Abstract

This paper discusses the role normative aspects play in different approaches of science–practice collaboration, in particular as action research, (Mode 2) Transdisciplinarity (Td), Transition Management (TM), and Transformative Science (TSc). We elaborate on the different roles that scientists in these processes play. They work as facilitators (or contribute to a facilitated Td process), as activists (i.e., activist researchers) in TM projects, and as catalysts in TSc. Td processes develop socially robust solutions for sustainable transitioning and impacts on the science system through mutual learning and by integrating epistemics (i.e., ways of knowing) from science and practice and focusing on the empowerment of stakeholders. Science is viewed as a public good aiming to serve all key stakeholders. Researchers involved in TM projects strive to influence ongoing transition processes by actively engaging and participating in them, including lobbying for and empowering transformative changes toward sustainability based upon the researchers’ own analyses and world views. The TSc approach takes a catalyst perspective of the scientist’s role in inducing processes of strategic (societal) transition when including certain stakeholder groups. The paper focuses on what roles normative aspects play in the different approaches and new societal demands imposed on science and universities. Based on this, we conclude that a new order of universities, public knowledge institutions, and boundary institutions is forthcoming.

Highlights

  • The roles and functions of science in society have varied

  • The questions “How should research be done?”, “What is the science good for?” and “How should science be supported?” are ubiquitous in science

  • This holds true for Td, Transition Management (TM), and Transformation Science (TSc)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The roles and functions of science in society have varied. For example, there “was little place for science in Rome and none in the barbarian kingdoms of western Europe” [1]. Science played a key role in the first Industrial Revolution, but after World War II, we were “witnessing the beginnings of a world science, transforming old and creating new industries, permeating every aspect of life” [2]. Against this backdrop, Erich Jantsch introduced the concept of society as a user or client of science. Perhaps there is greater freedom in regard to sustainability than there is regarding human rights, as the specific goals of sustainability have to be developed (and are ill-defined), whereas the meaning of torture seems to be more consensual [11] With respect to these issues, the paper is structured in the following way. The conclusion section refers to a differentiated inclusion of normative aspects and political agendas in public science institutions

Methods
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call