Why does theory matter?
My work focused on the Oregon Forest Practices Act through the exploration of the Hinkle Creek Paired Watershed Study (HCPWS) and the role of Roseburg Forest Products (RFP) in Douglas County. Although it is not completely obvious on my poster, what I have learned in environmental theory has helped to guide my inquiry and come to the conclusions that I did. Primarily, the four branches of systematic environmental theory shaped this project although the other readings we did affected the direction of my work. My research was steered by four(ish) guiding questions (although these is interplay between all four discourses) :
Ontology: What is the history of erosion in PNW? What role does RFP play in Douglas County? What are the facts for each group and who reports the information?
Landslides happen a lot in the Pacific Northwest and they can be made worse by practices like clear cutting. Landslide-inducing methods like these are used a lot in modern day forest practices in Douglas County, which the public was starting to see as a potential issue. At the same time all of this was going on, community members and organizations concerned with the safety of aquatic ecosystems were getting worried that modern day forest practices were going to hurt fish habitat. RFP is a huge company who would have a lot to lose if Oregon were to change the Oregon Forest Practices Act so they sponsored the HCPRS on land they managed and owned.
The study concluded that “for almost every discipline, contemporary forest practices resulted in detectable changes in a parameter of interest,” although it also stated that, “these changes were often difficult to detect, not acute, were often subtle, and the magnitude of these changes existed well within the spatial variability exhibited within the watershed”.
Epistemology: Why does each group consider their respective information as fact? What frames are being used by the group/institution/individual?
Here, different groups interpreted the conclusions of the study very differently. After talking to Ken Carloni, an Oregon State professor of Forestry and Forest Ecology, Jim Long, a prior educator and community activist, and reading the Roseburg News Review, this became very clear. When I brought up the HCPWS both Ken and Jim were quite eager to share their thoughts. Ken and Jim believed that the work done at Hinkle Creek was “not science for science’s sake” and motivations were flawed to say the least. Right off the bat, Ken even said that the supporters of the research “were looking for ways to prove what they already believed to be true.” In the News Review, contrastingly, the study was praised for its success quoting Arne Skaugset, an OSU Forestry professor, as being convinced Hinkle Creek can be protected while allowing clear-cut logging.
I’m not making the assertion that one group is right and one group is wrong but what I am interested in is how two parties drawing from the same reports can come to such different conclusions. What information are they choosing to take as fact and how are they interpreting those facts? The polarization represented between the media and Jim and Ken is also apparently widely seen in the Oregon State Forest Sciences Department.
Ethics: Who is sponsoring these studies and what affect do they have on the outcomes (bias)? What makes the actions in response to HCPWS findings justifiable?
Costs for studies like HCPWS can be an average of a million dollars per year. HCPWS was primarily sponsored by Roseburg Forest Products whose goals according to the company president are to “First, [commit] to being good stewards of our environment,” and “second, [manufacture] and sell quality wood products that will help to meet the needs of today’s architects, designers and builders.” It was quite remarkable and even odd to me that a logging company would put their environmental goals at the forefront of their company mission statement and the practices that actually turn a profit second. Additionally, RFP has used the fact that it sponsored the HCPWS to show that it is a company that incorporates sustainable practices into its business plan and has also been presented various awards for its sponsorship of the study.
Politics: How do the institutions of science (epistemic communities) and outside parties respond to challenges and multiple interpretations of that fact? Who is benefiting from the HCPWS and who is being left out?
In the end, what might have gone on is that RFP funded this study with something on the mind besides fish. It is possible that the HCPWS was not only intended to examine the Oregon Forest Practices Act but to more importantly prove the RFP would not be the ones to blame in the case of a landslide. RFP were relying on supposed fact that epistemic communities sponsored by them were reporting and were gaining credibility as environmental advocates in their industry for doing so.
Even though the outcome of the study stated that forest management could continue as usual without ecological consequences, their remains some doubt in this student’s mind that this is true. As Timothy Egan remarked in an article about the recent mudslides in Washington, “It is human nature, if not the American way, to look potential disaster in the face and prefer to see a bright and shining lie” (“A Mudslide, Foretold”). People hear what they want to hear and therefore search for what they want to find.
So in the end then, why does theory matter? In this class I have learned to look beyond the bounds of normal situated research to a world where questions flow like water. Theory helps to more closely examine the implicit aspects of issues by asking what forces dictate what is defined as “normal.” Exploring examples like the HCPWS helps to illustrate those familiar environmental problems that we think we have pulled apart and fully understood may not be as straightforward as they seem. It is important not to take things at face value but not dismiss what is considered face value and try to see why it is accepted at such. We can not only make connections but also have to ask why those connections are there, what they entail and how they can form a discourse.
Most importantly, I now know that it is okay to be confused.
Leave a Reply