Working the insider–outsider hyphen in action research for sustainability: tensions in citizen-led multi-stakeholder forest dialogues
Main Article Content
Abstract
Socio-ecological crises such as global warming and biodiversity loss have resulted in calls for action research for sustainability. This article provides an account of one action research for sustainability to expand the understanding of how such processes can address the cultural dualisms and hierarchies identified in ecofeminism. The need to both protect and use forests has resulted in heated debates in which citizens are underrepresented. I as a scholar was involved in a workin group that established and managed a citizen-led, multi-stakeholder forest movement that organised 15 forest dialogues between 2018 and 2022. This article describes what happened when the Our Forests citizen movement entered the heated Finnish forest policy debates. More particularly, I explore my movement as a scholar and that of the Our Forests working group in the insider–outsider hyphen. While Our Forests managed to attract key forest stakeholders to dialogues to enrich participants’ understandings and learn from each other, mistrust and looping forest debates undermined further consensus. To enable societal transformation, paying more attention to hyphen-spaces along which participants move can reveal what is shared – and what is not – between participants in action research for sustainability and form new alliances.
Keywords: action research for sustainability, forest, dialogue, hyphen-spaces, positionality, ecofeminism.
Trabajando la relación entre lo interno y lo externo en la investigación-acción para la sostenibilidad: tensiones en los diálogos ciudadanos de múltiples partes interesadas en los bosques
Las crisis socioecológicas, como el calentamiento global y la pérdida de biodiversidad, han dado lugar a llamamientos a la investigación-acción en pro de la sostenibilidad. Este artículo ofrece un relato de una investigación-acción en pro de la sostenibilidad para ampliar la comprensión de cómo estos procesos pueden abordar los dualismos y jerarquías culturales identificados en el ecofeminismo. La necesidad de proteger y utilizar los bosques ha dado lugar a acalorados debates en los que la ciudadanía está subrepresentada. Junto con un grupo de trabajo, yo, como investigadora, establecí y gestioné un movimiento forestal liderado por la ciudadanía y con múltiples partes interesadas que organizó 15 diálogos forestales entre 2018 y 2022. Este artículo describe lo que sucedió cuando el movimiento ciudadano Nuestros Bosques entró en los acalorados debates sobre políticas forestales finlandesas. Más concretamente, exploro mi movimiento como investigadora y el del grupo de trabajo Nuestros Bosques en la línea divisoria entre personas de dentro y de fuera. Si bien Nuestros Bosques logró atraer a las principales partes interesadas forestales a los diálogos para enriquecer la comprensión de las personas participantes y aprender unas de otras, la desconfianza y la repetición de los debates forestales socavaron aún más el consenso. Para posibilitar la transformación social, prestar más atención a los espacios de interrelación en los que se mueven las personas participantes puede revelar lo que comparten (y lo que no) en la investigación-acción para la sostenibilidad y formar nuevas alianzas.
Palabras clave: investigación-acción para la sostenibilidad, bosque, diálogo, espacios de interrelación, posicionalidad, ecofeminismo
Bibliography: Houtbeckers, Eeva: Working the insider–outsider hyphen in action research for sustainability: tensions in citizen-led multi-stakeholder forest dialogues, IJAR – International Journal of Action Research, 1-2025, pp. 24-42.
Article Details
Literature
Alhanen, K. (2019). Dialogue in democracy. Books on Demand.
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307.
Ballard, H. L., & Belsky, J. M. (2010). Participatory action research and environmental learning: Implications for resilient forests and communities. Environmental Education Research, 16(5–6), 611–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.505440.
Bradbury, H., Waddell, S., O’Brien, K., Apgar, M., Teehankee, B., & Fazey, I. (2019). A call to action research for transformations: The times demand it. Action Research, 17(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750319829633.
Cunliffe, A. L., & Karunanayake, G. (2013). Working within hyphen-spaces in ethnographic research: Implications for research identities and practice. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 364–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113489353.
Egmose, J., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., & Jacobsen, S. G. (2022). Action research in the plural crisis of the living: Understanding, envisioning, practicing, organising eco-social transformation. Educational Action Research, 30(4), 671–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2022.2084433.
Eikeland, O., & Nicolini, D. (2011). Turning practically: Broadening the horizon. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111119744.
Gaard, G. (1997). Toward a queer ecofeminism. Hypatia, 12(1), 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1997.tb00174.x.
Hawkins, K. A. (2015). The complexities of participatory action research and the problems of power, identity and influence. Educational Action Research, 23(4), 464–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1013046.
Hillgren, P.-A., Light, A., & Strange, M. (2020). Future public policy and its knowledge base: Shaping worldviews through counterfactual world-making. Policy Design and Practice, 3(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1748372.
Houtbeckers, E. (2023). Ekokriisi ja uudet liittolaisuudet: metsäkiistoista metsädialogeihin. Alue ja Ympäristö, 51(2), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.30663/ay.121572
Humphrey, C. (2007). Insider-outsider: Activating the hyphen. Action Research, 5(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750307072873.
Keahey, J. (2021). Sustainable development and participatory action research: A systematic review. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 34(3), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-020-09535-8.
Kitagawa, K. (2023). Researcher positionality in participatory action research for climate justice in Indigenous communities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205178.
Larsen, R. K., Raitio, K., Stinnerbom, M., & Wik-Karlsson, J. (2017). Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 64, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2017.03.003.
Pappila, M., & Pölönen, I. (2012). Reconsidering the role of public participation in the Finnish forest planning system. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 27(2), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2011.635084.
Pelai, R., Hagerman, S. M., & Kozak, R. (2021). Whose expertise counts? Assisted migration and the politics of knowledge in British Columbia’s public forests. Land Use Policy, 103, Article 105296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105296.
Primmer, E.,&Kyllönen, S. (2006). Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(8), 838–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.01.002.
Raitio, K. (2013). Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis—The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 33, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.06.004.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd paperback ed.). SAGE.
Snellman, O. (2023). Mitä on dialogipesu? Viherpesun uusi kuosi UPM: n ja Metsä Groupin sisältömarkkinoinnissa. Elonkehä, 3. https://www.elonkeha.com/2023/09/04/mita-on-dialogipesu-viherpesun-uusi-kuosi-upmn-ja-metsa-groupin-sisaltomarkkinoinnissa/.
Solnit, R. (2016). Hope in the dark: Untold histories, wild possibilities. Canongate.
Strumińska-Kutra, M., & Scholl, C. (2022). Taking power seriously: Towards a power-sensitive approach for transdisciplinary action research. Futures, 135, Article 102881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102881.
Takala, T., Lehtinen, A., Tanskanen, M., Hujala, T., & Tikkanen, J. (2019). The rise of multi-objective forestry paradigm in the Finnish print media. Forest Policy and Economics, 106, Article 101973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.101973.
Thorkildsen, A. (2013). Participation, power and democracy: Exploring the tensional field between empowerment and constraint in action research. International Journal of Action Research, 9(1), 15–37. https://www.budrich-journals.de/index.php/ijar/article/view/26732.
Warren, K. J. (2000). Ecofeminist philosophy: A Western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Wittmayer, J. M., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: Roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4.
Wittmayer, J. M., Schäpke, N., Van Steenbergen, F.,&Omann, I. (2014). Making sense of sustainability transitions locally: How action research contributes to addressing societal challenges. Critical Policy Studies, 8(4), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2014.957336.