This paper analyses the possibility of building a mutually supportive dynamics between internally... more This paper analyses the possibility of building a mutually supportive dynamics between internally and externally motivated behaviour for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision. To this purpose a face to face survey amongst 169 key actors of 34 highly successful and prominent biodiversity arrangements in seven EU countries was conducted. The main finding of the paper is the feasibility of combining inherently intrinsically motivated behaviours (providing enjoyment, pleasure from experimentation and learning, aesthetic satisfaction) and internalized extrinsic motivations (related to the identification with the collective goals of conservation policy) through a common set of governance features. Successful initiatives that combine internal and external motivations share the following features: inclusive decision making processes, a broad monitoring by “peers” beyond the core staff of the initiatives, and a context that is supportive for the building of autonomous actor competences. These findings are in line with the psycho-sociological theory of motivation, which shows the importance of a psycho-social context leading to a subjective perception of autonomy and a sense of competence of the actors.
ABSTRACT The dominant understanding of how motivations to contribute to public goods are generate... more ABSTRACT The dominant understanding of how motivations to contribute to public goods are generated and sustained is largely shaped by the combined action of rational choice theory and neoclassical economics. This understanding relies on three key assumptions: individualism, instrumentalism and market equilibration. This paper questions the theoretical consistency and empirical relevance of these assumptions and of their associated policy model. I argue that a significant revision of this motivational theory is needed, one that takes into account intrinsic incentives, trust and strong reciprocity, as well as the effect of social and institutional context, monetization and market interactions on the propensity to contribute to public goods. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of this theoretical reconsideration for the organization of scientific research and for more effective policy making to sustain public goods provision.
ABSTRACT Investigating and solving complex sustainability issues requires a reconsideration of th... more ABSTRACT Investigating and solving complex sustainability issues requires a reconsideration of the way scientific knowledge is produced and the way it interacts with policy-making and the broader social environment. This engages both the intellectual and the social organization of research. The prevalent explanatory frameworks in sustainability research have been largely guided by descriptive-analytical goals and have paid little attention to the normative orientation and transformational dimension of science (Wiek et al. 2012). The importance of questioning the values, assumptions, practices and power structures shaping research has been increasingly acknowledged, particularly in the context of transdisciplinary collaboration (Jahn et al 2012; Lang et al 2012). Nonetheless, the concept of reflexivity underlying the current sustainability discourse remains ambiguous and fragmented between distinct approaches with local relevance, thus lacking theoretical robustness. This paper addresses this problem by (1) proposing a pragmatist reframing of four requirements of reflexivity that are supported by recent sustainability research, (2) building a typology of transdisciplinarity based on a double distinction between descriptive-analytical and transformational approaches, and between epistemic and social levels of analysis, and (3) assessing the different types of transdisciplinarity according to the degree in which they manifest distinct dimensions of reflexivity. We conclude by pointing out some key consequences of adopting an explicitly reflexive approach to transdisciplinarity at two levels: methodology and the socio-institutional organization of research.
This paper aims at developing an original account of trust in the framework of large scale, inter... more This paper aims at developing an original account of trust in the framework of large scale, international collective action institutions. Our research question focuses on the structures and mechanisms that are necessary to sustain the trust needed to uphold the effective operation of institutions for collective action. Our theoretical framework for studying trust is based on the social capital theory. Social capital is defined as the features of social organization, such as trust, networks and norms that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. We claim that in different sectors and contexts stakeholders encounter difficulties in collaborating in setting up experimental institutions for collective action. In order to generate more collaboration, stakeholders need to create structures that incite actors to find better ways to sustain trust, to integrate the process of sustaining trust in the organization, and to nourish it with the precise normative idea behind the institutional apparatus. In the plant and biomedical sector, stakeholders have encountered difficulties in sustaining trust while experimenting with different coordination mechanisms for dealing with the increased appropriation of knowledge through patents. Our analysis of some examples from the plant and biomedical sector suggest that institutions could be understood as complex pragmatic connectors of trust, i.e. social matrices of collective action that sustain individual commitment, where routine and reflexivity drive trust-based coordination mechanisms in interaction with their environment.
In this paper we will focus on how governance issues are being dealt with in the BElgium Ecosyste... more In this paper we will focus on how governance issues are being dealt with in the BElgium Ecosystem Services (BEES) Community of Practice and on some Belgian Ecosystem Services (ES) research projects aimed at policy or practice support. As ES governance is still mainly an aspect of policy or practice oriented research, we will specifically focus on method and methodological decision making. The system or systems we aim to govern are complex. But also the governance processes are inherently complex. How do we take this complexity into account in decision support? Do we acknowledge complexity in our approach or do we drastically simplify and reduce it to relatively simple proportions? The methodological approach of decision support methods is open for debate as neither crystal clear nor undisputed yardsticks for best practices exist. On an ambition level, BEES members generally seem to prefer transdisciplinary as well as inclusive valuation approaches, though not exclusively in all circumstances. In Belgium research projects, similar to the developments within BEES, from a research practice dominated by scientists, gradually research processes are opening up to transdisciplinary collaboration. Simultaneously these processes gradually shift from mainly top down approaches to bottom up approaches or hybrid combinations of both entry points. A closer and more nuanced view shows that real transdisciplinary collaboration in Belgian ES research still is only at the beginning. Partly this can be explained by the fact that inter- and transdisciplinary approaches are perhaps more realistic, but also have to deal with more social complexity. New balances have to be found between sophistication and pragmatics. Also the role of science can become more ambiguous: the closer to stakeholders, the more an independent role can be questioned. Regarding ES valuation methods, in general a trend towards more inclusive valuation is clearly noticeable in Belgian ES research, inclusive in the sense of a diversity of ES valuation aspects to be taken into account, diverse types of expression of value(s), a combination of quantifiable and qualitative information, and a diversity of valuators by way of more bottom-up approaches. Still, there are quite some differences between projects and challenges for integration.
This paper argues that methodological pluralism, as currently deployed in interdisciplinary and t... more This paper argues that methodological pluralism, as currently deployed in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, can benefit from becoming more reflexive. In particular, reflexivity can facilitate effective and problem-specific ways of combining methods across different disciplinary fields and types of expertise. To develop our argument, we distinguish between two dimensions of reflexivity: critical (questioning of values, assumptions and socio-political context underlying research methodology) and practice-based (building convergence on values and understandings and investigating pathways for change by mobilizing social experimentation and learning). We discuss the ways in which reflexive processes have been mobilized in recent research on environmental valuation. We conclude by emphasizing the role of critical and practice-based reflexivity in building a more ‘structured’ understanding of methodological pluralism.
The dominant understanding of how motivations to contribute to public goods are generated and sus... more The dominant understanding of how motivations to contribute to public goods are generated and sustained is largely shaped by the combined action of rational choice theory and neoclassical economics.
This understanding relies on three key assumptions: individualism, instrumentalism and market equilibration. In this paper we question the theoretical consistency and empirical relevance of these assumptions and of their associated policy model. We argue that significant revision of this motivational theory is needed, one that takes into account intrinsic incentives, trust and strong reciprocity, as well as the effect of social constraints, money and market interactions on the propensity to contribute to public
goods. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of this theoretical reconsideration for the organization of scientific research and for more effective policy making to sustain motivations.
Investigating and solving complex sustainability issues requires a reconsideration of the way sci... more Investigating and solving complex sustainability issues requires a reconsideration of the way scientific knowledge is produced and the way it interacts with policy-making and the broader social environment. This engages both the intellectual and the social organization of research. In particular, we focus on the role of problem framing and of the socio-normative background of research (assumptions, values, norms, institutional and technological context) in shaping scientific methodology.
The prevalent explanatory frameworks in sustainability research are largely guided by descriptive-analytical goals and pay relatively little attention to the transformational dimension of science (Wiek et al. 2012). Integrating this transformational level into scientific practice can potentially have a normative benefit (by way of a critical deliberation on what values and aims should guide research), but also an epistemic benefit (insofar as the implicit normative commitments and social constraints guiding research are brought into the open, and thus their methodological contributions are clarified). Through a critical-reflexive approach, based on explicit acknowledgement and critical deliberation on the values, assumptions and social context of scientific practice, sustainability research can be carried out on a more solid epistemological and normative foundation. We illustrate the normative and epistemic potential of this approach by focusing on environmental valuation methods and the assumptions and values underlying them.
The importance of questioning the values, background assumptions, and normative orientations shap... more The importance of questioning the values, background assumptions, and normative orientations shaping sustainability research has been increasingly acknowledged, particularly in the context of transdisciplinary research, which aims to integrate knowledge from various scientific and societal bodies of knowledge. Nonetheless, the concept of reflexivity underlying transdisciplinary research is not sufficiently clarified and, as a result, is hardly able to support the development of social learning and social experimentation processes needed to support sustainability transitions. In particular, the concept of reflexivity is often restricted to building social legitimacy for the results of a new kind of ‘complex systems science, with little consideration of the role of non-scientific expertise and social innovators in the design of the research practice itself.
The key hypothesis of the paper is that transdisciplinary research would benefit from adopting a pragmatist approach to reflexivity. Such an approach relates reflexivity to collective processes of problem framing and problem solving through joint experimentation and social learning that directly involve the scientific and extra-scientific expertise. To test this hypothesis, the paper proposes a framework for analysing the different types of reflexive processes that play role in transdisciplinary research. The main conclusion of the analysis is the need to combine conventional consensus-oriented deliberative approaches to reflexivity with more open-ended, action-oriented transformative approaches.
This paper analyses the possibility of building a mutually supportive dynamics between internally... more This paper analyses the possibility of building a mutually supportive dynamics between internally and externally motivated behaviour for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision. To this purpose a face to face survey amongst 169 key actors of 34 highly successful and prominent biodiversity arrangements in seven EU countries was conducted. The main finding of the paper is the feasibility of combining inherently intrinsically motivated behaviours (providing enjoyment, pleasure from experimentation and learning, aesthetic satisfaction) and internalized extrinsic motivations (related to the identification with the collective goals of conservation policy) through a common set of governance features. Successful initiatives that combine internal and external motivations share the following features: inclusive decision making processes, a broad monitoring by “peers” beyond the core staff of the initiatives, and a context that is supportive for the building of autonomous actor competences. These findings are in line with the psycho-sociological theory of motivation, which shows the importance of a psycho-social context leading to a subjective perception of autonomy and a sense of competence of the actors.
ABSTRACT The dominant understanding of how motivations to contribute to public goods are generate... more ABSTRACT The dominant understanding of how motivations to contribute to public goods are generated and sustained is largely shaped by the combined action of rational choice theory and neoclassical economics. This understanding relies on three key assumptions: individualism, instrumentalism and market equilibration. This paper questions the theoretical consistency and empirical relevance of these assumptions and of their associated policy model. I argue that a significant revision of this motivational theory is needed, one that takes into account intrinsic incentives, trust and strong reciprocity, as well as the effect of social and institutional context, monetization and market interactions on the propensity to contribute to public goods. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of this theoretical reconsideration for the organization of scientific research and for more effective policy making to sustain public goods provision.
ABSTRACT Investigating and solving complex sustainability issues requires a reconsideration of th... more ABSTRACT Investigating and solving complex sustainability issues requires a reconsideration of the way scientific knowledge is produced and the way it interacts with policy-making and the broader social environment. This engages both the intellectual and the social organization of research. The prevalent explanatory frameworks in sustainability research have been largely guided by descriptive-analytical goals and have paid little attention to the normative orientation and transformational dimension of science (Wiek et al. 2012). The importance of questioning the values, assumptions, practices and power structures shaping research has been increasingly acknowledged, particularly in the context of transdisciplinary collaboration (Jahn et al 2012; Lang et al 2012). Nonetheless, the concept of reflexivity underlying the current sustainability discourse remains ambiguous and fragmented between distinct approaches with local relevance, thus lacking theoretical robustness. This paper addresses this problem by (1) proposing a pragmatist reframing of four requirements of reflexivity that are supported by recent sustainability research, (2) building a typology of transdisciplinarity based on a double distinction between descriptive-analytical and transformational approaches, and between epistemic and social levels of analysis, and (3) assessing the different types of transdisciplinarity according to the degree in which they manifest distinct dimensions of reflexivity. We conclude by pointing out some key consequences of adopting an explicitly reflexive approach to transdisciplinarity at two levels: methodology and the socio-institutional organization of research.
This paper aims at developing an original account of trust in the framework of large scale, inter... more This paper aims at developing an original account of trust in the framework of large scale, international collective action institutions. Our research question focuses on the structures and mechanisms that are necessary to sustain the trust needed to uphold the effective operation of institutions for collective action. Our theoretical framework for studying trust is based on the social capital theory. Social capital is defined as the features of social organization, such as trust, networks and norms that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. We claim that in different sectors and contexts stakeholders encounter difficulties in collaborating in setting up experimental institutions for collective action. In order to generate more collaboration, stakeholders need to create structures that incite actors to find better ways to sustain trust, to integrate the process of sustaining trust in the organization, and to nourish it with the precise normative idea behind the institutional apparatus. In the plant and biomedical sector, stakeholders have encountered difficulties in sustaining trust while experimenting with different coordination mechanisms for dealing with the increased appropriation of knowledge through patents. Our analysis of some examples from the plant and biomedical sector suggest that institutions could be understood as complex pragmatic connectors of trust, i.e. social matrices of collective action that sustain individual commitment, where routine and reflexivity drive trust-based coordination mechanisms in interaction with their environment.
In this paper we will focus on how governance issues are being dealt with in the BElgium Ecosyste... more In this paper we will focus on how governance issues are being dealt with in the BElgium Ecosystem Services (BEES) Community of Practice and on some Belgian Ecosystem Services (ES) research projects aimed at policy or practice support. As ES governance is still mainly an aspect of policy or practice oriented research, we will specifically focus on method and methodological decision making. The system or systems we aim to govern are complex. But also the governance processes are inherently complex. How do we take this complexity into account in decision support? Do we acknowledge complexity in our approach or do we drastically simplify and reduce it to relatively simple proportions? The methodological approach of decision support methods is open for debate as neither crystal clear nor undisputed yardsticks for best practices exist. On an ambition level, BEES members generally seem to prefer transdisciplinary as well as inclusive valuation approaches, though not exclusively in all circumstances. In Belgium research projects, similar to the developments within BEES, from a research practice dominated by scientists, gradually research processes are opening up to transdisciplinary collaboration. Simultaneously these processes gradually shift from mainly top down approaches to bottom up approaches or hybrid combinations of both entry points. A closer and more nuanced view shows that real transdisciplinary collaboration in Belgian ES research still is only at the beginning. Partly this can be explained by the fact that inter- and transdisciplinary approaches are perhaps more realistic, but also have to deal with more social complexity. New balances have to be found between sophistication and pragmatics. Also the role of science can become more ambiguous: the closer to stakeholders, the more an independent role can be questioned. Regarding ES valuation methods, in general a trend towards more inclusive valuation is clearly noticeable in Belgian ES research, inclusive in the sense of a diversity of ES valuation aspects to be taken into account, diverse types of expression of value(s), a combination of quantifiable and qualitative information, and a diversity of valuators by way of more bottom-up approaches. Still, there are quite some differences between projects and challenges for integration.
This paper argues that methodological pluralism, as currently deployed in interdisciplinary and t... more This paper argues that methodological pluralism, as currently deployed in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, can benefit from becoming more reflexive. In particular, reflexivity can facilitate effective and problem-specific ways of combining methods across different disciplinary fields and types of expertise. To develop our argument, we distinguish between two dimensions of reflexivity: critical (questioning of values, assumptions and socio-political context underlying research methodology) and practice-based (building convergence on values and understandings and investigating pathways for change by mobilizing social experimentation and learning). We discuss the ways in which reflexive processes have been mobilized in recent research on environmental valuation. We conclude by emphasizing the role of critical and practice-based reflexivity in building a more ‘structured’ understanding of methodological pluralism.
The dominant understanding of how motivations to contribute to public goods are generated and sus... more The dominant understanding of how motivations to contribute to public goods are generated and sustained is largely shaped by the combined action of rational choice theory and neoclassical economics.
This understanding relies on three key assumptions: individualism, instrumentalism and market equilibration. In this paper we question the theoretical consistency and empirical relevance of these assumptions and of their associated policy model. We argue that significant revision of this motivational theory is needed, one that takes into account intrinsic incentives, trust and strong reciprocity, as well as the effect of social constraints, money and market interactions on the propensity to contribute to public
goods. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of this theoretical reconsideration for the organization of scientific research and for more effective policy making to sustain motivations.
Investigating and solving complex sustainability issues requires a reconsideration of the way sci... more Investigating and solving complex sustainability issues requires a reconsideration of the way scientific knowledge is produced and the way it interacts with policy-making and the broader social environment. This engages both the intellectual and the social organization of research. In particular, we focus on the role of problem framing and of the socio-normative background of research (assumptions, values, norms, institutional and technological context) in shaping scientific methodology.
The prevalent explanatory frameworks in sustainability research are largely guided by descriptive-analytical goals and pay relatively little attention to the transformational dimension of science (Wiek et al. 2012). Integrating this transformational level into scientific practice can potentially have a normative benefit (by way of a critical deliberation on what values and aims should guide research), but also an epistemic benefit (insofar as the implicit normative commitments and social constraints guiding research are brought into the open, and thus their methodological contributions are clarified). Through a critical-reflexive approach, based on explicit acknowledgement and critical deliberation on the values, assumptions and social context of scientific practice, sustainability research can be carried out on a more solid epistemological and normative foundation. We illustrate the normative and epistemic potential of this approach by focusing on environmental valuation methods and the assumptions and values underlying them.
The importance of questioning the values, background assumptions, and normative orientations shap... more The importance of questioning the values, background assumptions, and normative orientations shaping sustainability research has been increasingly acknowledged, particularly in the context of transdisciplinary research, which aims to integrate knowledge from various scientific and societal bodies of knowledge. Nonetheless, the concept of reflexivity underlying transdisciplinary research is not sufficiently clarified and, as a result, is hardly able to support the development of social learning and social experimentation processes needed to support sustainability transitions. In particular, the concept of reflexivity is often restricted to building social legitimacy for the results of a new kind of ‘complex systems science, with little consideration of the role of non-scientific expertise and social innovators in the design of the research practice itself.
The key hypothesis of the paper is that transdisciplinary research would benefit from adopting a pragmatist approach to reflexivity. Such an approach relates reflexivity to collective processes of problem framing and problem solving through joint experimentation and social learning that directly involve the scientific and extra-scientific expertise. To test this hypothesis, the paper proposes a framework for analysing the different types of reflexive processes that play role in transdisciplinary research. The main conclusion of the analysis is the need to combine conventional consensus-oriented deliberative approaches to reflexivity with more open-ended, action-oriented transformative approaches.
Uploads
Papers by Florin Popa
This understanding relies on three key assumptions: individualism, instrumentalism and market equilibration. In this paper we question the theoretical consistency and empirical relevance of these assumptions and of their associated policy model. We argue that significant revision of this motivational theory is needed, one that takes into account intrinsic incentives, trust and strong reciprocity, as well as the effect of social constraints, money and market interactions on the propensity to contribute to public
goods. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of this theoretical reconsideration for the organization of scientific research and for more effective policy making to sustain motivations.
The prevalent explanatory frameworks in sustainability research are largely guided by descriptive-analytical goals and pay relatively little attention to the transformational dimension of science (Wiek et al. 2012). Integrating this transformational level into scientific practice can potentially have a normative benefit (by way of a critical deliberation on what values and aims should guide research), but also an epistemic benefit (insofar as the implicit normative commitments and social constraints guiding research are brought into the open, and thus their methodological contributions are clarified). Through a critical-reflexive approach, based on explicit acknowledgement and critical deliberation on the values, assumptions and social context of scientific practice, sustainability research can be carried out on a more solid epistemological and normative foundation. We illustrate the normative and epistemic potential of this approach by focusing on environmental valuation methods and the assumptions and values underlying them.
Keywords: sustainability, social-ecological systems, epistemic values, theoretical assumptions, reflexivity, methodological pluralism
The key hypothesis of the paper is that transdisciplinary research would benefit from adopting a pragmatist approach to reflexivity. Such an approach relates reflexivity to collective processes of problem framing and problem solving through joint experimentation and social learning that directly involve the scientific and extra-scientific expertise. To test this hypothesis, the paper proposes a framework for analysing the different types of reflexive processes that play role in transdisciplinary research. The main conclusion of the analysis is the need to combine conventional consensus-oriented deliberative approaches to reflexivity with more open-ended, action-oriented transformative approaches.
This understanding relies on three key assumptions: individualism, instrumentalism and market equilibration. In this paper we question the theoretical consistency and empirical relevance of these assumptions and of their associated policy model. We argue that significant revision of this motivational theory is needed, one that takes into account intrinsic incentives, trust and strong reciprocity, as well as the effect of social constraints, money and market interactions on the propensity to contribute to public
goods. The paper concludes by outlining the implications of this theoretical reconsideration for the organization of scientific research and for more effective policy making to sustain motivations.
The prevalent explanatory frameworks in sustainability research are largely guided by descriptive-analytical goals and pay relatively little attention to the transformational dimension of science (Wiek et al. 2012). Integrating this transformational level into scientific practice can potentially have a normative benefit (by way of a critical deliberation on what values and aims should guide research), but also an epistemic benefit (insofar as the implicit normative commitments and social constraints guiding research are brought into the open, and thus their methodological contributions are clarified). Through a critical-reflexive approach, based on explicit acknowledgement and critical deliberation on the values, assumptions and social context of scientific practice, sustainability research can be carried out on a more solid epistemological and normative foundation. We illustrate the normative and epistemic potential of this approach by focusing on environmental valuation methods and the assumptions and values underlying them.
Keywords: sustainability, social-ecological systems, epistemic values, theoretical assumptions, reflexivity, methodological pluralism
The key hypothesis of the paper is that transdisciplinary research would benefit from adopting a pragmatist approach to reflexivity. Such an approach relates reflexivity to collective processes of problem framing and problem solving through joint experimentation and social learning that directly involve the scientific and extra-scientific expertise. To test this hypothesis, the paper proposes a framework for analysing the different types of reflexive processes that play role in transdisciplinary research. The main conclusion of the analysis is the need to combine conventional consensus-oriented deliberative approaches to reflexivity with more open-ended, action-oriented transformative approaches.