The Challenges of Interdisciplinarity in Higher Education: the Role of the Course Coordinator in Special Projects and Activities Desafios da Interdisciplinaridade no Ensino Superior: o Papel do Coordenador de Curso nos “Projetos e Atividades Especiais – PAES”

Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa Rio de Janeiro v. 21 no 1 p. 24–50 Jan-Abr 2020 DOI 10.13058/raep.2020.v21n1.1523 ISSN 2358-0917 The Challenges of Interdisciplinarity in Higher Education: the Role of the Course Coordinator in Special Projects and Activities Desafios da Interdisciplinaridade no Ensino Superior: o Papel do Coordenador de Curso nos “Projetos e Atividades Especiais – Paes” David Garcia Penof — Sandra Bergamini Leonardo — Milton Carlos Farina Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa Rio de Janeiro v. 21 no 1 p. 24–50 Jan-Abr 2020 DOI 10.13058/raep.2020.v21n1.1523 ISSN 2358-0917 25 Trata-se de estudo exploratório descritivo realizado em uma Instituição de Educação Superior (IES) brasileira com a participação dos coordenadores por sua importância nas ações conjuntas entre cursos. Foram analisados os relacionamentos entre coordenadores e o quanto estes conhecem e promovem ações interdisciplinares tendo por base os Projetos e Atividades Especiais (PAEs) desenvolvidos na instituição. Também foram avaliadas, pelos pesquisados, dimensões consideradas essenciais para o sucesso dos trabalhos de grupos interdisciplinares. Os dados do questionário respondido pelos coordenadores foram interpretados por meio da Análise de Redes Sociais (ARS) com uso do software UciNet V6. Concluiu-se que ações interdisciplinares são incipientes entre os coordenadores. A dimensão “Comunicação eficaz” recebeu a melhor pontuação entre os respondentes para a consolidação da interdisciplinaridade entre os cursos. Já a dimensão “Características individuais” teve a menor pontuação. Notam-se ações individuais para promover e divulgar atividades interdisciplinares e que a interdisciplinaridade está na pauta da IES pesquisada, mas não se evidencia ação institucional para fortalecimento dos relacionamentos entre coordenadores. Características do coordenador e ou do curso fazem com que determinados cursos se mostrem como “ilhas de conhecimento”. Palavras-chave: Interdisciplinaridade, atividades interdisciplinares, projetos interdisciplinares.


Introduction
Education in the 21 st century can be characterized by stories of global connections, where opportunities are offered by digital technologies, connectivity through mobile platforms and social media, and a shift in students' expectations and those of their parents pressure universities to rethink global learning and flexible delivery within a more modern context (MONK, 2015). If the 20 th century can be identified as an era of academic specialization, the current trend is to add interdisciplinary spaces to traditional research and the organization of training (BURSZTYN; DRUM-MOND, 2013).
Within this context, interdisciplinarity does not just mean resorting to two or more disciplines to better understand or approach a certain question or problem, which is multidisciplinarity (AUGSBURG, 2016;REPKO, 2008).
Interdisciplinarity integrates the respective disciplines such that new points of view about a given situation or object appear and exceed the limits of the disciplines RESUMO on their own (AUGSBURG, 2016;REPKO, 2008). This allows us to solve problems or answer questions that cannot be done satisfactorily using single approaches or methods (ASHBY; EXTER, 2019).
Disciplines, as one of the main organizing structures of content, persist in the production and transmission of knowledge; however, teachers are increasingly questioning and changing what and how they teach. Universities are offering disciplines and interdisciplinary programs with greater intensity, as an alternative to the traditional disciplines considered to be islands of knowledge (MILLAR, 2016).
Research on interdisciplinary science is largely focusing on the institutional obstacles that discourage or hinder its work, but these are not the only obstacles.
There are specific cognitive barriers, including methodological and conceptual ones that must also be faced when trying to work across disciplines. Scientific practices can be very domain specific, restricting interdisciplinary research (MA-CLEOD, 2018).
Discipline-specific approaches are considered islands of knowledge about given themes and cannot tackle bigger questions and broader contexts, even though these are essential, in some specific fields of study, for the comprehension of particular forms of knowledge (JACOB, 2015).
What can be seen is that universities still fail to understand interdisciplinarity as a transition and treat the issue as a tendency (RHOTEN, 2004). There is, however, an important difference between these two concepts. If interdisciplinarity were a tendency, it would be enough for universities to be predisposed to move in that direction. Yet, as it is a transition, what is expected of them is that they be prepared for a "change of state".
Universities have been shown to be fragile in handling interdisciplinarity, because they treat it in a fragmented and non-encompassing manner that ends up wasting the financial resources earmarked for the theme, as well as the energy of the researchers dedicated to this cause, as they are no longer able to achieve what they could or should have been able to (RHOTEN, 2004).
The point of concern with this fragmentation is the content's lack of integration with the various curricular components, in addition to the actual disconnection between academia and society, where students will enter the market and the holistic vision will be essential in resolving socioeconomic questions (SEVERINO, 2008).
However, the complex nature of participation in learning over the course of one's life urges scholars to go beyond this fragmentation of disciplines and to advance knowledge in an integrative manner, through the construction of new interdisciplinary theories and the adoption of interdisciplinary research approaches (BO-EREN, 2017).
Globalization and the corporate economics standards that arose in the 20 th and 21 st centuries show that modern, high technology companies no longer use the Taylor-Ford production model as the only strategy to solve their management problems. Organizations comprise a systematic and multidimensional whole in which all aspects are connected and interdependent, with each aspect either influencing the others or being influenced by them (CEZARINO et al, 2016). This is a fact that could be considered by learning institutions.
The daily problems experienced by organizations are difficult to comprehend and impossible to understand through a single point of view or specific knowledge.
For this reason, higher education institutions (HEIs) need to use interdisciplinary approaches to tackle these issues in the formation of professional competencies.
The integration of efforts by researchers from different origins and areas of specializations confers advantages in solving problems, generating innovation, shaping leaders and advancing in research and development (JACOB, 2015).
Interdisciplinarity in management studies is a social system that requires the development of complex thought. Thus, students should be introduced to a critical and systematic way of thinking, avoiding approaches based on a single discipline.
However, there are still some HEIs, and especially their administrators, who seem to be unaware of the changes in the industry or, if they are aware of these, their programs are not up to date with the new techniques and methods required by organizations to operate efficiently (CEZARINO et al, 2016).
Higher education needs to meet the needs of a volatile labor market, where the known disciplines no longer define their own niches in terms of topics or practices for their candidates. In this context, interdisciplinarity is a continuous reconsideration of creation, communication and the application of knowledge, bringing together the perspectives of research, learning and decision making (LARSEN, 2018 There is a growing acknowledgement of the need for interdisciplinarity in the solving of complex research problems in many areas of science, especially in technology and the concepts of interdisciplinarity influence the work of educational technologists and others involved in the research of advanced learning through technology (SCANLON; CONOLE, 2018).
Another question that is worthy of mention is the degree to which knowledge and investigation methods are needed to understand and tackle ecological and social problems that humans are currently facing. The integration of fragmented knowledge in its organization, classification, production and use across academia, the workplace and society is necessary to tackle the multiple perspectives, epistemologies and fragmentation inherent to such problems (CLARK; WALLACE, 2015).
Although interdisciplinarity is considered a significant innovation in today's higher education, few empirical studies reveal how to face the challenges and create opportunities to expand interdisciplinarity in specific programs. The complex problems faced by society will probably demand the participation of multiple disciplines and individuals from a variety of sectors, leading to the development of new approaches, programs and fields of practice (SHANDAS; BROWN, 2016).
Part of this complexity is perceived in research carried out by a design school in East Asia that compared the holistic experience of a student's learning to the conditions of being taught by a team or an individual, as an influence on the specific learning experiences. The results show that, despite students taught by a single professor having a more positive general opinion about the quality of the course, when compared to those taught by a team, the latter significantly increased students' experience of a balanced contribution of different disciplinary perspectives. Furthermore, the approach of teaching by teams was significantly more effective at giving students greater opportunities to comprehend the relevance of the different disciplines to the course subjects (SELF; BAEK, 2017). In the conclusion by the authors, we note the importance of teaching by teams, even when students lack this perception.
Although the research by Self and Baek (2017) demonstrates that students may not perceive the efficacy of teaching by teams, the empathy generated among These projects allowed students to improve basic written and verbal communication skills, ethical and quantitative reasoning and critical thinking. The students' accounts confirmed the researcher's perception that working collaboratively was advantageous, as they were able to create something totally different and to bring creativity to their projects.
One can see, through the studies presented so far, the importance of interdisciplinarity in the educational context for the formation of very well-prepared and qualified students for the labor market and the social environment as a whole.
In this research, carried out within an HEI located in the greater metropolitan area of São Paulo city and that presents engineering, administration and design in its portfolio of higher education courses, it was fitting to question whether the relationship model between the course coordinators and institutional actions implemented favored an awareness and promotion of interdisciplinary actions.
The overall objective of this research was to analyze the existing relationships among the course coordinators, employing the analysis of social networks, considering how much they know about and promote interdisciplinary actions, based on the PSAs developed between professors and students. Specific objectives were to analyze the structure of the knowledge networks and the promotion of interdisciplinary actions and the principles considered essential for the success of interdisciplinary groups, from the point of view of the course coordinators.
This work is relevant in the measure that one seeks to investigate aspects relating to actors of interdisciplinary groups, as well as corporate or institutional aspects that favor the success of these groups. There is a lack of studies tackling these two spheres of analysis.
Another factor to consider and that makes this research new is the fact that the HEI being studied presents courses connected to exact and human sciences (engineering, design and administration), which makes the study of interdisciplinarity an important contribution, because such an integration of the courses could qualify professionals graduating from the institution in a differentiated manner.
The work is structured thusly: chapter 2 tackles the review of the literature that served as the theoretical framework for the research work, considering interdisciplinarity and the principles of success for interdisciplinary groups and the SNA.

Theoretical reference
The theme of interdisciplinarity has been the agenda for discussions on a variety of instances (in governments, companies and universities) with the objective of finding interactions that ensure knowledge normally found in isolation among specialists can be shared, allowing for joint actions that provoke the mutual enriching of knowledge. Better communication among these professionals and efforts in the sense of greater cooperation among them are necessary (CARVAL-HO et al, 1999).
This theoretical reference sought to tackle interdisciplinarity from the point of view of different authors.

INTERDISCIPLINARITY AND ITS PRINCIPLES
Interdisciplinarity is more than a lesson that adds new contents from other disciplines. It comprises and incorporates new values and approaches in the definition and resolution of problems. In order for interdisciplinary learning to take place, students and professors need to identify, incorporate and respect different points of view, recreating the actual knowledge, understanding and practices on a given theme based on the learning acquired from each other (BRADBEER, 1999).
Interdisciplinarity can also be understood as a process and a practice that allow for the establishing of a set of intentional arrangements and a sense of community to, in the end, integrate ideas with others and so form a final product (RHOTEN; CONNOR; HACKET, 2009). One experiment carried out by these authors with small, interdisciplinary groups of graduate students tasked with producing an innovative scientific research problem and an integrative research proposal showed that both the disciplinary skills and interdisciplinary willingness were essential to the integration of the creative research proposals. However, differences exist between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration. In multidisciplinary collaboration, little information is exchanged and the context of the disciplines remains unaltered by the participants. They progress in parallel to the solution of a given problem and, subsequently return to their initial states, without changes. In interdisciplinary collaboration, the participants jointly incorporate knowledge and approaches, changing the contexts of the disciplines that come together for a solution to the problem and generate a new discipline and/or knowledge (RICHTER; PARETTI, 2009).
Interdisciplinarity can exist within a single HEI, just as it can within two or more. Among the tendencies related to interdisciplinarity in higher education, we can see teaching carried out by teams of professors from different areas and education institutions to students of varying departments in the arrangement of these HEIs. There is an increasing need to bring members of the faculty with a range of origins to provide suitable instruction and education to shape tomorrow's professionals. HEIs in Australia, Ireland and the US already offer online interdisciplinary courses to their students. What was once delivered in the actual university, now has an interdisciplinary character (JACOB, 2015).
Working within an interdisciplinary team is essential to solving complex problems, regardless of whether these are academic or corporate. In the field of exact The three categories presented reinforce the idea that the use of interdisciplinarity provides the actors of interdisciplinary groups with a refined ability to learn about a new field of knowledge, one distant to those familiar to them. This is important to create a "knowledge bridge" that people can subsequently capitalize on when they apply such knowledge to their respective fields (CARR, LOUCKS e BLÖSCHL, 2018). However, putting together an interdisciplinary team requires effort and dedication, in addition to a period of personal adaptation (JACOB, 2015). These sources of data were brought together using qualitative content analysis to arrive at a table identifying characteristics and proposes ten principles that support effective work by interdisciplinary teams: 1) leadership and management; 2) communication; 3) personal reward, training and development; 4) suitable resources and procedures; 5) a suitable combination of competencies; 6) atmosphere; 7) individual characteristics; 8) clarity of vision; 9) quality and results of the service; and, 10) respect for and understanding of roles (NANCARROW et. al, 2013).
The current paper opted to consider the principles presented by Nancarrow et al (2013) to: 1) analyze the existing relationships between the course coordinators of the HEI in question, considering the degree to which they know about and promote interdisciplinary actions based on their PSAs, and 2) identify, from the point of view of the course coordinators, the principles considered essential for the success of the works in groups. The central idea was to identify which, of the ten principles presented and within the scope of this study, contributed or not to increase the chances of success of the teams who carry out interdisciplinary work.

SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS
The Social Network Analysis (SNA) seeks to understand the relationships among the actors belonging to a studied network; that is, among the categories of roles that they occupy within this network, given that the relationships among the different actors can influence the behavior of an actor, significantly altering their personal characteristics (SILVA; AVELAR; FARINA, 2015).
The SNA shows the types of relationships that people can have, given that social networks generally characterize themselves by "who knows who, or who communicates with who within a community, organization or any other social group" • Bonacich measure -determines the centrality of an actor in relation to the centrality of the others connected to him. There are two interpretations of power, with the first using the positive beta parameter that empowers an actor when he is connected to actors with greater centrality.
The proposal of this research, the questionnaire and the free and informed consent form were approved by the Ethics Committee for research.
For data collection, the first two questions posed to the course coordinators tackled the previously stated objectives, a) and b), with the expectation that binary answers would be given, in the yes/no format, regarding their knowledge and promotion of interdisciplinary actions. Each course coordinator was asked, for example, if he knew of interdisciplinary actions for each of the other courses. Thus, each coordinator answered the same question for the other ten courses being studied, in addition to their own. These questions allowed for two tables to be drawn up, each 11 by 11, that served as the starting point for the UCINET (one table per question). In these tables, "yes" answers were coded as "1", demonstrating relationships, while "no" answers were considered as "0"; that is, no relationship between the coordinators. The questions were: As regards the PSAs, do you know interdisciplinary actions by the course ...?
Still thinking about PSAs, do you promote interdisciplinary actions with course ...?
Following on, each course coordinator was asked to individually assess, using a Likert-type scale, where 0 = no importance at all and 10 = very important, the 10 principles from Nancarrow et al (2013) that favor the development of work by interdisciplinary teams. The proposal was to obtain the perception of the research subjects about which factors/ principles would be of more importance to the team, considering their place of work, culture and working context. As higher education professors, with master's degrees or doctorates, it was understood that a scale of 0-10 would not be a concern, but rather, help refine the research and lend greater accuracy to the answers.
At the end, in order to assess the general conditions for the carrying out of interdisciplinary activities at the HEI in question, the course coordinators were asked to attribute an overall score as an average for the 10 principles presented by Nancarrow et al (2013).
Seeking to enrich the study as regards the data collection, the following attributes were gathered for each coordinator: how long they have worked at the HEI, how long they have coordinated their course, the number of students in their course, their gender. Questions relating to time and gender can reflect in the  This being the case and with the coordinators providing their scores, the following statistical considerations were made: the average score for each principles, the average overall score for the principles as a whole, an assessment of the highest and lowest scores given and an assessment of the average scores, by course, considering engineering, design and administration.
The data was collected in the month of October, in 2017, and the data was analyzed the following month using UCINET software to get the results regarding the answers to the first two questions, and basic descriptive statistics to think about the importance of the principles proposed by Nancarrow et al (2013).
As regards the UCINET output, the centrality measurements considered were degree, betweenness, closeness, density and Bonacich measure to measure the specific objectives a) and b), in addition to statistical calculations to measure specific objective c).
Indegree was used to indicate how much each coordinator is recognized by his fellow coordinators for his interdisciplinary actions. Meanwhile, outdegree measured how much each coordinator know of the interdisciplinary actions by the other courses.
Incloseness measured how close the coordinator was to the others and how well his interdisciplinarity actions are known by them. Outcloseness, in turn, indicates how close the coordinator is to the other coordinators and how well he knows the interdisciplinarity actions they have developed.
As regards the Bonacich measure, for the effects of this study the beta negative parameter of -0.5 was considered, as the objective was to evaluate the power of the course coordinators and not just the force of one coordinator, based on the quantity of relationships connected to the knowledge and promotion of interdisciplinarity actions regarding PSAs (HANNEMAN; RIDDLE, 2005).

Results
The data collected from the first two questions in the questionnaire were analyzed independently, using UCINET 6 for Windows software. Once the square ta- 37 bles (using values 0 and 1 for the answers) were input into the software, the results obtained were statistics that indicate the relationships among the participants of each table; represented using a chart of the social network of the coordinators and through centrality measurements for each of these networks. Analyzing the chart analysis and the centrality measurements degree, betweenness, closeness, density and Bonacich measure, it was possible to identify the following situations: • The relationships among course coordinators as regards their knowledge about interdisciplinary actions promoted by the other courses regarding PSAs.
• The relationships among course coordinators as regards the promotion of interdisciplinary actions they carry out to the other courses as regards the PSAs.
The data collected in the evaluation of the ten principles of success for work carried out by interdisciplinary groups allowed the consideration, according to the perceptions of the course coordinators, which the main principles were as regards the effect of the actions. This analysis was undertaken using basic descriptive statistics, with the principles being those presented in the Theoretical Reference, as proposed by Nancarrow et al (2013). It is worth mentioning that the data processed resulted in a reciprocity rate of 36.36%, which, for an institution looking to stimulate and develop interdisciplinary actions could be seen as a result with room for improvement, given that this represents only 20 reciprocal pairs out of a possible total of 55, which is a low, somewhat fragile figure. It could be that coordinators treat interdisciplinarity as an expectation and not a process of transition, as pointed out by Rhoten (2004).

a. Regarding the knowledge of course coordinators about interdisciplinary actions car-ried out by other courses in relation to PSAs
The coordinator of the mechanical engineering course (MC), was shown to be the most aware of other courses' interdisciplinary actions, with an outdegree equal to 7 out of a possible total of 10, followed by the coordinators of the design (DE) and production engineering (PD) courses, who both had outdegree scores of 6. Figure   1 also shows that MC has seven arrows leading to other colleagues; this demonstrates that MC is aware of these colleagues' actions.  On the other hand, the civil engineering course coordinator (CV) was the least aware of interdisciplinary actions by the other courses, with an outdegree of 1 (there is only one arrow leading away from this coordinator, in the direction of his colleague, DE), followed by ET, with an outdegree score of 2. This result could be the consequence of singularities present in these courses or it could denote the need for bring these coordinators closer to those of the other courses. Both figures are low, considering that the HEI in question has directed efforts at promoting interdisciplinary activities, with PSAs being important agents in that process.
As regards the indegree metric, which indicates the degree to which each coordinator is known by the other coordinators for their interdisciplinary actions, the data indicates that DE, the design course coordinator, is the most well-known with an indegree score of 8, followed ET with a score of 7.
The courses with the lowest indegree scores were AD, with 0, and CM with 1, showing that the coordinators of the other courses are not aware of their interdisciplinarity actions.
In this analysis, of special note are the electronic engineering course coordinator's indegree and outdegree results. Despite seven other coordinators being aware of the interdisciplinary actions carried out by ET, this course coordinator answered that he maintains interdisciplinarity relationships with only two other coordinators. So, even though the interdisciplinarity actions carried out by ET are known by others, the course coordinator of the actual course does not have that same perception. There is a perception of a disconnection among the course coordinators. Severino (2008) and Carvalho et al (1999) mention that this disconnection is due to the distance present in the academic and social environments. The coordinators concern themselves with their disciplines and contents, but do not consider the social questions that involve the actors who take part in interdisciplinary activities. The relationships may only be based on specific technical knowledge.
The next centrality metric analyzed was betweenness, which measures the power held by an actor, in this case, course coordinators, within a network based on the number of dependent actors for the establishing of connections with other actors. First place went to DE, the design course coordinator, who obtained 24.417 points, followed by PD, with a score of 11.000. The coordinators who were unable to score were CM and AD, showing that the coordinators of the computational and administration courses, respectively, do not act as intermediaries in terms of aware- The other centrality metric used in this analysis was closeness, which measures the shortest distance between actors needed to have access to information.
This metric allowed for two items of information to be gleaned about the course coordinators: the first, incloseness, revealed the proximity of the coordinator to the others and the proximity of his interdisciplinary actions in terms of their awareness.
The second, outcloseness, is a measure of how close the coordinator is to the other ones and his awareness of the interdisciplinarity actions they have developed.
First place for incloseness went to the coordinator whose interdisciplinary ac- The last analysis carried out was on the Bonacich measure, considering the β negative parameter, seeing as the objective was to assess the power of the course coordinators and not just the force of a coordinator based on the quantity of relationships he has.
All the course coordinators had negative Bonacich measures; that is, the bonds among the course coordinators are primarily with other actors who have a high degree of relationships, making them "weak". By having powerful neighbors who relate to each other and, in some way, know the interdisciplinarity actions of their colleagues, there is no single coordinator who is found to have greater power over the others.

b. Regarding the promotion of interdisciplinary actions carried out by course coordina-tors with the other courses, in relation to the PSAs.
Charting the answers from the course coordinators regarding the interdisciplinary actions they have carried out with the other courses, in relation to the PSAs, resulted in the network presented in Figure 2. It is worth noting that the processed data presents a reciprocity rate of 36.1%; that is, a result with room for improvement. Due to the square table, a total of 55 relationships among the coordinators was possible, which means that if every coordinator were reciprocal with each of the others, we would have 55 reciprocal relationships, but only 20 actually exist. There are 35 reciprocal relationships that should be taking place but are not.  Again, these aspects demonstrate a lack of connection among the course coordinators, something that Severino (2008) and Carvalho et al (1999) pointed out in their studies and remark that such disconnection can be minimized by bringing the academic and social environments closer; that is, social events can strengthen relationships and improve handlings in the academic environment.
It can be inferred that the desire to promote interdisciplinarity actions for the PSAs exists, but that there are no relationship opportunities that allow for the knowledge of what is undertaken and presented by the different courses.

plinarity.
Using the ten principles suggested by Nancarrow et al (2013) in the questionnaire given to the course coordinators and, after charting and statistically analyzing the answers obtained, it was observed that, of the listed principles, the one considered most important for success in consolidating interdisciplinarity was "effective communication", with an average of 9.6 out of 10. This points attribution corroborates the discrepancy of the metrics between knowing and promoting.
There is the perception on the part of the coordinators that communication is very important and they point out the need to bring them closer together in order to strengthen communication among them, contributing to the construction of a cohesive team dedicated to interdisciplinarity as emphasized by Jacob (2015).
On the other hand, the principle with the lowest score was "individual characteristics", with 6.7. Principles such as "leadership and management", "positive and conducive atmosphere", "transparency of a shared vision" and "respect and understand roles" also scored highly, with averages of more than 9.0. Individual characteristics are the least important to interdisciplinarity actions.
There is a consensus that the participants incorporate knowledge and approaches that strengthen interdisciplinarity, and that the group's adaptability is greater than individual issues, as previously identified by Richter and Paretti (2009).
The course coordinators were also asked to give an overall score for the HEI in question., considering the 10 principles identified by Nancarrow et al (2013). The coordinators' opinions varied substantially, with the highest score -an 8.0 -given by the administration course coordinator (AD), followed by a 7.5 from the design course administrator (DE), while the lowest score, a 3.0, was given by the mechanical engineering course administrator (MC).
The average among the coordinators was 6.8, demonstrating that there is room for improvement in the successful consolidation of interdisciplinarity.
It should be noted that the mechanical engineering course coordinator (MC), at the time of the interviews, had only held the position for a year, which might have influenced the low score he gave. His perception of the interdisciplinary actions among the course coordinators may not, yet, have matured at that stage.
However, it does draw attention that the lowest scores were given by the coordinators of the engineering courses. This demonstrates that, for these coordinators, the interdisciplinary actions promoted by the HEI in the study still need to be optimized.
And, although it was not the objective of this work to evaluate the opinions of male and female coordinators separately, it was observed that the average score given by female coordinators was 7.2, while for their male counterparts it was 6.6. This difference could suggest that male course coordinators are more critical of the principles of success for the consolidation of interdisciplinarity, or that their perception of the interdisciplinary actions taken by the HEI in this study are less satisfactory.
Two coordinators spontaneously mentioned, when aiming to justify their assessment, the "lack of more time for the group of coordinators to discuss interdisciplinarity actions and actions that to take place are the result of individual efforts and are not strategically planned". The coordinators further stated that ordinary meetings take place among them, but themes linked to interdisciplinarity are not normally on the agenda and, when they are tackled, are not emphasized, even though the HEI has requested that interdisciplinary actions are undertaken. The suggestion given was that specific meetings be held on the theme.
A concern on the part of the course coordinators was perceived over the quality of the communication among them, and such a concern could be extrapolated to the HEI being studied, seeing as it is the driver of initiatives for the promotion and consolidation of interdisciplinarity.
Furthermore, the coordinators demonstrated the desire that this study be evaluated by the institution in order for measures to be taken that could enhance the relationships among them, allowing for interdisciplinary actions that are jointly planned, leading to greater interaction and the generation of new knowledge, as stipulated by Jacob (2015) and Richter and Paretti (2009   The research provided information about the network of relationships in which the coordinators find themselves, allowing for each coordinator to, at a later time and based on the answers given to the questions tackled in the questionnaire, to conduct a critical analysis of how their actions to consolidate interdisciplinarity in the PSAs and the HEI itself, have actually been.
Based on this critical analysis, the coordinators could seek to improve communication with the other coordinators, strengthening the constant interdisciplinarity actions of the teaching plans of the various courses of the HEI in question.
It is imperative that HEIs have institutional actions that favor work by interdisciplinary groups, facilitating communication among actors of interdisciplinary projects and that such institutions provide environments sited to interdisciplinary learning, bringing in professionals from other institutions, mixing together competencies in a positive climate that generates innovation.
For future studies, the authors suggest this research be applied to course coordinators of other HEIs that work with similar projects. Another possibility is to apply the questionnaire adapted to the perception of students who carry out PSAs and comparing them to the results of the coordinators. As this study was developed at a single HEI, the results of this research cannot be generalized.