Increased emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches to research and graduate education is a common feature of academic strategic plans written since around 2000. This emphasis follows from the coupling of two propositions, one about the characteristics of academic research and the other about the hierarchy within America's higher-education system. Strategic commitment is not implementation, and progress towards interdisciplinarity has varied across universities. Four national studies over the course of a decade, which included site visits, interviews with university administrators and faculty members, and reviews of relevant documents at a cross-section of major research universities, all reveal that movement at some universities has been rapid, at others slow, and at others blocked. Despite their strategic-planning documents advocating greater attention to an interdisciplinary approach to research and graduate education, well-known universities show four distinct patterns of responses. This article discusses four paths that are discernible in the post-2000 implementation of strategic-planning commitments to interdisciplinary activities. These include: (1) capitalizing on strengths; (2) changing paths; (3) making the most of modest means; and (4) staying stuck. The article also discusses three factors that affect the pace of implementation namely: (1) the status quo; (2) leadership; and (3) resources.