Deconstructing a 2-year long transdisciplinary sustainability project in Northern universities: is rhetorical nobility obscuring procedural and political discords?

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Deconstructing a 2-year long transdisciplinary sustainability project in Northern universities: is rhetorical nobility obscuring procedural and political discords? / Ghosh, Aditya.
in: Sustainability Science, Jahrgang 15, Nr. 4, 01.07.2020, S. 1111-1127.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{67619c9414324a8f80b9a5bd71d8e40c,
title = "Deconstructing a 2-year long transdisciplinary sustainability project in Northern universities: is rhetorical nobility obscuring procedural and political discords?",
abstract = "Transdisciplinary sustainability research (TSR) is essential to better understand and tackle wicked problems such as climate change and realisation of sustainable development goals (SDGs). However, despite the normative nobility, a significant share of these initiatives seems to remain merely rhetorical that fail to address both local level socio-environmental crises and global catastrophes such as rising emissions. To better understand structural and procedural barriers within a TSR project, this study conducted “research on (a transdisciplinary sustainability) research”. It locates two critical reasons why TSR is not able to deliver on its promises in offering effective guidance in addressing global sustainability crisis and discusses how it can be more equitable in knowledge generation in particular and science in general. Firstly, it necessitates TSR to challenge the neo-colonial regime and the hegemonic processes of a dominant Northern episteme around the concept of sustainability, as it otherwise threatens to reinforce and perpetuate the status quo that produces unsustainability from the top. Findings also reveal key procedural shortcomings (often connected to the hegemony itself) that include constricted temporal allowance, insecure scientists and nexus of techno-science markets, Northern academia, funding agencies and governments. This not only seems to affect universality and reflexivity of the TSR project, but also undermines justice and equity by reinforcing prevailing power orders. It seems essential to theoretically shift from domination to partnership, allying with multiple realities, legitimising diverse ontologies and validating epistemic plurality to help TSR gain greater credibility. Procedurally, reforms in institutional research and funding processes including extended temporal spaces and helping scientists to have better collaboration across scales seem critical to enable TSR projects realise their true potential.",
keywords = "Transdisciplinary studies, Global South, Hegemony, Justice, Postcolonial, Technology market, Sustainability Science, Sustainability science",
author = "Aditya Ghosh",
year = "2020",
month = jul,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11625-020-00816-8",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "1111--1127",
journal = "Sustainability Science",
issn = "1862-4065",
publisher = "Springer Japan",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Deconstructing a 2-year long transdisciplinary sustainability project in Northern universities

T2 - is rhetorical nobility obscuring procedural and political discords?

AU - Ghosh, Aditya

PY - 2020/7/1

Y1 - 2020/7/1

N2 - Transdisciplinary sustainability research (TSR) is essential to better understand and tackle wicked problems such as climate change and realisation of sustainable development goals (SDGs). However, despite the normative nobility, a significant share of these initiatives seems to remain merely rhetorical that fail to address both local level socio-environmental crises and global catastrophes such as rising emissions. To better understand structural and procedural barriers within a TSR project, this study conducted “research on (a transdisciplinary sustainability) research”. It locates two critical reasons why TSR is not able to deliver on its promises in offering effective guidance in addressing global sustainability crisis and discusses how it can be more equitable in knowledge generation in particular and science in general. Firstly, it necessitates TSR to challenge the neo-colonial regime and the hegemonic processes of a dominant Northern episteme around the concept of sustainability, as it otherwise threatens to reinforce and perpetuate the status quo that produces unsustainability from the top. Findings also reveal key procedural shortcomings (often connected to the hegemony itself) that include constricted temporal allowance, insecure scientists and nexus of techno-science markets, Northern academia, funding agencies and governments. This not only seems to affect universality and reflexivity of the TSR project, but also undermines justice and equity by reinforcing prevailing power orders. It seems essential to theoretically shift from domination to partnership, allying with multiple realities, legitimising diverse ontologies and validating epistemic plurality to help TSR gain greater credibility. Procedurally, reforms in institutional research and funding processes including extended temporal spaces and helping scientists to have better collaboration across scales seem critical to enable TSR projects realise their true potential.

AB - Transdisciplinary sustainability research (TSR) is essential to better understand and tackle wicked problems such as climate change and realisation of sustainable development goals (SDGs). However, despite the normative nobility, a significant share of these initiatives seems to remain merely rhetorical that fail to address both local level socio-environmental crises and global catastrophes such as rising emissions. To better understand structural and procedural barriers within a TSR project, this study conducted “research on (a transdisciplinary sustainability) research”. It locates two critical reasons why TSR is not able to deliver on its promises in offering effective guidance in addressing global sustainability crisis and discusses how it can be more equitable in knowledge generation in particular and science in general. Firstly, it necessitates TSR to challenge the neo-colonial regime and the hegemonic processes of a dominant Northern episteme around the concept of sustainability, as it otherwise threatens to reinforce and perpetuate the status quo that produces unsustainability from the top. Findings also reveal key procedural shortcomings (often connected to the hegemony itself) that include constricted temporal allowance, insecure scientists and nexus of techno-science markets, Northern academia, funding agencies and governments. This not only seems to affect universality and reflexivity of the TSR project, but also undermines justice and equity by reinforcing prevailing power orders. It seems essential to theoretically shift from domination to partnership, allying with multiple realities, legitimising diverse ontologies and validating epistemic plurality to help TSR gain greater credibility. Procedurally, reforms in institutional research and funding processes including extended temporal spaces and helping scientists to have better collaboration across scales seem critical to enable TSR projects realise their true potential.

KW - Transdisciplinary studies

KW - Global South

KW - Hegemony

KW - Justice

KW - Postcolonial

KW - Technology market

KW - Sustainability Science

KW - Sustainability science

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085370567&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11625-020-00816-8

DO - 10.1007/s11625-020-00816-8

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85085370567

VL - 15

SP - 1111

EP - 1127

JO - Sustainability Science

JF - Sustainability Science

SN - 1862-4065

IS - 4

ER -

DOI