The Anthropocene Working Group and its (inter-)disciplinarity

Abstract

This article investigates the internal dynamics of the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), an expert body tasked with evaluating the stratigraphic case of the Anthropocene. The investigation focuses on the role of interdisciplinarity and disciplinarity in the AWG. The article draws on surveys and interviews with AWG members to characterize interdisciplinary collaboration in the AWG and discusses the relationship of the AWG to the stratigraphic community. The results reveal that the exchanges between disciplines in the AWG are 'multidisciplinary' and of limited scope. While social scientists in the group take a non-scientific role, the involvement of natural scientists in research activities is guided by the objectives of stratigraphy. Moreover, a lack of communication and trust had shaped the relationship between the AWG and the stratigraphic community until they devised pragmatic working arrangements that led the AWG to adapt its research practice and rationale. Despite calls to reform stratigraphic practice, the disciplinarity of the AWG prevails over innovative research practices inspired by interdisciplinary exchanges. In terms of theory, the study confirms that disciplines continue to provide the context in which interdisciplinary endeavors need to position themselves. Notwithstanding the pull of interdisciplinarity, the AWG's main point of reference remains the stratigraphic community. ARTICLE HISTORY

Science in the Trading Zone: Interdisciplinarity and the ‘Environment’

“…Since forms of knowledge have been organised into disciplinary fields have the potential and possibility of crossing boundaries been apparent and utilised to advance knowledge (Renn, 2020; Schaffer, 2013). However, continually interdisciplinarity appears as a remedy for the many scientific and environmental challenges of the present, most prominently demonstrated recently through action and research coalescing around the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Keynejad et al., 2021) and the Anthropocene, both practically (Lundershausen, 2018) and theoretically (Renn, 2020).…”

A New Keyword in the Museum: Exhibiting the Anthropocene

“…Ruddiman 2003Ruddiman , 2013Lane 2015). This situation hardly changed after May 2019, when the Anthropocene Working Group decided by majority vote (29 members in favour, four members against) that the Anthropocene should be treated as a formal chrono-stratigraphic unit defined by a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) (Ogg 2004;Lundershausen 2018). Evidently, the conversation about the Anthropocene has moved, as Williams claimed happens with all keywords, beyond the range of 'proper meaning', and the multiplicity of meanings attached to the Anthropocene is bound up with the problems the word is meant to discuss.…”

Interpretation of the Reality in Environmental Education: Identification of Mono-, Multi-, Inter-, Trans-Disciplinary and Inter-Epistemic Experiences

“…It seems that integrating disciplines is a way to reach complexity in interpreting reality. However, Lundershausen (2018) empirically demonstrated that scientific groups have limitations to achieving such integration. Moreover, Woiwode and Froese (2020) identify that the peer-review process for publishing favour monodisciplinary research.…”