Putting relational thinking to work in sustainability science – reply to Raymond et al.

Abstract

We welcome Raymond et al.'s invitation to further discuss the 'pragmatics' of relational thinking in sustainability science. We clarify that relational approaches provide distinct theoretical and methodological resources that may be adopted on their own, or used to enrich other approaches, including systems research. We situate Raymond et al.'s characterization of relational thinking in a broader landscape of differing approaches to mobilizing 'relationality' in sustainability science. A key contribution of relational thinking in the processrelational, pragmatist and post-structural traditions is the focus on the generation and use of concepts. This focus is proving methodologically useful for sustainability scientists. We caution against viewing the generation of concepts purely in terms of 'applying the knife' to 'divide components.' Relational thinking offers alternatives more congruent with complexity: away from an 'external' actor cutting away at the world with an 'either/or' logic, towards an 'immersed' actor contributing generatively within it using a 'both/and not only' logic. The pragmatics of relational thinking will vary according to purposes. We describe two possible pathways for using relational thinking in research practice-(i) working forwards from relations, and (ii) working backwards from existing concepts-and discuss how relational thinking can contribute to complexity-oriented visions of 'solutions-oriented sustainability science.'

Reconceptualising sustainability practice research in architecture: Radical ways of seeing and imagining

“…Deploying this form of Assemblage Theory as a research approach, and extending it through a visual-spatial account, enables a deliberately open positioning towards the types of relations and the human and non-human elements involved in environmental, social and spatial effects of cities, buildings and spaces. Recent debates in environmental and sustainability science are thus increasingly relying on relational thinking and this openness as key to researching the challenges of the climate emergency [41]. The goal is not to arrive at a single 'best' perspective, but to contribute to ongoing learning.…”

“…The goal is not to arrive at a single 'best' perspective, but to contribute to ongoing learning. Relational thinking hence provides resources to re-work and re-think conventional research practices and the residual, often difficult-to-detect, assumptions of architectural modernism [41].…”

Transformative change in context—stakeholders’ understandings of leverage at the forest–climate nexus

“…Analytically, to relate meaning-making to its context, this context has to be further delimited (Brown et al 2015;Ives et al 2020). Defining boundaries is crucial when employing leverage points from an analytical perspective (Leventon et al 2021), although pinpointing leverage within a delineated system necessarily limits the insights from experiences of change (Raymond et al 2021;West et al 2021).…”

A multicriteria analysis of groundwater development pathways in three river basins in Sub-Saharan Africa

“…The Pathways Approach therefore implies taking a constructivist approach 2 to the identification of groundwater solutions, recognising multiple experiences, opinions, contingencies, uncertainty and the difficulty of achieving equity. Despite acknowledging subjectivities, it is important to simultaneously incorporate positivist objectivity 3 (West et al, 2014), as the material reality of a given situated aquifer is critical to understanding the sustainability of abstraction from it (Beland Lindahl et al, 2016).…”