Well I am starting a new segment of my research that is going to deal explicitly with interdisciplinarity. I am in an interdisciplinary PhD program, and up until now I have approached this program as merely the place for me because I do not really fit any other place, but as I being to delve into my thesis work, I see that there are some opportunities for me to carve a niche in this space.
In particular, I am happy to discover that there is a budding overlap between the notions of complexity theory and interdisciplinary. I have a fairly extensive background in the realm of complexity theory so perhaps this is the time to draw on this background and utilize it in my thesis work. So I am starting from scratch, so to speak, with the complexity/interdisciplinary literature.
I am starting with this article:
McMurtry, Angus (2011). “The complexities of interdisciplinarity: Integrating two different perspectives on interdisciplinary research and education.” Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education. Volume 8 (2011), Number 2 • pp. 19-35 • www.complexityandeducation.ca
In this article, McMurtry argues that the interdisciplinary literature is divided into two streams of thought: those that focus on the complexity of the known and those that focus on the complexity of the knower. He argues that while both streams have been fruitful sources of insight, little dialogue exists between the two. He suggests that the conceptual framework offered by the complexity and education can provide a means of integrating the two perspectives without conflating them, thus offering a more thorough means of conducting interdisciplinary education and research.
The conceptual framework offered by the complexity and education literature suggests that because learning involves various interconnected systems (cognitive, neurological, language, social etc), a transdiciplinary approach is necessary. Complexity theory presents various levels of interactions. or relationships, as the basic focus of inquiry. In other words, complexity looks at the emergent properties of various interconnected phenomena thus it provides means of inquiry into seemingly (possibly) incommensurable spheres. The level of emergence is different from the level upon which the systems’ parts and pieces interact.
The author describes it like this: “complexity thinking offers a means to conceptually bridge such seemingly incompatible disciplinary perspectives. It does so by emphasizing that different sorts or levels of phenomena embody emergent qualities that transcend their parts and reflect their unique histories; they therefore need to be studied “at the levels of their emergence” (p. 2). Complexity can thus act as sort of “interdiscourse,” negotiating the relationships between disciplinary discourses—while never reducing or conflating them” (21).
In the application to the conceptual divide in interdisciplinary literature, complexity theory acts as a reflective agent that sees knowers as themselves adaptive self-organizing systems thus allowing the socio-cultural dynamics such as cooperation and domination to be considered as themselves emergent properties of complex systems. This is to say that complexivist thinking on interdisciplinarity will take into consideration the embodied material reality (the known phenomena) as an element of, not an opposition to, socio-cultural dynamics. Disciplinary structures can thus be seen in a historical light that brings its dynamics and developments into view disrupting its typical standing as a completed self-sufficient closed system. Once understood as open and dynamic, multidisciplinary interactions can be seen which allows for a broadened perspective and an understanding of interdisciplinarity as a process more so than a product.
McMurty questions the imperative to frame knowledge in representational terms. He draws on pragmatist and constructivist framework familiar to the complexity and education genre to suggest that knowledge be considered in “terms of coherence, viability or fit with local needs and constraints, rather than correspondence with an ‘objective’ reality” (31). This conceptual framework, according to the author is more fruitful for interdisciplinarity because it allows for the validity of multiple perspectives appropriate to respective contexts rather than a single ‘correct’ view of the world.
While I do not have too much to say about this article just yet, I find myself in a ‘so-what’ frame of mind as I think about this issue. Relegating everything to various levels of complexity, adding layers to layers to make a point, is itself a type of reduction. Moreover, that everything is complex, even complexity itself, be it interdicsiplinarity or disciplinarity, seems to be too simplistic.
