Despite Critiques, Environmental Law Scholars Support Interdisciplinary Research
Among environmental researchers, the challenges of interdisciplinary engagement have become a hot topic. The participants in that discussion range from environmental economists to communications specialists to ecologists. Yet the literature says hardly anything about the potential role of law. Meanwhile, the legal world has been engaged in its own debates about interdisciplinary research. Many participants in those debates – including the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court – have questioned the usefulness of such collaboration.
In a forthcoming article in the journal Ecology Law Quarterly, Dave Owen, Professor in the University of Maine School of Law, and Caroline Noblet, Assistant Professor in UMaine’s School of Economics, argue that we should take a different view of environmental law’s role in interdisciplinary research. To environmental non-lawyers, the core pitch is simple: environmental law researchers could play an important role on your research team, particularly if you hope your research will lead to policy change. And to skeptical lawyers, the authors offer some reassurance that interdisciplinary engagement can help improve legal practice, teaching, and research.
The article relied on a survey, which the authors distributed to environmental law professors in law schools across the United States, plus a series of follow-up interviews. Sixty percent of respondents wanted to devote more time to interdisciplinary work, without a single respondent reporting that he or she would like to do less. The interviews produced results similar to the survey, with researchers Owen and Noblet reporting: “Several of the professors we interviewed noted that they had left the sciences and entered the legal field precisely because they thought combining their non-legal background with legal skills was their best option for effecting social and environmental change.”
But Owen and Noblet also found gaps between interest and engagement. Legal scholars also reported finding little time to dedicate to such scholarship, despite the value they assign it. Forty-five percent say they spend no time on interdisciplinary research. And 28 percent spend between one and ten percent of their time in such pursuits.
Many of the reasons will sound familiar. Interdisciplinary research often takes more time than traditional disciplinary work. Some academic departments at universities emphasize within-discipline teaching and achievements, as do many academic journals. Just finding time to connect with people outside one’s area of concentration can be a challenge. And understanding the questions that motivate another discipline can take some effort. In fact, environmental law faculty often noted that other environmental researchers seemed to have only limited understanding of what legal researchers do and why they do it. But those obstacles also have potential fixes. And Owen and Noblet describe a series of ways in which legal scholars, non-legal scholars, and academic institutions can promote more effective interdisciplinary engagement. Primarily for the benefit of non-legal researchers, they also provide a summary of key differences between the research models used in the legal and non-legal worlds.
Owen and Noblet say they hope this field guide will help environmental academics who hope to integrate a legal research component into their projects. As Owen put it, “interdisciplinary research is growing more important, and for good reason. But a major sub-field of academic research often sits on the sidelines. We hope our research will help change that.”
Noblet adds: “this article is a powerful example of the broad-ranging outcomes possible with interdisciplinary collaboration.”