Jump to content
Dilemmas of Sustainability. On Relevance and Critical Reflection in Sustainability Research / Introductory remarks
Dilemmas of Sustainability. On Relevance and Critical Reflection in Sustainability Research / Introductory remarks
Contents
Chapter
Expand
|
Collapse
Page
1–4
Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis
1–4
Details
5–12
Introductory remarks
5–12
Details
13–14
Foreword
13–14
Details
15–22
1. Introduction: Why another guide?
15–22
Details
General acceptance of sustainability
Sustainability as an empty signifier?
Resulting challenge for sustainability projects and their funding
Analytical understanding of sustainability as a “third way”
Aims of the Guide
Dilemmas of sustainability
Early recognition, clarification and processing of dilemmas
Target group of the guide
Metacriteria of sustainability
The basis of this guide
23–24
2. Instructions for use
23–24
Details
25–48
3. Sustainability and dilemmas – Theory for practice
25–48
Details
3.1 Sustainability – Analytical understanding of sustainability
3.2 Dilemmas – On the basic structure of practical dilemmas
3.3 Dilemmas – Determinations of dilemmas of sustainability
3.3.1 Conflicting goals as a potential cause of dilemmas
3.3.2 Conflicts of time as a potential cause of dilemmas
3.3.3 Conflicts of interest as a potential cause of dilemmas
3.3.4 Conflicts between different forms of knowledge as a potential cause of dilemmas
3.3.5 Conflicts between different understandings of sustainability as a potential cause of dilemmas
3.3.6 Conflicts over responsibility as a potential cause of dilemmas
3.3.7 Dilemmas as a touchstone for the feasibility of norms of action
3.4 Early recognition: areas of tension with potentials for dilemmas
3.4.1 Implicit assumptions in the project context
3.4.2 Cooperation and participation in inter- and transdisciplinary research projects
3.4.3 (Transdisciplinary) research in structures of funding and science
3.4.4 Research in the context of social framework conditions
3.5 Clarification: Strategic assertion and denial of dilemmas
3.6 Processing of dilemmas: Between win-win and trade-off
3.6.1 Two basic prerequisites for overcoming dilemmas
3.6.2 Processing of dilemmas at the level of obvious objective conditions for action (technical solutions)
3.6.3 Processing of dilemmas at the level of obvious subjective premises (justification of trade-offs through rules of prioritisation)
3.6.4 Processing of dilemmas at the level of underlying objective conditions for action (change of fundamental social institutions and structures)
3.6.5 Processing of dilemmas at the level of underlying subjective premises (change of fundamental values and norms)
49–68
4. Metacriteria of sustainability
49–68
Details
Block A: Reflection on the use of the concept of sustainability and the concept of dilemma
Block B: Reflecting on one's own premises for action – project planning phase
Block C: Reflection on the conditions for action – project implementation phase
4.1 Metacriterion 1: The understanding of sustainability used in the project is reflected upon with regard to its possibilities and limitations. (Block A)
Reflection question 1: Is the concept of sustainability used in the project defined?
Reflection question 2: Does the definition used correspond to one of the classic understandings of sustainability?
Reflection question 3: Does the project make clear what contribution it wants to make to sustainability in the project's own understanding of sustainability?
Reflection question 4: Does the project make clear which trade-offs are accepted, and to what extent does the project's contribution to sustainability hinder other aspects relevant for sustainability?
4.2 Metacriterion 2: The description of the problem and the objectives are reflected upon by all participants as a framework for action. (Block B)
Reflection question 5: Has an understanding on a common description of a problem taken place between all participants?
Reflection question 6: Are multiple objectives identified in the project?
Reflection question 7: In the case of several objectives, is prioritisation carried out and what criteria does it follow?
Reflection question 8: Do all objectives relate to the understanding of sustainability used?
4.3 Metacriterion 3: The forms of knowledge underlying the project with their opportunities and limitations are reflected upon. (Block B)
Reflection question 9: Is the project based on different scientific knowledge?
Reflection question 10: Is the project based on non-scientific forms of knowledge?
Reflection question 11: Are different types of knowledge along the lines of systems-, target-, and transformation knowledge (in the sense of transdisciplinary research) included and adjusted to the un...
Reflection question 12: Are possible tensions or contradictions between different forms and types of knowledge reflected upon?
4.4 Metacriterion 4: Basic decisions and implicit assumptions are reflected upon in the project. (Block B)
Reflection question 13: Are the basic terms of the call for proposals or the project defined and their meaning and significance reflected upon?
Reflection question 14: Are implicit assumptions of individual disciplines about the research subject disclosed and communicated transparently in the project network?
Reflection question 15: Are the normative and motivational foundations of one's own actions and the associated interpretive claims reflected upon?
4.5 Metacriterion 5: The processes and possible tensions of inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation are reflected upon. (Block C)
Reflection question 16: Are the criteria for selecting the actors involved reflected upon?
Reflection question 17: Are processes of participation designed in an open and participatory way so that barriers are removed from the outset?
Reflection question 18: Is it clear who in the project network contributes which competencies and (professional) resources to achieve the objectives?
Reflection question 19: Are there tensions between the individual objectives of the actors involved in the project?
Reflection question 20: Are there fixed, regulated communication structures in the project network that enable open, transparent communication between all actors involved?
Reflection question 21: Are there structures or action plans that are used when conflicts or disagreements arise in the project?
4.6 Metacriterion 6: The policies with regard to time in the project are reflected upon. (Block C)
Reflection question 22: Are the time resources of the actors involved in the project network known and communicated?
Reflection question 23: Are the time schedules and processes of the project participants coordinated and communicated?
Reflection question 24: Are the inherent logics of the interacting systems of the research object considered in the research process?
4.7 Metacriterion 7: If attributions of responsibility exist, they are actively reflected upon in terms of their justification, their limitations and their effects. (Block C)
Reflection question 25: Are attributions of responsibility formulated in the project itself or brought to the project from outside?
Reflection question 26: What is the relationship between any attribution of responsibility and the project's understanding of sustainability?
Reflection question 27: Are the limitations and possible negative effects of any attributions of responsibility reflected upon?
4.8 Metacriterion 8: A use of the term “dilemma” is actively considered. (Block A)
Reflection question 28: Is the term “dilemma” used in the research project?
Reflection question 29: Can a strategic use of the term “dilemma” be identified in critical reflection?
Reflection question 30: Could the term “dilemma” be used meaningfully in the research project to raise awareness of possible tensions or conflicts?
69–72
5. Additional guiding questions for funding organisations
69–72
Details
Reflection question for funding organisations 1: Does the (maximum) funding period and the amount of funding allow for a transdisciplinary approach in which time and financial resources are available ...
Reflection question for funding organisations 2: Are the basic terms of the call for proposals defined and their meaning and significance reflected upon?
Reflection question for funding organisations 3: Does the call for proposals reflect on the relationship between political goals and the current scientific status and discourse on sustainability?
Reflection question for funding organisations 4: Are the evaluation criteria and procedures of applications tailored to the characteristics of transdisciplinary sustainability research?
Literature
Details
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY
Access
Dilemmas of Sustainability. On Relevance and Critical Reflection in Sustainability Research , page 5 - 12
Introductory remarks
Autoren
Anna Henkel
Sophie Berg
D. Isabell Mader
Ann-Kristin Müller
Matthias Bergmann
Holli Gruber
Bernd Siebenhüner
Karsten Speck
DOI
doi.org/10.5771/9783748918820-5
ISBN print: 978-3-7560-1354-8
ISBN online: 978-3-7489-1882-0
Chapter Preview
Share
Current chapter
Complete document
Download citation
RIS
BibTeX
Copy DOI link
doi.org/10.5771/9783748918820-5
Share by email
Video schließen
Share by email Nomos eLibrary
Recipient*
Sender*
Message*
Your name
Send message
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.
