Journal articles on the topic 'Panarchic systems'

An outstanding challenge with broad implications for an ecologically sustainable future is to understand how living systems—whether natural or social—balance opportunity and constraint in a given environment. In this paper, I compare the proposed mechanics of a heuristic developed to explain transformational change in systems ecology with various paleontological patterns and hypotheses for its conceptual homology and thus explanatory power in causal terms. The adaptive cycle heuristic, which has potential to influence current environmental and natural resources law and policy, has two components: 1) cycles that alternate between long periods of growth and shorter periods that create opportunities for innovation (new structures or conditions that become economically successful), and 2) the interaction of nested sets of such cycles (panarchies) across space and time scales. I critically evaluate three basic underlying tenets of the adaptive cycle related to the circumstances of innovation—empty niche space, competition and availability of resources—because of their importance to the development of a theoretical framework for understanding the ecological dimension of opportunity in biological evolution. I conclude that not all of the proposed mechanics and observed phenomenology of the adaptive cycle are appropriate in biological evolution. I draw insight, however, from the hierarchical nature of the heuristic to outline a “panarchical” conceptualization of the escalation hypothesis; I identify self-organization, emergence, selection and adaptation, and feedback as phenomena that are held in common across systems and scales, which influence how entities in the economic hierarchy of life arise, interact and evolve.Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.Robert Frost.Every system either finds a way to develop or else collapses.Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

The adaptive cycle and panarchy are recognised tools for resilience assessment prior to establishing new management approaches aligned with Anthropocene needs. This study used the adaptive cycle and panarchy to assess the dynamics of the social-ecological system (SES) of La Marjaleria, Spain, which experienced increasing human pressure and environmental degradation in recent decades, and developed the ‘adaptive curve’ as a novel graphical representation of system change in the presentation of the results. Based on a literature review of historical changes in La Marjaleria, a SES analysis was performed using the adaptive cycle and panarchy, following the Resilience Alliance’s Practitioners Guide. The assessment offered new insights into the social and ecological dynamics of La Marjaleria through identification of causes and consequences from a complex systems perspective. Previous land-use management in the area has generated tensions between different stakeholders and reduced environmental resilience. The systems thinking approach highlighted the complexity of change processes, offering the possibility of new routes for dialogue and understanding. The ‘adaptive curve’ developed as a method of illustrating interactions across scales in this study could be useful for synthesising the results of a panarchy analysis and supporting their interpretation, offering relevant departure points for future planning and decision-making.

AbstractThis paper interrogates the nature of climate resilience by adopting “panarchy” as a heuristic model to visualize how small-scale processes such as individual environmental risk perceptions are interrelated with broader social and ecological systems to confer community resilience. Thematic analysis of resident interviews from a pilot study conducted in the Rockaways, New York revealed the foundations of environmental risk perceptions and the ways in which they are both a product of and catalyst for social-ecological system (SES) resilience. The debate around managed retreat necessitates a complex systems perspective to promote equitable and just adaptation and transformation while avoiding unintended consequences which often result from single-scale inquiry. Integrating risk perception in the explicit multi-scalar model of panarchy proposes a new way to think about the complex social, economic, political, and psychological processes converging across space and time to confer community resilience and visualize the complexity inherent in relocation. In other words, connecting climate resilience and managed retreat with psychological processes like risk perception emphasizes the importance of implementing multi-scalar interventions to build community adaptive capacity.

AbstractThis paper evaluates the delivery of ecosystem services under different regimes of agricultural input subsidy in post-independent Malawi using (1) the protocol of the Millennium Ecosystem Service to characterize the services; and (2) the panarchy framework to describe the relationships among the political regimes, economic growth [gross domestic product (GDP)] and food security. Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems that support, directly or indirectly, human survival and quality of life. Panarchy is a nested set of adaptive cycles that provides a tool to explore the conductivity of ecological and social-cultural systems. The Malawian temporal political landscape has experienced several reorganizations since independence, in which the governments of Malawi have initiated socio-economic growth of the economy through implementation of different farmer input subsidy programs with variable success. The most recent agricultural subsidy program (2005–2009) appears to have shown an improvement in food security for the people of Malawi. However, this may be at the expense of an increased rate of decline in other ecosystem services, especially arable land resources and forestry. If agricultural subsidies continue to be implemented without a holistic understanding of all ecosystem services delivered to the whole country, then the system will be unsustainable. We recommend the ecosystem service approach and the panarchy framework as potentially useful tools for policy makers.

This paper proposes an evolutionary and sustainability perspective of the innovation ecosystem. This study revisits the Panarchy model in order to generate new perspectives on the innovation ecosystem. The Panarchy model describes the evolutionary nature of complex adaptive systems relying on four phases, without, however, being deterministic: exploitation, conservation, decline, and reorganization. When ecosystems face important shocks, adaptive mechanisms and properties within the ecosystem lead the ecosystem to a new reorganization phase, which gives birth to another exploitation phase. In this perspective, the innovation ecosystem allows the avoidance of technology lock-ins and structural and organizational rigidity by providing mechanisms to enhance both resilience and competitiveness. Innovation ecosystem sustainability relies on two major dual forces: the exploitative function and the generative or autopoiesis function. Therefore, evolutionary and sustainability perspectives remain the “natural home” for developing works and models about the innovation ecosystem, and instrumental for policy-makers and practitioners involved in innovation management.

The nature and scope of changes in organizations’ external environments is without precedent due to planetary shifts, or major changes in earth’s biophysical systems. Our theories of organizational adaptation lack the capacity to explain what will be needed on behalf of business organizations, and their strategists and managers, to adjust to these shifts. In this essay, we review organizational adaptation theory and explain why it falls short of offering adequate explanations in an era of planetary shifts. We then draw on ecological theories of adaptation, with their focus on social-ecological systems and panarchy, to suggest ways to advance organizational adaptation theory for our times.

This article is a formulation of a framework for understanding the nature of change, particularly climate change, as it applies to the scale of a building. Through an exploration of various scientific and social scientific literutre, the article positions the concept of adaptation as the appropriate mode for understanding and managing change. Through the classification of a duality of material and social construction in the ontological composition of a building, various lines of thought relating to adaptive capacity and adaptive cycling within systems theory are appropriated within an integrated framework for adaptation. Specifically, it is theorized that as buildings as objects are developing greater capacities for intergrated operations and management through artificial intelligence, they will possess an ex ante capacity to autonomously adapt in dynamic relation to and with the ex post adaptation of owners and operators. It is argued that this top-down and bottom-up confluence of multi-scalar dynamic change is consistent with the prevailing theory of Panarchy applied in social-ecological systems theory. The article concludes with normative perspectives on the limitations of systems theory in architecture, future directions for research and an alternative positioning of professional practices.

This article investigates the dynamics of socio-ecological systems’ (SESs) unsustainability. By adopting a theoretical standpoint grounded in systems’ theory, the analysis shows how SESs’ teleology (or final cause) is of the utmost relevance for understanding the relationship between humans and ecosystems and how it is pivotal for envisioning possible evolutionary trajectories towards sustainability. Building on the contributions of both system and social scientists, the study argues that SESs’ teleology is determined by dominant social ontologies that require a dialectical lens to be properly dealt with. The article therefore proposes the adoption of the adaptive cycle heuristic complemented by an historical-geographical approach based on world-ecology theory as a means to interpret SESs’ behavior. Such a perspective allows for the direct comparison between the four stages of the panarchy cycle (reorganization, exploitation, conservation, and release) and the four stages theorized by the world-ecology dialectics (expansion, appropriation, capitalization, crisis). In conclusion, the article claims that both system and social scientists would benefit from including concepts and definitions from the other field in their analysis, since both provide valuable insights about SESs’ processes of change and both are necessary to envision transition pathways towards sustainability.

The authors identify the theoretical and methodological foundations of the Dutch approach to sustainable development based on the analysis of the Dutch research centers for sustainable development and the publications of Dutch scientists. Theories of complex social systems, the coevolutionary paradigm, social change theories, and management theories, the development of which began in the 1960s, form the basis of this approach. The article discusses such features of the Dutch approach as recognition of the non-linearity of development and the need for adaptive and reflexive management of transition; recognition of heterarchy, panarchy during the transition, the impossibility of transition to sustainable development under severe authoritarian management and rigid hierarchy, as well as the need for coordination of social interactions at the functional, hierarchical, geographical levels; the coevolutionary influence of the state, private, and public groups and institutions on the transition to sustainable development and the need for governmental control of the context and conditions for mutual decisions and actions.

The global community faces the challenge of feeding a growing population with declining resources, making transformation to sustainable agriculture and food systems all the more imperative and ‘innovation’ all the more crucial. In this study, agro-food system innovation (re)defines sustainability transition with a complexity construct of cross-scale interaction and an adaptive cycle of system change. By taking a panarchical view, top-down and bottom-up pathways to innovation can be reconciled and are not contradictory, enabling and constraining innovation at every level. This study breaks down the structure of the agricultural innovation system into four components based on multi-level perspectives of sustainability transition, namely: actors and communities, interaction and intermediaries, coherence and connectedness and regimes rules and landscape. Meanwhile, this research frames the functional construct of system innovation for food and agriculture with five perspectives drawing on broad inputs from different schools of thought, namely: knowledge management, user sophistication, entrepreneurial activities’ directionality and reflexive evaluation. This research advocates for an ecosystem approach to agricultural innovation that gives full play to niche-regime interactions using social-technical perspectives.

Purpose When complex social-ecological systems collapse and transform, the possible outcomes of this transformation are not set in stone. This paper aims to explore the role of social imagination in determining possible futures for a reformed system. The authors use a historical study of the Luddite response to the Industrial Revolution centred in the UK in the early-19th century to explore the concepts of path dependency, agency and the distributional impacts of systems change. Design/methodology/approach In this historical study, the authors used the Luddites’ own words and those of their supporters, captured in archival sources (n = 43 unique Luddite statements), to develop hypotheses around the effects on political, social and judicial consequences of a significant systems transformation. The authors then scaffolded these statements using the heuristics of panarchy and basins of attraction to conceptualize this contentious moment of British history. Findings Rather than a strict cautionary tale, the Luddites’ story illustrates the importance of environmental fit and selection pressures as the skilled workers sought to push the English system to a different basin of attraction. It warns us about the difficulty of a just transition in contentious economic and political conditions. Social implications The Luddites’ story is a cautionary tale for those interested in a just transition, or bottom-up systems transformation generally as the deep basins of attraction that prefer either the status quo or alternate, elite-favouring arrangements can be challenging to shift independent of shocks. While backward looking, the authors intend these discussions to contribute to current debates on the role(s) of social innovation in social and economic policy within increasingly charged or polarized political contexts. Originality/value Social innovation itself is often predicated on the need for just transitions of complex adaptive systems (Westley et al., 2013), and the Luddite movement offers us the opportunity to study the distribution effects of a transformative systems change – the Industrial Revolution – and explore two fundamental questions that underpin much social innovation scholarship: how do we build a just future in the face of complexity and what are likely forms those conversations could take, based on historical examples?

This article examines strategies adopted by Maasai and other pastoralists in Kenya to adapt to climate change, population growth, land loss, decreasing livestock holdings and land degradation, aimed at achieving greater socio-economic resilience. Using case studies mostly from Narok County and reviewing the increasingly rich literature on pastoralism and conservation in East Africa, we show that pastoralists employ three main strategies to adapt their livelihood systems: intensification (changes in land use systems to increase productivity per hectare); extensification (through territorial expansion into unoccupied areas or territories of neighbouring communities in our cases); and diversification (the combination of pastoralism with other livelihood strategies, mainly farming, conservation, tourism, business and wage jobs, often through migration to small towns or urban centres). Maasai communities have been quick to adopt these strategies, individually or in combination, in order to overcome ecological and socio-economic stress and to pursue opportunities as they arise. Since these strategies are generally compatible with extensive pastoralism, this land use will continue to play a key role in sustaining the livelihoods of people living in semi-arid and arid rangelands. However, when intensification and diversification through the adoption of ranching and farming occur, the rangeland becomes fragmented, with severe impacts on wildlife. In such cases, incentives for sustaining conservation and wildlife tourism will need to increase to compensate land holders for foregoing these more intensive land uses, thus moving towards reconciliation of ecological sustainability and strengthened livelihoods. These findings are illuminated by Gunderson and Holling's (2002) panarchy model and its nested adaptive cycles, where resilience is achieved by providing for change through loosening and reorganising connections between elements in the system.

This article examines strategies adopted by Maasai and other pastoralists in Kenya to adapt to climate change, population growth, land loss, decreasing livestock holdings and land degradation, aimed at achieving greater socio-economic resilience. Using case studies mostly from Narok County and reviewing the increasingly rich literature on pastoralism and conservation in East Africa, we show that pastoralists employ three main strategies to adapt their livelihood systems: intensification (changes in land use systems to increase productivity per hectare); extensification (through territorial expansion into unoccupied areas or territories of neighbouring communities in our cases); and diversification (the combination of pastoralism with other livelihood strategies, mainly farming, conservation, tourism, business and wage jobs, often through migration to small towns or urban centres). Maasai communities have been quick to adopt these strategies, individually or in combination, in order to overcome ecological and socio-economic stress and to pursue opportunities as they arise. Since these strategies are generally compatible with extensive pastoralism, this land use will continue to play a key role in sustaining the livelihoods of people living in semi-arid and arid rangelands. However, when intensification and diversification through the adoption of ranching and farming occur, the rangeland becomes fragmented, with severe impacts on wildlife. In such cases, incentives for sustaining conservation and wildlife tourism will need to increase to compensate land holders for foregoing these more intensive land uses, thus moving towards reconciliation of ecological sustainability and strengthened livelihoods. These findings are illuminated by Gunderson and Holling's (2002) panarchy model and its nested adaptive cycles, where resilience is achieved by providing for change through loosening and reorganising connections between elements in the system.

Global phenomena such as climate change threaten the resilience of agroecosystems and therefore food security. Thus, the objective of this paper was to analyze the cumulative nature and outstanding advances in the knowledge of the resilience of agroecosystems as a basis for the development of new trends in the subject. A literature review was conducted using the Web of Science database, considering criteria such as date of publication, disciplines and scientific journals. The search covers the period from 1993 to 2020. One hundred eighty-eight publications were identified, with 2018 and 2019 being the years with the highest number of articles published. The research areas with the most publications on resilience are ecology (71), agriculture (52) and environmental sciences (44). Regarding the connectivity based on the value of intermediate centrality, the areas of greatest interrelationship are mainly: agriculture (0.45), science and technology (0.28), environmental sciences (0.2) and ecology (0.12). In the dynamics and study of resilience, the adaptability of the agroecosystem stands out. The conceptual model of resilience analyzed facilitates its study and is composed of: precariousness, latitude, resistance and panarchy. Therefore, the indicators for quantifying resilience in agroecosystems are heterogeneous and multidimensional. It is concluded that resilience has been conceptually studied as an emerging property from the agroecological approach, recently from the socioecological systems approach, where adaptability and interdiscipline are highlighted as a means to solve complex problems.

This article engages in the understanding of resilience from the perspective of socio-ecological systems (SES) and the reconstitution of events of recovery and reconstruction in the city of Talca after the 27-F earthquake in Chile, between 2010 and 2012. For such purposes, we have developed a chronological or timeline-analysis model. This methodology, which uses mostly ethnographic and participant-observation techniques to recapitulate these events, observes the interaction of social agents, elements of the built environment, government institutions, and other institutional functions of the urban domain within the socio-ecological panarchy. The results suggest that key events, such as local government institutional actions, the observation of probable property speculation events, and community agency efforts dismissal, among other factors, could alter both human and natural resilience processes. In turn, this could affect the capacity of this city, its inhabitants, and its social institutions to endure future crises, as a product of deteriorated and maladaptive resilience mechanisms, aside from the natural and geographical conditions of Chile, exposed to future earthquake events. Likewise, the partial loss of the civic environment in this historic city and weakened neighborhood networks, contrasting with the redevelopment of real estate in central areas, altogether portray considerable risks with regard to the (un)generated social mechanisms of resilience, affecting future developments. The final section focuses on discussing these findings and their relevance in integrating a coherent understanding of SES resilience in urban planning and governance practice, especially in cities or urban areas that are prone to natural risks or catastrophes.

In the late 1910s and early 1920s, the intellectual situation within neo-Kantianism began to change: there were philosophical projects attempting to overcome the total domination of epistemology in Neo-Kantian doctrines and making place for ontology. Ontological tendencies are typical mainly for P. Natorps’s projects of general logic and E. Lask’s logic of philosophy. I analyze the continuity of Natorp’s early epistemological ideas, developed in the spirit of the Marburg interpretation of Kant’s transcendentalism, and his later ideas, focused on speculative ontological constructions. In particular, I investigate the methodo­logical relationship between the characteristics of knowledge in his early and late philo­sophy: dynamism, creativity, categoriality, unity of the starting point and the goal. The ba­sic structure of Natorps’s project of general logic is reconstructed. Lask’s main texts re­veal the provisions that open the way to an ontological turn. These factors include a cri­tique of the identification of the realm of value and that of the extrasensory in the meta­physics of the past, the postulation of a prereflexive stage of knowledge, interpreting the doctrine of judgment as a doctrine of immanent sense, and treating truth as a con­stitutive-aleteological phenomenon. Both Neo-Kantian philosophers build their systems on an on­tological foundation, making subjectivity dependent on objectivity in cognition, which can be interpreted as a kind of retreat from Kantian criticism. The ontological basis is ex­pressed in the postulation of a universal character of the logical expressed in Natorp’s idea of “poiesis” and Lask’s idea of “panarchy of the Logos”. The analysis of Natorp’s and Lask’s onto-epistemological projects allows us to clarify and reveal the role of Neo-Kantianism in the formation of the new ontologies of the 20th century a.k.a. the “ontologi­cal turn”.

Purpose Reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian plurality has stalled. While the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action could be a focusing event, creating a window of opportunity for transformative social innovations; we see coalescing of interest, social capital and investment in decolonization and indigenization in the proliferation of professorships, programs, installations and statements. However, Blackfoot (Siksika) Elder Roy Bear Chief raised significant concerns that Indigenous knowledge, experiences and people are not yet seen as relevant and useful in higher education; such marginalization must be addressed at a systems level for authentic reconciliation at any colonial university. The purpose of this paper was to explore this dual goal of exploring barriers to and opportunities for Indigenous knowledges and knowledge holders to be valued as relevant and useful in the Canadian academy, using a complexity- and systems-informed lens. Design/methodology/approach Local Indigenous Elders provided guidance to reflect study purpose and target audience of academics, with an approach that respectfully weaved Westernized research methods and co-learning through indigenous knowledge mobilization strategies. This analysis extends results from a qualitative grounded theory study to explain social processes of professors and administrative leadership in a Canadian mid-sized university regarding barriers and facilitators of implementing TRC Calls to Action. This further interpretation of applied systems and panarchy heuristics broadens understanding to how such micro-social processes are positioned and influence larger scale institutional change. Findings This paper discusses how the social process of dominionization intentionally minimizes meaningful system disruption by othering indigenous knowledge and knowledge holders; this form of system-reinforcing boundary work contributes to rigidity and inhibits potentially transformative innovations from scaling beyond individual niches and moments in time. Elders’ consultation throughout the research process, including co-learning the meaning of findings, led to the gifting of traditional teachings and emerging systems and multi-scale framework on the relevance of indigenous knowledges and peoples in higher education. Research limitations/implications This study was performed in one faculty of one Canadian institution; an important and potentially widely-present social process was identified. Further research is needed for greater generalizability. Conditions that led to this study are increasingly common across Canada, where at least one third of higher education organizations have explicit indigenization strategies and internationally where the rights and self-determination of indigenous peoples are growing. Social implications Insights from this study can inform conversations about social innovation in institutional settings, and the current systems’ resistance to change, particularly when exploring place-based solutions to national/international questions. These initiatives have yet to transform institutions, and while transformation is rarely rapid (Moore et al., 2018), for these potential innovations to grow, they need to be sustainable beyond a brief window of opportunity. Scaling up or deep within the academy seems to remain stubbornly elusive despite attention to the TRC. Originality/value This study contributes to a growing literature that explores the possibilities and opportunities between Indigenous epistemologies and social innovation study and practice (McGowan, 2019; Peredo, McLean and Tremblay, 2019; Conrad, 2015), as well as scholarship around Indigenization and decolonization in Canada and internationally.

Pre-service teachers face a complex educational context and Transformative Inquiry is a useful approach for negotiating this terrain. We interpret the movement of students via the adaptive cycle put forth in panarchy theory as they engage in the inquiry process through ‘winter counts’, a Plains First Nation tradition, as expressions of their understanding. These image-based expressions demonstrate the emotional, mental, spiritual and physical movement students have made within their inquiry. Panarchy theory moves beyond interpreting systems using simplistic equilibrium models and acknowledging the more complex and dynamic set of equilibria that describes transformation in ecological, social, and economic systems and considers the multiple complexities of systems thinking while providing insight into how change occurs as a constantly adaptive cycle process. Used sparingly within social sciences until recently, we argue it as particularly relevant for seeing Transformative Inquiry through Indigenist and interconnected lenses.

The main objective of this research is to define resilience within the parameters of Complex Adaptive Systems and to understand its dynamics within heuristic model of panarchy to evaluate the characteristics of the regional systems that could be affected by natural disasters. The analytical methods and variables identified are systemized and evaluated considering the reality of the territories located in developing countries where information is deficient or non-existent. Resilience is considered multidimensional, so that eight dimensions of analysis can be identified. We propose 56 study criteria that were obtained from various cases and opinions of experts from Ecuador and Chile.

PurposeThis study investigated how organizations can maintain their supply chain (SC) resilience in situations where high-impact shocks cannot be absorbed and what capabilities are needed. The article is an empirical exploration of a socio-ecological view of resilience in the SC context.Design/methodology/approachThe case under study in this article is that of Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) and MSF's reconfiguration of its supply management processes in response to the supply shocks during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In total, 503 internal documents and ERP extractions from six databases from late 2019 to September 2020, 43 semi-structured interviews and a 3-round policy Delphi process were used to investigate this phenomenon.FindingsThe authors' results show that throughout the pandemic, MSF adapted its procurement and supply processes to cope with supply shortages at both the international and local levels of the SC. This was possible due to the organization's capacity to use its exploitation and exploration capabilities of the organization at the same time.Research limitations/implicationsThis research is based on the single in-depth case study of a medical aid organization. Further research should investigate this phenomenon in commercial companies with similar or different organizational structures.Originality/valueThis study constitutes a first attempt to empirically demonstrate that the four phases of the adaptive cycle put forth in the panarchy theory constitute a suitable representation of the reconfigurations that SCs follow in response to a high-impact shock. The study also adds to the growing body of knowledge on resilience by including ambidexterity as a mechanism to achieve resilience.

The basic premise of this study is that the collective engagement of the citizens in a disaster-prone city helps transform their city to become resilient. Many urban managers encourage citizen participation by providing a venue for citizens to engage in public issues, including those of city planning and management. Citizen participation is important in building a cohesive community, empowering its citizens, and enhancing their sense of ownership of their community and city as a whole. The research underscores that collective engagement and action have an influence in the transformation of a city. The study will use the concept of resilience in the socio-ecological systems context to build a conceptual framework on the transformation process. Cities are ecological systems with both natural- and built-environment characteristics. Cities are complex multidimensional systems with both the social (human) and the ecological (natural and built environments) tied together. The changing landscape and continuous exposure to disturbances put pressure on the social and ecological systems of a city. The paper discusses collective engagement as a systemic process for how a disaster-prone city transforms itself to become disaster resilient. Using the concept of panarchy as a process of adaptation and transformation, the paper will build a conceptual framework that highlights collectiveness as a way to become resilient. The paper underscores that collective engagement and action have an influence in the transformation of a city.

Advances in automated driving systems (ADSs) have shifted the primary responsibility of controlling a vehicle from human drivers to automation. Framing driving a highly automated vehicle as teamwork can reveal practical requirements and design considerations to support the dynamic driver–ADS relationship. However, human–automation teaming is a relatively new concept in ADS research and requires further exploration. We conducted two literature reviews to identify concepts related to teaming and to define the driver–ADS relationship, requirements, and design considerations. The first literature review identified coordination, cooperation, and collaboration (3Cs) as core concepts to define driver–ADS teaming. Based on these findings, we propose the panarchy framework of 3Cs to understand drivers’ roles and relationships with automation in driver–ADS teaming. The second literature review identified main challenges for designing driver–ADS teams. The challenges include supporting mutual communication, enhancing observability and directability, developing a responsive ADS, and identifying and supporting the interdependent relationship between the driver and ADS. This study suggests that the teaming concept can promote a better understanding of the driver–ADS team where the driver and automation require interplay. Eventually, the driver–ADS teaming frame will lead to adequate expectations and mental models of partially automated vehicles.

By most accounts, “resilience” is a pretty resilient concept. Or policy instrument. Or heuristic tool. It’s this last that really concerns us here: resilience not as a politics, but rather as a descriptive device for attempts in the humanities—particularly in rhetoric and cultural studies—to adequately describe a discursive event. Or rather, to adequately describe a class of discursive events: those that involve rhetorical resistance by victimised subjects. I’ve argued elsewhere (Munro, Descriptive; Reading) that Peircean semiosis, inflected by a rhetorical postulate of genre, equips us well to closely describe a discursive event. Here, I want briefly to suggest that resilience—“discursive” resilience, to coin a term—might usefully supplement these hypotheses, at least from time to time. To support this suggestion, I’ll signal some uses of resilience before turning briefly to a case study: a sensational Argentine homicide case, which occurred in October 2002, and came to be known as the caso Belsunce. At the time, Argentina was wracked by economic crises and political instability. The imposition of severe restrictions on cash withdrawals from bank deposits had provoked major civil unrest. Between 21 December 2001 and 2 January 2002, Argentines witnessed a succession of five presidents. “Resilient” is a term that readily comes to mind to describe many of those who endured this catastrophic period. To describe the caso Belsunce, however—to describe its constitution and import as a discursive event—we might appeal to some more disciplinary-specific understandings of resilience. Glossing Peircean semiosis as a teleological process, Short notes that “one and the same thing […] may be many different signs at once” (106). Any given sign, in other words, admits of multiple interpretants or uptakes. And so it is with resilience, which is both a keyword in academic disciplines ranging from psychology to ecology and political science, and a buzzword in several corporate domains and spheres of governmental activity. It’s particularly prevalent in the discourses of highly networked post-9/11 Anglophone societies. So what, pray tell, is resilience? To the American Psychological Association, resilience comprises “the process of adapting well in the face of adversity.” To the Resilience Solutions Group at Arizona State University, resilience is “the capacity to recover fully from acute stressors, to carry on in the face of chronic difficulties: to regain one’s balance after losing it.” To the Stockholm Resilience Centre, resilience amounts to the “capacity of a system to continually change and adapt yet remain within critical thresholds,” while to the Resilience Alliance, resilience is similarly “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and still retain its basic function and structure” (Walker and Salt xiii). The adjective “resilient” is thus predicated of those entities, individuals or collectivities, which exhibit “resilience”. A “resilient Australia,” for example, is one “where all Australians are better able to adapt to change, where we have reduced exposure to risks, and where we are all better able to bounce back from disaster” (Australian Government). It’s tempting here to synthesise these statements with a sense of “ordinary language” usage to derive a definitional distillate: “resilience” is a capacity attributed to an entity which recovers intact from major injury. This capacity is evidenced in a reaction or uptake: a “resilient” entity is one which suffers some insult or disturbance, but whose integrity is held to have been maintained, or even enhanced, by its resistive or adaptive response. A conjecturally “resilient” entity is thus one which would presumably evince resilience if faced with an unrealised aversive event. However, such abstractions ignore how definitional claims do rhetorical work. On any given occasion, how “resilience” and its cognates are construed and what they connote are a function, at least in part, of the purposes of rhetorical agents and the protocols and objects of the disciplines or genres in which these agents put these terms to work. In disciplines operating within the same form of life or sphere of activity—disciplines sharing general conventions and broad objects of inquiry, such as the capacious ecological sciences or the contiguous fields of study within the ambit of applied psychology—resilience acts, at least at times, as a something of a “boundary object” (Star and Griesemer). Correlatively, across more diverse and distant fields of inquiry, resilience can work in more seemingly exclusive or contradictory ways (see Handmer and Dovers). Rhetorical aims and disciplinary objects similarly determine the originary tales we are inclined to tell. In the social sciences, the advent of resilience is often attributed to applied psychology, indebted, in turn, to epidemiology (see Seery, Holman and Cohen Silver). In environmental science, by contrast, resilience is typically taken to be a theory born in ecology (indebted to engineering and to the physical sciences, in particular to complex systems theory [see Janssen, Schoon, Ke and Börner]). Having no foundational claim to stake and, moreover, having different purposes and taking different objects, some more recent uptakes of resilience, in, for instance, securitisation studies, allow for its multidisciplinary roots (see Bourbeau; Kaufmann). But if resilience is many things to many people, a couple of commonalities in its range of translations should be drawn out. First, irrespective of its discipline or sphere of activity, talk of resilience typically entails construing an object of inquiry qua system, be that system an individual, a community of circumstance, a state, a socio-ecological unit or some differently delimited entity. This bounded system suffers some insult with no resulting loss of structural, relational, functional or other integrity. Second, resilience is usually marshalled to promote a politics. Resilience talk often consorts with discourses of meliorative action and of readily quantifiable practical effects. When the environmental sciences take the “Earth system” and the dynamics of global change as their objects of inquiry, a postulate of resilience is key to the elaboration and implementation of natural resource management policy. Proponents of socio-ecological resilience see the resilience hypothesis as enabling a demonstrably more enlightened stewardship of the biosphere (see Folke et al.; Holling; Walker and Salt). When applied psychology takes the anomalous situation of disadvantaged, at-risk individuals triumphing over trauma as its declared object of inquiry, a postulate of resilience is key to the positing and identification of personal and environmental resources or protective factors which would enable the overcoming of adversity. Proponents of psychosocial resilience see this concept as enabling the elaboration and implementation of interventions to foster individual and collective wellbeing (see Goldstein and Brooks; Ungar). Similarly, when policy think-tanks and government departments and agencies take the apprehension of particular threats to the social fabric as their object of inquiry, a postulate of resilience—or of a lack thereof—is critical to the elaboration and implementation of urban infrastructure, emergency planning and disaster management policies (see Drury et al.; Handmer and Dovers). However, despite its often positive connotations, resilience is well understood as a “normatively open” (Bourbeau 11) concept. This openness is apparent in some theories and practices of resilience. In limnological modelling, for example, eutrophication can result in a lake’s being in an undesirable, albeit resilient, turbid-water state (see Carpenter et al.; Walker and Meyers). But perhaps the negative connotations or indeed perverse effects of resilience are most apparent in some of its political uptakes. Certainly, governmental operationalisations of resilience are coming under increased scrutiny. Chief among the criticisms levelled at the “muddled politics” (Grove 147) of and around resilience is that its mobilisation works to constitute a particular neoliberal subjectivity (see Joseph; Neocleous). By enabling a conservative focus on individual responsibility, preparedness and adaptability, the topos of resilience contributes critically to the development of neoliberal governmentality (Joseph). In a practical sense, this deployment of resilience silences resistance: “building resilient subjects,” observe Evans and Reid (85), “involves the deliberate disabling of political habits. […] Resilient subjects are subjects that have accepted the imperative not to resist or secure themselves from the difficulties they are faced with but instead adapt to their enabling conditions.” It’s this prospect of practical acquiescence that sees resistance at times opposed to resilience (Neocleous). “Good intentions not withstanding,” notes Grove (146), “the effect of resilience initiatives is often to defend and strengthen the political economic status quo.” There’s much to commend in these analyses of how neoliberal uses of resilience constitute citizens as highly accommodating of capital and the state. But such critiques pertain to the governmental mobilisation of resilience in the contemporary “advanced liberal” settings of “various Anglo-Saxon countries” (Joseph 47). There are, of course, other instances—other events in other times and places—in which resilience indisputably sorts with resistance. Such an event is the caso Belsunce, in which a rhetorically resilient journalistic community pushed back, resisting some of the excesses of a corrupt neoliberal Argentine regime. I’ll turn briefly to this infamous case to suggest that a notion of “discursive resilience” might afford us some purchase when it comes to describing discursive events. To be clear: we’re considering resilience here not as an anticipatory politics, but rather as an analytic device to supplement the descriptive tools of Peircean semiosis and a rhetorical postulate of genre. As such, it’s more an instrument than an answer: a program, perhaps, for ongoing work. Although drawing on different disciplinary construals of the term, this use of resilience would be particularly indebted to the resilience thinking developed in ecology (see Carpenter el al.; Folke et al.; Holling; Walker et al.; Walker and Salt). Things would, of course, be lost in translation (see Adger; Gallopín): in taking a discursive event, rather than the dynamics of a socio-ecological system, as our object of inquiry, we’d retain some topological analogies while dispensing with, for example, Holling’s four-phase adaptive cycle (see Carpenter et al.; Folke; Gunderson; Gunderson and Holling; Walker et al.). For our purposes, it’s unlikely that descriptions of ecosystem succession need to be carried across. However, the general postulates of ecological resilience thinking—that a system is a complex series of dynamic relations and functions located at any given time within a basin of attraction (or stability domain or system regime) delimited by thresholds; that it is subject to multiple attractors and follows trajectories describable over varying scales of time and space; that these trajectories are inflected by exogenous and endogenous perturbations to which the system is subject; that the system either proves itself resilient to these perturbations in its adaptive or resistive response, or transforms, flipping from one domain (or basin) to another may well prove useful to some descriptive projects in the humanities. Resilience is fundamentally a question of uptake or response. Hence, when examining resilience in socio-ecological systems, Gallopín notes that it’s useful to consider “not only the resilience of the system (maintenance within a basin) but also coping with impacts produced and taking advantage of opportunities” (300). Argentine society in the early-to-mid 2000s was one such socio-political system, and the caso Belsunce was both one such impact and one such opportunity. Well-connected in the world of finance, 57-year-old former stockbroker Carlos Alberto Carrascosa lived with his 50-year-old sociologist turned charity worker wife, María Marta García Belsunce, close to their relatives in the exclusive gated community of Carmel Country Club, Pilar, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina. At 7:07 pm on Sunday 27 October 2002, Carrascosa called ambulance emergencies, claiming that his wife had slipped and knocked her head while drawing a bath alone that rainy Sunday afternoon. At the time of his call, it transpired, Carrascosa was at home in the presence of intimates. Blood was pooled on the bathroom floor and smeared and spattered on its walls and adjoining areas. María Marta lay lifeless, brain matter oozing from several holes in her left parietal and temporal lobes. This was the moment when Carrascosa, calm and coherent, called emergency services, but didn’t advert the police. Someone, he told the operator, had slipped in the bath and bumped her head. Carrascosa described María Marta as breathing, with a faint pulse, but somehow failed to mention the holes in her head. “A knock with a tap,” a police source told journalist Horacio Cecchi, “really doesn’t compare with the five shots to the head, the spillage of brain matter and the loss of about half a litre of blood suffered by the victim” (Cecchi and Kollmann). Rather than a bathroom tap, María Marta’s head had met with five bullets discharged from a .32-calibre revolver. In effect, reported Cecchi, María Marta had died twice. “While perhaps a common conceit in fiction,” notes Cecchi, “in reality, dying twice is, by definition, impossible. María Marta’s two obscure endings seem to unsettle this certainty.” Her cadaver was eventually subjected to an autopsy, and what had been a tale of clumsiness and happenstance was rewritten, reinscribed under the Argentine Penal Code. The autopsy was conducted 36 days after the burial of María Marta; nine days later, she was mentioned for the second time in the mainstream Argentine press. Her reappearance, however, was marked by a shift in rubrics: from a short death notice in La Nación, María Marta was translated to the crime section of Argentina’s dailies. Until his wife’s mediatic reapparition, Carroscosa and other relatives had persisted with their “accident” hypothesis. Indeed, they’d taken a range of measures to preclude the sorts of uptakes that might ordinarily be expected to flow, under functioning liberal democratic regimes, from the discovery of a corpse with five projectiles lodged in its head. Subsequently recited as part of Carrascosa’s indictment, these measures were extensively reiterated in media coverage of the case. One of the more notorious actions involved the disposal of the sixth bullet, which was found lying under María Marta. In the course of moving the body of his half-sister, John Hurtig retrieved a small metallic object. This discovery was discussed by a number of family members, including Carrascosa, who had received ballistics training during his four years of naval instruction at the Escuela Nacional de Náutica de la Armada. They determined that the object was a lug or connector rod (“pituto”) used in library shelving: nothing, in any case, to indicate a homicide. With this determination made, the “pituto” was duly wrapped in lavatory paper and flushed down the toilet. This episode occasioned a range of outraged articles in Argentine dailies examining the topoi of privilege, power, corruption and impunity. “Distinguished persons,” notes Viau pointedly, “are so disposed […] that in the midst of all that chaos, they can locate a small, hard, steely object, wrap it in lavatory paper and flush it down the toilet, for that must be how they usually dispose of […] all that rubbish that no longer fits under the carpet.” Most often, though, critical comment was conducted by translating the reporting of the case to the genres of crime fiction. In an article entitled Someone Call Agatha Christie, Quick!, H.A.T. writes that “[s]omething smells rotten in the Carmel Country; a whole pile of rubbish seems to have been swept under its plush carpets.” An exemplary intervention in this vein was the work of journalist and novelist Vicente Battista, for whom the case (María Marta) “synthesizes the best of both traditions of crime fiction: the murder mystery and the hard-boiled novels.” “The crime,” Battista (¿Hubo Otra Mujer?) has Rodolfo observe in the first of his speculative dialogues on the case, “seems to be lifted from an Agatha Christie novel, but the criminal turns out to be a copy of the savage killers that Jim Thompson usually depicts.” Later, in an interview in which he correctly predicted the verdict, Battista expanded on these remarks: This familiar plot brings together the English murder mystery and the American hard-boiled novels. The murder mystery because it has all the elements: the crime takes place in a sealed room. In this instance, sealed not only because it occurred in a house, but also in a country, a sealed place of privilege. The victim was a society lady. Burglary is not the motive. In classic murder mystery novels, it was a bit unseemly that one should kill in order to rob. One killed either for a juicy sum of money, or for revenge, or out of passion. In those novels there were neither corrupt judges nor fugitive lawyers. Once Sherlock Holmes […] or Hercule Poirot […] said ‘this is the murderer’, that was that. That’s to say, once fingered in the climactic living room scene, with everyone gathered around the hearth, the perpetrator wouldn’t resist at all. And everyone would be happy because the judges were thought to be upright persons, at least in fiction. […] The violence of the crime of María Marta is part of the hard-boiled novel, and the sealed location in which it takes place, part of the murder mystery (Alarcón). I’ve argued elsewhere (Munro, Belsunce) that the translation of the case to the genres of crime fiction and their metaanalysis was a means by which a victimised Argentine public, represented by a disempowered and marginalised fourth estate, sought some rhetorical recompense. The postulate of resilience, however, might help further to describe and contextualise this notorious discursive event. A disaffected Argentine press finds itself in a stability domain with multiple attractors: on the one hand, an acquiescence to ever-increasing politico-juridical corruption, malfeasance and elitist impunity; on the other, an attractor of increasing contestation, democratisation, accountability and transparency. A discursive event like the caso Belsunce further perturbs Argentine society, threatening to displace it from its democratising trajectory. Unable to enforce due process, Argentina’s fourth estate adapts, doing what, in the circumstances, amounts to the next best thing: it denounces the proceedings by translating the case to the genres of crime fiction. In so doing, it engages a venerable reception history in which the co-constitution of true crime fiction and investigative journalism is exemplified by the figure of Rodolfo Walsh, whose denunciatory works mark a “politicisation of crime” (see Amar Sánchez Juegos; El sueño). Put otherwise, a section of Argentina’s fourth estate bounced back: by making poetics do rhetorical work, it resisted the pull towards what ecology calls an undesirable basin of attraction. Through a show of discursive resilience, these journalists worked to keep Argentine society on a democratising track. References Adger, Neil W. “Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They Related?” Progress in Human Geography 24.3 (2000): 347-64. Alarcón, Cristina. “Lo Único Real Que Tenemos Es Un Cadáver.” 2007. 12 July 2007 ‹http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/subnotas/87986-28144-2007-07-12.html>. Amar Sánchez, Ana María. “El Sueño Eterno de Justicia.” Textos De Y Sobre Rodolfo Walsh. Ed. Jorge Raúl Lafforgue. Buenos Aires: Alianza, 2000. 205-18. ———. Juegos De Seducción Y Traición. Literatura Y Cultura De Masas. Rosario: Beatriz Viterbo, 2000. American Psychological Association. “What Is Resilience?” 2013. 9 Aug 2013 ‹http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx>. Australian Government. “Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy.” 2009. 9 Aug 2013 ‹http://www.tisn.gov.au/Documents/Australian+Government+s+Critical+Infrastructure+Resilience+Strategy.pdf>. Battista, Vicente. “¿Hubo Otra Mujer?” Clarín 2003. 26 Jan. 2003 ‹http://old.clarin.com/diario/2003/01/26/s-03402.htm>. ———. “María Marta: El Relato Del Crimen.” Clarín 2003. 16 Jan. 2003 ‹http://old.clarin.com/diario/2003/01/16/o-01701.htm>. Bourbeau, Philippe. “Resiliencism: Premises and Promises in Securitisation Research.” Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses 1.1 (2013): 3-17. Carpenter, Steve, et al. “From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What?” Ecosystems 4 (2001): 765-81. Cecchi, Horacio. “Las Dos Muertes De María Marta.” Página 12 (2002). 12 Dec. 2002 ‹http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/sociedad/3-14095-2002-12-12.html>. Cecchi, Horacio, and Raúl Kollmann. “Un Escenario Sigilosamente Montado.” Página 12 (2002). 13 Dec. 2002 ‹http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/sociedad/3-14122-2002-12-13.html>. Drury, John, et al. “Representing Crowd Behaviour in Emergency Planning Guidance: ‘Mass Panic’ or Collective Resilience?” Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses 1.1 (2013): 18-37. Evans, Brad, and Julian Reid. “Dangerously Exposed: The Life and Death of the Resilient Subject.” Resilience: Interational Policies, Practices and Discourses 1.2 (2013): 83-98. Folke, Carl. “Resilience: The Emergence of a Perspective for Social-Ecological Systems Analyses.” Global Environmental Change 16 (2006): 253-67. Folke, Carl, et al. “Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability.” Ecology and Society 15.4 (2010). Gallopín, Gilberto C. “Linkages between Vulnerability, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity.” Global Environmental Change 16 (2006): 293-303. Goldstein, Sam, and Robert B. Brooks, eds. Handbook of Resilience in Children. New York: Springer Science and Business Media, 2006. Grove, Kevin. “On Resilience Politics: From Transformation to Subversion.” Resilience: Interational Policies, Practices and Discourses 1.2 (2013): 146-53. Gunderson, Lance H. “Ecological Resilience - in Theory and Application.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31 (2000): 425-39. Gunderson, Lance H., and C. S. Holling, eds. Panarchy Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington: Island, 2002. Handmer, John W., and Stephen R. Dovers. “A Typology of Resilience: Rethinking Institutions for Sustainable Development.” Organization & Environment 9.4 (1996): 482-511. H.A.T. “Urgente: Llamen a Agatha Christie.” El País (2003). 14 Jan. 2003 ‹http://historico.elpais.com.uy/03/01/14/pinter_26140.asp>. Holling, Crawford S. “Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4 (1973): 1-23. Janssen, Marco A., et al. “Scholarly Networks on Resilience, Vulnerability and Adaptation within the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change.” Global Environmental Change 16 (2006): 240-52. Joseph, Jonathan. “Resilience as Embedded Neoliberalism: A Governmentality Approach.” Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses 1.1 (2013): 38-52. Kaufmann, Mareile. “Emergent Self-Organisation in Emergencies: Resilience Rationales in Interconnected Societies.” Resilience: Interational Policies, Practices and Discourses 1.1 (2013): 53-68. Munro, Andrew. “The Belsunce Case Judgement, Uptake, Genre.” Cultural Studies Review 13.2 (2007): 190-204. ———. “The Descriptive Purchase of Performativity.” Culture, Theory and Critique 53.1 (2012). ———. “Reading Austin Rhetorically.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 46.1 (2013): 22-43. Neocleous, Mark. “Resisting Resilience.” Radical Philosophy 178 March/April (2013): 2-7. Resilience Solutions Group, Arizona State U. “What Is Resilience?” 2013. 9 Aug. 2013 ‹http://resilience.asu.edu/what-is-resilience>. Seery, Mark D., E. Alison Holman, and Roxane Cohen Silver. “Whatever Does Not Kill Us: Cumulative Lifetime Adversity, Vulnerability, and Resilience.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99.6 (2010): 1025-41. Short, Thomas L. “What They Said in Amsterdam: Peirce's Semiotic Today.” Semiotica 60.1-2 (1986): 103-28. Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science 19.3 (1989): 387-420. Stockholm Resilience Centre. “What Is Resilience?” 2007. 9 Aug. 2013 ‹http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/what-is-resilience.html>. Ungar, Michael ed. Handbook for Working with Children and Youth Pathways to Resilience across Cultures and Contexts. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2005. Viau, Susana. “Carmel.” Página 12 (2002). 27 Dec. 2002 ‹http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contratapa/13-14651-2002-12-27.html>. Walker, Brian, et al. “Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social-Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society 9.2 (2004). Walker, Brian, and Jacqueline A. Meyers. “Thresholds in Ecological and Social-Ecological Systems: A Developing Database.” Ecology and Society 9.2 (2004). Walker, Brian, and David Salt. Resilience Thinking Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington: Island, 2006.