Suchergebnisse

The study of biodiversity has grown exponentially in the last thirty years in response to demands for greater understanding of the function and importance of Earth's biodiversity and finding solutions to conserve it. Here, we test the hypothesis that biodiversity science has become more interdisciplinary over time. To do so, we analyze 97,945 peer‐reviewed articles over a twenty‐two‐year time period (1990–2012) with a continuous time dynamic model, which classifies articles into concepts (i.e., topics and ideas) based on word co‐occurrences. Using the model output, we then quantify different aspects of interdisciplinarity: concept diversity, that is, the diversity of topics and ideas across subdisciplines in biodiversity science, subdiscipline diversity, that is, the diversity of subdisciplines across concepts, and network structure, which captures interactions between concepts and subdisciplines. We found that, on average, concept and subdiscipline diversity in biodiversity science were either stable or declining, patterns which were driven by the persistence of rare concepts and subdisciplines and a decline in the diversity of common concepts and subdisciplines, respectively. Moreover, our results provide evidence that conceptual homogenization, that is, decreases in temporal β concept diversity, underlies the observed trends in interdisciplinarity. Together, our results reveal that biodiversity science is undergoing a dynamic phase as a scientific discipline that is consolidating around a core set of concepts. Our results suggest that progress toward addressing the biodiversity crisis via greater interdisciplinarity during the study period may have been slowed by extrinsic factors, such as the failure to invest in research spanning across concepts and disciplines. However, recent initiatives such as the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) may attract broader support for biodiversity‐related issues and hence interdisciplinary approaches to address scientific, political, and societal challenges in the coming years. ; Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2019 ; peerReviewed

This paper explicates the growing interest in interdisciplinarity as a form of knowledge organisation at the University of Botswana (UB). It accomplishes this by locating this development in a global context of a growing instrumentalisation of knowledge, partially occasioned by the advent of the knowledge society. Generally, the paper argues that interdisciplinarity is not some neutral, apolitical technical re-arrangement of knowledge, as often presented. Rather, it is a political technology implicated in attempts to break academics' monopoly on the processes and products of higher education (HE). It attributes interdisciplinarity's rise to the emergence in the 1970s of neoliberalism as a social settlement that privileges market rationality. There is, therefore, affinity between interdisciplinarity and neoliberalism, and it is a relationship in which the former is being deployed by the latter in HE to produce 'neoliberal academic subjects'. The case of UB is presented as a specific case of the general argument that interdisciplinarity is designed to effect new forms of academic subjectivities attuned to market rationality.

"This book examines the epistemological, social and political perspectives of practicing interdisciplinary approaches to enhance knowledge, pedagogy, and methodological research in the South Asian context. The volume sets the context by bringing together a range of ideas, questions and reflections on the concept of interdisciplinarity, the four waves of interdisciplinarity in contemporary history of knowledge, which were radically different from each other in their epistemological and political orientations, and the evolution of organization of knowledge. The book redefines the concept of interdisciplinarity and takes into cognizance the importance of the mutual shaping of politics and knowledge in our search for inclusive and sustainable future(s). The book offers a blend of both conceptual and academic discourses on interdisciplinarity and the personal experiences of leading practitioners, bringing together critical engagements from different vantage points on practicing it. It will be of interest to researchers, scholars and practitioners of social sciences and humanities disciplines as well as interdisciplinary fields such as educational studies, development studies, women's studies, media studies, cultural studies, urban studies, labour studies, legal studies, public health, disability studies, global/international studies and performing arts. It will also be useful for policy planners, development practitioners, activists and social organizers working in related fields"--

ABSTRACT This is a text on economics and interdisciplinarity. It takes account of the plurality of meanings that the practice of interdisciplinarity has assumed in economics, discusses why interdisciplinarity is essential to the study of the economy and analyzes two models of what interdisciplinarity should be in economics. Reference is also made to the obstacles inherent in the practice of interdisciplinarity. Its ultimate goal is to show why the economy (as an object of study), being an open system, cannot be left to economists alone requiring, instead, a pluralistic, political economy understanding of the 'economic'.

PurposeThe overall purpose of this paper is to clarify the current state of the debate with regard to competencies for interdisciplinarity (ID) for sustainable development (SD) in higher education, to provide further analysis, and to make suggestions for next steps on this basis.Design/methodology/approachThe paper employs a critical literature review to identify key themes and gaps in the debate and considers how competencies for ID might be further supported.FindingsThe literature review demonstrates developments towards action competencies in ID for sustainability but with an over‐reliance on students guiding their own practice and reflection. Findings highlight potential elements of a more widely informed knowledge literacy, including philosophical, sociological and cultural aspects, that is needed to support the development of these competencies.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper is limited to discussion of foundational aspects and does not cover possible pedagogical strategies, nor does it cover ways of assessing the attainment of competencies. The literature review is also limited by reasons of space.Practical implicationsThere is a need for a concerted research effort in order to develop coherent sets of competencies to equip students for ID for SD and other‐related fields.Social implicationsThese competencies are at the heart of the new forms of inter‐agency and inter‐professional working that is increasingly recognised as essential to deliver care and sustainability in a joined‐up world.Originality/valueThe originality is high as very little in the sustainability literature to date specifically analyses competencies and supporting knowledge for ID in an accessible manner.

Cognitive science is a network of interrelated scientific disciplines engaged in researching human cognition and its brain mechanisms. The birth of cognitive science has been the result of numerous integrated processes. Cognitive science is made up of experimental psychology cognition, philosophy consciousness, neuroscience, cognitive anthropology, linguistics, computer science and artificial intelligence. In recent years, a number of other research areas have been added to the body of cognitive science. Among researchers there have been discussions about whether cognitive science is a separate research areaor it consists of a series of specialized areas. In fact, the point at issue is whether cognitive science is still a multidisciplinary project or already an interdisciplinary one. P. Thagard believes that cognitive science has reached the level of interdisciplinarity and explains the advances in this area through the metaphor of "trading zones". The success elements of cognitive science are: fruitful unification of scientific interests of cognitive science founders; organizational structure of the scientific community – universities, where a special interdisciplinary intellectual environment has been created; a large number of joint research projects supported by governments and business; integrated use of scientific methods and fundamental ideas. D. Sperber and J. Miller prefer to talk not about a unified cognitive science but cognitive sciences, i.e., the commonwealth of sciences working together on the study of a single object - human cognition, however, the extent of their interactive communication is still small. Thus, we should speak about multidisciplinarity rather than genuine interdisciplinarity of the joint research of separate sciences.