IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v13y2023i2d10.1007_s13412-022-00811-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the role of boundary work in a social-ecological synthesis initiative

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara Schröter

    (Working Group “Governance of Ecosystem Services”
    Lund University, Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS))

  • Claudia Sattler

    (Working Group “Governance of Ecosystem Services”)

  • Jean Paul Metzger

    (University of São Paulo)

  • Jonathan R. Rhodes

    (The University of Queensland)

  • Marie-Josée Fortin

    (University of Toronto)

  • Camila Hohlenwerger

    (University of São Paulo)

  • L. Román Carrasco

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Örjan Bodin

    (Stockholm University)

Abstract

Inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental studies faces the challenge of communicating across disciplines to reach a common understanding of scientific problems and solutions in a changing world. One way to address current pressing environmental challenges is to employ a boundary work approach that uses activities across borders of separated field of research. But how can this look like in practice? In this research brief, we self-evaluated the boundary work approach in a synthesis group on socio-ecological systems, based on an online survey with participants. Here, we discuss how boundary work can be used to integrate the knowledge from natural and social scientists both working on social-ecological systems. We found participants were selected to be acted as boundary spanners and were willing to cooperate for solving multidisciplinary issues regarding the understanding, management, and maintenance of ecosystem services. A social-ecological network analysis framework served as a boundary concept and object for communication and knowledge integration. Being familiar with a joint boundary concept like ecosystem services prior to the working group event supported the communication of participants. These results indicate that synthesis initiatives could strategically leverage boundary work through the careful selection of members, with the inclusion of boundary spanners, as well as prior joint identification of boundary concepts and objects.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara Schröter & Claudia Sattler & Jean Paul Metzger & Jonathan R. Rhodes & Marie-Josée Fortin & Camila Hohlenwerger & L. Román Carrasco & Örjan Bodin, 2023. "Exploring the role of boundary work in a social-ecological synthesis initiative," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(2), pages 330-343, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:13:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s13412-022-00811-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-022-00811-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-022-00811-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-022-00811-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christian Schleyer & Alexandra Lux & Marion Mehring & Christoph Görg, 2017. "Ecosystem Services as a Boundary Concept: Arguments from Social Ecology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Timothy Lant & Clea Senneville, 2010. "Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers' assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(3), pages 219-232, April.
    3. Steger, Cara & Hirsch, Shana & Evers, Cody & Branoff, Benjamin & Petrova, Maria & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Wardropper, Chloe & van Riper, Carena J., 2018. "Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 153-160.
    4. van Oudenhoven, Alexander P.E. & Aukes, Ewert & Bontje, Lotte E. & Vikolainen, Vera & van Bodegom, Peter M. & Slinger, Jill H., 2018. "‘Mind the Gap’ between ecosystem services classification and strategic decision making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 77-88.
    5. Jakob Lundgren, 2021. "The Grand Concepts of Environmental Studies Boundary objects between disciplines and policymakers," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 93-100, March.
    6. Leimona, Beria & Lusiana, Betha & van Noordwijk, Meine & Mulyoutami, Elok & Ekadinata, Andree & Amaruzaman, Sacha, 2015. "Boundary work: Knowledge co-production for negotiating payment for watershed services in Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 45-62.
    7. Paul Opdam & Judith Westerink & Claire Vos & Barry de Vries, 2015. "The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 63-78, March.
    8. Beth A. Bechky, 2003. "Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 312-330, June.
    9. Jana Zscheischler & Sebastian Rogga & Maria Busse, 2017. "The Adoption and Implementation of Transdisciplinary Research in the Field of Land-Use Science—A Comparative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-20, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara, 2022. "Collective action across boundaries: Collaborative network initiatives as boundary organizations to improve ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    2. María D. López-Rodríguez & Javier Cabello & Hermelindo Castro & Jaime Rodríguez, 2019. "Social Learning for Facilitating Dialogue and Understanding of the Ecosystem Services Approach: Lessons from a Cross-Border Experience in the Alboran Marine Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-23, September.
    3. Hanson, Helena I. & Wickenberg, Björn & Alkan Olsson, Johanna, 2020. "Working on the boundaries—How do science use and interpret the nature-based solution concept?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Bingham, Logan Robert, 2021. "Vittel as a model case in PES discourse: Review and critical perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    5. Sophie Peter, 2020. "Integrating Key Insights of Sociological Risk Theory into the Ecosystem Services Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-20, August.
    6. Jakob Lundgren, 2021. "The Grand Concepts of Environmental Studies Boundary objects between disciplines and policymakers," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 93-100, March.
    7. Kertcher, Zack & Venkatraman, Rohan & Coslor, Erica, 2020. "Pleasingly parallel: Early cross-disciplinary work for innovation diffusion across boundaries in grid computing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 581-594.
    8. Adams, Clare & Frantzeskaki, Niki & Moglia, Magnus, 2023. "Mainstreaming nature-based solutions in cities: A systematic literature review and a proposal for facilitating urban transitions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    9. Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 3-21, February.
    10. Marco Tortoriello & Ray Reagans & Bill McEvily, 2012. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1024-1039, August.
    11. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Arts, Sam, 2018. "Mind the gap: Capturing value from basic research through combining mobile inventors and partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1811-1824.
    13. Phanish Puranam & Harbir Singh & Saikat Chaudhuri, 2009. "Integrating Acquired Capabilities: When Structural Integration Is (Un)necessary," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 313-328, April.
    14. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    15. Catherine Durnell Cramton & Tine Köhler & Raymond E. Levitt, 0. "Using scripts to address cultural and institutional challenges of global project coordination," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 0, pages 1-22.
    16. Ruthanne Huising, 2014. "The Erosion of Expert Control Through Censure Episodes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1633-1661, December.
    17. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    18. D'Adderio, Luciana, 2008. "The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 769-789, June.
    19. Parjanen, Satu & Hyypiä, Mirva, 2019. "Innotin game supporting collective creativity in innovation activities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 26-34.
    20. Buchs, Arnaud & Calvo-Mendieta, Iratxe & Petit, Olivier & Roman, Philippe, 2021. "Challenging the ecological economics of water: Social and political perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:13:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s13412-022-00811-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.