Re-examination research via the COVID glasses: an intellectual movement emerging for the better.

Wei-Ning Xiang is a professor of geography and earth sciences at University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA; he is the founding editor in chief of SEPR.

The journal Socio-Ecological Practice Research (SEPR) plans to publish a special issue in 2021 with the theme Re-examining theories, methods, programs, and policies in socio-ecological practice via the COVID glasses. In this Call for Prospectus, I outline the aims and scope of the special issue and provide guidelines for the prospectus preparation and submission. But first, what is the theme about? Where did the idea come from? Is it legitimate? I devote the first two sections to these questions.

A spark of insight from an Aha! experience and its inspirations

The theme for the special issue emerged serendipitously from an Aha! moment I encountered recently.

Alas, my favorite theory is torn to shreds by COVID!1

Pitiful lament of this kind is a common sentiment in more than a dozen e-mails I received in the past several months from colleagues around the world.2

One senior natural scientist, for example, regretted that an ecological model she had been using since the graduate school years had ceased to work properly because the COVID-19 pandemic negated a theoretical assumption underlying the model. An anthropologist, an economist, and an urban planner, for another example, shared, respectively, their profound sorrow at the significant setbacks in the contemporary science and practice of sustainability caused by the “mutually exacerbating catastrophes” triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.3 Still several others expressed concerns about the foreseeable impacts of data discontinuity and information irregularity due to the strict yet necessary COVID lockdowns, felt the need to revise the conceptual and analytical frameworks in their ongoing long-term research projects.4

Drawing on the opinions expressed in these emails, I compiled a list of “perceived COVID-challenged areas” (Table 1). Here, an area of professional practice or scholarly research is considered COVID-challenged if one or several of its theories, methods, programs, or policies is or are perceivably contested by the multipronged crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. With the consent of the email authors, I include the tabulation in this editorial.

Table 1

Perceived COVID-challenged areas

Perceived COVID-challenged area	E-mail author’s professional identity	Country the e-mail author works in
Ecological wisdom	Philosopher, permaculture practitioner, theologist	China, UK, USA
Ecosystem services	Urban planner, landscape architect, ecologist	China, Germany, Italy, UK
Privacy in big data	Data scientist, geographer, political scientist	USA
Public participation	Political scientist, sociologist, social worker	Malaysia, Sweden, USA,
Resilience	Urban planner, environmental engineer, ecologist	Brazil, Finland, The Netherlands
Smart growth vs urban sprawl	Urban planner, geographer, anthropologist	Australia, China, USA,
Sustainability	Anthropologist, economist, urban planner	Norway, Singapore, USA,
Transgenic arta	Bioethicist, visual art critic, archaeologist	France, USA
Urban regeneration and community development	Urban designer, civil engineer, urban sociologist	USA
Wildland urban interface (WUI) management	Ecological planner, forester	Canada, USA

An e-mail author may have more than one professional identity; he/she might have identified more than one COVID-challenged area in a single email

aRepresenting the onset of this branch of contemporary art is the birth of Alba, a GFP bunny (green fluorescent protein bunny), in 2000. The mastermind behind the Alba project is the Brazilian–American bio-artist Eduardo Kac (Pallardy 2020) who elaborates the underlying rationales in a 2003 essay (Kac 2003). Transgenic art of this kind is politically charged, highly controversial (Harari 2015, pp. 398–399)

The Aha! moment

One day in late September 2020, while documenting the bemoaned pulse of this group of distinguished colleagues (see the resulting Table 1), suddenly I realized that these genuine, spontaneous reactions could well be a precursor of an emerging intellectual movement of re-examination research. Eureka!

Re-examination, in its generic sense, is an action or process a person or group of people engages in to relook at someone or something and rethink carefully from a different standpoint (Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary 2020b). It is often, but certainly not always, motivated by a feeling of doubt or uncertainty, as described in Collins English Dictionary (2020a):

If a person or group of people re-examines [sic—the author] their ideas, beliefs, or attitudes, they think about them carefully because they are no longer sure if they are correct.

Then, what is re-examination research in this COVID-specific context? What is the intellectual movement of re-examination research about?

The intellectual movement of re-examination research perceived

Here, re-examination research is not intended to be an action or process of sheer doubt-motivated criticism; instead it is a careful, judicious evaluation, via the COVID glasses, of what have been taken for granted in practice, science, and life to be true, good, or useful under “normal” circumstances.5 The term “the COVID glasses” is a figurative description. It refers to an eclectic yet coherent collection of credible real-world evidence gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic through which one can examine and, based upon which, assess how well or badly those “taken for granted” fare under “abnormal”, adverse COVID conditions. The dual purpose of re-examination research is thus pure and simple:

to identify, analyze, and assess holes in those theories, methods, programs, or policies whose validity, merit, and usefulness have long been taken for granted under “normal,” non-COVID conditions;

to justify, inspire, and facilitate follow-up actions to attend these defects for the better—greater resilience, that is—in practice, science, and life.6

The intellectual movement of re-examination research as such is a scholarly effort, self-motivated and grassroots, to collectively advocate and pursue the achievement of the dual purpose abovementioned. It presents a window of opportunity for scholars and scholar-practitioners to fulfil their social and academic responsibilities;7 and, at the same time, provides the journal Socio-Ecological Practice Research (SEPR) with a golden chance to pursue its noble goal “to cultivate and celebrate topnotch scholarship in Ecopracticology [sic—the author], the study of socio-ecological practice” (Xiang 2019b, p. 1).

Inspirations

The spark of insight from the Aha! experience inspired me to explore the very idea of developing and publishing a special SEPR issue with the re-examination research theme; it also prompted me to look around for other, possibly more tangible, even materialized indications of this perceivably coming re-examination research movement. Luckily, I found several compelling cases in point: Commission on the Practice of Democratic Citizenship (2020), Douglas et al. (2020), Hoover and Lim (2021), Naidoo and Fisher (2020), The Editors of Lancet Public Health (2020), and The Editors of Nature (2020). Together, they provide adequate, credible evidence to back the insight I gained from the Aha! experience and legitimate the theme for the special issue. Shared below is my reading of one of them.

A compelling, materialized case in point

In a July 9, 2020 article entitled Sustainable development goals: pandemic reset (Naidoo and Fisher 2020), American conservation scientist Robin Naidoo and environmental scientist Brendan Fisher present the findings of their re-examination research on the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs, that is) adopted by the United Nations in 2015 (The United Nations 2015).

Reading their article and with cross-references, I learned that

there are three unstated “rosy hopes” or premises the planned SDGs attainment by 2030 is based upon (quote from Naidoo and Fisher 2020, p. 198; The Editors of Nature 2020, p. 331): sustained worldwide economic growth; continuous international collaboration; and no disruption of any kind at the global scale between 2015 and 2030 (e.g., that caused by world war or global pandemic);

most if not all of the people involved in crafting the SDGs inadvertently took the validity of these crucial premises for granted; the 193 world leaders accepted them without hesitation both during the 3-year painstaking diplomatic negotiation and at the official approval and kickoff of this worldwide program in 2015 (Bhattacharya et al. 2020; Naidoo and Fisher 2020, p. 198);

with 20/20 hindsight in 2020, people now see how fatal this collective blind spot is. Yet it is entirely understandable, given that this happened at arguably one of the finest and most optimistic moments in modern history when almost the entire world agreed to work together “to end poverty, fight inequality, and stop climate change by 2030” (quote from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 2020, p. 2; Naidoo and Fisher 2020, p. 198);

chiefly because of this hole in their premises, the SDGs are innately vulnerable to such stressors as global pandemics, worldwide economic slowdowns, and the rise of protectionism (Naidoo and Fisher 2020, p. 198, 200; The Editors of Nature 2020, p. 331);

it is thus little wonder that the COVID-19 pandemic can readily impede and severely disrupt the already-slow progress across all the SDGs, so much so that two-thirds of the 169 SDG targets are unlikely to be met by 2030 (Naidoo and Fisher 2020, pp. 198–199).8

After having had identified, analyzed, and assessed the fatal defect in the SDGs premises, Robin Naidoo and Brendan Fisher further demonstrated the wicked nature of the multipronged crisis the pandemic created (Naidoo and Fisher 2020, pp. 198–199)9; and offered suggestions for reforming the financing, oversight and implementation of the SDGs (Ibid., p. 200).

Altogether, via the COVID glasses described in Sect. 1.3, Robin Naidoo and Brendan Fisher made a compelling case for the emerging intellectual movement of re-examination research. Their paper, I am convinced, exemplifies the kind of article the special SEPR theme issue looks for.

Articles the special issue seeks to include

The special issue Re-examining theories, methods, programs, and policies in socio-ecological practice via the COVID glasses aims to feature re-examination research articles that demonstrate the following four qualities.

Achieved the dual purpose described in Sect.  1.3

Manifesting this quality, special issue articles, like the one by Naidoo and Fisher (2020),

revealed and analyzed holes in a theory (a method, a program, or a policy) of socio-ecological practice or research whose validity (or merit, usefulness, progress) is now challenged by COVID;

assessed immediate impacts of the holes, through their host theory (or method, program, policy), on the state of pertinent socio-ecological practice [e.g., the progress of the 17 SDGs (Naidoo and Fisher 2020)] or research (e.g., the examples in the second paragraph of Sect.  1.1 of this editorial);

evaluated broader and long-term effects of the holes on the pertinent area(s) in practice, science, or life [e.g., the area of world sustainable development in Naidoo and Fisher (2020); the COVID-challenged areas in Table 1 of this editorial];

provided justifications and inspirations for due follow-up actions to attend the defect(s) for the better in socio-ecological practice and/or socio-ecological practice research10;

did all the above via the COVID glasses.

Met SEPR article requirements outlined in the inaugural editorial (Xiang 2019b, p. 4)

Attentiveness to the dual ambition of producing new knowledge and improving socio-ecological practice;

Interest in the usefulness of knowledge to both scholars and practitioners. A piece of useful knowledge in this context is directly relevant, immediately actionable, and foreseeably efficacious (Xiang 2019a, p. 9);

Commitment to scholarly rigor. Besides commonly used rigorous measures, a unique in-text citation style is used (see “Appendix”);

Writing with style, accuracy, brevity, and clarity; avoiding the prevalent 5-legged IMRAD format. Use a 3-level pyramid of section–subsection–subsubsection to bring more structural clarity to the article, number them sequentially and hierarchically, title them with substantive words or phrase(s) instead of normative words in IMRAD articles (i.e., the normative words of introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusions)11;

The quality of international appeal—appealing to the journal community of international scholars and practitioners. This requires presenting re-examination research of local, regional, or national importance within an international context, and elaborating in ways understandable and intriguing to the international audience.

Used examples and were written in small words

Demonstrating this quality, special issue articles used example(s) of good/bad practice, avoided abstract theoretical discussions and were written in small words, refrained from jargon-laden writing. This is in line with the SEPR motto From good practice for good practice we theorize; in small words for big circles we write, as promulgated in a recent essay (Xiang 2020b).

Adopted fitting article types

SEPR offers a fleet of 11 article types that fall into five clusters [See Table 1 in Xiang (2019b, p. 2)]. Special issue articles adopted the types that best served the needs of effectively presenting the contents.

Prospectus preparation, submission, and selection

Prospective authors should send a prospectus (a text of 350–450 words) in a word document before or on March 5, 2021 to the editor in chief Wei-Ning Xiang at wxiang@uncc.edu. The prospectus should outline.

What the article is about—the aim(s), thesis, re-examination research question, and why they are worth pursuing;

Who would benefit from and potentially use the findings in their socio-ecological practice and/or socio-ecological practice research;

How the article contributes to the aims and scope of the special issue (as presented in Sects.  1.3 and 3.1 above);

Whether a manuscript can be submitted by July 7, 2021 should the prospectus be accepted;

A list of 7 key references (not counted toward the 350–450 word limit).

The prospectuses will be selected on a rolling basis against the following criteria:

Relevance to the theme of the special issue;

Compliance with the aims and scope outlined in Sects. 1.3 and 3.1;

Writing ABC (accuracy, brevity, clarity);

Sole authorship is preferred, coauthorship (2 authors) welcome, multi-authorship considered;

Commitment to meeting the manuscript submission deadline.

All questions should be directed to Wei-Ning Xiang at wxiang@uncc.edu; information about the journal and the articles it published can be found at https://www.springer.com/journal/42532.

Will “re-examination research via the COVID glasses” be also an enduring SEPR theme?

Yes, besides publishing this special issue, the journal will embrace “re-examination research via the COVID glasses” as a strategic, enduring theme for years to come. This conforms to SEPR’s commitment to cultivating knowledge implementation and impact research (i.e., knowledge I&I research) for socio-ecological practice, as pronounced in both its inaugural editorial and the seminal article on ecopracticology (i.e., Xiang 2019a, b, respectively).

As such, SEPR will continue to feature articles that report “re-examination research via the COVID glasses” beyond the special issue. Prospective authors who miss the prospectus submission deadline for this special issue are welcome to contact the editor in chief with their article ideas or simply submit manuscripts to our editorial system for review as a regular (non-special issue) article.

At any rate, an intellectual movement of re-examination research is in the offing; let’s put on the COVID glasses and be part of it, now or later!