An emic approach to distinguishing facts from values

Applied Environmental Education and Communication

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 353-361

  Smith, Courtland L ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84896693019     PISSN: 1533015X     EISSN: 15330389     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15330150500302221     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. AAA (American Anthropological Association). (2004). Commission to Review the AAA Statements on Ethics Final Report. Retrieved July 23, 2005: http://www. aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethrpt.htm
2. Adams, P. W., & Hairston, A. B. (1995). Using scientific input in policy and decision making. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Extension Service, EC 1441.
3. Biersack, A. (1999). Introduction: From the "new ecology" to the new ecologies. American Anthropologist, 101(1), 5-18.
4. Borgatta, E. F., & Montgomery, R. (2000). Encyclopedia of sociology. New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
5. Culhane, P. J. (2001). Research on society and natural resources: A content analysis of the first decade. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 365-384.
6. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new environmental paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.
7. Friedman, S. T. (2003). Ethics of using science. Journal of Forestry, 101(2), 1.
8. Gross, D. R. (1992). Discovering anthropology. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
9. Harris, M. (1964). The nature of cultural things. New York, NY: Random House.
10. Harris, M. (1979). Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. New York, NY: Random House.
11. Harris, M. (1990). Emics and etics revisited. In T. N. Headland, K. L. Pike, and M. Harris (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate (pp. 48-61). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
12. Harris, M. (1999). Theories of culture in postmodern times. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
13. Headland, T. N. (1990). Introduction. In T. N. Headland, K. L. Pike, and M. Harris (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/ outsider debate (pp. 1-27). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
14. Kantrowitz, A. (1995). The separation of facts and values. Risk: Health, Safety & Environment 6(Spring), 105, accessed July 3, 2003
15. Keene, M. L., & Adams, K. H. (2002). Easy access: The reference handbook for writers. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
16. Kempton, W., Boster, J. S., & Hartley, J. A. (1995). Environmental values in American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Kottak, C. P. (1999). The new ecological anthropology. American Anthropologist, 101(1), 23-35.
18. Lee, K. N. (1993). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
19. O'Laughlin, J., & Cook, P. S. (2002). Resource management by espistle: The use of facts and values in policy-related communications. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 31, 25-30.
20. Pike, K. L. (1954). Language in relation to a unified theory of the sturucture of human behavior. Glendale, CA.: Summer Institute of Linguistics.
21. Pike, K. L. (1990).Onthe emics and etics of Pike and Harris. In T. N. Headland, K. L. Pike, and M. Harris (Eds.), Emics and etics: The insider/outsider debate (pp. 28-47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
22. Spradley, J. P., & McCurdy, D. W. (2000). Conformity and conflict: Readings in cultural anthropology. 10th Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
23. Steel, B. S., Clinton, R. L., & Lovrich, Jr., N. P. (2003). Environmental politics and policy: A comparative approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
24. Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., Williams, D. R., & Jonker, S. (2001). Demographic influences on environmental value orientations and normative beliefs about National Forest management. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 761-776.