welcome
cartLogin

From disciplinarity to research processes

September 19, 2010

Sometimes a number of factors such as postgraduate study and a shift in career focus conspire to make you mixing in different circles. Seeing people work in different contexts or shifting between them or attempting to make a team work with people from very different professional backgrounds can give some interesting insights. A number of the people I know no longer identify themselves as coming from a particular discipline, some name several disciplines and claim to be card holding members of each, others are strictly members of one and always will be.

The terminology seems to get a bit blurred, with profession, discipline and job each being labels that can be applied to the central nature a person’s work. Whole academic careers have been devoted to exploring and explaining the differences between these terms and also to continuing the conversation about the differences between disciplines with the terms multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, meta-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary studies etc. If discipline is the generation of knowledge and profession is the application of knowledge then is there is the potential for yet another disconnect between players which in the end may not serve the purpose of finding solutions to shared problems.
One theme has been to look at so called bridging sciences for guidance. Youngblood makes it clear that just bringing insights together but not integrating them is multi-disciplinary studies, it is the focus on research process that creates the integration that makes the work interdisciplinary. She suggests that having a common purpose, avoiding turf wars and putting the emphasis on process are winning strategies. “What interdisciplinary studies can therefore learn from the bridging disciplines is the importance of not becoming a domain, as domain creates territory and territory creates niche dominance. Instead, focus on the process of finding solutions to problems and answers to important questions.” If big problems need integrated thinking, then putting effort into new research processes is important and a single discipline should not try to hold its own methodology, methods and tools too tightly. The point is that it is the drive to create new research processes, not the creation of (yet another) discipline that counts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Recent Posts

About the Cynefin Company

The Cynefin Company (formerly known as Cognitive Edge) was founded in 2005 by Dave Snowden. We believe in praxis and focus on building methods, tools and capability that apply the wisdom from Complex Adaptive Systems theory and other scientific disciplines in social systems. We are the world leader in developing management approaches (in society, government and industry) that empower organisations to absorb uncertainty, detect weak signals to enable sense-making in complex systems, act on the rich data, create resilience and, ultimately, thrive in a complex world.
ABOUT US

Cognitive Edge Ltd. & Cognitive Edge Pte. trading as The Cynefin Company and The Cynefin Centre.

© COPYRIGHT 2022. 

Social Links: The Cynefin Company
Social Links: The Cynefin Centre
< Prev

It’s called teaming

- No Comments

Multidisciplinary work should almost be the natural order of things for some disciplines, though reading ...

More posts

Next >

Would you like a verb with that?

- No Comments

Struggling with writing is an occupational hazard for some people and more so if the ...

More posts

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram