This PowerPoint lecture introduces
three main strategies or techniques
you can use to create common ground,
and addresses the possible challenges and barriers
you may face along the way.
Now, I don't expect any of you to be
able to practice creating common ground just yet.
But the point here is to make clear
that when you do come across conflicting disciplinary
boundaries in your research, the only way
to find common ground between them
is to have a structured game plan, complete with strategies
and techniques.
In other words, creating common ground
does not happen by accident.
You have to critically and systematically--
and the key word here is systematically--
apply techniques and strategies when
trying to create common ground between conflicting insights.
And you'll also notice that these techniques are rooted
in the elements of disciplines-- theories, concepts, and terms,
and phenomenon that we covered in the last module.
So the first technique we have is
called theory-based expansion.
Now, this technique is used to change or modify
a theory so that it can address all of the actions that
cause something to happen, or causation factors pertaining
to a problem.
So this technique includes adding a factor or factors
from any of the sources of alternative perspectives,
including different fields within the same discipline,
different disciplines, or schools of thought
that cut across disciplines.
So let's look at different theories of race, for instance.
And the video from module two, Race the Power of an Illusion,
explored this, explored these questions-- what is race
and how is race made?
So of course, different scholars from different disciplines
or areas of study have tried to answer this question.
What is race?
How is race made?
And they have different theories regarding this.
So when you apply this technique of theory-based expansion,
the first step is to place the most important theories,
in this case related to how race is made,
to place them side by side.
So anthropologists believe that race is not real biologically.
Next to anthropologists, biologists and geneticists
are still debating the biological basis of race.
And now we add sociologists, who have argued that race
is a social construction.
It's a creation by society and a political category.
And so when you place each of these theories side by side,
patterns start to emerge.
We end up with theories that take into account
biological factors as well as social and political factors
that contribute to the creation of race.
And so, again, if we use the technique
of theory-based expansion, what we'll do is say, OK.
One theory of race is that it is not real biologically,
that there's no genetic basis for race.
But we'll expand that to say that, wait.
Just because race isn't real biologically,
that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
It certainly operates in society in a very real way.
Race still determines life chances, opportunities,
and wealth.
And so you see that by expanding the theory of race and biology
and anthropology, we come up with a more comprehensive
understanding of race by expanding a theory of race that
argues, yes, it's not biological or genetic,
but it's still very real in society.
It still operates in society with very real consequences.
And this is a key technique because conflicts
between theory-based insights are the most common situation
that an IDS student is likely to face.
So the next technique is a technique of redefinition.
This technique involves modifying or redefining
concepts and assumptions used by the relevant disciplines
to bring out a common meaning.
So as I mentioned in the last module
on disciplinary elements, each discipline
has developed its own vocabulary and terminology to describe
phenomena it studies.
So what I'm saying is that they're
talking about the same thing, the same phenomena,
just using different terms and really a different language
to talk about it.
And your goal, if you wish to create common ground,
is to redefine the term or concept
in a way that can become clear to all related disciplines
involved.
Race as a concept or term is a prime example.
Because even in our everyday conversations,
we don't know what we mean when we say race,
or racism for that matter.
And of course, different disciplines
define race differently.
Some define it as culture.
Some define it as genetic differences
between populations.
And many define it as a social construction.
So if you're interested in the topic of race
and you want to create common ground
among these different disciplines,
redefine the term "race" so that it makes sense
to, say, biologists and historians or sociologists
alike.
Now, this technique is also important
because it's the one that most, if not all,
students who are new to the interdisciplinary research
process will use, whether this comes
in the form of creating an entirely new term
or developing a new meaning for an old term or concept.
And lastly, but certainly not least,
there are more advanced techniques
for creating common ground--
is the technique of extension, which
addresses conflict between disciplinary concepts
or assumptions by extending the meaning of an idea
beyond the domain of one discipline
into the domain of another discipline.
So I think the best way to explain
this is to provide examples of how to apply
this particular technique.
So one way to apply the technique
is to extend an idea over time to create common ground.
For instance, a biologist may do research and argue
that race has no genetic basis.
But an IDS student using both biology and history
and their disciplinary insights may
research how the idea of race has changed over the last 200
years.
So you see how you can extend the concept of race
as it is studied in, say, biology
or even anthropology by looking at how it developed over time.
And so now you've created common ground
between biology and history, but potentially also sociology.
Another way to apply this technique
is to extend an idea across individuals.
Now, what I mean by this is extending an idea
across the boundaries of race, class, gender, or sexuality.
Essentially asking, does this idea or concept,
does it apply to all peoples or is there
differences depending on race, gender, class,
or sexual orientation?
So I want you to use the assigned reading here
as an example.
So Lauren Lanmin's Cultural Competence
in Helping Professions is a good example.
Now, Lauren was one of my students in IDS 495
this past spring.
Her areas of study were marriage and family therapy
and psychology.
So at first, Lauren struggled to find some common ground
between these two disciplines.
But when she started to explore the way that marriage
and family therapists and psychologists approached
helping their clients, traditional ways of helping
their clients, she asked one really important question.
And that question was, do any of these models, to help clients,
do they take into account differences
in race, ethnicity, or even immigration status?
And she found that the answer was yes.
And there was this concept called cultural competency.
And it was an idea that asked--
helping professionals, therapists and counselors,
to be aware and to respect a client's cultural background.
So you see that just by asking that question,
Lauren was able to extend this model of cultural competency
to other disciplines as well.
So she was able to create common ground between marriage
and family therapy, psychology, and even sociology
and education.
She even talked about designing curriculum
at the university level to enhance cultural competency.
Thus, this technique of extension
is a great way to create common ground--
again, by, one, extending an idea or assumption over time;
and two, extending an idea across individuals.
Let me end by outlining two potential challenges
and barriers that IDS students will face when attempting
to create common ground.
So keep in mind that each challenge or barrier
is about the nature or extent of the conflict
between disciplinary insights.
So not every conflict is the same.
So the first potential barrier is
that there's no apparent conflict among the insights.
And you're looking for conflict in order to resolve it.
But what happens when, at first glance,
you don't see a conflict?
But at the same time, what they have in common
isn't clear because each discipline
uses different concepts and terms
to describe a similar idea.
So again, for example, one scholar uses the term "race."
Another scholar uses the term "ethnicity,"
but both are really talking about the same thing.
So here, you might use the technique of redefinition
to redefine one of those terms.
So again, you use this when there
doesn't seem to be a conflict.
But at the same time, there doesn't
seem to be agreement because you're not sure if they're
talking about the same thing.
So this is how you can bring them together,
by using the technique of redefinition.
And the second potential challenge
is that the conflicting insights are different but not opposing.
Or in other words, the different disciplinary insights
just reflect alternatives or different approaches.
And so in this case, you'd use the technique
of theory-based expansion.
So different disciplinary scholars who study race
argue that there are different causes
or different explanations for why race is created.
And they're not necessarily opposing explanations
for how race is constructed, just alternatives.
So some might say, well, hey, race is created
or race is constructed by policies,
like the census report.
While other scholars might say, no, no, no.
Race is created through everyday practices,
such as television shows.
And so you see, they're not arguing necessarily
against each other.
They're just arguing for alternative perspectives.
So this is where you have to expand a particular theory
in order to bring these different views together
to create that common ground.
Now, the reason I'm bringing up these barriers and challenges
is because it's worth pointing out
that before you even start to create common ground,
you have to determine the type of challenge you face
and then select one of the techniques I discussed
above that may be useful for that purpose.
So in conclusion, it's important to know and familiarize
yourself with these three main strategies and techniques
because they're proven ways to create common ground.
It's also important because, for those of you who
are struggling to develop a tolerance for ambiguity,
it encourages you to move from a sort of "black white" way
of thinking, this either/or thinking,
to a more "both and" type of thinking
that accepts the gray areas, that accepts and tolerates
ambiguity.
And most importantly, this is the fun part of the IDS process
because creativity, playfulness, and risk taking,
these are more important and useful to creating
common ground than logic and traditional ways of thinking.