So, is resilience thinking (from a social science perspective) in crisis? If the ambition is to target mainstream top-political science journals, we sure are. Two issues could be raised here however. One: is this really the best way to measure our impact in the social sciences? Why not (just as one example) look for articles that reference Holling’s, Folke’s or Elinor Ostrom’s work for example?
A second, and I would argue more important objection to the analysis, is whether the sort of metric Olsson uses really captures the core ambition of interdisciplinary research. Bluntly put: isn’t the whole point of building interdisciplinary teams, teaching, methods and research networks, to create innovative sustainability science that is hard to classify as “social” or “natural”? These articles are not likely to fit easily into mono-disciplinary social science journals. If that is the case, how do we measure the scientific success of such attempts, without contributing to an artificial split between the “social” and the “natural”?
I assume many of you have had similar experiences or thoughts. Feel free to share in the comment field below.
I think many of us working on resilience are interested in building a new sustainability science, and while this requires engaging with many social scientists this does not require publishing in specific journals. Indeed new areas of research often produce new journals, such as GEC or E&S, or new subfields in existing journals – such as sustainability science section in PNAS.
Such issues are common in science in general, not just in resilience research. Climate change, materials science, computer science, cognitive science, etc – have all faced similar issues.
The link to the Arizona conference above doesn’t actually list Lennart Olsson’s ‘interesting and critical’ presentation. Was it considered too critical to be included at the time?
There is no abstract as it was in a panel
But by the power of google here it is:
http://csid.asu.edu/resilience-2011/program/files/Panels/515_Adaptiveness/panel_abstract.txt
Adaptiveness in Earth System Governance-Ruben Zondervan
Adaptiveness is one of the five analytical themes of the IHDP Earth System
Governance Project. The project understands it as an umbrella term for a set
of strongly related concepts—vulnerability, resilience, adaptation, robustness,
adaptive capacity, social learning and so on. Each of them alone is too limited
to describe changes made by social groups in response to, or in anticipation
of, challenges created through environmental change. Within the framework
of earth system governance, the term adaptiveness includes the governance
of adaptation to social-ecological change as well as the processes of change
and adaptation within governance systems. Adaptation can create winners
and losers, by, for instance, shifting the distribution of benefits, of involuntary
risks, or of power. It is often specific to the social-ecological system in
question, and who benefits from adaptation may not be identical to who has
to do the adapting. And, the appropriate degree of responsiveness to change,
and consequently, timeliness, is contested. Key questions therefore are:
Adaptiveness by what, under which conditions and at what scales? For whom
and who benefits? To what and with which side-effects? By when?
Studies of adaptiveness must grapple with both overt political contests and
more nuanced exercise of power and social control that impact on the
fairness of adaptation processes and outcomes. The best ways to criticially
analyze adaptiveness needs further theoretical and methodological
development and this is the main aims of this panel.
First, the panellists will briefly present their work undertaken within the
framework of the earth system governance analytical problem of
adaptiveness. The empirical foundations of the studies presented are diverse
but share a common purpose in provoking new and better ways of thinking
about the concept of adaptiveness from a governance perspective.
Second, following the brief presentations, a moderated discussion amongst
panellists and audience will move beyond the immediate content of the
presentations to the key questions and fundamental issues in the politics of
adaptiveness and underlying concepts like resilience. The aim is to open up
space for innovative thinking and further research around the analytical
problem of adaptiveness in earth system governance.
Panel participants and papers:
Victor Galaz – “Earth System Governance Governance and Resilience”
Kathleen Galvin, David Nkedianye, Robin Reid – “Pastoral Adaptation through
Governance to Changing African Landscapes”
Louis Lebel – “Advancing the concept of adaptiveness in Earth System
Governance”
Lennart Olsson – “A Critique on Resilience”
Diana Liverman
Thanks Garry!