Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al.
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...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Ecosystems and People |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1898477 |
| _version_ | 1818966829307002880 |
|---|---|
| author | Simon West L. Jamila Haider Sanna Stålhammar Stephen Woroniecki |
| author_facet | Simon West L. Jamila Haider Sanna Stålhammar Stephen Woroniecki |
| author_sort | Simon West |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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.’ |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-20T13:39:07Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8dc8daa162a041149f30654724656d6d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2639-5916 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-20T13:39:07Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecosystems and People |
| spelling | doaj.art-8dc8daa162a041149f30654724656d6d2022-12-21T19:38:51ZengTaylor & Francis GroupEcosystems and People2639-59162021-01-0117110811310.1080/26395916.2021.18984771898477Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al.Simon West0L. Jamila Haider1Sanna Stålhammar2Stephen Woroniecki3Stockholm UniversityStockholm UniversityLund UniversityLinköping UniversityWe 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.’http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1898477maraja riechers and alexander van oudenhoven |
| spellingShingle | Simon West L. Jamila Haider Sanna Stålhammar Stephen Woroniecki Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al. Ecosystems and People maraja riechers and alexander van oudenhoven |
| title | Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al. |
| title_full | Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al. |
| title_fullStr | Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al. |
| title_short | Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al. |
| title_sort | putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science reply to raymond et al |
| topic | maraja riechers and alexander van oudenhoven |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1898477 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT simonwest puttingrelationalthinkingtoworkinsustainabilitysciencereplytoraymondetal AT ljamilahaider puttingrelationalthinkingtoworkinsustainabilitysciencereplytoraymondetal AT sannastalhammar puttingrelationalthinkingtoworkinsustainabilitysciencereplytoraymondetal AT stephenworoniecki puttingrelationalthinkingtoworkinsustainabilitysciencereplytoraymondetal |