CASE STUDY
Clearing interdisciplinary pathways
A bespoke intervention into university curricula and IT systems to enable change in an outdated institutional model — without rewriting the rules.
The STORY
Innovating inside a structure not built for innovation
In a previous role, I worked with a small, forward-thinking research institute determined to make space for interdisciplinary and artistic research — work that didn’t fit into existing academic models. We were seeing increased interest from students wanting to pursue innovative, interdisciplinary postgraduate research. But, despite high-level endorsement, the systems around us weren’t designed to accommodate them: admissions criteria were rigid, digital systems inflexible, and institutional cultures slow to adapt to changing student demand.
With student interest growing and few resources to spare, waiting for consensus wasn’t an option. This case study tells the story of how change was unlocked from within — not through top-down reform, but through strategic alignment, quiet innovation, and deep listening. What follows is the five-part design approach that reshaped policy by working with — rather than against — the system.
The Challenge
The University championed interdisciplinarity - while its processes and systems blocked it
Despite strong institutional ambitions to support interdisciplinary research, the project encountered layered forms of resistance across university structures. This resistance was not rooted in hostility, but in the friction between an experimental academic model and a system built for disciplinary clarity and bureaucratic efficiency.
At &listen…, we believe resistance is diagnostic. It tells us where systems are too brittle to accommodate difference, where routines have hardened into doctrine, and where culture needs time and conversation to move. We listen for those frequencies — then design around them.
This project revealed deep-seated institutional logics that resisted change, even when leadership support was high. Here’s what surfaced:
- Supervision was siloed
Institutional frameworks only allowed supervision within single departments or faculties. This made it nearly impossible to reflect the collaborative nature of interdisciplinary research in actual supervision arrangements.
- Digital infrastructure blocked new formats
The university’s student information system could not accommodate co-supervision across faculties or artistic and multimodal outputs. Any deviation from the norm required inefficient manual workarounds, discouraging innovation.
- Quality concerns caused hesitation
Faculty leaders were unsure how to assess novel research proposals and supervision models that fell outside traditional disciplinary lines. This uncertainty often manifested as gatekeeping to protect perceived academic standards.
- Turf wars kicked in
Some departments interpreted the initiative as a challenge to their authority or duplication of their roles. Rather than collaboration, the default response was defensiveness and territorialism.
- Emotions ran high
Internal correspondence revealed frustration, dismissiveness, and a lack of shared understanding. In many cases, confusion about the initiative’s scope fed suspicion, slowing institutional buy-in.
THE APPROACH
Rather than confront resistance head-on, we implemented a six-part strategy grounded in scholarship, design thinking, and affect theory. The approach did not rely on formal policy reform but instead worked tactically within existing structures to create change that was administratively feasible, culturally legible, and epistemically just.
01
Attune: Deep listening to people, systems, and atmospheres
What needed to change, and what could be leveraged?
Change started with listening. Practical experience and conversations with staff, students, administrators and departmental chairs revealed how creative, interdisciplinary, and practice-led research was being blocked at multiple levels—through admissions protocols, supervision frameworks, and deep-seated symbolic fears. These early engagements showed that the barriers were not personal but systemic. Rather than challenge individuals, the process focused on identifying pain points and aligning reform with institutional goals.
02
Equalize: Identify Imbalances, Frictions, and Overlooked Inequities
Where was the system misaligned or unfairly weighted?
It became clear where students were getting stuck: outdated degree codes, missing supervision pathways, and a lack of recognition for hybrid work. Crucially, existing but underutilized IT infrastructure offered solutions. Through consultation with administrative staff and IT governance, a little-known mechanism in the student information system (SIS ) was discovered that allowed supervisory responsibilities to be split across departments. This became the administrative basis for enabling co-supervision of interdisciplinary work.
03
Mix: Co-create New Structures, Knowledge Flows, and Collaborations
How do you build the future before it's officially recognised?
With the administrative obstacles out of the way, but facing stiff resistance, we submitted two new degree programmes (MPhil and PhD in Interdisciplinary Arts) through the standard channels for review. We followed the formal pathways of academic governance, before seeking full consensus between stakeholders. This positioned the reform not as an abstract idea but as an active and structured proposal requiring immediate engagement. The programmes were grounded in real student needs: artists, researchers, and hybrid practitioners whose work could not be accommodated within traditional disciplinary frameworks. They needed legitimate registration routes, cross-faculty supervision, and multimodal submission options.
04
Broadcast: Communicate Relentlessly, With Empathy and Precision
How do you bring people along, especially in the face of resistance?
This phase focused on repairing miscommunication and ensuring the proposal was intelligible and aligned across administrative, academic, and governance structures. Communication was continuous, thoughtful, and strategic. Proposals were iteratively revised in response to concerns, and memos clarified goals and addressed sticking points with calm, collegial language and by reaffirming shared institutional values. Emotional resistance was treated with the same care as bureaucratic roadblocks, and administrators were reassured through clear evidence that quality assurance and governance structures would remain intact. Where confusion persisted, we re-explained. Where there was anxiety about standards, we pointed to precedents and protocols. The strategy was simple: respond early, respond clearly, and keep institutional integrity visible at every step.
05
Sustain: Build Scaffolding for Long-Term Alignment
How do you make change stick beyond a single project or person?
To make the change durable, alignment was secured across all necessary operational structures. The faculty registrar’s office was convinced first, then postgraduate administrators across departments adopted the new data practices. Supervision percentages are now routinely tracked and coded into the university’s student information system. Because reforms were embedded in day-to-day workflows and student records protocols, they continued even after the pilot phase. Sustainability was achieved not just through documentation and policy — but through habit and use.
The OUTCOMEs
Two New Degree Programmes Launched
In less than 12 months, this quiet redesign reshaped the possibilities for interdisciplinary research at the university. Structural barriers gave way to viable new pathways with the design and acceptance of an MPhil and PhD in Interdisciplinary Arts—offering a rigorous academic home for research that previously fell through institutional cracks. After implementation, students registered, administrators understood the model, and the energy shifted—from opposition to momentum.
9 Students Enrolled
in Year One
The inaugural cohort included artists, researchers, and professionals whose projects previously didn’t fit. This early adoption proved the need and viability of the model.
Supervision Model Scaled Faculty-Wide
A backend mechanism for assigning cross-departmental supervision was adopted across the faculty. What started as a workaround became standard policy.
Improved Access to Postgrad Study
Students who were previously blocked from postgraduate study due to disciplinary silos were now able to register. The programmes opened doors, not just options.
Less Talk –
More Practice
Instead of debating interdisciplinarity, staff and students built it—through real projects, real assessments, and real degrees. Institutional change came through action, not abstraction.
Student Subsidy Lines Clarified
Supervision percentages aligned cleanly with management audits, ensuring proper subsidy flows. This reassured administrators and secured the sustainability of the model.
Reduced Institutional Tension
Competition between departments eased as clear structures emerged. Tolerance replaced suspicion—thanks to shared governance and transparent communication.
"Paths are created by being used. The more a path is used the more a path is used. Without use a path can disappear, becoming overgrown, bumpy, unusable."
Sarah Ahmed, 'On Being Included'
