Testing the quality of transformative science methods: the example of the Human Scale Development approach

Abstract

Scholars and funding bodies alike are increasingly calling for transformative research that delivers socially robust and impact-oriented outcomes. This paper argues that the Human Scale Development approach (HSDA) introduced by Max-Neef and colleagues in Latin America during the 1980s can serve as a method for transformative science (TSc). HSDA is both a theory and a participatory methodology and thus contributes toward fulfilling the objectives of TSc, which are scientific, practical and educational. In this paper, we begin by explicating how the fundamental human needs (FHN) approach of the HSDA can support scholars and practitioners alike in addressing complex sustainability challenges. We then refer to the methodological adaptations to the original proposal that we have previously developed to illustrate how Max-Neef's methodological approach might be further extended and to demonstrate how these changes can strengthen HSDA and make it even more useful for generating knowledge needed in sustainability transformations. To inform and support research that builds on the co-production of knowledge, we test HSDA with regard to TSc quality criteria and show how it adds value to the existing canon of TSc methods. To this end, we develop an analytical framework that can be deployed to assess the quality of TSc methods.

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

“…We also acknowledge notable examples of studies seeking to conceptualize and organize academic experiences and reflections with research that is intentionally transformative drawing on the sustainability transitions research community (Hölscher et al, 2021; Kump et al, 2023; Wittmayer et al, 2021). Similar discourses on the outlined characteristics of transformative research together with the challenges they bring are also happening within other communities of engaged research such as knowledge co-production (Norström et al, 2020), action research (Caniglia et al, 2021; Fazey et al, 2018), or the transdisciplinary sustainability science community (Lam et al, 2021; Spiering & Barrera, 2021). Notably, there is a large overlap between transformative research, as described in this paper, and other forms of interventional engaged research (e.g.…”

“…It invites deep reflection regarding the relationship between the researched and the researcher (Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014), and between knowledge and underlying values (Hansson & Polk, 2018), constantly challenging gained perspectives. Future knowledge systems need to be capable of actively working with values and emotions (Fazey et al, 2020) so that proposed solution-options can be acknowledged as both personal and political (Pereira et al, 2020;Spiering & Barrera, 2021;Vogel & O'Brien, 2022;Wamsler & Osberg, 2022). Tackling the complexity and unpredictability of steering transformative change requires not only new ways of producing knowledge (4.2), but also the capacity to make collaborative knowledge processes, sustainability-aligned values (Daedlow et al, 2016), and inner dimensions to resonate (Wamsler & Osberg, 2022).…”

“…Answering hypothesis testing or ‘what is’ questions, diagnosing problems and their causes may not necessarily translate into actionable knowledge or provide solution-options to solving a problem. Maintaining humility regarding the capacity of transformative research to offer solution-options is necessary, seeing the entanglements between science, politics and the economy (Spiering & Barrera, 2021; van der Hel, 2018).…”

“…In turn, implementing new or other standards of how we define quality of research may shift the focus of knowledge production to incentivize research that catalyzes sustainability transformation (see 4.1, 6.3). Similarly, transformative research demands rethinking impact in terms of more diverse and expanded metrics of success encompassing social outcomes such as improved community relationships, social learning or trust building (Bergmann et al, 2021; Davies et al, 2021; Fischer et al, 2019; Karcher et al, 2021; Schneider et al, 2019a; Spiering & Barrera, 2021) and personal outcomes such as consciousness expansion (Woiwode et al, 2021) and mindfulness (Wamsler et al, 2021).…”