Status Updates From Interdisciplinary Research:...

“As long as the integration adds _something_ new to the understanding of a complex problem, even an increased appreciation of its complexity, or the range of possibilities for integration, or of new avenues for research, the work should be viewed as successful.” CH 8 IS MY FAV SO FAR BY A LANDSLIDE. THE WHOLE CHAPTER IS LIKE THAT!!!! GOOD QUOTE GOOD CHAPTER GOOD IDEAS.

Ah, yes, the five w questions: who, what, when, where, and how. Ofc. All of those def start with w.

Also, while we’re here, internal contradiction: page 185 includes “engineering” and “law” as “disciplines” and does not regard these as “interdisciplines.” HOWEVER, these are not included in the primary discipline tables back in chapter two. What of this, Repko and Szostak? What qualifies and constitutes a discipline? Is there a more comprehensive list of alleged disciplines somewhere else?

3/3 that works in discipline specific content, but not interdisciplinary content precisely BECAUSE readers do not have the relevant disciplinary adequacy to comprehend and appreciate IRP adherence.

2/3 I think the text would be better served to reference the CS text AND another (as of yet uncreated) text that critically evaluates the CS content and its adherence to the IRP ten step model. Students need to see examples of IRP content broken down in a way that reflects the philosophy of the primary text. Rn there’s too much of a gap between the model and the CS content that depends on student comprehension.

1/2 the IRP as a philosophy is enchanting enough. I mean, who doesn’t want to have an easily accessible methodology for parsing the world’s most daunting problems? But, in practice, it’s so qualitative and variable by disciplines integrated, that the philosophical methodology becomes too dilute to be comprehensible or comprehensive.

Bit redundant tho, innit?

Local stem MDS major transitioning to IDS here to say this is written like a philosophy text. They should start addressing the phenomena, epistemology, assumptions, concepts, theories, and methods as “PEACTM” instead of writing it out every time. I know in STEM we abbreviate a lot and the humanities folks make fun of us for it, but, really, sometimes abbreviation is a good thing. Esp for word count.

“Rick Szostak…notes that some philosophers, aware of the ambiguity of language, urge what are termed ‘extensional’ definitions – which list examples of a thing – as a compliment to (or even a substitute for) the sort of ‘intensional’ definition above, which attempts to capture the essence of a thing in a couple of sentences” Rick I am in love with you that is SO heckin cool

I have the fourth edition, and WOW. I’m already blown away by this text. The clarity, the NUANCE, the approachability, the design… wow. It’s all incredible. It’s structured and designed like content from actual curriculum designers, which is a delightful and refreshing change from most other grad-level textbooks and attests to the interdisciplinary skills of the authors/editors/publishers. WHATTA FEAT.