FASS3999 Interdisciplinary Impact
The Complete Study & Assessment Guide · S2 2026FASS3999 Overview
- Undergraduate unit
- Semester 2, 2026
- University of Sydney
- Partner case studies
- Group project and reflection
Interdisciplinary Impact is an undergraduate unit at the University of Sydney that brings together students from across arts and social sciences to work on topics that no single discipline, sector or profession owns.
- Assessment route Analyse two partners, pitch a direction, reflect on collaboration, then deliver a report and an intervention.
- Hardest move Turning a fair description of a partner into an evaluation that explains its limits by its position.
- How to prepare Learn theory of change and the WPR questions before the panels, and keep a dated log of what changes your thinking.
How FASS3999 is assessed
| Component | Weight | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Critical engagement and participation in learning | 10% | Conversation; ongoing across the semester |
| Partner Analysis · hurdle | 25% | Written work hurdle task; 1250 words; due Week 5, 6 Sep 2026 |
| Group Project: Pitch Presentation | 15% | Presentation group assignment; 10 minutes in your Week 7 tutorial |
| Critical Reflection | 15% | Written work; 750 words; due Week 10, 18 Oct 2026 |
| Group Project | 35% | Written work group assignment; 4000-word equivalent: 3250-word research report and exegesis plus a 750-word-equivalent intervention or contribution; due Week 12, 1 Nov 2026 |
The five weighted components total 100%, and the official record marks the Partner Analysis as a hurdle task; confirm on Canvas what that hurdle requires. Tutorial attendance sits outside the table: the faculty expects 90% attendance, falling below it can reduce your participation and group project marks, and attendance below 50% can lead to an Absent Fail through the Board of Examiners. Every component is listed as AI allowed, with all use to be acknowledged.
What FASS3999 covers
The unit moves from how you will learn to what you will do. Early weeks introduce experiential learning, interdisciplinarity and the case-study model. Week 3 supplies the core analytical toolkit, theory of change and the What's the Problem Represented to be? approach, which you then apply to partner organisations at the panels and in the Partner Analysis.
Later chapters cover scale, time horizon and power, then gap-framing and research questions for the group project, followed by one chapter for each of the five case-study topics.
Experiential Learning and Interdisciplinarity
Learning cycle, articulating your major, multi, cross, inter and trans02Case Studies and Disciplinary Contribution
How case studies work, team allocation, connecting any major to a topic03Theory of Change and Partner Logic
Intervention, intended outcomes, impact, hidden assumptions, testing links with research04Problem Representation and the WPR Approach
Bacchi's questions, assumptions, silences, effects, pairing with theory of change05Comparing Partner Perspectives
Comparison dimensions, limits that follow from position, the reflective close06Scale, Time Horizon and Power
Two separate axes, who decides and benefits, deficit versus strengths, co-design07Finding the Gap and Framing the Project
Gap logic, project types, research questions, pitch, report and intervention08Creative Arts, Technology and the Public Good
Public value, access, preservation, state support, AI and authorship09Gender and Social Change
Pay gap evidence, care and segregation, violence prevention, intervention design10Migration and Belonging
Beyond crisis framing, social capital, intake in context, legal status11Housing Affordability and a Secure Home in Sydney
Affordability measures, housing stress, social housing, Redfern precedent12Incarceration, Rehabilitation and Post-release Life
Purpose of prison, post-release journey, logic models, persuading audiencesIt is an experiential unit: the teaching team supplies process, frameworks and support, while each student group decides what it investigates and what it produces. Every group chooses a case study built around one big topic and hears from three or four external partner organisations, which share their approaches, questions and provocations.
In Semester 2 2026 the topics are creative arts, technology and the public good; gender and social change; migration and belonging; housing affordability in Sydney; and creative solutions to the problems of incarceration. Students are not there to complete work for the partners. They are there to learn how each organisation understands the problem and then to develop their own response. The analytical toolkit arrives early.
Week 3 introduces theory of change, which asks why an organisation believes its action will produce the impact it wants, and Carol Bacchi's What's the Problem Represented to be? approach, which asks how a proposed solution frames the problem and what that framing leaves out. Case-lead seminars then add scale, time horizon and power, and Week 6 turns to finding a gap and framing an answerable research question.
Assessment follows the same arc: participation, an individual Partner Analysis labelled a hurdle task, a group pitch in Week 7, a Critical Reflection on collaboration and feedback, and a final Group Project combining a research report and exegesis with an intervention or contribution.
The table is not the whole set of conditions: the faculty expects attendance at 90% of tutorials, attending less can lower participation and group project marks, and attendance below 50% can lead to an Absent Fail decided through the Board of Examiners. This guide gives each stage a method, a finished model of writing and practice questions with answers.
Worked example · free
Planning a two-partner comparison for the Partner Analysis
- +1Describe each organisation on the same dimensions: what it does, how it explains its value, and what it represents the problem to be.
- +1Write a theory-of-change sentence for each, making the because clause explicit: weak protections for renters versus a shortage of affordable homes.
- +1Evaluate each in context, pairing a strength with the limitation that follows from the same position, such as advocacy reach versus diffuse, hard-to-measure impact.
- +1Separate scale from time horizon so that an immediate individual service is not judged by system-wide outcomes.
- +1Close by naming a method from your major and the silence it revealed, such as how neither organisation records what tenants themselves define as a secure home.
Key terms
- Experiential Learning
- Learning that grows from a concrete experience which is then reflected on, explained with concepts and tested again in action.
- Interdisciplinarity
- The integration of knowledge and methods from several disciplines to reach an understanding or outcome no single discipline could produce.
- Case Study
- In this unit, one big topic paired with several external partner organisations whose differing approaches students analyse.
- Partner Organisation
- An industry, government or community body that volunteers to share its perspective, questions and provocations on a case topic.
- Theory of Change
- The stated or implied logic explaining why an organisation's activities should lead to its intended outcomes and long-term impact.
- Problem Representation
- The implicit account of what a problem is that any proposed solution or policy contains.
- Gap
- The distance between the present or anticipated state of affairs and the one you want, framed as a problem or as a chance for enrichment.
- Intervention
- The practical, scholarly or creative contribution a group designs to act on the gap it has identified.
- Exegesis
- The written explanation that accompanies an intervention, justifying its design, form and intended audience.
FASS3999 FAQ
How is Interdisciplinary Impact assessed in Semester 2 2026?
Five weighted components total 100%. Participation is 10%, the individual Partner Analysis is 25% and labelled a hurdle task, the group pitch is 15%, the Critical Reflection is 15% and the final Group Project is 35%.
What does the Partner Analysis ask students to write?
It is a 1250-word reflective essay that compares how two of your case study's partner organisations approach the topic and reflects critically on your own perspective, drawing on your disciplinary background where it helps.
Which analytical tools should I learn first?
Start with theory of change and the What's the Problem Represented to be? approach from Week 3. One tests whether an organisation's actions plausibly lead to its goals; the other questions how its solution frames the problem.
Do I need to study the case topic in my major to choose it?
No direct disciplinary link is required. The teaching team encourages you to pick a topic that will keep you motivated across twelve weeks, and to find a question your own methods can address.
What are the attendance rules, and what happens if I miss tutorials?
The faculty expects attendance at 90% of tutorials. Attending less can reduce participation and group project marks, and attendance below 50% can lead to an Absent Fail decided through the Board of Examiners, in addition to the Partner Analysis hurdle.
Can generative AI be used in the assessments?
The published assessment table marks each component as AI allowed, but the unit requires every use to be acknowledged with prompts, before and after versions and an estimate of how much text it shaped.
What counts as the intervention in the group project?
Alongside a 3250-word research report and exegesis, groups produce a 750-word-equivalent intervention or contribution, choosing from formats listed on Canvas, that acts on the gap they identified.
How to prepare for the assessments
Treat the semester as one argument built in stages. Before the Week 4 panels, practise theory of change and the six WPR questions on an organisation you know, so you can listen for logic, assumptions and silences instead of transcribing. After each panel, write one sentence per partner in the form if, then, because, and note where the because clauses differ.
Collect public material for each partner early: program pages, annual reports and submissions give you citable evidence that does not depend on what was said in the room. Keep a dated reflection log from Week 1 with three lines per entry: what happened, what it meant, what changed. That log becomes the raw material for the Critical Reflection.
Once your group has a direction, narrow it to a research question that is relevant, anchored in your disciplines, researchable in the time available and precise, and decide which of the four project types you are pursuing. Read one case study other than your own; contrasts often reveal assumptions in your topic. Finally, use the pitch to test direction, not to display research, and record how feedback changed the project.
