Pledge For Transformative Science

191_Wuppertal Paper | Wuppertal, July 2016
Pledge for a
Transformative
Science
A conceptual framework
-----
Uwe Schneidewind, Mandy Singer-Brodowski,
Karoline Augenstein and Franziska Stelzer
ISSN 0949-5266
Publisher:
Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy
Döppersberg 19
42103 Wuppertal
Germany
www.wupperinst.org
Authors:
Uwe Schneidewind, Mandy Singer-Brodowski, Karoline Augenstein and Franziska Stelzer
E-Mail: uwe.schneidewind@wupperinst.org
“Wuppertal Papers” are discussion papers. Their purpose is to introduce, at an early stage,
certain aspects of the Wuppertal Institute’s work to interested parties and to initiate
critical discussions. The Wuppertal Institute considers its scientific quality as important,
however, it does not essentially identify itself with the content.
This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives License 4.0

International | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Pledge for a Transformative Science Schneidewind et al. 2016
Pledge for a Transformative Science

“Transformative science“ is a concept that delineates the new role of science for knowledge societies in
the age of reflexive modernity. The paper develops the program of a transformative science, which goes
beyond observing and analyzing societal transformations, but rather takes an active role in initiating
and catalyzing change processes. The aim of transformative science is to achieve a deeper
understanding of ongoing transformations and increased societal capacity for reflexivity with regard to
these fundamental change processes. The concept of transformative science is grounded in an
experimental paradigm, which has implications for (1) research, (2) education and learning, and (3)
institutional structures and change in the science system. The article develops the theoretical
foundations of the concept of transformative science and spells out the concrete implications in these
three dimensions.
2 | Wuppertal Institut
Wuppertal Paper No 191
Contents
1 What is the new role of science in an age of reflexive
modernity? 4
2 Conceptualizing Transformative Science 6

2.1 Transformative Research – Co-Design and Co-Production in
Transdisciplinary Processes 7
2.2 Transformative Education and Teaching 11
2.3 Institutional Change – Self-renewal of the Science System 14
3 Conclusions: Transformative Science as a paradigmatic,

institutional and methodological reform program 18
4 References 19
Wuppertal Institut | 3
1 What is the new role of science in an age of reflexive

modernity?
The relationship between science and society has changed fundamentally in modern knowledge
societies over the past decades. The functional differentiation of modern societies (Giddens 1984; Beck
1986) into highly specialized, autonomous sub-systems, each characterized by a specific logic, routines
and codes, has been the basis for enormous increases in effectiveness and efficiency of affluent
societies. At the same time, this process has resulted in a system where its various sub-systems are
more and more isolated from each other. Technological development, especially in the field of
information and communication technologies, has further increased disembedding mechanisms
(Giddens 1996, 37) where, for instance, different groups of actors can coordinate their relationships and
actions independent of spatial proximity.
Processes of social disembedding in modern societies have an impact on individual patterns of

perception as well as political and institutional negotiation processes. This development has been
catalyzed by technological innovations that have been the result of scientific knowledge-production.
Especially critical are those types of technological innovations that deeply interfere with natural and
human systems (Grunwald 2008) and produce unintended and often irreversible ecological and social
side effects (Beck 1986). Long-standing research in the field of technological impact assessment as well
as the more recent emergence of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) (von Schomberg 2011;
Guston et al. 2014) show that the development of controversial technologies (e.g. nanotechnology or
GeoEngineering) should be accompanied by reflection and discursive deliberation, involving different
societal stakeholders, of advantages and disadvantages, potential and risks of a specific technology.
Many modern technologies that have been developed primarily by scientists have been an important
element in the depletion of natural resources and allowed us to exceed planetary boundaries
(Rockström et al. 2009; Steffen et al. 2015). The example of man-made climate change as a “super
wicked problem” (Levin et al. 2012) shows that humanity in the anthropocene (Crutzen 2002) is not
only facing the challenge of reducing environmental risks, but much rather has to find a way of dealing
with interdependent social-ecological transformation processes and learn how to organize societal
systems differently.
Scientific knowledge production can thus be understood as an exploratory search process in complex
systems characterized by uncertainty and unpredictable dynamics. Already in 1993, Funtowicz and
Ravetz coined the term post-normal science, which accounts for systemic uncertainty by integrating
different and often conflicting interests and interest groups in an “extended peer community” (1993, p.
752). Similarly, approaches of a mode-2 science (Gibbons 1999; Nowotny et al. 2001; Nowotny 2003)
build on the assumption that in modern knowledge societies, knowledge is produced by a variety of
actors in different settings. It is argued that a “re-contextualization” of science (Rip 2011, p. 5) is needed
in order to adequately deal with the complexities of knowledge production in the age of reflexive
modernity.
The idea of a reflexive modernity (Beck et al. 1996) can be linked to a new understanding of the role of
science: Science in the age of reflexive modernity is an institutionalized sub-system of society whose
task it is to analyze societal dynamics and challenges, while at the same time builds on a normative
demand for proactively dealing with these challenges and contributing to a more sustainable
development (Reid et al. 2010). In order to increase reflexivity in dealing with great societal challenges
and to re-integrate societal sub-systems, science needs to transcend its descriptive analytical functions
and cooperate with non-academic actors to achieve shared, normative goals.
1.1 Innovation, Participation and Balancing Power

The idea of transformative science builds on these observations and describes a concept of science that
is not just another highly specialized sub-system of society, but rather a societal institution that can
counter the dysfunctional effects of increasing differentiation and dis-embedding
(Schneidewind/Singer-Brodowski 2014, p. 92 f.). Four inherent societal functions of the science system
play a role in this respect: (1) increasing reflexivity in societal processes, (2) broadening the solution
space and scope for action through social and technological innovations, (3) strengthening
participation and self-organization in modern societies, (4) facilitating processes of balancing societal
power structures through the legitimizing force of evidence-based arguments.
Reflexivity
Balancing Science Participation &

Power Structures System Self-Organization
Innovation
Fig. 1: How science contributes to institutional stabilization in an age of reflexive modernity

(Schneidewind/Singer-Brodowski 2014, 93 based on Minsch et al. 1998)
(1) Reflexivity
Reflexivity is the key concept in Beck’s and Giddens’ analyses of modern knowledge societies: societies
in an age of reflexive modernity are continually learning societies. Individual control as well as
collective governance is based on scientifically sound and evidence-based arguments. The meaning and
societal relevance of science is thus closely tied to its reflexive capacities. Popa et al. define reflexivity in
modern societies as a “collective process of problem framing and problem solving through joint
experimentation and social learning that directly involve the scientific and extra-scientific expertise”
(2014, p. 45). Science can thus be an enabler of collective social learning processes.
(2) Participation
A direct link can then be established with the participative function of science in society. Science can
catalyze social learning processes especially where societal actors are integrated in research and
knowledge production processes early on. Participation can take the form of “co-design”, i.e. joint
framing of research questions and development of research designs, as well as “co-production”, i.e. joint
knowledge production (Mauser et al. 2013, Grunwald 2013). Examples of “co-design” can be found at
the European level, for instance, in the 8th EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation,
which explicitly supports and facilitates civil society participation in science (e.g. Engage 2020 2014,
Thomas 2015, Wehling 2012, Frickel 2010). This includes not only participation in the research process
as such (e.g. in transdisciplinary sustainability research, see below), but also participation of citizens in
research agenda setting processes, in academic boards and committees or in project-based education
programs.1
Approaches of “co-production” have been developed more systematically in the international field of
sustainability science as part of its programmatic demand for problem orientation and stakeholder
participation in research (Kates et al. 2001; Clark and Dickson 2003, 8059; Clark 2007; Miller 2012). In
the field of transdisciplinary research, integrated methodologies and well-established sets of concrete
methods have been developed for the participation of non-academic stakeholders and the integration of
different forms of knowledge (Scholz and Tietje 2002, Jahn et al. 2012; Lang et al. 2012).
(3) Innovation
By producing knowledge and innovations, science can generate new options, increase the scope of
societal action and open up previously unthought of solution spaces. The plea for a more explicit focus
on solutions in the field of transdisciplinary sustainability science (Sarewitz et al. 2012; Wiek et al.
2012; Miller et al. 2014; Popa et al. 2015; Wiek and Lang 2016) is exactly about increasing the scope of
action in dealing with unintended environmental and social side effects. This is not limited to
technological innovations as the result of research in the natural sciences and engineering, but explicitly
includes scientifically grounded social and institutional innovations (Howald/ Schwarz 2010).
(4) Balancing Power
Processes of societal transformation are inherently political, they involve power struggles and raise
questions of fairness and social equity (for a discussion of the role of power in transitions, see Avelino
2011, Partzsch 2015). By increasing reflexivity, facilitating participation and the search for innovative
solutions, science can help re-balance power in society. Power asymmetries benefitting established
actors in politics, science and society can be shifted by strengthening niche actors through new forms of
participation, by increasing the scope for action in relevant societal fields and by increasing reflexivity
with regard to existing technologies and (political) strategies.
2 Conceptualizing Transformative Science

Through a combination of these functions, science can develop a significant transformative capacity in
the age of reflexive modernity. We can therefore speak of transformative science, which is defined as:
a specific type of science that does not only observe and describe societal transformation processes, but
rather initiates and catalyzes them. Transformative science aims to improve our understanding of
transformation processes and to simultaneously increase societal capacity to reflect on them.
This definition – and ambition2 – of the concept of transformative science has a number of implications
with regard to (1) research and knowledge production, (2) education and teaching; and (3) institutional
change of the science system. By including these three dimensions, the program of a transformative
–––
1
2
http://www.consider-project.eu/home
The ambitious demands of a transformative science (Schneidewind and Singer-Brodowski 2014) have stimulated a
controversial debate especially within the German science system (Strohschneider 2014; Grunwald 2015; Schneidewind
2015; von Wissel 2015). The concept of transformative science has been criticized for blurring the boundaries between
science and society (Strohschneider) through instrumentalization by non-academic interest groups that are not democratically
elected, a non-scientific focus on solutions (“solutionism“) and an undue exaggeration of the role of science (“hypertrophy“)
(Strohschneider 2014). This debate clearly shows what the major obstacles for mainstreaming transformative science are. It
seems questionable, whether the self-organizing capabilities of the science system will alone be effective in redirecting this
autonomous sub-system towards greater societal responsibility (Glerup and Horst 2014).
science extends beyond approaches of transdisciplinary research that have been developed over the past
20 years (while building on their epistemological and methodological foundations).
Transformative Transformative
Research Education
Co-design and co- Transformative
production in learning in
transdisciplinary student-centred
processes didactic settings
Transformative
Science
Self-renewal of the science

system
Institutional
Change
Figure 2: Three dimensions of a transformative science (Source: Own illustration).
A major difference is that the concept of transformative science shifts the focus beyond the societal
impact of specific technologies or transdisciplinary projects and towards a more systematic
understanding of the transformative impact of science in and on society. Transformative science
engages in an active dialogue with societal stakeholders and accepts the challenge that comes with this
by explicitly questioning and reflecting its own implicit assumptions. This presents a fundamentally
new challenge of systemic change within the organizations responsible for the production of knowledge
(Dedeuderwaerde 2013, König 2015).
Beyond the sphere of traditional scientific institutions, transformative science also takes a key role in
establishing creative laboratories and room for experiments in a broader societal context.
Transformative science thus integrates approaches of transformative research and transformative
education to initiate change in key areas of activity of scientific institutions as well as a focus on
institutional change in the science system as a central sub-system within modern societies (see Fig. 2).
The following sections will focus on all three dimensions in detail.
2.1 Transformative Research – Co-Design and Co-Production in

Transdisciplinary Processes
Transformative research is a new research approach. Its potential and limitations still need to be
defined and methodological challenges have to be addressed. In the German-speaking countries
Germany, Austria and Switzerland a broad conceptualization of transformative research has been
developed over the last years, which offers relevant insights to the European and international debate
about “Responsible Research and Innovation”.
So, what does transformative research imply with regard to concepts and methods? As a first building
block approaches of transdisciplinary research can be referred to (Jahn et al. 2012; Lang et al. 2012;
Jahn and Keil 2015). While these approaches focus on the integration of different types of knowledge,
transformative research emphasizes the role of scientific knowledge production as a form of societal
intervention that aims at catalyzing societal change processes. The German Advisory Council on Global
Change describes this active intervention of science as follows:
‘Transformative research supports transformation processes in practical terms through the

development of solutions and technical and social innovations, including diffusion processes in
economy and society, and opportunities for their acceleration, and demands, at least in part, systemic
perspectives and inter as well as transdisciplinary procedure methods, including stakeholder
participation.’ (WBGU 2011, 351)
Transformative research aims at paradigmatic change and adopts a normative position. It is oriented
towards a more sustainable society and wants to contribute actively to the transformation processes
needed to achieve this goal. Sustainable development is in this context understood as an extension of
universal human rights and thus amounts to a human-oriented civilization project. Following such a
normative orientation, transformative research can be positioned as part of the field of sustainability
science, which is growing continuously since around the year 2000 (Kates et al. 2001; Clark and
Dickson 2003; Clark 2007; Jerneck et al. 2011; Miller 2012; Brandt et al. 2013). Within the field of
(transdisciplinary) sustainability science, different approaches can be distinguished (Popa et al. 2015,
49 et seq; Wiek and Lang 2016). Among these, transformative research can be characterized as an
approach that focuses more explicitly on societal impact (rather than academic observation) and on
societal deliberation processes between scientists and non-academic stakeholders (rather than
integrating different types of knowledge). From an epistemological point of view, transformative
research can be related to the tradition of pragmatism, where the strict separation of knowledge and
experience disappears (Dewey 2000, 343-361).
A similar debate is currently taking place at the European level. The concept of “Responsible Research
and Innovation” (RRI) in this context describes a research paradigm that focuses on anticipating the
potential societal impact of research, on the development of co-design and co-production in research
designs, and on facilitating innovation and sustainable development. Societal actors, including
scientists, citizens, politicians and businesses, should collaborate in research and innovation processes,
to better ensure that results meet the expectations, needs and values of society (Glerup and Horst
2014). The RRI concept assumes a partnership between science and society, which allows science to
fulfill its tasks responsibly and legitimized by society (Guston et al. 2014). Similarly, transformative
research also builds on the ideal of a cooperative relationship between science and society. In contrast
to RRI, transformative research does not only explore options of radical change towards sustainability,
it additionally contributes to processes of initiating, steering and increasing reflexivity in societal
transformations.
A very different understanding, as compared to the European discourse, of transformative research has
been adopted by the US National Science Foundation:
“Transformative research is research driven by ideas that stand a reasonable

chance of radically changing our understanding of an important existing
scientific concept or leading to the creation of a new paradigm or field of
science. Such research also is characterized by its challenge to current
understanding or its pathway to new frontiers.” (NSF, 2007, p. 10).
According to this definition, transformative research is about an inner-academic paradigm change

(Kuhn 1962) and the emergence of new epistemic communities or “thought collectives” (Fleck 1980).
Such a narrow conceptualization of transformative research is only to a very limited extent suitable for
discussing the unintended side effects produced by the science system in an age of reflexive modernity.
From a methodological point of view, transformative research builds on the experimental turn in the
social sciences (Morton and Williams 2010; Overdest et al. 2010) and makes use of a broad repertoire
of research approaches, which focus on joint learning and experimenting of scientists and lay persons,
such as transdisciplinary case studies (Scholz and Tietje 2002; Scholz et al. 2006; Stauffacher et al.
2006), participative action research (Greenwood and Levin 2007; Reason and Bradbury 2008,
Wittmayer and Schäpke 2014), intervention research (Rothman and Thomas 1994, Fraser et al. 2009;
Krainer and Lerchster 2012) or transition research (Schot and Geels 2008; Berkhout et al. 2010; van
den Bosch and Rotmans 2008) (For an overview of the different research approaches, see Table 1).
Approach Characteristics Authors

Transdisciplinary Transdisciplinary case studies are well-established in Scholz and Tietje
case studies sustainability science and are used to study real-world 2002; Scholz et al.
phenomena in context, especially where the boundaries 2006; Stauffacher et
between studied phenomenon and context cannot easily be al. 2006, Kyburz-
drawn. Research questions are usually questions of “why” and Graber 2016; Yin
“how” and data is generated through triangulation of 2003; Stake 2005
methods. Since many sustainability problems are complex,
characterized by uncertainty and involving many
stakeholders, case studies can help integrate various types of
relevant knowledge and facilitate the generation of socially
robust knowledge.
Transdisciplinary Transdisciplinary research is reflexive, integrative, method- Bergmann et al. 2010;
research driven research with a focus on solving societal problems as Lang et al. 2012; Jahn
well as scientific questions. Different types of scientific and et al. 2012; Defila and
non-academic knowledge are distinguished and methods are DiGiulio 1999
being developed for integrating these different types of
knowledge.
Action research The tradition of action research goes back to the work of Greenwood and
social-psychologist Kurt Lewin during the 1940s and has been Lewin 2007, Reason
applied in various disciplines (political science, urban and and Bradbury 2008;
regional development studies, educational research, Wittmayer and
organization studies). Action research has emerged as a Schäpke 2014, Wals
critique of the experimental social-psychological methods 1994
dominant at that time, which assumed scientists as experts,
neutral and distant observers of lay persons as mere objects
of study. Action research emphasizes cooperation and
collaboration between scientists and lay persons as a way of
generating socially relevant and applicable knowledge as well
as new social relations and change in the field of study.
Intervention The aim of intervention research is to initiate – through Fraser et al. 2009;
research doing research – individual reflection and learning, which Rothman and
eventually leads to collective reflexivity and enlightenment. Thomas 1994;
Social learning processes in practice are the key focus of Krainer and Lerchster
intervention research and learning is the result of permanent 2012; Heintel 2005;
reflection in a dialogue with scientists, rather than through Lerchster 2012;
adopting scientific knowledge provided by scientists.
Transition Transition research is a new approach to sustainable Schot and Geels
research development (SD) and is drawing on several inputs: 2008; Berkhout et al.
complexity theory, integrated assessment, STS, innovation 2010; van den Bosch
studies, history, governance studies, reflexive modernization, and Rotmans 2008
but is also developing its own core set of questions and
theories. Major research efforts of a number of European
research institutes in recent years have advanced knowledge
of transitions to sustainability, particularly in the field of a
broad understanding of how major, radical transformations
unfold and what drives them.
Table 1: Sources of transformative research in different fields (Source: Own illustration).
We argue that an integrated perspective on these research approaches under the umbrella concept of
transformative science can foster a more comprehensive understanding and an improved contribution
to sustainability transformations in practice. They share some basic characteristics: they recognize and
integrate various types of knowledge, they take a critical stance towards conventional research
paradigms and they strive for a new contract between science and society (science in and with society)
(see also mode-2 science (Nowotny et al. 2001) and post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993).
In essence, transformative research emerges as a result of innovation and modernization dynamics that
produce knowledge deficits, uncertainty and risk (Krohn 2007).
2.1.1 Research in Real-World Labs

A current example of an “ideal-type” form of transformative research is the newly emerging concept of
research in real-world labs (Schneidewind 2014; De Flander et al. 2014; Schäpke et al. 2015). This
concept is still young and a broadly shared definition does not exist as of yet. According to our
understanding, real-world labs provide “contexts for real-world experiments, which aim at an improved
understanding of transformation processes and actively facilitate them” (Schneidewind 2014).
The key idea of studying and initiating change in real-world labs is to actually develop solutions, test
and experiment with them (WBGU 2014; De Flander et al. 2014; Wagner and Grunwald 2015). They are
carried out in and with society, rather than within the confines of scientific labs (Gross et al. 2005, p.
11). Real-world labs are built on a transdisciplinary process understanding of the involved scientific and
non-scientific actors, methods facilitating collaboration and knowledge integration as well as suitable
project designs. In short, they can be described as places of learning, which can have various types of
impact: they create socially robust and socially acceptable solutions for actual problems, they serve as
testing ground for new knowledge and solutions, and they can facilitate transferability of solutions to
other contexts. The basic assumption is that experimenting and learning-by-doing is important not only
to initiate change, but also to arrive at a better understanding of transformation processes per se. Fields
of application and research questions can be as diverse as the concrete physical locations or boundaries
of a real-world lab. They can be urban districts or even entire cities or regions, national parks or nature
reservation areas, a university campus as well as an industrial sector or supply chain as well as a
regional mobility system (MWK 2013). Similar to case studies, real-world laboratories are delineated by
the specific research question or field of application and they focus on a specific place or concept, e.g. a
region (Ceschin 2014), city (Evans and Karvonen 2014) or organization (Evans et al. 2015) that can
serve as a boundary objects facilitating knowledge integration. Various kinds of actors can relate to
these boundary objects and thus are enabled to relate the different kinds of knowledge they possess to
each other in a collaborative way (Schneidewind and Scheck 2013, p. 240) , and eventually initiate joint
real-world experiments (Groß et al. 2005).
Successful collaboration of scientists and non-academic partners in real-world labs depends on

fulfilling certain quality criteria of transdisciplinary sustainability science in order to guarantee
knowledge integration. An additional and decisive factor is a high degree of reflexivity and
transparency. Without these, real-world labs will not enable mutual learning (Scholz 2000), but will
rather instrumentalize the non-academic partners as “lab rats”. An essential precondition for doing
research in real-world labs is the ability and willingness of the involved scientists to critically reflect
their own roles in the process. In that sense, we can describe transdisciplinary research in real-world
labs as a type of “learning research process” within a social space (Schneidewind and Singer-Brodowski
2015, 17). This can amount to a rather radical break with a more traditional understanding of roles in
science, where scientists are the experts and lay persons the research objects. Real-world labs thus can
have an impact not only on their specific field of application and the local stakeholders, but also on the
involved scientists.
Doing transformative research in real-world labs can help strengthen reflexivity and it dissolves the
strict separation of knowledge and experience, turning it into a more pragmatic perspective on joint
research, learning and change. There is thus also a very direct link between transformative research and
transformative education. An integrated perspective on research, education and the institutional system
in which they are embedded, is the core feature of the concept of transformative science.
2.2 Transformative Education and Teaching

Since transformative science aims at reflexive knowledge production that can initiate change in society,
it cannot rely only on the realm of academic research. Knowledge-based learning, teaching and
education in universities are another key element of a transformative science. Even in a very traditional
sense, higher education can be understood as a transformative endeavor, because it enables students to
develop new ways of thinking and to question and change behavioural patterns. Where learning
processes in universities are connected with societal change processes, a space is being created for
“transformative learning” at the individual and societal level. Students who will be future decision-
makers learn to deal with societal challenges and uncertainties in a pro-active way. They should develop
an understanding for “wicked” sustainability problems, learn about approaches for solving them and
eventually become change agents for a more sustainable society in the future.
In the context of the discourse on higher education for sustainable development, a dynamic research
and practice community has emerged, addressing this rather comprehensive idea of approaching higher
education in a societal context (i.e. Jones et al. 2010; Adomssent et al. 2006; de Kraker et al. 2007;
Adomssent et al. 2009, Barth et al. 2011, Barth et al. 2016). This research field has emerged around the
“UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development” (ESD) (2005-2014), which has been launched
with the overall objective of integrating ESD in all fields of education worldwide. In the final report of
this UN Decade it was found that over the ten years it lasted progress has been made internationally
with regard to the institutionalization of ESD in universities. However, it was also found that many
countries are lacking pro-active “leadership” for a more substantial change in universities (UNESCO
2014, p. 115 ff.). Since 2015, efforts of strengthening ESD internationally are continued in the form of a
UN World Program of Action.
A central aim of ESD in higher education is the development of competencies of students in the context
of concrete sustainability problems. Especially against the background of complexity and uncertainty,
competencies are essential as “the cognitive abilities and skills, which the individuals have available or
can learn, and enable them to solve specific problems, as well as the motivational, volitional and social
dispositions and abilities to successfully and responsibly use the solutions of problems in variable
situations” (Weinert 2001, p. 27 f.). Over the past years, various classifications of relevant sustainability
competencies have been developed for the field of higher education (e.g. Barth et al. 2007, de Kraker et
al. 2009, Segales et al. 2009, UNECE 2012). In an international review by Wiek et al. (2011), the various
competence models have been integrated and five key competencies were identified, which are essential
for fostering sustainability transformations: (1) systems thinking, (2) anticipatory competence, (3)
normative competence, (4) strategic competence. These are based on (5) interpersonal competence,
which is a precondition for joint action (ibid.). The research agenda for the following years will be to
develop an understanding of different levels of competence and based on this a concept for
systematically measuring and evaluating students’ competencies (Wiek et al. 2016).
2.2.1 Transformative Learning for Sustainability

The competencies in the field ESD are a systematic description of the desired results of education and
students’ learning processes in the context of sustainability. However, they do not contain an
understanding of how these competencies can be developed and acquired by students. This is an open
research question in the field of ESD and environmental education and there is a need for more
research that puts students and their individual learning experiences in the focus of analyses (Rickinson
2001, 209f., auch Dillon 2003). Many educational programs primarily focus on influencing and
changing attitudes and behaviour towards more sustainable lifestyles (Rickinson 2001, p. 207). These
approaches are criticized, because they are in essence a form of instrumentalization of students for
addressing societal challenges (Jickling 1992, Scott and Vare 2007). A more adequate approach would
be to familiarize students with different concepts and enable them to decide for themselves what
positions they can and want to represent and to develop (political) attitudes in suitable teaching and
learning settings (ibid.).
Therefore, ESD in higher education aims not only at systemizing relevant competencies, it also wants to
encourage and enable students to reflect on their actions as consumers, citizens and learning human
beings, without overwhelming them through given assumptions, rigid frameworks and pre-defined sets
of competencies. Much more importantly, the individual experiences of students should be in the focus
and their ability to engage in controversial deliberation processes between (1) students themselves, (2)
students and teachers, and (3) students and societal stakeholders in the context of sustainability. The
concept of transformative education and teaching we are proposing here is a relevant theoretical
contribution to this debate, because it focuses on learning processes in contexts characterized by
complexity and uncertainty and aimed towards greater reflexivity with regard to individual behaviour.
Such a perspective is increasingly adopted in the field of ESD in higher education (Sterling 2011;
Pavlova 2013a/ 2013b; Elliot 2010; Moore 2003; Sipos et al. 2007).
The theory of transformative learning does not follow an additive understanding of learning, where
students add new knowledge to existing knowledge, it rather builds on a concept where an increasing
reflexivity is the starting point and a precondition: (1) for consciously acting individuals, (2) for being
able to develop new interpretations of contexts and situations, (3) for embedding what has been learned
in a stable repertoire of interpretations and actions (Mezirow 1997, S. 82). Core focuses of
transformative learning are subjective attributions of meaning, i.e. the individual schemes and frames
that shape the perception and interpretation of new experiences (ibid., p. 10). Since these subjective
attribution of meaning offer orientation and structure in everyday life, it is very difficult to change them
(Illeris 2013). Transformative learning processes are therefore often triggered by irritations within
personal worldviews or even minor crises regarding one’s perceptions of self and the world surrounding
him or her (Mezirow 1997). Such an experience can lead to a reflection of established attributions of
meaning and patterns of interpretation, which can in turn create openness for change. Such a process
can be facilitated in significant ways through non-hierarchical discourse (Mezirow 1991) with other
students and the possibility to reflect on changing perspectives together. Learning together, in the
protected environment of a group, reflection of new perspectives, hidden meaning and dominant
ideologies (Brookfield 2000) can be a starting point for emancipation and the development of new
worldviews and self-perceptions. These transformative learning processes lead to increased reflexivity
and a changing relationship (Sterling 2010) with the social and natural environment. Deep-structural
change in the assumptions that shape thinking, feeling and acting can lead to greater awareness and
better ways of dealing with issues such as global injustice and the exploitation of humans and nature
(Morrell and O’Connor 2002). Increased reflexivity can thus be achieved through a transformative
learning experience, much rather than through a process where students are being convinced by a
teacher to adopt more critical perspectives. Such a focus on transformative learning experiences is an
important addition to research on competencies in ESD and it contributes a student-centered
perspective on the learning process itself.
The development of competencies as well as transformative learning experiences can be facilitated by

activating forms of teaching in alternative didactive settings (Cotton and Winter 2010). These are
characterized by an interplay of practical activities and theoretical reflection (Savery 2006, p. 12). Based
on real-world problems (Brundiers and Wiek 2011) students work on sustainability problems in small,
interdisciplinary teams. In these kinds of didactic settings, students are no longer the subjects of their
education, rather, they become active stakeholders in small-scale transformation processes and the
related learning experiences (Wiek and Kay 2015). Especially in the context of the “Shift from teaching
to learning” as part of the Bologna process, these didactic forms of higher education gain impetus. An
overview of specific didactic tools and formats will be given in the following.
2.2.2 Didactic Formats fostering the development of competencies and

transformative learning
In principle, these didactic formats in ESD can be summarized under the concept of problem-based
learning (Dobson and Tomkinson 2012; Brundiers and Wiek 2011; Bessant et al. 2013, Cörvers et al.
2016). A key difference is whether they can be characterized as research-oriented or project-oriented
learning (Brundiers and Wiek 2013).
Research-oriented learning focuses on gaining a deeper understanding of a phenomenon and its

context with the aim of producing knowledge with regard to a specific sustainability problem. Ideally,
the process of knowledge generation is embedded in a transdisciplinary or transformative research
design. Students are confronted with a complex sustainability problem and will then be supported by
teachers in carrying out a small research project, including the development of a research question,
selection of suitable methods, evaluating and presenting results. Transdisciplinary case studies (Scholz
et al. 2006) are a typical format for doing these kinds of research projects. Teachers take on the role of
facilitators that assist students with their practical expertise in the respective field as well as with their
theoretical and methodological knowledge. According to Barrows (1996), research-oriented learning is
characterized by six features:
1| Learning is student-centered,
2| Learning occurs in small student groups,
3| Teachers are facilitators or guides
4| Problems form the organizing focus and stimulus for learning.
5| Problems are a vehicle for the development of (...) problem-solving skills and
6| New information is acquired through self-didactic learning.
Project-oriented learning is also characterized by these features, but the focus is on solving in practice a
specific sustainability problem in a concrete local context. It is thus also based on a real-world problem,
but the project result, sometimes in the form of a concrete product, is decisive and a more clearly
specified goal (Savery 2006, p. 1). The problem in question can emerge from a cooperation with civil
society partners and learning in these contexts can be further specified as “service learning” (Barth et al.
2014). Here, students learn about the respective subject matter by working in nonprofit/civil society
organizations and then reflect on it theoretically (Eyler and Giles 1999). Another example is the
development of sustainability projects on campus by the students themselves: organizing events,
preparing a sustainability report for the university, doing campaigns for concrete sustainability
activities at the university, e.g. in the field of energy efficiency and saving energy or serving fair-trade
coffee at the university canteen.
Project-oriented learning can thus contribute to actual improvements in the sustainability performance
of universities and it can be an effective element in teaching. A precondition for developing
competencies in project-oriented learning is the theoretical reflection of the practical experience.
Facilitating theoretical reflection is the task of the involved teachers as well as supporting and coaching
the students in the project management process (Savery 2006, 15).
In essence, transdisciplinary or transformative learning in research-oriented learning approaches as

well as the focus on developing concrete solutions in project-oriented learning formats offer students
access to new types of knowledge: the locally embedded understandings and experiences of
stakeholders (Alvarez and Rogers 2006, 178) as well as the manifold complexities of sustainability
problems in practice. Students are encouraged to look at local sustainability problems from various
perspectives, taking into account the discourses and practices of various stakeholder, and to develop a
deeper understanding of the ambiguities, uncertainty and multidimensional nature of sustainability
transformations (ibid. p. 182 f.). Research- and project-oriented learning can thus be seen as
complementary in ESD (Brundiers and Wiek 2013, 1728).
Research- as well as project-oriented learning formats enable students to become more pro-active and
engage in transformation processes. Self-organized learning (Knowles 1975, Candy 1991, Boekarts 1999)
and the freedom to design their own projects can contribute to students’ intrinsic motivation (Deci and
Ryan 1985) and facilitate identification with their projects (Wheeler et al. 2010, p. 20). The
experimental character of projects allows for making mistakes (within the protected space of the
university) as an essential part in the process of learning.
Higher education that is based on principles of transformative learning can have three kinds of impact:
(1) impact on students through facilitating ESD and enabling them to act as “pioneers of change” and
responsible citizens of a global society; (2) impact on didactics that need to be changed in order to allow
for an interplay of practical experience and theoretical reflection; (3) impact on society by embedding
teaching and learning activities in the university’s environment.
2.3 Institutional Change – Self-renewal of the Science System

For transformative research and transformative teaching and learning to spread more broadly,
institutional change in the science system is required. Such an institutional dimension has been lacking
in the debate about mode-2 science so far. However, a comprehensive concept of transformative science
needs to include an institutional dimension3. Institutional change in that sense refers not only to the
organizational structures of academia as a whole or individual scientific bodies, but also rule systems
and paradigms embodied in academic cultures, the incentive structures and reputation systems and
scientific quality criteria (for an overview of strategies for institutional reform towards a more
transformative science system, see: Schneidewind 2010, Schneidewind/Singer-Brodowski 2014, S.
Schneidewind et al. 2016a).
In the following, institutional change at three levels will be discussed: (1) a fundamental mindshift in
the self-conception and attitude of scientists as individuals; (2) a regime shift towards greater
participation of civil society, scientific quality criteria and quality assurance systems for a
transformative science and organizational change at the level of universities and non-academic research
bodies; (3) instruments and measures for an institutional reform program at the political level.
2.3.1 Mindshift
Transdisciplinary research and transformative teaching and education as well as the overall concept of a
transformative science are all based on a specific perspective on the role of knowledge and scientists in
–––
and for society. Science is not understood as being isolated from society, taking place in a sub-system
3
Schneidewind/Singer-Brodowski describe transformative science as mode-3 science, i.e. adding an institutional dimension to
the debate about a mode-2 science.
following its own specific rules, but rather as an embedded process, generating knowledge with and for
a changing society – in a “transdisciplinary process“ (Scholz 2011). Such a fundamental approach
challenges self-conceptions and traditional roles of scientists. The relationship between scientists and
society has to be redefined where they take real-world problems as the starting point for research,
where research questions are framed together with societal stakeholders and where different types of
disciplinary and non-academic knowledge need to be integrated. This is in stark contrast to the ideal of
the lonely academic searching for the truth in isolation from societal turmoil. Defensive reactions and
critique of transformative science approaches can thus often be explained by a clash of basic
conceptions of science and the role of scientists. At its core are conflicting self-conceptions of scientists
that transcend the cognitive-rational level.
It is therefore crucial to emphasize that the concept of transformative science does not aim at the
abolition of disciplinary and basic research, which require a more traditional research approach and
scientific practice, including the related self-conceptions of scientists. However, in an age of reflexive
modernity, there is an additional need for a more transformative science and ways have to be found for
enabling the co-existence of different scientific cultures in the science system. Similar dynamics have
led to changes in the science system before, e.g. in the case of the emerging engineering sciences (see
Grunwald 2015). A mindshift is needed that embraces these pluralizing dynamics (in a reflexive and
critical way), in order to open up the space for concrete institutional change.
2.3.2 Regime Shift

Three key areas where institutional change is needed in order to enable a more transformative science
will be discussed in the following, in order to illustrate the fundamental challenges involved in a
broader institutional reform program: (1) greater participation of civil society in science, (2) rethinking
scientific quality criteria and quality assurance systems, and (3) organizational change at the level of
universities and non-academic research bodies.
Participation
Involving societal stakeholders in the co-design of research questions and designs and in the co-
production of knowledge is a key challenge for the established institutional structure of the science
system and is therefore discussed controversially. While methods for stakeholder involvement in
transdisciplinary processes and cases studies have been developed, there are no established
mechanisms for civil society participation in science at a level beyond individual research projects. This
would require a more systematic participation of civil society organizations in the design of publicly
funded research programs, capacity building through mediating institutions, such as Science Shops, for
instance, and further developing citizen science as a specific form of co-production of scientific
knowledge (Irwin 1995; Roy et al. 2012, Haklay 2013).
Scientific quality criteria and quality assurance systems
Scientific quality criteria and quality control mechanisms are of key importance for building a
reputation in the science system. Apart from traditional academic quality criteria, there is a need for
alternative quality criteria able to evaluate transformative science approaches. Their co-existence with
traditional science depends on broadly accepted criteria and measures of distinguishing “good” and
“bad” transformative science – in co-existence with the elaborated scientific quality assurance systems
already in place.
In the field of transdisciplinary research, approaches of quality assurance have been developed (e.g.
Jahn/Keil 2015.). However, a key aspect remains somewhat neglected: measuring societal impact. Since
transformative science aims at fostering sustainability transformations in practice, a better
understanding is needed of the societal impact and suitable approaches for evaluating sustainability
impacts in society.
In the field of transformative science, i.e. science that proactively fosters transformative processes
(WBGU 2011, p. 23), the mechanisms through which science has a transformative impact are varied and
complex. Impact is produced through different kinds of levers – e.g. technologies, specific project
results, policy recommendations, coining terms and developing new frames and narratives, individual
scientists – and they differ depending on the specific field of application and arena. An analytically clear
and linear reconstruction of causal impact chains (e.g. along the lines of input – output – outcome) that
goes beyond generic heuristics is hardly feasible (e.g. Wiek et al., 2014). Existing approaches of
measuring impact based on formative criteria (e.g. Bergmann et al. 2005; Jahn and Keil 2015) of
process conditions for successful transformative research also remain limited. A better understanding is
needed of what the varying types of impact and their underlying mechanisms are, in order to facilitate
the learning processes in the field of transformative science (Schneidewind and Singer-Brodowski,
2014).
A useful orientation is offered by the British “Research Excellence Framework”, where the impact of
research is evaluated based on best practice case studies. To generalize results beyond the level of
individual cases, the analytical framework of Spappen and van Drooge (2011), which is based on the
concept of “productive interactions”, can be a useful addition. According to this framework, interactions
between science and society (i.e. scientists and stakeholders) are a key factor for producing impact.
Building on this framework and a case study analysis, typical patterns can be identified for the
production of societal impact. This approach allows for a systematization of the broad variety of impact
mechanisms into a comprehensive set of typical patterns of transformative research that has a societal
impact. Research on “pattern language” (e.g. Alexander et al. 1977) offers interesting perspectives on
conceptualizing patterns in the emergence of societal impact. Alexander et al. (1977, p. 10) find that
„each pattern describes a problem which occurs over and over again in our environment, and then
describes the core of the solution of that problem, in such a way that you can use this solution a million
times over, without ever doing it the same way twice“. The focus of such an approach is on the
relationship between the parts of a system and how their interplay contributes to the functioning of the
system as a whole (Stark and Schümmer, 2014, 25).
Organisational change facilitating transdisciplinarity and transformative science
Finally, institutional change for transformative science is needed within the organizations of the science
system, i.e. universities and other research institutions. Their organizational structures reflect the
traditional academic and disciplinary modes of knowledge production. Interdisciplinary centers do
exist, but they often build bridges between disciplines that are closely related, e.g. in the field of natural
sciences and engineering, in medical research, or in the social sciences. In the following an overview is
given of some key institutional reforms and initiatives that together can contribute to a relevant degree
of capacity building for a transformative science:
• Establishing transdisciplinary centers for research and education that cross disciplinary boundaries
between the natural and the social sciences, and involve societal stakeholders. Some examples of
this type of institutions already exist, e.g. the Stockholm Resilience Center or the Dutch Research
Institute for Transitions (DRIFT).
• Establishing university faculties with a transdisciplinary orientation (e.g. the Leuphana University
Lüneburg in Germany or the School for Sustainability at Arizona State University). They can create
the basis for transdisciplinary study and dissertation programs.
• Establishing infrastructures for transdisciplinary knowledge integration in research and education:

(urban) real-world labs designed for longer periods of time can function as a more permanent
transdisciplinary setting and process (WBGU 2016).
• Establishing institutes or centers that focus on the development of methods for a transformative
science. It has been shown in this paper that there is a need to further develop suitable methods in
transformative research (and education) and similar to disciplinary science, these should be
developed and taught in specialized centers. These can also become initiators for publishing
scientific journals with a transdisciplinary focus.
These examples provide a brief overview of concrete measures that could be part of a more
comprehensive institutional reform program facilitating transformative science.
2.3.3 Getting Started

A key question is how such an institutional change agenda could be implemented in current science
systems characterized by path dependencies and inertia. Some empirical evidence of promising
approaches does exist. In the following, three examples will be presented:
• Funding programs can have an important signaling function for the science system as a whole
and they can create the experimental space for developing transformative science approaches.
Important funding bodies in this respect can be foundations (see the example of the Stockholm
Resilience Center), national funding bodies (e.g. the Social-Ecological Research program of the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, or as an example in the field of transformative
education and learning, the Austrian Ministry of Economics’ “Sparkling Science” program), or public
funding bodies below the national level (e.g. the real-world lab program of the German federal state
Baden-Württemberg4. It is important that these funding programs do not only work on a project-
basis, but also create incentives for long-term capacity building, e.g. by establishing centers that
receive initial funding or by establishing tenure-track professorships.
• Pioneering institutions. Institutional change in the science system depends on a critical mass of
national and international pioneering institutions that embrace principles of transformative science
as part of their strategic mission. This is important for long-term capacity building based on a
systematic development of methods, publishing journals, developing quality criteria and quality
control systems, and by creating career opportunities for scientists in the field of transdisciplinary
and transformative science. Today, only a few isolated examples of pioneering institutions already
exist, such as Arizona State University in the US or the Leuphana University in Germany as well as
networks of non-university sustainability research institutes, e.g. the Ecornet in Germany
(http://www.ecornet.eu). Further incentives are needed, such as the excellence programs in various
national science systems, in order to facilitate a more varied and horizontal differentiation within
the science system.
• Participation of civil society. An important catalyst for institutional change in the science
system are civil society organizations, especially where they openly state their demands with regard
to the role of science in the political arena and directly addressing scientific institutions. This can
create the political momentum needed for substantial reforms. With regard to commercialization
and industry interests there have been vast changes within the science system over the past decades.
Similar mechanisms should be used in the context of societal interests and to establish a new
–––
contract between science and society.
4
https://mwk.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/forschung/forschungspolitik/wissenschaft-fuer-nachhaltigkeit/reallabore/
3 Conclusions: Transformative Science as a paradigmatic,

institutional and methodological reform program
This paper has outlined the program and the key elements of a “transformative science” and the related
need for institutional change. The concept of transformative science extends beyond established
discourses of mode-2 science and approaches of transdisciplinary research, because it addresses issues
related to transformative research as well as transformative education and learning, and it focuses on
the institutional dimension of science system change. Transformative science is a self-reflexive program
for further developing science, by critically questioning and reflecting on its own role in societal
transformation processes.
The following aspects are crucial for further developing the program of transformative science:
• The debate about transformative science needs to be internationalized, building on and extending
far beyond individual European and US hubs. A suitable framework for this could be the global
Future Earth program (http://www.futureearth.org).
• Challenges addressed in this paper, e.g. development of methods and quality criteria, the need for
pioneering institutions and funding programs, need to be focused on and developed further.
• The basic concept of a transformative science needs to be translated and adapted in different fields
of application, e.g. as a transformative economics and business studies (see Schneidewind et al.
2016b), transformative chemistry or transformative computer sciences.
Building a new contract between science and society remains a challenge and a comprehensive reform
project for the science system in the 21st century.
4 References
Adomßent, M.; Beringer, A.; Barth, M. (Hrsg.) (2009): World in Transition: Sustainability Perspectives
for Higher Education. Verlag für akademische Schriften: Frankfurt a.M.
Adomßent, M.; Godemann, J.; Leicht, A.; Busch, A. (Hrsg.) (2006): Higher Education for
Sustainability: New Challenges from a Global Perspective. Verlag für akademische Schriften: Frankfurt
a. M.
Alexander, C./Ishikawa, S./Silverstein, M./Jacobson, M./ Fiksdahl-King, I./Angel, S. (1977): A Pattern

Language. Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Alvarez, Amaya; Rogers, Judy (2006): Going “out there”: learning about sustainability in place. In:
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7 (2), S. 176-188. DOI:
10.1108/14676370610655940
Avelino, F. (2011). Power in Transition: Empowering Discourses on Sustainability Transitions

(Dissertation). Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam, Faculty of Social Sciences (FSS).
Barrows, Howard S. (1996): Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond. In: Wilkerson, LuAnn;
Gijselaers, Wim H. (Hrsg.): Bringing Problem-Based Learning to Higher Education. Jossey-Bass: San-
Francisco, S. 3-12.
Barth, Matthias; Adomßent, Maik; Fischer, Daniel; Richter, Sonja; Rieckmann, Marco (2014): Learning
to change universities from within: a service-learning perspective on promoting sustainable
consumption in higher education. In: Journal of Cleaner Production 62, S.72-81. DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.006
Barth, M.; Michelsen, G.; Rieckmann, M.; Thomas, I. (Hrsg.) (2016): Routledge Handbook of Higher
Education for Sustainable Development. Routledge: Abingdon/ New York
Barth, Matthias; Godemann, Jasmin; Rieckmann, Marco; Stoltenberg, Ute (2007): Developing key
competencies for sustainable development in higher education. In: International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 8 (4), S. 416-430. DOI: 10.1108/14676370710823582
Barth, M.; Rieckmann, M.; Sanusi, Z. A. (Hrsg.) (2011): Higher Education for Sustainable
Development: Looking Back an Moving Forward Verlag für akademische Schriften: Frankfurt a.M.
Beck, U. (1986): Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.
1986. (19. Aufl. 2007).
Berkhout F. et al. (2010). Sustainability experiments in Asia: innovations shaping alternative

development pathways? Environmental Science & Policy 13, 261-271.
Bessant, Sophie; Bailey, Patrick; Robinson, Zoe; Tomkinson, Bland C.; Tomkinson, Rosemary;
Ormerod, Mark R.; Boast, Rob (2013): Problem-Based Learning: a case study of sustainability
Education. Download unter:
www.keele.ac.uk/media/keeleuniversity/group/hybridpbl/PBL_ESD_Case Study_Bessant, et al.
2013.pdf (letzter Zugriff: 11.03.2015)
Boekarts, M., 1999. ‘Self-regulated Learning: Where we are Today’, International Journal of
Educational Research, 31(6), 445–57.
Brandt, P.; Ernst, A.; Gralla, F.; Luederitz, C.; Lang, D. J.; Newig, J.; Reinert, F.; Abson, D. J.; von
Wehrden, H. (2013): A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science, In: Ecological
Economics, 92: 1-15.
Brookfield, Stephen D. (2000): Transformative learning as ideology critique. In: Mezirow, Jack (Hrsg.):
Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco,
S. 125-148.
Brundiers, Katja; Wiek, Arnim (2011): Educating Students in Real-world Sustainability Research:
Vision and Im- plementation. In: Innovative Higher Education 36 (2), S. 107-124. DOI:
10.1007/s10755-010-9161-9
Brundiers, Katja; Wiek, Arnim (2013): Do we teach what we preach? An International Comparison of
Problem- and Project-based Learning Courses in Sustainability. In: Sustainability 5 (4), S. 1725-1746.
DOI: 10.3390/su5041725
Candy, P.C., 1991. Self-Direction for Lifelong Learning. A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ceschin, F., 2014. How the Design of Socio-technical Experiments Can Enable Radical Changes for
Sustainability. Int. J. Des. 8, 1–21.
Clark, W. C. (2007): Sustainability Science: A room of ist own. In: Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 104 (6), S. 1737-1738,
http://doi:10.1073/pnas.0611291104
Clark, W. C.; Dickson, N. M. (2003): Sustainability science: The emerging research programm. In:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 100 (14), S.
8059-8061, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231333100
Cotton, D./ Winter, J. (2010), “It’s not just bits of paper and light bulbs: a review of sustainability
pedagogies and their potential for use in higher education“, in Jones, P./ Selby, D./ Sterling, S. (Ed.),
Sustainability education: Perspectives and practice across higher education, Earthscan, London, pp.
39- 54.
Cörvers, R.; Wiek, A.; de Kraker, J.; Lang, D. J.; Martens, P. (2016): Problem-Based and Project-Based
Learning for Sustainable Development. Heinrichs, H.; Martens, P.; Michelsen, G.; Wiek, A. (Hrsg.):
Sustainability Science: An Introduction. Springer: Dordrecht u.a., S. 349-358
Crutzen, Paul (2002): The „anthropocene“. In: Journal de Physique IV France 12 (10), S. 1-5. DOI:
10.1051/jp4:20020447
De Flander, Katleen; Hahne, Ulf; Kegler, Harald; Lang, Daniel; Lucas, Rainer; Schneidewind, Uwe;
Simon, Karl-Heinz; Singer-Brodowski, Mandy; Wanner, Matthias; Wiek, Arnim (2014): Resilienz und
Reallabore als Schlüsselkonzepte urbaner Transformationsforschung – Zwölf Thesen. In: GAIA Jg. 23
(3), S. 284 – 286
De Kraker, J.; Lansu, A.; van Dam-Mieras, R. (Hrsg.) (2007): Crossing Boundaries: Innovative
Learning for Sustainable Development in Higher Education. Verlag für akademische Schriften:
Frankfurt a. M.
De Kraker, J., Lansu, A. and van dam Mieras, R., 2009. ‘Competences and competence- based learning
for sustainable development’, in de Kraker, J., Lansu, A. and van dam Mieras, R. (eds), Crossing
Boundaries. Innovative Learning for Sustainable Development. Frankfurt a.M.: VAS, 103–14.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New
York: Plenum.
Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2013): Transdisciplinary sustainability science at higher education institutions:

Science policy tools for incremental change. In: Sustainability, Vol. 5, 3783-3801.
Defila R., Di Giulio A. (1999): Evaluating Transdisciplinary Research – Evaluation Criteria for Inter and
Transdisciplinary Research. In: Panorama. Special Issue 1/99.
Dewey, John (2000): Demokratie und Erziehung. Eine Einleitung in die philosophische Pädagogik.
Herausgegeben und mit einem Nachwort von Jürgen Oelkers (englischsprachige Originalausgabe 1916).
Beltz: Weinheim/ Basel.
Dillon, Justin (2003): On Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: Missing theories,
ignored communities. In: Environmental Education Research 9 (2), S. 215-226. DOI:
10.1080/13504620303480.
Dobson, H. E.; Tomkinson, C.B. (2012): Creating sustainable development change agents through
problem-based learning: Designing appropriate student PBL projects. In: International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 13 (3), S. 263-278. DOI: 10.1108/14676371211242571.
Elliott, Jennifer (2010): Insights to Transformative Learning through Education for Sustainable
Development. In: Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 5, 96-113. Available at:
http://insight.glos.ac.uk/tli/resources/lathe/Documents/issue 5/articles/Lathe_5_J Elliott.pdf
Engage 2020 (2014): Tools and instruments for a better societal engagement in "Horizon 2020".
Deliverable 3.1 - report on current praxis of policies and activities supporting societal engagement in
research and innovation. Brüssel. (Download unter: http://engage2020.eu/media/D3.1-Current-
Praxis-of-Policies-and-Activities.pdf)
Evans, J., Karvonen, A., 2014. “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Lower Your Carbon Footprint!” - Urban
Laboratories and the Governance of Low-Carbon Futures. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 38, 413–430.
doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12077
Evans J, Jones R, Karvonen A, Millard L, Wendler J: Living labs and co-production: university
campuses as platforms for sustainability science. In: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
Vol. 16 (Oktober 2015), S. 105-111. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.011
Fleck, Ludwig (1980): Die Entdeckung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom
Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Mit einer Einleitung hg. v. Lothar Schäfer/Thomas Schnelle, Frankfurt am
Main 1980 (Originalausgabe Basel 1935).
Fraser, Mark, W.; Richman, Jack, M.; Galinsky, Maeda, J.; Day, Steven, (2009): Intervention Research.
Developing Social Programs. Oxford University Press: Oxford
Frickel, Scott et al. (2010), Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to
research agenda setting. In: Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 35, S. 444– 473.
Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J. (1993): Science for the post-normal age. In: Futures Vol. 25, S. 739–755.
Gibbons, M. (1999): Science’s new social contract with society, Nature 402 (Suppl.) (1999)
Giddens, A. (1984): The Constitution of Society. Outline of a Theory of Structuration. Polity Press,
Cambridge 1984.
Giddens, A. (1996): Konsequenzen der Moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. 1996. (Neuauflage 2008).
Glerup, C.; Horst, M. (2014): Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science, Journal of Responsible
Innovation, 1:1, 31-50, DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2014.882077
Greenwood DJ, Levin M (2007) Introduction to Action Research. Social Research for Social Change,
2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Groß, M.; Hoffmann-Riem, H.; Krohn, W. (2005): Realexperimente. Ökologische Gestaltungsprozesse

in der Wissensgesellschaft. Bielefeld: Transcript.
Grunwald, A. (2008): Technik und Politikberatung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. 2008.
Grunwald, A. (2013), Future Earth: Neue Dynamik in der globalen Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. In: GAIA,
Vol. 22 No. 3, S.145.
Grunwald, A. (2015): Transformative Wissenschaft – eine neue Ordnung im Wissenschaftsbetrieb? In:

GAIA Vol. 24 (1), S. 17–20.
Guston, D. H.; Fisher, E.; Grunwald, A.; Owen, R.; Swierstra, T.; van der Burg, S. (2014): Responsible
innovation: motivations for a new journal, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1:1, 1-8, DOI:
10.1080/23299460.2014.885175
Haklay, M. (2013): Citizen Science and Volunteered Geo- graphic Information: Overview and Typology
of Participation. in: D. Sui/S. Elwood/M. Goodchild (Hrsg.): Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge.
Dordrecht: Springer, S. 105–122.
Heintel, P. (2005): Zur Grundaxiomatik der Interventionsforschung. In: Heintel,P /Krainer, L./Paul-
Horn, I./Ukowitz, M. (Hrg.): WBI Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Interventionsforschung, Band 1.
Klagenfurt: Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt.
Howaldt, J./Schwarz, M. (2010): „Soziale Innovation“ im Fokus. Skizze eines gesellschaftstheoretisch

inspirierten Forschungskonzepts. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
Illeris, Knud (2013): Transformative learning and identity. Routledge: Abingdon, Oxon.
Irwin, A. (1995): Citizen Science. A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London/
New York: Routledge.
Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., Keil, F. (2012): Transdisciplinarity – between Mainstreaming and
marginalisation. In: Ecological Economics (79), S. 1-10, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017
Jahn, T.; Keil, F. (2015): An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research.
In: Futures. Volume 65, January 2015, Pages 195–208. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.015
Jerneck, A.; Olsson, L.; Ness, B.; Anderberg, S.; Baier, M.; Clark, E.; Hickler, T.; Hornborg, A.; Kronsell,
A.; Lövbrand, E.; Persson, J. (2011): Structuring sustainability science. In: Sustainability Science, 6: S.
69-82 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x
Jickling, Bob (1992): Why I don’t want my children to be educated for sustainable development. In:
Journal of Environmental Education, 23 (4), S. 5-8. DOI: 10.1080/00958964.1992.9942801
Jones, Paula; Selby, David; Sterling, Stephen (2010) (eds.): Sustainability Education. Perspectives and
Practices across Higher Education. Earthscan: London
Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J. J., Schellnhuber, H.-
J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N. M., Faucheuz, S., Gallopin, G. C., Gruebler, A., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha, N.
S., Kasperson, R. E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P.; Mooney, H., Moore, B., O’Riordan, T. & Svedin, U.
(2001): Sustainability Science. In: Science 292, S. 641-642
Knowles, M 1975, Self-directed learning. A Guide for learners and teachers, Englewood Cliffs, New
York.
König, A. (2015): Changing requisites to universities in the 21st century: organizing for transformative
sustainability science for systemic change. In: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 16,
105-111.
Krainer, L.; Lerchster, R.E. (2012a) (Hrsg.): Interventionsforschung. Band 1. Paradigmen, Methoden,
Reflexionen. Springer VS: Wiesbaden.
Krohn, Wolfgang (2007): Realexperimente – Die Modernisierung der ’offenen Gesellschaft’ durch
experimentelle Forschung. In: Erwägen-Wissen-Ethik (EWE), Jg. 18, Heft 3, 343-356. Kritiken: 357-
426. Replik des Autors: 427-442.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Kyburz-Graber, Regula (2016): Case Study Research on Higher Education for Sustainable
Development. Epistemological foundation and quality challenges. In: Barth, Matthias; Michelsen, Gerd;
Rieckmann, Marco; Thomas, Ian (Hrsg.): Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable
Development. Routledge: Abingdon/ New York, S. 126-141
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bermann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., Christopher T.
J. (2012): Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. In:
Sustainability Science, Vol. 7 (1), S. 25–43 http://dx.DOI10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
Lerchster, R. (2012): Zentrale Grundannahmen der Interventionsforschung. In: Krainer, L.; Lerchster,
R.E. (2012): Interventionsforschung. Band 1. Paradigmen, Methoden, Reflexionen. Springer VS:
Wiesbaden. S. 23-74
Levin, Kelly; Cashore, Benjamin; Bernstein, Steven; Auld, Graeme (2012): Overcoming the tragedy of
super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. In: Policy
Science (2012) 45:123–152 DOI 10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0
Mauser, W./ Klepper, G./ Rice, M. et al. (2013), Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-
creation of knowledge for sustainability. In: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Vol. 5, S.
420–431.
Mezirow, J. (1991): Transformative dimensions in adult learning. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Mezirow, J. (1997): Transformative Erwachsenenbildung. Schneider Verlag Hohengehren:

Baltmannsweiler.
Miller, (2012): Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. In:
Sustainability Science, Volume 8, Issue 2 , pp 279-293, DOI10.1007/s11625-012-0180-6
Miller, T. R., A. D. Wiek, D. Sarewitz, L. Olsson, D. Kriebel, Loorbach, D. (2014): The future of
sustainability science: A solutions-oriented agenda. In: Sustainability Science Vol 9(2), S. 239-246.
http://dx.doi:10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6
Minsch, J. u.a. (1998): Institutionelle Reformen für eine Politik der Nachhaltigkeit. Springer, Berlin
1998.
Moore, Janet (2003): Is Higher Education Ready for Transformative Learning? A Question Explored in
the Study of Sustainability. In: Journal of Tranformative Education 3 (1), S. 76–91. DOI:
10.1177/1541344604270862
Morrell, Amish; O’Connor, Mary Ann (2002): Introduction. In: O’Sullivan, Edmund; Morrell, Amish; O
Connor, Mary Ann (Hrsg): Expanding the Boundaries of Transformative Learning. Palgrave Macmillan:
New York.
Morton, R. B.; Williams, K. C. (2010): Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From
Nature to the Lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
MWK (Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst) Baden-Württemberg (2013): Wissenschaft
für Nachhaltigkeit. Herausforderung und Chance für das baden-württembergische
Wissenschaftssystem. Stuttgart: MWK.
National Science Foundation (NSF) (2007): Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the
National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation.
http://nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb0732/nsb0732.pdf
Nowotny, H. (2003) Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge, Science and Public Policy
30 (2003), S. 151–156
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. (2001): Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge in the Public in an Age of
Uncertainty. Cambridge
Overdevest, C.; Bleicher, A.; Groß, M. (2010): The Experimental Turn in Environmental Sociology:
Pragmatism and New Forms of Governance, in Groß, M./Hein- richs, H. (eds): Environmental
Sociology: European Perspectives and Interdisciplinary Challenges (pp. 279-294). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Partzsch, L. 2015. Kein Wandel ohne Macht – Nachhaltigkeitsforschung braucht ein

mehrdimensionales Machtverständnis. GAIA 24/1: 48-56.
Pavlova, Margarita (2013a): Towards using transformative education as a benchmark for clarifying
differences and similarities between Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable
Development. In: Environmental Education Research 19 (5), 656-672. DOI:
10.1080/13504622.2012.736476
Pavlova, Margarita (2013b): Education for Sustainable Development and the Transformation of Self.
How the World Can Become a Better Place to Live for All. In: Middleton, Howardt E.; Baartman,
Liesbeth K.J. (Hrsg.): Transfer, Transitions and Transformations of Learning. Sense Publishers:
Rotterdam, S. 123-132.
Popa, F.; Guillermin, M.; Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2015): A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in

sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. In: Futures 65, 45–56
Reason P, Bradbury H (2008) (eds.): Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice.
Sage, London
Reid, W. V., Chen, D., Goldfarb, L., Hackmann, H., Lee, Y. T., Mokhele, K., Ostrom, E., et al. (2010)
Earth system science for global sustainability: Grand challenges. In: Science, Vol. 330, S. 916-917.
Rickinson, M (2001), ’Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of

the Evidence’, Environment Education Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 207-320.
Rip, Arie (2011): Science Institutions and Grand Challenges of Society: A Scenario. In Asian Research
Policy 2, 1-9
Rockström, J. u.a. (2009): A safe operating space for humanity. In: Nature, Bd. 461, S. 461-472.
Rothman, Jack; Thomas, Edwin J. (Ed.) (1994): Intervention Research: Design and development for
human services. Haworth Press: New York.
Roy, H.E./Pocock, M./Preston, C.M./Roy, D.B et al. (2012): Understanding Citizen Science and
Environmental Monitoring. Final Report on behalf of UK Environmental Observation Framework.
Sarewitz, D.; Kriebel, D.; Clapp, R.;, Crumbley, C.; Hoppin, P.; Jacobs, M.; Tickner, J. (2012): The
sustainable solutions agenda. New Solutions 22(2): S. 139–151
Savery, JR (2006), ’Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions’,

Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9-20.
Schäpke, N.; Singer-Brodowski, M.; Stelzer, F.; Bergmann, M.; Lang, D. J. (2015): Creating Space for
Change: Real-world Laboratories for Sustainability Transformations. The Case of Baden-Württemberg.
In: GAIA 24/4, S. 281– 283
Schneidewind Uwe (2010): Ein institutionelles Reformprogramm zur Förderung transdisziplinärer

Nachhaltigkeitsforschung. In: GAIA. 19 (2), S. 122-128
Schneidewind, U. (2014): Urbane Reallabore – ein Blick in die aktuelle Forschungs werkstatt. pnd
online 3.
Schneidewind, U. (2015): Transformative Wissenschaft – Motor für gute Wissenschaft und lebendige
Demokratie. Reaktion auf A. Grunwald. 2015. Transformative Wissenschaft – eine neue Ordnung im
Wissenschaftsbetrieb? GAIA 24 (1): 17 – 20. In: GAIA Vol. 24 (2), S. 88-91
Schneidewind, U., Scheck, H. (2013): Die Stadt als „Reallabor“ für System - innovationen. In: Rückert-
John, J. (Hrsg.): Soziale Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit: Perspektiven sozialen Wandels. Wiesbaden:
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 229–248.
Schneidewind, Uwe; Singer-Brodowski, Mandy (2014): Transformative Wissenschaft: Klimawandel im

deutschen Wissenschafts- und Hochschulsystem. Metropolis: Marburg (2. leicht aktualisierte Auflage)
Schneidewind, U.; Singer-Brodowksi, M. (2015): Vom experimentellen Lernen zum transformativen

Experimentieren. Reallabore als Katalysator für eine lernende Gesellschaft auf dem Weg zu einer
Nachhaltigen Entwicklung. In: Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik. Jg. 16 (1)
Schneidewind, Uwe; Singer-Brodowksi, Mandy; Augenstein, Karoline (2016a): Sustainability and

Science Policy. In: Heinrichs, Harald; Martens, Pim; Michelsen, Gerd; Wiek, Arnim (Hrsg.):
Sustainability Science. Springer Spektrum: Berlin; Heidelberg, S. 149-160
Schneidewind, U./Siebenhüner, B./Barth, J./Goldschmidt, N./Graupe, S./Korbun, T./Petschow,

U./Priddat, B./Reichel, A./van Treeck, T./Zweynert, J. (2016b): Transformative
Wirtschaftswissenschaft, in: Ökologisches Wirtschaften 2/2016 (in Vorbereitung).
Scholz, R.W. (2000): Mutual learning as a basic principle of transdisciplinarity. In Scholz, R.W.;
Häberli, R.; Bill, A.;Welti, M. (Eds): Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem‐solving among Science,
Technology and Society. Proceedings of the International Transdisciplinarity 2000 Conference.
Workbook II: Mutual Learning Sessions. Haffman, Zürich, pp. 13‐7.
Scholz, R. W. (2011): Environmental Literacy in Science and Society. From Knowl- edge to Decisions.
Cambridge University Press, New York 2011.
Scholz, R.W. and Tietje, O. (2002), Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and
Qualitative Knowledge, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Scholz, Roland W.; Lang, Daniel J.; Wiek, Arnim; Walter, Alexander I.; Stauffacher, Michael (2006):
Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory.
In: International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7 (3), S.226-251. DOI:
10.1108/14676370610677829
Schoolman, Ethan D.; Guest, Jeremy S.; Bush, Kathleen F.; Bell, Andrew R. (2012): How
interdisciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. In:
Sustainability Science, 7, 67–80
Schot, J.; Geels, F. W. (2008): Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys:
theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 20:5,
537-554.
Segalas, J, Ferrer-Balas, D, Svanstrom, M, Lundqvist, U & Mulder, KF 2009, ’What has to be learnt for
sustainability? A comparison of bachelor engineering education competencies at three European
universities’,Sustainability Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17–27.
Sipos, Yona; Battisi; Bryce; Grimm, Kurt (2007): Achieving transformative sustainability learning:
engaging head, hands and heart. In: International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 9
(1), S. 68-86. DOI: 10.1108/14676370810842193
Spaapen, Jack; van Drooge, Leonie (2011): Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact
assessment. In: Research Evaluation, 20(3), September 2011, pages 211–218 DOI:
10.3152/095820211X12941371876742;
Stake, Robert E. (2005): Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin, Norman K.; Lincoln, Yvonna S. (Hrsg.):
The sage handbook of qualitative research (3. Ausgabe), Sage-Publications: Thousand Oaks, S. 443–
466.
Stauffacher, M.; Walter, A.I.; Lang, D.J.; Wiek, A.; Scholz, R.W. (2006): Learning to research
environmental problems from a functional socio-cultural constructivism perspective. In: International
Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7 (3), S. 252-275. DOI: 10.1108/14676370610677838
Sterling, Stephen (2010): Learning for resilience, or the resilient learner? Towards a necessary
reconciliation in a paradigm of sustainable education. In: Environmental Education Research 16 (5-6),
S. 511-528. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2010.505427
Sterling, Stephen (2011): Transformative Learning and Sustainability: sketching the conceptual ground.
In: Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 5, 2010-11, S. 17-33. Download unter:
www2.glos.ac.uk/offload/tli/lets/lathe/issue5/Lathe_5_S%20Sterling.pdf (letzter Zugriff: 11.03.2015)
Steffen, W./Rockström, J./Cornell, S./Fetzer, I./Biggs, O./Folke, C./Reyers, B. (2015): Planetary

Boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 (6223).
Strohschneider, P. (2014): Zur Politik der Transformativen Wissenschaft. In: Brodocz, A., Herrmann,
D., Schmidt, R., Schulz, D., Schulze-Wessel, J. (Hrsg.): Die Verfassung des Politischen. Festschrift für
Hans Vorländer. Wiesbaden, S. 175–192
Thomas, Jim (2015): Constructing a ‘futurology from below’: a civil society contribution toward a
research agenda. In: Journal of Responsible Innovation 2(1); S. 92-95
UNECE 2012, Learning for the future. Competencies for EDS. Available from:
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/esd/ESD_Publications/Competences_Publication.pdf
UNESCO (2014): Shaping the future we want: UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development
(2005-2014). Final report. UNESCO: Paris. Download unter: www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco-world-
conference-on-esd-2014/esd-after-2014/desd-final-report/
van den Bosch, S. J. M.; Rotmans; J. (2008): Deepening, Broadening and Scaling Up: a Framework for
Steering Transition Experiments. Essay 02. (Extern rapport). Delft; Rotterdam: Knowledge Centre for
Sustainable System Innovations and Transitions (KSI).
Vare, Paul; Scott, William (2007): Learning for a Change: Exploring the Relationship Between
Education and Sustainable Development. In: Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 1 (2),
S. 191-198. DOI: 10.1177/097340820700100209
Von Schomberg, R. (2011): Towards Responsible Research and Innovation in the Information and
Communication Technologies and Security Technologies Fields. European Commission Services,
Directorate General for Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European
Union.
Von Wissel, C. (2015): Die Eigenlogik der Wissenschaft neu verhandeln. Implikationen einer
transformativen Wissenschaft. In: GAIA, Vol, 24 (3), S. 152-155.
Wagner, F., A. Grunwald. 2015. Reallabore als Forschungs- und Transformations- instrument. Die
Quadratur des hermeneutischen Zirkels. GAIA 24/1: 26–31.
Wals, Arjen (1994) 'Action Research and Community Problem-solving: environmental education in an
inner-city', Educational Action Research, 2: 2, 163 — 182
WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (2011): World in Transition—A Social Contract
for Sustainability (Berlin: WBGU); Available at: http://www.wbgu.de/ en/flagship-reports/fr-2011-a-
social-contract/.
WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (2014): Climate Protection as a World Citizen
Movement, Special Report 2014, Available at: http://www.wbgu.de/en/special-reports/sr-2014-
climate-protection/
WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) (2016): Humanity on the move: Unlocking the
transformative power of cities: Summary. Berlin: WBGU. Available at:
http://www.wbgu.de/en/flagship-reports/fr-2016-urbanization/
Weinert, F.E. (2001), ’Concept of Competence: A Conceptual Clarification’ in Defining and Selecting
Key Competencies, eds DS, Rychen & LH, Salganik, Hogrefe & Huber, Seattle, pp. 45-66.
Wehling, P. (2012): From invited to uninvited participation (and back?): rethinking civil society
engagement in technology assessment and development. In: Poiesis Prax (2012) 9:43–60 DOI
10.1007/s10202-012-0125-2
Wheeler, G., Bergsman, K., Thumlert, C. and Kelly, B., 2010. ‘Sustainable Design Project Teacher
Manual’. Olympia, WA: Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.
http://www.k12.wa.us/environmentsustainability/pubdocs/sdpmanual2010.doc
Wiek A.; Withycombe, L.; Redman, C. L. (2011): Key competencies in sustainability: a reference
framework for academic program development. In: Sustainability Science 6 (2), S. 203-218. DOI:
10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6
Wiek, A.; Kay, B. (2015): Learning while transforming: Solution-oriented learning for urban
sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona, In: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 16:29-36
Wiek, A.; Lang, D. J. (2016): Transformational Sustainability Research Methodology. In: Heinrichs, H.;
Martens, P.; Michelsen, G.; Wiek, A. (Hrsg.): Sustainability Science: An Introduction. Springer:
Dordrecht u.a., S. 31-41
Wiek, A.; Ness, B.; Schweizer-Ries, P.; Brand, F. S.; Farioli, F. (2012): From complex systems analysis
to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects, in: Sustainability
Science, 7,2: 5-24.
Wiek, A.; Bernstein, M.J.; Foley, R.W.; Cohen, M.; Forrest, N.; Kay, B.; Withycombe Keeler, L. (2016):
Operationalising competencies in Higher Education for Sustainable Development. In: Barth, M.;
Michelsen, G.; Rieckmann, M.; Thomas, I. (Hrsg.) (2016): Routledge Handbook of Higher Education
for Sustainable Development. Routledge: Abingdon/ New York, S. 241-260
Wiek, A.; Talwar, S.; O’Shea, M.; Robinson, J. (2014): Toward a methodological scheme for capturing
societal effects of participatory sustainability research: In: Research Evaluation 23 (2014) pp. 117–132.
Wittmayer, J. M.; Schäpke, N. (2014): Action, research and participation. Roles of researchers in
sustainability transitions. In: Sustainability Science. DOI 10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4
Yin, Robert K. (2003): Case study research: Design and methods (3. Auflage). Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks.

Pledge For Transformative Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pledge For Transformative Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pledge For Transformative Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

191_Wuppertal Paper | Wuppertal, July 2016

This work is published under a Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives License 4.0

Pledge for a Transformative Science

2 Conceptualizing Transformative Science 6

3 Conclusions: Transformative Science as a paradigmatic,

1 What is the new role of science in an age of reflexive

Processes of social disembedding in modern societies have an impact on individual patterns of

1.1 Innovation, Participation and Balancing Power

Balancing Science Participation &

Fig. 1: How science contributes to institutional stabilization in an age of reflexive modernity

(4) Balancing Power

2 Conceptualizing Transformative Science

Self-renewal of the science

Figure 2: Three dimensions of a transformative science (Source: Own illustration).

2.1 Transformative Research – Co-Design and Co-Production in

‘Transformative research supports transformation processes in practical terms through the

“Transformative research is research driven by ideas that stand a reasonable

According to this definition, transformative research is about an inner-academic paradigm change

Approach Characteristics Authors

2.1.1 Research in Real-World Labs

Successful collaboration of scientists and non-academic partners in real-world labs depends on

2.2 Transformative Education and Teaching

2.2.1 Transformative Learning for Sustainability

The development of competencies as well as transformative learning experiences can be facilitated by

2.2.2 Didactic Formats fostering the development of competencies and

Research-oriented learning focuses on gaining a deeper understanding of a phenomenon and its

In essence, transdisciplinary or transformative learning in research-oriented learning approaches as

2.3 Institutional Change – Self-renewal of the Science System

2.3.2 Regime Shift

Scientific quality criteria and quality assurance systems

Organisational change facilitating transdisciplinarity and transformative science

• Establishing infrastructures for transdisciplinary knowledge integration in research and education:

2.3.3 Getting Started

3 Conclusions: Transformative Science as a paradigmatic,

Alexander, C./Ishikawa, S./Silverstein, M./Jacobson, M./ Fiksdahl-King, I./Angel, S. (1977): A Pattern

Avelino, F. (2011). Power in Transition: Empowering Discourses on Sustainability Transitions

Berkhout F. et al. (2010). Sustainability experiments in Asia: innovations shaping alternative

Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2013): Transdisciplinary sustainability science at higher education institutions:

Groß, M.; Hoffmann-Riem, H.; Krohn, W. (2005): Realexperimente. Ökologische Gestaltungsprozesse

Grunwald, A. (2008): Technik und Politikberatung. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M. 2008.

Grunwald, A. (2015): Transformative Wissenschaft – eine neue Ordnung im Wissenschaftsbetrieb? In:

Howaldt, J./Schwarz, M. (2010): „Soziale Innovation“ im Fokus. Skizze eines gesellschaftstheoretisch

Mezirow, J. (1991): Transformative dimensions in adult learning. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Mezirow, J. (1997): Transformative Erwachsenenbildung. Schneider Verlag Hohengehren:

Partzsch, L. 2015. Kein Wandel ohne Macht – Nachhaltigkeitsforschung braucht ein

Popa, F.; Guillermin, M.; Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2015): A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in

Rickinson, M (2001), ’Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of

Savery, JR (2006), ’Overview of Problem-based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions’,

Schneidewind Uwe (2010): Ein institutionelles Reformprogramm zur Förderung transdisziplinärer

Schneidewind, Uwe; Singer-Brodowski, Mandy (2014): Transformative Wissenschaft: Klimawandel im

Schneidewind, U.; Singer-Brodowksi, M. (2015): Vom experimentellen Lernen zum transformativen

Schneidewind, Uwe; Singer-Brodowksi, Mandy; Augenstein, Karoline (2016a): Sustainability and

Schneidewind, U./Siebenhüner, B./Barth, J./Goldschmidt, N./Graupe, S./Korbun, T./Petschow,

Steffen, W./Rockström, J./Cornell, S./Fetzer, I./Biggs, O./Folke, C./Reyers, B. (2015): Planetary

You might also like