Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:26:07.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communities of practice in the management of an Arctic environment: monitoring knowledge as complementary to scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2015

Torill Nyseth  and
Arvid Viken
Torill Nyseth
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Political Science and Community Planning, The Arctic University of Norway, P.O. Box 6050, Langnes 9037, Tromsø, Norway (Arvid.Viken@uit.no)
Arvid Viken
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Political Science and Community Planning, The Arctic University of Norway, P.O. Box 6050, Langnes 9037, Tromsø, Norway (Arvid.Viken@uit.no)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses knowledge management in governing vulnerable polar areas and tourism. Since the 1870s, Svalbard has been a cruise tourism destination. Due to less ice during the summer period, the number of tourists visiting the remote northeast corner of the archipelago has increased significantly, and the potential negative impact on this vulnerable natural environment has become an issue. The standard modes of managing these areas have either been to apply the precautionary principle or measures based on scientific evidence. As management models, however, both principles are contested for a number of reasons. This paper argues for a third model that is partly based on a form of monitoring knowledge that has circulated in ‘communities of practice’ and that has been developed over time. This form of knowledge constitutes viable expertise for the governing and management of the environment-tourism nexus in the area, but it needs to be acknowledged as a complementary management platform. This article demonstrates how such monitoring can be done, and it suggests some principles for the development of monitoring knowledge for administrative and management purposes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 66 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AECO (Association of Arctic Expeditions Cruise Operators). 2014. Guidelines. http://www.spitsbergen–svalbard.com/2012/01/04/aeco–site–specific–guidelines.html (accessed 6 March 2015)Google Scholar
Amin, A. and Roberts, J.. 2008. Knowing in action: beyond communities of practice. Research Policy 37: 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackler, F. 1995. Knowledge, knowledge work and organisations: an overview and interpretation. Organisation Studies 16: 1021–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P.. 1998. Organizing knowledge. California Management Review 40: 90–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buysse, V., Sparman, K.L. and Wesley, P.W.. 2003. Communities of practice: connecting what we know to what we do. Exceptional Children 69: 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contu, A. and Willmott, H.. 2003. Re–embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory. Organisation Science 14: 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: the theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Dredge, D., Jenkins, J. and Whitford, M.. 2011. Stories of practice. In: Dredge, D. and Jenkins, J. (editors). Stories of practice: tourism planning and policy. Surrey and Burlington: Ashgate: 37–55.Google Scholar
Duguid, P. 2005. ‘The art of knowing’: social and tacit dimensions of knowledge and the limits of the community. The Information Society 21 (April–June): 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunham, L., Freeman, R.E. and Liedtka, J.. 2006. Enhancing stakeholder practice: a particularized exploration of community. Business Ethics Quarterly 16: 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggen, O.A. and Ottesen, R.T.. 2012. PCB i overflatejord ved bakgrunnslokaliteter på Svalbard. Trondheim: NGU. (Report 2012.071)Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12 (2): 219–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Simon, S., Scott, P. and Martin, T.. 1994. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of sceince and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hagen, D., Vistad, O.I., Eide, N.E., Flyen, A.C. and Fangel, K.. 2012. Managing visitor sites in Svalbard: from a precautionary approach towards knowledge–based management. Polar Research 31: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handley, K., Stury, A., Fincham, R. and Clark, T.. 2006. Within and beyond communities of practice: making sense of learning through participations, identity and practice. Journal of Management Studies 43 (3): 641–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Head, B.W. 2008. Research and evaluation. Three lenses of evidence–based policy. The Australian Journal of Public Administration 67: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriebel, D., Ticknes, J., Epstein, P., Lemons, J., Levins, R., Loechler, E.L., Quinn, M., Rudel, R., Schettler, T. and Stoto, M.. 2001. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives 109: 871–876.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsen, T. 2012. Forvaltningsplan for Øst–Svalbard – tid til ettertanke. Svalbardposten nr. 2–13 January 2012. (readers letter).Google Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E.. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberatore, A. and Funtowicz, S.. 2003. ‘Democratising’ expertise, ‘expertising’ democracy: what does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy 30: 146–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, D.B. and Likens, G.E.. 2009. Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long–term research and monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24 (9): 482–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindenmayer, D.B. and Likens, G.E.. 2010. The science and application of ecological monitoring. Biological Conservation 143: 1317–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, M.T., Vaughan, D.R. and Edwards, J.. 2010. Knowledge networks in the tourism sector of the Bournemoth, Poole, and Christchurch conurbation: preliminary analyses. The Service Industry Journal 30 (10): 1651–1667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2012. Nordområdene. Visjoner og virkemidler [The northern areas. Visions and means]. Meld. St. 7 (2011–2012). Oslo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I. and Krogh, G.. 2009. Perspective – tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science 20 (2): 635–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M.. 2003. Mode 2 revistited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41: 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NPI (Norsk Polarinstitutt). 2013. Kunnskapsgrunnlag for de store nasjonalparkene og fuglereservatene på Vest–Spitsbergen. [The knowledge base for the huge national parks and bird reserves on West–Spitbergen]. Tromsø: Norsk Polarinstiutt.Google Scholar
Resnik, D.B. 2003. Is the precautionary principle unscientific? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34: 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandercock, L. 1998. Towards cosmopolis: planning for multicultural cities. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Sandin, P. 1999. Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5: 889–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. 1976. Administrative behavior. (3rd Edn). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Svalbard, Governor of. 2005. Skipsfart på Svalbard – gjennomgang av behov for tiltak. Longyearbyen: Governor of Svalbard (internal note)Google Scholar
van Dijk, H.F.G., van Rongen, E., Eggermont, G., Lebret, E., Bijker, W.E. and Timmermans, D.R.M.. 2011. The role of scientific advisory bodies in precaution–based risk governance illustrated with the issue of uncertain health effects of electromagnetic fields. Journal of Risk Research 14: 451–466. (DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2011.553729).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viken, A. 2006. Svalbard. In: Baldachino, G. (editor). Extreme tourism: lessons from the world's cold water island. New York: Elsevier Science:128–142.Google Scholar
Viken, A. 2011. Tourism, research and governance on Svalbard: a symbiotic relationship. Polar Record 47: 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viken, A., Johnston, M., Nyseth, T. and Dawson, J.. 2014. Responsible Arctic tourism: myth or reality? A case study of Svalbard and Nunavut. In: Viken, A. and Granås, B.. (editors), Destination development in tourism: turns and tactics. Farnham: Ashgate: 245–261.Google Scholar
Vistad, O.I., Eide, N.E., Hagen, D.L., Erikstad, L. and Landa, A.. 2007. Miljøeffekter av ferdsel og turisme i Arktis. En litteratur– og forstudie med vekt på Svalbard [Environmental impacts caused by travel and tourism in the Arctic. A literature based prestudy with emphasis on Svalbard]. Lillehammer: Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA) (Report 316).Google Scholar
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 7: 225–246. (DOI: 10.1177/135050840072002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide. In: Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. and Wynn, B. (editors). Risk, environment and modernity. Towards a new ecology. London: Sage: 44–83.Google Scholar