Interdiscipline matters

 Coming from a small Arts and Sciences College in Canada the problem of discipline was never a big deal to me. I didn’t feel restrained by the so-called methodology of the discipline that I was part of, even though Sociology can be a bit of a bummer – it is pretty much mandatory that a method section precede your dissertation or thesis (and, no, 'I will read books and write on them' does not constitute a 'method'). I’m not sure how this plays out in philosophy or the study of languages, but I presume there is an equivalent to the obsession with method that characterizes the social sciences. That’s fine by me – I think it is important to get your metaphysics in order before moving on to analyzing a specific problem or set of issues. 

But my point in this post is to recall how liberating ‘interdisciplinarity’ was to me in my second or third year of studies. Interdisciplinarity had a liberatory ring to it – I was not restrained by discipline any longer! However, as I look back now, I realize that I wasn’t ‘restrained’ in the first place. Yes, the statistics courses were terribly boring (and there were many of them). They were basically irrelevant for what I wanted to do. Methodology didn’t seem very methodical but rather based on some quite elementary assumptions (the world presents normal curves, etc). But the college that I attended was open to students studying in a variety of areas, and it was even required as part of our mandatory course requirements. So, why did interdisciplinarity seem so radical and freeing?

Perhaps I could sense that the institutions were resistant to it and that's what made it feel sub-versive. For instance, in my current university students can enroll in the interdisciplinary program to work between, say, two or three departments. But what they really get is a run-around. The departments with which they are affiliated usually put the interdisciplinary students at the bottom of the list when it comes to funding, supervision, teaching assignments, RAs, etc. In a word, it is risky to be a part of an interdisciplinary research program because you can never be sure what lies around the corner. Precarity becomes the order of the day, which usually happens after the PhD, MA, or BA, not before it.

But, secondly, there has been a wider shift away from interdisciplinarity both at the institutional and individual levels. There is a growing concern about students having a lack of expertise in any one area and a rather summary understanding of a variety of disciplines. The main concern in this regard is that InterD. students have no expertise in particular and no one is really qualified to supervise them. This sort of complaint tends to come from faculty members and committee members who resist interdisciplinarity as being anything even resembling a ‘strength’. It is, on the contrary, a lack (of ‘rigour’, ‘discipline’, ‘strength’, and so on).

So, where does this leave us? Does interdisciplinarity still have a liberatory aspect to it? I suppose the answer would be ‘yes’, as in, interdisciplinarity leaves you free from big 'd' Discipline and thus free to starve…

Cross-posted at The Yolk blog.

Comments

[Craig]

In a paper I just finished writing, I began to wonder about the word "turn" as in "cultural turn," "linguistic turn," or, in my case, "animal turn." When I wonder about words, the first thing I do is load up the OED and check out the etymology. Next I read the history of its use. Three meanings or uses of "turn" stuck out to me: the idea of "turning about" a central axis ("turning around the animal"), the idea of changing direction, deflecting or deviating ("the animal turn is a deflection from regular disciplinarity") and, lastly, the idea of taking a short walk in a confined space, like they do in Jane Austen novels ("to take a turn about the room"). In no way did I come to any particular or clear conclusion!

The solution to your methodological problem is to develop a theory of reading and interpretation. Alternatively, present a "meta-theoretical" chapter on the basic concepts - like the first part of Weber's Economy and Society.

[Alain]

Hi Barret

I really like your point that methodology, and subject discipline were not all that relevant to your initial interest in sociology. I suspect you are right that those who get interdisciplinary degrees are likely to starve.

It seems it comes down to each academic discipline being able to justify its own existence - that each has its own circumscribed field of study. Without such distinctions the various departments could not get funding and some would cease to exist. It may come down to a question of institutional survival.

[Matt]

Everyone has probably seen this already:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

I can't find much in it to disagree with.

[Barret]

I could perhaps agree with the Taylor's premise, ie, 'Each academic becomes the trustee not of a branch of the sciences, but of limited knowledge that all too often is irrelevant for genuinely important problems' yet the conclusions seem dubious at best:
1. 'Restructure the curriculum'
2. 'Abolish permanent departments'
3. 'Increase collaboration among institutions'
4. 'Transform the traditional dissertation'
5. 'Expand the range of professional options for graduate students'.
6. 'Impose mandatory retirement and abolish tenure'

I think that if we looked around we'd see that most of Taylor's 'major steps' are already a reality, but there are probably major variations by country. Plus, to suggest that the universities declare a permanent state of emergency, in which each department is on the cutting blocks each year or every several years, is exactly what is happening. It's more of the neoliberal ideology of 'make sure you look busy' at any cost (transparent cubicles); make sure you are responsive to whatever crisis the media creates this week. A water department is truly a ridiculous idea, what next a 'flu' department to deal with the coming crisis? The only significant change would be #6 - in my view changing the tenure system would be a major advance. Manditory retirement is a goal that many Universities already have, but when it applies to a critical mass it is usually deferred.