Conducting sustainability research in the anthropocene: toward a relational approach

Sustainability Science https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01510-9 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Conducting sustainability research in the anthropocene: toward a relational approach Jessica Böhme1 · Eva‑Maria Spreitzer2 · Christine Wamsler3 Received: 26 July 2023 / Accepted: 21 March 2024 © The Author(s) 2024, corrected publication 2024 Abstract Scholars and practitioners are urgently highlighting the need to apply a relational approach to effectively address societal crises. At the same time, little is known about the associated challenges, and there is little advice regarding how to operationalize this approach in sustainability science. Against this background, this article explores how we can break out of our current paradigms and approaches, and instead apply relational thinking, being, and acting in the way we conduct research. To achieve this, we systematically list all major research phases, and assess possible pathways for integrating a relational paradigm for each step. We show that moving toward a relational paradigm requires us to methodically question and redefine existing theories of change, concepts, and approaches, for instance by combining abductive reasoning, first-person inquiries, and decentering the human through critical complexity theory. Challenging mainstream thought, and daring to ask different questions in each step is crucial to ultimately shift scientific norms and systems. Hence, we offer a catalog of questions that may help to systematically integrate relational being, thinking, and acting into the process, as a tool for transforming current paradigms in research, and associated education and practice. Finally, we highlight the importance of further research to develop and refine our outcomes. Keywords Eco-justice · Inner transformation · Inner transition · Existential sustainability · Paradigms · Relationality · Relational ontology · Systems thinking · Transformation research · Existential resilience · Inner-outer transformation Introduction The anthropocene is characterized by significant human impact on the Earth’s geology and ecosystems; examples include biodiversity loss, climate change, social inequalities, and conflicts (IPCC 2021). These challenges are part of an underlying metacrisis of accelerating, causally entangled, complex grand challenges (Jørgsen et al. 2023; Rosa Jessica Böhme and Christine Wamsler have contributed equally to this work and thus share first authorship. Handled by Shizuka Hashimoto, Tokyo Daigaku, Japan. * Christine Wamsler 1 Fachhochschule des Mittelstands Berlin, Ernst‑Reuter‑Platz 3‑5, 10587 Berlin, Germany 2 Leuphana University Lüneburg, Universitätsallee 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany 3 Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Box 170, 221 00 Lund, Sweden 2019). In fact, there is mounting evidence that today’s societal crises have one common denominator, or root cause: they are a reflection of an inner, human crisis of disconnection or separation from self, others, and nature, which is grounded in modern societies’ social paradigm (Ives et al. 2023; Leichenko and O’Brien 2020; Rowson 2021; Wamsler et al. 2021; Wamsler and Bristow 2022). Hence, the current focus on external, technological approaches is insufficient to support transformation toward sustainable and just futures (ibid). Consequently, there is also a need for sustainability science to re-consider and expand its ontological, epistemological, and ethical foundations, and associated approaches for researching and engaging with complex, wicked sustainability challenges (Alford and Head 2017; Ives et al. 2023; Lang et al. 2012; Lönngren and van Peock 2020; Mauser et al. 2013; Wiek and Lang 2016; Xiang 2013). Accordingly, an increasing number of scholars and practitioners argue that effectively addressing and researching sustainability Vol.:(0123456789) Sustainability Science challenges requires a shift in paradigms1 to address societal crises differently (Ives et al. 2023; Walsh et al. 2020; Wamsler et al. 2021). The dominant social paradigm in the modern, industrialized world is what we refer to in the following as the ‘mechanistic paradigm’.Scholars and practitioners highlight that current mechanistic approaches, and associated reductionist strategies and perspectives, are inadequate for tackling sustainability issues (Leichenko and O’Brien 2020; Porter and Reischer 2018). Furthermore, it can be argued that the paradigm’s underlying values (individualism, materialism, capitalism) and the associated norms,2 mechanisms, and structures enhance separation from self, others and nature, and a kind of alienation, as an integral element of modern life, forms (Wamsler and Bristow 2022; Rosa 2019). The core pattern that emerges from the mechanistic paradigm, which is especially relevant in the context of todays’ sustainability crises and associated research, is that we are increasingly exhausting and exploiting ourselves, others, and nature (Wamsler and Bristow 2022). This is based on the perception that humans are separate from each other, that they are separate and superior to the rest of the natural world, and that nature, like any other system, behaves like a machine, and can be controlled and known by reducing it to its parts (Capra and Luisi 2014; Redclift and Sage 1994; Rees 1999; Walsh et al. 2020). The result is separation between self, others, and the more-than-human world (Ives et al. 2019; Wamsler and Bristow 2022). The mechanistic paradigm has dominated both policymaking and research. It favors “outer” approaches and solutions (IPCC 2022a; b; Wendt 2015; Todd 2016; Wamsler and Bristow 2022), while largely ignoring the inner dimension of sustainability, which includes people’s individual and collective mindsets, beliefs, values, worldviews, and associated inner qualities/capacities (Capra and Luisi 2014; Redclift and Sage 1994; Rees 1999; Wamsler 2020; Wamsler et al. 2021, 2022a). This has, in turn, narrowed the possibilities for 1 Paradigms shape our ways of knowing, being, and acting in the world (Walsh et al. 2020) and can thus be both a critical barrier and driver for sustainability. They not only influence us personally (i.e., our motivation, values, attitudes, and psychological makeup), but also shape our systems (social, economic, political, technical, ecological) and cultural associations (i.e., narrative frames and cultural norms) (Escobar 2017; Lakoff 2014; Orr 2002; Wahl 2017). Paradigms represent the dominant thought patterns in societies, and thus underlie the theories and methods we use in science (O’Brien 2016; Walsh et al. 2020). This is also true for sustainability, climate science, and any other related field (Kuhn 1996). As a result, they hold significant potential as catalysts for transforming systems (Meadows 1999). 2 In the context of research, related norms are characterized by rationalism, reductionism, empiricism, dualism, and determinism (Redclift and Sage 1994; Rees 1999; Capra and Luisi 2014; (...truncated)