As doctorate students in a science-oriented program at the University of Maryland, we have the luxury of hyper-specialization. It is a marvelous thing to be able to focus on the depth of sediment necessary to allow for coastal marshes to migrate with sea level rise, or the density of mangroves required to attenuate wave damage along coastlines. Are we solving the real environmental and ecological problems of the world with such focused approaches? Should we be?

Over the past few weeks, we have been collectively watching images of the devastating impacts of Hurricane Ian on the southwest coast of Florida. American society seems well past the point of arguing that the climate is changing and impacting our planet, even if we do not yet all agree “why” it is changing. The contractor fixing up my old barn was just telling me the other day that he remembers when they would race ice boats on the local rivers every winter on the Eastern Shore. I do not think I have seen ice on the Choptank River in the six years I have lived on this side of the Bay, and I hear “old-timers” talking about how we do not have real winters here anymore.

We all know hurricanes are certainly nothing new, but the increase in the temperatures of ocean water around the world has led to an unprecedented intensification of storms which, when mixed with the massive new developments along high-risk coastlines, has led to increasingly greater impacts to the built environment and vulnerable populations.

Scientists have certainly played a key role in identifying and measuring the factors related to climate change and sea level rise (and the corresponding intensification of weather events), but the accepted and continued approach of hyper-specialization on their specific disciplines has only served to provide details related to the problem of climate change rather than any significant movement towards a resolution of the problem. Here is the first thing to consider – should we as scientist continue with this very limited role? We certainly seem very good at this role and it has worked for us.

Now may be the time to step out of our comfort zone and embrace the concept of “Transdisciplinary Science” or “Transdisciplinarity.” One of our class readings this week, Jahn et. al. (2012), developed the following definition of the Transdisciplinary Approach:

Transdisciplinarity is a critical and self-reflexive research approach that relates societal with scientific problems; it produces new knowledge by integrating different scientific and extra-scientific in-sights; its aim is to contribute to both societal and scientific progress; integration is the cognitive operation of establishing a novel, hitherto non-existent connection between the distinct epistemic, social–organizational, and communicative entities that make up the given problem context. (1)

Quite simply, the transdisciplinary approach is a way to look at a research problem – such as sustainability or climate change – as a complex system of connected issues, instead of an isolated component of a single branch of science. In addition, it brings in different parts of society to solve complex problems and it works to involve different stakeholder groups.

How does Transdisciplinarity differ from previous “Inter” and “multi” disciplinary approaches? The Economy & Environment Partnership for Southeast Asia (2021) defines each as follows:

Multidisciplarity - One disciplinary view, supported by views from other fields of science.

Interdisciplinarity – many disciplinary views with equal weights.

Transdisciplinarity – multiple views in a common conceptual framework, joined by multiple stakeholders. (2)

The concept of transdisciplinarity does not appear to be rocket science (which is itself surely only multidisciplinary at best). It is a recent concept though (think Nirvana and the Grunge Music era), and although there are organizations that have formed to embrace this approach related to environmental issues around the globe, the amount of effort to get scientists, researchers, and academics to move into fully embracing this approach may be no small task.

Why is it so difficult to move towards transdisciplanarity? Traditionally, the public consider scientists and researchers “purists” whose main goal is to move their specific area of research and scientific knowledge forward incrementally. Fabian Mendez (2012) explains that “In university training, unidisciplinary models are adhered to, hindering the development of more comprehensive perspectives. This is partly the result of university structures that favor hyper-specialization, making teamwork difficult.” (3)

Secondly, scientists often limit themselves from embracing a transdisciplinary approach for fear of real or perceived conflict of interest in collaborating with stakeholder groups or others outside the close-knit academic and scientific community. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) note four main barriers for scientists in working effectively with stakeholder groups: institutional and interpersonal barriers, trust, “outsider” status, and underuse of science communication tools. (4)

As scientists, do we blame our existing entrenched institutions and just continue moving forward as we always have? Do we limit our exposure to conflict of interest or challenging stakeholder engagement because that is the safest path forward for us? Or do we embrace change in how we approach problem resolution and take a risk with the purity of our science?

I have been working on long-term disaster recovery and hazard mitigation for decades and am hopeful to see that the concepts of sustainability and resilience have been gaining so much ground across all levels. However, it is still clear to me that scientists, government decisionmakers, practitioners, and stakeholders still have significant need to come together utilizing Transdisciplinarity to develop timely and effective long-term solutions to this rapidly evolving problem, even as the funding amounts to address these issues continues to grow exponentially.

Scientists have done magnificent work defining the problem and must now be charged with using their knowledge and skills to help lead the charge in solving the problem. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that we are not too late.

References

1. T. Jahn, M. Bergmann, F. Keil. Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol. Econ., 79 (2012). https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/s0921800912001681?via=ihub

2. Economy & Environment Partnership for Southeast Asia. (2021, October) Transdisciplinarity in research —an overview. https://eepseapartners.org/transdisciplinarity-in-research-an-overview/#:~:text=Transdisciplinarity

3. Méndez F. (2015). Transdiscipline and research in health: science, society and decision making. Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia), 46(3), 128–134. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4640435/
4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Understanding the Long-Term Evolution of the Coupled Natural-Human Coastal System: The Future of the U.S. Gulf Coast. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25108.