Has higher education become more interdisciplinary? a longitudinal analysis of syllabi using natural language processing | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications – Nature

Report on Interdisciplinarity in Higher Education and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1.0 Introduction: The SDG Imperative for Interdisciplinary Education

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) present complex, interconnected challenges that cannot be solved by any single discipline. Achieving these goals requires a global workforce equipped with integrated knowledge and collaborative skills. This imperative places a significant responsibility on higher education institutions to foster interdisciplinary learning, directly supporting SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). This report summarizes a longitudinal analysis of 478,233 university syllabi from 2004 to 2019 to assess whether educational practices are evolving to meet this critical need. The central question is whether higher education has become more interdisciplinary, thereby preparing students to address multifaceted issues such as climate change, inequality, and global health.

2.0 Methodology: Assessing Educational Alignment with SDG Principles

The study employed natural language processing techniques to analyze a large dataset of university course syllabi, examining the evolution of curricula through three distinct dimensions. This approach provides a quantitative measure of how well educational content aligns with the integrated nature of the SDGs.

2.1 Data Source and Scope

• Dataset: 478,233 course syllabi collected from the Open Syllabus database.
• Period: 2004 to 2019.
• Scope: Undergraduate and graduate courses at four-year colleges and universities in the United States.

2.2 Analytical Framework

The analysis was structured around three key areas to measure the degree of interdisciplinarity:

1. Lexical Analysis: This dimension measured the convergence of terminology across different academic fields. A greater overlap in vocabulary would suggest increased cross-disciplinary communication, a foundational element for the collaboration required by SDG 17.
2. Topical Analysis: This dimension examined the distribution of subject matter within courses. An increase in topical diversity would indicate that curricula are incorporating the varied perspectives needed to address complex goals like SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).
3. Pedagogical Analysis: This dimension analyzed the action verbs used in learning objectives, categorized by Bloom’s taxonomy. A shift toward higher-order skills like ‘evaluate’ and ‘create’ would signify that education is fostering the innovative and critical thinking necessary to develop novel solutions for the SDGs.

3.0 Key Findings: A Disconnect Between Educational Practice and SDG Ambitions

Contrary to institutional rhetoric promoting interdisciplinary approaches, the analysis reveals a profound stability in disciplinary boundaries over the 16-year period. This suggests a significant misalignment between current higher education practices and the skills required to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

3.1 Lexical Stagnation

The terminology used within broad academic fields showed minimal convergence over time. Disciplinary vocabularies have remained largely distinct and siloed. This lack of a shared language presents a fundamental barrier to the cross-sectoral communication and collaboration essential for implementing the 2030 Agenda.

3.2 Topical Stability

The distribution of topics within course syllabi remained remarkably consistent. Most academic fields showed little evidence of integrating subject matter from other disciplines. This finding implies that curricula are not evolving to reflect the interconnected nature of sustainability challenges, which require integrating social, economic, and environmental knowledge to address goals such as SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• Exception: The fields of Engineering and Technology demonstrated a notable trend toward incorporating topics from the social and natural sciences. This shift aligns with the needs of goals like SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), which require technical solutions informed by societal and environmental contexts.

3.3 Pedagogical Inertia

The analysis of learning objectives revealed no significant shift toward higher-order cognitive skills. The emphasis remained on foundational skills like ‘understand’ and ‘apply’ rather than the more complex skills of ‘evaluate’ and ‘create’. This pedagogical stagnation fails to cultivate the creative and critical problem-solving capabilities that are paramount for developing innovative solutions to achieve the SDGs and is a missed opportunity for advancing SDG 4.7, which calls for education for sustainable development.

4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations: Bridging the Gap for a Sustainable Future

4.1 The Interdisciplinarity Gap as a Barrier to the 2030 Agenda

The study’s findings indicate a critical “interdisciplinarity gap” between the recognized need for integrated problem-solving to achieve the SDGs and the reality of a siloed higher education system. While interdisciplinary research is increasingly promoted, this ethos has not translated into classroom teaching and learning. This decoupling results in a workforce that may be ill-equipped to handle the complex, systemic challenges of the 21st century. The persistence of disciplinary boundaries can be attributed to several factors:

• Rigid departmental and administrative structures in universities.
• Institutional incentives that prioritize specialized research over interdisciplinary teaching.
• A prevailing belief that foundational education must remain within strict disciplinary confines.

4.2 Recommendations for Aligning Higher Education with the SDGs

To ensure higher education can effectively contribute to the 2030 Agenda, institutions must take deliberate action to bridge the interdisciplinarity gap. The following recommendations are proposed:

1. Strategic Curriculum Reform: Universities must actively design, fund, and promote interdisciplinary programs and courses that are explicitly structured around SDG-related challenges, such as climate justice, sustainable agriculture, or public health equity.
2. Align Institutional Strategy with Educational Practice: University leadership must ensure that institutional commitments to solving global problems are reflected in curricula, faculty incentives, and student learning outcomes. The gap between research rhetoric and teaching reality must be closed.
3. Promote Pedagogical Innovation: Educational programs should be revised to prioritize the development of higher-order cognitive skills. Curricula should foster synthesis, critical evaluation, and systems thinking to prepare students for the complexities of sustainable development, directly addressing the targets of SDG 4.
4. Enhance Monitoring and Evaluation: Future research should continue to monitor the evolution of university curricula, expanding analysis to include reading lists and program requirements to build a comprehensive understanding of how education is, or is not, adapting to support a sustainable future.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 4: Quality Education

The article directly addresses SDG 4 by conducting a comprehensive investigation into the quality and nature of higher education. The entire study is focused on whether university education has evolved to become more interdisciplinary, which is a key aspect of modern, high-quality education designed to tackle complex global challenges. The analysis of 478,233 syllabi to assess lexical, topical, and pedagogical dimensions is a direct evaluation of the content and delivery of tertiary education.

• The abstract states the study “investigates whether higher education has embraced interdisciplinarity.”
• The introduction questions the extent to which “classroom content and pedagogies have truly transformed.”

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

The article connects to SDG 9 by highlighting the role of interdisciplinary research and education as fundamental drivers of innovation. It argues that universities are expected to be hubs for “innovations and discoveries” and “patent and product development,” which are central to the goals of SDG 9. The finding that interdisciplinary education remains “largely static” suggests a potential gap between educational practices and the needs of an innovative, research-driven economy.

• The introduction notes that “interdisciplinary research and education are critical factors behind innovations and discoveries.”
• It also mentions that problem-solving, “patent and product development become [universities’] survival strategies.”

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

SDG 17 is relevant because the core theme of the article—interdisciplinarity—is fundamentally about collaboration and partnership across different fields of knowledge. The article explores the challenges and realities of breaking down “disciplinary boundaries” within universities. This internal collaboration is a foundational prerequisite for the larger multi-stakeholder partnerships that SDG 17 advocates for to solve complex global issues like climate change, which the article explicitly mentions.

• The article discusses the demand for “dismantling of disciplinary boundaries” and “university-wide multidisciplinary collaborations.”
• It points out the “paradox of interdisciplinarity,” where “apparent demands for crossing disciplinary boundaries” in research and education are met with institutional resistance, highlighting the challenges inherent in fostering partnerships.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 4.3: Ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.

   The article’s primary focus is on the quality of tertiary education. By analyzing whether university curricula are adapting to the need for interdisciplinary approaches, it directly assesses if the education provided is of a quality that prepares students for contemporary challenges. The conclusion that “interdisciplinary education remains largely static” is a critical commentary on the quality aspect of this target.

2. Target 4.4: Substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills… for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship.

   The article discusses the need for education to equip students with problem-solving skills for complex societal issues. It references a study noting that university syllabi “increasingly embrace problem-solving capabilities and industry demands.” Interdisciplinary skills are highly relevant for modern employment, and the article’s investigation into whether pedagogical strategies are evolving to teach higher-order cognitive skills (like ‘create’ and ‘evaluate’ from Bloom’s taxonomy) relates directly to the development of relevant job skills.

3. Target 9.5: Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities… encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers.

   This target is addressed through the article’s argument that interdisciplinary education is essential for preparing “future researchers” and fostering innovation. The study’s finding of a disconnect between the rhetoric of interdisciplinary research and the reality of siloed educational practices implies a failure to upgrade educational systems to better support the goal of enhancing scientific research and innovation.

4. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships.

   The article’s analysis of inter-departmental and cross-disciplinary collaboration within universities serves as a microcosm for the broader partnerships mentioned in this target. It highlights that even within a single institution, “the department-based organizational structure of universities can hinder cross-departmental efforts.” This finding underscores the foundational challenges in building a culture of collaboration that is necessary for achieving effective large-scale partnerships.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article’s methodology is built around creating and applying specific, quantifiable indicators to measure the extent of interdisciplinarity in higher education. These can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

• Lexical Similarity of Course Content

  The article uses “cosine similarity” to measure the convergence of terminology across different academic fields over time. A higher cosine similarity between disciplines would indicate increasing interdisciplinarity. The article states, “Lexical analysis indicates minimal convergence in terminology across disciplines,” suggesting this indicator shows a lack of progress.

• Topical Diversity within Curricula

  The study employs the “Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI)” to measure the concentration of topics within a field’s syllabi. A decreasing HHI over time would signify that a field is incorporating a more diverse range of topics from other disciplines, thus becoming more interdisciplinary. The article notes that for most fields, the HHI “remains stable,” while for Engineering and Arts & Humanities, it “decreases over time.”

• Complexity of Pedagogical Goals

  The article analyzes the “proportion of action verbs in syllabi, categorized according to Bloom’s six levels” (remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create). An increase in the proportion of higher-order verbs like “create” and “evaluate” would indicate a shift towards pedagogical goals that support creative, interdisciplinary problem-solving. The study found “no significant changes in the major action verbs used in course syllabi, indicating a static pattern in pedagogical approaches.”

• Number of Interdisciplinary Degree Programs

  The article implies this is a common but potentially superficial indicator. It mentions that “the number of interdisciplinary degree programs has reportedly grown,” but questions whether this reflects a true transformation in classroom content, suggesting this indicator should be used with caution.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nature.com