Figure I - uploaded by Simon West
Content may be subject to copyright.
The adaptive management cycle (DPIPWE 2014; Jones 2005, 2009). Reprinted with kind permission of Glenys Jones and the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Wildlife and Heritage-DPIPWE)
Similar publications
This paper concludes a special feature of Sustainability Science that explores a broad range of social value theoretical traditions, such as religious studies, social psychology, indigenous knowledge, economics, sociology, and philosophy. We introduce the concepts of 'lenses' and 'tensions' to help navigate value diversity. First, we consider the n...
An analysis of environmental literacy that integrates ethnoscience in sustainable science learning between scientific knowledge and problems in life, as well as the value of local wisdom. This study was aimed to determine the profile of ethnoscience integrated environmental literacy. This research uses a survey method with a sampling technique of c...
Global industries are typically dominated by a few disproportionately large and influential transnational corporations, or keystone actors. While concentration of economic production is not a new phenomenon, in an increasingly interconnected and globalized world, the scale of the impacts of keystone actors on diverse social-ecological systems conti...
The advancement of sustainable competitiveness and its contribution to the sustainability of sustainable development are becoming increasingly important research topics in sustainability science. The main purpose of this study is to disseminate knowledge in the practice of entrepreneurship and to strengthen the theoretical foundation to support sou...
Citations
... The focus among interpretivist researchers is on knowledge production, while PR scholars are rather concerned with the changes produced in the world, including material dimensions, beyond knowledge production. Although interpretive approaches have been fruitful in sustainability science (Henwood, 2019;Heras & David Tàbara, 2014;Schultz et al., 2018;West, 2016), the focus on change and the attention to materiality that PR perspectives offer is, in our view, particularly appropriate for the study of interactions between society and nature. In fact, if serious attention is to be paid to what is produced at the intersection of social and natural processes, then it is necessary to go beyond human-attributed meanings, that is ideas and concepts, and find tools to include matter. ...
As sustainability scientists increasingly put forward the relevance of process‐relational approaches to make sense of social‐ecological phenomena, an inquiry on which methods would fit a process‐relational approach is necessary.
This paper discusses how a process‐relational approach can be applied to traditional qualitative research methods, namely interviews and coding and the tensions associated with it.
Process‐relational perspectives share commonalities with interpretative approaches but also present specific characteristics, such as the importance of material aspects and the understanding of the phenomenon as a moment in which different elements become defined respective to each other.
The paper uses data and researchers' experiences from an action research project seeking to support collective action among coastal communities affected by environmental changes in Kenya and Mozambique.
Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
... Interpretive research is based on the insight that much human and social action is intentional and shaped by meanings (Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2013). Such meanings are generated in the subjective mind and humans grasp the world by constantly interpreting our and others' actions (Wagenaar, 2011;West, 2016). Thus, lived everyday human experience and understanding lies at the core of social reality (ibid). ...
Breaking of rules, whether formal regulations, or community agreed norms, remains one of the most widespread challenges to sustainable use of marine ecosystems. Non-compliance is especially difficult in small-scale fisheries as it can undermine the provision of nutrition and livelihoods to the many millions dependent worldwide. Although fishery compliance scholarship today is expanding beyond non-economic explanations of (non)-compliance behaviour, approaches and theory used fail to show the diversity of perceptions and dispositions that can underpin motivations. Thus a fuller understanding is lacking towards addressing the acute need for increased fisheries compliance. This paper takes a Zanzibari case of a rapidly spreading community-based intervention - periodic octopus closures - to explore compliance outcomes amongst a diverse range of participants. We take a qualitative approach aligning with an interpretive paradigm to carry out story circles, photo elicitation tasks and focus groups at three sites in 2019. Two sociological strands of theory were used to interpret how participants justify, are motivated by or dispositioned towards rules, rule-makers and rule-breakers. Generally the intervention was supported, signalling the potential for future compliance most commonly based on recognition of a degraded marine ecosystem in need of protection. However the diverse and dynamic responses by groups indicated on which basis and through which logics compliance behaviour was condoned or legitimated. This type of insight can aid managers gauge or anticipate the potential for non-compliance in participatory approaches that can impact the health of marine ecosystems.
... This is one reason for why social-ecological system research has been criticized for dealing poorly with social theoretic aspects (Hornborg 2009, Boonstra 2016, Clark and Harley 2020. Although an increasing number of social-ecological system studies do now pay more nuanced attention to social and cultural aspects and (Olsson et al. 2014, West 2016, especially in the contexts of practice (von Heland and Folke 2014, Haider 2017, Masterson et al. 2017, the one thing they all have in common is that they continue to refer to the same 'classic' texts and maintaining them as canonical literature, so the ecological [material] emphasis continues to dominate the field. ...
The fashion industry contributes to shaping the state of the planet: impacts of production and consumption of textile fast-fashion are rising, and the growing number of sustainability-oriented actions have not slowed current trends. The industry’s (un)sustainability is mainly researched within two epistemic communities: fashion studies concerned with social sustainability, and circular economy focused on material biophysical and technological aspects of material cycles along the value chain. I argue that this split of social and ecological aspects is the problématique of sustainable fashion, and that the epistemic community of sustainability sciences should turn its attention to fashion.
My aim has been to develop a theoretically informed way of thinking critically about the intertwinedness of social- ecological systems, using fashion as a case study. I combine a social-ecological systems approach with critical realism as a metatheory of transdisciplinarity. My four mixed-methods research papers draw from data and information synthesis, ‘Keystone actor’ and business ecosystem analysis, literature review, analysis and critique of texts that shape theory and praxis in social-ecological systems approaches, and metatheoretic integration.
My thesis provides a better understanding that the depth of fashion’s social-ecological intertwinedness is more than what is observed, studied and experienced. It contributes to a theoretical framework showing why sustainability of fashion needs to be thought of in terms of systems that reflect real connectivity and diversity, supporting fashion industry engagement with intrinsically intertwined material and social dimensions. Bringing attention to this intertwinedness opens up for possibilities and creative thinking for sustainable fashions.
... More by chance and intuition than design, the authors of this paper followed the latter approach. We both conducted our PhDs in inter-and transdisciplinary sustainability science: Caroline followed a behavioural approach, using insights from behavioural economics, psychology, common-pool resources, and complex adaptive systems to explore human behaviour and collective action in relation to drastic environmental change (Schill et al., 2015;Schill, 2017), and Simon adopted an interpretive approach, using insights from interpretive policy analysis, discourse analysis, and critical social theory to explore contextual meanings and practices in natural resource management (West, 2016;West et al., 2019). As we finished our PhDs, we became intrigued by the similarities and differences between our two approaches. ...
... More by chance and intuition than design, the authors of this paper followed the latter approach. We both conducted our PhDs in inter-and transdisciplinary sustainability science: Caroline followed a behavioural approach, using insights from behavioural economics, psychology, common-pool resources, and complex adaptive systems to explore human behaviour and collective action in relation to drastic environmental change (Schill et al., 2015;Schill, 2017), and Simon adopted an interpretive approach, using insights from interpretive policy analysis, discourse analysis, and critical social theory to explore contextual meanings and practices in natural resource management (West, 2016;West et al., 2019). As we finished our PhDs, we became intrigued by the similarities and differences between our two approaches. ...
Methods are often thought of as neutral tools that researchers can pick up and use to learn about a reality ‘out there.’ Motivated by growing recognition of complexity, there have been widespread calls to mix methods, both within and across disciplines, to generate richer scientific understandings and more effective policy interventions. However, bringing methods together often reveals their tacit, inherently contestable, and sometimes directly opposing assumptions about reality and how it can and should be known. There are consequently growing efforts to identify the competencies necessary to work with multiple methods effectively. We identify the ability to recognise and negotiate the ethical-political dimensions of research methods as a key competency in mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research, particularly for researchers addressing societal challenges in fields like environment, health and education. We describe these ethical-political dimensions by drawing on our experiences developing an ethics application for a transdisciplinary sustainability science project that brings together the photovoice method and controlled behavioural experiments. The first dimension is that different methods and methodological approaches generate their own ethical standards guiding interactions between researchers and participants that may contradict each other. The second is that these differing ethical standards are directly linked to the variable effects that methods have in wider society (both in terms of their enactment in the moment and the knowledge generated), raising more political questions about the kinds of realities that researchers are contributing to through their chosen methods. We identify the practices that helped us—as two researchers using different methodological approaches—to productively explore these dimensions and enrich our collaborative work. We conclude with pointers for evaluating the ethical-political rigour of mixed methods, inter- and transdisciplinary, and co-production research, and discuss how such rigour might be supported in research projects, graduate training programmes and research organisations.
... Alonso Roldán, Villasante, & Outeiro, 2015;Cooke et al., 2016;Giusti, 2018;West, 2016). This indicates the need for reflection and more explicit consideration of the ontological commitments our research is based on. ...
Research on social‐ecological systems (SES) has highlighted their complex and adaptive character and pointed to the importance of recognizing their intertwined nature.
Yet, we often base our analysis and governance of SES on static and independent objects, such as actors and resources which are not well suited to address complexity and intertwinedness. This bias, which is largely implicit, has its roots in substance ontologies that have influenced most of contemporary science.
This paper argues that it is useful to critically reflect on this ontological grounding and develop SES research from a process ontological perspective.
Key insights are that process ontological concepts such as process, event and possibility space are able to overcome the dichotomy between the social and the ecological and allow for a conceptualization of continuous change (dynamism) that enhances our understanding of SES as truly intertwined and complex systems.
This will enable SES researchers to conceptualize problems as well as corresponding solutions in novel ways which will ultimately support the development of novel governance approaches, from rethinking the aims of policies from managing people towards managing relations between and among people and the natural system.
To fully tap the potential which comes with a change in worldview towards a process ontology, changing research approaches and ways of abstracting are required.
... Current debates on the delineations of the two research pathways argue that sustainability science and social-ecological systems research are closely related, without consistently elucidating and defining their relationship. Folke et al. (2016) plea, for instance, for a biosphere-based sustainability science, suggesting that social-ecological systems research is a subset of sustainability science (see also West 2016, Balvanera et al. 2017a or could be considered complementary (Redman 2014). In the same vein, Brandt et al. (2013) do not consider social-ecological systems research on its own right, but rather frame it as the subject of research of sustainability science. ...
Although sustainability science and social-ecological systems research pursue very similar goals, i.e., generate problem- and solution-oriented knowledge to foster sustainability transformation, they partly apply different research approaches and use different key concepts. Our aim is to identify archetypes of sustainability transformation research derived for sustainability science and social-ecological systems research that make knowledge from the two research pathways more accessible to each other in order to foster transformation. To reach this goal, we applied a mixed method approach toward an archetype analysis, based on semantic networks and clusters. Our findings point out that the fields of sustainability science and social-ecological systems research are rather coherent and not so distinct as may be expected, especially in terms of normative goals and addressed topics. Our analysis inductively reveals four archetypes of sustainability transformation research, with thematic structures clustered around (1) environmental change and ecosystem services; (2) resilience and vulnerability; (3) knowledge production for sustainability; and (4) governance for sustainability. We describe how these archetypes interact and facilitate dialogue between the fields. When considering the two transformation research pathways from the perspective of the research mode of transdisciplinary research, their discourses appear more disconnected. To fill this gap, we uncover key concepts that can strengthen the connection of the two fields to inform and foster sustainability transformations. These concepts involve engaging with nonacademic actors and seeking impact in policy.
... van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006;Clark et al. 2016). Nevertheless, there is a need for more work that mobilizes social theory to develop transdisciplinary sustainability interventions that are simultaneously complexity-oriented, critically reflexive and normatively committed (West 2016). ...
The imperative to “link knowledge and action” is widely invoked as a defining characteristic of sustainability research. The complexities of sustainability challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss mean that linear models of knowledge and action, where knowledge is produced first (by researchers) then “applied to” action (by policy actors), are considered insufficient. Researchers have developed more dynamic, open-ended and collaborative forms of policy engagement such as transdisciplinary and co-production research. Although promising these approaches often remain captive to linear assumptions that hinder their transformative potential. We contribute by providing a relational model of knowledge and action rooted in contemporary practice theory. A practice-based approach suggests the primary task of participants in transdisciplinary interventions is to find workable solutions to situations of dynamic complexity that are fundamentally indeterminate and unpredictable. Knowledge is not “applied to” action, but drawn upon, produced and used from within the situation at hand, allowing researchers and policy actors alike to better harness the emergent character of situational developments and outcomes. A practice-based approach provides a conceptual language that captures the experienced complexities of intervening for sustainability, reconfigures the nature of “actionable knowledge,” and identifies appropriate modes of evaluation for transdisciplinary and co-produced research.
... These 10 BRs are: Bosque Mbaracayú, Cape West Coast, Doñana, Isla de El Hierro, Kruger to Canyons, La Palma, Menorca, Noosa, Sumaco, and Mornington Peninsula and Western Port. 6 These reserves were selected to cover a diverse range of environmental and socio-economic contexts, sustainable development strategies, and governance systems (West, 2016). To select interviewees, interviewers asked reserve managers for participatory projects in their BR, both successful and unsuccessful, as well as implementation and decisionmaking projects. ...
The aim of this paper is to investigate if stakeholder participation increases the legitimacy of nature reserves in the surrounding community. Most previous studies of the effects of stakeholder participation in natural resource management have relied on case studies, but in this paper we use a combination of panel data from a two-wave survey (2008 and 2013) of 92 Biosphere Reserves (BRs) in 36 countries and semi-structured interview data from 65 stakeholder respondents in a sub-sample of 10 BRs to systematically investigate the effects of stakeholder participation on the legitimacy of the natural reserve in the local community. The data cover four levels of stakeholder participation: (1) Information, (2) Implementation, (3) Involvement and (4) Representation. These levels roughly correspond to rungs on Arnstein’s ladder of participation, and the expected outcome is that the legitimacy of the nature reserve will increase in the surrounding local community as the degree of participation increases. However, findings suggest that there is no linear relationship between participation and legitimacy: climbing upwards on Arnstein’s ladder of participation does not uniformly enhance the level of legitimacy of the nature reserve in the local community. Instead, a practice-based form of participation is what seems to increase legitimacy.
... The answer to this question is anything but trivial. Yet, although arguably at the core of a transformative approach to sustainability, questions of values and power in sustainability research have received limited attention in the academic literature (Lövbrand et al., 2015;Turnhout et al., 2016;van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2006;West, 2016). There are some notable exceptions, such as a study by Milkoreit et al. (2015) discussing values in resilience scholarship and by Miller (2013) discussing normative dimensions of sustainability science. ...
... Global change and sustainability research have become increasingly concerned with action, solutions and societal change (Future Earth, 2014;Lahsen, 2016;van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2006;West, 2016). Global change and sustainability research build on a long tradition of describing and explaining major earth system transformations and societal change processes. ...
... Second, as social studies of science have long held, the socially situated and normative position of the researcher and her researchinfluences the research process and outcomes, regardless of whether researchers are aware of possible biases and make them explicit (Milkoreit et al., 2015;Rosendahl et al., 2015;West, 2016). While transparency about values and assumptions is a widely shared norm, it is often argued that sustainability researchers need to go further and take a reflexive stance with respect to personal and collective valuecommitments and the way in which these affect knowledge claims (Mukhtarov, 2016;Pasgaard et al., 2017;Popa et al., 2014;Wittmayer and Schäpke, 2014). ...
... Norgaard and Kallis [13 ] also note this lack of conceptual clarity; for this and other reasons a meta-evaluation of the efficacy of transition/transformation discourses and praxis in maintaining, or initiating, improvements in the governing of human-environment relations is warranted (e.g. [73]). Practice Labs: the example of 'watershed systems science' ...
