Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative

Abstract

Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page. AbstractIn this article we critically examine the 'integration imperative' in transdisciplinary environmental science and build on social constructivist and political theories to suggest alternative approaches of knowledge co-production in transdisciplinary settings. Our argument builds upon a body of literature in social studies of science to cull insights about knowledge co-production, social learning, and the ecology of team science, particularly as it relates to climate change adaptation. Couched in this transdisciplinary literature, we demonstrate, is the assumption that integration necessarily can and should be a regulative ideal. We critique this assumption by examining 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. 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 illustrates their application in the context of transdisciplinary research in climate change adaptation in the arctic, focusing on alternative means of cross-boundary engagement with indigenous ways of knowing.

Thinking complex interconnections: Transition, nexus and Geography

“…Here I follow Barry et al (, p. 28) for whom interdisciplinarity denotes a spectrum from multidisciplinarity – cooperation of disciplines whose framings remain largely intact – to transdisciplinarity. The latter term captures a type of reflexive and integrative knowledge production that is oriented at application and addressing societal and environmental problems and involves non‐academic stakeholders as active participants (Klenk & Meehan, ; Osborne, ). It can be top‐down and enabled by supranational organisations, or emerge through bottom‐up modes of organisation that are rooted in particular localities.…”

Stakeholder Engagement in the Making: IPBES Legitimization Politics

“…In this perspective, broader and more balanced participation is often assumed to lend greater neutrality, and thus legitimacy, to the end-product of the assessment. These procedural approaches, however, underestimate the extent to which, in a variety of global assessments, knowledge and power can be unequally available and differentially composed (Klenk and Meehan 2015). Power imbalances, biased representation, and the lack of access and capacities are challenges faced not only by IPBES but also by IPCC and Future Earth (van der Hel 2016).…”

“…While there was relatively broad support for the participation of stakeholders in general, implementing it became a matter of justifying who should participate, for what purpose, and with what corresponding rights. Whereas expert organizations such as the IPCC claim to be neutral and are reluctant to openly deal with the politics underlying their activities, 2 IPBES "got its hands dirty," and put "messy" political questions such as participation and representation on the agenda of its intergovernmental negotiations (Klenk and Meehan 2015). Furthermore, the IPBES also faced the challenge of coping with a plurality of stakeholders, all of them defending their own particular claims for engagement; the spectrum ranged from representatives of United Nations organizations, multilateral environmental agreements, and the scientific community, to stakeholders from indigenous organizations and private organizations.…”

The cadence of climate: Heritage proxies and social change

“…explored within indigenous knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge frameworks (Bhasker et al, 2010;Hulme, 2010;Klenk and Meehan, 2015;Lynch et al, 2008;Murphy, 2011).…”