DiversityOvercoming Obstacles to Interdisciplinary ResearchLISA M. CAMPBELLNicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University Marine Laboratory, 135 Marine Lab Road, Beaufort,NC 28516, U.S.A., email lcampbe@duke.edu

Introduction

Mascia et al.s (2003) call for increased interdisciplinaryapproaches to conservation and Thornhills (2003) re-sponse detailing activities of the Society for ConservationBiology reflect an evolution in thinking about environ-mental problems. We have moved beyond Hilborn andLudwigs (1993) call to consider the human context ofsuch problems to addressing them in an interdisciplinarymanner and training researchers to do this (Zarin et al.2003).

I fully support efforts to make conservation research,work, and training more interdisciplinary. I believe inter-disciplinary approaches are critical for successful conser-vation and find collaborations personally and profession-ally rewarding (Campbell 2003). Participants approach-ing an interdisciplinary collaboration for the first time,however, must recognize potential obstacles from theoutset, not the least of which are obstructive miscon-ceptions or prejudices [that social and natural scientistshave] about each other (Redclift 1998:179). I have writ-ten about the challenges of doing social science researchin the biologist-dominated field of sea turtle conserva-tion (Campbell 2003). Here, I outline some practical andphilosophical obstacles to interdisciplinary research ingeneral, offer illustrative examples from my own experi-ence, and make some suggestions for overcoming them.Many suggestions are directed at conservation biologists,because they are the primary audience for this journal,but are relevant for all participants in an interdisciplinaryundertaking. Mascia et al. (2003) address professional so-cieties, conservation organizations, and teaching in theacademy. Here, I focus on interdisciplinary research andpublishing.

Practical Obstacles: Interdisciplinary Researchin the Academy

According to Daily and Ehrlich (1999) and Pickett et al.(1999), interdisciplinary environmental research is con-

Paper submitted February 4, 2004; revised manuscript acceptedJune 16, 2004.

strained by the newness of related journals and their infe-rior reputations compared with those of well-respecteddiscipline-based journals that have been published longer.Researchers may avoid publishing in the newer journalsor the resulting publications may be treated with suspi-cion. Daily and Ehrlich (1999) believe that this constraintis lessening with time, however, and as a tenure-track fac-ulty member, I can only hope that they are correct. Abouthalf the articles Ive published have been in environmen-tal journals, and Ive targeted these as a key publicationoutlet for three main reasons. First, I relied heavily on envi-ronmental journals as a graduate student. Because of this,they seemed a sensible place to publish my own work,and I did not question their respectability. Second, my re-search is relevant to biologists working with endangeredspecies, and these biologists are more likely to read envi-ronmental journals than discipline-based geography jour-nals. Third, part of my own research involves examiningthe way biologists conceive of and define conservationand development problems (Campbell 2000, 2002), andI believe I have an ethical obligation to publish researchresults where biologists are more likely to see them. Of thereprints I send out, I estimate that 90% are requested bybiologists, and their interest reinforces my commitmentto address this audience.

Although I have several motives for publishing in in-terdisciplinary journals, and for me these outweigh con-cerns about respectability, there remains a pressing con-cern about my publication strategy. In the tenure process,publications are key. Although biologists are reading mywork (or at least asking for reprints), they are unlikely tocite me and might be deemed inappropriate members of asocial scientists tenure committee, a general problem forinterdisciplinary researchers (Nyhus et al. 2002). I workin an interdisciplinary school of environment and believethat its senior administrators would support a sea turtle bi-ologist as an appropriate tenure referee for me, althoughthis might not be true for researchers in more traditionaldepartments. I would expect a biologist to comment onthe overall impact and relevance of my work for sea tur-tle conservation, rather than on theories or methods withwhich they may be unfamiliar. I have found, however, thereview processes for such journals to be biased toward

574

Conservation Biology, Pages 574577Volume 19, No. 2, April 2005

Campbell Obstacles to Interdisciplinary Research 575

biologists, and reviewers are often interested in and famil-iar with the issues addressed but unfamiliar with the the-ory or methods used. This lack of familiarity does not stopthem from suggesting related revisions, most of which areinappropriate for the type of data presented (Campbell2003). This makes revision difficult and perhaps moretime consuming.

To overcome biologically biased review processes, ed-itors of interdisciplinary environmental journals shouldexpand the list of social scientists on editorial boardsand then use those social scientists more fully. They willbe best positioned to identify appropriate reviewers, andthis will help to increase the quality of contributions andreduce the authors frustrations. Conservation biologistsshould continue to play a role in reviews because theyare often familiar with the details of specific case studies.However, biologists should recognize their role in review-ing interdisciplinary work, for publications and for tenurefiles, and focus their assessments on the issues on whichthey are professionally most able to comment. Any aca-demic should be able to comment on whether or notmethods are adequately described, but not all can com-ment on the validity of specific data-gathering tools.

Interdisciplinary research can be hindered by differingexpectations about publishing within a research team.Norms for publications in the natural and social sciencesare not the same. For example, a cast-of-thousands authorlist is common in some natural sciences, but less so in thesocial sciences, and the order of authors varies betweenthe sciences as well. Although these issues seem small,Im part of a research team that spent some time clarifyinga publication protocol once it became obvious that onewas needed. This reactive process took time and brokethe flow of ongoing work. Publishing protocols should beestablished at the beginning of collaborations, and teammembers should approach this exercise with an openmind.

Although interdisciplinary research has been con-strained by the lack of financial incentives for its pur-suit (Daily & Erhlich 1999; Pickett et al. 1999), there aresigns of progress on this front. At least in principle, manyfunding agenciesincluding traditional agencies such asthe National Science Foundation in the United States andthe Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Councilin Canadanow promote interdisciplinary research. Thisemphasis has made interdisciplinary research more attrac-tive to researchers. Although the availability of moneymay be less of a constraint to interdisciplinary research,the motives for undertaking collaborations and how theseaffect on the overall product, can be constraining.

In my first 5 years as a professional academic, I wasasked to participate in at least six interdisciplinary re-search projects. In all cases, however, I was invited afterthe initial planning stages. In four of the six, I was the onlysocial scientist involved, and there were at least two (andsometimes many more) natural scientists. In four of the

six, the perceptions of what I would do on the projectswere initially vague and wide ranging, with few clear linksto my past work. I said no to one of the projects, was writ-ten into two of them with no consultation, and had someinput into three of them. In two cases, I suspected that asocial scientist was being tacked on to meet funding re-quirements and that if the projects were funded, I wouldhave little or no involvement. In the others, an interdisci-plinary team may have been perceived as a requirement,but the natural scientists involved were eager to try it. Theirony is that few of the proposals were successful, and inat least one case where I had no role in grant writing, thereviewers cited the inadequate integration of the socialscience component as the key reason it was not funded.

To overcome these barriers, biologists initiating inter-disciplinary collaborations should ensure that the inter-disciplinary component is pursued from the outset. Socialscientists from appropriate disciplines and in appropri-ate numbers should play a key role in project conceptu-alization and grant writing. Likewise, researchers beingasked to join a project should ensure that there is ade-quate opportunity for their input. These steps will helpto avoid the impression that a particular component is be-ing tacked on. This in turn will improve collegiality and,more importantly, research proposals. If collaboration be-gins late, original research partners may have preformedideas about what they want, and there will be less roomto explore the full range of possibilities. With the interdis-ciplinary team in place from the beginning, overcomingsome of the philosophical obstacles identified below willalso be easier.

Philosophical Obstacles: Understandingthe Other

Social and natural scientists often approach conservationfrom different perspectives, both in terms of defining theproblem and determining the appropriate approach tounderstanding it. If left unaddressed, such differences canhinder interdisciplinary research. Social and natural sci-entists may have fundamentally different views on someof the most common conservation narratives. Positionson key issues may be so fundamental to ones beliefs thatthey go unacknowledged until conflicts arise. These dif-ferences do not have to be debilitating. On the contrary,challenges to deeply held, sometimes unquestioned be-liefs can be opportunities for growth. This can be one ofthe most rewarding aspects of interdisciplinary research,but if ideological differences arise unexpectedly and atan inopportune moment (e.g., when trying to finalizeproject outputs) the chance that challenges will be em-braced as opportunities is reduced.

These fundamental beliefs may be linked to con-servation objectives associated with particular research

Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 2, April 2005

576 Obstacles to Interdisciplinary Research Campbell

projects. Natural scientists working with a charismaticspecies are more often than not conservationists. In ex-treme cases, scientists cross the line between science andadvocacy to the detriment of their science (Mrosovsky1997, 2000a, 2000b; Bowen & Karl 1999). More often,it may be that research has explicit conservation appli-cations or that scientists undertake advocacy efforts inaddition to their research. At many of the Costa Rican seaturtle nesting beaches where I work, natural scientistsare members of and are supported by nongovernmentalorganizations that also advocate sea turtle conservation.Although they should be aware of the potential for theiradvocacy activities to influence how their research is per-ceived, it is possible for these scientists to perform anadvocacy function without affecting their study group.

As a social scientist working on sea turtle conservation,my research involves measuring the social, political, cul-tural, and economic context of human interactions withsea turtles and assessing the impacts of conservation pro-grams. My data source is most often the people living withsea turtles and, as a result, I cannot be a direct advocatefor sea turtles, because such a stance would influence theway my research subjectspeopleinteract with me.

Advocacy, whether expressed through explicit activi-ties or through implicit beliefs that underline research ob-jectives, is more problematic in interdisciplinary researchthan in traditional research. First, as I have mentioned, theadvocacy positions of social and natural scientists maybe fundamentally different and can cause conflict. Sec-ond, human research subjects will be influenced by theirperceptions of the overall research team and project andnot just by the social scientists with whom they interact.Thus, advocacy is an issue that a research team must ad-dress explicitly, and conservation biologists working in aninterdisciplinary context may have to suspend their ownadvocacy activities for the sake of broader project goals.

Although most biologists would defend the objectivityof their own research, they may have unconscious or as-sumed expectations about what results of socioeconomicresearch will show, and such expectations pose a barrierto interdisciplinary research. In some cases, such expec-tations are transparent. I was once asked to conduct re-search that would show that tourism was more valuablethan an extractive-use project. Biologists may see resultsthat do not support a desired conservation outcome asa betrayal, both professionally and personally. For exam-ple, at a recent sea turtle symposium, many field-basedbiologists spoke of the need to work with local commu-nities and to engage social scientists to assist with this.Many, however, gave the impression that they believedinterdisciplinary collaborations were necessary becausesocial scientists were better positioned to educate localpeople about the value of sea turtles or that they could fixsocioeconomic problems. Both tasks are beyond my nor-mal remit as a researcher, and undertaking collaborationwith such expectations in place would undoubtedly lead

to disappointment and frustration. Thus, researchers en-tering into collaborations should discuss and clarify theirassumptions about conservation problems and investi-gate any unstated or assumed objectives of the overallresearch project. This exercise needs to be approachedwith an open mind and without defensiveness.

Interdisciplinary research is a group activity and as suchis underlain by power. There are bound to be power dif-ferentials between members of a group. Individuals ina research team are unlikely to be at exactly the samestage of their careers, and someone is usually identifiedas a project leader. But power differentials need to beacknowledged, minimized, and managed or they can un-dermine interdisciplinary collaborations.

One factor affecting power balances is the number ofsocial and natural science researchers on a research team.I am in the minority among academics interested in seaturtle conservation, among faculty in a multidisciplinaryschool of environment, and among collaborators. It issometimes exhausting to be the one person speaking adifferent language or trying to represent a broad suite ofsocial science concerns. Expanding the number of socialscientists involved in collaborations can mitigate powerimbalances and allow various disciplines to be involved.Perhaps ironically, incorporating more social science dis-ciplines is likely to increase the time required to find com-mon meaning. Just as bridges are needed between natu-ral science disciplines, social scientists come from a va-riety of theoretical and methodological backgrounds andmay also need to find common ground among themselves(Pickett et al. 1999).

Taking Time in Interdisciplinary Research

Many of my recommendations for interdisciplinary re-search teamsdeveloping publishing protocols, clarify-ing problem definition, integrating assumed objectives,and considering power relationstake time. This timeneeds to be budgeted throughout the research cycle, butparticularly near the beginning. Time is needed to wres-tle with unfamiliar literature (an academic exercise) andto develop the friendship and collegiality that Daily andErhlich (1999) cite as critical to interdisciplinary success.

I do not mean to dissuade researchers from undertak-ing interdisciplinary collaborations. Rather, I encouragewould-be interdisciplinarians to anticipate and preparefor some of the potential challenges in advance and tohave reasonable expectations. Some actions I recommendmay facilitate this process. Furthermore, if researchersshare their experiences with interdisciplinary research inpractice, there will be a wider body of knowledge for po-tential interdisciplinary researchers to draw on. An emerg-ing backlash against integrating human need into biodi-versity conservation (detailed and critiqued by Wilshusen

Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 2, April 2005

Campbell Obstacles to Interdisciplinary Research 577

et al. [2002]) serves as a warning and suggests that thedanger is real. We have not turned to interdisciplinaryresearch on a whim, but rather because there are com-pelling arguments in its favor.

Literature Cited

Bowen, B. W., and S. A. Karl. 1999. In war, truth is the first casualty.Conservation Biology 13:10131016.

Campbell, L. M. 2000. Human need in rural developing areas: percep-tions of wildlife conservation experts. The Canadian Geographer44:167181.

Campbell, L. M. 2002. Science and sustainable use: views of conserva-tion experts. Ecological Applications 12:12291246.

Campbell, L. M. 2003. Challenges for interdisciplinary sea turtle re-search: perspectives of a social scientist. Marine Turtle Newsletter100:2832.

Daily, G. C., and P. R. Ehrlich. 1999. Managing earths ecosystems: aninterdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2:277280.

Hilborn, R., and D. Ludwig. 1993. The limits of applied ecological re-search. Ecological Applications 3:550552.

Mascia, M. B., J. P. Brosius, T. A. Dobson, B. C. Forbes, L. Horowitz, M. A.

McKean, and N. J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and social sciences.Conservation Biology 17:649650.

Mrosovsky, N. 1997. IUCNs credibility threatened. Nature 389:436.Mrosovsky, N. 2000a. The great sea turtle hoax. The Daily Telegraph,

London, 4 October.Mrosovsky, N. 2000b. Sustainable use of hawksbill turtles: contempo-

rary issues in conservation. Key Centre for Tropical Wildlife Man-agement, Darwin, Queensland, Australia.

Nyhus, P. J., F. R. Westley, R. C. Lacy, and P. S. Miller. 2002. A roleof natural resource social science in biodiversity risk assessment.Society and Natural Resources 15:923932.

Pickett, S. T. A., W. R. Burch Jr., and J. M. Grove. 1999. Interdisciplinaryresearch: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of criti-cism. Ecosystems 2:302307.

Redclift, M. 1998. Dances with wolves? Interdisciplinary research onthe global environment. Global Environmental Change 8:177182.

Thornhill, A. 2003. Social scientists and conservation biologists joinforces. Conservation Biology 17:1476.

Wilshusen, P. R., S. R. Brechin, C. L. Fortwangler, and P. C. West. 2002.Reinventing a square wheel: critique of a resurgent protectionparadigm in international biodiversity conservation. Society & Nat-ural Resources 15:1740.

Zarin, D. J., K. A. Kainer, F. E. Putz, M. Schmink, and S. K. Jacobson. 2003.Integrated graduate education and research in Neotropical workingforests. Journal of Forestry 101:3137.

Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 2, April 2005