Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science���society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route ��� i.e., the learning and adaptation process ��� followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998���2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP���s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and ���non-scientific��� knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP���s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

A Critique of Authenticity and Recognition

While forms of ethics based upon authenticity and recognition are holding sway in contemporary philosophical debates (Ferrara, Honneth, Fraser, etc.), many of the implications of both processes ��� conceptual, moral, political ��� are still insufficiently reflected upon. The talk will offer a ���critique��� (in the Kantian sense) of both, based upon an analysis of the ���semiotics��� of authenticity and the resulting perpetuation of a regime of authority of experts, as well as commenting upon the striking absence of the realm of literature and the arts from this debate, except in some references to a rather abstract notion of Aesthetics. It will also critically revaluate the concept of agency implicit in an ethics of authenticity and recognition.

New Sites, New Challenges? Ethical and Methodological Questions in the Context of Research on Migration Exclusion

The challenges of research ethics and methodologies have been reflected on extensively, but ��� aside from the context of feminist methodologies ��� less so in relation to research on particular migration sites such as in transit, detention centres, at the borders or within migration administration. First attempts in this direction have been made (D��vell et al. 2010, Fresia et al. 2005, Riedner 2014, van Liempt/Bilger2009), however, more reflection and theorization is needed, considering the contested nature of these temporal and volatile sites. In this workshop, we thus aim at examining methodological as well as ethical questions that arise during field work: We attempt to reflect the power relations involved in the research process, the ethics of research design, the dissemination of research results, the question of gaining access to and ��� whenever necessary ��� staying in contact with our research subjects. How can we negotiate informed consent with subjects whose life is currently marked by transit and insecurity concerning their own future, and who are in an uncertain situation in which substantial information (legal, social, cultural etc.) is likely to be missing? How do we deal with the dilemma of possibly contributing to knowledge production that might facilitate removals and deportations in the future, considering that the reception of the results is not in the hands of the researchers? How do we deal with the anticipated as well as unexpected impacts of our research on social and political practice? Regarding fieldwork in state institutions, how do we negotiate the multiple loyalties we often find ourselves faced with as social researchers, both with the excluded migrants and with the authorities implementing the exclusions ��� two groupings considered to be opposite to each other (Lavanchy 2013)? Which different roles do researchers need to take on? The aim of our workshop is first and foremost to exchange experiences on fieldwork with others doing qualitative research on related topics and to consider its possible implications ��� including affective dimensions ��� for all participants involved in the research process: the migrants, the security staff of detention centres, its social workers, border police and bureaucrats and, last but not least, the researchers themselves. Furthermore, we generally wish to reflect upon the question of how best to conduct research in this contested field, applying an interdisciplinary perspective.