Learning about 'Engaged
Excellence' across a Transformative
Adrian Ely and Anabel Marin*
The 'Pathways' transformative knowledge network is an international group of research organisations, collaborating to explore processes of social transformation and to share insights across disciplines, cultures and contexts. Working across the domains of food, energy and water, the network is experimenting with new methods of research and engagement that both help to understand – and contribute to – transformations to sustainability. This article outlines some of the early experiences of two hubs in the network (UK and Argentina) and reflects on the lessons learned for 'engaged excellence'. It also describes how approaches to transdisciplinary research (building on a diversity of academic and non-academic traditions) vary across different contexts, and how wider lessons in this regard will be shared across the consortium into the future.
Keywords: engaged excellence, transdisciplinary research, Argentina, UK, seeds, agriculture.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agenda requires new forms of innovation that combine social and technological change, and research that is capable of understanding and fostering such change across nested and interlinked systems. This article introduces the early experiences of the 'Pathways' transformative knowledge network – one of the activities of the Pathways to Sustainability Global Consortium (http://steps-centre.org/about/global/) – that aims to respond to these requirements. It discusses how the network draws upon insights from various traditions in science and technology studies, development studies and innovation studies to appreciate and contribute to transformative social–technological–environmental change in different country contexts. It points to the value of such international collaborations for learning from the knowledge and literatures from regions in the global South, and adopting a flexible approach to transdisciplinary methods as they are applied in different contexts. The article then reflects on how this ongoing research articulates with ambitions for 'engaged excellence' and how this might be organised and operationalised across a diverse international network.
2 Transformative pathways to sustainability
Researchers have – for decades – recognised that the urgency and scale of sustainability challenges requires systemic changes (Schot, Brand and Fischer 1997; Elzen, Geels and Green 2004) across society, rather than merely individual technological innovations or eco-efficiency. The universality and interconnectedness of the SDGs (Nilsson, Griggs and Visbeck 2016) means that this realisation is even more profound, and requires approaches that can also bridge notions of sustainable development from global to local levels (Steffen et al. 2015; Leach et al. 2012). Numerous traditions in the international literature have tried to address these challenges; however, in the interests of brevity we will focus on those we have drawn upon most strongly, beginning with the pathways approach (Leach, Scoones and Stirling 2010).
A pathway is defined as 'the particular directions in which interacting
social, technological and environmental systems and their contexts
co-evolve over time' (Leach et al. 2010). The pathways approach has
been used to understand how power can shape knowledge about those
systems and how this can influence the direction of change. The role
that technological innovation and social change has played in these
processes has been studied with respect to energy (Byrne et al. 2014),
agri-food (Marin and van Zwanenberg 2015) as well as across these
(Cavicchi and Ely 2016) and other domains. Drawing attention to
alternative pathways (and their associated knowledges) rather than
continuing to focus on dominant, locked-in pathways has delivered
novel insights and opened up policy debates to options which may offer
environmental and social benefits. For example, work in East Africa has
drawn attention to different farmers' perspectives around nine possible
alternative pathways (associated, for example, with high value crops,
alternative staples and locally improved seed), opening up the dominant
focus on improved varieties and maize productivity in food security
debates (Brooks et al. 2009).
Scholarly approaches to understanding such processes of social
transformation date back at least as far as Polanyi (1944), whose
ideas of (double) movements and fictitious commodities have since
been taken forward by writers such as Fraser (2014) in explaining
contemporary ecological, social and financial crises. The more recent
literature on socio-technical transitions (Elzen et al. 2004; Grin,
Rotmans and Schot 2010) has provided a wealth of historical analysis
on systemic changes that have occurred over the past two centuries,
and offered approaches to influencing such processes through transition
management. For example, Kern and Howlett (2009) have investigated
how different policy instruments (taxation, voluntary certification
schemes, information instruments, subsidies, etc and mixes thereof) have
been applied to drive change in the Dutch energy system. Under such perspectives and depending on the stage of the transition, the role of government is seen as a plural one of facilitator, stimulator, controller or director (Kemp and Rotmans 2005). In comparison to such 'controlled' transitions, Stirling points to transformations as 'more plural, emergent and unruly political re-alignments, involving social and technological innovations driven by diversely incommensurable knowledges, challenging incumbent structures and pursuing contending (even unknown) ends' (Stirling 2015: 1). Under this perspective, the role of government is less central, and greater agency (sometimes in adversarial relations with government) is attributed to civil society.
These various concepts can help us not only to understand transformative social–technological–environmental change as it has unfolded in the past, but also how they inform work of transdisciplinary scholars working in different contexts towards the 2030 Agenda. In such a complex sphere, moving from analysis to action means not only identifying (and supporting) alternative pathways, but also challenging incumbency (and the structures with which it is entangled) in contexts where power relations are often highly skewed in favour of unsustainable production and consumption. This may be possible where effective coalitions and alliances are formed (Schmitz 2015), where pressure is exerted 'from below' through social movements (Leach and Scoones 2015), through galvanisation of grass-roots innovation networks (Smith and Ely 2015), through state–business alliances forged around progressive agendas (Mazzucato 2013) or via political pressure through parties, elections and wider democratic forces. But it raises difficult and fundamental questions for networks embedded primarily within academic research organisations.
In seeking transformative pathways, in which directions are potentially
unknown (or at least uncertain) but normative commitments are shared,
the role of transdisciplinary research becomes one of fostering, supporting
or reconfiguring such coalitions and alliances, and working with them to
co-construct and mobilise impact-oriented evidence. The aim here is system
innovation (with innovation seen as emerging from the recombination of
different resources, including knowledge, in new ways, as per Schumpeter
1934). The next section introduces the approach that is beginning to be
adopted by the 'Pathways' transformative knowledge network.
3 The 'Pathways' transformative knowledge network
The Transformations to Sustainability programme is coordinated by the International Social Science Council and funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), and represents a contribution to Future Earth.1 Alongside two others, the programme is supporting the 'Pathways' transformative knowledge network (full title 'Transformative Pathways to Sustainability: Learning across Disciplines, Contexts and Cultures'). The network launched in April 2016 with an inception workshop hosted by the Centre for Research on Transformation (CENIT, Argentina), one of the lead institutions (with the STEPS Centre, UK) in the network. Prior to this, seed funding had already allowed these and other hubs (the African Centre for Technology Studies in Kenya, Jawaharlal Nehru University in India, Beijing Normal University in China and Arizona State University in the USA) to convene co-design workshops that identified sustainability challenges and shared research priorities amongst knowledge partners convened by each hub. This co-design component, built upon established relationships of research and policy engagement, builds on long traditions of development studies in the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), from where much of the literature on participatory research has emerged (Chambers 2014; Participate 2015) but also science policy and innovation studies (Martin 2012); for example, the role of multiple actors in the production of 'Mode 2' knowledge (Gibbons et al. 1994). The growing literature in science and technology studies (STS) (Jasanoff et al. 1995; Hackett et al. 2007) greatly enhanced our understanding of the social and political dimensions of science and technology, and contributed to more sophisticated notions of engagement and coproduction (Jasanoff 1996; Mauser et al. 2013).
Similar scholarly debates took place in Latin America starting in the
1970s and 1980s about what might now be called sustainability or
sustainable development. These called for new forms of knowledge
requiring broader participation in research and policy processes,
which offered novel trajectories of socio-technical change that better
responded to local priorities, problems and circumstances (Herrera
1979; Sunkel and Gligo 1981). Concurrent debates that point to the
role of science–society interactions and collaboration in India (see
e.g. Krishna 2001; Abrol 2005), China (Li, Qi and Xu 2009), and
sub-Saharan Africa (Mamdani and Diouf 1994; Urama et al. 2010) have
all pointed towards ideas that resonate with the 'engaged excellence'
agenda (Oswald, Gaventa and Leach, this IDS Bulletin), but the real
potential for learning from experiences across these different regions has not been realised. Our network attempts to contribute by adopting a consistent but flexible approach across the six regional hubs.
In each hub locality, transformations (processes of deep systemic change) are already ongoing – understood as centred on technologies, market incentives, state-led support or citizen mobilisation (Scoones, Leach and Newell 2015). We aim to further elucidate these processes and – through strategic use of social science research and evidence – help to steer them in more environmentally-sustainable and socially just directions. We will draw on and further develop concepts around social innovation labs (Westley and Laban 2015) to run 'transformation labs' (or T-labs, first experimented with at the Transformations 2015 conference in Stockholm). These will convene different system actors with different resources (e.g. social capital, networks, skills, technical expertise), to provide a safe space in which we try to support novel recombinations and therefore 'bridging innovations' that can contribute to transformative pathways. The selection of actors has been informed by considerations related to 'transformative agency' (Westley et al. 2013) but has also been driven by existing partnerships, trust relationships and windows of opportunity in each context. The reasons for these selections in each case have been recorded as part of the research and reflection process.
Beyond two specific events that will punctuate the project in years one and
two, the T-labs constitute a multi-stakeholder community of continuous
interaction and engagement with the transformative knowledge network
hub. Analysis of these engagement processes, and monitoring change over
the coming three years will draw on social science literature on the politics
and governance of transition processes (Smith, Stirling and Berkhout
2005), the role of knowledge in wider policy processes (Keeley and
Scoones 2003), understanding networks and leadership in transformations
(Olsson et al. 2006) and how different forms of innovations and policy
regimes can combine to produce positive and negative outcomes (Ely
et al. 2013; Fressoli et al. 2014). Findings will be shared and discussed
throughout the project via a virtual platform offering:
- A document repository for internal and external reports, outputs and
for other literature (academic or otherwise) that can support analysis
and comparison of the processes occurring in each hub;
- A site for peer review (e.g. of T-lab designs, on the basis of templates
shared in advance) and discussion fora, offering opportunities for
continuous exchange of ideas and experiences between the different hubs;
- Real-time drafting for the production of co-learning blogs (which
will highlight insights emerging from comparisons and collaborative
work, facilitated by research exchanges between paired hubs in the
Through such a structured process for learning from different disciplines,
cultures and contexts across the network, we hope to document and
analyse the activities and findings in each region and to strategically
enhance our abilities to engage in these systemic changes into the future.
In so doing, the network is designed to learn about the concept of
'engaged excellence', at the same time as seeking to practise it.
4 Entry points and opportunities to engage in systemic change
The challenges identified in the hubs are diverse, but fall within the three areas of agriculture and food systems (UK and Argentina), low-carbon energy transitions that serve the needs of the poor (Kenya, China) and sustainable cities (India, USA). For the purposes of this article, we focus on the area of agri-food systems and the activities in the UK and Argentinean hubs. In each case, we have adopted different entry points to engage with the wider (global) agri-food system. These have been defined through co-design workshops which will frame the research and engagement processes going forward. We briefly outline these differences below.
4.1 Transformations towards a sustainable agri-food system in Brighton
and Hove (UK)
The UK team have started (locally-bounded) work on a project to help foster a sustainable agri-food system in Brighton and Hove (a city region in the south of England with a population of approximately 300,000), recognising links to the national, European and international levels.
Building on established relationships between researchers and knowledge partners, the co-design workshop convened academics, representatives of local firms (local horticultural producers), growers from a community food initiative and civil society organisations (a city-wide food partnership, a permaculture organisation and a national family-farm advocacy group). Whilst the scale at which these groups worked differed, their interests were largely aligned around the desirability of more environmentally benign agriculture, and more localised production and consumption.
The half-day workshop was structured so as to learn about the ongoing activities of the different groups, to compare their perspectives on the challenge identified and to identify a specific area of research and engagement that could potentially contribute to transformations. The workshop was convened and facilitated by researchers, but attempts were made to limit the prevailing research (and other dominant) voices by splitting into smaller groups and then feeding back individually to the plenary. During the co-design workshop, the group identified the role of medium-sized (family) farmers as bridging some of the benefits of the micro-scale (e.g. health, education, rehabilitation strengths of the community-growing niche) (White and Stirling 2013) with the ability to overcome constraints that urban agriculture faces in supplying cities' demands for vegetables and wider food security (Martellozzo et al. 2014). This was seen as an important but little-understood group within the food system, and one for which there was scope for increased support, either by policy or civil society actors. The discussions identified surveys or interviews with small to medium-sized farmers around the city as an appropriate research approach, and the context and discussions were written up and circulated to all participants for comment, prior to publication (STEPS Centre 2015). The focus also raised questions about access and ownership of resources (e.g. land, genetic resources in seed, etc) to enable sustainable food production at sufficient scale.
The co-design workshop identified knowledge gaps around such farmers' growing patterns (especially innovative approaches to agro-ecological farming), and also around new business models that were enabling smaller-scale growers to compete as niches in relation to the dominant agri-food pathways characterised by large farms and vertically-integrated supermarket retail. These included farmdrop or box schemes, as well as a growing number of specialist retailers and restaurants serving the market for locally-produced, sustainable food in the city. Research into these issues could provide useful evidence to policymakers at local and national levels, but also facilitate engagement with growers and other actors in the supply chain to build legitimacy and momentum for the envisaged transformation. The outputs of the co-design workshop were written up in a concept note that scoped out possible strategies for research and coproduction (STEPS Centre 2015).
Building on other work conducted by members of the project team,
interviews will initially focus on agro-ecological farmers identified in the
area surrounding Brighton and Hove, investigating the policy drivers and constraints for agro-ecological production and supply, current
practices and how actors across the city region could work together to
support a higher proportion of locally and environmentally sustainablyproduced
food in the city region. Following a period of pilot qualitative
research interviews in autumn 2016, we convened our first T-lab event
in December 2016, refining our research and engagement activities for
the subsequent year with similar (and additional) knowledge partners
to those who joined the co-design workshop. Further opportunities
for engagement are enhanced as a result of the current state of flux
in local, regional and national agri-food policies. Brighton and Hove's
City Plan 2 is under discussion (with a draft plan due in autumn 2017),
providing a perfect window for research-led input. The South Downs
National Park (which surrounds Brighton and Hove to the north) is in
the process of reformulating its management plan and the UK's food
and agricultural policies are entering a period of intense uncertainty
and disruption as a result of the referendum vote to leave the European
Union ('Brexit'). Building on the engagement to date, the foundation of
expertise and research that will be strengthened by the current work will
position the team not only to strategically plan our future engagement
activities, but also to be adaptable enough to work with normativelyaligned
partners at key moments.
4.2 The future of agriculture and seeds in Argentina
The Latin American team have adopted a different entry point to the global agri-food system, but one which has been identified as central to the political economy of the system as a whole (Kloppenburg 2005; Wach 2016). It decided to focus on the future of seeds because that issue provided a window of opportunity to engage with the broader issue of agricultural sustainability, given that Argentina was embroiled in contentious debates about the reform of intellectual property related to seeds (Marin 2015). A new seed law was being discussed, leading to increased political salience/controversy as seeds are a key input for large-scale agricultural production (by far the country's most important export). Argentina was faced with the option of adopting a number of models in their new law, drawing on aspects of the various agreements of UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), as well as potentially novel approaches such as open source seeds (Kloppenburg 2014). There was, therefore, a sense of urgency to discuss the topic, which helped to bring a diverse group of influential people to the table, and as the law is still being discussed there was also, and indeed still is, a perception that the outcomes of the work undertaken in the workshop could have a real influence. In practice, though, the issue also provided a lens through which participants could talk and reflect on desired agricultural futures. The workshop was based on established networks, and a legitimacy built on the basis of years of previous research. A range of actors participated, from academic researchers, representatives of commercial and family farming, government officials, representatives of civil society organisations, national seed firms and other institutions related to seeds – representing many more diverse views than those assembled at the co-design workshop in the UK. This contentious entry point was used as a lens through which the group could begin to explore future agricultural visions and pathways amongst a varied group of actors, and in the hope of ensuring commitment and engagement from those actors to future work.
The workshop was structured around a 'World Café' debate on four
possible scenarios related to changes to the seed law:
1 Preserve the status quo, based on UPOV 1978 which allows saving
and utilisation of seed;
2 Restrict the rights of farmers to save seed but retain breeders' rights to use seeds as a basis for further breeding;
3 Retain farmers' rights, but restrict the breeders' exemption to use seeds in varietal improvement; and
4 Restrict both actors' rights as in UPOV 1991.
The participants discussed implications of these scenarios to 2030 for food supply (and social and economic diversity), technological services for industrial farmers, resources for biological research and biodiversity.
Given the diversity of perspectives of the participants, it was expected
that there would be divergent views on the issue. Indeed, from the
discussions, two distinctive views were identified about the future of seeds
and agriculture. One, a macro, nationalistic, market-focused perspective
was concerned primarily with enhancing the productivity of large-scale
agricultural production, as well as ensuring adequate incentives for
the development of local production and technological capabilities
(as opposed to reliance on multinational corporations). The other, a
state-centred perspective, was concerned primarily with promoting food
sovereignty and security, and enhancing the social and economic diversity
of farming (including small- and medium-sized independent farmers).
The very different framings of the challenge and the interests at play of the different participants (discussed further in Marin, Ely and van Zwanenberg 2016) explained the lack of general consensus and divergence in views; a political and social reality which is in some respects a hindrance to identifying pathways to sustainability. The considerable empathy shown by almost all participants for the objectives underlying the alternative perspective, however, suggested that there may be scope, in future work, for negotiating novel strategies that satisfy at least some of the key concerns held by both groups. To identify these strategies, the team plan to work on future research with the idea of 'bridging innovations' that might help to address issues of overlapping interest, such as the need to support domestic capabilities in seed development as fundamental to any kind of desired agricultural future (which workshop participants agreed were threatened by strict intellectual property rules). These bridging innovations can be, for instance, new policy proposals that help to shift perspectives about the future of seeds and agriculture.
The mapping of different perspectives in this first co-design workshop,
as detailed in a concept note produced following the event (CENIT
2015) will provide the basis for future work. The team in Argentina
is proposing to use Q method (Previte, Pini and Haslam-McKenzie
2007) and multi-criteria mapping (Stirling 2006) as novel social
science approaches that enable engagement with diverse groups and
a structured mapping of their different perspectives that facilitates the
'opening up' of policy discussions. Along with other research already
conducted by the CENIT team (Marin and Smith 2012), this will
provide new knowledge resources that can recombine with those held by
other actors in the system, with the potential to foster social innovation
that can help negotiate novel pathways of change around seeds and
agriculture in Latin America.
5 Emerging insights and implications for 'engaged excellence'
On the basis of the accounts given previously, the 'Pathways' transformative knowledge network is already delivering early insights with regard to engaged research across disciplines, cultures and contexts. It is also raising questions about the role of researchers pursuing 'engaged excellence' in different contexts across the world, and how the social sciences can work within a transformative SDG agenda.
The collaborative work offers lessons regarding the various challenges
of working across aligned and non-aligned networks in co-design (Marin
et al. 2016) and the kinds of modifications to concepts such as 'social
innovation labs' that might be appropriate in each context. Whilst it is
clear that researchers can play many roles in attempting to contribute to
transformative pathways, the ones emerging from our experiences so far
in the two hubs covered in detail here include:
- Providing strategic (impact-oriented) evidence, identified by a range
of stakeholders, as filling a crucial knowledge gap or unlocking an
impasse caused by seemingly irreconcilable differences in perspective
held by different actors;
- Convening diverse actors in order to explore different perspectives,
seek to bridge or build consensus between them, or (relatedly) to
bring together different resources and foster social innovations that
can both address issues of consensus and adequately respond to
issues where there is disagreement;
- Building networks to create agile groups that can coproduce
knowledge and evidence to inform adaptive management – as the
cases of 'Brexit' and the Argentinean seed law illustrate, 'engaged
excellence' does not necessarily start from research, but often
from established, trusted networks that allow quick, robust and
well-informed responses to changing circumstances.
Reflecting on these various roles in turn, it appears that (at least some)
stakeholders afford the evidence produced through formal 'research'
a validity beyond that held by (or produced by) other actors. It is necessary to remember this power asymmetry when talking about
'impact-oriented' research, and to recognise the ways in which our
own research approach might be influenced by other powerful actors.
Likewise, the legitimacy of researchers as convenors (both of aligned and non-aligned groups) requires us to be aware of our limitations as mediators, and requires us to enter processes such as T-labs without predefined goals. This often requires trust relationships/reputations that are built over many years. Retaining some level of flexibility to exploit windows of opportunity is a challenge for researchers, but also for funding organisations with more traditional models of accountability.
The experiences described above are also beginning to identify
challenges to practising 'engaged excellence' through this kind of
networked approach. Although (as discussed previously) there has
been some flexibility afforded to the network, striving to deliver the
outputs promised in the proposal has required partners to work to a
specified time frame, and to some extent has limited their scope for
creativity around methods. Constraints (in terms of the amounts of
funding available and time frames) have greatly limited the scope of
the research, but also to some extent forced teams to be parsimonious
with regard to the project's ambitions – continuing on similar research
trajectories (rather than establishing new ones), collaborating with
existing trusted partners (whilst reaching out) and working with the
grain of (at least some) ongoing transformative changes.
Through project infrastructure such as a virtual platform offering peer
review (of T-lab designs) discussion fora, and production of co-learning
blogs, the network hopes to extend these initial findings across the other
hubs, and to further reflect on experiences within different contexts.
At the same time, we will be monitoring (potentially transformative)
changes and using the evidence to enhance the direct impact of our
activities. Exchanging ideas from the literatures around transdisciplinary
work in different regions may also help us to be reflexive about
our own assumptions regarding transformation, and to appreciate
engagement approaches that may at first seem in conflict with our
own. Whilst there are limited opportunities for in-person exchange,
the infrastructure (virtual and otherwise) that is integral to the project
design allows periodic monitoring and reflection as we operationalise
the ideas of transformative pathways to sustainability across our diverse
international network. We hope to generate broader lessons that can
serve to inform researchers, funders and other actors in the design and
implementation of transdisciplinary research for achieving the SDGs.
The opportunities for learning about 'engaged excellence' across the transformative knowledge network also bring an appreciation of how these insights are linked to historical, cultural and contextual factors (as well as how understandings may be conditioned by the situatedness of disciplinary/analytical frameworks). This is incredibly stimulating as an academic exercise. The challenge (which we do not underestimate) will be to convert these insights into useful knowledge for action beyond the scale of the individual sites in which we are engaging in transdisciplinary work.
Our ability to do this in a relatively short three-year programme
is necessarily limited, but we will be organising our activities in a way
that enables us to learn as much as possible from our experiences – both
positive and negative – and to apply these lessons in future work.
* This work is based on research supported by the Transformations to Sustainability programme, which is coordinated by the International Social Science Council (ISSC) and funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), and implemented in partnership with the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant Number ISSC2015-TKN150224114426). We would like to thank the other members of the 'Pathways' transformative knowledge network for the conversations that have led us to these insights, who are too numerous to include as co-authors or name individually. However, we also wish to note that we have produced this article without consulting all these partners, and therefore bear sole responsibility for any errors or omissions.
1 Launched in 2015, Future Earth is a ten-year initiative to advance
Global Sustainability Science, build capacity in this rapidly expanding
area of research and provide an international research agenda to
guide natural and social scientists working around the world.
Abrol, D. (2005) 'Embedding Technology in Community-Based Production Systems through People's Technology Initiatives: Lessons from the Indian Experience', International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 4.1: 3–20
Brooks, S.; Thompson, J.; Odame, H.; Kibaara, B.; Nderitu, S.; Karin, F.
and Millstone, E. (2009) Environmental Change and Maize Innovation
in Kenya: Exploring Pathways In and Out of Maize, STEPS Working
Paper 36, Brighton: STEPS Centre
Byrne, R.; Ockwell, D.; Urama, K.; Ozor, N.; Kirumba, E.; Ely, A.; Becker, S. and Gollwitzer, L. (2014) Sustainable Energy for Whom?
Governing Pro-Poor, Low Carbon Pathways to Development: Lessons from Solar
PV in Kenya, STEPS Working Paper 61, Brighton: STEPS Centre
Cavicchi, B. and Ely, A. (2016) Framing and Reframing Sustainable Bioenergy
Pathways: The Case of Emilia Romagna, STEPS Working Paper 88,
Brighton: STEPS Centre
CENIT (2015) The Future of Seeds (and Agriculture) in Argentina, Buenos
Aires: Centro de Investigaciones para la Transformación
Chambers, R. (2014) Into the Unknown: Explorations in Development Practice,
Rugby: Practical Action Publishing
Ely, A.; Smith, A.; Leach, M.; Stirling, A. and Scoones, I. (2013)
'Innovation Politics Post-Rio+20: Hybrid Pathways to
Sustainability?', Environment and Planning C 31.6: 1063–81
Elzen, B.; Geels, F.W. and Green, K. (eds) (2004) System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Fraser, N. (2014) 'Can Society be Commodities All the Way Down? Post-Polanyian Reflections on Capitalist Crisis', Economy and Society 43.4: 541–58
Fressoli, M.; Arond, E.; Abrol, D.; Smith, A.; Ely, A. and Dias, R. (2014)
'When Grassroots Innovation Movements Encounter Mainstream
Institutions: Implications for Models of Inclusive Innovation',
Innovation and Development 4.2: 277–92
Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzman, S.; Scott, P.
and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of
Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage
Grin, J.; Rotmans, J. and Schot, J. (eds) (2010) Transitions to Sustainable
Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative
Change, Abingdon: Routledge
Hackett, E.; Amsterdamska, O.; Lynch, M. and Wajcman, J. (eds) (2007) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Boston MA: MIT Press
Herrera, Amilcar O. (1979) Desarrollo, medio ambiente y generación de
tecnologías apropiadas, Lima: ECLAC, http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/24037 (accessed 12 December 2016)
Jasanoff, S. (1996) 'Beyond Epistemology: Relativism and Engagement in the Politics of Science', Social Studies of Science 26.2: 393–418
Jasanoff, S.; Markle, G.E.; Peterson, J.C. and Pinch, T.J. (eds) (1995)
Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, London: Sage
Keeley, J. and Scoones, I. (2003) Understanding Environmental Policy
Processes, London: Earthscan
Kemp, R. and Rotmans, J. (2005) 'The Management of the
Co-Evolution of Technical, Environmental and Social Systems',
in K.M. Weber and J. Hemmelskamp (eds), Towards Environmental
Innovation Systems, Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag
Kern, F. and Howlett, M. (2009) 'Implementing Transition
Management as Policy Reforms: A Case Study of the Dutch Energy
Sector', Policy Sciences 42.4: 391–408
Kloppenburg, J. (2014) 'Re-Purposing the Master's Tools: The Open
Source Seed Initiative and the Struggle for Seed Sovereignty', Journal
of Peasant Studies 41.6: 1225–46
Kloppenburg, J.R. (2005) First the Seed: The Political Economy of Plant
Biotechnology, Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press
Krishna, V.V. (2001) 'Changing S&T Policy Cultures, Phases and
Trends in Science and Technology in Indian "Science and
Technology Policy"', Science and Public Policy 28.3: 179–94
Leach, M. and Scoones, I. (2015) 'Mobilising for Green
Transformations', in I. Scoones, M. Leach and P. Newell (eds),
The Politics of Green Transformations, Abingdon: Routledge/Earthscan
Leach, M.; Scoones, I. and Stirling, A. (2010) Dynamic Sustainabilities:
Technology, Environment, Social Justice, London: Earthscan
Leach, M.; Rockström, J.; Raskin, P.; Scoones, I.; Stirling, A.; Smith, A.;
Thompson, J.; Millstone, E.; Ely, A.; Arond, E.; Folke, C. and Olsson, P. (2012) 'Transforming Innovation for Sustainability',
Ecology and Society 17.2: 11
Li, Xiaoyun; Qi, Gubo and Xu, Xiuli (2009) 'Emergence of Farmer-Centered Agricultural Science and Technology Policy in China', in I. Scoones and J. Thompson (eds), Farmer First Revisited: Innovation
for Agricultural Research and Development, Rugby: Practical Action
Mamdani, M. and Diouf, M. (eds) (1994) Academic Freedom in Africa,
East Lansing MI: Michigan State University Press
Marin, A. (2015) 'El futuro de las semillas y la agricultura en América
Latina', Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 65.3,
http://aargentinapciencias.org/2/images/RevistasCeI/tomo65-3/6-Marin-cei65-3-8.pdf (accessed 12 December 2016)
Marin, A. and Smith, A. (2012) Towards a Framework for Analysing the
Transformation of Natural Resource-Based Industries in Latin America: The
Role of Alternatives, Background Paper 1 (Natural Resources Pathways
in Latin American Countries), Buenos Aires: CENIT
Marin, A. and van Zwanenberg, P. (2015) 'Transitions, Structural
Change and Development: Transforming Natural Resource-Based
Industries in Latin America', paper presented at the International
Sustainability Conference 2015, www.ist2015.org/files/file.php?name=marin-and-vanzwanenberg-l7.pdf&site=477 (accessed
30 November 2016)
Marin, A.; Ely, A. and van Zwanenberg, P. (2016) 'Co-Design with
Aligned and Non-Aligned Knowledge Partners: Implications for
Research and Coproduction of Sustainable Food Systems', Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 20: 93–8, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343516300562 (accessed 30 November
Martellozzo, F.; Landry, J.-S.; Plouffe, D.; Seufert, V.; Rowhani, P. and
Ramankutty, N. (2014) 'Urban Agriculture: A Global Analysis of the
Space Constraint to Meet Urban Vegetable Demand', Environmental
Research Letters 9: 1–8
Martin, B.R. (2012) 'The Evolution of Science Policy and Innovation
Studies', Research Policy 41: 1219–39
Mazzucato, M. (2013) The Entrepreneurial State, London: Anthem Press
Mauser, W.; Klepper, G.; Rice, M.; Schmalzbauer, B.S.; Hackmann, H.;
Leemans, R. and Moore, H. (2013) 'Transdisciplinary Global Change
Research: The Co-Creation of Knowledge for Sustainability', Current
Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5.3–4: 420–31
Nilsson, M.; Griggs, D. and Visbeck, M. (2016) 'Policy: Map
the Interactions between Sustainable Development Goals',
Nature 534: 320–2
Olsson, P.; Gunderson, L.H.; Carpenter, S.R.; Ryan, P.; Lebel, L.; Folke, C. and Holling, C.S. (2006) 'Shooting the Rapids: Navigating
Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems',
Ecology and Society 11.1: 18, www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/ (accessed 30 November 2016)
Participate (2015) http://participate2015.org/ (accessed 8 December 2016)
Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic
Origins of our Time, Boston MA: Beacon Press
Previte, J.; Pini, B. and Haslam-McKenzie, F. (2007) 'Q Methodology and Rural Research', Sociologia Ruralis 47.2: 135–47
Schmitz, H. (2015) 'Green Transformation – Is There a Fast Track?',
in I. Scoones, M. Leach and P. Newell (eds), The Politics of Green
Transformations, Abingdon: Routledge/Earthscan
Schot, J.W.; Brand, E. and Fischer, K. (1997) 'The Greening of Industry
for a Sustainable Future: Building an International Research
Agenda', Business Strategy and the Environment 6: 153–62
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry
into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle, rev. ed. (1983),
New Brunswick NJ and London: Transaction Publishers (originally
published 1912 as Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Leipzig:
Duncker & Humblot)
Scoones, I.; Leach, M. and Newell, P. (eds) (2015) The Politics of Green
Transformations, Abingdon: Routledge/Earthscan
Smith, A. and Ely, A. (2015) 'Green Transformations from Below?
The Politics of Grassroots Innovation', in I. Scoones, M. Leach
and P. Newell (eds), The Politics of Green Transformations, Abingdon:
Smith, A.; Stirling, A. and Berkhout, F. (2005) 'The Governance of Sustainable Socio-Technical Transitions', Research Policy 34.10: 1491–1510
Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M. et al. (2015) 'Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet', Science 347.6223: 1259855
STEPS Centre (2015) Transformations to Sustainable Food Systems in Brighton
and Hove: Towards a Shared Research Agenda, Brighton: STEPS Centre
Stirling, A. (2015) 'Emancipating Transformations: From Controlling "The Transition" to Culturing Plural Radical Progress', in
I. Scoones, M. Leach and P. Newell (eds), The Politics of Green
Transformations, Abingdon: Routledge/Earthscan
Stirling, A. (2006) 'Analysis, Participation and Power: Justification and
Closure in Participatory Multi-Criteria Analysis', Land Use Policy 23.1: 95–107
Sunkel, O. and Gligo, N. (eds) (1981) Estilos de desarrollo y medio ambiente
en la America Latina, Mexico DF: Fondo de Cultura Economica
Urama, K.; Ogbu, O.; Bijker, W.; Alfonsi, A.; Gomez, N. and Ozor, N.
(2010) The African Manifesto for Science, Technology and Innovation,
Nairobi: African Technology Policy Studies Network
Wach, E. (2016) 'Seed Sovereignty and Inequality: An Analysis of Seed Systems and their Impacts on Small-Scale Farmers', in A. Kennedy and J. Liljeblad (eds), Food Systems Governance: Challenges for Justice, Equality and Human Rights, Abingdon: Routledge
Westley, F. and Laban, S. (eds) (2015) Social Innovation Lab Guide, Waterloo
ON: Waterloo Institute for Social Innovation and Resilience
Westley, F.R.; Tjornbo, O.; Schultz, L.; Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Crona, B.
and Bodin, Ö. (2013) 'A Theory of Transformative Agency in Linked
Social-Ecological Systems', Ecology and Society 18.3: 27
White, R. and Stirling, A. (2013) 'Sustaining Trajectories Towards Sustainability: Dynamics and Diversity in UK Communal Growing Activities', Global Environmental Change 23.5: 838–46
© 2016 The Authors. IDS Bulletin © Institute of Development Studies | DOI: 10.19088/1968-2016.200
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source
are credited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
The IDS Bulletin is published by Institute of Development Studies, Library Road, Brighton BN1 9RE, UK
This article is part of IDS Bulletin Vol. 47 No. 6 December 2016: 'Engaged Excellence'; the Introduction is also recommended reading.