Recently Rated:
Stats
Blogs: 172
Pages: 4
Memos: 113
Invitations: 1
Location: Kyoto and Auckland
Work interests: research, editing, science communication
Affiliation/website: National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka
Preferred contact method: Any
Preferred contact language(s): English, German
Contact: email = researchcooperative-at-gmail-dot-com
Favourite publications: Various, and especially the open access versions of older journals with effective review systems
Work interests: research, editing, science communication
Affiliation/website: National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka
Preferred contact method: Any
Preferred contact language(s): English, German
Contact: email = researchcooperative-at-gmail-dot-com
Favourite publications: Various, and especially the open access versions of older journals with effective review systems
Founding Member
Work: ethnobotany, prehistory, museum curation
Affiliations: 1996-present: National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka. 1995: Freelance editor, Kyoto. 1994: JSPS Research Visitor, Kyoto University, Kyoto. 1993: Research Visitor, Australian National University, Canberra. 1991: Visiting Researcher, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.1990: STA Fellow, National Institute for Ornamental Plants, Vegetables, and Tea (NIVOT), Ano, Japan
Contact: National Museum of Ethnology, Senri Expo Park, Suita City, Osaka, Japan 565-8511
Biographical: Established the Research Cooperative in 2001
Favourite Publications: Various
Affiliations: 1996-present: National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka. 1995: Freelance editor, Kyoto. 1994: JSPS Research Visitor, Kyoto University, Kyoto. 1993: Research Visitor, Australian National University, Canberra. 1991: Visiting Researcher, National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.1990: STA Fellow, National Institute for Ornamental Plants, Vegetables, and Tea (NIVOT), Ano, Japan
Contact: National Museum of Ethnology, Senri Expo Park, Suita City, Osaka, Japan 565-8511
Biographical: Established the Research Cooperative in 2001
Favourite Publications: Various
How can cross-disciplinary studies be recognised?
This is a chronic and ubiquitous problem.
For anyone who is working between and across disciplines, there is a danger that your work will not be recognised or supported because:
(a) It does not fit the established scope of existing mainstream disciplines, so no academic positions exist, no jobs are advertised, and no such courses are taught, so no teachers are required.
(b) Few journals focus on the intersections between mainstream disciplines, so there are fewer opportunities to publish in journals where most readers will be looking for cross-disciplinary research results, and the mainstream journals lack reviewers or referees with the necessary experience to assess cross-disciplinary work in full. Of course there are specialist journals for every topic imaginable, but such journals by definition reach small audiences. Your work is almost invisible.
(c) Your readership is dispersed - as an expert in more than one discipline, you may be able to publish in wider range of journals than most people, but this means that few readers will be aware of the full range of your work because readers naturally tend to follow the work in their main discipline most closely; your work is widely but thinly read, and is fragmented across too many different journals and books.
You may be lucky and find a broad-minded institution or department that allows you to pursue your interests outside the historical scope of the organisation; such positions should be treasured and the freedom to work across disciplines can compensate for the lack of full institutional or disciplinary backing.
An argument could be made for establishing an International University for Cross-disciplinary Studies. Here are some of the possible departments:
Archaeology and Natural History
Medical Anthropology
Ethnobiology
Ecological economics
Society and Technology
etc etc.
And this is where the argument breaks down.
There are of course an infinite number of permutations and combinations in the possible areas of cross-disciplinary research. Rather than giving them all a formal name and department and journal, perhaps we just need to do more to create spaces for cross-disciplinary work within every major discipline.
Within a large institution, or at a national level, this could be facilitated by a Commission for Cross-Disciplinary Research.
Such a Commission could be given a mandate to encourage the creation of research projects, teaching courses, and staff positions that employ researchers who wish to pursue cross-disciplianry approaches.
The Commission could also have a role in reviewing research funding applications that lie outside the officially mandated lists of research topics. The problem here is that funding agencies need to appoint expert panels to assess funding applications, and for logistical reasons, the panels are appointed to review applications filed under the official list of research topics.
As a result, the panel for medical research may regard an medical-anthropological project as inappropriate for their category, and the panel for anthropological research may regard a medical-anthopological project as inappropriate. Rather than letting disciplinary panels reject cross-disciplinary projects, such projects could be referred to the above Commission, and an associated network of research-reviewers who have wide experience in cross-disciplinary approaches.
I believe that this is an argument that needs to be made in many countries. Any comments based on your experience in your own country or research area would be welcome.
For anyone who is working between and across disciplines, there is a danger that your work will not be recognised or supported because:
(a) It does not fit the established scope of existing mainstream disciplines, so no academic positions exist, no jobs are advertised, and no such courses are taught, so no teachers are required.
(b) Few journals focus on the intersections between mainstream disciplines, so there are fewer opportunities to publish in journals where most readers will be looking for cross-disciplinary research results, and the mainstream journals lack reviewers or referees with the necessary experience to assess cross-disciplinary work in full. Of course there are specialist journals for every topic imaginable, but such journals by definition reach small audiences. Your work is almost invisible.
(c) Your readership is dispersed - as an expert in more than one discipline, you may be able to publish in wider range of journals than most people, but this means that few readers will be aware of the full range of your work because readers naturally tend to follow the work in their main discipline most closely; your work is widely but thinly read, and is fragmented across too many different journals and books.
You may be lucky and find a broad-minded institution or department that allows you to pursue your interests outside the historical scope of the organisation; such positions should be treasured and the freedom to work across disciplines can compensate for the lack of full institutional or disciplinary backing.
An argument could be made for establishing an International University for Cross-disciplinary Studies. Here are some of the possible departments:
Archaeology and Natural History
Medical Anthropology
Ethnobiology
Ecological economics
Society and Technology
etc etc.
And this is where the argument breaks down.
There are of course an infinite number of permutations and combinations in the possible areas of cross-disciplinary research. Rather than giving them all a formal name and department and journal, perhaps we just need to do more to create spaces for cross-disciplinary work within every major discipline.
Within a large institution, or at a national level, this could be facilitated by a Commission for Cross-Disciplinary Research.
Such a Commission could be given a mandate to encourage the creation of research projects, teaching courses, and staff positions that employ researchers who wish to pursue cross-disciplianry approaches.
The Commission could also have a role in reviewing research funding applications that lie outside the officially mandated lists of research topics. The problem here is that funding agencies need to appoint expert panels to assess funding applications, and for logistical reasons, the panels are appointed to review applications filed under the official list of research topics.
As a result, the panel for medical research may regard an medical-anthropological project as inappropriate for their category, and the panel for anthropological research may regard a medical-anthopological project as inappropriate. Rather than letting disciplinary panels reject cross-disciplinary projects, such projects could be referred to the above Commission, and an associated network of research-reviewers who have wide experience in cross-disciplinary approaches.
I believe that this is an argument that needs to be made in many countries. Any comments based on your experience in your own country or research area would be welcome.
