Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability

This article was published in an Elsevier journal. The attached copy is furnished to the author for non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution, sharing with colleagues and providing to institution administration. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright Author's personal copy EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 5 ( 2 0 08 ) 22 5 –2 41 a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n METHODS Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability Bob Frame a,⁎, Judy Brown b a b Sustainability and Society, Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand School of Accounting and Commercial Law, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand ARTICLE INFO ABS TR ACT Article history: The last two decades have seen the development of an array of techniques and practices aimed Received 7 May 2007 at promoting sustainability. For many, results have been disappointing. There are charges that Received in revised form supposedly new organisational approaches remain embedded in managerialist, functionalist 7 September 2007 and anti-dialogic frameworks that are a significant part of the problem. Similarly the Accepted 12 November 2007 technocratic scientization of public policy is viewed as ill-equipped to deal with the social, Available online 21 December 2007 economic and ecological issues currently facing neo-liberal societies. In this paper we seek to interpret these frustrations and identify pathways that move beyond this. Specifically, we Keywords: argue that the gap between sustainability rhetoric and sustainability practices can be Sustainable development reconceptualised through the practice of science as post-normal and through developing the Post-normal science notion of post-normal sustainability technologies (PNSTs). The exponents of post-normal Sustainability technologies science show why stakeholder engagement in sustainability (and other scientific) issues is Stakeholder engagement critical for the legitimacy and quality of decisions and the admission of complexity in decision- Multi-actor heuristics making and accountability processes. Building on this now well-established foundation we Wicked problems seek to characterise, and give examples of, PNSTs as tools for achieving this participation; Clumsy solutions wherein stakeholders assume expertise and interact with those possessing more traditional forms of expertise in order to co-produce knowledge about sustainability. Recognition of ideological and value diversity is also central to the post-normal sustainability agenda and with PNSTs, the values-based nature of the issues involved is articulated in a way that seeks to bring politics openly into the picture. To this end we identify processes that are emerging in the literature and in practice that will enable PNSTs. These include extended peer communities and multi-actor heuristics, agonistic processes and new characterisations of citizenship that support moves to sustainability. In so doing, we believe that PNSTs offer “clumsy solutions” for “wicked problems” that can be engaged with in both the research and practice arenas as significant contributions to addressing urgent needs. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Context In sustainability research there is a strong drive to stimulate institutions and social actors to approach both knowledgemaking and knowledge-using processes in ways that recognise their risk-laden, ideologically diverse and highly uncer- tain environments. This paper argues that, to achieve this, we need to develop new sets of technologies and that these can fruitfully be based on the post-normal approaches to science developed by Jerry Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz in the mid1980s to mid-1990s (notably Ravetz, 1987; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990, 1993, 1994) and in subsequent literature. We ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 3 325 6701x3744; fax: +64 3 325 6718. E-mail address: frameb@landcareresearch.co.nz (B. Frame). 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.010 Author's personal copy 226 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 2 2 5 –2 41 believe it is important to revisit this body of work and to refresh its applicability to contemporary “wicked problems” and, to use Rayner's (2006) term, “clumsy solutions”, especially related to sustainability.1 We propose that the current mismatch between the rhetoric of sustainability and actual implementation of sustainability principles can be addressed by post-normal sustainability technologies (PNSTs). These work with the complexity and uncertainty by enlisting stakeholders with diverse perspectives and multiple capacities in the coproduction of sustainability know-how in what we term multi-actor heuristics. It is our view that these are vital requirements for society to tackle wicked problems such as climate change, biotechnology, distributive justice, endangered species, etc. They form a suite of technologies (in the widest sense) that are emerging as contributions to tackling the highly complex, uncertain, value-laden issues facing a resource-constrained world. We consider that, although post-normal science proposes an integrative process based on extended peer communities, the notion of integration is dialogic and multi-perspectival; it is not to be imagined that the dialogue will be one that combines many voices and reduces them to a single, consensual view. We affirm, as a general principle, the irreducible plurality of perspectives and modes of understanding (O'Connor, 1999, p. 673, Table 1). Post-normal science takes concepts of stakeholder input beyond simply broadening democratic participation to new processes, open dialogue and ongoing engagement. Post-normal science is based on “assumptions of unpredictability, incomplete control, and a plurality of legitimate perspectives” (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993, p. 739). It is transdisciplinary, context-sensitive and committed to methodological pluralism and concepts of active stakeholder engagement. Technologies, in this context, refer to interventions for the creation and use of knowledge about sustainability, which redistribute and disburse responsibility for environmental, social and cultural stewardship onto broad-ranging groups of stakeholders, including members of the public, as agents of change. Technologies also describe ways in which individuals, organisations, actor networks and governments alike provide for themselves materially, socially and politically (e.g. through forms of self-governance). PNSTs require new fora for public engagement with science and technology, alongside other stakeholders with diverse interests or stakes who may have varying levels of “professional” expertise. Such technologies offer alternative styles of knowing to bridge gaps between science, politics and practice. 1 As with many new knowledge forms, notably particle physics (with its charm, flavour and strangeness), post-normal science is, as this paper attempts to demonstrate, developing its own somewhat angular lexicon. PNSTs look set to be developed by researchers bristling with inverted commas in a world in which “wicked” problems, such as “strange” weather, are addressed through “messy” governance to reveal “clumsy” solutions for their “thickly” “cosmopolitan” citizens. These will be developed, no doubt, by “post-disciplinary” researchers (including, perhaps, “post-autistic” economists; see www.paecon.net) working in “boundary” organizations and with “polyvocal” communities. The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we review the development of post-normal science to set up the possibility of PNSTs. We then examine several multi-actor technologies we have observed emerging and against which we position the building of capability for sustainable development as a key concern. We then suggest that these interventions can only exist with the emergence of certain wider conditions that can be viewed as broader governance structures that include notions of extended peer communities, agonistic participative processes and ecological citizenship. Finally we indicate possible leads and cautions for the future development of such technologies. 2. Post-normal science: emerging history Before looking at the themes embraced by the term postnormal science and how these are beginning to develop in practice, we seek to acknowledge the considerable literature on the subject through a brief history over the last twenty years or so. The subject was developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz, initially on their own, and then with coauthors and, more recently, through an increasing group of practitioners. We do not offer a rigorous review of this literature, but rather aim to highlight some key works and encourage others to engage with post-normal insights and how they may illuminate the seemingly intractable issues of sustainability. Recognition of the inherent uncertainties and value-laden nature of scientific practice, sparked by the realities of operating in risk-laden environments, brought calls for a more participative and ideologically open approach to knowledge-making in science in the mid-1980's (Ravetz, 1987; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1990). Calls for the democratization of science and scientific expertise became apparent in the traditional hard areas of science, as evidenced by the emergence of a core body of work on post-normal science in the early 1990's through this journal and other publications of the International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) including those by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1991, 1993, 1994), O'Connor et al. (1996) and by Funtowicz et al. (1997). Since then there has continued to be development of post-normal science by Funtowicz and Ravetz, often with co-authors (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1997; Castells and Funtowicz, 1997; Gough et al., 1998; Funtowicz et al., 1998; Funtowicz and O'Connor, 1999; De Marchi and Ravetz, 1999; Gallopín et al., 2001) and by an increasing number of other academics, such as Luks (1998, 1999) and O'Connor (1999) to name but two of many. The literature broadens significantly from there and examples populate the various PNSTs as they are discussed in Section 3. The phrase “post-normal” implies a qualitative change in the way science and policy-making are approached and draws attention to aspects of uncertainty and values that are typically down-played or ignored in more traditional research. Postnormal science is underpinned by a complexity rather than Cartesian epistemological perspective. O'Connor (1999) takes the concepts of stakeholder input and democratic participation beyond notions of Laplacian reconciliation (with its ideal of an integrated, single and internally consistent framework) Author's personal copy EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 5 ( 2 0 08 ) 22 5 –2 41 to dialogic reconciliation which allows for the coexistence of a diversity of perspectives and ways of understanding. It thereby opens up possibilities for more inclusive, open and ongoing engagement processes in addressing complexity. There are a number of terms that encompass the terrain in question including “wicked problems”, as originally developed by Rittel and Webber (1973) and, more recently, by various writers including Strand and Cañellas-Boltà (2006); and “clumsy solutions” as originally defined by Shapiro (1988) and adopted more recently by Verweij et al. (2006) and in Verweij and Thompson (2006). Rayner (2006) has reduced Rittel and Webber's original characterisation to the following unique aspects of wicked problems, that is, they are: • • • • • • previously considered, perhaps, as unconstructive or irrelevant to the decision-making process.2 Strengthening knowledge diversity provides a valuable countervailing force “to the homogenizing pressures of an expanding global market” and can thus serve sustainability agendas at the local and global levels (O'Hara, 1996, p. 101). In such an approach decision-makers, stakeholders and technical advisers are viewed as working together as co-investigators – in networks of pluralistic collaboration– in an open discursive community. Technical and value aspects of investigations are regarded as inextricably intertwined. Though challenging for those used to more linear processes, the strength of such an approach lies in its acceptance of messiness: While it may not be easy for all of us to cope with the messiness of an open discursive… valuation process, this messiness is where its power lies. It is the democratization of a valuation and policy process which not only integrates research and context, but offers the inclusion of numerous, vastly diverse and potentially conflicting life worlds. There is no longer only one life-world admitted, one conceptual framework shaping the valuation process, but multiple ones… this can result in an important and fruitful process of identifying a broadened, applied, and relevant research agenda (ibid., p. 102). Symptomatic of deeper problems Unique opportunities that cannot be easily reversed Unable to offer a clear set of alternative solutions Characterised by contradictory certitudes Contain redistributive implications for entrenched interests Persistent and insoluble The notion of post-normal science was first developed in contrast with Kuhn's (1970) conception of “normal science”. Normal science, underpinned by positivist philosophy, sought “universal, objective and context-free knowledge” (Haag and Kaupenjohann, 2001, p. 53) and was characterised by a lack of reflection on the standpoints of researchers and social actors in wider socio-political contexts. It therefore struggles to deal with the uncertainties in real-world organisational and public policy contexts. This is so especially in relation to sustainability issues. Sustainability now characterises the new policy context for post-normal science (Ravetz, 2006, p. 279), which is about managing complexities to do with questions of human survival more than addressing uncertainties to do with technological risks (ibid., p. 283). In post-normal science “complexity is respected through its recognition of a multiplicity of legitimate perspectives… and reflexivity is realised through the extension of accepted ‘facts’ beyond the supposedly objective productions of traditional research” (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1997, p. 800). Post-normal science is concerned to ensure that its methods and results are accessible to stakeholders including those who participate in quality assurance processes as part of, for example, an extended peer community (Haag and Kaupenjohann, 2001). Scientists are expected to communicate epistemic uncertainties to other stakeholders to facilitate transparent and interactive decision-making processes. This means introducing scientific material to extended peer communities as evidence and not as hard facts, as dialogue is about negotiation more than scientific demonstration (Ravetz, 2006, p. 278). It requires going beyond the “mainstream” of current disciplinary and inter-disciplinary thinking that “may simply reinforce biases of the status quo” (O'Hara, 1996, p. 101). Open negotiation on complex issues helps ensure the politics surrounding sustainability are acknowledged and that various stakeholders can debate their perspectives (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). It also involves accommodating the opinions of other stakeholders not previously recognised as experts, and recognising information and knowledge 227 This approach is in marked contrast to conventional approaches where stakeholders, if they are acknowledged at all, are typically treated “as passive learners at the feet of the experts” (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1997, p. 800). Post-normal science is concerned with fostering serious and wide-ranging discussion and debate about the “kinds of communities, characters, and cultures…. we want to help create” (Luks, 1999, p. 712 citing Throgmorton). It fosters new forms of understanding and engagement with science and technology. We argue that engagement with sustainability issues through public-private–civil partnerships (Frame and Taylor, 2005; O'Riordan, 2004), with scientists, advocates and other stakeholders, including policy-makers, is intrinsic to post-normal science and also a source of strength for self-governance of plural communities. The task of science for sustainability is, after all, “mutual learning rather than making blueprints” (Ravetz, 2006, p. 278), as sustainability is “partly about techniques, but even more about changing consciousness” (ibid., p. 279). The current terrain of sustainability research is cluttered with a multitude of seemingly random interpretations and competing frameworks, without definable routes to implementation. It is our contention that this seemingly unordered and chaotic space becomes more navigable (though no less complex) by applying concepts of post-normality. The challenge is to develop capacities and technologies for turning complexity and uncertainty into strengths for securing progressive social and environmental change. Diez (2001) and 2 As O'Hara (1996, p. 101) observes, the “prejudging of contributions into categories like relevant/irrelevant, educated/uneducated, or knowledgeable/ignorant has all too often excluded contributions of women, minorities or indigenous peoples even when they have been given a place at the table”. Author's personal copy 228 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 2 2 5 –2 41 Bebbington et al. (2007a,b) emphasise the need to draw together people and datasets in assemblages of knowledge, often referred to as “dialogic potential”. This has to take place across local, national, regional and global scales in ways that recognise the inevitable variability in sustainability practices due to differing contexts and scales of action, but also allow for communication and accountability to go in multiple directions. Doing sustainability is “learning by doing” and “doing through learning” that calls for different capacities and capabilities on the part of those involved (Martens, 2006; Newton, 2005). This makes sustainability a concern as much of governance (in its broadest sense) as it is of government (Adger et al., 2003; Paavola, 2007). Sustainability as a complex, experimental process benefits from the input of broad-ranging stakeholders who, together, produce knowledge about sustainability in dialogic, ad hoc and incremental ways. Sustainability issues are post-normal issues where the traditional juxtaposition of “hard” facts and “soft” values is overturned (Haag and Kaupenjohann, 2001, p. 53). Here the concern is to “deal with ill-defined problems… in concrete, entangled and complex economic–ecological systems, frequently involving local–global interactions, large scales, broad scopes and a high degree of uncertainty of all kinds, notably epistemic-ethical uncertainty” (ibid.). Post-normal science, then, has begun to: …encompass different magnitudes of scales (of time, space, and function), multiple balances (dynamics), multiple actors (interests) and multiple failures (systemic faults). [It also] has to play a major role in the integration of different styles of knowledge creation in order to bridge the gulf between science, practice, and politics (Martens, 2006, p. 36). It reflects environmental and social concerns that are issue-driven and marked by high stakes and extreme uncertainty, where quality in relation to outcome takes precedence over expectations that a single truth – or “ethic of truth” associated with normal or positivist science (Ravetz, 2006, p. 278) – will be achieved. It engages non-scientists, but does not seek to undermine scientific expertise or the importance of scientific research. This is because “when science is involved in the policy process, it is usually not the deep theoretical obscurities that are at stake, but its relation to a real-world situation” (ibid., p. 277). Indeed much of what postnormal science will achieve will draw on the plethora of datasets, techniques and analyses already derived in the pure and applied sciences. However, it does so conscious that different disciplinary and theoretical lenses will provide “contesting parties with their own bodies of relevant, legitimated facts” which inform and are informed by different interests and normative standpoints (Sarewitz, 2004, p. 385). Under these conditions, complexity and uncertainty become useful for leveraging the necessary interaction around the definition of sustainability issues, which leads to the coproduction of sustainability knowledge. While it is difficult to achieve in practice, accommodating uncertainty as a normal part of doing science, and making it a focal point for bringing in broad-ranging stakeholders and being responsive to multiple interests, is a powerful approach that supports sustain- ability policy initiatives. In this new approach uncertainty does not function as a source of unwelcome tension between scientists, policy-makers and citizens. Rather, it becomes an essential component of the process as an aid to understanding inherent complexities, which generates information useful for theory building, experimentation and decision-making that may, previously, have been neglected. This co-production of sustainability knowledge is important because it disburses responsibility and accountability across numerous stakeholders. It also reinforces a change in approach to democratic governance which, as we argue later, becomes a key sustainability principle based on an agonistic approach to democratizing for sustainability (Brown, 2007). Active dialogue can not only bring about democratic change but also “uncover barriers to change” (e.g. hidden assumptions and valuation biases) (O'Hara, 1996, p. 105). Dialogic decision-making that works with multiple analytical perspectives is much better equipped to deal with “deep conflicts” that “include differences over the legitimate grounds for adjudicating disputes” (Baber, 2004, p. 333). Internationally there are calls for better collaborative management of natural resources that takes account of the complex nature of social–technical-environment systems (e.g. Douguet and O'Connor, 2003; Svendsen and Laberge, 2005; Dougill et al., 2006; Pahl-Wostl, 2005; Mayumi and Giampietro, 2006; Swedeen, 2006) and for recognition that science “can legitimately support… a range of competing, value-based political positions” (Sarewitz, 2004, p. 386). Our proposals are cognate with these endeavours. 3. Post-normal sustainability technologies as multi-actor heuristics It is evident then that post-normal science requires widening a discourse from a core set of experts to sets of others with different skills and competencies and, accordingly, other forms of expertise. Doing sustainability requires an assemblage of different technologies and stakeholders cooperating to manage complexities and trial and error processes. This gives rise to new forms of public/private/civic engagement with science and sustainability, as well as new forms of governance, requiring institutional reform referred to variously as “messy governance” (Strand and Cañellas-Boltà, 2006), “clumsy solutions” (Verweij et al., 2006; Verweij and Thompson, 2006) and, ecological citizenship, as discussed in Section 4. Sustainability science thus generates conditions for multiple accountability and responsiveness amongst stakeholders that lead to relevance, and legitimacy in the knowledge being produced. Stakeholders – individuals, organisations and actor networks – have to be continuously self-critical and reflective, whilst conscious of what is at stake in their relations. In the shift from government to governance,3 “science is a crucial but not exclusive form of relevant knowledge” that 3 In this context, governance can be taken to be institutioncitizen partnerships using processes of open and inclusive public decision-making that actively seeks the commitment and engagement of citizens, stakeholders and interest organisations (www.environmentalcitizenship.net). Author's personal copy EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 5 ( 2 0 08 ) 22 5 –2 41 must be reflected in new participatory fora for decisionmaking (Liberatore and Funtowicz, 2003, p. 149). In these fora all stakeholders become “users, critics and producers of knowledge” (ibid.) in an “extended peer community” (Ravetz, 2006). The fora hopefully allow people to be “responsible and responsive” participants in regulatory processes which relates to the self-governance aspects of active citizenship and, in this way, participation should become both a “compulsory” requirement and a “compelling” experience (Newton, 2005). As a form of governance, it is vital to ensure that self- and cogovernance are approached in ways that are genuinely dialogic and empowering (cf. Bang's, 2004 warnings of how it too often constitutes a “threat to democracy”). Policy approaches that rely on conditioning and “normalising” individual practices and self-discipline too often appear as unwelcome forms of social control rather than democratic interventions (Hobson, 2002). PNSTs support more decentred forms of political action and provide much-needed space for less programmed and innovative “practices of freedom” (Bang, 2004). We turn now to techniques that are being developed to address the inherent weaknesses in existing processes. These are based on our research and our reading of the literature. The list is, by its very definition, indefinitely contingent4 and by no means exhaustive though we hope to have captured the main trends. Technologies have been grouped loosely around assemblages relating, first, to multi-actor heuristics and including a wide range of techniques used in policy, accounting and evaluation; including the overall discourse relating to sustainable consumption. Our review of these broad areas leads us to question the current institutions of governance and to pose ways in which these could be restructured to provide mechanisms more likely to yield more sustainable results. In turn we look at contradictions between utopian and practical forms of active citizenship and to the various voices which may seek privileged attention in any negotiated discourse. Together we see these as requiring agonistic forms of debate where there are opportunities for various voices to be heard. PNSTs require deliberation on issues to take place in inclusive ways that permit multiple and potentially conflicting views to be aired, understood and considered outside of existing institutions. The sort of questions it asks are “whatabout/what-if” questions (Ravetz, 2006, p. 277). We will discuss later the ways in which these institutions may develop to facilitate this kind of debate. For now the focus will be on the processes required and these can be assembled as types of heuristics that have a long-term component rather than solely a tactical one. As with all post-normal approaches, there will be no definitive list or fixed typology but several approaches that can be loosely bundled under the heading of participatory or collaborative approaches to learning. Carolan (2006) and Guimarães Pereira et al. (2006) explore various approaches to contributory, interactional and 4 As Ravetz and Funtowicz (1999, p. 642) observe, development of post-normal science is likely to bring “differing interpretations... as between scholars and activists, or between reformers and radicals”. True to its own presuppositions, advocates eschew “unquestioned and unquestionable frameworks” (ibid., p. 643). 229 public expertise. In this paper, we seek to group these under the following contingent headings: • • • • Integrated assessment techniques Futuring Dialogic accountings Other multi-actor heuristics 3.1. Integrated assessment techniques In the historical account of PNSTs, early signposts are found in the mid 1990s European research agenda encompassing various integrated approaches to assessment that explicitly frame their work around or design tools through the application of post-normal principles. These include integrated resource management approaches to large-scale ecosystem management (e.g. integrated catchment management, integrated coastal management, bio-regionalism). These involve learning approaches to help deal with ongoing uncertainty and system change, and emphasise participation to support dialogue and understanding among multiple social perspectives (Lee, 1993; Gough et al., 1998; van der Sluijs, 2002; Guimarães Pereira et al., 2003; Risbey et al., 2005; Allen and Kilvington, 2005). Alongside these is the closely related field of technology and environmental risk assessment (e.g. Castells and Funtowicz, 1997; Gough et al., 1998; Faucheux and Hue, 2001; Walker et al., 2003). Techniques for integrated assessment or what O'Connor (2000, 2006a,b,c,in press) refers to as deliberative sustainability assessment, namely multiple scales, multiple stakeholders, multidisciplinarity and multiple bottom lines; have also emerged in this period and have been reviewed by van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp (2002). One such tool which usefully represents the PNST nature of these tools is the basis of the KerBabel™ Deliberation Matrix (O'Connor, 2004), which enables a transparent presentation of the process and outcomes of judgements offered by each category of stakeholders, for each of the options or scenarios under evaluation, with reference to a spectrum of governance or quality-performance issues. At one level this tool looks not significantly different from many others emerging in the sustainability arena (see reviews by Dalal-Clayton and Sadler, 2004, 2005; Ness et al., 2007) and this must be perceived as a strength. Like post-normal science itself, these tools should extend the range of existing methods not seek to replace them as they have often been adequately suited for their original intent. So the fact that, to some users, the KerBabel™ Deliberation Matrix does not appear to offer anything “new”, is a positive sign of its ability to act as an entry point to enable interactive and participatory processes. However considerable care needs to be taken to ensure that tools are not used as forms of pseudo-participation. The move towards deliberative assessment is generally an ad hoc approach towards monitoring and evaluation in both policy making and implementation. If the form of assessment is interpreted in an agonistic manner then the processes can be seen as genuinely post-normal. Few institutional arrangements currently exist to enable such interventions. However one international convention is worth noting. The Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Author's personal copy 230 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 2 2 5 –2 41 Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (UNECE, 1998) became effective from 2001 and to date has been ratified by 40 (primarily European and Central Asian) countries. This establishes that sustainability can only be achieved through involvement of all stakeholders; interactions between public and public authorities in a democratic context; and by forging new processes for public participation in the negotiation and implementation of international agreements and this is beginning to have an influence on the development of national strategies for sustainable development.5 Another possible avenue, as noted below, is the accounting profession and its institutional discourse (although here too the resistances likely to be encountered from a traditionally conservative professional body should not be under-estimated and underline the need for active involvement on the part of a broad group of social actors). Finally there have been developments around knowledge quality assessment with multi-dimensional and reflexive approaches to enable analysis and diagnosis of uncertainty in complex policy issues that have arisen from post-normal science. These include the NUSAP notational system that attempts to include both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of uncertainty in a standardised and explanatory manner using the five qualifiers of the NUSAP acronym (numeral, unit, spread, assessment and pedigree) as discussed by Ravetz and Funtowicz (1990) at www.nusap.net and reviewed by van der Sluijs (2006); and by Strand and Cañellas-Boltà (2006). The assessors of the knowledge quality are the extended peer communities. All of these should not be seen as purely mathematical and removed from practice. Lach et al. (2005), for example, describe an excellent example of praxis built explicitly around PNSTs and their application to “domesticate the wicked problems of water resource management” and their use by large organisations. Other examples include Dougill et al. (2006), O'Connor and van den Hove (2001), Walker et al. (2003) and van der Sluijs (2005). These illustrative examples are increasingly wellestablished in practices that, in some ways derive technologies from international development that developed in synch with PNSTs (Chambers, 1994, 2005). As these are welldocumented, they are not considered in depth here and we move to other PNST developments. 3.2. Futuring Futures research has been described as “the study of the present reality from the point of view of a special interest of knowledge of the future; knowledge of the future considered characteristically as knowledge of contingent events” (Mannermaa, 1986, p. 658). Futures studies is a “very fuzzy multifield” (Marien, 2002). It encompasses a variety of terms and approaches (e.g. foresight, scenario building, futuribles, alternative futures) and has been classified in a number of ways. For example, Inayatullah (1990) includes a cultural-interpretative perspective with an emphasis on understanding, negotiating and acting in order to achieve a desired future. Similarly, van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp (2002) explored 5 For further detail, see the Aarhus website (http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/). participatory methods as tools for “mapping out diversity” compared with “reaching consensus”; Selin (2006) examines the importance of value judgements and the role of “trust” in scenarios development; and Walz et al. (2007), for example, have used participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. van Notten et al. (2003), Börjeson et al. (2006), and Bishop et al. (2007) describe various typologies (predictive, explorative, and normative) of the overall futuring field and from these only the explorative and those underpinned by democratic norms support the need for pluralist interpretations of future occurrences as a means of supporting decision-making processes in the present. These techniques permit open discussion on contested and uncertain topics and are ideally suited to enabling discussion around the long-term temporal issues relating to sustainability (e.g. Frame, 2007). Examples of exploratory techniques include framings of multiple realities which expose the underlying and potentially irresolvable trade-offs between economic, social and environmental capital including the need for a more dialogic approach (Frame et al., 2005) and “opening up spaces for deliberating desirable futures” (Höijer et al., 2006, pp. 364–365). As such, and very much in keeping with the other technologies discussed in this paper, clearly only some futuring techniques provide post-normal aspects or are amenable to utilisation in post-normal ways. In other words, techniques must do more than acknowledge transdisciplinary approaches and be context-sensitive. They need to wholeheartedly embrace these values through a clear commitment to methodological pluralism and adopt participatory processes that enable alternative views to be expressed in more than token ways. This is not always the case. As with the other technologies, the futures literature is littered with examples that may have shown acknowledgement of deliberative approaches but often resulted in decision-making processes that reinforce existing modalities rather than enabling new processes that may have the potential to offer longer term alternatives to seemingly intractable wicked problems. It is this ability to provide a “transformative” approach (to adopt the Freirian term) that exemplifies the post-normal from “business-as-usual” and the possibility of opening up new horizons. To understand this further, we turn now to some critical appreciation of techniques that fall under the general rubric of “futuring”. Wallace (2007, p. 31), for example, identifies a cautionary and highly relevant note, namely that scenario-building is often “too socially unitary”. In so doing, Wallace finds that themes of complexity, emergence, and reflection emerge, which require “an attitude that can cope with, even delight in, the transitory and unpredictable nature of events, without succumbing on the one hand to a debilitating nostalgia about what has passed, or on the other hand to an unrealistic attempt to recapture a romanticised past of transcendental or natural harmony” (ibid.). Furthermore, he draws on French philosopher Agacinski's (2003) ethic of the ephemeral. This is not concerned with either “living for the moment” or “depriving oneself of the pleasures of the present by mourning in advance what will inevitably pass” (ibid., pp. 31–32). Such an ethic must recognise limits of human vision and the fact that these are constantly shifting, and seek “to work responsibly within them according to their unique contingencies” Author's personal copy EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 5 ( 2 0 08 ) 22 5 –2 41 (ibid., p. 32). In other words, to generate meaningful futures in a post-normal sense requires participants to have a capacity to co-create through a deepening level of awareness of various possible trade-offs and an understanding of the incomplete nature of any attempt to resolve these. Scenario building, then, according to Wallace (2007, p. 26), “should be subordinated to democratic discussion of ways of collectively orienting to the future” and be a “tool of democratic envisioning” by focusing on a social constructionist approach rather than a positivist emphasis on drivers. In so doing, themes of complexity, emergence, and reflection develop. A point shared, at least in part, with Craps et al. (2004), who support the concept that differences between communities of practice (to use Wenger's, 1998 term) can be clarified using social-constructionist perspectives; such a process may not yield common ground but may well provide opportunities to deal with contradictory tensions. To ground this notion of generating post-normal futuring in a pragmatic way requires of its facilitators a capacity to sense and co-create through a deepening level of awareness about how shifts in a group emerge and can be caused. In workshop situations this could draw on transformative learning techniques of a Freirian nature, such as those proposed by Senge et al. (2005), hooks (1994), or by Thomson and Bebbington (2004). Suitably facilitated, such futuring techniques are likely to enable benefits to emerge (e.g. Frame, 2007). However, this may not necessarily occur in an a priori predictable manner – and as such presents considerable uncertainty to risk-averse stakeholders. Furthermore, they can be resource and time intensive, subject to “messiness” and may not produce organisationally convenient results. The results of such futuring techniques often occur as a suite of four options (frequently in a 2 × 2 matrix with key drivers as the axes) with polarised alternatives which can (unintentionally) guide the user to specific outcomes rather than engage with the richness and inconclusive subtleties of the essential “thick” interpretation (from Adger et al., 2003, p. 1095, citing Geertz, 1973) where thick analysis implies the identification of linkages and general patterns characteristic of a particular context. To achieve such a thick analysis requires further development in the futuring theme. Within the literature, a more distinctive post-normal form of futuring is arising — foresight knowledge and its associated assessment (Keenan et al., 2003; von Schomberg et al., 2006; Guimarães Pereira et al., 2007). In “fully-fledged” foresight, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Keenan et al., 2003, p. 21) develops the technology as an assemblage of the following: • Planning. Here it is assumed that strategic approaches will involve qualitative as well as quantitative changes. There is a move away from “rational” modelling based on notions of equilibrium and stable structures to recognition of more evolutionary approaches that recognise high levels of uncertainty and “disruptive innovations”. • Networking. This re-conceptualizes policy development away from an “elite-driven/top-down approach” towards broader, more participative designs. These recognize calls “for greater democratisation and legitimacy in policy 231 processes” and that no single body is “all-knowing” in an increasingly complex and socially diverse world. • Futures studies. Here there is a shift from predictive approaches to more exploratory ones and from one-off studies to ongoing dialogic iterations. These involve more extensive stakeholder involvement in contrast with traditional expert-led approaches that present “users” with visions from “on high”. As with all post-normal approaches, the foresight approach specifically acknowledges that it is not intended to completely displace existing decision-making and planning processes but is intended to complement and inform them so as to increase their overall effectiveness. Guimarães Pereira et al. (2007) explain the post-normal aspects of foresight knowledge through a series of attributes that are by now familiar, namely that it: • is non-verifiable (e.g. in a predictive sense) since it does not give a representation of an empirical reality • contains a high degree of uncertainty and complexity • thematises a coherent vision of the future that includes an “anticipation of the unknown” • contains an action-oriented perspective (unlike normal science, which lacks such a perspective) • shares a hermeneutical dimension with the social sciences and the humanities whereby knowledge is subject to continuous interpretation (e.g. alternative visions of “the future”) • is more than merely future-oriented but intent to combine normative objectives with socio-economic feasibility and scientific plausibility • is trans-disciplinary in its approach (using the term as defined by Adger et al., 2003). In this sense the foresight knowledge approach appears to be a post-normal maturation of that aspect of futures studies most relevant to the development of technologies in support of moves to increased sustainability. It is not, of course, by its very definition, a complete or finite process. The methodologies and instances of implementation are still at an early stage and it is likely these will need to be accompanied by other post-normal interventions if traction is to be achieved. If foresight knowledge is seen as one aspect of these, perhaps most naturally associated with the governance dimension, then another highly relevant one is that associated with the citizen themselves. 3.3. Dialogic accountings Possibilities for “accountings” that foster democracy and facilitate more participatory forms of social organisation have been proposed (Bebbington et al., 2007a,b; Brown, 2007; Brown and Fraser, 2006) through theoretical and operational development of more dialogic accounting technologies. These proposals argue for an approach that respects difference and takes interpretive and ideological conflicts seriously.6 They 6 This work draws, inter alia, on agonistic political theory, standpoint epistemology and the work of ecological economist Peter Söderbaum. See infra Section 4 for further discussion. Author's personal copy 232 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 2 2 5 –2 41 also explicitly seek to avoid an overly “sanitised” view of the world that ignores power and domination in social relations. Dialogic engagement principles underpin such an approach and show how such a model can be implemented (Bebbington et al., 2007a,b). This requires reworking “calculation and democracy” (Power, 1992, p. 492) and a move from monologism to dialogism to develop a critical pluralist framework. There is recognition that the complexity of sustainable development – both in terms of scientific uncertainty and ideological diversity – requires a multi-dimensional approach (e.g. a plurality of decision criteria). Furthermore, the origins of sustainability assessment models (SAMs) as a social and environmental accounting technology are more readily recognised as being polyvocal (Bebbington et al., 2007a; O'Connor, 2000, 2004, 2006a,b,c, in press; O'Connor and van den Hove, 2001). Issues of subjectivity/objectivity become less of an issue, as SAMs are part of a plural interaction. As such, they are much less prone to perceptions as an objective, neutral and complete tool. SAM thus gains strength from its explicit social constructionist epistemology rather than “subjectivity” being perceived as a weakness of social and environmental accounting (as illustrated by scepticism in traditional accounting and neoclassical economic circles). Boyce (2000) addresses the issue of accounting as a social technology – “a form of social power” (ibid., p. 27) that may perform an enabling or constraining function. Accountants may help construct environmental and social visibilities that facilitate dialogue and debate through the provision of a broad range of non-financial as well as financial performance indicators. Or they may contribute ideologically to the “invisibility of bads” (ibid., p. 28), by ignoring or downplaying non-economic impacts: [Social and environmental accounts] may serve either as a tool for broadening public discourse, debate, and decision making (away from an exclusive focus on financial and economic factors), or as a legitimating device to create an appearance of broader accounting and thereby facilitate the de facto dominance of financial and economic factors (ibid., p. 29, emphasis in original). Accounting, according to, inter alia, Bebbington et al. (2007a,b), and Boyce (2000), could have a major role in developing more participatory and democratic forms of accountability through promoting open and transparent decision-making by articulating costs and benefits at various levels that engage the standpoints, interests, values and priorities of a range of stakeholders. Boyce (2000, p. 55) cautions against models aimed at bringing decisive closure because sustainability is a contestable concept and so social and environmental accounting should not intend to produce “incontrovertible” reports. Social worth may be judged not in terms of expert production of “the right answer” but in the raising of questions and contestable issues for discussion. Such accountings are not concerned with the “representation of ‘infallible truth’ but in its creation of a range of environmental and social visibilities and exposure of values and priorities that become inputs to wider democratic processes of discourse and decision making” (ibid., p. 53). Rather than simple information provision, the accounting profession needs to develop models to present information to “prevent premature closure on issues” and “which infuse debate and dialogue, facilitating genuine and informed citizen participation in decision-making processes” (ibid., p. 55). In doing so, they might also help make power relations more transparent. The involvement of accountants thus helps “to make existing pluralistic structures operative” and opens the way for new forms of accounting to be used “to promote radical democratic change within a pluralistic framework” (ibid., p. 54). Accounting's challenge “is to develop forms of practice that emphasize how accounting statements and insights should be regarded and used as elements of a conversation or dialogue, rather than as foundational claims asserting a particular kind of objectivity or ‘truth'" (Morgan, 1988, p. 484, emphasis in original). Dialogic accounting also aims to highlight the inherently contestable nature of much traditional accounting practice (O'Leary, 1985). Consistent with the aims of postnormal science, the aim is to provide broad-based understandings and multi-dimensional insights that can be used as platforms for action by a wide range of social actors as they (re) construct their social realities. 3.4. Other multi-actor heuristic PNSTs As society develops responses to climate change issues and the wider sustainability discourse, new technologies will be developed to assist in the process. Many of these build on participatory approaches in various guises (e.g. Chambers, 1994, 2005; Craps et al., 2004) developed in specific disciplines such as international development (e.g. participatory appraisal techniques; collaborative project management, action research, etc.) in addition to the futuring, assessment and accounting approaches described above. However, such approaches can be “subverted through competing narratives that [construct projects] in positivist terms” (Boxelaar et al., 2006, p. 118). It is insightful, therefore, to identify instances where the issues at stake in multi-actor initiatives arise from social constructionist perspectives. In turn this points to the need, as we will discuss later, for bridging organisations that foster convergence and divergence — so-called “boundary organisations”. These examples have emerged in a range of situations and are discussed over a wide literature, including examples quite specifically connected to post-normal science in, for example, Guimarães Pereira et al. (2006). Some examples of these are summarized here with leads into relevant literatures: • Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and Virtual Communities. The development of globalized communities of mutual interest via the internet is already impacting on social constructions of democracy. For example, as discussed below, citizen-consumers can be held to account if information systems make the environmental impacts of individual consumer choices transparent. Early examples using interactive ICT in the sustainability arena include those by Guimarães Pereira et al. (1999) and Guimarães Pereira and O'Connor (1999) with more recent case studies by Spaargaren and van Vliet (2000), and by Author's personal copy EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 5 ( 2 0 08 ) 22 5 –2 41 Berkhout and Hertin (2004) using websites that enable individuals to calculate personal carbon emissions or assess energy efficiency potentials of their household. In time, property rights may, for example, be allocated through household carbon budgets supporting informational and economic incentives to induce behaviour changes. Further to this, O'Connor (2006a) explores the use of ICT for resolving collective problems of governance of common environmental and natural resource issues and outlines future possibilities. • Science shops. These are units that provide “independent, participatory research support in response to concerns experienced by civil society” (Mulder et al., 2006, p. 279) where the term science is used in its broadest sense to combine social and human sciences with the natural, physical and technological sciences. Civil-society groups can approach these units with problems they consider need researching. Clients must generally have no commercial objectives and the research results must be made public. As such, science shop projects are intended to provide a source of citizen empowerment (e.g. through implementation of the results in local communities and/or to influence policy processes). The use of these science-society interfaces in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Romania has been reviewed by Mulder et al. (2006). • Peer review of science. Scott (2007) reviews the relevance of science in addressing contemporary social challenges such as global environmental change and the role of peer review in that process using, inter alia, a post-normal lens. He concludes that the current system (including the United Kingdom's Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and similar exercises in other countries) is likely to discourage the kinds of risky and complex research that are required. Peer review is often “narrowly scientific” based on a positivist philosophy of knowledge and excludes wider, more socially relevant concerns. A traditional disciplinary focus also arguably disadvantages inter- and multi-disciplinary approaches. This could be suitably addressed through more plural, open and transparent approaches to the criteria used in peer review. The development of these practices of post-normal techniques is, to use the term from Deleuze and Guattari (1987), “rhizomatic”, that is, pathways are not obvious or necessarily transparent; engagement and take-up of new ideas and processes is unlikely to take place in linear ordered ways but through uncertain and unpredictable pathways. It may be that this is an inherent component of a post-normal approach and, potentially, part of its strength. Such PNSTs may increase with time but in the absence of governance reforms to create appropriate dialogic spaces, development is likely to remain spasmodic. 4. Governance for PNSTs Existing governance arrangements and structures are arguably ill-equipped to deal with the complexities of sustainability or to accommodate PNSTs. Like traditional science, they are, in themselves, fit for their original purpose, but 233 the institutions articulating that purpose are found wanting faced with contemporary dilemmas. One response to this is to present sustainability in an aspirational sense and reshape institutions and accountability accordingly. Postnormal science addressing sustainability concerns calls for governance arrangements that are highly adaptable, creative and able to make transparent to stakeholders their underlying values and assumptions (both collective and personal). Or, to adopt the new lexicon, they involve “messy” governance. Such institutional arrangements help identify previously unanticipated dimensions, including the social construction of knowledge and concepts of stakeholder participation, and lead to increased information sharing and interactive policy and management decision-making across stakeholders and sectors. We look now at an assemblage of arrangements which could facilitate the development of PNSTs. These build on Funtowicz and Ravetz's foundation of an extended peer community to demonstrate how PNSTs might look in practice, the processes through which they can foster agency and dialogic exchange and, finally, forms of citizenship that help to enable sustainability agendas. 4.1. Extended peer communities Increasing numbers of initiatives involve wider groups of people in decision-making and policy implementation around sustainability issues (Funtowicz, 2006). These include people without formal institutional accreditation but with a desire to participate in attempts to resolve an issue. As such they are called citizens' juries (Ward et al., 2003), deliberative stakeholder consultations (Opinion Leader Research, 2006), dialogic community (Dobson, 2005, p. 269) and so on. As several disciplines (with their own paradigmatic differences) may be represented, combined with two or more layers of ambiguity, then issues about fitness for purpose arise that lead, as elsewhere, to considerations of authority and influence from multiple sources. In the context of a plurality of legitimate perspectives, participation is “not only ethically correct or politically expedient… It is the only way to reveal the richness and variety of the relevant knowledges and for quality, eventually to emerge” (Funtowicz, 2006, p. 145). Increasingly such extended peer communities operate in the virtual space, through new social movements, social marketing campaigns or, as in some countries, in science shops. Indeed, there are specific examples from within the PNS world, e.g. the Post-normal Times (www.postnormaltimes.net) is: dedicated to improving the quality of public participation in science-based policy decisions related to the conundrums presented by problems of environmentally sustainable development, by providing multiple and constructive perspectives on complex and controversial science and policy issues. A central focus will be on justifications provided for controversial high-stakes decisions that pertain to complex problems such as climate change, in which the disadvantages of making trade-offs fall disproportionately on those excluded from the decisionmaking process. Author's personal copy 234 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 2 2 5 –2 41 The development of dialogic fora therefore requires reform around concepts of equity and justice within and across generations, geographical spaces and social groups, as well as notions of ecological integrity and quality of life, for example (Sneddon et al., 2006, p. 264). One aspect is the emergence and development of boundary organisations as originally proposed by Brown (1991) and developed further by, inter alia, Guston (2001). These are necessary to focus on process management of particular sustainability issues, although they depend on the relationships (or linkages) between stakeholders (Guston, 2001). The role(s) performed by communicators, translators, mediators, etc., to equip diverse stakeholders with requisite skills for negotiation and coinvestigation depends on which problem or issue is at stake and what set(s) of stakeholders are involved. These processes occur in multiple directions vis-à-vis several stakeholders. The phrase “boundary organisation” carries the risk of reproducing conventional power relations and notions of authoritative core sets of experts (Craps et al., 2004). A different language may be needed to better encapsulate the sort of work these in-between organisations (or particular individuals within those organisations) would do; that is, how they go about empowering themselves and others in dialogic fora in ways that do not presuppose conventional ways of ordering their relations and interpreting their respective interests. Giroux's (1992) concept of “border-crossers”, Brown's (1991, 1993) work on bridging organisations and participatory action research and Carolan (2006) on “interactional” and “public” expertises are helpful here. In dialogic fora, concessions or compromises on sustainability issues have to be made between the utopian and the practical as noted above; and between stakeholders with quite different interests. This may mean one stakeholder (or interest) pulling back to give the necessary conditions for another stakeholder or set of stakeholders to act. With sustainability science there is an inherent issue of dialogic reconciliation and respect to do with building relationships with others who have competing or opposing interests. This is a meta-position that people take up in different ways and which expresses their stakeholder interests in a non-essentialist way. In an ideal sense, this could involve a hospitality ethic and agonistic respect, which admits tensions and antagonisms (O'Connor, 1999, p. 673; Connolly, 2002; see also O'Hara, 1996 on the development of discursive ethics) and is sensitive to the complex and dynamic nature of social relations. In practice, this will be difficult to achieve in situations of heightened conflict and researchers will need high levels of interactional and public expertise to contribute to and monitor development of such case studies as proposed by Carolan (2006). It calls for care in fostering “diverging and converging interactions” in a way that recognises opportunities for collaboration, without losing sight of diverse interests and frames (Craps et al., 2004, p. 385). Or, as Verweij et al. (2006, p. 839) put it: we have at one extreme an unresponsive monologue and at the other a shouting match amongst the deaf. Between these extremes we occasionally find a vibrant multivocality in which each voice formulates its view as persuasively as possible, sensitive to the knowledge that others are likely to disagree, and acknowledging a responsibility to listen to what others are saying. Only through creating the capacity and capability for participatory decision-making, improved knowledge management and new institutional mechanisms, can innovation and sustainability be delivered. Managing complex and shifting social, economic and environmental issues requires thinking in post-normal terms and utilising PNSTs. It also requires focusing on improving understanding of future governance and governing processes and governments and institutions to become much more critically reflexive, learning organisations. 4.2. Agonistic processes For many stakeholders, sustainability is a utopian ideal; and consensus on what is and what is not sustainability cannot (and never will) be universally agreed (for recent reviews of different perspectives, see Hadorn et al., 2006; Castro, 2004; Hopwood et al., 2005). It is often easier to understand what sustainability is not, but achieving sustainability requires recognition of ideological diversity and socio-political processes: There is no avoiding the policy questions of costs for whom, benefits for whom, dangers borne by whom, and when and where? In other words, whose perceptions and principles are going to prevail, whose interests are to count more, and whose less? Here scientific practice, including the prioritizing of research and dissemination of results, is necessarily entwined with wider political processes (Funtowicz, O'Connor and Ravetz, 1997, p. 92). Sustainability knowledge gets played out in socio-political spaces where ambiguities and contradictions are exposed, and meanings vary according to local contexts and the particular set of stakeholders involved. In other words, dominant meanings are often “‘punctured’ by differing ‘evaluative contexts’” (Barnett, 2002, p. 316). Pepper (2005) examines the ways in which utopianism permeates both radical and reformist environmentalism. Utopianism has created “ecotopia”, the radical environmentalist's utopia that has evolved from writing and action over the past half century. Ecotopianism's “transgressive” potential in assisting change towards an ecological society is judged to be limited by idealism and unrealistic assessments of existing socio-economic dynamics. Similarly reformist environmentalism can also be argued to rest on unrealistic premises, reflecting liberal-capitalist utopian fantasies. In both cases, an idealistic stance is assumed, one that denies the existence of power relations and the messy influences of greed and corruption and this can be seen as one of several “characteristic contradictions” to use Ravetz's (2006) term. For post-normal science to accommodate these, he proposes that new forms are needed for effective engagement with sustainability and survival. The post-normal science literature to date has largely avoided explicit engagement with politics in the sense of specific linkages across analytical tools, engagement and Author's personal copy EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 5 ( 2 0 08 ) 22 5 –2 41 democratic theory.7 We propose agonism as an approach that can avoid the twin difficulties of “reformist environmentalism” and “utopian fantasies”. We have developed the case for this in detail elsewhere (Brown, 2007; see also Bebbington et al., 2007a,b). In short, this work develops key principles for a critical dialogic approach drawing on agonistic political theory (Mouffe, 2000, 2005). These provide a central role for diversity, respect concepts of interpretive and ideological conflict and are sensitive to the complexity of power dynamics. We utilize standpoint epistemology as a way of recognizing the situatedness of all perspectives8 (Harding, 2004; Longino, 2001) and the work of Söderbaum (1982, 1999, 2000a,b, 2001, 2007) to develop the concept of positional analysis. This allows different social actors to formulate their own “accountings” (broadly defined), and thereby allows a fuller expression of the plural nature of contemporary democracies than provided by more traditional “monologic” accounts. It seeks to foster social relations that explicitly recognise relations of both conflict and cooperation. Dialogic engagement principles underpin such an approach and show how such a model can be implemented (Bebbington et al., 2007b). We also consider agonistic processes help overcome many of the limitations identified in approaches based on deliberative democratic theory. As Latta (2007) observes, deliberative political philosophy is an advance on more “instrumental” approaches which attempt to steer individuals and collectivities in pre-determined directions. It emphasises “the need to enhance the freedom and capacity of citizens to engage in meaningful deliberation over decisions that affect them” and recognises that democratic processes can have “important educative or preferencetransforming qualities” (ibid., p. 383). However while regulative norms such as Habermas' ideal speech situation are a “nice ideal to work toward” deliberative models too often lack effective means “to address existing contexts of extensive injustice, hierarchy and exclusion” (ibid., emphasis in original). With Mouffe (2000, 2005) we would also argue that they are often overly consensual in approach. To date, awareness-raising of what is at stake environmentally, socially and politically, and addressing issues based on differences has been the main achievement of post-normal science. It is only through developing and implementing new technologies that outcomes will become feasible. PNSTs then, must involve finding appropriate concessions or compromises between the different stakeholders. These are technologies that function to redistribute and disburse responsibility for social and environmental care onto broad-ranging stake- 7 One of our reviewers suggests early post-normal science was quite explicit about avoiding politics, noting that at the time it was created there was no effective politics of environmental protest. 8 The central theme of standpoint epistemology is that all knowledge is situated. The same object can be represented and understood in many different ways depending on our physical location, interests, values and worldviews. Consistent with our concern to promote agonistic interaction, we favour those variants that embrace critical pluralism (cf. those that seek to identify a single epistemically privileged perspective). 235 holders as agents of change, and which make traditional forms of expertise both contestable and contested (Newton, 2005). As Dean (1999, p. 33) notes: “government is a fundamentally utopian activity. It presupposes a better world, society, way of doing things or way of living”. In more networked form of social practice, government becomes a focus “not for the concentration of power… but for power sharing and negotiated decision making” (Lockie, 2006, p. 28). And what is a better world or way of living is contingent upon whom or what is embroiled in governing processes. 4.3. Ecological citizenship The concept here is “one of many new forms of adjectival citizenship, which have emerged since the resurgence of interest in citizenship theory” (Bell, 2005, p. 179) which include, inter alia, active, sustainable, corporate, consumer and green citizenship, to name but a few. It is emerging as a way of bridging gaps between science, politics and practice, and empowering people to be responsive and responsible visà-vis sustainability (Dobson, 2003, 2005, 2006; Dobson and Bell, 2005; Latta, 2007; Newton, 2005). In so doing it brings citizenship into the realm of post-normal science. The concept enables people to be credited with multiple capacities and expertise that can support the co-production of knowledge about sustainability in dialogic fora alongside other “professional” public and private experts. It is premised on lay publics being able to assume some expertise in relation to the exercise of sustainability in their own daily life and socio-political contexts: Those whose lives and livelihood depend on the solution of the problems will have a keen awareness of how the general principles are realized in their ‘back yards’. They will also have ‘extended facts’, including anecdotes, informal surveys, and official information published by unofficial means. It may be argued that they lack theoretical knowledge and are biased by self-interest; but it can equally well be argued that the experts lack practical knowledge and have their own unselfconscious forms of bias (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993, p. 753). Environmental citizenship “or, more accurately, ‘citizens of an environment’” (Bell, 2005, p. 180) is about adopting values and actions that are consistent with sustainability. It can be framed to bridge “the boundaries that the concept of citizenship once helped to guard, such as those between nations and between the public and private spheres” and “to include future generations and ecosystems” (www.environmentalcitizenship.net). There is also an inherent contradiction of a “wicked” kind, namely “that liberal citizens are ‘citizens of an environment’, which is both ‘provider of basic needs’ and ‘subject about which there is reasonable disagreement’” (Bell, 2005, p. 186, emphasis in original). Sustainability, itself, is thus recognized as a contestable and inherently political topic that resists easy translation into a “common good”. As such, it requires “democratic sensibility” (Latta, 2007). There is an extensive literature on these various citizenships; too much to cover here, but three examples give a sense Author's personal copy 236 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 2 2 5 –2 41 of the overall range of the concept and the ways in which they are intertwined with agonistic processes and extended peer communities. Like Latta (2007), we take a deliberately heterodox approach. We are interested in exploring ways in which the concept of citizenship might revitalise democratic engagement rather than prescribing a singular understanding of how it should be applied to particular sustainability issues. We seek to foster political spaces where a broad range of individuals and collectivities can engage in robust debate. We recognize – and welcome the fact – that this is likely to involve proposals for a plurality of understandings of what “ecological citizenship” entails. Firstly, active citizenship. Neo-liberal societies have tended to treat people's consumer rights as paramount, resulting in consumption as a separate and privileged activity to citizenship (Couldry, 2004; Newton, 2005; Soper, 2004). Indeed, people's rights and responsibilities were seen to emanate from market laws of supply and demand, including the right to demand quality (Doubleday, 2004, p. 118; Burgess, 2001); rather than from their civic responsibilities or accountabilities. This is changing with new ideas about active citizenship (Newton, 2005). These require different (post-normal) capacities and roles for individuals and communities in relation to science and technology (especially PNSTs), alongside consumption choices as a way for individuals and social groups to express their beliefs, norms, political commitments and differences in a pluralist society (Cosgel and Minkler, 2004; Paavola, 2001; Seyfang, 2004, 2005; and also Carter and Huby, 2005, on ethical investment consumerism). Or, as Barry (2005, p. 33) puts it in his concept of sustainability citizenship: “if one accepts the argument for sustainability, one does not just have the right to demand changes to create a more sustainable society but one also has the obligation to do so”. In this construct, Barry counters the more strident positions that all consumption is bad with a plea to find ways to “cultivate and support mindful …consumption, and to seek a balance between the extremes of excessive consumption and no consumption/ poverty” (ibid., p. 38). In so doing he encourages practices that enable positive forms of citizenship as consumers, parents, workers, investors; subject positions that can, in themselves, be constructed as sites of political resistance and advocacy. Söderbaum's (1999, 2000a,b, 2001, 2007) model of the “political economic person” (PEP) was developed in direct response to perspectives that assume “each individual maximizes her or his own utility, whatever that means in ethical terms” (2000a, p. 37). He claims that economic analyses should seek a much more pluralist approach and model of stakeholder relations “that allows for differences, as well as similarities, among individuals” (Söderbaum, 2000b, p. 438). Söderbaum's model of PEP advocates the internalisation of broader, non-market related values into economic accounting and a better understanding of the social and cultural aspects of human behaviour in environment–technical–natural systems. It accommodates a more contextual and embedded understanding of social exchange; rather than the instrumental contracts between “self-interested utility-maximisers” that characterise neoclassical economic models (Söderbaum, 2000b, 2007). Of the various forms of citizenship, one that is particularly relevant to PNSTs is most fully developed in Dobson's notion of post-cosmopolitanism (2003) also referred to as dialogic cosmopolitanism (2005) or thick cosmopolitanism (2006). This seeks to address “asymmetrical globalisation” by giving greater significance to subaltern voices through increased emphasis on justice though stopping short, on pragmatic grounds, from endorsing “unconstrained dialogue…as an end in itself” (2005, p. 268) and to operate in both the public and private spheres. Szerszynski (2006) also takes positions counter to the traditional “citizen” where citizenship tends to be involved in the affairs of the public space but absent from the routine business of the reproduction of daily life. He sees this exerted through three metaphors, blindness, distance and movement. From these he posits an enlarged citizenship that is achieved through agonistic processes between blindness and vision; distance and proximity; and mobility and staying still. Finally, thick cosmopolitanism roots, political rights and obligations in the material relationships of ecological footprints; individuals with unsustainable footprints have noncontractual asymmetrical obligations to correct the injustices inherent in those relationships. With Latta (2007), we suggest that thick cosmopolitan conceptualizations could be usefully expanded to identify subaltern voices as active agents for transformation, rather than primarily as the “recipients of justice”. As well as broadening conceptions of political agency, this would assist in identifying unequal material relations in human–human relations beyond those captured in the ecological footprint. As Schlosberg (2004) convincingly argues, environmental justice requires attention to equity in distribution, recognition of diversity and participation in political processes. A focus on the distributive obligations of already powerful actors (and individualistic at that) may unintentionally further marginalise less powerful groups. In summary then, ecological citizenship is a mechanism by which consumer, investor, employee and various other social roles are politicized and critiqued. It requires evaluation (and continual re-evaluation) of what it means to be a citizen in contemporary society. In its “thicker” forms, citizens are required to engage in agonistic processes and inhabit extended peer communities to take issues beyond token understandings of democratic participation, dialogue and engagement. As such, these processes offer PNSTs mechanisms by which to turn wicked problems into clumsy solutions. 5. Critical issues Sustainability science then needs to be both critical and issues-driven, participant-oriented, subjective, exploratory and uncertain. Unlike much of normal science, it is not driven as much by “technical puzzle-solving” or by demand-driven performance but by a need to address global environmental change and other pressing issues. Sustainability science requires PNSTs that perform as “heuristic instruments”, that is, ones which aid “in the acquisition of better insight into complex problems of sustainability” (Martens, 2006, p. 38). To achieve such insight requires research of many kinds Author's personal copy EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 5 ( 2 0 08 ) 22 5 –2 41 responsive to diverse value framings, and including attention to both fundamental and applied research categories (Sarewitz, 2004). For successful implementation, it requires a shift from positivist conceptions of objective, value-free knowledge to social constructionist theories of knowledge. Examples of insightful case study accounts of the difficulties in progressing dialogic approaches in contexts still dominated by positivist, technocratic tools and perspectives are given by Boxelaar et al. (2006) and Callaghan and Wistow (2006). Sneddon et al. (2006) observe that moving the sustainability debate beyond “its post-Bruntland quagmire” depends on the willingness of researchers and practitioners to work with a multiplicity of perspectives: … Our Common Future marked, anchored, and guided the rise of a remarkable political debate, indeed a whole new political discourse across contesting interests, from grounded practitioners to philosophical academics, from indigenous peoples to multinational corporations. Sustainability may yet be possible if sufficient numbers of scholars, practitioners and political actors embrace a plurality of approaches to and perspectives on sustainability, accept multiple interpretations and practices associated with an evolving concept of “development”, and support a further opening up of local-to-global public spaces to debate and enact a politics of sustainability (p. 254). Major institutional reorientation is needed at the policy level to ensure responsiveness to local demand and context. At the programme level, such reform would mean that detailed outlines for action can no longer be drawn up at the outset since problem-solving is based on partnerships, cooperation and conflict through techniques such as those described by Susskind et al. (2002, 2003) and Bäckstrand (2006) for multistakeholder dialogue at the global scale, or through non-violent communication as advocated by Rosenberg (2003) and Dhir (2006) building on the Gandhian term, satyagraha (struggling for one's own truth) (Ravetz, 2006, p. 281), and many other well-documented techniques. These programmes are designed to be responsive to changing stakeholder needs, so one challenge noted by reviewers is to develop participatory and systems-based monitoring and evaluative processes to allow for feedback loops, ongoing and less programmed approaches to learning (Allen, 1997). In the absence of this, notions of “democratic participation” are likely to remain little more than token gestures (Callaghan and Wistow, 2006; Quaghebeur et al., 2004). Critical issues for the way ahead arise from the multiple interventions or technologies for achieving sustainability. These issues implicate democratic leadership as a key driver, especially in the long-term; new manifestations of governance, and adaptive learning and post-normal science as integral mechanisms for institutional reform. They require dialogic fora that are inclusive, participatory, and mobile. There is also growing recognition that these require, to use Sayer's (2001) term, post-disciplinary approaches with other versions of this concept to be found in, for example, Carolan (2006), Miller (2005) and Rayner (2006). There are, at present, insufficient boundary organisations to provide the sorts of facilitators or negotiators needed to broker relations between 237 diverse stakeholders and promote open dialogue. All this requires: • More rigorous and explicit frameworks that incorporate different forms of knowledge and expertise possessed by diverse stakeholders in policy and management processes. • Innovative procedures for building on current best practice for dialogic engagement, which involve skills and attributes that may well challenge government actors and are currently largely non-existent. • Cutting edge research that continues to provide dialogic tools and processes for doing sustainability science, and producing practical, real world solutions to shifting problems, which are also a product of those tools and processes. • New fora for public engagement with science and technology that achieve public or civic expertise on sustainability through institutional reform. • “Conversations” amongst diverse stakeholders to foster different networks (and real partnerships) and produce new institutions. • A balance between too few (less than three) and too many voices (perhaps no more than five) as suggested in Rayner's (2006) “law of minimum requisite variety”. Care needs to be taken here that this is not used as a way of “managing participation” so as to cut off “inconvenient” viewpoints; or to curtail the possibilities for emergent voices and preferences. • Different technical terminologies based on different aids to seeing, and different ways of doing, in the fields of accounting, economics and law which are increasingly made trans- or post-disciplinary. • Quality assurance of PNSTs based on an “enlightened ethical commitment” (Ravetz, 2006, p. 278). For this to be effective, researchers working at the boundary between knowledge creation and knowledge usage, will not present hard facts but develop trust as part of an assemblage of complexities and value commitments from which decisions will be “negotiated in good faith” (ibid.; for examples of how the “good faith” concept has evolved in the labour context and its relation to information disclosure, see Davenport and Brown, 2002). These developments depart from normal science approaches, conventional notions of growth and progress predicated on linear understandings, and entrenched power relations. They produce different accountabilities and emphases on individual, group and organisational responsibilities and different ways of knowing. And they require different notions of performance, quality, conflict and expertise (not to mention the angular terminology). In so doing, research agendas open up to provide the renewal and enrichment for post-normal science that will prevent it veering towards obsolescence as feared by Ravetz (2006); and to offer some hope for a science worthy of the sustainability challenge. Acknowledgements We thank the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology for funding under the “Building capacity for sustainable development: The enabling research” project Author's personal copy 238 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 2 2 5 –2 41 (C09X0310). The detailed and generous contributions by the referees have added significantly to the paper and are gratefully acknowledged. We would also like to thank Bronwyn Newton for contributions and insights to earlier drafts. REFERENCES Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., Seyfang, G., 2003. Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decisionmaking. Environment and Planning A 35, 1095–1110. Agacinski, S., 2003. Time Passing: Modernity and Nostalgia. Trans. by Gladding, J. Columbia University Press, New York. Allen, W.J., 1997. Towards improving the role of evaluation within natural resource management R&D programmes: the case for ‘learning by doing’. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 18, 625–638. Allen, W.J., Kilvington, M., 2005. Getting technical information into watershed decision-making. In: Hatfield, J.L. (Ed.), The Farmers' Decision: Balancing Economic Successful Agriculture Production with Environmental Quality. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, pp. 45–61. Baber, W.F., 2004. Ecology and democratic governance: toward a deliberative model of environmental politics. Social Science Journal 41, 331–346. Bäckstrand, K., 2006. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment 16, 290–306. Bang, H.P., 2004. Culture governance: governing self-reflexive modernity. Public Administration 82 (1), 157–190. Barnett, N., 2002. Including ourselves: new labour and engagement with public services. Management Decision 40 (4), 310–317. Barry, J., 2005. Resistance is fertile: from environmental to sustainability citizenship. In Dobson and Bell (2005), 21–48. Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., 2007a. Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics 61, 224–236. Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., Thomson, I., 2007b. Theorizing engagement: the potential of a critical dialogic approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 20 (3), 356–381. Bell, D.R., 2005. Liberal environmental citizenship. Environmental Politics 14 (2), 179–194. Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., 2004. De-materialising and re-materialising: digital technologies and the environment. Futures 36, 903–920. Bishop, P., Hines, A., Collins, T., 2007. The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight 9, 5–25. Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2006. Scenario types and techniques: towards a user's guide. Futures 38, 723–739. Boxelaar, L., Paine, M., Beilin, R., 2006. Community engagement and public administration: of silos, overlays and technologies of government. Australian Journal of Public Administration 65 (1), 113–126. Boyce, G., 2000. Public discourse and decision making: exploring possibilities for financial, social and environmental accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 13 (1), 27–64. Brown, L.D., 1991. Bridging organizations and sustainable development. Human Relations 44 (8), 807–831. Brown, L.D., 1993. Social change through collective reflection with Asian nongovernmental development organizations. Human Relations 46 (2), 249–273. Brown, J., 2007. Democracy, sustainability and accounting technologies: the potential of dialogic accounting. Landcare Research Working Paper. Available at http://www. landcareresearch.co.nz/research/programme_pubs.asp? Proj_Collab_ID=5. Brown, J., Fraser, M., 2006. Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: an overview of the conceptual landscape. Business Strategy and the Environment 15 (2), 103–117. Burgess, A., 2001. Flattering consumption: creating a Europe of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Culture 1 (1), 93–117. Callaghan, G., Wistow, G., 2006. Governance and public involvement in the British National Health Service: understanding difficulties and developments. Social Science & Medicine 63, 2289–2300. Carolan, M.S., 2006. Science, expertise, and the democratization of the decision-making process. Society & Natural Resources 19, 661–668. Carter, N., Huby, M., 2005. Ecological citizenship and ethical investment. Environmental Politics 14 (2), 255–272. Castells, N., Funtowicz, S., 1997. Use of scientific inputs for environmental policy-making: the RAINS model and the sulfur protocols. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 7, 512–525. Castro, C.J., 2004. Sustainable development: mainstream and critical perspectives. Organization & Environment 17, 195–225. Chambers, R., 1994. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development 22 (10), 1437–1454. Chambers, R., 2005. Ideas for Development. Earthscan, London. Connolly, W., 2002. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Cosgel, M.M., Minkler, L., 2004. Religious identity and consumption. Review of Social Economy 62 (3), 339–350. Couldry, N., 2004. The productive ‘consumer’ and the dispersed ‘citizen’. International Journal of Cultural Studies 7 (1), 21–32. Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mancero, M., Santos, E., Bouwen, R., 2004. Constructing common ground and re-creating differences between professional and indigenous communities in the Andes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14, 378–393. Dalal-Clayton, B., Sadler, B., 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. IIED, London. Dalal-Clayton, B., Sadler, B., 2005. Sustainability Assessment: A Review of International Experience and Practice. IIED, London. Davenport, G., Brown, J., 2002. Good faith in collective bargaining. LexisNexis. Butterworths, Wellington. De Marchi, B., Ravetz, J.R., 1999. Risk management and governance: a post-normal science approach. Futures 31, 743–757. Dean, M., 1999. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. Sage, London. Deleuze, G., Guattari, F., 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Trans. B. Massami. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Dhir, K.S., 2006. Corporate communication through nonviolent rhetoric: environmental, agency and methodological prerequisites. Corporate Communications 11 (3), 249–266. Diez, M.A., 2001. The evaluation of regional innovation and cluster policies: towards a participatory approach. European Planning Studies 9 (7), 907–923. Dobson, A., 2003. Citizenship and the Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Dobson, A., 2005. Globalisation, cosmopolitanism and the environment. International Relations 19 (3), 259–273. Dobson, A., 2006. Thick cosmopolitanism. Political Studies 54, 165–184. Dobson, A., Bell, D., 2005. Environmental Citizenship. MIT Press, Boston, MA. Author's personal copy EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 5 ( 2 0 08 ) 22 5 –2 41 Doubleday, R., 2004. Institutionalising non-governmental organisation dialogue at Unilever: framing the public as ‘consumer-citizens’. Science and Public Policy 31 (2), 117–126. Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E.D.G., Holden, J., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., Reed, M.S., Stagl, S., Stringer, L.C., 2006. Learning from doing participatory rural research: lessons from the Peak District National Park. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57 (2), 259–275. Douguet, J.M., O'Connor, M., 2003. Maintaining the integrity of the French terroir: a study of critical natural capital in its cultural context. Ecological Economics 44, 233–254. Faucheux, S., Hue, C., 2001. From irreversibility to participation: towards a participatory foresight for the governance of collective environmental risks. Journal of Hazardous Materials 86, 223–243. Frame, B., 2007. “‘Wicked', ‘messy' and ‘clumsy': Long-term Frameworks for Sustainability". Landcare Research Working Paper. Available at http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/programme_pubs. asp?Proj_Collab_ID=5. Frame, B., Taylor, R., 2005. Partnerships for sustainability: effective practice? Local Environment 10 (3), 275–298. Frame, B., Molisa, P., Taylor, R., Toia, H., Wong, L.S., 2005. 100% pure conjecture? Accounts of our future state(s). In: Liu, J.H., McCreanor, T., McIntosh, T., Teaiwa, T. (Eds.), New Zealand Identities: Departures and Destinations. VUW Press, Wellington, pp. 255–290. Funtowicz, S., 2006. Why knowledge assessment? Guimarães Pereira et al. (2006), pp. 138–145. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Kluwer, Dordrecht. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1991. A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In: Costanza, R. (Ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25, 739–755. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1994. The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics 10, 197–207. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1997. The poetry of thermodynamics. Futures 29, 791–810. Funtowicz, S., O'Connor, M., 1999. The passage from entropy to thermodynamic indeterminacy: a social and science epistemology for sustainability. In: Mayumi, K., Gowdy, J.M. (Eds.), Bioeconomics and Sustainability: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 257–286. Funtowicz, S., O'Connor, M., Ravetz, J., 1997. Emergent complexity and ecological economic. In: van den Bergh, J., van der Straaten, J. (Eds.), Economy and Ecosystems in Change: Analytical and Historical Approaches. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 75–95. Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., O'Connor, M., 1998. Challenges in the use of science for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development 1 (1), 99–107. Gallopín, G.C., Funtowicz, S., O'Connor, M., Ravetz, J., 2001. Science for the twenty-first century: from social contract to the scientific core. International Social Science Journal 53 (168), 219–229. Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York. Giroux, H.A., 1992. Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. Routledge, New York. Gough, C., Castells, N., Funtowicz, S., 1998. Integrated assessment: an emerging methodology for complex Issues. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 3, 19–29. Guimarães Pereira, Â., O'Connor, M., 1999. Information and communication technology and the popular appropriation of 239 sustainability problems. International Journal of Sustainable Development 2 (3), 411–424. Guimarães Pereira, Â., Gough, C., de Marchi, B., 1999. Computers, citizens and climate change: the art of communicating technical issues. International Journal of Environment and Pollution 11 (3), 266–289. Guimarães Pereira, Â., Rinaudo, J.D., Jeffrey, P., Blasques, J., Corral Quintana, S., Courtois, N., Funtowicz, S., Petit, V., 2003. ICT tools to support public participation in water resources governance and planning: experiences from the design and testing of a multi-media platform. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 5 (3), 395–420. Guimarães Pereira, Â., Guedes Vaz, S., Tognetti, S., 2006. Interfaces between Science and Society. Greenleaf, Sheffield. Guimarães Pereira, Â., von Schomberg, R., Funtowicz, S., 2007. Foresight knowledge assessment. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 3 (1), 53–75. Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values 26, 399–408. Haag, D., Kaupenjohann, M., 2001. Parameters, prediction, post-normal science and the precautionary principle — a roadmap for modelling for decision-making. Ecological Modelling 144, 45–60. Hadorn, G.H., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S., Wiesmann, U., 2006. Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics 60, 119–128. Harding, S., 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. Routledge, New York. Hobson, K., 2002. Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: does the ‘rationalisation of lifestyles’ make sense? Environmental Politics 11 (2), 95–120. Höijer, B., Lidskog, R., Uggla, Y., 2006. Facing dilemmas: sense-making and decision-making in late modernity. Futures 38, 350–366. hooks, B., 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education As the Practice of Freedom. Routledge, New York. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., O'Brien, G., 2005. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development 13 (1), 38–52. Inayatullah, S., 1990. Deconstructing and reconstructing the future: predictive, cultural and critical epistemologies. Futures 22, 115–141. Keenan, M., Miles, I., Kaivo-Ova, J., 2003. Handbook of Knowledge Society Foresight. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin. Available at: http:// www.eurofound.eu.int/transversal/ foresight.html (accessed 12 April 2007). Kuhn, T., 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lach, D., Rayner, S., Ingram, H., 2005. Taming the waters: strategies to domesticate the wicked problems of water resource management. International Journal of Water 3 (1), 1–17. Latta, P.A., 2007. Locating democratic politics in ecological citizenship. Environmental Politics 16 (3), 377–393. Lee, K.N., 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Island Press, USA. Liberatore, A., Funtowicz, S., 2003. ‘Democratising’ expertise, ‘expertising’ democracy: what does this mean, and why bother? Science and Public Policy 30 (3), 146–150. Lockie, S., 2006. Networks of agri-environmental action: temporality, spatiality and identity in agricultural environments. Sociologia Ruralis 46 (1), 22–39. Longino, H.E., 2001. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Luks, F., 1998. The rhetorics of ecological economics. Ecological Economics 26, 139–149. Luks, F., 1999. Post-normal science and the rhetoric of inquiry: deconstructing normal science? Futures 31, 705–719. Author's personal copy 240 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 5 ( 2 00 8 ) 2 2 5 –2 41 Mannermaa, M., 1986. Futures research and social decision making: alternative futures as a case study. Futures 18, 658–670. Marien, M., 2002. Futures studies in the 21st Century: a reality-based view. Futures 34, 261–281. Martens, P., 2006. Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 2 (1), 36–41. Mayumi, K., Giampietro, M., 2006. The epistemological challenge of self-modifying systems: governance and sustainability in the post-normal science era. Ecological Economics 57, 382–399. Miller, C.A., 2005. New civic epistemologies of quantification: making sense of indicators of local and global sustainability. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30, 403–432. Morgan, G., 1988. Accounting as reality construction: towards a new epistemology for accounting practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13 (5), 477–485. Mouffe, C., 2000. The Democratic Paradox. Verso, London. Mouffe, C., 2005. On the Political. Routledge, London. Mulder, H.A.J., Jørgensen, M.S., Pricope, L., Steinhaus, N., Valentin, A., 2006. Science shops as science-society interfaces. In Guimarães Pereira et al. (2006), 278–296. Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L., 2007. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 60, 498–508. Newton, B.M., 2005. Sustainability?: towards ‘citizen-consumers’ at three environmental visitor attractions. PhD, Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK O'Connor, M., 1999. Dialogue and debate in a post-normal practice of science: a reflexion. Futures 31, 671–687. O'Connor, M., 2000. Pathways for environmental valuation: a walk in the (hanging) gardens of Babylon. Ecological Economics 34, 175–193. O'Connor, M., 2004. The KerBabel Indicator Dialogue Box: Generic Design Specifications for the “Indicator Dialogue Box” — Version 3, Rapport de Recherche du C3ED, Guyancourt, Université de Versailles, St-Quentin-en-Yvelines. O'Connor, M., 2006a. Building knowledge partnerships with ICT? Social and technological conditions of conviviality. In Guimarães Pereira et al. (2006), 298–325. O'Connor, M., 2006b. The four “spheres” framework for sustainability. Ecological Complexity 3 (4), 285–292. O'Connor, M., 2006c. Deliberative Sustainability Assessment: Multiple Scales, Multiple Stakeholders, Multidisciplinarity and Multiple Bottom Lines, Methodological Study for Work Package WP6 of the SRDTOOLS Project (Methods and tools for evaluating the impact of cohesion policies on sustainable regional development, EC 6th Framework Programme, Contract No.502485, 2005–2006). Available as Rapport deRecherche du C3ED, Guyancourt: Université de Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France. O'Connor, M., in press. Indicators and deliberation: environmental governance through multi-media multi-stakeholder dialogues”. International Journal of Sustainable Development. O'Connor, M., van den Hove, S., 2001. Prospects for public participation on nuclear risks and policy options: innovations in governance practices for sustainable development in the European Union. Journal of Hazardous Materials 86, 77–99. O'Connor, M., Faucheux, S., Froger, G., Funtowicz, S.O., Munda, G., 1996. Emergent complexity and procedural rationality: post-normal science for sustainability. In: Costanza, R., Segura, O., Martinez-Alier, J. (Eds.), Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics. Island Press, Washington, DC., pp. 223–248. O'Hara, S.U., 1996. Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy. Ecological Economics 16, 95–107. O'Leary, T., 1985. Observations on corporate financial reporting in the name of politics. Accounting, Organizations and Society 10, 87–102. Opinion Leader Research, 2006. Shifting opinions and changing behaviours. Sustainable Consumption Roundtable. Available at http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/ Shifting_Opinions.pdf (accessed 17 April 2007). O'Riordan, T., 2004. Environmental science, sustainability and politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29 (2), 234–247. Paavola, J., 2001. Towards sustainable consumption: economics and ethical concerns for the environment in consumer choices. Review of Social Economy 59 (2), 227–248. Paavola, J., 2007. Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization. Ecological Economics 63, 93–103. Pahl-Wostl, C., 2005. Information, public empowerment, and the management of urban watersheds. Environmental Modelling & Software 20 (4), 457–467. Pepper, D., 2005. Utopianism and environmentalism. Environmental Politics 14 (1), 3–22. Power, M., 1992. After calculation? Reflections on Critique of Economic Reason by André Gorz. Accounting, Organizations and Society 17 (5), 477–499. Quaghebeur, K., Masschelein, J., Nguyen, H.H., 2004. Paradox of participation: giving or taking part? Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14 (3), 154–165. Ravetz, J.R., 1987. Usable knowledge, usable ignorance: incomplete science with policy implications. In: Clark, W.C., Munn, R.E. (Eds.), Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp. 415–432. Ravetz, J.R., 2006. Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability. Ecological Complexity 3, 275–284. Ravetz, J., Funtowicz, S., 1990. NUSAP — The Management of Uncertainty and Quality in Quantitative Information. Available at http://www.nusap.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=14 (accessed 16 March 2007). Ravetz, J., Funtowicz, S., 1999. Post-normal science — an insight now maturing. Futures 31, 641–646. Rayner, S., 2006. Wicked Problems: Clumsy Solutions — diagnoses and prescriptions for environmental ills. Available at www. martininstitute.ox.ac.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C3EDD045-9E3B-40539229-9CF76660AAC6/645/JackBealeLectureWickedproblems.pdf. Risbey, J., van der Sluijs, J., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., Funtowicz, S., Corral Quintana, S., 2005. Application of a checklist for quality assistance in environmental modelling to an energy model. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10 (1), 63–79. Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences 4, 155–169. Rosenberg, M.B., 2003. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life. Puddle Dancer Press, California. Sarewitz, D., 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7, 385–403. Sayer, A., 2001. For postdisciplinary studies: sociology and the curse of disciplinary parochialism/imperialism. In: Eldridge, J., MacInnes, J., Scott, S., Warhurst, C., Witz, A. (Eds.), For Sociology: Legacies and Prospects. Sociologypress, Durham, pp. 83–91. Schlosberg, D., 2004. Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics 13 (3), 517–540. Scott, A., 2007. Peer review and the relevance of science. Futures 39, 827–845. Selin, C., 2006. Trust and the illusive force of scenarios. Futures 38, 1–14. Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Jaworski, J., Flowers, B.S., 2005. Presence: Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and Society. Nicholas Brealey, London. Seyfang, G., 2004. Consuming values and contested cultures: a critical analysis of the UK strategy for sustainable consumption and production. Review of Social Economy 62 (3), 323–338. Author's personal copy EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 5 ( 2 0 08 ) 22 5 –2 41 Seyfang, G., 2005. Shopping for sustainability: can sustainable consumption promote ecological citizenship? Environmental Politics 14 (2), 290–306. Shapiro, M.H., 1988. Introduction: judicial selection and the design of clumsy institutions. Southern California Law Review 61, 1555–1569. Sneddon, C., Howarth, R.B., Norgaard, R.B., 2006. Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world. Ecological Economics 57, 253–268. Söderbaum, P., 1982. Positional analysis and public decision making. Journal of Economic Issues 16, 391–400. Söderbaum, P., 1999. Values, ideology and politics in ecological economics. Ecological Economics 28, 161–170. Söderbaum, P., 2000a. Ecological Economics: A Political Economics Approach to Environment and Development. Earthscan, London. Söderbaum, P., 2000b. Business companies, institutional change, and ecological sustainability. Journal of Economic Issues 34 (2), 435–443. Söderbaum, P., 2001. Political economic person, ideological orientation and institutional change: on competition between schemes of interpretation in economics. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics 12, 179–197. Söderbaum, P., 2007. Issues of paradigm, ideology and democracy in sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 60, 613–626. Soper, K., 2004. Rethinking the ‘good life’: the consumer as citizen. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 15 (3), 111–116. Spaargaren, G., van Vliet, B., 2000. Lifestyles, consumption and the environment: the ecological modernisation of domestic consumption. Environmental Politics 9 (1), 50–76. Strand, R., Cañellas-Boltà, S., 2006. Reflexivity and modesty in the application of complexity theory. In Guimarães Pereira et al. (2006), 100–117. Susskind, L., Moomaw, W., Gallagher, K., 2002. Transboundary Environmental Negotiation: New Approaches to Global Cooperation. Jossey-Bass. Susskind, L.E., Fuller, B.W., Ferenz, M., Fairman, D., 2003. Multistakeholder dialogue at the global scale. International Negotiation 8, 235–266. Svendsen, A.C., Laberge, M., 2005. Convening stakeholder networks: a new way of thinking, being and engaging. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 19, 91–104. Swedeen, P., 2006. Post-normal science in practice: a Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA. Ecological Economics 57, 190–208. Szerszynski, B., 2006. Local Landscapes and Global Belonging: Towards a Situated Citizenship of the Environment. In Dobson and Bell (2005), 75–100. 241 Thomson, I., Bebbington, J., 2004. It doesn't matter what you teach? Critical Perspectives on Accounting 15, 609–628. UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe), 1998. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, 25 June 1998 (Aarhus Convention). UNECE, Geneva. Available at www.unece.org/env/pp/. van Asselt, M.B.A., Rijkens-Klomp, N., 2002. A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change 12, 167–184. van der Sluijs, J.P., 2002. A way out of the credibility crisis of models used in integrated environmental assessment. Futures 34, 133–146. van der Sluijs, J.P., 2005. Uncertainty as a monster in the science-policy interface: four coping strategies. Water Science and technology 52 (6), 87–92. van der Sluijs, J., 2006. Uncertainty, assumptions and value commitments in the knowledge base of complex environmental problems. In Guimarães Pereira et al. (2006), 64–81. van Notten, P.W.F., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M.B.A., Rothman, D.S., 2003. An updated scenario typology. Futures 35, 423–443. Verweij, M., Thompson, M., 2006. Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World: Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Verweij, M., Douglas, M., Ellis, R., Engel, C., Hendriks, F., Lohmann, S., Ney, S., Rayner, S., Thompson, M., 2006. Clumsy solutions for a complex world: the case of climate change. Public Administration 84 (4), 817–843. von Schomberg, R., Guimarães Pereira, Â., Funtowicz, S., 2006. Deliberating foresight knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment. In Guimarães Pereira et al. (2006), 146–174. Walker, W.E., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., van der Sluijs, J.P., van Asselt, M.B.A., Janssen, P., Krayer von Krauss, M.P., 2003. Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated Assessment 4 (1), 5–17. Wallace, D., 2007. From future states to images of identity. Foresight 9, 26–36. Walz, A., Lardelli, C., Behrendt, H., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lundström, C., Kytzia, S., Bebi, P., 2007. Participatory scenario analysis for integrated regional modelling. Landscape and Urban Planning 81, 114–131. Ward, H., Norval, A., Landman, T., Pretty, J., 2003. Open citizens' juries and the politics of sustainability. Political Studies 51 (2), 282–299. Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, New York.