Abstract
Place-oriented inquiry and practice are proposed as keys to overcoming the persistent gap between science and practice. This chapter begins by describing some of the reasons science fails to simplify conservation practice, highlighting the challenges associated with the social and ecological sciences of multi-scaled complexity. Place concepts help scientists and practitioners address the inevitably incomplete, plural, and uncertain character of all knowledge and suggest productive ways forward that not only embrace this pluralism but find greater efficacy and advantage in the multiplicity of context-dependent positions occupied by scientists and practitioners, each differentially shaped by individual life history. The chapter then highlights a growing body of literature in sociology and public administration that has begun to address the broad challenge of governing complex social-ecological systems. These emerging theories recognize that much of contemporary governance takes place outside formal government institutions and bureaucracies and involves increasingly complex linkages and collaborations among multiple public and private organizations. In governing complex systems informed practice can be conceived as guided by the emergent wisdom of networked actors and institutions governing complex systems, each informing one another in a collaborative form of rationality that operates both horizontally (place to place) and vertically (upwards and downwards in scale).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allen, T. F. H., Tainter, J. A., Pires, J. C., & Hoekstra, T. W. (2001). Dragnet ecology – “just the facts ma’am”: The privilege of science in a postmodern world. BioScience, 51, 475–485.
Anderson, E. (1993). Values in ethics and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Caterino, B., & Schram, S. F. (2006). Introduction: Reframing the debate. In S. F. Schram & B. Caterino (Eds.), Making political science matter: Debating knowledge, research and method (pp. 1–13). New York: New York University Press.
Entrikin, J. N. (1991). The betweenness of place: Towards a geography of modernity. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Finnegan, D. A. (2008). The spatial turn: Geographical approaches in the history of science. Journal of the History of Biology, 41, 369–388.
Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). A perestroikan straw man answers back: David Laitin and phronetic political science. In S. F. Schram & B. Caterino (Eds.), Making political science matter: Debating knowledge, research and method (pp. 56–85). New York: New York University Press.
Folke, C., Han, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 441–473.
Hayles, N. K. (1995). Searching for common ground. In M. E. Soule & G. Lease (Eds.), Reinventing nature? Response to postmodern deconstruction (pp. 47–63). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
Hummel, R. P. (1994). Commentary. Public Administration Review, 54, 314.
Ilcan, S., & Phillips, L. (2008). Governing through global networks: Knowledge mobilities and participatory development. Current Sociology, 56, 711–734.
Kemmis, D. (1990). Community and the politics of place. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Livingston, D. N. (2003). Putting science in its place. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McLain, R. J., & Lee, R. G. (1996). Adaptive management: Promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management, 20, 437–488.
Norton, B. G. (1996). Integration or reduction: Two approaches to environmental values. In A. Light & E. Katz (Eds.), Environmental pragmatism (pp. 105–138). London: Routledge.
Norton, B. G. (1999). Pragmatism, adaptive management, and sustainability. Environmental Values, 8, 451–466.
Norton, B. G., & Steinemann, A. C. (2001). Environmental values and adaptive management. Environmental Values, 10, 473–506.
Patterson, M. E., & Williams, D. R. (2005). Maintaining research traditions on place: Diversity of thought and scientific progress. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 361–380.
Pierre, J. (Ed.). (2000). Debating governance: Authority, steering and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2005). Governing complex societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Price, M. (2004). Ecology, economics, and the value of nature. In L. Daston & F. Vidal (Eds.), The moral authority of nature (pp. 182–204). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21, 305–320.
Sack, R. D. (1992). Place, modernity and the consumer’s world. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 385–403.
Scholz, J. T., & Stiftel, B. (Eds.). (2005). Adaptive governance and water conflict. Washington, DC: RFF Press.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Stankey, G. H., Clark, R. N., & Bormann, B. T. (2005). Adaptive management of natural resources: Theory, concepts and management institutions (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-654). Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwestern Research Station.
Tainter, J. A. (1988). Collapse of complex societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Urry, J. (2003). Global complexity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Whatmore, S. J. (2009). Mapping knowledge controversies: Science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Progress in Human Geography, 33, 587–598.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, B. A., & Matheny, A. R. (1995). Democracy, dialogue, and environmental disputes: The contested languages of social regulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Williams, D. R. (2002). Post-utilitarian forestry: What’s place got to do with it? In Proceedings of the human dimensions of natural resources in the west conference (Alta, WY, October 18–21, pp. 114–123). Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, College of Natural Resources.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Williams, D.R. (2013). Science, Practice, and Place. In: Stewart, W., Williams, D., Kruger, L. (eds) Place-Based Conservation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5802-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5802-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5801-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5802-5
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)