In a recent paper in this journal it was suggested that the conventional knowledge practices of disciplines are the fundamental obstacle to mutual understanding between academic experts. Such a position, we argue, underplays the institutional relationships that recreate expert and disciplinary divides. To demonstrate our case we discuss how in the UK the evolving relationship between the government and research councils has crucially altered the context for efforts to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Our analysis highlights the scope for changes in institutional structures and practices that would facilitate broader and more encompassing research into complex sustainability problems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottA, 2001The Chaos of Disciplines (Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL)
2.
AustokerJBryderL (Eds), 1989Historical Perspectives on the Role of the MRC (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
3.
BrackenL JOughtonE, 2006, “What do you mean?: The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series31371–382
4.
BraunD, 2003, “Lasting tensions in research policy-making—a delegation problem”Science and Public Policy30309–321
5.
CaswillCWensleyR, 2007, “Doors and boundaries: A recent history if the relationship between research and practice in UK organizational and management research”Business History49293–320
6.
CooperI, 1997, “Management audit of the sustainable cities research programme”, report to the Planning Directorate, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, on behalf of the EPSRC Sustainable Cities Research Programme, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon
7.
CooperIPalmerJ, 1999, “Review of EPSRC's Sustainable Cities Programme”Planning Practice and Research14125–132
8.
CooperISymesM (Eds), 2008Sustainable Urban Development: Rethinking Professionalism in Europe (Routledge, London)
9.
DoganM, 1997, “The new social sciences: Cracks in the disciplinary walls”International Social Science Journal115429–443
10.
DTI, 1993Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology Cm 2250, Department of Trade and Industry (The Stationery Office, London)
11.
EdgertonDHughesK, 1989, “The poverty of science: A critical analysis of scientific and industrial policy under Mrs Thatcher”Public Administration67419–433
12.
ESRC, 2000Thematic PrioritiesEconomic and Social Research Council, Swindon, Wilts
13.
ESRC, 2005SSRC/ESRC: The First Forty YearsEconomic and Social Research Council, Swindon, Wilts
14.
EvansRMarvinS, 2006, “Researching the sustainable city: Three modes of interdisciplinarity”Environment and Planning A381009–1028
15.
FlatherP, 1987, “‘Pulling through’—conspiracies, counterplots, and how the SSRC escaped the axe in 1982”, in Social Science Research and Government Ed. BulmerM (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 353–372
16.
GalisonPStumpD (Eds), 1996The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts and Power (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA)
17.
GulbrandsenM, 2005, “Tensions in the science council–research community relationship”Science and Public Policy32199–209
18.
HM Treasury, DfES, DTI, 2004Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014HM Treasury, Department for Education and Skills, Department of Trade and Industry (The Stationery Office, London)
KleinJ T, 2004, “Interdisciplinary and complexity: An evolving relationship”E: CO61–10
24.
LowePPhillipsonJ, 2006, “Reflexive interdisciplinary research: The making of an interdisciplinary research programme on the rural economy and land use”Journal of Agricultural Economics57165–184
25.
MarzanoMCarssD NBellS, 2006, “Working to make interdisciplinarity work: Investing in communication and interpersonal relationships”Journal of Agricultural Economics57185–197
26.
MouradR P, 1997, “At the forefront: Postmodern interdisciplinarity”The Review of Higher Education20113–140
27.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2005Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC)
28.
NERC, 2000Strategy for ScienceNatural Environment Research Council, Swindon, Wilts
29.
NERC, 2005Urban Regeneration and the Environment (URGENT) Final ReportNatural Environment Research Council, Swindon, Wilts
OST, 2001a, “Quinquennial review of the grant awarding research councils: Stage 1”, Office of Science and Technology and Department of Trade and Industry, http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/history/qqr
32.
OST, 2001b, “Quinquennial review of the grant awarding research councils: Stage 2”, Office of Science and Technology and Department of Trade and Industry, http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcuk/history/qqr
33.
PettsJOwensSBulkeleyH, 2008, “Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments”Geoforum39593–601
34.
RhotenD, 2004, “Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition?”Items and Issues: Social Science Research Council56–11
35.
StewartJ, 1995, “Models of priority-setting for public sector research”Research Policy24115–126
TurnerS, 2000, “What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different?”, in Practising Interdisciplinarity Eds WeingartPStehrN (University of Toronto Press, Toronto) pp 46–65
38.
van der MeulenB, 2003, “New roles and strategies of a science council: Intermediation of the principal–agent relationship”Science and Public Policy30323–336
39.
WhitleyR, 2000The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences2nd edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
40.
WilliamsR, 1988, “UK science and technology: Policy, controversy and advice”Political Quarterly59132–144
