Sustainability Science

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 143–155 | Cite as

Developing integrative research for sustainability science through a complexity principles-based approach

  • Lorrae van KerkhoffEmail author
Original Article


The importance of taking an integrative approach to research has long been integral to sustainability science, and has recently been highlighted as fundamental to the co-design of research and co-production of knowledge. Just what this means, however, and how to implement such a broad notion has escaped effective methodological development. In order to become more than a generic descriptor, integrative research needs to be conceptualized and presented in ways that offer guidance to researchers designing and conducting integrative research projects, whilst remaining broad enough to be relevant to the breadth and depth of sustainability-related problems. Drawing on complexity theory and fundamental aspects of integrative research, I present a methodological framing that seeks to achieve this balance. Using a definition of integrative research as “research in the context of complexity, with an action imperative”, I draw from complexity theory that proposes minimal specifications, generative relationships, focusing on enablers and seeking diversity as core features of a complexity-based approach. On that basis I propose four principles that can be used by researchers to guide the design and implementation of their projects: embrace uncertainty; engage stakeholders; be transdisciplinary; and have a learning orientation. Each of these principles is explained, and their relationships to research design, methodological framing, choice of methods and project development are presented. Two integrative research project frameworks are presented as examples of how this principles-based approach can be implemented in research design. Using this approach offers a simple but powerful structure to guide integrative research for sustainability science at the project scale.


Integration Complex systems Sustainability science methodology Research design Transdisciplinarity Systems thinking 


  1. Agyeman J, Evans B (2004) ‘Just sustainability’: the emerging discourse of environmental justice in Britain? Geogr J 170:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen P, Maguire S, McKelvey B (eds) (2011) The SAGE handbook of complexity and management. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Allenby BR, Sarewitz DR (2011) The techno-human condition. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Anon (2012) Co-designing knowledge: a common understanding of integrated global change research. Online report Accessed 10 June 2012
  5. Bammer G (2005) Integration and implementation sciences: building a new specialization. Ecol Soc 20:6Google Scholar
  6. Bardwell LV (1991) Problem-framing: a perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environ Manage 15:603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackstock KL, Carter CE (2007) Operationalising sustainability science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot projects. Geogr J 173(4):343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ et al (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ 60(4):726–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world sustainability research—vision and implementation. Innov Higher Educ 36(2):107–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cartledge K, Dürrwächter C, Jimenez VH, Winder NP (2009) Making sure you solve the right problem. Ecol Soc 14:r3Google Scholar
  11. Cleland D, Dray A, Perez P, Cruz-Trinidad A, Geronimo R (2012) Simulating the dynamics of subsistence fishing communities: REEFGAME as a learning and data-gathering computer-assisted role-play game. Simul Gaming 43:102–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooperrider DL, Whitney DK (2005) Appreciative inquiry: a positive revolution in change. Berrett-Koehler, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  13. Evely AC, Fazey I, Lambin X, Lambert E, Allen S, Pinard M (2010) Defining and evaluating the impact of cross-disciplinary conservation research. Environ Conserv 37:442–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hadorn GH, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Ison RL (2010) Systems practice: how to act in a climate change world. Springer/Open University, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jerneck A, Olsson L et al (2011) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6(1):69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones NA, Perez P, Measham TG, Kelly GJ, D’Aquino P, Daniell KA, Dray A, Ferrand N (2009) Evaluating participatory modeling: developing a framework for cross-case analysis. Environ Manage 44:1180–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kasperson RE (2008) Coping with deep uncertainty: challenges for environmental assessment and decision-making uncertainty and risk. In: Bammer G, Smithson M (eds) Multidisciplinary perspectives. Earthscan, London, pp 356–367Google Scholar
  20. Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (2005) The social contours of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Keen M, Brown VA et al (2005) Social learning in environmental management : towards a sustainable future. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  23. Kueffer C (2006) Integrative ecological research: case-specific validation of ecological knowledge for environmental problem solving. GAIA 15:115–120Google Scholar
  24. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl 1):25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leach M, Scoones I, Stirling A (2010) Dynamic sustainabilities: technology, environment, social justice. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu Y, Gupta H, Springer E, Wagener T (2008) Linking science with environmental decision making: experiences from an integrated modeling approach to supporting sustainable water resources management. Environ Model Softw 23:846–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23(1):161–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mathews LG, Jones A (2008) Using systems thinking to improve interdisciplinary learning outcomes: reflections on a pilot study in land economics. Issues Integr Stud 26:73–104Google Scholar
  29. McDonald D, Bammer G, Deane P (2009) Research integration using dialogue methods. ANU E-press, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  30. Merali Y, Allen P (2011) Complexity and systems thinking. In: Allen P, Maguire S, McKelvey B (eds) The SAGE handbook of complexity and management. SAGE, London, pp 31–52Google Scholar
  31. National Office of Atmospheric Administration (2004) ICM basics: what does ‘integrated’ mean? Online source: [Accessed 12 June 2012]
  32. National Research Council (1999) Our common journey: a transition toward sustainability. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Plsek PE, Wilson T (2001) Complexity science: complexity, leadership, and management in healthcare organisations. Br Med J 323:746–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) (2008) The SAGE handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Reed J (2007) Appreciative inquiry: research for change. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  36. Robinson J (2008) Being undisciplined: transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures 40:70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roux DJ, Stirzaker RJ, Breen CM, Lefroy EC, Cresswell HP (2010) Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. Environ Sci Policy 13:733–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rowe D (2007) Education for a sustainable future. Science 317:323–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell AW, Wickson F, Carew AL (2008) Transdisciplinarity: context, contradictions and capacity. Futures 40:460–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schoolman ED, Guest JS, Bush KF, Bell AR (2012) How interdisciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustain Sci 7:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shackley S, Wynne B, Waterton C (1996) Imagine complexity: the past, present and future potential of complex thinking. Futures 28:201–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sherren K, Fischer J, Clayton H, Schirmer J, Dovers S (2010) Integration by case, place and process: transdisciplinary research for sustainable grazing in the Lachlan River catchment, Australia. Landsc Ecol 25:1219–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stark R, Mandl H (2007) Bridging the gap between basic and applied research by an integrative research approach. Educ Res Eval 13:249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stauffacher M, Walter A, Lang D, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2006) Learning to research environmental problems from a functional socio-cultural constructivism perspective: the transdisciplinary case study approach. Int J Sustain Higher Education 7:252–275Google Scholar
  46. Stock P, Burton RJF (2011) Defining terms for integrated (multi-inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability 3:1090–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Talwar S, Wiek A et al (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38(5):379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tress B, Tress G, Fry G (2005) Researchers’ experiences, positive and negative, in integrative landscape projects. Environ Manage 36:792–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ulrich W, Reynolds M (2010) Critical systems heuristics. In: Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. Springer, London, pp 243–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van de Fliert E, Braun AR (2002) Conceptualizing integrative, farmer participatory research for sustainable agriculture: from opportunities to impact. Agric Hum Values 19:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Kerkhoff L (2005) Integrated research: concepts of connection in environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 8:452–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watkins JM, Mohr BJ (2001) Appreciative inquiry: change at the speed of imagination. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  54. Wickson F, Carew AL, Russell AW (2006) Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures 38:1046–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability—a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6(2):203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiek A, Farioli F, Fukushi K, Yarime M (2012a) Sustainability science: bridging the gap between science and society. Sustain Sci 7:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wiek A, Ness B et al (2012b) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl. 1):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wuelser G, Pohl C, Hadorn GH (2011) Structuring complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable development: a framework. Sustain Sci 7:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fenner School of Environment and Society, ANU College of Medicine, Biology and EnvironmentThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations