5. What Is Integration, and Why Is It So Important to Interdisciplinary Studies? 8/17/04

Interdisciplinary studies students should be familiar with Bloom’s taxonomy. In 1956, Benjamin Bloom headed a group of educational psychologists who developed a classification of levels of intellectual behavior important in learning. He identified six levels within the cognitive domain, from the simple recognition or recall of facts, at the lowest level, through increasingly more complex and abstract mental levels, leading ultimately to the higher order skill of synthesis or integration. Our focus in this chapter and in the following chapter is on integration.

Integration is central to understanding the nature of interdisciplinary studies and is its distinguishing feature. In fact, says William H. Newell (1998), the Executive Director of the Association of Integrative Studies, it is helpful to think of the nature of interdisciplinarity, its outcomes, the role of the disciplines, and the nature of synthesis or integration as a package of four interrelated issues, or perhaps a system of four simultaneous equations. The resolution of each issue is dependent on decisions about the other three. The outcomes of interdisciplinary study, for example, are critically dependent on what is meant by interdisciplinarity and integration and on how the disciplines are used. (547)

Having already examined the nature of interdisciplinarity (chapter 1) and the role of the disciplines (chapter 4), we now need to examine the concept of integration. Our purpose in this chapter is three-fold: define the term integration, examine three models of integration, and identify the prerequisites for integration.

LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR THIS CHAPTER

Students will be able to define the terms integration and synthesis Students will be able to identify various models of integration and explain the

vision, theory, and practice of each Students will be able to identify three several prerequisites for integration

I. WHAT IS INTEGRATION?

Interdisciplinarians are in substantial agreement about the centrality of integration to interdisciplinary studies (as we have defined it in chapter 1) and are moving towards consensus about what integration should encompass. Though achieving integration is not easy, it is achievable.

1

A. A DEFINITION OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INTEGRATION

1. The verb integrate, according to Webster’s, means “to unite or blend into a functioning whole.” A synonym of integration is the noun synthesis which means combining ideas to form a new whole. According to Julie Thompson Klein (1996), a leading theorist in the field of interdisciplinary studies, “Synthesis connotes creation of an interdisciplinary outcome through a series of integrative actions (emphasis mine, 212). What these “integrative actions” or steps involve is the subject of the following chapter.

2. From these statements about integration and synthesis we can observe the following:

They are practically synonyms They convey the meaning of activity leading towards a certain result The nature of the activity is combining or uniting What is combined or united or synthesized are ideas and knowledge. [We must

emphasize that the combining, or uniting, synthesizing, or integrating takes place in a context and is limited to that context. That is, the ideas and knowledge take the form of insights into the specific problem or issue, and their integration is limited to that specific context. We will comment further on this in the following chapter.]

The object of this activity is the formation of something new The singular characteristic of the new is that it is whole. [Be aware that the

complexity of the object of interdisciplinary scrutiny implies that the “whole” one achieves through integration only partially coheres and has only quasi-stability and quasi-predictability.]

3. Based on our discussion of the terms integration and synthesis thus far, we advance this simple, but as yet incomplete, definition: integration or synthesis is the activity of combining ideas and knowledge to form a new whole.

4. Our definition is incomplete because it is missing three critical elements. Newell (1990) identifies these in an essay in which he relates how his classroom experiences changed his thinking about integration.

I used to think of integration as analogous to completing a jigsaw puzzle (when disciplinary insights are complementary, as they often are in the natural sciences) or as a problem in identifying and choosing among assumptions under disciplinary insights (when they conflict, as they often do in the social sciences). In the course on ‘the energy crisis,’ the jigsaw analogy might fit, in which geology explains the location and extent of fossil fuels, physics explains how their energy is released in a power plant, and chemistry and biology explain the environmental consequences of the pollutants given off in the process. In the course on ‘abortion,’ one might argue that the integrative task is to choose among competing ethical or moral assumptions. Over the years I have come to realize, however, that the external reality scholars confront is often complex, variegated, and contradictory, so that

2

mutually incompatible assumptions can all be ‘correct.’ Human beings, for example—the building block of the social sciences and the focus of much of the humanities—are rife with internal contradictions; consequently assumptions of freedom and determinism, for example, may both be correct at the same time for a particular individual in a particular situation. I now see integration in interdisciplinary study as essentially holistic thinking, in which the different facets of a complex reality exposed through different disciplinary lenses are combined into a new whole that is larger than its constituent parts, that cannot be reduced to the separate disciplinary insights from which it emerged. Whether we call it integration, synthesis, or synergy, this process is more organic that mechanical, involving coordination as well as cooperation among disciplinary perspectives. It requires an act of creative imagination, a leap from the simplified perspectives that give the disciplines their power to a more holistic perspective of a richer, more complex whole. That leap is motivated by a dissatisfaction with the partial insights available through individual disciplines. (emphasis mine, 55) 5. In this narrative, Newell identifies three important ideas about integration that must be included in our definition of integration:

The “new whole” is something “larger than the sum of its constituent parts,” a statement designed to emphasize the distinctiveness of the new whole from its

constituent parts Achieving this new whole involves coordination as well as cooperation among

disciplinary perspectives (which we discussed at length in chapter 4) Achieving this new whole requires an act of creative imagination (which is

addressed in Part III) 6. Observe also that Newell and Klein (1998) repeatedly refer to interdisciplinary integration or synthesis as a “process” as opposed to an activity (14, 15; 55, 57, 223, 534, 535, 553, 554, 559, 562; Newell and William J. Green, 1982, 26; Klein, 1990, 188-196; Kline, 1996, 2, 210, 212-216, 220, 222-224). This is deliberate. “Process” conveys the notion of making gradual changes that lead toward a particular result, whereas “activity” has the more limited meaning of vigorous or energetic action unrelated to achieving a goal.

7. Consequently, we amend our earlier partial definition as follows:

Integration or synthesis is the process of combining ideas and knowledge to form a new, more complex whole.

The idea of “coordination as well as cooperation among disciplinary perspectives” is encompassed in our phrase “combining ideas and knowledge.” The thought that achieving this new whole requires “an act of creative imagination” is encompassed in the verb “to form.”

3

B. THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATION TO INTERDISCIPLINARY INQUIRY

1. Leading theorists and scholars in the field insist that interdisciplinary studies should be defined in terms of integration. Newell and William J. Green wrote as early as 1982 that interdisciplinary studies could be defined “as inquiries which critically draw upon two or more disciplines and which lead to an integration of disciplinary insights” (emphasis mine, 24). In 1996, Newell and Klein wrote that interdisciplinary studies “draws on disciplinary perspectives and integrates their insights through construction of a more comprehensive perspective” (emphasis mine, 3). Jay Wentworth and James R. Davis (2002), concerned with what can properly be called interdisciplinary learning, stress the importance of teachers moving students “patiently toward integration or new conceptualization.” And as students develop the habit of interdisciplinarity, “the search for integration can be intensified” (emphasis mine, 17-18). Seipel (2002) concurs, writing that “interdisciplinary analysis requires integration of knowledge from the disciplines that is brought to bear on the issue, question or problem at hand” (emphasis mine, 3). Veronica Boix Mansilla (2001) emphasizes that “individuals demonstrate interdisciplinary understanding when they integrate knowledge and modes of thinking in order to create products, solve problems, and offer explanations, in ways that would not have been possible through single disciplinary means” (emphasis mine, 9).

Integration is important to interdisciplinary studies, therefore, because most expert interdisciplinary researchers state that it as a goal, if not the goal, of their work.

2. A second reason why integration is important to interdisciplinary studies is that experts say that it is the process of integration that ultimately distinguishes genuine interdisciplinarity from multidisciplinarity. According to Donald G. Richards (1996), the latter seeks to “arrange in serial fashion the separate contributions of selected disciplines to a problem or issue, without any attempt at synthesis” (124). Klein (1990) is even more explicit in identifying the deficiencies of multidiscipinarity, stating that it merely “signifies the juxtaposition of disciplines [and] is essentially additive, not integrative” (emphasis mine, 56). The critical failure of the multidisciplinary approach to learning, explains Richards, is that “it leaves the task of providing integration largely or entirely to the student without explicit guidance from the course or instructor(s). Under these circumstances the interdisciplinary relations will be lost if they are ever identified in the first place” (emphasis mine, 116).

Here is a concluding word from one of the field’s leading theorists concerning the critical importance of integration to interdisciplinary studies:

The pragmatic and epistemological value of interdisciplinary study is ultimately determined by the success of interdisciplinarians in carrying out…integration, because all save the antidisciplinarians identify that as its distinguishing feature. Theoretical clarity and agreement concerning the nature of interdisciplinarity, its outcomes, the role of the disciplines, and the nature of…integration would be of no

4

avail if interdisciplinarians were unable to accomplish integration. The respect of disciplinarians in the academy, the demand for interdisciplinarians to assist in solving complex societal problems, the success of radical critiques, and the long- term prospects for interdisciplinary education are all dependent on the proven success of integration. (Newell, 1998, 550)

Experts agree that integration is important to interdisciplinary studies because it is the means by which interdisciplinary work proceeds. However, integration is not the goal. The goal is to understand a complex phenomenon.

II. WHAT ARE THE POPULAR MODELS OF INTEGRATION?

Having examined the definition and importance of integration to interdisciplinary studies, students now need to discern the various models of integration in terms of their differing visions, theories, and practices. Interdisciplinary studies students should be aware of these models because they characterize much of the interdisciplinary work occurring inside and outside academia today.

MODEL #1: INTEGRATION AS AN OVERARCHING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 1. Vision: Proponents of this approach share a lofty vision that is succinctly described by Joseph J. Kockelmans (1998), for example, who argues that “the goal of all interdisciplinary inquiry is the discovery of overarching conceptual frameworks” (82). By “overarching conceptual framework” or “conceptual bridging” is meant a single concept, principle, or law that accounts for phenomena typically studied by a broad range of disciplines (Boix Mansilla, 2002, 18). These “overarching conceptual frameworks,” Kockelmans believes, “will facilitate the unification of the sciences and eventually the solution of important problems with which the existing disciplines acting in isolation are incapable of dealing effectively” (82). Creating them, however, is admittedly a formidable task even for expert researchers. It is most unlikely that undergraduate interdisciplinary studies students would be involved in such an enterprise.

2. Theory: Nevertheless, students should be aware of the theory that undergirds this vision. Kockelmans further explains that interdisciplinarians

who work exclusively in the realm of the natural sciences usually have no great difficulty in discovering a common framework. In most cases it will consist in the basic principles and methods of physics, chemistry, or biology. On the other hand, [interdisciplinary] research projects in the social sciences, and particularly those involving both the natural and the social sciences, confront us with great theoretical and methodological problems. (82,83)

3. Practice: In practice, this approach to interdisciplinary work is conducted most effectively by groups of scientists trained in various scientific disciplines. Cooperation

5

among them requires that they try to discover common ground that strikes a balance between being “broad enough to encompass the dimensions that are essential to the problem at hand” yet “not always be so encompassing that it could serve as a basis to deal meaningfully with all large-scale problems” (Kockelmans, 84-85).

The problem that many interdisciplinarians have with this model is that it is really a transdisciplinary goal. Interdisciplinary studies is driven by the tension among disciplinary perspectives. Unification removes that tension. Since reality is so complex, the very nature of complexity militates against the unity of reality and thus to knowledge of that reality. “We need non-unified disciplines to illuminate the (partly inconsistent) aspects of our complex world” (Newell, 2004, 2). B. MODEL #2: INTEGRATION AS COMPREHENSIVE PERSPECTIVE

1. Vision: Advocates of this model have two goals in mind. The first is educational and is concerned that increasing “specialization threatens to erect a new Tower of Babel in which highly trained disciplinarians, using precise, newly coined definitions, may speak meaningfully only to those small groups who share their special language” (Hursh, Haas, and Moore, 1996, 36). Barbara Hursh, a social/educational psychologist, Paul Haas, an economist, and Michael Moore, a humanist, believe that this educational need can be addressed by an integrative interdisciplinary model that stresses multiple perspectives on specific issues in order to exercise “skills of comparison, contrast, analysis, and above all, synthesis” (emphasis mine, 36).

The second goal is more practical and calls for interdisciplinary study to be pragmatic and to focus on real problems (Newell, 2004, email, 3). Indeed, the practicality of interdisciplinary studies is a theme that runs throughout this text.

2. Theory: This model is grounded in the theories of learning associated with John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and William Perry and emphasizes what we call “generic skills.” These skills, according to Hursh, Haas, and Moore (1998), “include such cognitive functions as recognizing and defining problems; analyzing the structure of an argument; assessing the relationship of facts, assumptions, and conclusions; and performing hypothetico-deductive processes” (36).

3. Practice: Hursh, Haas, and Moore illustrate this model by using the metaphor of a fruitbasket that creates a new entity out of four distinct entities—an apple, an orange, a peach, and a pear—and thus unity, order, and synthesis. The utility of this model is its focus on generic skills and multiple perspectives which are “essential in the search for solutions to such [complex] problems as energy depletion, environmental pollution, health care delivery, and urban decay, or in considering aesthetic qualities of line, color, form, and texture from the standpoint of music, art, dance, or theater” (37).

The virtue of this model for many interdisciplinarians is that it simply calls for “a more comprehensive perspective,” that is, “a larger, more holistic understanding of the question, problem, or issue at hand” (Klein and Newell quoted by Newell, 1998, 547).

6

While this is in itself no easy task, it is far more manageable for a single researcher in the social sciences, the humanities, or in the applied fields to deal with integrating disciplinary insights than it is to construct an overarching theory that encompasses the disciplines as described in the first model. Integration as comprehensive perspective is the model that this text embraces and seeks to explain.

.C. MODEL #3: INTEGRATION AS “INTERPENETRATION”

1. Vision: Supporters of this third model critique the way disciplines divide rather than connect knowledge, and call for nothing less than the redefinition of disciplines in the same ways that feminism and cultural studies have already done. Jeffrey M. Peck (1989), for instance, argues that disciplinary boundaries should not be dissolved but should be continually crossed, enabling alternative knowledge structures and new inquiries to emerge (in Klein, 1996, 7). What Peck and others have in mind is that these multiple border crossings between disciplines or “interpenetrations” will reveal “new emerging places where our profession can be practiced” (483). 2. Theory: This “interpenetration” model of interdisciplinarity is based, in part, on the ideas of cultural archeologist Michael Foucault whose pioneering work on cultural history cut across disciplinary boundaries and revealed patterns of cultural domination and oppression. Under his influence, for example, the concept of “culture” has undergone a radical redefinition: “literary texts are now seen as products of historical, social, political, and economic environments once deemed ‘outside’ of the text” (Klein, 1996, 152).

3. Practice: Peck, for example, applies this model of interdisciplinary analysis to German cultural studies which, in the past, had been characterized by “a particularly German form of intellectual domination” (483). Peck sees German studies as the kind of “in between space” where one can study the clash of multiple disciplinary perspectives and the variety of discourses about Germany –the literary, political, sociological (Klein, 1996, 7). Peck believes the interpenetration model of cultural analysis is applicable to the study of other cultures, whether advanced or so-called primitive, thus allowing scholars to ‘make visible’—in Foucault’s archeological sense—patterns of domination and oppression” (483).

D. WHAT THESE MODELS AGREE ON

Though marked by sharp differences, all three of these models of interdisciplinary integration agree on three important points.

The integrative activity should be limited to the specific problem, issue, or question at hand. This means, in practical terms, that the integration achieved should not be used as a paradigm to solve other similar problems. The ideas and knowledge take the form of insights into the specific problem or issue or question, and their integration is limited to that specific context.

7

The problems selected for investigation should be clearly beyond the ability of any one discipline to comprehend or resolve.

The disciplines are essential for the conduct of interdisciplinary work.

E. TWO FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS RAISED BY THESE MODELS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INTEGRATION

Question #1: What does integration change? Does integration change only the contribution of each discipline or are the disciplines themselves somehow changed?The answer is that depending on which model is used integration can change both, and is, in fact, doing so as we have just seen. The model that is most “user friendly” to students new to interdisciplinary studies and that is favored in this text is the second: “integration as comprehensive perspective.” Most interdisciplinary scholars agree that disciplinary contributions—i.e., perspectives, and theories--must change for interdisciplinary integration to proceed. (Precisely how this occurs will be illustrated in a subsequent chapter.)

Question #2: Must integration “succeed” for a study to be truly interdisciplinary? In other words, must interdisciplinary integration lead to a clear-cut solution of a problem, or merely an appreciation of the complexity of the problem? As Newell (1998) has observed, “Most authors talk about solving complex problems as though they have clear-cut solutions” (548), which, of course, many do not. To conclude that the integrative effort has “failed” because of the absence of a clear-cut solution even though the effort revealed new insights or new areas to be investigated, would be a mistake. Any integrative work that contributes something “new” to our understanding of a complex problem should be viewed as successful. III. WHAT ARE THE PREREQUISITES FOR INTEGRATION OR SYNTHESIS?

Before examining the process of integration in the following chapter, we must identify the prerequisites for integration. These include common traits of interdisciplinarians, the tools available to the researcher, and the recognition by the researcher of the goal(s) of the integrative process.

A. TRAITS AND SKILLS OF INTERDISCIPLINARIANS

The extensive literature on interdisciplinary studies reveals at least twelve traits and/or skills needed to engage successfully in interdisciplinary work. Collectively these traits/skills define the “integrative habit of mind.”

1. A taste for adventure into the unknown or unfamiliar: Psychologist Rainer Bromme (2000) compares crossing a disciplinary boundary to “moving about in foreign territory” (2). Those who enjoy venturing into unfamiliar places, sampling exotic foods, and entertaining new ideas have this taste for adventure.

2. Knowing how to learn: Since interdisciplinarians often find themselves in new

8

situations, says Klein (1996), “they must also know how to learn. They need to know what information to ask for and how to acquire a working knowledge of the language, concepts, and analytical skills pertinent to a given problem, process, or phenomenon” (183).

3. A strong sense of self: Participants in this adventure of interdisciplinary study, says Bromme, “must have a sufficiently strong identity of their own to abide with situations where fundamental assumptions about the legitimacy of their own (discipline-specific) views are challenged” (2).

4. Tolerance for ambiguity: By tolerance for ambiguity or “cognitive decentering” we mean “the intellectual capacity to move beyond a single center or focus…and consider a variety of other perspectives in a coordinated way to perceive reality more accurately, process information more systematically, and solve problems more effectively.” This way of thinking, say Hursh, Haas, and Moore (1983), “is essential in the search for solutions to such problems as energy depletion, environmental pollution, health care delivery, and urban decay, or in considering aesthetic quality of line, color, form, and texture from the standpoint of music, art, dance, or theater” (37).

Earlier we defined integration as the activity of combining ideas and knowledge to form a new whole. The tendency of beginning college students is to view knowledge as certain and gained at the feet of disciplinary authorities. However, interdisciplinary students—in order to reconcile and synthesize differing disciplinary and nondisciplinary worldviews—must understand that knowledge is often relative to a context and acquired through inquiry. As Klein (1996) puts it, “for interdisciplinarians, the definition of intellectuality shifts from absolute answers and solutions to tentativeness and reflexivity” (214). Consequently, interdisciplinarians include a tolerance for ambiguity among the desired traits of the person doing interdisciplinary work.

5. Receptivity to other disciplines and to the perspectives of those disciplines: Newell (1992) defines receptivity as “willingness, and preferably an eagerness, to learn other perspectives” (218). Forrest H. Armstrong (1980) describes this trait as being prepared to “develop the capacity to meet various fields of knowledge on their own terms, especially by understanding and respecting the epistemologies and methodologies which underlie those fields with which they will work” (173). Mieke Bal (1992) thinks of receptivity as “overcoming the artificial boundaries that form the basis of academic disciplines” (367). In chapter 4 we emphasized the vital importance of interdisciplinary studies students knowing the perspectives, methods, assumptions, and epistemologies of the disciplines relevant to the problem under investigation. But here, we emphasize that knowing must be preceded by receptivity. 6. Willingness to achieve “adequacy” in another discipline: Receptivity, as we have defined it, refers not only to attitude; it necessarily includes action. This action involves willingness to achieve “adequacy” in disciplines relevant to the problem under investigation. Klein (1996) explains the crucial difference between adequacy

9

and mastery.

Mastery implies complete knowledge of a discipline. Adequacy shifts the role of the disciplines to another ground, the interdisciplinary task at hand. The difference between mastery and adequacy lies in the difference between learning a discipline in order to practice it and comprehending how that discipline characteristically looks at the world—its observational categories, key terms, and relevant methods and approaches....Disciplines...must be understood. (212) 7. Communicative competence: A component of the notion of “adequacy” is communicative competence, the ability and openness to deal with problems of disciplinary languages. One of the purposes of introductory courses is to introduce students to the vocabulary distinctive to a given discipline or field. The fact that every discipline has its own vocabulary places an additional burden on the interdisciplinarian. Klein (1996) illustrates the importance of communicative competence in the following example:

Desertification...is a complex problem in the field of natural resources that is ripe for interdisciplinary solution by climatology, soil science, meteorology, and hydrology as well as geography, political science, economics, and anthropology. The concept of desertification, though, is defined differently in disciplinary, national, and bureaucratic settings. Each emphasizes aspects that derive from conflicting special interests of climate, human factors, animals, soils, natural vegetation, and range management. The literature of desertification contains no fewer than a hundred definitions, leading to miscommunication among researchers and policymakers within and between countries. Any interdisciplinary effort requires analyzing definitions and terminology in order to improve understanding and construct an integrated framework. (emphasis mine, 217)

8. Creativity: Most definitions of creativity point to the appearance of something new. In interdisciplinary work, creativity is manifested in the integrative process whereby multiple elements are crafted into an organic whole. Accomplishing this “requires an act of creative imagination” (Newell, 1990, 55). Two of the ways that the interdisciplinarian may express creativity are by devising a solution in a problem- focused project, or by forging an integrative framework in a hybrid field of knowledge such as Chicano urban history (Klein, 1996, 221-222).

David Sill (1996) has identified the major links between creativity and integrative thinking. These include active imagination and tolerance for complexity. Creativity, says Sill, is

heuristic [i.e., by trial and error], not algorithmic [i.e., by formula]. It relies on rules of thumb or incomplete guidelines to drive learning and discovery, not mechanical rules. It also draws from the richness of the subconscious in relying on nonlogical and nonlinear thought processes. Preinventive structures in the subconscious provide the raw material for creative combinations. These structures can be ideas,

10

images, or concepts. Their ripeness encourages creative insights that tend to be ambiguous, novel, meaningful, incongruent, and divergent. (quoted in Klein, 1996, 222)

By its very nature, writes Klein, “creativity violates the present order…. Interdisciplinarity unsettles existing assumptions” (1996, 222).

9. Abstract thinking: In chapter 1 we spoke of the value of using metaphors to epitomize the strengths and/or capture the essence of an integrative effort. Students must also learn to abstract and generalize from specific findings to a higher order of knowledge, a skill that we call conceptualization. Seabury (2002), however, cautions that “abstract thinking represents ‘an end, not the end’ of the thinking process” (47).

10. Dialectical thinking: By dialectical thinking we mean any systematic reasoning or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict. Haynes (2002) quotes composition expert Ann Berthoff who believes that there is a natural dialectic of the mind, “a dialectic of sorting and gathering, of particularlizing and generalizing” (47). The interdisciplinarian must cope with “difference, tension, and conflict,” says Klein (1996). These are not “barriers that must be overcome” but are “important parts of [the] integrative process” and of “the character of interdisciplinary knowledge” (216). Indeed, dialectical thinking, according to Klein, “is the underlying method of interdisciplinary work. Like dialectic, integrative process entails clarifying and resolving differences in order to produce an integrated solution to a problem or conceptualization of an issue” (220). 11. A willingness to work with others: This trait applies primarily to interdisciplinarians engaged in scientific studies and these, most commonly, involve teamwork. Effective participation in interdisciplinary team activities is not so much a matter of individual traits as it is of learned behavior. Newell (1998) writes that these people “develop intellectual skills such as both/and, metaphorical thinking, and dialectical thinking [which will be discussed in the following chapter], as well as patterns of interaction that permit them to learn from as well as teach other members of the team (551). One learned behavior is a sense of humility when faced with a complex problem that exposes the limits of one’s disciplinary training and expertise.

Students new to interdisciplinary studies will benefit from reading the following narrative of a researcher who discovered the overriding value of working with others. The narrative concerns Thomas Murray who came to this conclusion in contemplating his own journey from disciplinarity to interdisciplinarity:

His awareness of the importance of interdisciplinary work began with a social psychology experiment he conducted in graduate school, an experience that showed him there were moral and ethical dimensions that were largely ignored in the design of the experiment itself. Later, in his doctoral dissertation, he turned to the problem of how people attribute responsibility, an investigation that led him into semantics, moral philosophy, and jurisprudence. Eventually, he worked in two

11

interdisciplinary institutes, and is now concerned about the problem of seriously ill newborns, a medical problem that is surrounded by a host of social, legal, and moral issues. In order to deal with the ethical issues involved in the care of newborns, he and others have reached beyond the boundaries of moral philosophy into the fields of economics, sociology, and health policy. (Klein, 1990, 184)

12. Ability to think contextually: Educators, for example, focus on how integration aids the development of contextual thinking, and of seeing connections between the classroom and the real world.

13. Ability to synthesize and integrate knowledge: Integration is the process of interdisciplinary work. The goal of interdisciplinary studies is understanding, and integration is a means to that end.

B. TOOLS OF INTEGRATION

By “tools of integration” we mean the role of initiating questions and the conceptual frameworks supporting integration. Here we merely identify two commonly used tools and will reserve our discussion of them for the following chapter.

The initiating question or statement of the problem or issue: Every disciplinary research effort begins with an initiating question that is framed to reflect the perspective of that discipline. The initiating question is especially important to interdisciplinary studies because it launches the integrative process. What distinguishes disciplinary questions from interdisciplinary questions is that the latter questions address a problem or issue that is complex and thus cannot be adequately addressed by one discipline.

The conceptual framework supporting integration: A conceptual framework is an idea designed to “fit around a problem.” It is the glue that holds the integrative process together. Interdisciplinary researchers use a variety of conceptual frameworks depending on whether they are in the humanities, sciences, or social sciences.

C. THE GOAL OF INTEGRATION

1. The integration or synthesis that results from the integrative process is valued not as an end in itself, but for the more comprehensive understanding it makes possible. The goal of interdisciplinary studies, and of the integrative process, is understanding of a complex phenomenon. Marsha Seabury (2002), an expert in interdisciplinary pedagogy, writes of her hope that interdisciplinary studies students will move towards synthesis, and thus reach a holistic understanding. The metaphor of “moving towards synthesis” does not mean “a graph-like progression whereby students gradually move from lower forms of thinking on up to more holistic, abstract thinking, ending in the upper-right quadrant of the page.” Sometimes the “’goal’ may be not a position but a motion, meaning that students should be able to move among levels of abstraction and

12

generalization” which is part of the integrative process (47).

Michael Seipel (2002) cautions students and teachers alike that the focus on integration should not imply that the outcome of interdisciplinary analysis will always be a neat, tidy solution in which all contradictions between the alternative disciplines are resolved. “Interdisciplinary study,” he writes, “may indeed be ‘messy.’” Indeed, he believes that contradictory conclusions and accompanying tensions between disciplines may not only provide further understanding, but could be seen as a healthy symptom of interdisciplinarity. Analysis which works through these tensions and contradictions between disciplinary systems of knowledge with the goal of synthesis—the creation of new knowledge—often characterizes the richest interdisciplinary work. (3)

2. Consequently, the goal of integration, which is understanding of a complex issue, problem or question, must have two characteristics:

The resulting synthesis must explain a specific phenomenon comprehensively

The resulting synthesis must be greater than the sum of its separate disciplinary parts

3. Some interdisciplinarians identify a variety of other goals but these are generally subordinate to the primary goal of interdisciplinary studies which is understanding and the creation of new knowledge. GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

REFERENCES

Copyrighted 8/1/04: AFRAll rights reserved

13