Disciplinarity Vs Intersiciplinarity

DIsciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity

Introduction:

The term discipline is said to have originated from the Latin word disciplinia that stands for instruction given to disciples. 

At a very unsophisticated level discipline is considered as an entity that arises out of the classification of accumulated body of knowledge. There are different explanations for the origin of such classification of accumulated knowledge that was all commonly included under the single category of Natural Philosophy during the times of Aristotle or during ancient times. Certain explanations are as follows:

* Classification of surroundings into categories is a fundamental human nature and hence the huge body of knowledge accumulated by human beings are classified into different categories by the society. this classification gives rise to different disciplines (1). Such classifications are further justified on the ground that knowledge when categorized into smaller units are manageable in terms of teaching, learning and further enrichment of the knowledge. 

* The second explanation has  a social perspective and it justifies such classification of knowledge on the basis of need to trains individuals in specialized knowledge and preparing them for the economic life and hence for national development. 

* Third, classification of knowledge facilitates conservation, perpetuation and development when it is provided structure through institutional or organizational framework (2).  Such structural framework in form of organizational set-up provides sort of autonomy, definitiveness and stability ot the discipline (3, 4)

 Discipline can further be explained as a community of scholars who are disciplined in specific knowledge and thought processes and engaged with each other to control the directions of development of the discipline by controlling its errors (5). Clark highlights the organizational and institutional meaning of discipline. According to Clark discipline represents a community of specialized professionals unified by common interest and mode of inquiry and it is this commonness that provides the international character to a discipline. 

 Characteristics of Discipline:

Although knowledge can be classified in different ways but all classification of knowledge do not lead to the origin of a discipline. A classification unit is deemed as a discipline when it has certain defining characteristics as follows:

* Defined Object of Study: Discipline are characterized by their object of study- the body of concepts, theories and above all problems that constitute the core of the discipline and provide a structure to the discipline (6).

* Distinct Epistemological Base: A discipline is characterized by not only well defined objects of study, but is also characterized by distinctness in its methodology-the way to create knowledge and the means to validate that knowledge. In other words it has its own specific epistemological foundation.

* Genealogy of Problems: Discipline are characterized by a genealogy of problems i.e. interrelated problems that guides the activities carried out in the discipline at any particular point of time in its history. Further it is the interconnectedness of the problems in the discipline that create a tradition of the discipline and help it to sustain itself over a period of time (Toulmene,      ). 

* Reflexively Analytical: Discipline as a community is consistently engaged in reflexive analysis of its own assumptions, beliefs and processes. Being reflexive stands for the process of continuous and critical examination  in light of new circumstances and demands. Thus reflexive analysis provides dynamism to the discipline and prevent it from growing static and stagnant. 

Voices Against Disciplinarity: 

Disciplinarity ruled the academic parlance for a long period of time. However, voices against the strict classification of knowledge were raised as back as 1930s. Academics used to present different arguments to highlight the pitfalls of such reductionist aprroach towards knowledge. 

According to Miller (1970) discipline emphasizes rigor in following the methodological assumptions on the one hand and restrictions on the problems that are acceptable and considered as relevant by the discipline. Thus the different disciplines exist independently in isolation with each other. As such the view that knoweldge has multiple perspective is not taken seriously and many often several significant problems could not be solved following some particular disciplinary perspective alone (OECD, 1982). 

Furthermore, the rigor and closed mindedness often leads to imperialistic trends in the discipline where deviation from the disciplinary assumptions on knoweldge and processes are overlooked and criticized. In other words the discipline loses its reflexivity. 

A compartmentalized view on knowledge due to creation of discipline and sticking to problems relevant to the discipline often leads to stagnation in the development of knoweldge owing to lack of innovative perspectives. Dogan and Pahre (  ) argues that some sort of hbridization is essential for providing new impetus and avenues for the the development of knowledge.

Thus the criticism paved the path for the emergence of Interdsicplinary knoweldge and inter-disciplinary research projects.

Interdisciplinarity:

The origin of ID can be traced to its development as a beaureaucratic shorthand by the Social Science Research Council. It is argued that every discipline have their own lacunas that is manifested in the highly selective aspect of the problem addressed by the discipline's specialized knowledge and methods. However, ID , as a shorthand it represented the search for knowledge through a process that involves blending of the perspectives and methods of two or more discipline focussed on some common problem of interest. Not only that, Brewer (  ) claims that it is through such interactions that the "specialized views, theories and tools" of a particular discipline are tested and establish their relevance. 

ID is an approach to look into some problem using a broader context involving interaction among two or more disciplines including the methodological perspective of the disciplines involved. Klein (1990) therefore justifiably presents ID "as neither a subject matter nor a body of content...[but] a process for achieving an integrative synthesis...that begins with a problem, question, topic or issue" (p.175).

Environmental problems are such problems that cannot be practically solved following the narrow boundaries of any single discipline. Rather such problems need interaction and collaboration among several disciplines that widens the perspective on the problem and offers promising practical solutions. 

In a nutshell, it can be said that discipline when stands alone presents a a reductionist perspective with the belief that larger systems can be studied more effectively by analyzing and identifying it's simpler components. Interdisciplinary approach on the other hand acknowledges a holistic view on knoweldge taking into consideration the different perspectives.  The idea of ID involves following important features: 
a. Integration of knowledge and processes from different disciplines.
b. Collaboration betwen researchers or academics from different disciplines.
c. sophisticated engagement between or among the disciplines over interpretation, negotiation , methodological debates and decision making.

Importance of ID Approach

The significance of ID approach to knowledge can be summarized as follows:
● IDA provide opportunity for people from different disciplines to interact and such interaction brings in new perspective in each discipline.
● Several social and practical problems  by their very nature requires multiple perspectives on knowledge or a holistic view on knowledge that is possible only through an IDA.
● IDA presents a unitary view of knowledge that is often overlooked following the reductionist approach through discipline specific research.

1. Boisot, 1972

2. Cobban, 1975)

3. Aram, 2004/ 

4. Lattuca, 2001) (2002).

5. Parker

6. Squir 91992). Boisot (1972).