For interdisciplinarity and a disciplined, professional sociology

Abstract

Sociology has been said to be in crisis: it is fragmented; its institutional life is threatened; it is obsessed with its history; it keeps forgetting its history. Meanwhile, a widespread movement is pushing it in the direction of increasing interdisciplinarity, or even post-disciplinarity, accusing disciplines of being parochial or imperialist, or of stifling innovation. But accusations of parochialism and fragmentation are continually met by calls to remember or redefine sociology's core and to defend a professional sociology that can engage in public debates in an informed way. This article explores interdisciplinarity through my own interdisciplinary story and concludes that interdisciplinarity can and should be embraced, but needs to be matched with a disciplined sociology. That disciplined sociology needs a professional and institutional space in which to reaffirm and develop the foundations and later developments attributable to a general conception of sociology. What is central to this general conception of sociology is a scientific emphasis on the complex interrelationship between actions and structures. Interdisciplinary work rarely leaves space for the continued examination of this fundamental realm.

Keywords:

• sociology
• interdisciplinarity
• disciplines
• structuration

Notes

1. For Steinmetz (2007, p. 55), transdisciplinarity is where “both parties to the relationship undergo change and interact in a new ‘third’ space characterized by a minimum of symbolic violence”, whereas in interdisciplinarity “sociology retained its distinctive identity and subjected external inputs to its own logic”.

2. Sayer's (2003, p. 5) definition of postdisciplinarity is strangely reminiscent of Urry's (2007) mobilities paradigm and of the growing interest in mobile, virtual or multi-sited research: “Post-disciplinary studies emerge when scholars forget about disciplines and whether ideas can be identified with any particular one; they identify with learning rather than with disciplines. They follow ideas and connections wherever they lead instead of following them only as far as the border of their discipline”. Similarly, Steinmetz (2007, p. 58) suggests “the present situation is conducive to ‘visiting’ or ‘travelling’ outside the discipline”. This is all evidence of a paradigm shift, or even a fashion.

3. I am not including a list of references, as it would be too numerous. A glance at any number of key journals in these fields will reveal the growth in interdisciplinary collaboration as well as the normative nature of many such projects.

4. I realize I am now stereotyping, which is the danger when we try to take on too much and thus have to reduce the complexity of an issue. However, all stereotypes have their basis in reality, and I have met few phenomenological geographers. Of course, this is changing.

5. Scott (2005a) acknowledges that disciplines are not perfectly discrete.