Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
the trade-offs, or one stakeholder group or
another might compromise their views to see
this or that trade-off as more or less trouble-
some. It seems hard to imagine that either of
these circumstances would bring any significant
change in the sustainability trajectory.
If existing knowledge is deficient, then it
follows that new knowledge and only new
knowledge has the ability to assist in managing
wicked problems such as sustainability. However,
following the arguments just made, new knowl-
edge only works if two things are true: (i) the
new knowledge is developed or discovered in
such a way that it is credible and legitimate to all
stakeholders (meets each stakeholder's criteria
for justified true belief); and (ii) it reshapes the
trade-offs among the system outcomes that
divided the stakeholders in the first place.
used to create new knowledge, but it is the new
knowledge that is useful in managing wicked
problems and the question of legitimacy is not
entirely answered if the links to existing knowl-
edge are problematic for some stakeholders.
A second source of new knowledge is devel-
oping a new means of 'justifying true belief '. New
knowledge that could unfreeze the system trade-
offs through breakthrough or new-to-the-world
innovation is most likely to come from outside the
existing base of justified true belief. Paradigm
shifts (Kuhn, 1962) or other radical changes in
prevailing mental models will be the source of
high value new knowledge. The goal of any new
paradigm or significant system innovation would
focus on converting existing system trade-offs into
complements. Redesign the system to produce
profit, planet and people outcomes in comple-
mentary ways inside of in competing ways.
Whatever the source of new knowledge,
recognize that when first discovered it is neither
explicit nor implicit. New knowledge does not
have the record of testing and documentation to
justify it explicitly while there is no body of prac-
tice to justify it implicitly. New knowledge is jus-
tified in its early discovery by reference to
existing knowledge or paradigms, or by intuition
that it makes good sense, it moves us in a more
effective direction, or it is useable in practice.
Shift then to the process of creating new
knowledge by whatever means (conversion of
existing knowledge or new paradigms for system
innovation). Knowledge legitimacy and the
unfreezing of system trade-offs need to result
from the creation process. The process has legiti-
macy when the new knowledge is derived
together with the stakeholders. Further, when
the creation of the new knowledge centres on
system innovation, then more acceptable impact
trade-offs can emerge even to the point of con-
verting existing trade-offs into new comple-
ments through deeper systems understanding
and redesign. The conditions for managing
wicked problems become:
Co-creating New Knowledge
and Innovation
As scientists, we are regularly engaged in the
process of creating new knowledge, but we need
to be careful not to fall into a trap that there is
only one source of new knowledge. There are a
number of approaches to creating new knowl-
edge, and one suspects that the various stake-
holders in a wicked problem will be well aware
of this.
Takeuchi and Nonaka (2000) argued that
new knowledge is created by various forms of
'conversion' between existing tacit and explicit
knowledge. Tacit knowledge becomes new
explicit knowledge through the process of
exter-
nalization
, i.e. taking what is known from prac-
tice and experience and making it formal and
accessible to others. Scientific induction is a
form of externalization. Tacit knowledge is
converted into new tacit knowledge through
the process of
socialization
, i.e. sharing experi-
ences and practice with others. Apprenticeship
is an excellent example of socialization. Explicit
knowledge becomes new tacit knowledge
through a process of
internalization
, i.e. taking
explicit knowledge (from others) and applying it
in one's own practice. Finally, explicit knowledge
is converted to new explicit knowledge through
combination
, i.e. combining or synthesizing dif-
ferent bodies of explicit knowledge. Scientific
deduction fits here. Existing knowledge can be
1.
Attending to both system outcomes and pro-
cess outcomes.
2.
Co-creating new knowledge with stakehold-
ers to assure knowledge legitimacy.
3.
Focusing the new knowledge on system
innovation that transforms the system trade-offs
into complements so far as possible.
