「跨學門研究」是今日人文學科裡眾多的研究基礎之一。為何它會如此受歡迎？其中一個簡單的理由是，跨學門研究在制度上對應於高等教育中兩波重要思潮：後現代主義和身份認同政治。這兩者之所以受重視在於它們對真理，客觀性，與前後一致的敘述抱持懷疑論。此兩者在大學裡便以跨學門研究為形式出現──不僅是方法和理論方面，更包括各單位部門及人員方面的混合。事實上，在傳統探究方法的規範崩塌後，跨學門研究是專業上必然產生的結果。本文即探討此過程，另提出一個決定性的問題。對於那些參與跨學門研究計劃的學生，結果又是如何呢？跨學門研究既然指出了一條光明前途讓我們能加更領略這個世界，那些通過此計劃的學生們就該能證明這點。但青年們對公民學，歷史，文化，地理學以及時事又了解多少？極少。針對美國青年的學識所做之調查指出另一項使人憂心的發現。雖然這項發現只是指出一道關聯性──跨學科的興盛與大學生的學識薄弱──但這已成為提倡跨學門研究學者們的重擔。在這些學者所提倡的教學法顯現出有力成效之前，他們都應該被以懷疑的眼光審視。

“Interdisciplinarity” is one of the cornerstones of the humanities today. Why is it so popular? For a simple reason: interdisciplinarity is the institutional counterpart of two prominent movements in higher education, postmodernism and identity politics. Both are marked by skepticism toward truth, objectivity, and coherent narratives. Interdisciplinarity is the form they take in a university─the mixing of methods and theories, but also departments and personnel. For the faithful, interdisciplinarity is the professional outcome of the collapse of traditional norms of inquiry. “The Course of Interdisciplinarity” discusses the process, but adds a final question. What about the outcomes for students in interdisciplinary programs? Interdisciplinarity promises a better understanding of the world, and students passing through the programs should prove it. But what do young people know about civics, history, culture, geography, and current events? Precious little. Surveys of the knowledge of young Americans reveal one dismal finding after another. This is just a correlation─the rise of interdisciplinarity and the feeble knowledge of undergraduates─but the burden is on interdisciplinarians. Until they show the effectiveness of their pedagogy, they should be treated with skepticism.