Distinguishing collaboration from contribution in environmental research
- 170 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCollaboration Contribution Interdisciplinary research Research culture Complex environmental problems
- Augsburg T (2014) Becoming transdisciplinary: The emergence of the transdisciplinary individual. World Futures 70(3–4):233–247Google Scholar
- 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.
- Clewell AF & Aronson J (2013) Ecological restoration: principles, values, and structure of an emerging profession. 2nd edn. Washington, Island PressGoogle Scholar
- Cooke NJ and Hilton ML (eds) (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washington, National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Gorman M E (2010). Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. Cambridge, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
- Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, technology, and human values 26(4):399–408Google Scholar
- Higgs E (2003). Nature by design MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Hooks B (1992) Black looks: race and representation. South End Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Klein JT (2004b) Interdisciplinarity and complexity: an evolving relationship. E:CO Special Double Issue 6(1-2):2–10Google Scholar
- Layzer J (2011) The environmental case: translating values into policy, 3rd ed. CQ Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Nersessian NJ (2006) The cognitive-cultural systems of the research laboratory. Organization Studies 27(1):125–145Google Scholar
- Norton B (2005) Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
- Norton B (2015) Sustainable values, sustainable change: a guide to environmental decision making. Chicago, University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Repko AF (2008) Interdisciplinary research: process and theory. Thousand Oaks, Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
- Schneekloth LH and Shibley RG (1995) Placemaking: the art and practice of building communities. New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Weinstein J (1999) Coming of age: recognizing the importance of interdisciplinary education in law practice. Washington Law Review 74:320–366Google Scholar