More importantly, the discipline comes to identify a set of questions central to the discipline's inquiry. Thus in our seminar it seemed that although it was the problem of global change that initially attracted the attention of the researcher, that problem often became twisted and refashioned into the discipline's image of what was interesting about global change. This insight is important. A question suggesting wide implications in one discipline may appear quite irrelevant in another. Although the problem of climate change frames and shapes our inquiries generally, our particular way of focusing on an aspect of the problem is greatly influenced by our disciplines.
Disciplines have their own priorities.
Thus, a policymaker concerned with whether the carbon-sink aspect of soils is sensitive to social activities and whether society has the capacity to enhance the potential of that sink may be surprised to find that the soil scientist, from a disciplinary perspective, is interested in understanding a particular natural process of only marginal significance for the policy question involved. This is not to say that the disciplinary agendas developed over many years are incorrect or not of value, rather it is to stress that that agenda can be independent of other agendas, and that the disciplinary pull can be a barrier to communication when efforts at collaboration are made. We found this possible when the discussion between disciplines about how a research question should be formulated proceeded from a focus on the problem. Simultaneously, it must be recognized that such collaboration and focus is not for all. The policymaker is concerned about stratospheric ozone depletion because it is thought to pose the threat of deleterious effects for humans.