TY - JOUR

T1 - Correction to

T2 - Conducting sustainability research in the anthropocene: toward a relational approach (Sustainability Science, (2024), 19, 4, (1169-1185), 10.1007/s11625-024-01510-9)

AU - Böhme, Jessica

AU - Spreitzer, Eva Maria

AU - Wamsler, Christine

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024.

PY - 2025

Y1 - 2025

N2 - In this article, the following were incorrect and now has been corrected. In table 1, the questions for steps 6 and 7 were incorrect; the correct Table 1 is shown below. (Table presented.) In the sentence beginning ' III. What kind of world… ', there was a wording mistake: it should read “words” instead of “world.” In the supplementary material, the questions for steps 6 and 7 were incorrect. The correct file has now been uploaded. In table 1, the questions for steps 6 and 7 were incorrect; the correct Table 1 is shown below. (Table presented.) Overview of the possible questions to help moving towards a relational paradigm in research. Research process step Possible questions that can be used to make the implicit explicit when conducting research, developing processes and practices of asking to increasingly integrate the relational paradigm into one’s work Step 1: Identifying the research problem and niche I. How do my research problem and associated niche consider interdependencies, connectedness, nonlinearity, uncertainty, and emergence? How do they account for (the quality of) relationships and related inner-outer transformation processes across individual, collective, and system levels? II. Is the wording of the problem, niche and associated aims aligned with relational perspectives, or does it strengthen current mechanistic paradigms? III. How can I explain relational, unfamiliar, or new concepts so that others (co-researchers, readers), who are new to this way of thinking, can understand? How can I create a bridge between the current and a potential new, more sustainable paradigm? Step 2: Reviewing the literature I. How can I integrate sources beyond scholarly articles to better-understand current knowledge? Are there ways to systematically include non-human perspectives? II. What underlying or tacit ontological, epistemological, and ethical assumptions might be present within the reviewed literature? III. How does my perspective, subjectivity, and social-ecological position influence the interpretation and analysis of the literature, and how can I take account of this? Step 3: Creating research hypotheses I. Do my hypotheses reflect the dominant social paradigm and related ontological assumptions? II. How do my hypotheses adequately consider the role of relationships (to self, others, nature, and the world at large)? III. How might abductive reasoning enhance my hypotheses? Step 4: Defining the overall research design I. How can I explicitly integrate a relational perspective when using reductionist methodologies? II. How can I design the overall research approach in a way that accounts for relationships and associated inner-outer change processes (individual, collective, and system levels) that are relevant for understanding the selected object? III. How can the overall design support transformation, for example, a change towards a more relational paradigm (both regarding the research object and stakeholders)? Step 5: Data collection and analyses I. How can I critically examine my role as a researcher during the data collection and analysis process? II. How can I embrace a broad range of methods, data types and formats beyond traditional textual or numerical approaches? III. What is the noise that I might be overlooking? Step 6: The writing process I. How might my perspectives and assumptions shape the interpretation and representation of my results, and how can I make them explicit in my writing? For instance, do I acknowledge related limitations in the description of research outcomes? II. Who do I speak for? Am I contributing to empowerment and justice, or am I disempowering certain individuals, groups, or other agents? For example, how can I give voice to non-human actors and consider their perspectives and interactions? How can I make my writings widely accessible for diverse audiences? III. What kind of words or other ways of representation can I use to support integrative understanding and transformation? For example, do my research results contribute to, or challenge, existing paradigms and practices? How can I reach people’s minds and hearts, and foster individual and collective agency, hope, and courage to act? Step 7: Dissemination of the results I. In what forms can I best share these research results to account for, and address diverse stakeholders, needs, and perspectives? For example, are videos, exhibitions, networks, or communities of practice relevant channels for dissemination and implementation? II. Am I conveying information accurately, respectfully, and in ways that honor diverse contributions and con- texts, particularly those of marginalized groups? For example, have I critically examined and reframed narratives that perpetuate injustices or exclude certain perspectives? III. How do I engage with relevant stakeholders during the dissemination process to support integrative understanding and transformation? For example, how can I move from traditional communication formats to more relational approaches that challenge current paradigms? In the sentence beginning ' III. What kind of world… ', there was a wording mistake: it should read “words” instead of “world.” In the supplementary material, the questions for steps 6 and 7 were incorrect. The correct file has now been uploaded. The original article has been corrected.

AB - In this article, the following were incorrect and now has been corrected. In table 1, the questions for steps 6 and 7 were incorrect; the correct Table 1 is shown below. (Table presented.) In the sentence beginning ' III. What kind of world… ', there was a wording mistake: it should read “words” instead of “world.” In the supplementary material, the questions for steps 6 and 7 were incorrect. The correct file has now been uploaded. In table 1, the questions for steps 6 and 7 were incorrect; the correct Table 1 is shown below. (Table presented.) Overview of the possible questions to help moving towards a relational paradigm in research. Research process step Possible questions that can be used to make the implicit explicit when conducting research, developing processes and practices of asking to increasingly integrate the relational paradigm into one’s work Step 1: Identifying the research problem and niche I. How do my research problem and associated niche consider interdependencies, connectedness, nonlinearity, uncertainty, and emergence? How do they account for (the quality of) relationships and related inner-outer transformation processes across individual, collective, and system levels? II. Is the wording of the problem, niche and associated aims aligned with relational perspectives, or does it strengthen current mechanistic paradigms? III. How can I explain relational, unfamiliar, or new concepts so that others (co-researchers, readers), who are new to this way of thinking, can understand? How can I create a bridge between the current and a potential new, more sustainable paradigm? Step 2: Reviewing the literature I. How can I integrate sources beyond scholarly articles to better-understand current knowledge? Are there ways to systematically include non-human perspectives? II. What underlying or tacit ontological, epistemological, and ethical assumptions might be present within the reviewed literature? III. How does my perspective, subjectivity, and social-ecological position influence the interpretation and analysis of the literature, and how can I take account of this? Step 3: Creating research hypotheses I. Do my hypotheses reflect the dominant social paradigm and related ontological assumptions? II. How do my hypotheses adequately consider the role of relationships (to self, others, nature, and the world at large)? III. How might abductive reasoning enhance my hypotheses? Step 4: Defining the overall research design I. How can I explicitly integrate a relational perspective when using reductionist methodologies? II. How can I design the overall research approach in a way that accounts for relationships and associated inner-outer change processes (individual, collective, and system levels) that are relevant for understanding the selected object? III. How can the overall design support transformation, for example, a change towards a more relational paradigm (both regarding the research object and stakeholders)? Step 5: Data collection and analyses I. How can I critically examine my role as a researcher during the data collection and analysis process? II. How can I embrace a broad range of methods, data types and formats beyond traditional textual or numerical approaches? III. What is the noise that I might be overlooking? Step 6: The writing process I. How might my perspectives and assumptions shape the interpretation and representation of my results, and how can I make them explicit in my writing? For instance, do I acknowledge related limitations in the description of research outcomes? II. Who do I speak for? Am I contributing to empowerment and justice, or am I disempowering certain individuals, groups, or other agents? For example, how can I give voice to non-human actors and consider their perspectives and interactions? How can I make my writings widely accessible for diverse audiences? III. What kind of words or other ways of representation can I use to support integrative understanding and transformation? For example, do my research results contribute to, or challenge, existing paradigms and practices? How can I reach people’s minds and hearts, and foster individual and collective agency, hope, and courage to act? Step 7: Dissemination of the results I. In what forms can I best share these research results to account for, and address diverse stakeholders, needs, and perspectives? For example, are videos, exhibitions, networks, or communities of practice relevant channels for dissemination and implementation? II. Am I conveying information accurately, respectfully, and in ways that honor diverse contributions and con- texts, particularly those of marginalized groups? For example, have I critically examined and reframed narratives that perpetuate injustices or exclude certain perspectives? III. How do I engage with relevant stakeholders during the dissemination process to support integrative understanding and transformation? For example, how can I move from traditional communication formats to more relational approaches that challenge current paradigms? In the sentence beginning ' III. What kind of world… ', there was a wording mistake: it should read “words” instead of “world.” In the supplementary material, the questions for steps 6 and 7 were incorrect. The correct file has now been uploaded. The original article has been corrected.

KW - Sustainability Science

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85205940727&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11625-024-01572-9

DO - 10.1007/s11625-024-01572-9

M3 - Comments / Debate / Reports

AN - SCOPUS:85205940727

VL - 20

SP - 323

EP - 325

JO - Sustainability Science

JF - Sustainability Science

SN - 1862-4065

ER -