Conceptualizing the Heterogeneity, Embeddedness, and Ongoing Restructuring That Make Ecological Complexity ‘Unruly’

Taylor, Peter J.

doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9744-6_6

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A substantive literature presents critiques of the use of systems approaches in the social sciences in general (Giddens, 1979;Lilienfeld, 1978), and more specifically in geography (Gregory, 1980;Kennedy, 1979;Kull & Rangan, 2016;Watts, 2011), in ecology (for example, Taylor, 2005;Taylor, 2011), and in resilience thinking (for example, Biermann et al, 2015;Brown, 2014;Kirchhoff et al, 2010;Porter & Davoudi, 2012). A substantive literature presents critiques of the use of systems approaches in the social sciences in general (Giddens, 1979;Lilienfeld, 1978), and more specifically in geography (Gregory, 1980;Kennedy, 1979;Kull & Rangan, 2016;Watts, 2011), in ecology (for example, Taylor, 2005;Taylor, 2011), and in resilience thinking (for example, Biermann et al, 2015;Brown, 2014;Kirchhoff et al, 2010;Porter & Davoudi, 2012).…”

Section: Epistemology: Systems and Metaphorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, they do not allow for historical contingency, in the sense that the same cause-effect relationship may work differently in time, space, and between individuals, depending on the social context (DeLanda, 2006, Frawley, 2014, Taylor, 2011, Turner, 2014. These do not allow for a modulating influence of contexts on interactions, and they require the definition of discrete elements.…”

Section: Fundamental Differences From Natural Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While we build on the social-ecological regime shift concept as developed in the above-mentioned forms of systems thinking, several constraints that typify its underpinning epistemology lead us to introduce a modified understanding. A substantive literature presents critiques of the use of systems approaches in the social sciences in general (Giddens, 1979;Lilienfeld, 1978), and more specifically in geography (Gregory, 1980;Kennedy, 1979;Kull & Rangan, 2016;Watts, 2011), in ecology (for example, Taylor, 2005;Taylor, 2011), and in resilience thinking (for example, Biermann et al, 2015;Brown, 2014;Kirchhoff et al, 2010;Porter & Davoudi, 2012). In Table 1, we review some of the challenges or perceived incompatibilities with systems approaches identified in the social sciences.…”

Section: Epistemology: Systems and Metaphorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These do not allow for a modulating influence of contexts on interactions, and they require the definition of discrete elements. In particular, they do not allow for historical contingency, in the sense that the same cause-effect relationship may work differently in time, space, and between individuals, depending on the social context (DeLanda, 2006, Frawley, 2014, Taylor, 2011, Turner, 2014. Some forms of complexity theory explicitly incorporate what they call 'contextuality' (Chu, Strand & Fjelland, 2003), and some social-ecological systems authors seek crossfertilisation from other social science approaches (Stone-Jovicich, 2015).…”

Section: Difficulties In Incorporating Modulating Influences and Contmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Using the “regime shift” concept in addressing social–ecological change

Kull

Kueffer

Richardson

et al. 2017

Geographical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Regime shift’ has emerged as a key concept in the environmental sciences. The concept has roots in complexity science and its ecological applications, and is increasingly applied to intertwined social and ecological phenomena. Yet what exactly is a regime shift? We explore this question at three nested levels. First, we propose a broad, contingent, multi‐perspective epistemological basis for the concept, seeking to build bridges between its complexity theory origins and critiques from science studies, political ecology, and environmental history. Second, we define the concept in a way that is consistent with this epistemology, building on previous work on speed, scale, stickiness, and interrelationships, but also emphasising human perceptions and rhetorical uses of the notion. Third, we propose a novel typology of the ways in which the regime shift concept is used in analysing social–environmental phenomena in geography and beyond. These uses are categorised along two axes. On the one side, we distinguish between description of past or present changes and normative prescriptions for the future. On the other side, we distinguish between whether the focus is on material shifts (social and ecological) or conceptual shifts (discourses and ideas). We illustrate the typology with reference to social–environmental changes in landscapes around the world that are dominated by plantations or the widespread naturalisation of Australian Acacia species. We conclude that the regime shift concept is a boundary object with value as both an analytical and communicative tool in addressing social–environmental challenges.

show abstract

Section: Epistemology: Systems and Metaphorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fundamental Differences From Natural Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Epistemology: Systems and Metaphorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Difficulties In Incorporating Modulating Influences and Contmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using the “regime shift” concept in addressing social–ecological change

Kull

Kueffer

Richardson

et al. 2017

Geographical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second point is that biologists often address complexity, which indicates ongoing change in the structure of situations that a) have built up over time from heterogeneous components and b) are embedded or situated within wider dynamics. This complexity cannot be suppressed, and biologists cannot mimic the physical sciences by constructing, materially and conceptually, well‐bounded systems with coherent internal dynamics and simply mediated relations with their external context (Taylor, ).…”

Section: Evolutionary Biology and Neo‐darwinian Worldview: Features Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature of Science or Nature of the Sciences?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The present essay examines the emerging issue of domain-general versus domain-specific nature of science (NOS) understandings from a perspective that illuminates the value of domain-specific philosophies of science for the growth and development of the NOS educational field. Under the assumption that individual sciences do have their own character, we address the unique ontological, methodological, and epistemological features of Newtonian physics and evolutionary biology and we articulate the important differences that exist between the worldviews associated with these scientific fields, namely, the Newtonian and the neo-Darwinian scientific worldviews. The former worldview is consistent in many respects with assumptions that are grounded on positivism, whereas the latter worldview provides an alternative understanding of NOS, which is predominately based in the techniques of hermeneutics and historical sciences. We subsequently attempt to present the current inadequacies and weaknesses that the NOS field is challenged with as a result of not incorporating the differences between the Newtonian and neo-Darwinian worldviews into its research or instructional agenda. In addition, we outline the heuristic power for the NOS field that may accompany a potential shift from a homogeneous view of NOS to a view more informed by the specificities of any particular science or scientific field.

show abstract

Social-Ecological Resilience: Human Ecology as Theory of the Middle Range

Flaherty

2018

Complexity and Resilience in the Social and Ecological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conceptualizing the Heterogeneity, Embeddedness, and Ongoing Restructuring That Make Ecological Complexity ‘Unruly’

Cited by 10 publications

References 21 publications

Using the “regime shift” concept in addressing social–ecological change

Using the “regime shift” concept in addressing social–ecological change

Nature of Science or Nature of the Sciences?

Social-Ecological Resilience: Human Ecology as Theory of the Middle Range

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About