Reflexive use of methods: a framework for navigating different types of knowledge and power in transformative research

Abstract

In transformative sustainability science, reflexivity is considered critical for ethically sound and socially relevant research. In practice, many transdisciplinary knowledge co-production processes have faced problems in mitigating power hierarchies among the participating actors and the different types of knowledge. In this paper, we develop and test a reflexive framework that enables transdisciplinary researchers to convey more explicitly how their methodological choices play a role in im/balancing power relations in knowledge co-production. The reflexive framework allows researchers to distinguish the different types of knowledge co-produced by the methods, as well as tracking the movements between them. We utilize the framework to reflect upon the methodological choices made through the application of three different transformative methods, namely the Transition Arena, Theory of Change, and Participatory Food Sustainability Assessment and Transformation Framework in different contexts. The results illuminate how the agility between the knowledge types is critical for navigating tensions in power imbalances, as well as producing transformative knowledge. Moreover, the results call further attention to the co-production of critical knowledge in sustainability science.

Transformative research for sustainability: characteristics, tensions, and moving forward

“…Reflexivity expands and challenges the conventional role of researchers to interrogating the assumptions they bring to the transformative research inquiry (Evans, 2021;Horlings et al, 2020). In the case of science seeking to steer transformative change, it is essential that researchers become more reflexive about their non-epistemic values underpinning methodological choices (Horcea-Milcu et al, 2019;Minna et al, 2024). Added to this, the interrogation of epistemic values embedded in scientific practices is useful for bridging gaps between fields within collaborative contexts (MacLeod & Nagatsu, 2018;Nagatsu et al, 2020;Soininen et al, 2022).…”