SLAAS Theme Seminar 2016 on “Interdisciplinarity in research, education and practice for advancing science and society”: A reflective review

The Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science (SLAAS) General President for the year 2016 was Professor Manjula Vithanapathirana (University of Colombo) from Section F (Social Sciences). Hence the traditional theme seminar held on the second day of the sessions was arranged by that section. I attended the seminar hoping to listen incognito, but was co-opted into chairing the first session and found myself engaging with the speakers throughout the day.

Interdisciplinarity is supposedly the way to mobilize knowledge for social advancement; so it was fascinating to hear the various definitions and dimensions of the word advanced by the speakers as the day progressed. Some of the speakers sought to position the concept of ‘interdisciplinarity’ within a range of disciplinary interactions. Dr Ruvan Weerasinghe (University of Colombo) defined ‘crossdisciplinary’ as viewing one discipline from the perspective of another; ‘multidisciplinary’ as persons from different disciplines working together, each drawing on their disciplinary knowledge; ‘interdisciplinary’ as integrating knowledge and methods from different disciplines, using a real synthesis of approaches; and ‘transdisciplinary’ as creating a unity of intellectual frameworks beyond the disciplinary perspectives. While it may be possible to locate each speaker’s contribution within the above framework, there were also many other distinctions and tensions raised by them.

Professor Felicity Callard (University of Durham) started the day by describing two of her projects, one on auditory hallucinations and the other on rest. These involved researchers from different disciplines, ranging from neuroscientists and psychologists to historians, theologians and those with lived experiences. One of her slides (on the rest project) displayed a matrix of methodologies with methods ranging from neuroimaging and clinical through policy analysis to poetry and narrative; and scales of analysis from the brain and mind to the city and social. She also indicated that publishing was possible in both medical and social science journals with authors from a range of disciplines. The range of differing disciplines involved was fascinating. Felicity herself embodied interdisciplinarity, having degrees in geography, English (critical theory) and cultural/medical geography. For me, her greater insights were regarding research process - first the concept of sharing physical space (e.g. a shared office or other neutral space) by researchers from different disciplines; and second the conducting of (even small) experiments by research partners as opposed or in addition to the conventional (and sometimes sterile) discussions. She called these ‘experimental entanglements’ and suggested that they could lead to what she called ‘juxtaposition’ (which I thought meant the surfacing of differences), arguably an alternative or complementary goal to integration (which could suppress such differences; and where power relations across disciplines would operate).

Professor Saroj Jayasinghe (University of Colombo) sought to build a bridge between his world of clinical medicine and the wider world. He seemed very focused on reducing the reductionism in medical and other sciences, seeing that as a barrier to genuine progress in health research and practice. So for example, although the commonly identified causes for obesity are calorie intake and physical inactivity, he demonstrated through network diagrams (probably following Jay Forrester and the MIT system dynamics group) that both calories intake and physical inactivity have a network of interacting causes and effects, ranging from urbanization to climate change. This ‘systems science’ approach was demonstrated with respect to public health (e.g. the obesity problem above) and to internal interactions among organs. He did say that computer simulations could be performed with these network diagrams as well - which is why I asked him at the tea break how he had reduced reductionism, because any quantification tends to be reductionist. I suggested that the desired holism could be an emergent phenomenon – i.e. although each link in the network is defined mathematically, the overall system behavior could arguably be called ‘holistic’. I think Saroj was claiming interdisciplinarity in two ways – by introducing ‘big picture’ dimensions to medicine; and also the tools of mathematical modeling (although the latter may only be a crossdisciplinary move).

This tension between reductionism and holism (or ‘hard’ vs ‘soft’ science) was evident in other presentations too – e.g. Dr Weerasinghe presented the efforts of a computer scientist (i.e. hard scientist) and his group to move from crossdisciplinarity to interdisciplinarity in their engagement with two other disciplines, namely the hard science of biology (e.g. bioinformatics) and the soft science of language (e.g. computational linguistics). He spelt out the difficulties in both interactions, arising mainly through differences in disciplinary approaches. There also appeared to be opportunities (‘low lying fruit’) that could be taken advantage of – e.g. the current potential for big data and corpus linguistics in the interactions with biology and language respectively. Ruvan’s presentation described his group’s efforts at both research and teaching – and the latter appeared to be a greater challenge, especially because of the early specialization in Sri Lankan secondary education.

The hard vs soft tension was also implied in the presentation of Professor Kalinga Tudor Silva (University of Peradeniya), a sociologist engaged with a Peradeniya University group and an online group in trying to find solutions to the problem of chronic kidney disease of unknown aetiology (CKDu) in Sri Lanka’s north-central province. He alluded to the (sometimes bitterly contested) differences in opinions between hard scientists regarding causative factors, and suggested (from his soft science perspective) that CKDu was a development induced disease (in contrast to citing arsenic or cadmium or fluorides as possible causes). Is this concept of ‘development induced disease’ a ‘transdisciplinary’ category or merely one from the sociology domain?

A similar idea is embedded in a slide incorporated in the text of the paper by Professor Moti Nissani (Wayne State University), a biologist who had a long term appointment in his Department of Interdisciplinary Studies. He quotes Gus Speth, an American environmental lawyer and advocate who said “I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address those problems. But I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy…and to deal with those we need a spiritual and cultural transformation… and we scientists don’t know how to do that.” Moti also spoke at great length about global politics and the hidden transnational players who control it.

These dimensions of spirituality and politics are outside the ambit of average scientists – even social scientists. They impinge however on the world of science. In Sri Lanka, the political decisions about Rathupaswala (where a thriving manufacturing company had to relocate on suspicion of polluting the groundwater) and Glyphosate (a fertilizer banned on suspicion of contributing to CKDu) are viewed by many scientists as being based on questionable or at least non-consensual science. So, it appears that scientists may need not only to do good science, but also to engage in the equally important goal of building consensus, inclusive even of social and political palatability. Is this a dimension of interdisciplinarity? For Peter Checkland’s soft systems methodology group at Lancaster University’s management school, social acceptability would be equal- ly or more important than technical feasibility. Moti advocated, right at the start of his lecture, that we spend only a few hours trying to understand interdisciplinarity, but a lifetime practicing it. The notion that practice can actually generate knowledge (including theory) was not explicitly articulated, although it was touched on by Felicity Callard and Neloufer de Mel too. One way to visualize interdisciplinarity is a soft science shell around hard science kernels, with the soft science dictating goals and purpose. Whether the soft sciences would get their due place in the academy or indeed among funding agencies is moot however.

This legitimacy was one of the issues raised by Professor Neloufer de Mel (University of Colombo) when she highlighted the ‘singularity’ that is characteristic of literature and other aesthetic pursuits in the academy, often through the portrayal of the ‘other’ in the person of a hero or anti-hero – someone who defies generalization and quantification and ‘bucks’ the trend. Isaiah Berlin also dealt with a similar issue when he asked whether history could be ‘scientific’. His resounding conclusion is that history should not seek scientific generalization, but rather affirm the value of the unique and anomalous in the shaping of events. I suggested during the discussion that the humanities could ‘claim the high ground’ (i.e. academic legitimacy) by re-packaging the ‘singular’ as ‘context-appropriate’ and hence ‘creative’ – the latter having gained some academic respectability perhaps through engineering faculties. In fact I have written that engineering in some ways has more in common with history than science.

The notion of (local) context figured in the presentation of Professor Ajith de Alwis (University of Moratuwa) too, where he touched on the possibilities of high tech fields such as brain science and atomic force microscopy engaging with Sri Lanka’s cultural heritage of Abidhamma and acupuncture respectively. His pragmatic engineering presentation reminded us that research also needed to be harnessed for wealth creation and social upliftment. This theme of using our national heritage for knowledge creation was echoed by some participants as well. In fact, Moti Nissani wore a comfortable sarong to the seminar and gently suggested that the western garb sported by male participants could reflect a capitulation to western thinking!

So what are the barriers to interdisciplinary work? Ruvan Weerasinghe dealt with this specifically, while participants also made contributions. The obvious barrier is that most academic activity is structured along traditional disciplines – e.g. departments, courses of study, prestigious journals and even funding agencies. Professional practice may be a more fertile field, since it often requires (interdisciplinary) problem solving – note that problem-based learning has come into the academy from practice. Some research funding now accommodates and even encourages interdisciplinary work; but measures such as allowing joint principal investigators, appointing referees from more than a single discipline and accepting publications from a wider range of sources as research outputs could help. Greater mutual respect for differing disciplines and the willingness to accept widely differing perspectives will also help to promote interdisciplinarity.

Another possible impact of interdisciplinarity, not highlighted at the seminar, is the uncertainty that is created by entertaining multiple views of the world, and the ensuing discomfort. One reason for the stability of disciplinary divisions may be the relative certainty and comfort associated with working within well defined protocols and assumptions. This selective inattention associated with disciplinary boundaries however can also create uncertainty (among an increasingly educated public if not in the scientists themselves) regarding the relevance and efficacy, not to mention unintended consequences, of applying such disciplines in the world. Scientists may think that the very notion of science is one that dispels uncertainty. However all scientific knowledge is held tentatively (uncertainly?) until improved upon subsequently. So scientists, especially interdisciplinary ones, should embrace uncertainty and learn to take decisions in such contexts. Incompleteness is also an ever present aspect of uncertainty – in other words, although interdisciplinary efforts may attempt to incorporate all possible perspectives to solve real life problems, there is always a chance that an important perspective has been left out because it is unknown.

On a personal note (and of course this entire review is a personal construct - i.e. selective and perspectival), the opportunities for interdisciplinarity that struck me most (partly because they need little time and money to implement) were the sharing of neutral space by persons of differing disciplines and backgrounds; and the practice of (even simple) experiments rather than engagement in discussions. This was one of the better seminars I have attended in recent times, perhaps because it both raised many questions while answering others. (The writer is Director of Research at

the University of Moratuwa and an associate editor of Civil Engineering &

Environmental Systems, an international journal seeking to promote sys

tems thinking.)

I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address those problems. But I was wrong. Professor Felicity Callard (University of Durham) started the day by describing two of her projects, one on auditory hallucinations and the other on rest. These involved researchers from different disciplines, ranging from neuroscientists and psychologists to historians, theologians and those with lived experiences.