|
|
|
Nurturing the New da Vincis, Galileos and Newtons
16 September 2006
Type/Items(s): Workshops, Special Focus, Discussions & short presentations, Scientific Sessions
Submitted by: Gavin McClure (ICVolunteers)
Contributors: Moira Cockell (WKD), Suraj Ravindran (ICVolunteers), Randy Schmieder (MCART)
|
The simultaneously ambitious and mysterious-sounding slogan of the World Knowledge Symposium, "Towards a modern humanism", reflects the very nature of the challenge of this first Symposium: to bridge the gap between the natural sciences and the humanities. A lofty ideal, but how can we achieve it?
Can university education be remodelled to allow greater interdisciplinary studies? To what extent will this help students develop into successful scientists? The animated discussion in this workshop ranged from Utopian ideas to heavy doses of reality, as participants acknowledged that many hurdles had to be overcome, but some promising solutions were proposed.
The third in the series of workshops in this context was a dialogue driven through education. The discussion, which was chaired by Professor Richard R. Ernst, Nobel Laureate (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland - ETH Zurich), addressed the feasibilities and difficulties of achieving this goal in academia.
Aiming for the sky
Universities are one of the principle incubators for educating creative, innovative and responsible citizens. Prof. Ernst pointed out that real life is multi-faceted and not structured strictly according to disciplines. Many successful and creative people balance their professional lives with outside interests. The primary goal of education, therefore, is to develop both students' motivation and their imagination. To achieve this objective, there is a need to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach and to remove the barriers that exist between the natural sciences and the humanities.
|
Delegates at the World Knowledge Dialogue will continue to spread its message and open channels of communication. Image: V.Krebs, ICVolunteers |
|
It was suggested that this could be achieved by providing opportunities to "learn by doing" as well as by alternating periods of highly focused single disciplinary learning with other periods of broad inter-disciplinary perspective. The contributions of teachers and inspiring personalities are indispensable as role-models in this regard.
Two sides of the coin
Two speakers presented opposing views of the issue at hand. Marc Dumas, Professor of Theology from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada felt that while interfaculty interactions are important, focusing is essential to make people competent in a specific field, for example, medicine or engineering. However, as a general rule, it is essential to encourage people to approach a problem from various perspectives regardless of what discipline one follows. Dieter Imboden, Professor of Physics at the ETH Zurich, agreed in principle and stressed that the freedom to reinvent your world and ask questions from a very early stage is an important factor. Both speakers acknowledged that there is a real need to work together to create synergies rather than just for the sake of appearances. The misunderstandings that exist about investigatory methods and interpretation between natural sciences and the humanities need to be resolved. Prof. Dumas suggested building new programmes and Prof. Imboden gave the example of the cross-disciplinary Environmental Science programme at the ETH Zurich.
Opportunities and pitfalls
A lively discussion dealing with the goal of enhancing cross-disciplinary education ensued. Various propositions were made after consideration of the important points. The discussion began with the dichotomy of generalists and specialists -- the capacity to be a good generalist while at the same time being successful in one's chosen specialist field of work is difficult to achieve. Inter-disciplinary courses could be made mandatory, or could be encouraged and made more accessible within university structures. Since each student is unique - and their abilities vary widely -- this is easier said than done. All participants agreed that the definition of common goals is essential, especially those relating to both science and the urgent needs of society at large. A case in point was quoted - global climatology discussed by Dr. Joachim Schellnhuber the previous day. Multi-faceted learning will broaden the outlook of a student, aid personality development and will provide the satisfaction of having contributed to shared ideas. Inter-disciplinary education not only opens the mind to new ideas and instills a sense of respect for other disciplines but also opens up diverse future career options.
Orientation at the start of university studies was identified as a crucial aspect. A top-down approach was proposed, whereby the educational system and syllabi are remodelled by the appropriate authorities to set up trans-disciplinary courses. The approach should be applied to both students and faculty members. Curiosity-based learning is to be encouraged so that students have the possibility to take up trans-disciplinary projects and learn to solve problems from a variety of different perspectives. Examples of this would be ethics and engineering or management in a case based manner; philosophy and medicine; law and theology. Building collaborations and good infrastructure will go a long way in this regard but strong individuals who can act as guides and role-models are essential to the success of the strategy. A major step, therefore, is to attract appropriately qualified and motivated teachers.
In addition to the with the propositions described above, a number of hurdles were identified, that stand in the way of achieving the goals agreed upon. Time is limited for the student in an already packed university schedule and another concern is that of how to finance the changes. The amount of funding required for setting up new courses would mean that difficult choices would have to be made in order to balance budgets. Existing curricula might have to be pared down. Joint funding from different faculties may be one solution, especially for students at the doctoral research level. However, often the alignment of interests of students and professors creates problems. Taking these points into consideration means that however willing as the people involved may be, it is vital to make sure that the changes are implemented in a careful manner. Strengthening of the collaboration between the sciences and humanities is important but not easy to bring about. This was made clear when one delegate in the workshop pointed out that dialogue is by definition a two-way process and is not just natural scientists trying to explain social phenomena in terms of mathematics, etcetera. A productive dialogue should result in a two-way transfer of ideas and information. It requires not only that both sides talk but that they also listen.
What the future holds
If this goal of WKD 2006 is achieved, the university shall (again) become a lively cultural centre with a broad influence upon society that goes beyond the function of a mere teaching institution. If this were to happen, we may well be on our way to nurturing successful multi-disciplinarians of the likes of Leonardo da Vinci, Galielo and Newton. At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge and set out to remove the very real obstacles to success that exist. While it was a productive workshop that raised many important questions and pointed to future directions, it remains to be seen in what fashion these ideas are implemented and whether or not they are effective. The disappointing aspects of this germinal meeting were the inability to come up with a clear consensus and a road map in terms of concrete points and time-line to act upon. The process of change will be a long one.
|
|
|
|
