Table Of ContentThe Politics of
Interdisciplinary Studies
This page intentionally left blank
The Politics of
Interdisciplinary Studies
Essays on Transformations in
American Undergraduate Programs
Edited by
TANYA AUGSBURG and
STUART HENRY
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Jefferson, North Carolina, and London
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA
The politics of interdisciplinary studies : essays on transformations
in American undergraduate programs / edited by Tanya Augsburg
and Stuart Henry.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-7864-4168-6
softcover : 50# alkaline paper
1. Education, Higher—United States. 2. Interdisciplinary
approach in education—United States. I. Augsburg, Tanya.
II. Henry, Stuart, 1949–
LB2322.2.P68 2009
378.1'990973—dc22 2009018369
British Library cataloguing data are available
©2009 Tanya Augsburg and Stuart Henry. All rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying
or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher.
Cover image ©2009 Shutterstock
Manufactured in the United States of America
McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers
Box 611, Jefferson, North Carolina 28640
www.mcfarlandpub.com
Acknowledgments
There are a few people whom the editors would like to
acknowledge for their help with this volume. In particular we
thank: William H. Newell who provided early encouragement
and strong support for the project, and for his lifelong dedication
to furthering the development of interdisciplinary studies; and
Rick Szostak for his insight and optimism that enables him to see
change as opportunity, rather than as challenge and defeat. Both
Bill and Rick’s collaboration in analyzing the core themes of the
various chapters has made our conclusion more valuable than it
would otherwise have been. We would also like to thank Allen
Repko for his enduring faith in searching for the common core of
interdisciplinarity and for reminding us all how giant oaks can
indeed grow from little acorns, provided that the soil in which
they are sown is ripe for sustainability. Behind all of our thoughts
is the foundational influence of Julie Thompson Klein whose pio-
neering work has expanded and continues to expand the bound-
aries of knowledge through interdisciplinary thinking. We are
thankful for her support and invaluable feedback. Finally, we
would like to thank all the contributors for bringing this project
to fruition.
v
This page intentionally left blank
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments v
Preface—Tanya Augsburg and Stuart Henry 1
Introduction—Tanya Augsburg and Stuart Henry 7
PART I. The History of Interdisciplinary Programs
1. The Political Life Cycle of a Cluster College: The Western
College Program at Miami University—William H. Newell . . . . 29
2. The Devolution of the Individualized Degree at the University
Without Walls/University of Massachusetts–Amherst
—Rick F. Hendra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3. To Educate the People: The Department of Interdisciplinary
Studies at Wayne State University—Andre Furtado, Linda
Lora Hulbert, Julie Thompson Klein, Lisa Maruca, Caroline
Maun, Daphne W. Ntiri and Roslyn Abt Schindler . . . . . . . . . 66
4. Phoenix: From Ashes to Reincarnation at Appalachian
State University—Jay Wentworth and Richard M. Carp . . . . . . 85
5. From Cutting Edge to Cutting Board: The Inter-Arts
Center at San Francisco State University—James W. Davis . . . . 102
6. Interdisciplinary Studies at San Francisco State University:
A Personal Perspective—Raymond C. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . 112
PART II. New Directions
7. Interdisciplinarity and Teacher Preparation at San Francisco
State University—Helen Goldsmith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
vii
viii Contents
8. Transforming an Experimental Innovation into a
Sustainable Academic Program at the University of
Texas–Arlington—Allen F. Repko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
9. Interdisciplinarity Within Emory University’s Academic
Community—Peter W. Wakefield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
10. Turning Points: New Century College at George Mason
University—Janette Kenner Muir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
11. Barriers and Solutions to Launching an Interdisciplinary
Movement: The University of Massachusetts–Lowell
—Diana C. Archibald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
12. A Canadian and Collaborative Perspective: The Office of
Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Alberta
—Rick Szostak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Conclusion—Tanya Augsburg, Stuart Henry,
William H. Newell and Rick Szostak 227
Chapter 3 Appendices 257
Chapter 11 Appendix 262
About the Contributors 269
Index 273
Preface
The focus of this book is primarily on undergraduate interdisciplinary
studies degree programs (e.g., bachelor’s in interdisciplinary studies) and the
politics that has led to their transformation from experimental innovations in
higher education to a variety of different manifestations that depart signifi-
cantly from their original objectives. In particular, we argue that the field of
undergraduate interdisciplinary studies has reached a critical juncture. At a
time when the idea of interdisciplinary studies has entered the mainstream of
research and academic discourse, programs that explicitly deliver undergrad-
uate interdisciplinary degrees seem to be under attack, with several being
closed down or dispersed. Michael Moran, in his 2006 article in Politics,
invites us to explain “why, in a world where almost everyone speaks approv-
ingly of interdisciplinarity, disciplinary identities are if anything strengthen-
ing their hold over the academic mind.... What accounts for the apparent
paradox that interdisciplinarity is simultaneously hugely popular but unable
to make serious headway?” (Moran 2006, 73). He argues that this is because
the very idea of interdisciplinarity is “only possible in a disciplinary world.
The notion only makes sense as a reaction against, or an attempt to unify,
modes of knowledge presently separated into disciplinary domains” (Moran
2006, 74).
Our book tries to explain this paradox from the inside and from the
ground up. In doing so it provides: (1) an overview of the political economy
of higher education shaping these changes, (2) concrete case studies of the
changes that have taken place at a variety of colleges and universities, and (3)
a review of the new directions that significantly engage undergraduates in
interdisciplinary thinking. In the process we are centrally concerned with how
to sustain viable interdisciplinary studies programs.
Martin Trow’s extremely influential 1984 article “Interdisciplinary Stud-
ies as a Counterculture” conceptualized program viability in terms of failure
and survival, and argued that those programs that find complementary niches
1
