Anne J. MacCleave
It is an honor to be invited to serve on this keynote panel, and I am thrilled to be able to share experiences with those who understand and appreciate working across disciplinary boundaries. I won’t have to worry about explaining why I chose interdisciplinarity and other non-disciplinary approaches over pure disciplinarity or subject matter specialization. I know that I am speaking to the already converted.
Having shared this perception, I cannot assume that the term “interdisciplinary” has the same meaning for everyone in the audience. I noticed discrepancies in this and related terms over the years and a recent Internet search convinced me that this situation still exists. In fact, my search was an “eye-crossing” experience. As one example, a chemical engineering site in the U.S. described their programs as crossdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary but these terms were presented as if they were synonyms rather than alternative non-disciplinary approaches.
What is Meant by Interdisciplinarity?
A recent article by Davies and Devlin (2007) proposed definitions for interdisciplinary and related terms. Although these authors provided current references, they did not directly elaborate on the historic foundations of the meanings they proposed. They described a number of variants of interdisciplinary, including pluridisciplinary and transdisciplinary, which could “be located on a continuum from benign to radical variants” (p.3).
I also outlined definitions of multidisciplinary, pluridisciplinary, crossdisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary in a recent Call for Papers for an on-line journal issue that I am guest-editing (MacCleave, 2005a). These definitions were based on the work of Kocklemans (1979), one of my philosophy professors at Penn State, whose work was widely circulated across the U.S. and is still frequently cited. However, this work is almost 30 years old and I raised the question in my Call for Papers of whether these ideas are still pertinent for research crossing disciplinary boundaries or is the creation of new categories, descriptions, or distinctions warranted? 1
There is a prior question that might be addressed and I am throwing it out for any brave soul who might want to take up the intellectual challenge. Does this lack of conceptual clarity matter in reference to multiple definitions of interdisciplinary and other non-disciplinary approaches? Some might consider this question as too rooted in structuralist concerns. Some might think that it is unwise to get hung up on any particular definition or meaning when these are constantly evolving and shifting anyway. Whether or not you agree that this issue is important or warrants much attention, I believe that it helps to make our own meanings clear while recognizing the dynamic and evolving nature of these meanings.
The issue of conceptual clarity might be important to researchers and scholars who cross-disciplinary boundaries; however, it is beyond the purpose of my presentation to explore this issue in depth. I wanted merely to flag this issue rather than dwell on it. I now want to turn to describing briefly how I became an interdisciplinarian or nondisciplinarian. Although this reflection is personal and idiosyncratic, it also illustrates issues that might resonate with others who work in cross and interdisciplinary settings.
The Beginnings: Studying at Penn State
I studied for a PhD in Home Economics Education at Penn State from 1979-1985 at a time when interdisciplinarity was being promoted. One of the key advocates was Rustum Roy, a well-known materials scientist. In the spirit of crossing disciplinary boundaries, a handful of graduates from my department were encouraged to take their philosophy requirements from the Philosophy Department instead of taking courses in educational philosophy, the more typical route. I decided to take Medieval, Seventeenth Century, and Modern Philosophy and with no background whatsoever, not even an undergraduate philosophy course, found myself studying with graduate philosophy students. I was introduced to a wide range of philosophical languages and previously unfamiliar modes of inquiry. I confess that most of the time I felt insecure and inadequately prepared for the work. However, the professors were exceptionally kind, supportive, and encouraging and from them I learned as much about pedagogy as philosophy. They were superb role models.
It was not until my third course that I started exploring ideas across disciplines. For my final paper in Dr. Alphonse Lingus’ Modern Philosophy course, I attempted to contrast Heidegger’s view of language with that of a particular version of cognitive psychology. I believed that it was important to better understand the syntactical structure of language but if scholars were to limit their knowledge of language to highly structured models of parsing sentences and paragraphs used in some versions of cognitive psychology, the focus might be on language structure at the expense of meaning. Philosophers like Heidegger could help us restore deeper meaning to language and help us embrace its descriptive, poetic, and evocative qualities.
Was I suggesting that research on language in cognitive psychology be replaced with a Heideggerian perspective? I would make no such suggestion. These different disciplinary perspectives represent partial rather than comprehensive views of language and serve different purposes. I wanted to contrast these different purposes, examine differences in the way each perspective portrayed language, and probe underlying assumptions. Learning about language is complex and multiple perspectives are better than any single one in isolation.
I highlight this particular example because it was one of my first experiences to attempt dialogue across vastly different disciplinary and paradigmatic boundaries in order to unearth differences in underlying assumptions. This task was self-imposed because this course was my final one in philosophy; at that point, I had not attempted any assignment that could be labeled interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary. Simply taking courses across disciplines did not count because I had been doing that for years.
During my doctoral studies, I was also exposed to a wide variety of research methodologies and methods through coursework, research assistantships, and my doctoral research. Most graduate students aligned with quantitative research or some version of qualitative inquiry. I resisted aligning with any one of the research “camps” and have continued throughout my career to study across research methodologies and methods. 2
I self-identified as an interdisciplinarian by the end of my degree program and with additional experiences crossing disciplinary boundaries. I was a generalist as far as subject matter was concerned but a specialist in educational processes and theories including: curriculum and evaluation theories, theories of learning/cognitive processes, ethical inquiry such as values reasoning, and research methodologies. These theories, processes, and modes of inquiry can be applied across subject areas.
These early academic experiences illustrate a number of opportunities and challenges, some of which might resonate with others who adopt interdisciplinary and non-disciplinary approaches to scholarly work.
Opportunities
Pursuit of interdisciplinary and other non-disciplinary approaches to research and scholarship presents a number of opportunities that cannot be realized as fully when adopting more traditional disciplinary-bound approaches. These opportunities will be addressed briefly.
Thinking About Complex Problems. My reflection paper forModern Philosophy on teaching and learning allowed me to consider multiple possibilities that might have been ignored had I not crossed disciplinary boundaries. Lele and Norgaard (2005) claimed that crossing disciplinary boundaries was necessary when thinking collectively about complex problems. Our contemporary concern over the state of the environment is one example of an issue that is far too complex for any single discipline to address adequately. Given the magnitude and complexity of current world problems, demands for interdisciplinary and other non-disciplinary approaches will probably escalate in the coming years.
Pursuing Broad Interests. Over the years, I’ve studied broadly across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities and thoroughly enjoyed developing what I refer to as a “Renaissance Education.” For me, interdisciplinary work and other non-disciplinary work had a natural appeal. It wasn’t always easy or even possible to reconcile the differing values and assumptions encountered, but I enjoyed the intellectual challenge that this task represented. To borrow a phrase from Susan Elgie from OISE, “It was fun in a masochistic sort of way.” I found that it stretched my thinking to get into a conceptual mess (typically not intentional) and then try to dig myself out.
Nurturing Creativity. It was exciting to create new areas of knowledge by crossing disciplinary boundaries. I was hooked on the generative possibilities of integrating ideas that were not typically connected. I enjoyed scholarship that was new, interesting, and exciting and that engaged both thought and imagination. This creativity and enjoyment, however, was also grounded in pragmatic concerns that the resultant knowledge adds insight and ideas for perplexing issues and challenges faced by humans.
Expanding and Enriching Horizons. Adopting interdisciplinary and other non-disciplinary approaches adds conceptual richness to interdisciplinarian and pure disciplinarian efforts alike when this work is conducted with integrity. Interdisciplinary and non-disciplinary research need not be considered a threat to disciplines because these approaches are dependent on the existence of various disciplines. The relationship is best thought of as complementary and reciprocal (Kocklemans, 1979).
Preparing for Future Teaching. The broad exposure that I experienced in my PhD studies has been helpful for university teaching. I enjoy helping students make connections across their studies that they might otherwise not make. I want them to develop a sense of greater coherence in their programs rather than end up with an incoherent “crazy quilt” degree. Exclusive exposure to highly specialized scholarship is not the only way to develop a sense of coherence.
When it comes to teaching research, I strongly believe that it is important for graduate students to be able to read broadly across their fields and not to be limited by lack of exposure to alternative methodologies and methods. Students are also better positioned to follow up with more specialized quantitative and qualitative modes of inquiry because they have a better understanding of the choices they are making. I am competent in quantitative methods of research and at the same time, reasonably conversant with different versions of qualitative inquiry and am thus able to provide a balanced approach to these topics in my research literacy course. I am also able to supervise thesis students who use a variety of different methodologies and methods.
Challenges
Having shared some of the opportunities and benefits of undertaking interdisciplinary work, I will now turn to some of the challenges.
Experiencing Identity Confusion. I was not faced with pressures to become a subject matter specialist in my education studies because the focus on educational theories/processes and interdisciplinarity was promoted in my degree. However, I did notice that subject matter specialists seemed more confident in their academic identity and I envied their confidence even though I did not want to become a subject matter specialist myself. Also, based on the research literature at that time when “paradigm wars” were raging, I did feel that I had transgressed some unwritten rule by not aligning with either quantitative or qualitative modes of inquiry. The position taken by some scholars was that a researcher could not logically choose to work with both modes because the underlying values and assumptions were incommensurable. The issue of alternative and competing assumptions is huge for scholars contemplating interdisciplinary work. I will return to this issue and explore it further in the context of an imaginary research dialogue that I wrote.
Feeling Insecure. It is difficult to gain a feeling of competence in an area when that area is constantly changing. I would just start to become more knowledgeable and comfortable in one area of study or with one mode of inquiry when the “rug was pulled out” by being introduced to a totally different area of study with an alternative mode of inquiry (Hein, 2004). However, I learned coping mechanisms over the years. For example, I discovered that when conducting a mixed methodology study with both quantitative and qualitative sections, the analytic thinking required to generate quantitative research results tended to bleed into my interpretation and representation of qualitative data. Eventually, I resolved this problem by completing the qualitative section first. I found that it was easier to mentally switch from a qualitative to a quantitative mode of inquiry rather than the other way around. Of course, other researchers might experience this situation differently. I also learned to have patience with myself, allow the necessary time and space to learn and to keep reading and studying. Sometimes insight into and across these diverse areas did not come until years later.
Encountering a Steep Learning Curve. In order to conduct interdisciplinary work that has academic credibility, it is important to have a reasonable depth of knowledge of the disciplines that you plan to work with and integrate. Otherwise, the outcome might earn the label of “crude eclecticism” (MacCleave, 2005b). If a scholar follows this standard, she or he has much more to learn than colleagues who focus on one discrete area of study.
In recognition of this steeper learning curve, Davies and Devlin (2007) addressed the implications of interdisciplinarity for teaching. They recommended that students be provided with cognitive maps and explicitly taught the language when being inducted into a discipline by using glossaries and checklists. This latter idea did not have much appeal for me because I do not find glossaries especially helpful, although others might. I learn better by first constructing a general idea of the entire meaning system or conceptual framework that guides a discipline. Only then can I fully understand a specific term or concept in relation to others within the framework. Because meaning is derived from the conceptual framework, decontextualizing terms and concepts from the framework sometimes strips them of their meaning. 3
Being Devalued by Specialists. Having broad interests is frequently equated with lesser disciplinary talent and superficial work in areas of non-disciplinarity (Davies & Devlin (2007). In order to sustain focus, integrity, and credibility, specialists tend to weed out or dismiss the work of those who stray too far from the fold. I have often felt devalued by subject matter specialists whose response to my description of the processes, methodologies, and modes of inquiry that I specialize in has been: “But what is your specialty?”
The choice between pursuing disciplinarity and non-disciplinarity is often presented as one of breadth versus depth but this dichotomy is unnecessary. Although scholars could not possibly develop depth in areas across the academy, they can certainly focus on one or two areas of interest while developing greater breadth of perspective than is typical of most disciplinarians.
With disciplines, dominant ideas become the focus of research and learning and attending to these helps advance the knowledge base of the discipline. Although interdisciplinary work does not inevitably lead to the creation of new interdisciplines, when such new entities form they often develop their own dominant ideas, form new boundaries, or “circle their own wagons” (Lele & Norgaard, 2005). However, this stance is often a response to competition for scarce institutional resources rather than an inherent characteristic of interdisciplinary scholarship. Interdisciplinary work is typically associated with breaking down barriers and boundaries that separate disciplines but, paradoxically, the result is sometimes the creation of new ones.
Continuing with the Work: Current Examples
Despite the challenges, I persevered to continue with interdisciplinary and other non-disciplinary work throughout my academic career. A good proportion of my teaching and research has an interdisciplinary or other non-disciplinary component. I will share a couple of examples from my graduate teaching in Educational Psychology.
I offer a course in Values Reasoning as a graduate course in Educational Psychology (MacCleave, 1995). In this course, students integrate philosophical inquiry with traditional social science without distorting the original intent of either mode of inquiry. Felicia Eghan and I adapted the process over the years to suit various subject areas and to address issues in educational psychology, human development, gerontology, and natural science. (MacCleave & Eghan, 2006; Eghan & MacCleave, 2007). 4 Values reasoning helps students examine ethical issues and supports their critical thinking. Although the process is constant, the “factual” information or knowledge to which this process is applied is generated from the extant literature of various disciplines. The process of values reasoning entails organizing a range of discipline-based knowledge in a different way in order to address issues of values and ethics that might otherwise be overlooked.
As another example, students integrate curriculum inquiry with developmental theory to evaluate and design or redesign a variety of programs in my Human Relations Program Design course. They learn to generate ideas using theories as a guide or heuristic and thus, actively link theory to practice. Educational curriculum and programs are based on explicit or tacit views of the learner, the teaching and learning process, knowledge, and so on. These views or assumptions have their roots in several disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and curriculum theory. The most coherent programs are designed with full awareness of underlying assumptions and are typically interdisciplinary in nature.
For the past twenty-one years, I have also taught Research Literacy courses to graduate students enrolled in a number of masters programs. My work in research methodologies culminated in a series of research “plays” featuring an imaginary dialogue among researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds who meet to collaborate for a research grant. They must work through different languages, competing views of knowledge and differing assumptions about how one goes about working with subjects or participants, collecting data, analyzing or interpreting data, and representing the products of their inquiry. Using a hypothetical dialogue opened up spaces for me to fully explore these issues without inhibition that might arise when studying real life situations.
Imaginary Dialogues
In this imaginary dialogue, a clinical psychologist (Cindy Jones), an anthropologist (John Smith), a phenomenologist (Helena Smart), and a grounded theorist (Jerry Keen) collaborate to write an NSERC proposal based on the theme of childhood loneliness. Ideas for the dialogue were generated from my own experiences working with different disciplines, reviewing research grant proposals, and teaching. Some ideas were based on stories shared by colleagues and other ideas were a product of my imagination. I searched the research literature for ideas and based Helena’s research on Anna Kirova-Petrova’s (2000) phenomenological research on loneliness of linguistically diverse children. However, the role of Helena in the imaginary dialogue is fictional.
In the original dialogue, I proposed that research communities of researchers who cross disciplinary boundaries be thought of as cultural negotiators. I began to think about different research approaches as different cultures when I was first introduced to cultural psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, while on sabbatical leave in 1998. I sat in on a Semiotics course offered by Dr. Howard Smith and also met with Dr. Arlene Stairs who shared some of her publications on cultural negotiation (Stairs, 2006). I refer you to the MacCleave (2006) article for more detail about my “research communities as cultures” premise. For this presentation, I want to limit my focus to incommensurability 5 issues generated through this dialogue excerpt and the implications of incommensurability for the conduct of interdisciplinary and other non-disciplinary research projects.
Excerpts from an Imaginary Dialogue by Anne MacCleave (2006).
As Committee Chair, Dr. Cindy Jones takes her place at the head of the table. Dr. Jones is admired for her efficiency in conducting meetings.
Cindy:I would like to call our meeting to order and begin by welcoming our department researchers and those from other departments or faculties who have decided to join us in a bid for an interdisciplinary NSERC grant on childhood loneliness. One of the major NSERC themes is a focus on social and emotional health in children. The granting agency is also pushing for more interdisciplinary research and favours combining quantitative and qualitative methods (p.2-3).
Cindy introduces Dr. John Smith from the Department of Anthropology who specializes in ethnographic research, then Dr. Helena Smart who conducts phenomenological inquiry within the Faculty of Education. She refers to both John and Helen’s research simply as “qualitative.” Cindy then introduces the fourth member of the new collaborative research team, Dr. Jerry Keen. Although she has not worked with Jerry prior to this meeting, she introduces him as a colleague from her medical school who is introducing qualitative methods to some of her medical research colleagues and promoting the combined use of quantitative and qualitative methods. After the introductions are complete, Cindy continues:
Over the past ten years, my teams have brought in over two million dollars in research monies and I hope to continue with my successful record. Without further ado, let’s start by going around the table and hear about which factors you found to be associated with childhood loneliness. Jerry, would you agree to serve as a recorder? Jerry and I will review the notes and try to get a draft of a tentative research proposal e-mailed to you in a couple of weeks. Helena and John can bring your comments and refinement recommendations to our next meeting at the end of the month. Let’s start with you, Helena (p.3).
Helena:In my work, I reviewed several quantitative studies reporting factors associated with childhood loneliness. Some versions of qualitative research also identified that issue in terms of factors. As a phenomenologist, however, I typically do not construct reality in that way (p. 3).
Sensing that things might rapidly be getting bogged down and glancing nervously at her watch, Cindy responds:
Cindy: Then, what do you call “factors” in your research? You must have some other term. Is it “variables”? Maybe we could ask Jerry to get the ball rolling and get back to you later, Helena. You identify factors associated with childhood loneliness in your grounded theory, don’t you Jerry? Jerry has been trying to convince us that qualitative methods can be just as rigorous and scientific as quantitative research if sound methodology is used.
Also, I came to the meeting with some tentative research questions that I hoped to expand and refine with your input. These are stated in a broad or general way in order to include everyone as much as possible. For example: How might we define childhood loneliness? What factors are associated with childhood loneliness? How might childhood loneliness be treated by mental health care professionals, counselors, or educators? (p.3)
Jerry and then John attempt to share the factors associated with childhood loneliness that they have generated in their respective research projects with necessary adaptations. For example, John does not use the term factors in his research in a traditional scientific sense but qualifies them as situational or contextual variables. John’s variables end up sounding like overly vague generalizations and he explains that these do not make a lot of sense without knowledge of the contexts of his respective research projects.
And, at a later point in the dialogue, Helena assures Cindy that she can relate to the factors associated with childhood loneliness that John and Jerry shared and was reassured of her familiarity with the research literature they highlighted. Her reluctance to report her research in terms of either factors or variables has nothing to do with lack of familiarity with or acceptance of their use in some versions of research but in her unique research purposes:
Helena: Instead (of reporting research findings in terms of variables), I try to focus on the meaning of loneliness within the lifeworlds of children. I try to integrate feeling or emotion with perception and thought to provide an account that is more holistic than that of the research studies we’ve addressed so far (p. 6).
Cindy: (with a tone of incredulity) Did you say “feelings”? As a researcher, I was strongly socialized to believe that feelings or emotions should be avoided as much as possible ….. to avoid bias and maintain objectivity. Don’t you worry about having biased research, Helena? Jerry assured me that qualitative research can be just as rigorous as quantitative and I assumed that that meant maintaining objectivity! (p. 6)
Issues of Incommensurability Illustrated by the Dialogue Excerpt
These excerpts illustrate a multitude of incommensurability issues facing this research team. Cindy has come to the table with a number of unexamined assumptions and with little or no knowledge of qualitative research of any sort, let alone knowledge of the vast differences across different qualitative traditions. However, she is aware of language differences across traditions but only at the term or word level. She assumes that different research traditions have different words that essentially mean the same thing such as “variables” instead of “factors.” She seems to be completely unaware of possible paradigmatic or methodological differences of the other researchers who have joined the team. Further, her assumption that this cross-disciplinary effort can be conducted efficiently is unrealistic. More time and effort would be required to negotiate a mutually agreeable approach to this complex inquiry across previously exclusive disciplines than would be the case when working with more methodologically-compatible approaches.
This imaginary dialogue illustrates some of the challenges that may be encountered when researchers from diverse backgrounds collaborate to research a broad theme or complex problem. Additional issues of incommensurability are addressed in the full article (MacCleave, 2006). As far-fetched or exaggerated as this dialogue might appear, I believe that such a meeting of minds could be advantageous for developing a richer, multi-dimensional understanding of a complex problem, issue, or theme.
“Don’ts and Do’s” for Conducting Inter/Non-disciplinary Research Projects
Drawing from my almost thirty years of personal and vicarious inter and non-disciplinary experience in graduate study and university teaching, I will generate a brief list of “Don’ts and Do’s” for collaborative interdisciplinary or non-disciplinary research. The opportunities and challenges previously shared and the huge but, in my view, not insurmountable issues of incommensurability presented in the imaginary dialogue excerpt will also inform this list.
Do not join an inter, cross, multi, pluri, or transdisciplinary research team with the notion of converting other team members to your “superior” or best way of conducting research. It would help if notions of hierarchy were abandoned altogether because you will only end up insulting others or devaluing what they bring to the table.
Do realize that different research orientationsserve different purposes andeducate each other at a rudimentary level about your research approach. In this effort, it helps to become familiar with the underlying methodological assumptions of your own approach. Scholars who have spent years using a single approach to inquiry often take these assumptions for granted and are unfamiliar with methodological conversations where assumptions are made explicit and compared with alternatives. In your efforts to educate colleagues about what you do in your various inquiries, it helps to share concrete examples of research projects to illustrate points made.
Do not expect to understand previously exclusive modes of inquiry quickly. Typically, it takes years of studying to advance one’s knowledge of a range of alternative modes of inquiry.
Do allow time and space for an extensive dialogue across difference. However, researchers need not have an expert understanding of all the diverse research approaches represented in their group before they begin to work together. If they are open-minded and curious, researchers’ understanding of alternative approaches to inquiry will grow and their ideas will be transformed as a result of participating in a collaborative research project.
Do not attempt to integrate incommensurable ideas prematurely. This practice is likely to result in a conceptual mess filled with unexamined contradictions. Such an outcome would give inter/non-disciplinary research a bad name and turn otherwise, enthusiastic collaborators away from the project. Even if unintentional, that outcome would be like saying: “Come and join our team and we’ll distort your research efforts beyond all recognition.”
Do keep approaches relatively separate or parallel at the beginning of new collaborations across diverse research traditions. In the full MacCleave (2006) article, the eclectic team negotiates a “nested approach” to their collaborative project with a comparative “dialogue across diversity” to be included in the summary of the project. That way, they can experience the benefits of research diversity while avoiding some of the pitfalls.
Do not gloss over differences or simply sweep them under the carpet.
Do expect and embrace diversity in approaches and acknowledge that your ultimate goal is to generate a multidimensional study. Further, it would help to study the process of inquiry across disciplines and document how different approaches to the overall project were negotiated (hopefully in a way that preserves the integrity of the diverse components). In the past thirty years, I have encountered plenty of literature that promoted interdisciplinary and other non-disciplinary research and some literature that outlined challenges in the abstract but no stories about the “nitty gritty” of negotiating across differences, misunderstandings addressed, or compromises made. Where were these stories? Would such stories not help optimize the benefits and outcomes of inter/non-disciplinary research?
This list of “don’ts and do’s” was intended for researchers who join collaborative groups to engage with inter or non-disciplinary research. With adaptations, this list could also apply to scholars working independently on inter, cross, multi, pluri, or transdisiplinary research. It would be good for individual scholars to educate themselves about the assumptions underlying the various components of their work and to allow time and space to dialogue across differences in their own efforts. It would be advantageous for inter and non-disciplinary scholars to embrace diversity and document their negotiation of this diversity and any issues of incommensurability that they encounter. Possibly, individual scholars as well as teams of researchers could create innovative ways to work with diversity in research approaches and, thus, make a contribution to the future of interdisciplinary studies.
With good ideas and beneficial outcomes, inter and non-disciplinary research might become better accepted, appreciated, and more indispensable. I hope that my reflections have given you some ideas to think about as you continue your studies. As students of an interdisciplinary doctoral program, the future belongs to you. I hope that your good work will champion the cause of interdisciplinary and other non-disciplinary inquiry, and I encourage you to document and share stories about these inquiries. Happy researching.
* Keynote Panel Presentation, April 10, 2008 - Epistemic Bridges: Interdisciplinarity in the Academy. Sponsored by the Interdisciplinary PhD Students’ Society at Dalhousie University.
Davies, M., & Devlin, M. (2007). Interdisciplinary higher education: Implications for teaching and learning. The University of Melbourne: Centre for the Study of higher Education, Retrieved March 25 from http://www.cshe.unimelb/edu/au/pdfs/InterdisciplinaryHEd.pdf
Eghan, F., & MacCleave, A. (2007). Values reasoning for critical thinking: Completing the process. Proceedings of the 2006 AAU Teaching Showcase, Memorial University, Saint John’s, NFLD, 11, 41-54.
Grix, J. (2004). The foundations of research. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Hein, S. F. (2004). “I don’t like ambiguity”: An exploration of students’ experiences during a qualitative methods course. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50 (1), 22-38.
Hultgren, F. (1980). Values Reasoning: Working papers. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Kirova-Petrova, A. (2000). Researching young children’s lived experiences of loneliness: Pedagogical implications for linguistically diverse students. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46 (2), 99-116.
Kocklemans, J. J. (1979). Interdisciplinarity and higher education. University Park, PA. Pennsylvania State University.
Langenbach, M., Vaughn, C., & Aagaard, L. (1994). An introduction to educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Lather, P. (1992). Critical frames in educational research: Feminist and poststructural perspectives. Theory into Practice, 31 (2), 87-99.
Lele, S., & Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing interdisciplinarity (Special Roundtable Section). Bioscience, 55 (11), 967-975.
MacCleave, A. (1995). Values reasoning: Linking the theoretical with the practical in educational psychology. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Mount Saint Vincent University, pp. 150.
MacCleave, A. (2005a) Guest Editor, (Jan. 2006), theme issue on “Researching Across Disciplines: Sharing Our Stories”. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM, 16 (2). See Call for Papers at /archives/forum/16-2/cfp_16.2.html.
MacCleave, A. (2005b). Researching across disciplines: A cultural perspective. Kappa Omicron Nu FORUM, 16 (2), Retrieved April 16, 2005 from /archives/forum/16-2/maccleave.html}
MacCleave, A. (2006). Incommensurability in cross-disciplinary research: A call for cultural negotiation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (2), Article 4, Retrieved July 31, 2006 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/backissues5_2pdf/maccleave.pdf
MacCleave, A., & Eghan, F. (2006). Developing ways of thinking and critical dispositions in University students. Proceedings of the 2005 AAU Teaching Showcase, Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro, N.S., 10, 233-248.
Stairs, A. (1996). Human development as cultural negotiation: Indigenous lessons on becoming a teacher. Journal of Educational Thought, 30(3), 219-237.
Dr. Anne MacCleave is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, NS, Canada.