The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Logics of interdisciplinarity
Abstract
This paper interrogates influential contemporary accounts of interdisciplinarity, in which it is portrayed as offering new ways of rendering science accountable to society and/or of forging closer relations between scientific research and innovation. The basis of the paper is an eighteen-month empirical study of three interdisciplinary fields that cross the boundaries between the natural sciences or engineering, on the one hand, and the social sciences or arts, on the other. The fields are: 1) environmental and climate change research, 2) ethnography in the IT industry and 3) art-science. In the first part of the paper, in contrast to existing accounts, we question the idea that interdisciplinarity should be understood in terms of the synthesis of two or more disciplines. We stress the forms of agonism and antagonism that often characterize relations between disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, and distinguish between three modes of interdisciplinarity. In the second part we outline three distinctive logics or rationales that guide interdisciplinary research. In addition to the logics of accountability and innovation, we identify the logic of ontology, that is, an orientation apparent in diverse interdisciplinary practices in each of our three fields towards effecting ontological transformation in the objects and relations of research. While the three logics are interdependent, they are not reducible to each other and are differently entangled in each of the fields. We point to the potential for invention in such interdisciplinary practices and, against the equation of disciplinary research with autonomy, to the possibility of forms of interdisciplinary autonomy.
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
Hegemony and Socialist Strategy
Mouffe, C., & Laclau, E. (1985) · Cited by 12,172
Foucault, M. (1970) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/053901847000900108 · Cited by 10,859
Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography
Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1986) · Cited by 6,157
(1986) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520946286 · Cited by 5,607
Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication
Kantowitz, B., & Suchman, L. A. (1990) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1423221 · Cited by 5,299
The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice
Mol, A. (2002) · doi:10.1215/9780822384151 · Cited by 4,381
Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/9780674039681 · Cited by 3,956
Moore, F. C. T., Foucault, M., & Smith, A. M. S. (1974) · Man · doi:10.2307/2800094 · Cited by 3,891
Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity
Mitchell, T. (2002) · doi:10.1525/9780520928251 · Cited by 3,693
The New Production of Knowledge
Gibbons, M. (1994) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,405
Cited by
Yegros-Yegros, A., Rafols, I., & D’Este, P. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135095 · Cited by 342
Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences: barriers and frontiers
HICKS, C. C., FITZSIMMONS, C., & POLUNIN, N. V. C. (2010) · Environmental Conservation · doi:10.1017/s0376892910000822 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G.
- Venue
- Economy and Society
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 20-49
- ISSN
- 0308-5147 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-5766
- OpenAlex
- W2049285399
- Cited by
- 586
- References
- 83
- FWCI
- 45.77
- 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: Logics of interdisciplinarity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03085140701760841
- The paper
- Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760841
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.