Abstract
Susan Robertson, a sociologist of education at the University of Cambridge and the 2024 President of the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), has extensive experience in multidisciplinary research. In 2022, Associate Professor Dan Zhang from East China Normal University collaborated with Professor Robertson at Cambridge on a key project titled “Research on Governance Mechanisms to Promote Interdisciplinary Research.” This collaboration prompted critical reflections on the urgency and challenges of interdisciplinary research in the current academic landscape. Despite institutional efforts in China to advance interdisciplinary approaches, significant challenges remain in practice. In response, we have invited Professors Zhang and Robertson to share their insights on the opportunities and challenges of interdisciplinary research, offering valuable perspectives for its development. We hope this dialogue will provide inspiration and guidance for the academic community.
Development and debates in education research from a multidisciplinary perspective
I know that you are a researcher focusing on interdisciplinary research in quotidian academic life, and you have also multidisciplinary study background and your research interests covers geopolitics, governance, internationalization, knowledge economy, etc. Typically, during your academic life, you read books, journals, and engage in various studies with broad disciplinary background. It's quite diverse, international, and multidisciplinary throughout your academic career. Could you please introduce a little bit about your background in terms of your studies and research, with a specific focus on interdisciplinary research?
Sure. I would describe myself as a sociologist of education, but I often clarify that I’m a political sociologist. This is because I connect sociology with politics in my work, combining these two disciplines. While I primarily have a background in sociology and extensively study the discipline of politics, I also work in the field of education, which is an applied field. Within this field, practitioners draw on a range of disciplines, with psychology, education, and sociology being the dominant ones. It is less common to see politics linked to education, but I find it necessary for the type of thinking and research I engage in. My scholarly work focuses on understanding the role of the state and its engagement in governing education.
While some countries have seen increased involvement of private actors in education, I believe it is essential to comprehend the evolving nature of the state's role. This requires interdisciplinary thinking, incorporating both sociology and politics. Moreover, I acknowledge the significance of space when studying education. Education occurs within specific places, whether it's a city, village, township, or community, and the spatial aspect holds great importance. Additionally, we can observe how space matters on a global scale, such as the emergence of international organizations like UNESCO and the OECD, which shape educational agendas. This complexity compels us to consider the intricacies of education policymaking and what happens within classrooms. It is no longer sufficient to focus solely on societal orderings or the politics of the state. Spatial organization, geography, and international relations also play crucial roles in understanding contemporary education. Therefore, we need to draw on multiple disciplines to gain a comprehensive understanding of what is truly happening in the field. Education cannot be fully understood from within education alone.
In relation to education, we can also see that geography matters specifically because geographers theorize space. When I think about my long career as a sociologist of education, particularly from the 1990s, there has always been a movement of students across different countries. This movement dates back to the establishment of universities, which viewed historically is also several centuries ago. If we look at the beginnings of the modern university, such as Bologna in 1088, there were always what we called “wandering scholars.” 1 These scholars moved from one small principality to another. However, starting from the 1990s, countries like Australia and the UK became actively involved in setting up their education systems, particularly in higher education, but not exclusively. New Zealand also experienced a significant influx of young people into their schooling system. The movement of students across national boundaries, from countries like China and Korea to Australia and New Zealand, is reminiscent of how the old British Empire transported scholars from India, Australia, and other colonies. This highlights the importance of a sub-discipline like international relations within the realm of politics for understanding contemporary education. To sum up, based on this description of education within specific places and across different locations, we now need to draw upon multiple disciplines to gain a comprehensive understanding of what is happening. In other words, we can’t rely on education to understand education. Adding to the mix, philosophy becomes relevant when contemplating education. As education institutions impact everyone, questions of social justice arise regarding who benefits from education and who gets ahead. These philosophical inquiries delve into the meaning of education, the moral implications of a market-based educational system, among other aspects. Therefore, understanding education requires a range of disciplines, including philosophical dimensions.
Now, have you learnt any debates regarding interdisciplinary research? What are your thoughts on that debate?
These debates have been ongoing since the 1990s, and they revolve around concerns such as the potential shallowness of understanding, the artificiality of research teams that bring together different disciplines without effective communication, and the tendency to merely use the interdisciplinary label to secure funding. Personally, I would love to see a set of projects that demonstrate successful outcomes. I have worked on many European Commission projects where interdisciplinary teams were necessary, and it would be beneficial to showcase projects where true collaboration and integration of disciplines have led to meaningful results. The concept of the quark, 2 for example, was a choice of metaphor that carries a specific meaning, possibly rooted in Greek. We sometimes perceive the world of science as purely material, but a significant portion of it involves scientists trying to imagine and represent what they believe they are observing. For instance, in lectures on structural biology that I have had the pleasure of listening to, we can’t visually see the tiny components of DNA, so they need to be represented in some way. Even brain scans are represented by using different colors and techniques. These representations are essentially metaphors and analogies used to convey our understanding. Exploring how scientists across different disciplines use metaphorical representations could lead to valuable conversations and a deeper understanding of the scientific practice. When it comes to interdisciplinary research, it is important for researchers to have a high level of open-mindedness and not be overly competitive in promoting their own discipline. Good interdisciplinary researchers should be willing to explore and understand different perspectives without bias or preconceived notions. This openness allows for a more comprehensive and holistic approach to research, where ideas and insights from multiple disciplines can be integrated and applied.
Yeah, well personal characteristics such as flexibility, willingness to learn, capacity to interact effectively with people from different backgrounds, and skilled leadership are seen as highly favorable (Boix et al., 2016; Klein, 1990). Similarly, arrangements and processes facilitating interdisciplinary interaction and dialogue are also considered to be of utmost importance (König et al., 2013). Beyond the organization of workshops, seminars, meetings, and training, interdisciplinary teams should develop opportunities for informal “collegial contact” to develop trust and understanding and allow for “serendipitous connections” (Pfirman & Martin, 2017). Physical proximity is one way to ensure such informal interactions regularly (Klein, 1990). Like here in Cambridge, the college offers more opportunities for multidisciplinary background researchers to work together, like Wolfson global health hub, ECR event, interdisciplinary group, etc.
Every discipline has its own areas of ambiguity or gaps in understanding, and we tend to label them with terms like “black boxes” or “black spots” without truly exploring them or seeking to address the underlying issues. And that can serve as a basis for engaging and productive discussions. There are special issues of journals that have recently been published, such as “Blind Spots,” which explore the areas where we are unable to see or comprehend due to the way disciplines are constructed and methodologies are developed. An example I came across yesterday is the study of children's picture books by international relations scholars. They observed that books like The Gruffalo, 3 which depict wild and chaotic environments where danger lurks, offer insights into how different worlds out there (that is the international) are organized and represented. Surprisingly, there has been very little scholarly attention given to the analysis of children's picture books and their portrayal of the outside world. This represents a fascinating blind spot that could be explored further, as it brings together the fields of international relations and children's literature.
Yeah, I heard a lot like from the science field, normally they call it niche, define their niche in every field, that's the one where maybe their research point or position located there. It's interesting how different academic traditions and cultures prioritize different approaches. What do you think of it?
Till the 1970s, research was discipline-bound. However, as the focus began shifting from basic research to resolving bigger challenges such as climate change, food and water crisis, public health, etc., research had to transcend the boundaries of disciplines, thus making headway for interdisciplinary research. Since interdisciplinary research oversteps the conventional limits of a discipline, many experts believe that interdisciplinary research can resolve problems that single-discipline research cannot. 4 The concern to engage multiple disciplines and bring them to bear in research on solving social and economic problems that demand the innovative deployment and creation of knowledge, tends to emerge during periods of rupture, crises, transition, and transformation (Gibbons et al., 1994). The shift from an industrial economic strategy to a knowledge-driven one is one example (Robertson, 2009). It is also the case that many societies are facing intractable problems arising from social and economic inequalities requiring innovative solutions to ensure social cohesion and social justice (Piketty, 2014). And whilst it is tempting to think that this is a new issue, a brief review of history suggests that the question of interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches to knowledge production and solution making is not a new activity and that their appearance in particular moments of history is the result of the limits of the disciplines (parts) to understand societies (wholes) (Wallerstein, 1991). You know the Piketty, 5 Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Milanovic who's one of the writers that's also writing on economics, they’d say if you go back into the tradition of Karl Marx, and if you read Marx. Marx was hugely influenced by literatures, such as literary authors like Balzac, and would refer to these in his writing. This is what Piketty's doing in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, using quite a lot of literature to enable us to get access to understandings about the economy. It's quite interesting how economists have approached their field. There has been a tendency among economists to present economics as a science akin to the physical sciences, distancing themselves from the world of literature and imagination. However, some economists, like Piketty, have challenged this notion. In his book, and in several other books published around the same time, there has been a utilization of literary fiction and other creative elements to explore economic concepts. This merging of economics and literature provides a fresh perspective and challenges the traditional boundaries of the discipline.
Yeah, typically nowadays after the pandemic like the field of social media, normally influence how to talk about people's life a lot and then there comes new phenomenon like post-truth, what is truth? And then I think this phenomenon is really very important even for some of the academia researchers, in the age of social media and the influx of information, determining what is true and reliable has become increasingly challenging. This phenomenon has significant implications, even for academia and researchers. Narrow-mindedness and limited perspectives can lead to biased interpretations and incomplete understanding of complex issues. This is maybe where interdisciplinary research can play a crucial role. By incorporating multiple perspectives and disciplines, researchers have the opportunity to overcome limitations and gain a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. Interdisciplinary research allows for a broader exploration of ideas and helps mitigate the risk of bias by integrating diverse viewpoints and knowledge bases. It encourages researchers to consider different angles and engage in critical thinking, which ultimately enhances the quality and depth of their findings. So, what do you think of this kind of phenomenon?
Regarding knowledge production, there are different models identified by Michael Gibbons, who proposed different models—Mode I and Mode II of knowledge production. Gibbons et al. (1994) pointed out that since the 1990s, there have been two modes of interdisciplinary production. Mode I of knowledge production assumes that disciplines enjoy scientific autonomy within the ivory tower, whereas Mode II focuses on problem-oriented research that is interdisciplinary and incorporates economic and social factors. As social controversies over the nature of scientific research grew, the transition from the first mode to the second mode occurred. Gibbons (1999) argued that a new contractual relationship between society and disciplines was formed. Society requires solid knowledge, and science needs to produce reliable knowledge. In Mode II of knowledge production, knowledge creation is closely related to problem-solving, involving collaboration among researchers from diverse backgrounds (Zhang et al., 2024). This collaborative environment fosters creativity and originality. Gibbons’ Mode II of knowledge production offers new perspectives and methods for academic research and knowledge innovation. The outcomes of interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary research often go beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries, impacting not only the academic field but also extending to social practice and policymaking. As a research model, interdisciplinarity integrates viewpoints, theories, tools, techniques, information, and data from different knowledge systems or research practices, creating more comprehensive and complex understandings. Research shows that interdisciplinarity excels in problem-solving, is able to integrate diverse knowledge and provides innovative solutions to complex issues. Moreover, interdisciplinarity is considered a source of creativity, capable of inspiring unique ways of thinking and promoting intellectual collisions and cooperation among disciplines. Then the Triple Helix model (Leydesdorff, 2012) as Mode III, shows interdisciplinarity as a means to achieve social relevance. Growing interaction between industry, governments and universities is pushing academic research toward more problem-orientation and engagement. However, a challenge arises when attempting to transfer this contextual knowledge into disciplinary knowledge, as this process often involves narrowing and reduction, potentially limiting the breadth of understanding and applicability. But how can we effectively transfer this type of knowledge production to teaching and pedagogy?
In my opinion, there is certainly a narrowing effect when we transition from Gibbons, Nowotny, and others’ Mode I knowledge (which emphasizes disciplinary knowledge and the inward focus of so-called universities) to a Mode II knowledge. It is also important to note that it is widely acknowledged that the view universities never engaged with more applied knowledges may be a misrepresentation, especially when considering many US-based and German-based universities, influenced by Humboldt. In the 19th century, German universities held dominance and fostered numerous collaborations with industry, establishing a strong link between research and practical applications. This German model subsequently influenced the university system in the United States, with the exception of Harvard, which was modeled after Oxford and Cambridge. Other universities in the US were primarily modeled on the German approach.
Interdisciplinary research practices and governance: The dynamics and tensions of knowledge production and practical application in interdisciplinary practices
The key to multilingualism within and across disciplines
As for myself, if you were able to see my bookcase, you would find books on philosophy, research methods, state theory, and globalization. I have a broad and constant reading habit, which helps me explore the intersections between different disciplines. For example, I ponder the relationship between trade and education, as education is also a form of trade. Similarly, I examine how neoliberalism influences education ideologically. Each of these different disciplines plays a significant role. However, the question remains: How can we effectively integrate these disciplines and feel confident in how we use them in our research toolkits?
Economics, as a dominant discipline in shaping contemporary societies and market-based education systems, cannot be ignored when studying education. Thus, we are presented with a complex tapestry of disciplines. The challenge lies in ensuring that these disciplines communicate effectively with each other. Unfortunately, they often use different languages and frameworks. How can scholars make sense of the complexity and confidently utilize the languages and tools of these diverse disciplines? It is a significant task that requires continuous reading and broadening one's knowledge across multiple fields. By embracing different disciplines, we can develop a toolkit that allows us to navigate the interdisciplinary nature of education research.
That's indeed an interesting challenge. There is usually a requirement that the investment leads to the creation of a stable social milieu for research, where knowledge creation is conducted in cooperation, “under one roof,” in a center setting (Hellström et al., 2018). They also typically have a number of “meta-aims” that relate to capacity to enter into and to explore emerging fields of science, to create cooperation among scholars, to professionalize academic governance, and to promote organizational capacity for governing science at the frontier (Hellström et al., 2018). The group leader recognized the need for greater intelligence in organizing and identifying potential team.
You’re absolutely right. Within each discipline, there are often multiple positions and approaches. Taking sociology as an example, there is a tradition of quantitative research within the field. However, even within quantitative sociology, there can be variations in methodologies and theoretical perspectives. For instance, the quantitative work of Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist, differs from more positivist approaches. Bourdieu's work is known for its nuanced understanding of social structures and the interplay of agency and structure, while positivist quantitative research tends to focus more on objective measurements and causal relationships. Bourdieu is not typically associated with positivism, as his work adopts a more interpretive and critical perspective.
And by using the term “positivist,” I am referring to the assumption that we can discover causal relationships rather than mere correlations between variables. This represents a strong understanding of causation. This distinction separates one group of sociologists from another. While both groups may employ quantitative tools, the former holds a weak understanding of causation that lacks determinism. As we delve into different disciplines, such as economics, we encounter mathematical modelers who believe that the world operates based on underlying structures that act like regulating forces. Their objective is to identify and uncover these patterns of regularity through tools like statistics that measure the relationships between things. However, it is important to note that not all economists can be grouped together, as some may have distinct perspectives influenced by traditions like Marxism. These economists perceive the world as dynamic and emergent, reminiscent of Marx's ideas, and not in any early deterministic sense. They have a divergent ontological understanding and, consequently, employ different methods to comprehend and explore the social world.
Returning to sociology, there exists a tradition of hermeneutic constructivism that focuses on the meanings and interpretations individuals assign to their world. This constructivist or interpretivist approach maintains that knowledge of the world stems from individuals’ internal perspectives rather than a fixed external reality. So when engaging in interdisciplinary work, it is essential to recognize that disciplines are not singular or coherent entities. Instead, they encompass multiple perspectives, including ontological and epistemological positions. Understanding these diverse positions requires significant effort and analysis.
Now, let's consider different methodologies, linked to different paradigms, and you’ll notice that it creates almost a condition of cacophony, with a lot of noise. In the realm of politics, someone referring to themselves as a realist holds a different meaning compared to someone in sociology. In politics, realism pertains to the concept of hard power and warfare. However, in sociology, realism is an ontological or philosophical stance that acknowledges the existence of a real world, even if our understanding of it is limited, indicating that it is not solely a construct of our minds. Here we encounter the next challenge, the same word being used in different disciplines to refer to entirely distinct concepts. Returning to the example you mentioned, even though the same term may be employed, it carries distinct meanings in the two disciplines. To truly grasp the significance of a particular word, we need to comprehend the specific context in which these discussions occur. By doing so, we can unravel the multifaceted roles a word can play and recognize that its functions may diverge significantly across disciplines.
Yeah, absolutely. I agree. In certain fields, such as public health, it appears that interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research comes naturally. The focus is on problem-solving, finding solutions, and approaching common issues from different perspectives, fostering collaboration. On the other hand, in disciplines like physics, as we heard yesterday, researchers tend to remain within their own field, constantly pushing the boundaries of knowledge and pursuing cutting-edge research. It's a well-articulated point.
I recall us listening to someone discussing their work in a laboratory, which is a common practice in scientific research. A laboratory typically consists of a head scientist and several postdoctoral students, often with a significant budget. In this laboratory, they might be investigating the importance of a specific protein related to a particular gene. Different postdocs within the lab would conduct various experiments, focusing on the gene's placement—for instance—on the DNA helix. To conduct their investigation, they might—for example—use different types of mice, varying in size and diet, to explore the effects. Despite their diverse techniques, they share a common assumption that the protein plays a role and has specific functions. However, they break down the research into small fragments, employing different methods such as crystallography, or other tests, in an attempt to gain a more comprehensive understanding.
Yeah. So, do you agree that some disciplines naturally lean toward disciplinary research, while others tend to be more inclined toward interdisciplinary research?
These diverse areas contribute to the overall field of health. Similarly, education is a field that comprises multiple disciplines. For instance, geography plays a significant role in education, covering topics like volcanology, glaciology, and the study of different places and industries. Geography is often presented in various departments across universities, with some aligning more closely with science faculties and others with social science faculties. This division allows them to connect with their natural counterparts, considering their working methods and language. As knowledge progresses and the frontiers of understanding become increasingly complex, we witness the emergence of multiple divisions within disciplines. For instance, within biology, we see various subfields, such as genetics, evolving, which delve into the genetic aspects of biology. Neuroscience has also become more recently straddling the realms of psychology and science. Thus, neuroscience falls between these two disciplines. In summary, as our investigations into the world become more complicated and intricate, driven by tools like big data, we observe a proliferation of subfields within the broader field and how they self-organize. Let me provide you with another example. We often refer to economics as a single discipline, but in reality, it comprises numerous subfields. However, there has been dissatisfaction with certain aspects of economics, particularly its reliance on mathematical models, which were deemed to have failed during the financial crisis. As a response, a branch of economics emerged that focused on human behavior, known as behavioral economics. Prominent figures like Angus Deaton, a Nobel laureate in behavioral economics, explored the influence of organizations, households, and governance structures on people's actions.
Understanding human behavior more comprehensively can lead to more efficient societal exchanges and actions. Therefore, some of these subfields arise out of dissatisfaction with the dominance of a particular branch within a discipline. In your work and research background, I’m curious about your perspective on the transition from disciplinary research to multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or even transdisciplinary research.
Historically, there has been a notable shift toward embracing multiple disciplines as problem-solving tools. In the early 1990s, funding councils, including those at the European Union and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), began advocating for interdisciplinary teams. However, if we delve further into history, we can observe that during times of crisis, there has often been a realization that complex human and social problems require the involvement of multiple disciplines. For instance, we can look back to the 1920s and the economic crisis of the early 1970s, which were pivotal moments that prompted a reevaluation of disciplinary boundaries. When we discuss the transition to interdisciplinary research, there are different terms used, such as interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. The idea behind trans-disciplinarity is to go beyond disciplinary boundaries and argue that the key lies in the word “discipline” itself. The term “discipline” originated after the French Revolution of 1789 and served as a way to regulate and control intellectuals and academics who were primarily affiliated with the church. As the academic world became more secular, disciplines were established to ensure that academics could be controlled and directed. Wallerstein, in his book Unthinking Social Science published around 1992, addresses the problem of disciplines, and advocates for an approach that moves away from single disciplines. He emphasizes the importance of considering societal concerns and approaching them in their full complexity.
He was a remarkable world systems theorist, and he firmly believed that understanding the world and its order requires collaboration among multiple disciplines. Although he passed away several years ago, were he alive today, he would continue to argue that interdisciplinary work is crucial. If we reflect on the 1990s, we can identify a more practical reason for governments embracing interdisciplinary approaches. They recognized that their old industry-based competitive advantage had waned and that emerging economies in Asia were experiencing significant economic development. Consequently, governments turned their focus toward nurturing knowledge-based economies. In this context, knowledge was deemed paramount for fostering innovation. To achieve this, knowledge needed to be disseminated beyond academia and integrated into various industries. This shift required academics to adapt in several ways. First, they needed to engage in interdisciplinary conversations, as the friction and collaboration between different disciplines often sparked new insights. Additionally, academics had to find ways to communicate beyond the confines of the so-called ivory tower and connect with industry professionals. By fostering collaboration between academia and industry, the aim was to facilitate the translation of ideas from universities to the wider public sphere. As funding from the public sector increasingly flowed into universities, there was a growing pressure to ensure that the work conducted by academics and the investments made in scientific research were seen as beneficial to society at large. Hence, there is a push for academics to embrace a more multidisciplinary mindset and develop multilingual skills in terms of their ability to have conversations and translate their work for the general public. This shift aims to bridge the gap between academia and society, recognizing that the translation of academic knowledge into tangible products and benefits can be valuable for society as a whole. Therefore, multidisciplinary approaches often involve a certain degree of multilingualism, allowing researchers to communicate effectively across different domains.
Team selection and governance with diverse knowledge backgrounds for leadership in interdisciplinary collaboration
As a leader, how could you promote this teamwork to be interdisciplinary research collaborations? Compared to China, I have observed that some teaching programs here at Cambridge have a strong emphasis on multidisciplinary approaches and a broad perspective. How could you effectively manage and identify potential interdisciplinary research teams?
Recruiting plays a vital role. When recruiting researchers, it is essential to go beyond simply selecting individuals who share similar backgrounds or perspectives as potential members of your faculty. Instead, thoughtful recruiting should focus on assembling a diverse team with a range of expertise and disciplinary backgrounds. This diversity can enhance interdisciplinary collaboration and bring different perspectives to the research process. In addition to considering diverse backgrounds, establishing a dedicated space for interdisciplinary research, such as a science laboratory or research center, can facilitate collaboration among team members. This type of lab-based approach encourages researchers from different disciplines to work together, exchange ideas, and foster innovative thinking. Moreover, existing resources and research centers in the faculty, like Play in Education, Development & Learning (PEDAL)—the Children and Creativity Centre, can be leveraged as laboratories for interdisciplinary research. These spaces provide opportunities for researchers to collaborate across disciplines and explore new avenues of inquiry.
They have a diverse mix of professionals, including psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and psychologists with experimentation-driven models. To encourage a broader recruitment approach, it would be beneficial to move beyond hiring individuals who resemble oneself. Additionally, generating a sense of positivity around diversity among the academic and graduate research community is crucial. This entails urging individuals to listen to different viewpoints and research projects outside their specific areas of expertise. Insights gained from diverse perspectives, even though metaphors, can enhance understanding and generate better insights in one's own field. The Colleges of Cambridge, as part of the university's collegiate system, can serve as natural laboratories for fostering interdisciplinary dialogue. The expectation is that engaging in dialogue across different communities within a college will lead to scholars’ becoming more accomplished. This concept aligns with the traditional idea of the university as envisioned by Newman, emphasizing the coming together of scholars from various backgrounds rather than imposing universalism. This liberal arts tradition, particularly embraced by Oxford, also values drawing insights from historical knowledge to understand the contemporary world. It encourages looking beyond presentism, which focuses solely on current journal publications, and appreciating the wealth of knowledge that can contribute to our understanding of the world, even from ancient scholars like Aristotle and Plato. Their genuine insights about social worlds remain highly relevant.
According to the knowledge production Mode III, there is a shift toward a focus on strategy. This means that knowledge production extends beyond disciplinary boundaries and includes research that is at the cutting edge as well as serving the community, market, industry, and even collaborating with social media platforms. In the context of the faculty of education, it is crucial to consider the future development of the field. This entails finding a balance between knowledge production and serving the needs of social media, market, industry, and the community. All of these aspects are important and require careful consideration. How could you balance the interests and tensions between academic expansion and market demand on the development of university disciplines and edge-cutting research?
In the field of education, we often risk neglecting the importance of community and industry engagement. These constituencies, such as parents with children in schools or families with young people attending university, play a crucial role in shaping our understanding of how to improve education and distribute learning opportunities more equitably. We can draw insights from neuroscience to enhance our understanding of the learning process. For instance, when we examine brain scans of young learners from deprived communities, we observe significant gaps or holes in their brain development, indicating a lack of consistent neuronal connections due to deprivation. The danger lies in solely focusing on specific constituencies and neglecting other perspectives. As a faculty of education within a university, we have a responsibility to foster a balanced conversation that considers various aspects of education, rather than solely prioritizing economic considerations or individual advancement. The university should serve as a producer and curator of knowledge, ensuring the preservation and dissemination of diverse knowledge, including those from centuries ago. China, for example, has a rich history of complex knowledge in areas such as metallurgy and ceramics, which can offer valuable insights into working with nature, community dynamics, and social solidarity.
It is important to avoid a narrow focus on present innovations, such as artificial intelligence, and instead explore the wisdom of past civilizations and historical contexts. By looking backward, we can gain a deeper understanding of our communities, tackle the complexities of climate change, and foster social cohesion. Historians and storytellers, including literature, have a significant role to play in sharing these insights and contributing to our collective knowledge.
I’m curious about the intersection of globalization and climate change, which seems to be a hot topic discussed frequently in Cambridge. While the government in China mentions climate change, it is not commonly discussed within the academic context of education. However, in this multidisciplinary research group, I often hear discussions about climate change from various fields such as education, sociology, and public health. In light of this context, I would like to know your thoughts on how climate change and globalization are connected and what actions the field of education can take to address this challenge.
That is a remarkable example illustrating the importance of all disciplines and the role of education. Education plays a part in producing scientists by teaching subjects like physics and biology in schools. Through this, we aim to nurture young minds who will become scientists and contribute to solving social problems in various scientific communities. However, as a faculty of education, we also have a responsibility to consider what kind of education we are providing and the normative aspects of it. Here, I would like to introduce the concept of prefigurative politics. If we want young people to think about their carbon footprint, waste management, their relationship with nature, and how to interpret evidence, we need to reflect on the pedagogical approaches we employ. Using fear as a motivator may not be particularly effective. Instead, we should develop pedagogies that empower individuals to understand, embrace, and engage in problem-solving within their own environments, such as their homes, schools, and communities. Interestingly, I have observed young people already taking such actions outside the formal schooling system. The schooling system can learn from their initiatives and the organized social movements they have formed, like Occupy and Extinction Rebellion. These movements serve as a reminder that the older generation needs to be more conscious of the planet they will leave behind for the younger generation and strive to make it a better place.
Challenges in interdisciplinary research: Lagging evaluation systems and the cultivation of academic autonomy culture
What major challenges did you face while managing the faculty of education and conducting your own research in an interdisciplinary manner? In theory, I have learned that interdisciplinary research is promoted in China, Europe, and globally. However, one of the persistent issues within each discipline is that it tends to consider itself more important, even when engaging in conversations with other disciplines. This bias toward prioritizing a particular discipline persists, despite efforts to foster interdisciplinary collaboration.
I can think of research centers, such as the Real Center for research on equity and access to learning, which have predominantly attracted economists rather than sociologists or international relations scholars. This tendency may be attributed to the ease of communication and familiarity among scholars with similar backgrounds and shared language, such as economics applied to education. However, this limited focus on a particular discipline is not unique to economists; it is common for various groups to prioritize their own discipline over others within the competitive academic environment. As a head of faculty, one challenge is to create sufficient space for different disciplines without allowing one to dominate the others. Additionally, there should be occasions for interdisciplinary collaboration where different areas can contribute something unique. For instance, the construction of our master's program in knowledge, power, and politics incorporates cultural theory, sociology, politics, and international relations, providing a basis for recruiting diverse students. Regarding the evaluation system and indicators to promote interdisciplinary research, you are correct that there is often a disparity between the rhetoric of promoting interdisciplinary research and the practical implementation of evaluation systems. In the UK, we have the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which reported in 2022, where disciplines are assessed in separate units. This can lead to difficulties when categorizing interdisciplinary research, as certain topics may be classified under a specific discipline, undermining the potential for a more inclusive understanding. This can affect recruitment, promotion, and overall capacity for interdisciplinary work. Moreover, there is a tension between encouraging wide reading and interdisciplinary approaches and the practical considerations of finding employment, as job prospects often favor those with a singular disciplinary focus. Despite these challenges, many students who have engaged in interdisciplinary work have been successful in securing scholarships and postdoctoral positions, as interdisciplinary engagement is valued by certain funding bodies.
Regarding the transfer of interdisciplinary knowledge to the classroom and equipping students to become interdisciplinary researchers, it is important to distinguish between different forms of knowledge production. The OECD distinguishes between Mode I and Mode II knowledge, with the former being directly useful and problem-solving, while the latter encompasses a broader range of knowledge that may not have immediate practical applications. Societal complexities demand a diverse range of knowledge, including artistic and aesthetic knowledge, which may not fit within the narrow definition of usefulness. In terms of curriculum, a balanced approach that recognizes the multiplicity of human experiences and expressions is crucial. The social world cannot be reduced to a single discipline; it requires an understanding of its complexities and interdisciplinary perspectives.
In China, as in the UK, there are challenges in developing an interdisciplinary research culture, the main challenges currently facing the development of interdisciplinary research in China include difficulty in forming an interdisciplinary research culture, establishing deep interdisciplinary collaboration, obtaining interdisciplinary research funding, evaluating interdisciplinary research outcomes, and gaining recognition from the academic and social communities. These issues are not unique to any specific country but are prevalent in the pursuit of interdisciplinary research globally. It is also the key to solving the bottleneck problem in deeply implementing the strategy of building a strong country of talents in the new era, accelerating the construction of the world's important talent center and innovation highland. So, what are your thoughts on whether the challenges currently faced in the UK are similar to those encountered in China or if they differ in some ways?
No, I would say there are similar problems and issues. Let me give you an example of universities that have attempted to understand and reshape themselves, taking inspiration from the four-year community college and liberal arts college model in the United States. In this model, the first two years of undergraduate education are more diverse, covering a wide range of subjects and including language learning across various disciplines. The University of Western Australia and possibly the University of Sydney in Australia have adopted this approach. They transitioned from a three-year undergraduate degree to a four-year program, where the first two years focus on liberal arts education. Students study subjects from different fields such as science, social sciences, humanities, and so on.
In the UK, however, our undergraduate programs are typically three years long and have become even more specialized. This specialization starts at the upper secondary school level, where students often focus on three, sometimes four, subjects to maximize their performance within the system.
Could you give an example?
Let's say you aim to achieve three A-level grades of AA stars, and by condensing the program from four to three years, you increase your chances of obtaining those grades. As a result, you become highly specialized by the time you enter university. The consequence of this is that you may have focused on subjects like physics, chemistry, and maths, without much exposure to literature, history, or languages. In the UK, there is a tendency to leave first-year university students relatively independent, following their exhausted state after completing A-levels. The pressure is then increased in the second or third year. The Scottish university system is somewhat different, as students typically work with at least six subjects during their undergraduate studies. In Australia, where I had personal experience, the diversity was even greater, ranging from six to ten subjects. In my case, I combined sciences, languages, and literature to create a portfolio of six or more subjects. Personally, I believe that we need to reconfigure the schooling system and integrate it more closely with higher education. Attempts have been made in this direction, such as the baccalaureate system, which is more aligned with the Scottish model, encompassing arts, languages, humanities, social sciences, and mathematics. However, universities have been resistant to such changes, as they have a say in the A-level examination system. Until we can address this relationship, things are likely to remain as they are across Europe. In many European countries, such as Germany, Slovenia, and possibly France (you may have more knowledge on this), there was historically a highly selective approach to university admissions. Students would study for anywhere between five and seven years, covering a broad range of areas, including philosophy and others. However, as the pressure of the so-called knowledge economy has emerged for universities across Europe, they have transitioned to the three-year undergraduate, two-year master's, and three-year Ph.D. model, with a more selective intake.
Yeah, that's similar to France. I know that their curriculum, starting from middle school to high school, covers a wide range of topics and is already multidisciplinary. Even in high school, they have preparatory programs for advanced education, which are also very multidisciplinary. This provides students with a strong knowledge foundation to pursue their specific majors in university. I remember when I had an interview with the president of Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS), he mentioned that the students at ENS de Paris (ulm) are very flexible and free to change their majors if they wish to. He gave me an example where a mathematics student can switch to music if they feel they have a lack of interest. They would just need to complete the necessary courses. However, considering our background, I can imagine that transitioning from mathematics to music is a significant change across different areas.
In our university, we have a program called “Philosophy, Politics, and History” where students focus on these three subjects. Different departments in the university support this program. Many students in this program also choose to study education subjects. Another example would be Oxford and Cambridge, where they offer a program called PPE (Politics, Philosophy, and Economics). It's highly regarded and considered both difficult to get into and very desirable, especially for those interested in politics. Previous prime ministers like David John Boris Johnson and David Cameron have all studied PPE during their time at university. So, there are certain tracks and paths that students can follow. However, it strikes me that this narrowing down of options, which partly stems from pressure and competition, also exists in the US-based system. In the US, community colleges and liberal arts colleges, many of which are highly elite, expensive, and competitive to get into, produce exceptional individuals. One example is Macalester College.
Interdisciplinary development in the post-truth era: Criticism and social concerns
Indeed, you’ve highlighted a fascinating aspect of the contemporary moment where knowledge production occurs across multiple platforms. Some of this knowledge is not authenticated through traditional means, or the established gatekeepers we relied on in the past. Additionally, certain sources can mimic specific writing styles, such as the case with ChatGPT. It's crucial to recognize that while these sources may not be inherently false, they provide an account of a phenomenon or its differences based on what exists within the vast realm of big data. Just because something is derived from data does not inherently make it true.
This situation necessitates a more skeptical mindset, which is actively cultivated within academia. We should be open to considering multiple viewpoints, as healthy skepticism encourages. In fact, some philosophers propose being prepared to offer alternative perspectives. For example, when theorizing using a particular theory, we should be capable of utilizing another alternate theoretical resource that serves as a counter example. By exploring these counter examples, we gain insights into what each perspective reveals, their similarities, and differences. In the context of institutional theories, a comparison between historical institutionalism and sociological institutionalism can illustrate how they are grounded in different assumptions. Sociological institutionalism emphasizes the significance of cultures, while the latter theory emphasizes the survival-oriented nature of institutions, even if they are dysfunctional. Through these counter examples, we unveil the possibilities and limitations of specific ways of understanding the world.
To foster this critical mindset, academia should adopt a pedagogical practice that encourages students to approach topics with healthy skepticism rather than either suspicion or adoration. It involves recognizing the epistemic limits and employing metaphors such as looking through a camera lens. By zooming in, we observe microstructures, while zooming-out provides a broader perspective. This prompts students to reflect on the tools they employ for theorizing and how they shape their observations, generating different phenomena and prompting diverse questions. By acknowledging the influence of these tools, we empower students to navigate the complexities of knowledge production more effectively.
In academia, what kind of theory maybe influences your research and thinking a lot?
Well, I share your interest in process and relational theories, particularly from a sociological perspective. I’m interested in societies but we don’t exist as individuals; we’re always in a relationship. These theories recognize that individuals exist within complex webs of relationships and social structures, and that our understanding of society cannot be reduced to individual actions alone. Whether it's a newborn baby in relation to the people who are looking after the child, or children in classrooms in relation to others. Marx is a relational theorist. His emphasis on social relations, class dynamics, and historical change provides a valuable framework for examining how societies are structured and how they evolve over time, but always dialectically. Marx's critique of capitalism and his vision of a more equitable and just society have been instrumental in shaping sociological and political thought. I’m interested in thinking about the possibility as a sociologist or political sociologist of how we can improve on our world's social and economic values. The kinds of institutions that we create can actually be reimagined and refashioned and so on. I also find value in the works of other critical theorists such as the German school and Gramsci. Their insights into power relations, ideology, and social change offer important perspectives for understanding the complexities of society. Methodologically and philosophically, I align myself with a critical realist perspective. Critical realism acknowledges the existence of an external reality but recognizes that our understanding of it is mediated through social structures, discourses, and historical contexts. It emphasizes the importance of critically analyzing these mediating factors in our research and theorizing.
While some may argue for a focus on individuals, it is crucial to recognize that individual actions are influenced and shaped by broader social, economic, and political forces. By examining the relational and contextual aspects of human behavior and social phenomena, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of the world and the possibilities for social and economic improvement.
What are the philosophical presuppositions that you’re actually making about the world? But some people kind of would say that, you know, you’re an individual and that to some extent, you focus on individuals. (My research and theoretical interests lie in exploring how our social and economic values can be reimagined and refashioned through an understanding of relational processes and the transformative potential of social relationships and institutions.)
Well, what are the different disciplines doing? You know, let's take the example of space and theories related to it. The theories of relativity, influenced by physicists like Einstein and other thinkers, have actually changed our perception of space. We have moved away from the traditional Euclidean notions of flat space to adopting more relational approaches. These developments in physics have had a profound impact on our understanding of space and have influenced our spatial theories significantly. Therefore, I would argue that almost all phenomena, whether social or non-social, require insights from multiple disciplines. Even when we delve into the micro-worlds, we find that they are not static and require interdisciplinary perspectives.
Regarding the concept of a social world, you may have come across the work of Gabriel Tarde, a French philosopher. Tarde emphasized that everything possesses a social dimension, even objects that may appear inert. The perceived inertia is a result of observing them within a particular temporal window, but in reality, they are composed of interacting elements such as quarks that are constantly oscillating. This perspective underscores the interconnectedness and social nature of phenomena. In concrete terms, we are aware of significant societal challenges. For example, issues related to aging and the lack of adequate social structures are prevalent in our societies. As individuals age, the support systems and structures that were once in place have become less prominent due to an increasing focus on individuality.
As a result, researchers reluctantly comply with the control measures, although they do not fully agree with them. This situation aligns with the views expressed by David Graber, who highlights the paradoxical nature of embracing neoliberalism, which advocates for self-management but gives rise to an abundance of managing tools, bureaucracy, and excessive paperwork. The reason why I find this framing to be significant is that through certain branches of new institutional economics, a lack of trust emerges, leading to the need for monitoring and contractual arrangements. This substitution of professionalism and responsibility with accountability has resulted in a highly bureaucratic system. Moreover, when individuals feel untrusted, they may act accordingly, adhering strictly to rules and regulations. And so why would you sacrifice the whole sector and make it highly bureaucratic and accountable for the small bit? And perhaps what we really should have done is to always say, okay, there will be some consequences. We can’t control everyone, but for the moment we use accountability tools to try and do this. But what if we embraced professionalism—which really asks individuals to regulate their own behavior according to a set of norms? I don’t know any academic who abuses professionalism; in the main they are typically up for working long hours, seven days a week.
Yes, it's unfortunate when teachers feel the need to withdraw their labor due to a lack of trust and excessive accountability measures. Some research said, good modes of governance refer to the ways in which decision-making processes and structures are designed, implemented, and evaluated to ensure that they are effective, efficient, transparent, and accountable. This can involve developing clear rules and procedures for decision-making, ensuring that stakeholders are consulted and involved in the process, and establishing mechanisms for oversight and feedback. Good governance can help to promote trust, legitimacy, and social cohesion, as well as ensure that public resources are used in an equitable and sustainable manner.
When their dedication and extra hours are not recognized or compensated, it can lead to a decrease in voluntary contributions beyond regular working hours. This can impact various activities and initiatives that teachers previously supported. Thank you for the conversation, and I’m glad you found it enjoyable. If you have any more questions or need further assistance in the future, feel free to ask.
Footnotes
Authors’ note
The Chinese version of this dialogue is scheduled for publication in the Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) issue No. 7, 2024. The translation has been authorized by Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) and acknowledged by ECNU Review of Education.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by 2024 National Social Science Fund of China (Education General Project) titled: Research on Governance Model Reform and Practical Approaches to Promoting Interdisciplinary Research (BFA240079).
