Dilemmas of Sustainability. On Relevance and Critical Reflection in Sustainability Research

Prof. Dr. Anna Henkel; Sophie Berg M.A.; Dr. D. Isabell Mader; Ann-Kristin Müller M.A.; Prof. Dr. Matthias Bergmann; Holli Gruber M.Sc.; Prof. Dr. Bernd Siebenhüner; Prof. Dr. Karsten Speck

doi:10.5771/9783748918820

Summary

The concept of sustainability is increasingly losing its contours. This study reflects on the understanding of sustainability used in research and science. Its authors thus enable us to concisely determine not only concrete contributions to sustainability, but also its limits. Based on an analytical understanding of sustainability and the basic structure of practical dilemmas, the book identifies typical conflicts as causes of dilemmas. Meta-criteria of sustainability allow us to identify dilemmas and to clarify and deal with them practically at an early stage. Finally, the study applies these meta-criteria in concrete project contexts by means of guiding questions for reflection.

Keywords

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright year: 2023
ISBN-Print: 978-3-7560-1354-8
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-1882-0
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Language: English
Pages: 0
Product type: Book Titles

Titelei/InhaltsverzeichnisPages 1 - 4 Download chapter (PDF)
Introductory remarksPages 5 - 12 Download chapter (PDF)
ForewordPages 13 - 14 Download chapter (PDF)
Download chapter (PDF)
1. General acceptance of sustainability
2. Sustainability as an empty signifier?
3. Resulting challenge for sustainability projects and their funding
4. Analytical understanding of sustainability as a “third way”
5. Aims of the Guide
6. Dilemmas of sustainability
7. Early recognition, clarification and processing of dilemmas
8. Target group of the guide
9. Metacriteria of sustainability
10. The basis of this guide
2. Instructions for usePages 23 - 24 Download chapter (PDF)
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 3.1 Sustainability – Analytical understanding of sustainability
2. 3.2 Dilemmas – On the basic structure of practical dilemmas
3. 1. 3.3.1 Conflicting goals as a potential cause of dilemmas
  2. 3.3.2 Conflicts of time as a potential cause of dilemmas
  3. 3.3.3 Conflicts of interest as a potential cause of dilemmas
  4. 3.3.4 Conflicts between different forms of knowledge as a potential cause of dilemmas
  5. 3.3.5 Conflicts between different understandings of sustainability as a potential cause of dilemmas
  6. 3.3.6 Conflicts over responsibility as a potential cause of dilemmas
  7. 3.3.7 Dilemmas as a touchstone for the feasibility of norms of action
4. 1. 3.4.1 Implicit assumptions in the project context
  2. 3.4.2 Cooperation and participation in inter- and transdisciplinary research projects
  3. 3.4.3 (Transdisciplinary) research in structures of funding and science
  4. 3.4.4 Research in the context of social framework conditions
5. 3.5 Clarification: Strategic assertion and denial of dilemmas
6. 1. 3.6.1 Two basic prerequisites for overcoming dilemmas
  2. 3.6.2 Processing of dilemmas at the level of obvious objective conditions for action (technical solutions)
  3. 3.6.3 Processing of dilemmas at the level of obvious subjective premises (justification of trade-offs through rules of prioritisation)
  4. 3.6.4 Processing of dilemmas at the level of underlying objective conditions for action (change of fundamental social institutions and structures)
  5. 3.6.5 Processing of dilemmas at the level of underlying subjective premises (change of fundamental values and norms)
Download chapter (PDF)
1. Block A: Reflection on the use of the concept of sustainability and the concept of dilemma
2. Block B: Reflecting on one's own premises for action – project planning phase
3. 1. 4.1 Metacriterion 1: The understanding of sustainability used in the project is reflected upon with regard to its possibilities and limitations. (Block A)
4. Reflection question 1: Is the concept of sustainability used in the project defined?
5. Reflection question 2: Does the definition used correspond to one of the classic understandings of sustainability?
6. Reflection question 3: Does the project make clear what contribution it wants to make to sustainability in the project's own understanding of sustainability?
7. 1. 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)
8. Reflection question 5: Has an understanding on a common description of a problem taken place between all participants?
9. Reflection question 6: Are multiple objectives identified in the project?
10. Reflection question 7: In the case of several objectives, is prioritisation carried out and what criteria does it follow?
11. 1. 4.3 Metacriterion 3: The forms of knowledge underlying the project with their opportunities and limitations are reflected upon. (Block B)
12. Reflection question 9: Is the project based on different scientific knowledge?
13. Reflection question 10: Is the project based on non-scientific forms of knowledge?
14. 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...
15. 1. 4.4 Metacriterion 4: Basic decisions and implicit assumptions are reflected upon in the project. (Block B)
16. Reflection question 13: Are the basic terms of the call for proposals or the project defined and their meaning and significance reflected upon?
17. Reflection question 14: Are implicit assumptions of individual disciplines about the research subject disclosed and communicated transparently in the project network?
18. 1. 4.5 Metacriterion 5: The processes and possible tensions of inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation are reflected upon. (Block C)
19. Reflection question 16: Are the criteria for selecting the actors involved reflected upon?
20. Reflection question 17: Are processes of participation designed in an open and participatory way so that barriers are removed from the outset?
21. Reflection question 18: Is it clear who in the project network contributes which competencies and (professional) resources to achieve the objectives?
22. Reflection question 19: Are there tensions between the individual objectives of the actors involved in the project?
23. Reflection question 20: Are there fixed, regulated communication structures in the project network that enable open, transparent communication between all actors involved?
24. 1. 4.6 Metacriterion 6: The policies with regard to time in the project are reflected upon. (Block C)
25. Reflection question 22: Are the time resources of the actors involved in the project network known and communicated?
26. Reflection question 23: Are the time schedules and processes of the project participants coordinated and communicated?
27. 1. 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)
28. Reflection question 25: Are attributions of responsibility formulated in the project itself or brought to the project from outside?
29. Reflection question 26: What is the relationship between any attribution of responsibility and the project's understanding of sustainability?
30. 1. 4.8 Metacriterion 8: A use of the term “dilemma” is actively considered. (Block A)
31. Reflection question 28: Is the term “dilemma” used in the research project?
32. Reflection question 29: Can a strategic use of the term “dilemma” be identified in critical reflection?
33. Reflection question 30: Could the term “dilemma” be used meaningfully in the research project to raise awareness of possible tensions or conflicts?
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 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 ...
2. Reflection question for funding organisations 2: Are the basic terms of the call for proposals defined and their meaning and significance reflected upon?
3. 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?
4. Reflection question for funding organisations 4: Are the evaluation criteria and procedures of applications tailored to the characteristics of transdisciplinary sustainability research?
LiteraturePages 73 - Download chapter (PDF)

Bibliography (54 entries)

Badmington, Neil ed. (2000): Posthumanism. New York: Palgrave. Open Google Scholar
Bayertz, Kurt (1995): Eine kurze Geschichte der Herkunft der Verantwortung p. 3–71 in K. Bayertz (ed.), Verantwortung. Prinzip oder Problem? Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Open Google Scholar
Bergmann, Matthias / Brohmann, Bettina / Hofmann, Esther / Loibl, M. Céline / Rehaag, Regine / Schramm, Engelbert / Voß, Jan-Peter (2005): Qualitätskriterien transdisziplinärer Forschung. Ein Leitfaden für die formative Evaluation von Forschungsprojekten. ISOE-Studientexte, 13. Frankfurt am Main: ISOE – Institut für sozial-ökologische Forschung. Open Google Scholar
Bergmann, Matthias / Jahn, Thomas (2023): Dilemmata der Nachhaltigkeit – Herausforderungen für die transdisziplinäre Forschungspraxis p. 347–362 in A. Henkel / S. Berg / M. Bermann / H. Gruber / T. Jahn / N. C. Karafyllis / D. Mader / A. Müller / B. Siebenhüner / K. Speck / D.-P. Zorn (eds.), Dilemmata der Nachhaltigkeit. Ba den-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
Bergmann, Matthias / Jahn, Thomas / Knobloch, Tobias / Krohn, Wolfgang / Pohl, Christian / Schramm, Engelbert (2010): Methoden transdisziplinärer Forschung. Ein Überblick mit Anwendungsbeispielen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Open Google Scholar
Bonneuil, Christophe / Fressoz, Jean-Baptiste (2016): The Shock of the Anthropocene: The Earth, History and Us. London: Verso. Open Google Scholar
Carr, David (2012): Educating the virtues: An essay on the philosophical psychology of moral development and education. Routledge. Open Google Scholar
Foster, John (2017): On letting go. Global Discourse 7 (1): 1–17. Open Google Scholar
Galaz, Victor (2012): Geo-engineering, governance, and social-ecological systems: critical issues and joint research needs. Ecology and Society 17. Open Google Scholar
Gottwald, Franz-Theo / Krätzer, Anita (2014): Irrweg Bioökonomie. Kritik an einem totalitären Ansatz. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Open Google Scholar
Grunwald, Armin (2012): Ende einer Illusion. Warum ökologisch korrekter Konsum die Umwelt nicht retten kann. München: Oekom. Open Google Scholar
Hauff, Volker ed.. (1987): Unsere Gemeinsame Zukunft. Der Brundtland-Bericht der Weltkommission für Umwelt und Entwicklung. Greven: Eggenkamp. Open Google Scholar
Heidbrink, Ludger (2006): Grenzen der Verantwortungsgesellschaft: Widersprüche der Verantwortung p. 129–150 in L. Heidbrink / A. Hirsch (eds.), Verantwortung in der Zivilgesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Open Google Scholar
Henkel, Anna (2016): Natur, Wandel, Wissen. Beiträge der Soziologie zur Debatte um nachhaltige Entwicklung. SuN Soziologie und Nachhaltigkeit – Beiträge zur sozial-ökologischen Transformationsforschung 01 (2): 1–23. Open Google Scholar
Henkel, Anna (2020): Genealogie: Verantwortung für Nachhaltigkeit p. 19–32 in T. Barth / A. Henkel (eds.), 10 Minuten Soziologie: Nachhaltigkeit. Bielefeld: transcript. Open Google Scholar
Henkel, Anna / Åkerstrøm-Andersen, Niels (2013 / 2014): Precarious Responsibility. Soziale Systeme, Sonderheft. Open Google Scholar
Henkel, Anna / Bergmann, Matthias / Karafyllis, Nicole C. / Siebenhüner, Bernd / Speck, Karsten (2018): Dilemmata der Nachhaltigkeit zwischen Evaluation und Re flexion. Begründete Kriterien und Leitlinien für Nachhaltigkeitswissen p. 147–172 in N. Lüdtke / A. Henkel (eds.), Das Wissen der Nachhaltigkeit. Herausforderungen zwischen Forschung und Beratung. München: oekom. Open Google Scholar
Henkel, Anna / Luedtke, Nico / Buschmann, Nikolaus / Hochmann, Lars eds. (2018): Reflexive Responsibilisierung. Verantwortung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Bielefeld: transcript. Open Google Scholar
Hirsch-Hadorn, Gertrude / Hoffmann-Riem, Holger / Biber-Klemm, Susette / Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Walter / Joye, Dominique / Pohl, Christian / Wiesmann, Urs / Zemp, Elisabeth (2008): Emergence of Transdisciplinarity as a Form of Re search p. 19–39 in G. Hirsch Hardon / H. Hoffmann-Riem / S. Biber-Klemm / W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy / D. Joye / C. Pohl / U. Wiesmann / E. Zemp (eds.), Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Springer. Open Google Scholar
Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude / Hoffmann-Riem, Holger / Biber-Klemm, Susette / Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Walter / Joye, Dominique / Pohl, Christian / Wiesmann, Urs / Zempt, Elisabeth eds. (2008): Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Berlin: Springer. Open Google Scholar
Hoff, Ernst-H. (1992): Arbeit, Freizeit und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung. Heidelberg: Asanger. Open Google Scholar
Hoff, Ernst-H. / Lecher, Thomas (1995): Ökologisches Verantwortungsbewußtsein p. 213–224, https://doi.org/210.1007/1978-1003-1642-79015-79017_79015 in M.Jänicke / H. J. Bolle / A. Carius (eds.), Umwelt Global. Berlin: Springer. Open Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sabine / Pohl, Christian / Hering, Janet G. (2017): Methods and proced ures of transdisciplinary knowledge integration: empirical insights from four them atic synthesis processes. Ecology and Society 22 (1): Article 27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08955–220127 Open Google Scholar
Jackson, Tim (2017): Prosperity without growth. Foundations for the economy of tomorrow. London, New York: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
Jahn, Thomas / Bergmann, Matthias / Keil, Florian (2012): Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics 79 (0): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.1004.1017 Open Google Scholar
Jahn, Thomas (2012): Theorie(n) der Nachhaltigkeit? Überlegungen zum Grundverständnis einer “Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaft” p. 47–64 in J. C. Enders / M. R. Remig (eds.), Perspektiven nachhaltiger Entwicklung. Theorien am Scheideweg. Beiträge zur sozialwissenschaftlichen Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag. Open Google Scholar
Karrasch, Leena / Grothmann, Torsten / Michel, Theresa A. / Wesselow, Maren / Wolter, Hendrik / Unger, Alexandra / Wegner, Alkje / Giebels, Diana / Siebenhüner, Bernd (2022): Integrating knowledge within and between knowledge types in transdisciplinary sustainability research: Seven case studies and an indicator framework. Environmental Science & Policy 131 (14–25): https://doi.org/https://doi. org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.1001.1014 Open Google Scholar
Koehler, Gabriele (2016): Tapping the Sustainable Development Goals for progressive gender equity and equality policy? Gender & Development 24: 53–68. Open Google Scholar
Kohlberg, Lawrence (1984): Essays on moral development: The psychology of moral development: Harper & Row. Open Google Scholar
Kohlberg, Lawrence / Kramer, Richard (1969): Continuities and discontinuities in childhood and adult moral development. Human Development 12 (2): 93–120. Open Google Scholar
Kollock, Peter (1998): Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 183–214. Open Google Scholar
Lang, Daniel J. / Wiek, Arnim / Bergmann, M. Matthias / Stauffacher, Michael / Martens, Pim / Mol, Peter / Swilling, Mark / Thomas, Christopher J. (2012): Trans disciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7 (Supplement 1): 25–43. Open Google Scholar
Mader, Dimitri (2022): Herrschaft und Handlungsfähigkeit. Elemente einer kritischen Sozialtheorie. Frankfurt: Campus. Open Google Scholar
Mader, Dimitri (2023): Dilemmata der Nachhaltigkeit und die Wiedererlangung von Handlungsfähigkeit. Strategische Dilemma-Bezüge im Nachhaltigkeitsdiskurs und Dilemma-Analyse als Reflexionsmethode p. 25–51 in A. Henkel / S. Berg / M. Ber mann / H. Gruber / N. C. Karafyllis / D. Mader / A. Müller / B. Siebenhüner / K. Speck / D.-P. Zorn (eds.), Dilemmata der Nachhaltigkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
Meadows, Dennis / Meadows, Donella / Zahn, Erich (1972): Limits to Growth – A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. London: Potomac Associates – Universe Books. Open Google Scholar
Müller-Christ, Georg (2007): Formen der Bewältigung von Widersprüchen – Die Rechtfertigung von Trade-offs als Kernproblem p. 128–177 in G. Müller-Christ / L. Arndt / I. Ehnert (eds.), Nachhaltigkeit und Widersprüche. Eine Managementper spektive. Münster: Lit Verlag. Open Google Scholar
Müller-Christ, Georg (2011): Sustainable Management. Coping with the Dilemmas of Resource-Oriented Management. Berlin und Heidelberg: Springer. Open Google Scholar
Müller-Christ, Georg (2023): Dilemmaentscheidungen und ihre Trade-offs in Systemaufstellungen visualisieren und verstehen lernen p. 327–345 in A. Henkel / S. Berg / M. Bergmann / H. Gruber / N. Karafyllis / D. Mader / A. Müller / B. Siebenhüner / K. Speck / D.-P. Zorn (eds.), Dilemmata der Nachhaltigkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
Müller, Ann-Kristin / Berg, Sophie (2023): Forschungsförderung im Spannungsfeld der Nachhaltigkeit – Eine Analyse von Förderprogrammen der Nachhaltigkeitsfor schung in Deutschland p. 53–72 in A. Henkel / S. Berg / M. Bermann / H. Gruber / N. C. Karafyllis / D. Mader / A. Müller / B. Siebenhüner / K. Speck / D.-P. Zorn (eds.), Dilemmata der Nachhaltigkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Open Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor (1998): A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review 92: 1–22. Open Google Scholar
Patt, Anthony / Zeckhauser, Richard (2000): Action Bias and Environmental Decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 21 (1): 45–72, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1 026517309871 Open Google Scholar
Pfister, Thomas / Schweighofer, Martin / Reichel, André (2016): Sustainability. London: Routledge. Open Google Scholar
Piaget, Jean (1986, zuerst 1948): Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde. München/Stuttgart: dtv Klett-Cotta. Open Google Scholar
Ribot, Jesse (2014): Cause and response: vulnerability and climate in the Anthropocene. The Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (5): 667–705. Open Google Scholar
Schäpke, Niko / Stelzer, Franziska / Bergmann, Matthias / Singer-Brodowski, Mandy / Wanner, Matthias / Caniglia, Guido / Lang, Daniel J. (2017): Reallabore im Kontext transformativer Forschung: Ansatzpunkte zur Konzeption und Einbettung in den internationalen Forschungsstand IETSR discussion papers in transdisciplinary sus tainability research. Open Google Scholar
Schneidewind, Uwe / Scheck, Hanna (2013): Die Stadt als “Reallabor “für Systeminnovationen p. 229–248 in (eds.), Soziale Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Open Google Scholar
Simon-Kumar, Rachel / Macbride-Stewart, Sara / Baker, Susan / Patnaik Saxena, Lopa mudra (2017): Towards North-South Interconnectedness: a Critique of Gender Du alistics in Sustainable Development, the Environment and Women's Health. Gender, Work and Organization online first 4 Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1111/gwao.12193. Open Google Scholar
Stevens, Casey / Kanie, Norichika (2016): The transformative potential of the Sustain able Development Goals (SDGs). International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 16: 393–396. Open Google Scholar
Strohschneider, Peter (2014): Zur Politik der Transformativen Wissenschaft p. 175–192 in A. Brodocz / D. Hermann / R. Schmidt / D. Schulz (eds.), Die Verfassung des Politischen. Wiesbaden: Springer. Open Google Scholar
Sustein, Cass R. / Reisch, Lucia A. eds. (2017): The Economics of Nudge. Routledge. Open Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis (1976): Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist 59 (2): 204–217. Open Google Scholar
Vilsmaier, Ulli / Engbers, Moritz / Luthardt, Philip / Maas-Deipenbrock, Rina Marie / Wunderlich, Sebastian / Scholz, Roland W. (2015): Case-based Mutual Learning Ses sions: knowledge integration and transfer in transdisciplinary processes. Sustainabi lity Science 10 (4): 563–580. https://doi.org/510.1007/s11625-11015-10335-11623 Open Google Scholar
Wagner, Felix / Grunwald, Armin (2019): Reallabore zwischen Beliebtheit und Belie bigkeit: Eine Bestandsaufnahme des transformativen Formats. GAIA-Ecological Per spectives for Science and Society 28 (3): 260–264. Open Google Scholar
Wehling, Peter (2022): Transdisziplinarität und Solutionismus. Ein verfehlter Vorwurf, aus dem sich trotzdem einiges lernen lässt. GAIA 31 (1): 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1451 2/gaia.14531.14511.14516 Open Google Scholar