Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Developing Integrative Researc PDF
Developing Integrative Researc PDF
DOI 10.1007/s11625-013-0203-y
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Received: 21 June 2012 / Accepted: 23 January 2013 / Published online: 19 February 2013
Springer Japan 2013
Abstract The importance of taking an integrative integrative research project frameworks are presented as
approach to research has long been integral to sustain- examples of how this principles-based approach can be
ability science, and has recently been highlighted as fun- implemented in research design. Using this approach offers
damental to the co-design of research and co-production of a simple but powerful structure to guide integrative
knowledge. Just what this means, however, and how to research for sustainability science at the project scale.
implement such a broad notion has escaped effective
methodological development. In order to become more Keywords Integration Complex systems
than a generic descriptor, integrative research needs to be Sustainability science methodology Research design
conceptualized and presented in ways that offer guidance Transdisciplinarity Systems thinking
to researchers designing and conducting integrative
research projects, whilst remaining broad enough to be
relevant to the breadth and depth of sustainability-related Introduction
problems. Drawing on complexity theory and fundamental
aspects of integrative research, I present a methodological Integration forms a major part of the rationale of sustain-
framing that seeks to achieve this balance. Using a defi- ability science and its distinctiveness from conventional
nition of integrative research as ‘‘research in the context of research. This can be understood as a recognition of the
complexity, with an action imperative’’, I draw from limitations of increasingly fragmented science; that science
complexity theory that proposes minimal specifications, for sustainability-related problems and challenges needs to
generative relationships, focusing on enablers and seeking devise ways of drawing on conventional science, whilst
diversity as core features of a complexity-based approach. allowing for the complexity of those challenges and, cru-
On that basis I propose four principles that can be used by cially, maintaining a focus on innovation, action and
researchers to guide the design and implementation of their implementation. In this article I present an approach to
projects: embrace uncertainty; engage stakeholders; be integrative research that can orientate researchers to the
transdisciplinary; and have a learning orientation. Each of methodological task of designing and implementing
these principles is explained, and their relationships to research projects that seek to operate within the complexity
research design, methodological framing, choice of of our socio-ecological domains, with a specific aim to
methods and project development are presented. Two contribute to action, implementation and practical change.
This work arose from exploring integrative research from
the perspective of teaching, rather than researching. It was
Handled by Nobuo Mimura, Ibaraki University, Japan. the result of developing and implementing a syllabus for an
innovative university course entitled ‘‘Integrative Research
L. van Kerkhoff (&) Methods’’, a capstone course for final year sustainability
Fenner School of Environment and Society, ANU College
students in a research methods stream. While research
of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian
National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia projects are inevitably (and appropriately) bounded and
e-mail: [email protected] contextualised by the problems, scales, and issues they are
123
144 Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155
addressing, teaching integrative research required the creativity and innovation with practical guidance and
development of a framing that extends beyond an indi- design criteria may help to create a productive space for
vidual project or program, or a cluster of methods. It critically and creatively engaging with the complex issues
needed to document and address the fundamental charac- we confront through sustainability science practice.
teristics of integrative research, and identify ways for these
to be implemented in sustainability research design and
practice. This should be regarded as one step in a larger Background
process of methodological development, that does not
restrict the application of other methodologies or methods The idea of integrative research has been a foundational
but rather places them in an integrative framework in aspect of sustainability science since 1999, when the
which the complexity of the research is accommodated. National Research Council Board on Sustainability wrote:
The framework guides and shapes the integrative, synthetic
‘‘Sustainability science will therefore have to be
aspects of the research project, within which more con-
above all else integrative science—science commit-
ventional research components may well be placed. It
ted to bridging barriers that separate traditional
includes a definition of integrative research; an under-
modes of inquiry. In particular, it will need to inte-
standing and implementation of principles drawn from
grate across the discipline- based branches of relevant
complexity studies that can be used by researchers to guide
research described above—geophysical, biological,
research project development and conduct; and principles
social, and technological. The same can be said for
that encourage the emergence of new outcomes from the
sectoral approaches that continue to treat such inter-
basis of consideration of a small number of key processes.
connected human activities as energy, agriculture,
While there have been attempts to formulate integrative
habitation, and transportation separately. In addition,
research methodologies (Bammer 2005), these have typi-
sustainability science will need to integrate across
cally sought to adapt and develop existing methodological
geographic scales to eliminate the sometimes con-
approaches, such as transdisciplinary and participatory
venient but ultimately artificial distinctions between
methods and frameworks (see for example, Wuelser et al.
global and local perspectives. Finally, it will need to
2011; Jahn et al. 2012; Van De Fliert and Braun 2002). In
integrate across styles of knowledge creation, bridg-
the context of education, considerable efforts have been
ing the gulf that separates the detached practice of
made to develop effective conceptual frameworks for
scholarship from the engaged practice of engineering
guiding and developing research-led education, including
and management.’’ (National Research Council 1999,
identifying a range of key student competencies (Wiek
p 283).
et al. 2011), and developing and operationalising a
framework of requirements for higher education for sus- This description highlights the multi-faceted nature of
tainability (Brundiers and Wiek 2011). The work presented integration in sustainability science: across disciplines,
here is consistent with much of this analysis, in particular sectors, scales and between knowledge and action. There
highlighting the importance of involving students directly has been a wide range of important approaches developed
in research on complex sustainability problems, and fos- over the decade since, that present different conceptual
tering their own understandings of the role of research in frameworks for thinking about research in ways that are
transformational change through direct experience. more cognisant of complexity (both explicitly and
While all of these approaches are useful, I argue that an implicitly) and the challenges of integration. Resilience
alternative research pathway may be constructed that is thinking, socio-ecological systems research, adaptive
more fully cognisant of the complexity of the problems and management, adaptive governance, adaptive capacity,
challenges we are seeking to address in sustainability sci- integrative modelling and decision support and social
ence. I draw on the field of complexity science to propose a learning are among the most prominent, but there are many
principles-based framework approach to integrative more (the challenges characterised here are also found in
research that places the researcher within the complexity other fields, notably public health, security studies, glob-
we are engaging with, rather than viewing complexity as a alisation, development, and technology studies, but an
characteristic of the issues we are studying. This opens up examination of these is beyond the scope of this paper).
new ways of drawing together many existing principles and These concepts have shaped more holistic and systematic
practices of integrative research, offering a wide range of ways of thinking about the relationships between social and
options without being prescriptive, but still giving guidance ecological systems, and offer a range of conceptual models
as to how to design and conduct integrative research. The and frameworks. The importance of integration has been
application of this approach is illustrated with reference to reaffirmed in related fields such as global environmental
student research projects. This balance between openness, change. The major initiative Future Earth announced in
123
Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155 145
2012 emphasises the fundamental importance of integra- be visionary, creative, and rigorous in developing solutions
tion: ‘‘Doing ‘Future Earth’ research means committing to and that leaves the protected space of the classroom to
processes of co-designing research agendas and co-pro- confront the dynamics and contradictions of the real
ducing knowledge that addresses issues of global sustain- world.’’ The challenge of developing a methodology of
ability. These processes lie at the heart of the concept of integrative research is that it needs to be specific enough to
integration.’’ (Anon 2012). Yet this begs the simple but offer genuine guidance in research design and implemen-
important question of how researchers should set about (co- tation, yet broad enough to accommodate the wide range of
)designing and conducting integrative research projects and problems, perspectives and contexts that characterise
processes. sustainability.
Despite this enthusiasm for the idea of integration, the Implicit in much of this work is recognition of, and
development of integrative research practice has been efforts to address, the inherent complexity of sustainability-
somewhat more difficult. A recent bibliometric study, for related problems. Yet this issue extends well beyond sus-
example, suggests that relatively few publications in the tainability-related fields. Despite much rhetoric about
vast field of sustainability and sustainable development complexity in science, there remains surprisingly little
actually demonstrate cross-disciplinary work (Schoolman active development of complexity as a methodological
et al. 2012, see also Evely et al. 2010). Literature regarding issue that demands serious reconceptualisation of research
the integrative aspects of research has tended to focus on design or practice (Shackley et al. 1996, but see also Ison
conceptual and practical ambiguity (van Kerkhoff 2005; 2010). Even the field of interdisciplinary studies ‘‘has not
Tress et al. 2005; National Office of Atmospheric yet adequately studied how systems thinking can facilitate
Administration 2004; Stock and Burton 2011), or present interdisciplinary learning and problem solving.’’ (Mathews
insightful but largely isolated examples of integrative and Jones 2008, p. 74). Somewhat ironically, we tend to
projects and approaches (Van De Fliert and Braun 2002; retain simple, linear research processes for engaging with
Kueffer 2006; Sherren et al. 2010). Some authors have complex, non-linear subjects: identify a topic and research
sought to consolidate this disparate range of experience and question, define a methodology and method, collect and
learning under the single banner of ‘transdisciplinarity’ analyse data and draw conclusions from that. Even circular
(Lang et al. 2012; Roux et al. 2010; Hadorn et al. 2008; models of research, such as those based on a ‘learning
Russell et al. 2008) but this has tended to be too broad and cycle’ can represent fairly minor modifications to the
contested a term to gain much methodological traction standard linear model, often simply restarting the linear
(Lang et al. 2012). Other approaches that have sought to process as the project progresses. Integrative research
develop integration from the perspective of research design fundamentally rejects this linear process as a basis for
have tended to look at methods that perform particular research design and practice; we, as researchers, are
integrative tasks rather than the overarching research embedded within the systems we are examining and
design. McDonald et al. (2009) for example, document 14 seeking to understand and act within, and so must be pre-
dialogue-based methods for integrative research, such as pared to react and respond to our emergent findings in non-
Delphi technique for integrating expert judgements and linear ways. This incorporates a genuine commitment to
Most Significant Change technique for evaluating complex reflexivity, ‘‘the capacity of an individual agent [the
interventions; Liu et al. (2008) describe integrative mod- researcher] to act against influences of socialization and
elling as a tool for linking science and decision-making. social structure [including, for example, disciplines], based
Other researchers have focussed on the institutional aspects on critical self assessment.’’ (Spangenberg 2011, p 279).
of operationalising sustainability science (e.g. Blackstock Spangenberg goes on to expand the implications of a
and Carter 2007) or created frameworks for conceptualis- reflexive position for sustainability science researchers that
ing sustainability science and integrative research at mul- resonates strongly with the complexity-based approach
tiple scales (e.g. Jerneck et al. 2011; van Kerkhoff and presented here: ‘‘It questions assumptions such as the
Lebel 2006). objectivity of the observer, the value neutrality of science,
Consequently, researchers seeking to ‘do integrative the kinds of values inherited and possible alternatives, and
research’ as a fundamental aspect of sustainability science the ability to predict future events. It requires the accep-
confront a bewildering array of case studies, methods, tance of uncertainty, ignorance and the impossibility of
conceptual frameworks, and diverse interpretations. In knowing all relevant facts about evolving systems, and that
terms of teaching, there is little clear guidance for research the existence of emergent system properties makes micro-
design, methodology and practice at the project scale. This level explanations of macro-level system behaviour
was examined recently where Wiek et al. (2012, p 1) impossible…’’ (op cit.). The implications of a reflexive and
argued that sustainability science ‘‘requires a very different critical approach is emerging as an important theme in
type of research and education … that enables students to sustainability science (Jerneck et al. 2011).
123
146 Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155
In sum then, here we are seeking to build a methodology complexity is brought into, or remains contextual to, the
for integrative research that takes complexity theory as its research project is a judgement of boundaries that are at
starting point. This inevitably draws from and overlaps once practical (in terms of resources available to conduct
with established and emerging themes in sustainability the research), strategic (in terms of whose interests can or
science literature, but seeks to reconfigure those in a way must be met), and intellectual (in terms of which questions
that can specifically address project scale research design. are feasible to address given what we know) (Leach et al.
It is not, and should not be regarded as, a panacea for 2010). Regardless, complexity inevitably frames the inte-
solving complex and often intractable problems (Cartledge grative research design, a key distinction from conven-
et al. 2009); nor does it engage in the kind of ‘‘methodo- tional research approaches that seek to abstract the research
logizing’’ referred to by Shackley et al. (1996), who write from real-world complexity. Importantly, this positions the
that ‘‘The ever-present danger is that the methodologizing researcher as a participant within that complexity rather
tendency will merely offer the prospect to existing insti- than a separate observer of it.
tutional forms of adapting to/coping with complexity, The second part of the definition, with an action imper-
without any serious questioning of their own practices, or ative, emphasises that integrative research needs to be
of the changing world in which they are operating.’’ actively concerned with processes of change towards sus-
(Shackley et al. 1996, p 217). Rather, it offers guidance tainability. This corresponds to Wiek et al.’s (2012) dif-
that draws on complexity theory to create a dynamic and ferentiation between ‘‘transformational’’ sustainability
reflexive framework within which research practices can research and ‘‘descriptive/analytical’’—the definition of
be questioned and reconstructed, and the wide range of integrative research here deliberately excludes research that
conceptual and practical ideas relevant to integrative is concerned primarily with the descriptive/analytical task
research can be implemented. of increasing our understanding of sustainability-related
issues or problems, but is not seeking to see that under-
standing implemented. Rather it aims to support the
Defining integrative research for sustainability development of research projects that seek to contribute to
transformation in identified ecological, social, political,
There are many different interpretations and definitions for institutional or economic arenas, and hence draw together
integration in research (Stock and Burton 2011), many of biophysical and social, economic, political or organisational
which are vague and descriptive, rather than specific defi- concerns. This reflects the idea of sustainability science as
nitions (van Kerkhoff 2005). For the purposes of advancing being committed to action and change noted earlier, and
integrative research as a methodological concept, a degree corresponds to the ‘‘need for action’’ starting point identi-
of specificity is required—without a functional definition it fied by Stark and Mandl (2007, p 251) in the context of
is impossible to judge whether the research design or integrating basic and applied research for education.
outcomes were successful as integrative research. The Other elements could have been included in the definition
definition that I worked with in developing this integrative of integrative research for sustainability. Other authors
research approach attempted to capture those aspects that emphasise, for example, issues of uncertainty, scale, and
were absolutely fundamental to sustainability science, and dynamics as fundamental to sustainability research (Leach
that highlighted what was different about integrative et al. 2010). It could be argued that complexity implies each of
research. For the purposes of this approach, integrative these other dimensions, in that complex problems inevitably
research for sustainability is: invoke uncertainty, are dynamic and need to be considered
across scales. However, the value of defining integrative
Research in the context of complexity, with an action
research in terms of complexity in general is that it allows for
imperative
various aspects of complexity to be explored or emphasised
The idea of the context of complexity acknowledges that depending on the ways in which researchers and collaborators
not all sustainability-related research needs to directly be seek to frame their research questions and problems.
addressing complexity or complex systems as their subject Similarly, others may prefer more politically charged
matter (although many may); however, even the simplest terms such as ‘empowerment’ or ‘justice’ over the more
research questions and projects take place within complex neutral action imperative (see, for example, Agyeman and
socio-ecological contexts. From this perspective, integra- Evans 2004). Again, however, the aim here was to specify
tive research rejects the notion that complex problems can a broad mandate, that could include empowerment but did
be addressed by artificially simplifying the research not exclude the many sustainability-related problems that
domain and examining its component parts, and instead may not adopt an empowerment mandate or stance. This
retains a focus on ‘‘relevant and authentic problems’’ (Stark clearly poses some questions in terms of where integrative
and Mandl 2007, p 251). The extent to which this research, as conceptualised here, stands in relation to the
123
Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155 147
fundamental concept of social justice, which will be tou- and fostering diversity. These do not draw specific refer-
ched on in relation to the principles presented below. ence to other complex systems concepts, such as emer-
gence, self-organisation and self-similarity across scales
that are listed in other writings (for example, Merali and
Incorporating complexity Allen 2011) as relevant metaphors for organisational
change, but can instead be understood as the strategies that
Complexity is central to sustainability science, and we can deliberately foster key change trajectories such as
need to take care to specify the way that we are incorpo- emergence and adaptation. This is in recognition of the
rating complexity in this approach. Complexity has a long limitations of drawing analogies too strongly between
and illustrative history in understanding natural and social complex biophysical systems and complex social systems.
sciences, and socio-ecological systems were among the Although writing from the domain of health research, the
first to be described in the language of complexity theory. issues and context are broadly congruent with the socio-
Our approach here, however, is not concerned with the ecological dynamics we confront in sustainability science.
description of complex systems as subject matter; rather, it
is to place research (and researchers) inside those complex Minimal specifications
systems, and draw on relevant complexity theories to
actively engage with system dynamics and change (for Complexity theorists have observed that innovation arises
similar work in the context of interdisciplinary research, from actors having a large range of choice in actions, cir-
see Robinson 2008). We seek to use the ideas of com- cumscribed by a small number of rules or specifications.
plexity to shape our actions as researchers, not as a theo- This runs counter to most research approaches today,
retical lens through which to gather and interpret data. which require as much of a project as possible to be agreed
There are few research fields that have explored how and laid out in detail before the project is started, typically
complexity theory might apply to research practice, beyond before it is even funded. Logframe-based project design
rather vague notions of inter- or transdisciplinary faculty and management with detailed plans, specified goals, sub-
arrangements through which new ideas may emerge ser- goals, activities and milestones is the mainstay of research
endipitously. Other areas interested in applications of practice, and is a far cry from an approach that offers
integrative research have drawn on complexity as a meth- minimal specifications, and then allows participants to
odological context. In the context of education research, range freely. Minimal specifications does not mean carte
Stark and Mandl (2007) argue that choice of research blanche however—such specifications need to set bound-
methods and tools, for example, need to be guided by a aries, allow actors to allocate resources, give direction as to
complexity-based ‘‘meta-theoretical orientation [that] cor- the overarching goals in place, and give participants per-
responds more with the complex goal structure of inte- mission to step beyond their usual roles or practices. Some
grative research than more unified theoretical and suggestions for relevant minimal specifications will be
methodical positions.’’ presented below.
Organisational management theory offers useful guid-
ance to developing integrative research frameworks that Whole system performance and boundary setting
incorporate complexity theory into their design and prac-
tice, in order to place researchers within that complexity. As a systems-based approach, complexity theory empha-
Cutting edge organisations and organisational studies have sises the importance of considering performance in terms
sought to identify how best to structure work practices in of the whole system, rather than its component parts. A key
order to foster innovative solutions to complex tasks and task is to define the system under investigation, and care-
dynamic contexts; as this is essentially the same goal that fully consider the gains and losses, inclusions and exclu-
we are seeking in integrative research, the ideas promul- sions that are made in this boundary-setting work. Ulrich
gated in this context shape the ‘‘meta-theoretical orienta- and Reynolds (2010) extensively discuss the importance of
tion’’ taken here. While there is a wide-ranging literature in being aware of power relations that are exerted in this
this area (for a recent overview, see Allen et al. 2011), this decision-making process, and offer a suite of heuristics, or
approach draws particularly on the work of Plsek and key questions that can guide a critical approach to deciding
Wilson (2001) writing from the domain of health. Plsek where the boundaries of our systems lie, and the implica-
and Wilson usefully distil from the broad range of organ- tions of such choices. Cartledge et al. (2009) caution that
isational complexity concepts and models five key strate- although negotiating clear boundary conditions and moni-
gies that can be implemented in a research context: toring them are helpful for integrative research, they cannot
minimal specifications; whole system performance; gen- guarantee innovation and change due to political and social
erative relationships; working with attractors for change; lock-downs. Other aspects of whole system performance
123
148 Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155
may be conceptual rather than political, for example an devised. Almost inevitably, however, when one barrier is
integrative research project to conserve biodiversity that removed, another springs up in its place, and one person’s
focusses on ecosystem health rather than the protection of a ‘solution’ creates another’s ‘problem’. Under complexity
small number of identified species, represents a shift to a theory, however, resources are directed towards under-
more complex, integrative goal. standing why people may choose to act differently; what
may attract them towards a particular goal or desired
Generative relationships change, rather than what is preventing them. This aspect of
complexity theory implies the need for integrative research
Generative relationships emphasise the interactive nature to define goals that focus on the positive aspects of change.
of complexity-based research, where new ideas, processes The field of appreciative inquiry offers some guidance to
and practices emerge (are generated from) relationships this aspect of integrative research (Reed 2007; Cooperrider
amongst key actors. This casts the role of the research as and Whitney 2005). As Watkins and Mohr (2001) write:
creating the spaces in which these generative relationships ‘‘…Appreciative Inquiry focuses on the generative and
can take place and flourish, convening key actors and life-giving forces in the system, the things we want to
structuring interactions in such a way that participants are increase.’’ (p 14). This harnesses the creative ability of
able to interact in positive and productive ways. Partici- people in their own contexts to find innovative ways of
patory research approaches have a long history of sup- making those changes, once the change becomes attractive
porting the development of generative relationships, but are and sought after.
not the only option. More broadly, Allenby and Sarewitz
(2011) describe the value of ‘‘productive conflict’’ as cru- Fostering variation and difference
cial to developing an anticipatory, rather than reactive,
stance towards knowledge creation. This implies Science, historically, has tended to favour homogeneity
researchers deliberately opening up thinking and planning over heterogeneity, the single ‘silver bullet’ solution to a
for research to non-researchers, creating spaces for problem rather than many solutions. Complexity theory
(bounded) conflict to take place. Many participatory counteracts this view, regarding variation and difference as
research methods have been developed for this purpose, positive and desirable. In complex systems, predictability
including the use of models (Jones et al. 2009) and game is limited, so there will always be unexpected outcomes
simulations (Cleland et al. 2012) to foster discussions about from any intervention or change. Having multiple strate-
the allocation of resources or environmental stresses that gies or plans or responses in place allows for more flexi-
may generate new ideas and possibilities that creatively bility in the system to react and adapt to emerging or
capitalise on this new opportunity. Done well, under unpredicted outcomes.
favourable circumstances, this allows new relationships As indicated, these features of complexity are apparent
and pathways to emerge that could not be predicted from across a range of research fields and approaches. The ref-
the individuals alone. erences presented both above and in the next sections
Generative relationships can be harnessed early in should be regarded as indicative, not exhaustive. The point
integrative research design through processes of collabo- of this approach is to bring them together into a single
rative problem framing. For example, Lang et al. (2012), framework that can be used to determine appropriate
Leach et al. (2010), and Bardwell (1991) emphasise the strategies and methods for designing and embarking on an
importance of problem framing. Different affected or integrative research project.
involved groups will often frame a problem differently,
reflecting their interests, context and experience. Working
with stakeholders to collaboratively define the boundaries Minimal specifications: a principles-based approach
of the system is itself an important starting point for
developing generative relationships. As noted earlier, the approach presented here seeks to
develop a productive space between dominant, detailed
Working with attractors for change rather than battling plan research designs and open approaches that resist any
resistance prescription. In keeping with the implications of com-
plexity in management theory, the first task, then, is to
In many instances, when confronted with complexity, we develop the ‘‘minimal specifications’’. The specifications in
spend considerable intellectual and practical resources this approach draw from a range of key literatures. These
aiming to understand why things do not work out the way include participatory research, resilience thinking and
we hoped. Barriers, gaps, roadblocks, shortcomings of all adaptive management, transdisciplinarity and social learn-
kinds are targeted, and solutions to ‘fix’ those problems are ing, but more broadly reflect common themes that are
123
Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155 149
widely referred to throughout the range of literatures that and its outcomes. From a complexity perspective, in the
engage with the complexity and integrated nature of sus- absence of certainty and predictability, relationships give
tainability-related challenges. They are presented here as an integrative research approach strength and flexibility
four principles of integrative research: and create opportunities for generative relationships to
form. Given the ‘‘action imperative’’ aspect of our defini-
1. Embrace uncertainty
tion of integrative research, it makes sense for the stake-
2. Engage stakeholders
holders to be those who can take action in relation to the
3. Be transdisciplinary
research project; although we also need to consider those
4. Have a learning orientation
not empowered to act who are also affected by the pro-
The purpose of these principles is not to act as a formula cesses under consideration. This principle addresses the
to be followed, but rather to pose a series of questions that second aspect of complex systems noted above, that of
research designers can ask in developing an integrative whole system performance. One of the key drivers for
research project. These are each discussed below. engaging stakeholders is to develop a robust understanding
of what the ‘whole system’ actually is, to collaboratively
How does my project embrace uncertainty? determine what may constitute ‘performance’, and to set
functional boundaries around the area of study and the
Uncertainty is an inherent aspect of research into complex research questions and action concerns.
systems; these systems are, by definition, dynamic and Building relationships and sharing power across stake-
changing and continually capable of surprise (see, for holders, however, is often not easy although fundamental
example, Kasperson 2008; Kasperson and Kasperson to both the functionality of any actions that may emerge
2005). The uncertainty and unpredictability of change in from the research as well as opportunities to incorporate
complex environments is not regarded here as something to issues of social justice. In relation to integrative research
be reduced or minimised; it is a dimension of research to be design, in simpler cases a small number of key stakeholders
prepared for—expect the unexpected. In terms of research may be involved in establishing the initial research ques-
design, this means building in regular points of review and tions, and consulted as the study progresses. In more
reflection, not simply at the end of the study (for ‘next complex cases, resources may need to be shared more
time’) but at defined points along the way. It also requires fully, with the research becoming a less-prominent (but still
active surveillance; structures that can monitor relevant important) adjunct to a program of action and social jus-
processes on a more continual basis. These can be regarded tice. In either case and at any point along the spectrum
as ‘‘scheduled stops’’ along the research project, for eval- between them, the research needs to be designed to
uating progress, direction, change and response in relation incorporate qualitative and substantive input from stake-
to specified indicators; or be a more fluid and continuous holders as an integral part of the research process.
approach to monitoring. What these relevant processes will
be project-dependent, and themselves subject to review, Is my project transdisciplinary? In what way(s)?
but are important to negotiate and begin from the start.
‘‘Transdisciplinarity’’ covers a wide-ranging academic
How does my project engage stakeholders? Who? discourse that cannot be covered here (for a recent over-
Are these processes or strategies sufficient? view and perspective see Jahn et al. 2012). Here I draw on
Wickson et al. (2006), who highlight three defining char-
Working with stakeholders as active participants in acteristics of transdisciplinarity as problem focus, evolving
research projects is commonplace (Talwar et al. 2011), and methodology and collaboration. While collaboration over-
is clearly supported by considerations of complexity. Al- laps substantially with stakeholder engagement, the prob-
lenby and Sarewitz (2011) state this clearly: ‘‘Pluralism is lem focus and evolving methodology dimensions relate to
smarter than expertise’’ (p 163). Blackstock et al. (2007) other aspects of research practice. Sustainability science
propose that stakeholders are typically involved in sus- starts with a problem focus that eschews disciplinary per-
tainability science for normative (facilitating social learn- spectives. It demands taking an emergent approach to
ing, democratising processes), substantive (understanding drawing in the research-based inputs and concepts that are
multiple perspectives) and instrumental (improving buy-in needed as a project unfolds and combining them with
and defusing conflict) reasons. We are not, however, experiences, insights and knowledge of stakeholders. This
advocating for ‘‘participatory’’ research in the sense that is requires an academic perspective that transcends disci-
so often given lip service in projects of all kinds, but for a plinary pre-conceptions, but is capable of understanding
commitment to building relationships with people beyond and synthesising across a range of disciplinary and non-
the research project team who have a stake in the project disciplinary ideas and theories. These kinds of research
123
150 Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155
processes have been developed under the concept of learning to take place will be a highly appropriate strategy
transdisciplinarity. in many cases, it is not proposed here as the only way in
A key element of the principle to ‘be transdisciplinary’ which learning can be framed or manifested in integrative
also relates to the important point of maintaining a con- research.
nection to ‘‘scientific practice’’ within any integrative
project, as highlighted by Lang et al. (2012). It can be easy
for theoretical development and other important aspects of The integrative research framework
academic work, such as rigour, transparency, peer review
and dissemination to academic audiences to slip from view Taken together, the integrative research principles, whole
in projects that are embedded in action-oriented contexts. system performance and boundary setting, and collabora-
The transdisciplinarity principle serves as a reminder to tive problem framing create a framework for complexity-
ensure that research continues to develop an academic based integrative research, as shown in Fig. 1. These four
body of work and thought that abstracts from the day-to- principles form the mainstay of the ‘minimal specifications’
day project and contributes to our theoretical and meth- indicated by complexity theory. While there are overlaps
odological understandings of integrative research and its among them, each has its own distinctive characteristics as
application to important socio-ecological challenges. well; for example, while engaging stakeholders and having
a learning orientation overlap in the sense that part of the
Does my project demonstrate a learning orientation? point of engaging stakeholders is to facilitate mutual
Are we (researchers) engaging in structured learning learning, learning is also drawn from the emerging research
processes? How? findings (not implied by stakeholder engagement), and
stakeholder engagement is also for the purposes of
The final principle reflects and reinforces the previous empowerment, action and implementation (not implied by
three, to reiterate that the objective of integrative research the learning orientation). Similarly, I do not argue that these
is to engage in ongoing learning and action, rather than to principles are new in terms of research practice; indeed,
identify a prescriptive solution (tool, method, action) to a each of the elements in the framework have long and
complex problem—or at least be alert to any solutions established histories in sustainability research, as briefly
being inevitably partial, provisional, and likely to generate indicated here. Taken separately, they incorporate insights
new problems. It draws particularly upon the concept of from diverse fields, theories and practices. Yet as a set, they
social learning in the context of sustainability ‘‘the col- allow for any of these to be used, but are not wedded to
lective action and reflection that occurs amongst different them. The role of the principles is to allow researchers to
individuals and groups as they work to improve the man- develop an integrative research design, or framework, for
agement of human and environment interrelations’’ (Keen their project that reflects these ideas in the ways that are best
et al. 2005, p 4; see also Loorbach 2010). While learning- suited to the questions at hand, and can be developed col-
based approaches often imply a circular or spiral research laboratively and revised flexibly as the project progresses.
design, reminiscent of an adult learning cycle (Kolb 1984)
or action research processes (Reason and Bradbury 2008),
they may also be embodied as much in the language and
conduct of the research (critical, reflexive) as in the
structural design, as indicated by the second question. The
key here is to address another aspect of complex systems,
that of developing generative relationships. Generative
relationships that create innovation and new approaches
need not take place within the confines of a particular order
of events laid out in a research plan, and are as likely to
emerge through spontaneous or serendipitous contact as
through planned interactions. In other words, the principle
of learning orientation falls short of prescribing an action
research structure, taking a more flexible stance of learning
being a way of thinking about and articulating the role of
research.
This opens up the possibilities for engaging with
stakeholders and embracing uncertainty, and while circu-
larities in process that enable action research and social Fig. 1 Structure of the integrative research framework
123
Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155 151
As a result the researchers and their collaborators can wetlands, with opportunities for the students’ research to
choose how best to incorporate the principles, which con- contribute to that program. They identified and contacted
cepts, methods, processes and structures will best facilitate relevant government staff involved in the creation of these
their implementation in their research project, and to find wetlands, and through conversation with them developed a
the most appropriate balance between them for the action provisional research question (stakeholder engagement,
task at hand. embracing uncertainty) to focus on the social benefits of
Similarly, the principles allow for a wide range of such projects, given that the ecological benefits were rea-
methods to be employed in the course of a research project. sonably well-established but the social impacts were not
These may be quite conventional (e.g. qualitative inter- (learning orientation). This interaction and openness to
views, ecological data collection and analysis) or be collaborative problem-framing with stakeholders led to a
designed to be ‘integrative’ (e.g. multi-objective decision research question that was relevant to the future program of
support systems). However, the specific research methods work, reflecting the generative dimensions of this approach.
need to be complemented by other structures and pro- The students then sought and gained permission from a local
cesses, such as stakeholder committees, working groups, community group involved with the wetland to participate
outreach to affected communities and ongoing revision and with the community in an upcoming planting day (stake-
reflection that do not traditionally fall under the category of holder engagement), in order to observe the community
‘research methods’, but are nonetheless crucial for an dynamics, and conduct a small number of semi-structured
integrative approach to successfully meet its principles. interviews. In the course of these interviews they invited
Formally incorporating these into the research design and several participants to a second interview, where participants
framework integrates the research into the social and were asked to take photos in the meantime of the things that
political processes that an integrative study sits within. were meaningful to them about the wetlands (being trans-
disciplinary). In the interim they discussed their preliminary
findings with their government stakeholder, and revised their
Examples research question to better reflect the emerging themes and
concepts as well as a better understanding of the limitations
The following examples are drawn from students’ work in of the project given time and resources available (embracing
their final semester projects. The intention here is not to uncertainty, learning orientation). They conducted the sec-
provide a full and complete analysis of these projects, ond round of data collection using focus groups to consoli-
which is beyond the scope of this paper (see Wiek et al. date their understandings from the first round of interviews
2012 for a more comprehensive treatment of this issue), but and again reflected on their research questions. Through this
to illustrate the application of the integrative research they identified social benefits that were arising from the
framework in real-world applications. The students were project, and avenues for further strengthening these benefits
tasked with identifying an issue and defining research in future projects, shared with the community group and with
questions, designing a research project using the integrative the government project officers (learning orientation,
principles, and working in teams to conduct the research stakeholder engagement). Throughout the project the stu-
over the course of the semester (for similar approaches see dents met regularly (at least weekly in class, but also outside
Brundiers and Wiek 2011; Rowe 2007; Stauffacher et al. class times) to debrief on their work, consider new learning
2006). I have drawn two examples of the frameworks that was arising, revisit their research questions and ongoing
developed by students to highlight the variety and the plan, and adjust accordingly. Their research framework is
strength of applying this approach to integrative research, illustrated in Fig. 2.
and have indicated in the cases where the different prin- This project demonstrated a number of strengths, par-
ciples were applied. Students were encouraged to draw ticularly a strong commitment to engaging with, and
their integrative research frameworks in a visual format, an learning from both those in power (government officials)
adaptation of which is included in the diagrams. and those affected by the development (the community
group). The stakeholder engagement with the government
Urban wetlands study officials facilitated both effective boundary setting through
collaboratively framing the research question, generating
In this project, a team of four students developed and new opportunities for the students and the government
undertook a project to examine the impacts of a recently representatives to investigate and learn. Similarly, the
completed urban wetland construction project in a local community members had the opportunity to contribute
suburb. This was part of an ongoing program of urban wet- their experiences to future planning in a structured way,
land construction—the ‘action imperative’ being the gov- that may not otherwise have been sought. Although limited
ernment’s existing commitment to continuing to build urban in scope, within the resources available they were able to
123
152 Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155
Fig. 2 Urban wetlands student project research framework Fig. 3 Ecological footprint student project research framework
develop good relationships and identify relevant issues that uncertainty, transdisciplinarity). Through this process they
were deemed useful by government stakeholders in the identified those areas of ecological impact that were most
development of further wetlands in the area. In this sense amenable to change, and reported those findings back to
the researchers were able to place themselves within the the campus managers (stakeholder engagement, learning
complexity of the socio-ecological system they were orientation). They also used class time to reflect on pro-
examining, and play a key role in articulating an aspect of gress and ongoing learning, to reassess their strategies and
wetland development that was relevant to, and shared with, revisit their research questions and approaches, although
decision-makers for future action. reliance on existing data for the quantitative aspect of the
study meant they had less flexibility in this area.
Campus ecological footprint study The strengths of this project lay in a useful combination
of methods that explicitly addressed some of the key inte-
In this study the students worked together to identify the grative research principles. Ecological footprints repre-
‘best bets’ for reducing their campus’ ecological footprint sented the quantitative dimensions of environmental impact
(Fig. 3). The ‘action imperative’ was framed by the cam- that were relevant to stakeholders; futures techniques
pus’ ongoing commitment to reduce its ecological impact allowed student participants to consider possible actions
across the university’s range of activities and to demon- whilst taking into account uncertainty; and focus group
strate leadership in the pursuit of sustainability. The student dialogue around those scenarios developed a qualitative
work involved collecting and synthesising relevant quan- basis from which to reinterpret the quantitative ecological
titative data regarding the inputs and outputs of the cam- footprint, i.e. a transdisciplinary combination of methods.
pus, identified through consultation with the relevant In contrast, the previous study had used conventional
campus management employees (stakeholder engage- methods of interviews and focus groups, crafting their
ment). This data was then used as a basis for a participatory project so that uncertainty was incorporated in the overall
futures scenarios exercises (embracing uncertainty, trans- research design, rather than through specific techniques.
disciplinarity) and focus group dialogue with students, to
generate ideas for how these environmental impacts might
be addressed (stakeholder engagement) with a particular Discussion
focus on the feasibility of addressing different sources of
impact. The futures thinking techniques, combined with the The student projects presented above indicate both the
ecological footprint results and following dialogue, artic- efficacy and the limitations of the integrative research
ulated the possible futures for the campus, drawing on framework. In a positive sense, the principles of the inte-
both the quantitative and qualitative data (embracing grative research framework served to orient the students
123
Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155 153
towards asking questions that went beyond ‘regular’ dominant research approach of fragmentation, between
research design questions. They prioritised consideration of disciplines, between researchers and practitioners, and
how the research may actually contribute to change, between research-based knowledge and action. The prin-
through engaging with existing commitments and ‘change ciples-based approach presented here, coupled with the
agents’; they developed and applied research techniques preliminary tasks of problem framing and boundary setting,
and tools that worked effectively with stakeholders who offer a foundation from which we can design research that
did not have the power to effect change; they reflected is flexible and dynamic, yet structured in the sense that
upon the ongoing research process and adapted their pro- there are guiding goals and practices to give shape and
jects as new insights emerged; and they considered direction to the research as it unfolds. It also offers a basis
uncertainty in their research contexts and incorporated from which students and researchers alike can engage with
processes for addressing it. While each of these examples the vast array of literature across this domain. Placing this
are small-scale and relatively simple (reflecting their ori- literature in the context of complexity science draws
gins in undergraduate research projects) they do demon- functional connections across these fields, that researchers
strate that projects do not need to be complex in their can use to consider more fully why these approaches are
design and scale to be able to adopt an integrative stance needed, and how they can be brought together in research
that reflects the principles and processes outlined here. design and practice. This article has focused on the appli-
In terms of limitations, they also illustrated the challenges cation of this approach in an educational context. Future
of effective research in complex arenas. Many of these work could explore the usefulness of this approach as an
challenges are well known and extensively discussed else- analytical or evaluative framework, or for larger-scale
where (see, for example, Lang et al. 2012; Talwar et al. 2011; sustainability science project design and development.
van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006). This framework certainly While it is not proposed as a panacea for the resolution of
does not eliminate the difficulties associated with varying complex sustainability problems, it allows us as sustain-
timelines, lack of resources, communication across disci- ability science researchers to engage with the complexity
plines or sectors, power disparities, institutional barriers to of the issues we are concerned with, rather than just
change or the many other factors that may fall between observing that complexity, and to incorporate the many
research and outcomes. These were all experienced to some facets of integration presented in the original proposition of
degree by the students. It is arguable (probably doubtful) sustainability science. In doing so, the framework approach
whether either of these projects generated results ‘‘sufficient presented here can draw on and complement other research
for significantly contributing to solving the sustainability approaches, conceptual frameworks and methods, yet also
problem’’ (Wiek et al. 2012) as a more rigorous analysis gives researchers permission to be creative and active in
would examine. Yet from the perspective of teaching, the their pursuit of sustainability science.
relevant outcomes are also in students’ capacities to identify
the characteristics their research designs and processes
should demonstrate—it is as much about asking questions
that can engage with the complexity of socio-ecological References
dynamics and contribute to broader action processes as it is
about ‘finding a solution’, and experiencing these challenges Agyeman J, Evans B (2004) ‘Just sustainability’: the emerging
discourse of environmental justice in Britain? Geogr J
of effective sustainability science first-hand.
170:155–164
In this sense, the integrative research framework is as Allen P, Maguire S, McKelvey B (eds) (2011) The SAGE handbook
much about processes and practices of designing and of complexity and management. Sage, London
engaging in research as it is about creating a readily Allenby BR, Sarewitz DR (2011) The techno-human condition. MIT
Press, Cambridge
identifiable integrative ‘output’. However, it did assist
Anon (2012) Co-designing knowledge: a common understanding of
students to develop and apply the underlying thinking of integrated global change research. Online report http://www.
how to approach complex problems in potentially trans- nkgcf.org/files/pdf/4%20pages%20Integration%20WS%20%20%
formational ways, making the connections between aspi- 28web%29.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2012
Bammer G (2005) Integration and implementation sciences: building
rations towards transformational sustainability science and
a new specialization. Ecol Soc 20:6
research design and practice. Bardwell LV (1991) Problem-framing: a perspective on environmen-
tal problem-solving. Environ Manage 15:603–612
Blackstock KL, Carter CE (2007) Operationalising sustainability
science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot
Conclusions
projects. Geogr J 173(4):343–357
Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ et al (2007) Developing and applying a
Integrative research to date has typically been used as a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability.
general description for research that seeks to counter the Ecol Econ 60(4):726–742
123
154 Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155
Brundiers K, Wiek A (2011) Educating students in real-world National Research Council (1999) Our common journey: a transition
sustainability research—vision and implementation. Innov toward sustainability. The National Academies Press, Washing-
Higher Educ 36(2):107–124 ton, DC
Cartledge K, Dürrwächter C, Jimenez VH, Winder NP (2009) Making Plsek PE, Wilson T (2001) Complexity science: complexity, leader-
sure you solve the right problem. Ecol Soc 14:r3 ship, and management in healthcare organisations. Br Med J
Cleland D, Dray A, Perez P, Cruz-Trinidad A, Geronimo R (2012) 323:746–749
Simulating the dynamics of subsistence fishing communities: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) (2008) The SAGE handbook of action
REEFGAME as a learning and data-gathering computer-assisted research: participative inquiry and practice. SAGE, London
role-play game. Simul Gaming 43:102–117 Reed J (2007) Appreciative inquiry: research for change. SAGE,
Cooperrider DL, Whitney DK (2005) Appreciative inquiry: a positive Thousand Oaks
revolution in change. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco Robinson J (2008) Being undisciplined: transgressions and intersec-
Evely AC, Fazey I, Lambin X, Lambert E, Allen S, Pinard M (2010) tions in academia and beyond. Futures 40:70–86
Defining and evaluating the impact of cross-disciplinary con- Roux DJ, Stirzaker RJ, Breen CM, Lefroy EC, Cresswell HP (2010)
servation research. Environ Conserv 37:442–450 Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of
Hadorn GH, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher- transdisciplinary research programs. Environ Sci Policy
Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) (2008) 13:733–741
Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, London Rowe D (2007) Education for a sustainable future. Science 317:
Ison RL (2010) Systems practice: how to act in a climate change 323–324
world. Springer/Open University, London Russell AW, Wickson F, Carew AL (2008) Transdisciplinarity:
Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between context, contradictions and capacity. Futures 40:460–472
mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10 Schoolman ED, Guest JS, Bush KF, Bell AR (2012) How interdis-
Jerneck A, Olsson L et al (2011) Structuring sustainability science. ciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an
Sustain Sci 6(1):69–82 emerging scientific field. Sustain Sci 7:67–80
Jones NA, Perez P, Measham TG, Kelly GJ, D’Aquino P, Daniell KA, Shackley S, Wynne B, Waterton C (1996) Imagine complexity: the
Dray A, Ferrand N (2009) Evaluating participatory modeling: past, present and future potential of complex thinking. Futures
developing a framework for cross-case analysis. Environ Man- 28:201–225
age 44:1180–1195 Sherren K, Fischer J, Clayton H, Schirmer J, Dovers S (2010)
Kasperson RE (2008) Coping with deep uncertainty: challenges for Integration by case, place and process: transdisciplinary research
environmental assessment and decision-making uncertainty and for sustainable grazing in the Lachlan River catchment, Austra-
risk. In: Bammer G, Smithson M (eds) Multidisciplinary lia. Landsc Ecol 25:1219–1230
perspectives. Earthscan, London, pp 356–367 Spangenberg JH (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis
Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE (2005) The social contours of risk. and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287
Earthscan, London Stark R, Mandl H (2007) Bridging the gap between basic and applied
Keen M, Brown VA et al (2005) Social learning in environmental research by an integrative research approach. Educ Res Eval
management : towards a sustainable future. Earthscan, London 13:249–261
Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of Stauffacher M, Walter A, Lang D, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2006)
learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs Learning to research environmentalproblems from a functional
Kueffer C (2006) Integrative ecological research: case-specific socio-cultural constructivism perspective: the transdisciplinary
validation of ecological knowledge for environmental problem case studyapproach. Int J Sustain Higher Education 7:252–275
solving. GAIA 15:115–120 Stock P, Burton RJF (2011) Defining terms for integrated (multi-
Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, inter-trans-disciplinary) sustainability research. Sustainability
Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in 3:1090–1113
sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Talwar S, Wiek A et al (2011) User engagement in sustainability
Sustain Sci 7(Suppl 1):25–43 research. Sci Public Policy 38(5):379–390
Leach M, Scoones I, Stirling A (2010) Dynamic sustainabilities: Tress B, Tress G, Fry G (2005) Researchers’ experiences, positive
technology, environment, social justice. Earthscan, London and negative, in integrative landscape projects. Environ Manage
Liu Y, Gupta H, Springer E, Wagener T (2008) Linking science with 36:792–807
environmental decision making: experiences from an integrated Ulrich W, Reynolds M (2010) Critical systems heuristics. In:
modeling approach to supporting sustainable water resources Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) Systems approaches to managing
management. Environ Model Softw 23:846–858 change: a practical guide. Springer, London, pp 243–292
Loorbach D (2010) Transition management for sustainable develop- van de Fliert E, Braun AR (2002) Conceptualizing integrative, farmer
ment: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. participatory research for sustainable agriculture: from opportu-
Governance 23(1):161–183 nities to impact. Agric Hum Values 19:25–38
Mathews LG, Jones A (2008) Using systems thinking to improve van Kerkhoff L (2005) Integrated research: concepts of connection in
interdisciplinary learning outcomes: reflections on a pilot study environmental science and policy. Environ Sci Policy 8:452–463
in land economics. Issues Integr Stud 26:73–104 van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for
McDonald D, Bammer G, Deane P (2009) Research integration using sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477
dialogue methods. ANU E-press, Canberra Watkins JM, Mohr BJ (2001) Appreciative inquiry: change at the
Merali Y, Allen P (2011) Complexity and systems thinking. In: Allen speed of imagination. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, San Francisco
P, Maguire S, McKelvey B (eds) The SAGE handbook of Wickson F, Carew AL, Russell AW (2006) Transdisciplinary research:
complexity and management. SAGE, London, pp 31–52 characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures 38:1046–1059
National Office of Atmospheric Administration (2004) ICM basics: Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in
what does ‘integrated’ mean? Online source: http://icm.noaa. sustainability—a reference framework for academic program
gov/story/icm_inte.html [Accessed 12 June 2012] development. Sustain Sci 6(2):203–218
123
Sustain Sci (2014) 9:143–155 155
Wiek A, Farioli F, Fukushi K, Yarime M (2012a) Sustainability Wuelser G, Pohl C, Hadorn GH (2011) Structuring complexity for
science: bridging the gap between science and society. Sustain tailoring research contributions to sustainable development: a
Sci 7:1–4 framework. Sustain Sci 7:81–93
Wiek A, Ness B et al (2012b) From complex systems analysis to
transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainabil-
ity science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl. 1):5–24
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.