1/ I'm sure the STS folks can say this better but, Single-author papers or projects aren't interdisciplinary. They can't be.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @generativist
Artem Kaznatcheev Retweeted Artem Kaznatcheev
I want to disagree. Consider my recent paper: https://twitter.com/kaznatcheev/status/1102973539634892800 … Would you call this not interdisciplinary? Why? I think interdisciplinary work is very hard, and we often fall short of it. Regardless of the composition of our team. But I want to imagine it is achievable.
Artem Kaznatcheev added,
Artem Kaznatcheev @kaznatcheevLocal peaks can't always be found quickly! Hard landscapes are subject to ultimate constraint on evolution: computation. Can hide winding paths. http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2019/03/04/genetics.119.302000 … My path to this paper has been very long: ~7 years in the making. It finally found its peak in@GeneticsGSA. pic.twitter.com/LiYdL9elc8Show this thread2 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kaznatcheev
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 Retweeted 💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫
So, I'm not going to defend my position too strongly because it's not that far from a hot take, but,https://twitter.com/generativist/status/1111777710102052864 …
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 added,
💥 (wannabe) Ƀreaker of (the Bad) Loops 💫 @generativistReplying to @vbentiiYea, I think that's part of it... At least my perception of interdisciplinary *has been* "I'm an expert in this and that." But, I think it's better thought of as "what I study lies partly here and partly there." A bit hand-wavy, but...hey, this is a hot take ;)2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @generativist @kaznatcheev
So, I absolutely *would* call your work interdisciplinary. But, I mostly wish there was a different word. Like, if you're able to do it well as a single author, I think it says something about the disciplinary boundaries that demands emphasis.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @generativist
If you force interdisciplinary work to be by def. multi-author then you might trap us in Conway's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law … With people contributing separate 'parts' to paper & never integrating it into 1 coherent whole & one mind. I wouldn't even call that interdisciplinary.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @kaznatcheev
Oh yea, I agree with that completely. But, I also think the word "interdisciplinary" is a manifestation OF Conways law, which may be part of what I'm trying to work out.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @generativist @kaznatcheev
Like, a lot of the disciplinary boundaries seem to be getting fuzzier because they were communication structures that we're out-growing. So, I think you're right, me saying "cannot be" interdisciplinary isn't the problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Instead, it's kinda that calling it interdisciplinary before enumerating the disciplines as some quasi-intersection almost...reproduces procrustean boundaries in the process?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.