Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perspectives of Coevolutionary Science in Sustainability Discourse

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Co-Evolution of Nature and Society

  • 243 Accesses

Abstract

Coevolutionary science offers adequate perspectives for producing and evaluating knowledge about paths toward (more) sustainability. This is underscored by current developments in the international sustainability discourse . A glance at the methods and strategies currently employed to achieve these goals, immediately points to the problems of conceptualising the research object of the social sciences. In order to overcome these difficulties, Jetzkowitz advances a concept of society that can be used to establish connections with the manifold research trends in the social sciences. It can be equally used to set up research cooperations with the natural sciences. He also debates the much-hyped concept of transdisciplinarity and discusses the question of whether coevolutionary science may itself be viewed as a perspective of knowledge production.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is also confirmed by the various approaches present in sustainability discourse, for exploring the interactions between nature and society. Cf. Haraway (1985), Norgaard (1994), Fischer-Kowalski and Weisz (1999), Latour (2004), Mol and Spaargaren (2006), and Ostrom (2009).

  2. 2.

    Cf. Shove (2010, 1283). She trenchantly points out: “It is … clear that policy makers are highly selective in the models of change on which they draw, and that their tastes in social theory are anything but random. An emphasis on individual choice has significant political advantages and in this context [of climate change politics, J. J.], to probe further, to ask how options are structured, or to inquire into the ways in which governments maintain infrastructures and economic institutions, is perhaps too challenging to be useful”.

  3. 3.

    A promising exception is the Multilevel Perspective (MLP). Cf. Geels (2010, 2012a, b) and Geels and Schot (2007).

  4. 4.

    Exceptions are models that distinguish, for example, between different actors on the basis of their lifestyles.

  5. 5.

    In this context, the above-mentioned Thomas theorem should be recalled again. Cf. p. 32.

  6. 6.

    Cf. e.g. Kizuka et al. (2014) and Compton et al. (2012).

  7. 7.

    Perceived semiotically, indicators are indexical signs . Cf. p. 99.

  8. 8.

    Campbell (1979, 85) phrased the correlation that he discovered in the following way: “The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor”.

  9. 9.

    From a semiotic perspective, models are iconic signs . Cf. p. 99.

  10. 10.

    In sustainability research, the exemplary work for this kind of knowledge production was the study about “The Limits of Growth” commissioned by the Club of Rome in 1972 (Meadows et al. 1972). For the historical context cf. p. 17ff., especially p. 22.

  11. 11.

    Cf. above, p. 35.

  12. 12.

    Cf. above p. 101ff.

  13. 13.

    This perspective also allows an investigation of how social systems break away from their routines and develop new structures.

  14. 14.

    Cf. Lindemann (2006), who by referring in particular to Simmel and Habermas demonstrates the universal validity of the figure of the third party for a sociological conception of reality (cf. additionally Lindemann 2011). The fact that the figure of the third party in its constitution of symbolic signs is temporally subsequent to the interactions of ego and alter, generates society as a reflexive sign-using community, according to the terminology used here (cf. above p. 96ff.).

  15. 15.

    In Germany, funding for environmental research largely went to established scientists and research teams, who, if necessary, rephrased the language with which they pitched their research topics, but hardly changed their actual research objects, not to mention their ways of thinking.

  16. 16.

    Mode 1 designates the form of knowledge production initiated by scientists and tied to a scientific discipline. Cf. Gibbons et al. (1994).

  17. 17.

    The symbiotic relation of knowledge and power is virtually proverbial. For the correlation of the two, cf. Foucault (1975).

  18. 18.

    Gibbons et al. (1994, 3–44), for example, proceed descriptively and depict an emergent type of science where knowledge is produced in flexible organizational structures and, in the case of corresponding opportunistic interests, with a focus on its applicability. Conversely, Jaeger and Scheringer (1998) make a more normative argument and demand that transdisciplinary research be promoted in addition to disciplinary, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research, to be able to work across the disciplines on problems whose causes are external to the sciences. Schneidewind et al. (2016) developed a “transformative science” program geared toward initiating social change.

  19. 19.

    For the state of the debate about quality management in transdisciplinary research projects cf. Stauffacher (2011, 264).

  20. 20.

    Stauffacher (2011, 265–267) likewise emphasizes the limitations of scientific research in transdisciplinary projects, as it relates to their partners involved in social practice. It remains to be seen how more recent approaches, such as transition labs and real-world laboratories (cf. Schäpke et al. 2017, 2018), deal with the potential conflict between, on the one hand, support for the idea of social change, and on the other hand, the disinterested examination of change. Depending on the conceptual embeddedness (Schneidewind et al. 2018), different priorities are to be expected. However, tendencies that can be observed in a few projects, namely that they no longer clearly differentiate between the role of agent for a transformative idea and the role of researcher (see, e.g. Pregernig et al. 2018), are reminiscent of the structural problems of action research (see Moser 1978).

  21. 21.

    Michael Stauffacher (2011, 270; translation J. J.) writes: “Transdisciplinary projects can indeed be understood as neocorporatist negotiation processes, even if significantly expanded by actors from civil society as well as the academic field”.

  22. 22.

    Incidentally, Aristotle claimed that the logical conclusion inherent in the law of the excluded third (Metaphysics 4.4) is not valid for future events (Peri Hermeneias, Chapter 9).

  23. 23.

    Cf. DeFreitas et al. (1994), Art. 3: “Transdisciplinarity complements disciplinary approaches”.

  24. 24.

    So far Nicolescu has not submitted a reconstruction of his transdisciplinary principles that would be based on a unified language. Apparently, however, he is not averse to the idea of expressing the transdisciplinary principles in the language of mathematics. Lichnerowicz (cf. Nicolescu 2005, 2) envisioned a similar project. Such a representation—emulating the program of logical empiricism—would be able to claim a foundation for the unity of science that dispenses with any references to metaphysics or a particular weltanschauung.

  25. 25.

    “The most important achievement of transdisciplinarity in present times is, of course, the formulation of the methodology of transdisciplinarity , accepted and applied by an important number of researchers in many countries of the world. Transdisciplinarity , in the absence of a methodology , would be just talking, an empty discourse and therefore a short-term living fashion” (Nicolescu 2005, 5).

  26. 26.

    Cf. in this context, Strohschneider’s (2014, 186–190) critical discussion of the concept of transformative science.

  27. 27.

    I emphasized this point in my critical discussion of Luhmann’s sceptical attitude. Luhmann’s scepticism disregards the indexical dimension of signs . For this, cf. above on pp. 63 and 111.

  28. 28.

    Most authors here refer to Coase (1960).

References

  • Barry, A., & Born, G. (2013). Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences. In A. Barry & G. Born (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences (pp. 1–56). London et al.: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basco-Carrera, L., Warren, A., van Beek, E., Jonoski, A., & Giardino, A. (2017). Collaborative Modelling or Participatory Modelling? A Framework for Water Resources Management. Environmental Modelling and Software, 91, 95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1988). Gegengifte. Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, N. D., Croke, B. F. W., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J. H. A., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., et al. (2013). Characterising Performance of Environmental Models. Environmental Modelling and Software, 40, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, M. (2003). Indikatoren für eine diskursive Evaluation transdisziplinärer Forschung. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 12(1), 65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, J. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A Review of Its Origins, Development, and Current Issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1), Article R1. Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/510/412.

  • Brand, U., & Wissen, M. (2017). Imperiale Lebensweise. Zur Ausbeutung von Mensch und Natur im globalen Kapitalismus. München: oekom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büchi, H. (1996). Das Paradoxe mit der Transdisziplinarität. GAIA, 5(5), 205–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, G. (2007). A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compton, T. J., de Winton, M. D., Leathwick, J. R., & Wadhwa, S. (2012). Predicting Spread of Invasive Macrophytes in New Zealand Lakes Using Indirect Measures of Human Accessibility. Freshwater Biology, 57, 938–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFreitas, L., Morin, E., & Nicolescu, B. (1994). Charter of Transdisciplinarity. Adopted at the First World Congress of Trandisciplinarity, Convento da Arrábida, Portugal, November 2–6. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from http://basarab.nicolescu.perso.sfr.fr/ciret/english/charten.htm.

  • Diaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., et al. (2015a). The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting Nature and People. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Joly, C., Lonsdale, W. M., & Larigauderie, A. (2015b). A Rosetta Stone for Nature’s Benefits to People. PLoS Biology, 13(1), e1002040. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002040.

  • Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endres, A. (2000). Umweltökonomie. 3. vollst. überarb u. wes. erw. Aufl. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Weisz, H. (1999). Society as Hybrid Between Material and Symbolic Realms. Towards a Theoretical Framework of Society-Nature-Interaction. Advances in Human Ecology, 8, 215–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuda-Parr, S. (2017). Millenium Development Goals: Ideas, Interests and Influence. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, Socio-Technical Transitions (to Sustainability), and the Multi-Level Perspective. Research Policy, 39, 495–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2012a). A Socio-Technical Analysis of Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing the Multi-Level Perspective into Transport Studies. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2012b). The Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transitions: Responses to Seven Criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of Sociotechnical Transition Pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gephardt, W. (1993). Gesellschaftstheorie und Recht: Das Recht im soziologischen Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, V., Berger, U., DeAngelis, D. L., Polhill, J. G., Giske, J., & Railsback, S. F. (2010). The ODD Protocol: A Review and First Update. Ecological Modelling, 221, 2760–2768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groeneveld, J., Müller, B., Angermüller, F., Drees, R., Dreßler, G., Klassert, C., et al. (2012). Good Modelling Practice: Expanding the ODD Model Description Protocol for Socioenvironmental Agent Based Models. In R. Seppelt, A. A. Voinov, S. Lange, & D. Bankamp (Eds.), Managing Resources of a Limited Planet: Pathways and Visions Under Uncertainty. Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Meeting of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Leipzig, Germany, July 1–5, 2012 (pp. 2480–2484). Manno: iEMSs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, R. P., & Lahtinen, T. J. (2016). Path Dependence in Operational Research—How the Modeling Process Can Influence the Results. Operations Research Perspectives, 3, 14–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1985). A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 80, 65–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., et al. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurni, H., & Wiesmann, U. M. (2014). Transdisciplinarity in Practice. Experience from a Concept-Based Research Programme Addressing Global Change and Sustainable Development. GAIA, 23(3), 275–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, J., & Scheringer, M. (1998). Transdisziplinarität: Problemorientierung ohne Methodenzwang. GAIA, 7(1), 10–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jetzkowitz, J. (2000). Recht und Religion in der modernen Gesellschaft: Soziologische Theorie und Analyse am Beispiel der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts in Sachen “Religion” zwischen den Jahren 1983 und 1997. Münster: LIT-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jetzkowitz, J., van Koppen, C. S. A. (Kris), Lidskog, R., Ott, K., Voget-Kleschin, L., & Mei Ling Wong, C. (2017). The Significance of Meaning: Why IPBES Needs the Social Sciences and Humanities. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31(suppl.1), S38–S60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2017.1348933.

  • Kaufmann, F.-X. (1989). Religion und Modernität: Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kizuka, T., Akasaka, M., Kadoya, T., & Takamura, N. (2014). Visibility from Roads Predict the Distribution of Invasive Fishes in Agricultural Ponds. PLoS One, 9(6), e99709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klintman, M. (2017). Human Sciences and Human Interests: Integrating the Social, Economic, and Evolutionary Sciences. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küppers, G., Lundgreen, P., & Weingart, P. (1978). Umweltforschung – die gesteuerte Wissenschaft? Eine empirische Studie zum Verhältnis von Wissenschaftsentwicklung und Wissenschaftspolitik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy (P. Catherine, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets, United Nations (DESA Working Paper No. 141). Retrieved April 16, 2018, from https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2015/wp141_2015.pdf.

  • Lee, K. N. (1993). Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessenich, S. (2017). Neben uns die Sintflut: Die Externalisierungsgesellschaft und ihr Preis. Berlin: Hanser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann, G. (2006). Die Emergenzfunktion und die konstitutive Funktion des Dritten. Perspektiven einer kritisch-systematischen Theorieentwicklung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 35(2), 82–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindemann, G. (2011). Die Gesellschaftstheorie von der Sozialtheorie her denken – oder umgekehrt? ZfS-Forum, 3(1), 1–19. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from http://www.zfs-online.org/index.php/forum/article/viewFile/3066/2603.

  • Meadows, D. L., Meadows, D. H., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michels, R. (1949). Political Parties. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkelson, G. M., Gonzales, A., & Peterson, G. D. (2007). Economic Inequality Predicts Biodiversity Loss. PLoS One, 2(5), e444. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstraß, J. (1992). Auf dem Wege zur Transdisziplinarität. GAIA, 1(5), 250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. P. J., & Spaargaren, G. (2006). Towards a Sociology of Environmental Flows: A New Agenda for 21st Century Environmental Sociology. In G. Spargaaren, A. P. J. Mol, & F. H. Buttel (Eds.), Governing Environmental Flows: Global Challenges to Social Theory (pp. 39–82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, H. A., Duraiappah, A., & Larigauderie, A. (2013). Evolution of Natural and Social Science Interactions in Global Change Research Programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, January 2013 (201107484). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1107484110.

  • Moore, J. W. (2015). Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital. London et al.: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, H. (1978). Einige Aspekte der Aktionsforschung im internationalen Vergleich. In H. Moser & H. Ornauer (Eds.), Internationale Aspekte der Aktionsforschung (pp. 173–189). München: Kösel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, B., Bohn, F., Dreßler, G., Groeneveld, J., Klassert, C., Martin, R., et al. (2013). Describing Human Decisions in Agent-Based Models—ODD + D, an Extension of the ODD Protocol. Environmental Modelling and Software, 48, 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neurath, O. (1932/1933). Protokollsätze. Erkenntnis, 3(1), 204–214 [English Translation in: R. S. Cohen & M. Neurath (Eds.), Philosophical Papers 1913–1946. Vienna Circle Collection (Vol. 16, pp. 91–99). Dordrecht: Springer].

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolescu, B. (2005). Transdisciplinarity—Past, Present and Future. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://cetrans.com.br/textos/transdisciplinarity-past-present-and-future.pdf.

  • Nicolescu, B. (2007). Transdisciplinarity as Methodological Framework for Going Beyond the Science-Religion Debate. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://www.fernandosantiago.com.br/transdisx.pdf.

  • Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, M. (2016). Map the Interactions Between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature, 534, 320–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norgaard, R. B. (1994). Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H. (2001). Vom Geschichtenerzählen zur Koevolutionswissenschaft. GAIA, 10(4), 262–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325, 419–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott, K. (1993). Ökologie und Ethik: Ein Versuch praktischer Philosophie. Tübingen: Attempto-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Giupponi, C., Richards, K., Binder, C., de Sherbinin, A., Sprinz, D., et al. (2013). Transition Towards a New Global Change Science: Requirements for Methodologies, Methods, Data and Knowledge. Environmental Science & Policy, 28, 36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pindyck, R. S. (2017). The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 11(1), 100–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W., & Kropp, J. P. (2017). A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions. Earth’s Future, 5, 1169–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pregernig, M., Rhodius, R., & Winkel, G. (2018). Design Junctions in Real-World Laboratories: Analyzing Experiences Gained from the Project Knowledge Dialogue Northern Black Forest. GAIA, 27(S1), 32–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ProClim/CASS, Konferenz der Schweizerischen Wissenschaftlichen Akademien. (Eds.). (1997). Forschung zu Nachhaltigkeit und globalem Wandel – wissenschaftspolitische Visionen der schweizer Forschenden. Bern: ProClim.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandker, M., Campbell, B. M., Ruiz-Pérez, M., Sayer, J. A., Cowling, R., Kassa, H., & Knight, A. T. (2010). The Role of Participatory Modeling in Landscape Approaches to Reconcile Conservation and Development. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 13. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art13/.

  • Schäpke, N., Stelzer, F., Caniglia, G., Bergmann, M., Wanner, M., Singer-Brodowski, M., et al. (2018). Jointly Experimenting for Transformation? Shaping Real-World Laboratories by Comparing Them. GAIA, 27(S1), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schäpke, N., Stelzer, F., Marg, O., Bergmann, M., Miller, E., Wagner, F., et al. (2017). Urban BaWü-Labs: Challenges and Solutions When Expanding the Real-World Lab Infrastructure. GAIA, 26(4), 366–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnaiberg, A. (2005). The Economy and the Environment. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology (2nd ed., pp. 703–725). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneidewind, U., Augenstein, K., Stelzer, F., & Wanner, M. (2018). Structure Matters: Real-World Laboratories as a New Type of Large-Scale Research Infrastructure—A Framework Inspired by Giddens’ Structuration Theory. GAIA, 27(S1), 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneidewind, U., Singer-Brodowski, M., Augenstein, K. (2016). Transformative Science for Sustainability Transitions. In H. G. Brauch, U. Oswald Spring, J. Grin, & J. Scheffran (Eds.), Handbook on Sustainability Transition and Sustainable Peace (pp. 123–136). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change. Environment and Planning A, 42(6), 1273–1285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (2004 [1900]). The Philosophy of Money (Edieted by David Frisby. Translated by Tom Bottomore and David Frisby from a First Draft by Kaethe Mengelberg). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaemann, R. (1980). Technische Eingriffe in die Natur als Problem der politischen Ethik. In D. Birnbacher (Ed.), Ökologie und Ethik (pp. 180–206). Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg, J. (2015). Sustainability and the Challenge of Complex Systems. In J. C. Enders, & M. Remig (Eds.), Theories of Sustainable Development (pp. 89–111). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stachowiak, H. (1973). Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Wien and New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauffacher, M. (2011). Umweltsoziologie und Transdisziplinarität. In M. Groß (Ed.), Handbuch Umweltsoziologie (pp. 259–276). Wiesabaden: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge Societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strohschneider, P. (2014). Zur Politik der Transformativen Wissenschaft. In A. Brodocz, D. Herrmann, R. Schmidt, D. Schulz, & J. Schulze-Wessel (Eds.), Die Verfassung des Politischen. Festschrift für Hans Vorländer (pp. 171–192). Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eeten, M. J. G., Loucks, D. P., & Roe, E. (2002). Bringing Actors Together Around Large-Scale Water Systems: Participatory Modeling and Other Innovations. Knowledge, Technology, & Policy, 14(4), 94–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P., Newig, J., Kastens, B., Monstadt, J., & Nöltig, B. (2007). Steering for Sustainable Development: A Typology of Problems and Strategies with Respect to Ambivalence, Uncertainty and Distributive Power. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3/4), 193–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voinov, A., Seppelt, R., Reis, S., Nabel, J. E. M. S., & Shokravi, S. (2014). Values in Socio-Environmental Modelling: Persuasion for Action or Excuse for Inaction. Environmental Modelling and Software, 53, 207–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, I. M. (1974–1989). The Modern World-System (3 vols.). New York, London and San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiesmann, U., Hurni, H., Ott, C., & Zingerli, C. (2011). Combining the Concepts of Transdisciplinarity and Partnership in Research for Sustainable Development. In U. Wiesmann & H. Hurni (Eds.), Research for Sustainable Development: Foundations, Experiences, and Perspectives. Perspectives of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South (pp. 43–70). Bern: Geographica Bernensia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, E. E. (1944). Capitalism and Slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany

    Jens Jetzkowitz

Authors
  1. Jens Jetzkowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Jetzkowitz .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jetzkowitz, J. (2019). Perspectives of Coevolutionary Science in Sustainability Discourse. In: Co-Evolution of Nature and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96652-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96652-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96651-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96652-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation