35.2 Implementing Ecosystem Management: Challenges for Ecological Assessment
515
culties that are epistemological, technical, substantive, and process-oriented in nature. Perhaps the
most basic obstacle is that individuals from different disciplines often possess very different cognitive maps or schema. As one scholar of cognitive
theory observes, "Every individual acquires during
the course of his development a set of beliefs and
personal constructs about the physical and social
environment. Beliefs provide a relatively coherent
way of organizing and making sense of what would
otherwise be a confusing and overwhelming array
of signals and cues picked up from the environment
from his senses" (George, 1980). These maps provide mental constructs that assist individuals in absorbing, processing, and interpreting new information and making sense of the world around them
(Steinbruner, 1974; Lau and Sears, 1986; Fiske and
Taylor, 1991; Rosati, 2001). To the extent that disciplinary training constitutes an important influence on intellectual development, it provides a paradigmatic and perceptual superstructure through
which researchers view, understand, and interpret
the world. Disciplinary superstructures consist of
basic concepts, modes of inquiry, observational categories, representation techniques, standards of
proof, and types of explanation (Vedeld, 1994;
Petrie, 1976). As a result, individual members of
different disciplines often observe, understand, and
communicate about phenomena in ways that are
alien to one another, creating distinct and difficult
barriers to interaction.
Given the different ways in which members of
different disciplines ask questions about phenomena, and even the questions asked, they collect and
measure very different types of data and undertake
such collection and measurement activities in different ways. Consequently, technical difficulties
are posed by issues of comparability, exchange, and
integration of data that may be presented in very
different formats and secured from very different
sources (see Chapter 9). In addition, members of
different disciplines often question the validity and
reliability of specific data, as well as collection and
measurement methods (Chen, 1981).
Such epistemological and technical issues are exacerbated by substantive gaps in our knowledge
within fields and discrepancies among fields. For
example, the study of scaling issues illustrates that
this is an area of evolving knowledge in understanding biological, physical, and social systems.
In recent years, the ecological science community
has concentrated a great deal of attention on understanding ecological patterns and processes at
different scales and the relationship between pattern and process at different scales. In many ways,
though, the social sciences are much less advanced
in their understanding of relationships between
types of human activities at different spatial, temporal, or institutional scales (Jacobson and Price,
1990). For example, social scientists still puzzle
over the often paradoxical relationship between individual preferences and community, state, or
national-level decisions (Gibson et aI., 1998). Similarly, the ways in which higher-level institutions
in a nested hierarchy of governance constrain decisions made at lower levels is an active area of research (Gibson et aI., 1998). Overshadowing the
struggle of discrete disciplines to understand crossscalar phenomena and relationships is the fact that
we simply do not understand very well the connections, at any scale, between the biological, physical, and human components of the systems studied in ecological assessments (Blood, 1994).
Personnel and process obstacles are perhaps the
most practical challenges to achieving truly integrated ecological assessments. The litany is familiar. Researchers qualified and experienced in interdisciplinary research are in short supply because
universities typically do not produce such people,
and interdisciplinary programs often sacrifice
disciplinary depth and rigor in the search for substantive breadth. Many institutions, particularly
universities, do not reward interdisciplinary undertakings and may actually penalize scholars for publishing in interdisciplinary journals. A productive,
high-quality integrative project demands a process
to clearly identify goals and explicitly frame research questions. Pitfalls exist on the road to laying this foundation, such as failure to invest enough
time in setting goals and conceptualizing research
issues, or one disciplinary perspective may monopolize the act of framing research questions
(Miller, 1994).
In the end, though, the most concrete obstacles
are money, time, and expectations. As with all research endeavors, money is a critical limiting factor, with funding for integrative, interdisciplinary
efforts often in shorter supply than funding for
more traditional projects. Constrained funding
means that time is in short supply as well, even
though time is possibly the most critical element in
interdisciplinary efforts, because it takes time simply to understand differing cognitive maps, much
less develop good working relationships. And, finally, expectations of both researchers and funding
institutions often exceed results. In the short to
medium term, the most important result may entail
forging a strong interdisciplinary team that can
clearly define goals, develop well-framed research
questions based on these goals, and create a re-
515
culties that are epistemological, technical, substantive, and process-oriented in nature. Perhaps the
most basic obstacle is that individuals from different disciplines often possess very different cognitive maps or schema. As one scholar of cognitive
theory observes, "Every individual acquires during
the course of his development a set of beliefs and
personal constructs about the physical and social
environment. Beliefs provide a relatively coherent
way of organizing and making sense of what would
otherwise be a confusing and overwhelming array
of signals and cues picked up from the environment
from his senses" (George, 1980). These maps provide mental constructs that assist individuals in absorbing, processing, and interpreting new information and making sense of the world around them
(Steinbruner, 1974; Lau and Sears, 1986; Fiske and
Taylor, 1991; Rosati, 2001). To the extent that disciplinary training constitutes an important influence on intellectual development, it provides a paradigmatic and perceptual superstructure through
which researchers view, understand, and interpret
the world. Disciplinary superstructures consist of
basic concepts, modes of inquiry, observational categories, representation techniques, standards of
proof, and types of explanation (Vedeld, 1994;
Petrie, 1976). As a result, individual members of
different disciplines often observe, understand, and
communicate about phenomena in ways that are
alien to one another, creating distinct and difficult
barriers to interaction.
Given the different ways in which members of
different disciplines ask questions about phenomena, and even the questions asked, they collect and
measure very different types of data and undertake
such collection and measurement activities in different ways. Consequently, technical difficulties
are posed by issues of comparability, exchange, and
integration of data that may be presented in very
different formats and secured from very different
sources (see Chapter 9). In addition, members of
different disciplines often question the validity and
reliability of specific data, as well as collection and
measurement methods (Chen, 1981).
Such epistemological and technical issues are exacerbated by substantive gaps in our knowledge
within fields and discrepancies among fields. For
example, the study of scaling issues illustrates that
this is an area of evolving knowledge in understanding biological, physical, and social systems.
In recent years, the ecological science community
has concentrated a great deal of attention on understanding ecological patterns and processes at
different scales and the relationship between pattern and process at different scales. In many ways,
though, the social sciences are much less advanced
in their understanding of relationships between
types of human activities at different spatial, temporal, or institutional scales (Jacobson and Price,
1990). For example, social scientists still puzzle
over the often paradoxical relationship between individual preferences and community, state, or
national-level decisions (Gibson et aI., 1998). Similarly, the ways in which higher-level institutions
in a nested hierarchy of governance constrain decisions made at lower levels is an active area of research (Gibson et aI., 1998). Overshadowing the
struggle of discrete disciplines to understand crossscalar phenomena and relationships is the fact that
we simply do not understand very well the connections, at any scale, between the biological, physical, and human components of the systems studied in ecological assessments (Blood, 1994).
Personnel and process obstacles are perhaps the
most practical challenges to achieving truly integrated ecological assessments. The litany is familiar. Researchers qualified and experienced in interdisciplinary research are in short supply because
universities typically do not produce such people,
and interdisciplinary programs often sacrifice
disciplinary depth and rigor in the search for substantive breadth. Many institutions, particularly
universities, do not reward interdisciplinary undertakings and may actually penalize scholars for publishing in interdisciplinary journals. A productive,
high-quality integrative project demands a process
to clearly identify goals and explicitly frame research questions. Pitfalls exist on the road to laying this foundation, such as failure to invest enough
time in setting goals and conceptualizing research
issues, or one disciplinary perspective may monopolize the act of framing research questions
(Miller, 1994).
In the end, though, the most concrete obstacles
are money, time, and expectations. As with all research endeavors, money is a critical limiting factor, with funding for integrative, interdisciplinary
efforts often in shorter supply than funding for
more traditional projects. Constrained funding
means that time is in short supply as well, even
though time is possibly the most critical element in
interdisciplinary efforts, because it takes time simply to understand differing cognitive maps, much
less develop good working relationships. And, finally, expectations of both researchers and funding
institutions often exceed results. In the short to
medium term, the most important result may entail
forging a strong interdisciplinary team that can
clearly define goals, develop well-framed research
questions based on these goals, and create a re-