PRACTISING INTERDISCIPLINARITY
Edited by Peter Weingart and Nico Stehr
Academic disciplines provide a framework for the transfer of knowl-
edge from one generation to the next. Not only do they shape our
education and understanding, they structure our professional lives.
Interdisciplinarity, the reconfiguration of academic disciplines and the
boundaries between them, has lately become a field of major interest to
scholars and policy-makers. This collection brings together the latest
research and analysis from this emerging field.
The editors take as their central thesis the idea that the existing ma-
trix of disciplines is dissolving, leading to fundamental changes in the
traditional order of knowledge. Contributors to the volume include spe-
cialists from Canada, Australia, Europe, and the United States who
focus on the actual practice of interdisciplinarity: the ways in which it is
researched, organized, and taught in institutes and universities around
the world. The role of funding bodies is also considered, revealing the
relationship and the delineation of disciplines and their resource bases.
Together, the essays offer first-hand insights into the operations and
successes of some of the world's foremost interdisciplinary research
centres. In acquainting us with the current state of interdisciplinary
research the volume also considers the social and economic contexts
that make such research possible.
Peter Weingart is a professor at the Institute for Science and Technol-
ogy Studies, University of Bielefeld, Germany.
Nico Stehr is Senior Research Associate in the Sustainable Research
Development Institute of the University of British Columbia and DAAD
Professor at the Universitat Duisburg, Germany. He is a Fellow of the
Royal Society of Canada and editor of the Canadian Journal of Sociology.
This page intentionally left blank 
Edited by PETER WEING ART and NICO STEHR
Practising Interdisciplinarity
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS
Toronto Buffalo London
© University of Toronto Press Incorporated 2000
Toronto Buffalo London
Printed in Canada
ISBN 0-8020-4328-3 (cloth)
ISBN 0-8020-8139-8 (paper)
Printed on acid-free paper
Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Practising interdisciplinarity
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 0-8020-4328-3 (bound) ISBN 0-8020-8139-8 (pbk.)
1. Interdisciplinary research. I. Weingart, Peter. II. Stehr, Nico.
Q180.55.I48P721999 001.4 C99-932559-0
The University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its
publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts
Council.
University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support for its pub-
lishing activities of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing
Industry Development Program (BPIDP).
CanadS
www.utppublishing.com 
Contents
PREFACE Vll
INTRODUCTION xi
Part I. The Popularity, Functions, and Paradoxes of
Interdisciplinarity: The Discourse 1
1 A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 3
JULIE THOMPSON KLEIN
2 Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse 25
PETER WEINGART
Part II. The Changing Topography of Science 43
3 What Are Disciplines? And How Is Interdisciplinarity
Different? 46
STEPHEN TURNER
4 The Interdisciplinary Nature of Science: Theoretical Framework
and Bibliometric-Empirical Approach 66
ANTHONY F.J. VAN RAAN
5 Mapping the New Cultures and Organization of Research
in Australia 79
TIM TURPIN AND SAM GARRETT-JONES
vi Contents
Part III. Nurturing Environments of Interdisciplinarity 111
6 Beyond One's Own Perspective: The Psychology of Cognitive
Interdisciplinarity 115
RAINER BROMME
7 Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 134
RHODRI WINDSOR LISCOMBE
8 Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour 154
MARC DE MEY
9 Inducing Interdisciplinarity: Irresistible Infliction? The Example
of a Research Group at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research
(ZiF), Bielefeld, Germany 173
SABINE MAASEN
10 Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 194
ERIC R. SCERRI
11 Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations:
Perspectives on Interdisciplinarity, Nurturing Leadership,
and Integrated Structure and Cultures 215
ROGERS HOLLINGSWORTH AND ELLEN JANE HOLLINGSWORTH
Part IV. The Perspective of the Funders 245
12 Interdisciplinary Research Initiatives at the U.S. National
Science Foundation 248
EDWARD J. HACKETT
13 Beyond the Ivory Tower: Some Observations on External Funding
of Interdisciplinary Research in Universities 260
WILHELM KRULL
Concluding Comments 270
REFERENCES 273
CONTRIBUTORS 291
Preface
Both in academia and in science policy a renewed interest has emerged
in interdisciplinarity, its opportunities, and its institutional obstacles.
This interest derives its urgency from the perception of an uninhibited
trend towards ever more specialization in science driven by the search
for novelty and efforts to achieve visibility. Specialization of research
and its solidifying organizational structures are seen as impediments to
innovation.
This was the motive to bring together scholars who had pertinent
experience either in institutions devoted explicitly to interdisciplinary
research or in funding agencies supporting such research in various
programs, or who had done research on such institutions.
In January 1995 Peter Weingart organized a first conference at the
Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) in Bielefeld, Germany, en-
titled 'Centers for Interdisciplinary Research - A Model for Institutional
Innovation in Science in Europe.' Participants came from research insti-
tutes with a strong interdisciplinary commitment and higher education
institutions with some experience in implementing centres of excellence
and/or interdisciplinary postgraduate programs. The purpose of this
conference was to explore needs and opportunities of institutional in-
novation within and outside the university system. Participants were
Maurice Aymard, Director, Maison des Sciences de 1'Homme, Paris;
Graeme Clarke, Australian National University, Canberra; Jutta
Fedrowitz, Centrum fuer Hochschulentwicklung, Guetersloh, Germany;
John R. Grace, University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Rogers
Hollingsworth, University of Wisconsin, Madison; Wilhelm Krull, Gen-
eral Secretary, Volkswagen Foundation, Hanover, Germany, previously
Max Planck Society, Munich; Sabine Maasen, Research Coordinator,
viii Preface
Max Planck Institute for Psychological Research, Munich, previously
ZiF, Bielefeld, Germany; Marc De Mey, University of Ghent; Johan Mou-
ton, Director, Center for Interdisciplinary Research, University of Stellen-
bosch, South Africa; Torsten Nybom, Council for Higher Education,
Stockholm; Tim Turpin, Centre for Research Policy, Wollongong, Aus-
tralia; Volker Ullrich, University of Konstanz, Germany; Bjoern Wittrock,
Director, Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study in the Social Sciences,
Uppsala, Sweden; Peter Weingart, Director, Institute of Science and Tech-
nology Studies, University of Bielefeld, previously Director, ZiF,
Bielefeld.
At the conference in Bielefeld it was decided to reconvene for a sec-
ond conference that would pursue the discussions of the Bielefeld meet-
ing and bring contributions to a final form, widen the spectrum to
North American/Canadian participants, and include theoretical reflec-
tions as well as additional institutional experiences of interdisciplinarity.
John R. Grace of the University of British Columbia, a participant at
Bielefeld, offered the newly founded Peter Wall Institute for Advanced
Studies, Vancouver, for the conference. By the time the second meeting
was planned and funding was obtained he had left his post as dean and
Nico Stehr, then Fellow at the Peter Wall Institute and at Green College,
took on the organization of the conference at Vancouver. The confer-
ence, entitled, like this book, 'Practising Interdisciplinarity/ took place
in March 1997 and reflected the broader scope but also the focus on
actual practice.
Not all participants at the first conference could attend the second. In
their place others were recruited to bring new ideas: Rainer Bromme,
University of Muenster, Germany; Sam Garrett-Jones, University of
Wollongong, Australia, who took Tim Turpin's place; Julie Thompson
Klein, Wayne State University, Detroit; Stephen Turner, University of
South Florida, Tampa; and Rhodri Windsor Liscombe, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver. Others who could not attend but volun-
teered to submit papers included Edward J. Hackett, Arizona State Uni-
versity, Tempe, and Wilhelm Krull, Volkswagen Foundation, Hanover,
Germany. We want to thank all participants of the two conferences for
their contributions, whether they were in the form of discussion or a
paper. That this gratitude includes everyone is all the more justified
since some papers were, indeed, reworked, and others were stimulated
by the discussions of the first meeting and edited once more on the
basis of input from the second.
Preface ix
The conferences could not have taken place without the generous
support from various sources. The first meeting was hosted by the
Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) of the University of Bielefeld,
Germany's first centre for advanced study and unique insofar as it is
devoted to interdisciplinary research, either carried out by groups re-
siding at the centre for a full academic year or in conferences. Support
for that meeting also came from the Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici
in Naples, an interdisciplinary study centre devoted to the humanities
that collaborates with ZiF in organizing conferences.
The second meeting was hosted by Green College, University of Brit-
ish Columbia. This was quite appropriate since Green College is an
innovative and sucessful graduate college that nurtures interdis-
ciplinarity. The second meeting was sponsored by the Royal Society of
Canada and co-funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council, Ottawa, Canada, as well as the Stifterverband fur die Deutsche
Wissenschaft, Essen, Germany. We are also grateful for the financial
support received for the Vancouver conference from Dr Daniel Birch,
Vice-President Academic, and Dr Bernard Bressler, Vice-President Re-
search, of the University of British Columbia.
When all papers were submitted, Lilo Jegerlehner of the ZiF prepared
the manuscript for print. We thank her and all these institutions for
their respective support, and hope that the resulting volume meets their
expectations.
PETER WEINGART
NICO STEHR
BIELEFELD, APRIL 1999
This page intentionally left blank 
Introduction
Scientific disciplines are, in a sense, the eyes through which modern soci-
ety sees and forms its images about the world, frames its experience,
and learns, thus shaping its own future or reconstituting the past. Disci-
plines are the intellectual structures in which the transfer of knowledge
from one generation to the next is cast; that is, they shape the entire
system of education. Likewise, disciplines have a great impact on the
structure of occupations - the world of practice - and they do so in-
creasingly as societies move from primary (agricultural) and second-
ary (industrial) to tertiary (knowledge-based) economic orders. Finally,
disciplines are not only intellectual but also social structures, organiza-
tions made up of human beings with vested interests based on time
investments, acquired reputations, and established social networks that
shape and bias their views on the relative importance of their knowl-
edge. As social organizations, disciplines participate in and contribute
to conflicts over political, economic, legal, and ethical decisions, over
the distribution of resources and life chances. In all these functions,
scientific disciplines constitute the modern social order of knowledge, and
the order of knowledge is in this sense a political order as well. It
therefore seems self-evident that it is critical to understand the inner
workings of this order, the changes that it undergoes as well as their
impact on the society at large.
Something quite fundamental is happening to the established order
of knowledge as it has emerged with the modern universities in the
nineteenth century: the organizational matrix of disciplines is begin-
ning to dissolve.
Observers note a growing pluralism both in the locations of knowl-
edge production and in the patterns of initiation, production, and use
xii Introduction
of knowledge as well as its disciplinary combinations. These observers
suggest that one may have to add a postdisciplinary stage to the
predisciplinary stage of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and
the disciplinary stage of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
This development is uneven; it does not affect all disciplines in the
same way. The natural sciences seem to be more affected than the hu-
manities. Where production of knowledge is fast and the half-time of
knowledge short (i.e., its becoming is superseded), the disciplinary
boundaries seem to be more fluid than in areas where a less hurried
pace prevails. Besides, disciplines are prevalent organizational prin-
ciples in universities, where the goal of knowledge production is to
understand; they do not seem to command great respect where the goal
is to generate practical knowledge in order to solve problems. In fact,
there they are even frowned upon as obstacles to innovation or as pro-
viding a skewed perspective.
The scope and impact of this development are still contested, the
reasons for it are only partially known and understood, and the ulti-
mate consequences are far from clear. But as it will affect the fabric of
all of society, it is undoubtedly a highly relevant issue of social, eco-
nomic, and political concern. We do not know yet what is going to take
the place of the traditional disciplines. But it is already apparent from a
cursory contact with the issue of disciplinarity/interdisciplinarity that
it is a moving target. Only three decades ago the student movement of
the late sixties called for radical university reforms, one central element
of which was the elimination of the traditional academic disciplines in
favour of holistic notions of training that were closer to the practical
problems of life. Interdisciplinarity became a programmatic, value-laden
term that stood for reform, innovation, progress. However, when the
open conflicts subsided and the mundane academic routine had re-
turned to the universities, the call for interdisciplinarity became much
less urgent. 'Project study' programs were labelled 'soft' and quietly
discontinued; interdisciplinary institutes and research groups struggled
to survive and in many cases failed. What had seemed progressive only
a few years before appeared outdated, if not quaint.
Yet, under the surface of declining public attention, university poli-
tics, and academic propaganda, changes began, driven not so much by
student enthusiasm or well-meaning educators but by other, converg-
ing forces both inside and outside of science. Prominent among them is,
of course, the persistent development of research itself. The outstand-
ing case of research-induced interdisciplinarity during the first quarter
Introduction xiii
of the twentieth century was the merger of physics and chemistry. But
it took Walter Nernst fifteen years of being nominated for the Nobel
Prize until he finally earned it in 1920 (for chemistry); chief among the
reasons for the long deliberations of the committee was the fact that the
physics and chemistry classes of the Swedish Academy could not make
up their minds where Nernst belonged with his Third Law of Thermo-
dynamics. Further dramatic changes set in during the First World War,
when science was instrumentalized for military ends on a grand scale.
The National Laboratory and the organization of Big Science were insti-
tutional innovations also in the sense that they merged different disci-
plines in the attempt to target research more efficiently and to profit
from synergetic effects. However, the war effort was short-lived, and
the scientists returned to their academic settings, where the disjunction
of research from applications was the prevalent mode of work. Yet,
another famous interdisciplinary revolution occurring in the 1950s had
its beginnings in the 1930s and also involved the physicists. Max
Delbriick, Leo Szilard, and others became interested in biology and in
the problem of cell reproduction in particular. This initiated what twenty
years later culminated in Watson and Crick's discovery of the DNA
model and the revolutionary developments in biology.
More recently an enthusiasm among scientists has emerged for what
they perceive to be an unprecedented - yet not completed - coupling
and amalgamation of disciplines: under the label of 'cognitive sciences/
neurobiology, psychology, parts of computer science (artificial intelli-
gence), and, across the great divide to the humanities, philosophy of
mind have found common ground and research interests. Likewise,
under the 'dynamic paradigm/ the development of 'chaos theory' has
demonstrated its utility in a wide array of disciplines, ranging from
physics and mathematics to economics and psychology, thus revealing
the isomorphism of the problem of explaining change. Finally, in a
similar vein, the expansion or transfer of the evolutionary paradigm
from biology into the social sciences, notably economics and sociology,
and its combination with game theory and population statistics hold
the promise to bridge paradigmatically the chasm between micro and
macro perspectives.
All these cases exhibit a similar pattern: disciplinary interests, bound-
aries, and constraints are dissolving; disciplines are merging in areas
where their overlap forms a new field either providing stimulus for
other new developments or responding to challenges from outside. Sys-
tems research, materials science, environmental science, and so on re-
xiv Introduction
fleet both sources of this development. This suggests that it becomes
increasingly futile to ponder the pros and cons, the epistemological
virtue or impossibility of interdisciplinarity, or to spend much time on
defining disciplines, fields, specialties, and the like. More elucidating
insights are to be gained from taking a more distanced view from above.
Disciplines are diffuse types of social organizations for the produc-
tion of particular knowledge; they differ in size, in their goal orienta-
tion, and in their structure. Their boundaries are very difficult to draw,
as is easily exemplified by trying to categorize the vast number of schol-
arly journals under disciplinary headings. A comparative look at 'dis-
ciplines' used to consider organizational frameworks that oriented
('disciplined') inwardly the process of knowledge production and drew
the boundary between relevant and irrelevant, problematic and
unproblematic, admissible and inadmissible communication. In the
course of time disciplines have assumed the function of an interface
between knowledge production on the one hand and its patrons as well
as its clients on the other. This relationship has become closer. Science
has been drawn out from its relative social isolation, its elite status, and
moved closer to the mundane concerns of society. Knowledge produc-
tion as well as academic training has been coupled more directly than
before to political, economic, and social problems. That entails that the
already fairly fluid organizational structures of disciplines have acquired
additional functions, mediating between knowledge production and
knowledge markets. They are, thus, required to adapt more quickly
and to change, a process that has been interpreted as their losing their
original role as guardians of intellectual pursuit.
As long as disciplines seemed to constitute strongly established insti-
tutional structures interdisciplinarity was but the counter-image. Now,
as disciplines are more diffuse, their boundaries become more mal-
leable, and the number of new fields and specialties is growing by the
day, interdisciplinarity has become a fairly common experience. But
this does not mean that it has become unproblematic. Interdisciplinary
organization of research carries the image of a progressive endeavour,
but at the same time is claimed to be the present reality and certainly
the future order of knowledge. In the face of an estimated 9000 distin-
guishable fields of knowledge the promise of a reductionist unified sci-
ence is no longer credible as an institutional clamp holding together the
very diverse activities that are pursued in the academy. Thus, the project
of interdisciplinarity has assumed a more pragmatic and realistic stance.
Introduction xv
The focus is on its innovative functions and on the psychological, ideo-
logical, and organizational obstacles that stand in its way.
These are some of the considerations that have led to this book. Its
title signals that the focus is on the actual practice of interdisciplinarity,
the ways in which interdisciplinary research is organized in specialized
institutes of advanced study (Maasen), in and between university de-
partments (Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth, De Mey), in interdisci-
plinary research institutions (Scerri), and in teaching programs (Windsor
Liscombe). Here, the interest is in teasing out the psychological dis-
positions (Bromme), the specific organizational mechanisms - its 'nur-
turing environment' - (Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth), and the in-
terplay between these and the intellectual problems of the respective
disciplines that make interdisciplinary research work and account for its
fruitfulness.
This interest makes up the major part of the book. But what is hap-
pening in the institutions of knowledge production should also be seen
from a more distanced viewpoint. Thus, in order to put the detailed
accounts of interdisciplinary practice in the greater temporal and social
perspective, the analysis of the 'nurturing environments' is preceded by
views on the changing topography of the landscape of knowledge pro-
duction. These views reveal the close relationship between (as well as
the historical contingency of) the delineation of disciplines and their
resource bases (Turner), and show the topicality and scope of cognitive
as well as institutional changes that have occurred among the disci-
plines (van Raan, Turpin and Garrett-Jones). And since the type of
knowledge production at issue here - academic research - is dependent
on resources from outside, interdisciplinarity is in some measure de-
pendent on but also has an impact on funding agencies and patrons.
Thus, two views, one from a government funding agency (Hackett),
and the other from a large private foundation (Krull), are included.
As mentioned, the concept of interdisciplinarity has moved through
a development that may be characterized as ranging from 'program-
matic' to actual 'practice.' This development is reflected in the social
discourse about interdisciplinarity, in the metaphorical resources used
(Klein, Weingart). The discourse is a reflection of the perspectives, in-
terests, conflicts, and changing views of the actors participating in it,
and shapes them in turn. To look at the discourse on interdisciplinarity,
therefore, provides an insight into the interpretive framework in which
interdisciplinary knowledge production is situated, socially sanctioned,
xvi Introduction
and unfolding. The view on the discourse is yet another perspective on
the fundamental changes of the social order of knowledge.
The scope of the issue of interdisciplinarity as it is represented here,
as well as the differential weights given to its different trajectories,
provide, the editors hope, access to understanding these changes and
their relevance, albeit more as stimuli for further inquiry than as a
complete set of answers.
PARTI
THE POPULARITY, FUNCTIONS, AND
PARADOXES OF INTERDISCIPLINARITY:
THE DISCOURSE
After years of being eclipsed, interdisciplinarity has re-emerged as a per-
vasive term to gain great popularity both in science and in policy con-
texts. In both contexts interdisciplinarity has become a label almost
synonymous with creativity and progress, signalling reform and mod-
ernization in science and scientific institutions. The desired and the real
developments of interdisciplinary research are almost unanimously taken
to be superior to the traditional disciplinary pursuit of knowledge pro-
duction. Yet, such popular use of a term rarely reflects actual develop-
ments. In many instances there is little or no concrete concept or experi-
ence with the actual practice of interdisciplinarity. Such discrepancy
alone is reason enough to be inquisitive and to raise questions about the
purposes the widespread use of the term serves. How is it possible that
interdisciplinarity has such positive connotations if at the same time it
is often contradicted by the reality of intellectual and social organiza-
tion of the scientific community? To which realities does to the term
refer that are deemed desirable?
Distinguishable discourses constituted by and focusing on certain con-
cepts are a fruitful target of inquiry for social research. The dynamics of
these discourses can shed light on social change in that they provide the
perspectives available at a given time, but also set the limits to thought
and action. They reflect and shape social reality at the same time. Thus,
before looking at the actual practice of interdisciplinary research (and
teaching), the organizational environments, and the intellectual sub-
stances, it is instructive to look at the discourse of interdisciplinarity
itself.
Julie Thompson Klein explores in her paper the many dimensions of
the term 'interdisciplinarity,' the different meanings it assumes in con-
2 Part I
nection with different fields and their combinations, as well as illustra-
tive examples of interdisciplinarities. Peter Weingart's paper addresses
the issue of the apparent paradox of the discourse on interdisciplinarity:
a growing specialization in scientific practice contrasts with an ever
more urgent call for interdisciplinarity. A closer look at the metaphors
being attached to disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity not only reveals
their complementarity but also hints at the function of the discourse
itself. One may speculate that the renewed popularity of interdis-
ciplinarity indicates a fundamental shift in the image and self-concept
of science as a unified though heterogeneous institutional arrangement.
From the early nineteenth century onwards, when the differentiation
and specialization of science became apparent, the unity of science had
become a promise of some future synthesis, be it by way of synthesiz-
ing principles such as evolution or energy conservation, as Du Bois
Reymond suggested, or by reduction through the methodology of logi-
cal empiricism, as was the hope of Otto Neurath and the Unity of
Science Movement in the 1930s. Today's discourse on interdisciplinarity
seems to have given up this promise in exchange for the recognition of
heterogeneity and the promise of cognitive and organizational innova-
tion through evolution by variation, diversity, and combination.
A Conceptual Vocabulary of
Interdisciplinary Science
JULIE THOMPSON KLEIN
It is a most unfortunate consequence of human limitations and the inflexible
organizations of our institutions of higher learning that investigators tend to be
forced into laboratories with such labels as 'biochemistry' or 'genetics.' The
gene does not recognize the distinction - we should at least minimize it.
G.W. Beadle, The Genetic Control of Biochemical Reactions/
The Harvey Lectures, 1944-5
The reality I want to report on is much more complicated and, consequently,
the concept of interdisciplinarity more ambiguous.
Marc De Mey, 'Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour/ Practising
Interdisciplinarity Conference, Vancouver, 1997
For most of the twentieth century, the question of knowledge has been
framed by disciplinarity. In recent decades a different view has emerged.
Research is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary. New social and
cognitive forms have altered the academic landscape, new practices
have emerged, and disciplinary relations have realigned. Talk of rene-
gotiation, reorganization, and reconfiguration abounds. As a result, even
the most basic terms - 'discipline' and 'interdisciplinary' - are no longer
adequate. A new conceptual vocabulary is needed.
Defining Interdisciplinary Science
Understanding is complicated by the current 'jungle of phenomena'
(Huber 1992: 195). Ask three scientists what interdisciplinarity means,
1
4 Julie Thompson Klein
and they will likely give three answers. A geologist might reply plate
tectonics, a life scientist molecular biology, and a physicist materials
science. On the Internet, a multitude of websites support interdiscipli-
nary interests as wide-ranging as global networks, information science,
pharmacy, psychiatry, chaos theory, the environment, robotics, system
dynamics, and electrical engineering. In the first half of this century,
interdisciplinarity was not a major force in science. By mid-century,
cross-fertilizations across the sub-branches of physics, grand simplify-
ing concepts, the emergence of systems theory, and new fields such as
biochemistry, radioastronomy, and plate tectonics marked increased ac-
tivity. The most prominent event was the Second World War. Forma-
tion of institutes and laboratories to solve military problems legitimated
interdisciplinary problem-focused research (IDR) and accustomed aca-
demic administrators to large-scale collaborative projects on campus.
The Manhattan Project and operations research reinforced an instru-
mental discourse focused on technical problems akin to Peter Weingart's
notion of pragmatic or opportunistic interdisciplinarity (1995: 6). After
the war, many projects were dismantled, though influential laboratories
continued to operate. Over the ensuing decades new laboratories and
institutes were established in nuclear science, radiobiology, biophysics,
marine physics, and atomic research (Etzkowitz 1983: 214-5).
Government support was a strong legitimating factor in the new so-
cial contract between government and academy. In the late 1950s, the
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) funded the first materials research
laboratories and, by the early 1960s, the Interdisciplinary Research Labo-
ratories. In the 1970s, international economic competition created added
pressure for a new technology initiative. At least two areas of cutting-
edge technology - computers and biotechnology - were closely tied to
academic science (New Alliances 1986: 7). In response, the National Sci-
ence Foundation (NSF) launched new initiatives. In the late 1970s, NSF
provided seed money through the University-Industry Cooperative Re-
search Centers. In 1985, NSF established an Engineering Research Cen-
ters program, followed by a Science and Technology Centers program.
The long-term role of centres is unclear, but they have altered organiza-
tional structures and cultural practices of research (Turpin and Hill
1995). When centres existed primarily on a private basis and in applied
research, they were not regarded as serious threats to academe. In re-
cent decades, they have proliferated, due to accretion of problem- and
mission-oriented research (Halliday 1992: 23).
A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 5
New organizational structures have also emerged, including offices
of technology transfer, industrial liaison programs, joint mergers and
ventures, research networks, consortia, contract research, and entrepre-
neurial firms. They are not always interdisciplinary. Yet, research is
typically problem-focused and often collaborative. Innovations in prod-
uct design utilize new ideas and methods born at the interfaces of disci-
plines. The areas attracting the greatest attention today are advanced
engineering materials and methods, computer sciences and complex
systems software, molecular biology, and biomedical specialties (Sproull
and Hall 1987: 3). Heightened links with product innovation and new
discoveries support Weingart's contention (this volume) that inter-
disciplinarity is a discourse of innovation. The term 'innovation' con-
notes everything from new ideas to product design, though it tends to
be equated with improvements in sociotechnical systems of manufac-
ture and increased performance of products, services, and costs (Kline
1995: 180).
Instrumentality is not the only discourse of interdisciplinary science.
Epistemological interests span traditional questions about knowledge,
sociological studies of practices, and post-modern critique. Instrumen-
tal discourse driven by a policy agenda or social problems demands
accommodation of problem solving but leaves existing disciplines and
institutions intact. Interdisciplinarity forged in critique demands their
reconstitution, akin to notions of 'critical interdisciplinarity' (Klein 1996)
and interpenetration of existing discourses (Fuller 1993). It also pro-
motes second-order reflection, akin to Weingart's notion of reflexive
interdisciplinarity. Strategic and critical discourses are not always sepa-
rate, though. Both critique and instrumentalism shape the environmen-
tal field.
Several movements have promoted unified knowledge, most notably
the Unity of Science campaign in the 1930s and 1940s. The search for
grand simplifying concepts - the second law, the mass-energy equiva-
lence, and quantum mechanics - also promoted general theory. So has
general systems. Transdisciplinary ambitions persist, but a different level
of activity has gained attention more recently. The first prominent no-
tice appeared in 1972, when the Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development identified development of science as the first
need for interdisciplinarity. This need is manifested in an apparent con-
tradiction: increasing specialization limits the focus of research, though
it also leads to intersections of disciplines (OECD 1972: 44).
6 Julie Thompson Klein
In a landmark study, Darden and Maull (1977) examined how theo-
ries bridge two fields. They depicted science as a network of relations,
not a hierarchical succession of reductions. The term 'field' designates a
central problem, domain of related items, general explanatory factors
and goals, techniques and methods, and related concepts, laws, and
theories. 'Interfield theory' designates relations between entities or phe-
nomena in different fields and their explanatory role. In science, inte-
grations are typically local. Exemplars include the bridging of genetics
and cytology through the chromosome theory of Mendelian heredity,
relating genetics and biochemistry through the operon theory, and con-
necting biochemistry and physical chemistry through the theory of al-
losteric regulation.
Nearly a decade later, a conference on life sciences focused on prob-
lems that lend themselves to interdisciplinary investigation. The case
studies were biochemistry, the evolutionary synthesis, and cognitive
science. Editor William Bechtel (1986: 46-7) identified five patterns of
disciplinary relations:
• developing conceptual links using a perspective in one discipline to
modify a perspective in another discipline
• recognizing a new level of organization with its own processes in
order to solve unsolved problems in existing fields
• using research techniques developed in one discipline to elaborate a
theoretical model in another
• modifying and extending a theoretical framework from one domain
to apply in another
• developing a new theoretical framework that may reconceptualize
research in separate domains as it attempts to integrate them
Several lines of inquiry characterize recent studies. The literature on
management continues to grow. Increased attention is also being paid
to local practices in specific domains, such as Marc De Mey's study of
cognitive science, and in organizational structures, such as studies of
centres by De Mey, Sam Garrett-Jones, Rogers Hollingsworth, Sabine
Massen, Eric Scerri, and Stephen Turner, all in this volume. Paralleling
the expanding field of knowledge studies, multiple methods are em-
ployed, including genealogy, ethnography, interviews and surveys,
bibliometrics, discourse analysis, archival research, organizational ana-
lysis, social theory, and critique. Disciplinary histories are also being
updated.
A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 7
Physics is a striking case. In 1972 the National Research Council (NRC)
in the United States declared there was 'no definable boundary' be-
tween physics and other disciplines (Physics in Perspective 1971: 67). In
1986, the Council highlighted new disciplines arising from interfaces of
physics and other sciences, plus applications in technology, medicine,
and national defense (National Research Council 1986). Almost all sig-
nificant growth has occurred at 'interdisciplinary borderlands' between
established fields. The five prominent areas of fundamental research
are biological physics, materials science, the physics-chemistry inter-
face, geophysics, and mathematical physics and computational physics.
The six outstanding areas of technical applications are micro-electron-
ics, optical technology, new instrumentation, the fields of energy and
environment, national security, and medical applications.
New developments have blurred boundaries by relocating scientific
and technological work away from discrete sites to problems and puzzles
characterized by unpredictability, complexity, and a quickening pace.
In many areas of advanced technology, the intellectual boundary be-
tween engineering and physics is vanishing, creating a continuum that
speeds innovation and technology transfer. The postgraduate demands
of many scientists and engineers are pulling them inexorably into the
continuum. At major synchrotron facilities the cultures of physicists
and chemists are merging, and, in macromolecular research, bound-
aries among chemistry, physics, and biology are blurring.
The NRC defines new patterns of interaction as 'true interdiscipli-
nary science.' Traditionally, techniques and discoveries were transferred
from physics to other disciplines. Today, both physicists and chemists
are building on and enriching areas to create new subfields. Even the
NRC acknowledges the limits of this picture. Synergistic interactions
between physicists and chemists far from the traditional interface have
usually occurred in spite of department structures. Institutions are not
always ready to adapt to complexity, promote borrowing, or accommo-
date effective problem solving (Carole Palmer, personal communica-
tion, 16 October 1996).
An apparent paradox emerges. New programs, centres, and activities
proliferate. However, interdisciplinarity is impeded. There is no para-
dox, Weingart (this volume) rightly contends, only terminological con-
fusion. Interdisciplinarity and specialization are parallel, mutually rein-
forcing strategies. The relationship between disciplinarity and
interdisciplinarity is not a paradox but a productive tension character-
ized by complexity and hybridity.
8 Julie Thompson Klein
Complexity and Hybridity
An old saying comes to mind - interdisciplinarity exists in the 'white
space' of organizational charts. Many activities, such as De Mey's 'wan-
dering professor/ are not tracked. While lamenting the lack of system-
atic data, Weingart (this volume) repeated a telling estimate. One expert
speculated that only about 20 per cent of projects in targeted research
programs of the German government encouraged interdisciplinarity.
However, the rate was apparently higher in a standard funding pro-
gram that is supposedly disciplinary. Interdisciplinary activity does not
always fit the preconceptions administrators have (Bechtel 1986: 4, 29).
Activities are located across an expanse of sites and relations. An
enormous amount of interdisciplinary traffic occurs in less visible forms
such as common interests and problems; shared use of facilities, instru-
mentation, and databases; and borrowed tools, methods, results, con-
cepts, and theories. The least visible activities are often in disciplines, in
interdisciplinary traditions, new practices, and research on strategic and
intellectual problems. Instruments also play a key role. When it comes
to big machines such as spectroscopies, Turner remarked (this volume),
chemistry begins to look like physics.
One signal, specialty migration, is familiar. Migration implies
boundedness, but specialties possess no inherent boundaries. They are
defined by relative concentrations of interests. The underlying meta-
phor of migration, Hoch (1987) cautioned, may be ill-conceived. Most
migration occurs because research areas are in constant reformulation.
Boundaries shift and overlap because ideas and techniques do not exist
in fixed places. Researchers carry them through multiple groups (Becher
1990: 344; Chubin 1976: 464, note 35). Interdisciplinarity, Turner ob-
served, starts by creating novel divisions of labour for novel ends. Con-
sequently, 'frontier' is a popular metaphor of interdisciplinarity, con-
noting expansion into uncharted domains and 'the cutting edge.' Un-
derstandably, interdisciplinarity is associated with pathbreaking ideas,
discoveries, and lines of investigation. Yet, the frontier metaphor cre-
ates a rigid realism. The space of interdisciplinary work is not just out
there - interdisciplinary activity these days may be in the heart of disci-
plinary practice. In some areas knowledge production is no longer oc-
curring strictly within disciplinary boundaries, especially in the Human
Genome Project, biotechnology, molecular biology, risk assessment, and
technology assessment (Gibbons et al. 1994: 138,147).
A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 9
These developments suggest that territorial metaphors may be obso-
lete. Spatial metaphors - turf, territory, boundary, and domain - high-
light formation and maintenance. Boundary formation occurs as cat-
egories and classifications stake claims. Organic metaphors - boundary
crossing, interdependence, and interrelation - highlight connection. Or-
ganic models compare intellectual movements to processes in ecology
and the evolution of plant and animal species. 'Ecology/ Winter (1996)
recalls, derives from a Greek word, oikeos, meaning household or settle-
ment. The verbs associated with oikeos suggest inhabiting, settling, gov-
erning, controlling, managing, and other activities in a complex inter-
weaving of fields of social action. Knowledge, simply put, cannot be
depicted in a single metaphor. Spatial dynamics of place and organic
dynamics of production occur simultaneously. Spatial and organic mod-
els may even be combined to form a third type, highlighting interac-
tions between social groups and environments. Organism and environ-
ment, Winter emphasizes, imply one another mutually. Both are territo-
rial, competitive, and expansionist. The underlying idea is to make and
reinforce jurisdictional claims, analogous to territorial claims humans
and animals make in ecological niches. Organism and environment also
exploit resources to produce new life forms and settlements.
The simultaneity of spatiality and organicism - of location and gen-
eration - is apparent in the hybrid character of interdisciplinary activ-
ity. Hybridization is a biological metaphor connoting formation of new
animals, plants, or individuals and groups. A hybrid emerges from
interaction or cross-breeding of heterogeneous elements. In organiza-
tional theory, the metaphor marks tasks at boundaries and in spaces
between systems and subsystems (Gibbons et al. 1994: 37). Communi-
ties that facilitate interdisciplinary research exhibit properties that Gerson
(1983) attributed to intersections in science. An intersection is a system
of negotiating contexts. Most intersections involve techniques, special-
ized skills, and instruments. Intersections, though, also occur in inter-
pretive phases, from borrowing vocabulary and ideas to theoretical ex-
planations, such as new groundings of 'valance' and 'gene' in other
disciplines.
Intersections are accommodated in a variety of hybrid communities,
from centres and programs to projects, networks, invisible colleges, and
matrix structures. Matrix structures are alternative forms superimposed
on organizations dominated by disciplines or functions. Matrices have
long facilitated innovations in the realms of pharmacy, engineering,
10 Julie Thompson Klein
and social and technological problem solving (Pearson, Payne, and Gunz
1979: 114; Klein 1990: 121-39). In science policy circles, 'hybrid commu-
nity' has a technical meaning, designating a group of researchers, poli-
ticians, bureaucrats, and others who formulate a research program. New
organizations such as the Work Research Institute in Norway are hy-
brid, problem-solving communities. They encompass organizational
frameworks of policy making and social research as well as the new
hybrid discourse coalitions in which problems are defined, investigated,
and handled (Mathiesen 1990: 411-13; Hagendijk 1990: 58-9). These
organizations are interinstitutional as well as interdisciplinary.
Two additional concepts - trading zone and enclave - shed light on
intersections. Galison (1992) proposed the concept of 'trading zones' to
explain heterogeneous interactions of scientific cultures. Interactions
range from a stabilized 'pidgin zone/ a linguistic term for an interim
form of communication, to a 'creole zone/ a main subculture or native
language of a group that develops a new hybrid role and professional
identity. Trading zone is also an economic metaphor connoting exchange
of goods, trade agreements, and embargoes (Fuller 1992, 45-6). Lowy
(1992), Fuller (1993), the authors in a special issue of the journal Social
Epistemology (1995), and Klein (1996) have extended the notion of trad-
ing zones to explain disciplinary interactions.
Turpin and Hill call the organizational structures emerging from re-
search centres 'enclaves of collaborating research practitioners' (1995:
10). These structures create new boundaries of alliance, identities, and
professional roles. They operate partially as counter-cultures and par-
tially as components of new cultures. Some individuals participate fully,
others in a transitory fashion. Historically, such enclaves mark the grow-
ing diversification of strata formation and crossing of political, sectoral,
and occupational formations (Eisenstadt 1992: 57). Enclaves are loci of
changing roles and cultural orientations. The enclaves where interdisci-
plinary interests are segmented often exhibit a 'semi-liminal' character.
Hybridization connotes both form and process. Dogan and Pahre
(1990) view hybridization as a characteristic of knowledge production
today. As innovative scholars move from the core to margins of their
disciplines, specialties are recombined continuously, with two results:
1 formally institutionalized subfields of one or another formal dis-
cipline or permanent committees or programs that regularize
exchanges
2 informal hybridized topics, such as development, that may never
become institutionalized fields
A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 11
The higher up the ladder of innovations, the greater the chances bound-
aries will disappear, Dogan asserts (1995: 103). Hybrids, moreover, be-
get other hybrids, especially in natural sciences where higher degrees of
fragmentation and hybridization occur. Their formation is not continu-
ous. Yet, specialty interaction is a prominent feature of knowledge pro-
duction today. The second type of hybrid is difficult to map, because
relations cannot be easily defined in spatial terms. The current interface
between physics and chemistry has been crossed so often in both direc-
tions, the authors of an NRC report remarked, that 'its exact location is
obscure; its passage is signaled more by gradual changes in language
and approach than by any sharp demarcation in content.' Interactions
and cross-fertilizations that characterize the interface have been sources
of continual advances in concept and application across the science of
molecules and atoms, surfaces and interfaces, and fluids and solids
(National Research Council 1986: 53).
Two prominent activities - borrowing and problem solving - further
illuminate the hybridity and complexity of interdisciplinary activity.
BORROWING
A great deal of crossfertilization occurs in the daily flow of influence
signified by the metaphor of borrowing. The simple borrowing of tools,
data, results, and methods does not tend to transform boundaries. Yet,
concepts from one level may permeate to other levels in a process called
'pivoting' (Kedrov 1974) and 'whirlpool effects' (Intrilligator 1985). Meth-
ods of mathematics, statistics, and systemology are used in mechanics,
physics, chemistry. Methods used in the latter disciplines are used, in
turn, in astronomy, geosciences, and biosciences (Dahlberg 1994: 68).
Borrowing is an important signal. When, over time, genetic techniques
became primary tools and knowledge of mechanics of gene action and
regulation provided primary insights for many basic problems, borrow-
ing became more frequent as a mode of unification in biology (Burian
1993: 312).
Borrowing is difficult to map. Sometimes a borrowing is assimilated
so completely it is no longer considered foreign, or it transforms prac-
tice without being considered 'interdisciplinary.' Many physical tech-
niques have become so fully integrated into biological research that
their origin may be forgotten; for instance, electron microscopy, X-ray
crystallography, and spectroscopies. Current pressure on scientists to
do interdisciplinary work derives in part from borrowing techniques
and instruments to address problems raised in another discipline (Bechtel
12 Julie Thompson Klein
1986: 282-3). One of Scerri's interviewees remarked, "The philosophy of
our lab is to try to steal as many technologies as we can from other
disciplines and apply them to our problem' (this volume).
Palmer's study of one institute lends insight. The institute houses
research programs in physical sciences, engineering, computational sci-
ence, life sciences, and behavioural sciences. Research exhibits a dual
action. Centrifugal forces help move people, things, and ideas outward
into other domains. Centripetal forces hold elements together in estab-
lished frameworks. Diversity of membership opens up networks, skills,
and ideas otherwise not accessible to individuals. Concrete things are a
pivotal feature of boundary crossing:
Data (numbers) and data sources (rabbits) are shared between labs and
sometimes brought together for comparative analysis. Databanks of raw
data are amassed and then added to by allied researchers. Molecules built
by one research group are analyzed by another, with both sides bringing
insights to the final results. It is common for apparatus to be borrowed
and applied in new ways and to different types of data. New computa-
tional technologies are often combined with established disciplinary sci-
ence to 'push the frontier end of studies' in the area. (Palmer 1996)
Concepts and theories are also influential sources of interaction.
Hiibenthal (1991) identifies 'concept interdisciplinarity' as a specific type,
citing system theory, cybernetics, information theory, synergetics, game
theory, semiotics, and structuralism. Star and Griesmer (1988) proposed
the term 'boundary concept' to explain heterogeneous interactions be-
tween different professional groups. Concrete and conceptual objects
are robust enough to maintain unity across fields but plastic enough to
be manipulated. Weakly structured in common use, they are strongly
structured at individual sites. As negotiable entities, they simultaneously
delimit and connect. In cognitive terms, they facilitate hybrid intellec-
tual work. In social terms, they facilitate inter-group alliance. In this
volume, Maasen, commenting on the transfer of concepts in research
groups, recalled Bono's (1995) observation that concepts act as sites and
media of exchange. Boundary concepts exhibit both generality and par-
ticularity. The theory of the genetic code and protein synthesis exhibits
features of universality and broad scope, plus particularization to spe-
cific organisms (Schaffner 1993: 320).
Chaos is a timely example. Traditionally, Hayles (1990) explains, tur-
bulence was viewed from the perspective of fluid flows. Today it has
A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 13
become a general phenomenon. When concepts circulate within a cul-
tural field, they stimulate cross-fertilization. Yet, they bear traces of
local disciplinary economies. Literary theorists value chaos because they
are concerned with exposing ideological underpinnings of traditional
ideas of order. Chaos theorists value chaos as the engine that drives a
system towards a more complex kind of order. Hayles theorizes in-
terdisciplinarity as an 'ecology of ideas' that neither demands unity nor
overrides differences. Commonalities and differences create dual em-
phasis on cultural fields and disciplinary sites. The discourse of chaos is
both fragmented and unified: 'Any description presupposes a frame of
reference that limits, even as it creates, what is said.' What is known is a
function of what is noticed and considered important. Both spatial and
organic dynamics operate. Activities 'locate' in intersections but con-
tinue to circulate across spheres (1990:135,144).
PROBLEM SOLVING
Palmer highlights an added feature of scientific work - researchers tend
to work on problems not in disciplines. Problems are focal points where
disciplinary social worlds intersect. The figurative common ground of
problem areas such as oscillating reactions, photosynthesis, and mem-
branes is fluid. It changes as science progresses through discoveries and
interactions between fields (Palmer 1996: 57, 119). All problems, more-
over, are not the same. Reynolds identified three kinds of problems (Sigma
Xi 1988: 21):
Problems of the first kind: intellectual problems in a traditional discipline;
Problems of the second kind: multidisciplinary problems that are basically
intellectual not policy-action in nature but cannot be successfully
undertaken within boundaries of one discipline;
Problems of the third kind: distinctly multidisciplinary problems gener-
ated increasingly by society and distinguished by relatively short-time
courses calling in some cases for a policy-action result and in other
cases for a technological quick fix.
With problems of the first kind, disciplinary boundary work is stron-
gest. Problems of the second kind heighten boundary crossing. Bound-
ary concepts such as 'text/ 'discourse/ 'interpretation/ and 'culture'
have been catalysts for interaction across humanities and social sci-
ences. 'Role/ 'status/ and 'area' have cross-fertilized social sciences.
14 Julie Thompson Klein
The multi- and interdisciplinary nature of research problems is often
highlighted in centres: when, for instance, a polar research centre ad-
dresses problems of ice core research, polar ecology, Antarctic tectonics,
and glaciology (OSU 1991: 18). The urgency of problems of the third
kind has heightened the discourse of instrumentality.
In describing this change, Gibbons et al. (1994) proposed the concept
of Mode 2 knowledge production. Mode 1, the traditional form, is pri-
marily academic, homogeneous, and hierarchical. It is dominated by
disciplinary boundary work and comprised of ideas, methods, values,
and norms of Newtonian science. Mode 2 is non-hierarchical. It is dis-
tinguished by heterogeneously organized forms, transdisciplinarity, and
closer .interaction among scientific, technological, and industrial modes
of knowledge production. Mode 2 has garnered wide attention in sci-
ence policy circles. Weingart (this volume) judges the claim overstated
and empirical evidence weak. Nonetheless, Mode 2 provides a name
for traits closely associated with innovation and boundary crossing.
Human resources have become more mobile, and organization of re-
search is more open and flexible. The weakening of disciplinary bound-
aries has been accompanied by collapse or erosion of monopoly power.
As organizational boundaries of control blur, 'competence' is redefined
and criteria of quality broaden.
Multidisciplinary competencies, as Garrett-Jones and Tim Turpin fore-
cast in this volume, are becoming more than a secondary 'add-on' to
disciplinary identities. In the future, portfolios of identities and compe-
tencies must be managed. As resources, knowledge, and skills are con-
tinuously reconfigured, Gibbons et al. add, both theoretical and practi-
cal knowledge are generated in new configurations of intellectual and
technological work. Since exploitation of knowledge requires participa-
tion in its generation, discovery and application are more closely inte-
grated. In a dynamic and socially distributed system with feedback
loops, markets set new problems more or less continuously. In human
genome discourse, Rheinberger (1995) predicts, boundaries of basic re-
search and medical applications will be inverted. The opportunistic ide-
ology of medical application and goals-directed research will produce
keys for attacking 'fundamental' problems in other areas, such as devel-
opmental biology, protein folding and function, and the brain (Gibbons
et al. 1994: 178).
Metaphors of knowledge shift in turn. Gibbons et al. liken organiza-
tions that carry projects at the forefront of science, technology, and
high-value enterprises to a spider web. Connections are spun continu-
A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 15
ously, with growing density and connectivity. Problems in genetics,
electronics, mathematics, and physics possess an intrinsic intellectual
interest nourished by the research and practical interests of other users.
Older terms - 'applied science/ 'technological or industrial research/
'technology transfer/ 'strategic research/ 'mission-oriented research/
'research and development' - are no longer adequate. In the linear model,
science led to technology and technology satisfied market needs. In
many advanced sectors of science and technology today, however,
knowledge is being generated in the context of application. New social
contracts between industry and academe make 'interchange' a more
appropriate word than 'transfer.' A greater number of scientists, more-
over, are working on problems outside traditional specialties and enter-
ing into new social arrangements.
Research, Garrett-Jones and Turpin add, is not unidirectional. Clark
coined the term 'restless research' to describe research that moves out
in many directions from traditional university settings (1995,195). Defi-
nitions of a 'good' scientist and science become more pluralistic. Prob-
lem solvers, problem identifiers, and strategic brokers are working with
knowledge resources held in government laboratories, consultancies,
and other businesses (Gibbons et al. 1994: 23, 32, 37, 65, 76,145). Skilled
'boundary riders' must 'beat the boundaries' in order to relocate science
into productive and localized forms (Turpin and Hill 1995: 16). Manag-
ers in higher education, in turn, are beginning to operate in a parallel
mode.
The current push of high technology and international competition
has made 'collaboration/ 'competitiveness/ 'problem solving/ 'systems/
'complexity/ and 'interdisciplinary' new descriptors of knowledge. In-
strumental discourse has not rendered IDR central to the academy. Yet,
problem complexity, economic competition, costs of instrumentation
and facilities, the desire to transfer knowledge rapidly to application,
and the interchange of applied and basic research have heightened the
legitimacy of hybrid organization and modes of knowledge production.
As new 'technostructures' intersect with traditional university depart-
ments, new commercial strategies are accompanied by changes in orga-
nizational values, structure, culture, and intertextuality of scientific dis-
courses with elements of public political discourse and popular dis-
course (Stehr and Ericson 1992: 196). Grappling with the need to ad-
dress complex problems, governments are making decisions that in-
crease the likelihood of the deinstitutionalization of science as greater
control passes to non-scientists. Elzinga (1985) coined the term 'epistemic
16 Julie Thompson Klein
drift' to account for the shift from strictly internalist criteria and repu-
tational control to externally driven criteria that are more open to exter-
nal regulation in the policy arena. The likelihood of interdisciplinary
work involving at least one party who does not work at a university
also increases (Fuller 1995: 204).
When interdisciplinary is cast as a principal means of achieving
targeted objectives, the problem of interdisciplinarity is drawn closer to
the general problem of knowledge policy (Fuller 1995: 33). Outcomes
may be determined more by a power battle between disciplinary group-
ings and hybrid communities than by scientific validity, social need, or
the legitimacy of integration and collaboration (Hoch 1990, 45). Dis-
courses of epistemology and second-order reflection are also short-
changed, as motivation and social consequences are minimized or even
ignored.
The Disciplinary Question
Another popular metaphor - knowledge 'explosion' - signifies a devel-
opment that further strains conventional notions and standard models.
By 1987, there were 8530 definable knowledge fields (Crane and Small
1992, p. 197). By 1990, roughly 8000 research topics in science were
being sustained by related networks (Clark 1995: 193). A significant
number of specialties today are 'hybrid creatures' (Clark 1995: 245; Win-
ter 1996: 24). Intensification of interests in new areas has produced new
domains that fall between older disciplines, such as sociobiology and
biochemistry, and at extremes of prior capability, such as particle phys-
ics and cosmology. Extensification of interests has produced new areas
that draw together disciplines to model more complex phenomena, such
as concrete economic and public health problems (Fuller 1988: 285).
Disciplines also routinely experience the push of prolific fields and the
pull of strong new concepts and paradigms (Jantsch 1980: 306).
Invoking the metaphors of mapping and geography, Becher (1990)
highlights the variety of current forms and practices. The earth is com-
prised of many topographical patterns; cross-national connections; eco-
nomic, functional, and occupational similarities; and broad social and
cultural features. Their counterparts in knowledge territories include
basic characteristics (e.g., quantitative and qualitative, pure or applied),
shared theories or ideologies (e.g., catastrophe theory, Marxism), common
techniques (e.g., electron microscopy, computer modelling), and sociocul-
A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 17
tural characteristics (e.g., incidence of collaborative work, nature of com-
petition).
These forms and practices are not the result of a simple increase in
the number of activities - they also represent a change in kind. Special-
ization works against systematic integration by leading to greater frag-
mentation, but it also gives rise to a characteristic style of connection or
mutual interdependence that provides some sense of unity (Winter 1996:
6). Becher (1990) uses the analogy of a biological culture viewed under
a microscope. At close range, a discipline is a constantly changing 'ka-
leidoscope of smaller components,' varied in form but still related
through a general process of specialization. Individual cells are in a
'state of constant flux' - subdividing, recombining, and changing shape
and disposition. One of the salient features of subdisciplinary group-
ings is their relative lack of stability compared with parent disciplines.
Some sub-units even exhibit an 'anarchic tendency' to appear more
closely allied with counterparts in heartlands of other disciplines. These
groupings create 'counter-cultures' that may conflict with and even un-
dermine the parent disciplinary culture.
The current extent of boundary crossing at this level suggests that
specialty interactions may be more reliable indicators of interdiscipli-
nary activity than the emergence of new hybrid disciplines, even per-
haps of knowledge production in general (Lepenies 1978: 302; Dogan
and Pahre: 64). Academic subject labels are also strained. Traditional
labels may suffice for teaching but are less accurate for research or
faculty identity (Pinch 1990: 299). Palmer found that 'physics,' 'chemis-
try,' 'psychology,' and 'biology' were not meaningful knowledge do-
mains for researchers working in an interdisciplinary institute (1996:
207). To call someone a biologist doesn't tell much about what she/he
or her/his professional peers do (Bechtel 1986: 279). One biochemist
reported that her approach has become more integrative as her field
has grown more multidisciplinary on an international scale (Palmer
1996: 56). In one university, moreover, the subject area of 'biology' is
spread across thirteen discipline-based departments and seventeen in-
terdisciplinary programs (Clark 1995:142).
Disciplinary loyalties, Turner (this volume) rightly notes, undermine
interdisciplinary work. Yet, the pull of disciplinary careers is not so
strong as it used to be. Changes in the organization of scientific re-
search have weakened the monolithic character of departments. Disci-
plines have become decentralized into smaller units that exert day-to-
18 Julie Thompson Klein
day social control over what is studied and how. These units neither
certainly nor inevitably lie within conventionally defined boundaries.
Alternative sites - programs, centres, institutes, and laboratories - have
further weakened disciplinary control over subject definition, concep-
tual approaches, cognitive structures, goals, and norms (Whitley 1984:
12,18-20).
The view of disciplinary that emerges does not deny the value of
specialization, the inevitability of differentiation, the inertial strength of
institutionalized formations, or the regulative mechanisms that disci-
pline interdisciplinary work (Stocking and Leary 1986: 57; Calhoun 1992:
184). It does, though, dispute oversimplifications. Standard models stress
stability, predictability, autonomy, maturity, progress, unity, and con-
sensus (Salter and Hearn 1996). Discipline, however, is not a neat cat-
egory (Becher 1990: 335). Disciplines vary in the ways they structure
themselves, establish identities, maintain boundaries, regulate and re-
ward practitioners, manage consensus and dissent, and communicate
(Squires 1992: 203). Heterogeneous practices, hybrid activities, and in-
terdisciplinary fields have rendered disciplines fissured sites. Comprised
of multiple strata and influenced by other disciplines, a discipline is a
'shifting and fragile homeostatic system' that evolves and adapts to
changing environments (Heckhausen 1972: 83; Easton 1991: 13).
This view of disciplinarity also challenges the popular notion that a
successful interdisciplinary practice becomes 'just another discipline/
'Border interdisciplinarity,' 'interdisciplinarity of neighbouring disci-
plines/ 'borderland interdisciplinarity/ 'zone of interdependence/ and
'zone of proximal development' are names for high-level integration.
The reconstructive capacity of interdisciplinary research alters the ar-
chitectonics of knowledge by strengthening connections outside the dis-
cipline 'proper/ Connections weaken divisions of labour, expose gaps,
stimulate cross-fertilization, and fix new fields of focus. They also im-
ply new divisions of labour, redistribution of resources, realignment of
institutional structures, and redefinitions of epistemological and onto-
logical premises (Landau, Proshansky, and Ittelson 1961).
All hybrid disciplines are not the same, however. Interrelations may
be postulated between entities examined in one discipline and entities
in another. The conceptualization of genes as part of chromosomes linked
genetics to molecular biology. Or, two disciplines may become concep-
tually connected while retaining different but overlapping foci, prin-
ciples, or theories. Physics and chemistry were linked through the bridge
laws of thermodynamics. Or, one discipline may be absorbed into an-
A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 19
other, as astronomy was absorbed into physics. Or, two disciplines may
join into a more general discipline through translatability of their fun-
damental principles, as geometric and arithmetic sciences became uni-
fied into mathematical science (Paxson 1996).
Likewise, outcomes differ. Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary
field. At this point, however, it does not constitute a new discipline that
stands alongside artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, theoretical
linguistics, cognitive anthropology, and philosophy. Practitioners share
resources through interdisciplinary programs, societies, conferences, and
journals while remaining identified with their 'home' disciplines. A
psychologist working in the field is likely to hold an appointment in
psychology and belong to the American Psychological Association and
subscribe to its journals. Bechtel calls such affiliations 'cross-disciplin-
ary research clusters.' In contrast, molecular biology became a new 'way
of life' in biological research. Its 'technical fallout' exceeds and subverts
boundaries of existing biological disciplines (Rheinberger 1995: 175). In
cognitive science the central problem - what processes underlie cogni-
tion? - was already a topic of inquiry in the disciplines being bridged.
In cell biology, the task of explaining cell function in terms of cell struc-
tures was not a central task in contributing disciplines (Bechtel 1986:
295).
Hybrid disciplines are not handled uniformly, either. Biochemistry,
for example, is structured as an independent department, joined with a
department of biochemistry and biophysics, merged into a department
of physiology and chemistry, and organized by an interdisciplinary
committee composed of members of departments of biology and chem-
istry (Bechtel 1986: 16). The biological metaphor of a niche implies for-
mation of a new species, variation, or mutation. Survival is indeed tied
to the ability to create new niches. Not all interdisciplinary work, though,
results in a new niche. The speciation model, De Mey remarked (this
volume), is only a loose metaphor. It does not necessarily extend to all
levels of aggregation in science. The biological counterpart is an ecosys-
tem, not a single species. Yet, restricted speciations, such as De Mey's
example of spatial cognition, arise.
Most scientists working across disciplinary boundaries are not at-
tempting to achieve ontological simplification and unification (Bechtel
1986: 42-3). The redrawing of boundaries through 'ontological gerry-
mandering' is more typical (Woolgar and Pawluch 1984: 216; Fuller
1988: 197). Only partial spheres tend to be integrated, and convergence
often means tolerance, not a change of world-view (Hiibenthal 1994: 61;
20 Julie Thompson Klein
Falersweany 1995: 167). In a critique of general theories, Van der Steen
(1993) charges that selected case studies have been overemphasized
and limits to integration minimized. 'Peripheral integration' is more
common. The modern synthetic theory of evolution, for instance, does
not cover all disciplines that may pertain. Their generality resides in
terminology, not substantive unity. When concepts of taxis and kineses
in animal orientation carry a conceptual overload, the result is 'pseudo-
integration/ not unity. The concepts cannot account for a great diver-
sity of phenomena. Encompassing theories of evolution have a loose
structure. As integrative force moves outward from the core of evolu-
tionary biology, it becomes more peripheral. When used for a heteroge-
neous category of processes, selection and allied concepts become di-
luted notions that express a limited array of analogies.
Conceding overstatements, Burian (1993) insists the evidence is rep-
resentative of many cases. Coherence and integration are typically
achieved in middle-range norms that play a guiding role in long-term
treatment of biological problems. To recall Darden and Maull (1977),
theories in biology are typically interlevel. Innovations do not tend to
span whole disciplines or even major parts, but rather a few subfields
(Dogan and Pahre 1990: 13). Less formal higher-order norms operate at
a meta level or as rules of thumb. Middle-range theories are not wide-
ranging, but they are not mere summaries of data either. They are
midway between extremes. Schaffner cites two examples. Neurosciences
and biological theories are interlevel prototypes that embody causal
sequences; they are related through strong analogies. Interlevel models
are levels of aggregation; they contain component parts that are often
specific in intermingled organ, cellular, and biochemical terms (Schaffner
1993: 321).
The norm of unification has value. It improves the content of biologi-
cal knowledge and offers greater coherence of description and explana-
tion. The specificity of cases, though, means that different terminologies
do not map easily onto each other and may yield contradictions. None-
theless, they overlap in regard to entities, process, or mechanisms. Sig-
nificant change in disciplinary relations may take the form of a progres-
sive blurring and amalgamating of distinctions between mechanisms
and generalizations.
In sum, local sites and interlevel integration are prominent features
of interdisciplinary science. "The task of interdisciplinary research/
Hiibenthal cautions, 'is not to be solved with a global interdisciplinary
theory that cannot supply concrete directives for subject-overlapping
A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 21
research on a specific topic. It must be pursued within individual sci-
ences in daily usage' (1994: 55, 57). The level at which bridging or
integrating is attempted affects the kinds of problems that arise (Bechtel
1986: 7). Generalizations must be supplemented with details of specific
connections and more finely structured elements. The applicability of
integrationist ideals, the value of pursuing them, and their consequences
depend on a variety of local historical circumstances, including the power
of available techniques, the character of conceptual contacts between
pertinent disciplines, and current opportunities. In short, generality and
particularity coexist.
Landscaping Knowledge
Over the course of this century, metaphors of knowledge have shifted
from the static logic of a foundation and a structure to the dynamic
properties of a network, a web, a system, and a field. Perceptions of
academic reality, though, are still shaped by older forms and images.
Simplified views of the complex university only add to the problem of
operational realties that outrun old expectations, especially older defi-
nitions that depict one part or function of the university as its 'essence'
or 'essential mission' (Clark 1995: 154). Repeating the same metaphors,
Goldman (1995) cautions, impedes understanding of new knowledge
and relationships. Even the metaphor of levels, so pervasive in science,
presumes a hierarchy and a foundational logic at odds with images of
free-floating constructions and non-linear, non-vertical perspectives that
are multidimensional and multidirectional. A wider range of physical
and topological or architectural metaphors describes relations of ele-
ments that make up innovations and their contexts - dimensions, joints,
manifolds, points of connection, boundedness, overlaps, interconnec-
tions, interpenetrations, breaks, cracks, and handles (Clark 1995: 222-3).
Bechtel defines interdisciplinarity as an 'ongoing process for discov-
ery/ not an attempt to systematize what is known (1986: 43-4). The real
benefit, Salter and Hearn (1996) contend, is not necessarily in subject
matter or new journals and publications. Interdisciplinarity is a set of
dynamic forces for rejuvenation and regeneration, pressures for change,
and the capacity for responsiveness. It is the necessary 'churn' in the
system. Interdisciplinarity entails knowledge negotiation and new mean-
ings, not one more stage in 'normal' science. There is a danger, though,
in perceiving interdisciplinarity and innovation at the single moment of
inception, as isolated events. They continue throughout the circulation,
22 Julie Thompson Klein
diffusion, elaboration, revision, modification, and appropriation of new
ideas, and their incorporation into intellectual and social life. Social
practices and their material bases generate openings for ideas that lead
to development of newer practices that help, in turn, to institutionalize
new ideas (Goldman 1995: 212).
Interdisciplinary cognition, Paulson (1991) proposed, lies in the at-
tempt to construct meaning out of what initially seems to be noise. The
idea of self-organization from noise emanates from information theory.
When there is noise in an electronic channel during transmission, the
information received is diminished by the ambiguity of the message.
The message received is neither pure nor simple. Importing terms and
concepts from other disciplines creates a kind of noise in the knowledge
system. Perceived as unwanted noise in one context, variety and inter-
ference become information in a new or reorganized context. New mean-
ing is constructed out of what first appears to be noise as the exchange
of codes and information across boundaries is occurring, whether the
activity is borrowing, solving technical problems, developing hybrid
interests, or disrupting and restructuring traditional practices.
The metaphor of noise acknowledges the roles of disequilibrium and
complexity. The subtle subversion of meanings introduced by the im-
proper creates a space for mobile, shifting meanings, the exchange of
meaning among different discourses, and new positions and practices
(deCerteau 1984; cited in Bono 1995: 132). The starting point of inter-
disciplinarity, Roland Barthes declared, is an 'unease in classification.'
From there a 'certain mutation' may be detected. It must not be overes-
timated, however: 'It is more in the nature of an epistemological slide
than a break' (Barthes 1977: 155). Noise, Paulson explains, is a signal:
'What appears to be a perturbation in a given system, turns out to be
the intersection of a new system with the first/ What is extra-systemic
at one level may be an index of another level, another system with a
new kind of coding (1991: 44, 49). Interdisciplinarity implies idiosyn-
crasy, but novel work can create a new common wisdom (Bazerman
1995: 195).
The analogy to postmodernism is striking. Heightened boundary cross-
ing in knowledge is paralleled by widespread crossing of national, po-
litical, and cultural boundaries. A central feature of this process is re-
versal of the differentiating, classificatory dynamic of modernity and
increasing hybridization of cultural categories, identities, and previous
certainties. New forms of interdependence and cooperation call atten-
tion to a worldwide changing cultural configuration that places all cul-
A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science 23
tural categories and boundaries at risk (Bernstein 1991; Muller and Tay-
lor 1995: 258). Contests of legitimacy over jurisdiction, systems of de-
marcation, and regulative and sanctioning mechanisms continue. Yet,
boundaries are characterized by ongoing tensions of permanency and
passage. Intersecting pressures created by new corporate research mod-
els have not simply blurred organizational boundaries - they represent
a new phase in the relation between knowledge and society. Turpin
and Hill (1995) acknowledge the link between post-modernism and the
apparent paradox of a global sea change coexisting with heightened
local conditions of knowledge production and personal relations. In
this instance, relational and articulational dimensions, border-crossing,
seepage, and hybridity take on heightened roles. If framed only in terms
of instrumental discourse, however, the critical function of epistemo-
logical discourse is absent.
The implications for knowledge studies are striking. Once framed by
questions of epistemology, knowledge studies today are defined by
intersections of individuals from an eclectic assortment of fields such as
philosophy, sociology, education, English, cultural studies, political sci-
ence, economics, and anthropology (Pahre 1995: 242). Some approaches,
Harvey Goldman explains, denote a deep structure of intellectual or
linguistic enterprise, such as episteme, discursive formation, mental
equipment, paradigm, disciplinary matrix, generative grammar, and lan-
guage games. Other approaches illuminate the structure of practices,
institutions, and relations, such as field, complex of power/knowledge,
regime of truth, invisible college, exemplar, network, system, and grid.
Others yet point to a broad social and collective mental foundation of
mentalite, habitus, cultural unconscious, hegemony, and culture. These
and other tools are being brought to bear on a fuller conception of
interests, histories, structures, and relations that account for production
of knowledge that goes beyond reproduction of the conventional
(Goldman 1995: 213, 221).
The next step in interdisciplinary science is already under way. Burian
forsees the next decade of work in biology addressing difficult ques-
tions .regarding the matching of tools, organisms, institutions, and con-
ceptual frameworks required to solve major problems (Burian 1993:
311). The task for philosophers of science is to specify conditions that
promote integration and to formulate criteria to evaluate integrations
(Ven der Steen 1993: 222-3). There is no universal interdisciplinary lan-
guage. Even powerful cross-fertilizing languages, such as mathematics
and general systems, have limits. Interdisciplinary work requires the
24 Julie Thompson Klein
creation of what Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth (this volume) call
'horizontal communication' within an 'interdisciplinary/integrated cul-
ture/ A working language emerges through the negotiation of mean-
ings. The dynamics of negotiation are captured in Hollingsworth and
Hollingsworth's notion of triangulating depth, diversity, and tensions,
and in Rainer Bromme's triangulation of diversity, difference, and ten-
sion (this volume). The resulting 'common ground' is not an artificial
unity that eschews differences. The boundary between disciplinarity
and interdisciplinary 'flows/ Bromme's image, depends on difference.
Greater interest in the exigencies that move people to traverse disci-
plinary domains and practices does not mean that calls for a general
practice of interdisciplinarity will cease. The two are not necessarily
contradictory. A general crisis could be expressed in what appears to be
many local crises (Bazerman 1995:193). Declarations by scientists about
the desirability of interdisciplinary research, Weingart cautions in this
volume, can no more be taken at face value than normative appeals will
change scientists' attitudes. Neither can knee-jerk dismissals. One of
Scerri's interviewees proclaimed there is no 'real interdis-ciplinarity.' It
is a bogus argument. Proponents overstate the extent, opponents un-
derstate it.
Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical
Discourse
PETER WEING ART
The Apparent Contradiction
As far back as 1969, at the height of the student revolt and reform
euphoria in higher education, Norman Birnbaum observed: Tor years
an official critique of the division of the world of learning into disci-
plines has accompanied the growth of ever more rigid compartments of
the mind. The very men who as scholars, teachers, and administrators
perpetuate the academic division of labor argue persuasively that it is
nonsense/ He then went on to comment on the student critique of the
scope and direction of scholarship, which he thought 'mirrored, in dis-
torted fashion, the crisis of the disciplines ...' (Birnbaum 1986 [1969]:
53).
At the end of the 1960s and into the 1970s, a time of planning eupho-
ria, of technology gaps and forecasting, 'interdisciplinarity' and deriva-
tives such as 'pluridisciplinarity' or 'transdisciplinarity' were traded as
panaceas of higher education reform. Few if any tracts attained the
sophistication of the OECD/CERI's volume, Interdisciplinarity (1972, ed-
ited by a committee composed of Leo Apostel, Guy Berger, Asa Briggs,
and Guy Michaud), in which Erich Jantsch published his seminal study
of interdisciplinarity in research and education. A decade and a half
later, the OECD took another look, Interdisciplinarity Revisited, in which
it observed that its first effort had had little impact. The verdict was
that the concept of interdisciplinarity had lost its momentum; the de-
partments and faculties as the main organizational structures of the
university had not only survived but apparently had been strengthened
(Levin and Lind 1985: 9).
2
26 Peter Weingart
Another decade later Gibbons et al. (1994) diagnose the emergence of
a new mode of knowledge production that they term 'Mode 2.' Knowl-
edge production in this mode is no longer limited to universities but is
taking place in many types of institutions. Its main feature is
'transdisciplinarity': Problem contexts or contexts of application, rather
than disciplines, are the crucial frames of reference for both continua-
tion and validation of research. Disciplines are losing their function of
orientation and control. Knowledge production in Mode 2 is organized
in highly flexible and transient forms of organization. These are the
institutional counterparts of the temporary and opportunistic clusterings
and configurations of knowledge driven by the exigencies of the con-
texts of application rather than by aspirations to the discovery of natu-
ral laws and ultimate theories (Gibbons et al. 1994: 3-44).
These are but three examples of an apparent contradiction from a
discourse that has evolved over a span of at least thirty years. One
could find hundreds more, all revealing the same contradictory pattern:
interdisciplinarity (or transdisciplinarity and similar derivatives) is pro-
claimed, demanded, hailed, and written into funding programs, but at
the same time specialization in science goes on unhampered, reflected
in the continuous complaint about it. How is it possible that, in the face
of all available evidence to the contrary and very little reason for hope,
the discourse on interdisciplinarity can persist?
Robert Merton's (1973 [1963]) analysis of another contradiction en-
demic to scientists' behaviour comes to mind: the contradiction between
their zealous race for priority and their (mostly autobiographical) re-
nunciation of self-interest in fame and glory. His conclusion in the study
of the ambivalence of scientists: The stronger the denial of interest in
priority, the greater that interest actually is. In similar fashion one may
approach this contradiction: What is the underlying rationale for
the positive valuation of interdisciplinarity in the face of its constant
violation?
The thesis is that, on the social-psychological level, the values of univer-
salism and organized scepticism suggest openness to all relevant knowl-
edge, whether supportive or contradictory, as crucial to innovativeness
(i.e., the highest value in scientific activity). This translates into 'in-
terdisciplinarity' as a programmatic value tantamount to innovation. It
is another example of Merton's theory on the ambivalence of scientists
because the actual activity of knowledge production contradicts this
squarely. The prevailing strategy is to look for niches in uncharted
territory, to avoid contradicting knowledge by insisting on disciplinary
Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse 27
competence and its boundaries, to denounce knowledge that does not
fall into this realm as 'undisciplined.' Thus, in the process of research,
new and ever finer structures are constantly created as a result of this
behaviour. This is (exceptions notwithstanding) the very essence of the
innovation process, but it takes place primarily within disciplines, and
it is judged by disciplinary criteria of validation.
The same reasons account for the fact that interdisciplinarity is also
prominent in the rhetoric of organizational innovation in science. Here
the programmatic pronouncements of 'interdisciplinarity' and its iden-
tification with innovation contrast with very vague mechanisms, if any,
of implementation. In other words, a very similar pattern can be ob-
served in the science policy arena to that in the scientific community.
Since science policy makers cannot be assumed to have the same psy-
chological dispositions or interests as scientists, their reasons must be
different.
Yet, the answer to why the discourse continues in spite of the fact
that the reality to which it refers is so much different must be different
again. I will attempt to give it at the end.
I will first look at the discursive juxtaposition of 'disciplinary' organi-
zation of knowledge production and interdisciplinarity, largely relying
on examples collected by authors writing on interdisciplinarity. (I can-
not represent the discourse but can give only illustrations. By focusing
on writings that praise interdisciplinarity that side is privileged, while
the opposite position appears mostly in response to it. This does not
seem to be a misrepresentation, though, because innovation by disci-
plinary research is the 'normal' case and not an issue of debate.) Second,
I present some examples of proclaimed organization of interdisciplinarity
in order to identify operationalizations of that goal. In the final section I
will argue that the positive estimation of interdisciplinarity that is coex-
tensive with that of innovation cannot have direct organizational corre-
lates but at best indirect ones. Thus, the apparent contradiction is solved
by pointing to the implicit function of the call for interdisciplinarity as
well as the reason for the apparently paradoxical continuation of the
discourse.
Elements of the Discourse on Interdisciplinarity
Julie Klein refers to the 'inevitable paradox when talking about inter-
disciplinarity': Since we are predisposed to classify and categorize, we
are predisposed to think in terms of disciplines (Klein Thompson 1990:
28 Peter Weingart
77). This predisposition, she claims, has created some metaphoric struc-
tures in the discourse. On the basis of her collection the most obvious
structural concept delineating disciplines is geographical or geopoliti-
cal. Knowledge is pictured as territorial; we speak of research areas or
fields, partitioned into disciplines that are separated from one another
by 'boundaries' (Weingart 1995; Klein Thompson 1996).
Viewed from the side of writings on interdisciplinarity, disciplines
are characterized pejoratively in terms of rule, defence, and attack: 'pri-
vate property' with 'no trespassing notices,' 'empire,' 'territory,'
'balkanized region of research principalities/ 'feudalized fiefdoms/ 'bas-
tions of medieval autonomy/ 'academic nationalism/ 'jealously pro-
tected' (all examples and references in Klein Thompson [1983] 1986: 91).
Now notice the contrast when the focus shifts to interdisciplinarity:
ventures to the 'borderlands/ to the 'frontiers' of knowledge, 'breach-
ing' boundaries, crossing 'no man's land' between the disciplines, 'cross
cultural exploration/ driven by 'cutting-edge questions' are taken to be
threats to the status quo. Interdisciplinary research is seen as 'alien
intrusion' that if successful can establish 'enclaves/ and so on (Klein
Thompson [1983] 1986: 91; 1990: 77).
There are other categories that characterize the discourse on inter-
disciplinarity: the organic metaphor, images of diffusion and extension,
of centripetal and centrifugal forces (cf. Klein Thompson 1990: 82-84).
But they are used to describe the structure of disciplines in relation to
one another, their differences, their relation to 'nature/ and their dy-
namics. Although systematic analysis of these metaphors would prob-
ably reveal interesting features of the discourse, too, I will leave them
aside.
So far, in presenting the images of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity
I have sided with the explorers. What about those who stay home?
What are their reasons for remaining behind? In other words, there is a
reverse side of valuations of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity that
throws a quite different light on the two positions. Interestingly enough
it is much more difficult to find examples of positive connotations to
discipline in science, and likewise collections of metaphors. 'Discipline'
is entered in Webster's New World Dictionary as (1) 'a branch of knowl-
edge or learning; (2) training that develops self-control, character, or
orderliness and efficiency ... (4) acceptance of or submission to author-
ity and control.' The positive valuation of discipline in science is tied to
self-control as a crucial character trait needed for good work. There will
be little doubt that orderliness and efficiency have their positive func-
Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse 29
tions. A typical reaction to interdisciplinarity is to insist on disciplinary
competence as a prerequisite (cf. Mittelstrass 1987: 154). From this per-
spective interdisciplinarity is a slightly suspicious endeavour, too soft
for real tough minds. Discipline signals methodological rigour, drilling
deep, exactness. Klein also notes: 'When tied to the detection of error
and the value of an epistemic community for testing new work, "disci-
pline" has an undeniably positive value' (Klein Thompson [1983] 1986:
86).
Both interdisciplinarity and disciplinarity are, thus, given positive
valuations for different functions: innovation on the one hand and rigour
and control for error on the other. Both are plausible valuations with
respect to the operation of the research process in spite of their appar-
ent contradiction, and both are crucially important. They are comple-
mentary rather than contradictory. No new discovery is made without
a frame of mind that allows one to distinguish between new and old,
and relevant and irrelevant, and to record and remember.
The crucial feature of the discourse that interests us here is the polar-
ized structure: Disciplines carry the connotation of and are valued (!) as
being static, rigid, conservative, and averse to innovation. Inter-
disciplinarity carries the connotation of and is valued as being dynamic,
flexible, liberal, and innovative. But then there is the reverse view: dis-
ciplines are hard, they stand for tough-mindedness, (necessary) order,
and control, all features deemed to be prerequisites of progress and
innovation. From this vantage point interdiscipinarity is suspicious of
vagueness and lack of rigidity. Without pursuing it further it is obvious
that the same polarity underlies the valuation of specialization (nega-
tive) and integration (positive). Examples of the complaint about the
specialization of knowledge production in view of 'the whole' of the
'world' or 'truth' are countless. The disenchantment with the 'diffrac-
tion of truth' ('Zersplitterung der Wahrheit,' C.F. v. Weizsacker) relates to
the disappointment of the deep-seated religious anticipation that the
quest for knowledge would result in revelation. The religious motives
have disappeared from knowledge production. Only an abstract conno-
tation of an inadequate fit between a fractured organization of knowl-
edge and its needed integration or restructuring in order to 'match' and
come to grips with the 'real problems' remains (Mittelstrass quotes en-
vironment, energy, and technology assessment as examples. Mittelstrass
1987: 155). Implicit in this is, again, the notion that the disciplines do
not keep up with rapid developments in modern societies. The map of
knowledge, in a sense, is always outdated.
30 Peter Weingart
This points to another aspect of the same discourse: Behind the posi-
tive valuation of interdisciplinary lies an implicit and crude theory
about innovativeness in science. Heisenberg pointed out that narrow
and conscientious specialism can no longer play a leading role. Instead,
scientists in physics, chemistry, and biology are forced to look across
the boundaries into the neighbouring disciplines in order to make real
progress. Schelsky, sociologist and architect of a centre of interdiscipli-
nary research, claimed that the greatest chance of success in science lies
in the cooperation of several, even distant, disciplines. Norbert Wiener
considered those areas most fruitful for the flourishing of science that
are neglected in the no man's land between the disciplines. Heisenberg
generalized this implicit theory about scientific progress to the thesis
that the most fruitful developments in the history of human thought
arose where two different kinds of thinking have met (all citations in
Hiibenthal 1991: 3-5). And Mittelstrass stressed that interdisciplinarity
has to begin in one's own head, asking questions no one has asked
before, to learn what the discipline itself does not know (Mittelstrass
1987: 157).
The discourse on interdisciplinarity is, in effect, a discourse on inno-
vation in knowledge production. Since science is ruled by the primacy
of 'novelty' it is a non sequitur that all knowledge that has already been
codified and given a social organization is looked upon as past achieve-
ment, as superseded, and as constraining the search for new knowl-
edge. The hope is in the future, but the future is unknown, without
structure. This hope is perennial, part and parcel of the research en-
deavour that endures in spite of the continuous sedimentation of knowl-
edge into disciplinary structures.
This may explain to some extent the positive emphasis placed on
interdisciplinarity in the face of ongoing differentiation and specializa-
tion. In fact, it reveals the seemingly paradoxical mechanism that the
more differentiation of knowledge production the more intense will be
the call for interdisciplinarity. The communal experience is one of an
ever-expanding structured landscape of knowledge of which, from the
perspective of every individual, only a constantly shrinking part is
known to anyone. This fundamental frustration finds its consolation
only, to return to our original metaphor, in visions of a yet uncharted,
unclaimed, pristine territory where one can still roam freely without
fear of transgressions, border controls, and conflicts over claim stakes
and water rights.
Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse 31
But this still does not explain why interdisciplinarity and disciplinarity
are seen as contradictory, and why not only on the level of public
discourse but also on the level of individual motivation in terms of
proclamations and actions the two orientations are kept independent
from one another. Is it accidental that there is a substantial body of
literature on interdisciplinarity but that the large majority of titles are
normative and speculative (cf. the enormous bibliography by Klein
Thompson 1990; Schurz, 1995: 1080)? Or is it accidental that scientists
when asked seldom consider themselves a 'typical' representative of
their own discipline but perceive their colleagues as being so (Schurz
1995: 1082)?
One explanation of the seemingly paradoxical discourse and the un-
derlying behaviour of scientists may be seen in the same pattern that
R.K. Merton has analysed as the ambivalence of scientists. He diag-
nosed an apparent contradiction between the values of originality and
modesty as the psychological basis of the contradictory attitudes to-
wards priority disputes (Merton 1973: 383). The same pattern is repro-
duced with respect to attitudes towards disciplinarity and inter-
disciplinarity: Public pronouncements of scientists will regularly reflect
an openness towards interdisciplinary research, since it is concurrent
with the value of originality. And they will, conversely, contain denials
of 'discipline-mindedness' except in connection with efforts to secure
innovations. On the other hand, identification with the discipline and
adherence to its rules, standards, and orthodoxies are declared charac-
teristics of the 'other.' And, true to the mechanism of projection, one
can hypothesize that the more pronounced the declarations of 'open-
ness/ the stronger the disciplinary rigidity, i.e., pursuit of specialized
research interests, niche seeking, boundary demarcating, etc. Attitudes
vis-a-vis interdisciplinarity are one expression of the 'Essential Tension'
in science, the conflict between change and tradition (Kuhn 1977). Kuhn's
characterization of 'normal' science and scientific revolutions taken as
part of the discourse on innovation in science also reflects the polarity
and the ambivalent valuations to some extent. Thus, on the level of the
normative and descriptive discourse that pertains to the behaviour of
scientists, the apparent contradiction between demands for inter-
disciplinarity and the reality of specialization may be resolved.
If the preceding analysis is correct the entire debate on inter-
disciplinarity would have to be seen in a different light. Declarations by
scientists about the desirability of interdisciplinary research cannot be
32 Peter Weingart
taken at face value, nor can it be expected that normative appeals
will change scientists' attitudes. At their basis is an amalgam of social-
psychological motives and expectations. One could also regard this as
opportunism in the search for novelty checked by standards of control
and competence. The whole issue of interdisciplinarity must then be
shifted to the organizational level, and the question becomes one of
how the behaviour in question can be influenced in such a way that
interdisciplinary research is enhanced.
Organizational Representations of Interdisciplinarity
Before suggesting an answer I briefly want to look at another part of the
discourse on interdisciplinarity, namely at proclamations of
interdisciplinarity as a type of research organization. On this level, too,
the question is how these proclamations relate to the organizational
reality. How is interdisciplinarity introduced as an organizational fea-
ture? How do institutions that claim to be interdisciplinary organize
this research? Because of familiarity I will look at examples of German
funding agencies and research institutions only.
The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, or DFG (German National
Science Foundation) entertains a number of funding programs that are
designed to accumulate, combine, and coordinate research proposals
from individual scientists under an umbrella theme. The two principal
programs are the Schwerpunktverfahren (SPPs, or focal point funding)
and the Sonderforschungsbereiche (SFBs, or priority research areas). In
the case of the former one of the declared goals and criterion of selec-
tion is the 'creation of fruitful, new mutual relationships between hith-
erto separately working disciplines ...' In the case of the SFBs the DFG
simply states that they are 'characterized by cooperation beyond the
boundaries of disciplines, institutes, departments and faculties' (DFG
1996: 202). No further rules and regulations are spelled out that would
operationalize the interdisciplinarity implicit in these goals. Anybody
who has experience working under one of the funding schemes knows
that, apart from a few exceptions, at least no systematic effort is made to
establish and monitor the degree of interdisciplinarity. To my knowl-
edge, no systematic data exist about the success of these programs with
respect to interdisciplinary research. At a conference, an inside expert
reported that according to his informal estimate only up to 20 per cent
of the projects in the SPPs and SFBs were interdisciplinary, while that
rate was considerably higher in the standard funding program that
Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse 33
is supposedly disciplinary and has no programmatic orientation
whatsoever.
The Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung, or BMBF (Sci-
ence Ministry) has two funding programs that are similarly of relevance
to our theme: the so-called Innovationskollegs, which are again groups
of researchers that work under one theme, coordinated by a university
professor, and the Interdisciplinary Centers for Clinical Research in Uni-
versity Hospitals. The first program is designed to help the universities
in former East Germany to reform, and to secure their future through
'competitiveness, internationality and inter-university research coop-
eration as well as interdisciplinarity' (BMBF 1996).
As is typical for funding programs there is no detailed prescriptive
catalogue of criteria defining either interdisciplinarity or the procedures
for how to achieve it. The project descriptions, which are always self-
accounts of the research group coordinators, use a variety of defini-
tions, many of which are implicit. In some cases they refer to specialties
within one discipline (biology), in others to fields of very diverse breadth
(molecular biology, genetic engineering, neuromorphology, neurophysi-
ology, neurochemistry, neuropharmacology), in still others to organiza-
tional entities (three faculties and ten different disciplines). In all cases
the research projects are highly specialized, and although there is ap-
parently no consensus about what 'discipline' and 'interdisciplinarity'
mean, the latter term is used liberally.
One reading is that interdisciplinarity serves the opportunism of pro-
posal writing; the other that, indeed, a reality is being described, the
main feature of which is a problem-specific and problem-driven combi-
nation of stocks of knowledge. Here again opportunism rules, oppor-
tunism of the moment that is oriented to innovation, not to conserva-
tion and control, let alone to unification.
In the second program the Science Ministry supports Interdiscipli-
nary Centers for Clinical Research in University Hospitals. The main
goal is to establish 'efficient structures for clinical research on a
transdisciplinary level' and to enable universities to develop a specific
research profile. The expectation is that the program allows them to
design 'innovative and efficient management structures for clinical re-
search.' It is hoped that the 'scientific concept of the centers transgress-
ing departments, subjects and possibly faculties' will lead to a truly
interdisciplinary cooperation. One means to achieve that is an organiza-
tional structure that reflects intellectual themes and projects rather than
existing structures of departments, clinics, and institutes. The universi-
34 Peter Weingart
ties are free to devise the interface between clinics and non-clinical
institutes, but their proposals should make clear 'in what ways the
exchange between clinic and science is supposed to work' (BMBF 1996).
Here, again, 'interdisciplinarity' remains a purely formal label that is
mostly an organizational principle: to organize research across existing
boundaries of institutes and departments. How superficial with respect
to the contents of research these declarations are, but at the same time
how politically useful, is demonstrated by a remark of the science min-
ister in 1997. Interviewed about the future role of the troubled big sci-
ence laboratories he said: 'I don't like the term big science ["Gross-
forschung"]. They [the centers] should be called "Centers for Interdisci-
plinary Research"' (Interview with Minister Jiirgen Ruttgers, Die Zeit 8,
14 February 1997). In due course they were relabelled accordingly.
As far as the real centres for interdisciplinary research are concerned
I will elaborate on just three particular Institutes for Advanced Study
explicitly devoted to interdisciplinary research.
CAESAR, the new Center for Advanced European Studies and Re-
search, is supposed to concentrate on research at the interfaces between
physics, chemistry, biology, and information sciences. The idea is that
interdisciplinary topics will be chosen that fall into this broadly de-
scribed area and that are not already worked on in existing institutions.
In fact, the search for research topics focuses on existing fields, on re-
search frontiers. The implicit mechanism of innovation is to identify
highly specialized areas of research that are a combination of different
disciplines. However, the descriptive level of the research areas is much
more specific than that of the disciplines to which parts of them can be
attributed. In other words, very little is being said about a particular
mechanism that creates - organizationally - interdisciplinarity, but the
issue is the selection of research themes that are innovative and are
assumed to be interdisciplinary.
Another project well under way is the Hanse-Kolleg. Also shaped
after other centres for advanced study, it is supposed to 'improve coop-
eration between subject fields by means of intensive discussion of
overarching aspects' (Bremische Biirgerschaft 1995: 2). The authors of
the founding charter have reflected on the ways the Institutes for Ad-
vanced Study operate and how in relation to them the Hanse-Kolleg is
to achieve its goals. As they see it, all of the Institutes rely primarily on
the 'productivity of a spontaneous scientific exchange of first rank sci-
entists of different disciplines, theoretical orientation and nationality.'
The Kolleg should set annually two to three 'relatively open and prefer-
Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse 35
ably interdisciplinary themes that link up with qualitatively important
research foci already existing at the universities.' They envisage the
Hanse-Kolleg as steering a middle course between the more liberal,
Humboldtian idea of convening a number of outstanding scientists, no
matter of which disciplinary denomination and methodological orienta-
tion, to pursue their inspirations, and the University of Bielefeld's Cen-
ter for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) with its supposedly more plan-
ning oriented concept (Blanke and Preuss 1994: 12).
This leads to the most prominent example of an institution that is
directed explicitly and exclusively to interdisciplinary research: the Cen-
ter for Interdisciplinary Research (Zentrum fur interdisziplinare
Forschung, or ZiF) at the University of Bielefeld. Here the original ratio-
nale for setting up the institute was connected with the concept of a
university and the diagnosis of its pitfalls (Schelsky 1971). But this diag-
nosis also focused on what was perceived to be an obstacle to the
innovativeness of the university as the central institution of knowledge
production and diffusion. The ZiF, too, was commissioned to 'initiate
and promote interdisciplinary research.' The only organizational speci-
fication for this mission was (and still is) that research groups be set up
for the duration of one academic year working on a particular topic.
After thirty years of operation, obviously, a work routine has been
developed in which the very formal mandate has been put into prac-
tice. Also, a certain amount of reflection on this practice, though by no
means systematic and continuous, has taken place (cf. Kocka 1987;
Maasen, this volume). The surprising (?) point is that nowhere in the
statutes nor in any procedural rules is there any codified definition of
'interdisciplinarity,' nor a list of criteria on which the selection of the
research groups could be based. Each board of directors, whose mem-
bers are rotated, decides on the basis of its intuitions and past practice
as it evolves. Since so far the boards have abstained almost entirely
from pursuing an active research policy role, that is, scanning the re-
search landscape for interesting, problematic, promising, or untoiled
areas where interdisciplinary projects could be established, they rely on
whatever themes are suggested to them by scholars from outside. In a
sense, the institute serves as a shell, an organizational environment that
is attractive to scholars who want to carry out a particular research
whose interdisciplinarity they determine for themselves. (Ironically, both
the CAESAR and the Hanse-Kolleg blueprints provide for a theme-
setting function for their directors while claiming more liberality and
flexibility than the ZiF.)
36 Peter Weingart
Several conclusions can be drawn from these examples of inter-
disciplinarity as an organizational principle. Not surprisingly one finds
the same positive association of interdisciplinarity with innovativeness.
But whenever the organizational mechanism is specified for how to
achieve interdisciplinarity, two common concepts become apparent. First,
on a formal level of description, the innovative function of
interdisciplinarity is achieved by combining disciplinary aspects, bridg-
ing gaps, crossing boundaries, and synthesizing differences. Evolution-
arily minded observers may think of a variation/selection mechanism.
Second, the choice of interdisciplinary problems inevitably leads to highly
specialized research topics. One could describe this organizational dis-
course as having two layers: on the descriptive level, interdisciplinarity
is tantamount to innovation and means the synthesis or combination of
different fields; on the operational level, interdisciplinarity means dif-
ferentiation, the definition of specialized topics between fields.
The fact that synthesis and differentiation exist side by side in the
organization of innovative research may seem paradoxical, but in fact it
is not. In conclusion I will argue that it cannot be otherwise.
The Unity of Interdisciplinarity and Specialization
Among the various accounts of new modes of knowledge production
or 'post-normal science' one finds a common topos: claims of inter- or
transdisciplinary forms of research are supported by moral enthusiasm.
It is indicative that the authors of the transdisciplinarity, post-normal,
post-modern, and Mode 2 schemes are oscillating between empirical
and normative statements; for example, Funtowicz and Ravetz speak of
their 'model for scientific knowledge,' and the 'philosophical core of
our programme' (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993: 121). The supposedly
new forms of science are hailed because they seem more democratic
and participatory than the rigid organization of elitist, narrow-minded
disciplines (cf. Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993: esp. 110). In this respect the
post-normal and new modes of science resound the same theme that
triggered the debate on interdisciplinarity at the end of the 1960s in
connection with the issue of higher education reform (Jantsch 1972),
and whose deeper roots are in the never-ending dispute over the merits
of practical reason versus the universal claims to truth of the math-
ematical sciences, over excellence versus relevance (Toulmin 1990: esp.
ch. 5). The normative impetus supports the structural argument that
also repeats the old tune: 'new/ post-modern, transdisciplinary, or in-
Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse 37
terdisciplinary forms of science are said to emerge from taking account
of a context of application. This entails a participatory role of non-
scientists who are involved in producing and even validating the knowl-
edge as users or stakeholders (Funtowicz and Ravetz: 1993; Gibbons et
al. 1994: 3-16). Both conditions define the 'systems' under consider-
ation as 'more complex/ which, in turn, calls for more encompassing
organizational or guiding principles of producing knowledge. Another
way of saying this is that the self-referential mode of knowledge pro-
duction is inadequate to represent the real world, that the structure of
disciplines is too simple to deal with its complexity, and that in order to
correct this 'misfit' it is to be supplemented if not replaced by interdis-
ciplinary organizations of knowledge production.
Behind these pronouncements of inter- and transdisciplinarity is a
specific model of knowledge that, despite all declared modernity, is
tied to an old-fashioned realist epistemology. The model presupposes
the distinction between an 'outer world' on the one hand and human
knowledge production that slowly accumulates a growing stock of
knowledge on the other. The seemingly modern turn is introduced,
first, by postulating the misfit between the structures of knowledge and
the structure of 'real world problems/ and, second, by demoting the
wardens of disciplinary structures in favour of reinstating everyday
practitioners to oversee knowledge production.
This model itself is the dominant one in scientific practice and its
descriptions, and the model is shared on both sides, that is, by propo-
nents and critics alike. Both overlook an empirical fact as well as a
systematic argument, and consequently do not draw the necessary epis-
temological conclusion. The empirical fact is that the 'real problems' are
constituted by existing knowledge and its gatekeepers. Several mecha-
nisms interact. The chief mechanism can be called 'scientification.' Ar-
eas of hitherto unreflected social practice become subject matters of
systematic scientific analysis, often, in conjunction with profession-
alization: political science, sexology, criminology, public health, and
environmental engineering are pertinent examples. A derivative mecha-
nism, on a lower level of generality, is that governments establish fund-
ing programs that involve the combination and rearrangement of the
disciplinary landscape in order to achieve a tighter problem orientation
and perhaps also a more convincing public image of their science policy.
The most pertinent recent example is climate research. The establish-
ment of such overarching 'interdisciplines' is primarily driven by politi-
cal goals and needs of legitimation. In most if not all cases these pro-
38 Peter Weingart
grams are initiated by the scientific community in the first place, or at
least they are the result of negotiations between scientists and policy
makers. Under conditions of scarce resources and pressures of legitima-
tion scientists will invent problem definitions and labels that appeal to
the public and its representatives. The scientists relabel their research
projects in order to 'fit in/ The analysis of the early phases of environ-
mental research clearly revealed this (Kiippers, Lundgreen, and Weingart
1978). Enhanced media sensitivity and policy orientation, above all in
the natural sciences, has intensified this pattern. The prediction may be
ventured that in the future the landscape of scientific knowledge will be
characterized to a greater extent than before by the fashions of the
political agenda, a development that is already apparent in the different
kinds of representation of science in self-descriptions of disciplines and
in funding programs (Weingart, Sehringer, and Winterhager 1990). Very
little is known about the repercussions of these developments on sci-
ence proper: in what time spans and to what degree does science be-
come captured by the institutionalization of labels that are supposed to
reorient research to real problems? But the social scientist observing
these processes must be warned not to take the rhetoric of competing
exaggerations at face value.
The systematic argument disregarded by proponents of the realist
model of knowledge production concerns the role of 'structure/ The
delineation of subject matters around which disciplines are organized is
obviously variable over time. And, by consequence, so is the overall
structure of the landscape of knowledge. Different historical circum-
stances may be responsible for the content of these structures, but struc-
ture there will be and has to be. Structures of knowledge production
like any others reflect the fundamental distinctions, ordering cat-
egories, and social representations that are necessary to maintain the
activity, to give it direction for the future by providing the memory of
past achievements. Without such a structure that is by definition differ-
ent from the unstructured world around us there could be no such
thing as knowledge.
Even if various specialties of the biological, chemical, and physical
sciences are combined to form a new research field called 'environmen-
tal science' that responds 'more adequately' to the exigencies of envi-
ronmental problems, this new interdisciplinary delineation will also
have its particular blind spots. It will be a misfit with respect to prob-
lems other than the destruction of the environment. To put it simply,
every structure is selective. The difference between a disciplinary struc-
Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse 39
ture and a supposedly interdisciplinary one is not a mystical proximity
or a better fit to 'reality' of the latter but lies in the reasons and circum-
stances by which these structures are constituted.
From both the empirical fact and the systematic argument follows a
different model of knowledge production than the one underlying nor-
mative demands for interdisciplinarity. Instead of assuming a disciplin-
ary structure that has to be adapted to the structure of the real world by
approximation, it has to be recognized that the structure of knowledge,
and the delineation of disciplines and their subject matters constitute
perceptions of the world. The structures are by no means fixed and
irreplacable, but they are social constructs, products of long and com-
plex social interactions, subject to social processes that involve vested
interests, argumentation, modes of conviction, and differential percep-
tions and communications. 'Misfit' and approximation are issues within
social processes and not between them and another world.
What follows from this both for the structure of the discourse on
interdisciplinarity and for its continuation? Interdisciplinarity may best
be described as a result of opportunism in knowledge production. This
opportunism occurs on two sides: Scientists seize opportunities to ac-
quire knowledge and resources as a means to produce new knowledge;
users of knowledge (policy makers, industrialists, etc.) seize opportuni-
ties to acquire knowledge by providing resources either for any knowl-
edge betting on indirect benefits or for the solution of particular prob-
lems. In the first case (academic science, funding of basic research)
interdisciplinary research as recombination of existing specialties may
be the result. In the second case (applied, strategic research) interdisci-
plinary research as direction to non-scientific goals may emerge. How-
ever, the crucial point is that the latter is always referred back to the
existing mode of knowledge production, its social organization, and its
criteria of validation. No matter if the manipulation of scientists'
behaviour is directed to 'external' problems or left alone to the procre-
ation of 'internal' problems, whether the research fields are interdisci-
plinary or not, the expected outcome is 'true/ that is, reliable knowl-
edge. To dispute this is to violate a fundamental fact of modern societ-
ies, namely their functional differentiation and the epistemological in-
dependence (from politics, religion, economics) of the social subsystem
of science.
From this follows a certain rationale for interdisciplinarity as an orga-
nizational principle to be considered equivalent to innovation. Innova-
tion, the discovery of new knowledge, according to Popper's funda-
40 Peter Weingart
mental and simple insight, cannot be planned or predicted. What can
be done is to influence the conditions of creativity, or more reliably, to
manipulate the parameters that orient scientists' opportunist behaviour.
In this understanding to organize 'interdisciplinarity' is another way of
saying that one wishes to organize scientific innovativeness by giving
free reign to opportunism in knowledge production. I have argued in
another context that the principle of interdisciplinary centres of ad-
vanced study is to shield at least temporarily the resident scientists
from the exigencies of disciplinary competition (Weingart 1987: 164).
Hollingsworth has shown in his extensive research on the conditions
favouring major discoveries in biomedical science that most important
among them are diversity (variety of disciplines and specialties), depth
(size of community in each area and diversity of talents), and integra-
tion (frequency and intensity of interaction). As he argues, these are
contradicting forces insofar as greater diversity and depth favours dif-
ferentiation and loss of integration (Hollingsworth 1996: 22; cf. Holl-
ingsworth and Hollingsworth, this volume, similarly De Mey, this vol-
ume). Clearly, there is no golden rule on how to balance these three
parameters. Rather, to allow for innovativeness in knowledge produc-
tion, organizational structures have to be kept flexible and diversified.
But it is in the (social) nature of the process that they tend to become
structured, rigid, and routinized.
In terms of its contents with reference to the existing structure of
disciplines and subfields, the process of knowledge production is inevi-
tably a process of specialization and further differentiation. Every new
recombination of bits of knowledge from previously different fields, if
it is novel, is bound to be more specialized and to create new bound-
aries. Eventually, social organization - training, communication, and
certification - follow suit.
We now can unravel the apparent paradox of an ongoing and per-
haps even intensified discourse on interdisciplinarity in the face of ever
more specialization and fragmentation. In other words, interdisciplinarity
and specialization are parallel. They are mutually reinforcing strategies,
and, thus, complementary descriptions of the process of knowledge
production. This points to an admittedly speculative answer to the ini-
tial question of why the discourse on interdisciplinarity can and does
go on in spite of ongoing specialization. Originally interdisciplinarity
was associated with the notion that the unity of science would be
achieved at some distant moment in time by way of reducing all frag-
mented disciplinary knowledge to the fundamental laws of physics.
Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse 41
This belief has vanished, for different reasons. The idea of inter-
disciplinarity as the mode of innovation and progress has taken the
place of the promise of the unity of science, and the discourse continues
because only this prospect makes it possible to identify all the very
diverse and heterogeneous activities going on in the disciplines as be-
ing part of the same social activity, namely science. Interdisciplinarity is
not the promise of ultimate unity, but of innovation and surprise by
way of recombining of different parts of knowledge, no matter which.
This page intentionally left blank 
PART II
THE CHANGING TOPOGRAPHY OF SCIENCE
At the present time, there is substantial discussion about the changes in
the institutional framework of knowledge production, in the organiza-
tional structure, and consequently in the topography of science. The focus
of these proclaimed changes is based on the observation that disciplines
constitute the core social organizations and intellectual structures of
science.
Disciplines, thus this observation, are no longer the crucial frames of
orientation for research nor for the definition of subject matters, meth-
ods, and interpretations. Instead, research is characterized by trans-
disciplinarity: Problem solutions emerge in contexts of application, and
transdisciplinary knowledge has its own theoretical structures and re-
search methods.
The empirical evidence for these observations, however plausible they
may seem, remains impressionistic and sketchy. Actually, there is hardly
any systematic empirical knowledge about the real changes in the disci-
plinary landscape that could either substantiate, qualify, or contradict
these assertions and claims about growing interdisciplinarity. None the
less, the significance of the message provided by these analyses is that
the socioeconomic and sociopolitical environments of science change,
and the structure of disciplines is affected by these changes. But the role
the disciplines play in the new production of knowledge and its effect
on society at large is ignored in this picture. From a sociological per-
spective it is fruitful to view the disciplines as the interface organiza-
tions that execute the transfer between knowledge production and the
implementation and application of knowledge.
From such a perspective it becomes evident that the purported trend
towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity is likely the result of
44 Part II
several interacting forces: the operation of disciplines as reputational
organizations organizing the motivation of scientists, the network of
constantly developing fields of knowledge with changing research op-
portunities across the boundaries to other disciplines, and the differen-
tial utility of types of knowledge that lead to opportunities for expertise
and jobs in academic and non-academic labour markets on which disci-
plines appear as actors.
Precisely these issues, although certainly not exhaustive with respect
to the analysis of the dynamics of knowledge production, are addressed
in the three following papers and provide the overarching theme to
their seemingly heterogeneous topics.
Turner provides a perspective on the interaction between disciplines
and their socio-economic contexts, focusing on an often overlooked as-
pect of disciplinarity: the link of disciplines to job markets and to 'inter-
nal' student markets. Markets are created by disciplines, but markets
also affect disciplines since disciplines are subject to changes in the
economic environment. This link, which is one of resource acquisition
and dependency from the perspective of the disciplines, explains a lot
of the dynamics between broader socioeconomic and political trends on
the one hand and training as well as knowledge production on the
other.
Van Raan provides the baseline for the following studies by starting
out with a theoretical framework accounting for the interdisciplinary
nature of science. This framework states roughly that the dynamics
between socio-economic problems, scientifically interesting problems,
and interdisciplinarity are driven by motivations, regulated by repu-
tational systems in science, dominated by just a few disciplines, and
continuously reinforced by instrumentation. This framework leads to
research sites where empirical work can be done. Van Raan then pre-
sents three bibliometric methods for analysing interdisciplinarity and
gives concrete examples. The most advanced methods of citation or co-
word mappings are best suited to reveal changes in the disciplinary
topography of science. As van Raan shows, this kind of observation
method raises questions about the 'operationalization of science/
Turpin and Garrett-Jones take a thorough look at the Australian re-
search system, which has undergone drastic changes over the last de-
cade. Australia may be a special case, but some of the developments
could indicate the future direction of knowledge production. The im-
pact of commercial imperatives on the science system and its paradoxi-
cal results are central to the analysis. During the latter half of the 1980s
The Changing Topography of Science 45
and 1990s the Australian system of higher education was reformed
quite drastically to be more responsive to public expectations and mar-
ket forces. In reaction to this, a plethora of interdisciplinary research
centres has emerged in the Australian science system that reveal en-
tirely new organizational forms of knowledge production and capture.
The liberation from the hegemony of the disciplines is exchanged for
the vagaries of the market and the commercialization of academic pur-
suits. This trend may well and already does change both the mecha-
nisms and symbols of evaluation within science as well as the valuation
of disciplines by society, thus creating new structures of hierarchies
among the disciplines. This is, indeed, a major shift in the topography of
institutions of knowledge production, which may eventually also lead to a
change in the topography of knowledge. Thus, the Australian case de-
scribed in this thorough study in a sense exemplifies the analyses by
Turner and van Raan.
What Are Disciplines? And How Is
Interdisciplinarity Different?
STEPHEN TURNER
In what follows I would like to try to extract a relatively small number
of more or less universal themes about disciplinarity and inter-
disciplinarity that follow from the differing 'market' and bureaucratic
circumstances of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. The apparent dif-
ference is this: Academic departments representing disciplines (though
of course there are uses of the department form by interdisciplinary
units) are different in that departments in different universities in the
same discipline are essentially interchangeable with one another. The
problems, prospects, strategies, and so forth open to a particular de-
partment of philosophy, for example, is likely to more or less closely
resemble those available to another department and the business of the
department: Hiring, tenuring, promoting, teaching, advising, granting
degrees, placing students, and so forth are, in a great many important
respects, the same. Departments corresponding to disciplines have a
long history in universities, and they represent, with some quite inter-
esting national differences, a more or less standard worldwide organi-
zational form; consequently, the disciplines they represent make for a
quite different kind of collectivity, with more or less standardized col-
lective interests that more or less correspond to the common intellectual
interests and instructional tasks of a group of academics.
Interdisciplinary centres (which in my university system are catego-
rized for budget purposes as 'centres and institutes') are considerably
more diverse in form, both organizationally and intellectually. In the
sciences especially they may involve hundreds of researchers with a
dependence on a common technology, such as research vessels or space
probes. Or they may be very small, essentially voluntary endeavours
that cost very little and have very little meaningful organizational struc-
3
What Are Disciplines? 47
ture, but are nevertheless sensitive to the currents generated by the
organizational structures around them. These differences may be thought
of as strategies for realizing divisions of intellectual labour and creating
certain kinds of collectivities, and in what I have to say here I wish to
indicate why there is an enduring difference between intellectual work
organized in a disciplinary way and work that is not, and what some of
these differences are. My point is, so to speak, a theoretical one, and
theory of some sort is needed to go beyond the appearances. The differ-
ence is not the same as the difference between departments and centres.
Interdisciplinary work may be organized into departments and in many
respects resembles disciplinary work. So the differences are to be found
at another level.
Why Are There Disciplines at All?
To clarify the differences it would perhaps be useful to begin with a
definition of disciplines, as well as some reasons why this definition is
perhaps as serious and deep a definition as one can get.
Disciplines are kinds of collectivities that include a large proportion
of persons holding degrees with the same differentiating specialization
name, which are organized in part into degree-granting units that in
part give degree-granting positions and powers to persons holding these
degrees; persons holding degrees of this particular specialized kind are
employed in positions that give degree-granting powers to them, such
that there is an actual exchange of students between different degree-
granting institutions offering degrees in what is understood to be the
same specialization.
There are two elements to the definition. The first is nominal: the
discipline must be called a discipline, and the name is shared and used.
The second is not: there must be actual facts of employment involving
persons trained in the name of the discipline and there must be the
beginnings of a market. The definition sounds a bit like a philosopher's
trick, because it is apparently but not quite circular. I have given you no
criteria to recognize 'nominal identity as a discipline/ for example,
though for any purpose I can see, self-identification with the notion of
'discipline' is sufficient. But I will suggest that this definition has some
very practical 'economic' implications that fit very closely indeed with
the history of disciplines.
Disciplinarity identity is just that, a name or an understood identity
that is realized in degree-granting bodies, such as departments, using
48 Stephen Turner
this distinguishing mark both to identify its degree holders and at least
occasionally by employing holders of degrees from other institutions
with the same identity. From a historical point of view, it must be said
that this status was a long time coming for many disciplines in the
liberal arts in the United States generally, and especially for the social
sciences.
1
 The actual forming of disciplinary collectivities in the social
sciences in the United States occurred in a very rapid way at the end of
the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, with very simi-
lar kinds of national organizations attempting to carve up the land-
scape of existing literature and claim it for their own, or in some impor-
tant cases to disclaim it.
This history shows that establishing a national organization was easy.
But in several disciplines the organization of national and even very
successful international organizations did not lead to the creation of a
discipline. Regularizing an internal market was the more difficult step,
and it took a great deal of time, time measured in decades. Sociology,
for example, did not have a standard name for its degrees until 1940 or
so, when Columbia, one of the two dominant departments up to that
time, changed from 'Social Science/ Even then some notable exceptions
remained at Harvard, Yale, and Johns Hopkins. It was common for
appointments in departments of sociology at major universities to be
made up of persons who had no actual training in the field, at the rank
of professor, as late as the 1920s, and the practice continued to an aston-
ishing extent even into the 1960s.
2
This bit of history is relevant to our understanding of disciplinarity in
the following way: It is tempting to think of disciplines as something
like nations, existing in some sense apart from their embodiments in
states, and sometimes being realized in the form of a state and some-
times not - a perspective that any historian of Germany or Poland
would be glad to explain. But in a sense this is something of a mystifi-
cation. Some forms of the division of intellectual labour turn into disci-
plines as I have defined the term, and some do not. Sociology, for
example, was in large part made up of either scraps of existing failed
near-disciplines, such as the kind of social statistical study that had
emerged in the middle part of the nineteenth century (Hacking 1987;
Turner 1991), and it provides an interesting test of the model, for one of
the scraps was a major near-discipline, Social Statistics.
Statistics - understood not as it is now, as a discipline concerned with
the mathematics of inference, but as an overarching science of statistical
data - had a nice run in the nineteenth century. It successfully gener-
What Are Disciplines? 49
ated several conferences and international congresses and a genuine
international body by the middle of the nineteenth century. But it never
fully became academic in the same form, in part because of its associa-
tion with official statistical bureaucracies, and in part as a result of the
fact that much of the training was in actuality on-the-job training for
national statistical offices. However, in at least one case, Engels's Prus-
sian statistical office, this on-the-job training was relatively formal and
approximated, not to say exceeded, in the way in which an academic
research department would have been organized if there had been such
a thing (Hacking 1987). Statistics also managed to become a section of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science, though again
without becoming anything like an academic discipline proper.
Was mid-nineteenth-century statistics a discipline? Interdisciplinary?
Transdisciplinary? A failed attempt to realize the form of a discipline?
Why did it succeed when it was dismembered into its mathematical
and subject area components, such as public health statistics, social
statistics, the mathematical theory of statistics, and so forth? Is this
history simply an anomaly? In fact it is not. It bears comparison with
such later disciplinary/interdisciplinary efforts as cybernetics, and in
explaining each case what is striking is the role not of disciplinary
essences but of accidents of fit with pre-existing bureaucratic structures
and with temporary conditions of the existence of resource bases.
The story in the case of the sciences generally is in some respects
quite similar: divisions of labour came and went until a genuine inter-
nal market was created, at which point the fields took a different path.
One case in the sciences will suffice, and as it happens it is one that fits
with the Humboldtian ideal, which matured in the nineteenth century
into the idea of the survey. Geology was the most heavily subsidized of
American sciences in the nineteenth century, with both federal and
state bureaus of geology that did geological surveying, among other
things. Geologists had their own collective bodies, and indeed geology
was the base around which the American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science developed. By the end of the century geology was the
most successful American science, and the first scientific discipline in
which American science reached world standards, though genetics was
quickly to follow, after the turn of the century.
'Geologists' sometimes had academic appointments in Geology de-
partments, but the geologists employed in surveys were seldom trained
in geology, and even experts in very recondite areas, such as conchol-
ogy, were likely to have either on-the-job training or a general scientific
50 Stephen Turner
background, typically as a 'civil engineer' - a term used in the ante-
bellum United States to describe what amounted to a general scientific
education - or as a physician, rather than an academic degree in geol-
ogy. Specialization in particular aspects of the division of labour of
geological surveying long preceded the organization of geology as some-
thing even approximating the kind of 'discipline' that matches the mini-
mal definition I have given here. When an academic market for geolo-
gists developed towards the end of the century, everything changed. To
a large extent the demands of this market came to shape the contents
and meaning of the disciplinary identity 'geology.'
Because, as I have defined it, becoming a discipline means having at
least a minimal 'internal' market for students, it is perhaps not surpris-
ing that disciplinary development is hastened by the adjacent develop-
ment of another closed internal market. Disciplinarization, this sug-
gests, is a kind of protectionist device that responds to the alteration of
markets by the actions of others. Since the process took place very
quickly, one may assume that these external factors, rather than inter-
nal factors, such as the reaching of some particular stage of intellectual
development or coherence, was crucial. I need hardly add here that the
idea of fields that expand in a territorial way promoted by Pierre
Bourdieu (1991) is improved in this analysis by providing something
that Bourdieu declines to provide: a motive for the actions that make
up the process. Placing students and preserving the value of one's teach-
ing efforts as a means of improving students' opportunities is a sub-
stantial motive.
The same process, of course, happened to the social sciences and
humanities. The entire pattern of development of the social sciences
consisted of the eventual dominance of academics in what originally
were bodies that owed their existence to reformist ideas as much as to
scholarly ideas. This occurred first in economics. In political science and
sociology, only in the thirties did professional lawyers and directors of
social agencies and governmental agencies cease to pay their dues: the
organizations shrank, and then changed character.
So what about statistics? Why didn't it go through the same series of
developments? It had the oldest and strongest professional society in
American social science. It had, it seems, many other advantages of
coherence and demand as well. Why did it not emerge as a discipline
until much later, and in such a diminished form? One could give a
quite involved story here. There were some accidents of temporality:
statistics peaked before the process of university disciplinarization be-
What Are Disciplines? 51
gan in earnest. But in the end there is no good general explanation.
There were enthusiastic backers of the idea of university training in
statistics, good professors who held key positions, and a large number
of government jobs ready for the properly trained. What was missing is
perhaps best captured in the old lawyer joke, which goes like this: The
town of such and such was too small to support its one lawyer; fortu-
nately, a second lawyer moved into town, and there was plenty of work
for both of them. Statistical training in the United States was concen-
trated at Columbia, and primarily housed within its faculty of political
science, which was itself interdisciplinary. The only academic positions
that statisticians could get were either at Columbia or in departments of
other kinds - a process facilitated by the fact that the Columbia social
science graduate curriculum of the time required students to be pre-
pared in several areas, and consequently able to identify themselves not
only as statisticians but as economists, historians, political scientists, or
social scientists (i.e., sociologists) as well. Because these were the disci-
plines in which graduates could become employed and then produce
students, they were the disciplines in which an internal market devel-
oped. Had it been the case that other universities had programs in
statistics at the time, or lacked departments with titles corresponding
to those of the Columbia departments, the outcome would have been
different.
Disciplines, this suggests, are cartels that organize markets for the
production and employment of students by excluding those job-seekers
who are not products of the cartel. They arise under various conditions,
but the main condition is that there is a market to cartelize. But disci-
plines are peculiar cartels: Since they are the consumers of what they
produce, they are unconcerned with prices. And they have no incentive
to limit internal competition, for departments benefit from competition
as consumers more or less as much as they do as producers.
The Consequences of Disciplinary Markets
Let me summarize what I have said so far by saying that disciplinarity
is a matter of two things: identity and exchange. Neither calling oneself
a member of a discipline nor exchanging students is enough. Fully
fledged disciplines are systems of multigenerational, multilateral ex-
change - that is to say, markets. Everything else about the notion of
disciplinarity, including notions about canons and common intellectual
cores - that is to say about the nature of knowledge contents - is, I
52 Stephen Turner
think, open to challenge. The distinctions between forms of knowledge
that figure heavily in discussions of the problems of interdisciplinarity
and transdisciplinarity (Gibbons et al. 1994) are for the most part, as I
shall suggest, the product of the historical accidents that created disci-
plines in the first place. But a great deal result from the sheer existence
of these internal, partly protected markets.
The existence of internal markets and consequently internal market
competition for a specified market creates certain similarities in prod-
ucts through competition. Both uniformity and competitive differentia-
tion at the margins by degree-producing programs, usually departments
but sometimes not, result from the dynamic of competition. Competi-
tion is thus an extremely powerful influence on the way people are
trained and consequently on common standards. The rigours of inter-
nal markets contribute to a kind of standardization of training in which
the demands of the market become demands placed on students. The
students, willingly or not, internalize these demands, at least in the
minimal sense of having gone through the experience of studying for a
particular exam or performing a particular kind of procedure or re-
search act. The fact that a lot of people are trained in fundamentally the
same way makes it possible for them to effectively make judgements
about the quality of the work done by other people and for regimes of
training to themselves be evaluated for their rigour.
To put a name to this, call it communicative competence: what disci-
plinary training serves to do is to create a community or audience of
persons who can understand what is said. However one would like to
think of this competence - as tacit knowledge, skills, and so forth - it is
closely connected to the forms of disciplinarity and disciplinary train-
ing, and also to the business of certification of skills and training that is
an enormously large part of the daily activity of science, and of the
'knowledge' activity of the university generally. Max Delbriick is rightly
considered the paradigm case of a twentieth-century scientist who
crossed disciplinary boundaries to produce a new field with major re-
sults. But Delbriick had plenty of obstacles. His biographers describe
his arrival at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and of his
being placed in a room with a sheaf of genetics reprints: 'He couldn't
understand them, for by that time the Drosophila terminology had be-
come [as he later put it in an interview] "so specialized and esoteric that
it would have taken ... weeks" for a newcomer to master it' (Fischer and
Lipson 1988: 111). But being able to read the literature in one's research
What Are Disciplines? 53
speciality is essentially what a disciplinary degree program certifies a
person able to do.
Can this kind of competence be acquired in another way, or dis-
pensed with entirely? In this case, Delbriick was fortunate. Calvin
Bridges, the author of the papers, became a personal mentor, and though
Delbriick never became very excited about Drosophila genetics, he
learned a great deal from Bridges. Caltech provided unusual circum-
stances in which this sort of discipline crossing was encouraged, and he
found other people to learn from. The Rockfeller Foundation made a
massive commitment of funds to the general problem of the physical
basis of biological phenomenon. And Delbriick was fortunate to find
(and also very actively sought out) people who were doing work that
fit into this larger program and could employ his own skills as a physi-
cist. Yet the people he encountered did not always share this strategy or
attitude. Emory Ellis, for example, who introduced him to the phage,
which made Delbriick's career, was known as a biochemist who started,
in Delbriick's words, 'from zero knowledge concerned with anything
about microbiology' (Fischer and Lipson 1988:113). But Ellis had devel-
oped techniques that allowed quantifiable data on virus particles to be
generated quickly and simply - a kind of bubble chamber of molecular
biology - and this gave Delbriick something to which to apply his skills
as a quantum physicist.
Patterns of collaboration and exchange could doubtless be identified,
and in this book, especially in the chapters by Hollingsworth and
Hollingsworth and Scerri, they are. But in each case the collaborator
brings skills that have been acquired in something like 'disciplinary'
settings. Classical biochemistry, quantum physics, and so forth are
discipline-like fields, specialities with a more or less standard list of
things that a member has to be able to do in order to be certified as
competent. Although obviously one might acquire the skills without
the certification, and acquire a variety of skills that are potentially mu-
tually relevant without being certified or being formally trained, it is
evident that, in practice, training is important, and that the most power-
ful constraints on quality of training are to be found in the markets for
disciplines.
But is there anything more to the value of disciplinary than the
sheer fact of market discipline? Are their cognitive reasons for
disciplinarity? It is a commonplace that it is difficult to have interdisci-
plinary programs on the undergraduate level because students do not
54 Stephen Turner
bring to them the kind of disciplinary training that one gets in a stand-
ardized program. There is a strong base in practical experience for these
beliefs. In many cases interdisciplinary work actually is an attempt to
break free from these standards, which are in some respects arbitrary. Is
it really necessary, for example, for someone to master Anglo-Saxon
linguistic history in order to teach literature? Is it appropriate to de-
mand of everyone who teaches ancient history a high level of compe-
tence in the classical languages? In both of these cases there has been a
great deal of discussion of the extent to which these are essential or
essentially arbitrary. It may seem odd to claim that ancient history can
be done very nicely without strong qualifications in the relevant lan-
guages. But in fact a good deal of work in the area is done by people
without these qualifications. As these disciplines find it useful to ex-
pand their audiences by teaching undergraduate courses to students
without this background, as they have decided to in the case of ancient
history in order to survive as a field, the question naturally arises as to
whether these students should be forbidden to go on and whether the
discipline can survive without relaxing these standards. At this point
notions about essentialness and inessentialness take on a real edge and
a real practical significance. And this significance is reinforced by the
fact of market discipline. A department cannot unilaterally choose to
relax or alter standards without cheapening the degree in the disciplin-
ary market.
The same sorts of questions characteristically arise in interdiscipli-
nary programs that seek to free themselves from essentially arbitrary
limits imposed by the training regimes of the disciplines from which
practitioners of every disciplinary area are drawn. Is it necessary, for
example, that a specialist in social and political thought be a skilled
statistician? To the extent that particular requirements and portions of
disciplinary training have been seen to be the true tests of rigour, this
becomes a genuine problem. The fact that people with similar interests,
for example, in constitutional law in the United States, are forced to sit
for exams in statistics and classical political theory in order to be quali-
fied as political scientists and thus able to teach constitutional law out-
side of a law school means that the teaching of constitutional law itself
is in some sense at least potentially altered by this fact of common
background experience. In this case the relationship is purely a matter
of historical accident, something that resulted from a decision made in
the first decade of the century about what areas to annex into the cat-
What Are Disciplines? 55
egory political science by the creators of the American Political Science
Association. Sometimes this is quite conscious, as in the case of Ameri-
can anthropology departments, in which a common disciplinary iden-
tity involving linguistics, cultural anthropology, archaeology, and physi-
cal anthropology was consciously created as a matter of policy in order
to alter the constituent fields by aligning them with one another.
The constraints of the market make conventional boundaries into real
constraints. Philosophy graduates ought to be able to teach symbolic
logic - it is a bread-and-butter course in philosophy programs - so it is
routinely required so that students are not crippled when they enter the
market. The original impulse behind the requirement has long van-
ished. The program of solving the problems of philosophy by translat-
ing it into logical notation, which once motivated logic requirements, is
quite dead. But the market reality of logic and critical thinking require-
ments lives on. Essentialism about disciplines - claims about what 're-
ally' is or is not a part of discipline, or about how the intellectual uni-
verse would be divided up if it were cut at the joints - is invariably bad
history. As Gerald Graff has suggested, each discipline has the idea that
it had a Golden Age in which all the elements went together smoothly
and the purposes of the discipline were the subject of general agree-
ment, and this idea is always a myth (1987). Disciplines are shotgun
marriages, either of specialities, in the cases I have discussed here, or of
multiple and often conflicting purposes, and are kept together by the
reality of the market and the value of the protection of the market that
has been created by employment requirements and expectations.
Considerations about what should go together - what fulfils more or
less common purposes, what provides useful synergies, and so forth -
are very much the kinds of considerations that have motivated interdis-
ciplinary efforts, and of course this is exactly my point in spending so
much time on the notion of disciplinary itself. Disciplines are collec-
tives defined in part by some common interests, but they are also inter-
nal divisions of labour in a teaching enterprise oriented to the produc-
tion of persons trained in a specific way. In established disciplines the
collective identity is more or less fixed and the internal division of
labour is more or less variable and shifting in relation to the collective
identity. Areas of study become more or less important or dominant,
new areas develop and become important or even dominant, and so
forth, all within the larger collective identity and internal market of the
discipline.
56 Stephen Turner
Interdisciplinarity
Interdisciplinarity in a sense starts from the other direction, by creating
novel divisions of labour in response to novel ends. This is indeed a
striking difference between disciplines and interdisciplinary efforts. How-
ever they begin, disciplines in the end submit to the discipline of the
protected internal markets they create. Interdisciplinary efforts can be
defined negatively as being directed to ends other than the production
of students for protected academic job markets. But in a positive sense
this means that interdisciplinary efforts may have a great many differ-
ent ends, and ends of different kinds.
One might attempt to classify these ends, but this turns out to be a
difficult matter. Historically, interdisciplinary efforts have had many
different ends, and typically proceed under a variety of constraints,
such as the need to satisfy a particular public constituency, to secure
regular funding, to provide evidence of supporting institutional goals,
to provide a home for persons who are displaced from other units of
the university for political reasons, to fulfil promises made to hinders,
and so forth. It would be difficult to give a complete list of these con-
straints, so various are they. And these constraints, it might appear, are
the answer to the question of why interdisciplinary efforts so often fail.
One common end is to secure support in the context of a university
bureaucracy. But here too there will be considerable diversity. What
this way of formulating the problem suggests, rather paradoxically, is
that interdisciplinarity precedes or is a more fundamental phenomenon
than disciplinarity. The organization of any academic unit or any re-
search or training collectivity is a matter of establishing a division of
labour directed at some set of purposes. The creation of internal pro-
tected disciplinary markets for specialized degree holders is a phenom-
enon that is subsequent, both logically and temporally, to the creation
of intellectual divisions of labour. What I would like to do in this sec-
tion is to briefly compare some cases of types of interdisciplinary pro-
grams with respect to the 'division of labour/ the organizational strate-
gies of those working in these areas, and the funding available to them.
The circumstances of disciplinary and nondisciplinary programs obvi-
ously vary among biomedical science, physical science, the humanities,
and the social sciences in part as a consequence of the differences in
sources of funds, and, perhaps even more importantly, the structure of
careers.
What Are Disciplines? 57
A simple example of a division of labour is the field of marine sci-
ence. It has some discipline-like subfields, such as oceanography and
marine geochemistry. These are not usually thought of as disciplines
proper. One is applied chemistry or geology, the other a specialized
form of applied physics or geophysics. The major journals for physical
oceanography are the Journal of Physical Oceanography and the JGR Oceans
and Atmospheres series, each of which is organized around the basic
kinds of physical principles and technology involved. The authors of
papers for these journals may have appointments in quite different
kinds of institutes, but the appointments are typically in interdiscipli-
nary units such as marine science. Outsiders are immediately identifi-
able to the editors, and much of the rejection rate for the journal in-
volves papers by people such as engineers who submit papers that
concern the technology (in a largely technology-driven field) rather than
the science of interest to the members to the community. Because it is a
technology-driven field this is also a field that is expensive and subsi-
dized primarily through the subsidy of platforms, such as satellite and
research ships.
Most of the participants in this research field are housed in marine
science programs that are 'interdisciplinary' in organization. The inter-
disciplinarity of the appointments follows the platforms or types of
platforms, such as satellites and research ships, in large part, and these
units tend to be physically separated from universities because they are
connected to data-collecting platforms that are physically separated from
universities. In the case of physical oceanography, for example, the
same general kind of platforms - ships - have been used for 150 years,
and these platforms are extremely costly. This is a relatively stable re-
search community with a variety of relevant funding agencies that de-
rives its stability and autonomy from the fact that it has a large and
diverse funding base; that is, the research community is not dependent
on the goodwill and intentions of a particular funding agency or on a
base in university general education. Some programs are outside uni-
versities; those that are in universities may grant degrees and train
graduate students and even have some role in undergraduate teaching.
The constraints here are quite substantial. To keep a facility (and a
ship) operating, it is necessary to have a substantial flow of grant money.
To have a stable flow, it is necessary to compete not only for the kinds
of grants that are risky but promise important results, but also for the
kind that are predictable, pay overhead, and perhaps also enable the
58 Stephen Turner
university to claim that the program serves some public purpose in
exchange for the subsidies it gets from the university.
The patterns in biomedical fields are similar to this but different in
some very striking ways. Research communities are shorter lived and
careers are more mobile between research communities, and conse-
quently highly specialized technical skills with short-term career value
are important. Teams are assembled for a series of grants on some line
of work in which a particular combination of skills is needed. The work
is not driven by technology in the same way, as there are few expensive
platforms and machines may very often be shared between laboratories
or used therapeutically. The short-termness or rapidity with which bio-
medical research areas establish themselves make them quite different
from programs driven by expensive shared technology. Biomedical re-
search areas are much more dependent on great personalities, meaning
lab chiefs with good grantsmanship skills and high professional status.
Platform-based or instrument-based technology-driven physical science
fields, by virtue of their sheer expense, require much more money and
much more continuity in support, but create a more stable set of politi-
cal and bureaucratic connections.
Another important difference in biomedical research that separates it
from dependence on such things as student demand is the phenom-
enon of multiple appointments and the fact of high demand for medical
training, and also incidentally the fact that, as a career option, failed
research physicians can become practitioners. The effect of all of this is
to shift the locus of discretionary fluidity in such a way that very tradi-
tional-appearing academic units are often colonized by extremely pow-
erful research groups led by politically adept research figures, lab chiefs
primarily, or department chairs who are essentially lab chiefs with ad-
ministrative powers. So, in a sense, in medical schools one doesn't need
interdisciplinary departments simply because the interdisciplinary struc-
tures - the labs and centres - are overwhelmingly more powerful than
the disciplinary structures.
The reason for the weakness of disciplines in medicine is that depart-
ments are primarily of importance because they deliver things in tradi-
tional clinical categories that are considerably more stable, so categories
like pediatrics and psychiatry persist in their importance because the
patients continue to arrive in these categories. Patients are of course an
important base. Practice plans - the university's medical treatment pro-
grams, which many years ago were operated as charity clinics but which,
through the Medicaid and Health Insurance systems, are now extremely
What Are Disciplines? 59
lucrative - are a source of money, and the power of a chair may depend
on success in maintaining this base as well. (The sheer numbers in the
case of certain programs are quite astonishing. Orthopaedic surgery is
one of the major moneymakers for any hospital and practice plan, so a
unit that does a great deal of surgery will make or break an entire
teaching hospital. The chair of an orthopaedic surgery program may
receive pay from a practice plan of $1 million annually.)
Elsewhere I have described the importance in the early stages of the
institutionalization of support for science of one of two kinds of trust
relationships: (1) those involving an individual who is simultaneously a
member of the scientific community, and (2) the political or patron
community that in an academic context means sometimes at least the
administrative nomenklatura of the university, which is often a separate
and quite different caste (Turner 1990,1996b). In the case of a platform-
based physical science discipline with a very stable large capital invest-
ment and independent sources of money, once the facility or unit is
established, maintaining it becomes a quite different matter. In bio-
medical situations, in contrast, the pattern is quite different. The kind of
searching for money and support that is characteristic of moments of
founding is characteristic of the whole life of many such institutes and
centres and as a consequence of the dependence of these areas on fund-
ing based on the perception that the area has great promise, that the
area is hot, and particularly that it might produce some important break-
through of therapeutic significance for some pressing disease.
Students constitute a potential resource base around which interdis-
ciplinary programs may develop, and once established, this base can
greatly constrain the direction of the enterprise. The student market
operates under some significant constraints that are particularly impor-
tant during tight academic markets, but the fundamental constraint on
the graduate level is that regardless of the importance of the people
involved, students without disciplinary PhDs are at an enormous dis-
advantage when looking for jobs in disciplinary programs. A few stu-
dents at the very top of their fields may be able to escape these con-
straints, and in odd cases of rapidly expanding or changing disciplinary
markets persons with 'interdisciplinary degrees' may find their way
into developing disciplinary programs. Ordinarily, however, the disad-
vantages are significant and students become aware of this.
The pull of disciplinarization itself deserves some analysis, for it is
clearly much stronger for strongly teaching-oriented programs than it is
in the biomedical sciences, in which disciplinary categories are increas-
60 Stephen Turner
ingly nominal and of local administrative significance only. Disciplines
establish a clear career track from an undergraduate major to professo-
rial appointment and thus produce the kind of self-perpetuating gen-
erational cycles that allow for a disciplinary history and so forth. Crimi-
nal justice may seem to be a rather artificial category, but it is probably
less artificial than political science was and indeed still is, but the ex-
ample of political science in the United States as a discipline shows that
the particular combination of topics that became the 'discipline' can be
quite arbitrary. Yet the existence of a common degree curriculum will
have a significant effect on the experiences of all of its professors and
thus distinguish them from persons who lack this experience.
Beating the Clock: Temporality and Interdisciplinarity
In what I have said here I have identified two very stable patterns of
resource base: students, some of whom have academic careers and re-
circulate, and clients, who have more or less stable needs. Both groups
of course do not necessarily exist in advance, and indeed part of the
process of establishing a discipline is creating either dependent clients
or a cycle of replacements. Where researchers are not dependent on
these processes and relationships, disciplinarity is weak and interdisci-
plinary and nondisciplinary forms flourish, as in biomedical science, at
least in its research aspects. Platform dependence is not quite so corro-
sive of disciplinarity, but rather generates specialization along the lines
of the platform or instrument, so that one can have such a thing as a
field of radio astronomy, for example, that employs physicists and tech-
nical experts on radar. This field was essentially the creation of a small
number of physical scientists who were excellent politicians and worked
to establish instruments. They required patrons both at universities and
in the government simply because the instruments were so large and so
expensive that they required not only huge amounts of money but
novel organizational forms for their operation (Lovell 1990).
Instruments are objects that exist in a certain time horizon, limited
though perhaps very long. Disciplines operate in a very different time
horizon. Classics, to choose a very extreme example, owes its origins to
a resource base that has long vanished: the study of Greek was an
ecclesiastic requirement that played an important role in the long cen-
turies in which such universities as Oxford and Cambridge - not to
mention Harvard - were essentially trade schools for the production of
ministers who needed to be able to read the New Testament in Greek,
What Are Disciplines? 61
or high school teachers who taught these languages (which were re-
quired of Ivy League university entrants until the 1920s). Even today
the field depends in part, in the United States at least, on the large
numbers of refugees from Catholic education who went to high schools
that were designed to prepare students for the priesthood. But the
disciplinarization of classics means that the field may grind on without
this base as a place for the teaching of languages meeting university
requirements, as an adjunct to literature and religious studies programs,
and so forth, and graduate degrees in classics continue to have meaning
within an internal protected market. Interdisciplinary efforts cannot pro-
tect themselves in this way, but they can sometimes escape time. Tem-
porary circumstances, such as the present concern with ethics, have
created endowments for applied, interdisciplinary Ethics Centers, which
will last for decades, if not centuries, and free their beneficiaries from
dependence on the vagaries of student demand or client needs.
But there is no such thing as freedom from dependence and circum-
stance. If the National Endowment for the Humanities announces a
program to create and fund interdisciplinary centres, it provides incen-
tives for giving centres a particular form, and this obviously requires
particular actions by particular bureaucrats with particular discretion-
ary powers. These may, and indeed do, vary from organization to orga-
nization and university to university. Similarly, when the National Sci-
ence Foundation decides to cut overhead costs through centres initia-
tives, it also creates particular incentives in this case by reducing the
universities' proportional take in the form of overhead but expanding
the quantity of overhead of a particular university. These initiatives are
also of the sort that require particular discretionary acts, and, in this
case typically, a lobbyist in Washington and legislative involvement.
Similarly, donors to Centers for Applied Ethics must be cultivated, and
the product of the centre must be the sort of effort that, at least until the
endowment is sufficient, attracts funding.
3
Conclusion
In discussing these different patterns of organization in relation to re-
sources, I have provided a kind of general empirical base for the begin-
nings at least of a more extensive consideration of the market character
of the kinds of nondisciplinary efforts that have occurred in the past
and are presently occurring, especially in science. Gibbons et al. charac-
terize these current efforts in terms of a second stage (1994). From a
62 Stephen Turner
broader historical perspective, however, this analysis is questionable.
Leaving aside for the moment the important question of the distinctions
between interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and other forms of
nondisciplinary activity, it is also important to insist on the obvious fact
of the relatively short history of disciplinarity, the historical uniqueness
of the vast expansion of university education over the last fifty years,
and the combination of this expansion with the equally rapid expansion
of provision for research that lasted up to 1970.
In many ways this particular combination of rapid changes in re-
sources is historically unique and the 'stage' of disciplinarity that Gib-
bons et al. regard as stage one, and that many commentators regard as
normal, is in fact entirely anomalous. The sheer dimensions of these
changes should be sufficient to make the case for their anomalous char-
acter. The general dimensions of the changes in available resources are
well known. The pattern in the United States was one of very rapid
wartime expansion of funding for physics, and a somewhat longer-term
but equally impressive expansion of funding for dread diseases - pri-
marily cancer - beginning in the thirties, and a second rapid expansion
of funding in the post-Sputnik period. Student demand followed a some-
what different pattern. There was very rapid expansion in the period
after the Second World War followed by a crisis of overproduction in
the early and mid-fifties followed by the rapid post-Sputnik, and then
baby boom expansion of the universities in the sixties, and a collapse of
student demand in the seventies, followed by an increasing proportion
of students enrolled in vocationally oriented academic programs such
as colleges of business. In addition there was, from the late thirties on, a
very significant expansion of moneymaking opportunities for academic
scientists, especially physical scientists, as well as, post-medicare, an
enormous expansion in physicians' incomes and the transformation of
academic medical provisions from charity work done by medical school
clinics as part of the process of training advanced medical students into
a massively lucrative medical business. The sheer complexity and mag-
nitude of this business, and especially of teaching hospitals, overshad-
ows almost everything else in the university from a quantitative and
administrative point of view.
Traditional academic disciplines, the paradigm case being physics,
responded to these changes in resources in a fairly straightforward way.
As demand for physics PhDs increased in the immediate postwar pe-
riod and resources for research increased, physics instruction became
more oriented to the creation of specialist researchers and could do so
What Are Disciplines? 63
largely unconstrained by considerations of student demand. Physics
courses were required for students in the sciences, and consequently it
was not important for physicists to attract majors or for that matter to
pay much attention to the difficulties of teaching. Physics departments
could select from the students who had the greatest capacities and fo-
cus their efforts on this elite group. The real constraints were provided
by the market and especially by the market for researchers. PhD depart-
ments of course compete for prestige, and prestige is the source of their
ability to place PhD students in other departments. Dominance is rein-
forced by the multiplier effect inherent in what Merton (1968) called the
Matthew effect, so disciplinary hierarchies were, in general, fairly stable
despite the fact that competition was intense.
Physicists were not entirely free to define the research agendas of
funding agencies, but the massive funding for weapons research and
missile defences provided substantial income for physics departments
and research programs, and individual physicists could frequently sup-
port themselves nicely on consulting fees. Not surprisingly, in this situ-
ation, the internal prestige hierarchy of physics came to predominate
over all sorts of other considerations, and less pure areas were ceded to
engineering, which is in large part, in research terms, applied physics.
A very similar story could be told about economics, a field in which
mathematical modelling went from being a highly specialized, totally
subsidized, and, I might add, heavily subsidized activity in the late
thirties and early forties to becoming the centre of the disciplinary pres-
tige hierarchy (Beckmann 1991: 261-3). In economics as well, lucrative
consulting opportunities existed and indeed increased in the postwar
period. In both cases the discipline became increasingly estranged from
the demands of nondisciplinary users and increasingly remote from the
'real world.' The very possibility of such massive research subsidies as
the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) meant that
physicists could leave to others, such as engineers or departments of
finance, the parts of the enterprise that were less interesting as physics
even if they were more important to users, though it must be said that
both physicists and economists preserved an income stream of consult-
ing money, and in this way retained a connection to practical problems.
This process was so advanced in the late sixties and early seventies
that it was effectively impossible for physics departments to return to
the status quo of the twenties and thirties when physicists were heavily
involved with the production of technology and were, in many re-
spects, indistinguishable from engineers and from what little engineer-
64 Stephen Turner
ing research existed at the time. Much could be said about the employ-
ment of physicists during this period, but it will suffice to say that there
were many non-academic units that did employ physicists, such as the
famous Bell labs, and these units and their leaders had high prestige in
the physics community and close relations with the leading physicists
of the day. The president of the National Academy of Sciences during
the Second World War, Frank Jewett, was a close friend of Robert
Milliken, and they both had been associated with the California Insti-
tute of Technology's highly technologically oriented science programs
of the first decades of the century. But this pattern was matched in very
complex ways by interdisciplinary programs that responded both to
contractions and the opportunities for innovation that arose because of
increased student demand. The same market forces that enabled phys-
ics and economics departments to become more demanding and selec-
tive with respect to students made it profitable for university adminis-
trators to provide alternatives, such as vocationally oriented programs,
for those students who were excluded by the more demanding, pure
fields.
The peculiar relationship between the rigidities of disciplines and the
opportunities for interdisciplinary endeavours raises some basic ques-
tions. Is interdisciplinarity simply a residual phenomenon, a product of
the opportunities that disciplines, governed by the demands of their
internal, closed markets, are unable to take up? Or could new forms of
knowledge production take over all the work? How essential are disci-
plinary cartels? Could one imagine a return to the science of the nineteeth
century, where they did not have much power? A simple answer is this:
disciplinary cartels are fundamentally about monopolies in the produc-
tion and consumption of students destined for academic careers. These
cartels can make themselves irrelevant, and a powerful force drives
them to become irrelevant: the demands of competitition in their inter-
nal, closed market. Disciplines fossilize. But at the same time, new dis-
ciplines arise.
There are good reasons for starting a new cartel, or cartelizing an
interdisciplinary field - turning it into a discipline - as long as there is a
market for the students who are being produced, and as long as there is
something to be gained by restricting access to positions. Disciplin-
arization assures privileged access to this market. In the end it is noth-
ing more than the fact of privileged access to markets. And this
provides the answer: as long as there are benefits for cartelization,
there will be disciplines. And as long as cartelization incapacitates its
What Are Disciplines? 65
beneficiaries in taking up opportunities that are of less value inside
these internal markets than outside, there will be a place for 'inter-
disciplinarity/
Notes
This chapter was supported by a grant from the Ethics and Value Studies
Program of the National Science Foundation.
1 The disciplines of the humanities, the vast bulk of which in the United States
consist of teachers of English literature who are professionally allied to the
Modern Language Association, have their own history and complexities,
which nevertheless are broadly similar to those of philosophy and the social
sciences (cf. Graff 1987).
2 The history of sociology, dealing with many of these issues, was written in
terms of the problems of disciplinary resources and their effects on disci-
plines in Turner and Turner (1990). My point in this paper is to show that
interdisciplinary efforts are even less insulated from these problems, though
they take somewhat different forms.
3 The sheer diversity of the conditions under which interdisciplinary centres
operate raises some important questions about the possibility of comparing
them, as Hollingsworth and Hage (1996) quite impressively does in his
recent work on the organizational setting conducive to major discoveries.
Many science units are responding to demands that effectively preclude
major discoveries.
The Interdisciplinary Nature of Science:
Theoretical Framework and
Bibliometric-Empirical Approach
ANTHONY RJ. VAN RAAN
Contours of a Theoretical Framework of Interdisciplinarity
In this essay I discuss different aspects of the phenomenon called the
'interdisciplinarity' of science. Primarily I aim at an empirical inves-
tigation of interdisciplinarity in an instrumental sense: how to observe
scientific activities in order to discover their interdisciplinary char-
acteristics, and, next, to analyse these characteristics in more detail.
Such observations are important as 'input knowledge' for other studies
on interdisciplinarity, for instance, the more sociologically oriented work
on the cooperation of researchers within interdisciplinary teams and
the policy-oriented work on the stimulation of interdisciplinary research
activities. But in this essay I also develop a theoretical framework. Thus,
to present some basic ideas, or working hypotheses, concerning in-
terdisciplinarity. Earlier empirical evidence is in line with these ideas,
but more research is certainly necessary.
PROBLEM-DRIVEN MOTIVATION AND REPUTATION-DRIVEN REGULATION
The first working hypothesis deals with motivation and reputation. On
the basis of the most fundamental characteristic of science, curiosity,
science has always been and still is a highly problem-oriented enter-
prise that is stimulated by societal problems in many ways - much
more than policy-makers try to believe. Societal problems constitute, in
fact, a very profound external motivation of scientists. Most probably,
precisely this motivation was the main driving force of the great (and
only) Scientific Revolution in sixteenth-century Western Europe. Given
4
The Interdisciplinary Nature of Science 67
the crucial role of reputation in science (Merton 1973), it is obvious that
problem-driven, externally motivated research, if carried out success-
fully, can contribute highly to reputation in science. So there are good
sociological reasons for why science, which is after all a human activity,
will have strong problem-driven features.
This first working hypothesis has several further consequences. It is
not only reputation in science but, equally important, reputation by
science that may stimulate scientists. Here we have interesting research
objectives for social-psychologically oriented studies of science.
Next, as stated above, problem-driven, externally motivated research
can contribute to reputation, if the research is carried out successfully.
This seems a rather obvious remark, but it is not. It means implicitly a
hard precondition: socioeconomic problems must also imply interesting
scientific problems (some more basic, like research on diseases, some
more applied or technological, like semiconductor devices), otherwise
they cannot contribute to scientific reputation. Absence of this internal
motivation, appealing scientific problems, will immediately block the
interests of scientists.
Third, most socioeconomic problems are interdisciplinary in nature.
On the other hand, both scientific appeal - if present - and scientific
reputation work are predominantly disciplinary, simply because reputa-
tion is generally coupled with the more or less established categories in
which scientists are educated. Therefore, a specific discipline will mostly
play the first violin in interdisciplinary work. Furthermore, this leading
part of a specific discipline will be strengthened very effectively by
technology, as we discuss in the next section.
The conclusion from the above scheme of thought is that there is a
very tight sociocognitive triangle of three interacting elements: socioeco-
nomic problems, scientifically interesting problems, and interdisci-
plinarity. The interactions among these three elements are driven by
motivations, regulated by the reputational system in science, and domi-
nated by the knowledge, craftmanship, and habits of mostly one or just
a few specific disciplines.
TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN REINFORCEMENT
The second working hypothesis concerns the role of technology. Appar-
ently there is an unavoidable 'natural' and 'self-organizing' develop-
ment of science towards more interdisciplinary activities, comparable
68 Anthony F.J. van Raan
with ecological systems (van Raan 1990; Noyons and Van Raan 1998).
The reason is that technology - and more generally the 'extension of our
human brain with relevant artifacts/ i.e., powerful instruments - acts as
a bridge between the different scientific disciplines. Without technology,
domains of human knowledge would remain largely isolated. As an example,
recent developments in the neurosciences show the overwhelming role
of instruments. Observations by advanced brain-scanning apparatus
(based directly on fundamental physical processes) are influencing medi-
cine and molecular biology tremendously, but also the behavioural sci-
ences and even philosophy. Therefore we can conclude that technology
continuously reinforces the sociocognitive triangle dramatically, mainly
by the permanent creation of new instruments. And because instru-
ments are mainly developed in specific disciplines - it is often not real-
ized how typically disciplinary crucial instruments and apparatus are!
- we have an extremely effective 'co-reinforcement' of the role of a
specific discipline in the sociocognitive triangle of interdisciplinary work.
The capacity to combine brain and hands in making things we call
instruments or apparatus is a unique property of the human species.
Bluntly speaking, it is precisely this property that is responsible for the
advancement of our human, objective knowledge, which is, given the
above reasoning, increasingly interdisciplinary. Scerri (this volume)
shows that eminent scientists strongly emphasize the crucial role of
instruments for the progress of science, particularly the 'bridging' role
between disciplines, by transferring instruments from one discipline to
another.
THE DECAY OF CHATTY SCIENCE
The above ideas have further interesting consequences. From these ideas
we can infer that the typical non-instrumental scientific activities such
as philosophy and parts of the social and behavioural sciences and the
humanities are in danger of losing their connections with the natural,
basically interdisciplinary advancement of science. As a consequence,
they will then lose their objective, scientific character, because they will
be less and less subject to the regulating rigour of the hard disciplines
that provide instrumentation. These disciplines will become more and
more unscientific, moving towards ideology-based, nonsensical, chatty
activities dominated by current fashions. These fashions are, in turn,
often dictated by current politically correct opinions, thus undermining
the typical scientific critical attitude.
The Interdisciplinary Nature of Science 69
In summary, scientific interdisciplinarity is a result of one of the main
aspects of science itself, its socioeconomic, problem-driven character
preconditioned by scientific motivation, regulated by the reputational
system in science, and reinforced continuously - and very effectively -
by technological developments. Needless to say, these technological de-
velopments are in turn influenced by scientific developments. This feed-
back character of the science-technology interaction is an indisputable
fact. But the point here is that this feedback is dominated by sudden
changes that are not caused predominantly by new, typically scientific,
'cognitive' discoveries, but much more by the rather contingent, thus
'stepwise/ introduction of further new instrumentation.
Bibliometric Methods of Studying Interdisciplinarity
THREE ANALYTICAL APPROACHES
Above I sketched the outlines of a theoretical framework of science and
its intrinsically interdisciplinary character. This framework indicates
where interesting empirical work can be done. Now we arrive at the
more empirical part of our work, based on advanced bibliometric work.
First we develop analytical tools in order to observe and interpret the
interdisciplinary aspects of scientific research. Beyond the scope of this
essay, but certainly one of the major objectives, is to test this theoretical
framework to see if the working hypotheses can find support in empiri-
cal evidence.
In this section I discuss three bibliometric methods of studying the
phenomenon of interdisciplinarity in science:
1 the construction of a research activity profile: a breakdown of the
scientific work published by a research group/institute into
(sub)fields, on the basis of the field-specific characteristics of the
institute's own publications
2 the construction of a research influence profile: a breakdown of the
scientific work citing the work of a research group/institute into
(sub)fields, on the basis of the field-specific characteristics of the
institute's citing publications
3 the construction of bibliometric maps of scientific fields in order to
identify as objectively as possible structural relations between
various subfields, as well as the relations of these subfields with
other disciplines outside the central map of the field
70 Anthony F.J. van Raan
In this essay I sketch the main lines of these approaches. For a de-
tailed and critical discussion of the potentials and limitations of bib-
liometric methods, refer to a recent overview paper (van Raan 1996).
RESEARCH ACTIVITY PROFILE
For a first discussion of these three approaches, I present concrete ex-
amples.
In line with our first working hypothesis that socioeconomic prob-
lems constitute a major driving force in science, I analyse how the inter-
action triangle of socioeconomic problems and scientifically interesting
problems and interdisciplinarity becomes visible in the scientific work
of a research group/institute.
Here I focus on a typical socioeconomic problem: nutrition and food,
showing that such a problem is immediately related to interdisciplinary
research, and observing how this interdisciplinary research is valued by
the scientific community (i.e., contributes to reputation). Such a valua-
tion is a proof of being successfully engaged in scientifically interesting
problems connected with more basics-oriented, disciplinary fields of
research.
The target institute is the TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute
in The Netherlands, one of the major and most outstanding research
institutes in its field in Europe. Recently, with Thed van Leeuwen, I
performed an extensive bibliometric analysis of the research perfor-
mance of this institute (van Raan and van Leeuwen 1999). An impor-
tant part of the method consisted of breaking down the institute's pub-
lications in terms of fields defined by sets of journals. This activity break-
down gave a direct overview of all the (sub)fields involved in the re-
search activities of the institute. As discussed above, this can be seen as
an unambiguous indicator of interdisciplinarity. The rank-distribution
function of the number of publications over (sub)fields can even be
used as a measure of the degree of interdisciplinarity.
We constructed the institute's research activity profile for the period
1987-96 and for the two subperiods (1987-91, 1992-6) in order to visu-
alize possible shifts in interdisciplinarity. In this paper I focus on the
results of the entire period of 1987-96 (see Figure 4-1). The abscissa of
the profile gives the size of the activity (number of publications) per
(sub)field, and the colour of the bars represents the influence of the
institute in the (sub)field concerned, normalized to an international stan-
dard (based on advanced citation analysis; see van Raan 1996 and leg-
ends to the figure). The institute's research relates to about forty fields
The Interdisciplinary Nature of Science 71
Figure 4.1
Research activity profile, TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, 1987-96, based on
1395 publications of the institute.
The length of the bars represents the number of publications in the (sub)field as
specified on the vertical axis. The colour of the bars represents the impact level: low
(white bars), average (grey bars), or high (black bars) as compared with an international
standard for each (sub)field. Example: The TNO Institute published in the period 1987-
96 about 130 publications (covered by the Science Citation Index) in the field of
toxicology. These publications together (the work of the TNO Institute in toxicology) have
an impact above the international (worldwide) average for the field of toxicology. For
further explanation of bibliometric indicators see van Raan 1996.
Agriculture, dairy, & animals
Agriculture
Biochemistry & molecular biology
Biology
Biomethods
Biophysics
Biotechnology & applied micro-
biology
Cardiovascular systems
Cell biology
Chemistry, analytical
Chemistry, applied
Chemistry, organic
Chemistry
Clinical neurology
Cystology & histology
Dermatology & venereal diseases
Endocrinology & metabolism
Environmental science
Food science & technology
Gastroenterology
Genetics & heredity
Hematology
Hygiene & public health
Immunology
Medicine, research & experimental
Medicine, general
Microbiology
Multidisciplinary science
Neurosciences
Nutrition & diet
Oncology
Pathology
Pediatrics
Pharmacology & pharmacy
Physiology
Plant sciences
Public health
Spectroscopy
Toxicology
Veterinary medicine
Veterinary science
IMPACT: LOW HIGH AVERAGE
Number of publications
72 Anthony F.J. van Raan
of science. No doubt, the institute's scientists perform very well in their
core fields, food science and technology, and nutrition and dietary re-
search. But they also have substantial influence in oncology, analytical
chemistry, toxicology, genetics and heredity, in biochemistry and mo-
lecular biology, microbiology, pharmacology, and many other fields of
science.
My main objective is to demonstrate the potential of this approach
for analysing interdisciplinarity in general. If we look at the above list
of research fields, we can ask another question: What is a discipline?
Most research fields are quite interdisciplinary, at least to a certain level
of aggregation. Therefore, it is hardly possible to 'define' interdis-
ciplinarity. Would science be 'truly interdisciplinary' if there were, say,
a complete 'amalgam' of physics and biology? Or is there already sub-
stantial interdisciplinarity if many research fields are dominated by a
main discipline (e.g., physics) but at the same time have important
other-discipline-oriented aspects, such as are clearly visible in the 'sci-
ence map' discussed in the section 'Bibliometric Maps' that follows in
this chapter?
At least the latter type of interdisciplinarity is more a rule than an
exception. Perhaps the current problematization of interdisciplinarity is
more a matter of mystification cultivated by post-modern ideologies or
related politically correct thinking, such as the 'invention' of mode-2
research by Gibbons et al. (1994). Often claims of interdisciplinarity or
'transdisciplinarity' are supported by 'moral enthusiasm/ as described
by Weingart (this volume).
RESEARCH INFLUENCE PROFILE
The measurement of the international influence of scientific work is
operationalized by the concept of 'impact/ which is a bibliometrically
defined measure based on citation analysis (van Raan 1996). The impact
per (sub)field as indicated in the Figure 4.1 nutrition and food research
activity profile concerns the impact of the institute's publications in
these specific (sub)fields, regardless of the citing field. Thus, the next
step is a further breakdown into (sub)fields of the scientific work citing
the publications of a research group or institute (for earlier work on
similar cross-disciplinary citations, see Porter and Chubin 1985).
Current work in our group is going on to design and elaborate an
optimal representation of a scientific influence profile by a breakdown of
an institute's impact on the basis of field-specific characteristics of the
The Interdisciplinary Nature of Science 73
citing publications. Contrary to the earlier case, we are focusing on a
typical mono-disciplinary institute: CERN (Geneva), the European Or-
ganization for High-Energy Research, one of the world's major high-
energy physics institutes. I refer for details to Davidse and van Raan
(1997). This CERN study aims at analysing the influence of basic high-
energy physics research on fields other than physics, and particularly
on application-oriented research. We found that about 10 per cent of
the CERN physics publications were cited by publications outside phys-
ics. The most important outside-physics fields appeared to be astronomy
and astrophysics, computer science, electrical and electronic engineer-
ing, and instruments and instrumentation. Similar analyses were made
for two other large particle accelerator institutes, Deutsches Elektronen-
Synchrotron (DESY, Hamburg) and Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre
(SLAC, Stanford), for comparison. We found that accelerator institutes,
particularly DESY, have developed a quite substantial interdisciplinary
environment, mostly because of the application of photon and particle
radiation in biological and medical fields. So I stress that our study
focused on the physics of these institutes.
We found that the physics-to-nonphysics knowledge flow (an inter-
disciplinary flow), as measured by unravelling the 'citation traffic,' was
about six times smaller than the physics-to-physics knowledge flow
(the disciplinary flow). Nevertheless, this interdisciplinary flow is still
considerable in size. Particularly, but not surprisingly, the strong rela-
tion between basic physics and engineering/instrumentation (the tech-
nological influence) plays an important role.
BIBLIOMETRIC MAPS
The third major line of our quantitative methods is bibliometric mapping,
or cartography of research fields. Here I limit myself to the main lines
and refer for a more detailed discussion to Tijssen and van Raan (1994)
and Noyons and van Raan (1998). The basic idea is as follows: each year
about a million scientific articles are published. For just one research
field, such as materials science, the number of papers is already about
30,000 per year. How do we keep track of all these developments, par-
ticularly relations with other fields? Are cognitive structures hidden in
this mass of published knowledge at a meta-level? And what can these
cognitive structures tell us about interdisciplinarity?
Suppose each research field can be characterized by a list of the most
important, say 100, keywords. For materials science such a list will
74 Anthony F.J. van Raan
cover words like ceramics, polymers, semiconductors, high-tempera-
ture superconductivity, alloys, and so on. Each publication can be char-
acterized by a subset from the total list of keywords. For all 30,000
publications we compare their keyword lists in pairs. In other words,
these 30,000 publications constitute a gigantic network in which all pub-
lications are linked by one of more common keywords. The more key-
words two publications have in common, the more these publications
are related (keyword-similarity) and can be regarded as belonging to
the same research field or specialty. In mathematical terms, publica-
tions are represented as vectors in a high-dimensional word-space. In
this space they group together, or take very distant positions when they
are not related to one another.
We developed mathematical techniques to unravel these publication
networks and to successively cluster and map the underlying word-
structures ('co-word maps'). What is fascinating is that these structures
can be regarded as the cognitive or intellectual structure of science. As
discussed above, this structure is entirely based on the total relations
among all publications. Thus, the structures that are discovered are not
the result of any pre-arranged classification system whatsoever. No-
body prescribes these structures - they emerge solely from the internal
relations of the whole universe of publications. In other words, what
we make visible by our mathematical methods is the self-organized 'ecol-
ogy' of science (van Raan 1990, Noyons and van Raan 1998). Similar
structures arise from the analysis of citation-relations ('co-citation maps').
Figure 4.2 shows the first results of our recent work: the 'freezing-
out' of the underlying patterns in about 100,000 publications in agricul-
tural research (based on a co-citation and co-word analysis combina-
tion). We performed a two-step procedure: First, we constructed one
global overview map (shown in Figure 4.2) and, second, for each dis-
covered cluster (which practically means field of research) we made
detailed, fine-structure maps (for details of this work, and particularly
for a presentation of the fine-structure maps, we refer to Noyons et al.
1996, as well as note I.)
1
 Figure 4.2 clearly shows the mutual relation-
ships between agricultural research (a field undoubtedly devoted to a
whole spectrum of socioeconomic problems) and many other fields of
science. The closer the clusters (fields) are, the more related they are in
connection with agricultural research. We observe, next to agricultural re-
search (general), the dominating role of biochemistry and molecular
biology as well as chemistry (general). Many other fields of science play
a role, such as microbiology, endocrinology, virology and immunology,
plant research, and biotechnology.
The Interdisciplinary Nature of Science 75
Figure 4.2
Bibliometric map of agricultural research, 1994, based on about 100,000 publications
worldwide.
The map represents a relational structure of clusters of publications based on cluster-
similarity measures. The clusters can be identified as research fields. The closer the
clusters are, the more related the (sub)fields concerned. White clusters are characterized
by decreasing publication activity worldwide; grey clusters by no significant decrease or
increase in publication activity; black clusters by increasing activity. For further explana-
tion see note 1.
76 Anthony F.J. van Raan
Again we make the same observation discussed earlier: science is a
fascinating amalgam of 'cognitive regions' that are part of more or less
established disciplines. Often these disciplines are research fields that
originated from earlier interdisciplinary developments. Above all, the
whole is undoubtedly interdisciplinary. As in any complex, self-orga-
nizing system, the global characteristics of the whole - such as the
typical power-law distribution of the sizes of parts of the system - are
not so much a direct result of the constituting individual elements, but
they represent a very specific property of the system as such.
This bibliometric cartography has interesting potentials. First, it visu-
alizes the intrinsically interdisciplinary landscape of a scientific field
embedded in its surroundings. These surroundings have both a cogni-
tive as well as a semantic meaning: the word combinations on the map
are always positioned in relation to other word combinations, i.e., rep-
resentatives of research fields, specialty topics, or scientific concepts.
Thus a field-specific context is generated automatically by the above-
described self-organizing process. Therefore, problems of interpretation
of words on the map are in our opinion much less severe than as dis-
cussed by others who consider these interpretation problems a serious
drawback of bibliometric mapping (Maasen, this volume).
Second, by making these maps for a series of years, we are able to
observe trends and changes in structure. So we gain insight into the
dynamics of the scientific endeavour, particularly the interdisciplinary
developments. Clearly we observe the phenomemon described by
Weingart (this volume): 'Instead of assuming a disciplinary structure
that has to be adapted to the structure of the real world by approxima-
tion, it has to be recognized that the structure of knowledge and the
delineation of disciplines and their subject matters constitute percep-
tions of the world.'
Third, we are able to put the position of major actors on the map.
Thus we are creating a strategic map: who is where in science, and,
more precisely, what is the position of these actors in terms of the
interdisciplinary relations of the different fields? (For recent examples
of bibliometric mapping including 'dynamic' examples, see note 1).
Concluding Remarks
In this paper I first presented a theoretical framework for the interdisci-
plinary nature of science. It can be described as a socio-cognitive tri-
angle of three interacting elements: socio-economic problems, scientifi-
cally interesting problems, and interdisciplinarity. The dynamics of the
The Interdisciplinary Nature of Science 77
relations between these elements of this triangular compound are driven
by motivations, regulated by the reputational system in science, domi-
nated by one or just a few disciplines, and continuously reinforced by
instrumentation. As a consequence of this model, we can forecast the
decay of what I call 'chatty' science.
The combination of the three bibliometric approaches - analysis of
research activity, research influence, and mapping - appears to be a
powerful instrument for further investigating the interdisciplinary na-
ture of science. They form a coherent set of approaches for diagnosing
important aspects of interdisciplinarity. In particular, the analysis of
developments over time and of the role of major actors is important in
testing the various working hypotheses that form the basis of our theo-
retical framework.
In this contribution I presented the main lines of our empirical 'in-
strumentation.' Further elaboration will address more specifically how
the above empirical methods fit into the theoretical framework, that is,
how the different empirical steps are related to the different parts of the
theoretical framework.
This context involves further important problems. For example, the
first two bibliometric methods focus on science as represented by its
chief constituting elements, namely research groups or institutes. The
third method addresses science - or at least major parts of it - as a
whole. This dichotomy is typical for any complex system. On the one
hand we have the elements with which the system is built; on the other
we have the system as a whole, with its global characteristics, which are
partly related to properties of the constituting elements, but partly also
has its own properties.
2
 This demonstrates a fundamental aspect in the
empirical operationalization of a concept such as 'science/ and, in fact,
of any complex system. We think that in science disciplinary fields are
the constituting elements, and that interdisciplinarity is the general,
large-scale property. We know that a general property of a system (e.g.,
the always limited amount of total space, energy, resources) can induce
major effects in its constituting elements (e.g., in the way they have to
interact).
Notes
1 For recent examples refer to our institute's Internet home page at http://
sahara.fsw.leidenuniv.nl/cwts/cwtshome.html
78 Anthony F.J. van Raan
2 To further illustrate this problem I will make a comparison with a physical
complex system: turbulence in boiling water. Certainly several aspects of
this complex system are related to the properties of the constituting ele-
ments, the water molecules. Clearly the boiling point temperature is
element-dependent: for the water molecules it is 100°C, for any other
molecule it will be completely different. Nevertheless, the turbulence
patterns resulting from boiling will be very general and will manifest
themselves in any type of liquid, regardless of the specific properties of the
constituting elements, in this case the water molecules.
Mapping the New Cultures and
Organization of Research in Australia
1
TIM TURPIN and SAM GARRETT-JONES
Introduction
Research institutions throughout the world are beset with pressures to
fundamentally transform their activities. These pressures are emanat-
ing from within science and from institutional requirements to make
science more directly useful.
Scientific research is increasingly carried out in organizational forms
built around multidisciplinary, small research teams with both basic
and applied research contextualized in application to defined national
objectives. Immediacy and face-to-face relations are central, both in the
development of new fields of research and in the transfer of knowledge
across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. At the same time,
universities and public research institutions are pressured to 'corpora-
tize/ to seek commercial outcomes and to steer research according to
institutionalized performance indicators.
As these two pressures intersect, a blurring at the organizational
boundaries is spurring the development of interdisciplinary groupings
within traditionally discipline-based teaching institutions. As a result,
new forms of organizational culture are emerging. These changes in the
'production of knowledge' represent a new phase in the relation be-
tween knowledge and society where, paradoxically, 'local' knowledge
and person-to-person relations are paramount in knowledge produc-
tion that is otherwise global and abstract.
Scientific disciplines in the process of adapting to such change are
driven in two opposing directions: towards fragmentation and special-
ization in order to capture or retain a professional niche, yet at the same
time towards identifying their relevance for the widest possible seg-
5
80 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
merits of society. This is evident in the worldwide trend towards the
formation of university research centres; in the trend towards universi-
ties acting commercially; in the increasing salience of horizontal links
among universities, industry, and other socio-economic sectors; and in
the blurring of the boundaries between basic and applied research in
almost all fields of research.
Based on the work of the Centre for Research Policy (CRP) since 1991,
this paper reviews trends in Australia that are driving the public re-
search system towards more explicit social and economic outcomes,
examines their effect on the organization of research, describes tech-
niques used to map the socio-economic connections of research, and
considers the implications for the practice and management of interdis-
ciplinary research.
We focus on the socio-economically-driven coalescence of disciplines,
largely ignoring the 'platform' and 'instrument/research techniques'
driven interdisciplinarity described by Turner and Scerri (this volume),
and the 'intellectual' and 'big motivational questions' provoked
interdisciplinarity referred to by Maasen and De Mey (this volume),
respectively.
Rumbles from Within
NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTES
In Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organ-
ization (CSIRO), there is a marked difference in the relationship be-
tween scientists and managers in the 1990s from that which existed in
the 1960s. In contrast to today's corporate approach the scientist of the
1960s was encouraged to act as the key 'driver' of research projects and
programs. 'No matter what the field, the purpose, or the source of the
financial support, the research staff decide, devise and direct their own
research programs, and every research officer in the CSIRO is expected
within a few years of the commencement of his research career to take
full responsibility for his [sic] own area of research activity' (Gillespie
1964: 23).
The role of the corporate body in this context was in ensuring that the
scientist did not experience undue frustration through unsympa-
thetic administration. This contrasts starkly with the more recent view
that emphasizes the importance of corporately managed organizational
structures.
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 81
Through the 1980s, the CSIRO was confronted with changes in gov-
ernment and public expectations, as well as changes in financial and
industrial commitments. In a decade of economic rationalist policies
and economic downturn, the CSIRO was particularly vulnerable to se-
vere questioning of its value to the nation (see Landsberg 1989). It was
subject to growing pressure to not only demonstrate its worth, but to
adopt 'business-like practices' to ensure that its resources were used
with maximum effect (CSIRO 1987).
The CSIRO's response was to implement considerable structural
change. In 1990, a priority-setting exercise was introduced across the
entire organization to bring national economic and commercial factors
into the priority-setting process. The organization has also become more
strategic in terms of human resource management and more commer-
cially oriented. Formal procedures were introduced during the 1980s to
increase staff mobility and encourage closer collaboration with industry
and to exploit such links through the development of more
multidisciplinary projects and programs. Consequently new occupa-
tional expectations of research staff in the organization emerged. New
training programs introduced during the late 1980s were designed to
realign the entire business strategy and to develop a whole new set of
skills and behaviours that were previously 'quite foreign to many scien-
tists' (Blewitt 1992: 7). Reinforcing these organizational expectations,
the then CSIRO Chief Executive argued that the boundary between
business and public sector research should be almost indistinguishable:
'Bureaucrats and scientists acting alone are not usually the best judges
of what scientific breakthroughs will be ... a seamless link with the
business community is required' (Stocker 1993).
The move to develop closer funding links with industrial enterprises
has occurred in other Australian research institutions. The CSIRO, the
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), and
the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) are all now expected
to obtain a significant proportion of their research expenditure (30 per
cent in the CSIRO's case) from non-appropriation (government budget)
sources and have introduced procedures for identifying and supporting
priority areas of research. At the same time the federal government has
ensured that primary industry-based research funding, collected through
industry levies, is now also allocated competitively through research
and development (R&D) corporations, and distributed to encourage
public research organizations to be more active in commercializing
research.
82 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
While the funding system has become more competitive, new group-
ings and alliances have been formed that challenge traditional organi-
zational boundaries. Cooperative agreements between research groups
and business partners have emerged and old alliances have taken on
new meaning as research managers accept the responsibility to manage
the boundaries between science, industry, and commercial activities.
The increased organizational complexity of research institutes like
the CSIRO has led to increased imperatives for interdependence within
and beyond institutional boundaries. Occupational tasks and the career
structures of research scientists and research managers in the organiza-
tion have shifted dramatically. For scientists familiar with the independ-
ence of the culture of 'modern science' that dominated the 1960s and
1970s, this shift is disorienting (Kash and Rycroft 1994).
As the organizational structures and the roles of scientists have
changed, so too has the nature of tensions within the organization.
During the 1970s and 1980s the major tension tended to be between
scientists in their efforts to remain autonomous and managers imple-
menting corporate demands for scientific relevance and organizational
accountability. During this period the scientific values by which the
work of scientists was judged became increasingly reorganized through
strategic planning based on corporate expectations of relevance and
accountability. As Flood (1984) observes, the strategic setting of corpo-
rate objectives threatened this balance between industry and science.
He describes the CSIRO of the 1980s as an organization that had changed
in institutional style from one that supports autonomy to one with
centralized direction, less individual freedom, increased bureaucracy,
and more accountability requirements.
Our recent studies show that the organizational tensions of the 1990s
are different. They are not so much associated with a 'redirection' of
scientific research, a sharper focus on industrial application, or an in-
creased emphasis on strategic planning. Rather, they implicate a range
of 'new' commercial strategies and commercial symbols that are per-
ceived to be driving and assessing the value of research.
During interviews we carried out with 200 scientists at the CSIRO
there was a widely shared view that the research environments of the
1990s were substantially different from those of the 1980s. There was
also widespread agreement that the organization and its scientists needed
to adjust to these changes. The importance of industrial relevance and
multidisciplinary team-based research - contentious in the 1980s - ap-
peared deeply embedded in the broad expectations and organizational
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 83
values articulated by the researchers we interviewed in the 1990s. These
embedded values, however, stood in contrast to a markedly weak ac-
ceptance of commercial values that were described as impinging on the
organization's capacity to produce scientific knowledge.
This tension in the 1990s is therefore not so much between research-
ers as 'autonomous scientists' and organizational demands for corpo-
rate objectives and judgments of outcomes. It is more between the sci-
entific and socio-economic values that provide the cultural capital for
'relevant research' and the commercial values that provide the eco-
nomic capital for the institutions themselves.
This is demonstrated in the struggle between the organizational and
individual expectations about 'valuing' science. We asked over 100 sci-
entists at the CSIRO to say what they preferred as the key evaluative
factor for establishing industrially oriented projects and what they ex-
perienced as the current evaluative factor. More than half the respon-
dents agreed that the key factor should be the potential of the project to
contribute to national economic competitiveness. However, only 7 per
cent experienced this as being the case in practice. Over 70 per cent felt
that the current evaluation criterion was based simply on the capacity
of the project to bring finances into their research division. Research
programs are therefore experienced as being driven not by science or
scientific relevance but by the notion of profit, a concept quite dislo-
cated from the practice of science itself.
The intrusion of commercial values and expectations has not been re-
stricted to government research institutions. Similar events have been
unfolding across the university system. In 1987 the Australian govern-
ment ushered in a new era of higher education research. The reforms
removed the college and university binary divide and created a Unified
National System. This brought previous teaching-only institutions into
the university research market-place, as well as whole new disciplines
such as podiatry, nursing, occupational therapy, home economics, and
other vocation-related subjects. As a result, the organizational and pub-
lic expectations of academics have changed considerably.
The notion of the university as 'an assemblage of learned men, zeal-
ous for their own sciences, and rivals of each other ... brought by famil-
iar intercourse and for the sake of intellectual peace, to adjust together
the claims and relations of their respective subjects of investigation'
THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
84 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
stands in marked contrast to the expectations of higher education ad-
ministrators today (de Lacey and Moens 1990: 3). Rather, the expecta-
tion of university leaders is to produce a unifiable and marketable com-
modity. As a senior university administrator told us: 'Our task is to
homogenise the expectations of the different faculties, schools and indi-
viduals into a generally shared view about teaching and research; we
need to bring disparate philosophies, ideas and expectations into a uni-
fied set of directions and objectives/
The commercial market has entered the domain of university disci-
plines with a vengeance, and the organizational values, actions, and
expectations within these institutions are rapidly changing. Universities
are experiencing a major (and not unpainful) organizational and cul-
tural transformation.
The university research environment, like public research institutions,
has moved from one largely characterized by individual autonomy and
local institutional decisions about priorities to one characterized by cen-
tralized policy and competitive institutional processes dominated by
commercial market concerns. Through government policy instruments
new amalgams of institutions have been steered towards developing
research management plans and concentrating research effort into new
organizational groupings. These groups are characteristically research
'centres/ research 'programs/ and research 'institutes' that straddle tra-
ditional departmental and institutional organizational boundaries. In a
system-wide study of the Australian university research centres we iden-
tified over 800 that had been established since 1982 (Hill and Turpin
1993). This is in a national system of only 36 universities.
The trend towards the formation of research centres and multidisci-
plinary research has been underpinned by government policy since the
early 1980s. Government funding programs have promoted collabora-
tive research through the formation of Key Centres for Teaching and
Research and Cooperative Research Centres (CRC). However, a range
of other policy initiatives have both contributed and responded to the
emergence of an 'enterprise culture' in Australian universities. Infra-
structure funding mechanisms have promoted the sharing of major fa-
cilities, and project collaboration has been promoted through the provi-
sion of collaborative university and industry research grants. The Na-
tional Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research
Council, and the science ministry all have their own independent and
competitive funding programs for supporting academic-industry col-
laboration. The generation of commercial capital for funding public sci-
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 85
ence was increased for a period by the introduction of 'taxation havens'
whereby private enterprises could invest profits in 'pooled develop-
ment funds' managed by and financing university-owned commer-
cial research companies. Further business capital investment in the
public R&D system has been encouraged from the mid-1980s by a 150
per cent taxation concession for industry research (reduced to 125 per
cent in 1997). Although the intention of this initiative was to increase
R&D activity in the private sector, it provided an additional incentive
for businesses to contract the public sector for specific research tasks
(Turpin, Sullivan, and Deville 1993). Between 1981 and 1991 business
sector funding for research in higher education increased by 74 per
cent, and between 1991 and 1994 by a further 114 per cent (ABS 1996),
indicating a considerable growth in direct industry and university re-
search linkages.
New organizational structures known as offices of research were es-
tablished to manage research within institutions. In a survey of univer-
sities, the Centre for Research Policy found that most universities had
recently formulated rules for establishing, managing, and, if necessary,
disbanding research centres. One of the key features of the rules was
the management of multidisciplinary research and the relationship be-
tween centres and departmental structures. Thus, research-intensive busi-
ness enterprises, public research institutes, and universities have in-
creasingly sought new organizational models for collaborative arrange-
ments (Turpin, Sullivan, and Deville 1993). The identification of perfor-
mance indicators to measure research outputs is a feature of current
research management concerns. Issues of quality, national relevance,
and industry links are also high on university policy agendas. Like their
counterparts in the public institutes, academics have felt the intrusion
of commercial values to the very roots of their research experience.
Fissures in the System
The proliferation of university research centres illustrates the tensions
at the boundaries of research organizations. The majority of these cen-
tres do not rely on university funding for their research activity, but
draw on the host organization's institutional umbrella for basic infra-
structure support and scientific status. Their structure, although gov-
erned by university rules, is not driven by traditional discipline-based
university departments, but by a combination of interests that include
those inherent in scientific disciplines, industry expectations, academic
86 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
institutional aspirations, and commercial opportunities (Hill and Turpin
1993). The university rubric provides centres with 'a license to deal
with [these] client groups/ as Turner (this volume) observes. The bound-
aries of disciplines, departments, working relationships, business ac-
tivities and universities themselves are, in this situation, 'all up for
grabs.'
In 1990 the Australian government embarked on one of its most am-
bitious reorganizations of science by establishing the Cooperative Re-
search Centres program. Sixty-nine CRCs are now established. Each
centre forms an organizational structure based on a contractually agreed-
upon research program, typically incorporating at least one university
and one business enterprise and including at least one public research
institute. In one case there are eighteen separate partners and the centre
has locations at six different national sites. The titles of the CRCs - such
as Waste Management and Pollution Control - reflect their inter-
disciplinarity and emphasis on socio-economic outcomes.
A critical question for the future is to what extent CRCs should re-
main linked to, or driven by, the science or industrial systems from
which they grew. We observe an interesting contradiction for CRCs
operating in a transdisciplinary context. On the one hand, they may be
expected to achieve eventual financial autonomy, and thus forced to
give more attention to short-term commercial research. To pursue the
more fundamental research questions they will require access to exist-
ing basic research funding programs. Yet we question the capacity of
the research councils in Australia to support both the CRCs and the
basic research carried out within traditional university departments
(Turpin 1997).
In this context, organizational behaviour within public research insti-
tutions and universities is appearing to be increasingly out of step with
the research behaviour that takes place within them. The CSIRO re-
sponded to the imperatives of the 1980s by establishing a separate cor-
porate commercial arm for the entire organization. Although this has
now been disbanded and the business responsibilities have been de-
volved to the separate research divisions, the commercial activities and
practices are still to a large degree centrally coordinated and controlled.
Universities are increasingly seeking to control research activities
within their own institutional boundaries. In Australia this has given
rise to varying forms of commercial 'companies' owned by individual
universities. These enterprises intervene directly between academic re-
searchers and the commercial world. In the aptly named This Gown for
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 87
Hire, Wing (1993: 6) describes how Australian vice-chancellors have
grappled with the problem of integrating industrial firms with general
campus activities and, in the process, given birth to a new profession of
managers whose task is to 'motivate, keep motivated, and extract per-
formance from academic staff.' Reflected here is a boundary struggle
between the extended research networks of the academic and the com-
mercial networks of the institution; at stake is the control of the re-
search funds, the research directions, and, ultimately, the economic and
social return from the research product.
Through organizational restructuring science has been relocated in
organizational cultures that tend to be driven by markets rather than
scientific discourse. The new missions and functions are diffuse rather
than specialized, the expected skills are flexible rather than inflexible,
and the internal activities are collectivized rather than individualized.
The importance of extra-organizational activities on the part of indi-
viduals and the controlling activities of research institutes and universi-
ties presents a paradox. The evidence suggests that a fundamental dis-
location is emerging between the traditional organizational structures
that seek to organize science and the activities that scientists are en-
gaged in. Organizations' responses to changes in their environment
have tended to focus on organizing structures and discourse to main-
tain control at their organizational boundaries. Yet at the same time the
evidence emphasizes the critical importance of the individual as actor
in inter-organizational networks that seek to transcend such bound-
aries. These findings are consistent with broader conclusions that per-
sonal networks and immediate personal relations are of crucial impor-
tance at the leading edge of new fields.
ORGANIZATIONAL TURBULENCE
The organizing and reorganizing activities that have taken place in sci-
ence institutions during the past decade have given rise to new patterns
of scientific communication. During our CSIRO study we asked respon-
dents to record diary entries of internal and external professional con-
tacts. Analysis showed that external contacts with industry and with
universities were perceived as being far more important than internal
contacts. These external contacts accounted for 40 per cent of all con-
tacts. Internal contacts were considered more important in relation to
administrative matters rather than to scientific or industrial application.
Only 17 per cent of all respondents identified contacts within their own
88 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
TABLE 5.1
Multidisciplinarity in publications from Australian universities, 1991
Source: Selected data from Hill and Murphy 1994, Table 3.10
'Academic Organizational Unit
**100/(a/b)
division as being their most important contacts. In contrast to the 'ivory
tower' criticism leveled at the CSIRO in the past, we found that the
communication patterns were, both in preferred terms and in practice,
strongly externally focused and directed towards a wide range of ap-
plied and experimental activities (Turpin and Deville 1994).
System-wide surveys of the publications produced from Australian
universities have shown that a considerable proportion of scientific lit-
erature is published in journals outside the field in which the original
research was carried out, and, conversely, that 'academic organizational
units' contribute many publications to journals outside their nominal
field of research (Bourke and Butler 1993; Hill and Murphy 1994). Table
5.1 suggests, for example, that psychology journals draw from a wider
range of research disciplines than do organic or inorganic chemistry
journals.
Across all fields, personal networks lead the way in what researchers
pay attention to and communicate (Hill and Murphy 1994). Citation
analyses clearly show that new authors tend to cite previous publica-
tions from their home country rather than publications from overseas
countries. Foreign citations follow with a considerable time lag.
These same sorts of communication patterns are important in the
industrial context. In a study that covered all Australian universities
Number of Number of Multi-
Journal articles AOU* groups disciplinarity
Field of publication (a) (b) index**
Psychology
Education
Political science
Clinical science
History
Economics
Genetics/Biotechnology
Organic chemistry
Inorganic chemistry
363
969
633
3161
305
411
267
126
170
49
49
44
43
35
30
23
8
5
13.5
5.1
6.9
1.4
11.5
7.3
8.6
6.4
2.9
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 89
and a sample of eighty industrial collaborators we found that univer-
sity and industry links tended to be formed and maintained as a com-
plex web of varying modes of relationships rather than a managed
sequential chain of contacts. Industrialists and academics identified a
rich network of participants with a wide array of activities and ex-
pected benefits. Respondents identified key researchers in each sector
who acted as successful mediators at the 'interface/ whose contribution
was usually based on their specific research skills as well as their expe-
rience with both industrial and academic sectors. Formal structures
within the university were viewed ideally as supportive for research
linkages rather than formative. In fact, in some cases we were told that
research links were established in spite of structural difficulties rather
than because of structural support (Turpin, Sullivan, and Deville 1993).
In some cases these links between academic researchers and their
industrial counterparts were driven predominantly by industry, in oth-
ers they were driven more by university researchers, and, in many, by a
combination of both. But in all cases the importance of individual con-
tacts was paramount. These activities are increasingly managed through
hierarchical systems that claim to both protect the interests of the scien-
tist and maintain control of the market activities (corporation). The sci-
entists' workplace therefore includes at least four different meaningful
social domains: a research knowledge domain, a research application
domain, a commercial domain, and a management domain. Each is
dominated by different sets of reward criteria, different sets of strategic
objectives, different ways of measuring success, different modes of com-
munication, and different forms of symbolic capital, supported by dif-
ferent forms of legitimating authority. The conceptual distinctions be-
tween the domains are summarized in Table 5.2.
In practice, however, most researchers in the 1990s are impelled, to
varying degrees, to work across more than one of these social domains.
Thus, the social boundaries between each domain are constantly nego-
tiated by a range of actors including scientists, institutions, managers,
and politicians in the course of their work. The socially defined status
associated with occupational distinctions between scientists, technicians,
administrative assistants, managers, and entrepreneurs was a feature of
the research institutions of the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s, however,
the distinctions are blurring. Scientists are increasingly expected to, and
do in practice, manage their own activities across the different social
domains (Turpin and Deville 1995). On the one hand, researchers are
90 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
TABLE 5.2
Domains of research work and associated cultural components
pressed by institutional policy to produce new science and are directed
towards clearly defined socio-economic objectives. At the same time
they are encouraged through various policy mechanisms to be con-
cerned with securing and maintaining market niches for developing the
commercial potential of that knowledge.
It is not surprising, therefore, that boundary struggles between these
organizational domains have emerged. For example, scientists involved
in our CSIRO study identified 'increased relevance to industry' as the
'most welcome change' in their organization. On the other hand, the
largest category of responses concerning the 'least welcome change'
was the increased emphasis on generating income.
Practical advances towards increased industrial relevance are made
by scientists themselves, and through these emerging links they are
extending the boundaries of research beyond traditional departmental
structures. However, the management systems that have been intro-
duced to manage the changing environment are often in conflict with
these shifting boundaries.
2
 At the heart of these tensions are the im-
posed modes of control on the researchers' activities. These modes of
control are embedded at the institutional level but, importantly, they
exist in abstract but powerful form beyond the institution, embedded in
the symbols of the market.
Domains of research work
Cultural
components Research Application Commercialization Management
Predominant
discourse
Major actors
Predominant
symbolic values
Predominant
authority
Science
Scientists
Excellence
Peers
(Is it good
science?)
Industrial
Industrialists
Relevance
Government/
Public opinion/
Peers
(Does it work?)
Market
Business
managers
Money
Market forces
(Is there profit?)
Organizational
Administrators
Ownership
Executive
(Do we benefit?)
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 91
Managing Interdisciplinarity
Our findings from empirical studies of the research system in Australia
have significant implications for the practice and management of inter-
disciplinary research and research training. These are, notably, the pres-
sures to make science more relevant; the organization of science into
small, multidisciplinary, application-oriented research teams; the blur-
ring of organizational boundaries caused by interdisciplinary research
groupings within discipline-based organizations; the increased links be-
tween research groups and socio-economic sectors; and the blurring of
the boundaries between basic and applied research.
These observations lend support to international findings on changes
in the organization of research and knowledge production, most nota-
bly those of Gibbons et al. (1994), with their Mode 2 (knowledge gen-
eration in the context of application) concept, and the Triple Helix (uni-
versity-industry-government) model of Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff
(1997). As van Raan (this volume) suggests, such 'horizontal' intersectoral
research linkages are commonly, if not invariably, interdisciplinary by
virtue of their focus on socio-economic problems. This point is empha-
sized by Ziman (1996: 74), who regards applied and industrial science
as the true antecedents of Mode 2: 'The world of practice does not carve
itself up neatly along the joints between the academic disciplines. In the
context of application, all problems require a multidisciplinary approach
... The most radical feature of Mode 2 is that it strives to take a broader
view than can be achieved from within any one discipline/
Gibbons et al. (1994: 4-5) postulate four distinct features of trans-
disciplinarity in their Mode 2 of knowledge formation. These are a
distinct but evolving framework generated in the context of application
that (a) is applied by the same group of practitioners that developed it
(and by implication cannot be applied to a different context by a differ-
ent group), and (b) cannot easily be reduced to disciplinary parts; the
development of distinctive theoretical structures, methods, and prac-
tices that 'may not be located on the prevailing disciplinary map'; the
communication and diffusion of the results by participation and through
the movement of the original practitioners, rather than through the
formal 'academic' channels of scientific papers and conferences; and the
suggestion that the knowledge produced may not fit into the disci-
plines that contributed to the solution or be easily referred to disciplin-
ary institutions or recorded as disciplinary contributions.
92 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
'Massification' of higher education, by diffusing technological and
scientific knowledge and skills in society, has led to a greater 'social
distribution' of knowledge production. By inference, this has produced
greater competition between university-based research and other 'knowl-
edge institutions' but also a greater potential for collaboration between
them.
A related question concerns the future of disciplinary identities and
transdisciplinary competencies. Gibbons concludes that multidisciplinary
competencies can no longer be viewed as a secondary 'add-on' to the
primary, largely disciplinary, identities. In future, 'a portfolio of identi-
ties and competencies will have to be managed, none of which need to
be pre-eminent' (Gibbons et al. 1994:165). Again, this reflects our expe-
rience in Australia and represents a major challenge for researchers and
intermediary agencies such as research councils.
These practical issues of managing interdisciplinarity lie at the heart
of recent work that CRP has carried out for the Australian Research
Council (ARC). The ARC is in essence a 'traditional' university research
council, allocating research and scholarship/fellowship funding on the
basis of a disciplinary peer review of proposals submitted by university
researchers. Like research councils in other countries, the ARC has re-
sponded to demands from government and higher education institu-
tions to provide support for multidisciplinary research centres, major
national facilities for use by researchers from a range of disciplines, and
university-industry collaborative arrangements in research and train-
ing. While none of these initiatives could be described as merely 'add-
ons' to the ARC's 'discipline-based' funding role, the Council is clearly
grappling to achieve an appropriate balance between its discipline-fo-
cused and multidisciplinary or industry-collaborative programs. The
federal government has increased significantly the funding for ARC's
university-industry collaborative programs, at a time when funding for
higher education research is generally tight (McGauran 1996). But the
Cooperative Research Centres program - Australia's largest and most
successful intersectoral and interdisciplinary collaborative research pro-
gram - was set up not by the ARC, but under the prime minister's
portfolio, and now resides in the science and industry department.
With the ARC as client and partner, CRP is pursuing two streams of
research. The first relates to information on the types of intersectoral
links that are established; their genesis, structure, and networks, and
how they obtain, exchange, and disseminate knowledge; and the role
played by particular types of intermediary or government programs.
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 93
The second is aimed at producing a more general 'national map' of the
importance assigned by particular socio-economic sectors to different
research disciplines in general, and disciplinary groups in the academic
or public research sectors in particular.
Our objective is to provide empirical evidence to inform the follow-
ing issues: what provokes interdisciplinarity - is it primarily a response
to socio-economic application of research and to specific external mar-
kets? What 'bureaucratic circumstances' (in Turner's words, this vol-
ume) or other organizational factors influence how multidisciplinary
research groupings form, are structured, and are sustained? What are
the universal and national characteristics of Mode 2 knowledge forma-
tion? Is Mode 2 operation independent of research discipline, that is,
are university researchers in a particular field of research more or less
likely to be drawn into interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly with
industry partners, than those in other fields? Are the 'basic' or 'applied'
research groups more likely to be drawn into collaboration with indus-
try and other 'users' - or is this typology of R&D activity no longer
relevant? What analytical methods are effective in tracing the evolution
of university-industry linkages?
Interdisciplinary Trends in the Socio-economic Connections of
Academic Research
We illustrate our findings by reference to two studies completed in
1996 (Turpin et al. 1996a, b). 'Using Basic Research' aimed to demon-
strate the value and the social and economic benefit of public invest-
ments in academic research, and to assist the ARC in a strategic assess-
ment of how funds should be invested optimally across the disciplines
and across interdisciplinary programs.
The study focused on assessing the status and nature of links be-
tween basic research and national socio-economic objectives through a
methodology that reflected the flows of both codified and tacit knowl-
edge. The study had as its premise that there are indeed external clients
and markets for basic academic research. It explored the relationship
between basic research and socio-economic activity from three different
perspectives. First, the links were examined from the industrial per-
spective - documented through a major national survey of nearly 600
R&D-performing companies and organizations and through case-stud-
ies. The second perspective was drawn from the experiences of aca-
demic researchers. This was documented from a national survey of
94 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
academic researchers and was supported with analyses of higher edu-
cation research funding data and information on the employment of
research-trained graduates. The third perspective was a 'technology per-
spective' drawn from the scientific literature cited in patents. The over-
all analysis was complemented with information collected through
twenty case studies covering a wide range of socio-economic sectors.
What is interesting is the remarkable consistency in the conclusions
drawn from the different data. For example, we found a general concor-
dance between industry perspectives on the importance of various fields
of research, and those fields that were predominant in citations to the
literature in industrial patents.
INTERDISCIPUNARTTY: AN INDUSTRIAL PERSPECTIVE
The key question that the surveys were designed to answer was 'What
is the nature of the linkage between particular fields of research and
various socio-economic objectives?' The data collected through the in-
dustry survey allowed for an analysis of the nature of the links between
various fields of research (and groups of fields) and different socio-
economic objectives, and of the importance placed on them by industry
respondents, all of whom were R&D performers themselves.
Table 5.3 shows the importance (on a 5-point scale) that industry
respondents placed on particular research fields for their general inno-
vation activities. The question enabled data to be collected according to
(a) a research field generally, (b) research carried out by universities,
and (c) research carried out in government research institutes.
Respondents were classed as users or non-users of basic research, on
the basis of their own R&D activities. Not surprisingly, the users placed
a higher importance on research generally and across all research fields.
Interestingly, the greatest difference in importance between the two
groups was in the applied and biological sciences fields. This could be
because links between universities and industry in these fields are more
direct. Overall, the fields of research that produced the highest scores
were information technology, applied sciences, and engineering.
For all fields of research, respondents placed a higher value on a field
of research generally than they did on the same research field carried
out in universities. However, the difference in importance (within fields
of research) between university research and research generally varies.
For example, in earth and biological sciences, medicine, and the hu-
manities, university research seems to be almost as important as the
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 95
TABLE 5.3
Importance of fields of research for research users: Universities and government
research institutes
Field of research All Univ. Govt. All Univ. Govt.
Source: Turpin et al. 1996a, Table 12
research field generally. Further, for those fields where the variation
between university and general research is greatest, it appears less acute
among the users group. Separating the basic research users from non-
users in this analysis allows us to observe in more detail the research
areas in which industry is more directly reliant on university research
(which is likely to be more basic). The more reliant areas appear to be
earth, biological, medical, and social science. The less university-depen-
dent areas appear to be engineering, applied, and information sciences.
These areas were identified as being more important generally, so it is
likely that the lesser reliance is due to a greater level of in-house re-
search in these fields. In other words, firms are not necessarily looking
to universities for support in their most important research area - a
point reinforced by case-studies.
IDENTIFYING INTERDISCIPLINARY LINKS THROUGH THE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE
The survey also sought information on the disciplinary backgrounds of
doctoral researchers employed by the company. A total of 6837 PhD
graduates were identified across the 594 organizations surveyed. From
Non-basic
Basic research users research users
(importance score) (importance score)
Mathematical sciences
Physical sciences
Chemical sciences
Earth sciences
Information technology
Applied sciences
General engineering
Biological sciences
Agricultural sciences
Medical and health sciences
Social sciences
Humanities
1.7
1.8
2.1
1.4
2.8
2.8
2.6
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.3
2.2
2.2
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.3
2.0
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.1
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.6
0.9
2.4
2.0
2.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.8
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
96 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
this sample, it was possible to identify areas where particular fields of
research appeared to be closely linked with particular socio-economic
(SEO) categories. This is shown in Table 5.4, where we see that chemis-
try graduates were mostly employed among organizations in the manu-
facturing SEO subdivision. Mathematical science graduates were con-
centrated primarily in the 'advancement of knowledge' SEO and infor-
mation industry SEOs. Physics graduates were also mainly concentrated
in manufacturing, but they were generally spread more widely across a
range of industrial SEOs. Biological scientists were distributed mainly
between plant production and health-related SEOs, and agricultural
scientists primarily in plant production.
From the patterns of distribution that emerged two sorts of links can
be observed: links where disciplinary research skills are widely dis-
persed across a range of SEOs, and links where they are concentrated in
particular SEOs. The more concentrated fields include the chemical,
agricultural, and medical sciences. The more dispersed fields include
the mathematical, physical, earth, applied, and biological sciences.
Comparison of the organization's main fields of research investment
with the field of qualification of their doctoral researchers showed that
in many cases companies are employing people from a wider range of
research disciplines than their current R&D would seem to require. We
concluded that frequently it is the broad body of experience and knowl-
edge the PhDs bring with them that is valued by industry. Thus, it is
not that companies engage these people for specific research knowl-
edge, rather because they have fundamental research knowledge and
training.
INTERDISCIPLINARITY: A TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVE
Analysis of the citations to scientific literature contained in patents pro-
vides a partial indicator of codified knowledge flows between research
and technology. This analysis shares the limitations of all patent-based
indicators in that important but less tangible technologies such as soft-
ware will be poorly represented, and newly emerging technologies and
patenting companies may be deliberately disguised.
We examined Australian patents registered in the United States for
the period 1984 to 1994 in order to identify which fields of research were
providing the antecedent science for the development of particular prod-
ucts or technologies.
3
 Seven leading product groups or subfields (i.e.,
those with the highest number of citations over the period) account for
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 97
83 per cent of all coded citations in the data set. Figure 5.1 presents the
number of citations appearing in each field of research for selected
patent product fields and subfields over the eleven-year period. The
data suggest that, for example: professional and scientific instrument
patents heavily cite literature in physics, chemistry, and medicine. Mis-
cellaneous electrical machinery patents are almost wholly linked to the
medical and health sciences literature (this subfield includes patents in
advanced medical prosthetic devices where Australian companies are
strong patentees). Drug and medicine patents predominantly cite litera-
ture in the medical and biological sciences, but also in chemistry, agri-
cultural sciences, and physics. Organic chemical patents cite almost ex-
clusively biological sciences, medical and health sciences, and chemis-
try. Electronic component patents cite information science and technol-
ogy, engineering, and physical sciences.
A NATIONAL MAP OF DISCIPLINARY AND INTERDISCIPLINARY CONNECTIONS
An important conclusion to emerge from the study was that basic re-
search investment in many fields is contributing to a wide range of
socio-economic objectives - and therefore external 'clients' - beyond
simply the advancement of knowledge. This conclusion is not only true
for those research fields that are more applied in orientation, but also
for many of the more basic fields of research.
While many industrial enterprises identified a major research field
that supported their own R&D activities they also identified other fields
that were connected to those activities. We used data from the study to
generate a schematic 'map' or set of matrices of the primary and sec-
ondary connections between basic research and socio-economic objec-
tives. A summary of the links that emerged consistently through all
data sets is shown in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2 illustrates the way that some fields of research contribute
quite specifically and deeply to core categories of socio-economic activ-
ity, while others contribute more broadly across a range of socio-eco-
nomic activities. For example, applied and engineering sciences - fields
that contribute extensively to manufacturing - are also strongly con-
nected to energy resources and supply, construction, transport, and
environment. Chemistry - another research field contributing signifi-
cantly to manufacturing - is also strongly connected to mineral re-
sources and plant and animal production and primary products. On the
other hand, medicine and health, and agricultural sciences are more
TABLE 5.4
Socio-economic objective of employer by field of research of PhD-trained staff
Field of PhD study of employees
Applied
Main informa- Science
socio-economic tionand and General
objective of Mathe- Chem- Earth commu- techno- engin- Agricul- Medic- Social Human-
employer matics Physics istry sciences nication logy eering Biology lure ine sciences ities n =
Defence 0.6 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44
Plant production 3.1 0.0 2.1 22.5 1.3 3.5 1.2 31.0 83.4 0.0 5.0 8.9 1265
Animal
production 0.6 2.8 2.1 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.4 1.5 2.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 87
Mineral
resources 3.1 4.8 22.2 14.2 2.9 5.5 5.4 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 331
Energy
resources 0.6 0.0 0.3 5.0 0.0 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26
Energy supply 0.6 3.4 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.7 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 70
Manufacturing 13.8 24.1 54.8 1.7 51.2 37.6 46.5 11.8 2.5 8.5 1.3 13.3 1944
Construction 1.9 2.1 3.3 0.8 1.8 6.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 176
Transport 1.3 2.1 0.1 0.8 0.5 13.9 12.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 249
Information and 25.8 13.1 1.8 5.0 25.4 4.8 6.6 0.4 0.1 0.4 2.3 15.6 459
communication
services
Commercial 5.7 2.8 1.1 0.8 4.9 1.6 2.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 3.4 0.0 122
services
Economic 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6
framework
Health
Education and
training
Social develop-
ment and com-
munity services
Environmental
knowledge
Environmental
aspects of
economic
development
Environmental
management
Advancement of
knowledge:
Natural science
Social sciences/
humanities
All SEOs
n =
3.8
4.4
1.3
1.9
1.3
0.0
28.9
1.3
100
159
13.8
0.7
0.0
6.2
6.2
0.0
11.0
0.0
100
145
7.4
0.1
0.3
0.7
1.2
0.0
1.0
0.1
100
726
0.0
3.3
0.0
17.5
20.8
1.7
5.0
0.8
100
120
4.8
1.3
2.3
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.7
0.0
100
991
18.0
0.5
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.1
2.1
0.0
100
748
4.0
0.4
1.6
1.5
2.2
0.3
2.1
0.0
100
1072
28.3
2.1
0.0
6.1
3.9
0.1
12.9
1.3
100
1023
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
3.0
0.0
6.6
0.0
100
995
74.8
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
100
515
17.1
3.4
35.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
27.5
100
298
2.2
13.3
11.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
24.4
100
45
1033
74
158
131
157
7
388
110
6837
Source: Turpin et al. 1996a, Tables 23 and 24
100 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
FIGURE 5.1
Literature citations to fields of research by leading product groups, Australian patents in
the United States, 1984-94
deeply (but narrowly) linked to the health and the plant and animal
production and primary products socio-economic categories, respec-
tively. It is important to note, however, that these connections are not
exclusive. A finer analysis showed that there are many supporting or
'spot' links that can be identified at the project level.
Some research fields contribute directly and some indirectly. Further,
some fields contribute over a short span of time, and some contribute
Source: Turpin et al. 1996a
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 101
over much longer periods - much shorter in information and communi-
cation services than in health or mineral resources, for example.
A TYPOLOGY OF INDUSTRY - RESEARCH LINKS
In order to understand these patterns, one needs also to examine the
characteristics of the linkages among universities, government R&D,
and industry. Although most research-industry links are a two-way
process, providing benefits to each participant, nevertheless different
patterns can be observed. We find a qualitative difference between those
links generated initially from industry and those that develop from
innovative ideas within universities (Turpin, Sullivan, and Deville 1993),
as well as in the patterns of links built around a wide industry focus
and those built more around a core technology or resource. This leads
us to identify four types of research-industry links: Type 1: Science-
driven linkages built around a wide range of technologies and applica-
tions; Type 2: Science-driven linkages built around a leading edge in a
specific area of science; Type 3: Industry-driven links built around a
wide range of research fields and industrial applications; and Type 4:
Industry-driven links built around maintaining a leading-edge core
technology.
Some characteristics of these different types of linkages can be sum-
marized as follows:
• Type 1. Science-driven socio-economic linkages built around a
wide range of technologies and applications: Communication of
knowledge in these types of links tends to be through a wide range
of possibilities. The main focus is on maintaining access to advances
in science that have as yet not been fully utilized. The emphasis is
therefore on using existing science rather than generating new
science (although the latter can be a consequence of the former).
Universities tend to be the key organizations in these sorts of links.
Scientific knowledge for these links tends to be drawn from codified
sources available in the public domain. Therefore, direct collabora-
tion between industry and universities is often built around joint
ventures protected with contractual agreements. These structured
arrangements tend to follow the link rather than create it. An impor-
tant feature of these links is that they often emerge a considerable
time after the basic science advances have been made. The links are
made when an industrial application and science become aligned.
Figure 5.2
Summary of links between socio-economic objectives and academic research in Australia
Main field of research
Socio-economic
objective
Inform-
ation and Applied
commu- science
Mathe-
mathical Physical Chemical Earth
ications
techno-
and •
techno-
General
engin-
Bio-
logical
Agricul-
tural
Medical
and
health Social Human-
sciences sciences sciences sciences logy logy eering science science sciences sciences ities
Economic
development
Plant and animal
production and
primary products
Mineral resources
Energy resources
and supply
Manufacturing
Construction
Transport
Information and
communication
services
Advancement of
knowledge
Source: After Turpin et al. 1996a, Table 31
Excludes SEO of Defense; P = primary links; s = secondary links
Commercial
services
Society
Health
Education and
training
Social develop-
ment
Environment
104 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
Some of the links between agricultural science and plant and animal
production provide examples of this type of link.
Type 2: Science-driven socio-economic linkages built around a
leading edge in a specific area of science: These links are driven
primarily by major advances in a particular field of science. They
emerge when a new technology intersects with social and economic
imperatives for whole new industry areas. Examples include bio-
technology industries and waste management, which create new
commercial niches to be filled by new or newly aligned commercial
companies. All forms of communication are important, but a major
emphasis is placed on maintaining the leading-edge science base.
Therefore, basic research remains a critical activity. The latest
literature is scanned rigorously, and long-term projects are main-
tained to press the knowledge further. The applications, however,
tend to be 'fast track/ so timing is critical. The basic research activi-
ties thus tend to be science-driven, but the applied development
work is market-driven. Because of the importance of maintaining the
science base, collaboration between universities and research institu-
tions plays an important role.
Type 3: Industry-driven socio-economic linkages built around a
wide range of research fields and industrial applications: These are
the fast-moving links driven by industry and utilizing a wide range
of scientific fields. Specific fields of research are valued not so much
for their scientific base, but for their capacity to open up new market
or socio-economic opportunities. Science, embodied in creative
experts, can solve many problems and shorten the road to market.
From the scientists' perspective, being involved in such activities
provides resources and ideas for more distantly related basic re-
search activities. The role of PhD graduates in these sorts of links is
not connected so much to the field of research of their PhD training
but more to the creative capacities they have built up. These sorts of
links tend to be more associated with fast-moving industries, such as
information technology. But they also involve a wide range of socio-
economic activities that service other large industrial sectors. Busi-
ness systems design and medical instrument manufacturing are
examples.
Type 4: Industry-driven socio-economic linkages built around
maintaining a leading-edge core technology: Communication of
knowledge in these cases is likely to be structured through joint
ventures and contracted research as well as long-term informal
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 105
contacts with academics across a range of universities. New knowl-
edge is gathered primarily through people rather than through
literature or patents. Because of the crucial importance of core
technology, planning can be long-term, with many projects and
programs contributing to an overall long-term objective. Basic
research as a training platform for research is particularly valued. In-
house contributions to international knowledge are valued because
they enhance organizational status. Much of the new knowledge
emerges from structured arrangements such as contract research and
joint programs, rather than leading to them. Advances in science
tend to be generated or stimulated by the industrial requirements.
Industry examples include mineral extraction and processing, steel
and steel product manufacturing, and advanced medical prosthetics.
These characteristics illustrate the different ways that science is used
by industry and that industry is used by science. In other words, the
links are not a simple unidirectional process but embedded in a highly
dynamic social process. Although, in practice, many individual cases fit
somewhere between the four types of links, the typology nevertheless
serves to emphasize the different patterns of strategies, objectives, and
expectations that are in play.
In Figure 5.3, we see a specific Type 3 arrangement - an industry-
driven collaboration drawing on public-sector research and training ex-
pertise in fields as diverse as management, economics, food technology,
agriculture, and biosciences. Our example is the winegrape and wine
industry in Australia. The industry involves a large number of small
primary producers, a smaller number of medium to large wine produc-
ers, and an even smaller number of universities. Structured collabora-
tive links are a major feature for all modes of cooperation. Training
links and research links between the sectors have existed for some time,
however, it is only recently that the various mechanisms have become
integrated. Agencies such as the Grape and Wine R&D Corporation, the
Wine Research Institute, the Wine Industry National Education and
Training Council, and the Australian Viticulture Council play a critical
role in mediating between industry and the university sector. They
collect levies, distribute research funds, establish priorities, and are for-
mative in steering long-term plans for training and R&D. A relatively
new CRC for viticulture brings together the universities (one of which
has its own vineyard and winery), wine producers, and related sup-
porting industries.
106 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
Figure 5.3
The wine and winegrape industry in Australia - A Type 3 link generated through
intermediary agencies
Winegrape
producers
Wine producers
Intermediaries
Australian Council of Viticulture
Australian Wine Research Institute
Grape and Wine R&D Corporation
State agriculture departments
Wine Industry National Education
and Training Advisory Council
Government programs
Universities
Research and
training
Public research insti-
tutes and state
research agencies
Research and training
Source: Turpin et al. 1996b
Conclusions: Practising and Managing Interdisciplinarity
What are the implications of the data presented here for those inter-
ested in managing or practising interdisciplinarity, whether from the
university or research institution point of view, or from that of the
government policy maker or research funding council?
Managerialism and the 'enterprise culture' have turned public knowl-
edge-producing cultures towards market-place values. New local orga-
nizational cultures with their multidisciplinary approaches, the move-
ments of tacit knowledge and people, and the immediacy of personal
face-to-face relations have thus paradoxically emerged in the foreground
of knowledge creation. Local culture and local knowledge generation
and capture have assumed an entirely new power within a global cul-
ture that is driven by market responsiveness.
The 'new' science institutions are driven by commercial imperatives
and seek to be flexible in order to establish market niches or enclaves.
They rely on formalized network structures for innovation, efficiency,
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 107
and the 'competitive market edge.' Such structures are often loose-knit
and complex, inherently unpredictable, and disorienting (Kash and
Rycroft 1994: 39).
Paradoxically, this act of managing the network boundaries both lib-
erates and constrains the production and dissemination of knowledge.
On the one hand science escapes the cultural hegemony of academic
disciplines and institutional structures. At the same time, however, sci-
ence becomes subject to the vagaries of the market and the commercial-
ization of academic pursuits (see Cohen 1993). To engage in science in
this context therefore engages one in a struggle between scientific cul-
tures - between the organizational forms that seek to own and gain
economic benefit from investments in science and the working practi-
tioners of science.
We need and are getting, whether we like it or not, new organiza-
tional forms. The proliferation of centres is creating strains and chal-
lenges, and it is not yet clear what their role in the research system will
be in the long term. The formation of socio-economically oriented, in-
terdisciplinary centres such as CRCs may well be the Australian harbin-
gers of organizations that are neither universities nor research insti-
tutes, and neither entirely public nor private.
With the entry of the commercial market directly into the knowledge
system, the symbols that steer knowledge production, such as first dis-
covery prestige, reputational status, and attributed authority (all part of
the disciplinary 'market') become replaced by symbols of the commer-
cial market-place.
The present research system is certainly more competitive and less
restrained by organizational boundaries than it was a decade ago. Re-
search communication and collaboration are taking place in different
organizational contexts. New forms of organized research are emerging
that are directly confronting disciplinary, sectoral, and corporate re-
search boundaries.
We are observing in Australia many of the trends in the diffusion of
knowledge creation and the breaking down of single-disciplinary re-
search and training structures that have been identified in other coun-
tries. Significant and far-reaching changes are taking place in the way
that academic research is funded, carried out, and linked to other socio-
economic activities. We also see industry-linked research and training
activities moving within the same organizations. This has led to what
we term the 'disorganization' of many of the structures that have tradi-
tionally supported academic research and their 'reorganization' in new
108 Tim Turpin and Sam Garrett-Jones
ways, involving interaction between individuals and agencies repre-
senting government, industry, and the research sector.
This is an international, or rather multinational, trend that is not
restricted to the most advanced industrial countries (Turpin, Garrett-
Jones, and Rankin 1996; Turpin and Garrett-Jones 1997). Our typology
of linkages can be observed in different countries, although the balance
between industry-driven and science-driven linkages varies. The shift
to Mode 2 knowledge production is not some independent event occur-
ring in isolation. It is both contributing to, and a product of, structural
changes at the interfaces of universities and industrial enterprises - and
its interpretation requires a grasp of these processes.
Therein lies the benefit of the national 'mapping' approach, supported
by specific case-studies of university-industry interaction. In contrast to
our typology of linkages, we would expect the 'map' to look quite
different in different countries, reflecting their national research capa-
bilities, as well as their technological and commercial strengths.
As industry becomes more closely involved with academic research,
the boundaries between many fields of research are being renegotiated.
The impact is more pronounced in some fields than in others, but the
net effect (in those fields most closely allied with industry) is a process
of adaptation (Turpin and Garrett-Jones 1997). Whether data such as
those presented here reflect a trend towards further interdisciplinary
research per se, or whether the impetus to interdisciplinary research is
provided predominantly through knowledge creation 'in the context of
application' remains an open question. The data imply that some disci-
plines are more likely than others to be drawn into interdisciplin-
ary collaboration in the context of application. Prima facie, we might
expect those fields of research on our 'national map' that contribute in
common to the same socio-economic objectives to be more likely to
form an interdisciplinary alliance than those that contribute to dif-
ferent objectives.
It would therefore seem inappropriate to implement policy initia-
tives aimed at managing interdisciplinary activities without taking
full account of the various ways through which academic research is
linked to social
t
 and economic activities in a particular country. Policy
options should be developed and considered for the impact they might
have for different types of links and for different groupings of research
disciplines.
The opportunities provided by the force of this 'new localism' is
perhaps the 'big idea' that has emerged as society sets itself for the new
New Cultures and Organization of Research in Australia 109
millennium. Capturing these opportunities requires building organiza-
tional forms (frequently interdisciplinary) conducive to science, tech-
nology, innovation, and local cultures. Concurrently, there is a critical
need to ensure that the integrity of science (with its disciplinary foun-
dation) is maintained. At stake is the continued production of new
knowledge, as well as the maintenance of sustainable economic and
social development.
Notes
We thank our present and former colleagues in the Centre for Research Policy,
especially Stephen Hill, whose work has contributed to this paper. Julie Klein,
Peter Weingart, David Edge, and three anonymous referees provided helpful
comments on drafts of the paper.
1 This paper summarizes and updates two papers presented at the
"Interdisciplinarity" conferences at Bielefeld in 1995 and Vancouver in 1997
(see References).
2 Wasser (1990) has described this shift in activity as creating an identity crisis
among universities where 'the qualitative change is so radical that the very
identity of the university and the justification for even using the term itself
may be called into question.' Keat (1991) has noted that British academics
complain that their research 'is now being judged by intellectually facile
considerations of "marketability."'
3 This is feasible only where the product group in question is sufficiently
large, has a large number of citations, and where the citations are not
predominantly to multidisciplinary journals ('General Science' in Figure 5.1).
This page intentionally left blank 
PART III
NURTURING ENVIRONMENTS OF
INTERDISCIPLINARITY
Scientific disciplines are both intellectual and social structures, or, one
may say, the social organizations of intellectual work. This means that
they are frames of reference for intellectual work, and at the same time
they are, like other organizations, involved in demarcating, defending,
and promoting that work vis-a-vis other organizations. That is, they are
in the business of representing 'interests.' This does not preclude coop-
eration and, in rare cases, even fusion. But the normal experience is one
of the development, over considerable periods of time, of separate cul-
tures, distinct vocabularies, and insulated practices. What unites scien-
tific disciplines and brings them occasionally into conflict is their com-
mon metier: they are all part of science, and they depend on the same
sources for resources and public recognition. For those very reasons the
generally positive connotations associated with the project of
interdisciplinarity are counter-factual. Interdisciplinary research takes
place where a commonality of intellectual interests emerges, and even
then robust disciplinary social structures present obstacles because their
removal is much slower and more cumbersome than the crossing of
intellectual boundaries. This divergence of organizational structures and
intellectual development is a continuous concern in the discourse on
interdisciplinarity. It may plausibly be claimed that this prevalent view
underestimates the extent to which organizational structures in fact
constitute intellectual perspectives and their boundaries and the degree
to which organizational attributes are inscribed into cognitive perspec-
tives. Thus, in order to probe the potential for a crossing of both organi-
zational and intellectual boundaries, it is necessary to examine the ac-
tual practices of interdisciplinary research, the organizational environ-
ments and intellectual work embedded in them as well as the interac-
tion between them.
112 Part III
Starting at the psychological level, Rainer Bromme in his contribution
points out that empirical attention paid to interdisciplinary work to date
has been minuscule compared to the extensive and repeated endorse-
ment of interdisciplinary activity. Such inattention is particularly pro-
nounced when it comes to approaches that are psychologically informed.
Bromme develops a psychological approach to interdisciplinarity
that focuses on knowledge structures. In particular, he asks what the
conditions are for the possibility of effective communication and coop-
eration among researchers with different conceptual domains. Bromme
concurs with those perspectives on cognitive development generally
and interdisciplinary interaction in particular that have argued that
a confrontation of diverse knowledge systems is not so much an im-
pediment but a distinct asset for the production of 'new' knowledge.
He surveys some of the relevant psychological approaches and experi-
ments and concludes that the deliberate and conscious self-examination
of one's own perspective and that of the other often is a crucial vehicle
for the possible emergence of cognitive commonalties among vari-
ous interlocutors.
In his paper on the genesis and development of individualized gradu-
ate interdisciplinary degree programs at the University of British Co-
lumbia, Rhodri Windsor Liscombe illustrates that interdisciplinary work
not only is frequently demanded but also successfully practised. His
contribution moves us more specifically towards the analysis of the
broader social and institutional basis for nurturing interdisciplinarity.
He concludes that the crossing of boundaries among and within disci-
plines in the process of generating novel knowledge requires sustained
but malleable administrative and faculty support.
Marc De Mey examines, as a participant observer and using an evo-
lutionary perspective, the recent history of cognitive science that origi-
nated about two decades ago as an offshoot of artificial intelligence
research. Cognitive science is a relatively new field, organized, in this
case in the form of a centre for advanced research at a major university in
the United States, as an intellectual endeavour or a form of inter-
disciplinarity in action. De Mey finds general support for the notion
that the adoption, intervention, and migration of procedures, perspec-
tives, and persons unfamiliar to its practitioners often are instrumental
in allowing for the possibility of cognitive displacement and therefore
what soon constitutes an intellectual breakthrough. De Mey describes
the organization of both teaching and research activities in cognitive
science and the interdisciplinarity of the emergent field as a communi-
Nuhiring Environments of Interdisciplinarity 113
cation structure that is evidently superimposed on disciplinary align-
ments. He finds that interdisciplinary commitments are particularly
strong among faculty but observes that interdisciplinarity is displayed
in a surprisingly low-key way.
Shifting to the different organizational context of an institute of ad-
vanced study, Sabine Maasen analyses the social organization and in-
tellectual work of an interdisciplinary group that worked on the 'biologi-
cal foundations of human culture' and resided at the Center for Inter-
disciplinary Research in Bielefeld, Germany. The Center was set up and
designed to facilitate the flexible organization, communication, and mi-
gration of ideas and scholars across more or less visible cognitive bound-
aries in the general pursuit of agreed-upon thematic issues. In addition
to a description of the general context within which interdisciplinarity
is practised at the Center, Maasen describes the steps taken to organize
the research group, how it functioned during the academic year of its
official lifetime, the evolving formal and informal interaction among its
members, and their emerging intellectual concerns. She even carries her
account to the period afterwards, when the product of the group a
substantial anthology, was produced. The production of the book, Hu-
man by Nature, was itself a major task and lesson in interdisciplinary
practice. The gist of Maasen's analysis is the reciprocity of the group's
social organization and its intellectual work. The tension between 'irre-
sistibility' and 'infliction' of interdisciplinarity is extensively documented
and acts as a major metaphor of the case study.
Eric Scerri inquires into the institutional and cognitive context of in-
terdisciplinary scientific practice in research institutes that are explicitly
set up to foster and encourage such work. The specific case he examines
is one of the four major Beckman Institutes that are designed to carry
out interdisciplinary natural science research. The present-day Beckman
Institute located at the California Institute of Technology benefits, in the
first instance, from the well-established styles and traditions of
interdisciplinarity at Caltech dating from the 1920s, when the astrono-
mer George Ellery Hale recruited top faculty to Pasadena.
Scerri explores the notion that the possibility of interdisciplinary prac-
tice is fostered by what might be called a convergence in methodologi-
cal assumptions, instruments, and approaches among different special-
ties. The fields that are represented at the Beckman Institute, which
began operating in 1989, are primarily chemistry and biology. On the
basis of four interviews, Scerri establishes a portrait of the academic
journeys and practices of contemporary natural science 'interdisci-
114 Part III
plinarians' and describes some of the persistent institutional barri-
ers in the form of traditional university structures to the practice of
interdisciplinarity.
The final contribution to this section is by Rogers Hollingsworth and
Ellen Jane Hollingsworth. Based on comparative and narrative meth-
ods, as well as a historical approach, the authors examine which struc-
tural and cultural characteristics of research organizations influence the mak-
ing of major discoveries in twentieth-century biomedical sciences. A
comparison of institutions with different success rates and at different
times in their history yields a portrait of the central properties of re-
search organizations that are associated with scientific breakthroughs.
Two extensive case studies of highly integrated but small research insti-
tutes are presented in detail. The examples of the Rockefeller Institute/
University and the California Institute of Technology indicate that two
concepts are significantly associated with repeated major discoveries:
interdisciplinary and integrated culture across diverse fields of science,
and a leadership form that gave particular attention to creating and
maintaining a nurturing environment accompanied by rigorous stan-
dards of scholarship.
As research organizations respond to the growing complexity of fields
of knowledge and increase in size and diversity, they tend to experi-
ence more social and cognitive differentiation, which is in turn accom-
panied by increases in hierarchy and bureaucratic coordination. These
transformations tend to be associated with a decline in the possibility of
major discoveries, although they may lead to the production of a sig-
nificant number of scientific papers. Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth
discuss strategies for adding diversity and enhancing integration in
such large research organizations.
Beyond One's Own Perspective:
The Psychology of Cognitive
Interdisciplinarity
RAINER BROMME
Only rarely has interdisciplinary thought and behaviour been made the
object of empirical-psychological research. Existing empirical studies on
work in research laboratories have mostly been carried out from a
microsociological perspective and are based mainly on qualitative meth-
ods. In addition, mere have been surveys and case studies by research-
ers about experience with interdisciplinary research, as well as
bibliometrical studies (Kocka 1987; Klein 1990, 1996; Weingart 1995a;
Parthey 1996). In contrast, psychological studies on the conditions and
processes of interdisciplinarity are virtually absent.
In what does a specifically psychological perspective on inter-
disciplinarity consist? In this essay, I will try to answer that question.
My intention is to sketch some empirically treatable questions on the
cognitive conditions and processes of interdisciplinary thought and ac-
tivity.
1
 The first part will discuss some obvious psychological vari-
ables, like the individual traits of the researchers involved in interdisci-
plinary projects. It will be shown, however, that the factors that at first
glance are considered to be psychological do not really represent a
viable approach to the psychological analysis of interdisciplinarity. In-
stead, I would like to make the differences between disciplinary (and
subdisciplinary) conceptual structures the principal point of departure. Hence,
I propose to analyse interdisciplinarity by way of a research focus on
the processes of confrontation between different structures of knowl-
edge, or perspectives.
For the sake of developing a psychological approach on inter-
disciplinarity, the phenomenon of interdisciplinarity will be reduced to
the cognitive prerequisites and consequences of communication between
interacting persons endowed with different conceptual structures. The
6
116 Rainer Bromine
confrontation of different perspectives is a condition for any kind of
cognitive development (cf. Schon 1963), both in interdisciplinary dia-
logue and in individual thought. Even where individual thought tack-
les a new perspective, an encounter of hitherto different perspectives
occurs. Nevertheless, the following analysis will be confined to the con-
frontation of perspectives taken by at least two persons.
Why Personality Variables Do Not Offer a Viable Approach for
Psychological Studies of Interdisciplinarity
From the perspective of other disciplines, psychology is commonly ex-
pected to analyse the personal conditions of human activity. In order to
understand why humans differ in their actions and views, why some
relate well to others while some have difficulties doing so, one must get
to know people's individual traits and motives. Psychology is expected
to provide an analysis of such personal traits.
The debate on interdisciplinarity contains many hints that personal
traits matter in interdisciplinary work. One example is the identity or
ego-strength of the persons that may collaborate. Often, interdiscipli-
nary work is like moving about in foreign territory. Participants in such
work must have sufficiently strong personal identities to abide with
situations where fundamental assumptions about the legitimacy of their
own discipline-specific views are challenged, or where the latters' self-
evidence remains at least unaccepted (cf. Schneider 1988). Furthermore,
the self-assertiveness and self-confidence of scholars is supported by
their being well qualified in their own disciplines, a feature consistently
emphasized in the discourse on interdisciplinarity.
2
On the other hand, however, the very specialization obtained in a
long process of professional training and the identity formation con-
nected with it can be problematic for interdisciplinary cooperation
(Hiibenthal 1991: 150). The essential prerequisites, these authors sug-
gest, are to partially dissolve traditional disciplinary views and to ac-
cept new or different problem definitions. There is also the hypothesis
that a strong personal identification with and commitment to one's own
discipline may impede openness for the perspectives represented by
other disciplines. The debate on interdisciplinarity thus calls for proper-
ties that concern the very ability to stand back from one's own attitudes
and experiences. In the best of cases, both features are presumably
combined in one person: a stable disciplinary identity and flexibility.
There is no contradiction between these requirements - they are an
The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity 117
expression of the necessary tension to which an individual is exposed
in interdisciplinary work.
3
Among the personal traits of a scholar that are deemed to be condu-
cive to interdisciplinary research are 'reliability, flexibility, patience, re-
silience, sensitivity to others, risk-taking, a thick skin, and a preference
for diversity and new social roles' (Klein 1990:183). In addition, person-
ality traits that are requirements for dealing with representatives of
other disciplines (or, for that matter, inhabitants of other territories) are
tolerance for ambiguity, willingness to learn new things, and ability to
engage in divergent thinking. Curiosity and courage are also important,
as are modesty and the ability to subordinate one's own personality
and views to new goals that are at least partly controlled by outsiders
(foreigners). In his report on his experience with an interdisciplinary
project at the Bielefeld Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF), Klaus
Immelmann (1987: 86) named the necessity of abandoning 'imposing
behavior.'
4
Two critical objections come to mind upon considering this list of
personal traits. The first concerns the stability and predictive validity of
these personal traits. The second relates to the specificity of these traits
for interdisciplinarity.
The theoretical constructs of 'cognitive flexibility,' 'rigidity,' and 'tol-
erance of ambiguity' were developed in personality research to de-
scribe stable interindividual differences (traits) between persons and
thus also to predict differences in behaviour. To this purpose, question-
naires were constructed to measure how marked a trait is in a person.
What emerged, however, is that the actual behaviour that is assumed to
reflect traits is very dependent on situation and on context. Therefore
the predictive value of interindividual trait differences for interindividual
behavioural variance is relatively low. This is a significant result that
contradicts everyday folk psychology. Actually, people in everyday life
tend to systematically underestimate the situation-specific variability
and temporal instability of behaviour preferences in themselves and
others (Norem 1989; Mischel 1990).
A second objection against a trait-oriented approach to the psychol-
ogy of interdisciplinarity follows from its lack of specificity for interdis-
ciplinary communication and cooperation. Would it be possible to make
decisions on how to compose interdisciplinary teams on the basis of
personality tests? It is obvious that traits such as tolerance of ambiguity
or creativity are not exclusively or specifically required for interdiscipli-
nary work. Interpersonal communicative skills (ability to listen, toler-
118 Rainer Bromme
ance, etc.) will always be necessary if several individuals are to cooper-
ate successfully. Similarly, open-mindedness for new information and
tolerance of ambiguity are prerequisites for every advance in learning.
The concepts of the personality trait approach are simply not suffi-
ciently specific for a psychological analysis of the preconditions for and
the processes of interdisciplinary communication and cooperation.
The conclusion is that looking for stable personal conditions (personal
traits) for interdisciplinary thought and activity does not represent a
viable approach for psychological research into interdisciplinary. Nev-
ertheless, neither the phenomenological nor the practical significance of
flexibility and ambiguity tolerance for interdisciplinary communication
and cooperation can be disputed. This essay will attempt to reconstruct
these dimensions by taking the conceptual structures of researchers as a
point of departure for understanding interdisciplinarity.
5
The psychological approach to interdisciplinarity sketched here, how-
ever, has been prompted not only by the above difficulties encountered
with the trait approach in psychology. It is also founded in the assump-
tion that communication between different conceptual structures is the
core of interdisciplinarity itself (see also Maasen, Weingart, this vol-
ume). Communication between individuals endowed with different
conceptual structures is not simply a precondition for attaining inter-
disciplinary insights, but is an essential component. If such processes
are analysed with psychological methods and concepts, such an ap-
proach, while remaining discipline-specific (and one-sided thus far) is
also concerned with a prime topic of the discourse on interdisciplinarity:
the question of how new insights emerge from interdisciplinary re-
search. This is why I designate the psychological analysis of the con-
frontation of different conceptual structures the psychology of cognitive
in terdisciplinarity.
The Interaction between Different Perspectives:
Interdisciplinarity's Cognitive Core
The concepts of curiosity and ambiguity and the tension within a per-
sonal identity (which is both stable and flexible) already point towards
the cognitive core of interdisciplinarity: the semantic (sometimes also
syntactic) diversity of the knowledge systems introduced into the interdis-
ciplinary interaction by the participants. This diversity is both motive
('overcoming specialization/ cf. Klein 1990) and condition for attaining
the productive border-crossings of which interdisciplinary research con-
sists in its most productive sense (Weingart 1995b).
The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity 119
While the knowledge offered by the participants should be different,
it should also show enough interfaces to permit linkage or at least
contact with the concepts and methods resulting from an interdiscipli-
nary discourse. This also means that the boundary between disciplinary
and interdisciplinary is flexible, because it depends on the participants'
specific knowledge systems.
6
'Knowledge' in this context does not only comprise special methods
or concepts, but also the epistemic styles typical for a discipline or a
domain of research activities. Referring to a certain discourse in social
as well as in developmental psychology, this kind of knowledge will be
called 'perspective' in what follows (Markova, Graumann, and Froppa
1995).
We will use the difference of perspectives as a point of departure for
the psychological study of interdisciplinarity. The next two sections
will be concerned with the question of how mutual communication and
comprehension are possible at all in the presence of different perspec-
tives. In the final section, this question will in a sense be reversed by
asking why the difference of perspectives can in fact favour the creation
of new knowledge.
Communication and Difference of Perspectives: The Theory of
'Common Ground'
In everyday communication, interaction partners encounter different
perspectives. As everyday perception of facts and events depends on
the categories we bring to a certain situation, the question of how mu-
tual comprehension in the case of different perspectives is possible arises
here as well.
The 'common ground' theory tries to find an answer to this question
(Clark 1992, 1996). As the significance of subjective construction for
perceiving, seeing, and acting became evident in cognitive psychology,
it also became clear that successful communication by individuals hav-
ing different perspectives is a phenomenon requiring explanation. The
common ground theory postulates that every act of communication
presumes a common cognitive frame of reference between the partners
of interaction called the common ground. The theory postulates further
that all contributions to the process of mutual understanding serve to
establish or ascertain and continually maintain this common ground.
In the following analysis, the description of common ground theory
is reduced to the situation of an encounter between two active indi-
viduals. Basically, however, common ground theory also applies to writ-
120 Rainer Bromme
ten communication (e-mail is a quite recent example), to communica-
tion among more than two individuals, and to asymmetrical communi-
cation, as in a lecture.
The common ground theory assumes that any verbal encounter rep-
resents an act of cooperation: When we communicate, we do so to
attain a certain goal, to respond to - in most cases - an unspoken
question (cf. von Stutterheim and Klein 1989).
7
 All contributions to com-
munication are formulated and understood on the basis of background
assumptions we make about the situation in question, the object of
conversation and its goal: Two people's common ground is, in effect,
the sum of their mutual, common, or joint knowledge, beliefs, and sup-
positions' (Clark 1996: 93). This also includes assumptions about the
interlocutor's situation and views. If I tell a secretary, 'Please prepare
the letter for me/ I assume that we both know which letter is meant,
where it is supposed to be prepared, when this should be done, and so
on. One's own assumptions on which the conversation is based are
designated as one's own perspective and that of the other person as per-
spective of the other. The common ground also contains a reflexive ele-
ment; that is, we know that we have a certain perspective about the
object and the context of the conversation while knowing that the inter-
locutor has his or her view as well. These assumptions about the view
of the partner of communication are called the presumed perspective of the
other. The logically iterative continuation 'A knows that B knows that A
knows' normally is not significant for planning and realizing verbaliza-
tions. Reflexivity is usually confined to one step; it is part of one's own
self-awareness and one's integration into the social environment.
CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE AS SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT COMMON GROUND
How do people attain a common ground if they meet for the first time
or, if they are already acquainted, have not yet talked about the topic of
conversation? Clark (1996) distinguishes between two sources of infor-
mation in such a context: first, the stereotypical presumptions that are
activated on the basis of one's own categorization of the interlocutor
(communal common ground), and second, the immediate personal ex-
perience within the conversation (personal common ground).
The communal common ground is based on categories concerning
the interlocutor's cultural, social, vocational, and local background; his
or her gender, age, education, and profession; and social roles that are
intuitively assessed. These categories result in assumptions about the
The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity 121
communal common ground, such as which expertise can be assumed,
which language can be used, and so on. Talking about a conflict within
my department to a colleague from another university, I use different
formulations from those I use when talking about the same episode to
my neighbour who has nothing to do with universities in his vocational
life. Stereotypical information is usually correlated, making the intui-
tive 'computational effort' necessary for choosing and forming hypoth-
eses about the knowledge that can serve as common ground in conver-
sation smaller than might be supposed from the long and nevertheless
incomplete list of stereotypical information.
Kingsbury (1968, quoted in Krauss and Fussell 1991) has empirically
demonstrated the effect of stereotypical information about the conver-
sation partner in an experiment that can be replicated by anyone. He
had a trained subject ask for directions to a well-known Boston depart-
ment store. Depending on the accent (home vs. foreign accent) and on
phrasing that betrayed whether the person asking for directions was a
Boston resident or not, the answers differed in length and detail; that is,
the directions given were based on different assumptions about the
common ground of familiarity with the city.
The categories just named that determine how people are perceived
(gender, expertise, background, etc.) refer to differences between groups
of individuals. More general, ontological assumptions are also assumed
as communal common ground in every conversation. These concern,
among other things, the distinction between animate and inanimate
objects, between causes and events, and between word/sign and the
signified. Only a conflictual situation will reveal that all contributions
are based on generally shared ontological assumptions. This can be
observed, for example, in communication with children who, up to a
certain age, differ from adults in drawing the boundary between the
animate and the inanimate world (see Keil 1989).
As far as personal knowledge is concerned, our assumptions about
what our interlocutor knows (i.e., the presumed perspective of the other)
are to a large part based on what we know ourselves and on what we
believe to know. When I am scanning my memory for certain informa-
tion, for instance, I am able to assess rather well beforehand whether I
really have this knowledge, even if I have not yet reactivated the infor-
mation itself. This 'feeling of knowing' also is the basis of assumptions
about which information we may expect in other people (Jameson et al.
1993). Krauss and Fussell (1991) have presented images of public fig-
ures in the United States to students, asking them to judge how many
122 Rainer Bromme
of their fellow students would be able to identify these persons. In
addition, Krauss and Fussell empirically established how many stu-
dents actually knew these public figures. A rather high correlation be-
tween the presumed perspective of the other and the actual social dis-
tribution of this information was found, as well as a tendency among
subjects to overestimate the distribution of information they knew them-
selves. This is the so-called 'false consensus effect' (Ross, Greene, and
House 1977).
THE PROCESS OF GROUNDING
The stereotypical assumptions brought to the situation by the interlocu-
tors constitute only the starting point for establishing the common
ground. The most important basis for developing the common ground
are current common experiences and common activity (personal com-
mon ground). When I realize that my office neighbour hears the same
students in the corridor, I may presume that this perception belongs to
our common ground. I may for instance remark, "They are loud today'
and be sure that he knows whom I mean (but not that he shares my
sensation). If we both tell the students to calm down a bit, this event
will belong to the common ground of our experiences. The particular
history of jointly seen episodes and jointly executed actions forms the
basis of knowledge for the momentary formation of assumptions about
the common ground.
The sources of information just described form the knowledge basis
for getting at the required concrete and specific assumptions about the
common ground pertaining to the particular topic of conversation or
for establishing this common ground from scratch. Clark (1996) desig-
nates the establishment of common ground as 'grounding.' If interlocu-
tors, for instance, agree on a concept's referential context, this is a pro-
cess of grounding. This happens, for instance, as the result of activities
designed to point out objects.
In oral, direct communication, we have a comprehensive repertoire
of signs at our disposal to agree on the actual status of the common
ground used mutually to inform one another whether the flow of con-
versation can be continued or whether 'repair measures' must be un-
dertaken to re-establish the common ground. This is done by chang-
ing emphasis, by using assertive terms like 'ugh/ 'yeah/ by repeating
parts of phrases while changing the accent to a question or exclamation
mark, by making speech pauses, and by varying the length of our ver-
The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity 123
balizations until we signal that we expect the other person to take a
turn.
Clark's theory of common ground has not remained without criti-
cism. In particular, it has been questioned whether it is necessary that
the common ground assumptions of the interlocutors actually agree.
Everyday communication is often very imprecise, but it still works if
we understand approximately what the interlocutor means (Johnson-
Laird 1982; Sperber and Wilson 1986). Besides, it has as yet not been
empirically shown how strong the presumptions about the common
ground really influence the adaptation of verbalizations during conver-
sation to the listener, the so-called 'audience design' or 'recipient de-
sign' of the contributions to communication (Krauss and Fussell 1990).
Against these objections, it may nevertheless be noted that a certain
measure of common ground is indispensable, because a complete expli-
cation of the intended meaning of a verbalization in interaction is both
logically and psychologically impossible. Whether a real interpersonal
agreement of the assumptions about common ground is required or
whether the subjective conviction (the illusion of common ground) is
sufficient also depends on the purpose of communication. If the pur-
pose, for instance, is to coordinate activities, the common ground as-
sumptions must at least partially agree. The potentially positive func-
tion of differences in perspectives and possible modes of coping with
the illusion of common ground are discussed later in this essay.
The Theory of Common Ground as a Psychological Approach
to Interdisciplinarity
The reports from interdisciplinary work groups contain many hints at
initial difficulties of communication, and at the sometimes considerable
amount of time that passes until a feeling of mutual understanding has
been reached (see Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth, Klein, Maasen,
and Scerri, all in this volume). Frequently, developing a common lan-
guage and introducing colleagues from other disciplines to one's own
perspective are described as the key problems of interdisciplinary coop-
eration. These descriptions can be interpreted as indications of the prob-
lems that arise in creating a common ground of interaction. The reports
about problems of understanding in interdisciplinary work groups show
that the agreed-upon research topic as a rule does not suffice as com-
mon ground for further communication, since a large part of scientific
work consists in the theoretical reconstruction and hence in the produc-
124 Rainer Bromme
tion of the problems under study - in other words, in the continuous
theoretical and methodical reconstruction of the object of research (see
also Weingart, this volume).
If the distinctiveness of perspectives in the scientists concerned is the
very constitutive feature of interdisciplinarity, then we must empiri-
cally examine the process of developing a common ground, that is,
investigate grounding and its cognitive prerequisites. The theory of com-
mon ground, however, has been developed for everyday interactions
and not for scientific communication, and must thus be tested as to
whether it works as a heuristic for a psychology of interdisciplinary
thought and activity. What empirical questions arise from this heuristic?
PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT THE STYLE OF THOUGHT WITHIN THE OTHER DISCIPLINE:
ONE'S OWN PERSPECTIVE ON THE OTHER
Inquiring into the stereotypical representations and previous knowl-
edge about the other disciplines with which scientists enter into inter-
disciplinary work situations offers a first approach for empirical analy-
ses. The assumptions about the epistemic style (Weingart 1995b) or
style of thought ('denkstil' in German; see Fleck [1935] 1979) of the
other disciplines involved seem to be particularly promising. What do
the participants know about the other disciplines' mode of work and of
arguing, what is deemed to be in need of justification, what is consid-
ered presupposed, which type of data and proof are accepted, and how
important historical change is within the other discipline?
A proven method of mutually establishing such representations about
the other disciplines is the qualitatively oriented interview (see
Hollings worth and Rollings worth, and Scerri, this volume). One of the
difficulties of such an approach is that the epistemic style a disci-
pline honours is itself no homogeneous corpus of knowledge (cf.
Klein, this volume). Therefore the normative pattern that is necessary
as background to understand the more personal, sometimes idiosyn-
cratic Versions' of a discipline's epistemic style is difficult to recon-
struct. Epistemic style also comprises the practice of obtaining scientific
insights, not only their normative theory. On the other hand, it is pos-
sible to conduct such interviews, as they can be confined to such as-
pects of another discipline that might potentially be critical for the in-
tended cooperation.
8
Which aspects of epistemic style are of particular interest here? First,
we are interested in those components of epistemic style that found or
The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity 125
reflect differences in the social status of scientific disciplines. Summing
up studies on the social psychology of interdisciplinary cooperation,
Klein (1990: 127) reports: Teamwork has been compromised by the
disdain scientists have for engineers, mathematicians for physicists, pure
scientists for applied scientists, physical scientists for social scientists
and humanists and vice versa/ As a discipline's epistemic style con-
tains a significance guiding both activity and cognition and thus also a
normative component, it may well be expected that it contributes to
stereotypes of this kind.
9
 This again affects how open-minded a re-
searcher will be about data, proofs, and refutations obtained on the
basis of other epistemic styles.
We have a second interest in the assumptions about duration and
conditions of the learning processes typical for the discipline concerned
or, in other words, its implicit theory of learning and education. If a
discipline, for instance, stresses the role of intuitively obtained insights
over empirical experience, this is sometimes accompanied by notions of
giftedness, that is, by a widespread presumption that the partner in
cooperation coming from another discipline must be similarly 'gifted'
in a particular way (say, mathematically) to be able to understand the
concepts alien to his or her own field.
Third, we are interested in the metatheoretical conceptions about
interdisciplinarity itself. The discourse on interdisciplinarity (in this vol-
ume as well) contains views according to which successful inter-
disciplinarity depends on a large number of personal and institutional
margin conditions and is thus bound to be a special case that cannot be
significantly influenced, as well as the view that there is in principle no
difference between problems of interdisciplinary communication on the
one hand, and problems and features of the discourses taking place
within the disciplines concerned on the other. These views are again
influenced by the epistemic style of the discipline concerned, and it is
reasonable to expect that they are significant for interdisciplinary com-
munication.
Empirical analysis both of one's own perspective and of the pre-
sumed perspective of the other is a way of getting beyond understand-
ing the differences in status and obstacles to communication merely as
a problem arising from the individual psychologies of the participating
scientists. It is useful to be able to empirically reconstruct the extent to
which stereotypes about other people as well as lack of open-mindedness
in oneself is enhanced or maintained by one's own epistemic styles. To
the individuals involved, personal stereotypes often appear as indi-
126 Rainer Bromme
vidual attitudes and biases (resulting from traits) that can only be coun-
tered by an appropriate selection of researchers. The proposal sketched
here aims at clarifying empirically the extent to which personal stereo-
types about other disciplines are also based on epistemic style assump-
tions in interdisciplinary communication.
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE SOCIAL DISTRIBUTION OF ONE'S OWN KNOWLEDGE:
THE PRESUMED PERSPECTIVE OF THE OTHER
As described above, we base our everyday-life hypotheses about com-
mon ground on our own feeling of knowing while tending to overesti-
mate the distribution of our own knowledge and our own beliefs (the
false consensus effect). The presumed exclusive character of his or her
own professional knowledge, however, is part of the scientist's self-
awareness as a specialist. This raises the intriguing empirical question
as to what perspective is presumed in the other: What presumptions do
the members of an interdisciplinary team have about the social distri-
bution of their own knowledge among colleagues coming from other
disciplines?
It may be assumed that there are discipline-typical conceptions about
the degree of exclusiveness of access to the disciplinary knowledge in
question, and that these conceptions are also influenced by the public
discourse about the role of the discipline in question within a given
culture. Thus, disciplines like mathematics or philosophy with basic
elements of knowledge are considered to be part of general education;
these basic elements are part of the standard curriculum in schools.
For other disciplines, such as engineering or linguistics, this is not
true. Besides, considerable interpersonal differences are to be expect-
ed according to the degree of personal experience with the other's
perspective.
An interesting question is whether there is a false consensus effect in
spite of the exclusiveness that is constitutive for scientific knowledge.
We have started a series of studies aiming for an answer to this ques-
tion. Up to now we have obtained mixed results: Interviewing pro-
fessionally experienced architects, we found examples of substantial
overestimation as well as a few examples of underestimation of the
distribution of architectural knowledge among laymen (Bromme and
Rainbow 1995). This result is surprising, since the exclusiveness of pro-
fessional knowledge is constitutive for the concept of 'expert' not only
The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity 127
in the relationship between disciplines, but also in that between expert
and lay knowledge (Stehr 1994; Bromme and Tillema 1995).
Grounding and Developing a Common Language
The empirical survey of the actual and of the presumed perspective of
the other sketched in the previous sections concerns only the cognitive
prerequisites (the communal common ground) for an emerging devel-
opment of a common understanding between the various interlocutors,
that is, for the grounding process. Another empirical question is how
the personal common ground is negotiated between partners of interac-
tion that have different cognitive perspectives. To a considerable de-
gree, the burden of such negotiation is on verbal and non-verbal signals
of understanding well known from everyday communication. While
these are of practical importance in interdisciplinary communication,
they are of no further interest in our context here.
In everyday communication, a part of grounding consists in negotiat-
ing a shared referential context for the concepts used, and under some
circumstances also in developing a new terminology (Isaacs and Clark
1987; Garrod and Doherty 1994). Newly established work groups spend
some time developing a group-specific language of their own in order
to inform one another about the meaning of disciplinary concepts and
to facilitate certain terminological clarification. In interdisciplinary com-
munication, differences in common ground are frequently 'discov-
ered' only when the partners of cooperation find out that they use the
same concepts with different meanings, or that they use different codings
(terms, symbol systems) for approximately the same concepts.
10
 The
discourse on interdisciplinarity contains many examples of the fact that
participants experience this discovery as a burden, and cope with it as a
process of mutual misunderstanding.
The elaboration of a common, group-specific language is an empiri-
cal phenomenon that suggests other empirical investigations.
First, we need to know how the development of a language used for
mutual information about the respective disciplinary perspective is re-
vealing, that is; how signals about the establishment of a common ground
are exchanged.
Second, it is important to analyze the cognitive function of the emer-
gence of new terminology, that is, the process within which terms origi-
nally only introduced for purposes of fixing references and thus assur-
128 Rainer Bromme
ing a minimal common ground are gradually filled with intensional
meaning. If the development of a group-specific disciplinary language
leads to new theoretical concepts, this is an example of the possible
cognitive effects of grounding. In the next section, this process will be
examined in more detail.
Third, the communicative function of a new terminology for the pro-
cess of establishing a new field (if interdisciplinarity results in the de-
velopment of new disciplines) must be analysed. It is fascinating to
investigate the reinterpretations of already established terminology as
well as the formation of new, group-specific concepts that can trans-
mute into a disciplinary language of their own in relation to outsiders.
On the Uses of Differences in Perspective
It is obvious that a successful agreement on a common terminology in
interdisciplinary communication does not dissolve the differences in
the disciplinary perspectives. This would not even be desirable. How-
ever, this raises the question of how interaction is possible in case of -
at least partly - different assumptions about the common ground. I will
attempt to sketch an answer by means of the concept of linguistic divi-
sion of labour.
In the above presentation of the theory of common ground, it has
already been pointed out that the assumptions of the interlocutors on
the common ground need not agree. Up to a certain degree, an illusion
11
about the common ground will suffice. Several empirical studies have
shown that speakers like to shift the burden of understanding to the
listeners. Phrasing occurs without regard for special assumptions about
the audience, while setting trust in the feedback that will provide occa-
sions for corrections (cf. Krauss and Fussell 1991; Horton and Keysar
1996). Schober (1993) found that individuals will speak in a mode less
adapted to their audience if they recognize that the listeners will be able
to give feedback than if this opportunity is clearly excluded.
The common ground can also be composed of knowledge that is
distributed among the participants of an interaction. It need not be
cognitively represented to the same extent and the same content in
every participant. Common ground is also socially distributed knowl-
edge (Hutchins 1995). The socially distributed character of common
ground explains why interdisciplinary communication cannot (and
should not) dissolve the differences between the participants' perspec-
tives but may even benefit from these differences and, as a result, retain
The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity 129
such assymetries in knowledge. Common ground can also comprise
agreement on what is not part of the shared knowledge and therefore
will fall among the responsibilities of the partners in interaction.
Metaphors as Tools for a Linguistic Division of Labour
The discourse on interdisciplinarity emphasizes the role of metaphors
to explain how new insights can arise from the interaction between
different perspectives (Klein 1990; Bono 1995). The principle of borrow-
ing is described as one of the fundamental cognitive mechanisms on
the basis of which novel insights are produced in interdisciplinary
communication.
In agreement with recent approaches in cognitive psychology to meta-
phors (Lakoff 1987; Gibbs 1994; for a critical position on this view of
metaphor: Murphy 1996), metaphors are conceived of, in this context,
primarily not as linguistic means but rather as cognitive units of cat-
egorical perception, not primarily as tools for illustrating messages but
rather as fundamental categories of experience. It is thus clear that meta-
phors assume a central role not only in interdisciplinary research but
also within single disciplines in that they are not only necessary for the
'large-scale' revolution of theories, but also indispensable in everyday
research work (cf. Knorr-Cetina 1981).
In our context, the focus should be on a certain variant of metaphors
that has been emphasized by Lakoff (1987): metonymies. From a lin-
guistic point of view, metonymies are not metaphors, but the two are
distinct types of synecdoches. It is reasonable under cognitive aspects,
however, to treat metonymies as variants of metaphors. In case of a
metonymy, certain aspects of meaning of a more comprehensive con-
cept are used as placeholders for the whole concept. For example, in the
statement 'Bosnia must not become a second Vietnam for the American
army/ Vietnam stands for a complex historical event.
The use of metaphors in their metonymic function helps to explain
how communication is possible in interdisciplinary research even in the
presence of distinct theoretical perspectives. The different perspectives
each of the participants attaches to the jointly used metaphor need not
be dissolved even in long-term cooperation. Each of the participants
may work with his or her own use of the concept, and there is no
compulsion to totally integrate or unify the meanings of concepts.
In his analysis of 'meaning of meaning' Putnam (1975) has pointed
out that our intuitive assumptions about a concept's meaning are based
130 Rainer Bromme
on our knowing that there is a linguistic division of labour. We know
that a part of the meaning of the concepts we use is rather more pre-
cisely or differently defined - that is, known by specialists - and that
we lack their knowledge. Nevertheless, we can use these concepts with-
out difficulty, and we can as a rule defer to the specialists by consulting
an encyclopaedia or an expert. Putnam illustrates this point by means
of the concept of water. We know that there is a certain chemical defini-
tion for water and that it has physical properties that experts can ex-
plain, but we do not need to know all these meanings in order to use
the concept (Malt 1994).
The communicative implications of the 'linguistic division of labour' have
not yet been analyzed. It must be clarified empirically, for example,
whether individuals can anticipate how certain concepts can be used
when they are at odds with another person's perspective. Especially for
well-defined concepts (from science, technology, or mathematics) it must
be established whether experts are able to anticipate that these concepts
may have an at least partly divergent meaning for non-specialists. We
have carried out an empirical study on this subject that demonstrates
how data on this question can be obtained (Bromme, Rambow, and
Wiedmann 1998).
In the first step our study contributed to a question that is discussed
in psychological research on concepts. Can differences in typicality like
those found in everyday concepts also be established in the case of
precisely defined natural science concepts? Thirty-two chemists from
laboratories of a university chemistry department were asked to assess
instances of the concept 'acid' on a scale judging how typical the ex-
amples are for the general concept of acid. It was shown that hydro-
chloric or sulphuric acid is considered to be very typical. With respect
to other concrete examples, however, there is agreement that there are
less typical samples.
12
In a second trial, our subjects (laboratory chemists!) were asked to
rate the samples once more, this time from the presumed perspective of
a chemistry teacher. The judgments changed in a systematic manner.
Certain acid samples remained highly typical for the notion of acid, but
depending on the theoretical type of acid there were also changes. These
changes agreed with the practical significance of the acids for a chemis-
try teacher's work. Our results indicate that the subjects of our study
had an intuitive understanding of the fact that different extensional
aspects of the concept of acid are significant for chemists working within
different vocational contexts. The study shows also how the influence
The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity 131
of vocational perspective on certain extensional aspects of meaning can
be measured, and that this is not only possible for concepts belonging
to the humanities, for which a certain fuzziness of meaning might well
be expected, but also for natural science concepts.
Concluding Remark
These experimental designs have been discussed for yet another, more
practical reason. They are also suited to prompting the participants to
reflect on their communication with other colleagues. As soon as some-
body inquires into the presumed perspective of another on one's own
specialized domain of knowledge, such an interview may prompt re-
flection on one's self as an expert or as a specialist. As soon as one
obtains data on false consensus bias, communicating the data after-
wards to the interviewed, this of course will influence their assump-
tions about the social distribution of their own knowledge. At least
some of the empirical designs that have been sketched above can also
be transformed into instruments for reflecting on and perhaps im-
proving communication between inhabitants of different cognitive
territories. The difference in perspectives is not only an impediment to
understanding, but at the same time a condition of successful interdisciplinary
communication.
Notes
Many thanks for helpful comments to Julie Klein, Matthias Nuckles, Riklef
Rambow, Elmar Stahl, and Nico Stehr.
1 In this overview of psychological conditions of interdisciplinarity, I shall
also refer to my own personal experience during sixteen years of work as a
psychologist at an interdisciplinary research institute for mathematics
education, where my interaction was mainly with mathematicians, but also
with social scientists and philosophers of science.
2 It is a recurring point of emphasis in the discourse on interdisciplinarity
that researchers doing successful work in interdisciplinary research projects
must at first develop outstanding excellence in their own field, and this also
means a specialized one. Recently, however, some other views have been
held. While it remains undisputed that a high personal qualification is
required, this is not necessarily seen in a specialization that has been
132 Rainer Bromme
acquired over a long time, but rather in a so-called 'profound' flexibility of
disciplinary identities (cf. Gibbons et al. 1994; Turpin and Garret-Jones, this
volume). This difference of views is due to the fact that Gibbons et al. for
instance, are primarily concerned with a scientific activity oriented towards
practice (Mode 2 research), an orientation that has in part different cogni-
tive prerequisites than basic (Mode 1) research (cf. Bromme and Tillema
1995).
3 See also Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth, Maasen and Scerri (all in this
volume), who use similar notions to characterize both intellectual
openmindedness and necessary excellence within one's own field.
4 Since Immelmann is a behavioural biologist, it can be assumed that the
notion of 'imposing behavior' is based on some experiences within interdis-
ciplinary work that reminded him of his observations of Canada geese and
duck behaviour.
5 A similar shift from a trait-oriented focus to a cognitively oriented focus on
conceptual structures as it is proposed here for the psychology of
interdisciplinarity can be observed in psychological research on individual
creativity (cf. Ward, Smith, and Vaid 1997).
6 The boundary is flexible for the very reason that there is already such a
considerable differentiation and specialization within most of the tradi-
tional disciplines, as well as conceptual and methodological heterogeneity,
that border crossing becomes necessary where representatives of the
various subdisciplines intend to communicate (cf. Klein 1996 and this
volume; Weingart, this volume). The boundary is also flexible because it
repeatedly happens in the history of science that interdisciplinary ap-
proaches develop the typical social, institutional, and cognitive characteris-
tics of disciplines such as described, for instance, for 'cognitive science' by
De Mey (this volume).
7 Of course, talking to each other has additional functions in social interac-
tion besides exchanging information. For example, talking may serve to
regulate the social relationship between the partners of interaction. We
may, however, do without these other dimensions here.
8 A rewarding source of information for the construction of questionnaires
are the reports by scholars who are or have been members of two disci-
plines (cf. Kingsbury [1987] for interesting observations about the differ-
ences in the ways of thinking between psychologists and psychiatrists). As
far as fundamental representations about the epistemological principles of
the natural sciences are concerned, the survey inventories on 'science
attitudes' developed in the context of research on science teaching also
The Psychology of Cognitive Interdisciplinarity 133
offer suggestions for constructing appropriate survey tools (Ledermann
1992).
9 The stereotypes underlying such or other differences in status are of course
not only founded in the assumptions about the presumed or actual
epistemic style of the respectively other and foreign discipline, but also
reflect the social importance of disciplines and subdisciplines within a
society. Accordingly, they are also subject to historical change. Just think of
the presently occurring change in the status of biochemistry, which seems
to supplement or replace physics as the leading science.
10 Latour and Woolgar (1979:11) describe an example that illustrates the fact
that this already occurs within subdisciplines.
1 The concept of the 'illusion of common ground,' however, must not be
taken literally here. What is meant is an assumption about the common
ground that is based on knowledge about the linguistic division of labour
and thus about the differences of meaning inherent in the concepts used.
Such a reflexive illusion of common ground may serve to recognize the
differences of meaning without perceiving them as mutual misunderstand-
ings that must be dissolved before successful exchange can take place.
12 The result is revealing in itself, because it shows that an abstract and
theoretically clearly defined concept like 'acid' is subjectively seen in close
connection with certain of its instances, but in a more distant relation to
other instances. This is remarkable for the fact that the abstract definition of
acid of course holds in the same way for all of the samples used. From a
logical point of view there should be no samples that are more typical or
less typical in the light of a general and at the same time precise definition
that holds true for all instances.
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies
RHODRI WINDSOR LISCOMBE
Introduction
This paper recounts the genesis and evolution of graduate interdiscipli-
nary degree programs at the University of British Columbia. In addi-
tion to recording the organizational narrative with particular reference
to the Individual Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program (IISGP), it
reconstructs briefly the pedagogical discourses and administrative poli-
cies that have informed and affected the enterprise from its establish-
ment in 1971 to the present. The description of the objectives and opera-
tion of the program includes discussion of the conceptualization of
interdisciplinarity as well as of its support within the university con-
text. The strengths and weaknesses of the program are also examined in
company with problematic or contested features, and the potential for
future development. Consequently the paper is best defined as a his-
torical analysis of situated interdisciplinary practice, moving from its
general accommodation within the university structure to its specific
embedding through an individually configured process of study. The
critique of interdisciplinarity theory is thus framed in terms of practical
outcomes and modes of facilitation. The thesis of this paper - or more
precisely the propositions concluded from observing the operation of
an interdisciplinary program at one university - is that the crossing of
disciplinary boundaries and uncovering of previously uncharted
knowledges require sustained but flexible administrative support and
that such support be conceptualized rather than preconceived, proac-
tive but with fluid rather than fixed outcomes, attained through
multidisciplinary exploration and even disciplinary contestation. In ad-
dition, while configured (in the IISGP) around individual initiative,
7
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 135
interdisciplinarity needs to be nurtured through the active collaborative
and critical participation of faculty supervisors.
Intentions and Objectives
The Individual Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program at the Uni-
versity of British Columbia was established in 1971.
1
 At the outset it
was conceived as a practical response to the desire for liberalization in
the academic organization of knowledge and to facilitate a growing
number of students who wished to combine more than one disciplinary
field in pursuit of their research. Those faculty who initiated interdisci-
plinary studies appreciated the significant realignment of traditional
disciplines, especially in the pure and applied sciences, but also includ-
ing subjects in the humanities such as geography or comparative litera-
ture. The rapid pace of new research and changing methodology brought
new focii of academic study that demonstrated the intellectual validity
of integrative, innovative reconfiguration of knowledge and subject ar-
eas that would lead to the development of institutes, centres, and other
new programs such as Canadian studies.
2
 Furthermore, the IISGP was
regarded as a means to effect more radical linkages between those three
increasingly disconnected knowledge domains defined most readily by
C.P. Snow as the (pure) sciences, arts (humanities), and social sciences
(Snow 1964). The program was situated in the newly expanding Faculty
of Graduate Studies to embed this approach in research rather than
undergraduate teaching. Although not a radical innovation, the pro-
gram was the first to be set up in Canada.
3
This decision reflected both the culture of the university in the late
1960s and also the interest of those faculty most involved in establish-
ing interdisciplinary studies. The pedagogy of UBC represented an in-
termixing of chiefly Scots and United States values and traditions,
summarized by Dr John Stager (assistant to Acting Dean Ben Moyls at
the inception of the IISGP) as 'deep and narrow' versus 'broad and
thin.
4
 This resulted in a somewhat less strict alliance of academic disci-
pline with department than in many North American universities, but
also an awareness of developments in the major United States institu-
tions, especially those on the West Coast, such as Stanford or Berkeley
universities, where new subject alignments were being developed to
accommodate the impact of new knowledges or techniques. Dr Moyls,
for example, was a mathematician conscious of the need to redirect his
discipline to exploit such new directions. Indeed, he accepted the invi-
136 Rhodri Windsor Liscombe
tation of the dean of Graduate Studies, Dr Ian McTaggart Cowan, to
become his assistant in 1967 in order to advance the creation of an
Institute of Applied Mathematics at UBC. Dr Cowan himself had been
appointed dean in 1966 by the then President, Dr J. MacDonald, to
promote graduate studies and to extend graduate research on the basis
of his establishment of an interdisciplinary Fisheries Centre when head
of the Department of Biology. The activity of Drs Cowan and Moyls in
broadening the reach of their respective disciplines - and Dr Cowan's
contribution to the burgeoning interdisciplinary field of ecology - was
matched by Dr Stager's work on the sociocultural dimensions of his
own subject, geography.
Their interests obviously represented a wider consensus, given the
ease with which the IISGP came into being.
5
 The faculty who formed
this consensus appreciated the value of expanding graduate research
and its pedagogical parameters. One instance is recorded in a proposal
for a Centre for Materials Research endorsed by the dean of Graduate
Studies and accepted by the Committee of Deans at their meeting of 26
June 1969: 'A very large committee representing the departments on
campus is seeking a Negotiated Development Grant to proceed with
interdisciplinary research and graduate student training in the area of
hydrology.'
6
 They were among those who acknowledged that the cur-
rent administrative/pedagogical structure could not enable, let alone
promote, many potentially valuable areas of research or study. That
realization emerged both from their awareness of the professional dis-
course within their own fields and also from students interested in
emergent and non-conventional areas, or in pursuing more broadly
based studies. One increasingly popular area was environmental
interconnectedness.
7
 Environmental ecology coincided with the era of
student revolt - marked at UBC by a student sit-in of the Faculty Club
in late October 1968 - with opposition to the contemporaneous use of
toxic chemicals in the Vietnam War, and with the inception of the IISGP.
The decision to establish the IISGP, however, was essentially a peda-
gogical, not a political, decision.
8
 The program was one of a number of
liberalizing strategies promoted from within the ranks of the faculty
and supported by the dean of Graduate Studies and his associates.
Student cases rather than student agitation were their motivation, not
least since student representation was then absent from each level of
academic regulation at UBC. Their intentions and attitudes are well
encapsulated in the outline for a seminar on Urban Regional Planning
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 137
in Developing Countries included with the proposal for a School of
Community and Regional Planning successfully forwarded by Gradu-
ate Studies to the Senate Curriculum Committee in December 1969:
"This course together with formal offerings in other Departments in this
University will fill a void and serve to provide an opportunity for in-
depth study by Graduate Students cutting across Departments ...' (UBC
Box 39, File 5).
Such rhetoric explains the situation of pedagogically experimental or
synthesizing programs - including the IISGP - in the graduate arena.
Graduate Studies made a quantum leap in course offerings between
1970-1 and 1978-9; from generalized PhD or EdD degrees with specific
offerings at the masters level in architecture, English, forestry, law, nurs-
ing, and physical education to a broad swath of doctoral and masters
degrees in the majority of departments, supplemented by those offered
through the increasing range of institutes and centres. Moreover the
academic conduct of graduate programs at UBC during the 1970s was
relatively flexible in terms of required courses, units, and comprehen-
sive or candidacy examinations. Those latter were decided by each gradu-
ate student's supervisory committee, enabling the type of experimental
inclusionary and integrative approach embedded in interdisciplinary
research. The receptivity of interdisciplinarity to the contemporary peda-
gogical and administrative organization at the graduate level is demon-
strated by this passage from the record of the Senate Curriculum Com-
mittee for 20 January 1971: '[An] interdisciplinary programme in trans-
portation seems to be emerging, though not in a consciously planned
way. The departments concerned are careful to consult with one an-
other concerning possible overlap of courses, but little attention ap-
pears to have been given to overall programme structure, or possible
gaps in the total offerings relating to transportation.'
9
 The note of cau-
tion expressed by the committee is, again, less an issue of theoretical
definition than structural arrangement.
Consequently the defining concepts of the IISGP corresponded with
existing UBC practice and were relatively straightforwardly inserted
within the evolving graduate agenda. Here is the original definition of
interdisciplinary studies from the 1971-2 Calendar (page 204):
The Faculty of Graduate Studies encourages the realignment of traditional
disciplines into new patterns, crossing department and faculty boundaries
where this will foster the development of new areas of learning.
138 Rhodri Windsor Liscombe
Where such interdisciplinary arrangements, by virtue of major special
facilities, regional orientation or patterns of approach, take on the
character of departments they may be established as Schools or Institutes
within the Faculty.
Less formal arrangements may be termed Areas and the graduate
study and research in these will be under the coordination of special com-
mittees of the Faculty.
Where the programme of an individual graduate student does not fit
into established departmental boundaries, the Dean of the Faculty may set
up an ad hoc committee to plan and guide the entire programme, includ-
ing the administration of the comprehensive examination and overall
direction of the thesis.
The interdisciplinary enterprise was to be an option and a spring-
board for new or reconstituted subject entities. It was channelled through
the research initiative of individual graduate students directed by a
supervisory committee of qualified faculty. From that derived what
might best be termed a self-regulating academic scenario: graduate stu-
dent and faculty had to demonstrate personal commitment and intellec-
tual focus around a legitimate research issue or problem.
Interdisciplinarity was to be mapped by individual explorations moti-
vated by intellectual inquiry sustained by the expertise available on
campus or within the academic orbit of the university. It was to be
rigorous but non-programmatic, collaborative but not institutionalized,
differentiated but not conventionalized.
This strategy of facilitating interdisciplinary studies through faculty
commitment and departmental initiatives effectively circumvented most
criticism within the university.
10
 Those sceptical about the intellectual
efficacy of either new inter- or cross-disciplinary subject areas or indi-
vidual interdisciplinarity - and such contestation existed at UBC, partly
motivated by the association of interdisciplinarity with vaguely con-
strued holistic thought and the intrusion of social scientific theory upon
many of the traditional humanities
11
 - were pacified by the fact that the
selection and monitoring of graduate students remained primarily with
the departments. Indeed, every graduate student in the Individual In-
terdisciplinary Program over the first decade of its existence was en-
rolled only after initial admission into a department and one year's
assessed/examined work under its authority. Moreover, the IISGP ap-
proach continued to be defined as an option secondary to attachment to
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 139
an institute or centre into the 1980s. In 1979-80, the Calendar description
reiterated this view through a number of telling amendments to the
1970-1 text reprinted above. Thus, at the end of the opening paragraph
of the 1979-80 version this sentence was inserted: 'A major function of
the various institutes [and Centres] of the Faculty consists in promoting
interdisciplinary research' (page 147). There is more than a hint here of
the subversion or natural relapse of supposed interdisciplinarity into
new orthodoxies (and administrative entities) detected by Stanley Fish
in 1994. And the influence of more conventional pedagogical and ad-
ministrative structuring seems manifest in subsequent revisions; a now
doubtless deliberately modest apologia for interdisciplinarity to diffuse
potential opposition towards its further growth:
Degree programs are also available in interdisciplinary studies. In some
cases, an interdisciplinary area has been authorized to offer and adminis-
ter formal degree programs (e.g. Genetics, Comparative Literature, etc.).
Where an established degree program exists, a student may request
admission into a special interdisciplinary progra m administered by an ad
hoc committee representing the various disciplines involved. All arrange-
ments involving special interdisciplinary programs must be approved by
the Dean. The Dean will review annually the progress of all students in
special interdisciplinary programs.
Some inter-departmental or inter-faculty groupings offer guidance in
setting up interdisciplinary programs [Applied Mathematics, Commerce,
Hydrology, Resource Ecology and Planning, and Urban Studies].
Five years later that last parenthetical phrase was replaced by direct
reference to 'Institutes, Centres, Committees/
12
 Not until July 1996 was
the IISGP established as an entirely distinct program, under the direc-
tion of a part-time Chair and an Advisory Committee of five senior
faculty.
13
During the first decade of its operation, opposition to the IISGP thus
apparently resided less in matters of pedagogy than in university bu-
reaucracy. And the target was primarily the Faculty of Graduate
Studies alone. A substantial number of faculty plus the major depart-
ments regarded Graduate Studies as the imposition of an unnecessary
new strata of administration as well as interference in their monitoring
of academic standards.
14
 Nonetheless, those senior faculty associated
with the promulgation of the interdisciplinary options recall a clear
140 Rhodri Windsor Liscombe
demarcation in attitude across the campus. Departments with some
stake in the environmental and applied fields, or those affected by speedy
redefinition or enlargement of the parameters of their subject fields,
tended to be positive (for example, anthropology and sociology, for-
estry, geography, and political science), whereas those that claimed a
well-defined pedagogical rationale tended to be negative (for example,
economics). Another somewhat irrational factor was the established
power of departments that, despite internal recognition of fundamental
repositioning within the nature and objectives of their knowledge do-
mains, resisted administrative change (for example, chemistry and phys-
ics). But if the resistance was inconsistent, and relatively subdued and
non-specific to Interdisciplinary Studies, the academic culture of UBC
remained conservative with little radicalization among either faculty or
departmental grouping.
Such an apolemical and 'live and let live' environment for inter-
disciplinarity has persisted at UBC. However, a critique has also en-
dured, if anything increasing with the advent of (1) more specialized or
politicized interdisciplinary centres such as Women's Studies, (2) re-
newed talk of thorough-going reconstruction of the undergraduate cur-
riculum around the interdisciplinary Arts One and Science One models,
(3) the interdisciplinary and multif aceted cantilevering outward of many
disciplines/departments, especially in the humanities, and (4) increas-
ing cuts to university funding. So new variations recur on earlier cri-
tiques of interdisciplinarity with regard to the embedding of disciplin-
ary study in interdisciplinary research, academic competence prerequi-
site to research beyond the recognized or supposed boundaries, and
even to the ability of existing discipline/departmental structures to bet-
ter facilitate such non-conventional research. On the other hand, oppo-
nents also argue that interdisciplinarity can only occur through a sys-
temic reorganization of the undergraduate curriculum or the evolving
creation of institutes or centres constituted around particular fields of
study with a demonstrable interdisciplinary pedigree and relevance -
the environmental and comparative literature areas still being the most
readily accepted. Apart from legitimate anxieties about imprecision of
thought or investigation and claims to growing inclusivity within exist-
ing disciplinary entities, an underlying misgiving remains the potential
erosion of departmental funding and authority. In turn, the issue of
interdisciplinarity has sustained a series of ongoing arguments about
the relative balance of graduate to undergraduate support and the mis-
sion of a large provincial (rather than privately endowed) university.
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 141
The Individual Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program
The academic construction of interdisciplinarity at UBC around an emer-
gent subject/issue area or as an individual, case-by-case process has
thereby circumvented the preponderance of faculty opposition. More-
over, by being directed towards the facilitation of experimental research
this construction avoided implication with contentious and probably
fruitless discussions about substantive alteration to curriculum and bu-
reaucratic organization. By placing the initial onus in the IISGP on the
graduate student, faculty and thus indirectly departments have been
drawn into the practice of interdisciplinarity. This type of inter-
disciplinarity could be justified readily by virtue of being clearly fo-
cused and modest in scope if not in essential research objective.
Similarly, an individual program steered a pragmatic course between
mere 'adhoccery' on the one hand and orthodoxy on the other. Prospec-
tive students had to prove the intellectual and procedural validity of
their topic - both course and research work - with at least four quali-
fied faculty as well as a broadly-based selection committee (originally
comprising the dean and associate deans of Graduate Studies but since
1996 an Advisory Committee of, on average, eight senior faculty and
the IISGP Chair). Consequently the topics or sites of interdisciplinarity
were neither predetermined nor fixed. In this respect the IISGP corre-
sponded and continued to correspond with generally accepted attributes
of interdisciplinary research. By most definitions the program implies
exploration beyond the already prescribed or bounded intellectual ter-
ritory: it can be at or beyond the supposed margin, beneath or adjunct
to the presumed core of disciplinary study; it can seek to appropriate
concepts or theory and methods from one to another disciplinary do-
main; it can integrate or critically interrelate materials from several fields;
and it can reconfigure or reposition knowledge as well as its pursuit.
15
THE CONCEPTUAL TERRITORY
Most attempts to be definitive about interdisciplinarity either as an
exact ideological or operational quantity have failed. The current de-
bates about terminology underscore the properly slippery nature of this
liberalizing and reconstructive approach to the comprehension, arrange-
ment, and explication of knowledge. If 'interdisciplinary' remains the
main term, convincing arguments have been advanced recently for the
substitution of 'transdisciplinary.' And 'multi-' and 'cross-disciplinary'
142 Rhodri Windsor Liscombe
continue in usage, although these terms seem more applicable to the
course work and problem definition stages of most IISGP degrees (i.e.,
as preparation for the integration of knowledges in the research process
and their articulation in a thesis).
16
 That is because the interdisciplinary
approach can reside predominantly in the space of interchange across
disciplinary boundaries or in the creation of means to transfer aspects
of one discipline or academic territory into another, and because the
very pace and compound nature of present research appears to dimin-
ish the cohering or reintegration of knowledges it reveals or promises.
For example, medical research, be it positioned about fundamental ques-
tions of genetic structure or peripheral (though not less significant)
matters of health care, increasingly entails the interrelation of so-called
pure science with ethical, political, and sociocultural issues.
17
 Similarly
reductionist study paradigms increasingly have to be measured against
broader visions or other models of knowledge because of their growing
impact in a rapidly compressing global environment.
However defined, the practice of interdisciplinary is necessary not
only for instrumental purposes but also for cognitive (including ethical)
reasons; indeed, an argument can be made that cognitive displacement
is one of the crucial prerequisites for the enlargement of knowledge.
Many fields of study and disciplines have benefitted from the internal
contestation sparked by the induction or intrusion of theories and meth-
odologies developed elsewhere. The proliferation of new branches in
the pure and applied sciences is especially evident. Equally important
has been the impact upon the traditional humanities of social scientific
thought and research, typified by the considerable broadening and re-
invigoration of such an esoteric 'discipline' as art history consequent
upon the appropriation of the structuralist and post-structuralist dis-
courses. Art, literature, physics, computer science, engineering, and even
such hybrids as biogenetics - once supposedly mainly self-referential
about distinct disciplinary-generated foci - obviously share relation-
ships through material form and non-material influence let alone through
social and environmental impact. Yet those relationships are elusive to
codification, frequently established at the initial stage of individual in-
vestigation, and subverted if constrained under new terminologies.
18
Clearly the diversity of conceptualization and modalities of inter-
disciplinarity provide a justification for the situating of interdisci-
plinary research in subject-issue centres/institutes or in an individual
program such as the IISGP.
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 143
OBJECTIVES AND ORGANIZATION
The Individual Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program at UBC is
thus interdisciplinary neither by default nor by avoidance. From its
inception the IISGP followed a proactive concept of interdisciplinarity,
one that deliberately privileged individual initiative as the means to
validate and exercise such integrative research. In this respect the pro-
gram has remained responsive to the new ideas and information that
construct both knowledge and its organization and application - whether
thereo-critically or functionally. The limited scale of operation has di-
minished anxiety within the university community about the intellec-
tual qualification of prospective IISGP graduate students, the academic
substance of their programs, and career prospects. Being placed under
the authority of the dean of Graduate Studies, the overall academic
criteria and protocols became well-established. As the program evolved
from 1971 the entrance requirements have remained rigorous but flex-
ible. A major revision occurred during the 1980s that involved the insti-
tution of direct application into the IISGP as well as by transfer on the
specific recommendation of a department.
19
The process of refinement based on experience has continued, espe-
cially under the remit of Drs John Grace and Frieda Granot (the former
and current deans of Graduate Studies) to the present IISGP chair and
Advisory Committee. The least changed features of the program are
first, the reposing of responsibility for academic direction with a faculty
supervisory committee (and general oversight by the IISGP chair and
Committee), and second, the absence of the predetermined course re-
quirements imposed by most departments and degree-granting units.
Instead the graduate students, in negotiation with their supervisory
committee, have been empowered to formulate a schedule of course
work and candidacy (comprehensive) examinations relevant to their
acquisition of appropriate discipline-based knowledge or methods, and
subsequent pursuit of their chosen research topic. In that sense the
IISGP has always stressed the collaborative nature of learning and its
primary emphasis on discovery.
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
The selection process cannot be described as easy. Prior to making an
application the prospective IISGP graduate students have, from the out-
144 Rhodri Windsor Liscombe
set of the program, been required to confirm first-rate performance in
prior academic studies and then to embark on a lengthy and challeng-
ing quest. They must be able to identify and articulate an area of study
that clearly ventures beyond the parameters of relevant departmental
or institute/centre graduate programs at the MA, MSc, and PhD levels.
Even including students who approach the program through 'umbrella'
units - those that handle graduate work through the administrative and
collegiate aegis of the IISGP (the Institute of Health Promotion, Social
Work and Bio-Resource Engineering) - all candidates are asked to con-
tact the chair. At the first interview they are invited to explain their
reasons for contemplating the IISGP and thus to make an initial defence
of the interdisciplinarity of their project with regard to intellectual con-
tent and course work integration. At this stage the resolve of candidates
has been, and continues to be, challenged by discussion of alternative
departmental/centre/institute offerings as an additional process of self-
selection and academic monitoring.
20
 This clarifies the thinking of the
applicant, and is also intended to assure the wider university commu-
nity that the IISGP neither seeks to poach good graduates nor to accept
those who balk at departmental requirements or are not quite accept-
able elsewhere. That policy has been followed by the present chair who,
in addition, has through meetings with deans and heads indicated that
the IISGP cannot be regarded as an academic longstop for problem
students.
Thereafter the potential applicant to the IISGP must devise a suffi-
ciently persuasive research topic and associated campaign of study to
win the support of three qualified faculty for the MA/MSc, and four for
the PhD (at least one being a full professor or senior associate with a
proven record of research and publication). The chair of each supervi-
sory committee is usually from the department or academic unit repre-
senting the main or core disciplinary area of the research topic; in turn
that department becomes the 'home department' to the respective gradu-
ate student and his or her means to obtain (highly valuable) support
facilities such as office space and experience as a teaching assistant.
This is no easy task due to the inconsistent recognition of such service
by departments until very recently, and to the increasing teaching/
administrative load carried by most faculty. Furthermore, faculty have
to agree to serve collaboratively with colleagues from one, or more
usually two, different departments and thus agree to extend their own
understanding while renouncing some of their authority, especially with
regard to the candidacy (comprehensive) examination. The program
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 145
also actively encourages the participation, either as a full member or in
an advisory capacity, of appropriately qualified faculty from other uni-
versities (predominantly in BC but including those in the United States,
Britain, and Europe). Conversely the enhanced responsibility accorded
to the graduate can be problematic for some students and represents an
additional self-selecting component.
The hurdle of assembling a supportive supervisory committee passed,
the applicants advance to the task of compiling a well-argued and writ-
ten statement of their research and course work. They have always
been, and still are, advised strongly to develop this in consultation with
the IISGP chair, as well as members of their preliminary supervisory
committee. Until the revision in 1996 of the application procedure, the
statement of research usually comprised a fifty-to-sixty page document
setting out the research problem(s), explicating how the various disci-
plines were to be integrated or cross-modelled or interrelated, and de-
scribing the contribution of the research to the existing field of study
(supported by a full bibliography) and the likely outcome(s). The state-
ment of research also included a preliminary schedule of course work,
justification of off-campus research, and details of relevant professional
experience, not forgetting the usual letters of reference of academic
ability and transcripts. However arduous, there was no guarantee of
straightforward acceptance, since the document was distributed for ad-
judication to the associate deans, themselves representing a wide spec-
trum of intellectual interest.
Admittedly, the 1996 revisions have simplified and codified the ap-
plication process and form. Stage I requires a ten-page maximum (not
including bibliography and relevant work experience) Statement of Pro-
posed Research Topic, a provisional 'signed-on' supervisory commit-
tee, letters of reference, and transcripts. At this point the application file
is distributed to members of the IISGP Advisory Committee, who are
invited not only to render a decision about entry into the Program but
also to identify areas of possible weakness. Their decision and com-
ments, together with those of the chair, are communicated to the appli-
cants and members of their supervisory committees. If accepted into
the program the graduate student then has four months to complete
Stage II of the application. This involves the members of the supervi-
sory committee signing a standard form acknowledging their accep-
tance of the revised Statement of Research Topic, schedule of associated
course work, and a preliminary scheme for the candidacy (comprehen-
sive) examination. This document is intended to protect both the gradu-
146 Rhodri Windsor Liscombe
ate student and the members of the committee by establishing research
and study objectives at the outset of work. It is also designed to rein-
force the objectives of empowering the graduate student and encourag-
ing pedagogical innovation. Perhaps only then will the graduate enter-
ing the IISGP appreciate the last and continuing difficultas to be sur-
mounted - the lack of a fixed academic abode.
That has been counteracted by the location of the IISGP at Green
College UBC, effected in 1996 by Dean Grace, in cooperation with the
principal of Green College, Dr Richard Ericson (a charter member of the
newly created Advisory Committee). This has instilled a greater sense
of community among the IISGP graduates, enhancing their academic
attachment to a 'home' department (albeit generally less secure than for
those registered in a conventional departmental graduate program).
This link is reinforced by the chair attending at least one meeting of the
graduate student's supervisory committee, and availability for counsel-
ling or intervention when required. In addition the chair has arranged
meetings between the Advisory Committee and graduate students, partly
to clarify matters relating to the important issues of legitimacy of
interdisciplinarity (i.e., not merely a cobbling together of faculty or
courses across departmental nomenclature) and the assessment of
progress. Other meetings have also taken place with representatives of
those academic units that use the program, in order to assure the pur-
suit of comparable research aims.
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
The range of research topics, and of their attendant knowledge areas
and thereo-critical approaches, has expanded over the course of the
IISGP's existence. During the first decade the preponderance of theses
concerned environmental/ecological issues that related such fields as
forestry, economics, biology, and sociology. Other lines of graduate
interdisciplinary research sought to enlarge the interpretation and imple-
mentation of health care or the applications of applied science to more
environmentally benign agriculture. While the ecological and broader
environmental (planning) fields would be marshalled into centres and
institutes with separate graduate programs, not forgetting the concur-
rent opening of an Institute of Health Care and Epidemiology, the IISGP
still acts as the administrative umbrella for the doctoral students en-
rolled in bio-resources engineering and for a large proportion of those
who apply for advanced graduate work with the Institute of Health
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 147
Promotion. This latter association persists because of the pace of change
in the academic exploration and professional organization of societal
health, reflecting a growing interdisciplinarity in the pedagogy of medical
education; one member of the IISGP Advisory Committee is the Coor-
dinator of Health Sciences at the university (Dr John Gilbert). Those
developments and the diversity of and in research topics pursued by
IISGP graduate students is best illustrated by reference to the diverse
areas of knowledge (disciplines) and methodologies cited by those en-
rolled in the programs.
The fields of study intersected by those fifty-eight graduate students
enrolled in March 1997 are remarkably wide. Within the quite extensive
group studying health issues - partly through avenues mapped by health
promotion, health care, rehabilitation sciences, human kinetics, family
practice, nursing, and medicine - some are seeking to address signifi-
cant gender and ethnic aspects, others new perceptions and processes
of healing, and still others both the profound and the practical dimen-
sions of the treatment of severely injured or terminally ill people. In
each case the research work is pushing the boundaries of knowledge-
gathering and knowledge-framing, especially by broadening the
conceptualization of medicine and health care together with their ethi-
cal responsibilities.
At an entirely different locus are those seeking to reveal the ideologi-
cal topography of contemporary culture through varying paths of analy-
sis and thereo-critical paradigms, several revisiting the legacy of funda-
mental tenets of Enlightenment thought. The tangential impact of early
Modern European philosophy upon indigenous cultures or colonial
spaces is being examined through First Nations women's stories, ethnic
resistance to hegemonic cultural policy, and the previously unperceived
critique of postwar middle-class assumptions in the books of the Cana-
dian West Coast author Ethel Wilson. Another student explores the
management of scientific knowledge by the academy, private corpora-
tions, and government bureaucracy through the application of post-
structuralist critique and qualitative research based on models in sociol-
ogy and educational theory. Nor have IISGP graduates failed to exploit
the mobile, discursive, and comparative potential of computational tech-
nology. Indeed, the first Canadian doctoral student to be allowed to
present her thesis in CD-ROM format is enrolled in the program. IISGP
graduates are experimenting with the synthesis of several computer
programs in order to chart the organizational, psychological, and sys-
tems theory aspects of major change to the structure of an institution.
148 Rhodri Windsor Liscombe
Another is also using hypertext applications to enable the reconstruc-
tion and contextualization of a significant medieval text. These stu-
dents' pioneering application of computational systems and thinking
will be sustained by a recent applicant who intends to rejuvenate ar-
chaeological and architectural historical research through virtual reality
techniques combined with cultural studies theory.
This pattern of diversity recurs. In one batch of applicants to the
IISGP from 1997, for example, four have topics around biomedical eth-
ics, variously crossing over into theological as well as philosophical
definitions of the body and individuality, the cultural traditions of medi-
cal practice, and the legal dimensions of treatment. Another will con-
centrate on legal rhetoric, but now as differently articulated by estab-
lished authority and by First Nations peoples in the litigation of land
claims in Canada. The problem of contested forest policy in South
America, and especially how to assemble the empirical data needed to
establish principles for the use of the resource, is the objective of an-
other applicant. By contrast, two other graduates have identified quite
different intellectual topographies that demand the interrelation, inte-
gration, and interaction of knowledges. One will mobilize history, his-
toriography, film theory, and literary theory and criticism to illuminate
the evolving cultural meaning of filmic adaptations of celebrated narra-
tives of colonial United States. The other seeks to perform an interdisci-
plinary analysis of 'problems of the mind' as they relate to chiefly post-
modern debates concerning the concept of 'subjectivity.'
The variety of IIGSP thesis topics, and the corresponding interdisci-
plinary course and research work, underscores the major strength - or
successful defining feature - of the program: flexibility of intellectual
no less than programmatic construction. That is, of course, a conse-
quence of the decision to validate individual graduate student initiative
as well as emergent research/subject areas through centres and insti-
tutes. It is, too, a function of the empowering (not reification, due to a
rigorous application process) of experimental thinking and effectively
directed intellectual enthusiasm. Such enthusiasm tends to be a factor
of individual interest, exemplified by the desire of one current graduate
to clarify the effect of legal and financial protocols on the definition of
forestry practices. But the impetus can also originate in new realizations
or perceptions about the academic and 'real' worlds, demonstrated by
the recent batch of applications centred on the ethical implications of
high-technology and non-scientific (holistic) medical assessment or treat-
ments. However, the impressive record of graduate work and career
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 149
achievement
21
 cannot obscure the continuing appearance of potential
applicants with interesting speculations but ill-formed ideas and weak
justification of interdisciplinarity, usually comprising a loose associa-
tion of faculty from different departments rather than different knowl-
edge areas. And some faculty and students still assume that the pro-
gram is an easy option or catch-all. A less negative lacuna is the relative
absence of applicants seeking to illuminate wider perspectives around
or intersections between the creative arts and pure sciences.
The enthusiasm and tenacity of the graduate students in the IISGP
has counteracted the major deficiencies of the current program: the
absence of sufficient funding, let alone designated graduate fellowships;
the want of teaching assistantships assigned to the Program; and the
lack of common room, seminar, and office space with online communi-
cation capability. Those financial, pedagogical, and physical facilities
would probably further reduce disjunctions in their progress to gradua-
tion. Common room and associated space would afford the material
means to improve the frequency and hence contribution of supervisory
committee meetings (enabling regular attendance by the chair). More-
over, discussions between the Advisory Committee and umbrella groups
as well as the graduates in the Program would be enhanced with a
corresponding additional stimulus to the ongoing critique of the
conceptualization and practice of interdisciplinarity. Enhanced support
services would augment linkages between the IISGP and compatible
academic units in Canadian, American, and international universities
through the existing Internet home page (http://www.interchange,
ubc.ca/iisgp).
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The location of the IISGP at Green College has enabled the expansion of
a regular pro-seminar that originated in 1995.
22
 The monthly seminars,
supplemented by thematic workshops and lectures plus an annual gradu-
ate symposium, provide an intellectual and, no less importantly, social
focus where graduates exchange ideas and insights on their practice of
interdisciplinarity. Materials from these events and especially the sym-
posium are placed on the IISGP website. The symposium will be pro-
moted as an international site for the conceptualization and practice of
interdisciplinarity at the graduate level.
Another major new initiative will be the development of an associ-
ated Interdisciplinary seminar, co-sponsored with Green College, to be
150 Rhodri Windsor Liscombe
conducted around the theory and praxis of knowledge - by faculty and
graduate students both associated with and outside the IISGP. The pur-
pose is to sustain a dynamic and varied demonstration of the practice
of interdisciplinarity.
It is hoped that the thematic interdisciplinary seminar will attract
graduates from those less well-represented poles of academic territory,
although the IISGP does not actively recruit either students or subjects.
The absence of recruitment or research area promotion, and the result-
ing stress on student motivation, has effected a minimal drop-out rate
after acceptance into the IISGP. The dedication of the program to the
nurture of individual interdisciplinary research ensures the viability
and variety of future intellectual endeavour. The driving force of the
Individual Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program at the Univer-
sity of British Columbia is the facilitation and encouragement of adven-
turous, rigorous, and critically integrative approaches to the creation,
definition, and articulation of knowledges.
Notes
I am most grateful to Drs Nico Stehr, Peter Weingart, and Sabine Maasen for
their critique and advice; this paper also owes much to the speakers at the 1997
Royal Society of Canada International Conference on Interdisciplinarity.
1 An interdisciplinary studies option was first offered by the University of
British Columbia in the 1971-2 academic year: Calendar - Graduate Studies
(UBC 1971:184). The historical account that follows is based on interviews
with Drs Ben Moyls and lohn Stager, respectively acting dean and assistant
dean of Graduate Studies under Dr Ian McTaggart Cowan (who was on
leave 1969-71 when the Interdisciplinary Studies option was passed
through the Committee of Deans and Senate). Further information was
supplied by Drs Kenneth MacCrimmon, Laurie Ricou, and Donald
Stephens, who were responsible for this interdisciplinary program at
various stages thereafter.
2 For example, the 1971-8 UBC Calendars list a series of newly founded
centres and institutes - notably the Animal Resource Centre (from 1978 the
Institute for Animal Resource Ecology) and Centre for Human Settlements
- together with a range of new subject area concentrations including bio-
resource engineering, comparative literature, creative writing, genetics,
health care and epidemiology, industrial relations, and international
relations (see especially 1978-9 Calendar: 144 ff.).
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 151
3 Other individual interdisciplinary programs, listed in the National Guide to
College and University Programs (Hull, PQ: Government of Canada, Occu-
pational and Career Development Division, 1996), are found at York
(Individualized [Liberal] Studies) and at Concordia (Individually Struc-
tured Program).
4 Interview 24 June 1997.
5 The main documentary records are Senate Minutes and Senate Records,
specifically the Senate Curriculum Committee (UBC Special Collections
([= UBC Sec. Coll.]), Senate Fonds, Box 39, File 5) and Committee of Deans
(UBC Sp. Coll., Senate Fonds, Box 40, Files 10/11). However, because the
IISGP required no specific course structure or revisions to existing graduate
offerings, there is no distinct reference to its establishment in the Senate
Minutes (UBC Sp. Coll., Senate Minutes, Box 6 File 6-2). This new option
must, however, have been accorded some kind of general approval on or
before 14 January 1970 when Dr Moyls successfully presented to Senate
course changes for Graduate Studies (UBC Sp. Coll., Senate Minutes, File 6-
2: 5178).
6 UBC, Sp. Coll., Senate Fonds, Box 40, File 10, noting that National Research
Council funding would cease in 1971 after five years. The other new
programs promoted by Graduate Studies were a climate committee,
comparative literature, industrial relations, and international studies.
7 One student who considered entering the IISGP but eventually completed
his doctoral studies with forestry was Patrick Moore, co-founder of
Greenpeace. Dr Moyls recalls Patrick Moore's oral defence, contested by
representatives of more conservative attitudes to the comprehension of the
ecology sciences, as one of especial vigour.
8 The Committee of Deans on 9 March 1971, for one instance, discussed a
memorandum from T.S. Myers, Director of Information Services at UBC,
regarding appropriate charges under the Criminal Code to suppress
student unrest, and a letter from the Head of the Department of Religious
Studies, the Rev William Nicholls, warning of the dangers to the university
community of student disruption especially as a consequence of improper
'experimental education' and uncritical application of Gestalt theory.
9 The report of the Curriculum Committee received the endorsement of the
Senate on 24 January 1971 (UBC, Sp. Coll., Box 39, File 5).
10 This assessment is based on interviews with Drs Moyls, Stager, and
Stephens.
11 The institutional and intellectual resistance to interdisciplinarity, or rather
arguments for the organization and articulation of knowledge around
disciplines, is examined in several essays in Messer-Davidson, Shumway,
and Sylvan (1993). See also Salter and Hearn (1996). In the context of UBC,
152 Rhodri Windsor Liscombe
and more particularly over recent years as financial constraints have
grown, the main reservations about interdisciplinarity voiced to this author
concern the preservation of materials intrinsic to the comprehension of the
knowledge embodied in the 'discipline/ the necessity of achieving certain
levels of understanding within a clearly specified and recognized area of
study as a prior qualification to integrate information and ideas around
novel issues or questions, the existence of essential concepts and expres-
sions within the canon established through the disciplinary process, and
the diffusion of scarce resources - including faculty energy - at a time
when the disciplinary departments are encountering increasing funding
reductions.
12 At this juncture the incumbent Dean of Graduate Studies, Dr Peter Neufeld,
sanctioned a semi-formal association between Bio-Resources Engineering
and the IISGP, whereby the former could select graduate students on a
quasi-independent basis. This was the reason for the provisional entry
option into the IISGP that remains on the admission document. All other
departments or institutes that use the IISGP as the means to graduate
doctoral students conform with the other entry options: direct application
or admission by transfer.
13 This substantial redefinition was achieved by Dr John Grace, dean of
Graduate Studies 1991-6, who also encouraged a major campus-wide
exercise to foster interdisciplinary study and research in 1994.
14 All those interviewed for this paper concurred that the Faculty of Graduate
Studies had been assigned a primary role by President Macdonald (and his
successors) in the attainment of consistently high levels of academic
performance across all departments offering graduate degrees.
15 An excellent review, with a comprehensive bibliography, is Julie Thompson
Klein (1996: 226-7).
16 For example, S.J. Kline argues for the superior merit of 'multidisciplinarity'
in Conceptual Foundations for Multidisciplinary Thinking (1995).
17 An example of the interrelation of scientific, philosophical, and social
knowledges around medicine is the area of biogenetics, for which the IISGP
currently has five graduate students either enrolled or applying to enter the
program.
18 See especially Fish (1994), "Being Interdisciplinary Is So Hard to Do.' One
example might be cultural studies, said to have been created inadvertently
by Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall to be an essentially fluid and
inclusionary interdisciplinary analysis, now increasingly formulated into an
intellectual territory, even an orthodoxy, with designated gatekeepers and
voices; I owe this suggestion to Dr Sharon Fuller.
Practising Interdisciplinary Studies 153
19 During this period the IISGP was administered by Associate Deans
Kenneth MacCrimmon and Sheldon Cherry.
20 Dr Laurie Ricou, who, encouraged by Dr Grace, signally contributed to the
consolidation of the IISGP when associate Dean during 1991-6, always
challenged the resolve of applicants to the Program by advising prospec-
tive candidates to investigate all reasonable alternatives. This author had
the advantage of Dr Ricou's advice and example before assuming the post
of chair of the IISGP, including being present at the interviews of two
prospective applicants.
21 The chair and graduate Secretary of the IISGP have started to distribute
career-tracking forms to graduating students of the Program.
22 The pro-seminar was instituted by Dr Ricou, and included such valuable
intellectual and communal exercises as the presentation of the research
objectives of one graduate student by another in a different area of study.
8
Cognitive Science as an
Interdisciplinary Endeavour
MARC DE MEY
A possible site where one might find interdisciplinarity at work is the
still-fashionable cognitive science. The Program in Cognitive Science
and the Institute of Cognitive Studies at the University of California at
Berkeley belong to the major initiatives in this area. In 1981, the Sloan
Foundation mounted a large-scale program in cognitive science, select-
ing two American universities to launch this new branch of science. On
the East Coast, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was select-
ed for this leading role, and on the Pacific Coast, UC Berkeley was
assigned this role.
1
In the case of UC Berkeley, cognitive science has been made espe-
cially accessible and traceable through the publication of a series of
interviews with leading cognitive scientists. In residence as visiting schol-
ars at UC Berkeley, Peter Baumgartner and Sabine Payr met with promi-
nent members of the cognitive science community, many of whom were
at that university or in the area (UC San Francisco or Stanford). The
report of their interviews (Baumgartner and Payr 1995) is a wealthy
source of information on the status of cognitive science in its promises
and its problems, as seen by major members of that community. As
Wilenski (1995: 268) points out in that volume, UC Berkeley has wisely
chosen a prudent step-by-step deployment rather than plunging into
everything at once. Thus, it is possible to distinguish some of the stages
through which the undertaking has evolved. Where is the current locus
of interdisciplinarity in the UC Berkeley cognitive endeavour? What
various shapes has interdisciplinarity already taken, and what is the
payoff of the forms that have been experimented with?
Before focusing on the Berkeleyan practice, we should see whether
there is a theoretical framework situating interdisciplinarity in a wider
Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour 155
context. Such a framework will allow us to derive some conceptual
standards against which observed practice can be judged and progress
can be assessed. Evolutionary concepts might turn out to be quite sug-
gestive in this respect.
The Notion of Scientific Discipline According to an
Evolutionary Model
In the pursuit of themes introduced by Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions (1962), there have been suggestions for an analysis
of scientific development along evolutionary lines. Initially, Toulmin
(1972) announced an ambitious project that would deal with scientific
disciplines more or less as biological species. This project would trace
scientific ramifications according to paths of productive mutations or
recombinations of disciplines. The project was not followed through to
a degree that one could really assess the value of evolutionary concepts
for science policy along eugenic lines. The most general and most ambi-
tious biological model with an amazingly wide span was undoubtedly
Donald Campbell's (1959) comparative psychology of knowledge pro-
cesses. The biological approach of Campbell, a student of Edward
Tolman at UC Berkeley's Department of Psychology in the 1930s, can
be considered the American counterpart to Jean Piaget's biologie de la
connaissance. Piaget's and Campbell's work was inspired by James Mark
Baldwin's functionalist study of the mind. According to this approach,
the appearance of mind in man is nothing more than another invention
of biological evolution, to be viewed just like any other mechanism of
biological adaptation.
Life keeps exploring new opportunities by generating new forms,
from random mutations at the level of primitive organisms to scientific
theories on the level of more complex organisms such as humans. One
of the earliest and possibly most basic discoveries of evolution is that of
sexual reproduction.
2
 As level two in Campbell's hierarchical classifica-
tion, sexual reproduction is superior to level one (random mutation and
natural selection) because of its capacity to provide for more radical
innovation without endangering the achieved characteristics too much.
Recombination of parental patterns generates a wider diversity than
single variations on one parental pattern. An indication of the capacity
of sexual reproduction as an exploratory device is provided by Ernst
Mayr's (1963) estimate of diversity within the different species of or-
ganisms according to their reproduction strategy. Mayr estimates the
156 Marc De Mey
number of animal species to be about five times higher than the num-
ber of plant species. He attributes the greater diversification in animals
to the capacity of sexual reproduction to discover new ecological niches.
Sexual recombination dominant in animals produces a wider range of
variations. Cloning and occasional mutations that are characteristic for
reproduction in a substantial number of plant species produce a more
narrow range of variations. Sexual reproduction turns out to be more
radically innovative than asexual reproduction. Radical innovativeness
pays off in terms of greater diversity. In turn, greater diversity indicates
an increase in life's capacity to exploit ecological conditions that, ac-
cording to Campbell, would correspond to embodied knowledge.
However, Mayr also notices that the increased capacity for variation
only pays off if coupled with a strategy of active protection of newly
discovered ecological niches. Securing the opportunities of a newly dis-
covered viable pattern occurs through 'speciation/ which comes down
to a form of inbreeding among the first generations of the successful
variant. Mating rituals that are, in general, quite complicated are in fact
isolation mechanisms that carefully restrict sexual interaction to the
members of the newly developing species. They speed up the acquisi-
tion and cultivation of the new specificity, ultimately resulting in a new
species identity.
The mathematics of biological evolution and, more specifically, the
analysis of speciation as a component of the strategy of sexual repro-
duction suggest a model for interdisciplinarity that comes close to the
findings of John Law (1973), namely that successful interdisciplinarity
leads to the establishment of new disciplines. Law found that X-ray
protein crystallography became a new specialty as the result of interdis-
ciplinary collaboration between X-ray crystallography and protein re-
searchers. The collaboration rapidly displayed disciplinary characteris-
tics of its own.
Both the Inology of discovery' and the history of science case studies
seem to suggest there are specific and rather delicate requirements for
interdisciplinarity to be successful. On the one hand, there is the need
for the production of innovations based upon daring new combina-
tions. This requires a degree of openness and penetrability of disci-
plines, allowing researchers to become acquainted with one anothers'
concepts and techniques. On the other hand, there is the requirement of
promptly closing up exploratory variation upon reaching the first indi-
cations of a combinatorial 'hit' to maximize success. This comes down
to isolating and cultivating the new breed more or less by a strategy of
Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour 157
inbreeding or even cloning. The paradox of interdisciplinary resulting
in disciplinarity is probably not merely the result of territorial jargon, as
Julie Klein (1990) suggests, but possibly a basic feature of knowledge
production in general. Should cognitive science be situated along this
line of development? Is it still at the stage of exploration in which
openness seems most promising? Or is there an indication of increased
'speciation' that would entail a rapid shift towards organization along
disciplinary lines?
The Diffuse Character of Interdisciplinarity in UC Berkeley
Cognitive Science
As a participant observer of cognitive science in the UC Berkeley set-
ting, one is confronted with interdisciplinarity at many more levels
than the evolutionary viewpoint, or even common sense, would have
one expect. While interdisciplinarity is associated with bringing together
various groups, these can obviously be assembled at different levels in
the various strata of the university hierarchy. Hollingsworth and
Hollingsworth (this volume) refer to the fragmented organization of
biomedical research at Berkeley as a possible cause of the lack of major
breakthroughs in those areas. The diversity in points of interdiscipli-
nary contact suggests a similar qualification for cognitive science, though
there is a clear stratification behind it. In fact, one actually meets with
four types of practitioners according to the following levels: the under-
graduate, the graduate, the established staff member, and the free-float-
ing professor.
UNDERGRADUATE MULTIDISCIPLINARY AND INTERDISCIPLINARY ACTIVITY
In the current context (spring 1997), while the Sloan Foundation sup-
port has ended, UC Berkeley nevertheless has an undergraduate inter-
disciplinary studies program in cognitive science that attracts a respect-
able number of students. To some, this might already be a first surpris-
ing element. What is the plausibility of cultivating interdisciplina-
rity already at the undergraduate level? Shouldn't it be the other way
around: have students first acquire a solid basis in a specific discipline
as an undergraduate before engaging in any interdisciplinarity at higher
levels?
Confronted with a certain popularity of interdisciplinary options in
undergraduate education, one becomes aware of the deeper penetra-
158 Marc De Mey
tion of interdisciplinarity in the organization of American college and
university education in general. The segmentation between undergradu-
ate and graduate education is, at least for certain fields, almost institu-
tionally linked to an interdisciplinary orientation. In the mid-1960s, when
the cognitive orientation was becoming influential within psychology
as a discipline, the requirements for entering the graduate program in
psychology at Harvard strongly discouraged candidates with a psy-
chology major in undergraduate education. Rather, they recommended
that students should have a major in mathematics or physics. If consis-
tently enforced, such rules produce educational trajectories that have a
built-in interdisciplinary orientation through the hybrid combination of
the undergraduate with the graduate specialization. However, the in-
terdisciplinary undergraduate programs cultivate that kind of hybrid-
ization in a very explicit manner at even earlier levels. What types of
students choose these kinds of programs, and what do they expect to
gain from them?
When talking with undergraduate cognitive science majors, at least
three groups can be identified:
One group aims quite early at a graduate program in psychology or
education and chooses cognitive science as a very appropriate and
straightforward undergraduate preparation.
Another group of students is interested in the sciences and starts out
taking a substantial part of their courses in physics, mathematics,
chemistry, and computer science. However, they are eager to see
these fields applied to challenging and, in their understanding,
intrinsically interesting questions, such as the nature of the mind.
They persevere in their study of the natural sciences because they
can combine it with applications to fascinating 'soft' subjects that are
still full of attractive scientific and philosophical challenges. It is not
that the sciences are too difficult for these students, but they are not
sufficiently motivated, unless there is the opportunity of applying
the sciences in the study of such genuinely intriguing questions as
the physics of the mind.
The third group is somewhat related, having started with hard
sciences as their first choice but having backed out because of the
high demands of the disciplines involved. They have chosen cogni-
tive science not so much because of its fascinating topics, but be-
cause of its being more in line with their abilities and generally
including a more friendly working climate.
Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour 159
Noticing that interdisciplinarity is not merely popular among the
cognitive science majors alone, one wonders if this kind of interdiscipli-
nary orientation is simply an extension of a sound and well-rounded
secondary school education. In many aspects, such an education re-
sembles forms of gymnasium education in Europe that prepare stu-
dents for study at a university. Former Dean of Undergraduate Inter-
disciplinary Studies at Berkeley, American literature professor Don
McQuade, notices the eagerness of students to master more than one
discipline. Where there are no interdisciplinary programs that suit their
taste, undergraduates may end up choosing two majors. Despite some
reluctance on the part of the various departments involved, if students
are clever enough to fulfil the requirements for both majors, they might
even end up participating in two graduation ceremonies. Thus, a sub-
stantial number of undergraduate students seem to cherish multi-
disciplinarity, if not interdisciplinarity. The introduction of cognitive
science at the undergraduate level is thus in line with a large segment
of students' preference to explore as many fields as possible. There can
be no doubt that a substantial part of these students want to postpone
the choice of a professional specialization until they can make a fair
evaluation of what they like most and what they are best at.
In view of its potential for creative discovery, is undergraduate edu-
cation the main lever to manipulate if science policy wishes to boost the
scientific activity in an interdisciplinary field? If one wants to have the
number of potential Keplers
3
 as high as possible, is this the level at
which to begin cultivating openness for various trades?
INTERDISCIPLINARY GRADUATE RESEARCH TRAINING PROGRAM
Besides the undergraduate interdisciplinary program, the Institute of
Cognitive Studies at Berkeley has, in recent years, developed a gradu-
ate research program in cognitive science. As indicated above, contrary
to some other universities in the United States, UC Berkeley has no full
graduate degree program in cognitive science. The graduate research
program in cognitive science currently has a special focus on spatial
cognition. It is a training program supported by the National Science
Foundation that allows students in computer science, education, lin-
guistics, or psychology to pursue a highly specialized program of courses
and research projects. Capitalizing upon the in-house expertise, the pro-
gram is organized around spatial cognition, guaranteeing students close
and intensive collaboration with top specialists for a net number of
160 Marc De Mey
years. The National Science Foundation grant supports students for
two years, but extension to three and possibly four years may be con-
sidered. The number of students that can be accepted and supported in
this program is restricted to between five and ten. NSF support imposes
strong requirements for the scientific background of the accepted gradu-
ates. Philosophy majors or art historians would not have a chance of
being accepted, although the theme of 'spatial cognition' obviously could
be of interest to them, and their field is in a position to contribute.
The case of Kepler qualifies as a convincing example, and the whole
subfield of perspective studies within art history illustrates a wealth of
data and ideas relevant to spatial cognition. However, in the United
States, interdisciplinary endeavours that bridge the programs of the
NSF and the National Endowment for the Humanities are very restricted.
The two foundations support different groups, which might handicap
cognitive science since both contributions of the humanities and of the
sciences are manifestly of importance to the study of the mind. Here,
the structure of the funding system might constitute an obstacle to
genuine interdisciplinarity for this particular domain.
To grasp the peculiar nature and the success of this form of interdis-
ciplinary research, one needs to study both the interaction of these
graduate students with their mentors as well as the outcome of the
undertaking: their doctoral dissertations. This is a recent program only
started in 1994. The first results should become available for assessment
in the near future.
FOUNDING FATHERS' INTERDISCIPLINARITY
The level at which one would expect interdisciplinarity to be most pro-
nounced is at the faculty level. Somewhat surprisingly, the UC Berkeley
faculty displays interdisciplinarity only in a conspicuously restrained
sense. As mere is no specific department of cognitive science, partici-
pating staff members have a basic appointment in a department that
represents a specific discipline: psychology, computer science, optom-
etry, and so on. Affinity to the discipline of one's own graduate educa-
tion, together with loyalty to the department with which one works,
seems to have a strong influence upon the degree of commitment to
interdisciplinary endeavours. When offering opportunities for growth
and expansion, interdisciplinary projects are enthusiastically supported,
but they are not allowed to endanger the intellectual integrity or the
Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour 161
departmental autonomy and strength in staff or financial resources of
the parental disciplines.
Cognitive science, particularly when accompanied by generous fi-
nancial support, is gladly accepted as a meaningful and needed collabo-
rative effort of various disciplines dealing with the mind, if in addition
to disciplinary support. In general, participating staff members are very
eager to preserve the disciplinary identity. They remain on the payroll
of their respective departments, and they keep their main offices there,
while they utilize office space at the interdisciplinary location as well.
Regarding student education, participating faculty emphasize solid com-
mand of a basic discipline before extending interdisciplinary activity to
a second discipline. There is explicit distrust of interdisciplinary schol-
ars who are a bit of everything but masters of no constituent disciplines.
These scholars are considered to have an adverse and detrimental effect
that ultimately endangers the whole venture. The current Director of
the UC Berkeley Institute for Cognitive Studies, Stephen Palmer, is
deeply concerned with 'the danger of being jack of all trades and mas-
ter of none' (Palmer 1995: 167). This emphasis on disciplinary identity
among those who also turn out to be the strongest and most devoted
partners in the interdisciplinary project might seem rather remarkable.
After all, they are mostly professors with tenure who would not take
too big a professional risk by moving off to exotic research paths.
Why are the founding fathers so anxious to maintain their own disci-
pline while at the same time preaching the promises of new combina-
tions? Most of them remain loyal to the discipline of their own graduate
education in a way that only a strong imprinting mechanism can pro-
voke. Is this ultimately a subconscious resistance to interdisciplinarity,
or simply an insistence on disciplinary integrity to safeguard successful
interdisciplinarity?
A FREE-FLOATING PROFESSOR'S INTERDISCIPLINARITY
The founding of an interdisciplinary educational program and research
institute is not entirely an internal undertaking within the university.
An important source of innovation can come from visiting scholars,
who constitute a regular component within endeavours of that scope.
Obviously, a wide range of scholars qualify for participation. Foreign
colleagues and staff members work along with graduate students, fol-
lowing disciplinary lines that are loyal to methods of one of the con-
162 Marc De Mey
stituent disciplines. UC Berkeley has a steady influx of such visitors,
from those who stay only for a few days to those who stay for years.
Within the pattern of such longer visits, there is apparently room for
individual interdisciplinary expansion as well. I happened to share an
office with a colleague from the department of mathematics of a first-
rate American university. He was no longer entirely satisfied with teach-
ing advanced mathematics, partly because of his science students' utili-
tarian interest rather than intellectual motivation. Intensive teacher-
student interaction is most rewarding when the incentive for study is
intellectual excitement for both participants. He was looking for do-
mains where he could use his mathematical skills to solve problems in
areas where recent empirical research had a rich yield in new and chal-
lenging findings and where the research community was clearly driven
by intellectual excitement. With this background, he has moved into
cognitive science, and more specifically into vision science, the inter-
disciplinary science of visual perception that currently constitutes one
of the fastest developing and most successful subfield.
4
 This profes-
sor submits proposals to the NSF for exploratory mathematical re-
search in this area and, on the basis of his reputation as a mathema-
tician, obtains sufficient grants to be temporarily freed from teaching.
He is able to join groups in various locations, where he can pursue
research on the topic of his personal interest. As his grants allow him to
be a full-time researcher on the payroll of his own project, his univer-
sity has no problem paying for a temporary replacement. With a sub-
stantial overhead from the projects going to the university, his home
institution is actually making a profit out of this situation. The col-
league who takes over his teaching duties is usually a younger and less
expensive instructor.
Here we are confronted with a scientist buying himself free from
disciplinary teaching duties. He is able to move unencumbered when
he sees challenging research problems in other disciplines that he feels
eager about applying his abilities to. This research requires him to as-
similate substantial amounts of new knowledge, neuro-science findings
in this case, that functions as exciting new data for creating and trying
out new formalisms. Maybe mathematicians have more opportunities
of this kind because of the nature of their trade. On the whole, these
trajectories are not uncommon, partly resulting from and partly pro-
ducing the success of cognitive studies. Brilliant scientists, having ob-
tained celebrity status in their own discipline, can freely move to new
Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour 163
challenges, like Nobel-Prize-winning Francis Crick, who, having disen-
tangled the genetic code, can now take on the human mind.
5
Which of these roles provides for the most productive interdiscipli-
nary research:
The curious and opportunistic undergraduate securing his well-
rounded education?
The well-focused graduate student possibly bridging disciplinary
gaps in innovative graduate research?
The established faculty who, seeing new organizational opportuni-
ties, create new programs for careful exploration and expansion that,
nevertheless, remain close to disciplinary standards?
The solitary scientific nomad moving around with his or her valu-
able set of skills settling within interdisciplinary groups that culti-
vate problems that he or she thinks are worth tackling?
Confronted with this kind of diversity of contexts and domains of
interdisciplinarity, promoted from freshman level onward to postdoctoral
research, one feels indeed the need for a theoretical scheme that allows
one to assess these various forms of disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity
in terms of their ultimate relevance for valuable discovery. Does the
evolution theory - inspired concept of scientific discipline permit the
assessment of this diversity? Can one determine where and in what
shape interdisciplinarity is promising or paying off? Can one see where
it is risky or wasteful, and strict adherence to disciplinary themes and
rules would seem to be more appropriate?
The Current Status of Cognitive Science and Its UCB Brand
When applied to scientific disciplines, the speciation model is only a
loose metaphor that is not necessarily applicable to all levels of aggre-
gation within the whole of scientific activity. An interdisciplinary field
can also be conceived of as a communication structure superimposed
upon a number of disciplines with the purpose of enhancing their fruit-
ful interaction, without at any stage becoming a rival of any one of the
disciplines involved. Its biological counterpart would then be an entire
ecosystem rather than a single species. In the mind of the promoters of
cognitive science as an interdisciplinary endeavour, this is the most
important objective. The Berkeley Institute is certainly based upon that
164 Marc De Mey
scheme: a coalition among psychology, linguistics, computer science,
philosophy, and physiology with the aim of understanding the nature
of the mind. Zadeh (1995) considers cognitive science a precursor for a
whole range of new and disciplinary sciences of cognition still evolv-
ing. It would be embryonic to several sciences of the mind. But some
characteristics of the more restricted speciation-type interdisciplinarity
may already have been reached by now. To assess both the value of the
coalition model and the novel discipline, we should observe the UCB
endeavour in the light of cognitive science on the broader scientific
scene.
Cognitive science originated as an offshoot of artificial intelligence
(AI) research around 1975. When it originated around the 1950s, AI was
most eager to reproduce human intelligence, but then it became am-
bivalent towards this ambition when various forms of intelligence
turned out to be conceivable without their being human. At first, hu-
mans seemed the most successful embodiment of intelligence. As a
consequence, the bond between the study of human intelligence and
machine intelligence was very strong. Later on, the intelligence of hu-
mans turned out to be less easy to capture or copy. Researchers of AI
saw opportunities for developing intelligent machines that would not
necessarily have anything in common with human beings. The cogni-
tive science offshoot incorporated those researchers whose main focus
remained an understanding of the human mind. They see AI as an
important field for understanding intelligence in general. AI models are
viewed as sources of inspiration for studying human mental processes,
but a machine copy realized in digital computers is not directly their
goal.
At the present time, it seems fair to say that the intellectual paths of
AI and cognitive science further diverge. Due to several grandiose am-
bitions of the past that have not been fulfilled, AI is forced into a more
defensive position. Cognitive science, conversely, has found encourage-
ment in a closer association with a strong partner that is full of promise
for the future: neuroscience. Impressive progress is indeed being made
in the empirical study of the human brain. This is especially true now
that computers drive sophisticated research instruments (such as PET-
scanners) and are not merely being used as models of the brain. Also,
much more importance is attached to the differences between the ner-
vous system and computers. Previously, ignoring the structure of the
hardware, computers were considered to come quite close to brains.
Now, the sensitivity towards differences between computers and brains
Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour 165
in both structure and operation is much more pronounced. Compared
with computer chips, neurons as major components of nervous systems
are extremely slow. The impressive capacities of nervous systems have
to derive from a drastic difference in design with a considerable amount
of parallel processing, in contrast to the common sequentially operating
computers. This tends to make the more flexible neural network con-
cepts more attractive than the crisp symbolic model approach that AI
researchers first thought would be used to unravel the mysteries of the
mind. However, cognitive science, as well as AI, still harbours adher-
ents to representationalism, the older line of research, as well as to
neural networks, the more recent fashion. It would be very misleading
to think of the whole AI community as enlisted in the symbol-process-
ing camp (traditional AI) and the cognitive science community as be-
longing to the neural network group. The divide is deeper along the
philosophical dimension of the ambitious technological goal of early
AI.
The philosophy partners in the UCB cognitive science coalition,
Dreyfus (1995) and Searle (1995), belong to the leading opponents of AI
as a viable approach to the study of human intelligence or the human
mind. They point to 'intentionality' as an essential attribute of minds
that is totally lacking in computers. UCB artificial intelligence research-
ers, such as Russell (Russell and Norvig 1995) and Wilenski (1995), do
not concern themselves much with these hermetic philosophical con-
cepts of their colleagues. The lack of intentionality is doing no harm to
their straightforward AI undertakings. The issue, for example, is to
make intelligent machines that take over traffic and vehicle control from
those absent-minded humans who cause accidents. Who would bother
with the problem of whether the intelligence of such machines is com-
parable to that of humans? These are Byzantine questions. Can an air-
plane fly? If flying means to move through the air by moving wings up
and down the way birds do, the answer is no. If it simply means to
move through the air on proper power, the answer is yes. Airplane
designers or engineers might gain useful insights from studying birds'
flight, but their main motivation is to make flying machines and not to
imitate birds as closely as possible. Since a machine doesn't have to
become a bird in order to fly, it doesn't need to obtain a mind to be-
come intelligent.
The defense of the AI community seems reasonable, but one should
not entirely do away with the motivating force of a daring goal coupled
with a specific date for achieving it. AI evolved around Turing's (1950)
166 Marc De Mey
claim that within fifty years machines would be world champions in
chess, translate from one language into another, and do many intelli-
gent tasks better than humans. In the spring of 1997, UCB Extension
organized a course called Turing's Prophecy: Where Is AI after 50 Years?'
The general feeling was that although some computer projects come
quite close to the goal set by Turing, there is an unmistakable disap-
pointment. If the world champion of chess were by now to be, and even
occasionally already is, a computer program, it is understood that it
will not beat the human opponent on his or her own terms. In an
analysis of Turing's test and the ideology of artificial intelligence, Halpern
(1990: 18) has indicated 'the unimportance of merely getting an answer
to the problem - as contrasted to the growth of insight that would
normally be gained en route to an answer. In giving us the answer
without deeper understanding, by magic, the computer left us feeling
that we were both cheated and cheating, as if we'd gotten to the top of
Everest by helicopter.' The disappointment is even more generally
phrased in Halpern's concluding paragraph: "The computer will not
really be playing chess, proving theorems, or doing chemistry, but merely
executing the appropriate algorithm quickly enough to seem miracu-
lous to humans. The results may be invaluable; the means will be dis-
missed as just another example of how man spins off specialized ma-
chinery to deal with problems he has (in principle) solved, so as to free
himself for the mental play he calls "thinking" (Halpern 1990: 18). This
sounds almost like error 4 in the analysis of the results of a scientific
project: 'we have solved the wrong problem.' The motivating force has
clearly been that challenge of demystifying the mind, although it has
apparently contained, deeply hidden in the unconscious, the secret hope
of failing.
Cognitive science has taken over the fascination with the mind from
AI but runs the same risk: to achieve its goals only to discover, ulti-
mately, that something else was at stake. As with AI, in the meantime,
substantial progress might be made. The mobilizing force produced by
the atmosphere of a frontal attack on the mystery of the mind can be
instrumental in obtaining the means for pursuing many research projects
with, in addition, the potential of gaining important serendipitous find-
ings. Apparently the UC Berkeley Institute of Cognitive Studies has an
appropriate strategy to preserve a productive tension between inspir-
ing general goals and tangible and technical research questions. While
the participating philosophers set standards for the demystification of
the mind, thereby in fact preserving and cultivating the mystery, other
participants engage in interdisciplinary collaborative research on very
Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour 167
specific questions (spatial cognition) while maintaining high disciplin-
ary standards in a cosmopolitan atmosphere. Since this could be the
recipe for fruitful interdisciplinarity, it is worthwhile to list the charac-
teristics that seem important.
A GENERAL CHALLENGE AS MOTIVATING FORCE AND BINDING GLUE FOR THE
WHOLE ENDEAVOUR
Major contributions to the broad questions of cognitive studies have
come mainly from the cognitive science group's own internal critics, the
philosophers Dreyfus and Searle. It is interesting to note that the pro-
fessional philosophers here fulfil a tempering role. They warn against
an overenthusiastic and overconfident application of the cognitive sci-
ence major paradigms of symbolic representation and neural nets while
the non-philosophers of the group tend to focus upon specific empiri-
cal, formal, and technical questions. Occasional contributions, such as
those brought in by Stuart Russell (Russell and Norvig 1995), indicate
sensibility for the global questions and do not declare the philosophical
questions, such as 'the nature of the mind' or 'the nature of conscious-
ness,' meaningless. One should be aware of the high degree of tolerance
required for maintaining this type of collaboration in which one group
of participants declares, in a playful attitude, the contributions of the
other participants either meaningless or impossible. It is a delicate
manoeuvring between solid scientific criticism and enthusiastic belief
in scientific promises. Zadeh (1995) quotes the Jules Verne principle,
'Scientific progress is driven by exaggerated expectations.' Philosophers
should not too light-heartedly dismiss the motivating beliefs that drive
their colleagues in empirical research and possibly also the sponsors of
such research. An unattainable research goal does not necessarily en-
gender corrupt findings, and serendipity is too much a part of science
to be ignored. A continual reformulation of goals is part of the scientific
process. Bureaucratic control of rigidly fixed goals might induce the
premature closure of a line of potentially rewarding research. In that
respect, the UC Berkeley philosophers may seem to walk risky paths,
but they preserve the challenge and keep the debate even more lively
by challenging each other.
EASY PERMEABILITY OF BOUNDARIES
Students and staff of the Berkeley Institute for Cognitive Studies have
ample opportunities to attend talks and conferences in the various fields
168 Marc De Mey
involved. These involve reports from researchers within UC Berkeley,
as well as visiting researchers from across the United States and around
the world. The level of intensity and the frequency (several a week!)
with which such talks are organized creates, in addition to the specific
communications they contain, a cosmopolitan atmosphere of intellec-
tual excitement. Frequently the researchers who offer a lecture are the
top specialists. Regularly attending students, visitors, and staff have the
feeling of watching from a front row seat the developments of the en-
tire interdisciplinary field. Aside from the valuable information obtained,
this incites a motivation to join as an active contributor to a worldwide
dynamic interdisciplinary community.
Beside the cosmopolitan contacts organized by the interdisciplinary
institute itself, the campus of a leading university might bring in con-
tributors from beyond the scope of current preoccupation. In the spring
of 1997, widely attended lectures were organized at UC Berkeley around
the theme of 'cognitive archaeology' by one of the leading authorities,
Professor Renfrew of the University of Cambridge. Although his pio-
neering efforts have been known for several years (Renfrew 1983,1993),
the qualification of 'cognitive' applied to archaeology should seem a
rather exotic extension of this term, even for mainstream cognitive sci-
entists. It actually makes a lot of sense, and it may soon expand into a
genuine component of the larger interdisciplinary endeavour. Mithen's
(1996) book The Prehistory of the Mind, The Cognitive Origins of Art, Reli-
gion and Science, indicates the range and potential of this extension and
the capacity of the cognitive orientation to induce new currents in more
remote fields. Similar considerations apply to 'cognitive ethology/ the
related field of animal cognition and consciousness. To hear about these
potentially relevant but still peripheral developments, researchers need
to be at a rather large dynamic university or near a centre for inter-
disciplinarity that maintains an intensive visitors' program. One won-
ders whether more secluded centres for interdisciplinary research are
capable of providing that kind of nurturing environment.
As an example of a fruitful inspiration and interaction that came
about in an apparently more secluded centre, we might look at Miller,
Galanter, and Pribram's Plans and the Structure of Behaviour (1960). This
book was very influential in the shift towards a cognitive orientation in
American psychology. In fact, it also set the scene for cognitive science,
but the momentum it incited was temporarily absorbed by AI. The
book came about at the Stanford Center for Advanced Study in the
Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour 169
Behavioral Sciences in Palo Alto, California. While witnessing to what
extent the healthy metabolism of an interdisciplinary endeavour de-
pends on a big busy university (with all participating departments ac-
tive in top-level research), one questions how a centre that cultivates
seclusion can maintain at the same time the highly needed cosmopoli-
tan atmosphere. Maybe such a shift from a metropolitan university to a
centre of seclusion accompanies the onset of 'speciation.' But in the case
of the authors working together at the Stanford Center, with their prox-
imity to Stanford and the accessibility of the larger San Francisco area,
they very much remain in touch with the various dynamic universities
in the area and the steady flow of visitors these institutions receive.
Nevertheless, at some stage, the extra seclusion of a centre might be
welcomed when interactions converge and, as a result, give shape to a
specific research program.
TIGHT COLLABORATION IN WELL-DEFINED INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECTS
The most important locus of interdisciplinarity is the graduate research
training program. It is the graduate research trainee who takes on a
specific research question that is of central interest to two or more of the
participating disciplines. The notion of 'tightness,' as used here, applies
in particular to the continued adherence to high disciplinary standards
as exhibited by the founding members. While the graduate research
trainee is allowed to study a topic relevant to more than one discipline,
an undertone of rivalry remains with respect to methods and method-
ological values. In principle, the successful PhD thesis of the graduate
student could constitute the bridging event and might solidify a bond
between fields of supervisors still in competition. It may even ulti-
mately provide a founding achievement for a new discipline in the
making. In practice, it has not yet reached that stage. The various terms
used by the mentors to describe the cooperation between participating
disciplines still stress, to a variable degree, the disciplinary autonomy.
The inderdisciplinary endeavour of cognitive science is variously called
an "aggregate/ an 'amalgamation,' or a 'coalition/
The most appropriate label is probably that of Wilensky (1995: 28),
who describes the collaboration within cognitive science subdisciplines
as a 'race.' Stating that 'it does not matter who is getting there first/ he
indirectly underlines the reliance on specific disciplinary methods. The
various disciplines face a common goal, but they opt for different ap-
170 Marc De Mey
preaches to take up the challenge. A graduate trainee or an individual
mentor is allowed a double or triple identity, and his or her successful
achievements will be celebrated as cognitive science successes. But many
achievements of this kind would be needed to dissolve the boundaries
between disciplines. In the meantime, progress follows a multiped-gait-
pattern, with participating disciplines making a stride forward, each in
turn, while the others catch up. The overall impression that such a loose
collaboration produces is surprising. Despite a degree of competition
and even suspicion among disciplines, there is also an atmosphere of
enthusiasm, and even excitement, that makes participants very tolerant
and generous. The hard-headed computer scientist might remain scep-
tical towards philosophy and claim it is at best irrelevant to her trade,
the neuroscientist might confidently rely on results of laboratory re-
search with animals, and the psychologist might keep trying to increase
his scientific respectability by obsessive adherence to methodological
rigidity. It does not matter that such rivalry and competition exist as
long as communication among the disciplines is preserved. Successful
bridging events will come about in dissertations that contain the spark
for new evolving specialties.
Conclusion
In the light of the evolutionary metaphor, cognitive science has not yet
reached the stage of 'speciation.' There is no new unified standard of
concepts and methods transmitted by means of a generally accepted
educational program. Can we expect that cognitive science will soon
become an autonomous discipline?
As the case of the Institute of Cognitive Science at UC Berkeley indi-
cates, neither the philosophical challenge (understanding the nature of
the mind), nor new research techniques or findings (computers, PET-
scans) are, on their own, sufficient to induce the mobilization of forces
one witnesses in prospering cognitive science enterprises. It is the syn-
ergetic interaction among a broad scope of general challenges formu-
lated by philosophers and the contributions of scientists in several quite
specific fields that induce a dense communication network with a high
output of data and ideas. A nurturing environment for interdisciplinarity
should therefore aim at such enhanced scientific metabolism by culti-
vating interaction among the disciplines at the various levels discussed.
The Berkeley experience indicates that a high degree of internal debate
Cognitive Science as an Interdisciplinary Endeavour 171
and rivalry is not detrimental to the interdisciplinary atmosphere. In
fact, the pursuit of controversial philosophical goals can evoke produc-
tive discussion and innovative research.
To extend this pattern of interdisciplinary interaction, care should be
taken not to link the solution of the philosophical issue to a specific
achievement. As the case of AI illustrates with its major goal tied to the
Turing test, the endeavour loses its momentum when the goal is reached,
and the community of practitioners is left with a feeling of both having
cheated and having been cheated. To uphold the high rate of scientific
metabolism, the solution of the ultimate question should not be within
easy reach. It is the paradox of cognitive science that its ultimate suc-
cess will also be its ultimate defeat: the mind discovering its own secret.
The kind of interdisciplinarity we encounter is easier to maintain as
long as there is the promise of demystifying the mind but not the actual
fulfilment of that promise. Nevertheless, other developments may open
up new perspectives for cognitive science.
Up to now, cognitive science has been driven by philosophical dis-
cussion and theoretical advances in various disciplines. The push of
intellectual excitement and new frontiers is very much alive as expan-
sions like cognitive archaeology and cognitive ethology show. How-
ever, analysts of economic development predict that in the next cen-
tury, only one resource will remain pivotal for the world economy:
knowledge (Sakaiya 1991; Drucker 1993). Control of knowledge in its
production, accessibility, and applications will constitute the core of
economic activity. Cognitive science deals with how the human brain
produces that very valuable product. Could the equally demystifying
forces of global economical development, which are quite different from
intellectual excitement, pull cognitive science into the shape of a new
monolithic discipline?
Notes
With thanks to Amir Assadi, Linda Daetwyler, Susan Ervin-Tripp, George
Lakoff, Don McQuade, Rafael Nunez, Stephen Palmer, and Dan Slobin for very
instructive talks and ample information.
1 As holder of the P.P. Rubens chair at the University of California at Berke-
ley, I had the privilege of partaking more or less as a participant observer in
172 Marc De Mey
this reputed cognitive science community during the spring semester of
1997.
2 The distinctions explored here aim at a refined analysis of Weingart's (this
volume) suggestion that organizational representation of interdisciplinarity
can be traced in evolutionary terms: 'Evolutionarily minded observers may
think of a variation/selection mechanism' (p. 36).
3 In the Bielefeld meeting leading up to the Vancouver conference, we
referred to Kepler's discovery of the retinal image (1604) as a prototypical
interdisciplinary achievement. Kepler came to a new paradigm for under-
standing the eye by applying artistic methods based on a radically different
paradigm. His free use of methods of various fields (including art) typifies
productive transgression of disciplinary boundaries (see Straker 1970).
4 For an overview of the cognitive science approach to the study of vision, see
Palmer in 1999.
5 Francis Crick has also been a visiting scholar at the UC Berkeley Institute of
Cognitive Studies.
9
Inducing Interdisciplinarity: Irresistible
Infliction? The Example of a Research
Group at the Center for Interdiscipli-
nary Research (ZiF), Bielefeld, Germany
SABINE MAASEN
Introduction
My paper rests on the assumption that the tasks involved in organizing
interdisciplinarity inevitably deal with balancing. This holds for aspects
as different as the disciplines and scholars involved and the methods
and degrees of organizational input, as well as for producing the results
and evaluating them. That interdisciplinary endeavours can be irresist-
ible and inflictive at the same time may be a truism for those who have
already had a chance to participate in such projects, organize them, or
study them. A closer look at one example, however, may both show the
intricacies of such a project in more detail and point to crucial moments
where organizational measures can help to advance fruitful multi-
disciplinary communication, possibly resulting in some interdiscipli-
nary activity.
The example the subtitle of this essay refers to is a research group
that worked on 'Biological Foundations of Human Culture/ It resided
at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF), Bielefeld, Germany,
in the academic year of 1991-2. I will first give a general account of
interdisciplinarity as practised at the ZiF and then address the exact
location from which the observations reported derive. Following, I will
give an outline of the above-mentioned research group, structured along
the most critical events of organizational demand: the search for and
invitation of pertinent scholars, installation of a group, and production
of immediate and (hopefully!) long-range effects. Finally, the lesson this
particular research group teaches with respect to the practice of
interdisciplinarity will be incorporated into the general account given
in the last section. Basically, this lesson amounts to the insight that
174 Sabine Maasen
this case is not so much a success story called 'Evolutionary Social
Sciences Finally Established.' Rather, this endeavour has resulted in
some interactions at some intersections of some interfields in the
interspheres of biology and the social sciences - a patchwork procedure
that has been inflictive, but irresistible nonetheless. Thus, interspersed
throughout the text are 'irresistible inflictions': generalized dilemmas of
interdisciplinarity.
A Simplified Model of Interdisciplinarity at the ZiF and a Thesis
First of all, interdisciplinarity presupposes (a) a realization that certain
topics cannot adequately be approached by a single discipline and (b)
an identification of various disciplinary activities that converge on top-
ics that - at first sight - might be capable of being conceptualized as a
joint problem. This type of interdisciplinarity can then be described as
the act of transferring insights from different disciplines into a set of
problems and a set of methods for approaching them. In the course of
conceptually relating problems and methods, a certain something we
call 'inter' may emerge with respect to the overall topic in question.
Interdisciplinarity thus understood, however, is a result that - in most
cases - can only be approximated and is always a transitory one. If it
occurs it is a stage within a process of communication between a vari-
ety of specialized discourses. In its extreme forms, this type of commu-
nication may lead either to the emergence of a new 'inter-field' (e.g.,
biochemistry, cf. Darden and Maull 1977) or to the cessation of commu-
nication altogether - and virtually everything in between may happen
as well. Centers like the ZiF proceed on the assumption that while the
results of multidisciplinary communication cannot be controlled, one
can see to it that this type of communication occurs and that
interdisciplinarities have the chance to emerge.
Within the three type system outlined by George Reynolds, the present
case represents the second type: 'multidisciplinary problems that are
basically intellectual rather than policy-action in nature, but that cannot
be successfully undertaken within the boundaries of a single discipline'
(Reynolds in Sigma Xi 1988: 21). Unlike problems of the first kind,
which are addressed by a single discipline, the second type of discourse
is intellectually more demanding. And unlike the third kind of prob-
lem, which is distinctly multidisciplinary, socioeconomically driven, and
calls for a quick technological fix, the second type of discourse is less
oriented towards 'solutions.'
1
 This, however, is irresistible infliction num-
Inducing Interdisciplinarity 175
her 1: Unrestrained debates on an issue may prove to be a vice or a
virtue depending on the participants' willingness to arrive at a basic
understanding, or even innovative notions, without the need to 'solve' a
given socioeconomic problem.
Throughout this paper I will highlight several modifications the case
of the research group adds to the simplified picture of interdisciplinarity
outlined above. Basically, I will show that while establishing the re-
search group at the ZiF was meant to be a further step towards one
interdiscipline called 'Evolutionary Social Science/ the actual accom-
plishment was different, though not at all disappointing: What we set
up was a series of intersectional discourses loosely coupled to the re-
search group, the latter providing both the organizational and the intel-
lectual framework. Thus, we learned something about 'practising
interdisciplinarity,' too: The somewhat naive picture of an all-encom-
passing interdisciplinarity was replaced by a more realistic, 'do-able'
concept of a patchwork of intersections.
Intermediate Perspective
Whenever a research group is set up at the ZiF, the head of the group is
assigned a scientific assistant for the whole period covering preparation
for the year, organization of the group's activities during their resi-
dence at the ZiF, as well as the time thereafter devoted to finishing and
editing manuscripts. Usually, this period lasts about four to five years.
Serving as an interface between all factions and all kinds of activities,
the ZiF deems this kind of position a particular necessity for organizing
a research group.
As a scientific assistant for the group on Biological Foundations of
Human Culture, I had what I would call an intermediate perspective on
the issue of inducing interdisciplinary activities: Not only did I partici-
pate in this group and assist in its organization, but I was also located
between the research group and its head as well as between the Fellows
and the administration. From the observatory called scientific assis-
tance, I study the microcosm of one group at one center, the tensions
created, and the measures taken to balance them. This report is thus
meant to give some flesh to the bones of more abstract notions of
interdisciplinarity. It will illustrate how interdisciplinarity can be val-
ued both positively and negatively, sometimes even simultaneously.
Presented in terms of 'irresistible inflictions' this paper will corroborate
the major theme of this volume, 'interdisciplinarity - the paradoxical
176 Sabine Maasen
discourse' (cf. Weingart, this volume), by pointing to the practices at-
tempting interdisciplinarity malgre tout.
2
Interdisciplinarity In Vivo: The Idea Called Research Group
and an Illustration
THE IDEA
The ZiF was designed to advance interdisciplinary research by institu-
tional reintegration. Its designer, Helmut Schelsky, meant to counter
the overwhelming trend towards subdisciplinary fragmentation by pro-
viding highly specialized scholars with the opportunity to communi-
cate extensively with one another. Thus, it was the institution that gave
residence to and in part organized interdisciplinary communication that
was new, not the idea of interdisciplinarity itself. Specifically, the Zip's
agenda is to reintegrate already existing interdisciplinary activities that,
before meeting at the Center, take place mostly between and outside of
universities (cf. Liibbe 1987: 30-1). This is the cornerstone of the ZiF's
specialty called the 'research group': each year a group of about 20
Fellows already working at the borders of their own fields resides at the
ZiF to work on a joint project.
3
 In brief, the concept of research groups
was established as an incentive to advance sustained multidisciplinary
cooperation. Each element is believed to be crucial for interdisciplinarity
to emerge; the explanation will begin with the last one:
• Cooperation: Unlike other Centers for Advanced Studies, a ZiF
fellowship is not granted to provide an individual scholar with the
opportunity to pursue his or own research interests. Rather, scholars
are invited to collaborate with others from different fields or disci-
plines to work on a joint topic. The kinds of cooperation vary:
lecture, discussion group, jour fixe for the group as a whole as well as
conferences featuring outside guests. Moreover, as the group not
only works at the ZiF but also lives in the apartments built around it,
there is hardly a chance to avoid informal opportunities of talking to
one another, even while doing laundry.
• Multidisciplinary: With respect to the kind and degree of scholarly
exchange, every research group seems to run through several
stages.
4
 After an initial stage in which the group members introduce
their work and discuss joint interests, the project gets an ever-more
Inducing Interdisciplinarity 177
distinct profile. Dyadic cooperations and discussion groups become
established in order to find overlapping research topics. In addition,
the group invites outside guests to give lectures or organizes work-
shops. The last weeks of a research group are generally dedicated to
discussing first drafts of manuscripts for the final publication.
Multidisciplinary exchange then reaches its peak: Fellows may argue
about one paragraph throughout a whole session. Here is where one
or more mterdisciplinarities are about to emerge.
Sustained: First, the concept is to encourage never-ending efforts to
truly cooperate during the year. It is an ongoing exercise in open-
mindedness and a discursive attitude, despite severe controversies
5
- an exercise the merits of which hopefully outlast the participants'
residence at the ZiF. Second, it is difficult to prove that research
groups have a long-lasting intellectual impact on their members, let
alone on the disciplines they involve and address. Yet, there are
some indicators, the more spectacular ones being those cases where
a team of Fellows discovers a special issue for themselves and
publishes it with a huge resonance in the disciplines addressed (cf.
Gigerenzer et al. 1989).
6
In short, the ZiF considers sustained multidisciplinary cooperation
crucial in order to eventually induce interdisciplinary. Interdisciplinarity,
thus understood, is as much an academic enterprise as it is a general
intellectual challenge. Whatever the results, the ZiF deems every re-
search group a worthwhile endeavour, because, as a rule, every group
contributes to reinforcing the scholars' activity at the margins of their
own disciplines.
7
Interdisciplinarity, according to my thesis, is primarily a matter of
preparing the grounds for communication among a variety of special-
ized discourses to occur. Thus, Interdisciplinarity depends on its organ-
ization at every stage of the process involving both the scientific
organizers as well as the administration: Without an ongoing support
system to provide such resources as a conference office, computer assis-
tance, and word processing, as well as bureaucratic assistance, an enter-
prise called 'research group' would just not be possible. The following
illustration thus touches and argues on three different levels of interdis-
ciplinary practice: the scholarly, the social, and the administrative level.
It is on and between these interacting levels that Interdisciplinarity comes
about - in both its irresistible and its inflictive aspects, that is.
178 Sabine Maasen
THE ILLUSTRATION
Initiatives and intentions
The idea for a research group very often has a long history. Initial ideas
for the group on Biological Foundations of Human Culture appeared as
early as 1977-8. Being a member of the Advisory Committee at the ZiF,
the convener of the group, a sociologist, took an interest in a research
group on Comparative Study of Behaviour in Man and Animal, yet
criticized it for not including members of the social sciences. In the
course of his own studies concerning eugenics he came across modern
behavioural genetics and sociobiology. During a fellowship at Harvard
he met with both advocates and opponents of these research fields;
back in Germany he encountered hostility towards any consideration of
the biological foundations of human culture among fellow social scien-
tists and held some misgivings himself. Although there was as yet no
clear-cut project, the challenge presented to the social sciences by ad-
vances in evolutionary biology and anthropology became all too obvi-
ous: It suggested the establishment of an interdisciplinary research group
at the ZiF.
Basically, the idea that emerged during these years had two aspects.
On the one hand social scientists, instead of dismissing biologically
oriented approaches altogether, should rather seek to understand them
first. Are social scientists confronted with competing approaches to ba-
sic social institutions such as the family or issues related to social change?
On the other hand - given the ideological rift between biology and the
social sciences - a metaperspective was called for to study the emer-
gence of biologically oriented approaches in the social sciences from a
sociology of science point of view. Do these theories reflect upon their
historical and political contexts as well as upon methodological ques-
tions, and if so, how? (cf. Weingart 1989a).
These questions were transformed into a fully elaborated proposal. It
covered a broad spectrum of topics that enlarged and changed through
the process of finding the pertinent scholars (cf. Weingart, 1989b). Among
the topics to be discussed were the following:
analogous approaches explaining social institutions and cultural
change in evolutionary terms
limitational approaches based on the assumption that the development
of culture decouples humans from genetic evolution, thus limiting
the domain of natural selection to subhuman species
Inducing Interdisciplinarity 179
co-evolutionary approaches that acknowledge the difference between
biological and cultural mechanisms of change but assume a connec-
tion between them as well as an evolutionary pattern of cultural change
sociological theories of change, both with and without making use of an
evolutionary framework
A smaller part of activities should take up the historical issues con-
cerning the relationship between biology and the social sciences as well
as methodological issues concerning the 'biologicalization' of social phe-
nomena.
In 1990, the Zip's board of directors granted this project. Although
typical of a ZiF project, which normally convenes a broad array of
disciplines, the number of issues addressed by the group on Biological
Foundations of Human Culture was atypically high. This is irresistible
infliction number 2: To organize a research group is a huge effort and
thus is usually done only once. One is tempted to cover just about
everything and can invite many interesting scholars working on differ-
ent aspects of a topic for an extended period of time. The project, how-
ever, should neither be too broad nor too narrow: it should allow for
extended interactions on various issues without permitting individual
scholars to escape into their niches. What are the right dimensions?
8
Irresistible infliction number 3 is a correlate of number 2: Every orga-
nizer of a research group wants to convene highly reputed scholars
from various fields. This ideal case is hardly ever achieved for at least
two reasons. First, in order to find these scholars for all the areas in-
volved, one needs to perform an extensive search and rating. Mostly,
however, the convener relies on personal knowledge as well as on per-
tinent literature, on preparatory communications, or on advice from
peers. Second, in some cases scholars working at the margins of their
fields are either not known or not acknowledged. For both reasons, it is
very difficult to convene a group consisting of excellent scholars of
heterogeneous areas of research. Therefore, it is all the more important
to undertake such an endeavour only when the core fields are suffi-
ciently advanced and the respective scholars are well-known and re-
puted (cf. Dogan and Pahre 1990).
During the planning stage we not only used the techniques just men-
tioned, but also organized two preparatory conferences. This helped to
assess both the prospective Fellow's intellectual fit and the social cohe-
sion of the group to be established. For one has to keep in mind that a
research group is very demanding in terms of group dynamics: Over a
period of nine months its members have to communicate on a daily
180 Sabine Maasen
basis, organize lectures and conferences, and settle conflicts or tolerate
different opinions, world-views, and cultural backgrounds. This calls as
much for intellectual open-mindedness as for sociability. If you downplay
the relevance of the latter, you are bound to experience irresistible in-
fliction number 4, which comes in two variants: (a) He/she is a very
interesting scholar but ...; (b) he/she is a very nice person but ... Both
are detrimental to sustained cooperation.
9
With respect to scholarly cohesion, the two preparatory conferences
had different goals: While the first conference had been rather broad
with respect to both the fields represented and the issues discussed and
was designed to select among both, the second encouraged the scholars
to specify their own research interests and joint research foci. Both re-
sulted in four areas of research: first, methodological reflection, notably
on reductionism and anthropomorphism; second, reflection on the socio-
political contexts of biological reasoning in the social sciences; third,
discussion of a few material issues such as societal core institutions, or
the study of aggression and bonding behaviour; and fourth, compara-
tive analysis of (co-)evolutionary models and their applicability to the
social sciences.
Yet, there were more mundane selective forces: the willingness or
ability of scholars to come at all, the length of time they could spend at
the ZiF, whether sabbatical leave could be used, the needs of accompa-
nying families. In the end, we settled on twelve Fellows who repre-
sented the core group and another eighteen Fellows who participated
on different schedules (e.g., three months or two days per week).
10
 It is
a common experience that it has become increasingly difficult to have
scholars move to a different place for a whole year. Even if they deem it
highly attractive, their universities, their immediate collaborators, and
their families might think differently. Irresistible infliction number 5,
then, is that inviting a scholar in fact means dealing with many more
people and institutions than just the one individual.
Intensive interactions
Every research group begins with an opening conference and ends with
a concluding conference. In between, however, the groups may have
completely different forms of interaction. For instance, if it is dealing
with predominantly scientific matters, a group might be found in the
laboratories located at the university. Recently, groups have adopted
Inducing Interdisciplinarity 181
so-called e-mail conferences. Our group used the more traditional meth-
ods of intellectual interaction. In addition to a weekly meeting of the
research group as a whole, discussion groups emerged that met regu-
larly. Outside guests were invited either for individual lectures (eight)
or for conferences (six), each organized by two members of the research
group with the help of both the scientific assistants and the staff. Gener-
ally, organizing conferences together proved to stimulate further inter-
talks, particularly between the organizers.
By touching upon the different ways of collaboratively working,
namely, jour fixe, discussion groups, and workshops and conferences,
the following paragraphs will also introduce in passing some of the
issues the group discussed during the year.
Jour fixe. The weekly meeting of the group as a whole was designed to
be a forum at which each Fellow would introduce his or her work, to
integrate newly arrived guests, and to announce forthcoming events.
Normally, these meetings took from 9:00 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. and ended
with a lunch provided by the Center's staff.
11
Over a period of about four months the group educated itself on
fields and issues as different as sociological analyses of the sociobiology
controversy, co-evolutionary approaches and models of dual inherit-
ance, primate intelligence, and so on. Yet, these lectures were not only
subjects of the group's education but also objects of controversy. Al-
though we were never able to settle a debate between individual Fel-
lows, we always intended to identify positions and the exact points of
disagreement. The long-standing controversy between Darwinian psy-
chologists and Darwinian anthropologists may serve as one example: It
is all about 'adaptive behaviour.'
Human behaviour is often adaptive in the biological sense of favouring
survival and reproduction. A long tradition of functionalism in the so-
cial sciences appeals to the intuition that variation in human sociocul-
rural institutions is adaptive. The huge range of environments to which
people have managed to spread and their oft-dominant role in these
environments speaks in favour of this intuition. Biology offers a precise
definition of adaptation drawn from evolutionary theory and a consid-
erable number of specific models predicting how people forage, choose
their mates, compose their families, and so forth, drawn from evolu-
tionary ecology. Mechanisms of phenotypic flexibility - learning, intel-
ligence, culturally acquired techniques - allow humans to solve an
182 Sabine Maasen
unprecedentedly diverse array of adaptive problems. It is likely that
mechanisms of phenotypic flexibility first arose because they were usu-
ally successful at solving adaptive problems, such as foraging on a
wide variety of resources in a wide variety of environments. At this
point, the Darwinian psychologists argue that much behaviour in com-
plex modern societies is maladaptive, because it is based on psychologi-
cal mechanisms adapted to the Pleistocene past. The goal of Darwinian
psychologists is to map the evolved architecture of the human mind,
which, they argue, is composed of a large number of functionally spe-
cialized information-processing devices, that is, cognitive adaptations.
The proposed domain specificity is what separates evolutionary psy-
chology from studies of human social evolution, which implicitly as-
sumes that 'fitness-maximization' is a mentally (though not consciously)
represented goal, the mind being composed of domain-general mecha-
nisms that 'figure out' fitness-maximizing behaviour in any environ-
ment - even evolutionarily novel ones.
Although the controversy should have been tempered by the same
adjective both fields have attached to them (Darwinian), it instead un-
covered the highly discipline-specific application of Darwinian tools (cf.
Klein, this volume). Most debates were best characterized by the bibli-
cal metaphor of the Tower of Babel (cf. also Dogan and Pahre 1990):
Different disciplinary language games did not easily map onto one an-
other, nor did the usage of joint concepts help much. In some cases, the
same concepts meant very different things to different fields. Irresistible
infliction number 6 thus is that interaction between representatives of
different hybrid fields means multiplying the controversies by debating
seemingly joint concepts.
Stepping aside, one should note that this experience does not neces-
sarily hamper interdisciplinary communication. On the contrary: abun-
dant up-to-date knowledge studies show that transferring concepts can
be fruitful just because they - in the process of being transferred - be-
come enriched with discipline-specific knowledge, thus becoming mean-
ingful for yet another discourse (cf. Black 1962; Hesse 1972; Bono 1990;
Maasen 1995). At the same time, concepts used by several disciplines
act as sites and media of exchange (Bono 1990): To advance cross-disci-
plinary communication, discipline-specific notions have to be spelled
out. Here, the institution of a research group is a perfect forum: The
Fellows, sitting face-to-face for several months, have to explain differ-
ent notions of, say, 'adaptive behaviour/ thereby learning about novel
Inducing Interdisciplinarity 183
ways to make use of a concept that seemed so familiar to each of the
discussants.
12
 The flip side of multiplying controversies by using alleg-
edly joint concepts thus are fruitful exchanges about the two-faced me-
dium of intellectual communication: joint concepts/heterogeneous
meanings.
13
 Unfortunately, the usages of evolutionary terminology
were mostly discussed in terms of 'right/wrong' instead of 'ad-
equate' or 'innovative.' Irresistible infliction number 7: One has to bal-
ance the scholarly need for utmost clarification with the willingness to
interact even with those colleagues whose approaches seem to be
'wrong / inappropriate.'
Compared with the group meetings, discussion groups tended to be
more efficient at this task, partly because they were smaller and dealt
with a more focused array of overlapping issues.
Discussion groups. Half a year was busy with intensive exchange within
discussion groups and their reports back to the group as a whole. Within
these groups it was often the respective initiator who took on a kind of
leadership and 'imprinted' it with some guiding ideas.
14
 This leads us
to irresistible infliction number 8: While one should attempt to reinte-
grate the different discussions at a certain stage, one should actively
encourage specialized discussion groups to emerge even if this means
dividing the group for a while. In a way, the division of scientific labour
in a research group is replaced by the division of intersectional labour.
Interests, competencies, and time constraints still make new specializa-
tions necessary.
The discussion groups listed below not only show how the research
group started to decompose the overall project, but also indicate the
different approaches to the latter.
Models, conceptual changes, and analogies. This group convened represen-
tatives of philosophy of biology, history of science, psychology, and
sociology to reflect upon interdisciplinary research itself. Group mem-
bers discussed issues such as the division of scientific labour, reduction-
ism, and instances of anthropomorphism. Moreover, they developed a
model of multidisciplinary explanations called Integrative Pluralism.
This group, in particular, encountered irresistible infliction number 9:
While reaching a more sophisticated level of discussion in a smaller
circle, they increasingly lost touch with the concern of the larger group.
Although considered very important by most Fellows, this subissue
184 Sabine Maasen
tended to be esoteric. Later, it formed a separate chapter within the
book and otherwise appeared only indirectly in the structure of the book.
Representations. This group focused on the so-called 'units of selection/
and hence on the elements that store and transmit culture or cultural
knowledge respectively. Most prominently, the group dealt with the
concept called 'meme' introduced by Richard Dawkins (1982), thus analo-
gizing the biological gene and the respective cultural unit.
Transmissions. This group dealt specifically with teaching and learning
in various species. Soon, Representations and Transmissions united and
became the most multidisciplinary group. It concerned itself mainly
with the question of whether certain types of transmission are either
part of the general evolutionary process or if they can be modeled in
analogous fashion. Epidemiological models from population genetics
were assessed for their ability to account for the diffusion of representa-
tions as well (cf. Sperber 1985).
Social intelligence. Primatologists, ethnologists, psychologists, as well as
a historian of science discussed the following question: Did human
intelligence, nowadays expressed mainly in technical domains, evolve
from social intelligence, that is, from basic attention to group organiza-
tion and the behavioural responses required by it? This group, too,
could have had many more linkages to the group as a whole than it
actually realized. Irresistible infliction number 10 yields the same re-
sults as number 9, albeit for opposite reasons: In this case, it was the
group members' tendency to keep to themselves, thereby maintaining a
high standard of in-group communication but putting less effort into
the time-consuming task of explaining themselves to colleagues who
were unfamiliar with their topic.
Kinship and social institutions. Kinship relations are, in a way, the test
case for different accounts, such as sociobiologial, coevolutionary,
and nonbiological - that is, sociological - ones, as they are institutions
of reproductive behaviour and thus subject to both biological and
social regulations. Social relations in primates and reproductive strate-
gies in premodern rural populations have been two of the topics under
discussion.
Initially, this discussion group was meant to be a cornerstone of the
research group. However, it turned out that comparative analysis of
different accounts of societal core institutions were possible only when
Inducing Interdisciplinarity 185
all accounts were more developed. This was true for both biological
and sociological approaches. If anything, it became apparent that, with
respect to clear-cut units of analysis, both were not on as firm a ground
as previously believed.
In summarizing, it should be emphasized that the 'common ground' of
sociological and biological explanations of human culture is as yet not
in sight. Instead there are several common grounds that have been
either established or strengthened, in each case focusing on a certain
topic or certain methods.
Workshops and conferences. When it turned out that some of the areas
deemed crucial had not been involved, the research group decided to
organize a few workshops and conferences, inviting speakers who would
fill the gaps.
15
 The issues dealt with were as follows:
Models of cultural evolution and theories of social change. A smaller group
of scholars compared evolutionarily oriented concepts of cultural change
with traditional sociological ones and subjected them to highly contro-
versial discussion.
16
Biological and cultural aspects of language development. Here, scholars pre-
senting neuropsychological, palaeoanthropological, neurolinguistic, and
phylo- and ontogenetic studies of language development complemented
the Fellows' expertise. Like the next topic, this conference brought to-
gether a broad array of up-to-date knowledge so that it seemed advis-
able to publish the papers as a collection. The scientific organizers of
both conferences made it their business to edit these proceedings with
special regard to the linkages between the respective subissue and the
general theme of the research group.
Non-verbal communication and the genesis of culture. This issue seemed to
provide the 'missing link' between natural evolution and cultural de-
velopment. The scholars invited inquired into the non-verbal behaviour
of different species. Here, as before, members of the research group
were invited to comment on the contributions and to integrate these
comments into the group's discussion preceding the conference.
Methodology and models in evolutionary economics. This workshop was
very much oriented towards model-building and unfortunately was
attractive to only a few specialists.
186 Sabine Maasen
Evolutionary foundations of law. A funding agency, the Volkswagen Foun-
dation, had just established a special grant program on Behavioural
Foundations of Law. It was very interested in promoting this program
with the help of an introductory conference on historical, psychological,
and sociobiological aspects of law and justice and, thus, coinitiated the
conference. In this case, in other words, two instances of institutionaliz-
ing intersections of biology and law converged just in time.
The transfer of images and metaphors between biology and the social sciences.
In 1992, the annual meeting of the Yearbook Sociology of Science was
held at the ZiF. The research group presented an ideal intellectual frame-
work for studies in the areas of sociology and history of science, inquir-
ing into basic terms such as 'organism' and 'struggle for existence':
How did these terms transgress disciplinary boundaries? How did this
affect the terms as well as the disciplines making use of them? Amaz-
ingly, this rather abstract discussion united both outside guests and the
research group to a high degree, partly due its connections to the work
of most scholars present, and partly due to the timing. At the end of the
academic year a baseline of mutual understanding had been established,
inspiring even more connections.
17
In addition to the conference proceedings about thirty preprints ap-
peared throughout the year that informed a wider audience on the
research group's work.
18
 Furthermore, most of the Fellows had given
lectures at various universities and thus, in passing, introduced the
research group to other audiences. Additionally, the ZiF asks every
group to organize a so-called ZiF-Colloquium specially designed to keep
the ZiF in touch with both the University of Bielefeld as well as a
broader non-academic audience. All of the aforementioned opportuni-
ties created ever-new environments for scholarly exchange and helped
to keep the research group from being a self-contained endeavour.
Immediate results
Producing a visible result of multidisciplinary work,
19
 that is, a coopera-
tively authored book, proved to be a great challenge: It partly enticed,
partly forced the Fellows to create a web of intersectional activities. The
first months of intensive discussions in various settings had uncovered
some bridges between some of the approaches, yet collecting them in a
quasi-monograph seemed to be impossible. This is irresistible infliction
number 11: On the one hand you want to represent all approaches,
Inducing Interdisciplinarity 187
including competing ones or those that do not even relate to one another;
on the other hand you want to have as convincing and integrated a
book as possible. Knowing that this ideal could only be approximated,
the group developed three mechanisms for coming as close as possible.
1 We set up a structure for the book that allowed for displaying both
compatible and competing approaches on different levels of analy-
ses. This resulted first in two parts covering evolutionary oriented
approaches, one dealing with homological approaches, that is, those
that treat human beings as just another unique species, and the other
dealing with analogical approaches, that is, those that use evolution-
ary theory as a "tool-box" for analyses in sociocultural domains.
Both parts were to be preceded by a lengthy part exploring the
contexts of biological thinking in the social sciences: historical and
theoretical, social and political, as well as methodological contexts.
The book as a whole was to be interspersed with introductions
into sections so as to lead the reader through the landscape of
different approaches. It should begin with a substantial introduction
displaying the major dualisms the project had to face and that the
book intended to challenge (e.g., Nature vs. Nurture, Reduction vs.
Autonomy). In addition to this, each part was to be introduced
separately.
2 We set up a structure for the authors. We agreed on eleven chapters
to which three or more authors made a contribution. All but one
group of authors were composed multidisciplinarily. Each group
chose a lead author who was both its coordinator as well as the
liaison with the editors.
3 We assigned a multidisciplinary group of four editors: an ecologist, a
philosopher of science, and two sociologists. Each of them had prime
responsibility for three or four chapters. Yet, in all cases of difficulty
- and there were many - the 'ed-group' as a whole decided how to
solve the problem.
Of course, there were additional challenges, such as finding and agree-
ing on a title; inviting the group back for an editorial conference and
settling - once everything was in writing - unbridgeable conflicts; find-
ing a publisher and coping with twenty-five reactions to the reviews, all
of which were mixed in their assessments; and finding another pub-
lisher and coping with twenty-five kinds of impatience.
The first item - finding and agreeing on a title - is worth returning to.
It had to be attractive yet informative, appeal to all the disciplines in-
188 Sabine Maasen
volved, and be detectable by any kind of database library research.
Human by Nature - Between Biology and the Social Sciences (Weingart et al.
1997) was the winner, although some fellows still feel some discomfort
with "Human by Nature': Does it not sound as if we believe in a human
nature? No, we do not - and we hope that the little "by' indicates that.
Interdisciplinarity: Some Interactions at Some Intersections
of Some Inter-Fields
The simplified model of interdisciplinarity (cf. the section at the start of
this essay) has several implications, one of them being that the results
of sustained multidisciplinary cooperation can vary considerably. The
model 'may lead either to the emergence of a new "inter-field" ... or to
the cessation of communication altogether - and virtually everything in
between may happen as well' (p. 174). The research group on Biological
Foundations of Human Culture, in my view, is a strong case for 'some-
thing in between.'
Yet, before defending the thesis that there is, as yet, no interdiscipline,
one should acknowledge that the views on this matter seem to differ.
For instance, those authors working on homological reasoning in the
social sciences are of the opinion that we are already entitled to speak
of a hybrid field called 'evolutionary social sciences.' Is there a way of
reconciling these apparently opposing views? I think there is. Hybrid-
ization, according to Dogan and Pahre, comes in two basic types: insti-
tutionalized (as a formal discipline) and informal (as a topic under
multidisciplinary discussion). The latter type is most likely to remain a
topic that is discussed by several disciplines without ever becoming an
institutionalized hybrid field (cf. Dogan and Pahre 1990: 63).
The informal type of hybridization, indeed, seems to apply to the
current status of 'evolutionary social sciences': It is a conglomerate of
intense interactions at some intersections of some subfields we con-
vened. As yet, it is not established as a formal discipline, and it prob-
ably never will be. Rather, this hybridization consists of a variety of
specialized discourses on a series of related topics on different levels of
reasoning (analogical, homological, metatheoretical reflections). Thus,
the state of affairs is certainly best described with hybridization type
two, denoting a state of 'inter'-activities that is fluid, fruitful, and still
showing some frozen borders.
There are two reasons for this mixed or informal state of hybridiza-
tion. First, the project on Biological Foundations of Human Culture
Inducing Interdisciplinarity 189
comprised intersectional discourses that before being convened at the
ZiF differed as to the level of institutionalization. Philosophy of biology
and history of science are well-established subdisciplines, and evolu-
tionary psychology is certainly on the verge of becoming one (cf.
Cosmides and Tooby 1987; Gigerenzer and Hug 1992); systems theory
is an approach established in several (sub-) disciplines; least institution-
alized are discourses such as evolutionary sociology. Second, the group
convened scholars who, before coming to the ZiF, worked on different
interdisciplinary research routines. In most cases, the scholars had pur-
sued their intersectional research individually. In three cases, we in-
vited a 'firm/ that is, a long-standing cooperation between two schol-
ars.
20
 None of our Fellows, however, was embedded in intersectional
networks at their home institutions. Rather, they communicated with
colleagues of other institutions, and it was only at the ZiF that they
experienced a long-term environment that enabled them to establish a
working intersection right on campus.
Being confronted with this mixed state of hybridization, the group
considered a pluralistic perspective a prerequisite of the project. As a
consequence, we, for instance, have not bridged the gap between those
scholars who argue on an analogical and those who argue on a homo-
logical level. Rather, we documented the diversity of arguments and
related them by drawing a map. The map is captured by the overall
structure of the book.
However, there is more than cartography. On a very basic level, the
group arrived at the understanding that any fundamentalist language
should be avoided - one should adhere to neither biological nor socio-
logical reductionism. For instance, the group's title Biological Founda-
tions of Human Culture was accepted as a provocative one, yet not as a
title for the final publication. Moreover, within the parts, and even more
so within individual chapters, the work has been very intense and mu-
tually influential. This effect seems to be in resonance with social
psychological studies on optimal group size in cooperative work (cf.
Epton, Payne, and Pearson 1984: 72)
21
 as well as with Rogers Hollings-
worth's study on nurturing environments for innovative work (cf.
Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth, this volume). Different fields were
best attached by a joint material issue, such as kinship; another hinge
was the comparative analysis of 'units of selection.' In other words, the
research group as a whole assembled a set of intersectional activities.
These intersectional activities emerged typically in considerably ad-
vanced areas of study. The final results reflect several types of fruitful
190 Sabine Maasen
interaction: the fully integrated chapter, the multidisciplinary overview,
the discussion among different approaches.
The amount and quality of scholarly exchange was, as has been said
earlier, above all a matter of organizing it. Yet, here, too, the activities
have to be balanced. One might say that the 'magic' of organized self-
organization leads to the best results. Notably the facilities of the ZiF
(e.g., various conference rooms, offices, a swimming pool, and a nearby
forest) and its routines in supporting the group did much to facilitate
formal and informal communications. Moreover, the institution of a
research group (serving as an organizational and cognitive framework)
facilitated a variety of exchanges according to individual preferences.
Only this environment in all its dimensions allows for unexpected things
to happen and for the freedom to make detours and mistakes!
Finally, this research group at the ZiF did more than merely teach a
lesson on practising interdisciplinarity - namely, by way of inducing
some interactions at some intersections of some inter-fields. In addition,
it taught a lesson on how to learn to practise interdisciplinarity: there
are no techniques to be learned or manuals to be compiled. Rather,
interdisciplinarity is a scholarly and organizational balancing act to be
learned by doing. If there is such a thing as a golden rule, then it
concerns the type of organizational activities: although indispensable,
they have to be as implicit and as invisible as possible. They have to be
part of the group's self-organized procedere to produce a stimulating
atmosphere, the results of which radiate via formal presentation, publi-
cation, and informal communication. That, indeed, is the icing on the
cake called the interdisciplinary research group.
Notes
1 Type three is precisely what Gibbons et al. call 'transdisciplinarity' or
'mode 2': knowledge is driven by the contexts of application, organized in
highly flexible and transient institutions, always on the verge of being
reorganized or given up as soon as the changing context calls for it (Gib-
bons et al. 1994: 3-44). As opposed to this, interdisciplinarities at the ZiF
are to a large degree disconnected from transcontextual demands.
2 On a methodological note, I would like to mention that while the paper is a
report on past experiences and thus helpful in understanding more about
practising interdisciplinarity, it occasionally relates to systematic analyses of
cognitive, institutional-structural, and organizational aspects of inter-
Inducing Interdisciplinarity 191
disciplinarity and should be read in conjunction with those (cf. contribu-
tions to this volume).
3 It should be noted, however, that 'research' group does not denote doing
research together. Rather, the groups discuss data already collected and
compare theories and methods - a concept that natural scientists, in
particular, deem very restrictive (cf. Immelmann 1987: 87-91).
4 Similar observations are noted by Wilhelm VofBkamp. Reporting on his
research group "Funktionsgeschichte der Utopie,' he differentiates among
four stages: orientation, tentative constitution, stabilization, and critical self-
reflexion (cf. Vofikam p 1987: 98).
5 Ursula Hiibenthal agrees that the 'uniformity' of pursuing interdisciplinary
cooperation 'lies more in the mentality than in the method' (Hiibenthal 1994:
74, emphasis added).
6 Sverre Sjolander describes the fate of several ZiF groups he studied in ten
stages, stage 8 being 'What is happening to me?...' According to this
observation,'... people will often find that they, after participation in an
interdisciplinary venture, turn out to have become advocates or at least
reluctant defenders of disciplines they have interacted with during the
project; this in turn will strengthen or rekindle interest in further interdisci-
plinary work ...' (1985: 90). The last stage, then - typically enough - is
entitled The real beginning' (1985: 90).
7 The third characteristic of interdisciplinarity at the ZiF deliberately focuses
on the exercise rather than on the evaluation, because a consensus on
criteria for evaluating these activities is as yet not in sight. Although
originality, integratedness, (multi-)disciplinary solidity, as well as episte-
mological reflection will be among these criteria, it also seems likely that
evaluative criteria will have to be as different as interdisciplinarities are.
For instance, it is not at all conclusive that 'applicability' should be a stable
criterion, as Gibbons et al. (1994) seem to suggest.
8 At this stage the role of the ZiF is very important. It provides the organizer
of a research group with administrative support and advice on various
issues, timing being an important one. For instance, most organizers
underestimate the huge amount of time required to convene a group.
9 This, of course, is just a less-refined version of arguments dealt with by
Bromme. In a nutshell, the scholar should express a (disciplinary) identity
that is stable and flexible at the same time (cf. Bromme, Rambow, and
Wiedmann 1998, as well as Klein 1990:183). Similarly, Gibbons et al. point
to 'a portfolio of identities and competencies [that has] to be managed'
(1994:165). Indeed, the participants of a research group must be prepared
to act as one another's 'nurturing environment' (cf. Hollingsworth, this
192 Sabine Maasen
volume) throughout the academic year - otherwise, interdisciplinarity is
bound to be a failure.
10 The scholars were representatives from borders of the following disciplines:
anthropology, archaeology, ecology, economics, ethnology, genetics,
history, philosophy, psychology, and sociology.
11 It is important to note that lunches at the ZiF assume less central a role than
they do at corresponding institutes. This is partly due to the fact that most
Fellows live on campus and try to keep up with their private lives as much
as possible; moreover, social events are abundant without lunches. Thus,
the degree of interaction imposed on the Fellows being so high already
creates the need for some freedom from togetherness, be it scholarly or
social. Still, to have lunch together was accepted surprisingly often.
12 This, by the way, constrains bibliometrical analyses quite seriously.
Although they can help to draw 'cognitive maps' by looking for the
increase and spread of certain keywords among different fields and
disciplines, these analyses need to be complemented by in-depth discourse
analysis investigating the field- or discipline-specific usages of identical
words and seemingly joint concepts. (On bibliometrical analysis of
interdisciplinarity, cf. van Raan, this volume.)
13 This is what Bromme recasts in terms of a theory of 'common ground,' that
is, a shared frame of reference. If the distinctiveness of perspectives
represented by different scholars is the constitutive feature of
interdisciplinarity, then the continuous reconstruction of the object of
research comes as no surprise as different sets of stereotypical representa-
tions, epistemic styles, and so on are involved (cf. Bromme, this volume).
Therefore, the question is how un/common is un/common enough to be
stimulating instead of detrimental to multidisciplinary discourse? (On this
question cf. Knorr-Cetina 1981).
14 Here it becomes apparent that it is not some magic list of personality traits
that accounts for fruitful intellectual exchange within a research group but
rather the institutional setting that allows for a variety of interactions to
occur. Strong leadership seems to be an important element of successful
work, especially within a multidisciplinary team (cf. Hollingsworth and
Hollingsworth, this volume). Yet, a Center for Advanced Study hosting
temporary groups does not allow for hierarchical structures to be estab-
lished. Instead, it favours an egalitarian structure that permits a multiplic-
ity of creative settings.
15 Four conferences resulted in books edited by Fellows: Weingart, Kummer,
and Hof (1994); Maasen, Mendelsohn, and Weingart (1995); Velichkovsky
and Rumbaugh (1996); and Segerstrale and Molnar (1997).
Inducing Interdisciplinarity 193
16 Although regarded as one of the most crucial issues to be addressed, the
conference revealed only a few areas of direct comparison. Thus this
exchange - wisely enough - did not result in the publication of conference
proceedings.
17 Note that 'mutual understanding' is not to be understood in an emphatic
way. Rather, the group had reached a level where each Fellow's remark
'rang a bell,' or, to put it in terms of cognitive psychology, gave one a
strong feeling of knowing (e.g., Tulving and Madigan 1970) what the other
was saying. Therefore it became possible to respond to remarks more easily
than before. This is not to disappoint those who are searching for a com-
mon ground. Rather, it is the first step to creating it.
18 Again, it is easy to imagine that without ongoing institutional support - for
example, in terms of desktop publishing - these visible results of a research
group would be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish. In addition to
the conference office, a research secretary with two staff members was kept
busy preparing talks and papers throughout the year. After the group left,
one secretary took care of all conference proceedings as well as the book
jointly written by almost all the Fellows.
19 Interestingly, the possibility of not publishing at all had not been taken into
consideration - maybe not so remarkable in view of a professional system
that values, among other things, an uninterrupted list of publications.
Especially for younger scholars it was already considered risky to engage
in this enterprise, for it was clear beforehand that the research group would
not result in many publications. From the viewpoint of the institution,
publications are essential in order to earn and maintain the scholarly
respect and standing for such a center.
20 Dogan and Pahre's plea for this type of hybridization is radical: 'If simple
juxtaposition is avoided, collaboration between scholars belonging to
different disciplines can be a creative form of hybridization. In most cases,
the productive collaboration involves only two authors, rarely three or
more; it seems that 'two is company and three a crowd' (Dogan and Pahre
1990: 117).
21 Typically, these studies do not give a magic number but rather emphasize
basic criteria that have to be met, such as the possibility of proceeding on
informal terms and implicit agreements as to who is to contribute what,
exert leadership, and so on. Basically, this list of criteria coincides with the
sociologists' notion of 'primary groups' as opposed to secondary ones.
10
Interdisciplinary Research at the
Caltech Beckman Institute
ERIC R. SCERRI
Introduction
The Beckman Institutes located at the California Institute of Technol-
ogy, the University of Illinois, Stanford University, and the University
of California at Irvine are a recent example of a self-consciously estab-
lished project for the purpose of pursuing interdisciplinary research in
the natural and biomedical sciences.
1
 This is not to deny the huge body
of interdisciplinary research that has occurred, perhaps incidentally, in
the natural sciences, including the development of hybrid fields such as
molecular biology and chemical physics. This article rather takes for
granted the ubiquity of modern-day interdisciplinary research and seeks
to explore the possible outcomes of institutes that proclaim inter-
disciplinarity as their raison d'etre and perhaps take active steps to at-
tempt to foster this mode of research.
2
As is well known there have been several studies of mission-oriented
interdisciplinary projects (see Galison and Helvy 1992), such as the Man-
hattan project, NASA, the research conducted in a number of elemen-
tary particle accelerators, as well as the socio-anthropological studies of
Latour and Woolgar on the Salk Institute (Latour and Woolgar 1979)
and an Australian group looking into the Walter and Eliza Hall Insti-
tute for medical research in Melbourne (Charlesworth et al. 1989). Stud-
ies on interdisciplinary institutes devoted primarily to the natural sci-
ences have not been as common however. In the present article I will
focus primarily on just one of the four major Beckman Institutes, the
one located at the California Institute of Technology, or Caltech for
short.
Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 195
The approach adopted here, in keeping with recent work in history
and philosophy of science, will be to examine the scientific practice and
context in favour of purely logical or theoretical issues. It is hoped that
the present report can nevertheless provide material for those seeking
to address theoretical issues, such as a classification of different forms
of interdisciplinarity.
It is now widely agreed that the theoretical approach to establish the
unity of the sciences within a logical positivist tradition has failed. Simi-
larly, attempts to achieve inter-theoretic reduction among the various
sciences and ultimately to reduce all the sciences to theoretical physics
have also failed to bear fruit. This has led many commentators to con-
clude, wrongly in my view, that science is disunified not only epistemo-
logically but also metaphysically.
3
It would seem reasonable to suppose that the practice of inter-
disciplinarity and its documented rise points to an underlying method-
ological unity that is being tapped by researchers engaged in interdisci-
plinary work. Similarly, it might be thought that if science were as
disunified as some have claimed, it should not be possible to practise
interdisciplinary work at all. However, matters are more complicated,
since the mere practice of interdisciplinarity does not necessarily rest on
any unity between the sciences.
Integration incorporates the idea of unity between forms of knowl-
edge and their respective disciplines, whereas 'interdisciplinary' simply
refers to the use of more than, one discipline in pursuing a particular
inquiry (Klein 1990: 27).
A Tradition of Interdisciplinary and Cooperative Research at Caltech
Collaboration was more than a slogan at Caltech; its scientific leaders
understood that nature does not heed human-made categories. (Servos
1990: 269)
Caltech, in Pasadena, just outside Los Angeles, is one of the most
prestigious scientific institutions in the United States, if not the whole
world. The very existence of an interdisciplinary institute at Caltech
may at first appear as something of an enigma, given the apparent
conservative institutionalism of this bastion of the scientific enterprise.
4
Furthermore, Caltech has prided itself on fostering individual brilliance
and not on pursuing large-scale teamwork projects. From time to time
powerful personalities in Caltech's history, such as Linus Pauling, may
196 Eric R. Scerri
well have succeeded in building themselves research 'empires/ but this
is something that seems to have been generally frowned upon.
5
 How-
ever, the very institutional success of Caltech can be seen to rest on an
interdisciplinary need that arose in the 1920s when the astronomer
George Ellery Hale began looking to attract top-quality faculty to the
then little-known campus in Pasadena that was still known as Throop
Polytechnic. Hale was an astronomer specializing in observations, one
very important aspect of which consisted in performing detailed analy-
ses of the spectra of the sun and other stars.
After moving to Caltech, Hale reasoned that, if his spectroscopic work
was going to continue to flourish, he would need a first-rate physicist
as well as a first-rate chemist, since spectroscopy combines aspects of
these sciences. The physicist turned out to be Robert Millikan and the
chemist Alfred Amos Noyes.
Historians of science generally agree that it was this triumvirate of
world-class scientists that led Caltech from an obscure manual training
college to a position of scientific pre-eminence that persists to this day.
New disciplines such as astrophysics, biochemistry, and physical chem-
istry began to flourish at this time, partly as a result of the use of new
instruments, partly due to the collaborative and interdisciplinary efforts
of scientists from different specialties, and partly as the result of indi-
vidual efforts by scientists and foundations officers.
The next landmark event in terms of interdisciplinarity may be iden-
tified perhaps with the foundation of the Biology Division in 1928.
Caltech was able to attract Thomas Hunt Morgan, who had already
distinguished himself as a world-class geneticist and a charismatic leader
at Columbia University, where he had helped to put genetics firmly on
the biological agenda with his experiments on Drosophila, the common
fruit fly. Morgan's new division at Caltech was established with the
express purpose of fostering cooperation among genetics, biochemistry,
biophysics, embryology, and physiology.
The eventual establishment of the biology division in 1928 appears, at
first sight, to have been somewhat unusual in that no effort was made
to cover all the main areas in biology, attention being focused instead
on one particular promising specialty, namely genetics. But, as in many
instances before and after this date, this policy is in keeping with
Caltech's approach of emphasizing one particular area in which the
institution could make a major contribution.
Another leading figure in Caltech folklore, two-time Nobel prize-
winner Linus Pauling, who has often been referred to simply as the
Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 197
greatest chemist of the twentieth century, crafted a 'new region
of science' by combining physics, chemistry, biology, theory, and
experiment.
George Beadle, the founder of biochemical genetics, worked at Caltech,
starting with corn and moving on to fruit flies and eventually to fungi.
Furthermore, both Beadle and Morgan extended their collaborative
projects well beyond academe into industry and the military sphere.
Another example of Caltech's penchant for interdisciplinarity is
the work of Max Delbriick, who began as a physicist, including a
spell with Niels Bohr in Copenhagen, and became one of the first scien-
tists to forge links among genetics, physics, and mathematics. In the
late 1930s he founded the 'phage school' at Caltech, which under his
leadership was to be the training ground for numerous future molecu-
lar biologists.
6
More recently Caltech has continued to be at the forefront of interdis-
ciplinary drives. For example the field of geochemistry has been pio-
neered at Caltech with contributions from Clair Patterson, who devel-
oped a method for measuring the age of the earth and the solar system.
He was also responsible for bringing worldwide attention to the prob-
lem of lead pollution. Another more recent case is the LIGO project
(laser interferometric gravitational wave observatory), which involves a
team of over 100 specialists from such areas as theoretical and experi-
mental physics, engineering, and computing.
This brief chronology is meant to underscore the strong interdis-
ciplinary style of scientific research that has permeated Caltech almost
from its inception. It was the unique combination of the interests and
skills of its scientists, as well as the institutional structure and patron-
age relationships, that shaped the nature of research and education
from the 1920s to the present and have strongly influenced what
was to become the Beckman Institute. As with the foundation of Caltech
itself, spectroscopy may be identified as the unifying technique that
brings together workers from different disciplines at the BI. While Harry
Gray, the Institute's director, personally leads the laser spectroscopy
facility, there are also large laboratories dedicated to X-ray diffraction
and mass spectroscopic techniques, as well as magnetic imaging tech-
niques (MRI) machines that are the descendants of nuclear magnetic
resonance spectrometers.
The fields that are being brought together at the Beckman Institute
consist primarily of chemistry and biology, forging new disciplines such
as bio-inorganic chemistry. Other seemingly remote fields include bio-
198 Eric R. Scerri
logical imaging, advanced computational methods, computational chem-
istry, biomolecular design, and the sequencing of proteins and nucleic
acids. The interrelationship among these various fields is immediately
appreciated when one thinks of the ubiquity of computational methods
in handling large amounts of data, such as biological sequencing or
performing ab initio calculations in chemistry, or the use of computa-
tional methods in the course of imaging work.
Beckman the Man
Before describing the findings of our research it is necessary to say
something about the benefactor who has made the Caltech BI possible.
Arnold O. Beckman is a scientific entrepreneur whose name has be-
come a household word in the field of scientific instrumentation. He
was born in 1900 in Cullom, Illinois. In 1919 he enrolled at the up-and-
coming University of Illinois to study chemistry, eventually majoring in
chemical engineering due to his interest in what Beckman himself re-
fers to as the 'practical side.' In the course of undergraduate training
Beckman gained knowledge of hydrogen electrodes, thus helping him
to invent the pH meter, which was to form the basis of his industrial
empire.
After gaining his MS, Beckman went to Caltech, but after a year
decided to go east and take a job with Western Electric, a company that
later became Bell Telephone Laboratories. But a visit by A.A. Noyes in
1926 persuaded Beckman to return to Caltech to take a PhD. In 1935
Beckman developed the world's first commercial pH meter and soon
afterwards resigned from Caltech to concentrate on his business affairs.
From this point onwards Beckman's company went from strength to
strength and continued to be successful even through the Depression
years. During the Second World War, Beckman's National Technical
Laboratories developed a number of instruments and devices, includ-
ing a quartz spectrophotometer that helped in the war effort by making
possible the analysis of aviation fuel and artificial rubber. This instru-
ment remained virtually unmodified from 1940 to 1964, during which
time over 20,000 were sold to laboratories all over the world. A number
of other notable inventions followed, including the first commercial
ultra-centrifuge, used to separate chemical substances as well as mea-
sure their densities.
From a 180-square-foot shop in a Pasadena garage Beckman Instru-
ments, as it became known in the early 1950s, grew into an interna-
Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 199
tional giant with interests in biomedical research, health care, process
analysis and control, environmental technology, medical and industrial
chemical research, communications electronics, auto and consumer pro-
duction, as well as scientific instrumentation of all kinds. Arnold
Beckman served as president of Beckman Instruments until 1965 and is
still formally Chairman of the Board. In 1982 his company merged with
the SmithKline Corporation to form the SmithKline Beckman Corpora-
tion, of which he is a director emeritus.
Beckman, unlike most wealthy people, has given away a large part of
his fortune during his own lifetime and given it to basic research, con-
trary to most philanthropic gifts that seem to go to 'worthy social causes.'
Beckman believes that he can do more good for society by promoting
basic science, which has resulted in a number of major gifts to various
universities. The first major gift was to his alma mater, the University of
Illinois, which has allowed for the construction of the largest of the four
major Beckman Institutes. The second was a gift of $50 million to Caltech
to build its Beckman Institute, the subject of this study. More recently
the Beckman Institute for Genetics and Molecular Medicine was built at
the Stanford University campus, as was the Beckman Institute for Laser
Surgery at the campus of the University of California at Irvine.
In addition, three major buildings at the Caltech campus apart from
the Beckman Institute bear the name of Beckman emblazoned in large
letters.
7
 Such is Beckman's presence felt on campus that Caltech it is
sometimes jokingly referred to as the 'Beckman Institute of Technology.'
Interdisciplinarity at Caltech
The main way in which I have examined interdisciplinarity at Caltech
has been through a series of interviews with the leading researchers. In
the course of these interviews I have attempted to discover something
of the academic journeys that have been taken by the interviewees, with
a view to building up a picture of the typical modern-day scientific
interdisciplinarian. Of the fifteen interviews conducted at Caltech I have
selected just four for the sake of illustration in the present short report.
Interdisciplinarity has long been a feature of work in industrial re-
search, which is often driven by the expediencies of market forces and
is not hampered by the artificial divisions that exist in university de-
partments resulting from the need to teach the various disciplines. It is
perhaps no accident that the sponsor for the Beckman Institutes was
himself not an academic.
8
 As I hope to document in the course of the
200 Eric R. Scerri
following pages, the structure of university teaching and administra-
tion is often regarded as being detrimental to interdisciplinarity.
One of the main innovations that has occurred at the Caltech BI re-
garding personnel has been the establishment of positions devoted en-
tirely to research, a feature that not surprisingly has met with consider-
able resistance from the members of the teaching faculty. These new
positions, called Members of the Beckman Institute (MBIs), have been
created to overcome such obstacles as the traditional university struc-
ture imposes. However, as will be seen, they have also created some
drawbacks for the researchers themselves.
It is probably fair to say that all other factors being equal, the most
interdisciplinary style of functioning at the BI would be expected from
researchers holding such MBI positions. For this reason two of the se-
lected four individual cases discussed here, Jerry Solomon and Seth
Marder, are MBIs. A third researcher, Thomas Meade, is a member of
the research faculty with no teaching responsibilities. Such positions
are not particularly novel, either at Caltech or in universities at large.
They represent something in between members of the teaching faculty,
many of whom are engaged in research at the BI, and the above-men-
tioned MBIs, whose positions are not classed as belonging within the
faculty. The final member of the quartet considered here is Scott Fraser,
who holds an endowed chair at Caltech and is thus a full member of
the teaching faculty. The common thread that unifies all four chosen
individual researchers is their thoroughgoing commitment to inter-
disciplinarity. The particular positions they hold may be no more than
historical accidents.
JERRY SOLOMON
9
Jerry Solomon describes his research work as having two aspects.
Firstly, he is interested in the problem of chain folding in proteins.
The question is how the primary structure in the sequence of amino
acids in a protein dictates the precise three-dimensional geometry that
the folded chain adopts. As a recent editorial in the journal Science put
it, "The folding of a protein into its characteristic three dimensional
shape is a biological equivalent of the big bang: The end result is evi-
dent everywhere, in every living cell, but the beginnings are shrouded
in mystery.'
10
Solomon's second project concerns the development of methods for
analysing images that are generated from multidimensional data. The
Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 201
imaging work has involved collaboration with biologists Scott Fraser
and Mel Simon, who have completely separate research programs in
the Beckman Institute. Fraser has initiated revolutionary new methods
of biological imaging that extend the range of microscopic techniques
into the realm of real-time microscopy on such processes as biological
development.
Both of these aspects of Solomon's work are highly interdisciplinary
but in different ways. In the case of the chain-folding work, Solomon
draws on his own combined skills as a physicist, chemist, biologist, and
computer specialist. He explains that people have been working on the
chain-folding problem for some thirty years and that little success has
been achieved regarding the ability to predict the three-dimensional
structure of a protein given just the primary structure of amino acids.
However, he stresses that along the way many subproblems have been
solved and that the enterprise has forced the practitioners to develop
novel methods for maximizing the use of computer memory. This type
of economy is necessary despite the fact that Solomon and his col-
leagues have access to some of the most powerful computers available
anywhere in the world. He describes himself as 'a physicist now hiding
out as a molecular biologist.'
Solomon was an experimental physics professor at the University of
San Diego from 1972 to 1982, where he became interested in laser scat-
tering techniques. He then took a sabbatical year at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena and was drawn into image analysis. He ended
up by staying at JPL for the following nine years, in charge of one of the
image-processing sections. He was then approached by Caltech's Lee
Hood, who had heard of his image-processing talents and was inter-
ested in developing instrumentation to carry out molecular-biological
manipulations such as DNA sequencing. As Solomon recalls, it was
Hood who introduced him to the chain-folding problem as well. At this
time Solomon also met chemist William Goddard, another present BI
researcher, and the two of them began to collaborate on the chain-
folding question. Solomon completed the move from JPL in 1991, be-
coming one of the first members of the Beckman Institute. His reasons
for leaving JPL were that 'The bureaucracy has just overtaken every-
thing and your ability to get anything done was just going exponen-
tially to zero.'
He also recalls that he was itching to get back into doing research in
physics rather than just doing image-processing work. Solomon is the
epitome of the interdisciplinary scientist and speaks very enthusiasti-
202 Eric R. Scerri
cally about the role of the BI in fostering such activities. When asked
how he finds the human and intellectual environment at Caltech and at
the BI he responds: 'I don't think you can find a better place. I really
don't. The intellectual environment both in the Beckman and on cam-
pus in general is just superb ... With almost everybody you can walk in,
you talk to them, you pick up the phone and call someone and say let's
talk. It's a great environment, it really is, both being a faculty member
and I think being a graduate student.' On the question of how he might
characterize the style of interdisciplinarity at the BI, Solomon says,
It's hard to define an overall theme, I don't think there really is one. You
know Beckman's idea was to put chemistry and biologists together and
throw in some computing stuff and see what came out. I think it's really
no more, no less than that. And a lot of good things have happened ...
People talk incessantly about interdisciplinary studies and interdiscipli-
nary this and that. But nobody can define an interdisciplinary operation.
It's something that has to happen spontaneously, or it doesn't work.
11
Solomon goes on to emphasize that it takes a special kind of chemistry
between people for collaborations to be successful, and that this is why
collaborations cannot be defined in advance. He feels that Caltech is an
excellent environment for interdisciplinary ventures, since there have
always been people here who are willing to cross conventional disci-
pline lines. Enough people do this kind of thing at Caltech that indi-
viduals of this persuasion are not made to feel awkward about it, un-
like in many other institutions.
My interview turned to the newly established research positions at
the BI, namely the Members of the Beckman Institute positions. Solomon
points out that this has been a major departure at Caltech, where there
had never previously been any purely research positions for non-fac-
ulty members. The establishment of this new position allowed Harry
Gray to introduce senior researchers who, like Jerry Solomon, are well
beyond the postdoctoral stage. However, this innovation was met with
considerable resistance from the Caltech faculty, since, unlike post-
doctoral fellows, Members of the Beckman Institute have the power to
initiate grant proposals, sometimes competing for the same funds that a
faculty member might be seeking.
12
Solomon likes the fact that the new positions are, as he puts it, 'a bit
ill-defined/ because this gives him more leeway to operate. He likes the
advantage of being able to supervise graduate students but at the same
Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 203
time not have any formal teaching duties whatsoever. The position
carries a five-year renewable contract that guarantees personal support
for the recipients, irrespective of what they may or may not achieve. Of
course most holders of the position compete for grant money to extend
their research activities. The situation at the BI is therefore better than at
other places where research faculty are obliged to operate on a 'soft
money' basis, which amounts to saying 'no grant, no position.'
One of the well-known disadvantages of doing interdisciplinary work
is that of having to live dangerously on the job market. Clearly a person
who, for example, works at the interface of chemistry and physics is
going to suffer disadvantages when applying for positions advertised
by autonomous chemistry or physics departments. Solomon points out
that a lot of graduate students avoid the interdisciplinary path because
of such employment risks.
I think most of them at that stage in their life would much rather see a
clear career path, that although not guaranteed, is highly likely to succeed.
That's why I really wonder whether any of these formalized interdiscipli-
nary programs can actually succeed. A lot of that has to do, I suppose,
with the way people are brought up in the education system. It's always
been focused even, probably from kindergarten, on the idea of compart-
mentalizing things ... academia is no different than any other large institu-
tion. It has incredible inertia. It's really odd but academia in some ways is
almost anathema to intellectual pursuit in the sense of not being free-
wheeling and open to any ideas.
SETH MARDER
Seth Marder is described by the BI director as possibly its most interdis-
ciplinary researcher.
13
 Marder holds one of the Member of the Beckman
Institute positions and works in the area of non-linear optics. This field
concerns the manner in which light interacts with certain materials to
produce new light waves that have been altered in their frequency or
their phase and other propagation characteristics. For example, light in
the infrared frequency range can have its frequency doubled in order to
generate light in the visible range. Non-linear optics can be used to
extend the wavelength over which a laser can generate light or to effect
transfer of information from one optical fibre into another one.
Marder's group focuses on an organic materials approach to non-
linear optics because, as he explains, their response can be very fast and
204 Eric R. Scerri
their properties can be rationally tuned. Over the past five years he and
his colleagues have concentrated on developing a systematic under-
standing of how chemical structure relates to the various non-linear
optical properties and how the various properties are related amongst
themselves. This understanding has allowed the group to come up with
models that other people can use to make better materials and has also
allowed Marder's own group to make materials that surpass previously
existing ones.
Marder describes his own work, nowadays, as sitting at the com-
puter, talking to people on the phone, and writing papers. Other re-
searchers in his group are mostly engaged in synthetic work, that is,
making new molecules that hopefully provide better optical proper-
ties.
14
 He cites Joe Perry, a spectroscopist at the Jet Propulsion Labora-
tory, who obtained his PhD from Caltech, as his main collaborator.
He has a very different perspective. He's much more a physical chemist. In
terms of interdisciplinary work, what has worked extraordinarily well for
us is the fact that I come into it from the synthetic side and he comes into it
from the spectroscopic side. We've been working together for eight and
a half years. We can talk to each other and understand each other's
language. As a result, we can come forth with ideas that other people who
are not conversant in different languages have not and perhaps cannot
develop.
Other collaborations include researchers in many diverse areas, such as
computational chemistry, physics, electrical engineering, optical science,
and material science, all of which need to be addressed in order to
advance the field of non-linear optics.
Marder's intellectual development shows some interesting twists and
turns, typical of many researchers at the Beckman Institute. He began
by doing an undergraduate chemistry degree at the Massachusetts In-
stitute of Technology, including a project on technetium compounds
that can be used as pharmaceuticals. His PhD was carried out at the
University of Wisconsin on mechanistic organometallic chemistry. He
then travelled to Oxford to do what he thought would be a postdoctoral
fellowship involving organometallic chemistry, but was advised to try
something in the field of molecular sensors and materials. In the course
of this work Marder was exposed, 'almost by accident' as he recalls, to
non-linear optics, which was to become his forte. By examining the
structure-property relationships of some of these systems he succeeded
Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 205
in discovering a new class of materials with very good non-linear opti-
cal properties. This work culminated in a paper that appeared in Nature
but left Marder with the uneasy feeling that he did not really under-
stand the physics of these systems. To grasp why such systems really
worked, T felt personally obliged to spend enough time in the field so
that I had that understanding. And the more I probed, the less I really
believed that the rest of the people understood what they had done.
And so in a very natural way I ended up getting into the field and
developing a new way of thinking about structure-property relation-
ships. Which I think has been widely accepted at this point.' Marder
readily admits that at the beginning his proposals seemed bizarre to
many people and that they were generally not interested in his work.
Other people were not calculating what he wanted to know, and he
was forced to take on a postdoctoral fellow and to do the theoretical
work himself.
Only then, he says, did other theorists begin to take notice. Marder
remembers that one of his first papers, which he still regards as one of
his most important, had great difficulty in being accepted for publica-
tion. Eventually as many as eight independent groups succeeded in
confirming Marder's theory. Meanwhile he continues to regard himself
as an experimentalist who only does theory when he is forced to do
so.
15
 He considers that he has now earned enough credibility with the
community that it is willing to take seriously his more far-fetched ideas.
Marder first came to Caltech and JPL, at the same time, as a National
Research Council resident associate, which he explains represents a semi-
independent position, something in between a postdoctoral and a fac-
ulty position. He was thinking about leaving when he was talked into
staying and joining the new BI as well as retaining his JPL appoint-
ment.
16
 Marder has therefore participated in the Beckman Institute right
from its inception. He considers that being at Caltech has helped his
research because of the strong academic environment, but that it has
not helped his career. But he also believes, in retrospect, that it would
have been more advantageous to have taken a faculty position on com-
pleting his stint as a postdoctoral fellow.
The subject turns to interdisciplinarity, a theme on which Marder
holds outspoken views.
Everyone talks interdisciplinary research but if you look around institu-
tions, including this one, the administrative structure is not suited for
interdisciplinary research. It's suited for people to be easily pigeon-holed
206 Eric R. Scerri
as a chemist or a material scientist, and if you're a chemist, an organic
chemist or an inorganic chemist or a physical chemist. And when you in
fact truly do interdisciplinary research, and you look for a job, if you don't
fit into one of these historically based subcategories, you tend to have
advocacy in many places but not a core advocacy in one group of people
that in fact needs to cough up a position for you. Historically, a lot of it is
due to teaching, I think.
Marder also has interesting views on the present education system and
how that tends to stifle possibilities of interdisciplinarity. He points out
that most people who emerge from universities with a PhD do not
become professors but go into industry. However, these people have
been trained in an environment that is highly focused on one person,
that is, one-investigator type work. He thinks that it is harmful to im-
part that attitude to students, who eventually have to function in a
completely different environment. Marder therefore suggests that it is
not particularly beneficial from the standpoint of education to work in
a narrow, unidisciplinary way.
He insists on distinguishing between interdisciplinary and collabora-
tive research. There are people who do interdisciplinary work by them-
selves, but he subscribes to the notion that it's worth doing both inter-
disciplinary and collaborative research.
THOMAS MEADE
17
Tom Meade took an undergraduate degree at Arizona State University,
not because it was an 'exceptionally stellar institution/ as he puts it, but
because it was as far away as he could get from New York where he
was raised. While still an undergraduate he tried to get into a research
laboratory but experienced a great deal of resistance from his college
professors, since even as recently as the late seventies the notion of
undergraduate research had not caught on at Arizona State. He was
finally taken on by Therald Moeller, a chemistry professor, and one of
the fathers of inorganic chemistry. Moeller guided Meade to pursue
graduate work at Ohio State University which, as he now recalls, was
hardly a hotbed of interdisciplinarity.
The buildings for biology and biochemistry were separate and were at
opposite ends of the campus. The chemistry department was set up like a
Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 207
fort so that even subdisciplines of chemistry had walls. Organic people
didn't talk to inorganic people and certainly not to physical or analytical
chemists. It was a great department for their individual things but talking
to each other, forget it. I wanted to be in inorganic chemistry, specifically
inorganic chemistry of living systems, which starts to get multidisciplinary,
but that field was just being born: bio-inorganic chemistry.
Following a rather bizarre selection procedure for deciding which gradu-
ate students would work with which professor, Meade found himself a
student of a biochemist and obliged to take a Masters degree in bio-
chemistry, which he did not particularly want to do at the time. He
then went on to a PhD thesis in inorganic coordination chemistry, which
is really where his roots lie. From this time Meade has developed an
expertise in this branch of chemistry, which deals with metal atoms and
ions surrounded by large, often organic, groups that cluster around the
metal. Such coordination compounds are the key to many biological
reactions, such as respiration and photosynthesis. For example, hemo-
globin has an inner core that binds oxygen and releases it on demand
and is a coordination complex consisting of a porphyrin ring at the
centre of which there is an iron atom.
Although Meade says he did not truly understand the biological im-
plications of this type of compound, he had become sufficiently inter-
ested in the work to contemplate doing a postdoctorate in the subject.
He recalls that the career prospects for doing postdoctoral work were
not so different at the time from what they are now, 'Finishing graduate
students who are looking at careers are saying forget it - there is abso-
lutely no funding in sciences. Government's drying up completely. You'll
never get tenure, and if you do you'll bust your butt for six years to get
it and then you might not. It isn't worth it. And I'm getting paid fifty
percent less than some clown who's getting an MBA, whose degrees, I
mean they're printing them - making them like a dime a dozen.'
Although he had a number of industrial offers, Meade nevertheless
was determined to continue in academic work and ended by taking
another unusual turn and going to medical school. He applied for a
National Institutes of Health fellowship to work on MRI imaging and
in particular the use of inorganic complexes as contrast agents, which
allow certain features on MRI scans to be more visible. On arriving at
the Harvard Medical School to take up his fellowship work, Meade
realized that he did not know enough basic medical science.
208 Eric R. Scerri
When I got there it was clear to me that I was crippled in entomology,
endocrinology, physiology, anatomy, I mean if I'm going to be making
compounds that are going to be clinically related I've got to know the
chemistry of physiological systems. So I started taking all the course works.
I swore I'd never take any more course work after having being a bio-
chemistry masters and a PhD in inorganic. But now I was back at it. For
necessity, not for desire.
Although he was eventually promoted to assistant professor in medical
school, Meade began to feel the need to work in a basic science environ-
ment once again and started to talk to Harry Gray, which soon led to
his arrival at Caltech on a postdoctoral fellowship. Meade recalls that
even at this stage he believed that having interdisciplinary skills would
give him an edge in the job market, but he was also very aware of the
fact that very few places were genuinely committed to this form of
research work. 'What do most academic places want - they want them-
selves. They want to reproduce themselves. So when the academic ap-
pointments come up, what do they want? My research is hot, I'd like to
have somebody who's related to my work. So the guys who are making
the decisions, no matter what they say, they do not want interdiscipli-
nary people.' Meade says that after a mere six hours in the building he
knew that it was the right place for him. His specialty is the chemistry
of contrast agents used with MRI imaging techniques, which are widely
used for making three-dimensional images of the inside of biological
systems. Unlike X-ray techniques, MRI is completely harmless, a fact
that has contributed to its increasing application in the medical field,
Specially modified MRI instrumentation now permits image resolu-
tion of the order of microns instead of millimetres in the case of general
medical usage. An important aspect of both forms of MRI imaging
involves the use of chemical contrast agents that allow certain crucial
features to show up more clearly on the images, and this is where
Thomas Meade, one of the leaders in this field, comes into the picture.
Meade's position at the BI is one of research faculty. He explains why
he preferred this to the idea of being a member of the Beckman Insti-
tute: 'Those are staff not academic positions and I wanted an academic
position. Because if this didn't work out I wanted to have the academic
credentials to go to. There are not that many of us in purely research
positions; there are some in each division. Chemistry has none for ex-
ample, because they don't believe in it. Biology has more than any
other division, physics has a few, geology has a couple, it's not com-
Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 209
mon.' The degree of interdisciplinarity of Meade's work can be appreci-
ated from the following remarkable fact. Among his present seven
postdoctoral fellows, not one of them has a PhD from the same field.
The postdocs include a cell biologist, a molecular biologist, a hard-core
synthetic organic chemist, a cell biologist, a molecular biologist, an ana-
lytical chemist, and an inorganic chemist. "We've made discoveries based
on a cross-fertilization that have changed my life/
One of the most intriguing projects that Meade is involved in con-
cerns the use of electron transfer reactions to analyse DNA. In fact there
is an outstanding tradition of research on electron transfer at Caltech,
including the award of the 1992 chemistry Nobel Prize to Rudy Marcus
for his mainly theoretical investigations of such processes. Harry Gray,
the director of the Beckman Institute, is the discoverer of long-range
(~ 20 A) electron transfer in proteins.
It appears that the precise speed of electrons along a DNA chain
depends on its exact constitution in terms of the sequence of bases. This
means that any particular section of DNA that codes for a particular
genetic disease could be identified by measuring the rate of electron
transfer along the chain. It has also been found that a single strand of
DNA undergoes electron transfer at a considerably slower rate than the
corresponding double-stranded version. This feature has provided the
possibility of designing molecular probes for genetic disorders. Meade
and his collaborators hope to prepare probes that contain a single-
stranded version of the DNA sequence that codes for a particular ge-
netic disease. When the probe comes into contact with the DNA belong-
ing to the human subject, the single strand may pair up with the exactly
corresponding single strand from the subject. This would result in a
measurable increase in the speed of electron transfer along the double-
stranded DNA chain that is thereby formed, and hence the possibility
of detecting a potentially dangerous DNA sequence in the subject.
The eventual aim is to devise a chip that contains probes for all
known genetic diseases so that a young child, for example, could be
tested for the possibility of developing any of those genetic disorders at
a later age.
SCOTT FRASER
18
Scott Fraser is a relatively recent newcomer to Caltech and the Beckman
Institute. Since being recruited from the University of California at Irvine
in 1991, he has been granted a personal chair, the Anna L. Rosen Profes-
210 Eric R. Scerri
sorship in Biology, and now leads the highly innovative biological im-
aging group in the BI.
When asked what drew him to Caltech, Fraser explains that UCI was
too large a school to allow for fruitful collaborations.
19
 His closest col-
laborator and team colleague at the BI is Russ Jacobs, who moved
from Irvine to Caltech at the same time. Fraser also cites Caltech's long
history of being sympathetic to people who change fields, like Norman
Davidson who moved, very successfully, from chemistry to biology,
and Max Delbriick, who began as a physicist and went on to become
one of the founders of molecular biology. 'I knew that the culture was
sympathetic with the sort of things we were interested in, which was to
sort of live in a blur zone between fields.' In fact Fraser began as a
physics undergraduate, moving later into biophysics. He begins to ex-
plain his work at the BI by candidly declaring, "The philosophy of our
lab is to try to steal as many technologies as we can from other disci-
plines and apply them to our problem/
He regards the field of microscopy as having passed through three
generations. First of all, one had optical microscopes that relied on hu-
man observers stationed at the eyepiece. Then came electron micro-
scopes and scanning tunnelling microscopes. Not only did this result in
a vast increase in resolving power, but now the recording was carried
out by means of an instrument, that is, some sort of image sensor and a
digital processing unit.
The third generation, of which Scott Fraser is a leading pioneer, con-
sists in using even newer technologies, such as specially adapted nuclear
magnetic resonance methods, to observe biological changes in 'real time.'
For example, Fraser and his group have produced exquisite movies of
the development of frogs - the first time anyone has produced a real-
time representation of development in an opaque organism.
20
The origins of the collaboration between Fraser and Jacobs and the
subsequent formation of the $3.5 million Biological Imaging Center at
Caltech can be traced back to meetings over a coffee machine at Irvine.
In the late 1980s that is where Fraser and Jacobs, who is responsible for
developing Caltech's imaging equipment, kept on bumping into each
other.
During some of these coffee meetings they discussed whether MRI
equipment used for diagnostic purposes in hospitals could be applied
to the study of developing organisms. The technique that Fraser had
been using consisted of confocal microscopy, which uses visible light
Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 211
but can only image living tissue to a depth of 100 microns below the
surface. Fraser and Jacobs spent a total of three years discussing the
possibilities of applying MRI technology to small biological structures.
An MRI machine is essentially a magnet that creates a permanent
magnetic field around the subject. The presence of a permanent mag-
netic field causes protons in the water molecules of the organism to
align in a particular fashion. An oscillating field is used to perturb the
protons while they are returning to their original state, thus generating
an electric potential that is then analysed and transformed into a video
image.
In order to modify the standard hospital MRI machine Fraser and
Jacobs had to increase the power so that the spatial resolution could be
reduced from about 1 millimetre to 10 microns. They also had to de-
crease the time taken to obtain an image so that there would be little
variation in the organism between successive images. Another prob-
lem, which was solved by Thomas Meade, was to find a method of
marking cells so that they could be followed through a developing
organism.
Fraser and Jacobs eventually succeeded in developing an MRI instru-
ment whose resolving power is one million times better than the typical
hospital model. A number of labs around the country are now using
Fraser and Jacobs' imaging techniques, and Jacobs recently received a
$5 million grant from the Human Brain Project, a consortium of govern-
ment agencies, to study the developing anatomy of the brain.
The Caltech facility involves collaboration among three research teams:
a group, headed by Tom Meade, that is perfecting contrast agents, as
mentioned earlier; Russ Jacobs' group, which is developing the MRI
technology; and a third group, led by Scott Fraser, that is applying the
techniques to the biological study of embryo development.
As Fraser says: 'With three groups interacting on a daily basis, we've
worked out better and better imaging protocols, made better and better
chemical agents, and the embryologists in the lab have worked out
better ways to apply the dyes and also much better surgical techniques
for manipulating the cells.'
A recent success story to emerge from this collaborative effort has
been the imaging of embryos within a pregnant mouse, a feat that was
carried out without the slightest harm to the mouse or its offspring.
Other experiments on the development of the brain have helped to
answer the question of whether cells in a specific part of the developing
212 Eric R. Scerri
brain are genetically programmed to move off in different directions to
perform different functions or whether their fates are determined not
by genes but by their immediate surroundings.
In the course of our interview, Fraser singled out David Laidlaw, a
recent PhD from the BI who seems to be one of the major success stories
in terms of interdisciplinarity. Fraser is full of praise for this young
man, who has remained at the BI as a postdoctoral fellow. On talking to
Laidlaw, one gets the impression of interdisciplinarity having fully ar-
rived. When I put the question to him about the apparent lack of BI
seminars, his response was: 'People who say that are just being lazy.
There are plenty of meetings if you know where to look for them.'
It seems that one of the most impressive ambassadors of interdis-
ciplinarity is not one of the principal investigators or even the much
talked about Members of the Beckman Institute but one of the most
recent PhDs to graduate from the BI.
Conclusions
It is difficult to draw general conclusions from interviewing a few indi-
vidual researchers, but at least lines of further inquiry seem to have
emerged.
Of the two MBIs featured in this article, one seems to be thoroughly
contented, while the other perceives numerous drawbacks and indeed
is planning to leave at the earliest opportunity. The impression gath-
ered from Solomon is that interdisciplinarity is alive and well, whereas
Marder suggests that this is not entirely the case and that a good deal
more could be achieved were it not for administrative inertia. The four
interviewees show evidence of having travelled very widely through
the traditional academic disciplines. Solomon, for example, considers
himself as much a biologist as a chemist, physicist, or computer scien-
tist. They all appear to enjoy taking research risks and to be, as Marder
puts it, 'on the steep part of the learning curve/ It is also interesting to
note that some of them regard themselves as being somewhat unusual
in their liking for this form of borderland research. The implicit mes-
sage seems to be that interdisciplinary research does not suit everybody
and that the majority of scientists will continue to work within the
traditional boundaries.
All the interviewees stress that university hiring procedures work in
such a way as to exclude interdisciplinarity. They are also frequently
Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute 213
aware of the cynical side of interdisciplinary work in that everyone
wants to be thought of as interdisciplinary nowadays, partly because
award-granting bodies favour such projects.
21
 However, in the view of
our sample interviewees, very few institutions or individuals are truly
committed to interdisciplinary work.
Finally, they all perceive that genuine interdisciplinarity is being prac-
tised at the Caltech BI. Those who try to characterize the style of
interdisciplinarity point out that it is largely unstructured and takes the
form of a loose, laissez-faire approach, which they attribute to the per-
sonal style of the director, Harry Gray.
Notes
1 Others include the Santa Fe Institute and the Scripps Institute for Biological
Research. A number of large-scale interdisciplinary projects have also been
funded by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of
Health in recent years.
2 In fact, of the four Beckman Institutes, the one at Caltech appears to be the
least concerned with actively promoting interdisciplinary research work.
The ethos is more one of allowing things to happen of their own accord.
3 Indeed, there is a thriving subfield within the area of science studies that
champions the disunity of science. See for example Galison and Stump
(1996).
4 For example, the total number of women faculty members at Caltech at the
time of writing stands at approximately twenty, while the number of black
faculty members is just one, who happens to have lab space in the Beckman
Institute. Of course there are serious limitations to equating institutionally
conservative institutions with scientifically conservative ones.
5 At its height Pauling's group numbered a total of sixty researchers, while
Hood's biotechnology group, which was almost all located in the Beckman
Institute, numbered approximately 130, before Hood's eventual departure
for Washington University in Seattle.
6 One of Delbriick's many proteges was James Watson, who throughout his
assault on the structure of DNA with Francis Crick regularly kept Delbruck
informed of developments by way of correspondence.
7 Other Beckman buildings at Caltech include the Beckman Auditorium, the
Arnold and Mabel Beckman Institute for Behavioral Biology, and the
Arnold and Mabel Beckman Laboratory of Chemical Synthesis.
214 Eric R. Scerri
8 Arnold Beckman pursued a brief academic career as a chemistry professor
at Caltech, but after only a couple of years he resigned his position to
concentrate on designing and manufacturing scientific instruments.
9 Interviewed 23 February 1996.
10 Quotation taken from an article on recent developments on chain folding
by R.F. Service, 'Folding Proteins Caught in the Act/ Science, 273 (5 July
1996), 29-30.
11 Thomas Everhart, the Caltech president when these interviews were
conducted, believed that it was not necessary to go to great lengths to
foster interdisciplinarity at Caltech, since there has always been a strong
tradition of interdisciplinarity here going back to the days of Hunt Morgan,
Delbriick, Pauling, and other famous alumni.
12 Faculty members also resent the fact that they have been obliged to
undergo a rigorous tenure process to ensure secure positions at Caltech,
whereas MBIs have not.
13 Interviewed 16 February 1996.
14 The group includes just one full-time theoretician.
15 Of his seven current postdoctoral fellows only one is a theoretician, while
the others all perform synthetic work.
16 Marder is rather unique in the BI since he still receives most of his salary
from JPL while being housed entirely in the BI.
17 Interviewed 3 July 1996.
18 Interviewed 27 February 1996.
19 UC Irvine has approximately 13,000 students, making it roughly ten times
the size of Caltech. The number of biology majors is typically around 5000,
and the biology faculty numbers roughly 30.
20 Previous work had concentrated on transparent organisms, for obvious
reasons, such as nematodes and zebra fish.
21 See the accompanying articles by Weingart and Turner, each of which deals
with different aspects of what might be termed the cynical aspects of
interdisciplinary research.
1 1
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research
Organizations: Perspectives on
Interdisciplinarity, Nurturing Leadership,
and Integrated Structure and Cultures
1
ROGERS HOLLINGSWORTH AND
ELLEN JANE HOLLINGSWORTH
Introduction
This paper is concerned with the structural and cultural characteristics
of research organizations that influence the making of major discover-
ies in twentieth-century biomedical sciences, especially characteristics
of research organizations that repeatedly make major discoveries across
time. Although most of the empirical analysis for these findings is based
on research organizations in the United States, we also make some
reference to research organizations in other nations. This paper is part
of a larger study involving structural and cultural characteristics of
biomedical research organizations in four countries.
Why do research organizations vary in their capacities to make major
discoveries in biomedical science? Science, especially in the twentieth
century, has been very dynamic and has grown in unpredictable ways.
Because most research organizations experience considerable inertia and
change rather slowly, they have considerable difficulty in adapting to
the fast pace of scientific and technological change. Too often, a re-
search organization has been a world-class leader in an area of science,
but because of organizational inertia and failure to adapt to new trends,
it has lost its leading edge.
This paper argues that organizations require distinctive structural
and cultural characteristics if their scientists are to make major discov-
eries time and time again. It is to the identification of these characteris-
tics that this research is addressed. The questions posed in this research
have their bases in the sociological literature that is concerned with
how the structural and cultural characteristics of organizations influ-
ence the making of radical innovations. There is a vast and excellent
216 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
literature in the history and sociology of modern science about perfor-
mance in the scientific community - for example, scientific discovery,
the creative process, and more generally, scientific productivity (Ben-
David I960,1971,1977; Merton 1961; Pelz and Andrews 1966; Zuckerman
1977; Allen 1978a, b; Olby 1979; Allison and Long 1990; Shapin 1995) -
and about the organizational contexts within which science occurs (Lynch
1985,1993; Shapin 1995). In recent years, an increasing number of stud-
ies (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Fujimura 1987; Latour 1987; Shapin 1995;
Rheinberger 1997) have focused on the importance of the research lab/
department as the site of discoveries. These and other studies have
emphasized the importance of tacit knowledge and have demonstrated
that knowledge is highly differentiated, unequally distributed, and richly
sited in local contexts (Polanyi 1966; Lynch 1985, 1993; Dasgupta and
David 1993). Whereas much of the recent literature has focused on the
research setting of a single organization, this paper differs in being
more comparative and historical in nature. It specifies a series of re-
search organization and laboratory and/or department-level variables
and then uses brief case studies to analyse the pattern of relationships
among these variables, especially as they relate to the making of major
discoveries in biomedical science.
Concepts, Data, and Methods
THE CONCEPT MAJOR DISCOVERIES
Conceptually, this project defines a major discovery as a finding or
process, generally preceded by numerous "small' advances, that solved
a particular problem and in turn led 'to a number of smaller advances,
based on the newly discovered principle' (Ben-David 1960: 828; Merton
1961, 1973; Rosenberg 1994: 15). Historically, a major discovery might
have been a radical or new idea, the development of a new methodol-
ogy, a new instrument or invention, or a new set of ideas. It need not
have occurred all at once; it might have extended over a substantial
period of time, involving a great deal of tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1966;
Latour 1987).
To implement the concept major discovery, we rely heavily on the
scientific community, using criteria the scientific community has cre-
ated to recognize major discoveries. Using a diverse set of strategies to
operationalize our definition, we include discoveries that led either to
winning or near winning of a major prize. While we rely heavily on
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 217
discoveries associated with major prizes as a strategy for defining ma-
jor discoveries, we are very careful not to rely on any single prize. These
discoveries are as follows:
1 Those in biomedical science awarded the Copley Medal by the
Royal Society of London since 1901.
2 Discoveries resulting in a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
since the first award in 1901.
3 Those resulting in a Nobel Prize in Chemistry since 1901, if the
research had high relevance to biomedical science (including
discoveries in biochemistry and several other areas of chemistry).
4 and 5 Discoveries resulting in ten nominations in any three years
prior to 1941 for a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, or
in Chemistry (if the research had high relevance to biomedical
science).
The rationale for this inclusion is that this number of nomina-
tions indicates a broad belief in the scientific community that the
research represented a major scientific breakthrough even if it did
not result in Nobel Prizes.
6 and 7 Discoveries that were on the short lists prior to 1941 even if
they did not result in a Nobel Prize and did not meet the criteria of
ten nominations in any three years.
Every year, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the
Karolinska Institute each appointed a committee to study major
discoveries and propose prize winners (in chemistry and physiol-
ogy or medicine, respectively). These two committees made short
lists of discoveries considered to be 'prizeworthy,' some of which
received Nobel Prizes. We have access to the Nobel Archives for
the Physiology or Medicine Prize at the Karolinska Institute and to
the Archives at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in
Stockholm prior to 1946, but for reasons of confidentiality, we do
not have access to these archives for the past fifty years.
To capture the variety of major scientific discoveries during this pe-
riod, we also use several other criteria. We include
8 Discoveries resulting in the Arthur and Mary Lasker Prize for basic
biomedical science since 1961.
9 Discoveries resulting in the Louisa Gross Horwitz Prize in basic
biomedical science.
218 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
10 Discoveries resulting in the Crafoord Prize, awarded by the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Recognizing that not all major discoveries can result in a Nobel Prize, we have
emphatically worked at making certain that this is not a project about Nobel
Prizes.
Once having identified a major discovery, we then have determined
when and in what research organization^), department(s), and lab(s)
the discovery occurred.
In some instances, the research organization did not have depart-
ments. The result of this process has been to identify organizations
associated with major discoveries, and to award to them 'credit' for the
major discoveries with which they were associated. In some cases, sci-
entists made their major discoveries by conducting research first in one
and then in another organization. All organizations in which scientists
did work directly associated with major discoveries have been credited
with the discovery.
The research takes note that all scientists who were engaged in mak-
ing major discoveries were not always recognized by prize committees.
However, this is a study about major discoveries and the properties of
the research organizations where they occurred. Thus, the omission of
'unrecognized' individuals by prize committees does not significantly
bias our results. Our method of conducting in-depth studies of the
organizations, departments, and/or labs where a major discovery oc-
curred permits us to identify those scientists who were involved but
did not receive recognition by a prize committee.
This research is not a history of scientific ideas or a study of creativity
of individual scientists, although it acknowledges that discoveries were
made by individuals and that creativity occurs in individuals. The con-
cern of this paper is with how the context of the research laboratory
and/or department and organization influenced the making of major
discoveries. However, major discoveries did not occur at random in
organizations, labs, and departments; rather, there were regularities in
the characteristics of organizations and labs and/or departments where
they occurred.
STRUCTURAL AND CULTURAL CONCEPTS
The analysis of research organizations and labs and/or departments
revolves around seven basic concepts (see below for the concepts, and
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 219
for each concept, indicators or examples). They are the degree of
1 diversity of fields of knowledge
2 depth of knowledge within each area of diversity
3 differentiation of the organization and/or department into subunits
4 hierarchical and bureaucratic coordination (e.g., standardization of
rules and procedures)
5 interdisciplinary and integrated activities
6 leadership that has the capacity for integrating scientific diversity
7 quality of the scientists in the organization and labs.
It should be noted that depending on whether the unit of analysis is
the organization or the laboratory and/or department there are modest
differences in the appropriate indicators (or examples) of the concepts,
which are noted below.
Key Concepts: Indicators and Examples
THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
1 Scientific diversity: (1) The variety of biological disciplines and
medical specialties and subspecialties, (2) the proportion of people in
the biological sciences with research experience in different disci-
plines and/or paradigms.
2 Depth: (1) Number of scientists in each area of diversity, (2) diversity
of talents in each scientific area (e.g., genetics: Drosophila [the com-
mon fruit fly], neurospora, maize, mice).
3 Differentiation:n: (1) The number of biomedical departments and other
kinds of units, (2) delegation of recruitment to department or other
subunit, (3) responsibility for extramural funding at departmental or
other subunit level.
At department level: 'research group' should be substituted for
'department.'
4 Hierarchical and bureaucratic coordination: (1) Standardization of rules/
procedures, (2) centralized budgetary controls, (3) centralized
decision-making about research programs, (4) centralized decision-
making about number of personnel.
5 Integration of multidisciplinary perspectives: Across specialties, the (1)
frequency and intensity of interaction, (2) publication of papers, (3)
existence of journal clubs, (4) sharing of meals and leisure activities.
220 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
At departmental level: activities across research groups would be
noted.
6 Visionary leadership: capacity for understanding direction in which scienti-
fic research is moving and integrating scientific diversity: (1) Strategic
vision for integrating diverse areas and for providing focused
research, (2) ability to secure funding for these activities, (3) ability to
conduct recruitment of sufficiently diverse personnel so research
groups are constantly aware of what are significant and 'doable'
problems, (4) ability to provide rigorous criticism in a nurturing
environment.
7 Quality: (1) Proportion of scientists in the nation's most prestigious
academy of science, (2) research funding per scientist.
SAMPLE AND DATA
The larger study underlying this report is based on 31 research organi-
zations in the United States: 31 research organizations where two or
more major discoveries occurred, and a comparison group of 100 re-
search organizations where one or no major discovery occurred. The
research focuses on four general types of organizations (universities,
medical centres, free-standing research institutes, and industrial research
laboratories). For approximately two dozen of these organizations, we
have completed in-depth case studies. Details about the sampling pro-
cess to select organizations in which no major discoveries took place are
available elsewhere (Hollingsworth and Hage 1996).
Obviously, there are many criteria by which one might evaluate the
performance of research organizations: productivity, citation indices,
level of funding per scientist, and, for universities, the number of gradu-
ate students trained or the quality of the graduate program or faculty.
We do not suggest that research organizations where few or no major
discoveries occurred are performing poorly in science. Indeed, many
excellent research organizations have hardly had a major breakthrough
in biomedical science. However, the underdeveloped state of knowl-
edge about the conditions that facilitate or hinder the making of major
discoveries justifies the emphasis of this research inquiry.
This paper is based on numerous kinds of data: more than 200 in-
depth interviews, archival materials, oral histories, secondary published
materials, and scientific papers. Constraints of space have made it pos-
sible to list only a small fraction of these materials in the References
section.
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 221
METHODOLOGY
Throughout, we employ comparative and narrative methodologies in
the analysis (Franzosi 1998). Since the goal of the research has been to
determine how the properties of research organizations are associated
with the making of major discoveries, the analysis has compared orga-
nizations where major discoveries occurred with those where no major
discoveries or only one discovery took place. As an additional form of
comparison, historical analysis is used. Using this method, we compare
some organizations with themselves, analysing them before and after
major structural and cultural changes, in order to examine how such
changes related to the making of major discoveries.
Despite our emphasis on the common structural and cultural proper-
ties of organizations associated with making major discoveries time
and again, it is important to recognize that there has been no single
route by which research organizations have acquired these common
traits. Some organizations where major discoveries occurred time and
time again were major organizational innovations - that is, they were
fundamentally new kinds of organizations. This was the case with the
Rockefeller Institute, the Johns Hopkins Medical School, and the Cali-
fornia Institute of Technology. Another route whereby organizations
made major discoveries was through fundamental structural or strate-
gic change within an existing type of organization. And the third route
was by creating a new organization among the existing types.
Rather than being a full report of this research project, this is only a
preliminary report concerned with the characteristics of organizations
that influence their capacity to make major discoveries frequently. Irre-
spective of the route, those organizations where major discoveries oc-
curred again and again had the following characteristics on the seven
concepts in this study: They scored high on visionary leadership, scien-
tific diversity, interdisciplinary and integrated activities, and quality;
conversely, they were low on differentiation and hierarchical and bu-
reaucratic coordination, and they were moderately low on depth.
Selected Case Studies
HIGHLY INTEGRATED, SMALL RESEARCH INSTITUTES
Two American research organizations that have had several major dis-
coveries in biomedical science are Rockefeller Institute/University and
222 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
the California Institute of Technology. Rockefeller Institute/University
has been the site of more major discoveries in biomedicine in the twen-
tieth century than any other single institution in the world, while Caltech
has been in the company of a handful of other research organizations
where a number of major discoveries occurred at multiple time points
in the twentieth century.
The central finding in these two case studies is that major discoveries
occurred repeatedly because there was a high degree of interdiscipli-
nary and integrated activity across diverse fields of science (thus, scien-
tists with diverse perspectives interacted with intensity and frequency)
and because of leadership that gave particular attention to the creation
and maintenance of a nurturing environment, though with rigorous
standards of scientific excellence. These two relatively small research
organizations had moderately high levels of scientific diversity and mod-
erately low levels of depth, but had very low levels of internal differen-
tiation (i.e., separate disciplinary departments) and had visionary lead-
ers who provided strategies for integrating scientific diversity. They
were also low on hierarchical coordination and bureaucratization.
Limitations of space permit us to do little more than report in a rather
preliminary fashion some of the characteristics of research organi-
zations that are associated with major breakthroughs in biomedical
science. In a fuller forthcoming study there will be an extensive
examination of the characteristics of numerous other research organiza-
tions - even though of very high quality - where major discoveries
rarely occur.
The Rockefeller Institute
In its early years, the Rockefeller Institute acquired a culture of excel-
lence and a structure that facilitated the making of major discoveries.
With the passage of time there have been modifications in the Rockefeller
organization, but even so, there has been sufficient continuity in its
structure and culture of excellence to enable it to remain an organiza-
tion where major discoveries have continued in biomedical science.
Unlike the Koch Institute in Berlin or the Pasteur Institute in Paris,
which were founded around great scientists and their particular re-
search, the Rockefeller was a new kind of research institute that from
the beginning emphasized diversity in the biomedical sciences (Corner
1964; Dubos 1976). Not focused only on a specific area of science, the
goal in the founding of the Institute was to pursue diverse areas in
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 223
biomedical sciences. Whereas earlier institutes had been constructed
around bacteriology, biomedical science was changing very rapidly by
the time the Rockefeller Institute was established at the turn of the
century. Bacteriology had become much more linked with pathology,
and both fields were becoming more closely related to discoveries in
organic and physical chemistry, as well as in physics. A broad concep-
tion of biomedical science became the guiding philosophy of the Insti-
tute from the beginning. The consequences of these decisions about a
broad, integrated approach to science are discussed below.
In the early part of the twentieth century, there was only moderate
diversity at the Rockefeller, as reflected in the variety of research labo-
ratories and moderate depth, because there were only a few people in
each lab. However, in the recruitment process, the first director, Simon
Flexner, was very receptive to recruiting scientists from different cul-
tural and scientific areas (e.g., the Frenchman Carrell, the Austrian
Landsteiner, the Japanese Noguchi, the Russian Levene, and the Ger-
mans Meltzer and Loeb). This pattern of recruitment provided diverse
approaches to problems and styles of thought as well as to fields of
research. Almost every one of these scientists incorporated cultural and
scientific diversity in his own individual cognitive make-up, which en-
hanced the potential to cross scientific disciplines.
Almost all of the distinguished scientists in the history of the
Rockefeller Institute have internalized considerable scientific diversity,
making it relatively easy for such staff to feel an affinity with others
who crossed academic disciplines. From the very beginning, the Insti-
tute did not organize the production of knowledge around academic
disciplines, as was increasingly the case in major universities. The
Rockefeller practices were unlike those in organizations in which aca-
demic disciplines were the dominant principle for organizing and coor-
dinating the production of knowledge, and in which there was a ten-
dency to recruit scientists who internalized less cultural and scientific
diversity. One of the distinctive qualities of the Rockefeller was its ten-
dency to recruit individuals who had been socialized in different cul-
tures, subsystems, disciplines, and/or working environments. And be-
cause these individuals internalized cultural and scientific diversity at
the time of recruitment, they had the potential to acquire new styles of
thought and scientific competence and to internalize even greater di-
versity. In short, the Rockefeller from the outset was a place where
there was a willingness on the part of its scientists to live and work in
multiple disciplinary worlds simultaneously. As Gibbons et al. (1994)
224 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
point out, achievement in science is accelerated by communication, which
in turn is enhanced by scientific mobility, mobility being an important
precondition for the cross-fertilization of ideas. The Rockefeller was
quite unique in the early twentieth century in the degree to which it
recruited from different parts of the world senior scientists who had
moved among different sites of knowledge production and who had
worked in multiple disciplines. This also produced a scientific hybrid-
ization that over time led to new techniques, devices, and principles
(e.g., instances of scientific creativity and of sudden insights, and the
opening of novel pathways to solving difficult problems).
A research institution such as the Rockefeller had several distinct
advantages over most teaching institutions. Most teaching organiza-
tions attempt to present an entire field of knowledge, and they often
recruit people not because of their research excellence but to cover a
particular field of knowledge. A research institute has no obligation to
cover an entire field of knowledge, and can be very opportunistic in
terms of the fields in which research is undertaken. If it wishes, it can
neglect complete fields, recruiting scientists solely on the basis of the
availability of the best people who are working on problems relevant to
the institute. Moreover, a research institute, unlike a teaching organiza-
tion, has the flexibility to move into new areas with considerable rapid-
ity. And because the Rockefeller was not a teaching institution, it had
the luxury of being able to recruit scientists of excellence even if they
were lacking in the ability to speak English (Flexner 1930).
Of course, the Institute was generously endowed by John D.
Rockefeller, but a number of other institutes were also very well en-
dowed (e.g., the Phipps Institute in Philadelphia, established by steel
magnate Henry Phipps; the Memorial Institute for Infectious Diseases
in Chicago, funded by Harold McCormick, a son-in-law of John D.
Rockefeller; the Carnegie Institution in Washington, endowed by An-
drew Carnegie). But none of these organizations acquired the distinc-
tion of the Rockefeller Institute, for while money was a necessary con-
dition for an institute to produce distinguished science, it was not a
sufficient condition.
One of the most important conditions for an organization to have
major discoveries repeatedly across long periods of time is the quality
of its leadership, a variable to which many organizational sociologists
give scant attention. Over the years the Rockefeller has attempted to
have directors/presidents who were capable of interacting in a mean-
ingful way with its scientists and who also knew personally the leading
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 225
biomedical scientists of the world. Of the eight directors/presidents
since the founding of the Rockefeller Institute, six made major discover-
ies in biomedical science by the criteria described above, and the two
who made no major discoveries (Detlev Bronk and Fred Seitz) were
distinguished scientists who had been presidents of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences. Four were Nobel laureates in physiology or medicine.
The first director, Simon Flexner, left an indelible mark on the Insti-
tute. It was he who developed the expectation that the Rockefeller should
be headed by an individual who had
1 a strategic vision for integrating diverse areas and providing focused
research
2 the ability to provide rigorous criticism within a nurturing environ-
ment
3 the capacity to recruit sufficiently diverse personnel so research
groups were constantly not only aware of significant and 'doable'
problems but also able to have the flexibility to mount a successful
attack on such problems
4 the legitimacy to secure funding for such activities.
Of course, not all subsequent directors/presidents have lived up to the
leadership standards of Flexner, but these are the ideals by which suc-
cessive leaders have been evaluated within the organization.
Flexner was aided by a Board of Scientific Directors made up of some
of the leading biomedical scientists of America. The first president of
the Board was William H. Welch of Johns Hopkins Medical School,
considered the chief statesman in American medical research and edu-
cation. The Board was responsible for appointing the scientific staff and
for establishing the general policies concerning the scientific investiga-
tions to be undertaken. The Director (Flexner) was appointed by the
Scientific Directors and was to be in intimate contact with the scientific
staff. There was a Board of Trustees to conduct the financial responsi-
bilities of the Institute, but the Board of Scientific Directors played an
important role in recruiting some of the most outstanding scientists
ever to be assembled. The distinctive role of the Board of Scientific
Directors combined with the skills of the Director to facilitate such dis-
tinguished recruiting. This process lasted until 1953, when the Institute
became a small university and the Board of Scientific Directors and
Board of Trustees were merged into a single Board of Trustees. Since
then, the Rockefeller Institute has not had a separate board of world-
226 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
class scientists who have made the final decisions about personnel. The
quality of recruitment, while continuing to be distinguished, has not
been of the same extraordinary consistency as during the time when the
Board of Scientific Directors was intimately involved in making scien-
tific appointments.
At the Institute, permanent scientists were called Members and had
indefinite appointments corresponding to appointments as professors
in American universities. The next highest title was Associate Member,
which carried an appointment of three years (Associate Members were
eligible for reappointment), but in general after a second three-year
term, Associate Members either were appointed as Members or resigned.
Associates were appointed for two years; Assistants and Fellows for
one. Eligible for reappointment, scientists in these ranks left the Insti-
tute after three to five years or rose to a higher rank. Like the Kaiser
Wilhelm and Max Planck Institutes that later had similar policies, the
Rockefeller Institute was thus providing advanced training for the elite
of biomedical scientists.
The process of appointment as a senior scientist (Member) was ex-
tremely rigorous. Not all senior scientists received their initial appoint-
ments at that level. For example, in 1934, 46 percent of senior scientists
had initially been appointed to the rank of Member, while 54 percent
had been promoted from within. Members rarely left. Of Members,
only Eugene Opie had resigned by the mid-1930s, and he returned. One
former president of Rockefeller University confided to us that during
much of its history, unless there was a strong belief at Rockefeller that a
scientist was likely to win a Nobel Prize, the person was unlikely to
have a permanent appointment.
It was not enough that the Rockefeller Institute had the above-de-
scribed leadership, outstanding scientists, a moderate to high degree of
diversity, and substantial funding for major discoveries to occur time
and time again. Other structural/cultural characteristics were also im-
portant. If scientific diversity was to lead to scientists having rich hori-
zontal interaction with each other, it was important that the Institute
not be differentiated into academic departments or other units that would
fragment the production of knowledge. The organization needed to be
quite integrated, which was the case.
First, there was no institutionalization of disciplinary departments. It
is true that early on the Institute was organized into the Department of
the Laboratories, with a number of labs, and the Department of the
Hospital. The first of its kind, essentially a laboratory for the study of
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 227
human biology and pathology, the hospital was always small, with a
number of its staff without MD degrees. Over time a number of its
permanent staff have been members of the National Academy of Sci-
ences. Here was the realization of the ideal of the dialectic between
clinical and basic science. A case in point, Oswald Avery's discovery of
the chemical substance responsible for bacterial transformations (a ma-
jor turning point in the transition from medical microbiology to mo-
lecular biology) was made by a group trained in medicine and working
in the Rockefeller research hospital. Their research, focused on under-
standing biological phenomena, influenced the practice of medicine only
indirectly, but led to one of the most important biological discoveries of
the twentieth century. Staff of the Department of Laboratories and the
Department of the Hospital intermingled on a daily basis. Indeed, the
key to much of the Rockefeller's success in making numerous major
discoveries was the scientific integration of the Institute.
Diversity and depth of knowledge within a well-integrated research
organization have the potential to change the way people view prob-
lems and to minimize their tendency to make mistakes and to work on
trivial problems. In the final analysis, in order to make major discover-
ies scientists must work on significant problems that are 'doable.' And
the greater the research group's diversity and depth within an inte-
grated structure, the greater the likelihood that scientists will not stray
into unproductive areas. Frequent and intense interaction among people
of like minds (with low levels of diversity) tends not to lead to major
breakthroughs.
Oswald Avery's career at the Rockefeller Institute is an interesting
case in point. Appointed at age 37 to the Rockefeller, Avery at the time
was a highly competent researcher who had worked across several fields
but had demonstrated little creativity and very little originality as a
scientist. Once in the Rockefeller context (with considerable diversity
and depth), Avery's potential emerged, and by the time he published
his classic paper with MacLeod and McCarty on DNA and transforma-
tion (1944), he had internalized vast areas of the fields of bacteriology,
immunology, chemistry, and biochemistry. Our research on American
research organizations suggests that the context in which scientists are
embedded influences their performance. If scientists work in environ-
ments where there is considerable diversity and depth and have fre-
quent and intense interaction with those having complementary inter-
ests, the probability that the quality of their work will improve in-
creases. It is the diversity of disciplines and paradigms to which indi-
228 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
viduals are exposed in frequent and intense interactions that increases
the tendency for breakthroughs.
Intellectual and social integration was maintained at the Rockefeller
Institute by a variety of devices. There was high- quality food at lunch,
served at tables for eight. The idea was that a single conversation could
take place at such a table, but not at a larger one. Eating meals together
while conversing about serious scientific matters was an important part
of the Rockefeller culture and an important means of integrating the
scientific diversity and depth of the Institute.
Even though there was considerable diversity at the Rockefeller, the
type of diversity was very different from that which existed at the
colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, where eating was also an important
part of the culture. At the British colleges, diversity ranged all across
the board (e.g., from archaeology to mathematics). With so much diver-
sity, it was considered ill-mannered to talk about one's work at the high
table at those colleges, as many of those present would be unable to
comprehend the line of discussion. But at the Rockefeller, diversity was
only within the biological sciences, and the norm was to carry on lively
lunch-time discussions about biomedical and related sciences. The lunch
table was the setting of a great learning experience where people had
intense discussions about new approaches to biomedical problems.
Integration was also facilitated by the weekly conferences everyone
was expected to attend at which scientists reported about their work.
Within the Hospital Division, there were afternoon teatimes that most
faculty attended. One of the most important integrating devices was the
journal club, especially the Hospital Journal Club, which generally met
twice a month throughout the academic year. Everyone was expected
to attend and to be prepared to report on a paper outside one's research
field but of general interest to everyone. No one knew in advance who
would be called upon to present materials to the journal club. Why
would world-class scientists agree to participate in such an activity?
They did this because they knew they were at a great organization and
believed that one reason it was so distinguished was that they were
continuously learning from one another. This kind of regular reading
outside one's own specialization and in areas of interest to others in
the organization was one way of continuing to expand intellectual
horizons.
When one reads the archives of the Rockefeller Institute/University,
one is struck by the prominent role of Simon Flexner in establishing in
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 229
the early twentieth century a culture of nurturing young scientists. Once
institutionalized, this trait persisted among leaders of the Rockefeller
(notably at the lab level), especially in the habits of Avery, Bronk, Blobel,
and Wiesel.
Finally, the environment of New York was a great asset for the
Rockefeller Institute. Before jet aircraft, most distinguished foreign sci-
entists travelling to America arrived in New York and invariably vis-
ited the Rockefeller Institute. Certainly no other biomedical research
organization in America was so favoured with foreign scientists. It was
located in a magnificent part of New York City. After World War II, its
neighbours were the New York Hospital, Cornell University Medical
College, and the Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research. The en-
vironment provided an opportunity for access to many of the latest
ways of thinking about biomedical science. If a small institute could not
have all the diverse ways of approaching biomedical science on its
permanent staff, it nevertheless had the opportunity to have many of
the world's leading scientists passing through the Institute with reports
about their latest work. Rockefeller Foundation grants to young British
and European scholars brought to New York the cream of the crop of
young scientists for stays of varying lengths.
As a result of the structure and culture of the Rockefeller, it is still
one of the world's great centres for biomedical research. Yet after the
mid-1950s, it no longer excelled quite so much relative to all other
biomedical research organizations as during the previous half-century.
First, jet aircraft had an extraordinary effect in shifting the location of
excellence in biomedical science, as the elite of the scientific community
no longer believed it was necessary to be located on the east coast.
Distinguished scientists were increasingly willing to live elsewhere.
Moreover, as the National Institutes of Health began to fund biomedi-
cal research on a grand scale, the Rockefeller no longer had the same
kind of distinctive financial advantages. Indeed, no major private insti-
tution could attain and continue scientific excellence any longer with-
out federal funding. As a result of new modes of transportation and
new sources of funding, the Rockefeller was no longer able to dominate
the world of biomedical science.
The internal structure of the Rockefeller also changed, a modification
that had some adverse effect on its long-term future, though not enough
effect for it to lose its prominence as a centre of excellence in research.
In 1953, the Institute appointed Detlev Bronk, President of Johns Hopkins
230 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
University, as its Director. As noted, under Bronk's stewardship the
Board of Scientific Directors was abolished and the Board of Trustees
became the sole governing authority of the organization. Also under
Bronk's leadership, the Rockefeller Institute became the only purely
graduate university in the United States. It was an exceptional univer-
sity, as there was no formal schedule of classes, only eight courses were
offered, and no courses were required. It has long had many more
faculty than students, and over time the students have been unusually
gifted with a very high degree of self-discipline. Because of their small
numbers, students have been able to receive very rigorous training in a
highly nurturing environment.
But as a result of the new role of the organization, the nature of the
faculty changed. Under Bronk and his successor Seitz, a number of
distinguished new faculty were appointed, and the organization (with-
out its Board of Scientific Directors) also began to appoint some less
distinguished scientists to tenured positions. One reason this occurred
was the increase in diversity in the organization. With increased size, it
became more difficult for the President of the University to have the
same level of knowledge of the scientific qualities of each scientist.
Moreover, Bronk, while a brilliant administrator with a great deal of
charisma, was not in the mainstream of biomedical science when he
became Director of the Rockefeller Institute. Though he had been a
distinguished biophysicist, he had long been an administrator. More-
over, his successor, the distinguished physicist Fred Seitz, had been
President of the National Academy of Sciences and had never been a
biological scientist. Seitz simply did not know the biomedical science
community with the same degree of intimacy as Rockefeller's first two
directors.
More importantly for the ability of Rockefeller University to make
major discoveries, its internal structure was moderately modified in
response to changes in the larger funding environment. Once funding
from the National Institutes of Health became accessible, various labs
grew in size, turned somewhat inward, and became somewhat more
autonomous. No longer did everyone have lunch together. By 1970,
there were too many senior scientists, too many post doctoral fellows
and students for the early-twentieth-century type of communication
and integration to exist. Most labs began to have their own journal
clubs, and attendance at the weekly scientific presentations dropped off
dramatically. No longer was there the same degree of horizontal com-
munication as during the first half of the century.
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 231
And yet, even if Rockefeller University today is less scientifically
integrated, it is still much less differentiated internally than every other
American university. The fact that there are still no departments and
that a lab closes down when the head departs means that the organiza-
tion has an extraordinary amount of flexibility to adapt to new knowl-
edge. This flexibility and adaptiveness explain why Rockefeller Univer-
sity, despite its small size, still towers over all other research organiza-
tions in America. Today a higher proportion of its faculty are members
of the National Academy of Sciences and are Howard Hughes investi-
gators than in any other research organization in America. Moreover,
its scientists receive more funding from the National Institutes of Health
per scientist for biomedical research than those in any other research
organization in America. And it is still an organization where a number
of major discoveries occur.
The California Institute of Technology
Like the Rockefeller Institute/University, Caltech, when it was founded
in the early part of the twentieth century, was a new kind of organiza-
tion. Though a university, it had divisions (e.g., chemistry, engineering)
but no departments, and it had a plural executive and was also to be
very small. It has historically had a moderate degree of diversity and a
high degree of integration. Neither organization attempted to do every-
thing in the biological sciences. Because Caltech had no medical or
agricultural school, its scope in the biological sciences was quite lim-
ited. With a somewhat narrow scope, its degree of scientific diversity
was also somewhat limited, and because of its small size, it did not
have great depth in many areas. In most research organizations, it is
considerable diversity combined with moderate to high depth that leads
to fragmentation and internal differentiation. However, Caltech, like
Rockefeller, has never been differentiated into departments like large
American universities.
In its early years, a triumvirate consisting of the physicist Robert A.
Millikan, the chemist Arthur A. Noyes, and the astrophysicist George
Ellery Hale guided Caltech to national prominence in the physical sci-
ences and engineering. They institutionalized an organizational culture
that has lasted to the present day. The Institute would do only a few
things but would do them with excellence. There was to be heavy em-
phasis on research and advanced training, and there would be no mass
education. Moderately high salaries would attract high-quality faculty,
232 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
and generous fellowships would attract outstanding graduate students.
There would be relatively few students, and classes would be very
small. Excellence was to be the hallmark of the organization.
In a relatively short period Caltech attained a distinguished institu-
tional reputation. By 1929 it was among the leading three physics and
chemistry research centres in America. Whereas Johns Hopkins and the
University of Chicago had also attained prominence in a rather short
period of time as the creations of single patrons, Caltech was supported
by a diverse group of local elites. And while Johns Hopkins and the
University of Chicago were also relatively small organizations, each
was somewhat broader in scope (Servos 1990: 264-75).
Today, Caltech is still relatively small and continues to have moder-
ate scientific diversity and depth and a very low degree of differentia-
tion. In the early 1990s, the Institute had 1875 students (more than 1000
of them graduate students), a faculty of approximately 270, and about
700 fellows and visiting professors. Caltech faculty and students over
the years have made a substantial number of major discoveries in the
biomedical sciences. Its faculty and administration have received twenty-
one Nobel Prizes and thirty-one National Medals of Science.
The key to its having so many major discoveries has been Caltech's
interdisciplinary culture. As recent president Thomas E. Everhart ob-
served, people can cut across fields of inquiry more readily than in
most places because of the Institute's small size. It is 'at the intersection
of traditional fields of study such as physics, chemistry, and biology
where major discoveries have occurred and Caltech has always been in
pursuit of major discoveries' (Los Angeles Times, 12 January 1992: 6).
Caltech had no biology department until the late 1920s, but when the
Institute decided to create one, it did so by recruiting geneticist T.H.
Morgan of Columbia University, the most distinguished biologist in
America. This appointment sustained Caltech's emphasis on excellence.
Morgan was not only a member of the National Academy of Sciences
but had also served as President of the Academy. He had excellent
connections with the National Research Council and the Rockefeller
Foundation, and within four years of his arriving at Caltech, his discov-
eries resulted in his being awarded a Nobel Prize. The award turned
world attention to the Institute's new biology program. Entering the
field of biology relatively late, Caltech was free of the institutional iner-
tia facing many research organizations in the biological sciences. In a
number of universities, biology was fragmented into many different
disciplines (e.g., natural history, botany, zoology, eugenics).
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 233
With Morgan's arrival, Caltech developed biology with a firm foun-
dation in genetics. In many ways this was fortuitous. No one at the time
knew that by the 1950s the biological sciences would be firmly grounded
in the science of molecular genetics. Building a division with strength
in this area, Caltech was at the forefront of the direction in which bio-
logical research would move. While in some respects Morgan was past
his prime, he was still a major leader in the biological sciences and was
an excellent person to assist in building a biology program.
Morgan thought in strategic terms and wanted to develop a biology
program with strong interaction with physics and chemistry. Though
he did not have a strong grasp of either physics or chemistry, he played
an important role in developing a culture for the Biological Division
that would emphasize genetics, embryology, physiology, biophysics,
and biochemistry, all in cooperation with physicists and chemists. While
he lacked strength in some of these areas, he brought to Caltech a
remarkable group of younger colleagues from Columbia: Alfred H.
Sturtevart, Calvin B. Bridges, Jack Schultz, and Theodosius Dobzhansky.
Kohler argues that Morgan's group had never been as productive and
as innovative as it was in the 1930s after arriving at Caltech. The em-
phasis was on diversity and cooperation: 'Doors between laboratory
rooms were always kept open, there were no individual offices or tele-
phones, and work places were communal' (1994:124).
Just as Flexner had been instrumental in institutionalizing at
Rockefeller a culture of providing rigorous criticism within a nurturing
environment, Morgan played an important role in institutionalizing this
kind of culture in the Biology Division at Caltech. At Columbia Univer-
sity and at Caltech, the Morgan group engaged in a great deal of social
interaction within a rigorous scientific environment. This kind of cul-
ture persisted in Caltech's Biology Division for many years.
During the 1930s the Caltech biology group attempted to connect
Drosophila genetics with developmental and evolutionary biology (Kohler
1994: 176), a strategy that reached its apex with the work of Ed Lewis,
who was awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in medicine. The innovations
and excitement came from work of the generation after Morgan and
from the culture that Morgan had been instrumental in establishing.
Sturtevart and Schultz in particular helped to foster a spirit of crossing
fields. The group made serious efforts to integrate experimental embry-
ology and biochemistry with genetics. The next generation working at
Caltech (George Beadle, Boris Ephrussi, and Theodosius Dobzhansky)
advanced new systems of development and evolutionary genetics
234 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
(Kohler 1994:177). The culture of working across fields at Caltech facili-
tated the moving of maize geneticist Beadle into Drosophila genetics to
work with Ephrussi, the Russian-born, Paris-trained experimental em-
bryologist in genetics, and his eventual link with the biochemist Edmund
Tatum.
Shortly after Morgan arrived at Caltech, Linus Pauling began to ex-
press an interest in biology and to participate in biology seminars. At a
small organization like Caltech, scientists all across the campus were
interested in what others were doing. And because of its culture of
excellence, faculty assumed that all other faculty were outstanding people
in their fields, and thus most people were anxious to learn about the
work of their colleagues. Pauling was one of the leading theoretical
chemists in the world. Because of his interest in molecules, he probably
would have drifted into biology in any event. But by the mid-1930s,
after encouragement from the Rockefeller Foundation, he began to work
on the chemical bonding between the hemoglobin and oxygen materi-
als, and later on the general problem of the structure of proteins. By the
early 1950s, Pauling was producing reliable descriptions of the physical
properties of giant protein molecules. Since Pauling was always inter-
ested in understanding chemical substances in terms of their protons
and electrons, it is not surprising that he was the boundary crosser par
excellence. One of the most important individuals in establishing the
field of molecular biology, Pauling did work on the helical hypothesis
that laid essential groundwork for Crick and Watson's discovery of the
double helix structure (Watson 1968; Kay 1993).
It was the rich horizontal communication across fields at Caltech that
was important in facilitating Pauling's discoveries in so many different
areas. It is extremely doubtful, had he been at a larger American re-
search university fragmented into many academic departments, that he
would have had as much interaction with scientists in other areas and
that his productivity and creativity would have been so considerable in
so many different areas. To put it another way, the interdisciplinary
and integrated culture of Caltech was critical to Pauling's thinking and
to his achievements.
Just as scientific integration was facilitated at the Rockefeller Institute
by its dining-room, similarly horizontal communication and scientific
integration were promoted by Caltech's famous Athenaeum dining-
room. For many years, it was the place where faculty met, learned what
others were doing, and often agreed to collaborate on research projects.
The Athenaeum had an ambience of comfort and prosperity. As at
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 235
Rockefeller, many of the tables seated eight people, enough for a single
conversation. The incentives for the faculty to go there were multiple:
the food was outstanding, it was a very comfortable place to dine, and
it was a place to learn what the local faculty were doing and to meet
leading scientists from all over the world who were visiting Caltech.
Despite all of Caltech's resources, divisions have from time to time
fluctuated in quality. By the late 1940s, Morgan was no longer on the
scene, Calvin Bridges was dead, and a number of Morgan's young
associates had moved on. While Sturtevart and others were still there,
the Biology Division did not have the same intellectual excitement and
productivity as in the late 1930s. However, because of the interdiscipli-
nary and cooperative culture ingrained at Caltech, the dip in the Biol-
ogy Division's quality was a temporary phenomenon. Recruited to re-
turn to Caltech in 1946, George Beadle as leader of the Biology Division
worked closely with Pauling to make Caltech again one of the premier
centres of the world in the biological sciences. They recruited Max
Delbriick, a physicist and a leader in phage genetics, and other distin-
guished scientists, so that Caltech soon became one of the world's pre-
mier centres in interdisciplinary biology with strength grounded in ge-
netics but extending to physics and to various other fields of chemistry.
Delbriick did much to perpetuate the nurturing environment that
Morgan and others had developed. While Delbriick was hardly sur-
passed by anyone in setting rigorous scientific standards, his work
groups, whether at Caltech or at Cold Spring Harbor, joined hard work
with play. At Caltech, his group of students, postdoctoral fellows, and
colleagues frequently made trips to the desert for recreation, while at
Cold Spring Harbor there was swimming and tennis, as well as other
play. Everyone was on a first-name basis, but recognition was earned
on the basis of excellence in science.
Over time Caltech has continued to be distinguished in the biological
sciences, and one of the most important reasons for this persistent abil-
ity to make major breakthroughs has been the integration of scientific
diversity. Another factor has been the foundation on which the Biology
Division was originally based: strength not just in genetics but in the
genetics of Drosophila. And finally, the Institute has exercised unusual
care in the making of tenured appointments. We have thus far identi-
fied only one person who was granted a tenured appointment in the
Biology Division prior to 1950 without first having spent a prolonged
period of time at the Institute. They did not recruit faculty without
knowing a great deal about them.
236 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
It is quite remarkable how the original strength in the genetics of
Drosophila has continued to evolve, in substantial part because of the
characteristics of the organization. The continued excellence in this re-
search tradition has also been due to the strategic vision of Morgan of
integrating genetics with other fields of knowledge. One impressive
embodiment of these traditions has been Seymour Benzer. Originally
trained in physics, he was inspired by Max Delbriick and moved into
the fields of molecular biology and virus genetics, where he became
famous for mapping the fine structure of genes. After discovering that
exposure of a population of Drosophila to a mutagen generated an ex-
traordinary variety of mutants affecting various aspects of behaviour,
Benzer and his associates identified mutations affecting visual recep-
tion, circadian rhythm, memory, excitable membrane channels, synap-
tic function, as well as hereditary pathological defects analogous to
such human disorders as muscle and brain degeneration. As a result of
Benzer's pioneering discoveries, Drosophila has become a model system
for molecular neurogenetics, since his work revealed that genes so in-
volved have identifiable close counterparts in the human cell, and al-
low the localization of genes responsible for various human hereditary
defects. This has opened the way to using knowledge obtained from
fruit flies to investigate human behavioural mechanisms and their dis-
orders (citations by prize committees for the Lasker Prize 1971, Horwitz
Prize 1976, Wolf Prize 1991, Crafoord Prize 1993).
Most small institutions, as implied here, have only a limited range
(e.g., scope or diversity of activity) in the biological sciences, and this is
one of the key reasons why their diversity does not become so highly
differentiated. It is rare that the small institution has a great deal of
depth in a particular area. But in the case of Caltech, it was the consid-
erable depth in Drosophila genetics since the time of Morgan, embedded
in a small institution where the drosophilists could frequently and in-
tensely interact with scientists in other areas of science, that has facili-
tated this field in producing so many major discoveries. One of the
most significant breakthroughs was by Ed Lewis, who worked for more
than thirty years in linking Drosophila genetics to embryology and evo-
lution, work that eventually led to his receiving the Nobel Prize in 1995
(earlier he had won the Lasker and Wolf Prizes for this work). Lewis's
work is very seminal in understanding how genes control develop-
ment. Some observers herald his work as one of the most important
discoveries of the twentieth century. It is significant that this work
emerged at Caltech, the institution with more than half a century of
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 237
experience in Drosophila genetics, the research organization in which
from the outset of biology there had been considerable diversity and
interest in using Drosophila genetics to pursue problems of development
(Kohler 1994). The small size of Caltech facilitated the knowledge of
development by a geneticist like Lewis, who learned about the chemis-
try of protein research of Pauling and others. In short, the structure and
culture of Caltech facilitated the ability of its faculty to capitalize on its
scientific diversity (interviews with Ed Lewis, 25 March 1994, 21 De-
cember 1994).
The interdisciplinary/integrated culture at Caltech is well illustrated
by the interaction among basic scientists, engineers, and computer sci-
entists on campus. Two of its very distinguished biological scientists,
William J. Dreyer and his now-famous student Leroy Hood, long ex-
pounded the thesis that what drives the pace of scientific progress is
not so much the quality of scientific talent but the availability of new
technologies, particularly new instrumentation that permits scientists to
pursue new research strategies. And because of the ease with which
biologists, engineers, and computer scientists could communicate at
Caltech, the development of new instrumentation for scientific advance
has been particularly notable there, especially in the biological sciences.
In the early 1980s, some of the proteins of most interest to molecular
biologists existed in millionths-of-a-gram quantities on the surface of
cells, so that obtaining enough of a particular protein to conduct any
research often required ten years and was very costly. Leroy Hood
addressed the problem by constructing a machine that could work with
extremely complex chemistries automatically and required only a tiny
amount of protein. Hood and his co-workers developed a protein se-
quencer that had the ability to work with io,oooth of the amount of protein
previously required. In one of the machine's early applications, Hood
was able to determine the molecular structure of interferon. After de-
veloping the protein sequencer, Hood's transdisciplinary group went
on to develop a DNA synthesizer that would create strands of DNA, a
protein synthesizer for making protein in the lab, and a laser-equipped
sequencer for determining the structure of DNA. The first gene synthe-
sis required twenty assistants and almost six years to conduct, whereas
Hood remarked that in 1985 his lab synthesized the same gene in less
than a day. Some have compared the effect of these two sequencers and
two synthesizers to the effect that cyclotrons and particle accelerators
had on the field of high-energy physics, permitting physicists to pen-
etrate the basic structure of matter. These machines, in conjunction with
238 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
other technological advances of the last decade such as recombinant
DNA and monoclonal antibody techniques, have allowed researchers
'to manipulate and analyze genes and proteins in a way that was ut-
terly impossible before' (Leroy Hood, quoted in Los Angeles Times, 20
Oct 1985: 56; interviews with Leroy Hood, 29 July 1995, 28 August
1996).
Significantly, Hood's work was complementary to that of fellow
Caltech biologists Benzer and Lewis. Like Benzer, Hood also worked in
the area of neurobiology, and his research has also been quite funda-
mental to developmental biology, in particular to understanding how
genes are regulated, how the nervous system functions, and how a
fertilized egg becomes a complete organism. What was different about
Hood's lab at Caltech was its size. By worldwide standards, and cer-
tainly by those at Caltech, Hood's lab during the 1980s and the early
1990s was extraordinarily large for a biology lab. The size of his opera-
tion was out of kilter with the norm of having small labs at Caltech. The
friction between the norms of his lab and the norms of small labs at the
Institute eventually became a contributing factor to Hood's leaving
Caltech and moving to a large public university, the University of Wash-
ington in Seattle, where he has established a new Bio-Molecular Tech-
nology Department with people from genetics, medicine, engineering,
and computer science. But it was Caltech that made it possible to de-
velop the model of laboratory diversity that Hood highly values and
that led to the new Seattle facility.
Some observers believe that Caltech is too small to continue making
major discoveries in the biomedical sciences. Obviously, only time can
tell. The suggestion of this project is that when scientific diversity is
highly integrated and interdisciplinary, when there are leaders with a
strategic vision, when there is a nurturing environment but with rigor-
ous standards, and when there is the capacity to identify and recruit
individuals of considerable excellence, the organization will continue to
have high potential to make major discoveries.
Significantly, Caltech in the 1990s is continuing to demonstrate flex-
ibility and adaptiveness to the fast-paced work of scientific change. In
part, it is doing this by developing new structural arrangements, one
interesting example being the Beckman Institute. The vision driving
Caltech's Beckman Institute is that within the next several decades,
chemistry, biology, and medicine will increasingly converge as fields of
knowledge. The Director of the Beckman Institute, Harry Gray, Profes-
sor of Chemistry, views all of this in the tradition of Linus Pauling and
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 239
the inclusive view of knowledge. Gray's view is that a science should
embrace as its own the diverse disciplines to which it contributes. Gray
and his colleagues argue that there is a total restructuring of the field of
chemistry taking place as a result of new tools available to chemists.
Others at Caltech argue, also in the tradition of Pauling, that in terms of
theory, there is a narrowing of differences among the fields of biology,
materials science, polymer science, and chemistry. And at Caltech, there
is increasing emphasis on the necessity of making fundamental changes
in the way that the next generation of scientists will be trained. Accord-
ing to Peter Dervan, Professor of Chemistry at Caltech, it is necessary
for scientists to break out of their disciplinary boundaries and put people
with different specialties next to one another so they can get inside one
another's minds and learn from one another.
LARGE RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS AND PROBLEMS OF MAKING MAJOR DISCOVERIES
As research organizations increase in diversity and depth, there is a
tendency for them to experience more differentiation and less integra-
tion. These changes often lead to increases in hierarchical and bureau-
cratic coordination, with negative consequences for making major dis-
coveries. Changes in biological and medical knowledge have marked
consequences for the diversity and depth of research organizations,
requiring specialties that reflect these new areas of research if the orga-
nization is not to become anachronistic. Thus, universities, research in-
stitutes, and medical schools added biochemistry once the field devel-
oped. Genetics, biophysics, and various medical and surgical subspe-
cialties became attached to medical schools and other research organi-
zations across the years, usually requiring the hiring of several or even
many people so that there was enough depth in an area. New kinds of
instrumentation and other technologies also require the hiring of per-
sonnel. But to add personnel in new specialties, to build diversity with
the required spread of talents, and to create depth in each area implies
a growth in the size of the research organization. The problem is how
the organization incorporates the expansion of knowledge and growth
in size. When research organizations respond to growth by differentiat-
ing into new departments and by imposing hierarchical and bureau-
cratic controls, these processes lead to a decline in integration and di-
minish the possibility of making major discoveries, even if those orga-
nizations become highly productive in the number of scientific papers
produced.
240 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
Examples of research organizations that have responded to changes
in biological and medical knowledge by differentiating into new de-
partments and growing in size are found in many large American re-
search universities (e.g., Illinois [Champaign-Urbana], California [Ber-
keley], Minnesota, Michigan) and many medical schools (e.g., the schools
attached to UCLA, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania). Many of
these places appeared at certain moments in time to be poised to be the
contexts of major discoveries, but such discoveries did not occur. It is
worth stressing that after World War II, these universities and medical
schools had large amounts of research funding, were highly produc-
tive, and had a number of scientists in the National Academy of Sci-
ences. But they did not have the structural and cultural contexts suited
for major discoveries or breakthroughs in the biomedical sciences.
Significantly, by the late 1970s and early 1980s, the University of
California, Berkeley, recognized that the fragmented and differentiated
structure of the biological sciences substantially hampered the quality
of biological research, and it restructured the biological sciences, abol-
ishing more than a dozen departments in the process. After years of
attempting to restructure the biological sciences, today Berkeley finally
has a much more integrated biology program and a structure that pro-
vides the potential for major discoveries to occur.
Differentiation, size, and bureaucratization are also variables that place
constraints on organizational flexibility. Science is very dynamic, and if
research organizations are to adapt to the changes in the world of sci-
ence, they must have a structure that is highly flexible. It is flexibility in
adapting to change in science that provides the potential for making
major discoveries across time.
Lack of flexibility has been a problem with most of the nation's medi-
cal schools. At the time many medical schools came into existence, they
were dominated by clinicians, especially in the departments of medi-
cine and surgery. Most medical schools have been very sharply differ-
entiated between the clinical sciences and the basic sciences. Therefore
it has been difficult for the basic science departments in many medical
schools to attain the autonomy and organizational environment neces-
sary to become distinguished. Thus, although the medical schools of
the universities of Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin
have been either very strong or quite good over time in the clinical
sciences, they have produced either no or very few major discoveries in
the twentieth century.
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 241
STRATEGIES FOR ADDING DIVERSITY AND DEPTH AND FOR ENHANCING SCIENTIFIC
INTEGRATION IN LARGE RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS
Another set of findings in this research relate to different strategies for
adding diversity and depth without necessarily differentiating into more
departments, even in large research organizations. Since growth in size
leads to the differentiation of departments and hierarchical and bureau-
cratic coordination, and this in turn diminishes social integration and the
capacity to make major discoveries, the problem is how organizations can
respond to changes in knowledge by increasing their diversity and depth
without growing in size. We have found a number of interesting strate-
gies that organizations pursued, several of which are briefly discussed:
1 leadership with a determination to limit growth while adding high-
quality scientists who represent scientific diversity and new ways of
thinking
2 maintaining a single program or department in the biological
sciences that places heavy emphasis on interdisciplinary/integrated
culture
3 creating a small interdisciplinary research institute within a highly
differentiated organization
The first strategy, limiting growth while emphasizing diversity, has
been chosen by a few private research universities. Departments, seek-
ing to increase depth and scope in their discipline, attempt to add staff
and consequently get larger, often recruiting staff more like themselves
in the process.
An interesting contrary example is Harvard, where a major function
of the President since the presidency of James Conant is to convene an
ad hoc committee of distinguished scholars to assess every tenured
appointment in the College of Arts and Sciences. These committees
have frequently contested the judgment of academic departments, veto-
ing a tenured appointment previously approved by a department. This
process, by contesting tendencies among departments to reproduce them-
selves, has increased diversity and has facilitated Harvard's flexibility
in adapting to the larger world of science, giving it a distinct margin of
advantage over other universities.
The second strategy is either to create an integrated program that
stresses diversity, depth, and integration or to prevent the processes of
242 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
differentiation by pursuing the same goals within a single department.
Two illustrations of this strategy are the biology department at MIT and
the basic sciences at the University of California at San Francisco, per-
haps the two leading contemporary institutions in the biological sci-
ences in the United States, if not the world.
Another strategy is to create a small interdisciplinary research insti-
tute or centre attached to a university or medical school, an institute
that is largely autonomous and is high in diversity, depth, and integra-
tion. The University of Wisconsin followed this strategy for several
decades with success with the Enzyme Institute and the McArdle Can-
cer Institute. Both were small institutes, which allowed for a highly
focused and reflective attack on research, and permitted intense and
frequent interaction among faculty from diverse backgrounds who had
full-time appointments in these institutes. Significantly, after 1960, ma-
jor discoveries occurred in these institutes but not in the departments of
the university.
Conclusion
Organizations that have recurring major discoveries have tended to be
those in which there is a high degree of interaction among scientists
across diverse fields of science. Over time, biomedical knowledge has
become increasingly complex (e.g., involving both more fields of knowl-
edge and greater depth), and if research organizations are to make
major discoveries, it is necessary for them to incorporate new knowl-
edge and depth in new fields of knowledge in such a way that scientists
can interact with intensity and frequency across diverse fields of knowl-
edge. However, as research organizations add new fields of knowledge
and depth, it is important that the parts of the organization be well-
integrated and not highly differentiated from one another; otherwise
there will not be the horizontal communication with frequent and in-
tense interaction across diverse fields that is a prerequisite for major
discoveries.
Research organizations where a number of major discoveries have
occurred have had a distinctive style of leadership, that is, leaders who
have had (1) a strategic vision for integrating diverse areas and for
providing focused research on particular problems, (2) the ability to
facilitate the obtaining of funding, (3) the ability to recruit personnel
across diverse fields of knowledge so that research groups are con-
stantly aware of what problems are significant and 'doable/ and (4) the
Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations 243
ability to facilitate the provision of rigorous criticism of science within a
nurturing environment. Nurturing here is defined as a combination of
activities by leaders: rigorous and thorough review (carried out with
sensitivity) of work of those in the work group; stimulation of new
ideas and work arrangements, sometimes shielding researchers from
outside criticism; willingness to be patient in waiting for results; and
interacting socially with those in the work group.
The diversity of disciplines and depth of knowledge within a well-
integrated research group or lab have the potential to change the way
people view problems and to minimize their tendency to make mis-
takes and to work on trivial problems. In the final analysis, to make
major discoveries scientists must work on significant problems that are
'doable.' And the greater the research group's diversity and depth, the
greater the likelihood that scientists will not stray into unproductive
areas. If scientists work in environments where there is diversity across
disciplines and depth, and have frequent and intense interaction with
those having complementary interests, the probability is increased that
the quality of their work will improve. It is the diversity of disciplines
and paradigms to which individuals are exposed with frequent and
intense interaction that increases the tendency for creativity and for
breakthroughs to occur. Working in an interdisciplinary environment
without intense and frequent interaction among members of the work
group does not tend to lead to new ways of thinking (e.g., major dis-
coveries).
Changes in biological and medical knowledge have marked conse-
quences for the diversity and depth of research organizations, requiring
new specialities if the organization is not to become anachronistic. As
knowledge expands, new disciplines and subspecialities come into ex-
istence, and there are pressures on the organization to appoint several
or even many people in the new fields of knowledge so that there is
sufficient depth in an area. New kinds of instrumentation and other
technologies also require the hiring of personnel. But the addition of
personnel in new specialities with the required spread of talents, and
the addition of depth in each area, imply a growth in the size of the
research organization.
Increases in scientific diversity and depth, if not properly man-
aged, can ultimately limit the capacity of a research organization to
make major discoveries. As research organizations increase in the num-
ber of disciplines and expand their depth in each one, there is a ten-
dency for them to become more differentiated and less integrated. These
244 Rogers Hollingsworth and Ellen Jane Hollingsworth
changes are often accompanied by increases in hierarchical coordi-
nation and bureaucratization, with negative consequences for making
major discoveries.
Over time, as research organizations have differentiated into more
departments and other sub-units, recruitment and the search for addi-
tional funding have been delegated to lower levels. Academic depart-
ments are inherently socially conservative and tend to select people
who reproduce their thinking. Thus differentiation has tended to limit
the process of crossing academic disciplines and to hamper scientific
integration, both very important for major discoveries in biomedical
science.
More specifically, increases in size and the decentralization of re-
search and personnel decisions to lower units such as departments lead
to more bureaucratic rules and the use of budgetary controls. And the
formalization of rules and increases in structural differentiation tend to
decrease the frequency and intensity of interaction across specialities
and thus social integration. In sum, this research adds to the theoretical
literature the finding that increases in size lead to differentiation and to
fewer major breakthroughs in biomedical science.
Notes
We are deeply indebted to Ragnar Bjork, Jerald Hage, Gerald Edelman, Peter
Weingart, Nico Stehr, and Julie Klein for their contributions to this paper. Julie
K. Sweeney of the University of Wisconsin patiently and thoughtfully assisted
with data for the project. Archivists at the Karolinska Institute, the California
Institute of Technology, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the
Rockefeller Archive Center provided very valuable assistance. For their
financial support, we thank the Rockefeller Foundation, the Sloan Foundation,
the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Swedish Council for Higher Educa-
tion, and the University of Wisconsin.
1 Extensive use has been made of archival materials, interviews conducted by
the authors, and oral histories of scientists. Space constraints prevent the
listing thereof.
PART IV
THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FUNDERS
It is not only the internal institutional and intellectual structure that
affect the nature and the direction of knowledge production but obvi-
ously the resources allocated from external sources and sponsors also
play a critical role. The exact importance of external sponsorship for
knowledge production in universities, research centres and institutes
varies from one historical period to another and from country to coun-
try. So do the funding mechanisms that have emerged over time, rang-
ing basically from the German National Science Foundation (Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft, or DFG) as a state-funded self-administrative
organization for all disciplines to the disciplinary Research Councils in
England, with other models like the U.S. National Science Foundation
und the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
lying in between. The organizational structures of the funding agencies,
the philosophy of science underlying them, and their function to trans-
late policy priorities (public or private) into funding programs undoubt-
edly have a decisive impact on the development of disciplines, on their
relative wealth, and thus on the topography of disciplines as a whole.
This is even more the case with private foundations. Although their
role in economic terms is much smaller than that of the state, they
usually pursue specific programs, often limited to particular areas of
research and with particular objectives in mind. Funding agencies, in
other words, have their own particular perspectives on the world of
science, and given the dependence of science on their resources these
perspectives are bound to affect the internal cognitive and organiza-
tional divisions of science - the disciplines and their interrelations. The
hinders are, therefore, an important part of the environment of research
and teaching. They determine to a considerable extent whether in-
terdisciplinarity is encouraged or stifled.
246 Part IV
In view of this it is noteworthy that the term interdisciplinary is a
creation that can be traced to such a funding organization. The first oral
use of the concept by the psychologist Robert Woodworth (1869-1962)
occurred, as far as we know, in the mid-twenties in the course of a
meeting of the American Social Science Research Council (SSRC). Ac-
cording to the Oxford English Dictionary the initial written usage of the
term, in the English-speaking world, also can be traced to the Social
Science Research Council; that is, it may be found in an ad placed by
the council in the Journal of Educational Sociology announcing postdoctoral
fellowships. The original meaning of the term is by no means irrel-
evant, because one of the primary purposes of the newly founded coun-
cil was 'the bringing together of men [sic] from different sciences, the
breaking down of excessive compartmentalization' (Sills 1986: 17-18).
Woodworth used the concept of interdisciplinary or coordinated work
to characterize this function of the council.
The notion of interdisciplinary activities to be supported by the fund-
ing agency resonated strongly with many of the expressed intentions
and hopes of the scientific community in the 1920s. As a result, pro-
grammatic and then popular ideas such as 'new fields/ 'overlapping
projects/ 'borderline research/ 'interrelated research/ 'interfiliations/
Imilding bridges/ or, even more generally, the project of the 'unity of
science' of the Vienna circle constituted what Clifford Geertz (1986)
some fifty years later described in his well-known metaphor as the
'blurring of genres/
But even in the 1920s and 1930s, critics of these ideas quickly sur-
faced and complained about the obsession of the SSRC with interdisci-
plinary activities and expressed scepticism that the associated goals
could be achieved. The University of Chicago sociologist Louis Wirth,
for example, wrote in a memorandum to the Council: 'It may also be
said the Council has allowed itself to some extent to become obsessed
at times by catch phrases and slogans which were not sufficiently criti-
cally examined. Thus, there is some justification for saying that much of
the talk in connection with council policy, especially in the early years,
about cooperation and interdisciplinary research turned out to be a
delusion/ The demand for cross-fertilization turned into the fear of
cross-sterilization (Wirth 1937).
The role of the funding agencies continues to be as important now as
it was then for promoting and encouraging interdisciplinary research.
In the first contribution to this section, Edward Hackett of the U.S.
National Science Foundation describes the vibrant interest of the Foun-
The Perspective of the Funders 247
dation in a variety of interdisciplinary work that is manifest in many
research efforts that have been proposed and funded, such as the Hu-
man Dimensions of Global Change project.
Wilhelm Krull of the Volkswagen Foundation, the largest private Ger-
man foundation, alerts us to secular trends in science funding that stress,
certainly at the policy level, the growing societal importance of invest-
ments in knowledge production but are confronted with fiscal con-
straints that appear to disallow any real increases in science budgets.
Krull stresses the role of foundations as agents of change in higher
education and research that stimulates interdisciplinary efforts in par-
ticular. The Volkswagen Foundation, which organizes its funding ac-
tivities around priority areas and programs, regards interdisciplinary
research as an important element of innovation and has always been
supportive of it.
Obviously these two views could be complemented by others. Yet,
they are exemplary of the issues at hand: The funders are an important
element of the environment of interdisciplinary research, especially in
the sense of mediating and translating the expectations of society on the
production of knowledge. Thus, their own practice and support of
interdisciplinarity is an indispensable part of the picture.
12
Interdisciplinary Research Initiatives at
the U.S. National Science Foundation
EDWARD J. HACKETT
In its call to 'open the social sciences/ the Gulbenkian Commission
1
outlines the historical contingencies that led to current disciplinary dif-
ferences in the systematic study of human behaviour and solicits fresh
ideas to overcome the restrictive boundaries that separate the three
cultures (science, social science, and humanities) (Wallerstein et al. 1996).
Powerful forces for change are already at work as scholarship is trans-
formed by rising concerns about gender, multiculturalism, historicity
and context, values, and abiding problems about the nature of human-
ity and our ability to develop objective knowledge. In addition there
are political forces, described below, that further contribute to the inter-
disciplinary impulse. Yet the Commission also calls for deliberate social
action to extend, consolidate, and institutionalize such changes, in the
form of joint appointments for faculty, cross-disciplinary training of
graduate students and interdisciplinary research endeavours of limited
duration (say, one to five years) (Wallerstein et al. 1996:103-5). Among
those challenged to act are professional societies, academic departments,
and funding agencies, both public and private, because such agencies
have the resources to initiate, support, and institutionalize the indicated
changes.
This specific call for interdisciplinary social science is an instance of a
broader rise in the level of interest in interdisciplinary teaching and
research that affects many fields of science and scholarship. Reasons for
this rise are discussed throughout the Commission report, and include
intellectual opportunities, converging lines of inquiry, administrative
mandates, the desire to solve practical problems or to reap economic
benefits, and efforts to repeat the triumphs of molecular biology, geo-
physics, structural biology, biochemistry, and other successful hybrids.
Initiatives at the U.S. National Science Foundation 249
In the post-Cold War era, when the intrinsic and symbolic value of
disciplinary knowledge seems to have diminished, federal research-
funding agencies, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF),
may propose interdisciplinary research initiatives to highlight the prac-
tical value of their research investments.
Whatever the underlying causes of the current interdisciplinary drive,
it is clearly in evidence within the walls of NSF. In recent years a vari-
ety of interdisciplinary activities have been proposed and funded, and
more are currently in development. Drawing upon my experience with
the design of interdisciplinary research and training initiatives at NSF, I
will examine the possibilities and limitations of funding agencies'
behaviour in such efforts. In doing so I hope to provide a glimpse into
the places where the impulse to do interdisciplinary research first takes
form and then takes flight, influencing the activities of researchers in
many fields throughout the United States. I also respond in part to the
Gulbenkian Commission's call for funding agencies to increase support
for interdisciplinary research by examining the organizational dynam-
ics set in motion when funding agencies attempt to do so.
Varieties of Interdisciplinarity at the National Science Foundation
Three main varieties of interdisciplinary activity are supported by NSF:
established interdisciplinary programs, cooperative funding efforts
among programs, and new interdisciplinary initiatives.
Examples of interdisciplinary programs within the social and
behavioural sciences include programs in Human Cognition; Decision,
Risk, and Management Science; and Science and Technology Studies.
Each has a program manager, an annual budget, an approved and pub-
lished program announcement (that defines the topic area and outlines
the types of awards the program makes), an advisory panel that meets
semi-annually to review and evaluate proposals, and a community of
researchers who write and review proposals, and who depend on the
program for research support. Taken together, such intellectual, organi-
zational, and social characteristics define and institutionalize research
programs: they create a distinctive problem focus, endorse a set of ac-
cepted modes of inquiry and explanation, and establish a pool of re-
sources that are relied upon by their respective research communities.
Interdisciplinary research areas may have journals, professional societ-
ies and meetings, degree programs, and departments that lend further
legitimacy to their research programs within NSF. With all this institu-
250 Edward J. Hackett
tional and organizational apparatus, it would be difficult for NSF to
end an established interdisciplinary program.
A second form of interdisciplinary research activity, less strongly in-
stitutionalized, arises when two or more programs contribute support
for a new project. Such interdisciplinary efforts may be as modest as a
$20,000 conference or as large as a multi-year, multimillion-dollar re-
search centre, instrument, or data-gathering effort. Cooperative fund-
ing decisions may be fluid and ad hoc, requiring as little as two pro-
gram officers signing a budget form that indicates how much each will
contribute to a joint project. For larger, longer-running efforts, each
cooperating program will review the proposal in its own community
and perhaps also seek the advice of its panel before committing funds.
Compared with an established interdisciplinary program, cooperative
funding has less (but still some) enduring organizational consequence,
need not create or sustain as cohesive a research community, and is less
likely to institutionalize new modes of inquiry and explanation.
Initiatives are a third mode of interdisciplinary activity at NSF, and
the balance of this paper will examine their development, social organi-
zation, and politics. Interdisciplinary initiatives may be divided into
three categories, depending on their degree of development and institu-
tionalization. The Human Dimensions of Global Change initiative, which
spans agencies of the federal government and broad fields of the physi-
cal, biological, and social sciences, is a well-established effort to under-
stand interactions between human and natural systems. Social science
research on this topic began with a $200,000 set-aside in 1988-9, peaked
with a $17 million expenditure in 1994-5, and continues to this day.
Other initiatives are stillborn, or, optimistically, still aborning, such
as the Human Capital Initiative. Originally conceived in 1990 as a social
science initiative to fund research in six areas of national concern (pro-
ductivity, literacy, aging, drug and alcohol abuse, health, and violence),
this effort has had a history of rising, and falling fortunes. Congress
appropriated $5 million for such activities in 1994-5, but the funding
level today is lower and the initiative is still searching for identity and
support. A recent workshop organized by the National Academy of
Sciences, and related activities within NSF, may give new form and life
to the initiative.
Finally, two new NSF-wide initiatives, Integrative Graduate Educa-
tion and Research Training (IGERT) and Knowledge and Distributed
Intelligence in the Information Age (KDI) are well on their way to at-
tracting intellectual interest and money. At the time of this writing,
Initiatives at the U.S. National Science Foundation 251
proposals for IGERT are under consideration at NSF, and the program
announcement for KDI has been drafted and is in the review and revi-
sion process.
IGERT is a new graduate training initiative that will award about
$20 million to support programs that integrate education and research,
across two or more disciplines, to prepare scientists for careers at the
interstices of disciplines and in non-traditional settings. In each of the
emphasized ways, IGERT is intended to integrate dissimilar intellectual
activities and to create new educational, research, and employment
opportunities.
KDI is a research theme that will support a variety of activities on the
use of new information and computer networking technology to im-
prove learning, knowledge production, and creativity. The initiative is
large and multifaceted, requesting $58 million in additional funds for
fiscal year 1998 to support three distinct elements:
1 Learning and Intelligent Systems (LIS) is intended to enhance the
'human ability to learn and create' through research on human and
machine-based learning and through the development of new
technologies for learning and creative activity.
2 New Computational Challenges (NCC) is dedicated to supporting
the 'next generation' of hardware and related software for integrat-
ing complex data across vastly different scales or levels of analysis
(say, from atoms to materials and structures).
3 Knowledge Networking (KN) is designed to understand how new
knowledge may be created and integrated by using computer
networks to connect various sorts of users (scientists, technicians,
policy-makers, citizens, students) with data resources, digital librar-
ies, and even scientific instruments and other analytic apparatus.
The Interdisciplinary Impulse
The simplest question - where do interdisciplinary research initiatives
come from? - may be the hardest to answer. Certainly there is an initial
judgment that an interdisciplinary activity would yield intellectual ben-
efits, such as students with distinctive educational backgrounds in the
case of IGERT, or new knowledge and new technologies in the case of
KDI. But there is also something more political and opportunistic un-
derlying these initiatives. For example, NSF has been criticized for
favouring research over teaching and, through its grants process, for
252 Edward J. Hackett
influencing the preferences of university faculty and graduate students.
To some degree IGERT (and other new programs) aim to redress this
imbalance by explicitly encouraging activities that integrate education
and research training.
Underlying KDI is the premise that the benefits of new computer
technologies would increase if their development could be more firmly
grounded in a systematic, research-based understanding of the needs
and characteristics of the learning, creating, and collaborating processes.
A speech by U.S. Vice President Al Gore to the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, later excerpted as an editorial in Sci-
ence, catalyzed the KDI initiative by proposing 'an updated metaphor
that is more appropriate to the times and more muscular in its power to
explain: the metaphor of distributed intelligence' (Gore 1996:177, empha-
sis added). The Vice President's remarks suggested language for justi-
fying a request for additional funds, though the interest and impetus
for the initiative have roots that are years deep. Both IGERT and KDI
reflect the understanding that, with strong downward pressure on the
nation's discretionary spending, any real rise in the NSF research bud-
get must be accompanied by a claim to meet new needs and to pursue
new opportunities in striking new ways.
Initiatives of all sorts, including interdisciplinary initiatives, are very
flexible in their creation, contents, and names, so they can be exquisitely
responsive to the needs of the day, then disappear or take new shape.
IGERT, for example, is the latest in a lineage of NSF graduate training
programs. KDI borrows its name from the Vice President's speech and
requests $58 million from Congress, but it is said to be the most visible
and responsive outcropping of a research effort at NSF that runs some
$355 million deep (Lane 1997). In each case something much like the
new initiative was in fact underway at NSF, with the new name, sharper
focus, and additional funds representing a significant change at the
margin.
Beyond the scientific and political reasons for new interdisciplinary
initiatives, there is also a serious policy purpose to be served: such
initiatives establish national science priorities in a visible and measur-
able way without necessarily changing the existing disciplinary bal-
ance. That is, when the NSF budget is prepared for Congressional re-
view, and when top NSF officials testify about that budget before Con-
gress, initiatives provide good, high-profile material that resonates with
the interests of members and that leads, at least in principle, to distinct,
Initiatives at the U.S. National Science Foundation 253
measurable outputs. In his testimony to Congress about NSF's budget
request for fiscal year 1998, Director Neal Lane highlighted both IGERT
and KDI, which together accounted for more than a page of his six-
page testimony (Lane 1997). (Indeed, much of NSF's research budget
for fiscal year 1998 is framed in terms of broad, thematic categories -
KDI, Life in Earth's Environment, and Educating for the Future - that
efficiently express the connection between research investments and
social goals.) Rhetoric aside, the true depth and extent of the initiatives'
influence will only be known if there is an assessment after a few years
of experience.
Perhaps most importantly, when written as initiatives these new ef-
forts disguise or displace priority choices between fields of science. An
open request to raise support for one area of science more rapidly than
another may occasion a divisive public outcry from the affected science
communities. But initiatives allow a vaguer sort of priority setting be-
tween fields to occur in a more private and manageable place, with
certain crucial parameters (such as the topic, budget, types of activity to
be supported, and need to honour a public commitment) established in
advance. Interdisciplinary initiatives also protect the core activities of
disciplinary programs by providing a peripheral contact zone for ex-
changes with other fields and the political environment that is some
distance from the intellectual core of the field.
The ideas underlying a new research initiative must also pass muster
with another constituency: the external research community. Unlike dis-
ciplinary research, there is no readily identified reference community
for an interdisciplinary initiative. Yet without significant consultation
with outside researchers, NSF would risk strong criticism and potential
failure. To succeed, a research initiative must meet a receptive public
that will openly embrace the idea and freely choose to participate by
preparing and reviewing proposals.
NSF creates this receptive public by sponsoring one or more work-
shops at which an invited group of a dozen or more scholars explore
and map - and perhaps create - the new terrain encompassed by the
proposed initiative. Workshop organizers and participants are chosen
by program officers, who consult with one another and with outside
scholars to develop a broad, representative, and expert group. The work-
shop serves as a sounding board for NSF's ideas, a listening post for
reactions and new views from the community, a channel of communi-
cation, and a general source of legitimacy for the initiative. Workshops
254 Edward J. Hackett
typically result in written reports (and, these days, electronic docu-
ments and discussions) that are used to support the initiative and to
prepare its defining documents (described below).
One of the most striking features of the workshop process is the
amount of reciprocal adjustment required to get all participants, from
within NSF and without, talking about the same topics in a mutually
comprehensible language. Precisely because the topic is interdiscipli-
nary, emergent, and relatively loosely defined, and because broad in-
clusiveness is an explicit goal, workshops draw together a group with
widely varied training, knowledge, and presuppositions. A workshop
on one facet of KDI, for example, included scholars from departments
of computer science, library and information science, science and tech-
nology studies, history, neuroscience, economics, education, geography,
psychology, philosophy, astronomy, and electrical engineering. Within
such groups much effort is needed to standardize vocabulary and com-
pensate for differences in knowledge about any given topic that arises
in discussion.
Perhaps most striking is the high ratio between the ideas (and paper!)
generated by workshops and the amount that finds its way into the
final report and, ultimately, into the program announcement. For one
facet of KDI, for example, three workshops were held on different sub-
themes, each involving dozens of participants. At one of these work-
shops, which lasted two days, subgroups met separately and produced
mini-reports, dutifully shared with the group. These, in turn, became
many pages of raw material for a report of several pages. In the end, all
the ideas, research questions, and advice generated by perhaps 100
persons meeting for two days has been distilled into three single-spaced
pages of the program announcement.
That said, workshop discussion and reports have a lasting impact on
the formation of an initiative. The ideas and perspectives shared during
those days framed much of the ensuing discussion at NSF. And the
workshops provided an argumentative resource during the drafting of
the program announcement, with one NSF official telling another 'Con-
trary to what you might have concluded, there is a great deal of conver-
gence and consensus in the community as to what [the initiative] should
be and where NSF's new KDI program ought to be going.' This was
clearly evident in the three workshops, which were participated in by
over 100 leaders from all of our disciplines. The workshop reports are
now on the Web and spread across a much wider audience, reaching
Initiatives at the U.S. National Science Foundation 255
out and energizing the diverse communities to develop and form new
ideas.
I would not underestimate the influence workshops have on the de-
velopment of interdisciplinary initiatives, but would emphasize that
they are loosely coupled to subsequent events and that their verbal
contribution is highly distilled.
Workshops also, finally, give advance notice of the initiative to the
proposal-writing community, completing the circle: the community can
now compete for resources from the initiative it helped shape. The
importance of these community-building activities cannot be exagger-
ated, because the ultimate success of any initiative depends upon the
participation of the scientific community.
The Politics of Interdisciplinary Initiatives
The external politics of interdisciplinary research initiatives are clear:
Initiatives show that the agency's research effort is focused on achiev-
ing identifiable ends and that those ends are congruent with larger
themes established by the administration. Initiatives also imply specific,
observable outcomes that may be assessed to show the social benefit
resulting from such expenditures. Such analyses are required by the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, which directs every
government agency first to establish strategic goals, then to assess its
performance against those goals.
The internal politics of initiatives are more subtle and problematic,
and those only come into view when the process of developing an
initiative is examined in some detail. Initiatives of the sort discussed
here (IGERT and KDI) ultimately take the form of a program announce-
ment and a management plan. The program announcement describes
for the research community the topic area of interest, the activities to be
supported, the matters that proposals should address, when proposals
must be received and how they will be evaluated, and offers some
examples of the sorts of topics or projects the initiative is intended to
support. The management plan, in contrast, is an internal NSF docu-
ment that describes the handling of funds and proposals, including
organizational and staffing matters, details of the review process, and
even where the proposal files ('jackets') will be stored. While this may
seem a tedious document to write or read, it is in fact complicated,
contested, and crucial, as it presents a blueprint for the management of
256 Edward J. Hackett
the initiative (that is, outreach to the community; recording, review,
and disposition of proposals; and, especially, where the money will
come from to support the new work and how it will get to where it will
go). Since initiatives are new activities that often cut across large seg-
ments of the NSF organization, the usual organizational and institu-
tional mechanisms - tradition, habit, culture, standard operating proce-
dures, and the like - are not available to guide practices or may be
inconsistent.
Both the program announcement and the management plan are writ-
ten collaboratively and iteratively by groups of program officers and
division directors (the next layer up the hierarchy). These groups draft
material that is reviewed by the Senior Management Integration Group
(or SMIG), whose main members are the Director of NSF, the Deputy
Director, and the Assistant Directors who head each of the research
directorates (Biological Sciences, Computing and Information Sciences
and Engineering, Engineering, Geological Sciences, Education and Hu-
man Resources, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, and Social and
Behavioral Sciences). Each assistant director must look after the inter-
ests of his or her directorate in such meetings, reconciling the initiative's
scope and definition with the research interests and capacities of the
constituent fields.
Those drafting the documents often find this a difficult and frustrat-
ing process, partly because the issues driving decisions at the higher
levels of the organization may be inconsistent with or imperceptible to
those below, and partly because communication is delayed, incomplete,
and sometimes cryptic. Until one has done so, it is hard to appreciate
the difficulty of imagining what sorts of projects might be proposed in
an emerging, interdisciplinary research area, then crafting language to
describe such imagined work and to indicate the criteria for evaluating
it. Further, with tens of millions of dollars at stake, the Assistant Direc-
tors keep firm control of initiatives, demanding repeated drafts but
giving somewhat vague guidance about what is desired. Finally, the
amount of contingency and forward thinking involved in the initiative
process confounds matters further. As the program announcements and
management plans for IGERT and KDI were prepared, NSF staff were
spending the last of their fiscal year 1997 budgets, following Congres-
sional budget deliberations about fiscal year 1998 (which includes funds
for both initiatives, not yet passed by Congress), and preparing the
budget request for fiscal year 1999.
Initiatives at the U.S. National Science Foundation 257
Establishing and using merit review procedures to evaluate propos-
als poses additional complications. Different parts of NSF use different
review mechanisms. About a third of NSF's proposals are evaluated
only by written reviews from specialists chosen to review a particular
proposal. Another third are reviewed only by a panel of reviewers who
collectively provide advice about a set of proposals. And a final third
are evaluated using both a set of proposal-specific specialists and a
panel. Other, more subtle differences also distinguish review and deci-
sion processes in different parts of NSF. Yet interdisciplinary initiatives
require development of a single, consistent review process.
Panels are often the preferred mode of review for initiatives, perhaps
largely because that affords program officers the greatest amount of
interaction with reviewers and allows reviewers to speak freely among
themselves. But panel review means that expert panelists must be iden-
tified and persuaded to serve, not an easy matter because panelists
already serving on (or recently departed from) NSF panels probably
should not be further burdened, and because persons who plan to sub-
mit proposals to an initiative probably should not serve on the panel
reviewing proposals for that initiative. The population is also limited
by conflict of interest rules that prevent mentors and their dissertation
advisees from ever reviewing one another's proposals, and that prevent
current collaborators, recent co-authors, and colleagues at the same in-
stitution from reviewing one another's work. Such rules are essential to
avoid the biased judgments and the mere appearance of impropriety that
may arise from conflicts of interest, but they have the unfortunate side-
effect of sharply limiting the pool of expert advisers available for any
given proposal. The established panels that advise regular research pro-
grams also develop habits, usual practices, and something akin to cul-
tures that smooth their work, while a panel newly formed to serve an
initiative lacks these advantages. Finally, program panels typically ad-
vise one (or two or three) program officers about a more-or-less estab-
lished, coherent area of research, but panels serving interdisciplinary
initiatives advise an ad hoc group of program officers from diverse
fields of science about an equally nebulous research theme. If the initia-
tive is large enough or broad enough, there might be two or more
panels at work simultaneously, leaving it to a group of program officers
to forge decisions from that varied input.
Program officers are often more comfortable with disciplinary re-
view, characterizing it as 'more rigorous' and 'thorough.' This may
258 Edward J. Hackett
be so because panels and the fields they represent develop implicit
standards for choosing problems and methods, for judging results, and
for evaluating the quality of journal publications, academic appoint-
ments, and graduate training. In all, it is easier to 'place' a disciplinary
proposal and investigator. The uncertainty of interdisciplinary pro-
posal review complicates, perhaps even jeopardizes, program officers'
judgment.
Further complicating matters is the program officer's ambiguous po-
sition in an initiative. Since funds for the initiative are often sequestered
from regular program funds, perhaps because they came as an addi-
tional allocation from Congress, or were pooled with funds from else-
where in the Foundation (another directorate or a Foundation-wide
'opportunity fund'), or were established through a 'tax' on programs
within the directorate, the program officer's calculus is changed. In-
stead of allocating funds from a pot of money more or less under his or
her control, to support work in the field represented by her or his
program, the program officer is faced with the challenge of withdraw-
ing funds from a central pot of money, using proposals from her or his
field to effect the withdrawals. This somewhat compromises the pro-
gram officer's position in a panel meeting, because she or he has re-
sponsibility for running a fair and orderly meeting, but also has an
interest in the success of certain proposals.
Assessment
It is difficult to know whether interdisciplinary initiatives return fair
value for the money invested, and it is difficult to measure their perfor-
mance against that of traditional, disciplinary activities. Partly this is a
problem of yardsticks and perspective, with metrics for any sort of
science performance hard to come by and with sharp differences in
perspectives on the fundamental merit of any sort of interdisciplinary
effort. At the highest level, NSF's investments of whatever sort will be
measured against its strategic goals, which are quite general and ab-
stract promises to improve the quality of U.S. science, technology, edu-
cation, and society.
At the more concrete level of individual awards, the assessment bur-
den is increasingly shifted to those writing the proposal. That is, pro-
gram announcements for the interdisciplinary initiatives discussed here
ask proposers to include in the proposal plans for assessing the project's
performance. To some degree this is a form of shirking, but it has the
Initiatives at the U.S. National Science Foundation 259
merit of allowing new outcomes and measures to arise from the field,
then to be amassed, assessed, formalized, and developed by NSF.
Conclusion
Facing stable or declining national research budgets and a political
climate that-demands practical, tangible justification for research spend-
ing, interdisciplinary research initiatives are likely to become an
increasingly prominent feature of the science policy landscape. Inter-
disciplinary research certainly seems bold and relevant, but I know no
systematic evidence that this is so. Very little is known about the work-
ings of such initiatives, such as how research teams are formed, what
are the opportunity costs of research set aside to pursue the new oppor-
tunity, and what are the processes for evaluating proposals and making
funding decisions. Most importantly, virtually nothing is known about
their contributions to knowledge and the quality of life.
In light of all this ignorance and uncertainty, it is difficult to embrace
interdisciplinary initiatives. Yet they may be a lasting instrument of
science policy, and the one area of real growth and opportunity. Our
best option, then, is to proceed boldly but reflectively, giving such in-
vestments our whole-hearted support while thinking critically and sys-
tematically about their performance and consequences.
Note
1 The Gulbenkian Commission is a group of ten scholars from the social
sciences, natural sciences, and humanities that was drawn together with
support from the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation to reflect on the circum-
stances and prospects for the social sciences.
13
Beyond the Ivory Tower: Some Obser-
vations on External Funding of Inter-
disciplinary Research in Universities
WILHELM KRULL
Introduction
Today, more and more governments treat investments in higher educa-
tion, science, and technology as a strategic asset. The increased public
policy importance of knowledge investments, however, does not neces-
sarily correspond with increasing budgets. On the contrary, fiscal con-
straints have led to, at best, a steady state, and more often to budgets
that in real terms have been considerably reduced. This holds especially
true for Germany, which is still struggling with the grossly underesti-
mated costs of integrating the five East German states into the Federal
Republic.
Due to financial constraints that are affecting the entire publicly fi-
nanced sector, more and more researchers and research policy-makers
are stressing the need for a new 'public private partnership.' Although
this request also aims at establishing better linkages between publicly
financed research institutes and universities on the one hand, and pri-
vately run research laboratories and companies on the other, it clearly
focuses on finding new sources of financial support for the hitherto
publicly financed training and research work.
In Germany, as in many other European countries, citizens are used
to carrying a high tax load, and therefore expect the federal, regional, or
local government to cover the costs of almost all social institutions.
Nevertheless, private initiatives and individual commitments as well as
financial contributions from private sources have always been essential
to achieving the overall objectives of the higher education and research
system as well as in opening up new opportunities.
External Funding of Interdisciplinary Research in Universities 261
As far as funds for activities in higher education and research are
concerned, more than 800 private foundations account for less than DM
1 billion per annum. Compared with the DM 2 billion that the German
Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) provides for
a wide variety of funding schemes, let alone the more than DM 25
billion spent by the federal and state governments to keep the universi-
ties and research institutes going, it is obviously not possible for any
foundation to pursue wholesale funding policies. Even the biggest Ger-
man foundation in the higher education and research area, the
Volkswagen Foundation, which can spend DM 170 to 180 million per
year, decided more than twenty-five years ago to focus its funding
activities on specific priority areas and programs. It is mainly in view of
this foundation's experiences that the following observations and anno-
tations are made.
Interdisciplinary Research in German Universities
In almost all research systems universities have a central role to play.
For the German Science Council (Wissenschaftsrat) they are the most
important institutions in this respect, in particular because of their domi-
nant position in training young researchers (Wissenschaftsrat 1989: 29).
The eighty-four German universities employ more than 120,000 aca-
demics, and the catalogue of disciplines published by the German Uni-
versity Teachers' Association (Hochschulverband) registers more than
4000 subjects, an alarmingly high figure, or as Jiirgen Mittelstrass puts
it: 'eine beangstigende, fur Unubersichtlichkeit im Wissenschaft und
Hochschulbereich sorgende Zahl (a frightening figure that accounts for
unintelligible conditions in research and higher education') (Mittelstrass
1987:152). For him, specialization, despite all its achievements, has been
taken too far, and the call for more interdisciplinary research efforts
must be considered a compensatory phenomenon: 'ein Kompensation-
sphanomen zur Wiedergutmachung gegeniiber einer Idee, die etwa fur
Leibniz noch das Selbstverstandliche war, fur uns hingegen nur noch
eine Erinnerung an unentwickelte wissenschaftliche Verhaltnisse oder
eine Utopie ist' ('a phenomenon of compensation to restitute for an idea
that for Leibniz was still the self-evident but for us is the memory of
undeveloped scientific conditions or an Utopia') (Mittelstrass 1987:152).
Due to the fragmentation into thousands of disciplines, numerous
institutional barriers to interdisciplinary research, and a wide variety of
262 Wilhelm Krull
other obstacles for cooperating across disciplines, the universities clearly
have lost in importance over the last two decades when it comes to
providing the relevant knowledge base. As 'emphasis has moved away
from free inquiry to problem solving and, more generally in the direc-
tion of problem-oriented research' (Gibbons et al. 1994: 71), the neces-
sity of a realignment between the university's own values and the
society's real needs has become more obvious. And yet, many universi-
ties still find it difficult to combine their disciplinary substructures with
new institutional settings designed to stimulate or strengthen the inter-
action between researchers from different departments. Although there
is by now widespread agreement on the need to overcome the tendency
in many disciplines to specialize in ever narrower areas, and to bring
together the best suitable persons with their specific expertises from
various disciplines to tackle some of the most urgent research issues, so
far only a small number of universities seem to have succeeded in
providing adequate institutional responses to the challenges provided
by an integrated approach to new research issues.
Several newly established research centres and institutes for advanced
study, especially in East German universities (e.g., at Frankfurt/Oder,
Erfurt, and Leipzig, but also in Munich, Essen, and Bremen/Oldenburg)
obviously attempt to open up new opportunities for inter- and
transdisciplinary research work. Right from the start, most of these new
organizational structures are designed to provide these opportunities
for the respective researcher or research group on a temporary basis,
and membership as well as space is granted only to those researchers
who are able to apply successfully for grants from other research orga-
nizations and foundations.
Foundations as Facilitators of Change: The Volkswagen Foundation
Foundations offering financial support in the area of higher education
and research regard it as their duty to stimulate new developments,
redress imbalances of the publicly financed funding agencies, and pro-
vide support for the most innovative, paradigmatic activities, especially
when these involve the identification of important societal, technical, or
environmental problems and promising contributions to their solution.
In this respect foundations like to consider themselves facilitators of
change.
As far as the Volkswagen Foundation is concerned, the support of
science, technology, and the humanities in research and academic teach-
External Funding of Interdisciplinary Research in Universities 263
ing therefore does not aim simply at meeting the costs for a specific
piece of novel research or a teaching experiment. This is not to say that
the Foundation does not expect projects to make significant contribu-
tions to basic scientific, technical, or cultural knowledge, but beyond
the requirements of originality, competence, appropriateness of method,
and so on it is usually the potential conclusions, the relevance of the
expected findings to particular issues, and the prospective impact on
institutional structures, policies, and such that matter when it comes to
giving priority to one proposal or the other.
Since the early seventies, the Volkswagen Foundation has been con-
centrating its funding activities on priority areas and programs. The
current programs focus on structural reforms in German universities,
especially on more efficient decision-making and leadership (Efficiency
by Autonomy) and on the establishment of interdisciplinary junior re-
search groups in universities. As far as the priority areas (Schwerpunkte)
are concerned, there are, broadly speaking, two types of priority areas:
on the one hand, those offering support for basic research into specific
subjects and problems, currently, for example, on the transformation of
economic, political, and social systems; environmental scarcity; neuro-
immunology; electron transfer; conditional mutagenesis; non-linear dy-
namics in production systems; and on problems and possibilities of
intercultural communications; on the other hand, there have always
been priority areas offering opportunities for the funding of an urgently
needed infrastructure in research and university teaching and of inter-
national scientific communication, for example, for symposia and sum-
mer schools, and for research abroad. Some of the latter priority areas
are especially directed to projects on and in other countries, currently
especially on China, and the cooperation with researchers in Central
and Eastern Europe.
1
Out of these funding opportunities, it is mainly the program focusing
on the establishment of interdisciplinary junior research groups in uni-
versities and the topical priority areas that provide a framework for
highly innovative, mostly interdisciplinary research. While the former
is a relatively new scheme that has just been implemented, the latter
over the last two and a half decades have proven to be a useful tool for
stimulating individual researchers to tackle research questions that may
otherwise not have been on their agenda.
Priority areas are usually defined for a period of eight to ten years
with an average annual budget of DM 5 million. Although a wide vari-
ety of different approaches to searching for new research topics and
264 Wilhelm Krull
validating concepts exist, the following criteria, inter alia, apply to al-
most all preceding evaluations of proposals for new priority areas:
Research potential and relevance
originality and innovativeness
expected enhancement of the knowledge base
impact on the further development of the respective area
incentives for inter- and transdisciplinary approaches
career prospects for junior researchers
opportunities for the application of results
Potential applicants and funding opportunities
size of the respective scientific community
relation to already existing funding mechanisms and programs of
other funding agencies
specific opportunities for the Foundation to achieve its objectives
Position in the framework of the overall funding program
relation to other previous or existing priority areas
impact on the Foundation's profile
financial implications
capacity to implement the new priority area
Opportunities and Limitations
Nowadays, in more and more universities and research institutes, the
need for a reintegration of specialized research efforts is strongly felt.
There seems to be widespread consensus that this can be achieved only
through additional or extraordinary activities, in some cases even out-
side the hitherto existing institutions. Such newly proposed institutions
are designed to regain flexibility in order to provide the appropriate
environment for an intensive interaction among distinguished research-
ers from various institutions.
There is widespread agreement among research policy-makers that
projects as well as centres for interdisciplinary research must live up to
the highest standards; that is, the latter should be established as centres
of excellence. However, it is not an easy task to make this happen.
Unlike institutes for advanced study, such as the Wissenschaftskolleg
zu Berlin, these projects and centres cannot afford to focus their atten-
tion entirely on highly respected individuals. Although the quality of
External Funding of Interdisciplinary Research in Universities 265
the researchers involved in interdisciplinary projects is crucial, the cri-
teria of scientific excellence in a particular discipline need to be comple-
mented by other criteria, such as the readiness and ability to develop
and apply a common terminology; the openness to free communication
among all members of the team; the readiness to become engaged in a
permanent process of mutual learning; the acceptance of a problem-
oriented, instead of a discipline- or person-oriented approach; and last,
but not least, the readiness to give priority to the project's objectives
instead of pursuing one's personal interests.
2
The two personality profiles, the 'great individual' on the one hand
and the 'team-oriented collaborator' on the other, are not mutually ex-
clusive. However, if one wants to overcome the 'miseries of specializa-
tion' (Weingart 1992: 10), one has to pay attention to the capacity for
teamwork of each of the researchers involved.
For a grant-making institution like the Volkswagen Foundation, it is
of course difficult to assess in advance whether the proposed research
team will be able to meet its objectives. Apart from taking a close look
at the previous funding record of the senior researchers involved and
encouraging the reviewers to rigorously apply international quality stan-
dards, there will always remain a certain degree of risk with regard to
the adequacy of the project staff, the proposed methods, and the work-
ing scheme. Especially in newly developing areas it is therefore essen-
tial that the foundation and the respective research communities de-
velop an atmosphere of mutual trust, thus encouraging those who are
prepared to follow new paths beyond the academic heartland in which
they hitherto acquired their reputation.
A brief description of a small number of previous and still existing
priority areas may suffice to illustrate some of the issues involved in
launching new activities and in facilitating their success:
In the early 1960s, when the Volkswagen Foundation was set up,
research areas like molecular biology, biophysics, and biochemistry
still had difficulties in becoming regular parts of German university
departments. Therefore, the foundation fairly early on decided to
make this one of its priorities. Until 1975 it had already spent about
DM 90 million. Through a wide variety of different approaches and
funding mechanisms - ranging from scholarships designed to
encourage physics and chemistry students to embark upon biologi-
cal research all the way through to start up-grants for newly estab-
lished research institutions - it finally succeeded in developing these
266 Wilhelm Krull
research areas in such a way that they were able to sustain them-
selves on an internationally competitive level.
The stimulation of interdisciplinary joint projects in the engineering
sciences (from 1987 to 1995,109 grants totalling DM 54.1 million),
which often also included researchers from the biomedical and other
sciences, was one of the most ambitious attempts of the Volkswagen
Foundation to provide incentives for designing projects that prom-
ised to provide the most adequate, integrated response to the
complex issues involved. The Foundation accepted only proposals
for projects that required joint efforts of at least three institutions
working in different disciplines. Due to the enormous workload
involved in preparing a full proposal for such large-scale projects,
the Volkswagen Foundation strongly encouraged applicants to
submit as a first step only short position papers. When these - as a
result of an initial review - were considered to be very promising,
the researchers were asked to elaborate in a complete proposal. In
most cases, this procedure took more than a year, but it was very
much appreciated by the researchers as well as by the reviewers
involved as a way of avoiding too much waste of effort, frustration,
and disappointment.
Another area involving engineering scientists since the 1970s has
been research into complex systems, including the mathematical and
theoretical foundations of the engineering sciences (1971 to 1987, 330
grants totalling DM 96.2.million), the modelling of complex systems
in chemical engineering (1992 to 1996: fifty-one grants totalling DM
19.1 million), and the investigation of non-linear dynamic effects in
production systems (since 1995: twelve grants totalling DM 4.4
million DM). The main objective of all of these priority areas has
been and still is to stimulate research that will enhance the theoreti-
cal understanding of engineering problems and help to develop new
concepts, including their validation.
Materials research, ranging from the study of physics and chemistry
of unconventional materials (1978 to 1985:167 grants totalling DM
22.8 million) and the microcharacterization of materials (since 1985:
166 grants totalling DM 49.4 million) all the way through to modern
photonics (since 1989: 151 grants totalling DM 35.1 million), has also
been and still is one of the Foundation's priorities. Most of the
projects involve the application of physical and chemical methods as
well as engineering expertise. In recent years, an increasing trend
towards cooperation with the biological sciences can be observed. It
External Funding of Interdisciplinary Research in Universities 267
may even open up new funding opportunities in forthcoming
priority areas.
The integration of scientific methods and techniques into archaeo-
logical research was one of the foundation's priorities for more than
twenty years: archaeometry (1973 to 1987:117 grants totalling DM
46.9 million) and archaeometallurgy (1987 to 1995: 113 grants
totalling DM 32.6 million). The prime objective of the priority area
on archaeometry was to stimulate interdisciplinary cooperation
between researchers in the humanities and the sciences, in particular
with regard to developing and testing methods used in the sciences
in the detection, clearing, analysis, restoration, and preservation of
cultural objects. Especially during the initial stages in the 1970s, this
priority area served as a very useful tool for developing a climate of
mutual trust for the cooperation of researchers from very different
cultural and methodological backgrounds, and in the long run, it
contributed considerably to the acceptance of the use of scientific
and technological methods in prehistorical and archaeological
research. Thus, this first priority area paved the way for an even
broader approach in archaeometallurgy that by necessity also
included researchers from the engineering sciences. After having
terminated these funding activities, it will now be interesting to see
how sustainable these cooperative research efforts are when it comes
to competing for regular funds from other agencies.
Since 1992 the foundation has been offering support for research on
problems and possibilities of intercultural communications (71
grants totalling DM 25.2 million). This priority area aims to encour-
age especially researchers from the humanities and the social sci-
ences to contribute to the analysis of intercultural communications
- their prerequisites, opportunities, and limitations - as well as to
finding practical ways of overcoming concepts and stereotypes of
'foreign' and 'alien.' Due to the complexity of the issues involved,
almost all research work in this area calls for interdisciplinary and
international cooperation.
Conclusions
In Germany, as in many other countries, research investments are in-
creasingly seen as important prerequisites for maintaining or enhancing
competitiveness, economic growth, and quality of life. Due to fiscal
constraints in the public domain, the federal as well as the state govern-
268 Wilhelm Krull
ments are more and more confronted with the need to make choices
and to give priority to certain areas, even with regard to the hitherto
undisputed provision of funds for maintaining a comprehensive infra-
structure for teaching and research in publicly financed universities.
The reductions in core funding of universities coincide with a consid-
erable differentiation among institutions involved in the production of
new knowledge, that is, interdisciplinary research centres, institutes for
advanced study, and applied research centres, the latter especially in
emerging technologies. Most of these new institutions have been estab-
lished, at best, on the periphery of existing campuses, and more often
completely outside the university sector. Their ability to combine ex-
perts from different disciplines and to provide flexible responses to the
changing needs of industry as well as public administrations has made
them strong competitors for grants and contracts that, until a few years
ago, were more or less automatically given to a university professor.
It is in the light of these changes that several universities have begun
to redefine the objectives of their research activities and to reorganize
their institutional infrastructure. The increasing scarcity of funds and
the growing demand for more problem-oriented research makes it in-
evitable for the universities to develop new institutional settings that
can respond effectively to the predominantly medium-term needs of
interdisciplinary research. In order to be competitive, it is important for
them to ensure that they can obtain the best possible team of research-
ers. Therefore, it is essential for universities as well as research centres
to find ways to open up their internal structures and to make them-
selves, at least on a temporary basis, as attractive as possible for the
best suitable researchers from other institutions.
The current climate of change and the readiness of many researchers
to embark upon problem-oriented research projects clearly is favourable
to the Volkswagen Foundation and its funding objectives. Due to more
than twenty-five years of experience with external funding of interdis-
ciplinary research activities, it considers itself well equipped to support
especially those university researchers who are prepared not only to
look beyond the ivory tower, but also to commit themselves to provid-
ing adequate research responses to the respective issues and to bringing
about the necessary institutional changes. Due to its high quality stan-
dards, the Foundation thus indirectly may even contribute to the estab-
lishment of centres of excellence.
But there is more to it than simply making the right choices with
regard to scientific excellence. In the long run, almost inevitably the
External Funding of Interdisciplinary Research in Universities 269
following question is raised: 'Where can all the talented young people
who were engaged in high-quality interdisciplinary research go after
completing their project?' Often, the marked emphasis of German uni-
versities on discipline-oriented specialization prevents postdoctoral re-
searchers, even more senior researchers who hold a 'Habitation' (in
Germany, a kind of superdoctoral thesis that entitles holders to teach at
a university) from getting back into the system. As long as the involve-
ment in interdisciplinary research is considered to be a second-best
option, it is difficult for any funding organization to achieve its objec-
tives in a university environment.
I have no clear-cut solution to this problem, but I do think that efforts
must be made to look for an appropriate balance between the urgently
needed commitment of researchers to interdisciplinary projects and the
openness of academic institutions to consider these researchers as equally
suitable candidates for professorships as their colleagues who have
stayed in the mainstream of their respective field. But without external
incentives and the creation of new institutional structures, it will be
difficult to turn this idea from wishful thinking into good and common
practice, let alone a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Notes
1 An overview in English on the current funding program of the Volkswagen
Foundation is provided in the booklet 'Outlines/ which can be obtained
directly from its head office in Hanover (Postfach 81 05 09, D-30505
Hannover, or e-mail: mail@volkswagen-stiftung.de).
2 For a more detailed list of criteria, based on an article by M.B. Luszki on
interdisciplinary team research from 1958, see Dieter Blaschke 1986: 177f.
Concluding Comments
As we have documented, there is both in academia and in science policy
a renewed interest in interdisciplinary, its opportunities, and its insti-
tutional obstacles. This interest derives its urgency from and is fuelled
by a variety of competing and even contradictory sources and commit-
ments. There is, first of all, the persistent perception of an uninhibited
trend towards ever more specialization in science driven by the search
for novelty and efforts to achieve visibility. In some of its extreme forms,
it is argued, this is inimical both towards the production of useful knowl-
edge and the ideal of education and training that results in more than
limited horizons of brute specialists. Among the almost taken for granted
rationales, therefore, is the need that the fruits of science be much more
holistic. Second, the agenda for interdisciplinarity has more recently
been supported by discourses, especially in some of the humanities that
are hostile to the current division of labour in academia, because the
practice of disciplinary-based knowledge production fails to live up to
some emancipatory social and political goals. Strong voices are heard
in these movements assailing the political authority, territorial claims,
and discrimination that accompany the practice and defence of disci-
plinary boundaries. Interdisciplinarity is seen as a cure for the enumer-
ated symptoms and narrow special interests. These attacks and indict-
ments by no means inhere exclusively in radical perspectives and ap-
proaches. Complaints about the breakup of intellectual coherence and
transparence, the loss of a meaningful centre, and the persistent special-
ization in science (and the growing societal division of labour as its
counterpart) also can be taken as rationales that favour the agenda of
interdisciplinarity.
Concluding Comments 271
On the other hand, the call for interdisciplinarity as a solution to a
range of cognitive as well as social, pedagogical, and organizational
problems has found its detractors, not unlike those who voiced early
doubts almost immediately after the U.S. Social Science Research Coun-
cil first proclaimed interdisciplinarity as one of its major objectives in
funding research activities. The contentions associated with what has
become known as the 'science wars' are one prominent example. The
very public debate about Alan Sokal's essay (1996) indicated that natu-
ral scientists had begun to take note of the work on science in such
fields as radical environmentalism, feminist criticism, constructivist sci-
ence studies, and literary and cultural criticism. The debate was not
only motivated by concerns of the natural sciences that the damage to
their public image that was feared to be incurred by these fields might
result in further budgetary constraints. It also demonstrated the deep
schism between the 'two cultures' of the natural sciences on the one
hand and the social sciences and humanities on the other. Among many
issues that surfaced in the dispute was the claim that scientific practice
is not constrained in any unique sense by the world of objects it investi-
gates but is, not unlike the humanities and the social sciences, the prod-
uct of social conventions. This constructivist approach therefore denies
that it is meaningful to speak about different branches of science sepa-
rated by deep epistemological divisions and distant forms of practice.
Those who have rejected the project of constructivism in the context of
the science wars of course affirm the strength of and the need for the
divisions among the sciences; at worst, the claim is made that the hu-
manities and the social sciences finally ought to follow the successful
example of the natural sciences. If nothing more, the science wars expe-
rience reveals the potential for misunderstanding and politicization be-
tween the two cultures. Only cool-hearted and open-minded observers
are opting for bridge-building.
What seemed to be a high-pitched and trendy debate on the latest
quirks of post-modernism actually pointed to a well-known paradox of
the interdisciplinary movement, namely, that 'being interdisciplinary -
breaking out of the prison houses of various specialties to the open
range first of a general human knowledge and then of the employment
of that knowledge in the great struggles of social and political life - is
not a possible human achievement' (Fish 1994: 237). The point is famil-
iar: the structures that organize how we know are not eliminated by
interdisciplinarity, but relocated.
272 Concluding Comments
Among these countervailing forces, persistent commitments, oppos-
ing legitimations, and converging hopes for interdisciplinarity there is
one developmental track that above all induces and pushes inter-
disciplinarity. There is little if any evidence that most of the arguments
we have enumerated in praise of interdisciplinarity or those that can be
read as assaults on the idea of interdisciplinarity have had visible or
measurable effects on the practical project of interdisciplinarity.
Fish seems to be triumphant and disappointed at the same time that
interdisciplinary programs only lead to either the emergence of a new
discipline or the annexation of one discipline's territory by another.
While the radical voices in favour of interdisciplinarity may imagine
the world of knowledge production without any organizing structures,
the more sober view sees interdisciplinarity always as a limited project
in relation to a limited number of disciplines in a limited time frame.
This is precisely the reason why this volume focused on the practice of
interdisciplinarity: disciplines, or more generally, structures of cognition
and knowledge production are not dispensable as such but nor are they
immutable - by practice. It cannot be otherwise.
References
Allen, G.E. 1978a. 'Opposition to the Mendelian-Chromosome Theory: The
Physiological and Developmental Genetics of Richard Goldschmidt.' Journal
of the History of Biology 7: 55-87.
Allen, G.E. 1978b. Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Allison, P.D., and J. Scott Long. 1990. 'Departmental Effects on Scientific
Productivity.' American Sociological Review 55: 469-78.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (1992-3,1996-7). Research and Experimen-
tal Development, All Sector Summary. Catalogue No. 8112.0. Canberra: ABS.
Avery, O.T., MacLeod, C.M., and McCarty, M. 1944. 'Transformation of
Pneumococcal Types Induced by a Desoxyribonucleid Acid Fraction Isolated
from Pneumococcus Type III.' Journal of Experimental Medicine 79:137-58.
Baldwin, J.M. 1902. Development and Evolution. New York: Macmillan.
Barthes, R. 1977. Image, Music, Text. Trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and
Wang.
Baumgartner, P., and S. Payr, eds. 1995. Speaking Minds: Interviews with Twenty
Eminent Cognitive Scientists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bazerman, C. 1995. 'Influencing and Being Influenced.' Social Epistemology 9, 2:
189-201.
Becher, T. 1990. 'The Counter-Culture of Specialization.' European Journal of
Education 15,1: 333-46.
Bechtel, W. 1986. 'The Nature of Scientific Integration,' in W. Bechtel, ed.,
Integrating Scientific Disciplines, 3-52. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martinus
Nijhoof.
Beckmann, M.C. 1991. 'Tjalling C. Koopman,' in E.A. Shils, ed., Remembering
the University of Chicago, 253-66. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
274 References
Ben-David, J. 1960. 'Scientific Productivity and Academic Organization in
Nineteenth Century Medicine.' American Sociological Review 25: 828-43.
- 1971. The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- 1977. Centers of Learning: Britain, France, Germany, United States. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Bernstein, R. 1991. The New Constellation. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Birnbaum, N. 1986 [1969]. The Arbitrary Disciplines,' in D. Chubin, A.L.
Porter, F.A. Rossini, T. Connolly, eds., Interdisciplinary Analysis and Research.
Theory and Practice of Problem-Focused Research and Development, 54-66. Mt
Airy: Lomond.
Black, M. 1962. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Blanke, T., and U.K. Preuss. 1994. 'Empfehlungen zur Errichtung eines Hanse-
Wissenschaftskollegs in Delmenhorst.' Memorandum.
Blaschke, D. 1986. 'Zur Beurteilung interdisziplinarer sozialwissenschaftlicher
Forschung/ in R. Fisch and H.-D. Daniel, eds., Messung und Fbrderung von
Forschungsleistung, 167-89. Konstanz: Universitatsverlag Konstanz.
Blewitt, A. 1992. 'Corporatisation and Change - The Reality of
Commercialisation for HR Management in CSIRO.' Paper prepared for the
Institute for International Research (IIR) Conference on Human Resource
Management (Reposition and Realign Your HR function for Greater
Organisational Effectiveness).
Bono, JJ. 1990. 'Science, Discourse, and Literature. The Role/Rule of Metaphor
in Science/ in S. Peterfreund, ed., Literature and Science. Theory and Practice,
59-89. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
- 1995. 'Locating Narratives: Science, Metaphor, Communities and Epistemic
Styles,' in P. Weingart, ed., Grenziiberschreitungen in der Wissenschaft -
Crossing Boundaries in Science, 119-51. ZiF Interdisziplinare Studien 1. Baden-
Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. The Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger. Cambridge, UK:
Polity Press.
Bourke, P., and L. Butler. 1993. 'Mapping Scientific Research in Universities:
Departments and Fields.' Performance Indicators Project, Occasional Paper
No. 1. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University, Research School
of Social Sciences.
Bremische Burgerschaft. 1995. Landtag 13. Wahlperiode, Drucksache 13/1178,
Empfehlungen einer Stiftung privaten Rechts 'Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg.'
Manuscript.
References 275
Bromme, R., and R. Rambow. 1995. 'Man sieht nur, was man weifi....' Der
Architekt 8: 451-53.
Bromme, R., R. Rambow, and J. Wiedmann. 1998. Typizitatsvariationen bei
abstrakten Begriffen: Das Beispiel chemischer Fachbegriffe (Typicality of
Abstract Concepts: The Example of a Chemical Specialist Concept).' Sprache
und Kognition 17: 3-20.
Bromme, R., and H. Tillema. 1995. 'Fusing Experience and Theory: The
Structure of Professional Knowledge,' in R. Bromme and H. Tillema, eds.,
Fusing Experience and Theory. Special issue of Learning and Instruction
5: 261-69.
Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF). 1996. 'Technologie,
interdisziplinare Zentren fur klinische Forschung in Hochschulkliniken.'
Hinweise fur Interessenten (Internet): http://www.dfg.de/foerder/innova-
tion/index.html.
Burian, R.N. 1993. 'Unification and Coherence as Methodological Objectives in
the Biological Sciences/ Biology and Philosophy 8, 3: 301-18.
Burrows, R. 1991. Deciphering the Enterprise Culture: Entrepreneurship, Petty
Capitalism and the Restructuring of Britain. London: Routledge.
Buxton, W., and S. Turner. 1992. 'Education and Expertise: Sociology as a
"Profession/" in T.C. Halliday and M. Janowitz, eds., Sociology and Its
Publics: The Forms and Fates of Disciplinary Organization, 272-407. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Calhoun, C. 1992. 'Sociology, Other Disciplines, and the Project of a General
Understanding of Social Life,' in T.C. Halliday and M. Janowitz, eds.,
Sociology and Its Publics: The Forms and Fates of Disciplinary Organization,
137-95. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, D.T. 1959. 'Methodological Suggestions From a Comparative
Psychology of Knowledge Processes.' Inquiry 2:152-82.
Canada. National Guide to College and University Programmes. 1996. Ottawa:
Human Resources Development Canada,
de Certeau, M. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life (trans. Steven F. Rendall).
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Charlesworth, M., L. Farrall, T. Stokes, and D. Turnbull. 1989. Life Among the
Scientists. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Chubin, D. 1976. 'The Conceptualization of Scientific Specialties.' Sociological
Quarterly 17: 448-76.
Chubin, D., A.L. Porter, F.A. Rossini, T. Connolly, eds. 1986. Interdisciplinary
Analysis and Research. Theory and Practice of Problem-Focused Research and
Development. Mt. Airy, MD: Lomond.
276 References
Clark, B. 1995. Places of Inquiry. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, H.H. 1992. Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, S. 1993. Academia and the Luster of Capital. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). 1987.
Report of the Institute Model Study. Canberra, Australia: CSIRO.
Cooperative Research Centres Program Evaluation Steering Committee. 1995.
Changing Research Culture. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
Corner, G.W. 1964. A History of the Rockefeller Institute. New York: Rockefeller
University Press.
Cosmides, L., and J. Tooby. 1987. 'From Evolution to Behavior: Evolutionary
Psychology as the Missing Link/ in J. Dupree, ed., The Latest on the Best:
Essays on Evolution and Optimality, 277-306. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Crane, D., and H. Small. 1992. 'American Sociology Since the Seventies/ in T.
Halliday and M. Janowitz, eds., Sociology and Its Publics: The forms and Pates
of Disciplinary Organization, 197-234. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dahlberg, I. 1994. 'Domain Interaction.' Advances in Knowledge Organization 4:
60-71.
Darden, L., and N. Maull. 1977. 'Interfield Theories.' Philosophy of Science 44:
43-64.
Dasgupta, P., and P.A. David. 1993. Toward a New Economics of Science.'
MERIT Research Paper 94-003. Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht Eco-
nomic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology.
Davidse, R.J., and A.FJ. van Raan. 1997. 'Out of Particles. Impact of CERN,
DESY and SLAC Research to Fields Other than Physics.' Scientometrics 40,
171-93.
Dawkins, R. 1982. The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Freeman.
Department of Defence. 1993/94. Corporate Plan. Canberra, Australia.
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Jahresbericht 1996. Ed. 1, Aufgaben
und Ergebnisse. Bonn.
Dogan, M. 1995. The Moving Frontiers of the Social Sciences/ in P. Weingart,
ed., Grenziiberschreitungen in der Wissenschaft (Crossing Boundaries in Science),
87-105. ZiF Interdisciplinary Studies 1. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Dogan, M., and R. Pahre. 1990. Creative Marginality. Innovation at the Intersec-
tions of the Social Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Dreyfus, H. 1995. 'Cognitivism Abandoned/ in P. Baumgartner and S. Payr,
eds., Speaking Minds, 71-83. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Drucker, P.P. 1993. Post-Capitalist Society. New York: Harper.
References 277
Du Bois-Reymond, E. 1887. Uber die wissenschaftlichen Zustande der Gegenwart,
in E. du Bois-Reymond, Reden, Zweite Folge, 448-64. Leipzig: Verlag von
Veit & Comp.
Dubos, R.J. 1976. The Professor, the Institute, and DNA. New York: Rockefeller
University Press.
Easton, D. 1991. 'The Division, Integration, and Transfer of Knowledge,' in D.
Easton and C. Schelling, eds., Divided Knowledge, 7-36. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Eisenstadt, S.N. 1992. 'Some Observations on "Post-Modern" Society,' in N.
Stehr and R.V. Ericson, eds., The Culture and Power of Knowledge, 51-59.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Elzinga, A. 1985. 'Research, Bureaucracy, and the Drift of Epistemic Criteria,'
in B. Wittrock and A. Elzinga, eds., The University Research System, 191-220.
Lund, Sweden: Research on Higher Education Program.
Epton, S.R., R.L. Payne, and A.W. Pearson. 1984. 'The Management of Cross-
Disciplinary Research.' Rand Management 14: 69-79.
Etzkowitz, H. 1983. 'Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial Universi-
ties in American Academic Science.' Minerva 21, 2-3:198-233.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff, eds. 1997. Universities and the Global Knowl-
edge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations.
London and Washington: Pinter.
Falersweany, M.L. 1995. 'Spanning Rhetoric for a Holistic Science.' Social
Epistemology 9, 2:151-64.
Fischer, E.P., and C. Lipson. 1988. Thinking about Science: Max Delbriick and the
Origins of Molecular Biology. New York: Norton.
Fish, S. 1994. 'Being Interdisciplinary Is So Very Hard To Do.' There's No Such
Thing as Free Speech, 231-420. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fleck, L. [1935] 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Ed. T.J. Trenn
and R.K. Merton. Trans. F. Bradley and T.J. Trenn. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Flexner, A. 1930. Universities: American, German, English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Flood, J. 1984. 'The Advent of Strategic Management in CSIRO: A History of
Change.' Prometheus 2,1: 38-72.
Franzosi, R. 1998. 'Narrative Analysis - or Why (and How) Sociologists Should
Be Interested in Narrative.' Annual Review of Sociology 24: 517-54.
Fujimura, J. 1987. The Molecular Biology Bandwagon in Cancer Research:
Where Social Worlds Meet.' Social Problems 35: 261-83.
Fuller, S. 1988. Social Epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
278 References
- 1993. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
- 1995. 'Interdisciplinary Rhetoric.' Social Epistemology 9, 2: 201-4.
- 1996. 'Interdisciplinarity: Fielding the Challenges.' DIANOIA 5,1: 72-75.
Funtowicz, S.O., and J.R. Ravetz. 1993. The Emergence of Post-Normal
Science/ in R. von Schomberg, ed., Science, Politics and Morality: Scientific
Uncertainty and Decision Making, 85-123. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Galison, P. 1992. Unpublished manuscript.
Galison, P., and B. Helvy, eds. 1992. Big Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Galison, P., and D.J. Stump, eds. 1996. The Disunity of Science. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Garrod, S.C., and G. Doherty. 1994. 'Conversation, Coordination and Conven-
tion: An Empirical Investigation of How Groups Establish Linguistic
Conventions.' Cognition 53:181-215.
Geertz, C. 1986. 'Blurred Genres: The Reconfiguration of Social Thought,' in
H. Adams and L. Searle, eds., Critical Theory Since 1965. Tallahassee: Florida
State University Press.
Gerson, E. 1983. 'Scientific Work and Social Worlds/ Knowledge 4, 3: 357-77.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow.
1994. The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.
Gibbs, R. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Under-
standing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gigerenzer, G., and K. Hug. 1992. 'Domain-Specific Reasoning: Social Con-
tracts, Cheating and Perspective Change.' Cognition 43:127-71.
Gigerenzer, G., Z. Swijtink, T. Porter, L. Daston, J. Beatty, and L. Kriiger. 1989.
The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gillespie, D.T.G. 1964 (Spring). 'Research Management in the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organization/ Public Administration,
42: 8-72.
Goldman, H. 1995. 'Innovation and Change in the Production of Knowledge.'
Social Epistemology 9, 3: 211-32.
Gore, A. 1996. The Metaphor of Distributed Intelligence/ Science 272:177.
Graff, G. 1987. Professing Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Green, M.L.H., S.R. Marder, M.E. Thompson, J.A. Bandy, D. Bloor, P.U.
Kolinsky, and RJ. Jones. 1987. The Synthesis and Structure of (cis)-[l-
ferrocenyl-2-(4-nitrophenyl)ethylene]: An Organometallic Compound with a
Large Second-Order Optical Nonlinearity/ Nature 330: 362.
Gruner, S.M., S. James, P.N. Langer, and V. Vogel. 1995. 'What Future Will We
Choose for Physics?' Physics Today (December): 25-30.
References 279
Hacking, 1.1987. 'Prussian Numbers/ in L. Kriiger, L. Daston, and M.
Heidelberger, eds., The Probabilistic Revolution. Vol. 1: Ideas in History, 377-94.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hagendijk, R. 1990. 'Structuration Theory, Constructivism, and Scientific
Change/ in S. Cozzens and T. Gieryn, eds., Theories of Science in Society,
43-66. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Halliday, T. 1992. 'Introduction: Sociology's Fragile Professionalism,' in T.
Halliday and M. Janowitz, eds., Sociology and Its Publics: The Forms and Fates
of Disciplinary Organization, 3-42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Halpern, M. 1990. Binding Time. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hanson, R. 1997 (March). 'Patterns of Patronage: Why Grants Won Over
Prizes.' Paper presented to New Economics of Science Conference. Notre
Dame, Indiana.
Hayles, N.K. 1990. Chaos Bound. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Heckhausen, H. 1972. 'Discipline and Interdisciplinarity.' Interdisciplinary:
Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities, 83-89. Paris: OECD.
Hesse, M. 1972. 'The Explanatory Function of Metaphor/ in Y. Bar-Hillel, ed.,
Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, 249-59. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hill, S., and P. Murphy. 1994. 'Quantitative Indicators of Academic Research.'
Commissioned Report No. 27. National Board of Employment, Education
and Training. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
Hill, S., and T. Turpin. 1993. The Formation of Research Centres in the
Australian University System.' Science and Technology Policy 6, 5: 7-13.
- (February). The Clashing of Academic Symbols.' Science as Culture 4: 327-62.
Hoch, P. 1987. 'Migration and the Generation of New Scientific Ideas.' Minerva
25, 2: 209-37.
- 1990. 'New UK Interdisciplinary Research Centers.' Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management 2,1: 39-48.
Hollingsworth, R. 1996 (September). 'Why Research Organizations Vary in
Their Capacity to Make Major Discoveries in Biomedical Science: Some
Observations from the United States.' Paper presented at the Royal Swedish
Academy of Sciences. Stockholm.
Hollingsworth, R., and J. Hage 1996. 'Organizational Characteristics Which
Facilitate Major Discoveries in the Bio-Medical Sciences.' Document pre-
sented to the Science and Technology Studies Program, National Science
Foundation, USA.
Horton, W.S., and B. Keysar. 1996. 'When Do Speakers Take into Account
Common Ground?' Cognition 59: 91-117.
Hiibenthal, U. 1991. Interdiszipliniires Denken. Stuttgart, Germany: F. Steiner.
- 1994. 'Interdisciplinary Thought.' Issues in Integrative Studies 12: 55-75 .
Huber, L. 1992. 'Editorial.' European Journal of Education 2, 3:193-99.
280 References
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Immelmann, K. 1987. 'Interdisziplinaritat zwischen Natur - und
Geisteswissenschaften - Praxis und Utopie/ in J. Kocka, ed.,
Interdisziplinaritat. Praxis - Herausforderung - Ideologic, 82-91. Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp.
Intrilligator, M. 1985. 'Interdependence among the Behavioral Sciences.' Paper
presented at World Congress of Political Science. Paris.
Isaacs, E.A., and H.H. Clark. 1987. 'References in Conversation between
Experts and Novices.' ]onrnal of Experimental Psychology: General 116: 26-37.
Jameson, A., T.O. Nelson, R.J. Leonesio, and L. Narens. 1993. The Feeling of
Another Person's Knowing.' Journal of Memory and Language 32: 320-35.
Jantsch, E. 1972. Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in
Education and Innovation,' in CERI, Interdiscipinarity: Problems of Teaching
and Research in Universities, 97-120. Paris: OECD.
- 1980. 'Interdisciplinarity.' Prospects 10, 3: 304-12.
Johnson-Laird, P. 1982. 'Mutual Ignorance: Comments on Clark and Carlson's
Paper/ in N.V. Smith, ed., Mutual Knowledge, 40-45. New York: Academic
Press.
Kargon, R. H. 1978. Temple to Science: Cooperative Research and the Birth of
the California Institute of Technology.' Historical Studies in the Physical
Sciences 8: 3-32.
Kash, D.E., and Rycroft, R.W. 1994. Technology Policy: Fitting Concept with
Reality.' Technological Forecasting and Social Change 47: 35-48.
Kastner, M., and G. Sprenger. 1993. ZiF: 1968-1993. Daten aus 25 Jahren
Forschung. Bielefeld, Germany: Universitat Bielefeld.
Kay, L.E. 1993. The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation and
the Rise of the New Biology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Keat, R. 1991. 'Consumer Sovereignty and the Integrity of Practices/ in R. Keat
and N. Abercrombie, eds., Enterprise Culture, 216-30. London: Routledge.
Kedrov, B. 1974. 'Concerning the Synthesis of the Sciences.' International
Classification 1,1: 3-11.
Keil, F.C. 1989. Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Kenneth, W. 1995. Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution. Boston:
Shambhala Press.
Kingsbury, D. 1968. 'Manipulating the Amount of Information Obtained from
a Person Giving Directions.' Unpublished doctoral thesis. Harvard Univer-
sity, Cambridge.
Kingsbury, S.J. 1987. 'Cognitive Differences between Clinical Psychologists and
Psychiatrists.' American Psychologist 42:152-56.
References 281
Klein Thompson, J. [1983] 1986. The Dialectic and Rhetoric of Disciplinarity
and Interdisciplinary/ in D. Chubin, A.L. Porter, F.A. Rossini, and
T. Connolly, eds., Interdisciplinary Analysis and Research. Theory and Practice
of Problem-Focused Research and Development. Mt Airy, MD: Lomond.
- 1990. Interdisciplinary: History, Theory and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State
University Press.
- 1996. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities.
Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Kline, S.J. 1995. Conceptual Foundations for Multidisciplinary Thinking. Stanford,
CA: Stanford University Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K.D. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the
Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. New York: Pergamon Press.
Kocka, J., ed. 1987. Interdisziplinaritat: Praxis - Herausforderung - Ideologic.
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Kohler, R.E. 1994. The Lords of the Fly. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Krauss, R.M., and S.R. Fussell. 1990. 'Mutual Knowledge and Communicative
Effectiveness/ in J. Galegher, R. Kraut, and C. Egido, eds., Intellectual
Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, 111-46.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- 1991. 'Perspective-Taking in Communication: Representations of Others.
Knowledge in Reference.' Social Cognition 9: 2-24.
Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
- 1977. The Essential Tension. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Kiippers, G., P. Lundgreen, and P. Weingart. 1978. Umweltforschung - Die
gesteuerte Wissenschaft? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
de Lacey, P., and G. Moens. 1990. The Decline of the University. Tahmoor,
Australia: Law Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Woman, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about
the Nature of Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, M.H. Proshansky, and W. Ittelson. 1961. The Interdisciplinary
Approach and the Concept of Behavioral Sciences/ in N. Washburne, ed.,
Decisions, Values, and Groups, 7-25. New York: Pergamon.
Landsberg, J. 1989 (June). The Management of Scientific Research.' Prometheus
7,1: 75-91.
Lane, N. 1997. Testimony on NSF's Fiscal Year 1998 Budget Request, 6 Febru-
ary 1997.
Lassman, P., and I. Velody, eds. 1989. Max Weber's 'Science as a Vocation.'
London: Unwin Hyman.
282 References
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through
Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific
Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Law, J. 1973. The Development of Specialties in Science: The Case of X-Ray
Protein Crystallography/ Science Studies 3: 275-303.
Ledermann, N.G. 1992. ""Students' and Teachers" Conceptions of the Nature of
Science: A Review of the Research.' Journal of Research on Science Teaching 29:
331-59.
Lepenies, W. 1978. 'Toward an Interdisciplinary History of Science.' Interna-
tional Journal of Sociology 8,1-2: 45-69.
Levin, L., and I. Lind, eds. 1985. Interdisciplinary Revisited. OECD/CERI.
Swedish National Board of Universities and Colleges, Linkoping University.
Los Angeles Times, 20 October 1985,12 January 1992.
Lovell, B. 1990. Astronomer by Chance. New York: Basic Books.
Lowy, I. 1992. 'The Strength of Loose Concepts.' History of Science 30, 4, no. 90:
371-96.
Liibbe, H. 1987. 'Helmut Schelsky und die Interdisziplinaritat. Zur Philosophic
gegenwartiger Wissenschaftskultur,' in J. Kocka, ed., Interdisziplinaritat.
Praxis - Herausforderung - Ideologic, 17-33. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Luszki, M.B. 1958. Interdisciplinary Team Research: Methods and Problems. New
York: New York University Press.
Lynch, M. 1985. Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and
Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
- 1993. Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodological and Social
Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maasen, S. 1994. 'Who Is Afraid of Metaphors?' in S. Maasen, E. Mendelsohn,
and P. Weingart, eds., Biology as Society, Society as Biology: Metaphors. Yearbook
Sociology of the Sciences, Vol. 18,11-36. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Maasen, S., E. Mendelsohn, and P. Weingart, eds. 1995. Biology as Society,
Society as Biology: Metaphors. Yearbook Sociology of the Sciences, Vol. 18.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Malt, B. 1994. 'Water Is Not H
2
O.' Cognitive Psychology 27: 41-70.
Markova, I., C. Graumann, and K. Foppa, eds. 1995. Mutualities in Dialogue:
Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mathiesen, W.C. 1990. The Problem-Solving Community: A Valuable Alterna-
tive to Disciplinary Communities?' Knowledge 2, 4: 410-27.
Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
References 283
McGauran, P. 1996. Science and Technology Budget Statement 1996-97. Canberra,
Australia: AGPS.
Merton, R.K. 1961. 'Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery.' Proceed-
ings of the American Philosophical Society 55: 470-86.
- 1968. The Matthew Effect in Science.' Science 159: 56-63.
- 1973 [1963]. 'The Ambivalence of Scientists,' in N. Storer, ed., The Sociology of
Science, 383-412. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Messer-Davidson, E., O.K. Shumway, and D.J Sylvan, eds. 1993. Knowledges:
Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity. Charlottesville, VA: University
Press of Virginia.
Miller, G.A., E. Galanter, and K.H. Pribram. 1960. Plans and the Structure of
Behavior. New York: Holt.
Mischel, W. 1990. 'Personality Dispositions Revisted and Revisted: A View
After Three Decades,' in L.A. Pervin, ed., Handbook of Personality: Theory and
Research, 111-34. New York: Guilford Press.
Mithen, S. 1996. The Prehistory of the Mind, The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion
and Science. London: Thames and Hudson.
Mittelstrass, J. 1987. 'Die Stunde der Interdisziplinaritat,' in J. Kocka, ed.,
Interdisziplinaritat: Praxis - Herausforderung - Ideologic, 152-59. Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp.
Muller, J., and N. Taylor. 1995. 'Schooling and Everyday Life: Knowledges
Sacred and Profane.' Social Epistemology 9, 3: 257-6.
Murphy, G.L. 1996. 'On Metaphoric Representation.' Cognition 60:
173-204.
National Research Council. 1986. Scientific Interfaces and Technological Applica-
tions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Neurath, 0.1938. 'Unified Science as Encyclopedic Integration,' in O. Neurath
et al., eds., International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. 1, No. 1,1-27.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
New Alliances and Partnerships in American Science and Engineering. 1986.
Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Norem, J.K. 1989. 'Cognitive Strategies as Personality: Effectiveness, Specificity,
Flexibility, and Change/ in D.M. Buss and N. Cantor, eds., Personality
Psychology: Recent Trends and Emerging Directions, 45-60. Berlin: Springer.
Noyons, E.C.M., R.J.W. Tijssen, A.J. Nederhof, and A.F.J. van Raan. 1996.
'Bibliometric Mapping of Agricultural Research. Report to the Netherlands
Council for Agricultural Research (NRLO).' The Hague. Working paper,
available on http://sahara. fsw. leidenuniv.nl/ed/nrlo/nrloOO.html.
284 References
Noyons, E.C.M., and A.F.J. van Raan. 1998. 'Monitoring Scientific Develop-
ments from a Dynamic Perspective: Self-Organized Structuring to Map
Neural Network Research.' Journal of the American Society for Information
Science (JASIS) 49,1: 68-81.
OECD/CERI. 1972. Interdisciplinary: Problems of Teaching and Research in
Universities. Paris: OECD.
Ohio State University (OSU) Task Force for Interdisciplinary Research and
Graduate Education. Report on Recommendations for Postering Interdisciplinary
Research and Graduate Education. Columbus, OH: OSU. 1991 (April 19).
Olby, R. 1979. The Path to the Double Helix. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
Pahre, R. 1995. 'Positivist Discourse and Social Scientific Communities.' Social
Epistemology 9, 3: 233-55.
Palmer, C. 1996. 'Practices and Conditions of Boundary Crossing Research
Work.' PhD dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Palmer, S. 1995. 'Gestalt Psychology Redux,' in P. Baumgartner and S. Payr,
eds., Speaking Minds, 157-76. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- 1999. Vision Science: Photons to Phenomenology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Parthey, H. 1996. 'Kriterien und Indikatoren interdisziplinaren Arbeitens/ in
P.W. Balsiger, R. Defila, and A. Di Guilio, eds., Okologie und Interdisziplinar-
itat - eine Beziehung mit Zukunft? Wissenschaftsforschung zur Verbesserung
der fachiibergreifenden Zusammenarbeit, 99-112. Basel, Switzerland:
Birkhauser.
Paulson, W. 1991. 'Literature, Complexity, Interdisciplinarity,' in N.K. Hayles,
ed., Chaos and Order, 37-53. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Paxson, T. 1996. 'Modes of Interaction between Disciplines.' Journal of General
Education 45, 2: 79-94.
Pearson, A.W., R.L. Payne, and H.P. Gunz. 1979. 'Communication, Coordina-
tion, and Leadership in Interdisciplinary Research,' in R.T. Earth and R.
Steck, eds., Interdisciplinary Research Groups, 112-27. Vancouver, BC: Interna-
tional Group on Interdisciplinary Programs.
Pelz, D.C., and Andrews, P.M. 1966. Scientists in Organizations: Productive
Climates for Research and Development. New York: John Wiley.
Physics in Perspective. 1971. Washington, DC: National Academy of
Sciences.
Pinch, T. 1990. The Culture of Scientists and Disciplinary Rhetoric.' European
Journal of Education 5, 3: 295-304.
Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Porter, A.L., and D.E. Chubin. 1985. 'An Indicator of Cross-Disciplinary
Research.' Scientometrics 8:161-76.
References 285
Putnam, H. 1975. 'The Meaning of "Meaning/" in H. Putnam, ed., Philosophical
Papers: Volume 2. Mind, Language and Reality, 215-71. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Renfrew, C. 1983. Towards an Archaeology of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
- 1993. 'Cognitive Archaeology: Some Thoughts on the Archaeology of
Thought.' Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3, 2: 248-50.
Rheinberger, H.-J. 1995. 'Remarks on Epistemic Practices/ in P. Weingart, ed.,
Grenziiberschreitungen in der Wissenschaft (Crossing Boundaries in Science),
168-82. ZiF-Interdisciplinary Studies 1. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
- 1997. Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test
Tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Rosenberg, N. 1994. Exploring the Black Box: Technology, Economics, and History.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, L., D. Greene, and P. House. 1977. 'The False Consensus Phenomenon:
An Attributional Bias in Self-Perception and Social Perception Processes.'
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 13: 279-301.
Russell, S.J., and P. Norvig. 1995. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sakaiya, T. 1991. The Knowledge-Value Revolution. New York: Kodansha.
Salter, L., and A. Hearn, eds. 1996. Outside the Lines: Issues in Interdisciplinary
Research. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Schaffner, K.F. 1993. 'Theory Structure, Reduction, and Disciplinary Integration
in Biology.' Biology and Philosophy 8, 3: 319-47.
Schelsky, H. 1971. Einsamkeit und Freiheit. Giitersloh: Bertelsmann
Universitatsverlag.
Schneider, H.J. 1988. 'Interdisziplinaritat: Floskel oder Notwendigkeit?'
UNIVERSITAS 12-15.
Schober, M.F. 1993. 'Spatial Perspective-Taking in Conversation.' Cognition 47:
1-24.
Schon, D.A. 1963. The Displacement of Concepts. London: Tavistock.
Schurz, R. 1995. '1st Interdisziplinaritat moglich?' UNIVERSITAS 11:
1080-89.
Searle, J. 1995. 'Ontology Is the Question/ in P. Baumgartner and S. Payr, eds.,
Speaking Minds, 203-13. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Segerstrale, U., and P. Molnar, eds. 1997. Nonverbal Communication: Where
Nature Meets Culture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Service, R.F. 1996 (5 July). 'Folding Proteins Caught in the Act.' 273: 29-30.
Servos, J.W. 1990. Physical Chemistry from Oswald to Pauling: The Making of
Science in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
286 References
Shapin, S. 1995. 'Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.'
Annual Review of Sociology 21: 289-321.
Sigma Xi. 1988. Removing the Boundaries. New Haven, CT: Sigma Xi.
Sills, D.L. 1986. 'A Note on the Origin of Interdisciplinarity.' 17-18.
Sjolander, S. 1985. 'Long-Term and Short-Term Interdisciplinary Work:
Difficulties, Pitfalls and Built-in Failures/ in L. Levin and I. Lind, eds.,
Interdisciplinarity Revisited, 85-92. Stockholm: Liber Forlag.
Snow, C.P. 1964. The Two Cultures: And a Second Look. New York: New Ameri-
can Library.
Social Epistemology. 1995 (19, 2). Special issue on Boundary Rhetorics and the
Work of Interdisciplinarity.
Sokal, A. 1996. Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative
Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.' Social Text 14: 217-52.
Sperber, D. 1985. 'Anthropology and Psychology: Towards an Epidemiology of
Representations.' Man 20: 73-89.
Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sproull, R., and H. Hall. 1987. Multidisciplinary Research and Education Programs
in Universities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Squires, G. 1992. Tnterdisciplinarity in Higher Education in the United
Kingdom.' European Journal of Education 27, 3: 201-9.
Star, S.L., and J.R. Griesmer. 1988. 'Institutional Ecology, "Translations," and
Boundary Objects.' Social Studies of Science 19: 387-420.
Stehr, N. 1994. Arbeit, Eigentum und Wissen: Zur Theorie von Wissensgesell-
schaften. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Stehr, N., and R. Ericson. 1992. 'The Culture and Power of Knowledge in
Modern Society,' in N. Stehr and R. Ericson, eds., The Culture and Power of
Knowledge: Inquiries into Contemporary Societies, 3-29. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.
Stacker, J. 1992. 'Australia's Economy - A Stool Missing a Leg?' Speech to the
National Press Club (March 11). Canberra, Australia.
Stocking, G.W., Jr., and D.E. Leary. 1986. 'History of Social Scientific Inquiry.'
Items 40: 53-57.
Straker, S. 1970. 'Kepler's Optics: A Study in the Development of Seventeenth-
Century Natural Philosophy.' PhD dissertation. Indiana University. Ann
Arbor, MI.
Tijssen, R.J.W., and A.F.J. van Raan. 1994. 'Mapping Changes in Science and
Technology: Bibliometric Co-occurrence Analysis of the RandD Literature.'
Evaluation Review 18: 98-115.
Toulmin, S. 1972. Human Understanding. Volume I: General Introduction and Part
I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
References 287
- 1990. Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. New York: Free Press.
Tulving, E., and S.A. Madigan. 1970. 'Memory and Verbal Learning.' Annual
Review of Psychology 21: 434-37.
Turing, A.M. 1950 'Computing Machinery and Intelligence.' Mind. A Quarterly
Review of Psychology and Philosophy 59: 433-60.
- 1991. The World of the Academic Quantifiers: The Columbia University
Family and Its Connections/ in M. Bulmer, K. Bales, and K. Kish Sklar, eds.,
The Social Survey in Historical Perspective: 1880-1940, 269-90. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
- 1996a. The Pittsburgh Survey and the Survey Movement: An Episode in the
History of Expertise,' in M.W. Greenwald and M. Anderson, eds. Pittsburgh
Surveyed: Social Science and Social Reform in the Early Twentieth Century, 35-49.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- 1996b. 'Review of Patronage, Practice, and the Culture of American Science:
Alexander Dallas Bache and the U.S. Coast Survey by Hugh Richard Slotten.'
Minerva 34: 393-401.
Turner, S. 1990. 'Forms of Patronage,' in S. Cozzens and T.F. Gieryn, eds.,
Theories of Science in Society, 185-211. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Turner, S., and R. Factor. 1984. Max Weber and the Dispute over Reason and Value:
A Study in Philosophy, Ethics, and Politics. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Turner, S., and J. Turner. 1990. The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of
American Sociology. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Turpin, T. 1997. 'CRCs and Transdisciplinary Research: What Are the Implica-
tions for Science?' Prometheus 15, 2: 253-65.
Turpin, T., D. Aylward, S. Garrett-Jones, and R. Johnston. 1996b. 'Knowledge-
Based Cooperation: University-Industry Linkages in Australia, Evaluations
and Investigations Program/ Department of Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs, No. 96/17. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
Turpin, T., and A. Deville. 1994 (April). 'Research Cultures and Organisational
Change: Case Studies within the CSIRO.' Draft Report to the CSIRO, Centre
for Research Policy.
- 1995. 'Occupational Roles and Expectations of Research Scientists and
Research Managers in Scientific Research Institutions.' R&D Management 25,
2 (April): 141-57.
Turpin, T. and S. Garrett-Jones. 1997. 'Innovation Knowledge Networks in
Australia and China/ in H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff, eds., Universities
and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-
Government Relations, 21-32. London and Washington: Pinter.
Turpin, T., S. Garrett-Jones, and N. Rankin. 1996. 'Bricoleurs and Boundary
Riders: Managing Basic Research and Innovation Knowledge Networks.'
R&D Management 26, 3 (July): 267-82.
288 References
Turpin, T., S. Garrett-Jones, N. Rankin, and D. Aylward. 1996a (March). 'Using
Basic Research - Part 2: Socio-Economic Connections to Academic Research
in Australia.' Commissioned Report No. 45, National Board of Employment,
Education and Training. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
Turpin, T., and S. Hill. 1995 (January). The New Cultures and Organisation of
Science.' Paper presented at Conference for Centers for Interdisciplinary
Research. Bielefeld, Germany.
Turpin, T., N. Sullivan, and A. Deville. 1993. 'Crossing Innovation Boundaries:
The Formation and Maintenance of Research Links between Industry and
Universities in Australia.' Commissioned Report No. 26, National Board of
Employment, Education and Training. Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
Van der Steen, WJ. 1993. Towards Disciplinary Disintegration in Biology.'
Biology and Philosophy 8, 3: 259-75.
van Raan, A.F.J. 1990. 'Fractal Dimension of Co-Citations.' Nature 347: 626.
- 1996. 'Advanced Bibliometric Methods as Quantitative Core of Peer Review
Based Evaluation and Foresight Exercises.' Scientometrics 36: 397^420.
van Raan, A.F.J., and T.N. van Leeuwen. 1999. 'Assessment of the Scientific
Basis of Multidisciplinary, Applied Research: Application of Bibliometric
Methods in Nutrition and Food Research.' To be published, preprint version
available on http://sahara.fsw.leideruniv.nl
Velichkovsky, B., and D.M. Rumbaugh, eds. 1996. Communicating Meaning: The
Evolution and Development of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates,
von Stutterheim, C, and W. Klein. 1989. Text Structure and Referential
Movement/ in R. Dietrich and C.F. Graumann, eds., Language Processing in
Social Context, 39-76. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
VoSkamp, W. 1987. 'Interdisziplinaritat in den Geisteswissenschaften (am
Beispiel einer Forschungsgruppe zur Funktionsgeschichte der Utopie),' in
J. Kocka, ed., Interdisziplinaritat. Praxis - Herausforderung - Ideologic, 92-105.
Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Wallerstein, I., et al. 1996. Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian
Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Ward, T.S., S. Smith, and J. Vaid, eds. 1997. Creative Thought: An Investigation of
Conceptual Structures and Processes. Washington, DC: APA.
Wasser, H. 1990. 'Changes in the European University: From Traditional to
Entrepreneurial.' Higher Education Quarterly 44:111-22.
Watson, J.D. 1968. The Double Helix. New York: Athenaeum.
Weingart, P. 1987. 'Interdisziplinaritat als List der Institution,' in: J. Kocka, ed.,
Interdisziplinaritat: Praxis - Herausforderung - Ideologic, 159-68. Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp.
References 289
- 1989a. 'In Search of Compatibility between Biological and Sociocultural
Evolution: Expose.' Manuscript. Bielefeld, Germany.
- 1989b. 'Biological Foundations of Human Culture. Proposal for a Research
Group at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research (ZiF) in 1991/92.'
Manuscript. Bielefeld, Germany.
- 1992. 'Interdisziplinaritat zwischen falschen Hoffnurgen und bescheidenen
Erwartungen.' DAS MAGAZIN Wissenschaftszentrum Nordrhein - Westfalen 2:
10.
- 1995a. 'Interdisciplinary.' Paper presented at Conference for Centers for
Interdisciplinary Research. Bielefeld, Germany.
- 1995b. 'Die Einheit der Wissenschaft - Mythos und Wunder/ in P. Weingart,
ed., Grenzilberschreitungen in der Wissenschaft (Crossing Boundaries in Science),
11-30. ZiF Interdisziplinare Studien 1. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Weingart, P., ed. 1995c. Grenzilberschreitungen in der Wissenschaft (Crossing
Boundaries in Science). ZiF Interdisziplinare Studien 1. Baden Baden, Ger-
many: Nomos.
Weingart, P., H. Kummer, and H. Hof, eds. 1994. Verhaltensgrundlagen des
Rechts - zum Beispiel Vertrauen. Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos.
Weingart, P., P.J. Richerson, S.D. Mitchell, and S. Maasen. 1997. Human by
Nature - Between Biology and the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Weingart, P., R. Sehringer, and M. Winterhager. 1990. 'Which Reality Do We
Measure?' Scientometrics 19, 5-6: 481-93.
Whitley, R. 1984. The Rise and Decline of University Disciplines in the
Sciences/ in R. Jurkovich and J.H.P. Paelinck, eds., Problems in Interdiscipli-
nary Studies 2, 10-25. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Wilenski, R. 1995. 'Why Play the Philosophy Game?' in P. Baumgartner and S.
Payr, eds., Speaking Minds, 265-82. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wing, P. 1993. This Gown for Hire: A History of the Australian Tertiary Institutions
Commercial Companies Association. Canberra, Australia: Anutech.
Winter, M. 1996. 'Specialization, Territoriality, and Jurisdiction in
Librarianship.' Library Trends 45, 2: 343-63.
Wirth, L. 1937. Report on the History, Activities and Policies of the Social Science
Research Council. Prepared for the Committee on Review of Council Policy.
New York: SSRC.
Wissenschaftsrat. 1988. Empfehlungen des Wissenschaftsrates zu den Perspektiven
der Hochschulen in den neunziger Jahren. Cologne: Wissenschaftsrat.
Woolgar, S., and D. Pawluch. 1984. 'Ontological Gerrymandering/ Social
Problems 32, 3: 214-17.
Ziman, J. 1996. 'Postacademic Science: Constructing Knowledge with Net-
works and Norms/ Science Studies 9,1: 67-80.
290 References
Zuckerman, H. 1977. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New
York: Free Press.
Zadeh, L. 1995. The Albatross of Classical Logic/ in P. Baumgartner and
S. Payr, eds., Speaking Minds, 301-11. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Contributors
Rainer Bromme: Main research fields are applied cognitive psychology
and research on teaching and learning. PhD in Psychology 1979. Until
1992 senior researcher at the Interdisciplinary Research Institute on Math-
ematics Education (IDM) at the University of Bielefeld, Germany; at
present professor of psychology, University of Minister, Germany.
Marc De Mey: Professor of cognitive science at the University of Ghent
(Belgium), Fulbright scholar at the Center for Cognitive Studies at
Harvard University; Peter Paul Rubens professor at the University of
California at Berkeley; author of The Cognitive Paradigm. An Integrated
Understanding of Scientific Development (University of Chicago Press, 2nd
ed., 1992).
Sam Garrett-Jones: Senior Fellow at the Centre for Research Policy,
University of Wollongong, Australia. Joined the university with more
than ten years' experience in senior policy development positions with
Australian government science and technology advisory agencies. PhD
from the Australian National University's Research School of Pacific
and Asian Studies. Publications include papers, reports, and book chap-
ters on university-industry cooperation in research and training in Aus-
tralia and on measuring the development of science and technology in
several East Asian countries.
Edward J. Hackett: Professor of Sociology at Arizona State University.
Recent work concerns the social organization and dynamics of research
groups in science and engineering, peer review, and misconduct in
science. In 1996-8 directed the Science and Technology Studies Pro-
gram at the U.S. National Science Foundation.
292 Contributors
Ellen Jane Hollingsworth: Director of Research at the Mental Health
Research Center of the University of Wisconsin (Madison). Has written
and edited several books on social policy and social services, and on
services to people with severe mental illness.
Rogers Hollingsworth: Professor of Sociology and History and Chair-
person of the Program in Comparative History at the University of
Wisconsin. Awarded honorary degrees by the University of Uppsala
(Sweden) and Emory University, author or editor of numerous books
and articles on comparative political economy. Research on the study
of creativity and innovation. Recent publications: Comparing Capitalism:
The Embeddedness of Institutions (with Robert Boyer, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1997), Governing Capitalist Economies (with Philippe
Schmitter and Wolfgang Streeck, Oxford University Press, 1994). He is
immediate Past President of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-
Economics.
Julie Thompson Klein: Professor of Humanities in the Interdiscipli-
nary Studies Program at Wayne State University (Michigan). Author of
Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice (Wayne State University
Press, 1990), and Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and
Interdisciplinarities (University Press of Virginia, 1996), editor of Interdis-
ciplinary Studies Today (1994, with William Doty). Represented the United
States at OECD- and UNESCO-sponsored meetings on interdisciplinary
issues. Visiting Foreign Professor of English in Japan, Fulbright Lec-
turer and Academic Specialist in Nepal, and Distinguished Foundation
Visitor at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.
Wilhelm Krull: Secretary General of the Volkswagen Foundation
(Hanover, Germany) since 1996. DAAD-Lector University of Oxford
(1980-4); Scientific Administrator at the Wissenschaftsrat's headquar-
ters in Cologne (1985-7); Head of Research Policy Unit at the
Wissenschaftsrat's headquarters (1987-93); Head of Section I at the Max
Planck Society's headquarters in Munich (1993-5). Member of various
national and international committees, such as the OECD's Group on
Scientific and University Research, and various panels for the evalua-
tion of European Community research and development programs.
Rhodri Windsor Liscombe: Doctorate from the University of London
in the history of art and architecture. A major contributor to the cata-
Contributors 293
logue of the Council of Europe Exhibition. The Age of Neoclassicism (1972).
Publications include William Wilkins (Cambridge University Press, 1980),
Altogether America: Robert Mills, Architect and Engineer (Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1994) and The New Spirit: Modern Architecture in Vancouver
1938-63. Elected Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London in 1987,
and Vice-President of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada
in 1996. Professor in the Department of Fine Arts, and Chair of the
Individual Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate Program at the Univer-
sity of British Columbia.
Sabine Maasen: Research Coordinator at the Max Planck Institute for
Psychological Research in Munich. Research assistant 1988-90, worked
at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research 1990-4, received her doc-
torate in sociology from the University of Bielefeld 1996. Articles and
books in the sociology of science and knowledge, including Vom
Beichtstuhl zur therapeutischen Praxis (Bielefeld: Kleine, Verlag 1988), Die
sogenannten Geisteswissenschaften (with P. Weingart et al., Frankfurt:
Suhrkamp, 1991), Biology as Society, Society as Biology: Metaphors (with
E. Mendelsohn and P. Weingart, Kluwer, 1994), and Die Genealogie
der Unmoral. Therapeutisierung sexueller Selbste (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,
1998).
Eric R. Scerri: PhD in History and Philosophy of Science at King's
College, London University, postdoctoral research at the California In-
stitute of Technology on Interdisciplinarity at the Beckman Institutes.
Assistant Professor of chemistry at Bradley University in Illinois; Visit-
ing Professor of Chemistry at Purdue University, and editor-in-chief of
Foundations of Chemistry (http://www.wkap.nl/journals/foch). Various
publications in philosophy of science journals, including Synthese,
Erkenntnis, British Journal for Philosophy of Science, and International Stud-
ies in Philosophy of Science and in chemical education journals.
Nico Stehr: Fellow of Green College, University of British Columbia,
and Senior Research Associate in the Sustainable Research Develop-
ment Institute of UBC. Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and edi-
tor of the Canadian Journal of Sociology. Publications: Society and Knowl-
edge (with Volker Meja, Transaction Bodis, 1984), Knowledge and Politics
(Routledge, with Volker Meja, 1990), The Knowledge Society (Reidel, with
Gernot Bohme, 1986), Practical Knowledge (Sage, 1992), Knowledge Societ-
ies: Labour, Property and Knowledge (Sage, 1994), and The Culture and