Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Conclusions
Ecology as both science and subject of scientifi c inquiry are of interest to political
ecologists concerned with understanding environmental politics or social-environ-
mental change. Political ecology is a highly diverse fi eld of inquiry. Political ecologi-
cal research is focused on different subjects of study which infl uence its varying
levels of 'engagement' with the heterogeneity, dynamics, responsiveness, and embed-
dedness of ecology as subject of study (ecological relations). In general, political
ecological research has shown limited engagement in ecological relations - refl ecting
the real costs of such engagements. Rather than promote a particular recipe for
political ecological research, this chapter has explored how the questions we ask
infl uence the appropriate level of the engagement with ecological relations. In so
doing, the hope has been to avoid a relativist trap (e.g., all levels of engagement are
fi ne) and delineate where further engagement promises to reveal either a hidden
politics or more complex social-environmental change.
Political ecologists have increasingly contributed critical assessments of the social
and environmental work done by ecological science. The silences, emphases, and
framings embedded within the assessments, monitoring, and solutions of environ-
mental scientists, international conservation organisations, and state offi cials etc.
have been shown to have signifi cant social and environmental consequences. In
analysing these politics of knowledge, political ecologists have emphasised how
scientifi c arguments have been used to silence those (often the disempowered) who
have developed their own understandings of environmental change in ways that
deviate from the western scientifi c programme.
While each has been treated separately in this chapter, one could argue that in
fact to engage critically with the truth claims of ecology, political ecologists them-
selves need to engage more with ecological relations. Otherwise, their criticisms of
ecology as practiced within their study areas may enjoy a following among social
scientists but have little effect on ecological scientifi c practice. Through greater
engagement with ecological relations, political ecologists could reveal the assump-
tions, methodological lapses and social content of ecological assessments and in so
doing, gain a greater appreciation of the diffi culties of ecological inquiry. Such
engagements are not without cost (as outlined above). It is important for researchers
to be deliberate about these choices, refl ecting on their audiences and research sub-
jects and how these in turn infl uence the benefi ts of greater engagements across the
social and biophysical scientifi c divide.
NOTES
1. I adopt this stance, not out of ignorance of the need for political ecology, as a relatively
young fi eld of inquiry, to defi ne itself, but to explore the benefi ts (and costs) of further
engagement with ecological relations as affected by the research questions being asked
by political ecology researchers. Such an exploration is not possible if one adopts a pre-
scriptive view of what political ecological analysis should or should not contain.
2. 'Engagement' does not necessarily require ecological fi eldwork. Still, it should be noted
that the relative importance of context increases with greater engagement, which in turn
increases the chance that fi eldwork is necessary. In this way, the need for ecological
fi eldwork (performed by political ecologist or by collaborators) tends to increase as the
level of engagement increases.
