IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v116y2015icp12-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The SES-Framework as boundary object to address theory orientation in social–ecological system research: The SES-TheOr approach

Author

Listed:
  • Hertz, Tilman
  • Schlüter, Maja

Abstract

Social–ecological system (SES) research is inherently cross-disciplinary which can create multiple challenges for building knowledge of SES. Some of these challenges relate to differences in ontological commitments due to theory orientation of individual disciplines. Frameworks, understood as boundary objects, have been suggested as tools for dealing with this type of challenge. This paper investigates this capacity of frameworks taking Elinor Ostroms' SES-Framework as an example. To this aim, we developed a generic approach (the SES-TheOr approach) to promote disclosure and bridge differences in ontological commitments in SES research. We then applied it for examining the use of the SES Framework as boundary object within a small cross-disciplinary research team. We found that the SES Framework provided a useful common reference and starting point for discussing variables but could not fully deal with theory orientation. We conclude by suggesting that this may partly arise due to a tension between two competing SES Framework aims: on the one hand bridging differences in ontological commitments, and on the other hand ensuring a comparative function across cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Hertz, Tilman & Schlüter, Maja, 2015. "The SES-Framework as boundary object to address theory orientation in social–ecological system research: The SES-TheOr approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 12-24.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:116:y:2015:i:c:p:12-24
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915001391
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baumgärtner, Stefan & Becker, Christian & Frank, Karin & Müller, Birgit & Quaas, Martin, 2008. "Relating the philosophy and practice of ecological economics: The role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 384-393, October.
    2. Keshkamat, S.S. & Kooiman, A. & van Maarseveen, M.F.A.M. & der Veen, A. van & Zuidgeest, M.H.P., 2012. "A boundary object for scale selection — Moderating differences and synergising understanding," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 15-24.
    3. Strunz, Sebastian, 2012. "Is conceptual vagueness an asset? Arguments from philosophy of science applied to the concept of resilience," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 112-118.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pauliuk, Stefan & Hertwich, Edgar G., 2015. "Socioeconomic metabolism as paradigm for studying the biophysical basis of human societies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 83-93.
    2. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Görg, Christoph & Settele, Josef, 2015. "Stakeholder involvement in ESS research and governance: Between conceptual ambition and practical experiences – risks, challenges and tested tools," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 201-211.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Strunz, Sebastian & Klauer, Bernd & Ring, Irene & Schiller, Johannes, 2014. "Between Scylla and Charybdis: On the place of economic methods and concepts within ecological economics," UFZ Discussion Papers 26/2014, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    2. Arora-Jonsson, Seema, 2016. "Does resilience have a culture? Ecocultures and the politics of knowledge production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 98-107.
    3. Olivier Petit & Franck-Dominique Vivien, 2015. "When economists and ecologists meet on Ecological Economics: two science paths around two interdisciplinary concepts," Post-Print halshs-01249774, HAL.
    4. Paolo Prosperi & Thomas Allen & Bruce Cogill & Martine Padilla & Iuri Peri, 2016. "Towards metrics of sustainable food systems: a review of the resilience and vulnerability literature," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 3-19, March.
    5. Ali Kharrazi & Brian D. Fath & Harald Katzmair, 2016. "Advancing Empirical Approaches to the Concept of Resilience: A Critical Examination of Panarchy, Ecological Information, and Statistical Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Spash, Clive L., 2013. "The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 351-362.
    7. Adena R. Rissman & Lori Barrow, 2019. "Characteristics of collaborative, interdisciplinary, and engaged research among graduate students in environmental conservation," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(3), pages 297-310, September.
    8. Steger, Cara & Hirsch, Shana & Evers, Cody & Branoff, Benjamin & Petrova, Maria & Nielsen-Pincus, Max & Wardropper, Chloe & van Riper, Carena J., 2018. "Ecosystem Services as Boundary Objects for Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 153-160.
    9. Dube, Benjamin, 2021. "Why cross and mix disciplines and methodologies?: Multiple meanings of Interdisciplinarity and pluralism in ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    10. Harrison, Richard T., 2023. "W(h)ither entrepreneurship? Discipline, legitimacy and super-wicked problems on the road to nowhere," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    11. Deana Pennington & Gabriele Bammer & Antje Danielson & David Gosselin & Julia Gouvea & Geoffrey Habron & Dave Hawthorne & Roderic Parnell & Kate Thompson & Shirley Vincent & Cynthia Wei, 2016. "The EMBeRS project: employing model-based reasoning in socio-environmental synthesis," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(2), pages 278-286, June.
    12. Clive L. Spash, 2012. "Towards the Integration of Social, Economic and Ecological Knowledge," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Julien-François Gerber & Rolf Steppacher (ed.), Towards an Integrated Paradigm in Heterodox Economics, chapter 1, pages 26-46, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    14. Linda Vanasupa & Lizabeth Schlemer & Roger Burton & Courtney Brogno & Ginger Hendrix & Neal MacDougall, 2014. "Laying the Foundation for Transdisciplinary Faculty Collaborations: Actions for a Sustainable Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-36, May.
    15. Buchs, Arnaud & Calvo-Mendieta, Iratxe & Petit, Olivier & Roman, Philippe, 2021. "Challenging the ecological economics of water: Social and political perspectives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    16. Larue, Louis, 2020. "The Ecology of Money: A Critical Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    17. Jose Carlos Cañizares & Samantha Marie Copeland & Neelke Doorn, 2021. "Making Sense of Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, July.
    18. Perz, Stephen G. & Muñoz-Carpena, Rafael & Kiker, Gregory & Holt, Robert D., 2013. "Evaluating ecological resilience with global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 263(C), pages 174-186.
    19. Spash, Clive L., 2012. "Ecological Economics and Philosophy of Science: Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Ideology," SRE-Discussion Papers 2012/03, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    20. Pelenc, Jérôme & Bazile, Didier & Ceruti, Cristian, 2015. "Collective capability and collective agency for sustainability: A case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 226-239.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:116:y:2015:i:c:p:12-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.