Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-br6xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-12T06:56:33.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Donald T. Campbell on the institutions of scientific knowledge and the limits to interdisciplinarity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2022

Geoffrey M. Hodgson
Geoffrey M. Hodgson*
Affiliation:
Loughborough University London, Stratford, London, UK
*
*Corresponding author. Email: g.hodgson2@lboro.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Extracts from an important article by the American psychologist, philosopher and social scientist Donald T. Campbell are reproduced here, with an introduction underlining the importance of his argument for today. Campbell identified disciplinary boundaries as enablers of specialization but often barriers to scientific innovation and shared knowledge. But instead of unbounded interdisciplinarity, Campbell argued for focused specialisms that cross disciplinary boundaries. This argument is particularly relevant for the development of institutional research in the future.

Keywords

Donald T. Campbellethnocentrism of disciplinesinterdisciplinarity

Information

Type
Fragment
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , December 2022 , pp. 969 - 980
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Millennium Economics Ltd.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbott, A. (2001), Chaos of Disciplines, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bentkowska, K. (2021), ‘Response to Governmental COVID-19 Restrictions: The Role of Informal Institutions’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 17(5): 729–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camic, C and Hodgson, G. M. (eds.) (2011) Essential Writings of Thorstein Veblen. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1965), ‘Variation, Selection and Retention in Sociocultural Evolution’, in Barringer, H. R., Blanksten, G. I. and Mack, R. W. (eds.), Social Change in Developing Areas: A Reinterpretation of Evolutionary Theory, Cambridge, MA: Schenkman, pp. 19–49. Reprinted in General Systems, 14, 1969, pp. 69–85.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1969), ‘Ethnocentrism of Disciplines and the Fish-Scale Model of Omniscience’, in Muzafer, S. and Carolyn, W. S. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, Chicago: Aldine, pp. 328–348.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1974a), ‘Evolutionary Epistemology’, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper (Vol. 14, I & II). The Library of Living Philosophers, La Salle, IL: Open Court, pp. 413–463.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1974b), ‘Unjustified Variation and Selective Retention in Scientific Discovery’, in Ayala, F. J. and Dobzhansky, T. (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, London, Berkeley and Los Angeles: Macmillan and University of California Press, pp. 139–161.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1974c), ‘“Downward Causation” in Hierarchically Organized Biological Systems’, in Ayala, F. J. and Dobzhansky, T. (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology. London, Berkeley and Los Angeles: Macmillan and University of California Press, pp. 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1976), Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change, Hanover, NH: The Public Affairs Center.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1979), ‘A Tribal Model of the Social System Vehicle Carrying Scientific Knowledge’, Knowledge, 1(2): 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1987), ‘Blind Variation and Selective Retention as in Other Knowledge Processes’, in Radnitzky, G. and Bartley, W. W. III (eds.), Evolutionary Epistemology, Theory of Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge, La Salle, IL: Open Court, pp. 91–114.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1988), Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1989), ‘Rationality and Utility from the Standpoint of Evolutionary Biology’, in Hogarth, R. and Reder, M. (eds.), Rational Choice: The Contrast between Economics and Psychology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 171–180.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1994), ‘How Individual and Face-to-Face-Group Selection Undermine Firm Selection in Organizational Evolution’, in Baum, J. A. C. and Singh, J. V. (eds.), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar
Clift, B., Kristensen, P. M. and Rosamond, B. (2022), ‘Remembering and Forgetting IPE: Disciplinary History and Boundary Work’, Review of International Political Economy, 29(2): 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. (2010), Tacit and Explicit Knowledge, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crew, B. (2019), ‘The top 10 Countries for Scientific Research in 2018’, Nature Index, 1. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/top-ten-countries-research-science-twenty-nineteen. Retrieved 14 May 2022.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. (1979), Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, Translated from the German Edition of 1935, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, S. (1988), Social Epistemology, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. C. (2010),Relying on Others: An Essay in Epistemology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (1999), Knowledge in a Social World, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2009), ‘Social Epistemology: Theory and Applications’, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 64: 1–18, Published online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, I. (2017), Heat, Greed and Human Need, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (ed.) (1935), Collectivist Economic Planning, London: George Routledge. Reprinted 1975 by Augustus Kelley.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1945), ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society’, American Economic Review, 35(4): 519–530.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1988), ‘The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism’, in Bartley, W. W. III (ed.), The Collected Works of Friedrich August Hayek (Vol. I), London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1989), ‘The Pretence of Knowledge’, American Economic Review, 79(6): 1–7.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2019a), Is Socialism Feasible? Towards an Alternative Future, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2019b), Is There a Future for Heterodox Economics? Institutions, Ideology and a Scientific Community, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. A. and Frickel, S. (2009), ‘Interdisciplinarity: A Critical Assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology, 35: 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1993), The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. (1990), Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, D. (2018), ‘Epistemological or Political? Unpacking Ambiguities in the Field of Interdisciplinarity Studies’, Minerva, 56(4): 453–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, B. R. (2012), ‘The Evolution of Science Policy and Innovation Studies’, Research Policy, 41(7): 1219–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oğuz, F. (2010), ‘Hayek on Tacit Knowledge’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 6(2): 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007), ‘Challenges and Growth: The Development of the Interdisciplinary Field of Institutional Analysis’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 3(3): 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paniagua, P. and Rayamajhee, V. (2022), ‘A Polycentric Approach for Pandemic Governance: Nested Externalities and Co-Production Challenges’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 18(4): 537–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1940), ‘Collectivist Planning’, in Polanyi, M. (ed.), The Contempt of Freedom: The Russian Experiment and After, London: Watts, pp. 27–60, chapter 2. Reprinted in the Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(6), December 2019, pp. 1055–1074.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1948), ‘Planning and Spontaneous Order’, The Manchester School, 16: 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1962), ‘The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory’, Minerva, 1(1): 54–73.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Stern, N. (2007), The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. (2006), Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Surowiecki, J. (2004), The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economics, Societies, and Nations, New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Van Noorden, R. (2015), ‘Interdisciplinary Research by the Numbers’, Nature, 305: 306–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vatn, A. (2005), Institutions and the Environment, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Whitley, R. (1984), The Intellectual and Social Organisation of the Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H. (1988), ‘The Sociology of Science’, in Smelser, N. J. (ed.), Handbook of Sociology, London and New York: Sage, pp. 511–574.Google Scholar