This paper discusses interdisciplinary collaboration between social and natural scientists from the perspective of ‘mess’. The literature on interdisciplinarity has generated a series of conventions about what it means to conduct interdisciplinary research. Building on the experience of a research project that brought social and natural scientists together with local residents to study flooding, we argue that interdisciplinarity can be understood as a response to mess, to the irreducibly complex problems of the world. Mess can be dealt with as an epistemological or ontological problem. We argue that discursive conventions focus on the epistemological dimensions of mess and thus have their limits. By considering the ontological dimensions of mess the whole range of objects that are involved in interdisciplinary research is brought into focus.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottA, 2001Chaos of Disciplines (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL).
2.
AckoffR L, 1974a, “The systems revolution”Long Range Planning72–5.
3.
AckoffR L, 1974bRedesigning the Future (John Wiley, New York).
4.
BarryABornGWeszkalnysG, 2008, “Logics of interdisciplinarity”Economy and Society3720–49.
5.
BrackenLOughtonE, 2006, “‘What do you mean?’ The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series31371–382.
6.
BrackenLOughtonE, 2009, “Interdisciplinarity within and beyond geography”Area41371–373.
7.
BullerH, 2007, “Counting sheep: interdisciplinary approaches to the notion of ‘quality’ in the food chain”, presented at the British Association for the Advancement of Science's Festival of Science, University of York, 13 September, http://www.britac.ac.uk/events/2007/wtad/report.html.
8.
BullerH, 2009, “The lively process of interdisciplinarity”Area41395–403.
9.
CallonMMadelCRabeharisoaV, 2002, “The economy of qualities”Economy and Society31194–217.
EdenSDonaldsonAWalkerG, 2005, “Structuring subjectivities: Q methodology and its application in human geography”Area37413–422.
12.
EvansRMarvinS, 2006, “Researching the sustainable city: Three modes of interdisciplinarity”Environment and Planning A381009–1028.
13.
GibbonsMLimogesCNowotnyHSchwartzmanSScottPTrowM, 1994The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage, London).
14.
HackingI, 1983Representing and Intervening (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
15.
HinrichsC C, 2008, “Interdisciplinarity and boundary work: Challenges and opportunities for agrifood studies”Agriculture and Human Values25209–213.
LawrenceRDespresC, 2004, “Introduction: Futures of transdisciplinarity”Futures36397–406.
26.
LowePPhillipsonJ, 2006, “Reflexive interdisciplinary research: The making of a research programme on the rural economy and land use”Journal of Agricultural Economics57165–184.
27.
LowePPhillipsonJ, 2009, “Barriers to research collaboration across disciplines: Scientific paradigms and institutional practices?”Environment and Planning A411171–1184.
NowotnyHScottPGibbonsM, 2001Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Polity Press, Cambridge).
32.
RipA, 1985, “Interdisciplinarity without disicplines? A view from the sociology of science”, in Managing High Technology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective Eds MarB WNewellW TSaxbergB O (Elsevier, Amsterdam) pp 185–192.
SchoenbergE, 2001, “Interdisciplinarity and social power”Progress in Human Geography25365–382.
35.
StarS LGreisemerJ R, 1989, “Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39”Social Studies of Science19387–420.
36.
StengersI, 2000The Invention of Modern Science (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN).
37.
StrathernM, 2004Commons and Borderlands: Working Papers on Interdisciplinarity, Accountability and the Flow of Knowledge (Sean Kingston Publishing, Wantage, Oxon).
38.
VinckD, 2003, “L'instrumentation du travail interdisciplinaire: Cadrage des échanges et médiation par les objets intermédiaires”Esprit Critique519.
39.
WeberM, 1949 [1904], “Objectivity in social science and social policy”, in The Methodology of the Social Sciences translated by E A Shils, H A Finch (Free Press, New York) pp 49–112.
40.
WesselinkA, 2008, “Interdisciplinarity, problem focused research and normativity”, WP 11, Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds.
41.
WesselinkA, 2009, “The emergence of interdisciplinary knowledge in problem-focused research”Area41404–413.
42.
WhatmoreS, 2009, “Mapping knowledge controversies: Science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise”Progress in Human Geography33587–598.
