Interdisciplinarity and the Prospect of Complexity Interdisciplinarity and the Prospect of Complexity : The Tests of Theory

William Newell’s theory of interdisciplinary studies is a timely proposal since complexity is a keyword in contemporary descriptions of interdisciplinarity. Like any other theory, it is subject to a series of questions: (1) Is the theory generalizable, and is it reductive? (2) What relationship does it have to prior theories? (3) Does the theory drive practice, or vice versa? and (4) Is it fruitful? A weighing of these and related questions indicates that complex systems theory has heuristic value for conceptualizing interdisciplinary tasks and affirms crucial elements in the integrative process. However, the technical restrictions cannot account for all phenomena that constitute interdisciplinarity, and the relationship to other theories needs to be assessed. ILLIAM NEWELL’S THEORY OF INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES is a timely proposal. Complexity is a keyword in contemporary discussions of interdisciplinarity, though the link was apparent in the earliest influential theories. In 1972, Erich Jantsch called for a new approach to education and innovation capable of fostering judgment in “complex and dynamically changing situations” (p. 102). Over time, complexity became a widely cited reason for interdisciplinary practice in a remarkable range of contexts, from literary studies, physics, and biology to education, public policy, and environmental studies. The starting point varied—the knowledge explosion, cultural diversity, social and technological problems, or multi-faceted concepts such as the “body,” the “mind,” or “life.” The underlying premise was the same, though. The complexity of knowledge and society necessitates an interdisciplinary approach. Newell’s proposal would be welcome if for no other purpose than providing an explanation of complexity for those engaged in interdisciplinary work. ISSUES IN INTEGRATIVE STUDIES No. 19, pp. 43-57 (2001)