Jenneth Parker, University of Bristol

CONVERGE – an EU framework 7 funded programme under the heading of „Re-thinking Globalisation‟

Meta-discussion of ontology and methodology of a complex inter-disciplinary programme

Philosophy as clarificatory but also as having methodological implications

CONVERGE specific example but generic issues for sustainability research programme as a whole

Systems thinking is not a panacea to dissolve disciplinary differences

Systems approaches need to be complemented by ontology informed by dialectical critical realism

Critical realism needs more development in the life sciences to comprehend process ontology of living systems – including global ecology

Is ontology of real world important or can we make do with pragmatism in ID sustainability research?

Is systems thinking an ontology, a method, or an „heuristic‟ (Gunderson & Holling, 2002)

I will argue that adopting a „free-floating‟ systems approach can undermine

a) the capacity to „re-think‟ globalisation

b) the case for the dependency of human society and economy on global ecology

Properly used, systems thinking can allow for different types of system and does not disguise problems of bringing them into meaningful relationships in practice and research – we can keep the benefits of systems approaches but add to them with a DCR ontology

These issues are a puzzle for all areas of sustainability e.g. Impact assessment „The limits to the use of the environment by humans, and degree of social conflict that arises, are set by both physical and social factors.‟ (Taylor, Brian and Goodrich, 2004, p44)

The CONVERGE project will build from the concept of 'contraction and convergence' that informed the Kyoto process. C&C linked the key socialconcept of equal rights to emissions with the key ecological need for reduced emissions to issue a challenge to economic systems to develop fair processes for emissions reduction. CONVERGE aims to re-think globalisation by developing our understanding of convergence beyond emissions-trading across wider social, economic and ecological dimensions of sustainability.

CONVERGE will research, develop and test the processes of contraction and convergence ain current forms of globalisation

The research will be based on systems science to integrate social, scientific and economic disciplines in order to create coherent solutions to complex problems

Key to the success of this study is the managed interdisciplinary approach

This paper explores some of the issues arising in conceptualising this ID approach including the degree to which „systems science‟ can „integrate‟ disciplines

environment

societyeconomy

systems approaches seen as „honest broker‟ for interdisciplinary work in sustainable development circles - partly as it has strong roots in the development of ecosystem approaches

Key tenets that all elements of a system are in relationship, issues of co-dependence and the need to harmonise different systems to work together have been useful starting points in defining the sustainable development project

However, this kind of formulation can obscure the key differences between systems and can imply that they are all of a sufficiently similar type to be harmonized, and this can result in a „reduction‟ of social and cultural dimensions to the terms and models of ecology (adding a few social/cultural boxes to the systems model (Cornell, 2010)

Fuller consideration of the problems of applying ecological system analogies to social and cultural systems without pointing to the limitations of these analogies

„Human systems are peculiarly complex not only because they include innumerable things in continuous interaction but because some of the things are different in fundamental nature from others. Some of their components (including humans themselves) are natural products of biological evolution. However, others – those constituting the socio-economic elements of such systems – are symbolically conceived and socially constructed. The latter class includes their more-or-less distinctive political, legal, economic, social, religious, recreational, and aesthetic conventions….‟ (Johnston, 1994, p158)

Systems modelling can be used as a powerful tool in thinking through interdisciplinary problems (Haraldsson, 2004)

2 essential process concepts: i) feedbacks – positive and negative ii) system delays – effects working their way through

the system take time e.g.cannot understand climate change without both of these concepts

However – can systems approaches really support the dependency of human systems on the biosphere?

Some thinkers do say they place their systems approach in the context of a „nested model‟ of systems, indicating dependency relations, such as depicted below

Ecology

Society

Economy

Unsustainable development has been built upon a „frontier‟ approach and growth has involved the increasing incorporation of resources as if they were limitless – the current form of globalisation

This development has utilised the caring and social cohesion practices of human societies whilst minimally supporting these

Issues of equity and human development have been largely relegated to „trickle down‟ and welfare state mitigation in richer countries

Sustainable development involves the fundamental questioning of these approaches this has to involve a questioning of economics that externalises key aspects on which it depends

(1) Economic size oflosses (“COPI”study)

(from TEEB 2010)

A : 50-year impact of inaction or „business as usual‟

B : Natural Capital Loss every year

Welfare losses equivalent to 7 % of GDP, horizon 2050

Natural Capital Lost : AnnuallyEUR 1.35 x 1012 to 3.10 x 1012

(@ 4% (@ 1%Discount Rate) Discount

Rate)

Sourc

e: Bra

at

& t

en B

rink (

Eds.

, 2

00

8):

Cost

of

Policy

In

act

ion

(3) Ethics of discountingThree hidden stories (from TEEB

2010)

1. Declining Growth Paths in the per-capita flow of nature‟s services …imply that discount rates should be negative !

2. Marginal Utility of $1 to the Rich vs Poor … is too different to merit the same discounting treatment

3. Inter-generational Equity … following „market practise‟ meansvaluing nature‟s utility to your grandchild at one-seventh of your own !

Most of the 29 valuation studies in our meta-study of forest valuationsuse discount rates between 3%-5%

Cash flow 50 years in the future

Annual discount

rate

Present value of

the future cash flow

1,000,000 4 % 140,713

1,000,000 2 % 371,328

1,000,000 1 % 608,039

1,000,000 0 % 1,000,000

Systems modelling is considered as a powerful tool and has been proved essential for developing knowledge of complex adaptive systems such as global ecology

However, methodological justification is largely in terms of pragmatism which can be close to instrumentalism in philosophy of science

What is the point of insisting on the need for ontology of a real world for sustainability research?

Critical realism as a philosophy does not itself offer conclusions about sustainability but, I will argue, does support some important regulative considerations – as methodology should

Following Charles Taylor (1995) I argue that ontology does not determine theory but does constrain what can count as a good or adequate theory

Systems approaches that are viewed as simply „heuristics‟ (Gunderson & Holling, 2002) cannot constrain modelling to follow human dependence upon the bio-sphere

Hence in their classic text Panarchy (2002) we find uncritical analogies between mainstream current economic practices (specifically the identification of „adaptive cycles‟ in complete isolation from any wider systems considerations of the dependence of economy on the biosphere

Thus systems approaches without a „laminated‟ ontology (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2008) cannot cope with the whole of the requirements of research for sustainability

Systems thinkers also often espouse the concepts of new networked societies, failing to draw on the critical history of work in social science and critical theory

Jonathon Joseph (2010) claims that the notion of network society ... suggests that hierarchical structures are being replaced by horizontal networks of mutually supportive elements‟ (p9) and points to claims that „networks are the main things out there....‟(p15)

He claims that „by ignoring the context within which networks and flows are situated we are denied the possibility of either critically analysing them or changing them‟ (p15) (but he ignores whole of ecological context – as do many CR social theorists

What happens if systems thinkers based in human ecology (human material interactions with the biosphere) fail to take on board the methodological issues of the social world?

Cannot take account of the specific and emergent features and causal powers of the social and cultural worlds – do not draw on histories, experiences and analyses of previous social change

Reduce human agency to economic adaptive cycles

„Cases in which it appears that changing socioculturalfactors would enhance sustainability require especially careful assessment and research. And, even if that assessment convincingly demonstrates that sociocultural factors motivate unsustainable behaviours, there are still ethical dilemmas. One consideration has to do with the human right to culture. Another has to do with the systemic nature of culture. Changing a sociocultural factor to influence one critical environmental behaviour may lead to other social, economic or political changes that have even more serious impacts on natural resource sustainability than the target behaviour did.‟

(Byers, 2000, p91)

Artistic Ethical Religious/Metaphysical LearningE: Cultural systems of representation and interpretation of

significance^

Military Economic Political Educational FamilialD: Human social systems

^Production Transport Consumption Care

SettlementC: Human material systems

^Functioning ecosystemsB: Life support systems

E: Cultural systems of representation and interpretation of significanceKnowledge about cultural systems – but these include the role of

knowledge itself. Does „sound science‟ guide practice? Ethical inquiry into the significance of new understandings of human dependence on

biosphere and global interdependence – new narratives ?D: Human social systems

Non-material but causally effective institutions but also less formal institutions such as families and communities vital for human well-being

but historically embedded and unresponsive and often oppressive C: Human material systems

Knowledge currently about these systems is „boxed off‟ (Hoyer & Naess, 2008) – only beginning to look at dynamical relations with adjacent bio-physical and social systems. Knowledge more contestable – contextual

limitsB: Life support systems

Biological, ecological and climate systems have different kinds of feedback loops and homeostatic processes – high level of knowledge agreement possible, scientific method

Dependence: emergent areas cannot break laws at lower level

Emergence: real differentiated features

i)e.g. Social and cultural feedbacks are different from biosphere feedbacks as beliefs work differently from e.g. Climatic regulation

ii) social theories and cultural products (such as CONVERGE outcomes of frameworks and policy recommendations) are performative – i.e. They help to change social & cultural reality by providing new conceptual and analytical resources with which to frame new possibilities of social change towards sustainability

DCR provides consistent reasons why the social possibilities of CONVERGE must be informed by the independently existing (real) limits of the biophysical planetary system – no point designing social and political systems that break the laws of the biosphere. Also implies challenging myths and narratives of progress and self-fulfilment based on unsustainable material flows

Non-reductionism: emergent causal powers and properties cannot be reduced to the level they depend upon without loss of crucial information – hence limits to „data integration‟

DCR allows for understanding of „deep‟ and „adjacent‟ interdisciplinarity – disciplinary areas in same domain share more common features – across domains harder challenge

DCR framework does not imply that knowledge is certain or complete in any of the domains – in fact relational knowledge produces new challenges from one domain to another

As a project aiming to do the above, CONVERGE requires some kind of regulative ontology at least similar to a dialectical critical realism

This must involve questioning whether current forms of economy can help to deliver more equal access to limited resources and value essential social care and cohesion

Systems approaches must be complemented by an ontology that allows for critical social thought and analysis, ethical deliberation and cultural responses

Cultural dimensions of CONVERGE as an ethical intervention in sustainability discourse should be recognised as performative (committed action research)

The CONVERGE ethical commitment to forms of equality does not derive from science , but in a real world its conditions of fulfilment must be informed by science (Parker, 2010)

Working with provisional disciplinary syntheses and jostling perspectives

There are many interdisciplinarities – often people in sustainability projects are already experienced in some ID

Disciplinary analysis of project outcomes may still be a useful starting point - need to be wary of reductionism in the over hasty pursuit of „data integration‟

Reflection on methodology does not mean we „got it wrong‟ – but displays growing awareness in ID research that continuing meta-reflection needs to be part of methodology of projects in order to keep clear about what is at stake in adopting particular working strategies and synthetic analyses

CONVERGE helping to initiate EU network reflecting on methodological aspects of sustainability research as part of the C0PERNICUS initiative

E: Cultural systems of representation and interpretation of significanceCONVERGE ethical inquiry into the significance of new understandings of

human dependence on biosphere and global interdependence – can CONVERGE contribute to new narratives of prosperity?

^D: Human social systems

CONVERGE to work with different communities to review attempts at sustainability/convergence. Action research to discuss CONVERGE as a

frame for action and change. Mandated to produce policy recommendations for EU (and for social movements/NGOs?)

^C: Human material systems

CONVERGE using systems modelling of human ecology and material flows; estimations of sustainable levels of population at differential levels of material well-being (not looking at care and support as yet – gender

aspects). Looking at human ecology of different communities^

B: Life support systemsCONVERGE using existing best science about state of life-support systems – using attempts to integrate science from different adjacent fields to gain overall assessment

Bhaskar, R. & Danermark, (2006) „Metatheory, interdisciplinarity and disability research: a critical realist perspective‟ in Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8: 278-297

Byers, B. (2000) Understanding and influencing behaviours: a guide. Washington D.C: Biodiversity Support Programme

Cornell, S. (2010), „Climate Change: brokering interdisciplinarity across the physical and social sciences‟ in Bhaskar et al (eds) Interdiscipinarity and Climate Change: transforming knowledge and practice for our global future, London: Routledge

Gunderson, L.H. & Holling, C.S. (2002) eds Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems, Washington: Island Press

Hoyer, K, G & Naess, P (2008), Interdisciplinary Ecology and Scientific Theory, Journal of Critical Realism, 7(2), 2008, 5-33

Johnston, B. R. (1994) Who pays the price? The socio-cultural context of environmental crisis. Washington D.C.: Society for Applied Anthropology, Committee for Human Rights and the Environment/Island Press.

Joseph, J. „The problems with networks theory‟ paper online, 2010

Parker, J. (2008) „Situating Education for Sustainability‟ in Parker, J. & Wade, R. (eds) Journeys Around Education for Sustainability London: LSBU Education for Sustainability Programme with WWF-UK and OXFAM

Parker, J. (2010) „Towards a dialectic of knowledge and care in the global system‟ in Bhaskar et al eds(op cit)

Taylor, C. (1995) Philosophical Arguments . London: Harvard University Press

Taylor , C.N., Bryan , Hobson C. & Goodrich, C.G. 2004. Social Assessment: Theory, process and techniques 3rd. Edition. Middleton, Wisconsin.