IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v18y2013i3p97-104.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sociology without Frontiers? On the Pleasures and Perils of Interdisciplinary Research

Author

Listed:
  • Alison Pilnick

Abstract

The potential benefits of interdisciplinary research are commonly stated and widely acknowledged. Amongst the many claims that are made, it is suggested that an interdisciplinary approach can lead to greater innovation, promote lateral thinking, and encourage reflexivity in the research process. This paper presents a personal reflection, drawn from experience in one specific sub-field of medical sociology, on how some of these benefits might actually come to fruition. However, it also explores something which is generally given far less consideration: the potential perils of interdisciplinary research. In particular, I will focus on two areas. First, I will raise some intellectual concerns over what interdisciplinary research might mean for the health of sociology as a discipline. Secondly, I will consider some of the ethical issues that can arise when we put our professional sociological skills at the service of another profession. I will conclude by reflecting on what the implications of these concerns are for my own work in the sociology of health and illness, and what might constitute ‘successful’ interdisciplinary collaboration in this field.

Suggested Citation

  • Alison Pilnick, 2013. "Sociology without Frontiers? On the Pleasures and Perils of Interdisciplinary Research," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 18(3), pages 97-104, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:18:y:2013:i:3:p:97-104
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.3108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.3108
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.3108?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Yin-Yang & Lin, Julia L., 2010. "Do patient autonomy preferences matter? Linking patient-centered care to patient-physician relationships and health outcomes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(10), pages 1811-1818, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John Stephen Mckenzie, 2017. "Emotional Reflexivity and the Guiding Principle of Objectivity in an Inter-Disciplinary, Multi-Method, Longitudinal Research Project," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 22(1), pages 68-80, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pilnick, Alison & Dingwall, Robert, 2011. "On the remarkable persistence of asymmetry in doctor/patient interaction: A critical review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1374-1382, April.
    2. Chen, Yen-Yuan & Tsai, Shih-Li & Yang, Chih-Wei & Ni, Yen-Hsuan & Chang, Shan-Chwen, 2013. "The ongoing westernization of East Asian biomedical ethics in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 125-129.
    3. Lee, Alfred S.Y. & Yung, Patrick Shu-Hang & Mok, Kam-Ming & Hagger, Martin S. & Chan, Derwin K.C., 2020. "Psychological processes of ACL-patients' post-surgery rehabilitation: A prospective test of an integrated theoretical model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    4. Tritter, Jonathan Q. & Lutfey, Karen & McKinlay, John, 2014. "What are tests for? The implications of stuttering steps along the US patient pathway," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 37-43.
    5. Chen, Ting-Yu & Chang, Chien-Hung & Rachel Lu, Jui-fen, 2013. "The extended QUALIFLEX method for multiple criteria decision analysis based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets and applications to medical decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(3), pages 615-625.
    6. Tian, Xiaoli & Zhang, Sai, 2022. "Expert or experiential knowledge? How knowledge informs situated action in childcare practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    7. Suzanne C. Makarem & Michael F. Smith & Susan M. Mudambi & James M. Hunt, 2014. "Why People Do Not Always Follow the Doctor's Orders: The Role of Hope and Perceived Control," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 457-485, October.
    8. Junhua Hu & Panpan Chen & Yan Yang, 2019. "An Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Similarity-Based MABAC Approach for Patient-Centered Care," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-25, February.
    9. Andreas Charalambous & George Efstathiou & Theodoula Adamakidou & Haritini Tsangari, 2014. "Adult cancer patients satisfaction of nursing care: a cross-national evaluation of two Southeastern European countries," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 329-346, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:18:y:2013:i:3:p:97-104. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.