Bates  Discussion  Questions,  Chapter  9    9.1  Repko  summarizes  five  definitions  of  interdisciplinary  studies,  writing  that  IDS  share  common  elements  of  :  

• A  particular  substantive  focus  • Research  that  expands  beyond  a  single  perspective  • A  focus  on  a  complex  problem  • An  identifiable  process  • Research  that  draws  on  disciplines  • Has  integration  as  its  goal  

The  definition  of  integration  presented  in  chapter  nine  (to  make  whole;  to  unite  or  blend  into  a  functioning  whole)  is  reflected  in  all  these  characteristics  presented  in  chapter  one.  This  comparison  suggests  that  we  should  call  them  Integrative  Studies  rather  than  interdisciplinary  studies.  It  gets  to  the  point  quicker.    9.2  In  my  experience  so  far,  the  strongest  case  against  interdisciplinary  work  and  study,  echoed  by  the  generalists  is  that  in  some  cases  it  is  simply  not  achievable:  the  epistemological  differences  between  some  disciplines  makes  an  integrating  conversation  impossible.  An  anthropologist  and  a  sociologist  and  a  psychologist  discussing  a  question  of  religious  experience  bring  such  different  understandings  that  any  real  integration  of  their  views  is  impossible  (though  the  discussion  may  still  be  quiet  profitable).    9.3  The  generalist  seeks  to  understand  something  like  “homegrown  terrorism”  through  the  lens  of  a  “teamwork”  mentality;  their  emphasis  is  on  evaluating  the  types  of  questions  differing  disciplines  investigate.    9.4  The  strongest  argument  against  the  generalist’s  claim  that  communication  is  impossible  is  this:  just  because  you  haven’t  been  able  to  do  it  yet  doesn’t  mean  it  is  impossible.  In  other  words:  stop  whining  and  get  to  work.  Take,  for  example,  the  question  of  religious  experience:  the  fact  that  the  sciences  have  historically  discounted  all  claims  of  spiritual  experience  doesn’t  mean  they  must  continue  to  do  so;  the  fact  that  humanities  and  theologians  and  artists  have  discounted  scientific  language  in  their  study  of  spiritual  experience  doesn’t  mean  that  they  have  to  continue  to  do  so.  Historic  difficulties  do  not  preclude  future  conversations.    9.5  The  integrationist  is  more  interested  in  discovering  the  contested  spaces  between  the  disciplines,  in  finding  the  map  of  conflating  cause  and  correlative  consequence.    

9.6  Clark,  Bromme,  and  Nikitina’s  theories  all  focus  on  the  basic,  preexisting  interdisciplinarity  of  the  human  mind.  The  human  animal  is  programmed  to  think  and  interrelate  across  differences  (disciplines)  by  finding  a  common  ground  (uncontested  space)  and  resolving  differences  (contested  interspace).  If  this  is  so,  the  theoretical  basis  of  interdisciplinary  studies  is  nothing  more  than  the  way  people  think.    9.7  In  chapter  four,  the  issue  of  monodisiplinarity  is  not  addressed.  The  discussion  in  chapter  nine  adds  this  vital  component  to  our  understanding  of  role  taking  as  a  means  of  overcoming  a  singular  way  of  seeing  a  given  problem  or  situation.    9.8  From  the  text:  

Whereas  perspective  taking  is  the  ability  to  understand  how  each  discipline  would  typically  view  the  problem,  holistic  thinking  is  the  ability  to  see  the  whole  problem  in  terms  of  its  constituent  disciplinary  parts.  In  holistic  thinking  the  focus  is  on  the  relationships  of  parts  to  the  whole  and  on  the  differences  between  and  similarities  to  other  parts….to  view  the  problem  inclusively.  (277-­‐278)    

9.9  A  triangulated  approach  might  help  us  better  understand  the  cause  or  rising  budget  deficits  at  the  local  and  national  level  by  not  simply  understanding  and  mastering  individual  bodies  of  knowledge  concerning  the  problem  at  hand,  but  in  balancing  between  disciplinary  depth,  breadth,  and  interdisciplinary  integration.    9.10  Note:  This  question  is  unintelligible.      The  author  makes  it  clear  that  all  three  models  of  approach  -­‐-­‐  “other  approaches  to  integration  used  in  some  sectors  of  the  academy”  –  are  insufficient  and  inadequate,  “incomplete”  and  limited  (282).  Why  then  ask  which  is  best  for  problems  such  as  smog  or  proposed  legislation?  The  whole  purpose  of  the  chapter  is  to  reify  the  suggested  broad  model.  Contextualization  (used  in  the  humanities),  conceptualization  (used  in  the  sciences),  and  problem  solving  (which  is  discounted  for  no  apparent  reason;  odd…  it  is  a  major  part  of  the  STEPS  process)  are  component  parts  of  the  broad  model.  Why  ask  which  is  best?