Module 5: Identifying Disciplinary Insights
5.2 Critically Analyzing Disciplinary Insights
This chapter covers Step 5 of the Broad Model. Step 5 is to critically analyze disciplinary insights into the problem. In Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies (Repko, et al., 2013), the authors discuss how to critically analyze disciplinary insights in Step 5. They suggest analyzing the author’s disciplinary background, assumptions, research methods, insights, bias, etc. in a table so that comparisons and contrasts can be made.
Why would insights conflict or differ? According to Repko:
“These insights demonstrate how each discipline or profession amasses and presents evidence that reflects its preferred research methodology and the kind of evidence that it considers reliable. However, in all these cases, experts omit evidence that they consider outside the scope of their discipline or profession. “Facts,” then, are not always what they appear to be. They reflect only what the discipline and its community of experts are interested in.”
As we read earlier Rhonda Davis (2024) discusses the importance of analyzing disciplinary insights regarding urban food deserts. “Let’s consider an example of critically analyzing disciplinary insights in interdisciplinary research on the topic of urban food deserts. This complex issue involves multiple disciplines, including urban planning, public health, sociology, economics, and environmental science.”
She continues:
“While urban planners focus on physical infrastructure, sociologists emphasize social structures. This difference highlights the multifaceted nature of the problem.
It is important to evaluate perspectives as the economic perspective might overlook social justice issues, while the sociological view might not fully account for business realities. Recognizing these limitations is crucial for a comprehensive understanding. It’s also critical to assess methods used by various disciplines and applied fields. For example, public health researchers might rely heavily on quantitative data, while sociologists might use more qualitative methods. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each approach is crucial as well as understanding the methods and assumptions of each discipline. For instance, recognizing that economists often assume rational actor models, while sociologists might challenge this assumption.
The broader context is important as it can also help identify overlooked factors. For example, the environmental science insight reminds us to consider larger global trends affecting local food systems, which other disciplines might overlook while the interplay between zoning laws (urban planning) and systemic racism (sociology) might reveal important factors that neither discipline fully captures alone.
Another critical element of analyzing disciplinary insights is to examine biases. Researchers should consider how their own backgrounds might influence their interpretation of these insights. This goes along with developing interdisciplinary communication. Researchers need to bridge terminology differences, such as how “access” might be defined differently by urban planners (physical distance) versus sociologists (cultural and economic barriers).”
Interdisciplinary Thinking and Learning: Problem-Solving for a Complex World is (c) 2024 by Rhonda D. Davis and is licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
References
Davis, R. (2024) Analyzing disciplinary insights. Interdisciplinary Thinking and Learning: Problem Solving for a Complex World. Pressbooks. https://saalck.pressbooks.pub/interdisciplinary-think-learn/chapter/analyzing-disciplinary-insights/
Repko, A. F., Szostak, R., & Buchberger, M. P. (2013). Analyzing insights and reflecting on process. Introduction to interdisciplinary studies (1st ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
