Approaches to interdisciplinary mixed methods research in land‐change science and environmental management

Abstract

Combining qualitative and quantitative methods and data is crucial to understanding the complex dynamics and often interdisciplinary nature of conservation. Many conservation scientists use mixed methods, but there are a variety of mixed methods approaches, a lack of shared vocabulary, and few methodological frameworks. We reviewed articles from 2 conservation‐related fields that often incorporate qualitative and quantitative methods: land‐change science (n = 16) and environmental management (n = 16). We examined how authors of these studies approached mixed methods research by coding key methodological characteristics, including relationships between method objectives, extent of integration, iterative interactions between methods, and justification for use of mixed methods. Using these characteristics, we created a typology with the goal of improving understanding of how researchers studying land‐change science and environmental management approach interdisciplinary mixed methods research. We identified 5 types of mixed methods approaches, which we termed simple nested, informed nested, simple parallel, unidirectional synthesis, and bidirectional synthesis. Methods and data sources were often used to address different research questions within a project, and only around half of the reviewed papers methodologically integrated different forms of data. Most authors used one method to inform the other, rather than both informing one another. Very few articles used methodological iteration. Each methodological type has certain epistemological implications, such as the disciplinary reach of the research and the capacity for knowledge creation through the exchange of information between distinct methodologies. To exemplify a research design that can lead to multidimensional knowledge production, we provide a methodological framework that bidirectionally integrates and iterates qualitative and quantitative methods.

Quantitative conservation geography

“…From the perspective of quantitative conservation geography this could be achieved e.g. through the increased use of mixed methods approaches [86]. For example, qualitative interview data were integrated with quantitative land use change models to develop future scenarios of agricultural expansion in order to inform traditional land production while avoiding deforestation and land degradation in Indonesia [87].…”

Cascading effects of climate change on recreational marine flats fishes and fisheries

“…In Anaa Atoll, for example, research, education, and community engagement were effectively used to improve an artisanal fishery for bonefish ( Albula glossodonta ) (Filous et al 2021 ). Overall, a mixed method interdisciplinary approach that best encapsulates the complex social-ecological systems related to flats fisheries and that includes co-production of knowledge and embraces the rights of local user groups may produce the most effective conservation strategies (Kinnebrew et al 2021 ).…”

The gulf of cross-disciplinary research collaborations on global river basins is not narrowed

“…However, it is more difficult to develop research collaborations between natural and (non-economic) social sciences, as there are intrinsic hinderances between the two both ontologically and epistemologically (Ludwig and El-Hani 2020 ). Social sciences are based on umpteen variety of materials, in-depth analyses, and qualitative models, thus, there exists a deep gulf with natural science characterized by quantitative approach and formalized model (Cash et al 2003 ; Kinnebrew et al 2020 ). Practically, when there is the ethnical or political push for integrating social sciences in natural resources management, it is a common practice to include one or two economists and rarely other social scientists as committee members or advisors (Bennett et al 2017 ; Charnley et al 2017 ; Ludwig and El-Hani 2020 ); or social perspectives are usually considered directly through public debate and public engagement rather than involvement of social sciences (Ounanian et al 2013 ).…”

“…Humans have extensively intervened in the Earth system cycles, resulting in the transition of our planet into a human dominated era—the Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000 ). To tackle complex and ill-defined problems in the Anthropocene, cross-disciplinary research collaborations have long been recognised (Berkes et al 2008 ; Ostrom 2009 ; McCurley and Jawitz 2017 ; Kinnebrew et al 2020 ). Since 1980s, global research initiatives such as the establishment of NASA’s Earth Science Advisory Committee (ESAC), the Earth System Science Partnership (ESSP), the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), and the Earth System Governance Project (a core project to the Future Earth global research network) have endeavoured to promote cross-disciplinary research collaborations.…”