hypertext responds

 

This research and its (performative) representation is set in the context of a crisis in representation, legitimation, and politics in qualitative research, together with increasing calls for epistemological and ontological difference in research approaches (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

 

The dissertation responds to:

  • the ongoing discourse-practice gap (Stevenson, 2007a, 2007b) in environmental education.
  • an increasingly urgent call for a different way of thinking in the context of intensifying ecological crises
  • a desire for "requisite variety" in research, including epistemological and ontological difference (Hart, 2000; see also, Guba & Lincoln, 2005)
  • requests for inclusion of the voices of non-human Others in research (and other) texts (e.g. Abram, 2006; Bell & Russell, 2000; Fawcett, 2000; Fudge, 2002; Harvey, 2006b; Russell, 2005).

It also:

  • provides an accessible representation of doctoral research that speaks to both academic and general audiences public (see Fine, Weis, Weseen & Wong, 2000; Lather & Smithies, 1997; Nolan, 2007)
  • pushes the boundaries of what counts as knowledge in an area (environmental education) where current knowledge has not produced necessary changes in action or education (Stevenson, 2007a, 2007b)
  • is responsive to learners as they participate in interactive readings
  • provides opportunities to read through embodied perception
  • opens spaces for re-animation (Abram, 1996; Bai, 2009; Berry & Tucker, 2006) of human and earth bodies – a process which cannot occur through the intellect alone; and,
  • invites readers to engage in their own conversation across with animate Earth.

Well-inscribed in intellectualizing discourse, anthropocentric culture, and the reading and production of linear, explanatory texts, perhaps it is through processes of peer-reviewed academic research and publishing that environmental education researchers themselves may be enacting key gatekeeping functions (Bowers, 1997) and thus maintaining unsustainable fictions (Gough, 1991).

 

How are both the fictions and the gates maintained? And perhaps, more significantly, how might researchers open the gates or rewrite the fictions?