＠~目 ill~I•

DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 61
Interdisciplinary ResearchandArea Studies
byShinichi ICHIMURA
April ユ973

l
'

TheC
e
n
t
e
rf
o
rS
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
tA
s
i
a
nS
t
u
d
i
e
s
K
y
o
t
oU
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
K
y
o
t
o,J
a
p
a
n

THE CENTER FOR SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUD工ESDISCUSSION PAPER NO. 61
Interdisciplinary ResearchandArea Studies

u

m

円
し

ム
1

M3
Tム つ
f
H9

V J Tよ

bl
・工・工
hr
CD
A

n
ユ
・
h
ユ
・
q
u

み

NOTE:

Th~s discussion !?aper is duplicated for
private c工rcula干
工 on and sho叫 d not be quoted
ithoutor referred to 工n publications 弘1
SS工on of the author.
permユINTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND AREA STUD工Es

1.

Institutional and Methodological Problems in Interdisciplinary
Research in Area Studies

Particularly in the studies of developing countries, theneed for interdisciplinary research is often emphasized.

Althoughthere are many problems in development research that can beadequateユy analyzed along the lines of traditional single discipli‑nary research, these studユes frequently reach 七he boundaries ofeach discipline and require some way of combining the knowledge ofneighboring sciences to further the analysis. This combination ofknowledge may be encyclopaedic only in the sense that the various
inquiries into the same or related problems by various disciplines
are simuユ
taneously attempted and their conclusions are arranged 工nparallel or cumulatユve fash工on so as to facilitate a syn七hetic
understanding of the different aspects of the development process.
Such a type of research may be called multidisciplinary.

The so‑called interdisciplinary research implies, however, more interactive
cooperation of several disciplines for the purpose of obtaining more
o
r
r
n
n
o
n problems. It sometユ
mes
synthetic or deeper understand工ng of cmeans a new inquiry into the "zwischengebiet"(in‑between area), a
development of new conceptions or a reエ
ntegrat工on of different
informations in various disciplines.

In actual development research,however, the distinction between multidisciplinary and interdiscipli‑nary research works is not necessarily very clear‑cut.

Normally, themost appropriate way of dealing with a complex of problems in‑1‑

developing countries is a combination of these two types of research
efforts.

The word interdisciplinary research will be used in thesense of this combination hereafter.
The basic reasons for the need of interdisciplinary researchare:(1) insufficient specialization of primitive societies, and(2) inadequate division of sciences and conceptional frameworks ofmodern sciences in the West in order to study the problems indeveloping countries. A few concrete examples may explain the argu‑
rnent more clearly.

The first case ユs a s工mple‑mユnded application ofmodern economic analysis to the development problems in Asia.

Manyblunders committed by famous economists 工n presenting a too optimistic
prognostication for the future of South and Southeast Asian economieslare 工n most cases due to the separation of demography from an
economic analysis of deveユ
opment and the neglect of the socio‑
political process of nation‑building connected with economic develop‑n these new states. The second exam.n
le is a studJv of thement ユt"spread of a "high‑yielding variety" of rice in Southeast Asia.

The

Green Revoユution is usually studied by agronomists and agricultural
economists.

But unless the study is suppユemented by the related

research works of agricultural engineers on the environmental
conditions for the spreadラ the accompanying social process isanalyzed by anthropologists and even its political implications are.
1clarified by politicaユ scientistS ヲ the whoユe implication of thegreen revolution can never be adequately understood. As a result,overly optimistic policy suggestions and judgements have misled
agricultural poユicies.

‑2‑sFor these reasons there are defュnュ
te advantages, at least at
the present stage of our sc工entユfic inquiries, for research institu‑
tions to be organized as multidisciplinary rather than as monodisci‑
plinary research institutions.

Since, however, there are a variety

of ways of organiz工ng multidェ
sciplinary research 工nstitutions, andpast experiences in academic circles are almost exclusively
monodisciplinary, very careful consideration must be given to theinstitutional problems of such new organizations.

There would seemto be two important aspects in this consideration.

One is theadministrative problem, and the other is the methodological problem.
Although our experience in interdiscユpl工nary research is stilユ very
limited, this paper purports to review the postwar experieces ユnmanagerial and research experimentation of interdisciplinary
institutions and thereby gain knowledge for better institutionaland methodolog工cal ways of promot工ng area S七udies or even suggestinga new methodology to other scientific fields.

2.

Five Types of New Institutions and Their Administrations
The new institutional arrangements established for inter‑disciplinary research may be classified as the following five types:
A:

Governmental or Sem工
− Governmental Research Institute,

8:

University Research Institute,C:

Private or Business Research Institute,D:

Intramural Research Program,

E:

Research Pro〕ect.

ー3‑The first three are the three ways of organizing new research
institutions for interdiscipユinary researchラ and the last two are、
ch in established
two ways of supporting 工nterdisciplinary resear
institutions.

y inconsistentHence, the last two are not necessariユwith the first three institutions.
A:

Needless to say, many governmental ministries have theirresearch sect工ons or some research instュ
tutes attached to theminユstries.

Their research works are usually limited to the aac七
ユ vities assユ
gned to the mユnユstrユes, so that they have no reason
to be interdisciplinary.

Since, however, the policy probユems areproperly solved only by synthesizing various considerations, theneed for interdisciplinary research for important government decisions
hardly needs explanation.

The d工ffユculty of recruiting specialists

and establishing good contacts with academic circles often
shment of semi‑governmental researchnecessitates the establュ
inst工tutes.

The examples are RAND corporation in the U.S. and theInstitute of Developing Economies in Japan.

They are aユl inter‑disciplinary research institutes.
B: Many universities in Europe, the U.S. and Japan have
independent re̲
sear、
ch institutes apart from the departments or
rectユy connected withcolleges, ma工nly to carry out research not dユ
education.

Some of them can be established as interdisciplinary.

The Institute of World Political Economy in Moscow, the South Asia
Institute of Heidelberg University, the Institute for Advanced
Studies at Princeton, and the Center for Southeast Asian Studies of
Kyoto University are some of the interdisciplinary research institutes

ー斗ー

t
:
I

1
1,

established as academic institutions.
C: Governmental or university institutes do not necessarily
meet the practical demand for quick answers to the questions ofprivate businesses. Consequentlyぅ many pr工vate institutes andconsulting companies are established sometimes as interせ isciplinary
institutions.

The Stanford Institution in the U.S.ラ the Nomura

Research Institute, and the Mitsubishi Research Institute in Japanare of this type.

There seem to be two ways of administering

these private inst工tutes. One 工s to run 工t as a consult工ng company
or its like.

It must have its own staffs and information system tocarry out the research within itself.

Another is to make it anorganizer of interdisciplinary research projects. It must have only
the minimum number、of core personne，
ユ a fair number of assisting
staffs and secretaries in addition to good contacts with universities
and government offェ
ces as well as with pr工vate businesses. In
either case, th工S 七ype of institute is much more liberal than thefirst two types in the salary scale of individual specialists andallocation of research funds or choice of research projects. The
director's leadership role can be more easily performed a七 these
institutes tha.
r:i in the governmentaユ and university institutes.
D:

Intramural research programs have been the typical way oforgan工zing interdisciplinary research activities in area studies ofAmerican universities.

Recruiting scholars from various departments,

such programs as the Southeast Asia Program at Yale University andthe same at Cornell University organize interdisciplinary research
activities as well as graduate educat工on. The same method has been‑5‑

adopted by some Australian and Japanese universities. The serious
shortcoming of this method is that the s.cholars recruited for area
research programs can not get full credit in their own department
for their works.

For the departments are naturally discipline‑oriented, and area studies are often subsidiary to professional
training and credit.

Besides, the uncertainty of the program being

dissolved makes the scholars' committment to the research temporaryand superficial.

For these reasons 工t has always been very

difficult to recruit outstanding scholars in area studies ordevelopment research. Jo工nt appointment can not fully overcome thedifficulty.

iate particularly to attract、
This method is inappropr

young scholars to the new research fie工ds, which require adventurous
spiri七s and long‑term field works.

Despite the difficulties listed

here, this is a very effective way of experimenting in new research
fields.

The final decision on institutional arrangements can bemade at the later stage.
E:

ng gran七s to interdiscipユinary research projects isGivェ

esearch, adopted by many
obviously a way of promoting this type of r.
.
foundations, university grant committees, and government agencユes
Flexibility in.allocating research funds is an advantage of thismethod, but the short‑term support and uncertainty are 七he dis‑advantages inherent in this method.
Now the questエon is how to evaluate the advantages anddisadvantages of these five types of organizations for interdiscipli‑nary research.

‑6‑

3. Administrative Efficiency and the Reward System for Scholars
The criterions for evaluating 七hese institutions must be
established from two points of view.

The first is whether they

are administered efficiently or not; and the second is whether its
organization system can attract high quality scholars and achieve
outstand工ng scholary research works. Regarding the first aspectof administrative efficiency, there are at least three points toconsider:Ci) allocation of funds for research and personnel

expenses, or financユ
al administration, (ii) recruitment of capable
research workers and the工r further training, or personnel administra‑tion, (iii) choice of appropriate research problems and successful
execution of the research works, or research administration.
The second po工nt ュs concerned with substance, whereas thefirst is with formality.

Ragner Frisch once said 七hat good research

工nst
工tutes are the ones with good research workers.

In this sense,

the most important question in evaluating research institutes iswhich institution attracts more outstanding scholars.

This questionis very deeply interconnected with the research administration
mentioned above, because outstanding scholars are very much concernedwith the quest工on of whether or not and ユ
n what way good research is
promoted and bad research is discouraged and in what way new,essential inquiries are stimulated.

It may be difficult to exhaust

all the incentives that attract capable scholar、s to institutions or
research programs and proJects.

But ェt must be part工cularly

emphasized that pecuniary remunerations play only a small part as anincentive in the reward system for research institutes.
ー7‑The following list of factors is offered as a frame ofreference to analyze the reward systems of interdisciplinary
research institutions:.
1

official salaries,.
2

opportunities perm工tted to earn extra incomes,.
3

research expenses guranteed or easily obtainable,斗.

free time beyond obligatory works,.
5chances of promotion in salary and position,.
6social prestige accompanying the position,.
7

stability of positionラ.
8

freedom or flexibility in selecting research subjects,.
9

fair and prompt recognition of research achievements,

10. accessibility to social honor.
ves are mutually related and depend not
Many of these incentュ
nstユtutエon but also on the social
only on the reward system of one ユ
environment in which the institution is placed. Hence, it is
impossible to make any generaユ statement, comparing five organiza‑
ve efficiency and the.
tions with the three points of administrati
ten criterions mentioned above as a frame of reference.

Nevertheless,it would be of̲some interest to offer some personal observations
based on my exper工ences 工n Japan and d工scussions with many directorsof interdisciplinary research institutes all over the world．六In the autumn of 1970, I had a chance to visit most of the inter‑disciplinary research institutes in the U.S. and Europe, including
Czecho‑Slovakia, Poland and the USSR. Most of them were spec工al‑ized in area studies. Nevertheless, the views expressed here are
primarily based on my personal experiences and observations as theーr of an interdユSClplエnary research 工nst工tute at Kyoto Un工
o
t
c
e
r
.
'
i
.
d
in
d
e
s
a
i
b
e
b
y
a
m
r
e
p
a
p
e
h
t
f
o
s
versity, Japan. Henceヲ the opinion
a
s
d
l
o
h
o
h
w
e
n
i
m
f
o
favor of university institutes. A friend
responsible position in a governmental institute holds that
universi七y professors are usually very poor administrators. Since,
however, the necessary number of capable administrators is very
ユ it should be possible to find exceptionally capable admini‑，smalstrators with a sufficient knowledge of the scholarly world.
Hence, the opinions of this friend of mine cannot be held against
the advantage of university research institutes whose directors
are elected among university professors.
‑8ーTable I: Administrative Efficiency and an Evaluation of the
Reward System of Five Types of Organizations
Gov.
Inst.

Univ.
Inst.

Bus.
Inst.

In七r.
Prog.

Proj.

l,

financial ad.

B

C

A

B

B+

工工．

personnel ad.

B

B

A

A

A

research ad.

C

B

B

A

A

1.

salarユes

B‑

B

A

2
.

extra 工ncome

B

A

B‑

3
.

research exp.

B

A‑

B+

A

B

斗
．

free time

B

A

C

B

B

5
.

promotion

C

B

B+

C

C

6
.

prest工ge

B

A

C

C

C

7. stability

B

A

B‑

8•

freedom

C+

A

C

A

A+

9
.

recognitュ
on

C

B‑

B

A

A

honor

B

A

C

B+

B

工工；L.

10.

The symbols, Aヲ B and C stand for good, fair andpoor. + and ‑ signs are used in the same way asin school records.

This table does not require much explanation.

Caution would,

however, be desirable against a straight‑forward interpretation,
because there are many varieties of each type of institution anddifferent ways̲
and degrees for each criterion. Moreover, the judge‑
ment of performance records may certa工nly differ from one person toanother.

Needless to say, so much depends on the actual way ofrunning each organizationラ which is determined not only by its
inst工tut工onal arrangement but also by its h工story, personnel andaccidental conditions. Of perticular importance is the appointment、scholars whoof the director or the program leader and key senior‑9‑

can truly guide the interdisciplinary research works. The above
mentioned table shows a general indication of the effects ofinstitutional frameworks on each criterion.
As for financ工al adm工n工Stra七工 on, unュvers1ty 工nst1tutes seemto be the poorest. The reason 工s that in lead工ng Japanese govern‑
mental universities the budgets are always determined annuallyaccording to the number of personnel in each institute or department,
and significant amounts are no七 allocated to interdepartmental
research groups.

Private business institutes seem to have 七he largest

degree of freedom in allocat工ng funds for the budget under theleader、ship of responsible directors.
Given a certain group of specialists, private businessinstitutes seem to have the best personnel administration.

Theyalso have freedom in temporarily recruiting suitable specialists
from other types of research organizations.

It is another question,

however, whether they can staff appropriate experts for inter、disci‑
pl工nary research works or not.
In research administration there does not seem to be any
significant difference among the three 工nstitutions, but government
institutions are more strictly restricted by inappropriate regula‑tions.

Since such regulations and instュ
tut1onal bondage do not

restrict intramural research programs and research projects, the last
two types of arrangements seem to enJoy the high degree of freedom
in the three administra七
ユ ve aspects.

The only difficuユ
七 y in thiscase is that the cruciaユ figure who utilizes this freedom, thedirector、or program leader, can hardly be persuaded to stay for a‑10‑

considerable period of time.
The pecuniary remuneration as an incentive must be considered
not only in terms of an official salary but also as an opportunity
to earn an extra income.

Taken together, university institutes seemto have the best arrangement, because university professors are
g工ven maximum freedom to do anything to earn extr
・a incomes.

Often

extra incomes rather than official salaries are allocated according
to the ability of research workers and thereby increase the effi‑
C工ency of r
esearch.

This holds true, however, only for the fields

which are in demand or are socially recognized.

But it is unlikelythat private business institutes would have research workers in
impractical fields, so that even there, university institutes seemto have a comparative advantage.

Inter、
disc工pl工nary research

usually includes in ュ
ts ideal form some research workers whose
research results are hardly in demand by profit‑making institutions.
The difference in research expenses does not seem to be verylarge at any rate, but free t工me prov工ded to each 工ndivユdual research‑er differs greatly from one type of organization to another、as thetable shows.

Promotions according to the performance of individual

researchers seems to be made more fair、ly and promptly in private
institutions rather than in governmental institutes where theseniority principle prevails.

University institutes are placed

between the two.
Social prestige and stability of position is still very
high for university professors, though there are many exceptions,and such an advantage holds only for reputable universities.

‑11‑

Recognition of research achievements comes from two sources.

One

is from within the institution; another is from academic and intel‑
lectual circles.

The latter source is very directly connected withaccessibility to social honor.

Fewer opportunities to gain

recogn工tエon 工n publicatュ
ons, to assoc工ate W ユth the well‑establ工shed
scholarly world, to make personal contact with outstanding scholars
by attending national and internationaユ conferences or to join in
inter、national research teams make private business institutes andgovernment institutes less attractive to prestigeous scholars,
though the situation is changing rapidly in this respect.
The more spiritual satisfaction derived from achievement inresearch itself, the less important pecuniary and other material
工ncentives become 工n determ工nユng the placement of scholars 工n these
工nst
工t
ut工ons.

Concernエng the forms of interd工sciplユnary research

institutes to be established, the great advantage of old, prestigeousand large universities cannot be denied, because there are many
specialists ready to cooperate with each other in interdisciplinary
research, and any research results are most readily recognized inacademic circles.

For these reasons the inter、disciplinary institutes

located within or affiliated with the best universities are very
attractive for young capable scholars who are about to climb up theladder of an academエc career and yet know 七hat the so‑called areastudies or inter、disciplinary research are not firmly establishedas yet.
Admittedly, this same environment makes many university
pr、ofessors self‑centered or leads them to self‑satisfaction, making‑12‑many universities remain mere ivory towers.

Thus they often deviate

unduly from practエcal, sユgn工fユcant or poユicy‑oriented research.
For this reason it is highly desirable, on the one hand, to devise
a certain reward system for recognizing practical or policy‑oriented
research and, on the other hand, to open the way for interchanging
personnel among the three types of organユzatユons.

The two mathodsof intramural research programs and research projects must be used
to supplement research wor
く｝s at the three institutions by theirown staffs.

4.

Methodoユog工cal Problems of Interd工sciplュ
nary Research and
Their Solution
A definite advantage of establishing an independent research

institute designed for interdisciplinary research rather thanhaving an intramural research program within some university isthat many kinds of scholars in differ、
ent fields can have close
contact with each other and thereby learn formally and informallydifferent ways of thinking, research methods, and establishedknowledge in neighboring sciences at all times.

The advantage ispart工cularly great when discussions are stirred up on questions ofcommon interests from the viewpoint of different disciplines.

Such

discussions would never be possible unless many scie~tists, as it
were, lived together、in the same institute and talked with eachother all the time and felt responsibユe for the research results of
the institute as a whole.

The importance of friendly but careful

informal discussions can hardly be exaggerated. The kind of‑13‑

information and preliminary discussions obtainable during informal
talks among colleagues at var工ous occasュ
ons cannot be ユ
earned soeasily by reading published documents, which are often to partial
and formalized.

In fields like area studies where many problems

still remain unsettled or even unformulated, the raw materials of
information, experiences or even casual observations in fieldworks and of course the front knowledge of related sciences arevery essential to picking up some topics for research.
Such tentative discussion with colleagues in the same or
related fields wiユ make it easier to evaluate the relative
importance of topユ
csand examユne the possibility of formulating
research problems out of them.

Exper工ences show that the mostsuccessful interdisciplinδry research can be carried out if somespecific problem is formulated as a centraユ theme, which is ofcommon interest to scholars ユn different dユS C工plines.

This wayof identifying problems and collabor、ating efforts in formulating
the problem is really a key to the success of interdisciplinary
research.

This is one of the advantages of independent interdisci‑

pl工nary instユtutes.
Inconsistency of speech and action is particularly noticableユn interdisciplinary research.
low indeed.

The deed‑to‑talk ratio must be very

The above mentュ
oned advantage shows at least one way ofovercoming the methodological difficulty of interdisciplinary
research, which can most easily be realized at independent research

工nstitutes but can be applied to other institutes with some adaptations.

‑1斗ーThis advantage is summarized below, along with the two additional
advantages of independent institutes, which will be discussed later:(1) Easier selection and formulation of research problems
common to mult工pユe d工S C工pl工nes,(2)

Closer collaboration be七ween senior and junior research
workers,

ation W 工th match工ng research programs in、(3) Ready cooper
other institutions at home and abroad.
If these points are successfully implemented, the most difficult
problems of interdisciplinary research will be solved, especiallywith regard to area studies or development research.
Two concrete research works are worth quoting here as
successful examples of interdisciplinary research.
T. Watabe

The first is

The Formation of Glutinous Rice Zone in Thailand＂

ラH

i, "Environmental Determi‑｝uくAnthropology, 1970; the second is H. Fu
nants Affecting the Potentiaユ Dessemination of High‑Yieユding
Varieties of Riceラ H The Southeast Asian Studies, December, 1971.
Watabe, professor of agronomy at Kyoto University, succeeded
larifying the historical changes which brought about the spread
工n cof glutinous rice varieties in Thailand, by distinguishing thevarious kinds of rice hulls contained in primitive bricks d工scoveredin old temple buildings at different places in Thailand.
discovery of such bricks was accidental.

The

One of 討is colleagues,ty,
Ta.kaya, assoc工ate professor of geomorphologユst at Kyoto Unユversユ
casually talked about this discovery while both of them were doing
.
d
n
.
a
l
i
a
h
'
:
field work in northern 's with
r
a
n
i
.
'
"
!
!
e
Subsequen:: working s‑15‑

agronomists, Thai hユstorian, rice taxonorn工st, and geographer、
suggested a more cafeful sampling of bricks, and as a result, his
unique, pioneering piece of work was produced, shedding light onan undocumented part of old Thai history.
Fukui's article is in effect a joint proJect by a group ofscholars participating in a joint seminar at the Center for Southeast
Asian Studies, Kyoto University. The discussion started informallyat luncheon meetings by casting serious doubt concerning the
popular optimism about the spread of the IRR工 variety of rice in
the Chao Phraya basin in Thaiユand. A presentation of this cautious
view to an international conference on the Green Revolution sparked
a series of working seminars attended by quite a variety of scientists
who had common inter、ests in the Green Revolution in Southeast Asia.
They included geographerヲ agronomist, soil scientistsラ irrigationengineer, economist, and agricultural economist.

After a very

careful exchange of views and a Join七 effort to analyze the sameproblem from various points of view in these work shops, thisunusually interdisciplinary paper was successfully written andproved itself right in warning against too much optimism on theGreen Revolutエon in Southeast Asia. These two examples show how
interdisciplinary research can be successfully carried out.
The importance of collaboration between senior scholars with
sufficient experience in area studies and junior postdoctoral
researchers is not adequately recognized by many scholars as well as
administrators of research institutes and grant‑giving foundations.
Junior scholars or graduate students are often sent to remote‑16‑villages or bustling urban areas without any effective researchguidance for area studies. Without appropriate advice at crucial
moments, junior researchers often waste time and energy and end up
with a minimum of work in thesis writing. The essential problem
here is how to guide the research of junior achoユars in the f工eld.
This may be achieved if close collaboration is previously arranged
between senior and junior researchers before the latter departs for.
くshis field worJ

The former should always be reachable either atocaユ centers or at the home center.
the ユ
Another reason for the importance of senior and juniorcooperation is also sometimes mユssed.

It is due to the longer

period required to train capable interdisciplinary‑oriented special‑ists for area studies.
uirements.
工eq、

Firstlyぅ there are additional language

It is not exceptional that successful field works

require the mastery of two foreign languages.

Secondly, they mustfamiliarize themselves with people and societies that are radicallydifferent from those at home.

To economize the time required forongsuch training, constant association with senior scholars with ユ
years of experience and frequent association with visitors from thena七ive countries in very desirable.

This is made easy if junior

ユnary research centersscholars are aff工liated with mult工d工S C工pェ
where such opportun工t工es are amply prov工ded.
nterdユS C工plinary research of area
In order to carry out ュ
studiesラ the research workers must always be r>eady to contact
s in related institutes or universities at home and abroad.
、researcher
It goes without saying that the best way of executing area studies‑17‑

is to work together with natェve scholars more or less in the same
fields.

This arrangement can be more easily made by being able torespond to the demand for research programs designed by native
tiatユve.
scholars on the工r own 工nュSュ
nee d工fferent kinds of problems

are likely to be proposed, and they are made by the sameぅ limited
number of lead工ng scholars 工n develop工ng countries, response to thes easier 工f there are only a few contact points indemands ュdeveloped countr工es that are mult工dユsciplユnary and can answer manyquestions as they are requested.

This aspect is increasingly

important to ensure the needed and welcomed field works carried out
by junior researchers and to be saved from the charge of intellectualor political neo‑colonialism. This type of international cooperation
工s also extremely effective for the training of jun
工or scholars indeveloping countries as well as in developed countries.

The

young ・
Ph.D.'s who have Just come home to developing countries
usually need more training and research experience in order toanalyze the problems of theユr home countries.

The above mentioned

international cooperation offers an excellent opportunity for their、education and promotion of interdisciplinary research 工nfurtherarea studies for development research.
Thus an ユdeal ユnterd工SCユplユnary research 工nstユ
tute must be
established with a core group of multidisciplinary research workers
and a large number of affiliated researchers in many fields.

工t

n工stered so as to gurantee the maximum degree of contact
must be admエwith each other in formal seminars and informal occasions.
three points are crucial considerations to be kept in mind.

‑18‑

These

disciplinary Institute and its、. The Size.of an Inter
5
Administration
All the considerations presented above seem to imply thatthe size of such an institute must be faエrly large.

The larger

the size, the more difficult the task of administration.

Themportant for admin工ster工ng
leadership of the dエrector ユs espec工ally ユ
an interdisciplinary institute, because the dユff工cult problem ofarly research is often
ent disciplines in schoユ、
coordinating differ＇s judgement. Most of the、ult"imately solved by the director
字xperienced directors seem to held the view that the number of seniorscholars should not exceed about 20. The primary reason for limiting、．
the size of the institute is the enormous burden on the director
The ideal director must combine a wide and balanced knowledge ofdifferent disciplines with excellent manager工al skエlls.

It is very

di.fficul七 七 o find such a director. If one is found, he can notremain excellent for very long unless he is given sufficient time
to keep learning while assuming the role of director.

This is'eciates
.
'
!
:
p
e
certainly not very easy, because scientific knowledge dquickly and the duties of a director require an unlimited amount oftime.

One way of overcoming this difficulty would be to have♂

plural deputy d工rectors who can alternate directorsh工ps every twoor three years, so that any one of them can continue his scholarly
activity while doing administrative work.
Needless to say, twenty senユor schoユars are not enough toches.
、carry out a variety of interdisciplinary researHence, theber of affiliated researchers within
institute must have a large num‑19‑and outside the universi七y or just outside the institute.

Thismeans that it must organize intramural research programs and/or
ch activities of 工ts own、
research projects to supplement the resear
staffs. This arrangement can be made most ideally if an interdisci‑tute ユs establエshed as part of a large
plinary research instェ
university with many departments of different disciplines.

If

there are scholars of many dエS C工pl工nes on the same campus, theoppor七unities of informal association can still be easily arranged.
Thus, one conclusion that can be derived from the considerationsin this paper is that the institutes outside large universities
will have more difficulties working under an interdisciplinary form
and thus will tend to be more or less monodisciplinary.

L内円au