how is psychology becoming an integral part of various other field and disciplines
Answers
Science has always been defined by its disciplines - by its areas of focus, study, training, specialties, and subject matters. Just like physics, biology, or chemistry, psychology is a scientific discipline. Nearly every college and university supports a department of psychology, students are trained in psychology, and research is classified as psychology. The concept of a scientific discipline is an important and enduring one. It implies that there is a body of knowledge to master and skills to be acquired before one can proclaim disciplinary expertise.
As a scientific discipline grows and matures, sub-disciplines emerge. Over the past century, many important sub-disciplines of psychology have blossomed - social, cognitive, developmental, biological, comparative, industrial/organizational, and others. The emergence of specialties within a discipline is a healthy sign - it reflects an expansion of knowledge. It also carries with it the need for ever-increasing focus in training and research. This can sometimes create a challenge within the discipline, as the specialty areas acquire their own unique theories and methods and begin to look less and less like each other.
If the challenge in managing diversity within a discipline is not hard enough, consider the direction that science appears to be heading as we begin the 21st century. We hear a lot about disciplines, but almost always with a prefix attached: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and even transdisciplinary science is all the rage. This is the emphasis of the major funding agencies, and the subject of considerable discussion at the National Academy of Science. As we struggle to keep up and communicate with colleagues within our own discipline, the future of science is demanding that we also make deep connections with other disciplines.
A positive interpretation of multi/inter/trans-disciplinary mania is that science has finally evolved to a point where the most difficult and challenging problems require ambitious partnerships and the pooling of disciplinary knowledge and expertise - that the synergy gained at our intersections is where the action is and what it will take to move to the next level.
A less flattering interpretation is that we are in the midst of a fad - that the funding agencies and observers of science are celebrating multi/inter/trans discipline work because it sounds good and represents a direction that appears to be new, innovative, and forward-moving.
I'm not sure where the truth lies - probably somewhere in between these two characterizations. What troubles me, however, is the potential devaluing of the core scientific disciplines that are called upon as participants in multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary work, and that are presumably transcended in transdisciplinary work. We can't bring disciplines together, or even transcend them, if they cease to exist as distinct and separable entities.
Science has always been defined by its disciplines - by its areas of focus, study, training, specialties, and subject matters. Just like physics, biology, or chemistry, psychology is a scientific discipline. Nearly every college and university supports a department of psychology, students are trained in psychology, and research is classified as psychology. The concept of a scientific discipline is an important and enduring one. It implies that there is a body of knowledge to master and skills to be acquired before one can proclaim disciplinary expertise.
As a scientific discipline grows and matures, sub-disciplines emerge. Over the past century, many important sub-disciplines of psychology have blossomed - social, cognitive, developmental, biological, comparative, industrial/organizational, and others. The emergence of specialties within a discipline is a healthy sign - it reflects an expansion of knowledge. It also carries with it the need for ever-increasing focus in training and research. This can sometimes create a challenge within the discipline, as the specialty areas acquire their own unique theories and methods and begin to look less and less like each other.
If the challenge in managing diversity within a discipline is not hard enough, consider the direction that science appears to be heading as we begin the 21st century. We hear a lot about disciplines, but almost always with a prefix attached: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and even transdisciplinary science is all the rage. This is the emphasis of the major funding agencies, and the subject of considerable discussion at the National Academy of Science. As we struggle to keep up and communicate with colleagues within our own discipline, the future of science is demanding that we also make deep connections with other disciplines.
A positive interpretation of multi/inter/trans-disciplinary mania is that science has finally evolved to a point where the most difficult and challenging problems require ambitious partnerships and the pooling of disciplinary knowledge and expertise - that the synergy gained at our intersections is where the action is and what it will take to move to the next level.
A less flattering interpretation is that we are in the midst of a fad - that the funding agencies and observers of science are celebrating multi/inter/trans discipline work because it sounds good and represents a direction that appears to be new, innovative, and forward-moving.
I'm not sure where the truth lies - probably somewhere in between these two characterizations. What troubles me, however, is the potential devaluing of the core scientific disciplines that are called upon as participants in multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary work, and that are presumably transcended in transdisciplinary work. We can't bring disciplines together, or even transcend them, if they cease to exist as distinct and separable entities.