I started out the week, interestingly enough, with a small part in making a video for our Interdisciplinary PhD Program. The main people in the video, of course, were graduates and current candidates in the program. It was, however, challenging to articulate the value and impact that the program has had, not only to the students but to the university as a whole.
By way of prepping for the video taping I reread the original proposals and all of the comments from almost 30 years ago that led up to approval in 1983. The program was approved only after lengthy debate (it is a university after all!) I was fascinated that the arguments for and against programs of this type have not actually changed much in the intervening 27 years. Of course, we need mastery and, of course, we need thinking outside of the traditional disciplinary boundaries. I am not going there!
Has it been successful? Yes and maybe but mostly yes. Yes, students do remarkable work and yes it has grown from 2-8 students to over 100. But it is still risky for students, who are mostly mid-career. I think the impact for those not able to reach their goal is significant but, of course, that is true in traditional disciplines as well. The turnover in faculty and administrative personnel makes corporate memory more difficult and a certain drift in purpose of the program has occurred over time. This may be good or not, I suppose.
What does it mean to be interdisciplinary. Frankly I don't know. I do know that it is not the simple juxtaposition of disciplines nor is it defined by the collaboration of people from different disciplinary traditions. It is something more, something integrative, something that demands that participants incorporate "other" into their models and their way of thinking. Most of the time the interdisciplinarity comes from the intertwining of normally separate disciplines, like health and environmental studies, or nursing and political science. But we have seen examples arising from within single faculties, like English and German (influence of mobility of English writers in Europe in 1800's, for example) or health promotion and nursing, as another example.
Also interesting is that some areas are more fertile than others in the interdisciplinary world. Management, computer science, social policy, environment, and health, for example, are frequently in the mix in the individual IDPhD programs we have seen. So much so that cohorts of individual programs with these components have begun to form.
To be fair, there are lots of reasons for being cautious about interdisciplinary programs. For example, it is not that easy to ensure that the result is a synthesis of ideas and methodologies rather than simply a somewhat shallow combination. This is, in essence, the original 1980's argument about ensuring depth of research at the PhD level. Second, it is not that easy to explain what your PhD is actually in. IDPhD students have to really think through their "elevator pitch" and there remains, of course, the danger of not being able to satisfy job ad specs. From a practical administrative point of view it is sometimes hard to find the necessary resources, including supervisor time and funding, for a student who is only partly in a given faculty. Finally, for faculty members, there is the potential difficulty in publications in out-of-discipline venues when it is time for grant applications, tenure, and promotion.
But, at least in the case of Dalhousie, this program adds greatly to the intellectual stimulation of the academic community. With a current group of about 100 students and about 50 graduates so far it has developed its own cohort, its own alumni, and its own "disciplinary" culture. The students are self-directed and passionate to the extent that sometimes the resolves of committees are tested.
Of course, like many such initiatives, the IDPhD program continues to evolve and I understand from Mike that the program is engaged right now in addressing its recent growing pains by adding more rigour to the program infrastructure and corresponding adjustments in the expectations of the students. Bursting out of adolescence into maturity, I suspect!
So even with the risks associated with interdisciplinarity at the PhD level, I come back to the graduates and students who told their story with such passion and dedication for our video. And I remind myself that there are now 50 graduates and 100 candidates, 100 committees, and at least 300 faculty members who are applying their energy into innovative approaches to resolving some of the large issues of our time in environment, health, social policy. Frankly, I think we need all the help we can get!
Carolyn