Topic 3: Are there effective ways to map CHES? What are the methodological alternatives to the kinds of place-based research we have covered thus far?

Towards the end of our discussion on Monday, Billie expressed some uneasiness with attempts to place the suite of potential tools one might use to understand and interact with coupled human-environment systems on 'some rational set of axis'. While we had some discussion around the various axis that could be used and where different approaches might lie on them as we prepared for the session, the idea that it may be inappropriate to even attempt to do so was not something we thought about.

If I understood correctly, Billie's concern was that there are many other factors that dictate which tool we select, and the choice is typically based on our preexisting expertise and/or epistemologies rather than by consulting a chart. 

This argument is quite sound to me, but I honestly do not see why it rules any attempts to categorize approaches futile. First of all, we were not asserting that the rough three-dimensional graphic we presented could or should be used exclusively - or even primarily - for prescriptive purposes. It seems to me that there is value in understanding which tools seem to emerge under different conditions in practice. 

Secondly, I don't see how using it in a contingent way to identify which approaches may be more or less appropriate under different circumstances can possibly be harmful. One of the beauties of the place-based research that we have talked about in this class is that project leaders are are quite flexible, bringing in new sets of expertise as their conceptions of 'the problem' and how it might be explored evolve. 

I am curious what others think. Is there value in placing the various approaches one might take to exploring and interacting with CHES on axis as we tried?