AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERDISCIPLINARITY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND PEACE EDUCATORS
IN THE SCIENCES
BY
F.C. Oweyegha-Afunaduula
Member, Policy Committee on
The Interdisciplinary Teaching
Of Human Rights and Peace
At Makerere University
HURIPEC
Makerere University
P.O. Box 7062
Kampala, Uganda.
Paper Presented at a Stakeholders' Sensitisation Seminar on the Interdisciplinary
Teaching of Human Rights and Peace, in the Sciences held in the Main Hall,
Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda, 4th September, 2000
Website: http://www.afuna.org or http://www.afuna.o-f.com
Email:afunaduula2000@yahoo.co.uk or afunaduula@afuna.org
Tel: +256 78 555 222 or +256 71 845461
Background:
Human rights and peace issues-be they economic, social, political, ecological, environmental, cultural or biotic-are critical in environment and development. Environment and development are themselves broad concepts that have come centrestage in education.
It is not uncommon these days to hear of environmental education and development education. Curricula have been and continue to be designed to integrate these types of education in the educational process.
Normally, the strategy has been to teach and learn environmental education and development education as two parts of the same spectrum of progress. It is, however, important to emphasize that all education is in fact environmental education since environment is “everything”.
Recently, human rights and peace education has become integrated in both environmental education and development education. Concurrently issues of gender, equity, democracy, sovereignty and justice have been integrated in not only environmental education and development education but also human rights and peace education. However, the usual practice has been to do so disciplinarily, reflecting the structure and function of educational institutions which emphasize compartmentalization and narrowing of knowledge in the disciplines (Fig. 1) and preservation of the wide gaps between them (fig. 2).
At Makerere University, human rights education has been introduced in the Department of Educational Foundations, School of Education; the Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts; the Human Rights and Peace Centre, Faculty of law; and the Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Faculty of Social Sciences. All these however, are essentially disciplinary endeavors, with no linkages between them.
Fortunately, the Makerere University Senate has now approved an academic programme called “Interdisciplinary Teaching of Human Rights and Peace in all Departments at Makerere University”. Human Rights and Peace education will be taught across the Sciences (social and natural) in all the disciplines of the University (Oweyegha-Afunaduula and Asiimwe, 1999).
This is timely. Every discipline, as a social unit, has its own human rights problems to which solutions must be found. Violation of human rights in a department will not only erode peace conditions so essential for it to operate as a dynamic, vibrant academia, but is bound to constrain the education process in a complex way, with dire consequences for the teachers and their graduates.
Without providing educational opportunities for students to learn about human rights and peace, it is unlikely that when they graduate they will be agents of human rights, peace and democracy, let alone appreciate that these are an integral aspect of the development process. The likely phenomenon will be for them to be agents of violation of human rights and peace and of the abuse of democracy.
Human rights and peace have a complex role in education in a University academic department. Their general exclusion from the curriculum may explain the persistent weak social fabrics in a department, tending to encourage individualism; undermine the spirit of teamwork; constrain or prevent interdepartmental collaboration; and maintain the orthodox separation between the sciences (social and natural).Consequently, scholars tend to communicate more with themselves in a given discipline in the Department than with others outside it.However, given human rights and peace problems that have often bogged the department, such communication may be curtailed or difficult to come by.
Human Rights and peace problems in a department often relate to the structure of the education process which encourages “invisible college” phenomenon (Crame, 1972) or conflicts over educational resources and/or opportunities. Some members will enjoy the full range of human rights while others will suffer denials of or interference in the enjoyment of these rights (Fig. 3).
The coinage of the term “interdisciplinarity” to the teaching of human rights and peace signals the message that answers to these problems may have to be sought across the rigid walls that separate the disciplines in the academia without necessarily undermining the pluralism of academic practice in each discipline and across the sciences.
2. Why this Paper?
This paper aims to introduce academic staff of Makerere University to the concept of interdisciplinarity and interdisciplinary education.It begins by reviewing the essential nature and process of disciplinarity and goes on to distinguish between disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity before espousing the benefits of interdisciplinary education for human rights and peace in the University.
3. The Big Question:
Human rights and peace education is now accepted as an integral aspect of University education.To this end it is absolutely important that human rights and peace education incorporates all the dimensions of human welfare if it is to be meaningful and effective. (Fig. 4).
It is also crucial that this type of education is sensitive to and takes care of the current trend of linking (i) the disciplines and (ii) the sciences (Fig. 5) particularly in view of the rise of non-disciplinary fields of knowledge such as human rights and peace education itself or the Biology of Conservation (Fig. 6).
With the increasing acceptance that Human rights and Peace Education is more of a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and non-disciplinary than a disciplinary field of knowledge and very much an aspect of education, and given the current efforts at linking the social and natural sciences, the big question in the academia is:
“How do we usher in a creative relationship between retaining the basic principles of the scientific method and adopting fresh realities of the role of science in promoting human rights and peace as a and in human welfare?” (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 1999).Do we proceed with:
Disciplinarity?
Multidisciplinarity?
Interdisciplinarity?
Non-disciplinarity?
Wholes or Holistic Approach? or
A combination of all or some of these?
In case we desert disciplinarity what happens to the revered belief in value-free science?
4. Disciplinary Education: the characteristics
Virtually all academicians who have passed through Makerere University in its 77 year history are graduates of the disciplinary curriculum.They should, therefore, be very familiar with the following characteristics of a disciplinary culture:
Cocoons of knowledge with rigid walls around them (disciplines)
Pursuit of individual antonomy
Emphasis on production of technical intelligentsia – academic giants and intellectual dwarfs.
Subordination of the totality while glorifying and idolising its parts
Privatised, alienated and uncultured experts.
Critique in the disciplines is almost impossible
Doctrine of publish or perish is idolised
Critical Education (i.e. critical thinking skills, critical reflective knowledge and democratic skills and values) is virtually absent
Invisible college phenomenon is predominant
Vitriolic exchanges and fights/petty jealousies are pronounced.
Exclusionism, secrecy and marginalisation of dissenters.
Song of academic freedom is loud and clear.
Mind serfdom
Academic (disciplinary) professionalisation idolised.
Creativity, initiative, innovation and imagination, though normally an academic motto, are institutionally discouraged.
Teamwork is rare
Working of the university (the Great Institution) is mainly the result of massive routine, petty malice, self-interest, and careless and shear mistakes.
Interdisciplinary communication is structurally and functionally resisted.
Reformist policies often re-emphasized disciplinary discourse
Conflicting spectrum of intellectuals
Deintellectualization, deconvictionalisation and deradicalisation of intellectuals
Education devoid of philosophy although highest academic title is Doctor of Philosophy.
Ethical considerations virtually absent.
Glorification of ignorance in ignorance
Knowledge imperialism and hypocrisy perpetuated.
Oversimplification of the reality is the overall result.
5. The Real World and Disciplinarity
Disciplinarity, therefore, tends to exclude the academia from the real world, thereby giving respectability to what is called “the ivory tower” – a place of seclusion or retreat from the realities of life.
The real world is characterised, among others, by the following:
Has no respect for disciplines or the rigid walls between them.
Faced with problems, challenges and issues that are multidimensional and require multidisciplinary interdisciplinary, and holistic approaches.
Demands teamwork/collaboration across the sciences to address its problems, challenges and issues.
People involved in teamwork/collaboration need to be familiar with the language and fundamental concepts of other disciplines represented in the team.
Team members must be able to communicate insight to non-specialists
Generality is crucial in understanding the world so that progress is only positive in there is abalance between generality and specificity.
Quest for generality governs the scientific mentality of our time.
Those who achieve generality, who make use of general discoveries/ideas during the course of their work, can win fame and power; those who stick to specificities may achieve happiness but not dominance in the scientific hierarchy.
6. History of Generality in Science Education
Everything has history.Generality has history.In the first half of the 20th Century, generality belonged to Physists and, to a lesser extent, chemists.The result was production of testable hypotheses such as Einstein's Relativity Principle (General Theory of Relativity) and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
In Biology, the only comparable generality prior to the 1950s was the evolutionary Theory of Darwin and Wallace innovated around 1858.However, Biology gained a modern generality when Watson and Crick made discoveries on the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) structure and function in the early 1950s.This generality rivaled the earlier discoveries of Einstein and Heinsberg.
Since then, molecular biology, based on the work of Watson and Crick, has found many applications that have made it dominate most University Biology.Botany and Zoology departments worldwide.This is most seen in the applications of the human genetic code.Nothing can be more general than the human genetic code.
Specificity without generality is chaos.And generality without specificity is nothingness.Scientific wisdom and insight are generated as a dialectic – a balance between the two.Unfortunately in Biology, for the most part the rejection of the specific or some times the over emphasis of the specific in certain of the disciplines of biology, has led to the loss of the balance between generality and specificity, and, with this, the loss of wisdom.
Early this century (21st Century), the genetic code of man Homo sapiens, sapiens was completed, thereby bringing to fruition the pursuit of generality in science.To make the feat, the Human Genome Project (HGP) opted, expectedly, for generality and interdisciplinarity.The rigid walls that normally separate the disciplines had to be dissolved to concretise the spirit of teamwork.As a truly interdisciplinary project, HGP was able to decipher the 3 billion letters of the human genetic code (instructions).97% of the code was mapped, 85% of this accurately.However, many questions remain in the wake of this interdisciplinary feat in terms of implications on:
The future of interdisciplinary discourse in science
Future linking of the social and natural sciences
Social and ecological theories
Prejudicial perceptions and beliefs in the disciplines
Human-environmental interactions
Population genetics
Global politics and economics
Interactions between the races of man
Future collaborative efforts in science and technology
Environment and development
Education, including human rights and peace education.
The sense and nonsense of academic specialization.
The boundary between the laboratory and society.
The posture of first laboratory, then application of scientific results
Relations of science and society
The classical view of science as pure and neutral (value-free science)
The classical view that scientists should not meddle in politics and be responsible for technological use or misuse.
Contest between disciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and non-disciplinarity.
Concept of “the wholes” or “holism” in science
Pluralism in science and society
Globalisation or internationalism of science.
7. Comparing Interdisciplinarity and Multidisciplinarity
This is how far interdisciplinarity and the interdisciplinary strategy of knowing has brought us.From what has been said so far, the following can be listed as characteristics of interdisciplinarity (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 1999).
Not just a meshing or syncromash of the disciplines but interaction between them.
Draws on the themes of processes and evolution that embrace physical and social systems.
Involves a more negotiated science in the policy Realm.
Involves engaging with the public
Suitable for academic/intellectual experimentation.
Encourages holism, connectedness and pluralism
Encourages unique mix of persons and institutions
Challenges the culture of disciplinarity.
Encourages reasoning by analogy
Seeks broader more integrated understanding of what and why.
In these respects, interdisciplinarity differs from multi-disciplinarity, which has been more easily accommodated in the academia because:
It is easier to administer
It does not challenge disciplinarity
It simply evokes a variety of disciplines for analysis and insight
It still encourages solving problems or tackling issues disciplinarily.
8. History of Interdisciplinarity in Science and Philosophy
The historical development of interdisciplinarity has been long and arduous.The acceptance of the idea in the academia has been too slow to come by despite its obvious advantages, including its tendency to seek broader, more integrated understanding of what and why (see above) and to encourage holistic thinking and practice.
Both the Holy Bible and the Q'ran indicate that God's approach to heavenly affairs was more holistic than individualistic, intended to preserve “wholeness” of knowledge and learning and to marry the general and the specific for all the benefit.Therefore, disciplinary chauvinism does not belong to God because God's knowledge was and remains one.
African science and philosophy was also devoid of disciplinary delineation and chauvinism.Holism was the driving force.Even Greek philosophers and men of great knowledge did not engage in disciplinary chauvinism and empire-building.Education was holistic and produced graduates of great intellectual powers.Therefore, interdisciplinarity was absent since disciplines were absent.All learning was philosophy.
It was during the emergence of the post-Greek European philosophy times that disciplines came into being.The birth of disciplines was the logical outcome of petty jealousies and vitriolic fights among the scholars.Disciplinary compartmentalisation of knowledge dissected philosophy into knowledge cocoons which drifted away, leaving philosophy to be a small, inconspicuous discipline in many Universities.
As indicated elsewhere, the historical connection of the disciplines with philosophy is preserved by the granting of the topmost scholars of any discipline with the academic honour called “Doctor of Philosophy”, although philosophy is often absent in the academic lifestyles of such scholars.It is extremely rare to find any among these scholars who appreciate that real life (world) problems require philosophical questions and philosophical solutions.
Hargrove (1988) records that a characteristic feature of European philosophy was the removal of environmental and ecological thinking from the academia.Moreover, European Science, which was encumbered by orthodox European–philosophical thinking discouraged scientists from thinking about the environment as it was encountered in experiments (Peters, 1991).In fact, concern about nature was considered unscientific and, in principle, inappropriate (Peters, 1991)
Oweyegha-Afunaduula (1999) has traced the genesis of interdisciplinarity beyond the post-Greek European philosophy period to the time of Francis Bacon (1722) – the innovator of the idea of “the necessary connection.”He writes that in Bacon's view that “every object is connected to another “lay the ingredient for the idea of “holism” of knowledge.David Hume (1777) is believed to have rediscovered Bacon's ideas in his “Inquiries concerning human understanding.”
One can safely say that Bacon and Hume lay the foundations of interdisciplinarity in modern academia.
(ii) During Svante Arhenious' Time
Perhaps more than any other scientist after Bacon and Hume, the Swedish scholar Svante Arrhenius (1859-1922) did enormous work to lay the foundations of openness and interdisciplinarity in early 20th Century academia.His attitude towards openness and interdisciplinarity and encyclopaedic knowledge made him effective (i) in reasoning by analogy and (ii) extending theories and concepts from their original domain of reference to other domains in or even outside the same field with much ease.However, often this capacity of Arrhenius generated controversy between him, his professors and disciplinary colleagues who even at one time judged his doctoral work “substandard” and dismissed him as “non-scientist”.
According to science historian Sven-Eric Liedman (Quoted by Elzinga, 1997), the Swedish Professonate were, after the turn of the 18th Century, more like civil servants,close to the people and unstrained by ivory towerism.It was common then for specialists to cultivate generalist ambitions and competencies as well far beyond their own fields of knowledge.This is unlike today when the sense of public responsibility of scholars is constrained by the recurrent tendency to re-emphasize disciplinary specialisation, thereby discouraging interpersonal communication between people of the disciplines or even teamwork.
There is no doubt that the academic environment Arrhenius found himself in, despite the controversies cited above, encouraged him to be an effective agent of openness and interdisciplinarity.
Arrhenius established the critical benchmark in the subsequent promotion of awareness of the way science might potentially intertwine with economic policies, welfare policies and politics, and the degree to which far-reaching specialisation and differentiation of the disciplines would, in fact, weaken the linkages of science with cultural life (Elzinga, 1997; Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 1999).
The openness and interdisciplinarity attitude of Arrhenius enabled him to have a very broad view of the structure and functions of the natural world.More than anybody else during his time, he saw the earth sciences as strongly coupled to the basic sciences.Despite opposition and resistance, he pushed on with the task of marrying the disciplines for a more holistic science of the Universe.By necessity and choice, he migrated from physical chemistry to cosmic and planetary physics, where his work helped to show the value of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in the theory and practice of science.
(iii) Beyond Svante Arrhenius
Arrhenius' contribution to promoting openness and interdisciplinarity was perhaps most furthered in population ecology in the early 20th century.
Population ecology was founded by people who belonged to widely differing fields of knowledge but who were simultaneously convicted to the view that ecology would be more scientific if made more mathematical (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 1999). These were:
- Mathematician V. Volterra (1926)
- Physist V. A. Bailey (1995)
- Chemist A. J. Lotka (1935)
- Mathematician A.J. Nicholson (1935)
- Laboratory Biologist/Ecologist G. F. Gause (1935)
This interdisciplinary endeavour culminated into the birth of the science of mathematical ecology and applied mathematical ecology called “Mathematical modeling” pioneered in 1972 by Mathematician M. May.
(iv) Concept of Gaia
Interdisciplinary thinking was extended more surely by Lovelock (1987, 1992) when he innovated his idea of Gaia.In essence gaia means “total knowledge”.
Lovelock reasoned that there is tight coupling of the biota (biological world) and the material existence of chemical and energy flows into a combined system that acts to retain life on Earth (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 1999).This was more or less a restatement, albeit somewhat differently, of Arrhenius' view that “the earth sciences are strongly coupled to the basic sciences.”
Lovelock interpreted the totality of physical and biological processes as being physiological and self-regulatory.His gaia indicated that there are life-preserving interconnections that no single discipline can unravel.He advocated for the marriage of holistic science, planetary physiology and social responsibility for a peaceful, hospitable world.In a way he was re-echoing what Arrhenius had advocated earlier.
(v) Recent Global Efforts to promote Interdisciplinary:
Elsewhere in this paper, a global effort to promote interdisciplinarity was mentioned in connection with the Human Genome Project.This is only one of the institutional strategies to promote interdisciplinary endeavours.
At the University of Oslo Norway, a Centre-the Centre for Development and the Environment was established in 1990 (i) to create interdisciplinary dialogue on environment and development and (ii) to further the development of interdisciplinary expertise in the field of environment and development.The centre is decidedly explicitly problem–oriented in its work.
At the Interdisciplinary Institute of Research and Continuing Education in the Department of Social Ecology, University of Vienna, Australia, interdisciplinary pursuit of knowledge and discovery is also in earnest.
In Uganda, a group of interdisciplinarily-oriented Ugandan scholars innovated what they called ‘The East African Institute of Holistic Science for Environment and Development in March 1999.This has been registered under the Provisions of the Business Names Registration Act and Rules of the Republic of Uganda under No. 115971.The Institute is designed to sensitise all scholars and others to the virtues of interdisciplinary scholarship and create out of them interdisciplinary thinkers and practitioners for environment and development.
With the increasing questioning of disciplinary specialization, Makerere University has not escaped the wave of interdisciplinarity.Apart from the many essentially interdisciplinary programmes such as Environmental Management, Environmental Planning and Management, and Environmental Education, that are already being offered; the University has institutionalized the teaching of human rights and peace interdisciplinarily throughout its Departments.This means that Makerere University, right at the start of the 21st Century, provides fertile ground for interdisciplinary academic mixing and pursuits, and for the linking of the sciences away from the strictly disciplinary culture.
Elsewhere, Miller (1994) has explored the potential for interactions and collaboration in global change across the natural sciences.Rosenfield (1992) explored the potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between health and the social sciences.Schneider (1992) discusses the structural constraints to the effective role of the University in the interdisciplinary global change research.
Perhaps in Uganda, the work of Oweyegha-Afunaduula (1998a, 1999b, 1999c, 2000a, 2000b) is the first serious scholarly effort to integrate interdisciplinary in the academic and intellectual processes on an individual basis.
9. Where do we go from here?
Change is inevitable and the current of change is sweeping through the knowledge sphere.At least with the innovation of the Interdisciplinary Teaching of Human Rights and Peace at Makerere University, this is what one perceives. The era for packaging knowledge into disciplines is no longer fashionable because it has the potential to perpetuate and defend institutional and individual ignorance.
We must continue to pursue interconnectivity of knowledge through interdisciplinarity:
Seeking interconnectivity between the disciplines and linkage of the sciences for a more holistic science is timely. This is the way forward from the culture of disjointed centre of knowledge in which subcentres of knowledge. This, however, is not easy unless all in the academia are thoroughly sensitized to and begin to be agents of interdisciplinarity. The strategy of the Interdisciplinary teaching of Human Rights and Peace at Makerere university to hold stakeholders seminars is, therefore, a step in the right direction .It is possible to popularise interdisciplinarity through human rights and peace education just as it is possible to popularise human rights and peace education through the interdisciplinary technique.
CONCLUSION
The project to teach human rights and peace in the University will go a long way to (i) promote openness, respect, teamwork and confidence; (ii) release academics, students and the University from the “ignorance trap” about human rights; (iii) make interdisciplinarity and interdisciplinary education an integral and respectable aspect of the academia; and (iv) develop human rights and peace education as an integral and respectable aspect of the education process in the University's academic departments.This is the way forward for education in Uganda in general and Makerere University in particular.
REFERENCES
BACON, F. (1772) (1994).The doctrine of idols: aphorisms concerning the interpretation of nature and the kingdom of man.In: F. Pearce (ed).The social contexts of ecosystems.ES 300.Canadian Scholars Press Inc. 1-10.
CRAME, D. (1972).Invisible colleges.Chicago, Chicago University Press.
ELZINGA, A. (1997).From Arrhenius to megascience;interplay between science and public decision-making.Ambio, 26 (1) February 1997: 72-80.
HARGROVE, E.C. (1988).Environmental ethics.Prentice Hall
HUME, D. (1777) (1963).Enquiries concerning human understanding.Clarendon Press, Oxford.
LOVELOCK, J.E. (1987).Gaia:a new look at life on Earth.Oxford University Press.
LOVELOCK, J.E. (1992) Gaia: the practical science of planetary medicine.Gaia Books, Straud.
MILLER, R.B. (1994).Interactions and collaboration in global change across the social and natural sciences.Ambio, 23 (1) February 1994: 19-24
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (1998).The value of holistic approach to environmental conservation in Uganda.ECO-INFO, Vol. 1(1) November 1998/January, 1999: 14-15, 18-20.
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (1999).Towards an interdisciplinary environmental science:contributions from conservation biology.IN: Oweyegha-Afunaduula, F.C., R. Okumu-Wengi and J.Tibenda Afunaduula (eds). Ecology, Politics, Ethics and Intellectuals in Environment and Development in Africa.Fountain Publishers LTD (IN PRESS).
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (1999b).Enhancing Career opportunities through interdisciplinarity.Career Tips, Vol. 2 (1) April-June 2000: 67-70.
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (1999c).Human Rights/Peace Education and Science.In: Oweyegha-Afunaduula, F.C. and D. Asiimwe (eds).Interdisciplinary Teaching of Human Rights and peace.Report. Mak. Univ. Adm. Works. Interdisc,. Teach. Hum. Right. & Peac. Mak. Univ. p. 17-22. Univ. Fla/AAAS/MUK.HURIPEC Publication. 1999
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (1999).Interdisciplinary communication and responsibility in the new millennium:the case of Makerere University.Paper originally prep. For Fac. Arts/Main Library/E.Afr. Sch. Lib. & Inf. Scie. Conf. On theme: Comm. Third. Millennium: which Way Africa?Fac. Arts, MUK., Uganda 27-29, October, 1999.
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (1999).Academic and intellectual communication and practice into the new millennium pap. Prep. Fac. Arts/main Library/E.Afr. Sch. Lib & Inf. Scie. Conf. On theme: Comm. Third. Millennium: Which way Africa?Fac. Arts, MUK, Uganda. 27-29, October 1999.
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (1999).Intellectual and interdisciplinary communication:a challenge to curriculum design in Uganda.Pap. Launch. Cerem. House of Intellectuals, MUK, Uganda. 11 December, 1999.
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (2000).Interdisciplinarity for river Nile Basin Management:Linking ecology, economics and ethics.Paper originally prepared for NGO seminar on Bujagali Dam organised by UWS/BIC/IRN/SBC/NAPE at International Conference Centre, Kampala, Uganda. July 12-13.
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (2000).Interdisciplinarity: the way forward for education in the 21st century.Paper prepared for Institute of International Education.Kampala, Uganda. (Unpublished).
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (2000).The sense and non-sense of academic specialization:the case of the conservation biologist.Writings on Interdisciplinarity in the 21st Century.Occasional paper No. 8-12-2000.
OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. and D. ASIIMWE (1999).Interdisciplinary Teaching of Human Rights and Peace, HURIPECPublication 50p.
PETERS, R.H. (1991).A critique of Ecology.Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
PROCTOR, R.N. (1991).Value-free science:Purity and power in modern knowledge.Harvard university Press, Cambridge.
ROSEFIELD, P.L. (1992).The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between health and social sciences.Sci. Med., 35: 1343-1357.
SCHNEIDER, S. (1992).The role of the University in interdisciplinary global change research:structural constraints and the potential change.AN EDITORIAL.Climate change, 20: vii-x.
THOMAS, S. AND H. SALWASSER (1989).Bringing Conservation biology into a position of influence in natural resource management.Cons. Biol. 3 (2) June, 1989: 123-127.
