UCDT

Interdisciplinary Issues

Fall 1996

Interdisciplinary Barriers

The evaluation team have only recently begun to identify systemic interdisciplinary barriers, methods of expanding interdisciplinary activities, and interdisciplinary templates. The executive committee of the UCDT project met with representatives from the Office of the President, and associate deans from the Schools of Literature, Science & Arts; Natural Resources and Environment; Education; and the College of Engineering to discussion the establishment of a university-wide concentration in Global Change. (Note: The University of Michigan does not award majors and minors, rather, the undergraduate programs are organized in terms of concentrations.)

Global Change Faculty Interviews - Assessment of Interdisciplinary Experiences

The ultimate goal of UCDT is to help the university community better understand institutional and systemic barriers to a major expansion of interdisciplinary instruction and interdisciplinary curricula. Understanding the characteristics of the academic niche occupied by the Global Change curricula will help us understand the degree to which interdisciplinary programs can be integrated into the current university's academic structure. The quality and scope any academic niche is determined by a variety of factors such as available resources, administrative support, course offerings, and faculty and student participation. To define the academic niche occupied by the Global Change curricula, the evaluation team interviewed the faculty about their interdisciplinary experiences and perceptions.

During the fall 1997 semester three professors (professors will be identified as professor A, B, and C) who were involved in teaching Global Change I were interviewed using a semi-structured interview format. These professors, all tenured and from different disciplines, were asked about their perceptions of previous and current interdisciplinary experiences; the influence of the institutional, disciplinary, and departmental context on interdisciplinary activity; the transferability of the UCDT experience to other programs at the university; and the resources and/or structural changes needed to support interdisciplinarity, in general, at the University of Michigan.

All of the professors interviewed had extensive experience with interdisciplinary research. These professors were drawn to interdisciplinary research and teaching because they found them intellectually stimulating as well as professionally rewarding. The professors seem to share a similar view of about the genesis of most interdisciplinary activity.

Faculty who participate in interdisciplinarity are typically recruited by others to work with a team to solve a particular problem or teach a course. Professors are selected to because they can make a unique and vital contribution to the team. For example, Professor B indicated that a team to study ozone depletion was constructed in this manner. The Global Change Executive Committee (GCEC) identified faculty in the medical school, public health, engineering, and SNRE that might be interested in submitting a research grant. Members of the GCEC met individually with these faculty to explain the potential for this research. Shortly thereafter, the team submitted the research grant, and today they are investigating ozone depletion. All of the professors interviewed indicated that faculty should be the central agency for interdisciplinary activity.

Most of the interdisciplinary activity that occurs on a regular basis is performed by faculty who already belong to broad interdisciplinary programs. These faculty are in a unique position to explore the boundaries of traditional disciplines. When they find like minded spirits they look for opportunities for research and teaching. This freedom to self-aggregate is an important strength the University should exploit to encourage cogent interdisciplinary research and teaching. All of the professors interviewed indicated that administration has an important role to play, but it must be careful not to create its own specific research or teaching agendas.

The professors who took part in the interview had similar views about the institutional support for interdisciplinarity. Professor A said this, "To increase broad interdisciplinary training it is going to require the attention of the college and central administration. It requires special nurturing." This "special nurturing" should come in the form of financial support for interdisciplinary programs without a specific research or teaching agenda. These programs should be funded on a competitive basis. Professor A believes that having interdisciplinarity germinate in the natural activities of faculty will create an authentic sense of ownership. Professor B supports this position when he says, "The faculty don't have a great record of responding to instructions from above. I am in favor of these [interdisciplinary] ideas coming from the faculty and getting ownership among the people that have to carry them out." Responding to a question about a dean pursuing an interdisciplinary agenda within the college, Professor B said this,

I am quite happy it isn't [that way] because I'd like to think its my own initiative. I think I'd lose some of my enthusiasm if the dean walked in here one day and the dean told me my job was to work on the Global Change project. I rather do it for the fun of it.

The professors interviewed identified a number of institutional and departmental problems that prevent interdisciplinarity from reaching its potential. Professor A argues that "an interdisciplinary course usually encounters resistance if it is proposed to be a course designed to meet a distribution requirement." Many faculty see their courses "as a weeding out tool as well as a springboard to more advanced courses." Thus, a new interdisciplinary course is often seen as lacking intellectual rigor as well as occupational direction. Professor A posits that some faculty believe interdisciplinary courses increase the probably of advancing unprepared students. Professor B identified several issues that make interdisciplinary work difficult. A professor who does this work has to invest a substantial amount of time to keep his or her lines of communication open. Professor B argues "If you are interested in [collaborating with another] . . . department you [have to] double or triple the number of seminars you attend. There are upper limits on the time allowed for this type of networking, so one can easily encounter the "spreading too thin time problem." Another problem has to do with how the university counts credit hours. Since "student credit hours transfer back into unit budgets" it may be argued that departments should try to acquire as many credit hours as possible to improve their financial position. Pursuing such an agenda discourages interdisciplinary teaching by making departmental participation, through student credit hour sharing, too costly. A related problem noted by Professor B is the effects of Values Centered Management on interdisciplinarity.

Professor C claims that "[VCM] turns deans into people who resist interdisciplinary activity. It is not in their interest to put a lot of resources into a development that is not helping the bottom line on the individual schools. It's bad for both interdisciplinary research and teaching." Without the support of the deans, interdisciplinarity may never reach its potential. Professor C goes on to say this,

I don't think things are going to happen on this campus without the deans' making it happen. That's where the effective power resides--deans and curriculum committees. Its where the decisions are going to be made that either make or break this [Global Change Project].

If a dean wants to kill a course, it's real easy to do that. Tell the advisors, that's a course they [the students] . . . can no longer can take . . .

Student credit hours are translated by central administration into budgets for individual colleges. Sharing these credit hours dilutes potential financial rewards. Ostensibly, VCM places colleges into a competitive milieu where the objective is to garner the most credit hours. Another problem that factors in is the problem of individual deans and their academic plans.

The similarity between the Global Change curriculum and other programs offered in SNRE and LS&A have created tension and competition for resources. All of these programs desire to grow, but students and resources are limited. Whereas LS&A and SNRE have deans to protect their interest, the Global Change program lacks this type of support. As the Global Change curriculum expands it is seen as a direct competitor, thus the support SNRE and LS&A were willing to provide becomes more tentative over time. Administrators of the Global Change project have attempted to reduce this perceived threat by rotating the "home department" where the student credit hours are counted. For example, during the winter 1997 semester Sociology, a LS&A department, will be designated as the home department. The following term Engineering may have this designation, and so on. Nevertheless, Professor B has this to say about the Global Change program,

I've felt since the beginning the biggest problem that the Global Change faces is that it doesn't fit nicely into the university structure. LS&A does not appear especially welcoming of it. And since this is aimed at introductory students, and now with our concentration aiming at undergraduates more generally, LS&A owns the undergraduates. If they want to let us in or keep us out it has enormous consequences for what the course can do.

Central administration has attempted to mitigate these problems through direct funding. Central administration has publicly committed to "supporting certain activities with an interdisciplinary flavor with resources." Annual support has been promised to those programs that meet the criteria. It remains to be seen if this support will materialize and if it will be enough to reduce the present competition for resources. As it stands today, the resources provided by central administration do not adequately address the demands of an expanding Global Change curriculum. As the curriculum expands the program becomes more vulnerable to attack by more well established units. Professor C said this, "But now we [the Global Change program] are finding as this gets more visible also more reservations are being expressed about why are we here."

Opinions about the type of institutional support needed were similar among the professors interviewed. Professor A hopes to see the day when all University of Michigan students are required to take courses in the Global Change curriculum "regardless of what their major is." According to this professor, it is essential that all students develop "a broader understanding of the environment in the context of how humans interact with their environment." In terms of leadership, Professor A suggested that what is needed is a "couple of individuals [professors] coming at it [Global Change curriculum expansion] from different prospectives who really understand well how the institution works. And, who are willing to ignore the rules. This is very important." To support interdisciplinarity overall, a new organizational structure is needed.

Professor A argues that the University needs to establish an institutional committee with the authority and financial resources to facilitate interdisciplinary work. Committee members should be drawn from faculty across the institution; they should be individuals who understand interdisciplinary issues and University politics. In addition, the University needs to scrap the way it allocates teaching and student credit hours to allow greater flexibility. A "central bank" of teaching credits may help ease the pressure departments and faculty perceive when teaching outside their academic abode. Perhaps the "central bank" would disburse teaching credits, when appropriate, so faculty could engage in interdisciplinary research and teaching without penalizing their home departments. Besides rethinking the reward system and credit structure, Professor A also suggested that the University consider approving "2/10" appointments (partial appointments) for 5 year periods, so faculty could develop interdisciplinary programs of teaching and research.

Professor C suggested that allowing students greater curricular choices would benefit the Global Change program. He said,

I still think that a concentrational minor that was available for all students would be a great thing to have. And if it was done in a way that was really interdisciplinary, hands on aspects, it would be a very exciting thing. And we would be the first research university to pull that off.

The University currently lacks a selection of courses which qualifies as a minor. The current system only allows for concentrations in specific areas. Having a minor in a particular subject area would help the Global Change curriculum to expand its academic niche.

Professor C indicated that even if the Global Change program does not have the full political support of the dean it might still be able to function and make progress. He argues,

As long as there is a group somewhere that has some funding and some coherence to it, our little group can continue to keep building. Each time we show it, it will looks better. Students will be voting with their feet . . . As long as it doesn't get turned off.

Given the highly decentralized structure of the University, it is possible that the Global Change Program could find a niche. Other problems also complicate the long-term prospects for the Global Change program.

Interdisciplinary programs generally have weak support within their postsecondary environments. The faculty who self-aggregate to form these units are usually key players. Unfortunately, without their energy and leadership these interdisciplinary units typically are short-lived. This may prove to be a major problem for the Global Change program. Professor C shared this,

One of the problems . . . it seems like it [the Global Change program] is heavily dependent on me at the moment. This is quote "interdisciplinary", but I have a feeling if I weren't around it would implode . . . I think one of the problems right now is that we actually don't have a very effective professorial team--I know you're taping this and stuff--but [we] don't have an equally committed [group of] interdisciplinary scientist[s].

Incentive and support to attract the next generation of interdisciplinary leadership is a missing part of the puzzle. If this missing piece is not identified quickly, the Global Change program will go into a period of decline like it did in the early 1990's.

When Professor A was asked if he thought interdisciplinary activity could serve the needs of both tenured and untenured faculty, he said "this is a game for tenured faculty." He went on to say, "you need to be in a position to ignore the rules." Ostensibly, the demands of tenure review within traditional academic departments strongly discourage the participation of untenured faculty in interdisciplinary activity. Once a professor has tenure he or she can choose to make their own rules. The Global Change program has "brought in untenured faculty, but only for a very focused piece." Professor B took a different position, he said,

I don't know why it should be a particular problem [involvement of untenured faculty in interdisciplinary projects]. I heard a lot of talk about how untenured can't take risk. I think it's all baloney. I've been tenured a long time so maybe I am too old to remember what it's like or what it's like today. It just doesn't ring true to me. There is a lot of credit that goes with being associated [with the Global Change project]. There are recognition points, this program is seen as one of the exciting experiences on campus. How can it be bad to be associated with that.

The faculty interviewed for this study identified professional and personal benefits associated with interdisciplinarity. Professor A reported that he found working in an interdisciplinary setting "very satisfying." This work not only allowed the Professor to identify new research ideas, it also allowed him to see old problems in a new light. Professor B argues, "the real pluses of the activity: one meets interesting people, one learns about new subject areas." This professor also reported that he learned other ways of problem solving that were helpful with his research and teaching. Professor C's position was a bit more complicated. This professor reported that his research had been slowed down due to his interdisciplinary activities. Certain grants had not been written because he had spent time developing and teaching an interdisciplinary course. Nevertheless, he was prepared to make this sacrifice. He said,

This group of students is fairly quiet, but I have felt I have had a greater impact with this course than any other course I have ever taught . . .Right now in my life I want to be the best professor I can be.

Being the "best professor" means pushing the pedagogical envelope: inventing new electronic learning environments and educational/research tools.

The Global Change curriculum has attempted to use educational and research tools to improve student performance and faculty output. The web is being used as the backbone for the curricular activities. The web contains the syllabus, lab assignments, lecture notes, links to scientific web sites, student presentations, quick-time movies, evaluation results, evaluation instruments, and more. Professor C says this about it:

Professors have to deliver their interdisciplinary materials to the web. So the web is the place where things get delivered. Now what we are trying to do is force things into a format so that you can't just chuck stuff [professor's "scratchy notes"] in it. You have to get more work out of people to do an interdisciplinary course offering than for a normal course . So there has to be some incentive and motivation to put more energy in. It's just a matter of organization. It's doing that for me personally.

The web is being used to help organize the course and to motivate faculty to improve pedagogical standards. In addition, it is the platform on which materials are kept up-to-date through links and other sources. Furthermore, it is a repository where students can store as well as present their creative works.