Difference between revisions of "Assessing an Adaptive Cycle in a Social System under External Pressure to Change: the Importance of Intergroup Relations in Recreational Fisheries Governance"

From Adaptive Cycle
Jump to: navigation, search
(Abstract)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[category:literature]]
+
'''Author:''' Daedlow, K., Beckmann, V., Arlinghaus, R.
= Author(s) -Katrin Daedlow, Volker Beckmann, and Robert Arlinghaus =
+
=== Title - Editing Assessing an Adaptive Cycle in a Social System under External Pressure to Change: the Importance of Intergroup Relations in Recreational Fisheries Governance===
+
=== Source - http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art3/===
+
=== Year of Publication - 2011===
+
=== Abstract ===
+
  
Avery interesting article that compares adaptive cycle and governance systems. It is assumed that socially constructed governance systems go through similar phases of the adaptive cycles:(K, Ω [omega], α [alpha], r). The authors claims that two key dimensions of change shaping the four phases of an adaptive cycle are the degree of connectedness and the range of potential in the system. Their purpose is to assess the four phases of the adaptive cycle in a social system by measuring the potential and connectedness dimensions and their different levels in each of the four phases. They analised quantitative data from magazine articles describing the transition process of East German recreational fisheries governance after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 in order to assess theose dimensions. This process was characterized by the discussion of two governance alternatives amendable for implementation: a central East German and a decentralized West German approach. Although they were unable to identify the four phases of the adaptive cycle in our governance system based on quantitatively assessed levels of connectedness and potential alone, the insertion of in-group (East Germans) and out-group (West Germans) dimensions representing the two governance alternatives in our analysis enabled us to identify the specific time frames for all four phases of the adaptive cycle on a monthly basis.
+
'''Title:''' Assessing an adaptive cycle in a social system under external pressure to change: the importance of intergroup relations in recreational fisheries governance
The article mainly focuses on East Germany, connectness, the intergroup relation theory and social systems.
+
 
 +
'''Year of Publication:''' 2011
 +
 
 +
'''Journal:''' Ecology and Society
 +
 
 +
'''Volume:''' 16 '''Issue:''' 2
 +
 
 +
'''Source:''' http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art3/
 +
 
 +
'''Keywords:''' [[:Category:Business|business]], [[:Category:Case study|case study]], [[:Category:Crisis|crisis]], [[:Category:Entrepreneurship|entrepreneurship]], [[:Category:Equilibrium|equilibrium]], [[:Category:Gestalt Switch|gestalt switch]], [[:Category:Management|management]], [[:Category:New Combination|new combination]], [[:Category:Organization|organization]], [[:Category:Qualitative|qualitative]], [[:Category:Quantitative|quantitative]], [[:Category:Remember|remember]], [[:Category:Revolt|revolt]], [[:Category:Theory oriented|theory oriented]]
 +
 
 +
'''Abstract:''' The adaptive cycle constitutes a heuristic originally used to interpret the dynamics of complex ecosystems in response to disturbance and change. It is assumed that socially constructed governance systems go through similar phases (K, Ω [omega], α [alpha], r) as evident in ecological adaptive cycles. Two key dimensions of change shaping the four phases of an adaptive cycle are the degree of connectedness and the range of potential in the system. Our purpose was to quantitatively assess the four phases of the adaptive cycle in a social system by measuring the potential and connectedness dimensions and their different levels in each of the four phases. We assessed these dimensions using quantitative data from content analysis of magazine articles describing the transition process of East German recreational fisheries governance after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This process was characterized by the discussion of two governance alternatives amendable for implementation: a central East German and a decentralized West German approach. Contrary to assumptions in the adaptive cycle heuristic, we were unable to identify the four phases of the adaptive cycle in our governance system based on quantitatively assessed levels of connectedness and potential alone. However, the insertion of in-group (East Germans) and out-group (West Germans) dimensions representing the two governance alternatives in our analysis enabled us to identify the specific time frames for all four phases of the adaptive cycle on a monthly basis. These findings suggest that an unmodified “figure-eight model” of the adaptive cycle may not necessarily hold in social systems. Inclusion of disciplinary theories such as intergroup relation theory will help in understanding adaptation processes in social systems.
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Literature]]
 +
[[Category:Business]]
 +
[[Category:Case study]]
 +
[[Category:Crisis]]
 +
[[Category:Entrepreneurship]]
 +
[[Category:Equilibrium]]
 +
[[Category:Gestalt Switch]]
 +
[[Category:Management]]
 +
[[Category:New Combination]]
 +
[[Category:Organization]]
 +
[[Category:Qualitative]]
 +
[[Category:Quantitative]]
 +
[[Category:Remember]]
 +
[[Category:Revolt]]
 +
[[Category:Theory oriented]]

Revision as of 04:24, 11 May 2013

Author: Daedlow, K., Beckmann, V., Arlinghaus, R.

Title: Assessing an adaptive cycle in a social system under external pressure to change: the importance of intergroup relations in recreational fisheries governance

Year of Publication: 2011

Journal: Ecology and Society

Volume: 16 Issue: 2

Source: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art3/

Keywords: business, case study, crisis, entrepreneurship, equilibrium, gestalt switch, management, new combination, organization, qualitative, quantitative, remember, revolt, theory oriented

Abstract: The adaptive cycle constitutes a heuristic originally used to interpret the dynamics of complex ecosystems in response to disturbance and change. It is assumed that socially constructed governance systems go through similar phases (K, Ω [omega], α [alpha], r) as evident in ecological adaptive cycles. Two key dimensions of change shaping the four phases of an adaptive cycle are the degree of connectedness and the range of potential in the system. Our purpose was to quantitatively assess the four phases of the adaptive cycle in a social system by measuring the potential and connectedness dimensions and their different levels in each of the four phases. We assessed these dimensions using quantitative data from content analysis of magazine articles describing the transition process of East German recreational fisheries governance after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This process was characterized by the discussion of two governance alternatives amendable for implementation: a central East German and a decentralized West German approach. Contrary to assumptions in the adaptive cycle heuristic, we were unable to identify the four phases of the adaptive cycle in our governance system based on quantitatively assessed levels of connectedness and potential alone. However, the insertion of in-group (East Germans) and out-group (West Germans) dimensions representing the two governance alternatives in our analysis enabled us to identify the specific time frames for all four phases of the adaptive cycle on a monthly basis. These findings suggest that an unmodified “figure-eight model” of the adaptive cycle may not necessarily hold in social systems. Inclusion of disciplinary theories such as intergroup relation theory will help in understanding adaptation processes in social systems.