Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:32:26.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Model Coupling in Resource Economics: Conditions for Effective Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Miles MacLeod  and
Michiru Nagatsu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article we argue for the importance of studying interdisciplinary collaborations by focusing on the role that good choice and design of model-building frameworks and strategies can play overcoming the inherent difficulties of collaborative research. We provide an empirical study of particular collaborations between economists and ecologists in resource economics. We discuss various features of how models are put together for interdisciplinary collaboration in these cases and show how the use of a coupled-model framework in this case to coordinate and combine background models from ecology and economics provided particular collaborative affordances and clear collaborative gain.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 412 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

Andersen, Hanne. 2010. “Joint Acceptance and Scientific Change: A Case Study.” Episteme 7:248–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Hanne, and Wagenknecht, Susann. 2013. “Epistemic Dependence in Interdisciplinary Groups.” Synthese 190 (11):1881–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaglia, Michael, and Sands, Peter J.. 1998. “Process-Based Forest Productivity Models and Their Application in Forest Management.” Forest Ecology and Management 102:13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begon, Michael, Townsend, Colin R., and Harper, John L.. 2006. Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo. 2010. “Beyond Reduction and Pluralism: Toward an Epistemology of Explanatory Integration in Biology.” Erkenntnis 73 (3): 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo, and Love, Alan. 2012. “Conceptualizing Evolutionary Novelty: Moving beyond Definitional Debates.” Journal of Experimental Zoology B 318:417–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Costanza, Robert, Cumberland, John, Daly, Herman, Goodland, Robert, and Norgaard, Richard. 2002. An Introduction to Ecological Economics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Costanza, Robert, d’Arge, Ralph, de Groot, Rudolf, Farber, Stephen, Grasso, Monica, Hannon, Bruce, Limburg, Karin, Naeem, Shahid, O’Neill, Robert V., Paruelo, Jose, Raskin, Robert G., Sutton, Paul, and van den Belt, Marjan. 1997. “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Nature 387:253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darden, Lindley, and Maull, Nancy. 1977. “Interfield Theories.” Philosophy of Science 44 (1): 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EURAB (European Union Research Advisory Board). 2004. “Interdisciplinarity in Research.” EURAB 04.009-Final, EURAB.Google Scholar
Fallis, Don. 2006. “The Epistemic Costs and Benefits of Collaboration.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 46:197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faustmann, M. 1849. “On the Determination of the Value Which Forest Land and Immature Stands Possess for Forestry.” English edition in “Martin Faustmann and the Evolution of Discounted Cash Flow,” ed. M. Gane, Oxford Institute Paper 42 (1968). Original version: Martin Faustmann, “Berechnung des Wertes welchen Waldboden sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestände für die Waldwirtschaft besitzen,” Allgemeine Forst-und Jagd-Zeitung 15 (1849): 7–44.Google Scholar
Gibbons, Michael, Limoges, Camille, Nowotny, Helga, Schwartzman, Simon, Scott, Peter, and Trow, Martin. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Grüne-Yanoff, Till. 2011. “Models as Products of Interdisciplinary Exchange: Evidence from Evolutionary Game Theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42:386–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüne-Yanoff, Till, and Mäki, Uskali. 2014. “Introduction: Interdisciplinary Model Exchanges.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 48:52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, J. Britt. 2013. “What Is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration.” Synthese 190 (11): 1865–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huutoniemi, Katri, Klein, Julie Thompson, Bruun, Henrik, and Hukkinen, Janne. 2010. “Analyzing Interdisciplinarity: Typology and Indicators.” Research Policy 39 (1): 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyytiäinen, Kari, Hari, Pertti, Kokkila, Tero, Mäkelä, Annikki, Tahvonen, Olli, and Taipale, Juhani. 2004. “Connecting a Process-Based Forest Growth Model to Stand-Level Economic Optimization.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34 (10): 2060–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Julie Thompson. 2010. “A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ed. Frodeman, Robert, Klein, Julie Thompson, and Mitcham, Carl, 15–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press..Google Scholar
Leonelli, Sabina. 2013. “Integrating Data to Acquire New Knowledge: Three Modes of Integration in Plant Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 44 (4): 503–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Longino, Helen E. 2013. Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, Alan C., and Lugar, Gary L.. 2013. “Dimensions of Integration in Interdisciplinary Explanations of the Origin of Evolutionary Novelty.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 44 (4): 537–50.Google ScholarPubMed
MacLeod, Miles, and Nersessian, Nancy J.. 2014. “Strategies for Coordinating Experimentation and Modeling in Integrative Systems Biology.” Journal of Experimental Zoology B 322 (4): 230–39.Google ScholarPubMed
Mäkelä, Annikki, Landsberg, Joe, Ek, Alan R., Burk, Thomas E., Ter-Mikaelian, Michael, Ågren, Göran I., Oliver, Chadwick D., and Puttonen, Pasi. 2000. “Process-Based Models for Forest Ecosystem Management: Current State of the Art and Challenges for Practical Implementation.” Tree Physiology 20 (5–6): 289–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mäkelä, Annikki, and Mäkinen, Harri. 2003. “Generating 3D Sawlogs with a Process-Based Growth Model.” Forest Ecology and Management 184 (1): 337–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcovich, Anne, and Shinn, Terry. 2011. “Where Is Disciplinarity Going? Meeting on the Borderland.” Social Science Information 50 (3–4): 582–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattila, Erika. 2005. “Interdisciplinarity ‘In the Making’: Modeling Infectious Diseases.” Perspectives on Science 13 (4): 531–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: General Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. 2002. “Integrative Pluralism.” Biology and Philosophy 17 (1): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2004. “Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research.” Recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering/Institute of Medicine report, National Academies, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Nersessian, Nancy J. 2006. “The Cognitive-Cultural Systems of the Research Laboratory.” Organization Studies 27 (1): 125–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niinimäki, Sami, Tahvonen, Olli, and Mäkelä, Annikki. 2012. “Applying a Process-Based Model in Norway Spruce Management.” Forest Ecology and Management 265:102–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, Bryan G., and Noonan, Douglas. 2007. “Ecology and Valuation: Big Changes Needed.” Ecological Economics 63 (4): 664–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NSF (National Science Foundation). 2008. “Impact of Transformative Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education on Academic Institutions.” Workshop report, NSF, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
O’Malley, Maureen A. 2013. “When Integration Fails: Prokaryote Phylogeny and the Tree of Life.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 44 (4): 551–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Pihlainen, Sampo, and Tahvonen, Olli. 2014. “Economics of Boreal Scots Pine Stands in Changing Climate.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Pihlainen, Sampo, Tahvonen, Olli, and Niinimäki, Sami. 2014. “The Economics of Timber and Bioenergy Production and Carbon Storage in Scots Pine Stands.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 44 (9): 1091–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plutynski, Anya. 2013. “Cancer and the Goals of Integration.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 44 (4): 466–76.Google Scholar
Polasky, Stephen, and Segerson, Kathleen. 2009. “Integrating Ecology and Economics in the Study of Ecosystem Services: Some Lessons Learned.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 1:409–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Collin, and Smart, Joshua. 2011. “Interdisciplinary Modeling: A Case Study of Evolutionary Economics.” Biology and Philosophy 26 (5): 655–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Don. 2005. Economic Theory and Cognitive Science: Microexplanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1976. “Economics of Forestry in an Evolving Society.” Economic Inquiry 14 (4): 466–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tahvonen, Olli. 2013. “Economics and Ecology Are Almost Alike, but Do They Neglect One Another?” Presentation at AID—Agora for Interdisciplinary Debate, University of Helsinki, October 14.Google Scholar
Tahvonen, Olli 2014. “Ekologian ja taloustieteen välisen yhteistyön ongelmista.” Tieteessä Tapahtuu 2:44–46.Google Scholar
Tahvonen, Olli, Pihlainen, Sampo, and Niinimäki, Sami. 2013. “On the Economics of Optimal Timber Production in Boreal Scots Pine Stands.” Canadian Journal of Forest Research 43 (8): 719–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1997. “Collaborative Knowledge.” Nous 31:242–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsberg, Eric. 2006. “Handshaking Your Way to the Top: Simulation at the Nanoscale.” Sociology of Sciences Yearbook 25 (3): 139–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, K. Brad. 2002. “The Epistemic Significance of Collaborative Research.” Philosophy of Science 69 (1): 150–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar