Sustaining Interdisciplinary Programs

1. Sustaining Interdisciplinary Programs Dr. Christopher McCord Dr. Richard Vengroff Dr. Thierry Léger Dr. Robert Prezant Dr. Linda Schott

2. Introduction 2 Large body of research on various aspects of interdisciplinarity Little research on organizational structure of interdisciplinary programs Most research on managerial and organizational issues focus on Research I institutions Purpose of paper: Explore how to best sustain interdisciplinarity at a large state supported comprehensive teaching institution

3. Literature Review Identified Most Important Issues and Models 3 MOST ARE RELEVANT FOR COMPREHENSIVE UNIVERSITIES Need for Flexibility or adhocracy Joint appointment - Location of tenure Budget allocation Promotion and Tenure guidelines Valuation of interdisciplinary research Distribution of “indirects” Space Reporting relationships

4. Traditional Organization

5. Department • Functionally, a department is a unit that: • Reports directly to the Dean • Holds tenure/tenure-track faculty lines • Makes first-level decision on tenure & promotion • Awards annual merit • Allocates resources • Handles personnel issues • Controls curriculum • Advises students • Schedules courses • Assigns teaching • Receives overhead from grants • Controls space

6. Interdisciplinary Alternatives • Structural alternatives have to address these functional issues • A basic decision about a structural alternative is to decide where it sits relative to departments & colleges: under, along side, over, … • Centers or Institutes within a Department • Centers or Institutes alongside the Department structure • Schools that bring together units without erasing their status as departments

7. Alternative Models 7 Research Centers & Teaching Programs Undergraduate College Programs embedded in departments Separate Department for an interdisciplinary program e.g. African studies Common Interdisciplinary Department Structure for All Programs Common Core for multiple interdisciplinary programs

8. Center or Institute

9. State of the College SCHOOL

10. Alternative Structures

11. The Case of Kennesaw State University 11 • Fast growing comprehensive university with 22,500 students • Up till 2006, CHSS had several interdisciplinary programs, embedded in departments: • AADS (African and African Diaspora Studies) • AMST (American Studies) • AS (Asian Studies) • GWST (Gender and Women’s Studies)

12. Reorganization of Interdisciplinary Programs 12 • Programs moved to the Dean’s Office – Associate Dean Assigned as Program Advocate • Governance plans • Resources • New programs added • Environmental Studies • Peace Studies • Latin American Studies • Council of interdisciplinary programs (Cultural and Regional Studies)

13. Impact of Reorganization 13 Vibrant programs Promotion of diversity (curriculum, research, and recruitment) Increased visibility Faculty and Students engagement Increased Registration in cross-listed Courses

14. Departments vs. Programs 14 • Benefits of creating a department • Institutionalizing the programs • Formalized budget • Tenure track slots – joint appointments • Diversity Hires • Possible downside • Isolation of programs • Decrease in special funding • Decline in flexibility • Decline in cooperation with departments • Increased competition for resources

15. Fort Lewis College • Public liberal arts college of 3700 • Promotion of “interdisciplinary learning experiences” is an institutional core value • Programs were developed but with little attention to structure and with few resources

16. Task Force on Interdisciplinary Programs • Faculty from English, GWS, ENVS, Writing, Business, Anthropology; former President • Definitions and categorization of programs • Recommendations for “best practices” • Templates

17. Cross-disciplinary programs • Require students to take courses from two disciplines • Do not require integration of the disciplinary perspectives • Examples: • Art - Business Art Option • Exercise Science -Sports Administration Option • Music - Music Business Option • Theatre - Arts Administration Option

18. Multi-disciplinary programs • Require students to take courses from three or more disciplines • Do not require integration of the disciplinary perspectives into interdisciplinary understanding • Examples • Humanities • Interdisciplinary Studies - Teacher Education Option • Sociology/Human Services - Criminology

19. Interdisciplinary Programs • Multiple disciplinary perspectives and methodologies • Integration of disciplinary perspectives IS required • Curriculum includes at least one deliberatively integrated course, usually introductory or capstone • The Faculty meet regularly to guide the program and engage in a nonhierarchical sharing of knowledge and dialogue among all program participants.

20. Interdisciplinary Programs • 16 claimed to be; only 4 were • Environmental Studies • Gender and Women’s Studies • Native American and Indigenous Studies • Southwest Studies

21. Transdisciplinary Programs • Curricula are integrative, socially relevant, and oriented toward solving complex, contemporary issues and challenges • Integrate perspectives and knowledge originating both inside and outside academe • Several integrative courses, including an introduction and a capstone course, that engage with contemporary issues; and that engage students with contemporary problem solving • The faculty and knowledgeable individuals outside academe meet regularly to guide the program and engage in a nonhierarchical sharing of knowledge and dialogue among all program participants

22. Location of Programs • What location will most effectively facilitate the collaboration of the faculty? • What location will most effectively promote student engagement, interaction, and success? • What location will provide the best “intellectual fit” for the program? • Facilitate collaboration through Council of Inter/Trans Disciplinary Program Directors

23. Faculty Appointments • Types • Full • Joint • Affiliated • Key issues • How are appointments made (and unmade) • What are rights and responsibilities of faculty • How are faculty evaluated • Special review committees • Tailored expectation statements

24. Purposes of Multi/Inter/Trans Disciplinary Programs • Why are these programs beneficial for faculty? • Why are these programs beneficial to students? • Why are these programs beneficial to society?

25. Advisory Boards • Must have governance document • What is the purpose of the board? • What are the membership requirements? • Who are the potential members? • What is the governance structure for the board (officers, frequency of meetings, committee and/or subcommittee structure, and a process for amending the charter)? • Must be vetted by dean and development staff

26. The Case of Montclair State University Science Informatics Major, Computer Science Concentration (B.S.) • This interdisciplinary degree is supported by the departments of Biology and Molecular Biology, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Computer Science, Earth and Environmental Studies, and Mathematical Sciences. Students are especially prepared to work in New Jersey's high tech pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and other data intensive industries and to engage in graduate studies in the underpinning disciplines. The degree is unique in requiring both Science Informatics interdisciplinary courses and courses in science, computer science, and mathematics within the liberal arts tradition.

27. Science Informatics Off Track Too many engineers >>dense program/too many credits/requirements Too much emphasis on satisfying all “players” No lead who could appreciate the full array of concentration needs No home department for the major Heterogeneous advisement for students No physical space to serve as a nucleus for the students

28. Science Informatics Upside Capstone course Required internships (X2) Diverse (committee) involvement Small classes Diverse market –pre (student interests) and post graduation (job ops) Downside Overly heavy required curriculum Excessive diversity of core courses No “home” Diverse (committee) involvement Small classes due to low enrollment Vague, poorly known title

29. PhD Environmental Management A holistic approach to research and education, the PhD program in environmental management seeks to prepare environmental scholars who will recognize and analyze relationships among scientific, technological, societal and economic issues, and who will understand the uses of research in a data-driven decision and policy making process, firmly rooted in current scientific knowledge and methodology. The program integrates key elements of physical, chemical, biological, social and management practices into the study of natural and human environments, and is truly representative of the academic needs of this new millennium, providing an intellectual platform promoting the philosophy of a sustainable world.

30. PhD Environmental Management On Track • Build and recruit faculty across campus • Single lead in-place first –from “outside” • Focus first on blending disciplines • Understand post-degree options • Unique program – strong job potential (NJ) • Put student first • Clock the degree • Develop mission up front • Strong external evaluation

31. Environmental Management Upside • Strong and focused leadership (hired into position) • Home department • Clear mission • Goal oriented • Advisory council • Regular executive council meetings • Market need • Clear and explicit title Downside • Learning curve for new director hire – learning curve for senior faculty • Strong director and perception of faculty • Rotation of (few) courses

32. Science InformaticsMultidisciplinaryCommittee developed/ledDiluted leadershipCurriculum drivenNo homeEnvironmental ManagementInterdisciplinaryDirector ledFocused leadershipOutcomes drivenHome Department

33. Lessons Learned Realism of discipline blendsLeadership firstFocus on outcomes (post-degree)Market needVision of the futureDiscrete home Cross > Inter > Transdisciplinarity

34. Bringing the lessons home Sustainability studies Computational science Chemical business Molecular ecology Environmental forensics Revamped science informatics

35. Questions? • Complete Paper is available at http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~rvengrof/ • Christopher McCord: mccord@niu.edu • Richard Vengroff : rvengrof@kennesaw.edu • Thierry Léger :tleger@kennesaw.edu • Robert Prezant: prezantr@mail.montclair.edu • Linda Schott: schott_l@fortlewis.edu