No abstract

In this paper, we discuss how transdisciplinary development research (TDR), if approached in particular ways, can produce new knowledge and also foster deeper systemic changes in the knowledge system itself. We are concerned with systemic change that supports propoor sustainability transformations, and conceptualize the processes that contribute to this type of systemic change as "transformative space making" (TSM). Transdisciplinary development research as TSM can generate possibilities for the integration of diverse knowledges into decision making, while also creating new opportunities for subaltern knowledges to achieve greater influence, through enhancing the transformative agency of the poor. Thus, our conceptualization goes beyond the idea of TDR for the cocreation of solution-oriented knowledge and recognizes the need to address structural injustices in knowledge systems. In TDR as TSM, the development of strategies to reveal power relations and navigate the politics of structural injustices becomes as important as refining the principles for robust collaborative knowledge production. To demonstrate the operationalization of TDR as TSM, we draw insights from our long-term involvement in TDR case studies of emergent environmental and health challenges in periurban contexts in India. We identify mechanisms that build legitimacy of propoor knowledges, while simultaneously creating "readiness" to take advantage of opportunities for interventions to support change in policy and practice at multiple scales. We highlight the politics of alliance building both within and beyond the research team, arguing that attention to alliances is central to understanding the role of TDR in creating possibilities for transformative change. Finally, we argue that development research funding and commissioning agencies should pay attention to the mechanisms of TSM, alongside more recognized aspects of the planning, monitoring, and evaluation of TDR initiatives, in order to provide appropriate support for enhanced impact.

Realising the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require transformative changes at micro, meso and macro levels and across diverse geographies. Collaborative, transdisciplinary research has a role to play in documenting, understanding and contributing to such transformations. Previous work has investigated the role of this research in Europe and North America, however the dynamics of transdisciplinary research on ‘transformations to sustainability’ in other parts of the world are less well-understood. This paper reports on an international project that involved transdisciplinary research in six different hubs across the globe and was strategically designed to enable mutual learning and exchange. It draws on surveys, reports and research outputs to analyse the processes of transdisciplinary collaboration for sustainability that took place between 2015–2019. The paper illustrates how the project was structured in order to enable learning across disciplines, cultures and contexts and describes how it also provided for the negotiation of epistemological frameworks and different normative commitments between members across the network. To this end, it discusses lessons regarding the use of theoretical and methodological anchors, multi-loop learning and evaluating emergent change (including the difficulties encountered). It offers insights for the design and implementation of future international transdisciplinary collaborations that address locally-specific sustainability challenges within the universal framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

This study compared evidence from two low caste labouring communities in India: a relatively modernized urban group and a rural group in a backward region. It explored their levels of ill health, their capacities to respond to adult illness and the support they received. In each region, a baseline survey of approximately 1,000 households provided background quantitative evidence with qualitative evidence was collected from about 55 families. HIV infection and AIDS deaths were found to occur in the 'less poor' segments of the study group in both regions. In keeping with the official data, they formed a small proportion of the overall mortality and morbidity in this group. Stigma and discrimination were found to be low but fear of stigma was high, generated by the medical response to AIDS and used opportunistically for personal gains. The study provides insights into the structural determinants of health and coping mechanisms in these communities. The best conditions for a healthy life were found in the group that had a rooted community setting, collective political power, migrant economic support and improved working conditions--the less poor rural group. While improved economic status was associated with better health status, this relationship was stronger when combined with the presence of improved working conditions, with social cohesion at family and community levels and with political power as indicated by levels of organized collective representation and identity formation in workplace, local- and state-level politics. However, the traditional forms of social cohesion are under stress and new forms, moderated by commercial relations, are proving inadequate to meet major household shocks, like adult mortality.

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) promised eradication of polio by the year 2000 and certification of eradication by 2005. The first deadline is already a matter of history. With the reporting of polio cases in 2004, the new deadline for polio eradication by 2004 is postponed further. This article seeks to argue that the scientific and technical bodies spear-heading the GPEI, including the WHO, UNICEF, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, have formulated a conceptually flawed strategy and that it is not weak political will that is the central obstacle in this final push for global eradication. The validity of the claims of "near success" by the proponents of the GPEI is also examined in detail. By taking India as a case study, the authors examine the achievements of the GPEI in nine years of intense effort since 1995. They conclude that the GPEI is yet another exercise in mismanaging the health priorities and programs in developing countries in the era of globalization.