interdisciplinary studies into the 21st … · interdisciplinary studies into the 21st century 153...

INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES INTO THE 21ST CENTURYAuthor(s): William H. Newell and Julie Thompson KleinReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of General Education, Vol. 45, No. 2 (1996), pp. 152-169Published by: Penn State University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27797297 .

Accessed: 23/11/2012 23:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journalof General Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.67 on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:50:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=psup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27797297?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES INTO THE 21ST CENTURY*

William H. Newell and Julie Thompson Klein

The individual articles in this issue may all be viewed within the

broader context of changes that have altered the role of interdisci

plinary studies in American higher education. Over the latter half

of the twentieth century, interdisciplinary studies has undergone a transition from peripheral experiments to a complex set of ac

tivities that are increasingly regarded as central to the academy. The resulting structural transformation that is already underway will have profound consequences for the ways that faculty carry out their professional lives, what students learn and how they learn, as well as the ways colleges and universities are administered.

We examine here the changes that have occurred over the past three decades, the variety of structural responses to those changes and some of their implications, as well as continuing impediments to change.

Interdisciplinary Studies in the Late Twentieth Century

As the era of educational innovation that characterized the late

1960s and early 1970s was waning, interdisciplinary undergradu ate education was largely identified with radical innovation. By the mid-1980s, interdisciplinary studies had moved from the radi

cal fringe into the liberal mainstream (Newell, 1988, p. 6). The

previous era was characterized by cluster colleges and courses in

women's, ethnic, urban, and environmental studies (Gaff, 1989, p.

* This article grew out of presentations by Newell and Klein at the American Association for Higher Education conference, March 23-26, 1994 in Chicago, Illinois.

JGE: THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, Vol. 45, No. 1, 1996.

Copyright ? 1996 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.



INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES INTO THE 21ST CENTURY 153

5). More recent interdisciplinary reforms have tended to be "reno vative rather than radical." They are linked with the need to revi talize the core of liberal arts by fostering coherence and excel

lence in higher-order skills of integration and synthesis (Newell, 1988, p. 8).

General and liberal education have been major sites in this de

velopment. When Jerry Gaff surveyed over 300 colleges and uni versities between 1989 and 1991, he found that 67 percent utilized

interdisciplinary core courses in their general education programs,

especially in institutions undergoing large-scale change (1991, pp. 72, 91). In an earlier survey of 235 interdisciplinary undergradu ate programs conducted in 1985-1986, William Newell discovered that programs were larger than expected and found in every geo

graphical region and every institutional type, spanning public and

private, religious and sectarian, large and small institutions. In

terdisciplinary innovation was dominated by general education

programs, of which two-thirds were not alternative tracks but in

stitution-wide requirements. (Newell, 1988, pp. 1, 6). These trends continue unabated.

The growing interdisciplinarity of general education stems from several sources. In some cases, faculty schooled in the 1960s have institutionalized innovative and interdisciplinary elements they found of value in their own education. Integrative approaches have also been compatible with other reforms such as active learn

ing and collaborative learning, learning communities, critical

thinking, and multiculturalism. Additionally, general education has been a major place for curricular revisions that respond to new interdisciplinary knowledges, approaches, and needs. The

greatest growth in general education subject matter today is in

interdisciplinary fields such as international studies, American multicultural and gender studies, and the inherently synoptic ar eas of historical consciousness and ethical understanding (Casey, 1994, p. 56).

By the early 1980s the link between honors and interdisciplinarity was also apparent. Interdisciplinary honors

programs were proliferating in the early 1980s at triple the rate of the 1960s and 1970s (Newell, 1988, p.7). The national honors

movement promoted interdisciplinarity for the same reasons it has been gaining wider attention in general and liberal education. In

tegrated approaches to knowledge and problem solving require excellence in higher-order thinking skills of integration and syn thesis.



154 THE JOURNAL OF GENERAL EDUCATION

Interdisciplinary studies is further evident in a variety of inter

disciplinary fields and specialties identified by the Interdiscipli nary Studies Task Force for the three-year study of the undergradu ate major sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and

Universities (then AAC). Some, such as American studies and

area studies, date from the first half of the twentieth century. Oth

ers, such as urban studies and ethnic studies, arose in the 1960s

and 1970s. Over the past two decades, cultural studies and sci

ence, technology, and society studies have become prominent. The

task force also found a wide range of interdisciplinary majors that

span international and public policy studies, labor and legal stud

ies, programs in human and in social ecology, neuroscience and

cognitive science, biochemistry and molecular biology, environ

mental sciences and marine biology, cognitive and information

sciences ("Interdisciplinary Studies," 1990a, 1990b).

Although linked by interdisciplinary identity, these examples differ. They emanate from different sources, entail different kinds

of work, and have different implications for academic structure.

Programs in women's studies and environmental studies, for in

stance, both arose in the 1970s. Their motivations for interdisci

plinary study differed, though, from each other and from general education. In the words of AAC's Task Force on Women's Stud

ies, what began as "compensatory education" became nothing less

than "a comprehensive intellectual and social critique" ("Women's

Studies," 1990, p. 209). This critique spanned the disciplines, the

organizational structure of the academy, and the very nature of

knowledge. The response, however slow and begrudging, has been

a radical rethinking of the status quo in teaching and research.

Environmental studies tended to place greater emphasis on the

interconnectedness of the world and the need for cooperation

among disciplines. Cooperation is necessary for understanding those interconnections and for solving environmental problems.

While most environmental research continues to be primarily dis

ciplinary, there is on-going pressure to combine those findings into an interdisciplinary understanding of the external world and

to achieve integrated solutions.

The more profound and comprehensive reason for change is

knowledge itself. When Clifford Geertz announced in 1980 that

genres were becoming blurred, he gave a name to a phenomenon that is now considered commonplace. Scholars borrow frequently from other disciplines, so much so that disciplinary boundaries are becoming increasingly permeable and knowledge is widely




considered to be increasingly interdisciplinary. Cross-fertiliza

tion of methods and concepts and the evolution of new hybrid

disciplinary practices and interdisciplinary fields have been ma

jor factors in this development. The picture of knowledge that

emerges is marked by heterogeneity, complexity, and hybridity (Easton and Schelling, 1991; Gibbons, et al., 1994; Klein, 1996). Correspondingly, in the curriculum the rhetoric of "knowledge

explosion," "global awareness," and "blurred disciplinary bound

aries" signals an era in which founding assumptions and schol

arly practices in many fields have become matters of scrutiny and

debate ("Challenge," 1990, p. 2). One of the strongest indicators is science. In the undergradu

ate curriculum, science literacy, the teaching of science as a lib

eral art, and discovery-based learning have had impacts in gen eral education and in disciplinary majors. At both the undergradu ate and graduate levels, new fields of knowledge?from environ

mental science and materials science to sociology of science and

studies of science, technology, and society?have realigned tradi

tional notions of disciplinary relations. Many fields and specialty interests in science today have evolved from the growing com

plexity of problem domains. Mission-oriented research differs

from other forms of interdisciplinary study. Rather than forming a new hybrid discipline?such as biochemistry or molecular biol

ogy?or devising a new category of knowledge?such as women or environment?they comprise pragmatic integrations of disci

plinary components relevant to the practical problem at hand.

There is a growing inclusion of new interdisciplinary elements in courses and programs in professional education as well, as in

management studies in engineering, social studies in medicine,

foreign languages or computing in others. Geoffrey Squires' re cent observations about the United Kingdom are equally true in the United States: "The addition of the word 'studies' to a degree title often implies a shift away from a conventional disciplinary approach." This development, and the problems of interrelating constituent elements in these fields, are often discussed not in terms

of "interdisciplinarity" but companion notions of "integration" and "coordination." The nature of the problem tends to be perceived in primarily pragmatic or organizational rather than theoretical terms. The exception is newer professions that respond to chang ing problem awareness in society, such as sports science or trans

port studies, where the identity of the field is not well established

(Squires, 1992, pp. 205-7).




This rather brief account indicates why interdisciplinary study is no longer characterized by a single kind of program or field.

This development has powerful implications for institutional struc

ture.

Structural Responses

The different motivations for interdisciplinary study?general edu

cation, compatibility with other educational reforms, radical cri

tique, interconnectedness, integrative skills and pragmatic prob lem solving, transformations in disciplinary practices, and new

interdisciplinary fields of knowledge?have manifested them

selves in different structural forms. The response has not been a

simple matter of adding more forms on top of existing forms. A core concept in general systems theory helps to explain what is

happening. The structure of higher education has been shifting from simple

and complicated systems to complex systems. This trend will

continue into the twenty-first century. Simple systems may have

multiple levels and multiple connections. Yet, they are arranged in a hierarchy and they operate according to a single set of rules

that can be understood using reductionist thinking (Klein and

Newell, 1996). Think of a state map, where cities, towns, and

villages are depicted in a hierarchy by size and connected by roads

that are also depicted in a hierarchy from thruway to byway. Com

plicated systems are essentially variations on the themes of simple

systems. In any Rand McNally Road Atlas, for example, simple state systems are connected through national maps of interstates, national parks, etc.

Complex systems behave differently. They may contain simple or complicated systems, but the connections linking them are non

linear. They may encompass subsystems based on incompatible

assumptions. For example, environmental decisions may require cost or value assessments of items (e.g., health, open space, aes

thetic views) that are not quantifiable by economic means. The

interaction of genuine or perceived incompatibilities gives com

plex systems their unique unstable behaviors. Complex systems also tend to be non-hierarchically structured and may have a cha

otic element. They obey multiple conflicting logics, utilize both

positive and negative feedback, anticipatory behaviors such as




feedforward, and reveal multiplicative or synergistic effects. To

understand them at the larger integrated level, reductionist think

ing must be replaced by nonlinear thinking, pattern recognition, and analogy. The terminology and methods for understanding the

system also change as one moves through it (Prigogine and

Stengers, 1984, p.42).

Returning to the analogy of a state map, think of a set of over

lays. Each overlay depicts another way the state is structured.

The categories of organization may be school, sewer, and fire dis

tricts; political wards; economic markets; federal districts for air

and water quality, national forests, or poverty pockets that over

lap state boundaries; and ecological zones such as airsheds and

watersheds that overlap national boundaries. Decisions made in one setting can have significant and unpredictable effects on de

cision makers in other settings. The effects can be reinforcing

(positive), off-setting (negative), compounding (multiplicative), or create "wild problems" with unforeseen changes of direction,

magnitude, and timing (synergetic). The very logic and methods

by which decisions are made differs from economic to political to

ecological to social settings, resulting in high levels of frustra

tion.

Compounding this is the issue of timing of data gathering and

decision making. Lower levels of a system can generate more

data than managerial or supervisory levels are able to digest

quickly. Thus delays are inherent in complex managerial tasks, sometimes to the point of overwhelming the process. There is

also a degree of uncertainty concerning the relative importance of

each datum. Rejection or acceptance of "facts" is heavily depen dent on the pattern(s) of knowledge decision makers have ab

sorbed. It is therefore important that interdisciplinary studies have

curricular components which are relevant to coping with com

plexity. In academic structures, the simple systems in place at mid-cen

tury were comprised primarily of separate colleges and universi

ties with their divisions. The Rand McNally of the typical col

lege or university depicted the primary units of disciplinary de

partments, general education programs divided into disciplinary

requirements, courses controlled by departments, and independent study contracted through distinct departments. Large universities

were complicated systems, in that they were comprised of sepa rate but linked colleges or schools that operated by essentially the

same principles. Most intellectual activity was channeled through,




took place within, and was focused by these structures. In such a

system, administration could be and often was hierarchical, though as the power of disciplines continued to grow decisionmaking at

some institutions became decentralized at the departmental level.

The reductionist notion made sense in this structural context. The

university as a whole was the sum of its disciplinary departments. What was good for traditional disciplinary categories and depart ment structure was good for the institution as a whole.

A variety of interdisciplinary movements challenged this logic in the first half of the twentieth century. Prior to the 1960s, how

ever, most interdisciplinary activity had to operate through or ac

commodate itself to these traditional simple or complicated struc

tures. American Studies programs, for example, usually consisted

of a coordinated set of existing disciplinary courses, administered

by a single faculty member or a cross-departmental committee.

In either case, the faculty were located in disciplinary departments. At a large university, the program might be housed in a separate office. Such programs, nonetheless, tended by and large to be

marginal to the primary business of the university. Even into the

1960s and 1970s, most new interdisciplinary programs still re

mained confined to these structures. The notable exceptions were

colleges and universities organized around interdisciplinary struc

tural principles. When the Board of Regents of the University of

Wisconsin at Green Bay decided in 1969, for example, that the new university take as its special mission the "interdisciplinary,

problem-centered study of humans and their environment," orga

nizing the faculty into interdisciplinary concentrations not disci

plinary departments, they initiated a structural change that increas

ingly challenged the dominance of the traditional discipline-based system throughout the Wisconsin system of higher education

(Newell, 1986, p. 211). Administrators charged with state-wide

educational responsibilities had to fundamentally rethink them.

The interdisciplinary nature of Hampshire College, which started

admitting students in 1970, affected the policies of the Five Col

lege Consortium. The interdisciplinary Evergreen State College, which first admitted students in 1971, had delayed but even more

pronounced ripple effects through the Washington Center for Im

proving the Quality of Undergraduate Education. Founded in 1985 at The Evergreen State College, the Center epitomizes the move

into complexity. The Center links together learning communities

and individual faculty at over 30 colleges and universities in the state. Its enables faculty exchanges, faculty development confer




enees, and coordinated funding from the state legislature for multi institutional change. Testimonials from participating faculty indi cate their source of intellectual inspiration and professional re

wards, and the locus of their activities, have expanded well be

yond their department (Tollefson, 1991, p. 10). The 1960s and 70s were crucial in the movement into complex

systems. The new programs, fields, and institutions introduced

into higher education were no less significant than the rise of re

search centers and problem-focused research projects on univer

sity campuses during the World War II era. They were alternative structures that challenged the logic of the dominant, discipline based system. At mid-century and even into the 1960s, they were

still sufficiently few in number to be considered anomalies. From a structural standpoint, they were exceptions that could be accom

modated or forced into an accommodationist posture. Over the course of the next two decades, the number and variety of bound

ary crossing forms and activities increased, though as a result of

outward looking assessment rather than an inward self-reflective

focus. This development, coupled with the pressing weight of new developments in disciplinary research, the rise of new inter

disciplinary fields, and new demands upon the academy strained

the older logic of simple-complicated systems. They could no

longer be so easily accommodated.

As a result of this history, colleges and universities now have not only familiar interdisciplinary forms?programs, centers, and

institutes?but also new forms and alliances. They include learn

ing communities and course clusters; faculty study groups, collo

quia, seminars, and workshops; joint appointments, affiliate pro

grams, faculty exchanges, and visiting professorships; shared fa

cilities, data bases, and instrumentation labs; joint student-fac

ulty , problem-focused, and collaborative research projects; peda

gogical-focused projects such as collaborative learning and criti

cal thinking; inter-institutional consortia and new alliances con

necting academy, industry, and government (Klein, 1996). These

forms and alliances do more than mess up organizational charts.

They are increasingly regarded as primary sites of intellectual

work, not peripheral to the main enterprise.

Many are informal and low profile, individually ephemeral but

collectively enduring. Their presence documents not only the

growing permeation of disciplinary boundaries but also the inad

equacy of older dichotomies that separate disciplinary and inter

disciplinary study (Klein, 1996; Klein and Newell, 1996). Link




ages across activities are often informal. A general education com

mittee, for instance, may seek input from a faculty study group and test a pilot course through a learning community organized

by a regional consortium. Learning communities operate by a

different logic from departmental structures, yet they are grafted onto them. They have become popular strategies for both pro

gram and faculty development. In many instances, they enable

faculty to keep up with complexifying elements in their own dis

ciplines. Even interdisciplinary programs that ostensibly fit within a tra

ditional structure can end up challenging business as usual for

other components in that structure. The School of Interdiscipli nary Studies at Miami University, founded in 1974, is a four-year,

degree-granting program of interdisciplinary courses in humani

ties and arts, social sciences, and natural sciences and technology that feature discovery learning and peer tutoring; contract majors

culminating in year-long senior projects; and writing and quanti tative reasoning across the curriculum. The living-learning di

mension of the School's mission repeatedly brought tensions be tween divisions of the University charged with administering aca

demic and student affairs because faculty had offices in residence

halls, which operate by different rules, even different calendars, than academic buildings; some faculty actually lived in residence

halls which still operated in loco parentis; while students lived in the same building where they had classes. Only seven years after the conception of the School as an experimental program, Miami

modeled its honors program on the School in 1981. Four years later, in 1985, a Liberal Education Task Force under the leader

ship of the Dean of the School began a general education reas

sessment which culminated in a proposal for the university-wide Miami Plan for Liberal Education adopted in 1989. This proposal

incorporates many interdisciplinary features from the School such as foundation courses and capstone experiences. As part of its

implementation strategy, the Liberal Education Council promoted a variety of interdisciplinary activities?faculty study groups in areas such as legal studies, faculty participation in the Institute in

Integrative Studies, faculty brown bag lunches?and set up a com

mittee to identify structural impediments to interdisciplinary teach

ing (many of whose recommendations were subsequently imple mented). These activities in turn have had pedagogical, curricu

lar, and research impacts on other parts of the University. Such examples indicate how an individual interdisciplinary el

ement can permeate an institution, stimulating interdisciplinary




approaches in other parts of the curriculum, influencing the shape of other programs, and affecting decisions about institution-wide

mandates. In the contexts of general education and honors, fac

ulty from different disciplines often come together in planning and teaching teams that do not fit easily into departmental struc

tures. These hybrid structures are at odds with traditional proce dures for staffing, budget allocations, faculty loads, and faculty rewards. When they occurred only occasionally, they could be

dealt with on an ad hoc basis. As interdisciplinary activity has

become a more common component of general education and hon

ors, administrators and curriculum committees have needed to

ensure a continuing pool of courses and faculty to teach them. In

this situation, structural change is evident in the form of ongoing

provisions for faculty development and regular involvement in

interdisciplinary teaching. One of the additional lessons of complex structure is that fac

ulty development and revitalization is occurring outside formal

structures. Much of the intellectual vitality of women's studies

programs comes not through departments but hybrid structures

such as a women's center, brown bag lunches, and ancillary cam

pus organizations ranging from the Association for Women Fac

ulty and Staff to groups planning memorial lectures. These struc

tures connect, in turn, to a complex network of women's organi zations outside the academy such as the League of Women Vot

ers, the National Organization for Women, and American Asso

ciation of University Women. They are linked to academic teach

ing and research in a variety of often informal ways. Other pro

grams, such as Afro-American studies, tend to be similarly orga nized. Environmental studies operates through a network of cen

ters, institutes, joint grant proposals, shared scientific equipment, inter-university consortia, and other nontraditional organizational structures. In some cases these structures merely mess up the

organizational charts. In others, they strain the budgetary, staff

ing, and promotion/tenure procedures embedded within the tradi

tional departmental structure.

Graduate programs in the sciences intensify the structural prob lems of staffing, load, and reward found in the undergraduate cur

riculum because high-paid faculty, low student/faculty ratios, and

large equipment budgets are often involved. The creation as well as the dissemination of knowledge is at stake. Interdisciplinary teaching does occur in less visible ways, in the form of collabora tive work, problem-focused projects, research apprenticeships, and




clinical practice. The call for teaching reforms in graduate edu

cation, though, echoes the call in the undergraduate curriculum.

Faculty engaged in interdisciplinary research need to do interdis

ciplinary teaching that reflects changes in their disciplines and new interdisciplinary fields and problems. The need for new re

ward criteria is greatest wherever all research and teaching in a

unit is interdisciplinary. This can occur at the graduate as well as

undergraduate level.

The implications of complexity are apparent not only in insti

tutional structure but also in the roles that faculty, students, and

administrators play in that structure.

Implications

In the past, strains in the system led to thinking in terms of "ratio

nalizing" the system by clarifying relationships between and within

levels. Whatever its intellectual and educational value, interdis

ciplinary study was in most places regarded as an administrative

inconvenience. Some small liberal arts colleges may still be ad

equately characterized by simple structures. However, just as dis

ciplines can no longer accurately be thought of as isolated intel

lectual fiefdoms, the intellectual life of the faculty no longer takes

place exclusively within departments at the local level and disci

plinary boundaries at the national and international level.

Consider how many faculty today spend their time. A biologist

may be teaching in a new basic science course while piloting the

introductory course for a new environmental studies program. A

chemical engineer may be involved in new product design in an

industrial partnership program while working with departmental

colleagues on introducing more training in collaborative and inte

grative skills into the engineering curriculum. An historian may be teaching a senior thesis course while conducting research on

labor history. A member of the speech department may be teach

ing service courses in oral communication while helping design a

new media studies program. A member of the art department may be teaching period courses in art history while also teaching a

course in the women's studies program and helping design an ex

hibit on gender representations at a local art museum. And so

on....




These situations are not atypical. For the participating indi

viduals, not only does self-identity change but disciplinary alle

giance is complexified. They begin to shift into a more inclusive both/and thinking, not the simpler either/or thinking of the past. The problems and interests they work on exhibit a comparable

plurality. New developments in knowledge mean that many fac

ulty have closer discourse links with members of other disciplines. Many current issues, problems, and questions?e.g., crime, rain

forest ecology, or African-American culture?create a wider net

work of alliances with scholars who have diverse backgrounds but similar interests. The underlying theme of these developments is complexity, in both intellectual issues and pragmatic problems that derive from outside the academy. The realization that many

important problems do not fit neatly into traditional disciplinary domains is as commonplace as beliefs that boundaries are blur

ring and that knowledge is becoming increasingly interdiscipli nary. No one method or approach can adequately deal with the

problems of population, health, environmental pollution, crime, and hunger. Multidisciplinary and client-based problems are also

driving the need for structures orthogonal to traditional divisions. The clients of the university, in this sense, include students, citi

zens, and members of government and industry (Plater, 1995, p. 25).

In many curricular and research projects, the locus of expertise has shifted from the single worldview or perspective of one disci

pline to the problem or topic at hand. In this circumstance, syn thesis and conceptualization of wholes are as important as analy sis and understanding of the parts. Process is also as important as

content. Faculty and students alike need to know how to work

with other disciplines and pertinent interdisciplinary approaches such as systems, metaphors, and "both/and" thinking skills. Modes of operation are placing greater demands on collaborative skills as faculty interact within wider circles on campus and across or

ganizational and electronic networks. Similarly, students' work

and career patterns are placing greater emphasis on networking capacities and the ability to work with different kinds of informa

tion. The shift in teaching from what we know to how we learn

reflects this trend. Faculty are becoming more open to collabora tive styles and student participation in the learning process.

In a world of complex structures, general education and the

major will loom larger as sites of interdisciplinary thinking than




in the past. The resurgence in general education will continue

because general education is a vital point of cross-fertilization, a

place to interact with colleagues from different disciplines and to

focus on teaching practices. A diversity of structures will also

continue. General education core courses will coexist with smaller

alternative general education programs whose infrastructure re

sults from learning communities. These communities will be ini

tiated by consortia or faculty study groups interested in both

changes in knowledge and in student learning stages and styles.

Interdisciplinary general education courses will also be offered

by individual faculty in traditional departments in order to fulfill

disciplinary general education requirements. Joint student-fac

ulty research projects are already growing out of cutting edge gen eral education courses. Because of the complex interactions and

synergistic effects among these formal and informal structures, the evolution of interdisciplinary general education cannot be pre dicted or controlled by a single, simple model.

Interdisciplinary majors will also attain added importance for

several reasons. As the result of a variety of complementary teach

ing and learning reforms, the very notion of coverage has been

shifting from subject matter and acquisition of facts to process and skills. The broad curricular and pedagogical trends revealed

in A AC's mammoth study of the major and subsequent project on

Reforming Majors underscores the importance of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary experiences that acquaint students with im

portant developments in their disciplinary and professional fields

and the complexities of the modern world. Skills of integration and synthesis are also integral to development of critical perspec tive. The commitment to connected learning fostered by interdis

ciplinary study encompasses integrative learning within the ma

jor, integration between the major and general education, and in

tegration between the major and students' commitments beyond the academy. Greater problem-focused and theme-based learn

ing, interdisciplinary seminars, and integrative capstone seminars

and projects are among the major curricular devices being incor

porated into the major ("Changing the Major," p. 1). The implications for administrators and curriculum committees

strike at the heart of what is meant by curricular reform. To begin with, it is becoming more fruitful to think in terms of interdisci

plinary learning and scholarship than interdisciplinary curricula.

The course is no longer the only unit of interdisciplinary educa

tion. Moreover, interdisciplinary education is aimed at faculty as




much as students. Interdisciplinary structures are also intercon

nected. They are linked in a shifting matrix, replete with feed

back loops and unpredictable synergistic relationships. An inter

disciplinary general education course can yield an insight into a

research problem that leads to the formation of a faculty study group that produces pressure for an interdisciplinary science lab

that strengthens the argument for ties to an inter-university con

sortium that spins off a learning community that develops new

interdisciplinary general education courses, and so on. In this

circumstance, it makes more sense to observe what is actually

happening, identify what faculty and students want to happen, and

facilitate individual activities that seem to move in that direction.

In general, hierarchical command structures need to be replaced

by networks (i.e., connections within a level) and lattices (con nections balanced within and between levels). The development of the resulting teams requires upward/downward and lateral co

ordination skills. No single structural approach or strategy for

change can respond adequately to the multiple logics of a com

plex system.

Impediments

The emergence of complex structures does not mean that disci

plines or departments are disappearing, despite poststructuralist claims to that effect. (Indeed, the reverse may be true: interdisci

plinary study may force disciplines to develop a clearer sense of their distinctive contributions.) Complex human systems typi

cally retain elements of their simple or complicated predecessor structures. Earlier elements will continue to be linked in nonlin

ear, even chaotic, ways to each other and to new elements that

operate by different logics altogether. (See the example below from the University of Rhode Island.) Structural complexity only underscores the growing importance of the discipline, the depart ment, and the major as major sites for educational reform. Nei ther does the emergence of complex structures mean that impedi

ments to interdisciplinary teaching and research have disappeared or will not continue to thwart change. Territoriality and turf battles, status dynamics and disciplinary pecking orders, insecurity and

mistrust, resistance to innovation and lack of integrative skills will continue to impede and inhibit.




In contrast to the 1960s and 1970s, however, a large literature on interdisciplinary studies is now available. The hard-won les sons of decades of institutional experience are readily available.

This literature spans the history of pertinent approaches and knowl

edge fields, strategies for overcoming barriers, ideas for course

design and program models, and guidelines for assessing teach

ing and learning (Klein and Doty, 1994). Another significant dif

ference is the availability of professional support. The Associa

tion for Integrative Studies acts as a clearinghouse for resources

on the design, implementation, and evaluation of interdisciplinary programs. The Association of American Colleges and Universi

ties sponsors projects and publications that develop and support

integrated approaches to general education and the major. An even

wider network of organizations supports innovations and integra tive approaches to specific disciplinary, professional, and inter

disciplinary domains.

In an environment increasingly characterized by complexity, no single strategy for change is appropriate. Small-scale inter

ventions as well as global interventions to remove obstacles to

faculty interaction will be as appropriate, if not more so, than large scale initiatives. That does not mean large-scale change will not

occur. The changeover to a semester system, institution-wide

general education programs, and major funding for new programs will continue to stimulate campus-wide rethinking and restructur

ing. A recent example of comprehensive rethinking is the strategic

plan proposed by Robert L. Carothers, the President of the Uni

versity of Rhode Island. Citing the need to understand the "multi

disciplinary or trans-disciplinary nature of much of the most im

portant intellectual work being done today" and well as dramatic

budget reductions, Carothers called for a new "post-modern" uni

versity in which faculty and students are organized around inter

disciplinary "partnerships"?a new and better way to think about

the relationships between disciplines"?as well as the more tradi

tional disciplinary colleges. The partnerships or "areas of focus"

proposed for the first five years are for the arts, engineering and

the physical sciences, family and child studies, health promotion, human values, life sciences, marine and coastal environment, and

the state of Rhode Island. The partnership for family and child

studies, for example, would bring "to bear the considerable strength of the URI faculty on the interdisciplinary study of society's cen

tral institution?the family?and [provide] a unique and stimu




lating environment for undergraduate and graduate learning, schol

arly research, and public service." Selected faculty Fellows would

be appointed by the Provost for three-year terms with reduced

teaching loads. "Students would be appointed as Associate Fel

lows, typically at the end of their second year of study...." Carothers saw his proposal as hastening the evolution of the orga nization and culture of colleges, however, not as a substitute for

them (Carothers, 1993, pp. 10-14). More typically, comprehensive change will tend to loosen, rather

than abolish, barriers to interdisciplinary education and research.

Recent institution-wide reports at the Ohio State University, Wayne State University, and the University of British Columbia empha size a multi-layered series of initiatives, not a single approach or

a single site of change (Klein, 1996). At the close of the twentieth century, one particular motivation

for interdisciplinary programming is gaining attention. In the

current climate of economic retrenchment, interdisciplinary stud

ies is being associated with strategies for confronting fiscal aus

terity. Low-enrollment departments can be combined into a single

interdisciplinary department that is economically viable. Faculty in under-enrolled departments can also be shifted from teaching

majors in disciplinary courses to teaching interdisciplinary gen eral education as well as theme- and problem-based inquiry in the

larger curriculum. When these shifts are incorporated into a for

ward-looking institutional plan that faculty and students are in

volved in developing, the strategy may yield viable interdiscipli

nary departments and courses. However, where it is accomplished

by administrative fiat, it is doomed to failure. It is also likely to

fail if interdisciplinarity is not understood. Merely putting people and courses in the same place does not guarantee integrative ap

proaches. If carefully presented, developed, and implemented, however, interdisciplinarity is an effective route to reallocating

faculty resources in a way that is not just fiscally attractive but

educationally and intellectual sound.

Less appreciated is the potential of interdisciplinary thinking to address some of the most controversial issues confronting the

academy. Different perspectives grounded in different assump tions about the world lie at the heart of recent debates over

multiculturalism and the canon. Interdisciplinarity, especially what

Jim Kelly terms elsewhere in this journal "wide interdisciplinarity,"

bridges the gap between conflicting perspectives by providing means of reconciling conflicting insights or pronouncements and




integrating them into a more comprehensive understanding or so

lution. In a complex system, public debates over the canons can

no longer be usefully construed solely in political terms of con

servatives and radicals or as maneuvering among competing in

terest groups. They are endemic to a system with multiple logics. Intellectual and pragmatic solutions will come only through con

versations across the borders of expertise and greater competence of teachers and learners, administrators and citizens, and faculty in shaping those conversations.

References

Carothers, R. L. (1993). Building a new culture for learning. Unpub lished manuscript.

Casey, . (1994). The administration and governance of interdiscipli nary programs. In J. T. Klein & W. Doty (Eds.), New directions in

teaching and learning series: Vol. 58. Interdisciplinary studies

today (pp. 53-67). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. The challenge of connecting learning: Project on liberal learning, study

in-depth, and the arts and sciences major, (n.d.). Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Easton, D., & Schelling, C. S. (Eds.). (1991). Divided knowledge: Across disciplines and cultures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gaff, J. G. (1991). New life for the college curriculum: Assessing achievement and furthering progress in the reform of general edu cation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Gaff, J. G. (1989). The resurgence of interdisciplinary studies. Na tional Forum, 69 (2), 4-5.

Geertz, C. (1980). Blurred genres: The reconfiguration of social thought. American Scholar, 49 (2), 165-79.

Gibbons, M., et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The

dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Lon

don: Sage.

Interdisciplinary studies. (1990). Liberal learning and the arts and sci ences major: Vol. 2. Reports from the fields. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, pp. 61-70.

Klein, J. T. (1993). Blurring, cracking, and crossing: Permeation and

fracturing of disciplines. In E. Messer-Davidow, D. R. Shumway, & D. J. Sylvan (Eds.), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies

in disciplinarity (pp. 185-211). Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.




Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

Klein, J. T., & Doty, W. (Eds.). (1994). New directions in teaching and

learning series: Vol. 58. Interdisciplinary studies today. San Fran cisco: Jossey Bass.

Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. (1996). Interdisciplinary studies. In J. Gaff & J. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Handbook on the undergraduate curricu lum. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Newell, W. H. (1986). Interdisciplinary undergraduate programs: A

directory. Oxford, OH: Association of Integrative Studies.

Newell, W. H. (1988). Interdisciplinary studies are alive and well. AIS

Newsletter, 10 (1), 6-8.

Plater, W. M. (1995). Future work: Faculty time in the 21st century. Change, 27 (3), 22-33

Prigogine, I., & Stenger, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man's new

dialogue with nature. Boulder, CO: Random House.

Squires, G. (1992). Interdisciplinarity in higher education in the United

Kingdom. European Journal of Education, 27 (3), 201-210.

Tollefson, G. (1991). An outsider-in view: Faculty views of collabora tive learning in Washington community colleges. Washington Center News, 6 (1), 10.

Women's studies. (1990). Liberal learning and the arts and sciences

major: Vol. 2. Reports from the fields. Washington, DC: Asso ciation of American Colleges, pp. 207-224.



interdisciplinary studies into the 21st … · interdisciplinary studies into the 21st century 153...

Documents