Necessary but challenging: Multiple disciplinary approaches to solving conservation problems

Conservation biology was first described as a crisis discipline (Soulé 1985). The “wicked problems” in conservation science (e.g., climate change, global biodiversity decline) (Kareiva and Marvier 2012) are extremely complex (Rittel and Webber 1973). Very few of these problems lie solely within the bounds of one discipline (Daily and Ehrlich 1999). Traditionally, researchers have used disciplinarity as a way of reducing the complexity of these problems in order to approach them in isolation. It is naive for conservation researchers, no matter their training, to think that they can reach a deep understanding of an entire conservation problem, and thus propose an effective solution, simply by examining a singular component of the problem (Box 1). We do not argue that the complex interactions even within a single discipline (i.e., biologists studying the interactions between organisms and their environment) are not important, but rather that to solve complex conservation problems, a holistic understanding of the full interactions (e.g., biotic, abiotic, and socioeconomic) is necessary. The vast majority of our ecosystems are human-dominated (Vitousek et al. 1997), and as a result, it is impossible to address conservation problems without fully acknowledging the human dimension (Mascia et al. 2003; Fox et al. 2006; Kareiva and Marvier 2012; Bennett and Roth 2015). A solution to complex problems such as global biodiversity decline is unlikely to be successful solely by understanding the ecological drivers of decline, but is likely to require a holistic approach that incorporates the complex interaction between the ecological, socioeconomic, and political forces (Mallegowda 2013; Sandbrook et al. 2013). Researchers must take the time to explore and build frameworks that do not rely on removing the complexity of a problem, but rather collaboratively design synthetic frameworks that enable understanding of complex interactions between the environment, society, and policy.

Most researchers are trained by institutions to be experts within their discipline. Traditional disciplinary approaches are beneficial insofar as providing frames of reference, methodologies, theories, and tools. However, when faced with, often unpredictable, conservation problems that involve complex socio-ecological systems, researchers must abandon the status quo of analyzing a question from within their disciplinary silo. No discipline has intellectual precedence in an endeavour as important as solving conservation problems (Hadorn et al. 2006). It is paramount that conservation researchers are cognizant of how their expertise fits within the larger conservation context (Box 1). Conservation researchers must commit to both working collaboratively as part of multiple disciplinary teams, and learning and integrating multiple disciplinarity within their own approaches to conservation science. Doing so can expand a researcher’s perspective in such a way that can foster future creativity and lead to integrative approaches to solving conservation problems (Andrade et al. 2014). Conservation researchers with expertise in or familiarity with social sciences will have more traction in the social, economic, and political worlds (Gibbs et al. 2008). Even though criticism exists that multiple disciplinary work lowers productivity in career paths (Brewer 1999; Roy et al. 2013), we argue that the benefits of multiple disciplinary approaches to an individual problem promote ongoing learning outside one’s own area of expertise (see Kurland et al. 2010, for example); therefore, diversifying and enhancing one’s own perspective, knowledge, and career satisfaction (Demerouti et al. 2001; Amey and Brown 2005; Miller et al. 2008).

In other fields, an integration of methods, approaches, and perspectives may suffice in achieving multiple disciplinary research goals. However, in conservation, the results of research must generate effective, evidence-based policies that enable action (Sutherland et al. 2004). Such efforts demand collaboration with policymakers, conservation managers, and stakeholders outside of the academic realm (Box 1). Putting the results of research into action is what matters most, yet it is the biggest challenge that any practicing conservationist faces (Gibbs et al. 2008). Providing management recommendations that are applicable in reality requires the use of effective knowledge systems that help bridge the gap between knowledge and action by facilitating communication, translation, and mediation across boundaries (Cash et al. 2003). Successful systems that mobilize science and technology for sustainability are characterized by the involvement of boundary organizations that aid in knowledge mobilization, promoting communication and translation, and enhancing the salience, credibility, and legitimacy of the information produced (Cash et al. 2003). Major advances in conservation action will take place not in scientific laboratories or field research sites, but in the political and economic arenas because current limitations in conserving biodiversity are not due to lack of knowledge, but rather poor implementation (Meffe and Viederman 1995). The need for scientific results to impact practice, therefore, demands not only a traditional interdisciplinary approach that can be defined in an academic context, but also a multiple disciplinary approach that spans the boundaries of policy and management and engages partners, stakeholders, and other non-scientists (Miller et al. 2008). The foundation of a knowledge system for sustainability cannot be built within the boundaries of one discipline, or within the boundaries of academia alone.

Many of the problems encountered by societies in managing natural resources arise because there is a mismatch between the scale of the ecological process in question and the scale of management (Cumming et al. 2006). Working across scales to understand mechanisms underlying conservation problems is the norm (Cooke et al. 2014). Many different scales are relevant in defining conservation questions, including biological, spatial, temporal, jurisdictional, and institutional, among others (Cash et al. 2006; Cooke et al. 2014). However, in conservation science, the scale at which we can measure something is rarely at the same scale as the consequences of interest (Cooke et al. 2014). For example, it is very challenging to monitor the population status of organisms that are rare (or cryptic) yet have a broad distribution while trying to identify the mechanisms (including site-specific and more regional or global processes) behind any changes in population trajectories. Although the biological scale may be concerned with genes, organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems that are considered over specific levels of space and time, the relevant jurisdictional scales are, on the other hand, organized by political units such as towns, counties, states, provinces, or nations, which exist on vastly different spatiotemporal scales and have their own concerns and priorities. Reconciling these biophysical and social scales is important to improve policy and management strategies (Box 1). Failure to address the importance of scale in conservation science will impede the ability to generate scientific understanding that can contribute to meaningful and desirable outcomes, particularly in forms of policies (Cooke et al. 2014). A multiple disciplinary approach that spans both academic and non-academic boundaries can account for the seemingly abstract and intangible scales that govern the broader socioeconomic perspectives of the conservation problem at hand. The inclusion of societal and management scales allows for the addition of the dimension that designs and implements appropriate policy/management plans (which again can be very local or more global). Conservation science must be prepared to show how it is relevant at the policy/management scale, or to change the scale at which policy/management intervention is applied (Cooke et al. 2014). Accepting where a research question lies in the multidimensional and multiscalar arena of conservation science from a multiple disciplinary perspective will allow researchers to understand the big picture and will increase the applicability and level of impact of their work in different spheres ranging from local to global.

Conservation researchers are required to make decisions in the face of uncertainty (Soulé 1985; Cook et al. 2010; Allen and Gunderson 2011). When conservation problems are initially identified, researchers often have little or no evidence to guide them, yet they must still act (Regan et al. 2005). As a result of the interrelationships between ecological, socioeconomic, and political components of conservation problems (Liu et al. 2007), conservation researchers must have an understanding of the trade-offs and potential unintended consequences that conservation action may have on both these social and ecological systems (Miller et al. 2012). Monitoring the outcomes of conservation actions from all perspectives (i.e., socioeconomic outcomes) can enable conservation researchers to gain more knowledge, achieve a deeper understanding of the problems, and adapt the solutions to better understand and balance the trade-offs (Box 1). This will lead to more effective, long-term conservation successes. When conservation actions are implemented, inevitably there are trade-offs that affect society. Making conservation science decisions within an adaptive management framework permits learning from management actions and further refinement of the management decisions (Walters and Holling 1990; Allen and Gunderson 2011).

Multiple disciplinary research brings together diverse fields and institutions that will have contrasting research paradigms defined by distinctive languages, cultures, perspectives, and methods of communication (Bracken and Oughton 2006; Evely et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2008). The barriers to multiple disciplinary research in this regard are often supported by obscure assumptions. For example, the perceived gap between natural and social scientists that exists to this day limits the effectiveness of conservation action (Fox et al. 2006). Misconceptions between groups extend into the non-academic world too, where scholars hesitate to engage with the public and policymakers due to potential communication problems and misaligned priorities. Different types of knowledge are often involved (e.g., traditional, experiential, and political knowledge), which adds new levels of complexity (Freitag 2014) and raises questions about which information can be deemed “trustworthy” (Huntington 2000; Sutherland et al. 2014). Discussion between these different parties demands a recasting of the interactions between scholar and practitioner, which undoubtedly causes tensions (Cash et al. 2003). Failure to listen to or engage stakeholders has impeded conservation on many occasions (e.g., Christie 2004; Keppel et al. 2012). In order for conservation science to produce results that can reliably support effective management practices, collaboration between all involved parties (academic and non-academic) must occur from the onset of the project. Reconciling these different definitions, priorities, perspectives, and types of knowledge is a big challenge in conducting multiple disciplinary research. Here, the involvement of “boundary organizations” or individuals capable of “boundary spanning” and who can act as intermediaries between the arenas of science and policy may be key (Cash et al. 2003; Cook et al. 2013). Instead of investing time and resources in designing a new language to communicate across disciplines, researchers or groups already positioned at the interface of two or more disciplines can bridge the gap and help translate in a common language while retaining distinct lines of accountability to both groups. Furthermore, effective communication between the scientific and practical spheres requires a revision of anticipated timelines surrounding conservation projects. Time is required to overcome the assumption of mistrust that hampers the sharing of language and knowledge (Buller 2009; Stock and Burton 2011). Also, building trusting relationships and collegiality are cited as critical to interdisciplinary success (Daily and Ehrlich 1999); however, relationships are not built overnight. Time and patience are required to develop relationships, methods and common research goals (Evely et al. 2010).

The strongest barrier to integration is the fact that traditional academic reward systems discourage multiple disciplinary collaboration and applied problem solving. Moreover, there is a lack of funding for collaborative work, limited opportunities for multiple disciplinary publishing, and lack of incentives or rewards to engage in multiple disciplinary or collaborative work (Metzger and Zare 1999; Mascia et al. 2003; Fox et al. 2006). Traditional institutional and organizational structures discourage multiple disciplinary collaboration (Fox et al. 2006) by failing to facilitate interdepartmental training and scholarship (Mascia et al. 2003; Andrade et al. 2014) and generate impediments to hiring, promotion, and recognition (Brewer 1999). Even when multiple disciplinary researchers or teams break though disciplinary boundaries, funding has been difficult (Fox et al. 2006) and time-consuming to secure (Roy et al. 2013), largely because decisions for funding support remain bounded within single disciplines (Metzger and Zare 1999), although this is improving (Campbell 2005; Lynch 2006). Lastly, multiple disciplinary researchers have limited avenues to publish their work. Numerous authors have expressed that interdisciplinary journals are viewed as “young” and less reputable than established single disciplinary journals (Daily and Ehrlich 1999; Campbell 2005; Roy et al. 2013). Moreover, it can be difficult for editors to identify and secure appropriate referees who are able to review multiple disciplinary work. Not all researchers understand (e.g., they themselves only work in one discipline and do not have experience to assess work that crosses boundaries) or accept the premise of multiple disciplinary research (e.g., viewed as being too general given lack of disciplinary depth or fail to value such work) and do so with a limited respect. However, Naiman (1999) contends that most of the obstacles actually lie within the group (i.e., lack of trust among team members) rather than within the publication and peer review system. Despite the barriers posed by the current academic structure, there is growing sentiment that multiple disciplinary researchers are slowly overcoming these obstacles in pursuit of a holistic approach to conservation science [see Chapman et al. (2015) for a forward-looking viewpoint].