Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T00:58:45.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Science’ and ‘Culture’ in University Settings. Areas of Overlap? Areas of Tension? Or, Areas of Mutual Complementarity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2018

Milena Žic Fuchs
Milena Žic Fuchs*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Ivana Lučića 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zrinski trg 11, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

On the one hand, ‘interdisciplinarity’ in all its formats, ranging from multi- to transdisciplinarity, has become the focal point of research agendas and a high priority of many funding bodies, while, on the other hand, universities by and large still remain discipline-oriented. This ‘tension’ is especially manifest between ‘science’ and ‘culture’ in the sense of bridging gaps between disciplines and research domains. The main roles of the Humanities and Social Sciences can be said to be the development of critical and independent thought, the identification and dissemination of important social and cultural values, as well as challenging widely held assumptions and beliefs. This article focuses on new ‘interpretations’ of knowledge seen as the fundamental link, which can, within university programmes, raise the awareness of the importance of the Humanities and Social Sciences on one hand, but, more importantly, also put into a much wider context the different ‘knowledges’ necessary for the contemporary understanding of how ‘science’ should be geared towards the individual, society, as well as the global community at large.*

Type
Conflicts and Dialogues between Science and Humanities
Information
European Review , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , May 2018 , pp. 319 - 329
Copyright
© Academia Europaea 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A shorter Chinese version of this article appeared in Tansuo yu Zhengming (Exploration and Free Views), 2018, 1 (January), 136–140. Published here, for the first time in English, with permission.

References

References and Notes

1. Snow, C.P. (1998) The Two Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), (with Introduction by Stefan Collini).Google Scholar
2. Leavis, F.R. (1962) Two cultures? The significance of C. P. Snow. Spectator.Google Scholar
3. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2012) What is culture? A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts. Available at GlobalPAD Open House, p.2. http://go.warwick.ac.uk/globalpadintercultural Google Scholar
4. The importance of knowledge, experience and wisdom in many facets of research as well as university life are discussed in, de Corte, E., E. and Fenstad, J.E. (Eds) (2010) From Information to Knowledge; from Knowledge to Wisdom. Challenges and changes facing higher education in the digital age (London: Portland Press).Google Scholar
5. Mittelstraß, J. (1982) Wissenschaft als Lebensform. Reden über philosophischer Orientierungen in Wissenschaft und Universität (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp)Google Scholar
6. Mittelstraß, J. (2012) Science and values: On values and credibility in science and scholarship. Rendiconti Lincei, 23(Suppl. 1), pp. 29–33 p. 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge, The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (London: SAGE).Google Scholar
8. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2003) ’Mode 2’ revisited. The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, pp. 179–194.Google Scholar
9. Gibbons, M. (2002) Governance and the new production of knowledge. In: J. de la Mothe, (Ed.) Science, Technology and Global Governance (London: Routledge), p. 33.Google Scholar
10. Frodeman, R. and Mitcham, C. (2007) New directions in interdisciplinarity: Broad, deep, and critical. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 27(6), pp. 506–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Frodeman, R., Klein, J. Thompson and Mitcham, C. (Eds) (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar
12. Krohn, W. (2010) Interdisciplinary cases and disciplinary knowledge. In: R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein and C. Mitcham, (Eds) (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 31–38 p. 31.Google Scholar
13. Brown, R., Deletic, A. and Wong, H.F. (2015) How to catalyse collaboration. Nature, 525, September 2015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/emotionally-literate-tech-help-treat-autism_en.html Google Scholar
15. http://www.dream2020.eu/ Google Scholar
16. http://larics.fer.hr/ Google Scholar
17. Frodeman, R. (2014) Sustainable Knowledge. A Theory of Interdisciplinarity (New York: Palgrave Macmillan)Google Scholar
18. http://ki.se/en/selma/programme-syllabus/4BI11 Google Scholar
19. http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/undergraduate/degrees?action=subject&code=53&cw_xml=index.php Google Scholar
20. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/philosophy-politics-and-economics-ba.aspx Google Scholar
21.For further details on the concept of ‘bioethics’, especially from a European perspective, see , Čović, A. (2012) The Europeanization of bioethics. In A. Muzur and H. Sass, (Eds) Fritz Jahr and the Foundations of Global Bioethics. The Future of Integrative Bioethics (Berlin, Münster, Vienna, Zurich, London: LIT Verlag), pp. 194–196.Google Scholar
22. Potter, V.R. (1971) Bioethics: Bridge to the future (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall)Google Scholar