title: Wonder and environmental virtue

authors: van Zyl, Liezl

abstract: Wonder is a familiar human emotion. It involves a feeling of delight, admiration, curiosity, and appreciation and is directed towards something that is beautiful, remarkable, mysterious, or unfamiliar. The objects of wonder can include nature and natural entities, works of art, and other cultural objects. In her essay, “Environmental Virtue Ethics” (2007) Rosalind Hursthouse puts forward the question of whether there could be a virtue of being rightly disposed with respect to wonder. For an Aristotelian, such a virtue would involve a disposition “to feel wonder the right way, towards the right objects, for the right reasons, to the right degree, on the right occasions, in the right manner, and to act accordingly” (2007: 161). Hursthouse further suggests that the putative virtue of being rightly disposed with respect to wonder is explicitly – though not exclusively – concerned with our relations to nature, and could therefore form an important part of an environmental virtue ethic. Many environmentalists appeal to our sense of wonder, and write about the wonders of nature, but the role of wonder in environmental ethics has not been explored in any detail. My aim in this paper, then, is to consider whether there is an environmental virtue (or set of virtues) that involves being rightly disposed with regards to wonder.

text: Wonder and environmental virtue Wonder is a familiar human emotion. It involves a feeling of delight, admiration, curiosity, and appreciation and is directed towards something that is beautiful, remarkable, mysterious, or unfamiliar. The objects of wonder can include nature and natural entities, works of art, and other cultural objects. In her essay, “Environmental Virtue Ethics” (2007) Rosalind Hursthouse puts forward the question of whether there could be a virtue of being rightly disposed with respect to wonder. For an Aristotelian, such a virtue would involve a disposition “to feel wonder the right way, towards the right objects, for the right reasons, to the right degree, on the right occasions, in the right manner, and to act accordingly” (2007: 161). Hursthouse further suggests that the putative virtue of being rightly disposed with respect to wonder is explicitly – though not exclusively – concerned with our relations to nature, and could therefore form an important part of an environmental virtue ethic. Many environmentalists appeal to our sense of wonder, and write about the wonders of nature, but the role of wonder in environmental ethics has not been explored in any detail. My aim in this paper, then, is to consider whether there is an environmental virtue (or set of virtues) that involves being rightly disposed with regards to wonder.

year: 2017

title: Philosophy, globalization and the future of the university: A conversation between Sharon Rider and Michael A. Peters

authors: Peters, Michael A.

abstract: Sharon Rider is Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at the Department of Philosophy at Uppsala University. She is currently Vice Dean for the Faculty of Arts and Director for Higher Education Studies at the Center for Science and Technology Studies. She studied Philosophy at Pennsylvania State University, the University of Louvain and Uppsala University, and has taught as Visiting Professor at Åbo Academy and Turku University (Finland) and Gävle University College (Sweden).

text: Philosophy, globalization and the future of the university: A conversation between Sharon Rider and Michael A. Peters Sharon Rider is Professor of Logic and Metaphysics at the Department of Philosophy at Uppsala University. She is currently Vice Dean for the Faculty of Arts and Director for Higher Education Studies at the Center for Science and Technology Studies. She studied Philosophy at Pennsylvania State University, the University of Louvain and Uppsala University, and has taught as Visiting Professor at Åbo Academy and Turku University (Finland) and Gävle University College (Sweden).

year: 2013

title: New Zealand’s Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF) model undermines Maori research

authors: Roa, Tom

subjects: Performance Based Research Funding

abstract: The Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF) model was instigated in 2002 to increase “the quality of research through peer assessment and performance indicators” in New Zealand (Ministry of Education 2002: 17). It is used to allocate funding between universities, departments and researchers according to the putative quality and quantity of their research outputs over the preceding 6 years. PBRF is expected to incentivise improved research excellence and efficiency, and allow government to invest research funds where greatest returns will result. This is potentially a huge gain for Māori. However, “by changing the conditions of knowledge production, research assessment exercises may also alter the shape and direction of disciplines by diverting and channelling researchers’ intellectual attention and political engagement, influencing what they study, how they do it, and how they report and write” (Middleton 2009: 194). Indeed, universities repeatedly encourage researchers to focus on activities that will improve their PBRF rankings. We believe that an unintended consequence of PBRF is the creation of significant barriers to increasing the volume, scope and quality of environmental research for Māori.

text: New Zealand’s Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF) model undermines Maori research The Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF) model was instigated in 2002 to increase “the quality of research through peer assessment and performance indicators” in New Zealand (Ministry of Education 2002: 17). It is used to allocate funding between universities, departments and researchers according to the putative quality and quantity of their research outputs over the preceding 6 years. PBRF is expected to incentivise improved research excellence and efficiency, and allow government to invest research funds where greatest returns will result. This is potentially a huge gain for Māori. However, “by changing the conditions of knowledge production, research assessment exercises may also alter the shape and direction of disciplines by diverting and channelling researchers’ intellectual attention and political engagement, influencing what they study, how they do it, and how they report and write” (Middleton 2009: 194). Indeed, universities repeatedly encourage researchers to focus on activities that will improve their PBRF rankings. We believe that an unintended consequence of PBRF is the creation of significant barriers to increasing the volume, scope and quality of environmental research for Māori.

year: 2009