Topic 2: What is the role of practice in sustainability science, as these terms are understood in the reader?

What is the current role of practice in sustainability science and what ought the role be?  The reading describes the dichotomy between "detached scholarship" and "engaged practice" (Stokes framework) and suggests that at least in part it is the project of sustainability science to "span not only disciplines but barriers separating scholars from practitioners." 

Consider the application of sustainable development in different contexts and scales.  Marshall suggests that sustainability issues often fall into a "policy void" because they occur over a much longer temporal scale than a typical election cycle and across a much larger spatial scale than a national or state boundary.  He claims that most policy-making fails to achieve the goal of the first level of his hierarchy (actions that if continued... endanger human survival).  The Grossman article and the Kuznets curve put policy-making in a more positive light, suggesting that citizens of the developed world are successful in demanding cleaner environments. 

Could boundary spanning institutions, which work between knowledge and action, foster the engaged practice of sustainability science?  

What is the role of the various practitioners, operating with different functions, levels and places (individuals, nations or industries) within sustainability science?

It is intuitive that practice is an important component in sustainable development because practitioners may transfer the knowledge of scholarship into policies for actions. In comparison, it may be less intuitive that practice is also critically important for sustainability science. Clearly, challenges and issues we face for a sustainable development are diverse. However, it is difficult (if possible at all) to provide a solution for a single such challenge/issue. This is at least in part due to complexity of human-environment systems, including cross-spatial/temporal scale dynamics Beth mentioned above. As such, knowledge and solutions for a sustainable development may vary across different time and under different circumstances. We certainly do not expect existing knowledge can solve everything. Very often, our practice of existing knowledge triggers new challenges. By solving these new challenges, practice contributes substantially to the advancement of the sustainability science.

Previously Beth Mercer-Taylor wrote:

What is the current role of practice in sustainability science and what ought the role be?  The reading describes the dichotomy between "detached scholarship" and "engaged practice" (Stokes framework) and suggests that at least in part it is the project of sustainability science to "span not only disciplines but barriers separating scholars from practitioners." 

Consider the application of sustainable development in different contexts and scales.  Marshall suggests that sustainability issues often fall into a "policy void" because they occur over a much longer temporal scale than a typical election cycle and across a much larger spatial scale than a national or state boundary.  He claims that most policy-making fails to achieve the goal of the first level of his hierarchy (actions that if continued... endanger human survival).  The Grossman article and the Kuznets curve put policy-making in a more positive light, suggesting that citizens of the developed world are successful in demanding cleaner environments. 

Could boundary spanning institutions, which work between knowledge and action, foster the engaged practice of sustainability science?  

What is the role of the various practitioners, operating with different functions, levels and places (individuals, nations or industries) within sustainability science?

Thanks Beth for bringing this topic up.  I agree that there are difficulties associated with the implementation or practice of sustainability. As Xiaodong says 'knowledge and solutions may vary across different time and under different circumstances'.  I think the essence of the role of practice in sustainability is incremental progress at all levels applicable.  At the individual level, people who are aware of why we require sustainability, could practice it in small ways in their daily lives: simple changes like carpooling or using public transportation, using energy efficient lighting and appliances and buying locally produced food can make a big difference.  Parents and educational institutions could teach children about reducing waste and reusing books.  Institutions both public and private have a role to play in managing office space and maintaining a work ethic that conforms to sustainable practices. Academia and industries directly working with sustainable technology should collaborate with each other to generate use-inspired scientific tools that promote sustainability science.  Governments should collaborate with each other both locally and globally to promote the practice of sustainability.  Generally speaking, though challenges and solutions will differ, the role of practice means that every entity concerned has a role to play in this game, their contribution and collaboration being the building block of this new science.

Previously Xiaodong Chen wrote:

It is intuitive that practice is an important component in sustainable development because practitioners may transfer the knowledge of scholarship into policies for actions. In comparison, it may be less intuitive that practice is also critically important for sustainability science. Clearly, challenges and issues we face for a sustainable development are diverse. However, it is difficult (if possible at all) to provide a solution for a single such challenge/issue. This is at least in part due to complexity of human-environment systems, including cross-spatial/temporal scale dynamics Beth mentioned above. As such, knowledge and solutions for a sustainable development may vary across different time and under different circumstances. We certainly do not expect existing knowledge can solve everything. Very often, our practice of existing knowledge triggers new challenges. By solving these new challenges, practice contributes substantially to the advancement of the sustainability science.

 

Previously Beth Mercer-Taylor wrote:

What is the current role of practice in sustainability science and what ought the role be?  The reading describes the dichotomy between "detached scholarship" and "engaged practice" (Stokes framework) and suggests that at least in part it is the project of sustainability science to "span not only disciplines but barriers separating scholars from practitioners." 

Consider the application of sustainable development in different contexts and scales.  Marshall suggests that sustainability issues often fall into a "policy void" because they occur over a much longer temporal scale than a typical election cycle and across a much larger spatial scale than a national or state boundary.  He claims that most policy-making fails to achieve the goal of the first level of his hierarchy (actions that if continued... endanger human survival).  The Grossman article and the Kuznets curve put policy-making in a more positive light, suggesting that citizens of the developed world are successful in demanding cleaner environments. 

Could boundary spanning institutions, which work between knowledge and action, foster the engaged practice of sustainability science?  

What is the role of the various practitioners, operating with different functions, levels and places (individuals, nations or industries) within sustainability science?

 

I think that the most important part of this debate (considering the framework we are working within) is that contained in Beth's first paragraph. The element of the Stokes quadrant that we are most interested in, that of Pasteur, directly links (ideally) practice and  basic science. As far as what the current role of practice in sustainability science, I look forward to having this fact be developed more throughout this course. But, I do believe that the idealism of Stokes quadrant, is research that is directly informed by practice, and thus seeks out to improve practice in a practical way. 

The issue of scale in sustainability and sustainable development seems to become more and more complex as we move from that of the individual to that government. I agree with Baishali's statements on scale and look forward to learning more about, what has been alluded to up to this point,  as the entity of the "boundary spanning institution." 

Previously Baishali Bakshi wrote:

Thanks Beth for bringing this topic up.  I agree that there are difficulties associated with the implementation or practice of sustainability. As Xiaodong says 'knowledge and solutions may vary across different time and under different circumstances'.  I think the essence of the role of practice in sustainability is incremental progress at all levels applicable.  At the individual level, people who are aware of why we require sustainability, could practice it in small ways in their daily lives: simple changes like carpooling or using public transportation, using energy efficient lighting and appliances and buying locally produced food can make a big difference.  Parents and educational institutions could teach children about reducing waste and reusing books.  Institutions both public and private have a role to play in managing office space and maintaining a work ethic that conforms to sustainable practices. Academia and industries directly working with sustainable technology should collaborate with each other to generate use-inspired scientific tools that promote sustainability science.  Governments should collaborate with each other both locally and globally to promote the practice of sustainability.  Generally speaking, though challenges and solutions will differ, the role of practice means that every entity concerned has a role to play in this game, their contribution and collaboration being the building block of this new science.

 

Previously Xiaodong Chen wrote:

It is intuitive that practice is an important component in sustainable development because practitioners may transfer the knowledge of scholarship into policies for actions. In comparison, it may be less intuitive that practice is also critically important for sustainability science. Clearly, challenges and issues we face for a sustainable development are diverse. However, it is difficult (if possible at all) to provide a solution for a single such challenge/issue. This is at least in part due to complexity of human-environment systems, including cross-spatial/temporal scale dynamics Beth mentioned above. As such, knowledge and solutions for a sustainable development may vary across different time and under different circumstances. We certainly do not expect existing knowledge can solve everything. Very often, our practice of existing knowledge triggers new challenges. By solving these new challenges, practice contributes substantially to the advancement of the sustainability science.

 

Previously Beth Mercer-Taylor wrote:

What is the current role of practice in sustainability science and what ought the role be?  The reading describes the dichotomy between "detached scholarship" and "engaged practice" (Stokes framework) and suggests that at least in part it is the project of sustainability science to "span not only disciplines but barriers separating scholars from practitioners." 

Consider the application of sustainable development in different contexts and scales.  Marshall suggests that sustainability issues often fall into a "policy void" because they occur over a much longer temporal scale than a typical election cycle and across a much larger spatial scale than a national or state boundary.  He claims that most policy-making fails to achieve the goal of the first level of his hierarchy (actions that if continued... endanger human survival).  The Grossman article and the Kuznets curve put policy-making in a more positive light, suggesting that citizens of the developed world are successful in demanding cleaner environments. 

Could boundary spanning institutions, which work between knowledge and action, foster the engaged practice of sustainability science?  

What is the role of the various practitioners, operating with different functions, levels and places (individuals, nations or industries) within sustainability science?