Interdisciplinarity and Actionable Science: Exploring the Generative Potential in Difference

REFERENCES

• Bailey, D., & Koney, K. M. (1995). An integrative framework for the evaluation of community-based consortia. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18, 245–252. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(95)00019-4
   Google Scholar
• Bayne-Smith, M., Mizrahi, T., & Garcia, M. (2008). Interdisciplinary community collaboration: Perspectives of community practitioners on successful strategies. Journal of Community Practice, 16, 249–269.
   Google Scholar
• Breton, M. (2004). An empowerment perspective. In C. D. Garvin, L. M. Gutierrez & M. J. Galinsky ( Eds.), Handbook of social work with groups ( pp. 58–75). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, V. A. (2010). Can there be a community of practice? In V. A. Brown, J. Harris & J. Russell ( Eds.), Tackling wicked problems: Through the transdisciplinary imagination. ( pp. 285–297). Washington, D.C.: EarthScan.
   Google Scholar
• Butterfield, A. K. J., & Korazim-Kõrösy, Y. (2008). Interdisciplinary community development. Journal of Community Practice, 15(1–2), 239–245.
   Google Scholar
• Cash, D., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., … Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 8086–8091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherry, D. J., & Shefner, J. (2005). Addressing barriers to university–community collaboration. Journal of Community Practice, 12(3–4), 219–233. doi:10.1300/J125v12n03_13
   Google Scholar
• Clark, W. C., Tomich, T. P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N. M., & McNie, E. (2011). Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. doi:10.1073/pnas.0900231108
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colombo, M., & Senatore, A. (2005). The discursive construction of community identity. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15(1), 48–62. doi:10.1002/casp.809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, S., & Walker, G. B. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Dewulf, A., François, G., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Taillieu, T. (2007). A framing approach to cross-disciplinary research collaboration: Experiences from a large-scale research project on adaptive water management. Ecology and Society, 12, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrel, F. ( Director). (2012). Sustainable Maine. Bangor, ME: Maine Public Broadcasting Network.
   Google Scholar
• Fiki, C. O., Amupitan, J., Dabi, D., & Nyong, A. (2007). From disciplinary to interdisciplinary community development: The Jos-McMaster drought and rural water use project in Nigeria. Journal of Community Practice, 15(1/2), 147–170.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge: And the discourse on language. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller ( Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality: With Two Lectures and an Interview with Michel Foucault ( pp. 87–104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gamble, D. N., & Hoff, M. D. (2013). Sustainable community development. In M. Weil, M. Reisch & M. L. Ohmer ( Eds.), The handbook of community practice (2nd ed., pp. 948). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, S. K. (2012). Paradigmatic differences, power, and status: A qualitative investigation of faculty in one interdisciplinary research collaboration on sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 8(2), 241–252. doi:10.1007/s11625-012-0182-4
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the thoery of structuration. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez, L. M., Lewis, E. A., Dessel, A. B., & Spencer, M. (2013). Principles, skills, and practice strategies for promoting multicultural communication and collaboration. In M. Weil, M. Reisch & M. L. Ohmer ( Eds.), The handbook of community practice (2nd ed., pp. 445–460). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017
   Google Scholar
• Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., … Riordan, T. O. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292, 641–642. doi:10.1126/science.1059386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36, 515–526. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007
   Google Scholar
• Korazim-Kõrösy, Y., Mizrahi, T., Katz, C., Karmon, A., Garcia, M. L., & Smith, M. B. (2007). Towards interdisciplinary community collaboration and development. Journal of Community Practice, 15(1–2), 13–44.
   Google Scholar
• Kreuter, M. W., Rosa, C. D., Howze, E. H., & Baldwin, G. T. (2004). Understanding wicked problems: A key to advancing environmental health promotion. Health Education & Behavior: The Official Publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 31, 441–454. doi:10.1177/1090198104265597
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2004). Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science (pp. 25–98). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., … Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(S1), 25–43. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lindenfeld, L. A., Hall, D. M., McGreavy, B., Silka, L., & Hart, D. (2012). Creating a place for environmental communication research in sustainability science. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 6(1), 23–43. doi:10.1080/17524032.2011.640702
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macmynowski, D. P. (2007). Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: Power and knowledge at the meeting of social and biophysical science. Ecology And Society, 12(1), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• McGreavy, B., Hutchins, K., Smith, H., Lindenfeld, L., & Silka, L. (2013). Addressing the complexities of boundary work in sustainability science through communication. Sustainability, 5, 4195–4221. doi: 10.3390/su5104195
   Google Scholar
• Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin, F. S., & Redman, C. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 1–17 .
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, K. H. (2009). In quest of publicity: the science–media partnership of the Galathea Deep Sea Expedition from 1950 to 1952. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 464–480. doi:10.1177/0963662507083529
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., Hixon, M. A., Moore, K. D., & Nelson, M. (2010). Four cultures: New synergies for engaging society on climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 329–331. doi:10.1890/1540-9295-8.6.329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norton, T. (2007). The structuration of public participation: Organizing environmental control. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 1, 146–170. doi:10.1080/17524030701642546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, M. A. (2012). Socioenvironmental sustainability and actionable science. BioScience, 62(1), 5–6. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, J., Dosser, D., Handron, D., McCammon, S., Temkin, M. E., & Kaufman, M. (1999). Challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration: A faculty consortium’s initial attempts. Journal of Community Practice, 6(2), 27–48.
   Google Scholar
• Reich, S. M., & Reich, J. A. (2006). Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: A method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 51–62. doi:10.1007/s10464-006-9064-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisch, M. (2012). Intervention with communities. In C. A. Glisson, C. N. Dulmus & K. M. Sowers ( Eds.), Social work practice with groups, communities, and organizations: evidence-based assessments and interventions ( pp. 81–130). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Senecah, S. L. (2004). The trinity of voice: The role of practical theory in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In S. P. Depoe, J. W. Delicath & M. F. A. Elsenbeer ( Eds.), Communication and public participation in environmental decision making (pp. 13–33). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Silka, L. (1999). Paradoxes of partnerships: Reflections on university–community collaborations In N. Kleniewski & G. Rabrenovic ( Eds.), Research in Politics and Society: Community Politics and Policies ( Vol. 7, pp. 335–359). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Silka, L. (2013). “Silos” in the Democratization of Science. International Journal of Deliberative Mechanisms in Science (DEMESCI), 2(1), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Silka, L., McGreavy, B., Cline, B., & Lindenfeld, L. (2012). Introduction. Maine Policy Review, Special Issue: Sustainability, 21(1), 10–13.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, J. L. (2009). Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37, 278–297. doi:10.1080/00909880903025911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waring, T. (2012). Wicked tools: The value of scientific models for solving Maine’s wicked problems. Maine Policy Review, Special Issue: Sustainability, 21(1), 30–39.
   Google Scholar
• Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2010). Community engagement and boundary- spanning roles at research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 81(6), 632–657.
   Google Scholar
• Weil, M., Reisch, M. S., & Ohmer, M. L. ( Eds.). (2013). The handbook of community practice (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Whitmer, A., Ogden, L., Lawton, J., Sturner, P., Groffman, P. M., Schneider, L., … Killilea, M. (2010). The engaged university: Providing a platform for research that transforms society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 314–321. doi:10.1890/090241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winowiecki, L., Smukler, S., Shirley, K., Remans, R., Peltier, G., Lothes, E., … Alkema, L. (2011). Tools for enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 7, 74–80.
   Google Scholar
• Woodford, M. R., & Preston, S. (2011). Developing a strategy to meaningfully engage stakeholders in program/policy planning: A guide for human services managers and practitioners. Journal of Community Practice, 19, 159–174. doi:10.1080/10705422.2011.571091
   Google Scholar