In this comment, I concentrate on the concept of integration, which figures centrally in Key texts on interdisciplinary higher education. After critically discussing the different ways in which integration is used in the volume, I suggest a metaphilosophical orientation that welcomes this diversity as a source of conceptual clarification and innovation.
CrowleyS. J.GonnermanC.O'RourkeM.. 2016. “Cross-Disciplinary Research as a Platform for Philosophical Research.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association2 (2): 344–63.
2.
HabermasJ.1998. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3.
KleinJ. T.2012. “Research Integration: A Comparative Knowledge Base.” In Case Studies in Interdisciplinary Research, edited by RepkoA. F.NewellW. H.SzostakR., 283–98. Sage Publications.
4.
LaursenB. K.GonnermanC.CrowleyS. J.. 2021. “Improving Philosophical Dialogue Interventions to Better Resolve Problematic Value Pluralism in Collaborative Environmental Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science87: 54–71.
5.
O’MalleyM. A.2013. “When Integration Fails: Prokaryote Phylogeny and the Tree of Life.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences44: 551–62.
6.
O'RourkeM.CrowleyS.GonnermanC.. 2016. “On the Nature of Cross-Disciplinary Integration: A Philosophical Framework.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences56: 62–70.
7.
RossiniF. A.PorterA. L.. 1979. “Frameworks for Integrating Interdisciplinary Research.” Research Policy8: 70–79.
8.
van der TuinI., eds. 2025a. Key Texts on Interdisciplinary Higher Education. Bristol: Policy Press.
9.
van der TuinI.2025b. “Introduction: Working from an Integrationist Vision.” In Key Texts on Interdisciplinary Higher Education, edited by van der TuinI., 1–20. Bristol: Policy Press.
10.
WittgensteinL.1973. Philosophical Investigations, 3rd ed. Translated by AnscombeG. E. M.. Oxford: Pearson.
