The Evolution of Disciplinarity

The epistemic culture of the academy has evolved over centuries. The disciplines have branched, divided, and grown into disparate cultures of sub-specialization. The categorization of scholarship is not without consequence, and signs exist that the evolution of disciplinarity is making another radical shift.

One of the foundations upon which scholarly inquiry is based lies in the Aristotelian drive, through which we seek to take the world around us and break it down into smaller, more understandable parts. We have pursued this model for roughly 2000 years, and it has brought great insight into the phenomenological world. Somewhere, though, in the collective unconscious of the academy, we have always realized that we would have to put things back together, since the real world is interconnected, messy, and complex.

At the same time, the current structure of the academy is such that sub-specialized communities no longer are able to communicate or transfer knowledge effectively. Lines of exclusion have been drawn through physical separation, competing or incompatible theoretical frameworks, and the subscription to exclusive lexica. As a result, even scholars under the same broad disciplinary heading may not be able to share information.

The way we classify the disciplines is not incidental, and a strong argument can be made that our current system of metatheory is path dependent. For example, under the Dewey Decimal system, psychology, now considered a science in the social tradition, is classified under philosophy, a decidedly humanities-oriented categorization. This conceptualization is not without consequence, and the perception of which "bins" contain a discipline influence the production of knowledge.

Evolution is inevitable, and the last 50 years have seen the emergence of a startling number of "interdisciplinary" initiatives. Within the social sciences, the appearance of the Information School (or I-School), STS (Science and Technology Studies, or Science, Technology and Society) programs, and complex systems institutes are emblematic of the need to reintegrate knowledge, and serve as evolutionary mechanisms to produce scholars capable of bridging the disciplines.

This movement raises a number of questions, such as:

• What alternate systems of disciplinary classification are more appropriate for an interdisciplinary environment? Would all fields be better served by subscribing to a facted classification system?
• What is the underlying role of these interdisciplinary initiatives? Are they working toward the same goals? If so, will the eventually converge into a larger metadiscipline?
• Is there a stable process or framework through which lexica can be developed to serve as boundary objects among communities of practice? What technologies are especially suited to this set of tasks?
• Are inter/meta-disciplinary fields on an evolutionary path to becoming independent disciplines, and are simply early on in their process? Are they temporary catalysts that will serve as platforms of punctuated equilibrium, and will dissipate when the dominant fields are sufficiently integrated? What does this mean for information science. STS, and complex systems scholars?
• Is the development of expertise in managing breadth rather than depth a valid or sustainable pursuit for those within the academy? Will those individuals find a role and a home? What transformations in academic rubric are necessary to accommodate these new metadisciplinary scholars?

To give feedback on this line of research, don't hesitate to contact me.

• An excellent book on social epistemology and disciplinary differentiation
• Machlup and Mansfield on the interdisciplinarity of information science
• Lisa Lattuca's "Creating Interdisciplinarity" article
• Abstract of "Cybernetics and the Social Sciences" on the creation of a metadiscipline