The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conceptual Models as Tools for Communication Across Disciplines
Open accessAbstract
To better understand and manage complex social-ecological systems, social scientists and ecologists must collaborate. However, issues related to language and research approaches can make it hard for researchers in different fields to work together. This paper suggests that researchers can improve interdisciplinary science through the use of conceptual models as a communication tool. The authors share lessons from a workshop in which interdisciplinary teams of young scientists developed conceptual models of social-ecological systems using data sets and metadata from Long-Term Ecological Research sites across the United States. Both the process of model building and the models that were created are discussed. The exercise revealed that the presence of social scientists in a group influenced the place and role of people in the models. This finding suggests that the participation of both ecologists and social scientists in the early stages of project development may produce better questions and more accurate models of interactions between humans and ecosystems. Although the participants agreed that a better understanding of human intentions and behavior would advance ecosystem science, they felt that interdisciplinary research might gain more by training strong disciplinarians than by merging ecology and social sciences into a new field. It is concluded that conceptual models can provide an inspiring point of departure and a guiding principle for interdisciplinary group discussions. Jointly developing a model not only helped the participants to formulate questions, clarify system boundaries, and identify gaps in existing data, but also revealed the thoughts and assumptions of fellow scientists. Although the use of conceptual models will not serve all purposes, the process of model building can help scientists, policy makers, and resource managers discuss applied problems and theory among themselves and with those in other areas.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Employing Philosophical Dialogue in Collaborative Science
Eigenbrode, S. D., O'rourke, M., Wulfhorst, J. D., Althoff, D. M., Goldberg, C. S., Merrill, K., Morse, W., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Stephens, J., Winowiecki, L., et al. (2007) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/b570109 · Cited by 411
Exploring the link between climate change and migration
L. Perch-Nielsen, S., B. Bättig, M., & Imboden, D. (2008) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9416-y · Cited by 329
Introduction to Energy Systems Modelling
Herbst, A., Toro, F., Reitze, F., & Jochem, E. (2012) · Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1007/bf03399363 · Cited by 290
Integrating social science into empirical models of coupled human and natural systems
Kline, J. D., White, E. M., Fischer, A. P., Steen-Adams, M. M., Charnley, S., Olsen, C. S., Spies, T. A., & Bailey, J. D. (2017) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-09329-220325 · Cited by 43
Bridging the Disciplinary Divide: Co-Creating Research Ideas in eScience Teams
Pennington, D. D. (2011) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-011-9134-2 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Heemskerk, M., Wilson, K., & Pavao-Zuckerman, M.
- Venue
- Conservation Ecology
- Publisher
- Resilience Alliance, Inc.
- Published
- 2003
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 1195-5449 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2103884743
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conceptual Models as Tools for Communication Across Disciplines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5751/es-00554-070308
- The paper
- Heemskerk, M., Wilson, K., & Pavao-Zuckerman, M. (2003). Conceptual Models as Tools for Communication Across Disciplines. Conservation Ecology. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-00554-070308
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.