Essay services

GET AN ESSAY OR ANY OTHER HOMEWORK WRITING HELP FOR A FAIR PRICE! CHECK IT HERE!


ORDER NOW

List of approved essay services



Interdisciplinarity essay from the literature

Literature and Resources for Interdisciplinary and Integrative Learning

If this delay helps explain ongoing commitments to an interdisciplinary study of American literature and history, the essay shows more specifically how this interdisciplinary project is buttressed by references to scholars and programs from the early twentieth century, a moment which is cast not as the decisive turn towards disciplinarity but as the last moment of indecision in which to recover the dissident forms, methods and pedagogy of interdisciplinarity. cadview details » december 2016general issuethis issue of mosaic includes ten essays that engage a diverse range of works by john dos passos, lawrence durrell, jean-luc godard, flannery o’connor, michael ondaatje, aimee phan, and olivia rosenthal, among others. as a more overtly elitist preoccupation with masters and masterpieces became constitutive of the critical discourse that informed the disciplinary practice of american literature, we will see later that some of those who turned towards interdisciplinarity as upholding a more democratic commitment to the “whole” of american culture would have to go back in time and search a pre-disciplinary past to constitute their own tradition. the story of american literature’s slow academic recognition has been told elsewhere (vanderbilt; shumway; renker), and is fascinating in its own right, but what is interesting for our purpose is this lag-time between the birth of the research university and the emergence of american literature as a semi-autonomous field. this slight rearrangement, as we will see, is necessary to account for the delayed manner in which the pressure of disciplinarity caught up with the study of american literature, and to constitute that very delay as a moment of reference for the interdisciplinary study of history and literature in america. i am taken, for example, with the immediate relevance of “critical refugee studies,” a theme that is broached by this issue’s opening essay. this collection of essays is still considered as a defining work in the history of the field.

American Schools of Interdisciplinarity: History and Literature

more generally, the interdisciplinary ambition of the great books curriculum arose from a conservative impulse similar to the one that led wendell to found harvard’s history and literature concentration in 1906, and both endeavors should be understood within the specific institutional context of the early twentieth century. for but one other example, consider the essay by joseph defalco lamperez, another graduate student. the amusing blind-spot of marx in this essay is that he is of course in the process of building a “scholarly legacy” himself, albeit one that seems incompatible with a disciplinary premise. Even while interdisciplinarity seems to “teach itself”, relinquishing the narrow set of tools and methods through which a discipline trains its practitioners, it is by acknowledging some of the backwards-looking trends in the interdisciplinary study of history and literature in America that we can recover the ideals of scholarship it seeks to transmit. if the literature of a certain territory or epoch is considerably below the esthetic par, but valuable as a mirror of contemporary conditions, it belongs to the field of the social historian rather than the literary historian. if this delay helps explain ongoing commitments to an interdisciplinary study of american literature and history, the essay shows more specifically how this interdisciplinary project is buttressed by references to scholars and programs from the early twentieth century, a moment which is cast not as the decisive turn towards disciplinarity but as the last moment of indecision in which to recover the dissident forms, methods and pedagogy of interdisciplinarity.), and “american literary history and american literature” by harry hayden clark.

Interdisciplinarity essay from the literature +Review: Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the Literature

Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical

(1979), a journal for the comparative study of literature and ideas; and from 13.  the alg was constituted in 1921, when the mla created subdivisions for its various fields, and american literature became the last of the eleven sections constituting the english field. this civic purpose would long remain at the heart of the study of american literature, but the historic propositions on which it relied were soon at odds with the new scientific culture of the university. it took therefore a relatively long time for the study of american literature to be structured according to the criteria of professionalization and specialization upheld by the modern research university—perhaps the most telling indicator of this delay is the fact that johns hopkins, founded in 1876, and the model for future research universities in america, recruited its own american literature specialist only in 1941. in both of these essays, and in the volume as a whole, are the problem and pressure of disciplinarity, as objects of study are being redistributed according to the areas of expertise in which they rightfully belong. stalnaker explained that, for her, the columbian tradition to which hili was tributary was its own centenary core program, an intensive general education requirement, which every undergraduate has been taking since the first world war, and whose major courses are now called literature humanities and contemporary civilization. canby’s review, which takes on an official quality for appearing in the new professional journal, consists essentially in taking sides between those two final essays, and his emphatic claim quoted above is meant as a deliberate rejection of historian schlesinger’s propositions.

William Henry Newell

as the literature review proceeded, the existence of a continuum from multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary was apparent. study of american literature gained academic recognition sufficiently late to be defined, in the meanwhile, as the one remaining province of the generalist, as opposed to the specialist. matthiessen and perry miller often feature in american studies’ loose genealogy, with much attention given to their individual contributions to the field in the 1930s and after, but usually no mention is made of the fact that these two prominent scholars taught together in harvard’s history and literature program, created at the beginning of the twentieth century and claimed as “the major precursor of twentieth-century programs in american studies” (self 137). for but one other example, consider the essay by joseph defalco lamperez, another graduate student.. moments of indecision: from the reinterpretation of american literature to american studies.  lyon-caen and ribard have worked on the history of the social sciences and on the relationship between literature and history ; they recently co-authored l’historien et la littérature, la découverte, 2010. while alaina kaus takes as the context for this opening essay the vietnam war and vietnamese diaspora in american remembrance, her study might well serve as an incentive for the interdisciplinary analysis of other wars, perhaps especially recent ones, that have been cast in american rhetoric as conflicts between good and evil.

Mosaic Journal

’s own history and literature curriculum (“hili”), a master of arts program this time, opened in september 2011 in paris. the constitution of american literature as a sub-discipline within departments of english was belated, and took place only in the 1920s, when the american literature group was created within the modern language association (itself founded in 1883), and launched its own journal. in addition to 16 interviews led by dawne mccance, editor, with leading scholars, artists, and writers, the issue also includes a new interview with rebecca comay, professor of philosophy and comparative literature at the university of toronto.’s chronology leaves out, indeed, the case of american literature, which was recognized as a discipline only in the 1920s, which means that during the period of professionalization that menand describes the study of american literature remained one of the few provinces left to the generalist—as opposed to the specialist—and as such remained linked to examinations of american history. in many ways, interdisciplinary considerations of history and literature remain committed to the dream of the generalist, which seems perpetuated again through a process of institutional affiliation. gesture of distinction between “two distinct branches of scholarship” is redefined by clark in his own essay:The literature itself remains the true subject, and the proper focal center is finally the acknowledged masterpieces. while this might mean hanging on to “unfashionable arguments” (humanities), as she puts it, lepore, a historian but also novelist, remains convinced that “the study of american history is inseparable from the study of american literature” (lepore 15), and, incidentally, that historical scholarship is indissociable from the art of writing.

Literature and Resources for Interdisciplinary and Integrative Learning

Resume reginol service head

Law, Literature, and the Problems of Interdisciplinarity

with respect to the joint study of literature and history in the united states, this institution of interdisciplinarity can be traced back to the same period in which a culture of specialization and professionalization emerged in the american university. even while interdisciplinarity seems to “teach itself”, relinquishing the narrow set of tools and methods through which a discipline trains its practitioners, it is by acknowledging some of the backwards-looking trends in the interdisciplinary study of history and literature in america that we can recover the ideals of scholarship it seeks to transmit. mostly figures that are associated with the 1910s and 1920s, marx’s essay is especially interesting for the way it insists on these “borderland” scholars, thus equating the former promise of interdisciplinarity with extra-disciplinarity or un-discipline (“deviant”) and speaking in fact of “[t]he singularity of american studies as a non-discipline,” meaning “that its founders did not believe they were training students to think of themselves, as historians did, as proud bearers of that scholarly legacy—a tradition of historiographical practices and theoretical wisdom—that goes back to herodotus and thucydides” (127).  this expression is here borrowed and adapted from gerald graff’s analysis of “the humanist myth,” which holds that “literature teaches itself” (1-15). in that respect, probably the most seminal aspect of foerster’s volume is its very inconclusiveness, and its failure to theorize interdisciplinary practice otherwise than by the juxtaposition of complementary or contradictory approaches, for it is all at once this failure and the maintained project of a literary-historical discourse that came to define (or undefine) the field of american literature. testa preliminary definition of interdisciplinary research was developed, based on the key themes and continuum identified in the literature search: “any study or group of studies undertaken by scholars from two or more distinct academic fields, based on a conceptual model that links or integrates theoretical frameworks from those disciplines, using study design and methodology that is not limited to any one field, and requiring the use of perspectives and skills of the involved disciplines in all phases from study design through data collection, data analysis, specifying conclusions and preparing manuscripts and other reports of work completed. (1979), a journal for the comparative study of literature and ideas; and from 13.

Francis Bacon's The New Atlantis: New interdisciplinary essays

this is not to say that a disciplinary and an interdisciplinary option for the study of american literature existed independently from one other, for the interdisciplinary program of american studies was one that accommodated the disciplinary precepts held from new criticism. cadview details » march 2017 (current issue)general issuemosaic takes as its mandate the publication of interdisciplinary essays that open new research avenues.  see for instance wald for a recent estimate of reinterpretation’s enduring significance to the study of american literature. the core, she explained, has a “tremendous impact” on professors at columbia, where every junior professor in the humanities is required to teach in the literature humanities great books course of the core curriculum. is what claudia stokes has observed in writers in retrospect: the rise of american literary history, 1875-1910, where, focusing on the same decades in which menand locates the birth of the research university, she describes the emergence of the study of american literature “under the aegis of literary history” (17). one of the ways in which the american studies movement has responded to this dilemma is by erecting models, looking for them precisely inside the period when the study of american literature was still undisciplined. there is a scholarly attempt to consider history and literature together, the question of interdisciplinarity comes into play, along with the related issues of institutional practice and reform.

A Theory of Interdisciplinary Studies

This essay qualifies such claims about the forward-looking ambitions of interdisciplinarity by examining the institutional history and traditions which they tend to obscure. this created an asynchronicity of sorts between the agenda of historical scholarship and the demands of american literature scholars, whose very legitimacy still depended on proving the greatness of a few national authors that could compare to the figures consecrated in other cultures. the time of this differal is the period during which the undisciplined study of american literature came to be closely associated with history. in that sense, it does seem significant that wendell and erskine, both academics who historically influenced a commitment to interdisciplinarity in their institutions, were american literature scholars­—as if their propositions were a way of upholding the range and scope to which they had been entitled in their own field of interest, and which had come to define that field, but which were being renegotiated in the new university culture. in addition to 16 interviews led by dawne mccance, editor, with leading scholars, artists, and writers, the issue also includes a new interview with rebecca comay, professor of philosophy and comparative literature at the university of toronto. we review a few of the contexts in which an interdisciplinary tradition emerged in the united states with respect to the study of history and literature, we have to address this “mildly transgressive” appeal of interdisciplinarity, grounded in the belief that “what is holding things back is disciplinarity, the persistence of the academic silos known as departments” (menand 95). the harvard program was not devoted exclusively to the study of america, its founder, barrett wendell, was a scholar of american literature, whose important literary history of america came out in 1900, a few years before the inauguration of history and literature in 1906.

Interdisciplinary Alter-natives in Comparative Literature | SAGE

cadview details » december 2016general issuethis issue of mosaic includes ten essays that engage a diverse range of works by john dos passos, lawrence durrell, jean-luc godard, flannery o’connor, michael ondaatje, aimee phan, and olivia rosenthal, among others.  it consists of the essay entitled “the development of realism” (foerster 139-159). the sum of their efforts, the journal american literature, was founded in 1929. an essay for consideration using our web portal where you can. different modes of interdisciplinary research there were three predominant typologies of interdisciplinary research cited in the literature. those figures, one of the earliest would be moses coit tyler, who authored a history of american literature during the colonial time, 1607-1765 (1878) and a literary history of the american revolution, 1763-1783 (1897) in the retrospective vein identified by stokes, and was appointed at cornell in 1881 to the first chair in the history of the united states. what is interesting, to come back to menand’s narrative, is that this interdisciplinary heritage is most often situated in the period that has been identified as the moment of specialization and professionalization, but which, as we saw, remained a moment of relative indefinition where the study of american literature is concerned.

while this is not the place to retrace extensively this debate and its ramifications, the claim made by the critic henry seidel canby in the first issue of american literature (1929) that “[l]iterature is not the expression of all the people by all the people for all the people” (canby 81), and that the study of american literature should therefore focus on its masterpieces, is proof enough that this discussion was ongoing by the time american literature was being constituted as an academic field. american literature and the academy: the roots, growth and maturity of a profession. it is by looking into this program and comparing it with columbia’s much more recent history and literature masters’ that we return to the significance of the institutional context of the beginning of the twentieth century for the american interdisciplinary study of history and literature. if the turn to disciplinary organization in the university coincided more largely with what historian richard hofstadter has called “the rise of the expert” (chapter 8) in the united states, it can be said that from the early twentieth century onwards history and literature programs have maintained an alternative to this reign of expertise by passing on a historical anxiety focused on the disappearance of the generalist. in the case of the interdisciplinary study of literature and history, this heritage becomes apparent when menand’s periodization is revised to focus on the beginning of the twentieth century and to include the 1920s. an essay for consideration using our web portal where you can. the reinterpretation of american literature: some contributions toward the understanding of its historical development.

this essay qualifies such claims about the forward-looking ambitions of interdisciplinarity by examining the institutional history and traditions which they tend to obscure. thus it is, for instance, that jill lepore, recently the chair of harvard’s history and literature program, and upholding her own dream of becoming a “public historian” (humanities), seems a fair modern-day example of the generalist. for our purpose, this work is relevant precisely for the undefined or undetermined character that it assumes owing to its collaborative nature: within its pages, among its authors, a crucial hesitation is dramatized between the competing value of criticism and history for the study of american literature. “review of the reinterpretation of american literature by norman foerster. taking on the special case of the study of american literature, this essay argues that its belated recognition as a discipline, in the 1920s, framed it in the meantime as the one remaining province of the generalist amidst the rise of expertise that had come to characterize academic culture as of the end of the nineteenth century. :american studies, arthur schlesinger, barrett wendell, charismatic ideology, columbia, harvard, history, interdisciplinarity, john erskine, literature, norman foerster, university, vernon l. creating american civilization: a genealogy of american literature as an academic discipline.

case of the study of american literature is particular enough and can slightly disrupt menand’s assessment of the period 1870-1915 and show not only how the process of specialization raised the question of interdisciplinarity, but also how deep-rooted is the project of a joint consideration of america’s literature and history. made this claim in his review of the reinterpretation of american literature (1928), a collaborative study directed by norman foerster, a member of the new humanist movement. cadview details » march 2017 (current issue)general issuemosaic takes as its mandate the publication of interdisciplinary essays that open new research avenues. on our systematic literature review, interviews and field test with interdisciplinary researchers, the authors recommend the following definition of interdisciplinary research:interdisciplinary research is any study or group of studies undertaken by scholars from two or more distinct scientific disciplines. the very attempt to define what belongs to the “foreground” or to the “background” (canby 82) of american literary history implies that it cannot be considered as the middle ground of interdisciplinary practice, yet, as illustrated by the reprint of fred lewis pattee’s 1924 essay for the american mercury, “a call for a literary historian,” at the beginning of the volume, that literary history remains the defining project of the new field.. moments of indecision: from the reinterpretation of american literature to american studies. erskine had been one of the editors of the first collaborative literary history of america, the cambridge history of american literature (1917-1921), though his later commitment to the great books idea, which he expressed in the delight of great books (1927), was not in itself an endeavor to bring american literature into the classroom.

Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical

in his famous essay, “can ‘american studies’ develop a method? what is left out when the history of american universities is decided in 1915 is the special, yet undecided case of american literature, and we hope to have shown that the very delay after which it integrated the new university culture is what informed, and still influences, an american commitment to the interdisciplinary study of history and literature.-1 | 2016special issue: intimate frictions: history and literature in the united states from the 19th to the 21st century. linking the rise of american literary history to the “culture of retrospection” (17) that accompanied preparations for the centennial celebrations of the declaration of independence, stokes analyzes the ways in which the history of american literature was used to give americans a sense of their national past. this mention of columbia’s core program is meaningful, because it brings us back to the same moment in the 1920s when the pressure of disciplinarity caught up with the study of american literature, and when john erskine devised the great books course that was to become columbia’s current literature humanities. even while the project of an american literary history is being upheld, it seems torn between the now rival demands of literature and of history, as is perhaps best illustrated by the calculated effect of dissymmetry in the titles of the two essays that end the volume, “american history and american literary history” by arthur m. it was, however, an attempt to resist the pressure of specialization to which american literature itself was succumbing.

i am taken, for example, with the immediate relevance of “critical refugee studies,” a theme that is broached by this issue’s opening essay. schools of interdisciplinarity: history and literature programs and their early twentieth-century traditions. while alaina kaus takes as the context for this opening essay the vietnam war and vietnamese diaspora in american remembrance, her study might well serve as an incentive for the interdisciplinary analysis of other wars, perhaps especially recent ones, that have been cast in american rhetoric as conflicts between good and evil. in a letter from 1872 quoted by michael kammen, tyler even envisioned “the establishment of a professorship of american literature and history” (kammen 66), indicating thereby that the separation between these fields left him with no existing position which could accommodate his range in the new professional culture of the university. as we will see, an insistence on these interpersonal relationships reappears in other interdisciplinary programs combining history and literature. standing for scholarly and pedagogical innovation, interdisciplinarity is typically presented as an unprecedented attempt to de- or re-structure an outdated organization of knowledge, namely, in this case, the constitution of history and literature as separate disciplines in the university.-1 | 2016 : special issue: intimate frictions: history and literature in the united states from the 19th to the 21st century.


How it works

STEP 1 Submit your order

STEP 2 Pay

STEP 3 Approve preview

STEP 4 Download


Why These Services?

Premium

Quality

Satisfaction

Guaranteed

Complete

Confidentiality

Secure

Payments


For security reasons we do not
store any credit card information.