Integration and interdisciplinarity: concepts, frameworks, and education

1 23

Policy SciencesIntegrating Knowledge and Practice toAdvance Human Dignity ISSN 0032-2687 Policy SciDOI 10.1007/s11077-015-9210-4

Integration and interdisciplinarity:concepts, frameworks, and education

Susan G. Clark & Richard L. Wallace

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

RESEARCH NOTE

Integration and interdisciplinarity: concepts,frameworks, and education

Susan G. Clark • Richard L. Wallace

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Humans face enormous and growing ecological and social problems. Knowl-

edge and methods of inquiry are necessary to understand and address these problems.

Although this seems obvious, arguments rage over which methods are reliable and whose

perspectives and epistemology (disciplinary or otherwise) are best suited to address

problems. To compound matters, knowledge is fragmented in its organization, classifica-

tion, production, and use in academe, in the professions, and in society. A practical con-

ceptualization of interdisciplinarity in the interests of integration is needed to address the

multiple perspectives, epistemologies, and fragmentation inherent in these problems. Here,

we offer a conception of integration that fosters an interrelated dynamic system of healthy

people, society, and nature. Next, we look at ‘‘knowledge’’—its classification, levels, and

challenges. Following that, we review a model of integration almost a century old that has

been abstracted into a practical, interdisciplinary meta-framework that organizes both

diagnostics and prescriptive inquiry. Finally, educating about integration is a subject of

central concern in many colleges and universities today, one that we discuss in terms of

goals, student competence, educational designs, practical challenges, and how to address

them. Our entire endeavor is couched in terms of the overarching goal of seeking the

common interest of human dignity in healthy environments for all.

Keywords Integration � Interdisciplinarity � Knowledge � Education � Framework � Policy

sciences

S. G. Clark (&)Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USAe-mail: [email protected]

R. L. WallaceDepartment of Environmental Studies, Ursinus College, 601 East Main Street, Collegeville, PA 19426,USA

123

Policy SciDOI 10.1007/s11077-015-9210-4

Author's personal copy

Introduction

Interdisciplinarity is a means to integrate knowledge and methods in the interest of

problem solving. The search for integration has a long and rich history that is reflected in

higher education and professional practice in the USA, Europe, and elsewhere. In this

paper, we summarize for a Policy Sciences readership, which is predisposed to be inte-

grative, some challenges facing the current generation of integrators who grapple with

complex social phenomena that undermine basic human dignity, which is the paramount

goal that this journal was specifically designed to promote.

Perhaps the single most significant problem facing the world today is that ‘‘humans now

dominate Earth, changing it in ways that threaten its ability to sustain us and other species’’

(Barnosky et al. 2012, p. 1; Cardinale et al. 2012). Our human environmental footprint is

unsustainable (Hockstra and Wiedmann 2014; Costanza et al. 2014). These challenges are

compounded by trends in the understanding and production of knowledge. As policy

scientists, we work with a pragmatic definition of knowledge as a ‘‘mix of framed expe-

riences, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for

evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information’’ (Davenport and Prusak

1998, p. 5). The policy sciences as a field of inquiry, and this journal with it, came into

existence as a means to address trends in the fragmentation of knowledge across the

nineteenth and twentieth centuries—fragmentation that weakens individuals’, institutions’,

and societies’ ability to make decisions to serve the common interest of human dignity

(Easton 1950; Eulau 1958; Lasswell 1970, 1971a).

The highly fragmented way in which biophysical and social knowledge is currently

organized, classified, produced, and used complicates our ability to address and educate

others about these pressing problems (Trompf 2011). Research on the dynamics of

knowledge and its legitimization in recent decades has shown that it has diverse, multiple,

social origins (Foucault 1994). One of the chief fountainheads of knowledge generation in

society is the arena of higher education. We focus on higher education in this paper for this

reason and because it is the major site of education, the intergenerational transmission of

knowledge (however understood), and the methods of shaping and sharing it.

Gumport and Snydman (2002) note that universities both reflect and reconstitute tax-

onomies of knowledge. The legitimacy of knowledge is provided by the imprimatur that

this context and arena carry in society today. However, the ‘‘advancement’’ of knowledge

does not automatically accrue in a self-propelled manner or direction (see Kuhn 1970;

Mulkay 1979). Universities are like other organizations and institutions and respond to

problems, internal and external, with changes in operations, typically by adding to existing

disciplines and paradigms. What constitutes reliable knowledge and its epistemological

foundations is hotly contested these days (e.g., Bohm and Peat 1987; Taylor and Medina

2013).

Within the overall discourse about knowledge and its uses, as well as the role of

universities in society, integration of knowledge is widely touted as the means—indeed,

the imperative—to address the ‘‘human–environment’’ sustainability problem (McDougal

1971; National Research Council 1999, 2011). The claim is that we need to meld or

reconfigure knowledge in order to address problems effectively (e.g., Frodeman et al.

2010), but explicit methods are often lacking. Currently, there is growing interest in

integration in the curriculums of many colleges and universities, a trend that policy sci-

entist Harold Lasswell (1970, p. 3) described as a ‘‘counter offensive… a new configurative

outlook to remedy decades of differentiation and fragmentation of knowledge and its

application.’’ Over the last 100 years or more, the sciences, especially the social sciences,

Policy Sci

123


have been keenly interested in the notion of integration (Charlesworth 1972), and huge

effort has gone into generating practical concepts and guides for it.

The present ongoing discussion about integration via interdisciplinarity is very con-

fusing because of its competing lexicons, epistemological demands, and diverse origins

and standpoints of authors (see Parsons 1995). A widely shared guide to interdisciplinarity,

one that is well thought out theoretically, empirically grounded, and clearly demonstrative

in practice, could advance integrative thinking, education, and application to diverse

problems. This paper, which encourages such an outcome, first examines the concept of

integration and its meaning as applied to individual, societal, and environmental interre-

lationships. Second, it looks at knowledge and its classification and provides a definition of

the ‘‘problem’’ of knowledge and integration. Third, we introduce an interdisciplinary

method as a meta-framework explicitly designed to help integrate theory and practice and

to guide education and problem solving. Finally, we focus on how integration via inter-

disciplinarity can improve education and address sustainability programs, exploring

challenges and obstacles to the widespread comprehension and application of integration

through interdisciplinarity and offering recommendations.

Methods

We take a problem-oriented (i.e., policy analytic), value-based view of integration, the

history of integration, and our brief review of interdisciplinary applications (after Lasswell

and McDougal 1943, 1992; Mattson and Clark 2011). This paper is first of all informed by

the policy sciences. It reflects our experiences and perspectives and those of many articles

published in this journal over the past four decades. We assume that our frame of reference

may differ from some readers of this paper, as it should be: varying perspectives on

knowledge and its integration are the impetus for this paper. We do not attempt to reconcile

competing perspectives here. We use both conventional and functional languages in our

descriptions in hopes of reaching out to as many other perspectives, knowledge bases,

frames of reference, and vocabularies as possible. We draw on our explicit and tacit

knowledge, recognizing that all people weigh observations and beliefs differently (see

Russell 2006, 2010; Eagleton 2007), based on their personal experiences, reflections,

introspections, memories, and heroes, among other considerations.

First, our methods are those of the policy sciences, as introduced below: a set of

integrated concepts or conceptual tools for framing thought and guiding analysis, inter-

pretation, and resolution of problems (Lasswell 1968). These tools offer a ‘‘practical means

of organizing our thinking, our knowledge, and our problem-solving efforts, thus allowing

us to define a problem and understand its context’’ (Clark 2002, p. 9).

Second, given the huge volume of literature on interdisciplinarity and knowledge in-

tegration, we selectively focused on that pertaining to natural resources and environment.

As in many complex cases, we encountered problems of inter-observer differences in

language and meaning (Lasswell and McDougal 1992, pp. 391–397), and we recognize

that subjectivities matter in these cases (Brown 2006). Language and other factors in

effective communication are a huge, perhaps insurmountable, problem, which we address

below.

Third is a brief word on our own standpoint as authors. We are both senior academics at

American institutions and professionals with more than 75 years of combined experience

undertaking interdisciplinarity in the interests of integration. We have worked in the

academic (both graduate and undergraduate), government, and non-governmental realms,

Policy Sci

123


and on every continent except Antarctica. Much of our work has focused on problems of

governance and participation in the conservation of species and ecosystems, though for

many years we have been involved in (and published on) the development and application

of interdisciplinary standards and programs in American higher education. In all our work,

we rigorously apply standpoint clarification, performance evaluation, and ongoing self-

scrutiny. We hope this paper will help decision makers improve the rationality, practi-

cality, and morality of their judgments. Good intelligence is a prerequisite for a resilient

democracy to solve complex problems (Farr et al. 2006; Clark 2009).

Integration: individuals, society, and environment

The concept of integration is promoted today as crucial for addressing diverse problems at

many scales and for achieving sustainability and other societal goals (e.g., DeFries et al.

2012; Frodeman et al. 2010; National Research Council 2011). Integration is really a

shorthand word for adaptive behavior in relation to the contexts in which people live and

work (Hopkins 1937; Connole 1937). Jantsch (1970, p. 304) observed that ‘‘it is important

to understand the quest for knowledge as a form of interaction between living systems and

their environment, no less essential than, say, breathing or feeding, and in the same sense

subjective and objective at the same time.’’ Viewed this way, integration seems to function

as an umbrella term for people to make meaning in life, to use as an existential foundation

(see Yalom 1980). Integration refers to the combining of disparate things, events, or

processes with the goal of fitting them together in such a way as to better understand both

the parts and the emergent whole. Integration reflects conscious insight, a depth of un-

derstanding, and a kind of interactive adjusting. Yet the picture that emerges from inte-

grating knowledge can never be assumed to be final, complete, or definitive; at best it is a

provisional, temporary, and incomplete modeling of reality that continues to change as

situations and contexts change.

Individuals

Studying the behavior of individuals as they make meaning, build mental models, and

operate in the world can elucidate the concept of integration (Das 1998; Eagleton 2007).

Each individual seeks personal integration (providing benefits of dignity, respect, health,

and well-being), societal integration (fitting into a functioning community that values the

individual), and environmental integration (immersion in a tightly connected healthy so-

cietal and natural environment). Each individual strives for an integrated life, that is,

comfort, security, and the basic needs of life (Mattson et al. 2012). In concept and practice,

integration begins with the physical integrity of the body and ‘‘self.’’ The body’s behavior

and its relationship to its biophysical and social environment determine the kind of life that

the person lives, either facilitating or inhibiting integration and attainment of values.

Each individual is born into a culture composed of complex and interrelated aspects—

family, community, and society, each with its sociopolitical structure and history (Hopkins

1937). Individual development is conditioned by both biological demands and the accu-

mulated and ever changing experiences of culture as it meets those basic needs. A wide

range of forces and factors (e.g., upbringing, crises) may seriously disturb or upset a sense

of equilibrium, causing anxiety, frustration, need, want, wish, or drive, yet every individual

possesses a value demand that draws him or her toward equilibrium again. To achieve a

state of well-being, the individual acts in response to the environment (McCrae and John 1992;

Policy Sci

123


Rentfrow et al. 2008). Every person seeks a healthy equilibrium or, in other words, actively

avoids disequilibrium. According to Hopkins (1937, p. 3—one of the earliest and still

most cogent elucidations of integration in American higher education), relatively

successful, healthy individuals ‘‘make many contacts in a wide environment, resolving the

ensuing disturbances by the best thinking available at the time, thereby building dynamic

drives and cumulative techniques for use in examination of subsequent experience’’ (also

see Arnspiger 1959; Ascher and Hirschfelder-Ascher 2005). This is the process of

integrating.

As people experience life they respond to stimuli depending on what it means to them

(via subjective and social mediation), and, as they respond, they also learn. Learning is

about creating more appropriate, meaningful responses to situations that may be prob-

lematic, given peoples’ goals or values (see Kegan and Lahey 2009; Clark 2002). Hopkins

(1937) says that learning to integrate, however it is accomplished, helps individuals to

improve (1) their internal state in coping with the external environment existentially and

physiologically, (2) their ability to deal with recurring or novel situations, i.e., to map

contexts and solve problems, and (3) their understanding of and interactions with their

environment and communities, i.e., development of social knowledge and skills. Ideally,

integration involves the whole of childhood and adult development, with many implica-

tions for higher education (as discussed below), including making connections, becoming

self-aware, and gaining skills. There is ample opportunity in most societies to increase

learning significantly, an effort that should be led by colleges and universities and con-

tinued in professional contexts.

People also seek values such as knowledge, skill, affection, respect, or influence through

participation in the institutions of family, politics, economics, and spirituality to create

supporting, respectful communities (Reisman 2008). Institutions, the stable patterns of

interaction and organization present in societies, play a major role in determining the kinds

of lives that people live, individually and collectively. People create institutions to help

them achieve values. Daily living consists of ongoing, adjusting, and interacting processes

within institutions, i.e., processes of value accumulation and exchange that may be con-

scious or unconscious (Kegan 1994; Kahneman 2011). In struggling to create a sustainable

world and functional societies, individuals inevitably express shared concerns about human

dignity, mutual respect, and healthy environments, manifest in their perspectives and

behaviors (McDougal et al. 1980; Mattson and Clark 2011). Functionally, achieving sus-

tainability requires that societies be made up of whole individuals—that is, people who are

physically, psychologically, and socially integrated within the institutions of society

(Kelman 2006; Weston 2008).

Society

Individuals also seek to use material and cultural resources to address their individual and

societal challenges. In functional terms, ‘‘people seek values through institutions using

resources’’ (Lasswell and McDougal 1992, p. 337). These four variables—people, values,

institutions, and resources—can be researched empirically via existing methods (Table 1).

Achieving sustainability depends on balancing the connections among these four variables

and requires a kind of integration that has both short- and long-term benefits. The analytic,

integrated, interdisciplinary framework of the policy sciences, which we describe below,

exists to study and manage these factors and processes.

History shows that people and institutions often struggle to find a sustainable equilib-

rium with the environment. For example, Morris (2010) offered a ‘‘social development

Policy Sci

123


index’’ that included environmental variables such as energy availability over the last

15,000 years, comparing development in the West and the East. His index shows how

civilizations have varied their practices and institutions as their internal and external

environments changed. Some have been able to reach a relatively high level of social

development and persist for centuries, whereas others have not. Other historians have

similarly described the ups and downs of humanity’s efforts to organize societies and

institutions and to find and use resources (e.g., Ferguson 2011; Mandelbaum 2011; Mann

and Ornstein 2012). Time and again, history shows huge variation over time and place in

the well-being of individuals and societies in different environments.

Environment

There is a century and a half of compelling literature on relations between society and

nature. Global changes in climate, biodiversity, pollution, and other issues have long raised

serious concerns, nowadays often expressed in the language of ‘‘sustainability’’ or ‘‘sus-

tainable development,’’ by the United Nations and in many national and subnational

Table 1 A view of people, values, institutions, and natural resources

Humans……seek Values……through Institutions……using Resources

Interacting throughculture andpersonality

Power GovernmentPolitical partiesPressure groups

Soils, water, energy, minerals,plants, animals space, humans

Social and decisionprocesses

Respect Social classCaste systemHonors

Wealth ProductionDistributionIncomeSavings

Enlightenment EducationCommunicationDiscussionResearch

Skill TrainingOccupationsArt expressionTaste standards

Well-being Mental, physicalHealthRecreationPolice protection

Rectitude Moral practicesEthical standardsCrime preventionChurches

Affection CourtshipFamilyFriendshipGroup heritage

These four categories are researchable and empirical indices can be invented and measured (after Lasswell1970; Clark 2002)

Policy Sci

123


institutions and contexts. Some authors express grave doubts about whether modern

civilizations can survive (e.g., Brunner 2007; Diamond 2005; Orlov 2013). Tainter (2006,

p. 91), for example, writing on ‘‘social complexity and sustainability,’’ notes that sus-

tainability outcomes ‘‘may take decades or centuries to develop.’’ He demonstrates that

societies exhibit one of three long-term changes in their problem-solving institutions in

response to growing problems: collapse, resiliency through simplification, or continuity

with more complexity subsidized by increased energy. The future prospects for the USA,

the West, and other societies are the focus of widespread, ongoing, active discussion.

Historically, the process of integration at individual, societal, and environmental levels

has been difficult. At the individual level, life consists of interacting and adjusting behavior

to find equilibrium. One interpretation of how this works is Lasswell’s (1971b)

‘‘maximization postulate,’’ which states that people tend to make decisions that they

perceive will leave them better off than before. In other words, people seek values in order

to achieve equilibrium (or to insulate themselves from disequilibrium) via institutions (e.g.,

family) using resources (e.g., power, wealth, as well as natural resources). Peoples’ mis-

perceptions of their own needs often come from biases and bounded rationality (see

Kahneman 2011), and developing a fully integrated relationship with self, with others, and

with the natural environment is the defining struggle of our times.

Knowledge: classification, levels, challenges

Today there is a surplus of pseudo-integrative academic offerings—conceptual, ideologi-

cal, systems-based, mathematical, and others—springing from different origins, interests,

and individuals (e.g., Frodeman et al. 2010; UNCSD 2007). How to obtain, classify, and

organize knowledge and then use it to foster sustainability and other goals is one of the

most fundamental problems that humanity faces (Lindblom and Cohen 1979; Flyvbjerg

2001; Schmidt 2011). We need to address classification issues, levels of knowledge or-

ganization, and existing application challenges.

Classification and nomenclature

Classifying and labeling knowledge is not straightforward. Traditionally, people have

organized knowledge into disciplines. Trompf (2011; see also Latour 2004), for example,

listed over 1,300 disciplines that are relevant to environmental studies. But many authors in

the last few decades have questioned whether disciplines are the most helpful way to

address environmental problems (e.g., Apostel and Vanlandschoot 1994). As Brown (1984,

p. ix) notes, people are undertaking an ‘‘intense critical examination with respect to [the

disciplines] and the power and philosophic premises that rationalize their structure’’ (see

Brown 2004, 2010).

Without a doubt, the scientific and scholarly disciplines are vital to individual and social

development. Learning how to integrate and synthesize specialized disciplinary contri-

butions is central to making improvements in daily life, in society, and in sustaining the

natural environment. Regardless of the topic—endangered species, genetics, human

populations, oceans, fisheries, forests, parks and reserves, the atmosphere, outer space, land

and water use, development, human rights, environmental justice—every discipline and

standpoint has something to contribute in the examination of public policy problems.

Melding disciplines in ways that are useful, however, does not happen spontaneously. It

requires a framework.

Policy Sci

123


In order to integrate knowledge, it is first useful to know how to organize it. Knowledge

is generally classified as disciplinary (isolated disciplines), multidisciplinary (two or more

disciplines, additive), interdisciplinary (integrative, fusion), transdisciplinary (non-disci-

plinary), or in other ways that describe different modes of knowledge specialization

(Weingart 2010; Klein 2010; Krohn 2010; Fuller 2010; Mansilla 2010; Sarewitz 2010).

Knowledge can be organized and classified, not necessarily rigidly or in mutually exclusive

ways, along this continuum.

Multidisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are worth exploring a bit further in their most

commonly understood definitions. Multidisciplinarity lacks the distinctiveness of inte-

gration and instead settles for the coexistence of different disciplines. As Klein (1996,

p. 98) notes, multidisciplinarity ‘‘does not readily lead to new insights into environmental

relationships or reveal gaps in scientific knowledge that handicap formulation of sound

environmental policies.’’ By requiring only close proximity, rather than integration, of

different disciplines, multidisciplinarity lacks the transformative qualities in both knowl-

edge and practice that are necessary to address complex environmental problems. In this, it

is more akin to straightforward disciplinarity than it is to true interdisciplinarity.

Transdisciplinarity bears greater similarity to interdisciplinarity than multidisciplinarity.

In one view, transdisciplinarity seeks intellectual freedom from all disciplinary confines

(Piaget 1972), a sort of non-disciplinarity in which participants are left to make their own

connections around an organizing principle, e.g., education or social problems (Jantsch

1970). This approach warrants further exploration in an environmental problem-solving

context, especially because of its attempts at holism and the as-yet-unanswered question of

how problem-oriented transdisciplinarity is really useful (Klein 2005). The danger in

transdisciplinarity is when it questions the veracity of the disciplines: It is critical to

recognize that disciplinary knowledge and methods are necessary to achieve interdisci-

plinary integration in a problem-oriented context and, concomitantly, that interdisciplinary

integration transcends the confines of the disciplines.

Interdisciplinarity welcomes disciplinarity and requires a strong disciplinary founda-

tion; indeed, disciplinary knowledge and methods constitute the elements being integrated

in this approach. Therefore, interdisciplinarity is not ‘‘anti-disciplinary,’’ ‘‘adisciplinary,’’

or ‘‘post-disciplinary.’’ The transformation that occurs with interdisciplinarity, however,

extends beyond the intellectual and epistemological boundaries that limit many scholars

and practitioners. Disciplines provide ‘‘cognitive maps’’ that allow practitioners to define

the information they process and methods they use to process it (Petrie 1976). Miller

(1982, p. 5) calls them ‘‘make-sense patterns’’ that ‘‘determine what aspect of reality is

studied, how it is understood, and the relative validity of the descriptive and explanatory

statements derived therefrom.’’

We live and work in a world of academic disciplines that, alone, are ill-equipped to

tackle the complexity of environmental problems, leaving us with a conundrum of sorts:

Disciplinary approaches are an essential and ever-present part of any problem-solving

strategy, but without integration, they are insufficient to address problems in their full

complexity. Interdisciplinarity enables integration by providing, according to Burgess and

Slonaker (1978, p. 2), ‘‘ways and means for blending wisdom and science, for balancing

free association and intellectual discipline, for expanding and refining information, and for

building a problem-solving culture that mixes ‘permanent’ with ‘transient’ membership,

thereby remaining open to new membership and fresh ideas while retaining a capacity for

cumulative learning that refines, clarifies, and simplifies.’’ These are among the reasons is

why interdisciplinary integration is necessary.

Policy Sci

123


It is becoming recognized that genuine interdisciplinarity requires a high-order

framework, specifically constructed for integration, which Lasswell’s policy sciences of-

fers (Brunner 1996). Using Lasswell’s policy sciences can help us find an ‘‘overall set of

principles for open critical inquiry’’ (Russell 2010, p. 39).

Levels and frameworks

It is important to clarify levels of knowledge too. For example, Ostrom (2011) notes that

there is confusion among scholars about frameworks, theories, models, and methods—

confusion that leads to an almost-anything-goes mentality and confounds any move toward

an ‘‘overall set of principles for open critical inquiry.’’ She distinguishes levels of

knowledge as nested concepts (p. 8): First, frameworks ‘‘are the most general forms of

theoretical analysis. Frameworks identify the elements and general relationships among

these elements that one needs to consider for… analysis and they organize diagnostic and

prescriptive inquiry. Frameworks provide a metatheoretical language that can be used to

compare theories and disciplines. They attempt to identify the universal elements that any

theory relevant to the same kind of phenomena needs to include….. Thus, the elements

contained in a framework help analysts generate the questions that need to be addressed

when they conduct analysis’’ (also see Lasswell and McDougal 1992).

Second, theories ‘‘enable the analyst to specify which elements of a framework are

particularly relevant to particular questions and to make general working assumptions

about the shape and strength of these elements. Theories make assumptions that are

necessary for an analyst to diagnose a specific phenomenon, explain its processes, and

predict outcomes. Multiple theories are usually compatible with one framework’’ (p. 8).

Third, models, she says, ‘‘involve making precise assumptions about a limited set of

variables and parameters to derive precise predictions about the results of combining these

variables using a particular a theory. Logic, mathematics, game-theory models, agent-

based models, experimentation and simulations, and other means are used to explore

systematically the consequences of these assumptions on a limited set of outcomes.

Multiple models are compatible with most theories’’ (p. 8).

And fourth, methods abound to aid in modeling and theory building, and all are wel-

come in the framework used here. The interdisciplinary framework, to use Ostrom’s (2011,

p. 9) language again, helps both ‘‘scholars and policymakers interested in issues related to

how different governance systems enable individuals to solve problems democratically.’’ It

does so because an adequate framework ‘‘helps to organize diagnostic, analytical, and

prescriptive capabilities,’’ it assists in gathering knowledge empirically and systematically,

and it helps avoid naıve ideas, wishful thinking, and bounded rationality. Integration via

interdisciplinarity is unlikely without a framework.

In higher education, confusion over frameworks, theories, models, and methods and the

misuse of these labels and related terms has led to curricular and communication problems

(Clark et al. 2011a). For example, some instructors teach favored methods (e.g., obser-

vation), models (e.g., canned computer programs), or theories (e.g., political ecology), yet

call them integrative or interdisciplinary. To complicate matters, various authors in both

the social and biophysical sciences have offered interesting, well-articulated frames of

reference, conceptual maps, general orientations, or worldviews to capture and address the

integration challenge as they see it. Some of these approaches feature prominently in

college and university programs, such as ‘‘sustainability science’’ (Bammer 2005), ‘‘in-

stitutional analysis’’ (Chapin et al. 2012), ‘‘systems’’ work (Ostrom 2011; Ostrom and Cox

2010), ‘‘panarchy’’ (Gunderson et al. 1995; Holling 2001), ‘‘resilience’’ (Chapin et al. 2009;

Policy Sci

123


Berkes et al. 2003), ‘‘ecosystems and well-being’’ (Ash et al. 2010), ‘‘sustainability’’

(National Research Council of the National Academies 2011), ‘‘socio-economic systems’’

(Palmer 2012; Ban et al. 2013), and ‘‘systems ecology and political economy’’ (Walker and

Cooper 2011), to mention only a few. These and many other authors seek to address a

variety of intellectual and practical functions, such as problem solving, policy formation,

ecosystem management, environmental and social resiliency, and sustainability. What they

seem to have in common is an aspiration to integrate knowledge (see Brunner 1997a, b, c,

2006), yet there seems to be little dialogue among these ‘‘camps’’ and a limited search for

an integrative meta-framework to tie them all together. This is an example of the chal-

lenges that exist to finding consensus and practical method for integration (e.g., Anderies

et al. 2013; Game et al. 2013; Ogden et al. 2013).

Challenges and issues

There are diverse challenges to advancing integration as a concept and as a practice.

Despite the appeal of ‘‘integration’’ and calls for ‘‘interdisciplinary,’’ there is little

agreement on what the terms mean or how to achieve them. The literature on integration

and interdisciplinarity is itself unorganized, and so, the concepts and applications appear

fuzzy and the language unfamiliar or indistinct for several reasons.

First, some approaches that claim to be interdisciplinary turn out to be permutations of

‘‘informed disciplinarity’’ or multidisciplinarity, i.e., extensions or elaborations of disci-

plines Clark et al. 2011a, b; Maniates 2013). Second, the profusion of labels and terms of

self-identification lead to confusion among students, practitioners, and teachers (Davies

and Devlin 2007) and to frustration about the concepts, goals, and operations of inter-

disciplinarity and integration. Third, although many people are calling for interdisci-

plinarity and promoting what they call interdisciplinary methods, models, or theories, few

people are aware of the off-the-shelf, proven framework of Harold Lasswell (1971b;

Lasswell and McDougal 1992). Our reading of the literature nevertheless suggests that

many people are converging on this earlier approach or reinventing parts of it (Wallace and

Clark 2014). In so doing, they use their own language, usually specific to their discipline or

community and often describe their own efforts as exemplars (see Brunner 1997c). In this

evolution of ideas, earlier and arguably more comprehensive approaches are often over-

looked, misunderstood, or dismissed.

There are more fundamental challenges as well. The first concerns the concept of

integration. Many popular metaphors encapsulate the integrative impetus—‘‘connecting

the dots,’’ ‘‘thinking outside the box’’—while at the same time tacitly acknowledging our

tendency to bound or fragment our perspectives (Simon 1983; see Russell 2010).

Numerous cognitive, psychological, and developmental reasons account for the limitations

on people’s perspectives (see Yalom 1980; Kegan 1994), perception, cognition, and in-

teractions, all of which lead to fragmentation, that is, the failure to integrate (Lasswell

1971a; Brunner 1997a; Kahneman 2011).

The second challenge is about language. The growing importance of integration is

illustrated in part by its frequency of use in technical works, but quick review of journal

articles shows that authors use the term integration in many different ways (e.g., Bammer

2005; Dovers 2005; Levin et al. 2012). One problem is sorting through the many meanings

and applications of integration in technical and popular use to arrive at something

practicable.

Third is the challenge of what set of methods is needed to integrate. Unlike most

disciplines, the policy sciences do not include a distinct set of methods specific to its mode

Policy Sci

123


of inquiry. But this challenge does not limit the value of policy sciences concepts in

application. The very essence of the integrative, interdisciplinary approach is the re-

quirement to seek widely for any and all appropriate methods. The policy sciences

framework itself provides a guide to determine which methods will best fit the data needs

of the problem and its context.

Last is that the diverse conceptual, methodological, language, application, and educa-

tional issues create a real, yet diversionary, competition among them. The human tendency

to identify with specific areas of meaning (Kegan 1994) means that groups often form

around charismatic innovators and their ideas, resulting in divided loyalties that can evolve

into competition among concepts, groups, and people (Geary 2005). This makes it all the

more difficult to find shared interests and communicate across differences (Mezirow 2012).

Policy sciences as a framework

Among the many contemporary conceptions of interdisciplinarity and integration is the

policy sciences tradition (e.g., Lerner and Lasswell 1951; Muth et al. 1990; Brunner 1996;

Lasswell 1968, 1971b). The policy sciences is a meta-framework, a ‘‘comprehensive

theory for inquiry about the individual human being in social process… [that] could be

made sufficiently precise to facilitate performance of all the different intellectual tasks

necessary to the rational clarification and implementation of individual and community

policy’’ (Lasswell and McDougal 1992, p. xxix). It ‘‘consist[s] of a logically compre-

hensive set of mapping categories [for identifying and solving problems that] can help us

understand and resolve any policy problem’’ (Clark 2002, p. 9). This policy analytic

perspective can and does get lost in the vast, unorganized literature, the competition, and

messy discussion about integration and interdisciplinarity.

Foundation

Given the number, size, and diversity of problems that humanity faces, knowledge inte-

gration is essential to address what Biermann et al. (2004, p. iii) describe as the urgent need

to ‘‘transition to more sustainable paths for the human enterprise.’’ Integration requires a

framework—an explicit, systematic, and logically comprehensive structure. The policy

sciences embodies a set of principles and a kind of practice to achieve integration that

provides such a framework (Wiessner 2010; Dickinson 2007; Nagan 2013; Hohl and Clark

2010). Jantsch (1970) argues that the policy sciences as conceived by Lasswell (1971b) can

significantly help bring about genuine integration, the ‘‘linking… [of] systems levels and

coordinating activities at the lower level from the higher level.’’ Like many others, in-

cluding ourselves, Jantsch defines interdisciplinarity as ‘‘coordination by a higher-level

concept’’ (p. 410), a systematic, explicit framework of operations.

The policy sciences interdisciplinary framework offers an analytic, empirical approach,

a set of concepts, and a vocabulary to help people address problems. It serves as a stable

frame of reference to understand problems and devise and evaluate potential solutions. Its

variables constitute a logically complete set of ‘‘mapping’’ categories that can help re-

searchers and problem solvers to understand and resolve complex problems. The basic

operations are problem orientation, contextual mapping of social and decision processes,

the use of multiple methods, clarification of the standpoint of the user of the framework,

and elucidation of common interest goals (Fig. 1; Clark and Wallace 2012). Described by

Lasswell (1971a, b) and others, it has been widely applied to diverse subjects for more than

Policy Sci

123


seven decades. (A review of the history and application of policy sciences can be found in

Wallace and Clark 2014).

Overview

We introduce very briefly here the framework’s operations. Full descriptions are in

Lasswell (1971b), Lasswell and McDougal (1992), and Clark (2002, 2009).

1. Problem orientation: This is a method for determining and undertaking procedural

rationality in the selection and definition of a problem or other context and then the

performance of five interactive operations:

• Clarifying goals is the task of identifying people’s values. What are people trying

to accomplish with regard to the problem?

• Mapping trends is the task of examining the history of the problem. What has

happened to date relative to the problem?

• Identifying conditioning factors is the task of explaining why events have

happened. What factors have caused the observed trends?

• Making projections is the task of looking into the future. If nothing is done to

mitigate the trends, what is likely to happen in the future relative to the goal?

• Developing and evaluating alternatives is the practical task of designing and

assessing possible solutions. What can be done to mitigate the trends and achieve

the goals?

Fig. 1 A representation of the interdisciplinary framework showing the major researchable categories thatcharacterize human interaction with the environment (nature) and resources (see Lasswell 1970; Clark 2002)

Policy Sci

123


2. Social process: This operation requires examining the role of people in interaction

with each other, the environment, and institutions, as well as the outcomes and effects

of these interactions. Muth and Bolland (1983), after Lasswell (1970), succinctly listed

the categories of social process:

• Participants are the individuals, groups, organizations, or institutions that

participate in the social process. Who is participating? Who is excluded but

demanding to participate?

• Perspectives are their expectations, beliefs, demands, preferences, and interests.

What are the perspectives of those who are (and are not) participating?

• Situations are the places and times when they interact and the channels of

communication they use. In what situations are participants interacting? Is there a

better way?

• Base values are the resources or capabilities that they bring to the social process.

What assets or resources do participants use in their efforts to achieve their goals?

• Strategies are the techniques or methods they use to manage their base values.

What strategies do participants employ?

• Outcomes are the benefits that they attempt to achieve through their strategies.

What outcomes are achieved through people’s interactions?

• Effects are the long-term consequences of their actions or the implications of their

desired outcomes. Are new and improved ways of interacting and achieving

outcomes put in place (or not)?

3. Decision process: How we use resources and who gets to decide are determined

through the decision-making process with its interactive functions (see Lasswell 1970)

• Intelligence is the gathering, processing, and disseminating of information for

decision making, i.e., planning for decision making. Is intelligence being collected

and disseminated for all aspects of the problem?

• Promotion involves adding interpretation and dialogue to the dissemination of

information, selecting among options and demands, i.e., advocacy for decision

making. Which groups urge which courses of action?

• Prescription is the stabilizing of expectations through norms, setting rules, and

legislating. Will the new prescription harmonize rules by which the community

already operates, or will they conflict?

• Invocation is making the prescribed choice more concrete, i.e., implementing and

policing norms, rules, expectations. Is implementation consistent with

prescription?

• Application involves further adaptive implementation of the prescription, i.e.,

adjudication, evolution in response to circumstances. Will people with authority

and control resolve disputes?

• Appraisal is monitoring and evaluating decision making according to initial

objectives, implementing accountability for actions taken under previous func-

tions, i.e., assigning or taking responsibility for successes and failures. Who is

served by the program and who is not?

• Termination means canceling a prescription and dealing with the claims of those

who acted in good faith under it, i.e., establishing and implementing an ending to

the decision-making process. Who should stop or change the rules/program?

Policy Sci

123


4. Multiple methods: The policy sciences call for the application of intellectual rationality

to matters of both content and procedure inherent in any problem. In short, all helpful

methods are invited in by the policy sciences framework as it moves across the

interactive operations introduced above. These operations seek to mobilize any

method from any discipline or source that might be helpful for understanding and

addressing a problem, that is, any means to identify and bring pertinent knowledge to

bear. There is a wealth of methods across the disciplines, qualitative and quantitative,

available to the policy sciences, and many books on methods and reviews of methods

(usually discipline-specific) that can be used by policy scientists and tailored to

investigate problems. There are four major kinds of analytic methods—case studies,

prototyping (trial interventions as a basis for learning improvements), policy exercises

(e.g., modeling), and experiments (natural and controlled)—all of which are used in

the policy sciences.

5. Standpoint: Another necessary operation requires clarification of analysts’ standpoints,

that is, how researchers or problem solvers see themselves in relation to the problem or

context (well illustrated for policy scientists in Clark 2002 and Wallace and Clark

2014). Without standpoint clarification, subjectivities can unconsciously dominate.

Undertaking this task in actual problem-solving situations requires great self-

awareness, skill, and attention to empiricism (data). Some questions to guide inquiry

in this approach include: What problem-oriented tasks will I perform? What values

will I stand for and promote, and why? What methods, models, theories, and

frameworks will I use, and why?

6. Common interests: Last is the postulation of common interest goals, such as human

dignity, sustainability, and other higher-order goals (McDougal et al. 1980; Mattson

and Clark 2011). The importance of this dimension cannot be overstated. All problem-

solving efforts should be directed toward establishing a more sustainable, peaceful,

and socially just world, a world of healthy and productive environments, a biologically

rich world, with communities everywhere providing human dignity to their members.

This is the mission of the field of policy sciences, its professional association, and this

journal.

Criticisms

There are criticisms of the policy sciences. Auer (2006) explores and analyzes existing

critiques, finding a substantial degree of dogmatism and lack of depth in critics’ explo-

rations of policy sciences’ core literature and frameworks. Nevertheless, policy sciences

scholars and practitioners have been weak in their promotion of its methods, even when

they are well and empirically illustrated (see Wallace and Clark 2014 for a review of policy

sciences applications, including consideration of the shortcomings of poor promotion).

Some of the criticism derives from the policy sciences’ lack of reliance on standard

scientific methodological convention. For example, conventional science posits an ob-

jective researcher, but the policy sciences calls for standpoint clarification on the part of the

researcher to clarify biases and take them into account in undertaking policy analytic work.

As well, the policy sciences ‘‘aims at improved works of explanation, not ‘reductionism’’’

(Lasswell and McDougal 1992, p. 874).

As an interdisciplinary social science, the policy sciences’ ‘‘most important contribution

is not to prediction, but to freedom of choice… and the process of shaping and sharing

values…. Freedom of choice is implied in a sense that can be distinguished from the

Policy Sci

123


freedom that results from the scientific study of events out side the social process’’

(Lasswell and McDougal 1992, p. 875). Science is therefore meant as the free use of

intellectual experience, not a formula for positivism (Lasswell and Kaplan 1950). The

policy sciences do not aim to use only quantitative, mathematical, predictive models;

rather it uses perspectives and methods to identify and describe diverse conditioning

factors rooted in multiple perspectives. The policy sciences’ contributions to knowledge

typically come from applying existing theories to new contexts rather than creating new

theories, as the disciplines often seek (Lasswell and McDougal 1992).

Additionally, disciplinary scientists and some practitioners reject the policy sciences

because its interdisciplinary approach fails to include the language of their field or the

criteria of success in their specific disciplines; some ecologists reject it, for instance,

because explicit use of the term ‘‘scales’’ does not appear in the policy sciences framework

(e.g., Rogers 1995; Eulau 1968). In the end, criticisms of the policy sciences have come

less from claimed weaknesses of the foundational ideas of Lasswell and others, and more

from critics’ perceptions of the policy sciences as a threat to the established, traditional

order (Eulau 1968).

Educating about integration

Our educational goals for students are that they will (1) build competency in the rigorous

application of a problem-oriented, contextual framework (as introduced above), (2) equip

themselves with a practical interdisciplinary method to address actual problems as well as a

clear sense of their professional and civic roles, and (3) become problem-solving leaders in

sustainability efforts wherever they find themselves (see Wilkinson et al. 2007, p. 8).

When describing their own goals, however, many students claim that they want to fill in

the gaps in their knowledge by taking courses in specific methods or disciplines. They

seem to think that effective professional practice is largely a matter of garnering sub-

stantive knowledge about a range of subjects. In our experience, students often seek

knowledge and skills so that they can translate ‘‘science into solutions,’’ empower people,

become more strategic, and encourage change. They also envision themselves bringing

together coalitions of people to solve problems, and they hope to learn the skills necessary

to be successful. All of which overlaps with our goals, but at the same time leaves out

critical elements of integrated, interdisciplinarity, and effective professional and civic

practice. Disciplinary courses meet these conventional standards, but they fall far short in

developing integrated skills for real-world problem solving. As a basic tenet of interdis-

ciplinarity, disciplinary knowledge is necessary but far from sufficient for effective pro-

fessional practice. Integrative skills via interdisciplinary method are essential to

effectiveness in problem solving. The policy sciences framework above lays out functional

standards for procedural rationality, contextuality, and justification for effective profes-

sional practice, as well as standpoint awareness and a basis for judgments.

Our more specific teaching objectives are scientific, analytical, and professional. First,

we aim to help students develop scientific knowledge (in the broad sense) and the con-

ceptual and practical interdisciplinary tools needed to understand the management of

natural resources, people, and decision processes at all scales. Second, we seek to foster

critical thinking and analytic skills so that students can articulate and analyze the formula

or approach that is being used in any initiative, critique its theoretical and practical basis

and mode of application, and offer ways to improve it conceptually, organizationally, and

practically. Third, we encourage the development of students’ professional (and personal)

Policy Sci

123


skills, including the integration of scientific, management, and policy tasks that are

essential for becoming effective professionals. Overall, we want to see graduates enter the

professional arena able to orient themselves quickly to a given program or initiative, make

well-grounded assessments about the effectiveness of its approach and operation, and

contribute ideas and practices that will increase the program’s chances for success—

regardless of the disciplinary context in which they are working.

We teach interdisciplinarity in several forums, including formal college and university

courses, workshops, and field trips; individually with selected people; and through our own

applications. Each has its advantages, as we have previously noted (Clark and Wallace

2010, 2012; Wallace and Clark 2014). Competence in integrative and interdisciplinary

skills includes possessing sufficient relevant knowledge to be a ‘‘qualified participant,’’ but

using that knowledge requires attributes that include being functionally analytic, self-

aware, and cognizant of the goals, methods, and skills of integration. Such knowledge and

skills do not spontaneously arise in individuals, but come from societal and pedagogical

cultures that support interdisciplinary learning and teaching. Because of the disciplinary

(and therefore limited) design of most secondary and post-secondary education in the USA

and elsewhere, mentoring is required to help students move toward more sophisticated

positions of adult, intellectual, and moral development (Kloss 1994; Kegan 1994; Pallant

1997).

In attempting to meet these goals, we focus on the overriding goal of human dignity for

all individuals in healthy, sustainable environments. This means that we introduce the

concepts of shared, common, and special interests, and the relationships among them,

using the policy sciences framework. In pedagogical contexts, this approach helps students

to gain a ‘‘meta-perspective’’ and also the communicational competence required for

successful interdisciplinarity in real-world contexts. In the classroom, we try to create a

culture of mutual respect and open analytic inquiry that promotes the necessary conditions

for students to inhabit this comprehensive standpoint. As well, we help students address

key questions that will help them in their future thinking, research, and other courses, such

as how to be problem oriented and contextual. Finally, the vocabulary of the policy

sciences significantly helps students make important qualitative distinctions and place

word labels on them. Learning these distinctions and vocabulary greatly facilitates their

ability to be self-aware and reflective, to carry out useful analysis, and to communicate

with other people who may have diverse outlooks.

Based on our experience in higher education, we see at least three outstanding chal-

lenges to the widespread comprehension and use of integrative concepts and interdisci-

plinary frameworks. First, at the risk of oversimplifying, many students (as well as many

seasoned practitioners) believe that improving management and policy is a sequence of

mastering and applying disciplinary science, presenting ‘‘objective’’ scientific findings to

decision makers and the public, and trusting that policy will be improved as a consequence

(Burgess and Slonaker 1978; Brunner 1997a, b, c, 2006, 2007; Pielke 2007). In this

context, students see their basic educational task as acquiring disciplinary knowledge and

skills in, for example, communication, cost-benefit analysis, conflict resolution, GIS,

wildlife management, or other methods. They trust that a mix of these disciplines and

methods will provide them with a sufficient tool kit, and these views are encouraged by the

disciplinary-based approaches and professors that dominate higher education. This com-

plicates teaching of the policy sciences as an approach to interdisciplinarity. We urge

students to reflect on and revise their assumptions and expectations and to embrace in-

terdisciplinary and contextual approaches to problem solving; fortunately, students’ views

do change and develop (Kloss 1994). Some students steeped in integrative methods go on

Policy Sci

123


to apply their interdisciplinary skills in diverse situations all over the world (e.g., Gao and

Clark 2014).

Second, all our educational efforts are organized around the concept of shared and

common interests (Lasswell 1971b; Schon 1987; McCroskey and Einbinder 1998). We

stress that a common interest among people exists when values are widely shared and

supported by most people in a community. Common interests are at stake in nearly all

situations because people interact within social groupings—from the community level to

the national or even international level—and therefore have some interest in sustaining

their larger social groups. Those interests mean that they must take each other into account

as they live and interact with others. We emphasize that common interests begin with

individuals and emerge through social interactions. In other words, it takes two or more

people to have a common interest. Finding, securing, and sustaining common interests

among large groups concerning complex problems is difficult. The policy sciences, as this

journal’s half-century history demonstrates, is an attempt to ameliorate those difficulties.

The ultimate goal of the policy sciences is to sustain a commonwealth of human dignity

that rests on the foundation of a healthy social and physical environment (Mattson and

Clark 2011; Mattson et al. 2012). People often talk about sustaining things like forests,

oceans, air quality, or energy resources, which is vital, of course, but a much greater

challenge is sustaining human societies in ways that are healthy, nourishing, and demo-

cratic. Sustaining natural and social resources in ways that serve common interests is, we

contend, the goal of integrative, interdisciplinary analysis. Yet, not only are there many

different notions about how to do this, we have also encountered considerable resistance

among academics and students to this notion that the ‘‘commonwealth of human dignity’’

is or should be a central concern and aspiration. There seem to be three sources for much of

this resistance: affinities and identities for or with ‘‘nature’’ rather than people, beliefs in

the normative neutrality of academic inquiry, or relativist (critical theory) views of the

human condition. We contend that all of these stances are problematic for interdisciplinary

endeavors, which by their nature are goal-informed, problem-oriented, and therefore value-

driven. The policy sciences offer a way to understand these real dynamics and work with

them pragmatically.

Third, both professors and students face many obstacles to teaching and learning in-

tegration and interdisciplinarity because of the structure and political organization of most

colleges and universities (see, e.g., Sharachchandra and Norgaard 2005; Griffin 2006;

Chettiparamb 2007; Glied et al. 2007; Feller 2007; Parker 2010; Lattuca 2001). Institutions

of higher education and their adherence to disciplinary structures have created a highly

fragmented approach that is quite problematic and deeply entrenched. Consequently, de-

spite the calls for interdisciplinarity and the struggle to do integrative work, there is

actually limited capacity to do so in many institutions of higher education (Orr 1992, 1994;

Bowers 1997; Abbott 2001; Saylan and Blumstein 2011). Similar concerns have been

voiced about primary and secondary education (e.g., Smith 1992; Smith and Williams

1999).

There is a growing perception, in American higher education at least, that the labels

‘‘interdisciplinary’’ and ‘‘integrative’’ signify cutting edge innovations in pedagogy and

professional practice and confer advantage in seeking funding and supporters (Frank 1988).

Using these terms allows some scholars and programs to promote themselves, while

staying loyal to their disciplinary outlooks and means and maintaining the status quo. This

over-inflation or misrepresentation in higher education occurs for several reasons. First, it

is a valuable marketing device to signal that a department or program is a modern, state-of-

the-art leader in developing capacity and practices. Second, it is easy in that disciplinary

Policy Sci

123


experts and others do not have to change what they know or what they do. They are not

obligated to leave the familiar territory of their disciplines or look beyond their often rather

narrow areas of training. Third, such repackaging often restricts increasing demands for

deeper discussion and genuine forms of integration via interdisciplinarity in education and

research. Cognitive psychology shows that convincing oneself and others that one is doing

‘‘best practices’’ is a proven means to reduce the demands to actually do it (Kahneman

2011), or another form of restriction by ‘‘partial incorporation’’ (Lasswell 1971b). It is our

direct experience that these psychological factors are at play in some colleges and uni-

versities, functioning to maintain the status quo and thereby restrict or retard discussion,

development, and adoption of interdisciplinarity.

Our efforts to be clear about integration as a concept and to offer a serviceable inter-

disciplinary approach that is both teachable and learnable is central to our individual and

collective efforts. In working to help students understand and master skills, we appreciate

our students’ different levels of intellectual and moral development and work with them as

individuals in a process of educational transformation (King 2009; King and Kitchener

1994; Kegan 1994).

Conclusions

We derive three main conclusions from our enquiry. First, integration is a concept that has

received major, focused attention in the social sciences for decades. However, it has

repeatedly encountered major barriers in the disciplinary structure and hegemony of higher

education—especially in the USA—that have blocked necessary deep discussion, clarity

and refinement of concept and method, and wide application, despite the clear efficacy of

integration in almost all problem-oriented contexts. This conclusion is consistent with the

many diverse and unconnected discussions about sustainability and interdisciplinarity that

continue to occur in the discourses of environmental studies and sciences. In short, nearly

150 years after its first appearance and more than 75 years after the introduction of current

language and concepts, there remains no consensus on the concept or how to apply it in

practice. This is a substantial barrier to overcome.

Second, knowledge is a primary resource that is currently poorly conceptualized, or-

ganized, classified, produced, and used to address problems effectively. A sound, practical

concept of integration could help address these problems. People are skilled at obtaining

certain kinds of new knowledge, but not particularly successful at integrating or using

them. A classification of knowledge exists that can help in the practical communication

and education about integration via interdisciplinarity. The deeply rooted disciplines in

academia are part of the foundation of—that is, one step in—a more helpful classification

of knowledge toward the goal of effective integration in education, research, and

application.

Third, as operationally defined in this paper, integration provides a configurative out-

look and tools to address complex social and environmental problems, as well as profes-

sional problems of enquiry, organizing, communicating work, and being effective. The

policy sciences offers useful conceptions of integration and a serviceable guide for in-

terdisciplinary work to help academics and practitioners develop integrative strategies in

the face of increasingly complex problems of our times. Yet many people are unaware of

this conception of integration and its applications.

The nature of the environmental and social problems that humankind currently faces,

their extent, foreseeable consequences, and rapid growth require that we reengage in a

Policy Sci

123


discussion about integration, interdisciplinarity, and pedagogy. We need widely shared,

integrative approaches that are pragmatic and can be diffused through education in the

academy and beyond. Being realists, we do not expect this kind of shared outlook and

practice to come to prominence anywhere in the world any time soon. Nevertheless, our

future may well depend on our collective abilities to deploy these concepts and tools of

integration to better effect than was possible in the last century, and to do so quickly.

Acknowledgments We want to thank our many students, colleagues, and co-workers on diverse projectsover the last 40? years, as well as administrators and our home institutions for their support that has takenvarious forms. Clark wants to specifically thank the Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative. DeniseCasey and three anonymous colleagues reviewed the manuscript.

References

Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Anderies, J. M., Folke, C., Walker, B., & Ostrom, E. (2013). Aligning key concepts for global change

policy: Robustness, resilience, and sustainability. Ecology and Society, 18(2), 8.Apostel, L., & Vanlandschoot, J. (1994). Interdisciplinarity: The construction of worldviews and the dis-

semination of scientific results. Issues in Integrative Studies, 12, 9–22.Arnspiger, C. V. (1959). Personality in social process: Values and strategies of individuals in a free society.

Chicago: Follett.Ascher, W., & Hirschfelder-Ascher, B. (2005). Revitalizing political psychology: The legacy of Harold D.

Lasswell. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Ash, N., Banco, H., Brown, C., Garcia, K., et al. (2010). Ecosystems and human well-being: A manual for

assessment practitioners. Washington: Island Press.Auer, M. R. (2006). The policy sciences in critical perspective. In J. Rabin, G. J. Miller, & W. B. Hildreth

(Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 541–562). London: Taylor & Francis.Bammer, G. (2005). Integration and implementation sciences: Building a new specialization. Ecology and

Society 10, 6. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art6/.Ban, N. C., et al. (2013). A socio-ecological approach to conservation planning: Embedding social con-

siderations. Ecology and Environment, 11(4), 194–202.Barnosky, A. D., Hadly, E. A., Bascompte, J., Berlow, E. L., et al. (2012). Approaching a state shift in

Earth’s biosphere. Nature, 486, 52–58.Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2003). Navigating socio-ecological systems: Building resilience

for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Biermann, F., Campe, S., & Jacob, K. (Eds.). (2004). Proceedings of the 2002 Berlin conference on the

human dimensions of global environmental change—knowledge for the sustainability transition. Thechallenge for social science. Amsterdam, Berlin, Potsdam and Oldenburg: Global Governance Project.

Bohm, D., & Peat, F. D. (1987). Science, order, and creativity. New York: Bantam Books.Bowers, C. A. (1997). The culture of denial: Why the environmental movement needs a strategy for

reforming universities and public schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.Brown, A. (1984). Forward. In D. H. Kerr (Ed.), Barriers to integrity: Modern modes of knowledge

utilization (pp. ix–xi). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Brown, V. A. (2004). The more we are together…. Australian Planner, 41, 42–45.Brown, S. R. (2006). A match made in heaven: A marginalized methodology for studying the marginalized.

Quality & Quantity, 40, 361–382.Brown, V. A. (2010). Collective inquiry and its wicked problems. In V. A. Brown, J. A. Harris, & J.

Y. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems: Through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp. 61–81).London: Earthscan.

Brunner, R. D. (1996). A milestone in the policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 29, 45–68.Brunner, R. D. (1997a). Raising standards: A prototyping strategy for undergraduate education. Policy

Sciences, 30, 167–189.Brunner, R. D. (1997b). Introduction to the policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 30, 191–215.Brunner, R. D. (1997c). Book review of ‘‘Barriers and bridges to renewable of ecosystems and institutions’’.

Journal of Wildlife Management, 61, 1437–1439.Brunner, R. D. (2006). A paradigm for practice. Policy Sciences, 39, 135–167.

Policy Sci

123


http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art6/

Brunner, R. D. (2007). The world revolution of our time: A review and update. Policy Sciences, 40,191–219.

Burgess, P. M., & Slonaker, L. L. (1978). The decision seminar: A strategy for problem-solving. MerschonCenter, Paper No. 1. Columbus: Ohio State University.

Cardinale, J., et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486, 59–67.Chapin, F. S, III, Kofinas, G. P., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2009). Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Re-

silience-based natural resource management in a changing world. New York: Springer.Chapin, F. S., III, Mark, A. F., Mitchell, R. A., & Dickinson, K. J. M. (2012). Design principles for social-

ecological transformation toward sustainability: Lessons from New Zealand Sense of Place. Ecosphere3(5): art40. doi:10.1890/ES12-00009.1.

Charlesworth, J. C. (Ed.). (1972). Integration of the social sciences through policy analysis. Monograph 14.Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science.

Chettiparamb, A. (2007). Interdisciplinarity: A literature review. Cardiff: Higher Education Academy,Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Group, Cardiff University.

Clark, S. G. (2002). The policy process: A practical guide for natural resource professionals. New Haven:Yale University Press.

Clark, S. G. (2009). An informational approach to sustainability: ‘‘Intelligence’’ in conservation and naturalresource management policy. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 28, 363–662.

Clark, S. G., Rutherford, M. B., Auer, M. R., Cherney, D. N., Wallace, R. L., Mattson, D. J., et al. (2011a).College and university environmental programs as a policy problem (part 1): Integrating knowledge,education, and action for a better world? Environmental Management, 47(5), 701–715.

Clark, S. G., Rutherford, M. B., Auer, M. R., Cherney, D. N., Wallace, R. L., Mattson, D. J., et al. (2011b).College and university environmental programs as a policy problem (part 2): Strategies for im-provement. Environmental Management, 47, 716–726.

Clark, S. G., & Wallace, R. L. (2010). Learning interdisciplinary problem solving and leadership skills: Acomparison of four designs. Report No. 24, 171–208. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies.

Clark, S. G., & Wallace, R. L. (2012). Interdisciplinary environmental leadership: Learning and teachingintegrated problem solving. In D. R. Gallagher (Ed.), Environmental leadership: A reference handbook(pp. 420–429). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Connole, R. J. (1937). A study of the concept of integration in present-day curriculum making. Ph.D. thesis.Washington: Catholic University of America.

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., &Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global EnvironmentalChange, 26, 152–158.

Das, A. K. (1998). Fankle and the realm of meaning. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development,36, 199–211.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Davies, M., & Devlin, M. (2007). Interdisciplinary higher education: Implications for teaching and

learning. Melbourne: University of Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education.DeFries, R. S., Ellis, E. C., Chapin, F. S., III, Matson, P. A., Turner, B. L., II, Agrawal, A., et al. (2012).

Planetary opportunities: A social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainablefuture. BioScience, 62, 603–606.

Diamond, J. M. (2005). Collapse: How society chooses to fail or succeed. New York: Viking.Dickinson, L. A. (2007). Toward a ‘‘new’’ New Haven School of international law? Yale Journal of

International Law, 32, 547–552.Dovers, S. (2005). Clarifying the imperative of integration research for sustainable environmental man-

agement. Journal of Research Practice, 1, 1–19.Eagleton, T. (2007). The meaning of life: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Easton, D. (1950). Harold Lasswell: Policy scientist for a democratic society. The Journal of Politics,

12(03), 450–477.Eulau, H. (1958). H.D. Lasswell’s developmental analysis. The Western Political Quarterly, 229–242.Eulau, H. (1968). The behavioral movement in political science: Personal document. Social Research, 35,

1–2.Farr, J., Hacker, J. S., & Kazee, N. (2006). The policy scientist of democracy: The discipline of Harold D.

Lasswell. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 579–587.Feller, I. (2007). Interdisciplinarity: Paths taken and not taken. Change, Nov/Dec, 46–51.Ferguson, N. (2011). Civilization: The West and the rest. New York: Penguin Press.Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Policy Sci

123


http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00009.1

Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things: An archeology of the human sciences. New York: Vantage Books.Frank, R. (1988). ‘‘Interdisciplinarity:’’ The first half-century. Items, 40, 73–78.Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., Mitchum, C., & Holbrook, J. B. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of

interdisciplinarity. New York: Oxford University Press.Fuller, S. (2010). Deviant interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisci-

plinarity (pp. 50–64). New York: Oxford University Press.Game, E. T., Meijaard, E., & McDonald-Madden, E. (2013). Conservation in a wicked complex world:

Challenges and solutions. Conservation Letters, 2013, 1–7.Gao, Y., & Clark, S. G. (2014). Elephant ivory trade in China: Trends and drivers. Biological Conservation,

180, 23–30.Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general Intelligence. Wash-

ington: The American Psychological Association.Glied, S., Bakken, S., Formicola, A., Gebbie, K., & Lason, E. L. (2007). Institutional challenges of inter-

disciplinary research centres. Journal of Research Administration, 38(2), 28–36.Griffin, G. (2006). Interdisciplinarity in interdisciplinary research programmes in the UK. www.hull.ac.uk/

researchintegration.Gumport, P. J., & Snydman, S. K. (2002). The formal organization of knowledge: An analysis of academic

structure. Journal of Higher Education, 73(3), 375–408.Gunderson, L. L. H., Holling, C. S., & Light, S. S. (Eds.). (1995). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of

ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.Hockstra, A. Y., & Wiedmann, T. O. (2014). Humanity’s unsustainable environmental footprint. Science,

344(6188), 1114–1117.Hohl, A., & Clark, S. G. (2010). Best practices: The concept, an assessment, and recommendations. Report,

24, 151–170. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems.

Ecosystems, 4, 390–405.Hopkins, L. T. (1937). Integration: Its meaning and application. New York: D. Appleton-Century.Jantsch, E. (1970). Inter- and transdisciplinary university: A systems approach to education and innovation.

Policy Sciences, 1, 403–423.Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself

and your organization. Boston: Harvard Business Review.Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups in

negotiating their social environment. American Review of Psychology, 57, 1–26.King, P. M. (2009). Principles of development and developmental change underlying theories of cognitive

and moral development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 97–620.King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Char-

lottesville: University of Virginia Press.Klein, J. T. (2005). Humanities, culture, and interdisciplinarity: The changing American academy. Albany:

State University of New York Press.Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of

interdisciplinarity (pp. 16–30). New York: Oxford University Press.Kloss, R. J. (1994). A nudge is best helping students through the Perry scheme of intellectual development.

College Teaching, 42(4), 151–164.Krohn, W. (2010). Interdisciplinary case and disciplinary knowledge. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford

handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 31–49). New York: Oxford University Press.Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Lasswell, H. D. (1968). Policy sciences. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 12, 181–189.Lasswell, H. D. (1970). The emerging conception of the policy sciences. Policy Sciences, 1, 3–14.Lasswell, H. D. (1971a). From fragmentation to configuration. Policy Sciences, 2, 439–446.Lasswell, H. D. (1971b). A pre-view of policy sciences. New York: American Elsevier.Lasswell, H. D., & Kaplan, A. (1950). Power and society: A framework for political inquiry. New Haven:

Yale University Press.Lasswell, H. D., & McDougal, M. S. (1943). Legal education and public policy: Professional training in the

public interest. Yale Law Journal, 52, 203–295.Lasswell, H. D., & McDougal, M. S. (1992). Jurisprudence for a free society: Studies in law, science, and

policy. New Haven: New Haven Press.

Policy Sci

123


http://www.hull.ac.uk/researchintegration

http://www.hull.ac.uk/researchintegration

Latour, B. (2004). The politics of nature: How to bring the sciences back into democracy. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Considering interdisciplinarity. In L. R. Lattuca (Ed.), Creating interdisciplinarity:Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty (pp. 1–22). Nashville:Vanderbilt University Press.

Lerner, D., & Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method.Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems:Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152.

Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving.New Haven: Yale University Press.

Mandelbaum, M. (2011). The ideas that conquered the world: Peace, democracy, and free markets in thetwenty-first century. New York: Public Affairs.

Maniates, M. (2013). Teaching for turbulence. In State of the world 2013: Is sustainability still possible?E. Assadourian & T. Prugh, project directors (pp. 255–268). Washington: Island Press.

Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (2012). It’s even worse than it looks. New York: Basic Books.Mansilla, V. B. (2010). Learning to synthesize: The development of interdisciplinarity understanding. In R.

Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 288–306). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Mattson, D. J., & Clark, S. G. (2011). Human dignity in concept and practice. Policy Sciences, 44, 303–320.Mattson, D. J., Karl, H., & Clark, S. G. (2012). Values in natural resource management and policy. In H. Karl, et al.

(Eds.), Restoring lands—Coordinating science, politics and action (pp. 239–260). New York: Springer.McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model of personality and its

application. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.McCroskey, J., & Einbinder, S. D. (Eds.). (1998). Universities and communities: Remaking professional and

interprofessional education for the next century. Westport, CT: Praeger.McDougal, M. S. (1971). Legal basis for securing the integrity of the earth-space environment. Annals New

York Academy of Sciences, 184(1), 375–395.McDougal, M. S., Lasswell, H. D., & Chen, L. (1980). Human rights and world public order: Basic policies

of an international law of human dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press.Mezirow, J. (2012). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformative theory. In E. W. Taylor,

P. Cranton, & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of transformative learning: Theory, research, andpractice (pp. 73–115). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, R. C. (1982). Varieties of interdisciplinary approaches in the social sciences. Issues in IntegrativeStudies, 1, 1–37.

Morris, I. (2010). Why the west rules—for now. New York: Picador, Farrar, Straus and Giroux Publishers.Mulkay, M. (1979). Science and the sociology of knowledge. London: George Allen & Unwin.Muth, R., & Bolland, J. M. (1983). Social context: A key to effective problem-solving. Planning and

Change, 14, 214–225.Muth, R., Finley, M. M., & Muth, M. F. (Eds.). (1990). Harold D. Lasswell: An annotated bibliography.

New York: Springer.Nagan, W. P. (2013). Contextual-configurative jurisprudence: The law, science and polices of human

dignity. Lake Mary, FL: Vandeplas Publishing.National Research Council. (1999). Our common journey: A transition toward sustainability. Washington:

The National Academies Press.National Research Council of the National Academies. (2011). Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. Wash-

ington: The National Academies Press.Ogden, L., et al. (2013). Global assemblages, resilience, and Earth stewardship in the Anthropocene.

Ecology and Environment, 11(7), 341–347.Orlov, D. (2013). The five stages of collapse. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and transition to a postmodern world. Albany: State

University of New York Press.Orr, D. W. (1994). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington: Island

Press.Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies

Organization, 39, 7–25.Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: A multitiered diagnostic approach for social-

ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37, 455–463.Pallant, E. (1997). Assessment and evaluation of environmental problems: Teaching students to think for

themselves. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(3), 167–171.

Policy Sci

123


Palmer, M. A. (2012). Socioenvironmental sustainability and actionable science. BioScience, 62(1), 5–6.Parker, J. (2010). Competencies for interdisciplinarity in higher education. International Journal of Sus-

tainability, 11, 325–338.Parsons, W. (1995). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. Chel-

tenham: Edward Elgar.Petrie, H. G. (1976). Do you see what I see? The epistemology of interdisciplinary inquiry. Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 10(1), 29–43.Piaget, J. (1972). The epistemology of interdisciplinary relationships. In L. Apostel, G. Berger, A. Briggs, &

G. Michaud (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research in universities (pp.127–140). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Pielke, R. A, Jr. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Reisman, W. M. (2008). Development and nation-building: A framework for policy-oriented inquiry. MaineLaw Review, 62, 310–315.

Rentfrow, P. J., Jost, J. T., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). A theory of the emergence, persistence, and expressionof geographic variation in psychological characteristics. Perspective on Psychological Science, 3,339–369.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Simon and Schuster.Russell, J. Y. (2006). Human ecology: A proposal for an open and critical transdisciplinary inquiry. PhD

thesis. Canberra: Australian National University.Russell, J. Y. (2010). A philosophical framework for an open and critical transdisciplinary inquiry. In V.

Brown, et al. (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems: Through the transdisciplinary imagination (pp.31–60). London: Earthscan.

Sarewitz, D. (2010). Against holism. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp.65–75). New York: Oxford University Press.

Saylan, C., & Blumstein, D. T. (2011). The failure of environmental education. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Schmidt, J. C. (2011). What is a problem? On problem-orientd interdisciplinarity. Poiessi Prax, 7, 249–274.Schon, D. A. (1987). Implications for improving professional education. In Educating the reflective prac-

titioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions (pp. 303–326). SanFrancisco: Jossey Bass.

Sharachchandra, L., & Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience, 55, 967–975.Simon, H. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Smith, G. A. (1992). Education and the environment: Learning to live within limits. Albany: State

University of New York Press.Smith, G. A., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture, and

the environment. Albany: State University of New York Press.Tainter, J. A. (2006). Social complexity and sustainability. Ecological Complexity, 3, 91–103.Taylor, P. C., & Medina, M. N. D. (2013). Educational research paradigms: From positivism to multi-

paradigmatic. Journal of Meaning-Centered Education, 1, 1–10.Trompf, G. W. (2011). The classification of the sciences and the quest for interdisciplinarity: A brief history

of ideas from ancient philosophy to contemporary environmental science. Environmental Conserva-tion, 38, 113–128.

UNCSD (United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development). (2007). Indicators of sustainabledevelopment: Guidelines and methodologies (3rd ed.). New York: United Nations.

Walker, J., & Cooper, M. (2011). Genealogies of resilience: From systems ecology to the political economyof crisis adaptation. Security Dialogue, 42, 143. doi:10.1177/096701611399616.

Wallace, R. L., & Clark, S. G. (2014). Convergent evolution in the interest of integrative problem solving:Connecting the policy sciences and interdisciplinary studies. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, 32,134–169.

Weingart, P. (2010). A short history of knowledge formations. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford handbookof interdisciplinarity (pp. 3–14). New York: Oxford University Press.

Weston, B. H. (2008). Human rights and nation-building in cross-cultural settings. Maine Law Review, 62,318–346.

Wiessner, S. (2010). The New Haven School of Jurisprudence: A universal tool kit for understanding andshaping law. Asia Pacific Law Review, 18(1), 45–61.

Wilkinson, K. M., Clark, S. G., & Burch, W. R. (2007). Other voices, other ways, better practices: Bridginglocal and professional environmental knowledge. Report 14. New Haven: Yale School of Forestry andEnvironmental Studies.

Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

Policy Sci

123


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/096701611399616

Integration and interdisciplinarity: concepts, frameworks, and education

Documents

Transcript of Integration and interdisciplinarity: concepts, frameworks, and education