Skip to main content
Login
  1. Home
  2. The Field Guide to Mixing Social and Biophysical Methods in Environmental Research
  3. 3. Framing, disciplines and mixing methods in environmental research
Open Book Publishers

Framing, disciplines and mixing methods in environmental research

  • Stuart Lane(author)
  • Rebecca Lave(author)
Chapter of: The Field Guide to Mixing Social and Biophysical Methods in Environmental Research(pp. 15–38)
  • Export Metadata
  • Metadata
  • Locations
  • Contributors
  • References

Export Metadata

Metadata
Title Framing, disciplines and mixing methods in environmental research
ContributorStuart Lane(author)
Rebecca Lave(author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0418.03
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.03
Licensehttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
CopyrightStuart N. Lane; Rebecca Lave;
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2025-02-25
Long abstract

The academy is built upon disciplines which both enable and constrain what we do, so defining the methods we choose to use and how we use them; and in turn determining the knowledge produced by our research. In this Chapter, we define this process as one of framing and illustrate different kinds of framing using examples from Section 2 of The Field Guide. We describe how frames can be mixed in four different ways, in cross-disciplinary, multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary settings. The mixing of methods in each of these may allow research questions to be answered in different ways. Across them, the extent to which methods are modified, how they are combined and who is involved in combining them will change. But behind them all is a single theme which is where what is mixed and how is framed by what is being researched rather than how disciplines say it should be researched. This can make mixing methods a challenge as it may sit uncomfortably with disciplinary norms; but also because mixing methods may challenge the traditional and supposed separation of the researcher and what is being researched.

Page rangepp. 15–38
Print length24 pages
LanguageEnglish (Original)
Locations
Landing PageFull text URLPlatform
PDFhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.03Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0418.03.pdfFull text URL
HTMLhttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0418/chapters/10.11647/obp.0418.03Landing pagehttps://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0418/ch3.xhtmlFull text URLPublisher Website
Contributors

Stuart Lane

(author)
Professor of Geomorphology at University of Lausanne
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6077-6076

Stuart N. Lane is Professor of Geomorphology at the University of Lausanne. He is a geographer and civil engineer by training who has held posts at the Universities of Cambridge, Leeds and Durham in the U.K. and Lausanne in Switzerland. His work has sought to bring a geographical perspective to contemporary environmental concerns such as flooding and pollution. The primary focus of his current work is the environments created by disappearing glaciers in terms of ice, water, sediment and ecosystems and the consequences of these changes for environmental management. An important thread through his most recent research criticizes the current alignment of geography as a discipline with the ever more neo-liberal academy; and then argues for the rediscovery of a more scientific geographical science better able to cope with the crises the world is experiencing today.

Rebecca Lave

(author)
Professor of Geography at Indiana University
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5335-9058

Rebecca Lave is Professor of Geography at Indiana University and the 2022-2025 American Association of Geographers Vice-President/President/Past-President. Her research takes a Critical Physical Geography approach, combining political economy, STS, and fluvial geomorphology to analyze stream restoration, the politics of environmental expertise, and community-based responses to flooding. She has published in journals ranging from Science to Social Studies of Science and is the author of two monographs: Fields and Streams: Stream Restoration, Neoliberalism, and the Future of Environmental Science (2012, University of Georgia Press) and Streams of Revenues: The Restoration Economy and the Ecosystems it Creates (2021 MIT Press; co-written with Martin Doyle). She has co-edited four volumes, including the Handbook of Critical Physical Geography (2018, with Christine Biermann and Stuart N. Lane).

References
  1. Aligica, P.D. 2004. ‘The challenge of the future and the institutionalization of interdisciplinarity: notes on Herman Khan’s legacy’, Futures, 36, pp. 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-3287(03)00136-8
  2. Armstrong, J.H., A.C. Nisi, and A. Millard-Ball. 2022. ‘A disciplinary divide in the framing of urbanization’s environmental impacts’, Conservation Science and Practice, 4, pp. e624. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.624
  3. Bateson, G. 1955. ‘A theory of play and fantasy’, Psychiatric Research Reports, 2, pp. 39–51.
  4. Blond, N., Chapter 20, this volume. ‘Mixing geoarchaeology, geohistory and ethnology to reconstruct landscape changes on the longue durée’.
  5. Bolman, L.G. and T.E. Deal. 1984. Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations (Jossey-Bass).
  6. Booth, E. and Gottschalk Druschke, C., Chapter 15, this volume. ‘“A hydrologist and a rhetorician walk into a workshop,” or how we learned to collaborate on a decade of mixed methods river research across the humanities and biophysical sciences’.
  7. Braun, A., Chapter 39, this volume. ‘(Critical) Satellite remote sensing’.
  8. Brewer, G.D. 1999. ‘The challenges of inter-disciplinarity’, Policy Sciences, 32, pp. 327–37. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004706019826
  9. Bruce, A., C. Lyall, J. Tait, and R. Williams. 2004. ‘Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework Programme’, Futures, 36, pp. 457–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.003
  10. Brysse, K., N. Oreskes, J. O’Reilly, and M. Oppenheimer. 2012. ‘Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?, Global and Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 23, pp. 327–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008
  11. Campbell, D.T. 1969. ‘Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience’, in Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, ed. by M. Sherif and C.W. Sherif (Aldine), pp. 328–48.
  12. Chignell, S., Howkins, A. and Fountain, A., Chapter 18, this volume. ‘Antarctic Mosaic: Mixing Methods and Metaphors in the McMurdo Dry Valleys’.
  13. De Feo, G., S. de Gisi, S. de Vita, and M. Notarnicola. 2018. ‘Sustainability assessment of alternative end-uses for disused areas based on multi-criteria decision-making method’, Science of The Total Environment, 631.2, pp. 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.016
  14. Dixon, S.J., D.A. Sear, N.A. Odoni, T. Sykes, and S.N Lane. 2016. ‘The effects of river restoration on catchment scale flood risk and flood hydrology’, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 41, pp. 997–1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3919
  15. Dorling, D. 2023. Shattered Nation: Inequality and the Geography of a Failed State (Verso).
  16. Fleck, L. 1935. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (University of Chicago Press).
  17. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage Publications).
  18. Gieryn, T.F. 2006. ‘City as truth-spot: Laboratories and field-sites in urban studies’, Social Studies of Science, 36, pp. 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705054526
  19. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of Experience (Harvard University Press).
  20. Gooding, D. 1990. ‘Mapping experiment as a learning process: how the first electromagnetic motor was invented’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15, pp. 165–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399001500202
  21. Hunt, J. and S. Shackley. 1999. ‘Re-conceiving science and policy: academic, fiducial and bureaucratic knowledge’, Minerva, 37, pp. 141–64. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004696104081
  22. Jacobs, J.A. 2014. In Defense of Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University (University of Chicago Press). https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226069463.001.0001
  23. Karlqvist, A. 1999. ‘Going beyond disciplines: the meanings of interdisciplinarity’, Policy Sciences, 32, pp. 379–83. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1004736204322
  24. Kasvi, E., Chapter 45, this volume. ‘Uncrewed Airborne Systems’.
  25. Kelley, L., Chapter 19, this volume. ‘Engaging remote sensing and ethnography to seed alternative landscape stories and scripts’.
  26. Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press).
  27. Lahsen, M. 2005. ‘Seductive simulations? Uncertainty distribution around climate models,’ Social Studies of Science, 35, pp. 895–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705053049
  28. Landström, C., Chapter 35, this volume. ‘Participatory modelling’.
  29. Landstrom, C., S.J. Whatmore, S.N. Lane, N. Odoni, N. Ward, and S. Bradley. 2011. ‘Coproducing flood risk knowledge: redistributing expertise in critical “participatory modelling”’, Environment and Planning A, 43, pp. 1617–33. https://doi.org/10.1068/a43482
  30. Lane, S. N. and Lave, R., Chapter 3, this volume. ‘Frames, disciplines and mixing methods in environmental research’.
  31. Lane, S.N., Chapter 30, this volume. ‘Hydraulic modelling’.
  32. Lane, S.N., C.J. Brookes, A.L. Heathwaite, and S.M. Reaney. 2006. ‘Surveillant science: challenges for the management of rural environments emerging from the new generation diffuse pollution models’, Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57, pp. 239–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2006.00050.x
  33. Lattuca, L.R. 2001. Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching among College and University Faculty (Vanderbilt University Press). https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv167563f
  34. Latour, B. and S. Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Sage Publications).
  35. Latour, B. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (Harvard University Press).
  36. Lewin, K. 1946. ‘Action research and minority problems’, Journal of Social Issues, 2, pp. 34–4.
  37. Malone, M., Chapter 16, this volume. ‘Using mixed methods to confront disparities in public health interventions in urban community gardens’.
  38. Melsen, L., Chapter 31, this volume. ‘Hydrological modelling’.
  39. Mokos, J., Chapter 36, this volume. ‘Participatory modelling’.
  40. Nicolini, D., J. Mengis, and J. Swan. 2012. ‘Understanding the role of objects in cross-disciplinary collaboration’, Organization Science, 23, pp. 612–629. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0664
  41. Park, M., E. Leahey, and R.J. Funk. 2023. ‘Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time’, Nature, 613, pp. 138–44. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x
  42. Petts, J., S. Owens, and H. Bulkeley. 2008. ‘Crossing boundaries: interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments’, Geoforum, 39, pp. 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.02.008
  43. Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension (University of Chicago Press).
  44. Reinholz, D.L. and N. Apkarian. 2018. ‘Four frames for systemic change in STEM departments’, International Journal of STEM Education, 5.3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0103-x
  45. Rittel, H.W.J. and M.M. Webber. 1973. ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, Policy Sciences, 4, pp. 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01405730
  46. Rusca, M. and Mazzoleni, M., Chapter 14, this volume. ‘The interface between hydrological modelling and political ecology’.
  47. Salomon C.J. 2013. ‘Beyond prejudice: conservation in the city: a case study from Switzerland’, Biological Conservation, 166C, pp. 84–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.015
  48. Sayre, N.F., Chapter 34, this volume. ‘Participant observation and ethnography’.
  49. Schoenberger, E. 2001. ‘Interdisciplinarity and social power’, Progress in Human Geography, 25, pp. 365–81. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913201680191727
  50. Snow, D.A., D.B. Rocheford, S.K. Worden, and R.D. Benford. 1986. ‘Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation’, American Sociological Review, 51, pp. 464–481. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095581
  51. Shackley, S., J. Risbey, P. Stone, and B. Wynne. 1999. ‘Adjusting to policy expectations in climate change modeling—an interdisciplinary study of flux adjustments in coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models’, Climatic Change, 43, pp. 413–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005474102591
  52. Sivapalan, M., H.H.G. Savenije, and G. Blöschl. 2012. ‘Socio-hydrology: A new science of people and water: invited commentary’, Hydrological Processes, 26, pp. 1270–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8426
  53. Stengers, I. 2005. ‘The cosmopolitical proposal’, in Making Things Public, ed. by B. Latour and P. Weibel (MIT Press), pp. 994–1003.
  54. Stengers, I. 2013. Une autre science est possible (Editions La découverte).
  55. Sundberg, M. 2009. ‘The everyday world of simulation modeling: the development of parameterizations in meteorology’, Science Technology and Human Values, 34, pp. 162–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907310215
  56. Swales, J.M. 1997. ‘English as Tyrannosaurus rex’, World Englishes, 16, pp. 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971x.00071
  57. Tress, B., G. Tress, and G. Fry. 2005. ‘Integrative studies on rural landscape: policy expectations and research practice’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, pp. 177–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.013
  58. Walters, G., Hymas, O., Touladjan, S., and Ndong, K., Chapter 13, this volume. ‘Revealing the social histories of ancient savannas and intact forests using a historical ecology approach in Central Africa’.
  59. Yu, D. and S.N. Lane. 2006. ‘Urban fluvial flood modelling using a two-dimensional diffusion wave treatment: 2. Development of a sub-grid scale treatment’, Hydrological Processes, 20, pp. 1567–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5936

Export Metadata

UK registered social enterprise and Community Interest Company (CIC).

Company registration 14549556

Metadata

  • By book
  • By publisher
  • GraphQL API
  • Export API

Resources

  • Downloads
  • Videos
  • Merch
  • Presentations
  • Service status

Contact

  • Email
  • Bluesky
  • Mastodon
  • Github

Copyright © 2026 Thoth Open Metadata. Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.