Distinguishing collaboration from contribution in environmental research

  • Kenneth Shockley
  • Whitney G. Lash-Marshall
  • Kathryn Bryk Friedman
  • Paul D. Hirsch
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we distinguish contributory from collaborative approaches to interdisciplinary environmental research. A characteristic feature of the collaborative approach is that emphasis is placed on the process of collaborative problem formulation. Rather than responding to a pre-described problem by supplementing disciplinary perspectives and methodologies as needed, a collaborative research process entails attending to the characterization of the problem itself as a necessary object of interdisciplinary research. We suggest that clearly distinguishing collaborative from contributory models of interdisciplinary environmental research, and explicitly practicing collaborative research, will help foster a culture of robust interdisciplinary engagement well suited to addressing many of today’s complex environmental problems.

Keywords

Collaboration Contribution Interdisciplinary research Research culture Complex environmental problems 

References

  1. Acevedo MF (2011) Interdisciplinary progress in food production, food security and environment research. Environ Conserv 28(2):151–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Augsburg T (2014) Becoming transdisciplinary: The emergence of the transdisciplinary individual. World Futures 70(3–4):233–247Google Scholar
  3. Bäckstrand K (2003) Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 3(4):24–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardwell LV (1991) Problem-framing: a perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environ Manag 15(5):603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer HH (1990) Barriers against interdisciplinarity: implications for studies of science, technology, and society (STS). Sci Technol Hum Values 15(1):105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benson MH, Lippitt CD, Morrison R, Cosens B, Boll J, Chaffin BC et al (2015) Five ways to support interdisciplinary work before tenure. J Environ Stud Sci. doi: 10.1007/s13412-015-0326-9.
  7. Buanes A, Jentoft S (2009) Building bridges: institutional perspectives on interdisciplinarity. Futures 41:446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell LM (2005) Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conserv Biol 19(2):574–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clewell AF & Aronson J (2013) Ecological restoration: principles, values, and structure of an emerging profession. 2nd edn. Washington, Island PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins JP (2002) May you live in interesting times: using multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary programs to cope with change in the life sciences. Bioscience 52(1):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins H, Evans R, Gorman M (2007) Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38(4):657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooke NJ and Hilton ML (eds) (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washington, National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Creed IF, Taylor WD, Sibley P, Gaden M, Luzadis V, Bunting-Howarth K (2015) The Great Lakes futures project: Using scenario analysis to develop a sustainable socio-ecologic vision for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. J Great Lakes Res 41(Supp.1):1–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniel JR, Pinel SL, Brooks J (2013) Overcoming barriers to collaborative transboundary water governance. Mt Res Dev 33(3):215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiCastri F, Hadley M (1986) Enhancing the credibility of ecology: is interdisciplinary research for land use planning useful? GeoJournal 13(4):299–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg CS, Merrill K, Morse W et al (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57(1):55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ewel KC (2001) Natural resource management: the need for interdisciplinary collaboration. Ecosystems 4(8):716–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Future Earth. 2015. “Unpacking the Black Box: the need for Integrated Environmental Humanities (IEH)” Future Earth Blog http://www.futureearth.org/blog/2015-jun-3/unpacking-black-box-need-integrated-environmental-humanities-ieh, accessed 2 July 2015.
  19. Gorman M E (2002) Levels of expertise and trading zones: a framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Soc Stud Sci 32(5–6):933–938.Google Scholar
  20. Gorman M E (2010). Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, technology, and human values 26(4):399–408Google Scholar
  22. Hicks CC, Fitzsimmons C, Polunin NVC (2010) Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences: barriers and frontiers. Environ Conserv 37(4):464–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Higgs E (2003). Nature by design MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hinrichs CC (2008) Interdisciplinarity and boundary work: challenges and opportunities for agrifood studies. Agric Hum Values 25:209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirsch PD, Luzadis VA (2013) Scientific concepts and their policy affordances: how a focus on compatibility can improve science-policy interaction and outcomes. Nature and Culture 8(1):97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirsch PD, Brosius JP, O’Connor S, Zia A, Welch-Devine M, Dammert JL, Songorwa A, Trung TC, Rice JL, Anderson ZR, Hitchner S, Schelhas J, McShane TO (2013) Navigating complex trade-offs in conservation and development : an integrative framework. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 31:99–122Google Scholar
  27. Hoffmann MH, Schmidt JC, Nersessian NJ (2013) Philosophy of and as interdisciplinarity. Synthese 190(11):1857–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hooks B (1992) Black looks: race and representation. South End Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. Hulme M (2011) Meet the humanities. Nat Clim Chang 1(4):177–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. IPCC (2014) In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y (eds) Climate Change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Jordan WR (2000) Restoration, community, and wilderness. In: Gobster PH, Hull B (eds) Restoring nature: culture from the social sciences and humanities, 2nd edn. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  32. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Khagram S, Nicholas KA, MacMynowski Bever D, Warren J, Richards EH, Oleson K et al (2010) Thinking about knowing: conceptual foundations for interdisciplinary environmental research. Environ Conserv 37(4):388–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klein JT (1990) The interdisciplinary process. In: Birnbaum-More PH, Rossini FA, Baldwin DR (eds) International research management: studies in interdisciplinary methods from business, government, and academia. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klein JT (2004a) Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 36:515–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klein JT (2004b) Interdisciplinarity and complexity: an evolving relationship. E:CO Special Double Issue 6(1-2):2–10Google Scholar
  37. Layzer J (2011) The environmental case: translating values into policy, 3rd ed. CQ Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lélé S, Norgaard RB (2005) Practicing interdisciplinarity. Bioscience 55(11):967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Light A (2000) Ecological restoration and the culture of nature: a pragmatic perspective. In: Gobster P, Hull R (eds) Restoring nature. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Light A (2002) Restoring ecological citizenship. In: Minteer BA, Taylor BP (eds) Democracy and the claims of nature: critical perspectives for a new century. Rowman and Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  41. McEvoy J (1972) Multi- and interdisciplinary research: problems of initiation, control, integration and reward. Policy Sci 3(2):201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller TR, Baird TD, Littlefield CM, Kofinas G, Chapin FS III (2008) Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecol Soc 13(2):46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Milman A, Marston JM, Godsey SE, Bolson J, Jones HP, and Weiler CS (2015) Scholarly motivations to conduct interdisciplinary climate change research. J Environ Stud Sci. doi: 10.1007/s13412-015-0307-z.
  44. Moore CG (2008) Interdisciplinary research in the ecology of vector-borne diseases: opportunities and needs. Journal of Vector Ecology 33(2):218–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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):8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nersessian NJ (2006) The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organization Studies 27(1):125–145Google Scholar
  47. Nissani M (1997) Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: the case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research. Soc Sci J 24(2):201–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Norton B (2005) Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  49. Norton B (2015) Sustainable values, sustainable change: a guide to environmental decision making. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  50. Peterson RB, Russell D, West P, Brosius JP (2010) Seeing (and doing) conservation through cultural lenses. Environ Manag 45(1):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Petts J, Owens S, Bulkeley H (2008) Crossing boundaries: interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments. Geoforum 39:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pickett STA, Burch WR, Grove JM (1999) Interdisciplinary research: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of criticism. Ecosystems 2(4):302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pohl C (2005) Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures 37(10):1159–1178. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Poteete AR, Janssen MA, Ostrom E (eds) (2010) Learning from multiple methods in working together: collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, pp 262–270Google Scholar
  55. Redclift M (1998) Dances with wolves? Interdisciplinary research on the global environment. Glob Environ Chang 8(3):177–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Repko AF (2008) Interdisciplinary research: process and theory. Thousand Oaks, Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  57. Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Sá CM (2008) ‘Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities. High Educ 55(5):537–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schmidt JC (2011) What is a problem?: on problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. Poiesis Prax 7(4):249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schneekloth LH and Shibley RG (1995) Placemaking: the art and practice of building communities. New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Shockley K, Rudroff B, Rabideau A, Lambert D (2014) Rethinking the value of stakeholder participation in generating context sensitive baselines for groundwater restoration. Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences Annual Conference, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Sievanen L, Campbell LM, Leslie HM (2011) Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management. Conserv Biol 26(2):315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci Technol Hum Values 35(5):601–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Star SL, Greisemer JR (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
  66. Stern MJ and Coleman KJ (2014) The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource management. Society & natural resources: an international journal. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2014.945062
  67. Stevens CJ, Fraser I, Mitchley J, Thomas MB (2007) Making ecological science policy-relevant: issues of scale and disciplinary integration. Landsc Ecol 22(6):799–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weinstein J (1999) Coming of age: recognizing the importance of interdisciplinary education in law practice. Washington Law Review 74:320–366Google Scholar
  70. Williams KC (2015) Building bridges in the Great Lakes: how objects and organization facilitate collaboration across boundaries. J Great Lakes Res 41(Supp.1):180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth Shockley
    • 1
  • Whitney G. Lash-Marshall
    • 2
  • Kathryn Bryk Friedman
    • 3
  • Paul D. Hirsch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Sustainability AcademyUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.SUNY College of Environmental Science and ForestrySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, University at Buffalo and Regional InstituteState University of New YorkBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations