Challenges and opportunities of metadisciplinary place-based research: the case of the Maya forest.

Abstract

This paper explores challenges and opportunities of metadisciplinary place-based research. A metadisciplinary framework based on four ecological integrity scientific discourses is proposed for interpreting local perceptions of ecological transformations in the Maya forests of the Middle Usumacinta watershed (Mexico and Guatemala). The value of this framework is illustrated by exploring perceptions about ecological transformation in three place-based communities. Perceptions were investigated through ethnographic methods based on: (1) reporting the researcher's dialogical involvement with professionals and local inhabitants; (2) participant observation; and (3) bibliographic research in order to characterize the Maya forest as a place. Multiple perspectives are often interacting within place-based communities and ecological integrity of a place should be understood as the result of these interactions. This understanding of ecological integrity requires expanding the scope of conservation strategies beyond the establishment of protected areas and the political negotiation of land uses, and including the processes through which people make sense of their complex relationships with the environment. The example of the Maya forest suggests that conservation strategies need to connect intellectually with the socio-ecological and cultural worlds in which they are trying to intervene and this requires full involvement with people in the place under investigation.

Dans cet article, les auteurs explorent des defis et les possibilites qu'offre la recherche metadisciplinaire etablie sur les lieux. On y propose un cadre de travail metadisciplinaire fonde sur quatre discours scientifiques d'integrite ecologique pour interpreter les perceptions locales des transformations ecologiques dans les forets Maya du bassin hydrologique du milieu de l'Usumacinta (Mexique et Guatemala). On illustre la valeur de ce cadre de travail en etudiant les perceptions au sujet des transformations ecologiques dans trois collectivites locales. Les perceptions ont ete etudiees au moyen de trois methodes ethnographiques se fondant sur : 1) les rapports sur les entretiens du chercheur avec les professionnels et les habitants locaux; 2) l'observation des participants; et 3) une recherche bibliographique afin de caracteriser les forets Maya. II y a parfois diverses perspectives qui interagissent au sein des collectivites locales, et l'integrite ecologique d'un lieu doit etre comprise comme etant le resultat de ces interactions. Cette comprehension de l'integrite ecologique exige qu'il faille elargir la portee des strategies de conservation au-delC de l'etablissement de zones protegees et de negociation politique de l'utilisation des terres, pour y englober les processus par lesquels les gens tirent un sens de leur relations complexes avec leur environnement. L'exemple de la foret Maya donne C penser que les strategies de conservation doivent etre en lien intellectuel avec les mondes socioecologiques et culturels dans lesquelles elles tentent d'intervenir, ce qui exige un plein engagement envers les personnes vivant sur les lieux de la recherche.

Keywords:

Metadisciplinary, place-based, ecological integrity, Maya forest, discourse

**********

Metadisciplinary research, which encompasses multi- inter- and trans-disciplinary research, presents particular challenges and opportunities not present in disciplinary research. On the one hand, metadisciplinary research does not provide clear boundaries for defining the object under study or precise criteria for deciding what constitutes progress. On the other hand, despite the potential lack of clarity inherent in metadisciplinary research, its epistemological openness provides an opportunity for knowledge integration and for addressing the full complexity of the object (e.g. place) under study. The different strands of metadisciplinary research have their own means of integrating knowledge. In multidisciplinary research, disciplinary boundaries and their quality criteria are maintained. However, different pieces of knowledge (each produced within the boundaries and methodologies of a particular discipline) are presented together, raising questions not confronted in more traditionally disciplinary studies. In contrast, interdisciplinary knowledge is produced through explicit discussions across disciplinary borders (Strand 2001). That is, researchers do not situate themselves uniquely in the methodological discourses of their own disciplines, but rather are willing to meet other researchers on their home ground (O'Riordan 2000). In transdisciplinary research, the boundaries of the disciplines lose relevance, and knowledge is produced using discourses or methodologies that are themselves interdisciplinary (i.e. constructed through crossing disciplinary borders).

After introducing a metadisciplinary discursive approach for exploring the ecological integrity of a place, some particularities and developments of place-based research are outlined. The last part of the paper discusses the application of this conceptual approach to the Maya forest. The way place-related interactions with local inhabitants and other people occurred and the insights gained about Maya forest ecological integrity are the main elements of discussion.

A metadisciplinary approach to ecological integrity

Conventionally, 'integrity' has been used to describe the moral standing of human beings. To have integrity is to be dependable and responsible, with a clear sense of what is good and what is not good. A need for integrity arises from the emerging post-modern recognition of multiple valid perspectives that need to be voiced, considered, and integrated. One of the earliest references to integrity in the environmental literature was Aldo Leopold's famous statement in his essay on land ethics:

The key-log which must be moved to release the evolutionary

process for an ethic is simply this: quit thinking about decent

land-use as solely an economic problem. Examine each question in

terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right, as well as

what is economically expedient. A thing is right when it tends

to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic

community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. [emphasis added]

Leopold (1949: 224).

The conceptual construction of ecological integrity has evolved considerably since Aldo Leopold's formulation. However, the definition of the term remains remarkably ambiguous and controversial. As indicated by Noss et al. (2000: 1), ecological integrity is often used as "an umbrella concept to encompass all that is good and right in ecosystems", or is merely considered as "a convenient way to describe and summarize the condition of a biological community or ecosystem".

In preparation for the field studies undertaken as part of the research discussed here, I constructed a metadisciplinary framework for exploring the role of ecological integrity in fostering the transition towards sustainability (Manuel-Navarrete 2003). I understand this transition as a matter of integration of knowledge and integral evolution of cultures and individuals. One of the most obvious aspects to integrate is the disciplinary divide (i.e. increasing the openness of epistemological discourses), but this is not the only one.

Environmental sciences, environmental studies, systems thinking, complexity theory, and different kinds of eco-studies provide useful theoretical frameworks and approaches for bridging disciplinary gaps through an emphasis on relationships and connectivity (Regier and Kay 2001). Furthermore, these forms of inquiry expand the scope of disciplinary integration through their emphasis on cross-scale analysis and multiple perspectives (Giampietro and Mayumi 2000, Allen et al. 2001).

I have drawn on these studies in order to examine the notion of ecological integrity in its full complexity, incorporating not only the biophysical, but also the social (e.g. power issues and social forms of organization), and beyond that, the inner human dimension (e.g. languages, and meanings associated with the identities of ethnic groups or individuals) of environmental issues. I developed a critical discursive approach to analyze the scientific concept of ecological integrity.

Four ecological integrity discourses, as well as the social practices and kinds of individual engagement required by each discourse, were developed elsewhere (Manuel-Navarrete et al. 2004). These idealized discourses were labelled as Wilderness-Normative, Systemic-Normative, Ecosystemic-Pluralistic, and Transpersonal-Collaborative (Table 1).

The rationale for the Wilderness-Normative discourse is: (1) there is a real world out there; (2) we can know this external reality through science; (3) based on this scientific knowledge we have to act as moral beings when taking decisions which affect the environment; (4) decision makers have the moral obligation to maintain the integrity of ecosystems; (5) science will tell us which measures must be taken to guarantee this integrity; and (6) decision makers could eventually decide to act based on their moral obligations and further, it is the task of scientists, environmental movements, and concerned (morally attuned and/or convinced by scientific evidence) citizens to respectively inform, claim and demand the fulfilment of these obligations.