Month: July 2021

Trust at the science-policy interface

By Chris Cvitanovic and Rebecca Shellock

authors_christopher-cvitanovic_rebecca-shellock
1. Chris Cvitanovic (biography)
2. Rebecca Shellock (biography)

How important is trust at the science-policy interface? How can you build trust when working with decision-makers? And how can trust be repaired after a break-down?

How important is trust when working at the science-policy interface?

Trust is important at 3 levels:

  1. Trust in individuals (eg., an individual researcher and an individual policy-maker), which is important for providing space for open dialogue;
  2. Trust in the research organisation, which focuses on organisational legitimacy and credibility, and acting in a way that is free of bias;
  3. Trust in the process by which knowledge is generated and exchanged.

Read more

System redesign toward creating shared value

By Moein Khazaei, Mohammad Ramezani, Amin Padash and Dorien DeTombe

authors_moein-khazaei_mohammad-ramezani_amin-padash_dorien-detombe
1. Moein Khazaei (biography)
2. Mohammad Ramezani (biography)
3. Amin Padash (biography)
4. Dorien DeTombe (biography)

How can services that are provided to citizens be overhauled so that they will survive, be competitive and be fair (eg., accessible to all)? Is there a systematic way in which shared value can be created? By shared value we mean combining social and environmental interests with corporate interests.

We have developed a methodology that we call “System redesign toward creating shared value” or SYRCS. It comprises 4 stages, shown in the figure below. They are:

  1. emancipation and critical thinking
  2. problem structuring
  3. multi-criteria and quantitative decision-making
  4. creating shared value.

Read more

A new alliance between the natural and human sciences?

By Sergio Mariotti

sergio-mariotti
Sergio Mariotti (biography)

How can we forge a new alliance between the natural and human sciences in order to deal with complex problems? Can economics and engineering show the way? Where does transdisciplinarity fit?

Ilya Prigogine based his 1990s theory of complexity on the need for a “new alliance” between the natural and human sciences in order to restore a unified knowledge based on plurality, diversity and multiple perspectives.

I explore what this would mean if we focus on two disciplines – economics and engineering – in the context of one complex problem: a future society increasingly influenced by the cluster of organizational and market innovations induced by Artificial Intelligence technologies.

Economists and engineers have played a vital role in the evolution of our modern society. The related disciplines have intertwined with each other, leading to mutual cross-fertilization. Nevertheless, Artificial Intelligence sheds light on the inadequacy of both the economics and engineering mainstreams and their relevant paradigms in dealing with, and responding to, the profound economic, ethical and social transformations that have brought humanity into a new “complexity era.”

Read more

Navigating intercultural relations in transdisciplinary practice: The partial overlaps framework

By David Ludwig, Vitor Renck & Charbel N. El-Hani

authors_david-ludwig_vitor-renck_charbel-el-hani
1. David Ludwig (biography)
2. Vitor Renck (biography)
3. Charbel N. El-Hani (biography)

How can local knowledge be effectively and fairly incorporated in transdisciplinary projects? How can such projects avoid “knowledge mining” and “knowledge appropriation” that recognize marginalized knowledge only where it is convenient for dominant actors and their goals? In addition, how can knowledge integration programs avoid being naive or even harmful by forcing Indigenous people into regimes of knowledge production that continue to be dominated by the perspectives of external researchers?

On the other hand, how can transdisciplinary projects avoid an exclusive focus on difference that risks creating an artificial divide between Indigenous/local and scientific knowledge and that contributes to further marginalization by denying the very possibility of meaningful dialogue?

Read more