D EFINING INTERDISCIPLINARITY

“Over the course of the 20th century, a major shift in the figurative language of knowledge description occurred, away from static images of a foundation and a structure to the dynamic properties of a network, a web, a system, and a field. The rhetoric of teaching and learning shifted in kind from metaphors of accumulation and discrete inputs of information and facts to acts of constructing knowledge and problem posing. Following suit, metaphors of production, prescription, control, performance, mastery, and expertise were supplanted by dialogue, process, inquiry, transformation, interaction, construction, and negotiation. Older tropes of unity, universality, and certainty were replaced in turn by tropes of plurality, heterogeneity, and complexity. And the image of the curriculum shifted from vertically stacked silos to horizontal pathways, clusters, connections, matrixes, and communities. Interdisciplinarity was implicated in all these shifts, fostering a parallel redescription of the work of research and teaching. (Klein 2008b, 269-270)

The above quote from Klein illustrates the rhetorics of interdisciplinarity, as well as tying it with the underlying epistemological shift I described in the previous Chapter. One major manifestation of these developments is the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of current research teams (Monteiro & Keating 2009; Weingart & Stehr 2000; Huutoniemi et al. 2010;

Siedlok & Hibbert 2014). There is also direct critique voiced towards the discipline-specificity of modern science: “This ever increasing specialization has prompted many to consider how disparate scientific contributions can be rebuilt or integrated to provide solutions to (or at least help us understand) the complex challenges which face our communities” (Jeffrey 2003, 539). The issue is made even more relevant as the problems and issues taken on by science cannot be defined by one discipline alone. As Jeffrey (2003, 539) puts it, “Real-world problems do not come in disciplinary-shaped boxes”. Challenges such as climate change, aging of populations, urban crime and dealing with ethnic diversity have given impetus for new interdisciplinary research entities such as environmental studies, gerontology, ethnic and urban studies (Klein 2008b).

The terms multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary are used in literature somewhat interchangeably. A widely used typology was presented at the first international conference on interdisciplinary research and teaching in 1970, cosponsored by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1972). According to Klein (2008b), the distinction between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary is widely recognized, whereas the precise meanings of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary, however, are still disputed. Klein cites the following definitions of the OECD:

Multidisciplinary approaches juxtapose disciplinary/professional perspectives, adding breadth and available knowledge, information, and methods. They speak as separate voices, in encyclopedic alignment.

Interdisciplinary approaches integrate separate disciplinary data, methods, tools, concepts, and theories to create a holistic view or common understanding of a complex issue, question, or problem.

Transdisciplinarity refers to a set of common axioms that transcends the narrow scope of disciplinary worldviews through an overarching synthesis, and is a descriptor of broad fields and synoptic disciplines, such as a team-based holistic approach to health care, a general ethos, and a comprehensive integrative curriculum design.

Jeffrey (2003) has further defined that multidisciplinarity comprises of independent studies that are externally coordinated e.g. editorially. Transdisciplinarity aims for a

”supradisciplinary paradigm” that encompasses the other disciplines. Interdisciplinarity falls between the two, it has substantial internal integration but without the paradigmatic reach.

Jeffrey himself uses the additional term ”cross-disciplinary” to include all these forms of collaboration between researchers with different backgrounds as an umbrella term, and indeed this term is also used in the management and organizational research on collaboration across disciplinary and functional boundaries (e.g. Nicolini et al. 2012).

Importantly, however, Klein reminds us that interdisciplinarity can contain both

“instrumental” and “critical” practices. “Instrumental forms motivated by ‘strategic,’

‘pragmatic,’ or ‘opportunistic’ goals are prominent in economic, technological, and scientific problem solving, without regard for questions of epistemology or institutional structure.

Critical forms interrogate disciplines and institutional structures with the aim of transforming them.” (Klein 2008b, 276.)

I use the term interdisciplinarity, as my empirical setting of Aalto Design Factory is dedicated to “bringing together all the disciplines of Aalto University” in order to enable problem-based learning, and thus its articulated aim fits with interdisciplinarity as depicted above. However,

“interdisciplinarity” is used somewhat loosely, and in fact its Finnish translation

“poikkitieteellinen” corresponds better with “cross-disciplinary”. It can thus be argued that interdisciplinarity and cross-disciplinarity could be used interchangeable in my empirical instance²¹.

21Adding to the mix, Alberts (2007, 173) cites earlier research and states that “terms ‘multidiscipline’ and

‘cross-functional’ seem to be interchangeable, but what distinguishes an interdisciplinary team from a multidisciplinary team is the number of disciplines involved. Interdisciplinary refers to a team of people from two disciplines. Multidisciplinary refers to a team of people from at least three disciplines.” I have not however seen this type of a definition that rests on the number of disciplines in other research I have come across.

There are many different types of contexts where interdisciplinary collaboration may occur.

Oborn & Dawson (2010a) have categorized three such contexts:

• Collocated teams engaging in on-going interdependent activity (e.g. surgical teams), where the presence of hierarchical relations between participants structure the interactions (see e.g. Edmondson 2003)

• Project-based teams that have a specified task and measurable outcome (e.g. new product or service) and a given timeline (see e.g. Carlile 2002, Scarbrough et al.

2004).

• A team with less clearly defined outputs and rules of engagement, with the need of establishing an on-going interdisciplinary interaction without tasks, timelines and authority structures being clearly specified (e.g. a formally constituted team of independent specialists required to meet on a regular basis, but with no specific goal, salient especially in health-care) (see e.g. Oborn & Dawson 2010a).

The project-based collaboration is of particular relevance for my empirical analysis, as Aalto Design Factory’s activities to great extent centre around the product development –oriented courses that are organized as projects, and I will be using this category of interdisciplinary collaboration as my main focus.