‘Interdisciplinarity sometimes an empty buzzword, but sorely needed’

Interdisciplinarity is a buzzword, so much so that the term is often used superficially. Interdisciplinary educational innovation is popular because it promises to produce ideal graduates. However, there are disadvantages to this combination. Disadvantages that are clearly illustrated by an op-ed titled “The New Magic Word: Do the Humanities Benefit from More Interdisciplinarity?”, published on DUB by History student Merlijn van Leerzem. As the Interdisciplinary Education programme team at Utrecht University, we are taking on the challenge of untangling the confusion surrounding this concept.

We identify one main concern in Merlijn's piece: How do we prevent interdisciplinarity from remaining just a buzzword? This concern is based on a logic that, although understandable, is essentially flawed, in that broad knowledge and innovation would come at the expense of in-depth knowledge of specific disciplines. However, interdisciplinarity and disciplinary depth do not have to be mutually exclusive – on the contrary, they can actually reinforce each other.

Interdisciplinarity may be trendy, but it is also essential for training students to become professionals in a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world. Such training begins by being specific about what interdisciplinarity needs in terms of breadth and depth, as well as in terms of knowledge integration. We can draw a comparison to musicians, who must master their own instrument before they can play in an orchestra. Similarly, academics can only collaborate effectively across disciplinary boundaries if they possess disciplinary knowledge.

Shared conceptual approach
As far as the Interdisciplinary Education (IDO) programme is concerned, successful interdisciplinary education stands or falls with a shared conceptual approach. At Utrecht University, we work with the concept of “disciplined interdisciplinarity”. This term works on several levels. First of all, interdisciplinarity should be based on a solid foundation of disciplinary or specialist knowledge. Students bring their own discipline or specialisation to interdisciplinary education. We will explain this with a fictional example.

A budding biologist brings knowledge of genetics, a novice literary scholar provides insight into the imagination, and a law student brings a legal background. Their discussions could be about the principles of imagination hidden in genetic research or about the way genetic modification is explored in novels. The law student then asks the question: "Can we modify genes now and in the future? Would that be desirable?"

In these conversations, students encounter their own discipline in a different way, thereby deepening their understanding: they see the qualities, as well as the limitations and blind spots of their field. At the same time, being in touch with other disciplines and issues gives them the opportunity to broaden their horizons.

Connection through knowledge integration
The second layer of disciplined interdisciplinarity involves learning integrative methods to combine knowledge and insights from different disciplines into a more comprehensive whole. By applying these methods in education, students intertwine the disciplines and learn to achieve interdisciplinarity. Integrative methods are much discussed in academia. What research methods for knowledge integration are available, and how can they be successfully translated into education?

The latter matters, as the second layer of disciplined interdisciplinarity revolves around the “disciplined” application of the methods in educational design. Otherwise, what attempts to be interdisciplinary will remain stuck in multidisciplinarity, or the broadening that Merlijn seems to fear. There is certainly a place for broadening at UU, but broadening is definitely different from connection.

Broadening offers a range of possible perspectives, thus providing the opportunity to become acquainted with different scientific lenses. Connection is about new knowledge production, based on knowledge and insights rooted in disciplines or specialisations. The fear of a loss of disciplinary quality is therefore unfounded when integrative methods are applied appropriately.

Consider Merlijn's own example: the PPE+ programme at Utrecht University. A PPE student knows what knowledge comes from Philosophy, Political Science, Economics and History. The student knows how to connect this knowledge because the programme has carefully considered the use of the Repko model for interdisciplinary research in PPE education. Moreover, one could say that PPE itself has now become a “neo-discipline”, i.e. a new field with its own concepts, theories, publication channels, and so on.

Interdisciplinarity requires reflection
However, practice is stubborn, and this is the subject not only of Merlijn's op-ed, but also of the third layer of disciplined interdisciplinarity. Unfortunately, we still see interdisciplinarity being used as an empty buzzword in our work too often, also in the context of budget cuts. In other words, the word does indeed appear in contexts that have not yet managed to apply a deeper interpretation, such as the principles of “disciplined interdisciplinarity”.

Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary education requires reflection on the processes and products of integrative working. It requires something different from education that focuses primarily on the transfer and acquisition of disciplinary or specialist knowledge. It requires the use of disciplinary knowledge to address new academic or social issues, as well as expertise in integrating that knowledge.

That is why the IDO programme offers both a course for teachers and several tools. The programme has trained many UU teachers, including those in the Humanities, in interdisciplinary educational design based on a combination of deepening, broadening and integration.

Due to the popularity of the concept of interdisciplinarity, misconceptions and misunderstandings remain about what interdisciplinary education is and, more importantly, what it is not. However, short texts or promotional speeches often fail to reveal the soundness of an integrative course, package, or curriculum design. 

The idea behind interdisciplinary education is not that students who opt for interdisciplinary education graduate with gaps in their basic knowledge of their disciplines or specialisations. On the contrary, these students often make targeted choices in acquiring that knowledge and in sharing and integrating it. This enables them to compare their disciplinary knowledge with that of other students. These students thus gain insight into the value of their expertise, where it begins and ends, and how it can complement the expertise of other students. They have gained targeted experience in working with integrative methods across disciplines and developed strong analytical, communication and collaboration skills.

For example, a PPE student could not only contribute PPE knowledge to a discussion between biology, literature and law students, but also facilitate that discussion. After all, a PPE student knows how to engage in a discussion that transcends disciplinary boundaries.

Implementing interdisciplinary education effectively
We therefore understand the concern expressed by Merlijn that disciplinary strength may be lost through interdisciplinarity. However, robust conceptualisations of the latter actually lead to greater disciplinary strength because specialists connect knowledge and interweave disciplines.

Interdisciplinary education provides students with the opportunity to apply their disciplinary knowledge to address innovative and pressing issues. This does not come at the expense of depth. On the contrary, since students are better able to reflect on disciplinary differences, it often becomes easier for them to critically examine the strengths and weaknesses of their own disciplines, quickly and thoroughly research and understand the scientific insights required for issues, and come up with creative answers and solutions.

Poorly executed interdisciplinarity is like the Portsmouth Sinfonia, where trained musicians swap instruments, resulting in the performance ultimately losing its artistic quality. Well-executed interdisciplinarity is like an orchestra in which the cellist can be a cellist and the saxophonist a saxophonist. Together, they achieve the most impactful performances.

This op-ed was written by Caspar Schoevaars, Chiara Stam, Douwe van der Maden, Iris van der Tuin, Margreet van der Ham, and Timothy Bland from the Interdisciplinary Education programme.

The opinions expressed above belong to their authors and do not necessarily represent those of DUB. If you would also like to share your opinions with the rest of the UU community, please send your piece to dubredactie@uu.nl.