Guided by the research questions (see section 1.2), a study was conducted to conceptualise EASES: the unit of analysis used to represent the Atlantic Europe maritime macro-region (described in Chapter 6). The study required a framework to serve as a nexus between the research methodology and the things8 being studied. This section provides an overview of the research approach, conceptual framework, research design and method.
Research approach
This thesis adopts a SES approach to sustainability research. It is an approach based on social ecology and sustainability science; a way of theorising about and investigating society–nature relations based on the paradigm of CAS thinking. Social ecology is ‘the science that studies societal relations to nature’ (ISOE 2015). Sustainability science is ‘an emerging field of research dealing with the interactions between natural and social systems, and with how those interactions affect the challenge of sustainability’ (PNAS 2015). Taken together, social ecology and sustainability science provide a basic philosophical and theoretical framework for this work: a logical structure for the integration of complementary components of different theories relevant to SES research.
The basic premise of this approach is that contemporary society–nature relations and interactions are strongly influenced by the rapidly changing relationship
8 Note on terminology: I use the term ‘things’ rather than ‘phenomena’ in order to encompass both empirical and non-empirical entities and evidence. ‘Things’ may refer to ideas, symbols, concepts, objects, data, knowledge, people, relationships, interactions, patterns, processes, systems, actions, events and so forth.
between humanity and the rest of nature (Castree 2001; Glaeser 2002; Costanza et al. 2007a; Glaser et al. 2008, 2012a; Steffen et al. 2011a, 2011b; Bruckmeier 2013). Social–ecological research is normatively concerned with (1) advancing understanding of the dynamic relationships between humans, society and the rest of nature; and (2) producing knowledge useful for solving complex social problems and informing decision making regarding sustainability. In other words, it deals with complex, continually changing social–ecological realities, which can be very different and often contradictory due to the plurality of perspectives involved.
Investigating complex society–nature relations and interactions inevitably involves a variety of complementary and competing forms of knowledge, encompassing a multitude of facts and concepts. Therefore, some form of overall organisation is needed to help integrate knowledge as well as accommodate and reconcile different theoretical and analytical perspectives. Furthermore, social– ecological research seeks a better understanding of how social and ecological systems interact across different scales. Consequently, there is a need for greater integration of knowledge and insights, not only between the natural and social sciences, but also between disciplines across the sciences, humanities and practice. Bammer (2005) refers to the need for diverse and hybrid epistemologies. However, greater integration of social and ecological knowledge is impeded by the lack of a coherent, truly integrated and interdisciplinary (or transdisciplinary) framework to guide the conceptualisation of research concerning SES (Glaeser et al 2009: 183-188).
Conceptual framework
Research is always guided, whether implicitly or explicitly, by some form of conceptual framework. For this thesis I define a conceptual framework as
a plausible representation of the dynamic system of concepts and other components of theory that together are used to structure a way of thinking about the things being studied.
In terms of functionality, this research required a conceptual framework that (1) can accommodate concepts derived from different disciplines and perspectives; (2) allows relevant concepts and their (assumed) relationships to be identified, gathered and organised in a coherent way; and (3) provides a general, abstract explanation of key concepts and relationships, which in turn serves as the theoretical basis and justification for the conceptualisation of EASES (described in Chapter 6).
The conceptual framework developed during the research is not intended to be fully comprehensive or universally applicable. A balance is struck between general and specific applicability. The framework links the more abstract theoretical level to the more concrete and specific analytical level. It provides a coherent structure for relating, organising and synthesising a diversity of assumptions, concepts, models and other components of theory used to explain the things being studied. The conceptual framework consists of two parts. The first describes the theory of CAS in general and SES in particular (Chapter 2). The second part describes social–ecological resilience theory (Chapter 3). Together, these are used for the conceptualisation and analysis of EASES (described in Chapter 6).
During the research, the conceptual framework evolved through several iterations and was modified and refined to reflect new information and understanding. This new knowledge was derived from a combination of an ongoing literature review and feedback from an expert panel during the EASES study.
Research design
The research design is located in the interpretivist, social constructivist paradigm of enquiry. This refers to my (the researcher’s) philosophical orientation and basic assumptions regarding the nature of reality (ontology), the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the knower and the knowable (epistemology), and the approach and procedure (systematic enquiry) for acquiring knowledge (methodology) (Guba 1990: 18). As a researcher, my worldview recognises that there are multiple socially constructed realities that are constantly changing, interacting and potentially in conflict with each other (a relativist ontology). On
the one hand, knowledge is constructed in the mind of the individual learner. On the other hand, knowledge is co-constructed in the interaction between the researcher and the participants during the research process (a subjectivist epistemology). Instead of objectivity, emphasis is placed on credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability (Denzin and Lincoln 2005a). Mertens (2010) states:
‘The assumption is made that data, interpretations, and outcomes are rooted in contexts and persons apart from the researchers and are not figments of their imagination. Data can be tracked to their sources, and the logic used to assemble interpretations can be made explicit in the narrative’ (p. 19).
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that the research is influenced by the system of values between the researcher and other participants in the research. In terms of methodological approach and procedure, it is assumed that the research process is embedded in a normative context that has social, political, historical, ecological and other dimensions. Therefore, a strategy of qualitative methods is best suited to studying complex issues, problems and systems involving human– environment interactions and society–nature relations.
The research on which this thesis is based consists of a qualitative single case study of a conceptual social–ecological system: EASES. This is both an analytical construct representing the Atlantic Europe maritime macro-region and the unit of analysis for studying the macro-region as a complex adaptive SES. The study was designed to elicit opinion regarding EASES from a panel of geographically dispersed experts; in particular, opinions regarding the conceptualisation of EASES and the characteristics that determine resilience in EASES. For practical reasons, the researcher (myself) interacted with panellists without physically meeting. For methodological reasons, panellists remained anonymous to each other during the study (and their responses remain anonymised afterwards).
The EASES study took place between November 2009 and December 2010. The study involved a two-round consultation with an invited panel of experts.
Nineteen panellists participated in round one and seven of them went on to participate in round two. A workbook method was developed and used in each round to ask questions and gather information from panellists. An overview of the study and description of the workbook method is presented in Chapter 5.