Public administration teaching and interdisciplinarity
| DOI | 10.1177/0144739414523285 |
| Date | 01 September 2014 |
| Author | Gerrit van der Waldt |
| Published date | 01 September 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Teaching Public Administration
Public administration
2014, Vol. 32(2) 169–193
ª The Author(s) 2014
teaching and
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0144739414523285
interdisciplinarity:
tpa.sagepub.com
considering the
consequences
Gerrit van der Waldt
North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa
Abstract
Public administration is a highly diverse and evolving field of scientific inquiry. The study
domain is characterised further by often-competing paradigmatic perspectives and see-
mingly endless teaching modalities. There seems to be an increasing realisation that answers
to complex societal challenges cannot be solved within the knowledge frameworks of indi-
vidual disciplines. As a result, interdisciplinary teaching emerged to expose students to
approaches, theories and methodologies from various disciplines of the social and natural
sciences, in search of potential answers to these challenges. In spite of the qualities and
potential contributions of interdisciplinarity, there may be fewer positive consequences for
teaching efforts. This article intends to reflect on the potential consequences, both positive
and negative, that interdisciplinary studies have on the teaching of public administration.
The article will review the possible advantages or contributions of interdisciplinarity to the
teaching of public administration, and reflect on the possibly less-desired consequences of
interdisciplinary collaboration on curriculum design and teaching methods.
Keywords
collaboration, consequences, curriculum design, disciplines, integration, interdisciplinarity,
public administration, teaching
Introduction
The true voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands, but in seeing with new eyes.
Marcel Proust, Remembrance of Things Past (1934)
Corresponding author:
Gerrit van der Waldt, North-West University, Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa.
Email: Gerrit.vanderwaldt@nwu.ac.za
170
Teaching Public Administration 32(2)
As interdisciplinarity gains maturity as a teaching methodology at universities, the question
could be posed about the potential consequences of this approach for the participation of
individual disciplines in the production of knowledge. Teaching in applied social science
disciplines such as public administration is characterised by fluidity. Public administration
is an extremely diverse and a relatively young, evolving discipline. Merging public
administration teaching with interdisciplinarity does raise a few questions. What, for
example, should be included and excluded from existing undergraduate programmes to
accommodate interdisciplinary perspectives? What is the best way to disseminate multiple
knowledge domains to students? How much provision should be made for efforts of
interdisciplinary interaction and collaboration such as employing interdisciplinary research
teams? Answers to these and related questions will guide decisions on the possible incor-
poration of interdisciplinarity in teaching and curriculum design for public administration.
The purpose of this article is to reflect on the potential consequences of inter-
disciplinarity on the teaching of public administration. The following diagram depicts
this purpose.
?
D1
Inter-
Research
disciplinarity
problem
/phenomenon
D2
D3
According to the diagram, when disciplines (D1–D3) collaborate and integrate their
insights to investigate a research problem or phenomenon, this is referred to as ‘‘inter-
disciplinarity’’. Due to this collaboration new insight will emerge, which could lead to
transdisciplinarity – transcending the traditional knowledge domains of individual dis-
ciplines. The concern of this article, however, is to examine the (reciprocal) relationship
between disciplines and interdisciplinarity with specific reference to public adminis-
tration teaching. The research question can be formulated as follows: how may inter-
disciplinarity influence public administration teaching?
The nature of disciplines and interdisciplinarity
The origins of disciplines functioning as knowledge domains can be traced back to the
classical theories of the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (see Alexander,
170
van der Waldt
171
2011: 195). The concept disciplina is derived from the Latin discere (learning), and
it has been used since late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. According to Pierce
(1991: 22) there exists a long semantic history of disciplina as a term describing the
ordering of knowledge for the purposes of instruction. The Oxford English Dic-
tionary defines the concept as ‘a branch of learning or scholarly instruction’. Coletto
(2013: 7) suggests that the definition of a scientific field of study should identify the
unique domain of a specific discipline, not aspects that are in common to other
disciplines. To this definition Foucault (1979: 223) and Doheny et al. (1987) add
that disciplines characterise, classify, specialise, qualify and validate knowledge. Liles
et al. (1995) contributes by adding that disciplines develop a corpus of knowledge,
which are expanded continuously through endeavors of knowledge production (i.e.
research). Disciplines attempt to classify knowledge in order to create order and structure
(Foucault, 1979: 223; Doheny et al., 1987). Ranney (1971: 638) elaborates on this by
pointing out that a discipline can be defined by its focus (i.e. what is studied), its knowledge
base (i.e. theory, empirical knowledge), and its methods (i.e. research traditions) of
knowledge production.
Rotblatt (1998: 2) points out that universities are the ‘cradles’ of disciplinarity,
given their roles as the ‘machinery for validating suitability for entry to professional
academic careers’. As to a method of teaching, Stichweh (2003) postulates that dis-
ciplines order knowledge to provide instruction in universities. Disciplines assist with
the method and approach to produce and order knowledge for purposes of teaching and
learning. To this Van der Waldt (2012: 2) adds that a study domain or field of study
provides a framework for scholarly activity. Tertiary institutions usually are organised
around clusters of similar disciplines. Beyer and Lodahl (1976) further state that
disciplines determine the curricula and guide the establishment of professional soci-
eties, and its scholarly journals advance professionalism for further research initia-
tives. Becher (1987) in turn highlights the fact that disciplinary domains provide a
structure of knowledge in which the academic fraternity is trained and socialised to
carry out tasks of teaching, research, and administration and to produce research and
educational output.
Fields of study usually have several sub-fields or branches, and the distinguishing
lines between these sub-fields are often both arbitrary and ambiguous (Abbott, 2001).
From a teaching vantage point, Keen (1980), Salvendy (1982), Snodgrass (1987),
Denning (1989), and Liles et al. (1995) point to the following elements that define the
nature of disciplines:
focusing the research to be undertaken by scholars in the field;
producing academic journals that publish research results in the field;
entailing the functioning of professional bodies and associations;
establishing the nature and scope of departments and faculties to which theorists
belong;
guiding the content of learning programmes (i.e. curricula); and
utilising departments or faculties to which their scholars belong.
171
172
Teaching Public Administration 32(2)
It should be noted that although the elements highlighted above provide an indication
of the nature of a discipline, there seems to be no formal criteria to establish a recognised
academic discipline (Pierce, 1991: 22).
Increasingly, scholars such as Klein (1996: 22–23), Rowland (2002), and Gasper
(2004: 309) argue that the scale of complexity that societal (and research) problems
shows compels scientists to change the approach of their research. Researchers have to
move beyond the confines of their individual disciplines and explore new models for
science. In this regard Eddy (2005: 3) refers to the ‘antedisciplinary’ nature of science,
to emphasise the need for a heterogeneous team focus in research. Brewer (1999: 327)
coins the phrase the ‘moreness’ advantage of multiple disciplinary perspectives. By
this he means that individual disciplinary vantage points may lead to the fragmentation
of insight and knowledge. To accentuate this need for moreness, Brewer (1999: 328)
aptly states that the ‘world has problems, but universities have departments’. Therefore
it is necessary to uncover the relationship between the parts and the whole of a
problem. The problem arises when disciplines borrow, share, interact, collaborate and
integrate theories, approaches, and methodology in search of possible solutions to
societal challenges. This purposeful relationship and integration process is referred to
as interdisciplinarity.
According to Nissani (1997: 202) and Klein (1990), many scholars have attempted to
clarify the concept of interdisciplinarity, but the term still seems to defy a comprehensive
definition. Haynes (2002: 17) simply conceptualises an interdisciplinary approach as
‘inquiries which critically draw upon two or more disciplines and which may lead to new
insights’. The Oxford English Dictionary explicates interdisciplinary as ‘of or between
more than one branch of learning’. The prefix ‘‘inter-’’ means ‘between, among, or
mutually, reciprocally, and suggests exchange’ (Karlqvist, 1999: 379). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial