text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Sovereign Power in the Crimean Peninsula: Approaches from International Relations and Law

Marking criteria
Content	50% (50-35 An excellent discussion of an issue in an example of interdisciplinary work. Of clear interest for stakeholders or students thinking of entering the field. )

Writing	10% (10-8 Excellent writing, with few to no grammatical errors or moments of awkward phrasing.)

Research and referencing 10% (10-8 Flawless or nearly flawless referencing, with an appropriate range, number and quality of works cited.)

Contribution 30% (30-23 Regular, thoughtful, precise and relevant contributions, which play an important role in the development of the project. A courteous and professional tone throughout. )

20/11/2020 set up group chat on WhatsApp as a platform of communication
We discussed and agreed on meeting time.

24/11/2020 First Group Meeting on Teams
We discussed our ideas.

Idea 1: Examine the cause of the Industrial Revolution from Economics and History. Narrow it down to the invention of the first spinning machine. Historians and economists have disagreements on why it happened in Britain and why it happened in the 17th century. Generally speaking, economists focus on the workers' wages, economic rents and incentives, while the historians tend to focus on the impacts of Science Revolution, Enlightenment, culture and institutions. -Britishshorthairlover

Idea 2 : Examine the power of international law and international relations in the Spratly Islands dispute

Idea 3 : Examine the truths in: Paganism/Archaeology

We agreed to choose the second idea and do more research after the meeting.

25/11/2020 A change of the topic
Britishshorthairlover had concerns over the established topic because she could not be neutral on this issue and proposed to change the topic.

After communication on WhatsApp, we decided to continue to write on another geopolitical conflict, but on a separate issue

07/12/2020 Second Group Meeting on Teams
We discussed which region to focus on and decided that we were going to look at the power in Crimea from the perspectives of law and international relations. We divided the workload.

Britishshorthairlover is researching into the topic from a legal perspective.

Thetribalborrower and Pacific23 will be looking at arguments within the discipline of international relations (primarily in the realist schools of thought).

We expect the tensions between the two disciplines to primarily be in the moral/normative sense, with law being more concerned with the moral basis of the law (principles of self-determination, for example) and realist IR thought being primarily, or only, concerned with self-interest; not making a moral judgment one way or the other, it is not immoral but amoral. However, we will do more research and reading to see how our understanding and arguments develop.

We are going to meet again two days later.

09/12/2020 Third Group Meeting on Teams
We discussed whether to change our title, which was proposed by Britishshorthairlover,and agreed that we changed our title into "The sovereign power in the Crimean peninsula: approaches from IR and Law"

We reconvened to review and comment on each other's contributions - paragraphs on law and IR.

Comments made included:

- The concept of self-determination brought up by Britishshorthairlover (especially about 'external self-determination') in the paragraph on law must be kept in mind and engaged with in the paragraph on IR. - A short explanation that the realist school of thought in IR is one of the dominant schools of thought - Reminder to keep in mind how the concept of 'power' plays into it - Word count may be an issue. We will first continue to write and see if we have to cut down on words later.

We decided to continue working on a synthesis, and maybe an introduction and conclusion, tomorrow. We will be using Google Docs to work together since not all of us are in London.

11/12/2020 Fourth Group Meeting on Teams
-We reviewed what was written so far, and charted the outline for the rest of our wikibooks chapter -We noted to take caution on word count as we were reaching close to the 1200 word limit -We split the rest of the work into 1) Britishshorthairlover : Tension between law and IR 2) Pacific23: provide criticism of the realist view of IR and discuss how being guided by purely self interest is not practical 3) Thetribalborrower: Analyzing Russia's justifications of its annexations of Crimea through a constructivist approach and examining Russia's claims that its actions are legal

13/12/2020 Fifth Group Meeting on Teams
-We discussed whether we needed to narrow down our topic, which was proposed by Britishshorthairlover in the General Discussion Page, and we reached an agreement that there was no need.

-We put our synthesis paragraphs together and made adjustments: Pacific23and Britishshorthairlover merged their paragraphs. The team felt that the paragraph initially tasked to Thetribalborrower was a standalone point and felt out of place in the synthesis. We hence decided that he should adjust his work and reframe it to the conclusion where it can be better discussed and sync with the rest of the essay.

-We went through the whole chapter and made it more concise to meet the word limit. We decided which content to remove.

-We arranged the rest of the work needed to be done.

-We discussed the citation.

14/12/20 Final Touches
After we each worked on our individual parts over Sunday and Monday morning, we put it all together in Wikibooks. With everything put together, Pacific23 and Thetribalborrower then made some final edits to improve the clarity of language and argumentation, formatting, and referencing.

Chapter done!

Structure
100-200 words: brief background of the issue and what we are going to explore 300-400 words: realist IR theories in the crimea context 300: international law 500-600: synthesis & conclusion

1. Realist school of IR: shows how russia acts as a result of its self-interest 2. Why international law is against the annexation (focus on moral basis behind laws, eg principles of self-determination) 3. Synthesis (provide criticism of the realist view of IR, how pure self interest is not really a useful basis by which to craft policy/practical standpoint; yet moralizing about ineffectual, unenforceable law is not useful either) 4. Russia using norm based constructivist theory of ir to justify how russia’s annexation of crimea abides by international law (demonstrates how even the law can be viewed from different perspectives and is not as clear as we think)

First Draft
Done by: Thetribalborrower The Crimean Peninsula was annexed by the Russian Federation in 2014 after a referendum was conducted in Crimea. Crimea was then formally incorporated as two federal subjects of the Russian Federation. However, Ukraine and the majority of the international community still recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine and do not consider the annexation as legitimate.

We will be examining Russia’s actions in annexing Crimea from an international relations (IR) perspective, specifically using the realist school of thought in international relations. This will be contrasted against the perspective of Russia’s annexation of Crimea from the context of international law to highlight the tensions between these two disciplines.

Second Draft
Edited by Britishshorthairlover The Crimean Peninsula was annexed by the Russian Federation in 2014 after a referendum was conducted in Crimea. Crimea was then formally incorporated as two federal subjects of the Russian Federation. However, Ukraine and the majority of the international community still recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine and do not consider the annexation as legitimate. (Citation)

There have been controversies over this case in academia, especially in the academia of Law and International Relations. The status of Crimea and the debates around it concern governments, professionals and the public. This chapter will examine Russia’s actions in annexing Crimea from an International Relations perspective, specifically using the realist school of thought in international relations. This will be contrasted against the perspective of Law to highlight the tensions between these two disciplines.

Notes from the legal perspective
Done by Britishshorthairlover

Summary
The legal academia and professionals are generally studying the issue with a normative approach. They study various articles and treaties from different authorities and institutions. They interpret them in different ways as a result of the ambiguity and complexity of law and their own stances. Their main interest and concern are evaluating the legality and legitimacy of Russia's annexation, studying how to make law more independent of politics and estimating how this case will influence the legal world as the principle of precedent (Stare decisis) is important in law.

First Draft
The legal academia and professionals examine the Crimea case in terms of its legality and legitimacy. This case is compounded because both international law and national law need to be considered. Similar to other inter-state cases, the law can be invoked in favor of and against the secession of Crimea by the parties in the conflict. Those features make the case debatable. The main debates are around the topics of self-determination. The majority of the professionals except the pro-Russia ones share a consensus that Russia’s annexation of Crimea is illegal, judging from the principle of self-determination.

The principle of self-determination is controversial on its own. There have been disagreements among the international lawyers on whether the right of self-determination of people includes a right of secession, and if so, in what situations. Public international law does not recognize a specific form to satisfy the eligibility of the application of the right to self-determination. Judging from the previous practice of self-determination in the Tatarstan and Quebec cases, the premises of secession are that firstly, a group identified as people had been excluded by a state from the exercise of self-determination and secondly, there is no other way of securing their human rights than seceding from the state. However, according to the professionals, both of the premises did not exist in Crimea. According to the Constitution of Ukraine, Crimea was an autonomous entity that possessed some administrative power but non-legislative powers. This indicated that the Crimean population was not excluded by the Ukrainian government from participating in the politics of the state and prevented from the exercise of internal self-determination. Therefore, the first premise was proved false in the Crimea case. In February 2014, Russia claimed that the ethnic Russian inhabitants in Crimea was in peril. However, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who had visited Crimea in April 2014, the alleged violations of the rights of ethnic Russians appeared to be "neither widespread nor systemic. It can be argued that the anti-Russian sentiment among the Ukrainian prevalent in 2014 could have made possible a violation of human rights in Crimea. However, the exercise of pre-emptive self-determination is neither known nor acceptable in international law. Hence, both of the premises were refuted.

Notes from the International Relations perspective
Done by: Thetribalborrower Pacific23

First Draft

Intro

The Crimean Peninsula was annexed by the Russian Federation in 2014 after a referendum was conducted in Crimea. Crimea was then formally incorporated as two federal subjects of the Russian Federation. However, Ukraine and the majority of the international community still recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine and do not consider the annexation as legitimate.

We will be examining Russia’s actions in annexing Crimea from an international relations (IR) perspective, specifically using the realist school of thought in international relations. This will be contrasted against the perspective of Russia’s annexation of Crimea from the context of international law to highlight the tensions between these two disciplines.

Explanation of what realist schools of thought in IR theory are

Realism in the context of IR theory can refer to a wide spectrum of theories, but with the overarching view that states prioritise their own power and survival over all other interests, including morality (cite).

A moral standard of realism is that a state’s primary interest is survival of itself as an institution of and for its people. Survival requires power over those other states that may pose a threat. Therefore, the ultimate moral obligation of the state is to maintain power relative to those that would threaten the state’s existence and its citizens.

Crimea & IR

Russia’s annexation of Crimea is in line with John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism. As Mearsheimer wrote, great powers “look for opportunities to alter the balance of power by acquiring additional increments of power at the expense of potential rivals". Russia saw Crimea as an opportunity to expand its power. Thus, despite being fully aware of the international backlash and negative economic impacts of foreign retaliation the annexation would cause, Russia still decided to annex Crimea as it saw the benefits outweighing the cost. The annexation would give Russia more territory and thus more power in the region, along with the strategic benefits of Crimea’s location which allows Russia’s navy to have direct access to the Black Sea and maintain their presence in Eurasia.

As Mearsheimer wrote, “great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power”. Russia is threatened by the increasing US influence in Ukraine due to the expansion of NATO, still continuing today, and the Ukrainian bid to become a member state. From a realist strategic standpoint, Russia saw one of its greatest rivals extending power and influence right into its backyard, which was a major security threat. Russia thus decided to take action to curb this perceived encroachment of its security by seizing power in Crimea. The annexation also helped Russia signal its position as a great power to the international community and deter any rivals from going against them. In this way, the realist idea of states pursuing security at all costs can be a useful way to understand Russia’s actions.

A classical realist theorist would also point out that Russia’s actions showed blatant disregard for the people of Ukraine and their self-determined government. Russia, a more powerful country, acted upon its power as it liked, knowing that the weaker Ukraine could not do anything. This is in line with Machiavelli’s idea that international relations is unconcerned with morality, especially when there is an imbalance of power. Second Draft Realism in the context of IR theory can refer to a wide spectrum of theories, but with the overarching view that states prioritise their own power and survival over all other interests, including morality.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea is in line with John Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism that great powers “look for opportunities to alter the balance of power by acquiring additional increments of power at the expense of potential rivals". Russia saw the annexation of Crimea as an opportunity to expand its power despite the international backlash and negative economic impacts it would cause. The annexation would give Russia more territory in the region, along with strategic military benefits of Crimea’s location.

As Mearsheimer wrote, “great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power”. Russia is threatened by the increasing US influence in Ukraine due to the expansion of NATO and the Ukrainian bid to become a member state. From a realist strategic standpoint, Russia saw one of its greatest rivals extending power and influence right into its backyard, which was a major security threat. Russia thus decided to take action to curb this perceived encroachment of its security by seizing power in Crimea. The annexation also helped Russia signal its position as a great power to the international community. In this way, the realist idea of states pursuing security at all costs can be a useful way to understand Russia’s actions.

A classical realist theorist would also point out that Russia’s actions showed blatant disregard for the people of Ukraine and their self-determined government. Russia, a more powerful country, acted upon its power as it liked, knowing that the weaker Ukraine could not do anything. This is in line with Machiavelli’s idea that IR is unconcerned with morality, especially when there is an imbalance of power.

First draft
The professionals from International Relations and Law focused on completely different elements and aspects of the case of Russia’s de facto sovereign power in Crimea. The realistic school of International Relations emphasizes on the motivations of Russia and the imbalances of the power, while the legal academia argues about the legality of the case by comparing the actions in the case against the rules and regulations. The law realizes the role of politics in the practice of the legal rules and is trying to reduce politics’ power in the exercise of law. The realistic school recognizes the existence of the international law, but simply sees it as an ineffective tool of argument and justification. This is a common phenomenon in the International Law, especially in the realistic and constructivism school. Politics appears to be supreme and placed as the question that matters in the analysis of the International law and politics of international law. The function of law is little more than a tool to be deployed in a more important political game. (173 words) ---Britishshorthairlover

Second Draft
The professionals from International Relations and Law focused on completely different elements and aspects of the case of Russia’s de facto sovereign power in Crimea. The realistic school of International Relations emphasizes on the motivations of Russia and the imbalances of the power, while the legal academia argues about the legality of the case by comparing the actions in the case against the rules and regulations. The legal academia realizes the role of politics in the practice of the legal rules and the vulnerability of the principle of self-determination to politicalisation. It is argued by the legal professionals that the international law aims to improve objective legal thresholds of applicability and criteria to leave smaller spaces for subjective political motives to manipulate law. This is why the professionals argue about setting the boundaries of the exercise of external self-determination. The realistic school recognizes the existence of the international law, but simply sees it as an ineffective tool of argument and justification. This is a common phenomenon in the International Law, especially in the realistic and constructivism school. Politics appears to be supreme and placed as the question that matters in the analysis of the International law and politics of international law. The function of law is little more than a tool to be deployed in a more important political game. (220 words) ---Britishshorthairlover

Notes of Russia's use of constructivist IR
Thetribalborrower First Draft To justify itself to the international community, Russia seems to adopt the constructivist school of thought in IR. Russia’s explanation for its annexation of Crimea is the strong Russian identity in Crimea, as well as Crimea’s shared history, pride, cultures, and traditions with Russia. Russia claims to be correcting a historical injustice and that Crimea has always been a part of Russia in the eyes of the Russian people. Russia thus seems to use history, culture, and identity to justify its annexation. Russia hence uses this, along with the referendum, to claim that the annexation of Crimea adheres to international law. However, this might just be an excuse used by Russia to conceal their actual reasons behind the annexation. Under the principle of self-determination, Russia believes its actions do not breach international law. Russia cites Kosovo as an example to argue that Crimea’s separation should be deemed legitimate, just as Kosovo’s separation was. It is interesting to note how even the law, which is seemingly black and white, could be viewed from different perspectives. Second Draft

While IR seeks only to explain the motivations behind a country’s actions without judgement, international law serves to balance the power of states and maintain peace through normative judgements. The tension between IR and Law exists for this very reason. Russia, in its attempt to circumvent this tension, chose to use constructivism in IR to legitimize the annexation instead. Russia speaks of the strong Russian identity in Crimea and Crimea’s shared history, pride, and culture with Russia to justify the annexation. Russia uses this, along with the referendum, to claim that the annexation of Crimea adheres to international law. Russia is thus attempting to exploit the grey areas in the discipline of law by presenting their justification behind the annexation using constructivism in IR. However, this argument is still rejected by the majority of the international community which shows the inevitability of the tension between IR and Law.

General Discussion
Hi, I appreciate the Structure section and the Intro you added on!The synthesis part is particularly interesting and inspiring. I have some further questions regarding some contents. 1. Shall we analyse the tensions between the two disciplines in the beginning of the synthesis section? 2. For the realistic school of IR, is it a prominent and current school in IR? If it is, I think it can be good to mention it. 3. What are the arguments from different schools of IR? Is it possible to summarise the essential features/items IR is looking at when approaching an issue? I know it is very hard considering that there are so many schools. I'll also research into IR to have more understanding of it. 4. I suggest that Introduction + Conclusion constitute less than 300-400 words and the rest part 800-900, which we can divide into IR, Law, Tension+Synthesis. 5. If the word limit allows, I suggest we should include an argument for our choice of the topic by briefly stating that this is controversial and of concern to professionals, governments and the public. Those are just some questions and suggestions. You are welcome to comment below. ---Britishshorthairlover

1. Yes definitely 2. Yes it's one of the main schools of thought of IR, and makes the most sense in the explanation of Russia's annexation of Crimea 3. We will be touching on some of the other schools of thought in IR in our synthesis/conclusion when we weigh the arguments 4. Yes, refer to above ---Thetribalborrower

Hi, I think we can build another section to share our resource. Shall we all share the resource that we find might be useful for our program (not necessarily cited by yourself) there? If you would like to, share the web address/the name of the book/chapter with a brief description of the topic of the resource. ---Britishshorthairlover Yes let's use the google document for this Thetribalborrower

Also, I do not know whether we should make proper citations in the Discussion page. Just in case, could you add the citations to your notes? Another benefit of it is we can all see how much academic resource each of us is using and examine each other's work. ---Britishshorthairlover Yes let's use the google document for this Thetribalborrower

I think our title needs specifying. I am considering "The sovereign power of The Crimean peninsula: approaches from International Relations and Law", "The power in Russia's annexation of The Crimean Peninsular: approaches from International Relations and Law" or "To what extent can Russia's de facto sovereign power of the Crimean peninsula justified by International Relations and Law". What do you think? What titles would you suggest? ---Britishshorthairlover The first one is good Thetribalborrower

Hi, I have posted my first draft of the legal perspective part there. There are 375 words. I'll cut it down and make it more concise. I focus on self-determination only. I tried to include other topics, like the referendum and the deployment of the army. However, due to the word limit, I cannot make convincing arguments on all of them. Have a look at it, and we can talk about it in our group meeting today.---Britishshorthairlover

Hi, I have posted my draft for my part in the synthesis section. There are only 173 words. I only used one piece of resource. I found we could write a lot on the relationship between International law and relations. I can always add more to it. Let's see what you have got in your part and count the words before making further decisions. ---Britishshorthairlover

Hi, I have a feeling that our topic is still too big. We can write 10000 words from legal and IR perspectives respectively. So, I think we need to narrow it down. For example, we can focus on the power of self-determination in the Crimea case. ---Britishshorthairlover I personally think our scope now is rather focused and not too vague. We can tie it together nicely in the synthesis/conclusion. We are already focusing only on the realist school of thought in IR and only on international law and examining the tension between these two disciplines in the context of the Crimean problem. I feel like this is specific enough. Thetribalborrower

Resource sharing
https://www-cambridge-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A58315CD55C97B0F189CC548683FD9CF/9780511760600c1_p7-36_CBO.pdf/theoretical_foundations_of_constructivism_and_its_treatment_of_law.pdf https://www-cambridge-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/5453144C904E26D1E408620742542522/9780511760600con_p170-175_CBO.pdf/conclusion.pdf Hi, this is a chapter introducing how the constructivism (an IR school) understand law, which overlaps with the part you are writing. ---Britishshorthairlover

Here are some interesting resources on the Crimean conflict from an international and national law perspective you might find helpful:

https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf4/Marxsen_2014_-_The_crimea_crisis_-_an_international_law_perspective.pdf

(PDF) Crimean conflict – from the perspectives of Russia, Ukraine, and public international law (researchgate.net)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322704964_Crimean_conflict_-_from_the_perspectives_of_Russia_Ukraine_and_public_international_law ---Thetribalborrower


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Media and Politics in the Dreyfus Affair

= The Dreyfus Affair: A Historical Clash Between Media and Politics =

Introduction
History is the study of chronologically explained events that unfolded in the past. An example of a historical two sided viewpoint matter where media and politics clashed over events within 19th century French society was the Dreyfus affair. These disciplines intertwined and disagreed on certain issues, and discern the importance of historical context to reactions fueled by a certain event in time.

Historical Context and Brief Antisemetic History of France
From the Early Middle Ages, multiple waves of persecution against Jews stained French History. Although one of the first European countries to emancipate its Jewish population, France suffered periods of antisemitism, particularly during the Dreyfus Affair. In the 19th century, Jews were regularly used as scapegoats and blamed for the hardships of modernization. Racism based antisemitism arose mainly in the 1880s because of the founder of the newspaper La Libre Parole, Edouard Drumont, whom also created the Antisemitic League of France. Regarding media during the 3rd republic, high speed presses allowed the rapid printing of many newspapers and new types of graphics.

The Dreyfus Affair
In 1894, evidence surfaced that someone in the French army had been passing secret information to the German about French military operations during the war. Circumstantial evidence pointed to Captain Dreyfus, even if there was no real proof. He was quickly and secretly caught, found guilty, stripped of his rank, and sent to Devil’s Island in French Guinea. He was indeed the ideal culprit: member of l’Etat Major with access to confidential documents like those stolen; from Alsace, thus a German speaker. . However, confidential documents continued to disappear. In 1896, Georges Picquart established that the real culprit was Major Esterhazy. Yet, the French army decided to silence the affair. Picquart was sent to Algeria, Esterhazy was acquitted, and Dreyfus remained on the island. Dreyfus was retried in 1899 and was once again found guilty, but with “extenuating circumstances”. He was nevertheless sentenced to ten more years in prison. Days later, he was granted a Presidential pardon and allowed to return home. This was a compromise that saved the military’s face. His rank was restored six years later, in 1906.

Media as a Discipline
Media is a process of distribution and communication of information taking the shape of audio, visual inputs such as newspaper, video, teledistribution, poster etc… Increasingly taken as a major at universities, it has its own methods meaning it can be classified as a discipline. A major actor in the Dreyfus Affair, media influenced public opinion through the means of newspaper and speeches.

The Press shaping Public Opinion
The press made the Dreyfus Affair an “Affair” : Starting as a miscarriage of justice lasting several years, it became a political affair overnight after the publication of Emile Zola’s “J’accuse” France became divided in 2 opposed camps: the Dreyfusards, who believed, like Zola, that justice should be served to Dreyfus, and the Anti-Dreyfusards. The press has a significant power, shaping and amplifying public opinion. French citizens all became involved because of the publicity of the case, obliging them to agree or disagree with their political leaders’ decisions on the fate of Dreyfus.

The Press mirroring Public Opinion
Another role of the press in understanding the affair was exposing to the surface the real mindset of the french society and its deeply rooted anti-semitism. Indeed, antisemitism had always been around, and the Dreyfus affair simply made it public. The Dreyfus Affair created a polarised and emotional national case. Dreyfus became an enemy for half of the French simply on the basis that he was a Jew. The first page of the newspaper “La Libre Parole” mirrors this mindset with the syllogism “le traitre juif”: the jewish traitor, reflecting the thought that people did not judge him for his action but for what he represented. The media created a platform for people to express their racism: If the press could exacerbate racist thought, then anyone could do so openly.

Politics as a Discipline
The Discipline of Political science is the study of democracy, government, politicians, elections, parliament, power plays, and more. Across history, politics have played a key role in the fate of nations. The Dreyfus case is one example of how politics shook an entire nation challenging the core of France's system.

Politics during the Affair
Under the appointed prime minister Jules Méline, the Dreyfus Affair created a real fracture within the French politic, tearing apart the population: the right against the left, army and monarchists against republicans and socialists. As newspapers strongly affirmed their political borders, the mediatic war became political, pushing the government to resign several times. Afraid, the army manufactured false documents to reinforce the guiltiness of Dreyfus. Fear of the failure of the republic and radicalisation took over France. Tensions arose with Germany, where on several occasions the German ambassador in France tried to deny Germany's involvement. The matter became so difficult that Casimir Périer resigned under 'ministerial crisis", later replaced by Félix Faure as president of the French Republic. As an open liberal conservative, Faure, both certain of Dreyfus' innocence and anxious to favour the reason of the state, was torn between the two.

Final political action was taken in 1902, when Jean Jaurès was elected President and decided to relaunch the case to later rehabilitate Dreyfus. As a deputy several years back, he had impressively defended Zola at his trial.

Clash of Media and Politics in History
The fingerprint of a society, History reveals a nation's decision-making and place on the world stage. Among other aspects, the history of a nation reveals its political system and use of media. When studying the Dreyfus Affair, it becomes clear that the clash between Media and Politics occurs because of France's complex History. Considered as an “old country”, its systems of governance and relationship with media have evolved over time. These two disciplines have a past of clashes in French History since the French revolution in 1789 when the freedom of press was established and used as a means of fighting absolute monarchy. In the Dreyfus Affair, politics and media clashed as politics sought the stability of a system of governance, and on the other hand, media served as a tool of subversion. Balancing the want to ensure the survival of the 3rd republic, while saving the freedom of speech and responsibility of the media in the French society created friction.

Approach From an Interdisciplinary Point of View & Conclusion
Using an interdisciplinary approach to history, we observe that the media's will to unveil the truth clashed with dishonest political actions. Indeed, the antisemitic historical context affected both the politics and public opinion in their views on how Dreyfus should be tried: disagreeing on the conception of Justice and how the French ought to represent their values. A conclusion to this conflict came to the hands of Justice when Jaurès addressed the Chamber of Deputies in 24 January 1898 to defend the honor of Dreyfus.

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


text:
User:Britishshorthairlover

Hi, welcome to the page of Britishshorthairlover.

title: User:Britishshorthairlover


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in the Development and Diagnosis of Anxiety Disorders

Suggestions and Edits
I read the intro and I think it gives a good overview of GAD. Maybe the end of it could be a bit more precise and bring more of an emphasis to the tensions between the disciplines we're exploring? --TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 10:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion on subtitles: Hi I'm thinking about if the psychiatric and neurobiological approach part concerns more about diagnosis issues, will it be better to change the overall subtitle of the part to “Diagnosis of Anxiety Disorders“? --PepperOud (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it might be clearer if for both our parts show different perspectives on both the development and diagnosis(/treatment) of anxiety, rather than each of our parts exploring different issues as this would make it harder to make the tensions between disciplines obvious. For my section I've been working on one part exploring neurobiological evidence for anxiety (explaining the development of anxiety from a biological perspective) and then I'm talking about diagnoses in psychiatry.--TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok I've changed the subtitles again --PepperOud (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I was thinking it may be better to combine the parts on cognitive psychology and neurobiology as they both look into the neuronal processes relating to behaviour, and both are used in psychiatry. Having looked over the drafts again I also think there would be overlap in what is discussed in those sections which would lengthen the chapter in an unnecessary way, giving less space for us to go in more detail about the tensions between disciplines. I think this would also make the structure more clear as we'd have a first part linking science and behaviour, while the second part is more social with anthropology. Let me know what you guys think! --TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah we do need to leave more spaces for other parts. But there're also some differences between the two disciplines as cognitive psychology is less biological and focuses mainly on the thinking process. Can you explain more about how to combine the two parts together? Alternatively I can also shorten the cognitive psychology part --PepperOud (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I mostly had some concerns about how you were linking cognitive psychology to psychiatry and the diagnosis of GAD by talking about the DSM, while your part on cognitive psychology was a sub-part alongside anthropology, making it seem to me that it would fit better under psychiatry. You've since changed the sub-titles again anyway which I think fixes part of the issue. I think we could actually definitely keep the parts separate as long as we make sure not to have too much overlap between the parts, so for example maybe you could insist more on the non-biological factors of GAD in psychology while I do the opposite.--TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 10:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case you can use DSM related content I have written in the psychology part and move them to the psychiatry part. I will delete DSM from my part later. --PepperOud (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I think we should add pictures, graphs or diagrams to illustrate what we say
 * Yes good idea!--TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just added a table detailing in the percentage differences of diagnosed anxiety disorders across ethnical groups in America --PepperOud (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, I think we should make sure to go over the referencing again once we're done writing everything up, just to make sure we're using the same variation and formatting of the Vancouver system so that everything matches.--TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 19:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's a good idea --PepperOud (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I think in the anthropology part, maybe you could make more clear that the social anxiety TKS means Taijin Kyofusho. Don't know if its clear but you're sentence could be like: "A type of social anxiety called Taijin Kyofusho (TKS) is more commonly found in east Asia than somewhere else". We should also explain why the percentage of people suffering from anxiety is low in the asian American community while at the end of your part you explain that there is High anxiety in Asia. Maybe you could add that this is a result of anxiety being taboo in some cultures and therefore the studies shows low levels of anxiety while in reality it is a lot more. Or something like that. But well wrote for the rest? :)
 * Thank you for suggestions. I will try to find more information explaining the reasons behind high social anxiety level in Asian countries. Also there can be some differences between the environment within Asian American communities and within Asian countries. --PepperOud (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

For the Cognitive psychology part, I think we should explain more what are mental distortions, very quickly but just to understand what it means. And also, put more emphasis on DSM. What is it, how it came to be, and maybe also what were the evolution through DSM 1,2,3,4,5 in its definition, diagnosis and treatment of GAD.

For neurobiology, adding a neuroimage of a brain (preferably human) suffering from anxiety could be cool and interesting!
 * I think these are all very good ideas! I'll try to find an image for the neurobiology part. For the details on the DSM, I was wondering if we should write that in the psychiatry part, as it is mostly used by psychiatrists to diagnose GAD and other disorders?--TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I found an image of an MRI scan that we can use but I'm having issues uploading it, would one of you mind helping?--TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 01:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

12th December
Having finished putting together the majority of the wikibooks chapter, we agreed on some structural changes including leaving out the cognitive psychology part and separating the parts on neurobiology and psychiatry. The aim of this was for us to be able to explore the tensions between anthropology and neuroscience as well as issues of their inclusion in psychiatry more specifically.--TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

6th December
Since the last meeting we've been working on our first drafts for each of our sections. We also added these to the google doc in order for each of us to have access to the exact content the others were writing about, in order for us to make sure what we were writing was coherent and worked well with the other sections. This also helped us find more precise conflicts between disciplines which Gabriel will be able to explore in his final section. Our aim is to now start adding and editing our sections directly on the wiki page. TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs)

27th November: Zoom meeting 2
We went over the research we did and the information each of us found relating to anxiety disorders, having shared all of this on the google doc preceding the meeting. We used this to highlight the tensions that could be explored between disciplines and we came up with a structure for our wikibooks chapter. Sarah is going to focus on the psychiatric and neurobiological aspects in the diagnosis and treatment of anxiety, Joyce will explore aspects of anthropology and Gabriel will write the introduction and the end part bringing out the tensions and conflicts between the previously mentioned disciplines. We also would like to hint at a possible resolution of conflicts at the end. TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs)

20th November: Zoom meeting 1
During this first session we brainstormed various ideas for our chapter. We ended up discussing mental health disorders and decided to focus on anxiety disorders in particular. We talked about the issues anxiety disorders pose in modern societies where people of all ages are subjected to more stress we could include disciplines such as anthropology, neuroscience and psychiatry. We agreed to make a google doc where we could share links and information we found on the topic in the upcoming weeks. TheStarryLamppost (discuss • contribs)


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in the Development and Diagnosis of Anxiety Disorders

Introduction
Anxiety is a common feeling of everyday life and can affect anyone who is under stress, whether it be before the deadline of an assignment or when practicing for the final of a sports tournament. It is positive and essential, providing that extra boost of adrenaline and motivation enabling success. But simple anxiety can become harmful to someone’s mental health when diagnosed with General Anxiety Disorder (GAD), defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “a mental illness in which a person is so anxious that their normal life is affected”. Historically, the diagnosis of GAD as a specific illness was very blurry because of the similarities it shares with other conditions such as phobias, OCD (Obsessive-compulsive Disorder) or PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), often being considered a symptom of these disorders rather than a disease itself. The fact that mental health issues remained taboo in many cultures until very recently also did not help for developing our knowledge and financing research on these disorders. Furthermore, the more scientific disciplines, such as neurobiology, tend to disagree with anthropology, the first focusing on genetics and biochemical abnormalities while the second puts an emphasis on the cultural environment. This contrast creates issues of evidence between disciplines in the understanding of GAD in its development and diagnosis.

Anthropological Approach
The anthropological approach to anxiety focuses on the impact culture has on the causes and symptoms of the disorder. As argued by American anthropologist Franz Boas, historical and environmental backgrounds are essential for interpreting the psychological state of people in different cultures. Therefore, anthropology emphasizes cross-cultural differences in the expressions of anxiety and their underlying factors.

Finding Cross-Cultural Differences
Statistical data is used intensively in identifying the cross-cultural differences in the prevalence and major symptoms of these conditions among different ethnic groups. In a national survey on mental health in the United States, Asian Americans were reported to have the lowest rate of anxiety disorders (Table 1). Furthermore, expressions and symptoms of anxiety also vary and can be culturally-specific. Taijin kyofusho (TKS) is a social anxiety disorder more commonly found in Japan and Korea than in other regions and is characterized by the intensified concern of embarrassing others on social occasions.

Contextualising Differences
Contextualization of the differences is usually done by case studies including interviews with patients. Anthropologists take secondary evidence from patients’ self-reflections on their symptoms and past experiences to examine the relations between cultural beliefs and disorders. For instance, the potential link between the traditional belief of harmony and the prevalence of dizziness as a panic attack symptom is suggested by interviews with Chinese patients suffering from panic disorders. Other factors like social norms also contribute to the differences. People from collectivistic countries are reported to feel more embarrassment when rating certain behaviors in an experiment compared to people from individualistic countries, which may result in a high level of social anxiety in certain Asian countries.

Neurobiological Evidence for Anxiety Disorders
Neurobiology explores the anatomy of the nervous system and how this links to behaviour, an essential component of physiology and neuroscience.

GAD and other related disorders can be observed and explained biologically through research with animal models and newly developed techniques such as neuroimaging with humans. It has been determined that genetic predispositions to GAD and other mental disorders exist in certain individuals and that environmental factors also have an influence, possibly increasing risk factors for developing such disorders.

A growing amount of research in biology and psychiatry is currently being conducted in order to identify pathogenetic biomarkers, essentially underlying biological and genetic factors, that are linked to GAD. Neuroimaging techniques, including Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), have been particularly helpful in determining structural and biochemical abnormalities in individuals with GAD. Findings include an increased amount of grey matter in the amygdala, a part of the limbic system involved in the processing of fear, while the hippocampus is typically abnormally low in volume. Such structural differences, among others, are believed to be linked to issues in regulating emotion and certain symptoms of GAD. In addition, different studies have demonstrated the heritability of GAD, one of them getting a result of 49%. While intensive research is being led in order to determine the exact genes responsible for this predisposition, we remain largely in the dark on the topic.

Psychiatry and Evidence in the Diagnosis of Anxiety Disorders
One of the main issues in treating anxiety is successfully diagnosing it. Even if this disorder is very common among children and adults it remains one of the most misdiagnosed among the medical community. Although psychiatry is increasingly making use of neurobiology, particularly in the treatment of GAD through medication, the diagnosis of mental health disorders continues to widely rely on behavioural observations and qualitative evidence. Indeed, diagnoses are made using a range of qualitative tools such as clinical interviews, questionnaires and self-reporting, which may be deemed subjective and unreliable. Psychiatrists are then faced with the difficulty of associating behavioural and emotional symptoms with a specific disorder, using guidelines and diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This is particularly hard in the case of different anxiety disorders and depression which often have very similar manifestations. What may be observed is quite a significant lack of the use of neurobiology in the actual diagnosis of disorders such as GAD. Indeed, although neuroimaging could potentially solve some issues of subjectivity, such techniques are not currently advanced enough to be able to definitively tell different mental health conditions apart.

Conflicts of evidence between disciplines
Anxiety sits on a very fine line between a feeling of discomfort and a medical condition. While trying to make the distinction clearer, disciplines have each focused on different aspects of the disorder. Anthropology studies the impact of culture on individuals and the patient’s perception, while neurobiology finds evidence for anxiety in hereditary genes causing abnormalities in the brain. Indeed, while both disciplines explore aspects of GAD through research, sometimes with some overlap, a lack of collaborative engagement exists between them. This may explain some of the failures in psychiatric studies and diagnoses of GAD, and a more thorough interdisciplinary approach could be a solution. The emerging field of cultural neuroscience, taking both socio-cultural environments and biological factors into account, may thus be of use to psychiatry in the future. Another issue that needs to be tackled is the complete absence of neurobiology in the diagnosis of GAD. More investments in neuroimaging would increase the precision and utility of this technology and would ultimately allow neurobiology to have a more important role in the diagnosis of this condition. Furthermore, psychiatry primarily focuses on the treatment and diagnosis of the patient, although in many cases anxiety results from socio-cultural issues that cannot be solved only through therapy or medication. A more active engagement with anthropology and social sciences (economics or politics) could thus also be beneficial.


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Racial Inequality in the US Education System

Introduction
Nearly seven decades after Brown v. Board, racial inequality still permeates educational structures in the United States, as made apparent by the persistence of an achievement gap between African American students and their caucasian peers. This chapter aims to understand why, despite the fact that education is often perceived as the ground for breaking down social inequalities, it appears instead to perpetuate them. By looking at the evidence used in Sociology, Psychology and Economics to explain racial inequalities, this chapter strives to present a holistic understanding of the issue.

Socio-economics
Socioeconomics, a sub-discipline of Economics, studies the relationship between economic activity and social processes. Socioeconomics has a distinct way of understanding and explaining racial inequality in the US Education system through its use of econometric evidence.

A Pennsylvania State University researcher documented that the school funding gap between the top 1% district and the average-spending school district at 50th percentile widened by 32% between 2000 and 2015. Another study found quantitative evidence of the racial isolation in Atlanta, New York, and Detroit schools – cities with significantly high degrees of racial segregation by neighbourhood. In Atlanta where ‘black’ schools were 56% poorer than ‘white’ schools compared to 15% poorer in Detroit, the test-score gap between black and white children is nearly 5-grade levels compared to 2-grade levels in Detroit. Reardon concluded that the larger the poverty rate between black and white schools, the larger the achievement gap. Thus, the issue of inequality in education stems down to economic inequality.

The average African-American earns 62 cents for every $1 earned by the average white American and in 2016, ⅓ of black American children were living in poverty compared to 11% of white children. Using the plethora of quantitative economic evidence, Socioeconomics argues that unless black children are liberated from poverty and able to attend well-funded schools, racial inequality in education will persist.

Sociology
According to sociologists, colour-blind theory is key to understanding the persistence of racial inequality in the US education system: they argue de jure equality of educational institutions, serves as a justification for inaction, as those with the power to enact change turn a blind eye to the persistence of de facto inequality.

Inherent inequality in standardised testing
Standardized testing is favoured for its objective, merit-based way of evaluating students. However, evidence disproves this supposed objectivity: a 2003 study shows how pretest phases with high-scoring students (who are typically white) determine which questions make up the SATs used for university applications. Another paper points to similar issues, with tests focusing not on critical thinking but rather knowing certain conventions (such as knowing ">" means “more than”). As such, the “race-neutral” approach to testing dismisses key differences between races such as distinct social capital and cultural capital, despite repeated demonstrations of their crucial roles in students’ achievement.

Testing systematically segregates learning
Evidence also shows that making these tests central to consequent decision-making, results in segregated learning, exacerbating inequalities in education. Indeed, teaching in schools with low scores – often schools with a majority of black and brown students – is forced to focus more on test preparation at the expense of other parts of the curriculum such as music and art, and enriching ways of teaching are set aside and replaced by methods which place all focus on providing correct answers. Moreover, within ethnically diverse schools, standardised testing is used to separate students into ability classes, resulting in African American students being disproportionately assigned to lower ability groups, where myriad factors contribute to low-quality teaching.

Inequality as a result of the teacher's behaviours?
In Psychology, studies have evaluated the correlation between the behaviour of teachers towards their students and the achievement gap. For instance, psychologists have explored racial discrimination in teachers, who, overall, evaluate black students more harshly than their white peers. They also tend to be less positive about their academic abilities and attribute lower grades when they speak Black English. Moreover, researchers have indicated that teachers often refer non-white students to special-needs testing, whereas their white peers are more frequently assigned to gifted-and-talented testing. Although the results of these studies evidence discrimination based on race, psychologists who explored implicit bias suggested that such attitudes were unconscious.

Implicit bias and stereotypes
Implicit racial associations, one form of implicit bias, refers to all automatic cognitive responses people attach to a certain racial group. They are often measured by the Implicit Association Test, in which subjects are asked to press reaction keys associated with a certain image as quickly as they can. Results showed that 68% of respondents expressed discriminatory views towards black people, which evidenced the tendency of making negative implicit associations with black people. The study infers that since the average American expresses discriminatory implicit assumptions, an average American teacher is therefore likely to have biases which are detrimental to Black students.

Stereotypes, in addition to causing bias, affect students’ behaviour. An experiment found that African Americans scored lower than white students when they thought the test assessed individual capacities, but scored equally when the test was presented as a simple experiment. This implies that when assessed on their individual capacities, African American students are reminded of the negative stereotypes that weigh on their culture and the fear of confirming these stereotypes if they fail gives them additional, penalizing anxiety. Similarly, researchers observed that African-American students had poorer results when asked to record their race on the exam paper, demonstrating that black students' confidence was undermined by pejorative stereotypes.

The racial self-esteem issue has also been assessed in much younger children, which suggests that the stereotype-confidence problem comes from prejudices deeply anchored in society.

Conclusion
When formulating explanations for continued racial inequality in US education, each discipline draws upon distinct forms of evidence resulting in distinct conclusions. Socio-economists, relying heavily on quantitative data, argue social-economic status determines whether a student will be high-achieving; emphasising increased funding and more diverse neighbourhoods as viable solutions. Whilst Sociologists agree socio-economic status plays an important role in achievement, they have acquired further qualitative evidence demonstrating the pertinent role which family background plays in producing the achievement gap. Finally, psychologists argue that internalised biases, both in teachers and students, are central to inequality in education. They then advocate the necessity to educate teachers on implicit bias and its impact on the treatment of students.

While sociology bridges both disciplines, no study integrates all viewpoints. This may be due to confirmation bias – researchers tend to focus on what they are looking for and are often reluctant to validate evidence collected with radically different methods. Typically, socio-economists may not recognise the importance of implicit bias, pointing to the subjectivity of studies relying on qualitative data.

Although each discipline presents competing claims for the best approach to address the issue of racial inequality in the education system, this chapter argues that those differences can work simultaneously to contribute to a positive solution. Evidence from each discipline must be addressed in policy-making, for their individual contributions bring to light the multidimensional nature of the problem, requiring an interdisciplinary approach to be addressed efficiently. Conversely, efforts to reduce the inequalities can only be partial and ultimately unsuccessful.

= References =


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Racial Inequality in the US Education System

Conclusion
I have added the conclusion so that you can edit it at your leisure. Some outstanding things which we need to address: - There are some parts of Iman's work that I have yet to weave into this conclusion, notably her mention of quantitive and qualitative data. - I apologise for the weakness of my writing on psychology, I haven't read any papers on how they would approach the problem of racial inequality, so wasn't quite sure how to argue from their perspective - If all of us could work to reference this conclusion that would be outstanding! Unadorablemensonge (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I like the way you summarized the conclusion. I just modified the part on the solutions proposed by psychologists. I indeed think it would be relevant to talk about the clash between qualitative and quantitative data, will think about it- and also do some research for the references. Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 00:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I added two sentences about the tension between qualitative and quantitative data in (tried to make it very brief). I'm just struggling to write one final sentence that would sensibly bind it all together - if you guys have any ideas, feel free to add or restructure what I drafted Ketteringtownfc27 (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Added an alternative to your sentences. Which one do you prefer? Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey! I have just read through the conclusion and tried to clarify certain statements and carry out few grammar checks. It's come so far from the base conclusion we started with it!

Order of articles
Hi all, as you may have notice I have switched the order of the articles (socio econ now appears first). I thought it made more sense as some of the evidence from socio-economics helps understand aspects of the sociology article such as disparate social and cultural capital. What do you think?
 * Hi, yes I think it's more logical that way, thank you for the initiative! Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I also agree, thanks!! Ketteringtownfc27 (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey! Yeh I fully agree with this. Much more logical :)

Making our page more interactive
Hi guys, I thought that we could add some external links that redirect to other wiki pages to help readers with difficult concepts, do you think some specific words would need that? Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also saw that someone added a pic- which is a great idea, thanks! Do you think we should add more? I have no ideas now, but I'll think about it. Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I'm working on hyperlinking certain words right now. I will also think about other images!

Added section on sociology
Hi! I hope you are well, I've added my section on evidence in sociology, I have yet to add some of my references but thought this way you could already have a look at it for our call later today. I'm a little unsure whether the focus on evidence is strong enough here, I would be delighted to have your feedback, also, do let me know if certain things seem unclear to you! Unadorablemensonge (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, I saw the section! I think you have some strong points but I noticed that you approached Sociology from three different points of view. I think it would be best for you to choose one of those (cause of the limited word count) and focus on the evidence and argument in that. I personally liked the approach that coloured students were placed in lower ability classes and using more evidence to back that up. It shows how social structures are formed which is a big part of Sociology. 14:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! I think your approach is very interesting and I like the fact that it covers different point of views... we'll discuss that tomorrow. I just wondered what "standardized testing" means?  Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! I for one find it really interesting that you approached it from different points of view - it kind of made me think of the problem from a broader perspective. Still, I think it's concise and specific enough. (Ketteringtownfc27 (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

 * Hey guys! Carlotta, I see you've added your second version of the text, which is wonderful. I was just wondering which version I like better - the original seems to have a more expert take on the subject (the way you structured the section), the second version is maybe a bit easier to follow, though.

If we are to follow the Wiki-etiquette, I would assume the second draft would fit better, but personally, I think I'm leaning towards the first draft more. (Ketteringtownfc27 (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

Carlotta, I love the second draft personally. I think it's very structured and easy to understand. I like how you start with discussing inherent inequality in SAT testing and then going on to how this creates segregation in education and gives a very focused and streamlined sociological point of view. Good Job!

Added section on Economics
Hey! I have added my section on Economics and focusing on Socioeconomics. Let me know what you think and check the Whatsapp group chat so we can set a time for our next call! 14:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Your research looks great! Just noticed it lacks sources, but I guess you'll do that later:) Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Added section on Psychology
I added some of my research on Psychology, but I need to work on the sources and there is another part on the role of racial bias and identity I'd like to add, but need to work on. Anyway you can see the point I'm trying to prove in the small beginning of conclusion I'll add. Don't hesitate to say if anything bothers you and needs change! Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I worked a bit on the psychology section, but I think we need to think about how to fuse our research results better, maybe reorganise the section in new subtitles? Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! Yeh some fusion would be great. I quite like the first section in implicit racism and I think that is a really strong way to introduce Psychology's impact on racial inequality in education. I then think talking about the impact of such racism on the education inequality (the next section) is great. My advice would be that the third part on 'Teachers' isn't really necessary. I definitely think the beginning of that section can be fused in when talking about implicit racism and how that is a result of implicit racism followed by the impact on students. The end of the third section about how there is a lack of evidence can be omitted completely. You already have evidence from the IAT testing which proves implicit racism. 14:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advide! Do you think that it could work the other way round (to start with the bias in teachers behaviour shortly- I quite like that as it resonnates with the sociology part- and then exlpain it with implicit bias)? And yes, I see what you mean about evidence for implicit racism; the problem is that IATs' accuracy has been widely contested... maybe that could be useful when discussing the tension between disciplines? Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 23:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! As you guys saw I added my part to the psychology section, I just need to complete the citations. I thought Olivia's point on the teachers' attitude was a nice way to tie it all together, but perhaps we could focus on yet another example of evidence. (Ketteringtownfc27 (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

Hi! I did my best to fuse both our research on psychology in the shortest way possible (thanks Oliwia for starting the shortening process:). I still need to think about the order of the parts (right now it's teachers, implicit bias, students). I've uploaded it on Google Docks so you can read it and I don't have to overload the wiki chapter. Hope ou guys can read it and have some feedback! Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Page setup
Do we need to keep the link at the top of the page? The one that guides you back to the general page of issues in interdisciplinarity?Unadorablemensonge (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes absolutely. They said it was the proof that the chapter is correctly linked to the main thing. Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 17:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you for letting me know!Unadorablemensonge (discuss • contribs) 09:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Activity log
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. Empereurthepug (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Zoom meeting 1/12/20 - Each of us brought up different ideas of how to structure the page and what exactly we thought should be the focus of the page. After discussing it for a while we agreed we shouldn't look only at racial bias (which is quite specific to psychology) but rather at inequality in general. We also agreed to look at a specific area of racial inequality: education. This would narrow down the field of research and enable us to have a more comprehensive and thoughtful wikibooks chapter. Moving away from the vastness of racial inequality in general would indeed enable us to uncover some specific and insightful information. Still, we had doubts about where there would be points of tension, and were not entirely convinced we were going in the right direction. We wrote to our seminar leader, Hélène who was ever so kind to arrange a meeting with us the very next day! Unadorablemensonge (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Zoom meeting 2/12/20 - Hélène was super helpful in aswering the questions we had and guiding us. We felt encouraged and agreed each of us would do research and attempt to define which disciplines seemed most relevant to our issue. Unadorablemensonge (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Zoom meeting 4/12/20 - Today, each of us chose which discipline we would focus on. Oliwia and Olivia are working on evidence in psychology, Iman is looking more at Urban Geography or Economics while I will be researching evidence in Sociology. We agreed to publish draft articles by Monday which we would then discuss together. Unadorablemensonge (discuss • contribs)

Zoom meeting 09/12/20 Today, we had a quick catch up to see where we were all at in terms of our individual disciplines. We all uploaded our discipline/evidence research onto our wikipage and decided that we were going to each comb through each other's work, for grammar, spelling, etc and see where words cut down. In addition, we are each going to read everyones work and identify points of tension and bring these to the next meeting where we will write the tensions and conclusion section together. In addition, Carlotta is going to work on narrowing down her Sociology section to focus on a particular Sociological approach rather than trying to mention many. Hopefully, this will allow a more in-depth discussion of Sociology's approach and provide a better base point for analysis of tensions.

Zoom meeting 10/12/20 Today's meeting we brought up any doubts that we had after reading each other's work. Our objectives for the next meeting are as follows: Olivia and Olivia need to condense and restructure their paragraph on Psychology. Carlotta is going to edit the base conclusion/tension I wrote. Olivia and Olivia are going to do the same. I need to do my citations and am going to read through everything to find where we can cut down the words.

Zoom meeting 12/12/20 Today we had a quick meeting to review the document and focus on the technicalities - referencing, grammar, spelling and structure. We're going to have a final proof-reading tomorrow. We are also going to think about the conclusion and how to discuss the tension between qualitative and quantitative evidence. In the meantime, each of us will try to scan the document and catch any hypothetical errors.

Zoom meeting 13/12/20 Today's our final meeting to confirm nothing is missing from the chapter. We were looking for any technical errors, double-checking grammar and spelling, making sure that references were correct and consistent. We also needed to cut down our word count and clarify phrasing.


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Power in policy-making

Introduction
In 2014, Oxfam came to a shocking conclusion: The 85 richest people in the world owned as much wealth as the poorest half of the entire world population. This report sparked a recurring debate about wealth inequality and how to effectively redistribute wealth. The strongest economy of the world, the U.S.A. do not set a good example for other economies in this regard: data has proven the growth of wealth inequality in the US since the 1970’s and has been further rising in recent years. Redistributive Policies are vital theories and concepts in the economical and political world to reduce inequality and to find a sustainable way of development, with a fair trade-off between growth and equity. One major issue in the design of redistributive policies is the conflicting influence of economists and political scientists on policy-makers. These policies differ in nature, but one constant tool used for reallocating wealth has been taxation. However, the extent to which taxation should be used as a tool for redistributing wealth has caused a divergence in opinions between economists and political scientists. On the one hand economists see taxes as one way of solving problems of market failure ,but remain cautious on the effects on economic growth. On the other hand, political scientists focus on the social aspect of taxes, which should be used to provide financial stability, in order to build an inclusive society. From where stem these diverging opinions on wealth redistribution and why does economical influence appear to have the upper hand in this debate?

The US corporate tax: a focus on growth or on redistribution
Economists argue that a decrease in corporate investments may occur when firms face higher corporate tax-rates. This prevents potential further growth of the labour demand, leading to higher productivity, employment and an increase of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A lower corporate tax thus benefits the US economy by increasing economic competitiveness and capital investment, linked to an expansion of the corporate tax base and living standards across the country. Thus, in order to prevent a reduction of the GDP due to the possibility of offshoring to countries where the corporate tax rate is lower (Cayman Island and Singapore) than in the home country By keeping low corporate taxes, tax neutrality is facilitated, allowing  decisions not to be based on taxes but rather on other economic reasons. An example of how a reduction in corporate taxes is beneficial to the economy is the ’Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 9. The previous 35 percent federal corporate tax did not exploit all the economic opportunities because the new corporate tax of 21 percent is expected to become a more powerful tool in boosting the economy. Thus, the overall wealth of the country would increase, enhancing general welfare along with it.

‘A crude distinction between Economics and Politics would be that Economics is concerned with expanding the pie, while Politics about distributing it’. In the 1970s, growth was prioritized, which led to ‘the growing concentration of income-generating assets in private hands’ and to a reduction of the total revenue of governments. The corporate tax, which is one way for the government to collect revenue, is used to redistribute wealth and correct market failures. However, to which extent political action must be taken to equilibrate economic exchanges has been largely discussed. The moral political concept of distributive justice defined as the “study of the morality of the distribution of economic goods and services”, is a key concept of J.Rawls’ theory. It states that without knowing our initial birth conditions, anyone would choose a fair distribution of wealth. How citizens think about wealth redistribution and equity nowadays is mostly due to their own sociocultural perception of poverty. For example, Americans have a strong belief in the principle of meritocracy; being rich only depends on your willingness whereas Europeans see poverty as an economic scourge where high corporate taxes would rebalance the injustice.

The meritocratic belief of Americans is not always reflected in their public policies. As citizens generally dislike passing laws calling for new taxes, politicians rarely tend to use tax policy as an advantage for their electorate and consequentially, the established tax system mainly designed by lawyers and economists, is never questioned. In comparison to investments in other public services, the effects of taxation on the individual are hard to grasp. This incertitude allows knowledgeable persons of interest to step into the discussion on law implementation and subsequently leads to the creation of more flexible laws for high-income groups. Big corporations are one group that hugely benefit from this. As taxation is a burning topic in our society, elected governments will prefer inaction to please potential future voters rather than explain how raising certain taxes could be beneficial to a large proportion of its electorate.

Conflict of power between economics and political science
The campaigning process in the United States to become senator or representative amounts to a concerning sum spent to endorse candidates. In 2020 the total amount spent on congressional campaigning alone is estimated at more than $7 billion. Thus, candidates do not have sufficient funds for their own campaigns (except if they are extremely wealthy), and rely on donations to support them. By providing substantial funds, donors can give a competitive advantage to a candidate by raising his/her public visibility through ads, campaign events and fundraising for more donors.

This implies that wealthy stakeholders, including big corporations, can lobby their way into policy-making, by sponsoring their prefered candidates with substantial funds. The American campaign system can therefore be compared to a market, where buyers invest in certain candidates, hoping to get returns on their investments through beneficial policy-making. Taking this economical approach to the problem, shows how donors use economic principles to shape tax policies: they use power in form of resource dependency, by solely funding candidates with shared economic beliefs.

As for any other policy issue, the power that political scientists can exert, to convince candidates to propose higher or lower taxes as part of their agenda, is to raise public awareness about the issue. This will build a strong electorate for a candidate advocating for higher or lower taxes. Hence, political science uses the overt dimension of power: power as decision-making. It enhances collective knowledge about the issue to the electorate, which in turn influences the candidates because it elects them.

We mentioned the difficulty of explaining how raising taxes can be beneficial for most voters, which would lead to power as resource dependency dominating over power under the form of knowledge.

Conclusion
We have demonstrated that in the US, the pure aspiration for economic growth does not benefit everyone. The involved lobbying of big corporations in tax policies has led to the debate being centered around economical implications instead of also considering political dimensions. Within a political process, it leads us to be aware of inequalities through awareness-raising-campaigns. Finally, providing more unbiased platforms, where the benefits and limits of taxation are explained, could provide a stage for economists and political scientists to present their views in a more collaborative manner and mitigate their conflict.


text:
User:Zvxz/sandbox

Sport is a powerful global arena (Coakey, 2001). Burstyn (1999) asserts that sports, more than any other secular cultural institution or activity, engages people in a shared experience (Hovden and Pfister,2006,p5). This experience can be seen as a uniting force; a bridge that bonds divisions of society. However, it also possesses the normative power to strengthen the social standards that create the divisions in the first place.

Gender and sex, distinctly, are two of these divisions. Gender is a social construction referring to the behaviours and norms associated with each sex. (FAO, 1997). In contrast, sex is a biological framework 'based in a combination of anatomical, endocrinal and chromosomal features’ (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet,2018:p2). Both are key social organising principles have the ability to create power dynamics and hierarchies through weighted social classifications. Given sport’s cultural and global relevance, it provides a key power base in the socialisation and presentation of gender. As Hall argues, ‘Sport today represents not only a global movement but also a highly institutionalised cultural practise that helps to maintain male hegemony in our societies’ (Hall, 1990 in Hovden and Pfister, 2006:p4). Sport has, historically, been male dominated yet more recently has also been a medium in the movement towards gender equality. Sport thus holds a key position for both fortifying traditional hetero-normative gender identities as well as being a vehicle for social and cultural change (Birell and Theberge, 1994). Disciplines have different stances on, and roles in, the power imbalance in sport.

title: User:Zvxz/sandbox