Killian Farrell

Last week’s class marked the final meeting for our course MEES620: Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Our class has gone through many different topics related to coupled systems, from resource assessment to cultural views of nature. This was reflected in the many topics and research approaches in the proposals reviewed on this last day.

In the previous two weeks, each students presented their initial thoughts for their research proposal on a coupled human and natural system (Presentation Week 1 Blog, Presentation Week 2 Blog). Since that class, students wrote and submitted their final written proposals, and in turn also reviewed their classmates' papers by providing ratings on the different sections of the proposal. During class time, the panel of 3 students presented their initial ratings and then discussed and negotiated (or didn’t) a final score for each proposal.

After a quick summary of each proposal was given by the lead reviewer, the panel then gave their initial scores on the 4 main sections of the paper: Description of the Coupled System, Research Approach, Intellectual Merit, and Broader Impacts (based on NSF GRFP guidelines). The scale for scores was: 1 – poor, 2 – fair, 3 – good, 4 – very good, and 5 – excellent. The review panel then debated until a final set of scores was agreed upon. This was occasionally very quick, but often involved some debate with neither side willing to give in to each other’s reasons for differing scores. In some cases, the panelists were unable to reach a consensus on a final score, and the facilitator had to step in to wrap up the discussion. In the end, some students raised their scores and others lowered, but overall the final scores tended to be the average score given by the three panelists.

Looking at all the scores students gave each other on each section of the proposals, the section with the lowest average score was ‘Research Approach’. This is perhaps unsurprising, since methods weren’t the main focus of this course, and students' relative inexperience in this section led to occasionally vague or incomplete descriptions. However, through this class we were able to explore new topics in coupled human and natural systems, guiding us to possibly take other specific courses such as social network analysis or cultural modeling [pdf] to become better versed in the difference methodologies that can be used. Though this section may have been a little lacking today, in the future, with more practice and classes, the students will be able to improve.

Another common comment was that the reviewers would like to see more information or details to be provided – whether more description of one side of the coupled systems, more details in the research approach, or a better explanation of expected results and benefits to society. Our proposals originally had a limit of 2 pages, which was then extended to 3. All students passed the original page limit, often writing 3 or 4 pages. This highlights the difficulties of wholly describing coupled human and natural systems, along with the research approach, in a proposal with a short page limit. This experience gave us some good practice in identifying and briefly describing what was necessary. During the panel, the reviewers gave suggestions on which sections need more emphasis or trimming down.

The section of the proposal with the highest average scores for our class was the ‘Broader Impacts’ section. This was the section where you described how the proposed work could benefit society, and could be applied to help reach societal goals. The students presented their case strongly in almost all proposals for their coupled human and natural systems. This also demonstrates how the topics of the Coupled Human and Natural Systems course is so important. The coupled human and natural systems thinking could be applied to the research of pretty much everyone in the class, and understanding these systems together will be critical to help solve many important global issues, such as pollution and climate change.

Overall our proposal review panels were a success, with students giving fair evaluation of each other's proposals, and everyone honing their skills on writing and working with topics related to coupled human and natural systems. The good work and good discussion throughout the class showed the success of the course in teaching about such broad and complex topics.

And one last note, a final measure of the success of this class and blog: Can you use the word epistemology in a sentence? (hint)

Some further reading on topics from this course:

• Cronon, William. Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. New York, NY: Norton, 1996. Print.
• Dahlstrom, M. F. 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13614-13620.
• Hanneman, R. A. & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. (http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/)
• Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter S R, Folke C, Alberti M, Redman C L, et al. 2007. Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science 317(5844):1513-1516.
• Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
• Paolisso, M., Weeks, P., & Packard, J. 2013. A cultural model of farmer land conservation. Human Organization, 72(1), 12-22.