(Yet another) case for an interdisciplinary approach to environmental research
I was recently at a conference, the theme of which pertained to pathways towards a sustainable water future. There were lots of exciting talks, ranging from innovative water circulation models, use of big data and artificial intelligence in the water sector, satellite imagery studies, frameworks for providing equitable access to water, water rights among marginal communities, to behavioural studies examining water consumption patterns and drivers.
On the final day, during the closing plenary session, all attendees got together to discuss and critique a draft of the conference’s outcome statement prepared by the conference organizers. Numerous attendees, including me, were extremely disappointed to see that it was heavily biased towards natural sciences, with the social angle of water sovereignty, equity of access, and water rights thrown in almost like an after-thought. We even raised our concern during the discussion, but that is a topic for another day. Specifically, the document laid heavy emphasis on data collection and development of a digital framework that “can be developed by embedding existing scientific models with big data analytics, cloud computing, augmented intelligence, deep-learning techniques and distributed ledger systems like blockchain technologies to verify information flows”. This ultra-reductionist approach seemed to show that most problems facing the water sector arise from a lack of data availability and analyses, and all solutions can be found if we collect enough data, organize it, and develop excellent tools to analyze it.
I want to use this story as an example of a huge challenge in environmental research: the reluctance of natural scientists to give adequate importance to social sciences in their research pursuits. I myself am guilty of it; during my undergraduate years at an institute focused exclusively on natural sciences and technology, I may have participated in jokes directed at “arts” (as social sciences are popularly called in India) more times than I care to admit today.
Natural sciences have historically had a tendency of dividing up the world into its component parts and analyzing each in isolation, often with a specialist working separately on each part. This disciplinary specialization, popular throughout the twentieth century, worked very well for building basic knowledge and providing solutions to technical and well-defined problems. Laboratory-based physical sciences in isolation of any external stimuli were all the rage. For example, an engineer entrusted with the task of designing a city’s drinking water treatment plant examined the source water and proposed the most viable treatment process, without having to consult a social scientist. I would go out on a limb and claim that many traditional fields continue to operate within this framework, which is not to say that there is something inherently wrong with this approach.
However, the environment and climate are too complex for this linear analysis. Multiple ecosystems are tightly coupled with human systems in a dynamic manner, with nonlinear and chaotic behaviour being the rule rather than the exception. A piece-wise approach is not adequate for issues related to human interactions with the environment, and trying to solve such problems without sufficient attention to human aspects of the system often leads to unintended consequences. For example, a fellow attendee at the conference I mentioned earlier narrated a story about a small rural community in the mountains, where women used to manually fetch water from a river a few kilometers away. The local government sent in a team of engineers to solve this problem and they dug a well near the hamlet. When the team came back for a follow-up after a few months, they saw that the women continued to transport water from the river while the well remained untouched. Further enquiry revealed that the people preferred river water over well water because they disliked the taste of tea prepared with well water! Had the government’s team included a social scientist to involve the community in the solution formulation stage, the outcome would surely have been different.
Environmental issues cannot be solved without addressing the interdependencies between human networks and biophysical systems. Environmental phenomena are complex outcomes of the manifold interactions occurring throughout the natural and social systems. Hence, it is logical to expect that solutions to such contemporary global issues lie within institutions that recognize this overlap and bring together experts from diverse fields to work together towards a common objective. Specialized theories, tools and analyses from one field of enquiry must be tested for robustness against the views and methods from other fields. Academic fluidity and knowledge integration are fundamental for understanding and addressing the interrelationships between nature and the human condition.
As Peter Senge says in his book:
“If we see each problem — be it water shortages, climate change, or poverty — as separate, and approach each separately, the solutions we come up with will be short-term, often opportunistic quick fixes that do nothing to address deeper imbalances.”
Most, if not all of you would recognize what I am proposing is not new, and multiple experts before me have recommended a more interdisciplinary approach to solving 21st century problems. This concept that has been around for many years; in fact, a simple Google search shows that the first time this term appeared in literature was eight decades ago. Many research units across the world, both academic and non-academic, are engaged in active research that takes a multi-angle approach by bringing together experts from diverse fields for a holistic approach to problem identification and solution. However, I believe there is still a long way to go before we can emphatically claim that interactions among the multiple schools of thought are truly “upfront” as compared to the “end-of-pipe” engagements that occur very commonly today. The term “interdisciplinary research” is thrown around so often that it has almost become a buzzword in academic circles. But rather than undermining its importance, this should be taken as a validation of its critical importance in finding solutions for our global environmental issues. Issues like climate change should continue to be used as real-life labs for developing research methodologies that transcend the boundaries between natural and social sciences till the distinction between the two ceases to be a clear dividing line.
