My experience *being* this kind of internally interdisciplinary person has been tough. Working on the kinds of questions that nestle in the spaces between well-defined disciplines makes it hard to be welcomed into any of them. Grant committees love to see an interdisciplinary collaboration, but don’t love a project that’s only half what they’re looking for. Academic departments prefer hiring someone who can teach their intro survey course, rather than a niche seminar co-listed with another department.
I like the Fodor quote, not least because, in the age of AI, I seem to be constantly defending the value of knowing things--of having ideas reside in your head.
Years ago I attended a mini-conference at the Santa Fe Institute where the theme was "Is there a physics of society?" There were physicists. There were economists. There were some sociologists, including me. There was very little meaningful dialogue. I wouldn't liken it to parallel play, exactly, as there was conversational turn-taking and the economists said things that gave the physicists the occasion to say things that gave the sociologists the occasion to say things, etc. I, an avid reader of popular science, was disappointed that the physicists couldn't do better than liken people to atoms and the physicists seemed only to care to hear me talk about the theoretical diversity of sociology (which they took, not wrongly, as incoherence).
Yeah, I think this (and the main post) are pretty spot-on. When I was in academia long ago, it just seemed like everyone was just waiting to give their view on things, from their background / field. (And people who were good in one thing assumed they were good in everything; Herb Simon at CMU being an example.)
I know I'm supposed to have something substantive to say here, but I got caught up in the Reese's commercial and the Youtube comments. They were hilarious! Also, no one noticed the magically appearing second chocolate bar.
This was not too niche; in fact, it was quite normal. And interesting. I had never heard the phrase parallel play and it perfectly describes all too many interactions of many sorts. Thanks.
I don't have a lot of relevant experience here, but I do know that your thesis is true for the philosophy of physics. Physicists who talk with philosophers but don't really know the philosophy don't get anywhere; philosophers who talk with physicists but don't really know the physics don't get anywhere. Good interdisciplinary work happens only when someone does the ridiculous amount of work necessary to master both the philosophical and physics-centric aspects--all in one head.
I don't work in the philosophy of language anymore, but I'll bet the same is true over there.
Also, I miss reading Fodor's casual, humorous, but informative style of writing!
This made me wonder if we media types who write about science sometimes inadvertently (or advertently) push academics to sound interdisciplinary. In any event I now understand better an experience science journalists have from time to time. It goes like this.
Science Journalist: "This work of yours sounds like it dovetails in a meaningful way with work being done in this other field."
Academic Who is Not Sure What J is Talking About But Wants to be Amenable and See Name in Article: "Yes, indeed, there are lots of interdisciplinary implications!"
OR
Academic Who Is Cautious and Wants to Stick to What She Actually Knows: "Um, what? Never thought about that. Let's talk about my exciting new publication."
OR
Academic Who is Cautious but Curious: "Not familiar with that. Send me a link or something."
If one considers the mutual hostility and misunderstanding that can happen even just within a single field (e.g. analytic vs continental, positivist vs qualitative, classical vs contemporary), it's a wonder we ever bridge the gaps with those outside our domains.
This is really interesting and I also find it challenging. Most interdisciplinary work that you describe (and I experience too) is multi-displinary, when researchers from differnet disciplines share a subject but each discuss it only within their domain of knowledge.
My interpretation of Fodoe's quote is that often a true interdisplinary work is the product of one person, usually a researcher in one field that starts looking at other fields. It is amazing to see how two disciplines can discuss the same topic but they can't talk with each other. In grad school, I took ANOVA classes in psychology and in the stats department and they sound so different even if they taught the same logic. This was an eye openning experience so I agree with you that often you just need to talk with people in your own university that have similar interests.
Oh, thank you! I've been saying the exact same thing to psychologists and people from many other disciplines, and almost invariably been met by empty stares and changes of subject. So happy to know someone else thinks the same way.
While not research-oriented, the parallel play reminded me of a couple of conversations I had with some senior physics academics about the crisis of undergraduate and postgraduate mental health the department was having (as part of the new PhD student wellbeing role I had just undertaken). They told me about the committees they formed with fellow physicists and administrators, the ideas thrown around, and various interventions that ultimately failed. I had the impression some were at the point of exasperation.
All this while, there was a centre for mental health and wellbeing a five minute walk away. It always struck me as odd that this was not the first port of call. Thinking back on it, I'm not sure many of the academics and/or administrators were even aware the university had such a department.
I met so many brilliant minds during my short stint in academia, but left feeling that perhaps a few could have left space for interests other than physics.
It sounds like you all underestimate the upfront investment needed to understand the what the other fields are talking about and only those who are willing to make the investment can appreciate, build on, riff off of the work of the other field(s). I still think the foxes (as opposed to the hedgehogs) are worth their weight in gold.
For me, interdisciplinary is about listening and understanding commonality in structure and being able to integrate systems into coherent applications to move forward with new insights and applications in real life.. In high school, I studied English grammar and writing, Latin and French. I also studied 3 maths based on set theory, and physics and chemistry not to mention other subjects like history and geography plus learning and implementing scientific methods of exploration.... At the end of my high school education, I realised all these subjects integrated into a system around structure and systems. In my third year of business, I learned about operations research and complex modelling algorithms. Historically operations research applied to engineering and operational systems. Later, long after graduation I was able to apply and integrate all of these structures into interdisciplinary learning especially in social sciences and the structures seemed perfect for reading about psychology and how our minds work......My opinion is without structured thinking and learning, little systematic progress will be made in real life with achievement - the final piece of Martin Seligman's "PERMA"......
I wonder if some level of interdisciplinary efforts could be done earlier in education. Undergraduate courses that provide a basic understanding of related fields. This happens in some fields already, like Computer Science and Computer Engineering for example. It is useful to, at the very least, become familiar with the jargon of another semi-related field.
I think the most extensive disciplinary based coursework I took as a student was chemistry, but my main interest was not in chemistry for its own sake, but in how chemistry could be used to understand and manage the larger world. So I gravitated toward engineering, agriculture, environmental science, and biogeochemistry, which involve drawing on different disciplines (e.g., math, chemistry, hydrology, soil science, biology) to address practical questions and solve problems. In my experience, successful collaborations seem to require at least one of the collaborators to learn enough of how different disciplines approach a subject in order to develop a draft team integration plan to tackle the issue being addressed. So I can at least partially agree with Fodor’s statement about the “only interdisciplinary conversations worth having are those that go on inside a single head.” But once a draft integration plan is developed in one head, it can be refined and enriched by ongoing interdisciplinary conversation with the other heads. This often involves overcoming barriers of jargon, logistics, cost and trust. Within one discipline, the barriers of jargon and trust may be lower. But any research and development investment is risky and could result in a waste of time. The higher barriers to interdisciplinary work may result in more wasted time more frequently than disciplinary work.
The American Geophysical Union incorporates a wide range of disciplines from space, atmospheric sciences, geology, hydrology, remote sensing, and more. I feel much more at home in this space than I would in the American Chemical Society, but I appreciate the work of the chemists.
My experience *being* this kind of internally interdisciplinary person has been tough. Working on the kinds of questions that nestle in the spaces between well-defined disciplines makes it hard to be welcomed into any of them. Grant committees love to see an interdisciplinary collaboration, but don’t love a project that’s only half what they’re looking for. Academic departments prefer hiring someone who can teach their intro survey course, rather than a niche seminar co-listed with another department.
I like the Fodor quote, not least because, in the age of AI, I seem to be constantly defending the value of knowing things--of having ideas reside in your head.
https://sermointerruptus.blog/2025/05/25/whats-in-your-consciousness/
Years ago I attended a mini-conference at the Santa Fe Institute where the theme was "Is there a physics of society?" There were physicists. There were economists. There were some sociologists, including me. There was very little meaningful dialogue. I wouldn't liken it to parallel play, exactly, as there was conversational turn-taking and the economists said things that gave the physicists the occasion to say things that gave the sociologists the occasion to say things, etc. I, an avid reader of popular science, was disappointed that the physicists couldn't do better than liken people to atoms and the physicists seemed only to care to hear me talk about the theoretical diversity of sociology (which they took, not wrongly, as incoherence).
Yeah, I think this (and the main post) are pretty spot-on. When I was in academia long ago, it just seemed like everyone was just waiting to give their view on things, from their background / field. (And people who were good in one thing assumed they were good in everything; Herb Simon at CMU being an example.)
I know I'm supposed to have something substantive to say here, but I got caught up in the Reese's commercial and the Youtube comments. They were hilarious! Also, no one noticed the magically appearing second chocolate bar.
This was not too niche; in fact, it was quite normal. And interesting. I had never heard the phrase parallel play and it perfectly describes all too many interactions of many sorts. Thanks.
I don't have a lot of relevant experience here, but I do know that your thesis is true for the philosophy of physics. Physicists who talk with philosophers but don't really know the philosophy don't get anywhere; philosophers who talk with physicists but don't really know the physics don't get anywhere. Good interdisciplinary work happens only when someone does the ridiculous amount of work necessary to master both the philosophical and physics-centric aspects--all in one head.
I don't work in the philosophy of language anymore, but I'll bet the same is true over there.
Also, I miss reading Fodor's casual, humorous, but informative style of writing!
This made me wonder if we media types who write about science sometimes inadvertently (or advertently) push academics to sound interdisciplinary. In any event I now understand better an experience science journalists have from time to time. It goes like this.
Science Journalist: "This work of yours sounds like it dovetails in a meaningful way with work being done in this other field."
Academic Who is Not Sure What J is Talking About But Wants to be Amenable and See Name in Article: "Yes, indeed, there are lots of interdisciplinary implications!"
OR
Academic Who Is Cautious and Wants to Stick to What She Actually Knows: "Um, what? Never thought about that. Let's talk about my exciting new publication."
OR
Academic Who is Cautious but Curious: "Not familiar with that. Send me a link or something."
If one considers the mutual hostility and misunderstanding that can happen even just within a single field (e.g. analytic vs continental, positivist vs qualitative, classical vs contemporary), it's a wonder we ever bridge the gaps with those outside our domains.
This is really interesting and I also find it challenging. Most interdisciplinary work that you describe (and I experience too) is multi-displinary, when researchers from differnet disciplines share a subject but each discuss it only within their domain of knowledge.
My interpretation of Fodoe's quote is that often a true interdisplinary work is the product of one person, usually a researcher in one field that starts looking at other fields. It is amazing to see how two disciplines can discuss the same topic but they can't talk with each other. In grad school, I took ANOVA classes in psychology and in the stats department and they sound so different even if they taught the same logic. This was an eye openning experience so I agree with you that often you just need to talk with people in your own university that have similar interests.
Oh, thank you! I've been saying the exact same thing to psychologists and people from many other disciplines, and almost invariably been met by empty stares and changes of subject. So happy to know someone else thinks the same way.
While not research-oriented, the parallel play reminded me of a couple of conversations I had with some senior physics academics about the crisis of undergraduate and postgraduate mental health the department was having (as part of the new PhD student wellbeing role I had just undertaken). They told me about the committees they formed with fellow physicists and administrators, the ideas thrown around, and various interventions that ultimately failed. I had the impression some were at the point of exasperation.
All this while, there was a centre for mental health and wellbeing a five minute walk away. It always struck me as odd that this was not the first port of call. Thinking back on it, I'm not sure many of the academics and/or administrators were even aware the university had such a department.
I met so many brilliant minds during my short stint in academia, but left feeling that perhaps a few could have left space for interests other than physics.
The fact that cognitive science is interdisciplinary is one of the few redeeming qualities (left) of having taken philosophy subjects. 🧐
It sounds like you all underestimate the upfront investment needed to understand the what the other fields are talking about and only those who are willing to make the investment can appreciate, build on, riff off of the work of the other field(s). I still think the foxes (as opposed to the hedgehogs) are worth their weight in gold.
As one planning an interdisciplinary conference of practitioners around spirituality and interpersonal-neurobiology, this is very helpful.
For me, interdisciplinary is about listening and understanding commonality in structure and being able to integrate systems into coherent applications to move forward with new insights and applications in real life.. In high school, I studied English grammar and writing, Latin and French. I also studied 3 maths based on set theory, and physics and chemistry not to mention other subjects like history and geography plus learning and implementing scientific methods of exploration.... At the end of my high school education, I realised all these subjects integrated into a system around structure and systems. In my third year of business, I learned about operations research and complex modelling algorithms. Historically operations research applied to engineering and operational systems. Later, long after graduation I was able to apply and integrate all of these structures into interdisciplinary learning especially in social sciences and the structures seemed perfect for reading about psychology and how our minds work......My opinion is without structured thinking and learning, little systematic progress will be made in real life with achievement - the final piece of Martin Seligman's "PERMA"......
I wonder if some level of interdisciplinary efforts could be done earlier in education. Undergraduate courses that provide a basic understanding of related fields. This happens in some fields already, like Computer Science and Computer Engineering for example. It is useful to, at the very least, become familiar with the jargon of another semi-related field.
I think the most extensive disciplinary based coursework I took as a student was chemistry, but my main interest was not in chemistry for its own sake, but in how chemistry could be used to understand and manage the larger world. So I gravitated toward engineering, agriculture, environmental science, and biogeochemistry, which involve drawing on different disciplines (e.g., math, chemistry, hydrology, soil science, biology) to address practical questions and solve problems. In my experience, successful collaborations seem to require at least one of the collaborators to learn enough of how different disciplines approach a subject in order to develop a draft team integration plan to tackle the issue being addressed. So I can at least partially agree with Fodor’s statement about the “only interdisciplinary conversations worth having are those that go on inside a single head.” But once a draft integration plan is developed in one head, it can be refined and enriched by ongoing interdisciplinary conversation with the other heads. This often involves overcoming barriers of jargon, logistics, cost and trust. Within one discipline, the barriers of jargon and trust may be lower. But any research and development investment is risky and could result in a waste of time. The higher barriers to interdisciplinary work may result in more wasted time more frequently than disciplinary work.
The American Geophysical Union incorporates a wide range of disciplines from space, atmospheric sciences, geology, hydrology, remote sensing, and more. I feel much more at home in this space than I would in the American Chemical Society, but I appreciate the work of the chemists.