programs since 2006.This project involves an examination of the landscape of accredited engineering programs thatare described as general or inter/multi-disciplinary. Periodic analysis and comparison of trends inthe number of programs that focus on providing breadth relative to disciplinary program depthhelps to identify patterns within engineering education. General programs exist for a variety ofreasons. Some prioritize flexibility for students, others the integration of one or more topics (e.g.mechatronics), and others the development of truly interdisciplinary skill sets in students. Someinstitutions might also use a general program to incubate curricula for later transition totraditional disciplinary programs. Previous papers have classified
the program names contribute to some of these challenges,leading to questions about whether rebranding to a different name might be beneficial. Otherstudies have explored renaming motivations and results in geography [13], agronomy [14],writing programs [15], vocational education [16], and institutions [17], [18]. There is a generalconsensus that names are powerful, and changes often reveal tensions with the health and/oridentity of programs. Frazier et al. [13, p. 13] notes: “Do name changes reflect an expandedmission… or other goals such as addressing low enrollment, shifting student interests, or thedesire to project a fresh identity or realign with a new academic emphasis?” There may also beconcern about name recognition or conveying the