Bachelor Program in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) is offered by the Department of Philosophy, History of Ideas, Art History, and Classical Languages at the Faculty of Humanities. It explores what constitutes a good society, how it is organized, and how resources are utilized effectively. The program addresses questions about the fair distribution of goods and how this can be achieved, as well as the considerations relevant to ensuring they are properly managed.
The case competition is organized to foster closer contact with industry and the workforce, while allowing students to work on integrating their specializations and exploring how the different disciplines relate to each other. Ingrid Vanebo, a teaching assistant at PPE, introduced the case. It was emphasized that creativity is rewarded and that a good solution to the case successfully integrates the three different specializations into a cohesive whole. Each team consisted of at least one student from each specialization.
The groups were introduced to brain-writing as a method for generating ideas. Read more about brain-writing here: Brainwriting - INTED - Center for Interdisciplinary Education. They were also given an introduction to a model the groups should follow to ensure interdisciplinary integration. The model was developed by Ingrid Vanebo and is based on research in interdisciplinary teaching and research. It is specifically designed for use in the teaching of the bachelor's program in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. The model is particularly inspired by the three steps for interdisciplinarity described by Boix Mansilla & Duraising (2007): disciplinary grounding, integration, and critical awareness. Additionally, it draws inspiration from Repko's (2008) ten-step model for interdisciplinary research. See the visualized model below.
The student groups concluded their work by presenting their solutions to the case. A jury consisting of representatives from Save the Children (Redd Barna) and faculty members associated with PPE evaluated the various solutions and were impressed by the quality of the solutions.
The different groups presented well-argued solutions. Group 1 proposed that 1% of the Oil Fund should be used as loans for green start-ups, while Group 2 argued that the Oil Fund should instead be used for areas most affected by the climate crisis, specifically climate adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Group 3 presented a climate salary, where citizens living below the average consumption in Europe would receive an annual grant as an incentive to continue with low consumption. Group 4 described a quota monopoly, where parts of the Oil Fund would be used to buy climate quotas in the ETS (EU Emissions Trading System), and then not use them, thereby reducing global emissions.
-The students presented exciting solutions to the case and managed to combine the different specializations with philosophical grounding, political science insight, and economic implementation, says program leader Bj?rn Ramberg.
-It went very well last year, but even better now. When creativity is rewarded, we remove some of the reality aspect and open up a larger space for interdisciplinarity, explains Ingrid Vanebo, teaching assistant at PPE.
The jury took time to decide which group would be crowned the winner of the case competition. They then presented their reasoning and announced that Group 2 had delivered the best solution to the case, with their proposal for climate adaptation in Sub-Saharan Africa. The winners of the case competition each received a gift card from INTED.
Sources
Boix Mansilla, V. & Duraising, E. D. (2007). Targeted Assessment of Students’ Interdisiplinary Work: An Emirically Grounded Framework Proposed. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 215-237. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uio.no/10.1080/00221546.2007.11780874
Repko, A. F. (2008). Interdisciplinary Research; process and theory. Los Angeles: Sage.