Changing the intellectual climate

Abstract

Calls for more broad-based, integrated, useful knowledge now abound in the world of global environmental change science. They evidence many scientists’ desire to help humanity confront the momentous biophysical implications of its own actions. But they also reveal a limited conception of social science and virtually ignore the humanities. They thereby endorse a stunted conception of ‘human dimensions’ at a time when the challenges posed by global environmental change are increasing in magnitude, scale and scope. Here, we make the case for a richer conception predicated on broader intellectual engagement and identify some preconditions for its practical fulfilment. Interdisciplinary dialogue, we suggest, should engender plural representations of Earth’s present and future that are reflective of divergent human values and aspirations. In turn, this might insure publics and decision-makers against overly narrow conceptions of what is possible and desirable as they consider the profound questions raised by global environmental change

Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative

“…This point is especially important given the imbalance of power still present in transdisciplinary environmental science, particularly regarding climate change (Castree et al, 2014). Calls for useful and integrative knowledge in global change research have coincided with narrow conceptions of social science and poor inclusion of the humanities and stakeholders (Lahsen, 2010;Turnhout et al, 2012;Barnes, 2013;Castree et al, 2014;Carey et al, 2014;Beck et al, 2014).…”

“…Calls for useful and integrative knowledge in global change research have coincided with narrow conceptions of social science and poor inclusion of the humanities and stakeholders (Lahsen, 2010;Turnhout et al, 2012;Barnes, 2013;Castree et al, 2014;Carey et al, 2014;Beck et al, 2014). Making transdisciplinarity work is not only about getting the team and object of concern 'right', but also about attending to how knowledge and power are often unequally available, differentially composed, and fundamental to developing alternative pathways of understanding and response.…”

“…By way of example, consider efforts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to integrate knowledge, which is driven by a concern for homogeneity, simulation, and prediction (Goeminne, 2012), and hence the overwhelming focus on greenhouse gas mitigation, global circulation models, and forecasting impacts (Castree et al, 2014;Demeritt, 2001;Swyngedouw, 2010;Edwards, 2010). The IPCC is composed of alliances, competition, and conflict-as the so-called 'climategate' controversy so clearly illustrated (Goeminne, 2013)-and the process of laying claim to objectivity is relational and structured by processes of inclusion and exclusion, differentiating between what is taken into account and what is not (Goeminne, 2012).…”

“…Next, we critique this assumption by drawing upon social constructivist and political theories that examine the 'messy' politics of achieving consensus among radically different, and sometimes irreconcilable, ways of knowing. We argue that the integration imperative conceals the friction, antagonism, and power inherent in knowledge co-production, which in turn can exclude innovative and experimental ways of understanding and adapting to climate change (see also Castree et al, 2014). By way of conclusion, the final section explores three alternative models of knowledge co-production-triangulation, the multiple evidence based approach, and scenario building-and illustrate their potential use and implications for transdisciplinary environmental science.…”

Reductionist and integrative research approaches to complex water security policy challenges

“…The main concern is that the allure of the 'reductionist' approach in policy-circles can lead to the premature closure of useful options that might otherwise be opened by the 'integrative' approach, in much the same way that some physical climate science circles ignore the contributions of social climate science (see Castree et al, 2014). This analysis has shown that the reductionist approach is problematic because a) at least some of it is insufficiently grounded to justify the support it provides to large investment plans, b) the uncertainties that are veiled by some of these approaches are the very ones that can render resultant policy recommendations ineffective, and c) downplaying of social distributional issues and power asymmetries will tend to favour the wealthy and powerful over the marginalised.…”