Ecology Reconfigured: Organizational Innovation, Group Dynamics and Scientific Change
The ecosystem concept and related changes in ecological theory, combined with the emergence of large-scale, long-term data collection, catalyzed policy actions within the U.S. National Science Foundation and among ecological professional societies that, in turn, created the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), a place that further reconfigured the conduct and content of ecological science. NCEAS did so by pioneering a process called scientific synthesis, which combines data across sites and over time to answer broader and more fundamental scientific questions and to address environmental challenges. Small-group dynamics of trust, intimacy, emotional energy and intensive interaction (both constructive and critical) contributed to the local reconfiguration of the process and substance of ecological science, and then this local transformation, in turn, brought about broader changes within the field as a whole.
KeywordsSynthesis Collaboration Ecology Group Dynamics Scientific Organization Transformative Research
We are very grateful to Martina Merz, Philippe Sormani, and an anonymous reviewer for their extended, detailed, and insightful comments on our chapter.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (SBE 98–96330 to Hackett, SBE 1242749 to Hackett and Parker, and by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, Santa Barbara, CA (DEB 94–21535).
This research would not have been possible without the cheerful and enduring support of Jim Reichman, Stephanie Hampton, Frank Davis, the NCEAS staff, and hundreds of scientists who took time from their research visits to answer our questions, complete our surveys, explain things to us, and simply allow us to spend time with them. We thank Nancy Grimm for suggesting NCEAS as a research site and Jonathon Bashford for helpful analyses and discussions. An earlier version of some of the ideas and evidence presented in this paper appeared in Hackett et al. (2008).
- Bennett, L.M., H. Gadlin, and S. Levine-Finley. 2010. Collaboration and team science: A field guide. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
- Bocking, S. 1997. Ecologists and environmental politics: A history of contemporary ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Collins, R. 1998. The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Ecological Society of America and the Association of Environmental Research Centers. 1993. National Center for Ecological Synthesis: Scientific objectives, structure, and implementation. Report of a workshop held in Albuquerque, Oct 1992.Google Scholar
- Farrell, M.P. 2001. Collaborative circles: Friendship dynamics and creative work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Frickel, S. 2004. Chemical consequences: Environmental mutagens, scientist activism, and the rise of genetic toxicology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
- Golley, F.B. 1993. A history of the ecosystem concept in ecology. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Hackett, E.J. 2001. Organizational perspectives on university-industry research relations. In Degrees of compromise: Industrial interests and academic values, ed. J. Croissant and S. Restivo, 1–21. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
- Hackett, E.J. 2011. Possible dreams: Research technologies and the transformation of the human sciences. In Emergent technologies in social research, ed. S. Hesse-Biber, 25–46. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hackett, E.J., and J.N. Parker. 2011. Leadership of scientific groups. In Leadership in science and technology: A reference handbook, ed. W.S. Bainbridge, 165–175. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hinds, P., and S. Kiesler. 2002. Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Holling, C.S. 1998. Two cultures of ecology. Conservation Ecology [online] 2(2): 4. http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss2/art4/.
- Kingsland, S. 1995. Modeling nature: Episodes in the history of population ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Kingsland, S. 2005. The evolution of American ecology, 1890–2000. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. 1977. The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s hope. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Merz, M. 1998. “Nobody can force you when you are across the ocean” – Face to face and e-mail exchanges between theoretical physicists. In Making space for science: Territorial themes in the shaping of knowledge, ed. C. Smith and J. Agar, 313–329. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
- Mullins, N. 1973. Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
- NSB – National Science Board. 2007. Enhancing support of transformative research at the National Science Foundation. Arlington: National Science Board.Google Scholar
- NSF – National Science Foundation. 2011. Rebuilding the mosaic: Fostering research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences at the National Science Foundation in the next decade (NSF 11–086). Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
- Parker, J.N. 2006. Organizational collaborations and scientific integration: The case of ecology and the social sciences. Tempe: Arizona State University, unpublished dissertation.Google Scholar
- Parker, J.N. 2010. Integrating the social into the ecological: Organization and research group challenges. In Collaboration in the new life sciences, ed. J.N. Parker, N. Vermeulen, and B. Penders, 85–109. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Zimmerman, A., and B. Nardi. 2010. The competition to be big: An analysis of LTER and NEON. In Collaboration in the new life sciences, ed. J.N. Parker, N. Vermeulen, and B. Penders, 65–84. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar