IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v154y2023ics1389934123001296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What ‘counts’ in international forest policy research? A conference ethnography of valuation practice and habitus in an interdisciplinary social science field

Author

Listed:
  • Koch, Susanne
  • Tetley, Camilla

Abstract

In this paper, we examine implicit values, norms and orientations that guide international forest policy research (FPR). We link Bourdieu's praxeological theory and valuography to empirically grasp disciplinary habitus manifesting in valuation practice at International Forest Policy Meetings. Conferences provide spaces where scholars negotiate ‘what counts’. In presenting and discussing research, they enact values of ‘good’ scholarship that reflect basic orientations of doing science in the field.

Suggested Citation

  • Koch, Susanne & Tetley, Camilla, 2023. "What ‘counts’ in international forest policy research? A conference ethnography of valuation practice and habitus in an interdisciplinary social science field," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:154:y:2023:i:c:s1389934123001296
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934123001296
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103034?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. Arts, Bas, 2012. "Forests policy analysis and theory use: Overview and trends," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 7-13.
    2. Parrotta, John A. & Campos Arce, Jose Joaquin, 2003. "Improving communication across the forest science/policy interface," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 1-1, December.
    3. Koch, Susanne, 2018. "“Identifying enabling factors of science-policy interaction in a developing country context: A case study of South Africa's environment sector”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 36-45.
    4. de Jong, Wil & Arts, Bas & Krott, Max, 2012. "Political theory in forest policy science," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 1-6.
    5. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Böcher, Michael & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Forest Policy Analysis: Advancing the analytical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-6.
    6. Sven E. Hug & Michael Ochsner & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2013. "Criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities: a Delphi study among scholars of English literature, German literature and art history," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(5), pages 369-383, August.
    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. Michael Carolan, 2024. "Do universities support solutions-oriented collaborative research? Constraints to wicked problems scholarship in higher education," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-12, December.

    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. Krott, Max & Bader, Axel & Schusser, Carsten & Devkota, Rosan & Maryudi, Ahmad & Giessen, Lukas & Aurenhammer, Helene, 2014. "Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 34-42.
    2. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    3. Stevanov, Mirjana & Dobšinska, Zuzana & Surový, Peter, 2016. "Assessing survey-based research in forest science: Turning lemons into lemonade?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 105-117.
    4. Krott, Max & Giessen, Lukas, 2014. "Learning from practices — implications of the “practice based approach” for forest and environmental policy research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 12-16.
    5. Arts, Bas, 2014. "Assessing forest governance from a ‘Triple G’ perspective: Government, governance, governmentality⁎⁎This article belongs to the Special Issue: Assessing Forest Governance," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 17-22.
    6. Nikki Funke & Dave Huitema & Arthur Petersen, 2024. "Boundary work to what end? Analysing the acid mine drainage case in Gauteng, South Africa," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 393-405.
    7. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    8. Creutzburg, Leonard & Lieberherr, Eva, 2021. "To log or not to log? Actor preferences and networks in Swiss forest policy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    9. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Böcher, Michael & Giessen, Lukas, 2016. "Forest Policy Analysis: Advancing the analytical approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-6.
    10. Tausch, Arno, 2018. "The Market Power of Global Scientific Publishing Companies in the Age of Globalization. An Analysis Based on the OCLC Worldcat," MPRA Paper 87442, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Beland Lindahl, Karin & Sandström, Camilla & Sténs, Anna, 2017. "Alternative pathways to sustainability? Comparing forest governance models," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 69-78.
    12. Peter van den Besselaar & Ulf Sandström, 2019. "Measuring researcher independence using bibliometric data: A proposal for a new performance indicator," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Vladimir Stojanovski, 2022. "Policy Processes in the Institutionalisation of Private Forestry in the Republic of North Macedonia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-20, March.
    14. Song Jing & Qingzhao Ma & Siyi Wang & Hanliang Xu & Tian Xu & Xia Guo & Zhuolin Wu, 2024. "Research on developmental evaluation based on the "four abilities" model: evidence from early career researchers in China," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 681-704, February.
    15. Linkevičius, Edgaras & Borges, José G. & Doyle, Marie & Pülzl, Helga & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Vacik, Harald & Brukas, Vilis & Biber, Peter & Teder, Meelis & Kaimre, Paavo & Synek, Michal & Garcia-Gonz, 2019. "Linking forest policy issues and decision support tools in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 4-16.
    16. Alessandro Margherita & Gianluca Elia & Claudio Petti, 2022. "What Is Quality in Research? Building a Framework of Design, Process and Impact Attributes and Evaluation Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Verleysen, Frederik T. & Weeren, Arie, 2016. "Clustering by publication patterns of senior authors in the social sciences and humanities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 254-272.
    18. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    19. Harada, Kazuhiro & Habib, Muhammad & Sakata, Yumi & Maryudi, Ahmad, 2022. "The role of NGOs in recognition and sustainable maintenance of customary forests within indigenous communities: The case of Kerinci, Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    20. Lakerveld, Roan P. & Lele, S. & Crane, T.A. & Fortuin, K.P.J. & Springate-Baginski, O., 2015. "The social distribution of provisioning forest ecosystem services: Evidence and insights from Odisha, India," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 56-66.

    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:forpol:v:154:y:2023:i:c:s1389934123001296. 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/forpol .

    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.