Search

The literature on interdisciplinary teaching has tended to stress undergraduate teaching. As interdisciplinary graduate teaching becomes increasingly common, we need to reflect on what graduate students need to know. This article discusses key ideas that all interdisciplinary graduate programs should communicate. In particular, we need to teach graduate students how to do interdisciplinary research. Students should also be prepared for interdisciplinary careers. Since there has been relatively little written about interdisciplinary graduate education, this article is necessarily exploratory, and intended to encourage a conversation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the paper was to draw lessons for the field of adapted physical activity from the interrelated literatures on interdisciplinarity, creativity, and team research. In each of these literatures, strategies have been identified that have been found to be useful by previous researchers. Lack of familiarity with these strategies can result in unsuccessful research projects or in the devotion of scarce resources to the reinvention of such strategies. The first section in the paper in particular addresses questions that arose at the 2016 North American Federation of Adapted Physical Activity symposium in Edmonton, Alberta. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various perspectives and insights shared by authors in a forum about the book "Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory" by Repko and Szostak. Topics include the value of using the book for teaching information literacy, metacognition, and mapping as a teaching tool, the role of interdisciplinarity in critical thinking, and the importance of integrating insights and the challenges associated with it.

This paper first reviews the advantages and disadvantages associated with both pre-coordination and post-coordination in classification. It then argues that we can have the advantages of both if we couple a post-coordinated (synthetic) approach to classification with a user interface that privileges the word order in search queries. Several other advantages of such an approach to classification and search are reviewed. It better captures the nature of a work (or object), addresses important issues with respect to social diversity, and facilitates user queries. It produces subject strings that resemble sentence fragments; this serves to clarify the meaning of terms within the subject string, and makes subject strings more comprehensible since humans typically think in sentences. These various benefits are then illustrated in the classification of works of music. It is shown that many important characteristics of works of music are best handled by such a system. These are generally poorly addressed, or not addressed at all, by existing approaches to the classification of music. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While bibliographic classifications are traditionally based on disciplines, the logical alternative is phenomenon‐based classification. Although not prevalent, this approach has been explored in the 20th century by J.D. Brown, the Classification Research Group, and others. Its principles have been stated in the León Manifesto (2007) and are currently represented by such general schemes as the Basic Concepts Classification and the Integrative Levels Classification. A phenomenon‐based classification lists classes of phenomena, including things and processes irrespective of the discipline studying them (which can optionally be specified as an additional facet). Facets can work in a phenomenon‐based system much as in a disciplinary one. This kind of system will promote the identification of potential relationships between research in different disciplines, and will especially benefit interdisciplinary work. The paper reviews the theory, history, structure, advantages, applications, and evaluation of phenomenon‐based classification systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Any classification system should be evaluated with respect to a variety of philosophical and practical concerns. This paper explores several distinct issues: the nature of a work, the value of a statement, the contribution of information science to philosophy, the nature of hierarchy, ethical evaluation, pre- versus postcoordination, the lived experience of librarians, and formalization versus natural language. It evaluates a particular approach to classification in terms of each of these but draws general lessons for philosophical evaluation. That approach to classification emphasizes the free combination of basic concepts representing both real things in the world and the relationships among these; works are also classified in terms of theories, methods, and perspectives applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interdisciplinary communication, and thus the rate of progress in scholarly understanding, would be greatly enhanced if scholars had access to a universal classification of documents or ideas not grounded in particular disciplines or cultures. Such a classification is feasible if complex concepts can be understood as some combination of more basic concepts. There appear to be five main types of concept theory in the philosophical literature. Each provides some support for the idea of breaking complex into basic concepts that can be understood across disciplines or cultures, but each has detractors. None of these criticisms represents a substantive obstacle to breaking complex concepts into basic concepts within information science. Can we take the subject entries in existing universal but discipline-based classifications, and break these into a set of more basic concepts that can be applied across disciplinary classes? The author performs this sort of analysis for Dewey classes 300 to 339.9. This analysis will serve to identify the sort of 'basic concepts' that would lie at the heart of a truly universal classification. There are two key types of basic concept: the things we study (individuals, rocks, trees), and the relationships among these (talking, moving, paying). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - This paper aims to respond to the 2005 paper by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen by suggesting that an exhaustive and universal classification of the phenomena that scholars study, and the methods and theories they apply, is feasible. It seeks to argue that such a classification is critical for interdisciplinary scholarship. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen as its starting point. Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen had identified several difficulties that would be encountered in developing such a classification; the paper suggests how each of these can be overcome. It also urges a deductive approach as complementary to the inductive approach recommended by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen. Findings - The paper finds that an exhaustive and universal classification of scholarly documents in terms of (at least) the phenomena that scholars study, and the theories and methods they apply, appears to be both possible and desirable. Practical implications - The paper suggests how such a project can be begun. In particular it stresses the importance of classifying documents in terms of causal links between phenomena. Originality/value - The paper links the information science, interdisciplinary, and study of science literatures, and suggests that the types of classification outlined above would be of great value to scientists/scholars, and that they are possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the interrelated questions of why it is important to teach students about the nature of interdisciplinarity and how this material might be best communicated to students. It is important to define for students what is meant by disciplines and interdisciplinarity. Having distinguished interdisciplinarity from the disciplinary approach, the advantages and disadvantages of each can be discussed. It is useful to discuss the history of both disciplines and interdisciplinarity. It is also useful to discuss the complex relationship between interdisciplinarity and other intellectual currents: postmodernism, unity of science, complexity analysis, feminism, and others. Critically, students should be guided as to how interdisciplinary research might be best performed. Some potential objections to teaching interdisciplinary research practice are addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Economic history should take as its primary though not exclusive purpose the explication of the causes and consequences of economic growth. Scientific inquiry will be arbitrarily constrained unless the complementary strengths and weaknesses of different theory types and methods are appreciated, and the diverse causal linkages that economic historians must study are mapped. These changes would enhance the quality and value of economic history, and thus make the field more interesting for economists, historians, students, other scholars, and the taxpayer. This paper draws upon my experience as an economic historian, but also my research in economic methodology and interdisciplinary theory and practice, particularly my ongoing efforts to categorize the methods, types of theory, and phenomena of interest studied by scientists. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Following James Rule and Colin Clark, a single-theory-driven approach to scientific inquiry which focuses on testing particular theories can be distinguished from an explanation-driven approach which is open to all observations and whose results do not cease to have value with the passing of a particular theory. Several 'decision points' in the historiography of the Great Depression are examined and it is shown that the decisions made at each point reflect a single-theory-driven orientation. It is argued that the single-theory-driven approach likely characterizes other fields of Economics, and also that this paper's method of applying a 'test' to various decision points in the evolution of economic thought is of widespread utility. The likely cost of a single-theory-driven bias in terms of our collective understanding is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A simple typology of scientific theories is developed which asks of any theory the Who, What, Why, Where and When (5W) questions. These guide the identification respectively of the type of agency, 'action' (including attitudes), and decision-making process involved, the degree of generalizability of the theory, and the type of time path involved. This typology generally captures what commentators on particular theories think most important. It thus becomes a handy device for identifying the essence of different theories. Where most natural science theories, as well as evolutionary theories in both natural and social science, would fit in the typology is briefly examined. Then several key types of social theory - action theory, systems theory/functionalism, psychoanalytic theory, symbolic interactionism, rational choice theory, and phenomenology - are placed within the typology. The typology aids in understanding both disagreements within theoretical 'camps' and similarities and differences across theories and theorists. Defining natural and social scientific theories in terms of efforts to engage the 5W questions overcomes many problems associated with existing definitions. Theorists are guided to provide clear answers to each of the five questions. In this way, the typology encourages theoretical development. In particular, it identifies the full range of theoretical possibilities, and encourages a search for the breadth of applicability of different theories. It guides us to see theories as potentially complementary rather than necessarily competing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the effect of road and water improvements on the British economy during the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century and the American economy during early 19th century industrialization. Transportation improvements of these periods were of crucial importance for regional specialization, the emergence of the factory and increased technological innovation. Lessons are drawn concerning both the long term effects of investment in transport infrastructure and the institutional structures conducive to investment in transport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The letter to the editor is a reply to Birger Hjorland who commented on the author's article on interdisciplinarity and classification.

How best to classify musical medium of performance? We welcome the advice and expertise of the community of Notes readers to inform our deliberations. Specifically, when referring to the sources of musical sound, should we be describing the objects (e.g., aerophone), the properties (e.g., piccolo), or some combination of the two? The Institute for Knowledge Organization and Structure convened a research group to discuss "the phenomena of music for classification." What does it mean to classify the phenomena of music rather than musical documents or documents containing texts about music? How might we represent music apart from its documentary representations (scores, recordings, etc.)? We considered the Library of Congress Medium of Performance Thesaurus (LCMPT) and Hornbostel-Sachs (H-S) classification. The universal Basic Concepts Classification (BCC) is interdisciplinary and is organized around phenomena (things), relators (the relationships that exist among phenomena), and the properties that phenomena and relators may possess. We sought a comprehensive classification of medium of performance for the BCC. H-S focuses on the physical nature of instruments and how they make sound, the LCMPT effectively identifies specific instruments by name. H-S does not provide the level of granularity that we need but LCMPT's larger set of terms are organized with only a few layers of hierarchy. H-S avoids local nomenclature, LCMPT embraces it. The two are attractive because they provide well-developed vocabulary and because their differences manifest as different strengths for a Semantic Web application. Ultimately our analysis reaches no specific conclusion. Instead, we have reflected thoroughly on the panoply of phenomena associated with the representation of medium of performance as phenomena of music in nondocumentary contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author comments on an article by Hugo F. Alröe and Egon Noe on a second-order science of interdisciplinary research. He examines connections between the article and the wider literature on interdisciplinarity. He also suggests several interdisciplinary research strategies and calls for enhanced collaboration between scholars who are self-consciously interdisciplinary and disciplinary specialists.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article about concept theory and classificatory decisions of information science in the previous issue.

A letter to the editor is presented concerning online initiatives which have spurred on the growing international consensus on interdisciplinary research best practices including the websites http://wwwp.oakland.edu/ais, http://go.nature.com/faclve, and the book "Interdisciplinary Research" by Allen Repko.

Massive amounts of data from different contexts and producers are collected and connected relying often solely on statistical techniques. Problems to the acclaimed value of data lie in the precise definition of data and associated contexts as well as the problem that data are not always published in meaningful and open ways. The Linked Data paradigm offers a solution to the limitations of simple keywords by having unique, resolvable and shared identifiers instead of strings This paper reports on a three-year research project "Digging Into the Knowledge Graph," funded as part of the 2016 Round Four Digging Into Data Challenge (https://diggingintodata.org/awards/2016/project/diggingknowledge-graph). Our project involves comparing terminology employed within the LOD cloud with terminology employed within two general but different KOSs - Universal Decimal Classification and Basic Concepts Classification. We are exploring whether these classifications can encourage greater consistency in LOD terminology and linking the largely distinct scholarly literatures that address LOD and KOSs. Our project is an attempt to connect the Linked Open Data community, which has tended to be centered in computer science, and the KO community, with members from linguistics, metaphysics, library and information science. We focus on the shared challenges related to Big Data between both communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecosystem management (EM) is a process for addressing environmental problems that involves research utilizing interdisciplinary approaches. The work presented here examines the perspectives on the interdisciplinary research process from researchers involved in generating knowledge to contribute to EM. The goal is to generate critically reflective discussions about interdisciplinary practice. We conducted a set of targeted key-informant, semi-structured interviews ( n = 15). Interviews followed a general questioning guide that included: experience doing interdisciplinary research; descriptions of the interdisciplinary process; understandings on how to conduct interdisciplinary research; interest in theories of interdisciplinarity; and interest in how the interdisciplinary process takes place. We coded interview transcripts to gain an in-depth understanding of how respondents perceive interdisciplinary research practice. Results indicate that discussions about how interdisciplinary research is conducted are not currently an important part of research activity among researchers contributing to EM. Rather, participants in the study see interdisciplinary practice as under theorized, spontaneous, and mainly intuition-based. They understand interdisciplinary research as a collaborative effort to integrate insights from different disciplines, but details about how to achieve integration remain hidden inside a 'black box.' Results suggest that researchers in EM would benefit from specific guidelines for integrating insights across disciplines. The work discusses how opening the 'black box' and considering explicit and detailed descriptions about the integration process might benefit interdisciplinary practice in research for conservation. This study contributes to future in-depth debates on how to generate dialectical engagement between EM researchers and those studying theories of interdisciplinarity in fields such as interdisciplinary studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecosystem management (EM) is a process for addressing environmental problems. It draws on research from multiple disciplines in order to ensure long-term maintenance of socio-ecological systems. The present study evaluates the definition of interdisciplinary work among researchers involved in generating data use (EM). The goal is twofold: to generate further discussions in research supporting EM, and to better situate this research in the broader context of interdisciplinary science. Using an online questionnaire, data was collected from 119 researchers. A cluster analysis identified both distinct and shared understandings of the concept. A logistic regression analysis identified the extent to which personal characteristics and researchers' understandings of interdisciplinary theory determine definitions of interdisciplinary work. Researchers differ on the terminology but share an understanding about what it is: both a 'way to do research' and a 'way of thinking about research'. Differences between researchers suggest a growing interest in developing deeper engagements with theoretical discussions of interdisciplinarity. Results are discussed in the context of the current state of development of research for EM and its contributions to sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]