text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in the definition of Gender

Introduction
Biologists and sociologists define gender in different ways. Whereas biologists argue that gendered behaviour is due to biological traits and physiological features, sociologists believe that it is a social construct. These different views cause tension between the two disciplines.

A case study that illustrates this tension is that of Christie Lee Cavazos : when filing a medical malpractice suit on a doctor who allegedly misdiagnosed her husband in 1996, she experienced the impact of these different views. She had undergone a sex change operation in the 1970s and had legal documents and the testimony of medical experts stating that she was both physically and psychologically female. Despite this, under the premise that Cavazos would always have male chromosomes, Chief Justice Hardberger ruled that she was unable to file the suit as his spouse, suggesting that the marriage was illegitimate. This shows that socially she could be female, but still be considered biologically male, causing a strain on her rights as a woman; evidently, there is a dichotomy between truth in biology and sociology.

This chapter will further explore this tension through observing the views of the opposing sides and their respective critiques. This kind of analysis is important as gender has such a huge impact on the lives of individuals, as exemplified through Christie Lee Cavazos’ story.

Gender defined by Biology
Within the discipline of biology, gender is considered binary, as it is assumed to follow after one's biological sex. According to Oxford Dictionary, sex is defined as, “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.” The physiological distinctions between men and women include differences in chromosomes, sexual organs and hormones. Both sexes have twenty-three pairs of chromosomes; however, women only have X chromosomes, whilst men have both X and Y. The presence or absence of the Y chromosome enables biologists to determine the sex of an individual. In the first stages of embryonic development, male and female embryos are almost morphologically identical, however, eventually, due to the expression of the sex-determining gene, on the Y chromosome, the testes begin to develop. In females, the absence of this gene, in collaboration with the presence of other genes, leads to the development of the ovary. The gonads which develop – the ovary and testes – are essential for the development of secondary sexual characteristics in the sexes, as they secrete sex-specific hormones. These include oestrogen, progesterone and testosterone. Males and females produce all three of these hormones, but in different concentrations within the blood: females have higher levels of oestrogen and progesterone, whilst males have higher levels of testosterone.

In some capacity, the recognition of specific sex-related differences could be highly advantageous, as it would improve the quality of gender-specific medicine. Before the 1800s, men were considered the blueprint of humankind, and women's health was therefore grossly misunderstood.

In essence, within biology, the definition of gender is limited to the physiological, with the truth of one's gender being determined by the sexual organs which they possess.

Despite the undeniable biological truths which separate males from females, scientific data which seeks to prove gender as biological is often flawed. Scientists have often interpreted results to studies with bias, or have chosen to only answer certain questions which serve the biological sex narrative they had assumed true. The study of neurological differences between the sexes also poses a problem as in fact our brains develop according to our use of it, which since the earliest stages of life is culturally determined.

Gender defined by Sociology
According to the Oxford Dictionary, gender refers to the “state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones”. This source of information is recognised as being reliable and it removes the biological discipline from the definition of gender. This would mean that someone’s gender could differ from their birth sex, which is an idea also accepted by official bodies such as the Office for National Statistics .However, in most cultures, we assume that people follow a particular behaviour according to their sex. The French sociologist Anne Dafflon Novelle, in Filles-garçons: socialisation différenciée? (Girls-Boys: differentiated socialisation? ), argues that society pushes individuals to act in a stereotyped gendered way. She explains that places of socialisation such as schools or families unconsciously orientate children to different roles and behaviours, depending on their birth sex.

Social scientists argue that gender is socially constructed, exemplified by Judith Butler's notion of ‘performative gender’, or the one of "doing gender" by West and Zimmerman (1987). These concepts refer to gender as repeated actions and behaviour rather than something which we irrevocably are. The famous quote of the French sociologist and philosopher Simone de Beauvoir, “One is not born but rather become a woman” in her book The Second Sex (1949), illustrates her point of view that one’s gender is defined over time through a process of socialisation which begins at birth. She implies that we perform and embody our gender by respecting and internalizing the stereotyped social roles and norms expected from our sex by society.

This shows that from a sociological perspective, the truth of the definition of the term 'gender' is that it is a socially constructed set of actions that are not necessarily tied to one's biological sex, as biology would assume.

However, David Reimer's case can be used to criticise the sociological view. Reimer was born as a biological male, and due to an incident at birth, his parents raised him as a female following the advice of a psychologist. Reimer underwent sexual reassignment surgery, also taking female hormones as he developed through puberty. He found himself depressed and uncomfortable as a woman and, ignorant of his birth sex, felt as if he should be male, making this transition as a teenager. This suggests that the socialisation of Reimer into the female gender was irrelevant and that it was his biological sex which defined his gender, meaning that it is not entirely a social construct.

Conclusion
Truth in the definition of gender is not absolute; it varies according to disciplines. Biologists and social scientists, respectively, assume that gender can be defined through biological features and social ones. Their definitions differ because they don’t exercise in the same field, and are not confronted by the same data and evidence. Therefore, the truth of gender's definition is subjective.

Scholars such as Wendy Wood and Alice H. Eagly have worked on a theory that joins these approaches on gender together: the ‘biosocial theory’. This psychological perspective claims that the division of labour is the cause of the emergence of gendered behaviour and differences in the sexes. This division of labour would be due to the socialisation of children that internalise a specific and expected behaviour depending on their sex, but also because of hormones and biological traits that differ slightly, such as size or role in reproduction.

Unfolding the truth about the definition of gender can benefit from an interdisciplinary approach, as different disciplines provide subjective truths which can complement and verify each other, making the final outcome more nuanced.


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Tariffs

This is the Wikibooks Chapter for ATK 2020. Evidence in Tariffs (with particular focus upon those implemented by the US from 2016 to 2020 in response to China's economic growth), analysed through the lenses of political science and economics.

Introduction
Tariffs are taxes on imports of goods or services, acting as trade barriers and regulating international trade. Tariffs were implemented by Trump in 2016 to shield America from cheap foreign imports. This was one of Trump's most important promises in the 2016 general election and led to him winning a substantial number of votes in 2 key swing states, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

In March 2018, Trump imposed tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports into the US to safeguard steel workers and those working in the aluminium industry by making American-made steel cheaper than foreign-made steel. As a consequence, US producers could raise their prices revitalizing the American manufacturing sector. The vast majority of economists are against Trump's tariffs on China but some political scientists may justify their use.

The use of economic tariffs by Trump in America to achieve political goals highlights tensions between the disciplines of economics and political science when it comes to using evidence to justify one's viewpoint. The use of evidence between the two disciplines differs in terms of the different methodologies used to collect evidence, the type of evidence (qualitative or quantitative) and the specific focus of the discipline (economic growth or national security). These differences lead to each discipline disagreeing on the value of tariff implementation.

Economics
The impact of tariffs can be determined using the tariff diagram as evidence. Imposing tariffs protects the domestic supply as the diagram depicts a reasonable surplus for domestic producers. However, the consumer surplus is smaller than if there was free trade, contrasting the positive view of tariffs held in political science. This has relevance to the US trade with China as over $550 billion worth of products from China had new tariffs imposed, becoming an interdisciplinary issue due to the widespread impact this has.

From a political view, tariffs can be beneficial by meeting government aims for the prosperity of domestic trade. Economists would be against this, citing economic liberalism through free trade as the best way to ensure a nation's prosperity. When Bush implemented similar tariffs, he was condemned by the EU and the WTO, as these economic organisations argued these policies did not conform to the international rules of free trade. The views of economic organisations such as the EU and WTO confirms how most economists approach the issue of tariffs.

There was a negative effect on consumers as it was estimated that there were 300,000 jobs losses and a decrease in real GDP by 0.3% supporting the negative view of tariffs. However, this is contrasted by the predicted increase in income by 1.2% and exports by 5% in 2021 suggesting that economic evidence is not sufficient alone to analyse the effects of these tariffs, especially as economic diagrams are based upon numerous assumptions relying on humans being rational, disputed by the emergence of behavioral economics.

Overall, most economists would use quantitative evidence to justify the claim that Trump's implementation of tariffs will result in economic harm to the US. The main forms of evidence used by economists involve positivist methods which focuses on the description and quantification of economic phenomena. In this example, the negative consequences of tariffs are described using a tariff diagram and quantified with the loss in economic growth.

Political Science
Stephanie Rickard, a professor of Political Science in the LSE Department of Government, argues that Trump's metal tariffs were motivated by politics not economics.

Whilst economists and political scientists both may use analytical tools, political scientists are more likely to use descriptive tools. For example, they might quote Machiavelli who emphasized the honor of the state and argue that trade protectionism is a form of achieving this. This form of trade protection can be a useful way to win over voters in plurality electoral systems. Quoting prominent political theorists like Machiavelli is a form of testimonial evidence in which expert opinions support a given argument.

Furthermore, realist political thinkers believe that cooperation between countries is too idealist and so would be in favor of imposing tariffs to protect the interests of the nation state, in this case, the US. They use evidence such as China's influence over the World Health Organisation (WHO) during the corona virus pandemic as an example of how cooperation between states via organisation rarely works. This is a form of analogical evidence as it involves comparing the issue of tariffs to the WHO. Critics point out that this form of evidence is weak because it assumes the two cases are comparable. However, it is often the case in political science that analogical evidence is the only way of substantiating a specific claim.

Trump used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a law regarding national security, to justify this form of economic protectionism. Defensive structural realists, a type of political scientist, believe that the state should be protected and would be in favor of these tariffs as they reduce interdependence with competitors and focus on state security. This shows how some political scientists value the sociopolitical security from the tariffs regardless of the economic consequences.

Overall, some political scientists would use evidence to demonstrate their support Trump's tariffs against China, specifically qualitative evidence collected via normative methods, in which political decisions are judged to be either desirable or undesirable as well as analogical and testimonial evidence.

Conclusion
Economics and political science disagree in terms of the desired outcome: economic efficiency and profit compared to meeting political goals. The main tensions between the disciplines include economics tending to favor positivist methods that seek to explain the world whereas political scientist generally favor normative methods which seek to make judgement upon and improve the world. The differences in methodology result in different conclusions for whether or not tariffs should be implemented. Additionally, conflicts exist between the two disciplines because they value different things. Whilst economists focus on describing the welfare of the US, political scientists may focus on the security of the US more leading to opposing conclusions of tariff implementation. Therefore, different areas of concern for each discipline results in different forms of evidence and ultimately different conclusions. Tensions exist between political science and economies due to the disciplines clashing when determining who should benefit. Analysing this economic trade war has shown how this dispute can not be easily solved as fundamentally, within both disciplines, what constitutes evidence is affected by both quantitative and qualitative factors shown by the need for economic and political theories. Overall, evidence suggests that these tariffs resulted in a beneficial outcome as they fulfilled Trump's political agenda despite negative consequences for consumers.

Overall, it is clear that an interdisciplinary approach is needed to evaluate evidence from different disciplines to solve world problems.

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


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Death penalty

Evidence

Death penalty? Case study in the US? Forensic evidence? Psychological tests?


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

Proposed Conclusion
Hi all! This is a draft conclusion Gingerisadog3025 and Gonkponk made, do feedback:

The Foucaultian power dynamics delineates the reluctance of co-operation between the scientific and non-scientific disciplines causing the (aforementioned) tensions to arise in the production of sex education (knowledge). What is considered “culturally relevant”, is decided by the government and may not be inclusive to unbiased or scientifically accurate information. Therefore, constructive/(productive) communication between disciplines is integral in effectively producing sex education knowledge. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! I really like your conclusion, but what about sticking to the idea of indirect/direct coercion and comparing Anthropology/science and communication/religion? I guess we have enough words to add this one. --Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 12:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! I think what you wrote is pretty good, but I would also maybe elaborate on how these disciplines can get undermined by each other and it depends on the policymakers, educators and communication professionals to decide what kind of curriculum (if any) dominates. So policymakers and the institution of the governement (or even religious leaders) often exercise indirect coersion over health professionals and thus hinder their work.
 * Also, since this sentence "What is considered to be "culturally relevant"..." is not preceded by the definition, I'm not sure if it's clear that we're refering to that. --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Okay! I think if Piscesmoodphase's edit (not sure if you're re-editing it) is done and we have enough words, we can discuss indirect/direct coercion more in depth. Right now it's implied vaguely with the "reluctance of co-operation between the... non-scientific disciplines". To Avotoast's suggestion, I agree, I think we can also afford some elaboration on how disciplines undermine each other, how policy exercise their power, then subsequently discuss communcation studies as a resolution. As for the "culturally relevant" point, Gingerisadog3025 used quotation marks so that it'll refer to the definition we mentioned above. But if it's still unclear, perhaps we could explicitly state this, but it might cost us some words. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 07:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 * So reading through the entire wikibook, it seems to me that the power dynamics between the discplines create almost like a chain of undermining each other (deriving from the different types of knowledge they prefer -- althrough this idea might take it into a truth/evidence direction). So anthropology is undermined by medical science, which is either undermines or is undermined by religious studies and then lastly, at the top of the chain is public policy, which is the ultimate decision maker. --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 11:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi Avotoast, I propose this:
 * 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. The power dynamics between these disciplines create a hierarchy where anthropologists’ work are undermined by medical scientists in the form of linguistic sexism, while medical scientists are undermined by policymakers and religious studies specialists in the form of ignorance. What is considered “culturally relevant”, is decided by the government and may not be inclusive to unbiased or scientifically accurate information. Therefore, constructive communication between disciplines is integral in effectively producing sex education knowledge. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi Gonkponk,

I would switch the second and the third sentences and condense it slightly: 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 are undermined by medical scientists through linguistic sexism, while medical scientists are undermined by policymakers and religious studies specialists in the form of ignorance. Constructive communication between disciplines would be integral in effectively producing sex education knowledge.--Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Tensions between Sex Education and Religion
Hi all! Just wanted to open a designated section for suggestions.

"Most of the Christian communities oppose the idea of sex education in public school since it conflicts with their religious values and beliefs, that is why in many states like Mississippi, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and others [24] are against sex education and stand for abstinence-only schools."

For this statement in the Tensions between Sex Education and Religion section, technically abstinence-only education is a form of sex education itself right? I was just confused and maybe "against comprehensive sex education and stand for abstinence-only schools" might be more fitting. Might be wrong though because I'm not entirely sure. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 03:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey! That's a good point, I agree with you on this one, thank you! --Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I really enjoyed your entry about sex education and religion but I do have some comments and suggestions regarding the content and structure of your entry.
 * While your title was seamlessly conveyed in your argument, I believe that a title that details the ‘’disciplines’ tensions’’ rather than the tension between the case study and ‘religion’ as a social entity would match the aims for the wikibooks chapter better. Perhaps “Tensions between Religious Studies and Education” would be a better title?
 * You could convert your text from “When it comes to the relationship between education and religion the term secularism takes place in most cases.[20] «Secularism — separation of religious institutions from state institutions and a public sphere where religion may participate, but not dominate». [21]” to “Secularism, which is defined as the separation of religious and state institutions…, holds a significant presence within the relationship between education and religion”. I believe that this would condense the two sentences into a single concise idea. Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 00:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, Thank you for your suggestions, I've edited that part and it does seem clearer now --Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

14th December Update
Hi! I think it's a lot better and clearer than it was before, you refocused it well on the tensions between religious studies and policy makers rather than education. If you don't minds some suggestions, maybe after the sentence "On the example of the USA, Christianity still holds the authority as the largest single religious denomination in the country [21] and therefore has a major impact on the curriculum of sex education (SE)" I would include a sentence explaining that this is a form a indirect coercion that is beyond the policy makers/educators' control, something they just have to accept that influences their work. I know you mention it towards the end, but I think it would be good to bring up early on. Also, the sentence that ends with "which makes an infant more likely to sexually explore."I would change the word infant refers to a baby younger than 1 year old. Maybe use children or adolescents? --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I've also just read it and thinks it brings more clarity than the previous entry. I've made some minor grammar edits (plurality and punctuation, etc), but I have some further ideas: This was so long I'm so sorry but TLDR: Shortening the title + alter contribution to tackle more on the academic scale: what religious studies research look like in order to convey/appeal to the government which in turn affects the landscape of policymaking - power as strategy/indirect coercion(?) ! Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think as for the title, we've discussed somewhere down there that including "Tensions between..." will be redundant since it's already in the main section's title. Also, maybe public policy (which is responsible for what education is like at schools) would be better than sex ed, so I propose "Religious studies and public policy"
 * Your contribution explains really well the influence of religion on sex education curicculums, but like Avotoast said it would explain why Christianity, as the predominant religion in the country, can use indirectly coercive power. It would be even better if we could go on the academic level, ie would public policymakers prefer research/advice produced by religious studies researchers (power comes into play here)? Do religious studies researchers intentionally leave out certain information in pursuit of silencing other disciplines? I like the point about the inclusions of certain words to convey their goals, like "purity", "virginity", "chastity" - using certain language to convey the appeal of AOE in research to policymakers/government may be a strategic power. I know it's tricky, but I feel like this direction engages with the task more.
 * As I made the case for public policymakers that are potentially ideology motivated, I also mentioned that it could be due to pressure from government objectives. Perhaps you could draw a link by saying religious studies academics are influential in government objectives (depending on the administration?) and are able to use power as indirect coercion (the suggestions I mentioned on top?) to determine the landsape of policymaking?

 * Hey, Thank both of you for your suggestions, as Gonkponk mentioned, I wanted to include information about religious leaders insisting on including abstinence into the curriculum of sex education, so I think that will be nice to write about it! Also as Avotoast said I should probably concentrate on the idea that it's the religious representatives who have a power over public policies and that it why abstinence is so promoted among public school.--Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome, looking forward to the next edits~ Also on a referencing note: could you include the cited date for reference 19? We also used the same reference somewhere so I'll merge that!:) I also left out the idea of merging our sections, but thinking about it I'm not sure how that'll work out. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Others
Was just reading some of last year's good entries, and if the word limit permits us to do so, I think it would be nice if we could have a section, either under introduction or our own entries about, how each discussed discipline approaches sex education, and their contribution to this issue. Sort of like laying the groundwork/setting the context in understanding the subsequent power tensions discussed.

Though to some extent we've already done this in our own sections, maybe there is value in clearly stating the monodisciplinary perspectives before we dive into the interdisciplinary tension. What do you guys think? Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 03:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi, while looking through the drafts in our wikibooks chapter, I came to realise that a lot of the tensions between the disciplines involve science and i'm concerned that the grade marker might think that this is too broad to be considered as an actual discipline. Linking on to Gonkponk's idea, should we use the section to justify why we consider 'science' as its own discipline in the case of our example or just look for a specific scientific discipline that matches each of our entries in this wikibooks chapter? Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 00:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Honestly I had the same concern too. For my section (Science, Public Policy, Education), I used a couple of terms here and there to indicate specialists within scientific disciplines... but there's actually many different kinds of scientists contribute to sex ed research, like reproductive health scientists, clinical scientists, social/behavioral scientists etc. It is definitely broad if we just state "scientist" alone. So either we add a section to justify the usage of "science/scientist" for the rest of our chapter to encompass the specialists within the science discipline in a separate section, or just go with one specific scientific discipline (like reproductive health scientists) for the whole chapter. Not sure if your upcoming entry will discuss any specific science discipline though, so we'll have to see! Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm in a similar position with you with regards to the tensions that arise from my issue. My entry just deals with the problems of 'scientific' literature rather than a specific discipline though I could replace this with education or biology in order to minimise the number of disciplines involved in our wikibooks chapter because using too much disciplines may suggest that we're being superficial and shallow. A larger issue I have with my paragraph is that some of the evidence involved encapsulates the issue to be widespread in the 'scientific' discipline rather than a specific discipline. Maybe, to somewhat specify the 'science' discipline in our Wikibooks, perhaps we should replace it with biological sciences because I feel that this discipline is the most well suited in the production of scientific knowledge for sex education. Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick suggestion, should we lose the ‘tensions in power title’ because its format doesn’t seem to match with the tone of our wikibooks chapter Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we should - we could just dive right in or find an alternate title. I guess it's not so much tensions in power but tensions within disciplines as caused by power? Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we alter the title instead then? To something along the lines of 'effect of power on interdisciplinary tensions in sex education'? I feel like we could refine this a little bit more. Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the title of our Wikibook chapter is already Power in Sex Education, maybe we can just have it be 'Interdisciplinary tensions in sex education". Then, we can omit any mention of tension in the titles of our own sections because I reckon it'll be clear from the first title. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would reduce the redundancy of our titles, I've already shortened mine, thank you! Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the heading formats for our chapter so there'll be 3 main sections - interdisciplinary tensions, conclusion, references. If we're tight on words, I think we can lose the "tensions between/of" in our respective titles. Also, a piece of feedback I got for the sandbox was to explore using hyperlinks, so I'm thinking we can add some hyperlinks to our contributions too. What do you guys think? Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I think having the 3 main sections is a good idea and then we can as you said shorten the subtitels of the disciplines because unfortunately the titles count into the word count too. Also linking back to out discussion earlier about science being too broad, I think 'biomedical science' would be an even better subdsicipline than biological science as it is the field that applies natural science to healthcare. Also, we could create a hyperlink to the 'biomedical science' wikipedia page. That would probably be the most word-count-friendly way of explaining what we mean by it. Let me know what you think! --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 08:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I've had the same concern about which term to use as well. Isn't it currently medical sciences now though? I think medical sciences is pretty good - I fear that biomedical science narrows it down too much and wouldn't consider other aspects of medical science that contribute to sex ed? (Dunno if this makes sense). Agree on the hyperlink thing, especially if it has a wiki page! Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 09:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Changed section on media to communication
My rewritten section is up now! I feel a lot more certain about it this time, and more confident that it addresses the power dynamics between the disciplines rather than the power of media in the wider society. I think it kind of ties everything together nicely, while exploring some limitations. I don't know title it though, do you think "Communication studies, the bridge between Science and Public Policy" makes sense? Let me know if you have any further suggestions --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! Just read your section and it does a great job at presenting communcation studies as an effective medium for sex education knowledge. I've made some referencing format edits too. Maybe it's just me though, because I wasn't clear about the power dynamics in the entry? I suppose the sentence about skepticism from health professionals does gesture towards it, but I think you could afford to lose some descriptions at the beginning about communication studies to discuss the power dynamics.
 * Furthermore, I think your contribution would be great as a potential solution rather than a tension, because the way it is written reads like a solution. Maybe you could reshuffle it so that it addresses how communcatinon studies can use power as a strategy as it is a preferred source of info (it has a platform) --> issue: subsequent skepticism by medical scientists regarding the accuracy of knowledge that's communicated --> tension: mention that there is a disciplinal divide due to an inability to cooperate with different epistemologies between science & communication studies --> suggested solution: overcome this disciplinal divide by cooperation. Hopefully this made sense, let me know if I can help with anything! Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I totally see what you mean. What do you guys think? Should I reformulate the communication section so it highlights the tensions (because even if I do, the tensions are mostly between other disciplines, although if I elaborate more on the example of traditional methods of sex education aka classroom based vs for example incorporating media that tension might become clearer) or should be have it not under the tensions tab but as a possible resolution before the conclusion? Because right now even its title "brige between" suggests that it's more of a resolution than a tension... --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I see that this is already resolved as the section is now under a separate resolution section. I think it's great, where it's at! I removed the "a" from your title to save words, and reshuffled your section so that it's before the conclusion and after the tensions. Let me know if you'd like to revert it back though. That being said, I propose we remove "communication studies" from the introduction because it's not a discipline that we're discussing as a tension. Instead, we can highlight it in the conclusion. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 06:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Added new section "Abstinence-only education: Education, Science, and Public Policy
Hi everyone, I've just added my contribution. It's actually shortened quite a bit, as I fear that we'll exceed the word limit. Do give me any feedback if you can think of any. There were some aspects I wished to elaborate further but I foresee that it may be done in other sections.

On that same note, the Religion vs. Education section could overlap with mine, and since it would concern abstinence-only education, perhaps we could merge the sections together for better flow? I'll wait for the contributions to be up to see. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 10:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey, just saw your part about abstinence-only education, I had some ideas about it in terms of Education vs Religion as well, but then decided not to put them down since you have it already. But we can find a way to emerge it somehow and maybe even connect Education vs religion to science and public policies. --Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * I just read it and I think it's really good! You make a good case for your argument through the example of the abstinence-only education programme. It would definitely tie in well with religion and maybe even media (as it is the exact opposite of the 'sex-positive' education media promotes) but we'll work on the flow once everything is added. --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey, just a little upgrade about the abstinence-only issue. I've added a draft of my section, but I didn't add my part about abstinence-only schools, since I don't want to overlap and repeat the same things you've said in your own section. Or do you think it would be better if I add my part and then we can just erase the repetitive sentences and see how we can emerge it with science and public policy?--Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi! Like Avotoast said, I think religion would tie in well with this section so we could definitely merge our ideas. I think for now you can add in your part about abstinence-only schools because I trust that you'll write it according to your chosen context. We can then erase the repetitive sentences and see how it intersects. I've also read your section and made some minor grammar edits. Currently, it doesn't discuss much about how power dynamics in academic disciplines can affect sex ed, and perhaps it'll be good to explain religion as a discipline (because it isn't entirely conventional to view it that way). I'll wait for the rest of your part to be added first so we can figure out how to work the 2 together. It's a tricky topic though, good job! Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi, I was waiting for your opinion of AO schools to continue my part, but it IS a tricky topic, so I'm trying to figure out how to show the power dynamics and not go over the word limit. --Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Currently I don't think I'm expanding further on my part because it's already 330+ words, so please feel free to include your part on it. Make sure the power dynamics discussed connect back to how it influences disciplines and their creation of knowledge in sex education :) Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Added intro and media sections
hey guys I added a short introduction and a longer analysis of the role and power dynamics of media in relation to sexual education. I struggled with it, so let me know if you think I managed to focus on the tensions in power... Also, please let me have any suggestion on what to cross out (it's 476 words right now, which we don't really have the space for. And for the intro, do you think we should elaborate a bit more or just keep it short and sweet? And lastly, there are multiple sources I used twice, but I don't know how the ibid function works here on wikibook, so if someone could help me with that that would be great. Feel free to make changes! --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just read it, thought it was really good! The notion that there is tension and a power imbalance between those operating within media and (sex) educators is quite clear, as per viewed by teenagers. I do agree that we might not have space for 476 words, but I'd say we'll just write our sections first. I feel that there will actually be quite a bit of overlap in the content we write, so we'll only sort that after and improve everything! I think the intro is also good at where it's at right now, we can come back to it later. I've also helped to compound your multiple refrences as one reference using the refname function, hopefully I did it right so do check! Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 07:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Read through the introduction again - it does spend quite some time elaborating on how the government/leaders can influence culture in society and thus sex education. Perhaps we can either shorten or omit this part as this could fit better in the conclusion, and prevent us from deviating from power as an interdisciplinary issue (rather than in society). Really like how the definition is used to point out potential tensions, though! Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gonkponk that the sentence might deviate too far from what we're aiming to delineate and should be condensed into a single idea. Moreover, just to relieve some space in our restrictive word count and to make our chapter more organised, instead of putting the introduction as a separate section, could we just move it to the top of our chapter? Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I second the idea of just moving the intro paragraph to the top of the chapter. We don't necessarily need the "Introduction" title, unless we have designated sections setting the groundwork of our chapter? Even then I'm unsure if it's needed. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

11th December update
I have already moved the article to the top of the page and i'm now in the process of altering the introduction. If it's alright with everyone, what I'll attempt to do is to merge the ideas from the initial introduction and the thesis I wrote in the "Post-George Cooper meeting" and condense the text into a more concise form. If anyone has any additional suggestions to the introduction, just let me know through a reply! Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to condense the introduction a bit, please do tell me if you have issues with it because I feel like it could still be improved upon
 * 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."[1] This definition itself already identifies a couple of key academic stakeholders and hints to a possible conflict of interests and consequently tensions between researchers of different disciplines. Through the exploration of Foucaltian power dynamics, this wikibooks chapter will examine the tensions and issues that arise in the effective implementation of sexual education between the disciplines of anthropology, medical sciences, public policy, and media/communication studies.
 * I initially wanted to fuse the thesis in the Post-George Cooper meeting section and existing introduction but I found that the introduction was already very good on its own. However I did omit some sentences from the initial introduction such as
 * ”In most societies, what is culturally relevant, is decided by the government, and/or influential religious leaders. And what is culturally relevant, may not necessarily be inclusive (non-judgemental) or scientifically accurate”
 * This was because I believed that the sentence prior to the one mentioned above conveyed a similar message and due to our constraining word count, I felt like this could be omitted. Instead, I feel like this would be an effective message in the conclusion as it links our introduction that introduces UNESCO into our concluding points and also signals to the grade marker that we have effectively utilised the definition included in our introduction.
 * Moreover, to address the possible reasons for the inclusion and exclusion of certain disciplines (religious and education studies), I omitted the two because I believed that the tensions that arise in relation to these disciplines are from the interactions with its ‘social’ versions. Ie. as I mentioned in the “Post-George Cooper” meeting section, Gonkponk’s last paragraph, which ties into the tensions that arise from education specialists and scientists, seems to deviate towards the influence of power on a social level as it deals with the power that ‘educators’ hold in omitting scientific knowledge/literature rather than tensions between academic ‘researchers’. Similarly, I believe that rather than “religious studies”, as explored in Piscesmoodphase’s entry, I feel like the interaction of power dynamics occurs between public policy and ‘religious leaders’ rather than ‘religious studies researchers’ and hence only portrays the tensions that arise on a social level. However, since we’re still altering our sections, i’m pretty sure this will be subjected to change but these are my comments at the moment. I feel like we should include a maximum of four disciplines - better three if we could because if we say that we’re exploring five+ disciplines, i’m scared the grade marker might think that our research is just scraping the top of the issue. Do tell me if you have any concerns regarding my edits above!

Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 23:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I've read through the intro and made a very minor edit, haha. Just condensing more words. Anyways, I think it's good where it's at, and I agree that the proposed thesis + omitted sections will fit well in the conclusion instead. For the in/exclusion of certain disciplines, I think it's sensible. We should be focusing on the academic discipline's work/research rather than its' 'social' versions. That being said, perhaps Piscesmoodphase might want to mention "religious studies researcher" in her work - should we include this in the intro too? Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, I'll post this draft (and the inclusion of the religious studies edits) once I get the approval of the other members in our upcoming meeting then! Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just realised I forgot to put up my edits of the intro because I thought it was already in the main chapter! I'll do it here, here it is~ (there's just minor grammar edit and word condensations)

 * 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."[1] 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 Foucaultian power dynamics, this Wikibooks chapter will examine the tensions and issues that arise in the effective implementation of sexual education between the disciplines of anthropology, medical sciences, public policy, and media/communication studies. Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 09:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey guys, just wanted to say, that I've added my new version of "Tensions between Sex Education and Religious Studies" section and I had to use other resources than in the previous version, so now any issues concerning referencing, that Gonkpong mentiones above are gone! Also, I've added "Religious studies" in the last sentence of introduction "Through the exploration of Foucaultian power dynamics, this Wikibooks chapter will examine the tensions and issues that arise in the effective implementation of sexual education between the disciplines of anthropology, medical sciences, public policy, religous studies and media/communication studies"--Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Added new section Anthropology and Biological Sciences
I just added my fully cited entry on linguistic sexism in science and re-edited my past entry to condense some ideas and omit other sentences that I viewed as redundant. If anyone has any additional advice in improving my entry/any issues and edits to it, just write it down below and I will attend to them as soon as possible!
 * One concern I have regarding my entry is the lack of evidence/sources present so I was wondering if I could get some advice on whether this text "This deeply embedded power dynamic could also suggest the reasons for a more divisively gendered environment within the scientific field and particularly the inequality present in academic publishing which is more inherent in STEM disciplines in contrast to disciplines within the social sciences (https://www.pnas.org/content/117/9/4609)" would be relevant enough to add to my entry? Because I feel like while I have already analysed the problems that occur, I haven't really explored its effects in the scientific field if that makes sense.

Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, not sure if this is late or not because I can't find the sentence you're referring to in the latest draft. Anyhow, I do think if it was a conclusion (to your section or the whole chapter as a whole), it would be quite good. I think it kind of signals another tension arising from the problem you're discussing, beyond the realms of sex education perhaps, that's thought-provoking. Currently your contribution is great and I still really wish we could give you more words to talk about the realization of this strategic use of power in the real world! Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Heyy, I have included a different text instead because I believed it seemed more related to the idea I wanted to explore upon and also suggested another tension occurring within the discipline as you suggested, thank you! Also I've re-edited my entry to shorten its word count to ~290 words, hopefully, most of the ideas conveyed will remain intact. I'm just frustrated that the word count for this entry is so tiny because there is so much to talk about in this topic and it's quite hard to condense that sheer number of ideas into a 1200 essay without intentionally sacrificing some ideas! Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Turnitin Report?
I was just wondering, if everyone has finished their entries and pasted it to the chapter and we still had some spare time, should we create a word document of our wikibooks chapter and submit it to turnitin first? Just in case there are some sudden issues of plagiarism in our text. Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 00:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes! I do think we'll have time, especially since we're doing editing on Saturday we'll at least have a few hours before submission to do final checks haha. There's a Moodle course (forgot what it's called) that we can use to submit things through Turnitin to check the scores, is that what you're referring to? Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How do we make the word document from the chapter? Just copy the text and put it in word, but what's about references? I just haven't used Turnitin before. --Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe for this assignment, downloading the chapter as a PDF and uploading that file itself onto Turnitin is sufficient - the PDF will include all the referencing and content.Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Gonkponk, yes, i'm referring to that module. Just to let everyone know if they're confused about how to submit their work into Turnitin, you will have to enrol into the course "Plagiarism and Academic Writing for Students 20/21" and doesn't need a password to enrol into the course, just click the button. When enrolled, go the section that says 'Check your work with Turnitin' --> Submit your work to Turnitin to get a similarity report --> press 'Submit Paper' --> upload the file. It may take a few minutes for the site to produce a similarity report. But yeah, just in case anyone was as clueless as I was when I got introduced to this module, just look through the instructions above! Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Research Notes for Reproductive Health vs. Educators
Texts viewed so far: Medical Accuracy in Sexuality Education: Ideology and the Scientific Process: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636467/

The effectiveness of school-based education programs in the promotion of abstinent behaviour: https://academic.oup.com/her/article/17/4/471/590928

Notes: “school is the only institution in regular contact with a sizable proportion of the teenage population (Zabin and Hirsch, 1988), with virtually all youth attending it before they initiate sexual risk-taking behavior (Kirby and Coyle, 1997).”
 * Aim: Discuss how despite there is a lot of research in reproductive health and which pieces of info about sexual health must be propagated, it conflicts with educators. Essentially, what scientists of reproductive health/reproductive health experts/medicine say versus what those who educate propagate. Are the things they teach in class accurate?
 * Define education as a discipline?
 * The power that lies with educators/those operating in the discipline of education is that schools have the ability to influence the ideologies of teenagers who are still in the process of seeking their knowledge of the world, as school is an institution in which they regularly attend.
 * Further power implications: education is highly trusted and influential in terms of propagating knowledge, due to its’ history, reliability (perhaps in other branches of knowledge), and success - Gaining favour in terms of the government and public.
 * Surprisingly, medical/reproductive health experts/scientists do not have the same power in sex education: inaccurate information in sex education programmes, recommendations for curriculum that are in line with sexual health are not implemented due to power imbalance (how religion and culture affect the power held by scientists?)
 * Tension between the 2 disciplines is clear in practice and programmes today

Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Research Notes
New topic: Medical sciences - gender studies/linguistics/anthropology = linguistic sexism in science Some related articles Differing epistemology in nature of ‘science’ - esp in the creation of sex education knowledge in scientific literature means that gender biases more easily disregarded in comparison to other disciplines ie. anthropology, by applying concepts of a different discipline to another, interdisciplinarity, we are able to acknowledge this problem and find ways of overcoming it.
 * Thinking about how power is applied between these two disciplines, anthropology and medical sciences (these disciplines can be subjected to change)?
 * Emily Martin was an anthropologist who dealt with the ‘analysis of science’ through the lens of a feminist viewpoint, exposes the gendered dynamic through use of language
 * Argues that language within scientific research is biased towards men, ie. descriptions of mensuration evokes negative connotations while ejaculation is viewed as almost a descriptive text that views the body process with enthusiasm
 * Other examples that describe fertilisation process with the egg as the ‘damsel in distress’ or a dangerous landscape that the ‘heroic’ sperm has to persevere through
 * By applying a disciplinary method into another/different discipline, we are able to expose these social issues initially embedded within the discipline - esp with the general trope of science being unbiased and objective??? (will expand on this topic)
 * “ Martin poses the idea of using gender neutral analogies instead. When traditional metaphors are actively used, they project the image of the cellular level to the social level,”
 * https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200803120130.htm
 * "Our study shows that language statistics predict people's implicit biases -- languages with greater gender biases tend to have speakers with greater gender biases,"
 * https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/Martin1991.pdf
 * https://www.pnas.org/content/116/17/8086

Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Research Notes on Sex Education vs Religion
While the relationship between Christianity and secularism can be difficult, it is also important to note that Christianity still holds a particular moral authority (power -- personal edit) in places like the USA, and this is apparent in the manifestation of curricula such as Abstinence-Only sex education.
 * Secularism -- Separation of religious institutions from state institutions and a public sphere where religion may participate, but not dominate. *https://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism.html
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363460710384558
 * According to the NSYR, just over 30 percent of American teenagers identify with a denomination typically considered evangelical (sometimes called conservative) Protestant. By this classification, evangelical Protestant youth outnumber mainline Protestant youth by a ratio of nearly three to one. Slightly more adolescents affiliate with a historically black or African‐American denomination6 (10.7 percent) than with the historically white mainline. The largest single religious denomination in the United States remains Roman Catholicism, claiming about 23 percent of teenagers. Mormon youth comprise just under 3 percent, about twice the number of Jewish adolescents. American youth who are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or another religious tradition together comprise about 3 percent of all American adolescents. About 16 percents of adolescents identify as not religious. Real atheism—adamant conviction that God does not exist—is much rarer than most people think and nearly absent among American teens. Less than one‐half of 1 percent report never having believed in God
 * About one in every five teenagers, however, says that religion is extremely important in shaping how they live their daily lives. These are what I call the “truly devout.” Their patterns of behavior are often distinct, even from those (31 percent) who say that religion is “very important.”
 * Regnerus M. Forbidden fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers. Oxford [u.a.]: Oxford Univ. Press; 2009.
 * States located in the section of the U.S. called the ‘Bible belt’ often have a strong Christian influence in high schools. They often place priority on abstinence in their sexual education classes. For example, in Mississippi school districts can choose between abstinence only education, or abstinence and contraception education. The importance of abstinence is stressed in both cases.
 * Christian communities often resist comprehensive sexual education in schools because it conflicts with their values, however globalisation means that many other religions may exist within the same school. The blame should not go to Christians in entirety. Parents from other religions are also unwilling to have their children informed of sex if it goes against their beliefs.
 * Only twenty-five states mandate sexual education in high school, (Kaiser Family Foundation). Thirty-seven States require that if, and when, sexual education is taught, abstinence has to be taught as well. Twenty-six of those states are required to promote abstinence. Only thirteen states are required to provide medically correct information to their students. Often when teaching abstinence educators imply that it is the only correct option for teens. Additionally, while teaching abstinence-only, instructors do not give students information about contraceptives. Contraceptive information is not considered necessary as the students should not be having sex. Many schools assume that sexual education should be provided by the child’s parents. But, depending on the beliefs of the parents, the children may never get information about safe sex.
 * regardless of their religious upbringing, teens are going to have sex. Would it not make sense to educate them about contraceptives? Studies have shown are teens having sex after having taken abstinence-only classes. They also have a higher rate of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy. Is a school’s unwillingness to teach sexual education resisting modernisation in favour of more traditional ‘old ways’?
 * Religion’s role in sexual education in the U.S. [Internet]. RELIGION IN SOCIETY SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION BLOGGING NOOSPHERE. 2018. Available from: https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/sociologyofreligion/2018/12/02/religions-role-in-sexual-education-in-the-u-s/

--Piscesmoodphase (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

14 December 2020
Zoom meeting with every gorup member present. Meeting summary: --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Went over each section and condensed sentences to fit in the word limit
 * read through each other's contributions and gave feedback
 * wrote the conclusion
 * talked about potentially merging the science and public policy section with the one on religion however ended up discarding this idea
 * corrected some grammar errors

13 December 2020
issues addressed - word count worries, concern that some sections again, dealt more with the social aspects of the topics or did not emphasise the role of power dynamics in fueling tense interactions between disciplines, concerns over a too long introduction and no conclusion overcoming issues - Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * advice given to sections that seemed to deal with societal aspects, sections were rewritten
 * Avotoast's contribution moved to a new section and argued as a tool to bridge the gap between the disciplinary divide.
 * introduction finalised, condensed to include only one idea from its initial 3 points. One point was omitted entirely while the other was incorporated into our conclusion
 * everyone told to continue to keep condensing their contribution

Non-George Cooper meeting
Issues addressed - lack of introduction and conclusion, broad nature of 'science', exceeded word count (1410 words) and haven't written a conclusion yet. Overcoming issues -
 * try to get pieces as final and concise as they can be before saturday meet
 * cut down on intro and start conclusion?
 * move intro to the top of the chapter
 * justify reference of science/media in own section (or as its own independent section, what do u guys think)

George Cooper meeting
Issues addressed - fears that entries in chapter dealt with power emerging within social tensions and disciplines used as a 'case study' and the case study at hand (sex education) was interpreted socially without any attention to academic tension How to overcome these issues - Discuss some alterations with our entries - particularly Media entry, some comments regarding religion entry, education AOE entry and linguistic sexism entry along with narrowing down a thesis and conclusion that would cohesively tie all disciplines together along with a more organised structure that deviated more towards the types of power employed.
 * Decided to alter the direction of Avotoast's 'Media tensions relating to Sex education' entry, instead, center argument between communication studies and scientific disciplines. Communication studies act as a sort of middleman transferring the information deemed the most effective in conveying towards the respective audience. Lack of coordination with scientific disciplines and scholars/researchers in communication studies causes preference with the media? Failure to ensure interdisciplinary cooperation between science and communication studies. Entry should be directed to a trajectory that delineates tensions between academic disciplines. (@Avotoast, you might have to refine my explanation because I might have missed some points)
 * Gonkponk's education AOE entry, perhaps define the role of direct coercion in the entry? Omit/alter the last paragraph because it seems to argue for power within the social realm, again, entry should be directed to a trajectory that delineates tensions between academic disciplines + " AOE funding makes a deviation from the scientifically correct knowledge to more religious-beliefs-values knowledge, which then redirects in more teen pregnancies and transmitted infections"
 * Gingerisadog3025's linguistic sexism entry, add the evidence that suggests that these unconscious biases within scientific literature could perpetuate and enforce gendered stereotypes in the scientific field, further substantiate said evidence by talking about how gendered differences have proliferated in the field even with the greater inclusion of women. Highlight snobbery/ignorance with scientific literature and not heeding Martin's advice and instead directing their depictions to the radically opposite end which again, continues to propagate these gendered stereotypes and how this could be portrayed as a tension?
 * Piscesmoodphase religion v sex ed entry, alter content to tensions between discipline of law and religion and how it affects sex ed policy making?
 * Thesis - Through the portrayals of different kinds of Foucaltian power (direct, indirect, strategic, etc.) and the subsequent tensions that arise between the interactions of academic disciplines, the reluctance of co-operation between scientific disciplines and non-scientific disciplines - particularly due to the snobbery of scientific disciplines - causes /"overlooking certain insights in communicating knowledge" and as a result, a deterring effect in the creation of better forms of sex education knowledge and its subsequent application in public policy. (feel free to alter the thesis)
 * Conclusion - Through these entries, the dominance and undermining in the production of sex ed knowledge in the scientific disciplines causes tensions to arise between these said disciplines and the non-scientific disciplines. Due to the nature and methodologies employed within the scientific disciplines, a clear power dynamic arises from the science's perception of their own methods used and disapproval to those used by the non-scientific disciplines causing a reluctance to co-operate with these other disciplines which consequently results either in a compromise in the quality of knowledge produced or even the omittance of certain scientific knowledges in the study of sex education.

Next Meeting: 12/13 December Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

3 December 2020
Discussed what research everyone has collected regarding the topic. Comments about how we shouldn't deviate from the creation of knowledge within disciplines and how power comes into play.
 * Media - policy making (Avotoast) - comments on how this may deviate, find a specific discipline that ties in with the tensions involved, Media might be too broad and doesn't relate to the academic discipline
 * Education - medical sciences (Gonkponk) - research
 * Religious studies - education (Stacie) - ensure that topic will not deviate from academic disciplines into the social issues
 * Medical sciences - gender studies/linguistics/anthropology? → linguistic sexism in science (Gingerisadog3025) - How academic disciplines tie in with the issue at hand

Next action: Finalise draft by the end of the week (6 December), find topics that intersect with each other and merge them together to minimize word count Next meeting: 10 Dec 2020

Gingerisadog3025 (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

26 November 2020
Created a general structure of how we will direct the wikibooks chapter to, determined who will do what discipline. Structure: Introduction
 * Outline what sex ed is
 * why it’s an interdisciplinary issue
 * outline key stakeholders

Tensions in Power (each paragraphs should focus on a clash of disciplines)
 * Media - policy making
 * Education - medical sciences (Gonkponk)
 * Religious studies - education (Stacie)
 * Economics/population studies? - policymaking
 * Media - education --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion:

How interdisciplinary approach is important in solving the issue of sex education, what should be done to improve the level of sex education in different countries.

Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Hey guys, do you think we should change the names mentioned here to our usernames aka pseudonyms instead? I'm not sure if we are supposed to use our real names haha Gonkponk (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * true! I just "signed" my section --Avotoast (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

20 November 2020
Rough notes:

Disciplines to focus on:
 * Economics
 * Psychology - mental health concerns, how that clashes with other disciplines' concerns
 * Education
 * Communications
 * Film/TV Shows (Now vs then) - Media
 * Religious studies (Conservative vs secular; abstinence vs consent, intersections between cultures, people's perception)
 * Medical science/resources and technological advancements influence on sex education + Bioethics
 * Public health and policymaking

Further suggestions:
 * Discuss relationship between health system and education
 * Connections with law and politics - example of policies abolishing abortion of all kinds

 * Perhaps focus on fundamentaist countries and how their policies affect sex OR LEDCs versus MEDC.
 * The US has the resources but a lot of divide on the topic, ie resources are available but it's still a taboo in many places.
 * Strong political standpoint challenged by education/medical/psychological standpoint?

 * "Sex Education" - Netflix show

George's Advice:
 * Don't talk about power relations in relation to society, talk about power dynamics between academics disciplines (e.g. Psychologists, Economists, Researchers who research sex education (any kind of skew on the research/power imbalance in acaedemia in this topic)).
 * Relate it back to acaedemia and higher education.
 * Funding and research.
 * What's preventing psychologists' research in sex education (e.g. public policy)
 * Religious influence on a government versus secular government influencing research on sex education - value of sex education due to culture clash/government/ethical, moral barriers.
 * May not be research priorities in certain countries because of setting of countries.
 * Relate it back to research in sex education!
 * Try to be as specific as you can with the problem, but still be able to talk about different disciplines involved in particular case study OR you could mention case study as an example.
 * Make individual contributions more specific regarding research priorities due to geographical/politcal constraints.
 * Why certain disciplines are more invested in doing research in sex education, any kind of geographical disparities in the research.

Rough plans:
 * Distribute work - section by section.
 * Plan is to do work on sandbox, then transfer work to Google Docs for complete picture. Try to record contributions in chapter as much as possible.

Structure:
 * Brief explanation on the topic, then focus on the different tensions between disciplines (make it clear)
 * Defining disciplines and their approaches, and power dynamics

(We can structure it however we want as long as they're clear)

 * Instead of focusing whole chapter on one case study, they can be used as examples of tension

 * Next action: Research and find tensions between different disciplines.
 * Next meeting: TBC

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


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Power of gender in sport

Introduction
Sport is a powerful global arena. Burstyn asserts that sports engage people in a shared experience which can be a uniting force that bonds divisions of society. However, it also possesses the normative power to strengthen the social standards that create these divisions, like gender for example. 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.

Business
Business is an important discipline regarding the gender gap in sports, it illustrates the dominance of men in this sector through differences in sponsorships, salaries, and attention given by organisations and big companies. It has been observed by Vogue that these inequalities are most represented in team sports with tennis being the one where the pays are the most similar.

Numbers are the best way to underline the issue. In WNBA (Women NBA), the highest salary in 2019 was $117,500 against $37.4 million for men. This discrepancy is proportional to what the organisation generates on top of the sponsors, WNBA generates “$25 million annually from its TV deal with ESPN” whilst the NBA is closer to $2.5 billion. Another good example is football, where FIFA for the Women's World Cup gave out a total of $40 million to the winning teams against $400 million for the Men's World Cup.

The inequalities in money invested between men and women are purely the result of business statistics and decisions. There is an issue of the demography of the audience: according to a survey led by Statistica with 9,690 respondents worldwide in 2019, the audience for sports events is at 76% men. As men tend to watch men, there are bigger investments there despite in some cases a lower revenue: still according to Forbes, the USA women's team with 4 World Cups are paid $4,950 per game against $13,166 for the men's USA team (22nd in the FIFA ranking and generating less revenue). Male-dominant audiences also pushed firms to sexualise women in certain sports to stimulate and grow its audience: the commercial logic of “sex sales”. It is sometimes done through using lingerie as uniforms such as in Women's American Football or Beach Volley. Through man-targeted advertisements, bigger investments in men and sexualisations of women, the business of sports is man-oriented.

In order to see some change in business, there would need to be more women in positions of power in organisations like FIFA, UEFA, NBA and in multinationals. Additionally, marketing women’s sports as a distinct category instead of directly comparing to men's would build the logic that a female athlete is no longer a woman playing a man’s game but simply an athlete.

Sociology
The advent of the second wave of the feminist movement in the second half of the 20th century indicated enormous changes in the social order and intellectual discourse of the Western world. The issue of gender inequality in sport has suddenly gained a lot of relevance and importance as a subject of sociological analysis.

Research in this field has been substantially pushed forward by the publication of Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison which identified the notion of normalizing power and demonstrated the involvement of social institutions in the construction of gender roles and cultural norms. By adopting this perspective, sociologists started to recognise patriarchal structures that prevailed in male-dominated sports associations which over the years extensively contributed to the marginalisation of women in athletics.

Feminist scholarships proved to be especially consistent and efficient in identifying instances of power abuse and gender discrimination in sport. Conducted studies show that predominantly masculine imagery of sports in marketing and education alongside a high negative discrepancy of women’s sports in global media coverage (with only 6-8% of all sports news being devoted to women ) have played significant roles in the propagation of asymmetrical ideologies of gender that legitimise the perceived natural superiority of men.

With the established theoretical framework, sociologists have continued to analyse power structures that reinforce oppressive gender stereotypes. Mackinnon (1987) argued that culture, by the means of normalizing processes, has evolved to perceive masculine identity to be a personification of strength, resilience, speed, physical dominance, aggression, competitiveness, and confrontational spirit, while feminine identity to be a representation of weakness, passiveness, sensitivity, and grace. Further research provides evidence that adopting these characteristics and conforming to traditional gender roles often has a destructive effect on individual sporting experiences of both women and men. EIGE’s Gender Equality Index clearly shows that women who comply with the conventional paradigm of femininity, that confines them to caring activities, often find themselves participating less in other social activities such as sports and leisure.

Conclusion
There is an evident conflict in how disciplines view gender bias in sport. Business, although acknowledging the gender bias, has tended to ignore the social consequences of its’ sector’s decisions to champion male dominance in favour of reaping the economic benefits of the sport industry. Feminist sociological scholarship provides a critical stance towards the cultural and social institutions which, they argue, fortify oppressive behaviours and undermine women’s capability to make life choices. They view the acts of the business sector as perpetuations and normalisations of internalised gender stereotypes and thus, indirect assertions of power.

This friction between business and sociology can itself be seen as a power dynamic. Each discipline holds a unique epistemology and thus distinct viewpoints and contributions, an absence of communication or acceptance between disciplines causes tension. The business sector’s apparent ignorance or dismissal of sociological theory can be explained through the arguable incongruence of the two disciplines. Firstly, they seem to function on different operational planes with sociology championing theoretical application, and business, pragmatic action. Secondly, they tend towards contrasting methodological practices, despite significant overlap, sociology gravitates towards the qualitative, and business, quantitative empiricism. These discrepancies are evident in this case study: business focuses on the differences between genders and sociology emphasises the similarities, business highlights the contrast in earning potential and performance where sociology attempts to discredit them. Gender bias in sport as a case study exhibits the difficulties of approaching a problem with fixed academic frameworks; mono-disciplinarity results in reductionist approaches to real-world issues.

Recently, interaction on this topic between these two disciplines has increased. Media campaigns and sponsorship of female sport with sociological foundations has surged. A notable mention is the Always’ ‘Like a Girl’ 2014 campaign which presented gender stereotypes as learnt, highlighting the importance of gender socialisation, empowering girls globally to regain power in sport. . This is just one example of the benefits of interdisciplinarity when approaching real-world issues.


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in the Production and Consumption of the Palm Oil Boom

Introduction
The palm oil boom began in the 1970s to meet the rapidly growing demand for vegetable oil.

A high-yielding crop with versatile applications, palm oil has become deeply embedded in our economy, used for human consumption, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and biofuel. Moving from a multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary approach on the basis of evidence enables a comprehensive understanding of the surge in palm oil consumption and the resulting economic, ecological, nutritional and sociological effects.

Evidence in Economics
Economic evidence is largely quantitative. Empirical research provides the basis for building economic models for causal inference. International trade of palm oil is the dominant macroeconomic indicator of the growing industry's impact . Net exports, a component of GDP, is the most common model used to measure national economic growth. Thus, in export-led economies where palm oil production constitutes a large proportion of net exports, trade data is an informative form of evidence. Economists calculate net exports of palm oil using trade estimations from :

1.     Customs records, as outlined by the International Merchandise Trade Statistics (IMTS) Manual.

2.     National accounts, by accounting for economic ownership of the palm oil, as outlined in the IMTS Manual.

Economists analysing the microeconomic impacts of the palm oil industry collect evidence by dissecting the market into its stakeholders and applying models to assess the benefits to these groups from the growing palm oil sector.

For example, studying palm oil workers, a classical supply and demand model would suggest the following:

↑ Demand for palm oil →  ↑ Demand for labour in corresponding labour market  →  Upwards pressure on wages  →  ↑ Income of workers

These models can be checked against empirical data, for example the change in wages of palm oil workers can be compared to those in other commodity industries, to give the model credibility.

Evidence in Ecology
Ecology relies on quantitative research methods to understand the relationship between living organisms and the environment.

Deforestation, a major concern of the palm oil boom, has been observed and recorded by ecologists using satellite imaging. High-resolution images captured from satellites, like Landsat, collect data on land use and environmental change as a result of palm oil plantations. Tools like unsupervised classification, visual classification, and observation of spectral characteristics are used to quantify the plantation area. This identification process is repeated on datasets of satellite images from different time periods to compare changes of land use over time. Statistical models and formulas then calculate the rate of deforestation.

Through this methodology, ecologists are able to gather evidence on the statistically significant rates of deforestation due to the spatial expansion of palm oil plantations. A limitation of this methodology is its reliance on computer algorithms that may either mistakenly identify other vegetation as oil palm or are unable to detect oil palm because of the spacing between trees.

Evidence in Nutrition
Nutrition, the process of assimilating food, is linked to the health impact of palm oil on consumers. Nutritional evidence is obtained through scientific research, experiments, and clinical trials. These methods are usually integrated, analysing palm oil itself and then experimenting and observing its effects on subjects to understand the influence of palm oil on lipids in blood as compared to other oils. Differing trials were led with different parameters varying the participants' characteristics, sample size, and intervention characteristics. Their reliability can be assessed on the Jadad scale used for clinical trials. The method used is observing the impact on the body through regular intake of palm oil and integrating it into the subject's diet. Researchers analysed the principal fatty acids in palm oil and how they impacted functions of the body, e.g. body weight, metabolic rate and blood pressure.

Clinical trials have demonstrated that consuming fresh palm oil has benefits such as the intake of vitamin A and E and reducing lipid distribution in the body, however, there are risks to palm oil when not consumed fresh.

Evidence in Sociology
Sociologists, who study the social aspects of palm oil, also investigate its nutritional impact, although using different evidence: interviews, ethnography, survey research, and systematic observation. They typically use household surveys, presenting structured questionnaires to households chosen by multistage random sampling procedures. The collected data is then analysed to form descriptive and inferential statistics, which mostly demonstrate positive impacts on producing communities.

Household surveys were utilised to investigate farm household diets. Unlike nutritionists who find quantitative evidence, sociologists collected face-to-face interview responses to a structured questionnaire to estimate and record calorific consumption and dietary composition of oil farm workers – utilising social, rather than scientific, indicators for wellbeing.

Researchers may employ the Social Life-Cycle Assessment to examine the social impacts of a product’s production. In Malaysia, researchers identified two key stakeholders, palm oil plantation workers and local communities. These stakeholders completed a set of questionnaire interviews regarding topics including discrimination, health and safety, and social benefit. Questions were structured on a five-point Likert Scale to examine the difference between expected and perceived quality of each criterion. Once descriptively analysed, the data suggested production has positive impacts, with affirmative outcomes in most sub-categories.

Disciplinary Tensions
Finding cohesion in the evidence presented by individual disciplines is the biggest challenge to understanding the impact of the palm oil boom with an interdisciplinary approach. This is due to the disparity between disciplines themselves: Economics studies decision-making within markets, organisations, and countries ; sociology, human social behaviour ; ecology, the relationship between living organisms and ecosystems ; and nutrition, nutrients in relation to an organism's functioning. Therefore, each discipline examines divergent aspects of the issue. Consequently, methodologies and the evidence collected in each discipline often conflict, creating difficulties in integrating the disciplines to form a conclusion regarding the impact of the palm oil boom.

For example, nutritionists and sociologists examine the dietary implications of palm oil; however, while nutritionists use quantitative methods like clinical trials to study the biological impact, sociologists use qualitative research like interviews to examine different indicators, such as households' fruit and vegetable intake. Integrating these findings is difficult as they have conflicting focuses and types of evidence.

Tensions also arise between disciplines with inherent methodological differences, complicating combining data. Economics uses models that simplify reality, limiting the number of variables considered and externalities accounted for. Applying a simplified model like GDP when analysing the palm oil sector contrasts with research in the natural sciences, specifically ecology, where raw data provides positivist evidence, relative to a more constructivist economic approach.

Assumptions between disciplines may also conflict. Economics fundamentally assumes human rationality. Sociologists reject this idea, instead explaining human behaviour as a product of social factors, thus not always rational. They suggest, for example, that social forces influence the diet of palm oil farmers. This highlights the problem - to what extent can we integrate two disciplines whose findings don't necessarily conflict yet have opposing fundamental assumptions?

While it is difficult to compare the outcomes of research due to the nature of the evidence itself, taking an interdisciplinary approach to this issue allows a more complete understanding. Integrating evidence to tackle this issue allows an inter-disciplinarian to interpret that despite negative ecological impacts, there are important positive social, economic, and nutritional impacts of the palm oil boom to consider.


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Meditation

Meeting 1

Discussed: Application: evidence for the personal development

Focussing on mindfulness in meditation because of its contemporary uses

Contention: belief in evidence only demonstrated when scientific disciplines created it/ contention in the way mindfulness is perceived now as separate from its origins and the evidence from the original discipline.

issue: evidence

Disciplines: Neuroscience Psychology Meditative disciplines/ philosophy Sunnday (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Things we've found/ Meeting 2

Pyschology - main point is looking at the evidence in psychology and how mindfulness is perceived by the discipline. As something that is becoming more and more incorporated, more studies are done to assess what type of meditation is effectively producing mindfulness in the sense that psychologically it changes the behaviours of the subjects - such as relieving anxiety, and increasing hopefulness. These studies are conducted by using a scale, one such study also tried to determine the subjects' perception of mindfulness as something that determined its effectiveness, thus the study took undergraduate students from Thailand (a country that uses mindfulness and buddhism as integrated practices in their lifestyles) and students from western countries (who may have never come across the subject) and performed a test. The test concluded that the Thai students had a 'more conceptualised understanding' of mindfulness. the evidence produced in western psychology is generally quantitative, in order for western scientific practices to understand the causation between mindfulness and personal development. however, this study specifically demonstrates that the effects of mindfulness might be more effective if performed as a more integral or permanent part of a lifestyle or culture, instead of something that is done irregularly and in short increments. Sunnday (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Points of interest/discussion

•Interesting studies by The Science of Wellbeing department at Yale, demonstrate that meditators show differences in brain activity even outside of meditation, during baseline (these differences in brain activity equate to less of what psychologists call 'mind-wandering' which is connected with more unhappiness) -- studies citied- Killingsworth and Gilbert 2010, and Brewer et al 2011.

•Our minds wander 46.9% of the time (Killingsworth & Gilbert)... this is where mindfulness meditation is used as a practice- to reduce mind-wandering.

•Connection between disciplines- fmri scans (neuroscience) exploring a psychological phenomena (mind wandering).

•What is philosophy? Oxford definition- "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." We could draw upon the works of philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris, alternatively, eastern philosophers like Thich Nhat Hanh (he doesn't claim to be a philosopher, but his life work as a monk, studying the nature of existence practically justifies his inclusion in this branch.) Remember- Buddhism is a philosophy. We can explore the evidence for the effectiveness of mindfulness in Buddhism, also (Buddhist texts and teachings).

•Point on contention- the methodologies for exploring the evidence for the effectiveness of mindfulness meditation in the east are primarily qualitative. They're based on practical application and personal experience. It's hard to measure whether someone has had an enlightening experience or not. In the west, the exploration is heavily geared towards mindfulness and how it relates to western contexts such as the stressful workplace. The disciplines, philosophy and neuroscience, are not in conversation with each other. Why???

•"When companies like Goldman Sachs start offering free meditation training to employees, and salesforce.com puts a meditation room on each floor of a San Francisco office building, it’s a safe bet that heightened appreciation of Buddhist metaphysics isn’t the goal. In fact, mindfulness meditation is often packaged in frankly therapeutic terms: “mindfulness-based stress reduction.” https://www.wired.com/2017/08/the-science-and-philosophy-of-mindfulness-meditation/ Zenzenya (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)