Practicing the science of sustainability: the challenges of transdisciplinarity in a developing world context

Steelman, Toddi A.; Nichols, Elizabeth Guthrie; James, April L.; Bradford, Lori; Ebersöhn, Liesel; Scherman, Vanessa; Omidire, Margaret Funke; Bunn, David; Twine, Wayne; McHale, Melissa R.

doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0334-4

Cited by 43 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study by Schodl et al (2015) reveals how researchers' ideas about animal welfare in pig fattening may be conceived as normative ideas that might conflict with the interests of practitioners. And the papers by Njoroge et al (2015) and Steelman et al (2015)-both in an African context-present different forms of leadership and participation that scientists may take.…”

Section: Science As One Stakeholder Group Among Others Vs a Public Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Science As One Stakeholder Group Among Others Vs a Public Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore, it is of fundamental importance that we pay more attention to BESS (Kajikawa et al 2014), by engaging researchers and encouraging them to contemplate priority future research directions in participatory ways for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work (Kates 2011;Hackmann and Clair 2013;Miller et al 2014;Steelman et al 2015). Exercises to identify research questions by engaging researchers have previously been used to provide future research direction in the fields of biodiversity (Sutherland et al 2008;Roy et al 2014), ocean science (Rudd 2014), palaeoecology (Seddon et al 2014) and water research .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying future research directions for biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainability: perspectives from early-career researchers

Hossain

Pogue

Trenchard

et al. 2017

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation for published item:rossinD wd rwr nd ogueD rh tF nd renhrdD viz nd n yudenhovenD elexnder F iF nd shourneD grlEvenne nd wuiruriD ivlyne F nd omzykD eleksndr wF nd qr¡ %EvlorenteD wrin nd rleD hel nd reviD iolet nd edmsD om nd vllliD veil nd he fellD i¢ n nd yeD wrin nd esendeD pernndo @PHIVA 9sdentifying future reserh diretions for iodiversityD eosystem servies nd sustinility X perspetives from erlyEreer reserhersF9D snterntionl journl of sustinle development world eologyFD PS @QAF ppF PRWEPTIF Further information on publisher's website: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. ABSTRACTWe aimed to identify priority research questions in the field of biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainability (BESS), based on a workshop held during the NRG BESS Conference for Early Career Researchers on BESS, and to compare these to existing horizon scanning exercises. This work highlights the need for improved data availability through collaboration and knowledge exchange, which, in turn, can support the integrated valuation and sustainable management of ecosystems in response to global change. In addition, clear connectivity among different research themes in this field further emphasizes the need to consider a wider range of topics simultaneously to ensure the sustainable management of ecosystems for human wellbeing. In contrast to other horizon scanning exercises, our focus was more interdisciplinary and more concerned with the limits of sustainability and dynamic relationships between social and ecological systems. The identified questions could provide a framework for researchers, policy makers, funding agencies and the private sector to advance knowledge in biodiversity and ES research and to develop and implement policies to enable sustainable future development. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…In addition to financial and time resources, competences, and social capital of participants in the knowledge production process are considered resources shaping participation [6,104,116]. Tied to the institutional embedding of scientific actors, the specialised nature of scientific disciplines that most professionals are trained in rarely provides them with the skills needed for collaboration in heterogeneous teams [92].…”

Section: Financial Time and Social Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research

Fritz¹,

Binder²

2018

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the field of sustainability, scholars, and policy-makers herald the transformative power of participation in knowledge production. However, a discrepancy between these expectations and the limited understanding of the complex interactions constituting participation processes can be observed. With the aim of critically analysing these complex interactions, this paper develops a conceptual perspective on participation as a relational space which is formed in the interplay of structures and processes. This perspective is applied to the analysis of empirical literature in sustainability research, development research, and science and technology studies. The literature review guided by the proposed conceptualisation systematically draws together the rich experience with participation in knowledge production. Elements constituting participation spaces along the dimensions 'structures' and 'actors' are identified and discussed in relation to 'processes' of space-making: (i) (in)coherences with reference system, (ii) resources, (iii) timing, (iv) expectations, (v) mutual trust, and (vi) worldviews and values. Power relations are found to pervade the three dimensions. Enhanced conceptual-analytical clarity of the elements constituting participation spaces provides a differentiated basis for discussing the transformative power of participatory knowledge production. By stimulating reflexivity on the making of participation, this approach contributes to better understanding when spaces of participation have the capacity to become spaces of transformation.

show abstract

Practicing the science of sustainability: the challenges of transdisciplinarity in a developing world context

Cited by 43 publications

References 41 publications

Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads

Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads

Identifying future research directions for biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainability: perspectives from early-career researchers

Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About