Session 2.3
Dialogue between transdisciplinary and action research: modus operandi and what we can learn from it
Varvara Nikulina, Rebecca Laycock Pedersen
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden
We need research leading to timely, meaningful, contextually appropriate solutions for society’s wicked sustainability challenges. Though transdisciplinarity (TDR) is thought to be sustainability sciences’ modus operandi, there are many long-standing traditions of socially engaged research applied in sustainability, e.g., applied research, citizen science. Clarity about differences and similarities, and whether/how they can be used together enables researchers to learn from different traditions and make informed decisions about the best approach for their context. Here, we explore bibliometric differences between action research (AR) and TDR in the field of sustainability, and how concepts from AR can complement TDR. To do this, we conducted bibliometric analyses of peer-reviewed TDR and AR articles from Scopus (found searching for ‘sustainability’ and its derivatives, in combination with either ‘transdisciplinarity’ and its derivatives, or ‘action research’). We then considered the main procedural differences between the two approaches, and how Heron and Reason’s ‘extended epistemology’ and Herr and Anderson’s (2005) insider-outsider continuum could be used by TDRers.
We identified six times as many AR as TDR publications, indicating AR is a more mature field. The most cited TDR publications did not overlap with those in AR, with the exception Kates et al. (2001). In co-citation analysis, we also found that publications in TDR cited similar sets of articles, creating networks, whereas the reference lists of AR publications were more varied, and there was only one co-citation among the 40 most frequently cited articles. There were several publications that both bodies of literature cited, e.g., Wiek et al. (2011).
Methodologically, AR is typically modelled as ‘spirals’ intertwining action and reflection. There is less consensus about how to ‘do’ TDR, although researchers have proposed processes and ideal-types. Through comparing the spiral and TDR ideal-types/processes, we explain that AR emphasises action-for-knowledge, making it best-suited to contexts where action is a priority, and TDR emphasises knowledge-for-action and is best-suited when reflection is needed. To avoid siloing into ‘research-practitioners’ and ‘practitioners-who-research,’ we suggest a relational approach is needed, which could be supported by Heron and Reason’s (2008) ‘extended epistemology.’ They urge that four different ways of knowing are needed to ensure (1) action is rooted in our reasoned, subjective and tacit understandings, and (2) our truth claims align with both our experience and theories.
Reflexivity has received considerable attention in both TDR and AR. As scholarship on roles/identities in TDR often fails to problematise positionality regarding contextual embeddedness, we suggest that Herr and Anderson’s insider-outsider continuum (2005) can help TD researchers better articulate and reflect on their positionality, especially when their positionality varies between stakeholders/shifts during the course of a project.
In summary, we found the main differences between TDR and AR are TDRers seem to be in conversation with one another more than ARers, and while AR emphasizes action-for-knowledge, TDR emphasises knowledge-for-action. In order to avoid siloing of the two approaches, TDR can draw on AR’s extended epistemology and learn from AR work on insider-outsider positionality to enhance reflexive work in TDR.
Philosophical Background Assumptions in Science-Society Interactions: Mapping the Landscape of Arguments
Markus Dressel 1 & 2
1 Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon; 2 Research Unit Sustainability & Global Change (FNU), Universität Hamburg
The relation between science and society is complex. This is not only due to the diversity of ways in which scientists and non-scientists interact in different contexts; the complexity also stems from philosophical background assumptions that different actors may bring to the table. Some of these assumptions refer to the scientific side of a given science-society interaction. These include questions such as: Is the problem at hand “wicked” – and if so, what does this imply for scientific authority? Is science “value-laden” – and if so, what role should social values play in the research process? Should science focus on “important” problems – and if so, what constitutes importance in a given epistemic context? Another type of assumptions refers to the societal side. These include, inter alia, questions of legitimacy (e.g. who may represent whom in a decision process?), aspects of action theory (e.g. does/should knowledge compel action?), and structural understandings of society at large (e.g. are boundaries between science and other societal spheres rather fixed or fluent?).
When it comes to these and further questions, scientists, regulators, citizens, practitioners, or product users may have different perspectives on how science-society interactions should look like. This diversity is further increased by the fact that such philosophical assumptions vary not only between, but also within the various scientific and non-scientific actor groups. While this may have implications in any context where scientists and non-scientists interact, it can be particularly relevant in transdisciplinary research (TDR). In a TDR project, assumptions are needed to determine, inter alia, who counts as a legitimate project partner, how much influence these partners should have in the different project stages, or what is considered to be sound science. However, discussing the underlying philosophical assumptions may be difficult for several reasons: first, they often touch upon people’s core beliefs; second, they are often held implicitly; and third, many of these issues are contested in the academic literature, which is why participants of TDR projects cannot simply refer to an expert consensus.
In this paper, I present a framework to systematize the background assumptions that shape interactions between scientists and non-scientists in TDR and beyond. I differentiate six dimensions of assumptions and give examples for controversial claims within each dimension. I show how these controversial claims can be grouped by using stylized models of the science-society relation. Rather than prescribing (or presupposing) an epistemological or social theory, the framework represents a conceptual “map”. This is similar to an approach employed by the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative (https://tdi.msu.edu), but with a different conceptual and pragmatic perspective (e.g. it is not restricted to TDR, it combines individual background assumptions with overarching science-society models). The categories used in this framework are derived from an interdisciplinary literature analysis, using methods of ideal-typical reconstruction inspired by Max Weber. A unique feature of this framework is its flexibility: contrary to many other systematization schemes (e.g. “linear” versus “pragmatic” models), it treats background assumptions as a semantic web that allows for various configurations, which then give rise to various science-society models.
Values as leverage points for sustainability transformation: reflecting on the underlying assumptions
Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu
Babeş-Bolyai University, Romania
The rapidly growing literature on sustainability transformation agrees that values play a role on the transformation research agenda. Recent literature drawing on systems thinking associates held values with deep leverage points (Abson et al. 2017), defined as system properties where interventions can lead to transformational change in complex systems. This presentation argues that the current debate around values as leverage points needs to be discussed in the context of understanding the characteristics of a mode-2 science perspective on the relationship between science and society. A mode-2 perspective moves from producing knowledge in order to improve understanding, towards linking knowledge to action; it moves from knowledge extraction to knowledge co-production and knowledge experimentation; it moves from considering practitioners as knowledge holders to seeing them as co-creators and change agents; finally it moves from the implicit inclusion of values towards their explicit transparent making in the research process. With regard to sustainability science, some authors also make a distinction between a knowledge-first approach and a process-oriented approach (Miller 2013), between a science for sustainability and a science of sustainability (Spanegenberg 2011), or between a descriptive–analytical and a transformational mode (Wiek et al. 2012). These distinctions are especially relevant today for considering the role of held and assigned values for sustainability transformtion.
A mode-2 perspective can enable meaningful and solution-focused ways of combining existing methods across different disciplinary fields and corresponding practices. For example, in the case of values as leverage points, theoretical traditions such as behavioral economics, environmental psychology, social psychology or organisational culture (among many others) come at the forefront of the debate. I argue that failing to apply established traditions also from a mode-2 science perspective undermines the potential of such disciplines to contribute to sustainability transformation. In particular, technical solutions stemming from a knowledge-first approach to science risk to ignore or downplay the social complexity of transformation processes. To develop my argument, I identify the main characteristics and dimensions of a mode-2 science perspective. In particular, I focus on the reflexivity, agency, non-linearity and I emphasize transdisciplinary research as the research mode of transformational sustainability science. I then describe the dynamics of potential processes of change involving values in relation to the mode-2 perspective, for achieving deliberate change towards sustainability transformation. From a mode-2 science standpoint, the understanding of values as leverage points seems to point less to a dynamics of changing values, but rather to capitalising on already existent sustainability values, such as solidarity or responsibility or on place-based values. Processes such as removing the institutional of systemic barriers that are blocking the expression of sustainability aligned values and instead enable it, also fit under this part of the spectrum. Especially in situations of weak governance or weak social capital, a range of enabling processes might enliven values at community level, enabling individuals to reflect, question and challenge assumptions, and experiment.