Researching Sustainability

A Guide to Social Science Methods, Practice and Engagement

Alex Franklin, Paul Blyton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781317972709
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Science Research & Methodology
• Index: Biological Sciences

This book is for students and researchers across the social sciences who are planning, conducting and disseminating research on sustainability-related issues. Real-world sustainability problems cross many boundaries, and this is the first book to guide students and practitioners through the practical and theoretical challenges of doing interdisciplinary research in this vital and emerging area.

Researching Sustainability contains many in-depth, 'hands on' accounts by expert contributors, providing real-life examples and lessons that can be put to use immediately. Coverage includes:

• the general challenges that sustainability presents to researchers, including frictions between sustainability and scientific tradition; complexity; research paradigms; interdisciplinarity; social-environmental interactions; and ethical concerns.
• a host of social science based research methods and approaches. Each chapter presents a different method; its challenges and suitability for different situations; an in-depth example of the method in action; insights and lessons.
• dissemination of sustainability research findings, including influencing policy, communicating with school children and working with the media.

The book concludes with a critical synthesis of issues and methods examined in the book together with a discussion of future research pathways. This book is an essential tool for students, researchers and practitioners in planning, implementing and evaluating their sustainability research.

PART I

ISSUES IN SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH

1

Sustainability Research: An Introduction

Alex Franklin and Paul Blyton

Introduction

This book is about engaging in social science research in the field of sustainability and communicating the findings to a variety of interested parties. Its approach is distinctive in four ways.

First, most books concerned with social science research methods are generic in approach and seek a broad applicability across a whole range of research activity. In the present volume, the breadth of discussion is also wide but it has a common focus in that the research approaches under examination share an interest in some aspect of the sustainability agenda.

Second, rather than locate the discussion and applicability of different research methods at an abstract level, we have sought to tie the consideration of each method to a particular research project. In this way, the reader will gain not only an overview of the method, but also a detailed illustration of that method in action and a reflection by the individual authors on the issues and problems encountered – for no method is perfect – in that particular research area.

Third, we have brought together a group of contributors who hold firm beliefs in the approaches they have taken to answer their particular research questions. So what the reader will find in each of the chapters in Part II of the book is an argument for, and an advocacy of, a particular method. We hope that the benefit of an advocacy approach is that it conveys the commitment to, and enthusiasm for, the research that the contributors have. The range of the different chapters means that we can include these individual arguments without incurring a bias towards a very narrow set of approaches. Rather, what the reader is able to compare are multiple arguments or cases put forward for methods used in particular circumstances.

Fourth, the whole of Part III is devoted to the effective transmission of research findings and the issues raised regarding communicating sustainability research to different audiences. Here we are making an assumption that many people drawn to undertake research on aspects of sustainability are interested not only in disseminating their findings through the traditional academic channels of research papers, monographs and so on, but also to engage with a broader audience and seek to effect changes that contribute to a more sustainable trajectory for individuals, communities and society.

It is this combination – a shared interest in sustainability research, the linking of individual approaches with actual case experience, the arguments made in favour of particular methods and approaches, and the recognition of the equal importance of communicating as well as undertaking research – that makes Researching Sustainability distinctive. For those embarking on social scientific research with a sustainability focus – and this represents a rapidly growing area of social science research – as well as those wanting to think more about communication issues, this should be a stimulating and thought-provoking read. Hopefully, it will also be useful to those seeking ways to interpret different types of sustainability research more effectively, as well as providing a rich resource for those teaching in the areas of sustainability and research methods.

In setting out what this book is about and what its intentions are, we need also to be clear about what the book is not. In particular, this is not book designed to replace those research methods’ texts that take students systematically through the gamut of quantitative and/or qualitative research methods in ways that support research methods’ courses. Researching Sustainability is designed to be used in conjunction with, rather than in place of, such texts. The ground we are attempting to cover – combining particular methods with actual research projects and considering issues of dissemination to a variety of audiences – is different from the majority of social science research methods’ texts. In terms of the individual approaches and methods we consider, the emphasis is on providing an overview of the issues surrounding that method that will supplement other textbook introductions to the topic.

There are two other things that this book is not – or at least, two aspects where coverage achieved is broad but far from exhaustive. First, the approaches and methods covered in Part II are wide ranging but with a greater emphasis on qualitative than quantitative approaches. To a degree, this reflects the infancy of much of the research in the sustainability field, the tendency for many studies to be exploratory or preliminary in nature and the tendency to approach hitherto unresearched issues through qualitative means than by undertaking more hypothesis testing or confirmatory, quantitative approaches. Certain chapters are concerned with quantitative approaches such as the use of different forms of survey instrument. Likewise, much of the discussion in Part III on communicating findings is equally applicable to results that have been generated by quantitative as well as qualitative studies. But it remains the case that qualitative approaches are more fully represented than quantitative approaches in the chapters that follow.

In addition, while the topic focus is broad, it is not seeking to cover all possible areas of sustainability research across the social sciences. Certain fields, such as geography, planning, law and business are more fully represented than others, and this reflects the particular background and expertise of our group of contributors. However, given the range that is represented, we hope that most readers will find discussion of sustainability topics that fall somewhere within their area of interest. Nor is this book advocating a particular ontology or epistemology for social scientific aspects of sustainability research: we are more interested in showing how different approaches can be used to good effect for understanding different sustainability problems and issues.

Having given a sense of what this book’s purpose is, and the parallel question of what it is not trying to be, it remains in this introduction to do two further things: first, to say something of what we mean by the term sustainability research: what characterizes it, and what makes it distinctive from, and also similar to, other aspects of social science research. And second, to give an overview of the structure of the rest of the book.

What is sustainability research?

So what actually is sustainability research? An obvious starting point for answering this question is with the term ‘sustainability’. Although it remains contested concept, since the 1980s there has been a noticeable shift in thinking from a primarily environmental conception of sustainability to a more tripartite prioritization of environmental, social and economic pillars of sustainability. This broader approach is embraced in the concept of sustainable development, which is commonly framed as the need for improving the quality of life of all people now and into the long-term future (WCED, 1987; UNECD, 1992). Work undertaken in the natural sciences, developing techniques to model and measure key aspects of environmental sustainability, remains an essential dimension of the sustainability research agenda. However, there is now a growing acceptance of the need to complement this with an enhanced understanding of the impact of social and economic systems, practices and behaviours. This is reflected in the significant expansion in what the field of sustainability research legitimately encompasses.

We use the term ‘legitimately’ here in the knowledge that for some, the term ‘sustainability’ is now so broad as to be meaningless (Marshall and Toffel, 2005; Baker, 2006). Essentially, anything, anywhere or anyone can be taken as the focus for a sustainability research project. For example, it could involve studying the origins of a plate of pasta, the activities of a community group, the design and use of a corporate building or changing levels of horse ownership. At first glance, such a list provides little by way of illumination of how the subject matter of sustainability research can collectively be defined. This has led some scholars to assert the need for drawing boundaries, both to prioritize and to limit what counts as useful research foci and, in so doing, make this elusive concept more meaningful (see for example, Marshall and Toffel, 2005). Such an exercise, however, implies an exercise of somewhat arbitrary decision-making over what is, and is not, of importance to sustainability. Moreover, if the alternative perspective is taken, that the subject matter itself is only a part-determinant of the contribution that a particular study can make to our knowledge and understanding of sustainability, then it is a boundary-drawing exercise that is of little value. Of greater significance when it comes to making a contribution to the sustainability debate is not the object of study but the aims of the research and the conceptual lens employed. For instance, staying with the above examples for a moment longer, a plate of pasta could be the subject of a study into food miles and sustainable food; the activities of community group, a study of sustainable communities and engagement; the design and use of a corporate building, a study of how technology can be used to promote sustainable behaviours; and research into changing levels of horse ownership, to provide insight into consumption patterns and sustainable rural economies.

Because of the nature and breadth of ‘sustainability’, there is a limit to what sustainability problems and questions can be addressed using a single discipline approach. While a single discipline study can be effective for looking at a particular social, environmental or economic issue in depth, ultimately sustainability research is dependent upon the better integration of academic disciplines and expertise, literatures and research practices. Similarly, achieving an impact through the research, or ‘making a difference’ as it is often termed in the context of sustainability research, requires better integration between academics and various user groups throughout the research process. One way of improving integration internally within academia is by situating studies within wider cross-disciplinary programmes of research.

The conceptual framing of any piece of research tends to be heavily influenced by the disciplinary background and epistemological starting point of the researcher. However, when individual researchers are exposed to a research environment where cross-disciplinary working is a common practice, then the potential for a widened conceptual framing can also increase. Moreover, working as part of a cross-disciplinary group commonly leads to sustainability researchers experiencing increased levels of support than if they were pursuing cross-disciplinary research from within a single home department (Jacobs and Frickel, 2009). However, even where such programmes or institutes are established, the constraints of disciplinary boundaries often continue to be felt.

Particularly problematic in the case of sustainability research is the long-running division between the natural and human sciences. Although concerted efforts are underway by many academic institutions to stimulate cross-disciplinary programmes, as Denzin and Lincoln (1998) acknowledge with respect to depictions of qualitative inquiry, the effects of the tensions between the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sciences will be long lasting:

The academic and disciplinary resistances to qualitative research illustrate the politics embedded in this field of discourse. The challenges to qualitative research are many. Qualitative researchers are called journalists, or soft scientists. Their work is termed unscientific, or only exploratory, or entirely personal and full of bias. It is called criticism and not theory, or it is interpreted politically as a disguised version of Marxism, or humanism. (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998, p7)

Also relevant here is the already noted diversity of subject matter and associated range of approaches to, and scales of, sustainability research. To accommodate this variety, while at the same time ensuring sufficient synergy between research design and research context, sustainability researchers are often faced with complex choices regarding the best methodological approach, selecting from broad spectrum of research methods.

The fact that there is no one ‘preferred’ method for researching sustainability, and that the appropriateness of a method is to a large extent dependent on the specifics of the research context, presents a notable challenge. The process of designing a methodology requires the researcher to have sufficient prior understanding of the individual characteristics of each of the methodological options available to them. In the case of studies that require the coming together of researchers from different sciences and disciplines, developing a coherent methodology can be further complicated by the fact that neither a shared understanding nor shared enthusiasm will necessarily exist from the outset as to the range of methods that could be applied. For these reasons, the design and initiation of cross-disciplinary research programmes require a considerable investment of time and energy on the part of all researchers involved (Locker, 1994; Sumner, 2003). They may also need skills in negotiation where agreements cannot be reached. For Sumner (2003), however, it is actually at the point of disagreement that the value of a cross-disciplinary approach lies:

In the face of crises of planetary proportions … we simply can’t afford not to establish a critical relationship with academic disciplines. As we carry out our interdisciplinary research programmes, we need, above all, to cultivate relations of suspicion, taking nothing for granted, questioning all assumptions and revealing whose interests our research will serve. (Sumner, 2003, pp10–11)

As asserted by Sumner (2003) in her discussion of critical theory, where reflexive ‘relations of suspicion can be cultivated’, this can lead to a far more open and rigorous approach to sustainability research.

As well as requiring an extensive knowledge of different research methods, sustainability researchers are regularly faced with the need to engage with many different stakeholders and also manage different types of researcher–researched relationship (see Chapter 5). Indeed, core to the design of the overall research approach is the ability to establish a baseline awareness of the individual and collective characteristics of research participants and their spaces of practice. Such knowledge can then be used to inform the selection of methodological tools that are applicable to both the research questions and the particularities of the research context. Increasingly valuable are the types of research relationships that, while maintaining the independence of the scholarship, also allow researchers to retain longer-term connections with stakeholders. Not only does this increase the impact of the research, it leaves the way open for undertaking additional research at a future date and creates opportunities for shared or ‘engaged’ scholarship (Van de Ven 2010). Indeed, as Evans and Marvin (2006) acknowledge, because of its applied nature involving end users in the design of sustainability, research is often very productive:

Contemporary social and environmental problems demand community of all the experts, in which ‘expert’ is defined increasingly broadly, and in which different experiences, knowledges and politics are all included in an integrated, holistic approach to complex problems or sets of problems. (Evans and Marvin, 2006, p3)

The chapters in this collection provide a good illustration of the range of different stakeholders (individuals and institutions) that sustainability researchers have to engage with during a number of different stages in their work.

One of the implications of engaging multiple stakeholders, however, is the complex range of ethical questions that this can raise. Much has been written in methodological texts (see, for example, Bryman, 2001; Bulmer, 2004; Denscombe, 2003) and by research councils (see, for example, RCUK, 2009) on standard ethical issues such as informed consent, protection of respondent identity and overt versus covert research practices, which regularly have to be negotiated. In the case of sustainability research, however, there are also other moral dilemmas that have to be navigated, many of which have thus far been given little formal attention. One such is the academic practice of travelling around the world, usually by aeroplane, to present papers at sustainability conferences and/or further develop sustainability research networks. Although the use of virtual communication tools such as webinars and online discussion forums is rapidly increasing, as yet there is little sign that conference travel is abating.

Moral and ethical dilemmas also regularly surface within sustainability research over whether or not to bid for, or accept, research contracts commissioned by certain types of organization or political group. For some sustainability researchers, accepting funding from a major airline, oil company or grocery chain, for example, would be wholly unacceptable. There is also danger, with certain areas of research, that doing so could prove detrimental when it comes to gaining research access to particular types of organizations or community groups at a later date. A good illustration of this is found in the experiences of two practised research associates within Cardiff University’s Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS) R...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Foreword by Julian Agyeman: Joined-up Research
• Acronyms
• Part I Issues in Sustainability Research
• Part II Approaches to Sustainability Research
• Part III Disseminating Sustainability Research
• Conclusion
• Index