The current and future role of the social sciences in the LTER Network was the focus of a two-and-a-half-day workshop held in Athens, GA, on 3-5 August, 2005. All but three LTER sites sent a social science representative to the workshop and 19 sites also responded to a 10-question survey. This article contains selective results from both the workshop and the survey.
It is widely acknowledged that researchers should view human activity as integral to ecosystem functioning, and that it is important to carry out forward-looking research on how to simultaneously maintain Earth’s life support systems while meeting human needs (Palmer et al., 2004; Schiermeier, 2006). Moving LTER science to a higher level of research collaboration, synthesis, and integration in this arena requires shifting the view about the role of humans from that of drivers to that of agents. How to achieve such a shift was the foundation of a workshop in August 2005 held in Athens, GA, to seek answers to two questions:
- What is the status of the social sciences in the LTER Network?
- What are the challenges that need to be overcome to better engage social scientists?
Disciplinary breadth and technical expertise are not evenly distributed across the Network, and this situation is even more pronounced with respect to the social sciences. There are approximately 51 social scientists in the Network representing diverse disciplinary backgrounds. Eight sites have at least one social scientist directly involved in site-level research, eight others have none, and the maximum number at any one site is 20. The current biophysical-to-social scientist ratio at sites ranges from 6:1 at one site (the Kellogg Biological Station), to the more typical 20:1, to the “completely outnumbered” category. But what would be the ideal biophysical-to-social scientist ratio? Many site scientists think a ratio between 5:1 and 10:1 would be ideal.
Eight sites currently have research with an explicit social science dimension and seven sites plan to continue their current social science research, expand it, or incorporate an explicit human dimension in their next renewal proposal. It is, therefore, surprising that only three sites have social scientists playing a significant role in site research orientation, organization, or activities. Social scientists have a minimal role at five sites and play no role at all in shaping the research agenda at seven sites.
While real social science capacity does exist in the Network, there are significant challenges to mobilizing this capacity to realize its potential and achieve the integration between the social and biophysical sciences that numerous reports have urged in recent years. The current situation is that most social science research is not carried out in the context of the existing LTER structure, but through ad hoc informal channels of communication that are highly dependent on serendipity and luck for achieving their objectives.
The result is that while some LTER sites have been directly funded or supplemented to carry out social science research, the social sciences are not currently institutionalized in the Network. The “whys” for this situation stem from the research culture at certain sites; the lack of participation by social scientists in site research design; the incentives and disincentives to participating in interdisciplinary research; and the general absence of core social science datasets.
Moving the social sciences from outside the sphere of explicit recognition where they currently reside to full partnership with the biophysical sciences will ultimately require long-term funding. Social scientists have made significant contributions to LTER science as professional outsiders, but engaging social scientists at the level required for meeting LTER’s “Grand Challenges” requires direct and sustained investment. As ecologists discovered 25 years ago when the LTER was established, short-term funding does not yield long-term results. To further justify the need for engaging social scientists in LTER research, Boynton et al. (2005) noted that “Without ready and open access to these social areas of expertise and practice, ecologists may not exploit the most cogent or important connections of their research.”
References
Boynton, W., C. DeVanzo, G. Hornberger, A. Lugo, J. Melillo, S. Pickett, and H. Vaughan. 2005. Report II of the Scientific Task Force’s Advisory Committee. Woods Hole, MA.
Palmer, M., E. Bernhardt, E. Chornesky, S. Collins, A. Dobson, C. Duke, B. Gold, R. Jacobson, S. Kingsland, R. Kranz, M. Mappin, M. L. Martinez, F. Micheli, J. Morse, M. Pace, M. Pascual, S. Palumbi, O. J. Reichman, A. Simons, A. Townsend, and M. Turner. 2004. Ecology for a Crowded Planet. Science 304:1251-1252.
Schiermeier, Q. 2006. The costs of global warming. Nature 439:374.