Copy igh © 2012 by he au ho (s). Published he e unde license by he Resilience Alliance.
Haapasaa i, P., S. Kulmala, and S. Kuikka. 2012. G owing in o In e disciplina i y: How o Con e ge
Biology, Economics, and Social Science in Fishe ies Resea ch? Ecology and Socie y 17(1): 6.
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.5751/ES-04503-170106
Resea ch
G owing in o In e disciplina i y: How o Con e ge Biology, Economics,
and Social Science in Fishe ies Resea ch?
Päi i Haapasaa i 1, Soile Kulmala 2,3,4, and Saka i Kuikka 1
ABSTRACT. I has been acknowledged ha na u al sciences alone canno p o ide an adequa e basis o he managemen o
complex en i onmen al p oblems. The scien i ic knowledge base has o be expanded in a mo e holis ic di ec ion by inco po a ing
social and economic issues. As well, he mul i ace ed knowledge has o be summa ized in a o m ha can suppo science-based
decision making. This is, howe e , di icul . In e disciplina y skills, p ac ices, and me hodologies a e needed ha enable he
in eg a ion o knowledge om concep ually di e en disciplines. Th ough a ocus on ou esea ch p ocess, we analyzed how
and wha kind o in e disciplina i y be ween na u al scien is s, en i onmen al economis s, and social scien is s g ew om he
need o be e unde s and he complexi y and unce ain y inhe en o he Bal ic salmon ishe ies, and how di e gen knowledge
was in eg a ed in a o m ha can suppo science-based decision making. The empi ical indings sugges ha in e disciplina i y
is an ex ensi e lea ning p ocess ha akes place on h ee le els: be ween indi iduals, be ween disciplines, and be ween ypes
o knowledge. Such a lea ning p ocess is acili a ed by ag eeing o a me hodological epochè and by o mula ing a global ques ion
a he ou se o a p ocess.
Key Wo ds: Bal ic Sea salmon ishe ies; Bayesian belie ne wo ks; bioeconomic modeling; in eg a ed model; in e disciplina i y,
in e disciplina y lea ning; ishe ies esea ch; me hodological epochè; mul idisciplina i y
The only way o lea n he ules o his Game o games
is o ake he usual p esc ibed cou se, which equi es
many yea s; and none o he ini ia es could e e
possibly ha e any in e es in making hese ules
easie o lea n. ( om The Glass Bead Game, by
He mann Hesse, Nobel lau ea e in li e a u e 1946)
INTRODUCTION
The impo ance o ackling complex en i onmen al p oblems
h ough in eg a ing knowledge ac oss disciplina y bounda ies
is inc easingly emphasized (Ludwig 2001). In he ishe ies
managemen ield, he Eu opean Communi y equi es he
quali y o scien i ic ad ice ela ed o he exploi a ion o ish
esou ces o be imp o ed h ough inco po a ing economic and
social ac o s (Commission o he Eu opean Communi ies
2003, 2008), and he eques o c ea e holis ic ishe ies
analyses is exp essed in unding calls (e.g., Bal ic
O ganisa ions Ne wo k o Funding (BONUS) 2010–2016),
epo s (Sissenwine and Symes 2007), con e ences (Kuikka
e al. 2009), and scien i ic pape s (Ga cia and Cha les 2008).
These eques s awake a need o de elop in e disciplina y
skills, p ac ices, and me hods.
In e disciplina i y is no , hough, a new phenomenon (Klein
1990); nei he is he obse a ion ha i is a di icul and ime-
consuming a ea o esea ch. The li e a u e analyzes
in e disciplina y challenges caused by, o example, he
di e ences in disciplina y p ac ices and pa adigms, he
absence o es ablished amewo ks and models o link
di e en kinds o da a, he equi emen s aced by he
esea che s o deal wi h mo e han one ield, and he
insu icien ins i u ional acili ies, and i p oposes p ac ical
and me hodological solu ions (Daily and Eh lich 1999, Golde
and Gallaghe 1999, Naiman 1999, Picke e al. 1999, Redman
1999, Tu ne and Ca pen e 1999, Pa ao-Zucke man 2000,
Heemske k e al. 2003, MacMynowski 2007, S ang 2009,
Nuij en 2011).
An impo an bu a he absen opic in he in e disciplina y
li e a u e is he empi ia o in e disciplina y p ocesses (Fu man
e al. 2009). Klein (1990) has called o compiling na a i es
and conduc ing empi ical s udies o in e disciplina y esea ch
p ac ices, o each a ulle unde s anding on in e disciplina i y.
La uca (2002) emphasizes he impo ance o examining how
indi iduals app op ia e cul u al ools needed o in e disciplina y
wo k. Huu oniemi e al. (2010) s ess he need o empi ical
analyses o es and alida e exis ing concep ual
ca ego iza ions on he issue and o u he de elop analyses
o e alua ion ools.
By ocusing on ou own esea ch p ocess, we analyzed how
and wha kind o in e disciplina i y be ween na u al scien is s
(se en people: ishe ies science, ish biology, ma hema ics),
en i onmen al economis s ( h ee people), and social scien is s
( h ee people: sociology, an h opology) g ew om he need
o be e unde s and he complexi y ela ed o salmon ishe ies
in he Bal ic Sea, and how da a om hese concep ually
di e en ields we e in eg a ed. The aim o he pape is o
b ing new aspec s o he discussion on in e disciplina i y and
o he de elopmen o in e disciplina y p ocedu es.
1Fishe ies and En i onmen al Managemen G oup, Depa men o En i onmen al Sciences, Uni e si y o Helsinki, 2Ma ine Resea ch Cen e, Finnish
En i onmen Ins i u e, 3MTT Ag i ood Resea ch, Finland, 4Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e
Ecology and Socie y 17(1): 6
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol17/iss1/a 6/
THE GLASS BEAD GAME
The e is no much consensus on wha in e disciplina i y
means. I is commonly used bo h o deno e any collabo a ion
be ween disciplines, and as a ce ain o m dis inguished om
mul idisciplina i y and ansdisciplina i y (Klein 1990,
Huu oniemi e al. 2010). Huu oniemi e al. (2010) p opose a
ypology o indica e dissimila modes in collabo a ion
be ween disciplines (Table 1). They de ine mul idisciplina i y
as subp ojec s linked loosely by a opic o a common p oblem
se ing, o as a jux aposed combina ion o expe ise o p oduce
new knowledge, wi hou signi ican in e ac ion be ween
disciplines. In e disciplina i y, on he con a y, is de ined as
he in eg a ion o da a, me hods, heo ies, concep s, o models
ha build on in e ac ion. T ansdisciplina i y is inc easingly
seen as a hyb id o scien is s and s akeholde s, science and
p ac ice, and scien i ic and nonscien i ic knowledge (Klein e
al. 2001).
Table 1. A ypology o mul idisciplina i y and
in e disciplina i y, acco ding o Huu oniemi e al. (2010).
Mode o
collabo a ion Desc ip ion
Encyclopedic
mul idisciplina i y
Subp ojec s om di e en ields a e linked
loosely by a opic, and he disciplines wo k
wi h sepa a e p oblems using hei own
me hodology.
Con ex ualizing
mul idisciplina i y
Knowledge is p oduced in a con ex in ela ion
o p oblem se ing, which binds esea ch
g oups wi h ela ed in e es s.
Composi e
mul idisciplina i y
Elemen s, esea ch asks, o knowledge a e
ex e nalized o ans e ed in a modula ized
way om one ield o ano he as a
combina ion o expe ise, bu in e ac ion is
echnical a he han dialogic.
Empi ical
in e disciplina i y
Da a a e in eg a ed o examine ela ionships
be ween phenomena o o p oduce a
combina ion o e idence o sol e a p oblem.
Me hodological
in e disciplina i y
A combina ion o di e en me hodological
app oaches in an in eg a ed manne .
Theo e ical
in e disciplina i y
Theo ies, concep s, o models a e syn hesized
o de ise new heo e ical app oaches o
in e disciplina y analyses.
Klein (1990) s esses ha in e disciplina i y is no a subjec
ma e o a body o con en , bu a p ocess ha begins wi h a
p oblem o opic and aims a an in eg a i e syn hesis. She
e e s o DeWach e ’s (1982) dis inc ion o i e phases in an
ideal in e disciplina y p ocess, concep ualized a ound a
me hodological epochè [ERRATUM]:
1. All disciplines accep he me hodological epochè by
abs aining om app oaching he opic by hei
monodisciplina y me hods.
2. A global ques ion is o mula ed in an in e disciplina y
way by acknowledging all he aspec s and he o al
ne wo k.
3. The global ques ion is ansla ed in o he speci ic
language o each pa icipa ing discipline.
4. The pa icula answe o his ansla ed ques ion is
cons an ly checked o i s ele ance in answe ing he
global ques ion.
5. A global answe p oduced by in eg a ing all pa icula
answe s is ag eed upon.
Due o oublesome in e ac ion be ween disciplines,
in e disciplina y p ocesses a ely ollow such a s aigh o wa d
line (Klein 1990). Academic disciplines ha e been desc ibed
as sel - egula ing and sel -sus aining “ ibes” ha inhabi hei
own e i o ies and de ine hei own iden i ies and social
p ac ices (Beche 1989). The disciplines ame, and hus limi ,
he hinking and in ellec ual ac i i y o hei p ac i ione s, and
his makes encoun e ing disciplina y cul u es all he mo e
di icul he a he he ields a e om each o he (Beche 1989,
B adshaw and Beko 2001).
Thus, in e disciplina i y equi es he ibes o lea n how o
communica e ac oss he disciplina y bounda ies (B adshaw
and Beko 2001). The socio-cul u al lea ning heo ies see
lea ning as a cogni i e p ocess ha akes place in social
in e ac ion, embedded in i s (immedia e and wide ) his o ical,
cul u al, and social con ex s. In e ac ion is media ed by
cul u al ools ha p o ide b idges and shape he ac ion
be ween he indi idual and he wo ld (We sch e al. 1995,
La uca 2002). By app op ia ing cul u al ools om each o he ,
pa ne s de elop an inc easing in e subjec i i y ha leads o
mu ual unde s anding, p epa es he pa icipan s o
subsequen in ol emen in ela ed ac i i ies, and ep oduces
and changes he exis ing cogni i e and social o de (We sch
e al. 1995, Rogo 1995). Rogo (1995) s esses ha lea ning
means change no only on he pe sonal le el, bu also on he
in e pe sonal and communi y le els. I can lead o
de elopmen in he communi y, bu al e na i ely o di e gen
pe spec i es and disha mony (La uca 2002). In in e disciplina y
lea ning, a esea che app op ia es concep s, pe spec i es, o
me hods o ano he discipline; le s hem in o m his/he own
unde s anding o he p oblem; and ans o ms hem o his/
he own use and o in eg a ing knowledge (La uca 2002,
Silli oe 2004).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This pape is based on an e hnog aphic s udy (B ewe 2005)
o ou own in e disciplina y esea ch p ocess, conduc ed om
2003 o 2010 by he i s au ho o his pape , a social scien is .
Ecology and Socie y 17(1): 6
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol17/iss1/a 6/
Di icul ies in ag eeing on a me hodological epochè a he s a
o he p ocess awoke he in e es and she go he idea o
s udying he p ocess in addi ion o he wo k in he p ojec . She
obse ed he p ojec mee ings and o he collabo a i e
occasions and discussed wi h he esea che s, u ilizing he
exis ing ole as a membe o he g oup (“obse an
pa icipa ion”, B ewe 2005). A he end (2006) o he i s
p ojec (S ep 1) she ca ied ou se en hema ic in e iews o
key people, i.e., people who had pa icipa ed in mos o he
in e disciplina y ac i i ies. The in e iews conce ned he
di e en ways ha collabo a ion ook place o could ha e
aken place, he possibili ies o in eg a ing knowledge om
concep ually di e en ields, he di icul ies o in e disciplina y
collabo a ion, and he esea che s ep esen ing di e en ields
as coope a o s. A e publishing a pape ocusing on he
in e disciplina i y in S ep 1 (Haapasaa i 2008) he social
scien is con inued obse ing and discussing he subsequen
p ojec s (S ep 2, S ep 3), and he heme was e e ed o in he
in e iews o he g oup membe s ha ocused on salmon
managemen , which we e ca ied ou om 2008 o 2009. The
inal da a se comp ised ield no es, eco dings and hei
ansc ip s, and p ojec documen s. In he analysis, he QSR
NVi o so wa e, which was designed o manage, a ange, and
so quali a i e da a (Bazeley 2007), was used. Finally he da a
we e in e p e ed agains he heo e ical aspec s.
The wo old ole o he social scien is as a subjec ( esea che )
and as an objec (membe o he g oup ha she s udied) esul ed
in ich and many-sided ma e ial ega ding he social eali y o
he g oup. As an obse e pa icipan she e lec ed he iews
o he o he esea che s o he own expe ience on he
in e disciplina y p ocess. Po en ial bias and misin e p e a ions
we e con olled by combining he se e al da a-collec ion
me hods ( iangula ion, B ewe 2005), and by in i ing an
economis and a ishe ies scien is o he g oup o “membe -
check” (Schwa z-Shea 2006) he iabili y o he
in e p e a ion and o cow i e his a icle.
THREE STEPS TO CONVERGING DISCIPLINES
Bal ic salmon: a schoolbook example o a complex
managemen p oblem
Mos o he Bal ic Sea wild salmon s ocks ha e been des oyed
o deple ed du ing he wen ie h cen u y, and he emaining
ones a e o di e en s a us (In e na ional Council o he
Explo a ion o he Sea 2010). The managemen o he s ocks
ha mig a e be ween hei na al i e s and he eeding a ea in
he Bal ic Main Basin balances be ween unce ain ies ela ed
o he s a e o he s ocks and he in e es s o se e al s akeholde
g oups in di e en Bal ic Sea coun ies. Thus, he e is cons an
dispu e o e whe he and whe e salmon should be ished, and
by whom, as well as how and o wha ex en (Finnish Game
and Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e 2009, Salmi and Salmi 2010).
In 1997, an in e na ional salmon s ock es o a ion p og am,
he Bal ic Salmon Ac ion Plan (SAP), was es ablished o
suppo he managemen and scien i ic ad iso y wo k ela ed
o he salmon s ocks un il 2010 (Ranke e al. 1999). A e ha ,
a new long- e m managemen plan was designed o con inue
he es o a ion p ocess (Commission o he Eu opean
Communi ies 2009). The ishe ies scien is s e e ed o in his
pape chai ed and pa icipa ed in he s ock assessmen g oup
o Bal ic salmon o he In e na ional Council o he
Explo a ion o he Sea (ICES) and con ibu ed o ealizing he
Salmon Ac ion Plan in Finland, and had no iced ha scien i ic
knowledge ela ed o he human aspec was missing om
salmon esea ch and managemen :
The e is a human being be ween he decision and
he impac o he decision in he na u e, and i we
desc ibe he human beha io inadequa ely, we ge
a oo op imis ic iew on wha we can each wi h he
egula ion. ( ishe ies scien is , 2006)
S ep 1: Bal ic Salmon Ac ion Plan in he Bo hnian Bay
i e s: in e disciplina y modeling o he e ol ing salmon
s ocks and socioeconomic aspec s, 2003 o 2005
Ou p ojec , which was called he "Bal ic Salmon Ac ion Plan
in he Bo hnian Bay i e s: in e disciplina y modeling o he
e ol ing salmon s ocks and socioeconomic aspec s" (also
gene ally e e ed o as BIREME–SAP) (Table 2), was unded
by he Bal ic Sea Resea ch P og amme (BIREME) (2007) o
he Academy o Finland; he la e s essed in e disciplina y
esea ch and enabled conside a ions on he es o a ion o he
salmon s ocks o be expanded in a mo e holis ic di ec ion. The
s a ing poin o he p ojec was a wide in e disciplina y
ques ion: How o jus i y he socioeconomic easibili y o he
Salmon Ac ion Plan o local communi ies, and help hem
coope a e in achie ing he common goals, unde high
unce ain y abou he s a e o he salmon s ocks? The p ojec 's
aim was o de elop an in e disciplina y decision suppo ool
h ough a me hodological epochè:
In his s udy we combine he ela i ely well known
Bal ic salmon s ock dynamics wi h he less known
socioeconomic dynamics o di e en g oups o
ishe men in he sea, in he coas al and es ua ine
a eas, and in he i e alleys. We apply p obabilis ic
Bayesian me hods and c ea e decision models,
which ake in o accoun he unce ain ies ela ed o
biological and human subcomponen s o he sys em.
We u he de elop hese models o managemen
models, i.e., models whe e he human and biological
elemen s can be analyzed and inco po a ed in o
managemen ac ions. ( esea ch p oposal o Bal ic
Sea Resea ch P og amme–Salmon Ac ion Plan).
The me hodological epochè mean he applica ion o he
Bayesian app oach (Jensen 2001) in each subs udy and in
in eg a ing knowledge om he di e en ields. I was de ined
by he ishe ies scien is s who ep esen ed he s a e o he a
o he Bayesian me hodology in hei own ield (Va is and
Ecology and Socie y 17(1): 6
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol17/iss1/a 6/
Table 2. The h ee p ojec s (S eps 1, 2, and 3) in a nu shell.
In e disciplina y
collabo a ion S ep 1:
BIREME-SAP, 2003–2005 S ep 2:
Salmon Ac ion Plan impac assessmen ,
2007–2008
S ep 3:
In eg a ed model, 2009–2010
Funding The Academy o Finland Eu opean Commission None
Aims Inc ease knowledge o a complex ishe y
p oblem, and de elop an in e disciplina y
decision suppo ool.
Impac assessmen o he Salmon Ac ion
Plan In eg a e biological, economic, and social
knowledge in a decision suppo model
Resea ch
ques ions How o deal wi h he high unce ain y in
assessing he s a us o indi idual salmon
s ocks and in se ing managemen objec i es?
How o jus i y he socioeconomic easibili y
o a salmon s ock es o a ion p og am o he
local communi ies? How o help he local
communi ies o coope a e o achie ing he
common goals?
Wha a e he biological, economic, and
social impac s o he Salmon Ac ion Plan and
ce ain new managemen op ions and
objec i es o he u u e?
Which long- e m managemen objec i e
would lead o bes implemen a ion success o
indi idual managemen measu es in e ms o
ishe s’ commi men , and u he o bes
biological, comme cial, ec ea ional and/o
social u ili y?
Publica ion
i les Commi men o salmon: using Bayesian
modeling o c ea e a sus ainable ishe ies
managemen ool based on commi men o
ishe men
(Haapasaa i e al. 2005)
A bioeconomic analysis o he No he n
Bal ic salmon
ishe y: managemen o compe ing
sequen ial ishe ies (Kulmala e al. 2005)
In e disciplina y modeling h ough
p obabilis ic ne wo ks: impac o ishe men’s
commi men on he managemen o wild
Bal ic salmon s ocks (Michielsens e al.
2005a)
In e disciplina y p obabilis ic ne wo k o
examine he possibili y o es o e po en ial
Bal ic salmon i e s (Michielsens e al.
2005b)
Reconciling economic and biological
modelling o mig a o y ish s ocks: op imal
managemen o he no he n Bal ic salmon
ishe y (Kulmala e al. 2006)
A Bayesian s a e-space ma k- ecap u e
model o es ima e exploi a ion a es in
mixed-s ock ishe ies (Michielsens e al.
2006b)
Es ima ion o annual mo ali y a es caused
by ea ly mo ali y synd omes (EMS) and
hei impac on salmonid s ock- ec ui
ela ionships (Michielsens e al. 2006a)
Managemen measu es and ishe s’
commi men o sus ainable exploi a ion: a
case s udy o A lan ic salmon ishe ies in he
Bal ic Sea (Haapasaa i e al. 2007)
Reconciling economic and biological
modeling o mig a o y ish s ocks: op imal
managemen o he A lan ic salmon ishe y
in he Bal ic Sea (Kulmala e al. 2008)
Combining mul iple Bayesian da a analyses
in a sequen ial Bayesian amewo k o
quan i a i e ishe ies s ock assessmen
(Michielsens e al. 2008)
The Repo o he Da a Analysis o Suppo
he De elopmen o a Bal ic Sea Salmon
Ac ion Plan, S12.491891, FISH/2007/03—
Lo 6 (Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch
Ins i u e 2009)
Fo malizing expe knowledge o compa e
al e na i e managemen plans: sociological
pe spec i e o he u u e managemen o
Bal ic salmon s ocks (Haapasaa i and
Ka jalainen 2010)
Syn hesizing biological, economic and
sociological knowledge using Bayesian
Belie Ne wo ks o suppo b oadly based
ishe ies policy: he case o de ising a new
Bal ic salmon managemen plan (Le on in e
al. 2009)
In eg a ion o biological, economic and
sociological knowledge by Bayesian belie
ne wo ks: he in e disciplina y e alua ion o
po en ial Bal ic salmon managemen plan
(Le on in e al. 2011)
(con'd)
Ecology and Socie y 17(1): 6
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol17/iss1/a 6/
Fo ms o
collabo a ion Na u al scien is s and social scien is s:
composi e mul idisciplina i y
Na u al scien is s and economis s:
me hodological in e disciplina i y
Economis s and social scien is s:
con ex ualizing mul idisciplina i y
Na u al scien is s and social scien is s:
composi e mul idisciplina i y
Na u al scien is s and economis s:
me hodological in e disciplina i y
Economis s and social scien is s:
con ex ualizing mul idisciplina i y
All scien is s: heo e ical in e disciplina i y
Aim s.
ou pu Aim: heo e ical in e disciplina i y
Ou pu : con ex ualizing mul idisciplina i y
Aim: composi e mul idisciplina i y
Ou pu : composi e mul idisciplina i y
Aim: heo e ical in e disciplina i y
Ou pu : heo e ical in e disciplina i y
Kuikka 1997, Män yniemi and Romakkaniemi 2002,
In e na ional Council o he Explo a ion o he Sea 2002,
Michielsens and McAllis e 2004, Män yniemi e al. 2005,
Uusi alo e al 2005, Michielsens e al. 2006a, Michielsens e
al. 2006b, Michielsens e al. 2008). The idea o he app oach
is o upda e p io knowledge, exp essed as p obabili y
dis ibu ions, wi h new knowledge o ge a pos e io
unde s anding o he p oblem. The e exis s no objec i e alue
o a p obabili y, which implies ha he p obabili y
dis ibu ion is based on a subjec i e deg ee o belie . The
me hodology allows he modeling o pu e expe knowledge
in addi ion o da a analysis. Thus, he app oach was qui e he
con a y o he con en ional equen is s a is ics s i ing o
objec i i y (Malako 1999), and he ishe ies scien is s had
bo h con ibu ed o a deba e wi hin he in e na ional
communi y o ishe ies scien is s and had s uggled o ge hei
app oach accep ed by he In e na ional Council o he
Explo a ion o he Sea. Nei he he economis s no he social
scien is s had any p io in ol emen in he app oach.
The social scien is s accep ed he Bayesian app oach e en
hough educing human beha io in o a model o causali ies
el , a i s , incon enien . They conside ed he me hod
compa ible wi h hei own hinking: he subjec i is Bayesian
app oach sha ed he idea o p e-unde s anding wi h he
he meneu ic heo y, and acknowledged he socially
cons uc ed cha ac e o knowledge (Be ge and Luckmann
1966, Upshu 1999, Gadame 2004). In addi ion o ha , he
holis ically o ien ed an h opology o med a a o able g ound
o he idea o in eg a ing knowledge. Da a we e collec ed and
analyzed using sociological me hods, and we e u he
s uc u ed in o a Bayesian belie ne wo k (BBN) model
(Haapasaa i e al. 2007). A ishe ies scien is , specialized in
he Bayesian me hod, amilia ized a social scien is wi h he
me hod, and con ibu ed o echnical de ails.
The economis s, on he con a y, saw ha he p ojec plan did
no bind hem o he me hod. In he in e iew one o he
economis s said hey did no belie e in he possibili ies o
Bayesian belie ne wo ks in dynamic op imiza ion, ha hey
conside ed he h eshold o publishing pape s in hei jou nals
o in e es oo high o such a me hod, and ha hey p e e ed
ealizing he Ph.D. hesis planned as an ou come o he s udy
by applying he adi ional pa adigm o na u al esou ce
economics. In he i s p ojec mee ings, long deba es be ween
he ishe ies scien is esponsible o he p ojec plan and he
economis s culmina ed in ho dispu es, which he ishe ies
scien is ecalled a ew yea s la e :
Righ a he beginning, i became clea ha he
economis s did no ha e any mo i a ion o play he
common game, and I ealized ha i was no use o
e en y, so we had o knuckle unde he ac ha
hey ha e ano he pe cep ion o good science.
( ishe ies scien is , 2006)
As a esul , he economis s cons uc ed a bioeconomic
op imiza ion model, assis ed by a ishe ies scien is (Kulmala
e al. 2008). One o he ishe ies scien is s explained la e ha
he and his colleagues ag eed wi h he modeling echnique
because i s biological pa was simila o he popula ion model
used by he na u al scien is s. Despi e his hey kep on
c i icizing he nai e y o he bioeconomic models in desc ibing
eali y, and he uselessness o op imiza ion s udies in ishe ies
managemen . Due o his, he economis s el hey we e ea ed
unjus ly and ha hei wo k was unde alued. The e also
eme ged ic ion in ela ion o he alloca ion o esou ces:
I is easy o unde es ima e ano he discipline, o
wonde wha is he di icul y he e i you see only
some eally educed and simpli ied pa o i , and
you don’ unde s and he me hods, you canno know
wha amoun o wo k he e is behind ha wo k, and
i you don’ know he li e a u e o ha discipline, you
canno unde s and wha is he con ibu ion o ha
s udy compa ed o he p e ious s udies.(economis ,
2006)
While bo h he economis s and he social scien is s
collabo a ed wi h he na u al scien is s, he social scien is s
and economis s did no in e ac scien i ically, and hei
ela ionship was based only on he p ojec con ex and a
common in e es in he p oblema ic issue o salmon s ock
es o a ion. Al hough i was ha d o he social scien is s and
economis s o unde s and each o he scien i ically, in he
p ojec mee ings hey buil good pe sonal ela ionships
be ween each o he . A social scien is cha ac e ized he
dis ance be ween economics and sociology in an in e iew:

Ecology and Socie y 17(1): 6
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol17/iss1/a 6/
The pe spec i e o economics sounded e y abs ac
a he beginning, and I didn’ unde s and any hing.
I was like, like hey would ha e been alking abou
any hing else bu ish, ishing, and ishe s. Te i ying
ma hema ical o mulas, me hods, and concep s. We
used o say ha he economis s ha e clean models
whe eas we ha e di y hands. (social scien is , 2006)
The g oup was no able o ag ee on a global ques ion. All he
disciplines concen a ed on hei own s udies, and cogni i e
in e ac ion be ween he h ee disciplines was es ic ed o
p oblem se ing. Re lec ing o he ypology o Huu oniemi e
al. (2010), he p ojec aimed a heo e ical in e disciplina i y,
bu emained a he le el o con ex ualizing mul idisciplina i y.
Despi e his, he e alua ion epo o he BIREME esea ch
p og am men ioned his p ojec as one o he e y ew p ojec s
in which in e disciplina y esea ch ook place (Bal ic Sea
Resea ch P og amme 2007). The inal epo o he p ojec
comp ised h ee sepa a e s udies, and conclusions. The epo
s a ed: ”A majo s ep owa ds ue in e disciplina y esea ch
has, howe e , been aken wi hin he p ojec o achie e
syn hesis ac oss di e en esea ch ields, bu s ill, u he
in eg a ion is needed in he u u e and e en be e coope a ion
is possible.” Two con e ence pape s ou lined he plans o he
in e disciplina y model and i s po en ial (Michielsens e al.
2005a, 2005b).
S ep 2: da a analysis o suppo he de elopmen o a
Bal ic Sea salmon managemen plan (Salmon Ac ion
Plan impac assessmen ), 2007 o 2008
In S ep 2, almos he same g oup o esea che s esponded o
a call o ende s o he Eu opean Commission conside ing he
assessmen o impac s o he Salmon Ac ion Plan and new
managemen op ions and objec i es o he u u e (Table 2).
A socioeconomic impac assessmen was o be syn hesized
wi h an In e na ional Council o he Explo a ion o he Sea
(ICES) epo including he biological e alua ion o he
Salmon Ac ion Plan, o p o ide an impac assessmen epo
(Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e 2009,
Commission o he Eu opean Communi ies 2009). The call
equi ed bioeconomic modeling, bu did no de ine he
app oach o con en s o he social impac assessmen . Thus
he p ojec did no aim a in e disciplina i y be ween h ee
disciplines.
The ishe ies scien is s led he p ojec and we e esponsible
o pu ing oge he he epo . The social scien is s again used
he Bayesian me hod in hei s udy (Finnish Game and
Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e 2009, Haapasaa i and Ka jalainen
2010). They saw he me hod as being use ul o he e alua ion
o he long- e m managemen op ions, because i enabled
e bal in o ma ion o be condensed in o easily compa able
quan i a i e alues, because he in o ma ion could po en ially
be combined wi h knowledge om o he ields, and because
i allowed he use o a small da a se (Finnish Game and
Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e 2009, Haapasaa i and Ka jalainen
2010). They we e now able o ca y ou he modeling wi hou
help om na u al scien is s, bu needed hem o de ine he
de ails o a su ey. The economis s buil a bioeconomic
simula ion model o he salmon ishe y wi h he ish biologis s
(Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e 2009).
All o he ou ull- ime esea che s o he p ojec now wo ked
a he same campus, unlike du ing S ep 1, when hey wo ked
in wo di e en ci ies and h ee di e en ins i u es. Thus,
besides he ac ha S ep 2 was an impo an con inua ion o
o mal mee ings, i mean enhancing in o mal in e ac ion in
e ms o common lunches, co ees, and e ening pa ies. These
p o ided oppo uni ies o ge o know each o he , and o ask
“s upid” ques ions, and h ough his o cla i y he oles and
app oaches in he in e disciplina y wholeness. Open
discussion on he impo ance o he in e disciplina y wo k in
en i onmen al esea ch and ela ed job oppo uni ies
mo i a ed he esea che s, and a common language a ound
ishe ies managemen and an in e disciplina y ield and
in e disciplina y iden i y de eloped.
I is ha d o ge in o a si ua ion in which he common
language can be ound and in which we can s a
bene i ing om i . Bu I hink ha he mo e he e a e
people who ha e wo ked in e disciplina ily, he
easie i will be, and now I hink ha in he nex
p ojec s i will be much easie . The pain has been
su e ed now and you can do i and you ha e
de eloped he abili y o p esen hings in a di e en
way and do no ake ce ain hings as sel -e iden ,
and you lea n so much, and you lea n om he o he
discipline oo, ha ’s eally ui ul expe ience.
(economis , 2008)
In S ep 2, he esea ch was ca ied ou in he manne o
composi e mul idisciplina i y: i was a combina ion o
expe ise in a modula ized way o p oduce new knowledge.
In he epo he di e en subs udies we e desc ibed sepa a ely
and in he summa y hey we e combined o make conclusions
and ecommenda ions (Commission o he Eu opean
Communi ies 2009, Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch
Ins i u e 2009). The esul s o he di e en s udies suppo ed
each o he (Finnish Game and Fishe ies Resea ch Ins i u e
2009), which encou aged he esea che s o ake he nex s ep.
S ep 3: in eg a ed model, 2009 o 2010
In S ep 3, he holis ic decision suppo model o he long- e m
managemen o he Bal ic salmon s ocks was inally ealized
and he aim o heo e ical in e disciplina i y was achie ed,
wi hou special unding applied o he ask (Table 2). The
ini ia i e came om he social scien is who had ca ied he
main esponsibili y o he social science wo k in S eps 1 and
2, and who had bo h pe sonal and scien i ic ambi ions o see
whe he he me hodological epochè was possible. She had
ecei ed c i icism om he social science colleagues who did
Ecology and Socie y 17(1): 6
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol17/iss1/a 6/
Fig. 1. The in eg a ed Bayesian belie ne wo k (BBN) model, modi ied om he model published by Le on in e al. (2011).
Pa s p oduced by di e en disciplines a e indica ed by di e en colo s. The model allows examina ion o how he esul s o
he bioeconomic model ( ega ding op imal managemen ) would change i he e ec o he implemen a ion unce ain y
( esul ing om ishe s’ commi men o al e na i e managemen objec i es) we e aken in o accoun in a quan i a i e manne .
The model also makes i possible o compa e di e en managemen objec i es and op ions in e ms o biological,
comme cial, ec ea ional, and social u ili y (Le on in e al. 2011).
no belie e in in eg a i e analy ical amewo ks in
en i onmen al p oblem sol ing and did no accep he
pa alleling o human beha io wi h in e ela ionships in he
na u e. A e accomplishing he in eg a ed model, he social
scien is e lec ed on he mo i a ion:
I was impo an o me o see his done. I el ha
his kind o in eg a ing is some hing ha is eally
necessa y o be done and o be p esen ed o he
scien i ic communi y, o show ha i is possible. Bu
pe haps I also had a mo e pe sonal in e es in i . I
belie e ha by accomplishing he in eg a ed model
I could jus i y ha i made sense o build Bayesian
models om he pu e social scien i ic da a, o
mysel and o my colleagues, who had ques ioned
i , wonde ed why we made i so complica ed, and
why we le he na u al scien is s dic a e wha o do.
(social scien is , 2010)
The economis had nea ly comple ed he Ph.D. hesis, had
pa icipa ed in Bayes cou ses, and was now willing o y he
modeling as ex a wo k and wi h he p inciple “no hing o
lose”. When deciding on he common e o , she explained
she el i was necessa y o syn hesize he mul idisciplina y
esul s o S ep 2 h ough an in e disciplina y model. Two
na u al scien is s—a me hodologically o ien ed ma hema ician
o ake esponsibili y o echnical de ails, and a p o esso o
supe ise—we e asked o join in he p ojec .
In S ep 3, he me hodological epochè and he biological,
economic, and social aspec s in he o al ne wo k we e he
s a ing poin o answe ing he global ques ion adop ed om
S ep 2, whe e he di e en disciplines had p oduced sepa a e
esul s and he syn hesis had been made e bally. Now he
esul s o S ep 2 we e o be syn hesized quan i a i ely in a
Bayesian belie ne wo k model (Fig. 1, Le on in e al. 2011).
The global ques ion was ansla ed in o he speci ic language
o each discipline and a global answe was p oduced by
ansla ing he pa icula answe s in o he p obabilis ic
language o he Bayesian belie ne wo ks, and by in eg a ing
hem in he in e disciplina y model.
Ecology and Socie y 17(1): 6
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol17/iss1/a 6/
The disciplina y wo k was conduc ed by he scien is s
sepa a ely, bu he applicabili y, ele ance, and easonableness
o e e y phase was checked oge he in common modeling
sessions o which ime was a anged whene e needed. In
addi ion o ha , he modeling p oblems we e discussed in
in o mal mee ings. A con e ence pape was join ly w i en
(Le on in e al. 2009), and he model has been p esen ed in
con e ences o di e en ields by each esea che o he eam.
Recen ly, a pape was published in a pee - e iewed jou nal
(Le on in e al. 2011) and he modeling has led o u he
p ojec p oposals.
Changing you scien i ic hinking equi es ha you
a e gi en such ools ha enable you o choose a new
way, and his means ha in e disciplina i y equi es
qui e ha d aining, e aining, and i is a ha d way
compa ed o i you jus s udy mo e and mo e o one
discipline. ( ishe ies scien is 2006)
ANALYSIS: LEARNING THE GAME OF GAMES
The wide cul u al con ex ela ed o ishe ies policy making,
science, and unding made he ime a o able o
in e disciplina i y (Bal ic Sea Resea ch P og amme 2007), bu
ye he beginning o ou p ocess clashed wi h disciplina y
bounda ies. The ishe ies scien is s wan ed o sol e an
in e disciplina y p oblem using he Bayesian app oach ha
hey had applied in biological ques ions. They had al eady
de ia ed om he adi ional equen is pa adigm o ishe ies
science and hus es ed he bounda ies o hei discipline, and
we e eady o espond o he calls o holis ic pe spec i es. Fo
he social scien is s, who we e used o a wide a ie y o heo ies
wi hin hei ield o esea ch, i was ela i ely easy o accep
he new app oach ha in i s epis emological basis was nea e
o he heo ies o social sciences han hose o na u al sciences.
The jump o he educ ionis causal hinking o he Bayesian
me hod was long, bu i s alue in he in e disciplina y wo k
was acknowledged. The doub s o o he social scien is s did
no hinde bu a he unc ioned as a ca alys o u he
de elopmen o he applica ion. The ishe ies economics was
essen ially an in e disciplina y ield ha sha ed a common
in e es wi h ishe ies science in de eloping ma hema ical
models o manage na u al esou ces. The in en ion o his ield
owa ds cumula i e g ow h wi hin i s bounda ies was so s ong
ha a new app oach could no eplace i s exis ing pa adigm.
Thus, on he one hand he bioeconomic modeling unc ioned
as an in e disciplina y link be ween wo disciplines, bu on he
o he hand delayed he ag eeing o he me hodological epochè
be ween h ee ields. The economis s could accomplish he
modeling by ini ia ing a o ally new app oach only as ex a
wo k o as a “hobby”.
Owing o his, DeWach e ’s (1982) ideal model was no
ealized in ou in e disiciplina y p ocess. A he beginning,
he me hodological epochè could no be ag eed on and he
global ques ion emained un o mula ed. Ins ead o de ining
all he aspec s in he o al ne wo k and adap ing he sepa a e
s udies o ha , he disciplines s a ed he p ocess mo e o less
independen ly o he o he pe spec i es. The aim o building
an in e disciplina y model ha included knowledge om h ee
disciplines was, a S ep 1, no eached. This aim did no
ma e ialize un il a e an 8-yea p ocess o in e disciplina y
lea ning, which included di e en kinds o mul idisciplina y
and in e disciplina y subs udies and phases (Table 2).
Lea ning in e disciplina i y mean app op ia ing cul u al ools
om each o he , and i ook place h ough wo king oge he
and h ough con inuous discussions. This was as e be ween
na u al scien is s and economis s, and be ween na u al
scien is s and social scien is s, han be ween economis s and
social scien is s. Finding unde s anding be ween hese
disciplines, al hough bo h a e o en conside ed social sciences
(Rose 1976, Mille 1982), was much ha de . Fo bo h eams,
lea ning in e disciplina i y wi h ishe ies scien is s was so
ime consuming and in ellec ually challenging, ha hey had
no esou ces le o each o he , especially in he absence o a
common me hod.
Ac ually, he whole lea ning p ocess was he ha des o he
economis s and he social scien is s who had a oo on wo
ields: hey had o mas e he me hodology o hei own
disciplines and a he same ime lea n elemen s ela ed o
ano he discipline and new me hods. Fo he ishe ies
scien is s who ep esen ed he o icial ishe ies esea ch,
in e disciplina i y mean he o he s app op ia ed hei cul u al
ools, whe eas hey hemsel es had o lea n much less o he
o he disciplines.
Fa o able social con ex —i.e., good pe sonal ela ionships
and equen in e ac ion—and he in e es ingly compa ible
esul s o he sepa a ely ealized s udies in S ep 2 helped
mu ual lea ning p og ess and ind he needed link. G adually
a common language o all he h ee disciplines de eloped
a ound Bal ic salmon, ishe ies managemen , ishing
egula ion, p o i abili y, commi men , implemen a ion
unce ain y, and he Bayesian belie ne wo ks. The ishe ies
scien is s domina ed he collabo a ion a he beginning, bu as
he social scien is s and economis s g adually ook hei ole
in he wholeness, hey also could ake mo e esponsibili y in
he whole. Fo he in eg a ed model o be buil , i was a
p e equisi e ha all equally unde s ood he ask.
Fo he ou indi iduals who ca ied ou he main
in e disciplina y wo k om he beginning, change esul ing
om he in e disciplina y lea ning was mo e ob ious han o
he o he s, and a ound hem a small communi y e ol ed,
in ol ing people mo e o less engaged in in e disciplina i y.
This mean ha he in e disciplina y in e ac ion changed
owa ds a mo e manageable o m. I was s ongly shaped by
he Bayesian app oach, which equi ed s uc u ing he
p oblem in o ac o s, causal links, and u he o condi ional
p obabili y ables, and i o ced he scien is s o communica e
in a sys ema ic way.
Ecology and Socie y 17(1): 6
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol17/iss1/a 6/
CONCLUSIONS
Huu oniemi e al. (2010) and Klein (1990) emphasize
in e ac ion in dis inguishing in e disciplina i y om
mul idisciplina i y. Fo us, lea ning was bo h a equi emen
o in e disciplina i y, and an indica o o i . Ou s udy equi ed
app op ia ing cul u al ools om he o he disciplines ha
changed ou hinking, ou in e ac ion, and ou scien i ic
communi y.
We see in e disciplina i y as a lea ning p ocess ha akes place
on h ee le els: be ween indi iduals, be ween disciplines, and
be ween ypes o knowledge. This means, ha besides
app op ia ing new cul u al ools, we lea ned o use hem in an
in eg a i e way. Howe e , in eg a ion o knowledge would
no ha e been possible i links be ween disciplines had no
been ound, and his equi ed people o be able o communica e
wi h each o he .
Th ough con inuous discussion, esea che s ep esen ing
di e en disciplines lea ned o unde s and and espec each
o he 's way o hinking. In ou case, small collabo a i e eams,
good pe sonal chemis y, and p oximi y acili a ed his.
Scien i ic ambi ion and willingness o app op ia e new
cul u al ools, as well as he cou age o de ia e om he
disciplina y mains eam, we e essen ial cha ac e is ics o he
esea che s. Cou age was also needed in admi ing igno ance
o misunde s andings. Fo his, ge ing o know each o he was
impo an .
Lea ning be ween he disciplines mean acknowledging and
analyzing he disciplina y di e ences, and sea ching o a
common e i o y and a common language o enable he
unde s anding o each o he 's oles in ela ion o he p oblem
as well as sea ching o b idges o in eg a e knowledge. The
lexibili y o he disciplina y bounda ies in allowing he
esea che s o s ep back om he es ablished pa adigm was
es ed. The bounda ies o he social sciences and he biological
ishe ies sciences u ned ou o be mo e lexible han hose o
economics. The Bayesian belie ne wo ks, basically si ua ed
in no-one’s land, inally b idged hese h ee concep ually
di e en ields.
Lea ning a he le el o knowledge mean ha he aim o
in eg a ing knowledge was achie ed. Knowledge p oduced by
one discipline was upda ed by knowledge p oduced by ano he
discipline, which equi ed he common p obabilis ic language
o all he da a. The in eg a ed model enabled one ype o
knowledge o be examined in ligh o ano he ype o
knowledge, and i s uc u ed he esea ch p ocess. Thus,
lea ning also ook place be ween he model and he
esea che s.
W i ing his pape was a culmina ion poin o ou lea ning:
we unde s and mo e o he essence o in e disciplina i y now.
The w i ing p ocess con inced us o he impo ance o he
me hodological epochè and global ques ion o mula ion a he
ou se o a p ocess. We see ou u u e in u he de eloping
in e disciplina y app oaches based on his inding. The
Bayesian me hodology p o ides a p omising a enue;
howe e , po en ial al e na i e and complemen a y app oaches
need o be explo ed. Ano he challenge o us will be o
acili a e he lea ning p ocess o o he s by communica ing ou
expe ience, especially o Ph.D. s uden s. A e he e sho cu s,
o mus e e ybody ake a p esc ibed 8-yea cou se?
The Glass Bead Game should admi o e e y hing,
e en ha a single plan should cha in La in wi h
Linnaeus. ( om The Glass Bead Game, by He mann
Hesse, Nobel lau ea e in li e a u e 1946)
Responses o his a icle can be ead online a :
h p://www.ecologyandsocie y.o g/ ol17/iss1/a 6/ esponses/
Acknowledgmen s:
The s udy was ca ied ou wi h inancial suppo om he
Eu opean Communi y’s Se en h F amewo k P og amme
(FP7/2007-2013) unde g an ag eemen 212969, “Judgemen
and Knowledge in Fishe ies In ol ing S akeHolde s”
(JAKFISH). I does no e lec he iews o he Eu opean
Commission and in no way an icipa es he Commission’s
u u e policy in he a ea. We hank all he esea che s who
pa icipa ed in ou p ojec s, especially Ca he ine Michielsens
and Polina Le on in. We also hank E eliina Klemola o
commen ing on he pape in i s inaliza ion, and he
anonymous e iewe s and he edi o s o hei aluable
commen s and sugges ions. S. Kulmala acknowledges he
unding om The Cen al Union o Ag icul u al P oduce s
and Fo es Owne s (MTK).
LITERATURE CITED
Bal ic Sea Resea ch P og amme (BIREME). 2007. Bal ic Sea
Resea ch P og amme BIREME 2003–2006, e alua ion
epo . Publica ion o he Academy o Finland 5/07, Helsinki.
[online] URL:
h p://www.aka. i/Tiedos o /Tiedos o /Julkaisu
/5_07_Bi eme.pd .
Bazeley, P. 2007. Quali a i e da a analysis wi h NVi o. Sage,
London, England.
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1080/13645570210146285
Beche , T. 1989. Academic ibes and e i o ies: in ellec ual
enqui y and he cul u es o disciplines. Open Uni e si y P ess,
Su olk, England.
Be ge , P. L., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The social cons uc ion
o eali y: a ea ise in he sociology o knowledge. Ancho
Books, New Yo k, USA.
B adshaw, G. A., and M. Beko . 2001. Ecology and social
esponsibili y: he e-embodimen o science. T ends in