Comment M Hyperdisciplinarity and environmental studies To those of us in the environmental field, it goes without saying that interdisciplinary studies are important. That is what we do. But to many people, interdisciplinary studies are held in suspicion, and those who hold degrees in areas such as environmental science are considered to be poorly trained compared to those who hold degrees in the basic sciences. (Interestingly, those who hold degrees in environmental “studies” are judged to be inferior even by those with degrees in environmental science, an example of disciplinary envy, some would say). Judith Shapiro, the president of Barnard College, writes in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Feb. 23, 2001), “Much of what we label interdisciplinary is the production of work that would be considered third-rate in the discipline of origin. . . .” While we can quibble with the meaning of the term “discipline of origin”, most of us know what President Shapiro means. Too many papers in environmental journals can fairly be judged to be below the standard of the field. But I contend that this is because the authors of these papers have not made it clear that their purpose is something more than studying chemical phenomena. So, if they are simply doing environmental chemistry (or biology, etc.) it is appropriate that their work should be judged by the standards of the field of chemistry (or biology, etc.). For example, ES&T has been criticized in the past for the level of papers that purport to investigate the mechanisms of chemical reactions in the environment or in engineered treatment processes, and those critics have a point. If we are going to publish papers on mechanistic organic chemistry, then they should meet the standards of the field of chemistry. On the other hand, environmental science—and certainly environmental studies—is not simply a superposition of chemistry, physics, economics, or other study. Environmental studies is something more. It is the study of a hyperdisciplinary subject of very large proportions, and that requires a different way of looking at what we are doing. Roland Barthes, the French semiologist is reported to have said in 1972, “In order to do interdisciplinary work, it is not enough to take a subject [Editor’s note: protection of biodiversity] and to arrange two or three sciences
© 2001 American Chemical Society
around it. Interdisciplinary study consists of creating a new object, which belongs to no one [Editor’s addition: discipline].” Barthes was primarily talking about the field of cultural studies, but the relevance to environmental studies is clear. The field of environmental studies differs from the fields from which we borrow basic knowledge and tools in some fundamental way, probably because of its complexity. That complexity cannot be comprehended fully unless we force ourselves to study the system rather than to blindly focus on its parts. There is now a new way of looking at complex fields of knowledge based on the advent of computers in the field of information sciences. More specifically, our use of hypertext has made us realize that all of us are now able to approach knowledge building in a different way than before (refer to www.iisgp.ubc.ca/symposium/kkrug.htm). Through hypertext we are now able to move quickly through subjects of enormous complexity, moving from one layer to the other in multidimensional intellectual space, driven by what we have learned before and that which we synthesize en route. In the process, we are able to better appreciate the connections between the layers, more so than if we had stayed at a particular layer for more in-depth study. As we proceed through this process, the structure and character of the subject we have chosen become clearer, and we are less concerned with the microstructure of one layer than with the emerging structure of the whole. Environmental science and even more so, environmental studies, is that type of hyperdiscipline. We must force ourselves to study it in ways that best reveal what it is, rather than allowing ourselves to be judged by the standards of another pursuit.
William H. Glaze, Editor (
[email protected])
DECEMBER 1, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY I 471 A
