Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.