21
2011). By knowledge integration we mean a process where the best available
knowledge from two or more scientific disciplines or fields is used to understand a
complex problem. A central challenge to knowledge integration in sustainability
science is how to deal with seemingly incompatible assumptions deriving from varied ontological claims in the natural and social sciences. This involves a concern for
how to ensure that the best available social science knowledge is used in combination with the best available knowledge in natural sciences, engineering, and medicine. A concern following from that is how to study issues such as the consequences
of climate change impacts on society without resorting to environmental determinism. To clarify here, environmental determinism is a foundational element of colonialism referring to the belief that natural conditions shape societies. Another
concern refers to the frequent use of indicators which illustrates a tendency to
emphasize that reality is observable and measurable.
Systems and system boundaries are core ontological components of the natural
sciences, both in theory such as stocks and flows models and in practice for describing a quantifying bio-geo-chemical fluxes. Meanwhile, in contemporary social science inherent obstacles to systems thinking abound. Researchers studying social
phenomena based on social theory may be reluctant to use systems as an ontological
description of society but may decide to use it analytically to study a specific aspect
of the economy, polity, or society such as the tax system, the party system, the
energy system, or the social security system. However, the neo-liberal zeitgeist has
made it so natural to speak in systems terms such as resilience and self-organization
of socio-ecological systems as well as adaptive management because of climate
change that we fail to see the contradicting political forces behind it. But following
Colin Hay (2002, p 3) ‘All events, processes and practices which occur within the
social sphere have the potential to be political and, hence, to be amenable to political analysis’. What makes an analysis political is its focus and emphasis on ‘the
political aspect of social relations’ and in particular the ‘attention to the power relations implicated in social relations’ (Hay 2002, p 3). This implies, for example, that
the ‘sociology of structural inequality’ is a subject of political analysis (Hay 2002,
p 3). If translated into a sustainability science context it means that the many
socially, spatially and temporally uneven impacts of and responses to climate
change ought to be studied while remembering that politics are concerned with ‘the
distribution, exercise and consequences of power’ (Hay 2002, p 3).
To bridge ontological barriers in sustainability science research while avoiding
not only the risk of scientific imperialism associated with unification meaning that
one discipline dominates another but also the risk of de-politicisation of socioecological issues, we suggest the use of two explicit ontological assumptions: social
fields and natural systems (Olsson and Jerneck 2018). Below, we will return to a
more specific description of social fields and a discussion of how to justify its use.
Such an approach has the potential to overcome ontological differences between the
social and natural sciences, and is also useful for avoiding three common weaknesses of knowledge integration across the natural and social sciences as mentioned
above, namely the use of environmental determinism, functionalism, and rational
choice theory to explain social change. In combination, they often result in a
2 Theoretical and Methodological Pluralism in Sustainability Science
2011). By knowledge integration we mean a process where the best available
knowledge from two or more scientific disciplines or fields is used to understand a
complex problem. A central challenge to knowledge integration in sustainability
science is how to deal with seemingly incompatible assumptions deriving from varied ontological claims in the natural and social sciences. This involves a concern for
how to ensure that the best available social science knowledge is used in combination with the best available knowledge in natural sciences, engineering, and medicine. A concern following from that is how to study issues such as the consequences
of climate change impacts on society without resorting to environmental determinism. To clarify here, environmental determinism is a foundational element of colonialism referring to the belief that natural conditions shape societies. Another
concern refers to the frequent use of indicators which illustrates a tendency to
emphasize that reality is observable and measurable.
Systems and system boundaries are core ontological components of the natural
sciences, both in theory such as stocks and flows models and in practice for describing a quantifying bio-geo-chemical fluxes. Meanwhile, in contemporary social science inherent obstacles to systems thinking abound. Researchers studying social
phenomena based on social theory may be reluctant to use systems as an ontological
description of society but may decide to use it analytically to study a specific aspect
of the economy, polity, or society such as the tax system, the party system, the
energy system, or the social security system. However, the neo-liberal zeitgeist has
made it so natural to speak in systems terms such as resilience and self-organization
of socio-ecological systems as well as adaptive management because of climate
change that we fail to see the contradicting political forces behind it. But following
Colin Hay (2002, p 3) ‘All events, processes and practices which occur within the
social sphere have the potential to be political and, hence, to be amenable to political analysis’. What makes an analysis political is its focus and emphasis on ‘the
political aspect of social relations’ and in particular the ‘attention to the power relations implicated in social relations’ (Hay 2002, p 3). This implies, for example, that
the ‘sociology of structural inequality’ is a subject of political analysis (Hay 2002,
p 3). If translated into a sustainability science context it means that the many
socially, spatially and temporally uneven impacts of and responses to climate
change ought to be studied while remembering that politics are concerned with ‘the
distribution, exercise and consequences of power’ (Hay 2002, p 3).
To bridge ontological barriers in sustainability science research while avoiding
not only the risk of scientific imperialism associated with unification meaning that
one discipline dominates another but also the risk of de-politicisation of socioecological issues, we suggest the use of two explicit ontological assumptions: social
fields and natural systems (Olsson and Jerneck 2018). Below, we will return to a
more specific description of social fields and a discussion of how to justify its use.
Such an approach has the potential to overcome ontological differences between the
social and natural sciences, and is also useful for avoiding three common weaknesses of knowledge integration across the natural and social sciences as mentioned
above, namely the use of environmental determinism, functionalism, and rational
choice theory to explain social change. In combination, they often result in a
2 Theoretical and Methodological Pluralism in Sustainability Science