Our paper provide an initial theoretical conceptualisation and open a discussion of an ecological perspective on problems in problem- and project-based learning. It has almost become trivial to highlight Ritter and Rittel and Webber’s (1973) dilemmas when addressing wicked, technical, societal problems that are to be resolved repeatedly as they bite back (Tenner, 1997). Grand societal challenges are no longer considered manageable by the knowledge production of a single discipline nor educational institutions, thus framing narratives of interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and Mode-2 universities as viable routes forward. The positive discourse surrounding interdisciplinarity often emphasises anticipated advantages of heterogeneity when moving across disciplines without recognising that great diversity already exists within each specific disciplines as well (Bernstein, 1990, 1996; Barry et al., 2008). A way of conceiving disciplines then is to treat these as historically evolving, coherent, and multiplicities of unities with both internal and external boundaries that are neither fixed nor fluid (Barry et al., 2008). From this perspective, interdisciplinarity is understood as a mess of multiplicity of multiplicities, which might be why some researchers, rather than moving across the boundaries of natural science and humanities as suggested by Snow (1959), or between the trivium and quadrivium (Bernstein, 1990), recontextualise disciplines into regions of similar fields of practice through different typologies (see for instance Newman, 2024).

Towards an Ecology of Problems

As briefly hinted, attempting to de-compartmentalise disciplines as a point of departure for interdisciplinarity is, in our view, like untying a Gordian knot, and requires a fundamental change within the historically contingent structure of education (Schwarz et al., 2024). Instead, we propose a return to the ecology of the problem rather than projects as a supplement to existing regionalised educational approaches to interdisciplinarity. We draw inspiration from Barnett’s (2018) conceptualisation of universities as situated in reciprocal situations with other ecosystems that in combination form a particular ecology. Ecology is both ontological and epistemological, being both a real presence but also a form of thought, meaning that humanity is ‘deeply implicated in ecology’ (Barnett, 2018, p. 18). Furthermore, ‘ecology’ signifies movement and change, and akin to Deweyan inquiries, is characterised by temporality and contextuality (Barnett, 2018), and an environment of changing means and ends (Dewey, 1916/1997, 1938/2008). While Barnett mostly addresses the organisational conditions affecting universities, we apply the conceptualisation to an ecology of problems.

But then, what makes a good problem? Dewey already addressed the centrality of problems in thinking in Democracy and Education (1916/1997) and later as an initiating part in the pattern of inquiry (Dewey, 1938/2008), and the Danish psychologist Illeris (1978, 1981) made problems a central premise for the Danish reform pedagogy of the 1970s. Furthermore, Illeris (1981) emphasises participant direction on par with the problem, meaning that students are to find or discover a suitable problem within a wide interdisciplinary thematic framing. Polanyi states that it is ‘commonplace’ that research starts from a problem, and, hence, research can only be successful if the initiating problem is a good one (2009). The characteristics of good problems are ones of intimation, and it is thus for the scientist “[…] to have an intimation of the coherence of hitherto not comprehended particulars” (p. 21).

To see a problem is a discovery, a process of putting together the pieces hitherto scattered to construct what can become a meaningful totality. In other words, to conceive interconnected ecosystems as an ecological system. We want to draw attention to the process of discovery of such ecologies, and research SSH master students’ discoveries of problems as a point of departure to understand the multiplicity of ecosystems that constitute ecologies of problems in SSH.

To inquire into students’ discovery of problems or students’ analysis of existing ecosystems within a particular ecology of a problem, we conduct a critical case study of the SSH programs at Aalborg University (AAU). At AAU, problem- and project-based learning is an institution-wide pedagogical approach with a variety of disciplinary interpretations (Ingemann & Madsen, 2024). A central premise demarcating the AAU variation of problem- and project-based learning is the concept of participant direction (Boelt & Clausen, 2023), where students have some autonomy in identifying and selecting problems for further inquiry. In line with the brief theoretical outline above, it is for the students to discover a problem. The data consists of 18 master’s theses from 3 SSH programs at AAU submitted in 2023 or 2024. We provide a ‘members’ account’ (see Shapin & Schaffer, 1989) of both our institution and knowledge region, and furthermore assume that students need a disciplinary overview to intimate the scattered ecosystems forming a space for an ecology. As the master’s thesis is the capstone project, we expect most students to have such an overview. To analyse the theses, we draw on Prior’s (2003) notions of documents as collective social products, as actors serving different functions, uses, and types of consumption. The collective and social actions on documents are often effaced, and by emphasising these perspectives, the theses are considered as more than means to graduate, but as statements concerning societal, vocational, and disciplinary orientations. To gain an overview of students’ discoveries of ecosystems and ecologies in the multiplicity of multiplicities that is SSH, we conduct a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). A process of discovery may be difficult to discern in the linear representation of a thesis; when does it start and end (see for instance the rabbit hunt described by Dewey, 1916/1997)? However, the intimation of ecosystems and ecologies constructed through the thematic analysis will provide the basis for subsequent qualitative interviews with current master’s students about the initial stages of their problem identification and processes of discovery.

The research is expected to contribute to the existing field concerning interdisciplinarity in problem- and project-based learning by providing an overview of the ecologies of problems addressed by master’s students in SSH. The preliminary findings will illuminate the collective and social actions that shape both the initial discovery of problems and the explicit disciplinary orientations of SSH master’s students and implicitly the orientation of the academic curriculum. By applying an ecological perspective to problems, we will showcase the diverse life forms characterising SSH and potentially identify new regions of practice between compartmentalised disciplines. Changing the initial focus of fuzzy interdisciplinarity and wicked or complex problems to one of ecology not only provides a suitable generative metaphor to reframe existing activities, but also points to a notion of movement and change rather than immediate and binary problem-solving. Hence, our ambition is not only to develop an overview of the multiplicities of ecologies of problems, but also to theoretically reframe potential disciplinary activities required to move between two cultures.

Barnett, R. (2018). The ecological university: A feasible utopia. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Barry, A., Born, G., & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37(1), 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140701760841 Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse (Repr). Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Taylor & Francis. Boelt, A. M., & Clausen, N. R. (2023). Participant Direction. In A. Kolmos & T. Ryberg (Eds.), PBL in a Digital Age (pp. 39–52). Aalborg Universitetsforlag. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Dewey, J. (1916/1997). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Free Press. (Original work published 1916) Dewey, J. (with Nagel, E.). (1938/2008). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (J. A. Boydston, Ed.). Southern Illinois University Press. Illeris, K. (1978). Problemorientering og deltagerstyring: Oplæg til en alternativ didaktik (2. udg). Munksgaard. Illeris, K. (1981). Modkvalificeringens pædagogik. Problemorientering, deltagerstyring og eksemplarisk indlæring. Unge Pædagoger. Newman, J. (2024). Promoting Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration: A Systematic Review, a Critical Literature Review, and a Pathway Forward. Social Epistemology, 38(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2023.2172694 Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension (Reproduction en fac-similé). University of Chicago press. (Original work published 1966) Prior, L. (2003). Using Documents in Social Research (1st ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020222 Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 Schwarz, B., Heyd-Metzuyanim, E., Koichu, B., Tabach, M., & Yarden, A. (2024). Opportunities and hindrances for promoting interdisciplinary learning in schools. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 33(2), 242–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2024.2344809 Shapin, S., Schaffer, S., & Hobbes, T. (1989). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life (1. paperback pr. with corr). Princeton Univ. Pr. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press. Tenner, E. (1997). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences (1. Vintage Books ed). Random House.