news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

text | chen hongjie (professor, school of education, peking university)

at present, in domestic universities, discipline construction has become a frequently used vocabulary. university leaders usually regard subject construction as the leader, thinking about and implementing various tasks in the school.

in this context, we often hear the saying that disciplines are the basis for talent training, scientific research, social services and cultural innovation. discipline construction is the foundation and development of universities, and is also the core competition of universities. the concentrated expression of strength. under the guidance of this concept, university and department leaders have regarded discipline construction as the top priority of running a school, and the creation of first-class and high-level disciplines as the core goal.

the contradiction between discipline construction and interdisciplinary development

taking discipline construction as the core means that resource allocation, team building, talent training, scientific research and other matters are all based on disciplines. the discipline has thus become the starting point and end point of all work. we might as well call this subject-centered work idea "disciplinary thinking."

according to this kind of disciplinary thinking, disciplines have boundaries, and the boundaries of disciplines are the basis of all discipline construction work. regardless of talent training or scientific research, anything that is conducive to the construction of the discipline is worth pursuing; on the contrary, anything that is not conducive to the development of the discipline , should be avoided or opposed.

under such disciplinary thinking, various disciplines often adopt two approaches, one is to "make a platter", and the other is to "draw boundaries."

the so-called "making a platter" means to incorporate as much as possible all the resources and results that can be classified into this discipline into the discipline, forming a (seemingly) strong discipline. the so-called "drawing boundaries" means clarifying the boundaries between this discipline and other disciplines, and preventing the flow of fertilizer and water into the fields of outsiders, so as to ensure that my resources can be used to the maximum extent. especially in terms of talent training and statistics of scientific research results, it is even more important to compare every penny and distinguish between you and me.

however, at the same time, the development of universities also faces another major issue, namely interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary. whether looking at international and domestic scientific development trends or government policies, interdisciplinary scientific research and talent training have become top priorities for the development of universities. relevant departments have repeatedly emphasized that it is necessary to promote interdisciplinary integration, layout interdisciplinary majors, and cultivate discipline growth points; it is necessary to break the barriers of disciplines and majors, deepen interdisciplinary integration, innovate the discipline organization model, and reform the talent training model.

the two expectations of subject construction and interdisciplinary interdisciplinary development seem to be somewhat contradictory. on the one hand, it emphasizes the importance of subjects, on the other hand, it weakens the importance of subjects. emphasizing disciplines means, of course, strengthening the boundaries of disciplines; while weakening disciplines means downplaying the boundaries of disciplines. there is obviously a dilemma in this. from a practical perspective, universities usually engage in discipline construction in a down-to-earth manner, and only do a few interdisciplinary things in a superficial way.

in the author's opinion, this kind of countermeasures taken by universities is reasonable, because the university system is ultimately based on disciplinary thinking. "discipline-based" is not an empty phrase, but has a profound institutional foundation. how easy is it to truly break through disciplinary thinking and downplay disciplinary boundaries?

disciplinary thinking is difficult to promote interdisciplinarity

in fact, universities usually have a very practical approach - in the face of strong disciplinary thinking, although they cannot weaken disciplines or truly promote "interdisciplinary", they can engage in "interdisciplinary" with great fanfare.

the so-called interdisciplinary disciplines are new disciplines based on the intersection of disciplines. targeting interdisciplinary subjects not only conforms to the policy direction, but does not impact the original disciplinary thinking. in other words, here, interdisciplinary and disciplinary thinking are not contradictory, but are nothing more than establishing interdisciplinary interdisciplinary approaches based on disciplinary thinking.

to put it more bluntly, an interdisciplinary subject is interdisciplinary in terms of content, but from an institutional point of view, it is actually still a discipline, but a subject with interdisciplinary science as its content. from an institutional perspective, this discipline is no different from traditional disciplines. therefore, this kind of interdisciplinarity does not conflict with disciplinary thinking. in fact, it is to use disciplinary thinking to promote interdisciplinary interdisciplinary and incorporate interdisciplinary interdisciplinary into the framework of disciplinary thinking.

the reason why universities do this is because this approach is tacitly approved by some policies. in fact, in some relevant policies, disciplinary thinking itself is deeply rooted, and some interdisciplinary problems are also solved with disciplinary thinking. the addition of new interdisciplinary categories in the subject catalog is an obvious example.

the starting point for establishing interdisciplinary categories is undoubtedly correct, as it aims to promote interdisciplinary studies. however, the means to promote interdisciplinary thinking are based on traditional disciplinary thinking. as a result, there is a high probability that the newly created interdisciplinary disciplines will eventually fall into the mold of traditional disciplines and lose the original appeal of the interdisciplinary disciplines.

interdisciplinarity is originally a dynamic process. if an interdisciplinary subject is incorporated into a relatively solid disciplinary framework, it will inevitably become like other disciplines and cannot escape the limitations of other disciplines. it will create disciplinary barriers and lose progress. the initial impetus for interdisciplinarity.

need to explore new subject systems

it should be pointed out that the reason why we are subject-oriented is because in the current relevant system, disciplines are not only the classification framework of knowledge, but also an integral part of the higher education management system. they are the basis for the allocation of relevant resources and power, and are also the impact on higher education is more important.

there are of course cognitive reasons for the barriers between disciplines, but the more important ones are institutional reasons. in our discipline-centered system, any measures that attempt to weaken the discipline system are destined to be difficult to implement, and reforms that are beneficial to the discipline system will of course be recognized by the system.

in the actual scientific development process, the ways and types of interdisciplinary interdisciplinary are unlimited. what we need to do is to create opportunities for it and provide space for free interdisciplinary research, rather than using disciplines to solidify this or that interdisciplinary form. using the bottle of discipline to bottle the wine of interdisciplinarity may solve an urgent need, but it runs counter to the development direction of interdisciplinarity.

as a trend in the development of modern science, interdisciplinarity is driven by knowledge itself, but also by various problems and phenomena faced by human beings. this dynamic development trend will inevitably have an impact on the static disciplinary system. if we want to truly promote interdisciplinary scientific research and talent cultivation, we must reflect on our disciplinary system and make necessary corrections, rather than strengthening our inherent disciplinary system.

if we continue to adhere to the so-called discipline-based direction, we can only use the old method of discipline construction to solve new interdisciplinary problems. as discussed above, this approach has directionality issues.

here, we might as well reflect on our rigid subject system and explore a new subject system that dilutes subject awareness and softens subject boundaries from an institutional perspective to cope with the general direction of interdisciplinary development and cultivate a large number of students who can adapt to this development trend. of professional talents.

"china science news" (2024-09-24 2nd edition university observation)