Lazurko Anita, Haider L Jamila, Hertz Tilman, West Simon, McCarthy Daniel D P
School of Environment, Resources, and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue W, N2L 3G1 Waterloo, Canada.
UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Library Avenue, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4AP UK.
Sustain Sci. 2024;19(2):595-614. doi: 10.1007/s11625-023-01446-6. Epub 2023 Dec 15.
Ambiguity is often recognized as an intrinsic aspect of addressing complex sustainability challenges. Nevertheless, in the practice of transdisciplinary sustainability research, ambiguity is often an 'elephant in the room' to be either side-stepped or reduced rather than explicitly mobilized in pursuit of solutions. These responses threaten the salience and legitimacy of sustainability science by masking the pluralism of real-world sustainability challenges and how research renders certain frames visible and invisible. Critical systems thinking (CST) emerged from the efforts of operational researchers to address theoretical and practical aspects of ambiguity. By adapting key concepts, frameworks, and lessons from CST literature and case studies, this paper aims to establish (1) an expansive conceptualization of ambiguity and (2) recommendations for operationalizing ambiguity as a valuable means of addressing sustainability challenges. We conceptualize ambiguity as , and propose Reflexive Boundary Critique (RBC) as a novel framework to help navigate these boundary processes. Our characterization of ambiguity acknowledges the boundary of a researcher's subjective orientation and its influence on how ambiguity is exposed and mediated in research (being), characterizes knowledge as produced through the process of making boundary judgments, generating a partial, contextual, and provisional frame (knowing), and situates a researcher as part of the complexity they seek to understand, rendering any boundary process as a form of intervention that reinforces or marginalizes certain frames and, in turn, influences action (intervening). Our recommendations for sustainability scientists to operationalize ambiguity include (1) nurturing the reflexive capacities of transdisciplinary researchers to navigate persistent ambiguity (e.g., using our proposed framework of RBC), and (2) grappling with the potential for and consequences of theoretical incommensurability and discordant pluralism. Our findings can help sustainability scientists give shape to and embrace ambiguity as a fundamental part of rigorous sustainability science.
模糊性通常被视为应对复杂可持续发展挑战的一个内在方面。然而，在跨学科可持续发展研究的实践中，模糊性往往是一个“被忽视的重大问题”，要么被回避，要么被减少，而不是为了寻求解决方案而明确地加以利用。这些应对方式掩盖了现实世界中可持续发展挑战的多元性以及研究如何使某些框架变得可见或不可见，从而威胁到可持续发展科学的显著性和正当性。批判性系统思维（CST）源于运筹学研究人员应对模糊性的理论和实践方面的努力。通过借鉴CST文献和案例研究中的关键概念、框架和经验教训，本文旨在：（1）对模糊性进行扩展性概念化；（2）提出将模糊性作为应对可持续发展挑战的一种有价值手段加以运用的建议。我们将模糊性概念化为 ，并提出反思性边界批判（RBC）作为一个新颖的框架，以帮助驾驭这些边界过程。我们对模糊性的描述承认研究人员主观取向的边界及其对研究中模糊性如何被揭示和调解的影响（存在），将知识表征为通过做出边界判断的过程产生的，生成一个局部的、情境化的和临时的框架（认知），并将研究人员定位为他们试图理解的复杂性的一部分，使任何边界过程都成为一种干预形式，强化或边缘化某些框架，进而影响行动（干预）。我们对可持续发展科学家运用模糊性的建议包括：（1）培养跨学科研究人员的反思能力，以应对持续存在的模糊性（例如，使用我们提出的RBC框架）；（2）应对理论不可通约性和不一致多元性的可能性及其后果。我们的研究结果可以帮助可持续发展科学家塑造并接受模糊性，将其作为严谨的可持续发展科学的一个基本组成部分。
