ABSTRACT
At the interface of the nexus between people and plants, we have the discipline of ethnobotany. While, in the past, this discipline may have been dominated by biophysical scientists, Martin (1995) has firmly made the point that ethnobotany is a multidisciplinary subject, requiring expertise in botany, ethnopharmacology, anthropology, ecology, economics and linguistics. This book has focused on the economic issues related to valuing forests, and has made the point that valuation requires strong disciplinary skills in economics in order to avoid falling prey to numerous potential pitfalls (see ‘Importance of remaining observant and critical’ in Chapter 1). In Chapter 6 participatory approaches were discussed, drawing attention to the benefits of involving stakeholders in the research process and of establishing the context within which valuation can be understood (see Figure 7.1). This chapter looks at the need for disciplinary integration (see the following section) and the difference between ‘multidisciplinary’ and ‘interdisciplinary’ (‘Multidisciplinarity or interdisciplinar-ity?’). It then reflects on the need for incorporating stakeholders in the research process (‘Incorporating stakeholders in the research agenda’). The concepts (‘Some concepts that promote interdisciplinarity’) and methods (‘Approaches and methods to foster interdisciplinarity’) that could possibly promote an interdisciplinary approach are also considered. Finally, this chapter examines the constraints to an interdisciplinary approach (‘Constraints to interdisciplinarity’). A team of ecologists and economists interacting with villagers during a PRA exercise. In this exercise, the sustainability of various resources was investigated https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781849773614/3ea09167-e714-408e-8077-1db771c6c353/content/fig7_1_C.jpg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"/> Note: A number of results from a PRA workshop are presented in Table 7.2. Photograph by Tim Hoffman Ecological sustainability analysis using matrix-ranking during a PRA workshop in Jinga Village, Zimbabwe. Participants allocated stones for different resources during different time periods to indicate the trends they perceived and projected https://www.niso.org/standards/z39-96/ns/oasis-exchange/table">
Products/species
Numbers of stones allocated
1980
1993
circa 2006
Fruits
Berchemia discolor
7
6
4
Adansonia digitata
12
12
12
Diospyros mespiliformis
8
6
4
Strychnos madagascariensis
7
6
3
Mushrooms
7
0
0
Honey
8
1
1
Mopane worms
2
0
0
Medicinal plants
9
6
5
Firewood/construction wood
Colophospermum mopane
8
5
3
Combretum apiculatum
7
4
3
Brush fencing: Acacia spp
10
10
10
Reeds for crafts
8
4
3
Note: The time periods relate to Zimbabwean independence (1980), the time of the workshop (1993) and ‘when the small children become adults’ (circa 2006).