2 results
Transformative research for sustainability: characteristics, tensions, and moving forward
- Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu, Ine Dorresteijn, Julia Leventon, Milutin Stojanovic, David P.M. Lam, Daniel J. Lang, Angela Moriggi, Christopher M. Raymond, Sanna Stålhammar, Annika Weiser, Silja Zimmermann
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 7 / 2024
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 April 2024, e14
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Technical summary
The question of how science can become a lever in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals permeates most recent sustainability research. Wide-ranging literature calling for a transformative approach has emerged in recent years. This ‘transformative turn’ is fueled by publications from fields such as sustainability science, social-ecological research, conservation science, sustainability transitions, or sustainability governance studies. However, there is a lack of a shared understanding specifically of what is meant for research to be transformative in this developing discourse around doing science differently to tackle sustainability problems. We aim to advance transformative research for sustainability. We define transformative research and outline six of its characteristics: (1) interventional nature and a theory of change focus; (2) collaborative modes of knowledge production, experimentation and learning; (3) systems thinking literacy and contextualization; (4) reflexivity, normative and inner dimensions; (5) local agency, decolonization, and reshaping power; (6) new quality criteria and rethinking impact. We highlight three tensions between transformative research and traditional paradigms of academic research: (1) process- and output-orientation; (2) accountability toward society and toward science; (3) methodologies rooted in scientific traditions and post-normal methodologies. We conclude with future directions on how academia could reconcile these tensions to support and promote transformative research.
Non-technical summaryDominant ways of doing research are not enough to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The typical response of science to dealing with the current local and global sustainability crises is to produce and accumulate more knowledge. Transformative research seeks to couple knowledge production with co-creating change. This paper defines the transformative way of doing research to pro-actively support society's fight against pressing societal and environmental problems. We present six characteristics of transformative research. We reflect on the challenges related to implementing these characteristics in scientific practice and on how academia can play its part.
Social media summarySustainability transformation needs to be reflected in science, but what makes sustainability research transformative?
Three-Year Follow-Up Study in Patients with Guillain-Barré Syndrome
- Vesna Martic, Ivo Bozovic, Ivana Berisavac, Ivana Basta, Stojan Peric, Milica Babic, Sonja Lukic Rajic, Bogdan Bjelica, Olivera Stojiljkovic Tamas, Aleksandar Stojanov, Marija Grunauer, Mina Cobeljic, Nenad Komatina, Vanja Djuric, Milutin Petrovic, Balsa Vujovic, Aleksandra Dominovic Kovacevic, Gordana Djordjevic, Dejana Jovanovic, Zorica Stevic
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Volume 45 / Issue 3 / May 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 14 May 2018, pp. 269-274
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
A majority of patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) have tendency of a good recovery. Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of the disease 1 and 3 years after GBS symptom onset. Methods: During 2014, GBS was diagnosed in 82 patients in seven tertiary healthcare centers. Neurological follow-up was conducted in 57 (70%) patients after 1 year, and in 54 (66%) after 3 years. Functional disability was estimated according to the GBS disability scale (GDS), with a score of 0-3 indicating mild disability and a score of 4-6 indicating severe disability during acute phase, whereas a score >1 indicated poor recovery on follow-ups. Visual analog scale was used to assess sensory symptoms and musculoskelatal pain, and Krupp’s Fatigue Severity Scale was used to asses fatigue. Results: Poor functional outcome was found in 39% of GBS patients at year 1 and 30% at year 3. Paresthesias/dysesthesias were detected in 60% of patients after 1 year and 43% after 3 years. Musculoskeletal pain was present in 40% of patients at year 1 and 33% at year 3. Significant fatigue after 1 year was found in 21% of subjects and after 3 years in 7%. Parameters associated with poor functional outcome after 1 year were age >55 years (p=0.05), severe disability at admission (p<0.05), and on discharge (p<0.01). Poor functional outcome after 3 years was associated with male gender (p<0.05) and severe disability on discharge (p=0.06). Conclusion: One and even three years after GBS onset, a substantial number of patients had neurological sequelae, including functional disability, sensory symptoms, pain, and fatigue.