Lost in a haze or playing to partners’ strengths? Learning to collaborate in three transdisciplinary European Living Labs

Knickel, Marina; Caniglia, Guido; Knickel, Karlheinz; Šūmane, Sandra; Maye, Damian; Arcuri, Sabrina; Keech, Daniel; Tīsenkopfs, Tālis; Brunori, Gianluca

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2023.103219

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their personal experiences, histories, values and worldviews are brought into the research process, where knowledge generation equates with action as well as with mutual learning and capacity building (Caniglia et al, 2021 ; West et al, 2019 ). A major issue emerging in participatory research has to do with the differential capacities of the epistemic agents involved (Knickel et al, 2023 ; Avelino, 2017 ; Turnhout et al, 2020 ). Power relationships and asymmetries can determine whether or not collective learning processes are fostered and how knowledge and evidence are generated (Fritz & Meinherz, 2020 ).…”

Section: The How and The Who In...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, evidence is also gathered through transdisciplinary methodologies that include non-academic knowledge systems (Fazey et al, 2018 ; Lang et al, 2012 ). The generation of evidence in participatory and collaborative approaches requires learning-based forms of evaluation (Knickel et al, 2023 ; Luederitz et al, 2017 ). Evidence for action needs to account for the multiplicity of kinds of knowledge and ways of knowing, such as citizens’, policy makers’ and administrators’ knowledge, depending on the context and issues addressed (the mixed mechanisms alluded to earlier).…”

Section: The How and The Who In...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In participatory contexts, it might be neither possible nor desirable to aim for total coherence and fit. Rather, opening this space for confrontation across multiple perspectives allows for considering the many trade-offs and tensions that present themselves fostering processes of mutual learning across different constituencies (Knickel et al, 2023 ; Hirsch & Brosius, 2013 ).…”

Section: Clues From Susan Haack: Evidence As Clues For Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How is who: evidence as clues for action in participatory sustainability science and public health research

Caniglia,

Russo

2024

HPLS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participatory and collaborative approaches in sustainability science and public health research contribute to co-producing evidence that can support interventions by involving diverse societal actors that range from individual citizens to entire communities. However, existing philosophical accounts of evidence are not adequate to deal with the kind of evidence generated and used in such approaches. In this paper, we present an account of evidence as clues for action through participatory and collaborative research inspired by philosopher Susan Haack’s theory of evidence. Differently from most accounts of evidence for use in policies and interventions, our account combines action-oriented (the how) and actors-oriented (the who) considerations. We build on Haack’s theory and on the analysis of examples of participatory and collaborative research in sustainability science and public health research to flesh out six procedural criteria for the generation and mobilization of evidence in and from participatory research. Action-oriented criteria invite to look at evidence from a (a) foundherentist, (b) gradational and (c) quasi-holistic perspective. Actors-oriented criteria point out that evidence generation and utilization are (d) social, (e) personal, and (f) embedded. We suggest that these criteria may reinforce participatory and collaborative approaches to evidence co-production when addressing complex problems in sustainability science and public health allowing for the generation of a kind of practical objectivity.

show abstract