Fast trade? Interdisciplinarity under time pressure

Chris­t­ian Dayé
Graz Uni­ver­si­ty of Tech­nol­o­gy

Fast trade? Inter­dis­ci­pli­nar­i­ty under time pres­sure

Abstract. This paper address­es two ques­tions. The first is: Do cross-dis­ci­pli­nary teams that exist only for rather short peri­ods of time have a chance to real­ize some form of dia­logue across dis­ci­pli­nary bound­aries? To approach this top­ic, the con­cept of trad­ing zones is applied, as it has been intro­duced by Peter Gal­i­son and devel­oped by oth­er authors. Empir­i­cal data come from par­tic­i­pant obser­va­tion dur­ing a work­shop on soni­fi­ca­tion, i.e. the audi­to­ry dis­play of data. In this con­text, a sec­ond ques­tion is addressed. While there exists a vivid dis­cus­sion on how to mea­sure out­come or per­for­mance of research projects, there has been no attempt to mea­sure the degree of inter­dis­ci­pli­nar­i­ty with­in a col­lab­o­ra­tive struc­ture. I pro­pose a method­ol­o­gy that attempts to trans­fer con­cepts found with­in qual­i­ta­tive frame­works onto a quan­ti­ta­tive research strat­e­gy. In con­clud­ing, I dis­cuss some flaws of this ap-proach and pro­pose fur­ther lines of work.

Key­words: inter­dis­ci­pli­nar­i­ty, trad­ing zones, soni­fi­ca­tion, exchange the­o­ry

DOI: 10.5840/dspl2020318


This research is sup­port­ed by the Russ­ian Foun­da­tion of Basic Research, research project no. 18–011-01097 “Social The­o­ry and Pow­er – Russ­ian Pecu­liar­i­ties” (chap­ters 1–2) and research project no. 17–29-09178 “Analy­sis of Lan­guage and Inter­dis­ci­pli­nar­i­ty.” (chap­ter 3–4)


  1. Bales, R.F. Inter­ac­tion Process Analy­sis. Cam­bridge, MA: Addi­son-Wes­ley, 1950.
  2. Bal­siger, P.W. Trans­diszi­pli­nar­ität. Sys­tem­a­tisch-ver­gle­ichende Unter­suchung diszi­plinüber­greifend­er Wis­senschaft­sprax­is. München: Wil­helm Fink, 2005.
  3. Bijster­veld, K. Son­ic Skills. New York, NY, Berlin, Hei­del­berg: Springer, 2018.
  4. Clark, T.N. “The stages of sci­en­tif­ic insti­tu­tion­al­i­sa­tion”, Inter­na­tion­al Social Sci­ence Jour­nal, 1972, vol. XXIV, no. 4, pp. 658–671.
  5. Collins H.M., Evans, R. “The third wave of sci­ence stud­ies: Stud­ies in exper­tise and expe­ri­ence”, Social Stud­ies of Sci­ence, 2002, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 235–296.
  6. Collins, H., Evans, R., Gor­man, M. “Trad­ing zones and inter­ac­tion­al exper­tise”, Stud­ies in His­to­ry and Phi­los­o­phy of Sci­ence, 2007, vol. 38, pp. 657–666.
  7. Dayé, C. “Small Group Research, His­to­ry of”, in: Wright, J.D. (ed.) Inter­na­tion­al Ency­clo­pe­dia of the Social and Behav­ioral Sci­ences, 2nd ed. Oxford, Ams­ter­dam: Else­vi­er, 2015, vol. 22, pp. 100–107.
  8. Dayé, C., de Cam­po, A. “Sounds sequen­tial: soni­fi­ca­tion in the social sci­ences”, Inter­dis­ci­pli­nary Sci­ence Reviews, 2006, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 349–364.
  9. de Cam­po, A., Frauen­berg­er, C., Vogt, K., Wal­lisch, A., Dayé, C. “Soni­fi­ca­tion as an inter­dis­ci­pli­nary work­ing process”, in: T. Stock­man et al. (eds) Pro­ceed­ings of the 12th Inter­na­tion­al Con­fer­ence on Audi­to­ry Dis­play (ICAD2006), 2006, pp. 28–35.
  10. Dolf­s­ma, W., Spithoven, A. “‘Silent trade’ and the sup­posed con­tin­u­um between OIE and NIE”, Jour­nal of Eco­nom­ic Issues, 2008, vol. XLII, no. 2, pp. 517–526.
  11. Dunck­er, E. “Sym­bol­ic com­mu­ni­ca­tion in mul­ti­dis­ci­pli­nary coop­er­a­tions”, Sci­ence, Tech­nol­o­gy & Human Val­ues, 2001, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 349–386.
  12. Gal­i­son, P. Image and Log­ic: A Mate­r­i­al Cul­ture of Micro­physics. Chica­go, IL: The Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go Press, 1997.
  13. Giere, R.N. “Cog­ni­tive Stud­ies of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy”, in: E. J. Hack­ett et al., (eds) The Hand­book of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy Stud­ies. Cam­bridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008, pp. 259–278.
  14. Gieryn, T.F. Cul­tur­al Bound­aries of Sci­ence: Cred­i­bil­i­ty on the Line. Chica­go, IL: The Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go Press, 1999.
  15. Gor­man, M.E. Lev­els of exper­tise and trad­ing zones: a frame­work for mul­ti­dis­ci­pli­nary col­lab­o­ra­tion, Social Stud­ies of Sci­ence, 2002, vol. 32, nos. 5&6, pp. 933–938.
  16. Gor­man, M.E. “Lev­els of Exper­tise and Trad­ing Zones: Com­bin­ing Cog­ni­tive and Social Approach­es to Tech­nol­o­gy Stud­ies”, in: M.E. Gor­man et al. (eds) Sci­en­tif­ic and Tech­no­log­i­cal Think­ing. Mah­wah, NJ: Lawrence Erl­baum, 2005, pp. 287–302.
  17. Hack­ett, E.J. “Essen­tial ten­sions: iden­ti­ty, con­trol, and risk in research”, Social Stud­ies of Sci­ence, 2005, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 787–826.
  18. Her­mann, T., Hunt, A., Neuhoff, J.G. (eds) The Soni­fi­ca­tion Hand­book. Berlin: Logos, 2011.
  19. Hugh­es, E.C. The Soci­o­log­i­cal Eye. Select­ed Papers. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans­ac­tion Pub­lish­ers, 1993.
  20. Jef­frey, P. “Smooth­ing the waters: obser­va­tions on the process of cross-dis­ci­pli­nary research col­lab­o­ra­tion”, Social Stud­ies of Sci­ence, 2003, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 539–562.
  21. Kramer, G. (ed.) Audi­to­ry Dis­play: Soni­fi­ca­tion, Aud­i­fi­ca­tion, and Audi­to­ry Inter­faces. Read­ing, MA: Addi­son-Wes­ley, 1994.
  22. Lam­ont, M. How Pro­fes­sors Think: Inside the Curi­ous World of Aca­d­e­m­ic Judge­ment. Cam­bridge, MA: Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2009.
  23. Maslanov, E. “Uni­ver­si­ties as social back­ground in ‘trad­ing zone’ cre­ation”, Phi­los­o­phy of the Social Sci­ences, 2019, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 493–509.
  24. Pinch, T., Bijster­veld, K. (eds) The Oxford Hand­book of Sound Stud­ies. Oxford, New York: Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 2011.
  25. Pow­ers, R. The Time of Our Singing. New York: Far­rar, Strauss and Giroux, 2003.
  26. Shibarshi­na, S. “New trad­ing zones in con­tem­po­rary uni­ver­si­ties”, Phi­los­o­phy of the Social Sci­ences, 2019, vol. 49, no. 6., pp. 510–527.
  27. Shrum, W., Genuth, J., Chom­palov, I. Struc­tures of Sci­en­tif­ic Col­lab­o­ra­tion. Cam­bridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007.
  28. Sim­mel, G. Phi­los­o­phy of Mon­ey. 3rd ed., ed. By D. Fris­by, transl. by T. Bot­to­more and D. Fris­by. Lon­don: Rout­ledge, 2004. (Orig­i­nal edi­tion, 1900)
  29. Sis­mon­do, S. An Intro­duc­tion to Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy Stud­ies. Malden, MA: Black­well, 2004.
  30. Star, S.L., Griese­mer, J.R. “Insti­tu­tion­al ecol­o­gy, ‘trans­la­tions’ and bound­ary objects: ama­teurs and pro­fes­sion­als in Berkeley’s Muse­um of Vetr­e­brate Zool­o­gy, 1907–39”, Social Stud­ies of Sci­ence, 1989, vol. 19, pp. 387–420.
  31. Strauss, A. Qual­i­ta­tive Analy­sis for Social Sci­en­tists. Cam­bridge, UK: Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty Press, 1987.
  32. Sup­per, A. Lob­by­ing for the Ear: The Pub­lic Fas­ci­na­tion With and Aca­d­e­m­ic Legit­i­ma­cy of the Soni­fi­ca­tion of Sci­en­tif­ic data. Maas­tricht: Datawyse / Uni­ver­si­taire Pers Maas­tricht.
  33. Sup­per, A. “Sound infor­ma­tion: soni­fi­ca­tion in the age of com­plex Data and dig­i­tal audio”, Infor­ma­tion & Cul­ture, 2015, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 441–464.
  34. Sup­per, A. “Data karaoke: sen­so­ry and bod­i­ly skills in con­fer­ence pre­sen­ta­tions”, Sci­ence as Cul­ture, 2015, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 436–457.
  35. Sup­per, A., Bijster­veld, K. “Sounds con­vinc­ing: modes of lis­ten­ing and son­ic skills in knowl­edge mak­ing”, Inter­dis­ci­pli­nary Sci­ence Reviews, 2015, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 124–144.

Comments are closed.