Twisted into Form: Eclecticism and Epistemological Dissonance as a Framework for Interdisciplinarity
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Twisted into Form : Eclecticism and Epistemological Dissonance as a Framework for Interdisciplinarity. / Sørensen, Tim Flohr.
I: Forum Kritische Archaeologie, Bind 11, 2022, s. 53-67.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Twisted into Form
T2 - Eclecticism and Epistemological Dissonance as a Framework for Interdisciplinarity
AU - Sørensen, Tim Flohr
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - With interdisciplinarity increasingly being emphasised as an unquestionable asset in archaeology, and prioritised amongst research funding institutions and university strategists, it may be worthwhile exploring the nature of collaborative research: What are the political mechanisms of interdisciplinary research and how does epistemic dissonance affect collaborative efforts? In this article, I contend truly interdisciplinary research should be capable of emphasising the sometimes radical differences between disciplinary research designs, ontologies, epistemologies and definitions of knowledge. To this end, I pursue atmosphere as an example of a phenomenon that can, or should, be studied in a way that attends to epistemic differences, since atmosphere has different implications in different disciplinary settings. I will favour postmodern eclecticism – however altmodisch and unoriginal it may seem in the 2020s – as my methodical approach to atmosphere, since it lends itself to a messy and noisy multiplicity of epistemologies and research designs doing justice to the cross-disciplinary concept of atmosphere. The strength of eclecticism is its lack of consistency and stringency, and its capacity for sustaining epistemic dissonance instead of concealing it.
AB - With interdisciplinarity increasingly being emphasised as an unquestionable asset in archaeology, and prioritised amongst research funding institutions and university strategists, it may be worthwhile exploring the nature of collaborative research: What are the political mechanisms of interdisciplinary research and how does epistemic dissonance affect collaborative efforts? In this article, I contend truly interdisciplinary research should be capable of emphasising the sometimes radical differences between disciplinary research designs, ontologies, epistemologies and definitions of knowledge. To this end, I pursue atmosphere as an example of a phenomenon that can, or should, be studied in a way that attends to epistemic differences, since atmosphere has different implications in different disciplinary settings. I will favour postmodern eclecticism – however altmodisch and unoriginal it may seem in the 2020s – as my methodical approach to atmosphere, since it lends itself to a messy and noisy multiplicity of epistemologies and research designs doing justice to the cross-disciplinary concept of atmosphere. The strength of eclecticism is its lack of consistency and stringency, and its capacity for sustaining epistemic dissonance instead of concealing it.
KW - Faculty of Humanities
KW - Archaeology
KW - Concepts
KW - Interdisciplinarity
KW - Postmodernism
KW - Eclecticism
KW - Atmosphere
KW - Interdisciplinarity
KW - Discipline
KW - Conceptual dissonance
KW - Eclecticism
KW - Postmodernism
KW - Atmosphere
U2 - 10.17169/refubium-37028
DO - 10.17169/refubium-37028
M3 - Journal article
VL - 11
SP - 53
EP - 67
JO - Forum Kritische Archaeologie
JF - Forum Kritische Archaeologie
SN - 2194-346X
ER -
ID: 284579086