The authors historicise, contextualise and debate the values and problems of both disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. Their aim is not to posit one as superior to the other, nor to suggest that the two are mutually exclusive. Instead, they seek to break down the oppositional dichotomy in which the concepts are often placed, and, further, to propose a ‘symbiotic academy’ in which the two can exist to their mutual benefit.
O'NeillR. (2011) Open your mind to interdisciplinary research. New Scient., 2800, 52–55.
3.
Plato (1993) Educating philosopher kings. Republic, pp. 250–276. Oxford University Press.
4.
WeisheiplOP J.A. (1978) The nature, scope and classification of the sciences. Science in the Middle Ages, p. 465. University of Chicago Press, London.
5.
Plato (1993) Poetry and unreality. Republic, pp. 344–362. Oxford University Press.
6.
WeisheiplOP J.A. (1978) The Nature, Scope and Classification of the Sciences. Science in the Middle Ages, p. 466–467. University of Chicago Press, London,
7.
RüeggW. (1992) Mythology and Historiography of the Beginnings. A History of the University in Europe: Vol. 1, Universities in the Middle Ages, pp. 4–8, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8.
WeisheiplOP J.A. (1978) The nature, scope and classification of the sciences. Science in the Middle Ages, p. 470–472. University of Chicago Press, London.
9.
LindbergD. (1992) The beginnings of Western Science: the European scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450, p. 138. University of Chicago Press, London.
10.
GrantE. (1996) The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: their religious, institutional and intellectual contexts, p. 15. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
11.
GrantE. (1996) The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: their religious, institutional and intellectual contexts, pp. 14, 37, 39 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
12.
GrantE. (1996) The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: their religious, institutional and intellectual contexts, p. 43. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
13.
WeisheiplOP J.A.The nature, scope and classification of the sciences. Science in the Middle Ages, p. 474. University of Chicago Press, London.
14.
KibreP., and SiraisiN.G. (1978) The institutional setting: the universities. Science in the Middle Ages, pp. 120–144. University of Chicago Press, London.
15.
KibreP., and SiraisiN.G. (1978) The institutional setting: the universities. Science in the Middle Ages, pp. 129–130. University of Chicago Press, London.
16.
WeisheiplOP J.A. (1978) The nature, scope and classification of the sciences. Science in the Middle Ages, p. 478. University of Chicago Press, London.
17.
GrantE. (1996) The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages: their religious, institutional and intellectual contexts, p. 193. Cambridge University Press.
18.
DebusA.G. (1978) Man and nature in the Renaissance, p. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
19.
DebusA.G. (1978) Man and nature in the Renaissance, pp. 5–12. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20.
DebusA.G. (1978) Man and nature in the Renaissance, p. 23. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
21.
PedersenO. (1996) Tradition and innovation. A history of the university in Europe: Vol.2, Universities in early modern Europe 1500-1800, pp. 453. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
22.
PedersenO. (1996) Tradition and innovation. A history of the university in Europe: Vol.2, Universities in early modern Europe 1500-1800, p. 466–467. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23.
Further and Higher Education Act (1992), Chap. 13. HMSO, London.
24.
DebusA.G. (1978) Man and nature in the Renaissance, pp. 102–109. Cambridge University Press.
25.
PedersenO. (1996) Tradition and innovation. A history of the university in Europe: Vol.2, Universities in Early Modern Europe 1500-1800, p. 458. Cambridge University Press.
26.
RüeggW. (2004) Theology and the arts. A history of the university in Europe: Vol. 3, Universities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries 1800-1945, pp. 442–443, p.429-30, p.451. Cambridge University Press.
27.
TeichovaA., and MatisH. (2003) Introduction. Nation, state and the economy in history, pp. 1–8, Cambridge University Press.
28.
RüeggW. (2004) Theology and the arts. A history of the university in Europe: Vol.3, Universities in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries 1800-1945, pp. 396, 414. Cambridge University Press.
29.
ChapmanW.R. (1985) Arranging ethnology: A. L. H. F. Pitt Rivers and the Typological Tradition. Objects and others: essays on museums and material culture, p. 36. University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin and London.
30.
HeskethI. (2009) The Oxford debate. Of apes and ancestors: evolution, Christianity, and the Oxford debate, pp. 76–87. University of Toronto Press, London.
31.
Further and Higher Education Act (1992). s.74
32.
KnellS. (2005), Professional orientations: museum studies, past, present and future. ICOM News no. 4
33.
AramJ. D. (2004) Concepts of interdisciplinarity: Configurations of knowledge and action. Human Relat., 57(4), 380.
34.
Disciplinarity, School of Museum Studies at the University of Leicester, 20 April 2012.
35.
CobbanA.B. (1975) The Medieval universities: their development and organization, Methuen and Co., London, p. 38
36.
BoisotM. (1972) Discipline and interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities, pp. 89–97, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
37.
ParkerJ. (2002) A new disciplinarity: communities of knowledge, learning and practice. Teach. Higher Educat., 7(4), 373–386.
38.
Aram, Concepts of interdisciplinarity: configurations of knowledge and action. Human Relat., 57(4), 379–412.
39.
ChettiparambA. (2007) Interdisciplinarity: a literature review, p. 8. The Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Group, Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, School of Humanities, Southampton University.
40.
KleinJ.T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory & practice, p. 13, p.27. Wayne State University Press, Michigan.
41.
KleinJ.T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory & practice, p. 12–13. Wayne State University Press, Michigan.
42.
Centre of Educational Research and Innovation (1972) Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
43.
Chettiparamb, (2007) Interdisciplinarity: a literature review, p. 19. The Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Group, Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, School of Humanities, Southampton University.
44.
KleinJ.T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory & practice, pp. 25–26. Wayne State University Press, Michigan.
45.
StarS.L., and GriesemerJ.R. (1989) Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci., 19(3), 387–420.
House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (2007) 8th Report of Session 2006-07, science and heritage: an update: report with evidence, p. 5. HMSO, London.
49.
PopperK.R. (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge, p. 88Routledge and Kegan Paul, New York.
50.
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, Dearing Report, 5.29 and 5.30, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ [accessed 25 July 2012]
National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, Dearing Report, 5.9, 5.21 and 4.18. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/ [accessed 25 July 2012]
53.
JakobsenC.H., HelsT., and McLaughlinW.J. (2004) Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: a cross-country comparison. Forest. Pol. Econ., 6, 15–31
54.
NissaniM. (1997) Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: the case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research. Soc. Sci. J., 34(2), 201–216.
55.
ScholteJ.A. (2000) Globalisation: a critical introduction, p. 198. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
56.
DiMaggioP.J., & PowellW.W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev., 48(2), 147–160.
57.
Hooper-GreenhillE. (2000) Museums and the interpretation of visual culture, pp. 140–144. Routledge, London
58.
VergoP. (1989) Introduction. The new museology, pp. 1–5. Reaktion Books Ltd, London.
59.
HerbstS. (2008), Disciplines, intersections, and the future of communicationRes. J. Commun., 58(4), 603–614.
60.
GillA. (2012), Travelling down the road to postdisciplinarity? Reflections of a tourism geographer. Can. Geog.-Geog. Can., 56(1), 3–17.
