47
(e.g., data collection design, fieldwork, and analysis) for the common-pool resource
(Ostrom 2009).
The SES framework, and earlier renditions of it have been applies to a variety of
cases, both common-pool and non-common-pool resources. The cases include lobster fisheries in southern California (Partelow and Boda 2015), wetlands in the
northern Sierra Nevada foothill oak woodlands (Hruska et al. 2014), Cambodian
cattle-owning smallholders (Marshall 2015), and small-scale fisheries in Baja
California Sur, Mexico (Leslie et al. 2015).
The intention of the SES framework is to undergo continuous development based
on different shortcomings and case examples (Ostrom 2009). Framework development has been carried out on a number of areas where, for example, more relevant
variables have been added for the case of Pacific lobster fisheries (Partelow and
Boda 2015), a change in the attributes of governance systems, and ways to make the
framework applicable to policy settings beyond natural resources (McGinnis and
Ostrom 2014).
3.5 Discussion
3.5.1 Approach Learning Challenges
Responses from course evaluations and from classroom course evaluation sessions
following the course have showed a general and diverse mix of student satisfaction
around learning the approaches, as well as learning activities that need improvement. There was general displeasure, especially a number of years back, in two
related areas. The first was with problems achieving a sufficient level of understanding with each approach introduced. Many of the comments from students concentrated on the lack of time and opportunities during the course to optimally learn the
fundamentals of each approach. The second significant area of dissatisfaction was
the existence of a common thread running through the entire course and the difficulty of students to see each approach in a broader perspective of sustainability
science, frameworks, and tools.
More recently, and with several changes to the course learning activities, student
evaluation comments have become more concentrated on single approaches with
learning activity suggestions based on the individual styles of learning preferred by
individual students. Course evaluation comments do not identify any single
approach, lecture, or group work activity as problematic. Instead, there is a diverse
mix of both positive and critical comments in all areas. This is interpreted as positive given the large size of the course and the diversity of cultural and academic
backgrounds. As examples, a number of participants have been critical of the high
degree of group work activities—and the activities that are graded in groups—
throughout the course. Others, however, expressed the ongoing participatory
knowledge creation processes as highly positive and the forums were where the
3 Approaches for Framing Sustainability Challenges: Experiences from Swedish…
(e.g., data collection design, fieldwork, and analysis) for the common-pool resource
(Ostrom 2009).
The SES framework, and earlier renditions of it have been applies to a variety of
cases, both common-pool and non-common-pool resources. The cases include lobster fisheries in southern California (Partelow and Boda 2015), wetlands in the
northern Sierra Nevada foothill oak woodlands (Hruska et al. 2014), Cambodian
cattle-owning smallholders (Marshall 2015), and small-scale fisheries in Baja
California Sur, Mexico (Leslie et al. 2015).
The intention of the SES framework is to undergo continuous development based
on different shortcomings and case examples (Ostrom 2009). Framework development has been carried out on a number of areas where, for example, more relevant
variables have been added for the case of Pacific lobster fisheries (Partelow and
Boda 2015), a change in the attributes of governance systems, and ways to make the
framework applicable to policy settings beyond natural resources (McGinnis and
Ostrom 2014).
3.5 Discussion
3.5.1 Approach Learning Challenges
Responses from course evaluations and from classroom course evaluation sessions
following the course have showed a general and diverse mix of student satisfaction
around learning the approaches, as well as learning activities that need improvement. There was general displeasure, especially a number of years back, in two
related areas. The first was with problems achieving a sufficient level of understanding with each approach introduced. Many of the comments from students concentrated on the lack of time and opportunities during the course to optimally learn the
fundamentals of each approach. The second significant area of dissatisfaction was
the existence of a common thread running through the entire course and the difficulty of students to see each approach in a broader perspective of sustainability
science, frameworks, and tools.
More recently, and with several changes to the course learning activities, student
evaluation comments have become more concentrated on single approaches with
learning activity suggestions based on the individual styles of learning preferred by
individual students. Course evaluation comments do not identify any single
approach, lecture, or group work activity as problematic. Instead, there is a diverse
mix of both positive and critical comments in all areas. This is interpreted as positive given the large size of the course and the diversity of cultural and academic
backgrounds. As examples, a number of participants have been critical of the high
degree of group work activities—and the activities that are graded in groups—
throughout the course. Others, however, expressed the ongoing participatory
knowledge creation processes as highly positive and the forums were where the
3 Approaches for Framing Sustainability Challenges: Experiences from Swedish…