Download Towards a sociology of teaching and learning

1
Towards a sociology of teaching and learning: politicising pedagogic praxis
Andrea Abbas, School of Social Sciences, University of Teesside
Monica McLean, Institute for the Advancement of University Learning, University of Oxford
Our general project
Giving this paper has been an opportunity for us to bring together ideas we have been thinking
about together for some years now. Our preoccupations have grown both out of our educational
development work in the university sector and out of our day-to-day experiences as practising
academics who have had non-traditional career trajectories including plenty of short contract
work. Generally we focus on three broad areas: policies and discursive practices as they impact
on learning and teaching; the professional identity of academics and academics in the making; and,
the role of the university. We have attempted to make sense of these areas by examining them
through social theories. We have no strong allegiances but we are interested in examining the
possibilities for alternative futures in opposition to official ‘social pathways’ (Cooper, 2001).
Social justice motivates us and in terms of sociology, we are drawn to Bourdieu’s (1990) view
that: ‘Through the sociologist […] the society […] reflects upon itself; and all social agents may
[…] know a little better what they are, what they do.’ (p.186). We think that sociological insights
can illuminate the way that the emotional/embodied experiences of teaching, learning and
researching within the H.E. context might be shaped by –to quote Bourdieu again- 'instruments of
manipulation and legitimation' (p.188).
Broadly, we aspire to praxis-oriented critical enquiry. For now we use Friere’s (1975) definition
of praxis: ‘reflection and action on the world in order to transform it’ (p.28). Our interest in this
combination -reflection, action and transformation- means that we must constantly wonder about
how structure and actors interweave and interlock; and, how opportunities for agency in everyday
life emerge and present themselves. And it leads us to seek connections between lived everyday
working life, policy trends and cultural, political and historical contexts. Put another way, we
attempt link our empirical research with theory and with some form of action that may influence
future developments in teaching and learning in HE.
Our orientations and preoccupations resonate with and have been informed by others investigating
the higher education field. For example, Ozga and Deem (2000) explore whether feminist woman
managers in HE and FE are able to sustain a value-driven approach to management. This is nested
in an understanding of the way corporate managerialism initiated in the global crisis of capital
manipulates cultural shifts in institutions. More closely connected to the work of sociology, both
Deem (1996) and David (2002) have used auto/biography to illustrate (between them) changes in
the purposes, nature and role of sociology, sociology of education, policy sociology and womens’
studies. Both connect methodological approach (personal recollections of a lived life) to
sociological understandings of the social, historical and political context. In the field of critical
pedagogy Walker (2001) maps ‘landscapes of possibilities’ with close reference to the everyday
teaching of a group of university teachers who set out to enable students ‘to question and construct
meaning’. Even more specifically, in terms of the debate about sociology of education, and close
to our frame of reference, Shain and Ozga (2001) in an article about its crisis argue for a
‘Re-engagement with sociology’s once central theoretical problems such as the micro/macro,
structure/agency, society/individual and social order/social change divisions, while at the same
time addressing the limitations of such binaries.’ (p.117) They end with the suggestion that in the
practice of social science we may find ‘the possibility of a […] modest enlightenment effect’
(p.118).
2
Bauman has recently characterised sociology as the realisation ‘That there is a huge and dense
tissue of inter-human connections below the visible tip of the iceberg. An insight that triggers
imagination that, if worked on properly, sediments sociology.’ 1 However, although we make the
case for sociology here, we also question whether grappling with the ‘huge and dense tissue’ is
unique to the discipline of sociology. It could argued that the best work in any discipline draws on
work in other disciplines: Foucault, Habermas, and Bourdieu, for example, are as much
philosophers and historians. In our own field of interest, the anthropologist Strathern (2000) has
assumed that ‘[..] anyone interested in the future of anthropology as a discipline should be
interested in the kind of institution that reproduces it.’ (p.3) and has edited a book with
contributions from anthropologists on the working lives of academics as the sector transforms. So
our version of praxis is theoretically informed but less concerned with disciplinary boundaries or
theoretical allegiances than it is with consequences for people.
Introduction to the research projects
We discuss three projects to illustrate the ways in which we have attempted to pursue our general
project. Two, which are based on our work with part-time teachers of sociology have been written
up, one has been published and the other will be in January. We shall present these two briefly in
terms of why we felt it was important to write from the point of view politicising pedagogic praxis
and how they fulfil our version of sociology and represent an engagement with the central
theoretical problems as outlined by Ozga and Shain. We shall spend more time on the third which
is a research project at the gestation stage and which we would like to discuss with colleagues.
Supporting Part-time Teachers of Sociologyi
HEFCE funded this project as part of the Funding for the Development of Teaching and Learning
(FDTL) initiative. Initially, the aims were wholly pragmatic. They were to develop and
disseminate good mentoring practices to support the teaching and training of part-time teachers of
sociology in higher education. The assumption behind the project was that there was a growing
workforce of untrained and unsupported part-time teachers of sociology, increasingly responsible
for the dissemination of the discipline and for training undergraduate sociologists. The major tools
for developing good mentoring praxis were to be: visiting sociology departments and encouraging
involvement in the project; workshops and a handbook that would be useful in the vast array of HE
settings. Involvement in the project could range from simply using the handbook to enrolling
part-time teachers as students on the Open University teacher training course and using the
mentoring practices advocated to support this.
The initiators of the project thought that the handbook could be developed at the start of the
project. However, the sociologists, who joined the project later, felt that in order to develop
appropriate mentoring practices we needed to understand more about the variety of working
conditions of part-time sociology teachers. At that time we were all based at “old universities” and
had little current experience of “new university’s”. The literature and our personal contact with
people working in new universities suggested these were very different from our own. We wished
to use research to help us develop appropriate materials and from the outset some notion of praxis
informed our approach to this development work in that we wished to proceed in an empirically
and theoretically informed way. So, we carried out interviews and focus groups with part-time
teachers working in different types of institutions. Our conclusions were that the version of
mentoring we initially proposed would not work in all settings as there were insufficient resources
(in terms of part-time teachers time, money etc.) to support such an initiative. The handbook we
produced reflected this view offering a variety of models which could be used to help support and
1
Interview in Network, Newsletter of the British Sociological Association, Number 83 October 2002, p.1
3
develop part-time teachers (Gibbs et al, 1999). We incorporated methodologies in which part-time
teachers could effectively support and develop themselves through peer mentoring, the use of
internet resources and written materials. However, we (the two presenters) were unhappy with this
situation in that the handbook revealed nothing about the research that underpinned the project and
the sometimes-atrocious working conditions of part-time teachers. It also did not discuss the way
that a constantly transforming context of H.E. impacts upon the development of professional
sociologists and sociology as a discipline.
We wrote an article (Abbas and Mclean, 2001) discussing the working conditions of part-time
teachers and used actor-network theory (e.g. Law, 1994) to conceptualise the way that many of the
components which constitute the professional identity of sociologists were unavailable to this
growing part-time workforce. The components that were missing were many and they varied on
an institutional and even personal basis. For example, they ranged from a lack of accommodation
to a lack of opportunity to carry out research. We also noted that the working conditions of
full-time academics were changing and that the potential for them to voluntarily support part-time
staff was disappearing. In this article we appealed to full-time academics to support part-time
teachers for the sake of their part-time colleagues and for the development of the discipline. We
speculated that changing working conditions were likely to result in more fragmented academic
careers with more sociologists falling into the category of “part-time”, making support for
part-timers imperative because they were/are in many ways the future of sociology. Most people,
who learn sociology do not go on to be professional sociologists but they may well use its
knowledge in their professional lives. Hence, the sociology that underpins much praxis is based
upon what people learn in university.
Reflection in a changing world can be difficult (Bourdieu, 1990) and today research findings
which seem valid at one instance can appear less relevant a short time later. With the continued
intensification of work in the H.E. sector (Leighton, 1998) we doubt that full-time academics,
particularly those in new universities, have time to support their part-time colleagues. The
assumption of the project initially was that if systems were put into place to support part-time staff
then these would continue. However, by the end of the three-year project it was apparent that even
though the sociologists we encountered were all too aware of the need to support part-timers,
institutions did not see it as a financial priority. We doubted whether the practices people engaged
in whilst partially financially supported by the project would continue once the project ended.
This led us to question the value of the increasing amount of “development” work that was taking
place in H.E. and to explore this notion by reflecting on our project.
Improving Teaching?: Insights from the Field
In the paper in which we explored this context (Abbas and Mclean, 2003, forthcoming) we utilised
Habermas’s (1984) notion of “colonisation of the lifeworld” and ‘ideal speech conditions’. We
suggested that dialogue about learning and teaching is shaped by educational policy and global
capitalism more broadly, and that this effects the impact projects like ours have. We critiqued the
assumptions behind the funding of developmental projects which requires that those receiving
funding promise success at the outset. Hence, it was assumed in our project that we could produce
deliverables that would lead to part-time teachers of sociology being supported more effectively.
Once researchers are engaged in this type of developmental work the onus is on them to prove
success in terms of outcomes if they wish to be funded in the future. We are sure the project did
have some successes however, in our view the major findings related to the impossibility of
supporting part-time teachers fully and effectively given the current context. However, within this
funding framework our reports stress the success of the researchers in overcoming structural
difficulties and this report might itself become an ‘instrument(s) of manipulation and legitimation’
(Bourdieu, 1990) as it can be used as an example of how structural constraints do not necessarily
4
hinder good practice. We argue that this requirement to report success is permeating more and
more of academic life and indeed was apparent in the research process of our project.
We found that the more embedded in the structures of academia individuals were the more likely
they were to focus on the success of what they already did. So for example, the full-time
academics that we had contact with were likely to have a more positive view of the support
part-timers received than the part-time staff themselves. In some respects this is related to
subjectivity and positionality as each views the same phenomena from a different standpoint.
However, there is also the question of full-time academics having more investment in the
institution and the particular sociology department. In addition when talking to “outsiders” and
potential “competitors” in an increasingly marketised context it is difficult to feel comfortable
revealing the irreparable flaws in one’s own praxis. Hence, reflection becomes limited to those
things that can be transformed through technique and structural constraints are stated but not
challenged. Additionally, we felt that our own experience revealed that in formal arena in which
teaching and learning were discussed the focus is increasingly on ways of being successful. The
career academic is unlikely to progress very far by constantly pointing to the impossibility of what
is being asked. Hence, we suggested that there has been a ‘colonisation of the life world of
academics’ whereby genuine talk about educational praxis is more likely to take place in the
corridor despite there apparently being more forum for educational discussion. In addition, and
perhaps more disturbingly, academics are involved in producing ‘research’ which is funded as
‘development’ and they collude at every level in furthering the ability of global capitalism to
transform academic culture around the teaching and learning of sociology. We suggest that within
this context research and development have become dichotomised into two distinct fields. In our
experience research was eyed with suspicion in the development arena. We were told that if we
wanted to publish research articles based on the project we could do so in our own time. We
obviously did this but through our praxis we seek a reintegration of research, particularly
sociological research, and development.
Interdisciplinary Pedagogy
We now embark on a project we shall bid to get funded through an academic body in the hope that
our research reports may more accurately reflect our major findings. We hope also to produce
materials that inform learning and teaching but ones in which critique does not become
“backstage” talk.
Our interest once more arises out of personal, professional experience. Andrea teaches on a
Leisure Studies degree at Teesside a pre-1992 university and Monica teaches education courses at
Keele until recently and now at Oxford. We both cross or confront disciplinary borders when we
teach. Andrea teaches sociology to students on Leisure Studies and Sports Studies degrees while
Monica draws eclectically on what have been known as the foundation disciplines of the study of
education, though Hoskin (1993) is at pains to argue that Education is a superordinate discipline
rather than a subordinate one made up of an amalgam of ‘real’ disciplines. At first, our interest
focused on what happens to sociology in the courses we were teaching but it has broadened. We
also want to understand the historical, political and sociological forces that drive towards
interdisciplinarity.
We are interested in pedagogy: what epistemologies and social practices are informing students’
lenses on the world and to what educational ends? We are by no means opposed to initiatives that
involve sociologists in teaching empirically or career-based topics. Indeed, as praxis-oriented
critical enquirers we were pleased to read in last week’s THES that there is a connection between
5
Teesside University’s Youth Studies degree and developing capacity for youth work in Teeside 2.
We believe that the critical application and development of theory in different real-world contexts
is important. However, this raises pedagogic issues, how, for example do and can teachers help
students address the relationship between disciplines? What is critical to us is the student
experience but within educational environments (this includes courses) that are underpinned by a
commitment to a ‘culture of questioning.’3
As we are at the beginnings of building up ideas about research design we want here to convey our
thinking so far. We shall discuss the contemporary context and relevance; outline our research
questions; sketch the broad themes and issues we are encountering in literature that will continue
to inform our research questions and design; and, demonstrate empirically with reference to
documentation and a small-scale study some of the contours of interdisciplinarity in teaching
The Context and Climate
There has been a new rise of interdisciplinarity in Britain which has emerged from a wide variety
of interrelated processes including: the pressures of global capitalism; contemporary challenges to
the role of universities (Readings, 1996); changing policy and practices in British universities
(Middleton, 2000); widening access; the enterprise agenda and declining state funding for
universities and university students. Although since the 1960’s and 1970’s UK and US
universities have been highly innovative in the creation of new university courses the current
context has led to a speeding up of this process (The Guardian, 2002)ii. The increasingly
marketised context in which courses are created has resulted in greater attention being paid to
employers needs and students and parents desire to know that a job will result from their
investment in the university sector.
In pre-1992 universities the pressure to innovate is arguably less and it is new universities who
struggle to maintain student numbers and who have orientated themselves more firmly towards the
market in the hope that they can attract a generation of non-traditional entrants. Their efforts to do
this have led to the creation of degrees with an apparent vocational focus which have been
critiqued on the basis of their academic integrity. However, this week their success has been
declared, in terms of their ability to attract students and the employability of students completing.
However, perhaps most importantly it is seen as a triumph of the increasing marketisation of
universities.
“Supporters of the new degree courses argue that job prospects are plentiful and that the market
approach to higher education is working.” (Times Higher, 2002)
Our own experience of being involved in the creation of new courses is that discipline based
academics are increasingly encouraged to create and/or have input into degrees which focus upon
the empirical areas which are usually their speciality. In some cases the opportunity is welcome to
innovate and create degrees which allows them to focus on their specialism and which contribute
to the local or international skills capacity. However, some lecturers have already been required to
re-train in order that universities can close less popular more traditional degrees and develop new
areas. If the market speeds up further it is likely that academics will be asked to further diversify.
Additionally the time dedicated to the creation of new degrees and new forms of
“interdisciplinarity” is likely to get shorter.
Utley, A., ‘Those “Mickey mouse” degrees are having the last laugh’, THES, November 15 2002, p.6-7
Henri Giroux giving a lecture entitled ‘Reclaiming higher education as a democratic public sphere: towards a politics
of educated hope’ for the Herbert Spencer series, Life and Environmental Science Division, University of Oxford,
15th November, 2002
2
3
6
It is difficult to fathom the precise extent of interdisciplinary degrees. However, a superficial
search of the UCAS system reveals that there are currently 1119 media studies courses, 392 in
sports studies and 98 in leisure studies (UCAS website, November 15th 2002). There are obviously
other emergent subjects. However, the course titles alone do not always reveal the extent which
different disciplines are involved and this would take a more detailed search of course
documentation. In addition courses in leisure management may also involve social scientists. The
total number of UCAS courses in leisure is 672 (ibid). Also, media courses are varied in that some
included in the above statistic focus on media production whilst others analyse the media utilising
social science/cultural studies approaches. However, our experience suggests that until you
examine the course documentation you cannot entirely predict which disciplines are involved.
Researching interdisciplinarity in the context of these new degrees will require qualitative analysis
of course documentation.
Pre-1992 universities have also contributed to the new vocationalism and the new rise of
interdisciplinarity. We have over-dichotomised the situation as most of the university sector are
experiencing some pressure to marketise. However, even without this, all universities have
interdisciplinary topics which are thought of as relatively traditional. Education is a case in point.
Again the situation is complex when the UCAS statistics are explored. There are 2270 courses
which have some form of educational content but only 280 which are categorised as straight
education (ibid). “Traditionally” education is interdisciplinary. You cannot tell from the course
descriptions which disciplines are included or whether specific departments orientate towards
particular disciplinary approaches. In some cases professional/vocational organisations play a
role. For example, the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management (ILAM) accredit (and
regulate) leisure management degrees. Our questions about learning and teaching
interdisciplinarity relate to quality in both new innovations and more established subjects because
we do not assume superiority of one over the other. We are also interested in how these taught
subjects influence the development of disciplines like sociology. We feel studying this topic could
teach us a lot about the transforming meaning and practice of interdisciplinarity.
Research Aim and Questions
Main Aim
To develop a theoretical and empirical understanding of the role, nature, values, discourses and
practices of sociology in interdisciplinary university teaching?
Associated Research Questions
1. In the academic field of interdisciplinarity what is understood by disciplines, interdisciplinary,
multidisciplinary, cross-disciplinary?
2. What is the extent of interdisciplinary undergraduate degree courses that contain sociology in
the UK?
3. What do stakeholders (students, academic, senior managers, funding bodies, employers) think
are the purposes of the interdisciplinary degree course that contain sociology?
4. What influences the content, structure and processes of sociology in interdisciplinary degree
courses?
5. What kind of sociology in interdisciplinary degrees do teaching practices and learning
activities (including assessment) communicate to the students?
6. What understandings do students and staff have of the component disciplines, the relationship
between them and their usefulness in understanding the empirical world?
7
We have not yet decided on the scope of the study, but, as indicated, we think that we shall address
some of the questions broadly to interdisciplinarity in general, while for others we shall focus on
particular courses with a sociology component.
Themes and Issues arising from a literature search
We have gathered a good deal of literature about interdisciplinarity and have only begun to read
and make sense of it and how it might inform our project. We have yet to come to grips with the
wide historical literature on the genealogy of disciplines. Aptly, the literature itself is
interdisciplinary drawing on sociology, philosophy and history often in combination. There is both
different and overlapping literature for teaching and research and for different disciplines, but we
can discern some common themes and issues.
Background and Definitions
Despite the rise of interdisciplinarity in Britain, most of what we have found comes from the US
although the OECD conference in France in 19704 is often identified as the beginnings of a flurry
of interest in interdisciplinarity and there is work from Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Israel,
South Africa and Britain. The interdisciplinarity in the literature is an educational and social
choice not a response to market demands. The extensive and enthusiastic literature of the 1970s
and earlier 1980s has given way in more recent times to a slighter one. Exceptionally, Julie Klein
has written constantly and prolifically about interdisciplinarity. The reason for the general trend
may be the perceived difficulties of putting interdisciplinarity into practice (Nissani, 2001, Klein,
1993, Mudroch, 1992). Despite all, writing about English Studies in 2001, Moran (quoting Liu,
1989) describes interdisciplinarity as ‘the most seriously underthought…concept in the modern
academy’ (p.1).
Nevertheless, some serious and seriously confusing efforts to distinguish multi-,pluri-, crossinter- trans-and meta-disciplinarity have been made (Boden 1997; Cluck, 1980; Cunningham,
1997; Egneus et al.2000; Gozzer, 1982; Kelly, 1996; Kockelmans, 1979); and ‘integration’
emerges as a key concept and core component of inter-disciplinarity. While the degree and type of
integration is debated, there is broad agreement that is requires specific methodologies –whether
for teaching or research. Both Meessmer (1978) and Moore (2000) refer to Bernstein’s terms of
‘classification’ and ‘framing’ as an analytic tool. Multi-disciplinarity tends to be defined as the
‘juxtaposition’ of disciplines.
Many define interdisciplinarity by its practical and political purposes (Nissani, 2001, Sinaceur,
1977)- we shall say more about this later. Certainly Klein (1998a) connects its rise with a new
social contract between society and higher education which involves a shift away from the primary
context of the discipline to knowledge restructured by application area.
Metaphors, (Identity), Disciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity
Disciplines tend to have strong cultures and traditions5 with which academics identify (Becher,
1989; Neuman, 2001). And it is theoretical core of disciplines that they have most control over
(Martin 1998). But there is controversy about the history, nature and role of disciplines.6 Authors
4
OECD Interdisciplinarity-Problems with Teaching and Research in Universities, report based on the results of a
Seminar on Interdisciplinarity in Universities, which was organised in collaboration with the French Ministry of
Education at the University of Nice 7-12 September 1970
5
The best known study is Tom Becher’s (1989) Academic tribes and territories
6
At Cambridge mathematical technique was paramount, while at Glasgow engineering practice was the focus.
8
chart their youthful and unstatic nature and their formation and reformation including the question
of when does a hybrid become a discipline in itself (Klein, 1990, 1996; Messer-Davidow et al,
1993).
Using territorial metaphors authors tell us about ‘boundary’ or ‘border’ ‘violation’, ’crossing’ or
‘blurring’ . Some ‘boundary work’ is fruitful but we also hear about frontier skirmishes and
resistance to mixed populations (Messer-Davidow, 1993; Klein, 1993). There is little about the
effects of all this on identity and what there is more recent (Deem, 1996; Hagoel and
Kalekin-Fishman; 2002; Leigh Smith and McCann,). The power of some disciplines may maintain
boundaries preventing or advancing new knowledge production but there is always jockeying for
power (Martin, 1998,Messer-Davidow et al., 1993, Moran, ) and Martinotti (1997) charts the
constant struggle of social sciences to ‘establish (their) activity as a legitimate academic field’.
Here we begin to see the contemporary anomalies, Martin (1998) asserts that traditional
economics has become the most ‘expansionary’ of the social sciences, yet its reproduction may be
becoming hazardous as students choose Business Studies instead.
The turmoil conveyed by the metaphors plays out in specific disciplines. Sociology of education
has always been a marginal and border academic territory effecting professional identity and
sociology itself is shifting and dissolving (Deem,1996). The locus of sociological enquiry is
questioned (Fuller,1993). English Studies should take on the new metaphors of ‘river and
‘current’ to allow ‘nomadic discourses’ across disciplines (Lyon, 1992). Economists cannot agree
whether there is a ‘core of propositions, procedures, and conclusions or a shared historical object
of theory and practice.’ (Amariglio et al, 1993, p.150). Physics at Cambridge and Glasgow
Universities came to embody different definitions of science (Lenoir, 1993). And we read that
philosophy is not a discipline: ‘ […] in the strict sense, being rather the constant habit of
interrogation and of a wholesome curiosity’ (Sinaceur, 1977, p.572)
All this raises for us the issue that we think may be critical of whether students need to know what
boundaries are being crossed, or rivers traversed or chains linked. There is a small strand of
literature that insists good interdisciplinary work can only arise from a knowledgable engagement
with the disciplines (Gozzer 1982, Sinaceur (1977)). Messmer (1978), dismissing most
interdisciplinary work, draws attention to that of Hayden White, Raymond Williams and Edward
Said as ‘exemplary instances of boundary violating-critiques of conventional knowledge.’ (p.468).
But, he argues, they are ‘Disciplined in that each proceeds from within a disciplinary boundary and
moves outwards on the basis of impressive mastery of a chosen field’s tools.’ (p.474)
9
Interdisciplinarity as a political project or as expressing an ideal
Most writers on interdisciplinarity are strong proponents. One large group present it as a challenge
to disciplines that are construed as restricting perspectives on human nature. For example, a set of
sponsored consultations was set up in 1980 by the Higher Education Foundation to clarify:
‘The methodological and philosophical issues involved in teaching practice within higher education which
are, or maybe, restricting perspectives on human nature and behaviour by implicitly reductionist
assumptions (Peacocke, 1985, p.1)
Rose (1985) connects reductionism to the rise of capitalism which causes a failure to understand
the ways that phenomena are ‘simultaneously both individual and part of a greater unity.’ (p.38).
Some authors invoke Foucault’s notion of discipline to critique the effects of academic disciplines
(Cohen, 1993; Cornwall and Stoddart, 2002, Hoskins, 1993; Lenoir, 1993). One recent article
argues that interdisciplinarity is the only way forward for the postmodern university which must
produce a ‘new compelling discourse’ (p.136) unlimited by disciplines (Mourad, 1997). A
Canadian author calls for an interdisciplinary curriculum in Canadian universities which is a
collective, critical dialogue about the country’s hidden history (Kroker 1980).
Another strand does not do away with disciplines but argues that different ways of integrating and
linking content are needed to deal with important human and social problems in a complex global
and interdependent world (Viadeanu, 1987). Womens Studies (and now connections with feminist
pedagogy and scholarship (Gumport, 1990; Relke, 1994), Peace Studies, Area Studies, Gay
Studies (Cohen, 1993) are examples. It is, perhaps, research and teaching about environmental
sustainability that commands most attention (Redclift, 1998; Vedeld, 1994).
Because interdisciplinarity is generally conceptualised applied and ‘society-driven’, rather than
motivated by the interests of scholars, links are made to politically alternative forms of general
education (Matinott1, 1997; Viadeanu, 1987) and, more recently, to ‘life-long learning’ (Frank
and Schulert, 1992; Moore, 2000;)
Making it work
While there is some irritation at the ‘motherhood and applepie’ claims for interdisciplinarity (Fish
1998; Moran, 2001), in general, the literature on interdisciplinarity promotes it but portrays
integration as a difficult and complex enterprise. This is most often put down to the powerful pull
of disciplinary loyalties, epistemological differences, diverse regulative discourses and
preferences for distinctive cultures on individuals and communities of practice (Klein 1990;
Kowalewski and Laird, 1990; Moore 2000, Redclift, 1998, Turner, 1998). Policy-makers it is
argued underestimate the intellectual and social challenges (Moore, 2002) and even willing
academics do not have interdisciplinary expertise (Levin and Lund, 1986)
But, if integration seems hard to achieve, all kinds of interdisciplinary studies are blooming: earth
sciences7and molecular biology, literary and cultural studies are all well established; and Sports
and Media Studies are embraced enthusiastically by students and by many academics. Klein
claims that knowledge has become more interdisciplinary because problems have become too
broad and complex to be dealt with by single established disciplines and asserts:
She uses example of plate tectonics which has been called the ‘archetype of outstanding cross-disciplinary research’
in uniting the efforts of paleomagnestists, seismologists, oceanographers, geologists and geophysicians.
Geophysicists ‘forced the recognition of continental drift on the discipline of geology.’ (p.269)
7
10
‘Interdisciplinary studies will continue to promote greater coherence, focus, and
connectedness in order to mitigate the costs of fragmentation. Interdisciplinary approaches to research will
continue to promote effective problem solving at the same time they stimulate the production of new
knowledge and propel the critique of existing intellectual and institutional structures.’ (Klein and Newell,
1998, p.21)
Perhaps it is noteworthy that of late Klein’s defining metaphors have moved away from images of
boundaries towards ‘images of coherence and connection, collaboration and community,
clustering and linking, interrelation and integration’(1990, p.6).
Empirical examples
We thought that it would be useful to demonstrate how we might use empirical data to address
these questions. First, we shall briefly analyse some course documentation; and, secondly, we
show how different academics conceptualise the two disciplines of sociology and social
anthropology and the relationship between them. We also illustrate how students understand these
disciplines. We do this in order to show issues which arise from a small analysis and in so doing
hope to convince you that our study would be valuable.
Leisure Studies and Educational Studies.
This analysis will be brief and is based on two somewhat disparate documents. One is a course
handbook for Educational Studies8 and the other is a course document for Leisure Studies. The
former is created by academics for use by students and the later is a document for the purpose of
validating a degree and is largely read by academics. We don’t think these are bad examples of
degrees which draw upon a range of disciplines. Indeed, we both had a hand in writing these
courses and documents. However, just a brief analysis of these two documents shows how
different the approaches to interdisciplinarity are.9 We think it is important to develop an
understanding of the different ways academics conceptualise disciplines and the relationship
between them. Part of this is apparent from looking at course documents.
The Educational Studies document has interdisciplinarity as its first aim which is:
“to introduce students to the major perspectives from which education may be studied, and to explore the
interconnections between them. Such perspectives include philosophical, historical, psychological, cultural and
sociological approaches.” (Education Studies, Course Document, p. 4).
The modules which comprise the degree appear (from the brief documentation) to vary in respect
of their interdisciplinarity and different disciplines often form the primary lens through which a
topic is viewed. For example, at level one “Understanding Education: Historical Frameworks”
aims “to place education in a wide set of contexts – political, economic, cultural and social” (ibid,
p.12). However, the research framework is primarily historical as the course title suggests. At
level two the modules teach qualitative and quantitative research skills and a range of topics which
focus on big issues in education. For example, “the ways gender differences in education can be
studied and understood” (ibid p.13) are explored. Only one course at level two explicitly refers to
which disciplines will be used in the paragraph describing the modules. Our intention is not to say
that this is wrong as the course looks very thorough and academically sound and Monica can
confirm the intellectual credibility of it. However, what we do want to argue is that the situation is
confused even at this level where things are stated most clearly. As we shall demonstrate it gets
even more confusing when teachers and students talk about disciplines and the relationships
8
With thanks to Ken Jones
Similar cases can be made for single discipline degrees. What courses should make up a good sociology degree is
commonly debated and courses are constantly re-written in line with changing views.
9
11
between them. Rarely is there a specific point in a course in which the relationship between the
different disciplines and the notion(s) of interdisciplinarity is addressed. It is more likely
addressed at different times in the course by different tutors.
The case is the similar for the Leisure Studies degree. The course document dedicates one and a
quarter pages to discussing interdisciplinarity. It describes how “the boundaries between the
contributory disciplines are necessarily blurred and overlapping”. It also documents the array of
different empirical areas which make up Leisure Studies claiming: “It is a mark of the success of
Leisure Studies that it has nurtured an array of sub disciplines: the study of sport, tourism, heritage
an media to name but a few ( Course document, p 4).” The Course guide tells us that
interdisciplinarity will be a feature throughout the courses. For example “Understanding Leisure”
is a level one sociology based course but the document stresses “it is essential that the module
draws upon other disciplines”. It claims that interdisciplinarity is a feature of three courses at level
two. The document states that students may conduct their dissertation research in an
interdisciplinary field or draw upon one or two disciplines. In this course as with the other it is
explicitly stated that the complexity of interdisciplinarity will be discussed. However, with insider
knowledge we know some courses will be taught by Andrea who is primarily a sociologist and this
disciplinary preference very much shapes what the students learn about interdisciplinarity in her
sessions. Similarly, there are economics based courses which have interdisciplinary aspects to
them. It is likely that these tutors will have a different perspective on the relationships between the
disciplines. The same goes for management based modules. The documents cannot be read as
precisely reflecting what happens on the ground. Also, there is no place in the course to help
students address the different “interdisciplinary” views they will be hearing. Hence, we suggest
that unravelling what is communicated to students and what they learn about disciplines and the
relationships between them is an important topic of study for pedagogic development. Also,
working on such courses must alter academics views of their own disciplines and their relation to
others. In a broader sense it is likely that these innovations will lead to new forms of knowledge.
Sociology and Social Anthropology: Students and Teachers Perspectives
The section is based on a study funded by the “anthropology network” which explored the way
sociology and social anthropology were perceived by teachers and students in the former
department of sociology and social anthropology at Keele University (Leach, Parish and Abbas,
1999).10 The project focused on what happened to anthropology in this context and it concluded
that:
“teaching and learning anthropology is not simply a matter of transferring anthropological
knowledge (encoded in texts and teachers) to students, in more or less effective ways. It is instead
a process. This process creates the discipline of anthropology and what is taught and learned about
it in reflexive and situated practices involving many separate but related processes.” (ibid. p.6)
Several significant processes were identified. There is not space to go into them here but it is
sufficient to say these related to the immediate and broader context. However, importantly it was
felt that teaching anthropology alongside sociology put anthropology in constant dialogue and a
relationship with another discipline which shaped how it was learned and taught (ibid). The
situation was complex staffs descriptions of the distinctions between the disciplines were
revealing. Some staff had strong disciplinary identities and did not really engage with the other
discipline:
10
We thank Jane Parish and Rebecca Leach for letting us use the data from this project, also the anthropology network
who funded it.
12
“I have always seen myself as an anthropologist and the discipline as quite distinct from sociology.
I don’t really feel I quite understand sociology.” (Staff 3)
Others saw the two as very related:
“I’m rather keen on not drawing a line in the sand and distinguishing between two different
territories that call themselves sociology and anthropology.” (Staff 5)
“For me the anthropological spirit is the best one to be possessed with even when one is doing
sociology. A spirit that is aware of ambiguity and comfortable with it.” (Staff 4)
However, teaching is a situated practice and what is taught does not straightforwardly reflect
staff’s views of the relationship between the disciplines. For example, a member of staff who
believed there was overlap in practice claimed that distinctions had to be highlighted when
teaching first years:
“If like teaching at that level is in the business of introducing then you have to manufacture a clear
message … certain packages have to be made to give the students something to mess about with.”
(Staff 4)
Students at Keele could choose to specialise at level two and had many options, during which they
came into contact with different members of staff who conceptualised the two disciplines
differently. The amount of sociology and social anthropology they encountered varied according
to choices (although core theory for your discipline of choice was compulsory). Unsurprisingly,
they also conceptualised what sociologists and anthropologists were and the differences between
the disciplines in a variety of ways. There were some common understandings. For example, the
greater focus on theory is sociology was often mentioned:
“Sociology kind of relates to the whole state thing, whereas anthropology you are studying places
and people … sociology is so theory based.” (Focus group with third years, 1998).
In addition the importance of ethnography to anthropology was often mentioned:
“Anthropologists are not just reading books, they have actually gone out and done it. They have
been there. They live in different communities the whole time. … They are very brave people to
be able to do that … anthropology is about danger, danger of the unknown and you have to
discover this for yourself.” (Focus group, first years, 1998)
However, understandings were complex and were related to staff and student identities, their
interrelationships with the disciplines, and broader institutional, national and global processes.
This project was about the disciplinary choices students made and we found that choices were
often made on the basis of whether past experience enabled students to relate to one of the
disciplines. So for example, having previous experience of other cultures seemed important for
choosing anthropology:
“(Anthropology) was quite interesting for me because I didn’t know about things, I mean my
parents used to talk about, you know, what happened back in Pakistan and things and it was good
to find out about, you know, things that happen. …” (Focus group, second years, 1998)
What this study bought out was the way that disciplines and interdisciplinarity emerges from a
range of processes including student identities. The marketisation of H.E. has constructed students
13
as consumers and as we believe disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity are processual this will also
impact upon them.
Concluding Remarks
This contribution has allowed us to consider how we use sociology to think about what matters to
us. We are inclined to think of it as ‘a culture [that] deals with interpretations, values and less
tangible social phenomena’ (Allardt, 1999, pp 13,14) In the case of interdisciplinary teaching, we
shall reconfigure it to help us answer questions about why it is flourishing , and whether, given our
views, it presents opportunities for worthwhile learning. As Klein 1996 points out ‘ ‘All
knowledge is located, […] whether the space of inquiry is a routine, practiced place or a
neogtiated, contested space’ (p.3). We want to explore the interdisciplinary teaching spaces and
places in which sociology is being reproduced.
We are interested in improved pedagogy and believe that grounded study is necessar to do this. In
this respect we also have a methodological ambition. We have found ourselves drawn, at least in
part, to participative research methodologies. Lather (1986) is an uncompromising example. In an
essay entitled ‘Research as Praxis’ she ‘explores what it means to do empirical research in an
unjust world’ (p.257), already this resonates with our interests. She characterises ‘postpositivist’
research by ‘increased visibility of research designs that are interactive, contextualised, and
humanly compelling because they invite joint participation in the exploration of research issues.’
(p.259). The very fact of researching our own working lives and the working lives of our
colleagues invests our research with some of this character. We would like to take this approach
further, quite consciously.
Comments by Paul Troweler
References
Abbas, A. and Mclean, M. (2001) “Becoming Sociologists: professional identitiy for part-time
teachers of sociology”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 22, No. 3.
Abbas, A. and Mclean, M. (2003, forthcoming) “Communicate Competence and the improvement
of University Teaching: Insights from the field”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Jan
2003
Allardt, E., (1999), The future of the Social Sciences in the 21st Century- S Comment, Current
Sociology, 47 (4), pp. 13-17
Anariglio, J., Resnick, S. and Wolff, R.D., (1993), Division and Difference in the “Discipline” of
Economiccs in E. Messer-Davidow, D. R. Shumway and D.J. Sylvan (eds), Knowledges:
Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity, Charlottesville and London: University Press of
California
Becher, T., (1989), Academic Tribes and Territories, Buckingham: SRHE and Open University
Press
Boden, M.,(1997), What is Interdisciplinarity?, in R. Cunningham (ed) Interdisciplinarity and the
Organisation of Knowledge in Europe, A Conference organised by Academia Europa, Cambridge,
24-26 September, 1997
Bourdieu, P., (1990), In Other Words: essays towards a reflexive sociology, London: Polity Press
Cohen, E, (1993), Are We (Not) What We Are Becoming? Gay “Identity”, “Gay Studies” and the
Disciplining of Knowledge in E. Messer-Davidow, D. R. Shumway and D.J. Sylvan (eds),
Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity, Charlottesville and London:
University Press of California
14
Cluck, N.A., (1980), Reflections on the Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Humanities, Liberal
Education, 66 (1), pp.67-77
Cornwell G.H. and Stoddart, E.W., (2001), Toward and Interdisciplinary Epistemology: Faculty
Culture and Institutional Change in B. Leigh Smith and J. McCann, Reinventing Ourselves:
Interdisciplinary Education, Collaborative Learning and Experimentation in Higher Education,
Bolton, Mass.: Anker Publishing Company
Cunningham R., (ed), (1997), Interdisciplinarity and the Organisation of Knowledge in Europe, A
Conference organised by Academia Europa, Cambridge, 24-26 September, 1997
David, M. (2002), from Keighley to Keele: personal reflections on a circuitous journey through
education, family, feminism and policy sociology, British Journal of Sociology of Education,
23(2), pp. 250-269
Deem, R., (1996), Border territories: a journey through sociology, education and women’s studies,
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17 (1), pp. 5-19
Egneus,H., Bruckmeir K. and Polk, M., (2000), The Nature of Interdisciplinarity, Rapport till
Temanamnden, June 2000, Institutionen for Tvarvetenskapliga studier Avdelningen for
Humaneklogi
Fish, S., (1998), Being Interdisciplinary Is So Very Hard To Do in W. H. Newell (ed),
Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the Literature, New York: College Entrance Examination Board
Frank, A. and Schulert, J., (1992), Interdisciplinary Learning as Social learning and General
Education, European Journal of Education, 27(3), pp. 223-237
Friere, P., (1975), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, London: Penguin
Fuller,S., (1993), Disciplinary Boundaries and the Rhetoric of the Social Sciences in E.
Messer-Davidow, D. R. Shumway and D.J. Sylvan (eds), Knowledges: Historical and Critical
Studies in Disciplinarity, Charlottesville and London: University Press of California
Gibbs, G., Pearson, C., Abbas, A., Mclean, M., Blackwell, R., Channell, J., and Williams, J.
(1999) Support for Part-time Teachers of Sociology, Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Gozzer, G., (1982), Interdisciplinarity: a concept still unclear, Prospects, XII (3)
Gumport, P.J., (1990), Feminist scholarship as vocation, Higher Education, 20, pp. 231-243
Habermas, J. (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and
Ratinalisation of Society, (Trans. T. McCarthy), Boston: Beacon Press.
Hagoel L and Kalekin-Fishman, D. (2002), Crossing Borders: towards a trans-disciplinary
scientific identity, Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), pp. 297-308
Hoskins, K.W., (1993), Education and the Genesis of Disciplinarity: The Unexpected Reversal, in
E. Messer-Davidow, D. R. Shumway and D.J. Sylvan (eds), Knowledges: Historical and Critical
Studies in Disciplinarity, Charlottesville and London: University Press of California
Krocker, A., (1980), Migration Across the Disciplines, Journal of Canadian Studies, 15 Part Fall,
pp3-10
Kelly, J.S.(1996), Wide and Narrow Interdisciplinarity, Journal of General Education, 45 (2), pp
95-113
Klein, J., (1990), Across the Boundaries, Social Epistemology, 4 (3), pp. 267-280
11
Klein, J.T., (1993), Blurring, Cracking and Crossing: Permeation and the Fracturing of
Disciplines in E. Messer-Davidow, D. R. Shumway and D.J. Sylvan (eds), Knowledges:
Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity, Charlottesville and London: University Press of
California
Klein, J.T. (1996), Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities and Interdisciplinarities,
Charlottsville and London: University Press of Virginia
Klein, J.T., (1998a), The Discourse of Interdisciplinarity, Liberal Education, Summer pp. 6-11
Klein, J.T. and Newell, W.H, (1998b), Advancing Interdisciplinary Studies in W. H. Newell (ed),
Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the Literature, New York: College Entrance Examination Board
Kockelmans, J.J., (1979), Why Interdisciplinarity in J.J. Kocklmans (ed) Interdisciplinarity and
Higher Education, University Park and London: The Pennsylvanian State University Press,
15
Kowalewski, D. and Laird, A., (1990), Interdisciplinary gaps: A Survey Report, Educational
Research Quarterly, 14 (2), pp.32-40
Lather, P., (1986), Research as Praxis, Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), pp257-277
Law, J. (1994) Organising Modernity, Oxford: Blackwell.
Leach, R., Parish, J. and Abbas, A. (1999) “Boundary Maintenance: The teaching and learning of
anthropology and sociology” Report to Anthropology Network (see C-Sap website).
Leigh Smith,B. and McCann J.(2001) in B. Leigh Smith and J. McCann, Reinventing Ourselves:
Interdisciplinary Education, Collaborative Learning and Experimentation in Higher Education,
Bolton, Mass.: Anker Publishing Company
Lenoir, T., (1993), The Discipline of Nature and the Nuture of Disciplines in E. Messer-Davidow,
D. R. Shumway and D.J. Sylvan (eds), Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in
Disciplinarity, Charlottesville and London: University Press of California
Leighton, (1998) “New Wine in Old Bottles or New Wine in New Bottles?” Journal of Law and
Society, Volume: 25 Number: 1 pp 85-101
Levin, L. and Lind, I. (1986), Inter-Disciplinarity Revisted, OECD/CERI Swedish
National Board of Universities and Colleges,
Lyon, A., (1992), Interdisciplinarity: Giving up Territory, College English, 54 (6), pp 681-693
Martin, B., (1998), Tied Knowledge: Power in Higher Education,
(www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/98tk/tk04.html)
Martinotti, G., (1997), Interdisciplinarity and the Social Sciences, I R. Cunningham (ed),
Interdisciplinarity and the Organisation of Knowledge in Europe, A Conference organised by
Academia Europa, Cambridge, 24-26 September, 1997
Messmer, M.W., (1978), The Vogue of the Interdisciplinary, Centennial Review, 22 (4),
pp.467-478
Messer-Davidow, E., Shumway, D.R., Sylvan, D.J., (eds) (1993), Knowledges: Historical and
Cultural Studies in Disciplinarity, Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia
Middleton, C. (2000) “Models of State and Market in the 'Modernisation of Higher Education” British
Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol, 21. No. 4, pp 537-554
Moore, R.,(2000), The (Re) Organisation of Knowledge and Assessment for a Learning Society:
the constraints on interdisciplinarity, Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), pp185-199
Moran J., (2001), Interdisciplinarity, London: Routledge
Mourad, R.P., (1997), Postmodern Interdisciplinarity, The Review of Higher Education, 20 (2), pp.
113-140
Mudroch, V., (1992), The Future of Interdisciplinarity: the case of Swiss universities, Studies in
Higher Education, 17(1), pp 43-54
Neuman, R., (201), Disciplinary Differences and University Teaching, Studies in Higher
Education, 26(2), pp. 135-146
Nissani, M., (1997), Ten Cheers for Interdisciplinarity, Social Science Journal, 34(2), pp.201-216
Ozga, J., (2000), Carrying the Burden of Transformation: the experiences of women managersin
UK higher and further education, Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 21(2) pp.
141-153
Peacocke, A.(ed), (1985), Reductionism in Academic Disciplines, Slough: SRHE and
NFER-Nelson
Readings, B. (1996) The University in Ruins, Cambridge, Mass; The Harvard Press.
Redclift, M., (1998), Dances with wolves? Interdisciplinary research on the global environment,
Global Environmental Change, 8(3), pp 177-182
Relke, D.M.A., (1994), feminist Pedagogy and the Integration of Knowledge: Toward a more
Interdisciplinary University, Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, University of
Saskatchewan (ww.usask.ca/wgst/journals/conf3.htm)
Rose, S. (1985), The roots and social functions of biological reductionism, in A. Peacocke (ed),
Reductionism in Academic Disciplines, Slough: SRHE and NFER-Nelson
16
Shain, F. and Ozga, J., (2001), Identity Crisis? Problems and Issues in the Sociology of Education,
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22 (1), ppp.109-120
Sinaceur, M.A., (1977), What is Interdisciplinarity?, International Social Science Journal, XXIX
(4), pp571-579
Strathern, M., (2000), Audit Cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the
academy, London: Routledge
Turner, B.S. (1998),The Interdisciplinary Curriculum : From Social Medicine to Postmodernism
in W. H. Newell (ed), Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the Literature, New York: College
Entrance Examination Board
Twitchen A. and Starbuck, M., (1996), Teaching Sociology through Sport, Social Science
Teacher, 25(3), pp 25-33
UCAS (2002) http://www.ucas.ac.uk/ visited 15th November 2002.
Vedeld, P.O.,(1994), The environment and interdisciplinarity: Ecological and neoclassical
economical approaches to the uses of natural resources, Ecological Economics, 10, pp. 1-15
Viadeanu, G., (1987), Interdisciplinarity in education: a tentative synthesis, Prospects, XVII (4),
pp.489-501
i
We thank Hefce for funding this project and Graham Gibbs (Open University), Richard Blackwell (LTSN) and Clive
Pearson, who were our colleagues on this project.
ii
Donald MacLeod “Floud defends rise in new subjects” in The Guardian, Thursday February 21, 2002.