Book contents
- Issues and Concepts in Historical Ecology
- Issues and Concepts in Historical Ecology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Contributors
- 1 Is There a Future for the Past?
- Part I Challenges: Time and Memory
- Part II Approaches: Concepts and Methods
- 6 Concepts for Integrated Research in Historical Ecology
- 7 Diversity in Ecological and Social Contexts
- 8 How to Operationalise Collaborative Research
- Part III Moving Forward
- Index
- References
8 - How to Operationalise Collaborative Research
from Part II - Approaches: Concepts and Methods
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2017
Book contents
- Issues and Concepts in Historical Ecology
- Issues and Concepts in Historical Ecology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Contributors
- 1 Is There a Future for the Past?
- Part I Challenges: Time and Memory
- Part II Approaches: Concepts and Methods
- 6 Concepts for Integrated Research in Historical Ecology
- 7 Diversity in Ecological and Social Contexts
- 8 How to Operationalise Collaborative Research
- Part III Moving Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Issues and Concepts in Historical EcologyThe Past and Future of Landscapes and Regions, pp. 240 - 272Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Austin, Z., McVittie, A., McCracken, D., Moxey, A., Moran, D., & White, P. C. L. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(6), 1359–75. doi: 10.1007/s10531-015-0861-4.Google Scholar
Baleé, W., ed. (1998). Advances in Historical Ecology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Barber, R. J. & Berdan, F. F. (1998). The Emperor’s Mirror: Understanding Cultures through Primary Sources. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Boix-Mansilla, V. (2010). Learning to synthesize: the development of interdisciplinary understanding. In Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Mitcham, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 288–306.Google Scholar
Cadogan, D. (2014). Funding for research? Look to the crowd. College & Research Libraries Newsvol, 75(5), 268–71.Google Scholar
Chettiparamb, A. (2007). Interdisciplinarity: A Literature Review. Southampton, UK: University of Southampton. The Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Group, Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, School of Humanities.Google Scholar
Choi, B. C. & Pac, A. W. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–64.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Crumley, C. L., ed. (1994). Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Crumley, C. L. (1995). Heterarchy and the analysis of complex societies. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 6, 1–5. doi: 10.1525/ap3a.1995.6.1.1Google Scholar
Crumley, C. L. (2005). Remember how to organize: heterarchy across the disciplines. In Beekman, C. S. & Baden, W. S., eds., Nonlinear Models for Archaeology and Anthropology, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Press, pp. 35–50.Google Scholar
Crumley, C. L. (2007a). Historical ecology: integrated thinking at multiple temporal and spatial scales. In Hornborg, A. & Crumley, C. L.. eds., The World System and the Earth System: Global Socio-environmental Change and Sustainability since the Neolithic. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, pp. 15–28.Google Scholar
Crumley, C. L. (2007b). Heterarchy. In Darity, W. A., ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 468–9.Google Scholar
Crumley, C. L. & Marquardt, W., eds. (1987). Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dahlström, A., Lennartsson, T., & Iuga, A. M. (2013). Managing biodiversity rich hay meadows in the EU: a comparison of Swedish and Romanian grasslands. Environmental Conservation, 40(2), 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domaas, S. T. (2007). The reconstruction of past patterns of tilled fields from historical cadastral maps using GIS. Landscape Research, 32(1), 23–43.Google Scholar
Donoghue, M. J. & Moore, B. R. (2003). Toward an integrative historical biogeography. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 43, 261–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Mitcham, C. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, Reprint edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, J. (2012). Like it? Pay for it: with conventional sources of money drying up, some scientists are turning to crowd-funding. Nature, 481, 252–3.Google Scholar
Jaarsma, S. (2002). Handle with Care: Ownership and Control of Ethnographic Materials. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Jones, E A. (2009). Multi-temporal landscape history in Burgundy: an innovative application of genealogy software. In Frischer, B., Crawford, J. W., & Koller, D., eds., Making History Interactive. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA). Proceedings of the 37th Annual International Conference on Computer Applications to Archaeology. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.Google Scholar
Kaplan, K. K. (2013). Crowd-funding: cash on demand. Nature, 497, 147–9. doi: 10.1038/nj7447-147aGoogle Scholar
Kesselman, M. A. & Watstein, S. B. (2009). Creating opportunities: embedded librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 49(4), 383–400.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2011). From multiculturalism to multinaturalism: what rules of method for the new socio-scientific experiments? Nature and Culture, 6(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Lennartsson, T., Westin, A., Erikson, M., Flygare, I. A., Isacson, M., & Morell, M. (2015). Between nature and society: interpretation of an early 19th century farmer’s diary. Agricultural History Review, 63(2), 265–85.Google Scholar
Madison, D. S. (2012). Critical Ethnography: Method, Ethics, and Performance, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Madry, S. (2006). Hic sunt dracones (Here be dragons): The integration of historical cartographic data into geographic information systems. In Archer, S. & Bartoy, K., eds., Between Dirt and Discussion: Methods, Materials, and Interpretation in Historical Archaeology. New York: Springer, pp 33–60.Google Scholar
Madry, S., Jones, E. A., Murray, S., & Tickner, A. (2011). Une Micro-Histoire De La Terre Et De L’utilisation Des Ressources: L’intégration des SIG-H (Systèmes d’information géographique historiques) et des données qui y sont liées en Bourgogne du sud. Le Monde des Cartes, Rapport Cartographique National revue de Comité Français de Cartographie, 208, 75–94.Google Scholar
Madry, S., Jones, E. A., & Tickner, A. (2013). Interdisciplinary History of Rural Water and Land Use in Southern Burgundy, France. Technical report. www .doaks.org/research/garden-landscape/garden-and-landscape-project-grant-reports/madry-report.Google Scholar
Madry, S., Jones, E. A., Tickner, A. Murry, S., & Misner, T. (2015). Water and landscape dynamics in southern Burgundy: two and a half centuries of water management in an agricultural landscape. Water History, 7(3), 301–35. doi: 10.1007/s12685-015-0132-z.Google Scholar
Moen, J. (2015). On viewing your belly button or the world. In Mineur, E. & Myrman, B., eds., All of Science! 15 Researchers on Integrated Research. Stockholm: The Swedish Research Council, pp. 34–9.Google Scholar
Okely, J. (2012). Anthropological Practice: Fieldwork and the Ethnographic Method. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Olsson, R. (2008). Mångfaldsmarker: Naturbetesmarker en värdefull resurs. Uppsala: Centrum för biologisk mångfald.Google Scholar
Piajet, J. (1972). The epistemology of interdisciplinary relationships. In Apostel, L., ed., Interdisciplinarity: The Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, pp. 27–39.Google Scholar
Project Management Institute. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 5th ed. Project Management Institute.Google Scholar
Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J., eds. (2008). The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1998). Integrating quantitative and qualitative data. In Giele, J. Z. & Elder, G. H. Jr., eds., Methods of Life Course Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 213–30.Google Scholar
Schensul, J. J. & Lecompte, M. D. (2013). Essential Ethnographic Methods: A Mixed Methods Approach, 2nd ed. Lanham, MA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Strang, V. (2009). Integrating the social and natural sciences in environmental research: a discussion paper. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11, 1–18.Google Scholar
Svallfors, S. (2012). Kunskapens människa: Om kroppen, kollektivet och kunskapspolitiken. Stockholm: Santerus.Google Scholar
Swetnam, T. W., Allen, C. D., & Betancourt, J. L. (1999). Applied historical ecology: using the past to manage for the future. Ecological Applications, 9(4), 1189–1206.Google Scholar
Thompson-Klein, J. (2012). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Mitcham, C. eds., The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Reprint edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–30.Google Scholar
Weigmann, K. (2013). Tapping the crowds for research funding. EMBO Reports, 14, 1043–6. doi: 10.1038/embor.2013.180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheat, R. E., Wang, W., Byrnes, J. E., & Ranghanathan, J. (2013) Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28, 73–4.Google Scholar
Whyte, K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: a philosophical study. Ecological Processes, 2(7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y., Zhang, S., Yang, J., Chang, L., Bu, K., & Xing, X. (2014). A review of historical reconstruction methods of land use/land cover. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 24(4), 746–66.Google Scholar