The Luce Seminar is... almost like a hub, the spokes coming out, so many different things going on, and each one touches an important aspect of what Emory is about. I saw it as a benchmark in my development.... I don't approach any topic without... wanting to know what other disciplines have said about it. I am a better teacher, a better professor... a better citizen of the because of the seminar. Although some scholars and academic leaders pay lip service to the need to create a vibrant intellectual community, others view the ingredients of such a community as key to sustaining high quality faculty work. Their idea of lively and genuine scholarly exchange is far from ivy-clad nostalgia. In their view, a strong community not only supports interaction across disciplines, but also helps connect the larger purposes of scholarly inquiry. Because current demands to connect teaching and research across fields of inquiry are influencing all types of institutions, this need has extended from the more elite research institutions to the full range of higher education. However, trends suggest that successful connections may be hard to achieve. The industrialization that followed World War II created an unprecedented demand for new knowledge. In turn, economic and technological expansion fueled the development of professional expertise in the disciplines that continues unabated (Bender, 1998; Geiger, 1993). Some scholars suggest the need to rein in the dominance of disciplinary specialty. Concerned that overemphasizing disciplinary expertise may reduce the richness of local interaction and dilute the herence of academic culture, they seek to develop mechanisms for ntellectual exchange aimed at integrating across fields (Austin, 1990; Boyer, 1990, 1997; Clark, 1983; Damrosch, 1995; Dill, 1991; Kerr, 1982; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). Even thoug h interaction across disciplines seems to improve the ability of scholars to address societal problems, the caliber of solutions they pose, and the quality of academic life in general (Benson, Harkavy, & Puckett, 1996; Boyer, 1990, 1997; Hollingsworth, 1996; Rice, 1996), disciplinary pecialty erodes the vitality of local connections. Assuming that local connections across disciplines contribute to the quality of scholarly work, leaders at one research university initiated an eight-year experimental program of in-depth discourse among faculty from a wide variety of fields. Such programs appear to help scholars overcome barriers that can impede meaningful interaction (Klein, 1996). In a previous qualitative analysis, we examined some ways the program supported exchange and community (Frost & Jean, 1999). In this qualitative analysis based on the perceptions of the participants, we seek to gauge the potential breadth and depth of the program's effects on the ways faculty members think, work, and interact. To provide foundation for our findings, we explore some aspects of academic culture and disciplinary specialty that influence such programs, regardless of location or type. Academic Culture, Disciplinary Specialty, and Faculty Programs Since Clark described the cultures of the academy in 1983, scholars have explored the forces that influence the attitudes and practices of faculty (Austin, 1990; Cameron & Ettington, 1988; Dill, 1991; Peterson & Spencer, 1990; Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). These forces include patterns of attitudes, meanings, symbols, and behaviors that coalesce around disciplines, institutions, and the profession. The culture of the discipline, for example, consists of a knowledge tradition that includes categories of thought, a common vocabulary, and related codes of conduct. The culture of the institution surrounds individual universities, generating loyalty through symbols of unity while permitting various subcultures to flourish. …