No abstract

While calls for critical, engaged and change-oriented scholarship in environmental communication (EC) abound, few articles discuss what this may practically entail. With this article, we aim to contribute to a discussion in EC about the methodological implications of such scholarship. Based on our combined experience in EC research and drawing from a variety of academic fields, we describe six methodological dilemmas that we encounter in our research practice and that we believe are inherent to such scholarship. These dilemmas are (1) grasping communication; (2) representing others; (3) involving people in research; (4) co-producing knowledge; (5) engaging critically; and (6) relating to conflict. This article does not offer solutions to these complex dilemmas. Rather, our dilemma descriptions are meant to help researchers think through methodological issues in critical, engaged and change-oriented EC research. The article also helps to translate the dilemmas to the reality of research projects through a set of questions, aimed to support a sensitivity to, and understanding of, the dilemmas in context.

In this paper we explore the Swedish Government's vision for the forest sector: The Forest Kingdom -with values for the world, launched in 2011. We use the issues of climate change and gender equality to demonstrate implicit "values" that underpin this recent forest policy initiative. Drawing on new institutionalism, critical discourse theory and gender as an analytical category, we conceptualise values as important governance mechanisms mediated through discourse. We analyse key documents of the Forest Kingdom, along with press releases, governmental bills and reports and direct attention to problem representations and subject positions (identity offerings) produced. Our findings demonstrate how climate change is turned into a business opportunity and a means to secure growth and employment throughout Sweden. Women are represented as potential employees and active forest owners connected to the needs of the industry, rather than as active citizens involved in forest policy-making. Climate change and gender inequality are thereby displaced from the political to an economic sphere, linked to industrial needs, private forest ownership and profit rather than to public and collective decision-making. Values underpinning these representations are economic growth, individualism and faith in markets. The emphasis on production is not dissimilar from previous forest policies, which until 1993 primarily were oriented towards timber production.

This review article examines how social science literature co-produces various imaginaries of forest-based bioeconomy transformations and pathways for reaching desired ends. Based on an analysis of 59 research articles, we find that despite a growing number of social sciences studies on the forest-based bioeconomy, much of the research tends to replicate a bioeconomy imaginary articulated in EU and national bioeconomy policies and strategies. Accordingly, the research primarily reproduces a weak approach to sustainability, which prioritize economic growth and competitiveness. Expectations are largely directed at national and regional corporate interests and forest industrial renewal, while the state has a supportive rather than restricting role. We discuss the findings against the role of social sciences, and conclude that social science scholars may adopt various strategies if interested in opening up forest-based policy debates and offer alternative imaginaries of sustainable bioeconomy transformations.

This article provides useful information for universities offering forestry programs and facing the growing demand for bioeconomy education. An explorative survey on bioeconomy perception among 1400 students enrolled in 29 universities across nine European countries offering forestry programs was performed. The data have been elaborated via descriptive statistics and cluster analysis. Around 70% of respondents have heard about the bioeconomy, mainly through university courses. Students perceive forestry as the most important sector for bioeconomy; however, the extent of perceived importance of forestry varies between countries, most significantly across groups of countries along a North–South European axis. Although differences across bachelor and master programs are less pronounced, they shed light on how bioeconomy is addressed by university programs and the level of student satisfaction with this. These differences and particularities are relevant for potential development routes towards comprehensive bioeconomy curricula at European forestry universities with a forestry focus.