The ambivalent nature of biodiversity: Scientists' perspectives on the Norwegian Nature Index

Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift

Volumn 66, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 272-278

  Figari, Helene ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR NATURE RESEARCH   (Norway)

Author keywords

biodiversity; nature index; social representations; themata; uncertainty

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CULTURAL LANDSCAPE; KNOWLEDGE; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

NORWAY;

EID: 84871105973     PISSN: 00291951     EISSN: 15025292     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00291951.2012.743170     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Castro, P. and Gomes, I. 2005. Genetically modified organisms in the Portuguese press: Thematization and anchoring. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35: 1-17. doi:10.1111/j.0021-8308.2005.00261.x
2. Certain, G. & Skarpaas, O. 2010. Nature Index: General Framework, Statistical Method and Data Collection for Norway. NINA Report 542, 1-47. NINA, Trondheim
3. Collins, H.M. 1974. TEA Set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Science Studies, 4: 165-185. doi:10.1177/030631277400400203
4. Cuddington, K. & Michael, R. 2004. Biodiversity, Darwin, and the fossil record. Oksanen, M. & Pietarinen, J. Biodiversity and Philosophy, 101-118. Cambridge University Press, New York.
5. Fairclough, N. 2005. Peripheral vision. Organization Studies, 26: 915-939. doi:10.1177/0170840605054610
6. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
7. Gibbons, M. 1999. Science's new social contract with society. Nature, 402(6761): C81-C84. doi:10.1038/35011576
8. Gieryn, T.F. 1995. Boundaries of science. Jasanoff, S., Markel, G.E., Petersen, J.C. & Pinch, T. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 389-393. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
9. Holton, G. 1975. On the role of themata in scientific thought. Science, 188(4186): 328-334. doi:10.1126/science.188.4186.328
10. Jasanoff, S. 1987. Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17: 195-230. doi:10.1177/030631287017002001
11. Jørstad, E. and Skogen, K. 2010. The Norwegian Red List between science and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 13: 115-122. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.003
12. Jovchelovitch, S. 2007. Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture, London: Routledge.
13. Knorr-Cetina, K. 2005. The fabrication of facts: Towards a micro sociology of scientific knowledge. Stehr, N. & Meja, V. Society & Knowledge: Contemporary Perspectives in the Sociology of Knowledge & Science, 175-195. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.
14. Koricheva, J. & Siipi, H. 2004. The phenomenon of biodiversity. Oksanen, M. & Pietarinen, J. Biodiversity and Philosophy, 27-54. Cambridge University Press, New York.
15. Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
16. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17. Mackenzie, D. 1990. Inventing Accuracy: An Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
18. Marková, I. 2003a. Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13: 413-416. doi:10.1002/casp.739
19. Marková, I. 2003b. Dialogicality and Social Representations: The Dynamics of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Micoud, A. 2005. La biodiversité est-elle encore naturelle?. Écologie et Politique, 30: 17-25. doi:10.3917/ecopo.030.0017
21. Mol, A. 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice, Durham: Duke University Press.
22. Moscovici, S. 1984. The phenomenon of social representations. Farr, R. & Moscovici, S. Social Representations, 3-63, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme & Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23. Moscovici, S. 1993. Introductory address at the first international conference on social representations. Papers on Social Representations, 2: 1-10.
24. Moscovici, S. & Vigneaux, G. 1994. Le concept de themata. Guimelli, C. Structures et transformations des representations sociales, 25-72. Delachaux et Niestlé, Neuchatel.
25. Moscovici, S. and Markova, I. 1998. Presenting social representations: A conversation. Culture & Psychology, 4: 371-410. doi:10.1177/1354067X9800400305
26. Nybø, S., Skarpaas, O., Framstad, E. and Kålås, J.A. 2008. Naturindeks for Norge-forslag til rammeverk. NINA Rapport, 347: 1-67.
27. Pickering, A. 1992. Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Selge, S. and Fischer, A. 2010. How people familiarize themselves with complex ecological concepts: Anchoring of social representations of invasive non-native species. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 21: 297-311. doi:10.1002/casp.1075
29. Shackley, S. and Wynne, B. 1996. Representing uncertainty in global climate change science for policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Energy and Environment, 8: 112-134.
30. Statsministerens kontor. 2012. Flertallsregjeringens statusrapport: Politisk regnskap Stoltenberg II-regjeringen 2005-2012. Raport. Høsten 2012. http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/SMK/Vedlegg/Rapporter/Flertallsregjeringens_statusrapport2012.pdf (accessed 5 November 2011).
31. van Asselt, M.B.A. and Rotmans, J. 2002. Uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling. Climatic Change, 54: 75-105. doi:10.1023/A:1015783803445
32. Wagner, W. and Hayes, N. 2005. Everyday Discourse and Common Sense: The Theory of Social Representations, New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
33. Wynne, B. 1992. Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 2: 111-127. doi:10.1016/0959-3780(92)90017-2