Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:21:04.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Interdisciplinarity in ecosystems research: developing social robustness in environmental science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Kevin Edson Jones  and
Odette A. L. Paramor
Edited by
David G. Raffaelli  and
Christopher L. J. Frid
Kevin Edson Jones
Affiliation:
Management School, University of Liverpool
Odette A. L. Paramor
Affiliation:
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool
David G. Raffaelli
Affiliation:
University of York
Christopher L. J. Frid
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Queensland
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Within the academic community, there is a strong rhetorical value surrounding the idea of interdisciplinarity in research and teaching, but, as is often the case, that rhetoric about the benefits of collaboration outpaces developments in practice (Huber 1992). It is not that research which crosses disciplinary boundaries does not exist; interdisciplinary subgroups and research centres abound in academic institutions. Research councils, likewise, are progressively making interdisciplinarity more and more part of the core criteria by which funding is allocated to the research community. However, despite flurries of activity, the reality of engagement can be less satisfying and achieve less than initially envisioned (Pickett et al. 1999, Tress et al. 2005, Raffaelli and Frid this volume). Yet, the urgent need to better understand the complex environmental problems facing society and the imperative to find solutions to these problems remain and continue to compel the development of interdisciplinary innovation in environmental studies.

In this chapter we explore the development, promises and challenges of research which crosses the boundaries between the ecological, social and economic sciences, and what this means for the development of ecosystems research. We aim to reinforce and give depth to rationales for collaboration as well as arguing for a more ambitious and reflexive approach to interdisciplinarity and, hopefully, to provide impetus for a more meaningful and satisfactory experience for those taking the interdisciplinary road.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ecosystem Ecology
A New Synthesis
 , pp. 94 - 109
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Århus Convention (1998) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Europa IP/04/1516.Google Scholar
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., Haas, J. and Gebbie, K. M. (2007) Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research 42(1), 329–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, B. and Edge, D. (1982) Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London, Sage.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S. R. (1996) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77(3), 677–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsons, R. (1963) Silent Spring. London, Hamilton.Google Scholar
Cherrett, J. M. (1989) Key concepts: the results of a survey of our members' opinions, pp. 1–16. In Cherrett, J. M. (ed.) Ecological Concepts: The Contribution of Ecology to an Understanding of the Natural World. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P. and Belt, M. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creamer, E. G. (2005) Promoting the effective evaluation of collaboratively produced scholarship: a call to action. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 102, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daily, G. C. and Ehrlich, P. R. (1999) Managing Earth's ecosystems: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2(4), 277–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,EC (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
,EC (2002) Council Regulation no. 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.
,EC (2007a) Recommendation for Second Reading on the Council commons position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (9388/2/2007 – C6–0261/2007 – 2005/0211(COD)).
,EC (2007b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union. Brussels, 10.10.2007. COM(2007) 575 final.
Ewel, K. (2005) Natural resource management: the need for interdisciplinary collaboration. Ecosystems 4, 716–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frid, C. L. J, Paramor, O. A. L and Scott, C. L. (2006) Ecosystem-based management of fisheries: is science limiting?ICES Journal of Marine Science 63, 1567–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, S. (2000) GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society (Issues in Society). Milton Keynes, Open University Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1991) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge, Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gray, T. and Hatchard, J. (2008) A complicated relationship: Stakeholder participation and the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. Marine Policy 32(2), 158–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagendijk, R. and Irwin, A. (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2), 167–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J. G., Bainbridge, L., Buchan, A., Cribb, A., Drummond, J., Carlton, G., Hicks, T. P., Mcwilliam, C., Paterson, B., Ratner, P. A., Skarakis-Doyle, E. and Solomon, P. (2006) A meeting of minds: interdisciplinary research in the health sciences in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal 175, 763–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K. A., Kappel, C. V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J. F., Casey, K S., Ebert, C., Fox, H. E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H. S., Madin, E. M. P, Perry, M. T., Selig, E. R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R. and Watson, R. (2008) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Higgs, E. (2005) The two-culture problem: ecological restoration and the integration of knowledge. Restoration Ecology 13(1), 159–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, L. (1992) Towards a New Studium General: some conclusions. European Journal of Education 27, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (eds.) (2004) Misunderstanding Science?Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (1990) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, K. E. (2005) Understanding Risk in Everyday Policy Making. Defra, London.Google Scholar
Jones, K. E. and Irwin, A. (2009) Creating space for engagement: lay membership in contemporary risk governance. In Hutter, B (ed.) Anticipating Risks and Organizing Risk Regulation in 21st Century. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, K. E., Irwin, A., Farrelly, M. and Stilgoe, J. (2008) Understanding Lay Membership and Scientific Governance. London, Defra.Google Scholar
Kinzig, A. P. (2001) Bridging disciplinary divides to address environmental and intellectual challenges. Ecosystems 4, 709–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, J. T. (1996) Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities and Interdisciplinarities. London, University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kokko, H. (2005) Useful ways of being wrong. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18, 1155–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lash, S., Szerszynsky, B. and Wynne, B. (1996) Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London, Sage.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
Lattuca, L. R. and Creamer, E. G. (2005) Learning as professional practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 102, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiss, W. (1994) The Domination of Nature. Montreal, McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Leopold, A. (1968) A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. London, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Lor (2000) The BSE inquiry Vol 1: findings and conclusions. London, The Stationery Office, HC 887–1.Google Scholar
Lowe, P. and Phillipson, J. (2006) Reflexive interdisciplinary research: the making of the rural economy and land use. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(2), 165–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macfadyen, A. (1975) Some thoughts on the behaviour of ecologists. Journal of Animal Ecology 44(2), 351–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCauley, D. J. (2006) Selling out on nature. Nature 443, 27–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meagher, L. and Lyall, C. (2005) Evaluation of the ESRC/NERC Interdisciplinary research studentship scheme. www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC-NERC%20Scheme%20Review%20Final%20Report_tcm6–17593.pdf.
Moran, D., Hussain, S., Fofana, A., Paramor, O. A. L, Robinson, L. A., Winrow-Giffin, A. and Frid, C. L. J. (2008) The Marine Bill – Marine Nature Conservation Proposals – Valuing the Benefits. CRO380: Defra Natural Environment Group, Science Division, London.Google Scholar
Naeem, S. (2006) Expanding scales in biodiversity-based research: challenges and solutions for marine systems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311, 273–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowotny, H. (2003) The potential of transdisciplinarity. Series. www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/5. (accessed April 2008).
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public. Cambridge, Polity Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, I. (2007) First Sir Gareth Roberts Science Policy Lecture. London, The Science Council.Google Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A, Burch, W. R. and Grove, J. M. (1999) Interdisciplinary research: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of criticism. Ecosystems 2(4), 302–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfield, P. R. (1992) The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between health and social sciences. Social Science and Medicine 35, 1343–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Society, Roya (2004) Science in Society. London, The Royal Society.Google Scholar
Scoones, I. (2004) New ecology and the social sciences: what prospects for a fruitful engagement?Annual Review of Anthropology 28, 479–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, C. P. (1998) The Two Cultures. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stilgoe, J., Irwin, A. and Jones, K. E. (2006) The Received Wisdom: Opening Up Expert Advice. London, Demos.Google Scholar
Tress, B., Tress, G. and Fry, G. (2005) Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 177–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, R. E. (2005) On the cusp of restoration: science and society. Restoration Ecology 13(1), 165–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. Demos.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×