Critical, Engaged and Change-oriented Scholarship in Environmental Communication. Six Methodological Dilemmas to Think With

References

• Agyeman, J. (2007). Communicating “just sustainability”. Environmental Communication, 1(2), 119–122. doi: 10.1080/17524030701715318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed, S. (1998). Differences that matter: Feminist theory and postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. (2008). Material feminisms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alarcon, C. (2015). Forests at the limits (Doctoral thesis). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Retrieved from https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11926/1/alarcon_ferrari_c_150223.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology. New vistas for qualitative research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, A. (2015). Reflections on environmental communication and the challenges of a new research agenda. Environmental Communication, 9(3), 379–383. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2015.1044063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, J., & Westholm, E. (2019). Closing the future: Environmental research and the management of conflicting future value Orders. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(2), 237–262. doi: 10.1177/0162243918791263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. doi: 10.1080/01944366908977225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bäcklund, P., & Mäntysalo, R. (2010). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – the case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9(4), 333–350. doi: 10.1177/1473095210373684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besely, J. (2015). Making environmental communication work: Creating useful Guidance. Environmental Communication, 9(3), 398–403. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2015.1044006
   Google Scholar
• Brydon-Miller, M., Greenwood, D., & Maguire, P. (2003). Why action research? Action Research, 1(1), 9–28. doi: 10.1177/14767503030011002
   Google Scholar
• Castro-Gomez, S., & Martin, D. (2002). The social sciences, epistemic violence, and the problem of the “invention of the other”. Nepantla: Views From South, 3(2), 269–285. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/23949.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y.-W., Milstein, T., Anguiano, C., Sandoval, J., & Knudsen, L. (2012). Challenges and benefits of community-based participatory research for environmental justice: A case of collaboratively examining ecocultural struggles. Environmental Communication, 6(3), 403–421. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2012.698291
   Google Scholar
• Cox, R. (2007). Nature’s “crisis disciplines”: Does environmental communication have an ethical duty? Environmental Communication, 1(1), 5–20. doi: 10.1080/17524030701333948
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, R., & Pezzullo, P. (2016). Environmental communication and the public sphere (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, S., & Walker, G. (2001). Working through environmental conflict. The collaborative learning approach. Westport: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Depoe, S. P., Delicath, J. W., & Elsenbeer, M. F. A. (2004). Communication and public participation in environmental decision making. New York, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eckersley, R. (1999). The discourse ethic and the problem of representing nature. Environmental Politics, 8(2), 24–49. doi: 10.1080/09644019908414460
   Google Scholar
• Endres, D., Sprain, L., & Peterson, T. R. (2009). Social movement to address climate change: Local steps for global action. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans Comfort, S., & Eun Park, Y. (2018). On the field of environmental communication: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. Environmental Communication, 12(7), 862–875. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2018.1514315
   Google Scholar
• Filipe, A., Renedo, A., & Marston, C. (2017). The co-production of what? Knowledge, values, and social relations in health care. PLOS Biology, 15(5), e2001403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2001403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13(12), 1881–1885. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620131203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaard, G. (2017). Critical eco-feminism. London: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Ganesh, S., & Zoller, H. M. (2012). Dialogue, activism, and democratic social change. Communication Theory, 22(1), 66–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01396.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosz, E. (1993). Bodies and knowledges: Feminism and the crisis of reason. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 187–216). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hallgren, L., Bergeå, H., & Källström, H. N. (2018). Communication problems when participants disagree (or avoid disagreeing) in dialogues in Swedish Natural Resource Management—Challenges to agonism in practice. Frontiers in Communication, 3, 56. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2018.00056
   Google Scholar
• Hallgren, L., Bergeå, H. L., & Nordström Källström, H. (2020). Conservation hero and climate villain binary identities of Swedish farmers. In T. Milstein & J. Castro-Sotomayor (Eds.), Routledge handbook of ecocultural identity (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, A. (2015). Promising directions for environmental communication research. Environmental Communication, 9(3), 384–391. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2015.1044047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, A., & Cox, R. (2015). Introduction: Environment and communication. In A. Hansen & R. Cox (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of environment and communication. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspectives. Feminist Studies, 14, 575–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hekman, S. (2010). The material of knowledge, feminist disclosures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hellquist, A., & Westin, M. (2019). Medborgardialog om komplexa samhällsfrågor - Agonism, konsensus eller mobilisering? [Citizen dialogue on complex issues – Agonism, consensus or mobilization?]. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
   Google Scholar
• http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/398/365 
   Google Scholar
• Holland, R. (1999). Reflexivity. Human Relations, 52(4), 463–484. doi:10.1177/001872679905200403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudson, B. (2000). Critical reflection as research methodology. In V. Jupp, P. Davies, & P. Francis (Eds.), Doing criminological research (pp. 175–192). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Humphries, B. (1997). From critical thought to emancipatory action: Contradictory research goals? Sociological Research Online, 2(1), 20–27. doi: 10.5153/sro.47
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, S. K., Morales, N. A., Chen, B., Soodeen, R., Moulton, M. P., & Jain, E. (2019). Love or loss: Effective message framing to promote environmental conservation. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 18(3), 252–265. doi: 10.1080/1533015X.2018.1456380
   Google Scholar
• Joosse, S., & Marshall, M. (2020). Fridge stories and other tales from the kitchen – A methodological toolbox for getting closer to everyday food practices. Food, Culture and Society (accepted).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Jupp, V. (2006). The Sage dictionary of social research methods. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Katz-Kimchi, M., & Goodwin, B. G. (2015). FORUM: Organizing and integrating knowledge about environmental communication. Environmental Communication, 9(3), 367–369. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2015.1042985
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khanlouab, N., & Peter, E. (2005). Participatory action research: Considerations for ethical review. Social Science & Medicine, 60(10), 2333–2340. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.10.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby, S. L., Greaves, L., & Reid, C. (2006). Experience research social change: Methods beyond the mainstream. Ontario: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kriesberg, L., & Dayton, B. W. (2017). Constructive conflicts: From escalation to resolution (5th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., … Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25–43. doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen, R. K., & Raitio, K. (2019). Implementing the state duty to consult in land and resource decisions: Perspectives from Sami communities and Swedish State Officials. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 10, 4–23.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen, R. K., Raitio, K., Stinnerbom, M., & Wik-Karlsson, J. (2017). Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 67–76. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2017.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leach, M., & Mearns, R. (1998). The lie of the land: Challenging received wisdom on the African environment. Oxford: Currey.
   Google Scholar
• Michailova, S., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., Ritvala, T., Mihailova, I., & Salmi, A. (2014). Breaking the silence about exiting fieldwork: A relational approach and its implications for theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 39(2), 138–161. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mignolo, W. (2000). Coloniality, subaltern knowledges and border thinking: Local histories/global designs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Milstein, T., & Kroløkke, C. (2012). Transcorporeal tourism: Whales, fetuses, and the rupturing and reinscribing of cultural constraints. Environmental Communication, 6(1), 82–100. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2011.642079
   Google Scholar
• Mohanty, C. T. (1984). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. boundary 2, 12/13, 333–358. doi: 10.2307/302821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosse, D. (2005). Cultivating development. London: Pluto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. (2005). The return of the political. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Noy, C. (2015). Writing in museums. Written Communication, 32(2), 195–219. doi: 10.1177/0741088315574703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson, T. R., Bergeå, H. L., Feldpausch-Parker, A. M., & Raitio, K. (2016). Environmental communication and community: Constructive and destructive dynamics of social transformation. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pezzullo, P. C., & de Onís, C. (2018). Rethinking rhetorical field methods on a precarious planet. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 103–122. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2017.1336780
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pløger, J. (2004). Strife: Urban planning and agonism. Planning Theory, 3(1), 71–92. doi: 10.1177/1473095204042318
   Google Scholar
• Plumwood, V. (2002). Feminism and the mastery of nature (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G. S., Schneider, F., … Hadorn, G. H. (2010). Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: Experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy, 37(4), 267–281. doi: 10.3152/030234210X496628
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polk, M. (2015). Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures, 65, 110–122. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poncelet, E. C. (2001). A Kiss here and a kiss there: Conflict and collaboration in environmental partnerships. Environmental Management, 27(1), 13–25. doi: 10.1007/s002670010130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, N., Kløcker Larsen, R., De Bruin, A., Powell, S., & Elrick-Barr, C. (2017). Water security in times of climate change and intractability: Reconciling conflict by transforming security concerns into equity concerns. Water, 9(12), 934. doi:10.3390/w9120934 
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, S., & Arora-Jonsson, S. (2015). The ethics of political correctness. In K. Nakray, M. Alston, & K. Whittenbury (Eds.), Understanding social science research ethics: Inter-disciplinary and cross-cultural perspectives for a globalising world (pp. 61–77). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Powell, S. (forthcoming). Inter-/transdisciplinary, democratic, collaborative, equal and equitable. Claims on sustainability research.
   Google Scholar
• Raphael, C. (2019). Engaged communication scholarship for environmental justice: A research agenda. Environmental Communication, 13, 1087–1107. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2019.1591478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sardar, Z. (2010). Welcome to postnormal times. Futures, 42(5), 435–444. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senecah, S. (2004). The environmental communication yearbook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• SLU. (2018). Rapport om uppdraget att, inom ramen för livsmedelsstrategin, utveckla samverkan och samverkansformer mellan forskning och rådgivning (N2017/04769/JM). [Report from the commission to, according to the national food strategy, develop collaboration and forms for collaboration between research and the advisory sector].
   Google Scholar
• Sowards, S. K. (2012). Environmental justice in international contexts: Understanding intersections for social justice in the twenty-first century. Environmental Communication, 6(3), 285–289. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2012.700205
   Google Scholar
• Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. N. a. L. Grossberg (Ed.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stirling, A. (2014). Emancipation transformations: From controlling “the transition” to culturing plural radical progress. STEPS working paper, 64. Brighton: STEPS Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Von Essen, E., & Allen, M. P. (2017). Reconsidering illegal hunting as a crime of dissent: Implication for justice and deliberative uptake. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 11(2), 213–228. doi: 10.1007/s11572-014-9364-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, D., & Senecah, S. (2011). Collaborative governance. Integrating institutions, communities and people. In F. Dukes & J. Birkhoff (Eds.), Community-based collaboration. Bridging socio-ecological research and practice (pp. 112–145). Charlottesville: Virginia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillian.
   Google Scholar
• Westberg, L., & Polk, M. (2016). The role of learning in transdisciplinary research: Moving from a normative concept to an analytical tool through a practice-based approach. Sustainability Science, 11(3), 385–397. doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0358-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westberg, L., & Powell, S. (2015). Participate for women’s sake? A gender analysis of a Swedish collaborative environmental management project. Society & Natural Resources, 28(11), 1233–1248. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2015.1014594
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westberg, L., & Waldenström, C. (2017). How can we ever create participation when we are the ones who decide? On natural resource management practice and its readiness for change. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(6), 654–667. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2016.1264298
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670–690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar