Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:24:40.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thinking about knowing: conceptual foundations for interdisciplinary environmental research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2010

SANJEEV KHAGRAM ,
KIMBERLY A. NICHOLAS ,
DENA MACMYNOWSKI BEVER ,
JUSTIN WARREN ,
ELIZABETH H. RICHARDS ,
KIRSTEN OLESON ,
JUSTIN KITZES ,
REBECCA KATZ ,
REBECA HWANG  and
REBECCA GOLDMAN
...Show all authors
SANJEEV KHAGRAM
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Lindenberg Center, Parrington Hall, Box 353055, Seattle, WA 98195-3055, USA
KIMBERLY A. NICHOLAS*
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA 94305-4215, USA Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, PO Box 170, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
DENA MACMYNOWSKI BEVER
Affiliation:
Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Stanford, CA 94305-4205, USA
JUSTIN WARREN
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA 94305-4215, USA
ELIZABETH H. RICHARDS
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA 94305-4215, USA Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185, USA
KIRSTEN OLESON
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA 94305-4215, USA
JUSTIN KITZES
Affiliation:
Earth Systems Program, Stanford University Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Room 131, Stanford, CA 94305, USA Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114, USA
REBECCA KATZ
Affiliation:
Earth Systems Program, Stanford University Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Room 131, Stanford, CA 94305, USA High Mountain Institute, Leadville, CO 80461, USA
REBECA HWANG
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA 94305-4215, USA YouNoodle, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA
REBECCA GOLDMAN
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA 94305-4215, USA The Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22203, USA
JASON FUNK
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA 94305-4215, USA Environmental Defense Fund, 1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20009, USA
KATE A BRAUMAN
Affiliation:
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Yang and Yamazaki Environment and Energy Building, 473 Via Ortega, Suite 226, Stanford, CA 94305-4215, USA Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, 1954 Buford Avenue, 325 VoTech Building, St Paul, MN 55108, USA
*
*Correspondence: Kimberly Nicholas Tel: +46 46 222 4809; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Working across knowledge-based research programmes, rather than institutional structures, should be central to interdisciplinary research. In this paper, a novel framework is proposed to facilitate interdisciplinary research, with the goals of promoting communication, understanding and collaborative work. Three core elements need to be addressed to improve interdisciplinary research: the types (forms and functions) of theories, the underlying philosophies of knowledge and the combination of research styles; these three elements combine to form the research programme. Case studies from sustainability science and environmental security illustrate the application of this research programme-based framework. This framework may be helpful in overcoming often oversimplified distinctions, such as qualitative/quantitative, deductive/inductive, normative/descriptive, subjective/objective and theory/practice. Applying this conceptual framework to interdisciplinary research should foster theoretical advances, more effective communication and better problem-solving in increasingly interdisciplinary environmental fields.

Keywords

environment and securityenvironmental studiesepistemologyinterdisciplinary researchphilosophy of scienceresearch methodssustainability sciencetheory development
Type
THEMATIC ISSUE: Interdisciplinary Progress in Environmental Science & Management
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 37 , Issue 4: Thematic section. Interdisciplinary Progress in Environmental Science and Management , December 2010 , pp. 388 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 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

Atkinson, P. & Hammersley, M. (1994) Ethnography and participant observation. In: Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S., pp. 248–261. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Bates, R.H., Greif, A., Levi, M., Rosenthal, J.-L. & Weingast, B.R. (1998) Analytic Narratives. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Biagioli, M. (1999) The Sciences Studies Reader. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bolin, B., Clark, W., Corell, R., Dickson, N., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G., Gruebler, A., Hall, M., Huntley, B., Jager, J., Jaeger, C., Jodha, N., Kasperson, R., Kates, R., Lowe, I., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., McCarthy, J., Mooney, H., Moore, B., O'Riordan, T., Schellnhuber, J. & Svedin, U. (2000) Statement of the Friibergh Workshop on Sustainability Science [www document]. URL http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/BCSIA/sust.nsf/pubs/pub3Google Scholar
Collier, P. & Hoeffler, A. (2004) Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers 56: 563–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dallmayr, F.R. & McCarthy, T.A. (1977) Understanding and Social Inquiry. Hampton, VA, USA: Books Ahoy, Inc.Google Scholar
Demeritt, D. (1998) Science, social constructivism and nature. In: Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millennium, ed. Braun, B. & Castree, N., pp. 173–193. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
Demeritt, D. (2002) What is the social construction of nature? A typology and sympathic critique. Progress in Human Geography 26 (6): 767–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research. In: Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S., pp. 1–17. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1894) Les Règles de la méthode sociologique. Revue philosophique 37; 38: 465–498, 577–607; 414–439, 468–482.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1953) The methodology of positive economics. In: Essays in Positive Economics, pp. 3–43. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973) Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. In: The Interpretive Theory of Culture, pp. 3–30. Boulder, CO, USA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL, USA: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
Greene, J. & Caracelli, V. J. (1997) Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. New Directions for Evaluation 74 (Summer): 19–32.Google Scholar
Gross, P. R. & Levitt, N. (1994) Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science. London, UK: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. (1965) The function of general laws in history. In: Aspects of Scientific Explanation, pp. 231–244. New York, NY, USA: Free Press.Google Scholar
Homer-Dixon, T. (1994) Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: evidence from the cases. International Security 19 (1): 5–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. (1964) A treatise of human nature. In: The Philosophical Works, ed. Green, T.H. & Grose, T.H.. Darmstadt, Germany: Scientia Verlag Aalen.Google Scholar
Humphreys, M. (2005) Natural resources, conflict and conflict resolution: uncovering the mechanisms. Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (4): 508–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jick, T. (1979) Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4): 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall, J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G.C., Grubler, A., Huntley, B., Jager, J., Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore, B., O'Riordan, T. & Svedin, U. (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292 (5517): 641–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khagram, S. & Ali, S. (2006) Environment and security. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31: 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G., Keohane, R.O. & Verba, S. (1996) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1962) Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1970) Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A., pp. 1–24. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A., pp. 91–138. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G.E. (1998) Ethnography Through Thick and Thin. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Matson, P.A., Naylor, R. & Ortiz-Monasterio, I. (1998) Integration of environmental, agronomic, and economic aspects of fertilizer management. Science 280 (5360): 112–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nicolescu, B. (2008) Transdisciplinarity. Theory and Practice. Cresskill, NJ, USA: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K. & Belitz, K. (1994) Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 263 (5147): 641–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedynowski, D. (2003) Science(s): which, when, and whose? Probing the meta-narrative of scientific knowledge in the social construction of nature. Progress in Human Geography 27 (6): 761–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. (1963) Science: conjectures and refutation. In: Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, ed. Curd, M. & Cover, J.A., pp. 3–10. New York, NY, USA: Norton.Google Scholar
Rabinow, P. & Sullivan, W.M. (1987) The interpretive turn: a second look. In: Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look, ed. Rabinow, P. & Sullivan, W.M., pp. 1–30. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C. (1997) Turning the tables: how case-oriented research challenges variable-oriented research. Comparative Social Research 16: 27–42.Google Scholar
Rossman, G.B. & Rallis, S.F. (1998) Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitiative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Shadish, W., Cook, T.D. & Cambell, D.T. (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P.E. & Belkin, A. (1996) Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1949) Objectivity in social science and social policy. In: The Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. Shils, E. & Finch, H.T. a. e., pp. 24–37. Glencoe, IL, USA: Free Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1962) Basic Concepts in Sociology by Max Weber. Translated and with an Introduction by H. P. Secher. New York, NY, USA: The Citadel Press.Google Scholar
Woolgar, S. (1988) Science: The Very Idea. Chichester, Sussex, UK: Ellis Horwood, Ltd.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar