Learning through interdisciplinary dialogue: Methodological approaches for bridging epistemological divides

Q1 Social Sciences
Eleanor Brown, Joshua Kirshner, Lynda Dunlop, Richard Friend, Sally Brooks, Kelly Redeker, Ana Zimmermann, Paul H Walton, João Cairo, Fernanda Veneu
{"title":"Learning through interdisciplinary dialogue: Methodological approaches for bridging epistemological divides","authors":"Eleanor Brown, Joshua Kirshner, Lynda Dunlop, Richard Friend, Sally Brooks, Kelly Redeker, Ana Zimmermann, Paul H Walton, João Cairo, Fernanda Veneu","doi":"10.1177/20597991231202887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientific innovations for sustainable development often make huge promises about overcoming climate change, or promote technological innovations that have potential development implications. However, the social outcomes of such interventions are often considered superficially; thus potentially reinforcing injustices or producing unforeseen, undesirable outcomes. Increasingly, projects claim to have an interdisciplinary dimension, but processes of interdisciplinary dialogue can be difficult to maintain. This means that researchers have to be prepared to engage in potentially extensive, transformative dialogue and be willing to learn from the disciplinary knowledge of the other. This can be methodologically challenging both for natural and social scientists. This paper reports meta-research exploring the methodological processes and learning experiences of academics involved in research on the implementation of second-generation biofuel technology. Through interdisciplinary meetings, workshops, reflections and interviews we built up sustainable relationships and bridged epistemological divides. Our approach to interdisciplinary dialogue offers insights into the methodological challenges of interdisciplinary work. We used the framework of transformative learning theory to identify key aspects of the interdisciplinary process and reflected on the need for sustained and open opportunities for dialogue in order to find genuine ways to communicate across disciplines. We explicitly revealed and considered our taken-for-granted assumptions to identify what we understood by key terms and processes, including ‘sustainable’, ‘development’, ‘methodology’, ‘truth’, ‘marginal land’ and ‘outputs’. We found these encounters created opportunities to influence the trajectory of each other’s research and thinking, with the ideal of social and environmental justice prominent in all our discussions. It was through ongoing learning and dialogue that we found that the multifaceted challenges of sustainable development research can become more open, more critical and more able to reveal appropriate solutions and promote relevant ongoing scientific research. This interplay between disciplines is an innovative way to influence decision-making directly.","PeriodicalId":32579,"journal":{"name":"Methodological Innovations","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Methodological Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20597991231202887","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scientific innovations for sustainable development often make huge promises about overcoming climate change, or promote technological innovations that have potential development implications. However, the social outcomes of such interventions are often considered superficially; thus potentially reinforcing injustices or producing unforeseen, undesirable outcomes. Increasingly, projects claim to have an interdisciplinary dimension, but processes of interdisciplinary dialogue can be difficult to maintain. This means that researchers have to be prepared to engage in potentially extensive, transformative dialogue and be willing to learn from the disciplinary knowledge of the other. This can be methodologically challenging both for natural and social scientists. This paper reports meta-research exploring the methodological processes and learning experiences of academics involved in research on the implementation of second-generation biofuel technology. Through interdisciplinary meetings, workshops, reflections and interviews we built up sustainable relationships and bridged epistemological divides. Our approach to interdisciplinary dialogue offers insights into the methodological challenges of interdisciplinary work. We used the framework of transformative learning theory to identify key aspects of the interdisciplinary process and reflected on the need for sustained and open opportunities for dialogue in order to find genuine ways to communicate across disciplines. We explicitly revealed and considered our taken-for-granted assumptions to identify what we understood by key terms and processes, including ‘sustainable’, ‘development’, ‘methodology’, ‘truth’, ‘marginal land’ and ‘outputs’. We found these encounters created opportunities to influence the trajectory of each other’s research and thinking, with the ideal of social and environmental justice prominent in all our discussions. It was through ongoing learning and dialogue that we found that the multifaceted challenges of sustainable development research can become more open, more critical and more able to reveal appropriate solutions and promote relevant ongoing scientific research. This interplay between disciplines is an innovative way to influence decision-making directly.
通过跨学科对话学习:弥合认识论分歧的方法论方法
促进可持续发展的科学创新往往对克服气候变化作出巨大承诺,或促进具有潜在发展影响的技术创新。然而,这些干预措施的社会结果往往被肤浅地考虑;因此,可能会加剧不公正或产生不可预见的、不受欢迎的结果。越来越多的项目声称具有跨学科的维度,但跨学科对话的过程可能难以维持。这意味着研究人员必须准备好参与潜在的广泛的、变革性的对话,并愿意从对方的学科知识中学习。这对自然科学家和社会科学家来说都是一个方法论上的挑战。本文报告了一项元研究,探讨了参与第二代生物燃料技术实施研究的学者的方法过程和学习经验。通过跨学科会议、研讨会、反思和访谈,我们建立了可持续的关系,并弥合了认识论上的分歧。我们跨学科对话的方法为跨学科工作的方法论挑战提供了见解。我们使用变革学习理论的框架来确定跨学科过程的关键方面,并反思需要持续和开放的对话机会,以便找到真正的跨学科沟通方式。我们明确地揭示并考虑了我们想当然的假设,以确定我们对关键术语和过程的理解,包括“可持续”、“发展”、“方法论”、“真相”、“边际土地”和“产出”。我们发现,这些接触创造了影响彼此研究和思考轨迹的机会,社会和环境正义的理想在我们所有的讨论中都很突出。正是通过不断的学习和对话,我们发现可持续发展研究的多方面挑战可以变得更加开放、更加关键,更有能力揭示适当的解决办法并促进相关的正在进行的科学研究。学科之间的相互作用是一种直接影响决策的创新方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Methodological Innovations
Methodological Innovations Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信