interdisciplinary – Free Range Podcast

Season 1, Episode 30

Host Mike Livermore concludes Season 1 of Free Range with a solo episode on the value of interdisciplinary engagement.
Livermore begins with the theory behind the podcast—speaking with guests with various perspectives and backgrounds relating to the environment and sustainability—and the tradeoffs between being a generalist rather than a specialist. (0:43 – 4:32) In this episode, he wants to explore the questions around interdisciplinary scholarship and engagement: Why do people do it? How is it useful? How is it done in a productive way? (4:37 – 11:20)

To begin, it is useful to understand why disciplines exist in the first place. A functional defense of disciplines is that they help us structure our knowledge production. (11:22 – 15:27) There is utility in modeling the world at different scales and reducing complexity of the models. Even though boundaries are somewhat arbitrary, they can help provide needed structure, and porous boundaries allow for productive crossover. Disciplinary boundaries also often seem to track something important about our world and how we understand it. (15:28 – 25:07). In the humanities, the boundaries are not as clearly world-tracking as they are within the sciences but may be more related to how we understand the world. (25:08 – 29:21) The value of disciplines is the creation of collections of people who share knowledge and research questions and methods, which promotes the progressive production of knowledge over time. (29:28 – 39:39)

Notwithstanding the value of disciplines, there is a place for interdisciplinary engagement. The value of such research is to combine various perspective. But while certain projects can be of interest to all fields involved, finding research that is rewarding for researches in many diverse fields is a big challenge in interdisciplinary collaboration. (39:40 – 56:23)

Livermore wraps up his thoughts on what makes interdisciplinary collaboration work, such as respect for one another’s disciplines, taking the time to understand what motivates them, and knowing the difference between normative and empirical questions. He concludes the episode with what motivates him personally, describing interest and appreciation in interdisciplinary engagement as an ‘aesthetic of knowledge.’ The overarching goal of Free Range is to create an opportunity to appreciate all of the interesting and difficult work being done across disciplines in the area of sustainability and the environment. (56:25 – 1:02:17)

Season 1, Episode 10

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Arden Rowell, a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law. Rowell’s work focuses on environmental law, human behavior, and the incorporation of a multidisciplinary approach to the study of environmental law. Her new book, The Psychology of Environmental Law, co-written with Kenworthey Bilz, was recently published by NYU Press.

Rowell begins by explaining why, despite the interdisciplinary nature of environmental law, psychology has not, to this point, had the effect on environmental law that it could and should have. She goes on to explain how and why environmental law and policy, in particular, need to be considered from a psychological perspective. This relates to the specific kinds of injuries that are suffered in the environmental law context, with Rowell explaining that environmental injuries are diffuse, complex and difficult to process, and often non-human character. This combination of factors means that it can be difficult for people to attach emotion and value to environmental injuries (1:15 – 8:02). Delving into more detail of these factors, Rowell first addresses the non-human character of environmental injury, with a focus on how this interacts with economic theories of preferences. She also weighs in on whether the public’s reflective preferences should drive environmental reform, and more broader sociological factors that can influence environmental policy (8:20 – 23:27).

Rowell then speaks about the psychology of how people engage with various environmental issues, such as pollution and the natural/man-made dichotomy. To illustrate her point, Rowell relates a couple of anecdotes from her book, including one about the Mount Tabor reservoir in Portland, Oregon (23:55 – 32:28).

The conversation then segues into an in-depth discussion of particulate matter air pollution, wildfire management, and the changing public perception of wildfires generally. Rowell explains that this fits into a broader discussion regarding the shift in public preference from the artificial to the natural, and how risk perception is changing in response to this shift (32:35 – 43:39). Rowell then explains how this information can be used to shape policy in order to better address actual, rather than perceived, risks. She also discusses the role moral disengagement plays in shaping environmental policy and people’s view of climate change. (43:52 – 53:32).

The conversation concludes with a consideration of the effect of in-group/out-group psychology on our understanding of environmental harm, how this relates to rising nationalism across the globe, and whether a nationalistic environmental policy is sustainable long-term (53:37 – 1:01:00).
Professor Michael Livermore is the Edward F. Howrey Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. He is also the Director of the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment (PLACE), an interdisciplinary program based at UVA Law that examines the intersection of legal, environmental, and social concerns.

Season 1, Episode 4

Transcription

On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Willis Jenkins, the John Allen Hollingsworth Professor of Ethics and Chair of the University of Virginia’s Department of Religious Studies. In an enlightening conversation that flows from the nature of the humanities to the way in which concerns about access to water are thought about within the academy, Jenkins explains how his work brings together three distinct but connected concepts: religion, ethics, and the environment.

This wide-ranging conversation begins with both Livermore and Jenkins questioning the strange space the humanities occupies within academia, with both suggesting that perhaps the phrase is not fit for purpose (:43 – 4:52). Providing an example of just how interdisciplinary the humanities has become, Jenkins then discusses a project he is involved with as part of UVA’s Environmental Resilience Institute. The project examines the central problem of water security, and Jenkins explains what that means, why it is important, and how the group attempts to reconcile the different interests and values that weigh on society’s water demands (5:30 – 16:10).

The discussion then flows (pun intended!) into a conversation about the difficulties that scientists are confronted with when they are asked to provide objective answers to fundamentally subjective questions, whether the “trust the science” approach is the best option for a cohesive society, and whether democracies can survive climate change (16:25 – 27:24).

The focus then shifts to a different project Jenkins is working on, the Coastal Futures Conservatory, which combines the arts, the humanities, and scientific analysis in order to better understand the effects of climate change. Jenkins talks about a number of the Conservatory’s various projects, including the creation of sound installations in an abandoned coastal hotel on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, the incorporation of indigenous story-telling, and the conversion of data inputs into acoustic recordings. This, in turn, leads to questions about how societies will process the inevitable losses, of territory and of culture, that will occur as a result of climate change (27:30 – 43:10).

The final project Jenkins discusses is Sanctuary Lab, a multidisciplinary program that examines the effect climate change will have on sacred spaces, and how the cultural traditions associated with those spaces can be preserved in the future (43:40 – 53:40).

The conversation concludes with Jenkins briefly explaining the intersection of religion and the environment in the context of contemporary American politics (54:00 – 1:00:37).