Critical, Engaged and Change-oriented Scholarship in Environmental Communication. Six Methodological Dilemmas to Think With

Abstract

While calls for critical, engaged and change-oriented scholarship in environmental communication (EC) abound, few articles discuss what this may practically entail. With this article, we aim to contribute to a discussion in EC about the methodological implications of such scholarship. Based on our combined experience in EC research and drawing from a variety of academic fields, we describe six methodological dilemmas that we encounter in our research practice and that we believe are inherent to such scholarship. These dilemmas are (1) grasping communication; (2) representing others; (3) involving people in research; (4) co-producing knowledge; (5) engaging critically; and (6) relating to conflict. This article does not offer solutions to these complex dilemmas. Rather, our dilemma descriptions are meant to help researchers think through methodological issues in critical, engaged and change-oriented EC research. The article also helps to translate the dilemmas to the reality of research projects through a set of questions, aimed to support a sensitivity to, and understanding of, the dilemmas in context.

“Let us be led by the residents”: Swedish dialogue experts’ stories about power, justification and ambivalence

“…For the broader discussions about dialogues within urban governance, our study shows how a critically engaged research approach adds value (Joosse et al, 2020). We have taken the long-standing critique regarding the alleged power-blindness of participatory practices as a prompt for engaging in inquiry with a group of Swedish dialogue experts.…”

Cultural Transmission in Slovak Mountain Regions: Local Knowledge as Symbolic Argumentation

“…However, dilemmas still persist as to how to seriously reflect on native knowledge in the broad causality of nature and culture. The dilemma presented by a joint team of researchers from Uppsala and Exeter (Joosse et al, 2020) is the issue of the acceptance of co-producing (sustainability) knowledge. They point out (p. 7) that, in their study, "hierarchical and bureaucratic logic pushed most ambitions and ideas for future development aside," which is also observable in the present study and faster than a genetic mutation; as more and more individuals adopt the trait, the genes that encourage it are subjected to ever more intensive pressure (Švorcová & Kleisner, 2017, p. 353).…”

Sustainable Heritage Tourism: Native American Preservation Recommendations at Arches, Canyonlands, and Hovenweep National Parks

“…It is based on formal and informal EOA interviews with representatives of the following nine tribes and pueblos who participated in one or more of these studies: 1 The NPS funded the EOAs to understand the cultural meaning and importance of the natural and archaeological resources within the parks that are culturally associated Native Americans. The studies were officially designed to be participatory [47] so the tribal and pueblo representatives shared their opinions as to where the study visits should occur and what are the most salient topics to be discussed. The studies were funded to meet certain park management and interpretation goals, including (1) learning about tribal perceptions, (2) knowing oral histories of the ancient farming communities, (3) understanding the intended purposes of the peckings and paintings, and 4hearing about the contemporary uses of the abundant and rare plants located throughout the parks.…”