Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS): Experience with a transdisciplinary tool in the NCCR North-South programme

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) are small transdisciplinary projects which bring scientific research insights from the NCCR North-South into policy and practice. They are implemented by researchers from different disciplines in collaboration with non-scientific actors. PAMS aim to implement and test approaches, methods and tools developed in research, in order to identify promising strategies and potentials for sustainable development. In this sense, they are solution-oriented. This paper will provide insights into our experience with PAMS, with a special focus on the implementation of transdisciplinarity and its outcomes. From 2001 to 2010, 77 PAMS were implemented in Africa, Asia and Latin America. An internal evaluation of the first 55 projects was conducted in 2006. Results of this evaluation led to a refinement and improvement of the tool. A second internal evaluation is currently underway in the NCCR North-South. This evaluation will provide an overview of 22 new PAMS. We will look at partners involved, project beneficiaries, activities implemented, outcomes achieved, and lessons learnt. In the first evaluation, transdisciplinarity was considered as “a form of collaboration within scientific fields … and as a form of continuous dialogue between research and society” (Messerli et al., 2007). The evaluation report concluded that this understanding of transdisciplinarity was not satisfactorily applied in the 55 projects. Only about half of the PAMS addressed mutual exchange between researchers and society. Some involved only one specific field of research and clearly lacked interdisciplinary co-operation, and most often knowledge was transferred mainly unilaterally from the scientific community to society, without society having any effect on science. It was therefore recommended to address transdisciplinarity more carefully in Phase 2 PAMS. The second evaluation, which is currently under way, is analysing whether and how this recommendation has been met, based on criteria defined in the NCCR North-South’s Outcome Monitoring Strategy. The analysis is focusing on partners with whom researchers interact and investigating whether practices have changed both in research and society. We are also exploring the role of researchers in PAMS. Preliminary results show that researchers can assume different roles, from direct implementation, mediation, and promotion of social learning between different actors, to giving advice as neutral outsiders.

Critical issues in managing protected areas by multi-stakeholder participation - analysis of a process in the Swiss Alps

Balancing the frequently conflicting priorities of conservation and economic development poses a challenge to management of the Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch World Heritage Site (WHS). This is a complex societal problem that calls for a knowledge-based solution. This in turn requires a transdisciplinary research framework in which problems are defined and solved cooperatively by actors from the scientific community and the life-world. In this article we re-examine studies carried out in the region of the Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch WHS, covering three key issues prevalent in transdisciplinary settings: integration of stakeholders into participatory processes; perceptions and positions; and negotiability and implementation. In the case of the Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch WHS the transdisciplinary setting created a situation of mutual learning among stakeholders from different levels and backgrounds. However, the studies showed that the benefits of such processes of mutual learning are continuously at risk of being diminished by the power play inherent in participatory approaches.

Envisioning sustainable water futures in a transdisciplinary learning process: combining normative, explorative, and participatory scenario approaches

Competing water demands for household consumption as well as the production of food, energy, and other uses pose challenges for water supply and sustainable development in many parts of the world. Designing creative strategies and learning processes for sustainable water governance is thus of prime importance. While this need is uncontested, suitable approaches still have to be found. In this article we present and evaluate a conceptual approach to scenario building aimed at transdisciplinary learning for sustainable water governance. The approach combines normative, explorative, and participatory scenario elements. This combination allows for adequate consideration of stakeholders’ and scientists’ systems, target, and transformation knowledge. Application of the approach in the MontanAqua project in the Swiss Alps confirmed its high potential for co-producing new knowledge and establishing a meaningful and deliberative dialogue between all actors involved. The iterative and combined approach ensured that stakeholders’ knowledge was adequately captured, fed into scientific analysis, and brought back to stakeholders in several cycles, thereby facilitating learning and co-production of new knowledge relevant for both stakeholders and scientists. However, the approach also revealed a number of constraints, including the enormous flexibility required of stakeholders and scientists in order for them to truly engage in the co-production of new knowledge. Overall, the study showed that shifts from strategic to communicative action are possible in an environment of mutual trust. This ultimately depends on creating conditions of interaction that place scientists’ and stakeholders’ knowledge on an equal footing.

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.

Knowledge as a resource: 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 (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). 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 (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – 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 (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), 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.