Tag Archives: interdisciplinarity

Special feature on interdisciplinarity in Environmental Conservation on

Environmental Conservation has published a thematic issue on Interdisciplinary Progress in Environmental Science & Management (Vol. 37 Issue 04) which looks quite interesting.  The table of contents is below:

  • Berkes, F. 2010. Devolution of environment and resources governance: trends and future. Environmental Conservation 37:489-500.
  • Brunckhorst, D. J. Using context in novel community-based natural resource management: landscapes of property, policy and place. Environmental Conservation 37:16-22.
  • D’Agnes, L., H. D’Agnes, J. B. Schwartz, M. L. Amarillo, and J. Castro. 2010. Integrated management of coastal resources and human health yields added value: a comparative study in Palawan (Philippines). Environmental Conservation 37:398-409.
  • Evely, A. C., I. Fazey, X. Lambin, E. Lambert, S. Allen, and M. Pinard. 2010. Defining and evaluating the impact of cross-disciplinary conservation research. Environmental Conservation 37:442-450.
  • Fearnside, P. M. 2010. Interdisciplinary research as a strategy for environmental science and management in Brazilian Amazonia: potential and limitations. Environmental Conservation 37:376-379.
  • Hicks, C. C., C. Fitzsimmons, and N. V. C. Polunin. 2010. Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences: barriers and frontiers. Environmental Conservation 37:464-477.
  • Khagram, S., K. A. Nicholas, D. M. Bever, J. Warren, E. H. Richards, K. Oleson, J. Kitzes, R. Katz, R. Hwang, R. Goldman, J. Funk, and K. A. Brauman. 2010. Thinking about knowing: conceptual foundations for interdisciplinary environmental research. Environmental Conservation 37:388-397.
  • Newing, H. 2010. Interdisciplinary training in environmental conservation: definitions, progress and future directions. Environmental Conservation 37:410-418.
  • Ommer, R. E. 2010. The Coasts Under Stress project: a Canadian case study of interdisciplinary methodology. Environmental Conservation 37:478-488.
  • Ostrom, E. and M. Cox. 2010. Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation 37:451-463.
  • Perz, S. G., S. Brilhante, F. Brown, A. C. Michaelsen, E. Mendoza, V. Passos, R. Pinedo, J. F. Reyes, D. Rojas, and G. Selaya. 2010. Crossing boundaries for environmental science and management: combining interdisciplinary, interorganizational and international collaboration. Environmental Conservation 37:419-431.
  • Reyers, B., D. J. Roux, and P. J. O’Farrell. 2010. Can ecosystem services lead ecology on a transdisciplinary pathway? Environmental Conservation 37:501-511.
  • Szabo, P. 2010. Why history matters in ecology: an interdisciplinary perspective. Environmental Conservation 37:380-387.
  • Young, J and M. Marzano. 2010. Embodied interdisciplinarity: what is the role of polymaths in environmental research? Environmental Conservation 37: 373-375

Communciating science effectively or Dude, you are speaking Romulan

Sustainability and resilience are trans-disciplinary research areas that require communication among people from many different backgrounds.  Communication benefits from being clear, and avoiding unnecessary jargon.  Sometimes making the efforts to articulate thoughts clearly can significantly advance disciplinary knowledge.

Chemical oceanographer Chris Reedy has funny article about improving interdisciplinary communication from AGU’s EOS, Dude, you are speaking Romulan, which was reposted on the Plainspoken Scientist, an AGU blog on science communication.  Chris Reddy writes:

During the height of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster, I joined a group of engineers and other scientists to discuss the evidence for an oil plume, at least 22 miles long and about a mile wide, floating 3000 feet beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. As the chemist in the group, I wondered aloud about how we could exploit the aqueous solubilities of the petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes to understand plume formation. I suspected the key to knowledge lay in the plume’s chemical properties.

“Dude, you are speaking Romulan,” one of my colleagues blurted out. The engineers in the group gave me a look, and steered the conversation to the relative merits of different types of statistical processing of data collected in and around the plume. I don’t know from statistical processing, so I hit back: “Dude, you are speaking Romulan.”

As Star Trek fans know, Romulans are a race often at odds with the Federation (they later signed a peace treaty). Romulans speak in three dialects and write with square or rectangular letters. Telling your colleague that he or she is speaking Romulan is a friendly way of saying, “I don’t understand you,” or that you are using jargon, speaking too fast, using acronyms, or jumping over the natural progression of an argument or idea.

What is surprising is that we have these communication breakdowns despite my colleagues also being my friends. We work at the same institution. I have been to sea with them. I know their dogs, eat dinner at their homes, and jointly lament the standing of the Red Sox. Even though we know each other well, our differing scientific specializations can cause us to speak different languages. For us, our small group was willing to recognize these differences and set the ground rules for using the “Romulan phrase.”

Almost every pressing scientific and environmental problem demands the attention of scientists from diverse disciplines as well as the expertise of economists, planners, and sociologists. With a little effort and less ego, we need to aim for a lingua franca that can be understood by a politician, a shrimp farmer, a toxicologist, a lawyer, an accountant, and a Romulan, too.