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

Abstract

SUMMARYThe 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.

Interpersonal competencies define effective conservation leadership

“…Leadership should be made a core component of conservation degrees. Training students and earlycareer conservation professionals in interpersonal competencies, rather than just analytic and technical skills, will likely produce more effective leaders in the future (Newing 2010b). To secure competent educators and trainers, conservation organisations and universities must recruit beyond the scope of traditional conservation biology to include applied disciplines where leadership philosophies and techniques address personal reflection, communication, building collaborations and visioning (Dietz et al 2004;Black et al 2011).…”

Practical Science Communication Strategies for Graduate Students

“…Participating in science communication as a graduate student has immediate benefits of reaching nonacademic audiences, and it serves as an important training tool for science communication later in a career (Newing ). More than just a preparatory exercise, however, graduate students contribute to societal benefits of science communication and even provide additional benefits for audiences not commonly targeted by mid‐ and late‐career scientists.…”

“…Furthermore, although models of high quality training in science communication certainly exist for graduate students, our own review of these opportunities indicates they are often in the form of highly competitive fellowships or require relatively large commitments of time or funding, circumstances that discourage widespread participation during graduate tenure. Combined with a lack of consensus as to whether and how graduate students should participate in these activities, we believe a majority of students in the sciences are navigating this important question without adequate guidance and support (Cannon et al ; Newing ). To begin addressing these resource gaps, we developed a flexible, practical approach for students to learn and practice science communication during their graduate tenure that includes both do‐it‐yourself communication tools and examples of effective science communication training programs that are available to early career scientists.…”

Exploring integrative research in the context of invasive alien plant management

“…Integrative approaches to research such as those associated with transdisciplinarity have the potential to improve linkages between science, policy and practice through improved stakeholder engagement and grounding of research in social processes, making research more relevant and practicable for knowledge users. 10,55 However, these approaches do not guarantee that the scientific knowledge will be automatically integrated into policy or practice unless appropriate governance mechanisms are in place. [56][57][58] A lack of involvement of practitioner stakeholders during the formulation of research programmes, the lack of relevant and accessible information in an appropriate form and the potentially artificial distinctions between science and society, are just some of the barriers to producing an adequate evidence (knowledge) base for informing management action.…”