Are there particular ways forward that can help consolidate various different strands of work into unified conceptual frameworks, or is it best to focus on our own specialties and not worry so much about big picture things? Should more or less effort be given to framework building and unification?
Depends what you mean by “conceptual frameworks”. If by “conceptual frameworks” you mean “opinion/perspectives-type papers in which the only figure is a bunch of colored blobs with words in them, connected up by arrows or arranged in some 2-D space”, then ecologists spend too much effort developing them. I don’t think those sorts of “conceptual frameworks” have much value. They’re too vague.
If by “conceptual frameworks” you mean unifying mathematical frameworks that subsume a wide range of different special cases, then ecologists should put more effort into developing them. Those sorts of conceptual frameworks are super-useful and I think they’re an underused approach in ecology. Think modern coexistence theory, for instance. See here (scroll down to #4) and here. One important use of unifying mathematical frameworks is to allow everyone to work on their own specialties while also contributing to the big picture. Everybody can work on their own case studies, using whatever specialized, case-specific techniques they need to use–and yet we also know exactly how to compare and contrast among all those case studies, because they’re all covered by the same unifying framework. But depending on exactly what you’re trying to unify, unifying mathematical frameworks might not exist or might be hard to develop.
There are other things one might mean by “conceptual framework” or “unification”, of course (again, see this list). I have no strong opinions on whether ecologists should put more or less effort than they currently do into pursuing those other routes to “unification”.
More broadly, there certainly is a widely-shared (but not universal) sense among ecologists that their field isn’t a unified, coherent discipline. But one can argue that that’s a good thing on balance. That it’s on balance good for ecology as a whole to be done by ecologists with a diversity of interests, goals, and approaches.
In general I support more conceptual frameworks that unify diverse threads and I appear to be more open to different versions of conceptual frameworks than Jeremy puts forth.
The area of conceptual framework I have personally worked on the most is finding unifying principles under seemingly disparate work. So my paper Towards a Unification of Unified Theories is something I am really proud of. Several authors had worked to show that diverse biodiversity patterns like species area relationships, species abundance distributions and other patterns were all interrelated. That was a big step. But then different authors showed they were unified by methods as diverse as neutral dynamics, fractals, maximum entropy, stochastic geometry, sampling theory, etc. I argued that these diverse theories all really shared 3 underlying assumptions. But then I am highly biased towards synthetic work that pulls strands together.
I think just having a box and arrow diagram of causal influences can be helpful. Certainly its testable (do these arrows usually exist or not?). Having the list of forces that act on a system is no small thing. See this blog post on multicausality. I certainly think mathematical models are useful when they’re unifying diverse threads – mathematical models that dig down into the implications of ever more obscure details are not.
In principal verbal conceptual models can advance science, but so often either the terms or the logic are too vague and cause enormous confusion. Mark Vellend’s 4 forces of community ecology is a nice example where that didn’t happen and the verbal model did advance the field (of course that is partly because there is math underneath that prevented the logic from going too far astray, but the terms are still vague yet successful).
So to your last question of what should ecology do. Ecology is subject to immense centrifugal forces. Everybody works on a unique question in a unique system. I would come down unhesitatingly on the need for more effort to unify ecology and pretty much some form of framework is the only way I know to do that.