Author(s):
Simon P J Batterbury, Dr* - University Of Melbourne
Abstract:
The paper forms part of a project with Leah Horowitz and several others (including Piers Blaikie, who is not attending) to understand how the divide between the production of "research, theory and explanations", the task of most academic geographers, and "advocacy, policymaking, and direct interventions" - generally the task of those working for organizations elsewhere than in universities - has arisen, and how it may be overcome. I argue, following several scholars with varied political views, that relevance and engagement matter hugely for scholars, and specifically for 'critical political ecology' of human-environment relationships. The frequent claim that teaching and research must form the bulk of a scholar's life, says little about direct relevance. Nor does it illuminate how so many scholars, many presenting in our sessions, come to have 'actually existing' relevant contributions to environmental work or policy. At a time when the world is hugely concerned about the environmental and social impacts of local and planetary change, critical and radical analyses of the links between economies, polities and environments work best when coupled to outreach and media work, policy, solution-building, and the presentation of alternatives. To do this does not imply technocratic managerialism, but rather, it follows through on the sentiments of political ecologists and radical scholars. I illustrate these points with my own and other's work from West Africa, the UK, and Asia-Pacific.
