> [Go to annotation](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/ZXLT8S9R?page=5&annotation=GEDD2PI7) “interdisciplinary thinking is far more than simply knowing about something in two or more different ways. That would be multidisciplinary.” ([Dreyfuss, 2011, p. 5](zotero://select/library/items/9TSM2DQ3)) Interdisciplinary means relationships multidisciplinary means depth. Relationships have a dynamic nature. They are not easy to sustain. Relationships between disciplines require the same amount of attention as the human relationship require. They are just as dynamic. They evolve as new knowledge emerges. [[Interdisciplinary Thinking]] is a process. It can exist at a surface level as well. Being knowledgeable in multiple disciplines doesn't guarantee one can create and nurture deep connections in meaningful ways. > [Go to annotation](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/ZXLT8S9R?page=8&annotation=X3LKA9GI) “I am among those who mistrust attempts to systematize interdisciplinary research, not because doing so lacks utility. Far from it. In the interdisciplinary program I chair we teach Allen Repko's (2008) integrated model of interdisciplinary research as a valuable reminder of issues and processes that need to be considered. Repko's is a good process, but at best one among many. My fear, however, is that as we use such tools, we forget that the originators meant them to be iterative and non--linear. I fear over time that the process may be reified, that institutions may grow around the theory, 1 See, for example, John Heron and Peter Reason’s “A Participatory Inquiry Paradigm.” and we will begin to treat a deeply useful tool, a constructed insight into our collective interdisciplinary processes, as if it was indivisibly real.” ([Dreyfuss, 2011, p. 8](zotero://select/library/items/9TSM2DQ3)) Maybe we don't want to institutionalize interdisciplinary thinking. That could mean the end of it.