Transformative change, defined as a “fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values” (IPBES, 2019, p. XVIII), is now widely acknowledged as being best supported through transdisciplinary collaborations (Caniglia et al., 2021; Fisher et al., 2022). However, transdisciplinary transformative change initiatives (TTCIs) rarely achieve the paradigmatic changes they aim to deliver (Chambers et al., 2022; Turnhout and Lahsen, 2022). A major cause of this failure has been identified as a lack of common framing of the problem (Brandt et al., 2013; Fisher et al., 2022; Fougères et al., 2022). In other words, due to the different ‘languages’ understood by participants in TTCIs, such initiatives rarely achieve common understandings of the problem they seek to address, and therefore the solutions they aim to develop. While TTCIs have had success in reaching common understandings among natural scientists and non-academic partners, the role of social scientists continues to elude such initiatives (Abson et al., 2017; Chambers et al., 2022). And while some forms of social science (e.g. psychology, economics) are increasingly successfully integrated, critical social scientists – those who use critical theoretical perspectives on structural knowledge/power dynamics and their causal links with socioecological problems - continue to find themselves on the outside of TTCIs (Massarella et al., 2021).
As a part of the Swiss National Science Foundation funded project “Translating Transformations” we are combining sustainability science with political ecology and practitioner knowledge to devise strategies and tools for promoting critical social science (CSS) literacy in TTCIs. We are currently in the first phase of the project where we are conducting ex-post analyses, via questionnaires and interviews, of the transdisciplinary elements of two Swiss programs (ValPar.CH and the University Research Priority Program on Global Change and Biodiversity [URPP GCB]). In our next phase, we plan to develop CSS literacy tools and strategies (henceforth ‘tools’) based on our findings. In this workshop, we hope to test some initial tools that help transdisciplinary researchers think about the role of systems of power in defining a problem and consequently how this limits our ability to co-develop unconventional solutions.
Additionally, for sessions, workshops and trainings:
Workshop objectives
• Advancing understandings of critical social science (CSS) and its potential for enhancing ITD research and practices
• Testing and exchanging on initial CSS literacy tools as part of our iterative co-development process
• Improving reflexivity on structural power dynamics that act as barriers to transformative change
• Initiating collaborations and long term exchanges on the continued development and dissemination of open source CSS literacy tools
Proposed schedule
1. (0’-15’) Introduction to the project/concept
2. (15’-25’) Pre-assessment survey
3. (25’-35’) Introduction to tool(s) and instructions
4. (35’-60’) Experimenting with the tool(s)
5. (60’-85’) Guided discussion/feedback/wrap-up
6. (85’-90’) Post-assessment survey
Detailed description
1) Introduction to the concept. We will provide information on the background of the project, the definition of “critical social science,” and the concept behind the CSS literacy tools.
2) Pre-assessment survey. We will ask participants to take a brief questionnaire on their experience with CSS, and their understanding of structural power dynamics and how these effect ITD processes and outcomes.
3) Introduction to tool(s) and instructions. We will divide the participants into groups of 4-6 and will provide specific information and instructions for each tool.
4) Experimenting with the tool(s). We will allow the participants to work with their assigned tool as we circulate and answer questions.
5) Guided discussion/feedback/wrap-up. We will bring everyone back to the plenary to discuss their experiences with each tool and ask for feedback with guided questions such as:
a. To what extent do you think the tool accomplished its purpose?
b. Which aspects of the tool added to its success and which did not?
c. How could the tool be improved?
d. How comfortable did you feel using the tool and how might we improve users’ ability to provide a safe space for experimenting with the tool?
We will then wrap-up the discussion and thank the participants before asking them to fill out another brief questionnaire.
6) Post-assessment survey. We will ask participants to take another brief questionnaire that we will design to assess any changes in perceptions on CSS and understandings of structural power dynamics and their role in creating barriers to transformative change.
1–3 key readings (optional)
Deutsch, S., Keller, R., Krug, C.B., Michel, A.H. (2023). Transdisciplinary transformative change: An analysis of some best practices and barriers, and the potential of critical social science in getting us there. Biodivers. Conserv. 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02576-0
Turnhout, E., Lahsen, M., 2022. Transforming environmental research to avoid tragedy. Clim. Dev. 1–5. 10.1080/17565529.2022.2062287
References cited
Abson, D.J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., Von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C.D., Jager, N.W., 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39. 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y
Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D.J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson, D.J., Von Wehrden, H., 2013. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol. Econ. 92, 1–15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008
Caniglia, G., Luederitz, C., von Wirth, T., Fazey, I., Martin-López, B., Hondrila, K., König, A., von Wehrden, H., Schäpke, N.A., Laubichler, M.D., 2021. A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 93–100. 10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z
Chambers, J.M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N.L., Ryan, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N.J., Brennan, R., Charli-Joseph, L., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Galvin, K.A., 2022. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Glob. Environ. Chang. 72, 102422. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422
Fisher, E., Brondizio, E., Boyd, E., 2022. Critical social science perspectives on transformations to sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 55, 101160. 10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101160
Fougères, D., Jones, M., McElwee, P.D., Andrade, A., Edwards, S.R., 2022. Transformative conservation of ecosystems. Glob. Sustain. 5. 10.1017/sus.2022.4
IPBES, 2019. UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating.’ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/
Massarella, K., Nygren, A., Fletcher, R., Büscher, B., Kiwango, W.A., Komi, S., Krauss, J.E., Mabele, M.B., McInturff, A., Sandroni, L.T., 2021. Transformation beyond conservation: How critical social science can contribute to a radical new agenda in biodiversity conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 49, 79–87. 10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.005
Turnhout, E., Lahsen, M., 2022. Transforming environmental research to avoid tragedy. Clim. Dev. 1–5. 10.1080/17565529.2022.2062287
