In this article we focus upon a division between generalized schools of philosophical and ethical thought about culture and conservation. There is an ongoing debate playing out over conservation between those who believe conservation threatens community livelihoods and traditional practices, and those who believe conservation is essential to protect nonhuman species from the impact of human development and population growth. We argue for reconciliation between these schools of thought and a cooperative push toward the cultivation of an environmentally-focused perspective that embraces not only social and economic justice but also concern for non-human species. Our goal is to underline the ethics and tangible benefits that may result from combining the cultural data and knowledge of the social sciences with understanding of environmental science and conservation. We highlight instances in which social scientists overlook their own anthropocentric bias in relationship to ecological justice, or justice for all species, in favor of exclusive social justice among people. We focus on the polemical stances of this debate in order to emphasize the importance of a middle road of cooperation that acknowledges the rights of human and nonhuman species, alike. In conclusion, we present an alternative set of ethics and research activities for social scientists concerned with conservation and offer ideas on how to reconcile the conflicting interests of people and the environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.030 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
At first glance, Public Sector Innovation (PSI) Labs are gaining prominence within academic literature, the European Union (EU) and beyond. However, because of the relative newness and conceptual ambiguity of this concept, the exact contribution of these labs to theory and practice is still unclear. In addition, most research has been looking at case studies. This publication breaks new ground by elaborating on the concept and also by looking at the perception of these labs in different contexts, by comparing multiple labs in multiple countries. In doing so, we raised the question: ‘What is the perceived added value of Public Sector Innovation labs for further developing theory as well as for society?’ In order to answer this question, by way of an experiment, we combined theoretical research together with focus groups with members of the EU funded project Multi Disciplinary Innovation for Social Change (SHIINE) in combination with questionnaires to selected PSI labs, thus providing us with rich data. Our experimental methodology uncovered a conceptual bias that is probably existent in similar studies and needs to be acknowledged more. In addition, we found that PSI labs have developed over time into an amalgam of two competing concepts. To conclude, we believe that the specific potential of PSI labs as an internal space for innovation within institutions is underutilised. We believe this could be improved by acknowledging the specific aim of PSI labs in a co-creative setting between relevant stakeholders, such as Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
