Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cognition and
Instruction.
http://www.jstor.org
COGNITION
ANDINSTRUCTION,
23(3),389-425
? 2005,Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates,Inc.
Copyright
Pathwaysof InterdisciplinaryCognition
SvetlanaNikitina
WorcesterPolytechnicInstitute
of Humanities
andArt,
Requestsfor reprintsshouldbe sentto SvetlanaNikitina,Department
Worcester
Institute,30 RussellRoad,Wellesley,MA 02482.E-mail:svetlana@wpi.edu
Polytechnic
390
NIKITINA
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
391
392
NIKITINA
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
This studyof a multistepprocessof interdisciplinarycognitionis guidedby a theoreticalpremisethatthereexists an importantsimilarity-and possibly a fundamental connection!-between the interdisciplinaryeffortsandothermentaloperations
thatinvolveinternalor externaldialoguesuch as metaphoricthought,collaborative
work,andotherformsof negotiatingof differencesandmergingof ideas. Thus,besides a descriptiverole, this studyis also an attemptas systematization.The people
involvedin this study attemptto find a cogent theoreticalframe,which would link
interdisciplinarycognition 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.
desmor
onarse
evaluar
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
393
Sources of Theory
TerminologyUsed
Cognitive linguistics
Literarytheory
Culturalstudies
Cognition studies
Dialogue/dialogic
Conceptualblending
Metaphor
Discourse
Pidgins, creoles
Rival hypothesis
Semiotic communities
Metalanguage
Educationaltheory
Philosophy
Studies of disciplinaryand
interdisciplinarityeducation
Distributedcognition
Epistemologies
Tradingzones
Boundarycrossing
Domain specific cognition
Epistemicpractice
Dialogic classroom
Educationand educational
administrationframeworks
Organizationaldevelopment
AnthropologySociology
InquiryRival hypothesis
Activity theory
Communitiesof practice
Cultures
Conflicts
Sharedpractice
Knowledge-sharing
Peer learning
394
NIKITINA
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
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
"pidgins"to allow for "characteristicforms of argumentation"to evolve "around
specific practices"(p. 806). Literatureon disciplinaryeducation (Duschl, 1990;
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 different methodologies are linked, what is being "traded"in "multi-disciplinary,"
and "interdisciplinary"4
transactions.Al"meta-disciplinary,"
"transdisciplinary,"
to
an
theoretical
this
literature
one
guide
provide important
might expect
though
for the study of interdisciplinarycognition, such a guide is generallystill lacking.
Empiricalstudies of interdisciplinarythoughton the individuallevel have largely
remainedoutside of the scope of this literature.So far, it has addressedthe issue
mostly by generatingdescriptivelists of thinkingdispositionssuch as "flexibility,
patience,resilience, sensitivityto others,risk-taking"(Klein, 1990, p. 183). Summarizing her analysis of such studies, Klein (1990) observed that the empirical
studies and thick descriptionsof "thecomplex actualityof doing interdisciplinary
work" (p. 184) are generally underrepresented.An exception may be Newell's
(1998) study(Klein & Doty, 1994) of interdisciplinarypedagogy,which attempted
to describe the interdisciplinaryprocess5itself. Although useful for this study, it
does not providea theoreticalframeworkbeyondthese observations.In this investigation,I hoped to take a step in that direction.
What arguablyyields the deepest understandingof the workings of the mind
and its cognitive operationsis the view of the discipline as a languagein the broad
sense of the word.Focus on individualcognitive transformationratherthanon organizationalcollaborationor teachingpracticemakes semiotic shifts and symbol
exchange a promisingparallelto what goes on in interdisciplinarythinking.Also,
languagehere signifies more thanthe rules of grammarand syntax-rather, it is a
carrierof belief systems and a representationof ideological, disciplinary,andperasmorethana
to thisdefinition)
work(andI subscribe
hasdefinedinterdisciplinary
4Thisliterature
interaction(Boix
simpleaggregationof epistemologiesbut rathertheiractiveand transformative
1979).Twoelements,in
2000;Klein,1990;Kocklemans,
2000;Gardner,
Mansilla,Miller,& Gardner,
efforts:(a)deepdisciplinary
thisview,arecrucialforinterdisciplinary
knowledgeand(b)its substanandall participants
tiveexchange.All programs
profiledin thisstudywerecarefullyselectedto meet
bothof thesecriteria.
classroompractice.
aninterdisciplinary
5Newell's(1998)focuswasprimarily
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 imaginationareparticularlyuseful as his
views on dialogue closely capturethe two core featuresof interdisciplinarywork:
(a) its rootednessin deep disciplinaryknowledge (or individualvoice) and (b) the
substantiveexchange and transformationof this voice or disciplinaryperspective
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"(p. 274) in which several ideas or disciplinaryinputs are
sustainedin a dialectic and nonrelativisticway.
This conception seems to suggest a constructiveplatformfrom which to view
interdisciplinarycognition. In the light of Bakhtin's (1981) theory, overcoming
monodisciplinaritymay be seen as similar to overcoming monologic thinking.
Bakhtin'sdescriptionsof dialoguerunparallelto ourparticipants'reportsof the interdisciplinarysynthesisthey 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 multivoicedinterdisciplinarythinking.Bakhtin'sconcepts and
notions (dialogic, multivoiced,collaborative)arealso profitablyappliedby educational andorganizationaltheorists(see previously)to describefoundationalvalues
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 "fundamentallymetaphoricalin
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 characterizingsuch
cross-domainmappings"(p. 203). Lakoff and Johnson(1980), followed by other
cognitive scientists, posited that we conceptualize abstract notions by
"cross-mapping"them on to concrete experiences. For example, we routinely
representideas as substances("I am going to pieces"), time as matter("living on
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 "understandscomplex systems in
nature in terms of conceptual frameworksderived from experiential gestalts,
ways of organizingexperience into a structuredform" (p. 12). Cognitive scientists 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
termsof the known (Moreno& Mayer, 1999). Remarkablesimilaritiescan be noticed both in terminologyand in substancebetween the descriptionsof psycholinguists, educationaltheorists,and interdisciplinarityexpertsdespite their different
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.Interdisciplinarywork,althoughsimilarin fundamentalways to otherformsof collaborative 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.Interdisciplinary thoughtmay be a case of conceptualblendingon a large epistemic (ratherthan
398
NIKITINA
METHOD
Focus on the thinkingprocessandits evolutionpromptedthe methodfor this study.
The bulk of datacomes from personalinterviewswith universityfaculty6who reflect on their interdisciplinarycollaborationeither with anotherfaculty member
(from anotherdepartment)or with anotherdiscipline. As a result of this focus on
individualcognition, participantdescriptionsof their thoughtprocesses in the interviews were the primarysource of analysis and systematization.
To establish recurrentpatternsand stages in interdisciplinarythought, interviews with scholarsengagedin interdisciplinaryteachingwere 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,researcherssubjectedinterviewmaterialto several coding passes. The firstcoding pass targetedsuch broadcategoriesas "definitions of interdisciplinarywork,""cognitivechallenges of interdisciplinarywork,"
"momentsof integration,""benefitsof interdisciplinarylearning,"and so forth.
Close attentionwas paid to descriptionsof collaborationsamong faculty in which
participantsdetailedhow specificallytheirthinkinghas changedoverthe courseof
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
integrationas final,"were established.Attentionwas paid also to the sequence of
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)
Sustainingdialogue:
Questioning
dominanceof any one
field while pressing
for a betterjoint
understanding
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.
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
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 understandwhy 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 towardinterdisciplinarysynthesis of ideas, accordingto
participants'interviews,seems to be overcominga monodisciplinaryperspective.
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
early in theirinterdisciplinaryprocess thatthey needed to make a move from single-languageexistence (anchoredin one discipline)to a polyglot life. The way they
did it differedfromparticipantto participant,butinvolvedin one formor another(a)
thedevelopmentof anappreciationof alternativedisciplinaryviews; (b) theidentification 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 thesementalactionscouldleadparticipantsawayfrom
a monological to a more dialogical conceptionof the phenomenon.
Appreciating Alternative Disciplinary Views
Synthesis of ideas is arguablyimpossible without some degree of regardand appreciationof alternativeepistemologicalsystem as worthyof exploration.Professors 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.
Pestrong,for example,comes "toconsiderwhatthat[creationistview of the world]
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
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
thinkingaboutethical issues leadingto a recommendation,"andbecame skilled at
thinking"verysystematicallyaboutthings."This is not the skill in which sociologists are rigorouslytrained,but it is crucial in the field in which one is routinely
partof policy debates.
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
403
404
NIKITINA
failed to accountfor the natureof light and color: "Whatare the primaryqualities
of light that vouchsafe its unambiguousexistence? The extraordinaryresponse
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 experiing them into close contact.He used science "tolimit interpretations"
mentaldatawhile at the same time turningto the humanitiesto preventsimplification of an issue and to remindscience of its social responsibility.Appreciationof
the alternativedisciplinein his case goes handin handwith the criticalcomparison
of differentdisciplinarytool kits. This process of sortingand weighing is a crucial
step towardprovisionalintegrationof ideas.
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
405
among possible disciplinaryperspectives.It is also one of the most consistentfeatures of the interdisciplinaryprocess 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
like "mass"and"color,"for 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 interdisciplinarythinking takes place when participants attemptto actually bridge different disciplinaryperspectivesinto an integratedwhole. 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 interdisciplinarythinking,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 conversationis directly,blatantly,orientedtowarda futureanswer-word:it provokes
an answer,anticipatesit and structuresitself in the answer'sdirection"(p. 280). At
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:
Theword,breakingthroughits ownmeaningandits ownexpressionacrossanenvironmentfull of alien words ..., harmonizingwith some of the elementsof this envi-
INTERDISCIPLINARY
COGNITION 407
408
NIKITINA
clearcontribution
of thesocialscientistis grounding
ideasin theactualexperience
of
A
kind
of
inductiveratherthandeductiveunderstanding
of ethics.Thecripeople.
tiqueof somephilosophical
perspective
by sociologistsis notjusta critiquebasedon
intellectual
and
data,butis alsoa critiquebasedon whatis sometimesdisembodied
logical thoughtleadingto a conclusion,which is entirelydisconnectedfromthe lived
experienceof the people who actuallymake ethical decisions.
INTERDISCIPLINARY
COGNITION 409
a cell or a plantverydifferentlydependingon theirtraining...
Biologistsinterpret
youtakesaya heartcell, that'sanappropriate
example-andthewaya physiologist
looksatthatcell,thewaya developmental
biologistlooksatthatcell, thewaya gerontologistlooksat thatcell, it couldbe a differentcell!
This outline of integrativemoves shows thatthe interdisciplinarymind (at least
in 73%of cases) at this point goes beyond mereappreciationfor otherdisciplinary
perspectives,comparingand contrastingtheircapacityto addressthe problem,or
even assess theirrelevance.The realdialoguebegins when the mindattemptsto actively fuse those understandingstogetherinto a coherentwhole. Similarto what is
happeningat the borderor in the tradingzones between cultures,exchange of disciplinarygoods leads to the emergenceof commoncurrenciesor intermediatelanguages. As Galison (1997) described,
Inthelogicalcontextof thetradingzone,despitethedifferences
in classification,
sigof demonstration,
thetwogroupscancollaborate.
nificance,andstandards
Theycan
cometo a consensusabouttheprocedure
of exchange,aboutmechanisms
to determinewhengoodsare"equal"to oneanother.(p. 803)
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 interdisciplinaryadventure,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
interdisciplinarycourse called "Realityand The New Physics,"reportedthat he
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,paradigmatic, or revolutionary),to 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 language" as something that is "cruciallyimportantto [students']understandingof
what's happeningin physics."He acquireda new appreciationfor the Einsteinian
equationsas the expressionof profoundtruthaboutmatter."Afteraboutfive years
I finally decided,OK, I've got to say it. Real stuffis energy-momentumfour-vector
density."He 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.9His history backgroundand collaborativeteaching in IT
helped him realize how much biology actually relies on interpretationand that
"there'sno such thing as an uninterpretedcell." Biology in his hands becomes a
morecomplex field involvingstorytellingandmetaphoricalthinkingas well as hypothesistesting. Gilbertdoes not wanthis studentsto leave his class with a narrow
view of biology as "mereinterpretation,"
nor does he want studentsto see biology
as purelyfactual.He is alwayschallenginghis disciplineto incorporateboth scientific and interpretivetraditions.
Complexificationcan result from a transformingencounterwith anotherfield.
A case of this in ourdatais the workof the sociologist RobinWagner-Pacificiwho
after coteaching an IT course with professorof literaturePhil Weinsteinbecame
more deeply "reattached"to her home field of sociology. However,what she became reattachedto was not the same old sociology she used to practicebut a sociology awareof its largerhumanisticroots and issues and a sociology remindedof
the importanceof the individualin the social fabric.Wagner-Pacificireportedbeing reconfirmedas a sociologist because she realizedsociology's largerrole in the
humanitiesand social sciences as the revealerof the "social embeddedness"of
subjectiveexperiences.
Hybridizationandcomplexificationareby no meansthe only ways to engage in
an interdisciplinarydialogue. Integrationor disciplinary heteroglossia, to use
Bakhtin'sterm,can be attainedvia differentroutes.Undoubtedly,close longitudinal studiesof interdisciplinaryworkwill uncovervariantpathstowardprovisional
synthesis of ideas.
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
411
REVISING INTEGRATION
At some points in this course, I emphasizescience as interpretative.At other
points,I emphasizescience as havinga pathto certainconclusionsandcertain
ways of knowingthatarereallyimportantto get right.It's a verythinline. Being a scientiston such a program[IT] is skatingon very thinice. I don't want
the studentsto go awaythinkinga) thatscience is mereinterpretationto-every cell is interpretation,beforeyou know DNA is an interpretation,spermis
an interpretation;and b) I don't want them going away thinkingscience is
completelyoutof therealmof interpretationtheorybecauseit's all aboutfacts
andnumbers.Those arethe two thingsI don't wantthemto come away with.
(Gilbert,IT instructorand professorof Biology at SwarthmoreCollege)10
Althoughintegrationof disciplinesis a definingmomentin interdisciplinarywork,
it is no meansthe point of closure. A prominentthirdstep in the developmentof an
interdisciplinarythoughtis the point of revisionandquestioningof the provisional
synthesis. All forms of hybridor of complexifiedknowledge are necessarilypartial, often unsatisfying,and always open for furtherquestioning.It is interestingto
note thateven participantswho did not directlytalk aboutintegrationdid mention
the dangerof settlingdown andacceptingone kind of mergerof ideas withoutcontinuallyrevising it. Thus, althoughonly 8 (73%) participantsI have mentionedin
this articletalked about synthesis, 10 (91%) referredto the importanceof continued search.
Likewise, dialogic situations,as describedby Bakhtin(1981), neverquitereach
the point of full settlement.Dialogue, in Bakhtin'sdescription,is characterizedby
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 structuresformingthe foundationof our cognition, ultimatelymarkingus as humanspecies.
412
NIKITINA
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
413
NEXA program,for example. The whole point of convergence,in the view of the
programfounder Gregory,is that the participantsboth maintain"fidelity"to the
disciplinesandat the same time substantivelyinformandtransformthemby bringing them into close contact with each other. This strikes a chord with the
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
synthesis,propelthe participantsto defy cognitiveclosureandcontinuetheirinterdisciplinaryefforts.
DISCUSSION
Research on interdisciplinarycognition brought about three kinds of findings.
First, careful observationand in-depthinterviewinghelped to identify the major
steps thatappearrecurrentin most participantson the pathtowardinterdisciplinary
integrationof ideas. These included overcoming monodisciplinarity(which involved appreciation,careful sorting, and critical selection of the most productive
approaches),attemptinga tentativesynthesis (eitherthroughcomplexificationor
hybridizationof ideas), andquestioningit as necessarilyincomplete.Althoughnot
all of these stages were presentin all interviewsor were presentin that sequence,
they appearedsufficientlyrecurrentto allow this preliminarysystematization.The
results of this study are summarizedin Table3.
This is by no means an exhaustivelist of steps. Overcomingdisciplinarymonism, for example,may involve morethandevelopmentof an appreciativeattitude
towardotherdisciplines, defying the limits imposed by one discipline, and deciding to reject or accept theoriesbased on theirrelevanceand credibility.Also, realizations thatone frameof referenceis not enough took differentforms in different
TABLE3
Efforts
Three MajorCognitiveMoves in Interdisciplinary
OvercomingMonodisciplinarity
ProvisionalIntegration
Appreciationof alternative
disciplinaryviews
Identificationof strengthsand
weaknesses in disciplinary
perspectivesAcceptanceor
rejectionof different
disciplinaryinputs
Emergenceof hybrid
understanding
(contrapuntalor
assimilative)Emergenceof
complex disciplinarity
RevisingIntegration
Questioningand critical
probingof integration
Rejectionof the provisional
integrationas final and
complete
414
NIKITINA
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
415
SFSU and her teaching partner,James Peters (Physics), insist on a more "complex and sophisticated"view of science and aim for an appreciationof ambiguity
and uncertaintyin some of its tenets to emerge from their students.Thus, this research, showing the positive effects of interdisciplinarythinkingon learningand
teaching, may lend additionalsupportfor quality interdisciplinaryprogramson
college campuses.
416
NIKITINA
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Researchon interdisciplinarycognition was made possible by generous funding
from the AtlanticPhilanthropies.My colleagues HowardGardner,VeronicaBoix
Mansilla,Jeff Solomon, Caitlin O'Connor,Liz Dawes, MattMiller, and Michael
Schacterhave all contributedto the developmentof the ideas containedin this article. I also acknowledgemy indebtednessto the participatingfaculty 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.), Interdisciplinarycurriculum: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.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuringscience education:The importanceof theoriesand their development.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.
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
417
418
NIKITINA
APPENDIX A
Core Research Participants
NEXA Program,San
FranciscoState
University
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
John Burke
Michael Gregory
SandraLuft
Ray Pestrong
InterpretationTheory,
SwarthmoreCollege
Sophia Accord
419
420
NIKITINA
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
421
APPENDIX B
Three Sets of Interview Questions Posed to Participants
(a) Organizationand administrationof the interdisciplinaryprogram-Participants'backgroundand participationin the interdisciplinarywork in the program.
* Whatis your role in the interdisciplinaryprogramdesign and understanding
of its mission?
* How has the programevolved over time?
* How does the program/institutionsupport or facilitate faculty collaborations? What are the provisionsfor joint researchand teaching?
* Whatspecific recruitingpolicies, rewardandpromotionsystems andevaluation practicesare in place in the interdisciplinaryprogram?
* 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 interdisciplinarycourseto teachinga
traditionaldisciplinarycurriculum?
* Why do some interdisciplinaryunits/projectsfail? How would you describe
the particularchallenges of an interdisciplinaryclassroom?
* How is interdisciplinarywork 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 interdisciplinarylearningor collaboration-Description
of challengesandopportunitiesofferedby an interdisciplinaryinquiryfor students
and faculty.
* Could you commenton what is difficultaboutteaching/learningin the interdisciplinaryprogramas comparedto otherkinds of instruction?
* How would you describethe outcomes of an interdisciplinarycourse? How
has this mode of learning/teachingimpactedyou as a learneror a teacher?
* Could you describemomentsof integrationand disconnectionor confusion?
What do you thinkcontributedto them?
* Is thereanythingin the cognitive profile of a learnerthatpredisposeshim or
her to interdisciplinaryexploration?What cognitive qualities need to be in
place to cope with the challenges of interdisciplinarywork?
422
NIKITINA
APPENDIX C
Vignette 2
Scott Gilbert
Biology Professor
SwarthmoreCollege
I'm a biologist and one of the things thatI feel very
stronglyis thatbiologists have to learn abouttheir own
discipline and to interpretit. There'sno such thing as
an uninterruptedcell. 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
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
423
Sustaining
interdisciplinary
dialogue:
Continuingefforts
to balancerespect
with responsibility
APPENDIX D
Vignette 3
Paul Wolpe
Centerfor Bioethics
Professor,
Sociology
of
University 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
told. Korean-Americans,Mexican-Americans,a 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
Recognizing
strengthsand
weaknesses of
two fields
Integration:
Recognizing need
for joint
understanding
Sustaining
interdisciplinary
dialogue:
Continuingto
deal with
differencesin
methodology
INTERDISCIPLINARYCOGNITION
425