An analysis of the methodological underpinnings of social learning research in natural resource management
This analysis is focused on research that uses a social learning approach to study natural resource issues. We map out the prevailing epistemological orientation of social learning research through the de-construction of the methodological choices reported in current social learning literature. Based on an analysis of 54 empirical investigations of social learning and natural resources published after peer review, we investigated aspects of research design that include data collection methods, evidence types and the researcher's role. We consider these against different research-orientations (positivist, interpretive, critical, and post-normal). We discuss which research-orientation appears most congruent with the overall commitment and premises of social learning studies. In line with initial expectations this study shows that positivist stances are hardly present, however research that follows a postnormal approach is less frequent than initially assumed. Instead, findings suggest that researchers using a social learning perspective to study resource issues tend to choose methodologies that allow for in-depth descriptions, for meaning making and enquiry as a form of action.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Kastenhofer, Karen & Bechtold, Ulrike & Wilfing, Harald, 2011. "Sustaining sustainability science: The role of established inter-disciplines," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 835-843, February.
- O'Hara, Sabine U., 1996. "Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 95-107, February.
- Tacconi, Luca, 1998. "Scientific methodology for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 91-105, October.
- Norgaard, Richard B., 1989. "The case for methodological pluralism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 37-57, February.
- Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
- Joanne Millar & Allan Curtis, 1999. "Challenging the boundaries of local and scientific knowledge in Australia: Opportunities for social learning in managing temperate upland pastures," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(4), pages 389-399, December.
- Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
- Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
- Meppem, Tony & Bourke, Simon, 1999. "Different ways of knowing: a communicative turn toward sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 389-404, September.
- Norgaard, Richard B., 1985. "Environmental economics: An evolutionary critique and a plea for pluralism," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 382-394, December.
- M. Muro & P. Jeffrey, 2008. "A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 325-344.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:77:y:2012:i:c:p:16-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.