Future of Integrated Science Education in Higher Education in India

The conversations across the two days involved participants from IISc Bangalore, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) Pune, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) Pune, Indian Institute of Technologies (IIT) Delhi, Ambedkar University Delhi, School of Women’s Studies Jadavpur University Kolkata, Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education Mumbai, SNDT College Mumbai, King’s College London, and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) Bangalore. This report captures some of the key points that emerged in the dialogue while also looking at the possibility of building an integrated science course for undergraduate students in India.

Introduction

Within higher education in India, there has been a strong polarisation and hierarchy of disciplines, with the pure, applied and life sciences at the top, professional courses in the middle, and social sciences, humanities and arts education at the bottom of the stack. Despite the fact that elementary and formative education in schools is geared towards a broader approach leading to integration of knowledge and skills across disciplines, the higher education landscape is overtly hostile, with disciplinary boundaries very tightly drawn. However, in recent years, as disciplines have collapsed due to advances in research and pedagogy, there has been a blurring of disciplinary boundaries. Interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity have become the buzz-words that have regularly been invoked by new universities, modernising curricula and the innovative cross-disciplinary structures of knowledge production outside the university structure. We have, hence, seen various spaces like the Indian Institute of Sciences and the Indian Institute of Technologies, opening humanities and social sciences research and education spaces to introduce their students to other forms of knowledges.

Unfortunately, both these ideas — of interdisciplinarity and integration — have been very limited in their scope and creativity. Interdisciplinarity plays itself out in a hostile environment where social sciences produce a critique of the ‘hegemony of science’, “positivist world views” and ‘experimental models’ in knowledge industries and with natural sciences (applied and theoretical), discrediting the non-objective ways of understanding phenomena and the emphasis on the human, the affective and the experiential that marks methods and analyses in social sciences and humanities. The bridge between the two remains shaky, and most attempts at interdisciplinarity either stay within identifiable disciplines (physics-chemistry-biology coming together in molecular biology, or sociology, literature and political theory joining hands in cultural studies). There is very little attempt at cross-paradigm dialogues that can breach the gap between natural and human sciences, humanities and the arts. Even when efforts have been made at integration, there is a relationship of inequity that is presumed in the two disciplines, leading to each criticising each other, rather than providing a critique that can reflectively and critically examine the biases and prejudices of each discipline, opening it up to new forms of inquiry, methods and knowledges.

In a few parts of the world, programmes in science-technology-society (STS) – including but not limited to philosophy of science, history of science, epistemology of science, and critique of science — have tried to integrate the different models of knowledge and research. However, most of them suffer from the fact that the researchers are generally social scientists who critique sciences from the outside and vice versa. In the rare occasions when people from within sciences have tried to produce a critique of their own disciplines, these voices have been quelled under sciences’ privileged position that exempts it from the same scrutiny that other knowledge claims were historically put under. The vibrant and dynamic debates of STS studies, research and critique do not reflect strongly in the Indian education system where such interventions are still few and far between. It is in this space where there is a paucity of integrated science teaching and a growing need for the same that the participants at the workshop addressed.

Rationale

It is necessary to explain what integrated science actually means. Till now, the efforts at integration have been at either exposing science students to social and human sciences, or to train students in social and human sciences to critique existing philosophies, modalities and structures of knowledge produced through the pure and natural sciences. In each of the attempts, there is an endorsement of the Cartesian dualism (mind-body, nature-culture, objective-subjective, etc.) that led to the splitting of knowledge systems into these different schisms. Integrated science is an attempt by which a simultaneous critique of two disciplines which are not complementary to each other opens up a dialogue and a mode of inquiry where each discipline can reflect on its own practices and presumptions while learning from the other. In the process, what emerges is a curriculum that is not only about the content but about the methods of producing a critique of existing knowledge structures. Keeping this in mind, short four-day courses were proposed which would demonstrate this ambition and also produce new curriculum which can actually be taught in three different locations: IISER Pune, Central University of Jharkhand and the Central University of Tamil Nadu.

I give a brief synopsis of five of the courses proposed, that this core team is planning to develop over the next year, using the three locations as the sandbox where they can be structured, taught and built upon.

Course 1:  Science-in-Making

What is Science? What is not? How do we make these distinctions from our own science practice and research? How do we unpack the different methods, models and modes of knowledge production within science and understand that they are not pre-given but are actually constructed and despite their alleged objectivity, construct certain world-views? The course aims to route the history of science by looking at the Cartesian dualism and tracing its way to the emergence and contestation of Newtonian Science. 

Beginning with a distinction between mechanical causality and teleological causality, the course, through stories and scientific conflicts would introduce students to thinking about how the fundamental truth of their disciplines are actually made in error. Three illustrative stories of Mendel, Milliken, and Addington would be used as the basis of showing how, if these scientists had actually applied the rigorous error analysis protocols of contemporary science, they would not have been able to make the claims that they did, which have formed the basis of so many scientific disciplines.

This ends by exploring the Data-Theory connections with science and the actual practice of science to offer a way of looking at the role of creativity, affect, experience, instincts, subjectivity, etc. in the process of knowledge making within sciences, rather than leaving them in sterile controlled lab-like environments within which science is generally taught.

Course 2: Seeing what you see: Cognition and the human mind

One of the most contended concepts between natural and human sciences has been about ways and methods of looking, knowing and understanding. Cognition studies helps complicate the picture from both the disciplines by positing a series of questions: What KIND of mind are you trying to study? How has the mind been accounted for in human history? Social sciences have dealt with this question by turning it into one of human behaviourism where as the natural sciences have deployed an algorithmic reductionism by concentrating on localising parts of the brains to establish catalyst-effect relationships.

The course aims to look at modern theories of mind and brain studies to show how they are infinitely plastic and cannot be localised. The attempt is to break away from the hierarchical neuronal model and introduce the students to the brain as complex, plastic, and dynamic. Drawing from life and biological sciences as well as psychology and artificial intelligence studies, the effort is to show how the methodological departures in each field produce a certain way by which we see ourselves and the world around us.

It ends by looking at the problems and the possibilities of the two popular models of understanding the human mind – The Mind that Thinks and the Mind that Dreams. Opening up sciences to questions of affect and empathy and expanding horizons of social sciences to look at theories of evolution and physiology, by locating them on the site of digital technologies, will help build better models of understanding the human mind-brain.

Course 3: Health, Technology and Bio-ethics

Technologies of health care are often posited to us as benign and for our own good. Questions of ethics – unless they ‘grossly violate’ concepts of life – are never factored into the practice of these technology mediated practices. This course wants to unravel the ‘truths’ and ‘knowledges’ of technologies of health care in order to look at the texts, institutions, attitudes and practices that construct health practices and how they gloss over the question of ethics.

Taking the clinic, the experience of health care, the role of the patient in healing and the hidden role of technologies, from eugenics to assisted death, the course takes the students through different discourses that rest on technology-nature debates in order to understand what it means to be human within a network of health care. Foregrounding the human over the patient, it then looks at the science-experience binary to offer alternative ways of thinking about technology-body-life relationships. It also unravels the ‘romance of science’ and the need to factor it out of our attitudes and practices with the digital technologies of care and life.

Course 4: National Technologies & Technologies of the Nation

In the history of science, the abstraction of facts and experiments from the larger socio-political contexts is accompanied by the abstraction of skills and knowledge from the larger scientific intellectual. How do we re-tell the story of conditions that made certain kinds of sciences possible and validated? How do we see the role of the nation state in promoting, shaping and endorsing certain kinds of technologies and technological choices? This course looks at the alternative history of science to examine different instances when India has thought of itself as a scientific nation.

Beginning with the colonial encounter and technologies of biometric sciences – photography, cranial measurements, surveys, etc., the course looks at how different technologies of the personal to the massive industrial projects like postal services, trains, etc., help establish the sovereignty of a nation state. The second instance it examines is the imagination of India as a nuclear state, to see how the history of technologies is also a history of war, violence and terror.

The third instance is the instance of liberalisation and the ways in which economic choices shaped the telecommunication wave initiated during the Rajiv Gandhi era. It examines the ways in which the material presence of TV, telephones, ISD centres, etc., change the ways in which we understand and experience the nation. The course ends by looking at the rise of the digital and the internet, and how, in the era of digital globalisation, we have new questions like food security, bio informatics, etc., which get mediated by these technologies.

Course 5: Sociology of Science and Science in Society

How do science and scientists work? What are the kind of work cultures and ethos that they belong to? How do we understand their practice while being outside of it? What happens when we are inside the space? These are the questions that serve as a catalyst for this course. The main ambitions of the course are two-fold:

1. To reflect upon practice of science – Looking at how science is done. What we get taught is a series of rote skills and methods without actually looking into how the scientific method is constructed and what does it critique in its practice. 
2. To see how science is received – There is a social context to science which is rarely attributed to the science itself. While there is study of how science contributes to society, there is little awareness on how science is structured by its reception in various circles – policy, regulation, social discourse, arts, cultures, expectations, popular media, speculative fiction, etc.

The course begins with Descartes and Bacon to explain the cause-and-effect structure of the experimental method within the narrative of science. It introduces the notion of ‘magic of science’ to look at the ideas of secularism, democratization, patronage, wonder, creativity, etc. which are built into the very structure of scientific discovery and technological innovation. In the process, it seeks to dismantle the positivist presumptions of science and technology – logic, reason, experiment etc., – and look at contesting and complementary accounts of reality which accompany scientific discourse. 

Introducing the coupling of development and process of science as a constructed one, by looking at the different kinds of resistances which it has faced and how it is changed to negotiate with those resistances, it seeks to make a distinction between the scientific intellectual and pragmatic contexts of science and bring together these two trajectories to understand our practice better.

Next Steps

1. Each of these courses is going to begin as a four-day module which can be taught to undergraduate students at CUJ in the coming year. 
2. A detailed course description with bibliography, module objectives, methodologies, annotations and class-notes will be created and compiled together to form an introductory course.
   
3. Each module, based on the teaching experience, feedback from students and peers, and more conversations, will be developed in a full-semester course, that will be accompanied by video lectures and podcasts by different instructors.
   
4. The ambition is to produce full teachable open courses for different locations, which can also be taught by people outside the core group.
   
5. Additional plans for doing faculty training for capacity building can also be thought of.