The World Is Too Complex for a Single Discipline

In recent times, the global public has been presented with various news regarding geopolitical conflicts, wars, economic tensions, and rapid social change. Within minutes, an event in one country can spread worldwide through digital media and social networks.

The rapid flow of information often creates an illusion that society understands what is happening. However, reality is not always so straightforward. Many people receive information quickly but lack sufficient knowledge to understand the broader context.

As a result, many draw hasty conclusions. Information that should help broaden understanding instead risks creating misunderstandings. In certain situations, this can even trigger polarisation and conflict in society.

This phenomenon demonstrates that the modern world demands broader thinking. Many current global issues cannot be understood from a single discipline alone.

International conflicts, for example, relate not only to politics but also to history, economics, technology, culture, and even public psychology. The same applies to climate change, digital transformation, and global economic inequality. All these issues are interconnected and cannot be explained through a single perspective alone. This is where the importance of an interdisciplinary approach lies.

My experience living and working in South Korea provided an interesting insight into how educational systems and work culture shape people’s thinking. That country is known for the “pali-pali” culture, which literally means “fast-fast”.

This culture reflects the character of Korean society working very quickly, efficiently, and results-oriented. When I first worked at a Korean company, I was quite surprised to see how a team with relatively small staff numbers could complete various tasks in a short time. Decisions were made quickly, coordination ran efficiently, and each team member understood their role clearly.

Initially I thought this related solely to work culture. However, after some time, I realised that this thinking pattern was heavily shaped by the education system.

Currently, many universities in South Korea are developing interdisciplinary study approaches. Students are encouraged not only to specialise in one field but also given opportunities to study other fields through major and minor systems.

With this approach, an engineering student can study economics or public policy. Conversely, social science students can also take technology, data, or artificial intelligence courses. This approach allows students to see connections between various fields of knowledge. They become not just extremely narrow specialists but also capable of understanding issues more comprehensively.

In his book Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialised World, David Epstein explains that in a complex and rapidly changing world, individuals with cross-disciplinary knowledge often have an advantage. They can connect various concepts from different disciplines to find more innovative solutions.

The question that often arises is: should someone be a specialist or generalist? In some professions such as medicine, law, or finance, specialisation certainly remains a primary requirement. In-depth expertise remains very important in such professions.

However, in many other sectors, especially in the digital economy era, boundaries between fields are increasingly blurred. Someone with an engineering background can work in business. Social science graduates can pursue careers in technology companies. Many professionals even change fields several times during their careers. The reality of the workplace shows that adaptability is often equally important as deep knowledge.

Indonesia actually attempted to encourage a similar approach through the Merdeka Belajar Kampus Merdeka (Independent Campus Learning) policy introduced when Nadiem Makarim served as Minister of Education and Culture.

This programme gave students the opportunity to learn across study programmes, undertake internships in industry, conduct research outside campus, and participate in various professional activities. Conceptually, this policy represented an important step in bridging education with the increasingly dynamic demands of the workplace.

However, in its implementation, various challenges have emerged. Many higher education institutions are still adapting to these changes. Some institutions face obstacles in adjusting curricula, academic administration systems, and human resource readiness.

Additionally, Indonesia’s higher education system still heavily emphasises linear knowledge progression. Someone wanting to become a permanent lecturer, for example, generally needs linear educational background from undergraduate through doctoral level. This means the field of study must follow the same path. Such an approach often limits interdisciplinary space.

In countries like the United States, this approach is not always applied rigidly. Many academics have educational backgrounds from different disciplines. As long as they can demonstrate significant academic contributions, such a blend of knowledge is often regarded as a strength.

Different approaches are also evident in academic mobility. In Indonesia, it is not uncommon for universities to recruit lecturers from their own alumni. Conversely, at many universities in America, recruiting lecturers from diverse institutional backgrounds is a common practice, bringing fresh perspectives and strengthening institutional research networks.