22
de- politicisation of environmental problems and even scientific justification of particular policies (Olsson et al. 2015; Wellstead et al. 2016; Newton 2016). Jared
Diamond’s stories about human development and collapse (Diamond 1999, 2005)
and Jeffrey Sachs’ explanation of underdevelopment (Sachs and Warner 1995)
exemplify a resurgence of determinism, or neo-environmental determinism (Sluyter
2003).
2.3 Epistemology – On Pluralism and Unification
in Sustainability Science
Epistemology is concerned with assumptions, claims, and questions about how to
gain knowledge about the world, who is a ‘knower’, and how to combine or integrate different types of knowledge. We identify two types of scientific knowledge
integration – pluralism and unification (Olsson et al. 2015; Geels et al. 2016).
Scientific pluralism is a process in which several disciplines contribute particular
theories, methods, and/or questions to address or solve a problem. According to
scientific pluralism, the ultimate goal of scientific inquiry is not (necessarily) to
establish a single theory (Kellert et al. 2006). Rather, pluralism is useful in situations where no unified theories are available to explain a phenomenon or where the
phenomenon can only be explained through the lens of multiple theories (Dupre
1991; Mitchell 2009). Undoubtedly this is the situation in a comprehensive context
such as that of climate change or geopolitics.
In contrast, unification may easily result in scientific imperialism, a process usually thought of as an illicit infringement such as when one discipline attempts to
explain phenomena or solve problems in a domain belonging to or associated with
another discipline (Dupré 1994, 2001; Mäki 2013). Serious cases of scientific imperialism are reductive in the sense that they aim, or tend, to exclude alternative (even
compatible) explanations and solutions (Clarke and Walsh 2009; Midgley 1984;
Thoren 2015) resulting in a situation where inferior explanations or problem solutions outcompete superior ones (Thoren 2015). All kinds of unification are not necessarily imperialist (in this negative sense), but there is always reason to worry
about imperialism in situations where a single theory (or discipline) is claimed to
account for major or persistent social problems such as inequality, poverty, and
social unrest, or for complex phenomena such as geopolitics or climate change
impacts on society and its responses to that. In contrast, in the context of geopolitics, pluralism has not only scientific value, but can also help sustain cultural, ecological, and social diversity (Norgaard 1989). In practice, this can be pursued
through research that harnesses both scientific and indigenous knowledge while
also seeking to reconcile them (Agrawal 1995; Parsons et al. 2017; Persson et al.
2018b).
A. Jerneck and L. Olsson
de- politicisation of environmental problems and even scientific justification of particular policies (Olsson et al. 2015; Wellstead et al. 2016; Newton 2016). Jared
Diamond’s stories about human development and collapse (Diamond 1999, 2005)
and Jeffrey Sachs’ explanation of underdevelopment (Sachs and Warner 1995)
exemplify a resurgence of determinism, or neo-environmental determinism (Sluyter
2003).
2.3 Epistemology – On Pluralism and Unification
in Sustainability Science
Epistemology is concerned with assumptions, claims, and questions about how to
gain knowledge about the world, who is a ‘knower’, and how to combine or integrate different types of knowledge. We identify two types of scientific knowledge
integration – pluralism and unification (Olsson et al. 2015; Geels et al. 2016).
Scientific pluralism is a process in which several disciplines contribute particular
theories, methods, and/or questions to address or solve a problem. According to
scientific pluralism, the ultimate goal of scientific inquiry is not (necessarily) to
establish a single theory (Kellert et al. 2006). Rather, pluralism is useful in situations where no unified theories are available to explain a phenomenon or where the
phenomenon can only be explained through the lens of multiple theories (Dupre
1991; Mitchell 2009). Undoubtedly this is the situation in a comprehensive context
such as that of climate change or geopolitics.
In contrast, unification may easily result in scientific imperialism, a process usually thought of as an illicit infringement such as when one discipline attempts to
explain phenomena or solve problems in a domain belonging to or associated with
another discipline (Dupré 1994, 2001; Mäki 2013). Serious cases of scientific imperialism are reductive in the sense that they aim, or tend, to exclude alternative (even
compatible) explanations and solutions (Clarke and Walsh 2009; Midgley 1984;
Thoren 2015) resulting in a situation where inferior explanations or problem solutions outcompete superior ones (Thoren 2015). All kinds of unification are not necessarily imperialist (in this negative sense), but there is always reason to worry
about imperialism in situations where a single theory (or discipline) is claimed to
account for major or persistent social problems such as inequality, poverty, and
social unrest, or for complex phenomena such as geopolitics or climate change
impacts on society and its responses to that. In contrast, in the context of geopolitics, pluralism has not only scientific value, but can also help sustain cultural, ecological, and social diversity (Norgaard 1989). In practice, this can be pursued
through research that harnesses both scientific and indigenous knowledge while
also seeking to reconcile them (Agrawal 1995; Parsons et al. 2017; Persson et al.
2018b).
A. Jerneck and L. Olsson