Skip to main content

Challenges in Transdisciplinary, Integrated Projects: Reflections on the Case of Faculty Members’ Failure to Collaborate

Innovative Higher Education volume 37, pages 171–184 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

In this article we describe the challenges of transdisciplinary teamwork involving four faculty members from dissimilar epistemological traditions in the process of developing a manuscript on the lessons learned in our teaching collaboration. Our difficulty originated in implicit mental models and assumptions that caused incongruence between our intent to collaborate and the (habituated) relationship structure of the partnership. The dynamics are described through the lens of Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s leadership model and Aristotle’s causality. We suggest that successful collaboration necessitates careful attention to the process of establishing the collaboration, its structure, and the metacognitive capacities to see one’s own thinking, suspend one’s epistemic beliefs, and engage in productive dialogue around conflict.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Fig. 1

References

  • Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership: Teams and teamwork in higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. (1985). Unfolding meaning: A weekend of dialogue with David Bohm. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boix-Mansilla, V., Miller, W. C., & Gardner, H. (2000). On disciplinary lenses and interdisciplinary work. In S. Wineburg & P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation (pp. 17–38). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, M. (2003). Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S., Cantwell, A. M., & Hanneman, R. A. (2008). The two cultures of undergraduate academic engagement. Research in Higher Education, 49(5), 383–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R., & Vanasupa, L. (2009). Aristole’s causalities. Unpublished diagram.

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Després, C., Brais, N., & Avellan, S. (2004). Collaborative planning for retrofitting suburbs: transdisciplinarity and intersubjectivity in action. Futures, 36(4), 471–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duderstadt, J. J. (2000). A university for the 21st century. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falcon, A. (2011, Spring) Aristotle on causality, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), Retrieved June 20, 2011 from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/aristotle-causality/

  • Feisel, L., & Rosa, A. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2005). Reform of the social sciences and of universities through action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 43–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holley, K. A. (2009). Interdisciplinary strategies as transformative change in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(5), 331–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornsey, M. J., Gallois, C., & Duck, J. M. (2008). The intersection of communication and social psychology: Points of contact and points of difference. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 749–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehng, J., Johnson, S. D., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). Schooling and students’ epistemological beliefs about learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(1), 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.

  • Klein, T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does interdisciplinarity promote learning? Theoretical support and researchable questions. The Review of Higher Education, 28(1), 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lele, S., & Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience, 55(11), 967–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, H. (2006). Excellence without a soul: How a great university forgot education. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnis, M., & John-Steiner, V. (2005).The challenge of integration in interdisciplinary education. In E.G. Creamer and L.R. Latucca (Eds.), Advancing Faculty Learning Through Interdisciplinary Collaboration. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2005 (102), pp. 45–61. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Newell, W. H. (1992). Academic disciplines and undergraduate interdisciplinary education: Lessons from the School of Interdisciplinary Studies at Miami University, Ohio. European Journal of Education, 27(3), 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, W. H. (1998). Professionalizing interdisciplinarity. In W. H. Newell (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity: Essays from the literature (pp. 529–563). New York, NY: College Board.

  • Niemann, Y., & Maruyama, G. (2005). Inequities in higher education: Issues and promising practices in a world ambivalent about affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 61(3), 407–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulsen, M. B., & Wells, C. T. (1998). Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs of college students. Research in Higher Education, 39(4), 365–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavelich, M. J., & Moore, W. S. (1996). Measuring the effect of experiential education: Using the Perry model. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(4), 287–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • PayScale (2010, June 6). Best undergraduate college degrees by salary. The PayScale Report,. Retrieved from http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp

  • Peterson, V. V. (2008). Against interdisciplinarity. Women and Language, 31(2), 42–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrie, H. (1992). Interdisciplinary education: Are we faced with insurmountable opportunities? Review of Research in Education, 18, 299–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C. C. (1992). Cases of “What is a case?”. In C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R., Chen, K. C., & Vanasupa, L. (2007). Integrating project-based learning throughout the undergraduate engineering curriculum. Journal of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education, 8(5–6), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. W. (1996). Feminism and History. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M., Lichtenstein, B. B., Kaeufer, K., & Bradbury, H. (2007). Collaborating for systemic change. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(2), 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1978). The case study method of social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, T., Bollard, K., & Harbor, J. M. (2009). Launching interdisciplinary programs as college signature areas: An example. Innovative Higher Education, 34(5), 321–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torbert, W. R. (2004). Action inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanasupa, L. (2010). The human dimension of systemic department-level change: A change agent’s retrospective on a case reform. Advances in Engineering Education.

  • Wise, J., Lee, S. H., Litzinger, T. A., Marra, R. M., & Palmer, B. (2004). A report on a four-year longitudinal study of intellectual development of engineering undergraduates. Journal of Adult Development, 11(2), 103–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study as a serious research strategy. Science Communication, 3(1), 84–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF-EEC#0834959, NSF-DUE#0717428). All views are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation. The authors thank the students who participated in the research and Roger Burton for his valuable insights.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Materials Engineering Department, College of Engineering, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA

    Linda Vanasupa

  2. Art and Design, College of Liberal Arts, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA

    Kathryn E. McCormick

  3. Agnes Scott College, 141 E. College Ave., Decatur, GA, 30030, USA

    Carolyn J. Stefanco

  4. School of Education, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA

    Roberta J. Herter

  5. Architecture Department, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA

    Margot McDonald

Authors
  1. Linda Vanasupa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathryn E. McCormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carolyn J. Stefanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roberta J. Herter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Margot McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda Vanasupa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vanasupa, L., McCormick, K.E., Stefanco, C.J. et al. Challenges in Transdisciplinary, Integrated Projects: Reflections on the Case of Faculty Members’ Failure to Collaborate. Innov High Educ 37, 171–184 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9199-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9199-3

Key words

  • Conflict
  • Transdisciplinary
  • Collaboration
  • Mental models
  • Faculty