engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

12
Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs Lynita K. Newswander Maura Borrego Received: 21 October 2008 / Accepted: 25 February 2009 / Published online: 13 March 2009 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 Abstract This qualitative study examines two US interdisciplinary graduate programs which involve faculty and students from different disciplines. Haworth and Conrad’s engagement theory of quality graduate education was applied. It was found that when interdisciplinary programs facilitate engagement by supporting diversity, participation, connections, and interactive teaching and learning, students report positive experiences. Engagement is particularly achievable when an interdisciplinary administrative unit (e.g., a school or center) grants degrees and serves as a tenure home for faculty. Students earning degrees in traditional departments had more difficulty connecting interdisciplinary requirements to their disciplinary work, and were often faced with incompatible program requirements or advice from faculty members. Although they desire to do interdisciplinary work, the students and faculty in traditional departments are required to meet additional and often conflicting requirements. Engagement may further be complicated because these participants feel divided between collaborations, social networks, and expectations that pull them in different directions. Keywords Engagement Á Graduate education Á Interdisciplinary Introduction Interdisciplinarity has become an important trend in higher education. Recent studies suggest that students around the globe are often trained too narrowly and that some specific problems demand the perspective of multiple disciplines (Akay 2008; Mutero et al. 2004; Parkes et al. 2005). These issues are especially important in the US, where academic structure and the organization of university departments is often prohibitive of truly fluid interdisciplinary interaction (Abbott 2001, 2002). As Abbott’s comparative analysis of European and US higher education systems concludes, American departmental structures are particularly rigid (2001), suggesting a unique resistance to interdisciplinary teaching L. K. Newswander Á M. Borrego (&) Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] 123 High Educ (2009) 58:551–562 DOI 10.1007/s10734-009-9215-z

Upload: lynita-k-newswander

Post on 15-Jul-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

Lynita K. Newswander Æ Maura Borrego

Received: 21 October 2008 / Accepted: 25 February 2009 / Published online: 13 March 2009� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract This qualitative study examines two US interdisciplinary graduate programs

which involve faculty and students from different disciplines. Haworth and Conrad’s

engagement theory of quality graduate education was applied. It was found that when

interdisciplinary programs facilitate engagement by supporting diversity, participation,

connections, and interactive teaching and learning, students report positive experiences.

Engagement is particularly achievable when an interdisciplinary administrative unit (e.g., a

school or center) grants degrees and serves as a tenure home for faculty. Students earning

degrees in traditional departments had more difficulty connecting interdisciplinary

requirements to their disciplinary work, and were often faced with incompatible program

requirements or advice from faculty members. Although they desire to do interdisciplinary

work, the students and faculty in traditional departments are required to meet additional

and often conflicting requirements. Engagement may further be complicated because these

participants feel divided between collaborations, social networks, and expectations that

pull them in different directions.

Keywords Engagement � Graduate education � Interdisciplinary

Introduction

Interdisciplinarity has become an important trend in higher education. Recent studies

suggest that students around the globe are often trained too narrowly and that some specific

problems demand the perspective of multiple disciplines (Akay 2008; Mutero et al. 2004;

Parkes et al. 2005). These issues are especially important in the US, where academic

structure and the organization of university departments is often prohibitive of truly fluid

interdisciplinary interaction (Abbott 2001, 2002). As Abbott’s comparative analysis of

European and US higher education systems concludes, American departmental structures

are particularly rigid (2001), suggesting a unique resistance to interdisciplinary teaching

L. K. Newswander � M. Borrego (&)Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USAe-mail: [email protected]

123

High Educ (2009) 58:551–562DOI 10.1007/s10734-009-9215-z

Page 2: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

and research. Despite (or perhaps because of) such difficulties, interdisciplinary training

has been increasingly considered an important component of graduate education in the US

in recent years (Nyquist and Woodford 2000; Sa 2008; Weisbuch 2004; Wulff et al. 2004).

In order to confront these problems directly and encourage integrative graduate education,

the US National Science Foundation has funded a program for integrative graduate edu-

cation research traineeships (IGERT), backed by $400 million in federal funds over the

past decade. IGERT sites, then, provide a unique opportunity for the study of interdisci-

plinary training at the graduate level in the US. Although its particular rigidity makes the

US is an extreme case which is not immediately transferable to other countries, a careful

study of efforts within the US may inform similar barriers existent elsewhere, such as

difficulties in communication across disciplines and organizational barriers to collabora-

tion within academia (Jakobsen et al. 2004).

Many agree that interdisciplinary training is important, despite these perceived barriers

(Holley 2009). Among other things, the literature supports the existence of a number of key

components of quality graduate education practices. For example, a quality program must

facilitate diversity, community, integration, and cultural change, among other things

(Bromme 2000; Enders 2005; Gizir and Simsek 2005; Hodgkinson and Brown 2003;

Oberg 2008; Prosser and Trigwell 1999). Different perspectives are also an important part

of interdisciplinary cooperation, though they may complicate communication (Bromme

2000). While others have described the benefits of these qualities separately, all of these

qualities are addressed together by Haworth and Conrad’s engagement theory (1997),

outlined in the sections below.

The aim of this study is to understand the specific limitations and challenges that

interdisciplinary education poses in the US setting (which appears to have more structural

and cultural barriers in place to inhibit the practice), and to explore the relevance of

Haworth and Conrad’s engagement theory to this particular context. Specifically, this work

is guided by the following research questions:

1. What are some of the specific limitations and challenges to running an interdisciplin-

ary graduate program in the US?

2. What specific practices or cultures are characteristic of successful interdisciplinary

graduate education?

Additionally, we argue that engagement theory can act as a useful framework for

understanding and assessing important components of quality interdisciplinary education

around the globe.

To answer these questions, we visited two interdisciplinary graduate programs funded

by the NSF IGERT program and conducted interviews, focus groups and some observa-

tions provided qualitative data for this analysis.

Theoretical framework: engagement theory

In studies of education, ‘‘engagement’’ itself can be a troublesome term. It has been defined

differently in different contexts. For example, the term has been used broadly to discuss

undergraduate engagement (such as in the US National Survey of Student Engagement

(NSSE. National Survey for Student Engagement 2009). Additionally, it may refer to

community engagement (Case 2007). However, for the purposes of this study, ‘‘engage-

ment’’ is defined by Haworth and Conrad, and is meant to describe a ‘‘high quality

programs… in which students, faculty, and administrators invest significant time and effort

552 High Educ (2009) 58:551–562

123

Page 3: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

in mutually supportive teaching and learning’’ (1997, p. xxi). Although others have pre-

viously worked to determine areas for improvement in higher education, Haworth and

Conrad argue that their definition of high-quality programs adds a unique perspective

because, unlike other theories, it includes and combines many of the characteristics

attributed to engagement by others. Specifically, they focus on the importance of a multi-

part system involving: (1) diverse and engaged participants, (2) participatory cultures, (3)

interactive teaching and learning, and (4) adequate resources. Together, these clusters

make up Haworth and Conrad’s engagement theory of high-quality graduate education.

They are described below.

Diverse and engaged participants

Haworth and Conrad’s theory is most of all dependent on a base of faculty, students, and

administrators who are diverse and engaged. This means that the first priority of a program

that seeks engagement is to recruit participants with diverse levels and areas of expertise

who are already personally engaged with the subject matter. A foundation of the right kind

of participants is important because, when participants are fully engaged in a program,

other benefits follow. Haworth and Conrad explain the centrality of involvement, saying,

…high-quality programs are those in which students, faculty, and administrators

engage in mutually supportive teaching and learning: students invest in teaching as

well as learning, and faculty and administrators invest in learning as well as

teaching… In short, the theory accentuates the dual roles that invested participants

play in constructing and sustaining programs of high quality. (1997, p. 27)

Indicators for engagement include increased student participation in formal and infor-

mal learning, higher levels of personal attachment to or ownership of a program or research

project, and increased levels of satisfaction (as indicated in course evaluations and by

retention rates).

Participatory cultures

Engaged students and faculty participate actively in their learning communities. This

means that they attend classes, lectures, seminars, workshops, and other activities spon-

sored by the program. Furthermore, students and faculty find ways to interact in more

casual social settings. This kind of multi-layered interaction creates a strong community

among participants. The benefits of community include enhanced collaboration, greater

professional preparation and personal fulfillment (1997, p. 32). In a vibrant community of

learners, ‘‘[st]udents develop a greater appreciation and respect for the value of collabo-

rative approaches to inquiry, problem-solving, and leadership’’ (1997, p. 33).

Interactive teaching and learning

In order for students and teachers to learn effectively, teaching and learning must be

interactive. This kind of learning experience need not be limited to the classroom. Inter-

active pedagogy, in turn, encourages engagement, participation, and risk-taking. An

interactive classroom setting is one in which ‘‘[s]tudents participate in learning activities in

which they connect theoretical and applied knowledge to complex problems, issues, and

situations in the real world’’ (Haworth and Conrad 1997, p. 34). When students are

High Educ (2009) 58:551–562 553

123

Page 4: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

involved in this kind of pedagogy, they learn to solve problems more holistically, and they

are ‘‘more adept at translating and communicating theoretical and technical knowledge to

others’’ (1997, p. 34). Additionally, interactive learning experiences encourage peer

learning and build confidence. These activities can be informal, so long as they allow

students—and possibly faculty—to ‘‘explore topics of mutual interest and enrich one

another’s learning’’ (1997, p. 36).

Adequate resources

Finally, none of the above goals would be possible without financial and administrative

support. Both students and faculty will work better when they are well supported and free

from excessive financial strain (this is especially true for graduate students, who may not

perform as well under the added stress of student loans) (Nettles and Millett 2006). When

participants are free from worrying about how to fund research and other activities, they

can be more focused on teaching and learning. In this way, financial and institutional

support also facilitates engagement by freeing up time and providing incentive. ‘‘Faculty,

students, and leaders who invest time and effort in their programs strengthen students’

learning experiences in ways that significantly enhance students’ personal, intellectual, and

professional development’’ (Haworth and Conrad 1997, p. 24). Emotional support may also

come from advisors. In sum, well-supported students and leaders are more likely to

encourage engagement and enable integrative learning.

There is no reason why these same markers of quality education should not also apply to

interdisciplinary graduate programs, considering the shared values of diversity, collabo-

ration, and community (Bromme 2000). In fact, because interdisciplinary programs by

their nature demand high levels of integration and collaboration, it is essential that they

also encourage the engagement, community, and integration necessary to support their

work. Our findings demonstrate that Haworth and Conrad’s theory of engagement stands as

a solid guideline for programs of interdisciplinary graduate education worldwide. How-

ever, as readers will see, a new tension arises when faculty and graduate students must

negotiate conflicting demands to engage in both traditional departments and new inter-

disciplinary programs in the US context.

Methods

Setting and participants

This study involved research in two settings, both IGERT sites at large research univer-

sities with multiple NSF awards. One site (A) was an established program which had

recently been renewed for another 5 years of funding. The other (B) was a program in its

1 year of funding. Sites were initially selected for a broad range of participating disciplines

including social sciences, the arts, engineering and computer science.

Both sites were administratively housed in interdisciplinary academic units, one

research center and one interdisciplinary school (referred to at the university as a ‘‘pro-

gram,’’ but we use the term ‘‘center’’ for clarity), though this is not true of all IGERT sites,

which are often housed in the academic department of the PI. The school and research

center each offered an interdisciplinary Ph.D. degree and served as tenure home to the PIs

and some—but not all—of the other IGERT faculty. We define the ‘‘home’’ for faculty as

the tenure home and for students as the organizational unit administering the degree.

554 High Educ (2009) 58:551–562

123

Page 5: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

Following the terminology of community of practice theory (Wenger 1998), we refer to

those with a home in the interdisciplinary school or research center as ‘‘core’’ IGERT

participants. It was also common for participants and students at both sites to refer to

particularly active participants as ‘‘core’’ faculty. (Students were referred to by their degree

program.)

Site A began as a grant to train a group students working with faculty already col-

laborating in the research area. The interdisciplinary school and degree program were

already established, and the original proposal included faculty and students from this

organization (including the PI) balanced with representation from traditional social sci-

ences and engineering. Student requirements included coursework distributed across

departments (including a cross-listed core course), attending the weekly seminar, and

participating in annual research workshops. Common space assigned to the program was

limited to the office of an administrative assistant; students were assigned offices by their

degree-granting units (if at all). The weekly seminar was telecast and rotated among three

different locations. According to participating faculty, the interdisciplinary research area is

a legitimate specialty in several of the traditional disciplines. Core courses were already

established before funding was sought. The founding faculty were full professors at the

time of our visit, though junior faculty members appointed in the interdisciplinary school

had recently taken on active roles. At the time of our visit, the site was in its 1 year of its

renewal grant.

Site B began as an interdisciplinary research center. IGERT supports students in NSF-

funded disciplines including the new interdisciplinary PhD offered by the center, while

funding from sources such as the National Endowment for the Arts supported students in

other disciplines. The research area (along with the program itself) of Site B was much

newer than Site A. Except for the PI, most of the core faculty we interviewed were assistant

professors appointed in the center. Special promotion and tenure criteria and committee

membership guidelines were developed for these interdisciplinary junior faculty. Associate

and full professors from traditional departments were also listed in the proposal and

reported by others to participate to some degree. Student requirements for IGERT funding

included taking specially developed interdisciplinary courses and attending the center’s

weekly seminar. If interested, students not otherwise affiliated with the program or the

center were allowed to take courses and attend the seminar. No additional space was

allocated to the IGERT, but the center did have central space for faculty and some student

offices. Additional space for labs and student offices was located in different buildings on

campus. The interdisciplinary PhD program provided space for its students organized by

project so that students could be close to their laboratories; there was no single central

space for students from other disciplines socialize or collaborate outside of the classrooms

and weekly seminar. At the time of our visit, the site was in its 2 year of NSF funding.

Data collection

Permission to observe participants at these meetings was approved through human subjects

(IRB) review. We conducted interviews, focus groups, observations, and tours of facilities

at both sites. At Site A, we interviewed five students, seven faculty members (including the

PI), and two administrative staff. We also conducted a student focus group and a faculty

focus group. These interviews resulted in over nine hours of recordings. Additionally, we

observed the weekly speaker series, but did not record its proceedings. At Site B, we

interviewed ten students, four faculty members (including the PI), and one administrative

staff member. We also conducted a student focus group and a faculty focus group and

High Educ (2009) 58:551–562 555

123

Page 6: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

observed a core course required of all IGERT students in the local program. These

interviews resulted in approximately nine and a half hours of recordings. Additionally, we

observed the weekly seminar, but did not record its proceedings. Interviews and focus

groups were attended by both authors and digitally recorded for accuracy. Later, the

interviews were transcribed by one researcher, and all identifying information was

removed from the transcripts.

Data analysis

We began analyzing the data using a grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998).

After developing preliminary codes, however, we found that engagement theory framed

our findings in a more integrated way than the coding scheme developed through open

coding. Therefore, guided by engagement theory and supporting theories of community

and integration, we discussed and agreed upon which types of participant statements and

program components aligned with each category of engagement theory. One researcher

recoded the data based on this consensus. The findings section which follows is also

organized according to our final coding scheme.

Findings

Diverse and engaged participants

Building an engaging interdisciplinary graduate program begins with selecting the right

participants and educating them as to the values of the program. We found that program

value systems were often made explicit in conversations with students, particularly as they

were being recruited to the program. Additionally, the intentional inclusion of students and

faculty members from different disciplinary backgrounds facilitated student engagement in

multiple areas.

Recruiting

Ideally, students entering an interdisciplinary program will be engaged from the beginning.

At Site B, recruiting efforts were specifically designed so as to best measure and under-

stand a student’s initial interest in the program. One faculty member described his own

recruiting efforts as ‘‘strange’’. He said,

I do a very careful selection, but I have a strange way of doing it. My questions to my

students are … ‘what do you want to do in life, what interests you in life? What

interest to you in outside of graduate school? Why do a PhD at all? What is your

fundamental purpose? What is your sense of curiosity? Do you relate to the human

experience at all? Do you care?’ So most of the times for my successful students I’ve

had a long engagement, typically 6 months where we will be going back and forth in

e-mail before you make a decision.

By putting so much time and effort into finding the right students and building

meaningful relationships even before the student enters the program, faculty members were

able to select the most engaged students who offer the most promising compatibility to the

program. Because interdisciplinary programs are often problem-driven, rather than

556 High Educ (2009) 58:551–562

123

Page 7: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

discipline-based, dedication to a problem is important (Klein 2005). Site A’s proposal also

suggests a specific kind of learning environment to fit the students: ‘‘Our guiding vision is

the value of problem-driven research, rather than discipline-driven, for fostering creativity,

critical thinking and the lifelong learning skills essential for scholars, scientists and

teachers.’’ Therefore, recruiting students who fit into this vision is an important first step.

Diversity of experience

It is equally important that an interdisciplinary program include faculty members who

share the vision and can contribute to it. The participation and engagement of faculty

members from various disciplines also indicated a commitment to interdisciplinary edu-

cation. When students were able to work collaboratively with faculty members from

different areas of expertise, they reported feeling supported in their efforts, and so were

further motivated in their work. Diverse faculty members also attract diverse students who

must learn to work together collaboratively—making recruiting of faculty and students a

self-supporting cycle. For example, when asked about her favorite aspect of the interdis-

ciplinary degree program she was enrolled in, one student at Site B said:

Some of the best parts of [Site] for me are just the discussions that we have [because

of] the diversity of the group. And this idea that we all succeed together or we all fail

together I think really brings the community close. So we’re no longer competing

against one another, but really building on the expertise that each one of us has. One

of the greatest things I think is just that: the diversity of the student population….

Also, I think that the professors are incredibly gifted in a way that they can bring

things together for us.

Conversely, when students were unable to work with faculty members from different

disciplines, either because they were restricted by the expectations of their home-discipline

or by reluctance of the faculty members themselves, they reported feelings of frustration.

One student at Site A explained that his advisor, with a well-established career in a

disciplinary research area, was unwilling to learn additional content necessary to supervise

an interdisciplinary dissertation. Another had his advisor tell him that the idea of cross-

disciplinary collaboration made him want to vomit. Without their advisors’ blessings, both

students had a difficult time pursuing interdisciplinary research (the second student

eventually transferred to the interdisciplinary-degree granting program). Similarly, other

students who were not meaningfully engaged with faculty members from different disci-

plines were generally less satisfied with the interdisciplinary aspects of their educational

experience.

Participatory cultures

With a sturdy foundation of participants firmly in place, the next step to building an

engaged interdisciplinary graduate program is to foster participatory cultures. Student

participation varied according to where they considered their ‘‘home’’ to be—either in the

interdisciplinary program or a more traditional department. Faculty exhibited a similar

range of involvement. Some were ‘‘borrowed’’ from other, traditional departments, while

others were housed in the interdisciplinary center. Additionally, some professors had the

option of having their tenure home in their traditional department or in the interdisciplinary

center. Therefore, students and faculty were able to choose their level of participation in

High Educ (2009) 58:551–562 557

123

Page 8: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

the interdisciplinary centers or schools which facilitated the IGERT sites. This meant that

the IGERT cultures at both sites were both broad and diffuse.

At Site A, the PI mentioned that an important part of building a successful interdisci-

plinary program is understanding that not every participant will want to be involved in the

same way. By allowing different levels of involvement for students and faculty, the pro-

gram at Site A was able to involve more participants in ways that were meaningful to them.

Similarly, at Site B, the PI said: ‘‘There is really a wealth of ‘ways in’ [to the program]…we want to provide this tremendous space for the student to find ways in and ways out so

the structure serves them’’. Faculty at both sites emphasized matching students to the

appropriate structure rather than forcing anyone to be more interdisciplinary than naturally

suited them.

While these varying levels of participation were intentional at both sites, there was a

notable difference in the experiences of the students who were involved in the interdis-

ciplinary degree-granting program and those who had their primary home in a traditional

department. The cultures of the ‘‘core’’ and ‘‘peripheral’’ groups were largely separate.

This was most evident during student focus groups, which included and sometimes con-

trasted both perspectives. One student explained that it was difficult for students with

different disciplinary homes to socialize across campus. He said:

[M]ost of the required courses for the [IGERT] fellows are in the [social science]

department and some of the people come from the [social science] department. I

think you’ll find that the [social science] fellows become integrated into [social

science] groups. So, they’re with other students that are in the [social science]

program, and then there’s sort of the rest of us that are in other programs that are

visiting there. And what I found is that a lot of us would continue to study together

but the [social science] fellows would usually kind of become integrated in with the

rest of [social science]. It is a natural thing, because they’re in the same building

together. So, that is sort of what happened.

Unfortunately, while both sites were designed to offer maximum flexibility to students,

for some, the lack of structure or support from auxiliary departments led to confusion or

frustration. At Site B, many had office or lab space divided between both their home

department and the interdisciplinary center, which made socialization and community-

building more difficult. At Site A, one student explained his lack of association with other

disciplines by saying: ‘‘we’re always very upset when we have to leave the building.’’

Additionally, students in traditional departments were often faced with conflicting or

incompatible program requirements or advice from faculty members (such as the one who

was inclined to vomit at the thought of collaborating across disciplines).

Interactive teaching and learning

Seminars

Both sites implemented weekly seminars through which students, faculty, and others could

come together and share interdisciplinary knowledge. These meetings provided opportu-

nities for students to hear from experts in different fields of knowledge, and also gave them

the chance to interact with one another (thus facilitating a participatory culture). The PI at

Site A explained that because he could not create a new degree program to include all of

the departments involved in the IGERT, the seminars were a desirable alternative. He said,

558 High Educ (2009) 58:551–562

123

Page 9: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

That is one reason why from the beginning we made the research seminar a core

requirement and we put so much attention into it because it is explicitly learning by

doing. People are constantly seeing research from different perspectives, and dif-

ferent research techniques and methods so they are exposed every single week to that

in one form or another.

Interviews with students at both sites suggest that some had a different understanding of

the purpose of the weekly seminars. Most found them to be interesting, but struggled to

make connections to their own work. Interestingly, both sites had similar weekly seminar

programs but modeled different pedagogies, possibly reflective of the disciplinary training

of the faculty involved. For example, at Site A, core faculty sat in the front of the room

modeling behaviors such as attentive listening and asking questions, while several students

worked on their computers near the back of the room. At Site B, core faculty sat in the

back, and appeared to speak only after students had exhausted their ideas.

Connected program requirements

The interdisciplinary education at both sites draws information and methods from a

number of different traditional academic disciplines. Students related highest levels of

understanding and satisfaction when they were able to make meaningful connections

between the various disciplines they were exposed to. For example, at Site A one student

noted that it was easier for students in the interdisciplinary degree program to integrate

knowledge than for IGERT students with homes in traditional disciplines, saying: ‘‘The

biggest difference between the two is that [interdisciplinary school] is basically a

department or school, it actually has more explicit training in interdisciplinary work, and

that comes through with a lot of the students.’’ The PI at Site A similarly suggested that the

nature of interdisciplinary work required a different focus, saying,

As fields get more developed and establish an identity they figure out what is worth

doing, what works. There becomes a certain coalescence around methods and

problems and journals developing, conferences developing a clear understanding. [In

the interdisciplinary school] We’re figuring out still what’s worth doing. What to

write, and an effective way to do it. So we have to have a certain amount of self

reflection and make it more explicit than a traditional field.

This also explains the attitude that IGERT students in traditional disciplines do not need

much direction on integrating content.

Similarly, at Site B, 1 year students were enrolled in a course that taught them to make

connections between seemingly dissimilar areas of study. One student said:

The readings that we’ve done in this class… take ideas from history and social

science and psychology and apply it to …[other things]. So, I think it was a good

example of how somebody has extended their learning from a different context,

taking different ideas.

Adequate resources

Support from the university can take a number of forms. It can be financial or come in the

form of space or other resources, or it can be manifest in policies and organizational

structures meant to facilitate interdisciplinary work. Students, faculty, and administrative

staff at both institutions said that they felt support from the university or its president.

High Educ (2009) 58:551–562 559

123

Page 10: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

Furthermore, at both sites, at least some of the students said they were originally attracted

to the program partially because the institution already had a reputation for being sup-

portive of interdisciplinary work. This support extended beyond the sites specifically under

observation, and included policies and systems of organization that were beneficial to a

number of interdisciplinary efforts throughout the campus. For example, at Site A, faculty

members were hired into either the interdisciplinary school or a traditional department. The

promotion and tenure criteria for the interdisciplinary school were structured so that var-

ious avenues of research, publication, and production were valued appropriately. The

interdisciplinary center at Site B also instituted a creative approach to promotion and

tenure criteria, through which different disciplines and their respective methods and outlets

for publication and performance were given equal and explicit consideration. A form listed

important details required to understand the relative significance of each scholarly or

creative pursuit, e.g., peer review and acceptance rate for publications, or media coverage

and prestige of the venue for a performance, as well as recognition for collaborating across

disciplines. These promotion and tenure policies reflect a high level of support from the

university.

Advising and collaboration

Advising also played an important role in student learning at both sites. At Site A, students

were encouraged to work with faculty members outside of their primary area of expertise,

in addition to their own advisors. At Site B, each student had a research advisor as well as

an academic advisor. These structures helped to facilitate a collaborative environment

which enabled students to learn interdisciplinary research skills from faculty advisors,

mentors, and other collaborators (whether the title was formal or informal) in various

traditional disciplines. For example, at Site A, two students who met in a required inter-

disciplinary course were able to turn their final paper into a research project and

publication that eventually grew into a business opportunity.

Conclusion

These data clearly demonstrate that engagement theory can be a useful tool for exploring

the strengths and weaknesses of an interdisciplinary graduate program. As noted by the PI

at Site A, reflection and revision are especially important in new interdisciplinary fields,

where methodological standards and knowledge bases are not yet established. Therefore,

engagement theory provides a lens through which to analyze a program in an emerging

interdisciplinary field in order to best understand what works and what doesn’t, and what

priorities ought to be met. Clearly, an engaged faculty and student body are important

factors in quality interdisciplinary graduate education. Furthermore, engagement can also

be a reflective indicator of how well a program is meeting the unique needs of the inter-

disciplinary student.

Even with a guideline in place, interdisciplinary graduate education poses unique

challenges and opportunities for students and faculty. The sites included in this study both

made efforts to engage participants, and met with a good measure of success in that effort.

However, boundaries between students and faculty members in degree programs or with

tenure homes in traditional departments and those who were more thoroughly situated in

the related interdisciplinary centers persisted. Students who were enrolled in interdisci-

plinary degree programs appear to have had a more firm understanding of the integration of

560 High Educ (2009) 58:551–562

123

Page 11: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

knowledges and methods from different fields. On the other hand, students who were

housed in traditional departments often only took a few of the same courses, and so were

less likely to be able to clearly articulate the relationship between different disciplinary

perspectives in their courses of study. One reason for this tension is that, although they

desire to do interdisciplinary work, the students and faculty in traditional departments are

required to meet additional and often conflicting requirements. Engagement may further be

complicated because these participants feel divided between collaborations, social net-

works, and expectations that pull them in different directions. Other tensions may stem

from difficulties in determining allocation of resources (departments are hesitant to invest

in initiatives that will distribute benefits across academic units) and evaluations (criteria for

interdisciplinary work are still unclear; Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary

Research 2005; Klein 2008). Additionally, engagement in an interdisciplinary program

may be seen by some as a career risk (Rhoten 2004).

While there may be differences in ultimate understanding and ability to integrate,

students who were housed in traditional departments were satisfied with most other aspects

of their degree programs. As might have been expected, our findings indicate that the most

engaged interdisciplinary students and faculty are those housed primarily in the interdis-

ciplinary center. From their own experiences, interdisciplinary faculty are well aware of

the challenges of interdisciplinary research and career development. When a sustainable

institutional structure with sufficient resources exists to support an interdisciplinary degree

program, engagement is clearly attainable. In these situations, it appears that those

requiring more attention are the students in traditional disciplinary degree programs. These

students are much more likely to be confronted with conflicting requirements and value

systems. Interdisciplinary core faculty are very deliberate in their recruiting of students

who are open to interdisciplinary scholarship, but they have much less control over dis-

ciplinary faculty advisors in traditional departments. While structural characteristics such

as course requirements provide a sort of contract between the disciplinary advisor and

interdisciplinary program, expectations for the skills and values of these students should be

articulated through consensus so that faculty do not contradict each other.

Interdisciplinary graduate education provides important training for future faculty,

government, and industry professionals. However, problems may arise when interdisci-

plinary students who are housed in traditional degree programs are not fully engaged in the

subject matter or community. In order to best meet the needs of the students involved, we

suggest that interdisciplinary programs in graduate education carefully consider ways to

further enable the engagement and integration of students who are pursuing degrees in

traditional departments. This can be achieved by implementing policies and practices to

better enable them to understand the ways that different disciplinary ways of knowing

work together.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the US National Science Foundation for supporting thiswork through grant number EEC-0643107. Views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent those of the National Science Foundation. We are grateful to the students, faculty, andstaff who consented to being studied, without whom this work would not be possible.

References

Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of disciplines. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Abbott, A. (2002). The disciplines and the future. In S. G. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect. Palo

Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

High Educ (2009) 58:551–562 561

123

Page 12: Engagement in two interdisciplinary graduate programs

Akay, A. (2008). A renaissance in engineering PhD education. European Journal of Engineering Education,33(4), 403–413. doi:10.1080/03043790802253475.

Bromme, R. (2000). Beyond one’s own perspective: The psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In P.Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity (pp. 115–133). Toronto: University ofToronto Press.

Case, J. M. (2007). Alienation and engagement: Development of an alternative theoretical framework forunderstanding student learning. Higher Education, 55(3), 321–332. doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9057-5.

Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Enders, J. (2005). Border crossings: Research training, knowledge dissemination and the transformation ofacademic work. Higher Education, 49, 119–133. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-2917-3.

Gizir, S., & Simsek, H. (2005). Communication in an academic context. Higher Education, 50, 197–221.doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6349-x.

Haworth, J. G., & Conrad, C. E. (1997). Emblems of quality in higher education: Developing and sustaininghigh-quality programs. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hodgkinson, M., & Brown, G. (2003). Enhancing the quality of education: A case study and some emergingprinciples. Higher Education, 45, 337–352. doi:10.1023/A:1022680504729.

Holley, K. (2009). The challenge of an interdisciplinary curriculum: A cultural analysis of a doctoral degreeprogram in neuroscience. Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9193-6.

Jakobsen, C. H., Hels, T., & McLaughlin, W. J. (2004). Barriers and facilitators to integration amongscientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: A cross-country comparison. Forest Policy andEconomics, 6, 15–31. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00080-1.

Klein, J. T. (2005). The discourse on transdisciplinarity: An expanding global field. In J. T. Klein, W.Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Haberli, A. Bill, R. W. Scholz, & M. Welti (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity:Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society–an effective way for managing com-plexity (pp. 35–44). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser Verlag.

Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review.American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(28), S116–S123. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010.

Mutero, C. M., Kabutha, C., Kimani, V., Gitau, G., Ssennyonga, J., Githure, J., et al. (2004). A transdis-ciplinary perspective on the links between malaria and agroecosystems in Kenya. Acta Tropica, 89,171–186. doi:10.1016/j.actatropica.2003.07.003.

Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D.. Baltimore, MD: The JohnsHopkins University Press.

NSSE. National Survey for Student Engagement (2009). Retrieved February 19 2009, from http://nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm.

Nyquist, J., & Woodford, B. J. (2000). Re-envitioning the Ph.D.: What concerns do we have?. PA: Phila-delphia Pew Charitable Trusts.

Oberg, G. (2008). Facilitating interdisciplinary work: Using quality assessment to create common ground.Higher Education, 57, 405–415.

Parkes, M. W., Bienen, L., Breilh, J., Hsu, L.-N., McDonald, M., Pratz, J. A., et al. (2005). All hands on deck:Transdisciplinary approaches to emerging infectious disease. EcoHealth, 2, 258–272. doi:10.1007/s10393-005-8387-y.

Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher edu-cation. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Rhoten, D. (2004). Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path. Science, 306, 2046.Sa, C. M. (2008). Interdisciplinary strategies’ in US research universities. Higher Education, 55, 537–552.

doi:10.1007/s10734-007-9073-5.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing

grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Weisbuch, R. (2004). Toward a responsive Ph.D.: New partnerships, paradigms, practices, and people. In D.

H. Wulff & A. E. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation offuture faculty (pp. 217–235). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York, NY: Oxford University.Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E., et al. (Eds.). (2004). Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the

preparation of future faculty. New York: Jossey-Bass.

562 High Educ (2009) 58:551–562

123