Evaluating Interdisciplinary Studies

Having read through the arguments posed by the opponents of the interdisciplinary studies, I have had a chance to reflect on my own experience in the undergraduate program. The department of Translation that I attended is a newly established one, with the ambition to create an interdisciplinary program that can empower students with necessary knowledge and skills by bringing together various disciplines. It seems to me, however, the “well-articulated pluses” of the program fails to cancel the “alleged minuses”. (Benson, 1982) Among the five arguments against interdisciplinary studies that professor Benson has brought up, two points markedly stands out in terms of the translation program. The first one is that the program involves “serious conceptual confusion”, as professor Benson puts it. Translatology itself, as an independent discipline, doesn’t suffice for providing all the answers to the practical translation question. Linguistics, literature and even political science, law are introduced into the program. It’s not clear, however, whether the connection here is merely a “borrow”, or a permanent and coherent bond that can be regarded as “integration”. In terms of a specific aspect, the integrative bond can’t be genuinely made until the instructors are able to “extend
“History of literature”, “inter-cultural communication”, “Computer-assisted translation”… Really cool, aren’t they? The fact is, after four years’ study, students have only acquired a vague perception of each field. This dilettantism can be fatal since the breadth of knowledge needed to solve practical problem is attained at the sacrifice of the depth of the theory and systematicness of research methodology. Students may loose competence in each field as