Knowledge pluralism in sustainability transitions : examining conservation in human-shared spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world faces a social-ecological crisis, and human-shared places such as cities, towns, farms, and industrial areas are at the frontlines. Resolving this crisis will require creative solutions that target these human-shared places. Participatory, transdisciplinary approaches to research and practice can be useful for developing such solutions, but they are also complicated by divergent ontological views, systems of power and oppression, accessibility barriers, and other factors. This dissertation contributes both theoretical and practical insights, asking: How can we effectively and ethically integrate plural knowledge systems into conservation of human-shared places? Chapter 2 is a perspective paper that offers a transdisciplinary theoretical framework for “ecological wellbeing” to ground urban conservation work and explores how such an approach might strengthen responses to wicked urban ecology problems. Chapter 3 involves a discourse analysis of four applied rewilding projects, tapping into ongoing debate about ambiguity of the term “rewilding”. We found flexible interpretations confirming that rewilding can be understood as a “boundary object”, and we discuss how including diverse perspectives may bring benefits in addition to the recognized risks. Chapters 4 and 5 report on lessons from an experimental future visioning workshop that sought to embrace epistemic pluralism. Chapter 4 analyzes debrief interviews with workshop participants, discussing what factors affected participants’ subjective experiences of inclusion and willingness to contribute from their varied epistemic perspectives. Lastly, Chapter 5 is an instructional guide for conducting such normative future visioning workshops. We share findings from autoethnographic reflection and participant interviews in a step-by-step toolkit intended for general, scholarly, and practitioner audiences. The findings from this dissertation contribute to the science and practice of sustainability transitions by highlighting levers for supporting epistemic pluralism and transdisciplinarity in applied work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".