Author:
Walsh Zack,Böhme Jessica,Wamsler Christine
Abstract
AbstractRelational thinking has recently gained increasing prominence across academic disciplines in an attempt to understand complex phenomena in terms of constitutive processes and relations. Interdisciplinary fields of study, such as science and technology studies (STS), the environmental humanities, and the posthumanities, for example, have started to reformulate academic understanding of nature-cultures based on relational thinking. Although the sustainability crisis serves as a contemporary backdrop and in fact calls for such innovative forms of interdisciplinary scholarship, the field of sustainability research has not yet tapped into the rich possibilities offered by relational thinking. Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to identify relational approaches to ontology, epistemology, and ethics which are relevant to sustainability research. More specifically, we analyze how relational approaches have been understood and conceptualized across a broad range of disciplines and contexts relevant to sustainability to identify and harness connections and contributions for future sustainability-related work. Our results highlight common themes and patterns across relational approaches, helping to identify and characterize a relational paradigm within sustainability research. On this basis, we conclude with a call to action for sustainability researchers to co-develop a research agenda for advancing this relational paradigm within sustainability research, practice, and education.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Ecology,Environmental Chemistry,Geography, Planning and Development,General Medicine
Reference138 articles.
1. Abson, D.J., J. Fischer, J. Leventon, J. Newig, T. Schomerus, U. Vilsmaier, H. von Wehrden, P. Abernethy, et al. 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46: 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.
2. Alaimo, S. 2010. Bodily natures: Science, environment, and the material self. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
3. Alaimo, S., and S. Hekman (eds.). 2008. Material feminisms. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
4. Angerer, M.L. 2017. Ecology of affect: Intensive milieus and contingent encounters. Translated by Gerrit Jackson. Lüneburg, Germany: Meson Press.
5. Baker, T., and P. McGuirk. 2017. Assemblage thinking as methodology: Commitments and practices for critical policy research. Territory, Politics, Governance 5: 425–442.
Cited by
120 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献