Experiments and evidence in sustainability science: A typology

Caniglia, Guido; Schäpke, Niko; Lang, Daniel J.; Abson, David J.; Luederitz, Christopher; Wiek, Arnim; Laubichler, Manfred D.; Gralla, Fabienne; Wehrden, Henrik von

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.164

Cited by 104 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such perspectives on scientific knowledge production, however, stands in tensions with historically developed norms of science as objective, universal, value-free, and independent from contexts. The boundary between universal science (objective, autonomous, disinterested) and societal context (values, norms, interests) drawn by such Mertonian norms of science is difficult to uphold for knowledge production that directly engages with complex, value-laden and urgent real-word issues (Caniglia et al, 2017;Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993;Lang et al, 2012).…”

Section: Action Solutions and Societal Change In Sustainability Resementioning

confidence: 99%

Science for change: A survey on the normative and political dimensions of global sustainability research

Hel

2018

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global change and sustainability research increasingly focusses on informing and shaping societal transformations towards more sustainable futures. Doing so, researchers encounter the deeply political and normative dimensions of sustainability problems and potential solutions. This raises questions about the value-dimensions of science itself, as well as the appropriate relationship between science and politics. In this paper, these normative and political dimensions of sustainability research are explored based on a literature review and survey. The survey was completed by 284 researchers participating in the international research platform Future Earth: Research for Global Sustainability. The analysis of survey data reveals that sustainability researchers generally acknowledge the value-laden and political nature of their work, yet perspectives on what this means and how to deal with such dimensions vary. Four groups of respondents are distinguished and classified by the following broad narratives: transformative research as speaking truth to power, transformative research as political act, responsibility for rigorous science, and humility on solutions potential. Several tensions within and between these perspectives are identified, pertaining to the role of sustainability researchers in supporting societal transformations, the possibility and desirability of scientific independence and impartiality, and the appropriate relationship between science and politics. The paper concludes by pointing to the need for more explicit engagement with the normative and political dimensions of sustainability research.

show abstract

Section: Action Solutions and Societal Change In Sustainability Resementioning

confidence: 99%

Science for change: A survey on the normative and political dimensions of global sustainability research

Hel

2018

Global Environmental Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the varied contexts discussed in the articles in this special section-rural, urban, developmental, transboundary-the importance of engaging with and incorporating representatives of an inclusive spectrum of social perspectives is highlighted as central to the processes of adaptive risk governance. This is closely related to the concept of transdisciplinary research with the added emphasis on coproduction of solutions (Caniglia et al 2017). Implementation science is then a methodological framework for implementing transdisciplinary and transformative research.…”

Section: A Comprehensive Framework For Adaptive and Integrative Risk mentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory Risk Governance for Reducing Disaster and Societal Risks: Collaborative Knowledge Production and Implementation

Okada

Chabay

Renn

2018

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The background, purpose, and design of this special section are briefly explained in this introductory article. Three aspects emerged from the articles in this special section and are highlighted to provide a frame of reference for the reader: (1) a paradigm shift towards adaptive and integrative disaster risk governance; (2) a framework that situates adaptive and integrative risk governance in the context of transformation toward sustainability; and (3) the introduction of ''implementation science'' as a concept, method, and emerging field that brings natural and social sciences, engineering, and humanities jointly to bear in risk mitigation and adaptation.

show abstract

“…Meanwhile, the specific solutions should be adjusted and corrected under the condition of constantly understanding and grasping the latest management object states in order to achieve the best management effect and realize the ultimate goal of the management objects [2] . When treating with special problems, the evidence science principle points out that if managers want to effectively control management objects, and eliminate adverse effect to management objects from all kinds of factors in the their implement process, each of management object constituent should be broken up into special minimum units, and ensure these units' corresponding management standards [3] . At the same time, the implement states of these units should be measurable, and relative data which describe their states in construction can be obtained.…”

Section: Evidence-science and Its Management Principlementioning

confidence: 99%