Figure 1
Gibson et al.’s (2000) influential “fundamentals of scale” for the commons propose that scale is multi-level, hierarchically related and subsequently nested. Their work borrowed heavily from foundational writings on scale by ecologists.
Figure 2
Underlying assumptions about scale critiqued by geographers (e.g. Howitt 1998) that are often present in commons scholarship.
Table 1
A typology for commons scholars to disentangle the production of scale through the lens of three distinct dimensions and moments of action (Rangan & Kull, 2009). We link each dimension of scale to reflexive questions it raises and possible empirical questions to apply in research on the commons.
| Dimensions of scale | Moments of action | Reflexive questions | Empirical questions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operational dimensions of scale are related to the physical properties of things and biophysical and social phenomena that we experience and perceive as real. | Produced through moments of everyday interaction with the world, material processes, and the apparent ordering of things. | How do my own everyday understandings of scale shape my perceptions of the commons and my research? | How do historically and geographically specific socioecological processes produce scales that are recognized in the commons? How do different actors in the commons understand and experience scale through everyday acts of commoning? |
| Observational dimensions of scale arise as an attribute of how one observes something. | Produced through moments of observation and measurement as the parameters (e.g., grain, extent, identification of levels) within which phenomena are examined are set. | How do the parameters I choose to observe and measure in the commons affect what is made visible/invisible in my research? How do my everyday experiences of scale impact my choice of observational scale? | Who controls moments of observation and measurement in the commons and what are the effects of their chosen parameters? How are observational dimensions of scales negotiated or contested in the commons? |
| Interpretative dimensions of scale translate complex relationships into forms that are generalizable and affective and have normative implications (i.e., tell us how we should feel or what should be done). | Produced using interpretive devices (such as narratives, models, metaphors, symbols, and performances) that abstract as they communicate what aspects of scaled relationships matter. | What normative hierarchies am I invoking through my choice of interpretive devices and what are their effects? | How are interpretive devices used by different actors to make claims about scale in negotiations over environmental governance in the commons? What normative hierarchies are invoked in narratives, models, metaphors, symbols, and performances used to interpret the commons? |
Figure 3
Steps to critically rethink scale in our own research and praxis in the commons.