(I have been preaching for respecting diverseness within academia for decades, but never wrote a text focused on this key issue. I see a deep respect of diverseness as arising out of solidarity with academics that are different from us, not as hindering such a solidarity. I will try to articulate this point below. But first let me mention that the trigger to writing this text arose from parts of an essay by Jason Owen-Smith that are reproduced below.)
Encountering scholarly work outside one's discipline, in most cases, one immediately observes that the underlying methodologies and attitudes are fundamentally different from those one is familiar with in their own discipline. Unfortunately, some academics do not realize that this difference is a natural reflection of the difference between disciplines, and that it also implies a difference in the culture and norms of the corresponding community. Rather than respecting this diverseness, such academics attempt to impose and enforce their own disciplinarty norms on the other discipline that they encounter. This is, of course, a fundamental mistake.
In contrast, a real respect to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding calls for solidarity with all disciplines, at their own terms (i.e., methodologies, norms, and communal culture). It calls for learning the norms of other disciplines and respecting them rather than trying to enforce foreign norms on them.
Research universities are ``loosely coupled systems'' - their parts and activities often respond to each other but are not truly interdependent. A dean of engineering and a professor of molecular biology may occasionally have to come to agreement in a committee, but the details of their daily work will generally be completely different and disconnected. This explains part of why universities have trouble speaking with one voice: They are organized to ensure autonomy and support for many voices that often disagree. The resulting cacophony contributes to academic freedom, boosts innovative capability, and provides the rationale for institutional neutrality articulated in the Kalven Report.
Different parts of the university pursue different goals and rely on different funding sources. Clinical revenue from hospitals can fund institutional investments in biomedical research. Undergraduate tuition typically sustains colleges of arts and sciences. Other parts of the institution may rarely interact with undergraduates and depend instead on public and private investments that support research or public service. Research in some fields proceeds comfortably with little to no external funding. In others, substantial grants and contracts are required tickets for entry.
A decentralized organizational structure puts resources and decision-making authority nearer to the ground, allowing different units of the university to prioritize the things their work requires. Faculties in business, social work, or law can make curricular, hiring, and promotion decisions largely independent of each other and of colleagues in arts and sciences, each tuning their activities to their specific needs, goals, and vision. Decentralization also explains why universities rarely articulate detailed, actionable principles that unequivocally guide institutionwide decision-making - or at least why, when they do proffer strategic plans or mission statements, the results are often anodyne.
Even the overarching priorities that different parts of the institution emphasize can disregard or contradict one another. Patient care may serve as the north star in medicine, undergraduate teaching in the liberal arts, field-specific research advances in institutes and centers, impact through contributions to professional practice, community engagement and agricultural extension in yet other units. To successfully pursue multiple missions, universities must organize to deny the very possibility of a sole focus or intellectual monoculture.
Back to Oded's page of essays and opinions or to Oded's homepage.