Browsing by Author "Van Breda, John Reitz"
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemMethodological agility in the Anthropocene : an emergent, transformative transdisciplinary research approach(Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2019-12) Van Breda, John Reitz; Swilling, Mark; Pohl, Christian Erik; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences. School of Public Leadership.ENGLISH SUMMARY : The publication in 2002, by Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen, of the ushering in of the Anthropocene, with the inception of the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North-America in the 18th – 19th centuries, has had some far-reaching ontological, epistemological, ethical and methodological implications for our intellectual/academic endeavours. This is the case, because never before in human history on earth were we required to face the global consequences of our own actions since the dawn of this new human-induced geological epoch. Starting at the ontological level, today we are facing the planetary consequences of non-linear human-nature causal relations – i.e. witnessing the once literally unimaginable and universally accepted fact of the immutability of all natural laws and processes. In view of the overwhelming empirical evidence of the anthropogenic causes of climate change and global warming such strongly held views / theories of the ‘objectivity’ of nature is no longer necessarily valid. On the contrary, today it has become quite plausible to accept that human actions are responsible for interfering with and changing some of the earth’s four billion year old / evolved processes – such as, for example, the earth’s temperature self-regulating mechanisms. Very importantly, though, is that this interference and change of the latter has occurred to such an extent that we can no longer speak of the latter as purely ‘natural’ occurring processes. At the epistemological level, this truly unprecedented change in causal human-nature relations, means that we are no longer challenged with the oft-repeated philosophical questions of what is knowledge and how it is produced only. Equally, if not more, important is the question for what are we producing knowledge? In the Anthropocene, it no longer suffices to produce knowledge that is concerned with the understanding (Verstehen) and explaining (Erklärung) of the anthropogenic causes of the Anthropocene only; we are also, at the same time, challenged to produce knowledge that can contribute to changing (Verändern) our thinking and actions responsible for (causing) the Anthropocene in the first place – i.e. producing practical knowledge capable of contributing to social change (Verändern) – in short, co-producing transformation knowledge. However, co-producing transformation knowledge in the Anthropocene is not an end in itself. Transformation knowledge is inextricably linked to ethics / ethical questions with an explicit interest in figuring out how we should act appropriately and fairly / justly in the context of the Anthropocene today. This, in turn, means facing a triple-challenge of co-producing theoretical, practical and normative knowledge which addresses the complex problem situations facing us in the Anthropocene today. No action is arguably the worst form of action to take in the Anthropocene, especially when considering that that the latter is the result of some deep-rooted structural socio-economic inequalities between the rich and the poor in the world. The quest for taking appropriate action is, therefore, fundamentally entangled with the question of figuring out how to act in a fair / just manner that can somehow contribute to undoing some of the historical injustices responsible for the Anthropocene – rather than reproducing the latter. Dealing with these non-separable ontological-epistemological-ethical considerations and questions in the context of the Anthropocene have, indeed, far-reaching methodological implications – warranting some trans-disciplinary responses capable of doing science with society – rather than just on, about or for society – which are, normally, done from much more restricted perspective of only dealing with the study of certain (disciplinary) methods. On the contrary, in the context of the Anthropocene what is required today are trans-disciplinary approaches capable of going beyond (the ‘trans’ in trans-disciplinarity) such reductionist (methods-only) approaches, by engaging with complex societal challenges – which, in the process of doing so, are capable of venturing and crossing into the philosophical provinces of ontology, epistemology, logics, ethics etc. – shaping and being shaped by the latter. However, there is an inherent risk in presenting such trans-disciplinary approaches as some or other methodological panacea – i.e. something which is relevant for ALL the different kinds of problem situations we are encountering in the Anthropocene today. Falling into this trap should be avoided at all costs, because not ALL problem situations faced in the Anthropocene today are necessarily complex problem situations. Indeed, some are straightforward / simple, others complicated and still others chaotic – for which there are certainly more appropriate methodological responses such as mono-, multi- and inter-disciplinarity, for example. In other words, it is much better to imagine trans-disciplinarity as one amongst a few context- or domain-relevant methodological responses; with the understanding that trans-disciplinarity is much more specifically focussed on and interested in tackling complex societal challenges that are considered too complex for tackling strictly from within single disciplinary boundaries only, but rather warrant methodological approaches capable of working both across, between and beyond disciplinary boundaries – including engaging with social actors’ non-academic knowledge systems. The implications of working with such different domain-relevant methodologies, in turn, implies being or becoming methodologically agile – i.e. the ability to switch between and within the said different domain-relevant methodologies as and when required by any changes occurring in the problem situations (contexts) at hand. This should not, however, be confused with the much more onerous Kuhnian notion of ‘paradigm switching’, which is simply too arduous an undertaking for the nimbleness required when facing ever-changing problem situations in the Anthropocene today. In light of the above, the fundamental focus of this study is on developing such an agile transdisciplinary methodology – with an explicit interest in contributing to just and sustainable social change in/to the complex societal challenges facing us in the Anthropocene today in a manner that is mindful of not falling into the said trap of presenting itself as a panacea for ALL the different kinds of problems situations facing us in the Anthropocene today. In short, such an agile transdisciplinary methodology will be referred to throughout this study as an emergent, transformative transdisciplinary research (ETTDR) approach.