Journal of Academic Development and Education JADE Issue 8 | Page 48

48 | JADE
ARTICLE #4 | 49
ACADEMIC TRIBALISM AND SUBJECT SPECIALISTS AS A CHALLENGE
TO TEACHING AND LEARNING IN DUAL HONOURS SYSTEMS
DR. STEVEN L. ROGERS & DR. ALIX G. CAGE
(e.g. Kreber, 2009) means that students can produce a barrier to
their own learning, failing to see the link between the two subject
areas and the need to translate skills across from one subject to
the other so that they can make stronger critical interpretations
of the environment around them. This problem is seen in other
cognate disciplines (e.g. Meyer & Land, 2003) and is often further
exacerbated by the modular system. Both Geology and Physical
Geography encourage students to critically evaluate within and
across the disciplines but over time a ‘wedge’ can set in. Sometimes
this can be part of the ‘culture’ of a discipline, especially if there
is a perception that a discipline is construed to be ‘hard’ or ‘soft’
(e.g. Biglan, 1973 in Fanghanel, 2012). This academic tribalism can
also be evident between some staff members and this is not unique
at Keele; Donovan et al., (2011) commented that ‘To geologists, I
was a geographer and to the geographers, I was a geologist’. This
academic tribalism amongst staff can occasionally trickle down
and pervade the student consciousness. Despite this sub-discipline
‘rivalry’, it’s interesting to note that when our subject of specialism
(or importance thereof) is questioned or challenged by individuals
outside of the discipline we put aside any sub-discipline rivalries and
unite in defence (Abbott, 2001).
Does the integration of subjects in the dual honours system provide
a positive or negative effect on teaching and learning?
the linkages between them. Disciplinarity can be important to the
success of an academic (Fanghanel, 2012) but in terms of student
learning, academic tribalism can create a passion that borders on
close-mindedness and can result in barriers to learning.
The following are some qualitative observations made whilst teaching
within this ‘tight’ cognate GGE discipline group. Observations have
come from lectures, practical classes and fieldtrips, with the majority
coming from those modules where dual honours Geography and
Geology students attend, and in particular, from the transition from
level 5 to 6 where the students make their choice of majoring in a
particular discipline, or maintaining a 50/50 split in subjects. Our
observations of dynamics between the geology and geography
‘tribes’ are as follows:
•
•
Academic Tribalism and the Impact on Learning in
Geography, Geology and the Environment
The discord between Human Geography and Geosciences (including
Physical Geography) is somewhat understandable—the subjects are
from two very different disciplines (social versus natural sciences).
However, fundamentally Geology and Physical Geography (as well
as Environmental Science, other physical sciences and some aspects
of social science) are intrinsically, tightly, linked disciplines, there are
many similarities, as well as a fair share of differences. As physical
geographers and geologists, we often are using the same ‘toolbox’
(sedimentology, micropalaeontology, geochemistry, mapping) but
we’re using it to answer different research questions. As geography
and geology are by definition separate (by name, by course, by the
University, by social understanding and most often, by programme
team), the study of one, with little conscious, signposted, knowledge
of the other is completely possible—indeed this is the norm—single
honour degrees in geography or geology are commonplace at many
institutes. At Keele University, the availability of dual honours has
offered an opportunity for both students and teachers to learn more
about the connections between these inherited disciplines, and
•
•
•
•
Students often build up separate and distinct ‘scaffolds’ (Wood
et al. 1976, Bruner 1978, Vygotsky 1978, Murtagh and Webster
2010) for the individual subjects. They can often be unwilling
or unaware that they can, and should be, synthesizing different
sources of knowledge into an individual ‘skill-set’ or ‘knowledge
silo’ (e.g. Morrison, 2006). It has become apparent that many
students struggle to integrate their existing knowledge generated
within their subject across the disciplines; showing unwillingness
or inability to implement Constructivism (Piaget, 1950).
Some members of a cohort express boredom with the aspect
of their dual honour which they perceive as the less important,
or which they identify (the disciplines norms and identity) with
the least. This has on occasion resulted in disruption of teaching
activities or attitude problems. It can also result in poor grades in
the subject they favour the least.
Cohorts from different disciplines can become dogmatic in their
approach to teaching and learning; being unwilling to approach
different learning styles.
Lack of cohesion between students of different subject groups.
This is particularly noticeable on field trips.
The attitudes of staff toward their discipline is likely the origin
to some of this behaviour. Whilst the vast majority of staff are
capable (and do!) make cognitive links between disciplines, in
both research and teaching, the behaviour and environment
created by some staff and students arguably enhances
disciplinary dogma.
The dual honours system encourages subject specialism and
disciplinary identity. Indeed, these identities, and the experiences
students receive of different discipline attitudes are possibly
what makes some of our students such great geographers and
geologists!