Counteracting hegemonic powers in the policy process: critical action research on Nepal’s forest governance

References

• Adhikari, G., 2013. Donor darling [online]. Kathmandu Post, 28 January. Available from: http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2013/01/28/oped/donor-darlings/244637.html [Accessed 1 February 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Argyris, C. and Schön, D., 1996. Organizational learning II: theory, method and practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Banjade, M.R., 2013. Learning to improve livelihoods: applying adaptive collaborative approach to forest governance in Nepal. In: H. Ojha, A. Hall, and V. Rasheed Sulaiman, eds. Adaptive collaborative approaches in natural resource governance: rethinking participation, learning and innovation. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Banjade, M.R. and Ojha, H., 2005. Facilitating deliberative governance: innovations from Nepal’s community forestry program – a case study in Karmapunya. Forestry chronicle, 81, 403.
   Google Scholar
• Banjade, M.R. et al., 2007. Conceptualising meso-level governance in the management of commons: lessons from Nepal’s community forestry. Journal of forest and livelihood, 6, 48–58.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, L., 2005. Gender, caste and ethnic exclusion in Nepal: following the policy process from analysis to action. Washington, DC: World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P., 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological theory, 7, 14–25.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P., 1990. In other words: essays towards reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press in Association with Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P., 2009. The scholastic point of view. Cultural anthropology, 5, 380–391.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P., Chamboredon, J.C. and Passeron, J.C., 1991. The craft of sociology: epistemological preliminaries. Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Chhatre, A., 2008. Political articulation and accountability in decentralisation: theory and evidence from India. Conservation and society, 6, 12–23.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, N., 2004. On systematically distorted communication: Bourdieu and the socio-analysis of publics. The sociological review, 52, 88–112.
   Google Scholar
• Dhital, N., Paudel, K.P. and Ojha, H., 2002. Inventory of community forests in Nepal: problems and opportunities. Kathmandu: ForestAction Nepal.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J., 1982. Policy analysis as a hermeneutic activity. Policy sciences, 14, 309–329.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J.S., 2006. Policy analysis as critique. In: M. Moran, M. Rein, and R. Goodin, eds. The Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 190–203.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J.S., 2010. Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J.S. and Niemeyer, S., 2008. Discursive representation. American political science review, 102, 481–493.
   Google Scholar
• Eckholm, E.P., 1975. The deterioration of mountain environments. Science, 189, 764–770.
   Google Scholar
• Escobar, A., 1995. Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fals-Borda, O., 1987. The application of participatory action-research in Latin America. International sociology, 2, 329–347.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., 1992. Reconstructing policy analysis: a postpositivist perspective. Policy sciences, 25, 333–339.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., 1993. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: from theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy sciences, 26, 165–187.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., 1998. Beyond empiricism: policy inquiry in post positivist perspective. Policy studies, 26, 129–146.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., 2003. Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fligstein, N. and McAdam, D., 2011. Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological theory, 29, 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B., 2011. Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J., 1993. Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice: toward a critical pragmatism. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M., 2000. The subject and power. In: K. Nash, ed. Readings in contemporary political sociology. Oxford: Blackwell, 8–26.
   Google Scholar
• Freire, P., 1993 [1970]. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Ganguly, S. and Shoup, B., 2005. Nepal: between dictatorship and anarchy. Journal of democracy, 16, 129–143.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A., 1984. The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gilmour, D.A. and Fisher, R.J., 1991. Villagers, forests and foresters: the philosophy process and practice of community forestry in Nepal. Kathmandu: Sahayogi Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gramsci, A., 1990. Culture and ideological hegemony. In: J.C. Alexander and S. Seidman, eds. Culture and society: contemporary debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 47–54.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J., 1970. On systematically distorted communication. Inquiry, 13, 205–218.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M., 2003. Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy sciences, 36, 175–195.
   Google Scholar
• Hale, C.R., 2008. Introduction. In: C.R. Hale, ed. Engaging contradictions: theory, politics, and methods of activist scholarship. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, P.A., 1993. Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policy making in Britain. Comparative politics, 25, 275–296.
   Google Scholar
• Hayward, C.R., 2004. Doxa and deliberation. Critical review of international social and political philosophy, 7, 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Howarth, D., 2010. Power, discourse, and policy: articulating a hegemony approach to critical policy studies. Critical policy studies, 3, 309–335.
   Google Scholar
• Hull, J., Ojha, H. and Paudel, K.P., 2010. Forest inventory in Nepal – technical power or social empowerment? In: A. Lawrence, ed. Taking stock of nature: participatory biodiversity assessment for policy, planning and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 165–184.
   Google Scholar
• Kemmis, S., 2001. Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research: emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jurgen Habermas. In: P. Reason and H. Bradbury, eds. Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 91–102.
   Google Scholar
• Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R., 2005. Participatory action research: communicative action and the public sphere. In: N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds. Sage handbook of qualitaitive research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 559–604.
   Google Scholar
• Khadka, N., 2009. More feudal than others [online]. Kathmandu Post, 9 September. Available from: http://www.ekantipur.com/2009/09/11/related-article/more-feudal-than-others/300130.html [Accessed 2 February 2013].
   Google Scholar
• Kincheloe, J.L. and McLaren, P., 2000. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In: N.K. Denin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousands Oak, CA: Sage, 279–313.
   Google Scholar
• Lewin, K., 1951. Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers, ed. D. Cartwright. New York: Harper.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, J., 1999. Everyday talk in the deliberative system. Deliberative politics: essays on democracy and disagreement, 1, 211–239.
   Google Scholar
• Mcdougal, C. et al., 2007. Enhancing adaptiveness and collaboration in community forestry in Nepal: reflections from participatory action research. In: R.J. Fisher, ed. Adaptive collaborative management of forests: experiences from Asia. Bogor: CIFOR and RFF.
   Google Scholar
• Mcdougall, C. et al., 2009. Facilitating forests of learning: enabling an adaptive collaborative approach in community forest user groups, a guidebook. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.
   Google Scholar
• Metz, J.J., 1995. Development in Nepal: investment in the status quo. GeoJournal, 35, 175–184.
   Google Scholar
• Nightingale, A., 2005. ‘The experts taught us all we know’: professionalization and knowledge in Nepalese community forestry. Antipode, 37, 581–604.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha, H., 2002. A critical assessment of scientific and political aspects of the issue of community forest inventory in Nepal. Kathmandu: ForestAction Nepal.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha, H., 2012. Improving forest governance through Critical Action Research (CAR): lesson from forest action Nepal’s experience. Journal of forest and livelihood, 10, 101–125.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha, H., Cameron, J. and Kumar, C., 2009. Deliberation or symbolic violence? The governance of community forestry in Nepal. Forest policy and economics, 11, 365–374.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha, H.R., 2006. Techno-bureuacratic doxa and the challenges of deliberative governance – the case of community forestry policy and practice in Nepal. Policy and society, 25, 131–175.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha, H.R., 2008. Reframing governance: understanding deliberative politics in Nepal’s Terai forestry. New Delhi: Adroit.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha, H.R. et al., 2010. The deliberative scientist: integrating science and politics in forest resource governance in Nepal. In: L. German, J.J. Ramisch, and R. Verma, eds. Beyond the biophysical: knowledge, culture, and politics in agriculture and natural resource management. Dordrecht: Springer, 167–191.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha, H.R. et al., 2012. Can policy learning be catalyzed? Ban Chautari experiment in Nepal’s forest sector. Journal of forest and livelihood, 10, 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Onta, P., 2012. Locating academic NGOs in the knowledge production landscape. Dhaulagiri journal of sociology and anthropology, 5, 49–80.
   Google Scholar
• Paudel, K.P. and Ojha, H.R., 2008. Contested knowledge and reconciliation in Nepal’s community forestry: a case of forest inventory policy. In: H.R. Ojha, N.P. Timsina, R.B. Chhetri, and K.P. Paudel, eds. Knowledge systems and natural resources: management, institutions and policy in Nepal. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press India Limited and IDRC.
   Google Scholar
• Satyal Pravat, P. and Humphreys, D., 2012. Using a multilevel approach to analyse the case of forest conflicts in the Terai, Nepal. Forest policy and economics, 33, 47–55.
   Google Scholar
• Schon, D., 2010. Government as learning system. In: C. Blackmore, ed. Social learning systems and communities of practice. Milton Keynes: The Open University Press, 5–16.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J.C., 1987. Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J.C., 1998. Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shrestha, C.H. and Adhikari, R., 2010. Antipolitics and counterpolitics in Nepal’s Civil Society: the case of Nepal’s citizen’s movement. Voluntas: international journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations, 21, 293–316.
   Google Scholar
• Shrestha, N.R., 1998. In the name of development: a reflection on Nepal. Kathmandu: Educational Entrprises Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Tarrow, S., 1996. States and opportunities: the political structuring of social movements. In: D. McAdam, J.D. McCarthy, and M.N. Zald, eds. Comparative perspectives on social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 41–61.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E., 2000. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225–246.
   Google Scholar
• Yanow, D., 2007. Interpretation in policy analysis: on methods and practice. Critical policy analysis, 1, 110–122.
   Google Scholar