Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

‘Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the context of increasing support for interdisciplinary modes of research, many in the policy, scientific, and academic communities propose that universities should change structurally to reduce the barriers to investigation that involves researchers from multiple disciplines. This paper examines ‘interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities—deliberate efforts to spur collaborative research across traditional departmental and disciplinary boundaries, including the creation and adaptation of university policies, practices, and structures. It identifies and analyzes the use of incentive grants to initiate new interdisciplinary units, the establishment of ‘campus-wide institutes’ that steer campus investments in interdisciplinary areas, and new modes of faculty hiring and evaluation. Illustrative examples are provided, and the implications of these strategies are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Through 2005, these included: Auburn University, Case Western University, George Washington University, Indiana University, Kansas State University, North Carolina State University, Ohio State University, Rutgers University, SUNY Stony Brook, University of California-Berkeley, University of Connecticut, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Iowa, University of Nebraska, University of Virginia, Vanderbilt University, Virginia Tech, Washington State University. Some programs are not exclusively dedicated to interdisciplinary programs.

  2. For examples of new interdisciplinary research facilities, see Sá (2007).

  3. See http://thestanfordchallenge.stanford.edu/get/layout/tsc/TheStanfordChallenge? indexredir=r

  4. See University of Southern California (2005), and Duke University (2004).

  5. For a detailed case study, see Sá (2006). Others have also cited Duke as an example in this regard (Feller 2004; Brint 2005).

  6. UW-Madison’s reports also employ descriptions of the research activities of some clusters to portray their achievements. For Penn State’s, see Pennsylvania State University (2005).

References

  • AAU – Association of American Universities. (2005). Report of the interdisciplinarity task force. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abbott, A. (2001). The chaos of disciplines. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpert, D. (1985). Performance and paralysis: The organizational context of the American research university. Journal of Higher Education, 56, 241–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1994). The organization of academic work (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Boardman, P. C. (2003). Managing the new Multipurpose, Multidiscipline University Research Centers: Institutional innovation in the academic community. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S. (2005). Creating the future: ‘New directions’ in American research universities. Minerva, 43(1), 23–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, L. R. (1989). Matrix management in hospitals: Testing theories of matrix structure and development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 349–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caruso, D. & Rhoten, D. (2001). Lead, follow, get out of the way: Sidestepping the barriers to effective practice of interdisciplinarity—A new mechanism for knowledge production and re-integration in the age of information. Hybrid Vigor White Paper. Retrieved from www.hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs/hv_pub_interdis-2001.04.30.pdf.

  • Clark, B. (1984). The organizational conception. In B. Clark (Ed.), Perspectives on higher education: Eight disciplinary perspectives and comparative views (pp. 106–131). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (1995). Places of inquiry: Research and advanced education in modern universities. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1996). Substantive growth and innovative organization: New categories for higher education research. Higher Education, 32(4), 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. (2004). Sustaining change in universities: Continuities in case studies and concepts. New York: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. M., & Lawrence, P. R. (1977). Matrix. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke University. (2004). The Duke University faculty handbook. Durham, NC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epton, S. R., Payne, R. L., & Pearson, A.W. (1985). Contextual issues in managing cross-disciplinary research. In B. Mars, W. Newell, & B. Saxberg (Eds.), Managing high technology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 209–229). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G., Rizzo, M. & Jakubson, G. (2003). Who bears the growing cost of science at universities? Paper presented at CHERI’s 2003 Conference, Ithaca, NY.

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feller, I. (2002). New organizations, old cultures: Strategy and implementation of interdisciplinary programs. Research Evaluation, 11, 109–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feller, I. (2004). Whither interdisciplinarity (in an era of strategic planning)? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Seattle, WA.

  • Feller, I. (2005). Who races with whom; Who is likely to win (or survive); Why. Paper presented at the symposium The Future of the American Public Research University, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

  • Feller, I. (2006). Multiple actors, multiple settings, multiple criteria: Issues in assessing interdisciplinary research. Research Evaluation, 15, 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R., & Friedman, R. C. (1982). The role of university organized research units in academic science. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for the Study of Higher Education, Center for the Study of Science Policy, Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R., & Friedman, R. C. (1986). Sponsorship, organization and program change at 100 universities. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation Center for the Study of Science Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gailbraith, J. (1971). Matrix organization designs: How to combine functional and project forms. Business Horizons, 14, 29–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gailbraith, J. (1972). Organization design: An information processing view. In J. W. Lorsch & P. R. Lawrence (Eds.), Organization planning: Cases and concepts (pp. 49–74). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L. (1990). Organized Research Units – Their role in the development of university research. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L. (2004). To advance knowledge: The growth of American research universities, 1900–1940. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L., & Sá, C. (2005). Beyond technology transfer: US state policies to harness university research for economic development. Minerva, 43, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage

  • Hackett, E. J. (2000). Interdisciplinary research initiatives at the U.S. National Science Foundation. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 248–259). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, J. R., & Hollingsworth, E. J. (2000). Major discoveries in biomedical research organizations: Perspectives on interdisciplinarity, nurturing leadership, integrated structures and cultures. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 215–244). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, S., & Friedman, R. (1972). Beyond academic departments: The story of institutes and centers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepperson, R. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodny, H. F. (1979). Evolution to a matrix organization. The Academy of Management Review, 4, 543–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruytbosch, C. E. (1970). The organization of research in the university: The case of research personnel. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

  • Lamont, M., Mallard, G., & Guetzkow, J. (2006). Beyond blind faith: Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary evaluation. Research Evaluation, 15, 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfeldt, L. (2006). The policy challenges of peer review: Managing bias, conflicts of interest and interdisciplinary assessments. Research Evaluation, 15, 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, E. W., & Gobeli, D. H. (1987). Matrix management: Contradictions and insights. California Management Review, 29, 126–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallon, W., & Bunton, S. (2005). Characteristics of research centers and institutes at U.S. medical schools and universities. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallon, W. (2006). The benefits and challenges of research centers and institutes in academic medicine: Findings from six universities and their medical schools. Academic Medicine, 81, 502–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansilla, V., Feller, I., & Gardner, H. (2006). Quality assessments in interdisciplinary research and education. Research Evaluation, 15, 69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, H. & Rowan, B. (2006). The new institutionalism in education. Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania State University. (2002). Office of the Vice President for Research strategic plan 2002–2005. University Park, PA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennsylvania State University. (2005). Office of the Vice President for Research strategic plan 2005–2008. University Park, PA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. (2000). The use of institutional incentive grants for strategic change in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 23, 281–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W. & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, G. (2000). Who’s doing it right? Strategic activity in public research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 41–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoten, D. (2003). Final report National Science Foundation BCS-0129573 – A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs /hv_pub_interdis-2003.09.29.pdf.

  • Rhoten, D. (2004). Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition. Items & Issues, 5, 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. A. (2004). Riding the momentum: Interdisciplinary research centers to interdisciplinary graduate programs. In M. Rice (Ed.), Riding the momentum of research: Leadership challenges in public research universities (pp. 73–82). MASC Report No. 108. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.

  • Sá, C. (2006). Interdisciplinary Strategies at Research-Intensive Universities. Doctoral Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

  • Sá, C. (2007). Planning for interdisciplinary research. Planning for Higher Education, 35(2), 18–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahler, G. J., & Tash, W. R. (1994). Centers and institutes in the research university −Issues, problems, and prospects. Journal of Higher Education, 65(5), 540–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. (2000). What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different? In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 46–65). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Southern California. (2005). Guidelines of the University Committee on Appointments, Promotions and Tenure. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2003). Report of the ad hoc advisory committee to evaluate the Cluster Hiring Initiative. Madison, WI: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • University of Wisconsin-Madison. (2007). Cluster Hiring Initiative Evaluation Report 2006–2007. Draft manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.provost.wisc.edu/clusterconference/report.html.

  • Veysey, L. R. (1965). The emergence of the American university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 25–41). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0451828. I thank all the university administrators and faculty who agreed to participate in this study and generously shared their time, as well as those individuals who facilitated campus visits and provided me with access to institutional data. Any errors or omissions remain solely the author’s.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Creso M. Sá.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sá, C.M. ‘Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities. High Educ 55, 537–552 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9073-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9073-5

Keywords

Navigation