Interdisciplinary Research
Interdisciplinary research, for me, did not start as something I clearly understood. At first, it simply meant connecting ideas from different readings. Over time, however, I realized that it involves something deeper: the ability to move between different frameworks, ask stronger questions, and recognize that complex social issues cannot be explained by a single discipline alone. Looking back, I can see this development clearly in two major projects — my early essay Educational Future and my later research on the American Indian Movement (AIM) and the 1973 Wounded Knee occupation.
In Educational Future, I explored Paulo Freire’s critique of the “banking model” of education and Mary Louise Pratt’s concept of the “contact zone.” At that stage, I was primarily trying to understand how education is shaped by power, culture, and language. I connected these theoretical ideas to my own cross-cultural educational experience as someone learning in a second language. I was proud of my ability to synthesize theory and personal reflection, but my research was still limited in scope. I relied heavily on theoretical texts and did not yet question them deeply or situate them within larger historical or political systems. I was applying theory, but I was not fully interrogating it.
My AIM project marked a significant shift in how I approached research. Studying the Wounded Knee occupation required me to combine history, political analysis, media interpretation, and Indigenous studies. In analyzing archival footage from 1973, I paid close attention not only to what was happening on screen, but also to how events were framed and represented. Barricades, federal vehicles, community members cooking or praying — these details became evidence of sovereignty struggles, state power, and cultural survival. I had to evaluate the credibility and perspective of different sources, recognizing that news reports, activist documentation, and scholarly interpretations each carry different assumptions and intentions. This process forced me to think more critically about evidence rather than simply collecting it.
Another important difference between the two projects lies in the kinds of questions I asked. In my earlier essay, I was focused on understanding concepts. In the AIM research, I began asking more complex questions: Whose voices are missing from dominant narratives? How does media representation influence public perception? How do activism and federal policy intersect over time? These questions required me to move across disciplines and consider multiple layers of analysis rather than staying within a single framework.
Through these projects, I have come to understand that interdisciplinary research is less about accumulating sources and more about building meaningful connections between them. It demands careful interpretation, attention to context, and a willingness to challenge assumptions. I no longer see research as simply “finding information,” but as an active process of evaluating credibility, recognizing bias, and understanding how knowledge is constructed. That shift — from absorbing theory to critically navigating it across historical, political, and cultural contexts — represents the most important growth in my academic development so far.