·
Proposed
structure for discussions going forward: get down the basic points (3-4
key insights) of each of the assigned readings and look for connections and
debates, then proceed with a substantive conversation about each (chalkboard
exercise with Greg)
·
Klein, Hackett,
Weingart, Rhoten, Frodeman et al., Sa, Jacobs et al.
o
Klein:
§
history of science 101
"Plato to NATO"
§
tension between
universal knowledge vs. specialization
§
endogenous (organization
of knowledge) vs. exogenous (society, social problems, industry)
§
ideal vs. evaluation
o
Hackett:
§
functional approach
§
bold vs.
effective
§
Interdisciplinarity as
political
§
community, the way you
decide what to pursue and how to evaluate it is that there has to be a
community of practitioners; an administrator in the NSF sees their job not just
as making things happen but building and sustaining community
§
problems with measurement
§
talking about what's
happening today, real political constraints and concerns and constraints
§
(Daniel) in Hackett,
the issue of workshops comes up, does Interdisciplinarity come from the top
down? He is trying to assert that it comes from the bottom up.
o
Weingart:
§
identifies
longstanding paradox in the way people talk about interdisciplinary
research
§
contradiction
§
despite the rhetoric
of Interdisciplinarity (positive for innovation) science is becoming more
specialized
§
sees Interdisciplinarity
as new type of specialization with its own blind spots
§
questions whether
innovation comes from Interdisciplinarity because science still comes from
gatekeepers
§
tension between
tradition and change
§
no effort to really
change structures
§
you can't have
disciplinary without interdisciplinary (dialectic); every time you try to pin
down one you get pushed to the other one; any claim for each is doomed to
failure because they are tied to this dance
§
the reason, he claims,
it’s a paradox, is because people see them as inherently separate
§
(Daniel) these
interdisciplinary fields are not constructed out of thin air, they come out of
disciplines themselves
§
(Greg) differs
from Klein in that "this year’s Interdisciplinarity is next year’s
discipline
o Rhoten:
§
more hopeful
§
does the empirical
data collection that Weingart calls for
§
ethnographic
§
looks at how Interdisciplinarity
is enacted in interdisciplinary research centers
§
sees the failure
coming from some sort of systemic failure: no lack of funding or attention, but
doesn't see the research centers structured in a way that makes this work
effective
§
strategies: thinks
innovation comes from Interdisciplinarity and that it is different from that
§
talk: walk |
walk: talk…. scholars are still working in isolation, not getting
reward for collaboration
§
need to restructure
graduate ed and physically restructure centers, smaller, where scholars stay
for a while
§
she was commissioned
to do a study
§
the university
research center becomes the unit of analysis (vs. community as unit of analysis
in Hackett)
§
idea that face to face
interaction is important
o Frodeman et al.:
§
summary: "blow it
all up"
§
arguing for critical Interdisciplinarity,
we need to rethink it as broad but deep, needs to be engaged with public,
private, and community
§
integrate knowledge
but in an action-based context
§
(Daniel) does the
public orientation come across in the other readings?
o Sa:
§
a study (100
university documents and visit to 5 unis)
§
to understand
strategies universities are using to promote Interdisciplinarity
§
Incentive grants,
faculty recruitment, etc.
§
these strategies don't
necessarily go against the disciplinary structure of the university
§
point where he
questions top-down vs. bottom-up
§
focus within the
university
§
suggests there is not
a lot of empirical evidence within these strategies to understand what's
happening within campus-wide institutes: what do faculty who are hired
into these clusters think, what is it like to work in them, what work is
actually being done (per Daniel,
great topic for a paper and the information is there on the cluster hires at UW)
§
there is a web site on
the clusters and who the head of the cluster is; they didn't actually budget
enough money; argument over whether there should be sunset processes;
structural deficit identified years ago; initially all the money was coming
centrally, but now cost-sharing and because nobody has money it’s in question
how well it works/will work
§
(Greg) when does
something interdisciplinary become disciplinary; when does it become customary
(not innovative anymore) and what does that mean for the funding and support;
cluster hires came from?
§
(Daniel) Greg
highlighted sunset and innovation, these themes run through all papers; but
Greg brings up people who were hired into specific interdisciplinary
centers;
§
Sa - innovation means
things on two levels: normative goal of creating something new (cluster
hire, interdisciplinary X), but on the other hand, how do you pursue innovation
(UW - cluster hire, WID, Nelson); different universities pursue different
innovative strategies, how do you make sure those strategies work? NSF - make
sure your program is "the thing"
§
(Daniel) similarities
between Sa and Rhoten; methodologically they are quite different; think about
this as you study phenomenon
o
Jacobs et al (most
recent piece - look at this piece to mine endnotes; great piece on the state of
the field right now)
§
staking out Interdisciplinarity
as an object of study within the field of sociology
§
the study of Interdisciplinarity
needs to be a thing, because current studies (i.e. sociology of knowledge)
aren't quite good enough
§
review a lot of the
work we've read
§
study citation
patterns in journals and hiring patterns
§
they deploy Interdisciplinarity
as viewed as a social movement
§
focus back on the
phenomenon of "what is Interdisciplinarity" (Jacobs et al. as
sociological view and Klein as a historical view)
§
(Daniel) thinks
authors are skeptical of Interdisciplinarity, projects make limited gains and
those that are successful lead to new rounds of inquiry leading to new areas of
differentiation
§
Interdisciplinarity
reasserted itself in early 2000s as well; good article to turn to for
sources
·
Post-article summary
group discussion:
o
Daniel: now we can
talk about cross-cutting themes
§
Relations
§
Organizational
Forms-strategies
§
Evaluation/Efficacy
§
Methods for
studying
§
Meta-problem
o
interesting to look at
the relationship between disc/interdisc go back and forth
o
it's all slippery;
"interdisciplinary" incorporates the word discipline
o
terms used
interchangeably
o
(Daniel) Bourdieu
(science as any other "field"; an ongoing struggle; instability)
o
(Greg) Klein published
this in the 90s; OECD reports fresher in people's minds in 70s, literature focused the conversation on
undergraduate education
o
(Greg) look at the
board, there are assumptions about the most effective route to get to Interdisciplinarity
(put the word in a black box); in late 1970s, how you make it happen is that
you create an interdisciplinary major or a center on interdisciplinary
education
o
What do you think are
the most productive or bold strategies for producing Interdisciplinarity? What
should we be doing?
§
Rhoten explicit about
strategies (like a managerial perspective, someone should lead, someone who can
act as a brand of a community; two terms "star" and
"connector")
§
(Daniel)
Top-Down, Bottom Up; read Inside Wisconsin every time it is published; we
are a bottom up uni but we are at a very top-down moment with the University getting
instructions from Obama on scientific imperatives
§
Weingart: (Greg) talks
about metaphors (territorial and geographic metaphors) metaphors of bridging,
defending territory; the way we talk about this suggests what we need to make
it happen
§
(Meredith): connected
to what Hackett was saying that people don't even know what they’re talking
about, not arguing on common ground; connectors and bridgers may be able to
obviate this; producing a translation and people who can translate (going back
to metaphor of community)
§
(Jen) and boundary
objects from Rhoten; gives example of the interdisciplinary research she is
working on; the science professor and the education professor differ in how
they want to get the research out; sees tension in the goals of the project;
catch-all themes (sustainability) but every researcher has different goals for
the project;
§
(Daniel) prompts two
issues (Sa article talks about interdisciplinary tenure guidelines, these
people are still part of their departments, maybe at this university you need
to give interdisciplinary scholars more time; opportunity costs (if you are
used to publishing 5 articles a year and you are working with scholars on other
publishing timelines)
§
Jen (Seed money) -
when it runs out, people are figuring out how to scale up the project; (Daniel)
(seed money in graduate school competition only for 1 year); expectations;
can't expect that all of these will produce a workable outcomes
o
(June) language in
terms of different methodologies; in Jacobs article they see terminology used
in different fields; how do you evaluate Interdisciplinarity on truly embracing
interdisciplinary theory
o
Meredith: can you be
interdisciplinary in your own discipline?
o
(Greg) Klein piece
points to Area Studies program as exemplars of Interdisciplinarity which was a
big claim for its time; Area studies wouldn't come up today; why don't we see
them now (Daniel: great research
topic, this U was a leader in Area Studies, you could do a case study, which
disciplines were drawn into this and why)...next week we read Mode II
where claims to Interdisciplinarity are about problem-oriented work/Area
studies was the same but the focus was understanding the "problem of the
area" (example used "Southeast" Asia)
o
(Meredith) half of the
reading sees innovation as an end in itself; rhetoric of why? is missing;
(Matt) Frodeman would say the reason would be putting the university to work in
the public interest; (Daniel) this is a pretty basic question- what is the goal
of Interdisciplinarity and could we achieve the same with just disciplines?
o
To what degree is
everything we are talking about in its own field of study; thinking about the
bias of every author we have is shaping how we are approaching Interdisciplinarity;
simply the bias as wanting to problematize Interdisciplinarity (tinge of belaboring
the problem)
o
Greg: there is a lot
of churning discussion - there is not much more out there that is missed by
these pieces
o
using interdisciplinary
discourse as a strategy toward biomedical technology?
o
(Daniel) comes
down to the question of "why are we studying this"; studying this is
a meta-problem, how do we structure knowledge and is there a way to assess;
Sigrid makes important point; when I started I thought one of the things about
the university is that it creates a space where scholars can do things that the
market can’t/won’t do; it creates a space for putting a critical lens on the
society in which we live; a space where a kind of critique is possible that
isn't as possible in other areas; if you look at a change in University
leadership from the 60s; point about medical research and Interdisciplinarity;
a huge amount of it is translational research; NIH would be a pretty interesting
space
o
(June) interdisciplinary
research as a social product; in line with social structure; meaning of that term
doesn't need to be static
o
(Greg): hoping our
projects will operationalize circularity of thoughts to a particular case
BREAK
·
Daniel: it's easy to
move into abstraction (a lot of repeated themes throughout the semester); the
changes in higher ed repeat certain words over and over again; how do we
process this information going forward?
·
Need to discipline
ourselves to get at what are the three most important things being said on each
article; do people agree? (yes)
·
Could we do summaries
at the very least including the three main points (process going forward
·
(Greg) jumpstarting
last 30 minutes: Why are these authors writing these articles? or How
would someone use one of these articles? Scenario: UW Madison experience
funding cuts; we are all faculty members here; out of the shrinking pie; the
state is very interested in information technology and they are going to build
a big interdisciplinary building dedicated to IT; it's innovative and
interdisciplinary; resources that could go to your programs? What tools
from these articles help us mobilize a response to this;
o
Rhoten would say build
it small; and a building to be re-used later once that problem is solved; Daniel: another good project (size and
space): WID is a giant space, not as giant as some but it is proposed to
promote or obviate individual isolation (metric for big and small buildings
would be interesting
o
who are your stars and
connectors
o
Sa would say, other
universities have done similar things and are hiring interdisciplinary people
to get things off the ground; but there isn't enough empirical evidence
o
Greg's blog post
"knowledge to action" [may be helpful to read]
o
location of the
funding matters (it's reallocation of base university funds)
o
what do the readings
say about how a stakeholder in the community would react to this:
o
Weingart would say who
would regulate how interdisciplinary the work is; is it a top-down evaluation
or a bottom-up evaluation or is evaluation never going to happen?
o
Hackett points out
that communities write the terms of these proposals so we would want to know
what scale of conversations were had before the Institute was formally
proposed
o
Gets back to the
question about at what scale these operate?
No comments:
Post a Comment