8/14/2019 Janz, B. - Review of Klein, Interdisciplinarity

1/3

INTERDISCIPLINARITY: HISTORY, THEORY, ANDPRACTICEJulie Thompson KleinDetroit, Michigan: Wayne State Press, 1990331 pages

I

Like other modem academic buzzwords such as "postmodemism," theterm "interdisciplinarity holds forth great promise. It claims to organize ourpast and chart our future. It promises to deliver us from the stagnation oflimited disciplinary understandings, and usher in a new age of tolerance andproductivity. It is for many the model of future education and research in anacademic world searching for unity amidst fragmentation.

Whether this promise is borne out in reality, however, is another question.The word is surprisingly difficult to defme, and even more difficult to apply inconcrete situations. For one thing, the nature of "unity" may be as difficult topin down as "interdisciplinarity." Is it unity of direction that we crave? Unityof assumptions? Unity of method? Unity of the object of study? Unity ofpragmatic application? Furthermore, is it really unity at all that is at issue, oris it simply the ability to converse freely across previously guarded borders?What kind of conversation counts as truly interdisciplinary?

The great virtue of Julie Klein's book is that it addresses questions of thissort directly and without boosterism or fanfare. She recognizes that asdisciplines develop, they will necessarily overlap with other disciplines in avariety ofways. Interdisciplinarity, therefore, becomes a more pressing concernand holds forth more hope as time goes on. At the same time, she is well awareof the spotty history that interdisciplinary efforts have had, due to latentterritorialism, bureaucratic suspicion, and well-meant misunderstanding of theprocess.

Interdisciplinarity is divided into three parts. In part one, Klein worksthrough definitions and mis-definitions of interdisciplinarity. She gives a briefguided tour of the history of efforts to bridge the gaps between disciplines, anddistinguishesinterdisciplinarity from multidisciplinarity (more than one disciplineworking on the same problem, but with no real conversation), pluri-disciplinarity(disciplines interacting on the basis of work from other disciplines), andtransdisciplinarity (the organization of interdisciplinary research by a grandunifying vision). Part two focuses on mechanisms used by interdisciplinarity tofurther its ends. This section also deals with the two main reasons forembarking on interdisciplinary programs: the ultimate limitation of disciplinary138 Dianoia

8/14/2019 Janz, B. - Review of Klein, Interdisciplinarity

2/3

efforts, and the fact that disciplines themselves, in order to proceed, have alwaysneeded to draw on the work of other disciplines. Part three addresses thecurrent state of interdisciplinary programs in several areas: industry, healthcare, and post-secondary education.

Klein's ability to organize data from many sources, and not to remainfocused on anyone kind of interdisciplinary research, is a strong point of thiswork. She combines empirical observation with philosophical reflectionconfidently, as one who has seen her share of interdisciplinary projects. To addto the appeal of this book, she provides an extensive bibliography which includesessential references, problem-focused research, and many examples ofconversations between two or more disciplines. For anyone contemplatingbeginning an interdisciplinary project, or for a post-secondary institutioninterested in the background and the issues relevant to interdisciplinary studies,this is the state of the art.

A good example of the kind of strength I have been talking about is in hertreatment of interdisciplinary education programs. Klein moves beyond simplygiving a litany of programs worldwide, to trying to trace similarities between thestructures of these various programs. She begins with interdisciplinaryuniversities such as the University of Sussex in England, University of Tromsoin Norway, and the University of Tsukuba in Japan. In each case, she gives abrief overview of the particular styles of programs offered, along with reflectionon the success or failure of these programs. She moves to address liberal artscolleges in the United States, and highlights the differences between this styleof interdisciplinarity and that of the universities. Finally, she looks atinterdisciplinary programs within larger institutions. Through all of this, thereis a good balance between observation of what actually happens in theseinstitutions, and reflection on the theoretical underpinnings for the variousenterprises.

I IIt is one thing to report on a book, and quite another to engage it. This

is a book that invites dialogue primarily because it concerns the possibility ofdialogue in academia. While Klein is no apologist for interdisciplinarity, sheclearly believes that, under the right conditions, it really is the most productiveand interesting way to advance knowledge. As it happens, I agree. However,there is at least one issue which must be addressed.

In her discussion of transdisciplinarity (63-71), Klein borrows from EricJantsch's vision of the progression from disciplinary treatments of problems, tointerdisciplinary reflection on the systems in which those problems exist, to thetransdisciplinary coordination of all areas of fnowledge under a single unifyingvision. It seems to me, though, that the problem with the idea that the

Spring 1994 139

8/14/2019 Janz, B. - Review of Klein, Interdisciplinarity

3/3

transdisciplinary can be the top of the pyramid of knowledge is that it can tumout to be a disguised hegekony. It was not so long ago that my own discipline,philosophy, regarded itself as the queen of the sciences. More recent claims tothe throne have come from sociology, anthropology, systems theory, and otherdisciplines. In other words, what starts as interdisciplinarity can end up as aneven worse new kind of disciplinarity, in which the organized disciplines cancome to resent the organizing discipline's co-opting of the academic agenda.

It is obvious that this is no longer interdisciplinarity. While there isnothing inevitable about this depressing scenario, it seems to me entirelyplausible. Most interdisciplinary conferences and projects I am acquainted withend up opting for theoretical language rooted in one of the disciplines. And,whoever controls the discourse controls the character of the work. The chargeof Renaissance humanists against medieval thought, after all, was that it wastransdisciplinary in the worst sense-everything was a handmaid to theology.

This simply means that, like any other political venture, interdisciplinarityhas to take its politics seriously. It can end up modelling the very problem itis trying to address, if there is not some way of devising a bottom up, noncoercive working relationship. This is a political issue, not unlike othersituations in which communication must occur, but cannot assume any totalizingconcepts prior to the working relationship.

And with this we return to the allusion to postmodernism at the beginningof this review. Interdisciplinarity is a reaction to disciplinarity in the same waythat post-modernity is a reaction to modernity. It is the attempt to work outmutually recognized problems by juxtaposing two or more traditional areas ofresearch, and waiting to see what interesting new answers tum up. Both thecategories of the discipline and of modernity are seen to be artificial constructs,although in some ways necessary ones for their times. We now have thepossibility of fmding new categories, which more easily respond to real issues.However, like some versions of postmodernism, the deconstruction of the statusquo can all too easily be co-opted by particular interests, or become an end initself. What could have been harmony turns out to be a monotonous drone inunison.

Klein, it should be said, recognizes the failures of interdisciplinaryprojects as well as the successes. Nevertheless, perhaps the discipline that needsto be added to this conversation is political studies, and particularly the politicsof communicative discourse. Without it, interdisciplinary efforts will have adifficult time navigating the straits between the Scylla of disciplinary isolationand chaos, and the Charybdis of disciplinary hegemony.

Bruce Janz, PhilosophyAugustana University College

14() DialWia