Engaging with the pragmatics of relational thinking, leverage points and transformations – Reply to West et al.

Raymond, Christopher M.; Kaaronen, Roope Oskari; Giusti, Matteo; Linder, Noah; Barthel, Stephan

doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1867645

Cited by 21 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analytically, to relate meaning-making to its context, this context has to be further delimited (Brown et al 2015;Ives et al 2020). Defining boundaries is crucial when employing leverage points from an analytical perspective (Leventon et al 2021), although pinpointing leverage within a delineated system necessarily limits the insights from experiences of change (Raymond et al 2021;West et al 2021).…”

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transformative change in context—stakeholders’ understandings of leverage at the forest–climate nexus

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transformation acquires its meaning within contexts and particular settings where transformative change is experienced, and where people engage in meaning-making. We used the forest–climate nexus in Sweden as an empirical case study, and the leverage-points perspective as an analytical lens. The aim was to investigate contextual leverage for transformative change, and how our use of context and relations shapes our understanding of transformation and leverage for change. The empirical basis was a whole-day workshop, held in both northern and southern Sweden, for local forest stakeholders. To detract from current conflict and barriers to change, we asked the stakeholders to reflect on transformative change in the past and in the future, and the spatio-temporal relations that form the forest–climate nexus. Our analysis suggests that leverage associated with a transformative change in the future is commonly seen as universal and detached from context, reflecting, for example, national and global discourses on forests and climate change. Regarding transformative changes in the past, however, contextual leverage is linked to the community values and pluralism that drove the change in particular situations. Focusing on the complex spatio-temporal relations and meaning-making helps identify how leverage emerges from context, and how leverage also acquires a richer meaning for people experiencing transformative change.

show abstract

Section: Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transformative change in context—stakeholders’ understandings of leverage at the forest–climate nexus

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We thank Raymond et al (2021) for their attentive engagement with our paper (West et al 2020), and welcome critical discussions around relational thinking in sustainability science. We begin by clarifying that our 'target audience' for the value of relational thinking is all those who are interested in the study of complex sustainability issues, not only those who adopt 'dynamical systems' approaches (Raymond et al 2021, p. 2).…”

Section: Multiple Approaches To Relationalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al.

West

Haider

Stålhammar

et al. 2021

Ecosystems and People

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We welcome Raymond et al.'s invitation to further discuss the 'pragmatics' of relational thinking in sustainability science. We clarify that relational approaches provide distinct theoretical and methodological resources that may be adopted on their own, or used to enrich other approaches, including systems research. We situate Raymond et al.'s characterization of relational thinking in a broader landscape of differing approaches to mobilizing 'relationality' in sustainability science. A key contribution of relational thinking in the processrelational, pragmatist and post-structural traditions is the focus on the generation and use of concepts. This focus is proving methodologically useful for sustainability scientists. We caution against viewing the generation of concepts purely in terms of 'applying the knife' to 'divide components.' Relational thinking offers alternatives more congruent with complexity: away from an 'external' actor cutting away at the world with an 'either/or' logic, towards an 'immersed' actor contributing generatively within it using a 'both/and not only' logic. The pragmatics of relational thinking will vary according to purposes. We describe two possible pathways for using relational thinking in research practice-(i) working forwards from relations, and (ii) working backwards from existing concepts-and discuss how relational thinking can contribute to complexity-oriented visions of 'solutions-oriented sustainability science.'

show abstract

“…Facilitating a 'relational turn' in practise nevertheless may pose challenges (Raymond et al 2021). The inclusion of people's relation with nature into policy and social structures is often lacking as policies do not cater for recognition of such relations (Mattijssen et al 2020 this issue).…”

Section: A Relational Turn In Research and Valuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Key advantages of the leverage points perspective to shape human-nature relations

Riechers

Loos

Balázsi

et al. 2021

Ecosystems and People

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Engaging with the pragmatics of relational thinking, leverage points and transformations – Reply to West et al.

Cited by 21 publications

References 28 publications

Transformative change in context—stakeholders’ understandings of leverage at the forest–climate nexus

Transformative change in context—stakeholders’ understandings of leverage at the forest–climate nexus

Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al.

Key advantages of the leverage points perspective to shape human-nature relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About