The myth of interdisciplinary learning in Indian universities
Interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and multidisciplinary are buzz words these days in higher education. Supposedly, these provide better learning outcomes compared to single discipline approaches. As a result, single discipline institutions are trying to become multidisciplinary.
- IITs have included HSS (Humanities and Social Sciences) faculty and started Management schools
- IIMs have added law-focused programs
- Multidisciplinary universities (i.e. with multiple departments/schools/faculties) are trying to showcase that they are truly interdisciplinary.
Becoming a truly interdisciplinary institution is not easy. It cannot just happen through fiat. One needs to create a vision that is built on edifice of interdisciplinary learning.
This needs to be backed with newer administrative structures, creation of new processes, and allocation of resources (time, money, and human efforts). A cultural overhaul is a must for transitioning from siloed lives that university departments live. That has been missing from most universities that promote “so-called interdisciplinary approaches”.
There are many levels an HEI must cross to become a truly interdisciplinary institution:
Level 0:
Students have no choice and they have to study a fix set of courses every semester.
- There are no electives (or 1–2 during whole degree)
Level 1:
Students are given a choice to choose subjects (electives) from their own department.
- Most universities provide this option, though practically, the choices available to students are very limited (one course per semester)
Level 2:
Students can pick a small number of courses from other department.
- Several private universities offer this option. Some top public universities also allow this. But most universities do not have this option. Their departments operate in perfect silos.
- Even when universities allow students to take courses from other departments, the departments often restrict some courses only for their students.
- Some universities allow only certain percentage of courses from other departments.
Level 3:
Students can customize a significant proportion of their degree program by choosing their own specialization through major and minors (more than one)
- This is the typical liberal arts model. Here, the student is not forced to freeze degree nomenclature at time of admission but can make choices as (s)he progresses and gets greater exposure to different domains.
Level 4:
Electives co-taught by faculty from multiple disciplines
This is true interdisciplinarity. 2 or more faculty members are present in same session, and discuss the same theme from their disciplinary lenses.
- In process, they bring out for students multiple ways to look at the same issue, and see the coherence, contestations and problematics of these different approaches.
- It is only through such interactions and conversations that the real, complex nature of the phenomenon will come to life.
Level 5:
Interdisciplinary knowledge creation
- Faculty regularly engages in cross-disciplinary research to create new knowledge that they then disseminate to students (including industry professionals or policymakers, if relevant) through co-teaching subjects with their research partners.
The challenges of interdisciplinary teaching
Creation and execution of such interdisciplinary courses is more resource intensive.
- A core subject (or routine departmental elective) can be taught using existing course outline by a faculty member.
- On the other hand, a novel single discipline elective may take 40–80 hours of faculty time even before classes start (from conceptualization to creation of course manual).
- A cross-disciplinary course is even more difficult as all faculty members involved need to coordinate and come to similar understanding. They also need to think through the points of their disciplinary agreement and contestation that will arise in different sessions.
Logistical challenges
Further, universities needs to think differently about logistical challenges while offering such courses.
- One, faculty-student ratio drops significantly as 2 or more faculty get allocated one course.
- Two, scheduling cross-electives becomes significantly complex as faculty constraints pile upon classroom allocation constraints. Time tables need to be created not at department but at university level. This is a new challenge that many universities are not ready for.
- Three, evaluations are often more complex since same content is being judged by more than one faculty.
Allowing greater freedom to students often improves motivation to learn, but it comes at a great operational and monetary cost to the university.
Creating truly cross-disciplinary teaching and research culture is not easy. The Deans and faculty members need to come out of their departmental cocoons and engage in difficult conversations with their peers from other schools. For this, many egos need to be pared down and many collaborations need to be built up.
The current cost allocation models will need to be cahnged (departments are often seen as cost and revenue centres, especially in private universities). More administrative support may be required.
And above all, a mindset shift is needed.
It is indeed tough to bring latest from your domain (research) into the classroom. To take bring other disciplines into your subject is a huge risk: The first such attempt is always going to be a live experiment.
Like most experiments, faculty may face failures. Those who embark on this journey of experimentation need to be given some leeway by the university administrators and leaders. They cannot be evaluated on same parameters as others teaching run-of-the-mill courses. This will require not just mindset shift but also process shift (different KPIs and performance benchmarks, at least in short run).