IDS201 Common Ground Techniques

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.