Pathways of Interdisciplinary Cognition Author(s): Svetlana Nikitina Source: Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2005), pp.

389-425 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3568096 . Accessed: 25/01/2011 23:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cognition and Instruction.

http://www.jstor.org

COGNITION INSTRUCTION, 389-425 AND 23(3), ? Erlbaum Inc. Associates, Copyright 2005,Lawrence

Pathwaysof Interdisciplinary Cognition

SvetlanaNikitina
Worcester PolytechnicInstitute

In this article,I proposethatat thejunctureof disciplines, the mind is involved in at least 3 cognitive activities:overcominginternalmonologism or monodisciplinarity, attainingprovisionalintegration,and questioningthe integrationas necessarilypartial. This claim is supportedby interviewdata I collected primarilyfrom faculty involved in the developmentand teachingof interdisciplinary courses in programsinthe Universityof Pennsylvania'sCenterfor Bioethics, Swarthmore cluding College's Interpretation Theory,and the NEXA Programat San FranciscoState University.I suggest that interdisciplinarythinking is fundamentallysimilar to dialogical exchanges occurring in language and in collaborative activities in which epistemological positions are bartered.Bakhtin's (1981) theory of dialogic understanding and subsequentlinguistic theories of conceptual metaphorand blending serve as a constructivetheoreticalframework the understanding interdisciplinfor of arycognition. Viewing disciplinesbroadlyas languages,epistemologies,andcollaborativepracticeshelps uncoversome underlyingcognitive mechanismsthatdeserve furtherinvestigation. Are there educational institutions left in this country that do not engage in interdisciplinary work? Is the spread of interdisciplinary programs just a fad or a reflection of a changing pattern of knowledge production? If ubiquity of interdisciplinary learning and teaching is indicative of an important intellectual shift, what does it represent cognitively? What kind of cognitive process is involved in interdisciplinary work? Is it something unique and sui generis, or does interdisciplinary thought follow some basic cognitive pathways involved in other intellectual activities? These questions served as a staring point for this investigation. When one thinks of interdisciplinary insight, one typically thinks of it as an instantaneous flash of imagination that intuitively and inseparably blends ideas and creates a striking new synthesis. However, this image of different perspectives

of and for shouldbe sentto Svetlana Nikitina, Department Humanities Art, Requests reprints MA 30 Worcester Road, Institute, Russell svetlana@wpi.edu Wellesley, 02482.E-mail: Polytechnic

390

NIKITINA

coming seamlessly togetherin a flash is often farfromthe realityof daily effortsto make many disciplinary ends meet. In reality, interdisciplinarythought goes througha complicatedchain of operationsbefore it reaches(if it happens)a satisas factorysynthesis.This processremainslittle exploredandunderstood, few studies have looked at individual thinking in interdisciplinary classrooms in a sustained and systematic way. What are the cognitive operations in which an mind engages on the path towardthe integrationof disciplinary interdisciplinary ideas? To what extent is interdisciplinary thinkinga unique process, and in what does it resemble other forms of collaboration,communication,and knowlway or edge sharingthattakeplace in any good classroom,organization, conversation? This article is a modest attemptto parse this complex phenomenonof interdisciin plinarycognition andto proposea theoreticalframework which to considerit in the future. Thus, my goal is to accomplish three things: (a) to identify recurrentmental moves thatuniversityinstructors throughwhen they developor teachinterdiscigo plinarycoursesregardlessof theirtopic or disciplinarybackground; to putforth (b) a hypothesis(to be furthersubstantiated new empiricalstudies) thatthese proby cesses may be fundamentally similarto ourcommonlinguisticandcommunicative behaviors, which happen to be dialogic in their nature;and (c) to propose that work,formthe basis of ourcogdialogic behaviors,so explicit in interdisciplinary nition in general.To achieve its goal, in this studyof interdisciplinary cognition, I centeredon the descriptionof the threemajorelements or moves in the interdisciplinary thought. These include (a) overcoming monodisciplinarity; achieve(b) ment of provisional integration,and (c) critical questioningof such integration. Eachof these moves in turninvolves a host of activitiesassociatedwith it, some of which I outline here, whereasothersremainto be capturedin futureresearch.

RESEARCH STUDY AND DATA COLLECTION This studyof interdisciplinary Interdiscognitionis partof a larger3-yearHarvard of interdisciplinary work at the ciplinary Study examining exemplarypractices collegiate, precollegiate, and professional levels. The overarchinggoal of the largerproject is the empiricalinvestigationof the psychological, organizational, work.1 pedagogical,and epistemologicalaspects of interdisciplinary The inquiryinto interdisciplinary I presenthere relies on a collegiate cognition sample of interdisciplinary programsincluding the NEXA Program(San Francisco State University [SFSU]), Interpretation Theory (SwarthmoreCollege), Centerfor Bioethics (Universityof Pennsylvania),and the HumanBiology Pro1Harvard's Interdisciplinary Study is carriedout at ProjectZero, a researchbranchof the Harvard GraduateSchool of Education,and is supportedthroughfundingfrom AtlanticPhilanthropies.

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

391

gram (StanfordUniversity).2These programsand institutionshave been selected based on the following criteria: 1. Existence of the programfor at least 5 years. 2. Solid commitmentto doing interdisciplinary work statedin the mission or articulated key personnel. by 3. Continuityin directionand execution of the program. 4. Explicit pedagogy and assessmentcriteriadesigned to supportinterdisciplinarylearning. 5. Appreciationof the complexity of the interdisciplinary work (on a cognitive, institutional,and pedagogical level) and continuedcritical questioning and developmentof the program. Although meeting these general criteria, programs differed substantiallyin forms of collaboration,and intellectualfocus. The their organizational structures, NEXA Program(NEXA), for example, has been set up with a distinctmission to promotedialogue between the "two cultures"(Snow, 1959). This goal is realized througha series of courses, which are team taughtby a scientist and a humanist (with a few exceptions). The InterpretationTheory (IT) concentration at Swarthmore College pursuesas its goal the deliberateand sustainedexamination itself representedin variousmodes of inquiryand herof the act of interpretation It meneutictraditions. offers capstoneseminars,which arealso teamtaughtby representativesof the two disciplines, mostly in the humanitiesand the social sciences, with recentforays into computerscience andbiology. Coursesat the Center for Bioethics at Universityof Pennsylvania(Bioethics), on the otherhand,aretypically taughtby one instructor(a sociologist or a philosopher)who bringstogether and biomedical,ethical, anthropological, legal thoughtto informthe issues of huand man cloning, organ transplantation, genetic engineering.The uniquenessof each programin terms of its organizationand disciplinaryfocus was not at all a to it handicapfor this study.On the contrary, providedan opportunity ask whether would differas a functionof differentdiscithe cognitive pathwaysof participants plinarybackgroundsor the organizationof the program. Data collection took place duringone researchvisit to selected colleges in the fall of 2002. Two researchers(including myself) conducted one interview with in each faculty and studentparticipant the course of a 3- to 4-day visit to each site. Visits also included classroom observations,meetings with programadministraand tors,andcollection of samplesof studentwork.In total, 30 facultyparticipants 28 studentswere interviewedat all specified institutions.Overall, 10 classroom
in 2AlthoughI did not specificallyuse the datafromStanfordUniversity(HumanBiology Program) this writingfor reasonsof space and focus, it has richly informedgeneralthinkingaboutthe cognitive pedagogy. processes and the largerstudy of interdisciplinary

392

NIKITINA

observationstook place including observationof one joint grading session with two faculty members.Faculty publicationsyielded additionaldata for analysis. I in providethe list of key informants AppendixA as the CoreResearchParticipants table for ease of orientation.Not all interviewsand not all programswere used to the same degree, as I selected interviewsthatcontainedextendeddescriptionsand reflectionson the evolutionin participants' thinking. Interviewswith faculty and studentslasted on averagebetween 1 and 2 hr and centeredon questionsrelatedto (a) the organizationof the interdisciplinary programs,(b) teachingthatgoes on in the interdisciplinary settings,and (c) the cognitive impacts of interdisciplinary learning or collaboration.I provide a more detailed list of these three sets of questionsin AppendixB. Descriptionsof faculty collaborationsas well as of the individualthoughtprocess for integratingthe differentdisciplinaryperspectives(in which bridgeswere attempted,crumbled,tried again, tested in front of students, and a new way of thinkingandteachingemerged)were foundto be the most useful data.It was helpful thatmost collaborationswere long-term(lastingfrom severalmonthsto several time to takestock anddevelopa moreobjectiveperspecyears),giving participants tive on what took place. Still, relianceof this researchprimarilyon self-reflection andretrospectiveself-reporting naturallyraises methodologicalconcerns,which I share.The way in which this studyattempted securesome validityfor its prelimto of inaryconclusionswas throughtriangulation findingsacross (a) a varietyof prostructures, a (b) grams with differentdisciplinaryorientationsand organizational from differentdepartments who workedtogetheras teaching range of instructors partners,and (c) includingtwo students'testimonies to shed light on the courses offeredby faculty members.3

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This studyof a multistepprocessof interdisciplinary cognitionis guidedby a theoreticalpremisethatthereexists an important similarity-and possibly a fundamental connection!-between the interdisciplinary effortsandothermentaloperations thatinvolveinternalor externaldialoguesuch as metaphoric thought,collaborative work,andotherformsof negotiatingof differencesandmergingof ideas. Thus,besides a descriptiverole, this studyis also an attemptas systematization. people The involvedin this study attemptto find a cogent theoreticalframe,which would link interdisciplinary cognition with cognition in general,and they find this link in the dialogical tendencyof the mind of humansas describedin the work of psycholinguists, educationaltheorists,and other scholars.

3Student interviewswere not nearlyas numerousandarethereforeused only as supportdatafor triangulationof instructor's experiences.

COGNITION INTERDISCIPLINARY

393

What helped establish the connection between interdisciplinaryand general both by the recognition was the ratherbroaddefinitionof discipline entertained in searchersand the researchparticipants this study.Both the researchersand the participantsused the word discipline in at least three overlappingmeanings: (a) affiliationor to a coldiscipline as culture,referringto an academicor department laborationof people within the institutionalstructure; discipline as epistemol(b) ogy, referringto sharedmethodologicaltools and ways of knowing;and (c) discipline as language, referringto communicationthat uses a similar language or symbol system. The interview protocol itself, as outlined previously, prompted participantsto consider all three aspects of interdisciplinarywork-organizational, epistemological,and cognitive. Table 1 summarizesthe threebodies of litof erature sets of terminologythatcan informthe understanding interdisciplinand
ary cognition. 1 TABLE ThatCan Inform Sources of Theoryand Terminology Multiple at Levels the Understanding Interdisciplinary Thinking Different
of Understanding Discipline Discipline as language exchange is Interdisciplinary viewed as interactivityof Voices Utterances Discourses Semiotic systems Symbols Worldviews Ideologies Discipline as epistemology exchange is Interdisciplinary viewed as interactivityof Methodologies Belief systems Validationcriteria Ways of knowing Theory and practice Worldviews Ideologies Discipline as culture exchange Interdisciplinary is viewed as interactionof Teachingpartners Departments structures Organizational Academic cultures Sources of Theory Cognitive linguistics Literarytheory Culturalstudies Cognition studies Used Terminology Dialogue/dialogic Conceptualblending Metaphor Discourse Pidgins, creoles Rival hypothesis Semiotic communities Metalanguage

Educationaltheory Philosophy Studies of disciplinaryand education interdisciplinarity

Distributedcognition Epistemologies Tradingzones Boundarycrossing Domain specific cognition Epistemicpractice Dialogic classroom

Educationand educational frameworks administration development Organizational AnthropologySociology

InquiryRival hypothesis Activity theory Communitiesof practice Cultures Conflicts Sharedpractice Knowledge-sharing Peer learning

394

NIKITINA

in Conceiving of a discipline or "an interdiscipline" such broadterms helped me see the relevanceof the organizational educationaltheoriesof "communiand ties of practice"andlinguistictheoriesof "conceptual blending"as potentialparallels to interdisciplinary a theoreticalframeworkof explanatory thought offering power. The closest parallels seemed to be offered by the linguistic theories of Bakhtin(1981), Vygotsky (1963, 1978), andLakoffandJohnson(1980) as well as of Fauconnierand Turner(1994, 2002), all of which targetindividualcognition at its fundamentallevel. Thus, terminologyand concepts that anchorsuch theories were borrowedliberally. and Organizational educationaltheories, however, provideda useful support, too. Viewing interdisciplinary work as collaborationamong people, for example, makessome ethnographic, or frameworks anthropological, organizational particuWells (2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002); Wertsch (1998); Mercer larly insightful. (2002); Engestrom,Engestrom,and Karkkainen (1995); Engestrom,Engestrom, and Sunito (2002); Duschl (1990); and Duschl and Hamilton(1992) have all written aboutthe importanceof collaborativeinquiryandjoint activityas the organizof historicalactivitytheory," examfor ing pointof learning.A proponent "cultural Wells and Claxton(2002) wrote aboutthe value of "developingdialogues"in ple, which "... individualinvestigationsare ... embeddedwithina collaborative framework of joint activity and the dialogue of knowledge buildingwithin the community as a whole"(p. 201). Likewise, Engestromet al. (2002) recognizedthe collaborativeand dialogic natureof knowledge and "thepower of multi-voicedness" (p. 211) in their "activitytheory"framework. In additionto this literature, theoriesalso emphasizethe key role organizational of the communitiesof practicein successful businesses.Wenger,McDermott,and Snyder(2002) definedcommunitiesof practiceas groupsof people who over time that they share"and "a body of common knowldevelop "a tacit understanding andapproaches" 5). Thus,organizational theoristsmakea powedge, practices, (p. erful case for "knowledgeas social as well as individual"(Wengeret al., 2002, p. 10). Some of them have gone even furtherin theiremphasison the crucialrole of dialogue andmultivoicednessin businessandeducation.They have suggestedthat argument,conflict, debate, and the use of rival hypotheses is what students or workingteams need to achieve excellence. Graff(1992, 2003) and Flower,Long, and Higgins (2000) have all arguedthatinstitutionshave to understand "thecentralityof controversyto learning"(Graff,2003, p. 12) andteaching.Echoingorganizationalandactivitytheorists,Graff(2003), for example,insistedon "tapping... into students'youthful argumentcultures, which are not as far removed as they look frompublicformsof argument" 155). Flower(2000) championedthe view (p. that"learning rival"is at the foundationof genuinelearning.Followingthe view to of classical rhetoric, Flower (2001) regardedconflict as a positive "communal practicethat leads to the creationof meaning"(p. 31). Literature which disciplines are viewed as epistemologies can also be helpin ful in lending insight into the cognitive paths of people involved in interdisci-

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

395

plinary work. Such literature explores rules of exchange that govern the epistemological trade.Galison (1997), for instance, describedthe interactionbetween the different cultures of physics-experimental, theoretical, and instrumental-as the process of creation of "tradingzones," "borderlanguages" or forms of argumentation" evolve "around to "pidgins"to allow for "characteristic Literatureon disciplinaryeducation (Duschl, 1990; specific practices"(p. 806). Gardner,2000; Palmer,2001) has emphasizedthe value of bringinginto subject area learningmethodologicaland epistemological perspectivesfrom other disciplines. Duschl (1992), for example, argued for bringing into science "epistemological metaknowledge" (p. 489), which some participantsin this study attempt to do in their teaching of science. Experts on interdisciplinaryeducation (Klein, 1990; Klein & Doty, 1994; Kocklemans, 1979; Lattuca, 2001; Newell, 1998) have developed sophisticated categorizationsof the differentforms of disciplinaryexchange based on how difin ferent methodologies are linked, what is being "traded" "multi-disciplinary," Aland "interdisciplinary"4 transactions. "meta-disciplinary," "transdisciplinary," one might expect this literatureto provide an importanttheoreticalguide though for the study of interdisciplinary cognition, such a guide is generallystill lacking. of interdisciplinary thoughton the individuallevel have largely Empiricalstudies remainedoutside of the scope of this literature.So far, it has addressedthe issue mostly by generatingdescriptivelists of thinkingdispositionssuch as "flexibility, (Klein, 1990, p. 183). Sumpatience,resilience, sensitivityto others,risk-taking" marizing her analysis of such studies, Klein (1990) observed that the empirical studies and thick descriptionsof "thecomplex actualityof doing interdisciplinary An work" (p. 184) are generally underrepresented. exception may be Newell's (1998) study(Klein & Doty, 1994) of interdisciplinary pedagogy,which attempted itself. Although useful for this study, it to describe the interdisciplinary process5 does not providea theoreticalframework beyondthese observations.In this invesI hoped to take a step in that direction. tigation, of What arguablyyields the deepest understanding the workings of the mind and its cognitive operationsis the view of the discipline as a languagein the broad ratherthanon orsense of the word.Focus on individualcognitive transformation makes semiotic shifts and symbol ganizationalcollaborationor teachingpractice thinking.Also, exchange a promisingparallelto what goes on in interdisciplinary and languagehere signifies more thanthe rules of grammar syntax-rather, it is a of carrierof belief systems and a representation ideological, disciplinary,andperas than to work I has literature defined 4This interdisciplinary (and subscribe thisdefinition) more a interaction theiractiveand transformative but of (Boix simpleaggregation epistemologies rather in Twoelements, & Kocklemans, 1979). 2000;Klein,1990; 2000;Gardner, Miller, Gardner, Mansilla, and efforts: deepdisciplinary for thisview,arecrucial interdisciplinary (a) knowledge (b)its substanselected meet to in and All tiveexchange. programs all participants profiled thisstudywerecarefully bothof thesecriteria. classroom an 5Newell's practice. (1998)focuswasprimarily interdisciplinary

396

NIKITINA

sonal positions. Bakhtin (1981), Vygotsky (1963, 1978), Lakoff and Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1993), and Fauconnierand Turner(1994, 2002) have all written extensively on how differentutterances,ideological platforms,and symbols interact in the flow of naturalspeech and what the underlyingmechanismof their exchange might be. Bakhtin's(1981) writingson dialogic imaginationareparticularly useful as his views on dialogue closely capturethe two core featuresof interdisciplinary work: (a) its rootednessin deep disciplinaryknowledge (or individualvoice) and (b) the substantiveexchange and transformation this voice or disciplinaryperspective of in the course of interaction.Bakhtindescribedthe dialogic mind as the mind that attains"polyglot consciousness"(p. 274). Bakhtin'sview of language evolution andthe evolutionof literarygenresdescribesthe growingabilityof the mindin the culturalhistoryto overcome monologic tendencies,to achieve "heteroglossiaand multi-languagedness" 274) in which several ideas or disciplinaryinputs are (p. sustainedin a dialectic and nonrelativisticway. This conception seems to suggest a constructiveplatformfrom which to view interdisciplinary cognition. In the light of Bakhtin's (1981) theory, overcoming monodisciplinaritymay be seen as similar to overcoming monologic thinking. Bakhtin'sdescriptionsof dialoguerunparallelto ourparticipants' reportsof the interdisciplinary synthesisthey achieved,expressedas balancingamongseveralperspectives without abandoningone's core positions. Bakhtin's terminology (dialogue, dialogic, monoglossia, and heteroglossia) and its reference to internal cognitive operations make it a natural choice as vocabulary to describe epistemologically multivoicedinterdisciplinary thinking.Bakhtin'sconcepts and notions (dialogic, multivoiced,collaborative)arealso profitablyappliedby educational andorganizational theorists(see previously)to describefoundational values in classroom or business practices. For example, Sidorkin (1992), Galin and Latchaw(1998), Wells (2002), Engestromet al. (1995), Engestromet al. (2002), and Mercer(2002) have constructivelybuilt on Bakhtin'sand Vygotsky's (1963, 1978) ideas on the relation"betweenthe social and the psychological uses of language"to conceive classroomsin which one can "cultivatethe polyphonyof student voices and backgroundsand use language as a means for thinking collectively" (Mercer,2002, p. 153). Writingsby cognitive linguists Lakoff and Johnson(1980) on the metaphoric structureof cognition and by Turner(1996, 2001) and Fauconnierand Turner (1994, 2002) on conceptualblending have been built on the Bakhtiniannotion of dialogue and heteroglossia and provide furtherweight to Bakhtin's (1981) theory by tapping language itself. Lakoff and Johnson (1980), for example, described humans'ordinaryconceptual system as "fundamentally metaphoricalin nature"in the sense that we understand"one kind of thing in terms of another" (p. 5). Similar to Bakhtin, Lakoff (1993) thought of metaphornot just as a linguistic phenomenonbut as a defining featureof thought:"Thelocus of metaphor

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

397

is not in language at all but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another.The generaltheory of metaphoris given by characterizing such cross-domainmappings"(p. 203). Lakoff and Johnson(1980), followed by other cognitive scientists, posited that we conceptualize abstract notions by them on to concrete experiences. For example, we routinely "cross-mapping" ideas as substances("I am going to pieces"), time as matter("living on represent borrowedtime," "I lost a lot of time"), mental processes as mechanical actions ("grinding out the solution"), and emotional states as upward or downward movement ("feeling down," "sinking fast," "peak of health"). This kind of dialogic cross-mappingor substitutiontakes place not only in language or literature but in science as well. Writingaboutthe use of metaphorin science, Brown (2003), for example, assertedthat the scientist "understands complex systems in nature in terms of conceptual frameworksderived from experiential gestalts, form" (p. 12). Cognitive scienways of organizingexperience into a structured tists Fauconnierand Turner(2002), whose theory of conceptual blends fluidly builds on the work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980), describedthat the centralactivity of our "backstagecognition" is conceptualblending, by which they mean fusing in everydayspeech and thoughtof "atleast two influences"or "contributing spaces." These two different contributionsor concepts get cross-mapped with the result that a new space or meaning emerges. A linguistic example of this might be the emergence of the notion of incompetence from blending the concepts a surgeon and a butcher in the phrase "this surgeon is a butcher." Educators, too, have also been drawingfor a long time on metaphor, conceptual models, and maps as "aidsto cognition"and as a way to explore the unknownin similaritiescan be notermsof the known (Moreno& Mayer, 1999). Remarkable ticed both in terminologyand in substancebetween the descriptionsof psycholinexpertsdespite their different guists, educationaltheorists,and interdisciplinarity areasof focus. With all of the useful parallelismbetween language behaviorsand interdisciplinarywork, however,the psycholinguisticframeworksneed to be applied with cautionas an ambient,not a task, light. Voices in dialogue, words, or even ideologies colliding in the literary text are not disciplines with their epistemological depthandsophisticatedmethodologies,which takeyears of concertedstudy.Interways to otherformsof collabodisciplinarywork,althoughsimilarin fundamental rative or linguistic activity, has importantdistinctions. Bakhtin's (1981) insight abouthumanthoughtas evolving towardgreaterdialogicity,for example,referred to cognition as distributedin historic time and linked to the evolution of national languagesthat went from being "deafto each other"in ancientGreece and Rome to becoming irreversiblymixed in RenaissanceEurope.This historic insight cannot be transferredto the development of knowledge systems, which seemed to grow with time towardgreaterspecializationratherthanthe reverse.Interdisciplinthan ary thoughtmay be a case of conceptualblendingon a large epistemic (rather

398

NIKITINA

linguistic) scale, with uniquefeaturesof its own that need to be exploredfurther. work perhapsinvolves greatereffort and is more visible as comInterdisciplinary to subtlebackstageactivitiesof a linguisticnature.As such, it may lend itself pared to easier study and may eventuallyprove useful in validating,elaborating,or subresearchinto the natureof interstantiating psycholinguistictheories.Only further causal link exists between condisciplinarycognition can show if a fundamental ceptualblending and epistemologicalexchanges across disciplines. The overlapbetween the cultural,epistemological, and linguistic perspectives on interdisciplinary workis hardto overlook(see Table1). All threelevels of interrevealthe core underlyingprocess of evolving dialogizationand a growpretation ing ability of the mind to sustainequilibriumbetween differentinputs.

METHOD Focus on the thinkingprocessandits evolutionprompted methodfor this study. the The bulk of datacomes from personalinterviewswith universityfaculty6who reflect on their interdisciplinary collaborationeither with anotherfaculty member or (from anotherdepartment) with anotherdiscipline. As a result of this focus on individualcognition, participant descriptionsof their thoughtprocesses in the interviews were the primarysource of analysis and systematization. To establish recurrentpatternsand stages in interdisciplinary thought, interviews with scholarsengagedin interdisciplinary teachingwere subjectto rigorous analysisandcoding. An exampleof such an analysisis presentedin Vignette 1 (see Table 2) representinghow a philosopher,Don Provence, and a physicist, John Burke,at SFSU go throughthe processof avid learningabouteach other'sposition (demonologization),uncoveringtheir own disciplinaryassumptionsand attempting a merger(integration) althoughawareof the fact thatit will not be "definitive" (questioningintegration). To arriveat this parsingof data,researchers subjectedinterviewmaterialto several coding passes. The firstcoding pass targetedsuch broadcategoriesas "definitions of interdisciplinary work,""cognitivechallenges of interdisciplinary work," "momentsof integration," "benefitsof interdisciplinary learning,"and so forth. Close attentionwas paid to descriptionsof collaborationsamong faculty in which detailedhow specificallytheirthinkinghas changedoverthe courseof participants collaboration.Once these generalcategorieswere established,the second coding pass involved analysis of specific cognitive moves. Subcategoriessuch as "developing appreciation," "admittingignoranceand need for learning,"and "rejecting as final,"were established.Attentionwas paid also to the sequence of integration
6Accountsof collaborativeefforts and studentinterviewdataare only used as supportdatato help validateinstructors' personalreflectionsand classroomobservations.

TABLE2 Evolution of the Understanding of Light and Color From Monodisciplinary to Interdisciplinary VignetteI John Burke Physics and AstronomyProfessor,NEXA Program San FranciscoState University My five-year experience of teachingReality in the New Physics with Don is an example of having the two minds approachthe same subjectfrom differentdirections.It was a marvelousexperience for me of finding out how good philosophersare at pinning weak arguments.[Appreciationof alternativedisciplinaryviews]. Being a physicist, I've got lots of things in my head that are obvious, except of course they aren't.Don and I would get to this question of reality, which philosophersbasically don't want to talk about,the reality of the universe.So I would come on andjust withoutthinkingproceed as if something were obvious. What is mass? Isn't energy the real stuff? Don was picking up on how does the physicist actually look at these things. And the answer to that is it's sort of a method of trying to figure out grubby-hands-on-whatever-works what's going on in the universe.We, physicists, use color, for example, in a very sloppy way. [Identificationof strengthsand weaknesses in disciplinaryperspectives]. We talk aboutred shifts and blue shifts, red and blue as if that meant wavelengthof light. It took Don threeyears to get to see the sense of the conclusion [of the book on colora]that color is an illusion, albeit a well-founded illusion. And then afterhe did, he said, "Yeah,but I don't accept that!"Had anothertwo years of that. [Choosing to accept or reject a differentdisciplinaryperspective]. Why do philosopherscare about color? And the historicalanswer is, it seems to be a given truthabout the world. We found out prettyquickly that philosophyhas really ceased in large measureto be informedby the physical sciences. So, Don was learningthe physics, and I was realizing that a direct empirical correlationturnsout to be a falsehood aboutthe world. I was exposed to these experimentsthat show, here are two wildly differentspectra of light that produceprecisely the same color experience.That basically smashes the idea that color is directly connected to the physical attributesof what is coming in. It was to be viewed as some sort of cooperativethings between brainsand the world. We went for the ferment.The color perceptionis a combinationof the light that enters the eye and what the braindoes with it. [Emergenceof a hybridunderstandingof assimilative type]. We found at the end of the five years we could bring the studentsa lot furtheralong toward the goals of the class, because we had come furtheralong. Overcoming monodisciplinarity: Recognizing limits in disciplinary perspectives

Integration: Seeking an integratedview of the issue

(continued)

399

400

NIKITINA
TABLE2 (Continued)

In orderto hope for a melding of the ways of thinking,you just sort of have to put it out a bit explicitly what constitutesthe way a philosopherapproachesa problem?[Appreciationof alternative views]. What constitutesthe way a physicist approachesa problem? If that were all we did, it'd be a dullsville course. The notion that somehow there is a war between the humanitiesand the sciences is, I to think, disastrous.[Rejection of monologism,commitment demonologization].I used to think, "Physicsis God."I got disabused of that idea prettyquickly. On the other hand, I do not uphold a point of view that science is just one more story.Newton's theory wasn't the last word, but Newton's story did put men on the moon within centimetersof where the predictionssaid they would go. Newton's story gives you very, very precise predictionsof where an asteroid will be a hundredyears later.And as of yet, there is no existing observationinconsistentwith Einstein's theory of generalrelativity. Humanistsand scientists need to ask together:What is color? What's real stuff? What is time? What is consciousness? Consciousness isn't physics, it's not philosophy,but it's something we can both say what we think about it. So you actually see the two methods, the two approachescoming togetherand fermenting,neitherone being definitive. [Rejectionof provisional integrationas final].

Sustainingdialogue: Questioning dominanceof any one field while pressing for a betterjoint understanding

in for aGilbert, example,insists on using metaphors his teachingof biology, which is richlyinformed for by historyof science and culturalstudiesperspectives.Such notionsas sperm,egg, and fertilization, example, are offered to studentsloaded with culturaland mythologicalmeaning."Youhave the heroic stories,you can desperm,which reallyfollows the mythof the hero very well, you can show alternative he construct one andshow its social background," describes.However,he also pointsout the limitsof this such literaryanalogy and cultural metaphorin conveying the biological reality, citing the different epistemologicalgoals of the two kindsof discourse."Biologically,a spermis not a militaryhero;a sperm To is not the victor.To see the spermas activeandthe egg as passiveis biochemicallyincorrect." explore is how metaphor used in the science versusthe humanitiesclassroomandespeciallywhatuses it is putto in interdisciplinary environments would be a fascinatingtopic for futureempiricalstudy.

different cognitive moves, although no specific pattern here was conclusively established. As can be seen from Vignette 1 (Table 2), which shows the final coding stage of the interview, coding could be tricky and individual stages hard to isolate. Participants often included the description of their appreciative stance (demonologization) into their portrayal of a tentative merger of ideas or of its questioning. In one case, an interviewee confessed failure to achieve satisfactory integration but showed commitment to both continued questioning of synthesis and to demonologization. Still, all 11 participants included in this article (100%) pointed to demonologization efforts in their work (some several times during the interview), 8 interviewees (73%) described their aspiration for some kind of synthesis or productive merger (even if it failed to come about this time), and 10 participants (91%) talked about their need to strive for a better resolution of differences. Vignettes 2 and 3 (Appendix C and D) provide additional examples of the data and the coding method.

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

401

OVERCOMINGMONODISCIPLINARITY We had the discussions on science and religion, science and creationism. Whenyou ask somebody,"Whyis it you believe thatthe earthis not fourand a half billion years old?"-they would talk about faith. "Whatdoes faith mean to you?"I think the studentreally,really consideredfor the first time somethingthathe had neverhad the freedomto do before. Then he said, "I know at such a profoundlevel."And I had to stop and try to consider what thatmustfeel like. Did the studentleave this class in ignorance?No. The student considered.It didn't shake or alterhis belief, but it gave the studenta chance to understand why I, a scientist,believe something.I can thinkof instances with my colleagues in the humanitiescapitulatingto me saying, " I will tell you a story and then Ray [Pestrong]will tell you how it really is." Thereis often a capitulationto the science. (Ray Pestrong,NEXA instructor and professorof Geosciences at SFSU) The first stop on the way towardinterdisciplinary synthesis of ideas, accordingto seems to be overcominga monodisciplinary interviews, perspective. participants' This is exemplified linguistically in the theories developed by Bakhtin (1981), LakoffandJohnson(1980), andothersandis practicallysimilarto the firststeps of learninga foreign language. All 11 participants(100%) we interviewedsignaled that they came to realize process thatthey needed to make a move from sinearly in theirinterdisciplinary gle-languageexistence (anchoredin one discipline)to a polyglot life. The way they but to did it differedfromparticipant participant, involvedin one formor another(a) of thedevelopmentof anappreciation alternative views; (b) theidentifidisciplinary cation of strengthsand weaknesses inherentin one's disciplinaryposition;and (c) the formingof a decision aboutwhatto accept,adapt,or reject.Seven interviewees (64%) mentionedall threeprocesses, whereasthe others (36%) mentionedone or two of thesesteps.Any one of thesementalactionscouldleadparticipants awayfrom a monological to a more dialogical conceptionof the phenomenon. Appreciating Alternative Disciplinary Views Synthesis of ideas is arguablyimpossible without some degree of regardand apepistemologicalsystem as worthyof exploration.Profespreciationof alternative sors Pestrong, Scott Gilbert,and Paul Wolpe all demonstrateintellectualcharity towardtheir teaching partnersand their disciplines. They seek out alternativesto their own disciplinary perspective on the course material and try them on. view of the world] Pestrong,for example,comes "toconsiderwhatthat[creationist must feel like."Collaborationsamong scientists and humanistsin our study often revealedan effort to establish status of equalitybetween the sciences and the humanities. Seeing your teaching partnerin terms of epistemological equity thus

402

NIKITINA

seems to be an essentialpartof overcomingmonodisciplinarity. However,how is it achievedpractically? Pestrongat SFSU, Gilbertat Swarthmore(Vignette2), and other college professors in the study see it as part of their teaching mission in interdisciplinary courses to convey to studentsthatthe story of the world can be told in manydisciplinarytongues, all worthconsideringbefore stakingone's own ground.According to Gilbert,for example, the body may be "definedby the humangenome project," by an immunologist,and also by a politician, each telling their own story. Appreciationdoes not mean capitulationof one's own disciplinarybeliefs to the views of anotherdiscipline. Gilbertfirmly believes in the higherpower of science to account for genes or sperm, but he actively uses myth and metaphor to demonologize science in his teaching, making studentsaware of more than one way to accountfor the naturalphenomena. Burkesees the process of teachinga NEXA seminaras having "thetwo minds approachthe same subject from differentdirections."Similarly,historianof science Zajonc (1993) described how in the history of scientific exploration,the of philosophical and psychological argumentsinfluenced the understanding the natureof light waves. It became increasingly clear to people such as Faraday, Planck,and Einsteinthatperceptionsare informedby the social and innercontext of the perceiver(Zajonc, 1993). In Catchingthe Light: The EntwinedHistory of the Lightand Mind,Zajonccaptured crossingof scientific andphilosophicalpaths in inquiriesinto the natureof light. Zajoncended his investigationin a similarvein as Burkefinishes his story of collaborativeinquiryinto color with Provence-by claiming that integrationof physical and psychological perspectivesis the only way to go, even thoughit does not fully reconcile views or obliteratedisciplinary differences.Zajoncwrote
Light ... has been treated scientifically by physicists, symbolically by religious

and and Each of thinkers, practically artists technicians. givesvoiceto a part our by of light.Whenheard all speakof one thingwhosenature and experience together, has attention millennia. for thelastthree meaning beentheobjectof human During the and dimensions lighthavebeenkeptseverely of centuries, artistic religious apart fromits scientific themback,andto crafta study... thetimehascometo welcome
fuller image of light thanany one discipline can offer. (p. 8)

In the same vein, sociologist Wolpe (Vignette 3) came to learn "an enormous amount"from philosophersat the Centerfor Bioethics at the Universityof Pennsylvania.Wolpelearnedthat"thereis a case to be madefor clearlyreasonedlogical and thinkingaboutethical issues leadingto a recommendation," became skilled at aboutthings."This is not the skill in which sociolothinking"verysystematically gists are rigorouslytrained,but it is crucial in the field in which one is routinely partof policy debates.

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

403

As many educationaltheoristssuch as Engestromet al. (1995), Wells (2001c), Engle and Conant(2002), and Duschl (1990) have pointed out, charitableregard for alternativeviews and a broad curiosity are thinkingdispositions in any good environments alone. "Productive disciclassroom,not specific to interdisciplinary Engle andConant(2002, p. 401) concluded,does not necesplinaryengagement," sarilymean acceptingall disciplinarynormsandpositions withoutquestion,but it may involve informedchallengingor extendingof such views with properjustification. Althoughthere are many ways to be dialogue orientedand appreciative of otherpositions, interdisciplinary opennessto challenge is of a special nature.It involves deeper explorationof the epistemological roots of one's understanding, criticalcomparisonof differentdisciplinarymethods,and substantivetransformation of views as a result. Yet at its cognitive core, it bearsresemblanceto the best disciplinaryworkandto dialogic communications,which involve attendingto differences and extendinga respectfulregardto clashing views. In practice,appreciation alternativedisciplinaryviews also means realizing of limits of one's own monoglossia. Thus, the interdisciplinary the dialogue is not just aboutgeneralreceptivityto alternativeviews. It involves active selection and criticaljudgment.For example, learninga new disciplinarylanguageis not about memorizingevery word in the dictionaryor hearingevery sound in the streamof speech;it involves knowingwhatto listen for.Burke,Pestrong,Wolpe,andGilbert have all heardand carefully consideredalternativedisciplinaryargumentsbut in the end have stakedtheir own ground. Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Disciplinary Perspectives In the Bakhtinian(1981) framework,high receptivity to other voices does not of mean obliterationor subjugation one's own voice. The salience of both self and other is what makes true dialogue both tenuous and rewarding.Bakhtiniandialogue as well as Fauconnierand Turner's(1994, 2002) conceptualblending is a constantbalancing act. The same unsettlingprocess of sorting out strengthsand interdisweaknessesin differentpositions againsteach otherseems to characterize Sometimes it leads to a realization work, accordingto our participants. ciplinary that one's own disciplinarytools cannot quite handle the subject, and sometimes one begins to see clearly the weakness in the otherdiscipline's position. Workingside by side with a philosopher,Burkebegins to see the filtersthathis disciplinaryassumptionsas a physicist impose on his approachto the understanding of color. He has never questionedbroad concepts such as mass, energy, and materialrealitybecause they seemed "obvious"to him as a physicist. It took philosopherProvenceto point out to him how "sloppy"and "grubby-hands-on-whatever-works"were his answersto these fundamental questions.Zajonc (1993) described a similar realization achieved by scientists when the quantumtheorists

404

NIKITINA

failed to accountfor the natureof light and color: "Whatare the primaryqualities of light that vouchsafe its unambiguousexistence? The extraordinary response given by quantumrealismis thatthereare none. Light, as enduring,well-defined, local entity vanishes"(p. 315). Workingside by side with the humanitiesfaculty, involvedin "themangleof practice"(Pickering,1995) of theirsciences, Burkeand Pestrongcome to realize thatscientific answersto the questionof color, mass, and energy are not powerfulenough. At the same time as he discoveredfailings in physics, Burkerealized thatphilosophy,too, does not have all the answers."Philosophyhas really ceased in large measureto be informedby the physical sciences,"whereasphysics is weak in its definitionsof mass, energy,and reality.In a similarfashion, Gilbert,in his class, exposed the weaknessesand strengthsof bothbiology andcriticaltheoryby bringwith ing them into close contact.He used science "tolimit interpretations" experimentaldatawhile at the same time turningto the humanitiesto preventsimplification of an issue and to remindscience of its social responsibility.Appreciationof the alternative disciplinein his case goes handin handwith the criticalcomparison of differentdisciplinarytool kits. This process of sortingand weighing is a crucial step towardprovisionalintegrationof ideas.

Accepting or Rejecting Disciplinary Perspectives Following considerationof the strengthsand weaknesses of individualdisciplinary positions, a naturalmove is to make a decision as to which positions to acthinkersin the study nor cept and which to reject. Neither the interdisciplinary theorists describing dialogic thinking point in the direction of relativism. After long study and appreciativeconsiderationof the scientific data, Provence came to reject its argumentsas unsupported humanexperience. Color, in his view, by does convey "a given truthabout the world,"despite the fact that science is unable to quantify it. Burke, on the other hand, refused to buy into the view that science "isjust anotherstory"aboutthe world, with the same explanatorypower as myth. Burke,Pestrong,and Gilbertended up regardingthe mythologicalexplanation of the world's origins as valuablebut unequalto science. "Thecreationiststory," Gilbertasserts,"is not equalto the evolutionstory-one is supported a hundred by years' worthof researchand dataand the otheris not; and, one is based on certain rules of evidence and the other is not." Gilbert draws a clear line between postmodernistassertions that science is no more than a social constructionor "productof the mind"and his own view of science as coconstructedwith society and ultimatelycapableof assertingcertainlimited truths. Overcoming disciplinarymonoglossia throughpicking and choosing among many alternativevoices seems similar to the interdisciplinarywork of sorting

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

405

among possible disciplinaryperspectives.It is also one of the most consistentfeatures of the interdisciplinary process reportedin 10 interviews(91%).

PROVISIONALINTEGRATION My five-yearexperienceof teachingRealityand the New Physics with Don is an example of having the two minds approachthe same subjectfrom different directions.It was a marvelousexperience for me of finding out how good philosophersare at pinning weak arguments.... Physicists, use terms for like "mass"and"color," example,in a very sloppy way.We talkaboutred shifts and blue shifts, red and blue as if color were identicalwith the wavelength of light. In orderto hope for a melding of the ways of thinking,you just sort of have to put it out a bit explicitly.Whatconstitutesthe way a philosopher approachesa problem?What constitutesthe way a physicist approaches a problem?Then, humanistsand scientists need to ask together: What is color? What's real stuff? What is time? What is consciousness? Consciousness isn't physics, it's not philosophy,but it's somethingwe can both say whatwe thinkaboutit. So you actuallysee the two methods,the two approachescoming together and fermenting,neither one being definitive. (Burke, NEXA instructor and professor of Physics and Astronomy at SFSU)7 The second turningpoint in interdisciplinary thinking takes place when particito actually bridge different disciplinaryperspectivesinto an intepants attempt gratedwhole. Althoughthis step has been describedas the ultimategoal and purpose of an interdisciplinary enterprise by most participants (73%), few intervieweesfelt they had actually achieved a satisfying closure in the end. Similarly, in the Bakhtin-Vygotsky frameworks,a dialogical exchange-the goal of any communication-is not easy to achieve, as it requiresthe two distinct verbal-ideological utterancesto mesh and blend and to behave "as if they actually hold a conversationwith each other"(Bakhtin,1981, p. 324). Both in dialogic and in interdisciplinary thinking,this goal seems to be as elusive as it is compelling.On one hand, Bakhtin(1981) found the developmentof "polyglotconsciousness"as inevitableand omnipresentin our languageand culture:"Theword in living conit versationis directly,blatantly,orientedtowarda futureanswer-word: provokes itself in the answer'sdirection"(p. 280). At an answer,anticipatesit and structures the same time, dialogue (which fluidly connects social and individualcognition,
7See Vignette 1 in Table2.

406

NIKITINA

the functioningof a culturewith the interiorthoughtof its single representative) involves constantdynamicreconciliationof differingpositions: its Theword, and across envian breaking through ownmeaning its ownexpression
ronmentfull of alien words ..., harmonizingwith some of the elementsof this envi-

is ronment striking dissonance others, ablein thedialogized and a with to process, its and 1981,p. 277) shape ownstylistic profile tone.(Bakhtin, In the words of Bakhtinianscholar and educationresearcherSidorkin(1992), dialogue for Bakhtinis achieved not just by averagingthe two ideas but ratherit is revealed when one can hear and comprehend both or all voices simultaneously-when one's own voice joins in and creates something similarto a musical chord. In a chord, voices remaindifferent,but they form a differenttype of music, which is a principle unachievableby a single voice. The idea that dialogue is being continuallycraftedand depends on the individualityof each note provides a powerful parallelto what happensat the interfaceof disciplines or in inquiry-based classrooms. Wells (2001b) pointed out that Vygotsky's and Bakhtin's ideas of "responsivity"and multivoicednessunderlie the practice of dialogic inquiry, which he would have liked to foster in every classroom (p. 185). The parallel between interdisciplinarythought and language may be more pronouncedat the point of mergerbecause a move towardsynthesis involves explicit blending of ideas and languages. As in metaphorsor conceptualblends in which the composite meaning emerges from differentverbal inputs, the ultimate to understanding which scholars arrivein an interdisciplinary process tends (as in the case of Burke and Provence) to result in new approachestowardthe subject. Also, the case of Burke and Provence, a physicist and a philosopherevolvis ing a new syntheticunderstanding, not unique. A numberof prominentphysicists grapple seriously with the fundamentalconcepts of energy and reality (Hawking, 1998; Wheeler, 1990); there is as well a growing group of philosophers whose work is deeply informedby biological or physical data, such as the work of Dennett (1991) and others. In all of these efforts, integrationof disciplinary ideas is seen as the ultimate goal of interdisciplinarywork. Burke describes how he and Provence "went for the ferment"and eventuallycame to see color "as some sort of cooperativething between brainsand the world."They arrived at a view of color as a psychophysicalunity, informedboth by physics and by individualperception,with neitherperspectivebeing definitive. Their mental journey (moving throughappreciation,sorting out the strengthand weakness of philosophy and physics as ways to account for the phenomenonof color, to active learningfrom each otherand attemptinga mergerof perspectives)is marked by a striking similarity.

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION 407

Although Synthesis,however,does not meanthe same thingfor all participants. Burkeand Provencehybridizedideas from differentdisciplines, otherparticipants focused moreon extendingandcomplexifyingtheirdisciplinarytool kits by incorporatingsome practicesfrom otherdisciplines. Both of these pathwaystowardintegration-hybridization and complexification,as I have called them-are prominent in all eight interviewsthatfeaturedintegration. Emergence of Hybrid Understanding of In the case of BurkeandProvence,getting to the fermentin theirunderstanding color meantreachinga view of color informedboth by the material(physics) and subjective (psychology of perception) perspectives. Hybridizationinvolves the melding of the disciplinaryviews in which the positions of the two disciplines become inseparable.Gilberttalks of a similarprocess of hybridizationof historical and biological perspectives,which producesa view that science is coconstructed with society andis neitherthe productof social forces norcompletelyindependent of them. of Cognitively,hybridization disciplinaryviews may manifestitself in easing of tensions and differencesamong disciplines and in their exaggerationfor the sake of constructing a bridge. Burke demonstratesboth tendencies, which I term assimilative and contrapuntal.He first describeshow he uses one discipline as a the counterpointto anotherby "dumbfounding position A (philosophy) with the B (physics)"in frontof the students.Then, he and Provencemove to the position harmonization (assimilation)of the two perspectivesin theirpsychophysicalconof color. ception showed a clear predispositionto eitherthe contraSome interviewparticipants or the assimilativeapproach.Gilbert,for example, is generallynot predispuntal posed to exacerbatedifferencesbetweenbiology andthe humanities.He prefersto go straight"forthe ferment"and downplay the disciplinarydifferences.His colleague at Swarthmore,philosophy professor Rick Eldridge, on the other hand, encountersamong disciplines, at least in IT. would like to see more contrapuntal of Eldridgesees positive value in clearerdemarcation disciplinarylines, as a proof ductive strategyfor achieving a complex understanding phenomena."I would classes that were framedin termsof a fundamental love to teach interdisciplinary disciplinarydebate,"Eldridgestresses. "I thinkthe students,as long as they have would benefitimmenselyfrom ... an masteredsome home disciplinaryparadigms, all semesterlong examinationof how differentdisciplinaryparadigmsengage divergentlywith common objects of study." Entireprograms StudysometimesdisInterdisciplinary exploredby the Harvard to for a preference eitheranassimilativeorcontrapuntal approach integrating played This may be linked to the core mission to promotedialogue among knowledge.

408

NIKITINA

membersof thetwo culturesor,by contrast, prepare to studentsforpublicdebateand a standon divisiveissues. TheNEXA program SFSU maybe a good examat taking Mostof the facultyandstudentswho wereinple of anassimilativetypeof program. to of terviewedwere attracted "theconvergence" disciplinaryviews. "Thepoint of describesthe founderof NEXA, Michael Gregory, convergence," to and in to ... is firstof all to give anexercise a scientist a humanist getting know eachother terms a common in of In there investigation. convergence, is nonewdisciof and pline,buttheapplication twoexisting disciplines theirprotocols uponanobthat and thesedisciplines such. as ject of attention lies outside beyond Otherprograms,such as the Centerfor Bioethics at the Universityof Pennsylvania, bring out the counterpointin different disciplinaryideas about complex bioethicalissues. Althoughtheirgoal too is to ultimatelyreacha "consensus"and propose a policy solution that integratesthe voices of many constituents,instruction often takes the form of "performative" disagreementamong differentparties to the issue. Professorsbuild theircurriculum aroundcombustibleissues such as a to die or humancloning andpurposefullypolarizestudentsby pushpatient'sright ing them to take a standon issues. Researchat the Centeris informedby the discontributions philosophersandsociologists. Sociologist of tinct,often contrasting, Wolpe explains Thephilosophers thetheologians it as theirbusiness makethoseethical and see to recommendations. socialscientists not.So whenyou'rereallywearing The do that hatsquarely yourhead,your is to refute support on or sociological job philosophical ortheological with but pointsnotbecause canagreeordisagree themethically, you
because you can supportor not supportthem empiricallyor culturally.I think the

clear of contribution thesocialscientist grounding in theactual is ideas of experience A kindof inductive rather deductive than of people. understanding ethics.Thecriis based on tiqueof somephilosophical perspective sociologists notjusta critique by but basedon whatis sometimes disembodied intellectual and data, is alsoa critique
logical thoughtleadingto a conclusion,which is entirelydisconnectedfromthe lived experienceof the people who actuallymake ethical decisions.

However,althoughpersonalor institutional predispositionmight slant scholars towardassimilationor counterpoint, two approachesoften form a continuum. the of Burke,for example,startshis move towardan integrated understanding color by firstconsideringhow his andProvence'sdisciplinaryapproaches clash or possibly addressdifferentaspects of the phenomenon.Gilbertuses a similar strategy.Before Gilbertarrivesat an integrated view of biology as "thequeenof liberalarts," to use his description,he exposes the disconnect among differentsubdisciplinesof biology:

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION 409 a on ... Biologistsinterpret cell or a plantverydifferently depending theirtraining an cell, youtakesaya heart that's appropriate example-andthewaya physiologist looksatthatcell,thewaya developmental looksatthatcell, thewaya gerbiologist looksat thatcell, it couldbe a different cell! ontologist This outline of integrativemoves shows thatthe interdisciplinary mind (at least in 73%of cases) at this point goes beyond mereappreciation otherdisciplinary for perspectives,comparingand contrastingtheircapacityto addressthe problem,or even assess theirrelevance.The realdialoguebegins when the mindattemptsto actogetherinto a coherentwhole. Similarto what is tively fuse those understandings at the borderor in the tradingzones between cultures,exchange of dishappening lanciplinarygoods leads to the emergenceof commoncurrenciesor intermediate guages. As Galison (1997) described, the Inthelogicalcontext thetrading of in zone,despite differences classification, sigand of the can nificance, standards demonstration, twogroups collaborate. can They the cometo a consensus about procedure exchange, of about mechanisms deterto to minewhengoodsare"equal" oneanother. 803) (p. This need for barteris what Burkeand Provenceexperiencewhen they talk about coming to dependon each otherin unravelingthe notion of color for students. Emergence of Complex Disciplinarity Emergenceof a complexified view of the discipline means stretchingof the core concepts and theoriesto respondto the challenge offeredby anotherdiscipline. In complexification,the mind does not try to stake out new groundoutside the disciplines or on the bordersof disciplines butrathertakesthe dialogueinto the interior of the field and changes it from within. This process may be indicativeof the fact thatdialogic qualitycan be the propertyof a disciplineitself, notjust of an interaction among disciplines. Future studies may find it productive to consider the dialogic openness of the disciplines to include new perspectives,to apply "foreign" methods,and to revolutionizeacceptedparadigms(Kuhn, 1962) from without or from within.8 After their interdisciplinary adventure,Burke and Provencedid not returnunchangedto physics andphilosophy.Provence,in Burke'saccount,came to view reality in a new and more materiallight. Burke, following 5 years of coteaching an course called "Realityand The New Physics,"reportedthat he interdisciplinary
8It may be interestingto explore whether particularopenness to dialogue and susceptibility for self-revision is a symptom of a particularstage in the life of a discipline (preparadigmatic, paradigto matic, or revolutionary), use Kuhn's(1962) conceptualization.

410

NIKITINA

came to realize the crucial need to be more consistent and precise in speaking about the core tenets of his discipline such as energy, mass, light, and color. Burke'steachingof physics changed"to include a tremendousamountof writing as comparedto calculation"and to demandmuch more clarityof thinkingand argumentationthanhe ever expected of students.He came to see "clarityin the lanof guage" as something that is "cruciallyimportantto [students']understanding what's happeningin physics."He acquireda new appreciation the Einsteinian for equationsas the expressionof profoundtruthaboutmatter."Afteraboutfive years I finally decided,OK, I've got to say it. Real stuffis energy-momentum four-vector He density." came to see thathiddenin this formulawas "thebest thingthatone has going in physics for the answer to that question [aboutthe natureof reality]."In otherwords, a philosopherand a physicist not only forged a hybridunderstanding of light andcolor,they also complexifiedtheirrespectivefields andaddedsubstantially to them. An example of complexifying disciplinaryviews is the work and teaching of Gilbertat Swarthmore.9 history backgroundand collaborativeteaching in IT His him realize how much biology actually relies on interpretation that and helped "there'sno such thing as an uninterpreted cell." Biology in his hands becomes a morecomplex field involvingstorytellingandmetaphorical thinkingas well as hyGilbertdoes not wanthis studentsto leave his class with a narrow pothesistesting. view of biology as "mereinterpretation," does he want studentsto see biology nor as purelyfactual.He is alwayschallenginghis disciplineto incorporate both scientific and interpretive traditions. encounterwith anotherfield. Complexificationcan result from a transforming A case of this in ourdatais the workof the sociologist RobinWagner-Pacifici who after coteaching an IT course with professorof literaturePhil Weinsteinbecame more deeply "reattached" her home field of sociology. However,what she beto came reattached was not the same old sociology she used to practicebut a socito ology awareof its largerhumanisticroots and issues and a sociology remindedof the importanceof the individualin the social fabric.Wagner-Pacifici reportedbereconfirmedas a sociologist because she realizedsociology's largerrole in the ing humanitiesand social sciences as the revealerof the "social embeddedness"of subjectiveexperiences. and Hybridization complexificationareby no meansthe only ways to engage in an interdisciplinarydialogue. Integrationor disciplinary heteroglossia, to use Bakhtin'sterm,can be attainedvia differentroutes.Undoubtedly,close longitudinal studiesof interdisciplinary workwill uncovervariantpathstowardprovisional of ideas. synthesis

9See Vignette 3, AppendixD.

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

411

REVISING INTEGRATION At At some points in this course, I emphasizescience as interpretative. other I emphasizescience as havinga pathto certainconclusionsandcertain points, to ways of knowingthatarereallyimportant get right.It's a verythinline. Being a scientiston such a program[IT] is skatingon very thinice. I don't want to-evthe studentsto go awaythinkinga) thatscience is mereinterpretation beforeyou know DNA is an interpretation, spermis ery cell is interpretation, and an interpretation; b) I don't want them going away thinkingscience is theorybecauseit's all aboutfacts completelyoutof therealmof interpretation andnumbers.Those arethe two thingsI don't wantthemto come away with. (Gilbert,IT instructorand professorof Biology at Swarthmore College)10 of work, Althoughintegration disciplinesis a definingmomentin interdisciplinary it is no meansthe point of closure. A prominentthirdstep in the developmentof an thoughtis the point of revisionandquestioningof the provisional interdisciplinary All forms of hybridor of complexifiedknowledge are necessarilyparsynthesis. tial, often unsatisfying,and always open for furtherquestioning.It is interestingto who did not directlytalk aboutintegrationdid mention note thateven participants the dangerof settlingdown andacceptingone kind of mergerof ideas withoutconI tinuallyrevising it. Thus, althoughonly 8 (73%) participants have mentionedin referredto the importanceof continthis articletalked about synthesis, 10 (91%) ued search. Likewise, dialogic situations,as describedby Bakhtin(1981), neverquitereach the point of full settlement.Dialogue, in Bakhtin'sdescription,is characterized by a state of irresolution,where "fewer and fewer neutral,hardelements ... remain that are not into dialogue. Dialogue moves into the deepest molecular and ultimately,subatomiclevels" (p. 300). Fauconnierand Turner(2002) and Lakoff and Johnson(1980) also have seen conceptualconsistencyas anomalous,with conceptual blending, metaphoricalcrossovers,and dialogic structures formingthe foundationof our cognition, ultimatelymarkingus as humanspecies.

Rejection of Integration as Final and Complete At the end of Vignette 1, Burke, Physics and AstronomyProfessor,NEXA Procollaborationwith a philosgram,talks aboutemergingfrom the interdisciplinary with a new perspectiveon physics andon the theoryof color.He is no longer opher contentto regardsuch notions as light, color, or consciousnessas domainsof physI?SeeVignette 2, Appendix C.

412

NIKITINA

ics alone. In Burke'sview, if "consciousnessisn't physics, it's not philosophy," is it but a bit of both, then physics andphilosophyneed to continuetheirconversation, even though a definitive answer may not be found in any individualor blended field. Thereis no expectationon Burke'spartthatphysics will one day completely subsumephilosophyor thatthe differencesbetweenthese two disciplineswill ever be reconciled. Neither do biology and critical theory come together in Gilbert's classes in a way thatresolves differencesamongthem. Balancingthe two perspectives involves at some points bringingout the interpretive natureof science and at He others, claiming science's power to limit and weed out weak interpretations. treadsthis thin line not to deliberatelybaffle his studentsbut ratherto put them on the path of continualsearchingfor complex answers. His student,SophiaAccord, answersthe call. Herinterviewoffers a measureof validationto the experiences of her teacher.In the IT seminar,Sophia ends up of treadinga similarthin line, weighing the arguments genderstudieson one hand the arguments science on the other.Afterconsidering"genderas merely of against a performance," observes that this is not biologically the case. She realizes, she is "Everything not a social construct.We have to acknowledgephysical realities." She does not end up rejectingeither perspective,nor does she relativisticallyaccept them both as equal. In otherwords, she, as her professorGilbert,areheld in a dialogical space between seeing science as a social constructand seeing it as being above social discourse. In bioethics, differencesbetween pragmaticphilosophersand sociologists are also nevercompletelyresolved. Wolpeworksthroughthis tension every day. MirroringWolpe's epistemologicaldifficultyin the resolutionof differencesbetween a sociology, law, andphilosophy,ClaireRobertson-Kraft, bioethics studentat Uniof Pennsylvania,describes consensus as "one of the most difficult probversity lems faced by bioethicists"and something of which she has troubleconceiving. Robertson-Kraft points out, "Whenyou're dealing with somethingas complex as humancloning, you can't really expect the general public to understand scithe ence behindwhatit meansto clone a humanbeing. Youcan only hope thatthey understandthat there's a difference between therapeuticcloning and reproductive cloning."Accordingto her, "consensusmay be impossible because those coming from a religious perspectiveare nevergoing to be of the same mind as those comthe ing from a scientific perspective,who will neverunderstand anti-abortion protesters who fail to see eye to eye with pro-choice supporters." Thus, both an instructorand a studentsee harmonization differentviews as a dauntingtask. of Rejectionof integrationas final and complete is typically not a sign of despair, sharedsuch feelings. More frequently,it is perceived althougha few participants as an impetus to finding betterbridges between disciplinaryideas or including a wider scope of disciplines. The vision of a stable mergerof disciplines may actually be antitheticalto the interdisciplinaryconvergence ideal, pursued by the

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

413

NEXA program,for example. The whole point of convergence,in the view of the both maintain"fidelity"to the programfounder Gregory,is that the participants andat the same time substantively informandtransform themby bringdisciplines them into close contact with each other. This strikes a chord with the ing Bakhtinianconception of the dialogue as an ultimatelypositive and constructive way to give manyvoices a hearingor in the conceptualblendingtheories,to create new meaning out of several inputs. The dialectical unity of disciplinaryintegrity and transformation, stabilizingand destabilizingforces acting on the disciplinary to synthesis,propelthe participants defy cognitiveclosureandcontinuetheirinterdisciplinaryefforts.

DISCUSSION Research on interdisciplinarycognition brought about three kinds of findings. First, careful observationand in-depthinterviewinghelped to identify the major in on steps thatappearrecurrent most participants the pathtowardinterdisciplinary integrationof ideas. These included overcoming monodisciplinarity(which incareful sorting, and critical selection of the most productive volved appreciation, approaches),attemptinga tentativesynthesis (eitherthroughcomplexificationor of hybridization ideas), andquestioningit as necessarilyincomplete.Althoughnot all of these stages were presentin all interviewsor were presentin that sequence, The to systematization. they appearedsufficientlyrecurrent allow this preliminary results of this study are summarizedin Table3. This is by no means an exhaustivelist of steps. Overcomingdisciplinarymoattitude nism, for example,may involve morethandevelopmentof an appreciative otherdisciplines, defying the limits imposed by one discipline, and decidtoward ing to reject or accept theoriesbased on theirrelevanceand credibility.Also, realizations thatone frameof referenceis not enough took differentforms in different
TABLE3

Efforts Three Major CognitiveMoves in Interdisciplinary

OvercomingMonodisciplinarity Appreciationof alternative disciplinaryviews Identificationof strengthsand weaknesses in disciplinary perspectivesAcceptanceor rejectionof different disciplinaryinputs ProvisionalIntegration Emergenceof hybrid understanding or (contrapuntal assimilative)Emergenceof complex disciplinarity RevisingIntegration Questioningand critical probingof integration Rejectionof the provisional integrationas final and complete

414

NIKITINA

Some participants developedan investigativeinterestin anotherdisciparticipants. methodsof inquiry,and still others pline, othersexpressedtoleranceto alternative starteda careful comparisonbetween disciplinarytools and the estimationof the degree of usefulness of one versus anotherto shed light on the issue. Second, the study traceda close parallelism(which needs to be furthertested and substantiated) between interdisciplinary cognitive moves and dialogic behaviors describedin psycholinguistic,educational,andorganizational theories.These theories, especially psycholinguistic ones, can potentially serve as a theoretical framework the understanding interdisciplinary for of cognition. Especially useful are the insights of Bakhtin (1981) and his followers (Lakoff, Johnson, Turner, Fauconnier)into the dialogic, metaphoric,and blending tendencies of our language andthought.Althoughthereareconsiderabledifferencesbetweenthe interactionof disciplines andthe interaction wordsin speech, theremay be some unof derlying cognitive mechanism that shapes and explains both. More researchin behaviorsin interdisciplinary classrooms cognitive linguisticsandcommunicative may help shed light on the natureand closeness of this parallel. Third,in this study,I suggested the possibility that there exists a centralcognitive process expressive of the dialogical tendency of our mind, which manifests itself in interdisciplinary other kinds of thinking.Although broadgenand eralizations are perilous in a study of this size, it is notable to observe that differences among participantsand programsdid not seem to contributeto substantivedifferences in how participantsmet the cognitive challenge at the basic level. Whetherthey taught a science-centeredor an ethics-centeredcurriculum, they journeyed a similarpath from demonologizationto questioningtheir tentative synthesis of ideas. More studies will need to fully supportthis finding. It will also be fruitfulto investigatewhetherinquiry-baseddisciplinaryclassrooms and interdisciplinary classrooms differed substantiallyin terms of the cognitive of their participants. paths Instructorsand designers of interdisciplinary curriculaare encouragedto use the findings of this study to monitorstudents'progress in reachingthe cognitive goals of overcoming monodisciplinarity,attaining integration,and questioning the provisional synthesis of ideas in a more systematic and deliberate way. Asking such questions as are studentsmaking truly integrativemoves?, what is the productof their synthesis?, and how open are they to revising the synthesis and searching to find a better fit of ideas? can make the educationalimpact of this study more tangible. Equally tangiblecan be the impactof interdisciplinary thoughton teaching as describedby the college instructorsparticipatingin this study. Faculty reported becoming more sensitive to terminology and argumentation, gaining theoretical depth, and becoming more willing to recognize the methodologicalassumptions on which their conceptions were based. SandraLuft, a Humanitiesprofessor at

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

415

SFSU and her teaching partner,James Peters (Physics), insist on a more "comof view of science and aim for an appreciation ambiguity plex and sophisticated" and uncertaintyin some of its tenets to emerge from their students.Thus, this research, showing the positive effects of interdisciplinary thinkingon learningand lend additionalsupportfor quality interdisciplinary teaching, may programson college campuses.

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This studygeneratedmanymorequestionsthanit could possibly answer.This may natureof the and be an expectedoutcomegiven the preliminary framework-setting across schools and instructors revealedstrongresostudy.Althoughtriangulation nances across differentdata,it also sharpenedthe awarenessthatmore researchis the called for to corroborate resultsof this study.Certainmentalbehaviors(e.g., inwere absentin the workof some parmoves or questioningof integration) tegrative and their sequence variedwidely across interviewees.The fact that the ticipants, study did not produceany generalizableevidence regardingthe sequence of menwork may be indicativeof the fact thatthe threeprotal events in interdisciplinary cesses arecontinuallyreinforcingandreestablishingeach otherin a spiralfashion, echoing the spiralof growingknowledgedescribedby Wells (200 la). This parallel requirespointed examination.Futurestudies relying on more direct observation a may be able to clarify the complex dialectics at work here. Currently, longitudiGraduate School of nal, close-observation-based studyis underway at the Harvard Educationto compensatefor some of these deficiencies. Parallels drawn between interdisciplinary teaching and educationaltheories, behaviorpromptintriguingquestionsfor furand organizational literaryanalysis, enviclassroomsdifferentfrom interdisciplinary therresearch.Are inquiry-based learnfromhighly dialogicalcomronments?Whatcan interdisciplinary programs Do disciplinarydepartments? genuinelyinterdisciplinary munity-of-practice-type classrooms develop conflict and dialogue skills to a greater degree than other classrooms?Hopefully,futureresearchwill illuminatethese questions. Thus, new researchon interdisciplinary cognition should attemptto (a) obtain collaboraand longitudinaldataon interdisciplinary more empirical,quantitative, to help validate and develop this framework, tions and interdisciplinary learning and and(b) trackdifferencesandtest similaritiesbetweeninterdisciplinary general nature of an underlying cognitive communicative behaviors to determine the mechanismat work in all. Productivequestionsto guide new studies might be the concepts"andlanguages?Whatrulesof following: How do we develop "boundary exchange govern them? Are metaphors,analogies, visual imagery,or conceptual teachingor collaborativeactivitiesthanin blendingused more in interdisciplinary

416

NIKITINA

otherlearningenvironments?'1 longitudinalinquiryinto how disciplinarybarter A occurs on the linguistic, social, and epistemologicallevels shouldthus yield valuable insights.The importance this categorization in providinga basic theoretiof is cal platformfor such studies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Researchon interdisciplinary cognition was made possible by generous funding from the AtlanticPhilanthropies. colleagues HowardGardner, VeronicaBoix My Jeff Solomon, Caitlin O'Connor,Liz Dawes, MattMiller, and Michael Mansilla, Schacterhave all contributed the developmentof the ideas containedin this artito I also acknowledgemy indebtednessto the participating cle. faculty and students who were able to commenton theirthinkingprocesses with rareinsight andintrospection. I am well awarethatthis was not a trivialeffort on theirpart.

REFERENCES
Bakhtin,M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination:Fouressays. Austin:Universityof Texas Press. Boix Mansilla,V.,Miller, W. C., & Gardner,H. (2000). On disciplinarylenses and interdisciplinary work.In S. Wineburg P. Grossman(Eds.), Interdisciplinary & curriculum:Challengesto implementation (pp. 17-38). New York:TeachersCollege Press. Brown, T. L. (2003). Makingtruth:Metaphorin science. Urbana:Universityof Illinois Press. Dennett,D. C. (1991). Consciousnessexplained.Boston: Little, Brown. science education:The importanceof theoriesand their developDuschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring ment.New York:TeachersCollege Press. Duschl, R. A. (1992). Makingscientific thinkingvisible: The role of evidence diversityand theoryarticulation.In R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton(Eds.), Philosophyofscience, cognitivepsychology,and educationaltheoryand practice. New York:State Universityof New YorkPress. Duschl, R. A. & Hamilton,R. J. (Eds.). (1992). Philosophyof science, cognitivepsychology,and educational theoryand practice. New York:State Universityof New YorkPress.

in lGilbert,forexample,insistson usingmetaphors his teachingof biology,whichis richlyinformed by historyof science andculturalstudiesperspectives.Such notionsas sperm,egg, andfertilization,for example, are offered to studentsloaded with culturaland mythologicalmeaning."Youhave the heroic sperm,which reallyfollows the mythof the herovery well, you can show alternative stories,you can deconstructthis one andshow its social background," describes.However,he also pointsout the limitsof he such literaryanalogy and culturalmetaphorin conveying the biological reality, citing the different epistemologicalgoals of the two kindsof discourse."Biologically,a spermis not a militaryhero;a sperm is not the victor.To see the spermas activeandthe egg as passive is biochemicallyincorrect." explore To how metaphor usedin thescienceversusthehumanities is classroomandespeciallywhatuses it is putto in environmentswould be a fascinatingtopic for futureempiricalstudy. interdisciplinary

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

417

M. Engestrom,Y, Engestrom,R., & Karkkainen, (1995). Polycontextualityandboundarycrossing in expertcognition: Learningand problemsolving in complex work activities. Learningand Instruction, 5, 319-336. Engestrom,Y.,Engestrom,R., & Sunito,A. (2002). Cana school communitylearnto masterits own future?An activity-theoretical studyof expansivelearningamong middle school teachers.In G. Wells on & G. Claxton(Eds.), Learningforlife in the 21st century:Socioculturalperspectives thefutureof education (pp. 211-224). Malden,MA: Blackwell. Engle, R. A., & Conant,F. R. (2002). Guidingprinciplesfor fosteringproductivedisciplinaryengagement: Explainingan emergentargumentin a communityof learnersclassroom. Cognitionand Instruction,20, 399-460. M. Fauconnier, & Turner, (1994). Conceptualprojectionand middlespaces (Tech.Rep. No. 9401). G., of Department Cognitive Science, Universityof California,San Diego. Fauconnier,G., & Turner,M. (2002). The way we think:Conceptualblendingand the mind's hidden complexities.New York:Basic Books. Flower,L. (2000). The rivalhypothesisstance and the practiceof inquiry.In L. Flower,E. Long, & L. inquiry(pp. 27-48). Mahwah, Higgins (Eds.), Learningto rival: A literatepracticefor intercultural NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Flower,L., Long, E., & Higgins, L. (2000). Learningto rival: A literatepracticefor interculturalinquiry.Mahwah,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc. Galin,J. R., & Latchaw,J. (Eds.). (1998). Thedialogic classroom:Teachersintegratingcomputertechnology,pedagogy, and research.Urbana:NationalCouncil for Teachersof English. Galison,P.L. (1997). Imageand logic: A materialcultureofmicrophysics.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. H. tests, the K-12 educationthatevGardner, (2000). Disciplinedmind:Beyondfactsand standardized ery child deserves. New York:Penguin. Graff,G. (1992). Beyondthe culturewars: How teaching the conflicts can revitalizeAmericaneducation. New York:Norton. Graff,G. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind.New Haven,CT: Yale UniversityPress. Hardin,C. L. (1988). Colorfor philosophers: Unweavingthe rainbow.Indianapolis,IN: Hackett. Hawking,S. W. (1998). Brief history of time. New York:Bantam. Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History,theory,and practice. Detroit,MI:WayneStateUniversity. studies today.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Klein, J. T., & Doty, W. (Eds.). (1994). Interdisciplinary and Kocklemans,J. J. (Ed.). (1979). Interdisciplinarity higher education.UniversityPark:Pennsylvania State UniversityPress. of Kuhn,T. S. (1962). Structure scientific revolutions.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor.In A. Ortony(Ed.), Metaphorand thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress. Lakoff, G., & Johnson,M. (1980). Metaphorswe live by. Chicago:The Universityof Chicago Press. researchand teachingamong colLattuca,L. R. (2001). Creatinginterdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary UniversityPress. faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt lege and university Mercer,N. (2002). Developing dialogues. In G. Wells & G. Claxton(Eds.), Learningforlife in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education (pp. 141-153). Malden, MA: Blackwell. metaphorsfor meaning making in matheMoreno, R., & Mayer,R. E. (1999). Multimedia-supported matics. Cognitionand Instruction,17, 215-248. New York:College Board. Essaysfromthe literature. Newell, W. H. (Ed.). (1998). Interdisciplinarity: research at Palmer,C. (2001). Work the boundariesof science: Informationand the interdisciplinary process. Dordrecht,The Netherlands:KluwerAcademic.

418

NIKITINA

Pickering,A. (1995). Mangle of practice. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press. Sidorkin,A. M. (1992). Beyonddiscourse. New York:State Universityof New YorkPress. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution.Cambridge,England:Cambridge UniversityPress. M. Turner, (1996). The literarymind.New York:OxfordUniversityPress. M. Turner, (2001). Cognitivedimensionsof social science. New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Vygotsky, L. (1963). Thoughtand language. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky,L. (1978). Mindin society: Thedevelopment higherpsychologicalprocesses.Cambridge, of MA: Harvard UniversityPress. Wells, G. (Ed.). (2001a). Action, talk, and text: Learning and teaching throughinquiry.New York: TeachersCollege Press. Wells, G. (2001b). Case of dialogic inquiry.In G. Wells (Ed.),Action,talk, & text:Learningand teaching throughinquiry(pp. 171-194). New York:TeachersCollege Press. Wells, G. (2001c). Developmentof a communityof inquirers.In G. Wells (Ed.), Action, talk, & text: Learningand teaching throughinquiry(pp. 1-24). New York:TeachersCollege Press. Wells, G. (2002). Inquiryas orientationfor learning,teaching,andteachereducation.In G. Wells & G. Claxton(Eds.), Learning life in the 21st century:Socioculturalperspectiveson thefuture of edufor cation (pp. 197-210). Malden,MA: Blackwell. Wells, G., & Claxton, G. (Eds.). (2002). Learningfor life in the 21st century:Socioculturalperspectives on thefuture of education.Malden,MA: Blackwell. Wenger,E., McDermott,R., & Snyder,W. M. (2002). A guide to managing knowledge:Cultivating communitiesof practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wertsch,J. V. (1998). Mindas action. Oxford,England:OxfordUniversityPress. Wheeler,J. A. (1990). Journeyinto gravityand spacetime.New York:Scientific AmericanLibrary. Zajonc,A. (1993). Catchingthe light: The entwinedhistoryof light and mind.New York:Bantam.

APPENDIX A Core Research Participants NEXA Program,San FranciscoState University Since 1975, NEXA's mission has been to offer studentsan interdisciplinary curriculum the demonstrating interactionof the historical, philosophical,and literarymodes of thoughtwith those in the physical and social sciences. NEXA's courses, typically team-taught faculty members by in the sciences and in the humanities,striveto providea point of convergenceand a forumfor Course dialogue between the "two cultures." offeringsinclude:Mythic and Scientific Thought; The NuclearRevolution;The Visual Worldof Science and Art;Cosmologies and WorldViews; The DarwinianRevolution

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

419

John Burke

Michael Gregory

SandraLuft

Ray Pestrong

Theory, Interpretation Swarthmore College

Sophia Accord

Physics and AstronomyProfessorat SFSU, Burke has taught,in partnership with Don Provence NEXA's Reality and the New (philosophy), Physics course exploringcore concepts in physics and theirtransformation the 20th century in directorof the NEXA, Gregoryis Long-time in currentlyinstructor The DarwinianRevolution which tries to unpackthe biological, course, philosophical,literary,and sociopolitical implicationsof Darwin'sevolutionarytheory HumanitiesProfessorat SFSU, Luft for many years has co-taughtwith physics professorJames Peters NEXA's Originsof ModernScience course, which explores methodologicalassumptionsof science and how they evolved in the cultureof modem Europe Geology Professorat SFSU, Pestronghas partnered with severalhumanities(classics) professorsin teachingNEXA's Mythic And Scientific Thought course, which looks at differentnatural phenomena(landforms,volcanoes, earthquakes) from the mythologicaland scientific perspectives From its inception in 1992, Concentrationin Theory (IT) has provided a forum Interpretation for students and faculty to explore "the nature Students get and politics of representation." exposed to a range of classical and modern hermeneutictraditionsthrougha variety of six courses, which culminate in a team-taught capstone seminar.IT courses and capstone seminars include: Critical Study in the Visual Arts; Critical and CulturalTheory; The Productionof History; Language and Meaning; Reading Culture;History in/and Anthropology; Mind, Body, and Machine IT student,Accord took the Mind, Body, and Machine capstone seminarco-taughtby French literaryand criticaltheory scholarJean-Vincent Blanchardand biologist Scott Gilbert,which broughttogetherthe perspectivesof gender studies, criticaltheory,technology,and biology

420

NIKITINA

Professorof Philosophy,Eldridgeis interestedin the topics of aesthetic,linguistic, and philosophical expression.He has taughtIT's Aesthetics, Languageand Meaning, 19th centuryPhilosophy, and Interpretation the Visual Arts (with art historianM. Cothren) Professorof Biology, Gilbertteaches courses in Scott Gilbert embryology,developmentalgenetics, and history and critiqueof biology. In partnership with the FrenchliteraryscholarJean-Vincent Blanchard, Gilberthas co-taughtthe Mind, Body, and Machinecapstone,focusing on the relationship between mental,technologicaland biological phenomena Robin Wagner-Pacifici Sociology and AnthropologyProfessor, has Wagner-Pacifici taughtDiscourse Analysis; Power,Authority,and Conflict;and IT capstone Mappingthe Modern(with English Literature professorPhilip Weinstein),which explores the moderncity as expressedin literature,sociology, and criticaltheory MarkWallace Associate Professorof Religion, Wallacefocuses on the intersectionbetween philosophyof religion, criticaltheory,environmental studies, and In with English postmodernism. partnership Literature professorPhilip Weinstein,Wallacehas taughtthe IT capstone seminarVisionariesof Spirit,Mastersof Suspicion Centerfor Bioethics, Center fosters informed dialogue about the ethical, legal, social and public policy Universityof Pennsylvania implications of advances in the life sciences and medicine. Its interdisciplinaryfaculty (sociologists, pragmatic philosophers, medical researchers, etc.) engages in analysis, reflection, and public discussion of the critical biomedical issues of our time, such as organ transplantation,genetic engineering, etc. Paul Wolpe Professorin the Departmentof Sociology and of Department Medical Ethics, senior Fellow at UPenn's Centerfor Bioethics, Wolpe examines the ideology and cultureof medical thought; neuroethics;religion and its role in bioethical debate RichardEldridge

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

421

APPENDIX B Three Sets of Interview Questions Posed to Participants (a) Organizationand administrationof the interdisciplinary program-Particiin work in the program. pants'backgroundand participation the interdisciplinary * Whatis your role in the interdisciplinary programdesign and understanding of its mission? * How has the programevolved over time? * How does the program/institution support or facilitate faculty collaborations? What are the provisionsfor joint researchand teaching? * Whatspecific recruitingpolicies, rewardandpromotionsystems andevaluation practicesare in place in the interdisciplinary program? * What is the relationshipbetween the programand academicdepartmentsHow do their culturesdiffer? (b) Pedagogical design-Description and critical analysis of interdisciplinary pedagogy. * How are differentbodies of knowledge broughttogether and integratedin your classroom? How do you specifically facilitate connection making? Could you describe a projector a unit which successfully broughtdifferent "modesof thinking"together? * Couldyou compareyourteachingof an interdisciplinary courseto teachinga traditionaldisciplinarycurriculum? * Why do some interdisciplinary fail? How would you describe units/projects classroom? the particular challenges of an interdisciplinary * How is interdisciplinary work assessed? Whatevaluationcriteriado you set for students?How do teachingpartnersarriveat a joint grade? * Can you describe your collaboration with your teaching partnerin this course?What were its impactson your teaching? (c) Cognitiveimpactsof interdisciplinary learningor collaboration-Description offeredby an interdisciplinary of challengesandopportunities inquiryfor students and faculty. * Could you commenton what is difficultaboutteaching/learning the interin as comparedto otherkinds of instruction? disciplinaryprogram course? How * How would you describethe outcomes of an interdisciplinary as a learneror a teacher? has this mode of learning/teaching impactedyou * Could you describemomentsof integrationand disconnectionor confusion? to What do you thinkcontributed them? * Is thereanythingin the cognitive profile of a learnerthatpredisposeshim or her to interdisciplinary exploration?What cognitive qualities need to be in work? to cope with the challenges of interdisciplinary place

422

NIKITINA

APPENDIX C Vignette 2 Scott Gilbert Biology Professor Swarthmore College I'm a biologist and one of the things thatI feel very stronglyis thatbiologists have to learn abouttheir own it. discipline and to interpret There'sno such thing as an uninterrupted cell. A lot of teachingin biology is story telling. They'rewonderfulstories and I thinkthat they're stories, which are validatedby data,especially datacoming from many sources. My main role in this class is to unpackfor studentsthatwe can tell what isn't so. Science is a very good way of getting rid of false interpretations. One of the things that I have done in Interpretation Theory is go throughhistorically how interpretations of fertilizationhave changed. You have the heroic sperm, which really follows the myth of the hero very well, you can show alternativestories, and you can deconstructthis one and show its social background. Biologically, a sperm is not a military hero; a sperm is not the victor. To see the sperm as active and the egg as passive is biochemically incorrect.They are both as active, both as passive, the sperm is actor and acted upon, and the chemicals involved are very similar. So you get a differentview. We can socially deconstructBernoulli's principle and say it was a productof the early Renaissance. We can talk about him being a mystic and a Pythagorean.But you know, you got here by airplane!At some level things came together so that very heavy aircraftcan fly. My argumentis that science not only is constructed, science also helps in the constructionof the society as well. Yes, it has its metaphors,but that doesn't mean that it's false. Within a particulararea, we have knowledge, which has been validatedby multiple points of view. When all these things converge on a set of inferences, I am willing to use that, and so are you. Overcoming monodisciplinarity: Constraining conclusions of one discipline with the other

Integration: Complex mutualitybetween science and society

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

423

I got involved in Interpretation Theorylargely through feminist critiquesof biology. What I try to bringto the course is a notion of responsibility.That you are responsiblefor your data,responsiblefor the way that you presentyour data and thatthere are things thatwe know are not true.It was interestingto bring this type of thing into an Interpretation Theoryclass because what I'm talking aboutis how science is used to limit We interpretations. talkedaboutthe differences between science and humanitiesin termsof and interpretations, I pointedout thatone of the things that science does is to say it isn't this and it isn't that. Whereasin the humanitiesmany times, the more you interpretations can give a work, the richerit is. There are very differentinterpretative traditions. Being a scientist on such a programis skatingon very thin ice. I don't want the studentsto go away thinking to a) that science is mere interpretation - every cell is thereforeyou know DNA is an interpretation, and spermis an interpretation; b) I interpretation, don't want them going away thinkingscience is theory completely out of the realm of interpretation because it's all aboutfacts and numbers.Those are the two things I don't want them to come away with.

Sustaining interdisciplinary dialogue: Continuingefforts to balancerespect with responsibility

APPENDIX D Vignette 3 Paul Wolpe Professor,Centerfor Bioethics Sociology Universityof Pennsylvania In the seventies, it was decided resolutelythat you should tell people abouttheir cancerand the philosophers celebratedthe triumphof theirposition on people's autonomy.The only problemwas thatwhen sociologists went out and looked at it they found thatthere were vast sub-culturesin this countrywhere they didn't want to be a told. Korean-Americans, Mexican-Americans, number of Asian and Latin Americancultures.It never even occurredto philosophersthattheremight be some Overcoming monodisciplinarity: Challenging conceptionsof one discipline with data from another

424

NIKITINA

would be populationswhere their moralpronouncement Glenn McGee in our problematicculturally.Philosopher Centerwith his pragmaticbioethics began to say you can't do ontological bioethics, it doesn't work. And some social scientists who have a philosophicaleye or ear, like me, were tryingto say the same things from the other side. I've learned an enormous amountfrom the philosophers. Which is that there is a case to be made for clearly reasoned logical thinking about ethical issues leading to a recommendation.Philosopherstend to think very systematically about things -'let's tear things apartinto sections, follow each one to its logical conclusion'. That's not how sociologists are trainedto think. Clarifying of thinking is the content of philosophical discourse, while it is simply a byproductof sociological discourse. I think the clear contribution the social scientist is of ideas in the actualexperienceof people. A grounding kind of inductiveratherthandeductiveunderstanding of ethics. The critiqueof the philosophicalperspectiveby sociologists is not just a critiquebased on data,but is also a critiquebased on what is sometimes disembodied intellectualand logical thoughtleading to a conclusion. Which is entirelydisconnectedfrom the lived experience of the people who actuallymake ethical decisions. I enjoy arguingwith philosophersaboutwhetherthe me thatwas manic is the same me as the me now for a day, but this by itself is going to get us absolutelynowhere.There are legal issues, thereare social justice issues, in some culturesthis would be very acceptableand in some it wouldn't. It's a tougherrole for the sociologist and the anthropologist in bioethics because the producthas got to be an ethical recommendation. That's what you want at the end of the The philosophersand the theologians see it as their day. business to make those ethical recommendations. The social scientists do not. So when you're really wearing that sociological hat squarelyon your head, yourjob is to refuteor supportphilosophicalor theological points not because you can agree or disagreewith them ethically, but because you can supportor not supportthem empiricallyor culturally.The sociological partof my

Recognizing strengthsand weaknesses of two fields

Integration: Recognizing need for joint understanding

Sustaining interdisciplinary dialogue: Continuingto deal with differencesin methodology

INTERDISCIPLINARY COGNITION

425

course on Jewish Bioethics is not aboutwhetherit's right or wrong to take the dying off life support,but abouthow the issue is framed,what kinds of people are takingwhich sides on this and why. What institutionalbodies have investmentsin this? What is the historicalprecedence? Who are the powerfuland powerless in this particular argument?