|
November 20, 2008
By Gayla Marty
 Key ways to support interdisciplinary scholarship were identified and shared by representatives of leading research universities who met at the University of Minnesota Nov. 14-16. The Consortium on Fostering Interdisciplinary Inquiry is a 10-member group of private and public universities.
Preliminary findings of self-studies, conducted over the past year, were released and discussed. The findings encompass barriers and best practices in eight key areas: administration and governance, collaborative technologies, development and fund-raising, education and training, equity and diversity, finance and budget, research, and space and capital planning.
Participants said the findings have gained importance due to the economic downturn and the urgent need to maintain momentum in fostering interdisciplinary activity despite the fiscal challenges.
"Action is already being taken," said consortium founder and chair Gail Dubrow, vice provost and dean of the Graduate School at the University of Minnesota. "Together we've provided mutual support and new ideas to fuel change."
The University of Minnesota is the lead institution of the consortium, which formed in 2007. Other member institutions include the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the University of Michigan, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Washington, the University of Wisconsin, Brown University, Duke University, and the University of Pennsylvania. More than 40 representatives from seven of the 10 universities attended the meeting.
"This is extremely valuable," said Feniosky Peña-Mora, associate provost for institutional programs at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "It's like a mirror: we thought we looked like this, and now others have verified we do. It has defined issues and given us examples and models that are very useful."
Findings: best practices
On Saturday, the group heard presentations on the eight themes in the self-study, followed by in-depth discussions. On Sunday, each institutution made a presentation about its own progress fostering interdisciplinary activity through changes in policy and practice.
The self-studies identified several unique best practices, such as Duke University's vice provost for interdisciplinary studies position and the University of Wisconsin's interdisciplinary bonding initiative. Some key findings:
 • Student demand was repeatedly cited as a driver of interdisciplinary activity. Over the past generation, consortium members said, young scholars at all levels have increasingly approached higher education from problem-solving and new conceptual perspectives, creating demand for multiple majors and minors, joint-degree programs, and new interdisciplinary fields of study.
• No single budget model--incremental, incentive-based, or mixed--appears superior for interdisciplinary work. The consortium universities have found a variety of ways to reward interdisciplinary innovation and protect it in lean times. One has developed a particularly rigorous process to assess interdisciplinary research centers and close them when they are no longer effective.
• The rise of diversity research institutes at several institutions points to the high concentration of scholars on their faculties and the interdisciplinary character of research related to diversity. Fields such as women and gender studies and ethnic studies cross almost every known discipline, ranging from the biological sciences to media representations and beyond, in the interest of understanding social relations of race, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality.
• Cluster hires have proven effective in a variety of environments for seeding new areas of interdisciplinary activity. Another practice that generated strong interest is creating specific guidelines for interdisciplinary faculty appointments in the form of memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between hiring units.
• In the research realm, the large size and number of interdisciplinary centers and institutes calls for more comprehensive and coordinated information management, including databases that help make these resources publicly visible.
• One of the most far-reaching recommendations of the study is for universities to consider broadening the notion of faculty tenure homes beyond academic departments to include interdisciplinary programs, research centers, and institutes, where those with shared interests establish a strong sense of intellectual community.
• Donors to higher education are most often tracked by college affiliation, and development officers are assigned to collegiate units. University-wide development activity, focused on broad interdisciplinary themes, can be increased by tracking donors according to their interests rather than their collegiate affiliation.
• Collaborative technologies can be used to foster interdisciplinary work and collaborations that span great distances, but security protocols need to be adapted to permit information sharing in these sorts of teams.
• Demand for interdisciplinary space is steady or increasing in disciplines from engineering to humanities. For new and renovated buildings, flexibility and space for social interaction are critical seed-beds for interdisciplinary innovation.
• Interdisciplinary scholarship is not a new development, but interest in changing institutional policy and practice to foster interdisciplinary activity has grown dramatically in recent years. American studies, area studies, and ethnic studies began to develop in the 1960s. Newer fields--such as neuroscience and water resources--reflect more recent developments in environmental studies, science, and technology. Mature interdisciplinary programs in the humanities and social sciences are an untapped resource for understanding best practices in new and emerging fields.
Some members shared results of their own studies that show equitable rates of promotion and tenure for faculty in disciplinary and interdisciplinary fields. This raised questions for the consortium about the common perception that interdisciplinary faculty face higher hurdles in tenure and promotion.
Creative approaches are timely for financial challenges ahead
Interdisciplinary scholarship is accelerating faster than universities' ability to support it within existing organizational structures, the meeting participants agreed. Despite the proliferation and value of interdisciplinary research and educational programs, work-arounds and bureaucratic barriers remain common. The meeting identified changes in policies and practices to put interdisciplinary initiatives on a level playing field with disciplinary entities.
Senior vice president and provost E. Thomas Sullivan, sponsor of the Provost's Interdisciplinary Team at the University of Minnesota, welcomed the group on Friday. "Structuring and promoting interdisciplinary thinking is about leaving our typical intellectual and institutional comfort zones in pursuit of new and better ways of working and thinking together," Sullivan said.
President Robert Bruininks, speaking on Saturday morning as a longtime advocate for interdisciplinary innovation, urged the group to consider its work in the context of shrinking economic resources. He and Dubrow emphasized the need for creative approaches in this financial climate.
"In the past, when universities have faced budget cuts, interdisciplinary work has often been a target, since protecting the core disciplines was regarded as essential," said Dubrow. "Despite our variations, all the consortium participants agree that interdisciplinarity is essential to the success of their institutions."
Consortium members expressed interest in tracking the impact of budget cuts on interdisciplinary activities.
In closing remarks, Dubrow reminded those gathered that "some of the most dramatic changes cost little to deliver other than a change in perspective that translates into new policy directions." As evidence, she cited a new policy of allowing collaborative or multi-authored dissertations and theses within the University of Minnesota's Graduate School, a change acknowledging that, in the future, not all original contributions to knowledge will come from individuals.
"The world's most complex problems will require the tools and methods of multiple disciplines to solve," Dubrow said, "and the ability to collaborate across the disciplines may well be one of the most important competencies of the 21st century."
Next steps
An official report of the findings will be released in several months. In the meantime, the consortium members are already using what they've learned from the self-studies and each other.
The study groups and cochairs are:
• Administration and governance: H. Jeanie Taylor, formerly at the University of Minnesota, now at Brill Neumann, Boston, and Sheldon Zedeck, University of California-Berkeley
• Collaborative technologies: Steve Cawley, University of Minnesota, and Ron Kraemer, University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Development and fund-raising: Judy Kirk, University of Minnesota, and Patricia Justice, University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign
• Education and training: Gail Dubrow, University of Minnesota, and Janet Weiss, University of Michigan
• Equity and diversity: Nancy "Rusty" Barcélo, University of Minnesota, and Sheila Edwards Lange, University of Washington
• Budget and finance: Lincoln Kallsen, University of Minnesota, and Donald Stewart, Brown University
• Research: Frances Lawrenz, University of Minnesota, and Beth Burnside, University of California-Berkeley
• Space and capital planning: Robert Kvavik, University of Minnesota, and James Roberts, Duke University
Each participating institution formed an internal team that crosses the usual administrative silos, helping to build capacity for institutional transformation in the process.
See more information about the consortium and interdisciplinary initiatives at the University of Minnesota.
|
