Not Just a Technical Problem: The Intersections of STEM and Social Science in Addressing Global Poverty

  • Christopher S. Collins
Part of the International and Development Education book series (INTDE)


Although there are limitations to the measurement of global poverty, it is a large enough indicator to draw the interest of global and regional development banks, bilateral and unilateral aid from governments, and research initiatives from companies, think tanks, and universities. Concerning global poverty research, there are eight development labs (at seven universities) funded by USAID. In this chapter, the role of interdisciplinary work at university development labs will be focused on. The larger work of the USAID funded development labs shows an impressive body of outcomes and evidence. The connection between the diverse knowledges required to solve complex problems and the ability for universities to play a role in global development was quite profound. The concept of interdisciplinary work in STEM and global development should be expanded further to poly-epistemologies to prevent falling into the traps of tyrannical expertise.


Poverty Development Universities Social science 


  1. Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Collins, Christopher S. 2011. Higher Education and Global Poverty: University Partnerships and the World Bank in Developing Countries. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, Christopher S. 2017. “Development Labs: University Knowledge Production and Global Poverty.” The Review of Higher Education 41 (1): 113–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, Christopher S., and Robert A. Rhoads. 2010. “The World Bank, Support for Universities, and Asymmetrical Power Relations in International Development.” Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning 59 (2): 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, Christopher S., and Kalehua M. Mueller. 2016. “University Land-Grant Extension and Resistance to Inclusive Epistemologies.” The Journal of Higher Education 87 (3): 303–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Committee on a New Biology. 2009. Biology for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies of Science.Google Scholar
  7. Creswell, John W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Easterly, William. 2013. They Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Flyvbjerg, Brent. 2011. “Case Study.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonne S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Frodeman, Robert. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fuller, Steve. 2003. “Interdisciplinarity: The Loss of the Heroic Vision in the Marketplace of Ideas.” Available at
  12. Graff, Harvey J. 2015. Undisciplining Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in the Twentieth Century. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jacobs, Jerry A. 2009, November 22. “Interdisciplinary Hype.” Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at
  14. Jacobs, Jerry A. 2014, May 27. “Why Disciplines Still Matter.” Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at
  15. Lincoln, Yvonne S., and Egon Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Sachs, Jeffrey D. 2005. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of Our Time. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  17. World Bank. 2017. Measuring Poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at
  18. Yin, Robert. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher S. Collins
    • 1
  1. 1.Azusa Pacific UniversityAzusaUSA

Personalised recommendations