by using a perspective in one discipline to modify a perspective in
another discipline, (2) using research techniques developed in one
discipline to elaborate a theoretical model in another, (3) developing
a new theoretical framework that may reconceptualize research in
two or more separate domains as it attempts to integrate them, and
(4) modifying a theoretical framework characteristic of one domain
and then applying it to another.^6
Interdisciplinarity has been a priority in the funding world for
several years. It is favored by the leaders in federal funding (the
National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation),
by universities eager to stake out new territory that will raise their
profile, and by a number of private foundations.^7 Thus the fund-
ing competitions I studied are not exceptional in promoting inter-
disciplinarity. Program officers take organizational guidelines seri-
ously; in putting together funding panels, they factor in potential
members’ interdisciplinary orientation. Consequently, during inter-
views, many panelists were vocal in their appreciation for interdisci-
plinary research. An English professor’s comments capture this en-
thusiasm: “The more subjects you canvas, the more likely you are to
approach your topic fairly...Puttingthings together that are not
usually put together is a good thing to do, an [innovation] that
might produce useful knowledge.” In addition to its role in produc-
ing “useful knowledge,” interdisciplinarity is valued because it im-
proves one’s “ability to speak to different sets of people,” thus broad-
ening a project’s intellectual reach. Yet as we will see, panelists also
acknowledge that “true” or “good” interdisciplinarity is often elusive.
Doing It Well
After briefly establishing his identity as an interdisciplinary scholar
(“I read things in anthropology, sociology, probably less in political
science and literature”), a historian notes that interdisciplinarity “is a
Considering Interdisciplinarity and Diversity / 205