Content uploaded by Peter Van den Besselaar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Van den Besselaar on Nov 13, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Disciplinary, Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary -Concepts and Indicators
Abstract
Introduction The production of knowledge is dominantly organized in disciplines. At the same time, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research is developing at the boundaries of the scientific disciplines. In this paper we compare disciplinary and non-disciplinary forms of knowledge production in terms of communication patterns. We will suggest an indicator for measuring the degree of interdisciplinarity, and this allows us to evaluate the development of interdisciplinary fields. The indicator is based on the patterns and intensity of the knowledge streams between research fields. The communication of knowledge within a disciplinary field is expected to differ from the communication of knowledge within a non-disciplinary field. The same holds for the communication between a disciplinary and a non-disciplinary research field with their respective scientific environments. Clarifying these patterns of knowledge communication improves our understanding of the nature and dynamics of non-disciplinary research, and we will illustrate that interdisciplinary fields develop towards disciplinary patterns. Disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity Interdisciplinarity is an important and a complex issue. It is important as modern society increasingly demands application-oriented knowledge, and the usability of scientific knowledge generally requires the combination and integration of knowledge form various scientific disciplines. Traditionally, the disciplines have been very dominant in the organization of the science system, in the reward system, and in the career system. Nevertheless, funding agencies are increasingly stressing the social relevance of research results, and consequently a new mode of application-oriented research is emerging, on top of traditional academic research. In other words, the science system is not only growing in size, but its structure and functioning are changing too: the locus of research, the patterns of collaboration, and the aims of the scientific enterprise. Gibbons et al (1994) analyzed these changes by contrasting two modes of knowledge production, and the distinction between disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity is in the core of their approach. The differences between the two modes can be summarized as follows. Mode 1 is the production of traditional 'disciplinary science', in which the academic interest in 'pure' knowledge prevails. The aim is to produce theoretical knowledge of (physical and human) nature. The locus of Mode 1 is the university organized along disciplinary lines in faculties and departments. Consequently it is homogeneous in terms of organizational structures and practitioners, it is hierarchical, and relatively stable. Quality control is internal by peer review, and based on the journal system. In contrast, Mode 2 is interdisciplinary and application-oriented knowledge production. The focus is not so much on discovering 'laws of nature' but o n studying artifacts and the operation of complex systems. Examples are among others computer science, chemical engineering, and biotechnology. Mode 2 is heterogeneous, as a wider set of organizations and types of researchers are involved, operating in specific contexts on specific problems. Various different organizational forms co-exist within Mode 2, and research is not exclusively based in universities. The system of quality control is broader, and not only based on peer review of academic papers, and includes usability and social accountability. In that sense Mode 2 is heterarchical. Mode 2 knowledge production finds its roots in the intimate interaction between information and communication technologies (ICT), and advanced scientific and technological research and innovation. It is reflected and reinforced by large application-oriented and collaborative transnational research programs like the EU framework programs. Mode 2 is growing in importance, but not supplanting Mode 1 research, as it remains dependent on the development of disciplinary knowledge.
... Interdisciplinary thinking are complex cognitive abilities that entail making connections among multiple ideas and integrating knowledge and approaches from various disciplinary perspectives within an interdisciplinary system (Lattuca et al., 2017;Mansilla & Duraising, 2007;Newell, 2001;Spelt et al., 2009;Spelt et al., 2017;Van den Besselaar & Heimeriks, 2001; van Merriënboer, 1997). Research suggests that interdisciplinary thinking encompasses multiple dimensions simultaneously (Spelt et al., 2009), including disciplinary grounding (Mansilla & Duraising, 2007;Tripp & Shortlidge, 2019), knowledge integration (Repko, 2008;, critical awareness (Mansilla et al., 2009;, objectivity , system analysis , reasoning and communication (Lattuca et al., 2013;Shen et al., 2015), and reflection (Claus & Wiese, 2019;Lattuca et al., 2013). ...
Interdisciplinary thinking is critical for equipping students to apply scientific knowledge and tackle societal challenges across various disciplines, which has been recognized as a key objective of twenty-first century science education. However, research on effective interdisciplinary assessment in secondary school science education is still limited. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument for evaluating seventh graders’ interdisciplinary thinking within lower-secondary science contexts. A four-dimensional framework for evaluating interdisciplinary thinking was proposed, leading to the development of an assessment instrument. Participants were 316 seventh–grade students randomly selected from a lower-secondary school in Jiangsu, China. The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit (MRCML) model was employed to examine the reliability and validity of the instrument. The results indicated that the four–dimensional conceptual framework of interdisciplinary thinking was appropriate, and the multidimensional partial credit model (PCM) fitted the data reasonably well. The differential item functioning (DIF) analysis also revealed the absence of gender bias, confirming the measurement invariance statistics reached. In addition, disparities in student performance across the four dimensions were identified, highlighting the need for tailored instructional practices to foster their ability in lower-secondary school science education. Keywords: educational assessment, interdisciplinary thinking, multidimensional item response model, Rasch measurement, science education
... It challenges the traditional norms of "normal science", which prioritizes conformity within disciplines, by advocating for paradigm shifts and the integration of diverse disciplinary perspectives (Kuhn & Hacking, 1970). The creation of new research fields often involves merging methodologies and theories from disparate domains (Besselaar & Heimeriks, 2001), as illustrated by the genesis of molecular biology through the convergence of physics and biology. The advent of molecular biology was marked by physicists shifting their focus to biology, significantly contributing by transferring established research standards and methods from their primary field to this new realm, thereby infusing old problems with fresh research styles (Zuckerman & Merton, 1972). ...
Interdisciplinary research plays a crucial role in addressing complex problems by integrating knowledge from multiple disciplines. This integration fosters innovative solutions and enhances understanding across various fields. This study explores the historical and sociological development of interdisciplinary research and maps its evolution through three distinct phases: pre-disciplinary, disciplinary, and post-disciplinary. It identifies key internal dynamics, such as disciplinary diversification, reorganization, and innovation, as primary drivers of this evolution. Additionally, this study highlights how external factors, particularly the urgency of World War II and the subsequent political and economic changes, have accelerated its advancement. The rise of interdisciplinary research has significantly reshaped traditional educational paradigms, promoting its integration across different educational levels. However, the inherent contradictions within interdisciplinary research present cognitive, emotional, and institutional challenges for researchers. Meanwhile, finding a balance between the breadth and depth of knowledge remains a critical challenge in interdisciplinary education.
In an era marked by the rise of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research, this paper embraces a multidisciplinary approach by utilizing quantum mechanics to critically examine human consciousness through the literary text The Pregnant King (2008). The myth of Yuvaneshva, whose feminine nature is regarded as taboo, is analysed through the lens of quantum mechanical principles. Specifically, Yuvaneshva’s psyche is interpreted via the concepts of the double slit experiment, quantum entanglement, quantum actuality and potentiality, and wave-particle duality, which serve as methodologies to explore the Anima’s struggle. This study integrates Carl Jung’s theory of the collective unconscious and Roland Barthes’ theory of myth within a quantum framework to analyse the formation of meaning, leading to hyperreality and depicting the Self’s struggle within this hyperreal context. By positioning these theories within quantum logic, the paper examines the Self-Other duality (akin to wave-particle duality) and how the collective unconscious reshapes the nature of the Self through quantum principles. This approach elucidates the concept of truth in terms of quantum actuality and potentiality, scrutinizing the ambiguous nature of the Self and how socially constructed ideologies (collective unconscious) obscure personal truth through hyperreal social constructs. Furthermore, it proposes a multidisciplinary method for the study of myths, thereby bridging the traditionally perceived gap between science and literature. By adopting an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspective, this method fosters collaboration between science and literature, paving the way for future research and promoting various multidisciplinary approaches.
Many complex problems and emerging phenomena require joint research efforts across academic disciplines. Interdisciplinary research (IDR) is therefore widely considered a promising approach to knowledge production. At the same time, however, this form of research poses significant challenges for those involved. In this paper, we review the literature on IDR from the perspective of individual researchers engaging in or considering this type of research. We conducted a broad literature review covering the past 35 years of research on IDR. The review is structured along four typical questions that researchers have regarding IDR: "Why bother?" (Reasons for considering IDR); "Is it for me?" (The profile of IDR researchers); "How do I work with 'them'?" (Obstacles of interdisciplinary collaboration); "What am I getting myself into?" (Challenges for IDR researchers). We analyzed the literature so that we could distill answers to those questions. We conclude our paper by emphasizing the inherent ambiguities of interdisciplinary research and proposing a set of self-reflective questions to help navigate the complexities of this research approach.
In this Open Letter we bring together researchers from the Biosocial Birth Cohort Research (BBCR) network to reflect on interdisciplinary research and methods within birth cohorts and to draw attention to social science approaches to this field, which we argue are underutilized. A more comprehensive and consistent integration of social science approaches would expand the scope and value of research with birth cohorts. We critically engage three specific areas of birth cohort research that provide significant opportunities for exchange across disciplines; how exposure is defined and measured in birth cohorts, the harmonisation of data within and between birth cohorts and the broader experience of interdisciplinary collaboration in birth cohorts and birth cohort research. By reflecting on these three areas, we highlight the need for more in-depth dialogue between life and social sciences in the design of birth cohorts, the measures that are used, and the research made possible. We argue that improving the methodological tools for measuring social and biological exposures, incorporating the complexity of participant experience, and ensuring that longitudinal studies are recognised by a wider range of disciplines are essential for collaborative biosocial research with the goal of mitigating health disparities in global and public health.
Мультидисциплінарність визначається як поєднання різних галузей знань та методів для вирішення складних проблем. Цей метод у сучасних наукових дослідженнях стає все більше важливим, оскільки він дозволяє науковцям знаходити нові підходи до вирішення складних проблем і отримувати глибше розуміння різноманітних явищ. В Україні питання наукових досліджень стає все більш актуальним у контексті пошуку ефективних рішень для вирішення різноманітних викликів у сферах економіки, науки та соціуму. Мультидисциплінарність визначається як ключовий засіб для досягнення цієї мети.
Existing studies from a wide breadth of fields surrounding fake news and their controls are mostly siloed from proposals from other domains. This design yields a limited perspective on mis/disinformation controls resulting in an incomplete and ineffective approach. In this work, we employ a two-part qualitative method to solicit opinions regarding their perspective in building solutions to mis/disinformation. We assembled a seven-member assembly of experts from various fields: computer and information sciences, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, laws and policies, psychology, telecommunication, and education. They participated in a US Supreme Court style study design, namely focus group discussions and Delphi opinion collection, to recommend an interdisciplinary solution to the phenomenon of fake news. Findings indicate that user education and social media awareness should sit at the center of every solution to fortify the cognitive ability of humans against cyber deception. Future forms of mistruths will evolve, made possible by AI, and their respective solutions should too. The classic fortification dimension, however, even in the future solutions should be the human ability to discern legitimate news from falsehoods.
The foundations of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a field whose applications are of great use and concern for society, can be traced back to the early years of the second half of the 20th century. Since then, the field has seen increased research output and funding cycles followed by setbacks. The new millennium has seen unprecedented interest in AI progress and expectations with significant financial investments from the public and private sectors. However, the continual acceleration of AI capabilities and real-world applications is not guaranteed. Mainly, accountability of AI systems in the context of the interplay between AI and the broader society is essential for adopting AI systems via the trust placed in them. Continual progress in AI research and development (R&D) can help tackle humanity's most significant challenges to improve social good. The authors of this paper suggest that the careful design of forward-looking research policies serves a crucial function in avoiding potential future setbacks in AI research, development, and use. The United States (US) has kept its leading role in R&D, mainly shaping the global trends in the field. Accordingly, this paper presents a critical assessment of the US National AI R&D Strategic Plan and prescribes six recommendations to improve future research strategies in the US and around the globe.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.