Investigating Interdisciplinary
实践: Methodological
挑战 (介绍)
Miles MacLeod
University of Twente
Martina Merz
University of Klagenfurt
Uskali Mäki
赫尔辛基大学
Michiru Nagatsu
赫尔辛基大学
Interdisciplinarity (ID) is one of the most prominent ideas driving science
and research policy today.1 It is applied widely as a conception of what
particularly creative and socially relevant research processes should consist
的, whether in the natural sciences, the social sciences, 人文学科, 或者
别处. Its advocates, many of whom are located in current science and
research administration themselves, are using ideas of interdisciplinarity to
reshape university organization and research funding. For the last 40 年,
researchers studying interdisciplinarity have built up a substantial body of
literature constructing various visions of what it should be and how to tax-
onomize the different forms it can take, putting a distinct emphasis on a
theoretical approach to conceptualizing and understanding interdisciplin-
arity. 然而, the need for empirically substantiated knowledge has only
1.
See for instance high-level policy reports: National Science Foundation (2008),
Impact of Transformative Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education on Academic Institu-
系统蒸发散, Workshop Report; 美国国家科学院 (2006), Facilitating Interdisciplinary
研究. 报告; European Union Research Advisory Board (2004), Interdisciplinarity in
研究. Each report places a strong imperative on interdisciplinary research and promoting
the kinds of institutional regimes needed to support it. The European Research Council,
除其他外, explicitly targets its funding at interdisciplinary projects. 此外, 数数-
less papers have been written advocating the importance of interdisciplinarity (see partic-
ularly the notion of Mode 2 科学, Gibbons et al. 1994; Nowotny et al. 2001).
科学观点 2019, 卷. 27, 不. 4
© 2019 由麻省理工学院. 已发表
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 国际的 (抄送 4.0) 执照.
土井:10.1162/posc_e_00315
545
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
5
4
5
1
7
9
0
7
9
5
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
3
1
5
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
546
介绍: Investigating Interdisciplinary Practice
recently attracted wider attention (see Huutoniemi et al. 2010; 克莱因
2000, 2017). 而且, our understanding of what the critical constraints
on interdisciplinary interactions are is very limited, even though this
knowledge is very relevant to the rather strong expectations associated
with ID. Interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge production may
indeed be beneficial for tackling certain problems such as the systemic un-
certainties and ethical issues addressed within the realm of “Responsible
Research and Innovation,” which matches ID agendas in many ways (看
Wickson and Carew 2014). 同时, it is far from clear whether
and to what extent the theoretical representations of ID given in inter-
disciplinary studies, science policy, and other areas of scholarship actually
match what is happening, or if they are even possible in practice (看
MacLeod and Nagatsu 2018).
Interdisciplinary interactions in science are challenging—in many cases
more situated, 分散式, and dynamic than within-discipline inter-
行动. They take many forms and varieties, from the occasional transfer
of models and methods across disciplinary boundaries to the resources of
one field being used for criticizing assumptions in another (Mäki 2013,
2016). Interdisciplinarity can also be a matter of intensive ongoing collab-
oration addressing complex problems with novel approaches. This type of
collaboration requires negotiation of epistemic standards, trust and reliabil-
性, the coordination of expertise, and the distribution of tasks. Interdisci-
plinarity is thus a multidimensional and multi-scale phenomenon
involving a rich interplay of established and novel scientific methodologies,
expert and social cognition, disciplinary preferences and values, academic
pecking orders and extra-academic pressures, historical relationships, 和
institutional and policy frameworks. Understanding how these interactions
unfold does not seem to be based on strict regularities enabling reliable
anticipation in advance, but rather requires empirical investigation that
provides systematic ways of tracking various aspects of the process.
In this special issue2 we thus advocate a much more concerted effort to
empirically observe, 文档, and analyze interdisciplinary practices. 我们
believe that, at this point, it is important to step back and shine the torch
on the different approaches committed to such empirical analysis within
science studies of different orientation (History and Philosophy of Science,
Science and Technology Studies, 和别的). 尤其, we ask what
different methodological perspectives have on offer, and what they each
2. This special issue builds on the Workshop “Investigating Interdisciplinary Practice:
Methodological Challenges” that we organized at the University of Helsinki 15–17 June
2015 with the financial support of the Academy of Finland. Earlier versions of two of the
three chapters were presented at the Workshop as invited lectures.
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
5
4
5
1
7
9
0
7
9
5
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
3
1
5
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
科学观点
547
can contribute to our knowledge of ID, but also to our evaluations and
expectations of it. This is important insofar as there is evidence that many
interdisciplinary relationships fail (MacLeod 2018).
A comparative analysis of this kind needs to begin by noting that meth-
odological approaches and the phenomena under investigation are not in-
dependent but shape one another, in different ways. Two directions in this
relationship can be identified. 一方面, the selected methodolog-
ical approach and associated method(s) frame the phenomena under inves-
tigation in particular ways, rendering visible certain features while hiding
其他的. Consider an example. Reflecting on qualitative interviews, Lamont
and Swidler (2014) emphasize the merits of qualitative interviewing, 例如.
when compared to ethnographic approaches, while they also identify a
number of blind spots. In their view, qualitative interviews are less suitable
for in-depth consideration of the historical dimension and of limited use
only when analyzing institutional patterns (Lamont and Swidler 2014). 在
similar ways, alternative methodological approaches each have their affor-
dances and limitations. An ethnographic approach to science is particularly
apt for in-depth exploration of embodied skills and step-by-step recon-
structions of knowledge generation (比照. the laboratory studies approach
in STS, 例如, Knorr Cetina 1995). Scientometric studies can trace large-
sized networks of ideas and researchers while being sensitive to change
in time as well as to the specificity of fields. Qualitative historical analyses
can counter premature claims to novelty, progress and singularity without
downplaying the specific features and affordances of different contexts
considered over time. 与此相类似, as this Special Issue will show, 差异-
ferent methodological perspectives can and do generate distinct narratives
about interdisciplinarity and, in this process, configure the object of inves-
tigation in particular ways. Such narratives concern, 除其他事项外,
the development, type and role of ID in past and contemporary scholar-
船, the social forms and epistemic features of interdisciplinary practice,
the practical problems encountered and solutions sought in specific local
contexts or epistemic cultures, and the development of new fields of schol-
arship in interdisciplinary boundary areas.
另一方面, as a phenomenon of investigation, ID challenges
established methodological approaches and methods. One reason is that
it constitutes a rather ill-defined phenomenon, with its reference to “dis-
ciplines” and what happens between (“inter”) 他们. Another is that it
concerns a complex body of practices, cognitive structures, 和社会的
形式, which vary widely from one case to another. This calls for a two-
fold reflection: 第一的, what exactly is to be empirically investigated—where
and when is inter-disciplinarity? 第二, which approaches are suitable for
addressing the selected “object”? Taking these two questions as guidance,
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
5
4
5
1
7
9
0
7
9
5
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
3
1
5
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
548
介绍: Investigating Interdisciplinary Practice
we have asked the authors of the three contributions to explicitly address
the methodological challenges raised within their respective empirical
studies and how these were handled, and to provide an insight into their
methods toolbox and methodological considerations.
Our selection covers a range of empirical methodologies, including both
quantitative (scientometric) and qualitative (cognitive-ethnographic, 他的-
torical) 方法. Each of these have the character of being outside most
of the mainstream discussion on interdisciplinarity in science policy, 阿尔-
though scientometric studies are sometimes relied on ( Yegros-Yegros
等人. 2015). But each does provide perspectives that can lead to genuine
novel insights into interdisciplinary practices. Each approach takes the
stance that a purely theoretical or intuitive account of ID is likely to fail
to understand the processes of interdisciplinary research and the outcomes
of funding policy interventions favoring ID. The approaches presented in
this Special Issue have the resources to illuminate at least some aspects of
the complex relationships between institutional contexts and goals, disci-
plinary methodological structures and standards, and problem-solving
环境, which emerge in day-to-day interdisciplinary activity, 但
can remain impartial with respect to whether ID is necessary or desirable.
These approaches provide possible methodological options for those
seeking to study ID empirically and critically. To a large extent, 他们是
not rival options, they rather complement one another in asking different
questions about ID and highlighting different aspects. Our authors have
been asked to reflect on both the necessity and value, and limitations of their
respective methodological approaches for studying interdisciplinary research.
像这样, the concept underlying the Special Issue is that of methodo-
logical pluralism (also see Kellert et al. 2006). We do not believe in the
existence of a royal road toward understanding interdisciplinarity, IE。, 那
one particular methodological approach be much better suited than all
others for all purposes. 同时, we are skeptical about the pros-
pects of triangulating methodological approaches in unproblematic ways
aiming at systematic integration of results. 反而, we side with the pic-
ture of a “collage” (Kalthoff 2010), IE。, the idea that the distinct ap-
proaches and corresponding methods “mobilize different relevancies”
(Kalthoff 2010, p. 363, our translation), with the potential of contradic-
ting or irritating one another in addition to complementing each other.
Thereby further investigation is stimulated and, as a consequence, a richer
understanding of interdisciplinary practice is engendered.
Our Contributions
The three papers have been selected to cover a spectrum of methods and
methodologies. The first from Nancy Nersessian introduces an ethnographic
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
5
4
5
1
7
9
0
7
9
5
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
3
1
5
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
科学观点
549
approach to the study of ID, in particular a cognitive-ethnographic approach.
STS scholars, by applying an ethnographic perspective, have helped to unpack
many aspects of interdisciplinary relationships (see e.g., Rhoten 2003; Barry
等人. 2008; Haapasaari et al. 2012; Merz 2015). 但, typically, such studies
have put aside the nature and structure of the cognitive problem-solving sys-
tems that individuals and groups build out of the background institutional,
材料, and epistemological resources they operate with. Studying these cog-
nitive systems requires one to ask questions about the reasoning processes and
practices of individuals, and the role of often distributed representations in
those processes and practices. Cognitive ethnography provides a methodology
and conceptual framework (relying on concepts like distributed cognition and
model-based reasoning) for a fine-grained analysis of such problem-solving
实践. This empirical work seems especially important in the context of
ID, as Nersessian suggests, since it is the coordination or integration of dif-
ferent situated cognitive processes and practices through the construction of
shared representations that characterize interdisciplinary relationships, 骗局-
tributing significantly to their success or failure. In her analysis, Nersessian
discusses examples of interdisciplinary integration in bio-medical engineering.
A second paper from Alan L. Porter and his co-authors proposes an
approach to the analysis of interdisciplinary practice that combines biblio-
metrics with tech mining. The notion of ID underlying such quantitative
analysis refers to the integration of knowledge (bodies of specialized
知识, research practices) with a focus on how knowledge is being
interchanged between research fields. Quantitative analyses of interdisci-
plinary research come with a number of methodological challenges and
choices. A first challenge points to the necessity of explicitly addressing
discipline as a precondition for identifying, and thus being able to inves-
tigate, interdisciplinary research. Categorizing disciplinarity of research output
(例如, a journal article) can be done in several ways. 例如, an article
can be assigned a disciplinary category in view of its content (例如, 骗局-
油炸) 或者, 反而, of its source (例如, journal). Each level of categorization
has its own benefits and weaknesses, as the authors discuss in detail. A
second challenge concerns the issue of how (the degree of ) interdisciplin-
arity is to be measured in view of particular research concerns. Scores of
一体化, specialization or diffusion, 例如, each measure changes
in ID in distinct ways. Devising a bibliometric study of this kind thus
requires one to make difficult choices: “The upshot is that the researcher
should not simply apply a standard set of metrics and visualizations to ad-
dress all interdisciplinary research (IDR) 问题; rather the data treat-
ment/methods/metrics/visualizations should be tailored to the study’s
research questions” (Porter et al. 2019, p. 600 in this volume). 尽管
the research design needs to be adapted to the particular case addressed, 这
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
5
4
5
1
7
9
0
7
9
5
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
3
1
5
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
550
介绍: Investigating Interdisciplinary Practice
methodological approach has the benefit that it affords wide comparison—
across time and across fields—while addressing the integration of knowl-
edge at different levels of granularity.
The third contribution from Mitchell Ash provides a historical analysis
of interdisciplinary practices. One drawback of current discussion is the
lack of historical perspective on ID, treating disciplines as somehow stable
结构, rather than moving entities. “It should be clear that institution-
alized practices of ID cannot be taken as given, but also need to be histor-
icized. This means that they need to be queried as to the circumstances in
which they came into being, are or are not stabilized, and pass away or
develop in new directions” (Ash 2019, p. 622 in this volume). Taxonomies
or definitions of interdisciplinarity in this regard, which lump together
cases of ID across time, have little analytic use. Disciplines are not perma-
nent structures, but have constantly shifted, and this implies changes to
what counts as interdisciplinary practices and the motivation for it. 它
should be noted however that much writing on ID seems to imply that
ID is a new development in science, associated with the Mode 2 知识-
edge movement that emerged in the mid-nineties in response to modern
environmental and social problems. This feeds the impression that ID
must be singular and transformative. But Ash argues that interdisciplinary
practices as well as policies favoring interdisciplinarity are much older than
这. Historical institutions have favored problem-centered research since
the early twentieth century, the Manhattan project being a major example,
and science has seen plenty of interdisciplinary practice since. Critically, Ash
notes that modern policy movements appear not only to encourage, 但为了
mandate problem-oriented inter- and multidisciplinarity, with the aim of
shifting funding priorities toward perceived policy imperatives without
asking whether such work actually produces better science or scholarship.
He therefore asks whether such policies have actually produced epistemically
better science or scholarship, or rather created incentives for scientists to
simulate interdisciplinary practices in order to get funding, without engag-
ing in substantive interdisciplinary work. Historical comparison helps to
reveal such disjunctions between modern and historical practices, and helps
to make visible that the shape that ID takes depends very much on context-
specific forces.
参考
Barry, A。, G. Born, and G. Weszkalnys. 2008. “Logics of interdisciplinar-
ity.” Economy and Society 37 (1): 20–49.
Gibbons, M。, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzmann, 磷. 斯科特, 和M.
Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and
Research in Contemporary Societies. 伦敦: 智者.
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
5
4
5
1
7
9
0
7
9
5
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
3
1
5
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
科学观点
551
Haapasaari, P。, S. Kulmala, 和S. Kuikka. 2012. “Growing into inter-
disciplinarity: How to converge biology, 经济学, and social science
in fisheries research?” Ecology and Society 17 (1): 6, http://dx.doi.org/
10.5751/ES-04503-170106
Huutoniemi, K., J. 时间. 克莱因, H. Bruun, 和 J. Hukkinen. 2010. “Analyz-
ing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators.” Research Policy 39 (1):
79–88.
Kalthoff, H. 2010. “Beobachtung und Komplexität: Überlegungen zum
Problem der Triangulation.” Sozialer Sinn 11 (2): 353–365.
Kellert, S. H。, H. 乙. Longino, 和C. K. 沃特斯 (编辑。). 2006. Scientific
Pluralism. Minnesota: 明尼苏达大学出版社.
克莱因, J. 时间. 2000. “A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science.”
Pp. 3–24 in Practising Interdisciplinarity. Edited by P. Weingart and
氮. Stehr. 多伦多: University of Toronto Press.
克莱因, J. 时间. 2017. “A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity.” Pp. 21–34 in The
Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Edited by R. Frodeman, J. 时间.
克莱因, 和C. Mitcham. 牛津: 牛津大学出版社.
Knorr Cetina, K. 1995. “Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the
Study of Science.” Pp. 140–166 in Handbook of Science and Technology
学习. Edited by S. Jasanoff, G. 乙. Markle, J. C. 彼得森, 和
时间. Pinch. 千橡市: 智者.
Lamont, M。, 和一个. Swidler. 2014. “Methodological pluralism and the
possibilities and limits of interviewing.” Qualitative Sociology 37 (2):
153–171.
MacLeod, M。, 和M. Nagatsu. 2018. “What does interdisciplinarity look
like in practice: Mapping interdisciplinarity and its limits in the environ-
mental sciences.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 67: 74–84.
MacLeod, 中号. 2018. “What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some con-
sequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice.” Synthese
195 (2): 697–720.
Mäki, U. 2013. “Scientific imperialism: Difficulties in definition, identi-
fication, and assessment.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science
27 (3): 325–339.
Mäki, U. 2016. “Philosophy of interdisciplinarity. 什么? 为什么? 如何?”
European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6.3: 327–342.
Merz, 中号. 2015. “Dynamique locale des nanosciences au croisement de dis-
ciplines établies.” Pp. 105–118 in Disciplines académiques en transforma-
的. Edited by A. Gorga and J.-P. Leresche. 巴黎: Editions des archives
contemporaines.
Nowotny, H。, 磷. 斯科特, 和M. Gibbons. 2001. Rethinking Science: 知识
and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Maiden, 嘛: 布莱克威尔
出版商.
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
5
4
5
1
7
9
0
7
9
5
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
3
1
5
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
552
介绍: Investigating Interdisciplinary Practice
Rhoten, D. 2003. “A multi-method analysis of the social and technical
conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration.” Final Report, 国家的
Science Foundation BCS-0129573.
Wickson, F。, 和一个. L. Carew. 2014. “Quality criteria and indicators for
responsible research and innovation: Learning from transdisciplinarity.”
Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3): 254–273.
Yegros-Yegros, A。, 我. Rafols, 和P. D’Este. 2015. “Does interdisciplinary
research lead to higher citation impact? The different effect of proximal
and distal interdisciplinarity.” PloS one 10 (8), e0135095.
我
D
哦
w
n
哦
A
d
e
d
F
r
哦
米
H
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
我
r
e
C
t
.
米
我
t
.
/
e
d
你
p
哦
s
C
/
A
r
t
我
C
e
–
p
d
我
F
/
/
/
/
2
7
4
5
4
5
1
7
9
0
7
9
5
p
哦
s
C
_
e
_
0
0
3
1
5
p
d
.
/
F
乙
y
G
你
e
s
t
t
哦
n
0
8
S
e
p
e
米
乙
e
r
2
0
2
3
下载pdf