Interdisciplinary needs: The current context

Library Trends

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 134-154

  Klein, Julie Thompson ^a  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030515754     PISSN: 00242594     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (1990). Liberal learning and the arts and sciences major (vol. 1, The Challenge of Connecting Learning, vol. 2, Reports from the Fields). Washington, DC: AACU.
2. Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Barthes, R. (1977). Image, music, text. New York: Hill & Wang.
4. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
5. Becher, T. (1990). The counter-culture of specialization. European Journal of Education, 25(3), 33-46.
6. Bechtel, W. (1986). The nature of scientific integration. In W. Bechtel (Ed.), Integrating scientific disciplines (pp. 3-52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
7. Blume, S. (1985). After the darkest hour: Integrity and engagement in the development of university research. In B. Wittrock & A. Elzinga (Eds.), The university research system: The public policies of the home of scientists (pp. 139-163). Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell International.
8. Bulick, S. (1982). Structure and subject interaction: Toward a sociology of knowledge in the social sciences. New York: Marcel Dekker.
9. Caldwell, L. K. (1983). Environmental studies: Discipline or metadiscipline? Environmental Professional, 5(4), 247-259.
10. Campbell, D. (1969). Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In M. Sherif & C. W. Sherif (Eds.), Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences (pp. 328-348). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
11. Casey, B. (1994). The administration of interdisciplinary programs. In J. T. Klein & W. G. Doty (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies today (pp. 53-67). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
12. Chubin, D. (1976). The conceptualization of scientific specialties. Sociological Quarterly, 17, 448-176.
13. Chubin, D. E.; Porter, A. L.; Rossini, F. A.; & Connolly, T. (Eds.). (1986). Interdisciplinary analysis and research: Theory and practice of problem-focused research and development. Mt. Airy, MD: Lomond.
14. Clark, B. R. (1995). Places of inquiry: Research and advanced education in modern universities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
15. Clayton, K. (1985). The University of East Anglia. In L. Levin & I. Lind (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity revisited: Re-assessing the concept in the light of institutional experience (pp. 189-205). Stockholm, Sweden: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Swedish National Board of Universities and Colleges, Linköping University.
16. Commonwealth of Virginia. (1990). The case for change. Richmond, VA: Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commission on the University of the 21st Century.
17. Crane, D., & Small, H. (1992). American sociology since the seventies: The emerging identity crisis in the discipline. In T. C. Halliday & M. Janowitz (Eds.), Sociology and its publics: The forms and fates of disciplinary organization (pp. 197-234). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18. Dahlberg, I. (1994). Domain interaction: Theory and practice. Advances in Knowledge Organization, 4, 60-71.
19. Dahlberg, K. A. (1986). The changing nature of natural resources. In K. A. Dahlberg & J. W. Bennett (Eds.), Natural resources and people: Conceptual issues in interdisciplinary research (pp. 11-35). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
20. Davis, J. R. (1995). Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching: New arrangements for learning. Phoenix, A.Z: American Council on Education & Oryx Press.
21. Dermer, J. (1988). Intraorganizational interdisciplinary projects: Design issues. INTERSTUDY Bulletin, 9(19).
22. Dogan, M., & Pahre, R. (1990). Creative marginality: Innovation at the intersections of social sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview.
23. Easton, D. (1991). The division, integration, and transfer of knowledge. In D. Easton & C. S. Schelling (Eds.), Divided knowledge: Across disciplines, across cultures (pp. 7-36). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24. Eisel, U. (1992). About dealing with the impossible: An account of experience in land-scape planning courses. European Journal of Education, 27(3), 239-255.
25. Elzinga, A. (1985). Research, bureaucracy, and the drift of epistemic criteria. In B. Wittrock & A. Elzinga (Eds.), The university research system (pp. 191-220). Lund, Sweden: Research on Higher Education Program.
26. Fedoseyev, P. N. (1984). Philosophy and the integration of knowledge. In A. D. Ursul, A. Javurek, & J. Zeman (Eds.), Integration of science and the systems approach (pp. 13-31). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
27. Fiscella, J. (1989). Access to interdisciplinary information: Setting the problem. Issues in Integrative Studies, 7, 73-92.
28. Frank, R. (1988). "Interdisciplinary": The first half-century. In E. G. Stanley & T. F. Hoad (Eds.), Words: For Robert Burchefield's sixty-fifth birthday (pp. 91-101). Cambridge, MA: D. S. Brewer.
29. Fuller, S. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
30. Fuller, S. (1993). Philosophy, rhetoric, and the end of knowledge: The coming of science and technology studies. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
31. Geertz, C. (1980). Blurred genres: The refiguration of social thought. American Scholar, 49(2), 165-179.
32. Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzman, S.; Scott, P.; & Trow, M. (Eds.). (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33. Goldman, H. (1995). Innovation and change in the production of knowledge. Social Epistemology, 9(3), 211-232.
34. Gunn, G. (1992). Interdisciplinary studies. In J. Gibaldi (Ed.), Introduction to scholarship in modern languages and literatures (pp. 239-261). New York: MLA.
35. Halliday, T. (1992). Introduction: Sociology's fragile professionalism. In T. Halliday & M. Janowitz (Eds.), Sociology and its publics: The forms and fates of disciplinary organization (pp. 3-42). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36. Heckhausen, H. (1972). Discipline and interdisciplinarity. In L. Apostel, G. Berger, A. Briggs, & G. Michaud (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research in universities (pp. 83-89). Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
37. Hershberg, T. (1988). The fragmentation of knowledge and practice: University, private sector and public sector perspectives. Issues in Integrative Studies, 6, 1-20.
38. Huber, L. (1992a). Editorial. European Journal of Education, 27(3), 193-199.
39. Huber, L. (1992b). Toward a new "studium generale:" Some conclusions. European Journal of Education, 25(3), 241-261.
40. Jantsch, E. (1980). Interdisciplinarity: Dreams and reality. Prospects, 10(3), 304-312.
41. Kain, D. (1993). Cabbages - and kings: Research directions in integrated/interdisciplinary curriculum. Journal of Educational Thought, 27(3), 312-331.
42. Klein, J. T. (1990/91). Applying interdisciplinary models to design, planning, and policy making. Knowledge in Society, 5(4), 29-55.
43. Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
44. Klein, J. T. (1994). Finding interdisciplinary knowledge and information. In J. T. Klein & W. G. Doty (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies today (vol. 58, pp. 7-33 in the New Directions in Teaching and Learning Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
45. Klein, J. T. (in press). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia. Editor's Note: This book will be available in November.
46. Klein, J. T., & Doty, W. (Eds.). (1994). Interdisciplinary studies today. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
47. Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. (in press). Interdisciplinary studies. In J. Gaff & J. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Handbook on the undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
48. Kockelmans, J. (Ed.). (1979). Interdisciplinarity and higher education. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
49. Landau, M.; Proshansky, H.; & Ittelson, W. H. (1962). The interdisciplinary approach and the concept of behavioral sciences. In N. F. Washburne (Ed.), Decisions, values, and groups (pp. 7-25). New York: Pergamon Press.
50. Lepenies, W. (1976). History and anthropology: A historical appraisal of the current contact between the disciplines. Social Science Information, 15(2/3), 287-306.
51. Mason, R.O., & Mitroff, I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases, and techniques. New York: Wiley.
52. Messer-Davidow, E.; Shumway, D. R.; & Sylvan, D. J. (1993). Preface and introduction: Disciplinary ways of knowing. In E. Messer-Davidow, D. R. Shumway, & D. J. Sylvan (Eds.), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies in disciplinary (pp. vii-viii, 1-21). Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
53. Miller, R. C. (1982). Varieties of interdisciplinary approaches in the social sciences. Issues in Integrative Studies, No. 1, 1-37.
54. National Research Council. (1986). Scientific interfaces and technological applications. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
55. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1972). Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research in universities. Paris, France: OECD.
56. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1982). The university and the community: The problems of changing relationships. Paris, France: OECD.
57. Ohio State University. (1991). Report on recommendations for fostering interdisciplinary research and graduate education. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Task Force for Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education.
58. Oakley, F. (1992). Against nostalgia: Reflections on our present discontents in American higher education. In D. J. Gless & B. Herrnstein Smith (Eds.), The politics of liberal education (pp. 267-289). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
59. Paulson, W. (1991). Literature, complexity, interdisciplinarity. In N. K. Hayles (Ed.), Chaos and order: Complex dynamics in literature and science (pp. 37-53). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60. Reiger, H. A. (1978). A balanced science of renewable resources, with particular reference to fisheries. Seattle, WA: Division of Marine Resources, University of Washington Press.
61. Rittle, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 167-169.
62. Ruscio, K. (1985). Specializations in academic disciplines: "Spokes on a wheel." Unpublished paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education meeting, Chicago, Illinois, 15-17 March. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 259 643)
63. Salter, L., & Hearn, A. (Eds.). (1996). Outside the lines: Issues and problems in interdisciplinary research. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queens Press.
64. Schön,D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NewYork: Basic Books.
65. Scott, P. (1984). The crisis of the university. London, England: Croom Helm.
66. Scott, P. (1991). Knowledge's outer shape, inner life. Times Higher Education Supplement, 16 August, p. 12.
67. Searing, S. E. (1992). How librarians cope with interdisciplinarity: The case of women's studies. Issues in Integrative Studies, 10, 7-25.
68. Sigma Xi. (1988). Removing the boundaries: Perspectives on cross-disciplinary research. New Haven, CT: Research Triangle Park: NC, Sigma Xi.
69. Squires, G. (1992). Interdisciplinarity in higher education in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Education, 27(3), 201-209.
70. Stember, M. (1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. Social Science Journal, 25(2), 1-14.
71. Suleiman, S. R. (1980). Introduction: Varieties of audience-oriented criticism. In S. R. Suleiman & I. Crosman (Eds.), The reader in the text: Essays on audience and interpretation (pp. 3-45). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
72. Swoboda, W. (1979). Discipline and interdisciplinarity: A historical perspective. In J. J. Kockelmans (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity and higher education (pp. 49-92). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
73. Turner, B. (1990). The interdisciplinary curriculum: From social medicine to postmodernism. Sociology of Health and Illness, 12(1), 1-23.
74. Van den Dale, W., & Weingart, P. (1975). Resistance and receptivity of science to external direction: The emergence of new disciplines under the impact of science policy. In G. Lemaine, R. MacLeod, R. M. Mulkay, & P. Weingart (Eds.), Perspectives on the emergence of scientific disciplines (pp. 247-276). The Hague: Mouton.
75. 2-induced climate change: Opportunities for research. Climatic Change, 3(4), 387-428.
76. Whitley, R. (1984). The rise and decline of university disciplines in the sciences. In R. Jurkovich & J. H. P. Paelinck (Eds.), Problems in interdisciplinary studies: Issues in interdisciplinary studies (pp. 10-25). Aldershot, Hampshire: Gower.
77. Wolfle, D. L. (1981). Interdisciplinary research as a form of research. SRA: Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 13(2), 5-7.
78. Woolgar, S., & Pawluch, D. (1984). Ontological gerrymandering: The anatomy of social problems explanations. Social Problems, 32(3), 214-217.