Human knowledge is constantly changing. As more and more areas of inquiry evolve, they spawn distinct subsets of concepts, theories, and applications. Over time, we witness a single domain of knowledge elaborating and differentiating among subsets of concepts and questions. Some of this evolution creates subdisciplines, which form their own journals or book series. The groups create workshops and conferences to evaluate new results and solidify agreement on important questions the new area should be tackling.
One result of this is the correlative effort to identify around a new label. So we have: computational biology, socio-linguistics, biological psychology, behavioral economics, economic history, nanophysics, medieval literature, computational social science, and so on.
Not all of these are combinations of two or more disciplines. Some might be viewed as the natural evolution of deeper and deeper inquiry into the mainstream theories and frameworks of a discipline (e.g., nanophysics as a singular focus on the physics of structures at the nanometer scale).
But combining multiple perspectives is a common recipe for advancement. The consultancy world (which in this context might be viewed as a communication vehicle between academia and the job market) has invented ideas that express their belief that combinations of knowledge that make for a good employee. The notion of T-people first arose as describing graduates who have deep understanding of one field (the vertical stem of the T), but breadth of knowledge beyond the single field to other fields (the horizontal top of the T). With that breadth, they bring to the organization skills nurtured in exploring a field to its limits of human understanding, but knowledge of other fields that create versatilities of value to a work organization. More recently, others have promoted the notion of a π-person, someone who has deep knowledge in two fields, as well as breadth of knowledge in other fields. The consultancy world is very good at creating memorable catch phrases.
This type of thinking pervades undergraduates at Georgetown. Only about a quarter of them graduate with a single major. About a quarter have two full majors. About 50 percent have a major and some combination of minors.
Funding agencies march to a similar drumbeat. They also tend to create new phrases, as they attempt to persuade Congress that their ideas for new work has merit. For years, the term, “interdisciplinary,” was used as a label of some promising blending of multiple complementary fields to create new breakthroughs. In later budget cycles, the term “translational” was invented to propose new research in application of basic science findings to more applied settings. More recently, the word, “convergence,” has arisen as a call for more research funding. The National Science Foundation (NSF) defines “convergence” as “the merging of ideas, approaches and technologies from widely diverse fields of knowledge to stimulate innovation and discovery.” It evokes the possibility that combinations sometimes contribute to basic discoveries, not just new applications.
In concert with this perspective, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) create programs of funding for public humanities, digital humanities, dangers and opportunities of technology, art in high-poverty neighborhoods, military healing arts. The NIH have disease-based programs which stimulate new coalitions of scientists across fields like 3-D printing of tissue. NSF creates “big ideas,” one of which is the “Future of Work,” “the development and use of technologies to improve the quality of work while also increasing productivity and economic growth in manufacturing and in service sectors such as healthcare and education.”
Some of these initiatives call for new collaborative interdisciplinary teams. But not all require a team, but do require work using multiple perspectives. The long term result of this phenomena is that much research and scholarly activities within traditional departments and programs are themselves inter-disciplinary. Indeed, many individual researchers use concepts, theories, and methods from diverse sources in their own work. The interdisciplinarity lies within a single mind.
This is the beauty of constant change in knowledge formation – enriching fields over time with new ways of thinking, providing new insights through diverse perspectives. Ways of thinking intersect, morph into new frameworks that unlock insight we could not previously achieve. Few other human organizations other than universities can foster such intersection.
As someone who is interested in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, I think this statement is important. It is often difficult to find ways to bridge the gap between different disciplines, but I think it is important to try. I think that convergent research, which is a mix of different disciplines, is one way to do this.
This is an incredible rousing article. Leadership committed to supporting convergence is key, as is the involvement of students, faculty members and staff, department chairs.
Very interesting topic, thank you for posting. At least in the sciences, “Interdisciplinary” as an approach to thinking about research and teaching was pursued well before we started using the word, which many believe started later sometime in the ‘20s or 30’s, with its usage beginning in the social sciences. Today the term is used in many ways but by its original definition does not indicate multiple technical approaches or a funding strategy that is multidisciplinary, rather, it is a way of thinking about a problem. The term “translational” has its origins in the early 90’s, initially it was not invoked to describe a funding strategy but to envision translation of basic science discoveries into improved clinical care. Some call it “bench to bedside” research. Early on this was done mostly at leading cancer research centers such as the Sloan Kettering in New York, but has now grown to include most biomedical research as we continue to struggle towards improved care for all diseases. Biomedical scientists have embraced translational research for some time, but cynics today sometimes call it “the Valley of Death” because big gains in the clinic can take years and are so hard won, as well as so difficult to pry from the clutches of basic science. When gains are won however, they are hugely significant. “Translational” biomedical research is definitely not for the faint hearted, yet it’s history has many interesting twists and turns and valuable lessons for all research.
Best
Paul
I thought Pi-people were people with deep subject knowledge who kept repeating themselves.
If a pi person is anything like pi, he or she could not repeat themself because they would be irrational, rather, they would go on and on forever in an apparently random way with no discernible pattern. Except on March 14 every year when they would stop to eat pie.
Cheers