Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science–reply to Raymond et al.
(2021) In Ecosystems and People 17(1). p.108-113- Abstract
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 process-relational, 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... (More)
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 process-relational, 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.’.
(Less)
- author
- West, Simon ; Haider, L. Jamila ; Stålhammar, Sanna LU and Woroniecki, Stephen LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2021
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- complex adaptive systems, human-nature connection, leverage points, Maraja Riechers and Alexander van Oudenhoven, Relational ontology, relational values, social-ecological systems, transformations
- in
- Ecosystems and People
- volume
- 17
- issue
- 1
- pages
- 6 pages
- publisher
- Taylor & Francis
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85102720114
- ISSN
- 2639-5908
- DOI
- 10.1080/26395916.2021.1898477
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 69f698df-aa16-4a07-84f6-61f512498475
- date added to LUP
- 2021-04-01 10:46:16
- date last changed
- 2022-04-27 01:14:56
@article{69f698df-aa16-4a07-84f6-61f512498475,
abstract = {{<p>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 process-relational, 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.’.</p>}},
author = {{West, Simon and Haider, L. Jamila and Stålhammar, Sanna and Woroniecki, Stephen}},
issn = {{2639-5908}},
keywords = {{complex adaptive systems; human-nature connection; leverage points; Maraja Riechers and Alexander van Oudenhoven; Relational ontology; relational values; social-ecological systems; transformations}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{1}},
pages = {{108--113}},
publisher = {{Taylor & Francis}},
series = {{Ecosystems and People}},
title = {{Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science–reply to Raymond et al.}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1898477}},
doi = {{10.1080/26395916.2021.1898477}},
volume = {{17}},
year = {{2021}},
}