Going beyond Disciplines: The Meanings of Interdisciplinarity

Author(s): Anders Karlqvist

Source: Policy Sciences, Vol. 32, No. 4, The Theory and Practice of Interdisciplinary Work
(Dec., 1999), pp. 379-383
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4532477
Accessed: 10/07/2009 07:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Policy Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org
380

Science is sometimes characterized as islands of knowledge floating in a vast

ocean of ignorance. This metaphor probably describes science better than the
one in which science is viewed as a solid body of knowledge expanding infinitely
across a wide front led by trail blazing scientific pioneers. Scientific break-
throughs sometimes occur by connecting remote islands of knowledge, even
sometimes from within the same discipline. Freeman Dyson refers to this
connecting or bridge-building metaphor in his description of how he created a
simplified version of quantum electrodynamics: 'Tomonaga and Schwinger had
built solid foundations on one side of a river of ignorance, Feynman had built
solid foundations on the other side, and my job was to design and build the
cantilevers reaching out over the water until they met in the middle.' (Dyson,
1995: p. 8). Maxwell's famous theory connecting electricity and magnetism is
another example and a highlight in the history of physics. Numerous other
examples of this kind exist. Indeed, one of the greatest challenges in basic
physics is to find a unified theory that combines all the forces of nature.

Modes of interdisciplinary research

While the examples so far cited come from the natural sciences, the arguments
apply to other fields as well. For example, Gary Becker and others have treated
the way people make decisions about marriage as a special case of utility
maximization. In fact a wide range of social behavior, e.g., criminality, educa-
tion, divorce, has been within such a unified utility approach. This is not to say
that such analyzed approaches, and the wider claims made based on them, are
always scientifically well founded; however, they do demonstrate what I for
present purposes call interdisciplinary research Mode 1.
This mode is the unification of knowledge. The critical step is to find the
'mapping' which demonstrates that two things are different manifestations of
the same underlying structure. If such a relation can be established, the original
theories can then be subsumed under a new theory and new methods may be
developed. Work associated with the two things and previously referred to as
'interdisciplinary' now transcends, more or less by definition, into a new 'dis-
cipline' - perhaps even into a new paradigmatic or theoretical framework. This
basic mode of interdisciplinarity is essentially an issue internal to science itself.
Instead of relating various fields of knowledge to a common set of underlying
principles, interdisciplinary research often involves the addition of knowledge
from several different fields to address a common goal. We call this research
Mode 2. The goal must, furthermore, be defined independently of the various
scientific inputs. Put another way, this research mode is a situation where
different scientific experts contribute to an overall or composite picture without
interfering or challenging each other's theories and methods.
An example from paleoclimatology characterizes and helps clarify Mode 2.
Here an overriding goal is to establish a chronology so as to date certain events.
Many techniques exist to deal with this problem. Sediment cores from the
 381

oceanfloorandice coresfromthe Greenlandice capprovideempiricalevidence.

Samplesfromeach sourceare analyzedwith respectto oxygenisotopes,fossils,
radioactivity,conductivity,soot particles,and so on. Knowledgefromall these
areas is then assembledto contributeto the solution of the common goal.
Although this accumulationof evidencemay be far from simple or straight-
forwardand provokescientificcontroversies,the real difficultiesoccur at the
accountinglevel, not at a theoreticalone. How muchweightshouldbe givento
this analysis,or how uncertainare the resultsfromthat study?
Mode 2 is the accumulationof knowledge.Sincethe disciplinesinvolvedare
primarilycontributorsand are not influencedby other contributingsciences,
this kindof researchis oftencalledmultidisciplinary insteadof interdisciplinary.
Typicalcases arefoundin engineeringprojectswheregoals arewell definedand
demands for specific kinds of scientificinformationand knowledgecan be
clearlystated.The ManhattanProjectto constructthe first atomic bomb and
the Apollo Programto placemen on the moon aregood examples.
Mode3 researchis different,even moreproblematic.In this case knowledge
from differentareas is still compatible,but requiresan additionalamountof
interpretationto be meaningful.Anotherexamplehelps make the distinction.
Sustainabilityis a key issue on the environmentalresearchagenda.We can
approachthe problemof a sustainablesociety by studyingthe circulationof
resources.An economistwouldfocuson the flowof money,goods, and services
throughthe system.An ecologistwouldbe drawnto energyflows.Moneyflows
- energyflows,how to reconcilethesetwo aspectsof the sameproblem?A new
theoreticalframeworkis required,one that goes beyondwhatthe economistor
the ecologistaloneis capableof providing.Thereis no generalmethodavailable
to combinesuch knowledge,althoughtechniquesexist to facilitateand assist.
Formalizedmodels, computersoftware,and even structuredbut less formal
procedureshavebeen createdand used over the yearsfor this purpose.Opera-
tions researchand systemsanalysiseach providean orderlyway of communi-
cating between disciplinesand fields, although neither is usually capable of
judgingwho is 'right.'Systemsanalysisin particularis often describedas less a
sciencethanas a craftor art.
At anotherlevelentirelyis Mode4, a researchrealmwherenot only theories
are differentbut so, too, are the basic underlyingassumptionsand the paradig-
matic bases for theories. A typical case occurs when naturalscientists and
social scientistscome togetherin a projectwheremechanisticmodels are put
againstbehavioralones. Shouldhumansbe treatedas mechanisticparticlesor
as thinkingbeings?The answeris not self-evident,but rathermust be judged
with respectto the natureof the problemat hand.Trafficplanningis a good
example.
Mode 4 differencesare not necessarilyobvious or explicit.They may be
deeplyrooted in the assumptionsthat color a disciplineor underliea specific
scientificculture. Scientificconsensus cannot be negotiated.In practice the
projectorganizationmustreflectthe scientificauthoritygivento some scientific
perspective.Other scientific inputs may matter less or be conditioned and
382

adaptedto the perspectivechosen.Interdisciplinary democracy- one scientist,

one vote - does not workas a meansto achieveoverallresults.
The largestgap, or chasm, sets Mode5 apartfrom all the others.Consider
the case where the repertoiresof the theories and methods are differentand
where,in addition,one seeks knowledgefrom differentcultureswherefunda-
mentalinterpretativeand conceptualdifferencesexist. A literaryscholarand a
biologistcouldverywell understandequivalentphenomenain entirelydifferent
ways.Take,for example,how eachmightviewan earlyhumanculture.Concepts
such as 'meaning' and 'explanation'would have different interpretations.
Knowledgecan no longerbe combinedbut mustbe treatedas complementary.

Reflections

This five-categoryschemeto describeinterdisciplinaryresearchis crude and

somewhatnaive,especiallywhen appliedto realisticand complexinterdiscipli-
narywork.Thereare nonethelesssome importantobservationsto makebased
on the scheme.Whilethe successivesteps fromMode 1 to Mode 5 describethe
increasingdistance between fields of knowledgebearing on a problemand
requiringconnection,the steps suggestshow the characterof the gap changes
as well:

1. Doing the samethingin differentways.

2. Doing differentthingsthat can be combined.
3. Doing differentthings that cannot be combined absent an additional
framework.
4. Doing thingsdifferently.
5. Thinkingdifferently.

Anotherimportantobservationis that the higherup the scale,fromMode 1 to

Mode 5, the more attentionneeds be given to the organizationof research.
More structureis also requiredfor the researchproject.Modes 1 and 2 mostly
requirethat we 'worktogether,'while Mode 3 could benefitfrom additional
experts,such as systemsanalysts.Evenhigherlevelswill probablydemandan
even more carefullyconstructedmanagementstructureand process.Manage-
ment and project leadershipcould be important in any mode because of
practicalmatterssuch as finance,personnel,and so on. The distinctionhere is
focusedon the intellectualguidanceof the project.
I doubt that pure examplesexist in the real world of any of the modes.
Instead a typical project will evidence, often simultaneously,versions and
variantsof many differentmodes.The challengefor projectmanagersis to be
ever awareof such complexitiesso as to tune and adaptboth the organization
and processof researchaccordingly.
 383

References

Snow,C. P. (1993).TheTwoCultures.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Dyson, F. (1995).Introduction
to Nature'sImagination,J. Cornwell,ed. Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
vonWright,G. H. (1994).ToUnderstand OurAge. Stockholm:Bonnier,in Swedish.