1 / 13

The End of Disciplinarity INORMS Washington DC April 13, 2014

The End of Disciplinarity INORMS Washington DC April 13, 2014. Robert Frodeman Professor of Philosophy Director, Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity University of North Texas www.csid.unt.edu. Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity University of North Texas.

quana
Download Presentation

The End of Disciplinarity INORMS Washington DC April 13, 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The End of Disciplinarity INORMS Washington DC April 13, 2014 Robert Frodeman Professor of Philosophy Director, Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity University of North Texas www.csid.unt.edu

  2. Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity University of North Texas • Center Research: • -not the ‘methodology’ of interdisciplinarity • -or grand Hegelian system building • -theory of future of knowledge production, via case studies • -dedisciplining philosophy and the humanities • -redefining academic ‘rigor’ and ‘expertise’

  3. Summary: • The end of the modern disciplinary regime of knowledge; knowledge reframed in terms of inter- and transdisciplinarity • The difficulties of ‘going interdisciplinary’ • A new status quo for professional knowledge producers • Tying interdisciplinarity to sustainability

  4. The modernist picture of knowledge production:

  5. Our experience of knowledge is often more like this: Jessica Hagy

  6. The End of the Age of Disciplinarity • Defining disciplinarity: not epistemic, ie of method or natural kinds; rather political and rhetorical: a matter of community and audience • Disciplinarity isn’t ending, just its dominance, its status as the end of knowledge. • Its dominance turned on its (supposed) completeness. • -Knowledge was inherently beneficial • -Knowledge was isolatable. (cf. the scientific method) • -Automatic connection between knowledge prod & use:no extra step of ‘relevance’ needed; or conversation with users

  7. In the 21st Century • DKP will continue, but it will no longer be the end of knowledge production. • DKP no longer adequate to address the problems we face: problems that are • complex and integrative in nature • exceed disciplinary frames • mixes facts/values, and • occur in real time rather than at an academic pace • The ‘post-disciplinary’ age: DKP placed within a frameworkof kn production and use

  8. The difficulties of ‘going interdisciplinary’ “Whatever drives people into highly complex interdisciplinary projects - curiosity, social responsibility, or money - the need of manageable objects and presentable results in their reference community drives them out again.” Wolf Krohn • ID politicizes knowledge • ID isn’t rigorous • ID highlights limits to knowledge production • ID implies the loss of academic authority

  9. The Disciplining of Interdisciplinarity • The danger: interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge fall into the old disciplinary trap: • Creation of intricate arguments (conferences, journals, etc) directed to other ID scholars • Development of the ID methodology • Creation of an internal economy of knowledge, bad infinity • Failure to create timely advice

  10. “Whatever drives people into highly complex interdisciplinary projects - curiosity, social responsibility, or money - the need of manageable objects and presentable results in their reference community drives them out again.” Wolf Krohn • Interdisciplinary research is research that recognizes limits— • -to research itself • -to people’s capacity for understanding • -to time and money • Overall, we need a new sense of intellectual rigor, and • a change in the expectations of intellectual culture.

  11. The Other Unsustainability • Knowledge production today parallels the unsustainability of material production: • Overproduction, lack of coordination with users • 1,000,000 articles/yr • 28,000 peer reviewed journals • 60% of papers published in prominent science journals not cited in the first 5 years • 7 million blogs, 3k books/day • Our management technique…. Disciplinarity. Specialization. Including Interdisciplinarity.

  12. Sustainable Development: -Development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.“ 1987 Brundtland Commission -”Advance basic understanding of the dynamics of human-environment systems… promote sustainability in particular places and contexts; and to improve linkages between relevant research and innovation communities…” Harvard Center for International Development, 2003 -we need knowledge about sustainability; but academic production must itself be sustainable

  13. Conclusion: Making knowledge production Sustainable • Interdisciplinary KP today recapitulates many of the problems of disciplinary knowledge production. • A true ID regime would recognize: • Epistemological: in constrained circumstances, more synthesis means less analysis. This implies limits to knowledge production • Sociological: ID research cannot be peer reviewed: thus implies the transformation of peer review • Neoliberal: societal demands for clearer outputs (cf. the REF), and thus the end of academic autonomy simpliciter

More Related