The social component of social-ecological research: moving from the periphery to the center (original) (raw)

Ecology and the social sciences

Journal of Applied Ecology, 2009

1. The urgency and complexity of current environmental problems require ecologists to engage in cross-disciplinary research with social scientists, among others. 2. This study explores what ecologists expect from such cross-disciplinary engagements, through a review of editorial statements in key ecological journals and an empirical survey of ecologists working with social scientists. 3. Ecologists were found to have different perspectives on collaborating with social scientists depending upon whether they had an instrumental or non-instrumental outlook on the role of social sciences. 4. Ecologists are also pursuing other approaches to incorporate human dimensions into their work, including engaging end-users and stakeholders in their research; and enlarging the scope of ecology to include human subjects/objects in their research focus. 5. Synthesis and applications. Ecologists face strategic choices when incorporating human/social dimensions in their work-whether engagement with stakeholders, enlargement of ecology as a life science, or active exchange with the social sciences. The choice depends on the stance taken on the place of humans in nature. Each strategy poses specific challenges for ecologists relating respectively to: the justification of how and which stakeholders to engage; the avoidance of naïve borrowings of terms and methods from the social sciences; and the training needed for working in interdisciplinary teams.

Ethnobiology, political ecology, and conservation

2014

Ethnobiology is increasingly recognized from within and outside of its boundaries as interdisciplinary. The Society of Ethnobiology defines the field as “the scientific study of dynamic relationships among peoples, biota, and environments.” Ethnobiologists are able to skillfully assess challenges of biocultural conservation across the divides of political ecology. They are situated to mediate between conservation programs that target biodiversity preservation with little concern for the needs of human communities, and those (such as the New Conservation movement) that privilege those needs. Ethnobiology also transcends the pervasive assumption in these fields that Western knowledge and economic goals should guide change. Because of ethnobiology's importance as a bridging discipline, it is important to ask what unifies ethnobiology. Is it common subject matter? Or, is there an underlying emphasis representing an “ethnobiological perspective?” Answers to these questions are explored here using content analysis and discourse-and-ideology analysis. We use the results to identify the unique roles ethnobiologists play in biocultural conservation. This analysis also proved useful in the systematic identification of four salient themes that unify ethnobiology—ethics in ethnobiology, shared environmental and cultural heritage, interdisciplinary science and non-science, and ecological understanding. How ethnobiologists conceive of themselves is critical for further enrichment of the field as interdisciplinary human-environmental scholarship, particularly in reference to biocultural conservation. Self-definition makes explicit the unique strengths of the field, which by its very nature integrates a sophisticated understanding of political ecology with appreciation of the value of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), social science, and the biological sciences.

Expanding the role of social science in conservation through an engagement with philosophy, methodology, and methods

Methods in Ecology and Evolution

1. The Special Feature led by Sutherland, Dicks, Everard, and Geneletti (Methods Ecology and Evolution, 9, 7-9, 2018) sought to highlight the importance of "qualitative methods" for conservation. The intention is welcome, and the collection makes many important contributions. Yet, the articles presented a limited perspective on the field, with a focus on objectivist and instrumental methods, omitting discussion of some broader philosophical and methodological considerations crucial to social science research. Consequently, the Special Feature risks narrowing the scope of social science research and, potentially, reducing its quality and usefulness. In this article, we seek to build on the strengths of the articles of the Special Feature by drawing in a discussion on social science research philosophy, methodology, and methods. 2. We start with a brief discussion on the value of thinking about data as being qualitative (i.e., text, image, or numeric) or quantitative (i.e., numeric), not methods or research. Thinking about methods as qualitative can obscure many important aspects of research design by implying that "qualitative methods" somehow embody a particular set of assumptions or principles. Researchers can bring similar, or very different, sets of assumptions to their research design, irrespective of whether they collect qualitative or quantitative data. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Whose Knowledge, Whose Nature? Biodiversity, Conservation, and the Political Ecology of Social Movements by Arturo Escobar.

This paper proposes a framework for rethinking the conservation and appropriation of biological diversity from the perspective of social movements. It argues that biodiversity, although with concrete biophysical referents, is a discourse of recent origin. This discourse fosters a complex network of diverse actors, from international organizations and NGOs to local communities and social movements. Four views of biodiversity produced by this network (centered on global resource management, national sovereignity, biodemocracy, and cultural autonomy, respectively) are discussed in the first part of the paper. The second part focuses on the cultural autonomy perspective developed by social movements. It examines in detail the rise and development of the social movement of black communities in the Pacific rainforest region of Colombia. This movement, it is argued, articulates through their practice an entire political ecology of sustainability and conservation. The main elements of this political ecology are discussed and presented as a viable alternative to dominant frameworks. Ce document propsoses un cadre conceptuel pour repenser la question de l'appropriation et de la conservation de la diversité biologique du point de vue des mouvements sociaux. Bien que les referents de la biodiversité aient une fondation concrete ancienne, le discours en lui-meme est d’origine récente.Ce discours recèle un certain nombre d'acteurs allant d'organisation non gouvernementales ou internationales, de communautés locales et d’organisations sociales. Quatre grandes perspectives (centrées respectivement autour de la gestion de ressources globales, de la souveraineté, de la biodiversité, et de l'autonomie culturelle)sont exposées dans la première partie du document. La seconde partie du texte met l’accent sur la perspective autonomiste developpée par les mouvements sociaux. L’auteur explore en details la montée et le developpement des mouvements sociaux des communautés noires vivant la region Pacifique de la forêt equatoriale Colombienne. Un argument est avancé selon lequel ce mouvement s'articule autour d’une pratique écologique globale mettant en avant-garde le caractere soutenu et perrain du système. Les principales composantes de cette théorie sont présentées comme une alternative viable paradigmes dominants. Este artículo propone un marco analítico para la reconsideración de la conservación y la apropriación de la diversidad biológica desde la prespectiva de movimientos sociales. Se arguye que la diversidad biológica aunque con referentes biofisicas concretos, es un discurso de origin reciente. Este discurso promueve una red compleja de actores diversos, desde organizaciones internacionales y ONGs hasta comunidades locales y movimientos sociales. Cuarto perspectivas de la diversidad biológica producidas por esta red (central en el manejo de recursos globales, soberanía nacional, bio-democracia, y autonomía cultural respectivamente) son discutidos en la primera parte de este articulo. La secunda parte se enfoca en la perspectiva de autonomía cultural de movimientos sociales. Se examina en detalle el crecimiento y desarrollo del movimiento social de comundiades negras de la región de la selva lluviosa del Pacífico de Colombia. Esta moviemento articula a traves de su práctica , una ecología política completa basada de la conservación y la sostenilidad. Los elementos principales de esta ecología política son discutidos y presentados como una alternativa viable al los marcos dominantes.