Message from the Director, Mark Lubell
The mission of the Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior (CEPB) is scientific analysis of the interactions among policy institutions, human behavior, and political decisions in the context of environmental and natural resource conflicts. Through developing and testing theoretical models from social science, CEPB seeks to derive practical lessons that can be used to improve environmental policy.
Normal science involves the interaction between theory and observation. Theories generate observational predictions, and observations have implications for the acceptance or rejection of theories. This characterization of science implies the presence of a body of theory, or set of theoretical statements, that is adjusted and distilled over time within each scientific field. For the field of environmental social science (and other related disciplines that explore human-environment interactions), this body largely lives in the minds of researchers and practitioners. Historically there has not existed a set of materials that codifies important social and ecological concepts and the theories that relate these concepts in order to codify the state of scientific knowledge.
Mark Lubell included in NPR segment on California Water Conservation
Network of an interdisciplinary environmental social science lab as tied together by the journals we read. A few key journals, especially Social Networks, hold us together. R code follows.
The Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior, my grad lab, is remarkably interdisciplinary. For some sense of our breadth, consider that our nine core graduate students represent five different graduate programs: Ecology, Geography, Hydrology, Political Science, and Transportation Technology and Policy. That's great for many reasons, not least that it's an intellectually exciting environment in which to live, but it sometimes leaves me wondering what ties us together. So I thought I'd see if the journals we read could answer that question.
Social network research often focuses on the core of a network instead of the periphery. There are practical and theoretical reasons for this. The practical reason is that it is often difficult to measure the periphery of the network, for example peripheral actors are less likely to answer a survey or be mentioned by survey respondents. The theoretical reason is that many people think all of the “action” is in the core. For example, in policy networks, the core actors might have the most political resources and therefore have control over how policy decisions are made.
A major branch of my research is devoted to studying complex institutional systems, which I argue are the defining feature of real-world environmental governance and public policy more generally. Along with my colleagues (especially John Scholz and Ramiro Berardo) and students, we have updated the “ecology of games” idea originally developed by sociologist Norton Long in 1958 to describe the many different types of political actors and institutions operating in local political contexts. Our ecology of games framework (EGF) synthesizes a number of existing theoretical concepts, with a strong basis in the work of Elinor Ostrom and new institutional economics, network analysis, and complex adaptive systems.
Blogs are sometimes good for making arguments that might not be published. Of course a good blog doesn’t just invent nonsense. Rather, it focuses on expert-based opinions. In the next couple of months, I’m going to write some expert-based opinions about theories of environmental governance that I use in my research. I begin with a long-standing criticism I have of the term “network governance”, in particular when it is used to describe a form of governance that is different from markets and hierarchies.
Do milestone events (like the publication of Earthrise, December 24 1968, or The Limits to Growth (1972)) have a lasting impact on global econmic and environmental policy? What's "gestation period" for a work such as Limits to Growth, that has profound implications for sustainable management of global resources, before it's message begins to influence policy formulation? Why doesn't growth make us happy? I've been trying to grapple with these and other connected questions. Read more at: http://1680kcal.org/?p=184.
The Times Higher Education recently published an article titled Do the social sciences need a shake up? which is a response of sorts to Nicholas Christakis' NY Times op-ed, Let's shake up the social sciences. The central thesis of both is that the social sciences have stagnated, largely because of disciplinary silos, and would better serve society if reorganized. Here are my thoughts as a recent transplant from the biophysical to social sciences.
On the Christakis piece:
Here is the dplyr talk that I recently gave to the Davis R Users' Group. dplyr is an R library that does basic data manipulation extremely well. It is designed to make the data handling tasks that we all do over and over as easy as possible. It produces highly readable syntax that is low cognitive overhead to write. That means less time, less effort, and fewer bugs. dplyr is also exceptionally fast -- much faster than plyr, faster than base R, and nearly as fast as data.table. Below the screencast is the presentation itself, from which you can copy text if you wish.