text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Measuring Workplace Happiness

=Ollie's Evidence points:=

"Different disciplines have different epistemological and methodological approaches and assumptions giving monodisciplyinary silos".

"Behavioural psychology can act as an avenue of collaboration" - can we tie together what we have researched?

There is a disciplinary divide and each discipline fails to capture the other's complexity.

What is the definition of workplace happiness for an economist? A psychologist? A neuroscientist? An anthropologist?

Can we insert Venn diagrams for facilitating our presentation? Showing overlaps/silos,

If we focus on income in economics, is the "motivation theory" crowding out intrinsic motivation?

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF OUR EVIDENCE?

 * This is a really good summary of the key points from the lecture - let's go through this checklist during our next meeting on Monday to make sure we've covered all the key points we need to. I think the key will be to make sure we emphasise how the values placed on evidence and the meanings assigned to different evidence forms vary between disciplines. This is what ultimately leads to the interdisciplinary tension. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I put that list of Ollie's things up and James' quote from his advice lecture up to help keep our eyes on the ball. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Meeting Notes
(20.11.20)

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan.

In initial Zoom: establishing our interest in happiness (focus on workplace happiness? quantifying happiness?). Looking at it within Economics, Neuroscience/Psychology, Anthropology as a basis, might cut these down again/shift focus.

For tensions: look between Economics and Anthropology (money vs feeling, Gross Happiness Index vs Ikigai). Make sure to find relationship between different case studies used. Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Economics, look at monetisation of happiness and workplace happiness (Gross Happiness Index, performance outcomes).
 * Neurologically(+Psychological): specific indicators and neurotransmitters? MRI.
 * Anthropology: culturally look at Ikigai, look at Bhutan. Evidence in anthropology/workplace is performance outcomes, and surveys (mix of quantitative and qualitative).

(23.11.20) 11-12 am

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan.

In this meeting we decided to focus on the evidence used to quantify workplace happiness to make our section as specific as possible, rather just looking at evidence used to quantify happiness as a whole. This will narrow down our focus and ensure we don't make our research too broad. We decided to continue our research, adding to the wiki chapter as we go along, before starting to refine the content after our next meeting.

(27.11.20) 12-1 pm

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan.

We focused on the structure of our wikibook, trying to narrow refine the content and take stock of what we have done. We agreed to go through the chapter and add missing references, as well as the following:

Introduction : changing the picture caption ; amplify the difference between "well-being" and "happiness" Economics : changing the sentence : "Since the 1970s, the belief … " ; rewriting the second paragraph Neuroscience : cutting out a few words ; linking the last sentence to the workplace happiness Anthropology : adding some more content. A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

(30.11.20) 11-12 am

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan.

During this meeting, we tried, as much as possible, to conciliate our work so as to not exceed the word limit. We want to keep the relevant sentences within each paragraph. We worked a lot on the neurosciences section. A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(01.12.20) 3-4 pm

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan and Lara Gregorians

We had a Teams meeting with our seminar leader. She told us not to list the evidence that happiness can measured but to develop it and use case studies. After that, we summarized everything by saying that we had to change the 3rd paragraph of the " economics " section (to make the 2nd paragraph more developed), try to focus on positive psychology in the " psychology " section and maybe remove the part about Freud. We also thought of changing the "tensions" section to "conclusion" either as a whole part or by putting a few sentences at the end of each of the first three parts. A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(04.12.20) (1200-1330) 12-1 pm

Attendees: Katherine, Astrid, Bethan and Adelaide

Katherine edited while we all collaborated together.

Today's meeting was a focused editing session. We went through paragraph by paragraph: cutting down words, and clarifying our ideas to make sure we were always returning to talk specifically about evidence. Redistributed "tensions" into the subject paragraphs to make it flow better. Shifting overall structure of paragraph to improve cohesion. Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Given what Lara said, I think we should change the diagrams that show how we measure happiness and find more pertinent ones like the Bhutan GNH. This is good because it is used to gauge the happiness and contentment of the citizens and can be both quantified and qualified. It is also the basis for the United Nations Happiness Index and some governments, including David Cameron's 2010 UK government. I think we have already referenced this as a secondary source in the anthropology section. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I also think we have done a good job of finding evidence and we just need to show how that has been applied. We have to be careful not use the word 'evidence' but the substance of what it stands for. It is not necessarily expressed as such but is implied from the writing around it. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Really good points. I agree, I we can find a few more relevant diagrams, particularly the Bhutan GNH, and be really clear about what value the different disciplines place on their own forms of evidence. Having just read through the content, I think we're also missing quite a few references to support statements we've made, so we'll need to go back and make sure they're all included. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I will try to find another diagram who is more relevant to put in the "economics" section. A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 06 December 2020 (UTC)

(07.12.20) 11-12 am

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan.

Katherine edited while we all collaborated together.

Today's meeting was again a focused editing session. We started by editing the "psychology" section, trying to concise it. We ended up achieving our goal with having 1,200 words in our wikipage.

(11.12.20) 10.15-11.15 am

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan

Bethan and Adelaide edited while we all collaborated together.

In this last meeting we finalised everything. We removed a sentence from the "psychology" section, added references, corrected some mistakes... --A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

 * Establishing Happiness as a discipline and what is happiness

This Wikibook chapter will explore how evidence is used to quantify happiness from different disciplinary perspectives, spanning Economics, Neuroscience, Psychology and Anthropology, specifically focusing on happiness in the workplace. It will also explore the tensions that arise between these disciplinary perspectives, demonstrating how the determining of which evidence to use in order to quantify happiness becomes a non-linear interdisciplinary question.

 * I would like to amend the last sentence in the above paragraph to include 'non-linear' - it is not a straight line to the achievement of happiness int he work place and solutions are interdisciplinary.Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that we even need to establish happiness as a discipline - I think we can just try and define happiness itself. The disciplinary perspectives come from looking at evidence in quantifying happiness through an economic, psychologic, neuroscientific and anthropological lens, so 'quantifying happiness' is more of a 'case study.' I hope that makes a bit of sense as all these abstract themes and ideas are quite hard to conceptualise! I'm not sure we'll have space to go into how happiness is emerging as a discipline in its own right, as by the time we've written about evidence in the 4 disciplines I think we'll be over the 1200 word limit already. But maybe this is something we can keep in mind and come back to if we have space to do so at the end? I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Within Different Disciplines
Look at evidence used quantifying happiness from 4 different disciplinary perspectives. 1. Economics 2. Neuroscience 3. Psychology 4. Anthropology

 * I wondered if it might also be worth have either a separate subsection on genetics, or adding it into the section on Psychology. I've tried to integrate it into my neuroscience research but don't feel that it really fits as it's really a subsection of the biological side of psychology, if not a discipline in it's own right. It would be a shame not to include it, even if it's just a sentence or two, as it's a great example of the tension between evidence in modern psychology and evidence Freudian theory. Let me know your thoughts! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I think Genetics would be a good addition? But then perhaps we are getting sidetracked. I really feel we need to tighten this up. Happiness in General, even through these four disciplines, is very broad...?

 * I agree - we can talk more in our meeting tomorrow to narrow down the disciplinary perspectives that we're going to take further! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * Tensions

Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Psychology

 * As we are now under 1200 words I think we could expand the meditation bit to more than one word. Meditation is evidence so two sentences should help. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've had a few thoughts about the psychology section, and how we can integrate genetics into it while also talking about the tensions in the way that evidence is used to quantify happiness. Genetic psychology appears to be a subdisicpline of psychology, and in the same sense, Freudian theory (psychoanalysis) could also be seen as a subdiscipline of psychology, if not a discipline in its' own right. I thought it might make sense to discuss the contrasting ideas from these two subdisciplines, although I wasn't sure if this would complicate the chapter too much, as the brief was to discuss tensions between rather than within disciplines. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely think we should look at that. I don't think we'd need to worry about it being tensions within a discipline, as online Genetic Psych seems to be interchangeable with Behavioural Biology, which then separates into into another discipline. It would almost be a question of adding another section/shifting focus, which isn't ideal considering word count but definitely a possibility and one i think we need to discuss. Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been looking at the last paragraph of the psychology section, specifically the mention of CBT. I think we need to relate this back to evidence and quantifying happiness in the workplace, so will do some more research and try to integrate some references and some more information into the existing text. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey yeah, I was thinking that too. I've found a good source that mentions methods of quantification, but working on getting access at the moment. Stairs, M., & Galpin, M. (2010). Positive engagement: From employee engagement to workplace happiness. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (p. 155–172). Oxford University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-21869-013 This second source I found really interesting, and feel that it really hit the nail on the head (not properly cited, just title and link) Happiness, inspiration and the fully functioning person: Separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in the workplace. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439760.2012.711348

Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * CBT is the evidence here - it is quantified empirical evidence. The questions show how it is applied in the workplace/individual cases and how it helps to "rationalise not catastrophise" - together with meditation/mindfulness techniques it is positive psychology in its element. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a paragraph in the "psychology" section about measuring the content of happiness at work. I think that Adelaide had also done some researchs about the same topic so she can complete my paragraph A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 06 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Can we substitute Wellbeing for Success? Success is very subjective and in this context it is an objectivity signal. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Or "success" of what?Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * The last sentence in this paragraph is difficult to understand. "These variables are measured across a wider context e.g. in The relationship between workplace happiness, meditation and psychological capital?" I don't understand this! Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * As we wrote in the beginning, CBT and meditation have been demonstrably proven to work and I think the above sentence should be removed and we put in something underneath the equation like, "Meditation, under the “eightfold noble path” helps with the V because it reduces attachment and cultivates acceptance" and take out that last sentence. I have put it in, and we can discuss tomorrow. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Psychology is a good example of intra-disciplinary tension because of the reliance on both qualitative and quantitative evidence. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sketched up a possible sentence to add to CBT para with specific research methods and some extra references. (ref incomplete)

Randomised control trials (RCTs) are used to quantify the effects of CBT over time in a spectrum of variables: including work participation and self-reported symptoms of anxiety, depression, stress, and exhaustion; quality of life; and psychological functioning, using tools like scales (like the Work and Social Adjustment Scale). Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 09:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

For CBT as well, just seeing if we can clarifying and make the definition a bit more precise. Found this which I really liked so could see if we could integrate “Cognitive-behavioural therapy seems to help clients to analyse and ‘reality test’ existing patterns of thinking, emotional reactions and behaviour identified via an assessment fo current difficulties, and to try out new approaches in a stepwise fashion, monitoring and evaluating effects in all three areas.” QUOTED from Sheldon B. Cognitive-behavioural therapy: Research and practice in health and social care. Routledge; 2011 Mar 17. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7QmsAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=cognitive+behavioural+therapy&ots=KtR45WVDLD&sig=YKUhGpJYytIvWPavcNu3fhO1rMY#v=onepage&q=cognitive%20behavioural%20therapy&f=false Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The references to meditation have all been taken out, but the effects of meditation are used as quantified evidence. Let's try and put something back in. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Economics
I expanded the Bentham philosophy to include his 'Utilitarianism', just to define what his philosophy was. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Kahnemann came up with the $75,000 mark. It is important to reference him.

Put in Daniel Kahnemann and Angus Deaton. When I was researching, found a few studies before Steven Pinker's refuting of the Easterlin Paradox so removed note of his as criticisms of others had been levied before (in 2008, 2012 and a few others). Just want to get your opinions to make sure I kept key points. Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Previously unavailable, big datasets now prove higher income means higher happiness, this is true cross-nationally as Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, proved, enabling "reassessment" of the Easterlin Paradox (that money doesn't buy happiness), and that more money to a poor person means more to them than it does a rich one. (Company bosses use this evidence, and implement pay increases tapered to benefit lower-incomes more than higher. The hope here is that happiness is "endogenous": engendering productivity and conscientiousness, partially fulfilling a need to feel valued to feel happier. The evidence also refutes the earlier idea that $75,000 is the optimal happiness/income level above which happiness growth slows. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Big datasets now prove higher income means higher happiness, and that this is true cross-nationally (Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, to reference), refuting the long believed Easterlin Paradox (before big data), and that more money to a poor person means more to them than it does a rich one. Company bosses know this, and implement pay increases tapered to benefit lower-incomes more than higher. The hope here is that happiness is "endogenous": engendering productivity and conscientiousness. (reference Pinker 271 - to do) Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Really like this, excited to see how it'll integrate into larger text. Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Economic advancement should bring greater happiness. However, this doesn't necessarily follow. Since the 1970s, the belief was what economist Richard Easterlin quantified as the Easterlin Paradox- the idea that over time, happiness is not correlated with increased income. In his 2018 book, "Enlightenment Now",[4] Stephen Pinker discounted this in the psychology theory of Hedonic Treadmill (Pinker. P.263) - we have a baseline of happiness. The higher the GDP, the higher the happiness of the nation; the higher the income, the higher the personal happiness (Pinnker, P 268). Above an income of $75,000 day to day happiness will increase much more slowly

^ This was your original paragraph @Tsarina Catarina

Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the first economics paragraph, and I think it would be good to include some of the tensions between subjective and objective data that arise from Bhutan's GNH Index. I've incorporated my ideas into the paragraph and I'll post it below, so if anyone has any feedback or comments, please let me know!

Economics places value on quantitative data; surveys, self-assessment scales and measurement tools such as the Day Reconstructing Method (DRM), and Bhutan's Gross National Happiness Index (GNH), which quantifies the happiness and contentment of its citizens as an empirical measurement. Economists, however, selectively focus on the empirical data, which other academics criticise as too conservative and meaningless without the contextual dimension that subjective data can offer, a perfect example of interdisciplinary tension. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 04:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think this last sentence can be more succinct: Because economists focus on selective empirical data, tensions can arise with other disciplines as economic data lacks subjective context. What do you think? Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 10:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you! That's great - much more succinct and well explained. I've added the sentence with your name in the edit summary. I added a final bit to the sentence 'and treats happiness as a simple calculation', but let me know your thoughts. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree!

I changed the picture in this section but we can always put back the other one if you prefer. A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Deidre McCloskey is a very important thinker on these topics. (Transgender, I believe, she has written on many things.) However, I question whether she does quantify happiness as "simple"? I don't know, I am just asking the question! 2A02:C7F:5C08:8700:D60:4AD0:979A:F1A4 (discuss) 19:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * very good point - I've changed it to 'purely a calculation' because you're right, quantifying happiness with empirical evidence is definitely not simple! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 08:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think the new image is better - we talk more about the GNH so it's good to reference it visually2A02:C7F:5C08:8700:D60:4AD0:979A:F1A4 (discuss) 19:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Neuroscience
Quantifying Happiness in Neuroscience

Here are some points from my initial research. Genetic factors - twin studies suggest that genetic factors can account for 35-50% of our overall happiness levels. (Quantitative data). (I thought it might be best to include this section with the psychology section)

 * I put in a diagram here which demonstrates how much genetics could be said to account for in happiness - supporting our Neuroscience/Psychology statements Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 * That's a great addition - thank you! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Neurotransmitters involved in happiness include: Serotonin, Norepinephrine, Endorphins. Quantified using fMRI and MRI imaging techniques.

Neuroscience seems to be heavily quantitative - this will be a good example of tension between other more qualitative disciplines such as anthropology.

I'll try and focus on only 1 or 2 imaging techniques to explain how happiness is quantified in neuroscience, to make this section as concise and specific as possible. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, and psychology, whilst a natural science, heavily relies on qualitative evidence to support its claims. Understanding more about Human Nature allows us to understand more about ourselves. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 * There's also a new branch of interdisciplinary study called Neuroeconomics, looking at psychology, economics and neuroscience together. This might be interesting to include somewhere! From this it seems like disciplines are gradually becoming able to overcome their tensions and work together in a more cohesive manner. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 03:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I like the inclusion of oxytocin - this is the hormone that is released when you give birth - the first time you hold your baby, the mother releases huge amounts of it, as does the baby, which helps the bonding process, - it is the LOVE hormone. It is when she realises that she will do anything for her baby. This obviously does not happen in fathers to the same degree - so perhaps this has something to do with single, white males finding lockdown the most difficult to deal with? There is no outpouring of 'love', even by the coffee machine, there is no associating with other people...? Conjecture! Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Very interesting point! It's fascinating to think about what kind of interdisciplinary research will be conducted after lockdown and once life starts to return to some level of normal. I think it's taught us a lot about human behaviour and the idea of happiness has become especially important. The research around oxytocin is super interesting and was a great place to start for the neuroscience section - I've also been looking into dopamine too so can hopefully get a bit more research together on that to look at the quantification of happiness from this angle too! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Not sure if I understand your last sentence in second paragraph - varying levels of trust? I can't remember the whole sentence without going back to the page and copying and pasting but would you be able to explain it to me please? Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * No problem at all - what I meant by this was that experiments were carried out where people had interactions with people who they trusted different amounts, so some people they trusted a lot, others not so much. The oxytocin levels were then measured in these participants to quantify the difference in oxytocin levels in comparison to the trust they felt towards a person. I will re-word what I've written to make it clearer, thank you! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The evidence shows that high levels of the neurotransmitter, dopamine, makes a large contribution to workplace happiness: [15][16] Lower levels are linked to psychiatric disorders like depression and increased risk of Alzheimer's and other neurological diseases.[17][18] The evidence, from using Positron Emission Tomography (PET scanning), maps, analyses and quantifies neurotransmitter levels in different parts of the brain: [19 Applying this knowledge, we know that keeping the brain active into later life is critically important for our long-term health and happiness.

 * I have redone the above paragraph to show the evaluation and application of the evidence. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Anthropology
Have done a bit of research into this. I'll link some resources I've used just as a starting point. Think we need to discuss this area a bit. https://www.berghahnbooks.com/title/MathewsPursuits#:~:text=Anthropology%20has%20long%20shied%20away,lead%20happy%20and%20fulfilling%20lives.&text=Distinctly%20different%20in%20different%20places,of%20happiness%20and%20its%20pursuits. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281115995_Anthropology_of_Happiness_The_State_of_Well-Being_and_the_Way_of_Joy https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.14318/hau5.3.002 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.542.7013

This next two specifically because they talk about quantification: https://www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org/index.php/ijow/article/view/137 https://internationaljournalofwellbeing.org/index.php/ijow/article/view/132

This next one specifically states that anthropologists have avoided looking at happiness, what do you think about examining this? It still is a tension, but more so avoidance rather than differing views> https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/34625/391039.pdf?sequence=1#page=146 Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I have added a paragraph on Anthropology. It's just a starting part but structural functionalism and sociology come to the fore here. I will look more deeply. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

finished the para on anthropology and changed the focus as I think it more direct in applying the evidence. It's almost like a negative balance to the positivity of the other three disciplines, but it isn't - it's just pointing out qualitatively that it's really hard to measure successfully happiness, generally and in the workplace and therefore measuring contentment and referring the criteria back to ideals seems a logical way to go to evidence it. The ideals have been around for millenia, so there must be some truth in them and I think we have been able to justify the inclusion of hygge and ikigai Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think the anthropology section, especially the last paragraph regarding the tensions, is brilliant. It's so well written, thank you! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Ditto to Inorganic, you really put together well a super complex idea in that final paragraph, made it super comprehensible. Thank you!!

Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you - I hope it pulls it all together . I think it is really interesting how anthropology is a slow development, and the other disciplines seem to be more quick to change. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Found this source, thought it was really interesting because it seems to be attempting to establish a groundwork in anthro happiness. Unfortunately behind a pay wall so can't go beyond abstract :( http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ajm&volume=9&issue=3&article=011 Also: http://repo.uum.edu.my/18603/ "employment status, job type, and workplace characteristics can affect the measures of subjective well-being and happiness." as possible factors from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/56528108/2018-IJMHS-P2.pdf?1525920697=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Impact_of_Innovation_and_Smart_Gover.pdf&Expires=1607339601&Signature=g2fjdXvpmn9sUhmSICe3kWeQtYxseJQ8u-zmOqMXve8LHUh36K0eVLEp9x2N6vdXP8QcMkMz~DDpRlNTPotBGfHN40oO-ieLRv7j~TEjR2Ei3Xf5f4Pl2WS384oFEhCsZb6-xdTpCDBHFaQM5EltAwygEcCXqTafyPkUCMjT023DmINW5u4Ei682W1jOrDWX9tvnV4eXoy1yiFksDmnbf-2bv6TNJV4ho33nZSQPKo1nAUTsqM65sahfAncjtl41y1Epkop82JntJwN2176csRE6WvPN9msh~8LnrYotB8m13CPM5TUsYlh1L1BJhoubnST8hbSEDPs4EJcjkMEAOg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA fun little millennial article: https://ejournal.usm.my/aamj/article/view/93 Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 10:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you, yes it's really interesting A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Endorphin release is neuroscience, not anthropology? Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sentence possibility:

Modern technologies and tools have made work more holistic than just an economic necessity, with ‘psychological and emotional engagement’ being recognised as a key part of the economy. 2A02:1205:C699:5C70:6527:3B5A:1AA:55DB (discuss) 18:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"The hope here is that happiness is "endogenous": engendering productivity and conscientiousness" - the line from Pinker in the economics section.

 * Sustainable emotional well-being of employees is a crucial contributing factor to workplace happiness; its positive effects can lead to increased productivity, resilience and engagement. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Tensions between disciplines
I just thought I'd put some ideas about how we can explore the tensions between disciplines when it comes to quantifying happiness. I think the most obvious ones are the the disagreements between the use of qualitative vs quantitative data between for example, neuroscience and anthropology which might be quite good to explore briefly. @Tsarina Catarina: It was also really interesting to see what you wrote wrote regarding psychology and genetics disproving the Freudian theory of happiness in childhood correlating with happiness in adulthood. That's a really good example of a tension between neuroscience, where genetic factors are considered, and psychology. It looks like we've got lots of great perspectives to see this from! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 08:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I think that neuroscience and modern psychology agree that genetics accounts for up to 50% of our happiness levels - your biological start point, as opposed to older psychology such as Freud's theory that an unhappy childhood leads to unhappiness in adulthood. We should discuss this!! @inorganic-yogi Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Definitely! I'll try and think of where would be best to discuss this, and will try and get a few sentences into the chapter on genetics. I think it would be a really good addition to the chapter, especially if we can keep it concise and as relevant as possible. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 * @Tsarina Catarina: I'd like to try and integrate the genetics research into the psychology section, as from some research it looks like genetic psychology is a sub discipline of psychology. This would be quite interesting to explore as it shows the tensions created within a single discipline due to the differing theories, so shows that tension could arise not just between disciplines, but within. Would you mind if I added a brief sentence or two on genetics into the start of the psychology section? Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 * I think the tensions is getting more succinct - we don't have enough words to get everything in we want!!

I don't mind anything you add - please do! Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added text to this section, specifically focusing on the tensions between economics and psychology, as I found a very good article that really helped to succinctly get the points across. I've referenced it in the wiki book, and I think it's a great example of how unwillingness to collaborate and communicate can lead to interdisciplinary tensions. I'd also like to explore the tensions between psychology and neuroscience, as I've read quite a few articles hypothesising about neuroscience 'replacing' psychology in the future - it's interesting to see what this means for how the evidence psychology is perceived by neuroscientists and vice versa! I will do some more research and summarise any points that might be of interest for our chapter. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 09:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Research
[13/11 16:14] Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Why are people miserable at work? Mental health repurcussions; blue collar, white collar, autonomy, vested interest.... anthropologically linked, psychologically linked, chemically linked, triggers, communication, consequences. if we can help people to be happier at work through bringing together all these disciplines, rather like a management consultant but a "productivity" consultant or "happiness" consultant. It's about having a purpose in life and having vital engagement and finding solutions. Thinking big ideas.... I enclose some research taken by Bank of America Merrill Lynch that might be interesting to you... If you want to read the whole report I can send it to you. Also, I don't know how to paragraph on Teams?

[Monday 16:18] Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Yes - these are all great ideas. Brainstorming and mind mapping it all out might be a good thing to do on Friday. Quantative, Qualitative, Culturally and Societally - how do we use the issue topics we have studied to change perception/culture and prove that it works? [Monday 16:19]Tsarina Catarina It's also Science and Health and Environment point of view too - they all link to find better solutions [Monday 18:06]Tsarina Catarina

Just as a thought, and another link - obesity links into this too. I happen to know that the former chief medical officer, Sally Davies, is grouping together 12 companies to try and sort out the obesity crisis. But I fear they are looking in the wrong place: people overeat when they are unhappy, a lot of the time.

I will put this here, then we have everything in the same place. Still trying to think about how we can use happiness and I think it could be a super concept ? It links so many systems together.

http://happyplanetindex.org Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Two year ago, a group did their Wikichapter on Evidence in Climate Change. I find interesting how they structure it: 1	Case study: Glaciers retreat in the Andes 2	Introduction to evidence 2.1	Evidence in geography 2.2	Evidence in Economics 3	Evidence in Climate Change 3.1	Cultural differences in the acquisition of evidence 3.2	Economics of Climate Change 3.3	Geography in climate change 4	Conclusion A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 * - I agree - we can use the same kind of headings: "Evidence in... whichever discipline it is, but it does add to the word count. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Vaccines/ Surrogacy/ assisted reproduction/ synthesis meat Guillaume, Rose and Apolline

Zoom meeting on November 20th:

Issue chosen: Power

Disciplines in health and environment and societies

possibilities: things related to gender, growing importance of teenagers in society (climate change, BLM, gender issues), assisted reproduction, surrogacy, BLM, contraception, 'artificial' meat, anti-vaccines/vaccination

Zoom meeting on November 24th:

Topic chosen: the anti-vaccine movements

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Tragedy of the Commons: Power and conflicts in Overfishing

Introduction
The Tragedy of the Commons, first termed by Garret Hardin, describes when a non-excludable common pool resource finds its users acting in their self interest, overexploiting the shared resources which leads to the inevitable collapse of the resource itself. A keen example of this is overfishing as development in technology and increased demand for fish has led to unsustainably larger harvests and thus stressed local fishing communities and their ecosystems. Overfishing in a commons presents itself as an interdisciplinary issue through the dimensions of power. Within the disciplines of human ecology, politics, and economics, unsustainable exploitation arises when interest groups prioritise profit and strategic power over an ecological balance.

Economics
Globalization and increased demand for fish has led multinational corporations (MNCs) to gain economic power over national governments, fishing-dependent communities of developing countries, and the ecosystem. MNCs regularly catch more than 200 species in over 100 countries and territories and the fish harvested by MNCs are crucial resources for both the marine market and biodiversity thus earning a profit on them negatively impacts the environment.

Yearly reports of the inspected (13) MNCs demonstrate that the extent of considering sustainability as a market strategy varies across these firms and it seems that many continue to treat the environment as separate to their business rather than integral to it. Sustainable fishing practices notions may come from governments or consumers, however, the power gained from earning profit and the possibility of maximising it triggers entrepreneurs to pursue self-interest decisions that they would not otherwise make. Furthermore, global companies, capable of influencing policy-making, became resilient to the aforementioned pressure and continue to threaten both local communities and ecosystems.

Each firm being motivated by receiving maximized revenue causes the fish stocks to be overexploited. MNCs' decision-making could be explained through the concept of game theory where companies interact in a prisoner's dilemma game with each other. Every firm can decide on the number of fish caught taking into account other companies' strategies, however, the competitive industry, the rivalry of resources and the desire of maximized profit result in the market allocation that deviates from the environmentally-friendly outcome leading to excess supply, wasteful practices and the tragedy of the commons.

Revenue maximization and the prisoner's dilemma game are powerful aspects of economics that cause valuing private benefits more than external costs. This phenomenon leads to the conflict between economics and the environment which results in overexploitation of shared resources.

Human Ecology
Ecosystem justice is the concept that ecosystems are a whole, made of equally important interlinking parts. Weakening one part of the ecosystem is equivalent to harming the whole, therefore, each part deserves equal consideration. Through this lens, overfishing is an example of ecosystem injustice.

Overfishing and ecosystem injustice
The fishing industry and its fishery harvests have negative effects on the local surrounding marine ecosystems. These effects cause decreasing species populations, decreased diversification, and migratory pattern changes that harm the dynamics of local surrounding and interconnected ecosystems. Effective biological indicator-based methods such as trophodynamic indicators, that measure structural changes and interactions in ecosystems, allow for ecological analyses of the damage caused to local marine ecosystems detailing when vulnerability arises. Interactions between ecosystem damage and overfishing can be examined in the case study of artisanal fisheries in Senegal. Analyses of trophic level variances in comparison with measures of Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) between 1990 and 2009 indicate fishing practices lead to decreasing populations of larger fish species and an increase in small species.

Overfishing practices of fisheries hold direct power over marine ecosystems by directly decreasing species’ populations from targeted catches and hold indirect coercive power through the influencing harm these population changes cause the trophic structures of ecosystems

Collaboration in Natural Resource Management
In 1990, collaboration between Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans with fishing entities created the Halibut Advisory Board (HAB), introducing an Individual Vessel Quota (IVQ), whereby the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) review stock levels each year and recommend a total allowable catch (TAC) to each IVQ. The HAB ensures that the ecosystem remains sustainably managed between decentralised powers, and creates collaborative, non-competitive fishing practice

Politics
The central conflict in the commons of fishing is between the disciplines of economics and human ecology. However, the role of politics acts as an intersection where these disciplines can either collaborate to achieve sustainable solutions or influence to fulfil their disciplinary goal. An example of the latter is how politics can exploit the ambiguity of international, federal and local regulations regarding fishing.

Ambiguity in Laws
A case study of overfishing in Somalia suggests that due to the lack of set regulations in Somalia, conflicts between federal and local laws regarding fishing rights allow IUUs, developed countries, and MNCs to continue trawling the waters. Similarly, Somalia’s designated Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 nm has been questioned by several countries in the UN as they continue to fish up till 12 nm of the waters. Lack of continuity in federal and local laws enables local authorities to sell permits which allow unsustainable bulk fishing practices. Issues of direct power are central to this ambiguity in-laws: the absence of framework translates to ambiguity in who truly holds power over the resources which allows parties with a profit motive to exploit the resource system further.

Strategic and Dependency Power in International Fishing Agreements
The dimensions of strategic and dependency power are observed in the politics of international fishing agreements. Trade and licensing regulations often seem to favour MNCs and developed countries over their developing counterparts which favours their economic motives of keeping costs low and maximising individual profit. The developing countries are exploited for their lower prices and are trapped in a cycle of dependency as most of these countries rely on agriculture exports as a part of their national revenue.

The recent deal which allows Chinese vessels to fish in the Somalian EEZ was widely criticised due to its unsustainable and exploitative fishing methods and its long term impact on the livelihoods of locals. Such policies and deals encourage exploitative fishing practices and contribute to the early collapse of these commons. An example of such a collapse is Senegal, where overfishing and policies favouring industrial fishing negatively impacted traditional farmers, causing an increase in poverty, unemployment and immigration to other countries.

Conclusion
Conclusively, international and national conflicts of interest have an influencing power on fishing practices that lead to overfishing. With much of the ocean being considered international territory, a lack of ecological surveillance and policies that enforce open dialogue between MNC interest, local fishing cultures, and ecologists monitoring ecosystem health; allow for an unaccountable exploitation of fishing resources that disregards socio-environmental health over short-term economic benefit. A potential solution to managing fishing resources would be a collaborative effort between national and international policy makers to enforce and regulate a decentralised decisive power over fishing practices, enforcing accountability and continual evaluation of fishing practice and its influences, replacing neoliberal and structural adjustment policies and intense fishing with local focused, sustainable alternatives.


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Power of the West in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Wiki-workshop meeting summary: 20/11/20
Attendees: Humorousaspofgiganticbog, Ernapst, Andreilla.m.l (legrandherbage could not attend due to an event relating to family)

Initial ideas

 * Global health - Spanish influenza
 * The conflict between sociologists and biologists in determining sex

What we decided to focus on
Topic: the distribution of resources (masks/testing kits/ PPE/vaccines) during the coronavirus pandemic

Issue: Power

Disciplines: medicine/epidemiology/global health, economics, moral philosophy, international relations/postcolonialism, (politics)

Possible tensions: economics (utilitarianism) vs moral philosophy (fair/even distribution of vaccines regardless of age/previous health), postcolonialism/IR vs moral philosophy

Additional points
Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To ensure we all reference consistently, we'll be following the guidelines for Vancouver-style referencing mentioned on this website: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/sites/library/files/references-plagiarism.pdf

Meeting summary: 24/11/20
Attendees: Humorousaspofgiganticbog, Ernapst, Andreilla.m.l, legrandherbage

Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We discussed research we found for each discipline - available on our Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gzu7B-_cSaXskSN8x6Hg8ONJi5fvKY1xnVRZe3NYgp4/edit
 * We agreed upon a preliminary structure for the chapter: Introduction - Economics vs moral philosophy - Global health vs postcolonialism - Conclusion
 * We set ourselves an internal deadline of 27/11/20 to write the main bodies of information for the page, which we will go over during our next meeting

Meeting summary: 27/11/20
Attendees: Humorousaspofgiganticbog, Ernapst, Andreilla.m.l, legrandherbage

Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 01:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We each presented our research on the power in disciplines from last week and we realised that we were focusing too much on the case study and not enough on the disciplines and the notion of power
 * Changed our topic from power in distribution of resources during the pandemic to power in the general response to the pandemic
 * We want to change our structure: Write about power in each discipline separately and then address the conflicts and possible solutions in the conclusion
 * Our plan on what we need to do until 01.12.2020: Each do specific research on power in their discipline and how power dynamics in that discipline affect the COVID response tactic; identify conflicts between those response tactics (e.g. some disciplines favouring less strict rules like Sweden vs. other disciplines favouring lockdowns); maybe find other disciplines involved except for Global Health, Postcolonial Studies, Philosophy/Ethics, Economics and International Relations)

Meeting summary: 01/12/20
Attendees : Humorousaspofgiganticbog, Ernapst, Andreilla.m.l, legrandherbage

Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs)
 * Compared the outcomes of our research, which we had directed towards the power inequalities within each of our disciplines.
 * Read and discussed some examples of structures from the 2019/2020 Wikibooks.
 * Examined the inequalities within our disciplines, whether they are gender, race or location-based.
 * Debated on how and where to integrate the topic of post colonialism.
 * Considered the potential structures and links between our disciplines.

Meeting summary: 04/12/20
Attendees: Humorousaspofgiganticbog, Ernapst, Andreilla.m.l, legrandherbage

Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 14:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Each of us presented his or her paragraph on the notion of power in his or her discipline and together we discussed possible improvements in terms of both content and presentation
 * We reviewed the structure of our wikibook chapter, focusing on the links between our disciplines. Thus, the different parts will be linked according to the conflicts between the disciplines (e.g. the section on global health will be followed by the section on economics since tensions clearly appear between these two fields of study). In terms of structure, we also decided to integrate the tensions between our disciplines within our paragraphs.
 * We worked on the problem of the number of words by setting limits in order to stay as close as possible to the given instructions
 * We decided to integrate the section on post-colonial studies into the section on global health
 * We discussed the content of our introduction and conclusion

Meeting summary: 08/12/20
Attendees: Humorousaspofgiganticbog, Ernapst, Andreilla.m.l, legrandherbage

Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We reread the parts of each of us to add the latest changes. We mainly tried to highlight the links between our disciplines, which were sometimes not explicit enough. The other comments we made were mainly recommendations to reduce our word count.
 * We have finalised our introduction and agreed on the content of the conclusion which will be written by Friday by one of us. The conclusion will therefore focus on the tensions and conflicts between disciplines in order to summarise them in a clear and simple way.
 * We have chosen Friday as the deadline for the content of our wikibook chapter. The few remaining days will be dedicated to the presentation of our article as well as to the final checks.

Meeting summary : 11/12/2020
Attendees: Humorousaspofgiganticbog, Ernapst, Andreilla.m.l, legrandherbage

Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We reviewed the structure of our chapter and decided that a "discipline vs. discipline" formulation for each section would be more relevant to our approach.
 * We talked about the "economics vs. global health" section should emphasize how protecionism is used to assess power over other countries.
 * We decided it would be best to merge the 1st and 2nd paragraph in "philosophy vs. anthropology" by removing the last sentence of the 1st one. This creates a more direct link and adds words for me to talk more about Ubuntu philosophy.
 * We read through the "international relations vs. global health" section, trying to the come up with ways of rephrasing and removing unnecessary formulations.
 * We have concluded that, for our next and last meeting on Sunday, we should have reached the maximum word count allowed, added all of our references, and all the content should be finalised!

Meeting summary : 13/12/2020
Attendees: Humorousaspofgiganticbog, Ernapst, Andreilla.m.l, legrandherbage

Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We reviewed our texts and fixed discrepancies in referencing and spelling.
 * We changed the title of our chapter to "Power of the West in response to the COVID-19 pandemic" since our main focus is on how the West has influenced the global response to the pandemic.
 * We added necessary references and wikilinks.
 * We decided to submit the chapter today.

Comments
The contribution made by an anonymous IP address was Ernapst. I was not logged in when I made that contribution. Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 23:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction
Hello! I rephrased the introduction slightly to remove some words and specifically mention the West. Do you think we should maybe mention the issue of power in our introduction as well (depending on the word count), or would it suffice to just refer to power in the main paragraphs and conclusion? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your changes are great. I think that defining the notion of power would be relevant but I don't know if it's essential so it really depends on how many words we use. Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I changed the introduction a bit! I copied the old version into the google doc so we can still access it. I removed some wordings that seemed superfluous to me and added a part where it specifically mentions the disciplines we are addressing and the fact that we are focusing on power dynamics, which I think is very important. Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 00:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! In our previous meeting we talked about our willingness to add four references corresponding to our four disciplines after the sentence about the participation of experts in different fields on decision making. I think this is a good idea, do you still want to do it? Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, I think it'll help verify our claim that people from the disciplines are involved through their actions in influencing government decision. What do other people think? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

General notes
Hello everyone!We had already mentioned it but while rereading our wikibook chapter I realised that changing our title would be very relevant (the distribution of resources during the pandemic seems too specific to me). What do you think about it? --Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 09:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, yes you're right, it does not really fit anymore as we have drifted away from our original ideas. I think the other title we had mentionned was "Power in the general response to the covid pandemic"! But maybe now yet another one would be more appropriate. Let's talk about it in today's meeting, see you then!! Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree! To maintain some degree of specificity, maybe we should refer to the West's decision-making and response to the pandemic, since in most of our sections we focus on how Western academics are disregarding strategies from the global South and often unwilling to co-operate internationally to the same extent as other nations? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I checked and we are at 1374 words, we still have 174 words to remove. The parts that have not reduced their text yet are Global Health and International Relations. Don't forget! :D Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 08:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I agree with you, I know it's difficult but we really have to respect the word limit. Maybe we can find ways to reduce this number in our meeting this afternoon if that's ok with you? Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! When I was adding Wikilinks a message appeared saying they should be used sparsely in Wikibooks. During our meeting today, maybe we should discuss which links we think are necessary/important for understanding our chapter's content, and which ones we could perhaps remove? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Global health section
Hey! When you talk about the inequality in the COVID taskforces between men and women, I think it would be really interesting if you elaborated a bit more on that, meaning what are the specific consequences of that imbalance? Maybe, amid this pandemic, health concerns that affect women are being considered less. Here's an interesting article from the lancet about how access to reproductive health care for women has decreased due to covid and the effects of that (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31679-2/fulltext) Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 01:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I just added a bit to the economics section on how sexual and reproductive healthcare has been affected, as I felt most of the decision-making had been controlled by economists, and not global health specialists, as such, if that makes sense? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I think it may be beneficial for the structure of the essay if you add something about the global and collaborative approach to the COVID crisis of global health so I can contrast it to the less cooperative approach in international relations. What do you think? Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 04:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I think that's a good idea! Alternatively, we can also mention that in the economics section as I've found an article that directly criticises current economic policy/unilateralism against the aims of global health? We can discuss this in the meeting today! Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Economics section
I have found your research very interesting regarding the different natures of power asymmetries within the discipline! Perhaps you could include examples of how the lack of female representation in the field has influenced response strategies, in order to integrate the case-study a little bit more? Here's an interesting article I've found on feminist approaches to economics during the Covid-19 pandemic. Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment! I will read the article and see if feminist studies could completed my part about economics! --Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to take a look, I have read your article and added information about the impact of the lack of female representation in econs on responses to the pandemic. The article was very interesting, thanks! --Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! As discussed, I edited the power dynamics section and mentioned the impact of them on sexual and reproductive healthcare for women, in addition how that may conflict with global health. Please let me know if you think it's relevant, if not feel free to edit it! Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your slight modifications on the impact of the under-representation of women in the discipline of economics on the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we discussed during our meeting, the link with Global Health is now more explicit which is a good thing. I'm going to make some small changes tomorrow but again it is very interesting, thank you!--Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I really like how you connected the predominance of men in the discipline to the fact that women’s health needs were overlooked during the pandemic (abortion clinics not deemed necessary). I noticed that you still have extra words before getting to the word count, and I have a few suggestions on how you can reduce it! You can get rid of “unnecessary” formulations like : ‘it has been noted’ because it is referenced anyway! Maybe avoid writing the ‘covid 19 pandemic’ because we already know what pandemic we are talking about. I don’t think you need to precise : ‘WHO (one of the key regulators of research in the discipline)’ because as it’s the World Health Organisation, it is implied. Anyway, I think the way you have linked Global Health and Economics by using protectionism was a great idea!!! Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I have found some interesting data that you could maybe mention when you discuss protectionism : South Africa banned all international travel within 10 days of detecting the first covid case, which I think is way faster than other countries! It could broaden our perspective on the Global South. Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you very much for all your advice on how to reduce my word count. I will take them into account. As for your suggestion on South Africa's handling of the crisis, I think it goes very well with my part on protectionism. So depending on my word count, I will see if I can mention it. Thank you very much for your very relevant advice! Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Could you connect the part in your section that is about protectionism with the power dynamic you mentioned and also connect it to a potential interdisciplinary tension (e.g. with global health)? I think if we do not connect our disciplinary issues with a power dynamic, we lose focus of our topic, i.e. power in the response to the pandemic. Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I am already making a link with Global health and explaining that if cooperation is advocated in this discipline, it is rather the opposite in economics.Also, I think I already mentioned the notion of power but maybe you think it is not explicit enough? Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I think it is much better now since you make clear that protectionism is an issue of power, namely wealthy countries dominating the international stage. Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

International relations section
Hello! Your section about the power in the discipline of international relations is really interesting! As we said during our meeting, you could add something about the notion of solidarity and cooperation between coutries during the pandemic. I found a lot of information about that using this liknk so I wanted to share it with you: https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12273.doc.htm --Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the input; Since I am talking about realism in IR, I think that addresses the solidarity and (lack of) international cooperation. Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have found your section very interesting! I noticed there was some overlap between IR and behavioural economics, so maybe we should consider merging some of your research with the economics section, so the page doesn't become too repetitive? We can discuss this in our meeting tomorrow! Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, that makes sense. I have removed that part as it fits much better in the economics section! Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I have found your section very interesting! I noticed there was some overlap between IR and behavioural economics, so maybe we should consider merging some of your research with the economics section, so the page doesn't become too repetitive? We can discuss this in our meeting tomorrow! Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I found an article for my section but it might be useful to your section as well. It is about how African philosophy has shaped the response to the pandemic. In it, it also contrasts Africa's response to the rest of the Western World's. Which shows the underlying tensions between the South and the North, it also mentions how the western remedies to the corona are being considered in Africa, comparing them to the herbal remedies that are being studied by African scientists. https://www.theafricareport.com/27180/coronavirus-can-ubuntu-philosophy-provide-a-way-to-face-health-crises/ Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 14:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I thought your section was very good! In order to make the page flow a bit more, perhaps you could talk about the tensions with global health (i.e. France confiscating vaccines) at the beginning of the paragraph and then link that to IR afterwards, as the economics section ends with tensions relating to global health, so it might be a bit more cohesive? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I would prefer not to do that because I think establishing the power dynamic in IR first is more important since that is the main focus is on that dynamic. Thank you for the feedback! Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Don't forget to put your references, if possible before the meeting this afternoon so that we can read all our references together and check their consistency! Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Post-colonial studies section
Hello everyone! As we are doing a part on post-colonial studies as we said in our meeting, I realized while writing my part on economics that maybe we should write a sentence or two on the power of the Global North in our disciplines but no more. The part on post-colonialist studies is very good. I think it would be relevant to explain in this part that the policies that have been put in place do not correspond to the less developed countries, hence the emergence of tensions and perhaps add examples such as the impossibility of respecting social distancing or regular hand washing in some less developed countries. What do you think about this?--Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 11:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Whilst I do think we need to integrate tensions a bit more into our page, I think we also need to specify how the power dynamics in our disciplines have affected the formulation of specific response strategies (i.e. global health -> social distancing). Shall we discuss this in our meeting tomorrow? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes! We will look further into this tomorrow! I think talking about the emergence of tentions as policies cannot be applied everywhere would be very interesting. However, it might fit better into the Internation Relations section though! Something to think about... :) Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! For the postcolonial studies section, I think it would also be great if we give more specific examples of how more research in the global south and a better understanding of the influence of colonialism can benefit the global south in future pandemics. Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I thought we had decided to integrate the parts on post-colonial studies with that on Global health. Could we revisit this point in our meeting today since I must have misunderstood (however, it may be worth considering, especially in view of the fact that we are over the word limit of the chapter).--Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 09:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Indeed I thought that's what we had agreed on as well. Since it's a highly relevant and well thought-out part, instead of having it as an individual section, we should consider putting it as a subtitle for "Global Health". Talk about it during our meeting! Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 09:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy section
Hi! When you talk about the cultural relativism, could you connect it to a power imbalance in philosophy? For example, large parts of philosophy are highly influenced by western culture (e.g. individualism) and that affects the philosophy of ethical decision-making in a certain way. Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your part on philosophy is very good. I think you should reduce your explanations on the philosophical theories of utilitarianism and Kant's notion of dignity. Two sentences for each should be enough as long as it's clear. The aim would be to talk more about power dynamics related to cultural relativism (a very relevant concept by the way!). --Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I thought your research on philosophy and Ubuntu was very good. Perhaps you could focus on conflicting power dynamics between philosophy (v.Westernised) and anthropology (focusing on the cultural relativism aspect), in order to talk about tensions a little bit more? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, thank you for you insightful comments, I will take those things into account when rewriting my draft! Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Your part on the Ubuntu philosophy is really interesting. I don't know if you agree with me but I advise you to make a link between the notion of collective solidarity of this philosophy and the discipline of Global Health. In this way, the tensions between these two disciplines would be even clearer! Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, yes that's a great idea! Thank you! Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 09:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think your section is great but could you try to clarify more which aspect of philosophy the concept of cultural relativism clashes with? Also, I believe the bit about Ubuntu is a great place to talk about how that would be a great way to improve international collaboration (in contrast to the approach taken in IR). Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I think your part is very good, but maybe you should try to refer to power a bit more? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 13:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes you're right I should definitely explain more explicitly the power dynamics. Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I read over your part and changed the wording a bit and fixed some grammar errors. I hope that's okay. If you do not agree, I have copied your version into the google doc at the bottom. I deleted the sentence about christianity and the focus on helping the weaker ones because I think that applies just as much to non-Christian countries as some of them want to protect the elderly who are also often weaker than young people. Also, could you add some references to back up some claims you are making (e.g. "western approaches/philosophies are more individualistic or people in Asia often emphasize respect for the elderly)? Moreover, you mention anthropology in the first paragraph and then not address it further. I think you should put that sentence into the second paragraph in order not to distract from the point you are making the first one, namely that, in the response to the pandemic, western countries have ignored other philosophies due to the power of western philosophers in philosophy. Then, in the second paragraph, you can address the conflict between philosophy and anthropology, meaning that anthropology has a global approach and considers cultural differences while philosophy has not done that as they mostly use western philosophies. Let's discuss it tomorrow! Ernapst (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
Hello! The conclusion is interesting and sums up well I think the conflicts and tensions between our disciplines. I have made some very slight modifications, notably by removing some formulations that added a lot of words. Furthermore, I think it would be interesting to find a relevant and new angle, a kind of opening. Or at least perhaps link the sentences together more so that they are more fluid. Perhaps we could talk about this in our meeting this afternoon?Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I agree with you! I have just tried to rephrase and merge the sentences on postcolonial studies and cultural relativism together in order to remove some words, please let me know if that's alright, if not we can revert it. Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I think it's better now thank you! Legrandherbage (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I changed the 'anthropological approach of cultural relativism' bit to 'broadening lenses of cultural anthropology' as I think the discipline more, rather than the concept itself, allows other disciplines to shift their focus to the Global South. I also switched 'gendered power imbalances' and 'domninance of western academia' because I think it might be better to put what we are focusing on the most, before. Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I realised that when we develop those two ideas 'gendered power imbalances' and 'domninance of western academia'; we start by talking about the gendered power imbalances which might be "disturbing" with the flow of the paragraph... At the same time, I know we agreed on not finishing the paragraph with the gender part! Let me know what you think. I can switch those two again, I thought it's always better to put the most relevant first when giving a list of examples. But it's also good if we finish on western dominance! So I really don't know what would be best... Humorousaspofgiganticbog (discuss • contribs) 20:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I personally think it's fine if we both start and end the conclusion with the Western dominance part. I also think referring to the discpline of cultural anthropology works really well as well! Do you mind if I remove the "broadening lenses of" part, as you already mention that in the anthropology section immediately before? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing
Hello, I noticed that in some of our references we use [Internet] whilst in others we say [online]. Also, sometimes our references appear in the middle of the sentence, whilst most appear at the end. During our meeting today shall we decide which methods to use, in order to be more consistent? Andreilla.m.l (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Power of the West in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction
In November 2019, COVID-19 began to spread internationally. In light of this pandemic, governments had no choice but to take immediate action to protect people. Specialists from many disciplines came together to influence and analyse governments' decision-making. However, power dynamics in global health, economics, international relations and philosophy had a detrimental impact on many Western countries' responses to the pandemic, subsequently obstructing effective international collaboration.

Global health vs. postcolonial studies
In global health, power is predominantly held by high-income countries (HICs), which can affect funding and thus influence areas of research within the discipline. Power is further centred in the Global North, given the contention that the discipline reflects neocolonialist values and is based upon white saviourism – the assumption that non-Western countries are unable to solve healthcare crises without foreign assistance. Indeed, approximately 80% of leaders in global health are from HICs, whilst 90% have been educated in them. Moreover, non-Western specialists continue to be underrepresented in journal publications. These power dynamics have all contributed to what Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (Director-General of the World Health Organisation) deems a ‘colonial hangover’ in the West’s response to the pandemic. Given the inherent assumption that former colonies are superior in knowledge, African doctors with previous experience dealing with the Ebola epidemic there have not been consulted as much by Western powers. Furthermore, given the Eurocentrism prevalent within the discipline, global health organisations in the Global North, have not considered the unequal distribution of resources, such as shelter or water, in other communities when formulating the response strategies they recommend for them. For example, social distancing is unable to be effectively achieved in slums, whilst frequent hand-washing is difficult where water is a rare commodity.

Postcolonial studies, whilst it recognises that power has historically been held by colonising nations in the West, shifts the focus of research to the subaltern (formerly oppressed nations), giving them power within the disciplinary curriculum. Using this perspective, the lack of acknowledgment of Kerala and Senegal's successful responses by Western global health specialists has been criticised, creating tensions between postcolonial studies and global health. Therefore, integrating a postcolonial approach may help address power imbalances in the response to the pandemic, allowing the Global North to understand how a strategy formulated by the West may not be applicable elsewhere.

Economics vs. global health
Similar tensions exist between post-colonial studies and economics as power in economics (like in global health) lies mainly in the hands of the Global North. Indeed, given the wide-spread knowledge of the West, economists from the South often remain unheard. Moreover, power in the discipline is predominantly held by men as exemplified by the facts that only 14% of full-time economics professors in the US are female and only two women have received the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. Consequently, these power dynamics have influenced responses formulated to the pandemic considering the impact of measures on women seemingly has not been at the forefront of decision-making given that their access to reproductive healthcare has decreased in several US states with abortion services being downgraded to non-essential in order to save medical equipment and hospital beds. This conflicts directly with the aims of global health, given that the WHO stresses the importance of universal sexual and reproductive healthcare.

Protectionism refers to the 'policy of protecting domestic industries against foreign competition'. While cooperation is being encouraged in global health, some Western economists advise nations to use protectionism as a strategy to hold power above the international framework in response to the pandemic. Using national security as the primary argument, many states are accelerating their protectionist measures by reducing foreign trade (e.g. medical equipment) and investment. Vaccine nationalism has emerged at the expense of international cooperation.

International relations vs. global health
The scientific discourse in international relations is highly biased towards Western academics. A reason for this may be that the most prestigious IR degrees are provided by Western institutions. Moreover, IR theory lacks a deep understanding of the situation of developing countries, which, in combination with the export of Western theories to developing countries, has negative consequences for these states since these theories often are not applicable to their situation.

Realism, which assumes a state of anarchy among states with every state trying to survive by accumulating power, is dominant in IR. It is very prevalent in the US, which has a strong influence on the education of political leaders since 19 out of 25 of the most prestigious IR programs were located in the US in 2011. As opposed to idealism, realism does not explicitly emphasise that political leaders should not commit immoral actions in favour of national interests and classical realists do not believe in the effectiveness of international institutions. Proponents of realism claim it explains political events and can be useful in informing policy decisions. An expression of this individualistic thinking and scepticism of international institutions may be that many Western nations favoured their own strategies rather than the WHO's guidance during the pandemic, even going as far as blocking the flow of resources to other countries. For example, France confiscated millions of masks that were originally ordered by the NHS.

The lack of understanding of developing countries and the prominence of realism in IR, by hindering international collaboration, clash with the approach of global collaboration within global health.

Philosophy vs. anthropology
Two Western philosophies have the most power over policies: Bentham’s utilitarianism ('the greatest good for the greatest number') and Kant’s human dignity, which prohibits causing any form of harm to a human being, especially to attain something. Although they are widespread, their concepts are not applicable everywhere. Considering non-Western philosophies would be beneficial when solving a global crisis. The ubuntu philosophy originating in the south of Africa, ('I am because we are'), places community wellbeing above personal comfort. Its reliance on collective solidarity helped screen 11,140,600 people as of May 29th 2020. This approach clashes with the Western mentalities, which are either too individualistic or mainly concerned with economic profit and growth. However, these perspectives remain unknown to most, as they are overshadowed by Western ideas, promoted by men.

Anthropology tries to bring LICs and ex-colonies to the forefront by diversifying and expanding conceptions of global ideas, thereby giving them as much power within academia. A report from the IW institute has compared ethical priorities during the pandemic. In Asia, countries are more protective of the elderly, whom they have particular respect for. In South America, people prefer rescuing women and young people. The theory of cultural relativism reminds us that culture influences ethics greatly, thus making the idea that everybody should follow the same procedure unrealistic. African countries have dealt with viruses more often than Western countries. Consequently, philosophies that have shaped their responses should be democratised so they can be considered as Western ones are on the global stage.

Conclusion
Overall, the dominance of Western academia and the gendered power imbalances within the aforementioned disciplines are the primary causes of the interdisciplinary conflicts identified. Thus, including experts in feminist studies in the decision-making process would place the spotlight on women’s health during the pandemic. Additionally, incorporating insights from postcolonial studies and the broader lens of cultural anthropology may allow other disciplines to shift their focus to the Global South and hence find better country-specific response strategies to the pandemic.


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Power in Sex Education

According to UNESCO, comprehensive sexuality education is recognised as "a culturally relevant approach to teaching about sexuality and relationships by providing scientifically accurate, realistic, non-judgemental information." This definition already identifies a few key academic stakeholders and hints to a possible conflict of interests and consequently tensions between researchers of different disciplines. Through the exploration of the Foucaultian power-knowledge theory, this Wikibooks chapter will examine the tensions arising in the effective implementation of sexual education between the disciplines of anthropology, medical sciences, public policy and religious studies.

Anthropology and Medical Sciences
Power in the production of sex education research within medical sciences is delineated through the implications of gender bias in scientific literature through the application of anthropological concepts. Emily Martin, a feminist anthropologist, exposes this linguistic sexism through her work The Egg and the Sperm by highlighting the contrasting tones depicting menstruation in women and sperm maturation in men suggests the subtle implications of linguistic sexism. While menstruation is illustrated as a “chaotic disintegration” that employs negatively-connotated words such as “‘ceasing’, ‘dying’, ‘losing’”, sperm development is labelled as a “breathless prose”. As a result, power is utilised linguistically to construct our subjectivities and ultimately continues to perpetuate the traditional stereotypes surrounding women. While Martin argues to employ gender-neutral descriptions in place of the ones above, scientific publications, however, failed to acknowledge her suggestions as the egg cell was portrayed instead as an aggressor who “captures and tethers” the sperm. The enforcement of gendered stereotypes within scientific literature could also serve as a reflection of the widespread gender bias within medical sciences. Some studies argue that female stereotypes fuel the assumptions that women are unsuitable to become scientists, resulting in widespread prejudice against them within the field. Others suggest that the gendered environment could be demonstrated through the exclusion and underrepresentation of women in scientific literature. Thus, the failure to collaborate with more socially receptive disciplines such as anthropology would contribute to the inherent power imbalance within and between the disciplines causes the production of gendered sex education literature.

Medical Sciences and Public Policy
UNESCO’s ambition to provide comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) for all is not entirely successful due to interdisciplinary tensions between medical sciences and public policy, as caused by a power imbalance. This tension can be framed by the implementation of abstinence-only education (AOE).

AOE emphasises that sexual abstinence before marriage avoids sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and adolescent pregnancies. AOE programmes hence commonly provide medically inaccurate facts and withhold information regarding various aspects of reproductive health, such as contraception and safe sex. Such dangerous methods conflict with the spirit of CSE and science.

Despite the abundance of scientific research proving the inefficiency and perverseness of AOE programmes, and the widespread acknowledgement that scientists produce reliable, life-saving information, there was a resurgence in government funding towards AOE rather than the science-aligned CSE in the United States in 2018. This was no coincidence, but due to the power imbalance that exists between medical scientists and public policymakers.

Governmental bodies look to policymakers and their research to inform decisions - a reliance that establishes the relation between the two. Yet, policymakers, perhaps driven by personal beliefs or pressure from government objectives, have ignored the research of medical scientists on sex education in their work. This ignorance is aided through direct coercion by using governmental power to deviate funds away from medically informed CSE into AOE. Today, only 17 states in the US required medically accurate program content. There is a clear disconnect between scientifically produced knowledge and sex education as a result of this tension.

Religious Studies and Public Policy
Secularism, which is defined as the separation of religious and state institutions, holds a significant presence within the relationship between education and religion.

However, taking the USA as an example, Christianity still holds the authority as the single largest religious denomination nationwide, therefore, it has a major impact on sex education (SE) curriculum. The tensions that emerge between religious studies and public policy on SE appeared from the Christian view on sexuality. SE that Christian communities prefer mostly consists of abstinence-only-until-marriage or abstinence-only programs, promoting prohibition of any premarital sexual contact. These programs tend to include words such as "purity", "virginity", "chastity" and ignore information about contraception, STDs, and abortion. The supporters of these programs believe that excessive information induces interest, which makes teenagers more likely to sexually explore, contradicting the initial aim of medically accurate CSE.

It is likely that for the USA government, religious beliefs concerning SE prevails over scientifically accurate ones - in 2019, 88% of all Congress members were Christian. Therefore, having institutionally coercive powers on public policy by funding more AO schools and promoting abstinence rather than medically accurate curricula affects the quality of SE. In states such as Arkansas or Texas, state governments do not provide CSE curriculum with medically accurate information on contraception and safe sex leading to the highest rate of teen pregnancies in these states.

Possible resolution: Communication studies, the bridging discipline
Communication studies in contrast to the aforementioned disciplines does not work towards creating knowledge in sexual education (SE), but rather towards bridging the gap of cultural, linguistic and institutional differences that make interaction challenging. It uses power as a strategy to promote collaborative work.

Communication studies is an academic discipline examining the process of human communication, its creation, delivery and receiving of messages. Understanding the power dynamics and language of decision-makers of different disciplines, communication scholars can bring about collaboration and the effective, widespread implementation of SE. By overcoming disciplinal divides, such as the quantitative, positivist approach taken by scientists and the interpretivist approach of anthropologists and communication professionals, better forms of SE knowledge can be created. To illustrate, communication professionals might argue for the incorporation of media as an educative tool, as qualitative research has shown that popular media is increasingly becoming the preferred source of information for teenagers seeking sexual guidance. Nonetheless, health professionals may remain skeptical about the traditionally 'entertainment infused' portrayal of sex in the media, as analyses have shown that 80% of movies have sexual content, however without showing the risks of unprotected intercourse or STDs — thus making them medically and educationally inaccurate. Ultimately, in communication studies power is used as a strategy, to articulate and mediate voices between decision-makers of various disciplines to find common ground and share knowledge and consequently bring about effective SE to the public.

Conclusion
The Foucaultian power dynamics delineates the reluctance of co-operation between the scientific and non-scientific disciplines causing these tensions to arise in the production of sex education knowledge. What is “culturally relevant”, is decided by the government and may not be unbiased or scientifically accurate. The power dynamics between these disciplines create a hierarchy where anthropologists’ work is undermined by medical scientists through linguistic sexism, while medical scientists are undermined by policymakers and religious studies specialists in the form of ignorance. Thus, constructive communication between disciplines would be integral in effectively producing sex education knowledge.


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Central Park 5 Case

Zoom meeting 20/11/20 - I introduced the idea of looking at false accusations of rape/sexual harassment and exploring the conflict between disciplines of biology and psychology. Originally, the group was going in the direction of literature but after discussion we found more possibility in looking at a specific case of false rape accusation. Olivia suggested we look into the case of a Polish man who served 25 years for rape and murder of a 15 year old and I suggested the Central Park 5 case. We decided to follow the Central Park 5 case as it had more mainstream coverage and we would be able to find better facts and evidence to support our arguments. Someone also suggested we look at Racial Studies and Media Studies as potential disciplines which could have impacted the case since all the boys were young, black men and the media uses techniques to sway the public opinion. We decided that we would all carry out research into the different disciplines and the case so that we each have an understanding of the linkages and conflicts between disciplines rather than focusing and specialising so early into the assignment. We have created a Google Docs to collaborate on our research and will consolidate and discuss our findings at our meeting next Thursday Driedmangoes (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Zoom meeting 27/11/20 We decided that the Central Park case was not a very good idea, so we brainstormed and changed the subject to "Evidence on racial bias in the 20th century USA". We want to discuss how despite concrete biological evidence institutional racism was still implemented. We'd like to look for evidence in different disciplines such as psychology, biology, law, sociology (institutional structure). We had some trouble with history though, as we are having a historical approach but cannot really include history as a discipline in which evidence is found. We are going to brainstorm individually and each make a plan that we'll share with each other on Monday.