The political ontology of protected area co-management: worlding and nature perceptions among stakeholders

Political ontology reveals the processes of domination at play in the enactment of realities in a(post-) colonial context. In this article, we illustrate the implications of the power asymmetries inherent in conservation and co-management of protected areas involving Indigenous populations. We do so by exploring the case of Pilón Lajas in the Bolivian Amazon region, an area with double legal status as an Indigenous Territory and Biosphere Reserve. Drawing from our ethnographic fieldwork, we describe how indigenous relational ontology and the modern ontology of 'cultural diversity' are enacted by different stakeholders, and analyse critically the problems that arise for protected area management owing to the domination of a single ontology in a context where different ontologies are enacted. We finish by presenting our argument that solving such problems requires a cognitive justice approach.

Agroecology

Agroecology is an alternative paradigm for agriculture and food systems that is simultaneously: (a) the application of ecological principles to food and farming systems that emerge from specific socioecological and cultural contexts in place-based territories; and (b) a social and political process that centers the knowledge and agency of Indigenous peoples and peasants in determining agri-food system policy and practice. Historically, agroecology is associated with a multifaceted body of transdisciplinary knowledge. The academic literature emphasizes the role of scientists in developing an interdisciplinary agroecology over the past ninety years. However, the practice of agroecology is much older, with deep roots in many Indigenous and peasant societies of Africa, the Americas, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Polynesia. Although these societies never adopted the term “agroecology,” their time-tested practices in growing food and fiber illustrate many principles of modern agroecology. The transdisciplinary field of research on agroecology examines how agroecology contributes to equitable and sustainable food and fiber production, processing, distribution, and consumption. Agroecology builds on people’s knowledge, Indigenous management systems, and local institutions through “dialogues of knowledges” with social science, natural science, and the humanities. The study of Indigenous and peasant agri-food systems has thus been pivotal for the development of both agroecology and anthropology. The agroecological perspective is based on a transformative vision of the relationship between people and nature. Economic anthropology has unearthed a wide diversity of systems of economic exchange that are informing work on agroecology, including the vital importance of Indigenous and peasant economies, gift economies, circular economies, subsistence, and economies of care. These are pushing agroecologists to think outside of the box of dominant commodity capitalism. Agroecology is also based on a radical conceptualization of knowledge systems, whereby work on cognitive justice, epistemic justice, Indigeneity, and decoloniality is upending the dominance of Western, scientific, Eurocentric, and patriarchal worldviews as the basis for the future of food and agriculture. Agroecology is also underpinned by radical notions of democracy and new conceptualizations of popular education, transformations in governance, and empowering forms of participation. While the transformative agenda offered by agroecology is deeply contested by proponents of industrial and corporate food and agriculture, agroecology is increasingly important in academic and policy debates on sustainable food, farming, and land use. Exploring the relationship between agroecology and anthropology is both fruitful and timely because it can help re-root agroecology—which is increasingly at risk of becoming an abstract and devitalized concept—in the fundamentally localized practices and culture of agri-food systems.

Decolonizing Southern Criminology: What Can the “Decolonial Option” Tell Us About Challenging the Modern/Colonial Foundations of Criminology?

Southern criminology has been recognized as a leading theoretical development for attempting to overcome the perpetuation of colonial power relations reflected in the unequal flow of knowledge between the Global North and Global South. Critics, however, have pointed out that Southern criminology runs the risk of recreating epistemicide and colonial power structures by reproducing colonial epistemology and by being unable to disentangle itself from the hegemony of Western modern thought. This article introduces the approach of the “decolonial option,” which suggests that all our contemporary ways of being, interacting, knowing, perceiving, sensing, and understanding are fundamentally shaped by coloniality—long-standing patterns of power that emerged because of colonialism and that are still at play (Maldonado-Torres 2007; Quijano 1992). The “decolonial option” seeks ways of knowing and being that heal, resist, and transform these deeply harmful and embedded patterns of power. Drawing on the “decolonial option,” this article aims to provide a constructive critique of Southern criminology by facilitating a better understanding of “coloniality” and offering an epistemological shift that is necessary to move toward global and cognitive justice. The rupture and paradigm shift in criminological knowledge production offered by the “decolonial option” dismantles criminology’s Western universalist narratives and its logic of separation that lie in modernity. By doing so, it provides a different understanding of modernity that looks behind its universalizing narratives and designs (e.g., development, progress, salvation) to expose “coloniality”—modernity’s dark, destructive side. While the “decolonial option” does not entail a universalizing mission, it is an option—one of the many paths that one can select to undertake decolonial work—and this article argues that if Southern criminology were to incorporate the decolonial epistemological and conceptual framework, it could better insulate itself from certain consequences of “coloniality” that it risks embodying.

‘Capacity for what? Capacity for whom?’ A decolonial deconstruction of research capacity development practices in the Global South and a proposal for a value-centred approach

Whilst North to South knowledge transfer patterns have been extensively problematised by Southern and decolonial perspectives, there is very little reflection on the practice of research capacity development (RCD), still strongly focused on technoscientific solutionism, yet largely uncritical of its underlying normative directions and power asymmetries. Without making transparent these normative and epistemological dimensions, RCD practices will continue to perpetuate approaches that are likely to be narrow, technocratic and unreflexive of colonial legacies, thus failing to achieve the aims of RCD, namely, the equitable and development-oriented production of knowledge in low- and middle-income societies. Informed by the authors’ direct experience of RCD approaches and combining insights from decolonial works and other perspectives from the margins with Science and Technology Studies, the paper undertakes a normative and epistemological deconstruction of RCD mainstream practice. Highlighting asymmetries of power and material resources in knowledge production, the paper’s decolonial lens seeks to aid the planning, implementation and evaluation of RCD interventions. Principles of cognitive justice and epistemic pluralism, accessibility enabled by systems thinking and sustainability grounded on localisation are suggested as the building blocks for more reflexive and equitable policies that promote research capacity for the purpose of creating social value and not solely for the sake of perpetuating technoscience.

Environmental governance: Broadening ontological spaces for a more livable world

This paper contributes to global debates on environmental governance by drawing on recent ontological scholarship to ask: What would it mean to ontologically engage the concept of environmental governance? By examining the ontological underpinnings of three environmental governance domains (land, water, biodiversity), we find that dominant contemporary environmental governance concepts and policy instruments are grounded in a modernist ontology which actively shapes the world, making certain aspects and relationships visible while invisibilizing others. We then survey ethnographic and other literature to highlight how such categories and their relations have been conceived otherwise and the implications of breaking out of a modernist ontology for environmental governance. Lastly, we argue that answering our opening question requires confronting the coloniality woven into the environmental governance project and consider how to instead embrace ontological pluralism in practice. In particular, we examine what taking seriously the right to self-determination enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) could mean for acknowledging Indigenous ontologies as systems of governance in their own right; what challenges and opportunities exist for recognizing and translating ontologies across socio-legal regimes; and how embracing the dynamism and hybridity of ontologies might complicate or advance struggles for material and cognitive justice.

Cognitive justice and environmental learning in South African social movements

This thesis by publication is an applied study into transformative learning as an emancipatory practice for water justice. It is guided by the core research question: How can cognitively just learning be an activist practice in social movements working towards water justice? To address this question, I use the applied critical realist approach which makes use of three moments of moral reasoning which are very similar to the approach adopted in the learning intervention that is the focus of this research. These three moments are: Diagnose, Explain, Act – sometimes known as the DEA model (Bhaskar, 2008, 243; Munnik & Price, 2015). The research object is the Changing Practice course for community-based environmental and social movements. The course was developed and studied over seven years, starting from the reflexive scholarship of environmental learning in South Africa, particularly the adult learning model of working together/working away developed through the Environmental Education Association of Southern Africa in partnership with the Environmental Learning Research Centre at Rhodes University (Lotz-Sisitka & Raven, 2004). We (the facilitators/educators) ran the Changing Practice course three times (2012-2014; 2014-2016; 2016-2018), in which I generated substantive data which forms the empirical base on which this study was developed. We found the concept of cognitive justice (Visvanathan, 2005; de Sousa Santos, 2016) to be a powerful mobilizing concept with which to carry out emancipatory research and learning, in three ways. First, it brought together a group of researchers, activists and practitioners from different organizations to work on how to strengthen the role of civil society in monitoring government water policy and practice (Wilson et al., 2016). Second, within the Changing Practice course itself, it became a principle for guiding learning design and pedagogy as well as a way of engaging in dialogue with the participants around the politics of knowledge, exclusion and inclusion in knowledge production, systems of oppression and multiple knowledges (Wilson et al., 2016; Burt et al., 2018). Thirdly, the participants’ change projects (the applied projects undertaken during the ‘working away’ phase between course modules), allowed participants to draw on different knowledge systems, which they learnt to do in the ‘working together’ modules, and to address cognitive justice concerns linked to environmental justice. The change projects also challenged our learning pedagogy by raising contradictions in the course’s approach to learning that needed to be transformed in order for our pedagogy to be more cognitively just. Throughout this thesis I argue that the work of cognitive justice deepens the connections between people, institutions and structures, particularly in relation to transformative learning. Our intention was to identify and critique structures and ideologies that perpetuated oppressive relations, and then to identify and enact the work needed towards transforming these relations. This is why I often refer to cognitive justice as a solidarity and mobilizing concept, and I use the term cognitive justice praxis to mean the reflection and actions that are needed to enact cognitive just learning. The facilitators and participants of the Changing Practice course worked to remove the layered effects of oppression both in the practice of water justice and in the learning process itself. We worked, however imperfectly, with a caring, collectively-held ethic towards each other and the world. Using the DEA model I applied the critical realist dialectic to analyse contradictions and generate explanations through four articles as reflexive writing projects (See Part 2 of this thesis). I used the critical realist dialectic both to reveal contradictions, investigate how these contradictions have come to be, and to generate alternative explanations and action to absent them. Through this research I identified four essential mechanisms for cognitively just environmental learning: care work, co-learning, reflexivity and an interdisciplinary approach to learning scholarship as learning praxis. The essential elements that made the Changing Practice course so effective were the working together/working away design, the encouraging of participants to make the change project something they were passionate about, and the situating and grounding of the Changing Practice course within a social movement network. We were able to show that for academic scholarship to contribute meaningfully to cognitively just learning praxis, it needs to be collaborative and reflexive, and start from the embodied historical and contextual experience of learning as experienced and understood by participants on the course. This demanded an interdisciplinary approach to work with contradictions in learning practice, one that could take into consideration different knowledges and knowledge practices beyond professional disciplines. Both social movement communities and scholarly communities have valuable knowledge to offer each other. As argued in article one, rather than a lack of knowledge, what more often limits our emancipatory action are factors that prevent us from coming closer together. (Burt et al, 2018) This research revealed that social movement learning towards water justice is multi-level care work, the four levels being: individual psychology, our relations with others, our relations with structures such as our social movements, and our relations with the planet. When such care work attains self- reflexivity, practice-reflexivity, co-learning and collective scholarship, it is able to absent the contradictions that inhibit cognitive justice. This thesis is a record of our attempts to learn how to achieve this.

Reimagining Multicultural Education

Multicultural education has actively endeavored to undermine inequalities and imbalances by offering pedagogical frameworks for accounting for and managing cultural diversity. However, foundational literature on multicultural education seems to be dominated by Western scholars, mainly American. This assumption is not in alignment with the objectives of critical education which seeks to stymie power imbalances and grant visibility to less popular individuals along with their cultures, understandings, and perspectives. That is why it is important to ask questions about whether multicultural education has exhibited any signs of seeking to stymie the hegemony of Western episteme in terms of its theory and praxis. This chapter argues that it is necessary to include other epistemologies in multicultural education theory and praxis in order to realize global cognitive justice. The main aim is to make a case for the possibility of further developing multicultural education by integrating other knowledges and ways of knowing.

Augmented Reality as a Sustainable Technology to Improve Academic Achievement in Students with and without Special Educational Needs

Virtual reality has impacted education, where progressively more educational institutionsconsider its inclusion. The research problem derives from the need to study the educational possibilitiesprovided by integrating augmented reality into the curriculum, and its effect on academic achievement ina diverse class, specifically in the chemistry subject. This study examines 60 school-age participants withandwithout special educational needs, and addresses three overarching questions: (a)Would integratingaugmented reality (AR) technology result in better academic achievement? (b)Would knowledge beretained longer by using AR? (c) Is there any relationship between academic achievement, acceptanceand motivation regarding the use of this technology? Embracing the socio-constructivist theory oflearning and collaborative and immersive learning as a framework, this study was carried out usinga quantitative approach and a pre-experimental design. The AR VR Molecules Editor applicationwas used in chemistry lessons. Main results showed significant immediate academic achievementand content retention. Despite classroom diversity, immersive technologies enhance students’ learningregardless of whether they have special educational needs (SEN) or not. They also acknowledge that ARis a suitable sustainable technology that may foster social and cognitive justice and inclusive education,and train students that are equally prepared for the dynamic future.