Tracing the Origins of Interdisciplinarity-Repko 2008

Tracing the Originsof Interdisciplinarity

Chapter Preview

The origins of interdisciplinarity converge around four insights. The firstis that interdisciplinarity has a philosophical grounding in ideas extendingfrom the Greco-Roman classics. The second is that when faced with new

challenges of the modern world, particularly the proliferation of specializa-tion, higher education looks to interdisciplinarity as an alternative. Third,the idea of disciplinarity is not much older than the idea of interdisciplinar-ity when one factors in the beginnings of general education,. Americanstudies, and comparative literature. Finally, interdisciplinarity has tradition-ally found itself at the forefront of change in higher education and thusinvolved in controversy. The old ideal of liberal humanism and integrationof knowledge survives and thrives in a growing number of interdisciplinaryprograms across the nation..i This chapter discusses the etymology and research model of interdiscipli-narity, explains the interdisciplinary critique of the disciplines, and traces theformation of the disciplines and interdisciplinarity and the field of interdisci-plinary studies. The chapter then examines the assumptions underlying inter-disciplinary studies and identifies the traits and skills of interdisciplinarians.

Interdisciplinarity: Etymologyand Research Model

The etymology or origin of the noun interdisciplinarity is uncertain, though.~peterm began to appear in the early twentieth century. One writer attrib-utes its first use to the Social Science Research Council that used the term in

i~~~1920s as shorthand for research that crossed the Council's disciplinary~~ivisions(R. Frank, 1988, p. 91). Some scholars date the beginning of inter-~aisciplinarityto the general education, core curriculum, and comparative lit-

ture movements that arose in the early part of the century, while others

27

28 PART I: ABOUT INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

point to the rise of area studies and American studies in the 1930s and1940s. Still others highlight problem-focused work in science and technol-ogy, beginning with agricultural and defense research in the 1940s, or citeeducational experiments in the 1960s and 1970s (Klein, 2005a, pp. 2-3).

Today, interdisciplinary research and education are "inspired by thedrive to solve complex questions and problems. . . and lead researchers indifferent disciplines to meet at the interfaces of those disciplines" (NationalAcademy of Sciences et aI., 2005, p. 16). Although various disciplines havediffering approaches to research, especially in the types of phenomena theyinvestigate, all research-including interdisciplinary research-involvesidentifying problems, discovering source material, generating data, organiz-ing and analyzing that information, and drawing conclusions substantiatedby it. Research in the sciences, and even more so in the social sciences, isincreasingly interdisciplinary because the complexity of phenomena underinvestigation often defies a single disciplinary approach and requires cross-ing disciplinary domains. Interdisciplinary study involving the humanities islikewise increasingly interdisciplinary, reflecting what anthropologistClifford Geertz (1980) describes as the "blurring of the genres" (i.e., disci-plinary knowledge domains). Responding to the four "posts" that havetransformed modern thought-postpositivism, poststructuralism, postmod-ernism, and postcolonialism-the new humanities is reflected in the devel-opment of interdisciplinary identity fields and new specialties such as urbanstudies, social history, film studies, women's and feminist studies, gendertheory, and black studies as well as Hispanic American, Asian American,and Native American studies (Arthurs, 1993, pp. 265-267).

The Interdisciplinary Critique of the Disciplines

The interdisciplinary critique of the disciplines touches on at least six prob-lematic characteristics of the disciplines and of disciplinary specialization,which is the focus on a particular portion of reality that is of interest to thediscipline to the exclusion of other portions of reality.

Specialization Can Blind the Studentto the Broader Context

A bit of dialogue found in The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupery(2000) reveals the narrow focus of specialization:

"Your planet is very beautiful," [said the little prince].oceans?"

"I couldn't tell you," said the geographer. . . ."But you are a geographer!"

"Has it any

)fracing the Origins of Interdisciplinarity

"Exactly," the geographer said. "But I am not an explorer. I haven't asingle explorer on my planet. It is not the geographer who goes out tocount the towns, the rivers, the mountains, the seas, the oceans, thedeserts. The geographer is much too important to go loafing about. Hedoes not leave his desk." (pp. 45-46)

This humorous exchange shows that disciplinary specialization can blindthe student to the broader context and leave unanswered the larger, moreimportant, and practical issues of life. The fable of building a house for anelephant makes the same point. Interdisciplinarians believe that specializa-tion alone will not enable us to master the pressing problems facing human-

. ity today. The more specializedthe disciplinesbecome,the more necessaryinterdisciplinarity becomes.

Specialization Tends to Produce Tunnel Vision

Interdisciplinarians argue that the many complex practical problems con-fronting society can be understood only by examining them from variousdisciplinary perspectives and then integrating their insights to produce amore comprehensive understanding of them. They point out that disciplinary~xperts are prone to tunnel vision when it comes to examining importantissues. For example, the experts who advocated the damming of the Columbiaand Snake Rivers system were certain that this complex of hydroelectric damswould not harm the many salmon species that spawned in the rivers' tribu-taries. But the experts were wrong. Today, despite the extensive building offish ladders and other costly efforts to mitigate the effects of these dams, sev-eral species are on the verge of extinction, and an industry that employed tensof thousands of workers is in ruins. In this world of specialists, even highlyeducated persons can be unaware of the social, ethical, and biological dimen-sions of a policy or action. Indeed, one may know a great deal about a partic-ular subject but know little about its consequence (Dietrich, 1995).

Disciplinarians Sometimes Fail toAppreciate Other Disciplinary Perspectives

Before 9/11, few policy experts on the Middle East paid much attentionto the central role that religion plays in the region, in particular its role asa motivating force behind much of the organized violence against Westerninterests there. But since 9/11, scholars are taking a fresh look at how reli-gion, in interdisciplinary combination with other perspectives, informs ourunderstanding of terrorist organizations such as AI-Qaeda. The need is todevelop a more comprehensive understanding of such terrorist organizations


Some Worthwhile Topics Fallin the Gaps Between Disciplines

In their critique of the disciplines, interdisciplinarians argue that someproblems are neglected because they fall between disciplinary boundaries.An example of a new integrative field is strategic organization, which isan effort to bridge the disciplinary divide between strategic management,usually housed in sociology departments, and organization theory, usuallyhoused in management departments (Baum, 2002, p. 21). According toGiles Gunn (1992), important dimensions of human experience and under-standing lie unexplored in the spaces between disciplinary boundaries orthe places where they cross, overlap, divide, or dissolve (p. 239). These gapsbetween the disciplines are being filled by new knowledge domains, such associobiology and biochemistry, that are allowing researchers to addressnew questions and pursue new topics (Klein, 2000, p. 16).

Creative Breakthroughs OftenRequire Interdisciplinary Knowledge

The interdisciplinary critique of the disciplines extends to the need forcreative breakthroughs when addressing complex problems. Creativebreakthroughs often occur when different disciplinary perspectives and pre-viously unrelated ideas are brought together (Sill, 1996, pp. 136-149).C. P. Snow (1964) states, "The clashing points of two subjects, two disci-plines, two cultures--of two galaxies, so far as that goes-ought to producecreative changes. In the history of mental activity that has been where someof the breakthroughs came" (p. 16). Those who wish to speed up theproduction of knowledge and the solution to pressing problems shouldpromote, or at least tolerate, an interdisciplinary approach.

The Disciplines Are Unable toAddress Comprehensively Complex Problems

A further problem with the disciplines is their inability to address com-prehensively, much less solve, complex problems such as global warming.One might examine global warming from a biological perspective andhypothesize the effects of warmer ocean temperatures on coral reefs. Onemight examine it from an economic standpoint and conclude that theimmediate financial costs of global warming are simply too great to war-rant the United States signing the Kyoto Protocol. Or, one might examine

the issuefromthe perspectiveof domesticpoliticsand concludethat parti-san political considerations are to blame for inaction on the problem. Allthese disciplinary contributions may be valuable, but they fail to provide

Tracing the Origins of Interdisciplinarity 31

the truly comprehensive perspective on the problem that policymakers andthe public really need. On too many issues of public importance, the disci-plines tend to talk past each other.

Most interdisciplinarians do not seek the end of the disciplines, for rea-sons already discussed in Chapter 1. They believe, however, that althoughthe disciplines are useful for producing, organizing, and applying knowl-edge, too much specialization narrows and distorts one's view of the world.

Daniele C. Struppa (2002) argues that the need for interdisciplinary studies"is now stronger than ever" because modern objects of investigation requirean interdisciplinary approach (p. 97). Steve Fuller (1993) agrees: Certainkinds of problems, increasingly those of general public interest, are not beingadequately addressed by individual disciplines. Analyzing and solving theseproblems, says Fuller, requires an interdisciplinary approach (p. 33).

These concerns about specialization and fragmentation and the desire forintegration of knowledge are not new but have a long history extendingfrom ancient Greco-Roman times. The following brief history of the originsof interdisciplinarity and of interdisciplinary studies shows that they arosein response to a series of cultural and educational challenges that requiredalternatives.

The Formation of the Disciplines and the Origins ofInterdisciplinarity and Interdisciplinary Studies

By the time of the ancient Greeks, knowledge had accumulated to suchan extent that Plato's Academy, founded in 387 BC,offered instruction ingymnastics, music, poetry, literature, mathematics, and philosophy. Thepurpose of this experience was to promote the physical, moral, and socialdevelopment of the "whole person," a concept foundational to integrativevalues in modern humanities, liberal education, general education, andmany interdisciplinary studies programs (Hirst, 1974, pp. 30-31; Nussbaum,1985, pp.6-7).

Aristotle, the great philosopher, began the practice of dividing knowl-edge into disciplines. He established a clear hierarchy between the differentacademic subjects with the theoretical subjects of theology, mathematics,and physics on top; the practical subjects of ethics and politics in the mid-dle; and the productive subjects of the fine arts, poetics, and engineering atthe bottom. Aristotle found this structuring of knowledge necessary butregrettable because it violated the fundamental notion of the unity of allknowledge. To integrate these subjects, he placed philosophy as the univer-sal field of inquiry at the top of his hierarchy, as a way to bring together allthe different branches of learning (Moran, 2002, p. 4). Significantly, thisclassical division of knowledge remained intact until the nineteenth century,when a new scheme of disciplinarity arose.

PART I: ABOUT INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

The Origins of the University and the Disciplines

The twelfth century (1100-1200 AD)saw the development of a new insti-tution that was to playa major role in the ascendancy of European civiliza-tion and the development of the disciplines: the university. The modernuniversity is an institution of higher learning that provides teaching andresearch and is authorized to grant academic degrees. It evolved from themedieval cathedral schools and "rested on the conviction that there was an

essential and universal unity of knowledge and through Christianity, thatfaith was the highest order of knowledge" (Briggs & Micard, 1972, p. 186).The first recorded appearance of the word "university" is in a letter of PopeInnocent ill in 1208 or 1209 (Bishop, 1970, p. 266). The first universitiesappeared in Salerno, Bologna, Paris, Oxford, and Cambridge, where groupsof students and teachers (or masters) would meet, often in rented halls orrooms. Interestingly, the original meaning of the word "university" does notrefer to either "universe" or "universal" but rather to the totality of a group,as in a group of students (Haskins, 1940, p. 14; Rashdall, 1936, pp. 4-5).

By the thirteenth century, the universities were teaching a serial curricu-lum that included both letters and the sciences in the customary divisions ofthe trivium and the quadrivium. "Until at least the end of the eighteenth cen-tury," writes Moran (2002), "university students tended to study a core cur-riculum of the liberal arts, divided into the trivium (logic, grammar, rhetoric)and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music)" (p. 5).This curriculum served as the basis of and preparation for the professions.Students went on to specialize in theology, medicine, or law much asstudents today choose to "major" in a subject. These studies correspondedto modern courses in the arts and sciences (Bishop, 1970, p. 267).

The term" discipline," introduced as "disciplina" by the Romans, wasapplied to these professions because of the perceived need to relate educa-tion to specific economic, political, and ecclesiastical ends (Klein, 1990,p. 20). Interestingly, Medieval scholars largely excluded contemporary cul-tural developments as well as the mechanical arts, including agriculture,navigation, war, weaving, and the theater arts (Saffle, 2005, p. 14). Notuntil the twentieth century would these fields be absorbed into the acade-mic curriculum of the Western university. The university and the disciplinesbecame an engine of knowledge production that far outstripped any othermethod of learning devised by any previous civilization.

The Impact of the Enlightenment andScientific Revolution on the Disciplines


movement that emphasized the progress of human knowledge through thepowers of reason and provided justification for the movement known asmodernism. The second was the scientific revolution that occurred at about

the same time and that emphasized greater specialization (i.e., reductionism)and heightened research activity (i.e., empiricism), initially in the sciencesand then in all the disciplines. The significance of the Enlightenment and therise of modern science is that they challenged the idea of the unity of knowl-edge. The early division of the empirical sciences dates from this period.

Not everyone, however, saw greater disciplinary specialization as a pos-itive development. In the early 1700s, the Italian thinker Giambattista Vicocalled for a new approach to learning. He claimed that the ascendancy ofscience and mathematics in the curriculum had led to a neglect of broadeducation in favor of specialized knowledge. He argued that the "humansciences" such as history, philosophy, and law can achieve knowledge andunderstanding "from within" and, in fact, were superior to the natural sci-ences, which can only describe the external phenomena in nature (Moran,2002, p. 7). Nevertheless, Vico's call for less specialization and a morecomprehensive approach to learning largely fell on deaf ears.

The Consolidation of the Disciplines in theLate Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries

Between 1750 and 1800, the disciplines consolidated their hold on theteaching and production of knowledge by embracing three new revolution-izing techniques: writing, grading, and examination. These practices wereintroduced in three new teaching settings: the seminar (beginning in theGerman universities around 1760), the laboratory (beginning in the FrenchGrandes Ecoles before the Revolution), and the classroom (beginning inScotland around 1760).

Disciplines also began publishing disciplinary journals and hiring theirown PhDs, making it difficult for scholars to cross disciplinary lines.Combined, these practices and settings enabled the disciplines to strengthentheir position and accelerate the production of new knowledge (Hoskin,1993, pp. 275-277). These practices and settings have been so successfulthat today they are used the world over.

The Professionalization of Knowledge in theLate Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuriesand the Rise of the Modern Disciplines

The academic disciplines of today and the modern concept of disciplinar-ity are largely the product of development in the late nineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries (Klein, 1990, pp. 21-22; Lattuca, 2001, p. 23). This period

--


saw the formation of disciplines in the physical and natural sciences such asbiology, chemistry, and physics, though the division process was underwaybetween the mid-seventeenth century and late eighteenth century. By themiddle of the nineteenth century, the social sciences were fragmenting intoanthropology and economics, followed by psychology, sociology, history, andpolitical science.Though the humanities include the oldest subjects, the human-ities were the last to assume modem disciplinary form (Easton, 1991, p. 11).

Along with the rise of scientific specialties came increased competitionfor university resources, so universities began to organize themselves aroundthe disciplines. These new disciplines were accompanied by new professionalsocieties: history in 1884, economics in 1885, political science in 1903, andsociology in 1905 (Hershberg, 1981, p. 23). Disciplinary journals allowedisolated specialists to keep abreast of the latest research and also gave them aforum for presenting their own research. Specialists did not need to considerperspectives other than those of their own specialty (Swoboda, 1979, p. 62).

As the modem university took shape, disciplinarity was reinforced in twomajor ways, according to Klein (1990). First, industries demanded and receivedspecialists from the universities. Second, the disciplines recruited students totheir ranks (pp. 21-22). The trend toward specialization, especially in the sci-ences, was further propelled by increasingly more expensive instrumentation,elaborately equipped laboratories, and highly trained personnel. "Although the'Renaissance Man' may have remained an ideal for the well-educated baccalau-reate, it. was not the model for the new professional, specialized researchscholar" (Hershberg, 1981, p. 23). Clearly, the impression that is often con-veyed to students that the disciplines have always existed is incorrect.

The proliferation of academic disciplines raised concerns about overspe-cialization, in particular how these new disciplines were connected to issuesof power and self-interest. Late nineteenth-century German philosopherFriedrich Nietzsche and early twentieth-century Spanish philosopher JoseOrtega y Gasset saw the new disciplines as symptoms of a more generalphenomenon: the growing interdependence of government, business, andeducation. Driving this interdependence was an economic system thatincreasingly depended on the availability of specialists and professionals.Under this system, the disciplines and the universities served two vital func-tions: They trained persons for careers in government and business, andthey gave these new professions legitimacy and status by providing themwith academic credentials (Moran, 2002, pp. 11, 13).

The Emergence of Interdisciplinary Studies

The notion of interdisciplinarity and the emergence of interdisciplinary

studies can be seen as a response to two broad developments in the twentiethcentury. The first is the general education movement that dates from theearly decades of the century. The second concerns the cultural revolution ofthe 1960s and the resulting reforms in higher education.

e general education movement that arose after World War I was a

~nse to several problems besetting American culture and education attj!ne, including the lack of ""riona] unity and the ewding cohesivene"

Ileral education (Boyer, 1981, pp. 4-5). The philosophy animating thealeducation movement was the belief that these problems could be

by reemphasizing the arts and the values associated with classicalnism that emphasized wholeness of knowledge and of human nature.

e arts and values are "general" in four ways: (1) they apply to all

i,{:!~tareas;(2) they embrace all basic skills; (3) they affect the formation!ewhole person; and (4) they provide guidance for all humans (McKeon,

~64,pp. 159, 171-172).'At the heart of the general education movement and of liberal humanism;,the implicit notion of interdisciplinarity. There were two differing con-'tjons of interdisciplinarity at work: the traditional interdisciplinarity

~~.~fIJhepragmatic interdisciplinarity. The former focused on the classicalilia secular ideals of liberal culture and education. The latter focused on~h~study of historically situated problems of society (Hutcheson, 1997,}~~.,109-110).What both conceptions held in common, though, was the notion~., g{:neraleducation as "the place where all the parts would add up to a~Bhesive whole" (Klein, 2005a, p. 31). The magnet holding these diversefpiecestogether was thought to be a common core of great books and ideas!i\\sed on two millennia of Western cultural development. Requiring studentslb..study this common core, advocates believed, would stem the rising tidec9t "materialism, vocationalism, empiricism, relativism, specialism, and

~.rpartmentalization" (Graff, 1987, p. 162). Thus, one of the first motiva-\$!:\?I1Sfor interdisciplinary studies in the United States, states Charles~derson (2001), was to demonstrate unity of knowledge (pp. 456-457).~y contrast, Columbia University began to move away from the traditionalUnity of knowledge model, toward one of shared interdisciplinary knowl-r<lge. Its well-known course, Contemporary Civilization, promoted sharedinterdisciplinary knowledge with emphasis on the process of knowing and~~amination of contemporary problems (Hutcheson, 1997, p. 110).

igthe Origins of Interdisciplinarity

eGeneral Education Movement

The Cold War Era and Interdisciplinarity

After World War II, a second general education reform movementemerged, triggered by the 1945 Harvard report, General Education in a FreeSociety. The report called for a new general education curriculum based onthe sciences and writings of the European humanist tradition. Against thebackdrop of fascism and communism, proponents intended the curriculumto provide a common core of knowledge, beliefs, and values centered on theideals of freedom and democracy-in short, a national ideology opposed tocommunism in the Cold War era (Bender, 1997, pp. 20-21).

~ - ---


At the same time, criticism of the disciplines intensified and focused on twothemes. The first was the enormous power that the disciplines had accumu-lated since the turn of the century. Influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche, Frenchphilosopher Michael Foucault argued in the 1960s that the disciplines are notjust a way to produce knowledge; they are a sophisticated mechanism for reg-ulating human conduct and social relations. He found the examination to bethe "quintessential practice that epitomizes both the modern power of knowl-edge and the modern practice of meticulous disciplinary control" (Hoskin,1993, p. 277).

The second criticism focused on the deepening isolation of the disciplinesfrom each other. Tony Becher (1989) uses the anthropological metaphor oftribes to describe the disciplines, each having its own culture and language:

Men of the sociology tribe rarely visit the land of the physicists and havelittle idea what they do over there. If the sociologists were to step intothe building occupied by the English department, they would encounterthe cold stares if not the slingshots of the hostile natives. . . . The disci-plines exist as separate estates, with distinctive subcultures. (p. 23)

Echoing Foucault, Moran (2002) complains that the disciplines exercisetheir considerable power by "permitting certain ways of thinking and oper-ating while excluding others" (p. 14).

University Reforms in the 1960sand Interdisciplinary Studies

This critique of the disciplines was strengthened by the confluence of threemajor developments in the 1960s: the Vietnam War, the student revolution,and dramatic changes in social mores. Combined, these served as a catalystfrom which emerged new thinking about how the Academy should relate tosociety (Mayville, 1978, p. 3). This new thinking called for radical universityreforms, one central element of which was the elimination of the traditionalacademic disciplines in favor of holistic notions of training that were closer tothe practical problems of life (Weingart, 2000, p. xii). The disciplines and thescholarship that they produced had failed to explain, or even ignored, thegreat social movements and struggles that characterized the period. Theseincluded the civil rights, anti-imperialist, anti-racist, and women's rightsmovements. To that generation of students and young faculty, "The disci-plines seemed increasingly irrelevant or even obstructionist to their quest tounderstand, address, and solve the great issues of the day" (Katz, 2001,p. 520). By contrast, interdisciplinarity became a programmatic, value-ladenterm that stood for reform, innovation, progress, and opening up the univer-

sity to all kinds of hitherto marginalized publics (Weingart, 2000, p. xii). Theradicalism of the 1960s produced new fields such as African American studies,women's studies, and ethnic studies, and new definitions of culture and politics.

Tracing the Origins of Interdisciplinarity

But by the late 1970s, when the social struggles had subsided and mun-dane academic routine had returned to the universities, the call for interdis-ciplinarity became much less urgent. "What had seemed progressive only afew years earlier appeared outdated, if not quaint" (Weingart, 2000, p. xii).Yet, under the surface calm, young interdisciplinarians such as WilliamH. Newell and Julie Thompson Klein were persistently questioning whatconstituted legitimate subjects of inquiry, and by their work, they beganslowly to reconfigure the contours of knowledge and the methods throughwhich such knowledge was produced (Katz, 2001, p. 520).

Interdisciplinary Studies Emerges as an Academic Field

In 1979, a group of 50 interdisciplinarians led by Newell decided that theyneeded to have their own professional organization and journal and formedthe Association for Integrative Studies (AIS). Its purpose was to study inter-disciplinary methodology, theory, curricula, and administration. In 1982, AISlaunched a peer-reviewed journal, Issues in Integrative Studies. Within adecade, AIS, under Newell's leadership, became a national voice for interdis-ciplinary studies and a professional home for several hundred interdisciplinar-ians where they could work together to develop the potential of the field.

The founding of AIS converged with a broader development thatreflected a fundamental change in the way knowledge is produced in theUnited States. There is, observes Peter Weingart (2000), "a growing plural-ism both in the locations of knowledge production and in the patterns ofinitiation, production, and use of knowledge as well as its disciplinary com-binations" (pp. xi-xii). This development is uneven and does not affect allthe disciplines in the same way. Where production of knowledge is fast, asin the natural sciences, the disciplinary boundaries seem to be more fluidthan in the social sciences where the rate of production is far slower. Insidethe university, where the disciplines command great respect, the goal ofknowledge production is to understand. However, outside the university,where the goal is to generate practical knowledge in order to solve prob-lems, the disciplines command less respect and "are even frowned upon asobstacles to innovation or as providing a skewed perspective" (p. xii).

Finally, as disciplinary boundaries are becoming more permeable and asthe number of new fields and specialties grows by the day, interdisciplinar-ity is becoming a fairly common experience. This development, however,does not signal the beginning of the end of the disciplines and their replace-ment by interdisciplinarity. Rather, it shows the limits of the disciplines andthe need for and the expansion of the concept of interdisciplinarity. Theinterdisciplinary research process offers a way to apply basic research fromrelevant disciplines to complex, real-world problems that transcend individ-ual disciplines. Both the disciplines and interdisciplinarity are needed andshould be viewed as complementary rather than contradictory ways toproduce knowledge and solve problems, as shown in Figure 2.1.

38 PART I: ABOUT INfERDISCIPLlNARY STUDIES

Disciplines Interdisciplinarity

Figure 2.1 Complementary Ways to Produce Knowledge and Solve Problems

The Interdisciplinary Approach to Learning,Thinking, and Producing Knowledge

The interdisciplinary approach to learning, thinking, and producing knowl-edge distinguishes this academic field from the disciplines. Although the fieldstill lacks a cohesive and agreed-upon theory, there is a set of assumptionsthat are well established.

Interdisciplinary Assumptions

At least five assumptions undergird the field, though consensus on eachof them varies.

The Reality Beyond Academia Requiresan Interdisciplinary Approach

Interdisciplinarity reflects the reality that is beyond academic bound" ..

aries. It is, according to a recent study by the Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching, uniquely able to "address real-world problems,:unscripted and sufficiently broad to require multiple areas of knowledge';and multiple modes of inquiry, offering multiple solutions and benefiting ~from multiple perspectives" (Huber & Hutchings, 2004, p. 13). It is an\'~oversimplification, however, to say that life is interdisciplinary. It is m()re:'\~appropriate to say that gaps in human knowledge and fragmentation of 'ithuman organization abound and, consequently,that integrated approaches,;,

to problems are required (Klein, 1996, pp. 12-13).

The Disciplines Are Foundational to Interdisciplinary Studies

Speaking for many interdisciplinarians, Deborah DeZure (1999)

'Tracing the Origins of Interdisciplinarity 39

focus of disciplinary ways of knowing, but we also need interdisciplinarity tobroaden the context and establish links to other ways of constructing knowl-edge. Indeed, interdisciplinary study, grounded by definition in the disciplines,

both complementary and critical of them at the same time (pp. 212, 220).Some inter disciplinarians, though, share an antidisciplinary view, prefer-

ring a more "open" understanding of "knowledge" and "evidence" that would, include"livedexperience,"testimonials,oral traditions, and interpretationof. thosetraditionsbyelders(Vickers,1998,pp. 23-26). Thereisa problem,how-ever, with this approach. Without some grounding in the disciplines relevantto the problem, borrowing risks becoming indiscriminate and the result ren-

. dered suspect. Moreover, those who reject the knowledge claims of the disci-

.plines altogether may be uncertain how to make knowledge claims other than, cingroundsof lifeexperience.In academicwork, saysKlein(2005a),it is stillhecessary to develop disciplinary adequacy or minimum understanding of

, the cognitivemap of each of the disciplines,interdisciplines,and schoolsof. thought relevant to a particular problem (p. 71). How to achieve adequacy inthe disciplines relevant to the problem is the focus of Chapter 8.

The Disciplines by Themselves Are Inadequateto Address Complex Problems

.' Disciplinaryinadequacyis the view that the disciplinesby themselvesare. ifladequate to address complex problems. Disciplinary inadequacy stems from

~everalfac:tors,beginning with the pressing need for an integrated approach to. increasinglycomplexsocial,economic,and technologicalproblems.This was

. .oneof the findingsof the firstauthoritativenationalreport on interdisciplinary, studiesthat was publishedin 1990 by the Associationof AmericanColleges.. Thereport of the InterdisciplinaryStudiesTask Forceconfirmeda widelyheldI)eliefthat knowledge has become increasingly interdisciplinary. The reasonsiricluded new developments in research and scholarship, the formation of new

'hybrid fields, the expanding influence of interdisciplinary methods and con-. c:epts,and the pressing need for integrated approaches to complex social, eco-. nomic, and technologicalproblems (Klein& Newell, 1997, pp. 395-396).Wolfram W. Swoboda (1979) uses even stronger language: "Individual spe-cialties on their own, it is now clear, simply do not have the breadth of pet.:-

.Spective nor probably the willingness to assume responsibility for offeringextensive and intensive solutions to social problems" (p. 83)., Disciplinary inadequacy stems from a second factor, namely, its claim

that the disciplines provide all that is needed to make sense of the modernworld. This is so, states Ananta Kuma Giri (2002), observing that therefomes a point when disciplinary certainty has to be abandoned in order "to

.' disc:overthe unexpectedtruths of realityin the borderland." The disciplinary." ~Pproachfails, she argues, because "whatever categories and conceptswe. 'liseto make sense of reality, they are not adequate to provide us a total pic-. hire" (p. 110). Stanley Fish (1991) notes, "As soon as disciplines are fully


established they come quickly to believe in the priority of their own con-cerns." He complains that the disciplinary boundaries that characterize theuniversity "are not natural but historical" (pp. 101-102, 105). "The prob-lem with disciplinary thinking," says Giri, "is that it fails to realize that itsclaim to universality needs to be relativized by recognizing the significanceof other disciplines in gaining multiple perspectives about the world towhich both one's as well as another's discipline contribute" (p. 106).

A third factor explaining disciplinary inadequacy is that the world isundergoing a paradigm shift. This refers to a profound and transformativechange in the philosophical and theoretical framework that dominates adiscipline or approach to knowledge formation. Accelerating globalizationof cultural, technological, economic, and demographic flows is rapidly andprofoundly transforming the institutions that produce and disseminate knowl-edge (Friedman, 2001, p. 504). Interdisciplinarity can aid in this process.Underlying the calls for an interdisciplinary component to liberal educationis the recognition that interdisciplinary study encourages "breadth of visionand the development of the skills of integration and synthesis so frequentlydemanded by the problems of a culture in the midst of a profound transi-tion" (Newell & Green, 1982, p. 23).

As society and its problems become more complex, the traditional acad-emic disciplines will not always be able to prepare students for the complexissues they will face in the professions (McCall, 1990, p. 1319). A valueinherent in the concept of complexity is that interdisciplinarity preparesfuture professionals to confront the complex behaviors and problems theywill certainly face in a profession.

Disciplinary Perspectives Reveal Only a Portion of Reality

Academic disciplines provide their own unique perspective on a givenproblem, as illustrated in the fable of the blind men and the elephant (seeChapter 3). For example, although "power" is a concept relevant to virtu-ally all the social sciences, each discipline has its own definition of power,and each definition is undergirded by certain assumptions, methods, and so

forth that are uniq~e to each discipline. To gain a more balanced and com-prehensive understanding of "power" as it relates to a problem, interdis-ciplinarians must develop adequacy concerning the perspective of eachrelevant discipline (Hursh, Haas, & Moore, 1983, pp. 44-45).

The ability to do this is called cognitive decentering, which is the intel-lectual capacity to consider a variety of other perspectives and thus perceivereality more accurately, process information more systematically, and solveproblems more efficiently. The term decentering denotes the ability to shiftdeliberately among alternative perspectives and to bring each to bear upon

~ compl~x probl~m. This type of thinking allows the student to make con.nections between disciplines and theories, between practical problems andaccumulated knowledge, and between a society's assumptions and those ofother cultures, as shown in Figure 2.2.


Theories

DisciplinesAccumulated

knowledge

Practicalproblems

Othercultures

Society'sassumptions

Figure 2.2 Cognitive Decentering

Above all, cognitive decentering enables interdisciplinarians to evaluate theusefulness of various disciplines to understanding complex problems. Theimportance of this thinking process is evident in everyday decision making, aswell as in scientific pursuits. For example, the cognitive process describedabove is essential in the search for solutions to such problems as energy deple-tion, environmental pollution, health care delivery, and urban decay, or inconsidering aesthetic qualities of line, color, form, and texture from the stand-point of music, art, dance, or theater (Hursh et aI., 1983, pp. 44-45).

Integration of Insights Will Producea Cognitive Advancement That Would Not BePossibleby Relying on Single Disciplinary Means

Integration, the focus of Chapter 5, is a core feature of interdisciplinarystudies and of the interdisciplinary research process. Narrowly speaking,integration requires understanding the disciplinary perspectives on theproblem and paying careful attention to evaluating and rectifying the ele-ments of these perspectives (identified in Chapters 3 and 4) that conflict.

Traits and Skills of Interdisciplinarians

Interdisciplinary studies is not just a way to obtain a degree; it is a system-atic method of training one's mind and developing one's character. "Theeffect, if not the purpose, of interdisciplinarity is often nothing less than to

alter the way we think about thinking" (Geertz, 19S0, pp. 165'-166; Gunn,

42 PART I; ABOUT INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

1992, p. 240).From the extensive literature on interdisciplinary studies, itis possible to identify no fewer than 15 traits and skills common to inter-disciplinarians. Traits are distinguishing qualities of a person, whereasskills are cognitive abilities to use one's knowledge effectively and readily inperforming a task.

Traits

Enterprise. The interdisciplinarian is like an entrepreneur in the sense thatboth are willing to assume risk in order to achieve the objective. The inter-disciplinarian, like the entrepreneur, sees connections and the possibility ofobtaining new information, novel insights, and an interdisciplinary under-standing of complex problems. Cognitive psychologist Rainer Bromme(2000) compares crossing a disciplinary boundary to "moving about in for-eign territory" (p. 116). Interdisciplinarians enjoy venturing into unfamiliarplaces and entertaining new ideas.

Love of Learning. Students drawn to interdisciplinary studies are intenselyinterested in the world they live in, and they welcome opportunities to viewthe world and its problems from differing perspectives (Trow, 1984, p. 15).Since interdisciplinarians often find themselves in new situations, they mustalso know how to learn and adapt. They need to know what information toask for and how to acquire a working knowledge of the language, concepts,and analytical skills pertinent to understanding a given problem (Klein,1990, p. 183).

Reflection. Learning is a process of cognitive and emotional transformation.Students in interdisciplinary studies are interested in understanding the know-ing process. Reflection occurs when students evaluate sources of information,demonstrate lines of reasoning from conflicting perspectives, evaluate com-plex problems or objects, discuss controversial issues, or justify an importantdecision. Reflection also occurs when students examine, perhaps in a reflec-tive paper, their responses to an emotionally charged question (Myers &Haynes, 2002, pp. 191-192). Consequently, students engaged in interdiscipli-nary learning develop a strong self-concept (Bromme, 2000, pp. 116-118).

Tolerance for Ambiguity and Paradox in the Midst of Complexity.Interdisciplinarians accept that sometimes there are irreconcilable differencesin the ways different disciplines view the same problem or issue. They mustbe able to see all sides of an issue, reconcile conflicting perspectives by cre-ating common ground among them, and live with ambiguity where reconcil-

iation proves impossible (Bromme, 2000, pp. 116-11B; Hursh et aI., 19H3,pp. 44-45). Ambiguity can be unsettling, especially for those who demandquick and clear-cut solutions to problems. But ambiguity is a fact of life and


of complexity, too. Real-world problems are often so complicated that it isimpossible to know everything that one needs to know to understand them,let alone solve them. Interdisciplinarians know that interdisciplinary under-standing is a constant process that never quite achieves total understanding.Accepting that there is always something more to know keeps interdiscipli-narians from becoming too settled in their knowledge about a problem.They remain open to new information and perspectives.

Receptivity to Other Disciplines and to the Perspectives of Those Disciplines.Receptivity to other disciplines means being open to information or insightsfrom any and all relevant disciplinary perspectives. This, in turn, meansbeing willing, even eager, to learn about other fields of knowledge, gainingboth an intuitive and intellectual grasp of them (Newell, 1992, p. 215).Receptivity to other disciplines and to their perspectives is essential to devel-oping an interdisciplinary understanding of any problem. Understanding adiscipline's perspective involves not simply knowing what knowledge thediscipline offers, but a willingness to deal with its perspective on its ownterms, appreciating its assumptions, epistemology, concepts, theories, andmethods (Armstrong, 1980, p. 54; Gunn, 1992, p. 239). In other words, theinterdisciplinarian needs to be ready, willing, and able to walk in the shoesof the disciplinarian in a selective fashion pertinent to specific problems andquestions. Chapters 3 and 4 emphasize the primary importance that interdis-ciplinarians attach to knowing the commonly used elements of the majordisciplines in the sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. But thischapter emphasizes that knowing must be preceded by receptivity.

Willingness to Achieve "Adequacy" in Multiple Disciplines. Being receptiveto multiple perspectives is one thing; successfully understanding them isanother. The disciplines have each developed a daunting array of skills andknowledge, and at first glance it seems impossible to comprehend fully, letalone master, anyone or two of them in a single lifetime. However, thereis a difference between achieving mastery and adequacy in a discipline.According to Klein (1996), the difference between disciplinary mastery anddisciplinary adequacy lies in the difference between learning a disciplinethoroughly in order to practice it (i.e., mastery) and merely comprehendinghow that discipline characteristically looks at the world in terms of its per-spective, assumptions, epistemology, concepts, theories, and methods (i.e.,adequacy) (p. 212). The interdisciplinarian needs only to achieve adequacy,meaning knowing the discipline's defining elements relevant to the problem.This knowledge allows the student to have a basic "feel" of the disciplineand an understanding of how it approaches the problem. Interdisciplinarylearning develops the ability to know the limitations and biases of a disci-pline, to discover the benefits and perspectives of a discipline, and to under-stand how a discipline works simply by forcing us to see one discipline inlight of another (Carlisle, 1995, p. 10). Interdisciplinary learning also develops

PART I: ABOUT INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

the ability to integrate disciplinary insights relevant to a problem or questionand produce a new and more comprehensive understanding of it than wouldbe possible using single disciplinary means.

Appreciation of Diversity. Appreciating diversity means, simply, havingrespect for people holding different views, devoted to different faith tradi-tions and different cultures, and coming from different ethnic or racial back-grounds. Interdisciplinarians, acutely aware of their own biases, acknowledgethat different points of view are necessary for an interdisciplinary understand-ing (Newell, 1990, p. 71).

Willingness to Work With Others. Interdisciplinarity is often a collaborativeprocess. No one person, no matter how thoroughly trained, will ever have acomplete understanding of any given problem or issue. This includes theinterdisciplinarian investigating it. The interdisciplinarian often has to drawupon the insights of disciplinary experts. An expert interdisciplinarian is onewho is able to integrate the input of others to address an issue, which mayinclude coordinating team members. This trait applies especially to interdis-ciplinarians engaged in technical and scientific studies that most commonlyinvolve teamwork. Effective participation in interdisciplinary team activitiesis not so much a matter of individual traits as it is of learned behavior.

People develop intellectual skills, such as dialectical and metaphorical think-ing, and patterns of group communication skills that permit them to learnfrom and be taught by other members of the team (Newell, 1998, p. 551).

Humility. Humility is the one learned behavior that all scholars, includinginter disciplinarians, surely need when faced with a complex problem thatexposes the limits of one's training and expertise (Newell, 2001, p. 22).While disciplinarians can take comfort in knowing all there is to know aboutsome sliver of reality that is their specialty, inter disciplinarians cannot hopeto achieve this level of mastery of every facet of a complex problem. Insteadof experiencing pride of mastery, the interdisciplinarian is humbled byknowing how much the relevant domains of knowledge do not know aboutthe complex problem.l Practitioners of interdisciplinary studies bring to theircraft a humility that comes from knowing what they do not know. Studentsand teachers involved in interdisciplinary investigations quickly discover thatthey do not know and cannot know everything about a topic. But by usingthe interdisciplinary process, they are at least moving toward knowing moreabout the topic than they would otherwise be able to learn using a purelydisciplinary approach. "Through this process students discover the need forfurther learning, and they develop respect for different views" (Wentworth& Davis, 2002, p. 17).

Interdisciplinarity, according to the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD), "is first and foremost a state ofmind" (1970, p. 192).

Tracing the Origins of Interdisciplinarity

Skills

Ability to Communicative Competently. Interdisciplinarity is a highly inter-active field, requiring communicative competence, the ability to comprehendand translate terminology that is discipline-specific. Each discipline has notonly its own set of skills and knowledge but also its own language that it usesto describe its assumptions, concepts, and theories. Though discipline-specific language is an effective "shorthand" for experts to use to communi-cate with each other, it is often incomprehensible to those outside thediscipline. This places an additional burden on the interdisciplinarian, whomust grasp this terminology and make it accessible to others, regardless oftheir field of expertise (Klein, 1996, p. 217).

The variety of disciplinary perspectives involved in interdisciplinarypractice often necessitates the building and coordination of teams of indi-viduals with different training and expertise. An interdisciplinarian mustpossess keen interpersonal relations skills and be able to engage in produc-tive communication with people who hold a variety of interests, beliefs, andmind-sets, even if some of these sharply conflict.

Interdisciplinarity facilitates communication across disciplinary bound-aries. This communication is possible because, despite the differences in jar-gon, there is overlap among the assumptions, concepts, theories, andmethods used by the disciplines as well as underlying recurring patterns inboth natural phenomena and human behavior that generally hold true in allof them. In many cases, each of the disciplines is saying something similarabout the nature of the world, only in a different language.

Ability to Think Abstractly. Abstract thinking is a higher-order cognitive abil-ity that enables one to understand and express an interdisciplinary under-standing or meaning of a problem symbolically in terms of a metaphor, or tocompare a hard-to-understand and complex phenomenon to a symbol that issimple, familiar, and easy to understand. Abstract thinking is an essential skillfor many professions and is particularly desirable for the interdisciplinarian,especially when working in the humanities. To achieve the objective of aninterdisciplinary understanding, the interdisciplinarian must integrate differ-ing disciplinary insights into the problem and, ideally, should be able toexpress this understanding or meaning symbolically in terms of a metaphor.Abstract thinking and metaphors are important tools in the interdisciplinar-ian's toolbox. However, "abstract thinking represents 'an end, not the end' ofthe thinking process" (Seabury, 2002, p. 47).

Ability to Think Dialectically. In many ways, dialectical thinking is theopposite of disciplinary thinking, but it is an important skill of the interdis-ciplinarian and is a method that underlies interdisciplinary work. Dialecticalthinking means any systematic reasoning or argument that places side-by-side opposing ideas for the purpose of seeking to resolve their conflict. It is


a method of determining the truth of any assertion by testing it against argu-ments that might negate it. Composition expert Anne Berthoff (1981)believes that there is a natural dialectic of the mind, "a dialectic of sortingand gathering, of particularizing and generalizing" (p. 105). Indeed, onewriter goes so far as to state that dialectical thinking "is the underlyingmethod of interdisciplinary work" (W. Davis, 1978). Rather than viewingdifferences, tension, and conflict as barriers that must be overcome, theinterdisciplinarian views these as part of the integrative process.

Ability to Engage in Nonlinear Thinking. Nonlinear thinking is the ability toapproach a problem creatively, thinking about it "outside the box" withoutbeing influenced by solutions attempted in the past, and viewing it from dif-ferent perspectives. As noted in Chapter 1, interdisciplinary studies is simi-lar to the disciplines in that it has a "method" or way of conducting researchand producing new knowledge. However, the progression of the interdisci-plinary research process-from identifying the disciplines and their perspec-tives relevant to the problem, to identifying conflicts between them, tointegrating insights, and ultimately to producing an interdisciplinary under-standing of the problem-is not linear (Nikitina, 2002, p. 41). Rather, itmore resembles a feedback loop that requires the researcher to periodicallyrevisit earlier activity.

Ability to Think Creatively. Interdisciplinarity requires creativity. The creativeidea is a "combination of previously unrelated ideas, or looking at it anotherway, a new relationship among ideas" (G. A. Davis, 1992, p. 44). As appliedto interdisciplinary work, creativity is a process that involves rethinking under-lying premises, assumptions, or values, not just tracing out the implicationsof agreed-upon premises, assumptions, or values. Creativity involves iterative(i.e., repetitive) and heuristic (i.e., experimental) activity (Spooner, 2004,p. 93). Creating common ground among conflicting insights, for example, maywell involve iterative and heuristic activity. The techniques and methods use-ful in creating or discovering common ground, engaging in integration, andproducing an interdisciplinary outcome are identified in later chapters.

Ability to Think Holistically. Holistic thinking involves thinking about theproblem as part of a complete system. According to Irene Dabrowski (1995),"A holistic perception of reality-seeing things whole-requires interdisci-plinary focus" (p. 3, italics added). Aspects of holistic thinking include inclu-siveness that accepts similarities as well as differences, comprehensivenessthat balances disciplinary breadth and disciplinary depth (disciplinary spe-cialties privilege depth over breadth), ability to associate ideas and informa-

tio~ from several disciplines and connect these to the problem, creativity thatis dissatisfied with the partial insights available through individual discipli-nary specialties and that produces an interdisciplinary understanding, andmetaphorical thinking that visually expresses the resultant integration.


Some of these skills and traits, such as holistic thinking, typically receivegreater emphasis in interdisciplinary contexts than in disciplinary contexts.These skills and traits are arguably desirable for anyone who wishes to leada meaningful and productive life in any field of endeavor.

An examination of the origins of interdisciplinarity and interdisciplinarystudies shows that the historical curriculum of European and American uni-versities was a common core of undergraduate studies deeply rooted in thehumanities and the ideals of the generalist model. By the late nineteenth cen-tury, however, the generalist model was challenged by a combination of cul-tural and educational factors that led ultimately to the modern system ofdisciplinarity. The negative impacts of knowledge fragmentation, in turn, ledto calls for reform of the general education curriculum at the end of bothworld wars and the rediscovery of interdisciplinarity. The social and politi-cal upheavals of the 1960s led to a concerted effort to inject interdisciplinar-ity into academic culture beyond the confines of general education throughthe establishment of interdisciplinary courses and programs. This effort con-tinued, though with less intensity, into the 1980s and 1990s. By the turn ofthe new century, the increasing importance of interdisciplinarity was estab-lished, and there is now far more agreement on what interdisciplinarity isand what it assumes. Students are benefiting from the traits and skills thatinterdisciplinarity fosters.

The commonality undergirding these developments is the growing recog-nition of the importance of integration to interdisciplinary studies and itsability to produce new knowledge. The integrative process draws on thedisciplines and their insights to address problems and questions that requirean interdisciplinary approach. The disciplines and their defining character-istics are the subjects of Chapters 3 and 4.

1. Paul Stoller (1997) in Sensuous Scholarship speaks of the importance of humil-ity in academic life (pp. 135-137).

1. What is the difference between "instrumental" and "conceptual"

interdisciplinarity ?

2. What are the six problematic characteristics of the disciplines and ofdisciplinary specialization? Give examples.

Tracing the Origins of Interdisciplinarity-Repko 2008

Documents