Scholarlink

<p>Transdisciplinarity and the production of actionable knowledge with and for societal actors is a central feature of sustainability science. Yet questions remain about whether such efforts genuinely challenge the structural roots of unsustainability or inadvertently reinforce them in pursuit of proximate impacts. This paper responds to calls for more critical monitoring and evaluation by evaluating a transdisciplinary Horizon Europe project, Agroecology-TRANSECT. We employ a critical realist approach to analyze qualitative data from project work with 11 territorially-rooted European networks focused on agroecological transition (called ‘innovation hubs’(IHs). This analysis was developed as a part of the project’s co-innovation approach, with iterative reflection and validation embedded throughout the research process. Our analysis sought to explain how observed actionable knowledge outcomes came about (or did not) by examining multi-level contextual factors. Societal effects were assessed using a conforming-transforming distinction informed by political agroecology. We found that the project’s co-innovation approach has resulted in many instances of actionable knowledge production among IHs, including new conceptual and strategic developments, and providing legitimacy and resources for instrumental gains like policy change. While the project served to amplify the agency of IHs, the extent to which this resulted in transformative societal effects varied. Effects were largely shaped by the IHs’ pre-existing strategic orientation (i.e. whether they already worked to challenge, alter, or replace dominant institutional structures and reconfigure their power relations). For some IHs, structural constraints – namely, market dependency, social acceleration, and state mediation of capital accumulation – limited the extent to which their network could generate transformative effects. We conclude that co-innovation’s complex-adaptive systems approach should widen its scope of system boundaries, integrating social structural analysis to reveal root causes of blockages and enhance agential effectiveness. For actionable knowledge to achieve societal effects that are both proximate and transformative, transdisciplinary research should prioritize involvement of partners with pre-existing transformative strategies, and devote creative focus to building enabling societal contexts.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Actionable knowledge for agroecological transformation: a critical realist analysis of co-innovation in a transdisciplinary project

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月7日

查看全文
  • Stephen Leitheiser,
  • Darleen van Dam,
  • Jonas Egmose,
  • Cecilia Zagaria,
  • Henrik Hauggaard-Nielsen,
  • Yanka Kazakova,
  • Raquel Luján Soto,
  • Bertrand Dumont,
  • Carla Barlagne,
  • Linn N. Schaan,
  • Julie Duval,
  • Walter A. H. Rossing

摘要

Transdisciplinarity and the production of actionable knowledge with and for societal actors is a central feature of sustainability science. Yet questions remain about whether such efforts genuinely challenge the structural roots of unsustainability or inadvertently reinforce them in pursuit of proximate impacts. This paper responds to calls for more critical monitoring and evaluation by evaluating a transdisciplinary Horizon Europe project, Agroecology-TRANSECT. We employ a critical realist approach to analyze qualitative data from project work with 11 territorially-rooted European networks focused on agroecological transition (called ‘innovation hubs’(IHs). This analysis was developed as a part of the project’s co-innovation approach, with iterative reflection and validation embedded throughout the research process. Our analysis sought to explain how observed actionable knowledge outcomes came about (or did not) by examining multi-level contextual factors. Societal effects were assessed using a conforming-transforming distinction informed by political agroecology. We found that the project’s co-innovation approach has resulted in many instances of actionable knowledge production among IHs, including new conceptual and strategic developments, and providing legitimacy and resources for instrumental gains like policy change. While the project served to amplify the agency of IHs, the extent to which this resulted in transformative societal effects varied. Effects were largely shaped by the IHs’ pre-existing strategic orientation (i.e. whether they already worked to challenge, alter, or replace dominant institutional structures and reconfigure their power relations). For some IHs, structural constraints – namely, market dependency, social acceleration, and state mediation of capital accumulation – limited the extent to which their network could generate transformative effects. We conclude that co-innovation’s complex-adaptive systems approach should widen its scope of system boundaries, integrating social structural analysis to reveal root causes of blockages and enhance agential effectiveness. For actionable knowledge to achieve societal effects that are both proximate and transformative, transdisciplinary research should prioritize involvement of partners with pre-existing transformative strategies, and devote creative focus to building enabling societal contexts.