Aim/Purpose: Collaborative, interdisciplinary research is growing rapidly, but we still have limited and fragmented understanding of what is arguably the heart of such research—collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning (CIR). Background: This article integrates neo-Pragmatist theories of reasoning with insights from literature on interdisciplinary research to develop a working definition of collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning. The article then applies this definition to an empirical example to demonstrate its utility. Methodology: The empirical example is an excerpt from a Toolbox workshop transcript. The article reconstructs a cogent, inductive, interdisciplinary argument from the excerpt to show how CIR can proceed in an actual team. Contribution: The study contributes operational definitions of ‘reasoning together’ and ‘collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning’ to existing literature. It also demonstrates empirical methods for operationalizing these definitions, with the argument reconstruction providing a brief case study in how teams reason together. Findings: 1. Collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning is the attempted integration of disciplinary contributions to exchange, evaluate, and assert claims that enable shared understanding and eventually action in a local context. 2. Pragma-dialectic argument reconstruction with conversation analysis is a method for observing such reasoning from a transcript. 3. The example team developed a strong inductive argument to integrate their disciplinary contributions about modeling. Recommendations for Practitioners: 1. Interdisciplinary work requires agreeing with teammates about what is assertible and why. 2. To assert something together legitimately requires making a cogent, integrated argument. Recommendation for Researchers: 1. An argument is the basic unit of analysis for interdisciplinary integration. 2. To assess the argument’s cogency, it is helpful to reconstruct it using pragma-dialectic principles and conversation analysis tools. 3. To assess the argument’s interdisciplinary integration and participant roles in the integration, it is helpful to graph the flow of words as a Sankey chart from participant-disciplines to the argument conclusion. Future Research: How does this definition of CIR relate to other interdisciplinary ‘cognition’ or ‘learning’ type theories? How can practitioners and theorists tell the difference between true intersubjectivity and superficial agreeableness in these dialogues? What makes an instance of CIR ‘good’ or ‘bad’? How does collaborative, transdisciplinary reasoning differ from CIR, if at all?

A recent study conducted by Apple's artificial intelligence (AI) researchers has raised significant concerns about the reliability of large language models (LLMs) in mathematical reasoning tasks. Despite the impressive advancements made by models like OpenAI's GPT and Meta's LLaMA, the study reveals fundamental flaws in their ability to handle even basic arithmetic when faced with slight variations in the wording of questions.

Ryan Reilly, a 1st grade teacher at White Center Heights Elementary School in Seattle, shares how he uses related equations so students can identify similarities and differences in numbers and symbols. By noticing patterns, they learn to justify their reasons and can then solve similar problems.

Teacher Antoinette Pippin engages her 5th grade students in a "Claims, Evidence, Reasoning" protocol. Using what she calls "the trifecta of argument," she helps her students make claims and support their claims with evidence and reasoning.

National Bureau of Economic Research

A computer implemented method of constructing formal definitions in intelligent glossaries for interpreting text, comprising the steps of: providing at least one Distinction having a Boundary, an Indication, a Counter-indication and a Frame; modeling each Distinction as a diagram to provide a Distinction Model; verifying each distinction model as being an instantiation of a generic Distinction Pattern; providing at least one Arrangement made of nonintersecting Marks of Distinction containing Indications from the verified Distinction Model; writing at least one Formulation for each Indication appearing in verified Distinction model and Arrangement, providing well-founded Indications; calculating precise Formulations in Natural Language from well-founded Indications by substituting Variables symbols and/or replacing Constants symbols to transform imprecise Formulations into precise Formulations; selecting a Definition type and embedding at least one precise Formulation and Definition type as a formal Definition in an Intelligent Glossary to provide computerized Semantic Systems of Intelligent Glossaries.

When nearly 200 people in India were killed in terrorist attacks late last month, the carnage received saturation media coverage around the globe. When nearly 600 people in Zimbabwe died in a cholera outbreak a week ago, the international response was far more muted.

Why do we always think other animals are so simple?

Cham : Springer, c2019.

Bennett, Jeffrey O., author

Dewey Library - JZ1307.R37 2019

Dewey Library - B828.5.P78 2019

Kvalnes, Øyvind, author

Coladarci, Theodore, author

Online Resource

Online Resource

Published: April 2012

This practical desk reference has proven to be one of the most comprehensive and reliable legal reading, reasoning, and writing guides available today.

Synthesis: Legal Reading, Reasoning and Writing in Canada, 3rd Edition will help students and legal practitioners to:

• Write more effective legal memos, opinion letters, briefs, arguments, status reports, pleadings, and draft opinions;
• Learn how to use primary and secondary legal resources in making legal arguments; and
• Develop skills in legal reading, reasoning, and research using examples, exercises, charts, and diagrams

What's new:

• Expanded introductory chapter with new information on lawyering in the digital age, requirements for becoming a lawyer and professional discipline
• New material on the contribution of aboriginal and European legal  traditions to the development of Canadian law 
• New material on equitable jurisdiction and the use of equitable maxims in framing arguments
• New material on aboriginal courts  
• Expanded and updated discussion of research approaches and the use of electronic legal materials
• Updated appendices of reference works, websites and legal blogs

About the Author
Tested in the classroom over several years by the American authors, Synthesis has been rewritten for Canadian readers by an experienced law teacher, Margaret E. McCallum, LLB, PhD. Since 1990, Margaret McCallum has taught in the Faculty of Law at the University of New Brunswick.

If you would like more details about this product, or would like to order a copy online, please click here.

Haugen, Nancy, author