We’ve got you covered!
The “Center for the Promotion of Interdisciplinary Education and Research” promotes interdisciplinary teaching and research projects in order to make use of Kyoto University’s potential as a large university. There, groups that engage in interdisciplinary education or research are called “units,” of which there are currently thirty-four (as of January 2019). The center also has a variety of projects that encourage people to go beyond the confines of individual fields: networking events (held monthly) and the “Kyoto University Interdisciplinary Research Idea Contest.” We talked to Professor Miyano, a full-time faculty member at the center.
Interdisciplinary Research: Promoted Because It Became Difficult
Interdisciplinary research (gakusai kenkyū in Japanese) refers to research that spans multiple academic fields. However, it seems undergraduates and master’s students aren’t familiar with this term, as well as that it’s basically not used outside of universities. However, when scholars begin collecting information for research funding applications and the like, they realize that it’s being used very frequently right now. What are your thoughts about this situation?
Miyano: First, I think that the current situation, in which people make a big fuss about the importance of interdisciplinary research, is strange if one considers what academic study is supposed to be like. I think that the things scholars really want to do, really want to know, do not fall neatly under one field. Regardless of one’s area of expertise, by delving deeply into its core, one will without fail encounter other fields. For example, research that tries to make clear the nature of matter ultimately arrives at superstring theory. However, this is a theory, not matter itself. Despite having thought about the nature of matter, as a result, one arrives at a theory, in other words, laws. This is what I’m talking about. This is when philosophy makes its appearance. In this way, as a scholar delves deeper into their “big question,” a single field or method ceases to be adequate. While this is an extreme example, even if we look at ordinary issues like those related to the environment, it goes without saying that technological, economic, and other perspectives are needed to solve them.
When one gets down to it, if a scholar is faithful to their original big question, then things like fields and interdisciplinarity don’t matter. If you think a bit about “specializations,” then you realize that they don’t really exist. They’re entirely political and institutional labels. Being attached to one field is the complete opposite of getting to the essence of something. The mistaken view that a specialization is a fixed thing is one of the causes of issues in a variety of academic circles today. One’s specialization is something to be broken, not defended. Soseki Natsumei, Henri Bergson, and many other greats have said this. Distinctions like “sciences” and “humanities” are just for convenience.
Why do people still use the term “interdisciplinary,” despite fields’ indeterminate nature being an inherent characteristic of research and academic study?
Miyano: It’s because the number of academic fields rapidly increased based on the view that the establishment of new fields is equivalent to progress in research, and the harm of this has recently become apparent. I think that there are three reasons that academic fields have increased.
One is an emphasis on specialization. The more precisely one tries to explain something, the narrower the environmental conditions become. For example, if one tries to compare the happiness of Americans and Japanese, the conversation turns to questions like, What kind of Japanese people? People living in cities? Is the happiness of people living in cities and those in the countryside different? Does it differ depending on the generation in which someone was born? In other words, if one tries to precisely make some claim, the conditions grow narrower, and, as a result, the number of fields increases along with the number of conditions.
Second is the emphasis on academic articles. One needs to write new things in an academic article, right? In reality this is also kind of strange, and it was not the case in the past. While I’ve heard that this has made somewhat of a return recently, in the past in journals there were many articles written in response to other articles, and people thought that their field’s research was something to be cultivated as a community. However, it’s different now. One doesn’t find everyone sharing their opinion about a phenomenon or problem. Everyone just wants to publish their own article. As a result, proposing something new is seen as desirable, and the number of narrow fields rapidly increases.
The third is relativism. Today people think that it’s better to be the “only one” as opposed to “number one,” and adopt an attitude of not paying mind to the affairs of other. This further promotes an emphasis on specialization and academic articles.
Overcoming Barriers to Interdisciplinary Research
How can these three factors that get in the way of engaging in academic research as it should be done—in an interdisciplinary fashion—be overcome?
Miyano: I think that the only thing one can do is, as I mentioned previously, take another look at one’s original big question, and work through it truthfully and faithfully. It’s remembering why one decided to be a scholar in the first place. Instead of doing research that can be easily made into an academic article, it’s doing what one wants to know, what one wants to get to the bottom of. I think that this is all.
It seems like it would be difficult for young scholars to fight against the situation they find themselves in—having to find a post and write articles in order to do so.
Miyano: Rather than fighting, it’s about being faithful to one’s own original big question. What’s the point of spending one’s career as a scholar—at most a few dozen years—doing what one doesn’t want to do? What does one want to gain by doing so? What is the reason for this life as a scholar? Of course, being able to put food on the table is important. But what is it that one eats for? If scholars are not like this, while they might be able to create some trends, they cannot create history. I think that the endeavor of questioning accepted knowledge requires this much resolve, and that Kyoto University is exactly the kind of place that can tell everyone that they should not become a so-called “salaryman” researcher.
Then, how should you be faithful to your “big question”? While I don’t have the answer, I think that the only option is each person gradually becoming aware and, with courage, changing. Conversely, if one is going to go for it by writing a lot of articles, then I think one should just prepare oneself for what’s to come and work hard without complaining. Being double-tongued—arguing that it’s strange that research ability is equated with the number of articles one has written while working as hard as one can to write articles—is lying to oneself and will not improve academia as a whole. Also, I think that in less than ten years the ability to write articles will no longer be a scholar’s primary benchmark for evaluation. It’s self-evident to both those at universities and those in the government’s bureaucracy that things don’t go well with this kind of yardstick. I think that the era is over of everything taking care of itself as long as one writes articles.
Collaboration Between and Fusion of Different Fields
In your writing you clearly distinguish between collaboration between different fields (ibun’ya renkei) and the fusing of different fields (ibun’ya yūgō). Could you explain this?
Miyano: While they are completely different things, right now they’re all being mixed up under the heading of “interdisciplinary research.” Collaboration refers to multiple fields trying within their respective domains to reach a shared goal. It’s kind of like team-building. When the project is over people go their separate ways. The “fusing” of different fields refers, on the other hand, to the internal growth of individuals, so to speak. To engage in dialogues with other fields is to encounter views of research and the world that are different from one’s own. Realizing, oh, right, there’s also that way of seeing it, that way of looking at it—this will liberate one from the captivity of one’s own field, and at the same time lead one to reconstruct one’s view of it. Therefore, we could say that the fusion of different fields refers to the maturation and growth of scholars.
Often times, even if unintentionally, large-scale research projects requiring interdisciplinary research (such as JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S) Research Projects) end up being collaboration between different fields. Is it difficult to fuse different fields in team-based joint research projects?
Miyano: There are cases in which the fusion of fields occurs through the building of teams, and I’m also not saying that “collaboration” between different fields is bad. Even while staying within the area in which one is an expert, one can try to find out about the other fields with which one is engaging in joint research. However one must be self-aware: What are we doing with regard to what? What have we ended up doing?
(Interviewer: Asa Nakano)