5. What Is Integration, and Why Is It So Important to Interdisciplinary Studies? 8/17/04
Interdisciplinary studies students should be familiar with Bloom’s taxonomy. In 1956, Benjamin Bloom headed a group of educational psychologists who developed a classification of levels of intellectual behavior important in learning. He identified six levels within the cognitive domain, from the simple recognition or recall of facts, at the lowest level, through increasingly more complex and abstract mental levels, leading ultimately to the higher order skill of synthesis or integration. Our focus in this chapter and in the following chapter is on integration.
Integration is central to understanding the nature of interdisciplinary studies and is its distinguishing feature. In fact, says William H. Newell (1998), the Executive Director of the Association of Integrative Studies,
it is helpful to think of the nature of interdisciplinarity, its outcomes, the role of the
disciplines, and the nature of synthesis or integration as a package of four
interrelated issues, or perhaps a system of four simultaneous equations. The
resolution of each issue is dependent on decisions about the other three. The
outcomes of interdisciplinary study, for example, are critically dependent on what is
meant by interdisciplinarity and integration and on how the disciplines are used.
(547)
Having already examined the nature of interdisciplinarity (chapter 1) and the role of the disciplines (chapter 4), we now need to examine the concept of integration. Our purpose in this chapter is three-fold: define the term integration, examine three models of integration, and identify the prerequisites for integration.
LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR THIS CHAPTER
· Students will be able to define the terms integration and synthesis
· Students will be able to identify various models of integration and explain the
vision, theory, and practice of each
· Students will be able to identify three several prerequisites for integration
I. WHAT IS INTEGRATION?
Interdisciplinarians are in substantial agreement about the centrality of integration to interdisciplinary studies (as we have defined it in chapter 1) and are moving towards consensus about what integration should encompass. Though achieving integration is not easy, it is achievable.
A. A DEFINITION OF INTERDISCIPLINARY INTEGRATION
1. The verb integrate, according to Webster’s, means “to unite or blend into a functioning
whole.” A synonym of integration is the noun synthesis which means combining
ideas to form a new whole. According to Julie Thompson Klein (1996), a leading
theorist in the field of interdisciplinary studies, “Synthesis connotes creation of an
interdisciplinary outcome through a series of integrative actions (emphasis mine, 212).
What these “integrative actions” or steps involve is the subject of the following
chapter.
2. From these statements about integration and synthesis we can observe the following:
· They are practically synonyms
· They convey the meaning of activity leading towards a certain result
· The nature of the activity is combining or uniting
· What is combined or united or synthesized are ideas and knowledge. [We must emphasize that the combining, or uniting, synthesizing, or integrating takes place in a context and is limited to that context. That is, the ideas and knowledge take the form of insights into the specific problem or issue, and their integration is limited to that specific context. We will comment further on this in the following chapter.]
· The object of this activity is the formation of something new
· The singular characteristic of the new is that it is whole. [Be aware that the complexity of the object of interdisciplinary scrutiny implies that the “whole” one achieves through integration only partially coheres and has only quasi-stability and quasi-predictability.]
3. Based on our discussion of the terms integration and synthesis thus far, we advance
this simple, but as yet incomplete, definition: integration or synthesis is the activity of
combining ideas and knowledge to form a new whole.
4. Our definition is incomplete because it is missing three critical elements. Newell
(1990) identifies these in an essay in which he relates how his classroom experiences
changed his thinking about integration.
I used to think of integration as analogous to completing a jigsaw puzzle (when
disciplinary insights are complementary, as they often are in the natural sciences) or
as a problem in identifying and choosing among assumptions under disciplinary
insights (when they conflict, as they often do in the social sciences). In the course
on ‘the energy crisis,’ the jigsaw analogy might fit, in which geology explains the
location and extent of fossil fuels, physics explains how their energy is released in
a power plant, and chemistry and biology explain the environmental consequences
of the pollutants given off in the process. In the course on ‘abortion,’ one might
argue that the integrative task is to choose among competing ethical or moral
assumptions. Over the years I have come to realize, however, that the external
reality scholars confront is often complex, variegated, and contradictory, so that
mutually incompatible assumptions can all be ‘correct.’ Human beings, for
example—the building block of the social sciences and the focus of much of the
humanities—are rife with internal contradictions; consequently assumptions of
freedom and determinism, for example, may both be correct at the same time for a
particular individual in a particular situation. I now see integration in
interdisciplinary study as essentially holistic thinking, in which the different facets
of a complex reality exposed through different disciplinary lenses are combined into
a new whole that is larger than its constituent parts, that cannot be reduced to the
separate disciplinary insights from which it emerged. Whether we call it
integration, synthesis, or synergy, this process is more organic that mechanical,
involving coordination as well as cooperation among disciplinary perspectives. It
requires an act of creative imagination, a leap from the simplified perspectives that
give the disciplines their power to a more holistic perspective of a richer, more
complex whole. That leap is motivated by a dissatisfaction with the partial insights
available through individual disciplines. (emphasis mine, 55)
5. In this narrative, Newell identifies three important ideas about integration that must be
included in our definition of integration:
· The “new whole” is something “larger than the sum of its constituent parts,” a statement designed to emphasize the distinctiveness of the new whole from its
constituent parts
· Achieving this new whole involves coordination as well as cooperation among disciplinary perspectives (which we discussed at length in chapter 4)
· Achieving this new whole requires an act of creative imagination (which is addressed in Part III)
6. Observe also that Newell and Klein (1998) repeatedly refer to interdisciplinary
integration or synthesis as a “process” as opposed to an activity (14, 15; 55, 57, 223,
534, 535, 553, 554, 559, 562; Newell and William J. Green, 1982, 26; Klein, 1990,
188-196; Kline, 1996, 2, 210, 212-216, 220, 222-224). This is deliberate. “Process”
conveys the notion of making gradual changes that lead toward a particular result,
whereas “activity” has the more limited meaning of vigorous or energetic action
unrelated to achieving a goal.
7. Consequently, we amend our earlier partial definition as follows:
Integration or synthesis is the process of combining ideas and knowledge to
form a new, more complex whole.
The idea of “coordination as well as cooperation among disciplinary perspectives” is
encompassed in our phrase “combining ideas and knowledge.” The thought that
achieving this new whole requires “an act of creative imagination” is encompassed in
the verb “to form.”
B. THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATION TO INTERDISCIPLINARY
INQUIRY
1. Leading theorists and scholars in the field insist that interdisciplinary studies should be
defined in terms of integration. Newell and William J. Green wrote as early as 1982
that interdisciplinary studies could be defined “as inquiries which critically draw upon
two or more disciplines and which lead to an integration of disciplinary insights”
(emphasis mine, 24). In 1996, Newell and Klein wrote that interdisciplinary studies
“draws on disciplinary perspectives and integrates their insights through construction
of a more comprehensive perspective” (emphasis mine, 3). Jay Wentworth and James
R. Davis (2002), concerned with what can properly be called interdisciplinary learning,
stress the importance of teachers moving students “patiently toward integration or new
conceptualization.” And as students develop the habit of interdisciplinarity, “the
search for integration can be intensified” (emphasis mine, 17-18). Seipel (2002)
concurs, writing that “interdisciplinary analysis requires integration of knowledge
from the disciplines that is brought to bear on the issue, question or problem at hand”
(emphasis mine, 3). Veronica Boix Mansilla (2001) emphasizes that “individuals
demonstrate interdisciplinary understanding when they integrate knowledge and
modes of thinking in order to create products, solve problems, and offer explanations,
in ways that would not have been possible through single disciplinary means”
(emphasis mine, 9).
Integration is important to interdisciplinary studies, therefore, because most expert
interdisciplinary researchers state that it as a goal, if not the goal, of their work.
2. A second reason why integration is important to interdisciplinary studies is that experts
say that it is the process of integration that ultimately distinguishes genuine
interdisciplinarity from multidisciplinarity. According to Donald G. Richards (1996),
the latter seeks to “arrange in serial fashion the separate contributions of selected
disciplines to a problem or issue, without any attempt at synthesis” (124). Klein
(1990) is even more explicit in identifying the deficiencies of multidiscipinarity,
stating that it merely “signifies the juxtaposition of disciplines [and] is essentially
additive, not integrative” (emphasis mine, 56). The critical failure of the
multidisciplinary approach to learning, explains Richards, is that “it leaves the task of
providing integration largely or entirely to the student without explicit guidance from
the course or instructor(s). Under these circumstances the interdisciplinary relations
will be lost if they are ever identified in the first place” (emphasis mine, 116).
Here is a concluding word from one of the field’s leading theorists concerning the
critical importance of integration to interdisciplinary studies:
The pragmatic and epistemological value of interdisciplinary study is ultimately
determined by the success of interdisciplinarians in carrying out…integration,
because all save the antidisciplinarians identify that as its distinguishing feature.
Theoretical clarity and agreement concerning the nature of interdisciplinarity, its
outcomes, the role of the disciplines, and the nature of…integration would be of no
avail if interdisciplinarians were unable to accomplish integration. The respect of
disciplinarians in the academy, the demand for interdisciplinarians to assist in
solving complex societal problems, the success of radical critiques, and the long-
term prospects for interdisciplinary education are all dependent on the proven
success of integration. (Newell, 1998, 550)
Experts agree that integration is important to interdisciplinary studies because it is
the means by which interdisciplinary work proceeds. However, integration is not the goal. The goal is to understand a complex phenomenon.
II. WHAT ARE THE POPULAR MODELS OF INTEGRATION?
Having examined the definition and importance of integration to interdisciplinary studies, students now need to discern the various models of integration in terms of their differing visions, theories, and practices. Interdisciplinary studies students should be aware of these models because they characterize much of the interdisciplinary work occurring inside and outside academia today.
MODEL #1: INTEGRATION AS AN OVERARCHING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1. Vision: Proponents of this approach share a lofty vision that is succinctly described by
Joseph J. Kockelmans (1998), for example, who argues that “the goal of all
interdisciplinary inquiry is the discovery of overarching conceptual frameworks” (82).
By “overarching conceptual framework” or “conceptual bridging” is meant a single
concept, principle, or law that accounts for phenomena typically studied by a broad
range of disciplines (Boix Mansilla, 2002, 18). These “overarching conceptual
frameworks,” Kockelmans believes, “will facilitate the unification of the sciences and
eventually the solution of important problems with which the existing disciplines
acting in isolation are incapable of dealing effectively” (82). Creating them, however,
is admittedly a formidable task even for expert researchers. It is most unlikely that
undergraduate interdisciplinary studies students would be involved in such an
enterprise.
2. Theory: Nevertheless, students should be aware of the theory that undergirds this
vision. Kockelmans further explains that interdisciplinarians
who work exclusively in the realm of the natural sciences usually have no great
difficulty in discovering a common framework. In most cases it will consist in the
basic principles and methods of physics, chemistry, or biology. On the other hand,
[interdisciplinary] research projects in the social sciences, and particularly those
involving both the natural and the social sciences, confront us with great theoretical
and methodological problems. (82,83)
3. Practice: In practice, this approach to interdisciplinary work is conducted most
effectively by groups of scientists trained in various scientific disciplines. Cooperation
among them requires that they try to discover common ground that strikes a balance
between being “broad enough to encompass the dimensions that are essential to the
problem at hand” yet “not always be so encompassing that it could serve as a basis to
deal meaningfully with all large-scale problems” (Kockelmans, 84-85).
The problem that many interdisciplinarians have with this model is that it is really a
transdisciplinary goal. Interdisciplinary studies is driven by the tension among
disciplinary perspectives. Unification removes that tension. Since reality is so
complex, the very nature of complexity militates against the unity of reality and thus to
knowledge of that reality. “We need non-unified disciplines to illuminate the (partly
inconsistent) aspects of our complex world” (Newell, 2004, 2).
B. MODEL #2: INTEGRATION AS COMPREHENSIVE PERSPECTIVE
1. Vision: Advocates of this model have two goals in mind. The first is educational and
is concerned that increasing “specialization threatens to erect a new Tower of Babel in
which highly trained disciplinarians, using precise, newly coined definitions, may
speak meaningfully only to those small groups who share their special language”
(Hursh, Haas, and Moore, 1996, 36). Barbara Hursh, a social/educational
psychologist, Paul Haas, an economist, and Michael Moore, a humanist, believe that