A Critical Realist Approach to Reflexivity in Sustainability Research

Abstract

In sustainability science, the research is expected to go beyond disciplinary thinking and incorporate different concepts, methods, and data to explore nature–society interactions at different levels and scales. In realizing these expectations, reflexivity is often noted as an influential factor in inter- and transdisciplinary research processes in sustainability science, wherein researchers reflect on their assumptions, judgments, roles, and positions in the research processes, rethink their ways of knowing and doing, and open up new possibilities for actions. Despite the growing literature on the notion of reflexivity in sustainability science and how it emerges during the research processes, the debates and discussions are often based on lessons learned from sustainability research projects, drawing on individuals’ experiences and motivations. This paper aims to grapple with the notion of reflexivity from a structural point of view, which is less discussed in sustainability research, by drawing on critical realist literature. The paper first presents how reflexivity is understood and analyzed in inter- and transdisciplinary research processes by reviewing the recent studies of reflexivity in sustainability science research. Second, it highlights the knowledge gaps and the need to engage with an alternative view on reflexivity offered by Margaret Archer, one of the leading critical realist scholars. Third, it takes Archer’s framework on reflexivity into sustainability research to explain the causal mechanisms impeding the emergence of meta-reflexivity in the process of knowledge integration and production in contemporary marketized and managerialized universities. Finally, the paper argues that in establishing practices (modus vivendi) that could address the structural barriers (not observable challenges), we need collective agency. To this end, it discusses different collective initiatives and courses of action that could lead to the emergence of collective agency, capable of tackling the cultural and material barriers to reflexivity.

Reflexivity as a transformative capacity for sustainability science: Introducing a critical systems approach

“…For example, scientists trained in more positivist disciplines may view their role in knowledge integration (see section 3.2) as benign, but by ignoring the role of power they may reinforce their own more dominant perspectives as neutral and objective while casting marginalized -and potentially more transformative -perspectives as political or subjective (Turnhout 2018;Turnhout et al 2020). The power asymmetries between researchers and participants are just as important (Popa et al 2015;Fortuin and van Koppen 2016;Fazey et al 2018;Nastar 2023). For example, interactions across wide onto-epistemological or cultural gaps (e.g., between western trained scientists and Indigenous knowledge holders) requires skillful navigation to avoid reinforcing existing historical power asymmetries (Berger-González et al 2016;McIntyre et al 2023), and researchers can block meaningful collaboration if they are not aware of the degree of difference across knowledge types (Fortuin and van Koppen 2016).…”

“…In other words, decentring dominant boundaries can "enable a level of discernment in the use of different ontological and epistemological perspectives, as opposed to defaulting to the loudest perspective" (McIntyre et al 2023). Such spaces also allow for concepts and methods for experimentation and imagination in service of transformation, and diverse approaches have been tested such as, for instance, real-world or T-lab methods (Schäpke et al 2018;Bergmann et al 2021;Huning et al 2021) experimental futures methods, art-based approaches, and ethics of care (Vervoort et al 2015;Galafassi et al 2018;Pereira et al 2018a;Nastar 2023). This process of 'opening up' is entangled with boundary delineation (section 3.1), wherein researchers have situated the boundaries of their own individual frame relative to others and can negotiate their own contributions accordingly (e.g., to step back and decentre their own perspective, or step forward and offer a novel view).…”

“…Consequently, the mutual or transformative learning of researchers and participants is considered a crucial outcome of TD research, and is also one of the primary motives for reflexivity (Jahn et al 2012;Mitchell et al 2015;Polk 2015;Hubeau et al 2018;Bornemann and Christen 2020;van der Bijl-Brouwer et al 2021;Nastar 2023). This form of learning occurs through collective sensemaking and experimentation, in which participants have been exposed to pluralism and difference and, through self-reflexivity and just the right amount of cognitive dissonance, come away with a new perspective.…”

Grundlegende Fragen an eine quantitativ-empirische Erfassung von Meta-Reflexivität

“…Schüler:innen, die sich meta-reflexiv zu Online-Lernumgebungen äußern, zeigen eine größere Sensibilität gegenüber deren Chancen und Grenzen sowie Konsequenzen für das soziale Gefüge im Abwägen von Alternativen (Kahn et al, 2017). Meta-Reflexivität sei weiterhin für ein sozial-und umweltbezogen verantwortliches Verhalten relevant (Golob & Makarovič, 2022) und ist Gegenstand von Nachhaltigkeitsforschung (Nastar, 2023). So argumentieren etwa Davidson und Stedman (2018), Meta-Reflexivität stünde im Zusammenhang mit der Bereitschaft zu klimaschutzkonformem Verhalten.…”