Skip to main content


ICC 650
Box 571014

37th & O St, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20057

maps & directions

Phone: (202) 687.6400



Renewal in Doha

Posted on

Last week, we announced a renewal of the partnership between the Qatar Foundation and Georgetown University. This partnership, which started in 2005, successfully built the School of Foreign Service in Qatar in Doha, Qatar. The Bachelor’s of Science in Foreign Service (BSFS) program is one program among many at Education City, an invention of the Qatar Foundation.

At Education City, students can pursue journalism and communications degrees from Northwestern, medical degrees from Cornell, engineering degrees from Texas A&M, art and design degrees from Virginia Commonwealth University, archaeology and museum studies degrees from University College London, biological sciences, computer science and business degrees from Carnegie-Mellon University, and an executive MBA from HEC-Paris. As a totality, Education City is a key tool in building a research and education-based society in the coming decades in Qatar.

From all indications, the work of our colleagues in Doha and the leadership and faculty of the SFS in Washington are greatly appreciated. Graduates of the BSFS program in Qatar already provide leadership in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other key institutions and businesses in the country. All the signs indicate that the campus has achieved its original goals.

The new agreement provides for a continuation and expansion of the size of the student body for the BSFS program. It also seeks more activity on the part of Georgetown. The Qatar Foundation appreciates the outreach to the wider society in Qatar through community activities, the training of employed staff in ministries, and the service activities of students, faculty, and staff to the Doha community. It wants us to expand these services to the Qatari society.

The agreement also lays the groundwork for new educational programs through our campus there. These already include programs in sports management, through the School of Continuing Studies. They will include executive education in leadership and related skills through the McDonough School of Business.

The Qatar Foundation is launching a related institution, Hamad bin Khalifa University (HBKU), which will concentrate on graduate programs. Our faculty in Doha already contribute to a mid-career Master’s program in Energy and Resources, along with Texas A&M and HEC-Paris. There are future possibilities of collaborating with other branch campuses in joint programs, which could take advantage of complementary strengths in the various campuses. Other Master’s programs, joint with HBKU, are possible.

In a real sense, the new agreement seeks to build on the success of the School of Foreign Service in Qatar to create a larger set of educational programs — a Georgetown in Qatar.

In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI urged the Jesuits to go to the frontiers to do their work. The Doha campus of Georgetown was launched in a society that is undergoing dramatic change. While the country is one of the richest in the world, it is a culture quite different from that which spawned Georgetown. Thus, it is a cultural frontier that requires planful translation of US elite higher education programs.

We have successfully imported a strong academic program. We have recruited a global student body and an international faculty. We are now called on to do more. With the new agreement we have an opportunity to expand this example of working at the frontiers.

The First Meeting of the Provost’s Committee for Diversity

Posted on

Last week, the first meeting of the standing Provost’s Committee for Diversity took place in the historic Philodemic Room in Healy Hall. (See Building a Committee for a description.) There are a dozen or so student members of the committee, the winners of an extended proposal review and interview process led by student leaders of the diversity-related activities of this past year. Diversity includes persons differing on race, class, ethnicity, culture, gender, but also LGBTQ and disability status.

The group is a mix of undergraduate and graduate students. They bring to the table a variety of backgrounds and heritages. They come from diverse parts of the globe. They are disproportionately students of color. Most importantly, they are united in wanting to create an environment at Georgetown that is supportive and respectful of all, regardless of how different their backgrounds might be from the elite university setting of Georgetown.

Many want to make it easier for those who follow them to become their best selves through Georgetown. They speak of the difficulties of navigating the sharp contrast between their pre-Georgetown lives and their on-campus lives. They seek easier ways to find others sharing their heritage, in order to share knowledge about academics, to build a support network, and to feel more “at home.” They are interested in learning from alumni of similar heritages how they attained success in their fields.

Some are interested in assuring that students of color are treated with respect and appropriate concern by all the student services that exist on campus. In essence, they seek to extend the notion of cura personalis to sensitivities to the diversity within the student body.

Some are interested in greater inclusion of differences within student organizations on campus. Some are interested in greater support for activities that celebrate the cultural identities of diverse groups on campus.

Others are interested in addressing academic issues — curricula on race, class, power, and privilege. Some seek to understand how we might increase the numbers of faculty from traditionally underrepresented groups across disciplines.

The student members voted on the most important issues to tackle first. We identified subgroups to work on the first issues, and we’ll begin to tackle them one-by-one, seeking meaningful action. Added to the student groups will be Georgetown staff and faculty, when needed, to supply information and expertise on how to create change effectively.

It was a great start of a wonderful new group of enthusiastic students. We want all students at Georgetown to feel it’s home to them. I look forward to a lot of hard work, but also to the satisfaction of partnering to make a better Georgetown.

Large Programs, Small Programs

Posted on

In a set of great discussions about how to make Georgetown a better university, I’ve encountered an issue relating to the size of an education program. Across the different schools, we have degree programs that are housed in units called departments, areas, Centers, and some actually called “programs.” For want of a universal term, I’ll call these “programs” in this post.

At Georgetown, we have big programs and small programs. We have programs with as few as 4 full-time faculty and ones with over 30 faculty.

As I’ve written in other blogs (See: Support for Faculty Scholarship and Flexibility for Faculty Scholarship: Cutting-Edge Education from Cutting-Edge Scholars), the provost’s office has been trying to support faculty scholarship in various ways — banking of courses, use of partial sabbaticals, matching policies for prestigious external fellowships, and more internal faculty research fellowships. All of these tools allow faculty to assemble the precious time they need for more concentrated effort on their current scholarship.

One of the unanticipated problems in liberalizing support for faculty research is that small programs face difficulties that big programs don’t. If there are four faculty members offering 16 courses each year, the absence of one of the four for a term causes the need to replace a larger portion of the course offerings than in a department of 30 faculty, offering 100 courses a year. How could we help? Perhaps we need to adjust our procedures for support of faculty scholarship to permit more advance planning. Say, we might permit faculty to apply for a fellowship that won’t be taken for two years, giving the school and program more time to plan for the absence of one faculty member. Would that be helpful in smaller departments to promote use of these new policies while protecting the department’s ability to deliver on its high quality educational activities?

It’s not just the new policies that have different effects on small and large programs; it’s also true of long-existing procedures.

For example, a similar differential burden applies with regard to promotion and tenure procedures. By definition, small programs rarely prepare dossier materials for tenure and promotion review; large departments are frequently preparing them. Doing something for the first time is always more difficult than doing it routinely. How can the provost’s office provide more assistance to small programs in the entire tenure and promotion process?

I’ve also heard concerns about how small programs that receive their own faculty merit pool feel more constrained in the distribution of merit dollars. It is indeed easier to introduce appropriate variation in merit allocations in larger programs. To address this problem, the provost’s office has constructed an extraordinary merit program to supply some relief to the constraints of a pool, when a faculty member has an unusually productive year. Can we think of other ideas that would help small departments with this structural challenge?

All universities have some small educational programs, and we want to create an environment in which faculty in small programs have a full opportunity to do their best work. We’ve made progress on some features of faculty life. We’ll make others whenever we can feasibly do so. Ideas are welcome.

Truthiness about Busy-ness

Posted on

We’ve been having discussions about how to regain a sense of collegiality among faculty and staff at Georgetown. Faculty who’ve been here longer remember getting together in group lunches, where the conversation was informal and unstructured. They remember learning about their colleagues’ work (an inevitable topic among academics). They remember discovering unexpected intellectual synergies with colleagues they hadn’t previously met.

Some remember a time when seminars within fields were deliberately designed to inform one another about current work that people were pursuing. In some units, there was a strong cultural norm to attend such meetings. Some of these events survive in some units; some of these are facing low attendance; and some have died.

Most think these events are more difficult to mount now than previously. The hypothesized causes are many. Georgetown faculty tend to live far away and commute into campus. Their moments on campus are packed with work; many have their lunches at their desks, working through the noon hour. This has long run effects. I’ve been in many social gatherings in which I learn that staff who’ve been at Georgetown many years have not met a colleague in a different school or even a different program within a school.

Many acknowledge the tyranny of email, texts, and other electronic demands for instant attention. We all have stories of colleagues who telephone 10 minutes after sending a text or an email, asking why we haven’t responded. We all attend meetings in which half of the participants are typing into smart phones during the discussion. The world demands attention to mundane features of life more aggressively than previously.

For some faculty, their day is spent in frequent contact with students. Georgetown faculty tend to spend more time in one-on-one sessions with students than what occurs on many campuses. This seems to compete with time spent with colleagues. We take seriously the devotion to cura personalis when dealing with students. It often trumps the obligations to our colleagues.

Some think that part of the problem results from the evolution of academic disciplines. As fields mature, subfields grow. Increasingly, academic excellence requires very deep, but narrow expertise. The course of least resistance is to seek international fame in a very well-defined area. Some notice that they too infrequently attend seminars outside their disciplines. They devote their free time to drilling further into their areas of specialty. Maybe we place lower value on having a broad understanding of multiple fields.

My last post noted the permanent tension on academic campuses between basic theoretical work — the knowledge-for-knowledge sake goal — and applied work — the problem-solving goal. In a way, I see a link between the perceived busy-ness of our academic lives and this dichotomy. What we’re missing in this busy-ness is what Jesuit education values highly — moments of reflection. We’re cheating ourselves of opportunities to assess what we’re doing from another vantage point — the vantage point of the other, the vantage point of another field. Moments of deep reflection can make important differences in an academic’s career. Just as devotion to theory requires deferred gratification regarding problem-solving, taking time to learn about colleagues’ work delays completing the obvious next step in your own work. However, it might also provide insights into that work never achievable by doing only the “urgent.”

Most costly, perhaps, is that this sense of busy-ness is keeping us away from each other. That is a great loss. We miss the collegiality, but it takes real courage and discipline to regain it.

Basic vs. Applied; Theoretical vs. Practical; Knowledge for Knowledge’s Sake vs. Knowledge with Action in Mind

Posted on

There is much talk these days about the “value” of higher education in the United States. The talk gets confused with immediate employability and the need for a technologically-based society to have sufficient STEM workers. It’s further confused by intense focus on the cost of higher education compared to entry-level salaries of graduates. This has led to studies on the “return on investment” in job earnings. Connected with this are snippets of public discourse about first job salaries of humanities’ graduates versus others; these often reflect poorly on education in the humanities, but they rarely tell the story of life-long learning and critical thought that make humanities grads notably successful in the long-term.

This rhetoric has led to some more recent pushback in the popular press, about the value of the humanities to societies. Sometimes, the argument can be practical, responsive to the concerns of today. For example, I spent time a few days ago with an environmental scientist who believes that the public discourse about the environment cannot be elevated through mere presentation of scientific findings. He is putting his energy into the support of artists and humanists to use their crafts to communicate the spiritual and emotional value of environmental features under threat. This is a creative and important way of connecting fields that are often seen as disconnected. Others will note that problem-based humanistic endeavors, while important, are not the sole purpose and value of the humanities.

Talking to alumni of Georgetown, regardless of what they ended up doing in their careers, produces a common reflection on their years at Georgetown. They learned to think. Their studies of the humanities and other disciplines were integrated and impactful. They read the masters. They were exposed to fundamental questions that every person should face — questions of what is real, how knowledge is possible, the nature of faith, meaning in human lives, the importance of community, and the sources of human happiness and suffering. Sometimes, the alums’ catchphrase is “knowledge for knowledge’s sake.” They think of their time in higher education as moments of intense self-discovery though exposure to these knowledge domains. The knowledge gained had lasting value to them (regardless of their career choice) because it centered them and offered permanent guideposts for decision-making.

In some sense, the debate about the value of STEM versus the humanities is unhelpful. We as individuals need both the humanities and the sciences. Further, within each domain we need theory and applications. Some faculty and students thrive in the realm of the theoretical. They develop principles of their field or of their lives based on immersing themselves in fundamental thoughts and writings. They use their energy to advance them — the faculty member by pushing the concepts further; the student, by striving to comprehend the framework of the concepts, manipulating them to understand the field.

At this moment in the United States, however, I feel the pendulum has swung to the emphasis on the practical, the short-run, the easily measurable. With formal education packed into the younger formative years, glorifying the short-run benefits of higher education risks a suboptimal society. Its weakness would be the inability for thought leaders to draw on knowledge from multiple fields. It would discount the wisdom of the ages; it would miss the emotion and spiritual values generated from the humanities that have spurred human action in the past.

I find extreme positions on these issues interesting but myopic. Of course, we could redesign liberal arts higher education to attempt to maximize the return on investment as measured in first five-year income. Of course, we could redesign the liberal arts higher education system to expel all obviously “applied” knowledge and preparation for occupational outcomes. In doing so, we would gradually create a faculty whose foci were myopic. We would limit ourselves and our horizons.

Having on the same university campus faculty and students who vary on the dimension of theory and applications is good for both. “Knowledge for knowledge sake” in unanticipated ways often produces the basis for the wisest course of action. We need to celebrate it.

So, what I value in US universities is a blend — of the basic and the applied, the theoretical and the practical, “knowledge for knowledge’s sake” and “knowledge with action in mind.” The two sides do indeed need each other, and the world needs both.

Reflecting Back

Posted on

I sometimes find myself in conversations with faculty job candidates or young faculty, launching their academic careers. I spend hours reading the tenure and promotion dossiers of faculty. I write reviews of faculty on other campuses. These events often force attention to the choices that all academics make during their careers. Sometimes I think about what conversation I would have with my younger self, knowing what I think I now know.

One of the discussion topics would be about the value of breadth of thinking, exploring different approaches to the intellectual passions that drive us. From my new perch, I see over and over the possibilities of the great things that could happen if faculty and students traverse discipline and school boundaries. My younger self felt so deeply the need to impress others with scholarly accomplishments in my narrow area of expertise. I judged that the time spent on crossing over boundaries, even if it merely meant attending a lecture on an interesting topic in another school, had too high an opportunity cost. I’d probably counsel my younger self to take more time to learn different methods and perspectives on issues related to the ones I was studying.

Another discussion with my younger self would be about risk taking. Every faculty member is constantly judging how their next step in scholarship fits within the dominant thinking in their field. For every next step there are safe, usually smaller extensions of insight and understanding and there are also bold moves that could be attempted. The latter have high risk of failure but often can have a bigger impact. My younger self had mixes of these; looking back, I’m proudest of the higher risk ventures, even when they failed. Only in retrospect is it obvious that the failed bold attempts yielded unanticipated smaller impact products. In addition, they often led to a different contribution later, never imaginable without the initial big failure.

A further talk I’d have would be about how valuable sharing research experiences with students can be for a scholar’s own development. I personally made mistakes of keeping my research life a little separated from my student life. I now realize every time I engaged students in the research I was conducting, it turned into better research. Sometimes the very research project I was working on produced better output. At other times, the students prompted me to see an issue from another perspective, producing a new research product later. I’d tell my younger self to integrate research and teaching as much as possible.

Finally, I’d tell my younger self to be as active as possible in the relevant professional associations of my field. Looking back, I cannot imagine that I would have found the same kindred spirits on my own campus that I encountered in national and international meetings. There, I found collaborators, critics, and mentors who I would not have found otherwise.

I generated these reflections in speaking with younger faculty around campus, searching to find the best ways to ply their trade. Maybe some of these thoughts are relevant to the choices they’re now making.

Honoring Research

Posted on

As President DeGioia has noted, a modern research university has goals of formation of the persons who are students; support for faculty research creating new knowledge, insights, and solutions to pressing problems; and finally, service to the common good in other ways (but often through the products of the first two goals). I am happy to say that this makes working at a university a blast.

We want to recognize faculty excellence in all three of these domains, and we have awards and honorific events at various points in the year to recognize faculty who excel in each of them.

In past years, there was a missing component in the recognition scheme. Last night, in an attempt to repair this, we had a dinner for a small set of faculty who have been unusually successful in garnering external funding to support their and their students’ research activities. The research projects often require multiple persons, the use of special equipment, or the de novo assembly of data. This is a particular slice of the research activities at the university; indeed, there is much more research that is not supported by outside funds. But it’s an important part of our research portfolio.

The process of doing research based on external funding is a tough road these days. Thousands of grant proposals are submitted each year (NSF alone receives over 48,000 proposals a year). The rate of successful proposals is low and falling, given Federal government budget cuts. Some of the gap is filled with private foundation funding, but it’s fair to say that great diligence is required to garner funding in nationally (and internationally) competitive grant programs.

The process in many agencies provides a panel of outside reviewers, who read the proposals in the competition, grade them on pre-specified criteria, and write evaluative summaries. Having spent years writing such proposals, I can attest that the evaluations are critical, sometimes, brutal reviews of the value of the work. Reading the anonymized reviews on your own failed proposal is not fun, yet sometimes leads to improved ideas. But there are limits to resubmitting a revised proposal in many agencies, so the stakes are high in the first submission.

Hence, increasingly, getting a single grant funded is a big deal. Getting a series of grants funded is very rare. But it’s also true that, in almost all of the evaluations of how well a university is doing, the amount of external research funding is a critical evaluative component.

Because of the peer review process, success is explicit validation that the faculty’s work is cutting-edge. And thus the success of external funding strengthens the entire institution.

The faculty at the dinner were those from the Main Campus who had indeed assembled unusually strong track records in external funding for research. We held the dinner to acknowledge their hard work, to celebrate their success, and to let them know we were proud to be their colleagues.

When I looked around the room and saw colleagues from the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences, I was a proud provost.

The Campus at “Spring” Break

Posted on

The campus takes on a completely different feel for the week of spring break. It’s quiet. The main walkways seem empty — no need to be vigilant to avoid being hit by walking texters. Indeed, there’s an eerie quiet. It reminds me of once walking in an amusement park before it opened. The whole purpose of the place is absent.

This year the word “spring” in spring break seems an unusually cruel reminder of what a long and cold winter it’s been on the Hilltop. Just last week there were snowball fights and snowmen on Healy and Copley lawn. Even now dirty snow piles are eyesores throughout campus. I’m ready for a real spring.

There are faculty around, working on their research. They seem in a good mood, having fun inside their passions, uninterrupted by the other parts of citizenship in a university.

With no students to say “hello” to as I walk, I found I take notice of the buildings and grounds. The walk into campus from the gates remains a pleasant scene, producing a feeling that what goes on here is good thing. It never stops feeling like an honorable place. Deeper in the campus, the construction goes on, in muddy ground, given the snow and rain. The contrast between the classical feel of the entrance and the beehive of activity in construction inside the campus is a metaphor — our collective obligation of preserving what is essential from our long-lasting practices and preparing for the new world coming upon us.

Spring break is an in-between time. It makes me realize that the academic year (which seems to have begun yesterday) is coming to an end. There will only be a few more opportunities for me to meet with faculty groups, seeking their input on key initiatives that are in the pipeline of consideration. My student advisory groups will increasingly be distracted by the pressures of semester’s end. The graduating students need to focus both on finishing their coursework and planning for the post-graduation transition. Some are going on to more education; some are entering the world of work. There are joys and fears.

Throughout the week, planning meetings for initiatives that will make Georgetown even better continue. We’re pushing ahead on the Designing the Future(s) project, with great new ideas on programs. The Graduate School is deep in planning new graduate programs tackling the world’s most pressing problems. We’re working on new mentoring programs for associate professors, strengthening our research supports, and working on space use. This is also the season for tenure and promotion reviews, allowing me to relearn what great colleagues we have on the faculty. We’re busy, even without the students.

So, for this week, although the shouting and laughter of youth are missing, the intensity of the work persists, albeit with a different rhythm. Soon all will be restored to its former pitch and volume as the students return. But then, the sands will seem to trickle to the bottom of the hourglass a little faster with each passing week.

Graduate Students Living at Georgetown

Posted on

With the new organization of the Graduate School, there are ongoing initiatives to build important new graduate degree programs, spanning disciplines and motivated by the important world problems that governments, NGO’s, the private sector, and academia are tackling. We’re adding graduate students to the Hilltop.

This increase fits into a larger strategy of continued improvement at Georgetown. First, we have recommitted to the formation of young minds as a key component to our mission; we’ve concluded that for the 21st century formation, we need to enrich the possibilities of learning through original research. We’re getting repeated input that students more effectively acquire life-long learning skills when they learn material through the rigor of original research. Through the Designing the Future(s) Initiative, we’re trying to invent new ways to create project-based and research-based learning opportunities.

Second, we realize that we need more research activities at Georgetown in order to provide the opportunities for large numbers of students to engage in those experiences. Our goal is that every undergraduate have exposure to alternative ways of scholarship and research before they exit. To increase the volume, more graduate programs are necessary in order to increase the potential linkages between graduate and undergradudate students in the same research activities.

Third, many Georgetown students are supplementing the traditional liberal arts undergraduate degree with Master’s and/or professional graduate degrees, to acquire occupationally relevant knowledge and skills. We want to create new forms of graduate education, more fully integrated with undergraduate experiences.

These moves have focused attention on life as a graduate student at Georgetown. What’s is like to be a graduate student at Georgetown? We’ve learned a lot from the strong leadership of the Graduate Student Organization (GSO). In addition to informal talks and presence of graduate students on the Provost Student Advisory Committee, we’re helping the GSO mount a survey of graduate students to learn more about joys and pains of being a Georgetown graduate student.

One weakness of Georgetown is that we have no graduate living arrangements on the Hilltop. This weakness is especially telling for students who come to our graduate programs from outside the U.S., but it also means that we have no residential space that might foster a stronger graduate student community.

We’ve had a breakthrough over the past few days, thanks the diligence of our facilities and student affairs staff, with an agreement reached with an apartment building in Rosslyn, just across the Key Bridge, to offer a set of apartments for Georgetown graduate students. The units are a mix of studios and one bedroom apartments, fully furnished. A minimum rental volume is backed by financial guarantee from the university. The building is walking-distance from the Rosslyn Metro, and we assessing the possibility of a GU bus stop at the building for convenient transportation to the campus.

If the units prove popular we have the option of expanding the number available to graduate students. As we expand our graduate program offerings, this might indeed become important.

The leadership of the new Georgetown Graduate School is working diligently to construct an environment attractive to the best graduate students in the world. This is built first on strong graduate programs led by the most productive faculty. But it also needs to include all the extracurricular enhancements that will make Georgetown the best place to do one’s post-baccalaureate education.

We have more work to do in this domain, but we’re making progress.

Interdisciplinary, Collaborative

Posted on

In a survey last year, the Georgetown faculty expressed the belief that they felt inadequate support for interdisciplinary work. We’re trying to do better on this score, and I’ve talked with several faculty about related issues over the past few months.

Interdisciplinary work is difficult at all universities because the traditional organization of a university follows disciplinary boundaries. Disciplines are powerful organizing devices because they validate which research questions are the most important, which research methods are most valued, and what constitutes a real contribution to knowledge.

Disciplines vary on these features, and, hence, working across disciplines requires inventing ways to navigate multiple approaches to scholarship.

At the same time, there has been a sea of change among those institutions that fund scholarly research activities. Most foundations and government research agencies increasingly underscore the value of interdisciplinary work. The unsolved problems and gaps in knowledge are disproportionately on the edges of disciplines. The solutions do not appear to lie within a single field. For example, while the chemistry and biology of environmental harm to land and water is now better understood, the solutions to such problems cannot be found without deep understanding of the social, economic, and cultural influences on human behavior. Countless other examples exist.

We’re trying to facilitate more interdisciplinary research and education, in search for more robust approaches to the major problems facing the world. We have created a stronger framework for joint appointments between two disciplines and between schools. We have empowered the Graduate School to identify coalitions of faculty who want to work together in new interdisciplinary graduate programs.

However, there are two interesting challenges in moving ahead in this domain. First, we need to have wise evaluation of interdisciplinary scholarship. Second, we need to value the role of faculty who are collaborative magnets across fields.

At time of promotion it is typical for evaluations to be sought from those in the field of the primary appointment of the faculty member. The reviewers are promised that their reviews will be seen only by those involved in the review process, in an attempt to elicit frank assessments. When the faculty being reviewed works across fields, it’s more difficult to identify competent reviewers. The typical problem is that a reviewer embedded in only one field tends not to value that fieldwork that partially lies in another field. In some fundamental sense, such interdisciplinary work is not central to the field in question. The best evaluators for such faculty are those working in the same interdisciplinary space. Often that is a smaller set of scholars. Extra care is needed to identify competent reviewers.

The second problem is related to interdisciplinary work, but not limited to it. New studies of scholarly productivity have identified some scholars who are collaborators to many other scholars. These scholars often possess a deep knowledge of a theory or a set of research tools that are valuable to many other disciplines. They become “collaboration magnets” in a scholarly community. I have known many such colleagues in my career. In my opinion, they are often not sufficiently valued. Their publications tend to have more co-authors; they tend not to be the primary author on larger sets of publications; they tend not to be rated as the most prominent scholars in a community. On the other hand, in a real sense their activities make their colleagues better. They are multipliers of research productivity; they are disproportionately valuable to a community.

As we increase support for interdisciplinary work, we need to tackle the issues of assessment of the quality of that work and the valuation of those whose contributions are heavily collaborative. This requires deliberate effort to adapt existing procedures to fit our interdisciplinary goals.

Office of the ProvostBox 571014 650 ICC37th and O Streets, N.W., Washington D.C. 20057Phone: (202) 687.6400Fax: (202)

Connect with us via: