Give Tom Headrick credit for raising fundamental questions

EDITOR,

In the new spirit of interdisciplinary research I start with Albert Einstein's famous equation. Madness equals continuing to do the same thing in the same way and expecting a different outcome.

Thirty-five years ago, we set as our goal making UB a leading university. Today we are no closer to that goal than we were 35 years ago. Is it not madness to think we will achieve it by continuing to do exactly the same thing? Tom Headrick should, therefore, be praised for raising some fundamental questions.

For example, we all know that academic bureaucracy has been growing at an exponential rate both in our and other universities. Yet, initially, there was opposition to Tom's proposal to reduce academic bureaucracy by combining three faculties into one arts and sciences faculty. There is, of course, the belief that old deans never die, they just lose their faculties. But is it really our task to keep them from their fate?

I now see the same visceral reaction to the plan to expand M.A. programs. We have almost an open admissions system for undergraduates; yet we can barely fill our places for them. And with only a handful of Ph.D. programs rated in the top 50, most departments can hardly expect much growth in that sector of the market at least in the short-run. Any organization that wishes to survive must find new markets for its services when major components of its old markets are declining. It is in this spirit that the proposal for expansion of M.A. programs needs to be viewed.

There is one issue, however, on which Tom has engendered more opposition than he need have. It arises from his failure to distinguish clearly between interdisciplinary teaching programs and interdisciplinary research. The former can, indeed, be appropriately initiated by an administrator if he sees opportunities for more effective use of scarce resources. When it comes to research, however, inter- (as well as intra-) disciplinary ventures can only be launched successfully by those on the firing line of research. That is, by individuals who have an insight that appears likely to lead to an intellectual breakthrough.

Who is to judge if an opportunity for an intellectual breakthrough has been found? It is not a department chair, nor a dean, nor a committee elected by a faculty senate. It is the worldwide community of scholars and scientists who are experts in the field(s) of the alleged breakthrough. The academic marketplace works very well and an individual who has made a breakthrough does not need to worry about whether his colleagues like it or not. He will have ample opportunity to cry about their lack of support all the way to the platform on which he receives his applause.

In short, if opportunities exist for intellectual breakthroughs via interdisciplinary research, it is not clear why administrative intervention is needed. The intellectual marketplace is a better mechanism than administrative fiat for sorting out the good from the bad research ventures. Anyone who sees opportunities for exploiting new directions of research should, therefore, do so via conventional meansÑthat is, through publication of new knowledge. If, instead, one takes the route of going to one's provost, hat-in-hand, to collect support for a research venture, it is, in a sense, a confession of failure.

Trying to stimulate a particular type of research through the creation, by administrative initiative, of centers and institutes is a form of research targeting. Experience tells us that research targeting is more effective in solving narrowly defined, practical problems than in creating fundamental knowledge. The likelihood of success in promoting basic research is further reduced by a probable adverse selection bias. The most productive scholars and scientists are likely to have a fairly full research agenda. They are least likely to switch their research focus in response to incentives offered by institutes and centers. It is generally well-motivated but less productive faculty members who are easiest to draw into such targeted ventures. They are apt to be, in G. B. Shaw's words, good sorts but a bad lot.

In sum, a hands-on policy to promote interdisciplinary teaching may be entirely proper. Teaching programs do not require intellectual breakthroughs and the incentive system for faculty members to accommodate the institutional needs of their employers is often weak. This is not true for the pursuit of scientific opportunities. Hence, a hands-on policy to promote interdisciplinary research is probably not needed nor is it very likely to succeed. Several additional interdisciplinary seminars may enliven the intellectual atmosphere at the university. And a few interdisciplinary educational programs would probably enhance the efficiency with which the university's resources are used. It is not clear why anything more is needed.

Michael Gort
Professor of Economics