|
|
|
(Insert prefix here)-Disciplinary: A Problem of Definitions
The terms “multi-disciplinary”, “transdisciplinary” and “interdisciplinary” are often used to define research that involves, to varying degrees, both natural and social sciences. This section provides a common linguistic foundation for conservation researchers. It is important for us to be clear about our terms in order to reduce confusion later on. This is more than just semantics; these terms have different applications and ultimately produce different conservation results. While this toolkit is not intended to be a definitive work, it will provide us with the growing consensus on specific definitions.
Interdisciplinary
Research with a truly collaborative focus. Interdisciplinary research blends social and natural sciences. In theory this could be done by a single individual with a diverse background. It more often refers to projects where practitioners from two or more disciplines join together. Examples could include “watershed conservation” which might include chemists, biologists, urban planners and geographers. Multidisciplinary
Research that is approached from a variety of different backgrounds, but with researchers working within their own intellectual frameworks. Multidisciplinary research involves multiple parties working either concurrently or sequentially. An analogy from the childhood development literature is “parallel play” where children play next to each other, but not exactly with each other. For example, in setting up a system of marine protected areas, a biologist would identify critical habitat through underwater sampling, while an anthropologist would analyze the kinds and amounts of fish harvested through household interviews.
Transdisciplinary
A more inclusive term, which refers to research consisting of two or more different academic disciplines regardless of the interactions between them. According to Richard Wilk (2000), “Interdisciplinary work entails knowing enough about two disciplines to be able to apply one to the other, as in 'water economists' who are applying some economics to some hydrology. But their goal is never to question or broaden the assumptions, methods, or theories of either. Transdisciplinary scholars, in contrast, are versed in the paradigmatic assumptions of two (or more) fields, and their goal is a more fundamental contribution to both their cores, and the boundaries that separate them.”
For further reading and discussion please see an editorial letter from Ecology and Environmental Anthropology: (http://www.uga.edu/eea/01_2006/letter01_01_2006.htm). The journal has also archived a discussion on the role of anthropologists in interdisciplinary conservation projects: http://www.uga.edu/eea/01_2005/eanth-archive_2005.html. Again we are not claiming that these definitions are set in stone, however we do argue for linguistic consistency.
There is a growing literature on both the conceptual and pragmatic applications of these kinds of resources. A brief overview can be found in the following sources:
- Campbell, L. 2005. Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology 19(2): 574-578.
- Lélé, S. and R.B. Norgaard. 2005. Practicing Interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55(11): 967-975.
- Mascia, M. et al. 2003. Conservation and the Social Sciences. Conservation Biology 17(3): 649-650
- Metzger, N. and R.N. Zare. 1999. Interdisciplinary research: from belief to reality. Science 283(5402): 642-643.
- Norgaard, R.B. and P. Baer. 2005. Collectively seeing complex systems: the nature of the problem. BioScience 55(11): 953-960
- Wilks, Richard. 2000. Being Transdisciplinary. Available at: http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/ej/jpe/transdisciplinarity.htm
|
