Подтвердите e-mail

Для публикаций, комментариев, реакций и сообщений подтвердите адрес.

←

Публикация

Dr. Katja Thieme (she/they)

I know disciplinary boundaries often get a bad rep and we have decades of treating the label of “interdisciplinary“ as designating work that is—presumably—superior, or more ambitious, complex, and insight-promising. 1/

Обсуждение

2 прямых ответов · 11 сообщений

Dr. Katja Thieme (she/they)

But could it be that disciplinarity can help guard, in some measure, against the increasing sloppification and rapid context collapse that seems to be occurring in published scholarship? Maybe? In any case, we should probably use disciplinary expertise where we can for that purpose. 2/

Ответ для Dr. Katja Thieme (she/they)
Carlos A. Pittella

I agree with the encroaching of slop, but I also think it's not exclusive to inter/transdisciplinary journals... In any case, I see transdisciplinary spaces as key to promote new approaches to wicked problems—those intractable by a single perspective/PoV. But still not an excuse for slop. 😅

Ответ для Carlos A. Pittella
Dr. Katja Thieme (she/they)

Oh, I wasn't saying that inter/transdisciplinary journals have a particularly high concentration of slop. My idea was more that dedicating time to sharpening our disciplinary ways of thinking, and then applying those critically, might be of good assistance in recognizing and rooting out slop.

Ответ для Dr. Katja Thieme (she/they)
Carlos A. Pittella

I see your point—& mostly agree.... though, as an immigrant researcher who's also changed fields, I may be sensitive to arguments for increased borders/silos, whether political or disciplinary. There must be a way to both protect quality control AND provide cross-disciplinary meeting spaces.

Ответ для Carlos A. Pittella
Dr. Katja Thieme (she/they)

Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word “boundaries” in my lead comment. I’m not in fact advocating for policing borders of disciplines, my idea is more that we should place real value on disciplinary expertise—and give people opportunities to immerse themselves in disciplinary ways of thinking.

Ответ для Dr. Katja Thieme (she/they)
Carlos A. Pittella

I didn't think you were advocating that.💙 I was just concerned your point could be perverted into a slippery-slope argument for blaming "field-migrants" for all the slop... "Boundaries" are charged & tricky—but I see value in both being grounded in disciplinary methods & border-crossing them.

Ответ для Dr. Katja Thieme (she/they)
Dave Fernig

1/ Always been the case. interdisciplinary research if based on strong disciplinary bases and each learning enough of the language of the other to communicate and work at the interface. Otherwise is is slop (lots of it around).

Ответ для Dave Fernig
Dave Fernig

2/ My analogy is 3 year old painting, all brown, 5 year old painting grass green, sun yellow etc - things are defined and one can discern what the picture is about.

still deciding a display name

Ever since grad school, I've thought a failure mode of interdisciplinary work is that it can make it hard to judge the work. E.g. A historian reviewer of an economic history work might think the history is bunk, but not be capable of judging the economics. Mutatis mutandis for economists. 1

Ответ для still deciding a display name
still deciding a display name

And judging the work to be poor in one aspect doesn't make it completely poor. E.g. The economics might still actually be good! 2

Ответ для still deciding a display name
still deciding a display name

Not claiming that we need to raise up the disciplinary drawbridges. This is probably just a special case of the problem of specialisation. Interdisciplinary work is valuable and I'd think having more of it could force people to acquire more basic cross-disciplinary competency. 3