Steve Eskow noted in reply to At de Langes
>>specialisations ("academic apartheid") are conducive to producing
>>learning disabilities rather than diminishing them.
>The danger of interdisciplinearity is that it will produce a Jack of all
>trades who is master of none.
In german, we have a word for someone fed up with all knowledge of one
subject, but very reduced connectivity to other subjects: "Fachidiot". I
think that, if "academic apartheid" occurs, it will produce such
Fachidiots with severe learning disabilities.
I am sure that you all know of such Fachidiots, incapable to contribute by
means of their specialisation in an interdisciplinary team of other
specialists to commonly solve a complex problem.
ON THE OTHER HAND, a master of a discipline is not the same as a
Fachidiot. Without mastering a discipline, it will be difficult to
contribute in such a team as well, thats what Steve will und must not give
up.
While the mastery of a discipline represents a certain value, I see the
Fachidiot as a devaluing exaggeration of that value. Such an exaggeration
shows me that something is missing in the Fachidiot, a complementary value
supplementing the mastery of a discipline. Let me call that complementary
value interdisciplinarity. For interdisciplinarity there is of course the
same danger of devaluing exaggeration. Exactly what Steve wrote: the Jack
of all trades! The situation is really symmetric: The exaggeration shows
me that something is missing in the Jack of all trades, a complementary
value supplementing the interdisciplinarity. Could it be, that this
complement is the master of a disciplin?
The situation is quite complex, I hope you can make a picture of it:
Jack of all trades - ( Interdisciplinarity - Mastery of a disciplin ) -
Fachidiot
or even better in two levels (one upper "whole" level and one lower
"fragmented" level)::
Interdisciplinarity - Mastery of a disciplin
/ \
Jack of all trades - Fachidiot
While the upper (emergent) level complements and supplements each other in
harmony, the lower (immergent) level fights each other all the time.
Interdisciplinarity need to be called for in order to protect against the
danger of Fachidiot. Mastery of a disciplin need to be called for in order
to protect against the danger Jack of all trades. Aren't both right? Is it
possible to protect against only one danger without falling directly into
the trap of the other?
I may say:
Any call for interdisciplinarity needs necessarily the advocat of mastery.
Any call for mastery needs necessarily the advocat of interdisciplinarity.
Steve, I see that we are talking about values and the wholeness of such
values. If you could follow my thoughts, then the answer to your original
question "To what problem is interdisciplinarity the solution?" would be:
To avoid Fachidiots. If you can acknowledge the sincerety of that
solution, then you may appreciate the importance of your role as the
advocat of mastery of a discipline in a whole new light - the light of the
value of interdisciplinarity.
How do you like this?
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>