Beyond “linking knowledge and action”: towards a practice-based approach to transdisciplinary sustainability interventions

Abstract

The imperative to "link knowledge and action" is widely invoked as a defining characteristic of sustainability research. The complexities of sustainability challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss mean that linear models of knowledge and action, where knowledge is produced first (by researchers) then "applied to" action (by policy actors), are considered insufficient. Researchers have developed more dynamic, open-ended and collaborative forms of policy engagement such as transdisciplinary and coproduction research. Although promising these approaches often remain captive to linear assumptions that hinder their transformative potential. We contribute by providing a relational model of knowledge and action rooted in contemporary practice theory. A practice-based approach suggests the primary task of participants in transdisciplinary interventions is to find workable solutions to situations of dynamic complexity that are fundamentally indeterminate and unpredictable. Knowledge is not "applied to" action, but drawn upon, produced and used from within the situation at hand, allowing researchers and policy actors alike to better harness the emergent character of situational developments and outcomes. A practice-based approach provides a conceptual language that captures the experienced complexities of intervening for sustainability, reconfigures the nature of "actionable knowledge," and identifies appropriate modes of evaluation for transdisciplinary and co-produced research.

A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations

“…Sustainability scientists are therefore increasingly engaging with research associated with the 'relational turn' in the humanities and social sciences, as a means of revising substantialist assumptions and better capturing the complexity of human-nature connectedness (Darnhofer et al 2016;Gillard et al 2016;Stenseke 2018;West et al 2018West et al , 2019bLejano 2019;Hertz et al 2020;Darnhofer 2020;Walsh et al 2020;Mancilla Garcia et al 2020a, 2020b. The relational turn does not refer to a single, unified approach, but rather describes a broad shift in scholarship across multiple disciplines, encompassing many distinct commitments, theories and ideas (e.g.…”

On the other end of research: exploring community-level knowledge exchanges in small-scale fisheries in Zanzibar

“…This is based on the normative assumption that research should have impact in society. Sustainability science has even been described as "fundamentally interventionist" (van Kerkhoff and Pilbeam 2017) as it has adopted more action-oriented approaches to enhance the role of science in decisionmaking (Clark et al 2016;West et al 2019). Scientists are increasingly participating in activities beyond knowledge production such as multi-way interactions and knowledge co-production with decision makers and other beneficiaries of science (Fazey et al 2013;Lemos et al 2018;Singh et al 2014).…”

“…Proposed strategies for successful KE thus include engagement of stakeholders from early stages of research process, using third parties such as boundary organisations and knowledge brokers, and long-term knowledge management-often referred to as co-production of knowledge or participatory research (e.g. Cook et al 2013;Cvitanovic et al 2016;Phillipson et al 2012;Reed et al 2014;West et al 2019). Guidelines to help researchers navigate the knowledge-action landscape and KE in environmental management are emerging (Nguyen et al 2017;Reed et al 2014).…”

New Science Institutions for Global Sustainability

“…A driving factor behind the development of science for sustainability is the objective to make science more responsive to complex, urgent and contested sustainability challenges. Recent contributions draw attention to the transformative aim of science for sustainability (Blythe et al, 2018;Fazey et al, 2018;Schneidewind, Singer-Brodowski, Augenstein, & Stelzer, 2016;West, van Kerkhoff, & Wagenaar, 2019). That is, science for sustainability can and should initiate and catalyse systemic societal change towards sustainability (Schneidewind et al, 2016).…”

“…This transformative aim of science for sustainability makes that matters of fact become inseparable from matters of concern (Latour, 2004;Schmieg et al, 2017;van Poeck, Goeminne, & Vandenabeele, 2016). Science for sustainability is directly concerned with action and interventions for sustainability transformations, moving beyond a linear idea of scientific knowledge informing decision-making and rather attending to the co-production of knowledge and societal change (Norström et al, 2020;West et al, 2019;Wyborn et al, 2019). If ever it was possible to separate facts from values or truth from power, this distinction is increasingly found unhelpful in addressing urgent, complex and contested sustainability challenges (Kläy et al, 2015;Lahn, 2018;T.…”