Skip navigation
Skip navigation

A failing science: Understanding private landowners in the forestry milieu

Deane, Peter

Description

This thesis contributes towards science studies in the forestry milieu, a topic little investigated. In particular, it directs attention to the paucity of theoretical and critical discourse amongst the private landowner research community. While conducting research into private forest landowners, significant difficulties were noted within the forestry milieu over understanding complex socio-material systems. Consequently, an assertion was made that there exists a single research rationality...[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorDeane, Peter
dc.date.accessioned2005-11-07
dc.date.accessioned2006-03-27T02:16:48Z
dc.date.accessioned2011-01-05T08:30:44Z
dc.date.available2006-03-27T02:16:48Z
dc.date.available2011-01-05T08:30:44Z
dc.identifier.otherb22788670
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/43243
dc.description.abstractThis thesis contributes towards science studies in the forestry milieu, a topic little investigated. In particular, it directs attention to the paucity of theoretical and critical discourse amongst the private landowner research community. While conducting research into private forest landowners, significant difficulties were noted within the forestry milieu over understanding complex socio-material systems. Consequently, an assertion was made that there exists a single research rationality that has epistemic (knowledge) and normative (belief) characteristics which restrict how landowners can be known. To assess the assertion, thirty-two research reports were analysed from within the landowner literature using insights from epistemology (theory of knowledge) and critical realism (philosophy on the nature of reality). The analysis was conducted through a general assessment of core epistemic and normative criteria across all cases, as well as of a single case showing how the normative and epistemic inter-relate. It was found that one knowledge framework dominates. As a generalisation, it lacks conceptual sophistication and is largely a-theoretical, emphasising data collection by questionnaire and data analysis by statistics. The dominant knowledge framework proves to be objectivist, determinist, dualist, positivist and foundationalist. It is being informed by a normative approach that promotes managerialism to the exclusion of any other relational system regarding people and forests. Although the knowledge framework appears rational, the lack of critique and diversity in ways of building knowledge both internal to it and external to it across the research community, suggests the science produced in the research community that studies landowners is irrational. This thesis may encourage critical dialogue alongside growing the potential for diverse theorisations and methodological care in research.
dc.format.extent2961161 bytes
dc.format.extent357 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/octet-stream
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.subjectscientific world view
dc.subjectscience study
dc.subjectresearch practice
dc.subjectprivate forest landowner
dc.subjectnon-industrial private forest
dc.subjectforest management
dc.subjectcritical realism
dc.titleA failing science: Understanding private landowners in the forestry milieu
dc.typeThesis (MPhil)
local.description.notesThis record was moved from Open Access Research to the ANU Digital Theses Collection on 5 July 2011. The file is secured so we are unable to create a 01front document.
local.description.refereedno
local.identifier.citationmonthmay
local.identifier.citationyear2004
local.identifier.eprintid3285
local.rights.ispublishedno
dc.date.issued2004
local.contributor.affiliationSchool of Resources, Environment and Society, Faculty of Science
local.contributor.affiliationAustralian National University
local.identifier.doi10.25911/5d7a2930ebc22
local.mintdoimint
CollectionsOpen Access Theses

Download

File Description SizeFormat Image
01whole_deane.pdfwhole thesis2.89 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail


Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Updated:  19 May 2020/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator