Malmö University Publications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Alternative names
Publications (7 of 7) Show all publications
Garcia, N. A., Boyd, E., Gillette, M. B., Rask, N., Saldert, H. & Singleton, B. E. (2023). Disagreeing well in an unparadigmatic field: a response to Bodin (2021). Sustainability Science, 18(2), 1049-1052
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Disagreeing well in an unparadigmatic field: a response to Bodin (2021)
Show others...
2023 (English)In: Sustainability Science, ISSN 1862-4065, E-ISSN 1862-4057, Vol. 18, no 2, p. 1049-1052Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

In a recent opinion article, sustainability researcher orjan Bodin claims that a shift leftward in sustainability science has rendered certain topics and research methods taboo, thus inhibiting the field's ability to contribute to achieving Agenda 2030. In this response, we problematise Bodin's framing of sustainability science, arguing he has misrepresented the field as "normal" rather than acknowledging its unparadigmatic character. It is precisely the unparadigmatic character of sustainability sciences (plural emphasised) that allows the field to begin addressing the wicked problems of our time. The question is then how to "disagree well" and assure quality in this unparadigmatic field.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2023
Keywords
Sustainability science, Normal science, Polarisation, Science quality, Paradigm
National Category
Information Systems, Social aspects
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-55382 (URN)10.1007/s11625-022-01228-6 (DOI)000861114600001 ()2-s2.0-85139140237 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2022-10-17 Created: 2022-10-17 Last updated: 2023-10-18Bibliographically approved
Gillette, M. B., Shebitz, D. & Singleton, B. (2023). Doing Conservation Differently: Toward a Diverse Conservations Inventory. Ethnobiology Letters, 14(2), 1-9
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Doing Conservation Differently: Toward a Diverse Conservations Inventory
2023 (English)In: Ethnobiology Letters, ISSN 2159-8126, Vol. 14, no 2, p. 1-9Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Many scientists and environmental activists argue that the scale and scope of contemporary conservation must increase dramatically if we are to halt biodiversity declines and sustain a healthy planet. Yet conservation as currently practiced has faced significant critique for its reliance on reductionist science, advocacy of "fortress"-like preservation measures that disproportionately harm marginalized communities, and integration into the global capitalist system that is the root cause of environmental degradation. The contributions to this special issue, developed from a panel at the Anthropology and Conservation conference co-hosted by the Royal Anthropological Institute and the Society of Ethnobiology in October 2021, collectively argue for what we, borrowing from Gibson-Graham's diverse economies framework, call "doing conservation differently." By bringing marginalized, hidden, and alternative conservation activities to light, researchers can contribute, in the spirit of Gibson-Graham's work, to making these diverse conservations more real and credible as objects of policy and activism. This special issue contributes to inventorying the diverse conservations that already exist, which opens new spaces for ethical intervention and collective action.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Society of Ethnobiology, 2023
Keywords
Change, Conservation science, Diverse economies, Ethnobiology, Indigenous and local knowledge
National Category
Social Anthropology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-61860 (URN)10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1835 (DOI)001009951400001 ()
Available from: 2023-08-15 Created: 2023-08-15 Last updated: 2023-08-15Bibliographically approved
Singleton, B. E. & Gillette, M. B. (2023). Mutiny on the Boundary?: Examining ILK-Based Conservation Collaborations through the Lens of Rubbish Theory. Ethnobiology Letters, 14(2), 83-91
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Mutiny on the Boundary?: Examining ILK-Based Conservation Collaborations through the Lens of Rubbish Theory
2023 (English)In: Ethnobiology Letters, ISSN 2159-8126, Vol. 14, no 2, p. 83-91Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Many conservation researchers and practitioners argue that knowledges traditionally conceptualized as nonacademic are useful for guiding environmental decision-making and stewardship. As demonstrated by the articles in this special issue, bringing Indigenous and local knowledges to bear on environmental conservation requires forging new relationships and, de facto, new political arrangements. In this article, we seek to clarify what is at stake in such efforts to change (or maintain) what counts as knowledge by applying rubbish theory to the volume's case studies. Redrawing the boundaries of what counts as conservation knowledge in engagements between academic researchers and practitioners trained to "do conservation" according to western science traditions, on the one hand, and Indigenous peoples and local communities who possess knowledge generated in non-academic contexts, on the other, effects demarcations of expertise and so challenges existing social hierarchies. Unsurprisingly, tension emerges about how far such changes should go. By increasing awareness of the relationship between (re)defining knowledge and (re)configuring social and political hierarchies, we hope to make it easier for participants to manage such collaborations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Society of Ethnobiology, 2023
Keywords
Indigenous and local knowledge, Western science, Collaboration, Rubbish theory, Conservation
National Category
Political Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-61863 (URN)10.14237/ebl.14.2.2023.1830 (DOI)001009951400008 ()
Available from: 2023-08-15 Created: 2023-08-15 Last updated: 2023-08-15Bibliographically approved
Singleton, B. E. (2023). Viewpoint: Two more lamps. Augmenting urban planning for biodiversity. Cities, 141, Article ID 104501.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Viewpoint: Two more lamps. Augmenting urban planning for biodiversity
2023 (English)In: Cities, ISSN 0264-2751, E-ISSN 1873-6084, Vol. 141, article id 104501Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Parris et al.'s seven lamps (principles) of planning for biodiversity in the city (2018) provides a framework for achieving two objectives. Firstly, to alter the normative basis on which urban planning is predicated by integrating a concern for nonhuman inhabitants. Secondly, it argues for the greater enrolment of ecologists and the field of ecology within environmental planning. It seeks to encourage a paradigm-shift to reorient society on a more sustainable path by demonstrating that planning for more-than-human cities does not require a conceptual leap, rather it resonates with extant planning concerns. It thus takes a pragmatic approach to radical change. However, I argue that this framework as originally stated insufficiently considers the diversity of society or the field of ecology and entails an anthropocentric worldview. This undermines the lamps framework's radical agenda. I argue that this issue could be ameliorated by developing two further principles, Justice and Contact. Integrating these concerns into the lamps framework will strengthen its ability to contribute to efforts to transition society into a sustainable state.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2023
Keywords
Architecture, Planning, Landscape architecture, Urban ecology, Environmental justice, Nature contact
National Category
Human Geography
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-62489 (URN)10.1016/j.cities.2023.104501 (DOI)001047746600001 ()2-s2.0-85165188605 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2023-09-14 Created: 2023-09-14 Last updated: 2023-09-14Bibliographically approved
Gillette, M. B. & Singleton, B. (2022). Inevitable epistemological conflict: Reflections on a disagreement over the relationship between science and indigenous and local knowledge. Ambio, 51(8), 1904-1905
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Inevitable epistemological conflict: Reflections on a disagreement over the relationship between science and indigenous and local knowledge
2022 (English)In: Ambio, ISSN 0044-7447, E-ISSN 1654-7209, Vol. 51, no 8, p. 1904-1905Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Publishing Company, 2022
National Category
Ecology
Research subject
Sustainable studies
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-56478 (URN)10.1007/s13280-022-01739-7 (DOI)
Funder
University of Gothenburg
Available from: 2022-12-06 Created: 2022-12-06 Last updated: 2022-12-07Bibliographically approved
Eimermann, M. & Singleton, B. (2022). Trails and tribulations: Lifestyle migration as nature-based integration in Northern Sweden. In: Doris Friedrich; Markus Hirnsperger; Stefan Bauer (Ed.), More than ‘Nature’: Research on Infrastructure and Settlements in the North (pp. 167-186). Vienna: LIT Verlag
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Trails and tribulations: Lifestyle migration as nature-based integration in Northern Sweden
2022 (English)In: More than ‘Nature’: Research on Infrastructure and Settlements in the North / [ed] Doris Friedrich; Markus Hirnsperger; Stefan Bauer, Vienna: LIT Verlag, 2022, p. 167-186Chapter in book (Refereed)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Vienna: LIT Verlag, 2022
Series
Beiträge zum zirkumpolaren Norden - Contributions to Circumpolar Studies ; 3
National Category
Sociology Other Social Sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-56461 (URN)978-3-643-91218-3 (ISBN)
Available from: 2022-12-05 Created: 2022-12-05 Last updated: 2023-09-07Bibliographically approved
Singleton, B., Gillette, M. B., Burman, A. & Blanes, R. (2022). Uncomfortable Knowledge: Toward a Pedagogy of Reflexivity. Teaching Anthropology, 11(2), 73-85
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Uncomfortable Knowledge: Toward a Pedagogy of Reflexivity
2022 (English)In: Teaching Anthropology, E-ISSN 2053-9843, Vol. 11, no 2, p. 73-85Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Reflexivity is a hallmark of good ethnography and many consider it a defining characteristic of anthropology. It is thus surprising that anthropologists have not paid more attention to how we teach students to be reflexive. Many of us learn reflexivity by making mistakes in the field, yet discussions of anthropological faux pas and their potential contributions to reflexive learning are typically limited to informal settings and occluded or heavily curated within our research outputs. In this article we employ analytic tools from the theory of sociocultural viability, in particular the notions of clumsiness, elegance, and uncomfortable knowledge, to contribute to developing a more explicit pedagogy of reflexivity. Since reading ethnographies plays a major role in how we teach anthropology, we argue that anthropologists should do more in their publications to highlight how awkward moments can deepen reflexivity. To advance this agenda, we provide cases of uncomfortable knowledge drawn from our own field experiences, highlighting how the social, emotional and embodied awkwardness of each situation contributed to acquiring reflexive insights. This article is thus a call to initiate prospective researchers earlier into the messy backstage of anthropological research, including by clarifying how the embodied and affective aspects of our interactions offer potential for deepening reflexive knowledge. In the hopes of facilitating the development of our pedagogies of reflexivity, we conclude the text with four recommendations that we feel will encourage reflexive learning from awkward fieldwork encounters.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
NomadIT, 2022
National Category
Social Anthropology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-56479 (URN)10.22582/ta.v11i2.654 (DOI)
Available from: 2022-12-06 Created: 2022-12-06 Last updated: 2023-07-05Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0003-1038-2412

Search in DiVA

Show all publications