Applied Filters
- Perspective
- Integrative SciencesRemove filter
- Nguyen, Vivian MRemove filter
Journal Title
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Cooke, Steven J3
- Aiken, Alice1
- Amirfazli, Alidad1
- Anastakis, Dimitry1
- Ansari, Daniel1
- Antle, Alissa N1
- Arlinghaus, Robert1
- Babel, Molly1
- Bailey, Jane1
- Bernstein, Daniel M1
- Birnbaum, Rachel1
- Bourassa, Carrie1
- Calcagno, Antonio1
- Campana, Aurélie1
- Chan, Hing Man1
- Chen, Bing1
- Collins, Karen1
- Connelly, Catherine E1
- Danylchuk, Andy J1
- Denov, Myriam1
- Dick, Melissa1
- Dupont, Benoît1
- Fiorella, Kathryn J1
- George, Eric1
Access Type
1 - 3of3
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESSContemporary conservation problems are typically positioned at the interface of complex ecological and human systems. Traditional approaches aiming to compartmentalize a phenomenon within the confines of a single discipline and failing to engage non-science partners are outmoded and cannot identify solutions that have traction in the social, economic, and political arenas in which conservation actions must operate. As a result, conservation science teams must adopt multiple disciplinary approaches that bridge not only academic disciplines but also the political and social realms and engage relevant partners. Five reasons are presented that outline why conservation problems demand multiple disciplinary approaches in order to move forward because: (i) socio-ecological systems are complex, (ii) multiple perspectives are better than one, (iii) the results of research must influence practice, (iv) the heterogeneity of scale necessitates it, and (v) conservation involves compromise. Presenting reasons that support multiple disciplinarity demands a review of the barriers that impede this process, as we are far from attaining a model or framework that is applicable in all contexts. Two challenges that impede multiple disciplinarity are discussed, in addition to pragmatic solutions that conservation scientists and practitioners can adopt in their work. Overall, conservation researchers and practitioners are encouraged to explore the multiple disciplinary dimensions of their respective realms to more effectively solve problems in biodiversity and sustainability.
- OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Dimitry Anastakis,
- Shannon D. Scott,
- Merritt R. Turetsky,
- Alidad Amirfazli,
- Alison Hearn,
- Cynthia E. Milton,
- Laura Loewen,
- Eric E. Smith,
- D. Ryan Norris,
- Kim L. Lavoie,
- Alice Aiken,
- Daniel Ansari,
- Alissa N. Antle,
- Molly Babel,
- Jane Bailey,
- Daniel M. Bernstein,
- Rachel Birnbaum,
- Carrie Bourassa,
- Antonio Calcagno,
- Aurélie Campana,
- Bing Chen,
- Karen Collins,
- Catherine E. Connelly,
- Myriam Denov,
- Benoît Dupont,
- Eric George,
- Irene Gregory-Eaves,
- Steven High,
- Josephine M. Hill,
- Philip L. Jackson,
- Nathalie Jette,
- Mark Jurdjevic,
- Anita Kothari,
- Paul Khairy,
- Sylvie A. Lamoureux,
- Kiera Ladner,
- Christian R. Landry,
- François Légaré,
- Nadia Lehoux,
- Christian Leuprecht,
- Angela R. Lieverse,
- Artur Luczak,
- Mark L. Mallory,
- Erin Manning,
- Ali Mazalek,
- Stuart J. Murray,
- Lenore L. Newman,
- Valerie Oosterveld,
- Patrice Potvin,
- Sheryl Reimer-Kirkham,
- Jennifer Rowsell,
- Dawn Stacey,
- Susan L. Tighe,
- David J. Vocadlo,
- Anne E. Wilson, and
- Andrew Woolford
Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity,” which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity, represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demands thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues. - OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Andy J. Danylchuk,
- Joel Zhang,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Len M. Hunt,
- Robert Arlinghaus,
- Kathryn J. Fiorella,
- Hing Man Chan, and
- Tony L. Goldberg
Recreational fisheries involve an intimate connection between people, individual fish, and the environment. Recreational fishers and their health crucially depend on healthy fish and ecosystems. Similarly, fish and ecosystems can be impacted by the activities of people including recreational fishers. Thus, amplified by the global interest in recreational fishing, we posit that recreational fishing is particularly suited as an empirical system to explore a One Health perspective, with a goal of creating pathways to better manage such socio-ecological systems for the benefit of people, fish, and the environment. Although zoonoses are uncommon in fishes, fish can carry pathogens, biotoxins, or contaminants that are harmful to people. When captured and released, fish can experience stress and injuries that may promote pathogen development. Similarly, when humans contribute to environmental degradation, not only are fish impacted but so are the humans that depend on them for nutrition, livelihoods, culture, and well-being. Failure to embrace the One Health perspective for recreational fisheries has the potential to negatively impact the health of fish, fisheries, people, society, and the aquatic environment—especially important since these complex social–ecological systems are undergoing rapid change.