Seven approaches to research in socio-ecological practice & five insights from the RWC–Schön–Stokes model

Abstract

In this review article, I examine seven commonly used approaches to research in socio-ecological practice and share insights about their defining characteristics, similarities, differences and connections. I derived these approaches and gained insights through the RWC–Schön–Stokes model, a theoretical framework for codifying, tabulating, examining and comparing multiple ways of methodical knowing in socio-ecological systems. For this reason, I begin with an introduction of the model and, in a chronological order, provide a review of its association with three intellectual ancestors: the Bush linear model (1945), the Stokes quadrant model (1997) and the Schön–Stokes model (2017).

Unearthing time-honored examples of nature-based solutions

“…8[1] For a recent account on approaches to research in socio-ecological practice, including use-inspired approaches and curiosity-inspired approaches, seeXiang (2021a). [2] scholar-practitioners are scholars who are committed to generating new knowledge that is useful to practitioners and enlightening to fellow scholars(Xiang 2019a, p.7; Xiang 2019b, p.165; Xiang 2021a, p.79).…”

Compassion practice, evolutionary advantage, and social resilience: the triad worth SEPR community’s attention

“… 1 [1] The characteristic of wicked problems, “proposed ‘solutions’ often turn out to be worse than the symptoms” (Churchman 1967 , p.B-141), can be described with a medical term iatrogenic in that solutions to an existing problem will almost inevitably induce new, equally if not more wicked problems that could be well beyond people’s imaginations (Xiang 2021a , p.76). For definition of iatrogenic, see Collins English Dictionary ( 2020 ).…”

“…For definition of iatrogenic, see Collins English Dictionary ( 2020 ). [2] For a summary on “wicked problems and tame problems”, see Xiang ( 2021a , pp.76–77); for the origin of the conceptions, see Churchman ( 1967 ) and Skaburskis ( 2008 ); for a recent literature review, see Termeer et al ( 2019 ). [3] A common threat is a danger—something or someone that can hurt or harm people—that may happen to every individual human being in a certain place (e.g., the earth, a country, a region, a city, a village, or a community) to the extent that no one in that place is immune; a common threat can come from a natural disaster, a human conflict, or a combination of both (Palko & Xiang 2020 , p.260; Xiang 2020 , p.200).…”

“The trouble”, its maker, and Yang Gui’s confidence in “taming the troublemaker” with a 1962 bilateral agreement

“… 10 In this capacity, he inadvertently employed “the Li approach to use inspired practice research for practice”. Commonplace among practitioners throughout human history, this approach was codified in 2021 by Chinese American geographer and planning scholar Wei-Ning Xiang (Xiang 2021 , p.80, p.82). The approach is named after Li Bing (李冰), a Chinese engineer who masterminded the Dujiangyan irrigation system in Sichuan, China in 256 BC.…”

“…The approach is named after Li Bing (李冰), a Chinese engineer who masterminded the Dujiangyan irrigation system in Sichuan, China in 256 BC. Under this approach, a practitioner acts as a non-scientist researcher, exemplified by Li Bing, who “aims exclusively to find the right way to do the right thing for a particular instance of socio-ecological practice and [most often] leaves no record of his [or her] research on the undergirding principles.” (Xiang 2021 , p.80) It should also be noted that Yang Gui was not alone. In fact, this approach was adopted and used widely by the project leadership team and the project participating farmers in every step of the project lifecycle, from planning, design to construction and management.…”