Advertisement

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 331–337 | Cite as

A manifesto for theory in environmental studies and sciences

  • James D. ProctorEmail author
  • Susan G. Clark
  • Kimberly K. Smith
  • Richard L. Wallace
Article

Abstract

Environmental studies and sciences (ESS), an inherently practical field, nonetheless demands greater attention to its theoretical assumptions as a necessary step toward continued intellectual and pedagogical development and real-world relevance. This need for theory arises from the status of ESS as an integrative interdiscipline—one practitioners of ESS celebrate, yet with considerably greater challenges in achieving inclusivity and coherence than other interdisciplinary fields face. Three examples are briefly raised here: the definition of environment in ESS, how environmental actors are conceptualized, and the identity of ESS as a problem-oriented field. These three examples are initial priorities requiring better theorization, with many intellectual resources ESS can draw upon to address them. We close by reminding the reader that theories are ideas that take us places, not just idle speculation, and by advocating “theory across the (ESS) curriculum.” In addition to the three examples we cover, we invite the reader to join us in identifying and evaluating other current theoretical assumptions in ESS, in reframing ESS on more robust theoretical grounds, and in integrating this work into the curriculum.

Keywords

Theory Interdisciplinarity Environment Actors Problem solving Curriculum 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper emerged from a session titled “Theory for our Environmental Future” held at the Association for Environmental Studies and Sciences 2012 Annual Meeting in Santa Clara University, June 22. We appreciate feedback on our presentations by session participants, as well as comments on earlier drafts of this paper by anonymous reviewers. We also acknowledge related conversations with many of our colleagues, for whom we appreciate their genuine collegiality and scholarship.

References

  1. Benda LE, Poff NL, Tague C, Palmer MA, Pizzuto J, Cooper S, Stanley E, Moglen G (2002) How to avoid train wrecks when using science in environmental problem solving. BioScience 52(12):1127–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berry W (2000) Life is a miracle: an essay against modern superstition. Counterpoint, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer G (1999) Challenges of interdisciplinarity. Policy Sciences 32:327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark SG (2011) The policy process: a practical guide for natural resource professionals. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark SG, Rutherford MB, Auer MR, Cherney DN, Wallace RL, Mattson DJ, Clark DA, Foote L, Krogman N, Wilshusen P, Steelman T (2011a) College and university environmental programs as a policy problem (part 1): integrating knowledge, education, and action for a better world? Environ Manag 47:701–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark SG, Rutherford MB, Auer MR, Cherney DN, Wallace RL, Mattson DJ, Clark DA, Foote L, Krogman N, Wilshusen P, Steelman T (2011b) College and university environmental programs as a policy problem (part 2): strategies for improvement. Environ Manag 47:716–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Commoner B (1971) The closing circle: nature, man, and technology, 1st edn. Alfred A, Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF (2000) The ‘Anthropocene’. IGBP Global Change Newsletter 41:17–18Google Scholar
  9. Dovers, S. (2005) Clarifying the imperative of integration research for sustainable environmental management. Journal of Research Practice 1(2): Article M2Google Scholar
  10. Dror Y (1970) Prolegomena to policy sciences. Policy Sciences 1:135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foster J (1999) What price interdisciplinarity? Crossing the curriculum in environmental higher education. J Geogr High Educ 23(3):358–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glacken CJ (1967) Traces on the Rhodian shore: nature and culture in Western thought from ancient times to the end of the eighteenth century. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  13. Gross PR, Levitt N (1994) Higher superstition: the academic left and its quarrels with science. The Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  14. Haraway D (1988) Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud 14:575–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayles NK (1995) Searching for common ground. In: Soulé ME, Lease G (eds) Reinventing nature? Responses to postmodern deconstruction. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 47–63Google Scholar
  17. Ingold T (1993) Globes and spheres: the topology of environmentalism. In: Milton K (ed) Environmentalism: the view from anthropology. Routledge, London, pp 31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. King PM (2009) Principles of development and developmental change underlying theories of cognitive and moral development. J Coll Student Dev 50(6):597–620Google Scholar
  20. Lasswell HD (1971) From fragmentation to configuration. Policy Sciences 2:45–68Google Scholar
  21. Lasswell HD, McDougal MS (1992) Jurisprudence for a free society. New Haven Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  22. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Lorimer J (2012) Multinatural geographies for the Anthropocene. Prog Hum Geogr. doi: 10.1177/0309132511435352 Google Scholar
  24. Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. March JG (1994) A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Ostrom E (2011) Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal 39:7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pickett STA, Burch WR Jr, Grove JM (1999) Interdisciplinary research: maintaining the constructive impulse in a culture of criticism. Ecosystems 2:302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Proctor JD (1998) The social construction of nature: relativist accusations, pragmatist and critical realist responses. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 88(3):352–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Proctor JD (2009) Environment after nature: time for a new vision. In: Proctor JD (ed) Envisioning nature, science, and religion. Templeton Foundation Press, West Conshohocken, pp 293–311Google Scholar
  31. Proctor JD (2013) Saving nature in the Anthropocene. J Environ Stud Sci 3:83–92. doi: 10.1007/s13412-013-0108-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rowe J (2008) The parallel economy of the commons. In: Gardner G, Prue T (eds) State of the world. Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC, pp 138–150Google Scholar
  33. Russell DR (2002) Writing in the academic disciplines: a curricular history. SIU Press, CarbondaleGoogle Scholar
  34. Shellenberger M, Nordhaus T (eds) (2012) Love your monsters: postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Kindle editionGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon H (1957) Models of man, social and rational: mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor P (1986) Respect for nature. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas WL (ed) (1956) Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  38. Trompf GW (2011) The classification of the sciences and the quest for interdisciplinarity: a brief history of ideas from ancient philosophy to contemporary environmental science. Environ Conserv 38:113–126. doi: 10.1017/ S0376892911000245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Turner BL II, Clark WC, Kates RW, Richards JF, Mathews JT, Meyer WB (eds) (1990) The Earth as transformed by human action: global and regional changes in the biosphere over the past 300 years. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Vincent S, Focht W (2011) Interdisciplinary environmental education: elements of field identity and curriculum design. J Environ Stud Sci 1:14–35. doi: 10.1007/s13412-011-0007-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weinberg S (2001) Facing up: science and its cultural adversaries. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson EO (1998) Consilience: the unity of knowledge. Alfred A. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Steffen W, Crutzen PJ (2010) The new world of the Anthropocene. Environ Sci Technol 44(7):2228–2231CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • James D. Proctor
    • 1
    Email author
  • Susan G. Clark
    • 2
  • Kimberly K. Smith
    • 3
  • Richard L. Wallace
    • 4
  1. 1.Environmental Studies ProgramLewis & Clark CollegePortlandUSA
  2. 2.Yale School of Forestry & Environmental StudiesNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Political Science and Environmental StudiesCarleton CollegeNorthfieldUSA
  4. 4.Environmental StudiesUrsinus CollegeCollegevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations