What
should the colleges do?
By
Richard W. Crockett
The
interdisciplinary approach to education emphasizes a kind of cross
fertilization in the studentÕs fields of study, and highlights the intellectual
connections between and among different fields. The example of this effort,
which combines political science and economics is sometimes called political
economy. Attempts at merging the two fields have occurred more than once. Sixty
or seventy years ago it occurred in combining the fields, when both political
science and economics were fields of study typically housed in colleges of arts
and sciences. Illinois had a United States Senator, Paul H. Douglas who held a
Ph.D. in political economy and taught at the University of Chicago. But the
marriage between the fields was not seen as a happy one and by and by the
practice declined in favor of the traditional separation of the two fields. The
question often arose, Òwhat would holders of such a degree preparation doÓ? ÒWhat
would they teach or where would they workÓ? So the practicalities of the day of
job placement among other things had its inevitable impact.
Later
attempts at combining the two fields have arisen in part inspired by knowledge
of the history of the fields where ÒbetterÓ organizational kinship was
identified in housing departments of economics inside schools of business at
universities and in combination with departments of business in smaller
colleges. To some this seemed to be a more congenial interdisciplinary
marriage. But these efforts always impact the traditional fields of study. I am
of the opinion that when departments of economics were housed inside colleges
of arts and science, the study of economics was shaped more by emphasis upon
macro-economics, and focused upon national economic policy and the larger
economic system. It was a field interested in welfare economics, labor
economics and the economics of
public purpose, although it may not
have always been called that. It was interested in management of the national
economy and the equitable distribution of wealth and income. After a widespread practice of housing
economics departments in schools of business, the field was increasingly
shaped, it seems to me, by micro-economics, or the economics of the firm. Consequently,
the values of the business community became a driving force behind the field.
The economics of the firm may be thought of as the economics of private
purpose. Here social equity is not
the driving value, rather efficiency is, and the measure of success is not some
version of social justice, but the satisfactory bottom line or profit for the
firm. This may play out even to the detriment of the national economy. We are
acquainted with the practice of plant closings and the Òshipping of jobs
overseasÓ because it is profitable to do so. Some will argue that this is a
continuation of trade, but it certainly is not trade in the traditional sense,
for here it involves not an exchange of product for money, but the exporting of
the activity of production and receiving nothing in return. An extremely brazen
example of this occurred recently when Haliburton announced that it was moving
its operations to Dubai, this after billions of dollars in income from the
American taxpayers for contracts with the American people to supply the war
effort in Iraq. One may argue that it is quite a leap to contend that the way
in which one organizes todayÕs colleges and attendant educational policy leads
to the practice of shipping jobs overseas. But I submit that the point of
academic reorganization and educational policy is to impact the end product in
the form of knowledge and values in an institutionÕs graduating
students—we may reap what we sow.
As
new approaches to the study of the social sciences emerged, scholars looked to
unify the social sciences around research methodology. The chosen method was
ÒempiricalÓ methodology, emphasizing the scientific method. This ÒempiricismÓ
frequently relied upon gathering numeric data, a process called
Òquantification.Ó Critics of this research approach in the social sciences
protested that the method became Òthe criterion for theoretical relevance,Ó and
as a result the social sciences defined by the method of research were unified
in the minds of proponents, around that method. Consequently, identifying
fields of study by subject matter content was seen as passŽ. This particular
strategy for interdisciplinary study seemed to be as a matter of logic, and on
the face of it, self-defeating, for in becoming interdisciplinary in this
manner the affect is to define the subject matter disciplines out of existence.
How can it be called ÒinterdisciplinaryÓ where there are no academic
disciplines? From this perspective, there was no longer political science,
sociology, economics, and psychology, for example, but only Òsocial science.Ó
The subject matter content is no longer the means for recognizing a field of
study.
Resistance
to this approach to Òinterdisciplinary studyÓ came from entrenched academic
interests and by the practical inability of the new Òscientific methodÓ to deal
with the traditional interests of academicians. The motive was for the
researcher to be Òvalue freeÓ in his research and scientific in his method, but
quantification of data allowed the researcher to deal with only some of the traditional
subject matter of the fields of study. For example while in political science
it was easy and even helpful to look at voting behavior and opinion data, it
was hard to measure concepts such as Òjustice,Ó ÒsovereigntyÓ, and ÒpowerÓ
through quantitative methods. Nor could political philosophy or ideology be
studied in a traditional way through scientific method. In the case of the
practitioners of Òthe new science of politics,Ó subjects such as justice, power
and ideology became illegitimate subject matter for study because they were
inaccessible by sensory experience and were seen as not being scientific
expressions of the discipline. For the traditional students of politics, there
remained a desire for more ÒphilosophicalÓ or traditional approaches to fields
of social science, and these remained in play. The result was academic division
not integration.
A
systematic strategy in the search for knowledge and the existence of
organizational categories helps to make the educational task manageable. Think
about the meaning of analysis and synthesis. As it applies to knowledge, the term, analysis,
means breaking a field of study down into its constituent parts. Synthesis
refers to pulling together disparate parts into a single meaningful whole. Accordingly,
social science is broken down into fields of study called sociology,
anthropology, economics, geography, psychology, political science, etc. Such a
strategy can be a useful aid in Ògetting a handleÓ on learning. But if the goal
is to have fields of knowledge Òtalk to each other,Ó hoping for an
interdisciplinary affect, this requires that we maintain fields of knowledge. We
cannot simply knock down all the boundaries, which identify disciplines as
such. Still it is possible to achieve work product synthesis, but such a
synthesis of knowledge must come from points of contact between fields of
study, so that the synthesis imports information with an enhanced perspective
from various fields and has a substantive cross-relevance.
Still,
the idea of interdisciplinary education has an intellectual ÒsexynessÓ that is
appealing when marketing academic programs and this pitch is often used by
colleges and universities alike. The market appeal, I believe is in the promise
that while acquiring a mountain of information during the course of oneÕs
education, the interdisciplinary idea holds out the promise of somehow helping
to make sense of it all. To some, this may sound like the Òsearch for truthÓ
fashionable in an earlier era, or understanding knowledge as a Òuniversal
whole,Ó where Newtonian science is able to explain GodÕs Divine Plan. It even
echoes Alexander Pope that, Òwhatever is, is right.Ó Pretty conservative. The
question for me is paradoxical. Does the Òopening upÓ of inquiry by means of
interdisciplinary study through integration of fields of knowledge lead to a
closing down of some modes and subjects of inquiry? Or in contrast, does the
maintenance of distinct sub-fields of knowledge, although traditional and
conservative in appearance, turn out to be the most liberating educationally? And which is the most appropriate for
the liberal arts college?
Richard
W. Crockett is a retired professor of Political Science at Western Illinois
University
3/15/07