Established Disciplines Interdisciplinary Studies

1.Claim a body of knowledge about 1.Claims a burgeoning professional literature of

certain subjects or objects increasing sophistication, depth of analysis,
Breadth of coverage, and, thus, utility. This
literature includes subspecialties on
interdisciplinary theory, program administration,
curriculum design, research process, pedagogy,
And assessment. Most important, a growing
body of explicitly interdisciplinary research on
Real-world problems is emerging.
2. Have methods of acquiring knowledge 2. Makes use of disciplinary methods, but these
and theories to order that knowledge are subsumed under a research process of its
own that involves drawing on relevant
disciplinary insights, concepts, theories, and
methods to produce integrated knowledge
3. Seek to produce new knowledge, 3. Produces new knowledge, more
concepts, and theories within or comprehensive understandings, new meanings,
related to their domains and cognitive advancements
4. Possess a recognized core of courses 4. Is beginning to form a core of explicitly
interdisciplinary courses
5. Have their own community of experts 5. Is forming its own community of experts
6. Are self-contained and seek to control 6. Is largely dependent on the disciplines for its
their respective domains as they relate source material
to each other
7. Train future experts in their discipline specific 7. Is training future experts in older fields such as
master’s and doctoral programs American studies and in newer fields such as
cultural studies through its master’s and
doctoral programs and undergraduate
Majors. Though new and explicitly
interdisciplinary PhD programs are emerging,
interdisciplinary studies still typically hires
those with disciplinary PhDs.
An Integrated Definition of Interdisciplinary Studies

These five authoritative definitions share the following common elements:

• Interdisciplinary research has a particular substantive focus.

• The focus of interdisciplinary research extends beyond a single disciplinary
perspective.
• A distinctive characteristic of interdisciplinary research is that it focuses on a problem
or question that is complex.
• Interdisciplinary research is characterized by an identifiable process or mode of
inquiry.
• Interdisciplinary research draws explicitly on the disciplines.
• The disciplines provide insights about the specific substantive focus of
interdisciplinary research.
• Interdisciplinary research has integration as its goal.
• The objective of the interdisciplinary research process is pragmatic: to produce a
cognitive advancement in the form of a new understanding, a new product, or a new
meaning. (Note: The term meaning is important in the humanities, where it is often
equated with the intent of the author or artist [Bal, 2002, p. 27].)

Interdisciplinary studies is a process of answering a question, solving a problem, or

addressing a topic that is too broad or complex to be dealt with adequately by a single
discipline, and draws on the disciplines with the goal of integrating their insights to
construct a more comprehensive understanding.

four core concepts—process, disciplines, integration, and a more comprehensive

understanding
Here it is useful to explain the difference between a disciplinary insight and an
interdisciplinary insight, as these terms are used in the discussion that follows. A
disciplinary insight is an expert’s view on a particular problem that is based on
research. An interdisciplinary insight is produced when the interdisciplinary research
process (or some version of it) is used to create an integrated and purposeful result. As
used in this book, insights refer to scholarship produced by disciplinary experts, unless
otherwise stated.

Interdisciplinary Studies Is Not Multidisciplinary Studies

Regrettably, those who are uninformed and outside the field typically misunderstand the
terms interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity as being synonymous and, consequently,
have caused much confusion. Multidisciplinarity refers to the placing side by side of
insights from two or more disciplines. For example, this approach may be used in a
course that invites instructors from different disciplines to present their perspectives on
the course topic in serial fashion but makes no attempt to integrate the insights
produced by these perspectives. “Here the relationship between the disciplines is
merely one of proximity,” explains Joe Moran “there is no real integration between them”
(p. 14). Merely bringing insights from different disciplines together in some way but
failing to engage in the hard work of integration is multidisciplinary studies, not
interdisciplinary studies. Multidisciplinary research “involves more than a single
discipline in which each discipline makes a separate contribution [italics added]”
(National Academies, 2005, p. 27).

The Fable of the Elephant House

Lawrence Wheeler’s instructive fable of building a house for an elephant illustrates a

typical multidisciplinary approach to solving a complex problem:
Once upon a time a planning group was formed to design a house for an elephant.
On the committee were an architect, an interior designer, an engineer, a sociologist,
and a psychologist. The elephant was highly educated too . . . but he was not on the
committee. The five professionals met and elected the architect as their chairman.
His firm was paying the engineer’s salary, and the consulting fees of the other
experts, which, of course, made him the natural leader of the group.
At their fourth meeting they agreed it was time to get at the essentials of their
problem. The architect asked just two things: “How much money can the elephant
spend?” and “What does the site look like?”
The engineer said that precast concrete was the ideal material for elephant
houses, especially as his firm had a new computer just begging for a stress problem
to run.
The psychologist and the sociologist whispered together and then one of them
said, “How many elephants are going to live in this house? . . . It turned out that one
elephant was a psychological problem but two or more were a sociological matter.
The group finally agreed that though one elephant was buying the house, he might
eventually marry and raise a family. Each consultant could, therefore, take a
legitimate interest in the problem.
The interior designer asked, “What do elephants do when they’re at home?”
“They lean against things,” said the engineer. “We’ll need strong walls.”
“They eat a lot,” said the psychologist. “You’ll want a big dining room . . . and they
like the color green.”
“As a sociological matter,” said the sociologist, “I can tell you that they mate
standing up. You’ll need high ceilings.”
So they built the elephant a house. It had precast concrete walls, high ceilings,
and a large dining area. It was painted green to remind him of the jungle. And it was
completed for only 15% over the original estimate.
 The elephant moved in. He always ate outdoors, so he used the dining room for
a library . . . but it wasn’t very cozy.
He never leaned against anything, because he had lived in circus tents for years,
and knew that walls fall down when you lean on them.
The girl he married hated green, and so did he. They were very urban elephants.
And the sociologist was wrong too. . . . they didn’t stand up. So the high ceilings merely
produced echoes that greatly annoyed the elephants. They moved out in less than six
months! (Wheeler & Miller, 1970, n.p.)

This fable shows how disciplinary experts usually approach a complex task: They
perceive it from the narrow (i.e., monistic) perspective of their specialty and fail to take
into account the perspectives of other relevant disciplines, professions, or interested
parties (in this case, the elephant).
This story also illustrates how a multidisciplinary approach to understanding a problem
merely juxtaposes disciplinary perspectives. The disciplines speak with separate voices
on a problem of mutual interest. However, the disciplinary status quo is not questioned,
and the distinctive elements of each discipline retain their original identity. In contrast,
interdisciplinarity consciously integrates separate disciplinary data, concepts, theories,
and methods to produce an interdisciplinary understanding of a complex problem or intel-
lectual question (Klein & Newell, 1997, p. 393).
Multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity have this in common: They seek to overcome
disciplinary monism. However, they do this in different ways. Multidisciplinarity means
limiting activity to merely appreciating different disciplinary perspectives. But
interdisciplinarity means being more inclusive of what disciplinary theories, concepts, and
methods are appropriate to a problem. It also means being open to alternative methods
of inquiry, using different disciplinary tools, and carefully estimating the degree of
usefulness of one tool versus another to shed light on the problem (Nikitina, 2005, pp.
413–414).
Research is truly interdisciplinary, states the National Academies (2005), “when it is not
just pasting two disciplines together to create one product but rather is an integration
and synthesis of ideas and methods” (p. 27). Figure 1.1 shows the difference between
multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity:

Multidisciplinary insights into a common problem from two disciplines (A + B) are

consulted but no integration occurs.
Interdisciplinary insights into a common problem from two disciplines (A + B) are
integrated to construct a more comprehensive understanding.