Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
positive attitude towards co-construction processes has been achieved. Even with a cursory
assessment of its direct value, it is possible to say that the transdisciplinary process has
enhanced the science-society dialogue and thus contributed to transcending the science-
society divide (Neef and Neubert, 2011; Darnhofer, this volume).
In most regions (Montemor-o-Novo in Portugal, Pays de Rennes in France, Freiburg in
Germany, Imathia in Greece, Plzeňský in Czech Republic and Aberdeenshire in Scotland),
participants of the final workshop expressed their desire to continue to be involved in
discussing pathways for the future sustainability of agriculture in their region, emphasizing
the need to maintain an open dialogue and for co-construction coordinated by the
researchers. The role of researchers is viewed not only as positive, but also as a condition
enabling the process to continue. This reveals an expectation concerning the active role of
researchers and indicates that outcomes from a transdisciplinary dialogue can go much
further than the achievement of goals within a single project or collection of information for
scientific purposes.
In some cases, ability to participate and the ease with which participants understood the
research questions and project discourse, were related to existing and long-term
professional relationships between the research team and many of the participants involved.
Trust capital 'build-up' over the long term should be acknowledged, and can be considered
to be long term transdisciplinarity. The effects of each transdisciplinary participatory
process, such as those developed through FarmPath, need to be understood in the context of
the long term interaction between science and practice.
The role of transdisciplinarity in transitions cannot be understood without considering
the role of science, the scientific spheres and the scientific actors, in transition processes.
The MLP describes how the rules within one regime orient and coordinate the activities of
various sub-regimes, such as policy, science or socio-cultural sub-regimes (Geels, 2011 ).
While sub-regimes share core guiding values, they also have their own specific dynamics
and rules. Thus, it is expected that there will be differences between, for example, policy
makers and researchers within the agricultural regime. A specific sub-regime may,
therefore, play an important role in building tensions within the regime and supporting or
hindering an emerging transition. Furthermore, researchers are also part of other regimes,
including the science regime, and may be under the influence of other sets of rules and
guiding values. They may, therefore, act outside or as hybrid actors in a transition process
in agriculture, again creating the tensions noted above within the regime, which may be
needed to open up possibilities for niches to anchor.
The previous chapters have shown how different innovative niches in many different
regions of Europe have managed to link to the regime, and what supports or hinders their
take-off and anchoring. Considering these cases, the MLP shows us that transitions in
agriculture are complex and need to address many more sectors and actors than those
directly related to agriculture. In order for a connection from a niche to sub-regimes or
regimes to occur, we have seen how different actors need to be mobilized at the niche level,
at the regime level, and also in hybrid positions. These hybrid positions are often those
adopted by researchers, outside the specific practical issue but in close interaction with it,
and with relevant or significant knowledge of its 'contours' or specificities. In addition we
have seen, in many of the niches studied, that local actors look for supporters to defend
their interests; who can connect them to other spheres of knowledge or influence; and who
can help the anchoring phase. Researchers are often chosen to act as supporters. In other
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search