The Global Trout Project
The Global Trout project is driven by researchers from anthropology, biology, and English literature. Together, they explored the global spread of rainbow trout from Europe in the 19th century, and the subsequent social and ecological consequences this has brought about. Both social science and natural science are needed to understand and illuminate these different forces and processes.
How to begin a conversation?
When the researchers gathered around the project, it was clear that they spoke and understood different scientific languages. Therefore, they spent a lot of time talking to each other. What turned out to be essential was the mutual openness and curiosity that led to many good informal conversations within the team. It was here that much of the magic happened. Nustad talked about how significant differences in scientific traditions manifested in these conversations. Anthropology often has a storytelling approach, while biology can be seen as more systematic. Storytelling can at times be misinterpreted as biased, as one only tells what they are interested in. However, as Nustad emphasized, objectivity does not mean removing the storyteller's voice, but rather clarifying it. For any scientific reliability, it is essential to clarify who is observing, interpreting, processing, analyzing, and communicating data - and in what way. This is how data can also be used further. Theories expire, Nustad says, but data lasts forever.
How to build knowledge together?
Nustad explained how they used various exercises to learn and understand how different sciences can be produced, communicated, and look like. They utilized the ‘Toolbox Dialogue Initiative’, developed by Michigan State University, where their responses laid the foundation for rich conversations. Furthermore, they brought objects from the field they were exploring and wrote stories about these objects from the perspective and understanding of their own respective disciplines. Such a task can be particularly useful in uncovering both differences and overlaps between disciplines through a concrete and tangible example.
In order to build knowledge together, the researchers realized that they needed to find what they had in common. Both biologists and anthropologists are field-based researchers, meaning they go out and visit what they want to study. This became the starting point for their shared exploration. They decided to walk up a river together and share what each of them observed - and in what ways. Thus, the 'idea of the field' became the bridge builder in the research team.
Nustad shared that the project has made it even clearer to him that no discipline alone is sufficient to understand the world in its full complexity. Dialogues with other fields are absolutely necessary. It is useful to have a foundation in one discipline, which provides a basis for asking questions when encountering the unknown. In such encounters, curiosity and openness to the many ways of generating knowledge are crucial, Nustad emphasized. Such meetings between disciplines can open new and unexpected doors for interdisciplinary and co-creative research.