Most of us are familiar with the term ‘interdisciplinarity’. Indeed, it is an almost inescapable feature of life in higher education institutions. Over the past few decades there has been increasing emphasis on the need for interdisciplinary research and collaboration, particularly in light of current environmental concerns, challenges, and opportunities. Recognising that many of the problems that we face today require the combined efforts of more than one discipline and/or profession, interdisciplinarity is the modus operandi for many funded research projects.
Of course, interdisciplinarity has been discussed and conceptualised (formally, at least) since the early 1970’s. However, despite being a highly cited and celebrated concept, our understanding of how people perceive and experience interdisciplinary ways of working remains fuzzy. Over the years, there have been many attempts to define it and develop measures by which to evaluate its ‘success’.
Many of you might be familiar with frog spawn type diagrams and a plethora of metaphors that attempt to show the differences between multi-, cross-, inter-, and transdisciplinary approaches. Some demonstrate a highly instrumental view of interdisciplinarity, as a problem-solving approach. Others emphasise the intensity of methodological and/or theoretical shift in determining which form of interdisciplinarity the activity falls into. Others make a distinction between inter- and transdisciplinarity based on whether external as well as internal stakeholders are involved.
For the purposes of my project, I treat interdisciplinarity as a spectrum that could encompass characteristics of all the above and more. But regardless of how we choose to define it, when it comes to articulating these approaches in practice, there are few empirical studies exploring the nuances of working in, across, and between disciplines. During times when so much is it stake for our planet – for each other – furthering our understanding of how we engage with interdisciplinarity is all the more pressing.
Literature and recent reports suggest that ‘the arts’ and creative practices could offer sharper insights into how we might meaningfully engage in interdisciplinary ways of working (e.g. SHAPE-ID, 2020; LERU Report, 2023). In the world of art-science collaborations, there have been some exciting findings about how knowledges are disrupted, subverted and (re)created through ostensibly very different disciplines; troubling the notion that art is merely there to ‘facilitate’ or ‘communicate’ on behalf of science (e.g. Callard and Fitzgerald, 2015; Calvert and Schyfter, 2017). Within the arena of Science and Technology Studies (STS), the very logics of interdisciplinarity are challenged and contested (see, notably, Barry, Born and Weszkalnys (2008)). Here, the tensions and synergies between arts and sciences come to agitate and disturb epistemological and ontological spaces and possibilities. Notable examples of how this manifests itself in arts-science collaborations range across synthetic biology (e.g. Calvert and Schyfter, 2017), nuclear physics (e.g. Koek, 2017), and ecology (e.g. Irons, 2020), involving both scientists and artists in critical design, performance, sound and visual art.
The Creative Club is designed as an informal semi-structured space for those engaged in supporting or undertaking research at the University of Exeter. Specifically, the Creative Club uses creative methods to build ideas and discussions across different disciplines and professional practices. Outside of the formalised ‘artist in residence’ and ‘studio-lab’ model, this project will explore how creative interventions inform interdisciplinary practices within the university.
My project poses the following research questions:
Using a combination of in-workshop observations and post-workshop interviews, I intend to explore beyond the typical framings and trappings of current interdisciplinary guidance, toolboxes and toolkits.
With your consent, your participation will form part of an inquiry that aims to find alternative ways of studying, surfacing, and disseminating the realities of interdisciplinary practices within a university research context.
Barry, A., Born, G. and Weszkalnys, G. (2008) ‘Logics of interdisciplinarity’, Economy and Society, 37(1), pp. 20–49. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760841.
Callard, F. and Fitzgerald, D. (2015) Rethinking Interdisciplinarity across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137407962.
Calvert, J. and Schyfter, P. (2017) ‘What can science and technology studies learn from art and design? Reflections on “Synthetic Aesthetics”’, Social Studies of Science, 47(2), pp. 195–215. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127166784.
Galvini, G. et al. (2020) SHAPE-ID Report of workshops and analysis of IDR/AHSS integration learning cases. 3.2. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3030/822705 (Accessed: 20 November 2023).
Irons, E. (2020) ‘The Next Epoch Seed Library’s Lawn Lab: A Public Experiment in Collaboration with Seeds, Time, and Weeds’, Media and Environment, 2(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1525/001c.13470
Koek, A. (2017) ‘In/visible: the inside story of the making of Arts at CERN’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 42(4), pp. 345 – 358. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2017.1381225.
Ohlmeyer, J. and Wernli, D. (2023) Implementing interdisciplinarity in research-intensive universities: good practices and challenges. 30, pp. 1–48. Available at: https://www.leru.org/files/Publications/Implementing-interdisciplinarity-in-research-intensive-universities-good-practices-and-challenges_Full-paper.pdf (Accessed: 12 July 2023).