Theoretical and Methodological Pluralism in Sustainability Science

Abstract

Sustainability science is an integrative scientific field embracing not only complementary but also contradictory approaches and perspectives for dealing with an array of sustainability challenges. In this chapter we distinguish between pluralism and unification as two main and distinctly different approaches to knowledge integration in sustainability science. To avoid environmental determinism, functionalism, or overly firm reliance on rational choice theory, we have reason to promote pluralism as a way to better tackle sustainability challenges. In particular we emphasise two main benefits of taking a pluralist approach in research: it opens up for collaboration, and ensures a more theoretically informed understanding of society. After a brief introduction to how we interpret the field of sustainability science, we discuss ontology, epistemology and ways of understanding society based on social science theory. We make three contributions. First, we identify important reasons for the incommensurability between the social and natural sciences, and propose remedies for how to overcome some of the difficulties in integrative research. Second, by suggesting a frame that we call 'social fields and natural systems' we show how sustainability science will benefit from drawing more profoundly on-and thus more adequately incorporate-a social science understanding of society. As such, the frame is a foundation for pluralism. Third, by suggesting a new theoretical typology, we show how sustainability visions and pathways are associated with particular theoretical and methodological perspectives in geography, political science, and sociology; and how that matters for research and politics addressing sustainability challenges. The typology can be used as a thinking tool to frame and reframe research.

An exploration of the influence of problem wickedness on project pluralism in sustainability science

“…In fact, there has been a recent burst of publications on the methodological issues and challenges of sustainability science (Poteete et al 2010;Spangenberg 2011;Caniglia et al 2017;von Wehrden et al 2017;Preiser et al 2018;Caniglia et al 2020;Jerneck and Olsson 2020;Biggs et al 2022). Researchers have emphasised the wealth of methods that may be useful in tackling wicked problems and stressed the value of methodological pluralism, i.e.…”

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

“…Finally, weaving boundaries is the process of linking plural frames into a collective frame. TD sustainability science embraces theoretical and methodological pluralism, which is often synthesized through knowledge integration (Jerneck and Olsson 2020;Biggs et al 2022). Knowledge integration can be broadly defined as "a cognitive operation that establishes a novel, hitherto non-existent connection between distinct entities of a given context" (Jahn et al 2012, p. 3).…”

“…The term reflexivity has evolved in various disciplines, such as in health and social sciences, which demands researchers to "turn a critical gaze back on themselves" (Finlay 2003, p. 3) to articulate and situate their own subjectivities in relation to their research (Holland, 1999;Knaggård et al, 2018;Salzman, 2002;Stirling, 2006). In the context of TD sustainability science, reflexivity refers to scrutiny of how different cognitive, perceptual, theoretical, cultural, or political orientations influence the interpretations of individuals (Fazey et al 2018), highlighting both the theoretical and methodological pluralism of TD researchers and the diverse onto-epistemological frames of other actors involved in knowledge coproduction, such as Indigenous and local knowledge practitioners (Jerneck & Olsson, 2020;Preiser et al, 2021;Tengö et al, 2014). Critical exploration of these differences in perspective is meant to open-up epistemic and solution spaces within TD research that meaningfully challenge the status quo while elevating marginalized perspectives in service of transformation.…”

Perspectivas em aplicações da teoria dos campos estratégicos para a sustentabilidade: o caso da comunidade acadêmica brasileira

“…Outro destaque é que, enfatizando a agência não necessariamente subordinada à racionalidade e à otimização de lucros ou alocação de recursos pelos agentes econômicos, o arcabouço teórico-analítico de Fligstein e McAdam se converte em ideal para a elaboração de estratégias para a sustentabilidade (Ruggerio, 2021, p. 4-9). Também abarca políticas socioambientais, programas e arranjos de impacto e inovação social, além de outras iniciativas profícuas aos desenvolvimentos sustentáveis (Ruggerio, 2021, p. 2-4) local e global (Jerneck;Olsson, 2020, p. 25-27).…”