In the process of defending the academic faculty from outside “efficiency experts,” Professor Matthew Dean Hindman unfairly and inaccurately denigrates interdisciplinary endeavors. He considers cost-effectiveness and interdisciplinarity as “two sides of the same organizational coin.” That is, university administrators, outside consultants and some faculty blame disciplines for the university’s budget problems and detachment from real-world problems. Thus, the solution is to replace disciplines with multi-disciplinary divisions. Hindman believes that is a terrible idea.

First of all, most interdisciplinarians do not advocate the elimination of disciplines. As the term implies, disciplines are central in the structure of knowledge. Interdisciplinary efforts are complementary to disciplines, not replacements. Therefore, most interdisciplinarians are neither adisciplinary or antidisciplinary as Hindman implies. Furthermore, most interdisciplinarians see multidisciplinary efforts as intellectually weak in comparison to crossdisciplinary and transdisciplinary programs, realms which Professor Hindman does not even mention. There are dozens of crossdisciplinary programs that have international standing such as urban studies, environmental studies, health services, information theory, development studies, political economy, social psychology, ethnic studies and feminist studies. Transdisciplinary approaches include general systems and sustainability studies.

Secondarily, on a national basis, university cost reduction strategies are more likely to include elimination of interdisciplinary programs, not disciplinary. In my own university when Deans were asked to recommend cost-cutting program discontinuances, 10 of the 11 proposals were interdisciplinary. In my decades as a member of the national Association for Interdisciplinary Studies, including a term as President, the most likely reason given by a Provost for eliminating interdisciplinary programs that we were trying to protect was budgetary necessity.

Thirdly, it’s dubious to claim, as Hindman does, that disciplines are the primary protectors of academic freedom and scholarly quality. Interdisciplinary scholars often have more need for protecting their academic freedom than disciplinary ones. Furthermore, because crossdisciplinary and transdisciplinary scholars are often crossing conventional boundaries, their research is subject to more academic challenges than their disciplinary colleagues. Therefore, they have to meet higher standards.