Understanding Social-Ecological Systems: Frontier Research for Sustainable Development. Implications for European Research Policy

Transcription

1 1 Understanding Social-Ecological Systems: Frontier Research for Sustainable Development. Implications for European Research Policy Thomas Jahn*, Egon Becker, Florian Keil, Engelbert Schramm Institute for Social-Ecological Research (ISOE), Frankfurt/Main, Germany *corresponding author, 1. Introduction In recent years the term frontier research was introduced into the debate on excellence and competitiveness of future European research (European Commission 2005). Frontier research is said to be research that overcomes the traditional distinction between basic and applied research. The impetus of this endeavour is to more closely relate the generation of fundamentally new knowledge with the provision of knowledge useful for societal progress (e.g. in the area of technological innovations). Frontier research is conceived as research that transcends disciplinary boundaries by departing from the originality of the problem to be tackled and not from the interior logic of disciplinary scientific progress. Now perhaps more than any other field of research, research for sustainable development has to be conceived as frontier research by its very nature. Its advancement along with the demand for problem-oriented, cross-disciplinary scientific collaboration belongs to the declared objectives of EU research policy at the latest since the fifth Framework Programme. In spite of the recognition that strengthening frontier research is crucial for maintaining the capacity to shape a desirable future, the reality of research funding and research practice in Europe largely lags behind preambular rhetoric. Reasons for this deficit can be found in the only weakly adaptive structures of research organisation, in the traditionally divided research communities and in the lack of quality criteria and peers for cross-disciplinary research. The decisive reason yet is related to an original scientific challenge. This challenge consists in making the understanding of social-ecological systems the core cognitive interest of research for sustainable development. Meeting this challenge not only requires a conceptual framework within which social-ecological systems can be analysed but also the realisation of a specific transdisciplinary mode of research. 1 Introducing either aspect we argue in this paper that advancing frontier research for sustainable development first of all means advancing transdisciplinary research. Current EU research policy, however, is not adequately positioned for efficiently enabling and enforcing transdisciplinarity. Concluding, we will present policy suggestions for a corresponding adjustment of selected EU research funding instruments. 1 The European Commission (2005: 18) recognises that frontier research involves multi-, inter- or transdisciplinary research. Unlike to the Commission which subsumes these three modes of re-search under the label multi-disciplinary research we believe it is more precise and comprehensive to generally speak of transdisciplinary research.

2 2 2. Objects of Frontier Research: Social-Ecological Systems Reflecting on the ever increasing human impact on the earth s bio-, geo-, hydro- and atmospheres, the Nobel Prize winning chemist, Paul Crutzen (2002), has suggested we have entered a new geological epoch, which he calls the Anthropocene. At the same time, both human societies and globally interconnected economies increasingly depend on ecosystems services 2 and the maintenance of the latter s functions. This manifold of systemic interdependencies among natural and social processes, occurring at different temporal and spatial scales, demands an appropriate conceptual frame. If we take the idea of the Anthropocene seriously, then we must recognize that a new epistemic constellation has emerged, one marked by complex human-nature relations at its centre. The imperative conclusion form this is: In the Anthropocene it is impossible to understand nature without society, and society without nature, i.e. social-ecological systems become the core object of the cognitive interest. Most recently Glaser et al. (2008) have provided a working definition of socialecological systems: A social-ecological system consists of a bio-geo-physical unit and its associated social actors and institutions. Social-ecological systems are complex and adaptive and delimited by spatial or functional boundaries surrounding particular ecosystems and their problem context. Similar definitions can be found e.g. in the publications issued by the Resilience Alliance (cf. Berkes et al. 2003). What they have in common is that social-ecological systems are understood to be concrete units in the real world of spatial-temporal phenomena. It is yet also possible to understand socialecological systems as models of knowledge about real-world phenomena. This conception of social-ecological systems allows distinguishing three possible types of system elements: natural, social and hybrid entities which roughly correspond to the natural sciences, the social sciences and the field of research of human ecology, respectively. In order to define a system as a social-ecological system it is necessary to describe the topological structure and pattern of the relations between the system s elements. Networks, feedback loops or causal chains are concepts that can be expressions of these relations and dynamics. It is thus the interactions and the structures emerging out of it which have to be described formally as a system. Confining research tasks to a reasonable effort requires determining the spatial and functional limits of a social-ecological system properly just like for every system and model approach in scientific research. Drawing the limits depends on the aims of the research and therefore on the understanding of known or supposed societal and scholarly problems and their desired solutions. As the limits of the analysis of socialecological systems are hence defined by the context specific formulation of the problem the complete analysis and its construction is problem oriented. 2 According to the definition of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and supporting services such as nutrient cycling that maintain the conditions for life on Earth.

3 3 The concept of social-ecological systems has been developed in order to provide both a promising scientific gain as well as an impact on problems of sustainable development. There is a close conceptual and methodological relation between the analysis of socialecological systems, complexity research, and transdisciplinarity. All three of these research concepts are based on similar ideas and modes of reasoning. Moreover, the research on social-ecological systems almost always uses the transdisciplinary modus operandi in order to achieve an adequate problem orientation and to ensure integrative results (cf. Becker/Jahn 2006, Hirsch Hadorn et al.2008). 3. The Structure of Sustainability Problems The need for integrative results becomes clear when we remember the structure of sustainability problems. Orientation for future actions requires reliable forecasts and knowledge about the dynamics of social-ecological systems. Processes occurring within such systems can, however, only be described with a limited degree of precision, and their long term development is difficult to predict. It is then both the epistemological and normative dimensions of sustainability problems that are characterized by uncertainties, the devaluation of traditional knowledge, (scientific) ignorance and contested knowledge (Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008: 29 31). From this specific problem structure substantial barriers to decisions for different actors in politics, society and economy emerge. To overcome these barriers and thus to support decision making processes for sustainable problem solutions, it is crucial to understand in more depth the types of knowledge problems emerging when analysing a socialecological system. In doing so, one is confronted with messy problems (Committee of Scientists 1999). As the table shows, messy problems occur when there are large differences regarding the perceptions of the essence of the problem, the need for action, its goals, and the type of action that should be taken. Such differences arise from uncertainties in the factual knowledge base, from ambiguities in problem framing, and from diverging socio-economic interests or socio-cultural traditions and values. Knowledge Values High Low Well Developed Tentative, Gaps, Disagreements, Research Needed Routine analysis with periodic stakeholder and expert review. Decisions are Easy! Emphasis on expert deliberation with periodic stakeholder review. Emphasis on stakeholder deliberation with periodic expert review. Emphasis on both stakeholder and expert deliberation. Messy Problems! Table: Messy problems (according to Committee of Scientists 1999: 131) Problems of this complex and hybrid structure are at the heart of expectations the EU citizens have towards community research. At the same time they mark a fundamental change that takes place both inside science and with respect to the relation of science

4 4 and society. They therefore pose the key challenge for European research for sustainable development. 4. Frontier Research and Transdisciplinarity Using the systemic approach one must consider that problems of sustainable development are intrinsically tied to the social-ecological system defined to tackle them. In other words the scientists from the relevant scientific disciplines or fields of research as well as the involved societal stakeholders have to be regarded as elements of the socialecological system in question. This setting is the basis for a transdisciplinary mode of research for sustainable development and the specific problem oriented concretion of the notion of frontier research. During transdisciplinary research processes the fundamental societal and scientific problems and tasks will be transformed into new problem constellations the problem solving being the best possible constellation. The attributes and symptoms of the complex system relations will then be of key importance for these transformations. So the description and selection of the system s borders and elements (being more or less synonymous with the selection of scientific and societal actors being involved in the research process) play an important role. Problems arise in social situations in which there is a discrepancy between the interests of specific actors and the conditions of their action. Goals desired cannot be achieved under the given conditions and with the knowledge available, the methods at hand and the natural, temporal and social resources that are accessible. In a transdisciplinary research process societal states of affairs are understood in terms of complex and hybrid problems of the life world, and are treated as such scientifically. To formulate a description of such complex problems transdisciplinary research draws on both knowledge generated within the appropriate academic departments or scientific disciplines and knowledge emerging from everyday practice. Transdisciplinary research, when working on a problem, is continually crossing the borders between disciplines and departments, as well as those between different types of knowledge. Two things become clear then: First, societal actors who are affected by a problem must be involved into the research process. And second, the problem must be transformed (Becker 2002) into a scientifically valid question in the course of an exchange between concerned societal actors and scientific actors. This transformation is the prerequisite for determining to which degree research can actually contribute to problem solving. At the same time, such a process of defining research goals in a manner useful for everyday life points to the structures deemed essential for examination, thus providing researchers with their object of scientific investigation in the first place. In this way transdisciplinary research conceives and organizes research as a methodologically based, mutual learning process that involves both society and science a process that proceeds reflexively employing scientific criteria. In the figure the transdisciplinary research process is displayed in form of an idealised model. This model is meanwhile acknowledged as a starting point for framing transdisciplinary research processes in many dedicated research programmes and publications

5 5 (Bergmann/Schramm 2008). In this model, the contribution to solving sustainability problems for societal actors and the contribution to scientific progress are understood as the essential paths of the dynamic research process. These paths are characterized by integration problems (epistemological, social, communicative and technological) and participative research arrangements (the inclusion of those affected, of users or of stake holders, all in a process of mutual learning). In research processes with an integrative approach (Jahn/Keil in Becker/Jahn 2006: 319ff) it is decisive for their success that at the beginning a common research object be constituted and that an appropriate research team is assembled. This phase is normally marked by a high degree of tension caused by a mix of different interests and disciplinary backgrounds, individual and institutional goals and claims or norms concerning what is good science. The extent to which the research team succeeds in balancing all of these conflicting pressures and making use of them productively will be decisive for the output of the research project. In the meantime a wide range of experience has been gathered with respect to methods, procedures and methods of operation useful for such a transdisciplinary constitution of a common research procedure (cf. Bergmann et al. 2005, Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008). Figure: Model of the transdisciplinary research process (according to Becker/Jahn 2006: 325). In a second phase, in which new (disciplinary and interdisciplinary) knowledge is to be generated, the emphasis is on interdisciplinary integration. Here it is a question of assuring the transferability of the new knowledge within the overall process and of working on a common object of knowledge (models, theoretical concepts, etc.). It is important, therefore, to foresee the need for early integration measures (e.g., interface workshops, facilitated discussions in working groups or cross-disciplinary projects), as symbolised

6 6 above in the model by the cross bars to the disciplinary or sub-project columns, and to plan for these. In the end phase, that is, at the end of the research process, there are two methodologically linked integration steps. First, the results of the previous phases are summarised in an initial version of the project s results. After this the validity and relevance of the results (new theoretical or practical knowledge useful for solving problems) are checked by means of, for example, a dual critique procedure (cf. Becker/Jahn 2006: 186ff) or assessment methods, and also evaluated in terms of their range of efficacy and their appropriateness for the scientific or practical problem selected at the outset. In doing so the results of the first integration step may be subjected to a (partial) de-integration followed by their reintegration in a second consolidation of problem components and their possible solutions, bringing about a stronger integration of the final results. From the model it becomes clear how important the integration work (represented by the middle column) is: here are the specifically scientific challenges. How well one responds to these will determine the quality of the so-called inter- or transdisciplinary added value of a given set of research results, that is, the value won for both societal and scientific praxis, as each follows its own epistemic path. 5. Implications for European Research Policy From the ideas developed above it follows that advancing frontier research for sustainable development as transdisciplinary research means to comply with the following requirements: First, clear expectations as regards the topical focus of research have to be formulated; second, the assessment of project proposals and research activities must be carried out with respect to these expectations; and, finally, this kind of transdisciplinary endeavour must be explicitly appreciated by the European Commission and other relevant institutions and actors within the European Research Area. On the path towards this future European research for sustainable development, however, a few heavy road blocks hamper progress: The major European funding structures so far have neglected to take hold of a discourse which seriously attempts to extract the opportunities transdisciplinary research offers in developing innovative fields of research; as a consequence it was omitted to work out adequate and transparent quality criteria and evaluation methods for transdisciplinary research on the European level; The repeated request for common calls (e.g. between the Directorates General Environment and Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities) or for a dedicated crosscutting issue Sustainability does not receive sufficient institutional support by EU research policy; beyond that cross- or transdisciplinary research is still treated as a horizontal activity (like the promotion of small and medium sized enterprises for example); therefore it is of downstream priority as the single Directorates General (vertical activity) are structured by topics or disciplines structures which are mirrored in the budgets, the responsibilities of the scientific officers and the calls; Meeting the epistemic challenges of transdisciplinary research for sustainable development described above is neither supported by the recruitment of the referees for

7 7 the project proposals nor by explicitly recognising it while preparing the thematic calls. All things considered, transdisciplinary research to date has no appointed advocate and therefore no stake in everyday business of EU research policy. It appears as a rather isolated issue without proper resonance. Instead, in case there are ambitious calls which virtually call for a transdisciplinary approach multi-disciplinary projects are preferred because the true challenges of integration are not appreciated. In order to overcome this structural deficit which not only affects research for sustainable development appropriate policy measures have to be developed and implemented. As an orientation for this task the following aspects are recommended: Appreciation of the aim of promoting transdisciplinary research projects which focus on problems of sustainable development: Each Directorate (as the thematic subdivisions of the Directorates General) should have a person responsible for research for sustainable development; these persons must be members of a new cross-cutting working group that is responsible for setting up the joint transdisciplinary research programme for sustainable development; Increased financial support: A certain share of the directorates budgets should generally be allocated for calls with a dedicated transdisciplinary profile; in case there are no successful project proposals the allocated funds expire; considered the other way round this means that up to a defined share of the overall budget (e.g. 5 per cent) there will be joint calls supported by several directorates; advertising these calls under an overarching label e.g. transdisciplinary research for sustainable development will be one task of the new cross-cutting working group; a dedicated focus of the joint calls should be the advancement of science in understanding social-ecological systems; Installation of discourse arenas on the European level for the further development and specification of transdisciplinary research approaches, methods and institutions, e.g. by supporting summer schools and workshops on transdisciplinary research or by simple funding procedures for capacity building within the European Research Area; Compiling quality criteria for transdisciplinary research on the European level: The current debate about transdisciplinarity in research for sustainable development reveals that the integration of knowledge and here in particular the adequate incorporation of practical knowledge is regarded as a key challenge; guidelines on how this can be achieved should be developed and promoted on the European level; this should support the research community in engaging with transdisciplinary research and in coping with the accompanying methodical reorientation; Appointment of a strong advocate for transdisciplinary research for sustainable development within the European research administration: In analogy e.g. to the European Technology Platforms a European Research Platform for Sustainable Development could be established.

8 8 Current EU research policy has justifiably recognised the importance of advancing frontier research by establishing a dedicated funding instrument within the seventh Framework Programme. However, if Europe strives to achieve a leadership role in research for sustainable development it decidedly will have to extend these kind of instruments to problem-oriented transdisciplinary research. The European Research Council could be a key player in pushing this trendsetting development. References Becker, Egon (2002): Transformations of social and ecological Issues into Transdisciplinary Research. In: UNESCO/EOLSS Publishers (Eds.): Knowledge for Sustainable Development. An Insight into the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, Volume III. Paris, Oxford: UNESCO Publishing/EOLSS Publishers, Becker, Egon/Thomas Jahn (Hg.) (2006): Soziale Ökologie. Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Bergmann, Matthias/Engelbert Schramm (2008): Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Bergmann, Matthias/Bettina Brohmann/Esther Hofmann/M. Céline Loibl/Regine Rehaag/Engelbert Schramm/Jan-Peter Voß (2005): Quality Criteria of Transdisciplinary Research. A Guide for the Formative Evaluation of Research Projects. ISOE- Studientexte, No. 13. Frankfurt am Main Berkes, Fikret/Johan Colding/Carl Folke (Eds.) (2003): Navigating social-ecological Systems. Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: University Press Committee of Scientists (1999): Sustaining the People s Lands: Recommendations for Stewardship of the National Forests and Grasslands into the Next Century. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Agriculture Crutzen, Paul J. (2002): Geology of Mankind. In: Nature, Volume 415, 23 European Commission (2005): Frontier Research: The European Challenge. High-Level Expert Group Report Brussels. EUR Glaser, Marion/Gesche Krause/Beate Ratter/Martin Welp (2008): Human-Nature-Interaction in the Anthropocene. Potential of Social-Ecological Systems Analysis. Preparation Paper for the DGH-Symposium Human-Nature-Interactions in the Anthropocene: Potentials of Social-Ecological Systems Analysis, Sommerhausen, 29th 31st May (accessed on January 15, 2008) Hirsch Hadorn, G. et al. (2008): Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Heidelberg: Springer