The role of science to interpret phenomenon and generate knowledge (sometimes falsify knowledge) using transparent methodologies and concepts, and to systematise knowledge clearly has importance in attempts to move towards more sustainable energy systems. Societal self-reflection is certainly perceived as a rather new role for science to play. 53
Many authors question the ability and problem-solving potential of disciplinary science and simple optimisation of factors when it comes to sustainability issues. A new understanding of science is represented in, e.g., mode-2 science (Gibbons et al. 1995, Nowotny et al. 2001, Nowotny et al. 2003) co-production of knowledge (Jasanoff 2004), post-normal science (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993 Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994), sustainability science (Kates et al.
2001), sustainability governance (Gallopin et al. 2001), social learning for sustainability (Luks and Siebenhuner 2007) or reflexive governance (Voß 2004). What these all have in common is the notion of greater interaction between academic disciplines (interdisciplinary approach) and with actors outside academia (transdisciplinarity). Therefore the work of scientists becomes also a negotiation process arguing on which concepts are particularly helpful for certain problems.
Problem-oriented research across disciplines is one key attribute in sustainability science.
(Kates et al. 2001)
“Hence, it (sustainability science) often leads to blurring boundaries between scientific objectives of knowledge production, verification and accumulation, and the societal objectives of dealing with urgent problems, normative issues (see also Luks and Siebenhuner 2007) and
53 Following the differential techniques we can only understand something in contrast to our expectations. So the question of in which differentiation scheme are facts acquired or should they be acquired points to the important role of science. (Luhmann 1986)
opposed interests groups, as well as between scientific quest for truth and the societal quest for justice.” (Kastenhofer and Rammel 2005)
In addition, due to the different kind of problems, different working approaches in science are necessary. These include inter- and transdisciplinary research methods and consequently new skills for scientists that go beyond traditional fragmented and mechanistic science based on rational choice. (Polatidis et al. 2003, Hjorth and Bagheri 2006) From a science perspective, this is an interesting yet also threatening challenge, since “such indistinct boundaries present a certain threat to the autonomy and integrity of the (sub)-systems” (Kastenhofer and Rammel 2005) as in the case for academia and its organisation in distinct disciplines. Ockham’s Razor, representing a nominalist and reductionism point of view, ‘entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem’ translated by Gallopin as “One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything”; is valid for systemic research too but ‘what is necessary’ may need to be adapted. (Gallopin 2001)
The authoritarian attitude of science, with scientists as the exclusively privileged holders of knowledge, cannot be maintained in the light of high and irreducible uncertainty (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993, Meijer et al. 2005), non-linearity and different legitimate perspectives have proven that science may gain incorrect results (e.g. in the case of CFCs and the resulting ozone hole) or in not being able to give satisfying answers in many cases. Thus there is a legitimisation and trust issue between society and science and also within science that might be a prerequisite and also a symptom of challenging the role of science and therefore widening the methods scheme. A sustainable adaptation of science has to reflect on the present role of science in society. (Wynne 1993)54
54 Paradigms and practises in science have been constantly evolving (see a broad summary of the development of science in Gallopin et al. 2001) and the standing of science has changed over time with a key historically shift during the Age of Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, when the influence of science increased significantly (in the western hemisphere) and in a stepwise fashion replaced religion as the single instance to attain truth. Therefore attaining the truth was no longer inevitably bound to religious content and religious interests. An alternative knowledge concept was established that was mainly based on rationality, the exercise of reason and conducting experiments. This development took place in parallel with the process of separating the state and religion. This can be seen as a historical emancipation process. But further changes of the role of science seem necessary whereas now the emancipation is from an authoritarian academia, an expert society.
(Illich 1998)
The role of scientists is to generate and manage knowledge and data and furthermore provide information to support decision-making by e.g. politicians. Nevertheless, it is widely recognised that experts do this with certain subjective interests in mind due to, e.g., their conceptual background, funding and publishing issues, personal interests, etc. The “privilege” of objective truth is not any longer believed to exist and is not accepted as an attribute of scientists per se.
Rather than revealing “what is right”, the negotiation process is “right under which circumstances and right for whom”? The same is true for applied science and technological development. “The traditional view is that decisions regarding technical issues should be left in the hands of experts and scientists” but “counterarguments point out that there are frequently limitations in the knowledge of experts, who often disagree among themselves.” (Rowe and Frewer 2000, p5)
“What is considered a technical fact, and what is seen as belonging to the realm of social values, needs to be treated as part of the empirical dispute over definitional boundaries that is integral to technological decision controversies.” Schwarz and Thompson 1990 p22-23
This specific discourse over the role of science in transdisciplinary research, whether values and facts differ in an ontological way, (Gallopin 2001) raises questions as to whether scientists really have the ability to produce facts in a privileged sense. Even given a more moderate rating of the ability of science to produce facts, the equating of values and facts does not seem a helpful assumption. The epistemological difference is that the bench mark of truth is recognisability and inter-subjective reproducibility and the criterion for values, in contrast, is approval and not truth. Therefore facts can be false while norms and values cannot be false. In the context of individual freedom, such as freedom of religion, this seems a very important civil right. A consequence of breaking down the difference between values and facts would be to diminish the difference between ideology and truth. There are simply different arguments regarding facts or values: on one hand, claiming transparent rules for scientific work, binding scientists into a strict corset of legitimate ways to argue to ensure quality management in sustainability science, and on the other hand arguing in favour of the freedom of diverse values.
Acknowledging that reality is experienced in a mix of values and facts and scientists and others lack the means to distinguish them clearly, there is an urgent need to deal with this and incorporate both facts and values in analysis by making use of transdisciplinary research.
“In short, what is required is not just to acknowledge that facts are value-laden but to adopt an analytical approach that can come to terms with the interaction between factual and value dimensions in a single conceptual frame.” (Schwarz and Thompson 1990, p23)
Participatory research methods represent a possible strategy for acknowledging the mix of values and facts. And particularly participatory multi-criteria decision analysis allows explicit integration of values into the analysis. Whereas MCA generally follows the idea that facts and values can be separated and are to be differentiated, facts are located in the impact matrix and values are expressed within the selection of criteria and in the form of weights. MCA offers a framework taking values and facts arising from a participatory process into further analysis, which is particularly helpful for aiding decisions. Scenario building, too, can integrate values and facts in a profound way. It allows, on the one hand, for a discussion as to what favourable futures are and for lessons to be learned about sustainable visions and, on the other hand, for coherent future profiles to be modelled. The specificities of participatory research methods, MCA and scenario building and their combined use for managing a transition towards more sustainable energy systems are discussed in further detail in the following section.