Universities in Nepal have recently introduced new areas of specialization and interdisciplinary courses at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.
This shift is largely driven by the assumption that students pursue higher education abroad because foreign universities offer programs that combine multiple fields of study—such as blending technology with business, STEAM education (science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics), or environmental science with public policy.
Interdisciplinary courses, which integrate knowledge, theories, frameworks, and methodologies from multiple academic disciplines, aim to address this gap in Nepal’s educational offerings.
Interdisciplinary programs are increasingly crucial in 21st-century higher education, as they equip students with the skills to solve complex, multifaceted problems that cannot be addressed through a single disciplinary perspective.
For instance, contemporary issues like climate change demand insights from a wide array of fields, including economics, sociology, indigenous studies, urban planning, anthropology, political science, and environmental sciences.
By intersecting various domains, interdisciplinary studies offer students comprehensive knowledge that prepares them to tackle such challenges.
The lack of collaboration with departments such as engineering, natural sciences, statistics, and mathematics creates a significant gap, leading to graduates who may possess a broad range of knowledge but lack the specialized technical, operational, and quantitative skills required to apply interdisciplinary learning in a professional context.
However, the introduction of these courses in Nepalese universities has not been without challenges.
One major issue is that these interdisciplinary programs have been implemented without sufficient market research into local job requirements or understanding of existing bylaws, labor acts, and employment provisions set by public service commissions and public enterprises.
These legal frameworks often restrict job opportunities for students with multi-disciplinary degrees.
Furthermore, the lack of structural and policy reforms within the university system, along with limited inter-departmental collaboration, makes it difficult to effectively implement interdisciplinary courses.
Mimicking Foreign Universities Without Contextualization
Foreign universities have developed interdisciplinary courses in response to the evolving demands of the job market, particularly in advanced economic contexts where industries such as technology, healthcare, and business seek professionals who can collaborate across disciplines.
For example, Stanford University offers programs like the Symbolic Systems major, which integrates cognitive science, linguistics, philosophy, and computer science.
These interdisciplinary courses are a direct response to the shifting nature of the global job market.
However, the situation in Nepal is different. Job descriptions, requirements, and specifications for roles in both the public and private sectors do not reflect the need for professionals with cross-disciplinary knowledge.
Additionally, the bylaws and employment provisions of the public service commission still maintain disciplinary boundaries, specifying particular specializations for public service jobs.
This disconnect creates a risk of superficial interdisciplinary programs, where students may emerge with fragmented knowledge that is not suited to the local job market.
University Silos as a Barrier for Interdisciplinary Courses
An even bigger challenge lies within the organizational structure of Nepalese universities, which operate on a rigid track tenure model.
Most universities rely on faculty members with specific areas of expertise, which may not always align with the interdisciplinary demands of new courses.
In some cases, even professors without relevant specialization are tasked with teaching interdisciplinary courses simply because they are permanent faculty members.
Furthermore, Nepal’s university system is still entrenched in traditional disciplinary silos.
This structure makes collaboration between departments—such as sociology, computer science, management, economics, environmental science, and cultural studies—difficult. Interdisciplinary courses are mostly confined to departments like arts, humanities, and social sciences, which focus on qualitative research.
For interdisciplinary education to thrive in Nepal, universities must invest in multi-disciplinary research, encourage cross-departmental collaboration, and ensure that their programs are deeply contextualized to the realities of the local labor market.
The lack of collaboration with departments such as engineering, natural sciences, statistics, and mathematics creates a significant gap, leading to graduates who may possess a broad range of knowledge but lack the specialized technical, operational, and quantitative skills required to apply interdisciplinary learning in a professional context.
Lack of Multi-/Interdisciplinary Research
Another key limitation is the lack of multi-disciplinary research within Nepalese universities. Interdisciplinary research, which integrates methodologies from various fields to address complex problems, is the foundation of any effective interdisciplinary program.
For example, solving environmental sustainability issues requires knowledge from ecology, economics, sociology, and engineering. However, despite the rise of interdisciplinary courses, research activities in Nepal’s universities remain largely siloed within individual departments.
Therefore, introducing interdisciplinary courses without a broader institutional reorganization that fosters multi-departmental collaboration and research will likely result in fragmented learning experiences for students.
The essence of interdisciplinary programs is the integration of diverse fields to tackle complex issues that cannot be fully understood through a single disciplinary lens.
Without the proper infrastructure and institutional support, Nepalese universities may struggle to effectively implement interdisciplinary education.
Conclusion
While the introduction of interdisciplinary courses in Nepalese universities is a positive step, the system is not yet adequately prepared to support them.
Until universities undergo structural and policy reforms to facilitate collaboration between departments and align with local job market needs, these courses risk becoming superficial.
For interdisciplinary education to thrive in Nepal, universities must invest in multi-disciplinary research, encourage cross-departmental collaboration, and ensure that their programs are deeply contextualized to the realities of the local labor market.
Comment