The urgent need for systemic solutions to global challenges demands a profound rethinking of interdisciplinary research ethics. The interconnected crises of biodiversity loss, climate change and social inequities call for transformative interdisciplinary research that not only deepens our understanding of complexity but actively supports efforts to foster fundamental change (Folke & Rockström 2009; Lenton et al. 2019). Insights from the recent article Thematic Assessment on Transformative Change (O’Brien et al. 2024), the culmination of an interdisciplinary effort developed over 3 years by more than 100 experts from 42 countries, is a landmark interdisciplinary effort that underscores the need for deliberate, system-wide shifts in views, structures and practices. This editorial explores how ethical interdisciplinary research can be reoriented to address these challenges, embracing complexity thinking and transformative change as its core principles.
Complexity thinking as an ethical imperative
As the interconnectedness of global systems accelerates, the ethical paradigms guiding research must evolve to address the complexity inherent in these challenges. Complexity is not merely an analytical concept but a foundational characteristic of the systems we inhabit and study (Poli 2013; Preiser et al. 2021b). Traditional reductionist ethical frameworks fail to account for the nuanced interdependencies of these systems (Stengers 2004; Woermann & Cilliers 2012). Instead, interdisciplinary ethical research must embrace provisionality and humility, recognising the inherent limitations of human understanding when addressing open, dynamic systems where knowledge is always partial and contingent (Cilliers 2000, 2005).
Transformative interdisciplinary research cannot rely on conventional ethical frameworks that assume stability and predictability (Cilliers & Preiser 2010). Ethical action in complex systems is less about finding definitive solutions and more about navigating evolving systems with care, sensitivity and adaptability (Preiser & Cilliers 2010). Complexity ethics, central to interdisciplinary approaches, emphasises modesty in decision-making, critical reflection and the acceptance of uncertainty. This perspective fosters responsibility not only for immediate actions but also for their long-term and often unpredictable ripple effects across interconnected systems.
Interdisciplinary ethical research, rooted in complexity ethics, requires researchers to engage in continuous reflection, embrace pluralism and integrate diverse ways of thinking and knowing (De Vos et al. 2019; Preiser et al. 2021a; Sellberg et al. 2021). By fostering collaboration across disciplines, this approach supports innovative strategies to address global challenges and the ethical dilemmas they pose. Such research is essential for navigating the interconnected, dynamic world and advancing just and sustainable solutions.
Transformative change: The ethical horizon
The recent summary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report (O’Brien et al. 2024) provides a framework for ethical research to support systemic shifts towards sustainability. Transformative change is defined as fundamental, system-wide shifts in views, structures and practices that address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and environmental decline. These root causes include disconnection from and domination over nature and people, concentration of power and wealth, and prioritisation of short-term, material gains (O’Brien et al. 2024).
Ethical interdisciplinary research must go beyond analysing these issues to actively supporting transformative change. This involves advancing strategies and actions that integrate across views, structures and practices to address the root causes of environmental and social crises (Fazey et al. 2018). For example, research can highlight and strengthen the views, structures and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities that are already aligned with sustainability, while also confronting entrenched systems that perpetuate inequities and ecological degradation (Hebinck et al. 2018; Lotz-Sisitka et al. 2015; O’Brien 2018).
Principles for guiding ethical interdisciplinary research
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report (O’Brien et al. 2024) identifies four key principles – equity and justice; pluralism and inclusion; respectful and reciprocal human–nature relationships; and adaptive learning and action – that must guide transformative change. These principles align closely with the ethical imperatives of complexity thinking and offer a roadmap for interdisciplinary research:
- Equity and justice: Ethical research must address historical and systemic inequalities by ensuring inclusivity in both processes and outcomes. This includes amplifying marginalised voices and distributing benefits and costs fairly.
- Pluralism and inclusion: Recognising diverse perspectives and knowledge systems, particularly those of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, is essential for addressing the complexities of sustainability challenges. Interdisciplinary research must create spaces for dialogue and collaboration across these diverse viewpoints.
- Respectful and reciprocal relationships: Ethical research should foster relationships based on mutual respect and reciprocity, replacing exploitative interactions with practices that nurture trust and shared responsibility.
- Adaptive learning and action: Transformative change is an iterative, dynamic process that requires continuous learning and adjustment. Ethical research must remain flexible and responsive, co-creating knowledge with stakeholders and adapting to evolving challenges.
Complexity and transformation: A synergistic framework
Complexity thinking and the principles of transformative change provide a synergistic framework for ethical interdisciplinary research. Complexity thinking emphasises understanding systems as dynamic and interconnected, while transformative change focuses on shifting those systems towards sustainability and justice. Together, they call for research that is not only problem-oriented but also process-driven, recognising that how we conduct research is as important as the questions we seek to answer.
For example, by using systems-based methodologies, interdisciplinary research can uncover the feedback loops and unintended consequences that often arise in transformative processes (Biggs et al. 2021). It can also support the development of inclusive governance structures and adaptive policies that balance diverse interests and navigate tensions between those who benefit from change and those who bear its costs.
Towards a just and sustainable future
Ethical interdisciplinary research must rise to the challenges of the 21st century by embracing both complexity and the transformative potential of deliberate change. From this perspective, the role of researchers extends beyond understanding the world, to actively shaping it in ways that are just, inclusive and sustainable. This involves confronting systemic barriers, fostering coalitions of actors and aligning research efforts with the principles of equity, pluralism, reciprocity and adaptability.
As the Journal of Interdisciplinary and Ethical Research embarks on its mission, it has an opportunity to lead this transformative agenda. By prioritising research that addresses the underlying causes of global crises and supports systemic shifts, the journal can contribute to a vision of a just and sustainable world. In doing so, it will advance not only the ethics of research but also the ethics of our collective responsibility to future generations and the planet.
References
Biggs, R.(Oonsie), De Vos, A., Preiser, R., Clements, H., Maciejewski, K. & Schlüter, M., 2021, The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems. Routledge, London.
Cilliers, P., 2000, ‘Knowledge, complexity and understanding’, Emergence 2(4), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327000EM0204_03
Cilliers, P., 2005, ‘Knowledge, limits and boundaries’, Futures 37(7), 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2004.11.001
Cilliers, P. & Preiser, R., 2010, Complexity, difference and identity, vol. 26, eds. P. Cilliers & R. Preiser, Springer Netherlands, Dortrecht.
De Vos, A., Biggs, R.(Oonsie) & Preiser, R., 2019, ‘Methods for understanding social-ecological systems: A review of place-based studies’, Ecology and Society 24(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11236-240416
Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Patterson, J., Hultman, J., Van Mierlo, B. et al., 2018, ‘Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research’, Energy Research and Social Science 40, 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026
Folke, C. & Rockström, J., 2009, ‘Turbulent times’, Global Environmental Change 16(3), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.06.007
Hebinck, A., Vervoort, J.M., Hebinck, P., Rutting, L. & Galli, F., 2018, ‘Imagining transformative futures: Participatory foresight for food systems change’, Ecology and Society 23(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10054-230216
Lenton, T.M., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, W. et al., 2019, ‘Climate tipping points—Too risky to bet against’, Nature 575(7784), 592–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0
Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A.E.J., Kronlid, D. & McGarry, D., 2015, ‘Transformative, transgressive social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 16, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.018
O’Brien, K., 2018, ‘Is the 1.5°C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010
O’Brien, K., Garibaldi, L., Agrawal, A., Bennett, E., Biggs, O., Calderón Contreras, R. et al., 2024. ‘IPBES transformative change assessment: Summary for policymakers’, Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14513975
Poli, R., 2013, ‘A note on the difference between complicated and complex social systems’, Cadmus 2(1), 142–147.
Preiser, R., Biggs, R., Hamann, M., Sitas, N., Selomane, O., Waddell, J. et al., 2021a, ‘Co-exploring relational heuristics for sustainability transitions towards more resilient and just Anthropocene futures’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science 38(5), 625–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2815
Preiser, R. & Cilliers, P., 2010, ‘Unpacking the ethics of complexity: Concluding reflections’, in P. Cilliers & R. Preiser (eds.), Complexity, difference and identity, Issues in, vol. 26, pp. 265–287, Springer, Dortrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9187-1
Preiser, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, R., García, M.M., Haider, J., Hertz, T. et al., 2021b, ‘Complexity-based social-ecological systems research: Philosophical foundations and practical implications’, in R. Biggs, A. De Vos, R. Preiser, H. Clements, K. Maciejewski & M. Schlüter (eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods for social-ecological systems, pp. 27–46, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003021339-3
Sellberg, M.M., Quinlan, A., Preiser, R., Malmborg, K. & Peterson, G.D., 2021, Engaging with complexity in resilience practice. Ecology and Society 26(3), 8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12311-260308
Stengers, I., 2004, ‘The challenge of complexity: Unfolding the ethics of science in memoriam Ilya Prigogine’, E:CO Emergence: Complexity and Organization 6, 92–99.
Woermann, M. & Cilliers, P., 2012, ‘The ethics of complexity and the complexity of ethics’, South African Journal of Philosophy 31(2), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2012.10751787
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
