Search results

The dissemination of sustainability has worldwide increased significantly in discourses and politics since the UN-resolution of the 'Sustainable Development Goals' in 2015. Nevertheless, the meanings of the concept vary in different linguistic communities and cultures. The present article comprises a meta-analytic revision of discourse-analytic work and a own discourse analysis of sustainability concepts in an intercultural orientation. The results show hegemonic discourses of economistic conceptualizations as well as alternatives, which are constituted in different linguistic communities. The article wants to contribute to an exchange and a profound discussion between the linguistic groups as well as to a methodological reflection on discourse analysis from an intercultural perspective. ; Desde la resolución de los 'Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible' por la ONU en 2015, la diseminación de lo sustentable y lo sostenible ha aumentado significadamente en discursos y políticas a nivel mundial. No obstante, el significado del concepto varia en diferentes comunidades lingüísticas y culturas. El presente articulo presenta una revisión meta-analítica de trabajos analíticos del discurso y un propio análisis del discurso de los conceptos de lo sustentable y lo sostenible en una orientación intercultural. Los resultados muestran discursos hegemónicos de conceptualizaciones economicistas, así como alternativas constituidas en diferentes comunidades lingüísticas. El artículo aspira a contribuir a un intercambio y a una discusión en profundidad entre las agrupaciones lingüísticas y a la reflexión metódica de la investigación analítica-discursiva desde una perspectiva intercultural. ; A disseminação mundial da sustentabilidade aumentou de forma significativa nos discursos e na política desde a resolução da ONU 'Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável' de 2015. No entanto, o significado do conceito varia em diferentes comunidades e culturas lingüísticas. O presente artigo apresenta uma revisão meta-analítica do trabalho analítico-discursivo e uma análise discursiva própria dos conceitos de sustentabilidade em uma orientação intercultural. Os resultados mostram discursos hegemônicos de conceitualizações economicistas, bem como alternativas, que se constituem em diferentes comunidades lingüísticas. O artigo pretende fomentar uma troca e uma discussão profunda entre os grupos lingüísticos, bem como uma reflexão metodológica sobre a análise do discurso a partir de uma perspectiva intercultural.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to describe experiences with the initiation of transdisciplinarity in academic case study teaching with special reference to regional planning, based on the case study "Leben 2014 (Life 2014) – perspectives for regional development in the national park region Ober‐pinz‐gau, Salzburg".Design/methodology/approachThe methodology used, was the evaluation of process steps of the project, based on the general project concept, protocols and questionnaires.FindingsA key for successful transdisciplinary cooperation is the integration of non‐academic actors at an early stage of the project. Important principles are the implementation of a structure of communication and networking in the case study region and the definition of rules of collaboration. The establishment of personal relations and network building is indispensable in order to guarantee a constant and broad exchange between all participants. Joint decision‐making processes are essential for stable cooperation, which includes a joint problem definition process at the outset of the case‐study phase as well as joint responsibility for decisions and joint ownership of ideas during and after the case‐study phase.Practical implicationsTransdisciplinarity in case‐study teaching also requires thorough preparation of academics. A constant discussion of different approaches to inter‐ and transdisciplinarity, the adaptation of existing conceptual frameworks to the specific requirements of the current case, the building of a committed teaching team and joint teaching of classes are all important. The careful selection of students and their specific preparation with respect to methodology and content are prerequisites for a successful outcome of a transdisciplinary case study.Originality/valueThe paper describes the experience of initiating transdisciplinarity in academic case study teaching.

Despite substantial focus on sustainability issues in both science and politics, humanity remains on largely unsustainable development trajectories. Partly, this is due to the failure of sustainability science to engage with the root causes of unsustainability. Drawing on ideas by Donella Meadows, we argue that many sustainability interventions target highly tangible, but essentially weak, leverage points (i.e. using interventions that are easy, but have limited potential for transformational change). Thus, there is an urgent need to focus on less obvious but potentially far more powerful areas of intervention. We propose a research agenda inspired by systems thinking that focuses on transformational 'sustainability interventions', centred on three realms of leverage: reconnecting people to nature, restructuring institutions and rethinking how knowledge is created and used in pursuit of sustainability. The notion of leverage points has the potential to act as a boundary object for genuinely transformational sustainability science.

AbstractExpertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into 'knowing-that' and 'knowing-how.' We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining 'when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,' we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering 'where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,' we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring 'what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,' we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained.

© 2020, The Author(s). Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into 'knowing-that' and 'knowing-how.' We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining 'when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,' we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering 'where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,' we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring 'what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,' we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so ...

Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into 'knowing-that' and 'knowing-how.' We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining 'when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,' we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering 'where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,' we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring 'what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,' we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained.