Priority sites for wildfowl conservation in Mexico

A set of priority sites for wildfowl conservation in Mexico was determined using contemporary count data (1991–2000) from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service mid-winter surveys. We used a complementarity approach implemented through linear integer programming that addresses particular conservation concerns for every species included in the analysis and large fluctuations in numbers through time. A set of 31 priority sites was identified, which held more than 69% of the mid-winter count total in Mexico during all surveyed years. Six sites were in the northern highlands, 12 in the central highlands, six on the Gulf of Mexico coast and seven on the upper Pacific coast. Twenty-two sites from the priority set have previously been identified as qualifying for designation as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention and 20 sites are classified as Important Areas for Bird Conservation in Mexico. The information presented here provides an accountable, spatially-explicit, numerical basis for ongoing conservation planning efforts in Mexico, which can be used to improve existing wildfowl conservation networks in the country and can also be useful for conservation planning exercises elsewhere

Deep Theorizing in International Relations

This paper starts from the observation that, at a time when the popularity of grand theory is in decline among IR scholars, they do not agree on what they mean by theory. In fact, the celebration of theoretical pluralism is accompanied by the relative absence of a serious conversation about what ‘theory’ is, could, or should be. Taking the view that we need such a conversation, this puts forward the notion of ‘deep theorizing’. Countering both the shallow theorizing of modern scholarship that conflates theory with scientific method, and the postmodern view that abstract narratives must be deconstructed and rejected, it offers a reading of the parameters along which substantial theorizing proceeds. Specifically, it suggests that ‘deep theorizing’ is the conceptual effort of explaining (inter)action by developing a reading of drives/basic motivations and the ontology of its carrier through an account of the human condition, that is, a particular account of how the subject (the political actor) is positioned in social space and time. The paper illustrates the plausibility of this meta-theoretical angle in a discussion of realist, liberal and postcolonial schools of thought

A new social-cognitive developmental perspective on prejudice: The interplay between morality and group identity.

We argue that prejudice should be investigated in the context of social-cognitive development and the interplay between morality and group identity. Our new perspective examines how children consider group identity (and group norms) along with their developing moral beliefs about fairness and justice. This is achieved by developing an integrated framework drawing on developmental and social psychological theories of prejudice. This synthesis results in a perspective which provides a more contextualized analysis of prejudice development than previously offered by developmental theories. We describe research which supports our view that social norms, intergroup contact and perceived out-group threat affect the relative weight children place on moral and group-based criteria during the development of prejudice

Framing Robert W. Cox, Framing International Relations

In the recent years, R.W. Cox has distanced himself from some genealogical connections made by his followers in regard to what he meant in his famous 1981 article. Was he mischaracterized, framed? This paper focuses on how Cox has been ‘framed’, a concept elaborated and used across social sciences in different contexts. Here, it is used to look at different mechanisms by which ideas, such as those of Cox, can be connected, ‘framed’ to other ideas, not only to advance knowledge but to strengthen individual careers, to strengthen and construct approaches and disciplines. Framing highlights and creates a space but also constrains and obscures. Cox deserves to be seen outside any frames other than the one he creates for himself, one which is changing and developing as does the real world, not captive to any approach, paradigm, discipline, or any other frame. This chapter focuses on how Robert W. Cox has been 'framed', a concept elaborated and used across social sciences in different contexts. Over three decades ago, Cox caused a major stir in the discipline of international relations (IR) on both sides of the Atlantic. However, 'frame' and 'framing' are now terms used in the IR discipline, in the positivist mainstream form of constructivism. The initial mischaracterization that stuck distracted from seeing other aspects of Cox's contribution—he deserves a different place in the IR discipline and beyond it, a point made in the conclusion. In addition—in an incredible move in the history of IR discipline—subjective became inter-subjective, inter-subjectively agreed upon, and no longer out of bounds of scholarly pursuits in IR discipline, at least in one of its approaches. 'Critical' in IR has now become a portmanteau term which includes anything that is 'anti-': even feminists, environmentalists, post-colonials, indigenous peoples, and the very poor