Content uploaded by Jennifer Marie Sunga Amparo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Marie Sunga Amparo on Feb 12, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Olivia Bina
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Olivia Bina on Dec 11, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Jennifer Marie Sunga Amparo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jennifer Marie Sunga Amparo on Oct 24, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Joanna Boehnert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joanna Boehnert on Oct 22, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Niko Schäpke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Niko Schäpke on Oct 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Research & Social Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss
Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems
and how to get there
Ioan Fazey
a,⁎
, Niko Schäpke
b
, Guido Caniglia
c
, Anthony Hodgson
d
, Ian Kendrick
d
,
Christopher Lyon
e
, Glenn Page
f
, James Patterson
g
, Chris Riedy
h
, Tim Strasser
i
, Stephan Verveen
j
,
David Adams
k
, Bruce Goldstein
l
, Matthias Klaes
m
, Graham Leicester
n
, Alison Linyard
o
,
Adrienne McCurdy
p
, Paul Ryan
q
, Bill Sharpe
r
, Giorgia Silvestri
s
, Ali Yansyah Abdurrahim
t
,
David Abson
u
, Olufemi Samson Adetunji
v
, Paulina Aldunce
w
, Carlos Alvarez-Pereira
x
,
Jennifer Marie Amparo
y
, Helene Amundsen
z
, Lakin Anderson
aa
, Lotta Andersson
ab
,
Michael Asquith
ac
, Karoline Augenstein
ad
, Jack Barrie
ae
, David Bent
af
, Julia Bentz
ag
,
Arvid Bergsten
ah
, Carol Berzonsky
ai
, Olivia Bina
aj
, Kirsty Blackstock
ak
, Joanna Boehnert
al
,
Hilary Bradbury
am
, Christine Brand
an
, Jessica Böhme (born Sangmeister)
ao
,
Marianne Mille Bøjer
ap
, Esther Carmen
aq
, Lakshmi Charli-Joseph
ar
, Sarah Choudhury
as
,
Supot Chunhachoti-ananta
at
, Jessica Cockburn
au
, John Colvin
av
, Irena L.C. Connon
aw
,
Rosalind Cornforth
ax
, Robin S. Cox
ay
, Nicholas Cradock-Henry
az
, Laura Cramer
ba
,
Almendra Cremaschi
bb
, Halvor Dannevig
bc
, Catherine T. Day
bd
, Cathel de Lima Hutchison
be
,
Anke de Vrieze
bf
, Vikas Desai
bg
, Jonathan Dolley
bh
, Dominic Duckett
bi
, Rachael Amy Durrant
bj
,
Markus Egermann
bk
, Emily Elsner (Adams)
bl
, Chris Fremantle
bm
, Jessica Fullwood-Thomas
bn
,
Diego Galafassi
bo
, Jen Gobby
bp
, Ami Golland
bq
, Shiara Kirana González-Padrón
br
,
Irmelin Gram-Hanssen
bs
, Jakob Grandin
bt
, Sara Grenni
bu
, Jade Lauren Gunnell
bv
,
Felipe Gusmao
bw
, Maike Hamann
bx,1
, Brian Harding
by
, Gavin Harper
bz
, Mia Hesselgren
ca
,
Dina Hestad
cb
, Cheryl Anne Heykoop
cc
, Johan Holmén
cd
, Kirsty Holstead
ce
, Claire Hoolohan
cf
,
Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu
cg
, Lummina Geertruida Horlings
ch
, Stuart Mark Howden
ci
,
Rachel Angharad Howell
cj
, Sarah Insia Huque
ck
, Mirna Liz Inturias Canedo
cl
,
Chidinma Yvonne Iro
cm
, Christopher D. Ives
cn
, Beatrice John
co
, Rajiv Joshi
cp
,
Sadhbh Juarez-Bourke
cq
, Dauglas Wafula Juma
cr
, Bea Cecilie Karlsen
cs
, Lea Kliem
ct
,
Andreas Kläy
cu
, Petra Kuenkel
cv
, Iris Kunze
cw
, David Patrick Michael Lam
cx
, Daniel J. Lang
cy
,
Alice Larkin
cz
, Ann Light
da
, Christopher Luederitz
db
, Tobias Luthe
dc
, Cathy Maguire
dd
,
Ana-Maria Mahecha-Groot
de
, Jackie Malcolm
df
, Fiona Marshall
dg
, Yiheyis Maru
dh
,
Carly McLachlan
dj
, Peter Mmbando
dk
, Subhakanta Mohapatra
dl
, Michele-Lee Moore
dm
,
Angela Moriggi
dn
, Mark Morley-Fletcher
do
, Susanne Moser
dp
, Konstanze Marion Mueller
dq
,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ioan.fazey@york.ac.uk (I. Fazey), schapke@chalmers.se (N. Schäpke), guido.caniglia@kli.ac.at (G. Caniglia),
anthony.hodgson@h3uni.org (A. Hodgson), Ian.kendrick@h3uni.org (I. Kendrick), c.lyon@leeds.ac.uk (C. Lyon), gpage@sustainametrix.com (G. Page),
j.j.patterson@uu.nl (J. Patterson), christopher.riedy@uts.edu.au (C. Riedy), tim.strasser@maastrichtuniversity.nl (T. Strasser),
stephan@funnelvision.nl (S. Verveen), david.adams@h3uni.org (D. Adams), brugo@colorado.edu (B. Goldstein), matthias.klaes@buckingham.ac.uk (M. Klaes),
graham@internationalfuturesforum.com (G. Leicester), alison@internationalfuturesforum.com (A. Linyard), adrienne.mccurdy@h3uni.org (A. McCurdy),
paul.ryan@ausresilience.com.au (P. Ryan), bill@billsharpe.uk (B. Sharpe), silvestri@drift.eur.nl (G. Silvestri), aliyansyah.lipi@gmail.com (A.Y. Abdurrahim),
abson@leuphana.de (D. Abson), olufemi.adetunji@uon.edu.au (O.S. Adetunji), paldunce@uchile.cl (P. Aldunce), capereira@clubofrome.org (C. Alvarez-Pereira),
jsamparo@up.edu.ph (J.M. Amparo), helene.amundsen@cicero.oslo.no (H. Amundsen), lakin.anderson@fek.uu.se (L. Anderson),
lotta.andersson@smhi.se (L. Andersson), mike.asquith@eea.europa.eu (M. Asquith), augenstein@uni-wuppertal.de (K. Augenstein),
jack.barrie@strath.ac.uk (J. Barrie), d.bent@ucl.ac.uk (D. Bent), jhbentz@fc.ul.pt (J. Bentz), arvid.bergsten@gmail.com (A. Bergsten),
carolberzonsky@gmail.com (C. Berzonsky), o.c.bina.92@cantab.net (O. Bina), kirsty.blackstock@hutton.ac.uk (K. Blackstock),
Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
Available online 25 September 2020
2214-6296/ © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
T
Mutizwa Mukute
dr
, Susan Mühlemeier
ds
, Lars Otto Naess
dt
, Marta Nieto-Romero
du
, Paula Novo
dv
,
Karen O’Brien
dw
, Deborah Anne O'Connell
dx
, Kathleen O'Donnell
dy
, Per Olsson
dz
,
Kelli Rose Pearson
ea
, Laura Pereira
eb
, Panos Petridis
ec
, Daniela Peukert
ed
, Nicky Phear
ee
,
Siri Renée Pisters
ef
, Matt Polsky
eg
, Diana Pound
eh
, Rika Preiser
ei
, Md. Sajidur Rahman
ej
,
Mark S. Reed
ek
, Philip Revell
el
, Iokiñe Rodriguez
em
, Briony Cathryn Rogers
en
, Jascha Rohr
eo
,
Milda Nordbø Rosenberg
ep
, Helen Ross
eq
, Shona Russell
er
, Melanie Ryan
es
, Probal Saha
et
,
Katharina Schleicher
eu
, Flurina Schneider
ev
, Morgan Scoville-Simonds
ew
, Beverley Searle
ex
,
Samuel Petros Sebhatu
ey
, Elena Sesana
ez
, Howard Silverman
fa
, Chandni Singh
fb
,
Eleanor Sterling
fc
, Sarah-Jane Stewart
fd
, J. David Tàbara
fe
, Douglas Taylor
ff
, Philip Thornton
fg
,
Theresa Margarete Tribaldos
fh
, Petra Tschakert
fi
, Natalia Uribe-Calvo
fj
, Steve Waddell
fk
,
Sandra Waddock
fl
, Liza van der Merwe
fm
, Barbara van Mierlo
fn
, Patrick van Zwanenberg
fo
,
Sandra Judith Velarde
fp
, Carla-Leanne Washbourne
fq
, Kerry Waylen
fr
, Annika Weiser
fs
,
Ian Wight
ft
, Stephen Williams
fu
, Mel Woods
fv
, Ruth Wolstenholme
fw
, Ness Wright
fx
,
Stefanie Wunder
fy
, Alastair Wyllie
fz
, Hannah R. Young
ga
a
Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, Wentworth Way, Heslington, York YO105NG, UK
b
Chalmers University of Technology, Division Physical Resource Theory, and University of Freiburg, Chalmers University, Chalmersplatsen 4, 412 96 Göteborg, Sweden
c
Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research and Leuphana University Lueneburg, Konrad Lorenz Institute, Martinstraße 12, 3400 Klosterneuburg,
Austria
d
H3Uni, 18 North Street, Glenrothes KY7 5NA, The Netherlands
e
Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
f
SustainaMetrix, LLC, 502 Deering Avenue, Portland, ME 04103, USA
g
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
j.j.boehnert@lboro.ac.uk (J. Boehnert), hilary@hilarybradbury.net (H. Bradbury), christinebrand@uwclub.net (C. Brand),
mail@jessicaboehme.com (J. Böhme (born Sangmeister)), bojer@reospartners.com (M.M. Bøjer), esther.carmen78@yahoo.co.uk (E. Carmen),
lakshmi.charli@iecologia.unam.mx (L. Charli-Joseph), sarah.choudhury@uqconnect.edu.au (S. Choudhury), supotc@g.swu.ac.th (S. Chunhachoti-ananta),
jessicacockburn@gmail.com (J. Cockburn), john.colvin.emeraldnetwork@gmail.com (J. Colvin), i.l.c.connon@dundee.ac.uk (I.L.C. Connon),
r.j.cornforth@reading.ac.uk (R. Cornforth), Robin.cox@royalroads.ca (R.S. Cox), cradockhenryn@landcareresearch.co.nz (N. Cradock-Henry),
l.cramer@cgiar.org (L. Cramer), acremaschi@unsam.edu.ar (A. Cremaschi), hda@vestforsk.no (H. Dannevig), catherinetday@gmail.com (C.T. Day),
c.s.delimahutchison@dundee.ac.uk (C. de Lima Hutchison), anke.devrieze@wur.nl (A. de Vrieze), UHCRCE.smc@gmail.com (V. Desai),
J.Dolley@sussex.ac.uk (J. Dolley), dominic.duckett@hutton.ac.uk (D. Duckett), r.durrant@sussex.ac.uk (R.A. Durrant), m.egermann@ioer.de (M. Egermann),
emily@elsnerrc.com (E. Elsner (Adams)), c.fremantle@rgu.ac.uk (C. Fremantle), jfullwood-thomas1@oxfam.org.uk (J. Fullwood-Thomas),
diegogalafassi@gmail.com (D. Galafassi), jengobby@gmail.com (J. Gobby), ami.golland@su.se (A. Golland),
irmelin.gram-hanssen@sosgeo.uio.no (I. Gram-Hanssen), jakob.grandin@uib.no (J. Grandin), sara.grenni@luke.fi (S. Grenni),
j.l.gunnell@dundee.ac.uk (J. Lauren Gunnell), Gusmao.lfm@gmail.com (F. Gusmao), maikehhamann@gmail.com (M. Hamann),
Brian.Harding001@umb.edu (B. Harding), g.d.j.harper@bham.ac.uk (G. Harper), miahes@kth.se (M. Hesselgren), dina.hestad@ouce.ox.ac.uk (D. Hestad),
cheryl.1heykoop@royalroads.ca (C.A. Heykoop), johan.larsson@chalmers.se (J. Holmén), kh38@st-andrews.ac.uk (K. Holstead),
claire.hoolohan@manchester.ac.uk (C. Hoolohan), andra.horcea-milcu@helsinki.fi (A.-I. Horcea-Milcu), L.G.Horlings@rug.nl (L.G. Horlings),
mark.howden@anu.edu.au (S.M. Howden), rachel.howell@ed.ac.uk (R.A. Howell), sih3@st-andrews.ac.uk (S.I. Huque),
mirnainturias@gmail.com (M.L. Inturias Canedo), chivonneiro@gmail.com (C.Y. Iro), chris.ives@nottingham.ac.uk (C.D. Ives),
beatrice.john@leuphana.de (B. John), rjoshi@me.com (R. Joshi), s.juarez_bourke@leuphana.de (S. Juarez-Bourke), daugyjuma@yahoo.com (D.W. Juma),
bea_cecilie_95@hotmail.com (B.C. Karlsen), Lea.kliem@ioew.de (L. Kliem), andreas.klaey@cde.unibe.ch (A. Kläy),
petra.kuenkel@collectiveleadership.com (P. Kuenkel), mail@iriskunze.com (I. Kunze), Lam@Leuphana.de (D.P.M. Lam), daniel.lang@leuphana.de (D.J. Lang),
alice.larkin@manchester.ac.uk (A. Larkin), ann.light@sussex.ac.uk (A. Light), christopherluederitz@gmail.com (C. Luederitz), luthet@ethz.ch (T. Luthe),
cathy.maguire@eea.europa.eu (C. Maguire), ana.mahecha@rutgers.edu (A.-M. Mahecha-Groot), j.y.malcolm@dundee.ac.uk (J. Malcolm),
f.marshall@sussex.ac.uk (F. Marshall), yiheyis.maru@csiro.au (Y. Maru), c.mclachlan@manchester.ac.uk (C. McLachlan),
mmbandopeter24@gmail.com (P. Mmbando), subhakanta@ignou.ac.in (S. Mohapatra), michelelee.moore@su.se (M.-L. Moore),
angela.moriggi@wur.nl (A. Moriggi), mark@knowtenthousandthings.org (M. Morley-Fletcher), promundi@susannemoser.com (S. Moser),
mari.mueller1@gmx.de (K.M. Mueller), mmukute@gmail.com (M. Mukute), susan.muehlemeier@mailbox.org (S. Mühlemeier), l.naess@ids.ac.uk (L.O. Naess),
marta.nieto@ua.pt (M. Nieto-Romero), paula.novo@sruc.ac.uk (P. Novo), karen.obrien@sosgeo.uio.no (K. O’Brien), Deborah.O'Connell@csiro.au (D.A. O'Connell),
k.odonnell@sbcglobal.net (K. O'Donnell), per.olsson@su.se (P. Olsson), kelli.pearson@gmail.com (K.R. Pearson), pereira.laura18@gmail.com (L. Pereira),
petridispanos@gmail.com (P. Petridis), daniela.peukert@leuphana.de (D. Peukert), nicky.phear@umontana.edu (N. Phear), siripisters@gmail.com (S.R. Pisters),
innovator3@hotmail.com (M. Polsky), diana.pound@dialoguematters.co.uk (D. Pound), rika@sun.ac.za (R. Preiser), drsajid.ru@gmail.com (Md. S. Rahman),
mark.reed@sruc.ac.uk (M.S. Reed), philrevell@gmail.com (P. Revell), i.rodriguez-fernandez@uea.ac.uk (I. Rodriguez), briony.rogers@monash.edu (B.C. Rogers),
j.rohr@partizipativ-gestalten.de (J. Rohr), m.n.rosenberg@sosgeo.uio.no (M. Nordbø Rosenberg), Helen.Ross@uq.edu.au (H. Ross),
shona.russell@st-andrews.ac.uk (S. Russell), melryan@wwfint.org (M. Ryan), probal1421@gmail.com (P. Saha), schleicher@uni-wuppertal.de (K. Schleicher),
flurina.schneider@cde.unibe.ch (F. Schneider), morgans@sosgeo.uio.no (M. Scoville-Simonds), b.a.searle@dundee.ac.uk (B. Searle),
samuel.sebhatu@kau.se (S.P. Sebhatu), Elena.Sesana@uws.ac.uk (E. Sesana), howard.david.silverman@gmail.com (H. Silverman), csingh@iihs.ac.in (C. Singh),
sterling@amnh.org (E. Sterling), sarahjane.stewart@snclavalin.com (S.-J. Stewart), joandavid.tabara@uab.cat (J.D. Tàbara), d.z.taylor@dundee.ac.uk (D. Taylor),
p.thornton@cgiar.org (P. Thornton), theresa.tribaldos@cde.unibe.ch (T.M. Tribaldos), petra.tschakert@uwa.edu.au (P. Tschakert),
n.uribecalvo@gmail.com (N. Uribe-Calvo), swaddell@transformationsforum.net (S. Waddell), waddock@bc.edu (S. Waddock),
Lizavdm30@gmail.com (L. van der Merwe), barbara.vanmierlo@wur.nl (B. van Mierlo), pvanzwanenberg@unsam.edu.ar (P. van Zwanenberg),
sjvelarde@gmail.com (S.J. Velarde), c.washbourne@ucl.ac.uk (C.-L. Washbourne), kerry.waylen@hutton.ac.uk (K. Waylen), weiser@leuphana.de (A. Weiser),
Ian.Wight@umanitoba.ca (I. Wight), stephengarywilliams@gmail.com (S. Williams), m.j.woods@dundee.ac.uk (M. Woods), ruth@sniffer.org.uk (R. Wolstenholme),
nessclarewright@gmail.com (N. Wright), stephanie.wunder@ecologic.eu (S. Wunder), alastair.wyllie@ashridge.hult.edu (A. Wyllie),
young.hannahruth@gmail.com (H.R. Young).
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
2
h
Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia
i
Maastricht Sustainability Institute, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
j
H3Uni, Geertebolwerk 30, 3511 XA Utrecht, The Netherlands
k
H3Uni, 18 North Street, Glenrothes, Fife KY7 5NA, Scotland, UK
l
University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
m
Vinson Centre, University of Buckingham, Hunter St, Buckingham MK18 1EG, UK
n
International Futures Forum, The Boathouse, Silversands, Hawkcraig Road, Aberdour, Fife KY3 0TZ, UK
o
International Futures Forum, The Boathouse, Silversands, Hawkcraig Road, Aberdour, Fife KY3 0TZ, UK
p
H3Uni, 18 North Street, Glenrothes, Fife KY7 5NA, Scotland, UK
q
Australian Resilience Centre, Australia
r
International Futures Forum, The Boathouse, Silversands, Hawkcraig Road, Aberdour, Fife KY3 0TZ, UK
s
DRIFT (Dutch Research Institute for Transitions), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
t
Research Center for Population - Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Jakarta, Indonesia
u
Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University, Universitätsallee, 1 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
v
School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, University Dr, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
w
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Science, University of Chile, Center for Disasters and Risk Reduction CITRID, Center for Climate and Resilience
Research CR2, Av. Santa Rosa 11.315, La Pintana, Santiago, Chile
x
Club of Rome, Lagerhausstrasse 9, CH-8400 Winterthur, Switzerland
y
Department of Social Development Services, College of Human Ecology, University of the Philippines Los Baños/Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian
National University, Los Baños, Laguna Philippines 4031/Canberra, Australia
z
CICERO Centre for International Climate Research, P.O. Box 1129 Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway
aa
Uppsala University, Dept. Business Administration, Ekonomikum, Kyrkogårdsgatan 10 C, 753 13 Uppsala, Sweden
ab
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, SE-601 76 Norrköping, Sweden
ac
European Environment Agency, Kongens Nytorv 6, 1050 Copenhagen, Denmark
ad
Center for Transformation Research and Sustainability (TransZent), University of Wuppertal, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany
ae
University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond St, Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK
af
Institute for Global Prosperity, University College London, Floor 7, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 7NF, UK
ag
Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes (cE3c), Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon, Bldg. C1/Room 1.4.38, Campo Grande 1749-016 Lisbon,
Portugal
ah
Independent Consultant, Stockholm, Sweden
ai
Independent, 4 Kozera Ave, Hadley, MA, USA
aj
Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon (ICS-UL), and Geography & Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, University of Lisbon, Av.
Professor Aníbal de Bettencourt, 9, 1600-189 Lisboa, Portugal
ak
Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland, UK
al
Loughborough University, 30 Sweyn Road, Flat One, UK
am
Action Research Plus AR+ Foundation, 8819 SE 12th Ave. Portland, OR 97202, USA
an
North East London Hospital Foundation Trust, NELFT, CEME Centre, West Wing, Marsh Way, Rainham, Essex RM13 8GQ, UK
ao
Leuphana University, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
ap
Reos Partners, Avenue de Secheron 15, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
aq
Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5NG, UK
ar
Laboratorio Nacional de Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (LANCIS-IE-UNAM), Circuito Exterior S/N
anexo Jardín Botánico exterior, Ciudad Universitaria. CP 04500 Ciudad de México, Mexico
as
The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
at
International College for Sustainability Studies, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand
au
Environmental Learning Research Centre, Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Makhanda (Grahamstown) 6139, South Africa
av
Emerald Network Ltd, Stroud, Glos GL6 0PH, UK
aw
Discipline of Geography, School of Social Science, University of Dundee, Tower Building, Main Campus, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HN, UK
ax
Walker Institute, University of Reading, Agriculture Building, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
ay
ResiliencebyDesign Research Lab, Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, British Columbia V9B5Y2, Canada
az
Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research, 54 Gerald Street, Lincoln 7608, New Zealand
ba
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Nairobi, Kenya
bb
CENIT (Centro de Investigación para la transformación), Roque Sáenz Peña 832, 2do piso – (CP 1035), Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
bc
Western Norway Research Institute, P.O. Box 183, 6851 Sogndal, Norway
bd
Stetson University, 421 N Woodland Blvd, DeLand, FL 32723, USA
be
University of Dundee, Urban Planning and Architecture, University of Dundee, 13 Perth Rd, Dundee DD1 4HT, UK
bf
Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
bg
Urban Health and Climate Resilience Center of Excellence, Surat, Gujarat, India
bh
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Jubilee Building, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QE, UK
bi
Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH Scotland, UK
bj
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Jubilee Building, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QE, UK
bk
Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, Weberplatz 1, 01217 Dresden, Germany
bl
Elsner Research and Consulting, Allmannstrasse 36, 8052 Zürich, Switzerland
bm
Gray’s School of Art, Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7QD Scotland, UK
bn
Oxfam GB, Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Oxford OX4 2JY, UK
bo
Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies LUCSUS, LUCSUS P.O. Box 170, SE-222 70 Lund, Sweden
bp
McGill University, 845 Sherbrooke St W, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada
bq
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B SE-10691, Sweden
br
Laboratorio Nacional de Ciencias de la Sostenibilidad, Instituto de Ecología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (LANCIS-IE-UNAM), Av. Universidad 3000,
Mexico City, Mexico
bs
Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Moltke Moes vei 31, 0851 Oslo, Norway
bt
SpaceLab, Department of Geography, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
bu
Natural Resources Institute Finland - Luonnonvarakeskus (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland
bv
University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HN, UK
bw
Federal University of Sao Paulo, Rua Dr. Carvalho de Mendonça 144, Santos CEP: 11070-101, Brazil
bx
Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
by
Center for Governance and Sustainability, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA
bz
Birmingham Centre for Strategic Elements & Critical Materials, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston B15 2TT, UK
ca
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvagen 83, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
cb
Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
cc
Royal Roads University, 2005 Sooke Road, Victoria, BC V9B 5Y2, Canada
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
3
cd
Chalmers University of Technology, Division Physical Resource Theory, Maskingränd, 2 SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
ce
The University of St Andrews, The Gateway, North Haugh, St Andrews KY16 9RJ, Scotland, UK
cf
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
cg
Helsinki Institute for Sustainability Science (HELSUS), University of Helsinki, Ecosystems and Environment Research Program, Faculty of Biological and Environmental
Sciences, University of Helsinki, Yliopistonkatu 3, Viikinkaari 1, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
ch
Department of Spatial Planning and Environment, University of Groningen, Landleven 1, 9747 AD Groningen, The Netherlands
ci
Climate Change Institute, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
cj
The University of Edinburgh, School of Social and Political Science, Chrystal Macmillan Building, 15a George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LD, Scotland, UK
ck
University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland KY16 9AJ, UK
cl
Nur University, Santa Cruz, Bolivia
cm
University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK
cn
School of Geography, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
co
Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
cp
The B Team, 115 5th Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10014, USA
cq
Methods Center, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
cr
Department of Geography & Planning, Macquarie University. Australia, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia
cs
University of Dundee, Scotland, Nethergate DD1 4HN, UK
ct
Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Potsdamer Str. 105, 10785 Berlin, Germany
cu
Centre for Development and Environment (CDE), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
cv
International Club of Rome, Collective Leadership Institute, Lagerhausstrasse 9, 8400 Winterthur, Switzerland Kurfürstenstr. 1, 14467 Potsdam, Germany
cw
Center for Global Change and Sustainability, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Peter-Jordan-Straße 76/I, 1190 Vienna, Austria
cx
Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
cy
Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21339 Lüneburg, Germany
cz
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
da
University of Sussex, Falmer, East Sussex BN1 9RH, United Kingdom
db
SPROUT Lab, Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
dc
ETH Zürich, Planning of Landscape and Urban Systems (PLUS), Institut für Raum- und Landschaftsentwicklung (IRL), Stefano-Franscini-Platz 5, CH-8093 Zürich,
Switzerland
dd
European Environment Agency, Kongens Nytorv 6, 1050 Copenhagen, Denmark
de
Rutgers University, 54 Joyce Kilmer Ave., Department of Geography, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA
df
University of Dundee, Perth Road, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HT, UK
dg
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Jubilee Building, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9HR, UK
dh
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Land and Water Business Unit, Black Mountain, Canberra, Building 101, Clunies Ross St, ACT
2601, Australia
dj
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
dk
Epikaizo Care Initiative, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
dl
Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), Room No. 9, Block 15J, School of Sciences, IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi 110068, India
dm
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
dn
Natural Resources Institute Finland – Luke, Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland
do
Independent Consultant, Edinburgh, EH9 2NN, United Kingdom
dp
Susanne Moser Research and Consulting, 4 Kozera Ave., Hadley, MA 01035, USA
dq
Independent Researcher, Erfurt 99089, Germany
dr
Social Learning and Innovation Ltd, 2261 Lavenham Drive, Bluffhill, Harare, Zimbabwe
ds
Laboratory for Human-Environment Relations in Urban Systems (HERUS), Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), EPFL-ENAC-IIE-HERUS, Station 2, 1015
Lausanne, Switzerland
dt
Institute of Development Studies, Library Road, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
du
University of Aveiro, Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, Portugal
dv
Rural Economy, Environment and Society Department, Scotland’s Rural College, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland, United Kingdom
dw
University of Oslo, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, P.O box 1096, Blindern 0317 OSLO, Norway
dx
CSIRO Land and Water, PO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia
dy
Works_OS, 8 Cranham Terrace, Oxford OX2 6DG, UK
dz
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden
ea
Education and Learning Sciences (ELS) Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
eb
Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, Stellenbosch University, The Stables, STIAS, 19 Jonkershoek rd, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa
ec
Institute of Social Ecology (SEC), University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Schottenfeldgasse 29, 1070 Vienna, Austria
ed
Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lueneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
ee
University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59802, USA
ef
Natural Resource Institute Finland/Wageningen School of Social Sciences, Latokartanonkaari 9, 00790 Helsinki, Finland / Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The
Netherlands
eg
Erasmus University, PhD Program in Cleaner Production, Cleaner Products, Industrial Ecology and Sustainability, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
eh
Dialogue Matters, UK
ei
Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa
ej
Centre for Climate Change and Environmental Research (C3ER), BRAC University, 46 Mohakhali, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
ek
Thriving Natural Economy Challenge Centre, Department of Rural Economies, Environment and Society, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Peter Wilson Building, Kings
Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG
el
Scottish Communities Climate Action Network, 27 High Street, Dunbar EH42 1EN, UK
em
School of International Development, University of East Anglia, Research Park, Norwich, UK
en
School of Social Sciences, Monash University, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, Vic 3800, Australia
eo
Institut für Partizipatives Gestalten, Moltkestrasse 6a, 26122 Oldenburg, Germany
ep
University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1072 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway
eq
The University of Queensland, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia
er
School of Management, University of St Andrews, The Gateway, North Haugh, St Andrews KY16 9RJ, UK
es
Luc Hoffmann Institute, IUCN Conservation Centre, Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
et
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37919, USA
eu
Center for Transformation Research and Sustainability, University of Wuppertal, Döppersberg 19, 42103 Wuppertal, Germany
ev
Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
ew
Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Moltke Moes vei 31, 0851 Oslo, Norway
ex
University of Dundee, Scotland, UK
ey
CTF - Service Research Centre, Karlstad University, Universitetsgatan 2, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
ez
School of Engineering and Computing, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, PA1 2BE Scotland, United Kingdom
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
4
fa
Pacific Northwest College of Art, 511 NW Broadway, Portland, OR 97209, USA
fb
Indian Institute for Human Settlements, IIHS City Campus, 197/36 Sadashivanagar, Bangalore, India
fc
Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, 200 Central Park West, NY, NY 10024, USA
fd
SNC-Lavalin, 455 René-Lévesque Boulevard West, Montréal, Quebec H2Z 1Z3, Canada
fe
Autonomous University of Barcelona & Global Climate Forum, Campus UAB, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallés (Barcelona), Catalonia, Spain
ff
Wits Business School, 2 St David’s Place, Parktown, Johannesburg 2193, South Africa
fg
CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), ILRI, PO Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
fh
Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Switzerland, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland
fi
Department of Geography and Planning, University of Western Australia, Crawley, 6009 WA, Australia
fj
EUCO S.A.S., 15-23, Street 87, Bogotá D.C., Colombia
fk
SDG Transformations Forum, 14 Upton St., Boston, MA, 02118, USA
fl
Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Fulton Hall, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467-3809, USA
fm
SE Enterprise Resilience, Risk & Sustainability, Eskom, Megawatt Park, Sunninghill, South Africa
fn
Wageningen University and Research; Knowledge, Technology and Innovation, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands
fo
CENIT, Escuela de Economía y Negocios, Universidad Nacional de San Martin, Av. Pres. Roque Sáenz Peña 832, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
fp
Scion (New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd.), 49 Sala St., Rotorua, New Zealand
fq
Department of Science, Technology Engineering and Public Policy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
fr
Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Department, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH Scotland, UK
fs
Leuphana University Lüneburg, Faculty of Sustainability, Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany
ft
City Planning, Faculty of Architecture, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
fu
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Berliner Str. 130, 14467 Potsdam, Germany
fv
Social Digital, Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art & Design, University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HN, UK
fw
Sniffer, ECCI, Infirmary Street, Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 1LZ, UK
fx
Centre for Alternative Technology, Llwyngwern Quarry, Pantperthog, Machynlleth SY20 9AZ, UK
fy
Ecologic Institute, Berlin, Germany
fz
Ashridge Executive Education at Hult International Business School, Ashridge House, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire HP4 1NS, UK
ga
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Sustainability science
Epistemology
Transformation
Social-technical transitions
Knowledge
Climate and energy research
ABSTRACT
Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary
societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of
progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this
research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned
knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future
systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and
systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom
about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innova-
tions, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will
also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions.
To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in
knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and
technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from
governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.
1. Introduction
The world has entered a new era of rapid and major change.
Significant shifts are occurring in global economic power, technology,
urban growth and through environmental changes that pose existential
threats to humanity, such as climate change and the destabilization of
the ecosystems on which human life depends [1,2]. Given current tra-
jectories, transformation of human societies in some form is inevitable.
It is, however, not clear whether global transformations can be navi-
gated to avoid catastrophic environmental change and ensure more
desirable trajectories of human and non-human life on our planet [3,4].
Such navigation requires active stewarding of systemic societal and
technological change across diverse sectors of society and challenging
deeply held assumptions underpinning unequal and environmentally
degenerative patterns [4,5]. Financing transformations, for example,
requires transformations in financial systems [6] while narratives to
support transformations require transformations in the way narratives
are conceptualized, produced and applied [7].
Knowledge, and the systems supporting its production, are no ex-
ception. Knowledge systems include the practices, routines, structures,
mindsets, values and cultures affecting what and how knowledge is
produced and used, and by whom. Such systems include elements (in-
stitutions, structures, assumptions, values, standards); functions (gen-
eration, validation, communication and application of knowledge); and
contexts (organizational, operational, political) [8]. Formalised
knowledge systems can be taken to include the elements, functions, and
contexts associated with universities, research institutes, non-govern-
ment and government organizations. These systems produce knowledge
and technology developed through the sciences, social sciences, hu-
manities, the arts, industry and commerce. Formalised knowledge sys-
tems (herein knowledge systems) are closely intertwined with society,
economies and cultures and are integral to shaping the way societies
develop, function and mobilise resources [9]. While they are extremely
important [10–13], they may also reinforce current patterns of thinking
and action, limiting ability of societies to develop capacities for more
creative responses to challenges like climate change and energy tran-
sitions [14,15].
There have been many critiques of the relationship of knowledge
systems to society and how they reinforce power structures, political
ideals and economies [14,16–23]. There are also many examples of
innovative approaches that seek to find new ways of working with
knowledge creation from which many lessons can be learned [24–27].
As yet, however, there has been limited analysis of how system level
1
Address: Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, Stellenbosch University,
19 Jonkershoek Road, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa.
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
5
transformations might be encouraged towards new knowledge systems
that are more viable in a rapidly changing world. This paper begins to
address this gap by exploring how transformations in knowledge sys-
tems might be stewarded. This includes examining the challenges in-
hibiting the ability of current knowledge systems to help navigate
global transformations, exploring what a more viable future trans-
formed knowledge system might look like and some of the domains of
action needed to help facilitate systemic change. The findings are based
on an extensive and innovative participatory, futures and systems-or-
iented approach which elicited knowledge of 340 delegates of the
Transformations to Sustainability conference in Scotland in 2017. The
paper first explains the need for knowledge system change, followed by
the methods, results and discussion. Overall, the paper makes a novel
contribution by going beyond critiquing existing systems and identi-
fying what is needed to also examining how change in knowledge
systems could be facilitated.
1.1. Knowledge systems and societal transformations
Over the last 300 years knowledge systems have generated many
benefits and have transformed the human condition [28]. Despite this,
scholars from diverse fields have questioned the ability of current
knowledge systems to work effectively with current societal challenges
[14,15,20,29]. This includes fields such as energy, buildings, trans-
portation, sustainability, the life sciences and geography which have
called for greater involvement of the social sciences [30–32], greater
rigor (depth), interdisciplinary reach (breadth), and policy-relevance
[33–37]. In climate and energy research the field has been criticized for
being marked by ‘disciplinary chauvinism’ [38], with authorship
tending to be male and western [38,39] implying hierarchical and ex-
clusionary tendencies that reflect broader societal and transnational
socio-economic and political inequalities. Energy research scholars
have also called for substantial change of knowledge production pat-
terns to improve their societal contribution and relevance
[36,38,40–42] such as through greater integration of disciplines [43]
and co-creation of knowledge by diverse actors [44–46]. Such work
highlights the need to strengthen critical-reflexive and qualitative stu-
dies [47–49] and increase both pragmatic studies of what can be done
and ethical considerations of what should be done [50,51]. This re-
quires greater attention to asking how research affects the researched
[52,53] and embracing non-traditional researcher roles [54].
While such critiques are important they tend towards re-
commending changes in research methodology rather than towards
more fundamental critiques about knowledge systems as a whole.
Importantly, critiques tend to overlook the problem that while current
knowledge systems have led to major advances, they have also gener-
ated phenomenal capacity for humanity to create harm, such as by
enabling war and annihilation of biodiversity, cultures, and languages
[55]. Many contemporary challenges have themselves emerged from
scientific and technological advances that current knowledge systems
have produced, such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, obesity,
smoking, premature deaths from air pollution [15] and the ethical di-
lemmas posed by artificial intelligence and automation [56]. Our cur-
rent knowledge systems are thus arguably failing humanity when their
impact is measured against the level of progress being made towards
the deep and rapid societal changes needed to avoid existential threats
from global environmental change [57]. Fundamental shifts will thus
be needed if knowledge systems are to transcend the thinking and
approaches that have led to many contemporary challenges like climate
change and ensure knowledge systems can more effectively support
wider societal transformations.
There are some helpful shifts in knowledge systems that are already
occurring. Comprehensive studies have highlighted emerging paradig-
matic shifts in science-society relations [16,20,28,58], albeit through
largely descriptive research of past and current trends rather than ex-
plicitly on how transformation of those systems might be achieved.
There have also been many important developments in new scientific
disciplines and fields of research, such as sustainability science [10],
integration and implementation science [59], transformative science
[60], resilience [61] and sustainability transitions research [62]. New
collaborative practices, for example, are gaining wider acceptance and
prominence such as transdisciplinary, participatory-action, citizen sci-
ence, co-creative and transformational research [24–26,63–65] and
new arenas for knowledge creation are emerging [66]. A growth in
methodological pluralism is leading to new core research questions,
strategies, innovations and understanding of the kinds of infrastructures
needed for wider change in knowledge systems to occur [28,67–69].
Considerable insights also already exist about the kinds of new
systems we may need, such as for those that attend more directly to
how science is shaped by society [14], for new underlying assumptions
[28], and the need to integrate the production of knowledge also with
considerations of what is ‘good’, ‘right’ and ‘beautiful’ [15]. There is
also a need for new kinds of knowledge systems that are much more
open and democratic with some broad suggestions of how this might be
achieved [67]. Yet, while such work is promising and shifts are be-
ginning to occur, we are still a long way from enacting the ideas in-
volved. Thus, while knowledge systems have always been evolving,
there is now a need to go beyond the ‘what’ to examining ‘how’ new
knowledge systems might be encouraged.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Approach
This research asks how changes in knowledge systems could be fa-
cilitated to support societal transformations. To achieve this, and in
accordance with guidelines for rigor in qualitative social science [36],
we outline our broad approach, our epistemology (our position on what
counts as knowledge and knowing) and specific methods used. Our
work was broadly framed as second order science, which rejects the
commonly held assumption in science and research that an observer
can or should be independent to what is observed [28,57]. Observer-
independence is largely a fallacy, as all research is in some way influ-
enced by society. For instance, through researchers being influenced by
the cultures, norms, mindsets, motivations, systems and structures that
affect what is funded or which questions receive attention [28,70]. A
second order science approach shifts focus away from studying a system
as if looking in from the outside to conducting research as if from
within. This includes reflexively examining one’s own role in the way a
system is reproduced. This opens space for inclusion of more diverse
forms of knowledge and knowing, such as practical, experiential and
embodied forms of knowledge [57]. The approach taken corresponds to
recent calls for more relational, reflexive and co-creational methodol-
ogies, in energy and climate change research [44,45,53] and sustain-
ability science more broadly [24,57,64] and wider shifts that are oc-
curring towards more societally relevant research [28].
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
6
The second order approach was delivered using a co-creative, par-
ticipatory, futures and transformation oriented methodology called
Three Horizon’s practice [71] which focused on understanding: (1) the
challenges of current knowledge systems; (2) what future, more effec-
tive systems might look like; and (3) the domains of policy and practice
needed to help facilitate shifts from the current to the future desired
knowledge systems. Three Horizons uses a simple framework to struc-
ture dialogue about how such pattern shifts might be facilitated [71]
(Fig. 1). In this framework, the future is imagined as emerging through
three overlapping horizons with each representing the prevalence of
particular ways of doing things (e.g. practices, approaches, technolo-
gies, values etc.). These aspects wax and wane over time as their via-
bility changes in the face of a wider changing context (e.g. technology,
climate or economic change). Some ways of doing things in the first
horizon naturally decline because they are no longer relevant while
new third horizon activities emerge and eventually become the new
pattern in the future. Disruptive second horizon innovations are then
key for creating space for third horizon patterns to emerge (Fig. 1).
The Three Horizons approach is considered a practice because it is a
facilitated process that helps convene conversations, such as about how
actions in the second horizon space can help stimulate emergence of
new patterns. It results in a ‘map’ of differences between current and
desired future systems and ideas about the innovations that would help
such a pattern shift occur. The approach is suited to working with un-
certainty and enhancing agency to support transformative pattern
shifts, such as towards new kinds of knowledge systems that can be
more viable in a world of rapid change [71].
2.2. Epistemology
Three Horizons practice involves working with three different kinds
of knowledge. First, expertise of current systems was elicited to answer
the first question about challenges inhibiting the ability of current
knowledge systems to support societal transformations. Expertise is an
embodied form of knowledge, which is usually implicit or tacit, and
difficult to make explicit and is particularly relevant for exploring and
identifying patterns within systems [72]. In this part of the metho-
dology the process was akin to an evidence-based approach with the
‘evidence’ being in the form of ‘expertise’ based on real experiences
from the past about existing knowledge systems.
Fig. 1. The Three Horizons framework used to convene dialogue about how to achieve transformation. Each horizon represents a combination of particular ways of
doing things (e.g. approach, technology, actions, values, mindsets). The viability of these ways change over time as surrounding conditions change, with the third
horizon dominated system eventually emerging as more viable. The framework helps to identify: (1) Challenges that dominate the present that inhibit progress
towards a more viable way of doing things (Horizon 1); (2) Features of a desired future systems (Horizon 3) and the innovations needed for new systems to emerge
(Horizon 2). For the latter, distinctions are made between innovations that help create forward momentum (H2+) and those likely to be captured by existing systems
and which can reinforce the status quo (H2−). This framework is not a theory, but rather seeks to support the practice of identifying pathways for system change.
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
7
Relying on knowledge from the past to envision a new transformed
future is not sufficient because it can constrain imaginations of what
might be possible, analogous to driving forwards while looking through
a rearview mirror [73]. Thus, to address the second question and
identify envisioned future third horizon knowledge systems, antici-
patory and imagined forms of knowledge were elicited. The goal here
was to draw out intentionally visionary and normative aspirations of
participants. Engagement with such normative dimensions is critical for
shaping change [57,74] and providing inspiration, aspiration, and va-
lues based notions about what transformations might look like [15,74].
Rather than trying to represent a universal truth of what will be our goal
was to elicit personalized truths about what participants desired the
future to be in a wider context of a rapidly changing world and ex-
istential threats like climate change. Such futures oriented normative
knowledge is still a truth in the sense that it is ‘true’ to those who ex-
press it but is not a truth in the way evidence is usually conceived.
Finally, contrasts between current and future systems help orientate
the development of actions best suited to facilitating a pattern shift
[75]. It relies on contrasts between understandings of the current
system versus visions of future desired systems which then enable
identification of appropriate action in the intervening space to occur.
Knowledge was thus also elicited about what needed to be implemented
in the second horizon for the third horizon to emerge. This knowledge
was a form of creative knowledge bridging experiential understandings
of current systems and normative anticipatory knowledge of what was
desired. Importantly, this required co-creating possible domains of ac-
tion and avoiding actions that could be co-opted and used to prop up
and improve existing systems. Overall, Three Horizons practice helped
work with and combine collective expertise, anticipatory, and creative
forms of knowledge to determine how possible re-patterning and
transformations in knowledge systems could be encouraged and sup-
ported.
In addition to eliciting knowledge and perspectives, the research
also encouraged conference delegates to help validate integrated find-
ings and shape the overall narrative of the paper through multiple
phases (see below). As such delegates were considered to be partici-
pant-researchers – more than just participants from which knowledge
was extracted – and invited to be co-authors. While this might be ar-
gued as reducing rigor, this would be a misunderstanding of the second-
order science approach being applied. In this case, validity of the work
was considered to have been enhanced precisely because the partici-
pant-researchers had direct knowledge about the systems they were
embedded in and the way they were included in the process of devel-
oping the paper as a whole. Thus, while the paper has limitations, its
methodology is intended to be a challenge to existing assumptions and
provide an example of an alternative way of approaching research as is
likely needed in a new, more egalitarian knowledge system as high-
lighted in the results of this paper.
2.3. Data collection and analysis
Three Horizons Practice provided the focus for eliciting the different
kinds of knowledge from the 340 participants, who had diverse back-
grounds relating to social and environmental change and sustainability.
Approximately 70% of these had primarily academic backgrounds and
30% practice and policy professional backgrounds. Many participants
actively worked across academic and practice domains and combined
conceptual thinking and research with practice. Collectively, the
expertise of participants spanned action-oriented and co-production
research methodologies as well as more traditional scientific, social
science and arts-based approaches and disciplines. This enabled cov-
erage of empirical, pragmatic and ethical perspectives and, to a degree,
the integration of social and natural science perspectives and experi-
ence, which are important for enhancing methodologies in energy and
climate related research [43,54].
The deliberative process included ten parallel, three-hour work-
shops (Box 1). Each parallel workshop was professionally facilitated
and included 4–6 focus groups of 4–6 individuals. Together this equated
to: 45–50 discussion groups, 135–150 h of group discussions; and
around 750 h of participant involvement. In each workshop groups
consecutively discussed each of the three questions, identifying 4–6
points per question. After each group in a workshop discussing a
question for 20-30 min, each group put forward 1–2 of the most im-
portant points, adding them to a three-horizon map on the wall. This
resulted in a total of 754 ideas with 211 items identified as the most
important. This included 61 challenges; 66 relating to future envisioned
systems; and 84 to actions to help the future envisioned system emerge.
Eleven analysts worked overnight at the conference and during the
morning of the final day of the conference to integrate the 211 items
from the ten different three Horizon maps. A generative approach,
which focuses on creation of new representations [76] was used that
involved coding items associated with each horizon to identify over-
arching themes. This included using Hexagon mapping (https://
resources.h3uni.org/) to help ensure the process took into considera-
tion relations between items rather than just providing simple cate-
gories. The preliminary findings were then presented back to con-
ference delegates on the final day.
Preliminary results were refined by eight analysts through three stages
that used robust qualitative methods to produce separate narratives for the
results relating to each of the three horizons. The last iteration also involved
identifying key emergent properties of the current and future envisioned
systems (i.e. those aspects that were not a property of any single component
of a system) to help make explicit the contrasting qualities of current and
desired future systems. Finally, the three narratives were combined to create
a coherent single narrative (a draft research paper).
The draft paper was shared with all participants for their comments
using a survey that collected answers to quantitative and qualitative
questions about degrees of agreement relating to the work presented
and suggestions for its improvement. 184 individuals opened and in-
itialized the survey, with 156 completing it and agreeing to become co-
authors. Following further contact with incomplete responders, four
rejoined. Of those who responded to the survey, 86% were ‘extremely
supportive’ of the results and narrative, and expressed a feeling the
paper was either ‘ready’ or ‘close to being ready’ for submission. 14%
were ‘somewhat’ supportive and/or felt that the narrative needed
changing. The 500 comments from the survey mostly focused on details
and overall narrative rather than questioning the results. Comments
were sorted into key themes to be addressed and where possible specific
comments were also dealt with. It is not fully known as to why other
participants either did not respond or declined to be authors. Informal
feedback from some did suggest, however, that it was because they felt
they had not contributed sufficiently rather than because they had si-
ginificant disagreements with what was presented.
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
8
Multiple checks and balances were used throughout the process to
ensure the results and narrative reflected the views and perspectives of
researcher-participants and reduce biases created by interactions of
research-participants acting in different roles, such as facilitators,
analyst and participants in accordance with suggestions for enhancing
rigor [36]. This included: (1) Sharing and deliberation of ideas in the
parallel workshops at the conference; (2) careful coding and pre-
liminary analysis using multiple analysts who had been present in dif-
ferent workshops; (3) feeding back preliminary analysis to participants
during the conference; (4) multiple iterations of cross-checking by
multiple analysts post conference; (5) working with comments from the
researcher-participants about the overall narrative; and (6) final ap-
proval of the narrative through participants by agreeing to be a co-
author before the paper was submitted. In this last stage, only one
person declined to be an author, while four newly joined after email
communication errors had been clarified. Combined with the facil-
itators and analysts, this led to the total of 183 authors on the paper. In
conclusion, while a different group of participants may have led to
different findings, our extensive attention to validation means the
findings can be considered to be a robust representation of the
knowledge of the diverse participants who were involved.
3. Results
3.1. Challenges of existing knowledge systems
While current knowledge systems are important, diverse and sig-
nificant challenges were identified that inhibit their ability to help
navigate global transformations (Fig. 2, Table 1). Challenges identified
included: tendencies for knowledge and knowing to be viewed in
narrow ways, reducing opportunities for new kinds of thinking and
learning; fragmented and compartmentalised knowledge production
organised around powerful highly self-referential and disconnected
disciplines which do not sufficiently take account of the highly inter-
connected nature of social and environmental issues; and tendencies to
produce knowledge separately from practice, limiting opportunities for
Box 1. The research methodology.
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
9
more innovative solutions (Fig. 2, Table 1).
Importantly, knowledge that tends to get accepted in current
knowledge systems was suggested to be that which supports existing
ways of doing things, reinforcing existing social, economic and political
forms of power and thus limiting emergence of more creative ways of
working with global challenges (Fig. 2, Table 1). The knowledge pro-
duced in formalised systems was also often highlighted as being elitist,
exclusive, disconnected from the public, and with limited relevance to
the scale of the challenges facing the planet. These issues were viewed
as being reinforced by wider society where there is a general lack of
demand for change and where human interests dominate over nature
(Fig. 2, Table 1). Further, formalised knowledge production was con-
sidered to be dominated by western systems which pay cursory atten-
tion to, for example, indigenous knowledge. This western dominant
system tends to be driven by a growth-based economy with knowledge
viewed as a commodity, emphasising speed over quality, profit over
wellbeing, achievement over fulfilment, and competition over colla-
boration. In this context, doing things differently can be very challen-
ging. For example, many participants who worked in existing knowl-
edge systems expressed fear of deviating from current norms, incentives
and paradigms and felt that opportunities for creativity and questioning
underlying assumptions and motives driving research were limited. The
result has been knowledge systems primarily supporting incremental
rather than the systemic kinds of change needed to work with 21st
century challenges.
The many significant benefits of current knowledge systems were,
however, also acknowledged. Past and current forms of knowledge
production have developed phenomenal capacities to understand bio-
physical and human social phenomena. They also include sophisticated
systems of universities, learned societies and funding infrastructures
with enormous capability and potential. This has led to major advances
in learning about global social and environmental challenges and pro-
vided the foundations for re-shaping how humans think about their
place in, and influence on, the world. Current systems also include a
highly developed community well placed to maintain a high level of
concern about the status of the planet and a basis from which fake news
and misinformation can be challenged. This has all been made possible
by methodological advances in data collection, management, analysis
and representation.
Yet, while current knowledge systems are extremely effective at
producing knowledge with ever larger datasets to speed up computers,
produce research papers and advance learning about the world, they
have yet to develop a means of coherently linking and solving the
problems the same systems have also helped to produce. Current sys-
tems still have limited capacity to support genuinely integrated, in-
clusive knowledge and generative and creative modes of knowledge
production relevant to the new era in which researchers and society
find themselves.
3.2. Envisioned future knowledge systems
Given the limits of current knowledge systems, a critical question
then emerges about the kinds of future knowledge systems that could be
more effective in supporting societal transformations. Such systems
were envisioned as needing to be much more: collaborative; inclusive of
different forms of knowledge; and capable of working with complexity,
values, and diverse human and non-human interests (Fig. 2, Table 2).
They would be focused towards cultivating ‘know-how’ practical
knowledge about how to work with 21st century challenges to com-
plement the ‘know what’ knowledge about their nature that currently
dominates research. They were also envisioned as having a much
stronger focus on learning about how to achieve transformative and
systemic outcomes, as well as supporting much more diverse, plur-
alistic, egalitarian and creative modes of knowledge production. These
modes would be capable of working with ethics and aesthetics in
combination with knowledge and encourage research to be accountable
to society (Fig. 2, Table 2) and would include a much wider diversity of
people recognized as legitimate producers of knowledge.
In future systems knowledge producers were envisioned to be ac-
tively supported to work on complex, open-ended and less compart-
mentalized issues where mistakes and conflicts are viewed as important
sources of learning (Fig. 2, Table 2). This would promote greater un-
derstanding of how subjects of enquiry related to their larger wholes
and reduce piecemeal and silo-based thinking and action. To support
such work, more pluralistic, distributed and self-organizing structures
would incentivize development and application of context specific in-
sights as well as produce more generalizable knowledge. Examples of
such supportive systems would be an education that encouraged hol-
istic and integrative thinking and knowledge sharing cultures that
Fig. 2. Pattern shifts from current challenges to future envisioned systems more able to support emergence of regenerative and equitable futures, with key domains of
policy and action that are needed to help this shift emerge.
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
10
Table 1
Challenges inhibiting knowledge systems to support the navigation of transformations.
Challenge Explanation Emergent property
Narrow interpretation of knowledge Creativity, innovation, and transformation is not sufficiently supported because
of a narrow understanding and interpretation of what counts as knowledge and
knowing and where positivist epistemologies are dominant. This understanding
of knowledge is disconnected from values, emotions, and contexts and the
quality criteria applied do not encourage innovative and action-oriented
approaches. The dominant epistemology is reinforced by particular models of
development and a material relationship of humans with nature. Knowledge
must be understood as subjective, complex, multi-dimensional and as a vehicle
for change.
Knowledge focused, Narrowly informed, Avoids ethics
& aesthetics
Fragmented knowledge Knowledge production and use often lacks systemic thinking and is dominated
by linear and fragmented understandings of reality. Much of the emphasis is also
on intellectual (e.g. theory generation) rather than solution-oriented
perspectives and there are challenges in balancing intellectual knowledge with
other forms, such as emotional, tacit and relational knowledge.
Fragmented & Disconnected, Science for science,
Observant and abstracted
Compartmentalized knowledge Knowledge production is often organized in disconnected disciplines, and
conforms to explicit and implicit norms of academic and practitioner cultures.
Knowledge is produced by experts in dominant ways of knowing, rather than
through more comprehensive or complex understandings. The
compartmentalized structure leads to strong path dependencies that constrain
emergence of new ways of knowing and acting. The focus is on producing
globalised knowledge rather than knowledge relevant to local issues and
contexts.
Fragmented & Disconnected, Self-referential &
uncritical, Outcomes for a few, Globalised knowledge,
Narrowly informed
Elitist knowledge production Much of current academic systems, structures and practices are highly
specialized, exclusive, dogmatic, have limited attention to effective
communication, and are self-referential. This privileges certain kinds of
institutions as owning or producing knowledge, slows emergence of new
thinking, and furthers disconnections between science and research and real
world issues.
Elitist, exploitative & exclusive, Science for science,
Outcomes for a few
Exclusion of important voices Knowledge production tends to exclude marginalized perspectives, because of
power, gender, economic, and social inequalities and the biases in research. Most
producers are from elite elements of society excluding the poor, the young, the
old, women and different cultures and ethnicities. This can include exploitation
of potential research users, such as by limiting involvement of diverse
stakeholders in question identification, data analysis or interpretation.
Elitist, exploitative & exclusive, Outcomes for a few
Knowledge production
disconnected from action
Knowledge production is often considered separate from the realm of action,
limiting learning about change. Academia specializes in identifying and
analysing problems and less on implementing solutions. Know how knowledge,
held by practitioners, tends to be viewed as having limited value in academic
domains. Value systems behind knowledge production for action tend to focus on
retaining the status quo, rather than on transformational change.
Fragmented & Disconnected, Incremental
Rewards and incentives favouring
current systems
Formal knowledge production (e.g. by academics) is regulated by incentives and
reward systems that limit production of certain kinds of knowledge. For
example, research assessment frameworks tend to favour disciplinary splits and
undervalue practical forms of knowledge that may be more relevant to real-
world problems or transformative change.
Self-referential & uncritical, Science for science
Fear, lack of creativity and trust Reward and incentive structures favour competition, silos, individual and
egocentric forms of working. Knowledge workers deviating from these norms
risk livelihood harm or marginalisation, contributing to fear, lack of creativity
and trust.
Competitive, Fear, Low creativity
Uncritical production systems Current systems lack critical questioning of underlying assumptions, blindspots
and how the systems are influenced by and are part of, broader societal
worldviews and structures. The focus is on providing knowledge from the
sidelines for others to act upon rather than reflecting back on the way current
knowledge systems reinforce themselves or constrain societal change.
Self-referential & uncritical
Knowledge operates within
hegemonic systems
Current knowledge production systems take place within wider societal
intellectual, economic, and power systems where knowledge that gets accepted
and used tends to be that conforming to or supporting existing structures and
power dynamics. What research gets funded and accepted is heavily influenced
by such structures and norms. This can silence alternative voices or marginalize
particular issues. It can prevent effective use of what is already known.
Incremental, Outcomes for a few
Lack of awareness and attention to
real needs
Societies in which knowledge systems are embedded are not sufficiently aware
ofExperiment, Build new the state of the planet and demand for knowledge for
change is lacking. There are multiple barriers to accessing knowledge about
planetary conditions and change, which combine with elitist knowledge
production to limit attention to challenges in society, science and research.
Fragmented & Disconnected
Disconnect of humans and nature Knowledge production often occurs by separating the self (e.g. a researcher)
from the natural and social world. This view, originating largely in dominant
modes of Western thought, tends to disregard or subordinate nature to human
interests. It assumes the ecosphere and natural resources are manageable and
that human actions can occur without ecological impact.
Fragmented & Disconnected, Narrowly informed
Capitalist-driven knowledge
production
Knowledge is driven by and oriented towards values of a capitalistic society,
prioritizing speed over quality, profit over usefulness, achievement over
fulfilment, and competition over collaboration. This leads to narrow views of
what counts as ‘useful’ research and the support of unsustainable economies.
Much of research itself is not environmentally sustainable.
Competition, Narrowly informed
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
11
Table 2
Characteristics and emergent properties of envisioned knowledge systems.
Characteristic Explanation Emergent properties
Collaborative and learning-oriented Knowledge systems are open to diverse stakeholders, are founded on
collaboration and a desire to stimulate learning. This enables co-design, co-
production, and co-delivery of knowledge to create outcomes which serve
society as a whole. It involves democratic participation, supportive
institutional structures, and humility of those involved.
Collaborative
Embraces diverse sources of knowledge Many types of knowledge are utilised and valued, including those that go
beyond conventional rationalistic forms. There is an openness to different
ways of knowing, such as intuitive, experiential, and traditional indigenous
forms of knowledge.
Widely informed
Just, inclusive and egalitarian Knowledge systems are fair to all involved and are non-exploitative,
including the stakeholders who produce and use knowledge. For example,
relevant stakeholders have opportunities to participate, have views heard,
ideas and concerns appropriately incorporated, and non-human interests are
considered.
Egalitarian, equitable and inclusive,
Outcomes for everybody
Action-oriented knowledge responding to challenges
with empathy
Knowledge and action is complementary and integrated resulting in
production of actionable forms of knowledge. Systems encourage willingness
to act on what is already known and support learning from action. Emphasis
is on know-how not just know-what or know-why knowledge. Research
success is framed more in relation to impact on practice for addressing
complex challenges in ways that are empathic to those involved.
Interconnected & inter-related, Science for
all
Knowledge and wisdom are holistically integrated in
the service of life
Knowledge systems integrate practical wisdom as core to their operation.
They recognise the importance of moral/ethical judgments about why and
how certain ends are pursued or not. This reflects Aristotle's idea of
phronesis, a form of practical wisdom and knowledge where action and
knowledge are oriented towards concern for human flourishing and viewed
as inseparable. This has implications for valuing knowledge that is relevant
and actionable, and for evaluating impact of knowledge production on
practice.
Wisdom focused, Encompasses ethics and
aesthetics
Freedom and trust to engage with complex issues,
enhance creativity and learn from mistakes
Knowledge systems provide freedom and trust to actors to allow them to
engage with complex, chaotic and uncertain issues. For example, funding
structures (e.g. long-term vs short-term) and disciplinary norms (e.g. silos vs
integrative) support actors working on complex and open-ended issues.
Research cultures foster trust, creativity, and freedom of inquiry. As a result,
actors are able to explore issues of high complexity and uncertainty without
being penalised by failure or the long-term nature of sustainability outcomes.
Trust, High creativity
Reflexive and geared to advancing transformation Knowledge systems encourage reflexivity among all involved, and allow the
time and space needed for it. This is important for ensuring knowledge and
action is geared towards transformational rather than incremental change. It
includes, for example, attention to co-defining problems, questioning of
taken-for-granted assumptions and reframing research and action. This
occurs over both fast and slow timescales for addressing both urgent and
longer-term problems in systemic ways.
Reflexive & responsible, Transformational
Supports self-actualisation and fulfilment Knowledge systems allow actors to cultivate and respond to intrinsic
motivations for self-actualisation and fulfilment. Knowledge systems allow
actors to be their “whole selves”, and encourage ethics, learning, and sense
of beauty. This means that processes of research are viewed as more than
matters of technical problem-solving or fulfilling external demands and
recognise the need for personal transformations as part of knowledge
production. This includes focus on quality and usefulness of the knowledge
produced.
Encompasses ethics and aesthetics,
Engaged and grounded, Widely informed
Polycentric, contextualised and experiential learning
systems
Knowledge systems are organized in polycentric ways that are distributed
(i.e. multiple centres of action) but also self-organising (i.e. with some
coordination between centres). This allows the systems to be responsive to
the contexts in which they are embedded, for shared understandings to
emerge that synthesise context specific and general insights, and
incorporation of diverse of forms of knowledge, including experiential
learning.
Local & globalised knowledge
Global knowledge commons Knowledge systems are a global knowledge commons, co-owned by
humanity as a common resource. They are open and accessible in service of
societal needs, and governed in ways that protect against private ownership
at the expense of the public good.
Outcomes for everybody, Science for all,
Egalitarian, equitable & inclusive
Worldview that values and attends to the
interconnectivity of all life
Interconnectivity in all aspects of life is recognised that values connections
among people and with the planet and which is founded on a worldview of
complex systems. Sense-making is a key purpose of knowledge systems and
complexity of the world is embraced as a living whole. Subjects of inquiry
are seen as subsystems of larger systems, which can only be fully understood
in their relationship to the larger wholes in which they are embedded. This
worldview may draw on advances in complexity science, quantum
mechanics, and long-established philosophies of wholeness (e.g. D. Bohm,
J.W. Goethe, N. Haramein). A sense of re-enchantment with the mysteries of
the world is invigorated.
Interconnected & inter-related
Education for lifelong learning and transformative
practice
Educations systems in society cultivate a broad holistic view of knowledge
and the development of transformative thinking, capacities and research.
They promote lifelong learning that enables diverse members of society to
participate in various forms of knowledge production.
Widely informed
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
12
viewed knowledge as a common resource, co-owned by humanity and
protected against appropriation and enclosure by narrow interests
(Fig. 2, Table 2).
The emergent properties of the envisioned systems are a major
contrast to those often experienced in existing systems (Table 3). Im-
portantly, the two systems have different goal orientations. Rather than
producing ever more knowledge about bio-physical and social phe-
nomena, new systems need to be oriented towards developing wisdom
about how to act appropriately in the world (Table 3). While there are
many interpretations, wisdom tends to be viewed as including more
than knowledge [74,78]. Wisdom involves being intellectually careful
but also requires discernment, perceptiveness, imagination, and social
and emotional intelligence [78]. While knowledge helps achieve a
particular desired outcome it does not on its own take into account
whether that outcome is right for a particular time, set of challenges, or
needs of diverse people. A shift towards producing wisdom would re-
quire deep and fundamental changes in how knowledge systems are
structured and supported and in how they operate within society. Yet
such a shift is essential if humanity is to avoid catastrophic change,
transcend the challenges created by past and current knowledge pro-
duction, work with ethical and aesthetical aspects in combination with
knowledge and to support emergence of more equitable and re-
generative futures [79].
3.3. Domains of action needed to stimulate a pattern shift
Envisioning desired and idealized future systems is relatively easy.
A harder task is identifying domains of action needed that specifically
lead to a systemic pattern shift. Eleven domains were identified (Fig. 2,
Table 4). These included: Connecting champions of innovation and
learning about more radical forms of research and knowledge produc-
tion; encouraging mass participation in, and more open forms of,
knowledge production; scaling up, out and in-depth creative solutions
and approaches to tackle seemingly intractable challenges; supporting a
global knowledge commons to build a more transparent and egalitarian
form of science; fostering safe spaces to experiment with new methods
and ideas; and establishing supportive funding schemes, rewards and
incentives to encourage new practices, appropriate cultures and for
developing action-oriented knowledge producing institutions.
Finding ways to enact a new social contract between science and
society was also identified as important. Here agendas, decisions and
actions need to become informed by more democratic knowledge pro-
duction, such as through genuine collaborations between citizens and
trans-disciplinary scientific networks. This can be encouraged through
greater focus on intercultural and holistic forms of education, devel-
oping practical wisdom and systems practice, and enhancing socio-
economic conditions to enable wider citizen involvement in knowledge
creation. This highlights the tight co-dependencies between facilitating
new knowledge systems and working towards more equitable and
prosperous societies (Fig. 2, Table 4).
The action domains are consistent with many existing initiatives.
Examples include global networks, bridging and boundary organiza-
tions that support collaborative and action-oriented work (e.g. Future
Earth, AR+, td-net)[80] and greater participation in knowledge pro-
duction through citizen science, journalism initiatives and democratic
innovations like citizen juries [78,82]. Efforts are being made to ensure
knowledge is free and accessible, such as by Open Knowledge Inter-
national, Mozilla, P2P and Wiki Foundations, open source software, net
neutrality rules and Creative Commons licenses. Citizens are being in-
volved in decisions about research funding such as through crowd-
funding sites like Experiment.com and industry and researcher colla-
borations incentivized through voucher schemes. Such innovations
embody a respect for all people as makers of knowledge, value
knowledge for agency and action, and employ creative practices to
access different ways of knowing and thinking beyond the purely
analytical and logical. In this way they open up space for further
change, such as wider participation in decisions and purposes of
knowledge production.
More widely, collaborative, problem-based, and creative ap-
proaches to knowledge production are also occurring, such as through
the rise of Social Innovation Labs, (urban) Living Labs, Learning Labs,
Transformative spaces, Real-world labs, Design Labs, Fab labs and
hackathons [83–85]. These initiatives challenge traditional notions of
what counts as ‘research’ and create space for more action-oriented
forms of knowledge production. At the same time, changes in educa-
tion, such as tendencies towards life-long learning and distance learning
(e.g. MOOCs), the pioneering of new approaches (e.g. Forest Schools)
[86] and new platforms for training in change-making (e.g. Ubiquity
University, H3Uni) and transformative learning (e.g. transgressive-
learning.org/) are becoming more established. Education is, in some
cases, also increasingly incorporating ethics, indigenous knowledge,
sustainability and creative practices in curricula or research [87,88].
Although less widespread, initiatives to bring in practices like mind-
fulness (e.g. Smiling Mind), complexity education (e.g. Complexity
Explorer) and systems thinking (e.g. Open University’s systems courses)
are receiving more attention, contributing to development of both
knowledge and wisdom about how to act in a dynamic world. Many
organizations are also seeking to create wider enabling conditions in
society for change, such as shifting people-planet relations through the
New Economy Movement.
While there are many existing innovations related to the action
domains, a critical challenge is how to ensure that such innovations are
not used to improve existing systems and instead create space for more
radical change. Many innovations, for example, tend to be small-scale,
misunderstood or not widely practiced. They are often led by en-
trepreneurial individuals and social enterprises outside the support of
the mainstream. As such, they can easily die out through lack of support
or become co-opted [89]. Interdisciplinary research, for example, has
been advocated for decades but has often involved realigning elite
power bases in the face of change through co-opting language and
discourses rather than resulting in deeper changes in the way knowl-
edge is produced [14]. Similarly, public participation in science is also
often used to support existing research practices as opposed to facil-
itating deeper emancipation of the public [23]. Despite moves towards
open access research, the vast majority of public funded research is
hidden behind a paywall of profit-making journals. These examples
highlight that changes towards more egalitarian, challenge and
wisdom-oriented forms of knowledge production will not occur without
concerted and strategic support and action [90,91].
Fortunately, much is already known from research on systems
change about the kinds of support that would be needed to realize the
action domains. First, emerging windows of opportunity need to be
Table 3
Contrast between the emergent properties of old and future knowledge systems,
building on the identified challenges of old and the vision of future systems
(Tables 1 and 2).
Old system Future system
Fragmented & disconnected Interconnected & inter-related
Globalised knowledge Local & globalised knowledge
Narrowly informed Widely informed
Avoids ethics and aesthetics Encompasses ethics & aesthetics
Elitist, exploitative and exclusive Egalitarian, equitable & inclusive
Self-referential & uncritical Reflexive & responsible
Competitive Collaborative
Fear Trust
Observant & abstracted Engaged & grounded
Low creativity High creativity
Incremental Transformational
Outcomes for a few Outcomes for everybody
Science for science Science for all
Knowledge focused Wisdom focused
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
13
anticipated and embraced [92], such as appropriating new digital
technologies to enhance greater engagement of the public in knowledge
production and learning. Such technologies can create opportunities for
novel business models and flatten knowledge production hierarchies if
harnessed in appropriate ways [93]. Importantly, and at a bigger scale,
windows can also arise from the current knowledge systems getting
Table 4
Domains for policy and action to assist transformation towards future envisioned knowledge systems.
Domain Description Domain category
Connect champions and innovative examples Many people are already working to champion transformative knowledge
production and use in diverse areas, but those involved and their initiatives are not
well connected. Momentum for transformation and transformative research would
be greatly enhanced by connecting champions and examples of innovative practice.
Experiment, Build new
systems
Initiate broad societal engagement in knowledge production
through creative, critical mass participation
Broad, critical participation in knowledge production and use through creative
modes of engagement and mass participation with diverse audiences is important
for helping them to challenge accepted knowledge. Communication strategies for
bringing knowledge to people need to be diverse and tailored to the audience.
Beyond traditional written documents and media communications, e.g. knowledge
can be brought to audiences through festivals, events and creative workshops that
encourage participants to re-think accepted knowledge and support them to
develop their own opinions.
Amplify, Experiment, Build
new systems
Strongly embody creativity and agency in knowledge
production
The longstanding idea that science is a purely objective pursuit can limit space for
creative practices in knowledge production and agency in knowledge use.
Meaningful creative practice is crucial to generate new insights and knowledge
needs to inform action for transformation. Learners need to be exposed to creative
practices and learn how to put what they learn into action as agents of change.
Experiment, Amplify
Actively foster a global knowledge commons A global, online knowledge commons is already emerging through initiatives such
as Wikipedia, Creative Commons and Open Knowledge International. This emerging
knowledge commons needs to be actively nurtured, facilitated and democratised so
that it integrates diverse knowledge sources and makes knowledge accessible in a
transparent way. Participation in this process should be widespread and equitable.
Experiment, Build new
systems
Create and foster safe niche spaces to experiment and learn
from new forms of collaborative knowledge production
Protected niche initiatives play a crucial role in transforming knowledge regimes.
They offer spaces where diverse groups can collaboratively experiment with new
practices, use knowledge, learn about what works, and develop capacities for more
transformative knowledge production. These niches will need to include safe spaces
for dialogue across opposing views, help move towards mutual understanding
across generations, ideologies or knowledge boundaries (e.g. disciplines), help
establish more and stronger boundary spanning organizations and institutionalise
arenas for collaborative partnerships across academic and practice.
Disrupt, Protect, Amplify
Restructure funding and incentives Funding for knowledge production and use is not well aligned with community
priorities such as the Sustainable Development Goals or addressing climate change.
Funding schemes, including selection criteria, mechanisms and evaluation, need
restructuring to support types of research consistent with these needs, such as trans-
disciplinary, action-oriented and transformation research and innovation. New
funding approaches such as crowdfunding could play a greater role.
Disrupt, Experiment,
Protect, Amplify
Create a new social contract for co-production of knowledge
and actions
Old modes of knowledge production and use in which scientists produce knowledge
and policy makers act on that knowledge are giving way to new modes of co-
production of knowledge that blur these boundaries. A new social contract is
needed in which agendas, decisions and actions are informed by democratic co-
production of knowledge in collaboration between citizens, trans-disciplinary
scientific networks and policy makers to support more collaborative approaches to
the production and use of knowledge. Citizens should play an important role in
setting agendas, generating knowledge and making decisions, while scientists and
policy makers need to better understand each other to work together productively.
This in turn requires much greater opportunities for cross agency working, such as
secondments for academics and policy professionals to work with each other.
Build new systems
Grow holistic learning systems and practices Develop free, intercultural and holistic education systems for life-long learning that
accept diverse learning approaches and systems, and value cross-sectoral,
intercultural and trans-disciplinary knowledge. These need to promote: creativity;
critical reflexivity; diverse knowledge perspectives; collaboration; pragmatism;
mind-body-emotion, place, nature, science-art connections; and experiential
learning.
Experiment, Amplify
Build literacy at all ages to work with complex systems Learners at all ages need to build their capacity for systems thinking and understand
the implications of complex system dynamics for practice. Complex systems exhibit
emergent behaviour, so long-term adaptive projects and initiatives are needed to
put systems thinking into practice.
Amplify, Build new systems
Encourage ways of learning from action that include agency
and wisdom
Learning practices and education need to foster continuous learning rather than
overemphasise achievement of specific output measures. Learning should be
collaborative, operating through loops of collective action, evaluation, revision and
further action. Teaching philosophy, experimentation and openness to multiple
sources of knowledge is important to build the capacity of learners to take
responsibility for their learning and ask and seek answers to wise questions.
Experiment, Protect,
Amplify
Create socio-economic conditions to empower participation Billions of people are not free to participate in knowledge systems due to their
socio-economic conditions. Global reforms to abolish exploitative structures and
provide fair access to income, employment and education are essential for such
people to contribute their unique perspectives. Example reforms could include
universal basic income, shorter working weeks and development of open learning
organizations.
Build new systems
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
14
destabilized, such as by public critique, scandals or a perceived de-
crease in functionality. These destabilizations can provide opportunities
for alternatives to grow, influence and potentially transform the
mainstream knowledge system.
Second, active support is needed for the domain of experimentation
[94], such as through targeted funding schemes focused on developing
wisdom not just knowledge. Research funders have an extremely im-
portant role to play in helping shape emergence of new practices,
knowledge systems and paradigms [95]. Such assistance, however,
needs to overcome inertia of current powerful self-referential peer bases
while simultaneously continuing to nurture the extensive capacity and
expertise of research communities.
Third, active protection and amplification of promising innovations
[80,94,96], albeit with effective risk management, is critical. Such
support can be diverse, such as spreading narratives that encourage
systems change or encouraging new coalitions that stimulate actions
beyond the status quo. Such work needs to ensure alternative voices are
empowered and heard to facilitate evolution of formal and informal
rules, norms, standards, routines and cultures of knowledge production
[94]. Here, boundary organizations and institutional entrepreneurs that
connect key actors of established systems with other voices are im-
portant [80] as well as approaches that facilitate integration of
knowledge that specifically seek to empower marginalized knowledge
holders [22,97].
Fourth, new support and organizations will be needed [98]. Com-
plex societal systems tend towards path-dependencies and lock-in, such
as arising from established structures, routines and dominant interests
[99] and are on their own unlikely to actively re-invent themselves.
Examples are risk averse disciplinary peer review systems that tend to
support existing approaches. New kinds of infrastructure (networks,
funding, incentives) specifically to support the scaling of new thinking
and transformative initiatives are therefore critical [98]. An example
are current attempts to establish new kinds of infrastructure to support
transformative innovation, action and learning through the SDG
Transformation Forum (https://transformationsforum.net/).
Finally, the action domains highlight that changes in knowledge
systems will not occur without changes in related systems, such as
education, finance, media, or legislature. The way different kinds of
knowledge are emphasised or used are affected by such systems. For
example, media drives particular narratives that have not traditionally
called for systemic change and formalised education systems tend to
focus on developing capacities for producing or working with certain
kinds of knowledge. In short, for transformations in knowledge systems
to occur, transformations in other systems will also be required.
4. Discussion
This paper has highlighted that action is urgently needed to ensure
our knowledge systems become a much more creative force in sup-
porting the continuation of life on our planet. Findings suggest we know
much about what is needed and how to get there, including different
value and goal orientations to what we already have (Table 3), and are
consistent with other studies [27,67,100,101]. Compared to most of
existing literature, however, our findings place a much stronger em-
phasis on the need for future systems to go beyond creating knowledge
about the world to rapidly creating the wisdom about how to act ap-
propriately within it. This finding is consistent with other philosophical
analyses [102], and has largely been overlooked. Importantly, such a
shift in goal orientation will require deep changes in knowledge sys-
tems, such as the way in which knowledge creation and learning occurs
in and across Universities. It will also need to occur rapidly and at scale
if knowledge systems are to keep pace with the scale and speed of
planetary change.
Our findings provide five main messages about how transformations
of knowledge systems might be stimulated. First, there is much im-
portant innovation around which further advances in transdisciplinary
and post-disciplinary methodologies can build. Continuing with meth-
odological innovation and experimentation at smaller scales is im-
portant, but not in itself sufficient. Second, considerable efforts are
needed to scale innovation so these pockets of the envisioned future in
the present become the new system. Third, this will require new ‘in-
frastructure’ (institutions, support, and governance) specifically with
transformational intent in mind. Fourth, this will require ingenuity and
bold and strategic action to overcome resistance to change and strong
path dependencies [103]. Some energy and climate research, for ex-
ample, has strong links to fossil fuel-based economies and geopolitical
interests [104,105] while existing compartmentalized structures are in
themselves highly self-reproducing and powerful. Concerted efforts for
change will thus require support from diverse government and non-
government organizations geared towards ensuring creative disruption
and that vulnerable groups do not become further marginalized.
Finally, deep assumptions underpinning knowledge systems will
also need to be challenged. This includes the prevalent assumption
researchers should and can be independent to what they observe and
that knowledge creation is not an intervention [28]. While these as-
sumptions have been part of the success of past and present knowledge
creation, they have also limited development of approaches that are
inclusive of more diverse notions of knowledge and knowing and pos-
sibilities for combining knowledge creation with ethics and aesthetics
[15,57]. We do not suggest that all scientists need to be advocates and
many important hallmarks of current knowledge production will need
to be retained in new systems [15]. Yet there is an urgent need for
greater consideration of how we - researchers and ‘formal’ knowledge
producers - may be as much a part of the problem as the solution and
how our own thinking and actions inhibit wider societal transforma-
tions. The door to what may previously have been considered ‘sacred
cows’ that may blind us to other possibilities now needs to be thrown
wide open.
This paper has been an attempt to open those doors. It sought to
reflexively look inward to examine how we, as researchers and prac-
titioners, can be more impactful in our outer world. This was made
possible by viewing the research as being conducted as if from within
the system being studied and asking how we might intervene within it.
This allowed the integration of different forms of knowledge, including
the ‘truths’ about current knowledge systems and how they operate as
well as the normative ‘truths’ about what collectively was desired.
The approach, however, was not without limitations. Many prag-
matic decisions needed to be taken to manage the large number of
contributors and their input, which limited the extent of involvement of
participant-researchers in research phases. The work also focused on a
particular community where perspectives from the global south were
largely absent. This creates a real danger of perpetuating existing co-
lonial-based traditions and missing out important and more diverse
notions of what constitutes knowledge, knowing and action. Input from
science, technology and commerce were also poorly represented, which
may have led to the virtues of current dominant knowledge systems
being under-appreciated. Finally, perspectives of under-privileged
members of society were absent. This has potential for the opposite
effect of the value of current knowledge systems being over-estimated
given that current systems are often viewed as primarily serving soci-
etal elites and being far removed from the coal face of under-privileged
life. Thus, while extensive attempts were made to validate and appro-
priately represent the knowledge elicited, the findings primarily come
from a particular cadre of expertise, albeit with extensive under-
standing of knowledge systems, societal transformations and 21st cen-
tury challenges like climate change.
The findings may also be criticized for presenting a single coherent
collective view that overshadows the more diverse subjective perspec-
tives of participant-researchers. While such criticism is legitimate it
would, however, be a misunderstanding of the approach. The three
horizons map (Fig. 2), which emerged from a carefully integrated set of
findings and extensive deliberation, is meant to be a broad guide to help
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
15
articulate and direct action rather than be one that shows all com-
plexities [71]. The method is also meant to collate a diversity of per-
spectives in ways that show a set of emergent patterns about how a
future vision might come about. For all its merits and limits, the map is
thus a tool to help conceptualize and support maintenance of trans-
formational intent. It is also intended to stimulate critical reflexivity
amongst scientists, policymakers, practitioners and the public [106]
about how knowledge systems can become more viable in the face of
rapidly changing societal needs.
In addition to the findings about ‘how’ to support systemic change in
knowledge systems, the paper raises important implications for re-
search. While there has been extensive critique about methodological
advances and broadly on knowledge systems, there has been very little
about how transformations in them might be achieved. We thus call for
a new kind of reseach field that actively seeks to support emergence of
more viable knowledge systems for our rapidly changing world. This
field would include exploring and showcasing a wide diversity of
epistemologies, ontologies and pedagogies well beyond those usually
considered in western dominated science and which embody the goals
and values of envisioned systems. It would, however, also need to go
beyond focusing on innovation of methodologies to having an active
focus on supporting the kinds of transformations in knowledge systems
that are needed to support wider societal transformations. Such a re-
sarch field will, in turn, need to be underpinned by a second order and
action-oriented approach.
5. Conclusions
Current knowledge systems are invaluable and many of the histor-
ical advances in knowledge production need to be retained. Yet, for all
their brilliant success, they are not currently adequate for the new
world in which we find ourselves. The philosophical challenge of
learning how to generate knowledge has largely been solved [79]. The
critical challenge now facing humanity is how to turn the enormous
capacity of knowledge systems towards supporting development of
wisdom about how to act in the world [76,107]. This represents a
significant shift in goal orientation which to be achieved will most
likely require the kinds of change of the scale and depth of the en-
lightenment. Importantly, such change is no longer a luxury or some-
thing that can be put off for others to deal with later. If knowledge
systems are to meet the scale and urgency of global challenges and
genuinely be a creative force for change for issues like climate change,
then the pattern shift will probably need to occur at the pace of the
scientific and technological revolution experienced during the second
world war.
While the speed, depth and scale of such a shift is daunting, our
findings show that much is already known about what needs to be
achieved and how it could be encouraged. A staunch defence of global
access to, and creation and ownership of, knowledge will need to be
accompanied by rapid scaling of new transdisciplinary methodological
innovations and support systems that genuinely blur perceived dis-
ciplinary boundaries and between research and action. Support will
also be needed to help those seeking to do things differently step out of
existing paradigms while deep underlying assumptions about what
counts as knowledge and knowing will need to be surfaced and chal-
lenged. Governments, scientists and wider civic society all have an
important role to play in helping this occur and responsibility will need
to be extended to wider education systems and other societal sectors.
Change will clearly need to build on past advances and the baby does
not need to be thrown out with the bathwater. Yet, at a time of the sixth
planetary extinction and a critical climate juncture, transformational
intent will be critical to ensure we go well beyond improving existing
knowledge systems to rapidly advance capacities for the generation of
wisdom that ensures longevity of human life and other species on our
planet.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] IPBES, Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodi-
versity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services, in: M. Fischer, M. Rounsevell, A. Torre-Marin, A. Rando, A. Mader, A.
Church, M. Elbakidze, V. Elias, T. Hahn, P.A. Harrison, J. Hauck, B. Martín-López,
I. Ring, C. Sandström, I. Sousa, P. Pinto, P. Visconti, N.E. Zimmermann, M. Christie
(Eds.) IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2018, p. 48.
[2] IPCC, Summary for policy makers: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special
Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and
related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening
the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and
efforts to eradicate poverty, in: V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H.-O. Portner, D.
Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S.
Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock,
M. Tignor, T. Waterfield (Eds.) 2018.
[3] D.G. Victor, F.W. Geels, S. Sharpe, Accelerating the Low Carbon Transition: The
Case for Stronger, More Targeted and Coordinated International Action, UK
Government Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Manchester,
and San Diego, London, 2019.
[4] L. Kanger, J. Schot, Deep transitions: Theorizing the long-term patterns of socio-
technical change, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 32 (2019) 7–21.
[5] K. O'Brien, L. Sygna, Responding to climate change: The three spheres of trans-
formation, in: K. O'Brien, Sygna, L. (Ed.) Transformation in a Changing Climate,
Oslo, Norway, 2013.
[6] S. Lovink, S. Valentine, Imagining Philanthropy for Life: A While System Strategy
to Transform Finance an d Show True Wealth, Transformation Books, York, PA,
2017.
[7] K. O'Brien, A. El Khoury, N. Schafenacker, J. Rosenfeld, Our Entangled Future:
Stories to Empower Quantum Social Change, Karen O'Brien, Oslo, Norway, 2019.
[8] T.A. Muñoz-Erickson, C.A. Miller, T.R. Miller, How cities think: knowledge co-
production for urban sustainability and resilience, Forests 8 (6) (2017).
[9] M. Bell, M. Albu, Knowledge systems and technological dynamism in industrial
clusters in developing countries, World Dev. 27 (9) (1999) 1715–1734.
[10] R.W. Kates, W.C. Clark, R. Corell, J.M. Hall, C.C. Jaeger, I. Lowe, J.J. McCarthy,
H.J. Schellnhuber, B. Bolin, N.M. Dickson, S. Faucheux, G.C. Gallopin, A. Grubler,
B. Huntley, J. Jager, N.S. Jodha, R.E. Kasperson, A. Mabogunje, P. Matson,
H. Mooney, B. Moore, T. O'Riordan, U. Svedin, Environment and development –
sustainability science, Science 292 (5517) (2001) 641–642.
[11] D.W. Cash, W.C. Clark, F. Alcock, N.M. Dickson, N. Eckley, D.H. Guston, J. Jäger,
R.B. Mitchell, Knowledge systems for sustainable development, PNAS 100 (14)
(2003) 8086–8091.
[12] J.D. Tàbara, I. Chabay, Coupling Human Information and Knowledge Systems with
social-ecological systems change: Reframing research, education, and policy for
sustainability, Environ. Sci. Policy 28 (2013) 71–81.
[13] L. Van Kerkhoff, N.A. Szlezák, The role of innovative global institutions in linking
knowledge and action, PNAS 113 (17) (2016) 4603–4608.
[14] A. Kläy, A.B. Zimmermann, F. Schneider, Rethinking science for sustainable de-
velopment: reflexive interaction for a paradigm transformation, Futures 65 (2015)
72–85.
[15] P. Hanlon, S. Carlisle, M. Hannah, A. Lyon, D. Reilly, A perspective on the future
public health: an integrative and ecological framework, Perspectives in Public
Health 132 (6) (2012) 313–319.
[16] S.O. Funtowicz, J.R. Ravetz, Science for the post-normal age, Futures 25 (7)
(1993) 739–755.
[17] D. Haraway, Situated Knowledges, The science question in feminism and the
privilege of partial perspective, Feminist Studies 3 (1988) 575–599.
[18] S. Cornell, F. Berkhout, W. Tuinstra, J.D. Tàbara, J. Jäger, I. Chabay, B. de Wit,
R. Langlais, D. Mills, P. Moll, I.M. Otto, A. Petersen, C. Pohl, L. van Kerkhoff,
Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental
change, Environ. Sci. Policy 28 (2013) 60–70.
[19] M. Foucault, C. Gordon, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings, 1972/1977, Harvester Press, Brighton, 1980.
[20] H. Nowotny, P. SCott, M. Gibbons, Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public
in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2001.
[21] S. Jasanoff, States of knowledge: the co-production of science and the social order,
Routledge, London, 2004, p. 332.
[22] C. Walsh, Shifting the geopolitics of critical knowledge: decolonial thought and
cultural studies 'others' in the Andes, Cultural Stud. 21 (2–3) (2007) 224–239.
[23] E.J. Hackett, Academic Capitalism, Sci. Technol. Human Values 39 (5) (2014)
635–638.
[24] D.J. Lang, A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling,
C.J. Thomas, Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, prin-
ciples, and challenges, Sustain. Sci. 7 (SUPPL. 1) (2012) 25–43.
[25] P. Reason, H. Bradbury, The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative
Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London, 2008.
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
16
[26] A. Wiek, D.J. Lang, Transformational sustainability research methodology, in:
H. Heinrichs, P. Martens, G. Michelsen, A. Wiek (Eds.), Sustainability Science – An
Introduction, Springer, Berlin, New York, 2016, pp. 31–41.
[27] D. Spreng, Transdisciplinary energy research – reflecting the context, Energy Res.
Social Sci. 1 (2014) 65–73.
[28] S.A. Umpleby, Second-order cybernetics as a fundamental revolution in science,
Constructivist Found. 11 (3) (2016) 455–465.
[29] J.P. Voß, J. Newig, B. Kastens, J. Monstadt, B. Nölting, Steering for sustainable
development: a typology of problems and strategies with respect to ambivalence,
uncertainty and distributed power, J. Environ. Plann. Policy Manage. 9 (3–4)
(2007) 193–212.
[30] D.G. Victor, Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy, Nature
520 (7545) (2015) 27–29.
[31] G. Bosch, Train PhD Students to be Thinkers not Just Specialists, Nature, Nature
Publishing Group, 2018, p. 277.
[32] G. Schuitema, N.D. Sintov, Should we quit our jobs? Challenges, barriers and re-
commendations for interdisciplinary energy research, Energy Policy 101 (2017)
246–250.
[33] B. Turnheim, F. Berkhout, F. Geels, A. Hof, A. McMeekin, B. Nykvist, D. van
Vuuren, Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: bridging analytical ap-
proaches to address governance challenges, Global Environ. Change 35 (2015)
239–253.
[34] N. Castree, Geography and the new social contract for global change research,
Trans. Instit. Br. Geogr. 41 (3) (2016) 328–347.
[35] B. Mallaband, G. Wood, K. Buchanan, S. Staddon, N.M. Mogles, E. Gabe-Thomas,
The reality of cross-disciplinary energy research in the United Kingdom: a social
science perspective, Energy Res. Social Sci. 25 (2017) 9–18.
[36] B.K. Sovacool, J. Axsen, S. Sorrell, Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy
social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research
design, Energy Res. Social Sci. (2018) 12–42.
[37] M. Winskel, Embedding Social Sciences in Interdisciplinary Research: Recent
Experiences from Interdisciplinary Energy Research, Science as Culture 23 (2014)
413–418.
[38] B.K. Sovacool, S.E. Ryan, P.C. Stern, K. Janda, G. Rochlin, D. Spreng,
M.J. Pasqualetti, H. Wilhite, L. Lutzenhiser, Integrating social science in energy
research, Energy Res. Social Sci. 6 (2015) 95–99.
[39] E. Corbera, L. Calvet-Mir, H. Hughes, M. Paterson, Patterns of authorship in the
IPCC Working Group III report, Nat. Clim. Change 6 (2016) 94–99.
[40] P.C. Stern, B.K. Sovacool, T. Dietz, Towards a science of climate and energy
choices, Nat. Clim. Change (2016) 547–555.
[41] A.C.G. Cooper, Building a socio-technical energy research community: theory,
practice and impact, Energy Res. Social Sci. (2017) 115–120.
[42] J. Goodman, J.P. Marshall, Problems of methodology and method in climate and
energy research: Socialising climate change? Energy Res. Social Sci. 45 (2018)
1–11.
[43] A.C.G. Cooper, Building physics into the social: Enhancing the policy impact of
energy studies and energy social science research, Energy Res. Social Sci. 26
(2017) 80–86.
[44] E. Noboa, P. Upham, Energy policy and transdisciplinary transition management
arenas in illiberal democracies: a conceptual framework, Energy Res. Social Sci.
(2018) 114–124.
[45] B. Mallaband, S. Staddon, G. Wood, Crossing transdisciplinary boundaries within
energy research: an ‘on the ground’ perspective from early career researchers,
Energy Res. Social Sci. (2017) 107–111.
[46] M. Montedonico, F. Herrera-Neira, A. Marconi, A. Urquiza, R. Palma-Behnke, Co-
construction of energy solutions: lessons learned from experiences in Chile, Energy
Res. Social Sci. 45 (2018) 173–183.
[47] S.S. Ryder, Developing an intersectionally-informed, multi-sited, critical policy
ethnography to examine power and procedural justice in multiscalar energy and
climate change decisionmaking processes, Energy Res. Social Sci. 45 (2018)
266–275.
[48] M. Sarrica, M. Richter, S. Thomas, I. Graham, B.M. Mazzara, Social approaches to
energy transition cases in rural Italy, Indonesia and Australia: iterative meth-
odologies and participatory epistemologies, Energy Research and Social, Science
45 (2018) 287–296.
[49] J. Smith, M.M. High, Exploring the anthropology of energy: ethnography, energy
and ethics, Energy Res. Social Sci. 30 (2017) 1–6.
[50] C.P. Spreng, B.K. Sovacool, D. Spreng, All hands on deck: polycentric governance
for climate change insurance, Clim. Change 139 (2) (2016) 129–140.
[51] D. Ghosh, Risky fieldwork: the problems of ethics in the field, Energy Res. Social
Sci. 45 (2018) 348–354.
[52] M. Giacomini, J. Hurley, I. Gold, P. Smith, J. Abelson, The policy analysis of
'values talk': lessons from Canadian health reform, Health Policy 67 (1) (2004)
15–24.
[53] L. Gailing, M. Naumann, Using focus groups to study energy transitions: re-
searching or producing new social realities? Energy Res. Social Sci. 45 (2018)
355–362.
[54] A. Ernst, A. Fischer-Hotzel, D. Schumann, Transforming knowledge for sustain-
ability: Insights from an inclusive science-practice dialogue on low-carbon society
in Germany, Energy Res. Social Sci. 29 (2017) 23–35.
[55] N. Maxwell, From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution for Science and the
Humanities, Pentire Press, London, 1984.
[56] S. Russell, S. Hauert, R. Altman, M. Veloso, Robotics: ethics of artificial in-
telligence, Nature 521 (2015) 415–418.
[57] I. Fazey, N. Schäpke, G. Caniglia, J. Patterson, J. Hultman, B. van Mierlo, F. Säwe,
A. Wiek, J. Wittmayer, P. Aldunce, H. Al Waer, N. Battacharya, H. Bradbury,
E. Carmen, J. Colvin, C. Cvitanovic, M. D'Souza, M. Gopel, B. Goldstein,
T. Hämäläinen, G. Harper, T. Henfry, A. Hodgson, M.S. Howden, A. Kerr, M. Klaes,
C. Lyon, G. Midgley, S. Moser, N. Mukherjee, K. Müller, K. O'Brien, D.A. O'Connell,
P. Olsson, G. Page, M.S. Reed, B. Searle, G. Silvestri, V. Spaiser, T. Strasser,
P. Tschakert, N. Uribe-Calvo, S. Waddell, J. Rao-Williams, R. Wise,
R. Wolstenholme, M. Woods, C. Wyborn, Ten essentials for action-oriented and
second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research,
Energy Research and Social, Science 40 (2018) 54–70.
[58] M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, M. Trow, The New
Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in
Contemporary Societies, Sage, London, 1994.
[59] G. Bammer, Integration and implementation sciences: building a new specializa-
tion, Ecol. Soc. 10 (2) (2005).
[60] U. Schneidewind, M. Singer-Brodowski, Transformative Wissenschaft.
Klimawandel im deutschen Wissenschafts- und Hochschulsystem. Marburg:
Metropolis; 2. Editon.
[61] C. Folke, S.R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, J. Rockström,
Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability,
Ecology and society 15 (4) (2010).
[62] J. Köhler, F.W. Geels, F. Kern, J. Markard, E. Onsongo, A. Wieczorek, An agenda
for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions,
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31 (2019) 1–32.
[63] S. Kemmis, Action research as a practice-based practice, Educ. Action Res. 17 (3)
(2009) 463–474.
[64] A.V. Norström, C. Cvitanovic, M.F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera,
A.T. Bednarek, E.M. Bennett, R. Biggs, A. de Bremond, B.M. Campbell,
J.G. Canadell, S.R. Carpenter, C. Folke, E.A. Fulton, O. Gaffney, S. Gelcich,
J.B. Jouffray, M. Leach, M. Le Tissier, B. Martín-López, E. Louder, M.F. Loutre,
A.M. Meadow, H. Nagendra, D. Payne, G.D. Peterson, B. Reyers, R. Scholes,
C.I. Speranza, M. Spierenburg, M. Stafford-Smith, M. Tengö, S. van der Hel, I. van
Putten, H. Österblom, Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability
research, Nat. Sustainability 3 (3) (2020) 182–190.
[65] R. Bonney, J.L. Shirk, T.B. Phillips, A. Wiggins, H.L. Ballard, A.J. Miller-Rushing,
J.K. Parrish, Next steps for citizen science, Science 343 (6178) (2014) 1436–1437.
[66] J.M. Wittmayer, N. Schäpke, Action, research and participation: roles of re-
searchers in sustainability transitions, Sustain. Sci. 9 (4) (2014) 483–496.
[67] S. Cornell, F. Berkhout, W. Tuinstra, J.D. Tàbara, J. Jäger, I. Chabay, B. de Wit,
R. Langlais, D. Mills, P. Moll, I.M. Otto, A. Petersen, C. Pohl, L. van Kerkhoff,
Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental
change, Environ. Sci. Policy 28 (2013) 60–70.
[68] H. Bradbury, S. Waddell, K. O’ Brien, M. Apgar, B. Teehankee, I. Fazey, A call to
Action Research for Transformations: The times demand it, Action Res. 17 (2019)
3–10.
[69] K.H. Müller, Second-Order Science. The Revolution of Scientific Structures,
Edition Echoraum, Wien, 2016.
[70] P. Aufenvenne, H. Egner, K. Von Elverfeldt, On climate change research, the crisis
of science and second-order science, Constructivist Found. 10 (1) (2014) 120–129.
[71] B. Sharpe, A. Hodgson, G. Leicester, A. Lyon, I. Fazey, Three horizons: a pathways
practice for transformation, Ecol. Soc. 21 (2) (2016).
[72] M. Polanyi, Tacit knowledge, in: L. Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in Organizations,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1997, p. Chapter 7.
[73] A. Hodgson, Towards an ontology of the present moment, On the Horizon 21 (1)
(2013) 24–38.
[74] P. Tschakert, K.A. Dietrich, K. Tamminga, E. Prins, J. Shaffer, E. Liwenga,
A. Asiedu, Learning and envisioning under climatic uncertainty, Environ. Plann. A
46 (5) (2014) 1049–1068.
[75] B. Sharpe, Three Horizons: Patterning of Hope, Triarchy Press, Axminster, Devon,
UK, 2013.
[76] G.R. Bushe, Generative process, generative outcome: the transformational poten-
tial of appreciative inquiry, Adv. Appreciative Inquiry 4 (2013) 89–113.
[77] Aristotle, The Nicomachean ethics (Translated by J. A. K. Thomson), Penguin
Books, London, 2004.
[78] B. Schwartz, K.E. Sharpe, Practical wisdom: Aristotle meets positive psychology, J.
Happiness Stud. 7 (3) (2006) 377–395.
[79] N. Maxwell, From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution for Science and the
Humanities, second ed., Pentire Press, London, 2007.
[80] K.M. Gustafsson, R. Lidskog, Boundary organizations and environmental govern-
ance: Performance, institutional design, and conceptual development, Clim. Risk
Manage. 19 (2018) 1–11.
[81] C. Calyx, B. Jessup, Nuclear citizens jury: from local deliberations to trans-
boundary and transgenerational legal dilemmas, Environ. Commun. (2018) 1–14.
[82] G. Smith, Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009.
[83] F. Westley, N. Antadze, D.J. Riddell, K. Robinson, S. Geobey, Five configurations
for scaling up social innovation: case examples of nonprofit organizations from
Canada, J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 50 (3) (2014) 234–260.
[84] N. Schäpke, F. Stelzer, G. Caniglia, M. Bergmann, M. Wanner, M. Singer-
Brodowski, D. Loorbach, P. Olsson, C. Baedeker, D.J. Lang, Jointly experimenting
for transformation?: shaping real-world laboratories by comparing them, GAIA 27
(2018) 85–96.
[85] G. McCrory, N. Schäpke, J. Holmén, J. Holmberg, Sustainability-oriented labs in
real-world contexts: An exploratory review, J. Cleaner Prod. 123202 (2020) .
[86] F. Harris, Outdoor learning spaces: the case of forest school, Area 50 (2) (2018)
222–231.
[87] M. Kim, Indigenous knowledge in Canadian science curricula: cases from Western
Canada, Cult. Sci. Edu. 12 (3) (2017) 605–613.
I. Fazey, et al. Energy Research & Social Science 70 (2020) 101724
17