Interdisciplinary Researchfor Ecosystem Management

Anna Pujadas Botey,1* Theresa Garvin,2 and Rick Szostak3

1Alberta Centre for Child Family and Community Research c/o Child Development Centre, Suite 200, 3820-24 Avenue, NW, Calgary,Alberta T3B2X9, Canada; 2Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;

3Department of Economics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

ABSTRACT

Ecosystem management (EM) is a process foraddressing environmental problems that involvesresearch utilizing interdisciplinary approaches. Thework presented here examines the perspectives onthe interdisciplinary research process from research-ers involved in generating knowledge to contribute toEM. The goal is to generate critically reflective dis-cussions about interdisciplinary practice. We con-ducteda setof targetedkey-informant, semi-structuredinterviews (n = 15). Interviews followed a generalquestioning guide that included: experience doinginterdisciplinary research; descriptions of the inter-disciplinary process; understandings on how to con-duct interdisciplinary research; interest in theories ofinterdisciplinarity; and interest in how the interdis-ciplinary process takes place. We coded interviewtranscripts to gain an in-depth understanding of howrespondents perceive interdisciplinary researchpractice. Results indicate that discussions about howinterdisciplinary research is conducted are not cur-rently an important part of research activity amongresearchers contributing to EM. Rather, participants

in the study see interdisciplinary practice as undertheorized, spontaneous, and mainly intuition-based.They understand interdisciplinary research as a col-laborative effort to integrate insights from differentdisciplines, but details about how to achieve integra-tion remain hidden inside a ‘‘black box.’’ Resultssuggest that researchers in EM would benefit fromspecific guidelines for integrating insights across dis-ciplines. The work discusses how opening the ‘‘blackbox’’ and considering explicit and detailed descrip-tions about the integration process might benefitinterdisciplinary practice in research for conserva-tion. This study contributes to future in-depthdebateson how to generate dialectical engagement betweenEM researchers and those studying theories of inter-disciplinarity in fields such as interdisciplinarystudies.

Key words: ecosystem management; interdisci-plinary practice; collaborative research; integrativeStudies; theories of interdisciplinarity; ecologicalsciences.

INTRODUCTION

Ecosystem management (EM) is an area of man-agement practice that addresses environmental

problems by focusing on ecosystems and their long-term maintenance (Grumbine 1994; Christensenand others 1996; Yaffee 1999). Traditionally, animportant component of EM has been the genera-tion of scientific data about natural systems(Grumbine 2002), though researchers involved inEM (hereafter referred to as EM researchers or EMscholars) also recognize the importance of includ-ing societies as an essential part of natural systems(Grumbine 1994; Noss and Cooperrider 1994;Berkes and others 2003), as well as the relevance of

Received 8 July 2013; accepted 8 November 2013;

published online 20 December 2013

Author Contributions: APB: conceived and designed the study, per-

formed the research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper; TG: designed

the study and wrote the paper; RS: wrote the paper.

*Corresponding author; e-mail: apujadas.botey@gmail.com

Ecosystems (2014) 17: 512–521DOI: 10.1007/s10021-013-9737-1

! 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

512

integrating social and natural scientific knowledgeto understand natural systems (Wilson 1998;Thornhill 2003; Lowe and others 2009). EM re-search activities, therefore, often incorporateknowledge from such diverse disciplines as biology,geography, economics, sociology, and political sci-ence. Because the research generating knowledgefor EM requires the integration of insights fromsuch different bodies of knowledge, it is defined asinterdisciplinary research (or interdisciplinarywork) (Newell 2007; Repko 2011). This interdisci-plinary practice, however, shows remarkableinconsistency in critical reflection and terminology(Pujadas Botey and Garvin 2010). Although somerefer to the work as interdisciplinary, others call itmultidisciplinary or transdisciplinary. Nonetheless,despite different terminology, there is a commonagreement: EM researchers employ practices thatintegrate information and knowledge across disci-plinary divides (Cordell and Bergstrom 1999;Pickett and others 1999; Pujadas Botey and others2012).

The purpose of the research reported here was toidentify scholars that generate knowledge for EM,and then to understand what they think aboutinterdisciplinary efforts, including how they do ordo not engage in theoretical discussions about in-terdisciplinarity.

The literature shows that EM scholars acknowl-edge interdisciplinary research. For example, someEM studies describe interdisciplinary researchexperiences (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Berkesand others 2003), whereas others recognize anddebate the challenges of interdisciplinary practice(Heberlein 1988; Jakobsen and others 2004;Sievanen and others 2012). Still other work high-lights lessons learned from particular researchexperiences and goes on to propose tools and pro-cedures for overcoming particular challenges (diCastri and Hadley 1985; Heemskerk and others2003; Lele and Norgaard 2005).

Although useful, almost all of these discussions ofinterdisciplinary efforts take place at the level ofpractice (Eigenbrode and others 2007; MacMy-nowski 2007), whereas few have examined thetheoretical, philosophical, or ontological bases of EMresearch. Some previous work has found that EMresearchers identify interdisciplinary research as a‘‘way to do research’’ and a ‘‘way of thinking aboutresearch’’ to solve a particular problem (Max-Neef2005; Tress and others 2005; Pujadas Botey andothers 2012). In other words, interdisciplinaryresearch is, by nature, applied and practical. Thesesame researchers situate interdisciplinary researchin the broader context of collaborative research

(Gray 1989; Lee 1993; Keough and Blahna 2006),describing interdisciplinary research as an effort thatbrings together academics and non-academics toaddress problems of common interest (Ewert andothers 2004; Van Kerkhoff 2005; Pujadas Botey andothers 2012). However, this previous work alsofound that researchers spend little time on criticalself-reflection and are not engaging with recenttheoretical developments taking place outside of EM(Pujadas Botey and Garvin 2010). As a result, EMand its researchers may be overlooking an opportu-nity to engage in better and more useful collabora-tive activities, strengthen applied results throughinterdisciplinary knowledge development, and evencontribute to theoretical understandings of inter-disciplinarity currently under development in otherresearch fields.

The field most strongly engaging in theory of in-terdisciplinarity is Integrative Studies. Here, socialscience and humanities’ scholars critically reflect ontheories about the nature of interdisciplinarity, the-oretical investigations of interdisciplinary work, andgo on to propose guidelines for successful interdisci-plinary processes (Chubin and others 1986; Klein2000; Repko 2011). Integrative Studies scholars sug-gest that theoretical discussions are fundamental foradvancing interdisciplinary research efforts becausethey enable self-reflection and informed decision-making in the research process (Szostak 2002b; Pohland others 2008). Therefore, the goal of our researchis to bring together these two disparate approaches:EM and Integrative Studies.

METHODS

This research is part of a larger project examininginterdisciplinarity in research for EM via a mixed-method design that employed both qualitative andquantitative data collection and analysis (Creswelland Plano Clark 2011) in a three stage process(Pujadas Botey 2010). Stage One was the literatureevaluation that first identified peer-reviewed,English language research articles using keywords‘‘ecosystem management and ‘‘interdisciplinar*’’(and accepted variations) via electronic databases.This stage identified 129 articles published between1960 and 2008 that claimed to be about both EMand interdisciplinarity (that is, research contribut-ing to EM and using or discussing interdisciplina-rity). We then employed a rigorous emergenttheme analysis that identified those articles repre-senting an engagement with theories of interdisci-plinarity, as opposed to those that did not.Subsequent descriptive statistics and correspon-dence analysis found that there is a small, but

Interdisciplinary Research for Ecosystem Management 513

growing, group of EM researchers that are engagingwith theories of interdisciplinarity in their work(Pujadas Botey and Garvin 2010).

In the second stage of the project we contactedlead, second, and corresponding authors of the 129articles, inviting them to participate in an onlinesurvey about EM and interdisciplinarity. Invita-tions went to 218 authors and 119 participated for aresponse rate of 55%. Using cluster analysis andlogistic regression, we found that respondents thatindicated a familiarity with theories of interdisci-plinarity were much more likely to clearly delin-eate between the term ‘‘interdisciplinary’’ andother synonyms. Despite this distinction, respon-dents did identify a common and shared under-standing of interdisciplinary research as both a wayto do research, as well as a way to think aboutresearch (Pujadas Botey and others 2012).

As part of the survey, respondents were asked toindicate their willingness to participate in a follow-up interview where they would be invited to sharetheir opinions on interdisciplinary work and itspractice. The interview formed Stage Three of theproject and its results are reported here. This stageemployed in-depth, qualitative, semi-structured keyinformant interviews (Kvale 1996) to collect data onperceptions of interdisciplinary research. Standardsof qualitative research re-iterate that the purpose ofsuch explanatory studies are to determine the breathand depth of understanding of a topic among a smallgroup of respondents rather than to garner resultsgeneralizable to the larger population (Miles andHuberman 1994). In total, 49 survey respondentsindicated their willingness to participate in aninterview. We then used a purposive, maximumvariation sampling model to select potential partici-pants (Patton 2002; Maxwell 2005). This samplingmethod is commonly used in qualitative research topurposively select individuals to inform the studytopic by representing the range and breadth of views(Creswell 2007). The aim, therefore, is not to pro-duce a generalizable sample, but to identify and ex-plore the range of views within a delineated group ofrespondents (Miles and Huberman 1994). In par-ticular, we explored meaning among a group ofresearchers who self-identify as EM, interdisciplin-ary researchers (by using ‘‘ecosystem management’’and ‘‘interdisciplinar*’’ in their publications) as wellas claim an interest in sharing their thoughts on in-terdisciplinarity. We sought variation acrossresearchers based on particular traits that previousstages in the project indicated might explain differ-ences including: academic training, geographiclocation, gender, job description, and familiarity/non-familiarity with theories of interdisciplinary

work. To minimize bias and ensure an appropriaterange of perspectives we randomly selected a maxi-mum of three to represent each of the importanttraits revealed in the previous stages of the research(Baxter and Eyles 1997; Bazeley 2007), resulting in21 invitations to participate in an interview. Ofthese, 15 agreed to take part while 6 declined. Toensure no further measures to minimize bias had tobe taken, we asked those declining participationtheir reasons for that decision, and we evaluatedtheir characteristics, in particular, in relation to thealready mentioned traits that might explain differentperspectives on interdisciplinary work (see a sum-mary of their characteristics in Table 1). Researchersdeclining participation generally indicated refusalwas based on scheduling issues as opposed to lack ofinterest, and did not follow any particular pattern.

With institutional ethics approval, we interviewedeach of the 15 participants individually by telephoneover a 3-month period (October–December 2009)and interviews lasted 30–90 min. Interviews fol-lowed a general questioning guide that included:experience doing interdisciplinary research and howthat played out in particular projects; descriptions ofthe interdisciplinary process; understandings onhow to conduct interdisciplinary research; interestin theories of interdisciplinary research; and indi-vidual interest in how the interdisciplinary researchprocess takes place. It may be worried that respon-dents would recall their actions and outcomes oftheir actions more than their thoughts, and thusappear less introspective than they actually were (asshown for example in: first you identify priorities, whatare the objectives, and identify what is feasible, and thendown to monitoring (Respondent #3), or people bringingwhat they know to the table and then talking with otherpeople about what other people know, and then trying toreach a common ground between the two (Respondent#11)). To combat this potential bias, specific probeswere employed to encourage reflection on thethought process employed (Patton 2002). Probesincluded asking what the particular activities thatintegrate the process are, what these activities con-sist of, why they are important, and how they arelinked to one another, or asking what particularsteps of the process make interdisciplinary worksuccessful or less difficult. We recorded and tran-scribed each interview verbatim, applying an iden-tification number to each participant to protect theiridentity. We then imported the text into a computer-aided data analysis program (NVivo") for analysis,and employed an inductive coding process to ana-lyze the interview data (Miles and Huberman 1994;Bazeley 2007). This process entails a methodical re-view of the full text of each interview to detect

514 A. Pujadas Botey and others

recurrent themes. We then summarized theserecurrent themes and organized them into a set ofcodes that we systematically applied to text frag-ments (phrases or sentences) in the transcribedinterview files (Denzin and Lincoln 2000).

We used accepted qualitative research proce-dures and standards to ensure data quality and arigorous analysis (Miles and Huberman 1994;Denzin and Lincoln 2000). This included firstconducting pilot interviews with four respondentsto ensure that the interview guide answered theproposed research goal of discovering perceptionsof interdisciplinary research (Weiss 1994; Creswell2007). Second, the member of the research teamconducting the interviews undertook reflexivejournaling, which includes making detailed notesbefore, during, and after interviews to capturethoughts and understandings of the data and thedata collection process. These reflexive commentsthen became part of the data and were used tocontextualize the interview transcripts (Maxwell2005). Third, we employed member checking bysending copies of all transcribed interview files backto respondents for comment, revision, and review(Maxwell 2005; Rubin and Rubin 2005). Fourth,we utilized a peer debriefing method to ensure that

the thematic elements we identified were consis-tent and trustworthy (Dey 1993; Baxter and Eyles1997). Debriefing entailed having a member of theresearch team and two external researchers sepa-rately code two randomly selected interview tran-scripts and discussing the coding exercise until thethree researchers reached consensus on the codes.Finally, we used thick description. By providing adetailed account of the research context and itsintentions and meanings we let the reader evaluatethe extent to which the conclusions drawn aretransferable to other situations (Miles and Huber-man 1994; Maxwell 2005). Together, these proce-dures ensure credibility, trustworthiness, and rigorin qualitative research (Baxter and Eyles 1997).

RESULTS

Four main findings emerged from analysis of thekey informant interviews. First, EM researchers inthe study see interdisciplinary research as anintegration process. Second, respondents find itdifficult to articulate integration, although theycan identify four elements that help it take place.Third, respondents indicate there is little interestin theoretical discussions regarding integration

Table 1. Characteristics of Researchers Participating in the Study and Declining Participation

Interview number Academic background Geographic location Gender Joba Familiarity with TIDb

Participants1 Mixedc North America Female 1 Yes2 Natural sciences Europe Male 1 No3 Natural sciences North America Male 1 No4 Natural sciences North America Male 1 Yes5 Natural sciences North America Female 3 No6 Mixed Africa Female 1 Yes7 Natural sciences North America Male 1 Yes8 Natural sciences Africa Male 2 No9 Natural sciences North America Male 2 No10 Natural sciences North America Female 3 No11 Mixed Africa Male 1 Yes12 Natural sciences North America Male 2 No13 Mixed Oceania Male 1 Yes14 Social sciences North America Male 1 Yes15 Social sciences Europe Female 1 Yes

Non-participants16 Natural sciences North America Male 3 Yes17 Mixed North America Male 1 No18 Natural sciences North America Male 2 Yes19 Natural sciences North America Female 1 Yes20 Natural sciences North America Male 2 No21 Mixed North America Male 1 No

aJobs included are: 1 = university researcher, 2 = non-university researcher or government employee, 3 = private company or NGO employee.bTID = theories of interdisciplinarity.cMixed = any combination of social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities.

Interdisciplinary Research for Ecosystem Management 515

and interdisciplinary research in general. Finally,most respondents understand interdisciplinaryresearch (and integration) as an intuitive processthat emerges naturally when researchers from dif-ferent disciplines work together, as opposed to aprocess based on intention and critical reflection.

Finding 1: Interdisciplinary Research isabout Integration

All respondents referred to integration as the es-sence of the interdisciplinary process. They pre-sented interdisciplinary research as a team exercisewhere researchers from different disciplines (bothinside and outside academia) collaborate to bringtogether insights to solve a problem. Respondentsexplained integration as:

People working outside their discipline,building bridges, incorporating ideasfrom other disciplines fully into whatthey are doing (…). People bringingwhat they know to the table and thentalking with other people about whatother people know, and then trying toreach a common ground between thetwo. (Respondent #11)

Finding 2: Articulating IntegrationVersus Helpful Elements

Respondents generally found it difficult to detailthe specific activities of integration. They suggestedthat integration occurs spontaneously as theresearchers interact, and expressed clear difficultiesin articulating the process.

You interact with people as you woulddo in any sphere of life. It just happens…You know, you are talking of ideas, in-stead of buying bread or some otherinteraction… I am not sure how best toexplain it. (Respondent #11)

However, respondents also referred to four con-textual elements that help set a background that isfavorable to an effective integration. The mostmentioned element is commitment to interdisci-plinary research. Respondents specifically men-tioned the need for collaborators to trust andrespect researchers from other disciplines, andthe importance of openness to other disciplinaryperspectives.

Part of this assembling is if we are willingto have this openness to understanding,and trying to figure out what people’sperspectives are. (Respondent #3)

A second important element for successful inte-gration is contextualization of the research. Re-search aimed at solving real problems has to beconstantly adapted to changing realities. Researchis seen as a process that incorporates multipleviews, accommodates differing approaches and is,above all, pragmatic.

I think it is a very recursive process, verymuch back and forth. (…). You areadapting because you are realizing thatthat is going to work. (Respondent #4)

A lot of it is very ‘try and see’. (Respon-dent #2)

The third element that leads to integration isexpertise. However, rarely did this expertise extend toknowledge of theories of integration or critical reflex-ivity on the integration process. Rather, for mostrespondents this meant expertise in research, expertisein a specific discipline, and with researchers of differentdisciplines working side by side on a project.

Researchers who are employed on suchprojects should bring their own researchideas and expertise to the ‘shell’ of theresearch project (…). But at the end ofthe day the research that you do has tobe of good quality. So, people have toknow what they are doing in the differ-ent disciplines. (Respondent #2)

The final element is the importance of relation-ship-building in the research process. Some talkedabout how research is enhanced with effectiveteam leadership and good personal relationships.Such relationships emerge through informal con-versations that lead to mutual trust and thedevelopment of a common language. Togetherthese social components of research lead to suc-cessful interdisciplinary research.

And the level of… getting on with peo-ple, the social interaction that goes be-yond purely the professional side of it iscrucial. It builds up trust, which I think isvery important. In terms of the people

516 A. Pujadas Botey and others

I’ve ever worked best, are all them peo-ple that I liked and got on well with.(Respondent #12)

Although most respondents commented aboutelements that help create an adequate context forintegration, a few respondents referred to elementsthat help integration itself. They talked about theimportance of having some kind of guideline forintegration. In particular, they indicated the valueof having an explicit theoretical framework thatdescribes research assumptions to be shared bypeople in the different disciplines as well as usingspecific research techniques that might assist in theintegration of information.

There are some management frame-works that have been proposed for dif-ferent processes around problem-solvingin a collective situation; Soft SystemsMethodology, for instance. And there isquite a high variation in what thesethings suggest, and obviously, they allhave useful elements. (…) Also simula-tion models can force you to integrateinformation from different disciplines(…) GIS and information systems helptry to organize material. (Respondent #7)

Finding 3: Researchers are Not Interestedin Discussing Integration

Respondents recognized that among researcherscontributing to EM, there is little interest inreflecting on how integration takes place, nor onthe interdisciplinary process in general. Somerespondents explicitly stated that researchers areinterested in doing rather than discussing whatthey do. Several respondents reported there is agrowing attention to discussions about interdisci-plinary research, but that this interest remains atthe level of practice rather than at a theoreticallevel.

I would argue people do discuss (…). Butwhen they discuss it is usually throughstory. It is not through examination. It isthrough the experiences in practice. It isthrough stories. And stories are helpful,but they are not adequate to distillate theprincipals of interdisciplinary work sothese can be talked about explicitly.(Respondent #1)

Respondents recognized that there is littleagreement on how to actually undertake interdis-ciplinary research. Some emphasized that there areneither rules nor specific instructions to direct theprocess. Respondents did highlight the importanceof not having preconceived notions about how toact and in allowing the research process to emergespontaneously.

I certainly do not follow any precon-ceived rule. I usually just make it up as itgoes along. It’s not until somebody likeyou start asking these questions, that Istop to reflect on what works. (Respon-dent #9)

Most respondents, however, felt that despitehaving no single, shared way of acting, there isconcurrence on certain ‘‘standards’’ used in inter-disciplinary efforts. They refer to elements such asorganizing workshops and encouraging informalconversations, which enhance communication andfacilitate interaction across disciplines.

I think there are natural steps that peopletake. So, I guess a lot of communication.Effective listening and conflict resolutionskills are critical. Anything that helpsreally hearing people, not just listeningto people. (Respondent #3)

Finding 4: Interdisciplinary Practice:Intuition Versus Reflection

Interviews showed that respondents are dividedinto two different and apparently conflicting waysof doing and understanding interdisciplinary re-search: intuition-based and reflection-based. Mostrespondents in this study adhered to the first ap-proach. Even those respondents who said theywere familiar with theories of interdisciplinarityrecognized that their colleagues view interdisci-plinary practice as an intuitive process.

I don’t usually have an explicit method-ology or plan to make sure I am trans-disciplinary [interdisciplinary]. And Iwould say it sort of comes naturally.(Respondent #5)

Respondents who agree that interdisciplinaryresearch requires active reflection are, for the mostpart, familiar with theories of interdisciplinarity.

Interdisciplinary Research for Ecosystem Management 517

These researchers see interdisciplinary practice asnecessarily reflexive.

I would probably make the case thatsome people think that intuitively theywould do it. But in fact, they only do partof it. If you are not conscious of what youare doing, how can you be sure you arebeing interdisciplinary? So, one has to beconscious enough of your knowledgeand skills to know what you are doing,and also what you are not doing.(Respondent #1)

DISCUSSION

Researchers involved in generating knowledge tocontribute to EM in general acknowledge thatinterdisciplinary approaches are relevant to under-standing ecosystems (Grumbine 1994; Berkes andothers 2003). Results from the present study sup-port that scientists and managers involved in EMresearch often engage in interdisciplinary practice,but suggest that not all of them fully appreciate theinterdisciplinary research they do nor are theyaware of guidelines and practices that mightmake their interdisciplinary work easier andmore successful.

For example, findings from the study indicatethat respondents primarily define interdisciplinaryresearch as a process of integration of insights fromdifferent disciplines. However, results further showthat according to most respondents integration is aprocess that remains invisible inside what could becalled a ‘‘black box’’ (after Belevitch 1962). MostEM researchers involved in this study feel thatthere is no need to look inside the box and discussthe ‘‘hows’’ and ‘‘whys’’ of integration. Rather,they believe that the process of integration auto-matically happens as researchers and managersinteract and the research is being conducted.Respondents in general advocate the well-knownmaxim of ‘‘just do it,’’ relying on intuition to makethe process work. However, according to the the-oretical literature evaluating the research process(Szostak 2004), intuition alone has danger. Intui-tion certainly plays a relevant role in knowledgeproduction by providing the basis for creativethinking, but it can also bias research decisionstowards subconscious thinking and accepted prac-tices, thus, stifling the development of new ideasand innovative approaches (Szostak 2002b; Szostak2004). Critical reflection is recommended toattenuate any bias that may skew the research

because it allows conscious decision-making andself-awareness about how to proceed in practice(Clark 2002; Szostak 2002a).

Findings from the present study also indicate thatrespondents recognize that there are some ele-ments that help this ‘‘black-box,’’ spontaneousintegration process take place. In particular, theymention a set of elements related to teambuildingsuch as commitment to the research, flexibility,experience in interacting with others, or havingleadership, and good personal relationship amongcollaborators. This finding echoes the emphasis inthe conservation literature on principles for con-ducting successful collaboration including theadequate selection of research personnel, inclusivepublic involvement, collaborative stewardship,effective dialogue, strong personal relationships,and consensus-based approaches (Clark 2002; Leleand Norgaard 2005; Keough and Blahna 2006).Effective collaboration is a relevant part of theresearch process that integrates insights from dif-ferent disciplines (Keough and Blahna 2006).However, collaboration does not per se lead tosuccessful integration. One of the lessons stressedby the literature on collaboration is that to allowparticipants to effectively work together, it is veryimportant to develop ‘‘shared conceptual frame-works that integrate and transcend the multipledisciplinary perspectives represented among teammembers’’ (Stokols and others 2008, p. S97). Inother words, simply working together in an intui-tive manner may work sometimes, but thisapproach will often fail to generate successfulresearch outcomes. Given how difficult it is toachieve effective teamwork collaborations (Stokolsand others 2008), and the need for articulatingdisciplinary perspectives to allow participants towork towards a later integration of insights, the‘‘just do it,’’ intuitive approach of most respondentsis unlikely to remain viable in the long-term. Asshown by Hirsch Hadorn (2008), many participantsin interdisciplinary efforts agree that there areparticular ways an interdisciplinary team mightorganize its collaboration to reach integration, aswell as specific tools that foster successful integra-tion. Particular ways of organization include com-mon or social learning (Keen and others 2005), anddeliberation among experts and sub-group inte-gration (Pohl and others 2008). Primary tools forintegration include policy exercises and decision-seminars (Clark 2002), models and geographicinformation systems (Biggs and others 2000),redefinition of theoretical concepts (Pohl and oth-ers 2008), as well as structured philosophical dis-cussions (Eigenbrode and others 2007) and other

518 A. Pujadas Botey and others

strategies to develop mutual understandings (Keoughand Blahna 2006).

Our respondents were reflective of interdisci-plinary practice and clearly appreciate that inte-gration is not easy, and that collaboration is oftennot successful. Results also indicate that amongresearchers contributing to EM there is littleinterest in theoretical discussions about integration.The general hesitance to engage in discussions ofhow to integrate thus likely reflects a skepticismabout the benefits of such discussions. At the sametime, results suggest that the hesitance to explorethe literature on interdisciplinary does not seem toreflect a concern that the broader field of sciencestudies is antithetical to science. Indeed, thereseemed to be an appreciation that scholars inother fields might be trying to provide constructiveadvice.

Though it is beyond the scope of this paper todiscuss possible guidelines for interdisciplinary re-search in detail, it is important to appreciate thatthere is an extensive literature in IntegrativeStudies (Klein 2000; Repko 2011) that generallyaccepts that interdisciplinarity, properly pursued,leads to more comprehensive understanding, andthus naturally focuses on constructive advice. Theliterature in Integrative Studies discusses possibleguidelines, and much of this literature refersexplicitly to environmental issues. Importantly, thisliterature has developed to a point where a coher-ent set of strategies or procedures appropriate toeach (iterative) step in the integration process canbe outlined. Our set of respondents, and certainly alarger group of researchers contributing to EM,could thus with a minimal investment of time be-come acquainted with complementary guidelinesfor each challenge faced in interdisciplinary re-search.

Researchers in Integrative Studies propose athree-step process and strategies for successfulintegration.

Step 1 Identify conflicts in disciplinary insightsrelevant to studying the problem

Conflicts in disciplinary insights are the basis forcreating common ground, a fundamental compo-nent of integration (Newell 2007). To identifyconflicts, interdisciplinary collaborators identifybasic theories, methods, and perspectives or con-cepts from each relevant discipline and constantlycompare and contrast those to similar elements inother disciplines. Visually mapping the complex setof interactions between elements helps ensure

collaborators are actually talking about the samecausal relationships (Repko 2011). Typologies ofdisciplinary elements (see, for example, Szostak2004) might be useful in detecting possible con-flicting interactions. Visually mapping the complexset of possible interactions between elements is ahelpful technique for determining apparently con-flicting relationships (Repko 2011). Within an EMproject discussing the protection of an inhabitednatural area this first step would involveacknowledging disciplines like ecology and sociol-ogy, and exploring disciplinary elements such as‘‘ecological sustainability’’ (ecological needs) and‘‘social sustainability’’ (social needs), which frompurely disciplinary approaches would provide(conflicting) alternatives guiding protection deci-sions. A seminar or meeting at the outset of theproject, where researchers can define and debatetheir specific perspectives, would lay the base formutual respect and understanding, this supportingongoing discussions throughout the project.

Step 2 Generate common ground between disci-plinary insights

This step modifies the disciplinary elementsidentified in Step 1 to create one or more theories,methods, and perspectives or concepts by whichconflicting insights detected in Step 1 can be rec-onciled and integrated. Common ground is definedas a concept or assumption that can be understoodin the same way across disciplines. Generatingcommon ground requires close analytical reasoningand creative thinking, and can be achieved by fol-lowing a proposed systematic approach and usefultechniques including theory redefinition, exten-sion, organization, and transformation (details onthe approach and techniques can be found inRepko 2011). Following with the earlier example,the ‘‘ecological sustainability’’ and ‘‘social sustain-ability’’ could be conciliated by adopting the con-cept of ‘‘social–ecological sustainability,’’ wheresocial and ecological needs can overlap. By utilizingthis hybrid approach, ongoing discussions throughthe project could be based on a common under-standing. Allowing for additional group interac-tions throughout the project will cement themutual understandings developed at the start of theproject.

Step 3 Produce new interdisciplinary insightsWhere Step 2 is about creating theories, meth-

ods, and perspectives or concepts that are commonamong all involved disciplines, Step 3 is about

Interdisciplinary Research for Ecosystem Management 519

using these theories, methods, and perspectives orconcepts to ingrate insights produced by the disci-plines and produce interdisciplinary knowledge.The result is a new and ‘‘more comprehensive’’understanding about the problem compared toavailable disciplinary insights. For our example,this step could involve seeing ‘‘social–ecologicalsustainability’’ as a continuum with ecological andsocial needs on opposite ends. The discussion ofwhere ecological and social needs overlap might bea good starting point for deciding how to set up ormanage the protected area in a comprehensivemanner. Thus, the project’s conclusion is a new setof insights that are accepted, understood, andsupported by all members of the team.

By deconstructing integration, researchers inIntegrative Studies offer EM researchers theopportunity to open the black box, and betterunderstand the integration process. This stepwiseguide helps collaborators in interdisciplinary re-search be aware of the different stages required toachieve effective integration. The conservation lit-erature shows that collaborators have reportedbenefits from a structured group discussion aboutdifferences between disciplines (Eigenbrode andothers 2007). And collaborators following the par-ticular steps and procedures presented here havereported the exercise facilitated addressing ques-tions and gaining insights that they would likelyhave missed otherwise (Repko and others 2012).Experience in other fields (Hirsch Hadorn 2008;Repko and others 2012) suggests that our respon-dents’ unwillingness to engage in theoretical dis-cussions of interdisciplinarity seems to beunwarranted. By including current theoretical de-bates on integration such as those in IntegrativeStudies in their own work, EM researchers coulddevelop a more complete picture of interdisciplin-ary research and its possibilities. Doing so will likelyresult in more effective interdisciplinary researchfor conservation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was supported by a scholarship fromthe Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologıa,Mexico (scholarship 205603/228694) and researchfunds by the Killam Foundation. First author isgrateful for the support of the Community, Healthand Environment Research Centre at the Univer-sity of Alberta. Authors thank the people whoagreed to participate in this study. Thanks are alsoextended to the editors and anonymous reviewersfor their constructive feedback.

REFERENCES

Baxter J, Eyles J. 1997. Evaluating qualitative research in social

geography: establishing ‘‘rigour’’ in interview analysis. Trans

Inst Br Geogr 22:505–25.

Bazeley P. 2007. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. London:SAGE Publications.

Belevitch V. 1962. Summary of history of circuit theory. Proc

Inst Radio Eng 50:848–55.

Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C, Eds. 2003. Navigating social–eco-logical systems building resilience for complexity and change.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biggs HC, Coetzee Y, Dent MC. 2000. Development of a meta-

database to support a multi-organisational, multi-disciplinary

river ecosystem research and management initiative—expe-riences from the Kruger National Park Rivers Research Pro-

gramme. Water SA Pretoria 26:77–82.

Christensen NL, Bartuska AM, Brown JH, Carpenter S, Dantonio

C, Francis R, Franklin JF, Macmahon JA, Noss RF, Parsons DJ,Peterson CH, Turner MG, Woodmansee RG. 1996. The report

of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the sci-

entific basis for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:665–91.

Chubin DE, Porter AL, Rossini FA, Eds. 1986. Interdisciplinaryanalysis and research: theory and practice of problem-focused

research and development. Mt. Airy: Lomond Publications.

Clark TW. 2002. The policy process a practical guide for natural

resource professionals. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cordell HK, Bergstrom JC, Eds. 1999. Integrating social scienceswith ecosystem management human dimensions in assessment,

policy, and management. Champaign: Sagamore Publishing.

Creswell JW. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design:

choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pub-lications.

Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. 2011. Designing and conducting

mixed methods research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Eds. 2000. The handbook of qualitative

research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Dey I. 1993. Qualitative data analysis a user-friendly guide for

social scientists. New York: Routledge.

di Castri F, Hadley M. 1985. Enhancing the credibility of ecology:

is interdisciplinary research for land use planning useful? Geo

J 13:299–325.

Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD, Althoff DM, Goldberg

CS, Merrill K, Morse W, Nielsen-Pincus M, Stephens J, Win-

owiecki L, Bosque-Perez NA. 2007. Employing philosophical

dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57:55–64.

Ewert AW, Baker DC, Bissix GC, Eds. 2004. Integrated resource

and environmental management the human dimension.

Cambridge: CABI Publishing.

Gray B. 1989. Collaborating: finding common ground for mul-

tiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Grumbine RE. 1994. What is ecosystem management. Conserv

Biol 8:27–38.

Grumbine RE. 2002. Reflections on ‘‘what is ecosystem man-

agement’’. Conserv Biol 11:41–7.

Heberlein TA. 1988. Improving interdisciplinary research—inte-grating the social and natural-sciences. Soc Nat Resour 1:5–16.

Heemskerk M, Wilson K, Pavao-Zuckerman M. 2003. Conceptual

models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conserv

Ecol 7. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art8/.

520 A. Pujadas Botey and others

Hirsch Hadorn G, Ed. 2008. Handbook of transdisciplinary

research. Dordrecht: Springer.

Jakobsen CH, Hels T, McLaughlin WJ. 2004. Barriers and facil-

itators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary

landscape analyses: a cross-country comparison. For Policy

Econ 6:15–31.

Keen M, Brown VA, Dyball R, Eds. 2005. Social learning in

environmental management towards a sustainable future.

London: Earthscan.

Keough HL, Blahna DJ. 2006. Achieving integrative, collabora-

tive ecosystem management. Conserv Biol 20:1373–82.

Klein JT. 2000. A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary

science. In: Weingart P, Stehr N, Eds. Practising interdisci-

plinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p 3–24.

Kvale S. 1996. Interviews: an introduction to qualitativeresearch interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Lee KN. 1993. Compass and gyroscope integrating science and

politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Lele S, Norgaard RB. 2005. Practicing interdisciplinarity. Bio-

science 55:967–75.

Lowe P, Whitman G, Phillipson J. 2009. Ecology and the socialsciences. J Appl Ecol 46:297–305.

MacMynowski DP. 2007. Pausing at the brink of interdisci-

plinarity: power and knowledge at the meeting of social and

biophysical science. Ecol Soc 12. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss11/art20/.

Max-Neef MA. 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol

Econ 53:5–16.

Maxwell JA. 2005. Qualitative research design an interactive

approach. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Miles MB, Huberman AM. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: an

expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Newell WH. 2007. Decision-making in interdisciplinary studies.

In: Morcol G, Ed. Handbook of decision-making. New York:

Marcel Dekker. p 245–65.

Noss RF, Cooperrider A. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy protecting

and restoring biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Patton MQ. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods.

Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pickett STA, Burch WR, Grove JM. 1999. Interdisciplinaryresearch: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of

criticism. Ecosystems 2:302–7.

Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L, Hirsch Hadorn G, Bammer G. 2008.

Integration. In: Hirsch Hadorn G, Ed. Handbook of transdis-ciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer. p 411–24.

Pujadas Botey A. 2010. Interdisciplinarity in ecosystem man-

agement. Edmonton: Department of Earth and AtmosphericSciences. University of Alberta. p 168.

Pujadas Botey A, Garvin T. 2010. Interdisciplinary research in

ecosystem management: a literature evaluation. Int J Sci Soc

1:185–213.

Pujadas Botey A, Garvin T, Szostak R. 2012. Ecosystem man-

agement research: clarifying the concept of interdisciplinary

work. Interdiscip Sci Rev 37:161–78.

Repko AF. 2011. Interdisciplinary: research process and theory.

Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Repko AF, Newell WH, Szostak R. 2012. Case studies in inter-

disciplinary research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. 2005. Qualitative interviewing: the art of

hearing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Sievanen L, Campbell LM, Leslie HM. 2012. Challenges tointerdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management.

Conserv Biol 26:315–23.

Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK. 2008. The

ecology of team science—understanding contextual influ-ences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med

35:S96–115.

Szostak R. 2002a. How to do interdisciplinarity: integrating the

debate. Issues Integr Stud 20:103–22.

Szostak R. 2002b. Intuition and interdisciplinarity: a reply toMackey. Issues Integr Stud 20:131–7.

Szostak R. 2004. Classifying science: phenomena, data, theory,

method, practice. Dordrecht: Springer.

Thornhill A. 2003. Social scientists and conservation biologists

join forces. Conserv Biol 17:1476.

Tress B, Tress G, Fry G. 2005. Integrative studies on rural land-

scapes: policy expectations and research practice. Landsc Ur-

ban Plan 70:177–91.

Van Kerkhoff L. 2005. Integrated research: concepts of connec-

tion in environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy8:452–63.

Weiss RS. 1994. Learning from strangers the art and method of

qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.

Wilson EO. 1998. Integrated science and the coming century ofthe environment. Science 279:2048.

Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL. 2000. Making collaboration work

lessons from innovation in natural resource management.

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Yaffee SL. 1999. Three faces of ecosystem management. ConservBiol 13:713–25.

Interdisciplinary Research for Ecosystem Management 521