Abstract:

Almost by definition, innovative, sustainable economics, technologies, derived services and products have to be developed in a multi-disciplinary way: all kinds of bits and parts from less sustainable methods, technologies, services and products have to be reshuffled in new innovative, sustainable and peaceful ways. But initiatives, knowledge, financing and production capacity, distribution and consumption are spread over a lot of people, businesses, institutions and governments….
As monitored in this first decade, this multi-disciplines, multi-concepts and multi-actors character of these - sometimes World Wide - problems tends to inertia: every disciple is waiting for the other, every expert is waiting for the other, every World Citizen is waiting for the other…

As the EU Lisbon 2000 Treaty and the Bologna Declaration suggests, there have to be more emphasis on – especially – multi-disciplinary Science Education.
However: the latest Lisbon 2010 Treaty lays heavy emphasis on retrieving old, stable and traditional social economic principles and values again.
Due to the financial and economic crises, the Lisbon 2010 Treaty budget cuts will soon overrule Lisbon 2000 Treaty experiments: it will be ‘business as usual’ and mono-disciplines will rule University Programming once again. So, multi-discipline Academic Faculty has to deal with it on their own.

Architecture can be an outstanding example for Science Innovation Education, as it is an ‘interdisciplinary discipline’ balancing on the edge of Arts and Sciences. It deals from head on with this kind of interdisciplinary design and development problems and uses more mono-discipline curricula models as more multi-discipline curricula models as well. The paper elaborates on methodological backgrounds and discusses some pro’s and contra’s of mono-paradigm and multi-paradigm curricula approaches.

Keywords:

Curriculum design, technology development, education methodology, EU education politics, innovation.