A Critical Realist Approach to Reflexivity in Sustainability Research

Abstract

In sustainability science, the research is expected to go beyond disciplinary thinking and incorporate different concepts, methods, and data to explore nature–society interactions at different levels and scales. In realizing these expectations, reflexivity is often noted as an influential factor in inter- and transdisciplinary research processes in sustainability science, wherein researchers reflect on their assumptions, judgments, roles, and positions in the research processes, rethink their ways of knowing and doing, and open up new possibilities for actions. Despite the growing literature on the notion of reflexivity in sustainability science and how it emerges during the research processes, the debates and discussions are often based on lessons learned from sustainability research projects, drawing on individuals’ experiences and motivations. This paper aims to grapple with the notion of reflexivity from a structural point of view, which is less discussed in sustainability research, by drawing on critical realist literature. The paper first presents how reflexivity is understood and analyzed in inter- and transdisciplinary research processes by reviewing the recent studies of reflexivity in sustainability science research. Second, it highlights the knowledge gaps and the need to engage with an alternative view on reflexivity offered by Margaret Archer, one of the leading critical realist scholars. Third, it takes Archer’s framework on reflexivity into sustainability research to explain the causal mechanisms impeding the emergence of meta-reflexivity in the process of knowledge integration and production in contemporary marketized and managerialized universities. Finally, the paper argues that in establishing practices (modus vivendi) that could address the structural barriers (not observable challenges), we need collective agency. To this end, it discusses different collective initiatives and courses of action that could lead to the emergence of collective agency, capable of tackling the cultural and material barriers to reflexivity.

1. Introduction

In sustainability science, research is expected to go beyond disciplinary thinking and incorporate different concepts, methods, and data to better analyze and address complex challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, or land use change. In meeting this expectation, several research studies highlight the importance of reflexivity in sustainability research [1,2,3,4,5,6]. In this context, reflexivity is often viewed as a process wherein researchers reflect on their assumptions, judgments, roles, and positions in the research process, rethink their ways of knowing and doing, and open up new possibilities for actions [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Reflexivity is argued to be essential for sustainability research as it determines which social or/and ecological questions should be asked, and which courses of action should be prioritized to address sustainability challenges more effectively and inclusively [1].

Recently, a thick body of literature in the field of sustainability science has discussed the challenges and opportunities of the emergence of reflexivity. Ranging from studies on institutional settings [7] and educational environments [2] to psychological factors [8], the literature as such aims to shed light on barriers or enabling factors to be a reflexive sustainability researcher and participating actor in the process of producing and applying knowledge to address sustainability challenges. Despite these insights, integrating knowledge across disciplinary backgrounds and academic and non-academic borders has remained a challenge even in the most supporting research institutes promoting inter- and transdisciplinary research in sustainability science [9].

This paper aims to offer new insights into why the emergence of reflexivity in sustainability research is challenging despite the lessons learned from numerous sustainability research projects. In achieving this aim, the paper first reviews the sustainability research studies wherein reflexivity and the challenges and opportunities of its emergence are discussed. Second, it offers an alternative understanding of reflexivity and the factors hindering its emergence from a theoretically informed, structural point of view, which is less studied in sustainability science. Finally, the paper draws some conclusions on the enabling factors that can lead to the emergence of a specific type of reflexivity required for advancing sustainability science and addressing sustainability challenges.

2. Data Collection Methods

The following steps were taken to provide a sample of recent studies of reflexivity in sustainability science. First, all the peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters over the past decade, from 2012 to April 2022, related to sustainability science focusing on the processes of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, were selected. Inter- and transdisciplinarity are the main modes of research in the field of sustainability, often framed as a research collaboration between academics from different disciplines and between academic and non-academic actors, respectively. Although some research studies have contested these understandings of research modes [9], they are widely accepted in the sustainability research community [4,10,11]. Both modes comprise the process of knowledge integration and production with a focus on mutual learning (either among scientists from various disciplinary backgrounds or between scientific communities and other social groups), which is highly relevant to the notion of reflexivity [2,11]. Thus, to find the most relevant studies to the process of knowledge integration and (co-) production in sustainability research, the keywords of inter- or transdisciplinarity were used in combination with sustainability research or sustainability science while examining the title, abstract, and keywords of publications. Subsequently, the algorithm of (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“sustainability science” OR “sustainability research”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (“interdisciplinar*” OR “transdisciplinar*” OR “inter-disciplinar*” OR “trans-disciplinar*”)) were used in the Scopus database. The initial search returned 491 sources.

Second, all the sources were downloaded and imported to Nvivo. This computer software helps researchers organize and analyze qualitative data such as interviews and surveys and conduct literature reviews. To identify which publications are relevant to the subject of this study (i.e., the notion of reflexivity), keywords such as reflexive, reflexivity, reflection, and reflective were searched in the content of these documents. The search results returned 152 sources. To ensure no relevant publication was omitted, 30 sources were randomly selected from the reminded publications (N = 339) and browsed, none of which were identified as relevant sources.

Third, all the selected publications (N = 152) were manually browsed, and those that were not relevant to the research process in the sustainability field or the notion of reflexivity were excluded. These, for example, included publications wherein reflexivity was only mentioned as a key factor for conducting sustainability research or inter- and transdisciplinary research in sustainability science, without discussing the challenges and opportunities for its emergence. After this round of review, 107 sources (see Supplementary Materials: Selected Literature) were selected as the core publications to further analyze how the notion of reflexivity is understood and analyzed in sustainability research. Figure 1 shows the top 50 most frequent words in the selected sample.

As seen in Figure 1, the selected data sources included diverse topics and all discussed the process of conducting sustainability research and reflexivity. The sources were classified (coded in different nodes in Nvivo) into three main categories. The first category revolved around the discussions on reflexivity in the processes of knowledge (co-) production in sustainability science and why it matters to be a reflexive sustainability researcher. The second category comprised findings on barriers to the emergence of reflexivity based on various views and experiences of doing sustainability research. Finally, the third category included discussions on the conditions required for the emergence of reflexivity. These findings are presented in the next section.

3. Reflexivity in Sustainability Science

3.1. Reflexivity in the Process of Knowledge (co-) Production

How is reflexivity defined in sustainability research? The most frequently cited articles in the reviewed literature [5,6,12,13] define reflexivity as being critical about one’s position, epistemic and normative orientation in research, and the effects of these elements on the research processes and outcomes [5,6,12,13]. Other studies [14,15] extend this definition by highlighting the importance of being critical of researchers’ positionality regarding racial, ethnical, gendered, classed, and political backgrounds and their impacts on informing research inquiry [14,15].

Reflexivity in sustainability research is predominantly discussed in relation to transdisciplinarity and knowledge co-production processes [4,6] as opposed to interdisciplinarity [9]. In transdisciplinary research processes, the aim is to integrate scientific and societal understandings of a given sustainability challenge and to take concrete courses of action based on the co-produced knowledge [4,5]. Reflexivity is argued to be a key to effective sustainability research since it determines how social or/and ecological issues should be framed and what solutions should be prioritized to address sustainability challenges in more effective and inclusive ways [4,5]. As argued by several scholars [6,14,15,16], reflexivity is also helpful for sustainability researchers to become more aware of values, worldviews, and power relations shaping their ways of knowing and conducting research. This awareness, as Chilisa [15] contends, could (and should) lead to challenging the mainstream (often Western-based) approaches to sustainability issues and instead incorporating decolonized, indigenous-based transdisciplinary research.

3.2. Barriers to the Emergence of Reflexivity

The challenges of being a reflexive sustainability researcher range from a lack of institutional support and time and financial constraints to social and psychological factors.

The lack of institutional support for inter- and transdisciplinary research is frequently cited as an obstacle to incorporating reflexivity in research [6,9,12,17,18]. These, for example, include limited access to inter- and transdisciplinary education and training [2,12], not having a sense of a secure and recognized place in one’s disciplinary department while engaging in sustainability research [9], and ineffective leadership in supporting learning for collective and transformative research projects [17]. Moreover, as Ghosh [18] argues, post-project knowledge sharing, feedback sessions, and reflexivity are crucial aspects of transdisciplinary research, which are not well supported in Northern universities following the global trend of project-based research.

In a thick body of reviewed literature [14,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25], time and financial constraints are frequently discussed as barriers to adopting reflexive approaches in sustainability research. Providing space for learning new concepts and methodologies and self-reflection, building trust among researchers with various disciplinary backgrounds, and having meaningful engagements with different stakeholders require additional time and resources compared to disciplinary research [14,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. As pointed out by Felt, Igelsböck, Schikowitz, and Völker [24], investment in time and resources for knowledge co-production in more hybrid and collective ways has little room in current financing schemes of sustainability research. Alonso-Yanez et al. [26] point out that in addition to limited time and resources, the rigid budget templates for how funding should be spent could hamper the collaborative research processes aiming for a genuine inclusion and acknowledgment of indigenous knowledge holders. For example, they argue that the financial guidelines do not account for the use of funds for cultural practices of reciprocity associated with gift-giving to compensate for the sharing of indigenous expertise and traditional ecological knowledge [26].

Research studies also highlight the role of socio-political factors on reflexivity [14,15,27,28,29]. As such, researchers argue that unequal power relations among diverse groups (across age, class, gender, ethnicity, race, and politics) could affect research participants’ engagement and reflection in the knowledge co-production processes [14,15,27,28,29]. For example, Bojórquez-Tapia, Eakin, Hernández-Aguilar, and Shelton [27] contend that in the presence of influential actors and sectors in participatory meetings, there is little room for marginalized views to be reflected and incorporated into projects. In another example, Osinski [30] notes that being young and a woman in some contexts might impede individuals from being active in knowledge sharing and reflection processes.

In addition to the above social factors, a few scholars argue that individuals’ personal and psychological characteristics could also affect the process of reflexivity [8,31,32,33]. For example, a lack of intrinsic motivation, i.e., stemming from interest and curiosity as opposed to gaining a reward [8], and a lack of interpersonal skills, e.g., humor [33], could hamper the process of collaboration, creativity, and reflexivity.

3.3. Enabling Factors for Reflexivity

In addressing the barriers to reflexivity, the reviewed literature offers various insights on enabling factors for reflexivity, broadly divided into three categories.

First, a large body of research studies [2,3,6,34] argues that (social) learning and training play a significant role in invoking reflexivity, wherein researchers can critically reflect on their positionality and partiality in research. For example, Knaggård, Ness, and Harnesk [2] argue that inter-and transdisciplinary training and education are the key elements in developing a reflexive capacity and conducting effective sustainability research. Similarly, Reed, Dagli, and Hambly Odame [3] contend that reflexivity emerges when researchers engage in discussion with those who hold a different worldview and understanding of sustainability challenges while both groups aim to navigate the truth claims towards socially and ecologically sound solutions. Following this, there is a list of recommendations for how we can improve the process of learning and, thus, reflexivity. These include creating safe spaces for process-oriented [5] and practice-based [35] sustainability research (as opposed to output-oriented approaches) while acknowledging and accepting failure in achieving research objectives as a crucial part of social learning processes [34]. In addition, it is essential to work with funding agencies to reconsider the evaluation criteria of what counts as successful sustainability research [36].

Second, several research studies draw on the importance of developing innovative methods for dialogue and knowledge sharing by using art-based approaches [16,37,38,39,40]. For example, Kagan and Kirchberg [16] argue that music (ranging from intellectually challenging to popular) can trigger a process of self-exploration and identity construction. In another example, Trott, Even, and Frame [37] highlight how photography can be an effective translational means for communication and reflection on sustainability challenges and change pathways, especially for youth and children. Similarly, Heras, Galafassi, Oteros-Rozas, Ravera, Berraquero-Díaz, and Ruiz-Mallén [40] that art–science collaborative initiatives engaging with storytelling and visions for the future have the capacity to unfold and communicate the complexity of sustainability problems and solutions in a more accessible way than academic writings.

Finally, the third category of literature sheds light on enabling factors essential for invoking reflexivity, drawing attention to the notion of care [14,15,18,19]. Care is understood as a “vital everyday maintenance practice” and “ethico-political obligation to challenge unequal power relations” where knowledge is being (co-)produced [14] (p. 46). Here, caring relationships with academic and non-academic actors are deemed essential for practices of reflexivity [14]. As Sellberg, Cockburn, Holden, and Lam [19] contend, care is about fostering a culture of community and collaboration, supporting early-career researchers in transdisciplinary research, and building trust among different actors in sustainability research projects.

3.4. Knowledge Gaps in Understanding Reflexivity

Despite the rich discussions on the notion of reflexivity and the barriers and contributing factors to its emergence, two significant knowledge gaps emerged in the literature review process.

First, and perhaps most importantly, understandings of reflexivity in sustainability research are often based on lessons learned from collaborative projects and practices, with limited theoretical insights on the emergence of reflexivity (or lack of it) in response to structural factors. In cases where structural factors (beyond institutional, time, and finance constraints) are discussed, it is unclear how individual-based practices could challenge them. For example, while care-based literature [14] identifies the neoliberal paradigms of efficiency, quantification, and performance in academia as structural factors, they provide limited explanations on how discursive practices can change them.

Second, most of the reviewed literature has discussed reflexivity in transdisciplinary research with less attention to interdisciplinarity. Here, interdisciplinarity is often mentioned as a prerequisite for transdisciplinary research [41], with limited discussions on how integrating knowledge across different disciplines should be realized. For example, how can a reflexive sustainability researcher bring in various theories and concepts in their work and offer a comprehensive analysis of the issue at hand? How should the process of theory building be pursued? Based on what procedure and reasoning? While some literature has touched upon these questions [9,42,43], there are fewer discussions on reflexivity in interdisciplinary research compared to transdisciplinary research.

In light of these knowledge gaps, in the following sections, the paper first offers an alternative view of reflexivity from a theoretically informed, structural point of view inspired by the literature on critical realism. Second, it strives to add to the ongoing discussions on the enabling factors for the emergence of reflexivity, with particular attention to interdisciplinarity.

4. An Alternative View on Reflexivity

4.1. A Critical Realist Perspective, Why?

In understanding the interplay between structural factors and reflexivity, there have been ongoing debates on the agency–structure dynamics in sociology and social theory since the 1800s onward (cf., [44]). Such debates are rooted in different philosophies of science, ranging from positivism to constructivism [44]. The intention of this paper is not to examine these debates, but to apply one of the most contemporary sociological approaches to reflexivity (which is least discussed in the field of sustainability) to address the knowledge gaps identified in the earlier section (cf., Marguin et al. [45] for further discussions on different views and approaches to reflexivity). For this purpose, a critical realist understanding of reflexivity, offered by Margaret Archer [46,47,48,49], is adopted for the following reasons.

First, Archer’s framework is rooted in critical realism, a philosophy of science that has been increasingly applied in sustainability science, e.g., in sustainability transition studies [50], in the degrowth literature [51], or in relation to inter- and transdisciplinary research processes [9,43,52]. Critical realists differentiate the knowledge of being (epistemology) and being (ontology) and posit that we should not limit the former to the latter [47,52]. This stems from the antireductionist position, arguing that reality is in constant change and movement, and we should not reduce the complexity of the social world only to some subsets of biophysical entities (in line with positivist worldview) or to discursive practices (in line with constructivist worldview). Here, the emphasis is on exploring causal mechanisms behind the events we observe and how we develop theories to understand the causes beyond the empirical data [47,52]. From this perspective, exploring the barriers to reflexivity requires going beyond the lessons learned from sustainability projects and practices at the observable level. We should rather examine the unobservable factors (causal mechanisms) leading to specific barriers and issues, such as time and financial constraints or limited institutional supports. Furthermore, exploring causal mechanisms requires a theory-laden analysis of various interacting factors at different temporal and spatial scales to uncover processes leading to certain outcomes [47,52].

The second reason for employing Archer’s framework follows the first: It helps us bring together different structural and agential factors interacting with the emergence of reflexivity. Archer provides an analytical tool through which we can determine how individuals become active agents and how they can reproduce or transform the structure that has historically shaped their stands towards society [46,48]. The fundamental notion in Archer’s analysis is reflexivity, the mediator between agency and system, defined as “the regular exercise of the mental ability, shared by all normal people, to consider themselves in relation to their (social) contexts and vice versa” [48]. Archer approaches reflexivity as an emergent property of individuals allowing them to deliberate on their future actions and to activate emergent causal powers of structures [48]. Thus, Archer rejects the deterministic view that agency is trapped in the structure and sheds light on how human agency, behaviors, and struggles can reproduce or transform the structure in the future [46]. In the context of sustainability research, one could argue reflexivity is often studied with a focus on researchers’ internal conversations and with less attention to structural factors affecting those conversations. Thus, Archer’s framework could help us explore the relationship between these factors and the emergence of reflexivity, which is still challenging despite all the practical recommendations on how to address the barriers.

4.2. Taking Archer’s Framework on Reflexivity into Sustainability Research

Figure 1 shows three main components in Archer’s framework: structure, reflexivity (internal conversation), and agency [47]. The structure includes structural (material) and cultural conditioning that we are born to, limiting or enabling our practices involuntarily [47]. The materially grounded factors include social positions, practices, roles, institutions, and policies [47]. Cultural factors entail ideas, beliefs, values, or “the corpus of existing intelligibilia—by all things capable of being grasped, deciphered, understood or known by someone” [47] (p. 504). Agency comprises a process moving from concerns to concrete actions taken by individuals, eventually leading to the establishment of certain practices that can reproduce or transform structural (material) and cultural conditioning [46]. In her book, Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach, Archer [49] employs two key terminologies, morphostatis and morphogenesis, to refer to the processes which tend to preserve and change structure, respectively, including structural (/material) and cultural factors. For reasons of simplification and limited space of the paper, we do not use the jargons of the morphogenetic approach but rather incorporate the insights that it provides to better understand the interaction between structure, reflexivity, and agency.

Both structure and agency have their own irreducible emergent properties and causal powers, which exist independently but are crucial for the formation, continuation, and development of each other [49]. The analytical distinction between the structural (/material) and cultural properties and agential properties allows us to examine their interplay to account for how the structure is reproduced or transformed over time [49]. Agency can be invoked by our internal conversation, known as reflexivity. Archer postulates four modes of reflexivity: communicative, autonomous, meta, and fractured, as shown in Figure 2.

In the case of communicative reflexivity, internal conversations need to be confirmed by others before they lead to action [46]. Mistrusting their inner dialogues, individuals engaging in this mode seek close, stable work relationships in a close circle of trusted people [46]. Researchers sharing this mode of reflexivity may let the interpersonal relations in their projects or working environment determine how knowledge production should unfold.

In the autonomous mode, internal conversations are based on personal gains, instrumental “success”, and excellence, leading to courses of action that could maximize those advantages [46]. Archer argues that autonomous reflexives are competitive individuals having little concern over ethical values [46]. In the research environment, the researchers associated with this mode tend to prioritize their career goals and professional development over interpersonal relations and the research contents and outcomes if considered necessary.

In the meta-reflexivity mode, internal conversations critically evaluate previous inner dialogues and reflect on the actions’ outcomes before taking them [46]. Thus, individuals presenting this reflexivity mode hold strong values and critically examine their actions and those of others [46]. The meta-reflexives are the most committed to pursuing cultural and moral ideals that cannot be accommodated by the dominant, unsustainable socio-economic factors. When meta-reflexivity predominates, individuals have greater difficulties in satisfying modus vivendi (Figure 2) than those with communicative or autonomous reflexivity. However, once this process is overcome, meta-reflexives can potentially change the material and cultural conditionings that once they were born to. Here, Donati and Archer [53] distinguish between individual and collective meta-reflexivity. As such, they argue collective meta-reflexivity is a “collective orientation to a collective output” [53] (p. 61) emerging from the actions of a group of individuals, not only reflecting on the outcomes of their own actions, outcomes before taking them, but also on what is deemed to rationally best and viable for the group, for example, a cooperative, labor union, social movement, etc. [53]. This paper argues that meta-reflexivity is the ideal type of reflexivity in the context of sustainability research, because it could enable researchers to take a critical stance in engaging with questions of positionality and normativity in research, be critical about methodological choices, and to question dominant assumptions of how sustainability research should be conducted. Furthermore, as explained in Section 4 and Section 5, we argue that collective reflexivity is a must for overcoming the material and cultural barriers to integrative, reflexive sustainability research.

Finally, reflexivity can be fractured, wherein internal conversations cannot lead to purposeful courses of action. Instead, they intensify personal distress and disorientation, preventing individuals from dealing with social circumstances properly [46]. As illustrated in Figure 2, unlike the first three modes of reflexivity that could invoke an exercise of agency, fractured reflexivity leaves us with no or passive action. As a result, the researchers associated with this mode may find it difficult to invoke reflexivity in research, as it may cause them to be emotionally distressed and possibly burnt out.

Archer [46] argues that among these modes of reflexivity, communicative reflexivity has reproductive effects, while autonomous and meta-reflexivity have transformative characters, leading to modern and late-modern societies, respectively. Following this, there have been ongoing discussions on whether reflexivity should be conceptualized as a pre-disposition, strategy, or capability [54,55]. There are also several empirical examinations of Archer’s typology, both quantitatively and qualitatively, contributing to the debates on the interplay of structure, agency, and reflexivity [56,57,58]. It is worth noting again that this paper does not intend to test Archer’s typology but rather to use the insights from her work on linking the structural and cultural factors to reflexivity in general and meta-reflexivity in particular as an ideal mode for sustainability research. While the application of such insights in sociology and social studies is recurrent, in the field of sustainability science, limited studies have incorporated them in their work to shed light on the process of inter- and transdisciplinarity, as pointed out in Section 3.4. Thus, the paper aims to explain the (least studied) mechanisms causing the emergence of reflexivity in sustainability research, a long-standing challenge (Section 4.3 and Section 4.4), and discuss the circumstances under which meta-reflexivity could potentially emerge (Section 5).

4.3. Materially Grounded Factors Affecting Reflexivity

The material domain includes economic forces, organizations, institutions, rules, etc. [48], which can constrain or enable the process of reflexivity in research, as discussed in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3. However, from a critical realist perspective, we should not limit our understanding of barriers or enabling factors to what we can observe. Rather, we should investigate what causal mechanisms lead to certain forms of institutional arrangements, financial schemes, educational settings, training, etc., that affect the process of reflexivity in sustainability research. In explaining the causal mechanisms, the role of neoliberalism through the tactics of marketization and new managerialism is explored as follows.

The marketization of universities, as argued by Lynch [59], lies deep within the dynamics of neoliberalism, where the ideology of “small state” and less commitment to investing in public services has become global since the 1980s [59]. Marketization is tightly linked with new managerialism, a governance mode involving governing public institutions, including universities, based on market values and principles [59]. Marketized and managerialized universities are expected to function like corporations with a focus on outputs, efficiency, and strategic planning worldwide [60,61]. Businesslike universities, in turn, pressure departments and research centers to compete for external research funds, generate additional revenue streams, e.g., a new partnership with the private sector, and be strategic about research collaborations and publication opportunities [60,61]. Researchers are also pushed to “follow the money”, meaning to produce a particular type of research (/product) that is desirable by funding agencies and businesses within a tighter timeframe [60,61].

Once the research outputs in terms of publications are released, the number of citations becomes the basis for measuring the “impacts” of research. As Merrifield [62] elegantly puts it, “… the citation is a unit of currency, a Visa card to scholarly success, measuring not the quality of one’s work but the size of one’s network: the scope of connections to people in high places, to journal editors and professional paradigm gatekeepers” [62] (p. 52). The higher the number of citations, the greater the “impacts”, and the higher chances for securing grants, promotion, and tenure positions [62]. Such an outcome-oriented approach to research has even changed referencing practices [61]. Increased use of references per paper, excessive self- or research team citation, and strategically citing articles in a journal that the authors intend to publish in, are examples of these practices [61].

In research environments, under the influence of these structural factors, we can either expect the breed of autonomous reflexivity or fractured reflexivity. In the case of the former, competing individuals strive to maximize instrumental success, and in the latter, competitiveness leads to increasing the level of stress, anxiety, mistrust, and lessoning genuine collegiality, as documented by several studies [62,63,64]. Fractured reflexivity could also be caused by the incompatibility between a discipline-based audit and expected inter- and transdisciplinary work. For example, Bessant and Robinson [65] argue that sustainable development researchers in the U.K. often feel stressed and pressured by the disciplinary standards set by the quality-related research funding system (QR) to evaluate their work, while research councils encourage them to conduct interdisciplinary research.

Neither autonomous nor fractured reflexivity are ideal for advancing knowledge in sustainability research which requires investing time in learning various concepts across disciplines to engage with questions of power, justice, fairness, values, and ethics. In addition to these materially grounded factors, Archer would also remind us about the culturally grounded elements that could lead to undesirable types of reflexivity mentioned above. Below, we explore these elements.

4.4. Culturally Grounded Factors Affecting Reflexivity

Archer accounts for cultural conditions as a part of the structure (Figure 2). These include emergent properties that are linked with ideas and beliefs—but what does this mean concerning sustainability research? What are dominant shared ideas and beliefs in and of sustainability research? Since the article published by Kates et al. [65] in Science, there has been an ongoing debate among sustainability scholars to define the field and the core principles to date (cf., [1,66,67]). While there are many divisions in the field, at the very generic and abstract level, the dominant view of sustainability research is that it should be problem-driven, solution-oriented, able to explain nature–society interactions, and promote sustainable development [1,66,67]. Arguably, the dominant ideas shaping the landscape of sustainability research stem from pragmatist philosophy, in which knowledge and action are inseparable both conceptually and practically [6,67]. Translating this philosophy into sustainability research means that researchers should work with activists and agitators to learn by doing and collaboratively design visions, policies, and technologies that can effectively address sustainability challenges [1]. Effective sustainability research is, thus, a kind of research that enhances both individual and collective learning to build a capacity for measuring sustainable development, promoting equity, supporting adaptation, fostering transformation, linking knowledge with action, and devising cooperative governance arrangements [1]. Co-produced knowledge in this view of sustainability research should be evidence-based, transformational, credible, flexible, action-oriented, and useful for sustainable development [1,7,12]. It should also account for different values and normative preferences while at the same time paying attention to the existing asymmetrical power dynamic of actors involved in the process, determining which questions should be asked and how they should be investigated and addressed [1,68,69].

Arguably, this mainstream idea of sustainability research has implications for researchers’ reflexivity. First, it pays less attention to interdisciplinarity in terms of a scientific procedure of knowledge production, which is key to invoking meta-reflexivity at the stage of problem framing. In the dominant view, interdisciplinarity is assumed to be a prerequisite of transdisciplinarity, with limited elaboration on the rationale and logic of theory building. As such, it remains somewhat unclear how researchers should integrate different economic, political, sociological, and environmental concepts to provide robust explanations of the causes of sustainability challenges. Which one should they choose? Which one should they discard? Why? The dominant view of sustainability reflected in the top-ranking journals, e.g., Nature Sustainability or Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), hardly promotes engaging with these fundamental ontological and epistemological questions. It, instead, put forward particular framing of social and ecological “systems” as “complex, adaptive human-environment systems” at the heart of sustainability science as, for example, portrayed in PNAS, a leading scientific outlet in the field of sustainability [70]. In this view, “one of the greatest and longest-standing challenges facing sustainability science has been to design and implement methods for measuring sustainable development” [1]. Thus, progressive sustainability research should create “good measures” including evidence-based, inclusive metrics and indicators that could help us to better assess the pathways of development and the likely impacts of interventions in the future [1].

Such an idea of research does not account for a key characteristic of sustainability challenges: the openness of social and ecological systems [71]. This means that no single mechanism or process can be used as an explanation of how complex phenomena such as climate change or biodiversity loss affect our world [9,71]. Such phenomena involve a wide variety of simultaneously acting and interacting determinants, operating at different spatial and temporal scales, the understanding of which requires creative employment of theoretical models, analogies, and insights from a variety of fields and disciplines [9,71]. The absence of or partial reflexivity on the process of knowledge integration can potentially lead to reductionism, where the complexity of sustainability challenges is reduced to either some subsets of biophysical entities or discursive practices. As argued by Price [71], the mainstream approaches to generating synthetic knowledge is problematic because they lead to ineffective or even counter-productive policies because they are formed based on incomplete understandings of the problem or incorrect assumptions.

This culturally grounded factor, intertwined with structural factors, puts sustainability researchers in a peculiar situation. On the one hand, questioning the dominant view and assumptions of “progressive” sustainability research is a part of meta-reflexivity processes. On the other hand, engaging with critical views on and of sustainability research lowers their chance of publishing in the high-ranking journals of the field, which is one of the key criteria for climbing the career ladder in neoliberal academia. Attempting to publish alternative ideas of sustainability (e.g., degrowth [72]) or de-, post-colonial [14,15] scholarship) in top-ranking mainstream sustainability journals is not an easy task. A quick search in Scopus and on “sustainability” and “degrowth” in PNAS returns two results, while there are thousands of publications in other journals discussing the ideas of and practices for sustainability from de- or post-growth perspectives. This may not only lead to the exclusion of certain views in sustainability research but also pressure sustainability researchers to make strategic choices in research collaborations and authorships [73]. Although rewarding by the academic system, these choices might constrain researchers’ abilities to take full advantage of interdisciplinary research environments in terms of learning new perspectives and methodologies and applying them in research to advance the field [9]. As a result, meta-reflexivity can be partially realized, leaving room for autonomous reflexivity to thrive.

Given the structural and cultural factors mentioned above, certain questions arise here: Can we expect meta-reflexivity ever to emerge? If we assume the agency is not trapped in the structure (as Archer would argue), how can it change the material and cultural conditioning? What forms of practices have the potential to change the structure? Finally, what is the translation of this philosophical stance for improving conditions for the emergence of meta-reflexivity in sustainability research? Below is an attempt to address these questions.

5. Towards the Emergence of Meta-Reflexivity in Sustainability Science

From a critical realist perspective, structure and agency operate on different timescales where human agency, behaviors, and struggles can reproduce or transform the subsequent structure [46]. Archer [49] distinguishes between two different types of agents. First are primary agents that are objective and involuntary born to certain structures. For example, universities have been marketized for decades, and it is not researchers’ choice to work in non-marketized universities in the era of neoliberal academia. Second are corporate agents characterized by “capacities for articulating shared interests, organizing for collective action, generating social movements, and exercising corporate influence in decision-making” [49] (p. 259). Once corporate agents can sustain satisfactory exercises and find roles they feel they can invest themselves in, they acquire a social identity and become social actors capable of changing the structural and cultural conditioning that hamper the emergence of meta-reflexivity. As we can see here, a collective articulation of concerns and formulation of actions become crucial, giving rise to two questions: How can researchers collectively articulate their concerns while conducting sustainability research? What practices have the potential of creating an environment for primary agents to become corporate agents and, ideally, meta-reflexive social actors?

This paper argues that in collectively articulating sustainability research concerns, having a supportive institutional environment where collegiality is endorsed is vital. Although universities at all levels encourage a collegial and collaborative approach to research, it may not be commonly practiced [74]. For example, Macfarlane [74] argues that in neoliberal universities, there is rare evidence of the norms associated with the idea of collegiality, which include embracing gender equality, participating in decision-making processes on an equal basis regardless of academic ranking, and mentoring less experienced colleagues [74]. As shown by research [75], enabling genuine dialogue based on trust, recognizing differences, and respecting them is key to enacting authentic collegiality. To this end, an emerging body of literature [76,77] highlights the potential of collaborative autoethnography as an effective tool to describe personal and interpersonal experiences, reflect on the researchers’ concerns, and guide reflexive deliberations. Researchers at sustainability centers can deploy such tools to enhance collegiality and pave the way for a productive intellectual environment where researchers’ thoughts and concerns can be shared and articulated.

Second, self-critique should be intrinsic to the courses of actions striving to invoke meta-reflexivity. To this end, the philosophy of science in general, and critical realism in particular, have a lot to offer to challenge the dominant idea of sustainability research, as explained in Section 4.4. In a sense, the insights from the philosophy of science on the logic of knowledge integration and production could help sustainability researchers to systematically incorporate multiple theories beyond capturing social and ecological systems as complex, adaptive systems. As Nagatsu, Davis, DesRoches, Koskinen, MacLeod, Stojanovic, and Thorén [66] contend, grappling with the philosophy of science can help sustainability scientists to draw on scientific methods of reasoning to produce knowledge that is both epistemically reliable and practically useable [66]. Bhaskar et al. [52] delineate an excellent example of this practice in their book, Interdisciplinarity and climate change: Transforming knowledge and practice for our global future. Here, the authors argue that all theories have their own limits, especially for understanding complex phenomena such as climate change [52]. To equip researchers with tools for building theories across disciplines, they suggest different methods of critique, namely immanent, omissive, and explanatory [52]. Such methods have already proved to be helpful in systematically challenging the dominant view of sustainability, bringing new social and environmental understandings of sustainability challenges, and offering new perspectives on change pathways (cf., [9] for several examples). Understandably, this is not an easy task for sustainability researchers, many of whom do not have an academic philosophical background. Nevertheless, as noted by Cockburn [43], engaging with the underlying philosophies of one’s work could be difficult but a crucial aspect of the work for earning a degree of “Doctor of Philosophy” in sustainability science [43]. Thus, sustainability researchers should expand their knowledge of philosophy of science, for example, by organizing joint workshops, group readings, critical commenting, and trustworthy peer-reviewing during and after their PhD work [66,78].

Finally, establishing and sustaining satisfactory practices, modus vivendi, require collectivity and collective actions beyond the practices mentioned above, which may be more helpful for the emergence of individual meta-reflexivity than collective reflexivity. As Donati and Archer [53] would remind us, individual meta-reflexivity of singular persons has certain repercussions on the output of their work, but is not sufficient for transforming structure if they are not aligned toward a collective goal. Thus, a collective orientation to a collective outcome should be the foundation of any modus vivendi targeting the structural and cultural barriers to meta-reflexivity, as explained in Section 4.3 and Section 4.4. One example of such modus vivendi could be the slow scholarship movement, which calls for collective community and solidarity work models, and it values non-quantifiable exercises in academic work, such as engaging with different ideas and philosophies of science, collective mentorship, community building, and activist work [79,80]. As Bergland [79] argues, neoliberal reforms of universities have negatively impacted interdisciplinary cooperation as they increasingly promote specialization in narrow disciplinary boxes, counter-productive to inter- and transdisciplinary cooperation [79]. To move forward, the author contends that slow scholarship movements could create spaces of encounter and engagement with other movements targeting similar structural and cultural barriers in different contexts [79]. Similar to this is another initiative called Careoperative, a group of researchers with various disciplinary backgrounds around the world striving to collectively explore different ideas of sustainability research and practices [81]. Started in 2019, Careoperative distinguishes itself from professional academics too focused on research outputs [81]. Instead, it aims to bring to the fore the importance of focusing on the research process and changing the academic culture towards values rooted in critical reflection, inclusivity, and care [81].

Joining such initiatives could be a step towards transitioning from primary agents to corporate agents in critical realist terminology, which is most effective in addressing the cultural barriers to meta-reflexivity. However, the corporate agents are not yet the social actors, capable of transforming structure (morphogenetic change, as Archer [49] posits). In doing so, they need to acquire a social identity, by finding a role(s) in which they deem it meaningful to invest time and energy [49]. The term “social” here should be understood as “collective” (or relational, as Donati and Archer [53] postulate). This means the satisfactory roles (required for becoming social actors) could be found in collective entities (collective subjects) such as cooperatives, labor unions, social movements, etc. [53]. Such collective entities, in turn, should not only target the culturally grounded barriers to reflexivity, as care-based cooperatives do, but also the materially grounded factors rooted in the tactics of marketization and new managerialism. In doing so, there is a need to engage with the strategies and tactics that have the capacity to put more pressure on the managerial class, who ultimately make decisions about the management of public funding, launching new governance structures, or shutting down certain programs or centers [82]. For example, in recent years, at least in Sweden, there has been a trend toward more compartmentalized, disciplinary university structures, which is at odds with promoting the institutional settings (e.g., in terms of finance, administration, and providing a conducive intellectual environment) that are required for supporting authentic inter- and transdisciplinary research [9]. In challenging this trend, there is a limit to what care-based collective actions and our attentive commitment to expanding the culture of community and collaboration can do. As della Porta and Cini [82] argue, it rather requires employing tactics such as organizing mass mobilizations and protests, which have historically proven to have the capacity to resist (or even change) marketized, materialized policies and practices in universities [82]. In fact, there is a thick body of literature on contentious politics wherein innovative new ways of claim-makings and forms of political actions drawn from historically grounded practices are discussed [82]. By incorporating these insights, the collective initiatives mentioned above could be an arena where corporate agents could become social actors, and bring about changes in the universities’ structure towards a supporting interdisciplinary research environment driven by meta-reflexivity (as opposed to autonomous reflexivity).

6. Concluding Remarks

As shown in Section 3, there have been several recent contributions striving to shed light on barriers to and opportunities for the emergence of reflexivity in sustainability research. This article aimed to extend the discussions on the structural factors, which are less examined in the field of sustainability. In doing so, in Section 4, a critical realist approach was employed to explore the causal mechanisms that generate barriers to the emergence of meta-reflexivity in sustainability research. Informed by Archer’s analytical understanding of the structure–reflexivity–agency interplay, we also discussed what forms and practices of agency could potentially lead to meta-reflexivity in research.

Essentially, this research study argues there is a limit to what individual-based and collective-based learning can do to provide a productive intellectual environment where meta-reflexivity can flourish. Furthermore, showing the linkage between causal mechanisms and observable barriers to reflexivity in sustainability research could help us understand why, despite all the lessons learned from doing sustainability research, producing genuinely synthetic knowledge is still a challenging task.

Section 5 highlighted tools and practices that could help researchers articulate their concerns regarding the challenges of conducting sustainability research and incorporate self-criticism systematically in their research, both necessary steps towards the emergence of meta-reflexivity. In establishing practices (modus vivendi) that could address causal mechanisms (not observable challenges), we need corporate agents and social actors capable of changing the structural and cultural barriers to meta-reflexivity. Such corporate agents, in the form of organized interest groups and collective initiatives, are emerging in the field of sustainability. However, to be able to address underlying drivers of barriers to meta-reflexivity, we should go beyond creating counter-hegemonic narratives of what sustainability research should be about and how. We should also aim to mobilize resources for putting more pressure on those (managerial class) in universities imposing governance structures that negatively affect conducting sustainability research. To this end, the literature on social movements has much to offer on collective claim-making processes, creating purposeful associations and coalitions, organizing protests, etc. It is only in the course of resistance and collective action that those strong forces of marketization and new managerialism affecting research and education at universities can be tackled to pave the way for meta-reflexivity to emerge.