Advertisement

Adaptive Doing in Tarerer/Kelly Swamp

  • Andrea RawlukEmail author
  • Ruth Beilin
  • Helena Bender
  • Rebecca Ford
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we illustrate the four phases of the ‘adaptive doing’ process, including our engagement in the agora (described in Chapter  4) to reach a new shared understanding of Tarerer/Kelly Swamp. We discuss the triggers for entering the agora and preparations for being in that space. We apply three reframing tools that foster critical reflection—the 4 Is (interruption, interrogation, interaction, integration), assemblage, and the concept of the eternally unfolding present. The 4 Is revealed implications in the site’s naming along with the structure and function of the system. Creating assemblages helped to re-consider the relationships formed between two focal clusters, migratory birds and farming. The concept of the eternally unfolding present assisted our understanding of the impact of practices in the present, in the same two focal clusters. Finally, we return to our practice changed. We demonstrate that adaptive doing and the agora are catalysts for a new generation of social ecological research that sees participants honouring their disciplinary foundations, whilst being ready to change and collaborate within each new social ecological system and acting now for social ecological justice and change.

Keywords

Practice Adaptive doing Social ecological systems Reframing tools The 4 Is Assemblage The eternally unfolding present 

References

  1. Argyris, C. 1976. Single-Loop and Double-Loop Models in Research on Decision-Making. Administrative Science Quarterly 21: 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beilin, R., and H. Bender. 2011. Interruption, Interrogation, Integration and Interaction as Process: How PNS Informs Interdisciplinary Curriculum Design. Futures 43: 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blake, W. 1967. Songs of Innocence and of Experience: Shewing the Two Contrary States of the Human Soul, 1789–1794. New York: Orion Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bryman, A. 2015. Social Research Methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Curseu, P., and S. Schruijer. 2010. Does Conflict Shatter Trust or Does Trust Obliterate Conflict? Revising the Relationships Between Team Diversity, Conflict and Trust. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice 14: 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fazey, I., J.A. Fazey, and D.M.A. Fazey. 2005. Learning More Effectively from Experience. Ecology and Society 10 (2): 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Leeuwis, C. 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Walker, B., and D. Salt. 2006. Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
  10. West, S., R. Beilin, H. Wagenaar, and C. Watkins. 2019. Introducing a Practice Perspective on Monitoring for Adaptive Management. People and Nature 1 (3): 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Williams, K.J.H., M.A. Weston, S. Henry, and G.S. Maguire. 2009. Birds and Beaches, Dogs and Leashes: Dog Owners’ Sense of Obligation to Leash Dogs on Beaches in Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14 (2): 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Rawluk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ruth Beilin
    • 1
  • Helena Bender
    • 1
  • Rebecca Ford
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Ecosystem and Forest SciencesUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations