The 12 persons participating in this study primarily hold degrees in thehumanities and the social sciences. Three hold appointments in the field ofhistory (American social and intellectual history, 18th- and 19th-centuryBritish and US history, and modern European intellectual history). Others inthe humanities received degrees in American studies, 17th-century EnglishRenaissance literature, philosophy of religion, rhetoric, and an interdisci-plinary committee on the analysis of ideas in the study of methods. In thefield of psychology, one person studied in the field of social psychology andanother in personality psychology. One person studied psycholinguistics andone biopsychology. The study made no effort to determine specific moti-vations of respondents for being involved in liberal studies programs or toprofile their career paths.

Participants were asked a series of questions pertaining to theiracademic backgrounds, university roles, teaching and research involvements,their definitions of ‘interdisciplinary,’ their views on ontological andepistemological questions, and their views about whether, and how, inter-disciplinary teaching and research might best be promoted. Interviews lastedfrom 40 minutes to 2 hours. Responses pertaining to the following threetopics are analyzed in this article:


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 390



1. What does ‘interdisciplinary’ mean to you? How do you define thisterm?

2. Faculty members’ work involves the world of ideas. What do you feelyou are seeking to achieve in your work with ideas – knowledgedevelopment, problem solving, aesthetic experience, social change, orsomething other? In other words, toward what intellectual ends do youaspire?

3. Individuals differ in their views about the nature of reality. Forexample, some believe in a relatively stable and continuous world thatcan be known through scientific reasoning and empiricism. Others holdthat all knowledge is socially constructed or that all ‘truths’ arerelative. Do you have a particular view of the nature of reality? Do youfeel that an interdisciplinary perspective makes any particular assump-tions about the nature of reality?

Interview transcripts were read and re-read many times, attempting toisolate comments pertaining to the themes of this study, regardless of whereduring the interview the comments might have been made. Significantsegments of text were identified for respondents on each of the three themesof interest, and these comments were categorized in groups. Interview infor-mation presented either in tables or in the text consists of interview extractsfrom throughout the interviews that were used for these classifications.

Respondents were generally familiar with many of the positions anddebates surrounding the philosophical topics of this study, but were rarelyworking with them directly and writing about them on a daily basis. Theinterview guide was distributed in advance of the interview, and althoughoften intrigued and challenged by the questions, respondents only occasion-ally had pre-formulated and thorough responses with respect to their ownbeliefs and work practices. For example, one person’s response to a questionabout the nature of reality, commented ‘That’s a very interesting question.That is a tough one, I mean, it’s interesting . . .’ Nevertheless, the person didgive a thoughtful and articulate response to the question. This type ofimmediate response was not atypical in the interviews.

Results

‘Interdisciplinary’ defined

Table 1 presents the results from classifying individuals’ responses to thequestion about how they define ‘interdisciplinary.’ The first two of these


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 391



groupings, ‘new knowledge from the confluence, fusion, or synthesis of disci-plines’ and ‘new perspectives by borrowing from other disciplines or fromthe interplay between disciplines’ generally correspond to the distinctionpresent in the literature on interdisciplinary pertaining to different degreesof knowledge integration. Six persons in the first group appear to be seekinga genuine fusion of knowledge in the direction of a metadiscipline, assuggested by Finkenthal (2001). For these respondents, interdisciplinarywork at least has the potential to attain independent standing as ‘new know-ledge.’

Knowledge integration appeared less substantive or complete foranother six respondents. These individuals view interdisciplinary work ascreating a fresh dialogue or a new perspective, either by borrowing conceptsand methods outside one’s own discipline, or simply by allowing one to seethings in a different way. The commitment to ‘new knowledge’ is less strongin this group of responses. These two groups of respondents’ views towardkinds and degrees of interdisciplinarity conform to the basic dimension ofmore or less disciplinary integration appearing in the literature, although thetypes of interdisciplinarity mentioned in this study are not as nuanced as theyappear to be in the literature.

These general categories of responses may mask important differencesbetween individuals in each of these groups. Specifically, differences existamong those scholars defining interdisciplinarity as ‘new knowledge’ in termsof how that knowledge is generated. For example, some individuals viewtheory or ‘insights’ as the basis for disciplinary integration; others seemethodological integration as key. Also, a number of individuals state thatnew knowledge results from a synthesis, confluence, or fusion – a ‘bringingtogether’ of disciplinary work. Respondent R13, however, sees new know-ledge resulting from a ‘breaking down’ [of walls] as opposed to a ‘bringingtogether.’

Similar differences are present among persons whose definitions arecategorized as gaining a new perspective by disciplinary borrowing or inter-play. A salient difference within this group is whether disciplinary interactionoccurs in terms of methodological tools or in terms of theory. The mannerof grouping respondents together in Table 1 is quite general and does notreflect a number of subtle differences between people in each category thatmay merit more extensive exploration in subsequent studies.

Intellectual ends pursued

As indicated earlier, respondents were asked to describe the intellectual endsto which they aspire in their work with ideas. Although individuals


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 392




Table 1 Interdisciplinarity defined

What does ‘interdisciplinary’ mean to you? How do you define this term?

1. New knowledge from the confluence, fusion, or synthesis of disciplines• And what makes them [capstone requirement for our seniors] interdisciplinary is there has

to be more than at least two or more disciplines and it has to lead to some sort ofintegration of disciplinary insights. So, some sort of connection has to stay. It’s not just‘here’s what one group said and here’s what another said.’ . . . interdisciplinarity is an attemptto create some sort of synthesis. (R4)

• Well, I like to see it as a confluence of approaches or disciplines . . . we sometimes allow adepartment or a group of faculty members to carve out an interdisciplinary studies field tobecome a mini-department to offer like a pilot program in a discipline. That’s happened, forexample, in an area that involves hydrology and engineering . . . there is one program inneuroscience that involves faculty members from microbiology, psychology, even philosophyand then some other fields, like communication disorders, and they are further along indeveloping their new graduate degree. (R5)

• I think real interdisciplinary scholar . . . tries to methodologically integrate the procedures,the intellectual procedures that are associated with the different disciplines . . . I think arigorous definition of interdisciplinarity would imply having immersed oneself in the literaturethat comes from two different disciplines. And I don’t think there are a lot of people who dothat. I think there are fewer interdisciplinary scholars than generally [are] thought to be thecase . . . a rigorous interdisciplinarity would imply having immersed oneself in the literaturethat comes from two different disciplines – ways of thinking, the ways of doing analysis . . .that are distinctive to more than one discipline. (R7)

• . . . I think things that call themselves interdisciplinary represent in effect the submission ofone discipline and its methods to another . . . but I think you very rarely see a genuine fusingof methods and assumptions . . . And again, one man did it, rather than a team, but that onestrikes me as one of the most successful efforts I know to genuinely combine the methodsand assumptions of different disciplines into a single account . . . I think it is tough to do well.I don’t think we usually admit how tough it is to do it at a high level because here you cansort of imitate it, you can just put together a historian, a philosopher, a literary person on apanel and call that interdisciplinary, even if really they don’t speak to each other in a verysignificant way. (R9)

• . . . Whitehead defines education as the study of life. There’s my broadest definition ofinterdisciplinarity. But, life is a subject matter . . . maybe a better term is transdisciplinaritybecause life requires that. I mean, interdisciplinary still sounds like there are these disciplinesand then we’re trying to weave them together . . . (R11)

• I think interdisciplinarity is sort of breaking down the walls . . . that disciplines have set uparound themselves. Interdisciplinarity allows new knowledge to be formed from theexpanded context when those walls are broken down . . . we’re looking to see not just howgood this literature is or why it’s good or why it’s aesthetically excellent. We’re looking tosee how it is in dialogue with other aspects of American culture and with history and withsocial events and all kinds of things that I think have serious impact on how that literatureworks and how it’s responded to and how it was produced in the first place . . . someonehas the capacity to understand it differently and I think more thoroughly. (R13)

01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 393




Table 1 Continued

2. Gaining a new perspective by borrowing from other disciplines or from the interplaybetween disciplines

• Well, the first step you take toward getting it, I think, in the courses I’ve set up, is gettingprofessors from different disciplines . . . [who] should be reading, lecturing on, leadingdiscussion on, participating in discussions on the same texts . . . So, I can talk about things inthe texts which a professor of English probably wouldn’t know about or understand as well.So, having a training in a different discipline and looking at a common object I think broadenswhat the student can learn about as we give a broader background. (R2)

• . . . much of my background or much of my energy . . . has been devoted to studyingsexuality from perspectives outside the psychological perspective . . . In other words, gettingmultiple perspectives on how people go about looking at sexuality and incorporating thoseideas and tools into my own understanding of the field . . . much of what I have been able todo in my own research is to take methodologies and tools of one discipline and find ways toapply them to my own discipline of psychology and elucidates or takes the knowledge into adifferent direction . . . the way that people think in different disciplines often impacts the waythat I will begin to conceptualize things in my own discipline. (R3)

• To me, that means you are not limited by your discipline, that you use ideas and approachesfrom other fields in addressing a problem or topic . . . I think it’s important that in aninterdisciplinary approach that you appreciate the methods of other disciplines . . . I wouldsay that my graduate training was very much that way. We used a great deal of stuff fromsociology and anthropology and we used examples from history and literature in the thingsthat we did [in personality psychology]. (R6)

• . . . I would call interdisciplinary a lack of restraint. But I also see it as to some degree morephenomena based – that you have a particular issue or concept you want to deal with andyou can come at it from all the sides that you want to, rather than being to some degreetradition-bound by what are considered appropriate approaches and the appropriate bodiesof literature to read in a discipline . . . taking a perspective from another field and then tryingto integrate that with the perspective of your field and seeing how that plays . . . So, it’s notso much a difference in instrumentation; it’s basically simply an awareness that there’s moregoing on than just one perspective. I expect my instructors to look at something from morethan one side. (R8)

• I was able to do a lot with issues of violence and there was interdisciplinary work in there.I’ve written quite a bit of psychiatric stuff about shooting prisoners, mutilation and that sort ofthing. I was very influenced by egopsychology . . . so that form of interdisciplinary work Icame to because it was useful. I mean, to me theory is something that has heuristic value andyou look for what you need . . . and I definitely think we need to understand each other,these disciplines, as much as we can and we should freely borrow if it works . . . So, you canuse psychological analysis without being a reductionist, without saying ‘this explains that.’ So,that’s probably the area of interdisciplinary work that’s most meaningful in my everyday lifeand it comports with how I look at the world. I would say that’s the area of interdisciplinarity.(R10)

• I view history primarily as an interdisciplinary discipline. By its very nature, historians look atall the areas of life. They look at politics, they look at society, they look at economics, theylook at intellectual and cultural life . . . I define the term as bringing the perspectives of thevarious ways of doing knowledge, the different ways of studying the world to bear on aproblem or an issue. (R12)

01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 394



responded primarily in terms of their written scholarship, both teaching andresearch were referenced in their comments. In this case, individuals’comments were placed into four major categories – ‘knowledge/knowledgeaesthetically expressed,’ ‘student-oriented knowledge,’ ‘socially influentialknowledge,’ and ‘power of personal thoughts.’ These categories are displayedin Table 2 with phrases from each person’s interview that attempt to capturethe overall sense of that person’s statement in response to this question.

Respondents’ comments in Table 2 are consistent with the premise thatpersons involved in interdisciplinary work pursue different intellectual ends.Of the 12 persons interviewed, 4 indicated a commitment to knowledgedevelopment in its own right, or for one of these persons, knowledge aesthet-ically expressed. Another two persons were concerned with communicatingknowledge having a high utility for students; both persons referred to theobjectives of textbooks that they had recently authored.

Consistent with several authors’ statements (Klein, 1996; Kockelmans,1979/1998), the intellectual work of half of the respondents was influencedby socially relevant questions and was related to concerns exogenous to theuniversity. Four persons indicated their desires for social impact based ontheir empirical research. This intellectual aim is termed ‘socially influentialknowledge’ in Table 2. Their comments suggest the aspiration that know-ledge impact society or promote personal or social change. Two factorsappear equally important to these persons: (i) that knowledge products areintended to meet established academic standards in their respective fields,and (ii) a desire for the social relevance of these products.

Finally, two individuals approach their work with ideas, not so muchgenerating knowledge based on systematic research, as in the writing ofessays or expository pieces where they seek to express toward others theirpersonal thinking on issues of common interest. These two persons made fewor no claims as to the development of knowledge that conforms toconventional academic standards, as they appeared more inclined to utilizetheir expertise and backgrounds for social commentary and public influence.These two (R2 and R4) persons’ statements appear to convey a strongemotional tone that may be present among those persons whose aims involvesocial and personal change. This would be evident, for example, with respon-dent R11 as well, who explicitly states an aim for ‘emotional deepening.’

On the whole, these comments fall into two types of scholarly orien-tations. Persons within the academy – other scholars and students – comprisethe audience for individuals whose purposes are knowledge development andthe development of student-oriented knowledge. On the other hand, personsin society in general – members of the public – are the audience for scholarsaiming to produce socially influential knowledge or whose aim is to


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 395




Table 2 Intellectual ends

Faculty members’ work involves the world of ideas. What do you feel you are seeking to achieve inyour work with ideas – knowledge development, problem solving, aesthetic experience, social change,or something other? In other words, toward what intellectual ends do you aspire?

1. Knowledge/knowledge, aesthetically expressed• Well, in my field, a lot of it is problem solving and in coming to solutions or outcomes, you

are building a knowledge . . . Now, I don’t know that I would see that as being socomparable in less science-related disciplines . . . although perhaps with some disciplines,such as art, there is probably a building of knowledge as one looks at architecture and designand so on . . . to really build a knowledge that you can be fairly confident about. (R3)

• Well, somewhere, some combination of the creation of knowledge and also eliciting a certainaesthetic response. I’m very much interested in saying something [about] the knowledge I amconveying. I’m also interested in conveying a feeling, an enthusiasm, a point of view and soforth. (R7)

• Not social change, that’s never been on my horizon. I wrote my dissertation, my book, onBen Johnson . . . So, it was an aesthetic problem . . . Some of them were intellectualproblems . . . I made a sort of extended case for how this fundamental perception of theworld is given from which Shakespeare is beginning. (R9)

• I would think developing knowledge. When I started this years ago, nobody knew muchabout women in the 18th and 19th centuries. And nobody had really looked at what I waslooking at in American history. So, I felt I was adding to knowledge which had been longignored. (R12)

2. Student-oriented knowledge• I was finishing up a book on writing literature reviews for students working on theses . . .

based on my experience of advising students. So, I think a lot of times those are the kinds ofbooks that are most helpful. So, in my work, it has been directed at that population [firsttime college graduates], I try to help them prepare better to do research and write well.(R5)

• . . . let’s say in my books I try to impart knowledge in as useful and interesting a way aspossible. I want my students to appreciate the work that has gone before. I guess you wouldsay that is my goal. (R6)

3. Socially influential knowledge• I guess knowledge development and social change. And so first you have to know what those

forces are and then you have to explain them to people so that they can see them . . . Thereis a sense that people are freed by knowing forces on them . . . when I would be doingresearch on how people’s social skills and their explanations limit their own social actionsand social satisfaction . . . you tell them so that if they wish, and if they can, they can makechanges in their lives. So, those two things go together reasonably well. (R8)

• I don’t characterize myself in that way [concerned with boundary making]. I think from beinga child in the 1960s, we all thought that somehow we would be involved in somethingbeyond the academy . . . I think in my own work, my consensus task is to deflate the notionthat military solutions are the right ones . . . And so, it’s a deflationary job that I’m on and arealistic one . . . And then I’m arguing less with them [academics] than I’m trying to argue

01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 396



influence others through expressing their personal thinking. Broad differ-ences between these two groups reflect differences in the context of theirwork – in the former case, contexts of research and teaching, and in the lattercase, contexts of personal and social change. Very broadly, these two types


Table 2 Continued

• with people out in the public because I think that, in fact, a lot of what I say resonates well. Ijust talked to a very conservative crowd in Atlanta. They listened. And now they have a lotof doubts about his kind of war [Iraq] . . . So, in a sense you never give up. So, I guess that ismy sense of task. And I love teaching students. And again, my job is just to make them thinktwice, to not be dogmatic . . . to challenge them, trouble them. Well, that’s my sense of task. . . I don’t sermonize people; I try to engage them. (R10)

• Well, I saw that question and I underlined all of them . . . and I added emotional deepeningto it. I just think that part of the problem of discipline bound education has been that we’veseparated these things and we’ve favored knowledge development. We have beyond thatfavored information development through information transmission . . . I would say I havebecome very suspicious of the notion of knowledge for knowledge sake. I think that’s rathera self-indulgent concept and it comes out of this German rationalist, purity of knowledge, ifthere is such a thing. And, I don’t think we have the luxury today to do that, even if it werevaluable. (R11)

• Just as I believe the American Indian literature, which is the subject of my primary research,is functional just like oral story telling once was, I want my research to be useful, too . . .And that sometimes does include social change. I really think that research can affect socialchange under certain circumstances. I just don’t want to spend my time working on researchthat just doesn’t have an outcome of some kind. (R13)

4. Power of personal thought• I’m trying to be something like, in a secular way, a biblical prophet . . . [Q: What would you

like the reaction to that (a recent essay written by the respondent) to be?] What I’d like thereaction to be is: we shouldn’t be going to war in Iraq, we shouldn’t have gone to war theway we did in Afghanistan, we shouldn’t do a lot of the things we do in the world . . . [Q: So,your mission here is really to influence public thought?] Yes, it’s possible. An example of that. . . Now, you know, that’s a chance to speak to a wide audience directly. I don’t often havesuch a bully pulpit to do what I want to do. (R2)

• And that’s what I want my students to have – a sense of the multiplicity of points of view . . .I basically want my students to be marked by characteristics of what it is to be a goodstudent, or maybe a public intellectual or citizen . . . to be a good citizen and to understandthat the point of their education is not to choose a point of view, but to use a point of viewto make choices . . . Well, anyway, intellectual virtues and the modeling of this for mystudents probably is what I want to accomplish more than anything else . . . I consciouslymade these choices . . . it was more of a social role and less about my being a player increating knowledge . . . an essayist in some sense when I thought about . . . But to make along story short, I’m more interested in synthesis than analysis and I think that’s why I choseessayist over researcher. (R4)

01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 397



of scholarly purposes appear to correspond to the distinction betweenendogenous and exogenous knowledge (Klein, 1996).

Relation between scholars’ views of interdisciplinarity and theirintellectual aims

Figure 1 displays respondents organized in terms of the general categories ofinterdisciplinarity presented in Table 1 and in terms of the intellectual aimspresented in Table 2. Respondents in this study are distributed evenlythroughout Figure 1, suggesting that there may be four concepts of interdis-ciplinarity, as defined by the figure’s four cells. The generation of ‘new know-ledge’ as well as of ‘new perspectives’ may be aimed at a purpose that iseither endogenous or exogenous to the university setting. Similarly, whetherone’s intellectual aims focus primarily on the university or on its socialcontext does not specify the degree of knowledge integration present in thatperson’s definition of interdisciplinarity.

This analysis implies that knowledge and action lie at the heart of theconstruct of interdisciplinarity, and it reveals four possible types of inter-disciplinary scholars in relation to these two dimensions. One type may becommitted to disciplinary knowledge integration where scholars address theirwork to academic audiences consisting of students and other scholars. Asecond type of interdisciplinary scholar sees interdisciplinary knowledge asinterplay, borrowing or perspective, primarily impacting one’s own fieldthrough aims endogenous to the academic setting. A third type of scholar simi-larly defines interdisciplinarity as borrowing or interplay among the disci-plines, but for this individual the objective of knowledge development aimsto reshape the external world. This individual seems equally oriented towardachieving ‘socially robust knowledge’ as to retaining claims to its validity andreliability. The fourth type of scholar in this study may see interdisciplinarityas creating ‘new knowledge’ through the integration of disciplines toward thepurpose of addressing real world issues and problems outside of the university.

Several implications arise from Figure 1. First, the data suggest that thebeliefs and actions – one might say, the practices – of persons in this samplewith respect to interdisciplinarity may be determined by both their views ofknowledge integration and their intellectual aims. In other words, dimen-sions of knowledge and action identified in the literature on interdiscipli-narity are present in these individuals’ ideas about scholarship, and both mayneed to be taken into account in understanding an individual’s epistemology.Although both dimensions are commonly acknowledged in writing aboutinterdisciplinarity, Figure 1 suggests the need to view them simultaneouslyrather than separately.


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 398



Second, differences about the definition of interdisciplinarity betweenrespondents appear to be less important to them than differences about theirintellectual aims. Several individuals’ definitions of interdisciplinarity impliedstronger integration than how they described their own work or see the workof others who call themselves interdisciplinarians. However, the emotionalcontent of a number of respondents’ statements about their intellectualpurposes appeared to be high and the endogenous–exogenous distinctionseemed to be important, especially to those interested in combining know-ledge and social change. Following Becher’s (1989) metaphor, the interdisci-plinary ‘tribe’ is loosely structured and has permeable boundaries. Withinthis dispersed tribe, more defined ‘clans’ are working toward different intel-lectual ends, namely oward endogenous and exogenous purposes. This is notto suggest, however, that any respondents argued that interdisciplinarity hasbecome a new discipline in its own right.

Third, while individuals were asked to describe their intellectual aims,they were asked to define ‘interdisciplinary’ in general, not necessarily a defi-nition valid for their own work. While some respondents defined interdisci-plinary in terms of what they do, others gave a general definition, as mentionedearlier, which they indicated would not apply to their own scholarship. Forexample, respondent R7 and R9 defined ‘interdisciplinary’ as achieving a highlevel of integration, rarely achieved in general and not accomplished in theirown work. Consequently, the cells of Figure 1 dealing with the synthesis orfusion of knowledge appear to be defined in hypothetical terms at this time, andone cannot be assured that those rare individuals described by respondents asachieving knowledge integration would themselves be seeking exogenous as


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !� �""� �"#

�#� �$� �"% �%� �&� �"'

Figure 1 Respondents classified in terms of definitions of interdisciplinary and in terms of intellectual purposes addressed

01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 399



well as endogenous knowledge. Figure 1 suggests this may be the case, but thisis an empirical question that awaits further study. Assuming that furtherevidence bears witness to these four types of interdisciplinarians, fruitful inquirywould then address more specific methods of discovery in each of the cells aswell as relationships between the different types of knowledge developed.

The value and utility of interdisciplinarity

In addition to defining interdisciplinarity and discussing their personal intel-lectual aims as scholars, respondents in this study mentioned other ways inwhich an interdisciplinary approach is important. Quite naturally, virtuallyall respondents spoke of the utility of interdisciplinarity in terms of its know-ledge value. At the same time, some saw this knowledge as an instrumentalmeans to a more ultimate end; and others mentioned additional by-productsof interdisciplinary inquiry. Individuals appeared to be speaking to the issueof what benefits accrue to an interdisciplinary perspective. In other words,for what is interdisciplinarity valuable?

Comments on this issue were most often located in the interviewsections dealing with ontological and epistemological issues. Respondentswere asked their views about the nature of reality and about whether theyfelt an interdisciplinary perspective would make any assumptions about thenature of reality. And, following a question about the contextual versus theuniversal nature of knowledge, they were asked whether an interdisciplinaryapproach makes any assumptions about this dimension of knowledge. Thesewere generally wide-ranging discussions from which thoughts about thevalue or benefit of interdisciplinarity were extracted. Two broad categoriesof value were identified: first, that interdisciplinarity primarily has contentvalue, and second, that it makes a more general, or meta, contribution toknowledge. More specific aspects of each are discussed later.

Content value

A number of individuals found value in the substantive contributions ofinterdisciplinarity. Their comments fell into two general groups (i) perceiv-ing reality and (ii) building understanding, appreciation, explanation, as indi-cated later.

Perceiving reality

For four persons, including one whose thoughts spanned two approaches,the utility of an interdisciplinary approach lies, quite simply, in the ability to


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 400



perceive the world as it is. Responses for this group about the value of inter-disciplinarity deviated slightly from their responses to a question about thenature of reality. Statements by these individuals were:

we can provide something true of the way things were based on thedocuments that survived – you have to be as broad as possible tounderstand it [reality] even in part.

(R12)

So I really personally find the kind of isolated non-interdisciplinaryapproach to important questions just not useful. Not realistic, notreflective of the real world.

(R6)

. . . the kinds of truths that we’re after is a truth that is not dependingon agreement . . . The ultimate claim will be that it’s happeningwhether we say so or not . . . I think . . . interdisciplinarity is concernedwith producing new knowledge or facts about what is. . .

(R4.1)

It helps us understand the world in its entirety.(R2)

Appreciation, understanding, and explanation

Respondents stressed the complexity of reality, suggesting that an interdisci-plinary perspective is the best way to understand that complexity. Two otherpersons stressed the value of enhanced understanding from an interdisci-plinary approach, but came up short of making strong claims for knowingthe world as it is. Their thinking dealt more with ‘appreciation,’ ‘under-standing,’ and ‘explanation.’ Comments were:

. . . my fundamental gut sense of what’s valuable in an interdisciplinaryprogram is that you bring to bear whatever several approaches aparticular subject demands for its richest appreciation or understand-ing . . . that’s where I would locate the heart of what I think is valuablein the interdisciplinary impulse.

(R9)

Well, if, for example, you have an anthropological sense and yourealize that other cultures do things around the same issue, differently,


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 401



and you have an understanding that your way is not the only way, butthere are many ways . . . I think we all need theoretical consideration,we need help, we need, like I said, heuristic devices we need to helpexplain things in a richer and more complex way. And so, we shouldlook for help wherever we can get it.

(R10)

The latter person discussed the role of the imagination in scholarly work, ofthe subjective and imaginative process in creating these explanations. Heindicated, ‘I do think there are data and I think you need imagination becausethe data don’t speak to you. The data are always fragmentary, so it’s an activeimagination which allows you to put things together and in the mostcompelling possible story.’

Meta-contributions

The comments above, in stronger or weaker forms, address themselves to thecontent objectives of interdisciplinary work. In other words, the value in thisapproach for those individuals lies with what one learns in a substantivesense. Others saw a different value in interdisciplinarity, what might beconsidered a meta-contribution, one that contributes not so much to contentknowledge as it embodies a knowledge-organizing principle, allows socialagreement, or allows perception of differing assumptions. There were threetypes of meta-contributions in respondents’ comments, as follows.

Re-organization of thought

Two persons view interdisciplinarity as a device for improving the organiz-ation of thought. For one individual, this approach challenges current theory.This person stated that interdisciplinarity might lead one ‘to question theprevailing definition, for example. So you’re looking at the theoretical under-pinnings and questioning the validity of some of the basic notions in the field.I think that is always useful.’ (R5)

Another person suggested a broader role for interdisciplinary approachin the organization of thought. This individual indicated,

I start from the premise, the disciplines are historical artifacts, they areever changing, they come into being, they change, they go out of exist-ence . . . They aren’t ‘things’; they are simply intellectual conveniences. . . The fundamental reason being that this represents an efficient anduseful way to organize knowledge . . . So, I think on a whole, disciplines,


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 402



as long as you see them as provisional and always evolving, make sense.And often what one calls interdisciplinary, is simply the process by whichdisciplines themselves change and new ones emerge.

(R7)

Rather than challenging a particular theory, this person sees interdiscipli-narity as challenging and revising disciplinary structures.

Reveals multiplicity and variation in thought

Three persons described what might be considered another ‘meta-contri-bution’ about the value of interdisciplinarity. For these persons, interdiscipli-narity reveals different ways of looking at the world. Their comments were:

One of the things that I think is probably very valuable in the inter-disciplinary approach is that you can really begin to see the assump-tions underlying some of the disciplines and how it’s difficult, I think,for the assumptions underlying one discipline to then be able to dealwith the problems of another discipline.

(R3)

Well, I think one of the strengths of doing interdisciplinary work, tryingto get people to think in an interdisciplinary way, is that they will cometo recognize more carefully how claims about reality are formed andhow complex those claims ought to be.

(R11)

. . . one of its advantages is that it allows us to see this interplay, thisflex. It allows us to see moments when one can generalize and momentswhen particular knowledge is really important . . . And it’s because ofthe sort of multiplicity of all the elements of interdisciplinary know-ledge that it’s possible to sort of see that variation and account for it.

(R13)

Arrive at social agreement

Finally, for two people (one of whom identified two types of value or benefitof interdisciplinarity and thus is included twice in this section) the value of interdisciplinarity could be found in the process, rather than the product of the knowledge generated. This might be considered another meta-contribution on interdisciplinarity. They commented,


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 403



It’s somewhat like my view of social perception is that you look at itlots of different ways and they come to a kind of reasonable agreementwhich may or may not map whatever was actually there, or if youcould actually know what was out there.

(R8)

I would define it as more of a rhetorical perspective. Rhetoric has juris-diction over two big areas . . . One of them is all the ‘should’ questionsin the world. What should we do about it and should we explore space;should we do math; should we clone? . . . You’ve got to bring a lot ofpoints of view into play. . .

(R4.2)

Views toward the nature of reality

Individuals were requested to indicate their views about the nature of realityin response to a question that posed a traditional view about reality (a rela-tively stable and continuous world that can be known through scientificreasoning and empiricism) against what might be considered a post-modernstance (all knowledge is socially constructed or that all ‘truths’ are relative).Perhaps it might be expected that a sample of academics involved in inter-disciplinary work would generally eschew the either/or quality of thisquestion, for that was the dominant response in this sample of persons. Forexample, five individuals were reluctant to align themselves with one or theother of the choices. Several described their various views metaphorically:

I could list [an] example: Emerson’s wonderful line, ‘the weed is aplant whose virtues have not yet been discovered.’ And I point outto [my students] that calling a dandelion a weed is certainly sociallyconstructed. It’s a plant. But it doesn’t mean that you might want thatplant growing where it is. So, I understand its weedness and I alsounderstand that its weedness is not a state . . . It really is there andit really is in this green field and you really might want to get rid ofit.

(R4)

I guess I’d be one of those both/and people, rather than either/or. I thinkthat there’s both a world that we find and a world that we make; thatit is not all one or all the other. Samuel Johnson . . . raised a questionlike this all the time. He kicked a stone and said, ‘Hey, that stone hitmy foot! I didn’t make that up.’ So, there’s stuff out there, and I think


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 404



that’s true not only in the physical world . . . I think that we are, infact, hard wired or at least our communities demand that we havecategories of morals and moral behavior. And, of course, the definitionsand the perceptions of those will change somewhat from time to time.But, the need for having such categories, I think, is not something thatyou just make up. On the other hand, there’s plenty of stuff that is juststuff that belongs to a particular cultural moment . . . And so I guessI’d be both/and when it comes to that – both an underlying reality butthen also a constructed cultural reality that interacts with it and we layover it.

(R9)

I also love a way of looking at things that I’ve learned from JosiahRoyce . . . It goes something like this: imagine that I and 20 otherpeople are standing around in a circle and in the middle of the circlethere’s a coin, a quarter. And, of course, if the tail of the coin is whatI see, then someone opposite me in the circle sees the head of the coin.And then somebody 90 degrees to the right of me can see the coin asa line, right? Because he sees it on the edge and then the same for theperson opposite him. Ok, so you notice there’s one coin there, it hasdifferent appearances, depending on your location. Well, Royce holdsthat all those perspectives are necessary to understand the coin . . . So,I like that stress on the fact that there’s something there, but perspec-tive is important and the plurality of perspectives systematically under-stood is important in understanding the coin.

(R2)

Other respondents invariably qualified their responses to this question, withno individuals taking a clear, unequivocal stance toward one or another viewof reality. One person indicated his thinking was in transition on the issue.A number indicated a bias toward the traditional definition of reality, whilemaking a concession to post-modern positions. However, as a group, respon-dents were uncomfortable with a hard and fast distinction between thechoices offered in the question. Illustratively, others commented:

I believe that our knowledge is constrained by the development of ourmethods, and that just because we cannot measure it through anexperiment, that’s not to say that our state of knowledge will alwaysbe at this point and that later on, we will know things that we don’tknow now. So, yes, I believe in verifying things scientifically, but we’regreatly limited by what we can do at this point, in terms of science . . .


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 405



And, yes, I believe that knowledge is socially constructed to somedegree, but not entirely.

(R6)

I’m kind of a visceral realist; that is saying that unless I force myself,I just assume that if there is something out there that has a certain char-acter, we are trying to find out about it. So, I function not as a socialconstructivist, but as kind of an essentialist. On the other hand, I don’tembrace that position in a principled fashion; I think, in fact, when Iput my mind to it, I do think of almost all knowledge as being socialconstructed. But, it doesn’t affect the way I actually do my work. But,if you want to get into an argument about it, I think of myself as akind of reformed essentialist, becoming more and more persuaded thata lot of things that I’ve assumed to be a kind of realist representationof reality are in fact contingent.

(R7)

I understand social construction of knowledge, but I believe that youcan know something about the past. I don’t believe there is any singlestory that is complete and completely accurate, but I do think that youcan know something. Social construction of knowledge – it’s true, buteven there you can know something about what’s constructed . . . Wecan never know, but we can provide something true of the way thingswere based on the documents that survived. It can’t provide a completepicture, but you can at least have something. I mean, if you couldn’tknow something, then why bother?

(R12)

When you say, ‘what were the Middle Ages?’ well that depends onwhat person you’re talking to in the Middle Ages. So, I mean, if there’sthat level of difference of opinion, then I’m not sure you can comeforward 800 years and say well we absolutely know what’s going onthere. So, again, that’s more toward social constructivism. But on theother hand, I think that some things which, I probably assume theydidn’t have telephones then, so there’s some kind of base line fact.

(R8)

Respondents’ common aversion to taking an extreme position is morestriking than differences between them. From a larger perspective, indi-viduals preferred to deal with ontological questions in terms of practicalrather than philosophical considerations. They were aware of the ‘culture


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 406



wars’ in relation to the nature of ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ and the intellectualcontroversies surrounding these questions. At the same time, they seemed tohave ways of working around the large philosophical questions in order toproceed with their research.

Discussion

In this article the nature and meaning of interdisciplinarity within a smallsample of directors of graduate liberal studies programs in a cross-section ofprimarily US colleges and universities was explored. Although themes aboutthe nature of interdisciplinarity, in particular the degree of knowledge inte-gration and the endogenous–exogenous origin of knowledge questions wereidentifiable from the literature on this topic, few if any efforts have beenmade to relate these dimensions to each other. In addition, the relationshipof other contested issues pertaining to ‘knowledge,’ such as the nature ofreality, have been little explored in the context of interdisciplinarity.

Comments were organized into groups according to respondents’ defi-nitions of interdisciplinarity. Not surprisingly, both of the primary themesidentified in the literature appeared in participants’ comments. In terms ofthe degree of knowledge integration, some defined interdisciplinarity as a‘new knowledge’ resulting from a confluence, fusion, or synthesis of disci-plinary knowledge and others articulated a less integral relationship betweenknowledge sources, leading to a ‘new perspective’ through the borrowingfrom one discipline to another or the interplay between disciplines. Partici-pants in this exploratory study, as a group, demonstrated a differentiated andmultifaceted understanding of interdisciplinarity.

Responses to a question about the intellectual ends or aims to whichrespondents aspire corresponded to a theme from the literature of endogen-ous and exogenous knowledge. At a general level, one group of scholars’knowledge-oriented activities addressed the (endogenous) university context– other scholars and students – and another group of scholars’ knowledgeactivities addressed context outside (exogenous) of the university – namelysociety, broadly defined.

Earlier, an unclear boundary between ‘inter’disciplinarity and ‘trans’disciplinarity was noted. An effort becomes more transdisciplinary as estab-lished expectations for the generalizability of knowledge are diminished inthe interest of social problem solving. Most respondents appeared to retainallegiance to conventional expectations about the standards for makingknowledge claims. Of the 12 respondents in this study, 3, or 25 percent,perceived the potential for addressing social issues through strongly


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 407



integrated interdisciplinary work. These individuals appear to envision thetype of ‘new’ knowledge advocated by Nowotny et al. (2001).

Differences between participants in terms of their orientations towardendogenous or exogenous knowledge appeared to be a more meaningfuldistinction than their differences about the definition of interdisciplinary,suggesting an important subdivision within the larger ‘tribe’ of interdisci-plinarians. Overall, however, this exploratory study suggests that inter-disciplinarity might best be conceptualized as a multidimensional construct.

An unanticipated outcome of the study was individuals’ commentsabout the value or utility of an interdisciplinary approach. That a number ofrespondents would see substantive contributions from interdisciplinaritymight well be expected. The meta-contributions of this approach reported by some respondents, however, were not expected. Types of meta-contributions pertained to interdisciplinarity as a way of organizing thought,as a way to account for multiplicity and variation in assumptions andapproaches, and as a way to arrive at social agreement. Comments in this veinreinforce thinking about interdisciplinarity in functional or pragmatic terms.

Finally, respondents were generally reluctant to join academic debatesabout the nature of reality. With remarkable consistency, individuals partici-pating in this study found various ways to avoid taking sides in argumentsbetween traditional and post-modern approaches to long-standing questionsabout a knowable reality. Perhaps their interdisciplinarian instincts led themto reject either/or choices. Perhaps the appeal of philosophical controversieswas lost in more pragmatic approaches to their work. Whatever the reason,as a group, this sample of scholars was not strongly engaged in recent andon-going debates about reality, truth, and knowledge. They found their prac-tices in knowledge endeavors to be sufficiently workable to allow their schol-arly efforts to proceed in spite of the ‘science wars.’ They expressedimaginative ways of avoiding the either/or aspect of these debates.

Conclusion

As with any small-sample, exploratory study, the observations discussed arehighly susceptible to the particular group of respondents, the questionsasked, and one’s interpretation of the interview transcripts. In addition, thisstudy’s limitations derive from the absence of representativeness of therespondent group. That is, this sample of study participants makes no preten-sion of being representative of the range and variety of interdisciplinary interests and efforts of scholars, and implications about the nature andmeaning of interdisciplinarity are necessarily tentative and provisional.


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 408



Specifically, the presence of scholars solely from the humanities and socialsciences and not the natural sciences, as well as a mixture of personsconcerned with education and with research, may have led to a broaderconcept of interdisciplinarity than would have been the case with a greaterreliance on persons from the natural sciences and with more consistentresearch orientations. As noted earlier, respondents were asked to give ageneral definition of ‘interdisciplinary,’ not to describe the nature of inter-disciplinarity in their own scholarly work. Thus, the types of interdiscipli-narian practice identified in the study remain to be verified empirically.Overall, the study only begins to probe configurations of interdisciplinarity,specifically how the dimension of knowledge integration may interact withthe dimension of socially robust knowledge, as well as the nature of inter-disciplinary knowledge and social action.

A number of possible future studies arise from this analysis. In additionto more extensive efforts to validate these provisional observations,researchers might profitably study knowledge development from a largerperspective, namely the nature and importance of interactions betweenconfigurations of knowledge and action. This study has not addressed thesociological dimensions of interdisciplinarity, and information about howcommunication processes and professional networks function in thedevelopment of the epistemic types identified here and possibly other styles.

The study also directs attention to perceptions about the meta-contri-butions of an interdisciplinary approach to discovery and knowledge, andthe nature and role of these contributions might profitably be probed moredeeply and systematically. Specifically, we might explore evidence about theextent to which any of the meta-contributions suggested by respondents areactually realized and, most importantly, what institutional mechanisms facili-tate or impede their functions.

Finally, given the controversies widely evident on philosophical ques-tions concerning knowledge throughout the humanities, social sciences, andnatural sciences, the approaches of these interdisciplinarians may be ofinterest, although it remains to be seen whether persons participating in thisstudy are any different in this regard from a wider group of interdisci-plinarians. This theme may merit further consideration in focused, larger,more representative populations in order to more fully develop our under-standing of differing epistemologies in practice and the premises of those whoemploy them. Of course, it would also be useful to learn the extent to whichscholars undertaking interdisciplinary work approach their work differentlyfrom more discipline-oriented scholars with respect to these questions.


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 409



Acknowledgements

Partial financial support is gratefully acknowledged for this project from theCenter for Research of the Graduate School of Arts and Social Sciences of LesleyUniversity and from the Small Research Grant program of the WeatherheadSchool of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Appreciation isexpressed to Jay Jones, Paul F. Salipante, Jr, Jeff Longhofer, Karen Schiff and twoanonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier drafts, and toAlexis Antes for her excellent transcription services.

References

Azevedo, J. Mapping reality: An evolutionary realist methodology for the natural and socialsciences. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.

Becher, T. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disci-plines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press,1989.

Bhaskar, R. A realist theory of science. Brighton: The Harvester Press, 1978.Bill, A., Oetliker, S. & Klein, J.T. Why a globalized world needs transdiciplinarity. In J.T.

Klein & J. Thompson Klein (Eds), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving amongscience, technology, and society. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag, 2001, pp. 25–34.

Collins, H.M. An empirical relativist programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge.In K.D. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds), Science observed: Perspectives on the socialstudy of science. London: Sage, 1983, pp. 85–114.

Filemyr, A. Interdisciplinarity as commitment to social change. Network: Issues and Ideas,1999, 16(1), 8–13.

Finkenthal, M. Interdisciplinarity: Toward the definition of a metadiscipline? New York:Peter Lang, 2001.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. The newproduction of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporarysocieties. London: Sage, 1994.

Gibbons, M. & Nowotny, H. The potential of transdisiplinarity. J.T. Klein & J. ThompsonKlein (Eds), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, andsociety. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag, 2001, pp. 67–80.

Guzman, R.R. Integrating knowledge and action: A workbook for graduate liberal studiesprograms. University of Delaware, Newark, DE: Association of Graduate LiberalStudies Programs, 1996.

Haberli, R., Bill, A., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Klein, J.T., Scholz, R.W. & Welti, M.Synthesis. In J.T. Klein & J. Thompson Klein (Eds), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problemsolving among science, technology, and society. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag, 2001, pp.6–22.

Hacking, I. The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1999.

Hesse, M. The structure of scientific inference. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.Jantsch, E. Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation.

In L. Apostel, G. Berger & G. Michaud (Eds), Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teachingand research in universities. Paris: The Centre for Educational Research and Innovationof The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1972.

Klein, J.T. Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne StateUniversity, 1990.


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 410



Klein, J.T. Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Char-lottsville: The University of Virginia Press, 1996.

Klein, J.T., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Haberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R.W. & Welti, M.(Eds). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, andsociety. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag, 2001.

Klein, J.T. & Newell, W.H. Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In W.H. Newell (Ed.),Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the literature. New York: College Entrance Examin-ation Board, 1998, pp. 3–22.

Knorr-Cetina, K.D. The ethnographic study of scientific work: Towards a constructivistinterpretation of science. In K.D. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds), Science observed:Perspectives on the social study of science. London: Sage, 1983, pp. 115–40.

Kockelmans, J.J. Why interdisciplinarity? In W.H. Newell (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity: Essaysfrom the literature. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1998, pp. 67–96.[Reprinted from J.J. Kockelmans (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity and higher education.University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1979, pp. 123–60.]

Kuhn, T.S. Second thoughts on paradigms. In F. Suppe (Ed.), The structure of scientifictheories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974, pp. 459–99.

Lattuca, L.R. Creating interdisciplinary: Interdisciplinary research and teaching amongcollege and university faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2001.

Messer-Davidow, E., Shumway, E.R. & Sylvan, D.J. (Eds). Knowledges: Historical andcritical studies in disciplinarity. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public inan age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press, 2001.

Oxford English Dictionary, The. J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner (Eds). Oxford: Claren-don Press, 1989, pp. 734–5.

Palmer, C.L. Work at the boundaries of science: Information and the interdisciplinaryresearch process. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2001.

Paxton, T.D., Jr. Modes of interaction between disciplines. The Journal of Education, 1996,45(2), 79–96.

Pickering, A. (Ed.). Science as practice and culture. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress, 1992.

Salter, L. & Hearn, A. Outside the lines: Issues in interdisciplinary research. Montreal:McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996.

Sayer, A. Essentialism, social constructionism, and beyond. The Sociological Review, 1997,45(3), 453–87.

Schiff, K. The undisciplined: Institutional structures for ‘in-between’ subjects. Inventio,2001, 3(1). Available from: http://www.doit.gmu.edu/inventio/articlepopup.asp?pID=spring01&sID=schiff

Smith, B.H. Belief and resistance: Dynamics of contemporary intellectual controversy.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Smith, B.H. The sciences and the humanities: Is there a war going on? Unpublished paperdelivered at the symposium, The Two Cultures Revisited, University of Dayton, 14February 2002.

Starkey, K. & Madan, P. Bridging the relevance gap: Aligning stakeholders in the future ofmanagement research. British Journal of Management, 2001, 12 [Special Issue], S3–S26.

Stember, M. Advancing the social sciences: Through the interdisciplinary enterprise. InW.H. Newell (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the literature. New York: CollegeEntrance Examination Board, 1998, pp. 337–52. [Reprinted from The Social ScienceJournal, 1991, 28(1), 1–14.]

Tranfield, D. & Starkey, K. The nature, social organization and promotion of managementresearch. British Journal of Management, 1998, 9, 341–53.

Whitley, R. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, 2nd edn. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2000.


01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 411




John D. Aram is a Professor in the Division of Interdisciplinary Inquiryat Lesley University, Cambridge, MA, USA. In this capacity he advisesmaster’s degree students in the Independent Study Degree Program inconducting self-designed and interdisciplinary studies. He is also Pro-fessor of Management Policy at the Weatherhead School of Managementat Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. In this capacityhe serves as Director of the Executive Doctor of Management Program,a three-year doctoral program for advanced professionals from the for-profit and the non-profit sectors. His interests pertain to various aspectsof organizational and social development. He is currently seeking todevelop strong forms of theory and practice integration in scholarship.[E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]]

01 aram (ds) 29/4/04 9:40 am Page 412



human relations - du portfolio

Documents