مَراجع لمن يريد التبحُّر

القائمة البيبليوغرافية تتضمن جميع النصوص المُستشهَد بها في الكتاب، وأما المراجع التالية فتُعتبر نقطة انطلاق جيدة لمن يريد التبحُّر في العلم بالمناظرات الجارية حول البينية.

Anderson, Amanda and Valente, Joseph (eds) (2002), Disciplinarity at the Fin de Siècle, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. A thought-provoking series of essays which attempt to qualify contemporary celebrations of interdisciplinarity by examining the rise of a number of disciplines, including English, in the late Victorian era. The essays argue that disciplines are not inherently narrow or coercive, and have always been in dialogue with other disciplines.
Beer, Gillian (1996), Open Fields: Science in Cultural Encounter, Oxford: Oxford University Press. A ground-breaking series of essays on the relation between literature and science, with particular focus on Charles Darwin and mainly centred on nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century writing. Chapter 6, “Forging the Missing Link: Interdisciplinary Stories,” is particularly enlightening.
Coles, Alex and Defert, Alexia (eds) (1998) The Anxiety of Interdisciplinarity, London: Backless Books. A theoretically engaged, somewhat quirky collection of essays ranging across cultural studies, critical theory and visual culture.
Davidson, Cathy N. and Goldberg, David Theo (2004), “Engaging the Humanities,” Profession: 42–62. A call by two American academics for a new interdisciplinary humanities to challenge the hegemony of the sciences and the professions in the contemporary university.
Eaglestone, Robert (2002), “Interdisciplinary English,” in Doing English: A Guide for Literature Students, 2nd edn, London: Routledge, pp. 121–8. A brief but useful introduction, aimed at orientating undergraduates into degree-level English and arguing that English as a discipline is “diffuse, fuzzy and interwoven”.
Fay, Elizabeth (2006), “Cultural History, Interdisciplinarity and Romanticism,” Literature Compass, 3 (5): 1065–81. This article examines cultural history as a particular mode of interdisciplinary study in the humanities, with specific reference to histories of the body and gesture in Romantic studies.
Fish, Stanley (1994), “Being interdisciplinary is so very hard to do,” in there’s no such thing as free speech, and It’s a good thing, too, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–42. This is probably the definitive critique of interdisciplinarity and a call for literary critics to return to their specialism.
Garber, Marjorie (2007), “Presidential Address 2006: It Must Change,” PMLA, 122 (3): 652–62. This article began as a speech at the Modern Language Association conference and is a plea for literary studies scholars not to overlook the discipline that distinguishes what they do from other fields: poetics.
Hayes Edwards, Brett (2008), “The Specter of Interdisciplinarity,” PMLA, 123 (1): 188–94. A response to Garber’s article, which argues that the literary “must not relinquish its unique point of articulation with the social”.
Hewitt, Martin (2001), “Victorian Studies: Problems and Prospects?,” Journal of Victorian Culture, 6 (1): 137–61. This article, discussed in my conclusion, is a call for all scholars working on Victorian culture to consolidate their area as a thoroughly interdisciplinary field.
Huggan, Graham (2002), “Postcolonial Studies and the Anxiety of Interdisciplinarity,” Postcolonial Studies, 5 (3): 245–75. An article which uses post-colonial studies as a case study for discussing the anxieties and hostilities created by interdisciplinarity in contemporary universities.
Klein, Julie Thompson (2005), Humanities, Culture, and Interdisciplinarity: The Changing American Academy, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Klein has written widely on interdisciplinarity in the context of American universities, and this work focuses particularly on the study of culture across the humanities.
Limon, John (1990), The Place of Fiction in the Time of Science: A Disciplinary History of American Writing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In attempting to map out an interdisciplinary method for discussing the relations between literature and science, the opening chapter, ”Toward a Disciplinary Intellectual History,” offers some illuminating reflections on the discipline of literary criticism and the philosophy of science.
Shattock, Joanne (2007), “Where Next in Victorian Literary Studies? Revising the Canon, Extending Cultural Boundaries, and the Challenge of Interdisciplinarity,” Literature Compass, 4 (4): 1280–91. This article, focusing on the interdisciplinary possibilities of Victorian literary studies, has an interesting discussion on the impact of the ongoing digitization of archives.
Warner, William B. and Siskin, Clifford (2008) “Stopping Cultural Studies,” Profession: 94–107. This article explores the influence of cultural studies in literary studies and the expansion of the category of “literature” into “culture”—but, as its title suggests, it ends with a call for literary studies to refocus on its core material: print culture.
Willis, Martin (2006) Mesmerists, Monsters, and Machines: Science Fiction and the Cultures of Science in the Nineteenth Century, Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. The first chapter and the conclusion contain a useful synoptic discussion of interdisciplinary criticism with particular reference to science fiction.