Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice
Open accessAbstract
Advances in the social sciences have emerged through a variety of research methods: field-based research, laboratory and field experiments, and agent-based models. However, which research method or approach is best suited to a particular inquiry is frequently debated and discussed. Working Together examines how different methods have promoted various theoretical developments related to collective action and the commons, and demonstrates the importance of cross-fertilization involving multimethod research across traditional boundaries. The authors look at why cross-fertilization is difficult to achieve, and they show ways to overcome these challenges through collaboration. The authors provide numerous examples of collaborative, multimethod research related to collective action and the commons. They examine the pros and cons of case studies, meta-analyses, large-N field research, experiments and modeling, and empirically grounded agent-based models, and they consider how these methods contribute to research on collective action for the management of natural resources. Using their findings, the authors outline a revised theory of collective action that includes three elements: individual decision making, microsituational conditions, and features of the broader social-ecological context. Acknowledging the academic incentives that influence and constrain how research is conducted, Working Together reworks the theory of collective action and offers practical solutions for researchers and students across a spectrum of disciplines.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Homologation enables indigenous territories to fulfill three CPR management requisites: clearly defined boundaries, collective management, and recognition of rights to organize.
“Thus, homologation enables indigenous territories to fulfill three of the CPR management requisites: “clearly defined boundaries,” “collective management,” and “recognition of rights to organize” (11–13, 30).”
From Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (2020) · cites this paper as [30]
The only passage returned from our copy is the book’s title and publication information (front matter; no page given). Searches for “homologation” and the three CPR requisites found no substantive passage, so this copy cannot establish whether the book supports the claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCollective action dilemmas arise when the interests of individuals run counter to the common interests of a group of individuals.
“Collective action dilemmas arise when the interests of individuals run counter to the common interests of a group of individuals (Olson, 1965;Poteete, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2010).”
From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Poteete, Janssen, & Ostrom, 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Marx, A., & Dusa, A. (2011) · Methodological Innovations Online · doi:10.4256/mio.2010.0037 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon
Baragwanath, K., & Bayi, E. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1917874117 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
A bottom-up institutional approach to cooperative governance of risky commons
Vasconcelos, V. V., Santos, F. C., & Pacheco, J. M. (2013) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1927 · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Collective action in a polycentric water governance system
Baldwin, E., McCord, P., Dell'Angelo, J., & Evans, T. (2018) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.1810 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
McGinnis, M. D., & Walker, J. M. (2010) · Public Choice · doi:10.1007/s11127-010-9626-5 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Naiga, R., Penker, M., & Hogl, K. (2017) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1274460 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Debate About the Concept of Value in Commons-Based Peer Production
Morell, M. F., Salcedo, J. L., & Berlinguer, M. (2016) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45982-0_3 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E.
- Venue
- Princeton University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Princeton University Press
- Published
- 2010-04-12
- OpenAlex
- W4205786108
- Cited by
- 1,403
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 112 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 119 · 2018: 123 · 2017: 92 · 2016: 94 · 2015: 99 · 2014: 99 · 2013: 114 · 2012: 70
- FWCI
- 134.44
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Princeton University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Science and Policy Research
- Keywords
- collective action, commons, multi-method research, agent-based modeling, field experiments, case studies, meta-analysis, natural resource management, social-ecological systems, individual decision-making, research collaboration, academic incentives
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review