Search results

This chapter describes the development and evaluation of an interdisciplinary group-based inquiry-based learning (IBL) project across two professional degree programmes in Scotland – educational psychology and social work. After outlining the policy and practice contexts for interdisciplinary inquiry-based learning, we articulate how IBL can facilitate professional identity development, mirror key aspects of professional practice such as interprofessional collaboration, and provide deep interdisciplinary learning. It is argued that the process of IBL provides an authentic and complex practice scenario which allows for the articulation and development of professional knowledge, values, identities and roles in collaboration with another professional grouping. The process of IBL development is described and we report on the results of a small-scale qualitative evaluation of the short-term outcomes of the IBL approach to teaching and learning. The IBL activity enhanced students’ appreciation of interdisciplinary collaboration and allowed them to practice relevant skills. The views and reflections of students are reported and reinforce the relevance and efficacy of the approach. The chapter concludes with a series of suggestions and advice for the replication of using IBL as a tool to enhance and facilitate interdisciplinary learning.

In the spring of 2018, Abilene Christian University’s College of Education and Human Services created a task force to explore opportunities for an integrated program of interprofessional education through both curriculum and experiential learning. In the fall of 2019, the program was launched with a shared case study assignment and simulation across 13 courses from all five departments within the college and the School of Nursing, allowing students to develop important interdisciplinary practice skills. Over 400 students were involved in the experiential learning activity across two years. In the spring of 2020, the program launched three interdisciplinary courses, focused on developing interdisciplinary skills and knowledge in the areas of ethics, vocation, and practice skills through further simulation. In this chapter, the authors will describe the development, implementation, and outcomes of this innovative curriculum, along with the challenges and benefits of implementing an innovative curriculum across a college. Challenges discussed will include consideration of traditional higher education structures and the need for flexibility and adjustment to allow for innovation.

In 2004, the Faculty of Health Sciences at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, introduced a new, final-year subject ‘Interdisciplinary Professional Practice’. The subject is taught to all students enrolled in the 11 allied health and human service disciplines at La Trobe University across metropolitan and rural campuses. The delivery is online to overcome timetabling barriers and to provide time and geographic flexibility. The subject is presented using an enquiry-based learning model. Students are exposed to the concepts of interdisciplinary teamwork through shared learning across professional boundaries to enable a collaborative workforce. An outline of the background development and design of this subject, and its implementation and content areas is presented. A discussion of relevant literature and an analysis of the subject evaluations and focus groups that have guided subject development to enhance student learning over eight cohorts is included.

Purpose – The authors investigate the interpretations of senior university decision-makers on three questions: (1) What constitutes “relevant” research? (2) In what ways is the relevance of research typically measured? and (3) What alternative ways might be adopted in measuring the relevance of research?

Design/methodology/approach – This exploratory study adopts an inductive approach, informed by data collected from semi-structured interviews with senior research-related university leaders and archival sources in five Australian and eight US universities.

Findings – There is considerable convergence in the conceptualization as well as the operationalization of the notion of relevance between the Australian and US universities participating in this study. The evidence supports a relational rather than currently prevailing transactional approaches in operationalizing the concept of research relevance. This relational approach emphasizes the importance of stakeholders, their needs and expectations, and their engagement in the articulation of measures that demonstrate the relevance of research in both the short and longer terms.

Research limitations/implications – The evidence is primarily based on the views of university senior management drawn from a relatively small number of universities leading to questions about the representativeness and generalizability of the findings. Moreover, the findings have been informed by leaders at the most senior hierarchical levels. Although consistent with the aim of the study, the views of university leaders provide only one view on our research questions.

Originality/value – The authors provide a conceptual view of research relevance from the perspective of one pivotal group – university senior management – that has been largely and surprisingly overlooked in discussions of the relevance of academic research.

Purpose — The chapter discusses the challenges of developing a three year bachelor's programme in information management. The argument focuses on creating a programme that (1) facilitates cooperation with the business community, (2) represents a coherent whole that fosters student identity and (3) provides an explanatory framework for information management.

Design/methodology/approach — A model for curriculum development is presented which takes its starting point in the business community's perception of the graduates’ future practice. Interdisciplinary theory, and its continuum of integration from multidisciplinarity to interdisciplinarity to transdisciplinary is applied as the backbone of the programme structure, and its role in creating progression is discussed, together with the importance of problem-oriented work, and the interplay between problem-based and discipline-based elements of the programme. The information management programme distinguishes between ‘information management’ as an umbrella term for the whole programme and ‘information management’ in a more narrow and discipline-specific perspective rooted in information science.

Findings — It is shown how the programme elements (projects, internship, semester themes and courses) are combined so that each single element contributes to gradually build up a holistic view of information processes and practices in organisations. The underlying structure of the programme contributes to a coherent, theoretically based explanatory framework for information management.

Practical implications — The chapter describes benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary curriculum development and may be provide inspiration for curriculum developers.

Originality/value — Interdisciplinary theory may be useful to respond to the challenges of engaging several disciplines in the information management field. It is suggested that multidisciplinarity may be supplemented or replaced by more interdisciplinary approaches in the future.

Formal programmes designed to develop university teaching and learning are often assumed to be spaces for interdisciplinary learning and exchange. Because such programmes bring together academics from a range of different disciplines to learn about university teaching and learning as an academic development activity, it would seem feasible to argue that these spaces for learning, and the learning which results from them, can be characterised as ‘interdisciplinary’. Academic development itself is often thought to be a project that fosters an interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning. This chapter offers a narrative of the way academic development programmes support academics to adopt an interdisciplinary approach to their learning about university teaching and learning. We take graduate certificate programmes in university teaching and learning as the vehicle for our analysis. In doing so, the chapter makes three points. First, that academic development has the potential to be a ‘critical interdisciplinary space’. Second, that it is important for academics to see and experience the Graduate Certificate as an opportunity to develop interdisciplinary learning outcomes. The evidence at present reveals that interdisciplinary learning outcomes for academics feature more as an absent-presence rather than as a conscious decision about curriculum design. Third, the curriculum of graduate certificate programmes needs to have a coherent and theorised account of interdisciplinary teaching and learning embedded in the philosophy and approach of the course.

In higher education, interdisciplinarity involves the design of subjects that offer the opportunity to experience ‘different ways of knowing’ from students’ core or preferred disciplines. Such an education is increasingly important in a global knowledge economy. Many universities have begun to introduce interdisciplinary studies or subjects to meet this perceived need. This chapter explores some of the issues inherent in moves towards interdisciplinary higher education. Definitional issues associated with the term ‘academic discipline’, as well as other terms, including ‘multidisciplinary’, ‘cross-disciplinary’, ‘pluridisciplinarity’, ‘transdisciplinarity’ and ‘interdisciplinary’ are examined. A new nomenclature is introduced to assist in clarifying the subtle distinctions between the various positions. The chapter also outlines some of the pedagogical and epistemological considerations which are involved in any move from a conventional form of educational delivery to an interdisciplinary higher education, and recommends caution in any implementation of an interdisciplinary curriculum.

An investigation into the leadership behaviours of academic staff undertaking interdisciplinary research and teaching drew on interviews with 10 senior members of staff at two research institutions, in the United Kingdom and Australia, in order to illuminate the nature of interdisciplinary leadership. Key terms are defined: disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, identity, leadership and learning. A model is developed, based on an analysis of the interview data, drawing on Adair's three-part model of leadership, modified for the context. It is proposed that interdisciplinary leadership can be understood as being at the intersection of identity, discipline and learning, and requiring an understanding of all three for effective practice. The model also includes areas of activity: need and opportunity, co-ordination and direction, communication and motivation. The implications for the support of academic staff in such roles are considered. It is suggested that there is value in conceptualising interdisciplinary leadership as the leading of learning.

This paper analyses French and US universities’ organizational responses to the more or less explicit pressures they face to go interdisciplinary. Defining universities as pluralistic organizations, I show that the implementation of interdisciplinary research does not result in well-integrated institutional strategies, but rather combines initiatives from the scientific community and from university leaders. Based on case studies conducted on the development of interdisciplinary nanomedicine in five leading French and US research universities, I identify three settings where the implementation of interdisciplinarity involves shifts in organizational structure – in principal investigator-based research teams and scientific networks, in departmental boundaries, and in institutional structures, and question issues of governance, leadership and resource allocation arising from those shifts. We see similarities between the two countries in terms of how initiatives by “entrepreneurial academics” – searching for funds for interdisciplinary research – and by the university leadership – also searching for funds, and redefining institutional projects around interdisciplinarity – complement each other. We also identify one major difference – with French pro-interdisciplinary university policies being strongly influenced by a political impetus from the French ministry of higher education and research.