Engaging critically with environmental governance practices
Course evaluation
Additional course evaluations for MX0157
Academic year 2023/2024
Engaging critically with environmental governance practices (MX0157-40155)
2024-03-20 - 2024-06-02
Academic year 2022/2023
Engaging critically with environmental governance practices (MX0157-40121)
2023-03-22 - 2023-06-04
Syllabus and other information
Syllabus
MX0157 Engaging critically with environmental governance practices, 15.0 Credits
Att förstå samhällets miljöstyrning utifrån ett kritiskt konstruktivt förhållningssättSubjects
Environmental ScienceEducation cycle
Master’s levelModules
| Title | Credits | Code |
|---|---|---|
| Theorising environmental governance in practice | 6.0 | 0004 |
| Designing and executing a research project | 6.0 | 0005 |
| Communicating and deliberating with practitioners | 3.0 | 0006 |
Advanced study in the main field
Second cycle, has only first-cycle course/s as entry requirementsMaster’s level (A1N)
Grading scale
The grade requirements within the course grading system are set out in specific criteria. These criteria must be available by the course start at the latest.
Language
EnglishPrior knowledge
Knowledge equivalent to English 6 from upper secondary school.Knowledge equivalent to 180 credits including specialised studies comprising 90 credits within a single subject (e.g. Biology or Economics) within one of the following disciplinary domains:
- natural science
- technology
- social sciences. (e.g. sociology, psychology, economics, political science, human geography, media)
Objectives
Communication is crucial for environmental governance practices. These practices include, among others, managing natural resources, organising collective action, coordinating multi-stakeholder initiatives, and creating arenas for public deliberation. The aim of this course is to develop in depth insights into how environmental governance is carried out in practice. In order to understand environmental governance students critically engage with ongoing governance practices, i.e. they carry out a theoretically based investigation for assessing and suggesting improvements to their case, while interacting with environmental governance actors such as citizens, professionals and organisations. In this course, students will develop their knowledge on a number of social constructionist theories. They will also improve their facilitation skills and refine their ability to collect and analyse empirical data in a way that is useful for both research and practice.
After completion of the course the student will be able to:
describe different theoretical perspectives suitable to critically understand environmental governance in practice;
describe qualitative research methods that can be used to investigate and assess an ongoing environmental governance practice;
apply different theoretical perspectives to critically reflect on and contribute to an ongoing environmental governance practice;
prepare and facilitate activities where they can learn together with other actors, and jointly reflect on results and potential implications of an investigative project.
Content
The course has two main components; a theoretical and an experiential/practical component. In the theoretical component, theories relevant to environmental governance, for example social practice, discourses, symbolic interactionism, power or framing, are presented, discussed and applied through lectures, literature studies, seminars and experience-based workshops. Qualitative research methods for example interviews, focus groups and participant observations, including analysis of empirical material through coding are also presented and discussed. The theoretical component of the course is finished with an assessment of the students’ understanding. Active participation in the workshops of the theoretical component is mandatory.
In the experiential/practical component, students conduct an investigative project of an ongoing environmental governance practice or case (e.g. the municipal management of water bodies, the coordination of actions by grassroots organisations, or the mediation of conflicts between multiple stakeholders) from Sweden or other countries. As part of their investigative project, students critically engage with their selected case: they apply the introduced research methods and theories to collect and analyse empirical data; they report on the results of the investigative project and present them to relevant actors in a learning activity (e.g. workshop, seminar or webinar) that students design and facilitate. It is expected that the results of the investigative project will include some kind of assessment of the studied practice as well as suggestions for improving it. Throughout the process of the investigative project, students interact with governance actors involved in their case. Active participation in all activities of the investigative project is mandatory.
Grading form
The grade requirements within the course grading system are set out in specific criteria. These criteria must be available by the course start at the latest.Formats and requirements for examination
Students are examined in relation to both theoretical and practical course components.
Examination through:
home-exam;
report on project work.
Requirements to pass the course are:
passed home-exam;
passed report on project work;
active participation in mandatory workshops;
active participation in activities of the project.
If a student has failed an examination, the examiner has the right to issue supplementary assignments. This applies if it is possible and there are grounds to do so.
The examiner can provide an adapted assessment to students entitled to study support for students with disabilities following a decision by the university. Examiners may also issue an adapted examination or provide an alternative way for the students to take the exam.
If this syllabus is withdrawn, SLU may introduce transitional provisions for examining students admitted based on this syllabus and who have not yet passed the course.
For the assessment of an independent project (degree project), the examiner may also allow a student to add supplemental information after the deadline for submission. Read more in the Education Planning and Administration Handbook.
Other information
The right to participate in teaching and/or supervision only applies for the course instance the student was admitted to and registered on.
If there are special reasons, students are entitled to participate in components with compulsory attendance when the course is given again. Read more in the Education Planning and Administration Handbook.
Responsible department
Department of Urban and Rural Development
Further information
Litterature list
Bacchi, C. L. (2009). Analysing policy: what's the problem represented to be? Pearson Australia. Introduction and chapter 1 (pages 1-24).
Bäckman, M., Pettersson, K., & Westberg, L. (2024). Tracing sustainability meanings in Rosendal: Interrogating an unjust urban sustainability discourse and introducing alternative perspectives. Local Environment, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2023.2300956
Bäckman, M. (2023). (Un)sustainable everyday practices sociomateriality shaping sustainability in an urban district. Journal of Consumer Culture, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14695405231199306
Boström, M., Uggla, Y. & Hansson, V. (2018). Environmental representatives: whom, what, and how are they representing?, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20(1), 114–127.
Evans, J. & Thomas, C. (2012) Environmental Governance. Routledge. Ch. 1 Introduction.
G. C. S. Kanarp & Lotten Westberg (2023) Adapting climate change – how government authorities in Sweden make sense of adaptation through a network practice, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2023.2171278
Hysing, Erik (2009) From Government to Governance? A Comparison of Environmental Governing in Swedish Forestry and Transport, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions 22(4): 647–672.
Jacobson, K. (2013). From Betterment to Bt maize. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Sueciae. https://res.slu.se/id/publ/41429 « Discourse, power and ciritique » (pages 61-64), and « Critical discourse analysis » (pages 85-88)
Larsen, R. K., Raitio, K., Stinnerbom, M., & Wik-Karlsson, J. (2017). Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.03.003 (Relevant for the lecture on Environmental governance and indigenous rights)
Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental Governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31(1), 297–325.
Lidskog, R., & Sundqvist, G. (2018). Environmental Expertise. In Boström, M. & Davidson, D.J. (Eds.), *Environment and Society: Concepts and Challenges *(pp. 167–186). Springer.
Nicolini, D. (2017). Practice Theory as a package of Theory, Method and Vocabulary: Affordances and Limitations. In Jonas, M., Littig, B., & Wroblewski, A. (Eds.), Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories, pp. 19–34. Springer.
O’Neill, J. (2001). Representing People, Representing Nature, Representing the World. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. 19(4), 483–500.
Sarkki, A. L., Kaisa Raitio, Bruce C. Forbes, Kristina Labba, Mia Landauer, Camilla Risvoll, Simo. (2022). Unpacking reindeer husbandry governance in Sweden, Norway and Finland: A political discursive perspective. In Reindeer Husbandry and Global Environmental Change. Routledge. (Relevant for the lecture From Research to Practice)
Webb, J., & Tarleton, B. (2018). *Getting things changed: Social practices booklet. *Bristol. Retrieved from: *https://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/sps/images/gettingthingschanged/SPT%20booklet_web.pdf *
Supplementary readings:
Ansell, C. & Torfing, J. (Eds) (2016) Handbook on Theories of Governance, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Arts, B., Behagel, J., Turnhout, E., de Koning, J., & van Bommel, S. (2014). A practice based approach to Forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 14: 4–11.
Bertolini L, Laws D, Higgins M, et al. (2010) Reflection-in-action, still engaging the professional? Planning Theory & Practice, 11(4), 597–619. (Relevant for lecture From Research to Practice)
Beuger, C. (2014). Pathways to practice: praxiography and international politics. European Political Science Review, 6(1), 383–406.
Bowen, Glenn A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International journal of qualitative methods 5(3), 12-23.
Connelly S, Richardson, T., & Miles, T. (2006). Situated legitimacy: Deliberative arenas and the new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies 22(3), 267–277.
Crang, M., & Cook, I. (2007). Doing ethnographies. Sage. In particular: section 1 getting ready (pp 15–35); section 2 constructing ethnographic information, chapter 5: interviewing (pp 57–81).
Feldman, M.S., & Orlikowski, W.J. (2011). Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1240–1253.
Fischer, A. (2021, 21 April). The struggle over sustainability: On the co-construction of meaning in environmental governance. In: Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Föreläsningar av nya professorer 2020-2021 [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYtuP0ino3M&t=5550s
Fischer, A., Spekkink, W., Polzin, C., Díaz-Ayude, A., Brizi, A., Macsinga, I. (2018). Social representations of governance for change towards sustainability: perspectives of sustainability advocates. Environmental Politics, 27(4), 621-643.
Guasti, P. & Geissel, B. (2019) Saward’s Concept of the Representative Claim Revisited: An Empirical Perspective. Politics and Governance, 7(3), 98–111 (just focus on the application part, no need to read the contextual part of the paper)
Harvard Sociology (n.d.) Strategies for qualitative Interviews. 4p. Retrieved from: https://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/files/sociology/files/interview_strategies.pdf
Hausknost, Daniel (2020). The environmental state and the glass ceiling of transformation. Environmental Politics 29(1): 17-37.
Joosse, S., Powell, S., Bergeå, H., Böhm, S., Calderón, C., Caselunghe, E., Fischer, A., Grubbström, A., Hallgren, L., Holmgren, S., Löf, A., Nordström Källström, H., Raitio, K., Senecah, S., Söderlund Kanarp, C., von Essen, E., Westberg, L., & Westin, M. (2020). Critical, Engaged and Change-oriented Scholarship in Environmental Communication. Six Methodological Dilemmas to Think with. Environmental Communication, 14(6), 758-771.
Jørgensen, Marianne W., and Louise J. Phillips. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. Sage, chapter 1 introduction
Moran, L., & Rau, H. 2014. Mapping divergent concepts of sustainability: lay knowledge, local practices and environmental governance. Local Environment, 21(3), 334–360
Pickering, Jonathan, Bäckstrand, Karin & Schlosberg, David (2020). Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy environment nexus, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 22(1): 1-15.
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and how it Changes. Sage.
Smith TSJ. (2020). Policy, polycentrism, and practice: Governance imaginaries in sustainability transitions. Area. 52: 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12560
Van der Molen, F. (2018). How knowledge enables governance: The coproduction of environmental governance capacity. *Environmental Science and Policy, *87, 18–25.
Westberg, L., Waldenström, C. (2016). How can we ever create participation when we are the ones who decide? On natural resource management practice and its readiness for change. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 19(6), 654-667.
Westin, M. (2019). Rethinking power in participatory planning: towards reflective practice. Doctoral thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. Chapter 2.3, p.30–33. (Relevant for lecture From Research to Practice)
Wysocki, J. (2012). The environment has no standing in environmental governance. Organization & Environment, 25(1), 25-38.