Interdisciplinarity in Engineering Research and Learning

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139013451.043

Chapter 35 - Interdisciplinarity in Engineering Research and Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2015

Nancy J. Nersessian and

Wendy C. Newstetter

Edited by

Aditya Johri and

Barbara M. Olds

Show author details

Nancy J. Nersessian: Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Wendy C. Newstetter: Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Aditya Johri: Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds: Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Disciplines are distinguished partly for historical reasons and reasons of administrative convenience (such as the organization of teaching and appointments) and partly because the theories which we construct to solve our problems have a tendency to grow into unified systems. But all this classification and distinction is a comparatively unimportant and superficial affair. We are not students of the same subject matter but students of problems. And problems may cut right across the border of any subject matter or discipline.

Sir Karl Popper Conjectures and Refutations (Popper, 1962, p. 67)

Introduction

Moves beyond disciplinary thought and practice abound today. National and international funding agencies are creating, facilitating, fostering boundary crossing and cross-disciplinary synergy and integration as a focal point of their agendas across the sciences, medicine, engineering, humanities, and arts. Research on interdisciplinarity (ID) as it is practiced in humanities and the sciences is also abundant, ranging from rich case studies of specific instances to bibliometric analyses that aim to map such things as patterns of interaction in scientific fields. To date, however, the research on ID as practiced in engineering fields is scant, both with respect to practice and to education. Yet, as noted in the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) report on the engineer of 2020, the demands of twenty-first century engineering are such that education needs to be redefined starting at the undergraduate level:

The dissolution of boundaries between disciplines such that ‘imagination, diversity and capacity to adapt quickly have become essential qualities for both institutions and individuals, not only to facilitate research, but also to ensure immediate and broad-based application of research results related to the environment. To meet these complex challenges as well as urgent human needs, we need to…frame integrated interdisciplinary research questions and activities to merge data, approaches, and ideas across spatial, temporal and societal scales.

(NAE, 2005, p. 36, quoting AC-ERE, 2003)

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research , pp. 713 - 730

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.043 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, R. S., Beltz, N., Mann, L., & Wilson, D. (2010). Exploring student differences in formulating cross-disciplinary sustainability problems. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(2), 324–338.Google Scholar

Adams, R. S., Mann, L., Forin, T., & Jordan, S. (2009). Cross-disciplinary practice in engineering contexts. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED’09), Stanford University.Google Scholar

Adams, R. S., Mann, L., Jordan, S., & Daly, S. (2009). Exploring the boundaries: Language, roles, and structures in cross-disciplinary design teams. In McDonnell, J. & Lloyd, P. (Eds.), About designing: Analysing design meetings. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Borrego, M., & Cutler, S. (2010). Constructive alignment of interdisciplinary graduate curriculum in engineering and science: An analysis of successful IGERT proposals. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 355–369.CrossRef Google Scholar

Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. J. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Sciences, 32(2), 235–296.CrossRef Google Scholar

Derry, S. J., Schunn, C. D., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.). (2005). Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Mitcham, C. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar

Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knoweldge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlotesville: University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar

Klein, J. T. (2005). Interdisciplinary teamwork: The dynamics of collaboration and integration. In Derry, S. J., Schunn, C. D., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science (pp. 51–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Mitcham, C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. (1996). Interdisciplinary studies. In Graff, J. & Ratcliffe, J. (Eds.), Handbook for the undergraduate curriculum (pp. 393–415). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar

Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar

Lattuca, L. R., Trautvetter, L. C., Codd, S. L., Knight, D. B., & Cortes, C. M. (2011). Promoting interdisciplinary competence in the engineers of 2020. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar

McNair, L. D., Newswander, C., Boden, D., & Borrego, M. (2011). Student and Faculty Interdisciplinary Identities in Self-Managed Teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 374–396.CrossRef Google Scholar

National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE), & Institute of Medicine (IM). (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In Carruthers, P., Stich, S., & Siegal, M. (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Nersessian, N. J. (2006, October). Boundary objects, trading zones and adaptive spaces: How to create interdisciplinary emergence. NSF Science of Learning Centers Address.

Nersessian, N. J. (2009). How do engineering scientists think? Model-based simulation in biomedical engineering research laboratories. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 730–757.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Nersessian, N. J., & Patton, C. (2009). Model-based reasoning in interdisciplinary engineering: Two case studies from biomedical engineering research laboratories. In Meijers, A. (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 678–718). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Newstetter, W. C. (2006). Fostering integrative problem solving in biomedical engineering: The PBL approach. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 34(2), 217–225.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Newstetter, W. C., Behravesh, E., Nersessian, N. J., & Fasse, B. B. (2010). Design principles for problem-driven learning laboratories in biomedical engineering education. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 38(10), 3257–3267.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

NSF Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education. (2003). Complex environmental systems: Synthesis for earth life and society in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Richter, D. M., & Paretti, M. C. (2009). Identifying barriers to and outcomes of interdisciplinarity in the engineering classroom. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 29–45.CrossRef Google Scholar

Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. L., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In , D. T. M. & Jonassen, D. (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. G. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRef Google Scholar

Vattam, S., & Goel, A. (2011). Model-based tagging: Promoting access to online texts on complex systems for interdisciplinary learning. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Athens, GA.Google Scholar

Vattam, S., Helms, M., & Goel, A. (2010). A content account of creative analogies in biologically inspired design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24, 467–481.CrossRef Google Scholar