EDITORIAL
SEEKING ANSWERS: SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDENTS
R. N. GINSBURG
Comparative Sedimentology Laboratory
Division of Marine Geology and Geophysics
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
University of Miami
Fisher Island, Miami Beach, Florida 33139-7392
In sedimentology, as in other sciences, the basic strategy is simply asking questions and seeking answers. Initially, the questions may be as elementary as “What?” and “Where?” but soon the “How?” and the “When?” of process, history, and geometry take over center stage and the answers that are developed become the ingredients of reports, talks, and publications. At some point in this question-answer process, which incidentally is by no means orderly, one of the more rewarding questions that can be asked is “So what?”.
“So what?” stands for a family of questions or an attitude that leads to consideration of the broader significance of specific studies. These kinds of questions are particularly useful in descriptive research because, often, one can get so absorbed in collecting, organizing, and analyzing observations one forgets to consider the implications of the results. Some examples of the “So what?” family of questions are: Do the results add anything new to the understanding of some fundamental aspect of sedimentology? Do the findings lead to new ideas or support for existing views about the geology of the area, about a concept, or a process? Will subsequent descriptions or analyses be influenced by the method, the approach, or the conclusions? There are no rules about when to pose these kinds of questions; in the planning or proposal stage of research, some emphasis on implications is certainly desirable, and when the answers to “How?” and “When?” begin to take shape, it is surely time to ask and seek answers to “So what?”
Learning to ask and to seek answers to “So what?” questions takes practice. It may be easier to begin with the works of others. First, there are many good role models in the literature, papers that do indeed consider the forest as well as the trees and their leaves. A next step may be to choose a published paper on a familiar subject and have a colleague join in a sort of dialogue like the following.
FINDINGS:
Clear evidence of periodic subaerial exposure in sections of oolitic limestone of the Mississippian Whatso formation in Alazona.
Q. So what?
A. First time reported from the Whatso formation.
Q. So what?
A. Proves that water depth was so shallow that the sea floor was often exposed.
Q. So what?
A. All those cross-bedded ooid sands were considered open shelf; now we see successive zones with mud cracks and gypsum crystals, and each oolitic unit may be a shoaling sequence and their thicknesses of 3 to 6 meters may bracket the water depths during deposition.
Q. So what?
A. That’s rather precise paleobathymetry, and if this approach works in the Whatso formation, maybe it will work elsewhere. And by the way, this kind of deposition covers hundreds of square kilometers so there must have been a broad, shallow sand bank with deeper water further west.
Q. So what?
A. Let’s go and see if other sequences of oolitic limestone have similar periodic shoaling, and let’s see if the logs of borings out west show the margin of that sand bank.
The line of questioning in this dialogue is one of several possible directions: How can the periodic shoaling be explained? Are there indications of climate, humid or arid, in the features of subaerial exposure? Are the changes from shallow sea to land synchronous or diachronous? How does this succession compare with that of other oolitic limestones?
“So what?” can be used with such a challenging, aggressive tone that it can alarm rather than stimulate. Using a more constructive expression—”Let us see what it means”—can make all the difference and allow the seeking to come forth in various ways. In teaching, an emphasis on implication enlivens subject matter and can bring out the multiple aspects of observations. In research and in communicating its results, attention to the broader significances of findings is invariably stimulating to both author and audience. And in reviewing the works and proposals of peers, the test of significance is one useful guideline. Indeed, asking and seeking answers to “So what?” is as rewarding as it is difficult.