Short abstract The ability to work and collaborate across disciplinary boundaries has been identified as a key skill for the future, and there is an increasing interest in the production of graduates, who can move between disciplines. Meanwhile, there is a lack of knowledge on how to actually plan and develop coherent interdisciplinary activities for different purposes and there is a need to identify ways of aligning the intended level of interdisciplinarity in the activities, with the realised level. This presentation draws on findings from a two-year ethnographic field study at the University of Copenhagen, and focuses on different ways of planning and structuring interdisciplinary education activities, with a strong emphasis on the discrepancies between intended and realised levels of interdisciplinarity. While the teaching activities reported in literature and observed in the field study were very diverse and combined a range of different disciplines, there were similarities in how the activities were structured. As a way to present these similarities, we employ three metaphors. The three metaphors do not constitute a taxonomy of increasing levels of interdisciplinary integration, neither are they hierarchical in terms of presenting ‘more’ or ‘less’ interdisciplinarity. In the presentation, the three metaphors are applied in order to discuss different ways of planning interdisciplinary activities. Concrete examples of the three metaphors will be provided from the empirical data. Finally, the participants are invited to discuss if, and how, the three metaphors reflect their own teaching. Extended abstract Aims During the past decades, interdisciplinarity has been promoted as a way to address complex societal challenges that cannot be confined within one disciplinary field (c.f. Frodeman, Klein, & Mitcham, 2010). The ability to work and collaborate across disciplinary boundaries is thus identified as a key skill for the future (Carney, 2011), and there is an increasing interest in the production of graduates, who can move between disciplines (Global Research Council, 2016) . As a result, the number of interdisciplinary education activities in higher education is growing. However, while the literature is ripe with definitions, taxonomies, discussions and other attempts to grasp and define the concept of interdisciplinarity, there is still a lack of knowledge on how to actually plan and develop coherent interdisciplinary activities for different purposes (Haynes & Leonard, 2010; Lattuca, Voigt, & Fath, 2004). Moreover, there is a need for identifying ways of aligning the intended level of interdisciplinarity in the activities with the realised level. This presentation focuses on different ways of planning and structuring interdisciplinary education activities, with a strong emphasis on the didactic considerations and the discrepancies between intended and realised levels of interdisciplinarity. The aim of the presentation is thus to address issues relevant to the increasing number of faculty, who are involved in interdisciplinary education at university level. Methodology The presentation draws on findings from a two-year ethnographic field study (Marcus, 1995; Willis, 2000) at the University of Copenhagen, where the aim was to follow interdisciplinary education activities in the making. The empirical data include interviews with teachers and course administrators, students at Bachelor’s , Master’s- and PhD level, participatory observations of courses, planning- and faculty meetings, as well as student course and programme material, student evaluations and assessment reports. Findings The teaching activities reported in literature and observed in the field study were very diverse: The activities took place at different academic levels, came in various shapes and sizes fx summer courses, introduction programmes or elective courses and finally they combined a range of different disciplines across the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities. Moreover, multiple teaching methods and student activities were included and there were no specifically interdisciplinary teaching methods applied in the activities. Nonetheless, there were similarities in how the activities were structured. As a way to present these similarities, we have suggested three metaphors for ways in which relations of connections and coherences between various elements in interdisciplinary teaching were established. These metaphors are pearls on a string, the zipper and the snowflake. The first metaphor refers to interdisciplinary teaching activities where the different disciplinary elements are presented one after the other. In this design, the students meet individual disciplinary elements separately, but the intention is that there is a string running through the entire course or module tying the elements together. In the second metaphor, the zipper, the different disciplinary elements are presented separately, like in the pearls on a string metaphor, but with an explicit expectation that one actor, usually the students, will be the one tying the different elements together. The third metaphor is the snowflake. This design organizes the different disciplinary elements around a common center such as a particular social or scientific problem, a method, etc. Problem-based courses or teaching organized around a particular topic are examples of this. Theoretical and educational significance It is important to underline that the three metaphors do not constitute a taxonomy of increasing levels of interdisciplinary integration, neither are they hierarchical in terms of presenting ‘more’ or ‘less’ interdisciplinarity. They are conceived as metaphors for the purpose of reflection in terms of identifying what kind of interdisciplinary integration explicitly or implicitly adopted in a particular course and for considering what kind of integration that would be the most sensible in a particular context. Thus, the designs represented by the three metaphors each carry strengths as well as weaknesses. While the pearls-on-a string design runs the obvious risk of the string not being clear or strong enough to link the different elements together, the snowflake design is vulnerable to students remaining in one part of the flake instead of integrating the different elements. Also, in all three models the students may be unaware of being engaged in interdisciplinary teaching activities and therefore not developing the awareness at a meta-level of the implications of integrating different elements. The importance of this meta-awareness, of course, depends on the purpose of the interdisciplinary teaching activities in the particular context. In this presentation, the three metaphors are applied by way of discussing different ways to plan interdisciplinary activities. Examples of the three designs will be provided from the empirical data. Finally, the participants are invited to discuss if, and how, the three metaphors reflect their own teaching. References Carney, J. (2011). Evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program (IGERT): Follow-up Study of IGERT Graduates. National Science Foundation. Hentet fra http://www.igert.org/system/content_item_assets/files/1535/ES_IGERT_FOLLOWUP_STUDY_FULLREPORT_May_2011.pdf?1340382040 Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Mitcham, C. (2010). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Global Research Council. (2016). Interdisciplinarity Report for GRC_DJS Research.pdf. Hentet fra http://www.globalresearchcouncil.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Interdisciplinarity%20Report%20for%20GRC_DJS%20Research.pdf Haynes, C., & Leonard, J. B. (2010). From Surprise Parties to Mapmaking: Undergraduate Journeys toward Interdisciplinary Understanding. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(5), 645–666. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2010.0000 Lattuca, L. R., Voigt, L. J., & Fath, K. Q. (2004). Does Interdisciplinarity Promote Learning?: Theoretical Support and Researchable Questions. Review of Higher Education, 28(1), 23–48. Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of Multi-sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 22. Willis, P. (2000). The ethnographic imagination. Cambridge: Polity.