Although university administrators traditionally give some support to interdisciplinary research and the academic community has always participated, diligent efforts are being made to improve productive communication across disciplines. At my university, centers and institutes have mushroomed in the past couple of decades. Often transcending familiar academic boundaries, these operations bring together experts from numerous fields to engage in applied rather than basic research, and progress frequently hinges on using specialty knowledge in unfamiliar ways. institutes weaken centripetal academic forces and promote communication of ideas that help solve complex problems naturally encompassing various specialties. Economic history has joined in the growth of interdisciplinary activity. most recent Economic History Association meetings, for example, featured a theme of The Interdisciplinary Conversation of Economic History, where papers blended economic history with ideas from diverse fields such as law, human biology, physical anthropology, agricultural botany, and comparative literature. If connections across fields can be quite productive, it is instructive to consider the circumstances under which they flourish. Scholars should consider examples of successful interdisciplinary research for insights into the general process. How and under what conditions should interdisciplinary research be undertaken? What procedures or practices might enhance the chances of success? This essay considers these questions using the new anthropometric history as a case study. blend of history and economics with human biology, medicine, and physical anthropology has clarified several questions important to economic historians. Emerging some 20 years ago, the field evolved in the subsequent decade to address long-standing problems in slavery, mortality, inequality, and living standards during industrialization. Ideas ultimately determine the success or failure of a new approach, but researchers have noted that marketing or promotion and other factors are also relevant, especially in the short run. Ideas, however, are most interesting to a wide spectrum of readers and their study has the most general relevance for other areas. Therefore, the first portion of the essay discusses the evolution of ideas in the early years of the field. objective of this section is not to review the anthropometric literature in general (this was recently done), but to expand on those aspects of the field's early development that are relevant for success in the early stages of interdisciplinary activity more generally. second section considers implications of the rise of the new anthropometric history for conducting interdisciplinary research.
Read full abstract