Search

Transformative research is a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions by working collaboratively with society. When engaging in such science-practice collaborations for transformative change in society, researchers experience ethical dilemmas. Amongst others, they must decide, what is worthwhile to be researched, whose reality is privileged, and whose knowledge is included. Yet, current institutionalised ethical standards, which largely follow the tradition of medical ethics, are insufficient to guide transformative researchers in navigating such dilemmas. In addressing this vacuum, the research community has started to develop peer guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour. These formal and informal guidelines offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions. However, they are only helpful when they have become a part of researchers' practical knowledge 'in situ'. By focusing on situated research practices, the article addresses the need to develop an attitude of leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes. It also highlights the significance of combining this attitude with a critical reflexive practice both individually and collaboratively for answering questions around 'how to' as well as 'what is the right thing to do'. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, the authors of this paper share their own ethical dilemmas in doing transformative research, discuss those, and relate them to a practical heuristic encompassing axiological, ontological, and epistemological considerations. The aim is to support building practical wisdom for the broader research community about how to navigate ethical questions arising in transformative research practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ways of evaluatingthe societal impact of real-world labs as a transdisciplinary and transformative research format are under discussion. We present an evaluation approach rooted in structuration theory, with a focus on structure-agency dynamics at the science-society interface. We applied the theory with its four modalities interpretation schemes, norms, allocative and authoritative resources) to the case of the Mirke neighbourhood in Wuppertal, Germany. Six projects promoted the capacity for co-productive city-making. The effects of the projects were jointly analysed in a co-evaluation process. Previously proposed subcategories of the modalities as an empirical operationalisation were tested and confirmed as being applicable. Five new subcategories were generated. The use of the modalities seems appropriate for co-evaluation processes. The tool is practical, focused on real-world effects, and suitable for trans-disciplinary interpretation processes. We encourage further empirical testing of the tool, as well as development of the subcategories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transport and mobility systems need to be transformed to meet climate change goals and reduce negative environmental and social effects. Despite EU policies having targeted such problems for more than three decades, transitions have been slow and geographically uneven. For effective change to happen, transport and mobility research needs fresh perspectives and better integration of knowledge from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Based on a Horizon Scanning approach, which allowed for a great deal of openness and variety in scholarly viewpoints, this paper presents a novel research agenda consisting of 8 themes and 100 research questions that may contribute to achieving environmentally sustainable mobility transitions within Europe. This research agenda highlights the need to not only support technological solutions for low-carbon mobility, but the importance of transformative policies that include new processes of knowledge production, civic participation and epistemic justice. We contend that the agenda points to the need for further research on the dynamics of science-society interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Achieving societal impact, as opposed to academic impact, is a growing area of focus for the research community globally. Central to this changing mission is the focus on multiple interconnected complex systems and the need for research that is not just interdisciplinary, but also transdisciplinary and grounded in stakeholder co-production. This document compares multiple approaches to impact planning and evaluation across four newly formed urban living labs in Sao Paolo (Brazil), Western Cape (South Africa), Bristol (UK) and Rotterdam (Netherlands), each of which sought to address societal issues linked to the food-energy-water nexus. A comparison matrix and a disaggregated impact table are derived from a comprehensive review of key definitions. These new tools were completed by each ULL alongside a post hoc pathway to impact statements. Comparisons are presented and discussed, the strengths and weaknesses of this approach are considered and opportunities for improvement in societal impact planning and evaluation are provided. Our main findings include the importance of establishing clear shared definitions while accepting plural understandings, the need to acknowledge resource as a critical factor in impact delivery and the headline need for far greater focus in this area from both funders and research groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At the heart of transition research lies the question of how to "scale up" sustainable alternatives from a protected niche to the creation of mainstream practices. While upscaling processes are often seen as an essential element that contributes to societal transformation, upscaling itself remains a fuzzy concept. We argue that some fundamental dilemmas of upscaling can be identified, for example, the different understanding of the concept by researchers and practitioners. The dilemmas should be addressed in a more reflexive way by those from the worlds of science and practice who are involved in collaborative research settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the light of increasing urban challenges, municipalities are developing and advancing new forms of governing. One such example is 'urban experimentation', a process where city-based innovation processes are initiated to test solutions that – if deemed successful – are intended to be scaled up with the ambition to leverage a broader urban sustainability transition. Research on experimental governance has shown that municipalities can play various roles in these processes, including the role as enabler. The article contributes to the literature on the roles of public actors in urban experimentation on sustainability challenges by advancing understanding of the less studied 'enabler' role. We probe the politics of enabling by focusing on the policy instruments employed by municipalities. Our aim is to provide deeper insights into the everyday work of urban administrations when they act in the 'enabler' role. One particular approach of urban experimentation is Urban Living Labs (ULL), and this paper analyses ULL that address sustainability challenges. Along the four dimensions of nodality, authority, treasury, and organisation, we identify the politics of enabling in four ULL examples from Sweden and the Netherlands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent upsurge of interest in the experimental city as an arena within and through which urban sustainability is governed marks not only the emergence of the proliferation of forms of experimentation – from novel governance arrangements to demonstration projects, transition management processes to grassroots innovations – but also an increasing sensibility amongst the research community that urban interventions can be considered in experimental terms. Yet as research has progressed, it has become clear that experimentation is not a singular phenomenon that can be readily understood using any one conceptual entry point. In this paper, we focus on one particular mode of experimentation – the urban living laboratory (ULL) – and develop a typology through which to undertake a comparative analysis of 40 European ULLs, to understand how and why such forms of experimentation are being designed and implemented, and to identify the particular forms of experimentation they entail. We argue that there are distinct types of ULL taking shape, delimited by the ways in which they are designed and deployed through, on the one hand, specific kinds of configuration and practice and, on the other hand, by the ways in which they take laboratory form: the different dispositions towards the laboratory they entail. We propose three 'ideal' ULL types – strategic, civic and organic – and argue that these can be placed along the spectrum of four dispositions: trial, enclave, demonstration and platform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Urban Living Labs (ULL) are considered spaces to facilitate experimentation about sustainability solutions. ULL represent sites that allow different urban actors to design, test and learn from socio-technical innovations. However, despite their recent proliferation in the European policy sphere, the underlying processes through which ULL might be able to generate and diffuse new socio-technical configurations beyond their immediate boundaries have been largely disregarded and it remains to be examined how they contribute to urban sustainability transitions. With this study, we contribute to a better understanding of the diffusion mechanisms and strategies through which ULL (seek to) create a wider impact using the conceptual lens of transition studies. The mechanisms of diffusion are investigated in four distinct ULL in Rotterdam, the Netherlands and Malmö, Sweden. The empirical results indicate six specific strategies that aim to support the diffusion of innovations and know-how developed within ULL to a broader context: transformative place-making, activating network partners, replication of lab structure, education and training, stimulating entrepreneurial growth and narratives of impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union has vowed to transition from a linear to a circular economy (CE). Many innovations, new business models, and policies have begun to emerge to support the push for further institutionalizing CE practices. A large portion of these attempts are based on transforming a flow currently labeled as a waste stream into a value proposition, i.e. a resource. However, this ironically increases the risk of creating a demand for these waste streams, which thereby may become commodified. In this article, we unpack the inherent dilemmas and implications created by this phenomenon, which we define as the Waste-Resource Paradox (WRP). Understanding the WRP is highly relevant, as its manifestation may lead to situations in which the further establishment of "circular" practices may reinforce linear economy by sustaining a waste (over)production in the system or causing undesired social or environmental repercussions. This can tighten a lock-in of the existing linear structures counteractive to CE that have not been explicitly identified or explored to date. We observed that the WRP may evolve and morph throughout time, across boundaries or respective to different societal sectors. Based on our findings, we highlight the profound implications of the WRP for the future of circularity and the potential consequences for a transition to CE. [Display omitted] • Transitioning to a circular economy (CE), the Waste-Resource Paradox (WRP) emerges. • Some "circular" innovations may actually increase linear economy path dependencies. • The WRP exposes four key practical dilemmas and the resulting implications for CE. • Policymakers, investors, and entrepreneurs must consider the WRP in decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citizens and urban policy makers are experimenting with collaborative ways to tackle wicked urban issues, such as today’s sustainability challenges. In this article, we consider one particular way of collaboration in an experimental setting: Urban Living Labs (ULLs). ULLs are understood as spatially embedded sites for the co-creation of knowledge and solutions by conducting local experiments. As such, ULLs are supposed to offer an arena for reflexive, adaptive, and multi-actor learning environments, where new practices of self-organization and novel (infra-) structures can be tested within their real-world context. Yet, it remains understudied how the co-creation of knowledge and practices actually takes place within ULLs, and how co-creation unfolds their impacts. Hence, this paper focuses on co-creation dynamics in urban living labs, its associated learning and knowledge generation, and how these possibly contribute to urban sustainability transitions. We analyzed empirical data from a series of in-depth interviews and were actively involved with ULLs in the Rotterdam-The Hague region in the Netherlands. Our findings show five distinct types of co-creation elements that relate to specific dynamics of participation, facilitation, and organization. We conclude with a discussion on the ambivalent role of contextualized knowledge and the implications for sustainability transitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Because of the need to limit extraction of raw materials and reduce amounts and impacts of waste, countries and businesses are challenged to transition to a circular economy: an economic system in which the materials are reduced, reused, or recycled, but not wasted. Yet, transitioning from a linear to a circular economy implies societal-level, structural changes that have deep implications for existing business models and practices-and the current economic system is still largely organized around virgin material extraction and linear modes of production and consumption. Despite stated ambitions at various geographical scales to become more or fully circular, the outcomes still fall short of such visions. One important reason why the transition towards a circular economy is not proceeding as quickly as hoped can be found in the decision processes used by companies, investors, and policy makers. Suitable frameworks that support decision-making could thus be a key enabler of this transition, if based upon a circular and transformative, rather than a linear optimization logic. In this paper, we therefore explore a different decision-making logic that is developed based on circularity. This provides the basis for an operational framework designed to help decision-makers such as policymakers, investors, and entrepreneurs navigate tradeoffs and take decisions considering the quality of innovation circularity and its respective diffusion potential. To develop, test, and refine our framework-the "Circular Decision-Making Tree"-we synthesized insights from existing frameworks and conceptually integrated these with our understanding of transition theory and the circular economy. We then verified the internal logics and applicability of the framework in a series of usability workshops across four application contexts (Netherlands, Brazil, UK, and South Africa) with feedback from a total of n  = 50 stakeholders from policy, practice, and academia. We critically discuss the application potential as well as the limitations and describe implications for future research to further validate the framework's logics and operationalization., Competing Interests: Competing InterestsThe authors declare no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2022.)