Abstract
Drawing on data collected through 45 interviews with faculty, doctoral students, and administrators affiliated with an interdisciplinary neuroscience program, I examine the structure of the interdisciplinary graduate curriculum. The data presented here highlight the challenge of such programs. I review the purpose, organization, and content of the interdisciplinary curriculum, noting those challenges that arise. Not only do such programs require collaboration among faculty who traditionally has been highly invested in their individual discipline or department, but they also require an active, deliberate process to foster interdisciplinary integration and student learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Association of Neuroscience Departments and Programs (ANDP) (2005). Survey of Neuroscience Graduate, Postdoctoral, & Undergraduate Programs. Retrieved September 3, 2007, from: http://www.andp.org/surveys/reports/2005/Survey05Report.pdf.
Austin, A. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Review of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0001.
Banks, J. (1993). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4–14.
Bargar, R., & Mayo-Chamberlain, J. (1983). Advisor and advisee issues in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 54(4), 407–432. doi:10.2307/1981905.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of the disciplines (2nd ed ed.). Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Campbell, R. (2003). Preparing the next generation of scientists: The social process of managing scientists. Social Studies of Science, 33(6), 897–927. doi:10.1177/0306312703336004.
Clark, B. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in a cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cresswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dixon, M., Tope, D., & Dyke, N. (2008). The university works because we do: On the determinants of campus labor organizing in the 1990s. Sociological Perspectives, 51(2), 375–396. doi:10.1525/sop.2008.51.2.375.
Donald, J. (1986). Knowledge and the university curriculum. Higher Education, 15(3–4), 267–282. doi:10.1007/BF00129216.
Fox, M., & Stephan, F. (2001). Careers of young scientists: Preferences, prospects, and realities by gender and field. Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 109–122. doi:10.1177/030631201031001006.
Gaff, J. (2002). The disconnect between graduate education and faculty realities. Liberal Education, 88(3), 12.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books.
Gibbons, M. (1999). Science’s new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81–C84. doi:10.1038/35011576.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Golde, C. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 23(2), 199–227.
Golde, C., & Walker, G. (Eds.). (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing stewards of the discipline. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Gumport, P. (1994). Graduate education: Changing conduct in changing contexts. In P. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport (Eds.), Higher education in American society (3rd ed., pp. 307–331). New York: Prometheus Books.
Hall, Z. (2004). Graduate education in neuroscience: Maintaining through change. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, The Carnegie Foundation.
Hatch, J. (2002). Doing qualitative research in educational settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hutchings, P., & Clarke, S. (2004). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Contributing to reform in graduate education. In D. Wulff and A. Austin (Eds.), Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp. 161–176). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Katz, J., & Hartnett, R. (1976). Scholars in the making: The development of graduate and professional students. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Lattuca, L., & Stark, J. (1994). Will disciplinary perspectives impede curriculum reform? The Journal of Higher Education, 65(4), 401–426. doi:10.2307/2943853.
Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71–96. doi:10.1353/jhe.2007.0004.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratizing expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science & Public Policy, 30(3), 151–156. doi:10.3152/147154303781780461.
Oliva, P. (1997). The curriculum: Theoretical dimensions. New York: Longman.
Paglis, L., Green, S., & Bauer, T. (2006). Does advisor mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451–476. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-9003-2.
Rhoades, G., & Rhoads, R. (2003). The public discourse of US graduate employee unions. The Review of Higher Education, 26(2), 163–186. doi:10.1353/rhe.2002.0035.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402–435). New York: Macmillan.
Spillman, L. (2002). Introduction: Culture and cultural sociology. In L. Spillman (Ed.), Cultural sociology (pp. 1–16). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Stark, J., Lowther, M., Sharp, S., & Arnold, G. (1997). Program-level curriculum planning: An exploration of faculty perspectives on two campuses. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 99–130. doi:10.1023/A:1024952829701.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tierney, W. (1989). Curricular landscapes, democratic vistas: Transformative leadership in higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Walker, D. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and professionalism. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weidman, J., & Stein, E. (2003). Socialization of graduate students to academic norms. Research in Higher Education, 44(6), 641–656. doi:10.1023/A:1026123508335.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holley, K. The challenge of an interdisciplinary curriculum: a cultural analysis of a doctoral-degree program in neuroscience. High Educ 58, 241–255 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9193-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9193-6