Advertisement

‘Transformation’ in International Development Studies: Across Disciplines, Knowledge Hierarchies and Oceanic Spaces

  • Henryk Alff
  • Anna-Katharina Hornidge
Chapter
Part of the EADI Global Development Series book series (EADI)

Abstract

The field of Transformation Studies has brought forward a number of conceptual and methodological lines of thought for grasping these processes of sociocultural, political-economic and ecological change. The chapter discusses how transformation studies challenge the established organisation of scientific knowledge production by applying inter- and transdisciplinary thinking. It also scrutinises the contribution of Transformation Studies to challenging the ‘West and the Rest’ rationale by drawing attention towards dynamic social interaction rather than container spaces in area-based knowledge production. The chapter then seeks to address framing principles for living with global change processes, engaging with what has been labelled as future studies. Finally, we sketch out the study of oceanic spaces as a promising field for rethinking established notions of space, development and knowledge production.

References

  1. Adam, B., & Groves, C. (2007). Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alff, H., & Benz, A. (forthcoming). The Multi-dimensionality of Space: Challenging Spatial Bias in the Production of Places. Under review with Geographische Rundschau.Google Scholar
  3. Amrith, S. S. (2013). Crossing the Bay of Bengal: The Furies of Nature and the Fortunes of Migrants. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, J., & Peters, K. (2014). Introduction: ‘A Perfect and Absolute Blank’—Human Geographies of the Ocean. In J. Anderson & K. Peters (Eds.), Water Worlds: Human Geographies of the Ocean (pp. 3–19). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis and London: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beck, U. (2007). Weltrisikogesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  7. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1996). Reflexive Modernisierung. Eine Kontroverse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  8. Bernstein, J. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A Review of Its Origins, Development, and Current Issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  9. Blum, H. (2013). Introduction: Oceanic Studies. Atlantic Studies, 10(2), 151–155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14788810.2013.785186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braudel, F. (1972). The Mediterranean and Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (Vol. 1). Berkeley: California University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brewer, G. (1999). The Challenges of Interdisciplinarity. Policy Sciences, 32(4), 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  13. Castells, M. (1996). The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Vol. 1 The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Chari, S. (2016). Trans-Area Studies and the Perils of Geographical ‘World-Writing’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(5), 791–798.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816656522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davies, M. W. (2011). Postnormal Times: Are We There Yet? Futures, 43(2), 136–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Jouvenel, B. (1967). The Art of Conjecture. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1993). A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dirlik, A. (2003). Global Modernity? Modernity in an Age of Global Capitalism. European Journal of Global Theory, 6(3), 275–292.  https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310030063001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dotson, K. (2014). Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression. Social Epistemology, 28(2), 115–138.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2013.782585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple Modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  21. Elden, S. (2013). Secure the Volume: Vertical Geopolitics and the Depth of Power. Political Geography, 34, 35–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2012.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elkana, Y., & Klöpper, H. (2012). Die Universität im 21. Jahrhundert: Für eine neue Einheit von Lehre, Forschung und Gesellschaft. Hamburg: Edition Körber-Stiftung.Google Scholar
  23. Feuer, H., & Hornidge, A.-K. (2015). Higher Education Cooperation in ASEAN: Building Towards Integration or Manufacturing Consent? Comparative Education, 51(3), 327–352.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2015.1031474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1972). The Archeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  25. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2016). ‘After’ Area Studies: Place-Based Knowledge for Our Time. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(5), 799–806.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816656523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordillo, G. (forthcoming). The Oceanic Void: The Eternal Becoming of Liquid Space. In R. Benarie (Ed.), Deleuze and the Schizoanalysis of Spatial Power. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  27. Goss, J., & Wesley-Smith, T. (2010). Introduction: Remaking Area Studies. In T. Wesley-Smith & J. Goss (Eds.), Remaking Area Studies: Teaching and Learning Across Asia and the Pacific (pp. ix–xvii). Honolulu: University of Hawai’I Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hall, S., & de Gay, P. (1996). Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Harding, S. (2008). Sciences from Below. Durham and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ho, E. (2006). The Graves of Tarim: Genealogy and Mobility Across the Indian Ocean. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ho, E. L. E., Madokoro, L., & Peterson, G. (2015). Refugees, Displacement and Forced Migration in Asia: Charting an Inclusive Research Agenda (Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series No. 236). http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/wps/wps15_236.pdf. Accessed 16 May 2017.
  32. Hornidge, A.-K. (2007). Knowledge Society. Vision and Social Construction of Reality in Germany and Singapore. Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
  33. Hornidge, A.-K. (2010). An Uncertain Future—Singapore’s Search for a New Focal Point of Collective Identity and Its Drive towards ‘Knowledge Society’. Asian Journal of Social Sciences, 38(5), 785–818.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853110X522939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hornidge, A.-K. (2014). Wissensdiskurse: Normativ, Faktisch, Hegemonial. Soziale Welt, 65(1), 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Houben, V., & Schrempf, M. (Eds.). (2008). Figurations of Modernity: Global and Local Representations in Comparative Perspective. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  36. Ingersoll, K. A. (2016). Waves of Knowing: A Seascape Epistemology. Durham and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ingold, T. (2008). Bindings Against Boundaries. Entanglements of Life in an Open World. Environment and Planning A, 40(8), 1796–1810.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a40156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures—How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Koch, N. (2016). Is a ‘Critical’ Area Studies Possible? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(5), 807–814.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816656524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis, M., & Wigen, K. (1999). A Maritime Response to the Crisis in Area Studies. Geographical Review, 89(2), 161–168.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.1999.tb00211.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Max-Neef, M. (2005). Foundations of Transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mielke, K., & Hornidge, A.-K. (2014). Crossroads Studies: From Spatial Containers to Interactions in Differentiated Spatialities (Crossroads Asia Working Papers No. 15). Bonn: Crossroads Asia.Google Scholar
  43. Mielke, K., & Hornidge, A.-K. (2017). Introduction. In K. Mielke & A.-K. Hornidge (Eds.), Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn (pp. 3–26). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nancy, J.-L. (2015). After Fukushima: The Equivalence of Catastrophes. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Nowotny, H. (1999). Es ist so. Es könnte auch anders sein. Über das veränderte Verhältnis von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  46. Nowotny, H. (2002). Vergangene Zukunft: Ein Blick zurück auf die ‘Grenzen des Wachstums’. In M. Globig (Ed.), Impulse geben – Wissen stiften. 40 Jahre Volkswagenstiftung (pp. 655–694). Göttingen: Volkswagenstiftung.Google Scholar
  47. Nowotny, H. (2016). The Cunning of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pauly, D., & Zeller, D. (2016). Global Atlas of Marine Fisheries: A Critical Appraisal of Catches and Ecosystem Impacts. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  49. Pearson, M. (2003). The Indian Ocean. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ravetz, J. R., & Funtowicz, S. O. (1999). Post-normal Science—An Insight Now Maturing. Editorial. Futures, 31(7), 641–646.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00023-3.
  51. Roszko, E. (2015). Maritime Territorialisation as a Performance of Sovereignty and Nationhood in the South China Sea. Nations and Nationalism, 21(2), 230–249.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  53. Sardar, Z. (2010). The Namesake: Futures; Futures Studies; Futurology; Futuristic; Foresight—What’s in a Name? Futures, 42(3), 177–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sassen, S. (1991). The Global City. London and New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Schofield, C. H. (forthcoming). Sharing Maritime Space: Options for Cooperative Management in Areas of Overlapping Maritime Claims. Google Scholar
  56. Scholtens, J., & Bavinck, J. M. (2017). Oceans Contributions to Food Security for the Poor: Confronting Ominous Trends. Current Conservation, 11(2), 3–8.Google Scholar
  57. Scott, J. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Scott, J. (2009). The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Sidaway, J. (2017). Foreword: Third Wave Area Studies. In K. Mielke & H.-K. Hornidge (Eds.), Area Studies at the Crossroads: Knowledge Production After the Mobility Turn (pp. v–vii). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  60. Sidaway, J., Ho, E. L. E., Rigg, J. D., Woon, C. Y. (2016). Area Studies and Geography: Trajectories and Manifesto. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(5), 777–779.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775816656520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Steinberg, P. (2001). The Social Construction of the Ocean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Steinberg, P., & Peters, K. (2015). Wet Ontologies, Fluid Spaces: Giving Depth to Volume Through Oceanic Thinking. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33(2), 247–264.  https://doi.org/10.1068/d14148p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Subramaniam, B. (2014). Ghost Stories for Darwin: The Science of Variation and the Politics of Diversity. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tagliacozzo, E., Siu, H. F., & Perdue, P. C. (Eds.). (2015). Asia Inside Out: Connected Places. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Thomas, A. (2000). Development as a Practice in a Liberal Capitalist World. Journal of International Development, 12(6), 773–787. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1328(200008)12:6<773::aid-jid716>3.0.co;2-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tsering, D. (2017). China Deep-Sea Exploration: Intention and Concerns. Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India, 13(1), 91–98.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09733159.2017.1326570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tsing, A. (2015). The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). (2015). Science Report: Towards 2030. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf. Accessed 13 April 2016.
  69. Van Schendel, W. (2002). Geographies of Knowing Geographies of Ignorance: Jumping Scale in Southeast Asia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(6), 647–668.  https://doi.org/10.1068/d16s.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weingart, P. (2010). Wissenschaftssoziologie. In D. Simon, A. Knie, S. Hornbostel, & K. Zimmermann (Eds.), Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik (pp. 118–129). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological Nationalism and Beyond: Nation–State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0374.00043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU). (2013). World in Transition: Governing the Marine Heritage. Berlin.Google Scholar
  73. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Washington, DC: United Nations. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf. Accessed 8 February 2016.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henryk Alff
    • 1
  • Anna-Katharina Hornidge
    • 2
  1. 1.Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT)BremenGermany
  2. 2.ZMT, Institute of SociologyUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations