Interdisciplinary provision in higher education. Current and future challenges

Full text

You should use this template in conjunction
with the advanced report template guidance
(saved on the Comms Gateway site under
Brand and visual identity).
Delete the ‘In partnership with’ subheading
below if not required
Interdisciplinary provision in
higher education
Current and future challenges
Catherine Lyall, Laura Meagher, Justyna Bandola and Ann
Kettle
In partnership with the University of Edinburgh

2
Contents
Section Page
Acknowledgements iv
Team responsibilities iv
Executive summary v
Context and approach v
Key findings v
Provision and pedagogies: opportunities for interdisciplinarity v
Scale of interdisciplinary provision: results from surveys and interviews vi
Effective approaches to promoting, evaluating and sustaining interdisciplinarity:
case studies ix
Principles for the development of interdisciplinary education: conclusions to our study ix
Recommendations regarding HEA’s role in supporting interdisciplinary learning
and teaching x
1. Introduction 12
1.1. Aims and objectives 13
2. Methods 15
2.1. Challenges and limitations 17
3. Provision and pedagogies: opportunities for interdisciplinarity.
Literature review 18
Summary 18
3.1. Introduction 18
3.2. Scale and locus of provision 19
3.3. Drivers of interdisciplinarity 20
3.4. Strategies for interdisciplinary teaching 21
3.4.1. Co-teaching 23
3.4.2. Interactive teaching strategies 24
3.4.3. Programme-level strategies 25
4. Scale of interdisciplinary provision: results from surveys and interviews 26
Summary 26
4.1. Institutional context and current provision 28
4.2. Drivers 32
4.3. Scope of interdisciplinary provision 33
4.4. Pedagogy 34
4.5. Teaching challenges and issues 37
4.6. Administrative challenges and issues 39

3
4.7. Opportunities and advantages 41
4.8. Institutional trends 44
4.9. Professional capacity-building 51
4.10. Lessons learned 52
4.10.1. University structures, politics and administration 52
4.10.2. Good practice and/or pedagogical methods 53
4.10.3. Guiding principles to underpin high-quality interdisciplinary provision 53
5. Effective approaches to promoting, evaluating and sustaining
interdisciplinarity: case studies 54
Summary 54
Case study 1: Innovative extracurricular experience in interdisciplinary project teams 54
Case study 2: Piloting an interdisciplinary module 56
Case study 3: New interdisciplinary undergraduate degree programme (BA and BSc) 59
Case study 4: Professional education MSc – interdisciplinary development of careers
in emerging technology 61
Case study 5: An undergraduate degree bridging Arts and Sciences with a major,
a minor, and interdisciplinary core modules 63
Case study 6: Top-level, institutionalised support for interdisciplinary undergraduate
education at a major US university 65
6. Principles for the development of interdisciplinary education: conclusions
of our study 67
6.1. Recommendations regarding HEA’s role in supporting interdisciplinary
learning and teaching 70
References 72
Annexes 77
A. Interview topic guides 77
Semi-structured interview template, course co-ordinators/ programme directors 77
Semi-structured interview template, PVCs, VPs, Deans 78
B. Agenda for Advisory Group meeting, June 2015 80
C. Focus group topic guide 81
Forms of interdisciplinary provision and effective practice 81
Interdisciplinary provision 81
D. Literature review method 82
E. Full set of survey charts 83
F. Lessons learned 91
G. Survey instruments 95

iv
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the following people to this project:
Professor Siân Bayne, University of Edinburgh;
Professor Jens Dolin, University of Copenhagen;
Ms Dorte Christiansen Elmeskov, University of Copenhagen;
Professor Paul Hibbert, University of St Andrews;
Ms Katrine Lindvig, University of Copenhagen;
Dr Morven Shearer, University of St Andrews;
HEA staff and steering group members;
The individuals who participated in interviews and who responded to our surveys.
Team responsibilities
Catherine Lyall managed the project and led in drafting the final report. Laura Meagher was
responsible for the two main surveys, conducted al l of the interviews and produced all of the case
studies. Justyna Bandola provided the literature review and was responsible for the additional online
surveys. Ann Kettle carried out all of the document analysis required for the identification of the
programme director sample and the construction of the survey database.
All four team members commented on the final report.
Jessica Meagher provided additional project assistance.

v
Executive summary
Context and approach
Is interdisciplinarity the new zeitgeist for higher education (HE)? Recognition of the need for
interdisciplinary research to address global, societal challenges is accelerating. Policymakers and non-
governmental organisations frequently call for an evidence base that integrates social, cultural and
economic dimensions with the natural and medical sciences.
At the same time, there is clearly pressure on higher education providers for increased emphasis on
graduate employability to justify the investment in higher fees, which has led to an increased focus
on the practical application of learning. This employability agenda accentuates the desire for agile
learners who can utilise their graduate skills rather than simply accrue knowledge. This may result in
trends towards competency-based education, enquiry-based learning and individualised student
learning pathways and a sense that the needs of contemporary graduates no longer fit traditional
institutional structures.
This evolving landscape generates new demands for global citizens and future employees who have
the skills to work in multi-professional teams and adopt holistic approaches to complex problems, but
higher education largely remains structured on a conventional, disciplinary basis. While disciplines will
continue to underpin the foundations of our knowledge, the issue of interdisciplinary learning and
teaching provision becomes increasingly relevant for institutions preparing students for a changing
world.
It was within this context that the Higher Education Academy (HEA) commissioned a short study to
deliver:
a review of the literature about the effectiveness of interdisciplinary provision and the pedagogies
which provide distinctive opportunities for interdisciplinarity;
the results of a survey indicating the scale of current and likely future interdisciplinary provision;
case studies of effective approaches to promoting, evaluating and sustaining interdisciplinarity;
a set of principles that would underpin the development of interdisciplinary education.
This study adopted a mixed methods approach comprising a literature review of pedagogy related to
interdisciplinarity; document analysis to identify a sample of current interdisciplinary programmes;
online surveys of (i) directors of these interdisciplinary programmes, (ii) university leaders at the Pro-
Vice-Chancellor (PVC) level, and (iii) other online Jisc communities; an administered survey at an HEA
enhancement event in Belfast (‘the Belfast conference group’); and semi-structured interviews with
university leaders and programme directors from a range of higher education institutions (HEIs).
From these, six case studies were developed, selected purposively to illustrate a range of types of
interdisciplinary offerings and the processes of programme development.
Key findings
Provision and pedagogies: opportunities for interdisciplinarity
The term ‘interdisciplinarity’ is often contested and it may seem that there are as many definitions of
its nature and purpose as there are commentators. In particular, the phrase ‘integrative learning’ is
often used as an umbrella term for activities that bridge, for example, experiences inside and outside
the classroom, theory and practice, and disciplines and fields while interdisciplinary studies is a subset
of integrative learning. Truly interdisciplinary models restructure the curriculum with explicitly
integrative activities that are typically theme-based, problem-based, or question-based, and organised
within a curriculum that has a spine of required core courses ensuring attention is paid to
interdisciplinary theory, concepts and methods (Klein 2005).
With this in mind, three common themes emerge from the academic literature on interdisciplinary
learning and teaching:

vi
case studies presenting implementation of interdisciplinary teaching projects;
analyses of the outcomes and challenges of interdisciplinary education;
discussions of the socio-cultural context of interdisciplinarity.
The literature identifies a number of key drivers for interdisciplinary learning and teaching:
individual-level drivers – such as personal connections between academics;
university-level drivers – such as university strategy or regulations;
external drivers – such as availability of funding or the requirements of professional bodies;
socio-cultural and economic drivers – such as trends in education and workforce requirements;
the nature or evolution of new disciplines – such as neuroscience, synthetic biology, law,
environmental studies.
The scale of interdisciplinary provision indicated in the literature ranges from single workshops and
courses to undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes.
Even though interdisciplinary courses, modules and programmes are conducted at every level of
university education, their goals and planned outcomes are diverse. As our own empirical data
confirm, the literature indicates that interdisciplinary programmes and courses are most commonly
(but not exclusively) available at the postgraduate taught (PGT) level or during the senior years of
undergraduate (UG) education. However, the literature is not unequivocal with regards to the best
locus of interdisciplinary education, especially regarding the timing of the first interdisciplinary course
in a student’s university experience.
Based on our analysis of the literature, we define three categories of teaching strategies that are
variously termed ‘interdisciplinary’: co-teaching, interactive methods, and programme-level strategies.
Scale of interdisciplinary provision: results from surveys and interviews
Likely institutional trends in interdisciplinary education
Across all respondents to our surveys, most feel that the level of interdisciplinary educational
provision has increased at their institution over the past five years (Chart A), although a significant
proportion believe that the level is unchanged. Programme directors are more likely to report this
increase than institutional leaders/PVCs.
Looking to the future of interdisciplinary educational provision at their institution over the next five
years, most respondents expect the level to increase (Chart B). Programme directors envisioned a
much higher proportion of interdisciplinary education in five years’ time at both undergraduate and
postgraduate levels than did academic leaders.
There are, nevertheless, differences in the views expressed by classes of respondents indicating
variation in understanding of the demands for interdisciplinary learning and teaching. Perhaps the
most striking differences between PVC and programme director responses lie in the latter’s’ generally
greater expectations for postgraduate interdisciplinary education (taught or research), and far lower
expectation for interdisciplinarity in professional/vocational courses.

vii
Chart A: Change in interdisciplinary provision in past five years (
n
= 112)
Chart B: Expected change in interdisciplinary provision in next five years (
n
= 112)
Institutional context and current provision
Interdisciplinary learning and teaching is an explicit component of many institutional strategies. It is a
‘live’ topic at the leadership level within HEIs where nearly three-quarters of PVC respondents report
engaging in these discussions and one third report an increase in proposals for interdisciplinary
programmes (not simply modules). This overall awareness of institutional context and provision is
somewhat less evident at the level of the individual academic.
When asked about current interdisciplinary provision, nearly half of PVC respondents estimate that
their institutions have more than five interdisciplinary undergraduate programmes and a quarter
claimed more than ten. Shifting the focus to PGT, almost half of the same group again estimated
more than five programmes. However, this time only 15% estimated more than ten, and a quarter of

viii
these PVC respondents replied that there are
no
explicitly interdisciplinary taught postgraduate
degree programmes at their institution.
Drivers
There were marked differences in perspectives regarding the drivers for interdisciplinary provision
with university leaders highlighting professional/vocational needs and graduate employability while
academics at the level of programme director predominantly identify championing by individual
academics and the need to align teaching with complex societal issues as the main drivers. About half
of each group identifies alignment with research directions.
Scope of interdisciplinary provision
The ‘scope’ of current interdisciplinary provision in terms of academic areas bridged suggests that this
is predominantly an activity encompassing Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences although other
combinations do certainly occur.
Pedagogy
Interdisciplinary education was seen to manifest itself in a range of pedagogical activities, although
what is termed ‘interdisciplinary’ education is not necessarily integrated throughout every aspect of a
programme and we find mixed views among our respondents as to whether provision labelled
‘interdisciplinary’ is, in actuality, an aggregate of different pre-existing modules from different
courses, with only one or two new modules designed to be integrative. Interdisciplinary competences
gained by students were variously identified as an ability to synthesise, appreciation of diverse
perspectives, and flexible, critical thinking.
Challenges
The degree of challenge in effecting this type of culture change is indicated by the fact that nearly
three-quarters of programme director respondents agreed that most academic staff simply wish to
teach their usual modules in familiar subjects and not become involved in synthesis. Opinion was
almost equally divided on the extent to which it was primarily the student’s responsibility to integrate
the various contributions of different teachers/modules in an ‘interdisciplinary’ programme.
Assessment was clearly a particular challenge for interdisciplinary programmes as were various
administrative problems such as the logistics of timetabling and resource allocation, not least the
equitable distribution of teaching ‘credit’.
Opportunities and advantages
Opinion was equally divided among programme director respondents as to whether their institution
was likely to reward their leadership of an interdisciplinary educational programme. Yet, nearly all
agree that they and colleagues feel a ‘sense of excitement’ when teaching an interdisciplinary
programme; new thinking has been stimulated and research activity has been influenced. As well as
the intellectual benefits for students, respondents commented on increased employability.
Professional capacity-building
Finally, we explored the extent to which academics, academic development staff, and academic
leaders are prepared for such changes. There was near unanimity among all respondents that access
to a body of good practice in interdisciplinary provision would be beneficial, but this contrasts sharply
with current reality where, for example, only a quarter of programme director respondents and a
third of PVC respondents said that their institution's staff development support explicitly included
interdisciplinary teaching.

ix
Effective approaches to promoting, evaluating and sustaining interdisciplinarity: case
studies
Drawing on our interview data, we provide six case studies of effective approaches to promoting,
evaluating and sustaining interdisciplinarity. The experiences captured span:
an innovative extracurricular experience in interdisciplinary project teams;
piloting an interdisciplinary module;
a new interdisciplinary undergraduate degree programme;
a professional education PGT Masters’ degree;
a liberal arts undergraduate programme bridging arts and sciences with a major, a minor, and
interdisciplinary core modules;
an example of top-level, institutionalised support for interdisciplinary undergraduate education at
a major US university.
Principles for the development of interdisciplinary education: conclusions to our
study
While compulsory interdisciplinary courses may have become a standard feature of the curriculum in
the US, the same is not yet true in the UK, but interdisciplinary learning and teaching is, nevertheless,
an explicit component of many institutional strategies.
Curriculum enhancement ambitions are becoming more widespread in the UK with many universities
seeking to combine academic excellence with a greater focus on,
inter alia
, skills such as critical
thinking and effective communication, engendering openness to more reflexive learning and personal
development, and preparing students for global citizenship. However, curriculum enhancement and a
more integrated approach to learning do not necessarily constitute ‘interdisciplinarity’ and the
pedagogical approaches included in some descriptions of ‘interdisciplinary’ provision are not unique to
interdisciplinarity.
Our findings show a range of activities taking place at different scales – at the level of one-off
workshops, single course modules or units or, sometimes, full degree programmes. These activities
have different (and not always fully articulated) aims, whether these manifest as a general awareness
of knowledge beyond the student’s immediate degree discipline, an ability to go further and apply
that knowledge, or a more root-and-branch transformation of the student’s way of thinking and
viewing the world.
We have synthesised a set of pedagogical techniques (see Table 1) that are discussed in the
literature within the context of effective practice in interdisciplinary learning and teaching. While there
is recognition that “interdisciplinary teaching and learning requires a host of powerful pedagogies”
(DeZure 2010, p. 384), commentators also stress that there “is no unique or single pedagogy for
integrative interdisciplinary learning” (Klein 2010, p. 9).

x
Table 1: Synthesis of interdisciplinary teaching strategies and pedagogical techniques
Strategy
Pedagogical techniques
Co-teaching
Advanced planning and negotiation with co-teacher
Co-advising with industry representatives
Taking turns in teaching
Creating learning community
Co-creation of syllabus and case studies
Interactive methods1
Project-based learning (PBL)
Case study methods
Role-playing
Simulations
Virtual methods
Peer-assessment and review
Peer-assisted learning (PAL)
Small-group teaching
Programme-level
strategies
Interdisciplinary electives
Core courses covering material from different perspectives
Research conducted for the initial stages of graduate school
What is largely missing from literature and from the empirical data we have collected, is a debate
about, or evidence for, the underlying “curriculum ideologies” (Toohey 1999, p. 45) – the principles,
ideas, beliefs and epistemologies that might underpin interdisciplinary learning and teaching. We
suggest that theory has not yet caught up with practice in this field and there is a clear lack of
theorising about pedagogy in this emerging area of learning and teaching practice.
Although the most obvious drivers for increasing interdisciplinarity may be instrumental (e.g.
perceived new income streams, improved graduate employability), the issue of interdisciplinary
provision points to the heart of how universities are organised and the purpose of higher education. A
key unanswered question raised by our study is whether interdisciplinarity is evolving within
universities or whether universities are, themselves, evolving.
Our findings highlight the role of the committed, entrepreneurial academic as a key driver, and the
fact that interdisciplinary teaching is often an activity that takes place at the margins of mainstream
teaching. This is a risky strategy for the sustainability of interdisciplinary learning and teaching: if it is
not to rely solely on the efforts of individual champions, greater institutionalisation will be necessary.
Recommendations regarding HEA’s role in supporting interdisciplinary learning and
teaching
We conclude that a successful interdisciplinary curriculum should be aimed at mitigating the
institutional and personal challenges of interdisciplinarity on the one hand, and fulfilling specific
learning objectives expected from interdisciplinary education on the other. We therefore identify three
potential roles for HEA in supporting interdisciplinary learning and teaching.
Respondents call for access to a body of good practice in interdisciplinary provision, underscoring the
importance of institutionalised support, for example, in university strategies, through institutional
reforms or the inclusion of interdisciplinarity in Postgraduate certificate in higher education (PGCHE)
provision. Access to research and good practice (for example, in the form of case studies) was
1 Note that the interactive methods listed are not exclusive to interdisciplinary provision.

xi
emphasised, as were skills-development training, for example, through organisation of masterclasses
(see e.g. Lyall and Meagher 2012), or through funding for trials and test projects.
First, a significant role for HEA in supporting subscribing institutions may be to act as a respected
forum where experiences of interdisciplinary learning and teaching can be developed and shared.
There could be a role for HEA in supporting accessible external masterclasses to supplement
academic development offerings available within institutions.
Secondly, in addition to this developmental support, HEA may wish to take the lead as a locus for
defining a pedagogic research agenda for interdisciplinarity to underpin this important learning and
teaching activity with the necessary theoretical understanding, which we currently find to be lacking.
Finally, HEA plays an important leadership role in the higher education sector. In supporting
interdisciplinarity in undergraduate and postgraduate taught education, HEA may wish to encourage
leaders of HEIs themselves to reflect upon the following underlying principles of interdisciplinary
education:
1. If institutions are going to embark on a strategy of interdisciplinary learning and teaching,
there must be clarity of purpose:
a. institutions should recognise that, with no one all-purpose pedagogy for
interdisciplinarity, they must articulate clearly their own goals and develop strategy
accordingly;
b. the potential for interdisciplinary education to add value to an institution and its
outputs should be articulated clearly: to staff but also to students, parents, employers
and other stakeholders;
c. curriculum enhancement, integrative learning, and interdisciplinary learning and
teaching represent different goals and require staff and students to develop different
sets of well-aligned competences in learning and teaching.
2. If institutions are to develop effective interdisciplinary learning and teaching, this requires a
whole institution approach in order to overcome the many academic and administrative
barriers that exist:
a. some of these barriers may be perceived rather than real but it will require a
concerted process of institutional change to overcome both the misperceptions and
the realities;
b. not all institutions, nor indeed every part of each individual institution, will embrace
interdisciplinarity; this is reasonable in a healthily diverse higher education system.
However, for those institutions seeking excellence in interdisciplinary education,
advocacy, facilitation, celebration and reward will be key;
c. in promotion and other professional assessments, recognition must be clearly
available for interdisciplinary activity relevant to education (e.g. teaching, mentoring,
and development of new courses and related research).
3. Successful interdisciplinary learning and teaching is resource intensive:
a. the development of a coherent interdisciplinary course takes time, if it is not to rely
on students to do the integration. This needs to be recognised, for example, in
models of workload allocation;
b. for some universities this will require considerable culture change if staff are to be
adequately trained, supported and rewarded. Skills development should be facilitated
in academics taking on the challenge of effective interdisciplinary teaching. This
training might take various forms, whether in-house or external short courses or
expert masterclasses;
c. various other forms of support may be required, ranging from institutional advocacy
to seed corn funding for course development, to administrative matters such as
scheduling and credit sharing across departments. Pioneering academics should be
facilitated to share their own learning about good practices within their own
institutions and across the sector.

12
1. Introduction
Is interdisciplinarity the new zeitgeist for higher education? As Graff (2015) notes, the term is both
ubiquitous and contested in the scholarly literature2. Recognition of the need for interdisciplinary
research to address global, societal challenges is accelerating. Policymakers and non-governmental
organisations frequently call for an evidence base that integrates social, cultural and economic
dimensions with the natural and medical sciences (Lyall
et al.
2011, Ch. 1).
This evolving landscape generates new demands for global citizens and future employees who have
the skills to work in multi-professional teams and adopt holistic approaches to complex problems, but
higher education largely remains structured on a conventional, disciplinary basis. While disciplines will
continue to underpin the foundations of our knowledge, the issue of interdisciplinary provision
becomes increasingly relevant for institutions preparing students for a changing world.
Bodies related to higher education, as well as institutions themselves, have taken up this issue. So,
some 30 years after the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) identified
five drivers3 for interdisciplinarity (OECD 1972), the United States National Academies (2005) called
for growth of interdisciplinarity as a strand to be woven into both undergraduate and postgraduate
education. The US National Science Foundation’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship (IGERT) programme was one response to that mandate.4 Launched in 2007, the
‘Melbourne Model’ (Fearn 2009), is also now an oft-cited example of higher education curriculum
reform that has stimulated interest in interdisciplinarity. Based on a broader undergraduate education
followed by a graduate level professional specialisation5 undergraduate students study 25% of their
modules from outside their degree programme on so-called ‘breadth subjects’. Despite mixed reviews
(Potts 2012; Fearn 2009), this model has, nevertheless, proved influential with other universities
seeking to update their curricula.6 Innovative initiatives are thus being explored by universities in a
variety of countries, including, for example, the University of Copenhagen’s project on ‘Cross-
disciplinary education’7, which is conducting pedagogical analyses of a set of multiple interdisciplinary
pilots across the university, and the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies,
which acts as a hub for understanding and developing interdisciplinary education (de Roo and van
Gorp 2014).
In the UK, an analysis of Russell Group university strategic plans (Bandola and Lyall 2015), confirmed
that virtually all such universities now mention ‘interdisciplinarity’, whether in the context of research,
teaching or estate planning. However, notwithstanding a well-established focus on interdisciplinary
research supported by Research Councils UK (RCUK),8 reports emanating from a flagship cross-council
investment, Living with Environmental Change, have called for greater interdisciplinary research skills
and lament:
Despite years of interdisciplinary rhetoric, it is still difficult to find people who are able to
move easily between social and environmental sciences
(LWEC 2012).
2 Definitions of the term ‘interdisciplinarity’ abound. A not unreasonable starting point might be Heckhausen’s definition for the
OECD (1972): “Interaction may range from simple communication of ideas to the mutual integration of organising concepts,
methodology, procedures, epistemology, terminology, data, and organisation of research and education in a fairly large field.”
3 The development of science; student demand; the need for professional training; societal needs and the functioning of
university administration (OECD 1972).
4 www.igert.org
5 For example, Law, Architecture, Teaching and Nursing.
6 See, for example, the University of Aberdeen’s slightly confusingly named ‘Sixth Century Courses’
www.abdn.ac.uk/study/about/sixth-century-courses-348.php or the University of Manchester’s University College for
Interdisciplinary Learning www.college.manchester.ac.uk
7 www.ind.ku.dk/english/crossdisciplinarity/
8 www.rcuk.ac.uk

13
This international context of change, within and beyond higher education institutions (HEIs), makes
examination of interdisciplinary learning and teaching provision in the UK both timely and compelling.
Opinions differ on whether increasing trends towards more problem-focused research to tackle ‘real
world’ issues will lead to the introduction of more interdisciplinary elements in degree programmes
(Blackmore and Kandiko 2012) or whether the increased marketisation of higher education will turn
the focus away from curriculum innovation and back towards traditional single-subject disciplines
(Gibbs 2012). HEIs may see interdisciplinarity as an opportunity or as a threat depending on the
institution: while some may be attracted by the marketability of interdisciplinary courses, many are
slow to provide supporting structures to deliver interdisciplinary courses effectively (Chandramohan
and Fallows 2009, pp. 160–1).
Nevertheless, there is clearly pressure on higher education providers for increased emphasis on
graduate employability to justify the investment in higher fees, which has led to an increased focus on
the practical application of learning. This employability agenda accentuates the desire for agile
learners who can utilise their graduate skills rather than simply accrue knowledge. This may result in
trends towards competency-based education, enquiry-based learning and individualised student
learning pathways and a sense that the needs of contemporary graduates no longer fit traditional
institutional structures. In tandem, an aspiration for education for sustainable development (QAA and
HEA 2014) has shone a light on broadening the student experience.
As noted in the HEA’s call for tenders for this study, interdisciplinarity poses a range of challenges to
the sector. These include: the level of preparedness and skills of staff to undertake work outside of
their area of disciplinary expertise; striking the balance between theory and practice (Strober 2011);
avoiding disadvantaging students by exposing them to different disciplinary perspectives; the
willingness of students to take modules outside the home department or familiar discipline (and
possibly jeopardise their grades) and the challenge of assessing changed student perspectives as a
result of interdisciplinary learning (Blackmore and Kandiko 2012).
These issues go to the heart of how universities are organised and the very purpose of higher
education. Klein (2010a) chronicles the struggles of a number of US universities to sustain
interdisciplinary studies programmes and highlights the tensions between the need for “normalisation”
in order to gain strength and stability for such programmes versus “a mission for insurgency” aimed at
unsettling conventional disciplinary practices (2010a, p. 123). Interdisciplinary undergraduate studies
have made significant gains in US higher education but, paradoxically, these programmes have often
failed to achieve a permanent position in the curricula of individual universities and colleges (Augsburg
and Henry 2009). As Newell (2009) concludes, interdisciplinary studies programmes “are always at
political risk” (2009, cited in Klein 2010a).
Interdisciplinarity should not, however, be seen as an end in itself, and we strongly support the view,
promulgated by the Eighth Global Summit on Graduate Education,9 that:
Interdisciplinarity in graduate education and research must answer specific, identifiable
needs.
(p. 3)
1.1. Aims and objectives
The aims of this project were to:
1. provide a literature review of interdisciplinary provision both from a national and an
international perspective;
2. map the scale and type of current interdisciplinary provision; to classify different forms of
interdisciplinary provision; to identify plans for future expansion, steady state, or reduction.
9 www.cgsnet.org/university-leaders-issue-statement-interdisciplinarity-graduate-education-and-research

14
In addressing these aims, this report brings together the empirical findings from a mixed methods
study (Section 2) and seeks to answer the following research questions identified in the call for
tender:
What are the pedagogies that are likely to provide distinctive opportunities for interdisciplinarity?
What are the key elements of effective practice that are identified within the literature?
For which of these is there a robust evidence base evaluating the effectiveness of
interdisciplinarity?
What gaps exist in the existing literature in relation to: (a) types of disciplines that are not widely
evaluated and for which there is a strong prima facie case that they are high impact; (b) the
scope for the existing evidence bases to be further strengthened and developed?
What are the principles supporting interdisciplinarity in undergraduate and postgraduate taught
education?
Interdisciplinarity is often contested and it may seem that there are as many definitions of its nature
and purpose as there are commentators.10 The term ‘interdisciplinary’ is often used synonymously –
and, we argue, erroneously – with ‘multidisciplinary’. The literature review (Section 3) consciously
avoids engaging in these extensive debates and instead focuses on understanding the effectiveness of
interdisciplinary provision and promising pedagogies. The empirical data from our surveys and
interviews (Section 4) provide a sense of the scale of UK provision and likely trends. Case studies,
supported by survey and interview data, enrich these findings (Section 5).
In answering the above questions, we highlight not only tools and practices but also institutional
approaches to addressing critical current and future challenges (Section 6). In doing so, we propose
some principles for supporting interdisciplinarity in undergraduate and postgraduate taught education,
drawing on the statement issued by the Eighth Global Summit on Graduate Education (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1: Statement from Eighth Global Summit on Graduate Education
Principles for supporting interdisciplinarity in (post)graduate11 education and research
Participants in the 2014 Strategic Leaders Global Summit recommend that (post)graduate
institutions consider the following principles when making decisions about interdisciplinarity in
(post)graduate education and research:
1. Articulate the added value of interdisciplinary approaches and initiatives within institutional
contexts.
2. Communicate and advocate for the value of interdisciplinary research and learning to the
broader community. Education efforts should include not only the broad value of
interdisciplinary research and learning, but also the specific relevance and benefits to each
stakeholder group.
3. Identify and develop the skills (post)graduate students will need to engage effectively in
interdisciplinary research collaborations or research projects throughout their careers.
4. Provide opportunities and spaces for (post)graduate students and faculty to meet
colleagues in other disciplines, work on interdisciplinary research teams or on
interdisciplinary research projects.
5. Build administrative bridges to encourage interdisciplinary research and learning. Where
existing structures inhibit cross-disciplinary collaborations, find ways to remove barriers and
10 In 2007, Angelique Chettiparamb’s study provided the HEA with an overview of the concept of interdisciplinarity and its
implications for teaching and it is not our purpose to replicate that study. The Chettiparamb study was part of a project funded
by the HEA, the Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Group set up in 2005 to explore all facets of interdisciplinary teaching
and learning. This included investigating the student experience, and examining the ways in which institutions encourage or
discourage cross-disciplinary collaboration in teaching (see http://www-new1.heacademy.ac.uk/projects/detail/esd/esd_itlg and
https://www.llas.ac.uk/projects/2892 [Accessed 21 June 2015). It is worth noting that none of the respondents to our study
mentioned the work of this previous HEA group.
11 The term ‘(post)graduate’ designates both Masters and doctoral education.

15
provide incentives.
6. Value interdisciplinary mentoring or research in faculty tenure and promotion procedures.
7. Encourage funding agencies to support interdisciplinary research projects and training.
2. Methods
A study of the level of complexity and scope desired by HEA requires a mixed-method approach, and
a combination of ‘lenses’ allowing larger and smaller pictures to be seen.
First, we sought to gain an overall sense of interdisciplinarity across UK HEIs by asking a few top-level
questions of HEA’s institutional contacts at subscribing institutions. The next step in our strategy was
to drill ‘where we expect oil’: identifying key topic areas that were expected to be amenable to an
interdisciplinary approach at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level.
The key dimensions of our research design encompassed the following methods:
1. To underpin the study, we conducted a literature review of pedagogy related to
interdisciplinarity. Drawing on our experience in analysing previous work on interdisciplinary
research and capacity building, our strategy with this review was to define parameters that
embraced a comprehensive body of literature while maintaining a focus on educational
provision and pedagogical methods. This review allowed us to identify pedagogies offering
opportunities, key elements of practice including evidence regarding effectiveness, gaps in the
evidence base and other overarching issues and principles. We sought to include ‘grey
literature’, as well as peer-reviewed journals, project reports and books while being mindful of
the quality of the research reported. We included evidence from overseas where appropriate.
2. For a comprehensive scan across HEIs, we surveyed HEA’s network of Pro-Vice-Chancellors
(PVCs) of Learning and Teaching (or their equivalents or delegates) in subscribing institutions.
This online survey (see Annex G) was circulated by HEA on our behalf and sought recipients’
views of their institution’s interdisciplinary offerings at undergraduate or postgraduate level,
the scale and type of current interdisciplinary provision, and future plans within institutional
strategy or practice. Free text questions provided opportunities for further comment. Thirty-
two responses were received. From those who provided their titles, it was clear that
respondents were indeed at the senior leadership level sought, with a few leading a relevant
office but most indeed at the level of Pro Vice-Chancellor. (In the analysis, all responding to
this survey are referred to as ‘PVC respondents’.) A range of institutions was represented,
including several Russell Group institutions, at least one further education college, and several
specialist institutions.
3. We used non-probability sampling to generate a representative sample of offerings in topical
areas known to ‘demand’ interdisciplinarity in research and in policy/practice implementation.
We identified five areas that are inherently interdisciplinary and have been identified by
others12 as challenges requiring an interdisciplinary approach:
a. Sustainability
b. International development
c. Health (social dimensions)
d. Games (digital)
e. Culture
We then conducted document analysis to search for related degree programmes across the
UK at the undergraduate and postgraduate level using the UCAS database.13 For each, about
12 Such as RCUK’s cross-council themes in six priority areas http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/xrcprogrammes/
13 UCAS: Undergraduate Courses at University and College (see: www.ucas.com)

16
30 programmes were identified. Identification of programme directors by name, with email
contact, took a great deal of sleuth work, as programme directors were not readily apparent
in UCAS listings.14
4. Having identified this sample, and constructed our own sample database of 139 academic
contacts, we sent an online survey (see Annex G) to directors of these interdisciplinary
programmes. The survey consisted of a mix of Lickert scale, pre-coded, and free-text
response questions and was designed to elicit informed reflection on issues, obstacles,
opportunities and trends in interdisciplinary offerings, as well as lessons learned as to good
practice and suggestions for tools that can be used and adapted for different settings and
groups. Two reminders were sent, emphasising the potential of responses to contribute to a
new level of understanding about interdisciplinary provision (while individual responses would
remain confidential). Seventeen directors of interdisciplinary educational programmes
returned their surveys, yielding a response rate of 12%15. At least one response was received
from each theme or cluster; more responses (five from each) were received from health and
from games than from other clusters.
5. To address this lower than expected response rate, we developed an alternative strategy
which used a shorter survey instrument, containing a sub-set of questions from the full
version (see Annex G), and circulated this to the following JISCMAIL groups:
a. Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA), approximately 1,150
members, a sub-set of whom may be interested in interdisciplinarity.
b. Interdisciplinary Curriculum Group, approximately 15 members.
c. National Combined Honours Network, approximately 50 members, course programme
directors of combined or joint honours programmes.
This elicited 23 responses. We were also able to take advantage of Lyall’s attendance as the
keynote speaker at the HEA’s Enhancement Event in Belfast in March 2015 to administer the
same survey with members of the audience during group discussion (
n
= 40).
6. To capture understanding of institutional cultures, drivers and obstacles for interdisciplinarity,
as well as trends over time and suggested tools or practices, we conducted semi-structured
interviews with five deans/PVCs of learning and teaching and 12 programme directors (or
equivalent), from different types of institutions to seek evidence of effective approaches to
the delivery and evaluation of interdisciplinary provision. All interviews were conducted by
telephone and typically lasted 45-60 minutes. The interview topic guides are included in
Annex A.
7. In order to help readers of this report to ‘visualise’ what interdisciplinary provision would look
like in its various forms, we developed a set of six comparably structured case studies. These
were selected purposively to illustrate a range of types of interdisciplinary offerings at
different types of institutions, capturing different approaches that have been effective in
14 Undergraduate programme leaders are rarely identified, instead prospective students are asked to email central admissions
departments or departmental administrators. Programme leaders/course co-ordinators can occasionally be identified from staff
lists but this is difficult when several departments are involved. Taught Masters programme details on the UKPASS website
(https://www.ucas.com/ucas/postgraduate/postgraduate-study/what-ukpass) are much fuller and give contact details, though
not usually names of programme directors. It is much easier to find the names of programme directors on institutional
websites, though some larger institutions refer prospective students to postgraduate administrators. Not all postgraduate
programmes are cited on UKPASS as institutions can recruit directly it is mainly a marketing tool, providing information mostly
on taught postgraduate programmes.
15 Discussions with some interviewees suggest that reasons for non-responses could include: general workload on academics
making surveys unattractive; particularly heavy burden on programme directors such that the additional effort of responding to
the survey was seen as too much; perhaps a fear that questions might entail looking up data, although invitation letters
explicitly said this was not the case; or even that many programme directors may not have thought of their programme as
interdisciplinary (perhaps with institutional representatives acting on their own initiative to ‘market’ the programme with that
feature).

17
promoting, evaluating and sustaining interdisciplinarity. Case studies were based on
information available on the web, augmented by survey data and one interview each.
8. The project Advisory Group (listed at the front of the report) provided an international
dimension and acted as a ‘critical friend’. Most of our interactions were online as we variously
sought their advice on our work plan and sources of literature. We also held a meeting with
members of the group on 12 June to invite their input on our findings and to comment on our
draft report. Part of this meeting took the form of an informal focus group (see Annexes B
and C for meeting agenda and topic guide). The study also benefited from informal
discussions with the Interdisciplinary Curriculum Group following Lyall’s invitation to speak to
them about the project in London in June and from input from the HEA Steering Group, which
met by phone in December, March and July 2015.
9. In summary, our purposive sampling strategy enabled us to collect data from informed
individuals across the following categories:
Table 2.1: Categories of data collection
Category of respondent
Method
Responses
PVCs of learning and teaching
Online survey
32
Programme directors
Online survey
17
Targeted JISCMAIL groups
Online survey
23
Belfast conference attendees
Administered survey
40
Deans/PVCs of learning and teaching
Telephone interview
5
Programme directors
Telephone interview
12
Project advisory group
Focus group
4
Interdisciplinary Curriculum Group
Discussion
12
TOTAL
145
2.1. Challenges and limitations
The potential scope of this study was challenging: no one study could uncover every unit of
interdisciplinary provision in UK higher education. We recognise that research is almost always “a
matter of informed compromise” (Bechhofer and Paterson 2000, p. 71) and sought to address this
challenge with a research design based on a targeted sampling strategy, as described above.
A short, empirical study of this type16 relies to a great extent on the goodwill of strangers being
prepared to participate. In contrast to end-of-award evaluations of grant-funded research, for
example, such participants may feel no obligation to contribute their knowledge. We have, in this
study, experienced an unusually low response rate to one of our online surveys. Our Steering Group
speculated that this might have been because we were contacting potential respondents at a time
when a number of HEA studies were circulating surveys. Whatever the reason, as described in Section
2, we responded to this unexpected outcome by circulating alternative survey formats to a number of
other groups known to have an interest in this topic.
16 The project ran from December 2014 to June 2015.

18
3. Provision and pedagogies: opportunities for
interdisciplinarity. Literature review
Summary
This chapter reports on a review of the literature about interdisciplinary provision and the pedagogies
that might provide distinctive opportunities for interdisciplinarity.
We discern three common themes in existing research: descriptions of case studies presenting
implementation of interdisciplinary teaching projects; analyses of the outcomes and challenges of
interdisciplinary education; and discussions of the socio-cultural context of interdisciplinarity.
The scale of interdisciplinary provision indicated in the literature ranges from single workshops and
courses17 to certification programmes and Masters and PhD programmes.
Even though interdisciplinary courses, modules and programmes are conducted at every level of
university education, their goals and planned outcomes are quite diverse. Interdisciplinary
programmes and courses are most commonly (but not exclusively) available at the postgraduate
taught (PGT) level or during the senior years of undergraduate education. However, the literature is
not unequivocal with regards to the best locus of interdisciplinary education, especially regarding the
timing of the first interdisciplinary course in a student’s university experience.
Based on our analysis of the literature, we categorise teaching strategies that are variously termed
‘interdisciplinary’ into three groups: co-teaching, interactive methods and programme-level strategies.
3.1. Introduction
The literature on interdisciplinary teaching has been growing in recent years18 but is scattered across
both higher education and other discipline-specific journals. Moreover, articles dedicated solely to
interdisciplinary provision in higher education, especially in the UK context, remain relatively sparse.19
This observation, juxtaposed with the growing body of interdisciplinary courses and programmes
being implemented in the UK (as indicated by survey analysis presented in the following section),
might indicate that practical developments in the field are outpacing reflective analysis.
We discern three common themes in the existing research on this subject:
1. case studies presenting implementation of interdisciplinary teaching projects;
2. outcomes and challenges of interdisciplinary education;
3. socio-cultural context of interdisciplinarity.
The most extensive literature in the area of interdisciplinary teaching focuses on presenting case
studies of interdisciplinary projects. Such case studies present entire programmes or particular courses
and workshops. This strand of literature also focuses on particular teaching strategies and challenges
in the cases examined. Examples include projects combining different disciplines, for example, Biology
and Literature (Saunders and Ingalls 2013), Philosophy and Chemistry (Shibley 2006), Engineering
and Social Science (Spitzer 2013); or present multiple disciplinary perspectives on a single issue, for
example, climate change (Pharo
et al
. 2013) or sustainability (Liebert 2013; Willermet
et al
. 2013).
17 We have tried to use these terms unambiguously so that ‘course’ refers to a component module within a full degree
programme but the literature, our informants, (and possibly the research team itself) is not always consistent in this usage.
18 Search phrases connected to interdisciplinary teaching and learning yield up to 100,000 results in scholarly databases – see
Annex D for a quantitative summary of search results.
19 Even in the US with its much longer tradition of interdisciplinary teaching, the Association for Interdisciplinary Studies notes
that relatively little of the research on, what they term, the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) addresses
interdisciplinary teaching and learning (see: www.oakland.edu/ais/scholarship [Accessed 5 June 2015].

19
Disciplines that seem to generate more extensive literature on interdisciplinary teaching include
Medical Sciences, Law and Engineering.
The second theme in the literature covers issues connected to the diverse outcomes and challenges of
interdisciplinary education (Elliott
et al
. 2001). The literature within this strand covers a broad
spectrum of problems, for example, learning outcomes (Lattuca
et al
. 2004), institutional barriers
(Nerantzi 2012) or challenges to teachers’ co-operation (Perry and Stewart 2005; Pharo
et al
. 2012).
The third theme covers the broader context of interdisciplinarity. This includes institutional capabilities
as well as the social and cultural constraints on interdisciplinary teaching and learning. Literature
within this strand includes such themes as students’ educational journeys (Haynes and Leonard 2010)
or the socio-cultural context of institutions (Lattuca 2002).
As already noted, interdisciplinarity is a broad and complex phenomenon. As just one example,
Heckhausen (1972, pp. 87–9) categorises pedagogical approaches to interdisciplinarity into six types:
1. Indiscriminate interdisciplinarity: used in pre-university settings; sees one discipline as
dominating and others as auxiliary.
2. Pseudo-interdisciplinarity: when disciplines using the same tools claim to be interdisciplinary.
3. Auxiliary interdisciplinarity: when different disciplines use the same methodological
approaches to yield data; might lead to conflict, if data produced using methods from
different disciplines is not theoretically integrated into the main discipline.
4. Composite interdisciplinarity: when different disciplines are focusing on solving a single
problem.
5. Supplementary interdisciplinarity: when disciplines belonging to the same field overlap in
certain subject matters.
6. Unifying interdisciplinarity: when disciplines achieve consistency in subject matter, level of
theoretical integration and methods.
We have chosen to build on rather than replicate Chettiparamb’s (2007) earlier work by focusing this
literature review on applied developments in interdisciplinary teaching practice that address three key
themes:
scale and locus of provision;
drivers of interdisciplinarity;
strategies for interdisciplinary teaching.
3.2. Scale and locus of provision
The scale and locus of interdisciplinary provision are impacted by multiple pedagogical, strategic and
socio-cultural factors. There are several arguments supporting interdisciplinary education that are
influencing the design of interdisciplinary courses which Woods (2006) categorises as:
1. Educational benefits – the ability to critically assess one’s stand by viewing it from another
discipline’s point of view.
2. The reality of the modern workplace requiring multi-professional teamwork.
3. Global challenges (global warming, pandemics, international crime, migration, etc.) that
require critical thinking and holistic approaches.
These challenges might be addressed on multiple levels of academic education. The scale of
interdisciplinary provision indicated in the literature is quite extensive – ranging from single workshops
and courses to certification programmes and Masters and PhD programmes. Writing from a US
context, Klein (1990, p. 156) categorises interdisciplinary curricula into six groups:
1. Interdisciplinary universities;

20
2. Four-year undergraduate programmes;
3. Core-curricula and clustered courses;
4. Individual courses;
5. Independent studies;
6. Graduate and professional studies.
However, Blackmore and Kandiko (2012, p. 78) point out that the majority of UK institutions
traditionally opt for mono-disciplinary undergraduate degrees (with a few notable exceptions).
Even though interdisciplinary courses, modules and programmes are conducted at every level of
university education, their goals and planned outcomes are quite diverse, especially when comparing
undergraduate and postgraduate education, which differ in strategies used, approaches and planned
outcomes. Interdisciplinary programmes and courses are most commonly (but not exclusively)
available at the postgraduate taught (PGT) level or during the senior years of undergraduate
education (Holley 2009; Manathunga
et al
. 2006; Borrego and Newswander 2010; van Dam-Mieras
et
al
. 2007). However, the literature is not unequivocal with regards to the best locus of interdisciplinary
education, especially in terms of when is the best time for the first interdisciplinary course in a
student’s university experience.
For interdisciplinary education to be successful, many scholars claim that students need to be fluent in
their initial discipline in order to successfully integrate elements of different perspectives (e.g. Davies
and Devlin 2007; Derrick
et al
. 2012). Additionally, since interdisciplinary education is targeted at
practical problems, interdisciplinary courses using real-life settings require use of existing knowledge
and interaction with peers from different disciplinary backgrounds.
In contrast, some authors argue that early exposure to interdisciplinarity might be beneficial to
students, since at the beginning stages of their education they have not yet developed the language
their discipline speaks and are not fluent in the methods and paradigms of their disciple (Bentley
2007). Interdisciplinary courses, introduced before the disciplinary communication fully dominates
students’ lexicons, can be beneficial for students’ future development (MacKinnon
et al
. 2013).
MacKinnon
et al
. (2013) argue that introducing “bridging courses” early on in the undergraduate
curriculum might help students better understand the context of their discipline.
Nevertheless, a majority of interdisciplinary courses are carried out at the postgraduate level. Derrick
et al
. (2012) in their practical guide suggest that graduate education, itself, is more interdisciplinary,
since students are exposed to interdisciplinary research. At the same time, students in postgraduate
programmes still need to develop in-depth expertise in their discipline. Therefore, according to these
authors, graduate interdisciplinary education should be aimed at developing literacy across different
disciplines (Derrick
et al
. 2012).
3.3. Drivers of interdisciplinarity
From the literature we can identify several drivers for starting interdisciplinary programmes and
courses; we have classified these into the following five groups:20
1. Individual-level drivers;
2. University-level drivers;
3. External drivers;
4. Socio-cultural and economic drivers;
5. Evolution of the discipline.
20 These are not mutually exclusive, since in many cases there may be more than one driver for establishing or continuing
interdisciplinary programmes and courses.

21
Individual-level drivers of interdisciplinarity include cases where projects result from individual
inclination, such as personal friendships and co-operation between academics (e.g. Shibley 2006).
University-level drivers include projects initiated by the higher education institution’s regulations or
degree requirements, for example, the requirement that students take an upper-level writing class
with global perspective (Goodman and Huckfeldt 2013), or initiated by the university’s strategic focus
on interdisciplinarity (e.g. Buchbiner 2005).
This category of drivers includes external motivators, outside the university. Examples of drivers of
this kind include external sources of funding, such as the Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Traineeship (IGERT) programme in the US21 (e.g. Borrego
et al
. 2014; Borrego and
Newswander 2010; Manathunga
et al
. 2006). Other international external drivers of interdisciplinarity
include UNESCO’s Education for Sustainable Development initiative, which was a force behind
establishing the Interdisciplinary, Intercultural Masters Programme on Sustainability (van Dam-Mieras
et al
. 2007).
The fourth category includes drivers related to the socio-cultural and economic challenges of the
modern economy. Drivers of interdisciplinarity within this category include trends in education and
industrial workplaces, including the changing role of the university and the need to prepare graduates
for this changing and complex work environment (Elliott
et al
. 2001; Manathunga
et al
. 2006).
The last category includes development of the discipline as a driver of interdisciplinary teaching
(Dymond
et al
. 2009; Holley 2009; Yang 2009) where new disciplines (such as neuroscience,
environmental studies and synthetic biology) have evolved from precursor disciplines, primarily as a
result of interdisciplinary research collaborations.
3.4. Strategies for interdisciplinary teaching
Creating an interdisciplinary curriculum is a challenging task; OECD (1972) has delineated three
categories of challenges:
1. rigidity of institutional structures;
2. rigidity of people involved, including resistance offered by disciplinary frameworks;
3. lack of facilities.
Similarly, Chettiparamb (2007) categorises problems with interdisciplinary teaching into two groups:
institutional problems and people problems. The organisational culture of the university supports
disciplinary ways of thinking and behaving, with faculty implementing the interdisciplinary
programmes (usually) trained in specific disciplines (Woods 2006). An important human factor that
might impact the long-term success of the interdisciplinary course is the ability to successfully
introduce new co-teachers, in order to maintain the continuity of the course after the initial set of
academics establishing the interdisciplinary courses has moved on to other positions (e.g. Drake
et al
.
2008).
Important aspects of research practice are based on tacit knowledge, and therefore interdisciplinary
education is a challenging task for both students and teachers (Toynton 2005). Furthermore,
disciplines differ in the level of formalisation of the field but this may be less apparent to academics
trained in other disciplines. Additionally, some limitations are inherent to the discipline (Chettiparamb
2007). Therefore, while implementing interdisciplinary programmes, universities cannot ignore existing
structures and cultures (Borrego
et al
. 2014).
21 The National Science Foundation’s IGERT programme, established in 1998, has awarded approximately 100 grants worth 2-3
million dollars each to catalyse a cultural change in graduate education and promote interdisciplinarity.

22
Empirical case studies confirm these challenges. Van Dam-Mieras
et al
. (2007) identify institutional
inflexibility and differences in understanding of concepts and goals as key obstacles in implementing
an international Masters degree in sustainability. Multiple studies have shown the crucial role of
institutional support in the success of interdisciplinary programmes and courses (e.g. Burgett
et al
.
2011; Drake
et al
. 2008; Orillion 2009). Correspondingly, Holley (2009) has named the disciplinary
structure of the university as one of the most important factors impacting the implementation of an
interdisciplinary curriculum in neuroscience. One of the challenges in creating an interdisciplinary
curriculum is setting goals that would be understood and agreed upon by academics from different
disciplines, and by students who are more accustomed to disciplinary settings within the university. In
the case of the graduate programme in neuroscience, students have pointed out a lack of
understanding of the goals of the programme and advisors from different disciplines, and a lack of
institutional support to mitigate these challenges (Holley 2009).
Therefore, a successful interdisciplinary curriculum should be aimed at mitigating the institutional and
personal challenges of interdisciplinarity on the one hand, and fulfilling specific learning objectives
expected from interdisciplinary education on the other. At the same time, there are no unified
guidelines for creating the interdisciplinary curriculum. In their systematic review of the
interdisciplinary projects within nursing programmes at UK universities, Cooper
et al
. (2001) have
pointed out that most projects do not have any theoretical underpinning behind the decisions to use
specific methods in teaching courses.
Interdisciplinary courses pose a challenging task for both the teacher and the students. The students
might have to take a second subject that they are not fully prepared to study, might not speak the
language of the discipline or might not have the aptitude to study it (Davies and Devlin 2007).
Additionally, in order to achieve fluency in interdisciplinary inquiry, students have to develop both
qualitative and quantitative forms of reasoning (Hothem 2013).
Also, as argued by Orillion (2009), there is a difference in understanding of what defines disciplines
and interdisciplinarity. Disciplines are largely understood in terms of theories and methodologies, while
interdisciplinarity is defined by a process of synthesis (Klein 2010b). Szostak (2007) claims that,
because the essence of interdisciplinary learning is teaching students how to integrate different
theories and methods, therefore the process of learning should be different from a strictly disciplinary
one, where students learn fewer different theories and methods, but go more in depth in
understanding of them. Just learning broadly about multiple different topics will not be beneficial to
the student, unless they learn how to integrate knowledge (Szostak 2007). In response to critics who
claim that interdisciplinary studies are not rigorous, Szostak contends that:
The rigor in interdisciplinarity can only come from knowing how, why, and what to
integrate
(Szostak 2007, p. 4).
Spelt (2014, 2009) discusses a set of “enabling conditions” that have an impact on achieving the
objective of developing the ability of interdisciplinary thinking among students. These include (Spelt
et
al
. 2014, p. 4):
personal characteristics;
prior experiences;
teacher;
pedagogy;
learning process pattern;
learning activities;
assessment.
These characteristics of interdisciplinary teaching, and the set of specific challenges they pose, may
lead to the development of specific groups of techniques, helping academics to design effective
interdisciplinary courses. The design of an interdisciplinary course will have an impact on the extent of

23
the dialogue between disciplines. Bentley (2007), in her case studies of interdisciplinary education in
teaching literature, has pointed out that the relationship between disciplines might be passive or
active. In passive interdisciplinary teaching, one discipline is used to simply illustrate the other (for
example, Art and Literature) or is presented as the other point of view, but still with one teacher
present in the classroom. Such approaches can lead to exploitation or silencing of one discipline by
the other (Bentley 2007, p. 12). The more active approach to the exchange between disciplines occurs
when both disciplines are represented in the classroom, for example by co-teaching. This allows for
both disciplines to have more equal power and persuasion.
Nikitina (2006) categorises interdisciplinary teaching strategies in three groups, based on the type of
inquiry: contextualising, conceptualising, and problem solving. Contextualising is a strategy used in
Humanities, and it includes analysing facts and theories in the cultural, ideological and historical
context. Conceptualising is most common in disciplines based on the integrative type of inquiry.
Problem solving is most common in disciplines that are focused on practical applications of the
scientific inquiry.
Similarly, Blackmore and Kandiko (2012, p. 78) argue that approaches to interdisciplinarity vary across
disciplines. They call the Humanities and Social Science models ‘self-contained’, as different
disciplinary perspectives are integrated within one honours degree. On the other hand, sciences and
some of the social sciences are operating within an ‘externalised model’, where disciplinary knowledge
is explored to create new knowledge.
Based on our analysis of the literature, we categorise teaching strategies that are variously termed
‘interdisciplinary’ into three groups (Table 3.1), which we now discuss in turn.
Table 3.1: Synthesis of interdisciplinary teaching strategies and pedagogical techniques
Strategy
Pedagogical techniques
Co-teaching
Advanced planning and negotiation with co-teacher
Co-advising with industry representatives
Taking turns in teaching
Creating learning community
Co-creation of syllabus and case studies
Interactive methods
Project-based learning (PBL)
Case study methods
Role-playing
Simulations
Virtual methods
Peer-assessment and review
Peer-assisted Learning (PAL)
Small-group teaching
Programme-level
strategies
Interdisciplinary electives
Core courses covering material from different perspectives
Research conducted for the initial stages of graduate school
3.4.1.
Co-teaching
The first group of strategies used in interdisciplinary education can be categorised as co-teaching or
team teaching techniques. There are three types of team teaching as indicated by Perry and Stewart
(2005, p. 564) based on Sandholtz (2000):
1. two or more teachers loosely sharing responsibilities;
2. team planning, but individual instruction;
3. joint planning, instruction, and evaluation of learning experience.

24
Courses taught by teachers from different disciplines pose a specific set of challenges. Shearer
categorizes the problems with designing an interdisciplinary module into three categories (Shearer
2007, p. 7):
1. content – how to combine the depth of the discipline with time constraints;
2. assessment – how to combine the different ways disciplines evaluate knowledge;
3. practical arrangements – how to organise work and interaction between people from different
departments.
There are pedagogical differences between disciplines, including different understanding of teaching
methods, learning outcomes and assessment objectives and criteria. Knights and Willmott (1997)
identify two approaches to interdisciplinary teaching. The first one is ‘mechanistic pooling’, where two
or more teachers with different disciplinary backgrounds present one issue from different perspectives
to create a fuller picture of the issue at hand. The second approach is ‘systematic colonization’, where
teachers with grounding in one discipline gradually expand their expertise to issues traditionally
assigned to other disciplines. Differences in pedagogical styles and approaches to interdisciplinarity
between teachers should not be ignored, since they might sometimes lead to the failure of the
interdisciplinary courses (see e.g. Shibley 2006).
As indicated by Perry and Stewart (2005), effective partnerships in interdisciplinary teaching are based
on three components: experience; personality and working style; and beliefs about learning. These
authors argue that the ‘experience’ element of partnership is usually the easiest one to fix, since it
generally improves with time. Differences in personality and teaching style might be more
problematic; however, partners can make adjustments to improve their working relationship. Perry
and Stewart (2005) argue that the most complex and important component of successful teacher co-
operation in interdisciplinary projects is shared belief about learning. This includes shared pedagogical
philosophy and perception of roles and expectations (Perry and Stewart 2005, p. 527).
One of the main strategies indicated in the literature to mitigate potential conflicts and to increase
chances of successful implementation of interdisciplinary teaching projects is spending a sufficient
amount of time on planning the course to cover as much detail as possible (Shibley 2006). Some
issues that should be covered in the planning stage of the interdisciplinary course include: negotiating
teaching approaches, assessment criteria and responsibility for grading (van Dam-Mieras
et al
. 2007),
and relationships between different disciplinary approaches on the way to achieving the learning
objective of the course (Saunders and Ingalls 2013).
3.4.2.
Interactive teaching strategies
The second group of interdisciplinary teaching strategies is focused on innovative, interactive methods
of teaching in order to achieve learning outcomes that are quite difficult to develop and evaluate.
Shearer underlines two main themes in the literature on interdisciplinarity (Shearer 2007, pp. 5–6):
1. connections – synthesizing and integrating perspectives from different disciplines;
2. perspective taking – developing the ability to look at the problem from the other discipline’s
perspective.
Pedagogical strategies associated with interdisciplinary education are based on active learning, in
order to promote higher-order critical-thinking skills (Chettiparamb 2007), since interdisciplinary
courses are usually targeted at such results as improved critical thinking, meta-cognitive reflection,
problem-solving and analysis, self-direction or synthetic thinking skills (Haynes and Leonard 2010).
These expectations have been partially confirmed in experimental studies on interdisciplinary learning.
In the experiment conducted by Elliott
et al
. (2001), two groups of students took either an
interdisciplinary or a traditional algebra class. The results of the study show that interdisciplinary
teaching had no effect on problem-solving skills, compared to traditional teaching techniques, but
students who took the interdisciplinary class showed higher scores in critical-thinking skills and
attitudes toward learning. Remington-Doucette
et al
.’s (2013) study has shown that participating in an
interdisciplinary course in sustainability had different impacts on the skills of students from different

25
disciplinary backgrounds. Business majors did not improve in any of the measured competencies,
sustainability majors improved in systems thinking competence, and sustainability minors showed
improvement across all competencies (Remington-Doucette
et al
. 2013).
Yang (2009) proposes that interdisciplinary education should be outcome-based. Educators planning
interdisciplinary education ought to define the learning outcomes first and then choose teaching and
assessment methods targeted at providing such outcomes. Van der Waldt (2014, p. 182) names the
following skills as possible outcomes in interdisciplinary outcome-based curriculum design:
collecting, analysing, organising and critically evaluating information;
using science and technology effectively and critically, showing responsibility towards the
environment and the health of others;
demonstrating an understanding of the world as a set of related systems by recognising that
problem-solving contexts do not exist in isolation;
participating as responsible citizens in the life of local, national and global communities;
being culturally and aesthetically sensitive across a wide range of social contexts.
Spelt (2014, 2009) has indicated that in order for interdisciplinary education to achieve planned
outcomes, it is necessary for students to master five sub-skills:
having knowledge of disciplines;
having knowledge of disciplinary paradigms;
having knowledge of interdisciplinarity;
higher-order cognitive skills;
communication skills.
These skills are considered to be ‘sub-skills’, since they represent an intermediate stage in outcome-
based learning, necessary for the course convenors to identify teaching, learning and assessing
strategies to achieve outcomes (Spelt
et al
. 2014, p. 4).
The methods aimed at developing higher-order critical thinking skills can be categorised in two groups
– imitating real-life settings and aimed at group learning.22 The first group of teaching strategies takes
advantage of real-world complexities and are highly dependent on students’ individual efforts.
Methods that have been used in interdisciplinary teaching projects include project-based learning,
case study methods (Buchbinder
et al
. 2005; Goodman and Huckfeldt 2013; Yang 2009), simulation
and role-playing (Balsiger 2015). The second category of methods takes advantage of the group
setting of teaching interdisciplinary courses, usually consisting of students trained in different
disciplines. Projects realised in this stream of research have included such techniques as: peer-review,
peer-assessment, conferences, group projects (Manathunga
et al
. 2006), peer-assessed learning
(Saunders
et al
. 2012) and small group teaching (Cooper
et al
. 2001). Interdisciplinary education is
also a field of exploration of new educational technologies, such as virtual learning (van Dam-Mieras
et al
. 2007). In interdisciplinary courses, interactive techniques might be adapted by a more ‘passive’
discipline. For example, Zartner (2009) names the following methods from Law education used in
Political Science: IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion), court cases, fact patterns (simulations),
and moot court.
3.4.3.
Programme-level strategies
The third category of strategies in interdisciplinary teaching involves the design of the entire
interdisciplinary programme. Blackmore and Kandiko (2012, p. 79) point out that the most common
approach to including interdisciplinarity in the undergraduate curriculum is to condense the traditional,
disciplinary courses and offer additional, interdisciplinary courses. As a result, interdisciplinary courses
may be seen as taking away from the rigorous core curriculum.
22 These two groups might overlap.

26
At the programme level, interdisciplinary education strategies involve core courses covering
knowledge from different disciplinary approaches, interdisciplinary electives and practical
implementation of knowledge from the early stages of graduate education, for example, laboratory
research and joining research teams (Holley 2009).
Teaching strategies addressed in the literature are consistent with the guidelines found in the
QAA/HEA (2014) report on using an interdisciplinary approach in teaching sustainability. The methods
delineated in that report include:
case studies;
stimulus activities;
simulation;
experiential project work;
problem-based learning.
The authors of the report underline the importance of the real-life setting of interdisciplinary
education in the area of sustainability, for example by including real-life examples in case studies,
simulations and PBL, story-telling in stimulus activities, and community involvement in experimental
project work.
These programme-level strategies are clearly present in the Melbourne Model and the University of
Aberdeen’s Sixth-Century Courses, mentioned in the introduction to this report, and in the University
College London's Arts and Sciences BASc described in Section 5. We will, however, return to the
question of whether such curriculum enhancement initiatives might truly be termed ‘interdisciplinary’
or whether the broader description of ‘integrative learning’ is more apt, in Section 6.
4. Scale of interdisciplinary provision: results
from surveys and interviews
Summary
This chapter reports on empirical data from surveys and interviews to indicate the scale of current and
anticipated future interdisciplinary provision.
Institutional context and current provision
Interdisciplinary learning and teaching is an explicit component of many institutional strategies. It is a
‘live’ topic at the leadership level within HEIs where nearly three-quarters of PVC respondents report
engaging in these discussions and one third report an increase in proposals for interdisciplinary
programmes (not simply modules). This overall awareness of institutional context and provision is
somewhat less evident at the level of the individual academic.
When asked about current interdisciplinary provision, nearly half of PVC respondents estimate that
their institutions have more than five interdisciplinary undergraduate programmes and a quarter
claimed more than ten. Shifting the focus to PGT, almost half of the same group again estimate more
than five programmes. However, this time only 15% estimated more than ten and a quarter of these
PVC respondents replied that there are
no
explicitly interdisciplinary taught postgraduate degree
programmes at their institution currently.
Drivers
There were marked differences in perspectives regarding the drivers for interdisciplinary provision
with university leaders highlighting professional/vocational needs and graduate employability while
academics at the level of programme director predominantly identify championing by individual
academics and the need to align teaching with complex societal issues as the main drivers. About half
of each group identifies alignment with research directions.

27
Scope of interdisciplinary provision
The ‘scope’ of current interdisciplinary provision in terms of academic areas bridged suggests that this
is predominantly an activity encompassing Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences although other
combinations do certainly occur (e.g. Natural Science/Social Science bridging was seen by well over a
third of our respondents).
Pedagogy
Interdisciplinary education was seen to manifest itself in a range of pedagogical activities although
what is termed ‘interdisciplinary’ education is not necessarily integrated throughout every aspect of a
programme and we find mixed views among our respondents as to whether provision labelled
‘interdisciplinary’ is, in actuality, an aggregate of different pre-existing modules from different courses,
with only one or two new modules designed to be integrative. Interdisciplinary competences gained
by students were variously identified as an ability to synthesise, appreciation of diverse perspectives,
and flexible, critical thinking.
Challenges
The degree of challenge in effecting this type of culture change is indicated by the fact that nearly
three-quarters of programme director respondents agreed that most academic staff simply wish to
teach their usual modules in familiar subjects and not become involved in synthesis. Opinion was
almost equally divided on the extent to which it was primarily the student’s responsibility to integrate
the various contributions of different teachers/modules in an ‘interdisciplinary’ programme.
Assessment was clearly a particular challenge for interdisciplinary programmes as were various
administrative problems such as the logistics of timetabling and resource allocation, not least the
equitable distribution of teaching ‘credit’.
Opportunities and advantages
Opinion was equally divided among programme director respondents as to whether their institution
was likely to reward their leadership of an interdisciplinary educational programme. Yet, nearly all
agree that they and colleagues feel a “sense of excitement” when teaching an interdisciplinary
programme; new thinking has been stimulated and research activity has been influenced. As well as
the intellectual benefits for students, respondents commented on increased employability.
Likely institutional trends
Across all respondents, most feel that the level of interdisciplinary educational provision has increased
at their institution over the past five years although a significant proportion believe that the level is
unchanged. Programme directors are more likely to report this increase than academic leaders.
Looking to the future of interdisciplinary educational provision at their institution over the next five
years, most respondents expect the level to increase. Programme directors envisioned a much higher
proportion of interdisciplinary education in five years’ time at both undergraduate and postgraduate
levels than did academic leaders. Perhaps the most striking differences between PVC and programme
director respondents lie in the latter’s generally greater expectations for postgraduate interdisciplinary
education (taught or research), and far lower expectation for interdisciplinarity in
professional/vocational courses.
Professional capacity-building
Finally, we explored the extent to which academics, academic development staff, and academic
leaders are prepared for such changes. There was near unanimity among all respondents that access
to a body of good practice in interdisciplinary provision would be beneficial but this contrasts sharply
with current reality where, for example, only a quarter of programme director respondents and a third
of PVC respondents said that their institution’s staff development support explicitly included
interdisciplinary teaching. Suggestions for appropriate support that would help staff to be more

28
effective in interdisciplinary teaching included access to research and good practice (e.g. in the form
of case studies), skills development (e.g. through organisation of masterclasses or tutor training),
funding for trials and test projects, and more formalised institutionalised support (for example, the
inclusion of interdisciplinarity in PGCHE provision).
4.1. Institutional context and current provision
Despite the limited numbers noted in the previous chapter, thoughtful programme director
respondents provided interesting insights drawing upon a range of types of hands-on experience.
When we asked them about the nature of their programmes:23
82%24 said it was aimed at taught postgraduates (PGT);
41% at undergraduates (UG);
24% at research postgraduates (PGR).
In terms of institutional span (Chart 4.1):25
only one of these programmes spanned the entire university;
half primarily involved two colleges/faculties/schools;
a quarter involved at least two departments;
just under one-fifth included at least two different sub-disciplines within one school/department.
Chart 4.1: Interdisciplinary ‘span’ as seen by programme directors
Interdisciplinary teaching/educational provision does appear in many institutional strategies. When
PVC respondents were asked about their institutional strategies, two-thirds said that interdisciplinary
teaching/educational provision is an explicit component while just slightly more (72%) said that
interdisciplinary
research
is an explicit component of their institutional strategies.26 Similarly, just
under two-thirds of programme director respondents agreed although – unlike the PVC respondents –
nearly a quarter were not sure. Again, a similar picture was given by programme director respondents
23 Respondents could select more than one option
24 Throughout this analysis, when referring to any of the surveys, percentages are given in relation to number of responses to a
particular question.
25 Selected charts are included in this Section; the full set is included in Annex E.
26 Of course the sample choosing to respond to a survey on interdisciplinarity is self-selecting and may well be particularly likely
to come from institutions where interdisciplinarity is an emphasis.

29
as to interdisciplinary research being an explicit component of institutional strategy, with a slightly
higher level of agreement at over two-thirds although still nearly a quarter not sure.
The emphasis on interdisciplinarity would seem to go beyond ‘paper’ as nearly three-quarters of the
PVC respondents and over half of the programme director respondents agree that there is frequent
discussion about the challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinary teaching; it is a ‘live’ topic at
their institutions. It would seem that PVC respondents’ overview may often give them sight of more
discussions than those seen by an individual academic.
Again drawing upon their ‘overview perspectives’, PVC respondents were asked about interdisciplinary
educational activity at their institutions. A third of PVC respondents are seeing an increase in
proposals for interdisciplinary programmes (not simply modules); more than a quarter disagree, with
the rest neutral.
When asked for an estimate of how many of their institution’s current undergraduate degree
programmes (not individual modules) are explicitly interdisciplinary, nearly half of PVC respondents
estimate that their institutions have more than five interdisciplinary undergraduate programmes (Chart
4.2).
Chart 4.2: Number of interdisciplinary undergraduate programmes, estimated by
PVCs
When asked to estimate the number of taught postgraduate programmes at their institution (Chart
4.3), 44% of PVC respondents also estimated more than five programmes. However, only 15%
estimated more than ten. Interestingly, a full quarter of PVC respondents replied that there are
no
explicitly interdisciplinary taught postgraduate degree programmes at their institution, distinctly more
than the 15% who saw no such undergraduate programmes.

30
Chart 4.3: Number of interdisciplinary taught postgraduate programmes,
estimated by PVCs
Some PVC interviewees observed differences between interdisciplinary provision at undergraduate and
taught postgraduate levels. So, for example, one commented that although, when innovative
interdisciplinary modules were launched at their institution, the market originally envisioned was
undergraduate, at least a third of the students are taught postgraduates. Some would suggest that
postgraduates might tend to be particularly motivated to make the most of elements of their degree
programme, such as interdisciplinary project experiences. Commitment to interdisciplinarity is not
necessarily the key driver:
The taught postgraduate market is very interested in this sort of additional
accomplishment – not interdisciplinarity so much as taking advantage of additional
certificated opportunities.
(PVC interviewee).
Another PVC interviewee differentiated between interdisciplinarity at the two levels on the basis of
‘protecting’ undergraduates from getting a degree in a new area that might not stand the test of time:
[At our university] we focus on design of interdisciplinarity at the Masters level; we are
not sure of the long-lasting nature of interdisciplinarity at the undergraduate level … we
encourage interdisciplinarity that is novel (even if) potentially short-lived at the Masters
level. The ones I feel comfortable about are the ones that help someone with a crossover
point to a new profession, a career switch … then your value is defined by your
profession and the name of the Masters won’t matter.
(PVC interviewee).
Masters programmes, if specifically designed to be interdisciplinary, have the opportunity to be more
than a simple aggregate of modules or lectures from different fields; they can have an ‘emergent
outcome’ from synthesis. One example provided was an MSc in International Animal Welfare, bringing
in ethics and Law to what might otherwise be a Veterinary Science topic; another was a combination
of Business and Environmental Studies in what was then a new area, carbon management.
Individual undergraduate modules or sub-units do not bear the same ‘responsibility’ as a named
degree programme; indeed experiences and skills gained within them can contribute to employability
(for instance helping graduates to be comfortable working with people from other disciplines, in
teams) and to intellectual benefits (‘interdisciplinarity can liven things up, open students’ eyes’).
Multiple disciplines can allow students to take such modules, which thus provide a service broadly
within an institution. Modules may take the form of experiential learning, such as problem solving in
the community, or they may have an intellectual focus that is an emergent outcome of several fields
coming together.

31
As illustrated by our case studies (Section 5), interdisciplinary undergraduate education can take on
many forms, ranging from one or a few interdisciplinary modules to a comprehensively designed
degree programme. A few, such as the University of Manchester's University College for
Interdisciplinary Learning, are even identified as ‘colleges’ within an institution. Programme directors
talk in different ways about the purpose or ethos of their programmes. One, for instance, used the
metaphor of a ‘passport’ across existing structures, noting that:
We place a lot of emphasis on a degree giving a student a passport to current offerings
in [different] departments. They can opt for majors that mostly map onto existing
departments [or] within hard constraints of necessary prerequisites, students can take
pretty much whatever is on offer, rather than creating a new curriculum.
(ProgDir
interviewee).
As an example of a different format, one with an interdisciplinary ‘spine’, another programme,
described as somewhere between a UK model and the US liberal arts model that inspired the
university’s senior leader on a visit to US institutions, offers four core units (two in each of the first
two years) for all its liberal arts students, with the core units themselves interdisciplinary, asking ‘the
big questions’, and taught by people from various departments. Each student also chooses a major, or
‘pathway’, after having the opportunity to explore two possible pathways in the first year. Promoted
as having “coherence, focus and rationale”, and providing a unique set of skills and knowledge, this
programme still offers students a great deal of flexibility. (This programme can be taken as a three-
year degree or a four-year integrated Masters, with the third year abroad.)
Somewhat similarly, a European liberal education programme, based on the American model, includes
an interdisciplinary core with four obligatory courses that teach students to do and reflect upon
interdisciplinary work (along with some distribution requirements to think about different ways of
knowing). Time and staff-intensive, core courses in small groups include a writing course within which
essays are to develop connected thinking, a course on how different perspectives look at a
complicated topic like globalisation, and genuinely interdisciplinary research projects. Students
interview researchers in their home departments about epistemologies, ethics and so on; students
become much more aware of their own specialisation from a meta-perspective. Reflection is a key
component of the approach, for instance students develop portfolios of writing:
We want them to reflect on what they are doing; the main goal is interdisciplinary
awareness, doing and thinking about why they are doing this.
(ProgDir interviewee).
Another programme director explicitly includes reflection in a third year dissertation module, which
involves an extended thought piece reflecting on the students’ major and hinterland of other subjects
they looked at, looking at approaches more than topics; but individual reflection alone is not the
culmination:
The final step is bringing people back together in smaller group projects across different
majors – the endpoint is you do talk to people doing different things and you need to put
the project together. Students do appreciate that this resembles real life, that most jobs
involve working collaboratively and being aware of others’ interests
. (ProgDir interviewee).
There is a sense that some students are more prone than others to taking up interdisciplinary or
otherwise innovative offerings (as indeed is the case for some academics in providing them):
I think I am recognising and rewarding the kind of students who would have done these
kinds of things anyway.
(ProgDir interviewee).
Another suggestion is that disciplinary background of postgraduate students matters: depending on
their undergraduate degree, some “find it easier to hit the ground running.” Another observation from
one of our interviewees is that individuals may be more receptive to interdisciplinarity at different
stages in their lives.
Interdisciplinarity may well be mentioned but not necessarily emphasised or empowered in
institutional strategies, as many programme directors would observe. Yet, some universities seek

32
educational innovation, which may include but not be limited to interdisciplinarity. PVC interviewees,
for example, may see interrelationships between interdisciplinarity, project-based learning and/or
problem-solving outwith academia. At one university, selected PhD students come up with an
interdisciplinary module, so that, as well as their students, they are themselves gaining unusual
experience. In this context, collaboration and team working are often cited as important career skills,
including appreciation of others’ skills and ability to communicate and operate within group dynamics,
or indeed to ‘cope with uncertainty’. It may be that institutions devoted to the Arts are especially open
to interdisciplinarity in some forms, as many endeavours in the Arts require people from different
backgrounds working together, and indeed some may see natural connections between creativity and
a sensibility, an appreciation that “not everyone thinks in the same way.”
4.2. Drivers
Different perspectives were sought as to the drivers that have led to interdisciplinary provision at
either or both undergraduate and postgraduate.27 There were striking differences in the weighting
placed on these drivers among the four groups of respondents across our combined dataset (Chart
4.4).
Among those PVC respondents who claimed more than zero interdisciplinary programmes at their
institutions, two drivers stood out as selected by about two-thirds of the PVC respondents:
professional/vocational needs;
employability.
Yet, a third or less of programme director respondents selected these as drivers leading to their
programme.
The two drivers most often selected by programme director respondents were each chosen by nearly
three-quarters:
alignment with complex societal issues;
championing by individual academics.
Interestingly, just half of PVC respondents selected these drivers.
The Belfast conference respondents appeared to have a perspective quite similar to that of PVC
respondents. Their most frequently selected driver was:
employability.
This was followed by:
championing by individual academics;
professional/vocational needs.
In interview, PVCs are aware of the difference between drivers for interdisciplinary
research
and for
interdisciplinary
education
:
Academics are naturally quite conservative; they tend to stick tightly to what they know
and are not as bold in general as you think they might be in going beyond their area of
comfort, in both teaching and research. In research, there are funders saying
interdisciplinarity must happen; that is not true in teaching, so it is not happening
. (PVC
interviewee).
27 Respondents were presented with a list and could select as many as they thought applicable.

33
Chart 4.4: Drivers of interdisciplinarity (full dataset
n
= 112)
4.3. Scope of interdisciplinary provision
The ‘scope’ of interdisciplinary provision was explored in terms of the academic areas bridged. When
PVC respondents who had claimed one or more interdisciplinary programmes were provided with an
array of interdisciplinary combinations, and asked to tick all that apply at their institution, just two
were selected by more than half:
Humanities/Social Science;
Arts/Humanities.
The next most often selected were:
Arts/Social Science (50%);

34
Social Science/Social Science (45%);
Natural Science/Social Science (40%).
No other combination was selected by more than a quarter of the PVC respondents. Although of
course dependent upon the nature of the institutions of those who replied, this picture of relative
types of interdisciplinary bridging is a thought-provoking snapshot.
By virtue of their roles, programme director respondents were focused on a particular ‘bridging’
situation within their own programme. Only one type of interdisciplinary combination was selected by
more than half (64%) of the programme director respondents:
Humanities/Social Science.
The only other two frequently selected combinations (each at 43%) were:
Natural Science/Social Science;
Natural Science/Humanities.
No other combination was selected by over 30% of programme director respondents, although two
were selected by more than a quarter (29%):
Arts/Humanities;
Arts/Social Science.
4.4. Pedagogy
What is called interdisciplinary education is not necessarily integrated in an innovative way throughout
every aspect of a programme. Indeed, nearly half of the PVC respondents agreed that “the provision
labelled ‘interdisciplinary’ at my institution is actually an aggregate of different pre-existing modules
from different courses, with only one or two new modules tailored to be integrative.” Less than a third
disagreed (Chart 4.5).
Chart 4.5: Integration through only one or two new modules, as seen by
programme directors
Programme director respondents were split evenly between two quite different approaches to
interdisciplinary provision, with 47% agreeing and 47% disagreeing with the statement that, in their
own case “primarily, my interdisciplinary programme is integrated by one or two new modules tailored
to be interdisciplinary across an aggregate of different pre-existing modules from different courses.”

35
Whatever the technique used for integration, there was near unanimity among programme director
respondents that participating academics had collaborated in planning/designing the programme. In
terms of actual teaching of the programme, more than two-thirds of the programme director
respondents said that participating academics taught both jointly and individually, with just 6% saying
they taught jointly and a full quarter saying the academics taught only individually (Chart 4.6).
Chart 4.6: Degree of joint teaching as seen by programme directors
Interdisciplinary education was seen to manifest itself in a range of pedagogical activities, with
individual programme director respondents utilising multiple activities (Chart 4.7).
Chart 4.7: Manifestation of interdisciplinarity as seen by programme directors
Learning goals were described briefly in free text by nearly all programme director respondents.
Words like “integration” and “connect” were used. Some programme director respondents stressed
the necessity of diversity in approaches to tackling complexity in the real world, for example, one

36
programme “aims to bring different approaches to bear” on key issues, another cites “need for
understanding from a variety of perspectives” and another programme’s “aim is to address key global
challenges, which therefore need the strengths of different disciplines.” Other programme director
respondents emphasised development of intellectual capabilities, for example, seeking “to develop the
conceptual, theoretical and methodological tools” to examine a complex phenomenon. Another
programme director respondent noted “the ability to engage with and understand/harness literature
and academic modes of enquiry used in different disciplines. Understanding how different disciplinary
approaches (e.g. Art) can question, critique and communicate science.”
Five innovative pedagogical methods were explored through a survey question. The programmes of
roughly half of the programme director respondents make use of:
‘flipped learning’ (with individual students receiving direct instruction in their own time/space and
classroom time spent on activities, etc.);
‘learning to learn’ (‘double-loop learning’ that includes both solving a problem/learning and
reflecting on that process).
Some programme director respondents replied in free text to a question asking for any special
interdisciplinary competencies gained by students in their programme. Answers emphasised:
ability to synthesise (e.g. “synthesis”, “breadth of academic experience in marshalling complex
information/ideas”);
appreciation of diverse perspectives (e.g. “appreciation of different understandings”, “the ability to
look at a problem from multiple facets”, “ability to work across cultures”, “receptive to other’s
views, respect for different expertise, ability to work in teams”);
flexible, critical thinking (e.g. “creativity, reflection”, “thinking out of the silo”, “abililty to think fast
and critically across a wide range of problem solving situations – of very different natures”).
There is a sense from our interviews that individuals who develop interdisciplinary provision are
‘passionate’ about doing so, particularly as they are often pioneering champions working against the
status quo:
There is a small group of (academics) who are the innovators, who think
interdisciplinarity is exciting, and some others are really devoted to undergraduate
students and think interdisciplinarity is a part of their education.
(ProgDir interviewee).
Yet, by definition, other academics will often be drawn in who may or may not be deeply immersed in
interdisciplinarity. And indeed within one institution aiming for interdisciplinarity, there is likely to be a
range of courses; one was described as having “a few close to genuinely interdisciplinary, most multi-
disciplinary and some disciplinary reaching out to particular audiences.”
Some PVC interviewee comments related to the need for development of staff/good practice, even
though the top level of the university may not prioritise this:
[In academic development] there is a real need for capacity-building in interdisciplinary
education. People are pushed and stretched in terms of doing things differently. There is
a need for people to come in and work with academics in developing a curriculum to
become interdisciplinary. It feels far too big and scary, and academics need a bit of
handholding, some real guidance in what it could look like, and practical help in
modifying programmes and building new programmes. Once you’ve got to that point, you
can make a business case for staff members to teach more. Just getting off the ground
and getting over the inertia (is difficult)… there are some people who are willing -- if we
made it easy for them to do, they would say “yes I can see the value in this, let’s give it a
go”, but they are very often shouted down by those saying we (already) have enough to
work on.
(PVC interviewee).
In terms of pedagogical practices, one PVC interviewee observed:

37
There can be a slightly misplaced arrogance that if people are doing interdisciplinary
research, they can do interdisciplinary teaching. There is a lot to do to help people do
this and reflect on it. We don’t do enough, although there is some sharing of good
practice
(PVC interviewee)
PVC interviewees did not cite existing formal internal or external staff development in
interdisciplinarity, but when asked if there was even an informal ‘club’ of leaders interested in
interdisciplinary education, some PVCs (and programme directors) referred to informal networks
where issues and practices are shared across universities (and where external examiners sensitive to
issues can be found). “It turns out we are all struggling in the same way.” For example, the
Interdisciplinary Curriculum Group meets perhaps twice a year; another group, the Combined Honours
Network, brings together individuals leading ‘combined honours’ programmes. While centred in the
UK, both have international members. Indeed, liberal arts activity has been increasing within Europe.
A new network, ELAN (European Liberal Arts Network) is in the process of being established, and may
involve exchanges, workshops and so on. Another international consortium is ECOLAS (European
Colleges of Liberal Arts and Sciences). Setting up interdisciplinary provision can be lonely work, with
pioneers sometimes feeling like a beleaguered few (albeit growing in number); such an informal group
is welcome, as “a collective of like-minded people who can support one another in setting up these
interdisciplinary ventures.”
There is real interest in various interdisciplinary endeavours learning from each other and in
interdisciplinarity becoming much more widely acknowledged as a positive within UK education. As
one programme director interviewee reflected:
Our job is transformative learning, and interdisciplinarity is at the heart of that. We
should create as many opportunities as we can. We should not force it into a national
curriculum. In some ways it should be a programme learning outcome – to create
opportunities to think in different ways… I would like to see the Higher Education
Academy try to promote this as a really important virtue of both undergraduate and
postgraduate work… I would love to see the research community do studies on this.
(ProgDir interviewee).
4.5. Teaching challenges and issues
Challenges and issues that arise in interdisciplinary teaching were explored, particularly through free
text comments. As a central challenge, interdisciplinary integration is not automatic; it takes effort.
Programme director respondents sometimes indicated this in free text; for example:
In my view interdisciplinarity is exceptionally difficult to operationalise in practice … it is
hard work.
So-called interdisciplinary teaching is much harder to establish than single-discipline. It
takes more resources, more time, staff excellence and political will at the point of delivery
(not just senior management levels).
Amost three-quarters of the programme director respondents believe that
it takes significant effort by the leader/management group of an interdisciplinary
programme to bring together different fields’ epistemologies, theories of knowledge and
teaching approaches.
The degree of this challenge is indicated by the fact that nearly three-quarters of the programme
director respondents agreed that
Even when part of an interdisciplinary programme, most academic staff simply wish to
teach their usual modules in familiar subjects and not become involved in synthesis.
So, for example, most (80%) of the programme director respondents agreed that it is important to
gather participating staff together at least once a year to focus on issues specific to interdisciplinarity.
Views were split almost evenly as to the student’s responsibility for integration. Nearly as many

38
agreed (40%) as disagreed (47%) that primarily, it is the student’s responsibility to integrate the
various contributions of different teachers/modules in the programme.
Assessment can be challenging for interdisciplinary provision. Well over half of the programme
director respondents agreed that “assessment of students” work poses a particular problem for
interdisciplinary programmes, because assessment criteria for interdisciplinarity have not been
developed.” However, just over a quarter saw assessment problems arising because “the programme
leader has little or no control over questions set/marking done by individual participating academics”,
with 60% disagreeing. Just over half of the programme director respondents believe that “it is difficult
to find appropriate external examiners for interdisciplinary programmes”, with a third disagreeing.
‘Cultural’ challenges also exist, as noted in free text descriptions by some programme director
respondents, for example:
The staff involved (directly, on the ground, as well as at management levels) need to be
sympathetic to the different cultures existing in different disciplines – and need to
understand those and be prepared to work with/around them (rather than against them).
This is not solved by methodologies and is not directly a pedagogical problem, more of a
political/cultural one.
Some PVC respondents raised similar challenges with institutional culture change, such as getting
people out of their ‘silo mentality’ and working outside of comfort zones in order to develop an
understanding of what interdisciplinary actually means.
Belfast conference survey respondents mentioned a variety of ‘cultural’ challenges, as well, including:
reluctance of academics to co-operate; competition between departments; lack of interdisciplinary
approaches to problems among academics and resistance to change. Participants also indicated a lack
of awareness about and understanding of interdisciplinarity among students and academics.
Of course, traditional academic culture encourages focus in a single discipline, whether in promotion
considerations, administrative structures or required courses of study. As one programme director
interviewee captured this fundamental issue of how universities work:
The challenge relates to a sense of whether multi- or interdisciplinary things are what we
quirky people do over to the side, or if this is the air we breathe and what we all do.
(ProgDir interviewee).
Thus managers of pioneering interdisciplinary programmes find it “difficult to manage when they are
the exception” and wonder to what extent they should try to create a mini-university within a
university where they do much of the teaching as interdisciplinary provision – and to what extent they
should provide a ‘point of entry’ into various departments, allowing involved students to also engage
with a home department (and others) in what a programme director called a “much more murky and
hybrid identity.”
New approaches can worry students:
There can be a certain anxiety relating to novelty; students are not sure what is going on; I
tell them that is supposed to happen! Then they feel better.
(ProgDir interviewee).
And, faced with a potential shift in academic culture as well as teaching practice, staff too can worry,
as one programme director interviewee describes it:
I am amazed at the number of staff finding it hard to teach students they are not used to. (“If
they haven’t done my subject, I can’t teach them.”) A lot of staff are terrified of that … and
also feel “I’m too busy doing what I do, squeezing out time for what I need to do.” … There is
still a view that if you put too much effort into teaching, it could be a career negative.
(ProgDir
interviewee).
Also, departments may not want to share their good teachers:

39
Someone with a known record as a good teacher will be wanted by their department
head to teach large numbers in their discipline… Unless the university encourages them
with an incentive structure, it is very hard to get a department head to hand over good
teachers to a slightly risky experimental project.
(ProgDir interviewee).
Challenges raised by PVC interviewees include that of ‘lip-service’ being paid to interdisciplinarity,
individually and/or institutionally, without substantive commitment. At the same time, some university
leaders might deliberately pose “a certain retardation”, for instance, in the face of worrying that “an
interdisciplinary undergraduate degree might in fifteen years look like a fad, whereas a discipline
degree would have a value career-long.”
Many times, interdisciplinary provision appears to have been the results of ‘intrapreneurial’ activity led
by one or at most a few individuals within an institution. Particularly given the weight of tradition, and
the known difficulties of culture change, a real challenge lies in embedding interdisciplinary (or other
innovative) forms of provision:
The challenges for all these forms of learning is how you create the structures so they
are sustained even when individuals move on
. (PVC interviewee).
A PVC interviewee noted a disconnect between interdisciplinarity in research and education:
My colleagues complain about the difficulty of getting suitably qualified PhD students for
their interdisciplinary research, but they don’t even think about developing them; they
expect them to have been magicked up from somewhere.
(PVC interviewee).
4.6. Administrative challenges and issues
In addition to the sorts of challenges discussed above, when asked what they saw as the most serious
challenge or issue facing those hoping to provide interdisciplinary higher education, many programme
director respondents cited what could be termed administrative obstacles:
overcoming institutional barriers – sometimes academic, but more usually operational, which leads
those with creative ideas to lose momentum and give up on some very interesting and useful
educational provision;
credits across departments, even within the same college!;
communication between different departments, including both academics and administrators;
co-ordinating the progress of approval for programmes and courses across several subject areas
and colleges.
Somewhat surprisingly, when asked specifically in a survey question, less than half of the programme
director respondents (40%) felt that in administrative terms, “it tends to be difficult to get approval
for new interdisciplinary programmes”; most of the other responses were neutral. Only a third (33%)
of PVC respondents felt that “it is easier to get official approval for new interdisciplinary modules than
for new interdisciplinary degree programmes.” Interdisciplinary modules are seen by two-thirds of
programme director respondents as having the potential to be “an effective way to pilot educational
provision that may develop into interdisciplinary degree programmes.” Just under half of the PVC
respondents agreed.
Seemingly mundane matters pose problems. Two-thirds of the programme director respondents agree
that “sorting out teaching contributions and ‘credit’ within home departments can be problematic.” A
third of the programme director respondents are neutral; no one disagreed with this. One programme
director respondent provided thoughtful free text:
Governance processes can be difficult for approval and examination, but funding streams
for income can also be challenging. The people putting in the work are not necessarily
receiving the income in the subject area. Income generated by students registering can
be difficult to locate across several places.
Not dissimilarly, PVC respondents’ observations included:

40
logistical implications re timetabling, financial allocation of resource, potential concerns among
applicants regarding perceived ‘dilution’ of a degree programme, potential staff concerns in
relation to disciplinary identity;
ensuring coherent collaboration between different disciplines and appropriate match of teaching
and examining timetables. Also resource implications;
true interdisciplinary education requires a different approach with an interprofessional delivery
team. Financial flows are the most likely thing to get in the way of this;
a lack of colleagues in some hard-pressed areas, which can lead to skewing and unequal workload.
Issues raised by other PVC respondents had to do with assessing market demand among students and
indeed among potential employers, for example:
determining interest of prospective students; organisation and management of programmes;
getting different teams together. Securing a market for the courses;
lack of market demand from undergraduate audiences, and a tendency for the market and
employers to stick to mainstream subjects that they know;
we have to be driven by what employers want and often, they want what they understand and
are used to. Before we will develop an interdisciplinary programme … we will do a thorough
analysis of the market to ensure we are not setting our students up for ‘failure’, that is, the lack of
jobs out there to fit the number of recruits.
For Belfast survey respondents, the largest cluster of obstacles was related to the disciplinary
structure of the universities, such that, for example, funding is organised by disciplines and thus
situated within a single department. Other challenges identified lie in gaining accreditation for
interdisciplinary programmes, particularly when approval is needed from multiple boards. Yet another
identified barrier was lack of reference to interdisciplinary teaching in the university strategy.
Participants also identified a cluster of ‘logistical’ challenges, including lack of time and space, lack of
assessment standards, large student cohorts and timetabling problems.
When asked if their institution views their leadership of interdisciplinary provision as ‘quirky’, detached
from mainstream education, only one-fifth of programme director respondents agreed, with 40%
neutral and 40% disagreeing. Nonethess, a full 40% of programme director respondents believe that
their institution is unlikely to reward their leadership of an interdisciplinary educational programme;
this is evenly matched by 40% who disagree, with 20% neutral (Chart 4.8).
Chart 4.8: Likelihood of institutional reward as seen by programme directors

41
A programme director respondent made a related point in free text description of “the most serious
challenge or issue facing those hoping to provide interdisciplinary provision”:
Many departments/institutions and external institutions (such as the REF panels) are not
designed to support or evaluate interdisciplinary teaching and research. So, the career
and institutional incentives tend to work against interdisciplinary efforts, even when there
is strong collegial and collaborative feelings among participating staff.
An obvious challenge to interdisciplinarity lies in the divided structures comprising an institution. PVC
interviewees cite this, for instance noting a ‘balkanised’ approach across disciplines, faculties or even
campuses. Of course, programme directors run into these challenges head-on, very often stressing
not only staff culture but also pragmatic issues. Not surprisingly, money is a powerful factor:
It is mainly around finance rather than institutional unwillingness
. (ProgDir interviewee).
Some point out that finance and related administration pose less of a challenge when interdisciplinary
provision takes place within the same financial unit, such as a school or even a college within a
university. Another suggestion was made that it could be helpful to establish a new centre as neutral
ground presumed to be free of disciplinary bias and – particularly if it recruited students and thus
income – able to protect any staff from being pulled away to do disciplinary teaching (although this
too can cause tensions), as well as offering an accessible vehicle or conduit for new interdisciplinary
developments being piloted. Yet, another programme director underscored the value of being housed
within a department, with the resources to handle necessities such as examination boards,
extenuating circumstances committees and so on.
Sufficient support in the form of resources can certainly be a challenge, perhaps especially in
institutions with quite devolved structures:
There is always a competition for resources; it will be interesting to see what happens in
slightly leaner times. I wonder – as schools find resources more pinched – if they will
have the confidence to do [interdisciplinary education] instead of what they see as core…
There is a long way to go between theoretical acceptance and [actual] change in core
composition.
(PVC interviewee).
Mundane as it may sound, timetabling can be a challenge; for instance, one programme had to design
a timetable for its core units while steering clear of mandatory units required by departments for 14
different majors or pathways! Many programme directors would probably resonate to one’s comment:
A lot of things are ludicrously dictated by restrictions in the university
. (ProgDir interviewee).
Repeatedly in interviews, resources are identified as a key issue by PVCs and programme directors;
more than once, support for an innovative interdisciplinary offering is provided by just one person or
small office. There is a related issue of the sustainability of even a successful non-traditional offering.
One PVC underscored the importance of demonstrating quality assurance for new interdisciplinary
offerings, to build credibility for the long-term. On occasion, a university was described as providing
real support for interdisciplinarity, not only in research but sometimes in education as well. Some
named institutional offices are beginning to reflect this, as in a ‘Vice Dean for Interdisciplinarity’ in a
college of a university.
4.7. Opportunities and advantages
Participation in interdisciplinary teaching can generate real enthusiasm among academics. Nearly all
(86%) of the programme director respondents agreed that they and their colleagues “feel a sense of
excitement when teaching an interdisciplinary programme”, and no one disagreed. Even more (93%)
felt that “developing and/or teaching in an interdisciplinary programme has stimulated new thinking in
myself/involved colleagues”, with no one disagreeing. Again, almost all (93%) believe that “teaching
in an interdisciplinary programme has influenced/is influencing the research interests and activities of
myself and/or involved colleagues”, showing a direct interplay of innovative teaching and research.

42
Free text comments from programme director respondents include positives relating to creativity such
as: “a big increase in creative and flexible thinking”, “creativity and thinking in the round rather than
relief”, “new syntheses, new understandings”, “collaboration and knowledge expansion”, and “finding
new ideas, activities and outputs in the spaces between disciplines.” New relationships can emerge:
“meeting colleagues who really share your interests and whom you wouldn’t meet otherwise.”
Students themselves are noted as positives: “students who value solving problems beyond the
approaches of a single discipline” and “keen students (but who are also very demanding, and very
time-consuming because of the very complex nature of the degree).”
Intellectual benefits exist for students, as seen indirectly through the informed perspective of
programme programme directors. Nearly all (93%) of the programme director respondents “feel
proud of the intellectual development shown by students taking the programme.” More than three-
quarters (79%) of the programme director respondents agreed that “students feel a strong sense of
identity with the interdisciplinary nature of the programme.” PVC respondents cited intellectual
advantages for students, such as:
[it] encourages intellectual agility;
by making students consider a different paradigm, a different way of thinking, we enhance their
cognitive skills and are more likely to create effective critical thinkers and problem solvers than by
conventional approaches to course design;
I feel that it is a fantastic opportunity to work in collaborative teams to address challenges without
borders. It can stimulate new thinking by enabling the sharing of diverse ideas, approaches and
experiences;
the chance to explore new learning and new roles.
More than three-quarters (79%) of the programme director respondents agree that “prospective
employers have expressed positive interest in the way my interdisciplinary programme is preparing its
students for employment.” Indeed, many of the PVC respondents commented on employability in the
broadest sense; as one said, interdisciplinary higher education is “a reflection of reality.” Advantages
include
recasting the disciplines to reflect the real world and learner interest;
exciting opportunities for students, staff and the wider community regarding knowledge creation
and transfer, support for complex skills development in students leading to enhanced
employability, and an enriched learning community;
a graduate population much better equipped to thrive in the real world;
meeting the needs of the stakeholder, students and employers;
the development of cutting edge degree programmes that are attractive and relevant to students
and the real world;
preparing students for a dynamic future.
Some PVC respondents referred to benefits for the institution, for example:
the opportunity to develop interesting provision for new markets;
more interesting, better educated students;
a more dynamic and interesting curriculum - although also a more challenging one;
the opportunity to develop modules/programmes that are truly interdisciplinary (i.e. not just two
disciplinary silos);
creating new opportunities for prospective students and sharing best practices;
the potential for collaboration;
research and teaching benefits from the synergies between different subjects and responding to a
clear demand from appropriately qualified applicants;
research impact;
MOOCs.
Belfast conference respondents provided brief survey input as to multiple incentives for
interdisciplinary educational provision, with the most important in their eyes being institutionally-

43
based, emerging from university strategy and departmental priorities; a related institutional incentive
would be attraction of funding. Support from colleagues and superiors would make participants more
willing to undertake interdisciplinary programmes. In terms of educational outcomes, employability of
interdisciplinary graduates was seen as an incentive, along with, for example, better quality and
breadth of education.
Interviewees often see a connection between interdisciplinary education and useful career skills or
capabilities – even though this connection may not be particularly evident to many academics used to
thinking in traditional ways about providing students with discipline-based content. Programme
director interviewees comment on the changed nature of jobs and careers for graduates today, who
are likely to change jobs many times and to have ‘indeterminate job titles’ compared to past
generations. As PVC interviewees observed:
What we do know is that employers are saying they want young people who can think in
different ways. Fewer are working with factual knowledge they have gained in their
degree; they are using skills acquired instead of factual knowledge. [But] we don’t focus
as educators … on what skills do you need to demonstrate to people if you want to or
need to move between jobs and careers. Universities are very slow in recognising there
won’t be one job to age 65 … academics are really poor at understanding the skills that
young people need to acquire as they go out in the world.
(PVC interviewee).
Are universities the foundry for information assimilation or skills generation?
(PVC
interviewee).
Some see interdisciplinarity as fundamental to understanding and operating within the world:
There is no other reality than interdisciplinarity; you simply couldn’t do without it
. (PVC
interviewee)
Benefit to students as individuals pursuing satisfying careers is clearly an aim for most programmes.
Thus, as one programme director observed, drivers for interdisciplinary programmes can include:
intellectual drivers – the joy of knowledge, recovery of the university as a place for
learning and curiosity … employability – students becoming a bit more worldly, wiser,
more au fait with complex issues … a social responsibility agenda, so that courses also
encourage students to think critically about social and ethical responsibilities … market –
other universities in the world are doing this
. (ProgDir interviewee)
And another commented:
If you discuss so-called 21st century learning skills, like creativity, communication,
collaboration – these are all skills students acquire in doing interdisciplinary work, even at
the Bachelors level.
(ProgDir interviewee)
Referring to the utility of an interdisciplinary education, another interviewee said:
We want everyone to have the ‘aha!’ moment for themselves, seeing what they can
contribute (as a result of their education); you never know when it will happen for them.
And, of course, programme directors in particular hope that students will have a distinctive, satisfying
and even enjoyable learning opportunity. So, for example, one programme director observed:
Students like… studying with people they would never otherwise meet. That produces
conversations and dialogues that simply wouldn’t occur otherwise; students are surprised
at how students in other disciplines think.
(ProgDir interviewee)

44
4.8. Institutional trends
Informed views were sought to provide insight into past and upcoming trends. When we look across
our combined datasets28 (Chart 4.9), a majority of respondents claim that the number of
interdisciplinary courses in the last five years has increased. Around a third of them say that it has
stayed the same. While only a few percent of the respondents from the three groups (programme
directors, Belfast group, and online respondents) claim that the number of interdisciplinary courses
has decreased in the last five years, 15% of PVCs record a decrease.
Chart 4.9: Trends over past five years (full dataset,
n
= 112)
Looking to the future, within our combined dataset, respondents believed that in the next five years
the number of interdisciplinary courses will increase (Chart 4.10). This view was shared by around
80% of respondents from all four groups. Between 8% and 17% of respondents claimed that the
number of courses will remain the same, and less than 5% claimed that it will decrease. The two
groups that were the most optimistic about the future of interdisciplinary courses were the Belfast
group (88% believing the number of courses will increase) and programme directors (87% believing
in the increase).
28 PVCs, programme directors, online surveys and Belfast conference participants (
n
= 112)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Increase Decrease Stay about the same
Over the past 5 years, do you think that ID courses or
programmes have:
ProVCs Programme directors Belfast group Online survey

45
Chart 4.10: Trends in next five years (full dataset,
n
= 112)
Turning now to the individual datasets, when PVC respondents were asked about possible changes
over the past five years in the level of interdisciplinary educational provision at their institution, just
over half thought the level had increased (Chart 4.11). Nearly a third thought it had stayed about the
same and only 15% thought it had decreased. A higher percentage of programme director
respondents, nearly three-quarters, thought that such provision had increased at their institution,
although a quarter believed it had stayed the same. Very much like the programme director
respondents, the majority of Belfast conference survey respondents believed that the number of
interdisciplinary courses in the last five years has increased, with 28% believing it has stayed the
same.
Looking to the future of interdisciplinary educational provision at their institution in five years time,
most of the PVC respondents expect the level to increase, with nearly all the rest expecting it to stay
the same.
Chart 4.11: Expected level of interdisciplinary educational provision, as seen by PVCs
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Increase Decrease Stay about the same
In the next 5 years, do you think they will
ProVCs Programme directors Belfast group Online survey

46
Even more (87%) of the programme director respondents expect an increase over the next five years.
Again, this is very much the same proportionality as that of the Belfast conference survey
respondents, 87% of whom expect an increase.
More specifically, PVC respondents were asked to think about five years from now and estimate the
likely proportion of their institutions’ undergraduate provision that might be interdisciplinary
courses/programmes. Only a quarter of the PVC respondents estimate that more than 20% of
undergraduate provision will be interdisciplinary. More saw it as comprising 10% of the undergraduate
provision than selected any other percentage. No one saw more than 50%, and just 8% saw as much
as 50%; even 30% of future provision was seen by only a small fraction of PVC respondents (Chart
4.12).
Chart 4.12: Expected proportionality of interdisciplinary undergraduate provision as
seen by PVCs
Enthusiasts that they are, programme director respondents envisioned a much higher proportion of
interdisciplinary undergraduate education in five years. Programme director respondents were evenly
split between those expecting 10% or 20% of their institution’s undergraduate provision to be
interdisciplinary, and those expecting it to form 30% or more of the undergraduate provision. Indeed,
more than a quarter expected it to form 50% or more (Chart 4.13).

47
Chart 4.13: Expected proportionality of interdisciplinary undergraduate provision as
seen by programme directors
Respondents were also asked to estimate the proportion of their institution’s postgraduate provision
that might consist of interdisciplinary courses/programmes. A full fifth of PVC respondents predicted
that none would be interdisciplinary while a third expect it to be 30% or more; none of these predict
more than 50%. In between, a fifth of the PVC respondents predict interdisciplinarity will comprise
20% of postgraduate provision; even more of the PVC respondents predict that interdisciplinarity will
comprise merely 10% of provision (Chart 4.14).
Chart 4.14: Expected proportionality of interdisciplinary postgraduate provision
as seen
by PVCs
Among programme director respondents, there is again a higher expectation regarding proportionality
of interdisciplinarity at the postgraduate level, with more than half predicting 30% or more and less
than half of the programme director respondents predicting 10% or 20%. None predicted 0%.
Interestingly, half of the programme director respondents even predict interdisciplinary provision to
form 50% or more of postgraduate provision (Chart 4.15). This is almost double the proportion with
that expectation at the undergraduate level.

48
Chart 4.15: Expected proportionality of interdisciplinary postgraduate provision as seen
by programme directors
PVC respondents were asked in what contexts they would expect their institution to offer
interdisciplinary educational provision in the future. Selecting all that they felt applied, the highest
percentage of PVC respondents selected undergraduate provision, quite closely followed by the 77%
selecting taught postgraduate provision. Interestingly, just under half expected this in the context of
postgraduate research, but a full two-thirds expect it in professional/vocational courses (Chart 4.16).
Chart 4.16: Expected contexts for interdisciplinary offerings as seen by PVCs
Perhaps the most striking differences between PVC respondents and programme director respondents
lie in the latters’ generally greater expectations (100% of respondents) for postgraduate education
(taught or research), and far lower (47% of respondents) expectation for interdisciplinarity in
professional/vocational courses (Chart 4.17).

49
Chart 4.17: Expected contexts for interdisciplinary offerings as seen by programme directors
Although the focus of the surveys was on interdisciplinarity occurring at the level of a programme, the
overview of PVC respondents was also drawn upon to gain a picture of interdisciplinary provision in
the form of modules. When asked, half of the PVC respondents agreed that there are more
interdisciplinary modules than interdisciplinary programmes at their institution (only 19% disagreed).
Somewhat fewer, 41%, believed they were seeing an increase in proposals for interdisciplinary
modules (30% disagreed).
In terms of student demand, a programme director interviewee noted that their institution’s
interdisciplinary provision stemmed from:
a mix of inspirations – a general sense of a certain dissatisfaction among many students
about the complete specialisation of an Honours degree and beyond that certain
constituencies of students with particular interest in interdisciplinary degrees, such as
international constituencies already thinking about interdisciplinary degrees and perhaps
seeing specialised UK degrees as an outlier.
(ProgDir interviewee).
Some PVC interviewees have the sense that interdisciplinarity (and other themes) appear to be a
‘growth area’, with some universities moving somewhat in that direction. Some institutions are seeing
staff, perhaps especially young staff, coming forward to teach new interdisciplinary courses. Yet, the
extent of student demand is not known:
We are just at the stage where people are becoming aware that these kinds of degrees
exist, so we are not hitting the ceiling yet but it is hard to know how many people will
want to do this.
(PVC interviewee).
Indeed some PVCs see interdisciplinary as a vital component of preparing graduates for the world of
today/tomorrow:
…a real sense that interdisciplinarity is the only way universities are going to survive in
the real world, by producing much more rounded graduates who have broader skill sets
and are less fixed in their mindset as to who they are and are not, what they can and
cannot do … some universities are taking notice.
(PVC interviewee).
And, painting a picture on an even broader canvas, some would suggest that interdisciplinary
education plays a profoundly intellectual role:

50
We moved away from the idea of having polymaths a long time ago. As an academic
nationally the idea of being a generalist is an insult; it is used as a derogatory term.
There is a sense in which we are trying to reclaim the notion of deep generalists, people
who are true polymaths with a breadth of interests … able to converse in the language of
more than one discipline. We don’t value that sufficiently.
(PVC interviewee).
Even among PVCs seen to be open in principle to the idea of interdisciplinarity, there is still
“nervousness at abstract pedagogy.” There is a tension between depth and breadth. One PVC
suggested, for instance:
At the Masters degree, there is no harm if education is not deep, but if it is at the
undergraduate level, it is better get into nuts and bolts (and serve an) apprenticeship to
be master of a discipline before an individual can be let out into the world to be
interdisciplinary.
(PVC interviewee).
Beyond nervousness, some institutional leaders fail to stand behind innovators:
A small number of absolutely visionary academics have brought about change in their
own institution, but they are having a terrible uphill struggle. If your institution is, frankly
as mine is, paying lip service to interdisciplinarity -- (leaders) are sure it must be a good
idea but are not showing any willingness to make academics do something different, it
won’t happen; then they wring their hands and say “it’s not happening”. (Support is
needed) at the top, instead of “marvelous, probably not a priority.
(PVC interviewee).
One programme director interviewee illustrated management conservatism by recounting that, when
trying to encourage a dean to embrace interdisciplinarity, saying “we could be ahead of the wave”;
the dean replied “I was thinking more, we’d like to be just behind the wave.”
In addition to pragmatic challenges discussed below, some issues countering a rise in
interdisciplinarity, making it seem risky to explicitly promote interdisciplinary degrees, spring from
typical secondary school preparation of students and indeed the traditional, risk-averse attitudes of
parents:
Students have been channelled into a narrow area … and become quite rigid in their
thinking. Undergraduates want a clear and coherent course that will lead to a
qualification that is recognised. They are very heavily influenced by their parents.
(PVC
interviewee).
Interestingly, more than one interviewee saw a connection between students who had taken an
International Baccalaureate programme in secondary school and who were interested in
interdisciplinary provision at university:
They are broader, more intellectual people, with a broad range of skills, who see the
world a little differently; they are going to be better suited to a modern and rapidly
changing world than the ones who didn’t have the boldness at 6th form to try something
different.
(PVC interviewee).
There can be a real tension between university expectations at different stages:
Universities can be very traditional as to which A levels count, and very suspicious of
anything that looks like a broad A level, but … we get preoccupied about them getting
broad when they leave university
. (ProgDir interviewee).
In designing undergraduate experiences, opinions differ as to the degree to which synthesis is
achievable. One view is that integration should be done for the students:
For most undergraduates, asking them to integrate across disciplines in their own heads
is quite difficult
. (ProgDir interviewee).
Yet others would suggest that, especially as they begin their studies, many students simply desire a
‘combined degree’ that allows them to study two subjects in which they are interested, “leaving them

51
separate in their heads.” One such programme director interviewee does offer an interdisciplinary
strand in the last year, for which some students choose to do interdisciplinary projects and do them
very well:
It may well be that these are the students who have already started to synthesise in their
heads and are able to bring together synoptic projects.
(ProgDir interviewee).
4.9. Professional capacity-building
In the face of likely trends toward at least some degree of increase in interdisciplinary provision,
questions were explored as to the extent to which academics, academic development and academic
leadership staff are prepared for such changes. Nearly all PVC respondents agreed that “it would be
helpful for me/my office/academic staff to have access to a body of good practice in interdisciplinary
provision” (Chart 4.18). Strikingly similar views came from programme director respondents, of whom
the same proportion believed that “it would be helpful for me/associated staff to have access to a
body of good practice in interdisciplinary provision” (Chart 4.19). This desire contrasts sharply with
current reality. When asked if staff development at their institution explicitly included interdisciplinary
teaching, only a quarter of programme director respondents agreed, while twice that disagreed. Only
a third of PVC respondents agreed, with a third disagreeing. A higher proportion, although still less
than half (44%), of PVC respondents agreed that some of their academic staff had attended
workshops or other staff development courses elsewhere to learn about good practice in
interdisciplinary provision. Only a fifth of programme director respondents said that they or other
academic staff associated with the programme had attended workshops or other staff development
courses elsewhere to learn about good practice in interdisciplinary provision.
Chart 4.18: Desirability of access to good practice as seen by PVCs

52
Chart 4.19: Desirability of access to good practice as seen by programme directors
Belfast conference participant respondents shared their thoughts as to support that would help them
be more effective in interdisciplinary teaching. Access to research and good practice (for example, in
the form of case studies or showcases) was emphasised. Another important area is support in skills
development, for example, through organisation of masterclasses or tutor training. Funding for trials
and test projects was mentioned. Some participant respondents underscored the importance of
institutionalised support, for example, in university strategies, through institutional reforms or through
the inclusion of interdisciplinarity in PGCHE provision.
4.10. Lessons learned
Survey respondents and interviewees were asked to share ‘lessons learned’ through their experiences
with interdisciplinary provision, to help others hoping to develop an interdisciplinary programme.
There is clearly an opportunity for innovative academics to learn by doing: for example, well over two-
thirds (72%) of the programme director respondents agreed that “the design of the programme has
evolved over time; participating academics have learned valuable lessons about interdisciplinary
provision”, and indeed more than a quarter (29%) strongly agreed. Programme director respondents
shared some ‘lessons learned’ from working on their own programmes, while PVC respondents
provided lessons learned from their bigger picture perspective. Highlights are provided here and
further, verbatim quotations are included in Annex F.
4.10.1.
University structures, politics and administration
With regard to university structures, politics and administration, PVC respondents offered messages
tending to fall in the categories of:
the need for consultation and development of supporters at all levels (students, staff and
university leaders);
the need for evidence of demand/validity of a proposed programme;
the need to address logistical and cultural challenges.
One PVC’s pithy response of ‘perseverance’ was fleshed out by another PVC respondent who captured
a full range of necessary steps:

53
The proposal needs to meet University strategic objectives and not be a personal ‘hobby’.
You need to be able to demonstrate its advantage both to the university and the future
students. You need to work with the colleagues in the different disciplines and pull
together a coherent but multidisciplinary course team. You need to have all relevant
Deans on board and to have worked out how the finances will work, the QA and the
reporting. Also, you need to ensure that your student record system can cope!
Programme director respondents offered thoughts including planning and development but also the
need to realise that their commitment may not be widely popular. One programme director
respondent captured what can be an uneasy balance of perseverance and agility:
Be patient and stubborn (but still open to dialog and opportunity and flexible?).
4.10.2.
Good practice and/or pedagogical methods
PVC respondents offered messages as to good practice and/or pedagogical methods, with comments
encouraging attention to the particular features of interdisciplinarity and the role of leadership in
building a collaborative teaching initiative. Being aware of the different pedagogies used in the
different disciplines and not denigrating the practices of a different discipline is key. Several took the
opportunity to commend advantages of effective interdisciplinary education. One thoughtful PVC
respondent wrote, for example:
At our institution many feared that interdisciplinary initiatives would lead to the
dissolution of disciplines. In fact, the opposite has been the case. Interdisciplinarity has
showcased the different qualities of each discipline by placing them in contrast. It has
been tremendously instructive in helping us to understand what disciplines have in
common and where they diverge.
Programme director respondents placed particular emphasis on the roles to be played by the leader
developing the programme, as well as practical suggestions for teaching. One respondent highlighted
the importance of really understanding team members’ perspectives:
Our interdisciplinarity really began to gel when we had a joint academic project … the
project forced us to work together in ways that we hadn’t really done before, even in
putting the programme together. It ensured that science and humanities expertise
genuinely combined and we understood much more about each other’s practice, which I
don’t think we had fully done in putting the programme together. It meant that there
was genuine academic thought about the interdisciplinary subject, not simply addressing
QA issues and programme management.
Additional thoughts as to good practice and/or pedagogical methods were offered by Belfast
conference participant respondents. Among these are recognition of the potential for confusion when
challenging disciplinary assumptions. This demands hard work with colleagues as well as students, in
order to break down barriers while also constructing something positive in a way that helps students
appreciate the benefits of interdisciplinarity. There was a view that interdisciplinary courses cannot be
learnt through traditional approaches but require practical student engagement.
4.10.3.
Guiding principles to underpin high-quality interdisciplinary provision
PVC respondents offered some guiding principles to underpin high-quality interdisciplinary provision.
Along with taking care in planning processes that incorporate equality of respect for different
disciplines involved, coherency of the offering was a key message, for example:
Make sure that the course makes good educational sense and that the mix of modules
provides a coherent programme.
Programme director respondents’ guiding principles to underpin high-quality interdisciplinary
provision, included both its development – and the importance of vision and engagement of
colleagues – and principles for engaging with students.

54
5. Effective approaches to promoting, evaluating
and sustaining interdisciplinarity: case studies
Summary
Drawing on our interview data, this chapter offers six case studies of effective approaches to
promoting, evaluating and sustaining interdisciplinarity. The experiences captured span:
an innovative extracurricular experience in interdisciplinary project teams;
piloting an interdisciplinary module;
a new interdisciplinary undergraduate degree programme;
a professional education PGT Masters degree;
a liberal arts undergraduate programme bridging Arts and Sciences with a major, a minor and
interdisciplinary core modules;
an example of top-level, institutionalised support for interdisciplinary undergraduate education at
a major US university.
Case study 1: Innovative extracurricular experience in
interdisciplinary project teams
Title/institution
‘AcrossRCA’
http://across.rca.ac.uk/
Royal College of Art
Provision level, numbers, area
Postgraduate (most participants are two-year Masters students)
450 students took part in a project in 2014
Art and Design
Nature of interdisciplinary provision
Extracurricular week-long experience: interdisciplinary project teams
Development
The Royal College of Art has a long-held philosophy of ‘art in a design context’ and ‘design in an art
context’, but teaching is very much School-based. Student demand has led to an experiment in
integration, AcrossRCA, run by the Academic Development Office. AcrossRCA “is a week-long
programme of cross-disciplinary working at the RCA, bringing together students and staff with
different expertise, interests and perspectives to collaborate on a wide range of briefs set both
internally and by external partner organisations.” Students and staff are given the opportunity to
define projects; groups are formed from the projects selected. For example, there were some two
dozen projects in 2014, with wide-ranging topics including: Celebrating Neurodiversity, Mapping the
Invisible City, Rapid Response Creativity, Sensing and Trapping, Art Writing and Designing with
People. (Examples of past projects can be seen at http://across.rca.ac.uk/)
AcrossRCA was piloted in 2010, with 11 projects for which 228 places were available (some 290
students applied). Although initially an experiment, success has made it an annual event, for which
numbers have ‘skyrocketed’. In 2014 there were 450 places available (with some 750 applications)
for 23 projects. Project group size has also grown over time from ten to an average of 25, with
some as large as 50. A small budget makes it possible to provide students with modest funds for
materials costs, fees for visiting lecturers and so on. The students are postgraduates (average age
of 28) and very motivated; when participating in an AcrossRCA project, they “hit the ground
running and tend to throw themselves into it.”

55
AcrossRCA is now something “everyone knows about and gets excited about – or gets disappointed
if they did not find a place. In a very short period of time, it has become part of the landscape’.
Challenges/opportunities
Challenges:
The initiative has been “so clearly led by student demand, there is a struggle as an institution as to
how we can respond to that, while working within the institutional structures we are comfortable
with.” As anyone in an institution could easily imagine, not only was gaining agreement to the
concept of a single week where “normal business would stop” difficult, but actually pinning down
an agreed week was “challenging”! Once agreed, that same week in early November has been
used every year.
With growing popularity, students have had to be turned away. Since AcrossRCA is referenced in
some handbooks, students who do not get to take part can feel that they have a “diminished
experience.” Priority is given to students in the second year of their Masters programme.
Participating students have also been frustrated that there has not been any follow-up to the week.
To address this, AcrossRCA 2015 will conclude with a ‘Pass it on’ event that encourages participants
to reflect on, celebrate and share what was achieved.
The future of the experience needs to be considered; for example, should it be credit-based and, if
so, would it still work to have students running some of the projects, even carefully scrutinised as
they already are?
Opportunities:
Students are extremely enthusiastic about the experience, as seen both by the rise in demand and
by feedback from an internal evaluation, in which it was clear that students valued working with
other students from varied departments, with different points of view and approaches to problem-
solving.
Lessons learned
“The big fear was that it would lead to blurring of lines and thus diminish the disciplines. It has not!
It has demonstrated differences and commonalities between areas … Students really appreciate the
opportunity to see what the differences are, as they work together, not just talking in the bar.”
“People’s flights of fancy can be incredibly productive, recognising ideas across approaches; finding
those connections is incredibly exciting.”
“It takes a long time and we can be conservative as institutions, but it is important to keep listening
and put in significant management grind to come up with something that satisfies both students
and academics.”

56
Case study 2: Piloting an interdisciplinary module
Title/institution
Living Lab
www.edinburghlivinglab.org
University of Edinburgh
Provision level, numbers, area
Undergraduate module and counterpart postgraduate module
Cap of 40 students for undergraduate module
Sustainability, traffic
Nature of interdisciplinary provision
New undergraduate module (following piloting of a module within a Masters programme),
emphasising interdisciplinarity in real-world problem-solving by teams
Development
As described on its website: “Edinburgh Living Lab is a new collaborative initiative between
researchers, the public sector and industry. It is radically interdisciplinary and comprises a set of
resources, knowledge, tools and relationships that will develop over time.” The academic leads
have been developing this idea for teaching and learning as well as research. Working with an MSc
programme, with half of the students from Design and half from Informatics, they wanted to
provide an experience for the students to learn to work together across disciplinary boundaries by
providing them with a common, external challenge. “We had the idea we wanted to get them to
learn to engage with real-world problems and see how they were interdisciplinary in nature … We
wanted to use a design approach, and work with novel data and evidence, where the students
learn that these always emerge from and respond to real-world socio-political processes.” The pilot
involved working with a local neighbourhood organisation of the Edinburgh City Council and others.
One of the key neighbourhood policy challenges is improving active travel; students were asked to
observe and talk to the community, gather data and make and test a design intervention. They
faced something new together and discovered their complementary skills. One example involved
experienced and less experienced cyclists wearing Google glasses to gather data at a tricky
roundabout. Presentations with local activists and councillors at a community meeting on cycling
“opened their eyes a lot – it is a lot messier in the real world.”
Following the successful pilot, the University provided a Principal’s Teaching Development Fund
grant to develop an innovative undergraduate module and its assessment more fully. Data Design
and Society (undergraduate module) and Society, Data Design and Social Innovation (postgraduate
module) are being run from the School of Informatics and the Edinburgh School of Art respectively,
but with the former intended to attract undergraduate students from across the University. Each
year the module will focus on an externally set challenge, possibly transport and sustainability
again, but future topics will draw from other ‘grand challenges’, such as aging or energy. This
makes it possible to develop relevant data, tools, resources and a network of outside speakers and
advisors that all student groups can engage with. Together, the projects developed within any one
year’s module represent diverse approaches to a common problem, which can be presented as a
coherent set of ideas to people outside the University.
The core is “learning and developing through a living lab – going out into the real world, finding
ways to understand that world, trying things out to make an intervention and then evaluating it in
some way.” It is not about finding a solution to a challenge, but learning how to engage with the
real world and propose new ways of seeing and approaching difficult, interdisciplinary, political
issues by making interventions. This draws on a ‘Learning by Developing (LbD)’ pedagogical
approach, through which students engage with the world beyond the University:

57
“using different learning outcomes, modes of teaching, and methods for assessment … A key
element of LbD at Edinburgh University is an interdisciplinary approach, with project teams made
up of students from different disciplines, each bringing their own expertise, learning to work
together, understand and respect the knowledge of others, and work out how their own knowledge
and skills can contribute to the joint project. For example, biological scientists, sociologists, lawyers
and energy engineers may work together on projects to do with renewable energy.”
(See: www.edinburghlivinglab.org/learning-by-developing/)
These are viewed as essential skills and mental attitudes required for the modern world, where we
are likely to be working with others with different skills to ourselves.
The module provides core classes, personal mentoring and online resources. It is effectively at a
‘proof-of-concept’ stage, trying to demonstrate to the University the value of this unusual approach.
As well as further development of the module itself, effort is needed to get this type of module
more readily accepted by the administration, in order to deal with timetabling, space in the
curriculum, physical spaces and so on. The Student Association is very keen to help lead this
change.
Challenges/opportunities
Challenges:
There are a range of challenges, such as assessment, timetabling, organisational constraints, cost
and skills of mentoring, and relationship with outside organisations. The time intensive modules
involve personal mentoring and interactive classes, which are engaging for lecturers, but are
probably financially unsustainable, so PhD and PD assistants need to be trained. Teaching is usually
organised by departments rather than centrally, and there are problems with transfer of money and
time, when both students and teachers come from different schools. Interdisciplinary classes also
challenge overburdened timetables – space needs to be made across curricula and schedules.
There can be challenges with assessment: how can this be done in a way that is appropriate for
different students and the home departments for which they need credit.
Practically, too large a set of projects could be difficult to manage, in terms of student numbers,
bringing in external partners and resources and so on.
Opportunities:
This innovative module, emphasising interdisciplinary teamwork in addressing real problems, fits
very well with the University’s emerging strategy for Teaching and Learning, and the demands of
the student body.
It is a question of harnessing students to explore different ways of seeing the problem (rather than
solving the problem, which would require a certain set of skills). “Whichever group of students you
get will reflect what they bring … We want students who can go out and say ‘here are a set of
ideas as to how to do something differently’. A lot of students will have to make their own jobs in
the future; there are entrepreneurial skills involved in this as well.”
External partners usually have little or no money for research and development or creative thinking,
so they are very keen to work with the University, which creates a space with freedom to
experiment.
Lessons learned
This sort of course is somewhat radical. It can help to be under the radar to start with; if you can
prove with a pilot that you have actually done something, and show the happy smiling students
who have experienced a new course, that counts for a lot. Going with this kind of idea and trying to
organise it all upfront is much more difficult.

58
Grand challenges can be a good way to frame such provision, as they are sufficiently broad to
attract students and lecturers from all over the University, while also very relevant within a local
area around the University.
Educational provision in the future should include some of this: helping students to take the deep
knowledge they have developed and learn how to make it relevant and use it in the context of
external projects alongside people with different knowledge and approaches to the world. For many
people, that is what their jobs are like; we need to think how to prepare students for that, and to
respect the knowledge of others.

59
Case study 3: New interdisciplinary undergraduate degree
programme (BA and BSc)
Title/institution
Global Health and Social Medicine
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/sshm/study/Undergraduate.aspx
King’s College London (KCL)
Provision level, numbers, area
BA, BSc
About 50 per year
Health/Social dimensions
Nature of interdisciplinary provision
Three-year interdisciplinary undergraduate degree programme, offered as BA or BSc
Development
Global Health and Social Medicine is described in the KCL online prospectus as “a unique
interdisciplinary programme designed for those who wish to understand the social determinants of
health and illness in a social context, and to know and evaluate the range of medical and
healthcare approaches that seek to tackle disease and alleviate inequalities in health.”
The two counterpart degree programmes under this title (the BSc began in autumn 2014; the BA
will begin in autumn 2015) arise naturally from a department that is itself new (founded in 2012)
and interdisciplinary. The Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine, with 18 of its 22
academics new appointments, represents a significant investment by the university.
“You cannot do this kind of work unless a number of people in a department are invested in from
the start. So, from the start, the ethos of the Department was interdisciplinary and the degree
courses are the first that are interdisciplinary in this way in the UK. A key element is that they are
pitched as genuinely interdisciplinary, with 75% in our interdisciplinary Department and 25% in
other departments.”
The curriculum is thus research-led, with compulsory courses taught by the home Department’s
academics, and optional courses from the Department, other departments in the Faculty of Science
and Public Policy, and the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, with an option each year from the
Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine (e.g. options within Ageing, Neuroscience or Pharmacology
pathways). This element of the course, 25% of the whole year, is compulsory for those doing the
BSc. A research-based dissertation forms part of the third year.
Challenges/opportunities
Challenges:
Employers can work within their own traditions; so it is important to make them aware that
interdisciplinary degrees produce nimble-minded professionals who can be useful to them in their
own organisation.
Parents of prospective undergraduates can be very conservative, so there can be work to do
convincing them that an innovative interdisciplinary degree programme can be a pathway leading
to meaningful work for their children. (This can be particularly challenging when pupils have
already specialised very narrowly in school.)
It is always hard work to make the whole thing cohere, when people come from different
viewpoints; there may effectively be only eight weeks per term for students to get different

60
perspectives and understand that people approach things such as ‘equity’ differently.
Everyone wants you to do interdisciplinary education, but while you are trying, it can be very
difficult. You have to liaise with different departments, and it comes down to nuts and bolts … With
timetabling issues and so on, it becomes a very complex picture. To make it work, you need huge
commitment behind the scenes … And you want lecturers in all departments to be welcoming to
interdisciplinary students who are taking their modules.
Opportunities:
Students have the opportunity to “combine a rigorous Social Science education … with an
introduction to key issues in Medicine.” Graduates are expected to gain relevant high-level
intellectual skills, knowledge and research techniques and to “think critically and independently
about these issues”, with a wide range of career options open to them related to health policies
and health care systems (e.g. in public health, the health services, Government, NGOs, and
commerce).
Recent recruitment indicates that this interdisciplinary Department has attracted very strong
academics, which in turn has benefited interdisciplinary teaching. “Because we are all
interdisciplinary scholars, we work collaboratively so we can teach material collaboratively.”
“The students love us; they are passionate about the course and they love the degree; it is
definitely the way forward, but one shouldn’t underestimate the work it takes.”
Lessons learned
Having people at the top, such as Deans and Vice-Principals, who are risk-takers and supportive is
key. It would not happen without top-level support, but what goes on in middle management is
really important – timetabling, room allocation or whatever – if they do not get on board, you can
kill yourself running around. There can be stonewalling at all levels. You have to get all the middle
management to come with you, which can be a challenge. There is a lot of legwork that has to be
done to actually make that work.
Rather than sequential lecturers from different disciplines taking a more substantive line through
the material, we try to do at least some of the synthesizing work for the students, while giving
them an understanding of where different approaches come from. At the same time, we try to
remain true to the classical roots of concepts from a field, rather than relegating them to an
interdisciplinary talk that does not do them justice.
There is a huge ethos around interdisciplinarity and how it is valued; however, the whole way
higher education is set up is based hugely on disciplinary foundations. It is very challenging to do
interdisciplinary work unless there is a strong institutional commitment to providing all the
appropriate forms of administrative support.

61
Case study 4: Professional education MSc – interdisciplinary
development of careers in emerging technology
Title/institution
Design and Digital Media MSc
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=37&cw_xml=details.php
University of Edinburgh
Provision level, numbers
MSc course, approximately 50 students
Nature of interdisciplinary provision
MSc programme offering professional education in digital technology and design
Development
With career considerations a key driver, the professional education programme explicitly brings
together multiple dimensions: “The MSc in Design and Digital Media is a unique programme of
study that addresses the growing need for professional education in digital technology applied to
design, including its social, cultural and philosophical implications … The programme addresses the
needs of practitioners, managers, decision-makers and educators who want to be informed by first-
hand knowledge of the technical possibilities of digital technology and an awareness of social,
cultural and business contexts.”
“The students (mostly in mid-to-late twenties or older) are from different disciplines, including
marketing, engineering and law, for example; they are people who have always had a passion in
digital media but their professional trajectory gave them no scope for it, so they enrol in the
programme. As they interact, they learn from each other.” Appropriately, given its aims and
approach, the programme is not narrowly prescriptive regarding prior work: “The subject disciplines
(of the undergraduate degree) is not as important as attitude and commitment to study in this
area.”
With a significantly international student body, this programme is now part of a suite of related
courses at the University of Edinburgh, including a spinout MSc in Sound Design, an MSc by
Research in Digital Media and an upcoming (autumn 2015) online course with a very similar title:
MSc in Digital Media Design, the first online Masters degree to be offered by the Edinburgh College
of Art, and one of sixty offered by the University. Some 12 years ago, interest in digital media was
far less widespread in universities; yet for the minority of individuals who were interested in
employing new technologies to stretch their work, digital studies and computing were “relatively
straightforward in facilitating interdisciplinarity.” As an example, architects were early adopters of
“computer-aided design” – now ‘digital media’, which gave them common ground with those
individuals in Engineering and the Fine Arts who were interested in Computer Science. A key figure
in the development of the digital programmes was a move linking Music and Architecture at the
University. “It was a combination of luck, proximity of departments, organisational structures
facilitating interaction and the computing thing.” (A jointly supervised PhD student in music, who
was interested in space, tutored in the Design and Digital Media programme and went on to do
much of the design of the spinoff MSc course in Sound Design.)
The MSc programme “develops wide skills in digital techniques and a critical framework to appraise
the application of these technologies to design” – while “based in a lively studio environment.”
Teaching includes seminars, lectures and tutorials as well as practical sessions and studios. In
particular, projects “bring out original thinking and independent achievement within a framework of
team-working and creative ability”; one of several stated learning outcomes is that students will
“develop their ability to work cooperatively in groups in the context of design.”

62
Challenges/opportunities
Challenges:
When working across large schools, it is very difficult to organise a joint programme across them,
as it would be impeded by structures. (It is easier to have interactions when collaborating within
the same financial unit.)
Opportunities:
Regarding interdisciplinarity at the Masters level, for many students it is a second chance – giving
themselves the opportunity to diversify or move into an area where they have passion or that will
be a stepping stone in their career.
Lessons learned
interdisciplinary provision has to be genuine. It has to be driven by some sense that there is
something important to achieve. It is no good just throwing together pairs or triplets of
disciplines without a rationale. Do not just start with a discipline and say “How can it interact
with another particular discipline? We really should do more together.” It can be done this way,
but it will not achieve much – it has to be driven by a purpose or objective;
it is about recognition and acknowledgement of difference and incommensurability, and
somehow coping with that. You never get away from the inevitable tensions between
disciplines. Universities are places of disagreement as well as agreement; it is how you deal
with it that matters. Do not necessarily look for common ground all the time, or feel you all
have to agree all the time, but aim for an openness across many dimensions. Any team needs
to acknowledge that there will be lots of differences across many disciplines;
one extreme of a joint degree would be leaving everything in terms of integration to the
students with lecturers never seen talking with each other; the other extreme would be where
the curriculum is entirely integrated. Halfway is simply showing solidarity with other disciplines,
even sometimes having two lecturers in the same room – talking and being engaged. Students
can see that it is worth doing and that other people are committed to integration and
interaction. That ought to be the minimum – where lecturers from different disciplines are not
in dispute or ignoring each other or sending students off on their own to deal with the process
of synthesis, but are engaged and setting an example;
structures often bring people together and it is usually the enthusiasm of individuals that drives
interdisciplinarity. It does not usually work when it is top down. It is more compelling and has
more momentum when developed by a couple of enthusiastic staff members who build from
the ground up.
it is crucial to have group work; it can be challenging to work with people from other
disciplines. Different disciplinary backgrounds can influence individuals’ willingness to work with
others who have different approaches;
even at the undergraduate level, as students use online media and resources, a wealth of
insights from other disciplines are appearing in essays and dissertations. “We have to know
more about other disciplines, similarities and differences, different ways of framing and looking
at knowledges; otherwise we will not survive in the online digital age. Students need to develop
skills; it is inevitable that they will although lecturers may show resistance; students in their
future work will have to work in that way, aware of different bodies of expertise.”

63
Case study 5: An undergraduate degree bridging Arts and
Sciences with a major, a minor, and interdisciplinary core
modules
Title/institution
Arts and Sciences (BASc) degree
www.ucl.ac.uk/basc/prospective
University College London (UCL)
Provision level, numbers
BASc, intake of 120 students a year
Nature of interdisciplinary provision
Undergraduate degree programme (BASc): three years or, with optional study abroad, four years.
Development
At UCL, the Arts and Sciences (BASc degree) requires that students develop two academic
specialisms, or ‘Pathways’, one in Arts (or Social Sciences) and one in Sciences. With a major in
either the Cultures Pathway or Societies Pathway, a student would take a minor in the Health and
Environment Pathway or Sciences and Engineering Pathway (or vice versa). During their first year,
students pick three modules from among the 8-12 modules offered in their major Pathway; in later
years they can select from any appropriate modules offered by the University.
In addition, Core courses are given “to enhance understanding of how different branches of
knowledge interrelate”, providing “the skills and concepts (the student) will need to work effectively
across multiple disciplines” and encouraging new linkages across traditional subjects and/or
exploration of differences between Arts (or Social Sciences) and Sciences. (Of the 12 units
comprising the degree, approximately six are in the core courses and the remaining half in
pathways – 4.5 in the major pathway and 1.5 in the minor pathway.) Extending the bridging theme
of the degree, students may take a four-year version that includes studying abroad in another
country. A foreign language is required as part of the core and is taken each year. A summer
internship is offered with full support from a dedicated careers specialist before the last year. Core
courses/modules are described on the website as falling in two groups:
1. techniques useful in making interdisciplinary links across all studies (e.g. Quantitative
Methods: Exploring Complexity; Interdisciplinary Methods);
2. interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary approaches (e.g. Approaches to Knowledge, Qualitative
Methods, Object-based learning).
In their last year, all students write an interdisciplinary capstone dissertation as well as taking a
compulsory core module on the Knowledge Economy. In this module, students work in small teams
as consultants to produce a report for a local business, sourced by UCL’s Centre for
Entrepreneurship, UCL Advances.
The BASc Programme FAQ makes two distinctions between the programme and “many Liberal Arts
programmes”, in that the BASc programme has an Interdisciplinary core of subjects that students
take and that students must take both Arts and Science subjects all the way through their studies.
Similarities to liberal arts programmes include the flexibility and diversity of what can be studied, as
well as the major/minor structure that is often seen in liberal arts programmes.
BASc students at UCL form a ‘community’, with their own department and common room;
especially in first year when they take three core courses together, they bond with each other in
core courses that are openly interdisciplinary in approach. They study with other BASc students as
well as ‘traditional’ discipline-based students in pathway modules. Importantly, they “have fantastic

64
students who are up for this and want to make it work.”
The initial conceptualisation of this degree programme was led from the very top of the University,
the then Provost and Vice Provost Education, who “saw the rise of the Knowledge Economy and
increasing globalisation, and saw that keeping very restrictive practices in the curriculum would be
counterproductive and wouldn’t serve students who were going out into the world.” Discussions
began six years ago, with the current programme director acting somewhat as an entrepreneur for
the last five years, working initially with a 32-person steering group and now a small full-time team
of four others, and talking with hundreds of colleagues to develop the programme. Now, with 120
new students each year, the degree is established and the programme has one of the University’s
bigger intakes. This has ramifications across the University. For example, the students take over
300 modules between them, involving multiple departments and registry offices. With “brilliant
colleagues”, “even if there are bumps, you can have good conversations and work through them.”
Broadly, the degree produces two types of graduates: high specialised interdisciplinary graduates,
and those who prefer to be called ‘generalists’. Of the former type, examples include specialists in
global child mental health, development economists with an expertise in engineering, those looking
at the sociology and anthropology of ethnic art, and experts in the legal aspects of urbanisation.
Such students become specialists by looking at a particular object of study through different
disciplinary lenses. Among the generalists, students may take a very wide range of courses in, for
example, Chemistry, Management Accounting, and Arabic. Such students are aware that many
graduate jobs would benefit “from the widest range of skills possible” and are therefore using this
degree to try to garner such skills. At the time of writing, students have secured jobs in finance,
consultancy, NGOs, Law, marketing, etc. and others are progressing to Masters in Evolution,
Palaeontology, Energy Systems, International Security, Business, Law and English Literature.
Challenges/opportunities
Challenges:
It is quite a brave step to cross between Arts and Sciences; most programmes shy away from
including lots of Science.
Opportunities:
“The principal thing that unites the students is that they are all interested in lots of different things.
There is a liveliness, openness and creativity that you may not find everywhere; it is special.”
Lessons learned
you can make extraordinary things happen if you believe in something and keep working on it.
Believing, working and not shirking but dealing honestly with difficulties – can make things
happen!
clever students did things I thought were not possible! Once a handful succeed, many of your
anxieties melt away and all these wonderful and meaningful combinations do open up and you
realise the curriculum has that potential;
we need to inspire the next generation and help them believe the world has changed and
inspire them to love this era of learning, when the possibility of learning is greater than ever.
We need to show them by our actions that learning is the main thing. It starts with learning, if
you love learning and keep learning, great things will happen – you will either become a great
researcher or some company will snatch you up. We do need more interdisciplinary learning; it
is so productive; it fosters love of learning, openness to ideas and a creative approach to one’s
learning in life;
universities could influence business and Government with some of our values, about
exploration and valuing intellectual life. Many businesses are becoming like the best
postgraduate courses, with people buzzing around, and a playfulness. Universities have the
potential to have a deep cultural effect on the rest of the world.

65
Case study 6: Top-level, institutionalised support for
interdisciplinary undergraduate education at a major US
university
Title/institution
Bass Connections programme
Duke University, North Carolina, US
https://bassconnections.duke.edu/
Provision level, numbers
Undergraduate
Nature of interdisciplinary provision
Range of innovative interdisciplinary undergraduate modules, often involving team projects and/or
experiential learning
Development
Ranked 18 in Times Higher Education World Rankings 2014-15, Duke University has made a
substantive commitment to interdisciplinarity. There has been a Vice-Provost for Interdisciplinary
Studies within the Provost’s Office for 16 years, with an office created to implement aspects of the
University’s 2006 Strategic Plan, when interdisciplinarity was identified as a key dimension for the
University: the “stake was put in the ground and it really focused where we would put energy and
resources.” “We found that, compared to other places, we are really doing interdisciplinarity. We
put resources toward it; we changed policies and structures to facilitate it, bringing about both
structural and cultural change.”
Although Duke University has a traditional structure of departments and disciplines, it does have a
“history of flexibility”; furthermore, the office is working between and among the structures to
achieve further interdisciplinarity. Rather than simply adding interdisciplinarity as another
responsibility for a Research Office, establishment of a designated Vice Provost and an Office for
Interdisciplinary Studies made it possible to pursue a broader role, in both research and education.
While Duke had set up some seven interdisciplinary institutes in complex areas such as global
health, ethics, brain sciences and so on, these were initially more focused in the realm of research.
A dozen faculty leaders, some Deans and a generous donor shared a vision for an educational
innovation that seemed to be the right thing to do, at the right time, in the right place: the
innovative Bass Connections programme was established as a focus for interdisciplinary education,
linking undergraduate and graduate instruction and inquiry. After significant planning, the
programme officially began activities in the autumn of 2013. In addition to the Vice Provost, senior
level staff in the Office contributing to the programme include a Director for Administration and
Program Development and an Assistant Director for Communications and Administration; there is a
14-member Faculty Advisory Council and also a Student Advisory Council with representatives from
across student levels and themes. Both Advisory Councils make recommendations on the
development of the Bass Connections programme and also champion the programme.
Although Duke may be further along than many peer universities in the US, this “developmental
pattern” has been observed in other institutions: “There seems to be a progression in setting up
infrastructure for interdisciplinary research and education; it seems to be that most places invest in
interdisciplinary research, planting a seed to get as much interdisciplinarity going as possible … and
we’ve seen interdisciplinary undergraduate education come later in institutional development.”
A “university-wide initiative that links faculty and students to respond to complex challenges
through problem-focused educational pathways and project teams”, the Bass Connections
programme supports “problem-focused educational pathways” and “interdisciplinary project
teams”. As described on the programme website, its vision is “to create a distinctive new model for

66
education, exploring societal and cultural challenges through collaborative, problem-centered
learning.” Objectives call for innovation on several levels:
1. “Students gain problem-centered expertise and team-oriented skills and then use them to
apply knowledge, research, and skills across disciplines to explore societal and cultural
challenges.
2. Faculty members integrated education, research, and outreach as well as disciplinary
approaches to explore societal and cultural challenges within specific themes.
3. Duke administration, departments, schools and institutes make infrastructure and
programmatic changes that facilitate and sustain above objectives.”
The initial themes that underpin supported activities are related to strategic research emphases,
and include: Brain and Society; Information, Society and Culture; Global Health; Energy; Education
and Human Development. Some 55 project teams have been supported this past year. In some
cases, for example, classes are team-taught on a topic from different disciplines; or an academic
might broaden his or her own focus by bringing in other experts; or course structures might be
changed to incorporate more experiences as a different style of learning. Often, changes lie in
taking some educational element that already exists and adjusting it to have a more
interdisciplinary, applied and/or collaborative focus. Very often, students gain experiential learning
within an interdisciplinary setting. The Office for Interdisciplinary Studies can help facilitate
interdisciplinarity through roles like provision of seed funding, assistance with institutional change,
and providing a resource centre and sharing good practice, for example, through its Team
Resource Center.
Challenges/opportunities
Challenges:
Academic time and curriculum credit can be issues.
Opportunities:
The premise of the Bass Connections programme is that interdisciplinarity should not come at the
expense of the disciplines, as disciplines remain important. Nonetheless, the programme’s ‘History’
web page poses the following question and goal:
how can we fully embed this powerful form of understanding in the educational
experience of our students, and how can we expose students to a multi-faceted
understanding of the complex challenges of our time? … The goal of Bass Connections
is to achieve genuine interdisciplinary education, which provides a careful balance
between the depth of knowledge needed to understand a problem from one discipline
and the breadth across several disciplines needed to understand that problem in all its
complexity. (See: https://bassconnections.duke.edu/content/history)
Lessons learned
have a person in the vice provost role whose job it is to wake up every day and think how to
advance interdisciplinarity in the institution;
focus on places where there is some existing interest – student interest and faculty interest;
this takes time and is really complicated! People sometimes get impatient with the pace of it,
but it can take two to three times to work through something (like a new course); the process
is important. Getting people in the same room, having them spend time together and figure out
what they are doing – that has to happen! Some people complain that there are so many
meetings and conversations that development lasts so long – but that is what it takes.

67
6. Principles for the development of
interdisciplinary education: conclusions of our
study
The word ‘interdisciplinary’ denotes a spectrum of experience and our findings support the HEA’s
statement in its call for tenders29 that “there are a range of approaches to introducing interdisciplinary
provision in to the curriculum.” This is to be expected given that interdisciplinarity is not, itself, a
cohesive subject, approach, or methodology, but a term that can be misunderstood and
misappropriated.
While compulsory interdisciplinary courses may have become a standard feature of the curriculum at
many US colleges and universities (Goodman and Huckfeldt 2013), the same is not yet true in the
UK.30 Variation in interdisciplinary provision is therefore unsurprising given the relatively early stage of
its evolution within UK higher education.31 Our findings do, however, indicate that interdisciplinary
learning and teaching is already an explicit component of many institutional strategies. Across all of
our respondents, most feel that the level of interdisciplinary educational provision has increased at
their institution over the past five years. Looking to the future, most respondents expect this level to
increase further. There are, nevertheless, differences in the views expressed by classes of
respondents (see Section 4) indicating variation in understanding of the drivers and motivators for
interdisciplinary learning and teaching.
Our study has sought, in part, to categorise the types of interdisciplinary provision currently available
in the UK. Curriculum enhancement ambitions are becoming more widespread in the UK with many
universities seeking to combine academic excellence with a greater focus on,
inter alia
, skills such as
critical thinking and effective communication, engendering openness to more reflexive learning and
personal development, and preparing students for global citizenship. However, curriculum
enhancement and a more integrated approach to learning do not necessarily constitute
‘interdisciplinarity’ and the pedagogical approaches included in some descriptions of ‘interdisciplinary
provision’ are not unique to interdisciplinarity.
‘Integrative learning’ is often used as an umbrella term for activities that bridge, for example,
experiences inside and outside the classroom, theory and practice, and disciplines and fields, while
interdisciplinary studies is a subset of integrative learning “that fosters connections among disciplines
and interdisciplinary fields” (Klein 2005, p. 8).
According to Klein (2005), the intersection of integration and interdisciplinarity hinges on a crucial
distinction: multidisciplinary approaches align subjects or disciplines in parallel schedules or units, but
not modified in any way, where teachers present their perspectives separately. In this model, students
gain that fosters connections among disciplines and interdisciplinary fields breadth of knowledge but
explicit analysis of disciplinary perspectives and synthesis across disciplines is usually missing. In
contrast, Klein argues, interdisciplinary models restructure the curriculum with explicitly integrative
activities that are typically theme-based, problem-based, or question-based and organised within a
curriculum that has a spine of required core courses ensuring attention is paid to interdisciplinary
theory, concepts and methods. There will be a spectrum of interdisciplinary experience from a weak
model of interdisciplinarity (generally manifested by a series of linked courses that focus on a theme)
contrasted with a strong programme with full-time faculty appointments, anchored in good practice,
29 www.heacademy.ac.uk/funding-call/interdisciplinary-provision-higher-education-current-context-and-future-challenges
[Accessed 15 June 2015].
30 The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) does not, for example, produce any data on interdisciplinary degrees.
31 It is worth noting that the Scottish curriculum (at both secondary and tertiary level) has traditionally allowed for a greater
breadth of subjects to be studied than the English system and this may result in even greater variation.

68
with an understanding of interdisciplinarity communicated to all parties in order to develop a culture
based on integrative values and portfolio-based assessment (Klein 2010a, pp.106–7).
Done well, this should develop within students the ability to:
ask meaningful questions about complex issues and problems;
locate multiple sources of knowledge, information, and perspectives;
compare and contrast them to reveal patterns and connections;
create an integrative framework and a more holistic understanding;
adapt knowledge in unexpected and changing contexts. (Klein 2005)
such that, “as workers, parents, and citizens” they will be able to apply knowledge and solve problems
that are not “in the book” (Klein 2005).
Current research at the University of Copenhagen on how different actors (students, teachers and
administrators) are creating or hindering interdisciplinarity also identifies many different models of
learning and teaching, but finds that, too often, such courses are simply ‘pluridisciplinary’.32 Lindvig
cautions that simply presenting two disciplines to the students is not interdisciplinarity, and relying on
students to be the sole agents of integration is not a dependable strategy.33
What we discern through our own empirical data and case studies are a range of activities taking
place at different scales – at the level of one-off workshops, single course modules or units, or
sometimes full degree programmes. These activities have different (and not always fully articulated)
aims: whether they manifest in a general awareness of knowledge beyond the student’s immediate
degree discipline, an ability to go further and apply that knowledge, or a more root-and-branch
transformation of the student’s way of thinking and viewing the world. In this last situation,
interdisciplinarity might be viewed as a ‘threshold concept’ (e.g. Meyer and Land 2005) where
students are not only taken into a space where they see things differently but may, as a result,
become different kinds of learners.
From the literature (Section 3), we have identified a set of pedagogical techniques (Table 3.1) that are
discussed within the context of effective practice in interdisciplinary learning and teaching and a
recognition that “‘interdisciplinary teaching and learning requires a host of powerful pedagogies”
(DeZure 2010, p. 384). However, commentators also stress that “There is no unique or single
pedagogy for integrative interdisciplinary learning” (Klein 2005) and that “Interdisciplinary pedagogy
… is not synonymous with a single process, set of skills, method or technique” (Haynes 2002, p. xvi;
quoted in DeZure 2010).
What is largely missing from this literature, and from the empirical data we have collected, is a debate
about, or evidence for, the underlying “curriculum ideologies” (Toohey 1999, p. 45) – the principles,
ideas, beliefs and epistemologies that might underpin interdisciplinary learning and teaching. Once
again, this suggests that theory has not yet caught up with practice in this field: one could easily still
argue that interdisciplinary study remains “the most seriously underthought critical, pedagogical and
institutional concept in the modern academy” (Ellis 2009, p. 3 quoting Liu 1989). The gap that we
identify in the existing literature is not so much about the types of disciplines that are not currently
being included (as implied in HEA’s research questions), but about the lack of theorising about
pedagogy in this emerging area of learning and teaching practice.34
Our survey data suggest that the prevailing orthodoxy among university leaders supports the concept
of tertiary education as preparation for employment (Toohey 1999, p. 45). However, while the Quality
32 Personal communication, Katrine Lindvig, University of Copenhagen, 12 June 2015.
33 Yet, our empirical findings suggest that very often this responsibility
is
placed upon students, contrary to the advice offered in
much of the literature we have reviewed about clarity of course goals and outcomes for the students and the recognition that
simply expecting students to make sense of interdisciplinarity on their own will be too challenging for the majority.
34 In this respect, the field of interdisciplinary learning and teaching has not progressed a great deal since Thew’s earlier study
for HEA (Thew 2007).

69
Assurance Agency for Higher Education’s (QAA’s) review activity and enhancement themes may have
raised university leaders’ awareness of employability, our enquiries35 regarding employer views on
interdisciplinarity found that, while there is much that relates to what employers value in
undergraduates and, to some extent, postgraduates, there is nothing on interdisciplinarity
per se
. Nor
does the employability issue surface as a driver in any of the academic literature on interdisciplinary
learning and teaching that we have found.
Although the most obvious drivers for increasing interdisciplinarity may be instrumental (e.g.
perceived new income streams, improved graduate employability), the issue of interdisciplinary
provision points to the heart of how universities are organised and the purpose of higher education.
They exemplify the ongoing process of change within disciplines, which are themselves a relatively
modern phenomenon. Our approach was to look for new and emerging examples of interdisciplinarity
within five fields,36 but what might we have learned from inherently interdisciplinary subject areas that
are long-established but do not necessarily espouse that label, such as Education, Medicine,
Geography or Psychology? The cycle of evolution, as new disciplines emerge (e.g. Digital Humanities)
and become concretised (e.g. Science and Technology Studies), must inevitably have some impact,
not just on research in these areas but also on learning and teaching. A key unanswered question is
whether interdisciplinarity is evolving within universities or whether universities are, themselves,
evolving.
Our findings mirror those of our colleagues at the University of Copenhagen in highlighting the often
passionate commitment of an entrepreneurial academic as a key driver. Very often these academic
pioneers aspire to a new, holistic intellectual growth among their students. Sometimes this aim is
aligned with an emerging field that poses a set of questions or problems demanding interdisciplinary
inquiry in both research and teaching. Often, this is an activity that is happening at the margins of
mainstream teaching. This is a risky strategy for the sustainability of interdisciplinary learning and
teaching: if it is not to rely solely on the efforts of individual champions, greater institutionalisation will
be necessary but this takes us back to Klein (2010a, p. 123), quoted in the introduction, on the
tension between “normalisation” (in order to gain strength and stability for such programmes) and the
“mission for insurgency” inherent in interdisciplinarity.
Despite the existence of such interdisciplinary converts, Toohey’s assertion (1999, p. 47), that
teachers are still wedded to the idea of “coverage” such that “although many departments pay lip
service to a range of different educational goals, the discipline approach which promotes breadth [in
terms of covering the full discipline] rather than depth is still the dominant model” remains largely
true. Despite the trends that we have identified, the tendency to isolate knowledge and different ways
of knowing and the emphasis on “mastering individual elements such as a discipline or methodology
rather than on integration” (Toohey 1999, p. 47) prevail.
The recent Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI)/HEA Student Academic Experience Survey
results,37 which indicate that students prioritise the need for their lecturers to have formal training in
teaching rather than being involved in current relevant research, may be a further driver for change if
they intensify pressure on staff to gain formal teaching accreditation (Grove 2015). This may, in turn,
engender a culture change that counters a degree of cynicism about formal training evident in some
parts of the sector (Hibbert and Semler 2015) and the tendency to undervalue teaching, particularly
within research-intensive universities.
35 Personal communication, Shelagh Green, Head of Careers Advisory Service, University of Edinburgh.
36 Sustainability; International Development; Health (social dimensions); Games (digital); Culture.
37 www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AS-PRINTED-HEA_HEPI_report_print4.pdf [Accessed 14 June 2015]

70
6.1. Recommendations regarding HEA’s role in supporting
interdisciplinary learning and teaching
We conclude that a successful interdisciplinary curriculum should be aimed at mitigating the
institutional and personal challenges of interdisciplinarity on the one hand, and fulfilling specific
learning objectives expected from interdisciplinary education on the other. We therefore identify three
potential roles for HEA in supporting interdisciplinary learning and teaching.
In the face of likely trends toward at least some degree of increase in interdisciplinary provision, both
the PVCs and programme directors whom we surveyed agreed that access to a body of good practice
in interdisciplinary provision would be appreciated. Survey responses also indicate that this desire
contrasts sharply with current reality. Suggestions from our respondents on the types of support that
might help them to be more effective in interdisciplinary teaching did underscore the importance of
institutionalised support, for example, in university strategies, through institutional reforms or the
inclusion of interdisciplinarity in PGCHE provision. Access to research and good practice (e.g. in the
form of case studies) was emphasised, as were skills development training, for example through
organisation of masterclasses, or through funding for trials and test projects.
First, a significant role for HEA in supporting subscribing institutions may be to act as a respected
forum where experiences of interdisciplinary learning and teaching can be developed and shared. Our
study identified at least two self-organising networks formed by programme directors to discuss issues
and share good practice. We have previously used the masterclass approach to build interdisciplinary
research capacity at different career levels (Lyall and Meagher 2012). Such masterclasses can draw
upon actual practice and encourage reflection on key processes. This approach could support
academics already involved in, or beginning to develop, sound interdisciplinary provision. There could
be a role for HEA in supporting accessible external masterclasses to supplement academic
development offerings available within institutions.
Secondly, in addition to this developmental support, HEA may wish to take the lead as a locus for
defining a pedagogic research agenda for interdisciplinarity to underpin this important learning and
teaching activity with the necessary theoretical understanding, which we currently find to be lacking.
This could help the sector to navigate the differences in epistemologies of different disciplines, which
pose a particular challenge in team teaching, and can be especially problematic given the
heterogeneity that we have encountered (e.g. preparing students for the modern workplace, meeting
the requirements of professional training, or laying the groundwork for postgraduate research).
Finally, HEA plays an important leadership role in the higher education sector. In supporting
interdisciplinarity in undergraduate and postgraduate taught education, HEA may wish to encourage
leaders of HEIs themselves to reflect upon the following underlying principles of interdisciplinary
education:
1. If institutions are going to embark on a strategy of interdisciplinary learning and teaching,
there must be clarity of purpose:
a. institutions should recognise that, with no one all-purpose pedagogy for
interdisciplinarity, they must articulate clearly their own goals and develop strategy
accordingly;
b. the potential for interdisciplinary education to add value to an institution and its
outputs should be articulated clearly: to staff but also to students, parents, employers
and other stakeholders;
c. curriculum enhancement, integrative learning, and interdisciplinary learning and
teaching represent different goals and require staff and students to develop different
sets of well-aligned competences in learning and teaching.
2. If institutions are to develop effective interdisciplinary learning and teaching, this requires a
whole institution approach in order to overcome the many academic and administrative
barriers that exist:

71
a. some of these barriers may be perceived rather than real but it will require a
concerted process of institutional change to overcome both the misperceptions and
the realities;
b. not all institutions, nor indeed every part of each individual institution, will embrace
interdisciplinarity; this is reasonable in a healthily diverse higher education system.
However, for those institutions seeking excellence in interdisciplinary education,
advocacy, facilitation, celebration and reward will be key;
c. in promotion and other professional assessments, recognition must be clearly
available for interdisciplinary activity relevant to education (e.g. teaching, mentoring,
and development of new courses and related research).
3. Successful interdisciplinary learning and teaching is resource intensive:
a. the development of a coherent interdisciplinary course takes time, if it is not to rely
on students to do the integration: this needs to be recognised, for example, in models
of workload allocation;
b. for some universities this will require considerable culture change if staff are to be
adequately trained, supported and rewarded. Skills development should be facilitated
in academics taking on the challenge of effective interdisciplinary teaching. This
training might take various forms, whether in-house or external short courses or
expert masterclasses;
c. various other forms of support may be required, ranging from institutional advocacy
to seed corn funding for course development, to administrative matters such as
scheduling and credit-sharing across departments. Pioneering academics should be
facilitated to share their own learning about good practices within their own
institutions and across the sector.

72
References
Augsburg, T. and Henry, S. (eds.) (2009).
The Politics of Interdisciplinary Studies: Essays on
Transformations in American Undergraduate Programs
. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Balsiger, J. (2015) Transdisciplinarity in the class room? Simulating the co-production of sustainability
knowledge [Internet].
Futures
, 65, 185–94. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.005
[Accessed 29 November 2015].
Bandola, J. and Lyall, C. (2015)
Interdisciplinarity in the strategic documents of the Russell Group
universities
. Internal University of Edinburgh Report to Researcher Experience Committee,
January 2015.
Bechhofer, F. and Paterson, L. (2000)
Principles of Research Design in the Social Sciences
. London:
Routledge.
Bentley, S. (2007) English. In: Canning, J. (ed.)
Disciplines in Dialogue: Disciplinary Perspectives on
Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning
. York: Higher Education Academy, pp. 11–14.
Blackmore, P. and Kandiko, C.B. (2012)
Strategic Curriculum Change in Universities: Global Trends
.
London, New York: Routledge.
Borrego, M., Boden, D. and Newswander, L. K. (2014) Sustained change: institutionalizing
interdisciplinary graduate education [Internet].
The Journal of Higher Education
, 85 (6) 858–
85. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0033 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Borrego, M. and Newswander, L.K. (2010) Definitions of interdisciplinary research: toward graduate-
level interdisciplinary learning outcomes [Internet].
The Review of Higher Education
, 34 (1) 61–
84. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0006 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Buchbinder, S.B., Alt, P.M., Eskow, K., Forbes, W., Hester, E., Struck, M. and Taylor, D. (2005)
Creating learning prisms with an interdisciplinary case study workshop [Internet].
Innovative
Higher Education
, 29 (4) 257–74. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-005-2861-x [Accessed
29 November 2015].
Burgett, B., Hillyard, C., Krabill, R., Leadley, S. and Rosenberg, B. (2011) Teaching interdisciplinarity.
Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition and Culture,
11
(3) 465-91. doi 10.1215/15314200-1302723
Chandramohan, B. and Fallows, S. (2009) Conclusion: Towards interdisciplinarity in the twenty-first
century. In: Chandramohan, B. and Fallows, S. (eds.)
Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching in
Higher Education. Theory and Practice
. New York: Routledge, pp 160-2.
Chettiparamb, A. (2007)
Interdisciplinarity: A Literature Review
. Southampton: The Interdisciplinary
Teaching and Learning Group, University of Southampton.
Cooper, H., Carlisle, C., Gibbs, T. and Watkins, C. (2001) Developing an evidence base for
interdisciplinary learning: A systematic review [Internet].
Journal of Advanced Nursing
, 35
(2)
228–37. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01840.x [Accessed 29 November
2015].
Davies, M. and Devlin, M. (2007)
Interdisciplinary Higher Education: Implications for Teaching and
Learning
[Internet]. Melbourne: CSHE, University of Melbourne. Available from:
http://cshe.unimelb.edu.au/resources_teach/curriculum_design/docs/InterdisciplinaryHEd.pdf [Accessed 19 June
2015].
Derrick, E.G., Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., Roberts, M.R. and Olson, S. (2012)
Facilitating Interdisciplinary
Research and Education: A Practical Guide
[Internet]. Available from:
http://www.aaas.org/report/facilitating-interdisciplinary-research-and-education-practical-guide [Accessed 19 June
2015].
de Roo, M. and van Gorp, T. (2014)
Interdisciplinary Learning Activities.
Amsterdam: University of
Amsterdam.

73
DeZure, D. (2010). Interdisciplinary pedagogies in higher education: In: Frodeman, R., Thompson
Klein, J. and C. Mitcham (eds.)
The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity
. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Drake, T., Rourke, M.O., Panttaja, D. and Peterson, I. (2008) It’s alive! The life span of an
interdisciplinary course in the Humanities.
Journal of General Education
, 57 (4) 223–43.
Dymond, J.S., Scheifele, L.Z., Richardson, S., Lee, P., Chandrasegaran, S., Bader, J.S. and Boeke, J.
D. (2009) Teaching synthetic Biology, Bioinformatics and Engineering to undergraduates: the
interdisciplinary build-a-genome course [Internet].
Genetics
, 181 (1) 13–21. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.108.096784 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Elliott, B., Oty, K., McArthur, J. and Clark, B. (2001) The effect of an interdisciplinary Algebra/Science
course on students’ problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and attitudes towards
Mathematics [Internet].
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and
Technology
, 32 (6) 811–16. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1080/00207390110053784 [Accessed 29
November 2015].
Ellis, R. J. (2009) Problems may cut right across the borders. In: Chandramohan, B. and Fallows, S.
(eds.)
Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Theory and Practice
. New
York: Routledge, pp. 3-17.
Fearn, H. (2009) The wizards of Oz.
Times Higher,
8 January 2009.
Gibbs, G. (2012)
Implications of ‘Dimensions of Quality’ in a Market Environment
. York: Higher
Education Academy.
Goodman, B.E. and Huckfeldt, V.E. (2013) The Rise and fall of a required interdisciplinary course:
lessons learned [Internet].
Innovative Higher Education
, 39 (1) 75–88. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9261-4 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Graff, H.J. (2015)
Undisciplining Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in the Twentieth Century
. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Grove, J. (2015) Student survey rates teaching qualifications above research activity [Internet].
Times
Higher,
4 June 2015 issue 2206, pp. 6–7. Available from:
www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/content/student-survey-rates-teaching-qualifications-above-research-
activity?dm_i=2PXJ,SB0,MK165,1U5R,1 [Accessed 14 June 2015].
Haynes, C. and Leonard, J.B. (2010) From surprise parties to mapmaking: undergraduate journeys
toward interdisciplinary understanding [Internet].
The Journal of Higher Education
, 81 (5) 645–
66. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2010.0000 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Haynes, C. (ed.) (2002).
Innovations in Interdisciplinary Teaching
. ACE Series on Higher Education
Westport, CT: Oryx Press/Greenwood Press.
Heckhausen, H. (1972) Discipline and interdisciplinarity. In: Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A. and
Michaud, G. (eds.)
Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities
. Paris: OECD.
Hibbert, P. and Semler, M. (2015) Faculty development in teaching and learning: the UK framework
and current debates [Internet].
Innovations in Education and Teaching International.
23 Mar
2015, DOI:10.1080/14703297.2015.1022201. Available from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14703297.2015.1022201 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Holley, K. (2009) The challenge of an interdisciplinary curriculum: A cultural analysis of a doctoral-
degree program in Neuroscience [Internet].
Higher Education
, 58 (2) 241–55. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9193-6 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Hothem, T. (2013) Integrated general education and the extent of interdisciplinarity: the University of
California-Merced’s Core 1 Curriculum [Internet].
The Journal of General Education
, 62 (2–3),
84–111. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2013.0016 [Accessed ?29 November 2015].
Klein, J. (2010a)
Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Culture.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

74
Klein, J.T., (2010b). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman, R., Klein, J.T. and Mitcham, C.
(eds.)
The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity
. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15-30.
Klein, J.T. (2005) Integrative learning and interdisciplinary studies.
Peer Review
.
Summer/Fall 2005, 7
(4) 8–10.
Klein, J.T. (1990)
Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice
. Detroit: Wayne State University
Press.
Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1997) The hype and hope of interdisciplinary management studies
[Internet].
British Journal of Management
, 8 (1), 9-22. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8551.00035 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Lattuca, L.R. (2002) Learning interdisciplinarity: sociocultural perspectives on academic work
[Internet].
The Journal of Higher Education
, 73 (6) 711–39. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0054 [Accessed ?].
Lattuca, L.R., Voigt, L.J. and Fath, K.Q. (2004) Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? theoretical
support and researchable questions [Internet].
The Review of Higher Education
, 28 (1) 23–48.
Available from: http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0028 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Liebert, W.J. (2013) Preparing to understand and use Science in the real world: interdisciplinary study
concentrations at the Technical University of Darmstadt [Internet].
Science and Engineering
Ethics
, 19 (4) 1533–50. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9488-6 [Accessed 29
November 2015].
Liu, A. (1989) The power of formalism: The new historicism.
ELH: English Literary History
, 56 (4)
721–71.
LWEC (2012)
Living with Environmental Change Short Form Skills Framework
[Internet]. Available
from: http://www.lwec.org.uk/sites/default/files/2012%20Short%20Form%20Skills%20Framework.pdf [Accessed
21 June 2015].
Lyall, C., Bruce, A., Tait, J. and Meagher, L. (2011)
Interdisciplinary Research Journeys: Practical
Strategies for Capturing Creativity
. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Lyall, C. and Meagher, L. (2012) A masterclass in interdisciplinarity: research into practice in training
the next generation of interdisciplinary researchers.
Futures
. 44 (6) 608–17.
MacKinnon, P.J., Hine, D. and Barnard, R.T. (2013) Interdisciplinary Science research and education
[Internet].
Higher Education Research and Development
, 32 (3) 407–19. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.686482 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Manathunga, C., Lant, P. and Mellick, G. (2006) Imagining an interdisciplinary doctoral pedagogy
[Internet].
Teaching in Higher Education,
11 (3) 365–79. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680954 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R. (2005) Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2):
epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning.
Higher
Education
, 49 (3) 373–88.
National Academies (2005)
Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research
. National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. Washington: National Academy
Press.
Nerantzi, C. (2012) A case of problem based learning for cross-institutional collaboration.
Electronic
Journal of e-Learning
, 10 (3) 306–14.
Newell, W.H. (2009) Miami University's School of Interdisciplinary Studies: In: Augsburg, T. and
Henry, S. (eds.)
The Politics of Interdisciplinary Studies: Essays on Transformations in American
Undergraduate Programs
. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

75
Nikitina, S. (2006) Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: contextualizing, conceptualizing, and
problem-centring [Internet].
Journal of Curriculum Studies,
38 (3) 251–71. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500422632 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
OECD (1972)
Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities.
Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris: OECD
Orillion, M.F. (2009) Interdisciplinary curriculum and student outcomes: the case of a general
education course at a research university [Internet].
The Journal of General Education
, 58 (1),
1–18. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1353/jge.0.0032 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Perry, B. and Stewart, T. (2005) Insights into effective partnership in interdisciplinary team teaching
[Internet].
System
, 33 (4) 563–73. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.01.006
[Accessed 29 November 2015].
Pharo, E., Davison, A., McGregor, H., Warr, K. and Brown, P. (2013) Using communities of practice to
enhance interdisciplinary teaching: lessons from four Australian institutions [Internet].
Higher
Education Research and Development
, 33 (2) 341–54. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.832168 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Pharo, E.J., Davison, Warr, K., Nursey-Bray, M., Beswick, K., Wapstra, E. and Jones, C. (2012) Can
teacher collaboration overcome barriers to interdisciplinary learning in a disciplinary university?
A case study using climate change [Internet].
Teaching in Higher Education
, 17 (5) 497–507.
Available from: http://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.658560 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Potts, A. (2012) Selling university reform: the University of Melbourne and the press.
Studies in Higher
Education
, 37 (2) 157–69.
QAA and HEA (2014)
Education for sustainable development
. QAA763 - June 14. Gloucester: Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Remington-Doucette, S., Hiller Connell, K., Armstrong, C. and Musgrove, S. (2013) Assessing
sustainability education in a transdiciplinary undergraduate course focused on real-world
problem solving.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education
, 14 (4) 404–33.
Sandholtz, J. (2000) Interdisciplinary as a form teaching development.
Teacher Education Quarterly
,
27 (3) 39–54.
Saunders, C., Smith, A., Watson, H., Nimmo, A., Morrison, M., Fawcett, T. and Ross, M. (2012) The
experience of interdisciplinary peer-assisted learning (PAL) [Internet].
Clinical Teacher
, 9 (6)
398–402. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-498X.2012.00568.x [Accessed 29 November
2015].
Saunders, J.P., and Ingalls, V. (2013) Evolutionary science and literary design: teaching Huxley's
Brave New World in interdisciplinary collaboration.
Style
, 47
(2), 239-60.
Shearer, M.C. (2007) Implementing a new interdisciplinary module: the challenges and the benefits of
working across disciplines.
Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education
, 2 (1) 2–20.
Shibley, I. (2006) Interdisciplinary team teaching: negotiating pedagogical differences [Internet].
College Teaching
, 54 (3) 271–74. Available from: http://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.54.3.271-274 [Accessed
29 November 2015].
Spelt, E.J.H., Biemans, H.J., Tobi, H., Luning, P. and Mulder, M. (2009) Teaching and learning in
interdisciplinary higher education: a systematic review [Internet].
Educational Psychology
Review
, 21 (4) 365–78. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z [Accessed 20
November 2015].
Spelt, E.J.H., Luning, P., van Boekel, M.J.S. and Mulder, M. (2014) Constructively aligned teaching and
learning in higher education in Engineering: what do students perceive as contributing to the
learning of interdisciplinary thinking? [Internet]
European Journal of Engineering Education
, 40

76
(5) 459-75. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.987647 [Accessed 20 November
2015].
Spitzer, H. (2013) Introduction of interdisciplinary teaching: two case studies: commentary on
“teaching Science, Technology, and society to Engineering students: a sixteen year journey
[Internet].
Science and Engineering Ethics
, 19 (4) 1451–4. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9475-y [Accessed 29 November 2105].
Strober, M.H. (2011)
Interdisciplinary Conversations – Challenging Habits of Thought.
Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Szostak, R. (2007) How and why to teach interdisciplinary research practice.
Journal of Research
Practice
, 3 (2) 1–17.
Thew, N. (2007)
The Impact of the Internal Economy of Higher Education Institutions on
Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning
. Southampton: The Interdisciplinary Teaching and
Learning Group, University of Southampton.
Toohey, S. (1999)
Designing Courses for Higher Education
. SRHE/Open University Press: Buckingham.
Toynton, R. (2005) Degrees of disciplinarity in equipping mature students in higher education for
engagement and success in lifelong learning [Internet].
Active Learning in Higher Education
, 6
(2) 106–17. Available from: http://doi.org/10.1177/1469787405054236 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Van Dam-Mieras, R., Lansu, A., Rieckmann, M., and Michelsen, G. (2007) Development of an
interdisciplinary, intercultural Master’s program on sustainability: learning from the richness of
diversity [Internet].
Innovative Higher Education
, 32 (5) 251–64. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9055-7 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Van der Waldt, G. (2014) Public administration teaching and interdisciplinarity: considering the
consequences.
Teaching Public Administration
, 32 (2) 169–93.
Willermet, C., Mueller, A., Juris, S. J., Drake, E. and Upadhaya, S. (2013) Water as life, death, and
power: Building an integrated interdisciplinary course combining perspectives from
Anthropology, Biology, and Chemistry.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
, 13
(5) 106–24.
Woods, C. (2006) Researching and developing interdisciplinary teaching: Towards a conceptual
framework for classroom communication [Internet].
Higher Education
, 54 (6) 853–66. Available
from: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-006-9027-3 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Yang, M. (2009) Making interdisciplinary subjects relevant to students: an interdisciplinary approach
[Internet].
Teaching in Higher Education
, 14 (6) 597–606. Available from:
http://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903315019 [Accessed 29 November 2015].
Zartner, D. (2009) An interdisciplinary approach to teaching International Law: using the tools of the
Law School classroom in Political Science [Internet].
PS: Political Science and Politics
, 42 (1)
189–95. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049096509090180 [Accesssed 29 November 2015].

77
Annexes
A. Interview topic guide
B. Agenda for Advisory Group meeting, June 2015
C. Focus group topic guide
D. Literature review method
E. Full set of survey charts
F. Lessons learned
G. Survey instruments
A. Interview topic guides
Semi-structured interview template, course co-ordinators/
programme directors
I. BACKGROUND
Please describe your programme briefly. (Topic, key themes; target/degree level, approximate
number of academics and of students, age of programme.)
Were you involved directly in the launch? Subsequent evolution? What is your role now?
How would you describe the process of the development of the course/programme?
II. NATURE OF PROVISION
What was the primary motivation for establishing the programme? Other drivers?
What is ‘special’ about the programme? What value does interdisciplinarity add? Is
interdisciplinarity central to the programme or a bonus?
What disciplines/fields/units are bridged – and why were these included? Were others hoped for,
but not included?
Would you say that the academic staff keep to their own fields in their own modules, or are they
actively involved in design and implementation of synthesis or emergent integration across the
course/programme? Has engagement of individual staff members changed over time?
Are there particular components of the course/programme (e.g. seminars, assignments, projects)
that propel interdisciplinarity effectively?
Who is responsible for interdisciplinary learning? Student? All staff? Programme director?
What are the features of your programme that you are proudest of?
III. PRACTICE/PEDAGOGY
Have you found/developed any key pedagogical methods for interdisciplinary education?
Have you ever received (or provided) training or staff development in interdisciplinary
education/teaching? Would you like to? In what format?
What supportive role might the Higher Education Academy (or others) play?
IV. CHALLENGES/ISSUES
Have you encountered challenges in providing interdisciplinary education? What are they? How
have you addressed them?

78
V. OPPORTUNITIES/ADVANTAGES
What positives/opportunities/advantages have you found particularly meaningful when providing
interdisciplinary education?
VI. LESSONS LEARNED
What lessons would you share with others, about either dealing with challenges or making the
most of opportunities?
Would you like to offer any advice on:
 pragmatically dealing with university structures/politics/administration?
 good practice in pedagogy?
 principles for frameworks underpinning high-quality interdisciplinary provision?
VII. BIG PICTURE
Does your institution support interdisciplinary provision? If so, how? If not, why not?
Do you see interdisciplinary provision as likely to increase or decrease at your institution?
Generally? Why?
Is there any ‘big picture’ message you would like to send to the Higher Education Academy, or HE
policymakers, about interdisciplinary provision?
Semi-structured interview template, PVCs, VPs, Deans
I. BACKGROUND
What would you say are the highlights of interdisciplinary educational provision at your institution?
((Topic, key themes. Target/degree level, approximate number of academics and of students, age
of course.) About how many interdisciplinary programmes exist? Are there also separate
interdisciplinary modules?
How would you characterise your institution’s culture relative to interdisciplinarity? For instance, is
interdisciplinary research talked about more often than interdisciplinary teaching? Is either
highlighted explicitly in institutional strategies?
II. NATURE OF PROVISION
What have been the primary drivers for establishment of interdisciplinary educational provision?
What is ‘special’ about the programme(s)? What value does interdisciplinarity add? Is
interdisciplinarity central to the course/programme or a bonus?
What breadth of fields/units are bridged (e.g. Humanities + Social Science + Natural Science, or
natural Science + Natural Science)?
Would you say that the academic staff tend to keep to their own fields in their own modules, or
are they actively involved in design and implementation of synthesis or emergent integration
across the course/programme?
III. TRENDS
Do you have the sense that interest in designing and delivering interdisciplinary provision has
increased or decreased over the last few years? At your institution? Generally, in academia?
What do you see happening in the next five years? (undergraduate, postgraduate) Why?
III. PRACTICE/PEDAGOGY
Does your institution provide training or staff development explicitly in interdisciplinary
education/teaching? Would you like your office/academic staff to have increased access to a body
of good practice in interdisciplinary provision? (If so, in what format?)
What supportive role might the Higher Education Academy (or others) play?
What do you see as key pedagogical methods for interdisciplinary education?

79
IV. CHALLENGES/ISSUES
What would you say is the most serious challenge or issue facing interdisciplinary education?
(Have you addressed it at your institution? How?)
V. OPPORTUNITIES/ADVANTAGES
What do you see as the most exciting or meaningful positive/opportunity/advantage related to
interdisciplinary education?
VI. LESSONS LEARNED
What lessons would you share with others, about either dealing with challenges or making the
most of opportunities? For instance, would you like to offer any advice on: pragmatically dealing
with university structures/politics/administration? Good practice in pedagogy? Principles for
frameworks underpinning high-quality interdisciplinary provision?
VII. BIG PICTURE
Is there any ‘big picture’ message you would like to send to the Higher Education Academy, or HE
policymakers, about interdisciplinary provision?

80
B. Agenda for Advisory Group meeting, June
2015
Date: Friday 12 June 2015
Venue: STIS Seminar Room, University of Edinburgh, Old Surgeons’ Hall, High School Yards,
Edinburgh EH1 1LZ Link to map
Travel: Off peak Leuchars trains arrive Waverley 10.55 and depart 16.28
Participants:
Project team: Catherine Lyall, Laura Meagher, Ann Kettle, Justyna Bandola
Advisers: Sian Bayne (arriving around 12.00), Paul Hibbert, Jens Dolin and Katrine Lindvig (by
Skype 12.00-13.00)
Apologies: Morven Shearer
Agenda:
11.15 Coffee and introductions
11.20 Introduction to the project (Catherine Lyall)
11.30 Overview of key findings from literature review (Justyna Bandola)
11.45 Highlights from survey results (Laura Meagher)
12.00 Skype discussion with Copenhagen team
13.00 Sandwich lunch
13.30 Focus Group on forms of interdisciplinary provision and effective practice (facilitated
by Laura Meagher)
15.00 Tea
15.15 Focusing on typologies, pedagogies and principles for our final report (facilitated by
Catherine Lyall)
16.00 Close

81
C. Focus group topic guide
Forms of interdisciplinary provision and effective practice
Interdisciplinary provision
Why?
Drivers?
IS there a market? Why or why not? For which forms of provision?
What?
Do some forms of provision ‘matter’ more than others?
Can some forms of provision lead into other forms?
When?
Trends? Is there/will there be a ‘wave’?
Are some of the forms of provision likely to increase more than others?
Who?
Role of individual champion/entrepreneur versus institutional strategy?
Engagement of colleagues?
Who commits what resources?
Development and sharing of good practice
How?
What is good practice? What seem to be key features of good practice?
How do we know what good practice is? Criteria - at level of class, module, degree programme,
institutional efforts?
Self-evaluation, reflection, formative evaluation within a programme? Institution-wide analysis?
‘Official’ evaluations?
Where?
Where (how) is good practice best shared?
 Internal institutional staff development efforts? (Housed in HR? Academic development units?)
 External short courses/masterclasses?
 Conferences/workshops?
 Clubs?
 Articles? Where?

82
D. Literature review method
Table D.3: Main higher education journals publishing articles on
interdisciplinarity which were searched during literature review
Journal title
Active Learning in Higher Education
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
College Teaching
Higher Education
Higher Education Research and Development
Innovative Higher Education
Journal of Curriculum Studies
Journal of Higher Education
Review of Higher Education
Studies in Higher Education
Teaching in Higher Education
Table D.3: Quantitative results of literature search
Search phrase
Results
Interdisciplinary teaching
 Academic journals (31,773)
 Magazines (3,517)
 Reports (2,814)
 Books (353)
 Reviews (275)
Interdisciplinary learning
 Academic journals (38,337)
 Reports (2,780)
 Magazines (2,097)
 Books (225)
 Electronic resources (187)
Interdisciplinary education
 Academic journals (83,554)
 Magazines (7,642)
 Reports (5,969)
 Reviews (662)
 Books (614)
Interdisciplinary curriculum
 Academic journals (17,206)
 Reports (3,357)
 Magazines (2,320)
 Books (197)
 Trade publications (119)

83
E. Full set of survey charts
Chart 1: Interdisciplinary ‘span’ as seen by programme directors
Chart 2: Perception of interdisciplinary educational provision as a ‘live’ topic as seen by:
(a) PVCs
(b) programme directors
Chart 3: Number of interdisciplinary undergraduate
programmes, estimated by PVCs
Chart 4: Number of interdisciplinary taught
postgraduate programmes, estimated by PVCs

84
Chart 5: Drivers leading to interdisciplinary programme, as seen by PVCs
Chart 6: Drivers leading to interdisciplinary programme, as seen by programme directors

85
Chart 7: Drivers of interdisciplinarity (full dataset
n
= 112)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Demand from students
Other
Alignment with research directions
Marketing considerations
Top down institutional strategy
Championing by individual academics
Professional/vocational needs
Employability
Alignment with complex societal issues
Drivers of interdisciplinarity
Online survey Belfast group Programme directors ProVCs

86
Chart 8: Scope of interdisciplinary provision, as seen by PVCs
Chart 9: Integration through only one or two new
modules, as seen by programme directors
Chart 10: Integration through only one or two new
modules, as seen by programme directors
Chart 11: Degree of joint teaching as seen by programme directors

87
Chart 12: Manifestation of interdisciplinarity as seen by programme directors
Chart 13: Use of innovative pedagogical methods as seen by programme directors

88
Chart 14: Likelihood of institutional reward as seen by
programme directors
Chart 15: Trends over past five years (full dataset,
n
=
112)
Chart 16: Trends in next five years (full dataset,
n
=
112)
Chart 17: Expected level of interdisciplinary educational
provision, as seen by PVCs
Chart 18: Expected proportionality of interdisciplinary
undergraduate provision as seen by PVCs
Chart 19: Expected proportionality of interdisciplinary
undergraduate provision as seen by programme
directors

89
Chart 20: Expected proportionality of interdisciplinary
postgraduate provision as seen by PVCs
Chart 21: Expected proportionality of interdisciplinary
postgraduate provision as seen by programme
directors
Chart 22: Expected contexts for interdisciplinary offerings as seen by PVCs
Chart 23: Expected contexts for interdisciplinary offerings as seen by programme directors

90
Chart 24: Desirability of access to good practice as
seen by PVCs
Chart 25: Desirability of access to good practice as
seen by programme directors

91
F. Lessons learned
As summarised in Section 4, survey respondents and interviewees were asked to share ‘lessons
learned’ through their experiences with interdisciplinary provision, to help others hoping to develop an
interdisciplinary programme.
University structures/politics/administration as seen by PVCs
identify champions that stay with the development and the programme;
ensure full and transparent consultation from the outset;
it will take time and lots of consultation will be needed;
talk it through at length with staff and students before writing the programme;
establish and maintain effective communication across discipline teams agree a strategy and an
approach for programme development;
cultivate support at Dean level;
to some, interdisciplinary programmes represent an unwelcome challenge to well-established
structural and disciplinary norms. Be prepared to engage the sceptics with evidence (i.e.
particularly student demand);
get the core right first, ensure adequate resource availability beforehand, check out the
competition;
extensive market research and wariness about conversion rates from this;
make it financially desirable to offer interdisciplinary education and get buy-in from the VC;
organisation is complex. Aligning timetables and managing student choice adds to the
complexity, aligning validation/approval helps;
look at financial structures and administrative structures/boundaries to ensure they facilitate this;
timetabling and scheduling process need to be amended. First tier assessment panels are uni-
disciplinary so organisation across departments and course teams is essential;
the credit architecture across the institution must be harmonised if different disciplines are going
to work together with any ease. Programme validation must also be rationalised and those
involved in validation need a solid grounding to understand the interdisciplinary aims of new
programmes.
University structures/politics/administration as seen by programme directors
plan well ahead and have informal discussions with colleges, etc. before approval processes;
get it into workload models (particularly your own) before you start (and before the time taken
to build and run a programme in your ‘spare time’ means you don’t go out for two years) … that
is, institutional buy in;
get everyone on board early and ensure that content drives the modules and learning
engagements not marketing;
try to be patient, and work with a person who shares your interest;
start working from the persons you have;
be subversive. Take the view that if something is not explicitly ruled out, it is ruled in. Do not ask
“Is this possible?” – it is too easy for people to say “no”;
do not expect others to understand or support your vision – they will see your stuff as an add on
– even if they support they will not want to change their culture to accommodate – it will be
business as usual and you will have to make the accommodations to join them. Be prepared for
hard work;
if senior management is not interested, the penalties for engaging in such programmes can be
high.

92
Good practice and/or pedagogical methods as seen by PVCs
stimulating pedagogical approaches and learning that can be derived from interdisciplinary
practice;
it can open people’s eyes to a problem from a different perspective;
you are by definition not teaching experts and need to tailor delivery;
ensure contextualisation to prevent student dissatisfaction;
making sure that the degree is truly interdisciplinary, and that there is space within the
curriculum at every level to draw together understandings from across the disciplines;
all components are equally excellent;
managing collaboration;
need for close working and excellent communication. Importance of course leader who works
across disciplines;
importance of regular team meetings and management discussions;
getting engagement from all academic staff who deliver. It is no good having people who do not
support and promote the concept … within the delivery team or students see it as something
separate from the rest of their course;
being aware of the different pedagogies used in the different disciplines – particularly from a
perspective of language … It is important not to denigrate the practices of a different discipline
and to come to a common language when speaking about pedagogies;
be prepared to learn more yourself, on a continuing basis, and be prepared for things not to
work as planned;
adoption of a project board with representatives of all interested parties;
dialogue with stakeholders.
Good practice and/or pedagogical methods as seen by programme directors
it is you as a charismatic person or individual who will hold it all together and make sense of it
for the students pedagogically – you are the lynch pin – the translational force;
being confident to argue your corner;
staff engagement is necessary to think through the pedagogical challenges of integrating
different disciplines;
our interdisciplinarity really began to gel when we had a joint academic project … the project
forced us to work together in ways that we had not really done before, even in putting the
programme together. It ensured that science and humanities expertise genuinely combined and
we understood much more about each other’s practice, which I don’t think we had fully done in
putting the programme together. It meant that there was genuine academic thought about the
interdisciplinary subject, not simply addressing QA issues and programme management;
bring in the subject experts when needed;
be well planned and introduce interdisciplinarity to students (as generally single field learners) in
graduated steps to keep them situated in the learning moment;
engage students as much as possible (seminar, project, group work … );
the flipped classroom is valuable;
be especially flexible and imaginative about assessment.
Good practice and/or pedagogical methods offered by Belfast conference participant
respondents
teaching interdisciplinary courses can be confusing for participants in terms of challenging
disciplinary assumptions;
(it is) easy to bolt together modules to make an interdisciplinary programme (sort of!) but
preparing truly interdisciplinary modules to form a truly interdisciplinary programme is harder
because staff time is limited;
communication + regular meetings to discuss joint areas + work. Team building. Designing all
the modules together to link topics + make the links obvious;

93
the importance of trying to break out of silos to set an example of interdisciplinary working from
top-down. Creating an identity or sense of belonging for participants is key;
make sure students understand interdisciplinarity and why they are looking at something from
different points of view before you start;
key is development of modules on the ‘fault line’ that support students in acquiring information,
understanding different research methods. Students require scaffolding in ‘joining up the dots’ to
make connections between disciplines;
practical student engagement, interdisciplinary courses cannot be learnt through traditional
approaches;
inviting guest lecturers to share experiences in interdisciplinarity. Involving students in student
assessment;
use guest speakers from outside discipline, but only where material is carefully supported and
embedded in related learning activities.
had some very positive outcomes by investing in work with students around teambuilding,
breaking down barriers to enhance learning;
working with academics across disciplines has actually after initial sessions proven very positive
in developing shared understanding and practices;
be open to students’ perspectives. Students from disciplines other than my own can bring new
(to me) ideas = rich and complex discussion.
Guiding principles to underpin high-quality interdisciplinary provision as seen by PVCs
make sure that it has a purpose. Interdisciplinarity for its own sake is less likely to work;
it is not made up of bolted together modules, but a distinct offering;
it must be a meaningful integration, not paying lip service;
always include some integrated interdisciplinary aspects to such provision; don’t allow
programmes/modules which are just disciplinary siloes;
strong programme teams to ensure a joined up approach to curriculum planning;
keep it VERY simple;
excellent communication and agreed, clear and transparent goals;
strong teams; good communication; excellent planning;
effective joint planning and development of programmes;
assessment loading and assessment requirements need to be agreed across disciplines;
consultation;
student-focused and research-led;
equality;
one discipline is not more important than the rest;
do not think you know best what interdisciplinary means (i.e. YOUR discipline is not necessarily
the apt starting point…).

94
Guiding principles to underpin high-quality interdisciplinary provision as seen by
programme directors
stick to your vision;
continual dialogue with colleagues;
have key people involved who are enthusiastic-sort out governance and financial streams (!!!);
get it into workload models;
it needs senior management buy-in. If the institution supports and rewards interdisciplinary co-
operation, there’s almost always people who want to work on making it happen;
questioning through synthesis – ‘always connect’/ compare/contrast/intervene;
do not leave it to the students to provide the synthesis;
accept that students coming from different background brings a lot of diversity and richness to
the programme;
I am not sure there is one (guiding principle). I can only imagine that different combinations
require different guiding principles. But if there is one, I’d love to know it!
Key lessons offered by interviewees
commitment at the top of an institution, combined with an entrepreneurial champion are key to
making interdisciplinary programmes happen;
everyone can be happy with interdisciplinarity as an additional learning opportunity, without
having to make the commitment of change within their structure. But these learning spaces need
to be managed so that they do not become ‘toxic’ by being treated as a dumping ground for
things people do not want to manage in their faculty structures;
build in orthodox QA procedures, notwithstanding the extra workload it creates; you get an
academic credibility that would otherwise be difficult to attain. Without that, you are open to
attack from academics;
spend a lot of time building friendships;
you need to speak in multiple voices: with colleagues – you emphasise intellectual aspects, not
employability; when talking to senior management – you discuss ‘how we can attract better and
more students’ and ‘employability’; when talking to outside stakeholders – you discuss
‘employability’ … These projects always have multiple drivers, you have to juggle as best you
can;
to get attention as successful, interdisciplinary provision would need to show increased
applications/numbers, enhanced student satisfaction, student retention and employability - the
key performance indicators of education. (However, because these are complex measures, it
could be hard to say that they are due exclusively to the fact that a programme is
interdisciplinary.)
if you have a reasonable number of students, you cannot manage it ‘around the edges’ with
people volunteering; you have to have staff;
ensure that academics’ involvement is not in addition to their workload but is part of their
workload. As soon as it is acknowledged that interdisciplinary teaching is not something you do
as a favour, it frees up academics to take it seriously … The university shows its support … It is
really important that people know they are not doing interdisciplinary teaching over and above
what they are already doing, because they do not have time anyway. (Teaching buyouts can be
a huge boost to interdisciplinarity.)
when a range of academics from different backgrounds work together on an interdisciplinary
course, a spirit of collegiality and a thick skin (since colleagues will critique each other) are very
good for both the individual academic and the quality of the course and its materials;
There are different meanings for interdisciplinarity; any individual’s interdisciplinarity can be
unique. You need a very flexible set of structures to do justice to all of those.

95
G. Survey instruments
a) Shorter online surveys
b) Survey for PVCs
c) Survey for programme directors
a) The survey instruments for the short online surveys and the survey administered at the Belfast
enhancement event were based on the following subset of questions from the main surveys:
Interdisciplinary provision in higher education: current and future challenges
Professor Catherine Lyall, University of Edinburgh c.lyall@ed.ac.uk
Please help us with the fieldwork for our HEA study!
We are currently conducting a study for the Higher Education Academy to investigate interdisciplinary
educational provision in UK higher education (see
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/project/10355
for details).
This online survey has eight questions (five check boxes and three short text responses) and should
take 5-10 minutes to complete).
1. Over the past five years, do you think that ID courses or programmes (not single modules) have:
☐ increased ☐ decreased ☐ stayed about the same? (please tick)
2. In the next five years, do you think they will:
☐ increase ☐ decrease ☐ stay about the same? (please tick)
3.
Approximately
, how many ID courses does your institution offer? (please tick):
Undergraduate: ☐ None ☐ 1-2 ☐ 3-5 ☐ 6-10 ☐ >10 ☐ Don't know
Taught PG: ☐ None ☐ 1-2 ☐ 3-5 ☐ 6-10 ☐ >10 ☐ Don't know
4. Do you work for:
☐ a UK university ☐ another UK institution ☐ a non-UK based organisation?
5. What has encouraged development of interdisciplinary degree programmes at your institution?
(Please tick all that apply)
☐ Alignment with research directions
☐ Alignment with complex societal issues
☐ Demand from students
☐ Employability
☐ Marketing considerations
☐ Professional/vocational needs
☐ Championing by individual academics
☐ Top down institutional strategy
☐ Something else (please explain briefly):

96
6. If you were now to think a bit more about the big issues for ID educational provision, what are
the key obstacles and drivers:
- what is encouraging and supporting you?
- what is hindering you or holding you back?
7. If you have developed some ID courses yourself (or are perhaps starting to do so), do you have
any lessons that you would like to share on effective pedagogical methods/practices?
8. Finally, what staff development support might be required to do this more effectively?
Thank you for your help. If you would like to continue the conversation please include
your contact details:
Name (Please print):
Email:

97
Contact us
+44 (0)1904 717500 enquiries@heacademy.ac.uk
Innovation Way, York Science Park, Heslington, York, YO10 5BR
Twitter: @HEAcademy www.heacademy.ac.uk
© Higher Education Academy, 2015
Higher Education Academy (HEA) is the national body for learning
and teaching in higher education. We work with universities and
other higher education providers to bring about change in learning
and teaching. We do this to improve the experience that students have
while they are studying, and to support and develop those who teach them.
Our activities focus on rewarding and recognising excellence in teaching,
bringing together people and resources to research and share best practice,
and by helping to influence, shape and implement policy - locally, nationally,
and internationally.
HEA has knowledge, experience and expertise in higher education.
Our service and product range is broader than any other competitor.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and
not necessarily those of the Higher Education Academy. No part of
this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or any storage and retrieval system without the written permission of the
Editor. Such permission will normally be granted
for educational purposes provided that due acknowledgement is given.
To request copies of this report in large print or in a different format, please
contact the communications office at the Higher Education Academy: 01904
717500 or pressoffice@heacademy.ac.uk
Higher Education Academy is a company limited by guarantee
registered in England and Wales no. 04931031. Registered as a
charity in England and Wales no. 1101607. Registered as a charity in
Scotland no. SC043946.
The words “Higher Education Academy” and logo should
not be used without our permission.