I am a teacher engaged in integrated teacher education programs and interdisciplinary courses. These courses combine the foundation of education with science, mathematics, humanities, social sciences, and language. Though I have only a few years of experience working and teaching in a department of education, specifically in B.Ed, B.Sc.B.Ed. and B.A.B.Ed. courses, I present a few encounters and experiences that have prompted me to navigate and reflect more on disciplinary hierarchies, even when introduced in an interdisciplinary context. The writing draws on my personal experiences, providing empirical evidence where I experienced power-hierarchy and my belongingness in both hard and soft disciplines without any generalisations.  

From the start of my teaching career and my choice of education as a discipline, I have firmly believed that every discipline holds unique significance for society and human beings. In a larger sense, disciplinary knowledge brings its own paradigm and epistemological base, demanding changes in both practice and theory. Disciplines interact in nuanced ways, and they are as elaborate and broad as their paradigms themselves. Sarangapani (2014), in one of her articles titled Soft Disciplines and Hard Battles says that since the 1960s, the term ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ is being used to categorise disciplines based on intellectual hardness/difficulty versus softness/easiness. She cites Storer (1967) and Biglan (1973), who described differentiation based on high/low rigour, paradigmatic/non-paradigmatic, and pure/applied distinctions. She also draws on Schwab (1964), who argued that shifting disciplinary boundaries allow knowledge areas to influence each other – some disciplines thus “lend” while others “borrow” (Losee, 1995, cited by Sarangapani, 2014, p.70). Using Biglan’s framework, she positions Education as a soft and applied discipline due to its focus on practice, so I similarly locate Education as a soft discipline.

While teaching B.Sc. B.Ed. and B.A. B.Ed. courses I encountered biases from faculty across departments. Interestingly, a few episodes are drawn from education faculties too. In my experience, science faculty, including those in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, often prioritise their subjects, which Sarangapani mentioned as ontological and epistemological superiority (2014,p.73). Therefore, the faculties urge students to focus more on them and view education courses as secondary. I have listened to them speak to students, “…focus on Mathematics and Physics, otherwise the teacher option is there because anyway you are enrolled in an integrated course”. Also, students themselves shared that Mathematics and Physical Science faculties viewed the B.Ed component as an extra advantage, so teaching could be seen as an optional career. Students said that many faculty members, even students, started believing that B.Sc.B.Ed students must give first preference to sciences and mathematics, which offer many career options. But when it comes to education courses, students believe that they can simply pass the exam because education-related courses are comparatively easy and based on a general understanding of education, society, teacher professional development and related topics.

Additionally, Mathematics and Science faculty point out that even in their State, where B.Ed. programs are offered free of cost, but no one opts for B.Ed Program. In this sense, they argue and take pride that no one is interested in becoming a teacher nowadays, despite being teachers themselves. This indicates the fundamental irony of discipline-oriented faculty who believe teacher education courses will not help them, and they maintain disciplinary silos. As faculties themselves dismiss and disconnect themselves from the teacher education program. They undervalue an interdisciplinary epistemological stance or incorporating a teacher education component, which strengthens and interconnects the theory and practice of diverse disciplines.

In my general observation and experience, humanities, social sciences and language faculty are often sidelined compared to mathematics and science peers. Even the enforced hierarchy entered into education, too. There were times in the B.Sc. B.Ed course timetable – framed by the Science and Mathematics faculties, when the Foundation of Education and related subjects were always scheduled in the last working hours of the day. Education was typically placed post-lunch, after students had completed their theory and practical sessions for the disciplinary papers. Sometimes, library periods and other allocated classes like physical education and computer labs also ended before the education-related courses began. In such situations, most students were cognitively tired and paid less attention to the content and educational papers.

Other disciplinary encounters come from within the education department on the roles of rationale and logic in constructing arguments. When I share ideas or seek to understand an argument/topic with clarity, others often attribute this approach to my scientific disciplinary background. This reflects a rigid view of disciplines, which overlooks how human thinking transcends such boundaries. Moreover, it stems from a commonsensical understanding of disciplinary orientations or, again, disciplinary silos. Though in everyday experiences and knowledge constructing, all disciplines shape our thinking, they build rationale and our understanding of the world. Also, they offer ample space to articulate or think logically with clarity and precision.

Also, many of my colleagues and faculty label me as the education faculty member who is oriented in science, confining my role to science-related courses. The way they refer, I could sense that it is connected with the methodological orientation and epistemological base of science because I did my graduation and master’s in science. Despite completing my M.Phil. and PhD in Education from Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) – an institute renowned for fostering humanities and social science perspectives, the School of Education highlight my master’s in science, and positions me as a science person who joined education later. I, as a person is equally connected and inclined towards the humanities and social sciences. As an education faculty member, I see no fundamental divide between myself and those in the humanities or sciences. In my experience, only a few colleagues give equal importance to all the disciplines.

Education is widely regarded as a soft discipline, one that emerged from practice and remains liberal in epistemological connections, drawing theory and practices from both hard and soft disciplines. However, when I associate myself with education, particularly within a school or department offering integrated programs like B.A.B.Ed. or B.Sc.B.Ed., the education faculty often gravitates toward the discipline of the students or faculty based on their chosen major, creating a clear divide between science, humanities, language and social science faculties. This tendency undermines education and other disciplines’ interconnections and interdisciplinary nature, and reinforces hierarchies and power dynamics tied to disciplinary identities and silos.

Ultimately, as a soft and interdisciplinary practice-oriented discipline, education offers a unique opportunity to challenge these hierarchies, resisting the rigid boundaries and power structures that shape how knowledge is perceived and practised in these disciplines. Education as a discipline offers scope for fluid, reflective, practice-based approaches with blurred boundaries, serving as a strong umbrella that spans positivist to interpretivist paradigms and beyond. Faculty in Education generally get the opportunity to enrol in a minimum of two disciplinary courses. Education as a discipline crosses the boundaries of disciplines and provide opportunity to come out and question critically the existing hierarchies of disciplinary silos in practice and theory. In this process, the role of teachers and teacher educators becomes more important in the disciplinary ecosystem. They are connected to school education, higher education and get comparatively more opportunities to understand, critically reflect, conceptualise disciplines, and break the boundaries. Paradoxically, introducing interdisciplinarity into teacher education programs can inadvertently import those very disciplinary boundaries and knowledge/power hierarchies into the field of education.

References:

Sarangapani, P. M. (2014). Soft disciplines and hard battles. In G. B. Nambissan & S. Srinivas Rao (Eds.), Sociology of education in India: Changing contours and emerging concerns (2nd ed., pp. 65–82). Oxford University Press.

***

Ritika Srivastava is an Assistant Professor of Education at GITAM School of Education (GSE), GITAM University, Hyderabad. Before this, she taught at the Regional Institute of Education, NCERT, Bhopal. She firmly believes that education can be a powerful driver of social transformation and actively advocates for social justice, equality, and peace. Her academic and professional interests lie in working closely with children and teachers, and in understanding educational processes as lived, everyday practices. She is particularly passionate about observing and writing about everyday life and human nature, with a focus on how these shape learning, relationships, and social change.