9.00 to 9.10 am

Introduction and Welcome to CCS  
Prof. Raghavendra Gadagkar

9.10 to 9.25 am

Platinum Jubilee of the Indian National Science Academy
Prof. M. Vijayan, President, INSA

9.25 to 10.15 am

"Imagination in science: Best selling science books and blockbuster TV"
Prof. Bruce Lewenstein, Cornell University, USA

10.15 to 10.45 am

Tea / coffee

10.45 to 11.30 am

11.30 to 12.15 pm

“Technology without Theory: The case of Classical Indian Architecture”
Dr. V. Sanil, IIT, Delhi

12.15 to 1.00 pm

1.00 to 2.00 pm

Lunch

2.00 to 2.45 pm

“Ancient Alloys and Modern Science”
Prof. S. Ranganathan,  Bangalore

2.45 to 3.30 pm

3.30 to 4.00 pm

Tea / coffee

4.00 to 4.45 pm

“ History of Mathematics and Astronomy in India--Vedic Tradition"
Dr. A. K. Bag, INSA, Delhi

4.45 to 5.30 pm

"Instances of interactions between Medieval Indian Scholars: Translation of Sanskrit Texts of Exact Science into Persian and Vice versa"
Prof. S.M. R. Ansari, IUPS, Aligarh

5.30 to 6.30 pm

High Tea

9 am

Registration

9.30 am

Introduction and Welcome to Centre for Contemporary Studies
Prof. Raghavendra Gadagkar.

10.00 am

Integration and the Field of Higher Education in India
Prof. Tejaswini Niranjana.

10.30 am

Tea / coffee.

10.45 am

Dialogues: Curricular Experiments on Integration in two Science Institutions.

Integration and Interdisciplinarity at Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER)
Prof. L. S. Shashidhara.

Abstract:

Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs) are newly established autonomous research institutes set up by the Ministry of Human Resource development, Govt. of India. IISERs have been set up with the primary goal to integrate high quality research with undergraduate teaching to improve science education in India and to enhance the number and quality of future academic as well as industrial researchers of the country. IISER model of education is concept-based and inquiry-driven, as opposed to the more traditional content-based models. There is a strong emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of today¹s science, and recognition of the importance of research experience. I will discuss our attempts of exploring novel methods of integrating all branches of science and in teaching and research, integrating humanities and social science, leadership development programs for students, science and society, history of science, scientific methodology etc.

“Basic Sciences and Humanities” in Agricultural Education: From Integration to Disintegration.

Prof. K. Chandrashekara.

Abstract:

The curriculum at agricultural universities established in early 1960’s across the country were modeled after the land-grant system of education in USA. The undergraduate and post-graduate curriculum included quite a broad range of courses in Sociology, psychology and economics as part of the ‘humanities’ programme. The courses at the undergrad level were elementary in nature but effective in sensitizing the students to prepare for ‘extension’ or ‘field work’ in villages and also in understanding the socio-economic factors that drive ‘diffusion of innovation’ or even acceptance of a ‘technology.’ The ‘talk’ – more a random walk will attempt to bring out the changes in the curriculum over the last thirty years.

12.45 pm

Lunch.

2 pm

On the Meanings of Interdisciplinarity

Prof. Rajan Gurukkal.

Abstract:

Prof. Gurukkal will speak on the concept of an interdisciplinary approach, so much discussed these days often with little or no difference from what is multidisciplinary, by defining it not as something that is about confronting already constituted disciplines, none of which, in fact, is willing to let itself go. Prof. Gurukkal would like to argue that to be interdisciplinary it is not enough to choose a subject and gather around it two or three sciences. Interdisciplinarity consists in creating a new object that belongs to none of the established disciplines. It is a convergence of disciplines with their contours and boundaries waning. The speaker will illustrate why disciplines draw closer to one another and how new areas of knowledge emerge across disciplines and even faculties.

3 pm

Testing New Ground

beginnings of a conversation between institutions from different fields
[IISER Pune], [Christ University].

Integrating Social Sciences into an Undergraduate Science Curriculum: The IISER Problem

Dr. Sutirth Dey.

Abstract:

I would be talking about the various academic as well as practical issues related to integrating social sciences in the undergraduate science curriculum of IISER-Pune. While some of these problems are context-specific, there are several issues that would be of general interest. My aim would be to enumerate the issues and discuss some possible (far-from-perfect) solutions.

3.30 pm

Tea / coffee.

3.45 pm

To Be Or Not To Be: The Dilemma of Knowledge Integration in a Private University

Diptarup Chowdhury.

Higher education in India is generally considered to be a forte of the state and central government authorities for long since independence. With the spirit of globalization and liberalization forcing the government education apparatus to open up and share the turf with private partners, the mandate for higher education is being transformed. The classical humboldtian demands of knowledge or the dream of nation building no longer figures as the primary agenda of private players. The proliferation of engineering and medical colleges and business schools all over the country, especially down south, in the last twenty years have established the potentiality of higher education as a safe and secure investment with high financial returns. The latest entry to this league has been the private deemed universities. The recent recession-proof ness of this sector and the continued choice of these institutes by the youth, as their education destination, have made it evident that these institutes are here to stay.

With the mandate of job-oriented career as the goal of undergraduate and post-graduate education at one hand, and facing the challenges of tough competition brought about by globalization on the other, such private institutes of HE have no choice but to continuously innovate and evolve. Christ University is one such institute in Bangalore whose case I will be focusing here. This forty year old institute run by a Kerala-based catholic congregation of priests made rapid transition from being an affiliated college under Bangalore University, to an autonomous college, and finally deemed university- all happening in the last five years. This institute tells us the story of experimentation of both failures and micro-successes in integration of knowledge. It is placed at the cusp of continuing the legacy (or burden?) of producing degrees in arts, commerce, science, education and management as a college, and gearing up to become a space of research at MPhil/PhD level. With such a developmental trajectory, integration of knowledge is but a minor agenda, to be discussed and quickly forgotten during the meetings. Vying for visibility in the university space, many of the existing disciplines are trying to consolidate their own disciplinary footings. This clearly is a move antithetical to the spirit of integration in higher education. Added to this is the tunnel vision of the traditional mainstream-educated faculties who makes it difficult for any kind of major experiment of integration.

However, curiously, the same university space has supported, in a small way, zones of dialogues across disciplines by creating new avenues. One such is certificate courses in the evening, which are open to all. Thus we see media studies organizing courses on Indian philosophy and cultural studies or psychology dept organizing courses on Lacan and Foucault. A good number of undergraduate students and a few interested faculties are attending such courses. Also, though primarily based on individual efforts of some die-hard-spirit faculties, a few conferences, workshops and invited lectures are being organized in the university campus with topics having cross-over potentials. A mandatory series of modules on holistic education for all the UG and PG students delivered through all the faculties spread all over the semester bears the philosophy of an integrated and holistic development of the student. An online knowledge network has been created by the deanary of HSS where faculties share their newly gained knowledge from outside institutes. With the recent emphasis on shaping an independent research center as a nodal point to transact the M.Phil/PhD programs, a new possibility of interdisciplinary research is emerging.

However, a quick moment of self-reflexivity throws up many questions. Do these small ventures have their limited lives of ‘window display’, to be quickly replaced by something new, rather than a sustained engagement? Are these spaces actually meant for containment of micro-dissents created by the larger rigid system itself to manage and govern (in a corporate style) the space of higher education? Are these spaces created for an appropriate channelization of the die-hard spirits of some faculties who, though capable, find it difficult to get slotted into the much-consolidated and antiquated spaces of the (mono)disciplines? Do these ventures work more as a lip service to the lofty mission and vision of the institute and act more as the USP of the university without thinking about the capacity-building on the part of the faculties? Or, is it that these spaces do hold a promise for the future- seeds of deregulated private space of excellence in teaching and research, a kernel of integration of higher education?

9.30 am

Is culture what scientists make?

Prof. Ashish Rajadhyaksha.

Abstract:

This presentation, which quotes from a well known essay by Geeta Kapur, 'Is Culture What Artists Make?', explores the role of 'culture' as a solution to otherwise intractable modernist dilemmas: including those posed by modern science to non-Western societies. Science's effort to overcome modernist binaries (tradition/modernity, present/past, rational/irrational, East/West) through taking recourse to culturalist alternatives opens up the larger question by which culture has been mobilized through the late 20th C. as a 'solution'. This paper explores the larger culture-as-solution paradigm through, among other things, looking at the scientific writings of Indian historian and anthropologist D.D. Kosambi.

10.30 am

Tea / coffee.

10.45

The Methodological Problem of Integration in Economics: A Preliminary Examination of the Individual

Prof. Anjan Chakrabarti.

Abstract:

In mainstream economics in general and development economics in particular, the concept of the self-seeking individual a la rational agent has played a crucial role. While it has been axiomatically rendered passive, its role has been instrumental in determining the dominant conception of the economy; this conception of the economy, while making an inter-disciplinary approach possible, fails to address the integration of economic, political, cultural and natural processes in its methodology. The speaker will use, in contrast, Rabindranath Tagore’s ideas to explore a different notion of the individual, not a self-seeking but a self-sacrificing individual (keeping in mind a contestation over the meanings of self-sacrifice), that suggests a conception of an economy grounded on integration of various processes, and not just a summation of disciplinary parts as tends to be suggested in economics in the name of interdisciplinarity.

11.45

The externalities of self-interest maximising individuals

Sowjanya Peddi.

12.45 pm

Lunch.

2 pm

Knowledge Creation and Empowerment Inter-Relationships in Sustainable Small-Farm Technologies in South India

Prof. H. N. Chanakya.

Abstract:

Small farm agriculture in the green revolution era has often been characterized by barely literate small farmers being exploited due to their lack of understanding and knowledge of intensive agriculture, inputs procured on credit and resulting debt-spiral as well as extensive exploitation, sometimes leading to farmer suicides.  The key flaw of the system is often identified as the prescriptive nature of the “Green Revolution” agriculture system where knowledge created in agricultural research is preferentially translated to the deployment and use of predominantly marketed commodities and proprietary products even in small farm agriculture largely addressing subsistence. As small farmers as a rule are poorly literate, unethical traders and other exploitative elements of the system generally withhold key information /knowledge from the small farmers such that these small farmers rarely gain adequate knowledge of the underlying technologies /products so as to make wise or knowledgeable decisions in this regard.  Non-governmental and political lobbies that have shown great concerns by this malaise have resorted to creating an alternative agriculture system of “Low-External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA)” where very little of the farm inputs are purchased against cash or credit.  A variety of LEISA technologies created by small farmers around the world are pooled and tried out by NGOs and Farmer Organizations in small plots of small farmers very much in the same manner and rigour as done in normal agricultural experimental plots.  In such participatory approach (generally termed participatory technology development, PTD), new knowledge is created in an experential manner that is expected to break the literacy barrier for new knowledge creation and transfer at these small farmer situations.  Carrying out small experiments (trial Vs control), sharing and unbiased viewing of experimental results of on-farm plots by small farmer groups, transforms these visual information and experiences into long lasting experential knowledge based on verifiable truths.  When small farmers carry out or participate in a large number of such ‘experiments’ they are considered to have gained much higher knowledge to firstly empower them to use and rely on local alternatives and second to shun enslaving credit based external inputs. The ability to trust their capabilities also creates an enabling environment as well as an escape from the clutches of unethical traders /money lenders and exploitative elements.  The challenge is however, to firstly identify the level of ‘knowledge’ gained, determine if this is adequate to make informed and wise decisions and finally to determine whether these knowledge creation exercises have brought about empowerment measured both as ability to take right decisions and second to ensure that the decisions taken lead to overall social and family level development. A second level of challenge arises from the question as to how much knowledge a group of farmers need to possess to avoid the exploitation. Do all the farmers need to know all the answers and have total empowerment or is there a concept of adequacy of overall societal /group knowledge while individual small farmers have a functional fraction of it?  From the stand point of an NGO based knowledge intervention through PTD, it is clear that 100% knowledge gain by all participating farmers seems difficult to achieve realistically.  From the social standpoint, as these small farmer groups function with strong interactions, a total knowledge acquisition at the group level is then considered necessary while a certain threshold individual knowledge would be adequate for avoiding the social malady of exploitation.  A third level of challenge then stems from the need to measure the completeness of the knowledge gaining exercises. Conventional tests and examinations, as done in conventional universities and colleges are obviously not possible or meaningful.  We have evolved some entry level exercises that satisfy the goals of measuring these parameters from the knowledge and social development context.  We conclude that new and rapid methods are required to look at such methods of knowledge tranfer and resultant empowerment.

3 pm

Revisiting ‘Integration’ as ground for a new Model of knowledge

Rakhi Ghoshal.

Abstract:

In this paper I propose to revisit the understanding of integration (of natural sciences and social sciences-humanities).

Since science is ‘situated’, the model of integration too would emerge from a particular location, a particular context. So the point then becomes not of translating the applicability of science as it were onto the particular cultural context, but of imagining a situated model. This then would also be a different rendition of integration.

3.30 pm

Tea / coffee.

3.45 pm

Disciplines, Institutions: New Noises in Old Corridors

Dr. Ratheesh Radhakrishnan.

Abstract:

Thinking through the case of ‘cultural studies’ in India, the presentation will suggest that modalities of institutionalization have a constitutive role in the formation of new spaces of knowledge production and curriculum development. The diversity in the practices of ‘cultural studies’ in its different institutional forms across the country alerts us to the conditions that make possible new disciplinary imaginations. The presentation will ask whether there are lessons to be learned from the apparently ambivalent positioning of ‘cultural studies’ in Indian academy for newer humanities, social science and science institutions in the country.

4.15 pm

The Science Question in Cultural Studies: the Difficulties of Integration

Dr. Anup Dhar.

Abstract:

This paper would look at the possibility of raising and engaging with the 'science question' in a Cultural Studies Centre. It would look at the difficulties of researching and teaching science in a Cultural Studies space - given that Cultural Studies has already put the 'culture question' under the scanner such that one cannot just add culture to science or make science relative to culture. How does then one raise the question of culture in science - given that culture in a Cultural Studies space is no longer a given but is subject to critical interrogation and rethinking. Further, how does one raise the question of science in a Cultural Studies space? This also renders explicit the problem of the integration of the 'science question' and the 'culture question'. Taking off from existing models of integration this paper would like to show how integration is a difficult task - difficult because the 'models of knowledge' that make up science and culture, even in their critical re-examination, not just interrupt one another but are at times contradictory.

9.30 am

Responses to Integration and Interdisciplinarity:a moderated discussion with participants of integrated courses.

Moderator: Asha Achuthan.

Responses to A Movement from English Literature to English Studies.

Sayori Ghoshal

Experiences While Dealing With New Concerns and Shift of Focus While Studying Literature as a Discipline in a Contemporary Undergraduate Setup and Problems While Shifting from Natural Sciences to the Social and Back.

Noopur Raval

A Relationship of Difficulty with ‘Positivist’ History and Sociology.

Pouya Nekouei

The Social and Institutional Aspects of Science in Post Independence India.

T.V.H. Prathamesh

Abstract:

The role of science in a society, the mode of science education and its relationship with other disciplines depend to great extent on the institutional aspects of the science dissemination which in turn are influenced by the ruling economic ideologies of the period. I intend to review the impact of economic policies in shaping science in post independence India, which range from the Nehruvian-Fabian socialist world view to the subsequent impact of the neo-liberal economic regime in shaping the social dimensions of science.

11:00 am

Distribution of certificates to participants for courses held at CCS in 2006 and 2008.

11.30 am

Closing remarks/ vote of thanks.