Trouble at the disciplinary divide: a knowledge ecologies analysis of a co-design project with native Alaskan communities

Fam, DM; Sofoulis, Z

Trouble at the disciplinary divide: a knowledge ecologies analysis of a co-design project with native Alaskan communities

Fam, DM

Sofoulis, Z

Permalink

Publisher:: Routledge
Publication Type:: Chapter
Citation:: Transdisciplinary research and practice for sustainability outcomes, 2017
Issue Date:: 2017

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (469.8 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Fam, DM https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5549-5034	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sofoulis, Z	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Fam, D	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Palmer, J	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Riedy, C	en_US
dc.contributor.editor	Mitchell, C	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Transdisciplinary research and practice for sustainability outcomes, 2017	en_US
dc.identifier.isbn	978-1-138-11970-3	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/126931
dc.description.abstract	This case of transdisciplinary collaboration raises a range of issues relevant to scientific research on complex twenty-first-century problems associated with water security, energy consumption and climate change impacts. These problems are widely acknowledged to require more than technocentric and resource-centred solutions, and they demand increased engagement with the people impacted by the problem, and with those who will live with the proposed solutions. This suggests a greater role for researchers from humanities and social science (HASS) disciplines in fields conventionally dominated by STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) knowledges. But bringing together positivist (quantitatively oriented) and interpretive (qualitative) paradigms of knowledge has its own difficulties, not least the effort to establish ‘a basis of mutual intellectual and professional respect’ that could ground a ‘genuine’ knowledge partnership (Nowotny et al. 2013). These two paradigms have very different ideas about the nature, generalizability and the purpose of knowledge. One theorist of water governance summarizes these differences: [P]ositivism sees the researcher and reality as separate, there is only one identifiable reality and the purpose of research is to control and predict. Interpretivism, on the other hand, notes that the researcher and reality are inseparable realities, are mental constructs in that they are social and experienced-based and there are multiple realities, which are dependent on the interpretation of individuals. (Meissner 2015, 3, citing Lincoln et al. 2011) The very contrast between these paradigms, Meissner points out, that positivism is not the only legitimate way of doing research; nor is it the only basis for theories of reality (2015). Positivists' beliefs that their reality is the reality, and that scientific method is the only valid method, are themselves obstacles to overcome in order to achieve successful transdisciplinary collaborations with researchers from different paradigms.	en_US
dc.publisher	Routledge	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Transdisciplinary research and practice for sustainability outcomes	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315652184	en_us
dc.rights	This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Transdisciplinary research and practice for sustainability outcomes, 2017. Copyright Routledge, available online at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315652184.	en_US
dc.title	Trouble at the disciplinary divide: a knowledge ecologies analysis of a co-design project with native Alaskan communities	en_US
dc.type	Chapter
utslib.location	UK	en_US
utslib.for	160807 Sociological Methodology and Research Methods	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Research)
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Research)/Institute For Sustainable Futures
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/e-Press
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - ISF - Institute for Sustainable Futures
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.place-of-publication	UK	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US

Abstract:

This case of transdisciplinary collaboration raises a range of issues relevant to scientific research on complex twenty-first-century problems associated with water security, energy consumption and climate change impacts. These problems are widely acknowledged to require more than technocentric and resource-centred solutions, and they demand increased engagement with the people impacted by the problem, and with those who will live with the proposed solutions. This suggests a greater role for researchers from humanities and social science (HASS) disciplines in fields conventionally dominated by STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) knowledges. But bringing together positivist (quantitatively oriented) and interpretive (qualitative) paradigms of knowledge has its own difficulties, not least the effort to establish ‘a basis of mutual intellectual and professional respect’ that could ground a ‘genuine’ knowledge partnership (Nowotny et al. 2013). These two paradigms have very different ideas about the nature, generalizability and the purpose of knowledge. One theorist of water governance summarizes these differences: [P]ositivism sees the researcher and reality as separate, there is only one identifiable reality and the purpose of research is to control and predict. Interpretivism, on the other hand, notes that the researcher and reality are inseparable realities, are mental constructs in that they are social and experienced-based and there are multiple realities, which are dependent on the interpretation of individuals. (Meissner 2015, 3, citing Lincoln et al. 2011) The very contrast between these paradigms, Meissner points out, that positivism is not the only legitimate way of doing research; nor is it the only basis for theories of reality (2015). Positivists' beliefs that their reality is the reality, and that scientific method is the only valid method, are themselves obstacles to overcome in order to achieve successful transdisciplinary collaborations with researchers from different paradigms.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/126931