All that Matters are Forests and Seas? Practising Relevance in Interdisciplinary Environment-Focused Social Science Fields.
Saved in:
| Title: | All that Matters are Forests and Seas? Practising Relevance in Interdisciplinary Environment-Focused Social Science Fields. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Koch, Susanne1,2,3 (AUTHOR) susanne.koch@tum.de, Varga, Judit2 (AUTHOR) j.varga@cwts.leidenuniv.nl |
| Source: | Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy. Jun2025, Vol. 63 Issue 2, p301-324. 24p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Interpersonal relations, *Research personnel, Forest policy, Forests & forestry, Marine sciences |
| Abstract: | Policy increasingly requires societally relevant and interdisciplinary science, which prompts questions about science's orientation to diverse academic and non-academic actors. This paper examines how relevance is practised and negotiated in two evolving interdisciplinary social science fields: marine social sciences and forest policy research. Both fields investigate human relations with specific environments: how people use, manage and govern, live with and value seas and forests. Diverse social and political actors have stakes in the knowledge these fields generate. To whose matters and stakes do researchers respond and orient their research? Are such orientations reflexively discussed and contested? To operationalise relevance, we employ the notion of 'epistemic commitments' while adopting a Bourdieusian perspective on scientific fields. Our analysis draws on conference observation, interviews and document analysis. We find diverse epistemic commitments in both fields, but see noticeable differences in their prevalence, reflexivity and contestation. Examining the fields' socio-historical trajectories, we theorise that these differences are due to field-specific properties: their relative autonomy to negotiate relevance independently from other disciplines and external forces; and the field-specific habitus that impacts the degree to which relevance is a reflexive commitment, or an unconscious practice. The comparative analysis suggests that interdisciplinary scientific fields' specific institutional histories and relations with societal and policy actors shape relevance practices and the extent to which these are internally contested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 185990811 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: All that Matters are Forests and Seas? Practising Relevance in Interdisciplinary Environment-Focused Social Science Fields. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Koch%2C+Susanne%22">Koch, Susanne</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> susanne.koch@tum.de</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Varga%2C+Judit%22">Varga, Judit</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> j.varga@cwts.leidenuniv.nl</i> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Minerva%3A+A+Review+of+Science%2C+Learning+%26+Policy%22">Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy</searchLink>. Jun2025, Vol. 63 Issue 2, p301-324. 24p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+relations%22">Interpersonal relations</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+personnel%22">Research personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Forest+policy%22">Forest policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Forests+%26+forestry%22">Forests & forestry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Marine+sciences%22">Marine sciences</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Policy increasingly requires societally relevant and interdisciplinary science, which prompts questions about science's orientation to diverse academic and non-academic actors. This paper examines how relevance is practised and negotiated in two evolving interdisciplinary social science fields: marine social sciences and forest policy research. Both fields investigate human relations with specific environments: how people use, manage and govern, live with and value seas and forests. Diverse social and political actors have stakes in the knowledge these fields generate. To whose matters and stakes do researchers respond and orient their research? Are such orientations reflexively discussed and contested? To operationalise relevance, we employ the notion of 'epistemic commitments' while adopting a Bourdieusian perspective on scientific fields. Our analysis draws on conference observation, interviews and document analysis. We find diverse epistemic commitments in both fields, but see noticeable differences in their prevalence, reflexivity and contestation. Examining the fields' socio-historical trajectories, we theorise that these differences are due to field-specific properties: their relative autonomy to negotiate relevance independently from other disciplines and external forces; and the field-specific habitus that impacts the degree to which relevance is a reflexive commitment, or an unconscious practice. The comparative analysis suggests that interdisciplinary scientific fields' specific institutional histories and relations with societal and policy actors shape relevance practices and the extent to which these are internally contested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=185990811 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11024-024-09556-w Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 24 StartPage: 301 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Interpersonal relations Type: general – SubjectFull: Research personnel Type: general – SubjectFull: Forest policy Type: general – SubjectFull: Forests & forestry Type: general – SubjectFull: Marine sciences Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: All that Matters are Forests and Seas? Practising Relevance in Interdisciplinary Environment-Focused Social Science Fields. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Koch, Susanne – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Varga, Judit IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 06 Text: Jun2025 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 00264695 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 63 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
