User menu

Reflexive Methodological Pluralism: The Case of Environmental Valuation

Bibliographic reference Popa, F. ; Guillermin, Mathieu. Reflexive Methodological Pluralism: The Case of Environmental Valuation. In: Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. Published online before print, no. Published online before print, p. 1-17 (2015)
Permanent URL http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/170399
  1. Aboelela Sally W., Larson Elaine, Bakken Suzanne, Carrasquillo Olveen, Formicola Allan, Glied Sherry A., Haas Janet, Gebbie Kristine M., Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature, 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x
  2. Alvesson M., Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (2009)
  3. Argyris C., Double-Loop Learning, Teaching, and Research., 10.5465/amle.2002.8509400
  4. Bardwell Lisa V., Problem-Framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving, 10.1007/bf02589620
  5. Bateman Ian J., Mace Georgina M., Fezzi Carlo, Atkinson Giles, Turner Kerry, Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments, 10.1007/s10640-010-9418-x
  6. Beekman Volkert, Brom Frans W. A., Ethical Tools to Support Systematic Public Deliberations about the Ethical Aspects of Agricultural Biotechnologies, 10.1007/s10806-006-9024-7
  7. Bockstael Nancy E., Freeman A. Myrick, Kopp Raymond J., Portney Paul R., Smith V. Kerry, On Measuring Economic Values for Nature†, 10.1021/es990673l
  8. Cooperrider D. L., Appreciative inquiry handbook, 1 (2003)
  9. Cornell Sarah, The Rise and Rise of Ecosystem Services: Is “value” the best bridging concept between society and the natural world?, 10.1016/j.proenv.2011.05.009
  10. Costanza Robert, d'Arge Ralph, de Groot Rudolf, Farber Stephen, Grasso Monica, Hannon Bruce, Limburg Karin, Naeem Shahid, O'Neill Robert V., Paruelo Jose, Raskin Robert G., Sutton Paul, van den Belt Marjan, The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital, 10.1038/387253a0
  11. Demeritt David, The New Social Contract for Science: Accountability, Relevance,and Value in US and UK Science and Research Policy, 10.1111/1467-8330.00137
  12. Denscombe Martyn, Communities of Practice : A Research Paradigm for the Mixed Methods Approach, 10.1177/1558689808316807
  13. Denzin N., The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological method, 297 (1970)
  14. Dow S. C., Pluralism in economics: New perspectives in history and methodology, 89 (1997)
  15. Dow Sheila C., VARIETY OF METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH IN ECONOMICS, 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00510.x
  16. Dunkerley David, Glasner Peter, Empowering the public? Citizens' juries and the new genetic technologies, 10.1080/09581599808402906
  17. Garmendia Eneko, Gamboa Gonzalo, Franco Javier, Garmendia Joxe Mikel, Liria Pedro, Olazabal Marta, Social multi-criteria evaluation as a decision support tool for integrated coastal zone management, 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.05.001
  18. Getzner M., Alternatives for environmental valuation (2005)
  19. Greene J. C., Mixed methods in social inquiry, 9 (2007)
  20. Grunwald Armin, Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: the need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society, 10.1504/ijfip.2004.004619
  21. Hartley Nicola, Wood Christopher, Public participation in environmental impact assessment—implementing the Aarhus Convention, 10.1016/j.eiar.2004.12.002
  22. Hesse-Biber Sharlene, Johnson R. Burke, Coming at Things Differently : Future Directions of Possible Engagement With Mixed Methods Research, 10.1177/1558689813483987
  23. Jacobs M., Valuing nature? Economics, ethics, environment, 211 (1997)
  24. Jahn Thomas, Bergmann Matthias, Keil Florian, Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017
  25. Jasanoff Sheila, Civilization and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996, 10.1088/0963-6625/6/3/002
  26. Johansson Anders W., Lindhult Erik, Emancipation or workability? : Critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research, 10.1177/1476750307083713
  27. Johnson R. B., The Oxford handbook of qualitative research, 557 (2014)
  28. Kaiser Matthias, Forsberg Ellen-Marie, 10.1023/a:1011300811590
  29. Krutilla J. V., American Economic Review, 57, 777 (1967)
  30. Kumar Manasi, Kumar Pushpam, Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.008
  31. Lang Daniel J., Wiek Arnim, Bergmann Matthias, Stauffacher Michael, Martens Pim, Moll Peter, Swilling Mark, Thomas Christopher J., Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges, 10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
  32. Max-Neef Manfred A., Foundations of transdisciplinarity, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014
  33. McDonald D., Research integration using dialogue methods (2009)
  34. Menon Devidas, Stafinski Tania, Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury, 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x
  35. Mepham B., Kaiser M., Thorstensen E., Tomkins S., Millar K. (2006). Ethical matrix manual. The Hague: LEI, Wageningen University.
  36. Mertens Donna M., Transformative Paradigm : Mixed Methods and Social Justice, 10.1177/1558689807302811
  37. Merton R. K., Social theory and social structure (1968)
  38. Midgley G, Munlo I, Brown M, The theory and practice of boundary critique: developing housing services for older people, 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600531
  39. Miller Thaddeus R., Baird Timothy D., Littlefield Caitlin M., Kofinas Gary, Chapin III F. Stuart, Redman Charles L., Epistemological Pluralism: Reorganizing Interdisciplinary Research, 10.5751/es-02671-130246
  40. Mingers John, Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology, 10.1287/isre.12.3.240.9709
  41. Munda Giuseppe, Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences, 10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00369-2
  42. Norgaard Richard B., The case for methodological pluralism, 10.1016/0921-8009(89)90023-2
  43. O’Neill J., Environmental values (2004)
  44. O’Neill J., Conceptions of value in environmental decision-making (2000)
  45. O’Rourke Michael, Crowley Stephen J., Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: the story of the Toolbox Project, 10.1007/s11229-012-0175-y
  46. Ostrom Elinor, Governing the Commons : The evolution of institutions for collective action, ISBN:9780511807763, 10.1017/cbo9780511807763
  47. Paredis E., Transition management in Flanders. Policy context, first results and surfacing tensions (2008)
  48. Peterson Garry D., Cumming Graeme S., Carpenter Stephen R., Scenario Planning: a Tool for Conservation in an Uncertain World, 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01491.x
  49. Popa Florin, Guillermin Mathieu, Dedeurwaerdere Tom, A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science, 10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002
  50. Renn Ortwin, Webler Thomas, Anticipating Conflicts: Public Participation in Managing the Solid Waste Crisis , 10.14512/gaia.1.2.5
  51. Ring Irene, Hansjürgens Bernd, Elmqvist Thomas, Wittmer Heidi, Sukhdev Pavan, Challenges in framing the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the TEEB initiative, 10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.005
  52. Ritchie J., Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (2013)
  53. Ross Laurie, Coleman Mardia, Urban Community Action Planning Inspires Teenagers to Transform Their Community and Their Identity, 10.1300/j125v07n02_02
  54. Roubelat Fabrice, Scenario Planning as a Networking Process, 10.1016/s0040-1625(99)00125-0
  55. Schön D. A., The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1983)
  56. Schoolman Ethan D., Guest Jeremy S., Bush Kathleen F., Bell Andrew R., How interdisciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field, 10.1007/s11625-011-0139-z
  57. SPANGENBERG JOACHIM H., Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons, 10.1017/s0376892911000270
  58. Spash Clive L., How Much is that Ecosystem in the Window? The One with the Bio-diverse Trail, 10.3197/096327108x303882
  59. Spash C. L., Ecological economics and philosophy of science: Ontology, epistemology, methodology and ideology (2012)
  60. Spash Clive L., New foundations for ecological economics, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.004
  61. Stevens Thomas H., More Thomas A., Glass Ronald J., Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: Reply, 10.2307/3146597
  62. Tashakkori A., Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2003)
  63. Turnpenny John, Jones Mavis, Lorenzoni Irene, Where Now for Post-Normal Science?: A Critical Review of its Development, Definitions, and Uses, 10.1177/0162243910385789
  64. Vatn Arild, An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.005
  65. Vatn Arild, An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.018
  66. Veldkamp A, Verburg P.H, Modelling land use change and environmental impact, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.04.004
  67. Webb E. J., Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences, 111 (1966)
  68. Weisbord M. R., Future search: An action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities (2000)
  69. Wiek Arnim, Ness Barry, Schweizer-Ries Petra, Brand Fridolin S., Farioli Francesca, From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects, 10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y
  70. Willetts Juliet, Crawford Paul, The most significant lessons about the Most Significant Change technique, 10.1080/09614520701336907
  71. Yolles M, Viable boundary critique, 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600069