One important duty of academic leaders these days is to make sure that emerging areas of scholarship and thought are nurtured. For mainline disciplines the extension of theory and practice is structurally supported by budgets and faculty appointments within established departments. The nurturance of interdisciplinary programs, however, requires attention. Examples might be programs studying racial/ethnic subpopulations, combined social and biological effects, economic impacts of biodiversity, or biological bases of psychological attributes.
With human knowledge expanding so rapidly, how does the modern university catalyze such activities? It’s not easy and, indeed, it’s a little unnatural to academic society.
My observation is that such programs emerge in stages. First, faculty and students interested in an area need to get together. They need to meet and realize that they can support one another’s interests. Generally each brings deep knowledge important to the field but not sufficient for the field. Each knows that they don’t know something they need to know.
A useful act at these meetings, especially for students, is to make a list of existing courses relevant to the fields. Commonly they are in several different departments, making it difficult for students to find courses that allow them to learn the different aspects of the area. A common list, on a web page, can assist students interested in the field.
At the same time faculty need to learn from each other and sometimes create a brown bag seminar to present their current scholarship in the area. This is critical for the exchange of nomenclature and conceptual frameworks. It also builds mutual respect across those from different disciplines. Some campuses have used such faculty seminars, supplemented by readings and evaluations, as reading courses for interested students.
When there are areas not covered by existing courses, students can sometimes arrange reading courses under the tutelage of one or more of the faculty in the group. If a large number of students desire the course, a new course can be built, if financial support can be garnered.
If the group continues then administrators can gauge sustainability of the interdisciplinary program by enrollment levels in courses related to the field.
If the group of faculty members continues its collaboration and student interest remains high, those faculty and students can propose a new minor in the field. Over years, if the scholarship and educational activities remain strong, a new major could be considered.
It is to be expected, given the evolution of knowledge and of the disciplines, that the strength of interdisciplinary fields will change over time. Some may wither over time, requiring academic leaders to reconsider how best to proceed. Those fields that lose intellectual energy and suffer losses of student interest, must be candidates for termination, freeing up funds for new, emerging programs.
There are roles for deans and provosts in this process; without their support the road to interdisciplinary progress is difficult.
A major impediment to the flourishing of interdisciplinary programs at GU is that faculty in an interdisciplinary program cannot obtain tenure unless they also belong to a disciplinary department which will make decisions on their tenure. If a system could be devised that faculty in interdisciplinary programs could obtain tenure even if they do not simultanously belong to a traditional department, GU would be able to recruit and retain a higher caliber of faculty for its interdisciplinary programs.
In my experience, the biggest roadblock to meaningful interdisciplinary studies for a student (at least in the sciences) is the number and size of classes one must take in each subject to attain a basic competency. If I want to study the interface between two sciences or a math and science, I need to first take classes (that are 4-5 credits each) in each discipline through the intermediate level. This is in addition to any major requirements or gen eds (which are predominantly humanities so there is little chance to “double dip” with a major requirement).
I think it is appropriate that all of the examples you use involve a social science because the current system disincentives interdisciplinary studies in hard sciences.