Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Science Progress logoLink to Science Progress
. 2012 Dec 1;95(4):447–465. doi: 10.3184/003685012X13445364922174

The Symbiotic Academy: On Specialisation and Interdisciplinarity

Jenny Walklate 1,✉, Adair Richards 2,✉
PMCID: PMC10365528  PMID: 23469710

Abstract

The authors historicise, contextualise and debate the values and problems of both disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. Their aim is not to posit one as superior to the other, nor to suggest that the two are mutually exclusive. Instead, they seek to break down the oppositional dichotomy in which the concepts are often placed, and, further, to propose a ‘symbiotic academy’ in which the two can exist to their mutual benefit.

Keywords: disciplines, interdisciplinarity, academia, university, postdisciplinarity

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (415.4 KB).

References

  • 1.Representing Re-Formation, Home, http://representingreformation.net/ [accessed 6 July 2012].
  • 2.O'Neill R. (2011) Open your mind to interdisciplinary research. New Scient., 2800, 52–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Plato (1993) Educating philosopher kings. Republic, pp. 250–276. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Weisheipl OP J.A. (1978) The nature, scope and classification of the sciences. Science in the Middle Ages, p. 465. University of Chicago Press, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Plato (1993) Poetry and unreality. Republic, pp. 344–362. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Weisheipl OP J.A. (1978) The Nature, Scope and Classification of the Sciences. Science in the Middle Ages, p. 466–467. University of Chicago Press, London, [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rüegg W. (1992) Mythology and Historiography of the Beginnings. A History of the University in Europe: Vol. 1, Universities in the Middle Ages, pp. 4–8, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Weisheipl OP J.A. (1978) The nature, scope and classification of the sciences. Science in the Middle Ages, p. 470–472. University of Chicago Press, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lindberg D. (1992) The beginnings of Western Science: the European scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450, p. 138. University of Chicago Press, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Grant E. (1996) The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: their religious, institutional and intellectual contexts, p. 15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Grant E. (1996) The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: their religious, institutional and intellectual contexts, pp. 14, 37, 39 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Grant E. (1996) The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: their religious, institutional and intellectual contexts, p. 43. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Weisheipl OP J.A. The nature, scope and classification of the sciences. Science in the Middle Ages, p. 474. University of Chicago Press, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kibre P., and Siraisi N.G. (1978) The institutional setting: the universities. Science in the Middle Ages, pp. 120–144. University of Chicago Press, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kibre P., and Siraisi N.G. (1978) The institutional setting: the universities. Science in the Middle Ages, pp. 129–130. University of Chicago Press, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Weisheipl OP J.A. (1978) The nature, scope and classification of the sciences. Science in the Middle Ages, p. 478. University of Chicago Press, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Grant E. (1996) The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: their religious, institutional and intellectual contexts, p. 193. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Debus A.G. (1978) Man and nature in the Renaissance, p. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Debus A.G. (1978) Man and nature in the Renaissance, pp. 5–12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Debus A.G. (1978) Man and nature in the Renaissance, p. 23. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Pedersen O. (1996) Tradition and innovation. A history of the university in Europe: Vol.2, Universities in early modern Europe 1500-1800, pp. 453. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pedersen O. (1996) Tradition and innovation. A history of the university in Europe: Vol.2, Universities in early modern Europe 1500-1800, p. 466–467. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Further and Higher Education Act (1992), Chap. 13. HMSO, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Debus A.G. (1978) Man and nature in the Renaissance, pp. 102–109. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pedersen O. (1996) Tradition and innovation. A history of the university in Europe: Vol.2, Universities in Early Modern Europe 1500-1800, p. 458. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rüegg W. (2004) Theology and the arts. A history of the university in Europe: Vol. 3, Universities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries 1800-1945, pp. 442–443, p.429-30, p.451. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Teichova A., and Matis H. (2003) Introduction. Nation, state and the economy in history, pp. 1–8, Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rüegg W. (2004) Theology and the arts. A history of the university in Europe: Vol.3, Universities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries 1800-1945, pp. 396, 414. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Chapman W.R. (1985) Arranging ethnology: A. L. H. F. Pitt Rivers and the Typological Tradition. Objects and others: essays on museums and material culture, p. 36. University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin and London. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hesketh I. (2009) The Oxford debate. Of apes and ancestors: evolution, Christianity, and the Oxford debate, pp. 76–87. University of Toronto Press, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Further and Higher Education Act (1992). s.74
  • 32.Knell S. (2005), Professional orientations: museum studies, past, present and future. ICOM News no. 4 [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Aram J. D. (2004) Concepts of interdisciplinarity: Configurations of knowledge and action. Human Relat., 57(4), 380. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Disciplinarity, School of Museum Studies at the University of Leicester, 20 April 2012.
  • 35.Cobban A.B. (1975) The Medieval universities: their development and organization, Methuen and Co., London, p. 38 [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Boisot M. (1972) Discipline and interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities, pp. 89–97, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Parker J. (2002) A new disciplinarity: communities of knowledge, learning and practice. Teach. Higher Educat., 7(4), 373–386. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Aram, Concepts of interdisciplinarity: configurations of knowledge and action. Human Relat., 57(4), 379–412. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Chettiparamb A. (2007) Interdisciplinarity: a literature review, p. 8. The Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Group, Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, School of Humanities, Southampton University. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Klein J.T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory & practice, p. 13, p.27. Wayne State University Press, Michigan. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Klein J.T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory & practice, p. 12–13. Wayne State University Press, Michigan. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Centre of Educational Research and Innovation (1972) Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Chettiparamb, (2007) Interdisciplinarity: a literature review, p. 19. The Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Group, Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, School of Humanities, Southampton University. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Klein J.T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory & practice, pp. 25–26. Wayne State University Press, Michigan. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Star S.L., and Griesemer J.R. (1989) Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci., 19(3), 387–420. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.The DART Project, Homepage. http://dartproject.info/WPBlog/ [accessed 24 April 2012]; VISTA: Visual and Spatial Technology Centre, Homepage. http://www.vista.bham.ac.uk/news.html [accessed 24 April 2012]; University of Leicester, Projects: The Impact of Diasporas: The Viking DNA Project. http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/impact-of-diasporas/diasporas-projects/surnames-and-the-y-chromosome/the-viking-dna-project/the-viking-dna-project [accessed 24 April 2012]
  • 47.Science and Heritage Programme, Homepage. http://www.heritagescience.ac.uk/ [accessed 24 April 2012]
  • 48.House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (2007) 8th Report of Session 2006-07, science and heritage: an update: report with evidence, p. 5. HMSO, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Popper K.R. (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge, p. 88.Routledge and Kegan Paul, New York. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, Dearing Report, 5.29 and 5.30, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ [accessed 25 July 2012]
  • 51.Centre for Sustainable Heritage, London Declaration. http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/graduate/csh/research/conference-proceedings/london-declaration [accessed 25 July 2012]].
  • 52.National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, Dearing Report, 5.9, 5.21 and 4.18. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ [accessed 25 July 2012]
  • 53.Jakobsen C.H., Hels T., and McLaughlin W.J. (2004) Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: a cross-country comparison. Forest. Pol. Econ., 6, 15–31 [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Nissani M. (1997) Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: the case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research. Soc. Sci. J., 34(2), 201–216. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Scholte J.A. (2000) Globalisation: a critical introduction, p. 198. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.DiMaggio P.J., & Powell W.W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev., 48(2), 147–160. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hooper-Greenhill E. (2000) Museums and the interpretation of visual culture, pp. 140–144. Routledge, London [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Vergo P. (1989) Introduction. The new museology, pp. 1–5. Reaktion Books Ltd, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Herbst S. (2008), Disciplines, intersections, and the future of communication Res. J. Commun., 58(4), 603–614. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Gill A. (2012), Travelling down the road to postdisciplinarity? Reflections of a tourism geographer. Can. Geog.-Geog. Can., 56(1), 3–17. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Science Progress are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES