Tag: social science

Inter- and Transdisciplinary Sea Otter Research

By Dominique Kone, Masters Student, Marine Resource Management

As the human population continues to grow, so does our impact on marine environments. In many cases, these problems – such as microplastics, vessel noise, or depleted fisheries – are far too grand for any one person to tackle on their own and it takes a team effort to find adequate solutions. Experts within a single field (e.g. ecology, economics, genetics) have been collaborating to tackle these issues for decades, but there is an increasing interest and recognition of the importance in working with others outside one’s own discipline.

It’s not surprising that most collaborative efforts are between experts from the same field. It’s easier to converse with those with similar vocabulary, we often enjoy learning from our peers, and our thought-processes and problem-solving skills are typically very similar. However, as issues become more complex and stretch across disciplines, the need for interdisciplinary collaboration becomes more and more imperative. As a graduate student studying marine resource management, I’ve learned the great value in conducting interdisciplinary work. Yet, I still have much to learn if I want to continue to help find solutions to the many complex marine issues. Therefore, over the next year, I’ve committed to joining a interdisciplinary team of graduate students, as part of an NSF-funded fellowship program at Oregon State University (OSU), to further investigate a potential sea otter reintroduction to Oregon. Here, I provide a brief overview of the program and my team’s goals for the coming year.

Source: Hakai Magazine.

The fellowship program emphasizes both interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches, so before I explain the program, it’s important to first understand these terms. In short, interdisciplinarity typically relates to experts from different fields analyzing, synthesizing, and coordinating their work as a whole (Choi & Pak 2006). Another way to think about this, in more practical terms, is if two or more experts share information and learn from one another; each expert can then individually apply that information or lessons-learned to their own line of work. In contrast, transdisciplinary work is slightly more collaborative, where experts work more hand-in-hand to develop a product or solution that transcends their disciplines’ traditional boundaries. The experts essentially create a product that would not have been possible working in isolation. In practice, the product(s) that stems from inter- and transdisciplinary work – if they truly are inter- or transdisciplinary by definition – is potentially very different.

Source: Dr. Shoshanah Jacobs.

With an increasing interest in interdisciplinary work, the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed the National Research Traineeship (NRT) program to encourage select universities to develop and implement innovative and transformative models for training graduate students in STEM disciplines. After soliciting proposals, the NSF awarded OSU one of these NRT projects to support OSU’s Risk and Uncertainty Quantification in Marine Science NRT Program. OSU’s NRT program was born out of the recognition that much of the complexity of marine issues is largely due to the uncertainty of natural and human systems. Therefore, the primary purpose of this program is to train the next generation of natural resource scientists and managers to be better equipped to study and manage complex marine systems, especially under extreme uncertainty and potential risk.

Source: Oregon State University.

This NRT program trains graduate students in three core concept areas: coupled natural human systems, big data, and risk and uncertainty analyses and communications. To learn these core concepts, students fulfil a minor that includes coursework in statistical inference, uncertainty quantification, risk analyses, earth system science, and social systems. In addition to the minor, students also conduct collaborative research in small (3-5 students) cross-disciplinary teams to address specific issues in marine resource management. Within each team, students come from different disciplines and fields, and must learn to work together to produce a transdisciplinary research product. Throughout the year, each team will develop a set of research questions to address their issue at hand, conduct research which links all their fields, and produce a transdisciplinary report summarizing the process they undertook and the end product. Most students who are accepted into the NRT program are awarded one-year fellowships, funded by the NSF.

At the start of this academic year, I was awarded one of these NRT fellowships to address the many issues and implications of a potential sea otter reintroduction to Oregon. Over the next year, I will be working with two other OSU graduate students with backgrounds in genetics and social sciences. Our task is to not only investigate the ecological implications – which I am currently doing for my own thesis – but we are to expand this investigation to also address many of the genetic, political, and social factors, as well. While each of us is capable of addressing one of these factors individually, the real test will be in finding linkages between each of our disciplines to make this project truly transdisciplinary.

Structure and vision of OSU’s NRT program. Source: Oregon State University.

Since our project started, we have worked to better understand each another’s expertise, interests, and the general need for a transdisciplinary project of this sort. After acquiring this base understanding, we spent a considerable amount of time developing research questions and potential methods for addressing our issue. Throughout this process, it’s already become apparent that each of us is starting to learn important teamwork and collaboration skills, including effective communication and explanation of complicated concepts, active listening, critical thinking, and constructive feedback.  While these skills are imperative for our research over the next year, they are also life-long skills that we’ll continue to use in our careers beyond graduate school.

As I’ve stated previously, learning to be an effective collaborator is extremely important to me. Getting the opportunity to work interdisciplinarily is what attracted me to my thesis, the marine resource management program, and the NRT program. By choosing to take my graduate education down this path, I’ve been fortunate to obtain important skills in collaboration, as well as work on a project that allows me to tackle real-world issues and creatively develop scientifically-based solutions. I have high hopes for this NRT project, and I’m excited to continue to conduct meaningful and targeted research over the next year with my new team.

2018-19 OSU NRT Cohort. Source: Oregon State University.

References:

Choi, B. C., and A. W. Pak. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, service, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine. 29(6): 351-64.

How we craft our messages

By: Erin Pickett, MSc

Communicating science has become more important than ever as major social and political issues, such as climate change, require increasing input from scientists. In a recent article published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, a research group from the University of Cologne in Cologne, Germany, explores how social cognition influences our ability to market science.

This article, titled “Past-focused environmental comparisons promote pro-environmental outcomes for conservatives” focuses specifically on understanding why there is a political divide in the United States regarding the issue of climate change (Baldwin & Lammers 2016). While our research in the GEMM lab focuses on spatial ecology (rather than social science) I thought this article was worth sharing because of its insights about “framing science”. The conservation science that we conduct in the GEMM lab will not be effective if we cannot properly communicate our objectives and our findings to funders and stakeholders.

“Framing” is a term in psychology that describes how you craft a message based on your intended audience. It is important to note that use of the term framing (or marketing) science doesn’t imply misrepresentation of facts (Nisbet & Mooney 2007). Rather,“Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions” (Nisbet & Mooney 2007). Baldwin & Lammers (2016) demonstrated that subtle differences in framing significantly affect how environmental messages are perceived. These authors investigated the effect of framing with regards to temporal comparisons, environmental attitudes and behavior.

The specific problem these authors address is the failure of climate change advocates to bridge the political divide between liberals and conservatives in the United States. The authors hypothesize that the temporal comparisons used in arguments for action on climate change explain the dichotomy between liberal and conservative views on this issue (which garners less support from conservatives).

The primary hypothesis guiding this study is that conservatives are more likely to favor a “past-focused” message rather than a “future-focused” message about climate change. The authors surmise that this framing bias is rooted in a conservative ideology that favors past traditions over a progressive future, which is more favored by liberals. Many pro-environmental arguments and appeals to address climate change are future focused, e.g. Balwin & Lemmers (2016) quote UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon, speaking about climate change:

“…We need to find a new, sustainable path to the future we want”.

If temporal comparisons do elicit framing bias, then our framing of the issue of climate change, and possibly other environmental issues, could be more effective if presented to conservatives as past-focused messages.

The authors tested these hypotheses on participants in a series of online studies. You can find more details on methods in the papers supporting information found here. In the first three studies, the authors investigated the effect of temporal comparisons on pro-environmental beliefs. Study participants were asked to read messages, or view images, that addressed the issue of climate change by comparing the present to the past, or the present to the future. Following these comparisons, participants ranked their pro-environmental attitudes. Examples of these comparisons were statements such as, “Looking forward to our Nation’s future… there is increasing traffic on the road” (future-focused), and, “Looking back to our Nation’s past…there was less traffic on the road” (past-focused).

You can see examples of past and future-focused images below.

Images of past, present and future conditions (Baldwin & Leemers 2016-Supporting information Fig. S1)

The authors found significant evidence to support their hypothesis that presenting conservatives with past-focused messages is more effective in terms of promoting pro-environmental messages than presenting future-focused messages. Temporal comparisons did not affect the pro-environmental attitudes of liberals.

Liberals pro-environmental attitudes remain similar between conditions, while conservatives pro-environmental attitude is higher given a past-focused condition (Baldwin & Lammers 2016, Fig. 2)

The authors also investigated the temporal focus of environmental organizations and found that overall, environmental charities promote future-focused messages. Study participants were allotted small amounts of cash to donate to these charities, and conservatives gave more to past-focused charities than to future-focused charities. You can see examples of charities with differing temporal focuses below.

Examples of future and past-focused environmental charities (Balwin & Lammers 2016-supporting information Fig. S3)

In a final meta-analysis, these authors found that employing past-focused comparisons nearly made up for the difference between liberals and conservatives in terms of their pro-environmental attitudes. The implication of these findings is that we can improve the way we communicate about controversial issues such as climate change by subtly altering our arguments. For example, in one study that was cited by Baldwin & Lammers (2016), conservatives favored the words ‘purity’ and ‘sanctity’ over ‘harm’ and ‘care’ (Fienberg & Willer 2012). Based on these studies, an example of an effective message for a conservative audience would be, “It is important that we restore the Earth because it has become contaminated”.

These findings could be true for other environmental issues as well, and so it is worth thinking critically about how to craft messages about our scientific findings for our intended audiences. We need to carefully frame our messages whether we are writing grant proposals, peer-reviewed manuscripts, press releases, or posts intended for social media.

I originally discovered this paper after listening to a short radio interview that was conducted by CBC Radio, and if you are interested in this research I encourage you to check it out! You can following this link: how to convince a climate change skeptic.

References:

Baldwin, M., & Lammers, J. (2016). Past-focused environmental comparisons promote proenvironmental outcomes for conservatives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(52), 14953-14957.

Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56-62.

Nisbet, M. C., & Mooney, C. (2009). Framing science. Science, 316.