Undisciplining the university through shared purpose, practice, and place

The paper explores the difficulties in achieving truly interdisciplinary collaboration within the siloed structure of modern universities. The authors highlight the limitations imposed by disciplinary boundaries on inquiry, interpretation, and action. They introduce the concept of "undisciplinary" research as a collaborative practice that transcends these limitations, aiming to reintroduce joy, energy, and possibility into research. The paper examines the perspectives of both academics and artists, acknowledging the different languages and approaches to scholarship prevalent in these fields. The authors, comprising a mix of university-affiliated and independent scholars, aim to identify motivations for interdisciplinary interactions and explore the potential for institutional change to better support such collaborations. The paper's style reflects this diverse authorship, blending methodical analysis with personal narrative and storytelling to foster engagement.

The paper reviews existing literature on interdisciplinarity, highlighting the increasing specialization within universities and the challenges of integrating interdisciplinary approaches into teaching and research. It critiques the limitations of initiatives like STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics), arguing that they often perpetuate existing hierarchies among disciplines. The authors discuss the limited success of past interdisciplinary endeavors, noting issues such as lower funding, reduced scholarly productivity, and the persistence of institutional and behavioral barriers. They also reference theoretical frameworks for understanding interdisciplinary collaboration, including self-organizing principles of complex systems and the importance of interdependence, co-creation, and collective ownership of goals.

The research employed a mixed-methods approach involving two workshops, a charrette, individual conversations, group feedback, and reflections. The first workshop, involving a small group of scientists and artists, identified key motivations for interdisciplinary engagement: who to collaborate with (WHO), what to work on (WHAT/WHY), and how to interact (HOW). This workshop used a whiteboard, post-it notes, and free-flowing dialogue to map these motivations. The second workshop, a charrette involving a larger and more diverse group of faculty, utilized a structured format based on the initial findings (WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHEN, WHERE, HOW). The charrette, conducted virtually due to the pandemic, involved breakout sessions focused on each category of motivation. Conversations were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative methods, including metaphor analysis to understand the underlying perceptions of "discipline" and its implications for interdisciplinary collaboration. The Soil Factory, an off-campus experimental center, served as a case study for testing the principles derived from the workshops. Observations and interactions within this space provided further insights into the dynamics of undisciplinary collaboration.

The workshops revealed that shared purpose (WHY) and shared practice (HOW) were the most significant drivers of engagement in interdisciplinary work, surpassing the importance of who was involved (WHO), what specific topics were addressed (WHAT), when interactions occurred (WHEN), and where they took place (WHERE). Metaphor analysis indicated that participants viewed disciplines as territories with boundaries, gatekeepers, and varying levels of fertility, highlighting the perceived barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration. This analysis suggested a shift from an interdisciplinary focus (fields of study) to an "inter-epistemological" approach (ways of knowing), emphasizing the integration of different methods of inquiry and knowledge generation. The Soil Factory case study demonstrated the value of a flexible, open space that accommodated both synchronous and asynchronous interactions, allowing participants to engage with the work of others across time and space. The study found that simply providing a physical space wasn't sufficient to foster undisciplinary interactions. Engaging activities needed to activate the space.

The findings challenge conventional approaches to interdisciplinary research by prioritizing shared purpose and practice over specific research topics or participants. The emphasis on "inter-epistemological" ways of knowing offers a new framework for understanding and facilitating collaboration that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. The success of The Soil Factory highlights the importance of space design that supports both synchronous and asynchronous interactions and allows for the layering of different knowledge, techniques, and viewpoints. The study's insights offer valuable recommendations for creating more effective and impactful interdisciplinary initiatives within universities.

The paper's main contribution lies in identifying shared purpose and practice as key drivers of successful undisciplinary collaboration. The concept of "inter-epistemological" ways of knowing provides a valuable framework for future research on interdisciplinarity. The authors recommend universities adopt more porous structures, allocate open spaces for collaborative work, and prioritize creating a shared sense of purpose to facilitate undisciplinary engagement. Future research could explore the cost-benefit analysis of undisciplinary collaborations and investigate the challenges of aligning such initiatives with institutional leadership and management.

The study's findings are based on a limited number of workshops and a single case study. The participants were primarily affiliated with Cornell University, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings to other institutional contexts. The virtual nature of the charrette may have influenced the discussions and interactions. Further research with a larger and more diverse sample of participants is needed to validate and extend these findings.