The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio-environmental synthesis

  • Deana PenningtonEmail author
  • Gabriele Bammer
  • Antje Danielson
  • David Gosselin
  • Julia Gouvea
  • Geoffrey Habron
  • Dave Hawthorne
  • Roderic Parnell
  • Kate Thompson
  • Shirley Vincent
  • Cynthia Wei


In inter- and transdisciplinary teams, diverse perspectives on a particular problem must be integrated into shared models of the problem. This process has been identified as a core challenge for socio-environmental synthesis research and education. There is little understanding of how to facilitate knowledge integration across perspectives. We generated new understanding of the process of knowledge integration in socio-environmental synthesis through two intersecting processes. First, we reviewed well-established literature in the cognitive, social, and learning sciences that connects material artifacts, boundary objects, and model-based reasoning. Second, we conducted an organized reflection (our own model-based reasoning) on the literature. Key findings include identifying the importance of combining a collective negotiation process with iterative individual external representations of the problem. The external representations are partial, temporary constructs that function as boundary negotiating objects, and enable the scaffolding of cognitive interactions between participants, an essential part of generating shared, integrative problem models between interdisciplinary team members. We hypothesize that facilitating the co-creation of boundary negotiating objects may provide a path forward for enabling more effective interdisciplinary work and the development of a set of knowledge synthesis skills and competencies for students and researchers. This article provides a first report regarding our research on this topic, with additional research papers forthcoming.


Knowledge integration Team cognition Distributed cognition Interdisciplinary teamwork Transdisciplinary research Boundary objects 


  1. Bammer G (2008) Enhancing research collaborations: three key management challenges. Res Policy 37(5):875–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buckley BC (2000) Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):895–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Celentano A, Pittarello F (2012) From real to metaphoric maps: cartography as a visual language for organizing and sharing knowledge. J Vis Lang Comput 23(2):63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandrasekharan, S, Nersessian, NJ (2011) Building cognition: the construction of external representations for discovery. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 267–272). Retrieved from
  5. Clement J (2000) Model based learning as a key research area for science education. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):1041–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ewenstein B, Whyte J (2009) Knowledge practices in design: the role of visual representations as “epistemic objects”. Organ Stud 30:7–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fazey, I, Bunse, L, Msika, J. et al. (2014) Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Global environmental change.
  8. Fiore SM, Rosen MA, Smith-Jentsch KA, Salas E, Letsky M, Warner N (2010) Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Hum Factors 52(2):203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fominykh, M, Prasolova-Førland, E, Petersen, SA, Divitini, M (2013) Work and learning across boundaries: artifacts, discourses, and processes in a university course. In: Collaboration and technology (pp. 159–174). Springer. Retrieved from
  10. Giere, R (2002) Models as parts of distributed cognitive systems. In: Model-based reasoning (pp. 227–241). New York: KI. Retrieved from∼giere/MPDCS.pdf
  11. Giere RN (2009) Is computer simulation changing the face of experimentation? Philos Stud 143(1):59–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Godemann J (2008) Knowledge integration: a key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation. Environ Educ Res 14(6):625–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hampton SE, Parker JN (2011) Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. BioScience 61(11):900–910. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harrison AG, Treagust DF (2000) A typology of school science models. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):1011–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herrmann, T, Nolte, A (2010) The integration of collaborative process modeling and electronic brainstorming in co-located meetings. In: Collaboration and technology (pp. 145–160). Springer. Retrieved from
  16. Hsu Y, Lin L, Wu H, Lee D, Hwang F (2012) A novice-expert study of modeling skills and knowledge structures about air quality. J Sci Educ Technol 21(5):588–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobson M, Wilensky U (2006) Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J Learn Sci 15(1):11–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jeffrey P (2003) Smoothing the waters: observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration. Soc Stud Sci 33(4):539–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jonassen D, Strobel J, Gottdenker J (2005) Model building for conceptual change. Interact Learn Environ 13(1–2):15–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones NA, Ross H, Lynam T, Perez P, Leitch A (2011) Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol Soc 16(1):46Google Scholar
  22. Juhl J, Lindegaard H (2013) Representations and visual synthesis in engineering design. J Eng Educ 102(1, SI):20–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keshkamat SS, Kooiman A, van Maarseveen MFAM, van der Veen A, Zuidgeest MHP (2012) A boundary object for scale selection—moderating differences and synergising understanding. Ecol Econ 76:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein JT (2010) A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–30Google Scholar
  25. Kumazawa, T, Kozaki, K, Matsui, T, Saito, O, Ohta, M, Hara, K. et al. (2013) Initial design process of the sustainability science ontology for knowledge-sharing to support co-deliberation. Sustainability ScienceGoogle Scholar
  26. Larkin JH, Simon HA (1987) Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn Sci 11:65–100. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80026-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Latour B (2011) Networks, societies, spheres: reflections of an actor-network theorist. Int J Commun 5(2011):796–810Google Scholar
  28. Lee C (2007) Boundary negotiating artifacts: unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Comput Supported Coop Work 16:307–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2000) Developing model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. J Appl Dev Pschol 21(1):39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2006) Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In: The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 371–387, Retrieved from∼jwi229/PBLE/readings/Lehrer%20and%20Schauble.pdf
  31. Lele S, Norgaard RB (2005) Practicing interdisciplinarity. Bioscience 55(11):967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu L, Hmelo-Silver CE (2009) Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. J Res Sci Teach 46(9):1023–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu Z, Stasko JT (2010) Mental models, visual reasoning and interaction in information visualization: a top-down perspective. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 16(6):999–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Louca LT, Zacharia ZC, Constantinou CP (2011) In quest of productive modeling-based learning discourse in elementary school science. J Res Sci Teach 48(8):919–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Majchrzak A, More PHB, Faraj S (2012) Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organ Sci 23(4):951–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGreavy B, Hutchins K, Smith H, Lindenfeld L, Silka L (2013) Addressing the complexities of boundary work in sustainability science through communication. Sustainability 5(10):4195–4221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meyer RE, Hoellerer MA, Jancsary D, Van Leeuwen T (2013) The visual dimension in organizing, organization, and organization research: core ideas, current developments, and promising avenues. Acad Manag Ann 7(1):489–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morse WC, Nielsen-Pincus M, Force JE, Wulfhorst JD (2007) Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting interdisciplinary graduate-student team research. Ecol Soc 12(2):8–21Google Scholar
  39. National Research Council (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. In: Cooke NJ, Hilton ML (eds) Committee on the science of team science. The National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Nersessian NJ (2009) How do engineering scientists think? Model-based simulation in biomedical engineering research laboratories. Top Cogn Sci 1(4):730–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nicolini D, Mengis J, Swan J (2012) Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Organ Sci 23(3):612–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nolte, A, Prilla, M (2012) Normal users cooperating on process models: is it possible at all? In: Collaboration and technology (pp. 57–72). Springer. Retrieved from
  43. Paulus PB (2000) Groups, teams, and creativity: the creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology 49(2):237–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pennington D (2010) The dynamics of material artifacts in collaborative research teams. Comput Supported Coop Work 19:175–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pennington D (2011a) Bridging the disciplinary divide: co-creating research ideas in eScience teams. Comput Support Coop Work, Special Issue on Embedding eResearch Applications: Project Management and Usability 20(3):165–196Google Scholar
  46. Pennington D (2011b) Collaborative, cross-disciplinary learning and co-emergent innovation in informatics teams. Int J Earth Syst Inf 4(2):55–68Google Scholar
  47. Pennington D, Athanasiadis I, Bowers S, Krivov S, Madin J, Schildhauer M, Villa F (2008) Indirectly-driven knowledge modeling in ecology. Int J Metadata Semant Ontol 3(3):210–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pennington D, Simpson G, McConnell M, Fair J, Baker R (2013) Transdisciplinary science, transformative learning, and transformative science. Bioscience 63(7):564–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Raghavan K, Glaser R (1995) Model-based analysis and reasoning in science: the MARS curriculum. Sci Educ 79(1):37–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roy ED, Morzillo AT, Seijo F, Reddy SMW, Rhemtulla JM, Milder JC et al (2013) The elusive pursuit of interdisciplinarity at the human–environment interface. Bioscience 63(9):745–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scheuer O, Loll F, Pinkwart N, McLaren BM (2010) Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Int J Comput-Support Collab Learn 5(1):43–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith HM, Wall G, Blackstock KL (2013) The role of map-based environmental information in supporting integration between river basin planning and spatial planning. Environ Sci Pol 30(SI):81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Snyder JL (2000) An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, intermediates and novices in physics. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):979–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stadler J, Dugmore C, Venables E, MacPhail C, Delany-Moretlwe S (2013) Cognitive mapping: using local knowledge for planning health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 13(1):96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Star S, Griesemer L (1989) Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects—amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steinkuehler C, Duncan S (2008) Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. J Sci Educ Technol 17(6):530–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stigliani I, Ravasi D (2012) Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. Acad Manag J 55(5):1232–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Takeda, H, Yoshioka, M, Tomiyama, T (2001) A general framework for modelling of synthesis—integration of theories of synthesis. In: 13th International conference on engineering design–ICED (Vol. 1, pp. 307–314). Retrieved from
  59. Trickett SB, Trafton JG (2007) “What if…”: the use of conceptual simulations in scientific reasoning. Cogn Sci 31(5):843–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Lehn K (2013) Model construction as a learning activity: a design space and review. Interact Learn Environ 21(4):371–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vincent S, Dutton K, Santos R, Sloane L (2015) Interdisciplinary environmental and sustainability education and research: leadership and administrative structures. National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25(11):1268–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilson G, Herndl CG (2007) Boundary objects as rhetorical exigence—knowledge mapping and interdisciplinary cooperation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. J Bus Tech Commun 21(2):129–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zajac, S, Gregory, ME, Bedwell, WL, Kramer, WS, Salas, E (2013) The cognitive underpinnings of adaptive team performance in ill-defined task situations: a closer look at team cognition. Organizational Psychology Review (online before print July 5, 2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deana Pennington
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gabriele Bammer
    • 2
  • Antje Danielson
    • 3
  • David Gosselin
    • 4
  • Julia Gouvea
    • 3
  • Geoffrey Habron
    • 5
  • Dave Hawthorne
    • 6
  • Roderic Parnell
    • 7
  • Kate Thompson
    • 8
  • Shirley Vincent
    • 9
  • Cynthia Wei
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Geological SciencesUniversity of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA
  2. 2.The Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Tufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  4. 4.University of Nebraska–LincolnLincolnUSA
  5. 5.Warren Wilson CollegeSwannanoaUSA
  6. 6.National Socio-Environmental Synthesis CenterAnnapolisUSA
  7. 7.Northern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  8. 8.University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  9. 9.National Council for Science and the EnvironmentWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations