Sustainability Science PDF

TABLE DES MATIÈRES Study Questions 9 1. What is a dynamic social-environmental system? 9 2. What are the five most challenging features of complex SES? 9...

TABLE DES MATIÈRES Study Questions 9 1. What is a dynamic social-environmental system? 9 2. What are the five most challenging features of complex SES? 9 3. What is Mode 1 science? 9 4. What is post normal science ? 9 5. What is sustainability science? 10 Discussion questions 10 1. Why is it difficult to pursue sustainability? 10 2. Why is post-normal science relevant for sustainability problems? 10 3. What is an extended peer community, and why is it important for pursuing sustainability? 10 4. Can simultaneous knowledge production and application compromise science? 11 Study questions : 15 1. What is a worldview? 15 2. What are the characteristics of the modern (Western) worldview? How does it differ from the Indigenous worldview? 15 3. What are the requirements for knowledge (development) to be relevant for sustainable development? 16 4. Why plurality of knowledge and worldview are important for sustainability challenges ? 16 Discussion questions : 17 1. Why are worldviews relevant for pursuing sustainable development? 17 2. Fitzpatrick presents six broad knowledge themes for human-nature connectedness such as indigenous knowledge, local place-based knowledge, etc. Which theme or body of knowledge appeals to you most and why? (Fitzpatrick) 17 3. Do you think Indigenous knowledge is transferable to ‘external’ people (people not part of the indigenous community). Give arguments for your opinion (Fitzpatrick; Mazzocchi). 18 5. What might be the pitfalls of attempting to integrate different types of knowledge? How can you integrate different types of knowledge (Mazzocchi) 19 Study question 23 1. What are systems, target, and transformative knowledge, and what barriers exist for their integration? How do you overcome these barriers? 23 2. Which 5 tasks are central to the Multiple Evidence Based (MEB) approach to guide 1  collaborations between diverse knowledge systems? (Tengo et al.) 24 3. What are the current challenges of trying to engage/collaborate with indigenous and local knowledge? (Tengo) 25 4. What are the factors that contribute to successful citizen science? 25 5. What are the four types of policy problems, and how do they differ? 26 Discussion Questions : 27 1. Why is knowledge transfer from non-academic actors to researchers mainly concerned with target and transformative knowledge? (Karrasch et al.) 27 Transformative Knowledge 27 2. How can citizen science help to promote knowledge integration and what problems may this cause? 28 3. How does science-based framing differ to knowledge system approaches and why is this important for solving sustainability challenges (Tengo et al ) 28 4. Why is problem structuring relevant for sustainability challenges? And how may joint knowledge production influence the structure of a problem? (Hoppe) 29 5. In your opinion, is it worth integrating more (and different) knowledge types with the risk that this may inhibit (e.g., slow down or create more conflict within) the problem-solving process? 29 6. How do you think research institutions (e.g. universities) try to practically integrate different knowledge types to solve sustainability challenges? 29 Study Questions 34 1. What is the linear model of science-policy-society interaction, and what are its problems? (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman; Wiegleb and Bruns) 34 2. What responses/strategies are proposed in the linear model to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and its use in policy and society? (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman) 35 3. What is boundary work, and what is a boundary object and boundary organization? (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman; Wiegleb and Bruns) 35 4. What forms of participatory knowledge production exist, and what are their most important similarities and differences? (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman) 36 Discussion Questions 36 1. Why are demarcation, cooperation, and coordination important for boundary work? (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman; Wiegleb and Bruns) 36 2. How do you think IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) would operate in a more co-productionist perspective of science-policy-society interactions? 36 3. The Clark et al. paper states: “Context matters for understanding and designing 2  boundary work.” What do they mean by this statement and why do they think context is important? (Clark et al, p. 4620) 37 4. In the linear model of science-policy-society interaction, scientific knowledge might present the facts, but this is often insufficient for decision-making. Explain why and try to use Hoppe’s problem types in your answer. (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman; and Task 4) 37 5. What role do you think scientists should play when participating in boundary work? 38 Study Questions 42 1. What are the four roles of scientists? (Pielke) 42 2. What is the difference between an honest broker and issue advocate? (Bohman et al) 43 3. What is meant by knowledge brokering? (Gluckman et al) 43 4. What are the core principles for the knowledge broker at the science-policy interface according to Gluckman et al? 43 5. In what phase of the policy process can scientific input by knowledge brokers be (most) effective? (Gluckman et al.) 44 Discussion questions 44 1. How do you think context determines the role that scientists should adopt? (Gluckman et al; Bohman et al) 44 2. Why do you think Bohman et al argue for an ‘honest issue advocate’ in their paper and how may this differ to Gluckman’s argument for being a knowledge broker? 45 3. What is the difference between evidence synthesis and knowledge brokerage and why are they both important for boundary work? (Gluckman et al). 45 4. What scientist role, in your opinion, is good for: a) boundary work in general b) promoting the inclusion of alternative worldviews and knowledge types, and why? Do your answers to a) and b) differ? If so, why do you think so? (Pielke; Bohman et al) 46 5. How might the role of scientists change when they participate in transdisciplinary research? 46 Study Questions 51 1. What is transdisciplinary research ? (Bergmann et al., 2021) 51 2. ​What is saliency, legitimacy, and credibility of knowledge? (Matson et al. 2016) 51 3. What is the role of reflexivity in scientific research and what are the main aspects of reflexivity?(Popa et al., 2015) 51 4. What are the characteristics of the complex systems approach and the transformational approach?(Popa et al., 2015) 52 5. What are the key characteristics of real-world labs and what are their success factors? (Bergmann et al., 2021) 52 3 Discussion Questions 52 1. How do saliency, legitimacy, and credibility of knowledge play a role in transdisciplinary research and collaboration? (Matson et al.) 52 2. Reflexivity can guide transdisciplinary research and collaboration, but it is difficult to realize. Why do you think this is the case? (Popa et al.) 53 4. In your opinion, how might the cultural/institutional context impact the success of real-world living labs? 54 5. How might methods such as real-world living labs help foster collaboration between the different knowledge types you have learnt about in this course, and why might this be useful for sustainability problems? 54 4  Task 2 - The Basics of Sustainability Science The world faces critical sustainability challenges, such as: Climate change Biodiversity loss Resource depletion Traditional scientific approaches are insufficient to address these complex problems. Sustainability Science has emerged as a distinct field to understand and guide interactions between society and the environment. It integrates knowledge from multiple disciplines, promoting a shift from: Traditional “mode 1” science to “Post normal” or “mode 2” science. Post normal science emphasizes the need for: Managing uncertainty Including societal participation through an extended peer community Funtowicz and Ravetz discuss the importance of post normal science for addressing environmental risks with high uncertainty and decision stakes. Kates et al. highlight sustainability science as a problem driven, transdisciplinary approach that requires simultaneous knowledge production and practical application. Matson et al discuss the pursuit of sustainable development strategies within complex social environmental systems. The task involves applying these concepts to the CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage) case study, addressing its social, environmental, and ethical challenges. 5  Concept Explanation References Social environmental system interconnected, adaptive systems Matson et al. where human societies and the (2016) environment co - evolve, with changes in one part affecting the other Complex adaptive systems Systems with multiple interconnected Matson et al. components, characterized by (2016) feedback loops, self organization, and emergent behavior Stocks and Flows Stocks are quantities of resources in a Matson et al. system, and flows are the rates of (2016) change (inputs/outputs) that affect these stocks over time. 5 Capital Assets Refers to natural, manufactured, Matson et al. human, social, and knowledge (2016) 6  capital, which are necessary for sustainability and inclusive well-being. System The defined limits of a system being Matson et al. Boundaries studied, identifying which (2016) elements and interactions are included for analysis. Time Scale Refers to the temporal dimension over Matson et al. which system dynamics unfold, (2016) including long- term trends and historical influences. Geographical Scale The spatial extent of a system, which Matson et al. can range from local to global levels, (2016) affects how we understand and manage sustainability. Feedback Cycles where changes in one part of a Matson et al. Interactions/Loops system affect other parts, which in (2016) turn influence the original component (e.g., reinforcing or balancing feedback loops). Invisibilities in Impacts of actions that may not be Matson et al. Space and Time immediately visible, either because (2016) they are distant in space (affecting others elsewhere) or time (affecting future generations). Complexity The interconnectedness of social Matson et al. environmental systems, where (2016) interventions can have unpredictable and widespread consequences. Tipping point, regime shifts Critical thresholds where small Matson et al. changes can lead to significant, often (2016) irreversible shifts in the system’s behavior or structure Vulnerability and resilience Vulnerability refers to susceptibility to Matson et al. harm, while resilience is the system’s (2016) ability to absorb disturbances and still function effectively. Wicked problem Problems that are difficult to solve due Funtowicz & to their complexity, uncertainty, and ravetz (1993) 7  involvement of conflicting values, Maston & AL often with no clear solution (2016) Values and facts The recognition that scientific decision Funtowicz & making is influenced by both empirical Ravetz facts and social values, especially in (1993) sustainability science Dealing with uncertainties Approaches in science that Funtowicz & acknowledge and manage Ravetz uncertainties, particularly when (1993) dealing with complex systems and sustainability challenges Sustainability science A transdisciplinary field focused on Kates & Al (2001) understanding the interactions between nature and society and applying this knowledge to promote sustainable development Normal science / mode 1 Traditional science focused on problem Funtowicz & solving within established disciplines, Ravetz often with an assumption of certainty (1993) and control. Post normal science / mode Science that is issue driven, Funtowicz & 2 transdisciplinary, and involves Ravetz extended peer communities to address (1993) high stakes, uncertain problems like sustainability challenges Linear model of science A traditional model where scientific Kates & Al (2001) policy knowledge is generated first and then applied to policy decisions, assuming a straightforward flow of information Extended peer community Involvement of non scientists, Funtowicz & including stakeholders and affected Ravetz individuals, in scientific processes, (1993) especially in post normal science contexts 8  Issue driven Research or scientific activity focused Funtowicz & on addressing pressing societal or Ravetz environmental issues, often (1993) characterized by high uncertainty and decision stakes. Study Questions 1. What is a dynamic social-environmental system? Social-environmental systems (SES) are systems where human and environmental components are interdependent and adaptive, each influencing the other. 2. What are the five most challenging features of complex SES? Interconnectedness : components of the system are linked. An action or a change in the system part can impact directly/ indirectly another part of the system. Feedback loops : action influence other part of the system Non-linear changes : the relationships between the components of an SES do not always follow a proportional (linear) logic. Small changes can have disproportionate impacts or, conversely, major changes can have few discernible consequences. This complicates planning and risk assessment. Tipping points : SES can reach critical thresholds beyond which the system changes suddenly and radically, often irreversibly. Invisibilities in space and time : Impact of the SES are not immediately visible (take time) 3. What is Mode 1 science? Focuses on solving well-defined problems within traditional disciplines, with low uncertainty and separation of facts and values. Opposite to post normal science 4. What is post normal science ? A type of science that deals with high uncertainty and high decision stakes, incorporating values and societal input through an extended peer community 9  Normal science Post normal science Focus on well defined problem Issue driven fac and values are separates Transdisciplinary science uncertainty is low Extend peer community (incorporate social interaction ) deal with high stake and uncertainty problems 5. What is sustainability science? A problem-driven, transdisciplinary field that integrates knowledge to address the dynamic interaction between society and nature, emphasizing both knowledge production and practical application. Discussion questions 1. Why is it difficult to pursue sustainability? The complexity of social-environmental systems (SES), including feedback loops, invisibilities, and tipping points, makes it challenging to predict the outcomes of interventions, often resulting in unintended consequences. 2. Why is post-normal science relevant for sustainability problems? Sustainability issues are wicked problems marked by high uncertainty and high decision stakes, necessitating the broad societal engagement advocated by post-normal science. Traditional scientific approaches are insufficient to address these complex problems. 3. What is an extended peer community, and why is it important for pursuing sustainability? An extended peer community includes stakeholders in the scientific process, playing a critical role in tackling complex, high-stakes sustainability challenges where facts and values are deeply intertwined. Negative part : too many opinion, complicated to take a decision and make sure that the knowledge is relevant 10  4. Can simultaneous knowledge production and application compromise science? Although acting simultaneously may risk undermining thorough research, the urgency of sustainability challenges often demands rapid responses that integrate scientific inquiry with practical applications. 11  Task 3 - worldview and knowledge production Worldviews and knowledge types are essential in shaping how societies understand and interact with nature and the environment. You are encouraged to consider how different worldviews especially scientific and indigenous knowledge can shape and inform sustainability approaches. Van Opstal and Hugé argue that: Sustainable solutions must respect the cultural lenses through which societies perceive their relationship with the environment. Fitzpatrick highlights: The limitations of traditional sustainability frameworks The importance of exploring alternative worldviews that go beyond conventional sustainability approaches. Mazzocchi emphasizes: The value of indigenous knowledge systems , which offer insights that can deepen our understanding of sustainability. Indigenous knowledge systems provide holistic lessons that can complement scientific approaches. The central issue is to create a pluralistic approach to sustainability that: Acknowledges diverse ways of knowing and being. Actively incorporates different worldviews in the pursuit of sustainable solutions. You will apply this understanding to the CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage) case, aiming to: Ensure a more holistic and culturally sensitive approach. Align CCUS technology with broader sustainability goals, making it more effective and inclusive. Ask question 12  Concept Explanation Reference Worldview A comprehensive perspective or “len” thought which Van Opstal individuals or societies understand and intercept & Hugé with the world (2013); Wordview worldview are dynamic and can evolve thought Van Opstal construction collaborative action and share learning & Hugé (2013); Moderne worldview Promotes an approach based on rationality, Fitzpatrick predictability and the control of nature, often (2023) associated with economic growth and technological advances Indigenous worldview A holistic perspective emphasising interconnection, Mazzocchi reciprocity and respect for the intrinsic value of (2020) nature. Human-nature The idea that humans and nature are profoundly Fitzpatrick connectedness linked, underlining the importance of sustainable (2023) relationships. Knowledge types include scientific, indigenous, local and place -based Fitzpatrick knowledge systems that contribute to sustainability. (2023) 13 Reflective knowledge A knowledge creation process that critically reflects Van Opstal production on biases and integrates diverse perspectives. & Hugé (2013); interconnectedness The notion that all living and non-living elements are Mazzocchi linked, forming complex relationships that are (2020) essential to sustainability. interdependence Mutual dependence between humans and Mazzocchi ecosystems, emphasising coexistence and mutual (2020) care. Fitzpatrick (2023) Reciprocity The principle of giving back to nature, while ensuring Mazzocchi that human actions also benefit ecosystems. (2020) Caretaking A central value in indigenous worldviews, where Mazzocchi humans see themselves as the guardians of nature (2020) rather than its dominators. knowledge The process of incorporating multiple knowledge Van Opstal pluralization types and worldviews into sustainability science & Hugé (2013); Fitzpatrick (2023) Local place based Knowledge rooted in specific environmental and Fitzpatrick knowledge cultural (2023) contexts, often associated with indigenous practices 14 Study questions : 1. What is a worldview? A worldview is a comprehensive perspective through which individuals or societies interpret their environment, shaping their actions toward sustainability. (Van Opstal & Hugé, 2013; Fitzpatrick, 2023. According to Maarten Van Opstal and Jean Huge, a worldview is a framework of fundamental beliefs and ideas through which individuals and societies interpret reality and interact with the world. This includes notions about nature, social relationships, values, and cultural practices. This framework influences how we approach environmental and sustainability issues. For Haley Fitzpatrick, worldviews also shape our relationship with nature and influence decisions regarding human-environment interactions. They define our understanding of the world and the relationships within it, which is crucial for developing a sustainable approach. 2. What are the characteristics of the modern (Western) worldview? How does it differ from the Indigenous worldview? The modern Western worldview, according to Opstal and Huge, is characterized by a separation between humans and nature, where nature is viewed as a resource to be exploited for economic and technological progress. This worldview often values rationality, technology, and economic growth as primary drivers of development. The Indigenous worldview, in contrast, as explained by Mazzocchi, is based on a deeply integrated relationship between humans and nature. Indigenous peoples see nature as a living entity with which they share a relationship of respect and interdependence. This worldview is holistic and spiritual, with a cyclical understanding of time and a focus on future generations. The key difference lies in how each worldview perceives nature: the Western view sees it as a resource to dominate, while Indigenous peoples see it as a partner with whom to coexist. 15  3. What are the requirements for knowledge (development) to be relevant for sustainable development? According to Optsal/ huge serval critics to be relevant : Plurality: It is necessary to incorporate diverse worldviews and sources of knowledge, including Indigenous and local knowledge, to address complex challenges holistically. Interdisciplinarity: Sustainability requires knowledge from different disciplines, integrating scientific, social, cultural, and economic perspectives. Contextualization: Knowledge must be adapted to local contexts, considering the ecological, social, and cultural specificities of communities. 4. Why plurality of knowledge and worldview are important for sustainability challenges ? What do the below quotes have in common and why do you think this is needed for sustainability science? a. ‘an explicit pluralization of knowledge for SD’ (Opstal/Huge) b. ‘greater attention should be focused on the interconnectedness of ideas, theories, and methods for human-nature connectedness’ (Fitzpatrick) c. ‘establishing a pluralist framework, which allows the coexistence of distinct worldviews, knowledge, and ways of life’ (Mazzocchi) These quotes all emphasize the plurality of knowledge and worldviews as essential for addressing sustainability. This plurality is crucial in sustainability science because it allows: Inclusion of diverse perspectives, enriching the solutions by incorporating varied approaches. Recognition of the interdependence between humans and nature (Fitzpatrick), moving away from the fragmented thinking typical of the modern Western worldview. Establishment of pluralist frameworks (Mazzocchi), where different systems of knowledge can coexist and contribute to a more balanced and inclusive approach to sustainable development. Democratization of knowledge The complexity of sustainability issues cannot be understood by only by one knowledge. 16 Discussion questions : 1. Why are worldviews relevant for pursuing sustainable development? Worldviews shape how individuals and societies understand environmental problems and frame their responses. Integrating diverse worldviews ensures that sustainable development policies are culturally sensitive and inclusive. Ignoring the plurality of worldviews risks creating solutions that are not suitable for different cultural and environmental contexts. 2. Fitzpatrick presents six broad knowledge themes for human-nature connectedness such as indigenous knowledge, local place-based knowledge, etc. Which theme or body of knowledge appeals to you most and why? (Fitzpatrick) Fitzpatrick presents six broad knowledge themes for human-nature, all these knowledge are overlapping between them ! Not always just one. Indigenous Knowledge: This theme encompasses the traditional ecological knowledge and practices of indigenous peoples, focusing on their deep understanding of the interconnectedness of all living things and the environment. Local, place-based knowledge: Local, place-based knowledge refers to the understanding and insights that individuals and communities develop about their specific environments based on their experiences, cultural practices, and interactions with the local ecosystem. This type of knowledge is often context-specific and deeply rooted in the history, culture, and social dynamics of a particular area. It emphasizes the importance of context, culture and community in developing sustainable practices and ecological management. Systems Thinking : because it focuses on understanding complex systems and their relationships, often using frameworks that emphasize the links between social, ecological and economic systems. Spiritual and Religious Knowledge : This theme encompasses the beliefs and practices related to spirituality and religion that influence people's relationships with nature, often emphasizing a sense of reverence and interconnectedness. Subjective, Inner Knowledge : Understand each person’s experience; self-awareness. Mindfulness in connection to science and economics. Relational thinking: agency of non-human. How a creature can make such a big influence on the system (wolves example) 17 One of the themes that stands out is Indigenous knowledge. This knowledge is based on a harmonious relationship between Indigenous communities and their natural environment. It is particularly appealing because it offers a holistic approach to sustainability, integrating spiritual, social, and ecological values, while being rooted in millennia-old practices adapted to local realities. The most humane one. Medicine maybe hasn’t lost all connection to nature 3. Do you think Indigenous knowledge is transferable to ‘external’ people (people not part of the indigenous community). Give arguments for your opinion (Fitzpatrick; Mazzocchi). It can be transferable, indigenous knowledge offers valuable lessons but it must be done with care and respect. Mazzocchi points out that Indigenous knowledge is often contextual, rooted in local, cultural, and spiritual practices. While it can be useful for non-Indigenous people, it is essential not to detach it from its original context. A respectful approach involves collaborating with Indigenous communities, valuing their leadership in sustainable development processes. Solution : Polycentric approach : creating spaces where various from of knowledge can interact collaborate and enrich one another → Integration 18  4. Relation between Post normal science and wordview Post-normal science emphasizes the inclusion of diverse perspectives, especially in situations of high uncertainty and conflicting values. Worldviews are central to this approach, enriching decision-making processes. Post-normal science requires the integration of multiple worldviews since it recognizes that scientific solutions cannot be universal and must incorporate local values and diverse perspectives. Extended peer community bring these different worldviews 5. What might be the pitfalls of attempting to integrate different types of knowledge? How can you integrate different types of knowledge (Mazzocchi) One of the potential pitfalls of integrating different types of knowledge is the dominance of certain knowledge types, particularly Western scientific knowledge, at the expense of Indigenous or local knowledge. This could lead to the marginalization of non-Western worldviews Consequences of transfer : Reductionism of the knowledge , oversimplification of the knowledge. Instrumentalization of knowledge. Create power imbalance, Westner ( modern) worldview may dominate or dismiss other forms of knowledge. Conflict goals Solution : Mazzocchi suggests that for successful knowledge integration, it is important to respect knowledge diversity and create a pluralistic framework where different forms of knowledge are treated equally. This requires open intercultural dialogues and equitable collaborations among different stakeholders. 19  Task 4 - knowledge integration and problem structuring Learning Outcome: Students analyse and explain how to integrate different types of knowledge in sustainability science, focusing on problem structuring, salience, credibility, legitimacy, and the role of boundary work in addressing sustainability challenges. Tackling complex sustainability issues like CCUS requires more than just technical knowledge; it demands a deep understanding of how different types of knowledge can be integrated and how problems can be effectively structured. Types of Knowledge: Drawing from Buser & Schneider and Karrasch et al., three types of knowledge are identified: Systems Knowledge: Understanding the interconnections within the system Target Knowledge: Awareness of the goals and desired outcomes Transformation Knowledge: Knowledge about how to change the system to achieve these goals Integrating these types of knowledge is essential when dealing with the complex, multi-faceted issues that characterize sustainability issues. Problem Structuring: Understanding knowledge types alone is insufficient; problem structuring is critical for navigating “wicked” sustainability problems. Key aspects include: Recognizing the spectrum of societal problems from well structured to highly complex Utilizing Hoppe's outlined stages to clarify complex issues for policy and practice (problem structuring) Stakeholder Perspectives in CCS: Effective problem structuring in the context of CCS involves: Recognizing diverse stakeholders and their perspectives Framing the problem to balance: ○ Technological feasibility ○ Ethical and social considerations ○ Ensuring that solutions are effective and equitable 20  Concept Explanation References system knowledge Understanding of the components, dynamics, Buser & and interactions within socio ecological systems. Schneider It involves analyzing and describing scientific (2021); Karrasch facts, theories, and empirical data related to et al. (2022) social ecological systems (SES). Target knowledge Knowledge about stakeholders' goals, interests, Karrasch et al. preferences, values, and normative beliefs. It (2022) focuses on what stakeholders believe should happen within a system transformative Knowledge about how to achieve and manage Karrasch et al. knowledge change within a system. It includes practical (2022) expertise, problem solving skills, and implementation strategies Integration The process of combining different types of Karrasch et al. knowledge knowledge contributed by researchers and (2022); Tengo et non-academic actors to enhance understanding al. (2021) and decision-making. Indigenous local Knowledge that is place-based and Tengo et al. knowledge context-specific, often held by Indigenous (2021) Peoples and local communities, providing valuable insights for sustainability efforts. 21 Citizen science A scientific approach that involves Tengo et al. non-professionals in data collection and (2021) analysis, contributing to formal scientific research and bridging gaps between communities and scientists Multiple evidence An approach that combines multiple forms of Tengo et al. based (MEB) evidence from diverse knowledge systems (2021) approach without forcing them into a single framework, enhancing ecosystem understanding. Problem - The process of defining and clarifying complex Hoppe (2018) structuring issues to transform them into manageable problems that can be addressed effectively Structured problem Well-defined problems with clear cause-effect Hoppe (2018) relationships and broad agreement on values or goals, making them easier to address Unstructured Complex problems characterized by uncertainty Hoppe (2018) problems and conflicting values, lacking clear solutions, making them challenging to resolve Moderately Problems based on solid knowledge but with Hoppe (2018) structured problem disagreement on values or goals to be achieved (means ) Moderately Problems with partial agreement on values or Hoppe (2018) structured problem goals, but lacking complete knowledge of the (end) solutions Framing The process of framing issues to guide Tengo et al. (=encadrement) understanding and decision making, shaping (2021) how problems are perceived and addressed science - based A specific approach to framing that relies on Tengo et al. framing structured, empirical methods, primarily (2021) conducted by professional scientists Knowledge system An approach that values the integration of Tengo et al. approach diverse knowledge systems, recognizing the (2021) validity of each and ensuring their contributions are respected Joint knowledge The collaborative process of producing Tengo et al. production knowledge by integrating the perspectives of (2021) various stakeholders, including researchers and non-academic actors 22 Study question 1. What are systems, target, and transformative knowledge, and what barriers exist for their integration? How do you overcome these barriers? These 3 knowledge are interlinked, systeme knowledge informs understanding, target knowledge shapes goals and transformative knowledge helps to achieve these goals. But we need transdisciplinary to overcome the barriers of these knowledges. Systems Knowledge Definition: ○ Understanding the components, dynamics, and interactions within socio-ecological systems (SES). ○ Involve facts which are in the sphere of science, with scientists as the most credible actors Barriers: ○ Complex and technical language. ○ Discipline-specific thinking that limits interdisciplinary collaboration. Solutions: ○ Develop glossaries to clarify terminology. ○ Use visual aids like illustrations or diagrams to simplify concepts. ○ Involve stakeholders in co-design processes to ensure shared understanding. Target Knowledge Definition: ○ Knowledge about stakeholders' goals, interests, and normative beliefs, essential for aligning efforts toward shared objectives. ○ Involve value and norms are in sphere of political actors depending on public debate and governments for their legitimacy Barriers: ○ Conflicting stakeholder interests. ○ Lack of motivation or engagement among participants. Solutions: ○ Facilitate mutual learning sessions, such as focus groups, to build trust and identify common ground. 23  ○ Use participatory approaches to actively involve stakeholders in decision-making. Transformative Knowledge Definition: ○ Knowledge about how to implement change within a system, including strategies for applying research findings in practical contexts. ○ Involve agency/action link to the sphere of practice with legitimacy resting with practitioners who know how things are done. Barriers: ○ Difficulty translating academic research into actionable strategies. ○ Challenges in bridging the gap between theory and practice. Solutions: ○ Collaborate on joint publications that clearly articulate practical applications. ○ Develop clear and accessible communication strategies tailored to non-academic audiences. 2. Which 5 tasks are central to the Multiple Evidence Based (MEB) approach to guide collaborations between diverse knowledge systems? (Tengo et al.) The MEB (Multiped evidence based) approach including the following 5 tasks to guide collaborations between different knowledge systems and facilitated interaction between them. The MEB promotes respectful interactions between stakeholders and ensures that the knowledge generated is relevant and useful for all parties involved. Mobilize: Bringing together different knowledge systems. Translate: Making knowledge comprehensible to all stakeholders. Analyze: Comparing insights from different knowledge systems. Synthesize: Weaving different types of knowledge to form an enriched understanding. 24  Apply: Implementing the synthesized knowledge to address ecosystem management​ 3. What are the current challenges of trying to engage/collaborate with indigenous and local knowledge? (Tengo) Engaging effectively with Indigenous and Local Knowledge requires addressing power imbalances, respecting its legitimacy, and developing collaborative, context-sensitive frameworks. By overcoming these challenges, ILK can be fully harnessed to contribute to sustainability and global decision-making. Power imbalances between scientific (dominance ) and Indigenous knowledge systems. Marginalization of Indigenous knowledge Lack of respect for Indigenous knowledge’s legitimacy. Recognition ILK is often undervalued and not included in decision making. Difficulties in integrating local knowledge with global scales without losing its context-specific relevance. The need to acknowledge historical and cultural contexts in which Indigenous knowledge operates Terminology Challenges: Misalignment of terms with Indigenous epistemologies can cause misunderstandings 4. What are the factors that contribute to successful citizen science? Citizen science : A scientific approach that involves non-professionals in data collection and analysis, contributing to formal scientific research and bridging gaps between communities and scientists Recognition of ILK: Acknowledge ILK as a legitimate knowledge system without undermining its legitimacy MEB Approach: Respect and integrate diverse knowledge systems. Establishing respectful partnerships and collaboration with Indigenous and local communities. Clear Roles: Engage local communities as legitimate partners Continuous Engagement: Maintain ongoing dialogue and consent Capacity Building: Promote mutual learning and support skill enhancement 5. What are the four types of policy problems, and how do they differ? Problem structuring : The process of defining and clarifying complex issues to transform them into manageable problems that can be addressed effectively 25 Structured Problems: High knowledge certainty, low normative ambiguity (e.g., waste management) Moderately Structured Problems: High knowledge certainty, high normative ambiguity (e.g., environmental policies) Unstructured Problems: Low knowledge certainty, high normative ambiguity (e.g., climate change) Moderately Unstructured Problems: Low knowledge certainty, low normative ambiguity (e.g., new technologies) Sustainability issues often begin as unstructured problems, but they must be transformed into structured problems through participatory processes, clear goal setting, and iterative strategies. This restructuring makes complex, wicked problems more manageable and actionable. 26 Discussion Questions : 1. Why is knowledge transfer from non-academic actors to researchers mainly concerned with target and transformative knowledge? (Karrasch et al.) Non-academic actors, such as community members and industry professionals, provide practical and context-specific insights (target knowledge) and contribute experiential knowledge needed for implementation (transformative knowledge) Their involvement ensures that research is grounded in real-world applications, enhancing relevance and actionability Not for system knowledge because it focuses on researchers. Target knowledge : Main reason : Les acteurs non-académiques, tels que les membres de la communauté ou les professionnels de l'industrie, possèdent des informations spécifiques au contexte local, comme leurs objectifs, intérêts, et valeurs normatives. Ces éléments permettent aux chercheurs de mieux comprendre : ○ Les priorités des parties prenantes. ○ Les contraintes réelles qui influencent la prise de décision. Pourquoi est-ce crucial ? Cela aide à aligner les recherches académiques avec les besoins réels et les attentes des parties prenantes, rendant les résultats plus pertinents et applicables. Transformative Knowledge Main reason : Les acteurs non-académiques apportent une expérience pratique sur la manière d’appliquer des idées ou des solutions dans le monde réel. Cette connaissance inclut : ○ Les méthodes éprouvées pour résoudre des problèmes spécifiques. ○ Les obstacles et opportunités pratiques dans le processus de mise en œuvre. Pourquoi est-ce crucial ? Cela garantit que les chercheurs peuvent formuler des solutions réalistes et adaptables aux conditions du terrain, facilitant ainsi la mise en œuvre de leurs recommandations. 27  System knowledge NON Systems Knowledge concernent les dynamiques complexes, les interactions et les composantes des systèmes socio-écologiques (SES). Ces connaissances sont généralement issues de recherches scientifiques et théoriques réalisées par les chercheurs eux-mêmes. Les acteurs non-académiques ne sont pas nécessairement formés pour analyser ou conceptualiser les systèmes complexes, bien qu'ils puissent fournir des données pratiques pour compléter ces analyses. 2. How can citizen science help to promote knowledge integration and what problems may this cause? Promote integration : Citizen science can bridge the gap between local and scientific knowledge by encouraging public participation in data collection and analysis. It fosters inclusivity, enhances the legitimacy of research, and connects Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK) with broader scientific data. Challenges : Issues include power imbalances that can marginalize ILK, conflicts arising from differing knowledge systems, and potential misinterpretations of local knowledge Intellectual property and digital ownership 3. How does science-based framing differ to knowledge system approaches and why is this important for solving sustainability challenges (Tengo et al ) Science-based framing Knowledge system approaches Science-based framing often privileges knowledge system approaches (like MEB) scientific data and perspectives, potentially emphasize the integration of multiple marginalizing local or Indigenous knowledge knowledge forms, acknowledging their unique systems. contributions to sustainability - Citizen are data providers - Citizen are see as knowledge holders - Data replicable approach to generalize - Data is on depth place -based and scientific observations context -specific knowledge - Capacity to build - Mutual learning Important : Integrating both approaches offers a holistic understanding of complex socio-ecological systems, addresses power imbalances, and enhances the legitimacy and applicability of sustainability solutions 28  4. Why is problem structuring relevant for sustainability challenges? And how may joint knowledge production influence the structure of a problem? (Hoppe) Problem structuring helps to break down complex, "wicked" sustainability challenges into manageable components.. Sustainability challenges are often unstructured and complex. Problem structuring breaks these challenges into manageable parts, allowing policymakers to identify priorities and create actionable solutions Influence of Joint Knowledge Production : Integrating diverse stakeholder expertise (scientists, citizens, policymakers) enriches understanding, revealing hidden dimensions of problems and making solutions more adaptive and inclusive. Joint knowledge production encourages multiple perspectives, helping to reframe problems and uncover more holistic solutions. 5. In your opinion, is it worth integrating more (and different) knowledge types with the risk that this may inhibit (e.g., slow down or create more conflict within) the problem-solving process? Positive : Integrating diverse knowledge systems is crucial for addressing complex sustainability issues, as it enriches the understanding of problems and potential solutions. Enhances understanding, fosters innovation, and leads to context-specific solutions Negative : this can slow decision-making and increase conflict due to differing priorities and perspectives. Need : Managing these conflicts through dialogue and iterative processes is key. You need to have a cultural sensitivity -> speak in foreign languages sometimes 6. How do you think research institutions (e.g. universities) try to practically integrate different knowledge types to solve sustainability challenges? Research institutions utilize interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches, engage in collaborative partnerships, apply problem based learning, establish sustainability science centers, and incorporate citizen science. Research institutions foster transdisciplinary collaborations, encouraging the integration of academic, Indigenous, and local knowledge. They create platforms for co-production of knowledge, facilitate workshops, and promote dialogue to align diverse perspectives They also aim to implement sustainable practices in their operations, serving as living labs for sustainability solution 29  Task 5 - Crossing Boundaries between science, policy, and society Learning Outcome: Students recognise, analyse, and explain the relationships between science, policy, and society, focusing on the roles of knowledge, boundary objects, and boundary organisations in transdisciplinary sustainability issues. Major Theme: The Relationship Between Science and Society The connection between science and society is dynamic and complex. ○ Involves how knowledge is produced, disseminated, and used in decision-making. ○ Becomes especially important for environmental challenges(e.g., climate change) and new technologies(e.g., Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage -CCUS). Key point : Role of boundary work Boundary work is essential for managing the interface between society and science ,boundary work is vital in facilitating this relationship. By understanding and managing the boundaries between science and non-science, decision-makers can better integrate scientific insights into policy and practice. This integration is essential for navigating the uncertainties and complexities inherent in environmental management, where scientific knowledge must be balanced with political, economic, and social considerations. Definition : Activities that help define and maintain the boundaries between scientific and non scientific areas, facilitating collaboration Key Contributions from Authors: Turnhout and Halffman : ○ Highlight the need to understand and manage the complexities between science and society ○ Stress the importance of boundary work to navigate interdependencies Clark et al. : ○ Emphasize bridging the gap between science and practice ○ Note that boundary work is particularly vital in politically sensitive contexts where sustainable development goals are pursued ○ Simplified: In challenging political situations, boundary work helps apply scientific knowledge to achieve sustainability goals 30  Wiegleb and Bruns : ○ Focus on how science-policy interactions are created and managed. ○ Study the role of global boundary organizations(e.g., the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services -IPBES). ○ Definition: IPBES is an international body that connects scientific knowledge with policy decisions on biodiversity and ecosystem services ○ Explore how these interactions are negotiated to enhance collaboration Concept Explanation References Objectivity and Science is often linked with objectivity and Turnhout & Truth the pursuit of truth, separating factual Halffman (2012) knowledge from value laden decisions, but this ideal can obscure power dynamics in knowledge production Subjectivity and Decision making involves subjectivity and Wiegleb & Bruns Power power, affecting how knowledge is used and (2023) which perspectives are prioritized, highlighting the political nature of science policy interactions Science and Boundary work distinguishes what is Wiegleb & Bruns Non-Science considered scientific knowledge from (2023) non-scientific, often setting the stage for which knowledge is seen as legitimate and authoritative Hypothesis and Popper's principle asserts that scientific Turnhout & Falsification knowledge must be falsifiable, focusing on Halffman (2012) disproving hypotheses rather than confirming them as a criterion for scientific rigor. Scientific Knowledge Knowledge that is produced through Clark et al. (2011) systematic methods and empirical testing, aiming for reliability, and empirical testing, aiming for reliability, reproducibility, and peer validation Autonomy and Science's authority stems from its perceived Wiegleb & Bruns Authority of Science autonomy and objectivity, which can create (2023) challenges when integrating with policy, where different values may clash. 31 Linear Model A one way transfer of knowledge from Turnhout & scientists to policymakers, assuming that Halffman (2012); providing information will directly lead to Wiegleb & Bruns policy action (2023) boundary work Activities that manage the interface Clark et al. (2011); between science and policy, defining what Wiegleb & Bruns constitutes science and mediating (2023) interactions across knowledge boundaries Boundary Object Tools or artifacts that facilitate Clark et al. (2011) communication between different groups by providing a shared reference point while allowing different interpretations Boundary Entities that act as intermediaries between Wiegleb & Bruns Organization science and policy, supporting the (2023) integration of knowledge while managing the boundaries between different domains Demarcation and Processes that separate and coordinate Wiegleb & Bruns Coordination scientific and non-scientific domains, (2023) determining the limits of scientific authority and integrating multiple perspectives Criteria for Usable Knowledge must meet criteria such as Clark et al. (2011) Knowledge credibility, salience, and legitimacy to be effectively used in decision making processes. Participatory Involves the collaboration of scientists and Turnhout & Knowledge non-scientists in the creation of knowledge, Halffman (2012) Production promoting inclusivity and relevance to diverse stakeholder needs Action Research Research that involves stakeholders actively Clark et al. (2011) in the process, focusing on solving practical issues through iterative learning and action Transdisciplinary Research that transcends disciplinary Turnhout & Research boundaries by integrating academic and Halffman (2012) non-academic knowledge, focusing on real-world problems. Disciplinary Research within a single academic discipline, Wiegleb & Bruns Research focusing on specialized knowledge and (2023) 32  methods Multidisciplinary Involves researchers from different Clark et al. (2011) Research disciplines working on a common problem, but often without integrating their approaches Interdisciplinary Integrates methods and perspectives from Wiegleb & Bruns Research multiple disciplines to address complex (2023) problems, fostering collaboration and synthesis. Quality of Assessed through its credibility, salience, Clark et al. (2011) Knowledge and legitimacy, ensuring it is robust and relevant across diverse contexts and stakeholders Politicization of When scientific knowledge is used to Wiegleb & Bruns Science advance specific political agendas, affecting (2023) its perceived neutrality and trustworthiness. Scientization of The process by which political decisions are Turnhout & Politics justified and legitimized through scientific Halffman (2012) discourse, potentially marginalizing other forms of knowledge Co-Productionist Views science and policy as mutually Wiegleb & Bruns Perspective constitutive, where (2023) knowledge and decisions are shaped together, challenging the traditional linear model Linear Model of Describes a simplified view where science Turnhout & Interactions informs policy Halffman (2012); in a unidirectional way, criticized for not Wiegleb & Bruns reflecting the complexity of real world (2023) interactions 33 Study Questions 1. What is the linear model of science-policy-society interaction, and what are its problems? (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman; Wiegleb and Bruns) The linear model suggests that scientific knowledge is created in isolation from societal or policy considerations and is then transferred to policymakers for societal benefits and to inform decisions. The assumption is that science provides objective, apolitical knowledge, which can be applied to solve societal problems. Assumes neutrality and separation from social/political contexts. However, this model is problematic because : - Oversimplifies the complex interactions between science, policy, and society. - Isolate science - Depoliticize issues - Conceals power dynamics - Limits policy options - It fails to acknowledge that decision-making is influenced by politics, values, and negotiations, and that scientific knowledge is socially constructed and subject to power dynamics. - This model also disregards the participatory aspect of knowledge creation and assumes a one-way transfer of information, ignoring the role of local and experiential knowledge. 34  2. What responses/strategies are proposed in the linear model to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and its use in policy and society? (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman) Boundary work : which seeks to better integrate science, policy, and societal actors by facilitating mutual understanding and dialogue Boundary organizations and boundary objects (e.g., reports or models that can be used by both scientists and policymakers) help bridge the gap by fostering communication and ensuring that knowledge is useful, credible, and legitimate. Additionally, strategies like stakeholder participation in the research process ensure that science is more relevant and applicable to policy needs. 3. What is boundary work, and what is a boundary object and boundary organization? (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman; Wiegleb and Bruns) Boundary work refers to the practices that define the interface between science and non-science or science and policy. It involves managing the tensions between the need for scientific authority and the need for public or policy relevance. The concept of sustainable development is a boundary object A boundary object is something flexible enough to be used across different fields (e.g., a scientific report used by both researchers and policymakers) but robust enough to maintain its identity across them. Tools/artifacts that facilitate communication across disciplines without full consensus A boundary organization Entities mediating between science and policy, promoting collaboration while addressing complex issues. Boundary organization facilitates communication between science and policy and helps mediate different expectations from both sides​-> IPPC is also said to be an organization for boundary 35  4. What forms of participatory knowledge production exist, and what are their most important similarities and differences? (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman) Forms of participatory knowledge production include co-production, where scientific and societal actors collaborate to create knowledge. Post Normal Science: Engages broader communities, emphasizes managing uncertainty and contested values. Transdisciplinary Research: Equal partnership integrating diverse knowledge systems to address systemic issues Some approaches are more formalized, involving stakeholders in structured decision-making processes, while others are more informal and emergent. The key similarities include the involvement of non-scientists and the recognition that local or experiential knowledge can complement scientific knowledge. Differences lie in the degree of control or authority participants have and the specific goals (e.g., whether the focus is on negotiation, decision-making, or understanding)​ Discussion Questions 1. Why are demarcation, cooperation, and coordination important for boundary work? (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman; Wiegleb and Bruns) Demarcation helps establish what is considered science and what is not, ensuring scientific credibility; could also be for problem solving = defining the boundaries Cooperation between scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders allows for the integration of diverse perspectives = to have a better understanding of a subject ; relevant Coordination ensures that scientific knowledge is translated in ways that are useful for decision-making, balancing the need for objectivity with the need for practical application​= process should be efficient; management of the whole process Boundary work = back and forth between science (knowledge) and politics (action) 2. How do you think IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) would operate in a more co-productionist perspective of science-policy-society interactions? A more co-productionist approach for IPBES would emphasize the integration of different knowledge systems, such as indigenous and local knowledge, with scientific knowledge. This 36 would involve more participatory processes where all stakeholders, including policymakers and local communities, contribute to the creation and use of biodiversity knowledge. The process would be more collaborative and inclusive, shifting away from the traditional linear model where science speaks to policy, towards a model where science and policy are co-produced​. 3. The Clark et al. paper states: “Context matters for understanding and designing boundary work.” What do they mean by this statement and why do they think context is important? (Clark et al, p. 4620) Clark et al. argue that context is crucial because the effectiveness of boundary work depends on the specific environment in which it is conducted. Different contexts have different knowledge systems, political dynamics, and stakeholder needs. For example, boundary work that succeeds in one region may not be appropriate in another due to differences in governance, culture, or scientific capacity. Therefore, boundary work must be tailored to the local context to be effective​ Effective boundary work depends on local conditions, stakeholder needs, and power dynamics. Strategies need to be adaptable and context specific, as what works in one setting may not be effective elsewhere. 4. In the linear model of science-policy-society interaction, scientific knowledge might present the facts, but this is often insufficient for decision-making. Explain why and try to use Hoppe’s problem types in your answer. (Ch2 Turnhout/Halffman; and Task 4) Scientific knowledge is insufficient for decision making. ( Linear model) In Hoppe’s framework, decision-making problems can be complex, with scientific facts providing only a part of the solution. Decision-making often involves uncertainty and ambiguity, where facts are insufficient because value-laden judgments and negotiations are needed to reach a decision. For example, wicked problems like climate change require not only scientific input but also political negotiation and societal consensus, which the linear model fails to take into account. 37  The model assumes facts lead to action, but real world issues often involve value conflicts and uncertainties. Structured problems may fit the model, but moderately structured, unstructured, and moderately unstructured problems need more participative, adaptive approaches 5. What role do you think scientists should play when participating in boundary work? Scientists should act as facilitators in boundary work, ensuring that scientific knowledge is credible and useful while engaging with policymakers and stakeholders. They should not only provide expertise but also be open to learning from other forms of knowledge, like local or indigenous knowledge. Their role involves translating complex scientific data into actionable insights and mediating between different interests and perspectives​. Boundary Spanners: Bridge science and policy, translating complex information. Co-Producers of Knowledge: Engage in co-creation, ensuring knowledge is both credible and relevant Knowledge brokers : help translate complex scientific data. It is an intermediary who facilitates the exchange and the application of knowledge between different communities. (Gluckman & al.) 38  Task 6 - Role of scientists and knowledge brokerage : Learning Outcome: Students recognise and evaluate the roles scientists play in sustainability, such as pure scientists, issue advocates, science arbiters, and honest brokers, and how knowledge brokerage can bridge the gap between science and society. Context: Scientists play various roles at the science-policy interface, particularly with emerging technologies like Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) Understanding these roles is important for effectively connecting scientific knowledge with policy action Pielke's Four Idealized Roles for Scientists: Pure Scientist: Focuses solely on research without engaging in policy or societal debates Science Arbiter: Answers specific scientific questions posed by policymakers but does not offer opinions Issue Advocate: Actively promotes a particular policy outcome based on scientific evidence Honest Broker: Presents a range of options to policymakers, helping them understand different choices without pushing for a specific one Bohman et al. : argue that researchers are increasingly being asked to take on roles beyond the traditional boundaries of scientific inquiry, which calls for issue advocates. Gluckman et al. Emphasize the importance of scientists acting as knowledge brokers between the scientific community and policymakers. Knowledge brokerage is crucial for complex issues such as CCUS, where scientific, technical, and socio-economic considerations must inform decisions​. 39 40  Concept Explanation Reference Pure scientist Focuses solely on research, Pielke's framework, without involvement in discussed in policy debates or societal Reading 1 issues. They aim to generate knowledge without influencing decision-making the science arbiter Provides expert answers to Pielke's framework, specific questions asked by discussed in policymakers but does not Reading 1 engage beyond these queries the issue advocate Actively promotes specific Pielke's policy outcomes based on their scientific knowledge, often advocating for particular solution the honest broker Helps to clarify options for Pielke's framework, policymakers without discussed in pushing for a specific Reading 1 outcome, presenting a broad range of choices and their implications the hornets issue advocate Advocates for specific Gluckman et al., actions or policies but remains transparent about the biases and values influencing their position, ensuring informed discussions science advisory ecosystem The network of individuals, Gluckman et al., institutions, and (Reading 3) mechanisms through which scientific advice is provided to policymakers, emphasizing collaborative roles. brokerage The act of facilitating Bergmann et al. dialogue and understanding (Reading 2 41  between the scientific community and policymakers, ensuring that scientific knowledge informs policy evidence synthesis The process of integrating Bergmann et al. findings from multiple (Reading 2 studies to provide comprehensive and reliable insights that inform policy decisions Knowledge brokerage The role of mediating and Gluckman et al., translating scientific findings (Reading 3) to make them accessible and relevant for policymakers and other stakeholders, building trust Study Questions 1. What are the four roles of scientists? (Pielke) Pure scientist : just doing science. Doesn’t care about policy-making. Transmits the results of his/her research to policymakers but doesn’t care about the outcome. Involve scientific facts. Science arbiter : relation with policy but more marginal ; simply provides a fact to the policy maker Issue advocate : cares about the issue. Uses his/her scientific knowledge to help raise awareness around something. Advocates for something. There’s a problem; I have a solution Honest broker : cares about the issue and wants to be involved with the policy-making process -> must be neutral. Specific problem: different option and it is the policy maker that decides Madisonian Democracy: Madisonian democracy focuses on the active role of experts as advocates for specific interests. 42  Schattschneiderian Democracy: Schattschneiderian democracy emphasizes the role of experts in providing informed alternatives for decision-makers within a competitive political system. offer different solution 2. What is the difference between an honest broker and issue advocate? (Bohman et al) The willingness to take part in the policymaking process Honest Broker : Offers a broad spectrum of information and policy options neutrally, facilitating informed decision making. Offer a global comprehensive view and help decision making without pushing a specific agenda. Issue Advocate : Actively promotes specific policy solutions, framing evidence to support a preferred course of action. Persuasion and influencing policy decisions in favor of a particular agenda. Based on their beliefs and interests. 3. What is meant by knowledge brokering? (Gluckman et al) It is the process of translating and synthesizing scientific evidence to make it accessible and usable for policymakers, acting as a bridge between science and policy. The scientists act as knowledge brokers between the scientific community and policymakers Crucial for complex issues (such as CCUS) where scientific, technical, and socio-economic considerations must inform decisions​. 4. What are the core principles for the knowledge broker at the science-policy interface according to Gluckman et al? Trust, Transparency, and Legitimacy: Maintain unbiased, consistent communication Respect for Diverse Knowledge Systems: Integrate various forms of knowledge, including local and cultural perspectives Acknowledgment of Values and Biases: Recognize and minimize biases, ensuring clarity. Flexibility and Reflexivity: Adapt approaches based on changing policy contexts 43  5. In what phase of the policy process can scientific input by knowledge brokers be (most) effective? (Gluckman et al.) Early Engagement : Crucial for framing issues, setting agendas, and guiding strategic planning, allowing scientific evidence to shape policy from the outset. At this stage, knowledge brokers can improve the probability of scientific evidence being integrated into subsequent stages of the policy process, ultimately leading to better informed and more effective policy outcomes. ○ To ensure the understanding of the problem and the context. ○ To provide relevant evidence ( e.g recent data) to the issue ○ To ensure that scientific evidence is integrated into the discussions at the beginning. Discussion questions 1. How do you think context determines the role that scientists should adopt? (Gluckman et al; Bohman et al) Scientists' roles are shaped by the policy environment Bohman et al: In emerging areas (e.g., climate adaptation), scientists should adopt an Honest Issue Advocate role to raise awareness and push issues onto political agendas Gluckman et al: In stable policy environments, scientists should act as Knowledge Brokers, maintaining neutrality and presenting evidence without advocacy Scientists can’t always choose a role, but we do need all 4 in society for it to be democratic. 44  2. Why do you think Bohman et al argue for an ‘honest issue advocate’ in their paper and how may this differ to Gluckman’s argument for being a knowledge broker? Knowledge broker >< honest broker ! Honest Issue Advocate : Actively promotes specific issues (like climate adaptation) to ensure they gain political traction, focusing on raising awareness without pushing for a particular solution Knowledge Broker : Maintains neutrality, translating and presenting scientific evidence to policymakers, providing options without advocating for a specific course of action. Neutral position. Not biased on paper 3. What is the difference between evidence synthesis and knowledge brokerage and why are they both important for boundary work? (Gluckman et al). Evidence synthesis: Accumulating scientific evidence -> Important to have a strong amount of Integrates findings from multiple studies to present a clear, cohesive understanding of a topic, providing a solid foundation for policy decision Knowledge brokerage: Goes beyond synthesis by translating and contextualizing evidence, acting as a bridge between scientists and policymakers, ensuring that the evidence is actionable and relevant We need them so that the information is correctly communicated Importance for Boundary Work : Both are essential in connecting science and policy, with evidence synthesis ensuring reliability and brokerage ensuring the relevance and application of evidence 45  4. What scientist role, in your opinion, is good for: a) boundary work in general b) promoting the inclusion of alternative worldviews and knowledge types, and why? Do your answers to a) and b) differ? If so, why do you think so? (Pielke; Bohman et al) Boundary Work: The Honest Broker is ideal, offering diverse policy options without promoting specific outcomes, facilitating communication between science and policy Inclusion of Alternative Views: The Honest Broker also excels, as it integrates diverse perspectives (cultural, social, scientific), promoting inclusivity Similarity: Both roles require neutrality, the ability to manage diverse viewpoints, and facilitate informed, unbiased decision-making 5. How might the role of scientists change when they participate in transdisciplinary research? Transdisciplinary Research: Integrates knowledge across disciplines and engages non-academic stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, communities) to solve complex, real-world problems Shift in Role: Scientists act as Knowledge Co-Creators, moving from isolated research to collaboration, co-designing solutions with stakeholders, aligning with the Honest Broker role by expanding policy options and integrating diverse forms of knowledge Might be lead to integrate more other ideas and contexts they hadn’t thought of Get out of their own bubble and realize the complexities of the field Shift from “pure science” to post normal science Get over the linear model Includes different academic disciplines; collaborations; researchers and also non-academical Happening a lot in urban contexts and labs 46  Task 7 -Transdisciplinary Collaboration Learning Outcome: Students apply theories and concepts of sustainability science, as well as social, ethical, and normative aspects, and the relationships between science and society to a transdisciplinary case study, synthesising the learnings from previous weeks. The pursuit of sustainability in complex fields like CCUS requires more than just the generation of knowledge; it demands a thoughtful integration of that knowledge into real-world applications Matson et al. emphasize that while knowledge is a fundamental asset for achieving sustainability to understand the dynamic of the SES, it often fails to be effectively utilized in real-world applications.This disconnect is primarily due to the challenges in making knowledge trustworthy in the eyes of those who need to use it. Lack of trust and credibility Popa et al. argue that sustainability research often involves complex, value-laden problems that require more than just interdisciplinary collaboration; they need transdisciplinary approaches that include scientific and non-scientific knowledge. They propose a pragmatist approach to reflexivity, which emphasizes collective problem framing, social learning, and joint experimentation Reed et al. outline 7 guiding principles designed to improve the practice of transdisciplinary research, particularly in intercultural and international contexts. They argue that by following these principles, researchers can better navigate the complexities of working across different knowledge systems and cultural contexts, ultimately contributing to more just and sustainable outcomes. Bergmann et al. discuss how Real-World Labs as a research framework can effectively contribute to scientific understanding and societal transformation, particularly in sustainability transitions. Concept Explanation References Saliency The relevance or importance of knowledge to Matson et al. the users' needs. Ensures that the information is (2016 practical and useful for the intended audience Credibility Perception of knowledge as true, reliable, and Matson et al. scientifically rigorous. It builds trust between (2016 knowledge producers and users. Legitimacy Fairness, impartiality, and lack of hidden Matson et al. 47  agendas in knowledge production, which (2016 ensures that information is perceived as unbiased. Collaborative Involves co-creation and engagement between Matson et al. enterprise knowledge producers and users, ensuring (2016 knowledge is jointly developed and practically applicable. system enterprise Recognizes the interconnected, multi-step Matson et al. nature of addressing complex problems, (2016 requiring ongoing adaptation and feedback. adaptive Flexible approaches that evolve with new Matson et al. enterprise information and circumstances, encouraging (2016 risk-taking and learning from failure Political Acknowledges the power dynamics in Matson et al. entreprise knowledge production and aims to ensure (2016) fairness and broad benefits Boundary work Managing interactions between diverse Matson et al. knowledge producers and users, balancing (2016 scientific independence with practical decision-making Transdisciplinary Collaboration that goes beyond academic Popa et al. (2015) disciplines, integrating knowledge from various Bergmann et stakeholders to address complex real-world al. (2021) issues Reflexivity The practice of questioning one's own Popa et al. (2015) assumptions, values, and biases in research, crucial for integrating scientific and societal knowledge. Pragmatist A practical, action-oriented method focusing on Popa et al. (2015 perspective real-world experimentation and collaboration to address sustainability issue Descriptive Focuses on understanding and analyzing existing Bergmann et analytical conditions without necessarily aiming for change al. (2021) orientation Transformative Aims to create actionable solutions that address Bergmann et orientation sustainability challenges, emphasizing long-term al. (2021) change 48 Complex systems Involves understanding how interconnected Popa et al. (2015 approach parts of a system (e.g., ecosystems, economies) interact and behave as a whole. Transformative Focuses on driving societal change through Bergmann et approach practical, action-oriented interventions, such as al. (2021) experiments in real-world labs Social role of Ensures democratic participation and social Popa et al. (2015 Stakeholder legitimacy, integrating diverse stakeholder Involvement perspectives to create relevant solutions. Epistemic Role of Enhances knowledge production by integrating Popa et al. (2015 Stakeholder different forms of expertise, fostering shared Involvement understanding and innovation Transition Framework for managing the shift towards Bergmann et management sustainable practices by integrating research, al. (2021) stakeholder engagement, and practical solutions. Extend peer Involves engaging a wider range of participants, Popa et al. (201 community including non-experts, in the knowledge production process to enhance social relevance and trust critical An approach that combines critical reflection Popa et al. (201 transformational with action transdisciplinary oriented strategies to address and solve sustainability issues Real-World Lab A Real-World Lab (RWL) is a transdisciplinary research approach where scientists, practitioners and stakeholders collaborate directly in real-world contexts to solve complex sustainability problems. These laboratories serve as platforms for experimentation, learning and co-creation to develop practical solutions adapted to local issues. 49 50 Study Questions 1. What is transdisciplinary research ? (Bergmann et al., 2021) Transdisciplinary research integrates knowledge from various disciplines and non-academic stakeholders (e.g., community members, policymakers) to address complex societal challenges. It moves beyond traditional academic boundaries to co-design research that produces practical solutions and advances scientific understanding. The goal is to achieve both societal and scientific progress by involving multiple perspectives 2. ​What is saliency, legitimacy, and credibility of knowledge? (Matson et al. 2016) Saliency: Refers to the relevance of knowledge to users' needs, emphasizing practical applications → is it relevant ? Legitimacy: Ensures knowledge is perceived as fair, unbiased, and respectful of stakeholders' values, fostering trust → is it fair/unbiased? Credibility: The perceived truthfulness and reliability of knowledge, often established through peer review and real-world demonstrations → is it true ? 3. What is the role of reflexivity in scientific research and what are the main aspects of reflexivity?(Popa et al., 2015) Reflexivity encourages researchers to critically assess their own values, assumptions, and the societal context of their work. It bridges the gap between scientific knowledge and social values, supporting an integrated approach to sustainability. The ability of any social actor to analyze his own activity, is understood as one of the essential drivers of modernity The self-awareness of research Reflecting on your research after you’ve done it ; forum where we tell about our past mistakes Main aspects include: Collaborative deliberation Framing research problems Social experimentation and learning Critical and transformational reflexivity 51  4. What are the characteristics of the complex systems approach and the transformational approach?(Popa et al., 2015) Complex Systems Approach: Focuses on system dynamics, resilience, and interactions within complex systems like ecosystems. It provides a broad understanding but may lack reflexivity.Can’t be resolved with normal linear science Transformational Approach: Integrates knowledge with action-oriented problem-solving to drive societal change. It is highly reflexive, engaging in critical reflection to address normative aspects and promote transformation. 5. What are the key characteristics of real-world labs and what are their success factors? (Bergmann et al., 2021) Real-world labs (RwLs) combine transformation and transformative research to address sustainability challenges. They emphasize experimentation, transdisciplinarity, long-term orientation, and reflexivity. Success factors include : Balancing scientific orientation, and reflexivity , engaging stakeholders, flexible experimentation, effective communication, collaboration culture, scalability, sufficient funding, adaptability, and reflection-based learning Discussion Questions 1. How do saliency, legitimacy, and credibility of knowledge play a role in transdisciplinary research and collaboration? (Matson et al.) Saliency, legitimacy, and credibility are essential for ensuring that knowledge is trusted and applied effectively. They are necessary conditions for transdisciplinary research Crucial for building trust between stakeholders Saliency ensures relevance to users' needs, making knowledge more likely to be utilized Credibility builds trust through scientific rigor or practical success, tailored to the context. Legitimacy fosters trust by ensuring transparency and fairness, preventing biases or hidden agendas Together, these factors enhance collaboration between knowledge producers and users, supporting practical application and effective outcomes in transdisciplinary research 52  2. Reflexivity can guide transdisciplinary research and collaboration, but it is difficult to realize. Why do you think this is the case? (Popa et al.) Poor Definition and Framework Integration Reflexivity is often vaguely defined in research frameworks, making it difficult to incorporate consistently and effectively into practices. Instead of driving profound social and scientific transformation, it is frequently used as a tool to legitimize results superficially. Challenges in Integrating Diverse Values and Knowledge Systems Collaborations in transdisciplinary settings bring together participants with varying worldviews, values, and knowledge systems. Differing interests and perspectives complicate the process, making it hard to achieve genuine reflexive engagement. Superficial Engagement Reflexivity is often underdeveloped, leading to symbolic or superficial attempts at reflection rather than deep, transformative practices. This limits the potential for reflexivity to challenge ingrained biases and foster innovative solutions. Barriers to reflexivity : Self auto evaluation : take time to reflect not easy Firms, laboratories, and institutions often struggle to admit their errors due to reputational risks or organizational culture. However, embracing mistakes and learning from them could lead to broader benefits for all stakeholders. Question core and value : Reflexivity requires individuals to step outside their own perspectives and critically examine their values, interests, and worldviews. Reflexivity involves recognizing and addressing power dynamics within collaborative processes. 53  3. What is, according to you, the biggest challenge for transdisciplinary when addressing sustainability problems? The biggest challenge is effectively integrating diverse forms of knowledge, balancing scientific rigor with societal relevance This involves navigating differ