Reflexive Methodological Pluralism

Abstract

This article argues that methodological pluralism (MP) can benefit from a deeper and more systematic integration of reflexive processes. In particular, reflexivity can facilitate meaningful and problem-specific ways of combining methods across different disciplinary fields, types of expertise, and practices. To develop our argument, we distinguish between two dimensions of reflexivity: critical (questioning of values, assumptions, and sociopolitical context underlying research methodology) and transformative (investigating pathways for change by mobilizing social experimentation and learning). We discuss two cases of research on environmental valuation that mobilizes reflexivity. We conclude by emphasizing the specific role of critical and transformative reflexivity in guiding methodological choices.

Keywords

reflexivity methodological pluralism transdisciplinarity interdisciplinarity environmental valuation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aboelela

S. W.

Larson

Bakken

Carrasquillo

Formicola

Glied

S. A.

. . . Gebbie

K. M.

(2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42, 329-346.

Alvesson

Sköldberg

(2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Argyris

(2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 206-218.

Bardwell

(1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environmental Management, 15, 603-612. doi:10.1007/BF02589620

Bateman

I. J.

Mace

G. M.

Fezzi

Atkinson

Turner

(2011). Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 177-218.

Beekman

Brom

F. A.

(2007). Ethical tools to support systematic public deliberations about the ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnologies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 3-12.

Bockstael

N. E.

Freeman

A. M.

Kopp

R. J.

Portney

P. R.

Smith

V. K.

(2000). On measuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science & Technology, 34, 1384-1389.

Cooperrider

D. L.

Whitney

D. K.

Stavros

J. M.

(2003). Appreciative inquiry handbook (Vol. 1). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Cornell

(2011). The Rise and Rise of Ecosystem Services: Is “value” the best bridging concept between society and the natural world?. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 6, 88-95.

10.

Costanza

d’Arge

De Groot

Farber

Grasso

Hannon

. . . Paruelo

(1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253-260.

11.

Demeritt

(2000). The new social contract for science: Accountability, relevance, and value in US and UK science and research policy. Antipode, 32, 308-329. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00137

12.

Denscombe

(2008). Communities of practice a research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270-283.

13.

Denzin

(1970). Strategies of multiple triangulation. In Denzin

(Ed.), The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological method (pp. 297-313). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Dow

S. C.

(1997). Methodological pluralism and pluralism of method. In Salanti

Screpanti

(Eds.), Pluralism in economics: New perspectives in history and methodology (pp. 89-99). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

15.

Dow

S. C.

(2007). Variety of methodological approach in economics. Journal of Economic Surveys, 21, 447-465. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00510.x

16.

Dunkerley

Glasner

(1998). Empowering the public? Citizens’ juries and the new genetic technologies. Critical Public Health, 8, 181-192.

17.

Garmendia

Gamboa

Franco

Garmendia

J. M.

Liria

Olazabal

(2010). Social multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated coastal zone management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53, 385-403.

18.

Getzner

Spash

C. L.

Stagl

(2005). Alternatives for environmental valuation. London, England: Routledge.

19.

Greene

J. C.

(2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). New York, NY: John Wiley.

20.

Grunwald

(2004). Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: The need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1, 150-167.

21.

Hartley

Wood

(2005). Public participation in environmental impact assessment—Implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 319-340. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.12.002

22.

Hesse-Biber

Johnson

R. B.

(2013). Coming at things differently future directions of possible engagement with mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 103-109.

23.

Jacobs

(1997). Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions. In Foster

(Ed.), Valuing nature? Economics, ethics, environment (pp. 211-231). London, England: Routledge.

24.

Jahn

Bergmann

Keil

(2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1-10.

25.

Jasanoff

(1997). Civilization and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 221-232. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/6/3/002

26.

Johansson

A. W.

Lindhult

(2008). Emancipation or workability? Critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research. Action Research, 6(1), 95-115. doi:10.1177/1476750307083713

27.

Johnson

R. B.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Tucker

Icenogle

M. L.

(2014). Conducting mixed methods research using dialectical pluralism and social psychological strategies. In Leavy

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 557-578). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

Kaiser

Forsberg

E.-M.

(2001). Assessing fisheries: Using an ethical matrix in a participatory process. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, 191-200. doi:10.1023/A:1011300811590

29.

Krutilla

J. V.

(1967). Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review, 57, 777-786.

30.

Kumar

(2008). Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. Ecological Economics, 64, 808-819.

31.

Lang

D. J.

Wiek

Bergmann

Stauffacher

Martens

Moll

. . . Thomas

C. J.

(2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25-43.

32.

Max-Neef

M. A.

(2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5-16.

33.

McDonald

Bammer

Deane

(2009). Research integration using dialogue methods. Canberra, Australia: ANU E Press.

34.

Menon

Stafinski

(2008). Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: Findings from a citizens’ jury. Health Expectations, 11, 282-293.

35.

Mepham

Kaiser

Thorstensen

Tomkins

Millar

(2006). Ethical matrix manual. The Hague: LEI, Wageningen University.

36.

Mertens

D. M.

(2007). Transformative paradigm mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225.

37.

Merton

R. K.

(1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

38.

Midgley

Munlo

Brown

(1998). The theory and practice of boundary critique: Developing housing services for older people. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49, 467-478.

39.

Miller

T. R.

Baird

T. D.

Littlefield

C. M.

Kofinas

Chapin

F. S.

III Redman

C. L.

(2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 46.

40.

Mingers

(2001). Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12, 240-259. doi:10.1287/isre.12.3.240.9709

41.

Munda

(2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 662-677.

42.

Norgaard

R. B.

(1989). The case for methodological pluralism. Ecological Economics, 1(1), 37-57.

43.

O’Neill

Holland

Light

(2004). Environmental values. London, England: Routledge.

44.

O’Neill

Spash

C. L.

(2000). Conceptions of value in environmental decision-making. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Research for the Environment.

45.

O’Rourke

Crowley

S. J.

(2013). Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: The story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese, 190, 1937-1954.

46.

Ostrom

(1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Paredis

(2008). Transition management in Flanders. Policy context, first results and surfacing tensions (Working Paper No. 6). Ghent, Belgium: Centre for Sustainable Development, Ghent University, Flemish Policy Research Centre on Sustainable Development.

48.

Peterson

G. D.

Cumming

G. S.

Carpenter

S. R.

(2003). Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, 17, 358-366.

49.

Popa

Guillermin

Dedeurwaerdere

(2015). A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, 65, 45-56. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002

50.

Renn

Webler

(1992). Anticipating conflicts: Public participation in managing the solid waste crisis. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 1(2), 84-94.

51.

Ring

Hansjürgens

Elmqvist

Wittmer

Sukhdev

(2010). Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: The TEEB initiative. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1-2), 15-26.

52.

Ritchie

Lewis

Nicholls

C. M. N.

Ormston

(2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

53.

Ross

Coleman

(2000). Urban community action planning inspires teenagers to transform their community and their identity. Journal of Community Practice, 7(2), 29-45.

54.

Roubelat

(2000). Scenario planning as a networking process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 65(1), 99-112.

55.

Schön

D. A.

(1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

56.

Schoolman

Guest

Bush

Bell

(2012). How interdisciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 67-80. doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0139-z

57.

Spangenberg

(2012). Sustainability science: A review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environmental Conservation, 38, 275-287.

58.

Spash

C. L.

(2008). How much is that ecosystem in the window? The one with the bio-diverse trail. Environmental Values, 17, 259-284.

59.

Spash

C. L.

(2012a). Ecological economics and philosophy of science: Ontology, epistemology, methodology and ideology (SRE—Discussion Papers, 2012/03). Vienna, Austria: WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.

60.

Spash

C. L.

(2012b). New foundations for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 77, 36-47.

61.

Stevens

T. H.

T. A.

Glass

R. J.

(1993). Measuring the existence value of wildlife: Reply. Land Economics, 69 309-312.

62.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

63.

Turnpenny

Jones

Lorenzoni

(2011). Where now for post-normal science? A critical review of its development, definitions, and uses. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36, 287-306.

64.

Vatn

(2009). An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal. Ecological Economics, 68, 2207-2215.

65.

Vatn

(2010). An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69, 1245-1252.

66.

Veldkamp

Verburg

P. H.

(2004). Modelling land use change and environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Management, 72(1-2), 1-3.

67.

Webb

E. J.

Campbell

D. T.

Schwartz

R. D.

Sechrest

(1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences (Vol. 111). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

68.

Weisbord

M. R.

Weisbord

Janoff

(2000). Future search: An action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

69.

Wiek

Ness

Schweizer-Ries

Brand

Farioli

(2012). From complex systems analysis to transformational change: A comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustainability Science, 7, 5-24.

70.

Willetts

Crawford

(2007). The most significant lessons about the most significant change technique. Development in Practice, 17, 367-379.

71.

Yolles

(2001). Viable boundary critique. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52(1), 35-47.