Document Type : Original Article


Educational Development office of Medical School, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran


BACKGROUND: Over the last few centuries, the overspecialization of various sciences under the
pretext of benefiting from pure disciplinary knowledge led to alienation among and competition
between different fields of science. Such competition has deviated knowledge from its main objective
which is to understand and explain the phenomena. The remedy to this dilemma is to address a new
approach, introduced to higher education in the late 1950s as “interdisciplinarity.” Accordingly, the
main purpose of this article is to propose the strategic instances of operationalizing interdisciplinarity
as the key requirements to provide a guideline for designing interdisciplinarity activities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present survey was carried out through the framework synthesis
method. To codify the instances of operationalizing interdisciplinarity, the main elements and structures
of the model were set as the basis of the query for each element and structure; an independent
query was carried out in the literature of the study. The correspondence of the discovered instances
was once more compared with the conceptual boxes of the primary theoretical model. Ultimately,
the taxonomy was concluded through the operational instances based on the primary framework.
RESULTS: A total of 152 strategies were identified as implications of operationalization of 13 layers
and 38 sublayers of the multilayer interdisciplinary model.
CONCLUSION: The development of interdisciplinarity in the national higher education system requires
several measures to be taken at different levels of a discipline or scientific field of study. Relying on
this, which is the main basis of entering into interdisciplinarity activities, the present study suggests
and presents strategic instances of interdisciplinarity operationalization.


  1. Frodeman R. Sustainable Knowledge: A Theory of
    Interdisciplinarity. Palgrave Macmillan: Springer; 2013.
    2. Bammer G. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity: Integration and
    Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real‑World
    Problems. Published by ANU E Press The Australian National
    University Canberra ACT 0200, Australia: ANU Press; 2013.
    3. Razzaq J, Townsend T, Pisapia J. Towards an understanding
    of interdisciplinarity: The case of a British University. Issues
    Interdiscip Stud 2013;31:149‑73.
    4. Morin E. Sur l’interdisciplinarité. Bulletin interactif du Centre
    international de recherches et études transdisciplinaires. 1994;2.
    5. Yazdani S, Hajiahmadi M, Shakerian S. Rethinking
    interdisciplinarity: Proposing a multilayered model. Medical
    Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2020;34:118.
    6. Klein JT. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit,
    MI: Wayne State University Press; 1990.
    7. Klein JT. Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures: AModel for
    Strength and Sustainability. 1807, New York, New York, United
    States John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
    8. Yazdani S, Hajiahmadi M, Shakerian S. Interdisciplinarity; Out
    of Semantic Confusion in Iran. Journal of Medical Education.
    9. Yazdani S, Hajiahmadi M, Shakerian S. Rethinking
    interdisciplinarity: Proposing a multilayered model. Med J Islamic
    Repub Iran 2020;34:802‑10.
    10. Booth A, Carroll C. How to build up the actionable knowledge
    base: The role of ‘best fit’framework synthesis for studies of
    improvement in healthcare. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:700‑8.
    11. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 1427 E. 60th Street
    Chicago, IL 60637 USA University of Chicago Press; 2012.
    12. Garcia, A., 2019. Transdisciplinarity from Marginal Spaces:
    Unsettling Epistemic Erasure of Critical and Decolonial Scholars
    (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado Boulder).
    13. Rosenberger RS. An Integrative Hierarchical Framework for
    Environmental Valuation: Value Pluralism, Thresholds, and
    Deliberation. Regional Research Institute and Division of
    Resource Management West Virginia University Research Paper;
    2001. p. 14.
    14. Rousseau D, Wilby J, Billingham J, Blachfellner S. A typology for
    the systems field. Systema Connecting Matter Life , culture, and
    technology 2016;4:15‑47.
    15. Schmidt JC. Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity. Poiesis
    Prax 2008;5:53‑69.
    16. Balsamo A, Mitcham C. Interdisciplinarity in Ethics and the Ethics
    of Interdisciplinarity. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2010.
    p. 259‑72.
    17. Dressel PL, Marcus D. On Teaching and Learning in College.
    Reemphasizing the Roles of Learners and the Disciplines. The
    Jossey‑Base Series in Higher Education. Jossey‑Bass Inc., 433
    California St., San Francisco, CA 94104 ERIC; 1982.
    18. Krishnan A. What Are Academic Disciplines? Some Observations
    on the Disciplinarity vs. Interdisciplinarity Debate; 2009. ESRC
    National Centre for Research Methods NCRM Working Paper
    19. Little E, editor. A Proposed Methodology for the Development of
    Application‑Based Formal Ontologies. KI Workshop on Reference
    Ontologies and Application Ontologies; 2003.
    20. Schnieder L, Wegener M. Transgression of semantic boundaries by
    methodical terminology management. InLeicester: International
    Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment 2010 (Vol. 9).
    21. Vosskamp W, Miller RC, Klein JT. From scientific specialization
    to the dialogue between the disciplines. Issues Interdiscip Stud
    22. GabbayDM, ThagardP, Woods J, KuipersTA. General Philosophy
    of Science: Focal Issues. North‑Holland Elsevier; 2007.
    23. Fuchsman, K. “Rethinking integration in interdisciplinary
    studies.” Issues in Integrative Studies 2009;27:70‑85.
    24. Gruskin S, Daniels N. Process is the point: Justice and human
    rights: Priority setting and fair deliberative process. Am J Public
    Health 2008;98:1573‑7.
    25. McCallin AM. Pluralistic dialogue: A grounded theory of
    interdisciplinary practice. Aust J Rehabil Couns 1999;5:78‑85.
    26. Lynch J. It’s Not Easy Being Interdisciplinary. 1586, Oxford,
    United Kingdom Oxford University Press; 2006.
    27. Miller ML. 2005. Integrative concepts and interdisciplinary
    work: A study of faculty thinking in four college and university
    programs (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of
    28. Prager K, Morris S, Currie M, Macleod K. Exploring
    Interdisciplinarity: Summary Report of the ‘Developing an
    Interdisciplinary Culture of Excellence (DICE)’ Project at the
    James Hutton Institute. Scotland, UK: The James Hutton Institute;
    29. Stein Z. Modeling the demands of interdisciplinarity: Toward a
    framework for evaluating interdisciplinary endeavors. Integr Rev
    30. Szostak R. Extensional Definition of Interdisciplinarity. Issues in
    Interdisciplinary Studies. 2015;33:94‑116.
    31. Max‑Neef MA. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol Economic
    32. Overton WF, Müller U. Metatheories, theories, and concepts in
    the study of development. In: Handbook of Psychology. 2nd ed.
    1807, New York, New York, United States John Wiley & Sons
    2012. p. 6.
    33. Sawa RJ. Foundations of interdisciplinarity: A lonergan
    perspective. Med Health Care Philos 2005;8:53‑61.
    34. Whitley R. Umbrella and polytheistic scientific disciplines and
    their elites. Soc Stud Sci 1976;6:471‑97.
    35. Carp R. Relying on the kindness of strangers: CEDD’s report on
    hiring, tenure, promotion in IDS. Assoc Integr Stud Newslett
    36. GoldingC. Integrating the Disciplines: Successful Interdisciplinary.
    Centre for the Study of Higher Education. The University of
    Melbourne; 2009.
    37. vom Brocke J, Lippe S. Managing collaborative research projects:
    A synthesis of project management literature and directives for
    future research. Int J Project Manag 2015;33:1022‑39.
    38. Palmer MA, Kramer JG, Boyd J, Hawthorne D. Practices for
    facilitating interdisciplinary synthetic research: The National
    Socio‑Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Curr Opin
    Environ Sustain 2016;19:111‑22.
    39. Stevenson CB, Duran RL, Barrett KA, Colarulli GC. Fostering
    faculty collaboration in learning communities: A developmental
    approach. Innov Higher Educ 2005;30:23‑36.
    40. HaythornthwaiteC, LunsfordKJ, BowkerGC, BruceBC. Challenges
    for Research and Practice in Distributed, Interdisciplinary
    Collaboration. New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production:
    Understanding E‑Science. Pennsylvania, United States IGI Global;
    2006. p. 143‑66.
    41. Bililign S, Schimmel K, Roop JP, Meyerson G. A university
    without departments and colleges‑A new structure to strengthen
    disciplinary and interdisciplinary education and research. Int J
    Innov Educ Res 2015;3.
    42. Bingham NE, Doty WG, Klein JT. Integrating Interdisciplinary
    Organizations: A Preliminary Directory For Networking. Issues
    in Interdisciplinary Studies; 1990.
    43. Klein JT. Finding interdisciplinary knowledge and information.
    New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1994;58:7‑33.
    44. Mazaheri E, Geraei E, Zare‑Farashbandi F, Papi A. The condition
    of interdisciplinary communication among various Educational
    and Research Departments of Isfahan University of Medical
    Sciences. J Educ Health Promot 2017;6:46.
    45. Desmarais L, Parent R, Leclerc L, Raymond L, MacKinnon S,
    Vézina N. Knowledge transfer between two geographically
    distant action research teams. J Workplace Learn
    46. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From
    National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–
    industry–government relations. Res Policy 2000;29:109‑23.
    47. Harden R. AMEE guide No. 12: Multiprofessional education:
    Part 1‑effective multiprofessional education: A three‑dimensional
    perspective. Med Teacher 1998;20:402‑8.
    48. Hyun E. Transdisciplinary higher education curriculum:
    A complicated cultural artifact. Res Higher Educ J 2011;11:1.
    49. Ivanitskaya L, Clark D, Montgomery G, Primeau R.
    Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innov High
    Educ 2002;27:95‑111.
    50. Johnson AG. “Deep Interdisciplinarity” as Critical Pedagogy:
    Teaching at the intersections of urban communication and public
    place and space. Int J Crit Pedagogy 2014;5:p5‑23. 19p.
    51. Klein JT. Integrative learning and interdisciplinary studies. Peer
    Rev 2005;7:8‑10.
    52. Modo M, Kinchin I. A conceptual framework for interdisciplinary
    curriculum design: A case study in neuroscience. J Undergrad
    Neurosci Educ 2011;10:A71.
    53. Chrysanthou A, Nottingham E. Conferences as a Tool for
    Interdisciplinary (Postgraduate) Learning in Bioethics. Jahr:
    Europski časopis za bioetiku. 2018;9:234‑46.
    54. Barry A, Born G, Weszkalnys G. Logics of interdisciplinarity.
    Econ Soc 2008;37:20‑49.
    55. Blackwell A, Wilson L, Boulton C, Knell J. Creating value across
    boundaries. Nesta Rep 2010. NESTA Research Report CVAB/48.
    56. Linde C. Narrative and social tacit knowledge. J Knowl Manage
    57. Gray B. Enhancing transdisciplinary research through
    collaborative leadership. Am J Prevent Med 2008;35:S124‑32.
    58. Holley KA. Understanding Interdisciplinary Challenges and
    Opportunities in Higher Education. Jossey‑Bass; 2009 San
    Francisco, California, United States.
    59. BhaskarR. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique
    of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Routledge; 2014. Milton
    Park, Abingdon‑on‑Thames, Oxford shire, England, UK.
    60. Pourkarim M, Ghamsari AS, Noeparast KB, Mehrmohammadi M.
    The explanation of the bhaskar’s critical realism ontological
    assumptions and their applications on interdisciplinary research.
    Interdiscip Stud Humanit 2014;6:131‑7.

61. Nicolini D, Mengis J, Swan J. Understanding the role of objects
in cross‑disciplinary collaboration. Organ Sci 2012;23:612‑29.
62. Graham J, Haidt J, Koleva S, Motyl M, Iyer R, Wojcik SP, Ditto
PH. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral
pluralism. InAdvances in experimental social psychology 2013
Jan 1 (Vol. 47, pp. 55-130). Academic Press.
63. Little D. Beyond positivism: Toward a methodological pluralism
for the social sciences. www‑personal. umd. umich. edu/~
delittle/BEYPOSIT. PDF. 2004;10.
64. Noy NF. Semantic integration: A survey of ontology‑based
approaches. ACM Sigmod Record 2004;33:65‑70.
65. Mansilla V B . I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y L e a r n i n g :
A Cognitive‑Epistemological Foundation. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Handbook for Interdisciplinary; 2016.
66. Crebert G, Patrick CJ, Cragnolini V, Smith C, Worsfold K, Webb F.
Griffith graduate attributes teamwork skills toolkit. Griffith
Graduate Attributes Teamwork Skills Toolkit. 2011.
67. Chrysanthou A, Nottingham E. Conferences as a Tool for
Interdisciplinary (Postgraduate) Learning in Bioethics. Jahr:
Europski časopis za bioetiku. 2018 Dec 19;9(2):234‑46.