If one is pragmatic and focused exclusively on his/her carrier and in on being more rapidly promoted, specialization in a given field definitely works better. However, for me this is a rather boring and not satisfying approach. During the last over 20 years, I have changed several times my research interests and, respectively, the countries/institutions, where I could have explored them. This has given me obviously more work, but also broader knowledge and more satisfaction. Well, this was on the price of not rising to the boss (director) chairs, because the highly specialized and not (or much less) "distracted" people have had already occupied these positions in the given places. In any case, I do nor regret my choice and it would be the same, if I were to restart everything from the beginning :-).

When I began my academic career in the late 1960s, the institutions where I taught rigidly demanded specialization (in Hispanic language and literature). However, with promotion and tenure, I was invited to expand in the late 1970s (into Comparative Literature). In the 80s and 90s, I broadened even further on my own impetus (Comparative Philosophy, Comparative Theology, Comparative Medical Anthropology, and recently comparisons between music and related literature). Today, a broad, interdisciplinary approach is encouraged from the beginning of one´s career. Tenure comes today in the U.S. with greater breadth of focus, at least in the Humanities. Use of the internet avoids superficial eclecticism by balancing breadth with depth, the mark of lasting research.

Nelson, thanks. Do you think the internet or other social forces have impacted the process you describe in any way?

If one is pragmatic and focused exclusively on his/her carrier and in on being more rapidly promoted, specialization in a given field definitely works better. However, for me this is a rather boring and not satisfying approach. During the last over 20 years, I have changed several times my research interests and, respectively, the countries/institutions, where I could have explored them. This has given me obviously more work, but also broader knowledge and more satisfaction. Well, this was on the price of not rising to the boss (director) chairs, because the highly specialized and not (or much less) "distracted" people have had already occupied these positions in the given places. In any case, I do nor regret my choice and it would be the same, if I were to restart everything from the beginning :-).

Absolutely, Paul. In Comparative Theology, I was able to consult the Church Fathers directly on line in the original Greek and Latin. This enabled me easily to complete the first extant critical edition of "The Tragic Sense of Life," philosopher of religion Miguel de Unamuno´s chief work. Furthermore, when I first researched philosopher of life José Ortega y Gasset´s sources, I had to use his private library of 21,000 volumes gathered in his home in Madrid, Spain. Now the library titles are catalogued and placed on-line, and I can consult them any time from my own home. The research process is made easier, less expensive, and speedier. My C.V. is far vaster than those of my old teachers, who never used internet. (This of course does not mean that mine is better!)

I have the impression that almost all over the world the administrative structures are rather slower when compared we the steady and fast pace of academicians researchers and scholars. Those structures tend to restrict or limit the intellectual life to specialization. Among other reasons because in that way it is easier for them to manage, i.e. control the process run by scholars.

As Nelson says, we ourselves -on our own - love breaking such trends to specialization.

Let me just mention my own experience. When I did my PhD thesis (at the KULeuven) I was asked to limit myself to a very specialized track. I had to, of course. After that I dared brake the boundaries.

¡Sí, Carlos! See my Question and Answer string here on RG on thesis advisors who demand expediency over truth.

Definitely Yes.

Right, dear Nelson. Let me please put it out in a rather radical way: it is, it seems, a matter of generations. Young researchers are generally constrained to what their elders advise. (Between brackets, let' s not forget that classical and still prevailing expression in the German universities when talking about their promotors and advisors: "Mein Doktor Fater", huh?

The trouble is that the expediency over truth can become a habit on many young researchers. And they grow blended, twisted…

Ooops! Specialization means exactly narrow-mindedness, lack of openness and yes: inter, trans and multidisciplinary.

The story of a hierarchy of knowledge -and hence specialization - begins in the Western world with the Pytagoreans, and their division between esoteric and exoteric knowledge. The current history and structure of universities is in general a disciplinary one.

I agree with you Hatem.

I am agreeing with what Carlos and Nelson are saying. I also want to stress the point that when departments are evaluated in terms of their research output and research reputation, work that comes from outside of the department's titular designation is obviously not as valued - for example, if I work in an English Language department (this could be any department and I am not singling out English in any way) but I also have an interest in say the use of the internet in education, any publications I manage to get past journal reviewers (who may favour computing academics?) and published in non-English language journals, are not seen to contribute the my activity within the department. This is totally understandable but nonetheless restrictive and compartmentalises knowledge.

Paul, it is unfortunate that you are a victim of such compartmentalizing. In foreign language and literature departments, we can publish articles either in foreign language journals or English-language ones with equal weight in our disciplines if the journals enjoy prestige. The same is true if we publish books in English-speaking university presses or foreign academic presses.

Sometimes but not every time which depends on the nomber of facukty members present in the akademy

I was thinking broader than you seem to be Nelson. I do not see myself as a victim but as simply working within organisational constraints. In a way I am not even complaining because I can publish whatever I want wherever I want but non-mainstream articles or books will not help my career or reputation. My worry is that constraints upon what is seen as most legitimate will restrict free academic experimentation.

Aria, do you think that different organisational structures could mitigate against this narrowness?

Carlos, do you think this is good, bad, neutral, inevitable, worthy of discussion, something we should pass over in silence?

Svetlovar, I started my academic career as a pragmatist and rapidly worked my way up the academic career ladder and for a while being at the boss level. After a few years I too have changed my research interests and the countries where I have worked, resulting, I hope, in my amassing broader knowledge and more work/life satisfaction. I feel that it is a pity that academics face this choice.

I firmly believe we all should discuss such an issue - openly and frankly.

I like what you said: the importance given to the various ladders about universities, programs, individual performance, and the like seems to me to be a clear source for specialization. For, to those sources that rank universities, etc., it is bay and large much easier to measure and control specialization than cross-fields, intersdisciplinarity and the like. Let's just look at those rankings: they focus on mainstream science.

And yes, it is mainstream science that stresses - if not feeds - specialization in knowledge (and, catch this: in life!)

I couldn't agree more with this discussion. While I think a degree of specialisation is difficult to avoid organisationally, it can also be stiffling. But I think the issue is not confined to academic institutions (agreeing with Kadal). I work in public health, but have adopted (not on my own, but within a team) a broad understanding of this and am developing methodological (rather than subject specific) expertise. Just like you, Paul, I find this much more interesting. While my organisation has enabled that kind of flexibility, it is funding bodies that I find restrictive - ie if you are a specialist in, say, tobacco control, you are much more likely to find funds to conduct any kinds of research in that field than if your expertise lies in realist methodology. So yes, it seems there is a bit of a dichotomous relationship between specialisation and career progression, which is felt by many of us... But then again, finding what makes us 'tick' as academics is surely just as important (if not more) than career progression :)

The structure at my university, and in my school at that university, is completely silo'ed. My work is cross-disciplinary, and while I can contact colleagues outside of my domain, there is no reward or support for it. This is partially due to restricted teaching loads, and partially due to a lack of curiosity in my own school.

I like, just as Jane did, to bring out (sometimes) personal experiences. In may case, I work on complex systems - which is, by definition. interdisciplinary -. Well, my university loves me just because I provide lots of publications. My beneath that there is little understanding and real support.

It' s very interesting what Monique says. It appears then that that specialization seems to be hegemonic beyond academia. As I said earlier, the bishops of such specialization are called nowadays "knowledge management" (sic).

We do not need to break something. I can say that all walls are already broken. Disciplines today are related, that means departments are collaborating to produce. I think these relation exist and had existed long time ago because if we want to talk about old philosophers, at the same time they were Mathematicians, physicians and so on. They were dealing with many area of knowledge. Therefore, we have, nowadays, in anyway, to adapt our research to cross-disciplinary work. If not it will be very difficult for those who are working in only one field to join the World arena of discussion.

Changing the structure of department/college/school may result in far more chaos than we as faculty or that students can bear. However, at places like Evergreen College in Olympia, WA there is a concentration on learning domains that are broader than departmental choices. Such broader categories allow the student to create a cross disciplinary major of their own. In doing so, it would seem logical that the various departments would be obliged to work together. I have never taught there but my niece is an alumna and felt that she got the best education available.

As Monique pointed out, this problem is endemic to the non-academic world as well. I am a rare general practitioner Civil Engineer - I have designed structures, drainage systems, dams, roads, done planning studies, been an expert witness a time or two, work as a traffic operations engineer - and what I found after two decades is that everyone wants a specialist, like say, a signal engineer who does nothing but signals. I personally find the compartmentalization stifling and rather boring, and I spent much of my career jumping from project to project, both as an independent and working for someone else. The danger when you try to do a broad range of things is you are labeled as a malcontent or mentally unstable. The same compartmentalization does exist in academia (you have to choose a specialty, mine is transportation), but I think at the smaller schools or even the junior college level, the need for Jacks and Janes of all trades supersedes the compartmentalization. When I get my doctorate, that is precisely what I would like to do, teach and do research at a smaller educational facility that will allow me to not be as specialized. Of course, I also realize that I am limiting my economic potential by doing that, just as I did with my career outside of academia. It is up to an individual to determine how important intellectual and professional freedom is versus income level.

I don't think it is the structure that is necessary broken, but how much we value intellectual freedom that is.

The beginning of experimental sciences introduced specialists in science. The dependence on their discoveries is what has materially dignified our existence during the last 200 years. Scientific work has been constrained, imprisoned,... Scientists intellectual and occupational field is each time narrower.

The result of specialization is that there are more scientists than ever in the History of humankind, but the number of cultured men is decreasing since 1750. Education and science should be looking at preserving cultured men for the good of humankind.

This question has been answered well at this point. I would only add that interdisciplinary work is a must but is not always rewarded in the academy. As a folklorist and a filmmaker, I have found connections with almost all of the humanistic disciplines. Had I stayed in my own department's parameters, I believe I might have had greater recognition. Film is often neglected because it falls out of the confines of scholarly production.

Today, within the structure of departments, specialization is so great that we are not always truly speaking to each other. Obscure studies and the use of jargon create additional problems. In interdisciplinary studies, we speak and write in a manner that is understandable outside the boundaries of narrow fields.

Im from the Institute of Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney. Our institute functions as a inter-transdisciplinary faculty and consultancy. The way we work is around problem situations where a particular situation is tackled from multiple perspectives, so that in one project we might have an economist, sociologist and engineer working together. I think the reason this works is because the institute is primarily funded by consultancy work we do with government and industry. While we do have PhD and Masters students here, a significant challenge is preparing examiners of thesis to actually accept the validity of interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary research. Even though we all agree this is necessary for tackling complex wicked problems (e.g. sustainability issues) it can be challenging for disciplinary academics to know how to evaluate the quality of the research.... I also agree with what others have said in regard to the lack of incentives for this type of work, this includes a lack of funding sources and quality journals that see the value of this approach. At the moment we talk about the value of inter/transdisciplinary approaches in academia but have few really good examples of how this works in practice.

My answer to the lead question is yes.

Very interesting comments. Thank you. I think hyper-specialization is useful for certain types of fields of knowledge but not for everyone. However, I have confirmed throughout my life as a researcher that if the attitude is inflexible and pedestrian on the part of those who consider themselves "experts" in that particular field, become small little ivory towers, impeding the advance or flow of new ideas and valuable contributions from other persons or from other disciplines.

All in all, hence after, specialization is just a way for us to follows commands, fulfill tasks, etc. - and no to think. Avoiding thinking, that seems to be the aim of the splitting and separation of disciplines and sciences.

Asi es Carlos, I do agree with you. Reason why, there is a huge difference between a specialized researcher and a deep and wise thinker in social sciences and humanities, at least. Reason why, I believe, the latter are so scarce nowadays.

It is indeed dear Humberto. In the case of our countries -Conacyd, Conicet, Colciencias, Csic, etc.- those systems seem to be created just to fill researchers with numerous tasks and hence to avoid them from thinking. Those awful rankings have come to reinforce Fordism and Taylorism in science, research and the academic life.

In other countries the situation is, I believe, exactly the same. In fact, speciazalition in the academic life is the triumph of Fordism and Taylorism. Would you agree with this?

Sieguiendo a mis compañeros castellano parlantes... Como dijo mi queridísimo Ortega y Gaset, el hombre masa es el especialista, el experto (refiriendose al hombre de ciencia)... Specialization is not evil but it should not be the type of education we get at university level, should not be the university leitmotiv,... University was thought to set men free, an education that helps them to adapt and improve their time and circumstances.

The discussion so far is well developed, nevertheless I think we should first of all define what we consider specialization, or hyper-specialization, and how could we measure it. In order to purposefully discuss this relationship we need to be able to seine and measure the impact the academic structure has on our specialization. One should also recognize that the growth of knowledge and its development also requires more time and effort to get to know where the frontier is and this necessarily implies becoming specialized. So I ask, how can we define first and measure specialization? When is specialization too mud?

regards

Edoardo

We all surely agree that a strong disciplinary background is key for quality research. Yet, interdisciplinarity and dialogue across disciplines is crucial for scientific knowledge and understanding to progress, and also for the social consequences of specific developments in science (and technology) to be duly assessed.

At Dinamia’Cet, the Centre for socioeconomic change and territorial studies of ISCTE – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, we have been carrying out interdisciplinary research for more than two decades in innovation studies (involving economics, sociology, human resources), Internet governance (involving legal studies, computer science, social psychology), urban studies (involving architecture, urban sociology, economics of culture), etc. This effort has translated into joint research projects, into joint PhD programmes, and into joint publications.

A critical factor for encouraging interdisciplinary dialogue is, I trust, institutional reform whereby universities and research organisations, and, most importantly, funding agencies indeed prioritise it. This is now the case, for example, of the European Union’s Horizon2020.

I have to say it does, and often reguritation is mistaken for knowledge and clear description of that reguritation for intelligence.

I have been fortunate in my career to date in that I have been free to follow my research interests without undue interference. This has resulted in an eclectic output but a happy researcher. Perhaps my 'bosses' would have preferred three volumes in quick succession on the same topic - the magic formula for becoming an international expert! On the other hand, something cogent should be said in defense of research managers: it is frustrating when you make an appointment in a specialist sub-field because there is a crying need for it in your institution, and then the appointee goes off on a tangent, publishing in a different inter-disciplinary academic area while sitting on the salary and post meant for the specialist field you are trying to foster - an academic dog-in-the-manger. Sometimes the morphing of specializations is genuine, sometimes a bit of a 'con'.

I am a product of multi disciplines having studied engineering, statistics and business subjects over a span of 5 decades. This has enabled me to propose a unique approach to social sciences and humanities in general. However organized, recognized or not a curious mind ought to explore, transcend boundaries and find answers to whatever helps discovery. Specialization might augment discovery when it might be a means to an end.

Dear Bala (if I may),

Thank you for your answer, with which I totally agree.

Find Floating Worlds by Cecilia Holland. You will be glad to see how well it meets your question.

Thank you Jim, I'll look it out.

i had a glitch and that answer was to a question about science and fiction expanding beyond the text. I am still trying to figure it out but my answer makes little if any sense here. Apologies-Jim

:-) thank you.

Dear colleagues, I try to solve the question of importance of specialization from time to time. From the beginning of my (not so long yet) career, I had to change my work orientation for three times already - during my doctoral study (culture and tourism), at my first work (agricultural university) and then when I started to work at my current position (social sciences). It has always had something to do with law and policies, so although it seems somehow crazy at the first sight, I was always within certain borders. Sometimes it was difficult to "place myself" and to find topics, but now I see it as very enriching experience, because it forced me to learn new things, to find new horizon and to see interconnections I've never thought about. But as I mentioned, this pressure always came from my work position and from orientation of department / faculty / university, so it seems that yes, we are requested to be specialists in some concrete field. On the other hand I think it's always up to us and that in each area you may find something new and interesting for you to focus on.

Have a nice day :).

This discussion is worthwhile and exciting : Thanks to all.

Let us never forget that ancient Egyptian medicine became so specialized that the specialists could not communicate with each other. Sound familiar? As a physician, I have always worked in an interdisciplinary manner. I am also a psychiatrist & Jungian analyst. My departments have

been medicine, psychology & psychiatry. Working together is such a joy and it leads to wholeness... helping us to discover meaning.

For me, I have decided a long time ago my domain, although my passion for medicine and pharmacology never faded. Still, it is my fate that I was pushed to keep up with my destined specialization & now I am pleased with what I have achieved.

Interesting, ha?!

I think insights from Foucault may be helpful in thinking about this question. Traditional, established academic disciplines seek to control their respective domains and their inter-relations with others; and academic departments frequently follow trends within their disciplines. I see an apparent difficulty to encourage students to adopt methods or tackle problems that are outside of their traditionally defined discipline. Political and economic aspects, Foucault’s extra-discursive forces, play important roles in the framing of this positioning, and disputes over power and resources made these boundaries difficult to transcend. The political economy of universities and existing structure of higher education force disciplinary departments to play the traditional power game of securing institutional resources and space. These factors set the background for researchers and educators to operate within the departmental and disciplinary boundaries, but I see more interdicsiplinary and multidisciplinary collaborations emerging in the academy.

Like several of the colleagues who have written here, I must say that I have been very fortunate too. I have had great teachers throughout my life to whom I owe a lot, a privileged humanistic formation (it has been rich, varied and interdisciplinary), I have enjoyed great freedom of thought and action regarding topics and investigative tasks. And, I have tried to cultivate the artistic part also. I like the painting. Actually, I do not distinguish borders between work, creation, research and rest.

Specialization allows us and our students to focus in depth on critical topics. For example, I encouraged myself and my students to pick personally important subjects to research. The motto of my research team was "Research is me search." That lead to research projects on : Transforming Depression & Healing the Soul through Creativity, Vivid Dreaming, Forgiveness, Hope, Joy, Unconscious Collective Memory, Creativity, Symbols & their Meanings, Wellbeing, Archetypes of Transformation & The Soul and Its Relationship to Health and Mental Health.

To further explore, please see "Patient-Centered Medicine : A Human Experience" by David H.Rosen & Uyen B. Hoang , Oxford University

Press, New York, NY 2017.