This paper investigates the opportunities for further collaboration between the natural and social sciences. From 81 systematically identified and reviewed papers published in scientific journals, it became clear that complex situations that depend on human behaviour as well as natural processes require natural–social science collaboration. The creation of a community of collaborative natural–social science research, that learns from and can contribute to best practice across the sciences, is advocated to support natural– social science collaboration. Across disciplines, it became clear that such a community should deal with (1) difference between paradigms in the current sciences; (2) creation of skills and competences of the involved scientists; (3) scarcity of institutions sympathetic to collaborative research; and (4) the internal organization of collaborative projects.
AgbayaniRF, BaticadosDB, SiarSB. 2000. Community fishery resourcesmanagement on Malalison Island, Philippines: R & D framework, interventions, and policy implications.Coastal Management28(1): 19–27.
2.
ArnasonR. 2009. Fisheries management andoperations research. European Journal of OperationalResearch193(3): 741–751. Doi:10.1016/J.Ejor.2007.07.028.
3.
BakerGH, LittleRG. 2006. Enhancing homeland security:Development of a course on critical infrastructure systems. Journalof Homeland Security and Emergency Management3(4): 15. Doi:4.
4.
BarryA, BornG, WeszkalnysG. 2008. Logics of interdisciplinarity.Economyand Society37(1): 20–49. Doi:10.1080/03085140701760841.
5.
BawaKS, KressWJ, NadkarniNM. 2004. Beyond paradise —Meeting the challenges in tropical biology in the 21st century.Biotropica36(3): 276–84. Doi: 10.1646/Q1609.
6.
BergsmaNynke, FischerArnoutRH, Van AsseltED, ZwieteringMarcelH, De JongAariekeEI. 2007. Consumer food preparationand its implication for survival of Campylobacter jejunion chicken.British Food Journal109(7): 548–61.
BybeeRodgerW. 2010. What is stem education?Science329(5995): 996.
11.
CeciSJ, WilliamsWM. 2003. The Cornell Institute forResearch on Children: A vision of integrated developmental science.Journalof Applied Developmental Psychology24(6): 681–96. Doi:10.1016/J.Appdev.2003.09.003.
12.
CliffordNJ. 2008. Models in geography revisited.Geoforum39(2): 675–86. Doi: 10.1016/J.Geoforum.2007.01.016.
13.
Committee on FacilitatingInterdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and PublicPolicy. 2004. Facilitating interdisciplinaryresearch. Washington, DC: TheNational Academies Press.
14.
CzechB. 2002. A transdisciplinary approachto conservation land acquisition.Conservation Biology16(6): 1488–97. Doi: 10·1046/J.1523-1739·2002·01046.X.
15.
De BoerYmkje, De GierAlice, VerschuurMarije, De WitBert. 2006. Building bridges: Researcherson their experience with interdisciplinary research in the Netherlands.Amsterdam: Rmno, Knaw, Nwo & Cso.
16.
EvelyAC, FazeyI, PinardM, LambinX. 2008. The influence of philosophicalperspectives in integrative research: A conservation case study in the CairngormsNational Park. Ecology and Society13(2): article52.
17.
FairweatherP. 1994. An interview with Dosamantes, Irma.American Journal of Dance Therapy16(1): 13–19. Doi: 10.1007/Bf02359238.
18.
Fife-SchawChris, RoweGene. 2000. Extending the applicationof the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risks:Some methodological considerations.Journal of RiskResearch3(2): 167–79.
19.
FischerArnoutRH, De JongAEI, De JongeR, FrewerLJ, NautaMJ. 2005. Improving food safety inthe domestic environment: The need for a transdisciplinary approach.RiskAnalysis25(3): 503–17. Doi:10·1111/J.1539-6924·2005·00618.X.
20.
FischerArnoutRH, FrewerLynnJ, NautaMaartenJ. 2006. Towards improving foodsafety in the domestic environment: A multi-item Rasch scale for the measurementof the safety efficacy of domestic food handling practices.RiskAnalysis26(5): 1323–38.
21.
ForsythTimothy. 1998. Mountain myths revisited:Integrating natural and social environmental science.MountainResearch and Development18(2): 107–16.
22.
FrancisCA. 1994. Practical applicationsof agricultural systems research in temperate countries.Journalof Production Agriculture7(1): 151–7.
23.
FrischknechtPM. 2000. Environmental science educationat the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Eth).WaterScience and Technology41(2): 31–6.
24.
FullerT, MoranP. 2001. Small enterprises as complexadaptive systems: A methodological question?Entrepreneurshipand Regional Development13(1): 47–63. Doi:10.1080/089856201750046801.
25.
GillerKE, LeeuwisC, AnderssonJA, AndriesseW, BrouwerA, FrostP, HebinckP, HeitkonigI, Van IttersumMK, KoningN, RubenR, SlingerlandM, UdoH, VeldkampT, Van De VijverC, Van WijkMT, WindmeijerP. 2008. Competing claims on naturalresources: What role for science?Ecology and Society13(2): article34.
26.
HammondGP. 2004. Towards sustainability:Energy efficiency, thermodynamic analysis, and the ‘two cultures’. EnergyPolicy32(16): 1789–98. Doi:10.1016/J.Enpol.2003.09.015.
27.
HansenJ, HolmL, FrewerLJ, RobinsonP, SandoeP. 2003. Beyond the knowledge deficit:Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks.Appetite41(2): 111–21.
JacobsonSK, RobinsonJG. 1990. Training the new conservationist —Cross-disciplinary education in the 1990s.EnvironmentalConservation17(4): 319–27.
31.
JensenI, NygrenA, GamberaleF, GoldieI, WesterholmP, JonssonE. 1995. The role of the psychologistin multidisciplinary treatments for chronic neck and shoulder pain —A controlled cost-effectiveness study.ScandinavianJournal of Rehabilitation Medicine27(1): 19–26.
32.
KlugeT, LiehrS, LuxA, MoserP, NiemannS, UmlaufN, UrbanW. 2008. IWRM concept for the CuvelaiBasin in northern Namibia.Physics and Chemistry ofthe Earth33(1–2): 48–55. Doi:10.1016/J.Pce.2007.04.005.
33.
KuhnTS. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
LattucaLisaR. 2003. Creating interdisciplinarity:Grounded definitions from college and university faculty.Historyof Intellectual Culture3(1): 1–20.
35.
Le CozeJC. 2005. Are organisations too complexto be integrated in technical risk assessment and current safety auditing?SafetyScience43(8): 613–38. Doi:10.1016/J.Ssci.2005.06.005.
36.
LeaheyE, ReikowskyRC. 2008. Research specializationand collaboration patterns in sociology.Social Studiesof Science38(3): 425–40.
37.
LiuS, CostanzaR, FarberS, TroyA. 2010. Valuing ecosystem servicestheory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. In Ecologicaleconomics reviews, ed. , LimburgK, CostanzaR, ed, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences1185: 54–78.
38.
MachlisGE. 1992. The contribution of sociologyto biodiversity research and management.BiologicalConservation62(3): 161–70. Doi:10.1016/0006-3207(92)91044-S.
39.
MartinelliA, MeyerM, Von TunzelmannN. 2008. Becoming an entrepreneurialuniversity? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudesin a medium-sized, research-oriented university.Journalof Technology Transfer33(3): 259–83. Doi:10.1007/S10961-007-9031-5.
40.
MasonWA, ConreyFR, SmithER. 2007. Situating social influenceprocesses: Dynamic, multidirectional flows of influence within social networks.Personalityand Social Psychology Review11(3): 279–300. Doi:10.1177/1088868307301032.
41.
MeddW, ChappellsH. 2007. Drought, demand and thescale of resilience: challenges for interdisciplinarity in practice.InterdisciplinaryScience Reviews32(3): 233–48. Doi:10.1179/030801807x211748.
42.
MillerRB. 1994. Interactions and collaborationin global change across the social and natural-sciences.Ambio23(1): 19–24.
43.
NautaMJ, FischerArnoutRH, Van AsseltED, De JongAariekeEI, FrewerLynnJ, De JongeRob. 2008. Food safety in the domesticenvironment: The effect of consumer risk information on human disease risks.RiskAnalysis28(1): 179–92.
NowotnyH, ScottP, GibbonsM. 2003. Introduction: ‘Mode2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge.Minerva41(3): 179–94.
46.
PeereboomJWC, BouwerK. 1993. Environmental science milieukundein the Netherlands — A review.Science of theTotal Environment129(1–2): 157–70.
47.
PhillipsonJeremy, LowePhilip. 2008. Towards sustainable foodchains: Harnessing the social and natural sciences.Trendsin Food Science & Technology19(5): 224–5.
48.
RogersY, ScaifeM, RizzoA. 2005. Interdisciplinarity: Anemergent or engineered process?InInterdisciplinarycollaboration: An emerging cognitive science, ed. , DerryS, SchunnC D, GernsbacherM A, ed, 265–86. Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA.
49.
RonteltapAmber, Van TrijpJCM, RenesRJ, FrewerLJ. 2007. Consumer acceptance oftechnology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics.Appetite49(1): 1–17.
ScialfaC, Pichora-FullerK, SpadaforaP. 2004. Interdisciplinary researcheducation in communication and social interaction among healthy older adults.EducationalGerontology30(9): 733–50. Doi:10.1080/03601270490498007.
52.
SimonHA. 1970. The sciences of the artificial, Karl Taylor Compton Lectures;E196. Cambridge, Ma: MITPress.
53.
SpeltEJH, BiemansHJA, TobiH, LuningPA, MulderM. 2009. Teaching and learning ininterdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. EducationalPsychology Review1–14.
54.
StrangV. 2009. Integrating the socialand natural sciences in environmental research: A discussion paper.Environment, Development and Sustainability11(1): 1–18.
55.
ThompsonKM, DeislerPF, SchwingRC. 2005. Interdisciplinary vision:The first 25 years of the society for risk analysis (SRA), 1980–2005.RiskAnalysis25(6): 1333–86. Doi:10·1111/J.1539-6924·2005·00702.X.
56.
TinyakovaE. 2007. Fieldwork: Man in the systemof nature and priority of natural laws in human life.CollegiumAntropologicum31(2): 601–12.
57.
VeldkampA, Van AltvorstAC, EwegR, JacobsenE, Van KleefA, Van LatesteijnH, MagerS, MommaasH, SmeetsPJAM, SpaansL, Van TrijpJCM. 2009. Triggering transitionstowards sustainable development of the Dutch agricultural sector: Transforum'sapproach.Agronomy for Sustainable Development29(1): 87–96.
58.
WalshWB, SmithGL, LondonM. 1975. Developing an interfacebetween engineering and social-sciences — Interdisciplinary team-approachto solving societal problems.American Psychologist30(11): 1067–71. Doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.30.11.1067.
