The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice
Open accessAbstract
Research on interdisciplinary science has for the most part concentrated on the institutional obstacles that discourage or hamper interdisciplinary work, with the expectation that interdisciplinary interaction can be improved through institutional reform strategies such as through reform of peer review systems. However institutional obstacles are not the only ones that confront interdisciplinary work. The design of policy strategies would benefit from more detailed investigation into the particular cognitive constraints, including the methodological and conceptual barriers, which also confront attempts to work across disciplinary boundaries. Lessons from cognitive science and anthropological studies of labs in sociology of science suggest that scientific practices may be very domain specific, where domain specificity is an essential aspect of science that enables researchers to solve complex problems in a cognitively manageable way. The limit or extent of domain specificity in scientific practice, and how it constrains interdisciplinary research, is not yet fully understood, which attests to an important role for philosophers of science in the study of interdisciplinary science. This paper draws upon two cases of interdisciplinary collaboration; those between ecologists and economists, and those between molecular biologists and systems biologists, to illustrate some of the cognitive barriers which have contributed to failures and difficulties of interactions between these fields. Each exemplify some aspect of domain specificity in scientific practice and show how such specificity may constrain interdisciplinary work.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
Assessment, M. E. (2005) · Island Press · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18167309 · Cited by 10,665
The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363 · Cited by 9,564 · cited 1×
“Experts demonstratemore coherent knowledge-based schemas for their domains and are very good at effectively categorizing problems according to the principles or problem-solving strategies or heuristics that should be applied to them (Ericsson et al. 1993;Gobet and Simon 1996).”
MethodFodor, J. A. (1983) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 · Cited by 7,734
Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life
Lave, J. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609268 · Cited by 5,148
Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0016755 · Cited by 2,443
Epistemological Pluralism: Reorganizing Interdisciplinary Research
Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin III, F. S., & Redman, C. L. (2008) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-02671-130246 · Cited by 533 · cited 2×
“However attempts to explore the roles epistemic divides or tensions do play as obstacles to interdisciplinary work are usually pitched at a rather generic level, singling out say the tensions between the epistemic unity of disciplinary work and the epistemological pluralism (or pragmatism; Boix Mansilla 2010; Miller e…”
BackgroundComparing the evolution of national research policies: what patterns of change?
Lepori, B., van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Potì, B., Reale, E., Slipersæter, S., Thèves, J., & van der Meulen, B. (2007) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.3152/030234207x234578 · Cited by 198
How to Avoid Train Wrecks When Using Science in Environmental Problem Solving
BENDA, L. E., POFF, N. L., TAGUE, C., PALMER, M. A., PIZZUTO, J., COOPER, S., STANLEY, E., & MOGLEN, G. (2002) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[1127:htatww]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 133
Cited by
Social companionship with artificial intelligence: Recent trends and future avenues
Chaturvedi, R., Verma, S., Das, R., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2023) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122634 · Cited by 244
Metadata
- Authors
- MacLeod, M.
- Venue
- Synthese
- Published
- 2016-10-07
- Volume
- 195
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 697-720
- ISSN
- 0039-7857 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0964
- OpenAlex
- W2527780137
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 13.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4
- The paper
- MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.