Synthesis Report - European Science Foundation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16Responses to Environmental and Societal Challenges for our Unstable Earth (RESCUE)the private sector, and public agencies – is accentuatedby Cash et al. (2003), speaking of “knowledgesystems for sustainable development”. Such aknowledge system* spans the boundary betweenscience and other sectors of society, as well as thegap between knowledge and action. In their analysisof such knowledge systems, Cash et al. (2003,p.8086-8) found “that efforts to mobilize S&T forsustainability are more likely to be effective whenthey manage boundaries between knowledge andaction in ways that simultaneously enhance the salience,credibility, and legitimacy of the informationthey produce”. There are alternative methodologicaland institutional approaches of how to create suchknowledge systems or co-production of knowledge,like specialised boundary organisations (Guston,2001) or transdisciplinary research processes (e.g.,Klein, 1996; Pohl, 2008). Three specific pointsshould get due attention in such processes of co-producingknowledge: problem framing, integrationand implementation.Table 1 points to the differences between differenttypes of research in terms of disciplinaryorientation, aims, methods used and approachestaken. Transdisciplinarity is in the right-hand columnand much of the research called for in responseto the challenges of an unstable Earth is of theimplementation-oriented type, bridging the gapbetween knowledge and action.Many barriers to effective working across theinterface between science and policy and widersociety have already been identified – and solutionsproposed – by academics and research funders, butthey tend to focus on just one dimension or targetaudience. The challenges of cross-boundary workingare also well-recognised outside of the researchcontext: businesses are especially attuned to theneed to tackle internal cultural issues because failureto do so has a direct bearing on capacity to meetcustomer needs.It is necessary to acknowledge the deeply embeddednorms and power relations of the knowledgesystem in which we currently operate. These relateto the actual structure and functioning of researchendeavours within its boundaries – and how theseboundaries are managed by researchers and otherstakeholders. They also affect the relationshipsbetween research and policy makers and, morebroadly, between research and the overall societyin which science is embedded.Good Practice Example:Awards for transdisciplinary researchLocation: SwitzerlandMain actors involved: Stiftung Mercator SchweizTime frame: Initiated in 2003, awarded every2 yearsDescription: Every two years, the td-net fortransdisciplinary research grants the SwissAcademies award for transdisciplinary researchto an outstanding transdisciplinary researchproject by an individual or a researchgroup. The award amounts to CHF 75,000.Impact: Provide recognition for those who gobeyond their disciplinary boundaries and engagewith a wide range of other societal actorsin their research.More information: cms.stiftung-mercator.ch/cms/front_content.php?idcat=134New tools, methods and dataGlobal change poses unprecedented challengesto both the science and policy communities, andthese are challenges that cannot be tackled withconcepts and methods developed and applied inthe past. Both the environmental and the socialsciences have sought to address these challenges,the former through the development of EarthSystem science (e.g., Schellnhuber, 1999; Steffen etal., 2004) and the latter through critical analysisof processes of globalisation (e.g., Amin and Thrift,1994). However, these alternative conceptualisationshave not been integrated, despite recognition thatnew forms of inter- and transdisciplinary knowledgecreation, and new forms of inquiry, are needed. Infact, despite the need expressed in the AmsterdamDeclaration (2001) to move towards a more integratedperspective, the research agenda of globalchange programmes continues to be framed anddominated by the natural sciences. In their summaryof insights from the ICSU visioning exercise,Reid et al. (2010) pointed out that the most pressingresearch questions were quite different from thosethat initially shaped global change programmes,and that the social sciences and humanities mustplay a central role in the next phase of global changeresearch. This becomes all the more necessary asthe balance of attention shifts from defining theimpacts of human activities on the environment toidentifying pathways for societal change.Research methods are needed that allow integratedstudy of pertinent, individual/behavioural,
Basic researchClassical sectoral disciplinesEmphasis on expandingknowledgeApplied researchEngineering sciencesProduct orientationImplementation- and targetorientedresearchSustainability scienceGoal orientationProblem definitionsand discoveriesMono-disciplinary researchTop-down methodstheory – practiceTeams internal to scienceorganisationTechnical concept,products, processesInterdisciplinarityTop-down and / or bottom-upCooperation with industryHolistic solutions and strategiesInter-, multi- and transdisciplinarityBottom-up and top-downpractical researchStakeholder involvementEducation ofnext-generation scientistsPrototype developmentTable 1. The different kinds of research (Source: Moll and Zander, 2006)social and natural processes and their respectiveconsequences for each other. This suggests a renegotiationof the relationship between the humanities,social and environmental sciences that can fosternew research agendas suited to the policy requirementsfor the challenges of global change. Much hasbeen written on the problems and research questionsto be addressed in global change research, but farless attention has been devoted to the requirementsfor methodologies, methods and knowledge, datato address these challenges. A lack of appropriatemethodologies and knowledge is a key bottleneckin dealing with the global change challenges.There are powerful forces that maintain a strongresearch focus on the paradigmatic scientific role ofclimate and climate change, although global changeis ‘felt’ more through real (as opposed to global,average statistical) phenomena that are local (suchas water and food quality and availability), andthere are other global challenges (such as biodiversitydecline or energy and raw material availability).There are also deeply embedded assumptions thatphysical-numerical, computational models constitutea core technology to support policy, and thatquantitative data are to be prioritised relative toqualitative evidence, information and value-ladenjudgement. Incorporating human values, environmentalethics and social justice into the conventionalparadigm for analysis requires a radical adjustmentof worldview and scientific method (e.g., Hardin,1968; KLSC, 2011). There are also key assumptionsModels and instruments to supportdecision-making processesabout the relationship between science and policy(see also the previous section) – a belief that ‘sciencespeaks truth to power’ remains embedded in spite ofthe evidence of a much more nuanced, convolutedand globally diverse set of relationships.Methodologies in global change research needto be evaluated according to their inclusivenessand an absence of a priori framing that preventsthe integration of some kinds of knowledge. In thisrespect the dominance of large simulation models inglobal change research has to be assessed critically.Such models follow largely a positivist approach17and exclude certain traditions in the humanitiesand social sciences that follow more an interpretativeparadigm. The latter paradigm emphasisesembeddedness in contexts shaped by cultural, political,economic, social and institutional factors. Itoften employs qualitative methods and adopts an‘action research’18 perspective rather than that of17. Positivists believe that social reality is stable and can beobserved and described from an objective scientific viewpoint(Levin, 1988), i.e., without interfering with the phenomena beingstudied. Interpretivists contend that only through the subjectiveinterpretation of and intervention in reality can that reality be fullyunderstood. They look for meanings and motives behind people’sactions like behaviour or interaction with others. They criticisepositivists, because statistics and numbers cannot tell much abouthuman’s behaviour and sociology is not seen as a science.See www.sociology.org.uk/revgrm5.pdf, pjlor.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/chapter-3-draft-2011-04-152.pdf, www.justinkitzes.com/pubs/Khagram2010_EnviroCons.pdf, www.is.cityu.edu.hk/staff/isrobert/phd/ch3.pdf18. Action research is a reflective process of progressive problemsolving led by individuals working with others in teams or as part17Responses to Environmental and Societal Challenges for our Unstable Earth (RESCUE)
Page 5 and 6: Forewordl l lThe world is currently
Page 8 and 9: 6Responses to Environmental and Soc
Page 11 and 12: 1.Introductionl l lHumankind is cur
Page 13 and 14: 11Figure 2.RESCUE word cloudin a vi
Page 15 and 16: Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR)10
Page 20 and 21: © Thinkstock© Thinkstock18Respons
Page 22 and 23: 20Responses to Environmental and So
Page 28 and 29: 3.The RESCUE Visionl l l26 The chal
Page 30 and 31: Socio-EconomicReferenceSystemBuilt
Page 34 and 35: © AFP32Responses to Environmental
Page 36: Network for Innovation (GUNI)35 are
Page 39: 5.Recommendationsl l lIn order to m
Page 45: Annexes43Responses to Environmental
Page 48 and 49: Annex 1. Composition of the RESCUE
Page 50 and 51: Annex 3 Definitions of types of res
Page 52 and 53: Annex 5. Glossary50Responses to Env
Page 54 and 55: Annex 5. GlossarySustainable develo
Page 56 and 57: References54Responses to Environmen
Page 62: ISBN: 978-2-918428-56-5Printing: Ir

Synthesis Report - European Science Foundation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?