Course:IGS585/OK2020WT2/GuestDonnaSenese

Donna Senese - Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

To add your reflection, log in using your CWL and select edit. Starting below any other material on the page, add your name using the heading style. It will appear as your name with a horizontal line. Below this, add your reflection. Your reflection should be no more than 500 words.

If you are commenting on another reflection, select edit and insert your comment after the original reflection. Use the 'Sub-heading 2' style to add your name above your comments.

	Reflection Authors and Commenters
Author	Ian Chambers	Ayla de Grandpre	Adam Kunis	Joshua Ayer	Luis Cadavid	Janna Wale
Commenter	Luis Cadavid	Janna Wale	Joshua Ayer	Ayla de Grandpre	Adam Kunis	Ian Chambers

Below is an example of how a reflection and a comment should be organized. You can copy the content inside the box and paste it to get the formatting right.

Janna Wale Dr. Donna Senese’s Reflexive Journey through Sustainability was a very refreshing discussion. First, I thoroughly enjoyed her beginning by explaining her own lens and positionality as they relate to her work by explaining about who she was, where she grew up, and how it influences her lens and thinking about her research areas. By offering this as a starting place, Dr. Senese is allowing the space for connection to self and to place. In my own work, I make an effort to center myself in my research. Following this, she iterated that considering traditional and local knowledge is key for advancing sustainability in an area. In essence, this relates back to the idea of place based knowledge, and further reinforces the importance of positionality in effective sustainability research. In Indigenous communities, and reinforced in my own case study research, identifying who you are and where you come from is imperative. By centering who you are and where you come from, you assert your credibility, while also demonstrating a sense of responsibility. In other words, why this research is meaningful and important. It is exciting to see this begin to become standard practice in academic spaces. Furthering this, her past experience about being taught that human and land systems were studied separately really resonated with me. In my own undergraduate degree, the overlap between these systems was often overlooked. It was not until my graduate degree that I heard the terms “socio-ecological system” and “complex system.” Her articulation of this distinction caused me to reflect on my own education to date, and has helped me to consider this shift in thinking more critically. As well, her discussion around transformative resilience filled in some blanks for me that were left over from Mark’s discussion on the pillars of community sustainability. By considering adaptation as a tool to leave something better than it was before, it allowed me to think more deeply on the point Mark made about resiliency being forward-looking. By having a vision of where we want to be in the future, we will be better equipped in making more sustainable management decisions. Ian Chambers Janna, I also enjoyed Dr. Senese starting her talk by explaining her positionality and I did feel that it allowed for increased connection. I admire that you actively put effort into centering yourself in your research. I feel like I have been trained to somewhat remove myself from my research, but I think it would be beneficial for me to acknowledge the lens with which I approach my work. I think this would also be a powerful tool in knowledge mobilization as it does allow for increased connection, provides credibility and also acknowledges the perspective your work takes and by extension the limits of your work. I find it really interesting that in both your education and Dr. Senese’s human and land systems have been kept mainly separate. I’m becoming increasingly aware of the importance of coupling these systems and not viewing ourselves as separate from nature. It seems that this really does require an interdisciplinary approach, as distinct disciplines appear to make such a clear distinction. In my own thesis work it has been really interesting combining models of human and natural systems, and often the results are much different than what would be predicted from either system modelled alone.

Adam Kunis In last Friday’s presentation, I greatly appreciated that Dr. Senese took us on her journey of geography. Starting from the beginning of her academic career, her presentation drew me in as being very relatable. It was very beneficial to understand what an academic career path could entail as she outlined her journey from being a master’s student to developing an experiential learning program in Italy. I also found it particularly interesting to hear about some of the challenges that she had to overcome such as being told she couldn’t pursue her initial study path as a woman. In applying Dr. Senese’s presentation to the Keremeos project, I believe that she touched on several key applicable concepts. I agree with her stance in that we need to move beyond sustainability. Sustainability is never something that can be completed; it is an ongoing process. Because our project is limited to one semester, our work with Keremeos will most likely end come May. Since as a class we are unable to make ongoing contributions, it may be more useful to work on a project that contributes to a specific resilience development or that introduces the concept of transformative tourism. Both of these would contribute to sustainability with the latter being particularly beneficial as the tourism industry is still in its infancy. To better assist Keremeos, the wants and needs of the community should be implemented. Because this is a complex topic, the lexicon metaphor that Dr. Senese described will be very useful in breaking down the jargon and communicating with the community. Lastly, I found it very interesting that Dr. Senese emphasized looking to the past for potential best practices. Her example of wineries utilizing medieval techniques for artisanal production and social systems seemed similar to the principles of the Slow Food Movement. This system emphasizes quality over quantity and seeks to reduce overproduction and food waste. Looking to other parts of the world that have successfully implemented Slow Food may identify strong village economies of similar size to Keremeos. If Keremeos were to adopt similar strategies, it may help strengthen the agricultural sector in addition to build a transformative tourism sector. Transformative tourism addresses the capacity of tourism to change human behavior and have a positive impact on the world. If Keremeos were to take this path, they must overcome two distinct challenges. The first being regulations and restrictions over ALR land (which the council is trying to rezone) and the second is that it requires future generations to take over the businesses. Due to the demographics of the community, it may be difficult to retain youth and provide them with appealing labor. Name of Commenting Author This is a reflection on the reflection of the author above.

Ian Chambers I enjoyed hearing about Dr. Senese’s formative years and how she developed her passion for the environment and sustainability in the forests of the Canadian Shield on summer vacations. Similarly, I spent my summers growing up in Montana admiring the forest covered mountains and glacial lakes and here is where my passion for the environment and sustainability was established. Clearly exposure to nature in the formative years is important in fostering this appreciation. Perhaps incorporating nature more into the urban environment and our society would help promote this appreciation and support a more sustainable society. I appreciated how Dr. Senese encouraged us to be disrupters, which she defined as frustrating the dominant view. With such a large and complex issue like sustainability, new ideas and creative solutions need to be developed and undoubtedly these will challenge our current ways of thinking. I find that our epistemic culture puts a lot of emphasis on following the status quo or submitting to their accepted ways. It was inspiring to hear such a successful scholar encouraging us to challenge this aspect of academics. I also enjoyed Donna’s discussion around the human desire for a steady state in nature. Often sustainability is talked about in a way that references preserving nature in a constant, manageable state. I have often thought that nature is anything but constant, but an ever adapting and moving process in a sort of dynamic equilibrium. Managing it to remain constant to me appears to be contradictive to the entire idea of sustainability. Sustainability should allow nature to exist in a natural state where the forces of nature provide the requirements for life and exert the pressures for adaption. Hearing Dr. Senese vocalize these thoughts resonated with me, and I appreciated her extending these ideas to say that the reason we seek to manage nature in a steady state is because it is comfortable to us. This ties into her ideas regarding chaos and change which the human condition seems to naturally oppose. Dr. Senese also encouraged us to take advantage of the chaos of change. We must acknowledge that it is inevitable and embrace it rather than resisting it. This requires us to be prepared and adaptable, which in essence is resilience. Joshua Ayer I really like the point in your reflection wherein you remark a). that sustainability is an ongoing process without a necessary ending, and b). that, in contrast, that our class’s interaction with Keremeos will likely end in May.  I liked this reflection because it made me think about the limits of our impact on the town considering that we are, in the larger picture, just passing through the town’s overall development.  To this extent, your suggestion that we focus on a ‘specific resilience development’ is wise, rather than trying to grapple with the development of the town writ large (a task we have neither the time nor expertise for). Overall, I appreciated this contextualizing of our small time as a reminder that after May, Keremeos will still have to grapple with growth and sustainability even though our project will be completed.  I think on a individual student level this is important to keep in mind, otherwise it feels like our task is to ‘make Keremeos more sustainable’ instead of targeting particular areas that can overtime, perhaps, contribute to the greater whole of sustainability and resiliency being pursued.

Ayla De Grandpre Given that Dr. Senese is my supervisor and we have had many conversations about resilience and sustainability, much of what she presented was not new knowledge for me. My position on resilience has been highly influenced by her own, as well as that of Dr. Ken Hewitt, the “rock star geologist” she referred to. One idea that I have been thinking about since her presentation, ] is the idea of critical reflexivity and, as Dr. Senese puts it, how your positionality affects the questions you ask and therefore the answers that you come up with. This made me think of one of Dr. Greg Garrard’s lessons last semester in the Sustainability Theme Seminar (IGS 584), where he talked about how the “system” that a researcher uses (e.g. the epistemic lens, culture and worldview that they ascribe to) can constrain the science (or the output). Therefore, the way that we ask questions and produce knowledge has a profound impact on the results of our inquiry. I think that I am starting to understand the need for us, as researchers, to disclose, reflect and discuss our epistemic biases to come closer to understanding the limitations of the knowledge that we produce. In my opinion, this would greatly improve sustainability and resilience knowledge. The second idea that resonated with me from Dr. Senese’s presentation was the idea of “the impossibility of everyday life”. I remember reading this chapter in Ken Hewitt’s book last year, however, it didn’t quite click for me like it did when Dr. Senese read it for us. The idea that there is a human demand for a steady-state, or an “everyday life”, that does not exist is a serious issue. If we humans build our societal systems and built environments based on the idea of a stable-state equilibrium model, we are extremely maladapted to the reality of a dynamic world. This reminds me of the idea of “steady-state” resilience -  where steady-state resilience implies that, after a system is disrupted, it must return to a single reference state - and “dynamic” resilience – where the disrupted system will change in accordance to the changed conditions, not returning to the initial state (think of the “new normal” post-pandemic). I understand that assuming a dynamic resilience stance may not be the most popular stance, given that it requires us to accept undesirable qualities such as ephemerality and uncertainty, as well as a realization that we are not in control of everything. Nonetheless, what I have taken from Dr. Senese's talk is that it is important to assume these kinds of positions that are uncomfortable, or challenge established knowledge paradigms. Thus, I believe that the impossibility of everyday life, or a “normal steady-state” is a critical idea in resilience theory, especially as it pertains to “transformational resilience” – where systems transform themselves remain adaptive under ever-changing conditions, such as climate change. In sum, while transformational resilience is a theory I am presently working on dissecting in my thesis work, I was re-inspired by Ken Hewitt's words and reminded by this presentation of the importance of acknowledging the dynamic state. Janna Wale Ayla, I agree with being struck by the idea of positionally, and how it affects both the questions you as as well as the answers you might find. For me, positionality is especially important when working with Indigenous communities. I would also agree with your point about disclosing our potential biases in order to further understanding the limitations. Personally, I also think this would really serve to frame out and personify the science, which could add to the outcomes. The idea of a being maladapted to a dynamic world also really resonated with me. In my undergrad, we were taught the steady-state model the whole way through, so it was very pivotal to learn that it may not be so cut and dry. Furthering this, I totally agree with you in the idea of challenging established knowledge paradigms. I think this is where we might achieve really and lasting progress. Your work sounds very interesting and aligned with my own!

Joshua Ayer

Over the course of these classes and reflections, I feel like I have reflected constructively and positively on sustainability, but I do not feel like I have reflected very critically on it.  I really admired the tone that Dr. Senese brought to her presentation and, in reflecting on her presentation, I want to think in a more critical space about sustainability as this was a theme of her talk. Often, I take for granted sustainability as an inherently necessary thing, and I have not thought as much about the way it can be appropriated to mean something less radical for the environment.  Dr. Senese dwelled on the tension between nature on the one hand, and the human desire for a technocratically controlled steady state on the other. What if sustainability is actually the optimum way to achieve that final conquering over nature? I have find myself between two competing notions of sustainability: one is a concern for human sustainability, which I think is actually more about the idea of human permanency – being sustainable in order to make sure that we are still here, that we will not extinguish ourselves through our economies and politics.  The other notion of sustainability is still concerned with longevity, but less with permanence, here the goal would be more holistic - less anthropocentric but more earthy.  The key here is extracting permanency from sustainability, as permanency has a very unsustainable motive to it which is essentially to stop change (what I think is at the root of sustainable development).  In sustainable development the goal is to freeze conditions for development (or at least isolate them), there is a desire for the world to stop changing so that the development can continue the way it has since the Industrial Revolution. Here sustainability refers more to a freezing and elongation of time.  To counteract this concept of sustainability, I think it is essential to keep resiliency in mind as the kind of sustainability that we are hoping for. Because within the idea of resiliency is adaptability, and what a sustainability whose focus is resiliency aims for is an adaptable core that doesn’t try to crystalize particular circumstances but remains open and adaptable to the circumstances that are presumed to change.

A resiliency of this kind reminds me of psychologist Kazmierz Dabrowski’s theory of Positive Disintegration.  According to Dabrowski’s personality theory, crises are moments of potential re-assembling and re-integrating of information that ultimately ends in the constructing of a better personality.  This is how I think of resiliency, as an ability to withstand crises and shocks but build back from them in new (and possibly better) ways.  Trying to translate this stress on sustainability through resiliency into terms relevant to Keremeos is challenging because I am not sure how to actualize this sort of sustainability and resiliency on a structural level. A resiliency of the kind described above seems to hinge considerably on the social context of a community, it would seem to depend on a social (or political) will to innovatively press on. However, maybe public policy and public infrastructure can be built for change as well.  Such seems to be the thinking around circular economic development wherein adaptability and re-conceptualization of space is key.

Ayla De Grandpre

Thank you for your thoughtful reflection. To be honest, I initially felt challenged by the position that you were proposing: that sustainability might relate to “conquering” or assuming a dominionistic position over nature, and that resilience might relate to maintaining a single state, or “freezing conditions” as you put it. If you read my reflection on this topic, it will become evident to you how my perspective on resilience and sustainability differs from this one. The way that I see it, given that human health is ultimately reliant upon the health of our ecosystems, we need to understand sustainability and resilience holistically, as the elements that benefit and strengthen both humans and the environment. So the goal might not be “permanence” exactly, as you put it, because in my eyes, nothing is permanent, everything is ephemeral; but rather, adaptive transformation, where we accept that the future is uncertain and ever-changing, and that we need to adapt in a way that maintains our existence, but also the rest of life and the environment, which are, in essence, our life-support. Overall, I really appreciated your perspective as a moment to reflect on a counter-argument to my own position.

As for your discussion of Kazmierz Dabrowski’s theory of Positive Disintegration, I would encourage you to read about dynamic resilience and the adaptive renewal cycle (Gunderson & Holling, 2002), which describes the dynamism of resilient systems – this might be really relevant to you as well, as it has been used not only in ecology, but in social science to describe the dynamics of power systems and the fall of empires, like Rome. I would also recommend reading Taleb’s book on antifragility, if you’re interested in learning more about the idea of resilience in the way of coming out better and stronger from a crisis. I apologize for the longer reply!