You can summarize my perspective on the human condition as:

We have labile values, unstable objectives, incomplete knowledge and make decisions less rationally than we would like to believe. 

I do not have an agenda other than to understand how we come to make decisions and how we can try to improve the decisions that are made.  I do not subscribe to any particular dogma other than evidence-based research and action.

The research projects our group are engaged with tend to be at the intersection of energy-environment-health and public policy. These problems often have to be tackled using a broad understanding of the context of the issue and feasible solutions for dealing with them. This broader perspective, drawing in key information about technical and social aspects of each problem is called integrated assessment. 

Each research project is selected to be something my collaborators and I are passionate about. The aim of these projects is to help us develop the skills needed to understand and address complex public policy challenges and to negotiate an intellectually and personally rewarding path to a degree.

My formal training was in physics, mathematics and computer science. I have been fortunate in picking up a passing understanding of how problems are framed and explored in other disciplines, but cannot claim expertise in any.  This may not be that much of a handicap.  

As far as I can see, real world public policy problems do not observe disciplinary boundaries. I don’t think our problems today are fundamentally different to problems faced by earlier generations. We tend to think every new situation is unique and because of that fallacy tend to dismiss lessons of history. I try to be pragmatic, see similarities, use actual evidence and apply lessons from analogues whenever possible.

However, I would be the first to note that an interdisciplinary approach to a Masters or PhD or tenure is the harder path to follow.  The risks of a path following a narrow, well-defined disciplinary thesis are far lower. Your supervisor would be an expert in the topic area. The literature you need to cover would be easy to track down. The methods would already be well developed and your work would add another piece of masonry to the proud edifice of knowledge already assembled.  In interdisciplinary research none of the above are true and your research often ends up culminating in a tent on a wet field with a distant view of two or more magnificent castles on the horizon.  IA requires a pioneering spirit.