Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:30:46.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interdisciplinary training in environmental conservation: definitions, progress and future directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2010

HELEN NEWING
HELEN NEWING*
Affiliation:
DICE, Anthropology and Conservation, Marlowe Building, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NS, UK
*
*Correspondence: Dr Helen Newing Tel: + 44 1227 827034 Fax: + 44 1227 827289 e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The development of interdisciplinary approaches to environmental conservation is obviously related to interdisciplinary training in undergraduate and postgraduate conservation-oriented degree programmes. This paper therefore examines interdisciplinary training in environmental conservation, with a focus on conservation biology. The specific objectives are: (1) to analyse debates about the nature of ‘interdisciplinarity’ in conservation biology; (2) to examine the status of interdisciplinary training in current academic programmes in conservation biology; and (3) to make recommendations in terms of interdisciplinary or other non-natural science content that should be prioritized for inclusion in the curriculum. The term ‘interdisciplinarity’ has been used in relation to conservation training to refer to (1) any social science content; (2) vocational skills training; (3) integrative or practice-based exercises, sometimes with no indication of disciplinary content; (4) the (variously defined) ‘human dimensions’ of conservation, and (5) interaction between different academic disciplines (usually crossing the natural science–social science divide). In terms of training, the natural sciences have remained predominant in almost all reported academic programmes, but there now appears to be more coverage of non-natural science issues than previously. However the lack of consistency in the use of terms makes it difficult to assess progress. Further debate about curriculum development in conservation would be aided greatly by recognizing the distinction between the different aspects of non-natural science training, and treating each of them in its own right. Most degree programmes in environment-related disciplines specialize to varying degrees either in the natural sciences or the social sciences, and a comprehensive programme covering both of these in depth is likely to be problematic. However, some understanding of different disciplinary perspectives is increasingly important in a career in environmental conservation, and it is argued that, as a minimum, a primarily natural science-based undergraduate programme in environmental conservation should include: (1) an introduction to social science perspectives on the environment; (2) basic training in social science methods, research design and science theory; (3) vocational skills training, to the extent that it can be built into existing curricular components; and (4) integrative problem-solving tasks that can be used in relation to any or all of the above. A similar list could be constructed for social science-based environmental degree programmes, incorporating some basic training in natural science perspectives. Postgraduate training programmes are more varied in what they aim to achieve in terms of disciplinary breadth; they can develop students’ existing specialist expertise, offer supplementary training to allow students to increase the disciplinary breadth of their expertise, or focus on the issue of interdisciplinarity itself.

Keywords

conservation biologycurriculumdegree programmehuman dimensionsinterdisciplinarypedagogyreviewsocial science methodsvocational skills
Type
THEMATIC ISSUE: Interdisciplinary Progress in Environmental Science & Management
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 37 , Issue 4: Thematic section. Interdisciplinary Progress in Environmental Science and Management , December 2010 , pp. 410 - 418
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barry, A., Born, G. & Weszkalnys, G. (2008) Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37: 20–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkson, J. & Harrison, A.-L. (2001) An integrative capstone course for the conservation biology curriculum. Conservation Biology 15: 1461–2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonine, K., Reid, J. & Dalzen, R. (2003) Training and education for tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 17: 1209–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, C., Brook, B. & McMahon, C. (2007) Dangers of sensationalising conservation biology. Conservation Biology 21: 570–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, C.A. (2003) Training ecologists to think with uncertainty in mind. Ecology 84: 1412–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, C. & Gross, L.J. (2006) Translating data into meaning: education in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20 (3): 689–691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burkhardt-Holm, P. & Chebbi, C. (2008) Master's degree in sustainable development in Switzerland, the first master course comprising three faculties. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 15: 136–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buscher, B. & Wolmer, W. (2007) Introduction: the politics of engagement between biodiversity conservation and the social sciences. Conservation and Society 5 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (2005) Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology 19: 574–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannon, J.R., Dietz, J.M. & Dietz, L.A. (1996) Training conservation biologists in human interaction skills. Conservation Biology 10: 1277–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, T. (2001) Developing policy-oriented curricula for conservation biology: professional and leadership education in the public interest. Conservation Biology 15: 31–39.Google Scholar
Czech, B. (2006) If Rome is burning, why are we fiddling? Conservation Biology 20: 1563–1565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Groot, W. & de Wit, A. (1999) Curriculum development in environmental science: a case study on paradigm and institutions. Environmental Management 23 (2): 155–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dillon, P. (2008) A pedagogy of connection and boundary crossings: methodological and epistemological transactions in working across and between disciplines. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 45: 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, L. (1999) Graduate conservation education. Conservation Biology 13: 955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, B., Balmford, B., Green, R.E. & Trevelyan, R. (2009) Conservation science training: the need for an extra dimension. Oryx 43 (3): 361–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, H., Christian, C., Cully-Nordby, J., Pergams, P., Peterson, G. & Pyke, C. (2006) Perceived barriers to integrating social science and conservation. Conservation Biology 20: 1817–1820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galindo-Leal, C. (2001) Design and analysis of conservation projects in Latin America: an integrative approach to training. Conservation Ecology 5: 16 [www document]. URL http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art16/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gass, C. (2002) Introduction to the special feature: education for integration and sustainability. Conservation Ecology 5: 31 [www document]. URL http://www/consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art31/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigliotti, L.M. & Decker, D.J. (1992) Human dimensions in wildlife management education: pre-service opportunities and in-service needs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 8–14.Google Scholar
Harrison, S., Massey, D. & Richards, K. (2008) Conversations across the divide. Geoforum 39: 549–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J.T., Bruun, H. & Hukkinen, J. (2010) Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Research Policy 39: 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, S. & McDuff, M. (1998) Training idiot savants: the lack of human dimensions in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 12: 263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, S.K. & Robinson, J.G. (1990) Training the new conservationist: cross-disciplinary education in the 1990s. Environmental Conservation 17: 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kainer, K., Schmink, M., Covert, H., Stepp, J., Bruna, E., Dain, J., Espinosa, S. & Humphries, S. (2006) A graduate education framework for tropical conservation and development. Conservation Biology 20: 3–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, J.T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory and Practice. Detroit, USA: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A.T. & Campbell, B.M. (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22: 610–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, A. (2007) Integrating professional skills in wildlife student education. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 226–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, L. & Pasquini, M. (2008) ‘Jack of all trades’? The negotiation of interdisciplinarity within geography. Geoforum 39: 552–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidicker, W.Z. (1998) Revisiting the human dimension in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 12 (6): 1170–1171.Google Scholar
Lopez, R., Hays, K., Wagner, M., Locke, S., McLeery, R. & Silvy, N. (2006) Integrating land conservation planning in the classroom. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinich, J., Solarz, S. & Lyons, J. (2006) Preparing students for conservation careers through project-based learning. Conservation Biology 20: 1579–1583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marzano, M., Carss, D.N. & Bell, S. (2006) Working to make interdisciplinarity work: investing in communication and interpersonal relationships. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57 (2): 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mascia, M., Brosius, J., Dobson, T., Forbes, B., Horowitz, L., McKean, M. & Turner, N. (2003) Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology 17: 649–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliam, E., Hearn, G. & Haseman, B. (2008) Transdisciplinarity for creative future: what barriers and opportunities? Innovations in Education and Teaching International 45: 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meffe, G. (1998) Softening the boundaries. Conservation Biology 12: 259–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meffe, G.K., Noss, R.F. & Jacobsen, S.K. (1998) Letters. Conservation Biology 12 (6): 1170–1171.Google Scholar
Meine, C., Soule, M. & Noss, R. (2006) A ‘mission-driven discipline’: the growth of conservation biology Conservation Biology 20: 631–651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mendez, M., Gomez, A., Bynum, N., Medellin, R., Porzecanski, A. L. & Sterling, E. (2007) Availability of formal academic programs in conservation biology in Latin America. Conservation Biology 21 (6): 1399–1403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millspaugh, J. & Millenbah, K. (2004) Value and structure of research experiences for undergraduate wildlife students. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: 1185–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, W.C., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Force, J. & Wulfhorst, J. (2007) Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting interdisciplinary graduate-student team research. Ecology and Society 12 (2): 8 [www document]. URL: http://www.ecologyand-society.org/vol12/iss2/art8/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, M.J. & Schwartz, M.W. (2009) Academic research training for a non-academic workplace: a case study of graduate student alumni who work in conservation. Conservation Biology 23: 1357–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newing, H. (2010) Bridging the gap: interdisciplinarity, biocultural diversity and conservation. In: Nature and Culture: Revitalising the Connection, ed. Pretty, J. & Pilgrim, S., pp. 23–40. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Newing, H. (2011) Conducting Research in Conservation: A Social Science Perspective. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Niesenbaum, R. & Lewis, T. (2003) Ghettoization in conservation biology: how interdisciplinary is our teaching? Conservation Biology 17: 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, R. (1997) The failure of universities to produce conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 11: 1267–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noss, R. (1999) Is there a special conservation biology? Ecography 22: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, D. (1999) Education, careers, and callings: the practice of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13 (6): 1242–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, H. (2005) What students can do to improve graduate education in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 19: 2033–2035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polunin, N & Willis, T. (2007) Comments in Environmental Conservation: developing crucial dialogue in environmental science. Environmental Conservation 34 (2): 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redford, K. & Sanjayan, M. (2003) Retiring Cassandra. Conservation Biology 17: 1473–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivas, J.A. (1998) The miracle of universities. Conservation Biology 12 (6): 1169–1170.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, J.P., Rodriguez-Clark, K.M., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A., Good, T. & Grajal, A. (2006) Professional capacity building: the missing agenda in conservation priority setting. Conservation Biology 20 (5): 1340–1340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez, J.P., Simonetti, J.A., Premoli, A. & Marini, A. (2005) Conservation in Austral and Neotropical America: building scientific capacity equal to the challenges. Conservation Biology 19 (3): 969–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosa, E. & Machlis, G. (2002) It's a bad thing to make one thing into two: disciplinary distinctions as trained incapacities. Society and Natural Resources 15: 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholte, P. (2003) Curriculum development at the African Regional Wildlife Colleges, with special reference to the Ecole de Faune, Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30: 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholte, P., De Groot, W.T. & Mayna, Z. (2006) Protected area managers’ perceptions of community conservation training in West and Central Africa. Environmental Conservation 32 (4): 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebert, S. (2000) Creating academically and practically training graduate students. Conservation Biology 14: 595–596.Google Scholar
Strang, V. (2009) Integrating the social and natural sciences in environmental research: a discussion paper. Environment Development and Sustainability 11: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szostak, R. (2007) How and why to teach interdisciplinary research practice. Journal of Research Practice 3 (2): M17.Google Scholar
Takacs, D., Shapiro, D. & Head, W. (2006) From is to should: helping students translate conservation biology into conservation policy. Conservation Biology 20: 1342–1348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Touval, J. & Dietz, J. (1994) The problem of teaching conservation problem solving. Conservation Biology 8: 902–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Heezik, Y. & Seddon, P. (2005) Structure and content of graduate wildlife management and conservation biology programs: an international perspective. Conservation Biology 19: 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wemmer, C. (1993) Training developing country nationals is the critical ingredient to conservation global biodiversity. Bioscience 43 (11): 762–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R., Fleischner, T. & Trombulak, S. (2000) The status of undergraduate education in conservation biology, Society for Conservation Biology [www document]. URL http://www.conbio.org/Resources/education/StatusUndergradEducation.pdfGoogle Scholar
Youngblood, D. (2007) Interdisciplinary studies and bridging disciplines: a matter of process. Journal of Research Practice 3: M18.Google Scholar