This InfoResources Focus tries to clarify challenges people face when shaping institutions for su... more This InfoResources Focus tries to clarify challenges people face when shaping institutions for sustainable NRM and discusses key elements for implementing processes of institutional change. Emphasis is put on local institutions embedded in national, regional and global institutional schemes.
Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Innovationsprozessen kann neue, zusatzliche Ansatzpunkte fur das B... more Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Innovationsprozessen kann neue, zusatzliche Ansatzpunkte fur das Begrenzen von Schaden und fur die nachhaltige Entwicklung generieren. Der Beitrag soll aufzeigen, weshalb ein neues Verstandnis und eine Neuausrichtung im Umgang mit Innovation und deren Forderung notwendig sind.
Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful i... more Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jager 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.
Adaptiveness and Reflexivity: We invite papers that address how societies can navigate change tow... more Adaptiveness and Reflexivity: We invite papers that address how societies can navigate change towards global sustainability in an adaptive and reflexive way and what are the opportunities, barriers and trade-offs. Core questions include: How can adaptiveness and reflexivity as qualities of earth system governance be assessed and compared? What kind of governance attributes (e.g. polycentricity or centralization, flexibility or stability) are best suited to cultivating adaptiveness and reflexivity? Which factors enhance or hinder adaptiveness and reflexivity in diverse cultural and economic contexts? Do socio-environmental conflicts and social movements favor or halt adaptiveness and reflexivity?
Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful i... more Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.
Diversity of views and value systems represented in the IAASTD AKST is not an entity; it is a div... more Diversity of views and value systems represented in the IAASTD AKST is not an entity; it is a diverse field of knowledge and values. Achieving development and sustainability goals requires probing and experimentation, negotiation, and learning among diverse voices and interpretations, as well Table 1-1. Differences between a review and an assessment. Scientific Reviews Assessment Audience Undertaken for scientists Undertaken for decision-makers from a specified authorizing environment Conducted by One or a few scientists A larger and varied group based on relevant geographic and disciplinary representation Issues/Topics Often deal with a single topic Generally a broader and complex issue Identifies gaps in Research issues generally driven by scientific curiosity Knowledge for implementation of outcomes; problem-driven Uncertainty statements Not always required Essential Judgment Hidden; a more objective analysis Required and clearly flagged Synthesis Not required, but sometimes important Essential to reduce complexity Coverage Exhaustive, historical Sufficient to deal with main range of uncertainty associated with the identified issues Source: Watson and Gitay, 2004.
Resumen del trabajo presentado en la XVI Triple Helix Conference, celebrada en Manchester (Inglat... more Resumen del trabajo presentado en la XVI Triple Helix Conference, celebrada en Manchester (Inglaterra) del 05 al 08 de septiembre de 2018.Around four decades ago, David Collingridge put forward a dilemma that has been widely adoptedamongst the technology assessment (TA), and later, responsible research and innovation (RRI) communities. The so-called Collingridge dilemma has permeated discussions on the governance of science, technology and innovation, enclosing an enormous challenge: that of anticipating their potential consequences and controlling emerging technologies. In this paper, we outline and reflect on some of the key challenges that influence the development and uptake of more inclusive and responsible forms of science, technology and innovation. Our analysis draws on a large body of empirical and theoretical research done by the different authors to reflect on challenges emerging from the complex and diverse organisational characteristics of universities, the enactment of responsibility in the private sector, the emergence of bottom-up, grassroots innovation and the hidden dimensions of sustainability, equity and transdisciplinarity. Taking these together, we paraphrase Collingridge¿s famous dilemma of social control of technology to introduce a complementary dilemma which might be useful in the study of RRI, that of `societal alignment¿ in science, technology and innovation. The dilemma of social alignment differs from that of control in at least five dimensions: a) the epistemic communities involved, b) governance mechanisms, c) `nature¿ of the problem, d) backward or forward looking focus and e) scale and scope of sociotechnical systems. By starting to unpack this concept, we outline an agenda that remains scattered and overlooked among some communities in the field of the governance of research and innovation
This contribution illustrates aspects of gender and development research in the Swiss National Ce... more This contribution illustrates aspects of gender and development research in the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South programme, asking whether the often diagnosed ‘gender ennui’ has also affected this research network. Based on an overview of gender-considerate research in the programme, the article suggests how the innovative analytical potential of gender concepts in development research can best be explored. The authors follow a classic constructivist definition of gender, adopting it as a powerful corrective to naturalised explanations about social realities. They argue that the claim for gender equality, however, has to be grounded in a detailed understanding of a given society’s social organisation so as to reflect on the cultural framing of gender and on its intersection with other, equally fragile categories such as class, age, or ethnicity. While many of the NCCR North-South contributions examined for this article employ gender as an analytical...
World leaders at the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in New York have reconfir... more World leaders at the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in New York have reconfirmed the relevance of sustainability as the guiding paradigm in countering the development and climate crisis of the Anthropocene. Recent decades however, have been characterized by confusion, contestations, and arbitrariness in defining the nature and pathways of sustainable development. Humanity must urgently find ways to unlock the potential of the sustainability paradigm and organize a sustainability transformation. An emerging sustainability science community has already established considerable consensus on essential features of transformative science and research. Sustainability scholars are providing growing evidence that an emancipatory and democratic construction of sustainable development and more equitable, deliberative, and democratized knowledge generation are pivotal in tackling sustainability challenges. These findings are further underpinned by experiences gained in the Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1999-2015)-a rare case of a long-term, transnational, and transdisciplinary research endeavour already completed. The programme fulfilled the dual role which is compulsory in transformative research: It generated contextualized knowledge and innovation at the science-society interface while simultaneously securing meaningful participation and Southern agency in a co-evolutionary process. This paper offers insight into the programme's adaptive structure and implementation processes, which fostered deliberation, capacity development, and joint programme navigation benchmarked against local needs and broader sustainability demands. The ESAPP experience confirms that, if taken as the overarching frame of reference for all actors involved, the sustainability paradigm unfolds its integrative and transformative power. It enables sustainability-oriented actors from all scientific and practical fields to seek consilience between differing development and innovation paradigms and synchronize their development agendas and research frameworks on behalf of societal co-production of knowledge and innovation. Accordingly, the sustainability paradigm has the power to guide development and innovation policy, and practice out of the current confusion and ineffectiveness.
Sustainable development is an emancipatory concept entitling all members of human society to both... more Sustainable development is an emancipatory concept entitling all members of human society to both a just share of resources and an equal voice in organizing a sustainability transformation. A strategic goal framed by UNESCO (2005) is the development of knowledge societies by means of more democratized knowledge and knowledge production for equal self-representation, and self-determination in decisionmaking processes. Yet, despite its failure, the previous paradigm of growth is persisting due to its institutional strength and the sustainability paradigm’s apparent failure to establish itself as a robust alternative. The global community is struggling to organize more equitable, just, and inclusive development. In light of this, key question of the present paper is how the scientific community can best organize research to operationalize the democratization of knowledge and knowledge generation. In accordance with sustainable development’s experimental nature, we need to embrace diver...
This InfoResources Focus tries to clarify challenges people face when shaping institutions for su... more This InfoResources Focus tries to clarify challenges people face when shaping institutions for sustainable NRM and discusses key elements for implementing processes of institutional change. Emphasis is put on local institutions embedded in national, regional and global institutional schemes.
Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Innovationsprozessen kann neue, zusatzliche Ansatzpunkte fur das B... more Die Auseinandersetzung mit den Innovationsprozessen kann neue, zusatzliche Ansatzpunkte fur das Begrenzen von Schaden und fur die nachhaltige Entwicklung generieren. Der Beitrag soll aufzeigen, weshalb ein neues Verstandnis und eine Neuausrichtung im Umgang mit Innovation und deren Forderung notwendig sind.
Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful i... more Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jager 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.
Adaptiveness and Reflexivity: We invite papers that address how societies can navigate change tow... more Adaptiveness and Reflexivity: We invite papers that address how societies can navigate change towards global sustainability in an adaptive and reflexive way and what are the opportunities, barriers and trade-offs. Core questions include: How can adaptiveness and reflexivity as qualities of earth system governance be assessed and compared? What kind of governance attributes (e.g. polycentricity or centralization, flexibility or stability) are best suited to cultivating adaptiveness and reflexivity? Which factors enhance or hinder adaptiveness and reflexivity in diverse cultural and economic contexts? Do socio-environmental conflicts and social movements favor or halt adaptiveness and reflexivity?
Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful i... more Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.
Diversity of views and value systems represented in the IAASTD AKST is not an entity; it is a div... more Diversity of views and value systems represented in the IAASTD AKST is not an entity; it is a diverse field of knowledge and values. Achieving development and sustainability goals requires probing and experimentation, negotiation, and learning among diverse voices and interpretations, as well Table 1-1. Differences between a review and an assessment. Scientific Reviews Assessment Audience Undertaken for scientists Undertaken for decision-makers from a specified authorizing environment Conducted by One or a few scientists A larger and varied group based on relevant geographic and disciplinary representation Issues/Topics Often deal with a single topic Generally a broader and complex issue Identifies gaps in Research issues generally driven by scientific curiosity Knowledge for implementation of outcomes; problem-driven Uncertainty statements Not always required Essential Judgment Hidden; a more objective analysis Required and clearly flagged Synthesis Not required, but sometimes important Essential to reduce complexity Coverage Exhaustive, historical Sufficient to deal with main range of uncertainty associated with the identified issues Source: Watson and Gitay, 2004.
Resumen del trabajo presentado en la XVI Triple Helix Conference, celebrada en Manchester (Inglat... more Resumen del trabajo presentado en la XVI Triple Helix Conference, celebrada en Manchester (Inglaterra) del 05 al 08 de septiembre de 2018.Around four decades ago, David Collingridge put forward a dilemma that has been widely adoptedamongst the technology assessment (TA), and later, responsible research and innovation (RRI) communities. The so-called Collingridge dilemma has permeated discussions on the governance of science, technology and innovation, enclosing an enormous challenge: that of anticipating their potential consequences and controlling emerging technologies. In this paper, we outline and reflect on some of the key challenges that influence the development and uptake of more inclusive and responsible forms of science, technology and innovation. Our analysis draws on a large body of empirical and theoretical research done by the different authors to reflect on challenges emerging from the complex and diverse organisational characteristics of universities, the enactment of responsibility in the private sector, the emergence of bottom-up, grassroots innovation and the hidden dimensions of sustainability, equity and transdisciplinarity. Taking these together, we paraphrase Collingridge¿s famous dilemma of social control of technology to introduce a complementary dilemma which might be useful in the study of RRI, that of `societal alignment¿ in science, technology and innovation. The dilemma of social alignment differs from that of control in at least five dimensions: a) the epistemic communities involved, b) governance mechanisms, c) `nature¿ of the problem, d) backward or forward looking focus and e) scale and scope of sociotechnical systems. By starting to unpack this concept, we outline an agenda that remains scattered and overlooked among some communities in the field of the governance of research and innovation
This contribution illustrates aspects of gender and development research in the Swiss National Ce... more This contribution illustrates aspects of gender and development research in the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South programme, asking whether the often diagnosed ‘gender ennui’ has also affected this research network. Based on an overview of gender-considerate research in the programme, the article suggests how the innovative analytical potential of gender concepts in development research can best be explored. The authors follow a classic constructivist definition of gender, adopting it as a powerful corrective to naturalised explanations about social realities. They argue that the claim for gender equality, however, has to be grounded in a detailed understanding of a given society’s social organisation so as to reflect on the cultural framing of gender and on its intersection with other, equally fragile categories such as class, age, or ethnicity. While many of the NCCR North-South contributions examined for this article employ gender as an analytical...
World leaders at the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in New York have reconfir... more World leaders at the 2015 United Nations Sustainable Development Summit in New York have reconfirmed the relevance of sustainability as the guiding paradigm in countering the development and climate crisis of the Anthropocene. Recent decades however, have been characterized by confusion, contestations, and arbitrariness in defining the nature and pathways of sustainable development. Humanity must urgently find ways to unlock the potential of the sustainability paradigm and organize a sustainability transformation. An emerging sustainability science community has already established considerable consensus on essential features of transformative science and research. Sustainability scholars are providing growing evidence that an emancipatory and democratic construction of sustainable development and more equitable, deliberative, and democratized knowledge generation are pivotal in tackling sustainability challenges. These findings are further underpinned by experiences gained in the Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1999-2015)-a rare case of a long-term, transnational, and transdisciplinary research endeavour already completed. The programme fulfilled the dual role which is compulsory in transformative research: It generated contextualized knowledge and innovation at the science-society interface while simultaneously securing meaningful participation and Southern agency in a co-evolutionary process. This paper offers insight into the programme's adaptive structure and implementation processes, which fostered deliberation, capacity development, and joint programme navigation benchmarked against local needs and broader sustainability demands. The ESAPP experience confirms that, if taken as the overarching frame of reference for all actors involved, the sustainability paradigm unfolds its integrative and transformative power. It enables sustainability-oriented actors from all scientific and practical fields to seek consilience between differing development and innovation paradigms and synchronize their development agendas and research frameworks on behalf of societal co-production of knowledge and innovation. Accordingly, the sustainability paradigm has the power to guide development and innovation policy, and practice out of the current confusion and ineffectiveness.
Sustainable development is an emancipatory concept entitling all members of human society to both... more Sustainable development is an emancipatory concept entitling all members of human society to both a just share of resources and an equal voice in organizing a sustainability transformation. A strategic goal framed by UNESCO (2005) is the development of knowledge societies by means of more democratized knowledge and knowledge production for equal self-representation, and self-determination in decisionmaking processes. Yet, despite its failure, the previous paradigm of growth is persisting due to its institutional strength and the sustainability paradigm’s apparent failure to establish itself as a robust alternative. The global community is struggling to organize more equitable, just, and inclusive development. In light of this, key question of the present paper is how the scientific community can best organize research to operationalize the democratization of knowledge and knowledge generation. In accordance with sustainable development’s experimental nature, we need to embrace diver...
Uploads
Papers by Cordula Ott