Doing Interdisciplinary Environmental Change Research Solo

IF 1.7 2区 生物学 Q2 PLANT SCIENCES Economic Botany Pub Date : 2023-09-21 DOI:10.1007/s12231-023-09584-9
Bradley B. Walters
{"title":"Doing Interdisciplinary Environmental Change Research Solo","authors":"Bradley B. Walters","doi":"10.1007/s12231-023-09584-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Interdisciplinary research on people, plants, and environmental change (IRPPE) typically requires collaboration among experts who each bring distinct knowledge and skills to bear on the questions at hand. The benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary research in principle are thus confounded by the dynamics of multidisciplinary collaboration in practice. However, broadly trained researchers can do IRPPE with little or no need of collaborators. For them, collaborative challenges may be negligible, but others arise. This paper reflects on experiences doing (mostly) solo research on peoples’ use of trees and their impacts on forests in the Caribbean and Philippines. Multidisciplinary collaborations are often plagued with problems of communication, theoretical disagreement, and methodological incompatibility because the habits and conceits of a rigorous disciplinary education are difficult to undo. These are problems that novel concepts, theory, and analytical frameworks promise but often fail to resolve. By contrast, going solo fosters an epistemic humility and pragmatic sensibility that encourages focused, efficient application of methods, and integration of research findings. Epistemic breadth encourages solo IRPPE researchers to apply theory sparingly and deploy clear concepts and precise analyses of the kind readily grasped by natural and social scientists and policy makers, alike.","PeriodicalId":11412,"journal":{"name":"Economic Botany","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic Botany","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-023-09584-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PLANT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Interdisciplinary research on people, plants, and environmental change (IRPPE) typically requires collaboration among experts who each bring distinct knowledge and skills to bear on the questions at hand. The benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary research in principle are thus confounded by the dynamics of multidisciplinary collaboration in practice. However, broadly trained researchers can do IRPPE with little or no need of collaborators. For them, collaborative challenges may be negligible, but others arise. This paper reflects on experiences doing (mostly) solo research on peoples’ use of trees and their impacts on forests in the Caribbean and Philippines. Multidisciplinary collaborations are often plagued with problems of communication, theoretical disagreement, and methodological incompatibility because the habits and conceits of a rigorous disciplinary education are difficult to undo. These are problems that novel concepts, theory, and analytical frameworks promise but often fail to resolve. By contrast, going solo fosters an epistemic humility and pragmatic sensibility that encourages focused, efficient application of methods, and integration of research findings. Epistemic breadth encourages solo IRPPE researchers to apply theory sparingly and deploy clear concepts and precise analyses of the kind readily grasped by natural and social scientists and policy makers, alike.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
独自从事跨学科环境变化研究
人、植物和环境变化的跨学科研究通常需要专家之间的合作,他们各自具有不同的知识和技能来解决手头的问题。因此,跨学科研究的好处和挑战在原则上被实践中多学科合作的动态所混淆。然而,受过广泛训练的研究人员可以在很少或不需要合作者的情况下进行IRPPE。对他们来说,合作的挑战可能可以忽略不计,但其他挑战也会出现。本文反映了在加勒比和菲律宾进行(主要是)单独研究人们对树木的利用及其对森林的影响的经验。多学科合作经常受到沟通问题、理论分歧和方法不相容的困扰,因为严格的学科教育的习惯和自负很难消除。这些问题是新的概念、理论和分析框架所承诺的,但往往无法解决。相比之下,单干培养了一种认知上的谦逊和务实的敏感性,鼓励专注、有效地应用方法,并整合研究成果。认知广度鼓励独立的IRPPE研究人员谨慎地应用理论,并部署清晰的概念和精确的分析,这些概念和分析很容易被自然和社会科学家以及政策制定者所掌握。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Economic Botany
Economic Botany 生物-植物科学
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Economic Botany is a quarterly journal published by The New York Botanical Garden for the Society for Economic Botany. Interdisciplinary in scope, Economic Botany bridges the gap between pure and applied botany by focusing on the uses of plants by people. The foremost publication of its kind in this field, Economic Botany documents the rich relationship between plants and people around the world, encompassing the past, present, and potential uses of plants. Each issue contains original research articles, review articles, book reviews, annotated bibliographies, and notes on economic plants.
期刊最新文献
Why Contexts Matter for Gender Equal Outcomes in Research-Based Plant Breeding: The Case of Maize in Nigeria Does Bark Anatomy Influence the Selection of Woody Medicinal Plants in Seasonal Dry Forests from Brazil? From the Wild to the Market: The Trade of Edible Plants in Guinea-Bissau Queer Ethnobotany The Sticky Relationship Between Orchids and Mexican Amate Paper: Present and Possible Past
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1