Conversations Across the Disciplines: Research Panel 2
Kamila Kinyon

This Conversations across the Disciplines panel was the second of two panels organized by the Writing Program. Both panels represented qualitative, quantitative, and interpretive research traditions through the scholarship of professors in different fields. The panel included brief introductory talks by Ann Dobyns, Christina Kreps, and Bob Dores. English professor and chair Ann Dobyns represented interpretive research. Associate professor of anthropology Christina Kreps represented qualitative research. Endocrinologist Robert Dores, Biology professor and chair, represented quantitative research.

Ann Dobyns described her current book project, a rhetorical study of tango. For a tango dancer, the body is a rhetorical interactive instrument, especially since tango dancers work in an improvisational form. Dobyns discussed how she is moving into a new field through this project. She is studying dance theory and the history of tango, including the problem of how immigrant populations work together. The question of interpretation comes into play in looking at how people are communicating with each other. In addition, her tango project draws on theory in cultural studies, rhetoric, and interpretation. Dobyns compared this project with some of her earlier work, which included Chaucers attitudes towards law as well as the ways in which language is used in romance.

Christina Kreps described her training as an interpretive anthropologist. This involved acquiring literary background as well as borrowing from linguistics and semiotics. As a cultural anthropologist, Kreps does ethnographic fieldwork. She conducts firsthand studies of groups through participant observation, which involves engaging in the daily life of the people. It is challenging to maintain distance but to get into that world too. Kreps did dissertation fieldwork in Indonesia. She took a dialogic approach and used many of the methods used by sociologists, such as interviews and surveys. When collecting data in the field, she used journals and field notes. She used a typewriter rather than a laptop, because laptops in Borneo would be likely to be infected by mold. She also collected photos and taped interviews. Using what she dubbed the archaic system of index cards, she turned her Indonesian fieldwork into a dissertation and then into a book.

Robert Dores discussed his perspectives as a biologist. As an endocrinologist, he does various types of writing, including mini-reviews, grant proposals, research papers, and editing. The typical mini-review presents both sides of an issue, summarizing the literature to be explored and evaluating progress in a specified area. In writing grant proposals to federal agencies, it is important to present a clear hypothesis and to lay out an experimental design that can, in theory, be accomplished in three years. How can the agency be convinced to fund this proposal out of 60 or 70 submissions? The proposal must be reasonable and must present a big picture. In his research papers describing what is happening to a cell, Dores methods are not completely quantitative but also bring in other techniques. Dores also works in a group of associate editors. He must decide disputes and see things as a reader.

A series of questions followed the initial presentations. In response to the question How do you know what is quality writing? Dobyns replied that she looks for clear focus versus general exploration. There should be a clear thesis and development for the argument through evidence. Dores said that you need to convince people that you stumbled on something interesting. Point A must lead to point B, and the writer must make sure that people dont get lost. Kreps replied that a complex topic should be made obvious or accessible.

To the question It takes time to do research. What accommodations do you make to students who dont have time? Dores replied that he gives exam essay questions. He expects students to use an economy of words. Putting in filler not relevant to the question is irritating. Dobyns replied that you must take smaller chunks. You must keep in mind who your audience is and what they need to know. Kreps teaches upper-division and graduate courses with term research papers. Students must submit a topic statement and preliminary bibliography. Working in small stages ensures that they will finish their 15- to 20-page paper by the end of the quarter.

The question What do ideal results look like in your field? generated a lively discussion. For Dores, the best results come out as yes and no. You must execute experiments properly, for example, when cloning a gene. Once you have the sequence, how much error is there in the measuring process? An unambiguous yes or no answer would be the ideal result. Kreps responded to this by describing the subjective visions of anthropology. Interpreting life is always through the lens of your culture. It is all about interpretation, and different researchers will interpret the same culture differently. Dobyns also described the role of interpretation in her field. For example, when interpreting Chaucers Canterbury Tales, the question is whether you have a good interpretation that makes sense. For example, when investigating the role of women as defective men, is this what Chaucer really thought or is he responding to the fathers in the church? Which interpretation is better?

Other interesting questions and discussion followed. The event was well attended, and a number of students took careful notes for papers and presentations for their WRIT 1133 courses. Both Conversations across the Disciplines panels were very productive, both in bringing together professors from different fields and in communicating differences between research traditions to students

The Point Front Page