Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions

John van Breda

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions

John van Breda

Published in International Journal of Sustainable Development Research (Volume 9, Issue 2)

Received: 3 May 2023 Accepted: 19 May 2023 Published: 31 May 2023

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Embarking upon sustainability transitions from an unsustainable towards a more sustainable world is a complex undertaking which cannot be approached with one-size-fits-all approaches (panaceas). The social and institutional arrangements necessary for performing this double-movement, inherent in all sustainability transitions, never takes place within exactly the same set of (universal) conditions, but rather under radically different contextual conditions. Ontologically speaking, it is possible to distinguish at least three fundamentally different kinds of sustainability transitions namely: clear, complicated and complex transitions – each with its own internal transitioning logics and dynamics – warranting different methodological approaches. The consequences of approaching all transitions as if they were essentially the same, with one-size-fits-all methodologies, runs the risk of falling into the trap of path-dependency – i.e. becoming (permanently) locked into pursuing certain dominant – single-track – transitioning pathways, regardless of the contexts in which the transitions are embedded. One way of avoiding this is through methodological agility (MA) –a meta-level research strategy which has purposely been developed for knowing when and how to switch between mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary research approaches when facing said ontologically different kinds of transitions. The purpose of this paper is to focus specifically on complex transitions and some of the key methodological challenges we face when dealing with the emergence and subsequent fluidity of these challenges. As a starting point, performing the double movement in complex transitioning processes means / implies dealing with multiple non-linear transitioning pathways between ill-defined current and future states as opposed to more linear transitioning pathways between well-defined current and future states when dealing with clear and complicated situations. However, the prospect of facing the complexity of complex transitioning challenges can quite easily be construed as things being overly complex to deal with, especially at a practical level of working with real-world sustainability transitions. Overcoming this concern will be addressed in this paper by introducing the co-constructing of dynamic thick / deep maps as an appropriate practical, research method for being methodologically agile when performing TTDR.

Published in	International Journal of Sustainable Development Research (Volume 9, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12
Page(s)	28-42
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Path-Dependency, Transitioning Pathways, Complexity, Equiprobability, Non-Linearity, Transformative Trans-Disciplinarity, Thick / Deep Maps, Agile Synergic Methods

References

[1]	Abdukadirov, S., 2016. Nudge Theory in Action: Behavioral Design in Policy and Markets. Springer.
[2]	Arthur, W. B., 2014. Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. University of Michigan Press.
[3]	Austin, J. L., 1975. How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press.
[4]	Balan, S., 2010. M. Foucault’s view on power relations. Cogito Multidiscip. Res J 2, 193.
[5]	Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S., Vaara, E., 2014. Placing Strategy Discourse in Context: Sociomateriality, Sensemaking and Power. J. Manag. Stud. 51. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12059
[6]	Benner, S., Lax, G., Crutzen, P. J., Pöschl, U., Lelieveld, J., Brauch, H. G., 2021. Paul J. Crutzen and the Anthropocene: A New Epoch in Earth’s History. Springer Nature.
[7]	Bodenhamer, D, 2016. Making the Invisible Visible: Place, Spatial Stories and Deep Maps, in: Literary Mapping in the Digital Age. Routledge, pp. 207–220.
[8]	Bodenhamer, D. J., Corrigan, J., Harris, T. M., 2021. Making Deep Maps: Foundations, Approaches, and Methods. Routledge.
[9]	Bodenhamer, D. J., Corrigan, J., Harris, T. M., 2015. Deep Maps and Spatial Narratives. Indiana University Press.
[10]	Burdick, A., Drucker, J., Lunenfeld, P., Presner, T., Schnapp, J., 2016. Digital_Humanities. MIT Press.
[11]	Butler, Judith, 2010. Performative Agency - Journal of Cultural Economy - Volume 3, Issue 2, 2010 [WWW Document]. URL http://www-tandfonline-com.ez.sun.ac.za/doi/abs/10.1080/17530350.2010.494117 (accessed 8.2.16).
[12]	Cavanaugh, J. R., 2015. Performativity [WWW Document]. OBO. URL https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0114.xml (accessed 4.25.23).
[13]	Chandler, D., 2018. Ontopolitics in the Anthropocene: An Introduction to Mapping, Sensing and Hacking. Routledge.
[14]	Ciborra, C. U., Lanzara, G. F., 1994. Formative contexts and information technology: Understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations. Account. Manag. Inf. Technol. 4, 61–86.
[15]	Clark, W., Crutzen, P., Schellnhuber, H., 2005. Science for global sustainability: toward a new paradigm. KSG Work. Pap. No RWP05-032.
[16]	Cooper, D., 1994. Productive, relational and everywhere? Conceptualising power and resistance within Foucauldian feminism. Sociology 28, 435–454.
[17]	Crawford, J. B., Mills, A. J., 2009. The Formative Context of Organizational Hierarchies and Discourse: Implications for Organizational Change and Gender Relations. Gend. Work Organ. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00470.x
[18]	Crutzen, P. J., others, 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415, 23–23.
[19]	Dijk, T. A. van, 2008. Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
[20]	Elden, S., 2002. Mapping the present: Heidegger, Foucault and the project of a spatial history. A&C Black.
[21]	Feyerabend, P., 1993. Against Method. Verso.
[22]	Flyvbjerg, B., 2004. Phronetic planning research: theoretical and methodological reflections. Plan. Theory Pract. 5, 283–306.
[23]	Foucault, M., Gordon, C., 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
[24]	Freire, P., 2014a. Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
[25]	Freire, P., 2014b. Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. A&C Black.
[26]	Freire, P., 2000. Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
[27]	Fricker, M., 2017. Evolving concepts of epistemic injustice.
[28]	Fricker, M., 2009. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.
[29]	Geels, F. W., 2005. Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72, 681–696.
[30]	Gilbert, N., 2019. Agent-Based Models. SAGE Publications.
[31]	Goh, et. al, 2022. Integrating Spatial and Ethnographic Methods for Resilience Research: A Thick Mapping Approachfor Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. Taylor Francis 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2022.2071200
[32]	Goodin, R. E., 1996. Institutions and their design. Theory Institutional Des. 28.
[33]	Guala, F., 2016. Understanding institutions, in: Understanding Institutions. Princeton University Press.
[34]	Habermas, J., 1987. Knowledge and Human Interests. Polity Press.
[35]	Hadorn, G. H., Pohl, C., 2008. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht.
[36]	Halpern, D., Mason, D., 2015. Radical Incrementalism, Radical Incrementalism. Evaluation 21, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389015578895
[37]	Hayward, C. R., 2000. De-facing power. Cambridge University Press.
[38]	Hodgson, G. M., 2009. Agency, Institutions, and Darwinism in Evolutionary Economic Geography. Econ. Geogr. 85, 167–173.
[39]	Hodgson, G. M., 2006. What Are Institutions? J. Econ. Issues 40, 1–25.
[40]	Horton, M., Freire, P., 1990. We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change. Temple University Press.
[41]	Husselmann, A. V., Hawick, K. A., 2011. Spatial agent-based modelling and simulations-a review. CSTN Comput. Sci. Tech. Note 153.
[42]	Jahn, T., 2008. Transdisciplinarity in the Practice of Research. Matthias BergmannEngelbert Schramm Hg Transdisziplinäre Forsch. Integr. Forschungsprozesse Verstehen Bewerten, German (No English translation yet) 21–37.
[43]	Juarrero, A., 2009. Top-down causation and autonomy in complex systems, in: Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will. Springer, pp. 83–102.
[44]	Kant, I., 2018. The Critique of Practical Reason. Charles River Editors.
[45]	Kant, I., 1996. Kant: The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
[46]	Kant, I., 1855. Critique of Pure Reason. Henry G. Bohn.
[47]	Kauffman, S. A., 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press.
[48]	Korzybski, A., 2010. Selections from Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Institute of General Semantics.
[49]	Latour, B., 2013. An Inquiry Into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moderns. Harvard University Press.
[50]	Latour, B., 2007. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. OUP Oxford.
[51]	Latour, B., Weibel, P., 2005. Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy : [exhibition at the ZKM, Center Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, 20-03 - 03-10-2005]. ZKM/Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe.
[52]	Law, J., 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge.
[53]	Magnani, L., 2017. The Abductive Structure of Scientific Creativity: An Essay on the Ecology of Cognition. Springer.
[54]	Magnani, L., 2011. Abduction, Reason and Science: Processes of Discovery and Explanation. Springer Science & Business Media.
[55]	Magnani, L., 2009. Abductive Cognition: The Epistemological and Eco-Cognitive Dimensions of Hypothetical Reasoning. Springer Science & Business Media.
[56]	Marres, N., 2005. Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippmann-Dewey debate. Mak. Things Public Atmospheres Democr. 208–217.
[57]	Meulhauser, L, 2009. Intro to Logic: Abductive Reasoning [WWW Document]. URL http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3703 (accessed 5.23.16).
[58]	Morin, E., 2008. On Complexity. Hampton Press.
[59]	Morin, E., Kern, A. B., 1999. Homeland Earth: A Manifesto for the New Millennium. Hampton Press, Incorporated.
[60]	Murrieta-Flores, P., Favila-Vázquez, M., Flores-Morán, A., 2021. Indigenous deep mapping: A conceptual and representational analysis of space in Mesoamerica and New Spain, in: Making Deep Maps. Routledge, pp. 78–111.
[61]	Murrieta-Flores, P., Favila-Vázquez, M., Flores-Morán, A., 2019. Spatial Humanities 3.0: QSR and Semantic Triples as New Means of Exploration of Complex Indigenous Spatial Representations in Sixteenth Century Early Colonial Mexican Maps. Int. J. Humanit. Arts Comput. 13, 53–68.
[62]	Palmer, T., Oxford), T. (Royal S. R. P. in C. P. P., Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics University of, 2022. The Primacy of Doubt: From Weather to Quantum Physics, How the Science of Uncertainty Makes Sense of Our Chaotic World. Oxford University Press.
[63]	Peirce, C. S., 1992. Reasoning and the Logic of Things: The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898. Harvard University Press.
[64]	Peirce, C. S., 1974. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press.
[65]	Peirce, C. S., Buchler, J., 1955. Philosophical writings of Peirce. Courier Dover Publications.
[66]	Peirce, C. S., Peirce, C. S., 1982. Writings of Charles S. Peirce: 1857-1866. Indiana University Press.
[67]	Peters, M. A., 2022. Language-games philosophy: Language-games as rationality and method. Educ. Philos. Theory. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1821190
[68]	Pohl, C., Hadorn, G. H., 2007. Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Oekom.
[69]	Polanyi, K., 2001. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon Press.
[70]	Roberts, L, 2016. Deep Mapping & Spatial Anthropology. Humanities 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/h5010005
[71]	Rorty, R., 2009. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton University Press.
[72]	Ryle, G., 2015. The Concept of Mind. Lulu Press, Inc.
[73]	Scholz, R. W., 2011. Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to Decisions. Cambridge University Press.
[74]	Simone, A., Pieterse, E., 2018. New Urban Worlds: Inhabiting Dissonant Times. John Wiley & Sons.
[75]	Snowden, 2013. Safe-to-Fail Probes [WWW Document]. Cogn. Edge. URL /methods/safe-to-fail-probes/ (accessed 6.25.18).
[76]	Snowden, D., 2020. Cynefin.
[77]	Snowden, D., 2017. Random walk, but with coherence [WWW Document]. Cogn. Edge. URL /blog/random-walk-but-with-coherence/ (accessed 6.18.18).
[78]	Snowden, D., 2016. The adjacent possible [WWW Document]. Cogn. Edge. URL /blog/the-adjacent-possible/ (accessed 6.23.18).
[79]	Snowden, D., 2015. Nudge or Yank (sic) [WWW Document]. Cogn. Edge. URL /blog/nudge-or-yank-sic/ (accessed 2.20.18).
[80]	Snowden, D., 2005. Multi-ontology sense making: a new simplicity in decision making. J. Innov. Health Inform. 13, 45–53. https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v13i1.578
[81]	Snowden, D. J., Boone, M. E., 2007. A leader’s framework for decision making. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85, 68.
[82]	Stauffacher, M., Walter, A. I., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Scholz, R. W., 2006. Learning to research environmental problems from a functional socio-cultural constructivism perspective: The transdisciplinary case study approach. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 7, 252–275.
[83]	Steffen, W., Persson, \AAsa, Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., Crumley, C., Crutzen, P., Folke, C., Gordon, L., others, 2011. The Anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. Ambio 40, 739–761.
[84]	Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., 2012. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. Penguin UK.
[85]	Swilling, M., 2019. Just Transitions for a Complex World: Reflections of an Enraged Incrementalist. Routledge.
[86]	Thagard, P., 1997. Abductive reasoning [WWW Document]. URL http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/%7FAbductive.html (accessed 10.30.17).
[87]	Thagard, P., Shelley, C., 1997. Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence, in: Logic and Scientific Methods. Springer, pp. 413–427.
[88]	Thompson, J. B., 1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. University of California Press.
[89]	Unger, R. M., 2014. What is Wrong with the Social Sciences Today? [WWW Document]. URL http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/01/roberto-mangabeira-unger-what-is-wrong-with-the-social-sciences-today/ (accessed 7.25.16).
[90]	Unger, R. M., 2004a. Social Theory, Its Situation and Its Task: A Critical Introduction to Politics, a Work in Constructive Social Theory. Verso.
[91]	Unger, R. M., 2004b. False Necessity: Anti-necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy : from Politics, a Work in Constructive Social Theory. Verso.
[92]	Unger, R. M., 2002. The transformation of experience, The Boutwood Lectures. Cambridge University, Corpus Christi College.
[93]	Van Breda, J., 2022. Synergic methods for methodological agility. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res.
[94]	Van Breda, J., Goh, Z., 2022. Methodological agility for sustainability transitions in the Anthropocene. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res.
[95]	Van Breda, Swilling, 2018. The guiding logics and principles for designing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: Learning experiences and reflections from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement, South Africa. Sustain. Sci.
[96]	Watson, J. D., 2011. The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. Simon and Schuster.
[97]	Wittgenstein, L., 2010. Philosophical Investigations. John Wiley & Sons.
[98]	Wood, D., 2021. The art of deep mapping, in: Making Deep Maps. Routledge, pp. 17–37.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

John van Breda. (2023). Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions. International Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 9(2), 28-42. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

John van Breda. Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2023, 9(2), 28-42. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

John van Breda. Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions. Int J Sustain Dev Res. 2023;9(2):28-42. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12,
  author = {John van Breda},
  title = {Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development Research},
  volume = {9},
  number = {2},
  pages = {28-42},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsdr.20230902.12},
  abstract = {Embarking upon sustainability transitions from an unsustainable towards a more sustainable world is a complex undertaking which cannot be approached with one-size-fits-all approaches (panaceas). The social and institutional arrangements necessary for performing this double-movement, inherent in all sustainability transitions, never takes place within exactly the same set of (universal) conditions, but rather under radically different contextual conditions. Ontologically speaking, it is possible to distinguish at least three fundamentally different kinds of sustainability transitions namely: clear, complicated and complex transitions – each with its own internal transitioning logics and dynamics – warranting different methodological approaches. The consequences of approaching all transitions as if they were essentially the same, with one-size-fits-all methodologies, runs the risk of falling into the trap of path-dependency – i.e. becoming (permanently) locked into pursuing certain dominant – single-track – transitioning pathways, regardless of the contexts in which the transitions are embedded. One way of avoiding this is through methodological agility (MA) –a meta-level research strategy which has purposely been developed for knowing when and how to switch between mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary research approaches when facing said ontologically different kinds of transitions. The purpose of this paper is to focus specifically on complex transitions and some of the key methodological challenges we face when dealing with the emergence and subsequent fluidity of these challenges. As a starting point, performing the double movement in complex transitioning processes means / implies dealing with multiple non-linear transitioning pathways between ill-defined current and future states as opposed to more linear transitioning pathways between well-defined current and future states when dealing with clear and complicated situations. However, the prospect of facing the complexity of complex transitioning challenges can quite easily be construed as things being overly complex to deal with, especially at a practical level of working with real-world sustainability transitions. Overcoming this concern will be addressed in this paper by introducing the co-constructing of dynamic thick / deep maps as an appropriate practical, research method for being methodologically agile when performing TTDR.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions
AU  - John van Breda
Y1  - 2023/05/31
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
SP  - 28
EP  - 42
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1832
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12
AB  - Embarking upon sustainability transitions from an unsustainable towards a more sustainable world is a complex undertaking which cannot be approached with one-size-fits-all approaches (panaceas). The social and institutional arrangements necessary for performing this double-movement, inherent in all sustainability transitions, never takes place within exactly the same set of (universal) conditions, but rather under radically different contextual conditions. Ontologically speaking, it is possible to distinguish at least three fundamentally different kinds of sustainability transitions namely: clear, complicated and complex transitions – each with its own internal transitioning logics and dynamics – warranting different methodological approaches. The consequences of approaching all transitions as if they were essentially the same, with one-size-fits-all methodologies, runs the risk of falling into the trap of path-dependency – i.e. becoming (permanently) locked into pursuing certain dominant – single-track – transitioning pathways, regardless of the contexts in which the transitions are embedded. One way of avoiding this is through methodological agility (MA) –a meta-level research strategy which has purposely been developed for knowing when and how to switch between mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary research approaches when facing said ontologically different kinds of transitions. The purpose of this paper is to focus specifically on complex transitions and some of the key methodological challenges we face when dealing with the emergence and subsequent fluidity of these challenges. As a starting point, performing the double movement in complex transitioning processes means / implies dealing with multiple non-linear transitioning pathways between ill-defined current and future states as opposed to more linear transitioning pathways between well-defined current and future states when dealing with clear and complicated situations. However, the prospect of facing the complexity of complex transitioning challenges can quite easily be construed as things being overly complex to deal with, especially at a practical level of working with real-world sustainability transitions. Overcoming this concern will be addressed in this paper by introducing the co-constructing of dynamic thick / deep maps as an appropriate practical, research method for being methodologically agile when performing TTDR.
VL  - 9
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

John van Breda

Centre for Sustainability Transitions (CST), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

John van Breda. (2023). Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions. International Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 9(2), 28-42. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

John van Breda. Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2023, 9(2), 28-42. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

John van Breda. Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions. Int J Sustain Dev Res. 2023;9(2):28-42. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12,
  author = {John van Breda},
  title = {Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development Research},
  volume = {9},
  number = {2},
  pages = {28-42},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsdr.20230902.12},
  abstract = {Embarking upon sustainability transitions from an unsustainable towards a more sustainable world is a complex undertaking which cannot be approached with one-size-fits-all approaches (panaceas). The social and institutional arrangements necessary for performing this double-movement, inherent in all sustainability transitions, never takes place within exactly the same set of (universal) conditions, but rather under radically different contextual conditions. Ontologically speaking, it is possible to distinguish at least three fundamentally different kinds of sustainability transitions namely: clear, complicated and complex transitions – each with its own internal transitioning logics and dynamics – warranting different methodological approaches. The consequences of approaching all transitions as if they were essentially the same, with one-size-fits-all methodologies, runs the risk of falling into the trap of path-dependency – i.e. becoming (permanently) locked into pursuing certain dominant – single-track – transitioning pathways, regardless of the contexts in which the transitions are embedded. One way of avoiding this is through methodological agility (MA) –a meta-level research strategy which has purposely been developed for knowing when and how to switch between mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary research approaches when facing said ontologically different kinds of transitions. The purpose of this paper is to focus specifically on complex transitions and some of the key methodological challenges we face when dealing with the emergence and subsequent fluidity of these challenges. As a starting point, performing the double movement in complex transitioning processes means / implies dealing with multiple non-linear transitioning pathways between ill-defined current and future states as opposed to more linear transitioning pathways between well-defined current and future states when dealing with clear and complicated situations. However, the prospect of facing the complexity of complex transitioning challenges can quite easily be construed as things being overly complex to deal with, especially at a practical level of working with real-world sustainability transitions. Overcoming this concern will be addressed in this paper by introducing the co-constructing of dynamic thick / deep maps as an appropriate practical, research method for being methodologically agile when performing TTDR.},
 year = {2023}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Co-constructing Dynamic thick / Deep Maps for Doing Transformative Transdisciplinary Research (TTDR) in the Context of Complex Sustainability Transitions
AU  - John van Breda
Y1  - 2023/05/31
PY  - 2023
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
SP  - 28
EP  - 42
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1832
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20230902.12
AB  - Embarking upon sustainability transitions from an unsustainable towards a more sustainable world is a complex undertaking which cannot be approached with one-size-fits-all approaches (panaceas). The social and institutional arrangements necessary for performing this double-movement, inherent in all sustainability transitions, never takes place within exactly the same set of (universal) conditions, but rather under radically different contextual conditions. Ontologically speaking, it is possible to distinguish at least three fundamentally different kinds of sustainability transitions namely: clear, complicated and complex transitions – each with its own internal transitioning logics and dynamics – warranting different methodological approaches. The consequences of approaching all transitions as if they were essentially the same, with one-size-fits-all methodologies, runs the risk of falling into the trap of path-dependency – i.e. becoming (permanently) locked into pursuing certain dominant – single-track – transitioning pathways, regardless of the contexts in which the transitions are embedded. One way of avoiding this is through methodological agility (MA) –a meta-level research strategy which has purposely been developed for knowing when and how to switch between mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary research approaches when facing said ontologically different kinds of transitions. The purpose of this paper is to focus specifically on complex transitions and some of the key methodological challenges we face when dealing with the emergence and subsequent fluidity of these challenges. As a starting point, performing the double movement in complex transitioning processes means / implies dealing with multiple non-linear transitioning pathways between ill-defined current and future states as opposed to more linear transitioning pathways between well-defined current and future states when dealing with clear and complicated situations. However, the prospect of facing the complexity of complex transitioning challenges can quite easily be construed as things being overly complex to deal with, especially at a practical level of working with real-world sustainability transitions. Overcoming this concern will be addressed in this paper by introducing the co-constructing of dynamic thick / deep maps as an appropriate practical, research method for being methodologically agile when performing TTDR.
VL  - 9
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download