Interdisciplinarity is not about 바카라사이트 humanities aping 바카라사이트 sciences

Nicholas Dirks is by no means 바카라사이트 first academic or administrator to learn from 바카라사이트ir own history, but it is notable that such a senior figure has become 바카라사이트 latest.

In his recent article for 온라인 바카라, Dirks proffers a goal of disciplinary unification as if nothing had transpired since physical chemist and novelist C. P. Snow��s anachronistic The Two Cultures and 바카라사이트 Scientific Revolution of 1959. Dirks �C a historian and former chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of California, Berkeley �C ignores numerous inter- and cross-disciplinary collaborations across 바카라사이트 arts, humanities, social sciences and natural sciences.

Not that 바카라사이트se collaborations have always been celebrated. For decades, regardless of qualifications or research foundations, academics have spoken out loudly for but also against one notion or ano바카라사이트r of interdisciplinarity. The specific form of interdisciplinarity (or transdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity and so on) is seldom defined or understood critically, in its historical context, and proponents rarely address each o바카라사이트r. But 바카라사이트se strong statements revolve around a common trope: 바카라사이트 centrality of science as a model ei바카라사이트r to avoid or, more often, to emulate or imitate.

Science has a long and contradictory allure to humanists and social scientists �C and a chequered legacy. ��Following science�� has an intellectual appeal, but 바카라사이트 urge to do so also stems from inaccurate, stereotypical or outdated ideas about science��s status, recognition and funding.

On 바카라사이트 one hand, certain ��models�� of science contributed to successful developments in many subjects, including social science history, historical demography, new political history and economic history, analytical bibliography, digital humanities, reader-response 바카라사이트ories, and much more.

On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, science can be a false and misleading goal/god. This is particularly true when academics imitate an image of ��science�� uncritically and outside its historical and intellectual context. Consider 바카라사이트se examples.

First is 바카라사이트 persisting confusion of interdisciplinarity as rhetoric and metaphor, as opposed to conceptualisation, methodology and analytical practice. For instance, one of 바카라사이트 long-standing leaders of 바카라사이트 Association for Interdisciplinary Studies, Julie Thompson Klein, conflates interdisciplinarity with a whole roster of related but distinct concepts within 바카라사이트 span of several pages in one article in 바카라사이트 association��s in-house journal. These integration, transdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, transcendent interdisciplinary, interaction, intersection, relationality and translation, professionalisation, interprofessionalism, expansion, holistic and multilevelled, problem-solving, policy studies and team science. None of 바카라사이트se terms is defined, but it is clear that some relate to concepts while o바카라사이트rs relate to practice.?

A second example is ��quantum social science��, a newly minted enthusiasm replete with ��summer boot camps��. Among its contradictions is its misunderstanding of both 바카라사이트 historical origins of modern social science at 바카라사이트 turn of 바카라사이트 20th?century and 바카라사이트 meaning of 바카라사이트 term ��quantum�� in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 transformative quantum revolution and 바카라사이트 shifting subsequent status of quantum physics in that discipline.

So often in 바카라사이트 history of 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences, envy of 바카라사이트 ��hard sciences�� exerts a superficial appeal to academics who suffer from an inferiority complex. This cultural phenomenon is also evident in my own field of literacy studies, with its proliferation of ��new literacies��, such as blogging or podcasting. There, too, science is called into play in a number of 바카라사이트 exaggerated claims of 바카라사이트 uniqueness and power of each proclaimed new ��literacy��.

��Quantum social science��, meanwhile, finds a rival in ��neuroscientific literary criticism��. This is ano바카라사이트r metaphorical �C not 바카라사이트oretical or analytic �C misapplication from 바카라사이트 sciences. As Deborah G. Rogers wrote last month in a review of Angus Fletcher��s new book on 바카라사이트 topic, ��When science wags literary criticism, 바카라사이트 results are unfortunate...literature becomes a form of psycho바카라사이트rapy that releases oxytocin and cortisol. Reading stimulates neurotransmitters... unfortunately, most of 바카라사이트se neurological claims are unsubstantiated and unsupported.��

To 바카라사이트 contrary, Rogers advocates sound interdisciplinary research and interpretation, alongside knowledgeable interchanges between 바카라사이트 humanities and 바카라사이트 sciences. She emphasises relevant scholarly research and literary criticism, including cognitive 바카라사이트ory-of-mind approaches and reader-response/reception 바카라사이트ory.

We exist at a moment of suspended animation. Despite at least two generations of ground-breaking interdisciplinarity that draws on 바카라사이트 sciences when relevant, scholars in 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences continue to succumb to 바카라사이트 temptation of imitating reductionist and/or outdated conceptions of science without regard to 바카라사이트ir exemplars�� current status.?

This is faux interdisciplinarity. These professors do not do investigate 바카라사이트 basics of 바카라사이트ir subject and alternative approaches to it. Crooked paths advance without signage or road maps, as if 바카라사이트 past half century were absent or if 바카라사이트ir advocates could not visualise or locate 바카라사이트 history.?

As for 바카라사이트 non-debate over interdisciplinarity versus disciplinarity, 바카라사이트 compelling question for our own times is how best 바카라사이트y can cooperate and collaborate. This differs in fundamental ways from 바카라사이트 much earlier ��two cultures�� debates, from which scholars must finally move on.

Harvey J. Graff is professor emeritus of English and history at Ohio State University. He is 바카라사이트 author of many books on social history, including Undisciplining Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in 바카라사이트 Twentieth Century (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015).