Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Researchers’ Experiences, Positive and Negative, in Integrative Landscape Projects

  • Profile
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrative (interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary) landscape research projects are becoming increasingly common. As a result, researchers are spending a larger proportion of their professional careers doing integrative work, participating in shifting interdisciplinary teams, and cooperating directly with non-academic participants. Despite the growing importance of integrative research, few studies have investigated researchers’ experiences in these projects. How do researchers perceive the outcomes of integrative projects, or career effects? Do they view the projects generally as successes or failures? This study analyses researchers’ experiences in integrative landscape studies and investigates what factors shape these experiences. The data stems from 19 semi-structured qualitative interviews and a Web-based survey among 207 participants in integrative landscape research projects. It finds that researchers experience participation in integrative projects as positive, in particular discussions among participants, networking, teamwork, and gaining new insights and skills. Furthermore, most researchers perceive the projects as successful and as having a positive effect on their careers. Less positive aspects of integration relate to publications and merit points. Factors found to contribute to positive experiences include reaching a high degree of integration amongst the involved disciplines, common definitions of integrative research concepts, and projects that include a large share of fundamental research as well as projects with many project outcomes. Based on these findings, we advise future projects to plan for integration, facilitate discussions, and reach agreement on integrative concepts. We suggest that aspects of fundamental research be included in integrative projects. We also suggest that planning be done at an early stage for peer-reviewed publications, to ensure that participants gain merit points from their participation in integrative research efforts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  • Abramson J. S., T. Mizrahi. 1996. When social workers and physicians collaborate: positive and negative interdisciplinary experiences. Social Work 41:270–281

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D., 1995. An integrative methodological framework for sustainable environmental planning and management. Environmental Management 19:469–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balsiger P. W., 2004. Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale. Futures 36:407–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy J. A., Johnson A. K. L. 2000. Integrated resource management: Moving from rhetoric to practice in Australian agriculture. Environmental Management 25:265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung, und Forschung). 2000. Rahmenkonzept Sozial-Ökologische Forschung. Bonn

  • BMWV (Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr). 1998. Research initiative on cultural (man-made) landscapes. Status Report 1998. Wien

  • Brandt J., 2000. Editorial: the landscape of landscape ecologists. Landscape Ecology 15:181–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer G., 1999. Mistra in context. Policy Sciences 32: 319–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce A., C. Lyall, J. Tait, R. Williams. 2004. Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme. Futures 36:457–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bühl, A., and P. Zöfelt. 2002. SPSS 11. Einführung in die moderne Datenanalyse unter Windows. Pearson Education Deutschland, München

  • Cashman S. B., P. Reidy, K. Cody, C. A. Lemay. 2004. Developing and measuring progress towards collaborative, integrated, interdisciplinary health care teams. Journal of Interprofessional Care 18:183–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke C., 1997. Reflections on the health care team: my experiences in an interdisciplinary program. Journal of the American Medical Association 277:1091

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • COSEPUP (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy) 2004. Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11153.html)

  • Couper M. P., 2000. Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly 64:464–494

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Couper M. P., M. W. Traugott, M. J. Lamias. 2001. Web survey design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly 65:230–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Court S., 1999. Negotiating the research imperative: the views of UK academics on their career opportunities. Higher Education Quarterly 53:1, 65–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily G. C., P. R. Ehrlich. 1999. Managing Earth’s ecosystems: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2:277–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman D. A., 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy P. A., E. A. Guertal, R. B. Muntifering. 1997. The pleasures and pitfalls of interdisciplinary research in agriculture. Journal of Agribusiness 15:139–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecosystems. 1998. Special issue on interdisciplinary research. Ecosystems 2:275–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Feibelman P., 1993. A PhD is not enough. A guide to survival in science. Perseus Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth A., 1999. On writing and tenure. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19:98–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen L. F., F. Hansson, S. B. Wenneberg. 2003. The agora and the role of research evaluation. Evaluation 9:149–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frothingham K. M., B. L. Rhoads, E. E. Herricks. 2002. A multiscale conceptual framework for integrated ecogeomorphological research to support stream naturalisation in the agricultural Midwest. Environmental Management 29:16–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry G., 2001. Multifunctional landscapes: towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, G., B. Tress, and G. Tress. 2004. The potential and limitations of integrated grassland research. Pages 1157–1167 in Lüscher, A., Jeangros, B., Kessler, W., Huguenin, O., Lobsiger, M., Millar, N., and Suter, D. (eds.), Land use systems in grassland dominated regions. Grassland Science in Europe 9, Proceedings of the 20th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Lucerne, Switzerland, 21–24 June 2004

  • Fry, G., G. Tress, and B. Tress. 2005. PhD students in integrative research. In press in B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, and P. Opdam (eds.), From landscape research to landscape planning: aspects of integration, education and application. Springer, Heidelberg

  • Futures. 2004. Special issue on transdisciplinarity. Futures 36:397–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershon D., 2000a. Pushing the frontiers of interdisciplinary research: an idea whose time has come. Nature 404:313–315

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gershon D., 2000b. Laying a firm foundation for interdisciplinary research endeavours. Nature 406:107–108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London, Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson B., 1999. Interdisciplinarity: For what purpose? Policy Science 32:339–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins R., 1997. Training in interdisciplinary team research for agricultural development: the experience of ICRA. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 4:49–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayslett M. M., B. M. Wildemuth. 2004. Pixels or pencils: the relative effectiveness of Web-based versus paper surveys. Library and Information Science Research 26:73–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höll A., K. Nilsson. 1999. Cultural landscape as subject to national research programmes in Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning 46:15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubert B., Bonnemaire J. 2000. La construction des objets dans la recherche interdisciplinaire finalisée: de nouvelles exigences pour l’évaluation. Nature, Science, Sociétés 8:5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen C. H., W. J. McLaughlin. 2004. Communication in ecosystem management: A case study of cross-disciplinary integration in the assessment phase of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. Environmental Management 33:591–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen C. H., T. Hels, W. J. McLaughlin. 2004. Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: a cross-country comparison. Forest Policy and Economics 6:15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch E., 1970. Inter- and transdisciplinary university: a systems approach to education and innovation. Policy Sciences 1:403–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein J. T., 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, theory and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn J., W. Vos (eds). 2000. From landscape ecology to landscape science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Landscape and Urban Planning. 2001. Special issue on bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57:137–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latucca L. R., 2001. Creating interdisciplinarity. Interdisciplinary research and training among college and university faculty. Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveland, T. R., and J. M. Merchant. (2004 online). Ecoregions and ecoregionalisation: Geographical and ecological perspectives. Environmental Management (in press DOI: 10.1007/s00267-003-5181-x)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mander Ü., H. Palang, M. Ihse. 2004. Editorial: development of European landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 67:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCourt Larres P., J. A. Ballantine, M. Whittinton. 2003. Evaluating the validity of self-assessment: measuring computer literacy among entry-level undergraduates within accounting degree programme at two UK universities. Accounting Education 12:97–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger N., R. N. Zare. 1999. Interdisciplinary research: from belief to reality. Science 283:642–643

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller R. L., C. Acton, D. A. Fullerton, J. Maltby. 2002. SPSS for social scientists. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss M., 2000. Interdisciplinarity, landscape ecology and the ‘transformation of agricultural landscapes’. Landscape Ecology 15:303–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MRIT (The Ministry of Research and information Technology), 1995. Research in Perspective. White Paper on a National Research Strategy. Copenhagen

  • Musacchio, L., E. Ozdenerol, M. Bryant, and T. Evans. 2005. Changing landscapes, changing disciplines: seeking to understand interdisciplinarity in landscape ecological change research. Landscape and Urban Planning (in press)

  • Naiman R. J., 1999. A perspective on interdisciplinary science. Ecosystems 2:292–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, M. 2001. Sprache - Wissenschaft – Wirklichkeit. Zum Sprachgebrauch in inter- und transdisziplinärer Forschung. Forschungsprogram Kulturlandschaft, Band 11. Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur, Wein

  • Nowotny H., P. Scott M. Gibbons. 2001. Rethinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, Oxford, Polity Press, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • NFR (Norges Forskingsrad). 2002. Fler- og tverfaglighet i miljø og utviklingsforskning. Handlingsplan 2002–2004. Oslo

  • Patton M. Q., 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Redman C. L., J. M. Grove, L. H. Kuby. 2004. Integrating social science into the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network: Social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems 7:161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichert W. M., T. Daniels-Race, E. H. Dowell. 2002. Time-tested survival skills for a publish or perish environment. Journal of Engineering Education 91:133–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis R., 1997. Tomorrow’s professor: preparing for academic careers in science and engineering. Wiley-Interscience, New York, Chicester, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  • RMNO (Raad voor ruimtelijk milieu- en natuuronderzoek). 2001. Kennis als passie en fascinatie. Meerjarenvisie. RNMO, The Hague

  • Schonlau, M., R. D. Fricker, and M. N. Elliott. 2002. Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the Web. Rand, Santa-Monica

  • Serveiss V. B., J. I. Bowen, D. Dow, I. Valiela. 2004. Using ecological risk assessment to identify the major anthropogenic stressor in the Waquoit Bay Watershed, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Environmental Management 33:730–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slocombe D. S., 1993. Environmental planning, Ecosystem science, and ecosystem approaches for integrating environment and development. Environmental Management 17:289–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanner D., 2001. Border crossings: understanding the cultural and informational dilemmas of interdisciplinary scholars. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 27:352–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strachan I. B., S. Wilcox. 1996. Peer and self assessment of group work: developing an effective response to increased enrolment in a third-year course in microclimatology. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 20:343–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tress B., G. Tress, H. Décamps, A. d’Hauteserre. 2001. Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57:137–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tress B., G. Tress, G. Fry. 2005a. Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 70:177–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tress, G., B. Tress, and G. Fry. 2005b. Clarifying integrative research concepts in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology (in press)

  • Tress, B., G. Tress, and G. Fry. 2005c. Defining concepts and process of knowledge production in integrative research. In press in B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry, and P. Opdam (eds.), From landscape research to landscape planning: aspects of integration, education and application. Springer, Heidelberg

  • Turner R. K., 2000. Integrating natural and socio-economic science in coastal management. Journal of Marine Systems 25:447–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner M., S. R. Carpenter. 1999. Tips and traps in interdisciplinary research. Ecosystems 2:275–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wear D. N., 1999. Challenges to interdisciplinary discourse. Ecosystems 2:299–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb E. L., 2002. Integrating social preference in GIS-aided planning for forestry and conservation activities: A case study from rural SE Asia. Environmental Management 30:183–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart P., N. Stehr (eds.), 2000. Practicing Interdisciplinarity. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Winder, N., 2003. Successes and problems when conducting interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary (=integrative) research. Pages 74–90 in Tress, B., Tress, G., van der Valk, A., and G. Fry (eds.), Potential and limitations of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary landscape studies. Delta Series 2, Wageningen

  • Wu J., R. Hobbs. 2002. Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecology 17:355–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Wageningen University and the Norwegian University of Life Sciences for funding this research. Many thanks to the researchers who participated in our interviews and in the Web survey. Their information provided an invaluable resource for exploring experiences in integrative landscape research projects. This study is part of the INTELS programme (see http://www.intels.cc), which investigates interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary landscape studies in Europe and beyond. Established in 2002, INTELS is interested in how projects cope with the demands of achieving integration amongst disciplines as well as being problem oriented.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Sciences Land Use Planning Group, Wageningen University, Generaal Foulkesweg 13, NL-6703, BJ, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Bärbel Tress & Gunther Tress

  2. Department of Landscape Architecture & Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. BOX 5029, N-1432, Ås, Norway

    Gary Fry

Authors
  1. Bärbel Tress
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gunther Tress
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary Fry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bärbel Tress.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tress, B., Tress, G. & Fry, G. Researchers’ Experiences, Positive and Negative, in Integrative Landscape Projects. Environmental Management 36, 792–807 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0038-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0038-0

Key words

Search

Navigation