Search

Transformative research is a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions by working collaboratively with society. When engaging in such science-practice collaborations for transformative change in society, researchers experience ethical dilemmas. Amongst others, they must decide, what is worthwhile to be researched, whose reality is privileged, and whose knowledge is included. Yet, current institutionalised ethical standards, which largely follow the tradition of medical ethics, are insufficient to guide transformative researchers in navigating such dilemmas. In addressing this vacuum, the research community has started to develop peer guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour. These formal and informal guidelines offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions. However, they are only helpful when they have become a part of researchers’ practical knowledge ‘in situ’. By focusing on situated research practices, the article addresses the need to develop an attitude of leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes. It also highlights the significance of combining this attitude with a critical reflexive practice both individually and collaboratively for answering questions around ‘how to’ as well as ‘what is the right thing to do’. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, the authors of this paper share their own ethical dilemmas in doing transformative research, discuss those, and relate them to a practical heuristic encompassing axiological, ontological, and epistemological considerations. The aim is to support building practical wisdom for the broader research community about how to navigate ethical questions arising in transformative research practice.

Transformative research is a broad and loosely connected family of research disciplines and approaches, with the explicit normative ambition to fundamentally question the status quo, change the dominant structures, and support just sustainability transitions by working collaboratively with society. When engaging in such science-practice collaborations for transformative change in society, researchers experience ethical dilemmas. Amongst others, they must decide, what is worthwhile to be researched, whose reality is privileged, and whose knowledge is included. Yet, current institutionalised ethical standards, which largely follow the tradition of medical ethics, are insufficient to guide transformative researchers in navigating such dilemmas. In addressing this vacuum, the research community has started to develop peer guidance on what constitutes morally good behaviour. These formal and informal guidelines offer a repertoire to explain and justify positions and decisions. However, they are only helpful when they have become a part of researchers’ practical knowledge ‘in situ’. By focusing on situated research practices, the article addresses the need to develop an attitude of leaning into the uncertainty around what morally good behaviour constitutes. It also highlights the significance of combining this attitude with a critical reflexive practice both individually and collaboratively for answering questions around ‘how to’ as well as ‘what is the right thing to do’. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, the authors of this paper share their own ethical dilemmas in doing transformative research, discuss those, and relate them to a practical heuristic encompassing axiological, ontological, and epistemological considerations. The aim is to support building practical wisdom for the broader research community about how to navigate ethical questions arising in transformative research practice.

While the Water-Food-Energy (WEF) Nexus, by conception, was intended to direct attention to the interconnectedness between the three resources, in practice, it has been largely used as a big framing of top-down sustainability approaches. As such, the link between the WEF nexus and everyday lives has become overlooked and invisible. Based on Social Practice Theories, this thesis offers a view into the everyday realities of the synergies and trade-offs of water, energy and food in Cape Town’s townships. Taking cooking practice as the unit of analysis, this research analyses the daily challenges that the urban poor encounter at the intersection of WEF and the resilience strategies they implement to sustain the basic needs. The findings build upon existing literature and qualitative research methods, including participant observations and semi-structured interviews with households and community kitchens. The findings in addition to disclosing the direct impacts of the apparent energy insecurity on cooking practice also highlighted how this insecurity influenced the two other WEF resources, which then collectively altered the cooking practice. Energy disruptions constrained households' ability to obtain food, maintain its freshness, and essentially transform it into a (nutritional) meal. Water, on the other hand, did not have as many trade-offs with energy as food. In the face of these challenges, households were compelled to modify their cooking practices to ensure daily food provision, albeit at lower standards than previously achievable. Through resorting to alternative energy sources, food products, social networks, as well as adapting their meals and routines, households in Cape Town’s township have demonstrated a considerable level of resilience. By uncovering the WEF Nexus dynamics at the home level and the households’ resilience, the research provides valuable insights to assist the decision-making of urban service practitioners regarding resource efficiency and

This research studies Nature-based Solutions (NbS) and their potential in creating a climate adaptation approach that is just and inclusive. Nature-based Solutions (NbS) represent a promising approach to climate adaptation, aiming to develop resilient landscapes that draw inspiration from local natural environments, thereby complementing or mimicking existing ecosystems to address climate change in a systemic and integrative manner.NbS should be created and implemented in an inclusive and multidisciplinary way, including the knowledge and expertise of local communities as scientists, and policymakers, to also enhance human wellbeing and support socio-economic development. However, research shows that local communities are not always included in co-creation processes, because of past histories or biases, even though they are particularly affected by climate change. Furthermore, these communities often display unique relations to their natural surroundings due to a closeness to nature. They are therefore important stakeholders for NbS, and can potentially contribute to the creation of NbS with their unique relations and experiences. In this study ‘epistemologies’ refers to this notion of relating and allocating meaning to one’s social and ecological surroundings. Considering the character of NbS, these epistemologies should be equally engaged in their co-creation, a concept referred to as ‘epistemic justice’. Various studies assessed epistemic justice in NbS, describing the risks and challenges that are involved in the trying to include all stakeholders. However, while it is recognised that local communities have valuable epistemologies, they have not been described before in relation to the creation of NbS. Arguably, by zooming in on the epistemologies in NbS – the various relations to nature and other stakeholders – lessons can be learned on how epistemic justice can be ensured in co-creating NbS. This research seeks to fill this gap in the research about epistemic