<p>Faculty discuss strengths and opportunities of I.Ph.D.</p><p>At UMKC, some faculty members believe the I.Ph.D enhances students’ research and scholarship. Others say it produces watered-down, ineffectual degrees.</p><p>“We need to develop to a new knowledge,” said John Herron (History) at a FaCET panel discussion Feb. 8 with Dianne Smith (Education) and Ron MacQuarrie, (dean, School of Graduate Studies). “We squeeze two conventional fields together and expect students attain doctoral fluency in both, rather than producing something truly interdisciplinary.”</p><p>Herron believed that UMKC provides almost “no tenure love,” acknowledgement, or funding for interdisciplinary scholarship and teaching. Cluster courses are often the product of two instructors teaching in a common setting.</p><p>MacQuarrie said a recent School of Graduate Studies survey of doctoral faculty also revealed issues similar to the ones Herron identified. Solutions included promotion of interdisciplinary scholarship, inter-department cooperation, and budget and promotion support for interdisciplinary work.</p><p>Associate Professor of Education Dianne Smith questioned the the I.Ph.D. in the job market. “How do students market themselves in a profession that is still rigidly disciplinary?” she said. Graduates have regretted earning an I.Ph.D. when they encountered resistance in the job market.</p><p>Discussion participants said many disciplines are interdisciplinary and the I.Ph.D. watered down the individual fields. Those who wanted a I.Ph.D. better program questioned the percentage division of courses as a measure of interdisciplinarity.</p><p>FaCET will continue conversations on interdisciplinary education at UMKC to promote thinking about such education’s future direction, and how to iomprove or produce changes to the I.Ph.D. program.</p>