Perspectives: Greater than the Sum of Their Parts
Research is inherently broad, and it certainly does not always lead to the destination originally sought after. It does, however, pose a particular question (that is, whatever is being researched). This is what makes research and understanding go so well together. Understanding thrives on that focused ambiguity, as it grows from a directive but is only capable of doing so when not caged. This could easily be seen in our time on Santa Rosa Island with each professor.
The ball park was the nature of Santa Rosa, particularly its biodiversity and how restoration is going to play into that. each professor had their own respective discipline, ranging from art to archaeology, but they all provided equally valid insight to the understanding of Santa Rosa.
Professor Perry, the anthropologist, gave insight to how things were, and that information is valuable to see how the island reached its current state. Professor Allison and Cause, those more focused in the area of life science, reflected on the present, taking from the past and projecting for the future. The artist, Matthew Fermanski, did somewhat of a collaborative of all aspects, obtaining an understanding of the entirety of the island. All of the research done by the professors would lead back to the main idea, regardless of these varying perspectives. I feel an important note to make is that all of these inputs are necessary for an optimal output. While having any one of these alone is fine, the collaborative interpretation of the question (that being the one on biodiversity and stability) produces much greater results; the product of the whole is greater than the sum of their parts.
Give another question, perhaps reintroducing a species such as the island fox. Every perspective may provide valuable information as to how, when, and where is optimal to do so. Cause may be able to provide suitable areas to reintroduce the species, and Perry could tell where foxes were once prominent. With a combination of these two perspectives we would have a a better answer than if one acted alone. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of a suitable outcome without tackling the issue in an interdisciplinary manner.
All of these perspectives and disciplines are required to make an astute solution. Without any one piece, the product regresses into something lesser than what it could be. Interdisciplinary tactics allow for a critically thought out outcome; critical thinking is innately interdisciplinary, for the notion of it is to think out side the box. A very simple way to do so is by shifting one’s own perspective to another. Think about how someone else may do it, and aggregate that to your own understanding. In doing so, one not only improve your handling of the question, but to their understanding as a whole. Growth is an invaluable trait to possess.
