BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: The Integrated Science Education (ISE) initiative of the Higher Education Cell, CSCS began work in 2008 on ‘science education’ in India with the understanding that one of the problems haunting higher education in our country is the strict separation between the study of natural and human worlds leading to two cubicalized domains of knowledge – the natural and human sciences – which are in turn internally “dominated by striations of expertise with deep chasms in between” (Report of ‘The Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education’, 2009, popularly known as the Yashpal Committee Report). We were confronted with an education system afflicted to this day, by separate and near-opposed methodologies for natural and human sciences, methodologies that are not even in dialogue – a system imparting narrow and limited training in the respective methodologies that allow for only certain kinds of knowledge to emerge, knowledge that is inadequate to face the exigencies of a rapidly changing world, a world in which reality is not strictly compartmentalised into material, biotic and human realms, but in which the realms are continually coming closer and developing overlaps. In this scenario, the ISE initiative felt that one now needed an integrated explanation-interpretation of such reality; why one would need an integrated explanation-interpretation as against a cubicalized/divided/segregated one would of course have to be argued for; one would have to argue for the necessity for and benefits of such integration in the context of science teaching institutes.
In the past two years, through review of previous attempts at integration, interviews of leading natural and human science scholars, desk review of existing literature on integration, critical assessment of courses attempting integration the ISE initiative is now in a position to suggest a model for such integration. In the process of arriving at this model we have closely looked at the multiple ideas of integration and the many arguments put forward in favour of integration so as to now put forward our idea of and our argument for integration. However, since today many science teaching institutes have started imparting an interdisciplinary and integrated training in the natural sciences to students, the ISE initiative felt that training in human sciences also needed to be integrated with natural science training; the human sciences could not just be add-on/optional courses; they would have to have convergence and synergy with natural science questions and would have to be relevant and useful to science students.
NATIONAL PRIORITIES: National priorities set up by the Yashpal Committee Report for inclusive and holistic science education (connecting with social and human issues in the ‘real world outside’ and integrating questions of the risk-ethics of scientific practice/technological changes) as against cubicalized knowledge were found to be in tune with our concern for integration. The report identified the following as problems of science education in India:
“Standing for more than specific factual knowledge, a scientific outlook calls for an analytical and questioning attitude and the continuous exercise of reason. All this requires us to go beyond specialized knowledge and competence. This universal approach to knowledge demands that boundaries of disciplines be porous and scholars be constantly on guard against the tendency towards ‘cubicalization’ of knowledge. … The Indian system of higher education has also kept itself aloof from the local knowledge base of the worker, the artisan and the peasant. It has kept itself at a distance from the real world outside. Within the system, there are distances between disciplines. Within a single campus, disciplines often grow in complete ignorance even of each other’s presence.However, the ISE initiative felt that one needed to take forward such national priorities in two related directions:
To overcome this, it would be necessary that [science teaching institutions] adopt a curricular approach which treats knowledge in a holistic manner and creates exciting opportunities for different kinds of interfaces between the disciplines, which is unthinkable today in most of the [institutions] of higher learning. It is also important that [science teaching institutions] relate to the world outside and the walls of disciplines are porous enough to let other voices be heard. It would thus be necessary that [science] education is seen in its totality and subject areas not be designed in isolation”. (Report of ‘The Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education’, 2009)
one, the concern for awareness of social and human issues among natural science students needed to be supplemented by knowledge of social and human sciences – thus integration would have to be between sciences – natural and humanFINDINGS OF THE ISE INITIATIVE: The work of the initiative consisted of research in three areas – respectively focused on what have been the problems of natural science education in India, why we need to integrate natural and human sciences in our pedagogic efforts, and how one can go about integrating them in science education institutions (like IISc, IISERs and IITs). The findings of our research in these areas are summarized here:
andtwo, ‘what needed to be done’ as set up by the report needed to be converted to an actual implementation roadmap which is what we intend to execute at IISc, IISERs, IITs and other science teaching institutes.
(1) The Idea of Integration: The first area of the research has concerned itself with what ‘integration’ itself means. Attempts at integration are not new to science education in India (although the use of the term ‘integration’ is new). In the space of science-technology education in India, economic, political and cultural questions have come up from time to time. On the other hand, Indian science and technology has not managed to remain altogether immune to nationalist and developmentalist questions; at times, it has had to engage with questions of the ethics of scientific practice; it has also participated in the fostering in of a scientific mindset among the Indian populace. Research conducted by us through
a) revisiting crucial texts on science,
b) study of science education reports,
c) feedback obtained through interviews from key figures in the natural and human sciences, and
d) stock-taking of existing HSS and integrated course in IITs and science teaching institutions
revealed that we were working with multiple meanings of integration; the project therefore had to come up with its distinctive understanding of integration. This is important because the research took off from the framing argument that we could not just add on existing humanities and social sciences to science teaching institutions; also the conceptual space marked under ‘humanities and social sciences’ have gone through fundamental changes in the last few decades; which is why the question which version of the humanities and social sciences is to be introduced is a question worth pursuing. Further, one needs to keep in mind where the humanities and social science concerns, questions and methods were being brought in which is why we need to integrate rather than add on and because we need to integrate, we should be clear about what we mean by integration.
The question under consideration is which form of integration are we to attempt at the science teaching institutions? We can think of two possible forms of integration:
(i) The soft programme of being open-ended and bringing disciplines to dialogue without overtly challenging one another; and
(ii) The strong programme where two disciplines come face to face and interrupt each other in such a way that a third (what we call an integrated method) will be born.
(2) The Necessity of Integration: The second area of research consisted of an investigation into the reasons behind or necessity of the integration of natural and human sciences. Why should we integrate human and natural sciences? Is there some purpose to integration beyond being merely ethical and progressive? What are the advantages of integration for the institution and to the student? It is not only to present the human dimension to natural science students and make the next generation of scientists more humanitarian. Awareness of the social and knowledge of social science, although deeply connected, are not the same. Social awareness does not necessarily translate into knowledge of the social. At times integration gets reduced to awareness of social and political issues among science students. However, what we are looking for is integration of natural and human sciences, their knowledge frames and their methodologies. The human sciences are not just about larger societal and cultural values but are distinct knowledge domains. Knowledge of such domains would give rise to socially relevant and responsible science research and education. Integration is thus not about the value education of science students but about opening windows and creating conditions for new kinds of science research and education.
Several arguments can be (and have been) put forward in favour of integration by leading natural and social science scholars:
(i) Since reality is complex and quasi-natural spanning brute materiality and intentionality, natural science alone is not enough to capture all of reality. We need a holistic/integrated view to widen the horizon of knowledge and add to natural science spaces, human science inputs.
(ii) The inherited divisions of fact/value, sensory-experience/lived-experience, objective/subjective, universalism/contextualism, explanation/interpretation has been a hindrance to knowledge production – we need to move beyond these binarisms.
(iii) A good scientist is one who can critically reflect on one’s own discipline (and its methodology) as also connect with other disciplines. We therefore need to train them in the historical moorings (through history of science), philosophical foundations (through philosophy of science) and sociological bearings (through sociology of science) of scientific knowledge.
(iv) Science education should have courses on Indian culture and the tradition of science and technology in India so as to make them relevant to the Indian context.
(v) Human science inputs are also needed in a largely techno-scientific and mechano-morphic milieu of dry rationality, laboratory exercise and experimental experience to produce responsible and accountable citizens attuned to larger societal/national issues and questions of value-ethics.
(vi) Scientists are also future planners and administrators which is why they need to be aware of developmental and globalization debates.
(vii) Scientists need to be aware of larger forces like global capital and funding that in turn shape scientific research and laboratory activities and science students need to be made aware of the economic and political context in which science and technology takes shape.
(viii) The consumers/users have a close relationship with scientific and technological changes; at times such changes subject humans to risks and scientists need to be aware of this; also one needs to take note of and represent the consumer/user’s perspective (like that of the peasant/patient) in science education.
(ix) Scientists need to be aware of the social risk of technological changes (like global warming and e-waste).
(x) Scientific and technological changes come with ethical questions (like cloning) and one needs to accommodate an awareness of these issues in science education.
(xi) The next generation of scientists need to be more humanitarian (one needs to make them aware of the dark side of nuclear weapons).
(xii) One needs to interrupt natural science education with knowledge of human science methodologies; such interruption could give rise to new perspectives/methodologies.
Based on a critical reflection on all of the above we have arrived at our own justification for integration. We argue that integration means bringing into dialogue natural and human science knowledges/methodologies; such integration is to produce ‘new and relevant’ knowledge; it is to produce knowledge of a ‘third’ kind – knowledge that is neither exclusively natural nor human science knowledge.
(3) The Process of integration: The third area of research was an investigation into how to make such integration possible at science teaching institutes. What were the earlier experiments? How should the research-curriculum continuum be designed to ensure that the hitherto separate sciences are getting integrated? What are the institutional changes that will be required for integration? The connection between research and teaching and curriculum design based on relevance to UG science education is extremely crucial; introducing HSS courses with no connection to science education itself will have little relevance to the students obligated to take them. While on one hand faculty recruitment and infrastructure development is essential for the success of integration, the interest and feedback from the students would be another important determining factor. Here the development of the researchers’ collective on integrated themes is also vital – because such collectives would be the future harbingers of the integrated approach at science teaching institutes; such collectives would develop curriculum on integrated themes and also generate research interest in students on such themes. Raina et al of the Department of Education, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi in a study commissioned by the Higher Education Cell, CSCS (‘A Study in the Social-epistemology of “Science and Society” Education at Indian Universities and Technical Institutes’, 2009) have stated that the problem of science education and science curricula in India is ‘bad pedagogy’ (rather than just disciplinary segmentation once inherited and now inherent in the education system); they have also suggested that research and teaching will have to be connected and complementary; just like teaching a course on particle physics in a science institute without carrying out research on physics is not recommended, teaching a course on human science concerns in the same science institute without carrying out human science research is also not recommended; also, without integration of research questions/problems students are bound to miss out on the value such a human science course can provide to science education.
INTEGRATION IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: There have been several attempts in India (and abroad) to address the above mentioned concerns/problems. One therefore needs to take stock of earlier attempts and then mark clearly the continuities and the differences the model being suggested by the ISE initiative has with the earlier attempts/models. We have already taken a close look at three earlier models. These are:
1. HSS in IITS as ‘innocuous insiders’: The first, prevalent in India, in particular the IITs, was the model of setting up Humanities and Social Science (HSS) departments in science/technology institutions. Nonetheless, a critical analysis of the model showed that these HSS units were not integrated into science institutions; as ‘innocuous insiders’ HSS units have merely been ‘service’ departments of science/technology institutions who give to science students, at worst, an awareness of social issues and at best, a dose of social science information. While HSS units were not able to give science-technology students a thorough knowledge of human science methodology; they did not incubate the production of ‘new’ knowledge based on the dialogue/integration of natural and human/social sciences. Students of technology could not relate to the courses that were offered in HSS units. The relevance quotient of such courses in the milieu of the teaching of technology was low. The lone student who took such courses seriously and moved to foundational questions (like what is science/technology in light of the history and philosophy of science) soon found himself/herself orphaned or marginalized in the context of the general trend of the institution primarily, because there was no institutional support/room for the housing of such interface questions – questions located at the interface of natural and human science.
2. Critiques of science as ‘critical outsiders’: The second was the model of the ‘critique of science’ in existing HSS departments in universities. Here history, philosophy and sociology departments in universities playing the role of ‘critical outsiders’ examined the knowledge of science without engaging with the practice of science. While science education and research requires being critical and self-reflective, this critique of science coming from the outside is in itself problematic for it does not make possible the germination of new knowledge in the sciences; it instead produces resistance to such critiques among natural science students.
3. Interdisciplinarity (as an add-on): The third was the model of interdisciplinarity; interdisciplinarity as against cubicalization has been posed as a strategy to deal with the problem of the separation of natural and human sciences. However, Raina et al (Department of Education, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi) in a study commissioned by the Higher Education Cell, CSCS in 2009, ‘A Study in the Social-epistemology of “Science and Society” Education at Indian Universities and Technical Institutes’ have suggested that the formula for developing successful interdisciplinary fields has not challenged the underlying epistemologies and methodologies of the constitutive disciplines. At times interdisciplinarity becomes an add-on of secure disciplines. When the boundaries and frameworks of respective disciplines are not porous; it becomes a marriage of convenience between disciplines.
Given the above three, we propose ‘integration’ as another solution to the problem of separation-insulation. Integration calls for shared attention on objects of enquiry; this leads to both conflict and collaboration between disciplines; it leads to an assertion of the distinctness of a methodology (the privileged perspective it produces) as also dialogue between methodologies; it leads to a critical reflection on respective disciplines/methodologies as also an understanding of other/alien/contra disciplines/methodologies; it leads to an opening up and displacement of the hitherto separated/cubicalized/secure domains of knowledge. In the process an integrated third (methodology/perspective) is produced – a third transcending the two of natural/human science – a third haunted by both ‘stable horizons of sharing’ and ‘momentary eruptions of contradiction’. This integrated third is the ground and condition for ‘new objects of enquiry’ and ‘new problems’ – in a nutshell, ‘new science’.
Thus through integration, we hope to challenge “underlying epistemologies and methodologies of the constitutive disciplines” and develop in the process a third kind of methodology that will not be restricted to what has come to be known as natural science and human science methodologies. We would thus like to mark our contention with the interdisciplinarity model, since integrated science education is premised on the perception that integrated ways of dealing with the complex problems of reality would need to be found. And this cannot take the form of the model prevalent in the IITs or the interdisciplinarity model.
Taking off from the above insights, we are therefore proposing a dual model for science teaching institutes. Through the soft programme of integrated science education we would like to offer students courses in history and philosophy of science-technology or on the science-technology-society interface. This would be to orient students towards contemporary concerns with the way science is being done in India today. However, we are also suggesting a strong programme for institutes which are concerned solely with science education and research and cannot parallel the open-ended university model that offers its students a choice from a menu of a wide variety of courses. The strong programme will focus on those areas where natural and human worlds need to meet and pilot integrated themes of research and teaching around these areas. The integrated themes we are planning to develop at present are Cognition and Environment.
Integrated science education is one attempt at striking at the root of the problem besetting science education in India today. It is a novel way to address the issue at hand and it will be put to test, in order to match the high expectations placed upon it. To gauge the effectiveness of this model, we propose to conduct baseline studies using an Impact Assessment framework. The success or failure of this enterprise will be evaluated over three years; we would like to demonstrate whether through the method of integrated themes, we are able to attend to the lacunae observed in science education at present.
