‘Shifting gears ain't easy’: Disciplinary resistances to perspective shifts in soil science and how to move forward

IF 4 2区 农林科学 Q2 SOIL SCIENCE
Philippe C. Baveye, Wilfred Otten, Iain Young
{"title":"‘Shifting gears ain't easy’: Disciplinary resistances to perspective shifts in soil science and how to move forward","authors":"Philippe C. Baveye,&nbsp;Wilfred Otten,&nbsp;Iain Young","doi":"10.1111/ejss.70010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over the last decade, the fact that novel perspectives on various aspects of soils have remained strongly controversial long after they emerged, without any kind of consensus being reached about them, raises question about the underlying reasons for this phenomenon. The on-going debate on the usefulness of aggregates to describe the functions of soils illustrates some of the key aspects of that question. Similar debates on other soil-related issues also appear stalled, or have been for a long time and are only now moving forward. This might suggest a fundamental aversion to change, which when it gets overcome, only does so slowly. However, at the same time, somewhat surprisingly, researchers appear willing to quickly seize opportunities provided by new idea or novel perspectives on other topics. In that context, the objective of the present article is to analyse in detail what may cause such contrasting reactions to novelty. We consider, then ultimately dismiss, explanations based on how strongly or not novel perspectives have been actively promoted, on how access to suitable technology may impede or only slow down perspective shifts and on whether a recent theory of the ‘slowed canonical progress in large fields of science’ applies to the relatively small soil science community. Then, taking soil aggregates as a case in point, we come to realize that it is the extent to which a novel perspective mandates an interdisciplinary approach that determines whether or not it is adopted quickly. From that standpoint, we envisage a number of practical actions that could be taken to facilitate in the future the emergence in soil science of interdisciplinary research efforts, which we argue are absolutely essential to successfully tackle the enormous complexity of soils and to come up with satisfactory answers to the daunting environmental and food security problems we currently face in their management.</p>","PeriodicalId":12043,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Soil Science","volume":"75 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ejss.70010","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Soil Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejss.70010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOIL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Over the last decade, the fact that novel perspectives on various aspects of soils have remained strongly controversial long after they emerged, without any kind of consensus being reached about them, raises question about the underlying reasons for this phenomenon. The on-going debate on the usefulness of aggregates to describe the functions of soils illustrates some of the key aspects of that question. Similar debates on other soil-related issues also appear stalled, or have been for a long time and are only now moving forward. This might suggest a fundamental aversion to change, which when it gets overcome, only does so slowly. However, at the same time, somewhat surprisingly, researchers appear willing to quickly seize opportunities provided by new idea or novel perspectives on other topics. In that context, the objective of the present article is to analyse in detail what may cause such contrasting reactions to novelty. We consider, then ultimately dismiss, explanations based on how strongly or not novel perspectives have been actively promoted, on how access to suitable technology may impede or only slow down perspective shifts and on whether a recent theory of the ‘slowed canonical progress in large fields of science’ applies to the relatively small soil science community. Then, taking soil aggregates as a case in point, we come to realize that it is the extent to which a novel perspective mandates an interdisciplinary approach that determines whether or not it is adopted quickly. From that standpoint, we envisage a number of practical actions that could be taken to facilitate in the future the emergence in soil science of interdisciplinary research efforts, which we argue are absolutely essential to successfully tackle the enormous complexity of soils and to come up with satisfactory answers to the daunting environmental and food security problems we currently face in their management.

Abstract Image

换挡并非易事":土壤科学观点转变的学科阻力及如何前进
在过去的十年中,有关土壤各个方面的新观点在出现后很长时间内一直存在着强烈的争议,没有达成任何共识,这一事实让人们对造成这种现象的根本原因产生了疑问。目前正在进行的关于聚合体对描述土壤功能是否有用的争论就说明了这一问题的一些关键方面。关于其他土壤相关问题的类似辩论似乎也停滞不前,或者已经停滞了很长时间,直到现在才有所进展。这可能表明,人们从根本上厌恶变革,即使克服了这种厌恶,也只是缓慢地进行。但与此同时,令人惊讶的是,研究人员似乎愿意迅速抓住其他课题的新想法或新观点所带来的机遇。在这种情况下,本文的目的是详细分析是什么原因导致了对新颖性的这种截然不同的反应。我们考虑并最终否定了基于以下方面的解释:新观点是否得到了积极推广;获得适当技术的途径如何阻碍或只是减缓了观点的转变;以及最近提出的 "大型科学领域的典型进展放缓 "理论是否适用于相对较小的土壤科学界。然后,以土壤团聚体为例,我们认识到,一个新观点在多大程度上要求采用跨学科方法,决定了它是否能被迅速采纳。从这个角度出发,我们设想了一些可以采取的实际行动,以促进未来土壤科学中跨学科研究工作的出现。我们认为,跨学科研究工作对于成功解决土壤的巨大复杂性以及为我们目前在土壤管理中面临的令人生畏的环境和粮食安全问题找到令人满意的答案是绝对必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Journal of Soil Science
European Journal of Soil Science 农林科学-土壤科学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
4.80%
发文量
117
审稿时长
5 months
期刊介绍: The EJSS is an international journal that publishes outstanding papers in soil science that advance the theoretical and mechanistic understanding of physical, chemical and biological processes and their interactions in soils acting from molecular to continental scales in natural and managed environments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信