The Interdisciplinary Approach as a Siege

Metaphors can be used to better understand abstract concepts because they can provide both novel and more concrete visualization. One concept that can be usefully described in metaphor is that of an interdisciplinary study. A deeper understanding of what it means for a study to be interdisciplinary can be achieved by using the metaphor of a “siege”. This paper will discuss why a siege is an apt and potentially fruitful metaphor for conceptualizing interdisciplinary studies, as well as the limitations of the metaphor.

A siege is a military strategy for conquering a stubborn, well-defended fortress (Corfis, 1995). It involves completely surrounding a stronghold in order to cut off the possibility of escape, as well as to attack from all sides (Bachrach, 2002). Many important, real world issues and questions prove difficult to understand and answer and are thus well represented by the fortress. One way to attack a fortress would be a full-frontal assault, which can work against a feebler resistance, but will likely fail against strongly fortified opposition. A single discipline approach is represented by this frontal assault. If a problem is studied using the tools and paradigms of only one discipline, it can often fail to achieve meaningful results. When this strategy fails during war, a concerted attack from all sides, with diverse techniques, and with different tools is needed; this is the siege. Troops enclose the fortress from each side. They then use different tools, such as battering rams, siege towers, and underground tunnels to confront the defenses at the same time (Kern, 1999). A siege is therefore a useful metaphor for the interdisciplinary approach. When a problem is difficult to solve, instead of addressing it from the perspective of only one discipline, a better strategy is to approach the problem from different perspectives, using multiple disciplines. This allows for a broader set of tools and techniques for addressing and understanding the issue. The image of a siege is therefore useful for visualizing the differences between single disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches.

The siege metaphor is not only useful for visualizing interdisciplinary studies, but it can also provide insights into the best way to utilize the multiple perspectives, the same as one would do in successful business strategies. The siege can only work if the efforts from all sides are coordinated. If troops from one side attack while the others remain stationed, the walls won’t be breached. If information about the fortress obtained from one side is not shared with the others, it can't be utilized effectively. The same is true with an interdisciplinary study. The different perspectives must be merged and coordinated. This involves having a shared definition of the problem at hand, as well as integrating insights gained from the various techniques in order to guide and adapt all other efforts. The siege metaphor therefore encourages a coordinated approach, which is an important feature of an interdisciplinary study.

While the siege metaphor for interdisciplinary studies such as LGBTQ rights in corporations is useful, there are some limitations. For one thing, the idea of a siege brings up connotations of violence and destruction. Of course, when studying phenomena, the goal is not always to destroy problems, sometimes it can be to illuminate concepts. The siege metaphor is thus better pictured as a way to breach a difficult situation, in order to get inside it, not necessarily to destroy it. Further, the siege metaphor is limited in that it conjures an image of a fortification with a fixed and small number of sides, such as a square castle. It is obviously much too simplistic to assume that an issue of study can be approached with only a few techniques and be fully encompassing at the same time. To complete the metaphor, perhaps it is best to imagine that the fortress has one side against the sea. In both a siege and an interdisciplinary study, it is important to surround the problem as thoroughly as possible with an integrated assault, but one should never assume that the enclosure is complete.

References

Bachrach, B. S. (2002). Warfare and military organization in pre-crusade Europe. Aldershot, Hampshire, Great Britain ; Burlington, VT.: Ashgate/Variorum.

Corfis, I. A., & Wolfe, M. (1995). The medieval city under siege. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK ; Rochester, NY, USA: Boydell Press.

Kern, P. B. (1999). Ancient siege warfare. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.