The potential benefits of interdisciplinary research are commonly stated and widely acknowledged. Amongst the many claims that are made, it is suggested that an interdisciplinary approach can lead to greater innovation, promote lateral thinking, and encourage reflexivity in the research process. This paper presents a personal reflection, drawn from experience in one specific sub-field of medical sociology, on how some of these benefits might actually come to fruition. However, it also explores something which is generally given far less consideration: the potential perils of interdisciplinary research. In particular, I will focus on two areas. First, I will raise some intellectual concerns over what interdisciplinary research might mean for the health of sociology as a discipline. Secondly, I will consider some of the ethical issues that can arise when we put our professional sociological skills at the service of another profession. I will conclude by reflecting on what the implications of these concerns are for my own work in the sociology of health and illness, and what might constitute ‘successful’ interdisciplinary collaboration in this field.
AbbottA. (2001) Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AboelelaS. W., LarsonE., BakkenS., CaranasquilloO. (2007) ‘Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature’, Health Services Research, 42 (1) (Part 1) p. 329–346.
3.
BoskC. (1992) All God's Mistakes: Genetic Counseling in a Pediatric Hospital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BrownK. E. & Syme-TaylorV. (2012) ‘Women academics and feminism in professional military education’, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31 (5/6) p. 452–466.
5.
ConoleG., ScanlonE., MundinP. & FarrowR. (2010) Interdisciplinary Research-Report from the Technology Enhanced Learning Research Programme (funded by ESRC/EPSRC). London: Institute of Education.
6.
GoodwinC. (1994) ‘Professional vision’, American Anthropologist, 96 (3) p. 606–633.
7.
JaenC. R., FerrerR. L., MillerW. L., PalmerR. F. (2010) ‘Patient outcomes at 26 months in the patient-centered medical home national demonstration project’, Annals of Family Medicine, 8 p. S557–567.
8.
KinmonthA. L., WoodcockA., GriffinS., SpiegalN. & CampbellM. (1998) ‘Randomised controlled trial of patient-centred care of diabetes in general practice: Impact on current well-being and future disease risk’, British Medical Journal, 317 p. 1202–1208.
9.
LamontM. (2009) How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
LeeY. -Y. & LinJ. L. (2010) ‘Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes’, Social Science and Medicine, 71 (10) p. 1811–1818.
11.
LewinS. A., SkeaZ. C., EntwistleV., ZwarensteinM. & DickJ. (2001) ‘Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4) CD003267.
12.
LingardL., SchryerC. F., SpaffordM. M. & CampbellS. L. (2007) ‘Negotiating the politics of identity in an interdisciplinary research team’, Qualitative Research, 7 (4) p. 501–519.
13.
MaynardD. W. & HeritageJ. (2005) ‘Conversation analysis, doctor-patient interaction and medical communication’, Medical Education, 39 p. 428–435.
14.
ParsonsT. (1951) The Social System.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
15.
PilnickA. (2002a) ‘“There are no rights and wrongs in these situations”: identifying interactional difficulties in genetic counselling’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 24 (1) p. 66–88.
16.
PilnickA. (2002b) ‘What “most people” do: exploring the ethical implications of genetic counselling’, New Genetics and Society, 21 (3) p. 339–350.
17.
PilnickA. (2004) ‘“It's just one of the best tests that we've got at the moment”: informed choice in nuchal translucency screening for fetal abnormality’, Discourse and Society, p. 451–465.
18.
PilnickA. (2008). ‘“It's something for you both to think about”: choice and decision making in nuchal translucency screening for Downs Syndrome’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 30 (4) p. 511–530.
19.
PilnickA. & DingwallR. (2011) ‘On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor-patient interaction: a critical review’, Social Science and Medicine, 72 (8) p. 1374–1382.
20.
PilnickA. M., FraserD. M. & JamesD. K. (2004) ‘Presenting and discussing nuchal translucency screening for fetal abnormality in the UK’, Midwifery, 20 (1) p. 82–93.
21.
PilnickA. & ZaytsO. (2012) ‘Let's have it tested first: directiveness, culture and decision-making following positive antenatal screening in Hong Kong’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 34 (2) p. 266–282. (Also published in ArmstrongN. & EborallH. (Eds.) (2012) The Sociology of Screening and Testing. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell).
22.
SchegloffE. (1991) ‘Reflections on talk and social structure’, in BodenD. & ZimmermanD. (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (p. 44–70). Cambridge: Polity Press.
23.
SchegloffE. (1997) ‘Whose text? Whose context?’, Discourse and Society, 8 p. 165–188.
24.
SharrockW. (1979) ‘Portraying the professional relationship’, in AndersonD. C. (Ed.), Health Education in Practice (p. 125–146). London: Croom Helm.
25.
StewartM., BrownJ. B., DonnerA., McWhinneyI. R. (2000) ‘The impact of patient-centered care on health outcomes’, Family Practice, 49 (9) p. 796–804.
26.
StrausR. (1957) ‘The nature and status of medical sociology’. American Sociological Review, 22 (2) p. 200–204.
27.
TsouroufliM. (2012) ‘Breaking in and breaking out a medical school: feminist academic interrupted?’, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31 (5/6) p. 467–483.
28.
UsherC. (2007) ‘Sociology of Medicine’, in RitzerG. (Ed.), Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell.
29.
ZaytsO. & PilnickA. (forthcoming 2014) ‘Genetic counselling in multicultural and multilingual contexts’, in HamiltonH. & ChouS. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Language and Health Communication. Abingdon: Routledge.
