Fixing What’s Broken in Interdisciplinary Program Design
After decades on the periphery, interdisciplinary programs are back at the center of conversation. I’ve heard it from provosts, deans, and even board members—everyone’s looking for ways to connect ideas across silos and stay relevant in a rapidly changing market.
For many leaders I’ve spoken with, the appeal is obvious: interdisciplinary programs promise differentiation without the price tag of a new building or department. They allow institutions to repackage existing courses and faculty expertise into something fresh, scalable, and market-responsive. Yet today’s most pressing challenges—from climate change to AI—don’t fit neatly within departmental boundaries, demanding collaboration across silos and new ways of defining expertise.
The question, then, isn’t whether institutions should pursue interdisciplinary programs; it’s how to make them successful. Here’s what our research and campus partnerships have shown.
What students and employers expect from program design
The growing focus on interdisciplinarity is being fueled as much by students and employers as by academic leaders. When I ask campus teams what’s driving their curricular redesign, the answer is nearly always the same: students want relevance, and employers want range. They’re both asking for programs that bridge the technical and the human.
It’s no surprise, then, that the most successful programs link high-demand disciplines with real-world relevance. The institutions that get it right use the data they already have—like course enrollments or double-major trends—to anticipate student interest and adapt before markets shift.
Which interdisciplinary program structures cut through campus gridlock
This is often where the real tension starts. I’ve watched teams lose momentum not for lack of ideas, but because they can’t agree on where those ideas belong. The organizational structure can make or break an initiative’s success.
There’s no single model that fits every institution; what matters is choosing a structure that aligns with your goals and campus culture. We discussed three common approaches in our webinar:
Within-department models
Best for institutions where departments already collaborate well or when accreditation requirements make it easier to house the program in one place.
- Pros: Easier to launch and manage; leverages existing faculty and governance processes.
- Cons: Risks slipping back into single-discipline norms or creating unclear ownership when multiple departments share responsibility.
Outside-department models
Ideal for pilot programs, cross-college collaborations, or situations where no single department wants (or is able) to take ownership.
- Pros: Provides flexibility to test and refine new programs; enables broad visibility across campus.
- Cons: Can create management and optics challenges—other units may perceive these programs as competition rather than collaboration.
Academic reorganization
Most relevant when interdisciplinarity becomes a core institutional strategy rather than a one-off experiment.
- Pros: Aligns structure with strategic priorities; can streamline oversight for multiple interdisciplinary programs.
- Cons: Requires significant leadership alignment and change management to avoid recreating silos in a new form.
As leaders consider these options, the key question isn’t “where should it live?” but “how do we prevent today’s solution from becoming tomorrow’s problem?”
How to build sustainable programs that avoid costly false starts
Even the best-designed programs can stumble if growth outpaces planning. I’ve seen campuses celebrate early enrollment wins, only to find themselves short on faculty or funding a year later.
The most effective institutions treat interdisciplinary innovation less like a moonshot and more like a flywheel: start small, test, learn, and scale with purpose.
Efficiency isn’t about cutting corners. Rather, it’s about designing programs that can scale responsibly and strengthen the institution over time.
Next steps
The insights I’ve shared here come directly from our Strategic Advisory Services research on academic portfolio strategy and interdisciplinary program design. Our team partners closely with academic and administrative leaders to help launch sustainable, market-aligned programs that strengthen the academic core and improve efficiency.
To learn more—or to discuss how EAB can support your institution’s interdisciplinary initiatives—fill out the form below to connect with our team.
Ready to learn more?
Get support for your academic portfolio optimization journey with EAB’s Strategic Advisory Services.
More Blogs
What higher ed can learn from these successful academic program revitalizations
Beyond the echo chamber
