communication and coordination among faculty, and better faculty morale due to a more cooperative sense of shared purpose. Their new transdisciplinary programs and meta-disciplinary departments would attract more funding, better faculty, and most importantly, high quality students. Eventually, through a process of selection, the new criteria would become the most common.
We can create a new transdisciplinary intellectual Renaissance, and the Renaissance men and women to populate it, by appropriately modifying the incentive structures for faculty and students. The lever we can use to initiate this is the criteria for tenure and promotion at the university level. If we can effectively change these criteria we can open the door to problem-focused, inter- and transdisciplinary research and teaching. There is no shortage of potential new programs, but experience has shown that they will not long survive without modifying the tenure and promotion criteria to allow freer participation by all university faculty.
Many thanks to R. Ulanowicz, B. Rothschild, and J. Bartholomew for their useful comments on earlier drafts. The Kellogg Foundation provided three years of funding to think about these topics and did not require immediate results. That, I think, is truly commendable. This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Ian Morris, former director of the Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, whose vision of transdisciplinary research inspired so many.