This post
is probably longer than many prefer. I
start with questions/common themes that grow out of Klein’s piece, and then
below those bullets I offer information on the author and a summary of the article. Given that the article is a sweeping, linear
history of the concept of “interdisciplinarity” from Plato/Aristotle to the
1980s, the summary (culled two times from my notes as it is) is long for a blog
post, but (I hope) will serve as a useful shorthand tool for those of you
returning to the article in the future for review or use in scholarly
work.
Questions
I am not
familiar with the historiography of this concept to argue whether Klein’s
historical conclusions are worthy of criticism and debate, so I offer some
questions/common themes:
· There is a common theme of calls for
interdisciplinarity, mobilization of interdisciplinary discourse, and enacted
interdisciplinary (through the reshaping of disciplines, the creation of hybrid
disciplines, the establishment of research centers, funding agencies, journals,
and so forth) but commonly with “results” that are disappointing or amenable to
criticism? What do we expect of
interdisciplinarity? How is it measured
a success/failure and on what grounds?
· Who does interdisciplinarity or is “best-suited,” to do it? Plato and Aristotle thought this was the role
of the philosopher? Klein doesn’t really
address how this question played out historically, but do we see claims today
that certain people, scholars, disciplines, centers, places, spaces do interdisciplinarity better than
others?
· Klein presents interdisciplinarity
as a reaction to various internal/external forces (e.g., making the university
better “fulfill its social mission,” post WWII economic, political and cultural
climate of issues that transcend disciplines, large-scale mission-oriented
research, intellectual commitment to educating the “whole person,” concerns
about the pitfalls of hyper-specialization), but to what extent can
interdisciplinarity be less reactive but a pro-active means of legitimacy
building in universities (perhaps proactive is also reactive)?
· Klein traces how interdisciplinary
forces can have a homogenizing effect in terms of epistemologies and types of
theory employed across disciplines (e.g., a Marxist turn across literary
criticism, sociology, history, geography).
Where and how do we see this today, especially when interdisciplinarity
brings together disciplines understood as highly differentiated in theory and
methods (e.g., the humanities and STEM fields).
Does one simply become an instrumental tool furthering the other’s
epistemology or is there epistemological/theoretical confluence?
· What is an interdisciplinary approach? Despite Klein’s claims to the
OECD’s primacy in defining terms, do we understand truly common definitions of
inter-, multi-, pluri-, trans-disciplinarity?
Author
& Work
· Wayne State (Detroit, MI)
· Professor of Humanities, English/Interdisciplinary Studies
and Faculty Fellow in the Office for Teaching and Learning
· Ph.D. English, University of Oregon
· Past president of the Association
for Integrative Studies (AIS) and former editor of the AIS journal, Issues in
Integrative Studies.
· Career-long investment in
elucidating and applying the concept of interdisciplinarity
· Has written and edited at least
eight books on the subject of interdisciplinarity: http://csid.unt.edu/about/people/klein/books.html
· Consults on interdisciplinarity
worldwide
Summary
· Chapter in a book considered the
first comprehensive account of the concept of interdisciplinarity; book
compiles a 91-page bibliography on the concept
· The chapter traces the concept of
interdisciplinarity (and the response of the university) historically (sweeping
history for a 20-page chapter) from Plato and Aristotle through to the late
twentieth century
· Klein sets up a “problem of
knowledge” or a “problem of parts” (inclusive of fragmentation and
specialization) in which “interdisciplinarity”—whether formally referred as
such or in concept—intervenes.
· “Interdisciplinarity” does not
emerge as a term until the twentieth century
· Interdisciplinary as a concept
rooted in the cultural heritage of the West (modern discource: “unified
science,” “general knowledge,” “synthesis,” “integration”)
· Plato’s “unified science” with
Aristotle’s “first philosophy”
· The concept informed the structure
of curriculum in medieval education as it responded to early concerns of
over-specialization; the unified whole of the modern university include
“specialization in a community of general studies”; theme that became common of
the ideal not meeting the reality
· Attention to “the problem” of parts
was always alive from the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries with
different conceptualizations of a “unity of knowledge offered by various
thinkers (Hegel, Kant, Decartes, French Encyclopedists), BUT this was not
prevailing thought; there was generally an “acceleration of the forces of
differentiation” – empiricism, materialism, hierarchy, delineation of
principles & nineteenth century penchant for “scientific or value-neutral”
theories
· “Wissenschaft” – “the totality of institutionalized
scholarly and scientific pursuits – was questioned for its achievability
· Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
structure of higher ed greatly influenced by particularization of knowledge
· Modern understanding of
“disciplinarity” a product of the nineteenth century in response to: evolution
of modern, natural sciences, “scientification” of knowledge, industrial
revolution, technological advancement, agrarian agitation
· Formalization of fields (history,
economics, political science, sociology) in late-1800s to early 1900s
· Persistent throughout history is the
ongoing problem of applying the concept of interdisciplinarity in practice,
confronting the common problems of: the structure of the academic unit, the
politics of individual disciplines, questions over whether connections can be
made between disciplines, questions over whether any concept can be so general
as to encompass all disciplines
· Interdisciplinarity as modern
concept shaped by: 1) the reinstatement of historical ideas of unity and synthesis,
2) emergence of organized programs in interdisciplinary research/education, 3)
the broadening out of existing traditional disciplines, 4) emergence of
identifiable interdisciplinary movements
· The social sciences and education
exhibited the most momentum for interdisciplinarity in the first half of the 20th
century:
o
Ideas
about educating the “whole person” with precedents in Greek and Roman thinkers;
Bouwsma’s “civic model” of the educated person forms the basis of many
interdisciplinary programs today
o
In
social sciences:
§ SSRC (established 1920s) to promote
integration across disciplines
§ Two disciplinary movements within
social sciences : 1) WWI to 1930s, the borrowing of techniques from other
disciplines (quantitative methods of natural sciences) and the evolution of
hybrid disciplines; 2) synthetic movement of Area Studies in 1930s (considered
partial failure with “default” back to disciplines)
§ Promoting theoretical convergence as
concepts and tools move across disciplines: logical postitivism
o
In
education:
§ “Concentration” vs. “correlation”
(co-existing doctrines)
§ “Integration” – consisting of
integration of existing concepts and integrative building of new conceptual
approaches, pedagogy, corpus of universal principles
§ Pring’s (1971) distinction between
“integration” as raising epistemological questions and “interdisciplinary” as
the use of more than one discipline in pursuing a line of inquiry
§ “transdisciplinarity” emerges as
concept in 1970s
· Mid-century:
o
Sees active promotion of interdisciplinarity
via major educational reforms (Harvard “redbook” (1945) and
Columbia/Tannenbaum’s use of “holistic”) to address excessive concentration
(models followed by universities across America), BUT still amidst
specialization
o
Synthetic
theories having somewhat unifying impact on structure of inquiry: Marxism,
structuralism, general systems theory, Braudel’s Annales School of history
o
Interdisciplinary
journals arrive 50s – 70s
o
Interdisciplinary
as embraced across disciplines, but no single interdisciplinary approach :
§ Sociology: debating whether to take
on the epistemologies of the natural sciences or the humanities
§ American Studies
§ Post WWII earth sciences: shift to
plate tectonics embraced the work of multiple disciplines
§ Growth of hyphenated sciences: biochemistry,
biomedical engineering)
§ New fields like radioastronomy and
dendrochronology
o
WWII
instigating interdisciplinary applied research (on technical, political, and
intellectual grounds)
o
Significant
impact of government funded, “mission-oriented” and “problem-oriented” research
of great size and scope (e.g., Manhattan Project created visible
interdisciplinary presence on campuses); logic that real-world problems do not
come in disciplinary boxes
o
Sputnik
(1957) inspired expansion of funding (creation of NSF, NIH, Rand Corporation,
Princeton Institute of Advanced Study)
o
Funders
of mission-oriented projects disappointed in results (fell short of genuine
integration, disciplinary chauvinism)
· 1970s onward – “Watershed Era” of
Interdisciplinarity
o
Demand
for universities to renew themselves – “experimental,” “cluster,” “satellite”
programs
o
“Telic
reforms” prompting new programs and new institutions
o
Major
funding of interdisciplinarity heightening awareness (NSF, NEH, Carnegie,
FIPSE)
o
OECD
(1972 report) having “the greatest influence over the way interdisciplinarity
is currently defined (provocations of this: worldwide reform in education,
renewed protests against knowledge fragmentation, demands for university to
fulfill its social mission)
§ New theoretical framework and
typology of definitions – “multi-disciplinarity,” “pluridisciplinarity,”
“interdisciplinarity,” “transdisciplinarity”
§ By 1980, OECD wants to examine
interdisciplinarity exogenous to the university (community) – primacy of the
practical
o
Professional
associations dedicated to interdisciplinarity arise: AIS and Interstudy, as
examples (by 1979)
No comments:
Post a Comment