Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 2
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Methods
- 1 Re-compos(t)ing the Ghosts of Sociologies Past: Towards More Cosmoecological Sociologies
- 2 On Discourse-Intensive Approaches to Environmental Decision-Making: Applying Social Theory to Practice
- 3 Community-Based Research
- 4 Using Geographic Data in Environmental Sociology
- Part II Embodied Environmental Sociology
- Part III Beyond the Human
- Part IV Sustainability and Climate Change
- Part V Resources
- Part VI Food and Agriculture
- Part VII Social Movements
- Index
- References
2 - On Discourse-Intensive Approaches to Environmental Decision-Making: Applying Social Theory to Practice
from Part I - Methods
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology Volume 2
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- Part I Methods
- 1 Re-compos(t)ing the Ghosts of Sociologies Past: Towards More Cosmoecological Sociologies
- 2 On Discourse-Intensive Approaches to Environmental Decision-Making: Applying Social Theory to Practice
- 3 Community-Based Research
- 4 Using Geographic Data in Environmental Sociology
- Part II Embodied Environmental Sociology
- Part III Beyond the Human
- Part IV Sustainability and Climate Change
- Part V Resources
- Part VI Food and Agriculture
- Part VII Social Movements
- Index
- References
Summary
The rise of multi-party processes in which people with quite different ties to a region, natural resource-related industry, or environmental issue work collaboratively to hammer out mutually acceptable agreements is arguably one of the biggest shifts in environmental management over the past twenty-five years. This chapter engages in some sensemaking around this diverse and evolving phenomenon in two ways. First, an approach to designing collaborative natural resource-related discourse with a particularly strong theoretical foundation (Collaborative Learning) is presented to illustrate how theory is manifest in practice. Second a recent best practices/common features list is examined through the perspectives of four social science theorists: Max Weber, Pierre Bourdieu, Niklas Luhmann, and Muzafer Sherif. The practical recommendations that emerge from this list is largely consistent with the larger social and communicative dynamics articulated by these theorists.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 29 - 46Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Amy, D. J. (1987). The Politics of Environmental Mediation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ascher, W. (2004). Scientific information and uncertainty: challenges for the use of science in policymaking. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10: 437–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bazerman, M. H. (2002). Judgment in Managerial Decision Making, 5th ed. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swindler, A., & Tipton, S.M. (1991). The Good Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Bingham, G. (1986). Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991). On symbolic power. In Thompson, J.B., ed., Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 163–170.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brown, H. C., Buck, L., & Lassoie, J. (2008) Governance and social learning in the management of non-wood forest products in community forests in Cameroon. International Journal of Agricultural Resource, Governance and Ecology, 7(3): 256–275Google Scholar
Caine, K. J. (2013). Logic of land and power: The social transformation of northern natural resource management. In Parkins, J.R. and Reed, M.G., eds., Social Transformation in Rural Canada: Community, Cultures, and Collective Action. Vancouver: UBC Press, pp. 169–188.Google Scholar
Cantrill, J. G., & Senecah, S. L. (2001). Using the “sense of self in place” construct in the context of environmental policy making and landscape planning. Environmental Science and Policy, 4: 185–204.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S., & Kennedy, W. J. D. (1988). Managing Public Disputes: A Practical Guide to Handling Conflict and Reaching Agreements. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Celino, A., & Concillio, G. (2011). Explorative nature of negotiation in participatory decision making for sustainability. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20: 255–270.Google Scholar
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E., & Daniels, S. E. (2003). “Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources, 16(1): 87–104.Google Scholar
Clarke, T. L., & Peterson, T. R. (2015). Environmental Conflict Management, Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Costanza, R., & Cornwall, L. (1992). The 4P approach to dealing with scientific uncertainty. Environment, 34(9): 12–22.Google Scholar
Dana, S. T., & Fairfax, S.K. (1980). Forest and Range Policy, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Daniels, S. E. (2009). Exploring the feasibility of mediated final offer arbitration as a technique for managing “gridlocked” environmental conflict. Society and Natural Resource, 22(2): 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. B. (1996). Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem management. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16: 71–102.Google Scholar
Daniels, S. E., & Walker, G. B. (2001). Working Through Environmental Conflict: The Collaborative Learning Approach. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Ducrot, R. (2009). Gaming across scale in peri-urban water management: Contributions from two experiences in Bolivia and Brazil. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 16(3): 240–252.Google Scholar
Faure, G.-O., & Rubin, J. (1993). Organizing concepts and questions. In Sjostedt, G, ed., International Environmental Negotiation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. pp. 17–26.Google Scholar
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2017). Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture, 3rd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Folger, J. P., Poole, M. S. & Stutman, R. K. (2008). Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S., (2001). Global risk, uncertainty, and ignorance. In Kasperson, J and Kasperson, R, eds., Global Environmental Risk, London: Earthscan, pp. 173–194.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gerth, H. H., & Mills, C. W. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, D. M., Feldspausch-Parker, A., Peterson, T. R., Stephens, J. C., & Wilson, E. J. (2017, April). Social-ecological system resonance: A theoretical framework for brokering sustainable solutions. Sustainability Science. Published online: https://link.springer.com/journal/11625Google Scholar
Hill, R., Davies, J., Bohnet, I. C. et al. (2015). Collaboration mobilises institutions with scale-dependent comparative advantage in landscape-dependent biodiversity conservation. Environmental Science and Policy, 51: 267–277.Google Scholar
Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. (2018). Interpersonal Conflict, 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration and Society, 37(3): 281–320.Google Scholar
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lee, K. (1993). Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Leydesdorff, L. (2000). Luhmann, Habermas, and the theory of communication, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17: 273–288.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. H. Davis, J. Raffan, & K. Rooney, trans. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1989). Ecological Communication. J. Bednarz, trans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. J. Bednarz & D. Baecker, trans. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Meadows, D. H. (2008). In Wright, D, ed., Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Hartford, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y.-S., and Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What makes community-based forestry successful: A meta-study from community-based forests around the world. Society and Natural Resources, 19(1): 33–52.Google Scholar
Peterson, T. R., Peterson, M. J., & Grant, W. E. (2004). Social practice and biophysical process. In Senecah, S. L., ed., The Environmental Communication Yearbook, Vol. 1. Mahwah, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 15–32.Google Scholar
Ramirez, R., & Fernandez, M. (2005). Facilitation of collaborative management: Reflections from practice. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(1): 5–20.Google Scholar
Ramirez, R., & Quarry, W. (2004). Communication for Development: A Medium for Innovation in Natural Resources Management. Ottawa and Rome: International Development Research Centre and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63: 349–356.Google Scholar
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1954/1961). Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.Google Scholar
Singhal, A. (2001). Facilitating Community Participation through Communication. New York: UNICEF.Google Scholar
Singhal, A. & Devi, K. (2003). Visual voices in participatory communication. Communicator, 38(2): 1–15.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1959). Quantitative judgment in social perception. British Journal of Psychology, 50: 16–29.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, pp. 47–61.Google Scholar
Trappes-Lomax, H. (2004). Discourse analysis. In Davies, A and Elder, C, eds., The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 133–164.Google Scholar
Walker, G. B. (2007). Public participation as participatory communication in environmental policy decision-making: From concepts to structured conversations. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 1: 64–72.Google Scholar
Walker, G. B., Senecah, S. L., & Daniels, S. E. (2006). From the forest to the river: Citizen views of stakeholder engagement. Human Ecology Review, 13: 193–202.Google Scholar
Wilson, K. & Morren, G. E. B. (1990). Systems Approaches to Improvements in Agriculture and Resource Management. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar