Hugo F Alrøe
Hugo F. Alrøe is former Associate Professor in philosophy of science and ethics at Aarhus University, where he worked mainly in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research projects within the field of food, agriculture and environment. He is now an independent researcher, presently employed as scientific officer at the International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems (ICROFS) at Aarhus University Foulum.
In philosophy of science he works on the development of a perspectivist framework for cross-disciplinary research, building on earlier theories of perspectivism, pragmatist philosophy, relational metaphysics, Peircean semiotics, biosemiotics, cybernetic theories of cognition and learning, and autopoietic systems theory. Two important aspects of this framework are the necessary connection of scientific knowledge with the observational apparatus and the role of values as a necessary and built-in element in science.
In ethics he is primarily concerned with what might be called ‘systems ethics’ - ethics in relation to complex societal, technological and ecological systems - working with ethical concepts such as sustainability, the precautionary principle and ecological justice. This work builds on the ethics of responsibility, the land ethic and more recent work in technological and environmental ethics, as well as his own work in philosophy of science.
Hugo F. Alrøe has a M.Sc. in horticultural science and a PhD in systemic research methodology and ethics. A full CV and publications are available for download on his website: http://hugo.alroe.dk.
Address: Aarhus University Foulum
Postbox 50, 8830 Tjele
Denmark
In philosophy of science he works on the development of a perspectivist framework for cross-disciplinary research, building on earlier theories of perspectivism, pragmatist philosophy, relational metaphysics, Peircean semiotics, biosemiotics, cybernetic theories of cognition and learning, and autopoietic systems theory. Two important aspects of this framework are the necessary connection of scientific knowledge with the observational apparatus and the role of values as a necessary and built-in element in science.
In ethics he is primarily concerned with what might be called ‘systems ethics’ - ethics in relation to complex societal, technological and ecological systems - working with ethical concepts such as sustainability, the precautionary principle and ecological justice. This work builds on the ethics of responsibility, the land ethic and more recent work in technological and environmental ethics, as well as his own work in philosophy of science.
Hugo F. Alrøe has a M.Sc. in horticultural science and a PhD in systemic research methodology and ethics. A full CV and publications are available for download on his website: http://hugo.alroe.dk.
Address: Aarhus University Foulum
Postbox 50, 8830 Tjele
Denmark
less
InterestsView All (12)
Uploads
Papers by Hugo F Alrøe
> Problem • The conventional methods of interdisciplinary research fall short in the case of wicked problems because they remain first-order science. Our aim is to present workable methods and research designs for doing second-order science in domains where there are many different scientific knowledges on any complex problem.
> Method • We synthesize and elaborate a framework for second-order science in interdisciplinary research based on a number of earlier publications, experiences from large interdisciplinary research projects, and a perspectivist theory of science.
> Results • The second-order polyocular framework for interdisciplinary research is characterized by five principles. Second-order science of interdisciplinary research must: 1. draw on the observations of first-order perspectives, 2. address a shared dynamical object, 3. establish a shared problem, 4. rely on first-order perspectives to see themselves as perspectives, and 5. be based on other rules than first-order research.
> Implications • The perspectivist insights of second-order science provide a new way of understanding interdisciplinary research that leads to new polyocular methods and research designs. It also points to more reflexive ways of dealing with scientific expertise in democratic processes. The main challenge is that this is a paradigmatic shift, which demands that the involved disciplines, at least to some degree, subscribe to a perspectivist view.
> Constructivist content • Our perspectivist approach to science is based on the second-order cybernetics and systems theories of von Foerster, Maruyama, Maturana & Varela, and Luh-mann, coupled with embodied theories of cognition and semiotics as a general theory of meaning from von Uexküll and Peirce. >
> Problem • However, different constructivist theories construe the environment in different ways. The aim of this paper is to clarify the conceptions of environment in constructivist approaches, and thereby to assist the sciences of complex systems and complex environmental problems.
> Method • We describe the terms used for “the environment” in von Uexküll, Maturana & Varela, and Luhmann, and analyse how their conceptions of environment are connected to differences of perspective and observation.
> Results • We show the need to distinguish between inside and outside perspectives on the environment, and identify two very different and complementary logics of observation, the logic of distinction and the logic of representation, in the three constructivist theories.
> Implications • Luhmann’s theory of social systems can be a helpful perspective on the wicked environmental problems of society if we consider carefully the theory’s own blind spots: that it confines itself to systems of communication, and that it is based fully on the conception of observation as indication by means of distinction.
certain concepts and values and a particular logic or rationality. It is important to acknowledge this heterogeneity when investigating the dynamics and governance of organic agriculture. We suggest a polyocular approach that facilitates a comprehensive and balanced understanding of organic agriculture by enabling us to handle different perspectives reflexively. To illustrate this approach we describe three significant perspectives on organic agriculture based on protest, meaning and market. No perspective is the ‘right’ one and we claim, different perspectives on organic agriculture cannot be merged to one. We hope that polyocularity as a general analytical tool, and the three specific perspectives, will be helpful in understanding the future development of organic agriculture and how it may be influenced.
> Problem • The conventional methods of interdisciplinary research fall short in the case of wicked problems because they remain first-order science. Our aim is to present workable methods and research designs for doing second-order science in domains where there are many different scientific knowledges on any complex problem.
> Method • We synthesize and elaborate a framework for second-order science in interdisciplinary research based on a number of earlier publications, experiences from large interdisciplinary research projects, and a perspectivist theory of science.
> Results • The second-order polyocular framework for interdisciplinary research is characterized by five principles. Second-order science of interdisciplinary research must: 1. draw on the observations of first-order perspectives, 2. address a shared dynamical object, 3. establish a shared problem, 4. rely on first-order perspectives to see themselves as perspectives, and 5. be based on other rules than first-order research.
> Implications • The perspectivist insights of second-order science provide a new way of understanding interdisciplinary research that leads to new polyocular methods and research designs. It also points to more reflexive ways of dealing with scientific expertise in democratic processes. The main challenge is that this is a paradigmatic shift, which demands that the involved disciplines, at least to some degree, subscribe to a perspectivist view.
> Constructivist content • Our perspectivist approach to science is based on the second-order cybernetics and systems theories of von Foerster, Maruyama, Maturana & Varela, and Luh-mann, coupled with embodied theories of cognition and semiotics as a general theory of meaning from von Uexküll and Peirce. >
> Problem • However, different constructivist theories construe the environment in different ways. The aim of this paper is to clarify the conceptions of environment in constructivist approaches, and thereby to assist the sciences of complex systems and complex environmental problems.
> Method • We describe the terms used for “the environment” in von Uexküll, Maturana & Varela, and Luhmann, and analyse how their conceptions of environment are connected to differences of perspective and observation.
> Results • We show the need to distinguish between inside and outside perspectives on the environment, and identify two very different and complementary logics of observation, the logic of distinction and the logic of representation, in the three constructivist theories.
> Implications • Luhmann’s theory of social systems can be a helpful perspective on the wicked environmental problems of society if we consider carefully the theory’s own blind spots: that it confines itself to systems of communication, and that it is based fully on the conception of observation as indication by means of distinction.
certain concepts and values and a particular logic or rationality. It is important to acknowledge this heterogeneity when investigating the dynamics and governance of organic agriculture. We suggest a polyocular approach that facilitates a comprehensive and balanced understanding of organic agriculture by enabling us to handle different perspectives reflexively. To illustrate this approach we describe three significant perspectives on organic agriculture based on protest, meaning and market. No perspective is the ‘right’ one and we claim, different perspectives on organic agriculture cannot be merged to one. We hope that polyocularity as a general analytical tool, and the three specific perspectives, will be helpful in understanding the future development of organic agriculture and how it may be influenced.