Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Distinguishing transdisciplinary (and) action research in sustainability science: a comparative systematic-narrative hybrid literature review
University of Calgary.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5966-5141
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Strategic Sustainable Development.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0974-3196
Show others and affiliations
(English)Manuscript (preprint) (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

There are many socially engaged research modes in sustainability science. The main ones are action research and transdisciplinary research. There is also transdisciplinary action research, a field that seems to combine the two. This paper aims to provide a better understanding of the differences between these research modes in the context of sustainability science to help potential users to determine appropriate research mode(s) to fulfil their purposes. To do so, we asked three research questions: (i) What are the aims of these research modes? (ii) What are some methods used to fulfil the aims of these research modes? (iii) In what empirical domain are the different approaches being used today? Using a comparative systematic-narrative hybrid literature review and bibliometric studies the paper attempts to fulfil the set aim. In total, we analysed 1487 articles in-depth, of which 633 utilised the action research mode, 787 used transdisciplinary research, and 67 used transdisciplinary action research. There are a lot of similarities between the research modes, e.g. they all use traditional qualitative social science research methods, engage the same types of stakeholders, and address the same sustainability issues. But the differences relate to the aims of the research modes. Researchers employing action research seem to be more intent on achieving action in the practice domain and knowledge from that action for both practitioners and researchers (action-for-knowledge). In contrast, researchers employing transdisciplinary research rather seem to be more intent on producing new, relevant and shared knowledge for an action that is later undertaken in the practice domain (knowledge-for-action). Although this might be a premature conclusion, researchers employing transdisciplinary action research seem to be more intent on achieving action based on integrative knowledge (integrative knowledge-for-action). Finally, some advice regarding the choice of research mode for a particular purpose is presented.

Keywords [en]
action research, transdisciplinarity, transdisciplinary action research, comparative study, systematic-narrative hybrid literature review, method, narrative, bibliometric study
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-24437OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-24437DiVA, id: diva2:1752660
Available from: 2023-04-24 Created: 2023-04-24 Last updated: 2023-05-08Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Scaffolding for multistakeholder dialogue-based processes in strategic planning for transitioning to sustainable mobility
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Scaffolding for multistakeholder dialogue-based processes in strategic planning for transitioning to sustainable mobility
2023 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

There are numerous sustainability challenges related to mobility. One of the main challenges is the necessary reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The transport sector is one of the main emitters. There are also challenges regarding accessibility, health, equity, and justice that need to be considered. The recent COVID-19 pandemic led to a temporary decrease in emissions (mainly from reduced aviation), at the same time as there were worsening aspects such as social exclusion. These and other complex challenges requireurgent, comprehensive change and creative solutions. The urgency for a change adds to the challenge of mobility planning since conventional planning processes are usually slow. Moreover, local planners who plan for transitioning to sustainable mobility need to facilitate participatory processes since mobility planning affects many stakeholders. When engaging with planning practitioners, it was found that there is a lack of tools that can support practitioners when conducting reflective and generative multistakeholder dialogues.

The aim of this research was to develop process-oriented methodological support for multistakeholder dialogues in strategic planning for transitioning to sustainable mobility. A transdisciplinary research approach was used to explore this topic, including the problem space of participatory research modes. Furthermore, a design research approach was used for tool development.

A comprehensive literature review to identify prominent research themes in regional and urban planning for transitioning to sustainable mobility was made. The developments in the field over the past 15 years show a paradigm shift from ‘predict-and-provide’ to participatory visionary approaches, such as backcasting and SymbioCity. However, this has led to new challenges concerning processes that support reflective and generative stakeholder dialogue in a rapidly changing and highly diversified world. These challenges relate to, among other things, an insufficient diversity in multistakeholder processes, a limited availability of stakeholders to participate in such processes and a lack of tools that can aid with an overview of various sustainability goals from policy and planning documents.

Among participatory research approaches, transdisciplinary research and action research were explored. As these research modes have become prominent, it is important to know more about them. It was found that transdisciplinary research could be particularly useful for advisory reflective contexts, whereas action research could be particularly useful for contexts where action is a priority.

The dissertation presents further forms of methodological support that can help structure participatory multistakeholder dialogue-based processes:− a framework for analysing the complexity of co-production settings in relation to epistemic communities, linguistic diversities, and culture;− a rapid scenario planning method to support regional visioning for sustainability transformation; and− the MUSTS tool that connects sustainability goals at multiple levels with stakeholders who have the power and legitimacy to act upon them. To conclude, the methodological process-supporting tools that were investigated and those developed in this research offer a form of “scaffolding”that aids facilitators to organise more efficient and effective participatory processes. These scaffolding tools are rooted in transdisciplinary coproduction of knowledge research and offer promising elements for a toolbox for strategic planning for transitioning to sustainable mobility.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Karlskrona: Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, 2023. p. 407
Series
Blekinge Institute of Technology Doctoral Dissertation Series, ISSN 1653-2090 ; 2023:06
Keywords
sustainability, transdisciplinary, co-production of knowledge, mobility, strategic planning, facilitation, dialogue-based process
National Category
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
Research subject
Strategic Sustainable Development
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:bth-24433 (URN)978-91-7295-456-4 (ISBN)
Public defence
2023-06-09, 09:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2023-04-28 Created: 2023-04-27 Last updated: 2023-04-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Authority records

Nikulina, Varvara

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Laycock Pedersen, RebeccaNikulina, Varvara
By organisation
Department of Strategic Sustainable Development
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 701 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf