Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- 1 The evolution of ecosystem ecology
- 2 Linking population, community and ecosystem ecology within mainstream ecology
- 3 Thermodynamic approaches to ecosystem behaviour: fundamental principles with case studies from forest succession and management
- 4 Ecosystem health
- 5 Interdisciplinarity in ecosystems research: developing social robustness in environmental science
- 6 The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being
- 7 Ecosystem ecology and environmental management
- Index
- References
5 - Interdisciplinarity in ecosystems research: developing social robustness in environmental science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- 1 The evolution of ecosystem ecology
- 2 Linking population, community and ecosystem ecology within mainstream ecology
- 3 Thermodynamic approaches to ecosystem behaviour: fundamental principles with case studies from forest succession and management
- 4 Ecosystem health
- 5 Interdisciplinarity in ecosystems research: developing social robustness in environmental science
- 6 The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being
- 7 Ecosystem ecology and environmental management
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Within the academic community, there is a strong rhetorical value surrounding the idea of interdisciplinarity in research and teaching, but, as is often the case, that rhetoric about the benefits of collaboration outpaces developments in practice (Huber 1992). It is not that research which crosses disciplinary boundaries does not exist; interdisciplinary subgroups and research centres abound in academic institutions. Research councils, likewise, are progressively making interdisciplinarity more and more part of the core criteria by which funding is allocated to the research community. However, despite flurries of activity, the reality of engagement can be less satisfying and achieve less than initially envisioned (Pickett et al. 1999, Tress et al. 2005, Raffaelli and Frid this volume). Yet, the urgent need to better understand the complex environmental problems facing society and the imperative to find solutions to these problems remain and continue to compel the development of interdisciplinary innovation in environmental studies.
In this chapter we explore the development, promises and challenges of research which crosses the boundaries between the ecological, social and economic sciences, and what this means for the development of ecosystems research. We aim to reinforce and give depth to rationales for collaboration as well as arguing for a more ambitious and reflexive approach to interdisciplinarity and, hopefully, to provide impetus for a more meaningful and satisfactory experience for those taking the interdisciplinary road.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ecosystem EcologyA New Synthesis, pp. 94 - 109Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
(1998) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Europa IP/04/1516.Google Scholar
, , , , , , and (2007) Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research 42(1), 329–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1982) Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.Google Scholar
(1996) Microcosm experiments have limited relevance for community and ecosystem ecology. Ecology 77(3), 677–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Key concepts: the results of a survey of our members' opinions, pp. 1–16. In (ed.) Ecological Concepts: The Contribution of Ecology to an Understanding of the Natural World. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
, , , , , , , , , , , and (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Promoting the effective evaluation of collaboratively produced scholarship: a call to action. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 102, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1999) Managing Earth's ecosystems: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2(4), 277–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
(2002) Council Regulation no. 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.
(2007a) Recommendation for Second Reading on the Council commons position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (9388/2/2007 – C6–0261/2007 – 2005/0211(COD)).
(2007b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union. Brussels, 10.10.2007. COM(2007) 575 final.
(2005) Natural resource management: the need for interdisciplinary collaboration. Ecosystems 4, 716–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2006) Ecosystem-based management of fisheries: is science limiting?ICES Journal of Marine Science 63, 1567–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000) GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society (Issues in Society). Milton Keynes, Open University Press.Google Scholar
and (2008) A complicated relationship: Stakeholder participation and the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. Marine Policy 32(2), 158–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2), 167–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , , , , , , and (2006) A meeting of minds: interdisciplinary research in the health sciences in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal 175, 763–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and (2008) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2005) The two-culture problem: ecological restoration and the integration of knowledge. Restoration Ecology 13(1), 159–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Towards a New Studium General: some conclusions. European Journal of Education 27, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
and (eds.) (2004) Misunderstanding Science?Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
(1990) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
and (2009) Creating space for engagement: lay membership in contemporary risk governance. In (ed.) Anticipating Risks and Organizing Risk Regulation in 21st Century. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Bridging disciplinary divides to address environmental and intellectual challenges. Ecosystems 4, 709–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities and Interdisciplinarities. London, University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
(1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
(2005) Useful ways of being wrong. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18, 1155–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, USA.Google Scholar
and (2005) Learning as professional practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 102, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1968) A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. London, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) The BSE inquiry Vol 1: findings and conclusions. London, The Stationery Office, HC 887–1.Google Scholar
and (2006) Reflexive interdisciplinary research: the making of the rural economy and land use. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57(2), 165–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1975) Some thoughts on the behaviour of ecologists. Journal of Animal Ecology 44(2), 351–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005) Evaluation of the ESRC/NERC Interdisciplinary research studentship scheme. www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/ESRC-NERC%20Scheme%20Review%20Final%20Report_tcm6–17593.pdf.
, , , , , and (2008) The Marine Bill – Marine Nature Conservation Proposals – Valuing the Benefits. CRO380: Defra Natural Environment Group, Science Division, London.Google Scholar
(2006) Expanding scales in biodiversity-based research: challenges and solutions for marine systems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311, 273–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003) The potential of transdisciplinarity. Series. www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/papers/5. (accessed April 2008).
, and (1999) Interdisciplinary research: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of criticism. Ecosystems 2(4), 302–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1992) The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between health and social sciences. Social Science and Medicine 35, 1343–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2004) New ecology and the social sciences: what prospects for a fruitful engagement?Annual Review of Anthropology 28, 479–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2005) Integrative studies on rural landscapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning 70, 177–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005) On the cusp of restoration: science and society. Restoration Ecology 13(1), 165–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar