Determining the Existence of Interdisciplinary Individuals in the Field of Environmental Studies

Alyssa Gao

Abstract: While environmental studies is known for its interdisciplinarity as a field, this may not be so for individuals within this area of study due to the division between the natural and social sciences. To determine whether this interdisciplinary nature manifests on the individual level, this study examined sixteen publications by eight core faculty members of the Environmental Studies program at Dartmouth College. This paper investigated whether experts in the field of environmental studies integrate knowledge and rhetorical conventions from the natural and social sciences by examining the use of pronouns, jargon, and citations. The results of this study indicated that, although most experts do not exhibit a notable degree of interdisciplinarity, there are certain individuals within the field who operate across the disciplines. These interdisciplinary agents demonstrate the capacity for experts to cross the boundary in various ways. This paper advocates for a deeper understanding of how interdisciplinarity paves the way for a more comprehensive study of complex global systems.

IntroductionThe field of environmental studies champions itself as an interdisciplinary community.

The Environmental Studies program (ENVS) at Dartmouth College prides itself in drawing upon concepts and methods from the natural and social sciences as “complementary lenses” through which to view our complex socio-ecological systems (Undergraduate). A cursory glance at the Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences (AESS) home page reveals that this emphasis on interdisciplinarity is a common trend. The AESS claims to support 1000+ interdisciplinary environmental programs and “improve communication across boundaries that too often divide the traditional academic disciplines” (Home Page).

Despite the emphasis placed on the integrated approach of the field, an array of circumstances and conventions demarcate natural sciences from social sciences. However, as the boundaries are not always easy to discriminate, environmentalists may not operate solely within the confines of their domain. The stress on interdisciplinarity suggests that individuals engage in both the natural and social dimensions, which requires shifting between communication strategies. On the other hand, the flexibility of the boundaries between the natural and social sciences may lead to confusion and instability between the two enterprises. Individuals situated in a natural science sub-discipline such as soil science may not feel obligated to participate in policymaking. Likewise, an individual who specializes in environmental policy may choose to focus exclusively on the application of social sciences. The extent to which individuals adopt the interdisciplinary character of the field of environmental studies is unclear.

Meeting the interdisciplinary needs of readers begins with understanding the activities that create them and their role in the knowledge system. As a product of the natural and social sciences, environmental studies is prone to the same variability in rhetorical strategies witnessed in the comparison across disciplines by composition scholars (Wolfe et al. 2014). A unified synthesis of the field requires understanding the interplay between a broad range of disciplines. Is the interdisciplinary character of the field adopted at the individual level, and if so, how? I studied the publications of professors in the ENVS program to observe differences in writing conventions between the two landscapes. Examining the divergence in writing conventions will

1

improve our understanding of the rhetorical strategies that facilitate the transfer and coordination of knowledge between the natural and social sciences. This knowledge of rhetorical strategies will allow us to understand the ways in which these subsections interact to shape the field of environmental studies.

BackgroundBecause academic disciplines are specialized fields of study, students and scholars alike

struggle with communicating across subjects due to differences in language and concepts. As Krishnan (2009) notes, focusing exclusively on the narrow concentration within a single academic discipline may hinder the exchange of ideas and impede the progress of research. To overcome these limitations, researchers must utilize concepts and methods from more than one discipline. Scholars such as Wagner (2010) and Garner (2013) define interdisciplinary research as the integration of concepts, techniques, methods, and data from different fields of established research. In order to successfully engage in interdisciplinary research, experts must first be familiar with the rhetorical processes which create and disseminate facts in texts within their field (Geisler 1994).

Scholars like Krishnan, Garner, and Wolfe support Geisler’s claim, pointing out that effective integration of aspects from multiple academic disciplines requires recognition of the boundaries that distinguish areas of study. Because disciplinary boundaries shape the norms and practices of the field, rhetorical conventions are not universal across academic subjects. In addition, because the definition of disciplinarity is not clearly defined (Krishnan 2009), it is often difficult to identify disciplinary boundaries and when they are crossed (Garner et al. 2013). Wolfe et al. claim that facilitating the transfer of knowledge requires students to identify similarities while familiarizing themselves with the differences.

Major advances in research are often situated at the interface between disciplines. While there is interest in promoting interdisciplinary research, conducting research that spans multiple disciplines faces many challenges. Geisler (1994) states that the domain content, or “what is accepted as true in a given field,” is “intimately related to the rhetorical processes underlying the reading and writing of texts.” However, the differing norms and writing conventions across fields of study impede the integration of knowledge. Natural and social sciences have fundamentally different means of identifying research questions and methods, which gives rise to differences in use of language (Garner et al. 2013). The difference in writing conventions such as use of pronouns, jargon, and citations exacerbate this division.

On one hand, writing in the natural sciences focuses on the natural aspects of our world. Natural scientists use papers to describe observations and draw conclusions, focusing on hypotheses and experiment outcomes. Writing a natural science paper entails addressing a problem, gathering and analyzing unbiased, relevant information, formulating a hypothesis, conducting an experiment, evaluating the results of this experiment, and arriving at a conclusion (Rhetoric and Composition/Writing in Sciences). The features of writing in the natural sciences stem from a focus on a specialized audience and the collaborative and de-personalized nature of natural science research.

On the other hand, the social sciences are concerned with the study of human behavior, the values of people, and the interactions between people within a society. Writing in the social science requires choosing a topic, making a claim, providing evidence to support your claim, and convincing the reader that your claim is valid. In the social sciences, there is a tension between 1) an objective, scientific voice versus the need for an authoritative, personal voice; and 2) the

2

need for quantitative data versus the desire to qualify data (Writing Conventions in the Disciplines: Writing in the Social Sciences). While both natural and social scientists use a passive voice (Rhetoric and Composition/Writing in Social Sciences), there are significant differences in the use of pronouns and jargon (see Table 1).

Table 1Writing Conventions in the Natural

Sciences Writing Conventions in the Social

SciencesHighly specialized, discipline-specific jargon Mingling of discipline-specific jargon and

conversational language Uses the plural “we” Straddles the boundary between “we” and

“I” Source: Writing Conventions in the Disciplines: Writing in the Sciences

Sources: Writing Conventions in the Disciplines: Writing in the Social Sciences

Interdisciplinary research entails complex intellectual and social structures and processes that synthesize concepts from two or more disciplines. Citation analysis, a common bibliometric technique, is another measure of interdisciplinarity. According to Wagner et al. (2010), citations are the closest reference to the source of knowledge creation and integrative action. The occurrence of discipline-specific citations from other subjects reveal an integration among fields, as the percentage of citations outside of the discipline of the original publication is a common indicator of interdisciplinarity (Wagner et al. 2010). Citation analysis provides another means for measuring comparing interdisciplinary tendencies between natural and social scientists, enhancing the conclusions drawn from the analysis of pronoun use and frequency of jargon use.

Methods Research Site

I studied publications by eight core faculty members of the ENVS program at Dartmouth College. I gathered a total of sixteen publications, two from each of the professors, and sorted these articles into the natural or social science categories based on the title and the abstract. According to the profiles on the program website, these eight professors cover an eclectic mix of subject areas from the natural sciences and social sciences (see Table 2). The faculty in this program are experts in the field of environmental studies who have each published several peer-reviewed research papers within their niches. Each letter represents one of the professors.

Table 2Professors Specializing in the Natural

Sciences Professors Specializing in the Social

SciencesA. biodiversity and conservation E. environmental policy and governance /

natural resource management / environmental social science / social-ecological systems

B. forest biogeochemistry / carbon, nitrogen F. environmental and ecological economics /

3

and trace metal cycling / soil science / ecosystem science / energy and the environment / environmental science

discounting, sustainability, and intergenerational fairness / applied growth theory / welfare economics / social norms, well-being, and pro-environmental behavior / economics of climate change / economics of energy efficiency / valuation and governance of ecosystem services

C. sustainability science / sustainable aquaculture / integrated food-energy systems / fish genetic conservation / conservation biology / environmental risk analysis / environmental risk assessment and management of genetically modified fish / environmental policy

G. nature-society relations / transnational river basins / environmental politics / environmental history / politics of scale / political ecology / sustainable development

D. ecosystem ecology and soil biogeochemical cycling / climate change and ecological response in Arctic and Antarctic systems / arctic policy / ecology and environmental law

H. forest ecology and management / human dimensions of wildlife management / tribal natural resource perspectives / tribal resource management systems / traditional ecological knowledge / linking ecological and human dimensions of environmental issues

QuestionsWhile the field of environmental studies is notorious for its interdisciplinary nature, this

may not be true on the individual level because of the division between natural and social sciences. In addition, the rhetorical differences between disciplines are entangled with the way domain content is produced by discourse communities. Thus, I decided to study how participants navigate the transitions between these entanglements.

Have natural and social scientists formed separate domains within the field? Do researchers who specialize in an area of environmental social science focus

exclusively on the social science concepts underlying their topic? Or do individuals take the holistic approach that the field is known for, incorporating elements of the “other” side?

Does the tendency to cross these boundaries fluctuate from individual-to-individual and/or from topic-to-topic? How extreme are these fluctuations?

To investigate whether the interdisciplinary nature of environmental studies manifests at the individual level or only as the field, I examined how the writing conventions of these two categories converge and diverge. Using two corpus-analysis procedures and one bibliographic procedure, I identified the boundaries between these two categories and when and how often they are crossed. By pinpointing the perimeters, I was able to work towards understanding how the two halves of this field come together to produce work that is unique to the study of human-environment systems.

Procedure 1: Pronoun Use

4

As Table 2 notes, natural and social scientists differ in their use of pronouns. Natural scientists tend to use the plural “we,” while social scientists straddle the boundary between “we” and “I.” Thus, I utilized AntConc to code the publications for the frequency of the words “I,” “me,” “my” and “we,” “our,” and “ours.” I believed that investigating the use of pronouns would allow me to examine the degree to which an individual sticks to the methods of their faction.

Procedure 2: Key Word AnalysisI decided to identify and quantify the use of technical language using AntConc. After

importing the publications into AntConc to see which words occur most frequently, I combed through the first fifty words and identified instances of discipline-specific jargon. Words that I could not define within the context of the publications counted as jargon. Key word analysis allowed me to examine how closely individuals adhered to the common trends of their sphere, be it more discipline-specific jargon for the natural science publications or a mix of general and technical language for the social science publications.

Procedure 3: Citation AnalysisIn addition to coding the publications, I analyzed the citations of two publications from

each professor. I used Excel to record: The main author and title of the citation The category the citation falls under (natural or social)

I measured the extent to which each publication cites and integrates literature by going through the spreadsheet and noting the number of disciplines cited, the distribution of citations among disciplines, and the disparity between these categories. Mapping these interactions provided a basis for determining the extent to which different authors participate in the interdisciplinary research that environmental studies is known for.

Procedure 4: Profile AnalysisFinally, I referred to each professors’ profile on the ENVS program website. This profile

includes the professor’s: Biography Areas of Expertise Program(s)

Examining the biographies and areas of expertise put forth by each professor allowed me to determine a) the degree to which professors aim towards interdisciplinarity and b) how actively they work towards this goal. Noting the programs that each professor teaches in provided concrete evidence to supplement the findings of the other procedures. I believed that the claims made in these profiles could potentially serve as rationale for possible boundary-crossings or the formation of two separate camps. ResultsProcedure 1: Pronoun Use

The use of pronouns in natural science writing stems from the de-personalized nature of natural science research. As natural science publications are often written in collaboration, authors tend to rely exclusively on the plural “we” and “our(s).” This trend is supported by the third column of Appendix A: the publications were completely devoid of singular pronouns such as “I,” “me,” and “my.”

5

The use of pronouns for the social sciences is less clear-cut. Just as the social sciences are situated between the natural sciences and the humanities, social scientists straddle the boundary between plural and singular pronouns. The results displayed in the third column of Appendix B exemplify the murky nature of pronoun use. While E2, F1, F2, G2, and H1 relied solely on plural pronouns (see Figure 1), E1 and G1, which both had only one author, had instances of both plural and singular pronouns (see Figure 2). These results suggest that social scientists tended to lean more towards the natural science norm of favoring collaboration over individuality.

A closer look at the context of the plural pronouns in E1 and G1 indicated that the authors for both publications used “we” to refer to themselves AND the audience. For example, in E1, the author states: “In these situations we can expect many actors to behave as conditional cooperators…” This maneuver allowed professors E and G to actively involve the readers by guiding them through the results and conclusions. H2, which had several authors, also had five instances of “I” and one instance of “me” (see Figure 1). Skimming the paragraphs around these instances revealed the culprit: quotations. The authors of H2 used a quote by a representative from the Rosebud Reservation in South Dakota, who “emphasized the value of trails to education: ‘I see education being …” In addition to offering a complete quotation, the use of “I” clearly indicates a transition from the authors’ ideas to the evidence they are drawing upon.

E2 F1 F2 G2 H1 H20%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 1: Pronouns Utilized in So-cial Science Publications with Mul-

tiple Authors

Personal Plural

Social Science Publications with Multiple Au-thorsPe

rcen

tage

s of

Per

osna

l vs.

Plu

ral P

rono

uns

E1 G10%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 2: Pronouns Utilized in Social Science Publications with

a Single Author

Personal Plural

Social Science Publications with Multiple Authors

Perc

enta

ges

of P

eros

nal v

s. P

lura

l Pro

noun

s

Procedure 2: Key Word AnalysisUnlike the unmistakable differences in pronoun use, the differences in use of jargon were

less explicit. Collectively, the natural science publications had a slightly higher frequency of jargon then the social science publications, with a ratio of 78:56. Figure 3 combined the two data pools, arranged in ascending order, into a scatterplot. As illustrated by the scatterplot, every natural science publication came out above its “equivalent” social science publication. This gap was also noticeably wider after the first three pairs, implying that there is variation within the camps as well. The trends in Figure 3, coupled with the exact numbers in Appendixes A and B, solidify the claim that natural science professors have a slightly higher tendency to utilize technical vocabulary.

However, these patterns were accompanied with variation across and within the boundaries. B2, a natural science publication, had the highest frequency of jargon, with 22

6

instances in the top 50 words (see Appendix A). However, the first point in the plot indicates that both categories include a publication completely void of jargon: C2 and E2. The nature of the publications in between the two extremes varied, with both data pools distributing works evenly across the spectrum of frequency. Thus, no definite conclusion can be drawn to delineate the tendencies of the two categories, as there was no stark contrast in frequency of jargon use.

0

5

10

15

20

25Figure 3: Frequency of Jargon in All Publications

Natural Science Publications Social Science PublicationsPublications

Freq

uenc

y of

Jarg

on

Despite the lack of a definitive outcome from this analysis, the use of jargon may lead to further investigation and eventually, a conclusion. The outliers in both categories encourage further analysis of the publication to justify the deviant behavior. While C2 was authored by a professor who focuses primarily on the natural sciences, the title indicates that this piece falls under the social sciences: “Mobilizing the power of higher education to tackle the grand challenge of sustainability: Lessons from novel initiatives.” The nature of the title rationalizes the complete lack of jargon. Likewise, H1, which had the highest frequency of jargon out of the social science publications, has a title more fitting for a natural science publication: “Mechanical Harvesting Effectively Controls Young Typha spp. Invasion and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Data Enhances Post-Treatment Monitoring.” This behavior is not consistent with the other publications by the same professor, as C1 and H2 were on the opposite end of the spectrum for both pools (see Figure 3). These additional observations suggest that there are individuals who exhibit the fluidity attributed to the field of environmental studies.

Thus, while the natural science professors tend to utilize more discipline-specific jargon than social science professors, there is no divisive line delineating the two domains based on frequency of jargon. Rather, the obvious difference between the two categories lies in the character of the jargon. The natural science publications utilized more “scientific” words that, even when used as commonplaces in our day-to-day life, often do not have another meaning. For example, while “soil,” “organic,” and “mineral” have made their way into familiar language, they are still only used in a discipline-specific manner. On the other end of the spectrum, words like “development,” “water,” and “social” are flexible and detached from any discernible origin. Both F1 and F2 utilize the word “model” – but models can be found in nearly every academic discipline. The jargon utilized in social science publications, discounting H1, tends to be more general.

7

Of course, specific words break free of this designation. “Climate,” when pertaining to weather conditions, showed up a total of 209 times in the social science publications (see Appendix B) – more often than in the natural science publications. Just as the word “cancer” was originally used exclusively by medical professionals, the issue of climate change was eliciting concern in the scientific community long before the topic became the polarizing political issue it is today. As the issue of climate change gained traction with the public and the body of research swelled, the word “climate” also become less of a scientific term. Climate change been tied countless social science aspects: human rights, poverty, immigration, global health, and the economy. At this point in time, the word “climate” is situated in the nexus between science and society – for climate change deniers and supporters alike. Whether an individual is denying or relying on the scientific evidence to support certain policies, the once wholly scientific term “climate” has now become thoroughly entrenched in our familiar language.

Additional rationale for this seemingly contradictory finding includes the tendency for natural science publications to focus on narrow topics that often contribute to climate forcing. As a result, natural science professors may only touch briefly on how their findings contribute to the broader scope of human-caused climate change. On the other side, social scientists tend to dedicate themselves to identifying relationships between human action and climate change. Therefore, they may be more inclined to directly address the phenomenon of climate change.

While jargon is often clearly of the natural sciences or social sciences, there are similarities to be fleshed out. There were distinctly unfamiliar words in both categories: “endogeic” in B2 and “Aeolian” in D2, and “acequia” in E1 and “tailed” in F1/2. Investigating other alien terms revealed that both natural and social science professors utilize proper nouns as well. The natural scientists often utilized proper nouns when naming certain locations: Tarangire National Park in A1 and Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, in D2. Social science professors, on the other hand, reference entities such as “Bureau of Reclamation” in G1 and “Fisheries Programme” in G2. Professors in both domains rely extensively on acronyms as well, such as PUFA (C1), KOB (D1), DICE (F2), and QOL (H2).

While aspects of this analysis reinforced the division between the natural and social science domains, certain individuals began to break out of this mold. The difference in use of jargon stemmed from the subjects of the publications: B1, which centered on forest biogeochemistry, utilized more “hard” science terms, while E1 relied on terms from economics such as “risk.” Despite these obvious differences in the type of jargon used based on the topic, there was no stark contrast in the amount of unfamiliar language used in the two realms. Rather, the anomalies provided the most interesting material. By authoring the outliers of their respective domains, professors C and H demonstrate the feasibility of interdisciplinarity.

Procedure 3: Citation AnalysisSimilar to frequency of jargon use, there were clear, overarching patterns for citations of

both categories. Just as a natural science publication, B2, utilized the most jargon, social science publication G2 had the most citations. While natural scientists tended to use more jargon than social scientists, publications by social scientists had more citations overall. Additionally, both categories had one publication with no citations from the other “side”: D1 for natural science and H2 for social science. Both groups exhibited a consistent pattern on the individual level: none of the publications came close to an equal amount of citations from both natural and social sciences.

The outliers in Figures 4 and 5, C2 and H1, were identified as social and natural science publications respectively despite the professors’ affiliations. Once these outliers are removed

8

from each bar graph, the citations are heavily skewed towards the science that the professor identified with (see Figures 4 and 5). It is also worth noting that the outliers, C2 and H1, followed this pattern as well. Instead of a skew towards the professors’ writing community, these publications had more citations under the category determined by the title, social and natural respectively.

A closer look at the data reveals another important trend. D2 had the highest number of citations of the “other” side at 20% (see Figure 4). However, once this outlier is removed, Figures 4 and 5 indicate that social science publications tend to cite the natural sciences more than natural scientists cite social science articles. This may be attributed to the nature of the two domains, which the discussion about use of “climate” hinted at. Natural science publications tend to have a narrower scope, focusing in on specific aspects of the physical environment. Environmental social science, on the other hand, is concerned with the set of relationships between the natural AND built environment. As a result of this additional dimension, professors in the social scientists are often more inclined to find sources from the “other” side to fortify their work or even build upon established natural science research when suggesting policies or creating models. In other words, the natural sciences compose the pure, conceptual body of research on the physical environment, and the social scientists discern implications from this conceptual knowledge to conduct applied research.

C2 D2 B1 A1 C1 A2 B2 D10%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 4: Citations of the Natural Science Publications

Natural Social

Natural Science Publications Perc

enta

ges o

f Nat

ural

vs.

Soci

al C

i-ta

tions

H1 F2 G1 E1 F1 G2 E2 H20%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 5: Citations of the Social Science Publications

Natural Social

Social Science Publications Perc

enta

ges o

f Nat

ural

vs.

Soci

al C

i-ta

tions

The citation analysis also revealed interesting differences between publications by the same professor. As Figure 3 shows, C and H were the only professors who had major differences in frequency of jargon between the two publications analyzed. Both professors were also the only subjects who authored papers in both the natural and social science. For citations, however, another professor’s work stands out. D2 crosses the boundary more times than any other publication, coming in at a little over 20%. However, D1 has absolutely no social science citations. What implications do these divergences have?

Procedure 4: Profile AnalysisThe results of the jargon and citation analyses were cemented by the profiles of each

professor in Appendix E. Again, the professors who had exhibited interdisciplinary behavior in the previous two analyses stood out. While professors A, B, E, F, and G were solely focused on

9

natural or social science topics, professors C, D, and H displayed signs of multi-disciplinarity in their declared areas of expertise.

A close look at the profiles of professors C, D, and H reveals that these individuals are intentionally and actively working towards interdisciplinarity. Just as there are similarities and differences between individuals within the same domain and across the program, each of these anomalies is distinct. Professor D seems to be the most well-balanced, listing an equal number of natural and social science topics (see Table 3). The biography on the program website highlights an interest in how “environmental change affects ecosystems and society,” with an emphasis on understanding how climate change alters vegetation and soil. This contextual analysis supports the results of the citation analysis, as D1 stemmed from the emphasis on ecosystem services of vegetation and soil, while D2 falls under the professor’s broader intent of examining effects of environmental change on socio-ecological systems. Thus, professor D demonstrates interdisciplinarity by synthesizing elements from both sides in select works.

While Professor D seems to be the most comprehensive professor overall, professors C and H serve as exemplars of interdisciplinarity within their respective domains. Professors C and H, who exhibited similar methods of boundary crossing during the jargon analysis phase, mirror each other in areas of expertise as well. Both dedicated roughly a third of their areas of expertise to topics from the other side (see Table 3). Professor C stresses a “systems approach to sustainability challenges, integrating across ecological, social, and economic domains.” C also claims to participate “actively in the sicence-policy interface.” This duality was embodied in the completely different focuses of C1, which addresses the socio-ecological dimensions of sustainable aquaculture, and C2, which is ensconced within the policy domain. Professor H simply claims to “blend ecological, anthropological, and Indigenous methodologies” in his work. The topics listed in his areas of expertise further clarify the distinction between H1, which focuses solely on analysis of an ecological method, and H2, which derives from H’s Indigenous work.

In addition to a clear commitment to integrative methodologies, endorsed by his publications and biographies, Professor H further cements his position as an interdisciplinary scholar by serving as an adjunct professor for two contrasting programs on campus: Native American Studies and Biological Sciences. Of the instructors that teach in other programs, no professor aside from H teaches in a program that does not fall into their established domain. This tangible boundary-crossing is a manifestation of the conclusion drawn from jargon, citation analysis and biography analyses: interdisciplinary agents exist within the field of environmental studies.

Table 3Professors Specializing in the Natural Sciences Professors Specializing in the Social Sciences

Professor CAreas of Expertise: sustainability science / sustainable aquaculture / integrated food-energy systems / fish genetic conservation / conservation biology / environmental risk analysis / environmental risk assessment and management of genetically modified fish / environmental policyOther Programs: Biological Sciences

Professor HAreas of Expertise: forest ecology and management / human dimensions of wildlife management / tribal natural resource perspectives / tribal resource management systems / traditional ecological knowledge / linking ecological and human dimensions of environmental issuesOther Programs: Biological Sciences and

10

Native American StudiesProfessor D

Areas of Expertise: ecosystem ecology and soil biogeochemical cycling / climate change and ecological response in Arctic and Antarctic systems / arctic policy / ecology and environmental lawOther Programs: Biological Sciences and Earth Sciences

Overall, the results collected from these analyses indicate that most experts do not exhibit a notable degree of interdisciplinarity. However, the anomalies of C, D, and H demonstrate that there are exceptions to this generalization. Rather than confining themselves to one camp, professors C, D, and H operate as interdisciplinary agents, embodying the multi-faceted nature of the field. Whether it is authoring a publication that fits into another category like C and H, or varying the degree to which his publications interact with works from both categories like D, these four analyses suggest that there are multiple ways for experts to cross the boundary and assume an interdisciplinary character.

DiscussionOverview of the Results

Environmental studies is a multidisciplinary academic field which investigates human interaction with the environment to solve complex problems. Tackling the multi-faceted environmental dilemmas that humanity faces today requires an integration of principles from the natural and social sciences. This condition depends on the ability of members in the field to produce and share information from various disciplines.

This study investigated whether the interdisciplinary nature of the field of environmental studies manifests on the individual level. Analyzing the works of environmental studies professors at Dartmouth College revealed that, for the most part, members of this discourse community function as single-channel scholars. These experts operate within the designated boundaries of the natural or social sciences, delving deep into the inner workings of a natural phenomena or a society. By selecting several, closely related areas to specialize in from a diverse range of topics, these experts help to forge the integrative character of the field. However, select individuals have demonstrated the capacity to cross the boundary and embody the interdisciplinary spirit touted by the field of environmental studies.

All four analyses provide an abundance of evidence that there exists a division between the two domains. The subtle difference in pronoun use was perhaps the clearest indicator of a boundary between the natural and social sciences. The natural scientists relied solely on plural pronouns, a tendency which stems from the collaborative nature of natural science research. The norms for the social science publications were less concrete: the straddling of singular and plural pronouns mirrors the role of the social sciences as a medium between the natural sciences and the humanities.

The use of jargon and citations, coupled with an analysis of the biographies reinforced the notion of two separate camps for the natural and social scientists. The natural science data pool saw a higher frequency of technical language, both overall and at every level. Natural scientists also served as professors for other programs more often than social scientists. On the

11

contrary, social scientists cited other publications more often than their natural science counterparts, both overall and in the number of citations from the “other side.” Every publication exhibited a heavy skew in citations from its designated category.

Unlike pronoun use, the frequency of jargon use, the use of citations, and the profiles of the professors cannot be utilized to prove a definitive separation between the natural and social sciences. Rather, these analyses began to point towards the existence of interdisciplinary agents. The stark contrast between C1 and C2 and H1 and H2 for frequency of jargon use provoked further investigation into the titles of the publications. Inconsistencies between publications by the same author occurred again in the citation analysis, but for a new professor: D. The biographies of these professors solidify the conclusions drawn from the analyses. The existence of individuals who do not operate solely within the confines of the natural or social science domains proves that interdisciplinarity on the individual level is achievable.

Although interdisciplinarity does not manifest in every individual’s work, the versatility of this field seems to be embodied in interdisciplinary agents who operate across the disciplines. Based on the results of these four studies, professors A, B, E, F, and G seem to abide by the guidelines of their discipline. Professors C, H, and D however, broke the mold in various ways. Further investigation of outliers C2 and H1 revealed that the professors had authored publications in both the natural and social sciences. Meanwhile, subject D demonstrated mobility within and across boundaries through citation use, publishing one article with no social science citations and another with the highest percentage of citations from the other side. The striking contrast between works by the same professor displays the ability of experts in the field to work within and across the natural and social science hemispheres.

Implications of FindingsThe results of these analyses suggested that the degree of interdisciplinarity differs

radically from individual-to-individual. In addition to the intra-domain diversity of writing conventions, the multidisciplinary character of the field is embodied through the sheer volume of material covered by these eight individuals. While most professors fit neatly into one category or the other, the three anomalies, C, H, and D, serve as models of true interdisciplinary scholarship.

All three professors explicitly state their intention to explore topics in the natural (C and D) or social (H) sciences with a focus on the social (C and D) or ecological (H) significance. The results of jargon and citation analysis, as well as their placement within the intersections between disciplines, prove that professors C, D, and H are true to their word. By successfully adopting an interdisciplinary character, these individuals serve as models of professional labor and student training within the field of environmental studies.

The presence of interdisciplinary agents operating across the disciplines has implications for the structuring of academic communities. By establishing interdisciplinary scholarship networks which organize programs, build research teams, and train students, universities are uniquely designed to sow the seed of progress in ways that no other institutions are able to mimic. Universities seek to unlock and harness new knowledge, promote dialogue, and share solutions to improve our lives and our impact on this world. Interdisciplinary scholars are needed to pave the way for the development of substantive technological and policy solutions to global challenges. Professors C, H, and D are paramount pioneers in a global system increasingly driven by integrative knowledge and information.

As the portrait of these three professors demonstrates, there is no model for interdisciplinary scholarship that all academics should aspire to. Rather, variety supports

12

strength. By bolstering the work of interdisciplinary scholars of all capacities, universities will actively work towards strengthening the connections between programs, and effectively train undergraduate and graduate students to participate in the ongoing discussion on global challenges.

Limitations of the StudyThe dependence on interpretation made this study vulnerable to bias. As the

interpretations were completely based upon my judgment as a common reader, this effect was potentially magnified by my preconceived notions of the field. There is a possibility that my beliefs led me to over-interpret certain results or actively search for trends I expected to see.

Additionally, because there is no concrete determination of what constitutes as jargon, there would most likely be great variability from reader-to-reader. This study is especially prone to bias because most readers tend to be more attuned to the natural or social sciences. Similar studies should be conducted using a heterogeneous pool of common readers to minimize the impact of associations to certain disciplines.

Another limitation of this study was the size of the data pool. Due to the lack of time, only two publications for each professor were analyzed. Thus, this study was not the most representative of the professors’ works. Future studies should increase the number of experts and publications studied in order to construct a comprehensive data pool and produce more reliable results.

Despite these limiting factors, the present research is the first study to examine interdisciplinarity on the individual level within the Environmental Studies program at Dartmouth College. The results of this study provided important insights for identifying ways in which interdisciplinary scholarship can be achieved by individuals within a field as broad and as diverse as environmental studies.

Ideas for Future ResearchMore objective measures of academic interdisciplinarity, such as comparing to an

established array of jargon, should be used in future research. Future studies should also aim to have multiple common readers from a variety of fields of study. Utilizing common readers that identify with an assortment of disciplines would cancel out inherent biases attached to either domain. In addition to this modification, broadening the data pool to include more publications per professor would allow for more material to analyze. These adjustments would engender a more comprehensive, robust analysis of the interdisciplinarity exhibited by individuals within the field of environmental studies.

Appendix A

13

14

PUBLICATIONS BY PROFESSORS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES (A-D)

Publication Frequency of Jargon Pronoun Use

A1 1. Wildebeest: 482. Tarangire: 433. Manyara: 394. Bottlenecks: 235. Connectivity: 23

We: 29Our: 9

A2 1. AE: 862. FRR: 25

We: 66Our: 27

B1 1. C: 1972. Soil: 1963. Mineral: 784. Pools: 685. Soils: 386. Mineral Soil: 387. N: 358. Stands: 24

a. Forest stands: 119. Organic: 23

We: 38Our: 23

B2 1. Earthworms: 1142. TMM: 993. Concentrations: 894. Earthworm: 825. Horizon: 666. Tissue: 617. Organic: 608. Cd: 509. Hg: 4610. Pb: 4411. Pools: 4412. P: 4013. Se: 3814. Mineral: 3615. Zn: 3416. S: 3217. Stands: 3218. U: 3219. M: 3120. Cu: 2921. Endogeic: 3922. Metals: 27

We: 4Our: 12

C1 1. N: 1592. Sc: 1343. Fatty: 95

a. Fatty acids: 324. Acids: 805. Tilapia: 786. Oil: 62

a. Fish oil: 567. Acid: 598. DHA: 479. PUFA: 4210. Feed: 38

a. Feed conversion ratio: 611. ND: 3312. Lipid: 2813. Aquaculture: 26

We: 49Our: 16

Appendix B

15

16

PUBLICATIONS BY PROFESSORS IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES (E-H)

Publication Frequency of Jargon Pronoun Use

E1 1. Acequia: 772. Acequias: 653. Action: 654. SES: 28

We: 7I: 18

E2 None We: 73Our: 21

F1 1. Climate: 1122. Social cost of carbon: 503. Emissions: 784. Greenhouse gas emissions: 235. Risk: 676. Model: 477. Tailed: 278. Climate sensitivity: 259. C: 1110. E: 9

We: 33Our: 26

F2 1. Climate: 942. Risk: 753. Model: 534. H: 455. Tailed: 45

a. Fat-tailed: 20b. Thin-tailed: 21

6. Climate sensitivity: 357. DICE: 358. S: 329. P: 2810. C: 2511. T: 1812. B: 1213. R: 7

We: 36Our: 38

G1 1. Bureau: 1512. Bureau of Reclamation: 403. Geopolitical: 464. Reclamation: 465. Riparian States: 5

We: 4Our: 5I: 23Me: 1My: 4

G2 1. MRC: 1772. Basin: 643. Fisheries: 514. Fisheries Programme: 385. Secretariat: 486. BDP: 357. PP: 328. Riparian States: 12

We: 30Our: 17

H1 1. Typha: 1342. Cover: 883. Stand: 674. P: 665. Vegetation: 616. DOI: 547. UAV: 508. SPP: 469. Carex: 4410. Treatments: 44

We: 49Our: 13

Appendix C

A1

A2

B1

B2

C1

C2

D1

D2

39

37

46

80

40

1

38

44

3

1

5

1

3

14

0

12

Citations of Publications by Natural Science Professors

Social Natural

Appendix D

E1

E2

F1

F2

G1

G2

H1

H2

5

3

5

11

8

8

59

0

39

43

51

45

61

85

2

49

Citations of Publications by Social Sciences Professors

Social Natural

Appendix E

PROFILES OF THE PROFESSORS STUDIEDProfessors Specializing in the Natural Sciences Professors Specializing in the Social Sciences

Professor AAreas of Expertise: biodiversity and conservation

Professor EAreas of Expertise: environmental policy and governance / natural resource management /

17

Other Programs: Biological Sciences environmental social science / social-ecological systems Other Programs: none

Professor BAreas of Expertise: forest biogeochemistry / carbon, nitrogen and trace metal cycling / soil science / ecosystem science / energy and the environment / environmental scienceOther Programs: Biological Sciences and Earth Sciences

Professor FAreas of Expertise: environmental and ecological economics / discounting, sustainability, and intergenerational fairness / applied growth theory / welfare economics / social norms, well-being, and pro-environmental behavior / economics of climate change / economics of energy efficiency / valuation and governance of ecosystem servicesOther Programs: none

Professor CAreas of Expertise: sustainability science / sustainable aquaculture / integrated food-energy systems / fish genetic conservation / conservation biology / environmental risk analysis / environmental risk assessment and management of genetically modified fish / environmental policyOther Programs: Biological Sciences

Professor GAreas of Expertise: nature-society relations / transnational river basins / environmental politics / environmental history / politics of scale / political ecology / sustainable developmentOther Programs: Geography

Professor DAreas of Expertise: ecosystem ecology and soil biogeochemical cycling / climate change and ecological response in Arctic and Antarctic systems / arctic policy / ecology and environmental lawOther Programs: Biological Sciences and Earth Sciences

Professor HAreas of Expertise: forest ecology and management / human dimensions of wildlife management / tribal natural resource perspectives / tribal resource management systems / traditional ecological knowledge / linking ecological and human dimensions of environmental issuesOther Programs: Biological Sciences and Native American Studies

References

Garner, J., Porter, A. L., Borrego, M., Tran, E., & Teutonico, R. 2013. Facilitating social and natural science cross-disciplinarity: Assessing the human and social dynamics program. Res Eval, 22(2): 134-144. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/rev/article/22/2/134/1609050/Facilitating-social-and-natural-science-cross.

18

Geisler, C. 1994. At the Boundaries of Expertise: Transforming apprenticeship in an Instructional Situation. Chapter 12 of Academic Literacy and the Nature of Expertise. Retrieved from https://canvas.dartmouth.edu/courses/20288/files/2709239/download?wrap=1.

Home Page. Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences. Retrieved from https://aessonline.org.

Krishnan, A. January 2009. What Are Academic Disciplines? NCRS Working Paper Series. National Centre for Research Methods. Retrieved from http://www.forschungsnetzwerk.at/downloadpub/what_areacademic_disciplines2009.pdf

Rhetoric and Composition/Writing in the Sciences. September 2014. Retrieved from https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Rhetoric_and_Composition/Writing_in_the_Sciences#Resources_to_Use.

Undergraduate. Dartmouth College Environmental Studies Department. Retrieved from http://envs.dartmouth.edu/undergraduate.

Wagner, C., Roessner, D. J., Bobb, K., Klein, J. T., Boyack, K. W., Keyton, J., Rafols, I., & Borner, K. 2010. Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 165(2011): 14-26. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157710000581.

Writing Conventions in the Disciplines: Writing in the Natural Sciences. University of Connecticut Writing Center. Retrieved from http://wcenter.hartford.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2014/03/Writing-in-the-Natural-Sciences.pdf

Writing Conventions in the Disciplines: Writing in the Social Sciences. University of Connecticut Writing Center. Retrieved from http://wcenter.hartford.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/261/2014/03/Writing-in-the-Social-Sciences.pdf.

Wolfe, J., Olson, B., and Wilder L. January 2014. Knowing What We Know about Writing in the Disciplines: A New Approach to Teaching for Transfer in FYC. WAC Journal, 25:42-77. Retrieved from https://wac.colostate.edu/journal/vol25/wolfeetal.pdf.

19