Calls for interdisciplinary research practice are an increasingly ubiquitous feature of contemporary academic life. However, whilst the claims made for its benefits, or limitations, are diverse in character and provenance, it is possible to identify one significant source as being related to modes of academic governance. This relation has significant effects, but is also obscured by the heterogeneity of wider claims. A critical analysis of the relation is therefore needed in order to assess its significance for sociology: however, the mode of governance in question itself poses challenges to the idea or project of sociological critique. This article therefore attempts firstly to clarify the specificity of interdisciplinarity as a feature of academic governance, and secondly, drawing on Boltanski’s recent reformulation of sociological critique, to begin a critical analysis of its significance for sociology within this particular governmental context.
CooperGKingARettieR (eds) (2009) Sociological Objects: Reconfigurations of Social Theory. Farnham: Ashgate.
11.
DaviesB (2005) The (im)possibility of intellectual work in neoliberal regimes. Discourse26(1): 1–14.
12.
DerridaJ (2004) Eyes of the University: The Right to Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13.
DurkheimE (1982) The Rules of Sociological Method. London: Macmillan.
14.
DurkheimE (2005) The dualism of human nature and its social conditions. Durkheimian Studies11(1): 35–45.
15.
FoucaultM (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
16.
FrodemanR (ed.) (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 431–52.
17.
GarfinkelH (1984) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
18.
GibbonsMLimogesCNowotnyHSchwartzmanSScottPTrowM (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.
19.
GodinB (1998) Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis. Social Studies of Science28(3): 465–83.
20.
HadornGHPohlCBammerG (2010) Solving problems through transdisciplinary research. In: FrodemanR (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 431–52.
21.
HeideggerM (2002) Off the Beaten Track. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HolmwoodJ (2010) Sociology’s misfortune: Disciplines, interdisciplinarity and the impact of audit culture. British Journal of Sociology61(4): 639–58.
23.
JacobsJAFrickelS (2009) Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology35: 43–65.
24.
KleinJT (2009) Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures: A Model for Strength and Sustainability. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
25.
KleinJT (2010) A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: FrodemanR (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 15–30.
26.
KrishnanA (2009) What Are Academic Disciplines? Some Observations on the Disciplinarity vs Interdisciplinarity Debate. NCRM Working Paper Series 03/09. Southampton: University of Southampton, National Centre for Research Methods.
27.
LaclauEMouffeC (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
28.
LatimerJSkeggsB (2011) The politics of imagination: Keeping open and critical. The Sociological Review59(3): 393–410.
29.
LatourB (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. London: Harvester.
30.
LatourB (2004) Why has critique run out of steam? From matter of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry30(Winter): 225–47.
31.
LawJ (2008) On sociology and STS. The Sociological Review56(4): 623–49.
32.
MirowskiPSentE-M (2008) The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In: HackettEJAmsterdamskaOLynchMWacjmanJ (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 635–89.
33.
MullerJ (2009) Forms of knowledge and curriculum coherence. Journal of Education and Work22(3): 203–24.
34.
NaessP (2010) The dangerous climate of disciplinary tunnel vision. In: Bhaskar. (eds) Interdisciplinarity and Climate Change. Oxford: Routledge, 54–84.
35.
NettelbeckJ (2006) How to organize spaces of translation, or the politics of innovation. In: NowotnyH (ed.) Cultures of Technology and the Quest for Innovation. New York: Oxford: Berghahn Books, 191–6.
36.
NowotnyH (2006) Introduction: The quest for innovation and cultures of technology. In: NowotnyH (ed.) Cultures of Technology and the Quest for Innovation. New York: Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1–23.
37.
NowotnyHScottPGibbonsM (2001) Rethinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press.
38.
RosenfeldR (2010) Sociology: A view from the diaspora. British Journal of Sociology61(4): 666–70.
39.
SahlinsM (2009) The conflicts of the faculty. Critical Inquiry35(4): 997–1017.
40.
SavageM (2010) Unpicking sociology’s misfortunes. British Journal of Sociology61(4): 659–65.
41.
SayerA (2000) For postdisciplinary studies: Sociology and the curse of disciplinary parochialism and imperialism. In: EldrigeJMacInnesJScottSWarhurstCWitzA (eds) For Sociology: Legacies and Prospects. Durham: sociologypress, 83–91.
42.
ScottJ (2005) Sociology and its others: Reflections on disciplinary specialisation and fragmentation. Sociological Research Online10(1). Available at: socresonline.org.uk/10/1/scott.html
43.
ScottJ (2010) Sociology and the sociological imagination: Reflections on disciplinarity and intellectual specialisation. In: BurnettJJeffersSThomasG (eds) New Social Connections: Sociology’s Subjects and Objects. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 14–30.
44.
ShoveE (2010) Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A42: 1273–85.
45.
ShoveE (2011) On the difference between chalk and cheese. Environment and Planning A43: 262–4.
UrryJ (1995) Sociology as a parasite. In: Urry JConsuming Places. London: Routledge, 33–45.
50.
WeingartP (2010) A short history of knowledge formations. In: Frodeman (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–14.
51.
WellberyD (2009) The general enters the library: A note on disciplines and complexity. Critical Inquiry35(4): 982–94.
52.
WhitmarshLO’NeillSLorenzoniI (2011) Climate change or social change? Debate within, amongst, and beyond disciplines. Environment and Planning A43: 258–61.
