~ t:J~

'z
~ !:O >-
M H '"d
-< '"d
!:O M H
U !:O Z
H tr: Q
(f) C)
0 0 Z ~
H ~
'"d >- t-3
r ~ tTj
H H t::d
Z 0 0
Z
> Z tTj
!:O >-
~ r
(")
~
>-
Z
Q
t'rj '""1

I

I I

i

I

N I--'

f

en

----------

-----

-----.---

. AAt44.). _ 3

~
d
~
>
Z ~
f-I
~
f-I 'll
tr'j Z
cr: 0
Z
~
is
~
r-
d
~
~
15(
0
>.;
H
Z
~
Ul
o
...
~
Z
~
><
~
~
N
'-0 •

*j#.4. SA??

-3 !:d

> Z

ir: f-I 1-3

f-I

o Z

-3 o

~

!:d U

rO Q

> r

Q :::r1 > Z

o t"r'j

36 CREATING INTERDISCIPLINARY CAMPUS CULTURES

c!

~

al cI

and curriculum embodied in disciplinary organization. If the structure of the academy must be changed to accommodate a new development, Caldwell admonished, then perhaps the structure itself is part of the problem. Caldwell is not alone in this view, though as we shall see in Chapter Four opinion differs on the best approach to institutionalization.

Chapter Two also deepens the conceptual framework of this book. Summing up key concepts of the framework introduced in this chapter, it is clear from the overview of science and technology, social sciences, and humanities that interdisciplinarity is a pluralistic idea. It is embodied in a heterogeneity of modes and forms of work that have fostered a distributed interdisciplinary intelligence and relational pluralism in the academy. Individual activities have discrete locations, but they also diffuse and intersect with other movements, adding to the greater hybridity of knowledge today, more frequent boundary crossing, and a growing multidisciplinary thrust of faculty work. Hybrid communities of practice range from trading zones where like-minded researchers and educators interact, to matrix structures of centers and programs, to emerging fields and, with sufficient critical mass, new paradigmatic fields. Hybrid discourses range from interim pidgin forms of communication to creoles that comprise a subculture or native language of a new domain. Local context results in added variability, manifested in differing degrees of in/visibility in the balance of overt and concealed interdisciplinarities across the surface and shadow structures of institutions. Creating a campus culture that is conducive to interdisciplinary research and education is a form of boundary work that requires identifying points of convergence, leveraging existing resources, building capacity and critical mass, platforming and scaffolding the architecture for a networked campus, benchmarking and adapting best practices, creating a resource bank, and institutional deep structuring of a robust portfolio of strategies aimed at programmatic strength and sustainability.

CI

r~ n~ aI1

1

m

I S~

9

at,

pc

Fsi

I