The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: The case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research
Abstract
The frequently-encountered wholesale dismissal of either interdisciplinary knowledge or research reflects a profound misunderstanding of their vital contributions to scholarship, society, and individuals. This article presents the only self-contained, comprehensive defense of interdisciplinary knowledge and research, arguing that they are important because: 1. Creativity often requires interdisciplinary knowledge. 2. Immigrants often make important contributions to their new field. 3. Disciplinarians often commit errors which can be best detected by people familiar with two or more disciplines. 4. Some worthwhile topics of research fall in the interstices among the traditional disciplines. 5. Many intellectual, social, and practical problems require interdisciplinary approaches. 6. Interdisciplinary knowledge and research serve to remind us of the unity-of-knowledge ideal. 7. Interdisciplinarians enjoy greater flexibility in their research. 8. More so than narrow disciplinarians, interdisciplinarians often treat themselves to the intellectual equivalent of traveling in new lands. 9. Interdisciplinarians may help breach communication gaps in the modern academy, thereby helping to mobilize its enormous intellectual resources in the cause of greater social rationality and justice. 10. By bridging fragmented disciplines, interdisciplinarians might play a role in the defense of academic freedom. The case against interdisciplinary knowledge and research is made up of many intrinsic drawbacks and practical barriers. Taken together, these rewards, drawbacks, and barriers suggest a mild shift in the contemporary world of learning towards interdisciplinary knowledge and research.
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
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
Mills, C. W. (1959) · The Mississippi Valley Historical Review · doi:10.2307/1891592 · Cited by 8,191
Koestler, A. (1967) · Brain Function, Volume IV: Brain Function and Learning · doi:10.1525/9780520340176-014 · Cited by 2,631
Academic tribes and territories
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (1989) · Cited by 1,932
(1959) · Cited by 1,379
International Social Science Journal
(2010) · International Social Science Journal · doi:10.1111/(issn)1468-2451 · Cited by 1,045
y Gassét, J. O. (1932) · Cited by 460
Integrating Scientific Disciplines
(1986) · Science and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-9435-1 · Cited by 365
Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise
Stember, M. (1991) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/0362-3319(91)90040-b · Cited by 341
Do You See What I See? The Epistemology of Interdisciplinary Inquiry
Petrie, H. G. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005002009 · Cited by 150
Cited by
Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., Haas, J., & Gebbie, K. M. (2007) · Health Services Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x · Cited by 657
Annan-Diab, F., & Molinari, C. (2017) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2017.03.006 · Cited by 573
Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity
Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N. J., & Porter, J. R. (2003) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(03)00152-x · Cited by 400
Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003) · Critical Discourse Analysis · doi:10.1057/9780230288423_1 · Cited by 269
Improving the culture of interdisciplinary collaboration in ecology by expanding measures of success
Goring, S. J., Weathers, K. C., Dodds, W. K., Soranno, P. A., Sweet, L. C., Cheruvelil, K. S., Kominoski, J. S., Rüegg, J., Thorn, A. M., & Utz, R. M. (2014) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/120370 · Cited by 168
Metadata
- Authors
- Nissani, M.
- Venue
- The Social Science Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1997-06-01
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 201-216
- ISSN
- 0362-3319 (ISSN-L)
- 1873-5355
- OpenAlex
- W2106669096
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 3.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: The case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0362-3319(97)90051-3
- The paper
- Nissani, M. (1997). Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: The case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research. The Social Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0362-3319(97)90051-3
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.