AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT,

Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November

TO BOLDLY GO! CAN BRIGHT STUDENTS

REALISE THEIR LEARNING POTENTIAL AT UNIVERSITIES?

Dr Sandra J Welsman
Frontiers Insight: The Frontiers Institute, Australia
sandra.welsman@frontiers.net.au

ABSTRACT
Under globalisation, industries, governments and communities face rising complexity
and are demanding graduates with integrative capacity beyond the spheres of discipline
expertise. In the context of academic debate on new modes of thinking, this paper
discusses elements of ongoing inquiry into interdisciplinary research and education,
with focus on students committing to the challenge of double-degrees. Undergraduates
studying Science and Law indicated a search for integration, with later year students
more frustrated and questioning. There are social, economic and commercial arguments
for lifting student thinking – while at university – to levels they know they must achieve.
These super-integrators will boldly go into intellectual realms demanded by global
issues and local impacts. Australia’s universities should provide more than a discipline
platform. Universities should be their starships.

GLOBAL THINKING – THE GAUNTLET

Globalisation means industries, governments, communities and individuals need to deal
with situations of increasing complexity on multiple fronts – economic, social, technical
and environmental. Far from a ‘cornerstore economy’, today’s fast-moving challenges
throw bold opportunities for thinkers, enterprises and entrepreneurs, young and older, of
any nation. Integrative thinking will be a key to success, whatever the goal.
A number of international academics have called for new ways of analysis to ensure
useful engagement with an interlinked world. ‘Mode 2 / Mode 1 thinking’, propounded
13 years ago (Gibbons et al. 1994) is now recognised as a ‘major … canonic, theoretical
intervention’ (Watson 2003). Their contention, that knowledge production processes
were radically changing, has provoked a deal of academic debate (e.g. MacLeod 2003).
This debate in itself would likely bemuse industry leaders, if they had noticed.
Mode 1 knowledge generation is ‘pure, disciplinary, homogeneous, expert-led, supply-
driven, hierarchical, peer-reviewed and almost exclusively university-based’. Mode 2 is
‘applied, problem-centred, transdisciplinary, heterogeneous, hybrid, demand-driven,
entrepreneurial, network-embedded’ (Watson 2003). Mode 2 knowledge is produced in
contexts of its usage. It is ‘increasingly transdisciplinary, … draws upon and integrates
empirical and theoretical elements from a variety of fields’, is generated in universities,
industry, research centres, consultancies, think-tanks (Jasanoff 2003, p.234) and by
‘new types of non-subordinated researchers’ whose work ‘cannot be authoritatively
encoded in traditional forms of scholarly publication’(Nowotny et al. 2003, p.180).
 Sandra J. Welsman

Complex issues, marketplace demands (including of students), and impactful knowledge

generation outside academia sharpen expectations that universities must meet real-world
calls. In the ‘triple helix model’ for instance, universities are to develop entrepreneurial
teaching and research to complement industry and government initiatives, and so drive
economic development (Leydesdorff & Meyer 2003). In this context, ‘disciplinary
traditions, subject-driven academic programmatic hierarchies, and organizational
boundaries’ inhibit exploration of significant problems (Holland 2005, p.12).
Within universities, Mode 2 reshaping of knowledge generation and custody has been
patently slower than worldly currents of change. External vexation has been building for
decades (OECD 1972) but academic debate waxes and wanes. With disciplines as
building blocks of university teaching, attaining status as an academic discipline links as
much to resources and protection, some say, as to the ordering of knowledge or ‘some
underlying theoretical framework, some inner truth illuminating and unifying …
intellectual achievements’ (Burnard 1999), and see for example, Fellingham (2006).
Or put another way, famously, ‘the principal barrier to interdisciplinary research and
study has been the pattern of university organization that creates vested interests in
traditionally defined departments’(Boyer 1998, p.23). The challenges of progressing
research alone, across hard-walled disciplines is a recurring theme, (Grigg 1999; UKRC
2000; Boulton et al. 2005), notwithstanding assessments that ‘most breakthroughs of
long lasting importance have been the result of cross fertilization between … scientific
disciplines and traditions’ (Hansson 1999, p339).
In Australia, public expectations that universities should work on complex issues have
been reinforced by funding for integrative research. High-status grants for research
networks, for instance, gave incentive to across-discipline work. However, after courting
interdisciplinary innovation for a few years, there are signs (e.g., the Research Quality
Framework unfolding over 2005 to 2007), of a retreat to patterns marked by an old adage
‘Society has problems, Universities have departments’ (Lind 1999, p.418).
Beyond the walls, the forces are inexorable. Global pressures will continue to pull and
push the expensive academic ‘resource’ onto multi-faceted problems (Mothe 2003;
Fischer et al. 2005; Roxburgh 2006).
The multi-disciplinary approach is important …to enable us as a community [to] face up to the
rapid pace of change [and] enjoy it.… moving from a hub and spoke society to a combinatorial
society where our communication is less hierarchical and more lateral and across disciplines… By
integrating the disciplines in new and innovative ways we encourage creative abrasion. The best
ideas or biggest changes come from the periphery. Australian Chief Scientist (Batterham 2001).

Students and their academics

In a globalised 2007, and after decades of such discussion, discrete academic disciplines
still feature strongly in university protocols. A strong message in the dialogue is that each
discipline has created, and sees that it will keep, its own language, conceptual thinking
ways and analytical models, plus, its education traditions.
Teaching systems are purposefully structured ‘in such a way that students learn through
the mode of inquiry characteristic of the discipline they are studying’ (Dearn 2006).

AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November
2
 Sandra J. Welsman

Yet, disciplines are not the world of students before they enter university, nor the reality
of many careers beyond. Commonsense pays limited heed to disciplines. ‘Real’ issues
are interdisciplinary, they are multi-dimensional with a complexity most citizens take in
their everyday stride, whether the matter is big, small, ordinary or new. A research
question requiring single discipline expertise is a more artificial circumstance; a problem
restricted by ‘the tendency of human minds to compartmentalize’ (Policansky 1999, p.385).
With whom does the responsibility for integration of ways of thinking and technical
knowledge sit? Where do universities and university teaching fit in this picture?
Arguably, many bright, young students entering universities signal they expect to boldly
embrace ‘worldly complexity’ by enrolling in multiple-degree programs. Double-degrees
are well-established in Australia, and on the rise in Europe (Sursock 2007). As well as a
‘protest against parcelization and artificial subdivisions of reality’ (Klein 1990, p41),
choosing a double-degree likely reflects student awareness of career market expectations
and their need for competitive edge.
On the other hand, there are few signs that Australian universities happily took the
initiative with double degrees, and some academic leaders interviewed have
expressed despair about ‘student confusion’ and lengthy programs deterring students
from PhDs. It seems the double-degrees that emerged during the 1980s were a way for
universities to cater for student demand for broader study, even while bemused by the
phenomenon.

EXPLORING THE INTERDISCIPLINARY SPACE

My interest in this area crystallized during my founding of a unique research centre and
new double degree program, balanced across three schools. While credited with
‘sparking  the current of interdisciplinary development’ by aiming to ‘produce graduates
equipped to analyse and deal with issues at the intersection’ of multiple disciplines’
(GUG 2004, p.297), distinct challenges emerged. Even as enrolments began, there
seemed no academic pathway for bringing together distinct lines of study so the
university could deliver the promised ‘analysis at intersections’ (integration).
Deeper investigation into structures, processes and scholarly debate identified this
pattern across double degrees and universities. In particular, investigations at interfaces
of Science and Law confirmed a clear ‘stand-off’, traceable in part to academic
propensities and compartmentalised learning (Welsman 2004).
In these contexts, this paper discusses elements of successive lines of inquiry into
effective interdisciplinary research and education. By 2005, a new question had
emerged for the pursuit! Are Australian universities able to ensure undergraduates who
commit to double degrees can learn to their full potential?
Especially, those choosing to study, say, Science and Law, or Science and Commerce,
with a sharp eye to events unfolding around them?
This paper summarises four pieces of research. Each provided responses to particular
points of inquiry and contributed knowledge towards the meta-question.

AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November
3
 Sandra J. Welsman

To this point, definition of ‘XX-disciplinary’ expressions has been avoided. Some use
the terms interchangeably. For this research and analysis, I differentiate four situations:-
Multi-disciplinary: A number of identified disciplines co-located for organisational or
historical reasons, as in most universities and major research institutions.
Cross-disciplinary: Projects or activities with considerations or applications across
disciplines so potentially requiring a team with input by discipline specialists.
Interdisciplinary: Activities that inquire into and challenge practices, and purposefully
integrate to develop new thinking, understanding, knowledge, meaning at interfaces of
disciplines including on positioning and connection of discipline domains at frontlines.
Transdisciplinary: Thinking debate and knowledge generation that is between disciplines,
questioning across disciplines, and not of disciplines. ‘Ethics’ may be an example.

The four projects explored ‘interdisciplinary’ and ‘integration’ within universities, their
courses and teaching, with a focus Science and Law interfaces. The first considered
Law programs vis-à-vis stated interdisciplinary directions. The second tested measures
of scholarly teaching in relation to a hypothetical new course. Questions of integration
in double degrees were then explored from student, teacher and course developer
perspectives. Aims, methods and key findings are outlined below.

Interdisciplinary response in law curriculums

Law programs at undergraduate course-level were reviewed using a ‘DRI Investigation’
a qualitative inquiry technique I had derived and tested in varying situations. The focus
is understanding: what is expected (D - Direction, often a policy statement), what is
occurring (R - Responses), and why, or why not (I - Issues).
Given policy exhortations for universities to be ‘more interdisciplinary’, and mirroring
statements by institutions (such as a Professor in Law position advertised in mid 2004
that began: Renowned for its emphasis on interdisciplinary programs …), this exercise
looked to see if apparent actions related to the words. Law programs in six universities
were examined, three ‘Group of Eight’ institutions and three ‘innovative, technological’
universities. Sources were publicly available materials – brochures, reports, handbooks
and internet sites. Key findings included:
• The major universities appeared reticent about interdisciplinarity at working levels
especially across Humanities and Science boundaries. This was seen in Law course
structures and content including absence of interface terms such as the word ‘science’.
• A newer university claimed a strong interdisciplinary response within Law courses.
This was possibly so for humanities but not at science/law interfaces. Another, while
using problem-based learning in some faculties showed no interdisciplinary response
in its law programs. Although most Law Schools offer various Law of XYZ units,
these titles often give a misleading impression of cross-disciplinary thinking.
• This inquiry located only one postgraduate unit showing serious interdisciplinary
intent. Efforts to develop curriculums with ‘integration’ as a learning objective,
appear to flounder in the face of double-degrees. This 2005 DRI investigation
furthered the finding by Johnstone and Vignaendra (2003) that Australian ‘law
schools do not provide a genuinely interdisciplinary program of study’.

AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November
4
 Sandra J. Welsman

Teaching in a scholarly way – five measures

Institutional policies and practices (what they say, what they do) were next explored
through an analysis around developing and teaching a new ‘cross-disciplinary’ subject.
While the story is hypothetical, the tests are real at two levels: (i) most universities now
have promotion policies requiring ‘scholarly teaching’ from academics, and (ii) there
are measures in the literature that might assist adjudication of such a policy.
The concept of ‘teaching in a scholarly way’ contains an expectation that academics
will monitor papers on teaching and even advance the scholarship through articles on
their teaching innovation (Trigwell et al. 2000). So a genetics lecturer should be:
researching genetics, analysing global work on genetics, and following developments in
the teaching of science/genetics. This presents significant challenges.
With claims of ‘interdisciplinarity’, expectations grow. Stakeholders could well expect
such courses to ‘try to prepare students to engage effectively with situations in their
professional lives that are increasingly difficult to predict or define’ (Cherry 2005,
p.309 referring to Bowden & Martin 1998). These authors would grapple such a
‘challenge to educators’ by: shifting focus from teaching to learning; concentrating on
learning outcomes and developing capabilities; and, moving from differentiated and
fragmented curricula to integrated learning programs.
To understand a set of promotion criteria and other measures of scholarly teaching, I
framed a hypothetical in which lecturer LL wanted to establish an elective in ‘Zoology
Law’ to be offered by class or distance education to undergraduates of mixed capacity.
LL, who held a view that teaching should not get in the way of research, explained:
Students would receive a course outline and written materials (book and CD). There would be 12
lectures, in sets of four prepared and delivered by three lecturers from different schools, each with
their own essay/exam. LL would ask academics to develop lectures from their perspectives. LL
would shape ‘Law of Zoology’ material. Students would draw together their own views.

The scenario was considered against teaching expectations in Guidelines for Promotion
at a major university plus four measures from the literature: ‘Key principles of practice
for teaching and learning’ in Prosser and Trigwell (1999, ch.7); ‘Scholarly facilitation
and management of learning’, the hierarchy in Åkerlind (2003); ‘Approaches to
Scholarship of Teaching’, categories in Trigwell et al. (2000), and ‘Seven Principles for
Good Practice In Undergraduate Education’, Chickering and Gamson (1999).
Though not uncommon in universities, this scenario met few of Prosser & Trigwell’s
key criteria, such as reflection on student backgrounds, study priors, or course
intentions. Under Åkerlind’s hierarchy, the subject structure and teaching would have a
‘pre-teacher transmission focus’. It might be argued the subject is fully-constructivist –
students are presented with information, they integrate, construct their own knowledge
and learn in doing (a superficial accordance with Martin et al. 2000). However, with such
a mixed student group, this scenario should fail at the baseline test of ‘student focus’.
Overall however, against typical university promotion guides, a new Zoology Law unit
could rank well, regardless of the stark teacher-focus including multiple-teacher
delivery and assessment – itself a curious but oft-found phenomenon in Australia.
Universities, while not requiring an academic to master and teach all elements of a
subject, appear to expect undergraduates to integrate all the knowledge, within or across
disciplines.

AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November
5
 Sandra J. Welsman

Law-Science double degrees: student views on integration.

These two projects then informed research focus groups with volunteer Bachelor of
Science/Bachelor of Laws students during 2006. Most had enrolled from school with
impressive lists of science and maths courses in their top-line results. Expectations and
experiences around integration of their programs were explored. Content analysis plus a
basic application of phenomenography provided insights into these bright student minds.
• A number revealed an underlying search for points of intersect and integration in
their Science and their Law. Later year students were more vocal and frustrated. The
weight of expectation (hope) was that the faculties and teachers might move to
integrate the lines of thinking behind the two degrees offered as a combined set.
• Later year students showed a recognition that they, as students, would (and perhaps
should) need to do much of the integrating themselves, to the extent opportunities
arise. With perseverance, a few had achieved honours level projects ‘at interfaces’.
• Most saw conceptual, procedural, presentation (referencing) and ‘ways of thinking’
issues as obstacles. Later year students were conscious of philosophical and thinking
gaps among academics and professionals practising Science and those practising Law.
• To most, this gap was a challenge but also a career opportunity, especially as they
saw their careers taking the law pathway, bringing in science – with some lingering
regret they did not more deeply pursue their fascination with scientific inquiry.
Applying a phenomenographic qualitative analysis technique (Åkerlind 2005; Bowden
& Green 2005), I could discern four qualitatively distinct student ways of thinking
about integration of science and law: Accepting, Forming, Utilising, and Questioning.
1. Accepting. Seeing little or no integration. Two lines of personal study interest, or
one real interest and pressure to do the other. Keeping career options open.
2. Forming. Seeing limited integration in practice or careers, but benefits personally
in developing thinking capacities and analysis skills.
3. Utilising. Seeing potential for practical career integration, themselves, by
bringing together separate Science and Law elements, and advancing their careers.
4. Questioning. Seeing need and potential for integration of thinking, externally and
personally. Urging themselves, faculties, professions, policy-makers to think more
at interfaces. Personally questioning along interfaces and building perspectives.
Interestingly, level 4 (questioning) might be described as high relational with aspects of
extended abstract using Biggs’ SOLO Taxonomy terminology (Biggs 2003). These are
theoretically desirable orders of thinking to be developed through teaching and learning.
Levels 3, 2 and 1 seem to align with Biggs’ relational, multistructural to unistructural.
Some students were clearly looking for higher-level integration and intellectual leader-
ship that would extend them into arguing and testing – daily essentials in industry,
policy and community enterprise (and in my terms, ‘interdisciplinary thinking’).
Overall, in Law : Science double degrees, there are multiple reasons (not the least being
the great capacity of these undergraduates) to develop strategies to lift student thinking
well into the integrative, questioning and critical thinking, realm of level 4.

AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November
6
 Sandra J. Welsman

Academic leader-teacher views on integration

Action to develop strategies to help integrative thinking would depend on the interests,
perceptions and resources of possible action takers (i.e. faculties, teachers, universities).
These facets were investigated through a series of interviews with university leaders in
2005 and academic teachers of subjects taken by double-degree students in 2006. Two
teachers had developed courses with interdisciplinary features.
Teacher perceptions on student thinking, motivations and wants, as well as views on
teaching where disciplines mix, were explored through interviews – a routine methodology
in education studies. Course material provided by interviewees was also analysed for
content and messages relating to the overall research question.
• There was a general view that ‘only a constrained form of interdisciplinary teaching’
could be achieved, especially in research intensive universities with goals to excel
on the world stage within discipline areas.
• ‘There is little strategic reward for taking the initiative to shift a whole course towards
the interdisciplinary.’ Constructing courses to operate near discipline interfaces
requires acumen and ongoing practical effort. For instance, to locate and monitor a
mix of references, often diverse items from journals, news and media, public and
private sector papers, internet reports, websites and even blogs.
• Variation in student thinking had been noted. Some take a lateral subject ‘because
they do not want to do pracs’ (although this could be viewed as some wanting to
avoid pracs because wider issues beckon). Others question deeply around
interactions.
These insights were supplemented by searches to locate published reports of cross-
disciplinary action, at least in the mind of the authors. Four papers about attempts to
integrate knowledge in course structures and teaching were reviewed in a quest for clues.

Godden and Dale (2000) Interdisciplinary Teaching in Law and Environmental Science:
Jurisprudence and the Environment. Griffith University, Australia.
Palocsay et al (2004) Interdisciplinary Collaborative Learning: Using decision analysts to
enhance undergraduate International Management education, James Madison, USA.
Acuna (2000) Don’t cry for us Argentinians: two decades of teaching medical humanities,
National University of La Plata, Argentine Republic.
Charry and Parton (2002) Can a Farm Management model be developed in the context of
university education and research that integrates human, economic, technical and ecological
components in a sustainable manner? University of Sydney, Australia.

These were assessed for signs of Mode 2 thinking, ‘interdisciplinary questioning’ or

‘transdisciplinary creativity’. Each provided intriguing perspectives into variation of
approaches and realisation of interdisciplinary questioning.
At one extreme, Palocsay et al had observed that areas taught in the college as two
disciplines, would routinely be one line of thinking in businesses. Their teaching
innovation was a project structured to require participation of both ‘types’ of student in
information collection and data analysis to address a problem through to decision. There
was no indication that students from either ‘discipline’ were encouraged to challenge or
question each others’ knowledge.

AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November
7
 Sandra J. Welsman

The Charry and Parton paper was selected as a practical contrast but demonstrated far
more flexibility. The authors were concerned about issues facing Farm Management as
a bona-fide discipline. With a pragmatic eye to institutional power and resourcing
dynamics, they reviewed the area and opened the issue of integrating a range of needed
areas of knowledge - ‘disciplines’ in academia - to strongly achieve a new and holistic
combination of human, economic, technical and ecological and business knowledge.
These authors were seeking a ‘new educational model’ that would rise above strictures
of disciplines, to levels of questioning and challenging needed to create a new whole.
There were indications of transdisciplinary thinking, but in such down-to-earth clothing
that it was likely not recognised as such. Their transformational aspirations were a long-
way from the separation of disciplines seen routinely in double-degrees.

A DEGREE OF SYNTHESIS
Questioning-Arguing-Transforming are vital to addressing complex problems in global,
intertwined economies, communities and environments. Societies need to achieve such
levels of integrative thinking in their most of their graduates, and certainly the brightest.
Using insights collected through the research outlined above, a useful gradient of actions
and thinking outcomes was developed (Table 1). Column 3 suggests the challenges faced
to achieve interdisciplinary, Mode 2 and extended abstract thinking in current academia.

Tab.1: Gradients of Thinking

Mode of Interface Students (in 2006) T&L interviews & studies (2005-06) Biggs’ Taxonomy
Transdisciplinary Arguing-Transforming
(m2) Extended Abstract
- Holistic Farm Management, Sydney
Interdisciplinary (m2) Questioning-Arguing - Law & Environmental Science, GU Relational
Cross-disciplinary Utilising - Discussions with specific lecturers
- Medical Humanities in Argentina Multistructural
Multidisciplinary Forming
- Management Education cases, USA
(m1) Unistructural
Disciplinary (mode 1) Accepting

Double-degrees in Australia are rarely ‘crafted’ as university programs. Most bolt one
part to the other with little consideration of students or pedagogy. Those involving Law
(and generally high entrance scores) are rarely integrated, even at top institutions, and
Science is readily dominated in double-degree dynamics (Welsman, 2007).
Students are challenged to progress their separate courses despite the system.
Academics across universities were asked ‘do you feel the university harnesses the
capacity of young students enrolling in a double degree such as Science/Law’. The
university ‘in no way approaches this’, said one. ‘The university doesn’t do much for
these bright, integrative students’.
Occasional subjects demonstrate elements of interdisciplinary design and ‘integrative
intention’. These interviews with academic leaders and lecturers found a recognition of
interface issues, plus some interest to grapple with these, but substantial constraints
from university and discipline structures (including research priorities, time, rewards).

AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November
8
 Sandra J. Welsman

Such realities must affect the motivation of any academic who might want to construct
new programs and ways of teaching to encourage leading edge thinking in students.
Recognising the complexities graduates now need to manage, there are socio-economic
and commercial imperatives for universities to lift student thinking into integrative realms.
Market factors – students, employers, competition – will be the main drivers. Universities
must prepare clients for even greater challenge and uncertainty. Even as Mode 1
simplicity fades, life spills beyond Mode 2, into a far more demanding Mode 3.
A Mode 3 knowledge… surely beckons … a knowing-in-and-with-uncertainty. … The
educational task … enabling individuals to prosper amid supercomplexity, amid a situation in
which there are no stable descriptions of the world, no concepts that can be seized upon with any
assuredness, and no value systems that can claim one's allegiance with any unrivalled authority
(Barnett 2004, p.251).

And conclusion
Returning to the question: Are Australian universities able to ensure under-graduates
who commit to double degrees can learn to their full potential? Or, put another way,
with reference to the Commonwealth Budget 2007: Can bright students realise their
learning potential at universities?
If the test is rigorous, then today’s answer should be ‘no’. An important proportion of
students entering Australian universities are bolder and braver than their education
environment. Policy statements advocate integrated research and teaching, but
discipline and university reward systems reinforce academic inclinations towards
delineated thinking. Enduring separation of the two ‘halves’ of undergraduate double-
degrees stands as testimony to opportunities lost.  
With whom does the duty for integration of ways of thinking and knowledge lie?
Endpoint responsibility will stay with students themselves backed by a global economy
translating the needs and expectations of industry, government and community sectors,
into various forms of reward.
Where universities and university teachers fit in the future picture will depend on how
they respond to market drivers. Arguably, universities and many academics still ask
more of young incomers than of themselves. As peak educators, universities should be
proudly enabling students to reach arguing-transforming, extended abstract and Mode 3
paradigms of thinking and doing. However, the world will not wait for the academy to
meet this need. As foretold (Gibbons 2001), expansion of knowledge generation and its
power well beyond the territory of universities and professions, is now evident daily.
These brightest – the super integrators – are sure to realise their learning potential. They
will boldly go into intellectual realms demanded by global issues and local impacts. But
Australia’s 21st century universities should be providing much more than a discipline
platform. Our universities should be their starships.

AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November
9
 Sandra J. Welsman

Dr Sandra J Welsman, BSc Hons (NSW), PhD Law (Sydney), MHE (ANU), FAIM,
FAICD, Principal Frontiers Insight, works with universities, industries, governments
and communities on integrative strategic planning, program development and reviews.

References
Acuña, LE 2000, Don’t cry for us Argentinians: two decades of teaching medical humanities, J
Med Ethics: Medical Humanities, 26, 66-70.
Åkerlind, G 2003, Growing and Developing as a University Teacher, Variation in Meaning,
Studies in Higher Education, 28, 4.
Åkerlind, G 2005, Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis and the
qualitative research paradigm, in Bowden, J et al. Doing Developmental Phenomenography,
RMIT University Press, Melbourne.
Barnett, R 2004, Learning for an Unknown Future, Higher Education Research & Development,
23, 3, 247-260.
Batterham, R 2001, Science, Arts and the Humanities survive in your own way, or Excel in a
textured environment, Hugo Wolfsohn Memorial Lecture, La Trobe University,
Biggs, J 2003, Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 2nd edn, Open University Press, UK.
Boulton, A, Panizzon, D, & Prior, J 2005, Explicit Knowledge Structures as a Tool for
Overcoming Obstacles to Interdisciplinary Research, Conservation Biology, 19, 6, 2026-2029.
Bowden, J & Marton, F 1998, The university of learning: Beyond quality and competence in
higher education, Kogan Page, London.
Bowden, J & Green, P 2005, Doing Developmental Phenomenography, RMIT Press, Melbourne.
Boyer (1998) The Boyer Commission, Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for
America's Research Universities. Carnegie Foundation.
Burnard, L 1999, Is Humanities Computing an Academic Discipline? or, Why Humanities
Computing Matters, viewed 1 Sept 2006, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lou/wip/hc.html.
Charry, A & Parton, K (2002) Can a Farm Management model be developed in the context of
university education and research that integrates human, economic, technical and ecological
components in a sustainable manner? viewed 1 Sept 2006, www.csu.edu.au/faculty/sciagr/rman/
Cherry, N 2005, Preparing for practice in the age of complexity, Higher Education Research &
Development, 24, 4, 309-320.
Chickering, A & Gamson, Z 1999, Development and Adaptations of the Seven Principles for
Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 80, 75-81.
Dearn, J 2006, Scholarship the key to teaching, The Australian, 25 October, p35.
Fellingham, J 2006, Is Accounting an Academic Discipline?, American Accounting Association
Annual Meeting. Viewed 1 Sept 2006, http://bear.cba.ufl.edu/demski/papers.html.
Fischer, A, de Jong, A, de Jonge, R, Frewer, L & Nauta, M 2005, Improving Food Safety in the
Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach, Risk Analysis, 25, 3, 503-517.
Gibbons, M 2001, Engagement as a Core Value for the University. Association of Common-
wealth Universities. Viewed 20 Jan 2005, www.acu.ac.uk/policyandresearch/research/.
Gibbons, M, Limoges, C, Nowotny, H, Schwarzman, S, Scott, P & Trow, M 1994, The New
Production of Knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies,
Sage, London.
Godden, L & Dale, P 2000, Interdisciplinary Teaching in Law and Environmental Science:
Jurisprudence and Environment, Legal Education Review, 11, 239-251.
Grigg, L 1999, Cross-disciplinary research - A discussion paper. Australian Research Council.
GUG - Good Universities Guide 2005, Hobsons Australia Pty Ltd, Melbourne.
Hansson, B 1999, Interdisciplinarity: For what purpose?, Policy Sciences, 32, 4, 339-343.

AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November
10
 Sandra J. Welsman

Holland, B 2005, Scholarship and Mission in the 21st Century University: The Role of
Engagement, Australian Universities Quality Forum.
Jasanoff, S 2003, Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science,
Minerva, 41, 3, 223-244.
Johnstone, R & Vignaendra, S 2003, Learning outcomes and curriculum development in Law.
Australian Universities Teaching Committee.
Klein, J 1990, Interdisciplinarity. History, Theory & Practice, Wayne State U Press, Detroit.
Leydesdorff, L & Meyer, M 2003, The Triple Helix of university.industry.government relations,
Scientometrics, 58, 2, 191-203.
Lind, I 1999, Organizing for interdisciplinarity in Sweden: The case of tema at Linkoping
University, Policy Sciences, 32, 4, 415-420.
MacLeod, R 2003, Preface to Issue - Scientific knowledge and society, Minerva, 41, 3, 177-178.
Martin, E, Prosser, M, Trigwell, K, Ramsden, P & Benjamin, J 2000, What university teachers
teach and how they teach it, Instructional Science, 28, 387-412.
Mothe, J 2003, Re-thinking public policy in the new republic of knowledge, Minerva, 41, 195-205.
Nowotny, H, Scott, P & Gibbons, M 2003, 'Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of
Knowledge, Minerva, 41, 3, 179-194.
OECD 1972, Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities. Viewed 2
July 2007, http://biblio2.colmex.mx/bibdig/interdisciplinarity/base1.htm.
Palocsay, S, White, M & Zimmerman, D 2004, Interdisciplinary Collaborative Learning: Using
decision analysts to enhance undergraduate International Management education, Journal of
Management Education, 28, 2, 250.
Policansky, D 1999, Interdisciplinary problem solving: The National Research Council, Policy
Sciences, 32, 4, 385-391.
Prosser, M & Trigwell, K 1999, Understanding Learning and Teaching - The Experience in
Higher Education, Open University Press, UK.
Roxburgh, C 2006, The human factor in strategic decisions, McKinsey Quarterly, 1.
Sursock, A 2007, Deputy Secretary General, European University Association, AUQF Hobart.
Trigwell, K, Martin, E, Benjamin, J, & Prosser, M 2000, Scholarship of Teaching: a model,
Higher Education Research & Development, 19, 155-168.
UKRC 2000, Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Training. UK Research Councils report.
Watson, D 2003, Keynote: Universities and civic engagement: a critique and a prospectus,
Charting Uncertainty: capital, community and citizenship. Viewed 1 Apr 2005,
www.brighton.ac.uk/cupp/pdf%20files/engage_dw.pdf.
Welsman, SJ 2004, A Science:Law stand-off. International dimensions, local implications.,
22nd Law & Society Conference. Griffith University, Brisbane.
Welsman, SJ 2007, Double or nothing! Clever thinking, double-degree frustration, and returns to
Science. National Uniserve Conference: Science teaching & learning research, Sydney, September.

AIC Partnership for World Graduates 2007, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia, 28-30 November
11