Abstract
Sustainability science research is characterized by its high transdisciplinary ambitions. However, despite claims to urgent social change, important sustainability principles—including social complexity issues such as learning and knowledge sharing among stakeholders—are not fully contextualized and understood within the general framework of sustainability science research. To explore possible synergies between sustainability science research and social analysis, this chapter uses a qualitative method to account for the theoretical and practical implementation of a transdisciplinary research process. Through one example of a change in Swedish natural resource management policy, the paper demonstrates how a top–down and bottom–up conflict in natural resource management was dealt with by the creation of an innovative environmental governance constellation. This was done by the mobilization of the theoretical concept of ‘boundary objects’ to develop and maintain coherence over time between stakeholders and social worlds sharing a common sustainability interest but with conflicting stakes. It is concluded that ‘boundary objects’—here, a new communication platform—can facilitate cooperation between stakeholders regarding the complexities of social–ecological systems governance and policy.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, T., & Libecap, G. (2014). Environmental markets. A property right approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Aspers, P., & Beckert, J. (2011). Value in markets. In P. Aspers & J. Beckert (Eds.), The worth of goods. Valuation & pricing in the economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Charlton, K. E. (2016). Food security, food systems and food sovereignty in the 21st century: A new paradigm required to meet sustainable development goals. Nutrition & Dietetics, 73, 3–12.
EC. (2013). Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy. EC: Brussels. Accessed Oct 17, 2016 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R1380
Evely, A. C., Fazey, I., Pinard, M., & Lambin, X. (2008). The influence of philosophical perspectives in integrative research: A conservation case study in the Cairngorms National Park. Ecology and Society, 13(2): article 52.
Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Patterson, J., Hultman, J., van Mierlo, B., Säwe, F., et al. (2017). Principles for transformation research in a changing climate (submitted).
Fourcade, M., Ollion, E., & Algan, Y. (2014). The superiority of economists. Maxpo discussion paper No. 14/3. Max Planck Sciences Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies.
Gomez-Baggethun, E., de Groot, R., Lomas, P. L., & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69, 1209–1218.
Hodgson, A. (2013). Towards an ontology of the present moment. On The Horizon, 21, 24–38.
Holm, P., & Nolde Nielsen, K. (2007). Framing fish, making markets: The construction of individual transferable quotas (ITQs). The Sociological Review, 55(2), 173–195.
Hultman, J., & Säwe, F. (2015). Absence and presence of social complexity in the marketization of sustainable tourism. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 336–347.
Hultman, J., & Säwe, F. (2013). What is transdisciplinarity in a transdisciplinary project? (In Swedish: I vad består tvärvetenskapen i ett tvärvetenskapligt projekt?) Kulturella Perspektiv, 22(1), 39–41.
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., et al. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7, 25–43.
Leigh Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science Technology Human Values, 35, 601–617.
Leigh Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkely’s museum of vertebrate zoology 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.
Mansfield, B. (2007). Articulation between neoliberal and state-oriented environmental regulation: Fisheries privatization and endangered species protection. Environment and Planning A, 39, 1926–1942.
Mansfield, B. (Ed.). (2008). Privatization: Property and the remaking of nature-society relations. London: Blackwell.
Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 9–25.
Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin, F., & Redman, C. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2): article 46.
Olsson, L., Jerneck, A., Thoren, H., Persson, J., & O’Byrne, D. (2015). Why resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Scientific Advances, 1, e1400217.
Polk, M. (2014). Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: A critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving. Sustainability Science, 9, 439–451.
Quinlan, A. E., Berbés-Blázques, M., Haider, L. J., & Peterson, G. D. (2016). Measuring and assessing resilience: Broadening understanding through multiple disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53, 677–687.
Rayner, S. (2012). Uncomfortable knowledge: The social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Economy and Society, 41(1), 107–125.
Schreiber, M., Säwe, F., Hultman, J., & Linke, S. (2016). Addressing social sustainability commitments in the SSF guidelines: Institutional barriers in Sweden. In S. Jentoft (Ed.), Unpacking the voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries: From rhetoric to action. Berlin: Springer.
Scott, M. (2015). Re-theorizing social network analysis and environmental governance: Insights from human geography. Progress in Human Geography, 39(4), 449–463.
Shahadu, H. (2016). Towards an umbrella science of sustainability. Sustainability Science. doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0375-3 (online).
Silverman, D. (2007). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research. London: SAGE.
Swedish Board of Agriculture and The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management. (2016). The Swedish National strategy for professional fisheries. Swedish Board of Agriculture: Jönköping. Accessed Oct 17, 2016, from www.jordbruksverket.se
Säwe, F., & Hultman, J. (2012). Ask us!! We know!! Scanian professional fishers on coastal fisheries (In Swedish: Fråga oss!! Vi vet!! Skånska yrkesfiskare om det kustnära fisket). Dept of Service Studies, Lund University (Available from authors).
Säwe, F., & Hultman, J. (2014). From moral to markets: The rhetoric of responsibility and resource management in EU fisheries policy. Society & Natural Resources, 27(5), 507–520.
Säwe, F., & Hultman, J. (2016). Two approaches to a sustainability problem: Systems modelling and social complexity in Swedish fisheries governance. Under revision: Environmental Policy and Governance.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittmayer, J. M., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: Roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9, 483–496.
Wittmayer, J. M., Schäpke, N., van Steenbergen, F., & Omann, I. (2014). Making sense of sustainability transitions locally: How action research contributes to addressing societal challenges. Critical Policy Studies, 8(4), 465–485.
Wuelser, G., & Pohl, C. (2016). How researchers frame scientific contributions to sustainable development: A typology based on grounded theory. Sustainability Science, 11, 789–800.
Ziegler, R., & Ott, K. (2011). The quality of sustainability science. A philosophical perspective. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 7, 31–44.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas for the project ‘Doing sustainability through markets? Coastal communities and economies embedded in place’, Grant No. 2012-399.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hultman, J., Säwe, F. (2018). A Minor Matter of Great Concern: The Different Sustainability Logics of ‘Societal Benefits’ and ‘Socio-economic Profit’. In: Leal Filho, W. (eds) Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research. World Sustainability Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63007-6_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63006-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63007-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)