Untitled

Bergandi, Donato; Blandin, Patrick

doi:10.1023/a:1001716624350

Cited by 29 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the debate on the holism-reductionism controversy in ecology, see e.g. the contributions inSaarinen (1982),Schwarz and Jax (2011), McIntosh (1985),Hagen (1992),Golley (1993),Worster (1994),Bergandi and Blandin (1998),Keller and Golley (2000),Eliot (2011). See also the overview inVoigt (2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How political philosophies can help to discuss and differentiate theories in community ecology

Voigt

2021

HPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses structural analogies to competing political philosophies of human society as a heuristic tool to differentiate between ecological theories and to bring out new aspects of apparently well-known classics of ecological scholarship. These two different areas of knowledge have in common that their objects are ‘societies’, i.e. units composed of individuals, and that contradictory and competing theories about these supra-individual units exist. The benefit of discussing ecological theories in terms of their analogies to political philosophies, in this case liberalism, democratism and conservatism, consists in the fact that political philosophies show clear differences and particularities as regards their approach to the concepts of individuality and intentional action. The method therefore helps to expose peculiarities of ecological theories that are usually considered canonical (e.g. Clements, Gleason), as well as hybrid forms (E. P. Odum), and to differentiate between two different types of theories about functional wholes. The basis of this method is the constitutional-theoretical premise that modern paradigms of socialization structure the ecological discourse.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How political philosophies can help to discuss and differentiate theories in community ecology

Voigt

2021

HPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cartesian paradigm (normal and/or Mode 1* science) SES paradigm (post-normal and/or Mode 2* science)Selected referencesMono-and multi-disciplinary Inter-and trans-disciplinarySpangenberg (2011),Brand and Vadrot (2013);Mauser et al (2013);Görg et al (2014);Spangenberg et al (2015) Ontological monism Ontological pluralismEscobar (2010Escobar ( , 2014;Lombardi and Pérez Ransanz (2011);Spangenberg et al (2015);Sala (2017) Epistemological monism Epistemological pluralismNorton (2003);Miller et al (2008); Escobar (2010);Spangenberg et al (2015) Centered in equilibrium ideas (static)Centered in change ideas (dynamic) Norton (2003); Berkes et al (2003); Mace (2014) Trend to generalization and universalization of results (globalized science) Emphasis on local impact of results (place-based science) Potschin and Haines-Young (2013); Stewart et al (2013); Oteros-Rozas et al (2015); Balvanera et al (2017); Díaz et al (2018) Favors accumulation processes Favors re-distributive processes Berkes et al (2003); Bailey (2006); Carolan (2006); Tallis and Lubchenco (2014); Pouw and Gupta (2017); Zafra-Calvo et al(2017)Reductionism and Cartesian analysis Holism, emergentism and dialecticFuntowicz and Ravetz (1993);Bergandi and Blandin (1998); Looijen(2000);Carolan (2005);Clark and York (2005) Highly specializedLateral and complex thoughtMorin (1996); Scheffer (2014); Scheffer et al(2015); Sala(2017)Driven by curiosity and resolution of academic problems Critical research, driven by society's problems and concrete demandsFuntowicz and Ravetz (1993)<...>…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving towards public policy-ready science: philosophical insights on the social-ecological systems perspective for conservation science

Sala

Torchio

2019

Ecosystems and People

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The social-ecological systems (SES) perspective stems from the need to rethink the ways humans relate to the environment, given the evidence that conventional conservation and management approaches are often ineffective in dealing with complex socio-environmental problems. The SES approach conceives non-scientific and scientific knowledge as equally necessary in the process of management and public policy formation. Thus, the adoption of the SES approach must also serve to make better decisions about what kind of science and technology would be 'public policy-ready' (as well as also 'policy-relevant'); that is, a science oriented and conceived to provide concrete solutions to societal needs and demands. Here we review and reinterpret the SES perspective as a real paradigm change for conservation science. Under the lenses of philosophy, we try to untangle some weak points of the SES approach in order to advance to a conservation science closer to the process of science-based public policy creation and to enhance the intertwining with other types of knowledge. In this sense, we discuss how co-production of knowledge and decision-making process under the SES perspective are a huge step forward towards fulfilling the need to bring increasingly closer the spheres of science and policy, narrowing its interface.

show abstract

References

2018

Social Structures and Natural Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Untitled

Cited by 29 publications

References 44 publications

How political philosophies can help to discuss and differentiate theories in community ecology

How political philosophies can help to discuss and differentiate theories in community ecology

Moving towards public policy-ready science: philosophical insights on the social-ecological systems perspective for conservation science

References

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About