Challenges and opportunities of metadisciplinary place-based research: The case of the Maya forest

Environments

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 81-96

  Manuel Navarrete, David ^a  

^a United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America ^*  (Chile)

Author keywords

Discourse; Ecological integrity; Maya forest; Metadisciplinary; Place based

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; ECOLOGICAL IMPACT; INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH; PROTECTED AREA;

MAYA FOREST; WESTERN HEMISPHERE; WORLD;

EID: 23044465757     PISSN: 07116780     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Allen, T.F.H., J.A. Tainter, J.C. Pires, and T.W. Hoekstra. 2001. Dragnet ecology 'just the facts, ma'am': the privilege of science in a post-modern world. Bioscience 51(6): 475-485.
2. Alvesson, M., and K. Sköldberg. 2000. Reflexive Methodology. New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
3. Bateson, G. 1987. Men are grass: Metaphor and the world of mental process. In Gaia: A Way of Knowing. Political Implications of the New Biology, W.I. Thompson, ad. Great Barrington, MA: Lindisfame Press. 37-47.
4. Bavington, D. 2002. Managerial ecology and its discontents: Exploring the complexities of control, careful use and coping in resource and environmental management. Environments 30(3): 3-21.
5. Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology. An Arbor, MI: Taylor and Francis.
6. Brier, S. 2000. Trans-scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarily views of the different types of human knowledge. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 17(5): 433-458.
7. Casey, E. 1997. The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.
8. Cheng, A.S., L.E. Kruger, and S.E. Daniels. 2003. "Place" as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society and Natural Resources 16: 87-104.
9. Curry, M.R. 2002. Discursive displacement and the seminal ambiguity of space and place. In The Handbook of New Media, L. Lievrouw, and S. Livingstone, eds. London: Sage Publications. 502-517.
10. De Vos, J. 1988. La Paz de Dios y del Rey. La Conquista de la Selva Lacandona (1525-1821), 2nd edition. México D.F.: Fondo de Culture Económica.
11. Ellis, C., and A.P. Bochner. 2000. Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, N.K. Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 733-768.
12. Emerson, R.M., R.I Fretz, and L.L Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. Foucault, M. 1986. Of Other Spaces, heterotopias. Diacritics 16: 22-27.
14. Fournier, V., and C. Grey. 2000. At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Organization 53(1): 7-32.
15. Giampietro, M., and K. Mayumi. 2000. Societal metabolism and multiple-scale integrated assessment: integrating biophysical and economic representation across scales. Population and Environment. A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 22(2): 155-210.
16. Hajer, M.A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Harrison, S., and P. Dourish. 1996. Re-Place-ing Space: The Roles of Place and Space in Collaborative Systems. Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press.
18. Lefebvre, H. 1974. La Production de l'Espace. Paris: Anthropos.
19. Leopold, A. S. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Loomis, T.M. 2000. Indigenous populations and sustainable development: Building on indigenous approaches to holistic, self-determined development. World Development 28(5): 893-910.
21. Manuel-Navarrete, D. 2003. Ecological Integrity Discourses as a Heuristic Tool for Understanding Conservation Initiatives: The Case of the Maya Forest in the Usumacinta Watershed. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Geography. University of Waterloo. Waterloo, ON.
22. Manuel-Navarrete, D., J.J. Kay, and D. Dolderman. 2004. Ecological integrity discourses: Linking ecology with cultural transformation. Human Ecology Review 11(3): 215-229.
23. Mitchell, M.Y., J.E. Force, M.S. Carroll, and W.J. McLaughlin. 1993. Forest places of the heart: Incorporating special places into public management. Journal of Forestry 91:32-37.
24. Noss, R.F., N.C. Slosser, J.R. Strittholt, and C. Carroll. 2000. Some thoughts on metrics of ecological integrity for terrestrial ecosystems and entire landscapes. Corvallis, OR: Conservation Biology Institute.
25. O'Riordan, T. 2000. Environmental science on the move. In Science for Environmental Management, T. O'Riordan, ed. (2nd edition). Harlow: Prentice Hall. 1-28.
26. Schwandt, T.A. 2000. Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, N.K. Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 189-214.
27. Schwartz, N.B. 1990. Forest Society: A Social History of Petén, Guatemala. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
28. Stokowski, P.A. 2002. Language of place and discourses of power: Constructing new senses of place. Journal of Leisure Research 34: 368-382.
29. Strand, R. 2001. Radical visions of environmental science. Norwegian Journal of Sociology 9: 49-67.
30. Strauss, C., and N. Quinn. 1997. A Cognitive Theory of Cultural Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Varela, F.J., E. Thompson, E. Rosch. 1991. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Williams, D.R., and J.J. Vaske. 2003. The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science 49:830-840.