nowaceck_why is being interdisciplinary so hard to do

7/29/2019 Nowaceck_Why is Being Interdisciplinary So Hard to Do

1/25

Why Is Being Interdisciplinary so Very Hard to Do? Thoughts on the Perils and Promise ofInterdisciplinary PedagogyAuthor(s): Rebecca S. NowacekSource: College Composition and Communication, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Feb., 2009), pp. 493-516Published by: National Council of Teachers of EnglishStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20457079 .

Accessed: 23/09/2013 01:45

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 of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

College Composition and Communication.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:45:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20457079?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20457079?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncte


2/25

Rebecca S.Nowacek

Why sBeing nterdisciplinaryoVery ard oDo?Thoughtsnthe erilsndPromise fInterdisciplinaryedagogyThis essayexplores the hallenges facing tudentsand teachersinthe nterdisciplinaryclassroom.Based on observationsof a team-taught nterdisciplinarylass and drawingon culturalhistoricalactivitytheory, argue that thepsychologicaldouble binds thatresultfrom he lash ofdifferentisciplinary ctivity ystems onstituteboth thegreatest challenge and richest otential of interdisciplinarylassrooms.

Stanley Fish, in his 1989 essay "Being Interdisciplinary Is So Very Hard toDo:' pronounced nterdisciplinaritympossible.efining nterdisciplinaritystheattempt to escape "the prison houses ofour various specialties to the openrange ... of a general human knowledge, he declared that such a goal "is not apossiblehuman chievement"237).What passes fornterdisciplinarity,ishargued, is in fact littlemore than either disciplinary imperialism or the emergence of a new discipline. In theyears since, Fish's definition and dismissal ofinterdisciplinarityavegone argelynchallengedn rint. ut in ractice,nterdisciplinary programs havemultiplied at a dizzying pace.

If interdisciplinarity is impossible,what are we tomake of the "interdisciplinary" learning communities, first-year seminars, and senior capstonecourses thatare an increasinglycommon feature ofundergraduate general edu

CCC 60:3 /FEBRUARY 2009493

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


3/25

CCC 60:3 / FEBRUARY 2009

cation programs? By one recent count, over half of current general educationreformsnclude nterdisciplinaryrograms rcourses Ratcliff).re these rogramsmerely isciplinarymperialismndisguise? s itpossible for nyone,much less students in their firstyears of undergraduate studies, to engage inauthenticallynterdisciplinaryork?ByFish's efinition,he nswer sno:wecannot, agree, scapedisciplinaryonstraints or nowledge nfetteredydiscourse ommunities.ut interdisciplinaritys not simply desire to sliptheyoke fdisciplinarity.nterdisciplinaryork-interdisciplinaryeaching,learning, and thinking-is work on theboundaries and intersections of disciplines, ork that oes nottranscendut rather ransformsurunderstandingofdisciplines.

Understood in thisway, interdisciplinary studies andwriting studies canenjoy mutually eneficial elationship:nterdisciplinarylassrooms fferpowerfulontext orriting nstruction,ndwriting nstructionfferspowerfulmeans tohelp students engage in interdisciplinary learning. In this essayIdraw on cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) and classroom research toexplain why interdisciplinary teaching and learning are very difficult,but notimpossible, to do. To illustrate, I focus on the challenges faced by participantsin a team-taught interdisciplinary course designed to fillgeneral educationrequirementsor irst-yearniversitytudents.oth studentsnd instructors,I argue, must negotiate double binds placed upon them when various disciplines conflict. Those double binds can limit and constrain thework of individuals, but ifmade an object of reflection, the double bind can also facilitatehigher-order thinking about disciplines and the role ofwriting within them.Defining InterdisciplinarityCentral to understanding interdisciplinarity is an understanding ofdisciplinarity.y conception fdisciplinaritynd thus f interdisciplinarityis informed by recent work in cultural historical activity theory.Drawing onthesocioculturalnalyses fVygotsky,eont'ev, nd especially ngestrom,CHAT turns our attention from a focus on a single (albeit dynamic) disciplinary discourse community to a view of overlapping and interlocking activitysystems.An activity system, in itsmost basic representation (see Figure 1),consists of four lements: a subject,either an individual or a collection ofpeople;an object of attention and themotive (officialor unofficial) that drives activityin the system; and themediational tools (cultural and discursive as well asphysical) sedwithinthe ystem.

494



4/25

NOWACEK / WHY IS BEING INTERDISCIPLINARY SO VERY HARD?

Mediational Tools

Subject Object Motive

Figure: asiclementsfn ctivityystem.Understood s activityystems,isciplinesrenotdefinedolelyn ontradistinctiono neanother,hought strue hat istoricallyisciplines aveoften efinednd used theirbjects,motives, nd tools n rder o stake utinstitutionalurf nrelation oone another.isciplinaryctivityystems inally ake heir eaning nddefinitionromhe nterrelationf ubject, ools,andobject/motive.he world of humanaction, nthis iew, sreplete ithsuch ctivityystems;ndividualsarticipateften imultaneouslynmultipleactivityystems.Furthermore,s Russell ndYafiez llustratentheiruperb HATanalysis fwritingssigned n he eneral ducation urriculum,mediational ool

used in one activity system (for instance, the review essay assigned in an undergraduateistorylass) isoften sed in ther ystemssuch s thefield fprofessionalournalismr the cademic iscipline fhistory) ut for ery ifferentotives. ctivityheoryelps s to ee that orrowed aterials reneverthoroughlyureor devoidof resonances romther ctivity ystems,ndstresses hat ndividualssingmediational toolsfrom nedisciplinaryctivity ystem ithin nother ace series fcomplex, npredictable,nd oftenunconscious egotiations.Giventhis iewofdisciplines,nterdisciplinaryhoughtanbe understood s the hift rom recognitionfthe oexistencefmultiple ut apparently independent activity systems to an awareness of the overlap andinteranimationfthose ctivityystems.hedefiningharacteristicf interdisciplinaryhoughtsnot freedomromlldisciplinaryonstraintsutaware

495



5/25


ness of the onstraints,omplements,nd interrelationsf a limited umberof disciplines. Interdisciplinary thought as I am describing it is not somehowmore superior,ore comprehensive,orepure than isciplinarynowledgea connotation often found inwritings on interdisciplinarity. It is not a transcendent ritical onsciousness hatwill liberate s from hedehumanizingconstraints of disciplines. Rather, it is a type of abnormal discourse that canempower individuals in limited but powerful ways by making visible previously nvisibleonnections nd constraints,ven s itmay obscure thers.Although nterdisciplinaritys I define t isnot impossible,t remainsvery hard to do-and an analysis that focuses on the interdisciplinary classroom as the site of overlapping, interlocking activity systems can help us seewhy. Such an analysis can also help us see what ispowerful-perhaps uniquely,butcertainlyot inevitablyowerful-about he nterdisciplinarylassroomas a site forwriting instruction.

My analyses here draw on and extend thework ofRussell and Yaniez,whouse CHAT to elucidate the challenges of general education courses throughtheir analysis of the difficulties facing students strugglingwith a book reviewassigned in an undergraduate Irish history course. Although their focal student Beth had written reviews forher high school history class and a collegejournalism course, "this similarity proved tobemaddeningly deceptive" (347).In actuality,Beth's Irishhistory course was a new activity system,with differentmotives and differentgenre rules.However, Beth and her instructor wereslow to recognize those differences, inpart because both were unaccustomedtodiscussing the rhetorical domain of academic literacy.This is not the failingof a single classroom but emblematic of a largerproblem ingeneral education:"Unfortunately,we do not have a robust vocabulary fortalking about the differences inwriting in different activity systems,which can make the differences salient-in part because of the patterned isolation and strategicambiguity the contradiction ingeneral education gives rise to" (354).

Their analysis suggests that teachers need to create opportunities todiscuss the rhetorical domains of knowledge invarious activity systems. Teamtaught nterdisciplinaryourses fferne such pportunity.he simultaneouspresence fmultiple nstructorseightenshe pportunitiesobe immersedin and discuss the rhetorical dimension of disciplinary expectations. But direct, explicit discussion of similarities and differences among multiple disciplinary ways of knowing isnot easy to achieve. In thepages that follow Iusethe example of one classroom to illustrate thepitfalls and promise of interdisciplinarylassrooms.

496



6/25

N OWAC E K / WH Y I B E ING INTE R D I C I P LI N ARY SO VE RY H A R D ?

One Mediational Tool, FourActivity Systems: Teaching theThesis-Driven Essay in lnterdisc"The example Iprovide comes frommy observations of a team-taught interdisciplinaryourse fferedofirst-yearonors tudentstVillanovaUniversity.This was the second in a three-semester sequence designed to fillseveral general educationrequirements.he course, nown olloquiallys Interdisc I,was composed f three istinct hree-creditlasses-literature, istory,ndreligious studies-in which all eighteen students in the course had to enroll.As Figure 2 illustrates, each class period had a disciplinary designation, butprofessors attended and participated ineach other's classes on a regular basis.Sessions with only one professor present were the exception. Because the sessions met back toback in the same roomwith all the same participants, discussions would sometimes go overtime or segue fromone to the nextwithouta break. Generally, though, students kept separate notebooks for ach component discipline and spoke of a given class period as belonging to a particularprofessor.s Figure suggests,achprofessor eveloped ndgradedhis orher own assignments. Only one assignment-a collaborative, oral finalexamrequired students to integratematerial from thevarious disciplines and wasevaluated by all three professors. Unfortunately, I did not have adequate access to those exams todiscuss themhere.

Given the separate but coordinated structure of the course, can Interdiscbeconsideredrulynterdisciplinary?cholars f nterdisciplinarityften istinguishetweenmultidisciplinarity,hich involveshemere juxtaposition

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday10-10:50 9:30-10:45 10-10:50 9:30-10:45History: Chapter 6 Literature: Wife History: excerpts Religious Studies:Middle Ages ofBath (con't) Aquinas' Treatise Aquinas' SummaOn Law (con't)11-11:50 11-12:15 11-11:50 11-12:15Literature: Religious Studies: Literature: History: Chapter 7Wife ofBath's Aquinas' Summa The Courtier Middle AgesPrologue& TaleFigure: nterdisciplinaryumanitiesI: ampleeek chedule.

497



7/25


Interdisc Literature II InterdiscHistory II InterdiscReligious Studies II(Professor livia S)* (Professor ogerB)* (Professor homas H)***2-3 pg. onChaucer medieval diary **8-10pg. onAquinas**3-4 pg. onFaustus 2 informal esponse papers *`8-10 pg. comparative**4-5 pg. open topic **FrenchRev. term apertake-homemidterm take-homemidterm take-homemidtermtake-homefinal take-home final take-homefinalThe semester ulminatedin n oral final, aken ngroups of three, ncluding resentationofa thesisthat ntegrates nformationnd insights romll three isciplines*Students ddressed their rofessors y their irst ames, so Ihave also*'Indicates assignments escribed as requiring thesisFigure: nterdisciplinaryumanitiesI:Theemestert glance.ofdisciplines,nd interdisciplinarity,hich, n he ordsof two ighly egardedinterdisciplinarytudies cholars,drawsndisciplinaryerspectivesnd integratesheirnsights"Klein ndNewell3,emphasis dded).To some xtenthaveechoedthis istinctiony rguing hat nterdisciplinaryhoughthouldbe understood s a shift rom ecognizing ultiple utapparentlyndependent activity systems tobeing aware of the overlap among those activity systems.Idescribe nterdiscs interdisciplinaryoreveral easons. irst, he rofessorsntentionallyrganized he yllabusomaximize pportunitieso treatrelated aterial fornstance,tudents ead alvin ndMiltonconcurrently)andoften entbeyond uxtapositionobuildon and respond odiscussionsledby their olleagues.More importantlyhough,he standard istinctionbetween ultidisciplinaryuxtapositionnd interdisciplinaryntegrationoesnotsufficientlyccountfor he mportancef ndividualognition.f,s Ihaveargued, he efiningharacteristicf interdisciplinaryhoughts "awarenessof the constraints, complements, and interrelations of a limited number ofdisciplines:' hen e cannot est or he resence f nterdisciplinarityy ooking at a syllabus. Instead, we must turn to the experience of individuals negotiatinghe verlapsfvariousisciplinaryctivityystems.iventhis eaknessof themultidisciplinary/interdisciplinaryistinction,preferouse the erminterdisciplinarymore broadly as a descriptor of courses thatattempt tobring

498



8/25

N OWAC E K / WH Y IS B E ING INTE R D I C IP LI N ARY SO VE RY H A R D?

disciplines into dialogue. In such terms, the Interdisc II classroom certainlyqualifies s interdisciplinary.In essence, he tudents nd teachers articipatingn nterdisc Iwerereallyparticipating in four activity systems: a history class, a literature class, areligious studies class, and the interdisciplinary course that was the sum ofthose arts.Although he articipantsnthosefour ystems emained onstant, he ystems ad theirwnsometimes verlapping,ometimes onflicting objects and motives. But all systems employed (among other tools) the

mediational tool of the thesis-driven essay. Tracing the use and representations of the thesis-driven essay by professors and students helps make visiblethe overlaps and conflicts among the fouractivity systems and cuts to the heartofwhat is so challenging and promising about interdisciplinary teaching.The semester ncluded ore than wo ozen episodes fexplicit ritinginstruction,istributedmong ll three isciplines.he Interdiscnstructorsdid not simply assign writing; theyworked to teachwriting: they sequencedassignments, engaged students indiscussions about their expectations, andworked tomake some assignments an opportunity forexploration and communication rather than simply evaluation. The history professor assigned reaction papers thatwere the springboard for in-class discussions. The religiousstudies professor conferenced with students and wrote copious comments ontheir ten-page analytical papers. The literatureprofessor frequently assignedin-class reewriteso umpstartlassdiscussion ndencouragedtudents orevise their formal close-analysis essays. These threeprofessorswere not simplyreflectivenddedicatedteachers; hey ere also committedoteaching

with and about writing.Throughout he emester he nstructorstressed he imilaritiesn heirexpectations regarding thesis. For example, at one point, the literatureprofessor said to the class, "What you arewriting inmy part of the course, in [thereligious studies] part of the course, and I think inmost college writing, is thethesis-driven essay."However, with the benefit of hindsight and transcripts itis clear that, despite the effort theyput into teaching writing, these three professorsmeant verydifferent things by theword "thesis"-in CHAT terms,hadvery ifferentotives-butglossed ver hose ifferencesn heirssignmentsand classdiscussions.

Early in the semester, during one of the rareperiods when he was the onlyinstructorresent, he istoryrofessor,oger all rofessornd student amesare pseudonyms), distributed a description of his expectations for a termpaper on the French Revolution:

499



9/25


The purpose of the history term aper is towrite history from riginal sources.... The textbookwill provide an overview for ackground and a start-upbibliography; ou shouldalso lookat secondarysources as needed. Remember, however,that theessence ofyour paper should rely n theprimarysources. Your completed paper should not merely narrate an event,but provide an analysis of aquestion you pose for ourself. t best, itwill argue toa conclusion, a thesis. hepaper shouldbe approximately 0-15 pages with appropriatedocumentation andbibliography, ritten clearly nd thoughtfully.Roger went on toorally explain what he meant by "thesis" and its relationshipto"topic."

Step numberone is topick a topic.Notice stepnumberone is not "I am going toprove that." hat's not a topic, that'sa thesis.A thesis is an argument.Topic issimply"I am going towritemy paper about." So when you tellme your topic, itshouldbe a phrase,not an argument.That comes later. he theory s thatyou'renot surewhat theargument isgoing tobe untilyou've looked at the resources.You don't setout toprove something;you set out to seewhere theevidence leadsyou.Okay?The mediational toolof the thesis essaywas given particular meaning and formby Roger's overridingmotive ofgetting students to reason from rimary sourcesby "see[ing] where the evidence leads you"-a methodological approach heassociated with the discipline of history.

At the beginning of thenext week, the literature professor, Olivia, distributed an assignment asking students to "explain thedifference" between a pairof critical comments on one of Chaucer's prologues and to "compar[e] the interpretation ofChaucer each position enables you tomake." Like Roger,Oliviainitiated a conversation on the differencebetween thesis and topic, asking students to explain theirunderstanding of the two.The students responded byechoing Roger's language exactly, saying "the topic is the broad overview ofwhat you're doing, your thesis isyour argument:' As she replied,Olivia initiallydistinguished topic and thesis much as Roger did: "Yeah, your thesis isyourargument.... A topic iswhat you're going to talk about. A thesis iswhat youpersonally have to say about it."As she continued, though, she articulated amotive considerably different fromRoger's. A thesis, she said, "has toventuresomething. Peter Elbow, who's a writer about writing I like a lot, says ithas tostick itsneck out. If itdoesn't stick itsneck out, it'snot a thesis."

Roger wanted students to startwith a topic and work theirway to a thesis; in fact,he left pen thepossibility that students might never articulate an

500



10/25


explicit thesis: "At est:' Roger says in his assignment, thepaper "will argue toa conclusion, a thesis."During the lastweek of the semester, Roger even statedthat he hesis is mplicitnthe aper" ndmightnotbe "expresslyritten none place." For Olivia, having a clearly articulated and argumentative thesis inthe paper was vital; a topic,which is "what you're going to talk about"' cannotreplace he hesis, hich is what oupersonally ave tosay" bout that opic.Olivia's ext ssignmentnMarlowe's austus also stressed he xplicitlyrgumentative nature of thenecessary thesis: "Please remember to ... advanceanargumentativehesis."hemediationaltool f thethesis-drivenssaywasgiven uite a differenteaningbyOlivia's verridingotive, hich focusedmoreon "stick[ing]tsneckout" than n "see[ing] here the vidence eadsyou.:

Olivia's focus on an argumentative thesis offered a striking contrast tothefirstssignment iven yThomas,thereligioustudies rofessor,hichwas due within a week of theFaustus assignment and did not even contain theword"thesis."s Thomas described nthe ext fhisassignment,

Inyour paper Iwant you to recreate theway inwhich, according toAquinas,human beings achieve salvation.You will probablywant to dealwith issues likevirtue nd habit,grace,original sin,will, free hoice,predestination, tc.... Iwantyou tomake a case for he reasonableness ofAquinas' theology n this issue.Behis defense lawyer.... Anticipate objections to the theory nd defendAquinasagainst them.You should also describewhat you feeltobe theoperative principles or problems aroundwhichAquinas organizes his theology n this issue.What apparently irreconcilable truths" she trying oharmonize? ... [A]t theendyoumay append yourownpersonal critiqueas to itsfailings. hat keypreconceptions,conclusions,or arguments separate you from quinas?

Puzzledby the ssignmentnd attemptingounderstandhether his aperwas to ontain ny rgument,tudents skedfor urtherxplanationn lass.One student remarked that "it seems tome that it [asks for]a regurgitation ofAquinas." nresponse, homas used,for he first ime, heword "thesis" odescribe ispaper:

When you analyze awriteryou're justnot regurgitating.ou're criticizing. t's acriticalexercise-it has tobe-because you arepicking these things ut,weighing them, rguingthem. here's toomuch Aquinas foryou toput intothepaper,soyou'regoing tohave tochoose, going tohave toorder, nd organize it into nargument.... Sowhat you'regoing todo ispresentaThomistic analysisof salvation.And it'sverymuch likewhat Olivia ... has been havingyou do [in in-classfreewrites] hen you analyze a text nd you think ikeAquinas.Well, Iwant you

501



11/25


12/25

NOWACEK / WHY IS BEI NG INTERDISCI PLI NARY SO VERY HARD?

and response preferences," differences that "seemed unrelated tothe teachers'disciplinaryraining"453, mphasis dded).Sowhat evidence is there that disciplines, and not just personal prefer

ences, are atwork here? Because disciplines are such complex and internallyvariegated social structures, no individual can be said tobe fully representative of an entire discipline. However, the description of the thesis essay provided by each of the Interdisc instructors does resonate with scholarly andpopular analyses of how towrite in these disciplines. For, instance, Thomas'sexplanation of his expectations for thesis coincides with theview ofwritinginreligious tudies rovidednMurphy's easoning ndRhetoric n eligion.(There are very few scholarly or popular analyses ofwriting in thedisciplinesof religious studies or theology at theundergraduate level, thoughKlemm focuses on the rhetorical strategies of contemporary academic theologians andYaghjianoffers houghtfulnalysis fwriting nseminaryraining.)mongthe six types of papers Murphy says students are likely to encounter in religious studies and theology classes are research papers ("forexample, write apaper on Augustine's theory of the origin of evil" [71]) and analysis papers("the paper onAugustine's theoryof evil becomes an analysis paper when oneis asked not only todescribe Augustine's position, but to evaluate itor criticizeit" [71]).

Thomas's assignment can be easily classified inMurphy's typology as aresearch paper ("[R]ecreate theway inwhich, according toAquinas, humanbeings achieve salvation... Describe ... the operative principles or problemsaround which Aquinas organizes his theology"),with theoption ofmaking itan analysis paper ("at the end you may append your own personal critique asto its failings"). Furthermore, Murphy echoes Thomas's in-class discussion ofregurgitation versus argument by explaining that although "itmight be objected that a research paper does not make any claims because it (ordinarily)contains no explicit arguments-it simply reports on its subject:" such objections "overloo[k] the fact that all such descriptions are selective and involvejudgment about what is important" and therefore include the "implicit claimnot only thatwhat is reported is truebut also that it represents (1) a fairandbalanced account of (2) themost important aspects of the subject in question"72).

While Thomas's representation of thesis fitsneatly into a very small bodyof scholarly analysis of religious studies, Roger's representation of thesis canbe contextualized within a vociferous debate in the discipline of history.

503



13/25


Poststructuralistiews f authorship ave sparked ngoing ebate bout thenature ofwriting history (see, for instance,White; for a riposte, seeMarwick),one that brings particular significance to questions about the roles of narrative and explicit argumentation inhistory writing. In thewake of poststructuralist theories of authorship, many historians emphasize writing history asactive nd argumentative.hisprivilegingf xplicitrgumentationsreflectedin theWID literature:Walvoord andMcCarthy's Professor Breihan values explicit argumentationnd would even on occasion "consciously acrific[e]subtlety of historical interpretation in order to emphasize the importance oftaking a clear stand on an issue" (104), Greene's history of science professornotes that "the first thing to realize about an essay is that itmust make anargument" (568), Beaufort's co-author fromhistory asked students to "frame ahypothesis and an argument" (57), and the history professors interviewed byStockton insisted on theneed to"take a stance" and "make an argument"whenwriting or istory50).

In light of this trend,Roger's insistence that a thesis may not appear atthe start of the essay or be explicitly argumentative may appear idiosyncraticrather han isciplinary.utStocktonrgues hat lthoughhe istory rofessors she interviewed claimed tovalue explicit argument,when responding topapers theyrewarded not explicit argument but implicit argument subtly embedded within narrative: "to move beyond expository argument and towardthe implicit arguments of narrative is udged tobe amark ofgrowth instudent

writing" (67). Stockton offers the example of a student with a 4.0 average inher literaturemajor, but who rarelyearned higher than a B on her history papers. The student's explicitly argumentative prose, valued in literary studies,was deemed "too forceful"by one of her history professors. Thus, althoughRoger (who did not align himself with poststructuralist theories)may not represent themost current, common, or popular view ofwriting in history, hisrepresentation of thesis certainly can be contextualized within thediscipline'sconflicted views ofwriting.

Resonating with Stockton's claim that explicitly argumentative prose isvalued in literarystudies, Olivia tellsher students that a thesismust "stick itsneck out." This allusion to Peter Elbow-who says that the "main point, thisincipient center of gravity"of a piece ofwriting, should "stick itsneck out, notjust hedge orwonder," and must be "something that can be quarreled with"(20)-also resonates with popular and scholarly analyses ofwriting literaryanalysis. The importance of an explicitly argued thesis is stressed inBarnet's

504



14/25

N OWAC E K / WHY I B E ING INTE R D ISC IP L IN ARY SO VE RY H A R D?

A Short uide toWritingboutLiterature,hichexplains o tudents hat uring the intermediate stages of thewriting process "what the thesis of the essaywill be-the idea thatwill be asserted and argued (supported with evidence)is still in doubt, but there is no doubt about one thing:A good essay will have athesis, a point, an argument. You ought tobe able to state your point ina thesissentence"21).A final imensionfthis rivilegingfexplicitrgumentanbe seen in the persistence ofwhat Frey termed the "adversarymethod" andwhatWildermore recentlyas termed he mistaken ritic" opos. houghFrey ndWilder are primarilynterestedndescribing ow literarycholarsrespond o achother's ork n rder obuildknowledge,hese ethods foreground the necessity of a clear argument articulated early in a literary nalysis.Emphasizing Similarity,Eliding Difference: The Double BindThroughout lassdiscussions, he rofessorstressed he imilaritiesmongtheir expectations for riting, but therewas little face-to-face dialogue amongthem. Exceptions to that trendwere rare,but in one such moment two instructors talked together in front of the class about their expectations for athesis. This interaction occurred during the eleventh week of class and wasinitiated by Olivia, who spontaneously responded toRoger's advice on developing a thesis:Roger: Think in terms of thedistinction now between a topic and a thesis ....A topic in a sense is a phrase: I am going todo a paper about blank. A thesisis a declarative sentence that is as particular as possible.... [turns toOlivia]

What were you going to say?Olivia: Iwas going to offermy definition of a thesis.... And ifthis doesn'twork forhistory, thiswill be an interesting thing forus to find out.When youget toyour thesis, you should be able topreface itwith thewords "I thinkthat" and then complete the sentence. And thenwhen you're all done, to be

more sophisticated erase "I think that."But ifyou can't say "I think that blahblah blah blah blah," it'snot a thesis.Does thatwork forhistory?Roger: Ah, not too well. Because historians like to think that they're findingreality. o it'snot just an opinion.Olivia: Well, Idon't think ithas todo with opinion.What I think ithas todowith isyour personal analysis.... That that'swhat pushes it towards analysis,notopinion.

505



15/25


Roger: Mm hmm. I guess I, I think basically we're saying the same thing. Iguess I feelmore comfortable with itnot prefaced by "I think that."That simplywhat would follow is a declarative sentence in itself.Olivia: [turning to the class] Iwant tomake sure you guys are clear that youwould never hand this in to anyone with the "I think that" still there.But someof you might want to thinkmaybe inother disciplines about that.And Iwouldstill say that if ou think about itanalytically instead of subjectively thatmighthelp with history. Right? Because you can't say "I think that theFrench Revolution." But you can say "I think that a change in sexual mores produced theFrench evolution."Roger: I see. Actually it comes out the same because ithas to be a declarativesentence.Olivia:Right. kay.This brief exchange illustrates a great deal ofwhat's at stake in team-taughtinterdisciplinarylassrooms. liviadoes openup the ossibilityhat here illbe differences in their expectations, and Roger does initially resist what hesees tobe a difference inways ofknowing manifest in the textual conventionOlivia is proposing. But when they find they agree on the fact that "I thinkthat" should not be in the text, theycease topursue thepossibility that thereare furtherdifferences.Despite an initialwillingness to recognize differencesin theirmotives or their expectations forthemediational tool, the clear tendency is to stress similarities.This reluctance odiscussdifferencesosed difficultiesostudents esponsible forresponding to all three assignments. Roger wanted students toapproach texts and make claims as historians would, which forRoger meantallowing the thesis to evolve over time and perhaps reside only implicitly inthe final text.Olivia was committed to a version of the thesis-driven essay thatwas more obviously argumentative. And while Thomas too expected a clearthesis, itwas less explicitly argumentative. Ostensibly, themediational tool ofthe thesis-driven essaywas the same: itwent by the same name ineach of thethree disciplines, and the professors affirmed similarities during discussion.But these similaritieswere, as Russell and Yaniez say,"maddeningly deceptive"and posed considerable challenges to the students enrolled in Interdisc.

The conflicts among motives and mediational tools put the Interdisc students inwhat Engestrom and other CHAT theorists identify s "apsychological double bind." In CHAT terms, a double bind is a scenario inwhich an

506



16/25

NOWAC E K / WHY IS B EI N G INTE R D I C IP L IN ARY SO VE RY H AR D?

individualreceiveswomessagesorcommands hichdeny achother-andthe ndividualsunableto omment n themessages" Engestrom,hapter ).Double bindsare those ncomfortablendperhaps nevitableituations nwhich individualsxperienceontradictionsithin rbetween ctivity ystems (e.g.,between themotives and tools within a single activity system orbetween themotives of two differentactivity systems) but cannot articulateanymeta-awarenessf those ontradictions.In nterdisc,he tudents eceivedontradictoryessagesregardinghemediational tool of the thesis-driven essay: the type of thesis valued by anyone professor would not necessarily be valued by his or her colleagues, yetstudents had towrite for all three professors. To recognize the differencesamongthe xpectations or hesis nthethreeomponent isciplines ouldbe to go against the classroom discourse stressing similarities; to ignore thedifferencesould lead students owrite less than atisfactoryapers. herewere few lassroom pportunities o reflectn those onflicts,eaving tudents to come to anymeta-awareness of those conflicts on theirown.However, uch ouble inds re double-edgededagogical word. heycan be baffling and even incapacitating for individuals, but when these conflictspush individuals tometa-awareness and individuals are able to "make ametacommunicativetatement"bout the onflictEngestrom,hapter ),double binds can also facilitate higher-order thinking and critical insight.Engestrbm describes such outcomes as "learning by expanding." Ifthedoublebind is also an opportunity for learning by expanding, the question of howstudents in Interdisc negotiate the double bind presented by the thesis-drivenessay becomes a particularly compelling one.One Student atWork: Negotiating an InterdisciplinaryDoubleBindWill, a first-year tudent with a double major in religious studies and philosophy,earned high grades on all threepapers under consideration here, and allthreeprofessors identifiedhim as one of themost successful students in theclass. Analyses ofWill's texts indicate that he made subtle but importantadjustments tohis essays ineach discipline. ButWill was vexed by theprocessofmoving among the various disciplinary expectations-in part because herelied on a distinction between "research papers" and "analysis papers" thatfocused solely onmediational tools; hewas not able to articulate how themotives of various activity systemsmight alter those tools.

507



17/25


Will explained that although research and analysis papers are both versions of the thesis-driven essay, each entails a particular writing process andresults in a different kind of paper. Analysis papers, as Will described them,are relatively brief, call for clear "personal opinion:' and generally focus on asingle text; inCHAT terms, themotive of the analysis paper tool is tomake aclear and focused argument. Research papers tend to be longer, address lessnarrowlyefined opics, nd require utsideresearch; hemotivebehindthistool is to demonstrate that outside research has been conducted and applied

with some skill to the topic at hand. According toWill, the paper on Marlowe'sFaustus was an analysis paper; happily, themotive of the analysis paper as heunderstood itmeshed nicelywith Olivia's motive ofmaking an argument that"sticks its neck out." Similarly,Will identified the history term paper on theFrench Revolution as a research paper, and fortunately themotive of a researchpaper asWill understood it ibedwith Roger'smotive of encouraging studentsto use primary texts todevelop arguments as historians do. Because these twoassignments fell into clearly discernible genres thatwere able to coexistunproblematically with the expectations of his instructors, theydid not challengeWill's sense ofwhat to do or how to do it.

But theAquinas paper did not fallneatly into either ofWill's two genres,and as a result he struggled to develop the thesis forthat paper. When askedabout theAquinas paper,Will began by describing theunique writing processitrequired:

Itwas really ard to ump into.... Iwrote this ne actuallya little ifferentlyhanIwrite a lotofpapers.... Usuallywhen I'vehad todo a paper of that ength twasmore likea researchkind of thingwhere I'dbeenworking on itand studying twith the intent fwriting thepaper.... But this time itwas really ust like the[analysis] ssays Iwrite usually, ut a lot longer nd covering lotmorematerial.Part ofwhat was so differentwas that despite the fact that he finallyhad decided itwas an analysis paper,Will spent almost no timeworking on the thesisstatement and introductory paragraph: "the intro and conclusion were alsovery hard. I did those in about fiveminutes combined, just because I reallydidn't know what to say in them."ForWill, articulating an argumentative thesiswas secondary to showing mastery of the component parts ofAquinas'

model of salvation.Differences were evident in the text as well.Whereas the thesis guiding

Will's Faustus paper made a clear argument about the relationship betweenthe low scenes and themain plot ofFaustus-"This subplot ofDoctor Faustus

508



18/25


parallels Faustus' own downfall, and his actions toward them mirror the actions aken gainst im"-the thesistatementfhisAquinaspapersurveyedthe omponentarts fAquinas'modelof alvation utdidnot "stickts eckout:'Will identifiedn importantensionn quinas'work n he enultimatesentencefhis introduction"This omprehensiveiscussion ltimatelyeadsto a model of salvation that acknowledges theomnipotence and supremacy ofGod aswellas the mportancefhumans' ontributionsotheirwnfutures"),then verviewed he rganizationf the aper inthefinal entence: ill described his hesis smore summaryhan rgument.

But even f e composed his hesis uickly,ill's drafts ndicate hat issuccesswasmore thanmere luck. is scribbled arginalia uggest hat illsawhis overall urpose s focusingn "the perative rinciplesrproblemsaround hichAquinas organizes is theology."ill'snotes lso indicate hathebelieved hat e neededto make case for hereasonablenessfAquinas'theology"neachareaonly econdarily.y identifyinghese perative rinciples nd problems, ill "thoughtlongwithAquinas"-exactlythemotiveThomasarticulated uring isclassdiscussions nd interviews.Despitemeeting homas's xpectations, ill doubtedwhether his asan appropriate way towrite a thesis. In fact,Will described his thesis as "a copout:' asmerely "a rehashing or a reformulation" thatwasn't "arguing" any oneparticular oint. Itwas not, inWill's evaluation, articularly insightful."Whereasanalysis apers sually emand omethingorethan regurgitation:'Will said theAquinas paper was a regurgitation "more than hewanted to leton" since itwas only "the structuring,kind ofputting it inour own logical flow,thatwas original."

Will had intuited the differences in themotives among thevarious activity ystems ewas beingasked to negotiate. utwhen those ifferencesnmotivesmanifested hemselvesextually,esultingndifferencesnthemediation ools as in the hesis tatements),ill second-guessediswork, alling it"a cop out."This denigration of thework he had successfullydone suggestshowdifficultt sforarticipants-especiallytudents-to egotiatehe oublebindsplacedon them hendisciplinaryctivityystemsollide.Willwrotesuccessfulapers, ut ntuitinghe ifferencesmong he ctivityystemsasnotsufficiento scape the sychologicalouble ind. ecauseWill couldmakenometacommunicativetatementbouthoworwhythose ystemsonflicted,he remained uzzled byhis success. espitehisgood grades, here as noapparent nterdisciplinaryearning-nomove towardwareness fthe on

509



19/25


straints,omplements,nd interrelationsfthese hree isciplines. ill's instructors' focus on common features of themeditational tool rather than differingmotives of the disciplinary activity systems did nothing to amelioratethis roblem.

What if,however, the professors had engaged inmeta-level discussionsabout their expectations forwriting and reasoning in theirdisciplines? Whatif ill had been explicitly prompted to think about-and provided with a richvocabulary or escribing-these onflicts s productive ather han onfining?What if, nother words, these conflicts were made to serve as affordancesfor learning rather than constraints on it?The typeof classroom discussion Iam imagining here is reminiscent of Gerald Graff's injunction to "teach theconflicts." "Educational success," Graff argues, can be traced "to the ability ofan institution tocreate a community out of itsdifferences" (172). My analysesof the Interdisc classroom suggest a companion challenge: the ability to engage inmeta-reflection on the differenceswithin a community. The Interdiscclassroom had great potential to facilitate discussions of thedifferences amongdisciplines, but thatpotential was not fullyrealized.Why?

Why Being Interdisciplinary Is So VeryHard to DoWhy did these teachers notmake clear that themediational tool of the thesisdriven essay was operating quite differently in their various disciplines? Notbecause theywere thoughtless or inattentive teachers, for theywere exceedingly thoughtful and committed. Nor because theywere unaware of those differences, for s the exchange between Olivia and Roger shows, theywere awareof the differences to at least some degree. Instead, I believe that the lack ofattention to disciplinary differences is best explained by the fact that theseinstructorswere experiencing double binds of their own, conflicts among or

within thevarious activity systems inwhich theywere participating.Perhaps themost important double bind facing the three Interdisc in

structorswas the conflict between themotives of their individual disciplinaryactivity systems and the activity system of Interdisc itself.As I have argued,themotives thatguided these threeprofessors' disciplinary activity systemsto think like a historymajor, tomake pointed arguments based on how language operates ina text,to thinkalongwith great religious thinkers-conflictedwith one another.But if e shift ur attention to the activity systemof Interdiscas a whole, the three instructors were able to articulate a shared motive: tostress convergences and connections among the threedisciplines. They elaborated thispoint together in a joint interview:

510



20/25


Olivia: I think there's also a very genuine question in ourminds about howmuch disciplinary difference is the point [ofwhat we do in Interdisc].... Itmight be interesting to do a littlebitmore of thatwith them because I thinkthere are questions there. There are things that literary studies can do thathistory can't and vice versa. I think all three ofus could tellyouwhat some ofthose things are [but] I'm not sure if the students in the class could.Thomas: I think thatwould be asking a good deal toomuch of them.... Wemight put a seed in theirmind thatmaybe in some of them, perhaps, at theend of fouryearswill germinate.... This [focus on disciplinary differences] isso abstract for them that Idoubt that theycould get theirminds around it.Olivia: And I think thepriority forall of us isprecisely theopposite. [The priority] is all theways inwhich [students] can do stuff hen theysee ... all of theconvergences. So since we can't do everything, I think that'smore importantto all of us.Roger: And I think to the extent it's team-taught the effortgoes into tryingtomake the linkages.Not tryingto show the differences.This shared motive to stress similarities grew from several sources. It grewpartly froma sense that the students were not cognitively ready forinterdisciplinary ork; ecause they acked ufficientisciplinaryxposure, hey ouldnot be able to distinguish personal idiosyncrasy fromdisciplinarity. As Thomas explained on another occasion, "I'm not sure that theycan separate us aspeople fromwhat we do:what is itthatThomas does and what is itthat's Thomas. Until they get another somebody likeme tomake a comparison, figuringoutwhat thedisciplinary differences are becomes a real problem.... And I'mjust not sure as freshmen they'vehad enough exposure at the college level toreally put fleshand bones on the concept of discipline."Another motivation forstressing convergences, Roger admitted, was hissense that "now the disciplines seem to be merging inmany ways." All threeinstructors agreed that theymight be seen as doing types ofhistory-materialhistory,ntellectualistory,ultural istory.ogerexplainedthatwhenhetaught Interdisc with a different literature professor twentyyears earlier,heknew "exactlywhat the differences [between history and literature]were." Now,with the influx of theNew Historicism, cultural studies, and other changes inliterarytudies,he ifferencesetween he isciplines adbecome, nRoger'swords, fuzzy."Finally, themotivation to stress convergences sprang froma sense that it

511



21/25


offeredhe tudents valuable ounterpointotheir sual fragmentedxperienceof the ndergraduateurriculum.sThomasexplained:The way inwhich theuniversity s organized takes a culture that is a seamlesswhole and chops itup.And for erygood reasons.There are good reasons that'sdone.But on theother hand, it is an artificial onstruction, and it'smisleading.So, interdisciplinarity-where t orks-tries toweave itback together gain, sothatwhat they earn inmy section suddenlyshowsup inMilton ... because theboundaries are not there. ven if e do chop itup [administratively,ith separategrades for ach component discipline],we try ohave theboundaries brokendown.

And indeed the students frequentlypraised how integrated the class was, howoften heyawconnectionsmongtheir ork for hethree isciplines.Furthermore,nstructorsorkingn eam-taughtnterdisciplinarylassroomsmust fightgainst nother owerfulmpulse o stress imilaritiesnddownplayifferences:he endencyodevelop hatGrossman, ineburg, ndWoolworth term a pseudocommunity. In their study of high school literatureand history teachersworking together to design an interdisciplinary curriculum,Grossman and colleagues found thatparticipants were eager toget along

with theirnew colleagues and quick to attribute differences of opinion to superficial personality conflicts rather than any fundamental epistemologicaldisagreements. InCHAT terms, the unofficialmotive of "gettingalong" withinthe larger system of interdisciplinary collaboration conflicts with and generally trumps any effort to recognize the diverse officialmotives of thevariousdisciplinaryctivityystemsnvolved.

In such cases, the understandable desire forharmony easily becomes anunfortunate tendency togloss over legitimate and significantdifferences.However,Grossman and colleagues argue, onlywhen theparticipants recognizetheirpistemologicalisagreementsan they uccessfullyollaborate. liviaand Roger's in-class exchange about thesis shows the pseudocommunityimpulse in action: disagreement was uncomfortable, and they quickly movedtoward agreement, avoiding a more difficult but more productive discussionofdifferences.Ironically,hough,his haredmotiveofstressingonvergencesorkeddirectly against the type of meta-discourse on difference that I have arguedcan make interdisciplinary classrooms powerful contexts for learning andwriting in the disciplines. But the difficultyof realizing the potential of theinterdisciplinary classroom as a site to explore disciplinary connections can

512



22/25

N OWAC E K / WH Y I B E IN G INTE R D ISC IP LI N A RY SO VE RY H A R D ?

not be laid solely at the feetof individual instructorswho are "too nice" or"insufficientlyhoughtful"bouttheir eaching, or he onflicts mong thevarious activity systems place double binds on instructors as well as students.These conflicts are negotiable, to be sure.And if articipants can begin to develop ameta-awareness ofhow and why those conflicts occur, the double bindsI have described can even provide opportunities for learning by expanding.Such learning is not easy or inevitable for students or teachers, but if articipants can identifyand name these double binds, can describe and analyzethem, they are better positioned to learn through them.Conclusion: The Promise of InterdisciplinaryPedagogyBy way of conclusion, I return to a question Iposed in the introduction: is itpossible for anyone, much less students in their firstyear of undergraduatestudies, to engage in authentically interdisciplinarywork? The answer lies inhow we define "authentically interdisciplinarywork" and how we go about facilitatingt. he Interdiscnstructorshoughthatwarenessf the isciplinesqua disciplines and their differenceswas toomuch to ask of first-yearstudents, utWill's experiencesuggest hat tudentsreexpected onegotiateinterdisciplinaryoublebindswithorwithout he enefit fmeta-awareness.Fish arguesthat nterdisciplinaritys impossible or nyone-but he stacksthe eckbydefiningnterdisciplinaritys the esire otranscendisciplinesentirely.But if y interdisciplinarywork we mean work that takes place inandbecomes aware of the intersections of various disciplinary activity systems,interdisciplinaritys indeed ossible nd the pportunitiesor nterdisciplinary learning aremore prevalent than we often think. To become aware ofhow disciplinary activity systems interlock isnot to have a perfectmeta-awareness of disciplinary boundaries. What itmeans ishelping students-and ourselves-make careful and conscious inquiries intowhat happens when we usetools and motives from one discipline in that of another.The challenge ornterdisciplinaryeaching,nderstood hus,s tohelpindividualsegotiate he onflictsmongmotives, ediational ools, ndotherelements of disciplinary activity systems by identifying and naming thosedouble binds, by facilitating opportunities to reflecton and make meta-communicative statements about those conflicts.The double binds that arisewhenelements of disciplinary activity systems conflict can serve as constraints oras affordances. The briefwindow Ihave provided into one team-taught interdisciplinarylassroom llustratesow pportunitiesoriscussing nd reflect

513



23/25


ing n these isciplinaryollisions rise in such classrooms ndwhy thoseopportunitiesre ometimesquandered. hile team-taughtnterdisciplinaryclassrooms are not the only contexts for such learning, theyoffer a powerfulcontext orearningboutthe elationshipsmong arious isciplinaryctivityystems,bout the nternalogic f those isciplinaryctivityystems,ndabout themediational tools central to those activity systems: inotherwords,for learning about interdisciplinarity, disciplinarity, and the role ofwriting inthe isciplines.AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank the rofessors and studentsof Interdisc IIfor allowingme intotheir lassroom and sharing theirwork and ideas sogenerously. would also like tothankDeborah Brandt, Virginia Chappell, Krista Ratcliffe, avid Russell, and ananonymous CCC reviewerfortheir omments and advice on earlier versionsof thismanuscript. This researchwas supported in itsearly stages byan NCTE Grant-inAid and more recently ya Summer Faculty FellowshipfromMarquette University.Works CitedBarnet, Sylvan. A Short Guide toWritingabout Literature. 7th ed. New York

HarperCollins, 1996.Beaufort, Anne, and John A.Williams.

"Writing History: Informed or Not byGenre Theory?" Genre Across theCurriculum. Ed. Anne Herrington andCharles Moran. Logan: Utah State UP,2005.44-64.Elbow, Peter. Writing without Teachers.

New York: Oxford UP, 1973.Engestr?m, Yrjo. Learning by Expanding.Helsinki, 1987. Mind, Culture, Activity

Homepage. Laboratory of ComparativeHuman Cognition. 10April 2001. 3January 2006 .Fish, Stanley. "Being Interdisciplinary Is So

Very Hard to Do." Profession 89 (1989):15-22. Rpt. inThere's No Such Thing As

Free Speech and It's a Good ThingToo.New York Oxford UP, 1994.231-42.Frey, Olivia. "Beyond Literary Darwinism:Women's Voices and Critical Discourse."

College English 52.5 (1990): 507-26.Graff, Gerald. Beyond the Culture Wars:How Teaching the Conflicts CanRevitalize American Education. New

York: W. W Norton, 1992.Greene, Stuart. "The Question of Authen

ticity: Teaching Writing in a First-YearCollege History of Science Class."Research in the Teaching ofEnglish 35(2001):525-69.

Grossman, Pam, Sam Wineburg, andStephen Woolworth. "What MakesTeacher Community Different from aGathering of Teachers?" University of

Washington: Center for the Study ofTeaching and Policy, December 2000.3January 2006


24/25


edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Community-GWW01-2001.pdf>.Klein, Julie Thompson, and William H.Newell. "Advancing InterdisciplinaryStudies." Handbook of theUndergraduate Curriculum: A Comprehensive GuidetoPurposes, Strategies, Practices, and

Change. Ed. JerryGaff and JamesRatcliff. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1997. Rpt. in Interdisciplinarity: Essaysfrom theLiterature. Ed. William H.Newell. New York College EntranceExamination Board, 1998.3-22.

Klemm, David. "The Rhetoric of Theological Argument." The Rhetoric of theHuman Sciences. Ed. John S. Nelson,Allan Megill, and Donald N. McCloskey.Madison: U ofWisconsin P, 1987.Marwick, Arthur. The New Nature of

History: Knowledge, Evidence, Language.Hampshire, UK: Palgrave, 2001.

Murphy, Nancey C. Reasoning and RhetoricinReligion. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity PInternational, 1994.Ratcliff, James L., et al. The Status ofGeneral Education in the Year 2000:

Summary of aNational Survey.Washington, DC: Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities,2001.

Russell, David R., and Arturo Ya?ez. "'BigPicture People Rarely Become Historians': Genre Systems and the Contradictions of General Education." WritingSelves /Writing Societies. Ed. CharlesBazerman and David R. Russell. 3January 2006. . 331-62.

Severino, Carol, and MaryTrachsel.

"Starting aWriting Fellows Program:Crossing Disciplines or CrossingPedagogies?" International Journal ofLearning11 (2004/2005): 49-55.

Stockton, Sharon. "Writing inHistory:Narrating the Subject of Time." WrittenCommunication 12.1 (1995): 47-73.

Thaiss, Christopher. "Theory inWAC:Where Have We Been, Where Are WeGoing." WAC for theNew Millennium:Strategies for Continuing Writing Acrossthe Curriculum Programs. Ed. Susan H.McLeod et al. Urbana, IL:NationalCouncil ofTeachers of English, 2001.299-326.

Walvoord, Barbara E., and LucilleMcCarthy. Thinking and Writing inCollege: A Naturalistic Study of StudentsinFour Disciplines. Urbana, IL:NationalCouncil ofTeachers of English, 1991.

White, Hayden. The Content of theForm:Narrative Discourse and HistoricalRepresentation. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins UP, 1987.

Wilder, Laura. '"The Rhetoric of LiteraryCriticism' Revisited: Mistaken Critics,Complex Contexts, and Social Justice."Written Communication 22.1 (2005):76-119.

Yaghjian, Lucretia B. "Writing Cultures,Enculturating Writing at Two Theological Schools: Mapping Rhetorics ofCorrelation and Liberation." TeachingTheologyndReligion .3 (2002):128-40.

Rebecca S. NowacekRebecca S.Nowacek is ssistant professorof rhetoric nd composition atMarquetteUniversity. In addition to teaching courses in advanced composition and a semi

515



25/25


nar for new TAs, she teaches an interdisciplinary senior capstone course inMarquette's honors program. She is a 2005-6 Carnegie Scholar with theCarnegieAcademy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning and her articles have appeared inCollege English,JGE:The Journal ofGeneral Education, and Research intheTeaching ofEnglish. She iscurrentlyatwork on a book manuscript exploringthe roleofwriting in interdisciplinaryclassrooms.

516

nowaceck_why is being interdisciplinary so hard to do

Documents