Chapter X: Vision for Interdisciplinarity

It was the philosopher Karl Popper in his work Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (c. 1963) who attempts to dissect the nature and philosophy of science through a theoretical understanding relating the role of scientific theory with the enhancement in the scientific method. He offers a view of interdisciplinarity observing that science can be found through divergent methods:

“I am quite ready to admit that many problems, even if their solution involves the most diverse disciplines, nevertheless ‘belong’ in some sense to one or another of the traditional disciplines…No doubt we should all train ourselves to speak clearly, as precisely, as simply, and as directly, as we can. Yet I believe that there is not a classic of science, or of mathematics, or indeed a book worth reading that could not be shown, by a skillful application of the technique of language analysis.”¹

Although scientific consensus on Popperian philosophy is a battle between the school of traditionalism and progressive ideation of science integrating philosophy. For myself, I would agree that some form of analysis through the language can be used in science – for example – in education, codifying language inside education policy, public policy, or peer-reviewed research develops actionable answers to problems in of itself is a science towards understanding. However, I also find myself inside of the traditionalist camp that understanding answers in science are the most important and could be causal to many factors of life as we know it. It is relevant to say, a harsh stringency is needed, because we do not have time to codify every single piece of information. For example, this may apply to the people at NASA mission control in Houston, Texas, when that red strobe flashes onboard of a space shuttle, all hands are on deck to find solutions to the problem given the implicative nature of space exploration.

This leads to the visionary framework of interdisciplinarity and where it can bridge the divide between traditional and progressive concepts of knowledge and epistemology. The vision must start with a conversation discussing the potential issues that are happening on college and university campuses, political institutions, the economy, and society. Next, the vision must be willing to take on and incur personal risk to your own ideology and ideologies of your knowledge circle. The question of urgency is introduced by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine who call for interdisciplinary urgency, this is especially true in a time of a national emergency where interdisciplinarity is greatly needed², but what does that look like? One might look towards a situation involving a pathogen spread, relying on the concepts of expertise and listening to medical experts. However, if one can find effective research questioning or challenging norms from health professionals, they should not be a pariah for introducing dissenting, challenging, peer-reviewed, scientific, and credible research.

The Conversation

One of the most anxious aspects of engaging in conversation is the ‘how to start’ in the conversation process, especially when ideas can be so divergent. Establishing rules can be beneficial to starting conversations and is the first step to reaching a common ground. With this, interdisciplinarity can be beneficial to guiding a good conversation towards a vision in good faith. This suggests that an interdisciplinary conversation needs to come from some sort of normative duty relating to rules in a conversation. leading towards a deontological ethic used as a formula for a conversation, following the Kantian act of duty³ with judgement from a Benthamite prospective⁴. This is relevant to establishing an ethical framework for rules, or conversation will not be able to happen.

With this rule, we can agree in conversation that all humans want freedom and to be liberalized. Others might have a different sense of what freedom means to them, but freedom is undoubtedly the goal for all humans; referencing autonomous conscience and movement. Interdisciplinarity originates from freedom and must be the essential deontological rule within conversation. If we use the example of colleges and universities, the impact of freedom is paramount to the level of conversation that can be obtained. This comes from the culture of the institution, along with the policies and mandates that embrace a space for freedom in dialogue. Once freedom is established as the rule, conversations can lead to different connections.

Connections within conversation happen from opposing views meeting at a point or a certain level of acceptance from both parties, not necessarily a resolution, rather an acceptance on points to either complete or to discuss further. One example would be in a political debate on health care. It is widely accepted that health care is vital to a society, therefore, both sides in a two-party duopoly create plans to achieve the best measure. In the United States for example, Democratic members will be more accepting of health policy that reflects more money towards Medicare and a push for a more publicized system. Republicans on the other hand will look to use money towards strengthening the private system, in addition, attempt to strengthen the access to the enhanced private system through better jobs and better health coverage for the citizenry. Both parties are looking to achieve health care for individuals, and the middle point, perhaps, will be somewhere in using money to strengthen a public system for individuals and freedom of choice to pick public or privatized health care. In Canada for example, health care is universal and funded through taxation. Liberals may want to raise the taxation and administer more funds towards health care, Conservatives may want to lower the taxes, keep the universal system the way it is, and provide rebates to individuals for use on prescriptions, elective surgeries etc.

I choose health care as a topic because discourse on health care seem to be polarized into divergent camps. As in there is one side as ‘malicious in their intent’ compared to the other side. If we use the examples above, the Conservatives and the Republicans are not looking to make health care inaccessible to individuals and keep people away, they are looking to provide freedom to individuals to enhance their ability to gain access to efficient and adequate health care. On the other hand, Liberals and Democrats are not trying to steal money from you and put in health care for ‘free-loaders’, they are trying to find a way to make health care more equal to a wide variety of people. The systems may not enhance as quick under a privatized model, but the access will be available to people who did not have access before. This is the example of a contentious system that aims to find a middle ground towards what works best. Once the middle ground is established, the conversation about the rule for better health care fosters more discussions, refinement, and perhaps even an effective answer on health care policy and legislation.

Of course, on the surface it may seem that I am making a more convoluted discussion about health care simplistic in its approach, but given the view of politics especially in North America from 2010-2020, perhaps a simple reset on the conversation is what is needed. In discussion the importance of science and research also plays a role in how conversations are shaped towards an actionable conclusion. Relying on foundational data to support claims, either qualitative or quantitative can help establish further understanding towards a conclusion.

In theory, this methodology does not only apply to conversation about health care or police reform; however, this can act as the framework in discussion for the interdisciplinary world that we all live in. Think of the conversation not just about one topic, but as the process in the way we communicate interdisciplinary ideas through an interdisciplinarity framework reaching actionable goals to challenging problems in our learning, life, and society. Think of it as the new form of discussion where clear rules are established and agreed upon where the work is toward bridging gaps, not necessarily winning the contest, and a movement towards actionable results, or further discussion if needed is accepted. I use the term conversation as opposed to a debate, as it implies that not just one formula can work, rather a connection of different formulas to create the best method. This can prevent detrimental roadblocks in knowledge such as group think, knowledge vacuums, and SOKE’s.

The challenging task is deciding what can be considered for an interdisciplinarity concept within a conversation. Well, all topics can be discussed through an interdisciplinarity framework, but how can we identify it? Using formulas from statistical variance can help determine this method through a concept called the Interdisciplinarity Index Standardized Percentage (IISP). The IISP formula can be integrated in a system where discussion on economics, policy, ethics, epistemology or any other relevant point of discussion requires this formulaic concept. To set the stage, let us say we have seven council members in a mayors office, with two topics that are important and require the attention of council. Topic one (T¹) discusses the allocation of funds to start the process of building a new hospital for residents, topic two (T²) discusses the allocation of funds towards local businesses to enhance tourism and entrepreneurship within the city. Both are important to the citizenry, both effect lives, and both are needed equal amount of time for discussion, but what topic is most prescient in the allotted time for a city council meeting? The first part of the IISP is to gauge the level of interdisciplinarity between the two topics through a Likert Scale system:

After members fill out the Likert Scale, a democratized value system occurs through the members scores, further used in a statistical analysis. For example, lets simulate the results from this Likert Scale by adding up the totals from each participant and charting the results.

You could be complete here considering T¹ received the highest score, However, if we want to check the exact IISP score we must go further with a statistical formula. After you have collected the totals from the Likert Scale, you advance to calculating the mean for each topic through a standard mean formula.

After calculating the mean score you create the IISP score through a percentile formula. The mean for each topic is then divided by the complete total of the Likert Scale (8 questions x high score 5 = 40), then multiplied by 100 to get a percentage.

We can conclude that the IISP score for T¹ is 9 percentage points higher for interdisciplinarity than T², the members can also conclude that logical discussion about T¹ can lead to rational answers given the strengths of the participants in discussing the allocation of funds. Therefore, discussion should start on the process of building a new hospital, over the allocation of funds for the enhancement of tourism and entrepreneurship in the city. This of course does not mean T² will never be discussed, rather in the time frame to discuss T¹, T² will be less adopted for interdisciplinary discussion, given the lack of interdisciplinarity by its members on this particular topic.

Although this is a statistical way of looking at what interdisciplinary topics can be discussed at any given time, this is merely a makeshift way to understand the role of conversation and its role within an institution for interdisciplinary knowledge. What this formula can be helpful for is managing time along with conversation to develop the most actionable plan, as a guide to the best possible answers and avoid complexity. The IISP acts as a visual to outline how sufficient a topic is for interdisciplinary discussion, it might be prudent in this case for the city council that an IISP score above the 50 percent mark might be sufficient for interdisciplinary discussion. In some other situations such as doctors discussing how to treat a rare disease might require a higher baseline average, such as 70 or 80%. In addition, some discussions might require a broad range of variance in order to continue with a specific conversation. Perhaps in this city council case one topic must be variable by 12 percentage points or over to continue, since it was only 9 points its variance would fall short. However, if we use another topic of discussion for city council with T² being what the wall color in the bathroom should be, and it receives an IISP score of 35%. This presents a variable of 44 percentage points which clearly states interdisciplinary discussion should happen for the hospital and not the wall color in the bathroom^d.

Taking Risks with Knowledge

The IISP can only take interdisciplinarity so far, another factor comes down to the amount of risk individuals are willing to take to expand epistemological horizons beyond vacuums of disciplinary thought. This requires what I call off-brand but discerning voices, and might be the way we shape the interdisciplinarity vision. The term off-brand may be a craw to some people, as off-brand might make an immediate connection with unreliable. However, off-brand and truly critical voices are needed in order to expand conversation outside of disciplinary realms and avoid the SOKE that plagues epistemological thought.

Collins references Searle on the distinction between rules of speech being constitutive and regulative. For example, Collins uses the game of chess as moving the king one space in any direction constitutive, but the objective to control the center squares of the board as regulative as one is essentially a universal rule, while the other is a framework or strategy⁵. This relates to the approach of science through a lens of objectivism which is most common in the scientific field, as opposed to relativistic science closely relating to the Mertonian objectives^e. For interdisciplinarity and epistemology, it would be beneficial to start on the relativistic and regulative side of discussion and build towards an objectivist-constitutive conclusion on a variety of different topics. Then moving forward, we see how those topics combine through more questioning, ultimately, off-brand refers to the relativistic side and should be first to challenge questions and work for interdisciplinarity answers. Eventually you will reach an objective form based on the relativistic characteristic, in a way, the rule of engaging with ideas outside of the brand of knowledge will take a new shape, with the answers, and truth remaining. In addition, this relates to the concept of anti-foundationalism leading towards answers and an overall foundationalist truth.

The risk-taking aspect of knowledge is exactly that; willing to take risks outside of the norms or the comforts you once adhered to with past or mainstream knowledge. This can be dangerous as it allows the opportunity for completely outlandish ideas to surface, and given the ever expanse of technology, outlandish ideas are more widespread than ever. I would like to provide an example with the phenomena of the groups who call themselves flat-Earthers. First things first, the Earth is round, we orbit the sun, the planets orbit the sun, and our universe is managed by the laws of gravity in the space time continuum. With that said, flat-Earthers do take risks in trying to explain their ideas and seek to find answers to their questions, although experiments using gyroscopes and light like in the end of the Netflix film Behind the Curve proves the Earth is round⁶ (I recommend watching). In this case using an inductive method from starting at A and getting to B is the scientific method in order to develop truth which is briefly mentioned in the film. Going deeper, if flat-Earthers started with the question: Is the Earth Flat (A)? From there through research and scientific discovery they eventually find the Earth is not flat (B), this can still be seen as a rational process towards truth, even though initial concepts are flawed. Unfortunately, the fallacy with the flat-Earthers as mentioned in the film, they deductively start at B and cherry-pick data to get to A with the answer: The Earth is Flat (B) and here is the cherry-picked evidence to show you. Although there are theories seen more rational than flat-Earth, they also use the deductive method of B to A for truth and meaning.

Theories, including contentious ones need to be in the conversation as well, to be held up in scrutiny and be proven wrong or right. This also applies to concepts relating to interdisciplinarity. One might say that politics, economics, society, and education are all predicated by a sociological oppression of certain groups, and theorizing has been done on this front. Another example I will use is the concept of ‘systemic racism’ and ‘white privilege’ being pervasive in our society. On university campuses and on some news outlets, this is more widely accepted than flat-Earth, even though it attempts to use the same deductive method of B (All white people are racists) to A ( Here is our cultivated question: Is white privilege prevalent in our society?). I think it is important to look at this topic given its contentious discussion within social and academic circles recently. The most well-known information about this topic comes from corporate diversity specialist Robin DiAngelo and her book White Fragility (c. 2018), a New York Times Best Seller.

Now, DiAngelo does take risks in this book which are commendable, especially for her perceived stance on race relations, and contextualizing identity politics. In addition, sub-textually acting as a mirror for white people to ‘see their whiteness’⁷. Unfortunately, DiAngelo starts with a questionable conceptualization which sets the tone for the entire book.

“White people in North America live in a society that is deeply separate and unequal by race, and white people are the beneficiaries of that separation and inequality…[defensive responses] maintain our dominance within the racial hierarchy. I conceptualize this process as white fragility. Through white fragility is triggered by discomfort and anxiety, it is born of superiority and entitlement. White fragility is not a weakness per se. In fact, it is a powerful means of white racial control and protection of white advantage.”⁸

She takes a large leap about the concept of white privilege, considering prominent writers, and experts of critical race theory and white privilege say there is minimal or insufficient evidence to support the theory from a statistical level^{9 10}. In addition, research out of the United Kingdom introduced a quantitative study of 148 white students which showed no significant relationship between white privilege and personal privilege, and white privilege is merely based on belief, rather than experiential factors¹¹. It also attributed to many claims such as an invisible package of unearned assets¹², to the most famous assertion by Peggy McIntosh who unpacks white privilege as some invisible form of societal power that white people have over everyone else¹³.

This is taking a process from B and attempting to solidify A, instead of starting at A and attempting to effectively decide if B is true. Using the A to B method, we can look at the National Center for Education Statistics showing minorities in the United States closing the gap, and in some cases exceeding Caucasians on educational achievement¹⁴. These include credits earned in STEM fields¹⁵; credits earned in non-STEM¹⁶; high school completion rates¹⁷; rise in college participation rates since 2000¹⁸; rise in black female enrollment¹⁹; ten point rise since 2000 in post-secondary graduation²⁰; and incremental rises in Masters and Doctorate degrees²¹. This all stems from a population distribution that only sees 14% African Americans and 25% Hispanic Americans²². This is in addition to the increase of African Americans in the labor force rising since 1976²³ and are steadily closing the wage gap through earning more since pre-2008 recession²⁴.

Of course, some numbers on a paper will not end discussion about race any time in the near future, and it doesn’t eliminate that racism is still present in our society. However, using the conflation that privilege is beholden by one race and only one race is inherently false, and remains only a personal concept that does not hold up to scrutiny from empirical evidence. What this provides is the ability to use interdisciplinarity to search and obtain important and relevant factors to use in conversation about contentious topics leading towards an effective answer. Without this, knowledge vacuums form, and can be difficult to escape.

One of the most significant driving forces that comes out of this idea of taking risks comes in the forms of success vs. failure. It seems like in our modern pessimistic world, success is ambiguous, and failure is more commonplace. Too often the dichotomy between success and failure is wide, and for this I would like to emphasize more on comfort vs. failure. When engaging with interdisciplinarity and taking a high level of risk, may lead to success, but the risk is unmitigated. Mitigated risk with ideas channels the ability of taking risk, at the same time having a clear and concise plan on how to navigate the risk. For example, ensuring proper measures are taken, engaging in sufficient research on a topic, even acknowledging and accepting some dissenting opinions as your own. Mitigated risk will not lead to overwhelming success, after all that is ambiguous, but it will enhance a sense of comfort and logical realization from completion. As for failure, pure, rock-bottom failure is treacherous, but contingency failure is manageable. Contingency is the key to embracing, accepting, and overcoming failure in many aspects. ‘If this goes wrong for me, I still have A, B, and C’ are always methods to ensure contingency is taking place for the next endeavor to reach comfort.

When taking risk with ideas or concepts, you must always be willing to expand your horizons to gain new knowledge on a topic, especially when it comes to dissenting opinions. Listening to dissenting opinions are one of the most important aspects to interdisciplinarity and the ability to adjust your original preconceptions, or hone and enhance your original beliefs as a rebuttal. Listening is an art and it helps one develop more tools to broaden their range for epistemological understanding. This is paramount given the fact humans have been listening a lot longer than we have been reading or talking through our biological history. The ability to listen effectively might be the best tool to have when mitigating risk through enhancement of interdisciplinarity.

Is an Interdisciplinarity Concept an Urgent Essential?

The foundation will always stand that interdisciplinarity is essential, given our inherent tendencies toward it. But in fairness, lets discuss the urgency of interdisciplinarity in a modern world. One might see the progress that is happening in the world, which I do feel progress is happening, however, there are characteristics present that could incite problematic tendencies and for that urgency is needed. When talking about knowledge, we really need the ability to expand the concepts of interdisciplinarity out into society. Although all individuals can be interdisciplinary, the self-actualization of interdisciplinarity seems to be lost in some circumstances. Again, the prime example is the knowledge vacuums that form in colleges, universities, government, and in business which discuss ideas with no bearing of fact or empirical truth.

Why is this happening? Well some scholars have said that we are becoming an even more individualized culture. Although that may be true, I would not say that is a detriment and not the reason for the problematic tendencies. I do see a tendency towards self-congratulatory and narcissistic outcomes – completely different from individuality in this context. Individuality is following your own path and not worrying about the outside interference that is detrimental to yourself. Narcissistic tendencies are blindly following your path that enhances or inflames outside interference within a society for your own personal motives. I will use flat-Earthers again, the thrill they get with researching flat-Earth – is not even close to being compared to the thrill of telling people about their knowledge on flat-Earth, and building this contention with round-Earth members in society. I see this also with neo-Marx and new-left individuals who do not get enjoyment or satisfaction through just reading or examining the theories of Marx, Engels, Benjamin, Marcuse, Adorno, Wolff or Harvey. Rather, the thrill comes from blindly following an ideology that is hardly empirical and used to stoke unwanted tension in society for their own gain. Sure, I am aware of free-speech and that you can say what you want within reason. That of course comes with responsibility, do not go complaining to ethics boards, human resources, or public lawmakers when you explain your theories and they are observed, founded, caught, and ripped up in the jaws of logic and reason.

The urgency for interdisciplinarity can be a tool to help people avoid these self-congratulatory, arrogant, and narcissistic tendencies toward knowledge and ideas. I can say with confidence that there has been a heightened level of un-trust within many institutions such as governmental, economical, and societal organizations. So, it is safe to say that interdisciplinarity is an urgent essential to our discourse. Health care, social security, job security, education just to name a few are held up to scrutiny during every election cycle and on every pundit talk show. The ability to put narcissism aside and embrace discussion about important topics is needed more than ever that will help society enter into a more prosperous vision for the future.