Growing into interdisciplinarity: how to converge biology, economics and social science in fisheries research?

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