From good practice for good practice we theorize; in small words for big circles we write

Abstract

As members of the socio-ecological practice research community, how should we theorize so that our theories of socioecological practice are both true and useful? How should we write so that our articles will be read and admired by a broad audience? In this perspective essay, I advocate a theorizing approach and a writing strategy through classic examples of two legendary scholars.

Re-examination research via the COVID glasses: an intellectual movement emerging for the better

“…Demonstrating this quality, special issue articles used example(s) of good/bad practice, avoided abstract theoretical discussions and were written in small words, refrained from jargon-laden writing. This is in line with the SEPR motto From good practice for good practice we theorize; in small words for big circles we write, as promulgated in a recent essay (Xiang 2020b).…”

Unearthing time-honored examples of nature-based solutions

“…contemporary socio-ecological practitioners and socioecological scholar-practitioners in NBS practice and research. This task necessarily requires the prudent use of a holistic socio-ecological approach, as advocated by many authors (e.g., Bayulken et al 2021;Curran and Hamilton 2020;Janzen and Fischborn 2016;Kotsila et al 2021;La Rosa and Pappalardo 2020;Shi 2020), through which societal issues pertaining to equity and justice are taken into due consideration in NBS practice and research; (3) To showcase concrete instances in which a time-honored NBS example was made useful to, and actually used by, real-world practitioners in their socio-ecological practice of building nature-inspired GIs; (4) To develop articles that present these findings precisely "in small words" (Xiang 2020b) and share through Socio-Ecological Practice Research (SEPR), the home journal of Ecopracticology-the study of socioecological practice (Xiang 2019a, p.12), so that they are permanently archived in what we hope to build the international depository of time-honored NBS examples.…”

“The trouble”, its maker, and Yang Gui’s confidence in “taming the troublemaker” with a 1962 bilateral agreement

“…In particular, the rationales and justifications Yang Gui and his fellow practitioners developed and used then and there have shared commonalities with those by practitioners in other instances of CPR governance practice. Once systematically unearthed and critically scrutinized, they will have “the prescriptive power to inform and inspire” contemporary socio-ecological practitioners “to be efficacious and righteous in their practice…” (Xiang 2020b , p. 122). As such, our research findings from this endeavor will significantly enrich the emerging field of ecopracticology, and ultimately help advance contemporary socio-ecological practice.…”