There were three main points the focus group highlighted on the scholarly interaction and the status of the Claremont Conversation:
•    Logistics
•    Time Constraints
•    Narrow Interests

Logistics concerned the physical barriers that hindered the transdisciplinary communication, such as the physical placement of the offices and departments on campus, and the physical distance between them.  Physical distance hindered the conversation whether it was between the different building and departments on campus, or whether it was to and from campus.  Concerning on-campus physical distance, the professors noted how transdisciplinary conversations are harder to maintain between departments located on opposite sides of campus: It is much easier to communicate and collaborate between people when they walk by each other in the halls of the same building on a daily basis.  Some professors lamented that too many professors spend all their time in their offices and don’t get out enough to communicate with the other faculty.  Janet Brodie offered up an anecdote in the meeting about how perhaps the faculty should switch offices every now and then, just to see and interact with different faces.  The other professors brought up similar anecdotes, such as an Australian university that had “tea time,” in which all the faculty would just get together and have tea, while talking about their current research.  Another issue brought up on physical distance was the long commute to and from campus many students have to take.  Some students have to take two or three hour commutes to reach campus, and are only available one day a week, hindering their ability to communicate and collaborate with others even within their own department.  There was mention of a sense that if you do not live near Claremont, you’re not a real part of the community or conversation.  Also mentioned were the barriers to living in Claremont, such as the cost and quality of the housing.  Concerning this issue, Janet Brodie brought up how it used to be a requirement that all Claremont students actually live in Claremont.  She mentioned how back then, there was a professor who would invite students over to his home for get-togethers, where they would have a meal and just talk about whatever they’re doing research on at the moment.

Another issue brought up was the time constraints that hindered the Claremont Conversation.  The professors expressed that there are too many committees and administrative tasks eating up their time, and that they do not have much time for their own projects, let alone interdisciplinary communication.  They pointed out that while they do meet and interact often, it’s only for administrative tasks and not actual interdisciplinary work.  All the professors acknowledge that interdisciplinary communication is important, but by stating that they do not have time for it on top of everything else they’re doing, it is implied that it is not as important as their other tasks.  Part of this is due to the reward structure:  There is no structure and no incentives to promote conversation between departments and schools.  It was pointed out that all the professors who showed up to the focus group were tenured.  Concerning this, it was suggested that non-tenured faculty would not have bothered showing up, and that if tenured faculty are having trouble finding the time for interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, it does not bode well or the Claremont Conversation.

Another issue is the narrow interests of such a small school.  An example is the School of Information Science and Technology, which only has five professors.  These professors all have different complementary interests.  If the students have a certain interest, they know which professor to go to.  With only five professors, there’s no room for overlap.  The different narrow subfields within the school have to be addressed.  The point of the example is that with such a small number of professors, it is hard to find any two professors with similar interests.  The incentive structure is another issue.  Here at Claremont, there is a strong focus on publishing over communication.  Faculty is more encouraged to publish with students rather than other faculty.  There is essentially little reward for faculty interaction.  The way the reward structure is set up encourages the same conservative type of work, and not communication across departments.