Denna artikel beskriver hur fakultetsopponenter motiverar avhandlingars kvalitet i populärvetenskapliga sammanfattningar som publicerats i tidskriften Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige under perioden 2000-2015. I artikeln fokuseras granskningskriterier som gäller relevans, förståelse av forskningsfältet, presentation av texten och dess kommunicerbarhet, originalitet och bidrag samt självständighet, vilka alla kompletterar de grundläggande gransknings­kriterierna.  I artikel fokuseras hur dessa granskningskriterier kommer till uttryck och används när fakultetsopponenter beskriver en avhandling som de har granskat. Syftet är att tydliggöra hur dessa granskningskriterier framställs när fakultetsopponenter lyfter fram vad som är betydelsefullt i avhandlingarna. Studien omfattar 59 sammanfattande texter från 60 olika disputationstillfällen. Avsikten är att bidra till en djupare förståelse av dessa gransknings­kriterier och hur de kommer till uttryck, till nytta för doktorander, handledare och fakultets­opponenter. 

Research about or with local communities entails particular challengesboth in the field and when interpreting empirical results. The purpose of this essay is to reflect on the research process that underpinned the generation of the article “We adapt … but is it good or bad? Locating the political ecology and social-ecological systems debate in reindeer herdingin the Swedish Sub-Arctic”. This article discusses the implications of different theoretical and methodological approaches for grasping complexsocio-ecological relations by examining four reindeer herding communities (Samebyar) in Norrbotten County. The methodological, ethical and epistemological challenges and tensions we encountered in undertaking this task are discussed, including: 1) developing the research design; 2)formulating the research agenda; 3) deciding on criteria of representation;4) the ethics of paying informants and 5) validating results. By examining these issues through reflecting on our research experience, we hope to contribute to the discussion on the challenges of field studies of communities.

In this article, using a posthumanist and Deleuzian vocabulary, we problematize theanthropocentric approach within communication theory that at present is setting thetheoretical ground for environmental communication. We argue that ‘anthropocentrism’has caused humans to situate humanity at the top of an assumed environmental hierarchy.Consequently, humanity has given itself the right to interpret the world according to itsown standard. This, in turn, has consequences for what is called the environment,including its marginalization and exploitation.To address this issue, we maintain that environmental communication is in need of aposthuman theoretical elaboration that allows for a post-anthropocentric turn and enablesan alternative radical approach to environmental communication theory. Our mainargument is that the idea of processuality allows us to work with relationality as aconcept within environmental communication theory. Relationality gives rise to thecommunicative actions that are put in motion by environmental communication theory.In traditional environmental communication research, environmental issues areunderstood as expressions of discourses or systems. We suggest, in response, thatenvironmental issues, as posthuman communicational processes, are crucial forunderstanding sustainable development as a set of practices. Posthuman or posthumanisttheory, we argue, makes possible a turn from an androcentric ideal to a postanthropocentricstance within environmental communication. This lets us develop theconcept of “sustainable development” and its practices as relating to both material andethical matters. Environmental communication thus becomes a function in whichknowledge provides the necessary abstraction for engaging in posthuman and postanthropocentriccommunicative actions.

Abstract Reindeer herding (RDH) is a livelihood strategy deeply connected to Sami cultural tradition. This article explores the implications of two theoretical and methodological approaches for grasping complex socioenvironmental relationships of RDH in Subarctic Sweden. Based on joint fieldwork, two teams – one that aligns itself with political ecology (PE) and the other with social-ecological systems (SES) – compared PE and SES approaches of understanding RDH. Our purpose was twofold: 1) to describe the situation of Sami RDH through the lenses of PE and SES, exploring how the two approaches interpret the same empirical data; 2) to present an analytical comparison of the ontological and epistemological assumptions of this work, also inferring different courses of action to instigate change for the sustainability of RDH. Key informants from four sameby in the Kiruna region expressed strong support for the continuation of RDH as a cultural and economic practice. Concerns about the current situation raised by Sami representatives centered on the cumulative negative impacts on RDH from mining, forestry and tourism. PE and SES researchers offered dissimilar interpretations of the key aspects of the RDH socio-economic situation, namely: the nature and scale of RDH systems; the ubiquitous role of conflict; and conceptualizations of responses to changing socioenvironmental conditions. Due to these disparities, PE and SES analyses have radically divergent sociopolitical implications for what ought to be done to redress the current RDH situation.

Biosphere reserves in the UNESCO Man and Biosphere program work with the assignment to formulate knowledge from the practice of sustainable modelling. Biosphere reserves are interesting to study because the environmental communication concern the potential from the collaborative intersections that shapes for sustainable futures. The communication process frames communicative principles through different democratic codes. Various communication processes formulate various knowledge outputs or outcomes. This paper discusses the expressions of two different communication processes and how various biosphere reserve building activities shapes by different agents in action formulated as information for sustainability by the actors. The analyzed communication processes of the two studied Swedish biosphere reserves states that the actions inprocess shape two different expressions, which is framed by the activities, one formulating opportunities and the other forms possibilities. This analytical method has pedagogical and educational implications since different communication processes recognize knowledge from different expressions. The results put forward the importance of studying more than the outcome or output from these processes, though the processing actions is of pedagogical value.

Researchers and teachers in higher education from different disciplinesand universities from the Baltic region had the opportunityto sail on board the brig-rigged sailing ship FryderykChopin during some wonderful days in May (17-24). On board,roles were reversed and it was we, researchers and teachers,from more than 12 countries, that were instructed, by youngpeople, often self-taught in sailing, us acting as their ship’s lads.

UNESCO* Man and Biosphere (MAB) reserves are geographically demarcated areas all over the world where people collaborate, co-operate and work together in order to develop model-areas for sustainability. The MAB programme encourages people to take the challenge to shape model-areas for sustainability by co-work, collaboration and co-management. The emphasis with the MAB programme is to provide opportunities for people and authorities all over the world to contribute to new ways of thinking about the relationship between humans and the biosphere. To support such collaboration the participants combine the complexity of knowledge that enable them to connect natural and social knowledge frameworks, with respect to ecological, economic, cultural, and political dimensions. As with any social innovativeness, framing knowledge is a process that depends on communication. This communication concerns the interaction between humans and the biosphere and how to develop the area as a model for sustainability. One of the main goals of the MAB-programme is to share knowledge gained from experiences in the different model areas. This paper contributes to that goal by reporting on the communication processes in practice from two biosphere reserve building processes in Sweden. These communication processes introduce possibilities and constrains for the knowledge frameworks accessible to participants in the groups. The paper is based on a two-year study of two biosphere reserves and includes archival research, individual interviews and observation of group meetings. It focuses on the communication processes emerging at each site, and suggests how the practice associated with these processes may both enable and constrain future collaboration in the two groups. Although both groups strive for the emergence of knowledge frameworks to support the aim of the MAB programme, their communication practices diverge. One group approaches their mission by deliberatively, embracing consensus goals; while the other group approaches their task by agonistically, embracing pluralism. There is no best way, there are various ways of communicating within collaborations and in this strive to co-work, neither of the approaches from the examples is inherently better than the other, both introduce different possibilities and constrains as the groups move forward in modeling for sustainable futures.