Financial management
While issues of content and educational approach are quite rightly at the forefront when creating a new course or programme, there are also financial issues that need to be dealt with along the way. Below we have listed some of the most important questions to consider when developing an interdisciplinary course or programme.
How resource-intensive is interdisciplinary education?
For various reasons, interdisciplinary education is often more resource-intensive than comparable education within a discipline. The courses are more staff-intensive as they often require lecturers from different disciplines. Interdisciplinary education also requires more time for discussion and calibration within the teaching team in connection with the development of the course, planning for new instances of the course and assessment. Moreover, it is an advantage for lecturers from different disciplines to be involved in the same teaching session, unless the lecturer personally has an interdisciplinary profile, as this creates better integration between the subjects and contributes to the lecturers’ learning.
Having said this, lecturers involved in the interdisciplinary education initiative saw tangible benefits for both students and lecturers (see Interdisciplinary education gives added value).
How can costs and revenue be shared?
Usually, it is the host department that bears the costs of a given course or programme and can offset student performance against its allocated funding ceiling. The funding ceiling is the maximum amount of compensation a department can receive, based on the number of full-time equivalent students (HST1) and annual performance equivalents (HPR2) and the government’s price tags for these.
When a course or programme involves several different departments/centres, a cost and revenue sharing principle needs to be found that suits all those involved. A few different sharing principles are presented below. Whatever model is chosen, it is important that it is as simple and effective as possible, so that the administrative burden does not increase more than necessary. It is also important to remember to liaise with the relevant finance officer to ensure that the proposed arrangement is administratively feasible in the specific case.
Distribution by credits
One possible financial principle, which is relatively simple to administer, is to divide up the components of the course/programme between the departments and to have the financial compensation follow on from that.
Example 1. Department A and department B have created a 15-credit course together. When designing the course, it is decided that the two departments will participate in the course in equal measure. The course is divided into two components of 7.5 credits each. Department A bears the costs of the first component and department B the costs of the second component. As some student attrition is expected during the course, it is decided to share the amount of the funding ceiling earned (HST and HPR) equally.
A potential risk of this solution is that it opens the way to fragmentation of the course, so that the departments involved plan, carry out and/or assess their respective components without integrating the subjects. If the objective is interdisciplinary education, this risk should be kept in mind during the discussions.
Distribution of teaching hours
Another possible solution is to divide up teaching hours between the departments. In this case, the departments need to agree in advance on a model for compensation for different types of teaching (lectures, seminars, workshops). The costs are then recognised in accordance with this agreement.
Example 2. Department A and department B have created a course together. A model for the number of lecturing hours to be allocated to each type of teaching is agreed and the total number of hours needed is calculated. The agreement states that each department will contribute half of the cost of staff, but looking at the staff who will be teaching, it turns out that 70% of the teaching time is assigned to lecturers employed by department A. Department B then compensates department A with the equivalent of 20% of the cost, so that the costs are evenly distributed.
In cases where the amount of time put in by the lecturer who is teaching is less than two months’ work, the salary cost should be transferred via the University’s financial management system Raindance. If the workload of the lecturer who is used corresponds to two months or more, it is more efficient to sub-charge the cost of the lecturer directly to the course’s host department. The Financial Administration and Procurement Division has guidance on the sharing of salary costs between departments: Ändring av lönekostnader vid arbete på annan institution (in Swedish).
Ordering a whole course
In the case of interdisciplinary education where the aim is not to integrate the constituent subjects, it may be appropriate for the host department or its faculty to order an entire course from another entity, including staffing, administration and assessment. In such cases, a transfer of funding ceiling may be appropriate at faculty/domain level, especially if a long-term arrangement is planned. Contact the relevant senior faculty administrator (utbildningsledare) to raise this issue.
Example 4. Department A is developing a new programme, X, and wants the students to take a compulsory course, Y, within the framework of the programme, which exists at department B. Department B agrees to link course Y to programme X, and reserves 20 places for the students in that programme. The course is for 30 credits and runs once a year. Department B therefore receives an estimated commission corresponding to 10 HST from department A. Please note that in some cases the final amount of compensation may depend on the actual outcome. It is therefore of the utmost importance to agree on the principles for the level of compensation before the arrangement starts. Department B also guarantees that the course will be offered for the next five years, and that they will give department A ample notice before any closure/periodisation of the course.
Pragmatism as a watchword
In cases of educational cooperation, the differences between departments become very clear. This applies both to research and educational traditions, and to financial practices and governance systems. Cooperation is greatly facilitated if the parties involved can approach the whole affair with a degree of pragmatism. Achieving an exactly fair distribution is not always possible, although it is of course important that all parties feel sufficiently satisfied.
Notes
[1] FTE students (HST): The number of students registered for the first time or for continuation in a course instance multiplied by the number of credits for the course over a given period (here a calendar year) divided by 60. Re-registered students are not included in the calculation.
[2] Annual performance equivalent (HPR): The number of credits earned in a course/module over a given period (here a calendar year) divided by 60. Transfer credits from courses and exams taken elsewhere are not included in the calculation.