- The document discusses interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge from a lecture given by Prof. Nigam Dave at PDPU. - It highlights the benefits of breaking down walls between disciplines and having groups collaborate. Various challenges to interdisciplinary work are mentioned, such as differing terminologies and lack of infrastructure. - The need for porous boundaries between disciplines and constant vigilance against "cubicalization" of knowledge is emphasized.

1. Interdisciplinary Approaches to
Knowledge
Prof. (Dr.) Nigam Dave
PDPU

2. Lets break walls of discipline.
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Aarti M. Lakhani Rathod Tushar
Sureshbhai
Rathod Neha Bharatbhai Reshma I Sama Gunjanben A Ranabhatt
Nileshkumar M. Pandya Hemant B. Bhatt Hem N. Bhatt Keyur G. Khatsuriya Shah Vishalkumar
Rohitbhai
Dave Darshna Kishorbhai Vaghasiya Suresh R. Jayantigar L. Ramdatti Viral R. Bhatt Patel Nikunjkumar
Sumanbhai
Bhatt Darshan
Arunkumar
Ravindra Vithalbhai
Jiyani
Timir P. Gandhi Janak B. Valaki Gholetar Dharmendra A
Chetan N. Trivedi Utpal K. Ganatra Aahuti D. Dhandhukia Himanshu A. Srivastava Devang Rangani
Upadhyay Manish G. Harshul D. Parikh Pathak Yashodhar P. Jagad Girishkumar D. Pratikkumar N. Solanki
Trupti S. Manik Joshi Seema B. Hetal B. Pandya Minakshi M. Patel Kashyap Gohil
Vattaparambil Sheetal J. Vinay A Parikh

3. Sources
• Plenary lecture given at the 3rd National Seminar
on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Knowledge at
PDPU.
• http://www.hindukids.org/old/grandpa/ramakris
hna/learnedPandit.html
• http://www.tingroom.com/print_81642.html
• http://www.tlainc.com/articl246.htm
• http://www.arj.no/2012/03/12/disciplinarities-2/
• Idea of an activity – British Petroleum –
Cambridge University Workshop attended.

6. • Logic, Ethics, Aesthetics
• Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram
• Knowing things as they are
• Knowing things as they affect others

8. • Quantifiable knowledge
• Pure (soft) knowledge
• Knowledge that is perfectly useless but
beautifully true
• Knowledge that is useful but transitory

11. • Arjuna is called Gudakesh in Gita. It means, ‘one
who does not sleep’. (one who is self-conscious
all the time)
• "Knowledge is to be aware of something." –
Meriam Webster. (http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/knowledge)
• "To know is to know that you know nothing, that
is true knowledge.“ – Confusicious.
(http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/395403-to-
know-is-to-know-that-you-know-nothing-that)

12. Up-ni-shad (sitting near the side of)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe01/sbe01015.htm

13. Knowledge
Pluralism Reductionism
Non-dualism/ Anekantvad

14. • Michael Polanyi (Hungarian British Professor of
Physical Chemistry)
Tacit Knowledge – Something that is known but
difficult to communicate
Explicit Knowledge – Something that can be
communicated
Codification – Transfer of known to communicable
knowledge

15. http://www.tlainc.com/articl246.htm

16. http://www.slideshare.net/TedSpickler/fake-
learning-vs-real-learning

17. • “ When we use a hammer to drive in a nail, we attend to both nail
and hammer, but in a different way. We watch the effect of our
strokes on the nail and try to wield the hammer so as to hit the nail
most effectively. When we bring down the hammer we do not feel
that its handle has struck our palm but that its head has struck the
nail. Yet in a sense we are certainly alert to the feelings in our palm
and the fingers that hold the hammer. They guide us in handling it
effectively, and the degree of attention that we give to the nail is
given to the same extent but in a different way to those feelings.
The difference may be stated by saying that the latter are not, like
the nail, objects of our attention, but instruments of it. They are not
watched in themselves; we watch something else while keeping
intensely aware of them. I have a subsidiary awareness of the
feeling in the palm of my hand which is merged into a focal
awareness of my driving the nail. “ – Michael Polanyi

18. • Discipline 1 – Object of our attention
• Disciplines 2/3/4 – Instruments of it
• Northrop Frye – Archetypal Myths
Archetype + Variation = Cultural Variation

19. • “Subsidiary and focal awareness are mutually
exclusive. If a pianist shifts his attention from
the piece he is playing to the observation of
what the is doing with his fingers while playing
it, he gets confused and may have to stop.
This happens generally if we switch our focal
attention to particulars of which we had
previously been aware only in in their
subsidiary role.” - – Michael Polanyi

20. http://www.arj.no/2012/03/12/disciplinarities-
2/

21. • Intradisciplinary – within a discipline
• Crossdisciplinary – across the perspective
• Multidisciplinary – merging of many
disciplines, yet independent
• Interdisciplinary – synthesis of approach
• Transdisciplinary – unified structure beyond
the disciplines.

22. • Multidisciplinarity – additive juxtaposition
• Interdisciplinarity – interacting, linking
• Transdisciplinarity – transcending,
transgressing, transforming

23. A discipline is how something relates to knowledge,
what it accepts as a knowledge and where the
lines are drawn beyond which something is not
accepted as a knowledge.
Since constant study, training and research bring a
scholar a recognition in a discipline, a scholar
internalizes a discipline and starts associating
professional identity with that closed circle.

24. • “Whole history of integrated research has
been one where, typically projects begin with
high expectations but end with poor
outcomes.”
- Balsiger, P.W. Supradisciplinary research
practices: History, objectives and rationale.
Futures 2004, 36, 407-421.

25. • “While there has been much recognition of
the need for linkages to be developed
between the ecological, policy, and social
science communities it is easier to ‘talk the
talk’ than ‘walk the walk’.”
- Stevens, C.J.; Fraser, I.; Mitchley, J.; Thomas,
M.B. Making ecological science policy-
relevant: Issues of scale and disciplinary
integration. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 799-809.

27. Challenges – Discipline specific jargons, lack of passion to move beyond, discipline
specific arrogance, culture of mistrust, lack of interdisciplinary team and
infrastructure.

28. • “This universal approach to knowledge
demands that boundaries of disciplines be
porous and scholars be constantly on guard
against the tendency towards ‘cubicalization’
of knowledge. “ – Prof. Yashpal

29. Lets start with this ‘hands on’
• You have been given the chit which asks you
to write what you think –Information,
Knowledge, Wisdom are:
Please mention only key words. Don’t discuss
internally in a group please as this should be
your personal opinion.
• When you are through, please fix it up on the
chart.

30. This may help !
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

31. • How do you think knowledge in your area
came down to you over the years?
• Think about and mention any five disciplines
that might have helped knowledge in your
discipline to evolve.
• Write these down on a sticky and fix it below
your chit.

32. Example
Group 1 Group 2
My Discipline – Eng. Literature
Mythology
Sociology
Psychology
Fine Arts
Music

33. • Who are the end beneficiaries of knowledge in
your discipline? How?
• Write down in order of importance any three
stakeholders who can be impacted with
outcomes in your discipline.
• Fix this chit below your earlier chits.

34. Example
Group 1 Group 2
My Discipline – Eng. Literature
Creative Writers
Political Leaders
Travelers
My Discipline – Eng. Literature
Mythology
Sociology
Psychology
Fine Arts
Music

35. Group Activity
• Nominate a person from your group (one per group for that
group) to read all chits and find any common discipline as
support mentioned by others. If There are common
disciplines as mentioned complementing, write them down
on the paper given to you. Please also mention number of
times it is mentioned by others from your group. All
nominated members may meet and calculate numbers and
common disciplines, put them on paper and affix that at
the bottom near the left margin.
• Did you find any common disciplines? Why?
• Which disciplines have been quoted the most and the
least?

36. Example
Group 1 Group 2
Common Disciplines
Physics – 2
History -4
Sociology – 1

37. Group Activity
• Nominate a person from your group (one per group for
your group) to read all chits and find any common
stakeholder mentioned by others. write them down on
the paper given to you. Please also mention number of
times it is mentioned by others from your group. All
nominated members may meet and calculate numbers
and common stakeholders and affix that at the bottom
near the right margin.
• Did you find any common stakeholder? Why?
• Which stakeholder has been quoted the most and the
least?

38. Example
Group 1 Group 2
Common Stakeholder
Manufacturer – 2
Academician -4
Politician – 1

39. Group Activity
What problems do you think do we face in involving other
disciplines in our approaches?
You may vote from the following:
1. Lack of interdisciplinary nomenclature.
2. Lack of interdisciplinary infrastructure.
3. Lack of commitment
4. Restrictions of UGC/AICTE/Statutory bodies.
5. Lack of available research details.
Mark red dot to the problem you find is most
compounding.
Affix your paper at the center, bottom.

40. Example
Group 1 Group 2
1. Lack of interdisciplinary
nomenclature.
2. Lack of interdisciplinary
infrastructure.
3. Lack of commitment
4. Restrictions of
UGC/AICTE/Statutory
bodies.
5. Lack of available
research details.

41. Solutions.
• What solutions do you think are possible to
lead the academia to interdisciplinary
approaches?
• 1.
• 2
• 3.

42. • “We would like to point out that there are no great universities in
the world that do not simultaneously conduct world class programs
in science, astronomy, management, languages, comparative
literature, philosophy, psychology, information technology, law,
political science, economics, agriculture and many other emerging
disciplines. Indeed the emerging disciplines do their emerging
because of infection or triggering by other fields in the same
university. That is the reason that such universities are so great and
our academics keep going to them. Our argument is that they
would not be great if they could not accommodate people from
many other disciplines. Put together, all the disciplines, breed value
into each other. If forced to stay in isolation from each other they
would not have the character demanded for greatness.”
• Prof. Yashpal