Interdisciplinary Cooperation and Collaboration …
403
vidual faculty and program administrators which were already in place to create an
interdisciplinary framework for the new program.
The ties of the new EUS program with the Department of Geography were in
keeping with the discipline. Sustainability has been seen as more readily absorbed
as a pivotal concept into certain disciplines such as Geography and Biology (Reid
and Petocz 2006; Cotton et al. 2007) and geographers generally identify themselves
as members of a bridging discipline (Baerwald 2010; Youngblood 2007); moreover,
geographers have been among the leaders in addressing new initiatives of sustainability and sustainable development at universities (Kagawa 2007). Environmental
studies have often been paired with Geography (Leduc 2009/2010). Harvey et al.
2002) and, as elsewhere, a number of the Geography programs in the province have
rebranded themselves to include some reference to “environment” in the departmental name. Working with an existing disciplinary-based department also negates
many of the issues associated with the options of “loose collegiums and rigid quasidepartments”, “risking either isolation or internal competition. Neither of them is
easily able to directly engage with undergraduates: loose structures do not because
staff who are members do so via their departmental homes; rigid structures do not
because they have none, and are also typically funded for research only” (Sherren
2008).
The EUS curriculum sought to balance providing a core of required courses with
offering a high degree of access to electives from multiple fields. Except among
those training scientific and engineering specialists in the field, flexibility is seen as
a key element in the design of curricula for sustainability education (Vincent and
Focht 2009). The EUS curriculum sought to incorporate a “broad” (in the sense of
Newell 2007) form of interdisciplinary thinking; that is, involving integration across
the boundaries among traditional groups of disciplines, such as between natural and
social sciences or humanities.
Use of independent study, internships, and experiential learning has been seen
as critical in interdisciplinary programs, including those that involve sustainability
education (Cortese 2003; Holley 2009; Benton-Short and Merrigan 2016). Incorporating these opportunities was seen as essential for student engagement and the
overall success of the EUS program.
As in many countries (McLendon et al. 2009; Altbach et al. 2010) over the period
of the last few decades higher education in Canada has experienced a decrease in
government funding both in aggregate and on a per student basis (Fisher et al. 2009;
Metcalfe 2010). With the all universities being publically-funded, this meant a general
fiscal belt tightening and climate of cost rationalization permeated the university
system. Existing departments compete for physical and budgetary resources. As
with any new course, approval of the EUS program proposal required a high degree
of sensitivity to costs and it was seen as important to be able for the program to
operate in such a way as to require as little as possible in the way of additional
faculty instructors or physical and budgetary resources.
403
vidual faculty and program administrators which were already in place to create an
interdisciplinary framework for the new program.
The ties of the new EUS program with the Department of Geography were in
keeping with the discipline. Sustainability has been seen as more readily absorbed
as a pivotal concept into certain disciplines such as Geography and Biology (Reid
and Petocz 2006; Cotton et al. 2007) and geographers generally identify themselves
as members of a bridging discipline (Baerwald 2010; Youngblood 2007); moreover,
geographers have been among the leaders in addressing new initiatives of sustainability and sustainable development at universities (Kagawa 2007). Environmental
studies have often been paired with Geography (Leduc 2009/2010). Harvey et al.
2002) and, as elsewhere, a number of the Geography programs in the province have
rebranded themselves to include some reference to “environment” in the departmental name. Working with an existing disciplinary-based department also negates
many of the issues associated with the options of “loose collegiums and rigid quasidepartments”, “risking either isolation or internal competition. Neither of them is
easily able to directly engage with undergraduates: loose structures do not because
staff who are members do so via their departmental homes; rigid structures do not
because they have none, and are also typically funded for research only” (Sherren
2008).
The EUS curriculum sought to balance providing a core of required courses with
offering a high degree of access to electives from multiple fields. Except among
those training scientific and engineering specialists in the field, flexibility is seen as
a key element in the design of curricula for sustainability education (Vincent and
Focht 2009). The EUS curriculum sought to incorporate a “broad” (in the sense of
Newell 2007) form of interdisciplinary thinking; that is, involving integration across
the boundaries among traditional groups of disciplines, such as between natural and
social sciences or humanities.
Use of independent study, internships, and experiential learning has been seen
as critical in interdisciplinary programs, including those that involve sustainability
education (Cortese 2003; Holley 2009; Benton-Short and Merrigan 2016). Incorporating these opportunities was seen as essential for student engagement and the
overall success of the EUS program.
As in many countries (McLendon et al. 2009; Altbach et al. 2010) over the period
of the last few decades higher education in Canada has experienced a decrease in
government funding both in aggregate and on a per student basis (Fisher et al. 2009;
Metcalfe 2010). With the all universities being publically-funded, this meant a general
fiscal belt tightening and climate of cost rationalization permeated the university
system. Existing departments compete for physical and budgetary resources. As
with any new course, approval of the EUS program proposal required a high degree
of sensitivity to costs and it was seen as important to be able for the program to
operate in such a way as to require as little as possible in the way of additional
faculty instructors or physical and budgetary resources.