Klein's Interdisciplinarity is an important look at the state of interdisciplinarity research circa 1990, but its argument is caught up in the glorious rhetoric of interdisciplinarity rather than the decidedly mixed record of actual interdisciplinary programs.

Modern interdisciplinarity has been seen as a panacea for a research endeavor which has fragmented into fiefdoms and abstractions. Interdisciplinarity is seen as a pragmatic application of scholarly inquiry to immediate ends; from sustaining fragile ecosystems, to landing on the moon, to coming to grips with rapidly changing technology. Interdisciplinarity is also a radical practice of speaking truth to power, of critical inquiry towards race and gender and imperialism. And finally, interdisciplinarity is a way to rejuvenate tired and dogmatic professors and programs.

All well and good, and the study of the history of interdisciplinary efforts through 1990 is quite strong. My problem is that Klein rather uncritically accepts Donald Campbell's "fishscale" metaphor of interdisciplinary omniscience. In Campbell's metaphor, the disciplines represent tight clusters of knowledge with large gaps of ignorance between them. By rearranging knowledge (and knowledge production) to cover the gaps, we can achieve a more comprehensive view of the world. This is an empirical claim about the structure of knowledge and the nature of problems that we face, and while it's a pretty metaphor it doesn't bear up to scrutiny. Managing the behavior of complex sociotechnical systems doesn't require further research, it's just very hard to impossible. And as for pressing social problems, usually they remain so because solving them would cost powerful people money.

Klein is right to note that the highest goal of interdisciplinary research is the synthetic integration of knowledge. But disciplines are a matter of intellectual genealogy, of things in the past that have proved durable and distinct enough to be given a name. It is possible to be integrative, synthetic, and to flow smoothly from theory to application within one discipline. And it is equally possible to combine insights and methods from many disciplines into an unbalanced hodgepodge. Interdisciplinarity in practice is fraught with hazards, from the misuse to decontextualized concepts to the need to create a sui generis framework for discourse before work even properly begins.

I'll be returning to Klein for a snappy quote (she has collected many), and a good summation of the field. But for real insight, Jacob's In Defense of Disciplines is the superior work.