Resilience scientists as change-makers—Growing the middle ground between science and advocacy?

Milkoreit, Manjana; Moore, Michele Lee; Schoon, Michael; Meek, Chanda L.

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.08.003

Cited by 57 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We argue this is a distinguishing feature of the co-created outcomes of transformative spaces, that they are immediately socially relevant, and neither impersonal, nor apolitical. We consider researchers such as ourselves not just to be distant observers of transformation, but in fact to have considerable agency in catalysing or creating conditions for transformation (Milkoreit et al 2015). In other words, we can help create or support the seeds for transformation when these seeds are weak or completely lacking.…”

Section: Key Lessons Relating To Research In Transformative Spacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The complex social-ecological challenges facing the planet have resulted in an increased focus on the co-creation and co-production of knowledge or, transdisciplinarity (Pohl et al 2010;Lemos et al 2018). In part, these approaches are a reaction to the challenges of fast changing complex systems, but the result is that the role of the researcher solely as a provider of knowledge becomes increasingly blurred (Milkoreit et al 2015;Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014). While researchers arguably have always been more than only knowledge providers, the interest of research in the application of that knowledge, and in the outcomes and impacts that arise from spaces facilitated by researchers-like stronger networks, actionable plans and policy interventions-is a more recent phenomenon (see for e.g., Frantzeskaki et al 2014;Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014;Luederitz et al 2017;Schäpke et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Creating a just and sustainable planet will require not only small changes, but also systemic transformations in how humans relate to the planet and to each other, i.e., social-ecological transformations. We suggest there is a need for collaborative environments where experimentation with new configurations of social-ecological systems can occur, and we refer to these as transformative spaces. In this paper, we seek a better understanding of how to design and enable the creation of transformative spaces in a development context. We analyse nine case studies from a previous special issue on Designing Transformative Spaces that aimed to collect examples of cutting-edge action-oriented research on transformations from the Global South. The analysis showed five design phases as being essential: Problem Definition Phase; Operationalisation Phase; Tactical Phase; Outcome Phase; and Reflection Phase. From this synthesis, we distilled five key messages that should be considered when designing research, including: (a) there are ethical dilemmas associated with creating a transformative space in a system; (b) it is important to assess the readiness of the system for change before engaging in it; (c) there is a need to balance between 'safe' and 'safe-enough' spaces for transformation; (d) convening a transformative space requires an assemblage of diverse methodological frameworks and tools; and (e) transformative spaces can act as a starting point for institutionalising transformative change. Many researchers are now engaging in transdisciplinary transformations research, and are finding themselves at the knowledge-action interface contributing to transformative space-making. We hope that by analysing experiences from across different geographies we can contribute towards better understanding of how to navigate the processes needed for the urgent global transformations that are being called for to create a more equitable and sustainable planet Earth.

show abstract

Section: Key Lessons Relating To Research In Transformative Spacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although professionalism is a key element in all three spheres, their actors' motives differ. Scholars who study circular economy are often connected to businesses and policy-making through joint research projects or in their role as outside experts in policy hearings [41], but equally well scientists can work on their own and according to problem formulations unique to their sphere. Industry organisations often have a role in mediating between policy-makers and scientists or using academic knowledge when communicating to policy arena(s).…”

Section: Circular Economy Concept Across Institutional Spheresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Circular Economy in the Triple Helix of Innovation Systems

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Triple Helix concept of innovation systems holds that consensus space among industry, government and university is required to bring together their competences to achieve enhanced economic and social development on a systemic scale. In line with this argument, this article analyses empirically how the concept of circular economy is conceived in the institutional spheres of "industry", "government" and "university". Innovation systems are constantly being reconstructed through knowledge production and communication, which is reflected in how concepts develop in the different spheres. By applying natural language processing tools to key contributions from each of the three spheres (the "Triple Helix"), it is shown that, although institutional backgrounds do contribute to differing conceptualizations of circular economy, there is a substantial but limited conceptual consensus space, which, according to the Triple Helix, should open new opportunities for innovations. The consensus space shared across the three spheres focuses on materials and products and sees circular economy as a way to create new resources, businesses and products from waste. The industry sphere highlights business opportunities on global scale, which are also evident in the government sphere. The government sphere connects circular economy to waste-related innovation policies targeted at industrial renewal, economic growth, investments and jobs. The university sphere, in turn, focuses on production and environmental issues, waste and knowledge, and is rather distinct from the two other spheres. The importance of the differing conceptions of circular economy is based on the logic of Triple Helix systems. Accordingly, sufficient consensus between the Triple Helix spheres can advance the application of the concept of circular economy beyond the individual spheres to achieve systemic changes.

show abstract

“…A key component of sustainability science is to collaborate with actors outside of academia to codesign and codevelop an understanding of the challenges and their corresponding solutions (2, 3). Local and regional examples illustrate how sustainability scientists have engaged with society as change agents (4, 5) and the challenges associated with such engagement (3,4,6,7). In this context, however, there has been limited attention devoted to large-scale private actors (8).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergence of a global science–business initiative for ocean stewardship

Österblom

Jouffray

Folke

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ocean represents a fundamental source of micronutrients and protein for a growing world population. Seafood is a highly traded and sought after commodity on international markets, and is critically dependent on healthy marine ecosystems. A global trend of wild stocks being overfished and in decline, as well as multiple sustainability challenges associated with a rapid growth of aquaculture, represent key concerns in relation to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Existing efforts aimed to improve the sustainability of seafood production have generated important progress, primarily at the local and national levels, but have yet to effectively address the global challenges associated with the ocean. This study highlights the importance of transnational corporations in enabling transformative change, and thereby contributes to advancing the limited understanding of large-scale private actors within the sustainability science literature. We describe how we engaged with large seafood producers to coproduce a global science-business initiative for ocean stewardship. We suggest that this initiative is improving the prospects for transformative change by providing novel links between science and business, between wild-capture fisheries and aquaculture, and across geographical space. We argue that scientists can play an important role in facilitating change by connecting knowledge to action among global actors, while recognizing risks associated with such engagement. The methods developed through this case study contribute to identifying key competences in sustainability science and hold promises for other sectors as well.coproduction | governance | learning | resilience | transformation S ustainability science is becoming a mainstream scientific approach for understanding and addressing the global and interconnected challenges currently facing humanity (1, 2). A key component of sustainability science is to collaborate with actors outside of academia to codesign and codevelop an understanding of the challenges and their corresponding solutions (2, 3). Local and regional examples illustrate how sustainability scientists have engaged with society as change agents (4, 5) and the challenges associated with such engagement (3,4,6,7). In this context, however, there has been limited attention devoted to large-scale private actors (8). Existing studies primarily focus on how major brands invest in-and benefit from-sustainability initiatives (9), or analyze how and when voluntary commitments to sustainability may influence corporate behavior (10, 11). Little is known about how scientists can engage with corporations and how knowledge can be transferred from science to action by the private sector.In the following, we present our experience from a coproduction process with large transnational seafood corporations, aimed at stimulating transformative change in the seafood industry, and the subsequent emergence of a global initiative for ocean stewardship. Here, ocean stewardship is viewed as an adaptive and lear...

show abstract

Resilience scientists as change-makers—Growing the middle ground between science and advocacy?

Cited by 57 publications

References 29 publications

Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South

Transformative spaces in the making: key lessons from nine cases in the Global South

Circular Economy in the Triple Helix of Innovation Systems

Emergence of a global science–business initiative for ocean stewardship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About