Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene

Goh Zhen; Van Breda John

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene

Goh Zhen, Van Breda John

Published in International Journal of Sustainable Development Research (Volume 8, Issue 2)

Received: 30 March 2022 Accepted: 19 April 2022 Published: 12 May 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Undertaking sustainability transitions during the Anthropocene entails complex processes, since it implies co-producing transformative knowledge for many different kinds of socio-ecological contexts that are not just different in degree, but different in kind – i.e. ontologically different. Transformative knowledge is not only about co-producing strategic knowledge of how to navigate different future scenarios practically, taking us from where we are to where we want to be in future. Inextricably linked to this are ethical questions and choices related to the many different ways to act appropriately, fairly and justly on the journey (processes) of transitioning. Inaction in the Anthropocene is arguably the most unethical response imaginable. From a methodological perspective, this is a truly trans-disciplinary challenge. However, trans-disciplinarity is by no means as a methodological panacea. It is much better to imagine trans-disciplinarity as one amongst a number of context- or domain-relevant methodological responses – including mono-, multi- and inter-disciplinarity – on the understanding that trans-disciplinarity is much more specifically focused on and interested in tackling societal challenges that are considered too complex to be addressed strictly from within discrete boundaries of the single disciplines. The methodological agility implied by this should not, however, be confused with the much more onerous Kuhnian notion of ‘paradigm switching’, which is simply too arduous an undertaking for the nimbleness required when facing ever-changing problem situations in the Anthropocene today. In view of the above, the fundamental focus of this paper is on developing such an agile transdisciplinary methodology – with an explicit interest in contributing to the understanding of ways of facilitating the sustainability transitions in the context of the Anthropocene today.

Published in	International Journal of Sustainable Development Research (Volume 8, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13
Page(s)	41-51
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Trans-disciplinarity, Methodology, Methodological Agility, Complexity, Sustainability Transitions, Anthropocene

References

[1]	Althusser, L., 2005. For Marx. Verso, London.
[2]	Aristotle, 1961. Aristotle’s Physics. U of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
[3]	Bai, Z., Wong, W.-K., Zhang, B., 2010. Multivariate linear and nonlinear causality tests. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 81, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2010.06.008
[4]	Bateson, G., 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[5]	Beck, U., 2015. Emancipatory catastrophism: What does it mean to climate change and risk society? Current Sociology 63, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392114559951
[6]	Bhaskar, R., Esbjö-Hargens, S., Hertwig, M., Hedlund, N., 2019. The Need for Integrative Meta-Theory, in: Meta-Theory for the Anthropocene. Routledge, London.
[7]	Boulton, J. G., Allen, P. M., Bowman, C., 2015. Embracing Complexity: Strategic Perspectives for an Age of Turbulence. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[8]	Bourdieu, P., 2008. Structures, Habitus, Practices.
[9]	Braidotti, R., 2005. Rhizomes: Issue 11/12: [WWW Document]. URL http://www.rhizomes.net/issue11/braidotti.html (accessed 10.19.16).
[10]	Camic, C., Gross, M., and Lamont, M. 2011. “Introduction” in C. Camic, N. Gross and M. Lamont, eds., Social Knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[11]	Cetina, K. K., Schatzki, T. R., Savigny, E. von, 2005. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Routledge.
[12]	Chandler, D., 2018. Ontopolitics in the Anthropocene: An Introduction to Mapping, Sensing and Hacking. Routledge.
[13]	Ciborra, C. U., Lanzara, G. F., 1994. Formative contexts and information technology: Understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations. Accounting, management and information technologies 4, 61–86.
[14]	Cilliers, P., 2008. 3.1 Knowing Complex Systems: The Limits of Understanding. A Vision of Transdisciplinarity: Laying Foundations for a World Knowledge Dialogue 43.
[15]	Cohen, M. D., Axelrod, R., 2000. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. Simon and Schuster, New York City.
[16]	Colchester, J., 2016. Nonlinear Feedback Loops. Complexity Labs. URL http://complexitylabs.io/nonlinear-feedback-loops/ (accessed 5.4.18).
[17]	Costa, C., Murphy, M., 2015. Bourdieu, Habitus and Social Research: The Art of Application. Springer, New York City.
[18]	Crawford, J. B., Mills, A. J., 2009. The Formative Context of Organizational Hierarchies and Discourse: Implications for Organizational Change and Gender Relations. Gender, Work & Organization. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00470.x
[19]	Crutzen, P. J., others, 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415, 23–23.
[20]	Deleuze, G., Guattari, F., 2004. EPZ Thousand Plateaus. A&C Black.
[21]	Derrida, J., 1993. Aporias: Dying--awaiting (one Another At) the “limits of Truth” (mourir--s’attendre Aux “limites de la Vérité”). Stanford University Press.
[22]	Derrida, J., 2002. “Force of Law: the “Mystical Foundation of Authority”, in G. Anidjar, ed., Acts fo Religion, Routledge.
[23]	Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P., 2017. Distributed Agency. Oxford University Press.
[24]	Funtowicz, S. O., Ravetz, J. R., 1994. Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal 13, 1881–1885.
[25]	Garfinkel, H., 1991. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Wiley, New Jersey.
[26]	Genosko, G., 2001. Deleuze and Guattari: Deleuze and Guattari. Taylor & Francis, Oxfordshire.
[27]	Goh, Z, 2012. Understanding Cynefin through Social Theory. Cognitive-Edge Vol. 10.
[28]	Goh, Z., 2021. Cynefin. Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd, Singapore.
[29]	Goh, Z., 2020. “Cynefin and…” in Greenberg, R. and Bertsch, B., eds., Cynefin: Weaving sense making into the fabric of our world. Cognitive Edge.
[30]	Hutchins, E., 1991. The social organization of distributed cognition. American Psychological Association 283–307.
[31]	Juarrero, 1998. Causality as Constraint, in: Evolutionary Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 233–242.
[32]	Juarrero, A., 2010. Complex Dynamical Systems Theory.
[33]	Juarrero, A., 2002. Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System. MIT Press.
[34]	Kafatos, F., Eisner, T, 2004. Unification in the Century of Biology, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
[35]	Knorr Cetina, 2001. Objectual practice. Routledge.
[36]	Knorr-Cetina, K. D., 2013. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Elsevier.
[37]	Kuhn, T. S., 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition. University of Chicago Press.
[38]	Latour, B., 2017. Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. John Wiley & Sons.
[39]	Latour, B., 2012. Love Your Monsters in Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Journal.
[40]	Latour, B., 2007. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. OUP Oxford.
[41]	LLC, B., LLC, G. B., 2010. Reductionism: Occam’s Razor, Reductionism, Monism, Reduction, Type Physicalism, Dialectical Monism, Separation of Concerns. General Books.
[42]	Maani, K., 2016. Multi-Stakeholder Decision Making for Complex Problems: A Systems Thinking Approach with Cases. World Scientific.
[43]	Madigan, A. S., 1999. Aristotle Metaphysics: Books B and K1-2. Oxford University Press.
[44]	NAP, 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. https://doi.org/10.17226/11153.
[45]	Nicolescu, 2002. Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. Suny Press, New York.
[46]	Popper, K., 2005. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
[47]	Popper, K. R., 1979. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Clarendon Press.
[48]	Prigogine, I., Stengers, I., 2018. Order Out of Chaos. Verso Books.
[49]	Rosen, R., 2005. Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry Into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. Columbia University Press.
[50]	Scholz, R. W., 2011. Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to Decisions. Cambridge University Press.
[51]	Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., Stauffacher, M., 2006. Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7, 226–251.
[52]	Sober, E., 2015. Ockham’s Razors. Cambridge University Press.
[53]	Strathern, M., 2020. Relations. Duke University Press.
[54]	Snowden, D., 2007. A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard business review, Vol. 85, Issue 11.
[55]	Snowden, D., 2007. Bramble bushes in a thicket: Narrative and the intangibles of learning networks. Strategic networks: Learning to compete 121.
[56]	Snowden, D., 2016a. Ethnography Part I [WWW Document]. Cognitive Edge. URL /blog/ethnography-part-i/ (accessed 6.11.18).
[57]	Snowden, D., 2016b. Ethnography Part II [WWW Document]. Cognitive Edge. URL /blog/ethnography-part-ii/ (accessed 6.11.18).
[58]	Swilling, M., 2019. The Sustainability Revolution: Just Transitions in a Complex World. Routledge.
[59]	Unger, R. M., 2014. What is Wrong with the Social Sciences Today? [WWW Document]. URL http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/01/roberto-mangabeira-unger-what-is-wrong-with-the-social-sciences-today/ (accessed 7.25.16).
[60]	Unger, R. M., 1998. Democracy Realized: The Progressive Alternative. Verso.
[61]	Zlomislic, M., 2007. Aporetic Ethics. Lexington Books.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Goh Zhen, Van Breda John. (2022). Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene. International Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 8(2), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Goh Zhen; Van Breda John. Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2022, 8(2), 41-51. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Goh Zhen, Van Breda John. Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene. Int J Sustain Dev Res. 2022;8(2):41-51. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13,
  author = {Goh Zhen and Van Breda John},
  title = {Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development Research},
  volume = {8},
  number = {2},
  pages = {41-51},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsdr.20220802.13},
  abstract = {Undertaking sustainability transitions during the Anthropocene entails complex processes, since it implies co-producing transformative knowledge for many different kinds of socio-ecological contexts that are not just different in degree, but different in kind – i.e. ontologically different. Transformative knowledge is not only about co-producing strategic knowledge of how to navigate different future scenarios practically, taking us from where we are to where we want to be in future. Inextricably linked to this are ethical questions and choices related to the many different ways to act appropriately, fairly and justly on the journey (processes) of transitioning. Inaction in the Anthropocene is arguably the most unethical response imaginable. From a methodological perspective, this is a truly trans-disciplinary challenge. However, trans-disciplinarity is by no means as a methodological panacea. It is much better to imagine trans-disciplinarity as one amongst a number of context- or domain-relevant methodological responses – including mono-, multi- and inter-disciplinarity – on the understanding that trans-disciplinarity is much more specifically focused on and interested in tackling societal challenges that are considered too complex to be addressed strictly from within discrete boundaries of the single disciplines. The methodological agility implied by this should not, however, be confused with the much more onerous Kuhnian notion of ‘paradigm switching’, which is simply too arduous an undertaking for the nimbleness required when facing ever-changing problem situations in the Anthropocene today. In view of the above, the fundamental focus of this paper is on developing such an agile transdisciplinary methodology – with an explicit interest in contributing to the understanding of ways of facilitating the sustainability transitions in the context of the Anthropocene today.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene
AU  - Goh Zhen
AU  - Van Breda John
Y1  - 2022/05/12
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
SP  - 41
EP  - 51
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1832
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13
AB  - Undertaking sustainability transitions during the Anthropocene entails complex processes, since it implies co-producing transformative knowledge for many different kinds of socio-ecological contexts that are not just different in degree, but different in kind – i.e. ontologically different. Transformative knowledge is not only about co-producing strategic knowledge of how to navigate different future scenarios practically, taking us from where we are to where we want to be in future. Inextricably linked to this are ethical questions and choices related to the many different ways to act appropriately, fairly and justly on the journey (processes) of transitioning. Inaction in the Anthropocene is arguably the most unethical response imaginable. From a methodological perspective, this is a truly trans-disciplinary challenge. However, trans-disciplinarity is by no means as a methodological panacea. It is much better to imagine trans-disciplinarity as one amongst a number of context- or domain-relevant methodological responses – including mono-, multi- and inter-disciplinarity – on the understanding that trans-disciplinarity is much more specifically focused on and interested in tackling societal challenges that are considered too complex to be addressed strictly from within discrete boundaries of the single disciplines. The methodological agility implied by this should not, however, be confused with the much more onerous Kuhnian notion of ‘paradigm switching’, which is simply too arduous an undertaking for the nimbleness required when facing ever-changing problem situations in the Anthropocene today. In view of the above, the fundamental focus of this paper is on developing such an agile transdisciplinary methodology – with an explicit interest in contributing to the understanding of ways of facilitating the sustainability transitions in the context of the Anthropocene today.
VL  - 8
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Goh Zhen

Emerginarium Pte Ltd, Singapore
Van Breda John

Centre for Sustainaibility Transitions, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Goh Zhen, Van Breda John. (2022). Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene. International Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 8(2), 41-51. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Goh Zhen; Van Breda John. Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2022, 8(2), 41-51. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Goh Zhen, Van Breda John. Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene. Int J Sustain Dev Res. 2022;8(2):41-51. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13,
  author = {Goh Zhen and Van Breda John},
  title = {Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development Research},
  volume = {8},
  number = {2},
  pages = {41-51},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsdr.20220802.13},
  abstract = {Undertaking sustainability transitions during the Anthropocene entails complex processes, since it implies co-producing transformative knowledge for many different kinds of socio-ecological contexts that are not just different in degree, but different in kind – i.e. ontologically different. Transformative knowledge is not only about co-producing strategic knowledge of how to navigate different future scenarios practically, taking us from where we are to where we want to be in future. Inextricably linked to this are ethical questions and choices related to the many different ways to act appropriately, fairly and justly on the journey (processes) of transitioning. Inaction in the Anthropocene is arguably the most unethical response imaginable. From a methodological perspective, this is a truly trans-disciplinary challenge. However, trans-disciplinarity is by no means as a methodological panacea. It is much better to imagine trans-disciplinarity as one amongst a number of context- or domain-relevant methodological responses – including mono-, multi- and inter-disciplinarity – on the understanding that trans-disciplinarity is much more specifically focused on and interested in tackling societal challenges that are considered too complex to be addressed strictly from within discrete boundaries of the single disciplines. The methodological agility implied by this should not, however, be confused with the much more onerous Kuhnian notion of ‘paradigm switching’, which is simply too arduous an undertaking for the nimbleness required when facing ever-changing problem situations in the Anthropocene today. In view of the above, the fundamental focus of this paper is on developing such an agile transdisciplinary methodology – with an explicit interest in contributing to the understanding of ways of facilitating the sustainability transitions in the context of the Anthropocene today.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Methodological Agility for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research on Sustainability Transitions in the Context of the Anthropocene
AU  - Goh Zhen
AU  - Van Breda John
Y1  - 2022/05/12
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
SP  - 41
EP  - 51
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1832
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.13
AB  - Undertaking sustainability transitions during the Anthropocene entails complex processes, since it implies co-producing transformative knowledge for many different kinds of socio-ecological contexts that are not just different in degree, but different in kind – i.e. ontologically different. Transformative knowledge is not only about co-producing strategic knowledge of how to navigate different future scenarios practically, taking us from where we are to where we want to be in future. Inextricably linked to this are ethical questions and choices related to the many different ways to act appropriately, fairly and justly on the journey (processes) of transitioning. Inaction in the Anthropocene is arguably the most unethical response imaginable. From a methodological perspective, this is a truly trans-disciplinary challenge. However, trans-disciplinarity is by no means as a methodological panacea. It is much better to imagine trans-disciplinarity as one amongst a number of context- or domain-relevant methodological responses – including mono-, multi- and inter-disciplinarity – on the understanding that trans-disciplinarity is much more specifically focused on and interested in tackling societal challenges that are considered too complex to be addressed strictly from within discrete boundaries of the single disciplines. The methodological agility implied by this should not, however, be confused with the much more onerous Kuhnian notion of ‘paradigm switching’, which is simply too arduous an undertaking for the nimbleness required when facing ever-changing problem situations in the Anthropocene today. In view of the above, the fundamental focus of this paper is on developing such an agile transdisciplinary methodology – with an explicit interest in contributing to the understanding of ways of facilitating the sustainability transitions in the context of the Anthropocene today.
VL  - 8
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download