Undisciplining the university through shared purpose, practice, and place

This paper tells a story about the coming together of scientists whose practice led them to an inquiry into the nature of what artists do, with artists whose practice led them into an effort to complement what scientists do, with an aim of reintroducing joy, energy, curiosity, and possibility into the research of all involved. The authors reflect on conflicts inherent in institutional confines and disciplinary silos that limit inquiry, interpretation, and action, and propose a collaborative practice termed "undisciplinary." The subject is the nature of disciplines in learning and knowing and the implications of disciplinary frameworks on sites and ways of learning, with the objective to identify motivations for disciplines to interact. The paper intentionally blends methodological and narrative styles to ask whether scholarly processes can also serve as story or artwork to generate empathy and engagement.

The paper situates itself within ongoing debates on interdisciplinarity, noting intensifying specialization and siloing in universities and challenges in teaching interdisciplinarity as marketable skills and time pressures dominate (e.g., Klein 1990, 2021; Turner 2014; Larson et al. 2011; Stewart et al. 2019). While complex societal challenges (pandemics, inequality, climate change, food and water security) ostensibly require cross-disciplinary approaches, institutional hierarchies and cultural biases persist, with STEAM efforts often reproducing hierarchies where artists are relegated to visualization or design roles (Bequette & Bequette 2012; Maeda 2013; Segarra et al. 2018). The authors review barriers including lower funding success and productivity for interdisciplinary work (Bromham et al. 2016; Leahey et al. 2017) and emphasize models of co-production and collaboration characteristics such as interdependence, co-creation, flexibility, and reflexivity (Bronstein 2003; Mauser et al. 2013; Chambers et al. 2021). They reject strict distinctions among multi-, inter-, cross-, and transdisciplinarity, instead adopting "undisciplinary" to challenge the utility of boundary-defined disciplines, and point to theoretical framings from complex systems and measurement debates in interdisciplinarity (Newell 2001; Zwanenburg et al. 2022).

The study used a qualitative, participatory, and iterative design comprising: 1) An initial one-day unstructured workshop (January 15, 2020; 6 hours) with six participants (three plant-science faculty, one communications specialist, one expert in organizational development, one artist/arts-based researcher). Participants mapped personal motivations for interdisciplinary activity onto categories WHO, WHAT/WHY, and HOW using whiteboards and post-its, and prioritized them collaboratively (Fig. 1). 2) A charrette-style virtual workshop (June 15, 2020) with 13 faculty/participants from humanities, sciences, and design (a core five plus eight additional invitees). Structure: 50-minute introduction, two 25-minute breakout rounds across rooms themed WHO, WHEN, HOW, WHERE, and a 30-minute report-back. Conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Discussion prompts included definitions of discipline, desired collaborators/qualities, temporal considerations, practices, and spatial needs (Fig. 2). 3) Conversation analysis: statements were coded by session to assess topicality and to observe that responses to WHAT often shifted toward HOW (Fig. 3). 4) Metaphor analysis: transcripts were scanned for metaphors describing "discipline," clustered to reveal dominant conceptualizations (e.g., territory with boundaries, gates, fertility; Fig. 4), and to motivate an inter-epistemological reframing. 5) Design principles synthesis: motivations were reorganized to separate WHY from WHAT, and mapped against perceived ease of implementation and impact (Fig. 5). 6) Field evaluation: The Soil Factory—an off-campus, flexible indoor-outdoor space in Ithaca, NY—was used during Summer–Fall 2021 to test spatial and programmatic insights. Activities included classes, installations, workshops on circular bionutrient economy, performances, screenings, salons, and residencies, enabling both synchronous co-presence and asynchronous engagement via persistent artifacts (Fig. 6). Observations focused on how infrastructure and programming (HOW) activated undisciplinary interactions and how space (WHERE) supported them. Data were included in figures; analyses were qualitative and reflexive.

• Shared motivations and modes—WHY (shared purpose) and HOW (practices/methods)—are the strongest drivers of undisciplinary collaboration, with WHERE (place) also important; WHAT (topics), WHO (labels/identities), and WHEN (timing) are less central for initiating and sustaining engagement. - In the first workshop, participants’ priorities migrated from labels (disciplines) and issues to processes, emotions (e.g., risk), and concepts (e.g., precarity), indicating emphasis on practice and purpose over topic. - Charrette results showed that when asked WHAT to work on, participants overwhelmingly described HOW they wanted to work; WHO discussions focused on participant qualities (fluidity, openness, pleasure, permeability) over specific people or disciplines; WHEN elicited limited input and was framed in terms of work rhythms; WHERE highlighted both physical and conceptual qualities of space, and contrasting place-terms (lab/field/studio/office). - Metaphor analysis revealed that participants conceive discipline as territory with boundaries, gatekeepers, and varying "fertility," associated with isolation, division, property, and even punishment, suggesting limits of conventional interdisciplinarity. This motivated a shift to "inter-epistemological" ways of knowing—the observed, intuited, deduced, sensed, learned, felt, and made—leading toward undisciplinarity. - Separating WHY from WHAT clarified that broad, universal motivations (WHY: doing something significant together) have higher impact and are easier to agree on, while WHAT, WHO, and WHEN are more disciplinary, lower impact, but easy to deploy; HOW has the largest perceived impact when framed undisciplinarily (Fig. 5). - The Soil Factory evaluation showed that flexible, abundant, off-campus space enabling both synchronous and asynchronous interactions, and retaining traces of activities, fosters unexpected encounters and sustained collaborations. Space alone is insufficient; programming and active engagement (HOW) are essential to activate undisciplinary interactions. - Implication: Designing centers should begin with mapping WHY and HOW to build buy-in and inform adaptable spatial and organizational structures, rather than leading with real estate or predefined topics.

The study’s findings address the core question of what motivations catalyze meaningful cross-disciplinary collaboration by demonstrating that undisciplinary engagement depends primarily on shared purpose (WHY) and practice (HOW), supported by appropriate place (WHERE). Reframing interdisciplinarity as inter-epistemological collaboration helps transcend territorial metaphors of discipline, reducing hierarchical and identity-based barriers. This orientation fosters equitable, creative, and sustained interaction, shifting institutional design from topic-centric or discipline-centric approaches toward process- and purpose-centric ones. The Soil Factory test case validates the importance of spaces that support co-presence and asynchronous continuity, emphasizing that infrastructure must be coupled with intentional programming. For the field, these insights extend existing frameworks (e.g., 3D method) by centering motivations for individual engagement and offering practical guidance for planning and managing collaborative environments within and beyond universities.

The paper contributes a motivation-centered framework for fostering undisciplinary collaboration: prioritize WHY (shared purpose) and HOW (inter-epistemological practices), and then design WHERE (flexible, permeable spaces) to support them; treat WHAT, WHO, and WHEN as secondary levers. Metaphor analysis clarifies why conventional interdisciplinarity falters under territorial conceptions of disciplines and indicates the value of inter-epistemological modes. The Soil Factory prototype demonstrates how flexible, abundant, off-campus space plus deliberate programming can catalyze synchronous and asynchronous interactions across arts, humanities, sciences, and engineering. Future work should: quantify costs and benefits of undisciplinary approaches; develop leadership, management, and facilitation models aligned with undisciplinary practice; iteratively map motivations within local contexts to refine institutional strategies; and evaluate long-term impacts on research quality, equity, community engagement, and sustainability outcomes.

• Small, non-random, and institutionally proximate participant cohort; not a comprehensive representation of disciplines. - Qualitative, self-reported data with potential facilitator and participant biases; metaphor analysis is interpretive. - Charrette conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially distorting perceptions of time (WHEN) and space (WHERE). - Single-site evaluation (The Soil Factory) limits generalizability; outcomes may be context- and place-specific. - No quantitative assessment of productivity, funding, or longer-term research outputs; limited ability to compare against traditional centers. - Recommendations may require adaptation to local institutional cultures, resources, and constraints.