Dear Stephen,



What constitutes a discipline varies immensely across time and space and
between different academic settings. I can speak about what I know best,
the US higher education system. Most of what I will write closely follows
Andrew Abbot’s excellent book about the topic, Chaos of Disciplines.



According to Abbott disciplines and interdisciplines constitute a mutually
reinforcing, interdependent system in the US. Since its first inception in
the late 19th century, this system became quite durable despite numerous
shocks it has endured. In this system, disciplines dominate through a
double structure: undergraduate majors and labor market control through
native PhDs. Most of the undergraduate education is firmly anchored in
undergraduate majors, which are closely tied to disciplinary matrices. The
second part is the disciplinary control of labor markets. Through
disciplinary PhDs, disciplines achieve social closure. For example, it is
not impossible but very difficult to be employed with a PhD in history in
an economics or a sociology department. Interdisciplines exist in
interstitial gaps among the disciplines. While disciplines produce
abstract, problem portable knowledge, interdisciplines (such as American
Studies, Women’s studies etc.) are organized around specific problems. They
seldom produce their own PhDs (for example you typically find historians,
sociologists and many other social scientists in American studies
departments, in much grater numbers than scholars with American studies
PhDs, in part because there aren’t very many institutions that grant PhDs
in American studies) and compared to disciplines, the number undergraduates
that are housed in these majors are relatively small.  Disciplines are
typically housed in departments, while interdisciplines are organized as
programs. A program, by its very definition, is composed of a diverse array
of professors who have their actual appointments in different disciplinary
departments.  Despite the dominance of disciplines, interdisciplines play
an important role. They act as a balancing mechanism that correct the
“absurdities” of the disciplinary structures. Mostly of the
“interdisciplinary” exchange, on the other hand, happens between
disciplines (Abbott and an small group of scholars, including myself, do
not see disciplines as isolated silos) and through interdisciplinary
research centers and institutes.



Along with the organizational issues that I mentioned above, Abbott also
talks about what he calls the “cultural structures” of disciplines and
interdisciplines: their knowledge practices, epistemic cultures, shared
ideologies etc. But I will stop here; otherwise this email will get
needlessly long :)



Abbott’s account, however, is partial. He mostly focuses on traditional
arts and sciences, and does not say much about professional/applied fields
such as business, design or engineering.



I would be curious to learn about other higher education systems.



Warm wishes,



ali


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------