
A depiction of "doctrinaire departmentalism", as seen by John Q. Stewart (1954), the view that, owing to hydraism, universities are divided into their own distinct "departments", each with their own "doctrines", which do NOT mix with the doctrines of other departments.

A depiction of "doctrinaire departmentalism", as seen by John Q. Stewart (1954), the view that, owing to hydraism, universities are divided into their own distinct "departments", each with their own "doctrines", which do NOT mix with the doctrines of other departments.

In terminology, doctrinaire departmentalism (TR:7) is a type of anti-interdepartmentalism (or anti-interdisciplinarity), according to which “doctrines” of each respective divided department—divided in the Herrick Humpty Dumpty (1930) sense and or C.P. Snow two cultures (1959) sense—prevent students from receiving a unified “one nature” big picture educational view of things.

Stewart | Princeton social physics
In 1950s, John Q. Stewart coined the term "doctrinaire departmentalism", when he attempted to bridge the gap between the physics department and the social sciences departments at Princeton (see: Princeton Department of Social Physics); some statements of this are as follows:

“Doctrinaire departmentalism has blinded the universities to the spectacular possibilities of adapting the successful methods of physics in the lagging social field. We have at Princeton a young social physics project, with the cooperation of the Department of Astronomy, which supplies office facilities, and with …”
— John Q. Stewart (1951), “The New Discipline of Social Physics Examines Instances of Free Competition” [1]

“[Stewart] has irritated the social scientists further by criticizing them for immaturity, lack of imagination and ‘doctrinaire departmentalism’. Overspecialization, he feels, is choking modern scholarship and limiting man’s communication with his fellows.”
— Staff (1954), “Article” [2]

(add)

Human thermodynamics | ABET problem
In engineering education, professors are only allowed to teach subject matter that is ABET-certified, i.e. educational material that will enable a student to be American Board of Engineering and Technology certified; teaching engineering students subject matter outside of ABET-proper educational material is frowned upon, and may often result dismissal of the professor.

In 2008, Indian-born American mechanical engineer Satish Boregowda, while a professor at Purdue University, found that his colleagues and his tenure reviewers were not in favor of his work in thermodynamics applied to the humanities, i.e. on the “human thermodynamics” of stress, being that it was not ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) certification relevant; as a result of which he left academia and went into industry. In this example, ABET focus is the "doctrine" of the engineering department, which is the "departmentalism", as Stewart would say, of the department of engineering. Teaching an engineering student something "outside" of the department doctrine, e.g. thermodynamics-based morality (Goethe), meaning (Name), or sense of purpose (Blum/Lindsay), etc., in short, is not allowed; the following is a recent attempt in this direction:

“I seek to revise engineering curricula to be relevant to a fuller range of student experiences and career destinations, integrating concerns related to public policy, professional ethics and social responsibility; de-centering Western civilization; and uncovering contributions of women and other underrepresented groups. 21st century engineering thermodynamics needs to focus on meeting five often-neglected ABET outcomes: ethics, communication, existence-long learning, social context, and contemporary issues.”
— Donna Riley (2011), Engineering Thermodynamics and 21st Century Energy Problems

(add)

Quotes
The following are related quotes:

“The history of ‘ideas’, particularly in respect to the great chain of being, is no subject for highly departmentalized minds; and it is pursued with some difficulty in an age of departmentalized minds.”
— Arthur Lovejoy (1933), The Great Chain of Being (pg. 22)

See also
● Herrick’s Humpty Dumpty

References
1. Stewart, John Q. (1951). “The New Discipline of Social Physics Examines Instances of Free Competition”, The Public Relations Journal (pgs. 5, 75-, 82-), 7.
2. Staff. (1955). “Research in Progress: Social Physics”, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 55:17.