REPORT OF THE INTERDISCIPLINARITY TASK FORCE · Interdisciplinarity Task Force Report Pg. would have been difficult or impossible for either institution to create on its own. Although

REPORTOF THEINTERDISCIPLINARITYTASK FORCE October 2005

A S S O C I A T I O N O F A M E R I C A N U N I V E R I S I T I E S

Members

Shirley Tilghman, PresidentPrinceton University (Chair)

Joseph Aoun, Dean, Colleges of Letters, Arts &SciencesUniversity of Southern California

William Chafe, Dean, Arts and SciencesDuke University(Through June 2004)

Marsha Chandler, Senior Vice Chancellor,Academic AffairsUniversity of California, San Diego

John Cooper, Dean, School of Arts andSciences, University of Pittsburgh

Malcolm Gillis, PresidentRice University(Through June 2004)

Susan Hockfield, Dean of the Graduate Schoolof Arts and Sciences

Yale University(Through June 2003)

Edward Hundert, PresidentCase Western Reserve University

Mark Kamlet, ProvostCarnegie Melon University

Thomas LeBlanc, Vice Provost and Robert L.& Mary L. Sproull Dean of FacultyUniversity of Rochester(Through June 2005)

Richard McCormick, PresidentRutgers, The State University ofNew Jersey

John Moseley, Senior Vice Presidentand Provost University of Oregon

Ilene Nagel, Senior Advisor to theProvost and Senior Vice Presidentfor Academic AffairsUniversity of California

Eva Pell, Vice President for Researchand Dean of the Graduate SchoolThe Pennsylvania State University

Winfred Phillips, Vice President forResearch University of Florida

Gary Pivo, Dean of the GraduateCollege and Director of GraduateInterdisciplinary ProgramsThe University of Arizona(Through May 2004)

Committee Staff:

John C. Vaughn, Executive VicePresidentAssociation of AmericanUniversities

Interdisciplinarity Task Force

ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL

INTERDISCIPLINARY CENTERS AND

PROGRAMS

INTRODUCTION

Interdisciplinary research and education have long been part of the university programmatic structure. More recently,

however, university interdisciplinaryprojects, programs, centers, and instituteshave grown in number, diversity, andcomplexity. This growth generally reflectsthe need for new combinations ofdisciplinary knowledge and researchmethods to solve new and complexproblems, and the educational value forstudents of analyzing important issues frommultiple perspectives.

The growth in interdisciplinary activityraises important challenges for universityadministrators. They must identify ways toencourage promising interdisciplinaryinitiatives and provide conditions underwhich those initiatives can flourish, whilediscouraging efforts unlikely to provefruitful. Moreover, administrators need toincorporate interdisciplinary activities intothe institution’s programmatic structure inways that encourage collaboration overcompetition and advance the mission of theuniversity.

Given the growing importance ofinterdisciplinary activities in universities,AAU created a task force to examine theissue of interdisciplinarity and identify

actions university administrators can take topromote interdisciplinary activities that expandknowledge and understanding and enricheducation. To carry out this charge, the AAUInterdisciplinarity Task Force undertook avariety of activities including Task Forcemeetings, a plenary session panel discussion atan AAU meeting of presidents and chancellors,and a survey of Task Force-member campusesto identify both successful and unsuccessfulprograms and the factors that contributed totheir differential outcomes. In addition, TaskForce members and other academic colleaguesidentified a number of interdisciplinary centersoutside their own institutions that are widelyregarded as successful. In-depth discussionswere then held with the directors of thosecenters to identify factors that contributed to thesuccess of their centers, the criteria they used tomeasure success, and any changes they thoughtwould make their centers even more effective.

This report draws on information collectedand evaluated by the Task Force to providewhat members hope will be a usefulchecklist of factors to consider in creating,maintaining, and modifying or terminatinginterdisciplinary programs or centers.

Interdisciplinarity Task Force ReportPg.

TASK FORCE CONCEPT OF

INTERDISCIPLINARITY

Interdisciplinary work encompasses a wide range of activities, from self- initiated collaborations involving a small

number of faculty members that do not drawsignificantly on institutional resources, to majorinstitutional centers that engage substantialinvestments from faculty, students, andinstitutional resources. Inasmuch as this is areport to university presidents, chancellors, andother senior administrators, the Task Force hasfocused on major interdisciplinary centers,institutes, or programs; the report generally usesthe terms “program” or “center” to encompassall such activities.

The Task Force has not developed a formaldefinition of interdisciplinarity. As aworking guide, the group has agreed thatinterdisciplinarity includes one or more ofthe following elements:

• activities that engage more than onediscipline to accomplish research oreducational objectives that cannot beaccomplished through those samedisciplines operating separately,

• centers designed to function as anintegrated discipline at theboundaries of fields, such asbiophysics and political philosophy,

• centers for the study of a large subject,such as religion, where scholars

continue to work in their own disciplinesbut benefit from working on ordiscussing issues with colleagues fromother disciplines, and

• centers that revolve around a specifictool or set of tools, such asnanotechnology and high-endcomputing, which are applicable tomany kinds of science.

The following sections of the report discussaspects of the creation, support, management,and evaluation of major interdisciplinaryprograms or centers that warrant attention byuniversity central administration. Thediscussion identifies practices that haveproven effective in promoting successfulendeavors and in avoiding, modifying, orterminating unsuccessful ventures.

Along with interdisciplinary activities on theirown campuses, universities may also participatein interdisciplinary programs that involve multipleuniversities or other research and educationinstitutions. These collaborations allow them toachieve programmatic outcomes that cannot beaccomplished by the individual participantsseparately and that advance the missions ofall participants. For example, the Universityof Southern California has partnered with thenearby Huntington Library to create twoprograms—in the study of California and theWest, and in Early Modern History—which

2

Interdisciplinarity Task Force Report Pg.

would have been difficult or impossible for eitherinstitution to create on its own. Although this reportfocuses on the management of interdisciplinary programswithin a single institution, inter-institutional initiatives arementioned here both to note the promise of sucharrangements and because many of the issues discussedin the report will also apply to such inter-institutionalarrangements.

3


CREATION OF CENTERS

The creation of interdisciplinary centers of significant size will necessarily involve

the university administration as well asthe faculty. The initial animating idea orconceptual framework may often come from thefaculty in a “bottom-up” process. In othercases, creation of an interdisciplinary centerstarts with a vision and commitment from theuniversity administration in a “top-down”process. Although there is considerable debateabout which approach is preferable, there areample cases of success from both approaches.The fundamental point is that the successfulcreation and continuation of an interdisciplinarycenter or program requires both facultyengagement and administration commitment.

An example of an interdisciplinary initiative thatbegan as a bottom-up faculty effort is the set ofeducation and research programs in humandevelopment at the University of California, SanDiego. The programs were proposed by agroup of faculty members from the divisions ofSocial Science, Biological Sciences, and Artsand Humanities who had an extensive history ofproductive collaboration. The group firstdeveloped an interdisciplinary Bachelor of Artsprogram in human development, which theFaculty Senate and the administration approvedin 1995. The faculty members then formalizedtheir research collaborations, working with theadministration to create the Center for HumanDevelopment as a campus Organized ResearchUnit in 2000. Key to the success of the center

was the involvement of these senior, eminentfaculty members who had standing in theirrespective fields, were able and willing todevote time to the creation of the programs, andhad a history of working together productively.The university administration responded tofaculty interest by providing additional facultypositions for the programs. As a result, thegrowth of the Human Development initiativewas not viewed as coming at the expense ofparticipating departments. These research andeducation programs now have affiliations witheleven departments and academic programs.The educational activities have expanded toinclude a new interdisciplinary Ph.D. program inHuman Development approved this year.

In contrast, at The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, the central administration formeda faculty committee to determinemechanisms for significantly enhancing lifesciences at the university. As an outgrowthof that exercise, the administrationcommitted to create the Huck Institutes ofthe Life Sciences, developed in collaborationwith the deans of all colleges with lifesciences activity. In the initial years, deanswere invited to submit a set number ofproposals each year in support of facultylines for the Institutes. These proposals weredeveloped by having the departments in eachcollege submit proposals to the deans, fromwhich the deans selected those that best fit themissions and goals of their colleges. A facultysteering committee then reviewed the proposals,

4


principally on the basis that a given proposal fora faculty line would augment institutionalstrengths in the life sciences and capitalize onnational priorities and opportunities in a givenfield. The steering committee submitted aprioritized list of proposals to an executivecommittee comprising the deans, the VicePresident for Research, and the Director of theHuck Institutes. Thus, a process initiated andmanaged by the administration was built uponproposals developed by departments and theirfaculties.

The idea for the Beckman Institute of theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign wasconceived initially by university administrators,but the final plan for creation of the Institutewas based on two proposals developed byfaculty in engineering and the physical sciencesand in the life and biological sciences.

Some universities have successfullyemployed a variant of the top-down modelby funding seminars in interdisciplinaryareas that the administration believes wouldbe promising for the institution. Theseminars provide a sort of pilot test offaculty interest in a given topic, and theadministration can decide to proceed or notbased on the degree of interest that emergesfrom the seminars.

Whatever the source of the initial idea for anew interdisciplinary venture, it is critical todetermine that sufficient faculty interest andcommitment exist before proceeding. At oneinstitution, an interdisciplinary initiative regardedby the university administration as havingextraordinary potential has thus far failed tocome together. The program was designed totap existing strengths across five schools anddivisions, and the administration provided

additional faculty and operating funds.However, the schools and divisions have haddifficulty reaching consensus on priorities suchas target areas for faculty recruitment.

In addition to establishing faculty interestand commitment in a new interdisciplinaryprogram, university administrators may wishto answer a number of additional questionsbefore proceeding, including:

1) Will the new entity encouragescholarship that would otherwise notoccur within the existingdepartments?

2) Will the new entity have an educationmission? If so, will the new centerexpand curricular offerings inexisting departments or is theinterdisciplinary area of sufficientmaturity to support a full curriculumleading to undergraduate degrees,graduate degrees, or both? If the newentity will grant degrees, has therebeen a determination that a realisticmarket exists for the graduates of theprogram?

3) How will the institution and theprogram or center handle space,resources, faculty, staff, tenure,governance, evaluation, andcontinuation?

Each of these questions is discussed in greaterdetail in the ensuing sections.

At Duke University, the process of answeringthese and related questions has led to thedevelopment of a formal application procedure.This process involves first discussing the ideawith appropriate faculty and deans, followed

5


by discussion of the intellectual agenda andfinancial arrangements with the Vice Provost forInterdisciplinary Studies. The discussion withthe Vice Provost focuses on how the centerwould allow the university to accomplishsomething different or better than what can bedone within existing departments. If thisdiscussion is positive, the next step is anapplication process that involves preparing aprospectus, bylaws, and a planning budget.The application is then reviewed by the ViceProvost and Provost, in consultation with therelevant deans, resulting in either approval witha five-year review date, or denial.

6


FUNDING AND RESOURCE SUPPORT

The university should have an explicitplan for funding an interdisciplinarycenter before it begins operation. Some

institutions require that funding be securedbefore the center is operational, while othersmay provide start-up funding with theexpectation that the center will be responsiblefor securing its continued funding. In suchcases, a clear written expectation of fundingresponsibilities established from the outset canavoid later confusion or charges of abrogationof commitment.

While multiple sources of funding are valuablefor universities and their academic programsgenerally, they are particularly important forinterdisciplinary programs that are likely to drawon transitory or episodic funding. An exampleof success at tapping multiple sources ofsupport is the MIT Media Lab, whichencompasses a wide range of disciplines at theinterface of computation and the arts,conducting research in areas such as softwareagents, machine understanding, childhoodlearning, human and machine vision, tangiblemedia, interactive cinema, and digitalexpression. The Lab’s research is funded by acombination of corporate sponsors, governmentagencies, nonprofit organizations, andsubcontracts with other universities. Thefacility’s strong corporate support reflects anemphasis on collaborative research andtechnology transfer, made possible by its wide

range of research areas and the applicationsresulting from them.

Illinois’ Beckman Institute supports researchprimarily in biological intelligence, human-computer intelligent interaction, and molecularand electronic nanostructures. The Institutebegan with the construction of its own building,four-fifths of which was funded through a gift,the rest by the state. At the outset, the stateand university pledged to provide continuedoperations and maintenance support for theInstitute. However, ninety percent of researchfunding comes from federal research agenciesand industry. In addition, the Institute receivesabout five percent of its funding from theBeckman Foundation; these funds are fullydiscretionary and are currently being used tofund postdoctoral and graduate fellowshipprograms.

The MIT Media Lab and the BeckmanInstitute are examples of interdisciplinarycenters operating in areas for whichsubstantial external funding fromgovernment, industry, and foundations isavailable. However, interdisciplinarycenters in humanities and social sciencefields confront different challenges becauseof the relative scarcity of external fundingsources in those areas. Suchinterdisciplinary centers tend to rely moreheavily on institutional support throughfundraising for endowment funds, term funds,

7


or other centrally provided university resources.At one institution, for example, newly approvedinterdisciplinary programs are provided with fiveyears of funding, after which the programs mustcompete for continued funding for infrastructuresupport, which is provided from a pool ofinstitutional funds. In deciding how thoseinstitutional funds are distributed, the universitydifferentiates between those interdisciplinaryprograms that can generate infrastructuresupport from external sources—through indirectcost recovery from research grant funding, forexample—and those in areas such as thehumanities where the institution often is the onlysource of available support.

The Michigan Society of Fellows is anexample of an interdisciplinary program thatis supported through a mixture of endowmentfunds and cost-sharing with departments.The Society uses an endowment grant fromthe Ford Foundation to fund three-yearpostdoctoral fellowships for scholars from allarts and sciences and professional fields whoare pursuing interdisciplinary research.Fellows are appointed as assistant professorsin appropriate departments and asPostdoctoral Scholars in the Society. TheSociety funds two years of the three-yearfellowship; the department funds one.

The dual source of funding for the Society’spostdoctoral fellows is mutually beneficial tothe Society and the departments: the Societyis able to use endowment funding to helpsupport its program, so it is not viewed astaking away potential funding sources fordepartments. The departments, in turn, gainaccess to highly talented people for one-thirdof the cost of their support. Since some of thefellows stay on in their departments, thedepartments also view the Society’s program as

an effective recruiting mechanism for futureMichigan faculty.

Funding for interdisciplinary centers, whetherprovided by the university or generatedprimarily by center fundraising, can createfriction between centers and traditional schoolsand departments. Penn State’s Huck Institutesin the Life Sciences have dealt with thispotential problem by having relevant schoolsand departments participate in the developmentof proposals for faculty lines, as describedearlier, and by having start-up funding andpermanent funding of faculty positions jointlyfunded, with half of the funding coming from theInstitutes, half from the colleges. The positionsare “owned” by the colleges for a five- to six-year period, and tenure resides in the colleges.For each faculty position, an agreement isdeveloped between the Institutes and collegesor departments indicating the expectations ofthe Institutes regarding development of aresearch area and the provision of graduate andundergraduate instruction. If expectations aremet at the end of the period, the agreement isrenewed; if a faculty member’s performancedoes not meet the expectations of the Institutesbut satisfies the college, the dean anddepartment head will need to assume theInstitutes’ 50% share of the faculty salary.

These arrangements reduce the likelihood ofcompetition and foster collaboration throughjoint college/Institute financial support andjoint identification of faculty members,research areas, and teaching responsibilities.

8


The quality and engagement of the faculty is the reason most consistently given to explain why highly successful

interdisciplinary centers achieve their success.Conversely, perhaps the most frequently citedreason for the failure of interdisciplinary effortsis the failure to attract and fully engage strongfaculty. It is noteworthy that, when asked whatchanges might be instituted to increase theeffectiveness of their centers, directors ofseveral successful centers answered: morecontrol over faculty hiring.

Talented faculty are of course key to the qualityof any academic program, but they areparticularly critical to the success ofinterdisciplinary initiatives. Newinterdisciplinary ventures are by definitionuntested and lack a grounding in disciplinaryhistory; established interdisciplinaryprograms or centers need flexibility inmaking and terminating appointments tomaintain faculty talent in the more fluidboundaries of interdisciplinary work.

Joint appointments between an interdisciplinarycenter and a department frequently createtension. To avoid misunderstandings, jointappointment arrangements should be addressedwhen a center is created, defining expectationsfor faculty, the department, and the center. Inthis respect, Duke’s formal applicationprocedure for creation of a center, describedearlier, provides a mechanism for specifyingjoint appointment procedures in writing. If

FACULTY

Duke faculty members take on addedresponsibilities in a center or a secondarydepartment, they are required to inform relevantcenter directors, department chairs, or deans inboth units about those added responsibilities inorder to avoid an unsustainable increase inworkload.

Because the reduction in departmentalcommitment can cause resentment over theexpropriation of its resources, departmentsshould be compensated in some way when sucha resource reduction occurs. Such situations arebest handled by having the center directornegotiate and consult with deans anddepartment heads to identify and agree on termsthat provide mutually beneficial outcomes. Forexample, a reduction in departmental teachingload for jointly appointed center facultymembers may be offset by the center providingresearch space and administrative support thatwould otherwise be drawn from the department.This can free up departmental resources to fillthe teaching gap and, in the process, provide ahome for a faculty member’s interdisciplinaryresearch in ways that benefit the department andthe center. Other forms of compensation todepartments and schools may include providingindirect costs from research grants, offeringcenter-supported programs that enhance theintellectual mission of the department or school,or developing collaborative research andteaching that extends the offerings of thedepartment or school.

9


There are a number of important considerationsin recruiting outside faculty for aninterdisciplinary center, particularly if the facultymembers are untenured. Because it is rare thatfaculty members are granted or hold tenurewithin an interdisciplinary center, facultyrecruited from outside the institution generallymust find a departmental home. That is notalways straightforward for a scholar whosework lies at the boundary between fields. Thus,the center director needs to negotiate withdeans and department heads to identify jointlyaccepted objectives for the recruitment process.

Three examples illustrate some of the solutionsto appointing faculty to interdisciplinary centers.All faculty at Illinois’ Beckman Institute havehome departments and are “visiting” atBeckman. Full-time and part-time Beckmanfaculty conduct all or part of their research atBeckman and occupy space in the Institute;affiliate faculty collaborate in Beckman researchbut do not occupy space there. Thedepartments control hiring, tenure, salary andteaching assignments, although the InstituteDirector is consulted on some faculty recruiting.Because the departments hire and provide thetenure home for Beckman faculty, the InstituteDirector maintains close ties with departmentheads, meeting with them regularly to discussfuture research directions and related topics.To attract departmental faculty to Instituteresearch projects, the Director can offer spacefor research, funding for start-ups and othercosts, unique research facilities, and strongadministrative support.

The University of California, Berkeley offers aPh.D. program in Jurisprudence and SocialPolicy (JSP), which is designed for studentsinterested in teaching law-related subjects in

humanities and social science departments, lawschools, and legal studies programs, and forthose interested in applied policy research. Theprogram is housed in and primarily funded bythe university’s Boalt School of Law. JSP corefaculty are humanists and social scientists whocombine teaching and research in their areas ofexpertise with the study of law. Faculty at JSPconduct searches for new faculty, butappointments must be approved by the lawschool. The law school makes tenure decisionswith substantial input from JSP. The provisionof tenure within the law school is a strongattraction in recruiting excellent faculty.

Because the overall goals of Penn State’s HuckInstitutes are shaped in part by the deans of theparticipating colleges, the research success ofjointly funded Institute faculty also advancecollege and departmental goals as well. Asnoted earlier, faculty lines for the new Instituteswere drawn from departmental proposalssubmitted through the deans of the colleges. Inaddition, indirect costs and institutionallyprovided research incentive funds are allocatedin part to the colleges, so Institute researchsuccess produces financial resources for thecolleges. The colleges maintain exclusivecontrol over tenure decisions.

When untenured faculty members with adepartmental home conduct their research in aninterdisciplinary center, care must be taken toensure that such research is recognized andvalued within the department. Tenure decisionsfor such faculty often may call forinterdisciplinary tenure committees. DukeUniversity, for example, has modified its tenurepolicies to accommodate faculty membersinvolved in interdisciplinary research. Under the

10


new policies, deans and department chairs, notthe candidates, have responsibility for ensuringthat interdisciplinary areas are represented ontenure committees. Tenure committees may beco-chaired by someone from the homedepartment and by an interdisciplinaryrepresentative. These procedures for handlinginterdisciplinary tenure decisions are specified inthe faculty handbook.

In some cases, it may be appropriate to extendthe tenure clock for faculty working ininterdisciplinary areas. Such an extensionrecognizes the longer time that may be neededto establish a track record across the multipledimensions of interdisciplinary work. CarnegieMellon University, which has a longstandingtradition of interdisciplinary collaboration, has anine-year tenure clock for all faculty. Thepolicy was initially implemented forinterdisciplinary faculty, but was then extendedto all faculty in the interests of comparabilityacross disciplines in recruitment.

11


LEADERSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION

Perhaps second only to the quality of faculty in contributing to successful interdisciplinary centers is the quality of

leadership. Center leadership draws on adiverse array of attributes, including intellectualvision as well as management, diplomatic, andnegotiating skills. These attributes are notnecessarily found in the same person: thefaculty member who develops the intellectuallyrich interdisciplinary concept may not be adeptat the management of a complexinterdisciplinary program. In such cases,dividing responsibilities among more than oneperson can help assure that all aspects of centerleadership and administration are met. Evenwhen the founding leader has all the attributesnecessary to conceive and launch a successfulinterdisciplinary venture, center leadership mayencounter problems of succession. Forexample, a protégé trained by the initial directormay be able to carry on successfully, but thecenter can lose momentum and direction withthe third generation of leadership. Avoidingsuch problems requires a clear understanding ofthe attributes needed to direct a given centerand a careful search for a successor with thoseattributes.

One critical function that is usually handled bythe center director is coordinating centeractivities with affiliated departments andschools. This task often calls for diplomaticskills, particularly where joint support, sharedpersonnel, or other shared or transferred assets

raise the possibility for competition ordisagreement. Such conflicts are best minimizedthrough the initial design of the structure,operation, and support of the center and how thatdesign defines its relationship with departmentsand schools. For example, if an interdisciplinarycenter is created with new faculty lines,established departments are less likely to see thecenter as drawing resources away from them. If,however, a new interdisciplinary initiative iscreated wholly or in part by a reallocation ofexisting resources, some care must be taken tocreate a set of arrangements that are mutuallybeneficial for the center and departments.

Stanford University’s Institute for InternationalStudies has about 150 faculty, researchers, andvisiting scholars. Most are senior Stanfordfaculty drawn from all seven of Stanford’sschools with either limited term appointments—typically five years—or joint appointments. Theemphasis in the Institute is on research, which itsupports through fundraising, and jointlyappointed faculty have reduced departmentalteaching loads in order to accommodate researchat the Institute. To minimize conflicts withdepartmental faculty over possibly competitivefundraising and reduced teaching loads, theInstitute Director works directly with deans of theschools to reach mutual agreements. TheDirector also draws on a faculty executivecommittee to help shape Institute policies andpractices in ways that incorporate the needs ofthe schools and the broader institutional goals.

12


Another important dimension of centeradministration is establishing clear reportingchannels. Such reporting channels help clarifythe placement of the center in the institution’sstructure, provide a locus for resolution ofissues that cannot be resolved through directnegotiation, and create pathways of support forinitiatives that may need assistance inovercoming initial hurdles.

In addition to the leadership skills and reportingarrangements that apply to the director of aninterdisciplinary center, the organization andtraining of administrative support staff also canbe important for the operation of aninterdisciplinary center, particularly given thediversity of people and disciplines involved.Duke’s John Hope Franklin Center forInterdisciplinary and International Studieshouses 25 programs, primarily in the humanitiesand social sciences, in a single, overarchingconsortium. The Center employs sharedadministrative staff, including a center director,building manager, financial manager,receptionist, and technology staff. The use ofshared staff can provide cost-effectiveadministrative support for interdisciplinary unitsthat are not large enough to sustain separatestaffs.

Duke has created an InterdisciplinaryAdministrators Working Group to providesupport for interdisciplinary programadministrators, including both faculty directorsand non-faculty executive or associate directorsand program coordinators. The group meetsmonthly to share information and opportunitiesfor collaboration and discuss such issues asmanaging budgets, working collaboratively with

other units, development, grant writing,barriers to interdisciplinary research, and staffevaluation.

13


GOVERNANCE AND EVALUATION

The governance and evaluation of interdisciplinary centers play critical

roles in their overall operation. Sinceinterdisciplinary centers are created in a newinstitutional context spanning multiple disciplinarycultures and traditions, effective governance andevaluation also help fit the interdisciplinaryactivity into the larger institutional mission.

The nature of governance clearly will vary withthe scale of the interdisciplinary program. Arelatively small program may achieve adequategovernance simply through reportingarrangements—for example, the head of aprogram reporting to a dean or vice presidentfor research. But interdisciplinary programs orcenters of significant size benefit from having asteering or advisory committee to provideoversight and direction. Drawing on highlyrespected faculty members or other personsfrom the disciplines involved in the center, suchadvisory groups can both provide valuabledirection and help establish credibility for thework of the center. An example of the value ofsuch groups is Princeton University’s Center forthe Study of Religion. The Center has a 10-member Executive Committee of dedicated,prominent senior faculty members from a rangeof humanities and social sciences disciplines whowork closely with the Center’s director to shapethe ongoing program. The active engagement ofthese eminent individuals not only providesbroad and informed guidance, but also helps theCenter attract attention and interest from facultyand students.

Periodic evaluation is particularly important forinterdisciplinary activities, which always beginas new combinations of people and disciplinespursuing new combinations of research andeducational objectives. As with governance,evaluation of small-scale interdisciplinaryinitiatives may be comparatively simple, carriedout through straightforward reporting andperformance reviews between a programdirector and the one or more individuals towhom the director reports. However, largerscale programs will benefit from more formalevaluations, including both regular internalreviews and periodic external evaluations.Regular internal reviews can help direct newventures toward their stated objectives andprovide feedback supporting effective mid-course corrections. Periodic externalevaluations, when positive, can provideimportant validation for programs. Whennegative, such evaluations can provide therationale for a serious examination by theuniversity central administration about whetherto modify or discontinue the interdisciplinaryprogram.

Appropriately, a wide variety of effectivearrangements for evaluation exist, varying bysize and scope of the interdisciplinary programor center, by the broad disciplinary areasinvolved, and by the culture of the institution.Berkeley’s Ph.D. program in Jurisprudence andSocial Policy is the responsibility of the lawschool faculty, but the program operates under

14


the guidelines of the graduate division, whichperiodically reviews the JSP Ph.D. program.Illinois’ Beckman Institute is evaluated everythree or four years by an external teamcomposed of people outside of the Institute butwithin the university, and experts outside theuniversity. The team review focuses on twobasic questions: (1) what is the quality of theresearch being conducted within the Institute,and (2) are faculty members’ research takingadvantage of the Institute as an interdisciplinaryfacility? If the answer to the second question isnegative for a given researcher, that facultymember might be moved back into his or herhome department. This procedure provides aninformed external assessment of the overallquality of work at the Institute and an evaluationof individual work in a manner that allows theInstitute to maintain flexibility and a capacity tochange over time.

Stanford’s Institute for International Studies hasestablished a two-tiered structure forgovernance, evaluation, and support. TheInstitute is run by a 20-person ExecutiveCommittee, chaired by the Institute Director.The Executive Committee meets regularlyduring the academic year to discuss Institutebusiness and to determine faculty appointmentsto the Institute. The Institute’s Board ofVisitors, which is composed of persons outsideStanford with ties to the work of the Institute,reviews the Institute and advises the Director onlong-range plans and developmentopportunities. The Board also serves as aninformed advocate for the Institute both withinthe university and in parts of the world thatwould benefit from the Institute’s work, enablingit to provide a bridge between scholarshipconducted within the Institute and the

application of that scholarship outside theuniversity.

A key element of evaluation may be theexistence of a sunset provision established whenan interdisciplinary center is created.Particularly when accompanied by a set ofthoughtful and explicit goals for a new center,sunset provisions establish from the outset a setof criteria on which the success of the centerwill be judged, and an explicit timetable andprocess for reaching such judgments. At DukeUniversity, all interdisciplinary programs, whenapproved, are established with five-year sunsetprovisions. Every program or center is formallyreviewed at the end of five years, with thedefault outcome being termination unless theprogram can demonstrate through the formalreview and related evidence a clear basis forcontinuation.

At some point, a center may become so largethat a formal sunset provision may not befeasible: the MIT Media Lab and Illinois’Beckman Institute each have their ownbuildings, and the Media Lab is building asecond facility; the Beckman Institute has morethan 100 faculty members from nearly 30departments working at the Institute. In suchcases, periodic reviews, informal and formal,internal and external, can help steer researchand education programs in evolving, continuallyproductive directions.

15


STUDENT ISSUES

GRADUATE STUDENTS

Graduate students may be admitted into and fully housed in interdisciplinary

centers or programs, or admitted intodepartments but carry out all or most of theirresearch work, and perhaps course work, inan interdisciplinary program. In the case ofgraduate students admitted into departmentsbut whose graduate program isinterdisciplinary, the interdisciplinary center orprogram should, as with untenured facultyhoused in departments, take steps to assurethat their center work is appropriatelyrecognized. Such steps may include the use ofinterdisciplinary dissertation committees.

Conferring graduate degrees in interdisciplinaryprograms should occur only when theinstitution has determined that a robust marketexists for graduates with such interdisciplinarydegrees. In some cases, the market may haveknown limitations. For example, aninterdisciplinary Ph.D. degree may be indemand in the private sector, but not in theacademic career market, where there may bea preference for discipline-based degrees.Students should be advised of suchcircumstances when they apply tointerdisciplinary programs.

One way that universities can recognizeinterdisciplinary work without grantinginterdisciplinary degrees is to grant certificatesin the interdisciplinary area in conjunction withdegrees in a traditional department. In Duke’s

Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, forexample, students from 10 departments participatein the Center’s graduate program and may earn acertificate in Interdisciplinary Medieval andRenaissance Studies. The Center has an excellenttrack record of job placement for graduatestudents.

Penn State’s Huck Institutes of the Life Sciencessupport and oversee an Integrative Biosciences(IBIOS) Graduate Degree Program that providesfellowships and teaching assistantships for first- andsecond-year students. The balance of students’support is provided by the departments in whichtheir mentors reside or from their mentors’ researchgrants. Students can select among nine different“tracks,” and all students enroll in a first-yearcolloquium and a course in bioethics. The HuckInstitutes support a recruiter who recruits graduatestudents for the Institutes and also works withofficials in other inter-college graduate degreeprograms and departmentally based life sciencesgraduate programs to assist with their recruiting.Although IBIOS students receive much of theirresearch training through the Institutes, their Ph.D.sare granted by the graduate school either directlythrough IBIOS, through an inter-college graduatedegree program, or through a department graduatedegree program that participates in the IBIOSrequirements and philosophy.

The University of Rochester recently established aformal interdepartmental graduate degree programin biomedical engineering. The program is based inthe Department of Biomedical Engineering butdraws on faculty from other departments in the

16


College of Arts, Sciences, and Engineering andin the School of Medicine and Dentistry.Participating faculty from multiple departmentsserve on the governing committees that handlethe recruitment and admission of graduatestudents, as well as oversight of the graduatecurriculum and student progress.Administration of the Ph.D. program and thegranting of degrees are managed by faculty inthe Department of Biomedical Engineering,working with faculty from other departmentswho have been designated as graduate facultyfor the interdepartmental program. All studentsfulfill a small set of common courserequirements and choose elective coursesappropriate to their research interests.Students may pursue research with any of theinterdisciplinary program faculty identified asgraduate trainers, but all students receive thesame degree. This arrangement has proved tobe a particular benefit to research programshoused in clinical departments, where problemsrelevant to biomedical engineering often arisebut access to graduate students has beendifficult to establish.

UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

The Task Force understands undergraduate interdisciplinary

programs to be more thanmultidisciplinary survey courses. In line withthe Task Force working guide for the terminterdisciplinarity, undergraduateinterdisciplinary courses involve learning howmultiple disciplines converge on a set of issuesor combine to address particular problems.Undergraduate interdisciplinary educationalprograms can range from coursework added toa traditional major to formal interdisciplinarymajors.

Interdisciplinary research centers andprograms can provide valuable opportunitiesfor undergraduate students to broaden theirperspectives, inform their decisions aboutfuture academic or career pursuits, andbecome directly engaged in such contemporaryissues as environmental science, law and socialjustice, and globalization.

The University of California, San Diego’sinterdisciplinary undergraduate program inHuman Development is one of the university’smost popular undergraduate majors, with anenrollment of about 350 students. Thecurriculum emphasizes development as a keyperspective from which to understand humanbehavior. The courses cover a broadspectrum from brain and perceptualdevelopment, to reasoning and problemsolving, to social interaction and the evolutionof cultural systems. The strong interest ofstudents has stimulated strong facultyparticipation in the program.

Although MIT’s Media Lab does not offer aformal undergraduate degree, it does conducta freshman-year program involving Media Labresearchers and faculty. In addition, more than150 undergraduates work at the Lab throughMIT’s Undergraduate Research OpportunitiesProgram, making the Lab MIT’s largestemployer of undergraduate students.

Interdisciplinary programs should grantundergraduate degrees only where privatesector markets and graduate and professionalschool admissions requirements support them.For those areas where such demand does notyet exist, undergraduate interdisciplinaryprograms can employ the same strategy asgraduate programs: provide a combination ofan undergraduate degree in a traditional majorwith a certificate for interdisciplinary work.

17


Because interdisciplinary initiatives differ so widely by their research and

educational goals, the disciplinesinvolved, and their size, it is difficult to identifyelements of success that apply to all. However,in deciding whether to establish a newinterdisciplinary program or center, there areseveral threshold questions that apply in somerespect to virtually all such initiatives:

• How will this program support oradvance the mission of the institution?

• What will this program do that cannotbe accomplished by existing schoolsand departments?

• What assurances exist that the programwill elicit strong faculty interest andengagement?

• Have steps been taken to establishrelationships between the center andaffiliated or affected departments thatwill promote cooperation and minimizecompetition?

• Has the center identified leadershipcapable of providing the intellectualvision, diplomacy, and managementskills necessary to direct a successfulcenter in the context of a disciplinary-based institution?

CONCLUSION: ELEMENTS OF

SUCCESSFUL INTERDISCIPLINARY

PROGRAMS AND CENTERS

• Are responsibilities for the initial andcontinuing funding of the center clearlyunderstood between the center and theinstitution?

• Are reporting requirements,governance, and evaluation proceduresclearly understood?

• Does the center have a sunsetprovision? If so, are the reviewprocesses and criteria which willdetermine the center’s future clearlyspecified? If the center does not have asunset provision, are there mechanismsto periodically evaluate the success andtrajectory of the center?

None of these questions is surprising, and anumber of additional questions—somediscussed in the foregoing text—should also beconsidered. However, answering these fewquestions satisfactorily at the outset cansignificantly increase the likelihood that a newinterdisciplinary venture will succeed by makingvaluable contributions to new knowledge and itsdissemination, and advancing the mission of theuniversity.

18

1200 New York Avenue, NW • Suite 550 • Washington, DC 20005t e l 2 0 2 . 4 0 8 . 7 5 0 0 • f a x 2 0 2 . 4 0 8 . 8 1 8 4 • w e b w w w . a a u . e d uAAU T H E A S S O C I A T I O N O F A M E R I C A N U N I V E R S I T I E S

Documents

REPORT OF THE INTERDISCIPLINARITY TASK FORCE · Interdisciplinarity Task Force Report Pg. would have been difficult or impossible for either institution to create on its own. Although