IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i3p2685-d1055073.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Critical Realist Approach to Reflexivity in Sustainability Research

Author

Listed:
  • Maryam Nastar

    (Lund University Center for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Lund University, P.O. Box 170, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden)

Abstract

In sustainability science, the research is expected to go beyond disciplinary thinking and incorporate different concepts, methods, and data to explore nature–society interactions at different levels and scales. In realizing these expectations, reflexivity is often noted as an influential factor in inter- and transdisciplinary research processes in sustainability science, wherein researchers reflect on their assumptions, judgments, roles, and positions in the research processes, rethink their ways of knowing and doing, and open up new possibilities for actions. Despite the growing literature on the notion of reflexivity in sustainability science and how it emerges during the research processes, the debates and discussions are often based on lessons learned from sustainability research projects, drawing on individuals’ experiences and motivations. This paper aims to grapple with the notion of reflexivity from a structural point of view, which is less discussed in sustainability research, by drawing on critical realist literature. The paper first presents how reflexivity is understood and analyzed in inter- and transdisciplinary research processes by reviewing the recent studies of reflexivity in sustainability science research. Second, it highlights the knowledge gaps and the need to engage with an alternative view on reflexivity offered by Margaret Archer, one of the leading critical realist scholars. Third, it takes Archer’s framework on reflexivity into sustainability research to explain the causal mechanisms impeding the emergence of meta-reflexivity in the process of knowledge integration and production in contemporary marketized and managerialized universities. Finally, the paper argues that in establishing practices (modus vivendi) that could address the structural barriers (not observable challenges), we need collective agency. To this end, it discusses different collective initiatives and courses of action that could lead to the emergence of collective agency, capable of tackling the cultural and material barriers to reflexivity.

Suggested Citation

  • Maryam Nastar, 2023. "A Critical Realist Approach to Reflexivity in Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2685-:d:1055073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2685/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2685/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon West & Lorrae van Kerkhoff & Hendrik Wagenaar, 2019. "Beyond “linking knowledge and action”: towards a practice-based approach to transdisciplinary sustainability interventions," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 534-555, September.
    2. Rau, Henrike & Goggins, Gary & Fahy, Frances, 2018. "From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 266-276.
    3. Tobias Luthe, 2017. "Success in Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Antje Disterheft & Denis Pijetlovic & Georg Müller-Christ, 2021. "On the Road of Discovery with Systemic Exploratory Constellations: Potentials of Online Constellation Exercises about Sustainability Transitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-16, May.
    5. Geels, Frank W., 2022. "Causality and explanation in socio-technical transitions research: Mobilising epistemological insights from the wider social sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    6. Jessica Cockburn, 2022. "Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary sustainability science: Tools from applied critical realism," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 358-374, April.
    7. Laurens K. Hessels & Stefan P.L. De Jong & Stijn Brouwer, 2018. "Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laura Gebhardt & Mascha Brost & Alexandra König, 2019. "An Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approach to Developing and Testing a New Sustainable Mobility System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-22, December.
    2. de Almeida, Liliane & Augusto de Jesus Pacheco, Diego & Caten, Carla Schwengber ten & Jung, Carlos Fernando, 2021. "A methodology for identifying results and impacts in technological innovation projects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Dominic Villeneuve & David Durán-Rodas & Anthony Ferri & Tobias Kuttler & Julie Magelund & Michael Mögele & Luca Nitschke & Eriketti Servou & Cat Silva, 2019. "What is Interdisciplinarity in Practice? Critical Reflections on Doing Mobility Research in an Intended Interdisciplinary Doctoral Research Group," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Geels, Frank W. & Ayoub, Martina, 2023. "A socio-technical transition perspective on positive tipping points in climate change mitigation: Analysing seven interacting feedback loops in offshore wind and electric vehicles acceleration," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Heleen Dreyer & Nadine Sonnenberg & Daleen Van der Merwe, 2022. "Transcending Linearity in Understanding Green Consumer Behaviour: A Social–Cognitive Framework for Behaviour Changes in an Emerging Economy Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-27, November.
    6. Baxter, David & Trott, Paul & Ellwood, Paul, 2023. "Reconceptualising innovation failure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    7. Jesús de Frutos-Belizón & Fernando Martín-Alcázar & Gonzalo Sánchez-Gardey, 2021. "The research–practice gap in the field of HRM: a qualitative study from the academic side of the gap," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1465-1515, August.
    8. Waes, Arnoud van & Nikolaeva, Anna & Raven, Rob, 2021. "Challenges and dilemmas in strategic urban experimentationAn analysis of four cycling innovation living labs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    9. Heikki Tuomenvirta & Hilppa Gregow & Atte Harjanne & Sanna Luhtala & Antti Mäkelä & Karoliina Pilli-Sihvola & Sirkku Juhola & Mikael Hildén & Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio & Ilkka T. Miettinen & Mikko Halonen, 2019. "Identifying Policy Actions Supporting Weather-Related Risk Management and Climate Change Adaptation in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-15, July.
    10. De Silva, Muthu & Gokhberg, Leonid & Meissner, Dirk & Russo, Margherita, 2021. "Addressing societal challenges through the simultaneous generation of social and business values: A conceptual framework for science-based co-creation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. Miltos Ladikas & Julia Hahn & Lei Huang, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Technology Assessment, Responsible Research and Innovation and Sustainability Research: Towards a Common Methodological Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    12. Isti Hidayati & Claudia Yamu & Wendy Tan, 2019. "The Emergence of Mobility Inequality in Greater Jakarta, Indonesia: A Socio-Spatial Analysis of Path Dependencies in Transport–Land Use Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    13. Johan Miörner & Bernhard Truffer & Christian Binz & Jonas Heiberg & Xiao-Shan Yap, 2022. "Guidebook for applying the Socio-Technical Configuration Analysis method," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2022(11), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    14. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2023. "Case study research on innovation systems: paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution," Working Papers 65, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised 15 May 2023.
    15. Laura Kreiling & Ahmed Bounfour, 2020. "A practice-based maturity model for holistic TTO performance management: development and initial use," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1718-1747, December.
    16. Keishiro Hara & Iori Miura & Masanori Suzuki & Toshihiro Tanaka, 2023. "Designing research strategy and technology innovation for sustainability by adopting “imaginary future generations”—A case study using metallurgy," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3-4), September.
    17. Florence Gignac & Anne-Sophie Gresle & Valeria Santoro Lamelas & Montserrat Yepes-Baldó & Leonardo de la Torre & Maria-Jesus Pinazo & the InSPIRES Consortium, 2021. "Self-evaluating participatory research projects: A content validation of the InSPIRES online impact evaluation tool [Content Validity and Reliability of Single Items or Questionnaires]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 500-513.
    18. Alba Viana Lora & Marta Gemma Nel-lo Andreu, 2020. "Alternative Metrics for Assessing the Social Impact of Tourism Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-12, May.
    19. Yufeng Chen & Biao Zheng, 2019. "What Happens after the Rare Earth Crisis: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, March.
    20. Julian Kirchherr & Andrea Urbinati & Kris Hartley, 2023. "Circular economy: A new research field?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(5), pages 1239-1251, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:3:p:2685-:d:1055073. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.