Data Reduction (2)

During the interviews attempts were made to explore whether the interviewees had views consistent with ecocentrism or sustaincentrism. These attempts focused upon questioning interviewees about how they viewed humanity’s relationship with nature (for example; does humanity have stewardship responsibilities (sustaincentrism) or is humanity a part of nature with no more importance or responsibilities than any other animal (ecocentrism)?). This question about humanity’s relative position to nature resulted in responses that could be seen as evidence that five interviewees are sustaincentric. When this question was coupled with the full flow of the interview, it was hoped it would allow a full exploration of whether the interviewees were

sustaincentric or ecocentric in their views. However, as discussed in previous chapters, this hope was not realised with any degree of confidence and thus the separate and systematic analysis supporting this chapter was conducted in order to answer the primary research question satisfactorily. In particular, the transcripts were analysed against the paradigm scheme144 _{offered by Gladwin, et al., (1995).}145 This analysis (data reduction (2)) involved using the NVivo software coding tool and creating 90 themes (30 themes per paradigm of technocentrism, sustaincentrism

144_{The Gladwin, et al., (1995) paradigm scheme can be found in Appendix 2, section A2.7, Table A2.6.} 145_{A brief summary of the paradigms offered by Gladwin, et al., (1995) can be seen in Figure 7.1.}

and ecocentrism as per the Gladwin, et al., (1995) scheme) within it. The titles of the themes were the constituent

assumptions under each paradigm as offered by Gladwin, et al., (1995). Each interview transcript was then analysed to understand whether interviewees expressed views that were consistent with any of the assumptions in the three paradigms. This process resulted in 168 pieces of text from the interview transcripts being coded to 18 themes. On average, each transcript had text linked to five themes relative to a maximum of 11 themes and a minimum of two.

This approach to data reduction appears to be relatively unique and transparent compared to some other studies that discuss or use paradigms as part of their conclusions but also did not utilise a questionnaire (Halme, 1996 and Brych, et al., 2007). For example, Halme (1996) argues that the case study companies she researched shifted in paradigm and the shift was similar to them shifting between the ‘frontier economics’ and ‘resource management’ paradigms as offered by Colby (1991). However, Halme (1996) offers no clear explanation supporting this claim by, for example, showing how Colby’s (1991) original framework maps to the data

gathered. Similarly Brych, et al., (2007) offer no clear explanation covering process for how they concluded from their cognitive mapping of interviewees that some interviewees are ecocentric, technocentric or sustaincentric as per the Gladwin, et al., (1995) scheme. Consequently, the method of this study (explicitly coding the interview transcripts against the constituent assumptions of the Gladwin, et al., (1995) scheme) appears to be relatively unique and transparent compared to some other studies. Nevertheless, while this method may be relatively unique and

transparent it is limited by the nature of the Gladwin, et al., (1995) paradigm scheme.

(1) Technocentrismis focused on precepts such as: the Earth is an inert machine to be exploited; humans are disassociated from the earth; and that nature has no inherent value other than that perceived by humans.

(2) Sustaincentrismtakes a position that is between technocentrism and ecocentrism. It views the Earth as a life-support system that is to be treated as a home rather than as something dead or alive; it believes that humanity is interdependent with the Earth and that nature has inherent value. (3) Ecocentrismtakes a position that is at the opposite end of the spectrum to technocentrism. It assumes that: the Earth is alive and is the key to the web of life; that nature has inherent value; and that humans are an intrinsic part of nature.

Figure 7.1: Brief Summary of Technocentrism, Sustaincentrism and

In particular, Gladwin, et al., (1995) do not clearly define the assumptions within the scheme, rather only a general description is given. For example, in discussing the ten ontological and ethical assumptions under sustaincentrism, the assumptions are discussed in several paragraphs (see Figure 7.2 for a truncated example). As such in identifying whether an interviewee’s views are consistent with a particular paradigm assumption there is a degree of interpretation on behalf of the researcher, as the researcher draws from the

paragraph as opposed to a list of specific definitions.146 _For

example, in the case of the humans and nature assumption within the sustaincentric paradigm the understanding of this

assumption is drawn from Gladwin, et al.,’s (1995) description of humans being “neither totally disengaged from nor totally immersed in the rest of nature” (ibid: 890) and that humans are “part of the biosphere in organic and ecological

terms...[but] above the biosphere in intellectual terms” (ibid:890).147

It is worth noting that it is perhaps intentional on the part of Gladwin, et al., (1995) that there is an interpretive space for researchers in the use of their paradigm scheme. As Gladwin, et al., (1995) discuss their paradigm scheme in terms where they emphasise that it is a “schematic, [and] not photorealistic” (ibid: 881) and their intent is that the scheme is “heuristically useful” (ibid: 881). Further Gladwin, et al., (1995) highlight that the argument they are making regarding their scheme is one of “coherent persuasiveness” (ibid: 882) as opposed to one based on “inherent truth

146_{Notwithstanding that there is interpretation of the interviewees’ comments as well. Thus two areas of}

researcher interpretation (subjectivity) are brought into the analysis; from the scheme to the interview text and from the interview text to the scheme.

147_{See highlighting in Figure 7.2.}

“Sustaincentric ontology and ethics.The earth is humanity’s home, kept clean, healthy, and properly managed for the sake of human survival and welfare. There are no wholes and no parts anywhere in the universe; there are only "holons" (i.e., whole/parts). The nested holons within this multilevel "holoarchy" change at varied rates, communicating each other in both an upward and downward fashion. Economic and

human activities are inextricably linked with natural systems. Because dynamism and cyclicality are

fundamental, synthetic, nonlinear, and intuitive modes of understanding are required.

Humans are neither totally disengaged from nor totally immersed in the rest of nature. Although they are part of the biosphere in organic and ecological terms, humans are above the biosphere in intellectual terms. The biosphere is more fundamental for existence than humans, yet humans are more significant than the biosphere because they embrace a much deeper and greater wholeness. The crucial consequence is that humans have become, by the power of a glorious evolutionary accident called intelligence, the stewards of life's continuity on earth. We did not ask for this role, but we cannot abjure it. We may not be suited for it, but here we are..." (Gladwin, et al., 1995: 890)

Figure 7.2: Example of Gladwin, et al., (1995) discussing a range of assumptions

[or] rightness” (ibid: 882). Thus a lack of exactitude is perhaps to be expected as it would appear that Gladwin, et al., (1995) are intent on leaving space for the reader to interpret via the use of terms such as heuristic, coherent and persuasive.

Nevertheless, although there is a lack of definitional clarity for each and every assumption, descriptions that informed many of the paradigm assumptions could be identified. After having identified descriptions that informed the assumptions the interview text was reviewed and if appropriate text that reflected the assumption was coded to the particular assumption(s). Once the coding was completed, the coded text was analysed against the seven interview attributes in order to identify any patterns, this analysis revealed little, however, examples of it can be found in Appendix seven.