| Abstract: | A multidisciplinary team of biologists, economists, engineers, planners, and sociologists were assembled to do an ex-post facto analysis of a flood control reservoir ten years after initial operations. Within the context of a research university, the authors suggest ways to 1) improve project administration, 2) combat disciplinary chauvinism, 3) facilitate the understanding and exchange of data across disciplines, 4) reward the work of graduate students in a fair and equitable manner, and 5) assist the principal investigator in achieving the goal of an interdisciplinary study. The importance of project associates in the day-to-day operation of the study is reviewed in detail.This paper details the administrative problems of the University of Illinois' interdisciplinary effort to examine the “real” environmental impacts of the Lake Shelbyville reservoir 10 years after it had begun operation. Lake Shelbyville is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reservoir located in east-central Illinois. Land acquisition began in 1962 and the reservoir was in operation by 1971. While not implying that “apples and oranges” don't mix, problems do result when we try to bring together a group of disciplinary researchers. We write with the hope that the suggestions outlined here will keep environmental impact assessment research interdisciplinary. One of the reasons for the present “environmental fix” is the single discipline approach to environmental problems.A true interdisciplinary effort is necessary for a comprehensive assessment of the impacted physical and social environments, yet “interdisciplinary” can easily become a false label. If the principal investigator and researchers are not attentive to project administration on a day-to-day basis, the old saying about integrating findings “with a staple” can easily result. Rather than integrated assessment, the study report may resemble a series of miniature discipline based projects that read like the list of university departments. |
