This article focuses on engagements with elephants in diverse contexts, inquiring why some scholars are indifferent or even actively opposed to discourses that emphasise elephant suffering. In order to address this question, this article will explore three interrelated streams within social science: one that criticises conservation as an elitist, neo-colonial enterprise; one that is preoccupied with the social construction and cultural interpretation of natural phenomenon; and a third sometimes referred to as the new conservation science that focuses on economic valuations of the benefits nature, viewing “nature is a warehouse for human use.” https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2016.1204882 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
The knowledge base for Social Work is strengthening. Underpinning of Social Work deriving from scientific research is necessary given the growing complexity of the work and its context. How this research should be conducted and to what type of outcomes it must lead, is part of an ongoing debate. In the Netherlands, practice-based research at Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) is a relative new approach. Social Work research groups at UAS assert to conduct practice-based research in order to contribute to knowledge and support the objectives of Social Work. The current study was carried out to obtain insight into the characteristics of this research approach. A sample of publications was analysed in terms of knowledge purpose, methodology, and level and type of participation. Results show a strong focus on producing descriptive knowledge and to a lesser extent on control knowledge, using primarily qualitative research methods, and with limited direct participation by stakeholders. In order to practice more what they preach the research can strengthen by doing more empirical research, by diversifying the research in terms of design and methods and increasing the level of participation of stakeholders
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, launched during the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in December 2022, encourages governments, companies and investors to publish data on their nature-related risks, dependencies and impacts. These disclosures are intended to drive businesses to recognise, manage and mitigate their reliance on ecosystem goods and services. However, there is a ‘biodiversity blind spot’ that is evident for most organisations and business schools. Business education rarely addresses the root causes of biodiversity loss, such as the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. As the dominant positioning of Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDG) presents biodiversity in anthropocentric instrumental terms inadequate for addressing ecosystem decline, we posit that a more progressive and transformative ecocentric education through ecopedagogy and ecoliteracy is needed. Both approaches include the development of critical thinking about degrowth, the circular economy and conventional stakeholder theory to include non-human stakeholders. Using comparative case studies from Northumbria University, the University of Hong Kong and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, we illustrate how business education can be transformed to address biodiversity loss, providing theoretical guidance and practical recommendations to academic practitioners and future business leaders.
