Interdisciplinary Courses And Majors In Higher Education

Interdisciplinary studies, broadly defined, is the process of answering a question, solving a problem, or addressing a problem that is so broad or complex that it cannot be addressed through a single discipline or field. In higher education in the United States, interdisciplinary studies are conducted through individual courses, including independent studies; in specific programs of study such as major or minor concentrations; as part of a student’s general education requirements; through practica, internships, and other educational experiences that focus on the application of theory and knowledge to the workplace and society; and occasionally through honors programs. In a few cases entire colleges or universities are organized in interdisciplinary units that replace discipline-or field-based departments or divisions.
The goal of most interdisciplinary courses and programs is to integrate the contributions of different academic disciplines or fields of study so that topics, problems, and phenomena under study are better understood. (Disciplines have traditionally have been defined as specializations within the arts and sciences; the term fields is often used to distinguish disciplines from professional fields, such as business, education, law, and medicine, which draw their content and methods from a number of different disciplines.) However, some scholars such as Jean Francois Lyotard contest the usefulness of academic disciplines as ways of organizing and generating knowledge, and thus challenge the idea that disciplines are the basis for interdisciplinarity. These scholars consider interdisciplinarity to be a critique of the disciplines; in their view, the goal of interdisciplinarity is to subvert, rather than to utilize, the disciplines as they are currently organized.
Rationale for Interdisciplinary Courses and Programs
Arguments favoring interdisciplinary teaching emphasize the need to bring multiple disciplinary perspectives to bear on real-world issues. Proponents of interdisciplinarity argue that the disciplines arbitrarily fragment the world and allow their adherents to select only those dimensions of a problem that their discipline can adequately address, thus leaving important dimensions of the problem unaddressed. The views offered by the disciplines are therefore considered partial; they provide a single lens or perspective from which to study and understand complex phenomena or issues. Advocates of interdisciplinarity argue that disciplinary approaches to education are therefore reductionist; they divide knowledge rather than generate comprehensive explanations of the world. Although many if not most proponents of interdisciplinarity believe that disciplines are necessary for the advancement of knowledge, they view overspecialization, in the form of increasing disciplinary isolationism, as impeding communication and understanding among disciplinary experts, their students, and the larger public that might be consumers or beneficiaries of their work.
Those who encourage interdisciplinary education seek holistic understandings of the social and natural worlds. Real-world problems, they argue, are not separated into disciplinary components; rather, they are complex, hard to define, challenging to solve, and often have more than one right answer. Such problems require that individuals know what kinds of information are needed and where to find that information. By requiring students to work on such problems, the argument proceeds, interdisciplinary education develops a number of intellectual skills. These include skills in problem solving, critical thinking, evaluation, synthesis, and integration. In addition, interdisciplinary courses are believed to develop the ability to see and employ multiple perspectives; to encourage tolerance and respect for the perspectives of others; to expand students’ horizons or perspectives; to increase their willingness and capacity to question assumptions about the world and about themselves; to promote the ability to think in creative and innovative ways; and to create sensitivity to disciplinary and other biases. As a result, advocates argue, interdisciplinary study is excellent preparation for the role of citizen and worker in a pluralistic, technological, and democratic society.
Proponents such as James R. Davis, William H. Newell, and William J. Green also claim that interdisciplinary curricula are more engaging, capturing students’ intellectual interests and encouraging them to make connections among the disparate realms of information provided by discrete disciplines. Even scholars, this argument continues, need to know about developments in other disciplines so that they may adapt or incorporate these into their own work as appropriate. Interdisciplinary training has therefore been recommended by Joseph Klockmans as a way to build bridges to overcome disciplinary isolation. Others argue that interdisciplinary courses can improve faculty morale by revitalizing instructors’ interest in teaching introductory or survey courses that are not closely related to their areas of specialization. Similarly, supporters contend that interdisciplinary courses promote faculty development, offering instructors the opportunity to explore new areas of interest and collaborate with colleagues and thereby expand their repertoire of knowledge and skills.
Arguments, such as Thomas C. Benson’s, opposing undergraduate interdisciplinary courses and programs typically focus on perceived detriments to student learning. Interdisciplinary study, opponents argue, cannot be effective unless students are first adequately schooled in at least one of the disciplines contributing to an interdisciplinary course or program. Without this foundation, students cannot marshal arguments, methods, or insights from the disciplines in an interdisciplinary course. Critics also assert that substantial commitment to interdisciplinary study as an undergraduate student, as is required in a minor or major program, may impede a student’s development of disciplinary competencies. A third argument–that interdisciplinary courses are shallow and lacking in intellectual rigor–builds on the previous arguments. This criticism maintains that because students do not have the foundational knowledge of the involved disciplines that allows them to participate in demanding intellectual discussions in interdisciplinary courses, instructors emphasize what is entertaining and most accessible to the majority of students. Opponents also argue that interdisciplinary courses are costly because they often rely on team-teaching, independent studies, and low faculty-student ratios.

download free ringtones