IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/ufzdps/62009.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Beständigkeit im Raum des Sozialen: Der Begriff der Institution bei Arnold Gehlen

Author

Listed:
  • Petersen, Thomas
  • Manstetten, Reiner

Abstract

Most problems related to biodiversity management have an ecological as well as a socio-economic dimension. Consequently, there has been a growing recognition that adequate management recommendations directed at such problems can only be developed if knowledge from ecology, economics and various social science disciplines is taken into account in an integrated manner. To respond to the need for integrated research, a number of approaches have been proposed over the last decade or so with the aim of integrating knowledge from the natural and social sciences. These approaches emerged in different contexts and have integrated different disciplines. As the recognition of the need for integrated research is rather recent the approaches that integrate natural and social sciences are still in a phase of development. In order to further this development, a better understanding of how to tackle specific challenges that arise when knowledge from different disciplines is integrated may be helpful. The aim of this paper is to contribute to this task by analysing and comparing how selected approaches cope with one key challenge of integration: ensuring that state-of-the-art knowledge from both disciplines is used in the integrated approach. We selected the following approaches for comparison: Ecological-economic modelling, political ecology, the resilience approach, multi criteria analysis, and methods of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) of socio-ecological systems. We selected these approaches because there is already a significant amount of literature that can be referred to and because they represent integration of different disciplines. For our analysis we used an economic approach: we consider the incentive structure of researchers and focus on asymmetric information between researchers from different disciplines about the quality of scientific research of the involved disciplines and the worldviews behind scientific approaches. We find that in order to attract high quality researchers the integrated approaches need to be attractive to researchers from both disciplines (I) in terms of generating funding opportunities, (II) of publication opportunities in highly ranked journals accepted in each specific discipline and (III) in helping to solve problems related to conservation policies that are of interest to all involved researchers. Approaches that do not fulfil these conditions have to struggle with the problem that they attract researchers of low scientific quality which they cannot identify. They need to be aware of this trap. A possible solution may be to put particular emphasis on external reviews by independent researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Petersen, Thomas & Manstetten, Reiner, 2009. "Beständigkeit im Raum des Sozialen: Der Begriff der Institution bei Arnold Gehlen," UFZ Discussion Papers 6/2009, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzdps:62009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/44721/1/605022038.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elena Tsepilova S. & Е. Цепилова С. & В. Горобинская И., 2017. "ИНСТИТУЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ ПОДХОД К ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКЕ НАЛОГОВОЙ ПОЛИТИКИ ГОСУДАРСТВА // Institutional Approach to the Government Fiscal Policy," Экономика. Налоги. Право // Economics, taxes & law, ФГОБУ "Финансовый университет при Правительстве Российской Федерации" // Financial University under The Government of Russian Federation, vol. 10(2), pages 134-141.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:ufzdps:62009. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/doufzde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.