Transdisciplinary Research and Sustainability: Collaboration, Innovation and Transformation 9781138216402, 9781315441481

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
List of figures
List of tables
List of boxes
List of contributors
Series editors’ foreword
Preface
1 Introduction: transdisciplinarity for sustainability
Part I Understanding sustainability science as challenge and necessity
2 A transdisciplinary approach to the process of socio-technical transformation: the case of German Energiewende
3 Real-world laboratories as an institutionalisation of the new social contract between science and society
4 Transdisciplinarity in social-ecological research: constraints, challenges and opportunities: reflections on personal experience
Part II Cooperating with partners of practice
5 From the plurality of transdisciplinarity to concrete transdisciplinary methods: the case of PoNa and its dialogue with practitioners on a picture discourse analysis
6 Social learning videos: a method for successful collaboration between science and practice
7 Developing landscape scenarios and identifying local management options: outcomes and evaluation of a participatory approach in the Swabian Alb, Germany
Part III Pursuing methodological innovations for transdisciplinarity
8 This is the case (study) – so what? Reflections on a constitutive tension in sustainability science
9 Facilitating change: methodologies for collaborative learning with stakeholders
10 Dream team or evil twins? International tandems in transdisciplinary research
Part IV Policy interface: creating dialogues with policy makers
11 Die Landforscher: independent researchers networking for sustainable agriculture
12 Prospective scenario planning in collaborative transdisciplinary research
13 Challenging futures – concepts for engaging with dynamics of policy instrument design
14 Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity
Index

Citation preview

Transdisciplinary Research and Sustainability

Transdisciplinarity is a new way of scientifically meeting the challenges of sustainability. Indeed, interdisciplinary collaboration and co-operation with non-academic ‘practice partners’ is at the core of this; creating contextualised, socially relevant knowledge about complex real-world problems. Transdisciplinary Research and Sustainability breaks new ground by presenting transdisciplinary research in practice, drawing on recent advances by the vibrant transdisciplinary research communities in the German-speaking world. It describes methodological innovations developed to address wide-ranging contemporary issues including climate change adaptation, energy policy, sustainable agriculture and soil conservation. Furthermore, the authors reflect on the challenges involved in integrating non-academic actors in scientific research, on the tensions that arise in the encounter of theory and praxis, and on the inherently normative, political nature of sustainability research. Highlighting the need for academic institutions to be transformed to reflect transdisciplinarity, this timely volume will appeal to postgraduate students and postdoctoral researchers interested in fields such as Sustainability Science, Transdisciplinary Studies and Philosophy of Science. Martina Padmanabhan is W3 Chair of Comparative Development and ­Cultural Studies – Southeast Asia, University of Passau, Germany.

Routledge Studies in Environment, Culture, and Society Series editors: Bernhard Glaeser and Heike Egner

This series opens up a forum for advances in environmental studies relating to society and its social, cultural, and economic underpinnings. The underlying assumption guiding this series is that there is an important, and so far littleexplored, interaction between societal as well as cultural givens and the ways in which societies both create and respond to environmental issues. As such, this series encourages the exploration of the links between prevalent practices, beliefs and values, as differentially manifested in diverse societies, and the distinct ways in which those societies confront the environment. 1 Human-Nature Interactions in the Anthropocene Potentials of Social-Ecological Systems Analysis Edited by Marion Glaser, Gesche Krause, Beate M. W. Ratter and Martin Welp 2 Green Utopianism Perspectives, Politics and Micro-Practices Edited by Karin Bradley and Johan Hedrén 3 Learning and Calamities Practices, Interpretations, Patterns Edited by Heike Egner, Marén Schorch, and Martin Voss 4 Trading Environments Frontiers, Commercial Knowledge, and Environmental Transformation, 1750–1990 Edited by Gordon M.Winder and Andreas Dix 5 Transdisciplinary Research and Sustainability Collaboration, Innovation and Transformation Edited by Martina Padmanabhan

Transdisciplinary Research and Sustainability Collaboration, Innovation and Transformation Edited by Martina Padmanabhan

First published 2018 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 selection and editorial matter, Martina Padmanabhan; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Martina Padmanabhan to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-21640-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-44148-1 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

List of figuresviii List of tablesx List of boxesxi List of contributorsxii Series editors’ forewordxvi Prefacexviii   1 Introduction: transdisciplinarity for sustainability

1

MARTINA PADMANABHAN

PART I

Understanding sustainability science as challenge and necessity33   2 A transdisciplinary approach to the process of socio-technical transformation: the case of German Energiewende

35

ARMIN GRUNWALD

  3 Real-world laboratories as an institutionalisation of the new social contract between science and society

53

MANDY SINGER-BRODOWSKI, MATTHIAS WANNER AND UWE SCHNEIDEWIND

  4 Transdisciplinarity in social-ecological research: constraints, challenges and opportunities: reflections on personal experience SABINE HOFMEISTER

66

vi  Contents PART II

Cooperating with partners of practice83   5 From the plurality of transdisciplinarity to concrete transdisciplinary methods: the case of PoNa and its dialogue with practitioners on a picture discourse analysis

85

DANIELA GOTTSCHLICH AND JEDRZEJ SULMOWSKI

  6 Social learning videos: a method for successful collaboration between science and practice

111

PATRICIA FRY

  7 Developing landscape scenarios and identifying local management options: outcomes and evaluation of a participatory approach in the Swabian Alb, Germany

134

CLAUDIA BIELING, HOLGER GERDES, BETTINA OHNESORGE, TOBIAS PLIENINGER, HARALD SCHAICH, CHRISTIAN SCHLEYER, KATHRIN TROMMLER AND FRANZISKA WOLFF

PART III

Pursuing methodological innovations for transdisciplinarity151   8 This is the case (study) – so what? Reflections on a constitutive tension in sustainability science

153

RAFAEL ZIEGLER

  9 Facilitating change: methodologies for collaborative learning with stakeholders

171

ANJA CHRISTINCK AND BRIGITTE KAUFMANN

10 Dream team or evil twins? International tandems in transdisciplinary research

191

MARTINA PADMANABHAN

PART IV

Policy interface: creating dialogues with policy makers219 11 Die Landforscher: independent researchers networking for sustainable agriculture ANDREA FINK-KEßLER AND KARIN JÜRGENS

221

Contents vii

12 Prospective scenario planning in collaborative transdisciplinary research

241

INGO NEUMANN AND SONJA DEPPISCH

13 Challenging futures – concepts for engaging with dynamics of policy instrument design

267

CARSTEN MANN AND JAN-PETER VOß

14 Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity

290

MARTINA PADMANABHAN

Index308

Figures

3.1 5.1

Transformation of the German science system 59 Genetically modified maize depicted as ‘maize monsters’ in an image produced by anti-GMO campaigners 93 5.2–5.4 Examples of images produced by anti-GMO campaigns 95 5.5 Images of ‘unnatural’ apples used by anti-GMO campaigners97 5.6 ‘Monstrous’ image of GMOs used by anti-GMO campaigners98 5.7 Anti-GMO poster produced by the German Green Party 99 5.8 Anti-GMO image produced by the Federal Coordination of Internationalism (BUKO) Campaign against Biopiracy and the Campaign for Seed Sovereignty100 5.9 Anti-GMO image produced by the citizens’ movement ‘Campact’ (www.campact.de) 101 6.1 Multi-stakeholder group with members from public administration, science and practice exchanging experiences during an informal meeting in the work environment of a target group 116 6.2 Selected protagonists are filmed in an authentic work environment, allowing them to tell stories about successful actions 117 6.3 Social learning is triggered by organising film evenings for the target group and moderating the exchange of experiences 120 6.4 ‘Independent team manages a large summer dairy farm’ 122 6.5 ‘Non-intensive farming is worth it’ 124 6.6 ‘Innovative pasture management with dairy goats’ 125 6.7 ‘Organic agriculture in the mountains and the quality of landscape – a good combination’ 127 6.8 The work of Gran Alpin bears fruit 129 6.9 A pioneer farmer with a lot of know-how 130

Figures ix

7.1 7.2 7.3 10.1 12.1 12.2 12.3

Land-cover map and location of the Swabian Alb study area within Germany Swabian Alb landscape, Germany: orchard meadows with the Alb escarpment in the background Sub-group discussing management options to address the decline in pollinating insects Tandem design – inherent assumptions Stages of prospective scenario planning in SUR Rostock Four scenarios as possible images of the future of SUR Rostock Knowledge translation, knowledge transfer and knowledge transformation as three different but relating issues of knowledge creation

137 138 140 197 252 255 257

Tables

5.1 Maasen’s typology of transdisciplinarity (slightly amended) 88 5.2 Bad practices and good practices in anti-GMO campaigns identified by the PoNa science-policy dialogues 105 6.1 Contents of the DVD ‘From Farmer – To Farmer: Success Stories for Sustainable Land Use’ (2010) 119 6.2 Causes of implementation problems and the solutions coming from the Social Learning Videos method 130 7.1 Steps in participatory process of landscape scenario development and identification of local management options 141 9.1 Complementarity of farmers’ and scientists’ knowledge 174 10.1 Multiple memberships: intercultural and international composition of the transdisciplinary research team 199 11.1 Comparison of incomes of low-concentrate dairy enterprises232 12.1 Typology of scenario planning approaches 247 13.1 Overview of scenario characteristics for biodiversity offsets and banking futures 277

Boxes

5.1 Collaboration between researchers and practitioner partners in the PoNa project 6.1 DVDs showing Swiss farmers’ success stories produced by the project ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’ and subsequent follow-up projects 6.2 Quotations from a questionnaire carried out at a Swiss agricultural college 9.1 Stakeholder analysis 9.2 Institutionalising collaboration 9.3 Situation and problem analysis 9.4 Agreement on goals and priorities 9.5 Participatory monitoring and evaluation 13.1 Scenario 1 – Towards interlinked biodiversity markets 13.2 Scenario 2 – Unique political natures 13.3 Scenario 3 – The game changer: GenCalc technology

91 121 123 178 179 181 182 184 277 278 280

Contributors

Claudia Bieling is Professor for Societal Transition and Agriculture at University of Hohenheim, Germany. She worked in a social-ecological research group on ecosystem services in Central-European cultural landscapes and researches human-nature interactions, management of human-shaped environments and nonmaterial landscape values in transition towards sustainability. [email protected] Anja Christinck has worked as a freelance consultant, trainer and researcher in the field of agricultural social sciences (www.seed4change.de) for more than 15 years. She joined the Social-Ecology Research Group of the German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture (DITSL) in Witzenhausen in 2013. [email protected]; [email protected] Sonja Deppisch heads the research theme ‘Global Change & Land-Use Strategies’ at HafenCity University Hamburg (HCU) in Germany. Previously, she headed the social-ecological research group ‘plan B:altic’ at HCU. She obtained a PhD in planning and holds a degree in landscape planning. sonja. [email protected] Andrea Fink-Keßler is a freelance agricultural scientist, founder of the Office for Agricultural and Rural Development and Associate Lecturer at the Faculty of Organic Agricultural Science, Kassel University. Her expertise is at the interface of agriculture, food production, European agricultural policy and regional development. [email protected] Patricia Fry heads the company Wissensmanagement Umwelt, dedicated to advancing knowledge exchange between research, administration and practice. She received her PhD in 2000 and lectures at the ETH Zurich. She was head of knowledge exchange for the National Research Programme 61 in Sustainable Water Management. [email protected] Holger Gerdes is a Senior Fellow at Ecologic Institute in Berlin. He works on the economic valuation of ecosystem services and the socio-economic implications of environmental change. He focuses on the integration of the value of natural capital into decision-making tools such as cost-benefit analysis. [email protected]

Contributors xiii

Daniela Gottschlich is currently Visiting Professor for Economic and Social Geography at the University Trier, working on political ecology issues. She holds a PhD in political science from Osnabruck University. She co-led the social-ecological research group ‘PoNa – Shaping Nature’ at Leuphana University of Lüneburg. [email protected] Armin Grunwald is Director of the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) and Professor of Philosophy and Ethics of Technology at Karlsruhe University. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics from Cologne University. He works on technology assessment and sustainable development. [email protected] Andrew Halliday has an MSc in Protected Landscape Management and more than 25 years’ experience relating to sustainable development: as project manager for non-governmental organisations in South America, consultant, Associate Lecturer at the Open University (UK) and, currently, as a freelance editor and writer. [email protected] Sabine Hofmeister is Professor for Environmental Planning at the Institute for Sustainability Governance, Leuphana University of Lüneburg. She received her PhD and Habilitation in environmental management and resource planning from the Technical University of Berlin. She researches on social ecology and gender and sustainability. [email protected] Karin Jürgens is a freelance agricultural engineer and rural sociologist. She heads the Office for Rural Sociology and Agriculture. Her current research and activities are focused on the developments and problems in the dairy sector (including production, processing, marketing and EU policy). [email protected] Brigitte Kaufmann is Professor for Social-Ecology of Tropical and Subtropical Land-Use Systems at the University of Hohenheim and is the Director of Research of DITSL. She conducts transdisciplinary research in areas of food security, resource management and inclusive value chain development. [email protected] Carsten Mann is Professor for Sustainable Forest Resource Economics at the University for Sustainable Development, Eberswalde. He holds a PhD in forest and environmental sciences and a Habilitation in resource economics. He combines concepts of social-ecology with sociology, institutional analysis and ecological economics. [email protected] Ingo Neumann is a city developer and project manager at STEG Stadtentwicklung, an urban renewal agency in Stuttgart. He manages transdisciplinary scenario planning processes. His research interests are in the fields of strategy making, scenario planning and local knowledge creation. ingo.neu [email protected] Bettina Ohnesorge is Scientific Officer at the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, based at the International Academy for Nature

xiv  Contributors

Conservation on the Isle of Vilm. As a member of its social-ecological research project on ecosystem services, she focused on the spatial distribution of land-use change. [email protected] Martina Padmanabhan holds the Chair of Comparative Development and Cultural Studies with focus on Southeast Asia at Passau University. She received a PhD in agricultural sciences from Göttingen University and a Habilitation for rural sociology from Humboldt University Berlin. martina. [email protected] Tobias Plieninger is Associate Professor at the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. He holds a PhD in forest and environmental sciences and is interested in the driving forces, processes, and patterns of changes in human-shaped landscapes. [email protected] Harald Schaich is Head of Environmental Planning, Landscape Ecology and Nature Conservation Department at the Environmental Protection Agency, Freiburg. He was Assistant Professor at Institute for Landscape Management at the University of Freiburg and researches on dynamics, ecosystem services, and conservation strategies in cultural landscapes. harald.schaich@ stadt.freiburg.de Christian Schleyer is Senior Researcher at the Section of International Agricultural Policy and Environmental Governance at the University of Kassel. As an ecological and institutional economist, he works on sustainable use of natural resources such as water, soil, and biodiversity within social-ecologicaltechnical systems. [email protected] Uwe Schneidewind is President of the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, and Professor for Sustainable Transition Management at the University of Wuppertal. He is member of the Club of Rome, the German Advisory Council on Global Change and the Sustainability Transitions Research Network. [email protected] Mandy Singer-Brodowski received her PhD from Leuphana University of Lüneburg. She worked at the Wuppertal Institute and as Scientific Coordinator of the Center for Transformation Research and Sustainability at the University of Wuppertal. Currently she is employed at the Free University of Berlin. [email protected] Jedrzej Sulmowski is Research Fellow at the University of Oldenburg, studying reflexive responsibilisation in a sustainability context. He was member of the research group ‘PoNa – Shaping Nature’ at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg, where he received his PhD on the public controversy on genetically modified organisms. [email protected] Kathrin Trommler works at the Geography Department of Humboldt University of Berlin. She was member of a social-ecological research group on

Contributors xv

ecosystem services in Central-European cultural landscapes. She works as a research manager in the field of land system dynamics and sustainable land systems. [email protected] Jan-Peter Voß is Head of the Sociology of Politics Unit at the Technical University of Berlin, working on politics, knowledge and sustainability from a ‘sociology of governance’ perspective. He studies how modes of authority generation such as politics and science intertwine and co-produce collective orders. [email protected] Matthias Wanner studied psychology and political sciences at the University of Münster. He worked with the German Advisory Council on Global Change and is research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center for Transformation Research and Sustainability in Wuppertal, focusing on transformative research practices in real-world laboratories. [email protected] Franziska Wolff is Head of the Environmental Law & Governance division at the Oeko-Institut, Germany. With a background in political science and economics, she is involved in policy consultancy work and research on sustainability governance, environmental policy instruments, policy evaluation and discourse analysis. [email protected] Rafael Ziegler coordinates the social-ecological research group GETIDOS at Greifswald University. With a background in political philosophy, environmental ethics and philosophy of science, he seeks to follow the GETIDOS maxim – GEtting ThIngs DOne Sustainably – in research and education around social innovations and water. [email protected]

Series editors’ foreword

The book series Routledge Studies in Environment, Culture and Society (RSECS) offers a platform for advances in environmental studies relating to society and its social, cultural and economic underpinnings. The underlying assumption guiding this series is that there is an important and so far little explored interaction between societal and cultural givens and the ways in which societies both create and respond to environmental issues. As such, this series encourages the exploration of the links between prevalent practices, beliefs and values, as manifested in diverse societies, and the distinct ways in which those societies confront the environment. The volume Transdisciplinary Research and Sustainability: Collaboration, Innovation and Transformation, edited by Martina Padmanabhan, had its origins in one of the annual meetings of the German Society for Human Ecology (DGH), whose members include researchers from a wide variety of environmental and social science disciplines. Human ecology, since its inception in the 1920s, has pioneered systematic analysis of the interaction between humans and nature through which people simultaneously respond to and create their environment. The DGH was founded in 1975 and, since 1989, its annual meetings have provided a forum for expert discourse on a range of focal topics relating to different aspects of the interaction of humans with their environment. Further details can be found at the DGH homepage (www.dg-humanoekologie.de). Global environmental change, producing hitherto unprecedented impacts on both nature and society, inspired the renaming of the current epoch as the Anthropocene. The awareness of social-ecological complexities calls for innovative research approaches, such as those offered by the first volume of this RSECS series on Human-Nature Interactions in the Anthropocene (Glaser et al., 2012), which explored the potential of social-ecological systems analysis. This second edited volume builds on the earlier one and introduces transdisciplinary research as a way to improve our understanding of sustainability challenges and to formulate, validate and implement responses. While interdisciplinary research builds on the collaboration of different disciplines, predominantly in the social and natural sciences, transdisciplinarity takes a step further by involving expert practitioners in knowledge creation. By opening the science arena to multiple stakeholders, transdisciplinarity raises

Series editors’ foreword xvii

questions pertaining to normativity, participation and the integration of insights from diverse thought collectives. The book opens by outlining challenges for sustainability science, examining the origins and key features of transdisciplinarity, reviewing the principal schools of transdisciplinary theory and practice in the German-speaking world and, finally, discussing two key features of transdisciplinarity: knowledge integration and the quest for ‘transformation knowledge’. The following collection of chapters reflects the diversity of contemporary transdisciplinary approaches that are opening up exciting new perspectives for sustainability research. Chapter authors provide inspiring, hands-on, but theoretically rigorous insights into the challenges and opportunities encountered by transdisciplinary researchers working in a variety of fields.The book closes with an outlook on the future of transdisciplinarity that highlights its potential as an emancipatory force. Bernhard Glaeser and Heike Egner Berlin and Klagenfurt, June 2017 . . . . Glaser, M., Krause G., Ratter, B.M.W. and Welp, M. (2012) Human-Nature Interactions in the Anthropocene: Potentials of Social-Ecological Systems Analysis. London: Routledge.

Preface

Lying on the banks of the River Main in Franconia, in northern Bavaria, the tiny village of Sommerhausen nestles among vineyards rolling down the valley slopes. Surrounded by medieval fortifications, the baroque church sits in the middle of this cultural landscape. Next to it, the parish hall opens its door annually to scholars of a wide variety of backgrounds and origins, but united by a shared concern, from an ecological perspective, for the state of human affairs. Each year Sommerhausen hosts the annual scientific conference of the German Society for Human Ecology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Humanökologie, DGH). This particular setting immediately spoke to me when I first attended the conference in 2004. Embedded in the busy seasonal routines of viniculture, the little theatre and galleries speak also of the nearby university of Würzburg. The wooden panels of the protestant congregation hall immediately connected me back to important influences in my schooldays. Having grown up in a small town in southern Germany, the combination of social and political concerns about environmental destruction in a church-based community, for me, was redolent of my childhood in Swabia. In a way, that was the starting point for the intellectual journey that led to the publication of this book. In 2008 I set up an early career research group within the Social-Ecological Research programme of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and found myself surrounded by like-minded scientists in the same funding round.The interest in inter- and transdisciplinarity as a means to contribute towards a better understanding of human-nature interaction was equally shared by my social-ecological peers and fellow members of the Society of Human Ecology. In this convivial intellectual environment, I was granted the opportunity to bring together pioneers of human ecology and members of the new generation of social-ecologists for a conference on ‘Transdisciplinarity for Sustainability – Challenge and Necessity’, held in Sommerhausen in May 2012. The book you hold in your hands is the outcome of this fruitful cooperation. The lapse of time between the conference and the publication of this book reflects my personal biographical journey and the current condition of sustainability research. While I was organising the Sommerhausen conference I was based at Leibniz University in Hannover. A year later I found myself as Chair of Comparative Development and Cultural Studies at the University in Passau,

Preface xix

which provided the opportunity to immerse myself in disciplinary Southeast Asian Studies, work in interdisciplinary fashion across faculties and share my enthusiasm with students in seminars about transdisciplinarity. The tendency to overburden oneself seems an unavoidable component of transdisciplinary approaches. I am grateful and indebted to many people who, over the years, did not lose faith in this project. First of all my sincere gratitude goes to the wonderful authors.Your patience, unfailing support and stimulating contributions – which were a pleasure to read again and again – made the whole effort worthwhile. Many of you also served as reviewers, thereby greatly contributing to the book’s cohesion. Thank you also to the researchers who contributed as referees only, including Egon Becker, Maria Hagemeier-Klose, Nidhi Nagabhatla and Parto Teherani-Krönner. From the very beginning of the conference till the last word typed, Andrew Halliday not only proved to be a fantastic language editor and most thoughtful polisher, making our scientific gemstones shine brightly, but also became a trustworthy adviser and motivator. I thank Hannah Arpke and Isabelle Kunze of the BioDIVA research group for organising the meeting in Sommerhausen and making it a memorable one. I thank all the members of staff at Passau University for their dedication in corresponding with authors and reviewers and preparing the manuscript for the publisher. My sincere thanks go especially to Andrea Höing, Filiz Jätzhold, Kristina Großmann, Nadja Kützing, Michaela Schöley, Anna-Lena Schmid and Franziska Steinhübl. Thank you to Bernhard Glaser and Heike Egner as series editors for their unfailing belief in the publication and advice given on many occasions and in many locations around the world, even once when we met up in Vietnam. I thank Elena Chui at Routledge for the friendly cooperation and the publisher for “enthusiastically approving” the book proposal. I hope the final product conveys the intellectual satisfaction which carried me through its completion. Last but not least, I gratefully acknowledge the funding by the BMBF under Grant No. 01UU0908. Sitting today at the confluence of the three rivers Danube, Inn and Ilz in Passau, I am happy to see the emergence of this volume, the product of so much hard work by so many creative minds, and look forward to further sailing down the stream of transdisciplinary exploration together towards sustainability. Martina Padmanabhan Passau, May 2017

1 Introduction Transdisciplinarity for sustainability Martina Padmanabhan

Introduction To meet the challenges of achieving sustainable societies, research has to change fundamentally by embracing transdisciplinarity. The orientation towards problems of sustainability has consequences for framing, conducting and theorising transdisciplinary research. Transdisciplinarity goes beyond interdisciplinary cooperation among different academic specialisations, to integrate practitioners’ expertise into the process of knowledge creation. This volume brings together theoretical reflections and narrative accounts of methodological innovations drawn from experiences of transdisciplinary research projects in the Germanspeaking world and shows how research is changing to meet the challenges of sustainability. In this context, particular attention is paid to the interface between science and policy and the emergence of intermediary research institutions linking academia to practice. A transdisciplinary approach to science requires thinking out of the box in order to tackle sustainability challenges arising from interconnected social and environmental complexities that span disciplines, knowledge bases and value systems and thus present themselves as wicked problems (Brown et al., 2010). These complex problems are ‘wicked’ because knowledge about them is incomplete or contradictory, people hold conflicting opinions about them, research to address them is expensive, and they are entangled with other problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Wicked problems cannot be overcome by existing modes of problem solving.Transdisciplinarity is an alternative approach that combines academic disciplines with personal, local and strategic understanding, recognises multiple knowledge cultures, accepts the inevitability of uncertainty and considers ethical positions. Transdisciplinarity dates back a few decades and refers to the theory and practice of research as collaboration among different knowledge holders, with the aim of contributing to problem solving in a complex world and generating socially robust knowledge (Gibbons et al., 1994). The term was first used during the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) conference on interdisciplinarity (Jantsch, 1970), reflecting the emergence of environmental research linked with critical social sciences in and outside universities that was stimulating interest in an ‘engaged interdisciplinarity’ that

2  Martina Padmanabhan

went beyond the confines of academic institutions. In the context of the philosophy of science, Mittelstrass (1987, pp. 152–158) introduced the concept of transdisciplinarity as a further development of the concept of interdisciplinarity in response to the worrying complexity of academic disciplines and their growing specialisation. Gibbons et al. (1994) called for a new mode of knowledge production, also known as Mode 2 science, that was context driven, problem focused and interdisciplinary. This paved the way for the ‘Zurich definition’ of transdisciplinarity agreed on at the International Transdisciplinarity Conference in 2000 (Scholz & Steiner, 2015a, p. 531) as “a facilitated process of mutual learning between science and society that relates a targeted multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary research process and a multi-stakeholder discourse for developing socially robust orientations about a specific real-world issue”. New scientific fields are emerging that deal with global change dynamics, governance of sustainable development and transformations towards sustainability (Future Earth, 2014). In German-speaking countries, transdisciplinary research in sustainability studies has been promoted by governmental research funding programmes since 2000. These include the programmes ‘Mensch – Umwelt’ (Human-nature in Switzerland, ‘KulturLandschaften’ (cultural landscapes) in Austria, and ‘Sozial Ökologische Forschung’ (Social-ecological research) in Germany. The book is very much an outcome of the last of these, as described in more detail below. In the current state of debate, integration of knowledge emerges as the central methodological challenge (Bergmann et al., 2012; Jahn et al., 2012). ‘Real-world problems’, characterised by interactions and feedback effects between social action and ecological effects, are a central concern of transdisciplinary research. Policies that aim to promote social-ecological transition processes must deal with the complexity of causal chains, feedback loops and problems of scale (Nagabhatla, N. et al., 2014). Furthermore, values and interests shape perceptions. The assessment of any problem situation must therefore take account of the subjectivity (and diversity) of stakeholder perspectives; an analysis of positionality is required in order to arrive at intersubjective and trans-subjective conclusions (Kunze & Padmanabhan, 2014). Describing transdisciplinarity as a pathway towards sustainability simultaneously encapsulates a demand and a challenge: a demand articulated in the search for applicable science and a challenge to achieve new modes of knowledge creation to this end (Thompson Klein, 2015; Lang et.al, 2012; Schneidewind & Augenstein, 2012). In the German-speaking world, traditions of thought such as human ecology and the diverse approaches developed for social-ecological research have contributed to the development of transdisciplinarity by advancing theory, devising new methods, and improving interaction with practitioners. The discourse on transdisciplinarity initiated in the German-speaking academic community has become more diverse and international, opening up and linking up with similar debates in the English-speaking world (Ruppert-Winkel et al., 2015). Transdisciplinary research fruitfully contributes towards the societal goal

Introduction 3

of sustainability as articulated in the internationally ratified global Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015). Sustainability research requires transdisciplinary research approaches that overcome barriers between disciplines and genres. A closer cooperation between natural, engineering and social sciences is necessary: professional and lay experts need to interact, and scientific research can no longer ignore considerations of political feasibility. Working towards a sustainable transformation of society challenges the narrow confines of academic disciplines and their selfconceptualisation. Both theoretical explanations and methodological procedures require further development to serve transdisciplinary ends (Wiek et al., 2012). Considerable institutional changes along with the emergence of new norms and quality standards are required to establish transdisciplinarity as part of the mainstream of science for sustainability (Schneidewind & Augenstein, 2012). Moreover, in situations where multiple stakeholders interact, which are paradigmatic for transdisciplinary research, it is inevitable that the assessment of quality will differ among actors (Jahn & Keil, 2015). In transdisciplinary research, therefore, tension will inevitably arise in the encounter of theory and praxis, i.e. in the space between the elaboration of theory and its application in the real world. The epistemological stance of transdisciplinarity allows these tensions to be understood as arising from the contextualised nature of knowledge and its production. From this perspective, science turns out to be an intrinsic part of societal problems – as well as of their possible solutions. This insight is linked to a wider debate on the conditions for transdisciplinary research in an academic system that is organised along disciplinary lines and on what changes need to be made. The German Committee Future Earth (Deutsches Komitee für Nachhaltigkeitsforschung), part of the international research initiative Future Earth, is dedicated to developing the capacity of science to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (Schmalzbauer & Visbeck, 2016; Padmanabhan, Chapter 14). This will require further programmatic development of transdisciplinarity, increasing self-reflexivity on the part of researchers (Popa et al., 2015), insistence on the practical relevance of their results, methodological innovation for cooperation with lay practitioners, and explicit recognition of the constitutive relationship between science and politics. This volume presents the work of researchers in the German-speaking world, undertaken in response to these programmatic requirements of transdisciplinary research: our intention is to contribute in three specific ways towards their achievement. First, this book is a space for a fruitful exchange among different generations of German transdisciplinary researchers. It shows how core concepts developed over decades by researchers in different transdisciplinary research communities are being used and further refined by a new generation of researchers that is opening up new research frontiers. Second, this volume highlights the key role played by those who act as intermediaries between academic research and practice. By building bridges between academic research

4  Martina Padmanabhan

and solution-oriented social and political engagement, these researchers make a vital contribution to the production of the transdisciplinary knowledge required to achieve sustainability goals. Third, this collection is intended as an introduction in the English language to the lively debates and new developments in transdisciplinary research in the German-speaking world. The book provides a window on the German-speaking transdisciplinarity community and its recent theoretical and empirical contributions the increasingly international field of transdisciplinary social-ecological research. Together the authors of this book chart the conditions, processes, applications and potentials of transdisciplinary science as currently practiced by communities of scientists, practitioners and activists. This introduction provides an overview of the unfolding and merging of discourses and practices in sustainability science and transdisciplinarity, paying special attention to the contribution of the German social-ecological research community to international debates (Ruppert-Winkel et al., 2015). Some preliminary remarks on terminology may help to make German debates more accessible to Anglophone readers. In English usage, the term ‘science’ is very often taken as a synonym for ‘natural sciences’. In this volume, ‘science’ is used in the sense of Wissenschaft, which in the German discourse stands for the whole of the ‘sciences system’, including natural and social sciences and also the researchers working in these fields and the institutions where they work. This meaning is similar, but not identical, to the English term ‘academia’. In the German discourse, the world of ‘science’ is contrasted to the world of practice, or ‘praxis’, which refers to the application of knowledge for practical purposes by professionals and experts outside of academia. These experts (e.g. policy makers, planners, farmers and natural resource managers) are referred to as ‘practice partners’ (‘Praxispartner’; Bergmann, et al., 2012) in transdisciplinary research. In the more ‘action-oriented’ traditions of participatory research in the Anglophone world (such as participatory action research and many other similar approaches; see Christinck & Kaufmann, Chapter 9), non-academic participants are more commonly referred to as, for example, ‘stakeholders’ or ‘local people’. Practice partners are stakeholders, but a particular class of stakeholder whose expertise enhances their potential to contribute to knowledge creation, which is the principal concern of transdisciplinary research. From its origins in the German-speaking world, the transdisciplinarity approach described in this volume is increasingly being taken up worldwide, in particular by the global research initiative on environmental change and global sustainability ‘Future Earth’. The remainder of this introduction is structured as follows. The next section outlines three challenges for sustainability science. This is followed by an examination of the origins and key features of transdisciplinarity, a review of principal schools of transdisciplinary theory and practice in the Germanspeaking world and, finally, a discussion of two key features of transdisciplinarity, knowledge integration and the quest for ‘transformation knowledge’.

Introduction 5

The introduction concludes with a review of the chapters which make up the remainder of the book.

Meeting the challenges of sustainability science The great variety of meanings given to the term ‘sustainability’ seems to call for a clarifying and systematising theory to achieve uniformity. The political and ethical understanding of sustainability as a collective commitment to abandon our current unsustainable path for the sake of humans and other species does not provide a sufficiently solid scientific foundation. Sustainability thinking is inherently based on normative orientations that, increasingly, are legitimised democratically and backed by international law. Grunwald (2015) suggests taking this provisional consensus as a starting point for a fruitful dialogue between theory and praxis of sustainability, in which rational discourse improves on (always provisional) theoretical knowledge of sustainability, while at the same time shaping actions taken to promote sustainable development. Such an approach takes the political foundation seriously, but at the same time sees the struggle to operationalise sustainable development as an opportunity to build an ethically driven, shared theoretical framework, expressed in concepts such as strong and weak sustainability (Michelsen et al., 2016). Here the feedback loop between theory and practice becomes evident: the discourses on real-world decision-making and the theoretical foundations of sustainability are intrinsically linked, highlighting the need to understand sustainability as a process. The call for a comprehensive theory for sustainable development must be carefully distinguished from the concern to develop a theoretical understanding of sustainability research (Grunwald, 2015). Sustainability science is a research approach that aims to elucidate societal effects on the natural environment and vice versa. It adopts a systems perspective, whose goal is the preservation of essential planetary life-support processes while simultaneously meeting fundamental human needs (Clark & Dickson, 2003; Jäger, 2009; Kates et al., 2001). Its concerns go beyond an anthropocentric conceptualisation to embrace fundamental ethical and philosophical questions about justice, power and the relation between the human and the non-human world. From a methodological and epistemological viewpoint, process, integration of different types of knowledge and involvement of practitioners are key components of sustainability science (Brandt et al., 2013). However, in themselves these features do not describe a common research framework; rather they represent a focused communication platform. As much transdisciplinary research rests on case studies (see Ziegler, Chapter 8), the valorisation of research is a challenge, one that is met by the demand for clear conceptual frameworks, a common terminology, and a corpus of validated methods. The call for more securely established, canonical epistemology and ontology is seen as a way to increase the credibility of interdisciplinary research that engages with practitioners in order to contribute to sustainable transitions.

6  Martina Padmanabhan

Kläy et al. (2015) identify the dichotomy between facts and values, whereby normative concerns – deeply ingrained in sustainability issues – are excluded from science, as the principal factor hindering efforts to make science accountable to society. As a first step, this impasse could be broken by nurturing niches for sustainability research to provide institutional settings for the development of quality criteria for normative science. However, this should be followed by a joint learning process, aimed at the self-conceptualisation of the ­transdisciplinary research community as a thought collective (see Fry, Chapter 6) and – ­ultimately – the transformation of the ‘science system’. Given the diverse histories of transdisciplinarity and the unfolding of discourses on sustainability, it remains open whether it is desirable, or attainable, for this process to lead to the merging of different existing schools. A central concern of transdisciplinarity for sustainability science is knowledge integration (Defila & Di Giulio, 2015; Jahn et al., 2012; Ruppert-Winkel et al., 2014). This addresses deep-rooted differences among academic disciplines, in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology, as well as on social and institutional levels, and between academia and practice. Delineating the different streams of sustainability science, ranging from natural science-driven environmental sciences to ecofeminist thinking in the humanities, highlights the challenge involved in integrating knowledge from different traditions for the solution of real-world problems. This overarching task can be broken down into four interrelated fields of research and action that address four limitations in the present-day science system. First, the academic institutions and governance structures for research are not conducive to the normativity and urgency that characterise societally relevant research (see Ziegler, Chapter 8). Recognition of the mutual embeddedness of the means and ends of scientific, social and political endeavours requires a reconfiguration of the position of science in society. This volume explores the sources of resistance to such a transformation (Dedeurwaerdere, 2013) and identifies promising entry points, from both institutional and conceptual perspectives. It outlines the current framework conditions for transdisciplinary research, and deliberates on options for future co-ordinated action to bring about change not only through, but also for science (Grunwald (Chapter 2), Singer-Brodowski et al. (Chapter 3) and Hofmeister (Chapter 4)). Second, the way science is currently organised institutionalises the fiction that knowledge creation is an end in itself: the task of scientists. An orientation towards problem assessment and solutions to sustainability problems requires the comprehensive integration of ‘non-scientific’ perspectives.The prefix ‘co-’ is used to identify a range of emerging quality standards in transdisciplinarity. The integration of different knowledge holders starts with the co-design of the research project. At its heart is the co-production of knowledge; while c­o-evaluation enables funders and researchers alike to learn from the transdisciplinary process. Thus, the organisation, documentation and analysis of the interaction beyond the academic realm require new codes of conduct, procedures, and ways to valorise outcomes. The volume highlights the need for critical reflection in the

Introduction 7

development of new collaborative methods and procedures (Gottschlich & Sulmowski (Chapter 5), Fry (Chapter 6) and Bieling et al. (Chapter 7)). These should include reflection on asymmetries of power and control among participants during the co-production of knowledge, and how these affect the process, conditions and outcomes of interaction (Lawrence, 2015; Rosendahl et al., 2015). Ultimately the aim is to break down barriers between traditional roles of researchers and stakeholders in knowledge creation and between academic and non-academic forms of knowledge (O’Brien et al., 2013). Third, traditional research methods are poorly adapted to the requirements for producing transdisciplinary knowledge (Bergmann et al., 2012). Since transdisciplinary research depends to a large extent on the capacity to integrate different streams of knowledge, competency in disciplinary as well as transdisciplinary methods is required. However, established disciplinary procedures (in both social and natural sciences) will need to be adapted in order to integrate contributions by multiple disciplines as well as the expertise of practice partners.This will require work to standardise terminology (or at least make explicit differences in the ways terms are used by different disciplines), formulate joint research questions, develop cross-disciplinary models, ensure compatibility among organisational procedures and – last but not least – develop innovative methodologies for transdisciplinary research. In this work of integration, ‘boundary objects’, i.e. concepts and issues that have relevance across multiple disciplines (Clark et al., 2011), will play a pivotal role (Singer-Brodowski et al. (Chapter 3), Christinck & Kaufmann (Chapter 9) and Padmanabhan (Chapter 10)). This process is not without risks. There is a danger that the epistemological earthquake caused by handing over a degree of control to non-academic participants in the research process will result in a landslide, washing away standards for quality control as well as established routines for gaining merit in the academic community. Responding to this potential source of insecurity, authors in this volume argue that methodological innovations require a firm theoretical grounding and demonstrate how this can be done (Ziegler (Chapter 8), Christinck & Kaufmann (Chapter 9) and Padmanabhan (Chapter 10)). Fourth, scientific institutions are still reluctant to accept responsibility for producing knowledge that is relevant, in terms of both content and form, for stakeholders and decision makers, in order to improve sustainability outcomes (Jose & Padmanabhan, 2015). The production of societally relevant knowledge requires the establishment, maintenance and ongoing development of relationships among different – and often unequal – social actors. Specifically, the capacity to navigate the science-policy interface presents itself as a critical condition for relevance and success of sustainability research. This is, however, a skill not taught at universities. In response to this capacity gap, the ‘knowledge intermediary’ has emerged as a new player in transdisciplinary research, whose key role is to facilitate communication and, where necessary, mediate conflicts among knowledge holders in the context of asymmetrical power relations. Managing this interface requires strategic planning on an organisational level, in order to establish lines of communication among heterogeneous institutional

8  Martina Padmanabhan

systems (such as academic bodies, interest groups and professional associations), promote consensus with regard to research aims, and manage expectations with regard to outcomes (Jones et al., 2012). Moreover, knowledge mediation is an iterative process, one that requires adaptive management in response to rapidly changing actor constellations. This volume contributes towards the development of the theory, methods and procedures required to ensure the credibility, relevance and legitimacy of knowledge mediation in transdisciplinary research (Fink-Keßler & Jürgens (Chapter 11), Neumann & Deppisch (Chapter 12) and Mann & Voß (Chapter 13)).

Transdisciplinarity as a political and critical project Transdisciplinarity is an ongoing project that has emerged in response to the challenges, outlined earlier, encountered by researchers in the quest to develop a science for sustainability.Transdisciplinarity is inherently diverse and the chapter authors in this volume adopt a variety of approaches and speak with different voices. One aim of the book is to present the diversity of transdisciplinary work being carried out in the German-speaking world to English-­speaking readers, and no attempt has been made to impose standardised styles and approaches across chapters. By way of an introduction, in this section I examine the origins of transdisciplinary thought. This is followed by summary descriptions of the most important schools of transdisciplinary theory and practice in the Germanspeaking world. Two schools of transdisciplinary thought can be identified according to Augsburg (2014): One evolved around Nicolescu (2002), who promoted a theoretical vision that strives towards the unity of knowledge, building on three axioms: knowledge as complex and emergent (epistemology), multiple levels of reality (ontology), and a logic of the included middle in contrast to the binary logic of classical science. The second thought collective – often perceived as ‘German’, although it includes Swiss and Austrian authors – conceives of transdisciplinarity as an approach to the study of complex societal problems, especially those related to sustainability. Complexity, hybridity, non-linearity, social accountability, mutual learning and heterogeneity are key characteristics of this ‘Mode 2’ science (Gibbons et al., 1994). From this perspective, Scholz and Steiner (2015a, 2015b) describe transdisciplinarity as interdisciplinary applied research linked to multi-stakeholder discourses via facilitation methods. This definition corresponds with the outlook of most (and probably all) contributors to this volume. Thompson Klein (2014) provides an authoritative overview of major trends in the rich and growing discourse on the nature and scope of transdisciplinarity. At its centre, she argues, are arguments and social formations that shape debates on how to transcend the narrowness of disciplinary worldviews, a concern with problem solving, participation and team-based sciences, and efforts to escape the narrow confines of a reductionist educational system in order to confront wicked problems. Transdisciplinary researchers engage with the ‘realworld’ as a source of complex problems, while calling for solutions to be arrived

Introduction 9

at in a socially responsible manner. This preoccupation with what is known by sociologists as the lifeworld (Lebenswelt) stems from the work of Alfred Schütz (Schütz & Luckmann, 1973), who perceived everyday life as socially given and the unquestioned base of all events. The lifeworld is the foundation of an intersubjective cultural world, in which ‘facts’ are always (already) interpreted facts, that serve as frames for sense making. These cultural patterns of interpretation enable action and experience in the everyday world. The concern with the dialectical relationship between the way people construct social reality and the obdurate social and cultural reality that they inherit from those who preceded them in the social world is ingrained into the German version of transdisciplinarity that is described in more detail in the following section. Interdisciplinarity is a precondition for transdisciplinarity to emerge. Interdisciplinarity integrates theories, methods, data and perspectives of different bodies of specialised knowledge for the understanding of a problem. This requires communication among academic disciplines, i.e. communities of scientists sharing common perceptions and traditions of practice. The coherence of these perspectives as well as their underlying ontological and epistemological assumptions must be tested for compatibility in order to create new interdisciplinary knowledge. Thus, interdisciplinarity already engages in boundary crossing and knowledge integration (Gethmann et al., 2015). Successful interdisciplinary research may lead to the emergence of new disciplines and specialised knowledge communities – which however leads to a further fragmentation of knowledge, the opposite of what was intended at the outset (Weingart & Padberg, 2014). Expanding on the brief definition given above, transdisciplinarity can be described as a reflexive research approach that addresses societal problems by means of interdisciplinary collaboration as well as the collaboration between researchers and extra-scientific actors; its aim is to enable mutual learning processes between science and society; integration is the main cognitive challenge of the research process. (Jahn et al., 2012, p. 4) Thus, transdisciplinarity refers to a stance towards research that is problem-­ oriented and goes beyond the traditional confines of academia; it is characterised by openness towards the non-academic world throughout the research process. Right from the start, during problem definition, an effort is made to integrate the perspectives of social actors, above all those of practitioners who have gained expertise through their active involvement in addressing issues that frame the problem(s) under consideration. Transdisciplinary research acknowledges the validity of different ways of gaining knowledge, and recognises the valuable contribution that practitioners’ expertise can bring to problem-oriented research. Thus, transdisciplinarity is not associated with a particular theory or theories; rather it is an approach that is open to the emergence of new theories

10  Martina Padmanabhan

through the interplay of science and practice, i.e. of academics and societal actors, in the problem-solving process. As the diversity of contributions in this volume makes clear, transdisciplinarity does not entail following standardised procedures; rather it represents a set of potential options that can be explored and developed in multiple ways, in accordance with circumstances and research objectives. In this process, terminology and new knowledge is developed, that can be used across disciplinary borders and subsequently integrated into disciplinary traditions.Transdisciplinarity thereby enriches the disciplinary bodies of knowledge with which it engages (Bergmann et al., 2012). Transdisciplinarity is deeply embedded in academia. It is part of ‘science’ (in the German sense of the term), and builds on lessons learned through experiences of interdisciplinarity. It goes beyond interdisciplinarity by opening up scientific endeavour to society and practice, thereby altering the procedures for gaining and validating knowledge, while remaining firmly based on an informed and reflexive scientific practice. It owes much to forerunners in this area, such as participatory action research (Christinck & Kaufmann, Chapter 9) and other similar approaches that ultimately stem from the methods of participatory rural appraisal pioneered by Robert Chambers (1983). However, transdisciplinarity expands these approaches in a radical way to explicitly engage with the challenge they represent for the foundations of scientific identity, especially when applied to address wider societal issues arising from the search for sustainable global futures. As explained in the previous section, sustainability science is application oriented. It requires researchers to reflect on the power relationships at the heart of current, unsustainable socioeconomic interactions. Thus, sustainability science involves managing transitions, enabling innovations and addressing inequity (Jerneck et al., 2011). Transdisciplinarity is ideally suitable for sustainability science because it is all about the democratisation of knowledge production and utilisation, and opening up scientific procedures to heterogeneous sources of knowledge (WGBU, 2011). A key challenge is to maintain coherence in this free-ranging process of knowledge creation and integration. Social-ecological systems and resilience are two prominent concepts developed to systematise sustainability science that have been taken up – and critically engaged with – by emerging traditions of transdisciplinary research in the German-speaking world. The concept of complex social-ecological systems (SES) has been adopted for research on global change as a heuristic for organising and integrating empirical findings originating from different disciplinary perspectives (Ostrom, 2009). This approach focuses on boundaries and components of the object of study, conceived as a system, and on flows and relations among system components and between the system and its wider environment. It has proved useful as a common frame of reference for different branches of science that address sustainability issues. The SES concept provides a ‘bridge’ between the different concepts and languages used by scientific disciplines, and a common framework for organising findings and integrating knowledge. Analysis from a systems perspective has identified ways that resource users self-organise to maintain the

Introduction 11

resource base and, by contrast, shown how some government policies accelerate resource destruction. Further analysis can identify subsystem variables that, for example, affect the likelihood and success of self-organisation in efforts to achieve sustainable futures (Arlinghaus et al., 2014; Beckmann & Padmanabhan, 2009; Eisenack & Stecker, 2012; Glaser et al., 2012; Matzdorf & Meyer, 2014; Selbmann, 2015). Resilience thinking is an approach to the dynamics and development of complex SES that focuses on ‘whole system’ properties across multiple scales (Folke et al., 2010; Purushothaman et al., 2016). Resilience theory has its roots in psychology (Southwick et al., 2014) and was first applied to ecological systems by Holling (1973). Ecological resilience refers to the capacity of a natural system to recover from external shocks and to arrive at a new equilibrium, and can determined through analysis of related systems properties such as adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Resilience has become an important boundary object in sustainability debates as a promising framework for integrating research across natural and social sciences (Olsson et al., 2015). However, the integration of a social science perspective has highlighted the need to consider not only resilience, i.e. the ability of a system to adapt and persist in the face of change, but also transformability, defined as “the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable” (Walker et al., 2004). When applied to global sustainability issues, it is necessary to consider interactions between transformational change and resilience at multiple scales (Folke et al., 2010). Criticisms of both SES and resilience, as unifying concepts for transdisciplinary research, have focused on their neglect of the political dimension of sustainability. For a long time sustainability research has been rooted, paradigmatically, in the natural sciences, in which neutrality with respect to gender and other social power relations is both assumed and required, in order to ensure the ‘objectivity’ and general validity of the results (Hofmeister et al., 2013). The core concepts of SES and resilience theory (such as system ontology, system boundary, equilibria and thresholds, feedback mechanisms, self-organisation and function) are also rooted in natural science; exclusive focus on these aspects is a source of tension between the social and natural sciences. Thus, the quest for unification around principles derived from natural science runs the risk of constraining the interdisciplinary dialogue. In particular, key concerns of social sciences such as conflict, agency and power may not be addressed, thus leading to the depoliticisation of sustainability issues (Brand 2016, Gottschlich et al., 2016). Pluralism, drawing also on core social scientific concepts, may offer a more promising pathway towards integrated sustainability research. These critiques have been articulated above all by feminist researchers, who have highlighted the need to subject claims to ‘objectivity’ to critical scrutiny and unveil the tacit acceptance by mainstream sustainability science of existing structures of power and dominance (Rosendahl et al., 2015). A focus on gender in sustainability studies reveals how ‘scientific’ concepts of nature are socially constructed and exposes the (inequitable) gender relations that are implicit in these conceptualisations. Feminist researchers call for justice to overcome the

12  Martina Padmanabhan

embedded inequalities that are justified, implicitly, by conventional interpretations of human-nature relations (Momsen et al., 2013; Padmanabhan, 2016).

The German schools of sustainability research Transdisciplinarity in the German-speaking world has grown out of other influential traditions that reach across academic disciplines (see Glaser et al., 2012). Specific schools have emerged in different areas, such as social-ecological research in Frankfurt, the Swiss transdisciplinary tradition in Zürich and ‘transformative research’ in Wuppertal. From these different origins a landscape of different approaches to transdisciplinarity has evolved, some of whose principal features are outlined below. Human ecology was one of the forerunners in bringing together social perspectives on ecological challenges. Developed from insights of the Chicago School of sociology around Parks (1936), the concept of human ecology has been instrumental in bringing together a community of interdisciplinary researchers in Germany around a vision of the embeddedness of humans in the ecosystems of which they form an integral part. The focus of research is on interactions among society, humans and environment, from a holistic perspective which encompasses physical, cultural, economic and political aspects. Founded in 1975, the German Society for Human Ecology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Humanökologie, DGH) is a forum for debates from a human ecology perspective, on a range of topics including medicine, food and nutrition, agriculture, urbanism and education (Franz-Balsen & Kruse, 2016, Glaser et al., 2012, Glaeser, 1995, Hamburger & Teherani-Krönner, 2014). The DGH’s annual conference in 2012 provided a conducive setting for the debates on transdisciplinarity that were the inspiration for this volume. Social-ecological research (Sozial-ökologische Forschung, SÖF) focuses on “societal relations to nature” (Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse; Görg, 1999, 2011) from a social science perspective (Becker & Jahn, 2006), drawing heavily on Schütz’s theory of the lifeworld.The theoretical concept of societal relations to nature, first developed at the Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE) in Frankfurt, originated in the so-called Frankfurt School of critical theory and adopts a dialectical approach to probe the complex interactions in society that are the cause of the current ecological crisis. This approach aims to overcome the dualist divide between natural and social sciences. It has inspired innovate research programmes and been instrumental in a progressive transformation in the academic landscape towards sustainability science. Its critical, reflexive and processual application of transdisciplinarity has strongly influenced the practice of sustainability science in German-speaking countries. One aim of this book is to share current findings of social-ecological research and explore its contribution to the ongoing wider project of developing knowledge via transdisciplinary sustainability studies. Social-ecological research gained official recognition as a branch of sustainability science in 1999, when the German Federal Ministry of Education and

Introduction 13

Research (BMBF) launched its Social-Ecological Research (SÖF) funding program under the umbrella of its overarching Research Program for Sustainable Development (Forschung für Nachhaltigkeit, FONA). According to Ruppert-­ Winkel et al. (2015) the SÖF program, and transdisciplinary sustainability sciences in general, are characterised by the following features: in framing the research, issues have a focus on real-world problems, embrace normativity and refer to diverse theoretical frameworks such as social-ecological-systems, resilience or societal relations to nature. Implementation of the research is interdisciplinary, includes of non-scientists or practitioners, follows a recursive research process, integrates different forms of knowledge and requires a contextualisation of research. As outcomes, the research aims to produce different types of knowledge (see the discussion of system, target, and transformation knowledge below) and to generate societal and scientific impact (Bergmann et al., 2016). The SÖF approach is largely congruent with transdisciplinarity because it investigates sustainability problems in order to generate practical solutions to lifeworld problems while producing scientific knowledge on the foundation, explanation, and solution of a given sustainability issue (Ruppert-Winkel et al., 2015). Within the SÖF program, a special funding scheme focuses on the establishment of early career research groups. Since 2001, 21 early career groups have been supported by the program through research grants with a total value of approximately €37 million (Müller, 2013). The aims of the funding scheme are to strengthen social-ecological research in Germany, build the capacity of early career researchers to undertake inter- and transdisciplinary research projects, and to strengthen exchange between scientists inside and outside academia (Müller, 2013). Of the 26 authors in this volume, 20 have been members or associated with SÖF-supported early career research groups. “Transformative research” (Schneidewind et al., 2016) is another influential German school, based at the Wuppertal Institute in North Rhine-Westphalia (https://wupperinst.org/en/research/transformative-research/). Transformative research aims to develop a new role for science in knowledge societies in the age of reflexive modernity. It goes beyond merely observing and analysing ongoing societal transformations, and aims explicitly to increase societal capacity for reflexivity, thereby playing an active role in initiating and catalysing change processes. The Wuppertal Institute has pioneered a new experimental paradigm, which it calls ‘real-world laboratories’, with far-reaching implications for research, education and learning, as well as for the institutional structures of the science system. The focus of research is on ‘sustainability transitions’, defined as transformations of major socio-technical systems for the provision and use of resources, such as energy, water, mobility and food, that contribute to progress towards more sustainable societies. Like other transdisciplinary fields, the focus is on the understanding and solution of real-world problems, with the aim of fostering societal change towards sustainable development. The Swiss school differentiates transdisciplinarity from interdisciplinarity, considering that co-leadership by academics and practitioners, characteristic of transdisciplinarity, is crucial for knowledge integration, mutual learning and the

14  Martina Padmanabhan

development of socially robust orientations towards sustainable development (Scholz, 2011). Scholz has championed the embedded case study as a powerful method for supporting transdisciplinary processes (Scholz & Tietje, 2002). The Transdisciplinarity Lab (TdLab) at the Department of Environmental Systems Science (USYS) of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zurich) (www.tdlab.usys.ethz.ch/) conducts large-scale transdisciplinary projects on sustainable transitions of urban, agricultural, ecological, technological, economic and political systems and is a focal location for discourses on theories and practices of transdisciplinarity. The Network for Transdisciplinary Research (td-net), coordinated by the Swiss Academy of Sciences (www. akademien-­schweiz.ch/en/index/Portrait/Kommissionen-AG/td-net.html), brings together researchers and funders in the field of inter- and transdisciplinary research and teaching to advance the mutual learning across thematic fields, languages and countries and thereby contribute to building the transdisciplinary research community (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2010). A key contribution of German-speaking schools of transdisciplinarity has the classification of different types of knowledge generated by transdisciplinary research. In their influential Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Hirsch Hadorn et al. (2008) distinguish between system knowledge, target knowledge and transformation knowledge. System knowledge contributes to understanding the current state of the problem situation in its social, economic and ecological dimensions. This includes the genesis and the interpretation of the problem in scientific discourse as well as in its life-worldly sense. Target knowledge, also known as orientation knowledge, responds to the need for change by identifying desired goals. This is often achieved by envisioning sustainable scenarios, with a focus not only on technical aspects of sustainability but also on corresponding belief systems and institutions. Transformation knowledge aims to identify the changes (such as improved practices, conflict resolution and innovation) that will be required in order to attain the fundamental reconfiguration of society towards sustainability goals. Here again, the focus is not only on technical transformation but also always on identifying pathways of change, i.e. possibilities for action and initiation of favourable changes. In this sense, transformation knowledge often grows from changed actions and practices that evolve on an experimental scale in the course of the research project. Realisation of their transformation potential requires, in the first instance, understanding the rules on which these actions and practices are based (Christinck & Kaufmann, Chapter 9). This classification system has proved very helpful as a conceptual framework for the design and implementation of transdisciplinary research projects.

Transformation and integration as key challenges Transformation and integration are key challenges in transdisciplinary research. On the one hand, the purpose of the jointly created knowledge produced by transdisciplinary research is to achieve real changes in the lifeworld: the creation of transformation knowledge. As indicated earlier, this type of knowledge

Introduction 15

goes beyond descriptive analysis, and considers the necessary conditions for change and transition, and their consequences, as relevant topics for research. On the other hand, the integration of extremely different claims to understanding demands new methods and methodologies to synthesise multi-disciplinary research findings and practitioners’ knowledge derived from lifeworldly experience (Padmanabhan, 2016). This requires a process of theoretical, methodological and also social integration, which is a challenge not only to individual researchers and agencies engaged in transdisciplinary research but also to the wider system of academic education. The need for integration arises on different levels, in response to the complex and hybrid nature of sustainability problems (Bergmann et al., 2012). On a cognitive level, differences and links among scientific disciplines and between scientific and everyday knowledge raise demands for epistemic integration.The diversity of interests, activities, wishes and expectations of different individuals, groups and institutions involved in the transdisciplinary research process require social and organisational integration, taking into account the different communicative practices of participating scientific and societal actors. Last but not least, there is a need to integrate proposed technical innovations into existing material and technical circumstances. Transformation is central to sustainability studies and must be scrutinised for its critical potential (Jahn, 2016). Three ways of thinking about transformation can be distinguished, which can be labelled the idealist, the institutionalist and the technological innovation schools (Schneidewind & Augenstein, 2016). These three schools focus on different drivers of change: respectively, dominant ideas that rule the world, institutions that shape societal development and technological innovations that expand the scope of human action. While the first conceptualises actors as sense-making, social and communicative beings, the second emphasises utility maximisation as a driver of human behaviour, while the last underlines people’s dependence on routines. The perspectives embody different conceptualisations of power, which – in one form or another – plays a central role in transformative processes.The idealistic school sees ‘power with’ as emerging from the concerted efforts of a community with shared ideas. The institutionalists focus on ‘power over’, exercised through political, economic and societal structures. Advocates of transformation through technological innovation focus on resistance and empowerment, conceptualised as ‘power to’ challenge existing regimes. Though these three analyses of transformative processes are not mutually exclusive, and might indeed play complementary roles, it is useful to distinguish them conceptually, in order to orient analysis of relations and asymmetries of power that affect – often decisively – the transformative capability of transdisciplinary research. Boundary work, i.e. research whose orientation is provided by (one or more) concepts or research objects whose relevance transcends disciplinary concerns, plays an important role in knowledge integration (Betz et al., 2014). Boundary objects are increasingly used by research communities to organise their relationships with different sources of knowledge, whether other disciplines,

16  Martina Padmanabhan

practitioners or policy makers (Clark et al., 2011).This boundary work supports and orients the negotiation processes that give rise to co-produced knowledge and establish the social order that creates and uses that knowledge. The construction or selection of boundary objects as higher-order functional components of a research program must be tailored to the context and will often be unique to the particular circumstances of the problem situation. The fit to the problem situation, and the perspectives and interests of participants in the research, is decisive for their integrative potential. Bridging concepts serve a similar purpose, though solely on a conceptual level. They are a means of identifying and, where possible, overcoming terminological differences among different disciplines, thereby facilitating communication and integration of insights from different branches of disciplinary research. An example of a bridging concept is the ‘social-ecological web’ developed by Betz et al. (2014) as a tool for integrating knowledge from social and natural sciences. The aim is to provide a shared framework for analysis that focuses attention on socialecological transformation processes and promotes reflection on the challenges of integrating knowledge across disciplines and between science and practice. Deppisch and Hasibovic (2013) note the importance of appropriate timing in the development of a bridging concept: specifically, they consider whether it is better to formulate bridging concepts at the start of the research or to develop it jointly in the course of the interdisciplinary collaboration.They conclude that by deciding on bridging concepts too early in the process researchers forgo the opportunity for joint reflexion on the epistemological, ontological and other, often unconscious assumptions underpinning their disciplinary specialisms. Beside concepts, methods and tools, sustainability research requires transdisciplinary individuals (Augsburg, 2014). A key aspect of what Jones et al. (2012, p. 130) term boundary process is the increasingly professionalised dialogue between scientists and policy makers, which moves between different levels of jurisdiction, flips between facilitation and analysis and ‘translates’ between rationalities and communication styles.The ‘knowledge intermediary’ is emerging as a key actor at this science-policy interface (Jones et al., 2012). Knowledge intermediaries help bridge the gap between knowledge production by scientists and the use of knowledge by practitioners and policy makers (Fink-Keßler & Jürgens, Chapter 11).While often operating as freelancers outside the academic system, which has still not adapted to accommodate them, knowledge intermediaries play a key role in many transdisciplinary research projects, enabling achievement of research objectives, and subsequent critical reflection on the significance of the results (Fry, Chapter 6). Knowledge intermediaries contribute to social learning (see also Christinck & Kaufmann, Chapter 9) at individual, inter-personal, organisational and system levels. They help build the capacity of individual actors to source information and manage contextualised knowledge. At an inter-personal level they facilitate communication among holders of different types of knowledge and mediate in conflicts between knowledge holders in asymmetrical power relations. On an organisational level intermediaries support strategic planning by

Introduction 17

supporting initiatives to institutionalise collaboration among different interest groups (e.g. researchers, government agencies and professional associations). Last but not least they operate on a system level by surfing the complexities of institutional and cross-cultural relationships and bringing a ‘whole system’ perspective on the issues of concern. At all these levels, the work of intermediaries fills a knowledge gap between science and practice that lies beyond the reach of both university-based research and established professional bodies. As independent researchers, they represent a challenge to the established scientific community, whose reliance on traditional funding sources disposes them to ignore unanticipated possibilities that arise during the course of research and be disdainful of utilitarian solutions (see Fink-Keßler & Jürgens, Chapter 11). As independent practitioners, they cross borders between areas of professional expertise, shining a light on hitherto unspoken issues relating to ethics, values and legitimacy. As translators, they make a key contribution towards building adaptive capacity among both researchers and practitioners, network building, institutionalising mutually beneficial knowledge exchange, and co-production of practice- and policyrelevant transdisciplinary knowledge.

Structure and content of the book The chapters in the book are organised into the following thematic sections: 1 2 3 4

Understanding sustainability science as challenge and necessity Cooperating with partners of practice Pursuing methodological innovations for transdisciplinarity Creating dialogues with policy makers.

Part I: understanding sustainability science as challenge and necessity

Transdisciplinarity is above all a new way of doing science, specifically sustainability science. The first section of the book explains why science needs to be reorganised in order to create socially relevant knowledge and suggests how this could be one. Adopting an approach that is characteristic of sustainability scientists, Grunwald, Singer-Brodowski et al. and Hofmeister explore the fundamental epistemic as well as ontological challenges of sustainability science, when framed as research into real-world problems. Armin Grunwald (Chapter 2) sketches out the principal characteristics of a transdisciplinary approach and provides an in-depth analysis of their application, with reference to the German ‘energy turnaround’ (Energiewende). Sustainability research must be highly inter- and transdisciplinary in nature, both in response to the challenges of the subject matter and in order to contribute to the transformation required at the interface between society and the natural environment. This holds in particular for the transformation of large-scale infrastructure such as energy supply, water supply and transportation. However,

18  Martina Padmanabhan

a more limited technological view is frequently taken by policy makers, who assume that socio-ecological and socio-technological challenges are susceptible to purely technical solutions and, therefore, that social issues such as patterns of human behaviour will not need to be addressed directly. Grunwald criticises this technocratic approach as deficient and misleading, using the Energiewende as case study, and proposes an alternative approach. It builds on ideas developed in collaboration with the Helmholtz Alliance ENERGY-TRANS (www.energytrans.de/english/index.php). The author explains in detail why the energy infrastructure is a sociotechnical system, not a purely technical one. It comprises not only power plants, supply lines, storage units and so forth, but also a complex set of human actors, including users, regulators, decision makers, planners, innovators, employees in the supply companies and so on. Therefore, he argues, the Energiewende is not simply or even primarily a technical transformation, but principally a social one. Human routines and attitudes towards the use of energy must change, as well as regulations and economic value-added chains. To this end, Grunwald focuses his attention on the wider social context. Insights into issues such as political-legal framework conditions, economic boundary conditions, ethical assessment criteria, individual and social patterns of behaviour can be provided by interdisciplinary social science research. But beyond this, the very nature of the Energiewende as a social transformation means that it can only be achieved through a transdisciplinary process of co-creation of theory and practice involving researchers, decision makers and all the other groups of actors involved in the energy system. Socio-technical transformation processes of this kind are only achievable as processes of co-diagnosis of problems, co-shaping of future alternatives, co-determination of goals, and co-design of solutions at each stage of the transformation process. Mandy Singer-Brodowski, Matthias Wanner and Uwe Schneidewind (Chapter 3) propose a reconceptualisation of science, based around the use of real-world laboratories as an institutionalisation of a new ‘social contract’ between science and society. Attaining a sustainable future in the Anthropocence requires a new ‘great transformation’, as fundamental as the transformation from agrarian to industrial society (WGBU, 2011). This will involve far-reaching technological, economic, social and cultural changes based on new forms of literacy and knowledge integration. Achieving these changes will depend, in part, on the emergence of a highly transdisciplinary ‘transformative science’, giving rise to new forms of scientific knowledge production that integrate different academic disciplines and fields of practical expertise, generating not only system knowledge but also on target knowledge and transformation knowledge. The new social contract envisaged by Singer-Brodowski and her co-authors will entail not only the integration of sustainability considerations into all aspects of scientific work, but also reform of the institutions where scientific knowledge is produced, and of the societal substructures that frame their operations. The existing science system is currently not geared up to fulfil its new

Introduction 19

responsibilities and many individual researchers who are products of this system are unprepared to meet the new challenges. Boundary work is required to organise interdisciplinary collaboration and facilitate the participation of civil society in a system constructed around the paradigm of monodisciplinary excellence. The Wuppertal ‘real-world laboratory’ is itself a boundary object that enables the integration of different forms of knowledge into research practice and outcomes to solve a specific sustainability problem. Scientific knowledge is complemented by knowledge from practice partners involved in knowledge creation in the context of transdisciplinary research processes. The authors highlight how working with boundary objects, precisely because they are situated and developed in the borderlands between heterogeneous discourses, entails challenges of communication. The stakeholders involved in the real-world laboratory must negotiate over their specific competencies, roles and expectations and come to explicit agreements on task sharing. In the following chapter, the challenges, constraints and opportunities encountered during transdisciplinary social-ecological research are explored by Sabine Hofmeister (Chapter 4), in an explicitly personal reflection that draws on the author’s experiences as researcher, mentor and consultant. Her aim is not to present a systematic conceptualisation of transdisciplinary social-ecological research. Rather, she builds on personal experience to reflect on the synergies she encountered between sustainability and gender research, and to discuss the problems, insights and transdisciplinarity applications associated with the two research fields. In Hofmeister’s experience, transdisciplinary research is constrained by a lack of clarity on the degree and nature of the involvement of researchers and practice partners and on how to manage the relations between them. The involvement of practitioners raises questions of ‘partisanship’ that researchers – even feminist ones – have traditionally been unwilling to confront. A final constraint is the lack of established methodological standards for the integration of knowledge gained in collective research and, specifically, for the integration of scientific and lifeworld knowledge. Principal challenges include how to overcome ingrained differences and competing interests, to avoid conflicts, and find win-win solutions. She concludes by exploring the opportunities of transdisciplinary socio-ecological research, above all arising from the (self-)reflexivity of researchers in the process of transdisciplinary knowledge generation. Part II: cooperating with partners of practice

Transdisciplinary research integrates practitioners outside academia to enhance problem understanding and support the development of applicable options for their solution. To this end, the transdisciplinary approach pays particular attention to local manifestations of global phenomena such as climate change and biodiversity loss. Transdisciplinary knowledge and methodology play a critical role in relating the concrete case to the overarching problem scenario.

20  Martina Padmanabhan

The chapters in this section by Gottschlich and Sulmowski, Fry and Bieling et al. are all based on case studies from central Europe (Poland, Germany and Switzerland). Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski (Chapter 5) pursue two interrelated epistemic goals. First, they present the transdisciplinary research experience of the research group ‘PoNa – Shaping Nature’. The authors apply Maasen’s typology of transdisciplinarity (which distinguishes between interventionist, distributive, explorative and methodological transdisciplinarity; Maasen, 2010), to explore the plurality of transdisciplinarity as manifested within a single research group, and analyse how the approach changed over the duration of the research project. Second, they present the results of a picture-discourse analysis in the field of agro-biotechnology, and reflect on alternative visions of relations between nature, technology and society (see also Gottschlich, Mölders & Padmanabhan, 2016). Critical perspectives on controversial technologies can shed light on the power relationships and hegemonic struggles over sense making in technology discourses. They also serve to delineate visions of alternative technological futures.The authors highlight how, in this respect, the practice of civil resistance is sometimes a step ahead of critical theory. Exploring the reciprocal linkages between critical practice and critical scientific discourse can contribute to the focusing and further development of debates about the use and development of technology and, thereby, to the democratisation of science.The authors illustrate this thesis using findings from a picture discourse analysis of images from German and Polish civil society campaigns against agro-biotechnology, drawing also on subsequent discussions with representatives of the NGOs involved. The explicit aim of the research was to produce societally relevant knowledge that could serve as inputs for the design of future NGO campaigns. Gottschlich and Sulmowski explore the views of nature revealed in the images. Analysis of the images from campaigns reveals a rejection of the technocratic idea of a comprehensive domination of nature based on efficiency and optimisation. In many instances, this argument is conveyed through ­pejorative – sometimes ‘scary’ – representations of ‘unnatural’ hybrids produced by biotechnology, which are presented as deviations from the ‘normal’ and the ‘usual’. However, unsullied ‘nature’ is only present implicitly, as a yardstick for interpretation of the negative images. The authors note the lack of positive images showing alternative technological futures. Rather the focus is on resistance, including by ‘nature’ itself, which is portrayed in some images as an active, resisting actor. The authors argue that there is a need for scientists to take up and engage in further theoretical development of this conception of the actor status of nature.This could contribute to changes in technology policy and politics by challenging their normative foundations. Patricia Fry (Chapter 6) focuses on co-production of knowledge, and the use of ‘social learning videos’ as a method for successful collaboration between science and practice. The starting point for her research was the observation that, despite the wealth of scientific knowledge about soils, they are not being

Introduction 21

used sustainably in Switzerland. Fry uses the term ‘implementation problem’ to describe the difficulties that scientists and policy makers frequently encounter in trying to persuade farmers to adopt soil conservation practices. She argues that the root of this problem lies in the fact that farmers’ and scientists’ understandings of soil quality are not the same. Farmers take a ‘wide, practical view’, while scientific researchers take a ‘deep view’: they belong to different thought collectives and do not speak the same language. In order to unearth farmers’ tacit knowledge – hitherto largely ignored by soil scientists – Fry initiated the transdisciplinary research project ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’, which ran from 2001 to 2010. She describes how she developed special moderation techniques to integrate actors from the scientific research community, government agencies and farmers’ associations into the project. This included setting up an advisory group made up of representatives of participating stakeholders to accompany the project in its work. Videos were used to capture farmers’ successful experiences of applying innovative soil conservation techniques – and to communicate their experiences to other farmers, with the aim of inspiring them to try out the practices for themselves. Farmers’ associations played a key role throughout the project, not only in the research but also in the subsequent publicising and distribution of the videos. Fry identifies a number of factors that contributed to the success of this transdisciplinary collaboration between scientists and practitioners. There was respect for both scientific and practice-oriented viewpoints. The advisory group that accompanied the project created a space for building trust among actors from different backgrounds and facilitated social interaction and knowledge exchange. This created an environment in which participants were able to open up to alternative perspectives and critically reflect on their own concepts of knowledge and attitudes towards knowledge transfer. Production of the videos provided an effective and congenial process tool; their authenticity made them convincing and effective as a means to publicise and replicate the success of the project. Based on the experience of this transdisciplinary research project, Fry subsequently developed the method which she calls ‘social learning videos’, which is now being applied in other research areas. She argues convincingly that the ‘implementation problems’ encountered by scientists and policy makers can only be overcome by taking the thought styles of practitioners seriously: this entails embracing transdisciplinarity and transforming the process of knowledge creation itself. Claudia Bieling and her co-authors (Chapter 7) from the research group ‘Ecosystem Services’ share their experiences in working with partners of practice when implementing a participatory approach to developing landscape scenarios and identifying local management options in the Swabian Alps in southwest Germany. Participatory approaches – ranging from simple forms of stakeholder involvement in specific events to long-established rural networks – are increasingly favoured in landscape planning and management.They are particularly relevant in the current context of rapid landscape change, which is often driven by globalised forces. To explore the possibilities and limitations of

22  Martina Padmanabhan

local civil society engagement for landscape conservation and development in the face of these supra-regional influences, the research group initiated a scenario development process in the Swabian Alb Biosphere Reserve. Workshops were carried out in two municipalities in which local actors addressed the question: ‘what will our local cultural landscape look like in the year 2040, in response to global and local land-use trends?’ The scenarios developed in these initial workshops were used to explore options for landscape management at the local scale at another workshop with local actors held the following year. The overarching goal of this participatory scenario development exercise was to integrate scientific and practical perspectives on landscapes, their corresponding values, and appropriate management strategies. The authors focus on the participatory process and identify its challenges and potential benefits for transdisciplinary research. A participatory approach has benefits in terms of knowledge integration and capacity building. Key challenges relate to the integration of local perspectives into the results of scientific research and meeting local actors’ expectations of immediate benefits from the process. They conclude that in order to successfully implement participatory approaches in sustainability research, the rationale for participation has to be carefully articulated, the purpose of the participatory elements needs to be specified, and benefits from the processes must be commensurate with the resources expended in it. Part III: pursuing methodological innovations for transdisciplinarity

Transdisciplinary research relies on methodological innovations and synergies. The synthesis of inter- and transdisciplinary results into a coherent knowledge product is a complex task.This process requires methods of integration, including both the use of bridging concepts that facilitate communication and joint work among different disciplines and also new organisational procedures. The academic disciplines and practice partners involved will vary in accordance with the topic of interest. A major challenge consists in developing methods of integration that are applicable across cases. In this section Ziegler, Christinck and Kaufmann, and Padmanabhan explore and reflect on methodological innovations for transdisciplinary research. Rafael Ziegler (Chapter 8) reflects on the constitutive tension in sustainability science between the general and the particular.Transdisciplinary research frequently focuses on case studies, where this tension is experienced as the need to come up with practicable solutions to societal problems in collaboration with non-scientific actors, while at the same time complying with quality standards for scientific research (such as the requirements for objectivity and generalisability of results). Resolving the tension in favour of practical problem solving appears impossible without sacrificing scientific rigour; resolving it in favour of objective science will inevitably be at the cost of practical relevance, producing research that is ‘brilliant but irrelevant!’ Against this background, Ziegler explores the role of case studies in sustainability science. He first examines the general case for the case study, and the

Introduction 23

variety of ways in which case studies can contribute to education and research. This is followed by an in-depth analysis of the specific contribution of case studies to sustainability science, with reference to four of its distinctive characteristics: normativity, interdisciplinarity, urgency and collaboration with nonscientists. Finally, he revisits ‘constitutive tension’, reframed as tension between the case as a singularity in a specific context, and as the exemplar of general or even universal truth claims, and considers ways to make use of this tension that are fruitful for sustainability science. Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann (Chapter 9) elaborate on methodologies for collaborative learning with stakeholders to facilitate change. Similarly to Fry’s discussion of the ‘implementation problem’, the authors notes that experience in development-oriented agricultural research has shown that deeper insights of scientists into sustainability problems do not necessarily increase the likelihood that proposed solutions will be adopted or problematic practices be changed. Approaching the problem from a systems perspective, Christinck and Kaufmann argue that the modality of arriving at a solution influences its chances of adoption. The reason is that change in human activity systems (e.g. from unsustainable to sustainable system configurations) can only come about if actors adopt new patterns of behaviour or, more precisely, when the rules which underpin their actions are changed. This could happen as a consequence of ‘sticks and carrots’, i.e. incentive mechanisms implemented from above, but change is more likely to be sustainable if it comes about as a result of actors themselves gaining a new understanding of the situation, i.e. through a learning process.Thus, research that aims to facilitate change requires collaboration between scientists and practitioners, enabling learning by actors about the complex problem situations in which they are involved. To this end, Christinck and Kaufmann propose a research approach based on a seven-stage collaborative learning cycle. Non-scientific actors play a vital role in the process, which starts out mainly from their perspectives, values and insights. Instead of giving recommendations or proposing solutions based on external criteria, this approach aims at generating collective insights into the problem situation and thereby improving the problem-solving capacities of all involved. Methodologies to support this approach are collaborative and include dialogue-based learning tools. Practical action followed by reflection helps to leverage tacit knowledge and practical expertise of stakeholders in a way that feeds in to the innovation process. Christinck and Kaufmann highlight the role of scientists as facilitators of collective learning in order to generate scientific insights that have practical relevance from the actors’ point of view, as new rules for action, thereby helping stakeholders to adopt more sustainable practices. Alongside this joint learning process, scientists also conceptualise the process and its outcomes, in order to gain a contextualised understanding of the operational functioning of the system. Martina Padmanabhan (Chapter 10) explores the role of international ‘tandems’ in transdisciplinary research. She examines the extent to which bringing two people with equivalent qualifications from different cultures together

24  Martina Padmanabhan

to work as a team can be effective as a strategy for integrating and synthesising different kinds of knowledge in an intercultural setting. This chapter draws on the author’s experience as leader of the research project ‘BioDIVA’, which aimed to create transformation knowledge for sustainable agricultural futures in Kerala, South India. She uses the project as a case study to assess the potential of intercultural (but monodisciplinary) tandems in a transdisciplinary setting (Christinck & Padmanabhan, 2013). From her perspective as team leader, Padmanabhan examines the experiences of five tandems (three research tandems, one administrative and one managerial), including one (the management tandem) of which she was a member.The chapter adopts a narrative approach that offers a new perspective on the evolving debate on managing transdisciplinary research by providing insights, from an insider’s view, into decision-making and processes of those involved. By comparing the experiences and outcomes of the five tandems the author identifies the factors that influenced performance and enhanced, or hindered, their contribution to transdisciplinary team development. She concludes that tandems offer unique opportunities for critical self-reflection among members of intercultural and transdisciplinary research teams engaged in sustainability research. However, to be successful, tandems require careful and sympathetic management that considers the (disciplinary) interests of individual researchers as well as the wider transdisciplinary aims of the research project. Part IV: policy interface: creating dialogues with policy makers

Transdisciplinary research both requires and facilitates two kinds of linkages between science and politics. First, a key aim of transdisciplinarity is the production of transformation knowledge that can be used to craft relevant recommendations for policy fields. Second, transdisciplinarity depends on the political will to support education in this mode of thought, to develop standards and to fund transformative research. Therefore, dialogue with policy makers as knowledge holders is essential for the advancement of transdisciplinary research, both as an academic discipline and a socially relevant one. In this section, FinkKeßler and Jürgens, Neumann and Deppisch, and Mann and Voß explore a range of options for promoting dialogue with policy makers. Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens (Chapter 11) provide a rare insight into the methods and working of freelance researchers and demonstrate their potential to contribute to the creation of transformation knowledge. The network ‘Die Landforscher’ (countryside researchers) was founded in 2008 and links independent offices of freelance agricultural scientists. Members of the network act at the interface between agricultural practice, science and politics to facilitate the creation and application of transdisciplinary knowledge. The chapter describes the experiences and outcomes of two projects undertaken with independent meat and dairy farmers who are attempting to adopt more sustainable farming practices (through on-farm animal slaughter and by reducing or eliminating use of dairy feed concentrates). Despite the potential

Introduction 25

contribution of these farming practices to animal welfare and sustainable agriculture, they still occupy a marginalised position, largely ignored by mainstream agricultural research and policy. Fink-Keßler and Jürgens describe how the projects have contributed to the empowerment of farmers, individually and collectively, through validation of innovative practices originated by farmers themselves. However, the authors emphasise that technical validation of new practices must be complemented by efforts to raise awareness of their potential through dialogue among all involved actors, including farmers, scientists, policy makers and public agencies. Ultimately, the long-term viability of the new practices depends on the adoption of favourable agrarian policies, regulatory frameworks and funding programmes by authorities at local, national and European levels. In this respect intermediaries can play a vital role as a communications channel and catalysts of change, helping to ensure that science, policy and practice are aligned on a sustainable course. The authors conclude by reflecting on the qualities required to act effectively as intermediary: above all, personal engagement, openness and a willingness to learn. Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch (Chapter 12) propose prospective scenario planning in collaborative transdisciplinary research as a promising way to engage with local authorities about climate change adaptation. The authors describe how in the last 20 years a broad variety of new scenario planning approaches has emerged, with the emphasis shifting from forecasting to foresight. This is followed by a comparative analysis of this ‘second generation’ of scenario planning approaches, highlighting their similarities and differences, both in epistemological terms and among the methods they adopt for anticipating, visioning, networking and acting on the path towards possible futures. The authors show how, while all the approaches can be applied for strategic planning, each has different functionalities and dysfunctionalities with respect to the sharing and assessing of (local) knowledge. As a case study, the chapter analyses the application of one of these approaches, the prospective approach, in collaborative transdisciplinary research on climate change adaptation in the urban region of Rostock, in North Germany, between 2010 and 2012. The aims of the research were to use scenario planning, first, to create new local knowledge about impacts of climate change on land use and, second, to generate new insights about regional climate change adaptation strategies. The focus was on technocratic (expert) discourse among scientists and administrative staff, with the aim of making sense of climate change and converting explicit scientific knowledge and implicit local knowledge into new, formal local knowledge among the core group members. The authors describe the stages of the prospective scenario planning approach and assess its contribution to knowledge translation, knowledge transfer and knowledge transformation. Their detailed analysis of the challenges of knowledge exchange among actors with very different perspectives, experiences and judgements highlights the need for awareness of the potential – and limitations – of different scenario

26  Martina Padmanabhan

planning approaches to contribute to the generation of the new knowledge for sustainability, especially in relation to adaptation to climate change. The focus on scenario building is continued in the concluding chapter by Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß (Chapter 13), which explores the potential of policy foresight as a conceptual framework for understanding and engaging with the dynamics of policy instrument design. The authors discuss the conceptual ideas underpinning ‘foresight’, as used for business planning, technological innovation and policy analysis. They present their ‘Challenging Futures’ methodology, which uses scenarios as a means of stimulating reflexivity and constructive debate around future policy options. The aim is to move beyond a purely technological discourse among a closed circle of policy experts, by involving a broader and more diverse set of actors that are affected by policies in different ways. As a case study, the authors examine the effectiveness of the ‘Challenging Futures’ approach when applied in a participatory exercise to the design of policy instruments for biodiversity conservation. They set the scene by discussing political aspects and contingent dynamics of policy formulation, using policies on biodiversity offsets and conservation trading schemes as case study examples. This is followed by a review of empirical insights gained from past and present changes in the design of policy instruments in these different contexts as a result of interaction with broader political discourses. Reconstructing the evolutions of different policy instruments over past decades as ‘innovation journeys’, the authors highlight the underlying patterns of development and mechanisms of innovation in each case.These experiences are used as a template for constructing a range of scenarios for the future of policy instrument development and the application of different approaches to policy instrument design in a variety of domains. The scenarios were subsequently presented to a workshop attended by 24 international experts from a variety of backgrounds for their consideration. In reviewing the experience, Mann and Voß reflect on the challenges involved in pursuing the ambitious goal of uncovering abstract, complex, and uncertain policy development dynamics through dialogue with multiple actors with varying orientations, influences and expectations. They conclude by reaffirming the need to open up the policy instrument design process to debate, in order to contribute to sustainable innovation in governance.

Outlook As the chapter summaries show, the German-speaking transdisciplinary community adopts an international outlook. Its contribution to sustainability science is notable for its diversity, both in terms of the variety of approaches and range of fields to which they are applied. While characteristics of transdisciplinary research such as normativity, interdisciplinarity, urgency and collaboration with non-scientists are central, the inherent relationship to disciplinary research

Introduction 27

and resulting tensions remain productive. This can be observed in the evolving debate on the need for theory-building in sustainability sciences (Grunwald, 2015) as well as in continuing effort to develop a conceptual model of transdisciplinarity that encompasses the full range of different approaches adopted (Scholz & Steiner, 2015a, 2015b; Jahn et al., 2012). In reviewing the wealth of material contained in this book, a number of key themes emerge. Cooperating with partners of practice is one constitutive feature of transdisciplinarity and the chapter authors describe a range of methodological innovations developed towards this end. Finding common terminology is identified as a key challenge: this is not only an ontological task, but also one that has epistemological consequences, affecting efforts to devise appropriate methods for application in the field. The design of transdisciplinary research needs to take account of both process (knowledge production and integration) and outputs (different types of knowledge, new institutional arrangements), as well as underlying, normative sustainability goals. Moreover, transdisciplinarity expands the field of action of academic research by actively seeking to engage in dialogue with policy makers: communication is part and parcel of transdisciplinary research. Last but not least, the incorporation of transdisciplinarity research into mainstream science will require the transformation of academic institutions. Advances in transdisciplinarity can be observed in terms of epistemologies, methodologies, processes and the development of conceptual and analytical frameworks (Lawrence, 2015, Pohl, 2011). The creative and transformative capacity of transdisciplinary inquiry is revealed by the ongoing process of innovation and diversification of methods and approaches for application in different localities and specific cases, exemplified by the experiences reported on by the chapter authors in this book. Critical reflection on new and existing processes for the co-production of knowledge plays a key role, by confronting asymmetries of power and devising new ways to transfer control to participants. However, on an institutional level, there are still formidable barriers to transdisciplinary research, which will remain in place as long as incentive structures are missing. Research policy frameworks, funding programs and most academic institutions offer, at best, limited opening for transdisciplinary research. The formal education system continues to be organised along disciplinary lines and, for the individual researcher, pursuance of a career pathway outside of academic disciplines remains a highly risky endeavour. The future outlook for transdisciplinarity and its contribution to sustainability science is discussed in more detail in the final chapter of this volume, in which I propose a research agenda that builds on advances in knowledge, suggests strategies to overcome obstacles and address challenges, and promotes the exploration of new research frontiers. This ‘Outlook’ concludes by drawing these threads together, summarising the key lessons learned and reflecting on the opportunities and challenges for the further development of transdisciplinary science, and its potential to contribute to a sustainable global future.

28  Martina Padmanabhan

References Arlinghaus, R., Hunt, L. M., Post, J. R., & Allen, M. S. (2014). Not fish not meat: Some guidance on how to study fisheries from an interdisciplinary perspective. In W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch, & N. J. Léonard (Eds.), Future of fisheries: Perspectives for emerging professionals (pp. 223–230). Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Augsburg, T. (2014). Becoming transdisciplinary: The emergence of the transdisciplinary individual, world futures. Journal of New Paradigm Research, 70(3–4), 233–247. Becker, E., & Jahn, T. (2006). Soziale Ökologie: Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Frankfurt: Campus. Beckmann, V., & Padmanabhan, M. (2009). Institutions and Sustainability: Political Economy of Agriculture and the Environment. Dordrecht: Springer. Bergmann, M., Jahn,T., Knobloch,T., Krohn,W., Pohl, C., & Schramm, E. (2012). Methods for transdisciplinary research. A primer for practice. Frankfurt: Campus. Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Lux, A., Nagy, E., & Schäfer, M. (2016). Wirkungsvolle transdisziplinäre Forschung.TransImpact untersucht transdisziplinäre Projekte. GAIA, 25(1), 59–60. Betz, L., Kunze, I., Parameswaran, P., Suma, T. R., & Padmanabhan, M. (2014). The socialecological web: A bridging concept for transdisciplinary research. Current Science, 10(4), 572–579. Brand, U. (2016). “Transformation” as a new critical orthodoxy:The strategic use of the term “transformation” does not prevent multiple crises. GAIA, 25(1), 23–27. 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. Ecological Economics, 92, 1–15. Brown,V. A., Harris, J. A., and Russell, J. Y. (2010). Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. London: Earthscan. Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. Essex, UK: Longmans Scientific and Technical. Christinck, A., & Padmanabhan, M. (2013). Cultivating diversity! Handbook on transdisciplinary approached to agrobiodiversity. Weikersheim: Margraf. Clark, W., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging research program. PNAS, 100(14), 8059–8061. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231333100 Clark,W.,Tomich,T., van Noordwijk, M., Gustond, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson Nancy, M., & McNie, E. (2011). Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). PNAS, 113(17): 4615–4622. Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2013). Transdisciplinary sustainability science at higher education institutions: Science policy tools for incremental institutional change. Sustainability, 5(9), 3783– 3801. doi:10.3390/su5093783 Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2014). Sustainability science for strong sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Defila, R., & Di Giulio, A. (2015). Integrating knowledge: Challenges raised by the “Inventory of Synthesis”. Futures, 65, 123–135. Deppisch, S., & Hasibovic, S. (2013). Social-ecological resilience thinking as a bridging concept in transdisciplinary research on climate change adaptation. Natural Hazards, 67, 117–127. Du Plessis, H., Sehume, J., & Martin, L. (2001). The concept and application of transdisciplinarity in intellectual discourse and research. Johannesburg: Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflections (MISTRA).

Introduction 29 Eisenack, K., & Stecker, R. 2012. A framework for analyzing climate change adaptations as actions. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 17(3), 243–260. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. Franz-Balsen, A., & Kruse, L. (2016) Human ecology studies and higher education for sustainable development: European experiences and examples. Munich: oekom. Future Earth. (2014). Future earth strategic research agenda 2014. Paris: International Council for Science (ICSU). Gethmann, C. F., Carrier, M., Hanekamp, G., Kaiser, M., Kamp, G., Lingner, S., Quante, M., & Thiele, F. (2015). Interdisciplinary research and trans-disciplinary validity claims. Heidelberg: Springer. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Glaeser, B. (1995). Environment, development, agriculture: Integrated policy through human ecology. London: Routledge. Glaser, M., Krause, G., Ratter, B., & Welp, M. (2012). Human-nature interactions in the Anthropocene: Potentials of social-ecological systems analysis. London: Routledge. Görg, C. (1999). Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Görg, C. (2011). Shaping relationships with nature – adaptation to climate change as a challenge for society. Die Erde, 142(4), 411–428. Gottschlich, D., Mölders, T., & Padmanabhan, M. (2016). Introduction to the symposium on feminist perspectives on human-nature relations. Agriculture and Human Values. Online first. Grunwald, A. (2015). What kind of theory do we need for sustainable development – and how much of it? Some thoughts. In J. Enders & M. Reming (Eds.), Theories of sustainable development (pp. 16–29). London: Routledge. Hall, K. L.,Vogel, A. L., Stipelman, B. A. et al. (2012, December). A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2(4), 415–430. doi:10.1007/s13142–012–0167-y Hamburger, B., & Teherani-Krönner, P. (2014). Mahlzeitenpolitik: Zur Kulturökologie von Ernährung und Gender. Munich: Oekom. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Joya, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp, E. (2008). The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. In G. Hirsch Hadorn, H. Hoffmann-Riem, S. Biber-Klemm, W. Grossenbacher-­Mansuy, D. Joye, C. Pohl, . . . E. Zemp (Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 19–39). Dordrecht: Springer. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S., & Wiesmann, U. (2006). Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 119–128. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffman-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy,W., Joye, D., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp, E. (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer. Hofmeister, S., Katz, C., & Mölders, T. (2013). Geschlechterverhältnisse und Nachhaltigkeit: Die Kategorie Geschlecht in den Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. Huutoniemi, K., & Tapio, P. (2014). Transdisciplinary sustainability studies: A heuristic approach. Oxon: Routledge. Jäger, J. (2009).The governance of science for sustainability. In W. N. Adger & A. Jordan (Ed.), Governing sustainability (pp. 142–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

30  Martina Padmanabhan Jahn, T. (2016). Science for sustainable development requires a critical orientation. ISOEDiskussionspapiere 39. ISSN 1436–3534 Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE) Frankfurt am Main. Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10. Jahn,T., & Keil, F. (2015). An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research. Futures, 65, 195–208. Jantsch, E. (1970): Inter- and transdisciplinary university: A systems approach to education and innovation. Policy Sciences, 1(4), 403–42. Jerneck, A., Olsson, L., Ness, B. et al. Sustain Sci (2011). Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 6, 69–82. doi:10.1007/s11625–010–0117-x Jones, H., Jones, N., Shaxson, L., & Walker, D. (2012). Knowledge, policy and power in international development: A practical guide. Bristol: Polity Press. Jose, M., & Padmanabhan, M. (2015). Dynamics of agricultural land use change in Kerala: A policy and social-ecological perspective. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 4, 1–18. Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292, 641–642. Kläy A., Zimmermann, A. B., & Schneider, F. (2015). Rethinking science for sustainable development. Reflexive Interaction for a Paradigm Transformation, 65, 72–85. Klein, J. T. (2014). Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future. Futures, 63, 68–74. Kunze, I., & Padmanabhan, M. (2014). Discovering positionalities in the countryside: Methodological reflections on doing fieldwork in South India. Erdkunde, 68(4), 277–288. Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., . . . Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(Suppl. 1), 25–43. doi:10.1007/s11625–011–0149-x Lawrence, R. (2015). Advances in transdisciplinarity: Epistemologies, methodologies and processes. Futures, 65(1), 1–9. Lyall, C. L., Meagher, L., Bruce, A. (2015). A rose by any other name? Transdisciplinarity in the context of UK research policy. Futures, 65(1), 150–162. Maasen, S. (2010). Transdisziplinarität revisited – Dekonstruktion eines Programms zur Demokratisierung der Wissenschaft. In A. Bogner, K. Kastenhofer, H. Torgersen (Eds.), Inter- und Transdisziplinarität im Wandel? Neue Perspektiven auf problemorientierte Forschung und Politikberatung (pp. 247–268). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Matzdorf, B., and Meyer, C. (2014). The relevance of the ecosystem services framework for developed countries’ environmental policies: a comparative case study of the US and EU. Land Use Policy, 38, 509–521. Michelsen, G.,Adomßent, M., Martens, P., & von Hauff, M. (2016). Sustainable d­ evelopment – background and context. In H. Heinrichs, A. Wiek, P. Martens, & G. Michelsen (Eds.), Sustainabilty Science (pp. 5–29). Dordrecht: Springer. Mittelstrass, J. (1987). Die Stunde der Interdisziplinarität? In J. Kocka (Ed.), Interdisziplinarität: Praxis – Herausforderung – Ideologie (pp. 152–158). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Momsen, J., Kunze, I., & Oakley, E. (2013). Agrobiodiversity and equity: Addressing gender in transdisciplinary research. In A. Christinck & M. Padmanabhan (Eds.), Cultivate diversity! A handbook on transdisciplinary approaches to agrobiodiversity research (pp. 71–91).Weikersheim: Margraf. Müller, C. (2013). Bilanzierung der Fördermaßnahme Nachwuchsgruppen in der Sozialökologischen Forschung Förderphasen I & II (2002–2014). Sozial-ökologische Forschung,

Introduction 31 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Bonn, Germany. [online] Retrieved from www.fona.de/mediathek/pdf/Bilanzierungsbericht_SOEF_Nachwuchsgruppen_ 2013.pdf Nagabhatla, N., Padmanabhan, M., Kühle, P.,Vishnudas, S., Betz, L., & Niemeyer, B. (2014). LCLUC as an entry point for transdisciplinary research – reflections from an agriculture land use change study in South Asia. Journal of Environmental Management, 1–11. Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity (Trans. K.-C.Voss). Albany: SUNY Press. O’Brien, L., Marzano, M., & White, R. M. (2013). Participatory interdisciplinarity: Towards the integration of disciplinary diversity with stakeholder engagement for new models of knowledge production. Science and Public Policy, 40, 51–61. Olsson, L., Jerneck, A.,Thoren, H., Persson, J., & O’Byrne, D. (2015).Why resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science Advances, 1(4), 140, 99–104. www.dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400217 Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419. doi:10.1126/science.1172133 Padmanabhan, M. (2016). Intraface: Negotiating gender-relations in agrobiodiversity. Freiburger Zeitschrift für Geschlechterstudien (fzg), 22(2), 85–105. Park, R. (1936). Human ecology. American Journal of Sociology, 42(1), 1–15. Pohl, C. (2011). What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures, 43(6), 618–626. Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2010). td-net – the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences’ forum for transdisciplinary research. In R. Frodeman, J.Thompson Klein, and C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (pp. 434–436). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Purushothaman, S., Ravi, C., Nagendra, H., Mathai, M., Mundoli, S., Joseph, G., Barna, S., Nawn, N., Gopalan, R., Bursztyn, M., Padmanabhan, M., Duncan, S., & DeFries, R. (2016). Sustainability in higher education for the global south: A conversation across geographies and disciplines. Sustentabilidade em Debate, 7(1), 156–173. Rittel, H.W.J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Rosendahl, J., Matheus, A., Zanella, S., & Weigelt, J. (2015). Scientists’ situated knowledge: Strong objectivity. In transdisciplinarity. Futures, 65, 17–27. Ruppert-Winkel, C., Arlinghaus, R., Deppisch, S., Eisenack, K., Gottschlich, D., Hirschl, B., . . . Plieninger, T. (2015). Characteristics, emerging needs, and challenges of transdisciplinary sustainability science: Experiences from the German Social-Ecological Research Program. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 13. Ruppert-Winkel, C., Hauber, J., Stablo, J., & Kress, M. (2014). The World Café as an instrument for integration in transdisciplinary sustainability research. GAIA, 23(3), 234–252. Schmalzbauer, B., & Visbeck, M. (2016). The contribution of science in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Stuttgart: German Committee Future Earth. Schneidewind, U., & Augenstein, K. (2012). Analyzing a transition to a sustainabilityoriented science system in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 3, 16–28. Schneidewind, U., & Augenstein, K. (2016). Three schools of transformation thinking. The impact of ideas, institutions, and technological innovation on transformation processes. GAIA, 25(2), 88–93. Schneidewind, U., Singer-Brodowski, M., Augenstein, K., & Stelzer, F. (2016). Pledge for a transformative science: A conceptual framework. Wuppertal Paper 191. Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Scholz, R. (2011). Environmental literacy in science and society: From knowledge to decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

32  Martina Padmanabhan Scholz, R. W., & Steiner, G. (2015a). The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part I – theoretical foundations. Sustainability Science, 10, 527–544. doi:10.1007/ s11625-015-0326-4 Scholz, R. W., & Steiner, G. (2015b). The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part II – what constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustainability Science, 10, 653–671. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0327-3 Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge. London: Sage. Schütz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The Structures of the Life-World (Strukturen der Lebenswelt) (Trans. R. M. Zaner and H. T. Engelhardt Jr.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Selbmann, K. (2015). Bio-, Agro- or even Social Fuels: Discourse dynamics on biofuels in Germany. Environmental Values, 24, 483–510. Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., Panter-Brick, C., & Yehuda, R. (2014). Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5. http://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338 Thompson Klein, J. (2015). Reprint of “Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future”. Futures, 65, 10–16. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/1. New York: United Nations. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2), p. 5. Weingart, P., & Padberg, B. (Eds.). (2014). University experiments in interdisciplinarity – obstacles and opportunities (pp. 151–174). Bielefeld: Transcript. WGBU– German Advisory Council on Global Change. (2011). World in transition – a social contract for sustainability. Berlin: WGBU. Wiek, A., Ness, B., Schweizer-Ries, P., Brand, F. S., & Farioli, F. (2012). From complex systems analysis to transformational change: A comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 5–24.

Part I

Understanding sustainability science as challenge and necessity

2 A transdisciplinary approach to the process of sociotechnical transformation The case of German Energiewende Armin Grunwald Introduction As has been well-known for more than two decades, sustainability research must be highly inter- and transdisciplinary in nature in order to respond the challenges inherent to the topic. Sustainability research should provide knowledge for action and is therefore profoundly related with social and political issues such as regulation, behaviour, value-added chains, daily routines of users, consumption patterns, economic incentives, perceptions, attitudes and values. Cooperation with social actors is required in diagnosing sustainability deficits and challenges, determining priorities for research and action, defining sustainability indicators, and targets, bringing knowledge and values of stakeholders and affected persons into the game and, above all, in actions to make sustainability strategies work in practice.This holds in particular for the transformation to sustainable systems of large-scale infrastructure such as energy supply, water supply and transportation. Such transformation processes are only conceivable as processes of co-diagnosis of deficits, co-shaping of future alternatives, co-determination of targets and co-design of solutions at each stage of the transformation. However, the transformation of the energy system is often regarded as – more or less – solvable by new and more efficient technology, including wholesale adoption of renewables, assuming implicitly or explicitly that social issues do not need to be addressed, except to the extent that the new technologies need to be accepted by society. Thus, the role of social sciences is frequently seen by managers and engineers as being to provide the know-how to achieve this goal of acceptance. The aim of this chapter is to criticise this technocratic approach as deficient and misleading, using the German Energiewende as an example (Schippl et al. 2017). The term Energiewende has been variously translated as ‘energy turnaround’, ‘energy transition’ and ‘energy transformation’. It stands for the (relatively) quick transformation of German energy infrastructure to achieve a more sustainable status based on an increased share of renewables and much greater energy efficiency, including an accelerated nuclear phase-out following the Fukushima disaster. I argue that this transformation goes far beyond the substitution of traditional technologies by new and more sustainable ones

36  Armin Grunwald

because the energy system is not a purely technical system consisting of power plants, supply lines, storage systems and so forth. It also includes a complex set of human actors including users, regulators, decision makers, planners, innovators, employees in the supply companies, citizens affected by side-effects of energy technologies and infrastructure and also citizens in their role as the sovereign of democracy. The main thesis of this chapter is that the energy system is a socio-technical system and that the Energiewende is a social transformation, one that includes technological change but also much else besides. The chapter is structured as follows. First, some general issues in recent debates on transdisciplinary sustainability research are discussed. Second, I develop the argument that the energy system should be understood as a socio-technical system. When considering the energy system as a subject for change, as in the case of the Energiewende, the many uncertainties involved require an ongoing societal learning process that is far removed from classical planning approaches. The Helmholtz Alliance ENERGY-TRANS is introduced as a step in this direction. This research programme addresses the transformation of the energy system as a twofold challenge involving both technical and socio-­political aspects. By conceptualising the energy system as a socio-technical system, the Alliance opens up new perspectives for further inter- and transdisciplinary energy research.

Inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge integration for sustainability Sustainable development requires that societal processes – including c­ onsumption and production patterns, value-added chains and technology ­development – are reorientated so as to ensure that present generations can satisfy their needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED, 1987; Grunwald & Kopfmüller, 2012).Thus sustainable development necessarily involves long-term and normative considerations (von Schomberg, 2002). This includes reflecting on the impact of present-day use of technology on society in the future and, conversely, considering how such reflections should affect present-day individual and collective behaviour. The t­ransformation of current social realities to more sustainable ones will need to draw on complex knowledge about current trends and developments: about systems and their driving forces. It will require orientation on where to go to in order to reach a more sustainable world, and on how to get there (Kates et al., 2000;­Verbong and ­Loorbach, 2012). It is evident that scientific research and advice is needed to support this ‘really great transformation’ (WBGU, 2011;Wiek, Ness, S­ chweizer-Ries, Brand & Farioli, 2012). The necessity of crossing the borders between scientific disciplines on the one hand, and between science and society on the other, in order to solve problems in the ‘real world’, and specifically in the field of sustainable development, has long been a subject of scientific and public debate (Talwar, Wiek, & Robinson, 2011; Wiek et al., 2015). In the case of sustainable development, this

The case of German Energiewende  37

necessity is inherent to the field of study. Obviously, real-world challenges such as the transformation to a more sustainable energy system cannot be dealt with successfully within individual scientific disciplines. Problem-focused research is oriented towards social challenges and problems whose scope transcends that of disciplinary research programmes (Grunwald, 2004), and must therefore be interdisciplinary in nature. Beyond interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity plays a key role in the entire research process. Transdisciplinarity shifts the focus from problem identification to wider questions of how the problem is identified and defined, and who should contribute to defining the problem and designing the corresponding research programme (co-design). Transdisciplinarity draws on the perspectives of stakeholders, civil society and other extra-scientific actors, and involves them in knowledge production (co-production) and the design of intervention strategies (co-creation). Thus in transdisciplinarity, the sources of intelligence are extended to include non-scientific knowledge . . . the research question is defined together, and the quality of the work is checked by both groups, as those affected are the experts for relevance, while scientists are the exports for rigour. (Spangenberg, 2011, p. 277) Accordingly, the issue of integration is at the heart of transdisciplinarity: Transdisciplinarity is a critical and self-reflexive research approach that relates societal with scientific problems; it produces new knowledge by integrating different scientific and extra-scientific insights; its aim is to contribute to both societal and scientific progress; integration is the cognitive operation of establishing a novel hitherto non-existent connection between the distinct epistemic, socio-organizational, and communicative entities that make up the given problem context. (Jahn, Bergmann & Keil, 2012, p. 9) In order to provide integrative orientation and strategies for sustainable development, research has to operate with different types of knowledge from various scientific disciplines and, on demand, also from outside science.Thus it has to be transdisciplinary in nature. This knowledge can be categorised in the following way (expanded after Grunwald, 2004): •

Systems knowledge. Insight into natural and societal systems, as well as knowledge of the interactions between society and the natural environment, are necessary prerequisites for successful action in the field of sustainable development. Scientific disciplines are used to provide explanatory knowledge about relevant systems, in particular in the form of cause/ effect relationships: this knowledge should explain how specific parts of

38  Armin Grunwald

•

•

•

the world ‘work’. This type of knowledge is often provided in the form of models (Schellnhuber, 1999). Prospective knowledge. The time dimension of sustainable development, in particular the issue of assuming responsibility for future generations (Jonas, 1985), requires considering possible, probable or desirable future developments, based on today’s knowledge and assessments. Prospective knowledge provides information on imaginable or probable future outcomes of current developments. It can be used, for example, in ‘early warning mode’ to raise awareness. A variety of research-based methods such as scenario techniques and model-based simulation techniques are available to provide prospective knowledge (Rescher, 1998). Orientation knowledge. The appraisal of societal circumstances and developments, of global trends, and of actions must build on sustainability goals, criteria and targets which permit reliable and transparent differentiation in ‘sustainable’ and ‘non-sustainable’ or ‘less sustainable’. These must be based on sound reasoning that departs from normative premises. Orientation knowledge serves as a ‘compass’ to identify sustainability deficits, to determine priorities, to find out which direction to go and to distinguish between alternative paths of action (Kopfmüller et al., 2001; Ott & Döring, 2004). Knowledge for action. The tasks of sustainability research necessarily include the therapeutic treatment of sustainability problems. In the final analysis, science for sustainability aims to produce coherent and integrative actionguiding knowledge for policy makers and society setting possible measures and strategies, while taking account of the uncertainty involved and incompleteness of the knowledge produced (Grunwald, 2004, 2007; von Schomberg, 2002).

Research for sustainable development usually aims at transformation and is thus transformative research (WBGU, 2011). All the types of knowledge listed above are indispensable in order to be able to do this. Explanations of cause/effect chains provide the cognitive basis for every sort of action. Orientating criteria are indispensable for diagnosis and therapy, while prospective knowledge indicates possible future developments. These three types of knowledge are combined in the production of knowledge for action. Together, the four types of knowledge constitute strategic knowledge (Grunwald, 2004). With respect to the sources of these different categories of knowledge it is obvious that interdisciplinary integration is required. Both positive sciences, such as geography, ecology and climatology, and social sciences, provide systems knowledge. Normative sciences such as ethics and legal sciences contribute to orientation knowledge, while action-oriented sciences such as politics and economics deal with measures to reach specific targets. Furthermore, in addition to disciplinary integration, there is a need to integrate knowledge from outside science at different moments in the research process. For example, perceptions and values derived from non-scientific knowledge contribute to orientation

The case of German Energiewende  39

knowledge, while stakeholders’ and citizens’ views on future developments provide inputs to prospective knowledge. However, the most relevant entry points of and needs for transdisciplinarity concern the entire field and are related to questions such as: • How can the problem under consideration be understood adequately – and what does ‘adequate’ mean? • Which knowledge is required to understand the problem and to identify response strategies? • Which targets should be accorded high priority? • Which scientific disciplines and extra-scientific fields of action are able to provide the knowledge required? Accordingly, transdisciplinarity is required throughout the process, beginning with framing and understanding the problem at hand, through identifying knowledge holders and determining processes of knowledge acquisition, to defining strategies and responses to the identified sustainability deficits. Transdisciplinarity is thus the conceptual, practical and integrative mediator of interdisciplinary and disciplinary sustainability research. This conclusion does not imply that each research project aiming to contribute to sustainable development must be wholly inter- or transdisciplinary in nature. In particular, explanatory systems knowledge often can be created by disciplinary research and modelling, e.g. on specific ecosystems, or by interdisciplinary projects without the cooperation of partners from wider society. Accordingly, there may be instances of mono- or interdisciplinary projects that contribute considerably to sustainable development without having any transdisciplinary components. However, results of these projects should be integrated into an overarching framework of transdisciplinary sustainability assessments and diagnoses. Mono- or interdisciplinary research should be embedded in a common and thus transdisciplinary agenda of sustainability research. This organisational and conceptual framework will enable an integrative process that gives rise to ‘products’ combining the knowledge types mentioned above in response to specific sustainability challenges. It also provides orientation on how to combine different methods in order to achieve the envisaged common result. The following quote focusing on interdisciplinarity also holds for the transdisciplinary integration of extra-scientific knowledge:“Science for sustainability can be mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary, but it must be at least ‘interdisciplinarity-ready’, conducted with the broader picture of sustainability in mind, and therefore ready for integration with results from other disciplines” (Spangenberg, 2011, p. 277). As a side effect it becomes clear that, by developing and practising interand transdisciplinary sustainability research, science leaves the niche of value-­ freedom that was formally taken for granted and takes on a politically relevant role in the identification of problems, in carrying out assessments and diagnoses and in determining a range of response options: “It may be basic or applied

40  Armin Grunwald

research, but it must be purpose-bound, as opposed to the ‘value-free’ stance of natural sciences” (Spangenberg, 2011, p. 276, as well as Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993, and the debate around their concept of ‘post-normal science’). Science in this sense works inevitably with evaluative premises, which influence the societal process of evaluation sustainability and its political realisation. It must therefore carefully reflect on the borderline between knowledge and evaluation, in order to be able to uphold its legitimacy as a knowledgeproviding societal subsystem and to retain its constitutive role as a producer of specific knowledge (Luhmann, 1990). The application of value judgements is inevitable but must not lead to a situation where science appears in the sustainability discussion in the role of one ‘stakeholder’ among many others. In this case, science would lose its specific character and legitimacy. Specific attention should be given to the task of redefining scientific independence in a way that goes beyond positivistic claims of value-neutrality. Experiences from the field of technology assessment, where there is a strong need for transparency in addressing normative issues could also be of use also in the field of sustainability research (Grunwald, 2009). Research needs to explicitly and transparently address normative issues (such as values or societal goals) in order to be able to provide independent and unbiased advice regarding each of the many normative decisions that need to be made in technology projects. Often, normative issues are hidden in mainstream scientific approaches. These include the determination of system boundaries, the selection of theories (for example, basing economic analysis on the model of homo oeconomicus) the configuration of models. Historically speaking, inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge integration is a countermovement that goes against the inherent dynamics of scientific progress. Over the centuries, success in science has been achieved through differentiation, specialisation and fragmentation. Disciplines, sub-disciplines, sub-sub-disciplines and specialised small communities emerged and acquired stable identities, expressed in ever more specialised journals, specialised languages and formalisms, dedicated conferences, and university courses. This process of disintegration is, apparently, one of the main drivers of scientific progress. Inter- and transdisciplinary integration goes against this historic trend and, therefore, requires intensive and continuous effort. There is an additional aspect of transdisciplinarity which seems to be strange to mainstream science. The mission of transdisciplinary research is an extra-­ scientific one. It responds to needs arising outside science, from the political system or from society, such as the need for sustainable development.This external influence calls into question the assumption of scientific autonomy. To really engage in sustainability research implies a partial renunciation of independence, in particular with regard to setting the research agenda. Sustainability research is not free to determine its own agenda but must respond to problems identified in the ‘real world’. The freedom of researchers to determine the subjects and methods of research could be further reduced by the need to take account of external (‘non-scientific’) problem diagnoses, stakeholder expectations and

The case of German Energiewende  41

boundary conditions. In order to be relevant in the sense of contributing to sustainable development in the ‘real world’, science has to accept that its own agenda has to be co-designed with other actors. For example, the new international research programme on sustainable development ‘Future Earth’ incorporates the idea of co-design. Compared to the former programmes on global change the focus has shifted from providing explanatory knowledge to providing solutions to sustainability deficits. Thus, projects in Future Earth have to be transdisciplinary right from the start.

The energy system as a subject for change Energy systems in Germany and many other countries will have to change radically in the light of the accelerated nuclear phase-out and political decisions to achieve a more sustainable energy supply – including an extensive reduction of the usage of fossil energy carriers and an ambitious increase in energy efficiency in order to meet international agreed CO2 goals. Today, fossil and nuclear energy carriers account for 85 per cent of the primary energy supply in Germany. By 2050, the intention is to reduce to a maximum of 20 per cent, in order both to prevent catastrophic climate change and to decrease the country’s dependence on geopolitically problematic resources. Traditionally, the key to achieving these ambitious goals has been seen primarily in terms of developing and implementing innovative technologies, increasing efficiency in energy conversion, transport and use, and increasing the share of renewable energy carriers. In terms of the triangle of sustainability strategies of efficiency, consistency (compatibility with natural material and energy flows), and sufficiency (change of behaviour towards a more sustainable lifestyle) (Huber, 1995), the focus is on efficiency and consistency. Sufficiency is hardly addressed. Although there have been attempts to shift the focus onto social issues such as lifestyle and consumer behaviour, and engage with concepts such as degrowth and qualitative growth for some years (Jackson, 2009), these ideas have still not entered the mainstream. Moreover social and political boundary conditions affecting the chances of reaching the efficiency and consistency goals are seldom debated; instead there is a strong and often exclusive focus on technical and economic issues. For example, the public debate on the Energiewende is largely about the single issue of electricity prices. The impression has been created by policymakers and mass media that energy consumers, i.e. the population at large, would not ‘really’ be affected by the Energiewende, beyond having to accept the new technologies. The changes brought about by new infrastructure on landscapes, lifeworlds, and the environment are rarely discussed. However new high-voltage transmission lines, onshore wind farms, agro-industrial biomass production for energetic purposes, geothermal drilling and new infrastructure for e-mobility are likely to profoundly influence many people’s daily lives. Concerns are currently being expressed that lack of acceptance, e.g. of transmission lines, could hinder the transformation process. More participation is frequently suggested as an appropriate means to increase the

42  Armin Grunwald

acceptance level – which is in line with technocratic thinking and the idea that the Energiewende is basically a technological endeavour. Generally the expectation is that people should simply accept those new technologies, along with management strategies that reduce their degree of autonomy, as in the case of so-called demand side management. Furthermore, this approach also ascribes responsibility in a specific way: people rejecting particular measures are held responsible for an eventual failure of the entire Energiewende project. To address these complications, social scientists are frequently asked to provide mechanisms for creating acceptance. Requesting the involvement of social sciences could be seen as progress, because there is a concession that natural and engineering sciences alone will not be capable of bringing about the energy transformation. However, on the other hand it is clear that the role of creating acceptance that is being offered to the social sciences is, to say the least, problematic. In fact this role is neither feasible nor does it belong to the selfunderstanding of social sciences as being research-oriented – rather than a kind of public relations activity. Social scientists can conduct research into acceptance will be neither able nor willing to create acceptance. Involving the social sciences in this way would not lead to interdisciplinary knowledge integration but, on the contrary, rather embed the social sciences in the technocratic vision of the entire energy transformation process. However, this technology-oriented vision, primarily reflecting the perspectives of managers, politicians and (some) scientists, is dramatically over-simplified. It suffers from shortcomings in at least two respects: 1 The underlying mindmap of the energy system is one-sided and oversimplified. It focuses on technology, controlling and organisation and regards the transformation of the energy system as a more or less technical task, albeit involving some organisational aspects. 2 Governance is assumed to be top-down, with the political system, managers and engineers being decisive; while energy consumers and the population at large, including people affected by the changes, are seen as passive and are expected to adapt to what has been decided upon in a top-down manner. Bottom-up engagement is regarded as more or less disturbing. In the remainder of this chapter a different picture of the energy system and its transformation will be sketched out. In order to do this, I will start from some more general considerations of infrastructures that are not single technologies or single artefacts but rather grids of technologies forming highly interconnected technological systems. Their transformation represents a huge challenge, in technical and economic terms alone, as can easily be appreciated by considering the scale and complexity of transportation, water supply, telecommunications and energy infrastructures, for example. However, the challenges and difficulties go far beyond the technical and economic sphere (Kemp & Rotmans, 2004; Rohracher, 2008). Infrastructures shape and even dominate not only economic value-added chains and business models but also

The case of German Energiewende  43

social processes, patterns of resource use and human behaviour. For example, the constant availability of relatively cheap electricity and gasoline has allowed comfortable patterns of behaviour to develop which have become an essential part of our culture and of daily life, and would obviously be very difficult to change. Infrastructures are closely interlinked with routines and patterns of social life and culture, the transformation of an infrastructure simultaneously affects those routines and patterns, and this is, I maintain, the really ambitious challenge involved in transforming infrastructures. This point rarely comes up in public debate, nor is it considered by research on the energy transformation. Mostly, the impression is given that transformation processes should not – and more or less will not – affect end users. One example was the debate on fuels from biomass that took place some years ago. If fuels from biomass could simply replace fossil fuels, then end users would not have to change anything. Change would only affect the production chain of gasoline. And in the initial debates on German Energiewende directly after the Fukushima disaster there was an overwhelming (but unspoken) consensus that the changes proposed would have almost no effect on end users, not even with regard to the energy price. Things have changed since then, and the consensus is no longer that overwhelming. Instead, there are deep political controversies on how to proceed with the Energiewende. Because of the extremely close relations between infrastructures and social and economic issues it seems appropriate to model them as socio-technical systems (Ropohl, 1979). They can only fulfil their function if supply and demand are balanced, if adequate regulation and incentive mechanisms ensure stability, if the changes required can be integrated into the existing societal processes, and if new routines can be established in a socially legitimate way. Thus the energy system is not, as frequently described by engineers and managers, a purely technical system of power plants, power lines, control mechanisms and storage facilities. The energy system also includes elements such as regulatory mechanisms, public attitudes, business models, constellations of power and user behaviour. It is profoundly affected by geopolitical events, ongoing globalisation, national policies and economic competition and probably much more (Schippl & Grunwald, 2013). Because of the socio-technical nature of the energy infrastructure it is not enough to replace today’s dominant technologies (such as coal-fired or nuclear power stations) with renewable energy sources. The new energy carriers can only provide a reliable and socially compatible supply if the accompanying infrastructure solutions, their management, and the demand behaviour are adjusted in accordance with their social context (Helmholtz, 2016). Energy supply and distribution technologies as well as other elements of the infrastructure are not automatically embedded in society; on the contrary, the process of embedment needs special attention. Therefore, technical competence is not all that is required for the analysis and design of future (sustainable) energy infrastructures; so also are insights into organisational and societal circumstances such as political-legal framework conditions, economic boundary

44  Armin Grunwald

conditions, individual and social behaviour patterns, ethical assessment criteria, participation needs and patterns of acceptance. This is the basic reason why energy research or, more precisely, research to support the transformation of the energy system is necessarily interdisciplinary, involving social and political sciences alongside technical sciences. Several arguments in favour of transdisciplinary research in the field of sustainable development have already been presented. In addition, there is a further point to be made, relating to the uncertainty and incompleteness of our current knowledge about the future transformation process and its results, which make it impossible to pursue the Energiewende by means of traditional planning in the sense of ‘rational comprehensive planning’ (Camhis, 1979). The transformation to a more sustainable energy system has to be conceptualised and implemented under conditions of uncertain knowledge and using provisional assessments. Ex ante we cannot know for certain whether and to what extent a specific political or economic measure, technological innovation or new institutional arrangement will support the Energiewende. Every complex transition process has to confront this situation and must become – in a certain sense – ‘experimental’ (Braybrooke & Lindblom, 1963; Geels, 2012). This implies, first, that the idea of drawing up a general master plan enabling the goals of the German energy transformation, to be achieved by simply following the plan, is unrealistic because of the non-eliminable uncertainties involved. Current lamentations in political circles and the mass media about the absence of a master plan ignore this epistemologically grounded observation. We cannot know in detail where the decisions on the Energiewende will lead to in the future. However, it seems that society is still not ready to cope with an ‘open future’ along these lines. Second, this inherent uncertainty makes it clear that a technocratic approach will not succeed in identifying the ‘best option’ out of the many alternatives for taking the Energiewende forward. In traditional energy systems analysis, the system is mapped onto a mathematic model which can then be used for simulations and scenario building to identify the ‘optimal’ pathway to the future. However, for the reasons discussed earlier, this approach is not feasible in the case of the Energiewende and, if applied, would only lead to many and diverging pictures of the future, depending on premises and presuppositions (Grunwald, 2011). The alternative is to model the energy transformation as a collective learning process, as an exercise in reflexive governance (Voss, Bauknecht & Kemp, 2006). Following this approach, there is no master plan but only a ‘softer’ orientation towards sustainable development. This orientation does not allow for direct deduction of the best pathway towards the transformation but can provide orientation for the selection of the next step. By implementing these measures and monitoring their consequences, new knowledge is created which then can be used to inform the selection of the subsequent step, and so on. In this way the process of energy transformation is open and incremental, but also guided, which prevents it from becoming arbitrary or random (see Grunwald, 2000, where the process is described as ‘directed incrementalism’).

The case of German Energiewende  45

The basic point to be made in favour of transdisciplinarity is that each step in the Energiewende is an intervention in a real-world system. The Energiewende is not a set of options calculated in a model world but a series of measures that influence social life, economic relations, and political structures. Decisions on interventions cannot be left to science alone, even interdisciplinary science. Interventions have to be shaped in a process that involves stakeholders, practitioners, citizens and people affected, in order to integrate their knowledge and their perspectives into the intervention process. This is necessary from the perspective of deliberative democracy as well as simply with regard to prudence. Transdisciplinary research is therefore needed as part of the overall transformation process which should be modelled as a complex interplay of observation, reflection and action (Schneidewind, 2010;WBGU, 2011) that contributes to ‘reflexive governance’ towards sustainable development (Voss et al., 2006; Grunwald, 2007).

The Helmholtz Alliance ENERGY-TRANS Generally, and particularly in Germany, there has been a lot of research into the energy supply side, ranging from considerations and assessments of new energy technologies to analyses of future challenges to the grid and possible technical solutions to face those challenges. However, until recently there has been comparably little research into the demand side and the contextual conditions related to energy generation, distribution and consumption. In the traditional energy system the demand side played only a minor role, while the transformation to a new energy infrastructure based on increased efficiency, innovative co-production of electricity and heat and the decentralised use of renewable energy sources were seen as having a decisive influence. While the socio-­technical aspects of the transformation of the energy system have been an issue in inter- and transdisciplinary research on sustainability, e.g. in socialecological research (Jahn et al., 2012), they were only rarely addressed by mainstream academic research. The Helmholtz Alliance ENERGY-TRANS is a research alliance comprising four research centres that are members of the Helmholtz Association, Germany’s largest scientific organisation (for more information, see the homepage of the Association: www.helmholtz.de/en/about_us/). The Alliance understands the energy system as a complex socio-technical system and, based on this perspective, conducts interdisciplinary research into the systemic interactions of the envisioned energy transition. ENERGY-TRANS: the research approach

The perspective of the Helmholtz Alliance (Helmholtz, 2016) is that the energy system is not primarily to be viewed from the supply side, focusing on the provision of technical artefacts (machines, power stations, pipelines, control elements, etc.), but above all from the societal demand and user side (Rohracher,

46  Armin Grunwald

2008), focusing on the links between supply options and demand requirements, between services offered and social or individual requests, and between performance potential and actual performance. This perspective requires clarification and categorisation of the many interfaces and interrelations between social and technical aspects (Verbong & Loorbach, 2012). Specifically, the Alliance: •

Investigates the interface between energy supply systems and demand, considering the societal and political objectives and targets and taking into account the boundary conditions under which these systems operate or will operate in the future; • Analyses the interconnections between the services provided by future energy supply systems and the requirements of industry and households; • Contributes to the understanding of society’s capability to adapt itself to a new energy infrastructure and the willingness of consumers to change their own behaviour; • Designs promising transformation strategies and transition management processes using innovative technologies and services, including new governance models that provide participatory opportunities for stakeholders and the people affected (Helmholtz, 2016). In summary, the Alliance aims to provide ‘knowledge for action’ by applying an integrative research approach to the transformation of the energy system and to the governance of this process. This knowledge is tested (to the extent that this is possible) by means of regional modelling and related empirical research to ensure that conclusions are scientifically sound in accordance with to the standard criteria for excellence of scientific work. The knowledge is then used to provide guidance for decision-making and action at the different levels of governance involved in the transformation process. It also constitutes a springboard for development of ideas about future technology development (in the sense of Constructive Technology Assessment; Rip, Misa & Schot, 1995). In this sense, the Alliance as a whole can be considered an exercise in ‘Mode 2’ science (Nowotny, Scott & Gibbons, 2001) or ‘post-normal science’ (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993), although specific research projects are designed to be mainly disciplinary. The research comprises the following fields (Helmholtz, 2016): Foresight on energy infrastructure: The Alliance looks at the technical, environmental, and economical sides of possible future energy infrastructures in order to elucidate the spectrum of the possible or plausible possibilities. It identifies boundary conditions and (technical) windows of opportunity, including the potential contribution of new technologies in this field. A novel development in this field is the establishment of socio-technical scenarios for modelling possible futures. Innovation actors and processes: Innovation is necessary at many stages of the transformation process, in order to address technological, organisational and societal challenges and their potential effects on energy production,

The case of German Energiewende  47

distribution and usage systems. Successful innovation is the result of a complex interplay of individual and institutional actors at the micro- and meso-levels.The Alliance analyses roles and motivations of different actors as well as their views and expectations, in order to ascertain potential changes in patterns of demand and corresponding technical requirements. Risk and regulation: In accordance with the model of the energy system as a socio-technical system, risks and regulatory measures influencing the transformation processes are also considered at the systems level. Regulations such as political boundary conditions or systems of incentives influence the system in complex ways and have unpredictable effects. The involvement of users and consumers further increases the complexity of the system. The Alliance conducts research on systemic risks that potentially emerge out of the combination of technical and social complexity. Users and consumers: Classical boundaries dissolve in the current transformation of the energy system: private households become energy providers, cars will be used to store energy and smart meters make energy consumption visible for fine-tuning links between energy demand and supply. Consequently, users will have a much more important role to play in the future. The Alliance investigates user behaviour and its motivations and driving forces acting in different directions. Planning and participation: The future energy infrastructure will require the establishment of new technical elements such as high-voltage connections, and the construction of new wind farms and other infrastructure such as underground storages facilities. Resistance and conflicts have already occurred. New and participative planning procedures as well as approaches for conflict resolution are required.The Alliance addresses this field by bringing together philosophy, social science, legal science, and planning law. This research involves a variety of scientific disciplines, including philosophy and ethics, social and political sciences, economics, psychology, energy systems analysis and foresight methodologies. Field of research include sustainability, innovation, risk and governance (see Gawel et al., 2014). Scientists from all these disciplines and involved in projects in the different research fields work together in a somewhat ‘loose connection’ defined by a common working programme. Researchers from different disciplines apply their own strategies and methodologies in addressing issues defined in the common framework. Thus, it can be argued that the Alliance is highly interdisciplinary – but not yet really transdisciplinary. The research agenda was agreed upon among the contributing researchers and disciplines, without incorporating perspectives from outside science. However, during the research, researchers interact on a regular basis with policymakers, stakeholders, civil society organisations and people affected by the energy transformation (Beermann & Tews, 2015). Thus the Alliance is “transdisciplinarity-ready” (Spangenberg, 2011, p. 277) in the sense that it is conducted with the broader picture of sustainability mind and is

48  Armin Grunwald

ready for integration of results from outside science cited above. Our wider aim is to engage more directly in specific transformation processes, thereby making use of the ‘transdisciplinarity-ready’ knowledge which has been generated so far. It seems that this best opportunity for doing this will be at the regional level. Some experiences and achievements

To achieve the far-reaching aim of interdisciplinary integration of knowledge, members of the Alliance took several measures. Two ‘horizontal tasks’ (‘sustainability monitoring’ and ‘foresight integration’) were established at the outset. The systematic integration of projects and activities was further strengthened by the emergence of two ‘integrative key topics’ (‘analysing socio-technical systems’ and ‘regulation, instruments, governance’) that were taken up and developed by different research projects. The investigation of topics such as technology diffusion, risk governance and behavioural responses to new energy constraints and opportunities, as well as engagement with new planning methods based on stakeholder and public involvement, posed challenges for researchers. These were met through developing new areas of basic research and exploring innovative approaches and methods within and among the affected disciplines. For example, building a theoretically convincing model for analysis of individual responses to new energy context conditions, and developing a useful terminology to describe governance structures and challenges in connection with the energy transition, were tasks originally taken on by researchers from a single discipline; initial results were later enhanced by including inputs from representatives of other disciplines. In addition, new methods such as context-driven scenario construction had first to be developed and tested before they could be used in work with the whole range of interdisciplinary scholars and energy experts from stakeholder groups. Thus many projects started within the confines of single discipline and subsequently broadened out to become more interdisciplinary, feeding into the multi-actor discourse that became the main characteristic of the whole Alliance. These learning experiences gave rise to a new problem-focused research orientation. At the start research was still organised along basically disciplinary lines, as described earlier. However, over time we deliberately restructured the research clusters into three broad areas closely related with the different types of knowledge needed for transformative research (Chapter 2) (for specific examples see Schippl et al., 2017): •

•

Understanding of the transition: The main goal is to explore the complex interactions between technology, organisation, governance and behaviour (social, institutional and individual), identify major drivers of the transition and reflect on the key variables that impact the complex net of interactions. Providing orientation for the transition: The main goal is to explore the future developments and potential context variations for the transition and to

The case of German Energiewende  49

•

identify the key parameters of development that could lead the transition onto a sustainable path. Providing knowledge to shape the transition: The main goal is to explore alternative intervention options and evaluating their impacts against criteria such as effectiveness, efficiency, resilience and social fairness.

This shift to a much more interdisciplinary approach was evidenced by the production of joint, interdisciplinary publications, while transdisciplinary communication was furthered by the publication of a number of policy briefs aimed at policy makers, practice partners and interested members of the public (Helmholtz Association, 2014; see also Schippl et al., 2017). Building on the knowledge and insights produced by ENERGY-TRANS – with regard both to the transformation of the energy system and the organisation of complex interdisciplinary research – the Kopernikus Project on systems integration started in late 2016. This huge national project will incorporate a much greater degree of transdisciplinarity by means of real-world laboratories, permanent stakeholder involvement and competency groups. Thus the alliance ENERGY-TRANS can be regarded as having undertaken the preparatory interdisciplinary work required for a real transdisciplinary approach to the Energiewende.

Conclusion Strategic knowledge for sustainable development consists of combinations of orientation, prospective, explanatory, and action-guiding knowledge. The generation of this strategic knowledge represents a challenge to the traditional science system. The classical structure and development of the sciences in the direction of increasing specialisation has to be complemented by a new culture of integrative research, which crosses disciplinary borders; which treats questions of values transparently, but without ‘contact anxieties’; which is open to the integration of knowledge and perspectives from outside science; which involves social actors; and which moves on from detached research and observation to concrete intervention. While traditionally energy research is regarded as a domain of natural and engineering sciences the transformation of a socio-technical system requires strong interdisciplinary involvement of social sciences and humanities. Furthermore, research must go beyond interdisciplinarity because the more sustainable energy system that is aspired to can only be the result of transdisciplinary processes of co-creation and co-construction of knowledge and actions paths by researchers, decision makers and all the other groups of actors involved in the energy system in different roles and at different times and places. In accordance the provisional nature and the uncertainty of sustainabilityrelevant knowledge, science can provide strategic knowledge for what is necessary an experimental sustainability policy.When this knowledge informs action, it has an influence on societal practice. This in turn becomes the subject of

50  Armin Grunwald

scientific research, the results of which further enrich strategic knowledge and inform subsequent policy decisions. Transdisciplinary sustainability research is, therefore, not simply the generation of scientific knowledge, but rather the establishment a learning cycle, which comprises elements of theoretical and applied research, normative premises, political stipulations, and monitoring and empirical analyses of outcomes.

Acknowledgements The arguments presented in this chapter have partly been discussed and developed in the Helmholtz Alliance ENERGY-TRANS. Some arguments build on earlier work (particularly Schippl & Grunwald, 2013). I would like to express thanks to Jens Schippl and my colleagues cooperating in the Helmholtz Alliance.

References Beermann, J., & Tews, K. (2015). Preserving decentralised laboratories for experimentation under adverse framework conditions – why local initiatives as a driving force for Germany’s renewable energy expansion must reinvent themselves. Berlin: FFU Report 03–2015. Braybrooke, D., & Lindblom, C. E. (1963). A strategy of decision. New York: Free Press. Camhis, M. (1979). Planning theory and philosophy. London: Tavistock. Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755. Gawel, E., Grunwald, A., & Thrän, D. (2014). The transition of energy systems towards sustainability: Challenges and lessons learnt from the German ‘Energiewende’. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 4. Geels, F. W. (2012). Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 681–696. Grunwald, A. (2000). Technology policy between long-term planning requirements and short-ranged acceptance problems. In J. Grin & A. Grunwald (Eds.), Vision assessment: Shaping technology in 21st century society (pp. 99–148). Heidelberg: Springer. Grunwald, A. (2004). Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: The need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(1/2), 150–167. Grunwald, A. (2007). Working towards sustainable development in the face of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3), 245–262. Grunwald, A. (2009). Technology assessment: Concepts and methods. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (Vol. 9, pp. 1103–1146). Amsterdam: North Holland. Grunwald, A. (2011). Energy futures: Diversity and the need for assessment. Futures, 43, 820–830. Grunwald, A., & Kopfmüller, J. (2012). Nachhaltigkeit (2nd ed.). Frankfurt: Campus. Grunwald, A., & Schippl, J. (2013). Die Transformation des Energiesystems als gesellschaftliche und technische Herausforderung. Zur Notwendigkeit integrativer Energieforschung. In J. Radtke & B. Hennig (Eds.), Die deutsche “Energiewende” nach Fukushima (pp. 21–35). Marburg: Metropolis. Helmholtz Association. (2016). Future infrastructures for meeting energy demands:Towards sustainability and social compatibility. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from www.energy-trans.de/ english/index.php

The case of German Energiewende  51 Helmholtz Association. (2014). Policy Brief. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from www.energytrans.de/english/1087.php Huber, J. (1995). Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Strategie für eine ökologische und soziale Erdpolitik. Berlin: Ed sigma. Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth – economics for a finite planet. London: Routledge. Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10. Jonas, H. (1985). The imperative of responsibility. In search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., . . . Svedin, U. (2000). Sustainability science. Science, 292, 641–642. Kemp, R., & Rotmans, J. (2004). Managing the transition to sustainable mobility. In B. Elzen, F. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), System innovation and the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy (pp. 137–167). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Kopfmüller, J., Brandl, V., Jörissen, J., Paetau, M., Banse, G., Coenen, R., & Grunwald, A. (2001). Nachhaltige Entwicklung integrativ betrachtet. Konstitutive Elemente, Regeln, Indikatoren. Berlin: Ed sigma. Luhmann, N. (1990). Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity. Ott, K., & Döring, R. (2004). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Marburg: Metropolis. Rescher, N. (1998). Predicting the future: An introduction to the theory of forecasting. New York: Albany. Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (1995). Managing technology in society. London: Continuum. Rohracher, H. (2008). Energy systems in transition: Contributions from social sciences. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 9(2/3), 144–161. Ropohl, G. (1979). Eine Systemtheorie der Technik: Zur Grundlegung der Allgemeinen Technologie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Schellnhuber, H. J. (1999). Discourse: Earth system analysis – the scope of the challenge. In H. J. Schellnhuber & V. Wenzel (Eds.), Earth systems analysis: Integrating science for sustainability (pp. 3–195). Berlin: Springer. Schippl, J.; & Grunwald, A. (2013). Energiewende 2.0 - vom technischen zum soziotechnischen System? - Einführung in den Schwerpunkt. Technikfolgenabschätzung. Theorie und Praxis, 22(2), 4–10. Schippl, J., Grunwald, A.,& Renn, O. (2017). Die Energiewende verstehen – gestalten – orientieren gestalten. Baden-Baden: NOMOS. Schneidewind, U. (2010). Nachhaltige Wissenschaft. Plädoyer für einen Klimawandel im deutschen Wissenschafts- und Hochschulsystem. Marburg: Metropolis. Spangenberg, J. (2011). Sustainability science: A review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environmental Conservation, 38(3), 275–287. Talwar, S.,Wiek, A., & Robinson, J. (2011). User engagement in sustainability research. Science and Public Policy, 38(5), 379–390. Verbong, G., & Loorbach, L. (2012). Governing the energy transition: Reality, illusion or necessity? New York: Routledge. von Schomberg, R. (2002). The objective of sustainable development: Are we coming closer? EU Foresight Working Papers Series 1. Brussels: Commission of the European Union. Voss, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. WBGU. (2011). World in transition: A social contract for sustainability. Berlin:WGBU Secretariat.

52  Armin Grunwald WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiek, A., Harlow, J., Melnick, R., van der Leeuw, S., Fukushi, K., Takeuchi, K., . . . Kutter, R. (2015). Sustainability science in action: A review of the state of the field through case studies on disaster recovery, bioenergy, and precautionary purchasing. Sustainability Science, 10, 17–31. Wiek, A., Ness, B., Schweizer-Ries, P., Brand, F., & Farioli, F. (2012). From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science proj­ ects. Sustainability Science, 7(Suppl. 1), 5–24.

3 Real-world laboratories as an institutionalisation of the new social contract between science and society1 Mandy Singer-Brodowski, Matthias Wanner and Uwe Schneidewind A new social contract for sustainability In recent years there has been an intensive discussion about human responsibility for ecological transitions.The concept of ‘planetary boundaries’ (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015) highlights the rapid and accelerating changes in nine different biophysical areas, such as climate change and the loss of biodiversity; it is abundantly clear that humankind is the driver of these dramatic developments in global ecosystems. The boundaries (for example the 2°C target for climate change) are tipping points. Crossing any one of them will trigger non-linear and irreversible changes that can’t be calculated and controlled, and which are likely to cause immense damage to other ecosystem functions and/ or social cohesion. The world therefore has entered the age of the Anthropocene (Crutzen, 2002): a time when humankind has become the dominant factor determining the future of the Earth. This argument underlines the urgency of taking action to ensure sustainability and gives the discussion about sustainability a wider social relevance than ever before. The concept of the Anthropocene also highlights the need for a new relationship between humankind and nature, which will also entail new ways of doing science and research (Jahn, Hummel &­ Schramm, 2015). Science has contributed extensively towards laying the foundations for the Anthropocene. Modern societies are driven by innovations and follow a path of economic growth that is – apparently – the only way to maintain balance in social systems. The role of the science system is seen as being to continuously deliver the innovative technologies that drive economic progress. But the ‘insatiable curiosity’ (Nowotny, 2008) that characterises modern knowledge and innovation-based societies may have irreversible consequences. New knowledge and technological innovation also have profound ecological, and social impacts and side effects that are impossible to calculate in advance. For this reason, modern societies have been conceptualised as ‘side-effect societies’ or ‘risk societies’ (see Beck, 1998; for how this affects the role of science see Schneidewind & Singer-Brodowski, 2014).

54  Mandy Singer-Brodowski et al.

Regarding the specific relationship between science and society, it could be argued that it is out of balance and an estrangement has taken place in the past decades. Ongoing disciplinary specialisation and the increasing focus on ‘excellency’ have served to widen the rift between science and society. When taken to extremes, these tendencies amount to an abdication by national science systems of their social responsibility to contribute towards protecting the planetary boundaries. In response to these concerns, the German government’s Advisory Council on Global Change (WGBU) has called for a new ‘social contract’ for sustainability (see WBGU, 2011). The social contract consists of a new framework for cooperation between four key stakeholder groups, all of which have undergone fundamental changes in the twenty first century, both in terms of their selfconcepts and their roles in society. The state is seen as a strong, proactive and empowering actor in the social contract proposed by the WBGU. Its role is to create the general political conditions for social justice and the well-being of all its citizens. The private sector is responsible for steering the economy in a sustainable direction through investments and innovation, for example to accelerate the adoption of low-carbon and clean technologies. Another important stakeholder is science, which contributes both to sustainable technologies and the creation of knowledge about transformation processes. Scientific research should be focused on analysing the ‘grand challenges’ (Reid et al., 2010) and generating knowledge about the transitions needed to reach a sustainable future. All these three stakeholders have a contract with civil society, which is becoming more and more self-confident, competent and aware of its role in this relationship. Civil society and citizens pressure national governments into stricter actions for environment protection, they participate in decision processes on different levels and thereby contribute to a process of democratisation in general. The vision of the WBGU is a modern version of the social contract proposed by John Locke, who believed that human well-being rests in people’s voluntary commitment to limit their personal freedom in the interests of society as whole. The WGBU’s vision is founded on the conviction that fundamental social change is possible. However, the revised social contract proposed by the WBGU entails huge challenges, as it has to be adapted to the reality of a globalised world society (WBGU, 2011, p. 277): 1 Because of progressive economic and cultural globalisation, the nation state can no longer be considered the sole basis for the contractual relationship. Its inhabitants must responsibly take transnational risks and natural dangers, and the legitimate interests of ‘third parties’, i.e. other members of the world community, into account. 2 Traditional contract philosophy presupposed the fictitious belief that all members of a society are equal. Considering the disproportionate distribution of resources and capabilities in today’s international community of states, we must have effective, fair global compensation mechanisms in place.

Social contract between science and society 55

3 The natural environment should be given increased consideration when revising the social contract. 4 The contract has to bring two important new protagonists into the equation: the self-organised civil society and the community of scientific experts. (WBGU, 2011, p. 277) Citizens’ approval is required for the expected consequences of innovations that are connected with the sustainability postulate. They voluntarily agree to forgo spontaneous desires (e.g. to consume in an exorbitant way) in return for the advantages that are expected from the contract (e.g. a safe operating space inside the planetary boundaries, and the right to participate in a strong state) (WBGU, 2011). The strong, proactive and empowering state is the guarantor of these benefits and involves its citizens actively in decisions made about the future, for example, in setting sustainability targets. Thus civil society is actively involved and plays a key role in shaping the transformation process in partnership with the state. The interplay of the different actors “links a culture of attentiveness (born of a sense of ecological responsibility) with a culture of participation (as democratic responsibility) and a culture of obligation towards future generations (future responsibility)” (WBGU, 2011, p. 277).

The contract between science and society A pivotal part of the new social contract for sustainability is the contract between science and society. This entails not only the integration of sustainability considerations into all aspects of scientific work, but also reform of the institutions where scientific knowledge is produced, and of the societal substructures that frame their operations. One conceptualisation of this more deeply embedded relationship between science and society was formulated by Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons (2001) in terms of the distinction between Mode 1 and Mode 2 science, where the latter is an expression of reflexive modernity in the ‘risk society’ (Beck, 1998). The conventional mode of knowledge production in the science system is seen as monodisciplinary and technocratic. Scientists are expected to produce findings that are certain and predictive and the production of scientific knowledge usually takes place in areas that are well-insulated from wider society (Nordmann, Radder & Schiemann, 2011, p. 5). The growing interrelatedness of science and society and a diversification of locations of knowledge production leads to Mode 1 science being displaced “by Mode 2 research, which is a more open undertaking characterised by a transdisciplinary orientation toward social, environmental, industrial, or medical problems” (Nordmann et al., 2011, p. 5). This Mode 2 research acknowledges the validity of different forms of knowledge: both experiential knowledge of stakeholders and scientific knowledge. These are combined contextualised research processes, carried out in research organisations that are structured in a non-hierarchical way to allow stakeholder

56  Mandy Singer-Brodowski et al.

participation in the supervision and evaluation of research outcomes. Starting out from the concept of a Mode 2 science, the question arises: what are the basic conditions for a new contract between science and society, from the perspective of national science systems (e.g. with respect to incentives, structures in research funding, career pathways and the balance between society-oriented and technology-oriented approaches)? Meeting these basic conditions will involve changes at the individual and institutional level, as well as to the societal substructures in which science takes place. This new way of doing science and changing the institutional preconditions of doing science was conceptualised as transformative science by Schneidewind and Singer-Brodowski (2014), building on the concept of transformative research (WBGU 2011, p. 22), i.e. research that not only observes societal transformation processes from the outside but also initiates and catalyses them (see also Miller et al., 2014; Popa, Guillermin & Dedeurwaerdere, 2015; Sarewitz et al., 2012;Wiek & Lang, 2016).Transformative research aims to arrive at a better understanding of the societal transition towards sustainability in cooperation with non-scientific partners. It involves institutional transformation processes within the scientific system that benefit sustainability research and teaching (e.g. in research funding criteria or in the typical career pathways of scientists), creating incentive strategies for sustainability-oriented research instead of focusing on monodisciplinary excellence. Civil society plays a very important role in debates about the theory and practice of transformative science. Civil society organisations and individual citizens are better placed than scientists themselves to recognise the blind spots of the current scientific mainstream and call for the permanent transformation of substructures, scientific institutions and individual members of the scientific community and their work in the direction of society-oriented research. Following Wehling and Viehöver (2013, pp. 221–227) civil society organisations can fulfil three roles through participating in science: they can contribute to setting the research agenda, producing scientific knowledge (citizen science) and serving as an epistemic corrective in scientific discourses. The last of these roles, as epistemic corrective, is connected to the necessity of a different approach to organising academic institutions. The production of sustainability knowledge requires a fundamental shift towards an epistemological pluralism and reflexivity. This epistemological pluralism involves promoting the use of all relevant knowledge, perspectives, and viewpoints in a structured, rigorous manner. . . . Reflexivity involves the understanding that the institution itself is part of the dynamics of the system that it seeks to change, thus it continually reexamines and re-evaluates the foundational assumptions of its work by ‘opening up’ its boundaries to multiple representations and discourses outside the institution. (Miller, Munoz-Erickson & Redman, 2011, p. 178)

Social contract between science and society 57

This goes against the long-established tradition of science and technology studies, in which it is precisely ‘boundary-work’ (see Gieryn, 1983, 1999), i.e. the continuously constructed demarcation between scientific knowledge and nonscientific knowledge, that legitimises science and lends it authority – and, in modern societies, generates additional resources for science. In order to break down these boundaries and build links between science and society it is necessary to re-embed the science system in the grand challenges of society. These links can be forged through the institutionalisation of a permanent co-design and co-production (Mauser et al., 2013) of knowledge together with civil society. The question emerges: how can the participation of civil society be organised in a system that normally strives for monodisciplinary excellence? Over the past 15 years a transdisciplinary approach to sustainability research has been developed (see Jahn, Bergmann, & Keil, 2012; Lang et al., 2012; Scholz, Lang, Wiek, Walter & Stauffacher, 2006). This approach aims at integrating different forms of knowledge into research practice and outcomes, alongside traditional scientific knowledge: i.e. system knowledge, target knowledge (or ‘orientation knowledge’) and transformation knowledge (CASS ProClim, 1997). These other forms of knowledge mostly come from ‘practice partners’ involved in knowledge creation in the context of transdisciplinary research processes. ‘Real-world laboratories’, which will be discussed below, represent a further development for the application of this approach (see De Flander et al., 2014; Schäpke, Singer-Brodowski, Stelzer, Bergmann & Lang, 2015; Schneidewind, 2014). In the field of education, application of this new approach leads to a curriculum that enables participation and transformative learning with societal impact. This complements the concept of employability, defined as ‘the ability to gain initial employment, to maintain employment, and to be able to move around within the labour market’ which is prominent in the Bologna Process (see, e.g. EHEA, 2016) adding elements related to the development of personal qualities that equip young people for life in the twenty first century. For students at universities, the scientific perspective of ‘Higher Education for Sustainable Development’ is gaining momentum based on ‘learning for change’ that would contribute to sustainable development by fostering three dimensions of learning: (1) individual action and behavioural change, (2) organisational change and social learning and (3) inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation (Barth & Michelsen, 2013). To provide education for sustainability project-oriented settings is appropriate (Brundiers, Wiek & Redman, 2010), especially when education programmes are informed by social-constructivist theories. According to these theories, learning is mainly guided by the activity of the learner, arises from concrete experiences (Dewey, 1938), and takes place within the cooperative participation in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Projectoriented and self-organised learning settings therefore offer an ideal context for developing key competencies and for implementing education for sustainable development.

58  Mandy Singer-Brodowski et al.

The transition of the German science system In developing the idea of an unwritten social contract for sustainability in the Flagship Report, the WBGU introduces Polanyi’s concept of a ‘great transformation’ and applies this to the transition to sustainability, which is seen as being comparable to previous historical transformation processes, i.e. the ‘Neolithic revolution’ (when humankind invented agriculture) and the industrial revolution. In particular, the great transformation to sustainability is seen as being comparable to the industrial revolution, which was – more or less – a planned process where new concepts, infrastructures and technologies were introduced that fundamentally changed the lifestyle of humankind. What can be learned from this? That in a world society already in the process of the transformation, we can shape this process actively and creatively. The WBGU also refers to transition theory (Grin, Rotmans & Schot, 2010; Kemp & Loorbach, 2006; Rotmans & Loorbach, 2010), a theoretical approach based on observation and analysis of how innovations are diffused into the mainstream of society. The originators of this theory started out by analysing sectoral transformation processes and went on to develop a model of societal transformations in general. The model can be applied to transitions in a variety of contexts (e.g. economic sectors, nations, or a single organisation), which are seen as occurring at multiple levels (or scales). The ‘landscape level’ in the model describes large-scale global and societal trends, such as demographic change or the transformations currently being brought about by information and communication technologies. They can’t be influenced by stakeholders at the other two levels. One level below, the ‘regime level’ frames all the rules, routines and institutional habits that contribute to the stabilisation of the current system. Finally, there is the ‘niche level’, where change agents invent and experiment with technological and social innovations. These change agents are trendsetters who modify and improve their inventions until they are ready for marketing – or until they prove to be insufficient or inappropriate. The ongoing process of networking among different change agents contributes intensively to mainstreaming innovation, especially by taking advantage of so-called windows of opportunities. Schneidewind and Augenstein (2012) transferred the transition theory model to the German science system and identified landscape conditions and change processes that are occurring at regime and niche levels (Figure 3.1). A distinctive feature of the German science system is that it has many independent research institutes that aren’t directly connected to universities. They include independent institutes for sustainability (like the Öko-Institut in Freiburg or the Wuppertal Institute) that grew out of a protest movement against a strong monodisciplinary bias in the universities. They supported work that led to the evolution of concepts that have since become important within wider sustainability debates in the German scientific establishment. One example is the socio-ecological research programme of the German government,

Social contract between science and society 59

Figure 3.1 Transformation of the German science system Source: Schneidewind and Augenstein, 2012

originally developed by an alliance of independent sustainability institutes, which now receives government funding of €12 million per year. The funding of this programme also gave rise to institutional innovations within the science system, such as the development of quality criteria for transdisciplinary research and the formation of networks of young academics. Together with the more progressive universities – in terms of their sustainability profile – these networks are dedicated to building capacity for sustainability research in the national science system. The second distinctive feature of the German science system is the large share of responsibility assigned to the federal states in the field of education and research. Change agents have to deal with this sharing of responsibility between the federal and state governments. Some states form the avant-garde, creating society-oriented and transformative science systems on their territories and, therefore, playing the role of niche actors in the national science system. Their role as innovators is often underestimated because they can (and do) use general programme funding to finance an expansion of sustainability-oriented research and teaching. The federal state of Baden-Württemberg, for example, supports real-world laboratories, and North-Rhine Westphalia implements a socialecological research strategy, including capacity building for transdisciplinary research in its universities. These sustainability-oriented science policy strategies include support for networking among sustainability-oriented institutions on a national level (i.e. Ecornet, the ecological research network) and thereby enhance the potential of niche-level innovations to contribute to the overall transition of the German science system.

60  Mandy Singer-Brodowski et al.

Schneidewind and Augenstein (2012) conclude that the interplay of niche actors and activities can increase the pressure on the regime level to push forward the transition of the German science system.

Real-world laboratories as a fulfilment of the new social contract between science and society The political strategies and reforms described in the previous section are continuously driving change in the German science system and thereby laying the foundations for a new social contract between science and society. Real-world laboratories are institutionalised settings to implement the social contract at the level of a specific research project. Real-world laboratories can be described as ‘boundary objects’, where scientists and ‘practice partners’ work together to solve a specific sustainability problem (Schneidewind, 2014; WBGU, 2016). Boundary objects are defined by Becker (2012, p. 42) as “objects, either concrete or conceptual, that are situated and developed in the borderlands between heterogeneous discourses”. Project boundaries are drawn to straddle multiple scientific and non-scientific discourses and bring together the corresponding actors either on a geographical level (e.g. a district, a city or a whole region) or on a sectoral level. In real-world laboratories scientific knowledge production and reflection is deeply embedded in concrete transformation processes and real-world interventions. Real-world experiments (Groß, Hoffmann-Riem & Krohn, 2005) are initiated to gain transformation knowledge that is socially robust (Nowotny, 2003). While the overall approach of research in real-world laboratories is based on transdisciplinary methodology and the integration of different types of knowledge (co-design of research questions and co-production of knowledge), they also provide a stronger framework for interventions by scientists in a specific field. With the focus on interventions, research in real-world laboratories is also grounded in the experimental turn in social sciences (Morton & Williams, 2010; Overdevest, Bleicher, & Groß, 2010) and inspired by the approaches of action research (Greenwood & Levin, 2007; Reason & Bradbury, 2008, Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014) and intervention research (Fraser, Richman, Galinsky & Day, 2009; Krainer & Lerchster, 2012; Rothman & Thomas, 1994). An example of research in real-world laboratories is the project ‘Well-Being Transformation Wuppertal’. It focuses on the development of a set of urban well-being indicators (based on the OECD’s Better Life Index2 and the perceptions of the citizens of Wuppertal) and aims at mapping civil society initiatives and organisations that contribute to a broadly construed concept of well-being. It has set up four real-world laboratories in three districts of Wuppertal which analyse and catalyse low-carbon action at a local level. Although the laboratories on the district level will continue research until 2018, some initial observations can be made regarding the interplay between scientists and partners from civil society: 1 The interventional character of real-world laboratories contributes to the development of context-specific well-being innovations. New projects

Social contract between science and society 61

have been set up that could not have been devised and implemented without drawing on the specialist knowledge of the scientists involved. These include a comprehensive analysis of food production and distribution in at a district level, including goal-setting workshops with a focus on increasing of local and community based food production. Research in real-world laboratories is transformative and differs from research in a transdisciplinary mode in general in that interventions are explicitly part of an active catalysing process geared towards sustainability transformations in specific areas or sectors. 2 Workshops, public events and day-to-day communication provide spaces for interaction between science and practice leading to greater reflexivity and enhanced learning by both scientists and practice partners. There is intense and continuous communication about means and ends of specific projects. Routines are called into question and challenges are identified and discussed. This ongoing communication increases trust among the stakeholders involved, a crucial precondition in order for civil society to fulfil its function as an epistemic corrective. 3 Real-world laboratories contribute to a shared understanding of specific problems and potentials in the district or area, within and also beyond the confines of the real-world laboratory. The cooperation processes that are initiated through real-world laboratories do not only contribute to the concrete research projects, but also other networking activities and collaborations between science and society (e.g. in public events, selection of topics for bachelor’s and master’s theses). Through this, a multi-faceted network for context-specific change is fostered and transactional costs for further projects and interventions are reduced. Thus successful cooperation between science and civil society organisations in real-world laboratories is an institutionalised fulfilment of the new social contract that the WBGU is calling for, that contributes to embedding science in society and thereby to the democratisation of science (Kitcher, 2011). The research processes in real-world laboratories are very different from those in disciplinary research projects, and this is challenging for the scientists involved. First, researchers have to take socially relevant challenges as a starting point for their own work and to be willing to interact with other disciplines and field practitioners. In doing so, they are drawn into a new and unfamiliar epistemic living space (Felt, 2009). Second, research in a real-world laboratory connects scientists from different disciplines with each other, and also with practitioners and the general public; hence success is highly dependent on access to appropriate communication tools, professional expertise and resources. Third, the scientists have to carefully reflect on their individual engagement in the practical transformation processes and the specific contribution they can make as scientists, through their theoretical perspectives and specialist knowledge. Otherwise they run the risk of becoming additional district managers or members of local working groups charged with implementing sustainabilityoriented transition processes in the areas concerned.

62  Mandy Singer-Brodowski et al.

This seems to be one of the biggest challenges in a real-world laboratory. It is essential that the different stakeholders involved in the real-world laboratory continuously communicate with each other about their specific competencies, roles and expectations and come to explicit agreements on task sharing. Successful research in real-world laboratories should therefore be supported by appropriate and longer funding that also considers the necessary but additional resources of civil society organisations.

Conclusion Against the backdrop of global environmental developments and the necessity to stay within the planetary boundaries, the German Advisory Council on Global Change has called for a new social contract between science and society in order to achieve a ‘great transformation’ to sustainability. To this end, scientists will need to engage with new forms of transdisciplinary research in collaboration with ‘practice partners’ from civil society. The concept of transformative science not only involves new ways of doing science, it redefines the role of science, explicitly as a catalyst for social change towards sustainability. This reorientation will also require institutional reforms, including the institutionalisation of sustainability-oriented education in universities. Transition theory provides an analytical framework for understanding and fomenting processes of institutional change in national science systems. Complementing policy reforms, real-world laboratories provide an institutional framework for the implementation of the new social contract between science and society.

Notes 1 Parts of this article have been published in similar form in Schneidewind, U., & SingerBrodowski, M. (2015). Enabling the great transformation: transdisciplinarity as individual and institutional challenge. In F. Schmidt (ed.), Contributions Towards a Sustainable World: In Dialogue with Klaus Töpfer (pp. 189–200). Munich: Oekom. 2 www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org

References Barth, M., & Michelsen, G. (2013). Learning for change: An educational contribution to sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 8(1), 103–119. Beck, U. (1998). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Becker, E. (2012). Social-ecological systems as epistemic objects. In M. Glaser, G. Krause, B.M.W. Ratter, & M. Welp (Eds.), Human-nature interactions in the Anthropocene: Potentials of social-ecological systems analysis (pp. 37–59). New York: Routledge. Brundiers, K., Wiek, A., & Redman, C. (2010). Real-world learning opportunities in ­sustainability – concept, competencies, and implementation. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), 308–324. CASS ProClim. (1997, July). Forschung zu Nachhaltigkeit und Globalem Wandel: Wissenschaftspolitische Visionen der Schweizer Forschenden. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from http://pro climweb.scnat.ch/portal/ressources/672.pdf

Social contract between science and society 63 Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415(3), 23. De Flander, K., Hahne, U., Kegler, H., Lang, D., Lucas, R., Schneidewind, U., . . .Wiek, A. (2014). Resilienz und Reallabore als Schlüsselkonzepte urbaner ­ Transformationsforschung – Zwölf Thesen. GAIA, 23(3), 284–286. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books. EHEA (2016). Employability 2007–2009. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from www.ehea.info/ pid34786/employability-2007-2009.html Felt, U. (2009). Knowing and living in academic research: Convergence and heterogeneity in research cultures in the European context. Prague: Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Fraser, M. W., Richman, J. M., Galinsky, M. J., & Day, S. (2009). Intervention research: Developing social programs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. London: Routledge. Groß, M., Hoffmann-Riem, H., & Krohn, W. (2005). Realexperimente: Ökologische Gestaltungsprozesse in der Wissensgesellschaft. Bielefeld: Transcript. Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity – between mainstreaming and marginalisation. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10. Jahn, T., Hummel, D., & Schramm, E. (2015). Nachhaltige Wissenschaft im Anthropozän. GAIA, 24(2), 92–95. Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2006). Transition management: A reflexive governance approach. In J.-P.Voss, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 104–130). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. Krainer, L., & Lerchster, R. E. (2012). Interventionsforschung. Band 1. Paradigmen, Methoden, Reflexionen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., . . . Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science – practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25–43. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H. (2013).Transdisciplinary global change research:The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3–4), 420–431. Miller,T. R., Munoz-Erickson,T., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Transforming knowledge for sustainability: Towards adaptive academic institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(2), 177–192. Miller,T. R.,Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D., Olsson, L., Kriebel, D., & Loorbach, D. (2014).The future of sustainability science: A solutions-oriented agenda. Sustainability Science, 9(2), 239–246. Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2010). Experimental political science and the study of causality: From nature to the lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nordmann, A., Radder, H., & Schiemann, G. (2011). Science after the end of science: An introduction to the ‘epochal break thesis’. In A. Nordmann, H. Radder, & G. Schiemann

64  Mandy Singer-Brodowski et al. (Eds.), Science transformed? Debating claims of an epochal break (pp. 1–18). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Nowotny, H. (2003). Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 30, 151–156. Nowotny, H. (2008). Insatiable curiosity: Innovation in a fragile future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press. Overdevest, C., Bleicher, A., & Groß, M. (2010). The experimental turn in environmental sociology: Pragmatism and new forms of governance. In M. Groß & H. Heinrichs (Eds.), Environmental sociology: European perspectives and interdisciplinary challenges (pp. 279–294). Heidelberg: Springer. Popa, F., Guillermin, M., & Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2015). A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, 65, 45–56. Reason P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice. London: Sage. Reid,W. V., Chen, D., Goldfarb, L., Hackmann, H., Lee,Y. T., Mokhele, K., . . .Whyte, A. (2010). Earth system science for global sustainability: Grand challenges. Science, 330, 916–917. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 461–472. Rothman, J., & Thomas, E. J. (1994). Intervention research: Design and development for human services. New York: Haworth Press. Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Towards a better understanding of transitions and their governance. A systemic and reflexive approach. In J. Grin, J. Rotmans, & J. Schot (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change (pp. 105–223). London: Routledge. Sarewitz, D., Kriebel, D., Clapp, R., Crumbley, C., Hoppin, P., Jacobs, M., & Tickner, J. (2012). The sustainable solutions agenda. New Solutions, 22(2), 139–151. Schäpke, N., Singer-Brodowski, M., Stelzer, F., Bergmann, M., & Lang, D. J. (2015). Creating space for change: Real-world laboratories for sustainability transformations. The case of Baden-Württemberg. GAIA, 24(4), 281–283. Schneidewind, U. (2014). Urbane Reallabore – ein Blick in die aktuelle Forschungswerkstatt. PND Online 3. Schneidewind, U., & Augenstein, K. (2012). Analyzing a transition to a sustainability-ori ented science system in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 3, 16–28. Schneidewind, U., & Singer-Brodowski, M. (2014). Transformative Wissenschaft. Klimawandel im deutschen Wissenschafts- und Hochschulsystem. Marburg: Metropolis. 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(3), 226–251. Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Cornell, S., Fetzer, I., Biggs, O., Folke, C., & Reyers, B. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223),1259855–1259862. WBGU. (2011). Flagship report. World in transition: A social contract for sustainability. Berlin: WBGU. WBGU. (2016). Humanity on the move: Unlocking the transformative power of cities: Summary. Berlin: WBGU.

Social contract between science and society 65 Wehling, P., & Viehöver, W. (2013). ‘Uneingeladene’ Partizipation der Zivilgesellschaft. Ein kreatives Element der Governance von Wissenschaft. In E. Grande, D. Jansen, O. Jarren, A. Rip, U. Schimank, & P.Weingart (Eds.), Neue Governance der Wissenschaft. R ­ eorganisation – externe Anforderungen – Medialisierung (pp. 213–234). Bielefeld: Transcript. Wiek, A., & Lang, D. J. (2016). Transformational sustainability research methodology. In H. Heinrichs, P. Martens, G. Michelsen, & A. Wiek (Eds.), Sustainability science: An introduction (pp. 31–41). Dordrecht: Springer. Wittmayer, J. M., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation. Roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 483–496.

4 Transdisciplinarity in social-ecological research Constraints, challenges and opportunities: reflections on personal experience Sabine Hofmeister Introduction This contribution is an explicitly personal reflection that highlights the constraints, challenges and opportunities involved in transdisciplinary sustainability research. The chapter draws on the author’s experiences as researcher, mentor and consultant in the framework of the ‘Social-Ecological Research’ priority funding programme of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). As a researcher in the field of social ecology I have experienced both the constraints and the opportunities of transdisciplinary sustainability research.The direct experience of research described in this chapter has been complemented by work as mentor of two junior social-ecological research groups,1 as a consultant,2 and as supervisor of dissertations and doctoral theses that employed social-ecological research methods (Grischkat, 2008; Kruse, 2010; Mölders, 2010). I also undertook a variety of work in the first funding phase of the Social Ecological Research Programme of the BMBF: as an advisor, an expert member of Evalunet (Evaluation Network for Transdisciplinary Research) and a contributor to a ‘cross-sectoral group’ (Schäfer, Schultz & Wendorf, 2006). These varied experiences provide the basis for the following reflections on the constraints, challenges, obstacles and opportunities involved in transdisciplinary research. Since the reflections arose out of the specific nature of the work undertaken it was important to contextualise each experience. Thus the argument presented is an exemplary one. My comments are not based on an underlying, systematic conceptualisation of transdisciplinary social-ecological research that could be used to justify the general validity of the conclusions. The aim is rather to draw on my personal experience to reflect on the synergies that exist between sustainability and gender research, and to discuss the problems, insights and transdisciplinarity applications associated with the two research fields (see also Hofmeister, Katz & Mölders, 2013a). The following section briefly outlines the rationale for transdisciplinary research and its background. This is followed by a thematic presentation of the constraints and risks I have experienced while engaging in transdisciplinary

Social-ecological research 67

sustainability research. These problems relate, first, to relations between academic researchers and so-called praxis partners; second to the phenomenon of ‘partisanship’ and its impact on research in an area of tension between economics and politics; and third, to the challenges involved in the integration of scientific and lifeworld knowledge gained in collective research. I move on to discuss the principal challenges of transdisciplinary social-ecological research. I insist on the need to acknowledge rather than to gloss over differences and competing interests, and suggest that a productive culture of dispute is more likely to stimulate productivity in transdisciplinary research than misguided attempts to ‘please’ research partners or searching for illusory ‘win-win’ situations. The final section explores the opportunities of transdisciplinary socio-ecological research. I highlight the opportunities for constructive engagement between sustainability studies and gender research in order to transdisciplinary research to realise its potential as a critical and emancipatory science.

Transdisciplinarity as scientific and research principle Transdisciplinary science, as understood and practiced from a social-ecological standpoint, is distinguished by the focus on societal problems, the integration of different scientific and practical forms of knowledge, and the generation of socially robust knowledge – a knowledge that is created and evaluated participatively (SÖF-Memorandum, 2012). Social-ecological research is understood as the science of societal relations to nature (Becker & Jahn, 2006). Conceptualised in this way, transdisciplinarity is grounded in the research objects of social-ecological research (hybrid problem situations arising in the relations between individuals, society and nature) and its objectives (to find solutions to these problems by means of social-ecological transformation towards sustainability). Transdisciplinarity is thus understood as a response to the changing demands made on science and research by the appearance of new problem situations (Bergmann et al., 2010). The concept of societal-nature relations is grounded in the existence of a ‘social-ecological crisis’. This term refers to a hybrid constellation of interrelated crises, whose solution requires barriers between academic disciplines to be broken down, including the cultural barrier that divides specialists working in the natural and technical sciences from those in the social sciences. Therefore, first, science itself must change. The research framework – societynature relations – conceptualises the relations between individuals, society and nature as inherently contradictory, both uniting humans/society and nature and dividing them from each other, and thus as subject to regulation. Regulation of society-nature relations takes place in the ‘real world’, with science playing a more or less influential role. Therefore, second, the transformation of society-nature relations means that the ‘world’ must also change. Since this change cannot occur solely within science, the barriers surrounding science itself must be broken down, in order to integrate scientific knowledge and everyday knowledge. Third and finally, the aim of social-ecological research is

68  Sabine Hofmeister

to transform society-nature relations, not in an arbitrary way, but in the direction of sustainable development, a development that enables the conservation and/or renewal of the living conditions for society and nature. Knowledge is required to conceptualise actions that can be taken by society to ensure the future capacity for the reproduction and development of society and the natural resources on which it depends (BMBF, 2000). Since sustainable development is understood as being better than prevailing patterns of development, the aim of social-ecological research is thus also to improve the world; or more precisely, to set in motion a process that makes ‘improving the world’ possible. In this sense, social-ecological research, i.e. the science of society-nature relations, is part of a process leading to transformation of the lifeworld. The division between science/research and the lifeworld is thereby abolished, both analytically and in research practice. Social-ecological research is thus both an interdisciplinary and a transdisciplinary science. From the perspective of the history of science, however, the emergence of transdisciplinary research cannot be understood as a pragmatic response to the appearance of a new object of research and recognition of new research aims. Nor was it the onset of political and scientific debate about sustainability that made the problems requiring solutions ‘hybrid’ ones. In fact, most ‘environmental’ problems are principally the result of unsustainable socioeconomic structures and practices. It was the conceptualisation of social-ecological research that first enabled the problems to be recognised as hybrid ones. Thus the emergence of transdisciplinarity has to be located in the social and political context of its historical development. The idea of inter- and/or transdisciplinary research comes to the fore in periods of social upheaval that are associated with multifaceted and confusing problem situations. Social upheaval is accompanied, clearly, by upheavals in the realm of knowledge. In this context of social and epistemological transformation, inter- and transdisciplinarity facilitate the critique and renewal of science and knowledge systems (Kahlert, 2005). Kahlert sees these processes of social upheaval and the transformation of science arising, historically, from the social movements with roots in the 1960s, i.e. the women’s, environmental and peace movements. The forerunners of socialeconomic research, for example the association ‘Social Natural Science’ that formed around Gernot Böhme at Darmstadt University in the 1980s (see also Biesecker & Hofmeister, 2006), predated by many years the debates on sustainable development, whose influence on German-language knowledge systems dates from around the mid-1990s. Like scientific disciplines (Kuhn, 1976), inter- and transdisciplinarity are also social constructs. As such they can only be understood in the context of their appearance, application and, finally, conversion to routine scientific practice. As can also be shown for scientific disciplines, these new research principles are a product of technologies of power, a process in which pre-existing boundaries between fields of knowledge, communications networks and cognitive and social systems play a defining role, but are also cast aside and redefined (Kahlert, 2005). Attention also needs to be paid to how relations of power and control

Social-ecological research 69

shape the provision of training and support for inter- and transdisciplinarity (Hark, 2003). Clearly the adoption of such measures does not take place in an environment free of power and control. The process has been led by interest groups – in a field of competing interests – who have invoked measures to support transdisciplinarity and called for their adoption, but only rarely provided a secure institutional environment for this to happen. Thus webs of competing interests and power relations have played a formative role in the development of social-ecological research and sustainability science.

Constraints and risks of transdisciplinary social-ecological research In the context of women’s and gender studies, Kahlert (2005) characterised transdisciplinary research as being wholly unconstrained by boundaries between academic disciplines and based on the definition and solution of problem-related research questions. She shows why and how transdisciplinary research necessarily adopts practices that run counter to the traditional structure of disciplinary science (i.e. the more or less linear process of research design, implementation and evaluation). A number of difficulties and constraints can be identified that are experienced time and again by practitioners of transdisciplinary research, working in sustainability and gender research, and above all at the interface between these two fields (Hofmeister et al., 2002). The continual re-occurrence of similar problems demonstrates clearly that they are not something brought upon researchers by themselves, but have structural causes that should recognised as such and critically reflected on. However this insight often comes only through the experience of dilemmas arising in the course of practical research work. This was the experience of the multi-agency project I was involved in that provides the context for a more detailed discussion of three of these ‘problems’ – and how we dealt with them – in the following sections. The (unequal) relations between researchers and ‘praxis partners’: positioning and the dilemma of involvement

The multi-agency project ‘Blocked Change? Spaces for Thinking and Action for Sustainable Regional Development’ (hereinafter ‘Blocked Change’; cited as ‘FBW’, based on the German title Forschungsverbund ‘Blockierter Wandel’) was implemented between 2003 and 2006 under the auspices of the BMBF. The central research question and aim of the project was to identify constraints and barriers blocking transformation towards sustainable development in the Mulde-Mündung region of the German state Sachsen-Anhalt, in order to determine ways that they could be overcome. The background for the project was the long-term collaboration between the majority of scientists taking part in ‘Vorsorgendes Wirtschaften’ (precautionary economy),3 a network of researchers and practitioners that promotes linkages between gender equity and

70  Sabine Hofmeister

sustainability. This was the context for the development of the research proposal.The research questions and aims of the project also drew on insights from feminist and gender research (FBW, 2007).This background also influenced the researchers’ understanding of transdisciplinarity as collaboration between scientific experts and expert practitioners in the region, working together as equal partners. A key premise was that transdisciplinary research should be designed and experienced as a joint learning process, in which relations of exploitation among the participants is to be avoided (FBW, 2007). Inspired and motivated by feminist theory, the scientists involved in the project understood that no perspective can claim to represent the totality of other positions, or to have assimilated and have an overview of the entire space. Rather there is a diversity of positionalities, distributed in space, each one of which corresponds to a partial view. Embodied knowledge, partial perspectives, critical positioning and translation among heterogeneous positions and contexts thus constitute the guiding principles for a critical feminist scientific practice (Hammer & Stieß, 1995). We also knew that transdisciplinary processes bring often conflicting partial perspectives together in the context of power relations and in ways that are influenced by inequalities among the participants. This applies especially, it might be assumed, to the relationship between researchers and the praxis partners. The scientists involved in the project wanted to reduce this imbalance of power and to promote equality in subject-subject relations among those engaged in collaborative work.We therefore resolved to keep a low profile in the first round of ‘transdisciplinary dialogues’ in the region, holding back from suggesting topics for discussion and limiting our spoken contributions to the debates. This selfimposed restraint by the group of research scientists was however a disappointment for the praxis partners, who had come in order to learn from us, as experts, about what could be done to (further) promote sustainability in the region. The separation between expert and lay knowledge was a research question to be addressed by the project. It was viewed as a condition of our given (every­day) lifeworld that would be critical analysed in the course of the research. It was considered to be a causal factor blocking regional sustainable development.Yet, right at the start, there seemed to be no way of overcoming this same separation in our own transdisciplinary research. In any case, this first attempt was not the way to do it. In the second round of transdisciplinary dialogues, we no longer held ourselves back.We presented our research questions and expert knowledge as situated knowledge and a partial perspective, taking part as ‘whole’ persons in the dialogue. This approach also enabled our regional partners to discover and display their own expertise (‘lay knowledge’) and bring it to the discussions. This confirms Donna Haraway’s insight that We seek . . . not partiality for its own sake but, rather, for the sake of the connections and unexpected openings situated knowledges make possible. . . .The only way to find a larger vision is to be somewhere in particular. (Haraway, 1988, p. 590)

Social-ecological research 71

This process does not do away with the power relations themselves or the hierarchical relation between science and practice. However, we found that by according all participants expert status, and above all by acknowledging the differences among different areas of expertise, these issues could be openly discussed. A dialogue could take place among participants, on the basis of recognition of differences and on an equal footing. This led to a recognition that knowledge production takes place in a diversity of locations. In this connection, transdisciplinarity means that the so-called lifeworld – that is, the everyday world that forms the backcloth for scientific perspectives – can be incorporated into scientific work, where it can generate fruitful insights: decisive for the transdisciplinary reordering of knowledge is the problem-oriented genesis of the research work. The starting point is to view the problem situation in the context of the lifeworld (Scheich, 2006). Transdisciplinary research therefore largely consists of ‘translation work’ (Schultz, 2001). It involves mutual adaptation, translation and reflection on the coming together of different ways of viewing problems that are encountered in everyday and scientific contexts (Scheich, 2006). The relationship between science and politics: partisanship and the dangers of co-option

Transdisciplinary researchers often fail to appreciate that social-ecological research is an explicitly normative activity. Every science is ‘normative’ in the sense that it is interest-led and not value-free. One can however identify explicitly normative sciences, such as gender and sustainability studies, which are dedicated to the achievement of a publicly stated (political) vision or goal (gender equity or sustainability). In the case of social-ecological research, the normative aim is to generate transdisciplinary knowledge for sustainable development. Normative science is partisan. The ‘problem’ of partisanship in science has a long history. In fact, explicitly partisan science has its own history that goes back at least to the second half of the nineteenth century and Marx’s (1978) critique of political economy. The field of (feminist) women’s and gender studies that came into being in the 1970s was (and is) directly related to the political women’s movement (for a detailed discussion see Hofmeister et al., 2013a. This area of research was never merely about explaining and understanding the ‘world’. The aim was always also to foster gender equity, to promote change. It was understood very early on that partiality in science gives rise to problems. In the early years of women’s studies in Germany, a wide-ranging and contentious discussion took place around the relation between science and politics. The focus of this debate was the opinion held by some researchers that research questions, topics and perspectives in the field of women’s studies responded (exclusively) to political needs, and remained inseparable from them. Further, these needs should determine the theoretical approach, methodology and methods of women’s studies (Hofmeister et al., 2013a). In the end this position was vehemently rejected. A subordination of science to political needs was

72  Sabine Hofmeister

doomed to failure from the start, the counter-argument ran, because there was no such thing as the feminist position (Thürmer-Rohr, 1984). Rather, feminist science should be independent from politics, and embrace plurality in its content and methodology, in order to establish itself as a critical science. The postulate of ‘partisanship’, for example, can express itself in the construction of the subject-object relationship in research process or in the selection of the object of knowledge; furthermore, the partisanship for women is an indispensable part of what motivates the research. However, in the research process, partisanship must be put to productive use in an interplay of involvement and stepping back. What we take notice of should not be determined beforehand by our political views (Knapp, 2007). A further danger of partisanship, according to researchers on women’s issues at the time, was that it could generate a form of positivism and lead to an ‘iconisation of the feminine’ (Knapp, 2007) that could be easily co-opted by political interests. The relation between science and politics is thus one of mutual dependency, as is demonstrated by the connection between gender studies and environmental studies. By iconising women and adopting an essentialist position, women’s and gender studies leaves itself open to co-option in the service of political interests.This leads, for example, to the unthinking interpretation of unpaid women’s work from the standpoint of political environmentalism as evidence of women’s superior understanding of environmental and sustainability issues and their greater willingness to take action to protect the environment. In their critical analysis of this point, Schultz and Weiland (1991) adopt the term ‘feminisation of environmental responsibility’. The continuing debate on the topic of partisanship (including the related question of discrimination against women’s and gender studies that has still not entirely disappeared) has led researchers in the field to impose very high standards on themselves with respect to the critique of knowledge and (self-) reflection and – in a process that continues today – to devise increasingly comprehensive and radical ways to meet these standards. Knapp (1998) points out that one of the distinctive features of gender studies is the culture of conflict, that (both in and through the controversies) gives rise to a theoretical creativity that is lacking from other fields of study. Similar debates and conflicts occur only exceptionally in sustainability studies, such as social-ecological research, and then mostly among scientists who explicitly locate their work at the intersection between sustainability and gender studies (e.g. the junior research groups NEDS and PoNa referred to in the introduction to this chapter). It remains to be seen whether and to what extent these debates have the potential to give rise to a culture of conflict, critical (self-)reflection and theoretical creativity comparable to those found in gender studies. To sum up, it can be stated that, like women’s and gender studies, sustainability studies is an explicitly normative, i.e. partisan science. Given the ineluctable mutual dependency that characterises the relationship between science and politics, transdisciplinary researchers need a sound knowledge of the

Social-ecological research 73

configurations of (political) positions in the field. To achieve this, a profound critique of knowledge and a high degree of (self-)reflection are required. The relationship between the lifeworld and science and the problem of knowledge integration

The diversity of interests, expectations and wishes of those involved in the ‘Blocked Changes’ project became clearly apparent in multiple discussions with regional actors in the course of the transdisciplinary dialogue sessions and, above all, in research work carried out by partner organisations responsible for the component projects.The aims and methods of the research were constantly being questioned, which had an extremely positive effect on the productivity of the research process. In fact, a prerequisite for the integration of knowledge (inter- and transdisciplinarity) is an appreciation of the diversity, difference and contradictoriness of both theoretical and practical (research-derived) knowledge, and among different forms of knowledge production. Thus integration starts out from an intensive process of differentiation. Over time, as researchers involved in the project, constellations of interests and structures of power relations in the region became increasingly familiar to us (FBW, 2007). Conversely, the discussions in the transdisciplinary dialogue sessions led to changes in existing constellations of interests and the formation of new alliances among actors in the region (e.g. the formation of a fruit producers collective). In managing the tension between differentiation and integration, we deliberately employed methods designed to expose differences among viewpoints and interests. In selecting topics for discussion at the transdisciplinary dialogue sessions we focused on differences of opinion we already knew existed; for example one session was devoted to the topic ‘Nature Interferes With Work – Work Interferes With Nature’. By contrast, for the integration of knowledge, attention was focused on the spatial and/or temporal context of the topic under discussion and the relationships involved. We organised the dialogue in such a way as to draw on the experiences of the regional actors. For example, the dialogue on flood (protection) was set up as a ‘dialogue in a boat’ (FBW, 2007). For reasons of space, the mix of methods used by the research group can only be described briefly here (see also e.g. Bergmann et al., 2010; Bergmann and Schramm, 2008). Overall our choice of methods was guided by ‘epistemic pragmatism’, using ‘experimental combinations of different methods’, as recommended by Schindler and Schultz (2006) for transdisciplinary research. The methodological grounding of the project in Haraway’s (1988) concept of situated knowledges, and work with Sturm’s (2000) spatial analysis model (FBW, 2007), provided the context for the selection of analytical and empirical methods for our work that would maximise (self-)reflection and transparency. In order to meet this requirement, one approach that we adopted was to identify bridging concepts (Becker, 2012) (or to develop new ones or to further

74  Sabine Hofmeister

develop existing ones) that enabled social-ecological problems to be conceptualised in a way that exposed the differences both among our own disciplinary viewpoints and between those of science and the everyday world. This in turn, we hoped, would make it possible for these differences to be discussed and overcome. The use of bridging concepts by the ‘Blocked Changes’ project thus aimed to promote knowledge integration both within the research team (interdisciplinary integration) and between scientists and praxis partners (transdisciplinary integration). In interdisciplinary work, the project team developed a bridging concept that identified six different levels of integration in the research questions, as well as in the objectives and topics of research.These were formulated consistently and in a way that highlighted their practical relevance for the researchers engaged in the project, stimulating them to reflect on their own disciplinary perspective and its contribution to the work of the project as a whole. This in turn facilitated their effective participation in the component projects they were involved in. This approach was applied systematically to the normative, paradigmatic, theory-led, methodological, methodical, and conceptual dimensions of the research work, thereby establishing a consistent relation among them. In transdisciplinary research work, we used and further developed constellation analysis (Schön, Kruse, Meister, Nölting & Olhorst, 2007) as a bridging concept. This involved mapping influence factors, and the relations and interactions between them, including the role of non-human actors (e.g. floods) and artefacts (e.g. DIN regulations for dike systems), in order to understand the dichotomies and blockages affecting flood protection (FBW, 2007). The use of constellation analysis as a method for transdisciplinary research and as a bridging concept is described by Sylvia Kruse (in Schindler & Schultz, 2006) as follows: the explanatory power of the mapping depends on the expertise of the participants. The aim of constellation analysis is to enable inter- and transdisciplinary discourse and not to describe reality; to depict the heterogeneity of perspectives and relations and make it manageable (FBW, 2007). This approach is comparable to other methods for facilitating discourse across disciplinary boundaries, such as scenario building (e.g. as applied by Neumann & Deppisch (Chapter 12) and Bieling et al. (Chapter 7)), the ‘syndrome approach’ of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU, 1996) and Vienna social-ecology school’s ‘metabolism approach’ (Schindler & Schultz, 2006). Bridging concepts are thus used to facilitate the integration of knowledge-oriented analyses of a problem situation from heterogeneous perspectives. They ensure that differences among (scientific and lay) perspectives and ­knowledge are laid bare and thus enable critical (self-)reflexive research. The problem of the integration of knowledge can be summarised as follows: it is knowledge of differences – in the content and form of knowledge and among forms of knowledge production – that enables inter- and transdisciplinary integration of knowledge. The development of bridging concepts and their use in transdisciplinary research facilitates the process of integration, especially the integration of scientific and everyday knowledge.

Social-ecological research 75

Challenges for transdisciplinary social-ecological research In my role as a researcher in the social-ecological research project ‘Blocked Change’, I identified three challenges for inter- and transdisciplinary research arising from the risks and barriers discussed in the previous section. The wish to avoid over-extended discussion of real or potential conflicts of interest – and the underlying hierarchical and power relations – appears to be widespread among scientists engaged in collective research. This is not only true, but indeed particularly the case for inter- and transdisciplinary research, because here it is highly likely that boundaries between disciplines will be transgressed. The differences may become harder to see or their existence may be denied by researchers, who prefer to conceive of multi-agency research as a harmonious, smooth-running process. The challenge in this context is to achieve the goal of knowledge integration through differentiation of heterogeneous knowledge. This involves acknowledging differences in the status and effectiveness of different forms of knowledge as well as status differences among the knowledge producers. The ‘Blocked Changes’ project once again exemplifies this challenge. I have already discussed the difficulties with respect to structural and positional inequalities between researchers and the praxis partners. However, the problems in relations with regional transdisciplinary partners were less severe than those we encountered in recognising and acknowledging the existence of power relations and hierarchies among the scientists involved in the project, and in identifying and implementing appropriate coping strategies. We knew that differences in status existed among participants within research institutions (e.g. between professors and assistants) and therefore – at least potentially – in the work of the project; that the definition of functions (e.g. as coordinator of the entire project, leader of a component project or research assistants) implied a hierarchy; and that hierarchical relations also existed among the different scientific disciplines involved, as well as between the empirical and theoretical research. We knew that webs of power infused the heterogeneity of the project team; in response to this we committed ourselves at the start of the project to a set of ‘rules of engagement’ for joint work, which time and again proved to be extremely useful. These rules provided the basis, not for fulfilment of our understandable desire for harmony within the project team, but rather for the development and maintenance of a productive culture of dispute. The agreement was modified and expanded over the lifetime of the project (FBW, 2007) in order to further promote the process of differentiation and to ensure it took place in a way that was compatible with the wider goal: the integration of knowledge. A further, closely related challenge, also arising for the problem of positional inequality, was to legitimise the research in a way that did not provoke debate about whether it served the interests of researchers or practitioners – which were, inevitably, not the same. The denial that differences of opinion about the aims of the research and how it was carried out existed could potentially disrupt the work of the project or even bring it to a complete standstill, with negative

76  Sabine Hofmeister

consequences both within the research team, i.e. for the interdisciplinary work, and also for the transdisciplinary work with lay partners. The challenge for transdisciplinary (sustainability) research is thus to openly discuss the different or opposing interests between researchers and the praxis partners. Scientists’ interests include obtaining results of value to them as scientists (for example through the recognition of colleagues, and improved opportunities for publishing, teaching and fundraising). The transdisciplinary partners above all want results that help improve the quality of their own lives. The danger of denying the existence of these different interests, which can be expressed as different opinions about the research questions, procedures and aims, became apparent in the ‘Blocked Changes’ project. Regional actors were frequently critical of the project’s objectives and working hypotheses, and the research interests of the scientists involved. Scientists engaged in transdisciplinary research are likely to experience considerable pressure to communicate and legitimise what they are doing to the outside world, before they have the opportunity to reflect on and modify the scope of their work during the research process. It is therefore vital that scientists do not avoid discussion of differences, or deny they exist or that they are important. Rather, in their communications with praxis partners, scientists should openly pose questions and make statements that not only bring substantial controversies to light and deal with them, but also actively seek them out. Discussion of conflict will greatly stimulate productivity in the process transdisciplinary research, whereas attempts to ‘please’ the partners can lead to a loss of trust in the validity of the whole research enterprise. A third challenge of transdisciplinary research is closely connected with those already discussed: in this type of research it is sometimes necessary to suspend the search for ‘acceptable’ results that will lead to win-win solutions, or even to abandon it altogether. Here scientists are under really intense pressure to demonstrate the legitimacy of their work, since it is precisely this kind of result that they are expected to produce. It is likely that win-win scenarios, solutions to problems and transformation processes are all being developed and put forward at an early stage in the project, long before we, the scientists, have identified solutions or have had sufficient time to discuss them. This ‘back-to-front’ approach can’t work or, at any rate, must inevitably involve denial, glossing over and/or superficial reconciliation of differences. The challenge consists, among other things, in proactively taking on problems arising from over-complex demands made on scientists by the research programme and from the constant redefinition of priorities. Scientists should take the lead in stimulating discussion of the inherent tensions in transdisciplinary research, for example, between differentiation versus integration, or between exposing differences of interest and gaining acceptance. The focus should be on critically engaging with the framework conditions and structure of the transdisciplinary research programme, rather than identifying specific instances of individual or collective failure. Above all, transdisciplinary research needs time. Transdisciplinarity doesn’t mean finding solutions to problems through research and leaving it to the practitioners to implement them. Rather these solutions have to be worked out on-site, in negotiations with other project actors, in order to translate scientific

Social-ecological research 77

findings into transformatory strategies and practices. The ‘Blocked Changes’ project once again illustrates this problem and its associated challenges, especially for scientific policy makers who were responsible for designing the programme. Participants in the closing conference at the end of two and a half year project discussed a number of questions raised by the experience of the project. These discussions gave rise to suggestions, ideas and strategies, and led praxis partners to express the desire for a follow-up conference a year later, where discussions on transformation processes could continue and progress made could be reported on.The predetermined research structure did not allow this request to be acceded to, and we were forced to think of alternative ways of responding to these concerns. This illustrates one of the most important structural barriers to transdisciplinary social-ecological research. This type of research doesn’t fit well into the traditional time frame for research projects. In the light of this experience, the Social-Ecological Research Memorandum (2010) called for praxis partners to be financially compensated for their participation in transdisciplinary research, and for long-term learning and experimental projects to be supported with adequate funding over extended periods of time. In other words, the structural conditions for the research should be adapted to the requirements of transdisciplinary research practice. This throws light on a further, no less important problem: transformation towards sustainability is only rarely possible through win-win scenarios. Solutions to social-ecological problems meet with resistance. It can’t be otherwise. Sustainable development requires structural, social, economic and political changes. The way to sustainable development cannot be made free without thoroughgoing structural transformation that causes fractures and upheavals in existing structures of dominance and power. The adoption of a new perspective (e.g. by taking gender as an analytical category) brings the barriers to integration of different interests and goals into view, calling into question the myth that sustainable development can be achieved through win-win solutions (Hofmeister, Katz & Mölders, 2013b). Social-ecological research must therefore navigate a difficult path between critical science on the one hand and public acceptance of its results on the other. Here policy decisions have to be made in relation to what social-ecological research understands by transdisciplinarity. Should sustainability research in general and social-ecological research in particular be based on criteria of applicability and the logic of trade-offs (Hark, 2003), driven ever more strongly by the need to respond to market requirements for ‘action research’? Or should we develop a what Sabine Hark describes as a ‘reflexive’ understanding of transdisciplinarity that takes account of the position of the knowledge producers, the social conditions that make knowledge possible and, last but not least, the practice of knowledge production? (Hark, 1998).

Conclusions and perspectives: opportunities in transdisciplinary research My reflections are summarised in the following four conclusions:

78  Sabine Hofmeister

Gender should be acknowledged as a fundamental category in transdisciplinary research In making this statement, I am declaring an allegiance to feminist science, to the extent that this is conceived and presented as a transformative science. In relation to science and social practice, the term ‘transformative’ should be understood as an orientation towards changing reality through a change in scientific perspective (List, 1993), and specifically towards the elimination of unequal structures and relations (Maltry, 2003). To the extent that sustainability studies is also understood as a transformatory science, which aims to change society by promoting intra- and intergenerational justice, it locates itself firmly in the tradition of feminist science. This is particularly true in the case of socialecological research (Hofmeister & Mölders, 2006; Scheich & Schultz, 1987). In research practice, linking sustainability research and gender studies proves to be enormously productive, facilitating critical analysis through the deconstruction of society-nature relations and gender relations (and the relation between them): feminist theory has conducted an in-depth exploration of the intellectual and lifeworld manifestations of the ambivalence and paradoxes inherent in ‘construction’ and ‘reality’. Thereby it has become clear that the ‘deconstruction’ of gender in no way annuls the concept. Rather it has shed explicit light on the situated statements, practices, decisions and forms of representation that perceptible ‘reality’ gives rise to, and on the power relations involved (Schindler & Schultz, 2006). In this sense, ‘transdisciplinarity’ is a reflexive procedure. The structural similarities of sustainability and gender studies, as well as their common research principles (Hofmeister et al., 2013a), mean that the intellectual and lifeworld manifestations of the ambivalence and paradoxes inherent in ‘construction’ and ‘reality’ are fundamental to the experience of transdisciplinary research (Schindler & Schultz, 2006).

Transdisciplinarity means situating knowledge Situating and (re)conceptualising knowledge and knowledge production means relating them back to (unequal) societal structures and thereby making them objects of critical reflection: Situating knowledge plays a key role in both socialecological research and in gender studies. The two fields share this theoretical orientation. Criticism of science and reflexivity are two methodological and thematic areas of interest where the two fields intersect. A science that understands that science itself is a valid object of scientific study, and makes itself its own object, sets in motion a conceptual shift, from observation to participation, from structure to process, from substance to relation, from things to functions, from identity to difference. Transdisciplinary social-ecological research involves deconstruction of differences among academic disciplines and between scientific and everyday knowledge, as well as offering a ‘translation service’ to aid

Social-ecological research 79

mutual comprehension. This enables the practical task of shaping nature and society to recover its political dimension (Scheich, 2006).

Power analysis is an indispensable tool of transdisciplinary research Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary research not only presupposes knowledge of differences among knowledges, forms of knowledge and processes of knowledge production. It is also necessary to appreciate the hierarchical relations involved. Which knowledge exerts hegemony over another and in what way? Who and what is included in the knowledge production process, and who and what is excluded? Analyses of power and domination are therefore indispensable in transdisciplinary research, as are the use of bridging concepts, and participatory processes that compensate for inequity. In this way, transdisciplinary research can become an emancipatory science.

Social ecological research is a critical science; sustainability studies should be developed as one Social-ecological research as a science of society-nature relations has its roots in ‘classical’ critical theory of the Frankfurt School, as critically evaluated and further developed by social ecologists (Becker & Jahn, 2003). Important currents within gender studies are linked to this school and have also, through a feminist critique, contributed to a further development of its ideas (Becker-Schmidt, 1998, 2002; Klinger, 1998; Knapp, 2012; Scheich, 1993). Whether and to what extent sustainability research is understood and practised as a critical science will depend on the extent to which researchers, in the (self-)reflexive process of research, make it one.

Acknowledgements This article is based on a presentation given to the conference of the German Human Ecology Association on 10 May 2012 in Sommerhausen. I thank Dr. Babette Scurrell (Dessau), and the reviewers and especially the editor of this volume. I am grateful for the careful translation of the chapter by Andrew Halliday.

Notes 1 In the context of the projects ‘Sustainable Development Between Throughput and Symbolism’ (NEDS) from 2003 to 2007, and ‘PoNa – Shaping Nature: Policy, Politics and Polity’ from 2008 to 2014. 2 For the project ‘PoNa Plan B Baltic: Climate Change and Regional Development’. 3 See www.vorsorgendeswirtschaften.de (Accessed: 08/04/2012).

80  Sabine Hofmeister

References Becker, E. (2012). Social-ecological systems as epistemic objects. In M. Glaser, G. Krause, B.M.W. Ratter, & M. Welp (Eds.), Human-nature interactions in the Anthropocene: Potentials of social-ecological systems analysis (pp. 37–59). New York: Routledge. Becker, E., & Jahn, T. (2003). Umrisse einer kritischen Theorie gesellschaftlicher Naturverhältnisse. In G. Böhme & A. Manzei (Eds.), Kritische Theorie der Technik und der Natur (pp. 91–112). Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Becker, E., & Jahn, T. (2006). Soziale Ökologie. Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Frankfurt: Campus. Becker-Schmidt, R. (1998). Trennung, Verknüpfung, Vermittlung: zum feministischen Umgang mit Dichotomien. In G.-A. Knapp (Ed.), Kurskorrekturen: Feminismus zwischen kritischer Theorie und Postmoderne (pp. 84–125). Frankfurt: Campus. Becker-Schmidt, R. (2002).Was mit Macht getrennt wird, gehört gesellschaftlich zusammen. Zur Dialektik der Umverteilung und Anerkennung im Phänomen sozialer Ungleichstellung. In G.-A. Knapp & A. Wetterer (Eds.), Soziale Verortung der Geschlechter. Gesellschaftstheorie und feministische Kritik (pp. 91–131). Münster:Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot. Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C., & Schramm, E. (2010). Methoden transdisziplinärer Forschung. Ein Überblick mit Anwendungsbeispielen. Frankfurt: Campus. Bergmann, M., & Schramm, E. (2008). Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Frankfurt: Campus. Biesecker, A., & Hofmeister, S. (2006). Die Neuerfindung des Ökonomischen. Ein (re)produktionstheoretischer Beitrag zur Sozialen Ökologie. Munich: Oekom. BMBF. (2000). Rahmenkonzept Sozial-ökologische Forschung. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from www.isoe.de/ftp/rahmenkonzept.pdf Forschungsverbund ‘Blockierter Wandel?’ (FBW) (2007). Blockierter Wandel? Denk- und Handlungsräume für eine nachhaltige Regionalentwicklung. Munich: Oekom. Grischkat, S. (2008). Umweltbilanzierung von individuellem Mobilitätsverhalten – Methodische und gestaltungsrelevante Ansätze. Mannheim: MetaGIS Verlag. Hammer, C., & Stieß, I. (1995). Einleitung. In D. Haraway, C. Hammer, & I. Stieß (Eds.), Die Neuerfindung der Natur: Primaten, Cyborgs und Frauen (pp. 9–31). Frankfurt: Campus. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism as a site of discourse on the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. Hark, S. (1998). Disziplinäre Quergänge – (Un)Möglichkeiten transdisziplinärer Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung. Potsdamer Studien zur Frauen und Geschlechterforschung, 2(2), 2–9. Hark, S. (2003). Material Conditions: Begrenzte Möglichkeiten inter- und transdisziplinärer Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung. Zeitschrift für Frauenforschung und Geschlechterstudien, 21(2/3), 76–89. Hofmeister, S., Kägi, S., Karsten, M.-E., Katz, C., Mölders, T., Walther, K., & Weller, I. (2002). Vorstudie “Universitäre und universitätsübergreifende Voraussetzungen für Nachwuchsförderung im Themenfeld ‘Gender und Nachhaltigkeit’ ”. In I. Balzer & M. Wächter  (Eds.), Sozial-ökologische Forschung. Ergebnisse der Sondierungsprojekte aus dem BMBF-­Förderschwerpunkt (pp. 538–549). Munich: Oekom. Hofmeister, S., Katz, C., & Mölders, T. (2013a). Grundlegungen im Themenfeld Geschlechterverhältnisse und Nachhaltigkeit. In S. Hofmeister, C. Katz, & T. Mölders (Eds.), Geschlechterverhältnisse und Nachhaltigkeit. Die Kategorie Geschlecht in den Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften (pp. 31–76). Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Hofmeister, S., Katz, C., & Mölders, T. (2013b). Die Kategorie Geschlecht: Neue Perspektiven für die Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften. In S. Hofmeister, C. Katz, & T. Mölders (Eds.),

Social-ecological research 81 Geschlechterverhältnisse und Nachhaltigkeit. Die Kategorie Geschlecht in den Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften (pp. 339–351). Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Hofmeister, S., & Mölders, T. (2006). Geschlecht als Basiskategorie der Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. In M. Schäfer, I. Schultz, & G. Wendorf (Eds.), Gender-Perspektiven in der Sozialökologischen Forschung (pp. 17–37). Munich: Oekom. Kahlert, H. (2005). Wissenschaftsentwicklung durch Inter- und Transdisziplinarität: Positionen der Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung. In H. Kahlert, B. Thiessen, & I. Weller (Eds.), Quer denken – Strukturen verändern. Gender Studies zwischen Disziplinen (pp. 23–60). Wiesbaden:VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Klinger, C. (1998). Feministische Philosophie als Dekonstruktion und Kritische Theorie. In G.-A. Knapp (Ed.), Kurskorrekturen. Feminismus zwischen Kritischer Theorie und Postmoderne (pp. 242–256). Frankfurt: Campus. Knapp, G.-A. (1998). Postmoderne Theorie oder Theorie der Postmoderne. Anmerkungen aus feministischer Sicht. In G.-A. Knapp (Ed.), Kurskorrekturen. Feminismus zwischen Kritischer Theorie und Postmoderne (pp. 25–83). Frankfurt: Campus. Knapp, G.-A. (2007). Die vergessene Differenz. Feministische Studien, 6(1), 12–31. Knapp, G.-A. (2012). Konstellationen von Kritischer Theorie und Geschlechterforschung. In G.-A. Knapp (Ed.), Im Widerstreit. Feministische Theorie in Bewegung (pp. 165–190). Wiesbaden:VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kruse, S. (2010). Vorsorgendes Hochwassermanagement im Wandel. Ein sozial-ökologisches Raumkonzept für den Umgang mit Hochwasser. Wiesbaden:VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Kuhn, T. S. (1976). Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. List, E. (1993). Die Präsenz des Anderen.Theorie und Geschlechterpolitik. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Maltry, K. (2003). Frauen- und Geschlechterforschung als transformative Wissenschaft. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag. Zeitschrift für Frauenforschung und Geschlechterstudien, 21(2/3), 20–26. Marx, K. (1978): Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. In Marx/Engels-Werke Band 13 (pp. 7–160). Berlin: Dietz. Mölders, T. (2010). Gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnisse zwischen Krise und Vision. Eine Fallstudie im Biosphärenreservat Mittelelbe. Munich: Oekom. Schäfer, M., Schultz, I., & Wendorf, G. (2006). Gender-Perspektiven in der Sozial-ökologischen Forschung. Herausforderungen und Erfahrungen aus inter- und transdisziplinären Projekten. Munich: Oekom. Scheich, E. (1993). Naturbeherrschung und Weiblichkeit. Denkformen und Phantasmen der modernen Naturwissenschaften. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus. Scheich, E. (2006). Geschlechterverhältnis und Naturgestaltung: Lernende Forschungsprozesse zwischen gender studies und Umweltforschung. In M. Schäfer, I. Schultz, & G.Wendorf (Eds.), Gender-Perspektiven in der Sozial-ökologischen Forschung. Herausforderungen und Erfahrungen aus inter- und transdisziplinären Projekten (pp. 117–133). Munich: Oekom. Scheich, E., & Schultz, I. (1987). Soziale Ökologie und Feminismus. Sozial-ökologische Arbeitspapiere Nr. 2. Frankfurt: IKO. Schindler, D., & Schultz, I. (2006). Methodologie und Methodenentwicklung in der Verknüpfung mit der Kategorie Geschlecht in der SÖF. In M. Schäfer, I. Schultz, & G.Wendorf (Eds.), Gender-Perspektiven in der Sozial-ökologischen Forschung. Herausforderungen und Erfahrungen aus inter- und transdisziplinären Projekten (pp. 77–102). Munich: Oekom. Schön, S., Kruse, S., Meister, M., Nölting, B., & Olhorst, D. (2007). Handbuch Konstellationsanalyse. Ein Interdisziplinäres Brückenkonzept für die Nachhaltigkeits- Innovations- und Technikforschung. Munich: Oekom. Schultz, I. (2001). Umwelt- und Geschlechterforschung: eine notwendige Übersetzungsarbeit. In A. Nebelung, A. Poferl, & I. Schultz (Eds.), Geschlechterverhältnisse – Naturverhältnisse.

82  Sabine Hofmeister Feministische Auseinandersetzungen und Perspektiven der Umweltsoziologie (pp. 25–51). Opladen: Leske und Budrich. Schultz, I., & Weiland, M. (1991). Frauen und Müll. Frauen als Handelnde in der kommunalen Abfallwirtschaft. Frankfurt: IKO.SÖF-Memorandum. (2012). Verstehen – Bewerten – Gestalten. Transdisziplinäres Wissen für eine nachhaltige Gesellschaft. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from www.fona.de/mediathek/pdf/soef-Memorandum_2012_de.pdf. Sturm, G. (2000). Wege zum Raum. Methodologische Annährungen an ein Basiskonzept raumbezogener Wissenschaften. Opladen: Westdeutscher. Thürmer-Rohr, C. (1984). Der Chor der Opfer ist verstummt. Beiträge zur feministischen Theorie und Praxis, 7(11), 71–84. WBGU. (1996). Welt im Wandel – Herausforderungen für die deutsche Wissenschaft. Hauptgutachten. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.

Part II

Cooperating with partners of practice

5 From the plurality of transdisciplinarity to concrete transdisciplinary methods The case of PoNa and its dialogue with practitioners on a picture discourse analysis Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski Introduction At the beginning of the 2000s, transdisciplinary research projects were still an exception. However, since then, not only interdisciplinarity but also transdisciplinarity have become commonplace, particularly in problem- and solutionoriented sustainability research. However, the precise meaning of the term ‘transdisciplinarity’ remains contested and is likely to remain so, despite calls for further harmonisation (Brandt et al., 2013). A glance at the now numerous available publications on transdisciplinarity shows that this term covers a tumultuous “variety of theoretical concepts, divergent perspectives on problem formulation, and heterogeneous, sometimes contradictory methodological, institutional and science policy objectives” (Bogner, Kastenhofer & Torgerson, 2010, p. 7). Despite this obvious diversity, discourse on transdisciplinarity is dominated by two basic understandings of this new type of science (cf. Bergmann et al., 2010; Bogner et al., 2010; Maasen, 2010). The first of these follows Jürgen Mittelstraß (1987, 2007) in seeing transdisciplinarity as an expression of the tendency of science to transcend disciplinary boundaries in order to solve complex, inherently scientific problems. The second understanding focuses on the involvement of practitioners as partners in research and knowledge production, not least in order to generate ‘socially robust knowledge’ (Nowotny et al., 2001) for the solution of complex social problems.The latter understanding, i.e. transdisciplinarity as the involvement of actors from the realm of practice, has become the dominant one in German discourse. Transdisciplinarity in this sense is also eligible for funding by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, 2014). Since the end of the 1990s, BMBF has identified social-ecological research (SER) as a funding priority within its programme of sustainability research (often referred to using the German abbreviation ‘fona’). In this chapter our use of the term ‘social-ecological

86  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

research’ refers to German discourse and particularly its designation as a priority funding area by the BMBF. The conceptual basis of this funding priority draws especially on work by the Institute for Social-Ecological Research in Frankfurt that established social ecology as a new scientific discipline in Germany. There is also strong tradition of social ecology in the United States and the concept is now as influential in Austria and Switzerland as it is in Germany. A comparative analysis of the different characteristics of social ecology in different countries (and where these come from) is still missing.The BMBF funding priority focuses on collaboration with practitioners in the search for a­ pplication-oriented solutions to problems arising in the lifeworld. SER is embedded in the wider discourse on sustainable development. Ever since the first UN Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, it has been recognised that the solution of social-ecological crises requires a new type of science that takes account of the knowledge of nonscientific actors alongside academic knowledge (UN, 1992). However, within SER, there is also no generally accepted definition of what precisely transdisciplinary research is, or agreement on how the joint work between scientists and practitioners that is called for should be organised. Although some areas of agreement can be identified (Ruppert-Winkel et al., 2015), different conceptions and types of transdisciplinarity are evident, for example in the work of the young scientist research groups supported by the BMBF since 2002. The diversity of conceptions of transdisciplinarity in theoretical contributions and sustainability research programmes is also notable (Müller, 2013; see also the chapters by Neumann & Deppisch (Chapter 12), Padmanabhan (Chapter 10), Beiling et al. (Chapter 7) and Ziegler (Chapter 8)). Thus we are confronted with a plurality of transdisciplinarity – and this applies both to research practice and to theoretical and conceptual approaches. To date, few publications explicitly engage with this plurality, characterise different types of transdisciplinarity, or recognise their different qualities. More­ over, plurality can be found not only among different transdisciplinary projects but also within a single research group or at different levels in the design of a research project. Likewise, transdisciplinary working methods can change and be applied in many different ways over the lifetime of a project. This chapter has two interrelated principal objectives: first, we describe the transdisciplinary research experience of the young scientists research group ‘Shaping Nature’ (Politiken der Naturgestaltung, abbreviated as ‘PoNa’). We identify the changes that took place over the duration of the project with the aim of stimulating and moving forward discussion on the plurality of transdisciplinarity. Second, we present concrete results of a picture-discourse analysis in the field of agro-genetic engineering, and the exchange of ideas with practitioners that it gave rise to, as an example of transdisciplinary practice. By highlighting the relevance of pictures for SER and for joint work with practitioners we demonstrate the potential of transdisciplinarity to open up new horizons for socially relevant sustainability research. In what follows, we start by briefly describing the typology of transdisciplinarity proposed by Sabine Maasen (2010). We draw on her typology to reflect

Dialogue with practitioners 87

on transdisciplinary aspects of the work of PoNa as a whole. As a second step, we focus on inter- and transdisciplinary work processes in one of the two component projects of PoNa: the agro-biotechnology component that studied the introduction of genetic engineering into agriculture. We present the results of the picture discourse analysis of pictures used by campaigns for and against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Germany and Poland. The results were discussed in scientist-practitioner dialogues with partners actively involved in campaigns that oppose the introduction of GMOs.

On the plurality of transdisciplinarity Determining what distinguishes transdisciplinary from disciplinary research was the starting point of discourse on transdisciplinarity. The identification of specific characteristics of transdisciplinary research served in the first instance to concretise the innovative concept of ‘Mode 2’ science (Nowotny et al., 2001). However, researchers who set out to define the central characteristics of transdisciplinarity always, at the same time, emphasised the diversity of this new way of doing science (Ruppert-Winkel et al., 2015). As already mentioned, until now no analyses have explicitly treated the plurality of transdisciplinarity as paramount. Instead, the diversity of transdisciplinarity has been seen as a challenge: “While transdisciplinary research is growing there is no common glossary, no focused communication platform and no commonly shared research framework. Transdisciplinary research utilises a broad, but not clearly defined, set of methods for knowledge production” (Brandt et al., 2013, p. 1). There is, however, one area where systematic comparison is undertaken relatively often, and this relates to the involvement of practitioners. In most publications, the participation of stakeholders in the research process is depicted as a ‘ladder’, with the degree of participation rising from information, consultation and collaboration to empowerment (see, e.g. Kruetli et al., 2010). ‘Co-design’ and ‘co-production’ are also now recognised as insignia of transdisciplinary research. However relatively little, mainly superficial attention has been paid to what lies behind these buzzwords. Sabine Maasen (2010) also makes the approach to participation the starting point for her typology of transdisciplinarity. However, her systematisation is distinguished by an awareness of how different forms of transdisciplinarity and their approaches to participation are related to the research aims and the issues under investigation.The following section describes this typology and applies it to analyse the transdisciplinary-oriented research group PoNa. Maasen’s typology of transdisciplinarity

Maasen’s typology of transdisciplinarity comprises four types, and was developed in the course of evaluating several transdisciplinary projects. Her four-field matrix (see Table 5.1) shows, on the horizontal axis, whether problem formulation is principally carried out ‘within-science’ or ‘outside-science’ (shown as

88  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski Table 5.1 Maasen’s (2010: 252) typology of transdisciplinarity (slightly amended) Problem Formulation Research Goal

External

Internal

Concrete

Type 1 Interventionist transdisciplinarity Type 3 Explorative transdisciplinarity

Type 2 Distributive transdisciplinarity Type 4 Methodological transdisciplinarity

Abstract

‘internal’ and ‘external’ problem formulation in Table 5.1, respectively). The vertical axis shows whether the solution to the problem, i.e. the goal of the research, is defined in concrete or abstract terms. Maasen emphasises that her schema does not imply any judgement about the quality of the research that is carried out. Rather, it represents “an ordering according to the type of approach to participation” (Maasen, 2010, p. 254, emphasis in the original). She identifies the four following types of transdisciplinarity: Interventionist transdisciplinarity: Projects of this type investigate problems that are seen as relevant outside of science and are expected to give rise to production of scientific knowledge that responds to the needs of a specific intervention. Thus there is a “specific expectation of usefulness from research for practice” (Maasen, 2010, p. 254). Correspondingly, the research goal is primarily application oriented. There is close collaboration with practitioners (sometimes based on a formal cooperation agreement), generally with the aim of building the capacity of non-scientific stakeholders (e.g. through empowerment, democratisation). Distributive transdisciplinarity: Projects of this type use established methods such as scenario workshops or focus groups to integrate practitioners and their knowledge into the research process. Non-scientific actors play an important role in projects of this kind. Typically, however, knowledge production remains under the control of scientists, while the role of practitioners is as providers of information, and especially of detailed knowledge about the issues being under investigation. The identification and formulation of problems take place within science. Integration of knowledge external to science in the core of the scientific research occurs exclusively through processes and methods that are controlled by scientists (Maasen, 2010). In other words, this form of transdisciplinarity “causes least disturbance to the processes of scientific knowledge production, whatever the degree of involvement of practitioners” (Maasen, 2010, p. 257). Explorative transdisciplinarity: This type of transdisciplinarity calls into question the demarcation between scientific and social knowledge. In order to forge ‘new partnerships’ between theory and practice, projects of this kind establish and develop structures for the acquisition of knowledge

Dialogue with practitioners 89

that is relevant for action and decision-making. Explorative transdisciplinarity “is basically oriented towards action goals that create the conditions for stimulating further action and thereby lay the foundations for wide-ranging collaboration in a particular topic area” (Maasen, 2010, p. 256). Maasen’s characterisation of this type of transdisciplinarity draws on Stefan Böschen’s idea of the production of public spheres (Böschen, 2003, cited in Maasen, 2010, p. 256), in which actors from different field of knowledge and action can come together for a variety of purposes – including, for example, to set research agendas. Methodological transdisciplinarity: Here, intrinsically scientific, theoretical questions are the starting point for both the problem definition and the research design. Criticism of science is at the centre of this type of transdisciplinarity. Projects critically reflect on foundational issues of science, such as the conception of objectivity and questions of representation. These projects are under scientific leadership, with practitioners included on an occasional basis for specific purposes (Maasen, 2010). Design of the PoNa project

Our retrospective reflection on the experience of the PoNa project shows that all the different approaches to participation that find expression in Maasen’s four types of transdisciplinarity were adopted, to a greater or lesser extent, in different levels of the design and practice of the PoNa project. PoNa analysed how nature and the multifaceted relations between nature and society are shaped by rural development and agro-biotechnology policies in Germany and Poland. Bringing together feminist economics, science and technology studies and environmental sociology, the project explored the issue from different theoretical and political perspectives, taking into account the nexus of symbolic and materialistic levels of societal relations to nature, with the aim of providing nature with a sustainable future. PoNa wanted to raise awareness of the fact that nature is co-produced by socioeconomic action: thus this action has to be aligned with the goal of environmental sustainability (Friedrich et al., 2010). The PoNa project incorporated three levels of design: first, the work of the entire research group; second, the work of the two component projects, Rural Development and Agro-Biotechnology; and third, individual qualification work (four dissertations and two habilitation theses). Transdisciplinary practice in the PoNa project

Before funding for the project was initiated, expert assessors working for the BMBF disagreed over whether PoNa, with its relatively abstract, theoretical orientation, could really be described as a transdisciplinary project. Crucially, there were doubts about whether the project could guarantee to involve a sufficient number of practitioners in its work. Clearly the assessors asked these

90  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

questions about participation from the perspective of the interventionist type of transdisciplinarity. This identification of “transdisciplinarity . . . with interventionist research” (Maasen, 2010, p. 255) that is expected to produce direct practical benefits is entirely in accordance with the mainstream understanding of transdisciplinary research. In a round of reflections on the occasion of the project’s closing conference, a doctoral student who had worked in the Rural Development component of the project expressed similar doubts, when she stated: “I haven’t done any transdisciplinary work in the past five years” (quoted after Bergmann et al., 2017, p. 256). Her interventionist understanding of transdisciplinarity had led her to expect a much stronger involvement of practitioners in the process of knowledge production.Towards the end of the project, the team members were asked to respond to a survey by a student who was using PoNa as a case study of the challenges of transdisciplinary research. Responses made it clear that members of the project team had markedly different views about whether and in what way they had been involved in transdisciplinary work (Berndt, 2014). These differences did not only relate to the subjective construction of truth or reflect differing analytical judgements about similar situations but also corresponded to the ways each member engaged in the work with practitioner partners. This engagement differed according to the forms, scale and intensity of involvement of non-scientific actors in the work of individual research group members. It differed also between the two project components. It is true that both project components can be classified as ‘distributive transdisciplinarity’ following Maasen’s typology, i.e. as a process controlled by scientific actors for the integration of non-scientific knowledge into scientific research. However there were clear differences between the two project components in the manner, duration and intensity of involvement of practitioners (Box 5.1). Moreover, over the lifetime of the project, the agro-biotechnology component came to adopt a more interventionist approach. While the Rural Development component was characterised by distributive transdisciplinarity over the lifetime of the project, the strong focus on picture discourse analysis led the agro-biotechnology component towards a more intensive interaction with practitioner partners. The higher-level concerns of PoNa, i.e. how policy shapes societal relations to nature in the two policy fields of interest (rural development and agrobiotechnology) were linked at the outset to critiques of both previous research and current policy proposals. One of PoNa’s aims was to identify conflicting policy aims and contradictions in rural sustainability programmes; in this respect the project also contained elements of methodological transdisciplinarity. The research questions, aimed at probing the diverse and sometimes contradictory understandings of nature, economics and politics embodied in sustainable development policies at both German and European levels, were identified and formulated based on the results of previous research by the project leaders. Problem formulation thus bore the hallmarks of a ‘within-science’ perspective. The choice of the two policy issues (rural development and agro-biotechnology)

Dialogue with practitioners 91

Box 5.1  Collaboration between researchers and practitioner partners in the PoNa project The Rural Development component collaborated with different practitioners at different stages of the project, although this was not the intention at the outset. In the first half of the project, the research partner of this component was the German Network for Rural Development (DVS). Sadly, following a brief initial meeting, there was no further collaboration with the Polish counterpart Krajowa Siec´ Obszarów Wiejskich (KSOW). In the second half of the project, other practitioners became involved, in particular the Academy for Nature Conservation in Lower Saxony. The collaboration between the agro-biotechnology component and the Small Farmers Association (Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft, AbL) started in the preliminary phase and continued, in various forms, throughout the lifetime of the project. Collaborative activities included mutual provision of advice and participation in workshops. Two Polish initiatives opposed to GMOs in agriculture, the campaigns GMO to nie to (‘GMOs Are Not the Way’) and Naturalne Geny (‘Natural Genes’), also collaborated throughout the project, both with the research component as a whole and also (as interviewees) with individual postgraduate research projects. However an initial meeting with another Polish NGO did not lead to further contact due to the two groups’ very different expectations from the proposed collaboration.

was based on the criterion of societal relevance, as understood in the light of related social conflicts (organic agriculture versus use of GMOs) and socialecological crises (BSE, dioxin contamination, disappearing family farms, loss of agrobiodiversity, etc.) In the case of a­gro-biotechnology, the selection of the topic was influenced by previous contact with social movements that had clearly defined political goals (such as GMO-free regions, preservation of organic farming). While the choice of issues thus reflected some ‘outsidescience’ influences, the research questions were not formulated together with practitioners. In the first phase of the project, interdisciplinary approaches were in the foreground, for example in the attempt to formulate a common critical and emancipatory understanding of sustainability (Friedrich et al., 2010). This common understanding of sustainability served among other things as an analytical tool for the identification of the understandings of nature, economics and politics that underpinned political programmes and policy documents, and also for the identification of their blind spots and contradictions. It also formed the starting point for the involvement of practitioners. The results were presented at two conferences conceived of as ‘science-practice dialogues’.

92  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

The picture discourse analysis Context and method

Our decision to undertake a picture discourse analysis in the agro-­biotechnology component responded to the inherent qualities of public discourse on agrobiotechnology, in which pictures play a central role. The campaigns around the issue by both supporters and opponents of the technology aim to achieve a high public profile and to this end make use of a plethora of visual images in order to communicate, support and reinforce meanings and arguments. For example pictures are used to emphasise the risks of GMOs, or their harmlessness. Depictions of the relation of GMOs to nature or naturalness often plays a key role in communicating these ideas. For these campaigns, for or against GMOs, pictures have the communicative advantage that the message they convey can be understood ‘all at once’. Compared to text, the content of pictures can also be assimilated more quickly and arouse stronger emotions (Doelker, 2002; Grossmann, 2007). However pictures do not serve primarily illustrative purposes. Like other research that has taken a ‘visual turn’ (Holert, 2005; Maasen, Mayerhauser, & Renggli, 2006; Rose, 2007), we consider that pictures not only illustrate arguments for and against GMOs; they also help shape the discourse. For example, in discourse on the introduction of agro-biotechnology into agriculture, both supporters and opponents not only use pictures to support their own position; they also react to pictures produced by the ‘other side’. When supporters of GMOs set up a ‘show garden’ where visitors could view genetically modified maize plants,1 this was at least in part a response to a big campaign by Greenpeace that depicted genetically altered maize as a ‘maize monster’ (see Figure 5.1). The message that visitors were expected to take away from this garden was “See, these plants look just like normal plants, and smell like normal plants: they are normal plants! Genetic engineering doesn’t produce monsters; it’s just another plant breeding technique, to improve on nature.” Despite its effectiveness in discourse, iconic and multimodal communication on agro-biotechnology has hardly received any attention in academic literature, beyond a few analyses of the pictograms that are used. Examples include the studies of pro-GMO pictures and metaphors by Hofmann (2003a, 2003b), Kollek (1994) and Hellsten (2002). To date there has been no similar analysis of the ideas expressed in pictures produced by opponents of GMOs. A further impulse that led us to attempt to fill this gap in the research by undertaking a picture analysis from a social-ecological perspective as a component of our transdisciplinary research came from an actor at the interface between science and practice: During the planning and development phase of our research into how politics shapes nature, Manuel Schneider, co-editor of the Kritischer Agrarbericht (Critical Farming Report)2 and member of the

Dialogue with practitioners 93

Figure 5.1 Genetically modified maize depicted as ‘maize monsters’ in an image produced by anti-GMO campaigners Copyright Paul Langrock/Zenit/Greenpeace

scientific advisory board of the PoNa young scientists research group, encouraged us to question the underlying ontological assumptions – for example the understandings of nature – in pictures produced by the movement for GMOfree agriculture, and to investigate their emotional and psychological effects. The object of analysis comprised 450 pictures from German and Polish campaigns for and against genetic engineering in agriculture. The pictures were found through a search of internet sites of supporters and opponents of GMOs and included posters, brochures, leaflets and stickers, some of which were also available in print form. The pictures were sorted into thematic clusters and assigned to categories; pictures selected as representative of each category were then subjected to detailed analysis. A mix of methods was employed for the analysis. In some cases we used documentary picture analysis following Bohnsack (2011); in others we applied analytical instruments from social semiotics, such as those developed by van Leeuwen (2001). Both the clustering and the picture analysis addressed the following research questions: • How is the topic of the introduction of agro-biotechnology ‘translated’ into pictures? • How are GMOs presented?

94  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

• • •

What underlying conceptions, particularly of nature, are discernible in the pictures? How do pictures produced by opponents of GMOs differ from those produced by supporters? What, if any, differences can be discerned between the campaigns in Germany and Poland?

In what follows we do not address all these questions (e.g. not the comparative analysis of the positions of supporters and opponents of GMOs, or the differences between how the topic was addressed in Poland and Germany). Our focus will be on the understanding of nature among opponents of GMOs. Overall the results of the picture discourse analysis demonstrated that the messages of the pictures did not deviate from the familiar patterns that stamp the conflict over agro-biotechnology: incalculable risks for humans, animals, plants and ecosystems on the side of opponents; improvements and enhancements to nature, leading to increased crop yields and greater human well-being on the side of supporters. However, as social-ecological researchers, studying the interrelationship between nature and society, we were surprised by one aspect of pictures produced by opponents of GMOs – one that was relevant to a key concern of transdisciplinary dialogue. We found that different understandings of nature not only among actors within the wider policy area of agrobiotechnology, but also within the campaigns of opponents of GMOs, leading to unacknowledged inconsistencies in their messages. Understandings of nature in pictures from campaigns of opponents of GMOs

The concept of ‘naturalness’ plays a particularly important role in the visual presentation of agro-biotechnology in materials produced by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that are critical of GMOs. Genetically modified plants and animals are presented as mutations that deviate from the natural order. This construction of meaning (and messages to the campaign audiences) relies on dichotomies such as natural vs. unnatural, normal vs. abnormal and familiar vs. alien. By presenting GMOs as monsters, opponents are able to communicate the idea of otherness, abnormality and, last but not least, dangers of modifications to DNA that are not visible to the naked eye. The dangers arising from this modification are depicted in images of GMOs as deadly weapons and by using symbols of death. Genetically modified nature is, in the picture language of GMO opponents, dangerous ‘techno-nature’ that threatens ‘natural’ nature (animals, plants, ecosystems) and people. As described elsewhere (Gottschlich et al., 2014), the picture universe of the genetic engineering debate is full of unusual organisms: banana-cucumbers, mouse-potatoes and maize-cows (Figures 5.2–5.4). Alongside these strange combinations of animals and plants, one can also find familiar organisms that have taken on an unusual shape (Figure 5.5), colour

Figures 5.2–5.4 Examples of images produced by anti-GMO campaigns Copyright Figure 5.2 Linksjugend Solid Baden-Würtemberg; Figure 5.3 Christian von Janczewski; Figure 5.4 Oliver Schopf

96  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

Figures 5.2–5.4  (Continued)

or size. The pictures are an attempt to make visible something that is beyond human perception: the alteration of genetic material through the transfer of genes from one species to another. At the same time these create images of living beings that are alien, abnormal and, therefore, unnatural, thereby transmitting the message that the manufacture of GMOs give rise to something

Dialogue with practitioners 97

Figure 5.5 Images of ‘unnatural’ apples used by anti-GMO campaigners Copyright Werner Dreblow – Fotolia.com

unnatural. However (un)naturalness is a quality constructed by humans. The presentation of unusual hybrids as ‘monsters’ at the same time sets the standards by which we perceive and recognise things as normal and natural.Thus we recognise the shape of the apple in the middle of Figure 5.5 as normal and natural in comparison with the other two. Our perception of normality is however based on standardised apples whose appearance conforms to certain requirements. However the naturalness of such apples is also open to question. ‘Normal’ apples are bred by humans to give them particular qualities, such as sweetness, quick growth or colour. This raises the question: which naturalness, and whose, is being used as reference value, giving rise to our perception of ‘unnaturalness’ in the other pictures? That is only one question among many, until now unanswered by practitioners, campaign managers or scientists, that we wanted to discuss in the sciencepractice dialogues, particularly since the work of the PoNa research group was based on a conceptualisation of societal relations to nature that sees nature and society as being inseparably interrelated. A key area of interest for PoNa was the social practice of distinguishing between these two entities, and the criticism of this practice (Becker & Jahn, 2006a) (see Chapter 4 in this volume). While it is true that every intervention by humans in nature has consequences, it can be argued that genetic alterations are different from varieties produced by conventional plant and animal breeding, which are generally understood to be ‘natural’, with respect to the depth of intervention (e.g. gene transfer across species) and a greater degree of ignorance regarding their consequences. The argument that the greater ‘depth of intervention’ makes genetic engineering

98  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

fundamentally different from conventional plant and animal breeding is controversial and has been the subject of much debate. For example, the German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU 2004: 407) has dismissed this as a ‘categorical argument’ against genetic engineering. However the idea is still widely taken for granted by opponents of GMOs, and suggested through the monstrous character of the abnormal GMOs shown in the pictures used by anti-GMO campaigns. In Figure 5.6 (and see also Figure 5.1 above), genetically modified nature is shown as turning against humans. Monsters are, after all, dangerous, uncontrollable and often repulsive. As in the Greek myth of the half-bull, half-man Minotaur, or in the story of Frankenstein, the intervention of humans in the divine or natural order brings disastrous consequences. These consequences not only affect those who have meddled with the existing order, but also other people and non-human nature. The pictures shown here tell this kind of story. They present agro-biotechnology as an improper intervention in the natural order and warn of the consequences that can be expected. The criticism of GMOs is thereby presented as a defence of vaguely defined naturalness or pristineness – that at the same time appears to be predetermined and non-negotiable. By contrast, Figures 5.7–5.9 are an attempt to present the anti-GMO case without reference to naturalness.The first of these pictures calls for maintenance

Figure 5.6 ‘Monstrous’ image of GMOs used by anti-GMO campaigners Copyright Kampania przeciw GMO

Dialogue with practitioners 99

Figure 5.7 Anti-GMO poster produced by the German Green Party.The headline text reads: ‘Everything genetically engineered? I want freedom of choice.’ Copyright Bundestagsfraktion BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN (Berlin)

of crop diversity and freedom of choice for farmers in selecting which crops to plant. Both diversity and freedom of choice are shown as being threatened by agro-biotechnology. The key concern is not to protect the normal and the natural from the threat of intervention, but the conservation of agrobiodiversity. Where does the difference lie, compared with the other pictures described above? Agrobiodiversity is tangible; it is related to specific locations in time and space. It is susceptible to change, and humans participate actively in its creation. By contrast, ‘naturalness’ is, by definition, something not made by humans – even though every epoch has its own understanding of what naturalness is. Using arguments based on naturalness can impede political discussion, since the ‘natural’ appears to be predetermined, and debate in society about it is excluded

100  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

Figure 5.8 Anti-GMO image produced by the Federal Coordination of Internationalism (BUKO) Campaign against Biopiracy and the Campaign for Seed Sovereignty. The text reads: ‘Sow the future – harvest diversity.’ Copyright BUKO-Kampagne gegen Biopiraterie/Kampagne für Saatgut-Souveränität

from the outset. By contrast the issue of agrobiodiversity raised in Figure 5.7 focuses attention on concrete actions and needs that affect the interaction of humans and non-humans. In Figure 5.8, human and non-human actors form an alliance against economic exploitation that places excessive demands on the productivity of nature. The barcode stands for a particular relation between humans and nature that is geared towards the demands of a competitive market economy. The picture situates genetic engineering in the context of commercial practices and depicts the dismantling or alteration of this commodified relationship. Figure 5.9 also focuses on a specific issue: the floating balloons symbolise pollen grains; they are shown as uncontrollable and ready for cross-pollination with other plants. The

Dialogue with practitioners 101

Figure 5.9 Anti-GMO image produced by the citizens’ movement ‘Campact’ (www.cam pact.de). The text reads: ‘Exploitation of nature? Let’s fight it together!’ Copyright Campact e.V

creators of this picture focus attention not only on the extent to which GMObased and GMO-free agriculture can (or cannot) co-exist, but they also highlight scientific uncertainty about the effects of GMOs on human health and the ecological environment. By directing attention towards relations between human and non-human actors and their practices, rather than towards an indistinct ‘nature’ on a blurry horizon, these pictures stimulate reflection, visioning and action, leading potentially to the emergence of new forms of societal relations to nature. In the science-practice dialogues these pictures were identified as ‘good practice’, while others were identified as ‘bad practice’ and the criteria for these judgements were discussed.

The science-practice dialogues Within the design of the PoNa research project, the science-practice dialogues were initially conceived as participation along the lines of ‘distributive transdisciplinarity’ as described earlier.The aim was that practitioners from both project components would: •

Engage in dialogue both with researchers on the project and members of the Scientific Advisory Board;

102  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

• Critically discuss the results of knowledge production processes that had already been implemented; • Identify differences, if any, between their perception of the problem and that of the research group; • Reflect on the proposed solutions and suggest modifications. Retrospective reflection on the experience of science-practice dialogues reveals how their use as a transdisciplinary tool by the agro-biotechnology component transcended these original intentions.3 In fact, the type of transdisciplinarity practiced by the agro-biotechnology component changed over the course of the project. Distributive transdisciplinarity increasingly gave way to interventionist transdisciplinarity.The increasing orientation of researchers towards application and providing practical advice led to changes in the nature, duration and intensity of involvement of nonscientific actors, compared to what had originally been envisaged. The actors concerned responded positively to these changes. As interventionist transdisciplinary research, the science-practice dialogues can be seen as a model for robust knowledge production (rather than simply an opportunity for practitioners to respond to knowledge produced by scientists, as originally intended). The ‘added value’ (Maasen, 2010) created was evident in the constructive critiques by non-scientific actors, which not only enabled the identification of further criteria for identification of good and bad pictures, but also revealed dichotomous ways of thinking among the project researchers that they themselves had not been aware of when undertaking the picture discourse analysis. These findings are discussed in more detail in the remainder of this section. Growing involvement of non-scientific actors

A central experience of the agro-biotechnology component of the PoNa project was that transdisciplinary collaboration raises new issues, similar to the way issues change when one moves from disciplinary to interdisciplinary research. Our initial intention was to set out our interpretation of the understandings of nature in pictures produced by opponents and supporters of GMOs and discuss and reflect on these results with practitioners from the anti-genetic engineering movement. Our plans did not initially include systematisation of the pictures produced by opponents of GMO into examples of good and bad practice. However the results of the picture discourse analysis surprised us. Starting out from the identification of tensions between politicisation and what we first called ‘emotionalisation’, but later referred to as ‘demonisation’, and between explanation and manipulation, new issues emerged. It became important to understand how the NGOs that we had invited to the science-policy dialogues themselves rated the effectiveness of the pictures: which images produced for the campaign they considered to be particularly successful and which, if any, were problematic. We asked whether there had been any internal discussions

Dialogue with practitioners 103

on the ‘limits of representation’ and whether in their view the politicisation of the issue inevitably involved the use of shocking images. Finally we wanted to know whether they themselves intended to propagate the understandings of nature we identified in the pictures and the values associated with them, as a normative message of the campaign; or whether these understandings of nature had insinuated themselves into the pictures without prior reflection. We also asked the non-scientific actors to bring additional pictures from the campaigns and discuss them with us at the science-practice dialogues. In summary, the desire to intervene grew over the course of the work of the agro-biotechnology component of the project. We as researchers were particularly interested in getting feedback from the practitioners about our commentary on the use of derogatory and sometimes shocking images of hybrids, and the underlying normative order of the ‘normal’ and ‘usual’ that use of these images implied. Such a growing orientation towards praxis and application that aimed at the provision of advice for future campaigns was a consequence of the changes of the research questions due to the involvement of the practitioner partners. The changing requirements of transdisciplinary collaboration had consequences for project time management. It soon became clear that greater involvement of practitioners required more time, because the contact was more intensive. Greater involvement and increased frequency of contact also meant that more effort needed to be devoted to coordination, as illustrated by the following experience. In October 2011 selected results of our picture discourse analysis were discussed in the first science-practice dialogue with representatives of NGOs and members of the Scientific Advisory Board. The meeting was mainly taken up by dialogue with practitioners from Poland, as representatives of German NGOs had to attend another event and had failed to inform us about this in time for the meeting to be rescheduled. For this reason, we organised a second workshop for practitioners who couldn’t attend the first one, which obviously required additional coordination efforts. This experience also illustrates a problem that PoNa as a whole encountered time and again over the course of the project. Research projects that intend to undertake transdisciplinary work have to cope with the challenge of getting commitment from partners to participate in joint events. One issue (but not the only one) underlying this challenge is the extent to which non-scientific partners benefit from involvement in the project and committing their time to joint reflection. This question is especially critical for projects that address inherently ‘within-science’ issues, i.e. those that are theory-led or concerned with fundamental normative assumptions. Contribution of the science-policy dialogues to developing practice

An orientation towards the production of knowledge in and for a contextual application resonated positively with all non-scientific actors. In particular, the science-policy dialogues provided an opportunity for the young Polish

104  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

organisation ‘GMO to nie to’, that was still in the process of being set up, to review its own approach. It turned out that our criticism of the use of symbols of death and also nationalistic motifs had already been the subject of intensive internal discussion among the activists. One woman activist explained that until then protest in Poland had been strongly stamped by fear and aggressiveness. The very first poster she and her colleagues produced had also featured a small skull-and-crossbones. However, they wanted to “get away from this aggressiveness” in a number of ways: We didn’t want the style of the 1980s and 1990s. We changed our logo, using pale colours instead of the Polish national colours. We wanted to show that we were protecting something, actually doing something rather than simply protesting. An advertising graphic designer supported us. With her help [we learned] not to shout.We wanted a quiet struggle, using quiet voices to get people to listen to us, doing things in our own way, in accordance with our own vision of democracy. We wanted to be critical of the disenchantment with politics, and to set ourselves apart from the radicals. Our protest is colourful and diverse, we work with positive images, like the soap bubbles, we encourage other citizens to protest, for example through the postcard action. It is all about humour. (Interview, 2011). One of the women activists told us in an interview a year later that our comparative research (German vs. Polish, images for and against GMOs) had been very valuable for their group (interview GMO to nie to 2012). Practitioners in Germany also described the advice provided by PoNa as stimulating and helpful for their work: “The questions about pictures and the political messages [they contain] – I also find them very, very important” (interview, 2012). Contribution of practitioners to evaluation of the images

In the identification of examples of good and bad practice, members of the research team talked about their own criteria for evaluation and did not always agree with each other. Table 5.2 shows the heuristic used to analyse and evaluate the pictures. Examples of good and bad practice were discussed with practitioners. It was interesting for the researchers that practitioners were unanimous in singling out for criticism our selection of the picture of pollen balloons (Figure 5.9) as an example of good practice. The picture was used by a number of different organisations (such as BUND, Greenpeace, Campact) to illustrate the risks arising from the uncontrollable spread of GMOs released into the environment. Balloons can’t be stopped; they fly away as soon as you let go of them. Wind, which also can’t be controlled, determines where they go. At a symbolic level, members of NGOs agreed that the picture brought out the point about lack of control very clearly: “Of course it’s great, especially with pollen, to make

Dialogue with practitioners 105 Table 5.2 Bad practices and good practices in anti-GMO campaigns identified by the PoNa science-policy dialogues Bad practice

Good practice

Demonisation The pictures aim to provoke fear and disgust

Politicisation The pictures not only show negative things that need to be resisted, but also the positive things that the opposition movement has to offer. Concrete demands are made. The pictures contribute debates about societal relations to nature and farming practices (such as organic farming) that are threatened by the introduction of GMOs. Explanation Uncertainty and ignorance are the starting point. The precautionary principle, labelling and freedom of choice are highlighted.

Manipulation The end justifies the means? How do methods used by opponents differ from those used by supporters, who (also) use psychological means to arouse emotions and attract attention, and to prepare for war?

use of symbolism” (interview, 2012). The balloon had been used as a symbol for pollen since the start of the campaign. However NGO representatives pointed out to the research team that this picture raises a ‘second order problem’ (Becker & Jahn, 2006b). They were referring to a specific phenomenon, arising from human actions, that is itself the object of criticism by nature conservationists, and bird conservation organisations in particular. This is the environmental pollution caused by plastic from balloons, that biodegrades slowly or not at all, and often ends up in birds’ stomachs. Large numbers of real balloons were used to create this photographic image and, for this reason, Greenpeace, and also the Small Farmers Association (AbL) that collaborated closely with PoNa stopped using this picture: “We used it once, but then decided we shouldn’t use it again because of the pollution caused by balloons” (interview, 2012). The identification of this blind spot in our evaluation was particularly useful for the research group because our analysis supposedly also addressed the relationship between symbolic practice and concrete human action. The criticism helped researchers to understand that they needed to consider, not only the content of the picture, but also the wider context in which it was produced and the possibility that the image may have connections to other issues of concern. Science-policy dialogues as a model for transdisciplinary knowledge production

The importance of interactions with practitioners for robust knowledge production was also shown in discussions of the role of emotions in the campaign against

106  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

the agricultural use of GMOs. ‘Emotionalisation’ was initially seen as a problematic feature of anti-GMO images by researchers in the agro-biotechnology component of the project, since it was considered that this would hinder reasoned discussion. We argued that appealing to emotions would make it more difficult to address political issues surrounding the introduction of GMOs and wider questions about social preferences for different forms of agriculture. This criticism applied to the images of tomato-embryo hybrids, images of weapons and death, and bleeding potatoes that were clearly intended to arouse fear and disgust. We maintained that this ‘irrational’ presentation of the problem would make practitioners opposed to GMOs more vulnerable to criticism. Moreover these emotional arguments were unnecessary since there were plenty of ‘good’ arguments against agro-biotechnology (e.g. it will make organic agriculture impossible, it goes against the precautionary principle and will make farmers more dependent on seed companies). In the science-practice dialogues, we wanted to discuss whether unrealistic exaggerations were necessary (e.g. pictures of monsters, that could easily be attacked by supporters of GMOs), and how messages such as ‘hybrids are dangerous’ and ‘non-natural equals dangerous’ were expected to contribute to the political goal of preventing the use of GMOs in agriculture. In the science-policy dialogues, the practitioners agreed that ‘scaring people’ by demonising GMOs is incompatible with developing a discussion around, for example, what kinds of nature and agriculture we want, and what kind of technology should be used to achieve these aims. Frightening images therefore hinder attempts to develop a discourse around sustainable human-nature relations. This however should not prohibit addressing people’s emotions (such as fear), or the use of pictures to “arouse people’s emotions” (interview, 2011) by depicting genetically altered plants as threatening monsters. The exchange of ideas with practitioners enabled researchers to reflect on their own ways of thinking, and to replace the original dichotomy ‘emotionalisation vs. politicisation’ with the more nuanced ‘demonisation vs. politicisation’. The fact that pictures produced for the campaign are full of emotion does not mean, per se, that the only aim is to manipulate opinions or that factual arguments are opposed to emotional ones. The discussion and the reflection of this issue with practitioner partners showed us that we fell into the common scientific trap of condemning emotions in favour of reason.We failed to acknowledge that emotions can be valuable ‘alarm signals’ that function as a wake-up call to societies and provide the opportunity to mitigate negative impacts of a new technology or policy change (Martinsen, 2000). Referring to emotions does and must not mean, in any way, giving a green light to populist processes or any forms of demagoguery. Taking account of emotions allows for a more nuanced and multi-faceted picture of the political discourses under examination. Therefore, appealing to emotions is an important component of the politicisation process.

Conclusion Since the first draft of this chapter was written, the discussion on plurality of practices and meanings of transdisciplinarity has moved forward. The need to

Dialogue with practitioners 107

explore theoretical aspects of transdisciplinarity seems to be broadly accepted, especially with regard to the roles and forms of participation in different phases of transdisciplinary research. In addition to the inspiring examples in this book, it is worth mentioning two more recent initiatives that have emerged within the German-speaking transdisciplinary community. The German Committee for Sustainability Research in Future Earth (DKN) has set up a working group to address the question of what would be required, in both conceptual and practical/ technical terms, to implement co-design, co-production and c­ o-dissemination in Future Earth research projects.The working group has analysed these requirements with respect to representation and participation; organisation of projects and establishment of boundary organisations; the involvement and capacitybuilding of academics and stakeholders: and interactions and knowledge transfer that takes place between them.4 The BMBF joint project ‘TransImpact’5 analyses how and with what kind of methods transdisciplinary research can achieve sustainable societal and scientific impacts (Bergmann et al., 2016). This chapter has explored these issues with reference to the experience of the research group PoNa. Sabine Maasen’s typology of transdisciplinarity that distinguishes between interventionist, distributive, explorative and methodological transdisciplinarity provides a useful framework for understanding the plurality of transdisciplinarity – in general and in particular in our research project. The experience of PoNa provides an example of how the transdisciplinary process can evolve over the lifetime of a research project. While at the beginning of the project we worked in the mode of the (scientist-led) distributive transdisciplinarity, this increasingly gave way to the more application oriented, interventionist mode of transdisciplinarity as practitioners became more closely involved in the work of the project. The experience of PoNa also illustrates how different types of transdisciplinarity place different demands on organisational time and resources. Furthermore they differ according to the ways they can be integrated into the logic of design of research projects and funding applications. The presentation of the results of a picture discourse analysis in the field of agro-biotechnology demonstrates the relevance of pictures for SER and for joint work with practitioners. We have shown how picture-based transdisciplinary collaboration not only provides inputs for developing practice, but also enables researchers and practitioners to engage in a dialogue about such abstract matters as understandings of nature, taking into account both emotions and rationality. Analysing pictures throws light on both the discursive and the material level of society-nature relations.

Acknowledgements We thank the practitioner partners of the PoNa-project for agreeing to participate in this transdisciplinary experiment. We thank Beate Friedrich for her valuable collaboration in carrying out the both the picture discourse analysis and the science-practice dialogues. We thank the two reviewers for their constructive criticism. And we thank the Federal Ministry of Education and Research

108  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski

(BMBF) for its support for the PoNa research project: ‘PoNa – Politiken der Naturgestaltung: Ländliche Entwicklung und Agro-Gentechnik zwischen Kritik und Vision’.

Notes 1 The show garden was set up by InnoPlanta, a pro-GMO association, in Üplingen and open from 2008 to 2010. 2 See www.kritischer-agrarbericht.de/Home.86.0.html. 3 In the following discussion transcripts of the two science-policy dialogues are cited as WPD I (2011) and WPD II (2012). Line numbers rather than page numbers are given. 4 See www.dkn-future-earth.org/community/arbeitsgruppen/co-design-co-productionand-co-dissemination.html=. 5 See www.isoe.de/en/projects/current-projects/transdisciplinary-methods-and-concepts/ transimpact/.

References Becker, E., & Jahn,T. (2006a). Horizonte und Nachbarschaften. In E. Becker & T. Jahn (Eds.), Soziale Ökologie: Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen (pp. 110–139). Frankfurt: Campus. Becker, E., & Jahn, T. (2006b). Krisendiskurse. In E. Becker & T. Jahn (Eds.), Soziale Ökologie: Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen (pp. 110–139). Frankfurt: Campus. Bergmann, M., Gottschlich, D., Mölders, T., & Schramm, E. (2017). PoNa als inter- und transdisziplinäres Experiment in der Sozial-ökologischen Forschung. In D. Gottschlich & T. Mölders (Eds.), Politiken der Naturgestaltung: Ländliche Entwicklung und Agro-Gentechnik zwischen Kritik und Vision (pp. 243–263). Wiesbaden: Springer. Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C., & Schramm, E. (2010). Methoden transdisziplinärer Forschung: Ein Überblick mit Anwendungsbeispielen. Frankfurt: Campus. Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Lux, A., Nagy, E., & Schäfer, M. (2016). Wirkungsvolle transdisziplinäre Forschung:TransImpact untersucht transdisziplinäre Projekte. GAIA, 25(1), 59–60. Berndt, K. (2014). Transdisziplinäre Wissensintegration in Forschungsnachwuchsgruppen – Eine Illusion? Eine Analyse der Konzeptionierung von Nachwuchsforschergruppen hinsichtlich der transdisziplinären Wissensintegration im Kontext der zeitlichen Rahmung am Beispiel PoNa-Politiken der Naturgestaltung. Unpublished thesis, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg. BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) (2014). Homepage des Forschungsprogramms zu Sozial-ökologischer Forschung. Retrieved February 7, 2017, from www.fona.de/ de/gesellschaft-sozial-oekologische-forschung-soef-19711.html Bogner, A., Kastenhofer, K., & Torgersen, H. (2010). Inter- und Transdisziplinarität im Wandel? Neue Perspektiven auf problemorientierte Forschung und Politikberatung. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Bohnsack, R. (2011). Qualitative Bild- und Videointerpretation. Einführung in die dokumentarische Methode. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Böschen, S. (2003). Wissenschaftsfolgenabschätzung: Über die Veränderung von Wissenschaft im Zuge reflexiver Modernisierung. In S. Böschen & I. Schulz-Schaeffer (Eds.), Wissenschaft in der Wissensgesellschaft (pp.  193–219). Wiesbaden: Westdt. Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang D., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson, D., & von Wehrden, H. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics, 92, 1–15.

Dialogue with practitioners 109 Doelker, C. (2002). Ein Bild ist mehr als ein Bild.Visuelle Kompetenz in der Multimedia-Gesellschaft. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Friedrich, B., Gottschlich, D., Lindner, A., Mölders, T., Sulmowski, J., & Szumelda, A. (2010). Normative Verortungen und Vorgehen im Forschungsprozess: Das Nachhaltigkeitsverständnis im Forschungsprojekt PoNa. Lüneburg: Leuphana Universität Lüneburg. Gottschlich, D., Mölders, T., Friedrich, B., Schrader, R., Sulmowski, Y., & Szumelda, A. (2014). Politik machen – Natur gestalten. Theoretische Perspektiven und praktischer Erfahrungen in den Politikfeldern Ländliche Entwicklung und Agro-Gentechnik/ Polityka w naturze – natura w polityce. Teoretyczne perspektywy i praktyczne dos´wiadczenia wrozwoju obszarów wiejskich i rolniczym wykorzystaniu. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from www2.leuphana.de/pona-eu/ data/Downloads/Pona-Broschuere_web.pdf Grossmann, K. (2007). Am Ende des Wachstumsparadigmas? Zum Wandel von Deutungsmustern in der Stadtentwicklung. Der Fall Chemnitz. Bielefeld: Transcript. Hellsten, I. (2002). Selling the life sciences: Promises of a better future in biotechnology advertisements. Science as Culture, 11(4), 459–479. Hofmann, G. (2003a). Die Manipulation der Emotionen nach dem Konzept von Burson Marsteller. In C. Hiß & M. Haring (Eds.), Der GENaue Blick: Grüne Gentechnik auf dem Prüfstand (pp. 117–138). Munich: Oekom. Hofmann, G. (2003b). Das Blaue vom Himmel: Die Symbol-Logik in der Gentechnikwerbung. Politische Ökologie, 21(81–82), 40–44. Holert, T. (2005). Kulturwissenschaft/Visual Culture. In K. Sachs-Hombach (Ed.), Bildwissenschaft: Disziplinen,Themen, Methoden (pp. 226–235). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Kollek, R. (1994). Der Gral der Genetik: Das menschliche Genom als Symbol wissenschaftlicher Heilserwartung des 21. Jahrhunderts. Mittelweg, 36(3/1), 5–17. Kruetli, P., Stauffacher, M., Flueeler, T., & Scholz, R. W. (2010). Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: Site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. Journal of Risk Research, 13(7), 861–875. Maasen, S. (2010). Transdisziplinarität revisited – Dekonstruktion eines Programms zur Demokratisierung der Wissenschaft. In A. Bogner, K. Kastenhofer, & H. Torgersen (Eds.), Inter- und Transdisziplinarität im Wandel? Neue Perspektiven auf problemorientierte Forschung und Politikberatung (pp. 247–268). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Maasen, S., Mayerhauser, T., & Renggli, C. (2006). Bilder als Diskurse – Bilddiskurse. Weilerswist:Velbrück. Martinsen, R. (2000). Angst als politische Kategorie. Zum Verhältnis von Gentechnik und Demokratie. In R. Martinsen & G. Simonis (Eds.), Demokratie und Technik, (k)eine Wahlverwandtschaft? (pp. 53–69). Opladen: Leske und Budrich. Mittelstraß, J. (1987). Die Stunde der Interdisziplinarität? In J. Kocka (Ed.), Interdisziplinarität. Praxis – Herausforderung – Ideologie (pp. 152–158). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Mittelstraß, J. (2007). Methodische Transdisziplinarität – Mit der Anmerkung eines Naturwissenschaftlers. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from www.leibniz-institut.de/archiv/mittel strass_05_11_07.pdf Müller, C. (2013). Bilanzierung der Fördermaßnahme Nachwuchsgruppen in der Sozial-ökologischen Forschung Förderphasen I & II (2002–2014). Germany: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Nowotny, H., Gibbons, M. T., & Scott, P. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press. Rose, G. (2007). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. London: Sage. Ruppert-Winkel, C., Arlinghaus, R., Deppisch, S., Eisenack, K., Gottschlich, D., Hirschl, B., . . . Ziegler, R. (2015). Characteristics, emerging needs, and challenges of transdisciplinary

110  Daniela Gottschlich and Jedrzej Sulmowski sustainability science: Experiences from the German Social-Ecological Research Program. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 13. SRU – Der Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen. (2004). Umweltgutachten 2004: Umweltpolitische Handlungsfähigkeit sichern. Baden-Baden: Nomos. UN (United Nations). (1992). United Nations Conference on Environment & Development. Agenda 21. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from https://sus tainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Semiotics and iconography. In T. van Leeuwen & C. Jewitt (Eds.), Handbook of visual analysis (pp. 92–119). London: Sage.

6 Social learning videos A method for successful collaboration between science and practice Patricia Fry Introduction In this chapter I describe how I drew on my experiences of working for a soil protection agency, engagement with the feminist critique of science and undertaking a transdisciplinary PhD to address the implementation problem. In the applied research project ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’, farmers’ ‘success stories’ of sustainable land use were identified, analysed and communicated to other farmers using videos produced in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder discussion group. Special moderation techniques were developed to facilitate knowledge exchange among participants from the realms of science, public administration and practice. These videos are now being used by the farmers’ associations involved in the project to trigger learning processes for sustainable land use. Based on this experience, I subsequently developed the ‘Social Learning Videos’ method, which is now being applied in other fields, as an effective solution to the ‘implementation problems’ that are widely encountered by scientists and policy makers attempting to promote sustainable practices. I conclude with five key questions for researchers aiming to promote collaboration between science and practice.

Implementation is hard to achieve – experiences with soil conservation and some feminist reflections After graduating as a biologist in Switzerland I worked for a cantonal soil protection agency for eight years and, at the same time, as a member of the soil protection group at the Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich. I was principally engaged in soil quality assessment using biological methods, as well as public relations using information sheets and exhibitions. In this period I learned about the laws and regulations relating to soils and about the research methods used to investigate them. I became familiar with the predominantly top-down approach towards the implementation of soil protection measures. Often I heard from academics that farmers would not follow their recommendations concerning soil compaction and erosion. Academics complained that “farmers don’t do what we tell them to!” This experience, which I refer

112  Patricia Fry

to as the ‘implementation problem’, is common across a range of subject areas, notably in soil, water, nature and landscape conservation. Finding solutions to the implementation problem is a priority for environmental managers and a prerequisite for sustainable development. What can be done to bridge the gap between science, administration and practice? Parallel to my work in soil conservation, I was engaged in the feminist critique of science. While still an undergraduate, colleagues and I had organised a workshop titled ‘In Conflict With Objectivity” (Verein Feministische Wissenschaft Schweiz, Frauen Forum Naturwissenschaften, 1991). Subsequently, we formed a reading group where we discussed feminist analyses of authors such as Donna Haraway (1996) and Judith Butler (2006), who were critical of topdown approaches to scientific work and questioned the established belief that meaningful statements about the world can only be deduced from the results of replicable scientific experiments. Donna Haraway’s concept of situated knowledge, as well as theories of thought collectives and thought styles (Fleck, 1981) and of tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 2015; Polanyi & Prosch, 1975), opened up new perspectives on scientists’ ways of thinking and working. They also offered an alternative approach to research drawing on personal experiences and contextual knowledge, from both practice and science. I began to take an interest in practical experiences and to value working knowledge. In the framework of a study on “practical knowledge and environmentally responsible action”, financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation, I investigated farmers’ perceptions of soil fertility (Fry, 2000, p. 307). Working with qualitative, ‘subjective’ and narrative methods was a challenge for me, because it went against the education I had received as a student that taught that science meant working with quantitative, ‘objective’ and reproducible data. It felt like a betrayal of science. But it led to valuable insights. I learned for instance that farmers normally do not investigate soils using analytical methods. Instead they describe what they notice while ploughing, or what the soil feels like when pulling up docks1 (see also Ingram, Fry & Mathieu, 2010). I came to realise that the knowledge systems of science and practice do not match each other. I was looking for a perspective that brought science and practice together in a way that did not lead to their mutual devaluation.

The deep view of science, broad view of practice and the meaning of personal experience Soil protection is normally addressed using theories and methods from soil science. My PhD on soil and soil quality however made use of qualitative methods from social science and theories from the philosophy of science. In developing the approach, the then still new concept of transdisciplinary research or Mode 2 science (Gibbons et al., 1994) was very helpful. Transdisciplinary research is rooted in a societal problem; researchers work in an interdisciplinary manner and collaborate with actors from the realm of practice (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2006).

Social learning videos 113

I decided to dedicate myself to comparing the perceptions of farmers and scientists. On the basis of interviews and participant observation, I identified three key ways in which the perspectives of scientists and farmers differed, relating to the aims, methods and context of their work (Fry, 2001; see also Ingram et al., 2010; Pohl et al., 2010). For example, the aim of soil scientists is to develop theories that explain observed soil characteristics and processes. They choose the most appropriate methods to achieve this aim, i.e. controlled experiments that enable them to test the theory in question. On the other hand, the farmers’ aim is to produce food. To this end they cultivate the soil, feed their animals and so forth in the context of variable weather and economic conditions. Farmers are concerned above all with concrete actions taken in everyday situations. Researchers, such as soil scientists, have an in-depth view of their studied object: the ‘deep view’ of science. By contrast, farmers have a more broad-based overview of the whole situation: the ‘broad view’ of practice. The farmer has little understanding of soil science in all its details, but has a wealth of knowledge and experience of plant growth, soil properties, animal welfare, weather and work on the farm, and how all these are related. A soil scientist doesn’t know much about the whole situation on the farm, and is largely ignorant of topics such as plant growth and animal welfare, but knows all about soil types and how they were formed. When the two meet for a walk through the countryside and comment on what they perceive, one of two things can happen, depending on their personal attitudes. Each may think: “This person knows something that I know nothing about; this knowledge complements mine.” Unfortunately, sometimes they think: “This person doesn’t know anything and is completely ignorant!” Then we have a case of mismatched models; there is a failure to connect between perspectives and thought styles of different thought collectives (Fleck, 1981), as well as different lifeworlds (Schneider, Ledermann, Fry & Rist, 2010a). These findings provided a first explanation for the implementation problem: the top-down transfer of scientists’ knowledge about soils developed by scientists for farmers doesn’t trigger the adoption of soil conservation practices, because science and practice have different perspectives – the deep view of science and the broad view of practice (Fry, 2001). They belong to different thought collectives and don’t speak the same language (Fleck, 1981).This causes misinterpretations which explain implementation problems to a large degree. The farmer’s lifeworld comprises agricultural, economic, social, aesthetic and ecological dimensions (Schneider et al., 2010a). The soil is only one part of this lifeworld. Further ‘translation services’ are required from theory to the world of practice (e.g. from soil analysis to soil conservation techniques), and from system-oriented and goal-oriented knowledge to action-oriented transformation knowledge (ProClim, 1997). The analysis of interviews and field observations drew my attention to how farmers spoke about their perceptions. They told stories, like this one: “When I worked in the fields, I saw that the soil had cracked in exactly those places

114  Patricia Fry

where tracks had been left by heavy machinery the year before.” They make an observation, generally while they are working in the field, compare this with another observation and interpret the difference, with reference to the history of the site and the wider context (Fry, 2004). This is similar to the scientific approach: researchers take measurements, compare the (numerical) data with other results and interpret the differences by referring to the context of the experimental setup. They compare numbers, detect differences and attribute meaning to the differences they find. However, this process is rooted in personal experience! This is true both for scientists as well as farmers but, in both cases, only becomes clear when they are confronted with other fields of expertise. When a farmer learns that his soil contains 250 g of worms per square metre, he or she doesn’t know whether that is few or many worms or what it means for the operation of the farm. To make this number meaningful, the farmer would need to know typical numbers for earthworm biomass for fields and pastures, the normal daily and annual fluctuations, and how worms and soil fertility are related to one another. Without the necessary experience, the numbers are just numbers, without meaning. The same happens to scientists when they read papers from other scientific fields or hear farmers describing what they observe on their farms. These findings provided a second explanation for the implementation problem: practitioners working in the field don’t have the necessary experience to interpret scientific observations or measurements. Only scientific experts, with their experience of discipline-specific scientific methods, are able to interpret the results of scientific research in a meaningful way (Fry, 2004). On the other hand, the practitioners need specific skills to implement soil conserving methods on their farm. These skills are often neglected by scientists. Both scientists and practitioners require personal experiences for their work. The problem is that these skills and cognitive processes are tacit. This ‘tacit knowledge’ is difficult to transfer to other knowledge holders (Polanyi, 2015; Polanyi & Prosch, 1975). However, tacit knowledge of both farmers and practitioners is essential for the adoption of sustainable practices on the farm. It is similar to the following problem: how do you recognise a good friend when meeting at the station? You can’t describe the details, because you don’t concentrate on them anymore. You know that you know him/her. You recognise the person as a whole. This recognition process is tacit. We need other methods than information transfer to share these skills. In 2001 I founded my own company, Wissensmanagement Umwelt (Environmental Knowledge Management) to build bridges between scientific research, public administration and practice. I wanted to set up meetings between soil scientists and farmers in a way that knowledge would be exchanged in both directions, instead of a one-way top-down transfer. The analysis of different perspectives based on similar cognitive processes and the focus on skills and experiences required for sustainable actions provided the basis for a more constructive approach to the implementation problem. I had already identified the most important practical features of this approach while working on a soil

Social learning videos 115

survey for the National Research Foundation: I wanted to work with a range of actors in a ‘core group’ and ask participants to tell stories. The aim was to promote a common learning process, by focusing on practical knowledge and recognising the validity of different perspectives and realities. The conditions for the functioning of such a group were “willingness to cooperate, openness, honesty and the experience of the participants” (Fry, 2000, p. 307). These proposals drew on the storytelling approach, a strand of knowledge management, closely bound up with Polanyi’s concept of tacit knowledge, which has been developed, for example, for use within businesses to combine the knowledge and experience that exists within development and productions arms of the firm (see Davenport & Prusak, 2000). So I started to work as an intermediary expert, bridging the gap between different actors and sectors in order to catalyse and enhance sustainable development.

Exchanging success stories in the project ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’: phases, procedures and videos production From 2001 to 2010, in the framework of the project ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’, I developed the method ‘Social Learning Videos’, in collaboration with experts from the realms of science, public administration and practice. This section describes the phases of the project and the procedures and tools that were developed and used in each phase. Concept phase

The project started in 2001 when an outline project design was drawn up. The title ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’ was suggested by a colleague with experience in development cooperation. This title emerged as an important bridging concept that had positive connotations for a range of different actors involved in soil conservation (Schneider, Fry, Ledermann & Rist, 2009). The title placed farmers’ actions and arguments in relation to soil conservation at the centre of the project, and made it more than simply a participatory soil monitoring programme. Successful actions are the product of decades-long learning processes by many different actors in the domains of science, public administration and practice. They also rely on the development of corresponding technological and human communications networks (Schneider, Steiger, Ledermann, Fry & Rist, 2010b). The idea was to ‘tap into’ this long interactive process and ‘skim off ’ the results, retaining only those which had been tried, tested and approved from the perspective of soil protection and science as well as in a wider agricultural context. Pilot phase

During 2002–2003, the original idea of a core group consisting of scientists and practitioners (Fry, 2000) was further developed, and conceptualised as a

116  Patricia Fry

‘multi-stakeholder discussion group’. This group consisted of between 12 and 15 people from the public, private and academic sectors, including natural and social scientists, representatives of federal and cantonal governments involved in soil protection and agriculture, and members of four farmers’ associations.2 Representatives of agricultural colleges and the educational and consulting group AGRIDEA3 completed the group. The individual group members were chosen on the basis of their willingness to collaborate and their openness to other perspectives. A conscious decision was made to choose people who had close contact with the farmers’ lifeworld. In particular I wanted to involve people with a working knowledge of scientific research as well as practical soil conservation in agriculture. These ‘expert intermediaries’ often are active over decades in a variety of different organisations. Right from the start it was important to set up the group meetings in a way that placed everyone on the same level and to focus on personal experiences. This was done by choosing the place of the meeting according to the topic and the actors I wanted to address and by using moderation techniques that allowed participants to communicate and exchange their tacit knowledge (Schneider et al., 2009).

Figure 6.1 Multi-stakeholder group with members from public administration, science and practice exchanging experiences during an informal meeting in the work environment of a target group

Social learning videos 117

During the pilot phase I started the group sessions in the field. A farmer demonstrated a soil conservation technique that gave good results on his farm, for example direct seeding. The whole group then asked questions, discussed the topic and exchanged knowledge concerning sustainable land use. These sessions moved all group members into the farmer’s working environment. Everybody was standing in the field with muddy boots watching the farmer and his machine planting the seeds by means of direct drilling. In this way, the farmers’ work was established as the starting point for the videos. So farmers were addressed as experts. Knowledge exchange and demonstration in the field proved to be an effective method that made tacit knowledge more explicit (Schneider et al., 2009). This field visit prepared the ground for the subsequent indoor session, which was held in a restaurant or an agricultural college. I took care that the tone of the meetings was personal, starting with a round of introductions that established a friendly atmosphere.The multi-stakeholder discussion group was moderated, in a way that ensured that all group members had the opportunity to exchange experiences and share their know-how. On different occasions the multi-stakeholder discussion group travelled to various parts of Switzerland.The federal and cantonal representatives appreciated these group outings which enabled an exchange with different actor groups in an informal setting. The group outings, field visits and moderated sessions provided environments that were conducive for the exchange of practical knowledge. It was in the pilot phase that the idea arose of using video to capture and convey the meaningful stories that were told. We interviewed four clients of an

Figure 6.2 Selected protagonists are filmed in an authentic work environment, allowing them to tell stories about successful actions

118  Patricia Fry

agricultural contractor who offered direct seeding. They described their motivation for adopting direct seeding and recalled key elements of their experience. This authentic pilot video was key in convincing the funding agencies to provide support for the main phase of the project. Implementation phase

In the main phase of the project (2004–2008), five videos were produced and made available on DVDs to farmers’ associations and agricultural schools. The videos covered the topics from arable farming like no till farming, mulch seeding, sowing with a rotary band cultivator and soil management with compost and cover crops (see Table 6.1). Key elements in this phase were the presentation of farmers’ arguments for soil conservation and the identification of associations and networks that were important for farmers. The farmers interviewed in the videos were selected with the help of the multi-stakeholder discussion group, with cantonal government officials and agricultural experts playing an important role. The farmers selected had all applied land-use techniques which had been proven to be sustainable. They were able to explain convincingly why and how they used them, and had a good reputation among their colleagues on both a personal and professional level. During this phase the meetings took place at the offices of other stakeholders such as the Swiss Agricultural Technology Association, the Swiss Farmers Association, the cantonal administrations and the University of Bern. It was important not only to produce the videos, but also to ensure that they were distributed and viewed in groups, in order to fully realise their potential to stimulate learning. A first step had already been taken by integrating farmers’ associations into the multi-stakeholder discussion group. The farmers’ associations came to identify with the project while taking part in its activities and played a key role in helping to promote the use of the videos. The main phase also saw the integration of social scientists into the work of the project, which led to three publications (Schneider et al., 2009; Schneider et al., 2010a; Schneider et al., 2010b).The social scientists, together with experienced teachers from the agricultural colleges and AGRIDEA, introduced concepts of learning, especially institutional learning, that were then taken up by the multi-stakeholder discussion group. These concepts stimulated the reflection on the tools and procedures developed during the project. Extension phase

The agencies funding the project were so impressed by the videos that they agreed to commission three further videos on the topics of no till farming, fodder production and viticulture) in an ‘extension phase’ of the project (2008–2010).

Social learning videos 119 Table 6.1 Contents of the DVD ‘From Farmer – To Farmer: Success Stories for Sustainable Land Use’ (2010). See www.fromfarmertofarmer.ch to view the videos with subtitles Title

Pilot phase No till: field visit

Implementation phase From ploughing to no till Mulch seeding

Sowing with a rotary band cultivator

Extension phase No till down the seasons Soil management with compost and cover crops No till in the various regions of Switzerland Fodder production from the mountain regions to the plain regions Green cover in viticulture

Duration No. of participating farmers Cantons

Quotation

15 min 1 farmer Bern

At first only a few farmers used direct seeding.Then others saw how it worked. People talk to each other and new people get involved. Stefan Minder, Rohrbach

9 min 1 farmer Solothurn

Since our soils are very heavy here we tried out methods that don’t involve turning over the soil.They worked well! Beat Wyss, Oberramsern With mulch sowing, the field doesn’t look so clean.You can see some residue. But the sugar beets and me don’t mind that. Katharina Frei, Schafisheim Thanks to strip tillage I need less time and diesel for sowing than I used to need just for ploughing. Jakob Ritz, Balgach

18 min 4 farmers Solothurn, Bern, Aargau, Basel Land 12 min 1 farmer Sankt Gallen

14 min 1 farmer Bern 20 min 3 farmers Thurgau, Zug, Schaffhausen 16 min 3 farmers Bern, Fribourg,Vaud 35 min 4 farmers Luzern, Uri, Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Schwyz 24 min 4 farmers Genève, Wallis,Vaud, Neuchâtel

I’m happy with this field.Thanks to direct drilling the soil structure is good, there are no cracks or fissures. Stefan Minder, Rohrbach The roots give this heavy clay soil a woolly structure.This is ideal for cultivating vegetables. Stephan Marti, Klarsreuti Direct drilling doesn’t begin with sowing. It means observing the soil throughout the whole year, from the time of the harvest of the previous crop. Othmar Gassmann, Murist Where it’s steep, we don’t fertilise so much. That way the plants develop deeper roots. That helps against erosion and also there are fewer tracks made on the soil. Roman Klauser, Herlisberg Grass used to be enemy number one. But step by step, through experience in the area, we’ve realised that we can turn it into an ally. Gérard Raymond, Saillon

120  Patricia Fry

Figure 6.3 Social learning is triggered by organising film evenings for the target group and moderating the exchange of experiences

At the end of the project the final DVD ‘Success Stories for Sustainable Land Use’ was produced, containing nine videos (Table 6.1). More than 24 farmers, men and women, from 17 cantons were interviewed and portrayed in the videos. The videos are between 9 and 35 minutes long, spoken in Swiss-German or French, with French, German and English subtitles (see Table 6.1 and www. vonbauernfürbauern.ch). The videos begin with images of the arrival on the farm, and of the landscape and surrounding environment. This helps farmers watching the videos to get their bearings from the start.Then the people portrayed in the video briefly introduce themselves, their families and their businesses. In the main part of the video that follows, the farmers are shown on the land and beside their machines explaining the measures they take to conserve the soil and the reasoning behind them. Above all, they talk about their experiences and explain their actions by referring to concrete examples. The farmers have centre stage and explain things in their own words; there is no voice-over commentary. My interview questions are only heard when they are necessary to understand the answers. A conscious decision was taken not to depict scientific methods and results of scientific experiments in the videos. The videos end with a succinct comment on the commitment and motivation of the interviewee.

Social learning videos 121

Box 6.1  DVDs showing Swiss farmers’ success stories produced by the project ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’ and subsequent follow-up projects The DVD ‘Success Stories for Sustainable Land Use’ containing nine videos, produced by the project ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’ is distributed through AGRIDEA, from whose online shop the DVD with English, French and German subtitles can be obtained for a price of 30 Swiss Francs (www.agridea-lindau.ch/publikationen/stichwortsuche/index. html). Two further DVD produced by follow-up projects in 2013 are distributed by Plantahof (www.plantahof.ch): ‘From Farmer – to Farmer: Organic Agriculture in the Mountains has a Future’. Commissioned by Plantahof, Bio Grischun and Gran Alpin. Without subtitles. ‘Successful Grazing Management and Pasture Maintenance in the Swiss Alps’. Commissioned by AlpFUTUR and others.With English, French, German and Italian subtitles (www.fromfarmertofarmer.ch and www.alpfutur.ch)

Reflections on the project ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’ The thought collectives and knowledge systems of science and practice are very different. This means that just finding common themes and organising a meeting in a way that suits all the participants is in itself very challenging. A further challenge is to organise meetings in a way that enables not only the transfer of explicit knowledge, which is relatively easy, but also the exchange of tacit, personal knowledge. The latter is, however, essential when the aim is to promote sustainable forms of action, i.e. sustainable practice. A study of the project ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’ undertaken by the University of Bern (Schneider et al., 2009) showed that the project was successful in promoting collaboration among actors from the realms of science, public administration and practice, and that the videos stimulated important learning processes among the target groups and participating organisations. The following quotations show how mutual trust and respect for different perspectives developed among the actor groups: Representative of the Federal office for Agriculture: At the beginning we had to find a way to cope. One had to think more before one said something. Straightforwardness appeared – mutual trust developed. . . . You do

122  Patricia Fry

Figure 6.4 ‘Independent team manages a large summer dairy farm’

not need to bluff.You realise that everybody comes out of a different field with different expert knowledge. (Schneider et al., 2009, p. 481) Farmer: You begin to gain understanding of their (the experts’) concerns and points of view. You look at the world more broadly and begin to see why people do things differently elsewhere. Why people from the federal administration act as they do. And why they can’t do otherwise.You believe you understand clearly why you think as you do. But to consider another opinion and be able to say, “Yes, in principle he’s also right” – this is a path we need to pursue further. (Schneider et al., 2009, p. 481) At the meetings of the multi-stakeholder discussion groups in the field, tacit knowledge was exchanged among the actor groups: Representative of the Federal office for the Environment: After (the group meetings) I saw much [more clearly] how direct drilling works. Of course one had read about it before. But when you are there yourself you see how the farmers explain the machines. When you are with the farmers on their fields you also see the difficulties: the complexity of their decisions, with heavy soils for instance. Mostly we confront them with a specific problem and they have to cope with the whole crop rotation, the weather that they get it done in time. (Schneider et al., 2009, p. 482)

Social learning videos 123

The meetings were organised and moderated in a way that the actors were all on the same level; the approach was not a top-down one. The exchange of knowledge took place in the following way: Farmer: You feel that everyone knows it won’t be easy. And we can achieve something together only step-by-step. You could feel that already in this group. No one said, “It must be like this.” When scientists have something to say, it simply becomes a directive. But here you feel involved in a common search for solutions with practitioners: What is possible? And what is not possible? (Schneider et al., 2009, p. 482) The videos spoke to farmers on a direct, emotional level. They were highly appreciated by them, because they weren’t didactic and presented experiences from practice (see Box 6.2). Farmer: The videos affected us first. They were in a language everyone could understand but not primitive; this initiated a process of mutual understanding. (Schneider et al., 2009, p. 485) However the videos didn’t only speak to farmers; they also sparked learning processes among the participating institutions: Representative of the Federal office for Agriculture: The project served internally as a door-opener for the Federal Office of Agriculture. Now when I bring up the topic of soils, everyone knows, ah, yes, soil: From Farmer – To Farmer, the videos, direct seeding . . . Goodwill has been generated. The internal effect in the end is perhaps as great as the external. (Schneider et al., 2009, p. 483) An experienced teacher at an agricultural college got to the heart of the matter: “The videos work like a shoe horn; they help people to get in and try things

Box 6.2  Quotations from a questionnaire carried out at a Swiss agricultural college • • • •

“The videos showed success and gave a positive impression.” “I think they are very good: professional, entertaining, instructive and interesting. 100% positive.” “Rooted in practice, spoken by colleagues; it is not just some theory. That’s what grabs the students.” “The accounts are rooted in practice, authentic and easy to understand.”

124  Patricia Fry

Figure 6.5 ‘Non-intensive farming is worth it’

out.” I find this a wonderful metaphor. Even to this day, the project generates effects on the level of institutions. For example it influenced the decision by the Federal Office for Agriculture to adapt its criteria for funding projects, requiring increased participation and a stronger orientation towards a specific target group.4 The videos are used at agricultural colleges and by farmers’ associations to stimulate learning among the agricultural community. Informal discussions help triggering group learning processes. Based on the success of the first project in 2010, two follow-up projects were commissioned; one by Plantahof, Bio Grischun and Gran Alpin, titled ‘Organic Agriculture in the Mountains has a Future’ and another by AlpFUTUR, ‘Successful Grazing Management and Pasture Maintenance in the Swiss Alps’ (see www.vonbauernfuerbauern.ch and www.alpfutur. ch). Details of videos produced by all three projects are shown in Box 6.1.

The ‘Social Learning Videos’ method The ‘Social Learning Videos’ method has proved to be an effective approach to bridging the gap between science and practice and in doing so helps to solve the ‘implementation problem’. The method can be summarised as comprising the following elements or steps: 1 Identify a societal problem. 2 Identify and analyse actor groups which are relevant for solving this problem. 3 Focus on a target group that possesses relevant know-how and skills to solve the societal problem.

Social learning videos 125

4 Choose an appropriate project title with positive connotations, as a bridging concept that speaks to a range of actor groups. 5 Set up a multi-stakeholder discussion group from relevant actor groups in the realms of public administration, science and practice. Analyse existing networks and seek out expert intermediaries. Select suitable representatives from institutions and associations involved with the topic as members of the multi-stakeholder discussion group, to contribute their knowledge, know-how, contacts and networks to the production and distribution of the videos. 6 Provide suitable facilitation for the exchange of experiences among members of the multi-stakeholder group and use the working environment of the target group as the location for informal meetings in the field. Choose strategies for shaping spaces for social learning, like storytelling for instance (Schneider et al., 2009). Look for existing “trading zones of knowledge” and enrich them. 7 Produce authentic videos of success stories, showing successful actions (transformation knowledge) that are relevant to the target group, showing credible protagonists in authentic work environments.The way the arguments in the videos are presented matches the thought style of the target group. 8 Use the videos to catalyse learning processes in networks, organisations, working groups and schools. Encourage that the multi-stakeholder group uses the videos in their home institutions. The two core elements of the Social Learning Videos approach are the multistakeholder discussion groups and the videos.These are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

Figure 6.6 ‘Innovative pasture management with dairy goats’

126  Patricia Fry The multi-stakeholder discussion group

The multi-stakeholder discussion group integrates representatives of different groups of actors. On the one hand the group provides experience and knowledge for each stage of the project, including the selection of protagonists for the videos, development of film concepts and finalisation of rough cuts. On the other hand, the group members are also members of organisations that, following the production of the DVD, distribute and work with the videos.The project is further developed by the multi-stakeholder discussion group on an ongoing basis. This requires openness on the part of the project leader and a skilful moderator who shows knowledge and respect for different views. The participation of actor organisations from the start of the process generates ownership; they identify with the project and play an active part in distributing and using the videos. The following procedures proved effective in the formation and development of the multi-stakeholder discussion group: Preparation: Key steps include the identification of the societal problem and actor groups involved in the solution of the problem, network analysis, definition of a target group, analysis of perspectives, and selection of suitable persons as members of the group, including expert intermediaries identified via personal networks (Ravn, 2004). Interviews are conducted to finalise the selection of group members and get to know them and their work. Organisation of meetings: Key principles include respect for different perspectives and languages, sharing personal experiences of work (tacit knowledge) and the promotion of mutual trust. This is achieved by starting the meetings with a round of personal introductions and asking the members to describe their experience and explain their views on the topic by means of a story, picture or object. Informal activities such as excursions, demonstrations in the field, coffee breaks and lunch are core elements for the exchange of experiences and for building bridges between the thought collectives. The mutual exchange of personal experiences and differing views is facilitated throughout all these activities (Schneider et al., 2009), allowing members of the group to express their know-how in relevant contexts related to the topic. Where possible, depending on the stage of the project and the topic under discussion, meetings are held at the home institutions of the actors involved. Skilful moderation: Moderators make sure that all group members have the opportunity to participate in the exchange of experiences. They actively integrate new members into the group, ensure that roles are clearly understood, accommodate different thought styles, set things up so that all actors can present themselves as experts, encourage storytelling, and create opportunities for new experiences in the context of the group’s activities (Schneider et al., 2009).

Social learning videos 127

Effective communication: In order to communicate effectively, moderators show respect for different perspectives, and draw on a constructivist concept of knowledge to integrate different perspectives into a shared understanding of the issue. Moderators need to display credibility and authenticity, and have the ability to manage cultural differences and power relations within the group in order to facilitate the free flow of communication. Sufficient time: The multi-stakeholder discussion group needs time for a phased development over the concept, pilot and implementation phases of the project, while remaining open to unexpected results (see also Zingerli et al., 2009). The videos

Producing the videos in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder discussion group enables a range of perspectives to be incorporated, presented in different verbal and visual styles. The experience of producing the videos collectively triggers a wealth of often unexpected learning processes within the project team (cf. White, 2003). At the end of a project members of the group identify with the collectively produced videos, and for this reason are keen to help distribute and use them (see also Chowdhury & Hauser, 2010). Thus, videos do more than communicate knowledge; they also work as a process tool. As a communication tool, videos have several advantages. The simultaneous perception of images, spoken text and music activates emotions and leads to an instant attention. Alongside transmitting relevant practical information, wellproduced videos also motivate viewers to try things out themselves. Viewers

Figure 6.7 ‘Organic agriculture in the mountains and the quality of landscape – a good combination’

128  Patricia Fry

identify with the credible protagonists; they trust them and see them as examples to emulate. This transformatory potential is further enhanced when videos are viewed in a group setting. Watching the video together triggers group discussions that give rise to learning processes. The exchange of experiences among different people and the reflection on one’s own way of doing things can be a first steppingstone towards change. So organising video evenings and events is also an important part of a Social Learning Video project. In large groups (of more than 50 people) it’s more difficult to talk about one’s own experiences and failures. For this reason, discussion in several small groups is recommended. Providing food and drink helps also to promote informal discussions in a sociable environment. Experienced professionals should be on hand to answer questions. Using videos in combination with follow-up information sheets also works well. The production of the videos involves the following steps:  1 Organise a workshop with the multi-stakeholder discussion group to determine the societal problem to be addressed and the target group and problem-solving actions to be presented in the video. The actions selected to be shown in the videos will normally be the result of decades-long development, through practice, research and consultation. In this sense they have already been scientifically tested.   2 Select experienced and credible protagonists with the help of the multistakeholder discussion group.   3 Interview protagonists at their place of work. Identify important experiences, learning processes and ‘light-bulb moments’, and use these to identify suitable filming locations and situations.   4 Develop a film concept. Get feedback from multi-stakeholder discussion group and refine the concept.   5 Film interviews with the protagonists in authentic working situations. Ask them to describe key experiences and recount success stories and also to describe failures and obstacles encountered in short meaningful sentences.   6 Film supplementary material about the topic (for example, showing the context, the methods and the protagonists at work) and use these images as background to the interview soundtrack to enhance the verbal messages.   7 View the filmed material and select the best and most authentic passages to use, and then edit it. The style of the video should match the thought style of the target group.  8 Discuss the rough cut with the multi-stakeholder discussion group and finalise it.   9 When all the videos have been produced, record them on a DVD, preferably with subtitles in several languages, and/or upload the films to the web. 10 Organise the distribution of the DVD and/or distribute the link. 11 Organise video presentation and discussion events in order to exchange experiences and enable learning processes. 12 Undertake follow-up research.

Social learning videos 129

Figure 6.8 The work of Gran Alpin bears fruit

Conclusion: joint collaboration between scientists and practitioners The implementation problem is very widespread and is a consequence of nonreflective forms of communication and non-reflective collaboration between science and practice (Roux, Rogers, Biggs, Ashton & Sergeant, 2006). Three separate causes of this problem can be distinguished: (1) the emphasis on explicit knowledge and neglect of difficult-to-transfer tacit knowledge; (2) the dominance of scientific concepts over other perspectives; and (3) the linear, top-down approach of knowledge transfer (see Table 6.2). Drawing on my experiences in the project ‘From Farmer – To Farmer’, I developed the Social Learning Videos method for application in other research areas and with actors from sectors other than agriculture. The Social Learning Videos method provides solutions to the three problems listed above. Solution 1: the social learning videos method makes use of authentic videos to reveal and communicate tacit knowledge and successful, sustainable practices

The learning processes and key experiences of actors are presented through storytelling and illustrated using concrete examples in the field. Through careful editing the content of the videos is condensed and professionally presented. Authentic and credible stories convince viewers and motivate them to try out the methods shown in the videos. The method builds on the experiences and theories used in knowledge management (see also Davenport & Prusak, 2000) and participatory video (Milne, Mitchell & De Lange, 2012; Kindon, 2003).

130  Patricia Fry Table 6.2 Causes of implementation problems and the solutions coming from the Social Learning Videos method Causes of implementation problems Emphasis on data collection and transfer of explicit knowledge. Difficulty with communicating tacit knowledge. Dominance of scientific concepts over other perspectives. Linear, top-down transfer of knowledge.

Solutions with the Social Learning Videos method 

Use of videos to reveal and communicate tacit knowledge and successful, sustainable practices.



Collaboration with a multi-stakeholder discussion group so that different viewpoints and thought collectives are integrated on an equal basis. Reciprocal knowledge exchange among actors from science, public administration and practice.



Figure 6.9 A pioneer farmer with a lot of know-how

Solution 2: the social learning videos method is undertaken accompanied by a multi-stakeholder discussion group to ensure that perspectives and thought styles of different thought collectives are integrated on an equal basis

The starting point is an appreciation of the difference between the deep scientific view and the broad view of practice, manifested in different goals, methods and work contexts (Fry, 2001; Schneider et al., 2009).The two views are understood to be complementary and this allows a differentiated view which dissolves the presumed superiority and routine dominance of scientific methods and concepts that characterise traditional scientific research. The perspectives and thought styles of different actors are explored and respected.

Social learning videos 131 Solution 3: the social learning videos method enables reciprocal exchange of knowledge among actors from science, public administration and practice

It is understood that knowledge is produced both through scientific research and in the context of application and that no single perspective – neither science nor practice – dominates over the other. Above all there is no linear, top-down transfer of knowledge. All those involved both emit and receive knowledge and everyone learns from each other.This approach has much in common with the methods described by Gibbons et al. (1994), Jasanoff (2004) and Ravn (2004) as well as participatory communication by Cornish and Dunn (2009). Successful collaboration between science and practice depends substantially on the knowledge and experience of the people entrusted with facilitating the process. The first step towards successful collaboration therefore consists in choosing the right persons and/or to prepare the persons entrusted with the task. On the basis of my experiences over the past 20 years five questions need to be asked and answered at the outset of a project in order to ensure that successful collaboration between scientists and practitioners takes place: • • • • •

What will I use as process tools? How will I reveal and promote the exchange of tacit knowledge? How will I set up social interactions to build bridges between thought collectives, integrate the most important actors into the process from the start and promote a fruitful exchange of ideas? How do I understand and how can I take account of the different views of science and practice? What is my personal concept of knowledge and attitude towards knowledge transfer?

Solving the implementation problem by enabling a successful collaboration between scientists and practitioners is a global challenge. Disciplinary sciences such as soil science as well as public information campaigns can both make important contributions towards the adoption of sustainable practices. But to make change happen you need to focus on changing the behaviour of human beings. This can best be achieved by adopting the favourite and oldest knowledge exchange practices of human beings: storytelling and moving pictures! This article shows a way how to put transdisciplinarity into practice: choose a societal problem, define a target group and sustainable actions, develop authentic videos, which are meaningful for the target group, work together with a multi-stakeholder discussion group coming from science, administration and practice. ‘Social learning videos’ identify and communicate necessary skills, experiences and arguments for a sustainable development in all three dimensions: Ecologically, economically and socially. By watching and discussing these videos in groups by means of a DVD or with YouTube social learning is enabled.

132  Patricia Fry

Acknowledgements I want to express my thanks to all persons who accompanied my journey from working as a biologist, transdisciplinary researcher, intermediary and now facilitator between scientists, administrators and practitioners – especially the members of the multi-stakeholder discussion groups. Thank you very much, Martina Padmanabhan for conceptualising this book and making it happen, Sabine Hofmeister for commenting on an earlier version of this chapter, and Andrew Halliday for translating my text into English and thereby also improving it substantially.

Notes 1 Dock (Rumex obtusifolius) is a weed in fields and meadows, common in Switzerland and over much of Europe. On organic farms docks have to be dug up individually, using a fork. 2 Schweizerischer Verband für Landtechnik (Swiss Agricultural Technology Association, SVLT), Bio Suisse (an umbrella association of more than 30 organic farming organisations), IPSuisse (an association of small/family owned farms), and Schweizerischer Bauernverband (Swiss Farmers Association, SBV). 3 Swiss Association for the Development of Agriculture and Rural Areas. 4 Stöckli, A. (2015). Personal communication.

References Butler, J. (2006). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Chowdhury, A. H., & Hauser, M. (2010). The potential of moving pictures: Does participatory video enable learning for local innovation? ISDA 2010. Montpellier, France. Cornish, L., & Dunn, A. (2009). Creating knowledge for action: The case for participatory communication in research. Development in Practice, 19(4–5), 665–677. Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Fleck, L. (1981). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fry, P. (2000). Bodenfruchtbarkeit: Im Spannungsfeld zwischen analytischeer und kontextueller Wahrnehmung. In D. Reichert, P. Fry, U. Steinemann, & C. Heid (Eds.), Wissenschaft als Erfahrungswissen. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag. Fry, P. (2001). Bodenfruchtbarkeit: Bauernsicht und Forscherblick. Weikersheim: Margraf. Fry, P. (2004). Bodenbeurteilung zwischen Praxis und Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Semiotik, 26(3–4), 217–226. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Haraway, D. J. (1996). Simians, Cyborgs, and women:The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge. Ingram, J., Fry, P., & Mathieu, A. (2010). Revealing different understandings of soil held by scientists and farmers in the context of soil protection and management. Land Use Policy, 27(1), 51–60. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.

Social learning videos 133 Kindon, S. (2003). Participatory video in geographic research: A feminist practice of looking? Area, 35(2), 142–153. Milne, E-J., Mitchell, C., & De Lange, N. (2012). Handbook of participatory video. Lanham: Altamira Press. Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2006). Gestaltungsprinzipien für die transdisziplinäre Forschung. Ein Beitrag des td-net. Munich: Oekom. Pohl, C., Rist, S., Zimmermann, A., Fry, P., Gurung, G. S., Schneider, F., . . . Wiesmann, U. (2010). Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: Experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Science and Public Policy, 37(4), 267–281. Polanyi, M. (2015). Personal knowledge:Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Polanyi, M., & Prosch, H. (1975). Meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ProClim. (1997). Visions by Swiss scientists on sustainability. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from www.naturalsciences.ch/topics/coproducing_knowledge/methods/three_types_of_ knowledge_tool Ravn, J. E. (2004). Cross-system knowledge chains: The team dynamics of knowledge development. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17(3), 161–175. Roux, D. J., Rogers, K. H., Biggs, H. C., Ashton, P. J., & Sergeant, A. (2006). Bridging the science-management divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 4. Schneider, F., Fry, P., Ledermann, T., & Rist, S. (2009). Social learning processes in Swiss soil protection – the ‘From Farmer – to Farmer’ project. Human Ecology, 37(4), 475–489. Schneider, F., Ledermann, T., Fry, P., & Rist, S. (2010a). Soil conservation in Swiss agriculture – approaching abstract and symbolic meanings in farmers’ life-worlds. Land Use Policy, 27, 332–339. Schneider, F., Steiger, D., Ledermann, T., Fry, P., & Rist, S. (2010b). No-tillage farming: Co-creation of innovation through network building. Land Degradation and Development, 23(3), 242–255. Verein Feministische Wissenschaft Schweiz, Frauen Forum Naturwissenschaften [Swiss Feminist Scientist Association and Women’s Science Forum]. (1991). Im Widerstreit mit der Objektivität: Frauen in den Naturwissenschaften (1st ed.). Zürich: EFeF-Verlag. White, S. A. (2003). Participatory video: Images that transform and empower.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zingerli, C., Fry, P., Bachmann, F., Flury, M., Förster, R., Kläy, A., & Küffer, C. (2009). Kommunikationskompetenz: Eine Bedingung für erfolgreiche Wissensaustauschprozesse zwischen Forschung, öffentlicher Verwaltung und Praxis. GAIA, 18(3), 264–266.

7 Developing landscape scenarios and identifying local management options Outcomes and evaluation of a participatory approach in the Swabian Alb, Germany Claudia Bieling, Holger Gerdes, Bettina Ohnesorge, Tobias Plieninger, Harald Schaich, Christian Schleyer, Kathrin Trommler and Franziska Wolff Landscape change as a topic for participatory research Most areas of Europe have a long-lasting and complex history of interactions between the natural and the human realms. The biophysical features, human ideas and perceptions, and social structures of a specific area are brought together under the concept of cultural landscapes (Plieninger & Bieling, 2012). Cultural landscapes are moulded by sometimes gradual, sometimes rapid transformations, in response to changing societal and/or environmental conditions (Antrop, 2005). Dynamic interactions between natural and cultural driving forces have brought about constant change throughout history, resulting also in profound changes in the benefits that people derive from their social-ecological surroundings (Dannebeck, Hoppe, Küster & McCracken, 2009). However, the speed, scale, and the magnitude of landscape and ecosystem changes over the past 50 to 60 years have been unprecedented (Jansen, Losvik & Roche, 2009; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). One important trend is towards the homogenisation of landscapes, as changes are driven by increasingly globalised forces (Primdahl & Swaffield, 2010). From the point of view of local people, many aspects of current landscape change are undesirable. Problematic issues include, among others, loss of familiar elements of a place-specific cultural landscape; reduction or complete disruption of direct interactions between producers and consumers of agricultural goods; and lack of opportunities for local stakeholders to influence land-use decisions and landscapes. To address these problems, there has been an increase in local and regional-scale activities aimed at sustaining cultural landscapes and their inherent qualities, often involving partnerships among land users, conservation activists and consumers (Enengel, Penker, Muhar & Williams, 2011; Prager, 2010). These initiatives can be considered as locally based opposition movements to trends arising from globalisation. They aim to preserve, enhance

Developing landscape scenarios 135

and/or establish place-specific character, regional diversity and local supply chains – all elements that play an important role in current sustainability strategies (Pinto-Correia, Gustavsson & Pirnat, 2006). The focus of these activities is on regional quality of life, including its economic, social and cultural dimensions. As defined and popularised by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), the concept of ecosystem services is increasingly used to achieve a broad understanding of the different values attached to the natural environment and its contribution to human well-being. Ecosystem services comprise the benefits that ecosystems provide to society and encompass products (e.g. food, timber), processes (e.g. water purification, pollination) and non-material features (e.g. recreational, aesthetic, spiritual and historical values). Place-based approaches that strive for the protection and sustainable development of cultural landscapes often involve participation of local actors in research projects and local resource management. Forms of participation range from stakeholder involvement in specific events to permanently established rural networks and institutionalised partnerships between practitioners and scientists (Spoth & Greenberg, 2005). Participation is increasingly regarded as an essential element of sustainable landscape conservation, planning, and management, as articulated, for example, in the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000; Jones, 2007). Initiatives that pursue a participatory approach are portrayed as best-practice examples of sustainable rural development (Peter & Knickel, 2006). In this context, scenario approaches have gained particular attention (Oteros-Rozas et al., 2015), as providing a powerful tool to address the research challenges of sustainability sciences (Swart, Raskin, & Robinson, 2004) and foster the self-organisation and empowerment of stakeholders in the face of current or impending changes (Evans, de Jong & Cronkleton, 2008; Wollenberg, Edmunds & Buck, 2000). Scenarios, defined as “hypothetical sequences of events constructed for the purpose of focusing attention on causal processes and decision points” (Kahn & Wiener, 1967, p. 6), enable actors to understand the causes of change and thus improve their capacity to proactively deal with changes, instead of just responding to them. Scenarios developed with stakeholder participation are particularly useful since they are tailored to real-world conditions, and sensitive to the divergent views held by stakeholders.They facilitate social learning and the integration of scientific and non-­scientific strands of knowledge (Basarab, 2008; Pahl-Wostl, 2008; ­Thompson-Klein et al., 2001; Walz et al., 2007). While there are notable examples of global-scale scenario development (e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Raskin, 2005; Sala et al., 2000), regional and local-scale exercises are more abundant. Accounts of these experiences mostly highlight the benefits of a participatory approach (Berkel v., Carvalho-Ribeiro,Verburg & Lovett, 2011; Henrichs et al., 2010; Kaljonen, Varjopuro, Gielczewski & Iital, 2012; Loibl & Walz, 2010; Palomo, Martin-Lopez, Lopez-Santiago, & Montes, 2011; Pereira, Queiroz, Pereira, & Vicente, 2005; Peterson et al., 2003;Wollenberg et al., 2000).

136  Claudia Bieling et al.

Participatory scenario development was also part of a transdisciplinary research project carried out under the Social-Ecological Research Programme (2008–2013) of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). A group of eight researchers, authors of this chapter, harnessed the concept of ecosystem services as a tool to assess, analyse and manage the benefits that humans derive from cultural landscapes (Schleyer et al., 2014). Incorporating different disciplinary perspectives, the group’s common goal was to systematically assess the relations between land use (and land-use change), ecosystem services, market-based policy instruments and human well-being in Central European landscapes, with two biosphere reserves serving as case studies for investigation. In this chapter, we analyse the process of participatory scenario development in the Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb in southwest Germany. The detailed outcomes of the development of landscape scenarios and the subsequent identification of local management options are presented in Plieninger et al. (2013); this chapter focuses on the participatory process itself. After describing the activities included in the process, we reflect on the outcomes from a methodological perspective, and critically evaluate the results from the viewpoint of both scientists and practitioners. The aim is to contribute to knowledge of how to implement participatory approaches in sustainability research.

The Biosphere reserve Swabian Alb The Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb (85,300 ha) (Figure 7.1) covers one of the largest contiguous karst areas in Germany. The region is characterised by various small-scale cultural landscapes rich in biodiversity and provides a multitude of ecosystem services. The biosphere reserve consists of two distinct parts. A steep escarpment separates the sparsely populated rural Alb plateau from the prosperous, densely populated foreland. The latter, part of the metropolitan region of Stuttgart, is heavily shaped by settlement and traffic infrastructure. A second divide is between site-specific traditional landscapes and more uniform, modern landscape features. Traditional landscape elements include juniper heaths, marginal calcareous grasslands, meadow orchards (Figure 7.2) and deciduous forests located on hillsides and in ravines, including distinctive and ecologically valuable limestone beech forests. These landscape elements are mostly shaped by traditional forms of land use.They are distinctive features of the region and are consequently regarded as constitutive elements of a specific local identity. However, the region also contains more ubiquitous landscapes devoted to modern agriculture and residential development. These often reflect the impacts of supra-regional developments. For example, legislative incentives for renewable energy production have stimulated the cultivation of bioenergy crops, while residential development is driven by urban sprawl from the nearby metropolitan area. Both divides, between rural versus urban and site-specific ‘traditional’ versus ubiquitous ‘modern’ landscapes, provide evidence of opposing local and

Developing landscape scenarios 137

Figure 7.1 Land-cover map and location of the Swabian Alb study area within Germany

supra-regional (or global) driving forces. The latter give rise to the increasing use of agricultural land for the cultivation of energy crops, ongoing conversion of agricultural land to settlements triggered by the growth of international commerce in the metropolitan area of Stuttgart and provision of increasingly sophisticated facilities for tourists visiting the area (e.g. designated trails). Local driving forces find their expression in a multitude of civil society initiatives, for instance to promote local produce (e.g. lentils, edible snails) and traditional land-use practices (e.g. meadow orchards, sheep farming). In recognition of this diversity of natural and traditional ecosystems and to support ongoing landscape conservation and sustainable development initiatives, the region was designated as a biosphere reserve under the UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere programme in

138  Claudia Bieling et al.

Figure 7.2 Swabian Alb landscape, Germany: orchard meadows with the Alb escarpment in the background

2009. The whole process of establishing the biosphere reserve, from the zonation process to the definition of management goals, was highly participatory. In summary, the region is an ideal study area for investigation of landscape change and options for sustainable development, specifically with respect to local versus global drivers of change, and management options at different spatial scales.

Participatory landscape scenario development and identification of local management options In 2010, we initiated a participatory process of discussion and reflection on landscape change in the Swabian Alb Biosphere Reserve and possibilities for local engagement in the face of pressing global influences. To this end, a scenario-­ based technique was used to encourage local actors to think about future trends and proactively engage with them. We invited local actors to develop scenarios around the question: ‘what will the local cultural landscape look like in the year 2040 in response to global and local land-use trends?’ The overarching goal of the process was to integrate the perspectives of scientists and practitioners on changing landscapes, their values, and suitable management responses. We strove to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms driving landscape change, and an empirically rich and realistic view of the relationship and tensions between global trajectories and local values. The researchers organising the initiative anticipated that the main

Developing landscape scenarios 139

benefit of the project for actors involved would be their improved capacity not only to perceive and respond to landscape changes, but also to foresee them and tackle them in a proactive way. Thus, the participatory scenario exercise would help foster local capacity to navigate change towards desirable and sustainable outcomes. The scenario development process was directed at people living in the Swabian Alb Biosphere Reserve who were interested in landscapes, land use and related benefits. Two municipalities in the region were used as case studies (see Figure 7.1). At this scale, it was possible to address the specific concerns of local residents who were not necessarily committed to the Biosphere Reserve as such, but whose views were likely to be largely in line with those of the general population.We considered the municipality level to be the most suitable for this exercise, based on the presumption that people would find it easier to relate to and reflect on changes and their own role in bringing about and responding to change at a scale corresponding to their daily perceptions and activities rather than at the scale of the Biosphere Reserve as a whole. The municipalities of Owen (Esslingen district) and Römerstein (Reutlingen district) were selected as representative of the densely populated Swabian Alb foothills and the more rural Alb plateau, respectively (355 and 85 inhabitants/km2, respectively; Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg, 2012). Both municipalities contain some traditional, site-specific landscape elements (Owen: orchards; Römerstein: marginal grassland) as well as more ubiquitous land uses (Owen: urban sprawl areas; Römerstein: intensively farmed agricultural land). We initiated a series of three workshops organised in two phases. For all workshops, participants were invited via local newspapers, parish newsletters, and personal communication by phone or email. Key local actors including the mayors, local farmers, and project leaders were approached and asked to disseminate the invitation to other potentially interested persons. The research group planned, organised, structured, recorded and documented all activities related to the workshops.We thus prepared the stage for local actors to contribute their perceptions and opinions about the various topics addressed. In other words, the participatory process was pre-structured with respect to its form and central aims, but the content remained completely open, and was intended to be shaped by the participants. For instance, we defined a topic by asking the participants to identify stakeholder groups relevant for local landscape development, and the participants then drew up the list and ranked the stakeholders according to their importance. In contrast to several other scenario development projects (e.g. Lindborg et al., 2009; Soliva et al., 2008), no scenarios, drivers or events were predetermined by the researchers involved. Methods we applied to integrate the participant’s contributions included plenary or group discussions (Figure 7.3) as well as individual assessment exercises (for instance, each participant stated how important she/he perceived specific ecosystem services in the region and assessed their vulnerability). The overall participatory process was divided into two phases: a first phase, in which scenarios were developed in one workshop in each municipality, was

140  Claudia Bieling et al.

Figure 7.3 Sub-group discussing management options to address the decline in pollinating insects

followed one year later by another workshop in which participants from both municipalities identified and evaluated management options for guiding landscape change (Table 7.1). Workshop phase 1: scenario development

In spring 2011, one-day workshops were held in both Römerstein and Owen. Each workshop produced two detailed landscape development scenarios for the corresponding municipality. The two workshops were carried out separately in local community facilities, but followed exactly the same procedure. We introduced the participants to the scenario technique and provided a brief overview of the landscape changes occurring in the municipality (based on statistical data, maps and aerial photographs). Participants (Owen: seven persons; Römerstein: 13 persons) were then invited to prepare a list of relevant actors and driving forces of local landscape change. In the subsequent discussion, the participants agreed on the two most important driving forces determining the future of local landscapes. Displayed as two axes (each ranging from low/weak to high/ strong), the possible combinations of these two main driving forces resulted

Developing landscape scenarios 141 Table 7.1 Steps in participatory process of landscape scenario development and identification of local management options Ranking was carried out by giving each participant a fixed number of points to allocate and adding up the number of points allocated to each item on the list. Topics

Participation Method

Step 1:Workshops in Römerstein (April 2011) and Owen (May 2011) Identification of local stakeholders with an Brainstorming in plenum interest in landscape change Identification of driving forces of local Brainstorming in plenum and subsequent landscape change ranking Selection of scenarios to be developed Plenum discussion Development of two scenarios Development in sub-groups and presentation/discussion of results in plenum Step 2:Workshop in Römerstein (April 2012) Changes in different aspects of human Ranking well-being over recent decades Relevance of the local cultural landscapes for Ranking different aspects of human well-being Importance of ecosystem services Ranking Vulnerability of ecosystem services Ranking Identification of winners and losers in the Discussion in sub-groups and presentation/ four scenarios (for the five most relevant discussion of results in plenum stakeholder groups) Identification of possible local actions, key Discussion and elaboration in sub-groups actors, possible side effects, and trade-offs and presentation/discussion of results in required in response to landscape-level plenum change

in four possible scenarios. For instance, in Owen the participants agreed on ‘energy demand’ and ‘appreciation of the cultural landscape by the local public’ as the two central drivers of future landscape development. Consequently, the four respective scenarios covered situations with (1) high energy demand and high appreciation of cultural landscapes, (2) high energy demand and low appreciation of cultural landscapes, (3) low energy demand and high appreciation of cultural landscapes, and (4) low energy demand and low appreciation of cultural landscapes. In each municipality, the participants then selected two possible scenarios which they considered most likely and relevant. The participants divided into two groups, and each group elaborated on a detailed storyline and description of future situations and events in 10-year steps up to the year 2040 for one of the scenarios. The workshop closed with a presentation and discussion of these detailed scenarios. Afterwards, we compiled the results in a joint report for the participants in both communities. Each workshop was covered by newspaper articles in the local press.

142  Claudia Bieling et al. Workshop phase 2: management options at the local scale

In the second phase, the scenarios developed in the initial workshops and described in detail by the research group were taken as a basis for investigating specific options for landscape management at the local scale. This was carried out at another participatory workshop one year later (April 2012). The oneday event took place in Römerstein, but addressed the results of both workshops held the previous year. Participants from both workshops in phase 1 were invited to attend, as well as other interested persons from the two municipalities who missed the first workshops. A total of 14 participants attended this final workshop. We presented the scenarios developed at the first two workshops and briefly reflected on their possible effects on ecosystem service provision. Each of the four detailed scenarios from the first workshops (two for Owen, two for Römerstein) was illustrated in the form of a poster with fictive future newspaper headlines and brief articles. Following this, the participants ranked different ecosystem services in the region according to their importance; assessed their vulnerability with regard to future landscape development; and discussed which stakeholder groups would gain or lose most in the respective scenarios (regarding resources, power and influence on land-use decisions). These reflections on the effects of future landscape development laid the groundwork for the main task of this workshop: to suggest and discuss possible local-scale management options to address the four main landscape-related problems that had been identified by the participants, namely the threats and pressures affecting pollinating insects, sheep grazing on marginal heaths and grassland, soil fertility and local varieties of fruit trees. Each problem was addressed by one of four subgroups. The participants made lists of ideas for possible actions, identified the people and/or institutions that needed to act and reflected on possible side effects and trade-offs of the proposed measures. The workshop closed with a presentation and joint discussion of the results of each subgroup. In the final round, several participants stressed that these ideas now needed to be taken up by local people. The results were communicated to the local public via a newspaper article.

Outcomes of the participatory process Positive feedback during and after the workshops pointed to several benefits of the scenario exercise, both for the research group and for the local participants. The workshops revealed a rich picture of local perceptions, attitudes and assessments for the researchers, providing answers to questions such as: Which changes are people aware of and do they regard as significant, and which developments tend to be dismissed or rated as less relevant? How important are different aspects of the local cultural landscape for local people and how do they assess their vulnerability? What possibilities do people identify for local action, including in response to supra-local trends, such those occurring in

Developing landscape scenarios 143

the context of the EU Common Agricultural Policy? With regard to all these questions, the contributions of the workshop participants provided valuable and detailed insights, both on common ground and on also diverging local views. Some of these results were rather surprising for us. For instance, scientists (and politicians) usually think of pollination as an ecosystem service that the lay public is not particularly aware of (Allen-Wardell et al., 1998). However, the participants of the last workshop ranked this ecosystem service very highly and suggested possible measures to foster populations of pollinating insects. Overall, the scenario development process enabled profound analysis of the possibilities and limitations of local civil society engagement in landscape conservation and development in the face of increasing global influences (see Plieninger et al., 2013). In an evaluation of the workshops, participants identified two principal outcomes as having been valuable for them. First, several participants said they found it interesting to gain insights into discussions, concepts and ongoing developments in landscape-related science, policy and practice beyond the Swabian Alb. Some said that the inputs from the researchers enabled them to see the bigger picture and made them aware of new issues, which they could relate back to the situation in their region. This fulfilled the researchers’ aim of enhancing local capacity: participants said that they felt better prepared for future developments and saw more opportunities to be proactive instead of passively responding to changes. Second, participants in both Römerstein and Owen highlighted that the workshops had been characterised by very open, non-dogmatic exchanges among individuals and groups that often tend to take conflicting positions. For instance, a farmer said how much he appreciated the open dialogue: the workshop was the first meeting he had attended with conservationists present where he did not feel he was being accused of degrading ecosystems through his agricultural land use. The creative scenario process enabled the participants to understand each other’s attitudes towards landscape change and appreciate the capacity for landscape management by local stakeholder groups.This insight into ways of thinking and decision-making of other stakeholders was seen as valuable by the participants for future negotiations and the solution of realworld landscape and ecosystem management problems in the municipalities. Hence, the participatory scenario development process helped to build trust among otherwise conflicting stakeholder groups and facilitates future regional development processes.

Critical evaluation of the participatory process This section discusses some critical issues raised by the experience of participatory scenario development and identification of local-scale management options, again from the perspective of both the researchers and the local participants. The first issue is connected to the number and composition of workshop participants. In each of the three workshops, between 7 and 14 local actors were

144  Claudia Bieling et al.

present. In some respects, a good representation of the relevant stakeholder groups was achieved (e.g. representation of men and women); with regard to others the composition of the workshop participants was less balanced (e.g. local trade and industry, and also the forestry sector were under-represented). For the research group, inviting participants was a time-consuming task, involving writing press releases, letters and emails and making a considerable number of phone calls.We had hoped that our efforts would attract larger numbers of participants to all the workshops. As the research focused on the views of ‘ordinary’ local people and not on people professionally involved with landscape management, the events were held on weekends. People had to invest their spare time to attend the workshops, and this may have been a relatively large barrier to participation. Taking this into account, getting seven people to participate in a one-day workshop may nevertheless be considered a good result. An additional issue related to how the participatory process was affected by the explicitly scientific approach adopted in the workshops. Although at every step of the process the researchers tried to keep things simple, focusing on issues that were understandable and of practical relevance to participants, the background for the workshops was a research project. The people organising and structuring the events were researchers and the concepts used (such as ecosystem services) were rooted in science. The structures into which people had to fit their contributions corresponded to these concepts and the methods adopted were basically analytical (e.g. ranking variables). This scientific background was evident in the invitations, and it may have been one reason for people choosing not to participate. They may have presumed that the workshops would be hard to follow, boring, or of no practical relevance to the local situation. However, the feedback from those people who actually participated was positive, and none of these potential points of criticism was mentioned. More than half of the people who participated in one of the first workshops returned to the workshop one year later. Concerning the ecosystem services concept, we asked the participants in the final evaluation round how useful they had found this concept. The question was taken up by only a few people, who gave noncommittal positive feedback. However, during the meetings, the participants had no difficulties understanding and working with the ecosystem services concept; after a brief introduction the terminology was taken up in the discussions and people referred to the different services categories in their own comments. In sum, the essentially scientific character of the workshops, or the fact that they were presented this way in the initial invitations, possibly impeded a higher level of participation, but was not a problem in the workshops themselves. In particular, it proved possible to communicate the central scientific concept in a way that people understood and were able to relate to. However, although the participatory workshops followed a scientific logic, presenting the results in a format that is appropriate for publication in peerreviewed journals – still the most relevant quality standard for scientific work, including for transdisciplinary research projects – remains a challenge. In this

Developing landscape scenarios 145

context, validity and reliability of the data are crucial assessment criteria. For a quantitative approach to research into stakeholder perspectives, these criteria are linked to the absolute number and thus the representativeness of the statements presented, which should ideally allow for statistical analyses. With between 7 and 14 workshop participants – who were, moreover, not representative of the full range of relevant local stakeholder groups – these criteria were not met. Furthermore, even with respect to criteria for a qualitative research approach the resulting data is weak: neither the process nor its documentation followed the existing requirements for scientifically ‘sound’ individual interviews or group discussions. Rather they were a mixture of different and relatively unrefined approaches. Generally speaking, the workshops were planned to offer people a pragmatic and simple forum for contributing and sharing their views, but they were not designed to be subject to rigorous and in-depth scientific analyses. For this, we would have had to apply a more structured approach (e.g. regarding selection of participants or discussion processes), as well as much more fine-grained documentation and use of more sophisticated analytical tools. However, for the participants a more structured approach might have been less attractive, given that they highlighted openness as one of the main positive aspects of the workshops. Therefore, we see a certain trade-off between participatory research and the current scientific requirements for strict disciplinary standards. Finally, an issue to be considered is the question of how the results of the participatory activities can be integrated in local decision-making. The workshops were not related to a formal decision-making process, such as the formulation of a landscape plan for the municipality or the management plan for the biosphere reserve. However, as several of the participants were members of organisations involved in taking management decisions (e.g. the local mayor, an employee of the biosphere reserve management team, and a member of the staff of a local land-use agency), the workshops may have contributed indirectly to decision-making processes. In our opinion, the informal nature of the participatory process was both an important prerequisite of the exercise and a limitation. On the one hand, it facilitated the open and creative character of the meetings; on the other hand the outcomes could be seen to be just ‘good ideas’, with nobody really dedicated or mandated to take them up.

Conclusions The participatory process that we initiated in two Swabian Alb municipalities demonstrated the benefits associated with transdisciplinary projects in the field of sustainability research (Hirsch Hadorn, Bradley, Pohl, Rist & Wiesmann, 2006; Luks & Siebenhüner, 2007). In a participatory process based on issueoriented and differentiated reflection, the principal benefits achieved by means of a collaborative effort by researchers and practitioners were knowledge integration and capacity building. However, the critical evaluation of the process also pointed to some problematic aspects.

146  Claudia Bieling et al.

Nevertheless, we conclude that the benefits of a participatory approach far outweigh any problems. To support this conclusion, we offer two additional arguments. First, the benefits evident some months after the workshops should not be considered as final and self-contained. For the researchers, the outcomes of the workshops should be seen as one step in a longer process. For example such workshops help researchers to ask the ‘right questions’ in subsequent questionnaire-based surveys or in personal interviews. Moreover, a better understanding of the views held by the local population brings important, but often overlooked secondary benefits for other research activities (for instance hitherto unconsidered issues can be incorporated in the design of new projects). Also at the local level, some indirect benefits and outcomes of the workshops may emerge over time, for instance the establishment of new civil society organisations. With regard to medium and long-term impacts, we argue that both for ourselves as researchers and the local actors involved it was crucial to have direct contact over several hours. Only in such a setting was it possible for the different parties to leave their own familiar ground, at least to a certain degree. This resulted in a high level of commitment on both sides, which also facilitated communication, exchange of information, and dissemination of the insights in the respective communities. Second, several of the difficulties exemplified are not inherent to participatory research approaches, but are connected to failures in conceptualising and carrying them out, as well as to deficiencies in current scientific practice. These problems have to be addressed directly, not by giving up participatory research in general. For sustainability researchers, convincing practitioners to participate in their projects remains a considerable but very rewarding challenge. It is essential to reflect on concepts and approaches in terms of their applicability and suitability for addressing real-world problems. If the concepts and approaches adopted by researchers are applicable and relevant to a problem currently faced by the local population, then it will also be possible to find interested participants and to communicate the scientific background to them (Dosch & Schleyer, 2005). In the field of applied sustainability research, the success of participatory approaches says much about the suitability and quality of the research projects in relation to the local context. Consequently, it is not the participatory approaches themselves that should be blamed for the difficulties in implementing them. Rather, lack of interest by stakeholders should lead to self-critical questions on the part of researchers about the nature and relevance of the work they are undertaking. Similarly, in response to the continuing reluctance of highly ranked journals to publish the results of participatory projects, we should press for changes in scientific institutions, to facilitate these research approaches and enhance their value among the scientific community, rather than think about abandoning participatory research. To summarise, we draw three main conclusions from our experiences of participatory scenario workshops in the Swabian Alb region. These should be understood as essential issues to be addressed in participatory research and can be used as guidelines for the conceptualisation and implementation of

Developing landscape scenarios 147

participatory approaches (in line with many conclusions of Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008; Wickson, Carew, & Russell, 2006; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2007). Justify and focus the participatory elements of a research project

At the start of a project, researchers should carefully consider if (1) the overall and specific research questions actually address a real-world problem, and (2) what specific types and forms of knowledge have to be integrated. In many cases, upon closer examination it will turn out that the only a few narrowly focused research questions call for participation (i.e. the integration of nonscientific forms of knowledge). The next step is to examine whether the scientific concepts being applied are suitable for the context; in other words whether they correspond to the problem that is being studied and provide a basis to address it in collaboration with practitioners (for instance by structuring the problem and guiding discussion of it). Specify the aim of the participatory elements and balance benefits and efforts

Participation is not an aim in itself, but has to be directed towards a clear goal, that is relevant both in terms of practical problem-solving and generating scientific insights. This goal has to be realistic, i.e. researchers and practitioners should be able to achieve it through joint effort. Moreover, the balance between expected benefits and the effort required should be appraised in advance, from the perspective of both researchers and practitioners. Where an imbalance is apparent for one or both of the parties involved, participation will not work out and will likely result in mutual frustration. If there are indications that this might be the case, the design of the participatory element should be reconsidered, for instance by abbreviating the procedures or by involving fewer or different participants. Modify the scientific system to embrace transdisciplinarity

Researchers should press for changes to scientific norms and institutions that currently create difficulties for transdisciplinary research, particularly with respect to participation, which should be considered as an essential element of successful sustainability research. This includes the important, yet challenging task of developing a consensus on quality criteria and appropriate tools for participatory research, drawing on the experience of projects at the local or regional scale (Hoffmann, Gerber, & Thomas, 2009), and engaging with existing proposals to this end which have already been formulated (Bergmann et al., 2005; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008; Lynam, de Jong, Sheil, Kusumanto & Evans, 2007; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2007). A broadly recognised standard is essential for full acknowledgement of transdisciplinarity as a branch of science. Moreover, this would involve founding dedicated journals and expanding

148  Claudia Bieling et al.

existing opportunities for publication; creating specific funding lines for transdisciplinary research; and the full recognition of participatory research experience for higher-level scientific qualifications and career advancement. To this end, the distinctive characteristics of participatory research have to be taken into account.This would include, for instance, integrating practitioners into the evaluation of research projects and the review of publications.

Acknowledgements We are indebted to the residents of the Swabian Alb who participated in the workshops and to all those who commented on written versions or oral presentations of this text. The Research Group Ecosystem Services was funded by the Social-Ecological Research Program of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (grants 01UU0904A-D). We thank Emily Kilham for language editing.

References Allen-Wardell, G., Bernhardt, P., Bitner, R., Burquez, A., Buchmann, S., Cane, J., . . . Nabhan, G. P. (1998).The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conservation Biology, 12(1), 8–17. Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 21–34. Basarab, N. (2008). Transdisciplinarity – theory and practice. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Bergmann, M., Brohmann, B., Hoffmann, E., Loibl, M. C., Rehaag, R., Schramm, E., & Voß, J.-P. (2005). Qualitätskriterien transdisziplinärer Forschung. Frankfurt: Institut für sozialökologische Forschung. Berkel, v. D. B., Carvalho-Ribeiro, S., Verburg, P. H., & Lovett, A. (2011). Identifying assets and constraints for rural development with qualitative scenarios: A case study of Castro Laboreiro, Portugal. Landscape and Urban Planning, 102, 127–141. Council of Europe. (2000). The European landscape convention. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Dannebeck, S., Hoppe, A., Küster, H., & McCracken, D. (2009). Factors affecting cultural landscapes: An overview. In K. Krzywinski, M. O’Connell, & H. Küster (Eds.), Cultural landscapes of Europe: Fields of Demeter, Haunts of Pan (pp. 47–54). Bremen: Aschenbeck Media. Dosch, A., & Schleyer, C. (2005). Transdisciplinary approaches in natural resource management: The case of an agri-environmental forum in Brandenburg (Germany). Zeitschrift für angewandte Umweltforschung, 17(1), 65–79. Enengel, B., Penker, M., Muhar, A., & Williams, R. (2011). Benefits, efforts and risks of participants in landscape co-management: An analytical framework and results from two case studies in Austria. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1256–1267. Evans, K., de Jong, W., & Cronkleton, P. (2008). Future scenarios as a tool for collaboration in forest communities. Sapiens, 1, 1–7. Henrichs,T., Zurek, M., Eickhout, B., Kok, K., Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Ribeiro T., . . .Volkery, A. (2010). Scenario development and analysis for forward-looking ecosystem assessments. In N. Ash, H. Blanco, C. Brown, K. García, T. Henrichs, N. Lucas . . . C. Raudsepp-Hearne

Developing landscape scenarios 149 (Eds.), Ecosystems and human well-being: A manual for assessment practitioners (pp. 151–219). Washington, DC: Island Press. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S., & Wiesmann, U. (2006). Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 119–128. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy,W., Joye, D., . . . Zemp, E. (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Heidelberg: Springer. Hoffmann, V., Gerber, A., & Thomas, A. (2009). Transdisziplinäre Umweltforschung: Methodenhandbuch. Munich: Oekom. Jansen, J., Losvik, M., & Roche, P. (2009).Vulnerability and resilience of cultural landscapes. In K. Krzywinski, M. O’Connell, & H. Küster (Eds.), Cultural landscapes of Europe: Fields of Demeter, Haunts of Pan (pp. 55–66). Bremen: Aschenbeck Media. Jones, M. (2007). The European landscape convention and the question of public participation. Landscape Research, 32, 613–633. Kahn, H., & Wiener, A. J. (1967). The year 2000. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kaljonen, M., Varjopuro, R., Gielczewski, M., & Iital, A. (2012). Seeking policy-relevant knowledge: A comparative study of the contextualisation of participatory scenarios for the Narew River and Lake Peipsi. Environmental Science and Policy, 15, 72–81. Lindborg, R., Stenseke, M., Cousins, S. A., Bengtsson, J., Berg, A., Gustafsson, T., . . . Eriksson, O. (2009). Investigating biodiversity trajectories using scenarios – lessons from two contrasting agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(2), 499–508. Loibl,W., & Walz, A. (2010). Generic regional development strategies from local stakeholders’ scenarios – the Montafon experience. Ecology and Society, 15(3), art 3. Luks, F., & Siebenhüner, B. (2007). Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability governance. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 418–426. Lynam, T., de Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., & Evans, K. (2007). A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society, 12(1), art 5. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Oteros-Rozas, E., Martín-López, B., Daw,T., Bohensky, E. L., Butler, J., Hill, R., . . .Vilardy, S. (2015). Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: Insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecology and Society, 20(4), art 32. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2008). Participation in building environmental scenarios. In A. Alcamo (Ed.), Environmental futures:The practice of environmental scenario analysis (pp. 105–122). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Palomo, I., Martin-Lopez, B., Lopez-Santiago, C., & Montes, C. (2011). Participatory scenario planning for protected areas management under the ecosystem services framework: The Doñana social-ecological system in Southwestern Spain. Ecology and Society, 16(1), art 23. Pereira, E., Queiroz, C., Pereira, H. M., & Vicente, L. (2005). Ecosystem services and human well-being: A participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecology and Society, 10(2), art 14. Peter, S., & Knickel, K. (2006). Empowerment of regional partnerships: The example of the regional action pilot program in Germany. disP 166, 42(3), 17–25. Peterson, G. D., Beard,T. D., Beisner, B. E., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter S. R., Cumming, G. S., . . . Havlicek, T. D. (2003). Assessing future ecosystem services: A case study of the Northern Highlands Lake District, Wisconsin. Ecology and Society, 7(3), art 1.

150  Claudia Bieling et al. Pinto-Correia, T., Gustavsson, R., & Pirnat, J. (2006). Bridging the gap between centrally defined policies and local decisions – towards more sensitive and creative rural landscape management. Landscape Ecology, 21, 333–346. Plieninger, T., & Bieling, C. (2012). Connecting cultural landscapes to resilience. In T. Plieninger & C. Bieling (Eds.), Resilience and the cultural landscape: Understanding and managing change in human-shaped environments (pp. 3–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plieninger,T., Bieling, C., Ohnesorge, B., Schaich, H., Schleyer, C., & Wolff, F. (2013). Exploring futures of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes through participatory scenario development in the Swabian Alb, Germany. Ecology and Society, 18(3), art 39. Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for designing transdisciplinary research – proposed by the Swiss academies of arts and sciences. Munich: Oekom. Prager, K. (2010). Local and regional partnerships in natural resource management:The challenge of bridging institutional levels. Environmental Management, 46, 711–724. Primdahl, J., & Swaffield, S. (2010). Globalisation and agricultural landscapes: Change patterns and policy trends in developed countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raskin, P. D. (2005). Global scenarios: Background review for the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems, 8(2), 133–142. Sala, O. E., Chapin, F. S., Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., . . . Wall, D. H. (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science, 287(5459), 1770–1774. Schleyer, C., Schaich, H., Bieling, C., Gerdes, H., Ohnesorge, B., Plieninger, T.,. . . . Wolff, F. (2014). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in European cultural landscapes: Pathways, pitfalls, and perspectives. In A. Gasparatos & K. J. Willis (Eds.), Biodiversity in the green economy (pp. 149–171). London: Routledge. Soliva, R., Rønningen, K., Bella, I., Bezak, P., Cooper, T., Flø B. E., . . . Potter, C. (2008). Envisioning upland futures: Stakeholder responses to scenarios for Europe’s mountain landscapes. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(1), 56–71. Spoth, R., & Greenberg, M. (2005).Toward a comprehensive strategy for effective practitionerscientist partnerships and larger-scale community health and well-being. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3), 107–126. Statistisches Landesamt Baden-Württemberg. (2012). Struktur- und Regionaldatenbank BadenWürttemberg. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from www.statistik.baden-wuerttemberg.de Swart, R. J., Raskin, P., & Robinson, J. (2004). The problem of future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change, 14, 137–146. Thompson-Klein, J., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., Schloz, R. W., & Welti, M. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology and society. Basel: Birkhäuser. Walz, A., Lardelli, C., Behrendt, H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lundström, C., Kytzia, S., & Bebi, P. (2007). Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 114–131. Wickson, F., Carew, A. L., & Russell, A. W. (2006). Transdisciplinary research: Characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures, 38(9), 1046–1059. Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., & Buck, L. (2000). Using scenarios to make decisions about the future: anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of community forests. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47, 65–77.

Part III

Pursuing methodological innovations for transdisciplinarity

8 This is the case (study) – so what? Reflections on a constitutive tension in sustainability science Rafael Ziegler Introduction The philosopher and sociologist Wolfgang Krohn diagnosed a constitutive tension in transdisciplinary research: The tension between a particular scientific concern around a singular case and the expectation of an increase in scientific knowledge beyond the s­ ingular . . . is constitutive of transdisciplinary research. Examples where the case counts as a singular case and as an exemplar of a generalized claim are not only found in the areas of social-ecological research, but also in natural sciences and in various fields of social sciences.This is a consequence of heterogeneous actor constellations in the planning and implementation of transdisciplinary projects. (Krohn, 2008, 40, own translation) Krohn’s focus on the case and case studies identifies a development in scientific research, including research for sustainable development. At the same time his diagnosis of a constitutive tension raises questions and articulates unease with an emerging, transdisciplinary sustainability culture. As participants in this culture, we should be reflecting further on these questions – even if no simple answers or solutions are to be expected. In this spirit, this chapter discusses the case study in sustainability science and offers the reflections of a researcher on possible ways of dealing with the constitutive tension. The chapter is primarily addressed to researchers facing similar questions. What is the role of a case study in scientific research and in sustainability science in particular? To paraphrase the title of this volume, what is a transdisciplinary case study for sustainability? The term ‘case’ has many uses. Here my inspiration is taken broadly from the medical use of the term, which refers to the circumstance and situation of a particular person or group; in the present context, it also refers beyond that to a socio-ecological constellation. To express it as a slogan, the case has a face. For reasons that will soon be apparent, this use of ‘case’ is not meant to prejudge whether it should be seen as unique and singular or as an instance of the general

154  Rafael Ziegler

or universal. Morgan (2012) helpfully identifies what I try to capture with this slogan in terms of what she calls the ‘wholeness’ of case studies. Case studies may be relevant for science as ‘exemplars’, a term introduced by Kuhn (1996) to describe ‘paradigmatic’ solutions that can be used to teach students when they are initiated into a discipline and that, when first discovered, attract other researchers to further explore the possibilities they suggest. They can also serve as instances of confirmation or falsification with respect to theories, models and related hypotheses. Without a relation to the general, the relevance of a case study for science seems very limited; they run the risk of getting lost in practical considerations and concerns that are important and legitimate for actors from politics, business and civil society, but not for science. There is an alternative, different way of thinking about the matter. As Krohn (2008) points out, one way to think about the tension between the singular case and the search for the general is in terms of the distinction between nomothetic and ideographic knowledge in the sciences (Windelband, 1894). Nomothetic thinking is focused on the discovery of laws and is associated with the natural sciences. Idiographic thinking is focused on the event in its specific context and is associated with the humanities and social sciences. Thus, two different ways of doing sciences become possible and the tension may seem to be resolved. However, the resolution comes at a cost to scientific practice. Social scientists frequently have an interest in laws and facts beyond the singular event, as evidenced by well-known long-standing searches for the ‘iron law’ of political parties (Michels), and laws of income distribution (Pareto) and social facts (Durkheim). More importantly for the focus of this volume, transdisciplinary approaches and sustainability science frequently involve natural scientists and social scientists working together. The emerging culture of sustainability science is, above all, a hybrid culture. There is also another way to pursue the tension. Krohn proposes rethinking the case study as part of a network of case studies that together increase the professional competence of researchers and practitioners, and we will turn to this option in section two. However, if we are interested specifically in sustainabilityoriented research, as in the present volume, we first need to specify sustainability research so as to derive essential features of the sustainability case study. To this end, section three turns to sustainability science and the characteristic features of a sustainability case study. In keeping with the call for self-reflection by participants, I illustrate the sustainability case study with an example from my own research on social entrepreneurship in the water sector. Returning to the constitutive tension of sustainability case studies, the chapter argues that the tension can be fruitfully engaged with by scientists if the network of cases is woven with a ‘theory-thread’. If, moreover, this theory-thread is sufficient to articulate the core element of sustainable development, the case study approach also provides critical orientation and knowledge about ends and means for sustainability practice.

This is the case (study) – so what? 155

The case for the case In keeping with the constitutive tension, Krohn’s evaluation of case studies in transdisciplinary research is twofold: in the first place, case studies are said to foster professional experience (Krohn, 2008); this will be referred to as the ‘professional experience thesis’. Second, case studies are said to play a role in the development of disciplinary and interdisciplinary science (Krohn, 2008); this will be referred to as the ‘scientific knowledge contribution thesis’. Professional expertise

Given the practice orientation of transdisciplinary approaches, it is hardly surprising that the case study is especially prominent in vocational studies such as law, medicine and management. Garvin (quoted in Krohn, 2008) attributes the first case study to the Harvard Law School in 1870, with the Harvard Business School following suit in 1920, and the Harvard Medical School in 1985. Interestingly, there is also a civic education-oriented ‘Harvard’ tradition, which I will return to towards the end of the chapter. However, I will first address the much more widely known managerial case study tradition and examine its contribution to professional experience and scientific knowledge. A recent example from management studies helps to illustrate the professional experience thesis. In keeping with the specific focus on sustainable development in this volume, the example chosen focuses specifically on management for sustainable development. According to the editors of a recent book of case studies in sustainability and management, the ‘excellent case’ is defined as fulfilling the following criteria (Hamschmidt & Pirson, 2011, 5ff). It should   1 Provide a learning opportunity on a relevant topic, and for this it should be a ‘real case’ with ‘clear cut management decisions’;   2 ‘Tell an engaging story’ (or, as the authors put it, contain “a hero, a dilemma and a solution”);   3 Be accompanied by a teaching note for instructors that sets out goals and specifications, including of the audience and the theories employed;  4 Be based on a “recent situation” and have the “trappings of a current challenge”;   5 Include quotations so as to “gain empathy for leading characters” and make the case more authentic;   6 Be relevant for the audience and understood as involving situations that the students know or are likely to face;   7 Be “debate provoking”, offering “food for thought” and “room for different interpretations”;   8 Be “decision-forcing”, i.e. concern a case that is both urgent and serious;   9 Offer “generality” and to provide “generalisations” and “clear take-aways”;

156  Rafael Ziegler

10 Be as short as possible, as “complexity can be introduced in case series” and because “the average person is not able to digest more than three pieces of information at a time”; 11 Be “revised after a first try in class”. These criteria illustrate well the professional experience thesis: the focus is on learning (points 1, 2, and 11), yet on learning in concrete contexts (points 4 and 5), incorporating different perspectives (point 7) and with a focus on preparing students to make decisions in respect to urgent (point 8), current (point 4) challenges that they are likely to face in their professional lives (point 6). To be sure, there is reference to generality (point 9). However, the generality aimed at is not with a view to constructing models and formulating theories, but rather to enhance competence in practical contexts, for example in dealing with similar cases. A series of cases is required to introduce complexity (point 10); for this reason, theory is more a background issue (perhaps discussed in the note to be supplied to the instructor, point 3) rather than the central issue that is up for direct discussion by the students. It is more problematic to use the preceding criteria to support the scientific knowledge contribution thesis. This second thesis claims that such competence building is not only a matter of educating doctors, managers and lawyers, but also one of educating professional researchers (Krohn, 2008) by contributing to disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge. In the criteria listed above, the link to theory is rather weak. It is a matter of a teaching note, not an explicit and central concern. In a philosophy of science workshop in 2012 on case study work with researchers from management and sustainability science, the weak link to theory was confirmed as being generally valid for case studies in management and business administration.1 Case study work as currently practiced in management was seen more as using theory for the preparation of case studies, rather than engaging in a discussion about theory or contributing to the elaboration and testing of theories. In short, the scientific knowledge thesis that the case studies emerging from a vocational science such as management help educate professional researchers, does not seem to be very strong so far. Theory and the case study

Yet, there are theory-related reasons for case studies, including in the social sciences (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Morgan, 2012; Yin, 2009). While in statistical samples the random selection of information is important, for other purposes it may be more useful to focus on the extreme or deviant case; this can shed a special light on what is overlooked in the normal case, thereby helping to better understand what we take to be the normal case. The extreme or exotic case may thus contribute to extending our knowledge of a given subject area. This argument was made by anthropologist Clifford Geertz with regard to the contribution

This is the case (study) – so what? 157

of ‘thick descriptions’ of anthropological cases to our understanding of what it means to be human (Geertz, 1973). From a Popperian perspective, a critical case may be used to put into doubt or even refute a theory (Popper, 1963). In the Kuhnian approach, the paradigmatic case can serve as an exemplar that attracts the attention of the scientific community and may initiate a new period of normal science (Kuhn, 1996). Finally, as Krohn highlights, in a Weberian approach to the social sciences, the case study may play a role in the elaboration of ideal types by helping us to assess and compare aspects of the messy and dynamic reality (Weber, 2011). In short, the philosophy and history of science offers different routes to help justify the role of the case study in furthering scientific knowledge, even if the requirements of case studies vary among the routes, as do the meaning of ‘case’ and ‘case study’ (as already noted in the introduction). However, simply listing the reasons for case studies and routes that can be taken is, in itself, insufficient to clarify the role of the case study for sustainability science. Neither transdisciplinary research as such (Krohn’s focus) nor listing theoretical contributions of case studies (as in the examples of the last paragraph) specify the goals and requirements of sustainability science and the role of the case study for sustainability science. Transdisciplinary research might be carried out in medicine, for example, with no specific sustainability-related purpose. Likewise, the various approaches from philosophy of science may fruitfully pertain to sustainability research, but they evidently have not been developed with a specific focus on sustainability case studies in mind. Accordingly, the next section turns to a clarification of sustainability science, as a prerequisite for an investigation of the role of the case study in sustainability science.

Sustainability science In her defence of the case study as an epistemic genre, Morgan, drawing on MacCormick, proposes consistency (with all evidence found), coherence within the account (evidence fits together) and credibility of the explanation in scientific terms as criteria for the internal validity of this genre (Morgan, 2012). A description of the specific character of sustainability science is therefore a critical task in order to assess the fulfilment of criterion of ‘credibility’ by sustainability case studies. An examination of the nascent field of sustainability science suggests four features that help identify the specifics of sustainability science and by implication, what should be looked for in sustainability case studies.2 Normativity: Sustainability science explicitly acknowledges a normative context, that of sustainability or sustainable development (Clark & Dickson, 2003), two closely related terms which are used interchangeably in this chapter. To be sure, normativity as a matter of choosing one’s research topic has long been recognised; however, this is usually taken to mean that researchers have to make explicit their choices and the interests these involve, and then ‘stick to the

158  Rafael Ziegler

facts’ when carrying out the research. By contrast, while a researcher may well have personal reasons for choosing a specific area in sustainability science, sustainability and sustainable development clearly also involve values and norms beyond personal interest and choice.They are thick, ethical concepts. Moreover, doing sustainability science takes place in a practical context of expectations and interests and the research will have intended and unintended practical consequences. In a more general context, Hilary Putnam remarks: while indeed the answers to a scientific question must never be dictated by one’s value system, the terms one uses even in description in history and in sociology and the other social sciences are invariably ethically coloured; this is nowhere more true than in the case of the terms Weber used to describe his ‘ideal types’. (Putnam, 2002, p. 63) ‘Sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ can both be used in a descriptive way: a dictatorship may be stable due to an efficient repression of civil society; a financial system may be resilient in the face of major crisis that it partly caused. In examples such as these, we could say that X sustains itself or that it is sustainable. Such use of language, however, is unsatisfactory; it does not capture the concerns of sustainability science, which call for a more normative specification of these concepts. Many conceptions and related definitions have been proposed. However, it seems fair to say that the so-called Brundtland definition – “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 45) – articulates, admittedly in rather vague terms, a widely shared agreement. Sustainable development defined vaguely in this way moreover ­concerns a set of non-redundant ideas – meeting basic needs worldwide, r­esponsibility for the future, quality of life, participation, environmental protection and ­economy-environment integration – that no specific or more rigorous definition can ignore (Jacobs, 1999). Any concept of sustainability must also address and further specify these normative demands of justice and development. Urgency: A commitment to the fulfilment of human needs in a world where even the basic requirements of a large part of the human population are often not met implies a dimension of urgency. How can science and technology help move society towards a more sustainable future? (Clark & Dickson, 2003). There is an ethical supposition in claims of urgency: as moral persons, we are not neutral with respect to whether or not a specific problem is addressed now, or in some decades or even centuries in the future. Fermat stated a theorem in the seventeenth century, but did not disclose the proof. It took three centuries until Andrew Wiles and Richard Taylor did so; in the intermediary time those interested simply had to wait and puzzle. The patience of the puzzle solver is a virtue in normal science. In puzzle-solving science, one may trust that all major problems will be solved in the long run.Yet, there is suffering, injustice and degradation of the biosphere now, which places a moral obligation on science to

This is the case (study) – so what? 159

make a contribution towards meeting the present need to address these problems.The puzzle-solving scientific attitude can abstract away from such pressing concerns, transforming them into private opinions that a scientist may (or may not) hold. In the case of sustainability science, however, these moral concerns are constitutive. There is a further reason for urgency when, as in the case of climate change, the risks associated with waiting for ‘better science’ may simply be judged too high. A purely puzzle-solving attitude can become a source of risk (Gardiner, 2004). As Hiroshi Komiyama & Kazuhiko Takeuchi (2006, p. 5) put it, “the search for solutions cannot wait.” Inclusion of non-scientists: Sustainability science typically endorses a commitment to the inclusion of non-scientists in the process of research itself. As Kates et al. (2001, p. 641) observe,“combining different ways of knowing and learning will permit different social actors to work in concert, even with much uncertainty and limited information.” Sustainability science includes the supposition that non-scientists can contribute to projects in the field in ways that the scientists involved cannot substitute for. In her contribution to this volume, Patricia Fry (Chapter 6) notes that practitioners (in her case farmers) take a wide view, as they have little understanding of soil science in all its details, but have a wealth of knowledge and experience of plant growth, soil properties, animal welfare, weather and work on the farm, and how all these are related. The wide view of the practitioner contributes a practical and relational knowledge of the case. Inclusion of non-scientists is therefore not only morally motivated by the principle of including those affected by an action, but also advocated for epistemic reasons. Interrelation of environment and society: Sustainability science seeks to “understand the fundamental character of interactions between nature and society” (Kates et al., 2001, p. 641) so as to find ways in which natural and social scientists can work together to improve environment – society relations. Scenario techniques are examples of tools used for this purpose, and they depend on information and causal mechanisms derived from both natural and social sciences. And of course, case studies are another way to explore the dynamics of ecosystems and people (Berkes, Folke & Colding, 1998). Each of these four features of sustainability science raises further questions regarding their justification (Ziegler & Ott, 2011) as well as their relevance for a specification of the conception of sustainable development. In the preceding paragraphs, the descriptions of these features were based on the practice of selfstyled sustainability scientists and their statements about sustainability science. However, it is noteworthy that these features also appear in conceptualisations of ‘sustainable development’. As Jacobs notes (1999), even a vague conception of sustainable development contains a commitment to meeting basic needs worldwide, and the idea of responsibility for the quality of life of future generations. Needs, responsibility and above all sustainable development and sustainability are thick concepts: along with a descriptive side, they also have an evaluative side. While it is possible to use sustainability in a descriptive ­manner – for example as equivalent to permanent – someone who saw only this descriptive

160  Rafael Ziegler

side would simply fail to fully understand what is involved in the discussions of sustainability and sustainable development. This point has been made more generally for thick concepts: If one did not at any point share the relevant ethical point of view, one would never be able to acquire a thick ethical perspective . . . sophisticated use of such a concept requires a continuing ability to identify (at least in the imagination) with that point of view. (Putnam, 2002, pp. 36–38) It follows that the use of these concepts requires taking, at least sometimes, such an ethical perspective. Moreover from such a perspective, many of the demands of sustainable development call for urgent action (given the current state of the world). Thus the feature of urgency in sustainability science also becomes apparent in the concept of sustainable development. Jacobs further observes that even vague conceptions of sustainability assign a role to participation that is doubly important. Since normative questions can be analysed and to some extent illuminated by experts, but cannot answer them conclusively, participation has a normative as well as an epistemological and practical function in the transformation of society towards sustainability (Ziegler & Ott, 2011). Finally, Jacobs’s demand for environment – economy integration highlights the role of the global economy in producing unsustainable situations and, therefore, argues that the solution is a better connection with ecosystems and societies. Such linkages call for knowledge from both natural and social scientists. Thus, closer inspection reveals that the four features of sustainability science previously identified correspond to the central tenets of sustainable development. In conclusion, these features help specify the role of case studies in the sustainability context by pointing to the normative dimension, the urgency of the problems at hand, the cooperation with non-scientists and finally the interaction of environment and society – that are characteristic of both of sustainable development itself and science for such a development. To be sure, simply identifying these features leaves many questions open as to what they mean in practice for sustainability science. Arguably, however, this relative indeterminacy is necessary due to the contextual diversity of sustainability science as well as the contested nature of the concept. Also, the features are not equally important in each respective context. For example, in one context the normative issue may be trivial and hence fall to the background; in another context the interrelation of nature and society may be much less important than the analysis of a specific environmental or social question, and so forth. Still, the features map out the areas of concern for sustainability science case studies, and at the same time highlight the demanding nature of such case studies.

A sustainability case study approach This section further explores the nature of sustainability case studies by means of self-reflection on an example of one such case study approach that

This is the case (study) – so what? 161

I co-developed (Ziegler et al., 2014). For reasons of space the focus will be on the most controversial feature, that of normativity. The case study approach was developed for the research project GETIDOS (GEtting ThIngs DOne Sustainably) on social entrepreneurship in the water sector, funded by the social-ecological research stream of the German Ministry of Education and Research. Social entrepreneurship refers to individuals, organisations and networks that pursue public policy objectives rather than private profit as their primary goal by offering products and services aimed at meeting these objectives. From this perspective, the well-known conservationist John Muir was a social entrepreneur because he both pursued a public cause and co-developed an approach that had a fundamental influence on how nature conservation is conceived and implemented: the US National Park System (Ashoka, 2012). Social entrepreneurship is thus not a new phenomenon, but its emergence into the limelight as a topic of public discussion, promotion and contestation is relatively recent. This occurred in the 1980s, especially via the work of William Drayton and his organisation Ashoka. This US foundation selects individuals that have new ideas for dealing with urgent societal issues, which have the potential to lead to systemic change. Selected social entrepreneurs receive the benefit of a fellowship and network support so that they can devote their energy fully to their ideas. Research on social entrepreneurship began to emerge in the 1990s, but only took off in the new millennium (Moss, Lumpkin & Short, 2010). As a relatively novel area of research, there is much discussion of definitions and concepts, as well as a need for surveys and data based on specific regions and specific themes (Nicholls, 2006). In this context, the GETIDOS research on social entrepreneurship in the water sector helps provide data on the role of social entrepreneurs for sustainable development and, in the medium term, inputs for an evaluation of the potential of social entrepreneurship for sustainable development. Following a survey of social entrepreneurship organisations that received recognition and support from social investors such as Ashoka, the project selected some of these organisations for in-depth case studies. Since social entrepreneurship is a global phenomenon, cases were selected from diverse geographical and cultural backgrounds. In order to do justice, at least in part, to the complexity of human uses and relations to water, cases were chosen to cover the central dimensions of sustainable water use: drinking water and sanitation, agriculture, industry and river basin management. The selection of case studies from the set of accredited social entrepreneurship initiatives made it possible to examine the general claims and definitions provided by these initiatives more closely. We took their claims with respect to their social mission, their innovations, and the potential for scaling-up and systemic change and restated them as empirical theses to be evaluated in the respective case study. The practical relevance of the approach was explicit, because the studies set out improve the understanding of the role these actors claimed to play in meeting public needs, their potential and, by implication, the attention and support they should receive from public and private supporters.

162  Rafael Ziegler

The practical claim of social entrepreneurs as ‘innovators for the public’ (Ashoka, 2012) is noteworthy in the context of the present discussion. On the one hand, an innovation is by definition unique and has to be novel at least relative to the historical and geographical context. Microcredits were perhaps already known in the Middle Ages, but Muhammad Yunus undoubtedly established the idea in a new context, i.e. the fight against poverty in Bangladesh (and later beyond). On the other hand, a novel idea is typically only considered as an innovation (as opposed to an invention) if it finds a market and if it spreads and gets diffused (Swedberg, 2009). Innovation is not invention, but the carrying out of an idea.Yunus’s innovation was not the discovery of microcredits but their establishment as social practice (with members of women’s groups sharing responsibility for credit management) and, furthermore, not just in one village, but in many villages of Bangladesh and beyond. So how do social entrepreneurship case studies contribute to understanding of the constitutive tension between the unique and the general in transdisciplinary science? The focus of study on a social entrepreneur is on a putatively novel idea and on the novel idea as an innovation. To fulfil this criterion, there must be evidence of replication or some other way of scaling-up the idea (Bloom & Skloot, 2010). Hence there must be some generality, with respect to mechanisms (Seelos & Mair, 2011) or other means of spreading the idea in space and in time. Put differently, a focus on innovation provides a way of dealing with constitutive tension within the framework of a case study. This tension, moreover, is framed in a way that is reminiscent of experimental science, where the possibility of reproducing an experiment supports the validity of the scientific finding. This linkage will be further discussed in the final section of this chapter. The terms ‘replication’ and ‘reproduction’ when applied to social innovation in a setting outside the scientific laboratory call for critical scrutiny. In this context, reproduction is not focused on the behaviour of atoms and molecules but on human beings and their ways of living together. Therefore, why, how and for whom a social entrepreneur qualifies as ‘social’ is clearly an important question. The adjective ‘social’ has a positive connotation, but researchers need to examine the extent to which this connotation is justified and, specifically, in terms of making a contribution to sustainability. In our case study, the capability approach (Nussbaum, 2011) and the conception of strong sustainability (Ott & Döring, 2008) were drawn on to make normativity implied in the term ‘social’ explicit, and to thereby incorporate the previously identified normative feature of sustainability science into the methodological design of the case studies.3 Central capabilities are the doings and beings that people have reason to value for leading a life in dignity (Nussbaum, 2011); for example being in good health and being able to participate in decisions that concern one’s own life. Central capabilities articulate a conception of human dignity that serves as a standard of intra- and intergenerational justice. Meeting this standard also depends on the quality of the natural environment. According to the conception of strong sustainability, the natural environment is the natural capital that provides human

This is the case (study) – so what? 163

beings with services that other types of capital cannot substitute for. At this fundamental level therefore, nature conservation is not a goal that can be traded off against social, or more specifically economic objectives: it is a precondition for meeting them. These two concepts underpin a normative approach that provides ethical orientation for discussing the ‘social’ in social entrepreneurship and the extent to which innovators can be said to contribute to sustainable development. Put differently, the project does not study innovation ‘as such’; it explicitly takes a normative perspective regarding the contribution of these innovations to sustainable development, thereby supplying the evaluative aspect of sustainability case studies. The specification of this normative dimension immediately leads to a theoretical dimension, concerned with general (and in the ethical case, universal) claims about human dignity and its basic importance for justice (Nussbaum, 2000).The claim that sustainable development is a thick concept therefore cannot be equated with an exclusive focus on the unique, singular or particular.4 For example, if a social entrepreneur has a mission of social dignity and claims a right to sanitation for all, especially children, then this claim is not intended as a particular claim about a singular place, but a call for public attention and action wherever there is no dignified access to sanitation. The normative dimension can also involve causal, explanatory claims. If we keep in mind that thick concepts have a descriptive dimension, this point is perhaps not surprising. Amartya Sen, who together with Nussbaum pioneered the capability approach, claims that human capabilities are not just ends but also means of development. The complementary and interrelated aspects of human capabilities gives them a primary importance for human development (Sen, 1999). In his seminal book, Sen explores this thesis via comparative statistical macro-analyses of education levels, health, income and life expectancy of different countries and regions. The focus on social entrepreneurs allows a micro- and meso-scale examination of this thesis in terms of the interrelation of capabilities developed as a result of social innovations and, therefore, the potential facilitating role of social innovators in processes leading towards sustainable development (Ziegler, 2010). One example is public sanitation in Nairobi. Kenyan social entrepreneur David Kuria installs public toilets that provide access to clean and affordable sanitation in urban centres and informal settlements, and seeks to do so in an environmentally sustainable way. He calls his toilets ‘Ikotoilets’ to connote ‘there is a toilet’ in Swahili, and ‘ecological sanitation’ in English. From a sustainability perspective, we can do the following:5 1 Analyse his goal in terms of its implication for central capabilities such as education, health and political and economic participation. Are the toilets designed in such a way that physically handicapped people have access to them? More generally, are they designed in a capabilities-sensitive way? Are resources used and re-used in the Ikotoilets? More generally, are they designed in a sustainability-sensitive way? Such design features help the

164  Rafael Ziegler

target group, which as the example shows ought not to be considered a homogeneous mass, to convert the resource into a capability. 2 Focus on the scaling-up of the public toilets as a social innovation by drawing on the causal hypothesis that capabilities are a primary means (and not just an end) of development due to the complementarity and interrelation of human capabilities. In this sense, we can ask, how do human capabilities interrelate in the design of Ikotoilets? In other words, how does the design ensure that users are willing to pay for dignified access to sanitation as an end, while providing the means in the form of incentives to local managers and staff to maintain quality standards so that their salaries can be paid out of user revenues? In this respect, what, if any, are the differences between different social settings such as market places and slums? This case study approach accordingly yields results for practice and for theory. 1 Practice: The case study approach helps clarify the role of social entrepreneurship initiatives that are promoted by some and contested by others in a more fine-grained way. More ‘fine-grained’ refers here to an analysis in terms of heterogeneous capabilities and aspects of environmental sustainability. This casts a spotlight on issues that need to be taken into account in judging the value of an innovation, an important first step in the context of innovation studies, where innovation is frequently prejudged as ‘good’. At the level of the initiatives themselves, the analysis provides direct feedback to the entrepreneurs in the form of reports by the GETIDOS project that are discussed with them individually as well as in a group with other social entrepreneurs. Epistemically, the case study is one among a network of case studies (to use Krohn’s terminology), which together help to examine both the overall picture regarding the role and potential contribution of social entrepreneurship to sustainable development and, in particular, the claims made in this regard by private social investors and also, increasingly, by governments (Ziegler et al. (2014). 2 Theory: The case study approach allows exploration of a conjecture, in this case one originating from Sen’s ‘thick’ theory of development. The case of the social innovator is particularly intriguing because the innovator’s goal is to spread and implement his or her novel idea widely and this requires not only reproduction and but also adaption of the idea to different contexts. Whereas social scientists typically have no possibility to carry out experiments, here there is an opportunity to learn from social experimenters and real-life experiments that attempt to turn potentialities into capabilities. This responds to calls by critical realists, among others, to understand science as both a scientific and social practice, and to search for contrasting explanatory possibilities in the absence of decisive experiments in the laboratory (Lawson, 1998). Seelos and Mair (2011) have pointed out the relevance of this realist perspective for the study of entrepreneurship and innovation. For example, in this case we were able to explore a thick

This is the case (study) – so what? 165

explanandum (human development as the phenomenon to be explained) in terms of Sen’s explanans (the interrelation of capabilities as a possible explanation) via the Ikotoilet case study. Specifically, the case study allowed context-specific exploration of the nature of human development and Sen’s interrelation-of-capabilities conjecture. The analysis of Ikotoilets in different contexts (urban centres and informal settlements) revealed that ‘indirect’ conversion factors sustaining or hindering the conversion of resources into capabilities were important determinants of success or failure (Ziegler, Benson & Dietsche, 2012). A distinct feature of the capabilities approach is its focus on the internal and external conversion factors (such as personal traits and social norms, respectively) that together determine people’s ability to make effective use of a good or service. For example, public sanitation does not offer real access for all, if it is installed in such a way that it is dangerous or otherwise unacceptable for some potential users. Failure to take account of the heterogeneity of individuals and groups, Sen noted, is to engage in a form of commodity fetishism (Sen, 1999). The term ‘indirect conversion factors’ refers to external social or environmental factors important for the production and reproduction of a good or services. For example, regulatory space as well as physical space are needed for the production and maintenance for toilets. It was found that these indirect factors helped explain why the approach has been a success story in urban centres and a story fraught with difficulties and failures in slums. Paying attention to these indirect conversion factors, therefore, helps avoid ‘explanatory commodity fetishism’ (Ziegler et al., 2012) – and also contributes to the conceptual discussion of development at the level of theory.

Sustainability science and the case study: constitutive tension revisited This chapter has responded to Krohn’s invitation to think further about the constitutive tension between the singular case, which is loaded with specific, contextual features, and the scientific search for regularity that tends to abstract from the specific and contextual.This tension seems to leave us with a threatening choice between useful work of little scientific interest on the one hand, and theoretically brilliant but practically irrelevant work on the other hand. Krohn suggests that the case study approach, as it has evolved from the vocational studies in management, law and medicine, offers a way to fruitfully live with this tension by enhancing the professional experience of researchers based on general conclusions drawn from a network of cases. Section two examined this idea with respect to the sustainability case study in management, one of the vocational fields highlighted by Krohn. While there seems to be plenty of evidence that business case studies do play a role for the education of practitioners along the lines of Krohn’s professional experience thesis, it is less clear that they also play such a role for the professional education of researchers, through the development of scientific knowledge. In addition,

166  Rafael Ziegler

in order to investigate the potential contribution of the case study approach to sustainability science, the meaning of ‘sustainability’ and hence also the specifics of sustainability case studies need to be specified. To this end, section three therefore located Krohn’s constitutive tension in the context of the key features of sustainability science, i.e. normativity, urgency, inclusion of non-scientists and collaboration between natural and social scientists. Section four reflected on the experience of applying one approach for sustainability case studies, which drew on an explicitly normative approach (i.e. the requirement to contribute to the development of capabilities and strong sustainability) so as to meet the requirement for sustainability case studies to contain an element of evaluation. But this move also added a ‘theory-thread’ to the case studies, i.e. theoretical engagement with the capabilities approach and the concept of strong sustainability. As illustrated with the Ikotoilet case, it is this ‘thread’ that ensures a contribution to scientific research beyond the contribution of case for the education of professionals. Making explicit the theory aspects of sustainability case studies highlights multiple presuppositions and hence also possibilities for normative and empirical contestation. Constant work is therefore required to maintain the focus on the central features of sustainability science and thereby keep the case studies recognisable and justifiable as case studies for sustainability science. However, doing so need not lead to a frustrating series of dichotomies: theory vs. practice, the general vs. the particular, subjectivity vs. objectivity and so forth. Rather, it is an invitation to develop and test scientific knowledge in the domain of sustainability, where science is not the isolated and ungrounded adventure of science at sea (Neurath, 1932), but rather rediscovers the port and the needs of the land and its citizens. Visits to the port are notoriously taxing but they are also necessary for a reflective sustainability science. In this spirit, the chapter sketched out one approach for application in a specific empirical domain: social entrepreneurship in the water sector. In this approach, the constitutive tension reappears in a way that suggests a potential for constructive dialogue. From the scientific perspective, the normative and explanatory material from the capability approach, used here to spell out the evaluative aspect of sustainability, provides both categories and conjectures for case study work. The social entrepreneur as experimenter provides the material for thick, normative and empirical case studies. The replication and adaption of the respective approach to different contexts allows the study of a theory-derived thesis (in this case, from Sen’s theory of development as freedom). The idea of a network of cases remains important in the sense that the critical elaboration of Sen’s theory will benefit from many cases. However, the net is woven with a ‘theory-thread’, here the capabilities approach and strong sustainability. This is doubly important in the context of sustainability science: it helps substantiate the scientific knowledge contribution thesis; and as an also normatively explicit theoretical perspective it yields a constructive yet critical perspective on innovation and its potential for scaling-up. For example, in the public sanitation case this critical perspective revealed the importance of indirect conversion factors,

This is the case (study) – so what? 167

which – depending on social and environmental context – might impose limits on the potential for replication and scaling-up. An intriguing feature of case studies that focus on social entrepreneurs is that the ‘discovery’ aspect of case study research (Morgan, 2012) is assumed by the non-scientists, i.e. the social innovators promoting their novel ideas for social change, whereas the role of researchers is to critically accompany this process, by asking questions such as: What exactly is novel here? In what sense is the innovation sustainable? Does it rely on specific mechanisms? The requirement for practical relevance is addressed through the focus on the social mission of the social entrepreneurs and their practical claim to bring about systemic solutions to urgent social and environmental problems. In the example of social entrepreneurship and innovation, the claim to practical relevance is, however, not limited to the specific and the particular. To be sure, each specific social entrepreneurship initiative responds to the particular interests of its stakeholders and target groups. However, as the actions of self-styled innovators, such initiatives already make a claim to practical generality via efforts to implement them in different contexts (replication, scaling-up, diffusion). Moreover, there are social investors and public supporters who make general and practical claims about social entrepreneurship as such. Therefore at this level the interests of science and practice overlap, at least potentially, even though promotional interests and a lack of resources often restrict such a dialogue in practice. The critical promotion of innovation, over and above its economic benefits, is important for sustainable development. Knowledge of innovation should inform public debate regarding how sustainable development can be achieved and the process of moving towards sustainability.This points to a further role of the sustainability case study: to stimulate public debate, by providing a ‘way in’ to understanding the complex topics that need to be addressed in this debate. In our example, the case study also highlights practical and theoretical aspects of sustainability (i.e. public health and the importance of capabilities) that are rarely covered in the mainstream debates. Thus case studies can also provoke a more nuanced discussion of ‘sustainable development’ and critical engagement with established ways of thinking about it. With a view on Krohn’s inspiration from the Harvard case study approach, it is worthwhile noting that there is also a related and yet somewhat different Harvard case study tradition. Case histories were pursued at Harvard from the 1950s onwards with the aim of informing the general public about science and its history (Conant, 1947). The goal of these case histories was to make science less of a ‘black box’, in order to (1) place the general public in a better position to evaluate the organisation and financing of science; and (2) provide inspiration from science for work in other domains (Conant, 1947).6 It seems worthwhile to rediscover this tradition and adapt it to the new context of sustainability case studies, where public understanding and involvement are, if anything, just as important. ‘Thick’ case studies can offer sustainability a face. By uncovering new ideas and practices, they can inspire and provide reasons for action – at the same time

168  Rafael Ziegler

contributing to the identification and evaluation of relevant mechanisms and possibilities for ‘reliable intervention’.7 It is a fallacy to think that attention to the specific and practical implies an exclusive focus on the singular and contextual; the ethical demands of dignity as well as the logic of an innovation are beyond the dichotomy of the particular and the general.

Acknowledgements The work on this paper was funded by the social-ecological research stream of the German Ministry of Education and Research.The paper was written for the workshop ‘Transdisziplinarität für Nachhaltigkeit’ in Sommerhausen 2012. I would like to thank the workshop participants for their comments, Wolfgang Krohn for written feedback, and Andrew Halliday for unusually careful editing.

Notes 1 Philosophy of Science and the Case Study: An exploratory workshop with specific focus on critical realism and the capabilities approach, Berlin, 30 April 2012 (http://geti dos.botanik.uni-greifswald.de/media/Dokumente/WorkshopInvitation.pdf, Accessed: 09/10/2012). 2 This section is based on Ziegler and Ott (2011). 3 A full introduction of this approach and its relation to social entrepreneurship is beyond the scope of this paper. But see chapter 1 of Ziegler et al. (2014). 4 This point is discussed in detail by Kenneth Shockley in his meta-ethical discussion of normative concepts in environmental ethics (Shockley, 2012). 5 For the actual case study, see chapter 2 of Ziegler et al. (2014). 6 With a view to the example of entrepreneurship and innovation given above, it is worthwhile noting that at the same time, this university also pursued a historical approach to entrepreneurship and the role of entrepreneurs in development and economic growth; however, the approach appears to have run into funding problems in the 1960s (Boddice, 2009). 7 This formulation was suggested by Wolfgang Krohn (personal communication).

References Ashoka. (2012). Social entrepreneurship: Building the field. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from www.ashoka.org/social_entrepreneur Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bloom, P. N., & Skloot, E. (2010). Scaling social impact: New thinking. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Boddice, R. (2009). Forgotten antecedents: Entrepreneurship, ideology and history. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 133– 152). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Clark, W., & Dickson, N. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(14), 8059–8061. Conant, J. (1947). Harvard case histories in experimental science (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

This is the case (study) – so what? 169 Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardiner, S. M. (2004). Ethics and global climate change. Ethics, 114(3), 555–600. Geertz, C. (1973).The impact of the concept of culture on the concept of man. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 33–55). New York: Basic Books. Hamschmidt, J., & Pirson, M. (2011). Case studies in social entrepreneurship and sustainability:The oikos collection (Vol. 2). Sheffield: Greenleaf. Jacobs, M. (1999). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity (pp. 21–45). New York: Oxford University Press. Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., . . . Svedin, U. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642. Komiyama, K., & Takeuchi, K. (2006). Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustainability Science, 1(1), 1–6. Krohn, W. (2008). Epistemische Qualitäten transdisziplinärer Forschung. In M. Bergmann & E. Schramm (Eds.), Transdisziplinäre Forschung: Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten (pp. 21–38). Frankfurt: Campus. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lawson, T. (1998). Economic science without experimentation/abstraction. In M. Archer, R. Bashkar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism – essential readings (pp. 144–186). London: Routledge. Morgan, M. (2012). Case studies: One observation or many? Justification or discovery? Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 667–677. Moss, T. W., Lumpkin G. T., & Short, J. C. (2010). Historical foundations of entrepreneurship research. In H. Landström & F. Lohrke (Eds.), Historical foundations of entrepreneurial research (pp. 318–340). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Neurath, O. (1932). Protokollsätze. Erkenntnis, 3, 204–214. Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Ott, K., & Döring, R. (2008). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Marburg: Metropolis. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Routledge. Putnam, H. (2002). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2011). Organizational mechanisms of inclusive growth: A critical realist perspective on scaling. PACS Working Paper DI-0840-E. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/ download/pdf/6346900.pdf Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shockley, K. (2012). Thinning our ethical concepts: Thick evaluative concepts and environmental value. Environmental Ethics, 34(3), 227–246. Swedberg, R. (2009). Schumpeter’s full model of entrepreneurship: economic, non-­economic and social entrepreneurship. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 155–175). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Weber, M. (2011). Methodology of social sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

170  Rafael Ziegler Windelband,W. (1894). Rede zum Antritt des Rektorats der Kaiser-Wilhelms-Universität Starßburg gehalten am 1. Mai 1894. Retrieved February 8, 2017, from www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/ germanica/Chronologie/19Jh/Windelband/win_rede.html WCED -World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Ziegler, R. (2010). Innovations in doing and being: Capability innovations at the intersection of Schumpeterian political economy and human development. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 255–272. Ziegler, R., Benson, K., & Dietsche, C. (2012). Toilet monuments: An investigation of innovation for human development. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(3), 420–440. Ziegler, R., & Ott, K. (2011). The quality of sustainability science: A philosophical perspective. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 7(1), 31–44. Ziegler, R., Partzsch, L., Gebauer, J., Henkel, M., Lodemann J., & Mohaupt, F. (2014). Social entrepreneurship in the water sector: Getting things done sustainably. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

9 Facilitating change Methodologies for collaborative learning with stakeholders Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann

Introduction A key feature of transdisciplinary research is that it departs from ‘real-world’ problems. These are issues of relevance to society, or to certain groups within society; they are thus not a result of an academic discourse alone. This is why in transdisciplinary research, collaboration between members of different scientific disciplines and stakeholders involved in the management and governance of the respective real-world situation is essential for yielding situated knowledge on various levels, including normative orientation, operational facts and functioning, and system- and process-related aspects. Experience in our field of practice, which is development-oriented agricultural research, shows that deeper insight of scientists into problems in food and farming systems does not necessarily increase the likelihood that proposed solutions will be adopted, or problematic practices be changed. Rather, the modality of arriving at a solution influences its chances for adoption. The reason is that the real world actors themselves need to develop the knowledge and capacities that are required to change and improve the situation. Consequently, we propose a research approach that is organised as an iterative and collaborative learning process, in which these actors play a vital role and whose principal point of departure point is their perspectives, values and insights. Instead of giving recommendations or proposing solutions based on external criteria, the collaborative learning approach presented in this chapter aims at collectively gaining deeper insight into the problematic situation and improving the problem-solving capacities of all involved. It transforms the nature of the innovation process and supports system changes from within, while facilitating the integration of relevant outside knowledge. In the following section, we review the emergence of transdisciplinarity as a widely accepted scientific principle in agricultural research. The next section outlines the proposed way of implementing transdisciplinary research in practice based on a collaborative learning process and describes each of the stages in detail. The final section summarises the benefits of the approach.

172  Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann

A short history: transdisciplinarity emerging in international agricultural research Transdisciplinary research aims at developing transformation knowledge towards solutions to real-world problems, as described earlier. It is a research and science principle that can be applied where disciplinary problem definitions fail to capture the issue at stake that aims to transcend borders between distinct systems, perceptions and schools of thought (Godemann, 2008). Agricultural research has in itself a strong implicit notion of contributing to the solution of real-world problems. Historically, the primary goal of agricultural research projects undertaken in the context of international development has been to increase productivity of crops and livestock. Raising agricultural yields used to be seen as the means towards overcoming food shortages and reducing world hunger, as well as uplifting rural economies. Following a classical ‘transfer of technology’ model, innovations were generated in research institutions followed by step-wise transfer into practice. However, the final adoption by smallholder farmers and other target groups often remained unsatisfactory. Understanding grew that one of the main reasons for this was that the technical innovations developed disregarded social, cultural, economic and ecological aspects of the local context in which they were expected to function (Röling, 2009; Biggs, 2007). Furthermore, in some developing countries, the premises and objectives underlying common development strategies were perceived as being imposed on the local societies. This gave rise to more emancipatory approaches to rural development, based on the notion of ‘self-development’, which focused on education and capacity building rather than on transfer of technology. The underlying assumption is that by reflecting on and questioning their situation, rural people will be empowered to develop their own priorities and actions for improving their lives (Goussault, 1968; GRAAP, 1985). The influential work of Paulo Freire (1973), who emphasised the dialogical nature of learning processes and established the view of the learner as an (active) co-creator of knowledge in the context of education for development in post-colonial societies, points in the same direction. Farmers are in fact seldom passive ‘adopters’ of technologies. Rather, many farmers are eager to acquire new knowledge, constantly experiment with new emerging options, and vary and adapt management practices towards the outcomes they aim to achieve. Observations of farmer experimentation and learning about their environmental knowledge, as described for example by Richards (1985, 1986), led to increased recognition of farmers’ and communities’ own capacities for research and innovation. Moreover, the limited availability and non-sustainable use of natural resources emerged as an issue of global importance. In this respect, an important turning point was the publication of the influential scientific report to the Club of Rome called ‘Limits to Growth’ (Meadows, Meadows, Randers & Behrens, 1972). The ecological movement of the 1980s expressed critical views on

Facilitating change 173

prevailing agricultural practices geared towards intensification with regard to their demand on natural resources and the effects on the environment. Critics proposed more sustainable alternatives (Kotschi & Adelhelm, 1984), and also a new appraisal of the potential of low external-input farming systems (Egger, 1990; Egger & Rudolph, 1992; Reijntjes, Haverkort & Waters-Bayer, 1992). In the 1980s, a group within the international agricultural research community developed the Farming Systems Research (FSR) approach that focused on the farming system as a whole – including the interaction of its human and technical components (Gilbert, Norman & Winch, 1980). The aim was thus “to increase the productivity of the farming system in the context of the entire range of private and societal goals, given the constraints and potentials of the existing farming system” (Gilbert et al., 1980, p. 17). The methodological approach of FSR is based on two important insights: First, the context in which production takes place is important for the state of the system and the success of proposed measures for improvement. Second, farmers have an active role within the production system; hence their views of problems and constraints are the most relevant for understanding the system and identification of appropriate interventions (Hildebrand & Waugh, 1986). For the first time, attention was given to the farmers’ own objectives and ideas for improving their farming system, as well as to production constraints, including both physical and socioeconomic aspects. In order to obtain a system perspective, interdisciplinary collaboration was sought within the research team (Gilbert et al., 1980). A farming systems perspective also takes into consideration the close links between farm and farm household that exist in most smallholder systems.When making decisions, a farm household takes account not only of production, but also consumption considerations. Gendered distribution of tasks, access to resources, and distribution of production outcomes emerged as an important issue for understanding farmers’ decision-making (see also Pierce-Colfer, 1991). Chambers, Pacey and Thrupp (1989) summarised important criticisms of the intensification model of agricultural research and development and encapsulated the emerging alternative vision in the slogan Farmers First! Chambers and his co-authors argued that the idea of transferring technologies that had been shown to raise production under high-input conditions to farmers in riskprone environments that are characterised by high variability and heterogeneity had largely failed.The authors emphasised the capacities of smallholder farmers to constantly adapt their farming systems and, consequently, called for the broad participation of farmers in agricultural research and technology development. Farmer participation was a hotly debated topic in the international agricultural research community throughout the 1990s.The debate motivated research into indigenous, farmers’ and local people’s agricultural knowledge and, subsequently, comparative analysis of knowledge systems, including scientific knowledge, to identify their similarities and differences. It was acknowledged and increasingly conceptualised that different types of knowledge existed in different knowledge communities, each of which could contribute to finding

174  Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann

solutions to the problems relating to farming systems and rural livelihoods. Examples for the complementarities of the knowledge held by agricultural scientists and farmers, respectively, are given in Table 9.1. The 1990s were a highly experimental phase, in which participatory agricultural research methodology was rapidly developed and tested.The new methodologies incorporated both new and existing knowledge from other disciplines (including human psychology, anthropology, social science and adult education) concerned with issues of individual and collective action and societal change. Pretty and Chambers (1993) summarised the participatory approaches and practices that emerged in various countries and institutional settings around that time and found that they shared the following features: incorporation of multiple perspectives in a systematic learning process, based on a defined methodology focusing on group-based activities and leading to action, with external experts mainly being involved as facilitators of the joint learning process. The rapidly growing access to the internet by researchers and development practitioners alike supported the exchange of knowledge and experience on a global scale, including facilitated discussions on best practices, ethics and equity issues. An important platform was provided by the ‘Systemwide Program for Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation’ (PRGA) of the CGIAR,1 which aimed at developing and promoting methods and organisational approaches for gender-sensitive participatory research on plant breeding and on management of crops and natural resources. This programme, based at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Cali, Colombia, was established in 1997 and discontinued in 2010 (see Alvarez et al., 2010). In order to better include farmers’ and other local actors’ knowledge and views in the research process, dialogue and communication tools were developed to enable knowledge sharing across different groups. These tools, first

Table 9.1 Complementarity of farmers’ and scientists’ knowledge (Hoffmann et al., 2007, modified) Scientists

Farmers

Do not usually know the local context within which an innovation has to work Tend to reduce complexity via experimental designs in order to clearly identify relevant cause-effect relations

Know the local context, including its sociocultural, economic and physical aspects Work under complex conditions and observe, for example, many fields or large herds of livestock under variable conditions Usually take observations at one location over longer time periods (longitudinal case study) Have access to local information networks (mainly based on oral communication)

Usually take observations at various test sites over short time periods (crosssectional study) Have access to information from databases and libraries worldwide (mainly in written form)

Facilitating change 175

developed under the mantle of the approach known as participatory rural appraisal (PRA; see, e.g. Schönhuth & Kievelitz, 1994) often make use of visualisation, for instance by creating maps or timelines that serve as a basis for the exploration of the topic. These tools are now widely accepted and commonly used in international agricultural research projects. Approaches that involve farmers more actively in the process of developing technical or other solutions to identified problems are known, for example, as participatory technology development (PTD) and participatory learning and action (PLA). These actor-oriented approaches recognise that change in a system will only happen if the relevant actors change their practices. Actors are likely to change their action because of external motivations (e.g. as a result of incentives and policy) or because of internal motivation (e.g. by gaining new insight, experience and understanding in a learning process). According to Kolb (1984), experiential learning takes place in a cycle of action, experience and reflection, resulting in cognitive change that can lead to change in action in the following cycle. Monitoring and evaluating the experience enhances this learning cycle. Approaches for facilitating experiential learning of actors, mainly PTD, PLA and collaborative learning, have of late found their way into developmentoriented agricultural research projects (Sanginga, Waters-Bayer, Kaaria, Njuki & Wettasinha, 2009; Restrepo, Lelea, Christinck, Hülsebusch & Kaufmann, 2014). In collaborative learning, farmers’ participation in the process of creating new knowledge is thus based on their role as practitioners and non-academic professionals. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (2016) presents the term ‘practitioner’ as “a person who regularly does an activity that requires skill or practice”. Hence, practitioners in farming and food systems are actors whose professional activity requires practical skills; they include, for example, farmers, food processors and traders. They contribute contextual and practice-oriented knowledge and skills to the research process that is complementary to those of researchers (see Table 9.1).This is different to the ways in which non-academics are sometimes included in ‘weaker’ approaches to transdisciplinary research, e.g. as ‘lay persons’ or ‘active citizens’ who are involved not to provide professional knowledge, but to give their perspective as citizens (see Lang et al., 2012). To summarise, advances in research methodologies for development-oriented agricultural research have led to important innovations that could be relevant for transdisciplinary research for sustainability. These innovations include a systems perspective (requiring interdisciplinary collaboration), a focus on actors, cooperation and dialogue between researchers and practitioners, and addressing processes of change in the methodological design of research projects.

Transdisciplinary research as a collaborative learning process Transdisciplinary research aims to contribute to the solution of problems linked to sustainability issues, acknowledging the complex nature of social ecological systems (Stokols, Perez Lejano & Hipp, 2013). Interdisciplinary research teams

176  Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann

and stakeholder participation are the means applied in order to widen perspectives on problem definition and problem solving. Experience in our field of practice has shown that the rate of diffusion or adoption of an innovation is determined by its characteristics as perceived by the real-world actors.Together these actors make up a human activity system (Checkland, 1981), i.e. a group of individuals and/or institutions that are jointly engaged in activities and problem solving in order to accomplish determined goals. Thus, we propose a methodology to implement transdisciplinary research as a collaborative learning process, taking its point of departure mainly from the perspectives, values and insights of actors working in the agricultural activity system that is the focus of the research. The process comprises the following steps: 1 Stakeholder analysis and identification of participants based on a multi-perspective assessment, ensuring that no important group or institution is ignored. 2 Institutionalisation of the collaboration, i.e. formation of groups and procedures through which the collaborative learning process is to be implemented. 3 Situation and problem analysis in order to arrive at a joint understanding of the problem situation, including current trends of change and important driving factors. 4 Agreement on goals and priorities in order to find common ground and provide orientation for further activities. 5 Learning and action to develop solutions or improved practices, by means of joint experiments, farmer-to-farmer exchange, case studies to fill information gaps, assessment of new information, and training in the use of new technologies and/or application of new practices. 6 Testing of prototypes, i.e. proposed new technologies and/or practices, to gain practical experience and further refine possible solutions. 7 Participatory monitoring and evaluation, i.e. joint reflection on the state of the learning process and the relevance of the options explored. Whereas one or several of these steps may occasionally be applied in ­agricultural research projects, our proposal follows them systematically and hence implements the entire research as a collaborative learning process. This approach is well matched with the aims of transdisciplinary research, since it places an emphasis on knowledge integration and on the co-creation of knowledge that is relevant for action. Collaborative learning as conceptualised by Restrepo et al. (2014), adapted from Engeström (1987), is based on four phases: (1) establishing the collaboration, (2) dialogue, (3) discovery and (4) application of new knowledge. In comparison with our approach, establishing the ­collaboration includes stakeholder analysis and identification of participants (Step 1), and institutionalisation of the cooperation (Step 2). During the process of dialogue, diverse knowledge held by different actors is integrated to arrive at a joint understanding of problems and constraints. By questioning, clarifying contradictions and debating, a more comprehensive understanding

Facilitating change 177

is developed (Step 3). Furthermore, tacit knowledge embedded in action or ‘ways of doing’ may be externalised, by means of practical demonstrations, exchange visits and so forth (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Goals and priorities will depend on the different perspectives and frames of reference (Mezirow, 1997, 2000) of the various participants, and thus require prior agreement (Step 4). The process of discovery is intended to resolve possible conflicting views and to fill knowledge gaps (Step 5). It may include testing ideas in order to gain new experience, with or without conducting a trial experiment; or analysing new information and drawing conclusions regarding what works or needs to be done differently. This process aims at creating new knowledge and coming up with suggestions for new or improved processes or activities. The ­collaboration ideally enables participants together to create new knowledge that goes beyond what each of them could have achieved individually. Application of new knowledge involves the testing of emerging individual or collective actions in the form of prototypes or pilot-scale activities (Step 6), followed by joint evaluation (Step 7) in relation to the goals and priorities set, so that they can be consolidated into a more broadly recognised collective activity. The practical application is important as it facilitates the process of embedding new knowledge into contextualised practices, processes and forms of organisation. Furthermore, only by applying the knowledge can actors develop the necessary skills and other capabilities for effective transformation of the problem situation or issue addressed. In the remainder of this section we provide examples of how each of these steps can be implemented in transdisciplinary agricultural research. Step 1: stakeholder analysis and identification of participants

Stakeholders are commonly defined as those individuals or institutions who can either influence a situation by their activities, or who may be affected indirectly by changes or outcomes of a project (Mitchell, Agle & Wood, 1997). A stakeholder analysis aims to (1) identify the relevant stakeholders, and (2) describe their relationship or connection to the problem or issue to be tackled in the collaborative learning process. It further examines the characteristics of different stakeholder groups with regard to their roles and responsibilities, aims and interests, as well as their decision-making power and influence over the situation under study (Thomas & Wehinger, 2009). A stakeholder analysis aims to classify the actors in the particular human activity system that the research focuses on into various categories, based on an assessment of the power, interest, resources, knowledge and skills that could contribute to finding solutions to the problem or issue addressed. To avoid bias and exclusion, stakeholder analysis should be done in a participatory way, by involving potential stakeholders from the outset (Lelea, Roba, Christinck & Kaufmann, 2014; Lelea, Roba, Christinck & Kaufmann., 2016). The research participants are then identified based on the results of the stakeholder analysis, and hence represent relevant actors.

178  Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann

Box 9.1  Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder analysis for actor-oriented transdisciplinary research should depart from identifying actors in the particular activity system the research focuses on. For example, all those who ‘have their hands’ on a particular product in a supply chain, who define rules and regulations (e.g. for market access), or provide support (e.g. information or capacity building). Stakeholders are those among the identified actors who are concerned by the particular problem or issue that will be addressed, or have knowledge, interest, resources and skills to facilitate change in this regard. (Lelea et al., 2014)

A stakeholder analysis can start out by retrieving information and publications on the situation under study (e.g. on the internet and in newspapers) in order to identify individuals and institutions working in that area, and interviewing some of the actors identified. The relative importance of the different stakeholders and their interactions can be determined through group-based activities, supported by visual tools, such as Venn diagrams, NetMaps, and a range of other diagrams and matrices (Lelea et al., 2014; Schiffer, 2007; Zimmermann & Maennling, 2007). Women and men may perceive different individuals or institutions as ‘relevant’ stakeholders, or they may make different judgements on their influence and power. Thus, the diversity of perspectives explored in the collaborative process may be an outcome in itself. The stakeholder analysis is an important precondition for the subsequent steps, especially the design of activities addressing various stakeholder groups. Step 2: institutionalisation of the collaboration

In order to assign active roles to participants and share decision-making power in the collaborative learning process, it is important to institutionalise the collaboration with the selected stakeholders, for example by forming groups or committees. Otherwise, participation of individuals can vary quite a lot, and it may be difficult to ensure that relevant stakeholder groups are represented in a meaningful way and over the lifetime of the project. Hence, institutionalisation aims to create a space for the collaborative learning process and supports sustainability; it may take various forms depending on the topic and scope, as well as the stakeholders’ prior experience of working in groups and collaborative activities. In many cases, agricultural researchers may find that there is no existing organisation in a village, or that there are competing groups, or that not all stakeholders are adequately represented.Thus, it can be necessary to create new

Facilitating change 179

institutions specifically for the research project. If there is a danger of certain groups being excluded, an institutional structure with appropriate checks and balances may be required (Classen et al., 2008). For example, it could be agreed that all groups should be represented in the executive committee or board of the organisation that is responsible for local implementation of the research; or that a percentage of seats in the governing body should be reserved for disadvantaged groups. A wide variety of such organisational arrangements have been developed to help ensure that all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in the project on an equal basis. The choice of measure(s) to apply will depend on specific features of the problem or situation of interest. When stakeholders have roles and responsibilities in the collaborative process, arrangements should likewise be made to ensure that all partners benefit from the collaboration. This includes consideration of (1) who obtains means or funds, and (2) who provides (which) means or funds (Novy, Beinstein & Voßemer, 2008). It is also advisable to establish procedures for future decisionmaking that could affect control over benefits, project outcomes and so forth. The institutionalisation of the collaboration is thus a precondition for giving stakeholders access to or a share in decision-making power over the use of funds and resources required for the implementation of the research project. Moreover, continuous commitment to the research process is facilitated if stakeholders have a defined and transparent role in it (Restrepo et al., 2014; Restrepo, Lelea & Kaufmann, 2016a). A well-known model for institutionalising participatory research is provided by the local agricultural research committees (CIALs2) set up by CIAT in South and Central America. CIALs are informal groups that are open to everybody and work on local scale (i.e. in one village), in most cases supported by scientists

Box 9.2  Institutionalising collaboration In Nakuru County, Kenya, small-scale dairy farmer groups were invited by researchers to apply for farmer-managed innovation funds. The funds were directed at learning about and experimenting on key constraints in the farmers’ agricultural system, i.e. to stimulate farmer-led experimentation without individual farmers bearing the financial risk of experimentation. Two groups were selected and established their own organisational structures for implementing the research activities, including for example distribution of functions and responsibilities, control over funds, thematic subgroups working on issues of specific interest to them and incentives for regularly attending meetings. (Restrepo et al., 2015; Restrepo et al., 2016a)

180  Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann

or local advisers. By 2002, approximately 275 CIALs existed in five countries of South and Central America, most of them working on participatory plant breeding or variety evaluation, as well as on other farming practices, such as fertiliser application and mixed cropping (Ashby et al., 1995; Braun, Thiele & Fernandez, 2000; Humphries, Gallardo, Jimenez & Siera, 2005). At a regional scale, multi-stakeholder or innovation platforms are commonly established to institutionalise representation and engagement of stakeholders from various sectors in agricultural research and development and/or regional planning.To be functional, the members should jointly agree on their plans and operational modes in the initial phase (Adelkunle & Fatunbi, 2012). Furthermore, local community-based organisations (CBOs) can be founded specifically for the purpose of doing collaborative research, based on the legislation of the country concerned. This has the advantage that funds and responsibilities can more easily be a transferred to such groups, based on their status as legal entities. Depending on the issue addressed and the intended scale, existing associations or cooperatives of farmers, traders, food processors and so forth can also be engaged as research partners. Step 3: situation and problem analysis

It is a common experience that the way a problem is defined may vary among individuals and groups. As far as scientists are concerned, problem definition usually follows disciplinary lines, and methods for facilitating interdisciplinary dialogue have been established and applied. However, it is generally more challenging to include the perspectives of non-academic stakeholders in this process, particularly farmers in developing countries and their market partners. One of the reasons is that causes and effects of problems may be perceived very differently by people whose thinking is grounded in different social and cultural systems (Werner, Padmanabhan & Christinck, 2013). Situation analysis usually pursues multiple aims, including: (1) learning about different stakeholders’ views of the problem, (2) arriving at a joint/shared understanding of the problem or situation addressed and (3) learning about current trends of change and important driving factors. The role of the researchers is, in the first place, to facilitate and document the process. How do the various actors describe the current situation? Which problems are perceived? Can the different views be understood? Are there similarities and in which respects do the views differ? Which opportunities are seen? Which additional information can be obtained from available data, reports, maps and so forth? (Thomas & Wehinger, 2009). Facilitated group discussions are followed-up by more specific and actionbased tools in order to uncover implicit knowledge that is less easily communicated. Commonly used tools include thematic walks and visual tools such as mapping exercises; as well as historical timelines, which may reveal driving factors influencing the current situation or likely to influence future ones (Christinck, Dhamotharan & Weltzien, 2005; Schönhuth & Kievelitz, 1994).

Facilitating change 181

Box 9.3  Situation and problem analysis To complement classical visual methods, such as seasonal or daily routine calendars, innovative tools, such as digital photography and participatory video, can be used. For example, audiovisual recording with a miniature video camera worn at eye-level by the person who milked the cows was used to document farmers’ dairy-related activities as a basis for learning about their rationales in doing these activities. This documentation was followed by group discussions using the videos as a stimulus in order to gain an in-depth understanding of problems and constraints farmers aim to address by means of certain actions or control mechanisms. (Restrepo et al., 2016b)

SWOT analysis (i.e. the assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as shown by Kaushik, 2009) can be applied in order to jointly identify opportunities for change and problem(s) to be addressed, and to initiate the next step in the collective learning cycle. SWOT analysis is a strategic planning tool that facilitates moving from situation analysis to goal setting. Step 4: agreement on goals and priorities

Setting priorities is an important task in any research program, as time and resources are usually limited and should be allocated according to rational criteria. In disciplinary research projects, the relevant models, criteria and methods used for priority setting may be well established and not regularly questioned. However, if many stakeholders and researchers from various disciplines are involved, each of them may have their own individual goals, depending, for example, on the history and background of institutions and the professional expertise of those involved. Thus, methodologies are needed for clarifying the goals in such a way that they become common goals that can serve as guiding principles for priority setting as the project evolves. Commonly, facilitated discussions are held to agree on goals and criteria for priority setting. One option for facilitating such a meeting would be to ask the participants representing one stakeholder group or institution to prepare a short presentation on their perspective regarding the research issue and their proposed research goals. In this way, a preliminary list of goals could be assembled on a board or wall for further discussion. Another way would be to start with an open discussion or brainstorming session and to document the proposed goals on the board. There should then be time to discuss the goals in more detail and clarify what they imply.Where possible, over-general goals should be made more specific and consensus reached around conflicting goals.

182  Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann

Box 9.4  Agreement on goals and priorities Instead of just giving oral presentations, participants can be asked to use participatory video to come up with proposals and suggest priority areas for the intended research. An important advantage is that illiterate people can equally contribute and that the process of making a video proposal is necessarily based on prior agreements of the participants. Planning the shooting and discussion while doing it helps increase the level of reflection among all involved. (Restrepo et al., 2016a)

Ranking and scoring exercises can further help to set priorities among goals. In such exercises, the options to be assessed are represented in written form or visualised in an appropriate manner. The participants are then asked to put them in an order showing their importance (ranking), or to assign a number of counters to each alternative according to their relative importance (scoring). Such tools, if applied, should be used as a starting point for deeper discussion rather than a final result. For example, discussing the reasons for different priorities set by various stakeholders can reveal many important details about the stakeholders’ perspectives, motivation and their preferred entry points for subsequent project activities. It is often not possible to anticipate all the options that may come up in the course of the research process. Priority setting should, therefore, be regarded as a progressive and iterative process that is part of the regular project work, not only in the planning phase (Weltzien & Christinck, 2009). It is as such closely linked with monitoring and evaluation, and can be conceptualised as part of the learning cycle, providing the goals used for development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) system for application in a later phase (see below). Step 5: learning and action to develop solutions or improved activities

There are several reasons for including practical action in a research process. First, some alternative practices cannot be adequately explored ‘theoretically’. Action research was first introduced as a method to explore options that require an action to be planned and realised before the outcomes can be evaluated (Lewin, 1946); the concept has inspired both researchers and practitioners working on social change in groups, companies and organisations since then. Furthermore, practical action not only requires knowledge about the pros and cons of a current (problematic) and a future (improved) situation; it also requires an understanding of the process of change. Stakeholders need to be able to envisage and gradually acquire the means, resources and capacities that

Facilitating change 183

will enable change from one situation to another. Thus, the key to transformation knowledge is first and foremost encoded in practical action, and can be made explicit through communication and reflection. Nonaka &Takeuchi (1995) described the benefit of externalising implicit (tacit) knowledge for the process of innovation. Tacit knowledge is actionoriented knowledge that is derived from experience; it is shared by socialisation in a specific professional field, or field of action, and mostly diffused through helping and assisting in accomplishing practical tasks (Polanyi, 1966; Hoffmann, Gerster-Bentaya, Christinck & Lemma, 2009). The knowledge held by farmers is a highly specialised type of (implicit) expert knowledge, based on conceptual approaches and organisational structures that are different to those underpinning scientific knowledge. The externalisation and sharing of tacit knowledge in the research process can be facilitated by working with boundary objects; these are either real or abstract objects familiar to different social groups involved in the project, but conceptualised, understood or acted upon by them in different ways (Star & Griesemer, 1989). By observing how different stakeholders use these objects, and by describing and jointly assessing the outcomes, the tacit knowledge involved can to some extent be made explicit. In the context of agricultural research, plants, animals or soil can serve as boundary objects (Stuiver, 2011), but also new materials, technologies or tools. Step 6: testing of prototypes

In the course of the research process, innovations can occur at different levels, i.e. new technological options, newly developed or altered practices, or pioneering organisational structures. Introducing these ‘prototypes’ for testing on a larger scale (beyond the members of the research group) helps to assess their relevance and scope, and to further adapt and improve them. There are many methodological options for organising and assessing the testing of such innovations at a pilot scale, among which farmer-to-farmer methods are quite common in agricultural research projects. For example, an innovation can be presented by a farmer to other farmers on agricultural fairs or in organised meetings or field days; videos have also been used successfully for such presentations (see Fry, Chapter 6). Feedback from participants, either given directly after the presentation or after testing the innovation in their own environment, can then be documented and summarised (Canger, Christinck & Kaufmann, 2013). The Community Biodiversity Management Programme in South Asia, coordinated by LI-BIRD,3 an NGO based in Nepal, aimed at testing innovations developed in previous projects at a larger scale. The community biodiversity management (CBM) approach, which includes activities such as organising seed exchange, establishing home gardens, plant breeding by farmers, value addition (e.g. through post-harvest processing), and diversity fairs (see De Boef, Subedi, Peroni, Thijssen & O’Keeffe, 2013), was introduced on 29 sites across four countries (Nepal, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh).

184  Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann

Technical and organisational support was provided to the participating communities by one partner organisation per country. The communities could develop their own priorities relating to agro-biodiversity management, crop improvement and seed diffusion based on the previously developed options; they generated funds and monitored and evaluated the outcomes (Development Fund, 2012). Step 7: participatory monitoring and evaluation

Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) systems are implemented in transdisciplinary research projects in order to assess how well the tested solutions help resolve the problem situation. However, instead of just critically assessing the results obtained, PM&E is also an integral component of the collaborative learning approach. Knowledge is created experientially, i.e. in the form of a transformation of personal experiences (Kolb, 1984). Learning thus takes place in a continuous loop between action and reflection. Monitoring is the systematic assessment of experiences resulting from concrete actions. In a subsequent step, evaluation is the systematic reflection on the results of this assessment. PM&E systems can thus help to generate cognitive changes, from which new actions can result. A PM&E system is typically managed by the real-world actors, e.g. farmers, based on a set of indicators they develop. It is important that the participants are able to use the PM&E system by themselves and that it becomes part of their regular activities. They have to decide which information to collect so that it is useful in helping them to achieve their goals. To enhance learning, it is important that PM&E fosters reflection and that the evaluation leads to new knowledge. Hence, PM&E helps assess the outcomes of the problem

Box 9.5  Participatory monitoring and evaluation PM&E can take many different forms and does not necessarily have to result in long lists of indicators that have to be worked down during meetings. Small-scale dairy producer groups in Kenya, for example, decided to form a patrol team to observe if the activities planned and implemented are leading towards the common goal. The information collected by the patrol team is analysed and then shared during general meetings. Individual members use the results to develop their individual planning. The monitoring and evaluation efforts also create a valuable additional opportunity for members to share their experiences and reflect on the effectiveness of various activities. (Restrepo et al., 2015)

Facilitating change 185

solving activities, to modify or further improve them, or to identify alternatives if necessary (Nicetic & Van de Fliert, 2014; Restrepo, Levy, Kaufmann, 2012; Restrepo et al., 2014; Restrepo, Ndung’u, Mwaura, Lelea & Kaufmann, 2015).

Benefits of the collaborative learning approach In the context of transdisciplinary research for sustainability, the collaborative learning approach, if properly designed and implemented, has the potential to bring various benefits for researchers and practitioners alike. Most importantly, compared to traditional scientific research approaches, collaborative learning helps identify options for action that are effective and applicable according to the actors’ own understanding. These options can include newly developed technologies, but also innovative forms of collaboration or improved policies. An important side effect is that enhanced problem-solving capacities and social capital gained in the course of the collaborative learning process can also help address future challenges related to issues beyond the original research topic. Classen et al. (2008) observed, for example, that women who had been involved in participatory plant breeding in Honduras subsequently engaged in other groups and were more able to defend their interests in dealing with official bodies. The authors conclude that, in a rural development context, the value of capacity building via participatory research, though difficult to quantify, may exceed that of the technological options developed. Improving problemsolving capacity is particularly important in agricultural production environments where conditions are highly variable (Johnson, Lilja & Ashby, 2003). Marginalisation and social exclusion of individuals or groups is recognised as a common feature of poverty that can be viewed as a complex interplay of ecological, economic, social and political factors (Sen, 1999; Conning & Kevane, 2002). Having access to nutrition, clothing and a roof over one’s head is not enough; a person also needs to be able to perform social functions and lead an active life in society. Inequality in this respect is often deeply rooted in societies and affects the ways in which their members are able to access natural resources or change their current conditions. Development-oriented agricultural research very commonly addresses situations where poverty and marginalisation prevail. By implementing research as a joint learning process, spaces are created where new forms of collaboration between stakeholders can be established with a low risk for all involved. In the course of undertaking collaborative research, societal rules that impede interaction among social groups become less important and this provides the basis for improved cooperation in the future. Researchers working in a rural development context commonly experience that proposed technical solutions are not adopted by farmers or other target groups. By carefully observing the activities of practitioners in the context of collaborative research, and assessing and gradually understanding goals and rules on which these actions are based (also called ‘second order observation’), they can gain a deeper understanding of the research topic and its wider context,

186  Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann

thereby enhancing their professional expertise (Kaufmann, 2011; Restrepo, Lelea & Kaufmann, 2016b). By contributing their professional expertise to a joint learning process, researchers can gain esteem and recognition. The measure of ‘success’ is that learning should lead to the implementation of appropriate measures and stimulate a broader process of innovation and change. The extent to which the enthusiasm of people working jointly in transdisciplinary research projects is triggered, maintained or suppressed depends largely on the ways the research is implemented. Restrepo et al. (2016a) found that enthusiasm played a role throughout the four collaborative learning phases, i.e. establishing the collaboration, dialogue, discovery and application. They conclude that “democratised research relationships spark enthusiasm during the steps of establishing the cooperation and dialogue, while a sense of progress and success maintained it during the steps of discovery and application of new knowledge” (Restrepo et al., 2016a, p. 12). In our fields of research practice, concepts and methods of researchers have evolved over the last decades, in part as a result of collaborative learning. In plant breeding, for instance, scientific knowledge on adaptation of plant populations to drought and risk-prone environments has advanced markedly through the study of farmers’ own selection practices and assessment of the performance of varieties derived from them. The scientific understanding of how to appropriately ‘design’ varieties for such conditions, and of the role agro-biodiversity plays in this context, has been influenced by these newly acquired insights (see also Haussmann et al., 2012). Instead of giving recommendations or proposing solutions, the collaborative learning approach aims at improving the problem-solving capacities of all involved. It transforms the nature of the innovation process and supports system changes from within, while facilitating the integration of relevant outside knowledge (Kaufmann, 2007). It further implies a different understanding of the role of researchers, as innovations in the system are based on insights into its ways of functioning, instead of applying external criteria to identify ‘desirable’ developments or changes. The focus of scientists involved in this type of research is on facilitating and supporting the collaborative learning approach, suggesting additional options, deepening their understanding of the operational functioning of the system and its context, and conceptualising the process and its outcomes to inform future research activities. However, constraints exist with regard to the design and feasibility of such projects in the present research system, which largely works on the basis of proposals set up by researchers that are expected to specify in advance what will be done, in which way, by whom and what the outcomes will be. Hence, research for sustainable agricultural development requires project funding and evaluation criteria that specifically aim to support collaborative learning by relevant actors, leading to systemic change. In practical terms this could imply, for example, designing agricultural research projects as iterative processes, so that

Facilitating change 187

non-academic stakeholders can co-create procedures, experiments and outcomes as the project evolves. From the perspective of transdisciplinary research for sustainability, particular strengths of the proposed research methodology are the recognition of complementary knowledge and skills of researchers and practitioners, and the builtin link to action through joint experimentation. Transformation knowledge, a core concept of transdisciplinary research, thus grows from the observation of changing actions and practices that evolve on an experimental scale in the course of the research project, and particularly from a deeper understanding of the rules on which these actions and practices are based.

Notes 1 Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (www.cgiar.org). 2 Comités de Investigación Agrícola Local. 3 Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD).

References Adelkunle,A. A., & Fatunbi,A. O. (2012).Approaches for setting-up multi-stakeholder platforms for agricultural research and development. World Applied Sciences Journal, 16(7), 981–988. Alvarez, S., Staiger-Rivas, S., Tehelen, K., Ximena Garcia, C., Manners, G., & BiermayrJenzano, P. (2010). PRGA program. Demand analysis report: Gender-responsive participatory research. CIAT Working Document No. 215. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. Ashby, J. A., Gracia, T., del Guerrero, M. P., Quiros, C. A., Roa, J. L., & Beltran, J. A. (1995). Institutionalising farmer participation in adaptive technology testing with the CIAL. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 57. London: ODI. Biggs, S. (2007). Building on the positive: An actor innovation systems approach to finding and promoting pro-poor natural resources institutional and technical innovations. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 6, 144–164. Braun, A. R., Thiele, G., & Fernandez, M. (2000). Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: Complementary platforms for integrated decision-making in sustainable agriculture. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 105. London: ODI. Canger, V., Christinck, A., & Kaufmann, B. (2013). Pastoralists’ perceptions on local innovations. In Agricultural development within the rural-urban continuum. Proceedings of Deutscher Tropentag, September 17–19, 2013, University of Hohenheim. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from www.tropentag.de/2013/proceedings/node272.html Chambers, R., Pacey, A., & Thrupp, L. A. (1989). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. London: Practical Action. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Christinck, A., Dhamotharan, M., & Weltzien, E. (2005). Characterizing the production system and its anticipated changes with farmers. In A. Christinck, E.Weltzien, & V. Hoffmann, Setting breeding objectives and developing seed systems with farmers: A handbook for practical use in participatory plant breeding projects (pp. 41–63). Weikersheim: Margraf. Classen, L., Humphries, S., Fitzsimons, J., Kaaria, S., Jímenez, J., Siera, F., & Gallardo, O. (2008). Opening participatory spaces for the most marginal: Learning from collective action in the Honduran Hillsides. World Development, 36(11), 2402–2420.

188  Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann Conning, J., & Kevane, M. (2002). Community-based targeting mechanisms for social safety nets: A critical review. World Development, 30(3), 375–394. De Boef, W. S., Subedi, A., Peroni, N., Thijssen, M., & O’Keeffe, E. (2013). Community biodiversity management: Promoting resilience and the conservation of plant genetic resources. New York: Routledge. Development Fund. (2012), Community-based biodiversity management – South Asia Programme (CBM-SA): Evaluation report. Oslo: Norwegian Development Fund. Egger, K. (1990).Traditionelle Agroforstsysteme, ihre Bedeutung für die Entwicklung ökologischer Landnutzungsformen in den Tropen. Mainzer Geographische Studien, 34, 463–484. Egger, K., & Rudolph, S. (1992). Der standortgerechte Landbau: Potential einer ökologischen Entwicklungsstrategie. In W. Hein (Ed.), Umweltorientierte Entwicklungspolitik (pp. 391–412). Hamburg: Schriften des Deutschen Übersee-Instituts. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/Engestrom/ expanding/ch1.htm Freire, P. (1973). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gilbert, E. H., Norman, D. W., & Winch, F. E. (1980). Farming systems research: A critical appraisal. Rural Development Paper No. 6. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Godemann, J. (2008). Knowledge integration: A key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation. Environmental Education Research, 14(6), 625–641. Goussault,Y. (1968). Rural “animation” and popular participation in French-speaking black Africa. International Labour Review, 525–550. GRAAP. (1985). Pour une pédagogie de l’autopromotion. Groupe de Recherche et d’Appui pour l’Autopromotion Paysanne (GRAAP). Burkina Faso: Bobo-Dioulasso. Haussmann, B.I.G., Rattunde, H. F., Weltzien-Rattunde, E., Traoré, P.S.C., vom Brocke, K., & Parzies, H. (2012). Breeding strategies for adaptation of pearl millet and sorghum to climate variability and change in West Africa. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 198(5), 327–339. Hildebrand, P. E., & Waugh, R. K. (1986). Farming systems research and development. In P. E. Hildebrand (Ed.), Perspectives on farming systems research and extension (pp. 12–16). Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Hoffmann,V., Gerster-Bentaya, M., Christinck, A., & Lemma, M. (Eds.). (2009). Rural extension:Volume 1: Basic issues and concepts (3rd ed.). Weikersheim: Margraf. Hoffmann, V., Probst, K., & Christinck, A. (2007). Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development? Agriculture and Human Values, 24, 355–368. Humphries, S., Gallardo, O., Jimenez, J., & Siera, F. (2005). Linking small farmers to the formal research sector: Lessons from a participatory bean breeding programme in Honduras. Agri-cultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 142. London: ODI. Johnson, N. L., Lilja, N., & Ashby, J. A. (2003). Measuring the impact of user participation in agricultural and natural resource management research. Agricultural Systems, 78, 287–306. Kaufmann, B. A. (2007). Cybernetic analysis of socio-biological systems – the case of livestock management in resource-poor environments. Kommunikation und Beratung Nr. 81. Sozialwissenschaftliche Schriften zur Landnutzung und ländlichen Entwicklung. Weikersheim: Margraf. Kaufmann, B. A. (2011). Second-order cybernetics as a tool to understand why pastoralists do what they do. Agricultural Systems, 104, 655–665. Kaushik, S. (2009). SWOT analysis: A management tool. In S. K.Varma, N. Sethi, S. Kaushik, S. Rani, & R. K. Goyal (Eds.), Extension and communication management (pp. 88–94). Udaipur: Agrotech Publishing Academy.

Facilitating change 189 Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kotschi, J., & Adelhelm, R. (1984). Standortgerechte Landwirtschaft zur Entwicklung kleinbäuerlicher Betriebe in den Tropen und Subtropen. Eschborn: GTZ. Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., . . . Thomas, C. J. (2012): Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25–43. Lelea, M. A., Roba, G. M., Christinck, A., & Kaufmann B. A. (2014). Methodologies for stakeholder analysis – for application in transdisciplinary research projects focusing on actors in food supply chains. Witzenhausen: Deutsches Institut für tropische und subtropische Landwirtschaft (DITSL). Lelea, M. A., Roba, G. M., Christinck, A., & Kaufmann, B. A. (2016). “All relevant stakeholders”: A literature review of stakeholder analysis to support inclusivity of innovation processes in farming and food systems. Paper presented at the 12th European IFSA Symposium, 12–15 July 2015, Harper Adams University, Newport. Vienna: International Farming Systems Association (IFSA) Europe Group. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W., III (1972). Limits to growth: A report to the Club of Rome. New York: New American Library. Merriam Webster (2016) Retrieved from Dictionary: www.merriam-webster.com/diction ary/practitioner. (1.2.2017) Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow, Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress (pp. 3–33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–888. Nicetic, O., & Van de Fliert, E. (2014). Changing institutional culture: Participatory Monitoring and evaluation in transdisciplinary research for development. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 10(3), 61–70. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. London: Oxford University Press. Novy, A., Beinstein, B., & Voßemer, C. (2008). Methodologie transdisziplinärer Entwicklungsforschung. Aktion und Reflexion: Texte zur transdisziplinären Entwicklungsforschung und Bildung 2.Vienna: Paulo Freire Zentrum. Pierce-Colfer, C. (1991). Indigenous rice production and the subtleties of culture change: An example from Borneo. Agriculture and Human Values, 8(1–2), 67–84. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pretty, J., & Chambers, R. (1993). Towards a Learning Paradigm: New professionalism and Institutions for Agriculture: Discussion Paper No. 334. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Reijntjes, C., Haverkort, B., & Waters-Bayer, A. (1992). Farming for the future: An introduction to low-external-input and sustainable agriculture. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Restrepo, M. J., Lelea, M. A., Christinck, A., Hülsebusch, C., & Kaufmann, B. A. (2014). Collaborative learning for fostering change in complex social-ecological systems: A transdisciplinary perspective on food and farming systems. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 10(3), 38–59.

190  Anja Christinck and Brigitte Kaufmann Restrepo, M. J., Lelea, M. A., & Kaufmann, B. A. (2016a). Sparking small scale dairy farmers’ enthusiasm within a transdisciplinary project in Kenya. Paper presented at the 12th European IFSA Symposium, 12–15 July 2015, Harper Adams University, Newport.Vienna: International Farming Systems Association (IFSA) Europe Group. Restrepo, M. J., Lelea, M. A., & Kaufmann, B. A. (2016b). Second-order cybernetic analysis to re-construct farmers’ rationale when regulating milk production. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 29(5), 449–468. Restrepo, M., Levy, C., & Kaufmann, B. (2012). A powerful learning opportunity: Gaza’s PM&E. Farming Matters, 28.3. Small-Scale Agriculture for a Sustainable Society, 9, 38–42. Wageningen: ILEIA – Centre for Learning on Sustainable Agriculture. Restrepo, M. J., Ndung’u, J., Mwaura, M., Lelea, M. A., & Kaufmann, B. A. (2015). Kenyan smallholders improving benefits from milk production. ETFRN News, 57, 64–69. Richards, P. (1985). Indigenous agricultural revolution: Ecology and food production in West Africa. London: Hutchinson. Richards, P. (1986). Coping with hunger: Hazard and experiment in a West African Rice Farming System. London: UCL Press. Röling, N. (2009). Conceptual and methodological developments in innovation. In P. C. Sanginga, A. Waters-Bayer, S. Kaaria, J. Njuki, & C. Wettasinha (Eds.), Innovation Africa: Enriching farmers’ livelihoods (pp. 9–34). New York: Earthscan. Sanginga, P. C., Waters-Bayer, A., Kaaria, S., Njuki, J., & Wettasinha, C. (2009). Innovation Africa: Enriching farmers’ livelihoods. New York: Earthscan. Schiffer, E. (2007). Manual: Net-map toolbox – influence mapping of social networks. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Schönhuth, M., & Kievelitz, U. (1994). Participatory learning approaches. An introductory guide. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(4), 387–420. Stokols, D., Perez Lejano, R., & Hipp, J. (2013). Enhancing the resilience of humanenvironment systems: A social-ecological perspective. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 7. Stuiver, M. (2011).The soil-plant-animal system as a boundary object for collaborative knowledge development. In A.V. Passen, J. van den Berg, E. Steingröver, R.Werkman, & B. Pedroli (Eds.), Knowledge in action:The search for collaborative research for sustainable landscape development, Mansholt Publication Series:Volume 11 (pp.  153–168). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic. Thomas, A., & Wehinger, T. (2009). Situationsanalyse: Die Ausgangssituation kennenlernen, relevante Akteure und Gruppen identifizieren und für die Zusammenarbeit gewinnen, gemeinsam Probleme und Potenziale erkennen. In A. Gerber,V. Hoffmann, & A. Thomas (Eds.), Transdisziplinäre Umweltforschung: Methodenhandbuch (pp. 72–88). Munich: Oekom. Weltzien, E., & Christinck, A. (2009). Methodologies for priority setting. In S. Ceccarelli, E. P. Guimarães, & E. Weltzien (Eds.), Plant breeding and farmer participation (pp. 75–105). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Werner, S., Padmanabhan, M., & Christinck, A. (2013). Adding value to research through partnerships: Interdisciplinary and intercultural diversity in agrobiodiversity research. In A. Christinck & M. Padmanabhan (Eds.), Cultivate diversity! A handbook on transdisciplinary approaches to agrobiodiversity research (pp. 93–113). Weikersheim: Margraf. Zimmermann, A., & Maennling, C. (2007). Mainstreaming participation: Multi-stakeholder management: Tools for stakeholder analysis: 10 Building blocks for designing participatory systems of cooperation. Promoting participatory development in German development cooperation. Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).

10 Dream team or evil twins? International tandems in transdisciplinary research Martina Padmanabhan

Introduction Transdisciplinary projects combine interdisciplinary perspectives on a subject matter with the integration of stakeholders’ knowledge. Transdisciplinary research shares the three defining characteristics of interdisciplinarity, problem orientation and a reflexive relationship between researchers and project partners (Novy, Beinstein and Voßemer, 2008). Each transdisciplinary research project is a single case, a learning experience occurring at a specific time in a unique societal and academic constellation. To pass on experience, it needs to be systematised in order to capture learning outcomes. The aim of telling the stories of disciplinary tandems in a transdisciplinary intercultural setting is thus to identify patterns and properties in order to aid transferability. The perspectives that I share here on tandems as disciplinary partnerships, embedded in an interdisciplinary team and involved in transdisciplinary research, seek to illustrate some of the diverse experiences of our intercultural, trans-, inter- and disciplinary work and to elucidate emerging patterns. I relate observations on three types of tandem, namely for research, administration and leadership. My experiences are presented and reflected upon in order to provide insights into how the practices of disciplinary tandems contributed to collective action, team development and knowledge integration in the case of BioDIVA project. Between 2010 and 2014, the international research project BioDIVA worked to promote the transformation of the current destructive land-use system in Kerala, South India, towards sustainable and equitable practices. Based at the Leibniz University Hannover, BioDIVA aimed at generating transformation knowledge for a gender-equitable and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity in Kerala in cooperation with the Indian non-governmental organisation (NGO) M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation. The research group was funded by the German Ministry for Research and Education within the framework of its social-ecological research program. The project design was based on three disciplinary research tandems in ecology, economics and rural sociology (to cover all three dimensions of sustainability), each consisting of an Indian-based and a German-based researcher. These research tandems were complemented by an administrative tandem, a team leader tandem, and a post-doctoral researcher

192  Martina Padmanabhan

investigating land-use change.The project adopted an transdisciplinary approach in order to understand different dimensions of the loss of agrobiodiversity. The involvement of natural and the social scientists served to broaden and deepen knowledge at the intersections between disciplines. Furthermore, BioDIVA integrated practitioners from relevant fields, including members of indigenous farming communities, administrators and policy makers, to widen the knowledge base in a transdisciplinary fashion (BioDIVA, 2016).

The storytelling approach To convey the lessons learnt while putting the concept of tandems into research praxis, I adopt a storytelling approach. Storytelling offers an intimate perspective to accompanying research processes (Di Gulio, 2016). Here I describe the transdisciplinary cooperation of tandems from the subjective perspective of the person who designed and managed the research team. The analysis of tandem partnerships as a structural instrument is embedded into stories to craft and exchange experiences for the generation of shared knowledge. Following a qualitative approach, storytelling nevertheless adheres to standards of science, provided that questions of generalisability are carefully considered (Kock, 1998) when putting findings into perspective. It is a hermeneutic approach that examines the experience of a single case study and reveals its inner logic, sharing reflections of the first and second order to make them accessible. Quality criteria for storytelling in science include credibility, transferability and dependability. The story gains credibility if it differentiates between the history of events, insights into thoughts and feelings about these events and subsequent reflection and interpretation of these insights, thereby maintaining the distinction between data and interpretation. Framework conditions and the context of the case are described to determine the degree of transferability. Dependability is ensured through transparency in the research process, with respect to methods, theories and analytical procedures, as well as the criteria and theories on which interpretation of the experience is based. Storytelling as a research approach rests in the first place on documented events and accompanying thoughts and feelings recorded in field notes or diaries and, second, on their subsequent interpretation in accordance with specific criteria (Di Gulio, 2016). As a communicative approach, storytelling offers a glimpse into the experience of being inside an endeavour, while keeping in mind the relativity of its claim to validity – in particular, in this case, as a systematic evaluation of the tandem concept was not envisaged at the start of the project. Stories are valuable as they allow for imaginary participation and empathetic understanding of situations and actors.The story enables sense-making of emotions, framework conditions and actions through ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973). Experience is reflected upon and put into order to make it available to others and relevant for future actions. This reflexive cognitive performance explains events and actions, thereby reconstructing and organising experiences and unveiling patterns. The incorporation of emotions distinguishes a story

Dream team or evil twins? 193

from a mere report and supports affective learning.The stories told in this chapter occurred in the professional setting of a transdisciplinary research project, framed by complexity, low predictability and strong reliance on personal relationships. The problems encountered and decisions required to address them may nevertheless have characteristics that are typical of other similar settings. Telling the stories can thus contribute to a collective learning about the practice of intercultural transdisciplinary research. As Lewis (2011) highlights, while recollecting and sharing experiences “I am eliciting my own potential for making meaning” (p. 505). Telling the story of tandems in a transdisciplinary research setting from my perspective as the team leader is an effort to reflect on my role in relation to other project members and the subsequent decisions taken to adapt the research to internal and external conditions. It provides insights for management, understood not only as a matter of process and method, but also as the task of dealing with the different motivations, needs and emotions of other project members. As transdisciplinary projects operate without a predetermined result and adapt methods accordingly, they are characterised by a degree of openness that often requires situated decisions. What Haraway (1988) terms situated knowledge is the particularity and embodiment of all knowledge. Innocent naturalism is an untenable epistemological position, since only embodied objectivity is possible: the gaze from a specific site. Every location provides a limited view that creates situated knowledge, which needs to be able to be called to account. Thus, the politics and epistemologies of location, positioning and situating acknowledge partiality as a condition for making knowledge claims (Padmanabhan, 2016, Rosendahl et al. 2015). The perspective in telling a story is not Olympic and all-knowing, but individual and subjective.The storyteller reflects on historical decisions to make the inner reasoning accessible. In a project context, storytelling is not about evaluating actions in retrospect, but rather showing what happened and how it felt. Sense-making and selection are done by the author. Thus, in what follows, my learning both as a manager and, subsequently, as an author is made explicit. I explain how I drew certain conclusions by reflecting on the experiences that I describe.The criteria I applied in crafting the narrative were therefore selected to facilitate telling, learning and educating. In writing about tandems, I am interested in investigating how disciplinary, administrative and leadership tandems play out in transdisciplinary and intercultural projects as part of my own quest to realise the potential of academic and intersectional diversity. I examine tandem partnership performance in the BioDIVA project and the role of tandems in overall transdisciplinary team development, and explore the patterns that emerged. This is both reflection on a unique, local experience and exploration of broader issues related to transdisciplinary research for sustainability. My analysis in this essay is based on several years of direct observation, engagement and conversation with team members involved in the BioDIVA project.With the following methodological disclosure I give notice of my position and point of view from which I tell the story (Harcourt, 2016): I am of

194  Martina Padmanabhan

Indo-German descent, with a German Protestant mother and an Indian Tamil Brahmin father and was brought up in Germany. I do not speak Malayalam, the language of the study region. I was trained as a (somewhat multidisciplinary) agricultural engineer and specialised in rural sociology. For the past 15 years I have conducted empirical research in rural areas of India, Ghana and Ethiopia. For 10 years before the start of BioDIVA, I had collaborated with the Indian NGO that became our cooperation partner, the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation. Several research visits and failed attempts to get funding for joint projects had established levels of trust between us and helped prepare the ground for the BioDIVA project. At the time the project took place I was married, the mother of a young child, and was given considerable independence by my university in my role as team leader. My narrative builds on my participant observation and active membership in a tandem during the course of undertaking original fieldwork, i.e. in the context of interactions with project partners and stakeholders. Sources of evidence are fourfold: in my role as team leader I took notes of direct observations, open-ended conversations and assessment talks over the four and a half years of the project. I conducted participant observation, for example during exercises at team retreats, which were recorded in reports. Publications and presentations by team members serve as reference documents; especially valuable are reflections on the experience by members of the tandem themselves. Last but not least, comments on earlier drafts of this paper provided valuable additional data. I highlight my subjective position as author and participant in the role of project team leader responsible for its design; my interpretations are influenced by this positionality.

The role of tandems in intercultural and transdisciplinary research Tandems are created with the intention of facilitating achievement of the research objectives set out in the design of the project in question – and have structural consequences for management. According to Defila, Di Giulio and Scheuermann (2006, 2008), the task of management in a transdisciplinary setting is to generate a common goal and shared research questions. This involves, among other challenges, creating linkages between individual contributions and contributors, leading to the synthesis of a joint outcome based on a shared theoretical understanding. Transdisciplinary research by its very nature crosses boundaries between disciplines and between science and practice; therefore transdisciplinary teams are characterised by heterogeneity and complexity. This may be a source of great strength, for example by enabling a more comprehensive problem understanding, but can also lead to disagreements and conflicts, for example disputes regarding the validity of data and results. The team leader has to ensure that boundaries do not become barriers (Hollaender, Loibl & Wilts, 2008) and take management decisions that support cognitive and social synergies. Instead of

Dream team or evil twins? 195

reacting to events in order to avoid or resolve conflicts, the team leader needs to initiate controlled confrontation in order to realise the inherent potential of heterogeneity. Thus, transdisciplinary research management is a complex task, involving the coordination of difference. North-South collaborative research partnerships are recognised as a promising way to contribute both to knowledge generation and capacity building on both sides. The ideal North-South partnership is characterised by commitment, competence, continuity and complementarity (Maselli, Lys & Schmid, 2006). In setting up the research team for the BioDIVA project, I started out from the perhaps paradoxical assumption that disciplinary tandems represented a structural arrangement that would reduce complexity in our bicultural transdisciplinary research project and thereby help bring our goals to fruition. In the following I consider the extent to which this proved to be the case, by reflecting on my experience with disciplinary tandems in relation to (1) promoting cooperation in tandems, (2) facilitating tandem and team development and (3) catalysing transdisciplinary and intercultural knowledge integration.

The design idea: tandems for research, administration and leadership The idea of tandem teams, especially partnering PhD candidates from funding countries in the North with students from countries in the South where fieldwork takes place, is not new. When I was offered a doctoral position at a German university in collaboration with a Ghanaian research institution, exactly this setup was envisaged. I was strongly attracted by this vision of mutual benefit and complementarity. I started my fieldwork, but my PhD counterpart never materialised. Since then, this invisible twin has always accompanied me as a missed opportunity. When, much later, I was tasked with setting up an international research team consisting of Indian and German researchers, I was instinctively attracted to the idea of incorporating tandems into the institutional structure (Padmanabhan & Arpke, 2011). The evolving science of team science (Wuchty, Jones & Uzzi, 2007) showed the increased importance of teams creating new knowledge. Hall et al. (2012) conceptualise transdisciplinary team-based research as comprising four phases – development, conceptualisation, implementation and translation. The development phase involves convening a group of potential collaborators to define the scientific or societal problem space of interest.The team process generates a shared mission and goals, externalising group cognition, developing a group environment of psychological safety and building a critical awareness for the substantive and methodological strengths and limitations of each disciplinary approach.The conceptualisation phase involves collaborative teamwork to develop research questions, a conceptual model and a research design that reflect the integrative nature of the project. In the implementation phase, the team processes include establishing a transactive memory to recognise and draw on specific expertise in the team, conflict management and team learning. In the implementation

196  Martina Padmanabhan

phase, as the team works collaboratively, members continue to engage in group interactions that facilitate information sharing and promote shared language and mental models. The engagement in a reflective process to intermittently assess and refine the research is essential for establishing an integrative approach. Finally, the translation phase involves moving the transdisciplinary research findings forward on the discovery-development-delivery continuum. In considering how the specific case tandems within a team operate in the context of the BioDIVA project, I was able to draw on existing academic literature. International tandems were the topic of a pioneering study by Schlehe (2006), who set up and subsequently analysed the experience of an exchange program for students of anthropology in Indonesia and Germany. In this case, two members of each tandem jointly conducted fieldwork in both countries. This model of cooperation was envisaged as a way of using the multiple differences, positionalities and relations between cultures productively as the basis for the development of innovative research methodologies. Schlehe highlights the configuration of multiple perspectives in flexible constellations as the key contribution of transcultural collaboration to overcoming the outsider/insider divide. Schlehe and Hidayah (2013) argue that this kind of ‘transdifference’ facilitates transcendence of binary constructions of stable oppositions, separation and thus closed categories (Breining, Gebhardt & Lösch, 2002). This highlights the need to de-essentialise and focus on a person’s individual profile. The degree of dependency and range of competencies within a tandem differ according to the positionality of its members and relations inevitably oscillate between conflict and cooperation. Expectations regarding the capacity of the tandem model vary and are not free from cultural and political preconceptions, as Schlehe (2006) shows: in her case, while Asian students assumed their role was only to assist, German students tended to deny any differences in roles, pointing to the unsettling emotional consequences of embedded assumptions of inferiority and superiority in the tandem model. This experience is just one example of the challenges arising from differences in communication patterns, values and meanings that affect working relations in international research teams.These differences cannot be wished away; rather they have to be accommodated through appropriate coordination procedures. Gröschke (2010) distinguished between the individual level and team level in discussing factors that enable intercultural teams to function successfully. On the individual level the three capabilities of self-reflection, self-regulation and flexibility are required for work in an intercultural setting. At the group level, capacity for self-reflection and self-regulation as a team is fundamental in order to operationalise the tandem, while cooperation and efficacy are further factors in its success. International tandems have special structural properties that cross over between the individual and the group level. On the one hand, the two tandem partners are identified and ‘disciplined’ by their affiliation to a scientific community; on the other hand, their national cultures, gender and other categories provide alternative belongings. A disciplinary tandem acts as a counterweight to diversity.

Dream team or evil twins? 197

In reflecting on the inherent structural properties of this relationship, I considered the implications of the ‘tandem’ metaphor more closely. The bicycle accommodating two riders serves as a symbol for joint endeavour but also for structural coercion. The two riders have to maintain balance and coordinate movements, directions and body language in order to move forward towards a common destination. If they do so successfully, tandems can achieve a higher speed with equal input, compared with two riders on separate bicycles, as both wind resistance and rolling resistance are lowered. The tandem thus symbolises the potential for synergy and overcoming (especially cultural) obstacles through joint effort. However, the extent to which this potential is achieved depends on the commitment of the two team members. Independently of whether both partners contribute equally, they will arrive at the same time; thus there is a danger of free riding or, conversely, the potential for shared leadership based on the application of complementary expertise. While riding under the same flag of an academic discipline with a certain goal in mind, performance and pace will be determined by the ability to coordinate body, mind and soul, especially in the face of conflicts when the going gets tough. In the following reflections on tandems as professional partnerships, constitutive elements in team development and as a means towards knowledge integration, I draw on reports of the tandems’ work and remembered emotions as inputs for reconstruction and sense making. My (re)reading of the case study also draws on three theoretical perspectives: a collective action approach captures the tension between cooperation and conflict in the tandem (Ostrom, 1990).The five stages of team development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) provide a useful framework for analysis of the overall team building process in relation to the tandem subunits. Finally, the notion of feedback loops is applied to explore the process of knowledge integration under intercultural conditions via critical reflection; in our case, stimulated and catalysed by an external facilitator.

Figure 10.1 Tandem design – inherent assumptions

198  Martina Padmanabhan

Dimensions of diversity The subjective positions of tandem partners in our Indo-German project differed. The concept of positionality highlights the importance of social situatedness, which influences assumptions, perspectives and interests (Kunze & Padmanabhan, 2014). The social position of researchers has been debated since Mannheim (1936) and figures prominently in calls for self-reflexivity in socialecological research teams. Difference can be a source of conflict and instability but, as noted by Schlehe and Hidayah (2013), it is also “the base for complementarity”. My expectation was that the shared disciplinary identity in the research tandems would provide the stability in working relations required to bring out the productive potential of diversity and intersectionality. This chapter focuses on tandem constellations in an intercultural setting. Thus the cultural origin of team members was a key dimension of their positionality. Indian and German cultures differ in many ways, for example with regard to values, planning horizons and perceptions of adequate behaviour. In our project, bicultural team members added to the range of ethnicities, crisscrossing cultural identity categories, and cutting across the neat divide between German vs. Indian team members. However, the positionality of our team members was shaped not only by their cultural origins – in Germany and India – but also in an intersectional manner by the categories of gender, age and marital status; religion, caste and class; and culture, ethnicity and language. Gender – as expressed in bodies, body language, and ideas of appropriate clothing and behaviour – intersects with age and status. Marital status – accentuated by parenthood – is an indicator of social maturity, especially in the more family-oriented, hierarchical Indian setting. Age and gender are important categories of belonging, loyalty and social organisation. The intersecting categories of religion, caste and class further shape identities. In the multi-religion and social-reformist environment of Kerala, Christians, Muslims and Hindus enjoy communal coexistence, but mostly adhere to endogamous alliances. In this highly educated and politically conscious society, class interacts with hierarchical caste relations. Even greater status differences exist between the majority Hindus and the non-Hindu tribal population at the margins, relevant to our transdisciplinary approach. An ever-present feature of positionality within the tandems was cultural literacy, expressed in language skills. The medium of communication in the project was English, while the local language Malayalam was imperative for data collection. Central to the idea of complementarity was the supremacy of local Keralite staff in cultural and language skills for field work, since North Indians and Germans depended on translators for communication in the field. Professional background was another dimension of cultural diversity: all Indian researchers were either former NGO staff members or social activists, whereas the German team members had no prior experience beyond academia. In this sense, the tandems, while disciplinary, can also be described as transdisciplinary, joining theory and praxis.

Zoologist

Economist Rural sociologist Agroforestry graduate* Assistant professor in rural sociology

Botanist

Agricultural economist

Social anthropologist*

Master in Business Administration

NGO director (botanist)

Land-use scientist

Ecology

Economics

Social science

Administration

Team leader

Post-doctoral researcher External facilitator

H: Hindu; C: Christian. All tandems analysed lasted at least three years.

Freelance consultant (agricultural extensionist)

German partner (University)

Indian partner (NGO)

Discipline/task

30 / F Married 50 / M Married + children

50 / M Married + children

30 / F Women Married + child 30 / M Married + child

30 / M Married + child

Late 20s/M Married + child

Age/Gender (M/F)

40 / F Married+ child

30 / F Single

30 / F Married + child

Late 20s/M Married

Late 20s/F Single

Marital status

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

C

C

C

C

C

Religion

Table 10.1 Multiple memberships: intercultural and international composition of the transdisciplinary research team

Keralite / Malayalam + English German / German + English GermanEthiopian / German + English Indo-German / German + English

German / German + English

North Indian Hindi + English Indian German/English + Tamil

Keralite / Malayalam + English

Keralite / Malayalam + English Keralite / Malayalam + English Keralite / Malayalam + English

Keralite / Malayalam + English

Origin/Language(s)

200  Martina Padmanabhan

As these remarks make clear, ‘interculturality’ is a fuzzy concept. We cannot assume that static national characteristics exist. Rather culture should be conceived as open, internally differentiated and network-oriented. This conception shifts the focus from incompatibility and deficit to synergy and complementarity within a dynamic setting.This simultaneous structural and process orientation in intercultural exchanges emphasises hybridity and flow (Bolten, forthcoming). A dynamic conceptualisation accommodates the fuzziness and multiple belongings that characterised biculturality as experienced by tandem members in our project. Thus differences within and among tandems in the BioDIVA project were fluid and multi-dimensional. This should be borne in mind when looking at Table 10.1, which – in order to facilitate a structured discussion – categorises the differences as disciplinary, individual, social and intercultural.

Tandems as a source of cooperation, conflict and belonging As shown in Table 10.1, the project structure incorporated three distinct types of tandem, whose titles indicated their purpose: i.e. PhD research, administration and team leader tandems. In each case the tandem partners were expected to cooperate in achieving a set of defined goals, which in turn would contribute to the overall success of the project. According to Ostrom (1990), the central factors facilitating coordinated action are reputation, trust and reciprocity. An underlying assumption of the tandem concept is that a shared discipline provides a bond between tandem members.This, together with complementarity, in terms of acquaintance with local and academic culture, language and methodical competencies, will support their orientation towards a common goal. On closer analysis, in the setting of an inter- and transdisciplinary research approach, these goals unfold to reveal contradictory aspects. Dissertations are per se individual projects, usually adhering to disciplinary standards, leading in the best case to a degree ad personam. Inevitably there is a tension between this individual focus and the requirement for team-generated knowledge outputs, involving interdisciplinary cooperation and/or the transdisciplinary integration of laypersons’ knowledge. Disciplinary PhD tandems have, therefore, to fulfil a triple role: on the one hand they are supposed to conduct research; on the other hand they are expected to promote both inter- and transdisciplinary learning processes. These different tasks may create conflicts over multiple roles and simultaneous, apparently mutually exclusive expectations. A further underlying assumption of forming tandems, in the case of the BioDIVA project, was that of complementarity between academic rigour and method on the German side and fieldwork skills informed by the sustainability perspective of the local Indian organisation. The Indian researchers had been formerly employed by the NGO or were local activists. Nevertheless, reducing the roles of Indians and Germans to that of outsiders gaining access via insiders is too simplistic. The categories of positionality are not defined by essential

Dream team or evil twins? 201

features: they overlap and are negotiated according to situation. Each tandem member had a specific relation to the object of their research, shaped by dimensions of positionality as will be shown. Indians are not per se closer to marginalised tribal farmers than Germans. Indian researchers, like German ones, are embedded in differentiated social and political systems, which may also create distance with stakeholders from different social backgrounds. In the following, I recount the experiences of the five tandems from my point of view. A general description of their aims and activities is followed by an interpretation of the categories of positionality identified in Table 10.1. In this context, I examine the cooperation and conflicts which occurred and identify emerging patterns of collective action. Ecology tandem: The aim was to analyse the ecological status of rice paddy field systems in Kerala in relation to agricultural management practices. The potential for disciplinary complementarity between a male Indian botanist and a female German zoologist lay in their interdisciplinary expertise within the wider field of ecology. They succeeded in developing an integrated research design, which built on the idea of collecting botanical and zoological data from same sampling plots to feed into a synthetic exploration of the overarching hypothesis. The work of the tandem at the start of the project to develop this interdisciplinary research proposal gave rise to a co-authored article (Betz, Parameswaran & Tscharntke, 2016). The ecology research relied on the willingness of local farmers to share their knowledge and grant access to their fields. The intensive transdisciplinary process of obtaining free prior informed consent and the establishment of a legal and social framework for the research served to make intentions transparent, while data and preliminary results were discussed in feedback workshops (Padmanabhan et al., 2014; Padmanabhan & Werner, 2014; Werner & Nagabhatla, 2013; Werner & Höing, 2014). Both ecologists reflected the strengths of their respective institutions: the German could build on academic training and prior experience of research in the tropics, while the Indian counterpart was motivated to unravel ‘farmers’ wisdom’ he encountered during NGO interventions. Their shared intellectual interest and respect for each other’s capabilities enabled them to develop well-defined and pragmatic procedures within the natural science paradigm. The appreciation of each other’s capabilities enabled them to override the implicit social hierarchy between a single woman and a married man and realise their cooperative potential. The members of the tandem were able to regulate conflicts and overcome periods of estrangement and achieve their ambitious aims by setting aside normative stances and emphasising their shared interests. The transdisciplinary ecology tandem combined language and social skills with methodical competence, leading to a successful conclusion of their research project, including completion of her PhD by the German researcher. A focus on complementarity in competencies was able to overcome potential sources of conflict. The value of appreciating knowledge and competency over other sources of status paved the way for trustful and reciprocal cooperation.

202  Martina Padmanabhan

Social science tandem:The aim of the social scientists was to investigate the gendered social organisation of agrarian knowledge in tribal groups with reference to the conservation of agrobiodiversity. The Indo-German tandem consisted of two women, a German social scientist and an Indian graduate and social activist with experience as a research assistant in international projects. Again, there was an assumption of complementarity between cultural and language fluency on the one hand and theoretical strength on the other hand. Due to staff turnover the Indian partner only joined the project at the beginning of the field phase in the second year, and therefore did not take part in the initial capacity building in Germany in the first year. Preliminary findings had suggested a comparative case study of two different tribal groups, different in terms of social organisation and non-overlapping territories. No necessity existed to develop a shared research agenda or common data collection routines. Although they did publish an account of their interdisciplinary collaboration in a social-ecological study (Betz et al., 2014), the transdisciplinary work (in feedback and stakeholder workshops) was left in the hands of the communicatively gifted Indian partner. Instead of a comparative analysis, the social science tandem produced two rather independent case studies (Kunze, 2016; Suma & Großmann, 2016). As individual projects, the work of both social scientists was successful in disciplinary terms; however they did not jointly perform as a tandem, in terms of complementarity between theory and practice. While the Indian counterpart was well versed with the cultural setting and quickly developed a methodology and a research agenda, the German partner remained dependent on translators. Furthermore, she found it hard to adapt to the evolving group hierarchy in the Indian setting along gradients of gender, age and marital status, norms regarding mobility and dress code in rural India, and was confused by her changed status after her marriage, as discussed elsewhere (Jackson, 2006; Kunze & Padmanabhan, 2014). The focus on two different study sites did not require cooperation, or provoke open conflicts. Rather each partner focused on their individual strength and avoided unsettling exposure.Thus the Indian partner concentrated on transdisciplinary research in stakeholder workshops, while the German partner directed her energy towards the publication of scientific articles. In my reading, simultaneous feelings of inferiority and superiority hindered cooperation and realisation of the potential for complementarity. With missing trust no reciprocity could develop. Economics tandem: The two economists investigated the economic welfare effects of agrobiodiversity change on tribal and non-tribal populations. The tandem was an exception to the rule of Indo-German pairs, as both partners were Indian men from Kerala, although the younger one was based and trained in Germany, acting as the ‘German partner’. The older partner was married, a father and held a senior position in the Indian host organisation. Both started off enthusiastically and developed a plan to jointly carry out a large sample survey over two years to obtain panel data. They engaged in developing transdisciplinary aspects of the research in subsequent stakeholder and feedback workshops with farmers. However, despite their shared background of a Kerala upbringing,

Dream team or evil twins? 203

the research backgrounds of the two men differed, with the younger partner having more academic expertise but less experience of practical field research. The economist tandem did not achieve its ambitious goal. In the end, the younger partner administered 300 questionnaires alone in a single period of field work.The make-up of the tandem generated conflicts over loyalties, exacerbated by hierarchy. First, the continuous though unacknowledged role of the senior partner in management of the NGO hindered his transformation into a learning and thus fallible student. This role seemed incompatible with his authority. Second, friendship and respect for the status difference prevented the junior partner from articulating the latent conflict. The effects of over-work caused by his efforts to compensate for the lack of input from his partner, a burden compounded by his role as intercultural mediator, finally became apparent. The younger partner’s expectations of reciprocal efforts were not fulfilled, leading to tensions that had a destabilising effect. Eventually cooperation ceased. Disciplinary underperformance could not be compensated for by ‘overperformance’ in transdisciplinary work; in the end this combination hampered both partners’ progress. The complementary potential of the tandem was not realised due to the disruptive effects of cultural norms imposed by the seniority principle. Administrative tandem: The administrators fulfilled an enabling role in both institutions, dealing with a range of management issues. They provided organisational support during two years of fieldwork in India and the three-month team capacity building phase in Germany, including arranging transport and obtaining translation services. Content-wise the administrative team stayed in the background, though it was fully involved in social aspects of team building. The success of transdisciplinary workshops depended to a large extent on the cooperation of the administrative tandem. While the married and male Indian administrator was professionally qualified, with an MBA, the bicultural German-Ethiopian single woman counterpart had developed her management expertise building on a degree in agroforestry. These complementary backgrounds enabled the tandem to adjust the way project events were planned to take account of the real-life situation of farmers in the field. The administrative tandem successfully took charge of the formalities of project management. They were adept in intercultural communication (Barmeyer, 2012), based on trust and reputation, and smoothly handled a staff replacement on the German side. The lines of conflict did not run between tandem partners. Rather, both struggled to contain their desire to contribute content-wise to the project, beyond the service orientation of their official role. Having an academic background themselves, being involved in most training events and integration exercises, these aspirations were not attended to. Their wish to contribute beyond sheer technical assistance resulted in innovative transdisciplinary initiatives, notably the publication of briefing notes (2016), but also frustrations as they were unable to conduct independent research or travel overseas. From a project point of view the tandem realised collective action; from the perspective of individuals involved, less reciprocity was achieved.

204  Martina Padmanabhan

Team leadership tandem: Together with my counterpart, we created the conditions for the Indo-German project to materialise, literally, by channelling human and financial resources though institutional structures in Germany and India. The mutual trust between me as an Indo-German woman in charge of the operationalisation of the transdisciplinary research project and the Keralan male director of the Indian partner agency had evolved over 10 years of prior cooperation and provided the foundation for acquiring German funding for the project. The level of trust facilitated access to the field and local infrastructure. These complementary, vital functions structured interinstitutional cooperation throughout the project period. The legal framework regarding funding – assigning the ultimate responsibility to the German side – was juxtaposed with internal rules regarding provisioning and expenditure within the Indian organisation. Since the Indian counterpart, as director of the NGO, had to oversee many other projects, management tasks remained with me as German project leader. I subordinated personal research interests to supervising research tandems and integrating findings. The development of a joint leadership style within the tandem could not be achieved. While the collaboration functioned on a technical level for the duration of the project, the project itself was not able to integrate into its host institutions – neither in Germany nor in India. Intercultural differences were evident in divergent paradigms of leadership. Leadership in India is oriented towards avoiding failure, by closely monitoring individual work and providing feedback and support. By contrast, the German approach stresses self-initiative, dialogical consultancy and room for learning by doing. The strong institutional framing by the hosting NGO, and its outspoken interventionism, proved to be an obstacle to creating a climate of reflexive critical transdisciplinarity. The identities of an NGO and of a university could not merge into a sustainable partnership at the management level. As a result, while this arrangement provided a safe environment for the research endeavour as a whole, the envisaged strategic synergies between the German university and the Indian NGO materialised, at best, to a limited extent. These brief descriptions of the experiences of the five tandems reveal varying degrees of complementarity with respect to their assigned tasks. The ecology and administrative tandems – though diverse in terms of intersectional categories – both performed well, and were characterised by strong task orientation, reciprocity and a stable work environment. The social science and leadership tandems could not align their competencies towards one strategic goal. The economics tandem failed when the idealistic initial plan could not be operationalised and trust was eroded. Thus, two disciplinary tandems were able to capitalise on their inherent complementarity, two achieved partial successes and one failed to achieve a significant level of cooperation. The lessons I derive for leading disciplinary tandems in a transdisciplinary setting are threefold: paradoxically, especially because the intention of disciplinary tandems is to promote transdisciplinarity, it is important to acknowledge the specific (disciplinary) needs of individual tandems and their members.

Dream team or evil twins? 205

Recognising the need for management of this dyadic relationship, alongside facilitation of inter- and transdisciplinary outcomes, can help to mitigate potential stresses and conflicts associated with the triple bottom line of transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary and disciplinary expectations. Sequencing project operations, with periods of disciplinary work alternating with interactive transand interdisciplinary team efforts, is one way to create room for all aspirations to be achieved. Just as initial capacity building is required to embed an integrative transdisciplinary perspective form the very start, it is equally important to share core conceptual ideas and operationalise them, in order to build a disciplinary identity at tandem level. This effort creates another alternative category of identity, widening the repertoire of belonging and collective action. International disciplinary tandems may unfold their potential if their work is as thoroughly prepared, supervised and monitored as other project processes.

Tandems provide identity in dynamic transdisciplinarity team development stages Following these reflections on the dyadic relationship of the disciplinary tandem, I now turn to the role of tandems in the overall team development process, which is shaped principally by the requirements and challenges of inter- and transdisciplinarity. The ability to carry out transdisciplinary activities requires learning as a team. The process can be conceptualised as five stages of team development: forming, storming, norming, performing and, finally, adjourning (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). In this section I consider the role disciplinary tandems played in the different phases of transdisciplinary work, as manifested at workshops organised by BioDIVA. Obviously, tandems are nested in the overall team and it is difficult to clearly demarcate tandem dynamics from developments occurring in the team as a whole. Nevertheless, tandems may provide a separate ‘playing field’, where partners learn to cooperate across academic, personal, cultural and psychological boundaries. Self-efficacy, i.e. the belief in one’s actions having an impact (Bandura, 1995), contributes to the success of tandems as well as to team building. The team provides opportunities for cooperation beyond the confines of the disciplinary tandem. During the forming stage, new team members want to be accepted by others and thus avoid conflict. Confrontations are sidestepped and the team is looking for routines and organisational structures they feel comfortable with. Information and impressions are gathered about each other’s working culture, the scope of the task, and possible ways to approach it. In this orientation phase, enthusiasm and getting to know each other are more important than actually doing scientific work (Bandura, 1995). A three-month capacity building exercise in Germany was intended to provide the international team with skills and method training at the start of the project. All team members were introduced to the theory of transdisciplinarity. The Indian team experienced culture shock in the German environment – which would later happen in the reversed setting to the German team in

206  Martina Padmanabhan

India – and together we underwent intercultural training and were introduced to intercultural praxis. We explored our personal linkages with agrobiodiversity and culture (Martin, 2004) by sharing home-cooked meals and told stories about our personal experiences to explain their cultural and social-ecological significance. The intention was also to work on the individual PhD projects and how they could be integrated into joint work by the tandem partners, in order to develop interdisciplinary interfaces right from the start. However, our plans to come up with joint and interlinked research designs for PhD tandems in this initial get-together were overambitious. All the PhD students were overwhelmed by the confrontation with new terminology and the high moral and ethical standards expected in transdisciplinary work. I had envisaged jointly creating an integrated research design with different layers and levels through structured group exercises. The team members were not yet ready to start moving in this direction or prepared to expose themselves to the perceived risks involved. However, the introduction to transdisciplinarity was important in laying the foundations for a shared language. We developed the ‘disciplinary domain analysis’ method (Padmanabhan et al., 2010) as a tool to identify shared boundary objects at the interfaces between disciplines, and differences among individual interpretations of disciplinary knowledge domains, in order to prepare the ground for cooperation in and between tandems. To this end we identified central terms, learned about different disciplinary definitions and identified boundary objects at interfaces between disciplines. Here the seeds for the highly successful ecology tandem were sown. The storming stage is characterised by tensions between those team members who want to get started with the research and others who would prefer to remain in the more comfortable forming stage. These tensions may manifest themselves as disputes over approaches and methods, or relate to roles and responsibilities within the group. In the context of an emerging intercultural team culture, the conflict often remains mostly below the surface, camouflaged by avoidance (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). In the BioDIVA project, Indian and German tandem partners experienced and responded to the inherent tension between exposure and adjustment differently; however both were looking for structural clarity. During the first transdisciplinary workshop in India, PhD tandems were divided into reluctant and apparently uncomfortable German team members and hyperactive Indian staff, frenetically busy until late at night with preparations. The administrative tandem had to establish and try out working procedures. In my leadership tandem a division of labour began to emerge, with my partner assuming a ceremonial role and acting as political representative of the project, while I focused on research and personnel management. The storming phase took off with an explorative study under the sole responsibility of the PhD tandems. The rural sociology and ecology research tandems planned and implemented a social-ecological study. Here they came up against the challenge of integrating social and natural sciences, which proved to be an initiation into their work as disciplinary tandems (Betz, Kunze, Parameswaran, Suma & Padmanabhan,

Dream team or evil twins? 207

2014). The economists’ tandem prepared their survey, the administrative team became adept in field logistics and the leadership team handled staff turnover and established rules of engagement.The team members developed self-efficacy by negotiating intercultural rules. In the norming stage the scope of team members’ tasks or responsibilities is made clear and agreed upon. Reflecting on previous conflicts, team members come to understand each other’s disciplines better and can appreciate each other’s skills and experience. Individuals listen to each other, appreciate and support each other, and are prepared to change pre-conceived views. An outcome of this tough emotional work is the emerging feeling of being part of a cohesive, effective group (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). This stage got underway during a transdisciplinary workshop in India, in which disciplinary tandems presented their synthesised trans- and disciplinary results to a mixed audience of farmers and policy makers. The process of maturation had already manifested itself in the joint conceptualisation process that produced the social-ecological study during the storming phase. This was a key experience in which tandem members learned to coordinate, communicate and deal with questions of reciprocity. The frustrating work of paper writing, reviewing, receiving rejections, again rewriting and in the end getting published in a proper journal is a painful social experience but one that – when successful – strengthens relationships. This publication of the first empirical research paper was a tangible output of the joint efforts and learning by the two tandems. Though I supported the publishing process, the research was clearly owned by the pioneering PhD tandems. By contrast, in the team leader tandem I felt the differences in aims and approaches were becoming more apparent, for example in terms of expectations of what would count as a good result. The performing stage is ideally characterised by interdependence and flexibility. Teams are able to work together and trust each other to work independently. Roles and responsibilities adapt to changing circumstances in an almost seamless way and team members feel confident in their transdisciplinary routines. Group identity and loyalty are accepted as given and team members are task-orientated as well as person-orientated.This degree of comfort means that the energy of the group can be harnessed towards improving transdisciplinary processes and resolving issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed so far (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). In BioDIVA, the performing phase represented a coming of age. The next transdisciplinary workshop was coordinated single-handedly by the post-­ doctoral researcher, who was able to call upon the maturity and accomplishment acquired by the transdisciplinary PhD tandems. This self-empowerment served to emancipate tandem team members from the home institution’s rules and establish a transdisciplinary identity by developing an idiosyncratic, hybrid style out of the intercultural encounter. As data collection and analysis proceeded, team members contributed to different extents to joint publications. Overall, producing co-authored publications enhanced knowledge integration by moving shared research experiences into the realm of scientific discourse.

208  Martina Padmanabhan

These advances were described in transdisciplinary briefing notes produced by the administrative team. Team members contributed to the flagship publication Handbook on Transdisciplinary Approaches to Agrobiodiversity Research (Christinck & Padmanabhan, 2013). At this stage, the characteristics of each tandem manifested themselves. The ecologists consolidated their team, the economists ceased to work as a team, the social scientists worked independently, the administrative tandem managed an instance of staff turnover smoothly, and in my leadership tandem I adjusted my expectations. The tandem construct was not in the forefront, but rather appeared as one option among others for promoting inter- or transdisciplinary working relations.Thus, members became adept in switching between multiple identities, as members of the team, the tandem or ad hoc constellations. The final adjourning stage is about completion of tasks and disengagement of group members (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). From an organisational perspective, this is a process of dismantling cooperation structures; from a personal perspective it involves the break-up of relationships. The process of dissolving the group can become a ‘mourning stage’ that reveals the vulnerabilities of individual members of the team. As such this state is thought of as very relevant to the people in the group and their well-being, allowing everyone to move on to new things with a sense of achievement; but less relevant to the main task of managing and developing a team and achieving research objectives.This proved not to be the case for BioDIVA. The PhD tandem members were proud of what they had achieved as a transdisciplinary team after the publication of the Handbook (Christinck & Padmanabhan, 2013). After more than four years of transdisciplinary adventures, the adjourning phase might have been taken as an opportunity to focus on completing individual theses and publications. Instead, PhD tandem members and the post-doctoral researcher dedicated themselves to preparing for a closing workshop in the study area that initially had not been envisaged. At this final workshop tandems delivered ‘food for thought’ to policy makers, stakeholders and researchers in the district where research had taken place (Padmanabhan et al., 2014). The workshop provided a platform for discussion of key findings at the end of the learning journey, and was an embodiment of the transdisciplinary goal of producing societally relevant knowledge.This final joint effort highlighted the identification with transdisciplinarity which had matured among team members over the course of the project. The gratefulness felt by team members gave rise to a moral obligation, from their perspective, to complete the transdisciplinary process, thereby transcending the original purpose of the tandems by far. Based on my interpretation of these experiences, the consequences of the employment of disciplinary tandems in transdisciplinary research projects for management and team development are threefold. (1) The disciplinary identity of members of the tandem teams deserves equal attention alongside that given to other intersecting identity markers. Disciplinary identity expressed through scientific expertise represents a category of belonging that enables tandem members to overcome intercultural tensions (see below). When monitoring

Dream team or evil twins? 209

team development, the condition of the tandem merits close attention. Team retreats, in combination with supervisory talks, can serve to take stock of the state of the tandems and other structural entities embodied in the design of the project. (2) Handing over responsibility to disciplinary tandems for transdisciplinary engagement enables learning by doing.Tandems develop self-efficacy as they translate dry concepts into durable relationships with lay experts. However, this unfamiliar situation creates plenty of room for avoidance and procrastination, which managers should be alert to and prepared to take remedial action. (3) Documenting transdisciplinary processes in publications and briefing notes not only serves to share preliminary results with stakeholders, but also promotes self-confidence within the team and tandems by chronicling achievements and gaining public recognition for them.

Intercultural and transdisciplinary knowledge integration Integration is a fundamental requirement for transdisciplinary research. In the case of BioDIVA, the challenge of knowledge integration of inter- and transdisciplinary outcomes was accentuated by the necessity to do so in an intercultural manner. Thus integration was required on two levels: on the one hand, knowledge from different sources obtained using different methods and theoretical assumptions had to be synthesised; on the other hand, this had to be achieved in a way that acknowledged the cultural differences, expressed in different values, actions and taboos, that shaped the form and the content of communication. In BioDIVA we addressed these challenges by means of internal transdisciplinary workshops, facilitated by an external, interculturally adept moderator. In the following I reflect on the experiences of these workshops and the extent to which they were successful in encouraging self-reflection and integrating interand transdisciplinary knowledge. The disciplinary tandems had to establish an intercultural way of working that was amenable to both German and Indian partners. This was challenging, since ways of working in each case are shaped by deep-rooted cultural beliefs, assumptions and reference systems (Barmeyer, Ghidelli, Haupt & Piber, 2015). There are two perspectives that can be adopted to analyse these differences. The ‘etic lens’ privileges the outsider’s view and supports essentialising generalisations, whereby the dominant culture imposes its categories. A limitation of this approach is that neither German nor Indian culture is itself homogenous; rather, both display considerable variation, as pluralistic societies (Bala, Chalil & Gupta, 2012). Thus in order to understand the unique cultural features that shaped the experiences of the tandems it would seem more appropriate to consider cultural orientations from an insider’s, ‘emic’ perspective. Adoption of an emic perspective, for example with regard to an Adivasi or indigenous farmer in relation to Hindu mainstream culture, illustrates the futility of constructing monolithic cultural cores. Nevertheless, Kakar and Kakar (2006) speak of a necessary and legitimate reduction of a complex reality in order to identify complementary cosmovisions.

210  Martina Padmanabhan

Social values based on hierarchical family networks are universally important in India and thus are an important lens (Kakar, 1981) for understanding how social relations are shaped. In working relationships these values are expressed, for example, in a high degree of sensitivity towards discontent of a superior. This relational orientation does not necessarily result in authoritarian distance. More often it underpins a relationship based on care and respect and close togetherness. Valuing relationships over task orientation leads to consideration of human needs and in the best case results in loyal in-group collectivism and a high esprit de corps. The blueprint for an idealised boss is thus the patriarchal head of family – which represents a challenge for female leadership. More fundamentally, from an Indian perspective, inviting criticism appears to contradict and endanger the social goal of maintaining relationships. This goes against a basic requirement for successful of team or tandem work, i.e. the development of fluid relationships diametrically opposed to hierarchy, and transcending barriers erected by differences of status and power. This is just one example of how cultural diversity can represent a challenge for intercultural collaboration and cooperation. Hofstede’s (2003) influential concept of cultural dimensions, when applied to Indian and German societies, reveals almost diametrically opposed characteristics in relation of each of the four dimensions: power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, gender relations and the tolerance of ambiguity. Recognising that cultures are not homogenous and static (Barmeyer & Franklin, 2016), we may usefully consider such etic approaches as descriptions of certain constellations. As such, Hofstede’s four dimensions are helpful for explaining basic attributes of a culture, even though they bear the danger of oversimplification. Hofstede proposes that India is a society with large power distance, where less powerful people accept and expect an unequal distribution of power, whereas in Germany the assumption of equality is predominant. Germans value individualism over collectivism, whereas in India integration into a group is sought for, offering protection in exchange for loyalty. Both cultures value assertiveness, competition and success, while German culture is slightly more tolerant towards dominant behaviour by men in the sphere of gender relations. Indians show more tolerance of uncertainty and are not expected to express emotions, while in the German context ambiguity causes visible discomfort. However, Hofstede’s analysis does not consider the potential for attitudes and relationships to change, for example, in international cooperation projects, as the emphasis shifts from a principal-agent relationship to a partnership approach. A dynamic concept of culture recognises that collectives constantly adapt in response to changing circumstances (Garsten, 1994). Schlehe and Hidayah (2013) remind us that the goal of cooperation is not consensus-making, but productive conversation and reflexivity. In BioDIVA, self-appraisal by the project team led to alterations in the transdisciplinary strategy as the work progressed. This process was substantially supported by an external facilitator, who moderated the major stakeholder workshops. He stimulated collective and critical scrutiny of the aims and rationale of each

Dream team or evil twins? 211

workshop, as well as the setting (including the symbolic meaning of the venue), selection of participants, and seating order. Even the significance of the food served was ‘put on the table’, thereby bringing hidden assumptions among the team members to the forefront and thus into the realm of the debatable. The ironic self-description of the Indian-born and German-based facilitator as “a white man with a black skin” highlighted his ability to move between different cultural perspectives. As an outsider not directly involved with the ongoing project work, he used his frank insights to confront the team with inconsistencies, self-serving assumptions and blind spots in the conceptualisation of transdisciplinary communication and interaction. By provoking all team members, regardless of their positionality, into revealing hitherto unconscious routines, he drew attention to logical inconsistencies and, most importantly, potential trade-offs between different forms of social interaction. By playing the devil’s advocate, he disclosed underlying symbolic, communicative and spiritual dimensions of topics under discussion at the workshops. He flouted local conventions by adopting a provocative stance, thus making creative use of intercultural tensions within the project team. What at first appeared as inacceptable trespassing on established and culturally embedded behavioural norms, turned out to be the means to move unspoken orthodoxies into the arena of debate and out of the doxa (Bourdieu, 1977). Thus the ambiguity of communication was identified as a central aspect to be addressed in order to consolidate the project team and improve its capacity for transdisciplinary research. This thorough questioning of even fond routines had three effects. (1) Critique became an option and an accepted part of team work, which was especially important in the hierarchical Indian social environment where avoiding conflicts is preferred to addressing them. (2) The need to defend transdisciplinary conceptions and project design against critiques by an outsider stimulated the emergence of a group identity against this provocative ‘other’. (3) This in turn resulted in a deepening identification of tandems with the effort to make transdisciplinarity happen. Learning about the principles of transdisciplinarity from practical experience means embracing ambiguity, and this requires a secure setting where uninhibited discussion can take place. The joint ex-post evaluation of the outcomes of each transdisciplinary workshop, in terms of organisation, procedures and knowledge generation, evolved into an ongoing self-appraisal of team effort and the achievements of the project, as well as highlighting our understanding of factors beyond control. Over the course of iterations of this learning cycle, the upward learning curve became tangible. In this way, tandems attained a stable partial identity within an intellectual environment of heightened reflexivity, thereby reconfiguring epistemic relations and calling into question assumed self-other relations (Schlehe & Hidayah, 2013). For example, the culture of reflexivity that developed within the project team allowed identification of the suboptimal representation of certain stakeholder groups in the work of the project and limited diversity among its local audience. To counterbalance the prominence of male farmers, the disciplinary tandems organised extra follow-up workshops for women, as well as for

212  Martina Padmanabhan

marginalised occupational groups and organisations. These additional transdisciplinary events were carried out independently by the tandems, drawing on their experience from previous workshops. Soon a routine was established and self-confidence grew, as they became more adept in conceptualising and planning workshops, structuring interactions, and documenting and reflecting on the results. The involvement of an external and critical, but emphatic process moderator acted as a catalyst for critical self-reflection. His incisive interventions stimulated routines of self-criticism, which was a key factor in developing the ability of disciplinary tandems to independently conduct transdisciplinary encounters. My task as team leader was to provide secure spaces for self-criticism; these included appraisal interviews, team retreats and the internal workshop evaluations. The series of transdisciplinary workshops linked the research projects to the wider political context at multiple levels. The iterated events created epistemic cycles for transdisciplinary knowledge integration. Moreover, through the experience of organising the transdisciplinary workshops, disciplinary tandems developed the communication skills required for transdisciplinary knowledge integration. Intercultural reflexivity opened up spaces for internal intercultural communication, which informed the repeated exchange of knowledge via transdisciplinary feedback loops. This combination allowed tandems to enlarge their options for thinking and acting, conceptualising and communicating ‘out of the box’ to create new knowledge.

Dream team or evil twin? Fostering the potential of tandems Tandems are an organisational pattern linking two international partners via their shared professional task. As each is based in a different cultural setting, the assumption goes that this working relationship enables complementary protagonists to successfully carry out inter- and transdisciplinary research. My role as team leader was to develop competencies in the tandem by setting in motion the necessary cognitive and social processes. In the best case scenario, the tandem develops into a trusted partnership, creating added value in terms of transdisciplinary knowledge creation.The overarching tandem identity spans intercultural differences, encourages flexibility, cooperation and efficacy, and has a stabilising effect. However these optimistic expectations of dream teams are tempered by the apprehension of evil twins, where negative interactions within the tandem unfold in a downward dynamic. In this final section, I identify factors that contributed to success or failure of tandems, based on our experiences as described above in the setting of a transdisciplinary research project. All tandems consisted of a German-based Christian and an Indian Hindu counterpart. Overall, the Indian counterparts had slightly more seniority, if this is defined in terms of age and family status (Table 10.1). The most successful tandem in terms of task fulfilment was the administrative tandem, followed by the academic ecology tandem. In both cases the tandem consisted of a German

Dream team or evil twins? 213

Christian woman and a Hindu man, the only difference being that in the former the German team member was herself bicultural, which was possibly an assent in building a cross-cultural partnership. The leadership tandem also consisted of a bicultural female Christian and male Hindu and also achieved most of its goals, at least in terms of its contribution to the success of the project. All three ‘successful’ tandems consisted of mixed gender pairs, whereas members of the two less successful ones were of the same gender. In the case of the economist tandem, the combination of two Indian men represented the greatest degree of similarity between tandem partners, but was least successful in terms of joint outcome. Differences between dynamics and outcomes of single-gender and mixed-gender tandems would be a fascinating topic for further investigation. Based on our experience, biculturality – not necessarily Indo-German – enhances the likelihood that tandem partners will fulfil their obligations with patience, stamina and determination.Where a close working relationship develops, the ability to switch between cultural frames of reference increases tolerance and flexibility in potentially ‘difficult’ situations. In this respect, it was interesting that the intimate knowledge of both cultures enabled the Germanbased Indian economist to reach out beyond his tandem and build reliable alliances with other members of the team, even though his ‘own’ tandem was not a success. Competence in detecting and making sense of cultural dissonances is a ‘translation skill’ that can make a key contribution to the success of an intercultural project. Biculturality and multiple belonging help accommodate the inherent fuzziness of intercultural communication. Last but not least, two dimensions of power asymmetry influenced the degree of cooperation achieved within the tandems. On the one hand, ultimate financial decisions rested with the German side; on the other hand, factual power was vested in the local knowledge of the hosting Indian organisation, through which funds were channelled. The legal setting did not allow for equal control over finances and this could be interpreted as a post-colonial relationship, which would necessarily exclude shared ownership of the research endeavour. To some extent I attribute the incomplete integration of the host organisation into the day-to-day management of the project to this structural imbalance. Instead of articulating dissent, resistance was expressed by stressing institutional norms. Each tandem found a different way of dealing with these tensions, resulting in an idiosyncratic project working culture. The tandem structure is one among many other categories of belonging and options for developing team dynamics in an international research project. Though Schlehe and Hidayah (2013) claim that no single model for collaborative transcultural research practice exits, I draw following general conclusions from our experience in the BioDIVA project: •

Acknowledging the specific needs of disciplinary tandems operating in a transdisciplinary setting creates room for the partners to develop a common disciplinary identity, which helps to overcome intercultural challenges. Paradoxically, the grounding in a shared discipline facilitates inter- and transdisciplinary integration. Both transdisciplinarity and interculturality

214  Martina Padmanabhan

become productive when diverse voices are heard, multiple perspectives are negotiated, positions shift and boundaries blur. • The simultaneous roles of tandem members as partners, project team members and transdisciplinary researchers bear the danger of overburdening them. Spacing and addressing the threefold task in a sequential manner relieves pressure. Tandems play an ambivalent and potentially disruptive role in relation to conflicts between individual academic goals and transdisciplinary working practices. To keep the evil twins at bay, conflict resolution is one option. If this fails, in the last resort, ‘tandem divorce’ may be necessary in order to keep the work of the project on track. • Disciplinary tandems do not necessarily possess the means to bridge intercultural and interdisciplinary gaps. Handing over responsibility for implementing transdisciplinarity to the tandems provides the opportunity to develop competences, but contains the possibility of failure. Provision of a safe space for collective reflection and feedback on both academic and social aspects of the research can enhance intercultural communication and the potential for creation of new transformation knowledge. • Careful selection of tandem partners and thus team members is required. Tandems are embedded in the wider team environment, and getting the right match of staff, both within and between them, is essential to get the joint work going. While it should be recognised that not every gap in gender, personality, social and professional position can be breached in the confines of a single project, a balanced mix within the project team as a whole has the potential to compensate, at least to some extent, for imbalances within the tandems themselves. This includes the possibility to cope with unforeseen changes like staff turnover. The imaginary twin of my PhD days never had to bear the burden of proof. The experiences of five tandems, working side by side in the BioDIVA project, provided the opportunity both for comparative analysis and for reflection on the potential of tandems, as structural arrangements, to contribute to the success of transdisciplinary research projects. Based on this experience it is clear that tandems need careful management. In particular, team selection also plays a crucial role. Tandems are sensitive to quite small differences in the makeup of the team, in terms of the mix of cultures, seniority and gender, whose influence on tandem dynamics and outcome merits further investigation.With these provisos, I conclude that tandems represent a promising social and cognitive structure that can build on disciplinary interests and complementary competencies to enhance intercultural communication and transdisciplinary knowledge creation for sustainability.

Acknowledgements The generous funding of BioDIVA by BMBF grant 01UU0908 is duly acknowledged. I am grateful for helpful comments by Kristina Großmann, Christoph Barmeyer, Stefanie Wehner and the wonderful copyediting of Andrew Halliday.

Dream team or evil twins? 215

References Bala, M., Chalil, G.R.B., & Gupta, A. (2012). Emic and etic: Different lenses for research in culture. Unique features of culture in Indian context. Management and Labour Studies, 37(1), 45–60. Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barmeyer, C. (2012). Taschenlexikon Interkulturalität. Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht. Barmeyer, C., & Franklin, P. (2016). Understanding otherness and discord: A necessary but insufficient first step towards generating complementarity and synergy from cultural diversity. In C. Barmeyer & P. Franklin (Eds.), Intercultural management: A case-based approach to achieving complementarity and synergy (pp. 15–27). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Barmeyer, C., Ghidelli, E., Haupt, U., & Piber, H. (2015). Organisationsentwicklung im interkulturellen Raum. Ein Orientierungsmodell für Organisationsberater. Organisationsentwicklung, (4), 75–81. Betz, L., Kunze, I., Parameswaran, P., Suma, T. R., & Padmanabhan, M. (2014). The socialecological web: A bridging concept for transdisciplinary research. Current Science, 10(4), 572–579. Betz, L., Parameswaran, P., & Tscharntke,T. (2016). Paddy weeds, pests and predators respond to agricultural intensification at local and landscape scales. In L. Betz (Ed.), Intensification of paddy cultivation in relation to changing agrobiodiversity patterns and social-ecological processes in South India (Dissertation). Retrieved from https://ediss.uni-goettingen.de/ handle/11858/00-1735-0000-0028-87A0-A BioDIVA. (2016). Retrieved February 8, 2017, from www.uni-passau.de/en/biodiva/home/ Bolten, J. (forthcoming). Interkulturalität neu denken: Strukturprozessuale Perspektiven. In C. Rink (Hg.), Interkulturalität – Transkulturalität . Stuttgart: Metzler. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Breining, H., Gebhardt, J., & Lösch, K. (2002). Multiculturalism in contemporary societies: Perspectives on difference and transdifference. Erlangen: Universitätsbund. Briefing notes. (2016) Retrieved February 8, 2017, from www.uni-passau.de/en/biodiva/ publications/briefing-notes/ Christinck, A., & Padmanabhan, M. (2013). Cultivate diversity: A handbook on transdisciplinary approaches to agrobiodiversity research. Weikersheim: Margraf. Defila, R., Di Giulio, A., & Scheuermann, M. (2006). Forschungsverbundmanagement. Handbücher für die Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinärer Projekte. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag AG. Defila, R., Di Giulio, A., & Scheuermann, M. (2008). Management von Forschungsverbünden – Möglichkeiten der Professionalisierung und Unterstützung. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. Di Gulio, A. (2016).Vom Nutzen des Lagerfeuers _ Fallstudien transdisziplinärer Forschung als Erzählung. In R. Defila & A. Di Gulio (Eds.), Transdisziplinär Forschen _ Zwischen Ideal und Gelebter Praxis (pp. 93–104). Frankfurt: Campus. Garsten, C. (1994). Apple World: Core and periphery in a transnational organizational culture. Stockholm: Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology 33. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books. Gröschke, D. (2010). Group competence in intercultural situations. Interculture Journal, 9(12), 51–78. Hall, K.,Vogel, A., Stipelman, B., Stokols, D., Morgan, G., & Gehlert, S. (2012). A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: Goals, team processes, and strategies. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2(4), 415–430.

216  Martina Padmanabhan Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges:The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspectives. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. Harcourt, W. (2016). Gender and sustainable livelihoods: Linking gendered experiences of environment, community and self. Agriculture and Human Values. doi:10.1007/ s10460-016-9757-5 Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hollaender, K., Loibl, M. C., & Wilts, A. (2008). Management. In G. Hirsch Hadorn et al. (Eds.), Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 385–397). Berlin: Springer. Jackson, J. (2006). Feminism spoken here: Epistemologies for interdisciplinary development research. Development and change, 37(3), 25–547. Kakar, S. (1981). The inner world: A psychoanalytic study of childhood and society in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kakar, S., & Kakar, K. (2006). Die Inder. Porträt einer Gesellschaft. Munich: Beck. Kock,T. (1998). Story telling: Is it real research? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(6), 1182–1190. Kunze, I. (2016). Dualisms shaping human-nature relations: Discovering the multiple meanings of social-ecological change in Wayanad. Agriculture and Human Values. doi:10.1007/ s10460–016–9760-x Kunze, I., & Padmanabhan, M. (2014). Discovering positionalities in the countryside: Methodological reflections on doing fieldwork in South India. Erdkunde, 68(4), 277–288. Lewis, P. J. (2011). Storytelling as research/research as storytelling. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 505–510. Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia. London: Routledge. Martin, G. (2004). Ethnobotany: A methods manual. London: Chapman and Hall. Maselli, D., Lys, J., & Schmid, J. (2006). Improving research impacts of research partnerships. Swiss Commission for Research Partnerships with Developing Countries, KFPE. Bern: Geographica Bernensia. Novy, A., Beinstein, B., & Voßemer, C. (2008). Methodologie transdisziplinärer Entwicklungsforschung. Aktion & Reflexion.Texte zur Transdisziplinären Entwicklungsforschung und Bildung.Vienna: Paulo Freire Zentrum. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Padmanabhan, M. (2016). Intraface: Negotiating gender-relations in agrobiodiversity. Freiburger Zeitschrift für Geschlechter Studien (fzg), 22(2), 85–105. Padmanabhan, M., & Arpke, H. (2011). Building capacities in international tandems: Complementarity of communication in social-ecological research. Unpublished manuscript. Padmanabhan, M., Lippe, M., Jose, M., Kunze, I., Arpke, H., & Betz, L. (2010). BioDIVA – transformation knowledge towards an equitable and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity: Building inter- and transdisciplinarity. In I. Darnhofer & M. Grötzer (Eds.), Building sustainable rural futures: The added value of systems approaches in times of change and uncertainty. Proceedings of the 9th European IFSA Symposium. University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences,Vienna (pp. 973–980). Padmanabhan, M., Nagabhatla, N., Jose, M., Betz, L., Suma, T. R., Halliday, A., & Werner, S. (2014). Food for thought: Facing land use change in Wayanad. BioDIVA Briefing Note 6. Padmanabhan, M., & Werner, S. (2014). Feedback loops – multi-level stakeholder workshops in transdisciplinary research. BioDIVA Briefing Note 7. Rosendahl, J., Zanella, M., Rist, S., & Weigelt, J. (2015). Scientists’ situated knowledge: Strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity. Futures, 65, 17–27.

Dream team or evil twins? 217 Schlehe, J. (2006). Transnationale Wissensproduktion: Deutsch-indonesische T ­ andemforschung. In B. Rehbein, J. Rüland, & J. Schlehe (Eds.), Identitätspolitik und Interkulturalität in Asien. Ein Multidisziplinäres Mosaik (pp. 167–190). Berlin: LIT. Schlehe, J., & Hidayah, S. (2013). Transcultural ethnography in tandems: Collaboration and reciprocity combined and extended. Freiburg: Freiburger Ethnologische Arbeitspapiere 23, Universität Freiburg. Suma, T. R., & Großmann, K. (2016). Exclusions in inclusive programs: State-sponsored sustainable development initiatives amongst the Kurichya in Kerala, India. Agriculture and Human Values. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9758-4 Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. Werner, S., & Höing, A. (2014). “Cultivating Diversity”: Results from the national level dialogue workshop. BioDIVA Briefing Note 5. Werner, S., & Nagabhatla, N. (2013). Multi-stakeholder dialogue on land use: “Transdisciplinary approaches to address landscape transformation in Kerala”. BioDIVA Briefing Note 4.X 2013. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.

Part IV

Policy interface Creating dialogues with policy makers

11  Die Landforscher Independent researchers networking for sustainable agriculture Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens

Background and context The knowledge intermediary is an emerging actor at the science-policy interface (Jones, Jones, Shaxson & Walker, 2012). Intermediaries operate as ‘boundary spanners’ between the worlds of science and practice, thereby closing a knowledge gap which is neither catered for by university-based research nor by established professional bodies. Rather than simply producing knowledge, intermediaries act as facilitators of contextualised knowledge production by enhancing the capacity of actors involved. To this end they bring actors and their different knowledge systems together, navigating power dynamics and mediating conflicts among them.This consummately transdisciplinary approach contributes to social learning on individual, organisational and systemic levels, as described in the chapters by Christinck and Kaufmann (Chapter 9) and by Fry (Chapter 6). This chapter provides further insights into the work of knowledge intermediaries, and specifically that of the transdisciplinary research network Die Landforscher. Founded in Germany in 2008, Die Landforscher (‘countryside researchers’) is run by two independent researchers, Dr. Andrea Fink-Keßler and Dr. Karin Jürgens, whose specialist areas are, respectively, rural development and agrarian sociology, and politics. The network links professionals whose fields of action are independent scientific research and projects at the interface with agricultural practice (e.g. for companies and agricultural interest groups in both upstream and downstream sectors). Project teams comprising representatives of different actor groups work together in ‘flexible collaboration’. On principle the network works with very diverse partners in order to ensure representation of the diversity of perspectives involved.Thematic areas for research include regional and cross-regional economic interdependencies, sustainable agricultural practices and their ethical, social and legal-political foundations, as well as questions relating to regional food supply and quality of diet. This chapter illustrates the context for our work and our working methods using two case studies: one concerned with on-farm animal slaughter and meat processing, and the other with low-concentrate, pasture-based dairy farming. Both examples concern practices oriented towards the optimal use and

222  Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens

conservation of on-farm resources.To this end, farmers are adopting historically developed strategies and using their own innovative capacities to develop them further, so that they can continue to provide the basis for economically secure farm-based livelihoods. Such practices are fully in accordance with the trend in European agricultural policies since the 1990s towards protection of the environment, nature and animals, as well as consumer protection, in order to achieve the goal of a multifunctional, sustainable agriculture sector. In both cases therefore, the practices described can potentially make an important contribution towards the sustainable agricultural economies that will be required by the EU in the future. They can be expected to have positive effects on resources (water, soils, air), biodiversity and animal welfare, as well as on the quality of farm work and added value of farm produce. However both strategies have until now been marginalised and, at an institutional level, receive neither recognition nor support. This is partly because the farm enterprises concerned have, typically, adopted very individual strategies that neither directly nor exclusively follow the development pathways laid down by EU agricultural policy since the 1960s, which has profoundly transformed post-war European agriculture. It is true that the EU has introduced reforms oriented towards sustainable agriculture. However it has not abandoned the goal of increasing productivity that was proclaimed in the 1960s; it is rather the case that these original goals have been supplemented by another one. At the same time the EU has taken measures to orient agricultural production more strongly towards global markets, which provides further impetus to the already predominant trend towards the intensification of agriculture. All this is of immense significance for agricultural enterprises, which find themselves caught up this interplay between two mutually conflicting sets of guiding principles, both of which are required to be implemented on level of the farm. It is precisely at the point that the work of the Landforscher network begins. Over the past five decades, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been the single most influential driver of the development of agricultural enterprises, even at the smallest local scale. Although the objectives that determine the implementation of EU agricultural policy are defined at a supranational level, individual member states still have considerable scope for action to create opportunities for alternative patterns of development by agricultural enterprises at the local level. These opportunities can only be taken advantage of, however, if the actors responsible for policy implementation can be won over to the farmers’ ideas and strategies. The organic agriculture movement has a long history in Europe and has given rise to a number of long-established, non-university-based research ­institutes.1 From the first phase of agricultural intensification, in the mid-1970s, new farmers’ movements and interest groups were formed that – without wholly aligning themselves to the established organic agriculture movement – ­critically engaged with the politically driven intensification and industrialisation of agriculture and sought an alternative path towards an environmentally

Die Landforscher  223

friendly agriculture.2 This movement is a principal point of departure for the projects and activities of the Landforscher network. Away from political discourse and political strategy, stakeholders in this movement were asking their own questions about the future development opportunities for their enterprises. No answers were expected to be forthcoming from established agricultural research agencies. Moreover, they were not trusted on account of the economic and production technology interests they represented. Issues raised by these stakeholders were addressed for the first time by the Rural Development Working Group set up by Professor Onno Poppinga in the Department of Urban and Landscape Planning at the University of Kassel in the 1980s. The working group critically analysed agrarian policy and opened up new areas of research, for example into agricultural practices, social problems (e.g. health of women farmers) and emerging conflicts (e.g. between nature conservation and agriculture).3 In this sense, the Landforscher network belongs to the same tradition as other non-university-based research institutes set up in the 1970s and 1980s, such as the Öko-Institut in Freiburg (www.oeko.de/en) and the Institute for Social Ecological Research in Frankfurt ( www.isoe.de/en/home) (Jürgens & FinkKeßler, 2009). These institutes filled a critical gap in the research landscape that, at that time, was dominated by university-based research. They developed methods oriented towards providing answers to criticisms and questions raised by contemporary citizens’ groups and environmental movements. The aim was to establish scientific criteria for decision-making and, at the same time, sustainability principles for policy, civil society and business using social-ecologically oriented research and transdisciplinary methods (Bergmann & Schramm, 2008; Hoffmann et al., 2009). Involvement of a wide range of stakeholders was an integral part of this approach.

Die Landforscher: self-image and working methods The Landforscher network has developed stand-alone praxis-oriented research approaches and methods of knowledge exchange specifically for application in the fields of action of farm enterprises and agricultural institutions. These provide the basis for non-hierarchical, participatory research, carried out jointly by scientific and practice partners. Collaboration with policy makers is an essential part of the research mission: many topics of projects and research are directly related to both German and European agrarian and consumer policy, precisely because commissioning companies and institutions are themselves strongly influenced by these policies. We consider that research that is committed to sustainability of the agricultural and food sectors necessarily includes engagement with policies, policy objectives and policy instruments. Moreover, in order to give further impetus to the process of changes towards sustainability in these sectors, it is essential to involve all stakeholders who are involved in policy implementation (including those responsible for the development of corresponding economic, juridical and

224  Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens

cultural framework conditions). From our perspective, ‘policy makers’ include not only representatives of associations, public agencies and political parties, but also representatives of the research institutes themselves, who as scientific advisors and university teachers influence decision-making at many levels of the agrarian system; and thereby, indirectly through policies, advice, media coverage of agriculture and specialist publications, also influence agricultural practice. Methodologically, this approach is built in to projects by setting up research teams composed, for example, of farmers, representatives of associations and interest groups, and researchers from other specialist areas and institutions. So dialogue and controversy becomes part of the research process itself. The adoption of a range of different perspectives and approaches makes room for creative solutions (Jahn & Keil, 2015). The following sections draw on two contrasting case study examples to describe how this collaborative team work and engagement with policy makers works in practice. We reflect on the experiences and outline the principal characteristics of the approach.

Case 1: on-farm meat processors confronted by EU hygiene regulations Direct marketing of meat products from on-farm slaughtered animals increases the value-added for agricultural enterprises.Those that choose this route maintain traditional and varied connections with the butchery trade: they cooperate with butchers, either bringing their animals to a slaughterhouse in the region or operating their own slaughterhouse. Farmers obtain additional qualifications as butchers or butchers act as service providers for the farmers. However, while butchers have access to information and support from their own association, the Deutscher Fleischerverband (German Meat Association), farmers who process their own meat are not represented and, because of their special situation, fall through the net of institutional support. This lack of support was highlighted when the entire European food hygiene law was reformed in response to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) scandal. New demands on the meat processing sector

In 2004 the new EU hygiene package was adopted as a regulation for immediate application. Member states were required to implement it by 2010.The new law consists of several individual regulations and affects all those ‘have to do with food’. Specific rules apply to food of animal origin, since this is especially susceptible to contamination. Not everything is new – and yet with this package the EU consummated a paradigm shift that particularly affects small food processing businesses, including on-farm slaughterhouses. Greater emphasis than before is placed on the role of the ‘food business operator’. He or she is responsible for the safety of the produce, and is required to submit an individual food safety plan to the authorities.The role of supervisory

Die Landforscher  225

and regulatory authorities (veterinary services) is restricted to verification and control, rather than having to specify detailed food safety measures as previously. This change of roles was new for all those involved. For the first time all slaughterhouses, without exception, were required to obtain EU approval. Previously, small businesses and ‘craft enterprises’ had been exempt. The new law embodied the EU principle of ‘flexibility’. Many of the detailed regulations in the old law (e.g. regarding the height of tiled walls) were replaced by recommendations. As another example: for the disinfection of the knife used for cutting up meat a sterilisation unit can be used or ‘another system having an equivalent effect’. Instead of structural measures (e.g. two rooms for slaughtering and dismembering), organisational measures are now also deemed acceptable (e.g. carrying out the two operations, slaughtering and dismembering, at different times). Now the only important thing is to achieve the objective of obtaining hygienic food. Making the regulations more flexible allows enterprises to adopt customised measures. The intention of the EU is that this should enable almost all meat processing companies and slaughterhouses in the 28 member states to obtain approval. There are however large gaps, for many reasons, between the aspirations of the EU Commission and reality in the member states. Moreover, flexibility in the regulations is a cause of great uncertainty among those concerned. From the outset, farmers with their own slaughterhouses were particularly affected, since these are legally separate from the farming operations but closely connected in terms of the space they occupy and the personnel involved. In our conversations with farmers, they told us – again and again – of requirements that they considered incapable of fulfilment. Basically this was a consequence of the application of risk evaluation criteria developed for industrial operations with automatic slaughtering production lines, based on a division of labour, to the small number of slaughterhouses that still use hand-cutting methods. Since in most cases these farmers had not been informed about the wording of the regulation, they felt they could do little to oppose these demands. For their part, the authorities were also overburdened. Lower-level officials were not accustomed to being given such scope for discretionary judgement (i.e. flexibility). However, the possibility of being directly controlled by the European Food Safety Authority in Dublin remained, like a sword of Damocles, an ever-present threat. In practice farm enterprises found it difficult to comply with the new requirements for EU approval. The basic requirement was that the enterprise should submit its own food safety plan, with documents outlining procedures for self-inspection, in order to obtain Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) certification. In principle, a genuinely self-developed plan could help farm managers to reflect on their operating procedures and simplify the work process. However farm managers viewed the requirements for selfinspection, documentation and expensive microbiological analysis as external impositions. The new quality control system had to be implemented by 2010. Even before this date, many butchers and farmers began to abandon slaughtering.

226  Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens

This gave further impetus to the centralisation of the slaughtering sector, which meant longer transport routes for animals. In the German state of Hessen alone, every second slaughterhouse ceased operations during this period. Were the EU hygiene regulations responsible for this trend? The causes of these trends are by no means easy to ascertain. Were the new regulations after all impossible to implement? Given the downward pressure on meat prices exerted by the industrial and wholesale meat companies, were the investments required of small enterprises too high? In any case the EU approval system for slaughterhouses and meat processors represented a hurdle that not every enterprise was able to overcome. ‘Research project’ or translation and advice service for farmers?

This situation formed the backdrop for the project ‘Support for the Implementation of EU Hygiene Regulations by Commercial Meat Producers’ (Müller & Fink-Keßler, 2010). Hans-Jürgen Müller, owner of the organic farm Gut Fahrenbach in the Federal State of Hessen, and Andrea Fink-Keßler from the Agrarian and Regional Development Agency had already been working for several years to address the problem of legal barriers to direct meat marketing (Fink-Keßler & Müller, 2004; Müller, 2002; Müller, 2003). In order to ensure that all important stakeholders were represented, a vet was brought into the project team. The project finally obtained funding in 2008 on the second attempt, in the form of a grant provided under the research programme to support organic agriculture set up by the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture.The delay in obtaining funding meant that the project had to work fast to help farmers meet the deadline for the implementation of EU regulations in January 2010. The original project proposal had envisaged an initial phase of analysis, leading to appraisal of the regulations in the second phase, and a third phase when advice on obtaining EU approval would be provided to individual enterprises. In order to identify farm enterprises that wanted to obtain EU approval for their slaughterhouses, the project made itself known through articles in weekly newspapers produced for the farming community. The principal study areas were the Black Forest in Baden-Württemberg, with its characteristic collective slaughterhouses, and the state of Hessen. In the course of the project, around 150 enterprises got in touch to ask questions and discuss their concerns. A number of veterinary agencies also got in contact. We visited some of these enterprises on site, in order to understand their specific situation. We soon realised it was going to be difficult for us to keep to our role as ‘researchers’. Farm managers expected immediate advice during the course of our visit.They wanted help in the negotiation process with ‘their’ vet. There was huge hunger for information and for ‘translation’ of the new regulations and explanation of the opportunities (flexibility) they offered. In addition to enquiries from individual enterprises, we also received requests from organic farming associations and other groupings to organise group advice sessions for

Die Landforscher  227

their members.Thus we had to abandon our ideas for a logical progression from research to advice in a ‘three-stage’ project. From the start, analysis of Regulations 852/2004 and 853/2004 governing the granting of EU approval went hand in hand with providing advice. A number of ‘frequently asked questions’ were distilled from the exchanges in the group advice sessions and the on-site meetings with individual managers. Answers to these questions were summarised in an information sheet that was sent to all those who had requested advice. We also wrote articles for the press. However, the core of the work took place with a smaller number of selected enterprises. Together with the managers we studied their existing operations and then went on to develop an individual food safety plan that complied with EU requirements for HACCP certification. Further guidance was provided to some of these enterprises until approval was obtained. Outcomes of the project: mutual learning and association

One of the first tangible results of the project was a folder (on paper and as a CD-ROM) containing all the documents required for enterprises to submit an individual food safety plan and obtain EU approval for their operations. The templates could be tailored by individual managers to match the requirements for their enterprises and their operations. The folder was also sent to investigating authorities in the project area and neighbouring federal states with a request for feedback and correction. This folder was the result of an intensive process, involving multiple feedback loops, of knowledge exchange and mutual learning among participating enterprises, their district vets, and our team. Once again the roles of researchers and ‘researched’ enterprises dissolved into one another. Only by working together (researchers, farmers and butchers, and supervisory authorities) was it possible to overcome the uncertainties and unresolved questions about risk assessment that the wide margin of discretion in the regulations gave rise to among all those involved. Each enterprise had to be assessed individually and this could only be done by working together. Both practical knowledge of the managers of slaughterhouses and knowledge of the regulatory authorities were required. Only on this basis could negotiations take place, in order to identify solutions that made sense to managers and satisfied the requirements of regulatory authorities. Working together ensured that the resulting hygiene plan would be accepted by managers as sensible and helpful for improving the organisation of the work process. To understand the process leading to the formulation of a hygiene plan, and our role in it as researchers, it is important to know that food hygiene regulations are implemented at the level of individual states; the federal government has little or no opportunity to exert an influence. In practice this means that in many federal states, the actual implementation of the regulations is devolved to district authorities. This has some advantages, in that many different interpretations of the law are possible. But it also has serious disadvantages, since much

228  Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens

depends of decisions by individual district vets, who often are unwilling to show their hand in negotiations with managers. Our contacts with actors involved in the process from all over the country revealed that, in many states, a series of critical issues provoked heated disputes between managers and district level authorities and that these authorities were themselves often uncertain about how the law should be interpreted. In response to this situation we attempted to draw the next higher administrative and political level into the process, by organising workshops and events, and issuing press releases. Regional meetings were organised to bring together lower- and higher-level authorities, while national workshop brought together state authorities with the responsible representatives of the federal government. These workshops gave participants the opportunity to discuss critical points encountered in the process of implementing the regulations and, at least, try to agree on how to address them. One outcome of this process was the formation, in 2010, of an association of farmers with manual meat processing facilities (www.biofleischhandwerk. de). By this time, the initially fluid process had become more stable, with the work of project focusing around the advice sessions with farmers and butchers and contacts with authorities and legislators. The formation of the association, shortly before the date for implementation of the legislation, brought the particular interests of this group of artisanal meat workers to the fore. By 2016 the association had about 65 members from all over Germany. One focus of the association’s work is the ongoing task of keeping members informed about legal changes.The association has a management board that functions as a focal point, used by members and non-members alike in order to obtain comprehensive information from a neutral source before meeting with authorities to discuss their proposals. The focal point provides information about legal requirements for the construction and expansion of slaughterhouses, slaughter, meat cutting and marketing, as well as certification and labelling requirements. The association organises regular training events (e.g. on animal welfare during slaughter), as well as information events. A new project is addressing the issue of on-farm slaughter, as a means of minimising the transport of live animals. In order to facilitate this new initiative, in large measure not covered by EU law, we have initiated an intensive exchange of views with authorities and politicians. In this we are supported by a large number of farm enterprises that want to make sure they have the backing of law before taking this new step. It has become a kind of movement, which continues to supported, at least in part, by the training and information we provide.

Case 2: bringing low-concentrate dairy production in from the cold Conventional wisdom states that use of concentrated feed is indispensable for commercial dairy production. However initial results of a broad scientific study into the economic feasibility of concentrate-free or low-concentrate milk production show that low-concentrate dairy farming can be an economically

Die Landforscher  229

viable alternative (Jürgens, Poppinga & Sperling, 2016). The investigation was carried out by members of the Landforscher network in close collaboration with the Kasseler Institute for Rural Development. All 52 organic milk producers selected for the feasibility analysis used less than 5 quintals (1 quintal = 100 kg) of concentrated feed per cow per year, compared to typical values of 20 to 25 quintals in intensive dairy production units. The results of the study show that the average income of the dairy enterprises investigated was somewhat higher than the average for dairy producers across Germany, even though the lowconcentrate dairy farms produced much less milk. Milk production of a cow fed a low-concentrate diet was 2,000 kg per year lower, compared to a cow fed a conventional diet. The average of size of low-concentrate herds, 39 cows, was also relatively small. Following the conclusion of this wide-ranging scientific study, the project team embarked on new initiatives and was confronted with a new set of tasks: through their participation in the study, the low-concentrate dairy enterprises decided to set up a network, which would provide a selforganised advice service and serve as a platform for knowledge exchange and commercial networking among the members. Questioning conventional ideas on dairy farming

However, the first and principal aim of this project had been to engage in scientific debate around the topic. For decades the predominant doctrine in Germany was that use of concentrated feed greatly increased the output of dairy cows and was, therefore, the only economically option for dairy producers. Widespread information and advice targeting dairy producers ensured that most of them shared the conviction that only high-output dairy production offered economic prospects. A very simple and intuitively plausible formula was used to put over this idea: the 1:2 concentrate to milk ratio. This states that one kilogram of concentrated fed to a cow will produce two kilos of milk. Even though the validity of this formula was frequently refuted by scientists (Pries, van der Sand, Benninghoff, Tholen & Südekum, 2009), it continued to be repeated by teachers of feed science and business administration and appear widely in teaching materials, information sheets and magazines produced for agricultural apprentices, farmers and consultants – and for students of agricultural sciences. The formula treats calculates the milk obtained from concentrated feed as a fixed ‘feed conversion’ ratio and uses this as the sole indicator of economic performance. This, from the outset, blocks the way towards reflection on whether reducing or eliminating the use of concentrate could provide equivalent economic benefits. In fact there are many arguments that can be made in favour of low-concentrate dairy farming, both from an economic perspective, for the dairy enterprises themselves, and also on public interest grounds. Specialist dairy producers today use around 20 to 25 quintals of concentrate per cow per year, in some cases up to 40 quintals (Brade, 2014). In recent years there has been an alarming fall in the age of milk cows and almost 30 per cent of all of them are taken out of dairy herds after their first lactation due to

230  Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens

ill health attributable to the production system, manifested as fertility, metabolism and udder problems. This is an important cost factor. Moreover, since concentrate mixes require the addition of protein-rich ingredients (soya) to supplement energy-rich maize, dairy enterprises are dependent on the international animal feed trade. The price to farmers of bought-in cattle feed was 80 per cent higher in 2013 than in 2003. The combination of very low milk prices and rising costs has increasingly led even trade magazines that have long advocated high-output dairy production to question the economic viability of intensive milk production (Elite Magazin Online, 2013). Companies have to find ways to cope with changes in baseline economic conditions and in the agricultural policy context, as well as with price shocks and structural collapses, as in 2015/2016 following the phasing-out of the milk quota and, six years earlier, during the global milk crisis of 2008/2009. Dairy enterprises react to this kind of uncertainty by adopting – in the short-or longer-term-individual ways of doing business and strategies for business development. For this reason dairy production in Germany has remained, in operation terms, highly diverse (Jürgens, 2013). With low-concentrate milk production, the milk comes from cows that are mainly pasture fed, supplemented with staple feeds such as fresh grass, silage and hay. This has many benefits. Pasture grazing and grass-based feed are more appropriate to the species and healthier for the animals. It makes use of pastureland, which is increasingly endangered. Soya, an important component of concentrated feed, including for dairy cows, is no longer included in the diet. As long as this feeding regime can be made to work economically, it represents a forward-looking, sustainable business model. Working with farmers to construct an empirical database

However, farmers who adopt low-concentrate feeds still lack a technical and scientific frame of reference. These enterprises lead a shadowy existence and, because of the lack of scientific evidence for their business model, are largely ignored by the professional experts, who refuse to take them seriously. The starting point for our project was to combat this ignorance by providing new perspectives on the issues, and scientific evidence in favour of alternative forms of dairy production. We understood, however, that this could only be achieved, if at all, using reliably collected data and solidly justified results. This required that the collation of existing scientific contributions and depended on the assembly of a good empirical information base. At that time, there had been no studies specifically examining the economic viability of lowconcentrate dairy enterprises. Discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of these systems were confined to individual case studies or studies dealing with technical production issues (Eilers, 2013; Klocke, Staehli & Notz, 2011; Leisen & Rieger, 2007). Members of the project team had long been aware of a few milk producers that had been using little or no concentrated feed for years and were economically

Die Landforscher  231

successful. They had been in contact with these enterprises for more than 10 years and been involved in discussions about their alternative feeding strategy, as presented in promotional talks and company profiles at workshops for milk producers organised by the Small Farmers Association (AbL). The collaboration between practitioners and scientists thus started out on a partnership footing and was not – as is still often the case in practice-oriented projects – ­retrospectively set up in accordance with the needs of research project. More­ over, this was the first project to be carried out under the auspices of the research network that was financed by an agricultural company. Urs Sperling, who collaborated with the project as a practice partner and had himself been managing a Demeter4 milk herd without the use of for 15 years, provided funding for the project through the Internationale Forschungsgesellschaft (International Research Society), based on his farm at Breitwiesenhof in Baden-Württemberg,5 with the support of the Mahle Foundation.6 This farm manager played an active role in initiating the project.When applying for a government grant to help finance the expansion of his cowshed, he had experienced the astonishment that his in-depth knowledge of economics had provoked among agricultural extension officers and tax consultants, and their unwillingness to accept his application of this knowledge to justify concentrate-free dairy farming. The Agrarian and Regional Development Agency (BAL) and the Kasseler Institute for Regional Development were responsible for developing the project proposal and the funding application. All decisions concerning the research topic, objectives and methods, and up to the evaluation and application of the results, were taken in collaboration with the farmer who had been the driving force in setting up the research project. For the empirical research, our objective in the first instance was to get as many enterprises as possible to take part in the survey and to obtain sound facts and figures about their operations. The research organisations taking part in the study were incorporated into the work for the first time during two subsequent phases of the project. New knowledge shows how German farmers are making a success of low-concentrate dairy production

At this time, no one knew how many low-concentrate dairy enterprises existed or where they were located. There were no previous studies, let alone statistical data on low-concentrate dairy enterprises. So the first step was to find a sufficient number of enterprises for the study to take place. This we achieved by publishing a call for participants in trade magazines, and were very pleased when 130 enterprises from all over Germany responded. This high number was in itself an important result and was sufficient for a scientific study. We are sure that there are many more farms dedicated to low-concentrated milk production, still to be discovered. Our call for participation was far from being as widely publicised as we wished, with publication restricted to trade magazines that were receptive to the ideas of the project (magazines for organic farmers, newsletters of the ‘Working Group for Peasant Agriculture’ (Arbeitsgemeinschaft

232  Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens

bäuerliche Landwirtschaft) and more recently established dairy farmers associations). Only two of the regional weekly journals that are most widely read among conventional farmers published our call.This, and the stated upper limit of 5 quintals of concentrate per cow per year, meant that in practice our study was restricted to organic milk producers, which had not been our intention at the outset. Now that the results of the project have been published and are more widely known among practitioners, in preparation for future work we have already been able to make contact with a much larger number of conventional milk producers who also adopt low-concentrate feeding regimes. Finally 52 low-concentrate diary enterprises were selected for the profitability analysis.These included farms with small and large dairy herds, ranging from 11 to 150 cows, with an average of 39. Data on farm structure and profitability for the financial years 2011–2012 and 2012–2013 were analysed. Our aim was to produce scientifically valid results.To this end we chose to make a systematic comparison with official statistics on the economic situation of the dairy industry (operational test data from the German Federal Agricultural Ministry and the EU). Contemporary agrarian research commonly focuses on the economic performance of the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ quartiles in order to analyse branches of agricultural production. We deliberately decided not to adopt this procedure as the aim of the project was not to make comparisons among the performance of individual milk producers participating in the project, but rather to evaluate the profitability of the low-concentrate systems as such. Our comparative analysis showed that low-concentrate production yielded an income per cow per year that was 35 per cent higher than for conventionally fed cattle in enterprises with a comparable farm structure (Table 11.1; Jürgens, Poppinga & Sperling, 2015; Jürgens, Poppinga & Sperling, 2016). The average land area of the dairy enterprise was similar in all groups and therefore comparison of the data yields scientifically valid results. Lowconcentrate milk producers make notably less intensive use of the land. Further ecologically significant differences include the longer useful life and higher Table 11.1 Comparison of incomes of low-concentrate dairy enterprises Annual income (profit + personnel costs) from milk production (euro) In all cases it was a condition for inclusion in the study that at least 50% of total income should come from milk production. Comparison group

Per cow

Per kg milk

Per employee

52 study enterprises (average for financial years 2011–2012 and 2012–2013) Dairy enterprises in Germany (EU Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), average 2011–2012) Organic fodder milk producers (BMEL operational tests, financial year 2012–2013)

1,064

0.21

24,502

663

0.09

21,381

932

0.16

21,964

Die Landforscher  233

lifetime milk production of cows fed on low-concentrate diets. One reason for the good economic performance of low-concentrate enterprises is that their managers are generally very cost-conscious. Availability to large amounts of good quality staple feed made from grass is fundamental. Also, low-concentrate enterprises attached greater performance to performance criteria and objectives that required less cost-intensive investment programmes. Building bridges for further collaboration

Normally a research project would end at this point. In this case, right from the start, a question discussed among members of the project team was whether it would be possible to bring the participating farmers from across Germany together at the end of the phase of empirical investigation, and whether the farmers would see this initial meeting as the opportunity for further ­collaboration – at whatever level – with the like-minded people they had met. This would provide the opportunity, for example, to share experiences and deepen their understanding of the business model. Participating enterprises were assured at the start of the project that they would be invited to take part in the evaluation of the results and reflection on their significance – and that the results would only be made public following this joint appraisal by researchers and practitioners.Thus, at the end of the empirical research phase, all participating enterprises were invited to regional workshops. At these workshops the results of the research were presented. Participants discussed the results from their viewpoint as practitioners and made suggestions for further uses that could be made of them. For example, participants asked the project team to publish key economic data about individual enterprises (without naming them) in fact sheets, both in the interests of transparency and so that they could use to compare the cost structures of their own company with those of other participants. Providing this feedback not only made the project more transparent; it also ensured that participating enterprises didn’t get the impression that data about their farms had been appropriated purely for the purposes of scientific research.This also represented a form of ‘payment’ for the time project participants had spent filling out the questionnaires. The results were then made public at an international closing conference. This conference was conceived as a joint presentation by researchers and the participating dairy enterprises of the issues and concerns addressed by the proj­ ect. To this end, the conference was organised so that presentation of scientific results by the researchers alternated with portraits of low-concentrate dairy farms presented by the farmers themselves. This made explicit that farmers’ perspectives were presented on an equal footing with those of the researchers (see also Fry, Chapter 6). Our initial thoughts about possible future collaboration met with a very positive response. The participating enterprises saw the need for exchange of information, specialist technical input and advice, but also for sharing of economic data among themselves. They wanted to follow up on the economic

234  Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens

analysis. From their perspective, the purpose of the scientific research is not simply to gain a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of concentrate-free milk production. They want more recognition and increased opportunities for concentrate-free dairy enterprises. They want the research to provide the basis for dialogue with and public debate with trade associations, advisory organisations, training institutes and scientists. For the project as a whole, the next step will be to build on the one-off events organised at the end of the research, and use the impetus they generated to set up a network of low-concentrate dairy enterprises, establish communications channels and working methods, and secure the financial resources necessary to get it up and running.

Reflections on our experience as knowledge intermediaries Through our projects, we wanted to give impetus to changes towards a sustainable agriculture. These changes are dependent on joint learning process among all actors leading to changed practices. To this end, as indicated earlier, involving all actors who can contribute to problem-solving and promoting dialogue among them was central to the aims and methods of both projects. The importance of getting decision makers on board

Decision makers, politicians, administrators, political associations, and researchers will all have a key role to play in the desired change processes. These actors are not only those with most influence on how the implementation of sustainable agricultural policy will be manifested in practice. Equally important is their interpretation of what ‘sustainable agriculture’ means.Their own views on the direction of change and priority issues will be decisive in determining which changes enterprises can and should make. However, the framework laid down by these actors does not always coincide with the ideas and needs of the enterprises that make up the agricultural sector. They can even block the development of other sustainability-oriented practices. For research projects to be able provide support for these innovations, an effort has to be made to promote learning and change processes among these decision makers – including established agricultural research agencies. In our experience, these agencies often oppose the innovations derived from practical experience. These decision makers play multiple roles in our work. In some cases they are our clients. Often they play a political role, shaping opinions by putting forward their own positions regarding the topics of our research. In some cases they are actively involved as members of the research teams. As clients, decision makers (e.g. political organisations) present a particular challenge. In line with their political objectives, the organisations have their own ideas about what the research questions should be and contract our

Die Landforscher  235

expertise with the aim of stimulating open public debate around the direction that agricultural policy should take. They approach scientists from the Landforscher network in the knowledge that, for generations, ‘conventional’ scientists and their advisors have been locked into particular ways of thinking about agricultural development. These organisations consider that their interests and strategies are not represented in conventional agricultural research. We accept that the research process is value-based.The challenge is to keep it independent of particular interests and, at the same time, receptive to alternative perspectives and issues other than those we are asked to address. This requires adopting a variety of different roles. In communicating with specialist advisors we use scientific language. However this has to be ‘translated’ in order to present the same ideas in trade brochures, information sheets, briefings for politicians and press releases. Another strategic aim of our projects is to directly engage with growing diversity of actors in the sector (political organisations, trade associations, producers, agricultural enterprises, etc.) and the corresponding diversity of perspectives and interests. Following the completion of the research and publication of the results, if not before, we make a special effort to contact all these groups of actors and enter into dialogue with them. Our way of working rejects the separation of practice, advice and research into independent levels or spheres of activity. Rather these levels are seen as interconnected and the actors involved have a duty to develop collaborative joint work. To this end, actors require empathetic competencies and the capacity to repeatedly switch roles and perspectives, at the same time respecting the boundaries between different roles and positions. As a consequence of this approach, the work of both projects described in this chapter was continued after the end of the official funding period through the setting up of stakeholder networks. The knowledge generated by the projects provided the impulse and foundations for continued activities, in response to requests from the participants, focused on consolidating participatory processes and further deepening knowledge, and actively working to changed existing statutory frameworks. By setting up these networks our intention was to provide support at the level of practice (farmers, advisers and also local authorities). However we also hope to get support for continuation of our own research work and, in the long term, lobbying on behalf of new, alternative business models (in these examples, on-farm slaughterhouses and low-concentrate dairy farming). More support is needed for transdisciplinary research

It is clear that this iterative approach – that defines objectives in the course of the research – is pushing back the boundaries of science. Finance for research is set up and implemented in a way that leaves hardly any room for considering flexibility, let alone for feedback processes, in funding applications that are submitted. Work ‘after the end of the [research] project’ is generally not funded and the inclusion of partners as a counterbalance to the role of the researchers

236  Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens

requires functional groups – like our networks – which can assume a supervisory role. This in turn gives rise to a series of problems that are unique to practicebased research, that are symptomatic of the tension between transdisciplinary and traditional science: • It is difficult to stay connected to mainstream research, which judged against wholly theoretical quality criteria (for which peer-reviewed publication, citations and third-party funding are used as indicators). The extent to which the research results actually contribute to the solution of realworld problems is not taken into account. • As a consequence it can be difficult or impossible, at least at first, to access sources of funding for research projects. As yet, there is still no agreement on specific procedures to evaluate the scientific performance of practiceoriented or practice-based research, as called for by Wolf et al. (2013). • If the aim of research is to be useful for practice, it is essential that the resulting ‘transformation performance’ is considered an integral part of the research process, and not brushed aside as the work of ‘advice services’ (Restrepo, Lelea, Christinck, Hülsebusch & Kaufmann, 2014; Schneider, Fry, Ledermann & Rist, 2009). • The research project must be procedurally and financially capable of responding to processes taking place in the public sphere, and project funding should cover the cost of bringing these processes to fruition. Currently, research funding offers few openings for research proposals like ours that are not based in universities and include practitioners as equal members of the research team. It is difficult to obtain financing for processes in the public domain, as this is seen as incompatible with the fixed allocations of resources determined in accordance with public budget law. Payment of practice partners is complicated as these sorts of personnel costs are not foreseen in public-sector budgets. With all these problems still to be resolved, we are just setting out on our journey towards a new way of doing research. But a return to traditional forms of research has nothing to offer us. Principal features of transdisciplinary research

We can synthesise the experience of our projects and our work as knowledge intermediaries to draw the following conclusions regarding transdisciplinary research. (1) The whole field of interest is addressed. (2) Dialogue with politicians is a central component of the work. (3) Methodologically, the field of interest is mapped out by actors in the research team. Last but not least, (4) the way the research process is set up in a way requires the intermediaries to continually switch roles, i.e. between moderation and research.

Die Landforscher  237 The work of the whole field of interest is addressed

This means that all perspectives, sources of knowledge, and experience have to be integrated into the search for solutions. Thus, in our case, simple empirical research into specific risks associated with manual meat processing on farms would have yielded a set of results. However it would then have been necessary to (re-)interpret these results from the perspective of the farm enterprises involved. Instead of this, risk assessment was undertaken in our project through the exchange of knowledge (between farmers and vets), enabling a learning process among both groups of actors. Dialogue with politicians is a central component of the work

It is important to secure the involvement of higher levels of administration, i.e. those who oversee the implementation of the laws and have power to determine the scope for interpretation. Specifically, this means involving the political representatives of districts and federal states who are responsible for establishing the framework conditions governing the actions of economic agents. Science also has a role to play here, by providing terminology, an understanding of risk, as well as research methods and so forth. Methodologically, the field of interest is mapped out by actors in the research team

It is of central importance that representatives of key perspectives and fields of experience are integrated into the research team. The integration of practitioners, in this case especially farmers, means that those who are requesting assistance are more likely to accept the results of the project. In the case of the project dealing with on-farm meat processing, the integration of a vet in the project team opened up lines of communication to this professional grouping.The representation of vets and farmers in the project team allowed for potential conflicts between them to be addressed by the team in the course of the research. In concrete terms this meant, for example, that everything published by the project was read by all team members before it was released. This provided answers to questions such as: Will this be understood by the ‘other side’ (whichever it may be)? Does the text contain misunderstandings that could unnecessarily provoke negative responses? Thus, by bringing experiential knowledge and scientific and analytical expertise together in one team, our project functioned as a kind of ‘bridge’ between commercial enterprises and regulatory authorities. Processes are dynamic and roles change during the course of the research

Alongside the production of transdisciplinary publications such as information sheets, it is essential to recognise the potential of dynamic processes set in motion by the project and to design them accordingly. In the case of the

238  Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens

on-farm meat processing project, ongoing personal contact with enterprises, group discussions, open discussion with representatives of veterinary authorities, and dealing with more than 150 telephone enquiries from enterprises affected by the new hygiene regulations gave rise to feedback and learning processes, and enabled a constructive exchange of views about problems and possible solutions. Moderation emerged as a new role that we were required to perform. In fact, in the course of the feedback and learning processes, all members of the team – ‘researchers’ and other actors – adopted changing roles. Practitioners became researchers into their own actions, and scientists changed from being observers (and ‘guardians of objective truth) to companions in the learning processes (Jahn, 2008; Schneider et al., 2009). Successful dialogue between science and practice depends crucially on the social competencies of all involved. In this respect, methods incorporating practice are not simply tools to be applied, but require, above all, personal engagement, openness and a willingness to learn (Fink-Keßler, Müller & Franz, 2011; Fink-Keßler & Müller, 2011). The Landforscher network is a model for how sustainability research can come closer to meeting the needs of policy makers. Our experience illustrates how flexible and reflective research, translation and moderation by knowledge intermediaries are crucial to bring about lasting changing in farm practices and agricultural institutions. It also shows how independent researchers are particularly well placed to take on the role of intermediaries, acting as catalysts for the efficacious transmission of transformation knowledge across the interface between science and policy, and opening up new pathways towards sustainability.

Notes 1 In the German-speaking countries these include Forschungsring für Biologisch-Dynamische Wirtschaftsweise (Research Circle for Biodynamic Agriculture), Institut für BiologischDynamische Forschung (Institute for Biodynamic Research) and Forschungsinstitut für biologischen Landbau (Research Institute for Organic Agriculture) in Switzerland. 2 For example the ‘Young Farmers Working Groups’ (Arbeitskreise Junger Landwirte) set up in South Germany, Westphalia and Hesse in 1973, the national association ‘Working Group for Peasant Agriculture’ (Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft) (1980) and the umbrella group of the German agrarian opposition movement AgrarBündnis (1998). 3 The ensuing political debate is very well documented in the article Die zwei Wege der landwirtschaftlichen Reformen: umweltverträgliche Produktion in bäuerlichen Betrieben oder Ausgleichspolitik (‘The Two Paths of Agricultural Reform: Environmentally Friendly Production on Family Farms, or Equalisation Policy’) that appeared in the trade journal Bauernblatt, described as a magazine by farmers for farmers in 1986. 4 Demeter is the brand for products from biodynamic agriculture. See www.naturata.com/ en/qualitaet/demeter_qualitaet.html. 5 www.breitwiesenhof.de/. 6 www.mahle-stiftung.de.

References Bergmann, M., Jahn,T., Knobloch,T., Krohn,W., Pohl, C., & Schramm, E. (2012). Methods for transdisciplinary research. A primer for practice. Frankfurt: Campus.

Die Landforscher  239 Bergmann, M., & Schramm, E. (2008). Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Frankfurt: Campus. Brade, W. (2014). Vor- und Nachteile einer sehr intensiven Milcherzeugung aus der Blickrichtung des Kraftfuttereinsatzes und der Tiergesundheit. Tierärztliche Umschau, 68, 277–275. Eilers, U. (2013). Weniger Kraftfutter, mehr Erfolg. Milch ökologisch und mit wenig Kraftfutter zu er-zeugen bietet vielerlei Vorteile. In Der Kritische Agrarbericht 2013 (pp. 19–23). Hamm: AbL Verlag. Elite Magazin Online. (2013). Hohe Milchleistungen bei teurem Kraftfutter nicht rentabel. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from www.elite-magazin.de/news/Hohe-Milchleistungenbei-teurem-Kraftfutter-nicht-rentabel-1157508.html Fink-Keßler, A., & Müller, H.-J. (2004). Lebensmittelhygiene unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bedingungen von Direktvermarktern und handwerklichen Fleischbetrieben und der neuen Fleischhygienerichtlinien. Gutachten im Auftrag des BMVEL, Juli. Fink-Keßler, A., & Müller, H.-J. (2011). Aushandlungsprozesse auf Augenhöhe – Hilfestellungen zur Umsetzung der EU-Hygieneverordnungen durch Biobetriebe mit handwerklicher Fleischverarbeitung. In G. Leithold, K. Becker, C. Brock, S. Fischinger, A.-K. Spiegel, K. Spoty, . . . U. Williges (Eds.), Beiträge zur 11. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau 16. Bis 18. März 2011 in Gießen 1 (pp. 378–381). Fink-Keßler, A., Müller, H.-J., & Franz, I. (2011). Flexible Vorschriften – ein Zukunftsmodell? Folgerungen aus den Erfahrungen mit der Umsetzung der neuen EU-Hygienevorschriften. In AgrarBündnis (Ed.), Landwirtschaft 2011. Der kritische Agrarbericht (pp. 141–146). Forschungsbericht zur Studie im Auftrag der Internationalen Forschungsgemeinschaft für Umweltschutz und Umwelteinflüsse auf Mensch, Tier, Pflanze und Erde e.V. Erschienen in Arbeitsergebnisse 08/2016. Kasseler Institut für ländliche Entwicklung. Hoffmann, V., Thomas, A., & Gerber, A. (2009). Transdisziplinäre Umweltforschung. Munich: Oekom. Jahn, T. (2008). Transdisziplinarität in der Forschungspraxis. In M. Bergmann & E. Schramm (Eds.), Transdisziplinäre Forschung (pp. 21–37). Frankfurt: Campus. Jahn,T., & Keil, F. (2015). An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research. Futures, 65, 195–208. Jones, H., Jones, N., Shaxson, L., & Walker, D. (2012). Knowledge, Policy and Power in International Development: A Practical Guide. Bristol: Polity Press. Jürgens, K. (2013). Milchbauern und ihre Wirtschaftsstile:Warum es mehr als einen Weg gibt, ein guter Milchbauer zu sein. Marburg: Metropolis. Jürgens, K., & Fink-Keßler, A. (2009). Minimierung der Risiken hormonwirksamer Pflanzenschutzmittel in der Landwirtschaft als Handlungsfeld. ISOE. Materialien Soziale Ökologie Nr. 31. Institut für sozialökologische Forschung. Frankfurt: ISOE. Jürgens, K., Poppinga, O., & Sperling, U. (2015). Es geht auch ohne. Wirtschaftlichkeit einer kraftfutterfreien Milchviehhaltung in Deutschland – erste Zwischenbilanz eines Forschungsprojektes. In AgrarBündnis (Ed.), Landwirtschaft 2015. Der Kritische Agrarbericht (pp. 149–153). Hamm. Jürgens, K., Poppinga, O., & Sperling, U. (2016).Wirtschaftlichkeit einer Milchviehfütterung ohne bzw. mit wenig Kraftfutter. Forschungsbericht. In Arbeitsergebnisse 08/2016. Kasseler Institut für ländliche Entwicklung. Klocke, P., Staehli, P., & Notz, C. (2011). Effects of reduced concentrates feeding on milk yield and animal health in a Swiss organic dairy farm – preliminary results. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, Gießen, 15-18. März 2011. Leisen, E., & Rieger, T. (2007). Wirtschaftlichkeit von Milchleistung, Kraftfuttermenge und Weideumfang auf Öko-Betrieben. Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen.

240  Andrea Fink-Keßler and Karin Jürgens Müller, H.-J. (2002). Rechtliche Hemmnisse für eine regionale Fleischvermarktung. In O. Poppinga & A. Fink-Keßler (Eds.), Qualitätsprogramme für die landwirtschaftliche Produktion (pp. 14–15). Müller, H.-J. (2003). Rechtliche Vorgaben für eine hofnahe Schlachtung. In O. Poppinga, A. Fink-Keßler, B. Hörning, H.-J. Müller, & I. Weiland, Iris (Ed.), Fleisch aus tiergerechter Haltung – eine Möglichkeit der Qualitätsdifferenzierung im Fleischbereich. Gutachten im Auftrag des Deutschen Bundestages bzw. des Büros für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB). Kassel. Müller, H.-J., & Fink-Keßler, A. (2010). Entwicklung von Hilfestellungen zur Umsetzung der Anforderungen der Hygieneverordnungen durch die handwerklichen Bio-Fleischverarbeiter. Projekt Nr. 07OE042 des Bundesprogramm Ökologischer Landbau. Poppinga, O., & Schmidt, G. (1986). Die zwei Wege der landwirtschaftlichen Reformen: umweltverträgliche Produktion in bäuerlichen Betrieben oder Ausgleichspolitik. Erschienen im Bauernblatt. Eine Zeitung von Bauern für Bauern. 1986. Rheda Wiedenbrück. Pries, M., van der Sand, H., Benninghoff, J.,Tholen, E., & Südekum, K. (2009). Einfluss variierender Kraftfuttermengen auf Leistungsparameter in der Milchviehhaltung. In Forum angewandte Forschung in der Rinder- und Schweinefütterung, 1./2.4.2009. Fulda. Restrepo, M. J., Lelea, M. A., Christinck, A., Hülsebusch, C., & Kaufmann, B. (2014). Collaborative learning for fostering change in complex social-ecological systems: A transdisciplinary perspective on food and farming system. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 10(3), 38–59. Schneider, F., Fry, P., Ledermann, T., & Rist, S. (2009). Social learning processes in Swiss soil protection. Human Ecology, 37(4), 475–489. Wolf, B., Lindenthal,T., Szerencsits, M., Holbrook, J. B., & Heß, J. (2013). Evaluating research beyond scientific impact. How to include criteria for productive interactions and impact on practice and society. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 22(2), 104–114.

12 Prospective scenario planning in collaborative transdisciplinary research Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

Introduction Since the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988, a series of assessment reports, special reports, technical papers, and other key documents have been produced on the global level. The principal objective of IPCC is the comprehensive, objective and transparent assessment of all relevant scientific, technical and socioeconomic information, in order to gain a better understanding of climate change, its potential impacts, and the adaptation and mitigation options (Field et al., 2012). Since the 1980s the climate change debate has developed from scientific desk research into a key item on the global political agenda. But research does not necessarily give rise to (better) political decision-making and action (Flyvbjerg, 1998; Innes & Booher, 2010;Weiss, 1979, 1980, 1991;Weiss & Bucuvalas, 1980). Moreover stronger international efforts do not necessarily lead to substantial results at the local level. Currently spatial, temporal and action-oriented gaps are apparent (Neumann, 2016). The spatial gap is between global and local perspectives and the temporal gap between long- and short-term perspectives. The action-oriented gap can be observed – especially in equivocal situations – between decision rationality and action rationality (Brunsson, 1986, 1989).This “irrationality of action and action rationality” (Brunsson, 2007, p. 32) leads to a difference between thinking and talking of politicians/local actors about potential local impacts of climate change, their likely effects on local fields of action, and corresponding adaptation and mitigation options on the one hand and their actual behaviour and real action on the other hand. Many [scientists] see it as their role to educate politicians and the public, to ‘speak truth to power’, and seem to get frustrated and sometimes irritated when ‘the power’ seems not to listen. . . . Scientists seem often to forget that in the complex interplay between knowledge, societal interests and nature, the scientist who wants to see his scientific knowledge translated into action must accept that the logic of society is not an extension of the logic of science. (Naustdalslid, 2011, p. 250)

242  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

Thus IPCC has identified an indispensable need for “improved integration across scales from international to local” as well as the necessity for “integration of local knowledge with additional scientific and technical knowledge to improve disaster reduction and climate change adaptation” (Field et al., 2012, p. 17). The shift from a more global perspective with general and objective solutions to a more local perspective with appropriate (situated) solutions raises several questions of regional climate change governance (Bernauer & Schaffer, 2010; Knieling & Leal Filho, 2013; Meadowcroft, 2009). For effective adaptation and risk management on the local level, an appropriate and timely communication among administrators, decision makers and citizens is necessary. This raises questions regarding who should be involved and in which discourse, governance arrangements and forms of participation, all of which are linked to the external context as well as the experiences and sensibility of the actors involved (Löwis & Neumann, 2009). In addition to the production of data and the processing of information about regional (future) impacts of climate change, regional networks need to be capable of making sense of the data, interpreting it, taking decisions and acting accordingly. To give meaning and significance of climate change for local stakeholders requires charting new scientific territory. The current global change research agenda should be expanded to become a collaborative transdisciplinary research agenda which combines analysis with sense-making and action on a regional level (Swart, Raskin & Robinson, 2004). A second crucial component of adaptation and risk management is local framing of risk with corresponding capacity building and proactive knowledge integration (Cutter & Osman-Elasha, 2012). Analysis, sense-making and collective (political) action are complementary, but at the same time a tension often exists between these different elements of a regional climate change adaptation strategy. Thus within the spatial, temporal and action-oriented gaps, three different knowledge gaps (sensibility gap, new knowledge gap, political gap) have to be closed (see below). In this context, this chapter analyses a transdisciplinary research endeavour undertaken in the City of Rostock, Germany, including urban and peri-urban areas in the region (Landkreis) of Bad Doberan (StadtUmland-Raum Rostock, hereinafter ‘SUR Rostock’) between 2010 and 2012. The aim was to arrive at a joint transdisciplinary understanding of regional impacts of climate change and identify appropriate adaptation strategies in collaboration with practitioners and local stakeholders. All core group members involved, scientists and practitioners, agreed upon the main focus of the transdisciplinary research: (1) to identify the specific local and regional impacts of climate change until 2050; (2) to develop prospective scenarios for the future of the region; and (3) to draw some action-oriented conclusions in the form adaptation strategies in the context of spatial planning. Prospective scenario planning was chosen as a pro-active and exploratory tool for this collaborative transdisciplinary research. The research was the principal component of ‘Plan B:altic’, an externally funded social-ecological research project on climate change impacts

Prospective scenario planning 243

and adaptation strategies, with a focus on spatial planning, in urban regions of the Baltic Sea coast. Plan B:altic tackled the question of how urban and regional planning for the Baltic Sea coastal region could incorporate sustainable measures to deal with climate change impacts. It attempted to fill the three ‘knowledge gaps’ (sensibility gap, knowledge gap, political gap; see below) by addressing the challenges of interpreting different knowledge forms in transdisciplinary research and of bridging disciplinary boundaries. The research was undertaken by an interdisciplinary research team consisting of natural, social and planning scientists who cooperated intensively to achieve a comprehensive understanding on climate change impacts, and of how these interact with other ongoing change processes in urban regions. An overriding aim was to avoid partial worldviews. To this end, integrative strategies and processes for welfare-enhancing, sustainable urban and regional development were identified and discussed, explicitly taking into account the uncertainties and complexities involved, as well as the knowledge limitations with regard to future local impacts of climate change. SUR Rostock was selected as the site for development of scenario-based strategies. Before the project the City of Rostock was already very active in climate change mitigation issues, but adaptation to potential climate change impacts was not a prominent topic in urban and regional planning at that time. SUR Rostock is situated at the mouth of the river Warnow, which discharges in the Baltic Sea. Rostock is a medium-sized city with about 200,000 inhabitants, and is the largest city and commercial centre of the Federal State of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The city and surrounding rural villages together form the ‘SUR Rostock’, as set out in the recently produced State Spatial Plan. The most important economic sectors in this urban region are the seaport, related maritime economic activities and tourism. The population of SUR Rostock is currently stable but will probably shrink in the next two decades, according to forecasts of the State Statistical Office (Statistisches Amt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 2009) and the Bertelsmann Foundation (Bertelsmann Foundation, 2014). City authorities are worried that falling population numbers and an anticipated fall in government subsidies to poorer regions (Schlüsselzuweisungen) could lead to a financial crisis. Climate change is expected to impact on the region in a number of different ways. By the middle of this century, the mean annual temperature is likely to rise by at least 1°C and possibly by 2°C (Norddeutscher Klimaatlas, 2012). Extreme weather events in summer (hot days or tropical nights) are expected to increase whereas extremes in winter are expected to decrease. Seasonal precipitation patterns are also expected to change, with drier summers and wetter winters. Overall, the amount of precipitation is expected to increase over the course of the 21st century (Norddeutscher Klimaatlas, 2012). SUR Rostock is located on the threatened southern coast of the Baltic Sea coast, where the sea level rise is expected to rise by up to 1 metre by the end of this century (Meier et al., 2004), with severe consequences for coastal areas.

244  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

In the following we discuss the knowledge effects of prospective scenario planning undertaken by the transdisciplinary research project. Prospective scenario planning is an approach that is typical of a new generation of scenario planning approaches applied since the 1990s which differ fundamentally from the positivist generation of the 1970s. The following section describes the general characteristics of second generation approaches to scenario planning. Five typical approaches are distinguished according to their philosophical foundations in order to demonstrate the impacts of different epistemological stances with regard to foresight on the sharing and assessment of knowledge. This is followed by a description of the process of prospective scenario planning in SUR Rostock and analysis of the experience from a social constructivist point of view. The specific knowledge effects of prospective scenario planning in SUR Rostock are described, in order to illustrate (dys-)functionalities of the approach, with respect to its potential to contribute to the sharing and assessment of knowledge on the local level. The knowledge effects of the scenario planning process in SUR Rostock, with respect to the three knowledge gaps, provide the framework for the analysis. The final section discusses the lessons learned from the experience and suggests possible ways forward. To develop propositions about the knowledge effects of prospective scenario planning we use an abductive logic. We combine theoretical findings from social constructivist knowledge theories with empirical observations derived from the case study experience.The empirical observations from the case study are based on action research methods applied by the authors in the process of prospective scenario planning in SUR Rostock.

General characteristics of a second-generation scenario planning approach The first generation of scenario planning was developed mainly in the 1970s. These positivistic approaches are based principally in scientific evidence and a belief in objective truth, including with regard to the future and possible alternative futures (Bell, 2009). Complex deterministic models are used as a forecasting tool in strategic planning in order to reduce uncertainty and complexity in the results and thus help decision makers to make better (rational) choices. From a positivist perspective, it is important in scenario analysis to demonstrate the logical structure and coherence of future statements; moreover these statements should be at least in part testable (i.e. capable of being verified, confirmed or falsified by empirical observation). The underlying assumption is that (future) research is accumulative and predominantly transcultural, and that the results can be dissociated from the personality and the social position of the researcher. Positivist future researchers believe “that there is, underlying the various scientific disciplines, basically one science about one real world” (Bell, 2009, p. 197). Positivistic ways of understanding scenario planning came under fire in the 1980s, while positivistic approaches to planning and managing the future

Prospective scenario planning 245

generally were also the object of fundamental criticism (Allmendinger, 2001, 2002, 2009). From a scientific perspective (Stiens, 1996), there is now a broad and growing consensus that objectively true scientific evidence is neither possible nor desirable in future research. In fact, science is always (inter-)subjective and contains cultural biases (Bell, 2009). Scientific evidence is never culturefree, but always interpreted, even when presented as objective fact. Therefore (scientific) knowledge is a social construction, socially and culturally contextualised (Berger & Luckmann, 2007; Fuller & Loogma, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 1991). All these statements are increasingly recognised as applying to science in general, and especially to future research and knowledge about the future. Thus positivistic forecasting methods and rational planning have been increasingly called into question. At the same time, a wide range of new approaches to scenario planning has emerged since the 1990s, more or less distinct from the first generation of scenario planning approaches of the 1970s. Above all, the shift from the first to the second generation of scenario planning expresses a paradigm shift from positivism to post-positivism. Most of the approaches currently in use avoid adopting a positivist perspective (Bell, 2009). Instead alternative futures have to be tested in the light of different or even contrary beliefs and assumptions. Thus scenarios can be defined as descriptions of possible futures, interpreted from various perspectives, beliefs and/or theoretical points of view. The second generation of scenario planning would thereby effect “downward causality” on the present in order to project the present towards a preferred future. In fulfilling the promise of this new kind of science, scenario planning breaks with positivistic science, but without falling into a postmodern nihilism. (Ogilvy, 2005, p. 331) Furthermore, from point of view of strategy and policy development, objectively true scientific evidence about the future is recognised as undesirable, especially for managing the highly improbable and the unexpected (Healey & Hodgkinson, 2008; Makridakis & Taleb, 2009a, 2009b; Taleb, 2009; Tsoukas & Shepherd, 2004a). It is a risky strategy to base management decisions on only one (most probable) future or on a normal distribution of possible futures. In a complex, fast-changing world, rare events and surprises with big impacts (terror attacks like 9/11, financial crises, flooding) are important drivers of change. These surprising events (‘black swans’) cannot be fully described in advance, but only after they have occurred (Taleb, 2010). Statistical blindness to the possibility of the highly improbable, and to emerging ‘weak signals’ of impending change, is a serious problem of traditional forecasting methods and positivist approaches to scenario planning. Post-positivist approaches express a shift from forecasting to foresight (Cuhls, 2003; Martin, 2010; Schwandt & Gorman, 2004; Tsoukas & Shepherd, 2004b). The ‘Foresight for Regional Development Network’ (FOREN) summarises five essential elements of foresight, namely (1) anticipation, (2) participation,

246  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

(3) networking, (4) vision and (5) action (Gavigan, Scapolo et al., 2001). These five essential elements provide a framework for comparative analysis of the second generation of scenario planning in relation to the first, and of different second-generation approaches that have emerged (see Table 12.1). Post-positivist approaches express a shift from forecasting to foresight (Cuhls, 2003; Martin, 2010; Schwandt & Gorman, 2004; Tsoukas & Shepherd, 2004b). Foresight approaches to scenario planning have in common that they are all critical of positivistic prediction of the future. On the other hand they also reject extreme relativistic perspectives – such as Paul Feyerabend’s ‘anarchistic theory of knowledge’ (Feyerabend, 1970; 1993). Extreme relativism questions all forms of (professional) future studies and any rational process of conceptualising alternative futures; as a result, “recommendations cannot be derived at all because knowledge is biased and values are too subjective” (Tapio & Hietanen, 2002, p. 610).The second (foresight) generation of scenario planning approaches maintain a delicate balance between positivism and (extreme) relativism. Foresight approaches to scenario planning are based on the conviction that – although the future can only be foreseen to a more or less limited extent – recommendations (derived from objective and/or intersubjective knowledge) and/or argumentative discourse about possible futures are reasonable ways to attempt to make sense of the future. Reflecting on possible futures helps us gain a better understanding of what to do today in order to be better prepared for the future (Tapio, 1996;Tapio & Hietanen, 2002). Participation and networking are seen as ways of negotiating future expectations. This conception expresses a shift from exclusive desk research (with strict quantitative modelling and the focus on production of objective data) to the integration of analysis and application. Traditional scientific research networks evolve into transdisciplinary research networks encompassing researchers, external experts and local actors. The first generation of positivistic approaches to scenario planning assumes that values are not needed to anticipate the future, nor in decision-making – or that the relevant values can be measured objectively (Tapio & Hietanen, 2002). The second generation expresses a shift from objective analysis to the sharing and assessment of future expectations based on intersubjective judgements about reality, values and actions (Vickers, 1995). Following Vickers’s judgement categories, Van der Heijden (2004) categorised three basic purposes for foresight projects (Burt & Van der Heijden, 2008;Van der Heijden, 2004). Appreciative foresight explores an as yet unexplored problem situation identified among possible futures of the contextual environment. Instrumental foresight interprets the transactional environment and appraises action options in argumentative dialogue with others. Value foresight aims to build on the common values of network partners in the organisational environment, in order “to bring groups of people together in a process of consensus building on the ‘future of desire’ ” (Van der Heijden, 2004, pp. 209f). Instead of focusing mainly on science as a product, post-positivist scenario planners concentrate on science as a process or an activity (or as developmental history) (Bell, 2009). This includes an action orientation and a shift from pure

Mainly desk research and scientific dialogue, in consultation of local experts Basic research network with expert consultation

Participation

Networking

Mainly technocratic (expert) dialogue with opinion polling of stakeholders and the public Collaborative information processing

Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of possible futures and surprising events (black swans) Mainly technocratic (expert) dialogue with opinion polling of stakeholders and the public Transdisciplinary collaborative research

Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of preferable futures and how to get there

Sharing and assessment of transdisciplinary knowledge for and with practice in a dialogue mainly with researchers and local experts

Scientific knowledge for practice: expert-based information processing to transfer scientifically credible information to nonscientific actors Probabilistic quantitative modelling of likely and possible futures

Main knowledge focus

Anticipation

Mainly (pluralistic) humanism (Phdungsilp, 2011; Quist, 2007; Robinson, 2003) Transfer and translation of credible and salient knowledge for and with practice in a dialogue mainly with researchers and local experts

Pluralistic humanism approaches to prospective foresight

(Critical) Realism based on optimistic humanism

Philosophical stance (epistemological foundation)

Participative backcasting approaches

Prospective scenario planning approaches

Predictive scenario planning approaches

Table 12.1 Typology of scenario planning approaches (Neumann, 2016)

Consultation and action research

Quantitative and qualitative descriptions with a critical pragmatic focus on preferable (and possible) futures Stakeholder discourse with key players

Critical pragmatism as a combination of pragmatism and critical theory (Forester, 1993) Sense-making and conversion of implicit and explicit (local) knowledge, in order to transform the current thinking and practice

Critical pragmatic scenario planning approaches

(Continued )

Open public discourse without exclusive networks

Post-structuralism (Foucault) as method for a causal layered analysis (Inayatullah, 1998, 2010) Research moves up and down various layers of analysis: “open transformative spaces for the creation of alternative futures” (Inayatullah, 1998, p. 815) Critical reflection of the foundation of foresight results (e.g. social causes, worldview) to foster (fair and equitable) alternative futures Experts don’t exist; emancipatory discourse includes different ways of knowing

Emancipatory (deconstructive) scenario planning

Prospective scenario planning approaches Reality judgement and some instrumental judgement; little or no value judgement Knowledge sharing to sensitise for possible changes in the contextual environmental

Predictive scenario planning approaches

Reality judgements; no instrumental or value judgement

Knowledge transfer to prepare for rational decision-making

Visioning

Principal action orientation

Table 12.1 (Continued)

Knowledge sharing to sensitise for possible changes in the transactional environment

Instrumental judgements; little or no reality and value judgement

Participative backcasting approaches Pragmatic balancing of reality judgement, instrumental judgement and/or value judgement Knowledge assessment to arrive at a common understanding of the desired future

Critical pragmatic scenario planning approaches

Knowledge assessment to transform power relations and to empower less powerful people

Value judgements to empower less powerful people; no reality or instrumental judgement

Emancipatory (deconstructive) scenario planning

Prospective scenario planning 249

scenario analysis to an integrated perspective that combines scenario building and scenario application. In 2008 the Institute of the Future picked up a ­slogan – ‘I have seen the future’ of General Motors from 1964 – and changed it to “I am making the future” to describe the new spirit of action orientation of future foresight (Johansen, 2012, pp. 4f). Policy studies have shown that decision makers do not utilise the results of research in a scientific and rational way (Innes & Booher, 2010; Weiss, 1979). Instead decisions accrete and knowledge creeps forward in lengthy ongoing policy processes. Decision makers use research results not in scientific mode but in an interactive, political and tactical way as inputs for problem solving and enlightenment (Weiss, 1979, 1980; Weiss & Bucuvalas, 1980). This has to be taken into account in post-positivist approaches of scenario planning. It implies a rejection of scenarios as pure products and a new understanding of planning and policy instruments: a shift from “governance by design” to “design on governance” (Voß, 2007, pp. 14ff). Scenario planning has to be seen more as a situated learning process (Freeman, 2007; Healey, 2009; Lave & Wenger, 1991) oriented towards a foresightful management of the expected and the unexpected. Skills of foresightfulness are developed when network partners systematically treat time as a stream and when they forge a coherent relationship between past (memory), present (attention) and future (expectation) (Tsoukas & Shepherd, 2004b, pp. 8f). In summary, the new generation of scenario planning is characterised by the following attributes: • • • •

•

Epistemological position: Paradigm shift from positivism to post-positivism. Anticipation: Shift from forecasting to foresight. Instead of an exclusive focus on the most likely (probable) future(s), foresight considers a wide range of possible and preferable futures. Participation and networking: Shift from desk research to participative dialogue and a confrontation of various points of view about the future in transdisciplinary networks. Visioning: Intersubjective reality judgements about unexplored problem situations in the contextual environment, instrumental judgements about action options in the transactional environment and/or value judgements about a common understanding of the ‘future of desire’ in the organisational environment. Action orientation: From analysing the future to a foresightful and pre-active process of shaping the future today in real time.

Typology of foresight approaches to scenario planning

Despite their common features, the second generation of scenario p­ lanning approaches differ broadly among themselves. In the last three decades s­everal ­typologies have been created to give an overview of their differences. These typologies classify approaches based on multiple criteria, including the ­

250  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

characteristics of the scenarios they give rise to, their historical roots and origins, the design and goals of the scenario analysis, and their philosophical and/or epistemological foundations (see Börjeson, Höjer, Dreborg, Ekvall & F ­ innveden, 2005, 2006; Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns & Van der Heijden, 2005; Huss & Honton, 1987; Inayatullah, 1990; Nowack, 2008; Tapio & ­Hietanen, 2002; Van Asselt,Van’t Klooster,Van Notten & Smits, 2010;Voros, 2006). Most of the typologies refer only to scenario analysis and the ability of scenarios to produce new authoritative, credible and trustworthy information about the future. From a social constructivist point of view, the usefulness of knowledge depends not only on the credibility of the data but also its salience and legitimacy (Cash et al., 2002). Salience refers to the contextual relevance of (new) information, for example for decision-making bodies or public authorities. Legitimacy requires that the process is democratic, representative, and takes account of values, concerns, and perspectives of local actors and how these are contested in power struggles among them. Legitimacy further implies transparency and accountability in the processing of information generated during the scenario analysis process. This raises questions regarding sense-making and knowledge translation, knowledge transfer and new knowledge creation, as well as the explicitly political process of knowledge transformation, as discussed in more detail below. More often the salience and legitimacy of new information are the main factors determining its utility and not simply its credibility. Before information can be used, people must first recognise (at least implicitly) its value and relevance. Cash et al. (2002) pointed out that credibility, salience and legitimacy of information are interconnected, but mutual tensions exist among them. There are complementarities, but fundamental trade-offs exists among them, cannot all be met simultaneously and therefore a decision about priorities is needed (Cash et al., 2002). Whereas some approaches (especially the predictive approaches, see above) focus more on analysis of scenarios and the credibility of information they provide for exploration of possible futures, others (especially the critical pragmatic and the emancipatory approaches) focus on the process of scenario construction with actors and decision makers and the legitimacy of information as input for political debate and transformatory practice. To take account of these aspects of scenario planning revealed by a social constructivist perspective, we propose the following typology, which categorises different scenario planning approaches according to philosophical foundation and their contribution towards the sharing and assessment of future knowledge in (regional) strategic planning practices: • •

Predictive scenario planning: (critical) realist approaches to foresight based on interpretativism and optimistic humanism (Bell, 2009), that set out to explore and discover probable, possible and preferred futures. Prospective scenario planning: hermeneutical and (pluralistic) humanist approaches to foresight (La prospective; Godet, 2001) that set out to create, codify and exchange new data, information and knowledge from different perspectives.

Prospective scenario planning 251

•

•

•

Participative backcasting: ‘future subjunctive’ approaches to ‘retrospective foresight’ based mainly on hermeneutics and (pluralistic) humanism (Quist, 2007) or, more recently, a critical pragmatic philosophical stance (Neumann, 2016). The former are used to create, codify and exchange new data, information and knowledge about action options and possible paths to reach a preferred (sustainable) future (hermeneutical foundation). The latter explores dissonances and paradoxes of wicked problems sequentially, experimentally and playfully, focusing on the management of risk, and charting a pathway towards an initially vague, emerging notion of a (sustainable) future (pragmatic stance); Critical pragmatic scenario planning: a combination of pragmatist philosophy and critical theory drawing (implicitly) on a social constructivist understanding of collaborative planning (Forester, 1993; Habermas, 1984; 1985) and the ‘intuitive logics school’ (Van der Heijden, Burt, Cairns & Wright, 2002; Kahane, 2012; Wright & Cairns, 2011). The aim is to construct and reshape the future in real time and to transform practices through a political debate in ‘closed shop’ workshops with powerful key actors. Emancipatory (critical and deconstructivist) scenario planning: approaches that use post-structuralism as method for a causal layered analysis (Inayatullah, 1998; Inayatullah, 1990; Ramos, 2003; Voros, 2005), in order to open up transformative spaces in a public dialogue, giving rise to alternative futures with a broad legitimacy and to empower powerless people.

The differentiation of the five typical approaches was influenced by the foresight typology developed by Tapio and Hietanen (2002). They categorise seven different approaches based on paradigms of (1) practices in future studies, (2) roles of professionals in strategic planning and policy making and (3) philosophical discussion about values and knowledge in policies.The typology above (Table 12.1) is based mainly on the philosophical/epistemological underpinnings of the different approaches to scenario planning (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; 2011; Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2011; Schwandt, 2000). These in turn imply (logically) different stances towards anticipation, participation, networking and visioning, as well as distinct action orientations (Gavigan et al., 2001).

Prospective scenario planning in SUR Rostock The prospective scenario planning approach was chosen to deal with the topic of climate change impacts on land-use development in SUR Rostock in order to close the different gaps between knowing (globally) and acting (locally) to serve two main purposes: 1 New local knowledge creation about local land-use impacts of climate change: scenario planning as dialogue tool for interdisciplinary as well as transdisciplinary integration of data, information and knowledge in collaborative research endeavour;

252  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

2 New insights about climate change adaptation strategies: scenario planning as strategy tool for managing uncertainty, emergence and surprising events of climate change in SUR Rostock – which includes the understanding of the complex interplay of climate change and land-use development appropriately to the respective situation as well as new insights about (dys-)functionalities of prospective scenario planning (as an approach of the second generation of scenario planning). The process largely adopted a prospective scenario planning approach (Table 12.1) right from the start, as this seemed the best way to prepare the transdisciplinary core group for the work to come, given the time and resources available. The transdisciplinary research was undertaken in a four-stage process, incorporating a number of meetings and workshops (in various forms and sizes), in order to (1) find a commitment to the field of action; (2) identify, analyse and reflect the important drivers and key factors of land-use change; (3) develop and discuss a wide range of scenarios about climate change impacts on landuse development of SUR Rostock (as consistently bundled projections of the key factors); and (4) devise future robust and resilient strategies and measures for land-use development based on four scenarios (Figure 12.1). The process

Figure 12.1 Stages of prospective scenario planning in SUR Rostock

Prospective scenario planning 253

adopted complexity and uncertainty and hence also the occurrence of sudden surprising events (so-called black swans) as its overarching frames of reference. Instead of reducing complexity, an attempt was made to reproduce it in different ways. First, the scenarios chosen as the basis for discussion incorporated varying degrees of climate change impacts and assigned different development pathways to key factors influencing future land use. Second, participating stakeholders came from a range of disciplines and institutions acting at different scales, in order to ensure representation of a broad spectrum of views, informed by both theoretical scientific knowledge and lay or local practical knowledge based on experience. Third, participants were chosen following an analysis of actors that identified their experience and expertise in the fields of urban and regional development, planning and land use, and/or climate change impacts and vulnerabilities. In the following we describe the four stages with details, for each stage, of the tasks carried out, the actors involved and the outcomes of each step. Stage I: initiation of the scenario planning process

The first stage focused on the commitment of the subject, which means the procedure, participants and content of the scenario planning process (as the field of action). After informal talks between the research group, public sector actors and the head of the city environmental department, an initial kick-off meeting was held to inform potential participants from city, regional and state authorities about the proposed topic and the scenario planning procedure. As an output of the meeting, a core (working) group of about 10 people was set up in 2010, consisting of practitioners and scientists. The practitioners were mainly administrative staff from the urban and peri-urban authorities as well as from regional and state environmental and planning agencies. Scientists in the core group were members of interdisciplinary research group (especially from Hafen City University Hamburg). This transdisciplinary group met several times for intensive working sessions over the course of the stage (and the whole project). It was mainly this core group which determined the field of action. Therefore important and fast-changing (dynamic) drivers for climate change and land-use development were identified and tendency data sheets for each factor were drafted by the scientists, discussed in the whole core group and reformulated again by the scientists. Beside of tendency data sheets for ‘rise of mean annual temperatures’, ‘frequency and intensity of extreme weather events’, ‘amount and distribution of precipitation’ and ‘sea-level rise’ as drivers of climate change, as well as tendency data sheets for 14 more land-use factors (like development of population, housing, agriculture, harbour, trade and business, tourism, energy system transformation (Energiewende), etc.) were formulated. The tendency data sheets imply (1) a short descriptions and two main indicators of the current factor, (2) four projections for each factor corresponding to the two main indicators and (3) so-called wild cards as simulations of ‘black swans’ used for a discourse about the unexpected in the second

254  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

scenario workshop (see below). The initial stakeholder analysis carried out by the research group had already identified key actors and decision makers relevant to the field of action. Practitioner members of the core group suggested the names of additional actors they considered important for the success of the scenario planning process, its legitimacy, and subsequent implementation of its recommendations. This resulted in a list of 100 actors to whom invitations were sent to participate in the series of scenario planning workshops. Those invited came from a range of local communities, the City of Rostock and regional institutions. Of these, between 30 and 40 subsequently participated in three scenario workshops held during 2011 and 2012. Participants included urban and regional stakeholders from civil society, politics, public authorities, business and academia. Stage II: interpretation of key factors of climate change and land-use development

In Stage II an intense future dialogue about key factors of climate change and land-use development in SUR Rostock up to the year 2050 was conducted. The future dialogue took place in the first scenario workshop, ‘Building Blocks for the Future’. The workshop started with introducing keynote speeches. Within a joint ‘gallery walk’ the tendency data sheets of the key factors were presented briefly from researchers. Taking a walk through the poster gallery (designed like an exhibition) provides a simple way for casual conversation between all (scientific and local) participants. The gallery walk served as an impulse for the following debate in small working groups (on social, economic, political and environmental issues).The working group phase was organised as a ‘world café’ spread over three sessions in the four groups with changing participants in every session to promote an exchange of knowledge and ideas among those taking part. Corresponding factors and projected future developments up to the year 2050 were discussed in each group regarding their importance, relevance and dynamics and the interplay of climate change and land-use development in SUR Rostock. The first scenario workshop provided the basis for a (scientific) computational consistency check where projections of the key factors were bundled consistently to rough scenarios. Therefore the software tool ‘szenoplan’ was used by the researchers to make a cross-impact-analysis with four projections of 18 factors and a consistency check, where each projection of each factor was bundled consistently to (theoretically) millions of rough scenarios. Afterwards rough scenarios with a very high degree of consistency were analysed and discussed in an interdisciplinary dialogue between scientists from different fields. At the end those rough scenarios were pre-selected which offered a wide range of different perspectives. So those rough scenarios which were too similar to others on the list of rough scenarios with the highest degree of consistency were sorted out.

Prospective scenario planning 255 Stage III: scenario discourse about (un)expected images of possible futures

The scientific pre-selection of six rough scenarios was discussed within the core group between the researchers and the local core group members to find a common understanding about the salience of the six rough scenarios, to make a revision and specification of the scenarios and to select at the end the most consistent, plausible and significant scenarios for the subsequent discourse during the second scenario workshop. The core group selected four scenarios, following the criteria of consistency, differentiability, range and interpretability: • • • •

Consistency: scenarios represented plausible potential trajectories of future land-use change, mathematical described by a high degree of consistency; Differentiability: scenarios were different enough from each other to form the basis of the scenario discourse and the strategy building process; Range: scenarios offered a wide range of potential alternative future trajectories; Interpretability: scenarios were sufficiently open to discussion and interpretation by workshop participants.

Thus the following four images of possible futures (scenarios) were specified with headlines, textual descriptions and illustrated with visual presentations (Figure 12.2). During the second scenario workshop, ‘Scenarios as Images of the Future’, stakeholders discussed the plausibility of the four scenarios, their sensitivity to simulation of unexpected events (‘wild cards’) and their potential impact on future land use. Wild cards are (potential) sudden events with a relatively low probability of occurrence but a likely high impact and a surprising character to trigger a ‘wow’ or ‘aha’ experience. For example for the tourism factor the wild card ‘sudden wave of elderly vacationers and families with young children to the Baltic Sea coast caused by hazardous heat attacks in the Mediterranean countries in extreme summer periods’, or for the housing factor the wild card ‘exploding demand of single apartments and healthcare facilities in close

Figure 12.2 Four scenarios as possible images of the future of SUR Rostock

256  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

proximity to coastlines caused by surprising immigration of elderly people to the Baltic Sea (with the rise of dyke and climate change adaptation conflicts)’. Stage IV: building of future robust and resilient strategies

Stage IV was oriented on a common understanding about measures and strategies for climate change adaptation in SUR Rostock. Therefore the results of the second scenario workshop were evaluated in the core group to prepare the third scenario workshop. In the last (strategy) workshop, ‘Climate Change Adaptation Strategies’, consequences of each scenario and the wild cards were reflected concerning structural measures, spatial adaptation measures and the need for behavioural change and knowledge management. This leads to resilient and future robust strategies which included the most important measures and short term measures to enable SUR Rostock to tackle (climate) change processes for land-use development. The outcomes of the scenario planning process were then integrated in an initial framework for adaptation to climate change impacts by the City of Rostock. This framework was adopted by the City Parliament of Rostock.

Knowledge effects of scenario planning in SUR Rostock From the social constructive point of view, knowledge is different from data and information. Data are sensed and selected signals which are structured physically. Information is an aggregation of data still bound to its context. They are cognitively structured by (local) actors and perceived as meaningful and significant. By contrast, knowledge is based on a stream of experience. knowledge is not simply an accretion of information over time . . . the transformation of information is the result of two complementary dynamics: the “structuring” of data and information that impose or reveals order and patterns; and the human ‘acting’ on data and information that attributes sense and salience. (Choo, 2005, p. 131) Knowledge is information that is shared and assessed and connected with action. Thus exchange of data and information is possible. But the exchange of knowledge is not possible, because action is not exchangeable (Stacey, 2000). Meeting the need for local knowledge doesn’t necessarily require the production of formal data sets based on scientific evidence. The requirement to assimilate more and complex information could lead to informational overload and provoke defensive routines. Therefore not only data production and computational information processing, but also interpretation, conversion and transformation of knowledge are crucial for sharing and assessing available information and knowledge. “Information (or its absence) is central to decisionmaking situations involving uncertainty and complexity, while knowledge (or

Prospective scenario planning 257

its absence) is associated with problems of ambiguity and equivocality” (Zack, 2007, pp. 1664). From a social constructivist perspective the attention shifts from uncertainty and complexity, which present problems of analysis and (lack of) information, to ambiguity and equivocality, which give rise to problems related to the sharing, interpretation and assessment of information and knowledge (Hodgkinson & Starbuck, 2008; Lant, 2002; Lant & Shapira, 2001; March & Heath, 1994; Sutcliffe & Weick, 2008). To facilitate knowledge sharing and assessment on the local level three different knowledge gaps should be closed (Figure 12.3). In our case we used the approach of a technocratic (expert) discourse mainly with scientists and administrative staff aimed at making sense of climate change and converting explicit to implicit knowledge into new, formal local knowledge within the core group members. The twofold aim of our collaborative research was to develop climate change adaptation strategies appropriately to the respective (future) situation of SUR Rostock and to produce new knowledge that contributed both towards practical problem-solving and to the understanding of science problems. We did not aim to initiate a broad public or political discourse or concrete actions (experimental ‘learning by doing’). Among other reasons, this was simply a matter of the time and resources at our disposal. Thus we did not attempt to bring about the knowledge transformation required to bridge the political/action gap, which was deliberately not addressed in our process. However, other ‘knowledge gaps’ (‘sensibility gap’; ‘new knowledge gap’) were relevant to the case study situation and were addressed in our process, as described in more detail below.

Figure 12.3 Knowledge translation, knowledge transfer and knowledge transformation as three different but relating issues of knowledge creation Based on Carlile, 2002; Carlile, 2004; Choo, 2005;Van de Ven, 2007

258  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

The prospective scenario planning approach contributed to achieving a common understanding of the meaning of climate change and its impacts to the regional and local level. Before the process started, no integrated and/or comprehensive view existed among local actors on the impact of climate change on land use in the urban region, and its relevance to sustainable local and regional development.This changed profoundly among the participants during the process, also the common notion of complexity, uncertainty and surprising events. The opening up of new perspectives in the course of the workshops (through collaboration among participants who had not met before) contributed to a more general broadening of areas of common understanding, in addition to a shared awareness of the impacts of climate change and its interaction with other drivers affecting local and regional land use. The iterative mix of desk research to obtain detailed information and data and collaborative dialogue that brought to light information obtained more intuitively, through experiences at the local level, contributed to these shared understandings. The research group collected the available scientific data on climate change and potential regional and local climate change impacts. Drivers of land-use change were identified by the core working group in a collaborative manner, drawing mainly on local experiential knowledge. Abstract data presented by scientists on development pathways and the dynamics of drivers of change were interrogated and brought in line with concrete developments in the local and regional setting of the case study, based on the knowledge of local professional experts and policy makers. In this process, however, the scientists were able to contribute new data and information not yet known to the local and regional experts. This transdisciplinary information exchange process among actors with very different perspectives, experiences and judgements (e.g. on the relevance of key factors) was made more difficult by ‘language problems’ (related to the codification of meaning), especially at the beginning. The collaborative work in participatory research process enabled agreement on a set of possible futures in the cases study area, and emergence of a shared understanding of their potential implications. So we can state that a common learning process took place among the participants, especially among the members of the core group, that enable them to codify shared meanings. These ‘language problems’ were expressions of the sensibility gap depicted in Figure 12.3. Especially at the start (surprisingly, to us), practitioners had a strong expectation of (objective) truth in evidence about the future. As the process developed, some argued for a focus on the ‘most probable’ development pathways, while others wanted to consider the most desirable development pathway as the most probable one. Furthermore, semantic boundaries existed between theoretical (scientific) knowledge on global climate and other change processes on the one hand, and practical knowledge gained from experiences at the local and regional level on the other, especially with regard to other main drivers of land-use change. In the process of examining the dynamic development of drivers of land-use change a common understanding emerged of the local and regional manifestations of these drivers thus far, which differed from the prior

Prospective scenario planning 259

expectations of researchers based on purely scientific (generalisable) evidence. Moreover, judgements regarding the relevance of the drivers differed between practitioners and scientists at the start of the process. In this respect, the transdisciplinary collaboration, especially within the core working group, facilitated exploration of the interactions between existing drivers of land-use change and likely impacts of climate change. This in turn led to a common understanding of the relevance of both sets of drivers, and of the dynamics of change process occurring at the local and regional level in SUR Rostock. Judgements on the future development of these drivers and on different potential (plausible and possible) development pathways they could follow were collaboratively developed in working sessions of the core working group. All the information and data collected was then brought together by the researchers in the form of a written description of future development pathways of the identified drivers. These results were presented for feedback and further discussion in the core working group. Attention was also paid to the possible influence on these drivers on actions taken at a local or regional level to deal with climate change impacts. This highlights the fact that the ‘sensibility gap’ is also a gap between information needed on the one hand and information that is searched for and used on the other. Only information that is needed will be used. However the demand for new knowledge depends mainly on assessments and perceptions of its relevance. Thus perceptions on which information about climate change adaptation should be searched for and used depend on mental maps of participants involved and their (shared) understanding of the usefulness of available data and information. Information needs depend much more on past experiences of the actors involved than on objective pressures to adapt. In the final analysis, the gap between information need and information use is a gap between mental maps of participants involved, each with their own experiences, expectations and rules. Differences among mental maps and heuristics highlight the need for knowledge translation. They call for sense-making of available information at hand. This is a process of interpretation that, in this case, aimed to arrive at shared anticipations regarding climate change, its impacts and interactions with other drivers of land-use change. Within the prospective scenario planning process in the Rostock region, knowledge was not only translated but also transferred between scientists and practitioners, thereby addressing the ‘new knowledge gap’ depicted in Figure 12.3. The information gaps with regarding the development of drivers of land-use change in the regions thus far were largely overcome, especially within the core working group. The series of workshops on its own would not have been sufficient to achieve this: it was only possible through the in-depth joint work in the collaborative working atmosphere that developed among the smaller number of participants that made up the stable core working group.The core group had more time at its disposal, in comparison to the one-day workshop events with 30 to 40 participants.The bigger workshop events did not provide opportunities to search for additional information or explore experiences

260  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

which were not represented within the group of participants on each occasion. The core group was able to search for and obtain additional information based on a shared notion of what information was needed. Also, this group had time available to engage in joint interpretation and assessment of available data and information, and reflection on the range of experiences of members of the group. The results were often a surprise, both for the scientists and the practitioners. In the workshops, we attempted to replicate this process, working in small groups using a methodology similar to the ‘world café’ approach. Nevertheless, one aspect of the prospective scenario planning approach worked against the creation and transfer of knowledge: the use of scenario planning software tool and computational data processing to analyse interactions among key drivers of changes and their development pathways. This was necessary to arrive at plausible scenarios, as the number of identified drivers (18 key factors) and 18×4 development pathways (72 projections) leads to ­millions of rough scenarios, which was too much to handle without computational processing. This was also a consequence of decision of the core group to focus on complex social-ecological interdependencies within SUR Rostock. This computational processing was desk research work, performed by the scientists who were the beneficiaries of funding for the project. Modelling these change processes together with all members of the core group would have been too time-consuming for the participating practitioners due to the huge amount of work involved. Consequently, this computational processing was perceived by participants, including members of the core group, as a ‘black box’. Even if salience was achieved in overall terms within the process, this black box limited the salience and credibility of the results to a certain extent. Finally, with respect to the political/action gap, as indicated in Figure 12.3, this can be overcome through knowledge transformation and the creation of common interests and practices in the political process. This implies not only the development of spaces for decision-making and collective action but also the transformation of shared mental maps and heuristics, organisational structures and power relations, as well as the mobilisation of resources for perceived sustainable action. They prepare what will be sensed in the future and if the mindful sensing of regional impacts of climate change will be on the agenda or not. Here, the preponderance of public sector actors and the focus on technocratic (expert) dialogue limited the potential of the process to lead to the transformation of local practices and new organisational structures. Even though efforts were made to involve actors from the entire urban region throughout the process, in the end it was only the City Parliament (representing the urban core) that adopted the framework for climate change adaptation developed in the prospective scenario planning process. Due to the predominance of public sector actors (professional experts and policy makers) throughout the whole process, other stakeholders with a background in politics or in non-governmental organisations played a relatively minor role. This especially applied to key decisions regarding the process, the data and information that were considered, and the identities and numbers

Prospective scenario planning 261

of participants. So legitimacy, in the sense described above, was less achieved within the process. But this was not our principal objective. However, the scenario building process did have a political impact and its recommendations were incorporated in a framework concept on climate change adaptation adopted by the city legislature. So far, the framework has been adopted only as a statement of intent and a basis for discussion. While this is in itself a decision, no concrete steps towards applying the framework have been taken at the end of the project. The political/action gap, between thinking and acting, concerns issues of knowledge transformation and requires significant practical and political effort to create common interests to share and assess information.

Lessons learned: conclusions and outlook The obtained findings lead us to the conclusion that collaborative transdisciplinary research (especially when undertaken by small research projects) fits very well with the prospective scenario planning approach. Whereas predictive approaches of scenario planning would possibly fit better with basic research, critical pragmatic or emancipatory approaches might fit better with action research or consultancy work. The main focus of prospective scenario planning is on closing the sensibility gap and the new information and knowledge gap. Prospective scenario planning is necessary as a first step to create salient and credible transdisciplinary knowledge about impacts and action options, in this case with respect to climate change on the local level in SUR Rostock. The prospective scenario planning approach used in SUR Rostock was mainly focused on knowledge translation and knowledge transfer in a technocratic (expert) discourse among researchers and local and regional experts. Prospective scenario planning is less appropriate for political discourse and knowledge transformation processes. The legitimacy of the knowledge generated is not the main focus of prospective scenario planning. Nevertheless, it lays the groundwork for subsequent processes which aim to bridge the political gap between different interests, and address imbalances in resources and power relations. These subsequent steps will need to take within our case study region in order to achieve sustainable urban and regional land-use development. To this end, in the future, transformative (critical pragmatic) scenario planning could be undertaken with the participation of all key decision makers and stakeholders in the region. The aim would be to transform the structures and practices of regional networks (and their embedded patterns of interests, resources and power relations towards climate change), as well as mental maps and heuristics of powerful decision makers, and gain relevant practical experience of the application of climate change adaptation strategies. This transformative approach based on a critical pragmatic understanding of scenario planning was used, for example, in the early 1990s in South Africa to overcome the legacy of apartheid (Kahane, 2012). More recently, the transformative approach has been applied in a consulting contract (with need for secrecy) for an internal goal-setting process

262  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch

in a metropolitan region in Germany and in combination with a backcasting approach (see Table 12.1) in order to determine resource efficient patterns of development in the German regions of Meissen and Havelland-Fläming (Neumann, 2016). But not everything can be done at the same time and at the same place. A trade-off needs to be made between credibility, salience and legitimacy of knowledge (Cash et al., 2002). So dilemmas, dissonances and paradoxical situations will remain. Neither the transformation of mental maps (with heuristics and interpretation rules) nor the transformation of practices (and the corresponding distribution of resources and power relations) of decision makers and regional policy networks could be expected as outcomes of prospective scenario planning. These limitations are accentuated by the long-term perspective required to address sustainability issues relating to climate change adaptation. Politicians and local stakeholders cannot be expected to change their heuristics as a result of participating in a single or only a small number of scenario workshops. But these changes are important for making sense of climate change issues, reflecting on further information needs in the (mostly informal) scanning phase; and thus also subsequently in the (mostly intuitive) search for knowledge and use of knowledge on climate change adaptation in the interpretation and transformation stage. As a result of the prospective scenario planning process, the first steps towards adaptation to the effects of climate change on land use in the urban region of Rostock have been taken, i.e. the production of new salient and credible knowledge, and the identification of appropriate adaptation measures in response to the identified drivers of change. In order to achieve sustainable urban and regional sustainable development, more effort is required to transform structures over the long term, so that they are fit for the purpose of sustainable adaptation to climate change. From a research perspective, our experiences highlight the importance of continued exploration of the potential of scenario planning to contribute to the generation of the new knowledge for sustainability, especially in relation to adaptation to climate change.

References Allmendinger, P. (2001). Planning in postmodern times. London: Routledge. Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a post-positivist typology of planning theory. Planning Theory, 1(1), 77–99. Allmendinger, P. (2009). Planning theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Asselt, v. M.B.A., Klooster van’t, S. A., Notten, v. P.W.F., & Smits, L. A. (2010). Foresight in action: Developing policy-oriented scenarios. London: Earthscan. Bell, W. (2009). Foundations of futures studies: History, purposes, and knowledge. Human science for a new era (Vol. 1). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (2007). The social construction of reality. In C. J. Calhoun, J. Gertais, J. Moody, S. Pfaff, & I. Virk (Eds.), Contemporary sociological theory (pp. 43–51). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Prospective scenario planning 263 Bernauer, T., & Schaffer, L. M. (2010). Climate change governance. CIS Working Paper No. 60. Retrieved January 1, 2017, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1661190 Bertelsmann Foundation. (2014). Wegweiser Kommune. Retrieved from www.wegweiserkommune.de Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2005). Towards a user’s guide to scenarios – a report on scenario types and scenario techniques. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology. Börjeson, L., Höjer M., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38(7), 723–739. Bradfield, R., Wright G., Burt G., Cairns G., & Van der Heijden, K. (2005). The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37(8), 795–812. Brunsson, N. (1986). Organizing for inconsistencies: On organizational conflict, depression and hypocrisy as substitutes for action. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies, 2(3–4), 165–185. Brunsson, N. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions, and actions in organizations. Chichester: Wiley. Brunsson, N. (2007). The consequences of decision-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burt, G., & Van der Heijden, K. (2008). Towards a framework to understand purpose in futures studies: The role of Vickers’ appreciative system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(8), 1109–1127. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. Cash, D., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., & Jäger, J. (2002). Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: Linking research, assessment and decision making. KSG Working Papers Series RWP02–046. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=372280 Choo, C. (2005). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge, and make decisions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cuhls, K. (2003). From forecasting to foresight processes – new participative foresight activities in Germany. Journal of Forecasting, 22(2–3), 93–111. Cutter, S., & Osman-Elasha, B. (2012). Managing the risks from climate extremes at the local level. In C. B. Field,V. Barros,T. F. Stocker, Q. Dahe, D. J. Dokken, K. L. Ebi, . . . P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC (pp. 291–338). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln,Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Feyerabend, P. (1970). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. In M. Radner & S. Winokur (Eds.), Analyses of theories and methods of physics and psychology (pp. 17–129). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method. London: New Left Books. Field, C. B., Barros,V., Stocker, T. F., ahe, Q., Dokken, D. J., Ebi, K. L., & Midgley, P. M. (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. Special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

264  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany: Suny Press. Freeman, R. (2007). Epistemological bricolage: How practitioners make sense of learning. Administration & Society, 39(4), 476–496. Fuller,T., & Loogma, K. (2009). Constructing futures: A social constructionist perspective on foresight methodology. Futures, 41(2), 71–79. Gavigan, J. P., Scapolo, F., Keenan, M., Miles, I., Farhi, F., Lecoq, D., Capriati, M., & Di Bartolomeo, T. (2001). A practical guide to regional foresight. Foresight for Regional Development Network (FOREN); European Commission – JRC/IPTS; Report EUR 20128 EN. Sevilla. Retrieved from http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/eur20128en.pdf Godet, M. (2001). Creating futures: Scenario planning as a strategic management tool. London: Economica. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1985). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. (Bd. 1) Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch. Healey, M. P., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2008). Troubling futures: Scenarios and scenario planning for organizational decision making. In G. P. Hodgkinson & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making (pp. 565–585). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Healey, P. (2009). The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(3), 277–292. Hodgkinson, G. P., & Starbuck, W. H. (2008). The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huss, W. R., & Honton, E. J. (1987). Scenario planning. What style should you use? Long Range Planning, 20(4), 21–29. Inayatullah, S. (1990). Deconstructing and reconstructing the future: Predictive, cultural and critical epistemologies. Futures, 22(2), 115–141. Inayatullah, S. (1998). Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method. Futures, 30(8), 815–829. Inayatullah, S. (2010). Theory and practice in transformation: The disowned futures of integral extension. Futures, 42(2), 103–109. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. New York: Routledge. Johansen, R. (2012). Leaders make the Future:Ten new leadership skills for an uncertain world. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Kahane, A. (2012). Transformative Scenario Planning: Working Together to Change the Future. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Knieling, J., & Leal Filho, W. (2013). Climate change governance. Berlin: Springer. Lant, T. K. (2002). Organizational cognition and interpretation. In J.A.C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 344–362). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Lant, T. K., & Shapira, Z. (2001). Organizational cognition: Computation and interpretation. Mahwah, HJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lincoln,Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 97–128). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Prospective scenario planning 265 Löwis, S. V., & Neumann, I. (2009). Governance and collaborative planning practice. The change in urban planning methods – examples from Germany. In C. Henning & K. Renblad (Eds.), Perspectives on empowerment, social cohesion and democracy: An international anthology (pp. 91–128). Jönköping: Jönköping University. Makridakis, S., & Taleb, N. (2009a). Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability. International Journal of Forecasting, 25(4), 813–825. Makridakis, S., & Taleb, N. (2009b). Living in a world of low levels of predictability. International Journal of Forecasting, 25(4), 840–844. March, J. G., & Heath, G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Free Press. Martin, B. R. (2010). The origins of the concept of ‘foresight’ in science and technology: An insider’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(9), 1438–1447. Meadowcroft, J. (2009). Climate change governance. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4941. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1407959 Meier, H. E., Brokman, B., & Kjellström, E. (2004). Simulated sea level in past and future climates of the Baltic Sea. Climate Research, 27, 59–75. Naustdalslid, J. (2011). Climate change – the challenge of translating scientific knowledge into action. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(3), 243–252. Neumann, I. (2016). Partizipatives Backcasting und das Management von Dissonanzen. Ein kritisch pragmatischer Backcasting-Ansatz der Szenarioplanung zur regionalen Verwirklichung des Leitbildes einer ressourceneffizienten Siedlungsentwicklung. In G. Schiller (Ed.), Wege zur Umsetzung von Ressourceneffizienzstrategien in der Siedlungs- und Infrastrukturplanung. Berlin: Rhombos Verlag. Norddeutscher Klimaatlas. (2012). Ostseeküste. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from www.nord deutscher-klimaatlas.de/ Nowack, M. (2008). Scenario planning: Possibilities of scenario planning for the urban drainage organisations facing demographic change. DLGS Paper. Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden. Ogilvy, J.A.Y. (2005). Abstract: Scenario planning, art or science? World Futures:The Journal of General Evolution, 61(5), 331–346. Phdungsilp, A. (2011). Futures studies’ backcasting method used for strategic sustainable city planning. Futures, 43(7), 707–714. Quist, J. (2007). Backcasting for a sustainable future:The impact after 10 years. Delft: Eburon. Ramos, J. M. (2003). From critique to cultural recovery: Critical futures studies and casual layered analysis. Melbourne: Swinburne University. Robinson, J. (2003). Future subjunctive: Backcasting as social learning. Futures, 35(8), 839–856. Schwandt, D., & Gorman, M. (2004). Foresight or foreseeing? A social action explanation of complex collective knowing. In H. Tsoukas & R. W. Shephard (Eds.), Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy (pp. 77–97). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 189–214). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Stacey, R. (2000). The emergence of knowledge in organizations. Emergence, 2(4), 23–39. Statistisches Amt Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. (2009). Bevölkerungsentwicklung der kreisfreien Städte und Landkreise in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern bis 2030 (Basisjahr 2006). Schwerin. Retrieved from www.statistik-mv.de/ Stiens, G. (1996). Prognostik in der Geographie. Braunschweig: Westermann. Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (2008). Information overload revisited. In G. P. Hodgkinson & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational decision making (pp. 56–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

266  Ingo Neumann and Sonja Deppisch Swart, R. J., Raskin, P., & Robinson, J. (2004). The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change Part A, 14(2), 137–146. Taleb, N. N. (2009). Errors, robustness, and the fourth quadrant. International Journal of Forecasting, 25(4), 744–759. Taleb, N. N. (2010). The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House. Tapio, P. (1996). From technocracy to participation?: Positivist, realist and pragmatist paradigms applied to traffic and environmental policy futures research in Finland. Futures, 28(5), 453–470. Tapio, P., & Hietanen, O. (2002). Epistemology and public policy: Using a new typology to analyse the paradigm shift in Finnish transport futures studies. Futures, 34(7), 597–620. Tsoukas, H., & Shepherd, J. (2004a). Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Tsoukas, H., & Shepherd, J. (2004b). Organizations and the future, from forecasting to foresight (introduction). In H.Tsoukas & J. Shepherd (Eds.), Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy (pp. 1–17). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van der Heijden, K. (2004). Insights into foresight. In H.Tsoukas & R. W. Shephard (Eds.), Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy (pp. 204–211). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Van der Heijden, K., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & Wright, G. (2002). The sixth sense: Accelerating organisational learning with scenarios. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Vickers, G. (1995). The art of judgment: A study of policy making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Voros, J. (2005). Reframing environmental scanning: An integral approach. Melbourne: MCB UP. Voros, J. (2006). Introducing a classification framework for prospective methods. Foresight, 8(2), 43–56. Voß, J.-P. (2007). Designs on governance: Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. Doctoral dissertation, School of Management and Governance, University of Twente, Enschede. Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431. Weiss, C. H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Science Communication, 1(3), 381–404. Weiss, C. H. (1991). Policy research as advocacy: Pro and con. Knowledge & Policy, 4(1/2), 37–55. Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas M. J. (1980).Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers’ frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review, 45(2), 302–313. Wright, G., & Cairns, G. (2011). Scenario thinking: Practical approaches to the future. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Zack, M. H. (2007). The role of decision support systems in an indeterminate world. Decision Support Systems, 43(4), 1664–1674.

13 Challenging futures – concepts for engaging with dynamics of policy instrument design Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß Introduction The search for new paths to sustainable development is closely related to the search for new forms of governance. In this regard, experiments in political practice can be observed whereby new policy instruments are tested and developed in various situations across different policy areas and jurisdictions. Such activities are often accompanied by promises that new policies, e.g. the design of market-based approaches or public-private partnerships in the field of environmental policy, are more effective tools for solving today’s problems than their predecessors (Haddas & Huigen, 1997; Jordan, Wurzel & Zito, 2003; Jordan, Wurzel & Zito, 2005; Tommel & Verdun, 2008). This understanding of policy instruments as functional tools designed to solve a certain problem with optimal efficiency is widely adopted as a common-sense perspective, both in political practice and in academic studies of policy instrument design. Within the ‘Innovation in Governance’ research group we take a different approach to policy instruments. Instead of analysing how well policies achieve their objectives, we focus on the social processes by which they are constituted. Our goal is to attain a better grasp of how policy instruments emerge, develop, find a place on political agendas and cross national borders into new fields of application. We focus on the formation and activities of actors that come together to support a policy instrument and we follow the development of the policy through time and space. This allows us to gain insights into the social dynamics, underlying innovation mechanisms and patterns of policy instrument development (see, e.g. Voß, 2007a, 2007b, 2014;Voß & Simons, 2014;Voß & Amelung, 2016). We developed the ‘Challenging Futures’ approach as a methodology for exploring the social dynamics of policy design. Our approach is based on the construction of a set of potential futures or scenarios portraying the development of specific policies. These Challenging Futures provide the basis for a discussion of innovation dynamics and the roles of involved actors, as well as for identification and constructive debate of critical issues and challenges for future policy design. These scenarios are based on retrospective research into the ‘innovation journeys’ (van de Ven, 1999) of policy instruments, i.e. their historical development from early ideas up until their acceptance internationally

268  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß

as policy solutions. Innovation mechanisms and dynamic patterns of development identified through this research are then placed in different future contexts for analysis. Scenario construction focuses on the formation and activities of ‘instrument constituencies’, i.e. groups of actors that coalesce around specific policy instruments to support their further development and use. The basic objective of Challenging Futures is to explore wider societal and political ramifications of policy instruments, and to offer opportunities for concerned actors and stakeholders to engage ‘upstream’ with ongoing policy design processes, i.e. before policy instruments are embedded in policy as ‘black boxes’, whose effects are taken for granted and no longer subjected to detailed scrutiny. Our approach is thus a transdisciplinary one: it focuses on the science-policy interface and draws on diverse forms of knowledge to develop new, critical perspectives on policy in practice. Conceptually, we draw inspiration from research on the politics of technological innovation as well as constructive technology assessment (CTA) (Rip, Schot & Misa, 1995; Schot & Rip, 1997). This chapter describes the application of the approach in a workshop with actors concerned with conservation trading systems in April 2013 in Berlin, Germany (for accounts of a further application see Mann et al., 2014b; Voß, 2016a, 2016c). Based on this case study, we discuss the methodological and societal implications for the future use of the Challenging Futures assessment approach. We continue this chapter with a brief review of the innovation journey of conservation trading systems as a tool for biodiversity conservation. This is followed by an outline of problems involved in policy instrument development as a background for engaging with governance in the making. We then review technology assessment literature with respect to ‘upstream’ and ‘constructive’ assessment approaches that aim to incorporate societal concerns early on in the design phase of new technologies. This brings us to the main section of this chapter, where we outline the Challenging Futures approach, and describe and reflect on the initial experimental application to the case of conservation trading systems. We conclude with a discussion of open questions and perspectives for future application of the approach.

Conservation trading systems as a tool for biodiversity conservation Conservation trading systems, referred to here also as biodiversity offset and habitat banking approaches, are an emerging new tool for biodiversity protection. At their core, conservation trading schemes permit impacts at one location to be compensated by conservation or restoration measures at another location, in cases where stricter mitigation measures – such as avoidance or reduction – are not feasible (ten Kate, Bishop & Bayon, 2004). Compensation trading schemes take the form of standardised banking procedures, whereby biodiversity credits are issued in return for protection measures, which can be carried out in advance and independently of concrete impacts, and later used to

Challenging futures 269

compensate for biodiversity losses at a different site on a commercial basis. This idea emerged about 30 years ago in the national context of the United States and then successfully made it onto several policy agendas worldwide. Recent studies show that compensatory mitigation programs are now applied in over 45 countries around the world (Madsen, Carroll, Kandy & Bennet, 2011). The analysis of the innovation journey and mechanisms of conservation trading policies shows that their emergence and development has predominantly been guided by commercially oriented actors with connections to international networks defined by a similar market-driven approach to environmental protection (Mann & Simons, 2015; Mann, 2015). By strategically combining agenda-driven research with the mobilisation of political support, this network of actors has been able to establish conservation trading as a widely acknowledged policy solution. However, this has been achieved at the cost of neglecting viable policy alternatives, and a failure to consider the effects of applying the policy in different socio-ecological and cultural contexts. Through the efforts of the network of actors and experts who have actively pushed ‘their’ idea of a market-based model onto political agendas, conservation trading has developed a political momentum of its own. This phenomenon of the ‘social life’ of policy instruments needs to be addressed by policy impact assessments (Voß & Simons, 2014). While case studies of the development patterns and dynamics of conservation trading systems as a form of ‘government at a distance’ (Rose & Miller, 1992), including the separation of policy design from application contexts, are of interest for wider debates about the expertisation and technocratisation of politics (Voß & Freeman, 2016), our focus here is on methods that seek to counteract the disembedding of policy design from wider socio-political debates. More precisely, we want to open up the closed discourse on policy design. Currently, policy discourse is a veiled arena, closed off to those who are not policy experts, that nevertheless produces decisions with far-reaching political implications. In applying the Challenging Futures approach to conservation trading systems, as described in this chapter, our aim was to engage with a more heterogeneous public in order to integrate diverse perspectives – including critical ones – on the complex reality of policy instruments (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2007). To this end, future scenarios were developed and the projections and their implications discussed in a workshop with a range of actors: insiders and outsiders, proponents and critics. Workshop results were presented in reports that contained a list of critical issues and challenges, and subsequently circulated more widely to stimulate in-depth debate on political issues, and the extent to which offset and banking approaches to biodiversity protection contribute towards sustainability.

Problems of innovation in governance Our starting point for opening up the design processes of policy instruments was the diagnosis of two interrelated problems. First, policy instruments are

270  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß

increasingly developed by ‘instrument constituencies’, i.e. experts who have a stake in their adoption. Second, policy instruments thereby acquire a political force of their own, restricting political debate and limiting future policy options. The first problem originates in the division of labour that has emerged between the provision of a general model for policy design on the one hand (e.g. a standard or handbook for setting up conservation trading systems), and its application in specific situations and contexts on the other (implementation, adaptation, monitoring, etc.) (Voß, 2007a). As a result, the design of policy models is carried forward not principally by actors with stakes in the solution of problems within particular contexts, or even those interested in gaining positions of power within particular political systems, but by a broader ‘instrument constituency’ (Voß, 2007b;Voß & Simons, 2014) which includes actors that are involved in developing knowledge and expanding the scope of policy application independently of any particular situated policy problem or political power struggle. Instrument constituencies comprise specific practices and actors (people and institutions) that develop stakes in the development of the instrument for its own sake, or to stimulate demand for specific services and expertise, and acquire the social positions of authority that accrue to those who can provide them. The formation of instrument constituencies may lead into the establishment of associations and dedicated organisations to create demand and ‘make a market’ for an instrument and its problem-solving capacity. Instrument constituencies do this by engaging in the discursive constitution of policy problems that instruments may serve to solve. In addition, they work to promote the institutionalisation of this discourse, e.g. its inscription into actual rules and regulations in different policy contexts, thereby legitimising the future application of the policy (Hajer, 1993). Part of the work of policy constituencies consists in standardising or packaging policy design for its wider application. Thus, with skilful advocacy from their constituencies, policy instruments may also acquire a momentum and trajectory which is decoupled from ongoing activities of articulating problems, concerns and strategies in concrete political situations and contexts. As a result, policy instruments may spin out of the control of concerned actors and stakeholders in concrete application contexts (Winner, 1977). Policy instruments no longer appear as passive, static tools, but are transformed into a political force in their own right – without being part of the formal arrangements and procedures of (democratic) policy making. Informally, however, they shape political discourse by offering and enacting their (expert-accredited) problem-solution models. The second, related problem is that, as a result of this institutionalisation, policy instruments acquire political force. As policy instruments become more effective in shaping policy practice across implementation range of context, policy making is delegated in part to the creators of policy instruments. Even if they fail to deliver on their promised functions and outcomes, policy instruments leave political practices and institutional arrangements considerably altered once they have been implemented, and they also orient specific forms

Challenging futures 271

of public action. The implementation of policy instruments therefore entails the transformation of discourses, actor networks and institutions. This impacts on how power is distributed among stakeholders and, consequently, their influence on the emergence and definition of new political issues in the future (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2007; Voß, 2007b). The making of general models for policy design, and the social dynamics of this process, is thus linked to the performance and enactment of specific versions of political reality (Law, 2012; Voß, 2016b; 2014). While ‘on-site’ politics are regulated in one way or another by democratic processes, the making of policy models is carried out by experts who are largely unaffected by their implementation, in processes beyond the scrutiny of public debate. As more and more ‘policy work’ (Colebatch, 2006) is assumed by experts, politics becomes increasingly displaced from public policy making to the instrument constituencies (Rose & Miller, 1992). Even if policy instruments are not imposed by experts in a formal sense, we may speak of a form of de facto technocracy that evolves with the success of certain policy instruments in establishing themselves as standards for policy design (Voß & Amelung, 2016).

Principles of the Challenging Futures approach These problems of innovation in governance form the starting point for our conceptual approach towards making policy design processes more inclusive. Adopting a transdisciplinary approach, we use scenarios to provide a variety of starting points for broader social engagement with policy instrument design and explore the impact on future policy developments. Our aim is to put policy making through the mangle of democratic contestation and thereby re-embed it in society with its multiple concerns (for a pioneering experiment with applying scenario-based constructive assessment methods to innovation in governance, see Truffer, Voß & Konrad, 2008; Voß, Bauknecht, Konrad & Markard, 2006a; Voß, Konrad & Truffer, 2006b). The Challenging Futures approach achieves this in the following ways: 1 Opening up the arena of negotiation for policy instrument design: we convene workshops to trigger engagement with policy design among a more diverse set of actors, which goes beyond the experts who are already involved in policy instrument design and includes those who express fundamental criticisms of current policy. The workshop serves as a bridging event and provides a legitimate basis for public-policy interventions by a larger set of concerned actors. 2 Opening the ‘black box’ of policy instruments as ready-made tools: we construct scenarios that depict distinct future pathways of policy instrument development. Policy instruments are represented as processes of ongoing social construction shaped through distributed agency in a variety of contexts.This perspective stimulates reflexivity among actors about their involvement, including their unconscious, unintended contributions to the

272  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß

development of future policy instruments. The consideration of different scenarios underlines the fundamental malleability of the future as well as the responsibility of all the ‘distributed actors’ involved, even if they remain passive. 3 Contesting a deterministic perception of policy instrument development: the scenarios sketch alternative future pathways for policy instrument development, along with their inherent tensions and contradictions. In workshops, we reflect on the corresponding generative mechanisms and social dynamics the give rise to policy instruments and discuss their impacts. Workshop participants address broader societal repercussions in terms of issues and challenges that require further debate. The aim of the workshop is to generate a list of issues that functions as an expanded ‘innovation agenda’ for policy development. The scenarios, together with the innovation agenda and workshop reports, are published to ensure wider circulation (Mann, Voß, Simons, Amelung & Runge, 2014a). This is intended to provide a stimulus for constructive public debate about the societal and political repercussions of policy instruments and the technical issues involved in their design.

Conceptual foundations of the approach In developing the Challenging Futures approach we drew inspiration from conceptual work in the area of technology assessment (TA). While early TA attempted to forecast the societal consequences of technological innovations with the help of expert assessments (Berkhout & Hertin, 2002; Borup, 2003; Salmenkaita & Salo, 2004), recent approaches seek to open the process of technological design to broader societal concerns, often in direct interaction with affected societal groups. The underlying conception is of technologies that are responsive to societal concerns and adapted to their implementation contexts from the very start, i.e. from the initial design phase. This shift in thinking recognises the fundamental limits of prediction and political intervention once technologies have developed to an implementation-ready state. By then a high degree of path dependency has been established, for example through the development of dedicated infrastructures and constitution of vested interests that resist regulation attempts (Collingridge, 1980). More recent approaches in TA are based on a (quasi-)evolutionary understanding of technological change which sees technological innovation as an open-ended process, shaped in interactions between various actors and stabilising gradually over time (Dosi, 1982; Geels, 2002; see also Grunwald, 2014; van den Belt & Rip, 1987). A guiding orientation in these recent approaches is the understanding that technology is constructed in social interactions (Bijker, Hughes & Pinch, 1987) and through the establishment of discourses that imbue technological projects with specific expectations and meaning (Pfaffenberger, 1992; Staudenmaier, 1989; van Lente, 1993). This implies that, to ensure that technology meets societal demands, societal interactions must be integrated

Challenging futures 273

into the earliest stages of technology development and not only considered retrospectively as a response to it. In practical terms, this requires the involvement of a broader range of societal perspectives, going beyond networks of technology designers to include social groups who are able to voice critical perspectives on the technological project in question (Garud & Ahlstrom, 1997). Negotiating with and incorporating these views, so that they play a formative role in the design and development of technology, will result in more robust and societally embedded technologies (Robinson, 2009). Consequently, a conceptual shift has occurred among researchers, a move away from purely scientific research to participatory analysis, and from prediction towards a more exploratory stance that takes full account of developmental contingencies and uncertainties. This provides the basis for reflexive learning and ‘real-time’ assessment (Guston & Sarewitz, 2002). Such a shift towards a broader understanding of socio-technical dynamics, with an emphasis on anticipation, articulation, and feedback, has come to be known as constructive technology assessment (CTA) (Garud & Karnøe, 2001; Rip et al., 1995; Schot & Rip, 1997). Methodologically, CTA builds on a scenario approach to trigger and frame prospective debates on socio-technical dynamics and the repercussions of technological innovations. Scenarios are constructed based on studies into the past and present dynamics of technology development which constitute their ‘endogenous futures’, i.e. their open, but not unlimited, potential to continue historical development pathways into the future (Rip & te Kulve, 2008). Innovation dynamics within such socio-technical systems are explained with the help of a multi-level perspective model (Grin, Rotmans & Schot, 2011; Kemp, Loorbach & Rotmans, 2007; Loorbach, 2007; Loorbach, 2010) that takes three levels of technology-related interactions into consideration: a micro-level of ongoing innovation activity (‘technological niches’); a mesolevel comprising a system of institutions and networks which define basic functional requirements and design parameters for a certain area of technology development (‘socio-technical regimes’); and a macro-level that forms a wider, external backdrop of structural developments that influence technology development (‘socio-­technical landscapes’). By taking multi-level interactions into account, CTA serves as an ‘intentional bridging event’ (Rip & te Kulve, 2008) for uniting actors who shape and view technology through interactions that take place on and across these different levels. Similar to CTA, our approach encourages the development of a range of scenarios while also encouraging actors to constructively discuss issues and challenges for the future of policy instruments. Based on our analysis of innovation journeys, the scenarios we develop portray policy development dynamics as an entangled process of abstract model-making (i.e. the construction of general policy models) and their use as policies in specific situations and contexts (i.e. choosing and implementing the model). Real-world actors, organisations and institutions that we identify in the course of our analysis, as well as critics or opposing positions and approaches as their hypothetical counterparts, are associated with the distinct levels (micro or meso) and surrounded by macro-level

274  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß

trends and shifting agendas. These elements influence each other and policy innovations. Actors’ roles differ in each scenario: what may be considered an opportunity for a particular actor in one scenario might be taken as a constraint in another. Scenarios help to identify the potential for creating new links between actors, activities and levels so that the opportunities and risks of different policy development pathways can be assessed. This process of identifying issues and challenges is left to the participants. Instead of positioning ourselves as scientific policy advisors for the development of new policies, we engage with ongoing innovation processes as learning facilitators (Fischer, 2003). Our role is limited to stimulating debate around the policy instrument design process and its societal implications. We enrich this discussion by introducing, via the scenarios, diverse viewpoints and concerns that do not usually attract the attention of the centres of expertise from where governance practices are increasingly shaped.

Application of the approach The application of the Challenging Futures approach is conceived as two steps. In a first step, a set of future scenarios is elaborated for policy development as the basis for a constructive debate. The scenarios build on insights gained through historical policy analysis to identify innovation mechanisms, dynamics and patterns, which are then used to construct hypothetical development paths. In a second step, a Challenging Futures workshop is organised with a diverse set of actors concerned with policy development. The objective is to bring together actors, from within the innovation network and beyond, to debate the scenarios and identify issues and challenges that are pertinent to sustainable policy development. The issues and challenges identified are subsequently fed back into future policy design processes. In the remainder of this section we discuss the conceptual foundations of this two-stage process and describe its practical application to the example of biodiversity offsets and banking. First phase: constructing the scenarios

Scenarios that predict future policy developments are at the heart of the first phase of the process. Generally, scenarios are stories about the future (Börjeson, Höjer, Dreborg, Ekvall & Finnveden, 2006; Kahn & Wiener, 1967;Wack, 1985). In contrast to other policy-related scenario approaches, where the focus is often on policy issues, for example related to environmental change (Holman et al., 2002; IPCC, 2000; Peterson et al., 2003) or sustainable (rural) development (Bieling et al., Chapter 7; Funtowicz, Martinez-Alier, Munda & Ravetz, 1999; Wollenberg, Edmunds & Buck, 2000), our scenarios focus on policy instruments as models of policy design. The scenarios contextualise the processes in which policies are taken up and follow these change processes into the future. In our reflections about how specific instruments might continue to develop, we draw on the idea of endogenous futures. This concept embodies the idea that an instrument’s future is influenced by its history, during which certain

Challenging futures 275

alignments and irreversible features have built up over time, along with tensions, mechanisms and dynamics (Elzen, Geels & Green, 2004). In other words, mechanisms and interdependencies that have played a role in the past are likely to continue doing so in the future. Thus, we start by carrying out an in-depth analysis of past developments in the theoretical articulation and design of policy models. In addition, we identify links to specific problem areas, jurisdictions, and actor constellations that have emerged in different instances where the policy instrument has been applied, from the regional to the global level. We focus in particular on the composition and activities of actors in the constituencies that emerge around a policy instrument. For the case of biodiversity offsets and banking, we conducted an extensive literature review over three years. This review covered literature on broader political trends in environmental policy, policy instruments involved in biodiversity conservation and mitigation of development impacts, as well as related problems and issues. We reviewed statutes, agency reports, position papers, protocols and evaluations of policy instruments to identify arguments for or against their use. In addition, 36 expert interviews were carried out with actors involved in the design and implementation of environmental markets, biodiversity offsets and banking approaches to shed light on the various strategies applied in the design and application of the instruments concerned. One central finding from our analysis of the innovation dynamics of conservation trading was that the actors who play a central role in the design, development and diffusion of this instrument come to form, over time, a distinct social world.They coalesce in an instrument constituency made up of specialist actors and organisations that live off and for the instrument (Voß & Simons, 2014). Even though they have different understandings and expectations of the respective advantages and modes of use of the policy instrument in question, they share a common interest in shaping and expanding their chosen tool as a ‘best practice’ policy solution. Consequently, processes leading to the formation of this constituency, i.e. the progressive involvement of more actors and networks, each with a specific role and activities to perform to ensure the instrument’s continued existence, form the central storyline in our scenarios. Specifically for the case of biodiversity offsets and banking, we singled out three central actor orientations that are constitutive for policy design solutions in this area. The first orientation is commercial: the development of biodiversity offsets and banking offers new opportunities to market special products and services for profit. The second is political: the development of these policy instruments is a quest to implement certain forms of biodiversity protection that correspond to the political interests of actors in specific local contexts.The third orientation is scientific: biodiversity offsets and banking provide a new field of study, and represent an opportunity to develop and advocate theoretical conceptualisations of how nature can be appraised and biodiversity equivalencies measured. These heterogeneous orientations coexist in real life. Different actors combine their skills and resources to work towards the establishment of biodiversity offsets and banking as the predominant policy tools for biodiversity conservation. At the same time, their interactions help mobilise resources

276  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß

and capacities for the implementation of scientific, political and business programmes in support of biodiversity trading. Our empirical analysis showed that over time, in the course of their innovation journey, the design of biodiversity offset and banking policy instruments has become dominated by the commercial, business-focused orientation. In the early phase of development of biodiversity offsets and banking policies, business perspectives were counterbalanced by scientific and political concerns (Mann & Absher, 2014). However, commercial interests began to predominate in the design process as actors established ties to influential global networks with a similar market-driven perspective on environmental protection. As a result, this business-oriented constituency has been able to push conservation trading as a neo-liberal policy project on various political agendas.Viable policy alternatives and the different socio-ecological and cultural contexts in which the policy is to be applied are largely ignored. This strong market orientation has led to emergence of deep-rooted tensions in design discourses and in practice among business, political and scientific interests. For the construction of future scenarios, we built on these tensions and actor orientations as they have contributed to shaping biodiversity offsets and banking in the past.We took them as a starting point to consider how the instrument may develop in the future: how will the innovation journey of biodiversity offsets and banking unfold over the next 20 years if business, politics or science comes to dominate its development? In contrast to participatory scenario approaches, where future projections are developed together with stakeholders (Bieling et al., Chapter 7), the scenarios of Challenging Futures are written by research team members based on their analysis of the innovation journey of the policy instrument in question, i.e. in this case, environmental markets, and biodiversity offsets and banking in particular. Rather than portraying likely and relevant future situations, the scenarios were intended to exaggerate certain innovation dynamics and to provoke thoughts about fundamental tensions and conflicts arising from opposing actor positions regarding the valuation of nature in the development of policy instruments based on biodiversity offset and banking approaches. Accordingly, in an internal workshop with project team members, we developed three scenarios in which policy development was influenced predominantly by business, political or scientific perspectives (Table 13.1). For each scenario, influential factors and dynamic mechanism as identified in the policy instrument’s history were placed along a timeline until the year 2030. These factors and mechanisms were then related to recent social, political, technological and ecological developments and debates, as well as to fictitious events which were developed in a series of creative writing sessions. Afterwards, all of these scenes were combined into a consistent narrative. Table 13.1 presents an overview of the orientations, storylines, and key tensions and conflicts in the three scenarios. Summaries of the scenario narratives presented to participants as the basis for the workshop discussions can be found in Boxes 13.1–13.3.

Challenging futures 277 Table 13.1 Overview of scenario characteristics for biodiversity offsets and banking futures Scenario characteristics

Scenario 1:Towards interlinked biodiversity markets

Dominant orientation

Business: Push Politics: Local context determines particular to develop a global market for policy approach. biodiversity services.

Storyline

An internationally active industry successfully creates demand for offsets and banking services, leading to a global biodiversity market. Neo-liberal perspectives dominate over alternate solutions to biodiversity loss.

Tension/ conflict

Scenario 2: Unique political natures

Scenario 3:The game changer: GenCalc technology

Biodiversity protection is a matter of local contexts and cultures. There is a wide range of policy solutions for biodiversity protection.

Science: New calculation method paves the way for international policy use. Questions of how to quantify biodiversity are resolved by a new methodology, leading to global policies for conservation trading.

Decontextualisation of unified market policy models vs. need for context-sensitive solutions.

Objective-functional vs. ethical-political considerations for biodiversity protection.

Box 13.1  Scenario 1 – Towards interlinked biodiversity markets In the aftermath of the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, it becomes painfully clear that negotiated targets to stop biodiversity loss have not been met. The general sentiment is that something needs to be done, soon. A new international agreement is forged among Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) members to achieve a radical reduction of biodiversity loss by 2050. A working group is set up to evaluate alternative policy options. Well-organised advocates of a market-based approach, including businesses involved in existing initiatives and pro-market think tanks, point to the success of existing initiatives in the USA and Australia. They finance the highly influential documentary film, Two More Inconvenient Truths, which argues that biodiversity loss is an environmental problem of the same calibre as climate change (‘Truth 1’), and that the only viable solution to this problem is to harness the power of markets (‘Truth 2’). The promise to support economic growth while still achieving conservation targets convinces political decision makers, both in national administrations and among key international institutions such as the OECD,

278  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß

UNEP, and the CBD. With the adoption by the EU of the Natura 2015 Habitat Banking Scheme, the market-based approach to biodiversity protection establishes itself as the dominant policy model. Countries that previously did not have any biodiversity protection measures in place now start planning and implementing their own policies. Many of them turn to experts in the pro-market constituency for help. Think tanks such as Ecosystem Marketplace and the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) set themselves up as global experts for policy design and implementation. Their ‘State of Biodiversity Markets’ reports, published annually in cooperation with the World Bank, are widely consulted as the most up-to-date source of information on the development of biodiversity offset and banking schemes around the world. Alternative approaches to biodiversity protection increasingly take a back seat in national and international policy discourses, despite the protests of critical NGOs and ecologists. Even a number of scandals and fraud cases, such as the creation and sale of ‘empty credits’, do not result in major shifts in the general pro-market political mood. The International Biodiversity Association (IBA) is founded in 2020. Its members include biodiversity service providers (banks, certifiers, etc.), regulatory bodies from around the world, and influential think tanks. It develops into a powerful political actor, pushing for the expansion of market-based instruments. While national markets are now well established, it proves more difficult to devise schemes for interconnected credit trading across diverse ecosystems and national borders. The major problem is how to determine the equivalence of biodiversity losses and gains. Ecologists argue that “giant pandas and snow leopards are hardly interchangeable.” The potential linking of markets remains an open-ended debate. Nevertheless, by the end of the decade, biodiversity markets are increasing accepted as the only viable policy solution to the problem of biodiversity loss. A high-ranking spokesman at the CBD Conference of the Parties 20, held in 2030, summarises the general sentiment with the words: “The CBD is the first international convention to really have ‘teeth’ and achieve the institutionalization of a policy for the provision of global public goods!” (Carsten Mann, Fabian Schroth, Arno Simons & Jan-Peter Voß)

Box 13.2  Scenario 2 – Unique political natures In 2013, a broad range of cultural framings of nature, methods of ecosystem assessments and biodiversity protection policy measures are being applied. The discourse is as fragmented as the practices in use.

Challenging futures 279

Some transnational initiatives led by the CBD, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the European Commission struggle to promote more integrated solutions, preferably market-based, to combat biodiversity loss. However, environmental and indigenous groups criticise biodiversity credit trading as a measure that creates perverse incentives and disrespects the cultural and ecological complexity of ecosystem functions. Ecologists similarly argue that ecosystems are too diverse to become commodified. These groups call for local political processes to establish context-specific biodiversity governance arrangements. In 2015, the European carbon trading market, afflicted by various scandals, finally breaks down due to all its flaws. A the same time, a German newspaper exposes Green Inc., the market leader in US mitigation banking, as having been involved in a hostile takeover of nature reserves in developing countries, while blocking sustainable use by local inhabitants. CIMB, an influential Malaysian bank, becomes involved in a scandal over the sale of biodiversity derivatives for non-existing biodiversity gains. In these circumstances, the European Commission is forced to withdraw its plan to establish an EU-wide biodiversity offset system. The EU returns to its initial strategy of simply setting up targets for reducing biodiversity loss, while allowing increased flexibility for nations and regional populations in areas rich in biodiversity to develop their own conservation philosophies, goals and measures. Conservation and biodiversity protection measures designed to meet defined targets range from selforganised initiatives in local communities to contractual conservation management agreements, agro-environmental schemes, and the designation of protected areas. Market-based approaches that seek to commercialise nature are still discussed in national and international policy discourses, but lose much of their initial momentum. Continued progress towards standardised biodiversity offset regulation and markets for biodiversity credit trading is only possible in contexts where a compensatory mitigation banking scheme is already in place, e.g. in the USA and Australia. A few new biodiversity markets emerge in Latin America, where the high rate of return attracts venture capitalists to a variety of ‘ecological hotspots’. In other regions, pro-market biodiversity and ecosystem service providers offer a plethora of biodiversity-related products, tailored to different species, habitats and regions. By 2025, several national and regional schemes have been set up whereby flexible biodiversity protection is permitted, adapted to specific political and biophysical situations. It is widely accepted that biodiversity conservation is a political issue, inextricably linked to cultural framings of nature that that need to be taken into account in order to make legitimate policy decisions. Local conflicts and specific issues raised by local

280  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß

stakeholders, especially indigenous communities and local inhabitants, define the negotiation of biodiversity protection measures. At the close of this decade, it is clear that the establishment of biodiversity markets with credit trading schemes will only have a future in narrowly defined contexts. Instead of standardised approaches and markets, biodiversity protection policy has turned into a toolkit, or rather a floating repertoire of concepts, elements and tools which stakeholders can select and assemble for specific local projects. (Carsten Mann, Fabian Schroth, Arno Simons & Jan-Peter Voß)

Box 13.3  Scenario 3 – The game changer: GenCalc technology In 2013 there is still substantial uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of biodiversity credit trading, both economically and as a tool for biodiversity conservation. As a result, at the 12th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of CBD in Korea, proposals to institutionalise biodiversity credit trading within the Green Development Mechanism (GDM) are put on ice. However, conference participants agree on the need for comprehensive, robust scientific data to develop a legitimate, binding system for biodiversity offsets. To meet this need, the international research initiative BIOFUTURE is launched by the UN General Assembly to engage the scientific community in efforts to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets 2011–2020.The wide-ranging research objectives include finding a solution to the trickiest problem faced by biodiversity markets, i.e. the lack of a quantitative model to measure biodiversity loss and gain. In 2017, American ecologists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) publish an article in Nature describing a new technology that permits the quantitative comparison of ecosystems. Using complex genetic analysis, the authors propose a generic conversion algorithm for the calculation and comparison of biodiversity resources. It is also sensitive to a number of crucial habitat indicators. The new technology becomes known as GenCalc. GenCalc enables objective calculation of biological diversity, thereby creating – at least theoretically – the conditions for the transnational trade of habitat and species credits. A number of countries that have already established biodiversity offset and banking systems declare their readiness to serve as testing regions for the new tool. The goal is to determine

Challenging futures 281

whether it can, in fact, be used to link hitherto distinct, and thus incomparable, biodiversity markets. In 2018, New South Wales and Victoria, where commercial biodiversity banking schemes have been in place since the mid-1990s, start to implement the new technology from MIT and create a test network of banks under the supervision of Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) partners. The new software enables the trade of valuable species credits throughout Oceania. Careful ecological monitoring is put in place so that operations can be halted if a decline in species is registered. However, when Great Barrier Reef corals suddenly start to die off en masse as an unintended side effect of coastal development activities, the monitoring system alarm is sent too late for the ecosystem to be saved. The aquatic flora and fauna of the Great Barrier Reef are lost forever. In the wake of this disaster, blame is attributed to a software failure. Learning from this failure, the United States and Canada launch a second transnational biodiversity trading experiment in 2020, under the leadership of scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).This time, using more advanced software, the experiment is a success. To compensate for excessive oil sands production in Canada, huge investments are made in US biodiversity certificates. The results are extremely positive: in Canada, close monitoring prevents the extinction of impacted species and, in the USA, FWS ecologists even register an improvement in the status of relevant ecosystems. “An ecological breakthrough!” is the cover story in the Economist. By 2030, several countries are connected to the transnational biodiversity market. Nevertheless, no measures are in place in the majority of countries across the globe – yet. (Carsten Mann, Fabian Schroth, Arno Simons & Jan-Peter Voß)

Second phase: debating the scenarios to identify issues and challenges

In the second phase, we organised a workshop titled ‘Challenging Futures of Biodiversity Offsets and Banking’, held in April 2013 in Berlin.The workshop’s objectives were twofold. First, we wanted to open up the discussion of biodiversity offsets and banking to include participants from within the constituency as well as other stakeholders who have not yet been involved in policy design. The workshop thus functioned as an ‘bridging event’ providing insiders and outsiders – in relation to policy instrument design – the opportunity come together to probe each other’s worlds, or at least to get to know them (Rip & te Kulve, 2008).

282  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß

Second, we encouraged discussions about the dynamics of policy development as well as an exploration of the implications and likely repercussions of each of the scenarios.The scenarios provided a point of departure for reflection on the tensions, crucial issues and challenges involved in the future of biodiversity offsets and banking. The intention was to compile a list of issues and future challenges as inputs for an innovation agenda for the policy’s future, and as the starting point for a debate between policy makers and societal actors in areas where the policy is to be applied (Rip, 2001). Four weeks prior to the workshop, the participants received a preparatory document setting out key milestones in the policy instrument’s innovation journey and our diagnosis of the present situation. They were also supplied with materials on the workshop’s vision, objectives and expectations, as well as the texts of the three scenarios, the workshop agenda and a list of participants. Opening up closed expert circles for biodiversity offset and banking design

In order to achieve the first objective of stepping away from the closed-group expert perspective as a means of enhancing reflection and joint learning in policy design, it was essential for the workshop to bring together a wide range of relevant policy enactors and shapers. A total of 24 international experts and stakeholders were present at the workshop. Half of these were actors identified as having been involved in shaping policy design in the past. Drawing on the idea of endogenous futures, the underlying assumption was that these actors would likely play a role in the future design of biodiversity offsets and banking as well. About one-half of the workshop panel thus consisted of actors that were identified through our research as already being an integral part of the instrument constituency. These included actors with a strong business orientation, representing e.g. specialised biodiversity consultancies, the OECD, the World Bank, the Shell Oil Company and networks such as the Business and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP). Actors who represented a political perspective on offsets and banking came from federal and state agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Department of Sustainability in Victoria, Australia; and the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. Leading economists, ecologists and landscape planners who have influenced design discourses through their particular research activities were also invited. The other half of the workshop participants consisted of actors representing groups that do not currently have a voice in the ongoing policy design processes. Though marginalised thus far, we identified these groups as being either affected by or concerned with the consequences of further development of the policy instrument. These included ‘internal critics’ that advocate particular design modifications or certain framework conditions for policy application, as well as more ‘fundamental critics’ who call for alternative policy approaches, for example for voluntary or regulatory policy approaches instead of market-based ones. These actors were drawn from a number of research institutes, environmental NGOs or other policy constituencies.

Challenging futures 283

Our classification of actor orientations is a simplification of reality, since individual actors do not exclusively adopt any one of the three orientations. Rather each perspective represents a different mix that places more or less emphasis on each of the three orientations. Despite this, the orientations are useful as an analytical tool: as a representation of the range of actor perspectives and motives in relation to the future of biodiversity offsets and banking. Incorporation of this diversity of perspectives is a prerequisite for a critical debate on sustainable policy solutions. Sustainability in this context refers to the degree to which policy commitments are congruent with the diversity of societal values, knowledge and meanings in the setting where they are applied (Stirling, 2008; see also Truffer et al., 2008;Voß & Kemp, 2006. Exploring sustainability implications for biodiversity offsets and banking

The workshop itself was subdivided into plenary sessions and smaller group discussions. All sessions were geared towards examining different actors’ needs and perspectives, and identifying policy provisions that responded to their interests. In the opening plenary discussion, selected participants were invited to present the current situation of biodiversity offsets and banking from their perspective. An open discussion, i.e. a pluralistic discourse (Dryzek & Niemeyer, 2006), was then initiated in which participants were asked to articulate their views on challenges for future policy instrument design and use, in order to identify similarities and differences among the perspectives of different actors at the start of the debate. Group work followed and formed the central part of the workshop. Four pre-defined groups were formed, each group consisting of insiders (from business, political and scientific backgrounds) and outsiders and/or critics in equal parts. The objective of each group was to identify specific issues relating to the future of biodiversity offsets and banking that require further attention and/or debate.This kind of bottom-up articulation of issues and challenges in small but heterogeneous groups opens up space for discussion of neglected societal needs, marginalised perspectives, uncertainties and new policy options. Each group discussion was guided by a moderator.To stimulate the explication of issues, the scenarios were used as a reference to highlight certain potential developments, such as new multi-actor alignments and for new or newly contested actor roles and activities. The central message was that participants are an integral part of the policy instrument’s future. The scenarios helped focus discussion on alternative options and their effects. In the process, workshop participants identified a range of issues and challenges and reflected on their functional, normative and philosophical underpinnings, in a discussion that went far beyond technical design issues (Grunwald, 2014). After these group sessions, participants selected specific issues and described them in detail in ‘briefing letters’, which considered links to other issues and possible ways of dealing with them in the future. The briefing letters from each of the groups were then all placed on a ‘wall of issues’. Participants could stroll along the wall to peruse the variety of identified issues and challenges.

284  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß

In a final plenary session, selected issues and challenges were discussed, followed by the compilation of an ‘issues list’ for biodiversity offsets and banking futures. This list, containing a description of 25 issues defined by participants, was the main output of the workshop. These issues illustrate the diverse and in part antagonistic positions and rationalities of participants that determine how they see, use and value nature. They relate, for example, to the different functions of biodiversity offsets, approaches to valuing biodiversity, how to measure the equivalence of loss and gain, and to broader related questions such as the advantages and disadvantages of applying uniform compensation methods versus the need to take contextual socio-ecological conditions into account (Mann, 2015). The list of issues, together with a summary of the workshop debate and the scenarios, was then compiled in a report that was sent to participants and disseminated to other stakeholders with the aim of stimulating wider debate (Mann et al., 2014a). Besides the workshop participants, additional recipients included leading scientists, businesses and networks, environmental NGOs and technology assessment institutes. Interested members of the public could access the report on our website.

Discussion and conclusions The objective of Challenging Futures is to engage with ongoing policy design processes in a way that restores their receptiveness to alternative perspectives on numerous unresolved issues and challenges for future policy development. As such, it goes beyond functional and technocratic policy approaches where (closed) networks of experts are in charge of creating and refining policy solutions according to their perceptions, needs and ideas about policy design and its functions (Grunwald, 2014). Instead, policy design becomes (once again) a topic of public debate and contestation, in a process that is open to criticism and incorporates diverse perspectives – thereby moving the policy design processes in the direction of sustainability (Ziegler, Chapter 8). In line with transdisciplinary approaches in the field of sustainability research, Challenging Futures provides a coordinated platform for actors representing diverse perspectives and rationalities to reflect on processes of policy design. Participants are enabled to understand each other’s perspectives regarding, in this case, the future of biodiversity offsets and banking, and to gain a broader picture of policy design processes and their dynamics (Bieling et al., Chapter 7). Similar to the idea of constructive technology assessment, this approach constructively assesses policy design in the course of its making and not, as usual, as an ex-post activity. The inclusion of marginalised and/or backgrounded societal perspectives into the policy design process, consideration of heterogeneous perspectives and their normative underpinnings, and open debate on policy options and their socioecological impacts, will all contribute to more sustainable, societally embedded policy design (Ziegler, Chapter 8).We see this distribution of workshop results as a means of increasing awareness of unresolved issues and challenges facing policy makers and, moreover, as a way to re-embed policy design work into society.

Challenging futures 285

Despite all its merits, we still see several challenges and shortcomings of our approach when measured against its objectives. Methodologically, we must acknowledge that, of course, it does have its own particular biases, too (Voß, 2016c). We introduced the approach with a clear statement of our own perspective on policy innovation: as an activity shared among diverse, complexly entangled actors. However, our analytical focus, including how we see and assign the roles of different actors involved, is only one explanation of how policy design happens, alongside many others, including those brought to the table by participants. Similarly, our selection of workshop participants, in particular the critics whose role in the workshop was to question established views on biodiversity offsets and banking, was highly normative. Even though we based our selection on careful and extensive research, we can by no means claim that our selection of participants was completely inclusive or representative. One way of dealing with this general dilemma of transdisciplinary research, i.e. the bias in stakeholder representation and selection, is to be transparent about the choices and rationale of the process. Wherever possible, we made our perspectives, objectives and interpretations explicit, open to discussion and subject to contestation; including in the preparatory document, during the workshop itself and in preparation for the final report. Participants took advantage of all of these opportunities to debate our understanding and interpretation, providing insights into their views of past, current and future policy situations. This helped us to gain a more complete picture of policy making and its underlying rationale. Furthermore, engaging with processes of policy design is an abstract task, for conveners and even more so for participants.There was a risk of ‘practical failure’ in pursuing the ambitious goal of uncovering abstract, complex and uncertain policy development dynamics through dialogue with multiple actors with varying orientations, influences and expectations (Robinson, 2009). The incorporation of diverse perspectives is central to the methodology, but there was a risk that this diversity of perspectives and the openness of the procedure might inhibit constructive interaction and block mutual learning. In the event, lively debates on issues and challenges, the production of 25 briefing letters, as well as a completed workshop questionnaire on perceptions and impacts of Challenging Futures all provided evidence that the process was interesting and useful to participants. However, as with related approaches such as technology assessment, we are sceptical as to how effective single workshops can be for engaging stakeholders with innovation dynamics on an ongoing basis. A single workshop may not be sufficient to ensure that the list of issues and challenges is taken up in future policy design processes or will trigger a wider societal debate about policy instrument design. Ideally, events that promote open contestation and negotiation of policy design should be held on a regular basis and not as one-off activities to tease out the potential for resistance (Deuten, Rip & Jelsma, 1997). Despite these limitations, we believe that the workshop, together with the circulation of the workshop report and list of issues, can go some way toward linking policy design with a wider array of societal perspectives and concerns.

286  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß

This may shift visions of what policy instruments should look like and also help consider wider (and unintended) effects of ongoing policy design work on the pathway towards sustainable development. For this, finally, we need to critically reflect on our own engagement with the policy process. In designing Challenging Futures, we set up and tried out yet another policy instrument, one that aims at the constructive assessment of social technology. This proposal is based on our expertise acquired in studying the dynamics of policy innovation. And we seek to influence the way in which innovation is practiced and how it shapes political reality, even if we do not make any substantial recommendations as to what policy instruments should be adopted or what they should do for society. Our proposal provides a means to enhance sustainable innovation by opening up policy design processes for debate. It is an experiment in interaction; critical reflection on its results will contribute towards sustainable innovation in governance.

Acknowledgements We are grateful for helpful comments on the design of the scenario method as well as the input provided for scenario construction by Arie Rip, Jason Chilvers and Thomas Pfister and all the members of the Innovation in Governance Research Group: Nina Amelung, Arno Simons, Fabian Schroth, Till Runge, Britta Morich, Thomas Crowe, Jan Hussels, Luisa Grabner, Endre Danyi and Sebastian Ureta.We acknowledge funding through grant no. 01UU0906 (Innovation in Governance Research Group) by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research under its program of Social-Ecological Research.

References Berkhout, F., & Hertin, J. (2002). Foresight futures scenarios: Developing and applying a participative strategic planning tool. Greener Management International, 37, 37–52. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K. H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. (2006). Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user’s guide. Futures, 38(7), 723–739. Borup, M. (2003). Green technology foresight as instrument in governance for sustainability. In K. Jacob, M. Binder, & A. Wieczorek (Eds.), Governance for industrial transformation: Proceedings of the 2003 Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change (pp. 386–408). Berlin: Forschungsstelle für Umweltpolitik der Freien Universität. Colebatch, H. K. (2006). What work makes policy? Policy Sciences, 39(4), 309–321. Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. London: Frances Pinter. Deuten, J., Rip, A., & Jelsma, J. (1997). Societal embedding and product creation management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9(2), 131–148. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162. Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634–649.

Challenging futures 287 Elzen, B., Geels, F. W., & Green, K. (2004). System innovation and the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Funtowicz, S. O., Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., & Ravetz, J. R. (1999). Information tools for environmental policy under conditions of complexity. Luxembourg: European Environment Agency. Garud, R., & Ahlstrom, D. (1997). Technology assessment: A socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(1), 25–48. Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2001). Path dependence and creation. New York: Psychology Press. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: Geels, F.  A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2011). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge Chapman & Hall. Grunwald, A. (2014). Sustainability research as inter- and trans-disciplinary activity: The case of German Energiewende. Problems of Sustainable Development, 9(1), 11–20. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109. Haddas, B. M., & Huigen, H. (1997). Putting markets to work: The design and use of marketable permits and obligations. Paris: OECD. Hajer, M. A. (1993) Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43–76). Durham: Duke University Press. Holman, I. P., Loveland, P. J., Nicholls, R. J., Shackley, S., Berry, P. M., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Audsley, E., . . . Wood, R. (2002). REGIS: Regional climate change impact and response studies in East Anglia and North West England. London: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2000). IPCC special report: Emissions scenarios. Special report of IPCC working group III. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R.K.W., & Zito, A. (2003). ‘New’ instruments of environmental governance? National experiences and prospects. London: Routledge. Jordan, A.,Wurzel, R.K.W., & Zito, A. (2005).The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies, 53(3), 477–496. Kahn, H., & Wiener, A. J. (1967). The year 2000: A framework for speculation on the next thirtythree years. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14(1), 78–91. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments? From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1–21. Law, J. (2012). Collateral realities. In F. D. Rubio & P. Baert (Eds.), The politics of knowledge. London: Routledge. Lente, v. H. (1993). Promising technologies: The dynamics of expectations in technological development. Enschede: Twente University Press. Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management: New mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht: International Books. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance, 23(1), 161–183.

288  Carsten Mann and Jan-Peter Voß Madsen, B., Carroll, N., Kandy, D., & Bennet, G. (2011). Update: State of biodiversity markets. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/reports/2011_ update_sbdm Mann, C. (2015). Strategies for sustainable policy design: Constructive assessment of biodiversity impact mitigation. In L. Loft, C. Mann, & B. Hansjürgens (Eds.), Governance of ecosystem services – challenges for sustainable development, Journal of Ecosystem Services, Special Issue 16 (pp. 266–274). Mann, C., & Absher, J. D. (2014). Strategies for adjusting policies to institutional, cultural and biophysical context conditions: The case of conservation banking in California. Journal of Land Use Policy, 36, 73–82. Mann, C., & Simons, A. (2015). Local emergence and international developments of conservation trading systems: innovation dynamics and related problems. Journal of Environmental Conservation, 42(4), 325–334. Mann, C.,Voß, J.-P., Amelung, N., Simons, A., Runge, T., & Grabner, L. (2014b). Challenging futures of citizen panels. Critical issues for robust forms of public participation. Research Paper. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin. Mann, C.,Voß, J.-P., Simons, A., Amelung, N., & Runge, T. (2014a). Challenging futures of biodiversity offsets and banking. Critical issues for robust forms of biodiversity conservation. Research Paper. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin. Peterson, G. D., Beard Jr., T. D., Beisner, B. E., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Cumming, G. S., . . . Havlicek, T. D. (2003). Assessing future ecosystem services: A case study of the Northern Highlands Lake District, Wisconsin. Conservation Ecology, 7(3), 1. Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Technological dramas. Science, Technology  & Human Values, 17(3), 282–312. Rip, A. (2001). Technology assessment. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 23, pp. 15512–15515). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rip, A., Schot, J. W., & Misa,T. J. (1995). Constructive technology assessment: A new paradigm for managing technology in society. In A. Rip,T. J. Misa, & J. W. Schot (Eds.), Managing technology in society.The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 1–12). London: Pinter. Rip, A., & te Kulve, H. (2008). Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. M.Wetmore (Eds.), The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, Volume I: Presenting futures (pp. 49–70). New York: Springer. Robinson, D.K.R. (2009). Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(9), 1222–1239. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(3), 173–205. Salmenkaita, J. P., & Salo, A. (2004). Emergent foresight processes: Industrial activities in wireless communications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(9), 897–912. Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2–3), 251–268. Staudenmaier, J. M. (1989). The politics of successful technologies. In S. H. Cutliffe & R. C. Post (Eds.), Context: History and the history of technology. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press. Stirling, A. (2008). ‘Opening up’ and ‘Closing down’. Science, Technology  & Human Values, 33(2), 262–294. ten Kate, K., Bishop, J., & Bayon, R. (2004). Biodiversity offsets: Views, experiences, and the business case. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from www.cbd.int/doc/case-studies/inc/cs-incIUCN-II-report-en.pdf

Challenging futures 289 Tommel, I., & Verdun, A. (2008). Innovative governance in the European Union: The politics of multilevel policymaking. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Truffer, B.,Voß, J.-P., & Konrad, K. (2008). Mapping expectations for system transformations. Lessons from sustainability foresight in German utility sectors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, 1360–1372. van den Belt, H., & Rip, A. (1987).The Nelson-Winter-Dosi model and synthetic dye chemistry. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. van de Ven, A. H. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford University Press. Voß, J.-P. (2007a). Designs on governance: Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. PhD thesis. Enschede: University of Twente. Voß, J.-P. (2007b). Innovation processes in governance: The development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy instrument. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 329–343. Voß, J.-P. (2014). Performative policy studies: Realizing ‘transition management’. Innovation: European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(4), 317–343. Voß, J.-P. (2016a). Governance-Innovationen. Epistemische und politische Reflexivitäten in der Herstellung von Citizen Panels. In W. Rammert, M. Hutter, H. Knoblauch, & A. Windeler (Eds.), Innovationsgesellschaft heute (pp. 323–351). Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Voß, J.-P. (2016b). Realizing instruments: Performativity in emissions trading and citizen panels. In J.-P. Voß, & R. Freeman (Eds.), Knowing governance. The epistemic construction of political order (pp. 127–153). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Voß, J.-P. (2016c). Reflexively engaging with technologies of participation. Constructive assessment for public participation methods. In J. Chilvers & M. B. Kearnes (Eds.), Remaking participation: Science, environment and emergent publics. London: Routledge-Earthscan. Voß, J. P., & Amelung, N. (2016). Innovating public participation methods: Technoscientization and reflexive engagement. Social Studies of Science, 46(5), 1–24. Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., Konrad, K., & Markard, J. (2006a). Gestaltung von Systemtransformation in der netzgebunden Versorgung. Strategien für die Innovationsfelder Mikro-KWK, Smart Building und Netzregulierung. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from www.bhkw-infozentrum. de/download/IMV_Bericht_AP630.pdf Voß, J.-P., & Freeman, R. (2016). Introduction: knowing governance. In J.-P.Voß & R. Freeman (Eds.), Knowing governance: The epistemic construction of political order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Voß, J.-P., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: introduction. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 1–3–28). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Voß, J.-P., Konrad, K., & Truffer, B. (2006b). Sustainability foresight. Reflexive governance in the transformation of utility systems. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 162–188). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Voß, J.-P., & Simons, A. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply-side of policy innovation. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 735–754. Wack, P. (1985). Scenarios: Uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review, 65(5), 73–89. Winner, L. (1977). Autonomous technology. Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., & Buck, L. (2000). Using scenarios to make decisions about the future: Anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of community forests. Landscape and Urban Planning, 47(1–2), 65–77.

14 Outlook The future of transdisciplinarity Martina Padmanabhan

Introduction Science has contributed fundamentally to our understanding and, consequently, our appropriation of the world. At the same time, scientific research has played a key role in demonstrating the limits and consequences of this interference. Through a systematic analysis of the interaction of social and natural systems, science has documented the negative and unpredictable side effects of alterations to natural systems brought about by human activities, and shown how these are driving the changes of unprecedented magnitude currently occurring on the surface of the earth (Rockström et al., 2009). Acknowledging the extent of the impact of human activities on global systems implies recognition of the need to transform societies towards sustainability, and thus for science to explore the means by which this goal can be achieved. Science is one player in the field of sustainable development, and its involvement has consequences on different levels, from research methods to policy. This concluding chapter contributes to the debate on how to develop the potential of science as an active promoter and enabler of sustainable development. Transdisciplinarity is a new way of doing science, developed in response to the challenges of sustainability. Transdisciplinary researchers collaborate across academic disciplines and with non-academic ‘practice partners’ in order to create contextualised, socially relevant knowledge about complex real-world problems. Instead of searching vainly for ‘objective’ truth, transdisciplinarity recognises the validity of multiple, value-based knowledge cultures and sets out to build bridges between them. In contrast to traditional science, transdisciplinary research has an explicitly normative goal: to generate ‘transformation knowledge’ for sustainable development. This call for integration in research for sustainable development is often summed up as the need for co-design of research projects, co-production of knowledge and the co-evaluation of research outcomes and processes (Mauser et al., 2013). However, what their implementation would require remains vague, in both conceptual and practical terms (Future Earth, 2014).

Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity 291

The findings and experiences described in this volume provide new insights into real-world transdisciplinary research, through empirical studies, analyses of developing practices and reflections on the consequences for a changing research environment. The reflexive analyses of the chapter authors provide new insights into the methodological, epistemological and ontological challenges for academics working in the field of transdisciplinary research for sustainable development. This final chapter provides a summary of these insights and a forward-looking perspective on the new opportunities they open up in further development of transdisciplinary research. It is structured in the form of reflections on four ‘key questions’ for transdisciplinary research, relating to work with practice partners, knowledge creation, institutional transformation and quality criteria for transdisciplinary research. The final section contains some brief concluding remarks on the ‘future of transdisciplinarity’. 1 Who takes part in transdisciplinary research and what is the nature of their participation?

Transdisciplinary research integrates practitioners from outside academia to enhance problem understanding and support the development of applicable options for their solution. It is worth reflecting briefly on what is distinctive about this call for collaboration with ‘partners of practice’ in scientific research. The discourse on stakeholder involvement in transdisciplinary research recalls long-standing efforts to promote participation in an international development context. Here the aim is to involve ‘beneficiaries’, often members of local communities, in the design and implementation of development projects. More recently, citizen science has promoted the involvement of members of the public in production of traditional academic knowledge, principally in the natural sciences, often taking advantage of new opportunities for large-scale data gathering made possible by communications technology (Bonn et al., 2016). Transdisciplinary collaboration with partners of practice overlaps to some extent with these fields of action but has several distinctive features. The aim of transdisciplinary research is knowledge production, but a new kind of knowledge: one that spans the gap between ‘objective’ knowledge produced by traditional science and the mainly application-oriented knowledge that is of interest, for example, to development projects. As noted in the introduction, ‘partners of practice’ are stakeholders, but a particular class of stakeholder, namely expert practitioners, whose expertise derived from practical experience of the subject area under investigation uniquely qualifies them to contribute to transdisciplinary knowledge production. In transdisciplinary research, as in other fields of endeavour, different forms and degrees of participation are possible. However, work on classifying different approaches to transdisciplinarity is still in its infancy, particularly in comparison with the plethora of classification schemes produced by researchers

292  Martina Padmanabhan

and agencies working in fields of social and international development. In this volume, two typologies of relevance for transdisciplinary research are presented. Gottschlich and Sulmowski (Chapter 5) employ the typology of transdisciplinarity developed by Sabine Maasen (2010) to analyse work with partners of practice; while Neumann and Deppisch (Chapter 12) propose a new typology specifically developed for a methodological instrument that is increasingly important in transdisciplinary research, namely scenario planning. These typologies make it clear that analyses of relations with partners of practice necessarily raises wider epistemological questions about ‘ways of knowing’ as well as more application-oriented issues, i.e. regarding the purpose and uses of knowledge produced by transdisciplinary research. In general terms participation is a challenge because it involves setting up lines of communication among social groups that are not used to interacting with each other. In the context of transdisciplinary research, Fry (Chapter 6) notes that scientists and partners of practice belong to different thought collectives and do not speak the same language. She contrasts “the deep view of science and the broad view of practice” and highlights the need for translation services between system-oriented scientific knowledge and the action-oriented world of practice. Padmanabhan (Chapter 10) draws attention to the added level of complexity when, in addition to communication between science and practice, scientists themselves are separated by cultural differences and have to build bridges between them. In fact, cooperating with partners in the fields of practice represents just one aspect of the multiple dimensions of difference a transdisciplinary research team must deal with (Falk-Krzesinski et al. 2011). Furthermore, Hofmeister (Chapter 4) reminds us that all these differences are also reflections of power constellations, and of the need to appreciate the hierarchical relations involved. In particular, she maintains that gender should be recognised as fundamental concern of transdisciplinary research. Consideration of power, gender and culture as cross-cutting issues is central in work with partners of practice, as the inclusion and integration of diverse perspectives holds the promise of arriving at a sustainable solution. In addressing these issues, the key premise of transdisciplinary research is that all knowledge is situated knowledge. No perspective can provides a complete view; thus dialogue among participants has to start out from a recognition of differences and, as far as possible, on an equal footing (Hofmeister, Chapter 4). In particular, transdisciplinarity respects the tacit knowledge of practitioners, derived from lifeworld experience that is often excluded from the findings of traditional scientific research. In order to bring tacit knowledge to light and incorporate its insights, for example regarding ‘success stories’ of sustainable land-use practices (Fry, Chapter 6), intermediaries are required to engage at the interface between the science system and practice. These ‘boundary spanners’, coming from a variety of backgrounds, play a central role in many of the experiences reflected on by chapter authors in this volume (e.g. Fry (Chapter 6), Christinck & Kaufmann (Chapter 9) and Neumann & Deppisch (Chapter 12)). Their task is to accompany discussions among stakeholders to ensure that perspectives and inputs

Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity 293

from different thought collectives are integrated on an equal basis. The facilitation of the ‘bilingual’ or even ‘multi-lingual’ arbitrageurs enables a reciprocal exchange of knowledge among actors from science, public administration and practice. A key message of this volume is that this ‘translation work’ is a central component of transdisciplinary research. It is moreover a highly skilled activity that should be carried out by qualified researchers, who are recognised as playing a core role within the research team. Equally important is the setting for these exchanges. Padmanabhan (Chapter 10) highlights the important of providing a ‘safe space’ for collective reflection and feedback on both academic and social aspects of the transdisciplinary collaboration. The selection of venue, seating order of participants and even food served at the workshops can help stimulate intercultural communication by “bringing hidden assumptions among the team members to the forefront and thus into the realm of the debatable” (Padmanabhan, Chapter 10). In similar vein, Fry (Chapter 6) emphasises that “informal activities such as excursions, demonstrations in the field, coffee breaks and lunch are core elements for the exchange of experiences and for building bridges between the thought collectives.” I am sure that readers of this volume have been impressed by the diversity of transdisciplinary practice described by the chapter authors. Gottschlich and Sulmowski (Chapter 5) address this aspect explicitly, noting that relations with partners of practice will typically vary both within a project (among different components) and over time during the course of its implementation. It is notable that several authors envisage transdisciplinarity as a ‘work in progress’ that is evolving towards an ever-greater degree of integration between science and practice, both in terms of the range of actors involved and the quality of the interactions among them (e.g. Neumann & Deppisch (Chapter 12) and Grunwald (Chapter 2)). This vision is articulated with particular clarity by Grunwald (p. 49): Building on the knowledge and insights produced by ENERGY-TRANS – with regard both to the transformation of the energy system and the organisation of complex interdisciplinary research – the upcoming Kopernikus Project on systems integration will start in late 2016. This huge national project will incorporate a much greater degree of transdisciplinarity by means of real-world laboratories [see Singer-Brodowski, Wanner & Schneidewind, 2017], permanent stakeholder involvement and competency groups. Thus the alliance ENERGY-TRANS can be regarded as having undertaken the preparatory interdisciplinary work required for a real transdisciplinary approach to the Energiewende. As noted above, one outcome of process of integration is envisaged as the ‘co-design’ of research projects, jointly scientists and practitioners. There are considerable practical and operational hurdles to the achievement of this goal, which are likely to remain in place as long as the principal source of finance for transdisciplinary research is for mainstream academic funding agencies. It is

294  Martina Padmanabhan

notable that only one project reported on in this volume was carried out with funding brokered by a practice partner. This was the study of low-concentrate dairy farming carried out by the Landforscher network (Fink-Keßler & Jürgens, Chapter 11), which, surely not coincidentally, is also notable for the exception degree of stakeholder participation in the design of the research. Several other authors (e.g. Fry, Neumann & Deppisch and Gottschlich & Sulmowski, all in this volume) report on innovative measures taken to increase the involvement of practitioners during the course of their research. These initiatives are steps towards the goal of ‘co-management’ of transdisciplinary research; where distinction between the object of the research and the researcher becomes blurred, and agents of transformation (NGOs, farmers, local government agencies) become the researchers. Last but not least, achievement of the goal of transdisciplinarity to contribute to social ecological transformation will involve harnessing the potential of practice partners as ‘co-disseminators’ of knowledge, including in innovative formats such as videos (Fry, Chapter 6), board games (Eisenack, 2013) and interactive computer simulations (e.g. Wildenberg and Singh, 2012). 2 How does knowledge production take place in a transdisciplinary setting?

Transdisciplinarity is a new research approach, which alters the hierarchical relations within science, among disciplines, and between science and practice. It thereby expands the practice and process of knowledge creation, particularly in response to the challenges of the emerging field of sustainability science.The co-production of knowledge aims at overcoming apparent dichotomies like observation vs. participation, planned vs. iterative research, risk vs. control and short-term vs. long term engagement. A participatory approach that does not restrict stakeholder participation to the role of providers of data to be analysed and evaluated by scientists, but rather seeks a partnership in knowledge production, moves out of the comfort zone of academic control and legitimacy. Scientific knowledge and contextualised knowledge of practitioners are accorded equal status in the research. This sets the scene for non-linear learning, as scientists from different disciplines and practitioners exchange knowledge and learn from each other in the context of research into a particular real-world problem. The synthesis of the inter- and transdisciplinary results of this process into a coherent knowledge product is a challenging task. It requires new methodologies such as the use of bridging concepts that facilitate communication and joint work among different disciplines, and also new organisational procedures. The challenge of knowledge integration

As noted earlier, a key challenge for transdisciplinary research is to devise methods for integration of knowledge derived from different thought collectives

Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity 295

(Fleck, 1981).The starting point is an appreciation of differences among thought styles, manifested also in different values, goals, methods and work contexts (Fry, 2001), and recognition of their complementarity. This implies respect for the views of different actors, rejection of the “presumed superiority” of mainstream science, and adoption of procedures to enable horizontal interchanges of knowledge, in place of traditional top-down knowledge transfer. Aligning research to the goal of sustainable development implies leaving “the niche of value-freedom” that scientists are accustomed to take for granted (Grunwald, Chapter 2). Transdisciplinary knowledge is purposeful, and explicitly aimed at contributing to value-laded goals. This need for ‘strategic knowledge’ (Grunwald, Chapter 2) can be met through a combination of system knowledge to understand the interrelations within and between society and the natural environment, target knowledge regarding desired outcomes and transformation knowledge as the means to achieve strategic aims. Grunwald proposes the inclusion a fourth type of knowledge in this conceptual framework: ‘prospective knowledge’ of alternative possible, probable or desirable future developments. He also highlights the need for system knowledge to encompass entire social-ecological systems, thereby challenging the dominance of technical and natural sciences in mainstream sustainability research (Grunwald, Chapter 2). Traditional sciences are ill-prepared to respond to these challenges. Transdisciplinary research tackles them head on by crossing disciplinary and other knowledge boundaries, embracing complexity, engaging with ethical issues and explicitly orienting research towards the production of transformation knowledge. The requirement to produce new kinds of knowledge also implies adopting new ways of knowing. This new role of science as a catalyst for social change towards sustainability breaks with the perceived position of an uninvolved and detached observer (Singer-Brodowski, Wanner & Schneidewind, Chapter 3). Thompson Klein (2014) observes the continuing trend within transdisciplinarity to favour heterogeneity and social purpose in the formulation of research questions over the quest for generalisation and universality. At the same time researchers are increasingly prepared to break with the logic of linear models, rejecting simple conceptualisations of convergence or divergence in favour of innovative procedures for integration and recombination of knowledge from different sources to create knowledge products that may be entirely new. Last but not least, there are influential calls for transdisciplinary research to align itself with the critical perspective of feminist studies (e.g. Gottschlich and Katz, forthcoming). Feminist authors argue that the aim of social transformation requires a willingness to critique and reimagine the status quo, question privileged genres and forms of knowledge and give voice to marginalised ways of knowing. Different disciplines have already theorised and incorporated gender analysis to various degrees, and this has had an enabling effect on the potential for of interdisciplinary cooperation and integration. An explicitly transdisciplinary reading of the category gender is proposed by intraface analysis (Padmanabhan, 2016), in which gender encapsulates culture-specific notions

296  Martina Padmanabhan

of femininity and masculinity intertwined with conceptualisations of nature and the body, intersecting with class and ethnicity. This provides an example of a conceptual framework for transdisciplinary discourse that considers more inter-subjective, participatory and subjective approaches and the embodied experiences of participants (Augsburg, 2014). Innovative methodologies

The experiences described in this volume highlight a number of methodological innovations and evolving procedures to meet the multiple challenges of knowledge creation in a transdisciplinary setting. Fry’s ‘success stories’ (­Chapter 6), developed out of her experiences of field work with Swiss farmers, is an approach based on storytelling that reveals the tacit knowledge of farmers and other resource users. It is grounded in an understanding that knowledge is produced both through scientific research and as embodied experience in the context of application and that no single perspective – neither science nor ­practice – should be allowed to dominate over the other. This provides the basis for joint learning in the course of the research process, in which all those involved both emit and receive knowledge and everyone learns from each other. While Fry focuses on the role of practice partners, Padmanabhan (Chapter 10) shines a spotlight on the internal dynamics of multicultural research teams operating in a transdisciplinary setting. Tandems, consisting of two disciplinary partners, often with different cultural backgrounds, create another category of belonging within multicultural research teams. At first glance this might seem to do no more than create an additional burden for researchers already tasked with the triple role of student pursuing a (disciplinary) academic qualification, project team member and transdisciplinary researcher. In fact, by providing researchers with a shared disciplinary identity in a transdisciplinary setting, tandems offer new options for building bridges among cultures, thereby contributing to team building in an international research project. Nevertheless, as Padmanabhan’s narrative reveals, this is not always the case: tandems play an ambivalent and potentially disruptive role in relation to conflicts between individual academic goals and transdisciplinary working practices. This highlights the need for further investigation. Padmanabhan concludes that team dynamics under the conditions of transdisciplinarity and interculturality represent an emerging frontier for transdisciplinary research (Hall et al. 2012). The chapters devoted to case studies (Ziegler, Chapter 8) and scenario development (Neumann & Deppisch (Chapter 12) and Mann & Voß (Chapter 13)) demonstrate how transdisciplinarity has taken up and is transforming research methodologies originally developed in other fields.The requirement to produce applicable and therefore contextualised knowledge makes the case study particularly suitable as a methodology for sustainability science. Ziegler (Chapter 8) scrutinises what he terms the ‘constitutive tension’ between the contextualised knowledge of a singular case and the search for generalisable knowledge for the advancement of scientific theory. He argues that a network of cases connected

Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity 297

by a common theoretical outlook and a shared normative sustainability perspective provides the basis for the development and testing of scientific knowledge that is grounded in the lifeworld. Replicating and adapting an approach to different contexts allows the study of a theory-derived thesis, resulting in a net of contextual knowledge in the form of thick, normative and empirical case studies, held together by a ‘theory-thread’. This reflective approach corresponds to a central methodological requirement of sustainability science. A further role of the sustainability case study is to stimulate public debate, by providing entry points to understanding the complex topics to be addressed (Ziegler, Chapter 8). Case studies drawing inspiration from the real world open up the black box of science and allow the public to judge its performance. Thus, case studies respond to both internal and external needs of sustainability sciences, as a training ground for scientists and an anchor for public involvement, thereby promoting dialogue and a heightened awareness towards the areas where the interests of science and practice overlap. While case studies are focused on system knowledge, scenario development draws on system knowledge and ‘prospective knowledge’, to forge links between target knowledge and transformation knowledge. The potential of scenario development for planning and policy making is explored in this volume by Neumann and Deppisch (Chapter 12) and Mann and Voß (Chapter 13). Both studies adopt a ‘foresight’ approach to scenario development that rejects the predictive and quantitative paradigm of earlier scenario-building approaches in favour of working with experts and stakeholders to reflect on possible futures and negotiate future expectations. The inclusion of otherwise marginalised societal perspectives, consideration of heterogeneous perspectives and their normative assumptions, and critical reflection on potential socio-ecological impacts link planning and policy design to wider societal perspectives and concerns. The focus is on production of contextualised transformation knowledge, appropriate to local conditions, through knowledge translation and transfer in an informed but free-ranging discourse among researchers and local and regional experts. By opening up decision-making processes to informed debate, scenario development enlarges the potential of planning and policy making to explore socially feasible pathways towards the achievement of sustainable development goals. 3 How does the science system need to change to facilitate transdisciplinary research?

New forms of transdisciplinary knowledge production sit uneasily in the structures, practices, discourse and thought styles of traditional science. In order to institutionalise transdisciplinary research within the science system, far-reaching change will be required at individual, institutional levels on both sides of the partnership – science and practice. The German Committee Future Earth (Deutsches Komitee für Nachhaltigkeitsforschung in Future Earth) summarises the scale of the challenge

298  Martina Padmanabhan

(Schmalzbauer and Visbeck, 2016): there is a need to develop new processoriented skills for integration embedded in overall change management of the scientific system to safeguard scientific integrity and relevant standards of quality. Disciplinary institutions must be supplemented by integrative structures, while on the individual level reward and career systems, funding mechanisms and evaluation procedures all need to keep pace with the new reality of transdisciplinary knowledge creation. Academic institutions and science policy themselves need to be transformed to embrace transdisciplinarity in order to contribute to global sustainability goals. Individual level

At an individual level, researchers who choose to situate themselves between or beyond disciplines (Darbellay, 2015) find that this has profound consequences for their professional self-conception. Interdisciplinary research already involves rethinking disciplinary identities, with consequences for education and research. As discussed in detail in the previous section, transdisciplinary research involves opening up to new thought styles and “engaging in a range of activities outside the comfort zone of traditional sciences” (Ruppert-Winkel et al. 2015: 13). This personal journey is vividly described in the stories told by chapter authors about their own experiences and those of their colleagues. Fry describes how “working with qualitative, ‘subjective’ and narrative methods . . . felt like a “betrayal of science” (Fry, Chapter 6, p. 112). Padmanabhan relates how her PhD counterpart who never materialised has accompanied her as an “invisible twin” – and a missed opportunity – throughout her research career (Padmanabhan, Chapter 10). Several authors note that practice partners can also feel uneasy in their new roles. While farmers in Switzerland apparently embraced their newly recognised status as experts in soil conservation (Fry, Chapter 6), Hofmeister recounts how the low profile maintained by scientists in transdisciplinary dialogues, intended as means to empower praxis partners, was a disappointment to non-academic participants in the workshops, who had come “in order to learn from us, as experts, about what could be done” Hofmeister (Chapter 4, p. 70). For young scientists, opting for transdisciplinarity involves substantial risks for subsequent career development, as competing objectives are hard to reconcile. Although early career research groups in Germany provide opportunities to undertake transdisciplinary PhDs, and an increasing number of universities around the world offer postgraduate courses in ‘transdisciplinary studies’, the central criteria of success in a classical university career track are still peerreviewed publications in academic journals and success in attracting third-party funding for research. While young transdisciplinary researchers accept the triple burden of meeting exacting quality standards for disciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, their career development is measured and determined by traditional disciplinary performance criteria. In order to balance these multiple

Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity 299

exigencies, early career scientists may require independent coaching in seemingly trivial tasks like time management, and professional support to nurture the capability to maintain credibility in the ‘home discipline’. These individual stresses also manifest themselves as tensions within research teams. Hofmeister (Chapter 4) and Padmanabhan (Chapter 10) both describe the tensions arising within interdisciplinary teams in the context of transdisciplinary research, and the reluctance of the researchers involved to recognise and confront underlying power relations embedded in differences of cultural and/ or disciplinary identity. The task of managing complex social dynamics within the team and between the team and the outside world also places additional demands on the leaders of transdisciplinary projects (Padmanabhan, Chapter 10). At present, research project managers have little alternative to learning these skills ‘on the job’, and managing team dynamics remains supplementary work for which they receive little support or recognition. Recognising participatory research expertise as a higher-level scientific qualification would turn this still extra-curricular and supplementary work into a career advancement (Bieling et al., Chapter 7). At the same time the need to further investigate team dynamics under the conditions of transdisciplinarity and interculturality appears as an important research frontier. In this sense, transdisciplinary researchers can learn from the emerging discipline of team science (Hall et al., 2012), which investigates the dynamics of translational collaborations, characteristics of team membership, and the factors that promote the coalescence and evolution of teams. Understanding the conditions and requirements of transdisciplinary research in a more systematic way will undoubtedly contribute to the development of institutional support and provide orientation for professional coaching for members of transdisciplinary teams. Institutional level

Transdisciplinarity also has implications for the whole architecture of research institutions, as profound as those for individual researchers.The growing interest in and need for transdisciplinary and sustainability-oriented education might in the future result in a fundamental restructuring of discipline-based science. At present, however, conceptual and institutional barriers to transdisciplinary inquiry remain, due in large measure to the scepticism of decision makers in academic institutions, conventional funding agencies and research policy bodies (Lawrence, 2015). For example, one of the largest German funding bodies for research, the German Science Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) is committed to highest standards of quality control; but this is implemented almost exclusively by means of disciplinary peer reviews. Although the DFG has embraced interdisciplinarity in its mission, in practice the fundamentally disciplinary structure of its peer review systems acts as a hindrance to transdisciplinary research.

300  Martina Padmanabhan

This situation has created space for the emergence of research institutions operating outside the codified German science system. Independent research institutions, such as the Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE) in Frankfurt and the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy have broken free from a strong disciplinary orientation and established themselves as leaders in the development of sustainability science practices, as well as in theoretical reflection on underlying ontological and epistemological issues. They have been instrumental in developing new, implicitly or explicitly transdisciplinary approaches that have become increasingly influential in mainstream science (Wissenschaftsrat, 2016). A notable example is that of social-ecological research, which has been taken up as a funding priority by the BMBF. Transdisciplinarity also places institutional demands on the practice partners in the research.The chapters in this volume document the institutionalisation of involvement of existing practitioners’ associations in transdisciplinary research, for example the Small Farmers Association (Arbeitsgemeinschaft bäuerliche Landwirtschaft, AbL) that collaborated in both the picture-discourse analysis of anti-GMO campaign material (Gottschlich & Sulmowski, Chapter 5) and the research undertaken by the Landforscher network into low-concentrate dairy farming (Fink-Keßler and Jürgens, Chapter 11), countering global trends in farming and consumption practices (DeFries, 2014).They also chart the creation of new organisations created as an outcome of transdisciplinary research, such as the association of artisanal meat producers that arose out of the Landforscher study of on-farm meat processing (Fink-Keßler & Jürgens, Chapter 11). Such developments are essential in order to overcome power imbalances between scientific and practice partners, which lie at root of the lack of confidence that individual practice partners often feel in the presence of scientific expertise, as described by Hofmeister (Chapter 4). Despite these advances, transdisciplinary research continues to be constrained by the conservatism of institutions. Gottschlich and Katz (forthcoming) describe how the status of gender research has been eroded in progressive funding rounds of BMBF’s Social-Ecological Research programme. Another example is the German Committee Future Earth (Schmalzbauer & Visbeck, 2016), which is hosted by the DFG. While the outline and labelling of disciplinary academic sections is regularly scrutinised and adjusted to accommodate innovations at a disciplinary level, no expert committee exists to evaluate proposals for transdisciplinary research. This creates a paradoxical situation: while the sustainability science community is encouraged to contribute to global programmes like Future Earth by participating in the regular competitive funding rounds, the evaluation structure and criteria continue to favour established disciplinary orientations and standards. The unwillingness of mainstream science institutions to embrace transdisciplinary research is arguably both cause and consequence of a failure to accept the deeply political nature of the quest for more sustainable societies. Brand (2016) observes an imbalance between the fundamental nature of (mostly natural science driven) problem diagnoses and the far less radical proposals for social

Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity 301

changes to address the problems identified. He cautions that depoliticising the concept of transformation ignores the deep structural causes for unsustainability and leads to unjustified optimism regarding the potential of incremental change. In a similar vein, Miller, Munoz-Erickson and Redman (2011) argue that academic institutions need to embrace epistemological pluralism and reflexivity if they are to contribute to a transition towards sustainability. A different kind of sustainability knowledge is needed, which displays social robustness, recognition of system complexity and uncertainty, acknowledgement of multiple ways of knowing and the incorporation of normative and ethical premises. Academic institutions must be restructured to be more adaptive and engaged with society, embracing epistemological pluralism and reflexivity as key approaches (Cornell et al., 2013). Funding policy

A mismatch exists between requirements placed on funding applications for research and the characteristics – and lived experience – of transdisciplinary research. As with any innovative endeavour, transdisciplinary research entails the risk of failure, especially since, as noted by Grunwald (Chapter 2), “to really engage in sustainability research implies a partial renunciation of independence, in particular with regard to setting the research agenda” (p. 40). Bieling et al. (Chapter 7) argue that a dedicated funding policy is required to encourage and enable risk-prone and low-control transdisciplinary research across and beyond established funding for disciplinary science. In similar vein, Christinck and Kaufmann (Chapter 9) note that while participatory learning has gained currency as a methodology for agricultural research, it sits awkward with existing design requirements for research proposals and criteria for their appraisal. There is a strong preference for proposals conceptualised by researchers that specify in advance the steps to be taken, the actors involved and, in many cases, even the expected outcomes of the research. They argue that socially robust results, for example the identification of sustainable agricultural practices, can only be achieved if project funding and evaluation criteria give researchers flexibility to response to new opportunities and challenges arising as outcomes of collaborative learning with social actors. The call for reflexivity and iterative learning in the research process stands in stark contrast to the increasingly rigid and detailed planning and especially budgeting procedures for publicly funded research. At the same time, funding criteria often rule out support for process development and quality assurance mechanisms like third-party coaching, professional facilitation and team development. Rigid one-size-fits-all funding policies lead to missed windows of opportunity for fruitful transdisciplinary research. Rethinking the current logic of project applications and procedures is thus essential in order to facilitate transdisciplinary knowledge creation. This implies a systemic change in the structures and procedures for the funding, implementation and assessment of research.

302  Martina Padmanabhan

Other chapter authors provided numerous further examples of mismatches between funding policy and the requirements of transdisciplinary research. The ambitious vision outlined by Neumann and Deppisch (Chapter 12) for an interactive series of workshops drawing in an ever-wider range of local actors into the creation of transformation knowledge for regional relating to climate change adaptation was constrained by the short-term nature of project funding. Mann and Voß (Chapter 13) similarly note that “a single workshop may not be sufficient to ensure that the list of issues and challenges is taken up in future policy design processes or will trigger a wider societal debate about policy instrument design” (p. 285). Fink-Keßler and Jürgens (Chapter 11) consider that despite encouragement to involve increasing numbers of actors in the research process, the organisational framework conditions, especially regarding flexibility in financial planning and remuneration for the knowledge contributions of non-scientists, remain clumsy at best. Funding may be required, for example, for intermediaries undertaking ‘translation work’ at the science-policy interface (Pallett and Chilvers, 2015); networks set up during the course of a project will often need ongoing support in order to continue functioning after the end of project and realise the transformatory potential of the research outcomes. Such expenses are often not foreseen or allowed in public-sector budgets. These rules act as an invisible fence to keep critical science outside the mainstream academic institutions and defend their monopoly over knowledge creation. All too often, in order to make transdisciplinarity happen, researchers based in academic institutions are forced to expend time and energy in creative budgeting in order to work around the regulations designed for traditional disciplinary sciences. 4  How can we recognise good transdisciplinary research?

The development of quality criteria and evaluation criteria is an emerging new frontier for transdisciplinary research. It also has become the focus for fierce debates between proponents of transdisciplinarity and representatives of mainstream science. As president of DFG, Strohschneider (2014) has launched a stinging critique on transformative science. By focusing purely on pure problem-solving and societal concerns, he maintains, transformative science glosses over political issues, sacrifices scientific rigour in the search for truth and, at worst, leads to the blending of scientific excellence and relevance for sustainability into one amorphous lump. In response to this reprimand by the powerful and largely self-organised body of German scientists, Grunwald (2015) defends the concept of transformative sciences. He cautions against a simple juxtaposing of excellency and relevance and argues that both are necessary; it is a question of finding the correct balance between them. In response to the accusation of depoliticisation and loss of the search for truth, Schneidewind (2015) argues that the opposite is the case. Transformation science does not simply observe change, but actively seeks to act as a catalyst for change. Moreover, transformative science does not break with epistemic

Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity 303

principles of science, but rather supplements and expands them by explicitly addressing the relevance of scientific knowledge to societal challenges. Similarly, when discussing the ‘grand challenges’ of sustainability, the German Science Council (Wissenschaftsrat, 2015) highlights the need to strengthen the capacity of science for self-reflexivity and self-observation beyond its institutional boundaries, for example by reflection on how science can contribute toward meeting social needs. These debates, which echo Ziegler’s (Chapter 8) analysis of the ‘constitutive tension’ in case study research, highlight the complexities involved in developing quality standards that capture the multifaceted aims and methods of transformative research. While a full discussion of this important topic is outside the scope of this concluding chapter – and this applies also to the book as a whole – concerns raised by the chapter authors allow the key elements of criteria and procedures for evaluation of transdisciplinary research to be identified. With regard to procedures, it is clear that the co-production of knowledge should, ideally, include the co-evaluation of the knowledge produced. Practitioners would be invited to take part in the evaluation of research projects, including the review of publications, according to criteria that make sense to them. In practice the onerous requirements for formal project evaluation and peer-review of publications mean that this aim will be difficult to achieve. Involvement of practitioners in project evaluation is still mostly limited to participation in ‘feedback workshops’ with practice partners. Such workshops can however make a positive contribution towards evaluation of the research: Gottschlich and Sulmowski (Chapter 5) describe how critical feedback from practice partners led to a significant revision of the conceptual framework used for their picture-discourse analysis. Innovative mechanisms that are relevant in this respect are reported by at least two of the chapter authors. Fry (Chapter 6) describes how the project ‘From Farmer to Farmer’ was accompanied on an ongoing basis by a multistakeholder discussion group integrating representatives of different groups of actors, who provided advice for the implementation of each stage of the project. Similarly, Neumann and Deppisch (Chapter 12) describe how a core working group made up of researchers and practitioners played a key role in the iterative process of designing, implementing and reflecting on the results of the prospective scenario workshops. While in both cases the primary task of these organisations was ‘co-management’ of the research process, it is easy to see how their roles could be expanded to include ongoing ‘co-evaluation’ of its achievements. In terms of the content of evaluation, the experiences described in this volume indicate that at least three different aspects of the research should be covered: process, outcomes and impacts. Since participation is a paradigmatic component of transdisciplinary research, it is clear that the quality of the participatory process itself is a valid – and indeed essential – object of evaluation. Bieling et al. (Chapter 7) outline a framework for evaluating the participatory process; their insightful analysis reflects on the need for trade-offs, for example between in-depth analysis and openness of the

304  Martina Padmanabhan

discussion, and between the need to focus on topics of interest to the participants and academic requirements for scientific rigour. These comments highlight what emerges in several chapters as the key ‘measure of success’ of work with practice partners, namely success in building bridges between the different thought styles of those involved. Application of this evaluation principle will involve, for example, developing quality criteria to assess the translation work undertaken by knowledge intermediaries. A similar need for trade-offs between quality criteria for the knowledge outputs of transdisciplinary research is identified by Neumann and Deppisch (Chapter 12), specifically between credibility, salience and legitimacy of knowledge that is produced (Cash et al. 2002). Moreover, they emphasise that “not everything can be done at the same time and at the same place” (p. 262). While the aim of the prospective planning workshops was to contribute towards transformation knowledge, this was limited to identification of locally appropriate adaptation measures. More far-reaching changes, for example the transformation of mental maps or the practices of decision makers, were beyond the scope of these initial workshops. These comments by Neumann and Deppisch remind us that the key indicator of success for any endeavour that aspires to be transformative is its impact in the real world. Quality criteria currently used evaluate mainstream science fail to cover this aspect. Peer-reviewed publication, citations and third-party funding, the established indicators for academic success, provide no information on the impact of transdisciplinary research at the science-policy interface. This lacuna needs to be addressed by means of development of evaluation procedures and criteria for a holistic assessment of the performance of practice-oriented research. Such procedures should recognise the contribution towards sustainability transformation as a core task of transdisciplinary research. This means recognising that costly and time-consuming interactions at the science-policy interface are a constitutive component of transdisciplinary research – one that deserves to be evaluated with equal rigour (for example with regard to effectiveness and efficiency) as the contribution to scientific knowledge production. So far, the debate on measuring impact of transdisciplinary projects and hands-on research in these terms is in its early stages (Bergmann et al., 2016; Polk, 2014). Clearly a first step is to establish what kinds of impacts transdisciplinary research can expect to achieve, as a benchmark for measuring performance. In a technical sense, this will involve development sets of indicators, as far as possible applicable across cases, to measure the impact of transdisciplinary research. At a deeper level, this question links to ongoing debates about how to realise the emancipatory potential of transdisciplinarity, which are briefly discussed in the following final section of this chapter.

Conclusion: the future of transdisciplinarity Future Earth is to date probably the most influential research project to have embraced the concept of transdisciplinarity set out by the authors of this book.

Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity 305

This evolving international research program also acts as platform for engagement by non-scientific stakeholders in transdisciplinary research. In its strategic research agenda, Future Earth identifies three key focal areas for collaborative research: observing and attributing change; understanding processes, interactions, risks and thresholds; and finally exploring and predicting planetary futures (Future Earth, 2014). Future Earth has increased the space for contributions from the social sciences and humanities, in the face of powerful, long-standing preferences for bio-geophysical research in global environmental research communities (­Lahsen, 2016). These preferences – or prejudices – are still deeply embedded in scientific institutions and research agendas. They reflect a social hierarchy of intellectual worth that favours ‘hard’ science and quantitative approaches over the humanities and social sciences. In this context, the espousal of ‘Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science’ by Future Earth can be seen as a response to increasing calls for a fundamental shift in the organisation of science towards an explicit orientation towards sustainable development (Kläy et al., 2015); it provides evidence of the global interest in transdisciplinarity and its potential to address the apparently intractable problems confronting Planet Earth and human society.This paradigm shift will need to be supported by a redistribution of resources and accompanied by corresponding institutional change. At the same time, the institutionalisation of transdisciplinarity, as exemplified by Future Earth, bears the danger of ignoring the rich academic legacy of other long-standing programmes and the pioneering work of scholars from a range of disciplines (Leemans, 2016). It is important not to lose sight of the ethical impulse, and to maintain the creative, innovatory and risk-taking spirit that have given rise to diversity of approaches described in the volume. These will continue to be necessary in order to realise the potential of transdisciplinarity as critical science and as an emancipatory force. Writing in the context of post-colonial South Africa, Du Plessis, Sehume and Martin (2013) highlight the emancipatory potential of transdisciplinary as a democratic science that gives voice to marginalised and non-Western knowledge systems. This chimes with feminist perspectives that call for sustainability science to shine a light on issues that have hitherto been pushed into the shadows (Gottschlich and Katz, forthcoming), and to commit itself to the search for explicitly new and ‘other’ perspectives and utopian visions (Harcourt, 2016). On a visionary note, Brown (2015) outlines the creative potential of thinking from a collective mind which goes beyond transdisciplinarity as currently constructed. In collective thinking, knowledge boundaries are reframed as dynamic inter-relationships, and due weight is given to each of personal, physical, social, ethical, aesthetic, sympathetic and reflective ways of knowing. In this vision, a long-term learning process within an evolving transformatory thought collective leads progressively to the incorporation of the social, political, ethical, cultural and normative aspects of sustainable development into the core concerns of transdisciplinary science.

306  Martina Padmanabhan

References Augsburg, T. (2014). Becoming transdisciplinary: The emergence of the transdisciplinary individual, world futures. Journal of New Paradigm Research, 70(3–4), 233–247. Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Lux, A., Nagy, E., & Schäfer, M. (2016). Wirkungsvolle transdisziplinäre Forschung:TransImpact untersucht transdisziplinäre Projekte. GAIA, 25(1), 59–60. Bonn, A., Richter, A., Vohland, K., Pettibone, L., Brandt, M., Feldmann, R., . . . Ziegler, D. (2016). Green paper citizen science strategy 2020 for Germany. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), German Centre for integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science (MfN), Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin. Brand, U. (2016). Transformation” as a new critical orthodoxy. The strategic use of the term “transformation” does not prevent multiple crises. GAIA, 25(1), 23–27. Brown, V. A. (2015). Utopian thinking and the collective mind: Beyond transdisciplinarity. Futures, 65(1), 209–216. Cash, D., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Jäger, J. (2002). Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: Linking research, assessment and decision making. KSG Working Papers Series RWP02–04. Cornell, S., Berkhout, F., Tuinstra, W., Tàbara, J. D., Jäger, J., Chabay, I., . . . van Kerkhoff, L. (2013). Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environmental Science and Policy, 28, 60–70. Darbellay, F. (2015). Rethinking inter- and transdisciplinarity: Undisciplined knowledge and the emergence of a new thought style. Futures, 65, 163–174. DeFries, R. (2014) The big ratchet: How humanity thrives in the face of natural crisis. New York: Basic Books. Du Plessis, H., Sehume, J., & Martin, L. (2013). The concept and application of transdisciplinarity in intellectual discourse and research. Johannesburg: Real African. Eisenack, K. (2013). A climate change board game for interdisciplinary communication and education. Simulation and Gaming, 44, 328–348. Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Contractor, N., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., Kane, C., Keyton, J., Keyton, J., Thompson Klein, J., Spring, B., Stokols, D., & Trochim, W. (2011). Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Research Evaluation, 20(2), 145–158. http://doi.org/ 10.3152/095820211X12941371876580 Fleck, L. (1981). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Future Earth. (2014). Future earth strategic research agenda 2014. Paris: International Council for Science (ICSU). Gottschlich, D., & Katz, C. (Forthcoming). The contribution of feminist theory and practice to sustainability research and social-ecological transformation. Gender,Work and Organization. Special Issue “Gendering sustainability, the environment and organization”. Grunwald, A. (2015). Transformative Wissenschaft – eine neue Ordnung im Wissenschaftsbetrieb? GAIA, 24(1), 17–20. Hall, K.,Vogel, A., Stipelman, B., Stokols, D., Morgan, G., & Gehlert, S. (2012). A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2(4), 415–430. Harcourt, W. (2016). Gender and sustainable livelihoods: Linking gendered experiences of environment, community and self. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(4). doi:10.1007/ s10460-016-9757-5

Outlook: the future of transdisciplinarity 307 Kläy, A., Zimmermann, A. B., & Schneider, F. (2015). Rethinking science for sustainable development: Reflexive interaction for a paradigm transformation. Futures, 65, 72–85. Lahsen, M. (2016). Toward a sustainable future earth. Science, Technology,  & Human Values, 41(5), 876–898. Lawrence, R. (2015). Advances in transdisciplinarity: Epistemologies, methodologies and processes. Futures, 65(1), 1–9. Leemans, R. (2016). The lessons learned from shifting from global-change research programmes to transdisciplinary sustainability science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 19, 103–10. Maasen, S. (2010). Transdisziplinarität revisited – Dekonstruktion eines Programms zur Demokratisierung der Wissenschaft. In A. Bogner, K. Kastenhofer, & H. Torgersen (Eds.), Inter- und Transdisziplinarität im Wandel? Neue Perspektiven auf problemorientierte Forschung und Politikberatung (pp. 247–268). Baden-Baden: Nomos. Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 420–431. Miller, T. R., Munoz-Erickson, T., Redman, C. L. (2011). Transforming knowledge for sustainability: towards adaptive academic institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 12(2), 177–192. Padmanabhan, M. (2016). Intraface: Negotiating gender-relations in agrobiodiversity. Freiburger Zeitschrift für Geschlechterstudien (fzg), 22(2), 85–105. Pallett, H., & Chilvers, J. (2015). Organizations in the making: Learning and intervening at the science-policy interface. Progress in Human Geography, 39(2), 146–166. Polk, M. (2014). Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: A critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 439–451. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. doi:10.1038/461472a Ruppert-Winkel, C., Arlinghaus, R., Deppisch, S., Eisenack, K., Gottschlich, D., Hirschl, B., . . . Plieninger, T. (2015). Characteristics, emerging needs, and challenges of transdisciplinary sustainability science: experiences from the German Social-Ecological Research Program. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 13. Schmalzbauer, B., & Visbeck, M., (Eds.). (2016). 2nd German future earth summit – conference summary report. German Committee Future Earth, Stuttgart/Kiel. Schneidewind, U. (2015). Transformative Wissenschaft – Motor für gute Wissenschaft und lebendige Demokratie. GAIA, 24(2), 88–91. Strohschneider, P. (2014). Zur Politik der Transformativen Wissenschaft. In Die Verfassung des Politischen (pp. 175–192). Wiesbaden: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-04784-9. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-658-04784-9_10 Thompson Klein, J. (2014). Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future. Futures, 63, 68–74. Wildenberg, M., & Singh, S. (2012). Integrated model building and scenario building for the Nicobar Islands in the aftermath of the Tsunami. In M. Glaser et al. (Eds.), Human-nature interactions in the Anthropocene (pp. 161–192). London: Routledge. Wissenschaftsrat. (2015). Zum wissenschaftspolitischen Diskurs über Große gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen. Positionspapier. Drucksache 4594–15. Köln. Wissenschaftsrat (2016) Stellungnahme zum Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung (ISOE), Frankfurt a. M. Drucksache. 5408–16. Kiel.

Index

Page numbers in italic indicate a figure. adjourning stage, team 208 administrative tandem 203 Agrarian and Regional Development Agency (BAL) 231 Anthropocene, age of the 53 Ashoka 161 Augenstein, K. 58, 60 Becker, E. 60 Bergmann, M. 37 Betz, L. 16 BioDIVA project 191 – 192; design idea 195 – 197; dimensions of diversity in 198 – 200; fostering the potential of tandems 212 – 214; intercultural and transdisciplinary knowledge integration 209 – 212; storytelling approach and 193 – 194; tandems as source of cooperation, conflict and belonging 200 – 205; tandems providing identity in dynamic transdisciplinarity team development stages 205 – 209 biodiversity markets, interlinked 277 – 278 biodiversity offsets see Challenging Futures approach BIOFUTURE 280 Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb 136 – 138; conclusions on benefits of participatory process for 145 – 148; critical evaluation of participatory process for 143 – 145; participatory landscape scenario development and identification of local management options 136, 138 – 142; participatory process outcomes 142 – 143; workshop phase 1: scenario development 140 – 141; workshop phase 2: management options at the local level 142

Blocked Changes project see socialecological research BMBF see German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Böhme, Gernot 68 Bohnsack, R. 93 Bologna Process 57 boundary work 15 – 16, 57 Brand, U. 300 Brown,V. A. 305 Butler, Judith 112 capacity gap 7 – 8 case studies 153 – 155; approach, sustainability 160 – 165; criteria for “excellent” 155 – 156; normative dimension 163; professional expertise thesis 155 – 156; role for sustainability science 157 – 160; theory and 154, 156 – 157; thick 164 – 165, 167 – 168 Cash, D. 250 Challenging Futures approach 267 – 269; application of 274 – 284; challenges and shortcomings of 285 – 286; conceptual foundations 272 – 274; conservation trading systems and 268 – 269; debating the scenarios to identify issues and challenges 281 – 284; objective of 284; principles of 271 – 272 Chambers, Robert 10, 174 Chicago School 12 Choo, C. 256 citizen science 56 civil society 56 Classen, L. 185 collaboration with policy makers 223 – 224; case 1: on-farm meat processors

Index  309 confronted by EU hygiene regulations 224 – 228; case 2: bringing lowconcentrate dairy production in from the cold 228 – 234; reflections on experience as knowledge intermediaries in 234 – 238 collaborative learning approach 171; benefits of 185 – 187; phases of 176 – 177; step 1: stakeholder analysis and identification of participants 177 – 178; step 2: institutionalisation of the collaboration 178 – 180; step 3: situation and problem analysis 180 – 181; step 4: agreement on goals and priorities 181 – 182; step 5: learning and action to develop solutions or improved activities 182 – 183; step 6: testing of prototypes 183 – 184; step 7: participatory monitoring and evaluation 184 – 185; transdisciplinarity emerging in international agricultural research and 172 – 175; transdisciplinary research as collaborative learning process and 175 – 185 collectivism 210 commodity fetishism 165 Community Biodiversity Management Programme 183 conservation trading systems 268 – 269 constitutive tension 165 – 168; introduction to 153 – 154; nomothetic thinking and 154; social entrepreneurship case studies and 162 constructive technology assessment (CTA) 273 – 274 contextualised knowledge 16 – 17 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 277 – 278 co-option, dangers of 71 – 73 Cornish, L. 131 critical pragmatic scenario planning 251 critical theory 79 dairy production, low-concentrate 228 – 234 Defila, R. 194 Deppisch, S. 16 DFG see German Science Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) Die Landforscher: background and context 221 – 223; case 1: on-farm meat processors confronted by EU hygiene regulations 224 – 228; case 2: bringing low-concentrate dairy production in from the cold 228 – 234; reflections on experiences as knowledge intermediaries

and 234 – 238; self-image and working methods 223 – 224 di Giulio, A. 194 distributive transdisciplinarity 88, 90, 101 – 102 Drayton, William 161 Dunn, A. 131 Du Plessis, H. 305 ecology tandems 201 economics tandem 202 – 203 emancipatory scenario planning 251 Energiewende see energy system, the energy system, the 49 – 50, 293; as subject for change 41 – 45; transdisciplinary research for 44; transformation of 35 – 36; see also Helmholtz Alliance ENERGYTRANS engaged interdisciplinarity 1 – 2 Engeström,Y. 176 Environmental Knowledge Management (Wissensmanagement Umwelt) 114 EU hygiene regulations 224 – 228 European Landscape Convention 135 explorative transdisciplinarity 88 – 89 Farming Systems Research (FSR) approach 173 Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) 111 feedback loops 197 feminisation of environmental responsibility 72 feminist science 11 – 12, 78; reflections on implementation experiences 111 – 112 Fink-Keßler, Andrea 221 forecasting 245 – 246 foresight 46, 245 – 249; typologies 249 – 251 Foresight for Regional Development Network’ (FOREN) 245 – 246 forming stage, team 205 – 206 Frankfurt School 12, 79 From Farmer to Farmer project 111; concept phase 115; deep view of science, broad view of practice and meaning of personal experience in 112 – 115; exchanging success stories in 115 – 120, 121; extension phase 118 – 120; implementation phase 118; interviews for 112 – 115; pilot phase 115 – 118; reflections on 121 – 124; solutions provided by 129 – 131 funding policy 301 Future Earth 3 – 4, 41, 107, 297 – 298, 300, 304 – 305

310 Index Geertz, Clifford 156 – 157 GenCalc technology 280 – 281 German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) 54 – 55, 58, 61 – 62, 74 German Advisory Council on the Environment 98 German Committee for Sustainability Research in Future Earth (DKN) 107 German Committee Future Earth (Deutsches Komitee für Nachhaltigkeitsforschung in Future Earth) 3 – 4, 41, 107, 297 – 298, 300, 304 – 305 German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) 66, 69, 85 – 86, 300; Social-Ecological Research Programme 136 German Network for Rural Development (DVS) 91 German Science Council 303 German Science Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG) 299 – 300, 302 German Society for Human Ecology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Humanökologie, DGH) 12 Germany: federal state responsibility in education and research 59; independent sustainability institutes 58 – 59; schools of sustainability research 3 – 5, 12 – 14; science system transition 58 – 60 GETIDOS (GEtting ThIngs DOne Sustainably) 161 Gibbons, M. 2, 131 GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) 91; context and method of picture discourse 92 – 94; science-practice dialogues 101 – 106; understanding of nature in pictures from campaigns and opponents of 94 – 101 Gröschke, D. 196 Grunwald, A. 5, 302 Hall, K. 195 Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research 14 Handbook on Transdisciplinary Approaches to Agrobiodiversity Research 208 Haraway, Donna 70, 73, 112, 193 Hark, Sabine 77 Hasibovic, S. 16 Hellsten, I. 92 Helmholtz Alliance ENERGY-TRANS 36, 45, 48 – 49; experiences and achievements 48 – 49; foresight on energy infrastructure

46; as highly interdisciplinary 47 – 48; innovation actors and processes 46 – 47; planning and participation 47; research approach 45 – 48; risk and regulation 47; users and consumers 47; see also energy system, the Hidayah, S. 196, 198, 210, 213 – 214 Hietanen, O. 251 Hirsch Hadorn, G. 14 Hofmann, G. 92 Hofstede, G. 210 idealistic school 15 ideographic knowledge 154 indirect conversion factors 165 – 167 individualism 210 innovation: actors and processes 46 – 47; in governance 269 – 271; journey 267 – 268; methodologies in transdisciplinary settings 296 – 297 Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE) 12, 86 institutionalisation of collaborations 178 – 180 institutionalist school 15 instrument constituencies 270 integration: challenge of knowledge 294 – 296; inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge 36 – 41, 47 – 48; need for 14 – 15; relationship between the lifeworld and science and problem of knowledge 73 – 74; tandems and intercultural and transdisciplinary knowledge 209 – 212 intercultural research 194 – 195; dimensions of diversity and 198 – 200; intercultural and transdisciplinary knowledge integration 209 – 212 interdisciplinarity 9; social-ecological research 67 – 69; Swiss school and 13 – 14; and transdisciplinary knowledge integration for sustainability 36 – 41 Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 279 intermediaries, knowledge 16 – 17, 221 – 223; cases 224 – 234; reflections on experience as 234 – 238; self-image and working methods 223 – 224 International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) 174 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 241 – 242 International Research Society (Internationale Forschungsgesellschaft) 231 interventionist transdisciplinarity 88, 102

Index  311 Jacobs, M. 159 – 160 Jahn, T. 9, 37 Jasanoff, S. 131 Jones, H. 16 Kahlert, H. 68 – 69 Kakar, K. 209 Kakar, S. 209 Kasseler Institute for Rural Development 229, 231 Keil, F. 37 Kläy, A. 6 Knapp, G.-A. 72 knowledge: for action 38, 46; boundary work and 15 – 16; categories of 37 – 39; contextualised 16 – 17; effects of scenario planning 256 – 261; gaps 17, 177, 257; ideographic 154; integration 6, 73 – 74, 294 – 296; intercultural and transdisciplinary integration of 209 – 212; intermediaries 16 – 17, 221 – 238; mediation 7 – 8; nomothetic 154; orientation 38, 57; production, science-policy dialogues as model for transdisciplinary 105 – 106; production taking place in transdisciplinary setting 294 – 297; prospective 38; shared 192 – 194; situated 78 – 79, 112, 193, 292; systems 14, 37 – 38; tacit 114 – 115, 183, 292; target 14; transformation 14 – 15, 57 Kollek, R. 92 Komiyama, Hiroshi 159 Krajowa Siec´ Obszarów Wiejskich (KSOW) 91 Krohn, Wolfgang 153 – 154, 157, 165 – 167 Kruse, Sylvia 74 Kuhn, T. 154, 157 Kuria, David 63 landscape: Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb 136 – 138; change as topic for participatory research 134 – 136; level 58; scenario development, participatory 138 – 142 Lelea, M. A. 178 Lewis, P. J. 193 lifeworld and science, problem of knowledge integration and 73 – 74 Locke, John 54 low-concentrate dairy production 228 – 234 Maasen, Sabine 86 – 87, 90, 107; typology of transdisciplinarity 87 – 89 Mair, J. 164

Mann, Carsten 278, 280 – 281 Mannheim, K. 198 Martin, L. 305 Marx, Karl 71 meat regulations 224 – 228 metabolism approach 74 methodological transdisciplinarity 89 microcredits 162 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 134 – 135 Miller, T. R. 56 Mittelstrass, J. 2 Morgan, M. 154, 157 Muir, John 161 Müller, Hans-Jürgen 226 Munoz-Erickson, T. 56 Naustdalslid, J. 241 Network for Transdisciplinary Research (td-net) 14 new social contract between science and society 62; Mode 1 and Mode 2 science in 55 – 57; as modern version of social contract proposed by John Locke 54 – 55; real-world laboratories in 57, 60 – 62; for sustainability 53 – 55; transition of the German science system and 58 – 60 Nicolescu, B. 8 nomothetic thinking 154 Nonaka, I. 183 non-scientists inclusion in sustainability science 159 normative science 71 – 73, 166 normativity 157 – 158 norming stage, team 207 North-South collaborations 195 Ogilvy, J.A.Y. 245 Öko-Institut 58, 223 on-farm meat processors confronted by EU hygiene regulations 224 – 228 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) 1; Better Life Index 60 orientation knowledge 38, 57 Ostrom, E. 200 Parks, R. 12 participative backcasting 251 participatory landscape scenarios 134 – 136; conclusions on benefits of 145 – 148; critical evaluation of 143 – 145; development 136, 138 – 142; outcomes 142 – 143; workshop phase 1: scenario

312 Index development 140 – 141; workshop phase 2: management options at the local level 142 participatory learning and action (PLA) 175 participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) 182, 184 – 185 participatory technology development (PTD) 175 partisanship 71 – 73 performing stage, team 207 – 208 picture discourse analysis 92 – 101 Plan B:altic 242 – 244; see also SUR Rostock pluralism 11, 56; of transdisciplinarity 87 – 91 Polanyi, M. 58, 115 policy instrument design 267 – 269; see also Challenging Futures approach politics and science, relationship between 71 – 73 PoNa (Politiken der Naturgestaltung) 86 – 87, 106 – 107; collaboration between researchers and practitioner partners 91; contribution of practitioners to evaluation of images 104 – 105; contribution of science-policy dialogues to developing practice 103 – 104; growing involvement of non-scientific actors in 102 – 103; picture discourse analysis 92 – 101; project design 89; science-policy dialogues as model for transdisciplinary knowledge production 105 – 106; science-practice dialogues 101 – 106; transdisciplinary practice 89 – 91 Popper, K. 157 positivism 244 – 246 post-positivism 245 – 249 power analysis 79 practical action 182 – 183 praxis partners 69 – 71 predictive scenario planning 250 Pretty, J. 174 priorities and goals, agreement on 181 – 182 professional expertise thesis 155 – 156 prospective knowledge 38 prospective scenario planning 250; lessons learned from 261 – 262; in SUR Rostock 251 – 256 prototypes 183 – 184 Putnam, Hilary 158, 160 puzzle-solving scientific attitude 158 – 159 Ravn, J. E. 131 real-world laboratories 57, 60 – 62 Redman, C. L. 56

Research Program for Sustainable Development (Forschung für Nachhaltigkeit, FONA) 12 – 13 resilience thinking 11 resistance to transdisciplinarity 6, 300 – 301 Restrepo, M. J. 176, 179 – 184, 186 Richards, P. 172 risk society 55 Ruppert-Winkel, C. 13 scenario planning: attributes 249; building of future robust and resilient strategies 256; Challenging Futures approach to 274 – 284; foresight typologies in 249 – 251; initiation 253 – 254; interpretation of key factors of climate change and land-use development 254; knowledge effects of 256 – 261; lessons learned from 261 – 262; predictive 250; prospective 241 – 244, 250 – 262; scenario discourse about (un)expected images of possible futures 255 – 256; second generation 244 – 251; typology of foresight approaches to 249 – 251 scenarios: building 74; participatory 136 Scheuermann, M. 194 Schindler, D. 73 Schlehe, J. 196, 198, 210, 213 – 214 Schneider, F. 122 – 123 Schneider, Manuel 92 – 93 Schneidewind, U. 56, 58, 60, 302 Scholz, R. W. 8, 14 Schroth, Fabian 278, 280 – 281 Schultz, I. 72 – 73 Schütz, Alfred 9, 12 science-practice dialogues 101 – 106 Seelos, C. 164 Sehume, J. 305 Sen, Amartya 63, 164 – 166 shared knowledge 192 – 194 side-effect societies 53 Simons, Arno 278, 280 – 281 Singer-Brodowski, M. 56 situated knowledge 78 – 79, 112, 193, 292 situation and problem analysis 180 – 181 Small Farmers Association (AbL) 91, 231, 300 social constructivism 57, 250 social-ecological research (SER) 12 – 13, 66 – 67; challenges for transdisciplinary 75 – 77; constraints and risks of transdisciplinary 69 – 74; as critical science 79; defined 86; as funding priority 85 – 86; as interdisciplinary

Index  313 and transdisciplinary science 67 – 69; opportunities in transdisciplinary 77 – 79; relationship between science and politics in 71 – 73; relationship between the lifeworld and science and the problem of knowledge integration 73 – 74; socialecological crisis and 67; unequal relations between researchers and “praxis partners” in 69 – 71 Social-Ecological Research (SÖF) 13 Social-Ecological Research Memorandum 77 social-ecological systems (SES) 10 – 11; resilience thinking in 11 social entrepreneurship 161 – 165 social learning videos 111; concept phase 115; deep view of science, broad view of practice and meaning of personal experience in producing 112 – 115; exchanging success stories in 115 – 120, 121; experiences with and feminist reflections on implementation using 111 – 112; extension phase 118 – 120; implementation phase 118; method 124 – 128; multi-stakeholder discussion group 116, 126 – 127; pilot phase 115 – 118; reflections on 121 – 124; solutions provided by 129 – 131 social science tandems 202 socio-technical regimes 273 soil protection see From Farmer to Farmer project Spangenberg, J. 37 Sperling, Urs 231 Steiner, G. 8 storming stage, team 206 – 207 storytelling approach 192 – 194 Strohschneider, P. 302 Sturm, G. 73 SUR Rostock: knowledge effects of scenario planning in 256 – 261; lessons learned from 261 – 262; Plan B:altic 242 – 244; prospective scenario planning in 251 – 256 sustainability: case study approach 160 – 165; current orientation towards problems of 1, 37, 290; new social contract for 53 – 55; place-based approaches to 135 sustainability science: as critical science 79; German schools of 12 – 14; inclusion of non-scientists in 159; interrelation of environment and society and 159; meeting the challenges of 5 – 8; need for integration of “non-scientific”

perspectives 6 – 7; normativity in 157 – 158; requiring transdisciplinary research approaches 3, 10, 35; role of case study for 157 – 160; scientific institutions reluctant to accept responsibility for producing knowledge relevant to 7 – 8; urgency in 158 – 159 sustainability thinking 5 Sustainable Development Goals, UN 3 Swiss school 13 – 14 SWOT analysis 181 syndrome approach 74 systems knowledge 14, 37 – 38 Systemwide Program for Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation’ (PRGA) 174 tacit knowledge 114 – 115, 183, 292 Takeuchi, H. 183 Takeuchi, Kazuhiko 159 tandems 191 – 192; administrative 203; dimensions of diversity in 198 – 200; ecology 201; economics 202 – 203; feedback loops and 197; fostering the potential of 212 – 214; intercultural and transdisciplinary knowledge integration 209 – 212; providing identity in dynamic transdisciplinarity team development stages 205 – 209; for research, administration and leadership 195 – 197; role in intercultural and transdisciplinary research 194 – 195; social science 202; as source of cooperation, conflict and belonging 200 – 205; storytelling approach and 192 – 194; team leadership 204 Tapio, P. 251 target knowledge 14 Taylor, Richard 158 team leadership tandem 204 team science 195 – 196 technological innovation school 15 technology assessment (TA) 272 – 273 testing of prototypes 183 – 184 theory-thread 154, 156 – 157, 166 thick description 192 – 193 thick theory of development 164 – 165, 167 – 168 Thompson Klein, J. 8 transdisciplinarity 1; deeply embedded in academia 10; defined 9, 85; distributive 88, 90, 101 – 102; emerging in international agricultural research

314 Index 172 – 175; explorative 88 – 89; as expression of tendency of science to transcend disciplinary boundaries 85; future of 304 – 305; growth in research in 2 – 3, 290; institutional level 299 – 301; interventionist 88, 102; knowledge production taking place in setting of 294 – 297; methodological 89; modifying scientific systems to embrace 147 – 148; plurality of 87 – 91; as a political and critical project 8 – 12; practice in the PoNa project 89 – 91; resistance to 6, 300 – 301; as a scientific and research principle 67 – 69; Zurich definition of 2 Transdisciplinarity Lab (TdLab) 14 transdisciplinary research: acknowledging gender as fundamental category in 78; boundary work 15 – 16, 57; as collaborative learning process 175 – 185; complex social-ecological systems (SES) and 10 – 11; constraints and risks in social-ecological research 69 – 74; defined 86; extra-scientific mission of 40 – 41; funding policy 301 – 302; in the German-speaking world 3 – 5, 12 – 14; as ideally suited for sustainability science 10; intercultural and transdisciplinary knowledge integration 209 – 212; and interdisciplinary knowledge integration for sustainability 36 – 41; involvement of practitioners as partners in 85; knowledge intermediaries and 235 – 237; meaning situating knowledge 78 – 79; need for integration of “non-scientific” perspectives 6 – 7; origins of 1 – 2; outlook for 26 – 27; power analysis 79; as problemoriented 9 – 10, 37; recognizing good 302 – 304; science system needing to change to facilitate 297 – 302; social-

ecological research, challenges for 75 – 77; for sustainability science 6 – 8; traditional research methods as poorly adapted to requirements for producing 7; transformation and integration as key challenges in 14 – 17; translation work in 71; value-freedom and 39 – 40; who takes part and what is the nature of participation in 291 – 294 transformation 302 – 303; as collective learning process 44; foresight and 46; of the German science system 58 – 60; Innovation actors and processes in 46 – 47; and integration as key challenges in transdisciplinary research 14 – 17; knowledge 14 – 15, 57 transformative research 13 transition theory 58 translation work 71 urgency in sustainability science 158 – 159 value-freedom 39 – 40 van Leeuwen, T. 93 Viehöver, W. 56 Voß, Jan-Peter 278, 280 – 281 WBGU see German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) Wehling, P. 56 Weiland, M. 72 Well-Being Transformation Wuppertal 60 wicked problems 1 Wiles, Andrew 158 Wolf, B. 236 Wuppertal Institute 13, 58 Yunus, Muhammad 162