Sustainability scientists have engaged in extensive discussions on ethical ways of doing research and argued on the importance of co-production approaches to counter knowledge extractivism. The specific issue of research fatigue, often associated with knowledge extractivism, and the possible methods to counter it, have however received less attention. This paper seeks to contribute to discussions on ethical ways of doing research by focusing on our experience of using theatre, specifically, Forum Theatre, to investigate divergent perceptions of environmental change and related tensions among selected coastal communities in Kenya and Mozambique. We argue that Forum Theatre constitutes an ethical method for sustainability scientists for four reasons: (i) it allows to co-produce knowledge with participants; (ii) it facilitates horizontal exchange; (iii) it creates joyful moments; and (iv) it enables the transmission of skills that remain with participants beyond project durations. The paper engages with these four themes, first theoretically and then proposing a reflection based on our project experience. In the last section, we warn against some of the limitations of the approach.

Process-relational perspectives have been proposed as new ways of conceptualising, analysing and engaging with social–ecological systems (SES) that are capable of dealing with intertwinedness and complexity. The application of PR perspectives in SES research, however, remains challenging and largely conceptual. We explore the possibilities of combining process-relational thought with agent-based modelling as a methodology for thinking with and exploring the becoming/emergence of SES. We call it relation-based modelling (RBM) and develop it through modelling the emergence/becoming of a virtual small-scale fishery. RBM focuses attention towards the apparatus, i.e. the material and discursive practices that shape the model structure which then provides the conditions for the emergence of fishery assemblages in a virtual, simulated world. Our attempt to produce a model from a process-relational perspective supported critical reflection of our assumptions about fisheries and agent-based modelling, particularly with respect to questioning common ways of dissecting the world that hinder understanding their intertwinedness and dynamism. Analysis of simulation results and our reflections about the apparatus together reveal how organisation at different levels, from the arrangement of practices that shape the design of the model to the arrangements of elements in the virtual world of the simulation influence the emergence of a virtual fishery. We reflect on the tensions we encountered when disentangling the entangled and formalising process-relational ideas and conceptualisations in the model and the learning and transformations that occurred through this process. A process-relational practice of modelling can open up possibilities to think differently about SES and change the way we theorise and act within them.

There is consensus in the field of sustainability science that co-production of knowledge is needed to generate knowledge that is useful for addressing matters of concern. The field has made important advances, particularly focusing on developing strategies and principles that ensure the effective co-production of knowledge. Although these lay necessary foundations, less attention has been paid to the question as to what exactly is meant to “happen” in such processes. What is meant to happen, we argue, is that such processes generate knowledge that affects, by which we mean that it triggers an experiential intensity. Although affect ultimately underlies all kinds of knowledge (e.g., representational, such as discourse, or embodied, such as habits), different kinds and contents of knowledge affect (or not) participants of co-production processes in different ways. This paper thus argues that paying attention to affect in knowledge co-production increases the likelihood that it will be acted upon. To illustrate this point, we conceptualize knowledge as an assemblage generated through processes of knowledge co-production. We argue that for knowledge to affect, it must align the different kinds of knowledge mobilized in the process with the concrete experiences of those meant to act on it. In this paper, we particularly focus on the representational, discursive kind of knowledge, often of scientific nature, which continues to dominate processes of knowledge co-production, and explore alignment dynamics with the affective. In particular, we argue that applying methods and techniques that give room to the multimodal and multisensory nature of affect in co-production processes can support such alignment. We argue that the picture of knowledge co-production that emerges from our work as a potentially open-ended process of assembling is adequate for engaging with complex sustainability concerns in a world in constant becoming.

This paper examines transformations in social-ecological system through the process-relational perspective (PRP), using the concepts of the “real-possible,” the existing reality, and the “actual-virtual” potentials that exist beyond current hegemonic thinking and practices—framed within the Latin American feminist concept of Nepantla, which refers to a liminal space of transition, ambiguity, and transformation where multiple perspectives, identities, or worldviews intersect. Focusing on Western Bahia in the Cerrado, Brazil’s critical agricultural frontier facing intense sustainability challenges, this study underscores the importance of recognizing and integrating coexistent realities to enhance sustainability efforts. Over six months of fieldwork in the region, interacting and living with local actors, Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities, our research utilized the PRP approach, offering deep insights into the perspectives and experiences of diverse actors in Western Bahia. This strategy highlighted that the production of phenomena is the result of a simultaneous entanglement between the researcher, the researched, the context, the script, the data, and the process of conducting participatory action research. Furthermore, this study highlights the often-overlooked spiritual dimension vital for Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities, as it deeply shapes their ways of life and perspectives on sustainability. By engaging with relational ontologies, we contribute to the conceptualization of transformations as ongoing, performative, and continuously unfolding processes. Moreover, we highlight the novelty of our research by advancing relational methodologies that honor liminality as a generative space —where multiple worldviews coexist, collide, and compost into new possibilities. We argue that embracing ontological plurality is essential for nurturing radical transformations in contested places like Western Bahia.

Process-relational perspectives (PRP) have been put forward as a crucial contribution for conceptualizing radical transformations towards sustainability. This is because PRP conceptualize transformations as open processes. This openness is attributed, first, to processes and relations having performative power, which means that processes and relations are constitutive of elements. Second, PRP take processes and relations as continuously unfolding which means that elements taking part in transformations continuously change. Therefore, transformations are conceptualized beyond what elements are and do at a particular moment, setting PRP apart from other ways of conceptualizing transformations that don’t. This has an impact on transformative potential which for PRP is thus different (and perhaps more radical) than for the more conventional counterparts. Inquiring into the implications of tapping into this potential brings us to the topic of causation. Fostering transformation requires an understanding of the causal workings of systems. However, establishing causal links is difficult and for many, speaking of causation entails the risk of conveying a deterministic perspective inadequate for such a task. To avoid such risk, process-relational scholars urge us to rethink the concept of causation so that it can be mobilized to support a PRP on transformations. This paper takes the reader through a conceptual deep dive into process-relational understandings of transformation and causation. It encourages the reader to question conventional views of causation and ends by offering a process-relational take on theories of change (ToCs) that are often mobilized to foster transformations towards sustainability.

This open access book is about causal thinking and the use of causal language, with a focus on introducing philosophical ideas about causation to students and researchers of Social-Ecological Systems (SES). It takes a systematic approach to three central topics: the meanings of different causal expressions, sufficiency of evidence for inferences from observations to causal relations, and how to handle the complexity of causal relations in social-ecological systems. Consequently, the book is divided into three parts. In the first part the authors analyse and discuss the use of causal idiom in ordinary language, and in the second part they scrutinise the use of causal concepts and causal inference in science. Finally, the authors discuss causal reasoning about social-ecological systems in multi- and interdisciplinary contexts.

Understanding causation in social-ecological systems (SES) is indispensable for promoting sustainable outcomes. However, the study of such causal relations is challenging because they are often complex and intertwined, and their analysis involves diverse disciplines. Although there is agreement that no single research approach (RA) can comprehensively explain SES phenomena, there is a lack of ability to deal with this diversity. Underlying this diversity and the challenge of dealing with it are different causal reasonings that are rarely explicit. Awareness of hidden assumptions is essential for understanding how the causal reasoning of an RA is constituted, and for promoting the integration, translation, or juxtaposition of different RAs. We identify the following elements as particularly relevant for understanding causal reasoning: methods, frameworks and theories, accounts of causation, analytical focus, and causal notions. We begin with the idea that one of these elements typically figures as an entry point to an RA. This entry point is particularly important because it generates a path dependence that orients causal reasoning. In a subsequent step, when an approach is applied, causal reasoning concretizes as a result of a particular constellation of the remaining elements. We come to these insights by studying the application of four different RAs to the same social-ecological case (the collapse of Baltic cod stocks in the 1980s). On the basis of our findings we developed a guide for the analysis of causal reasoning by raising awareness of the assumptions, key elements, and the relations between these key elements for a given RA. The guide can be used to elicit the causal reasoning of RAs, facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration, and support disclosure of ethical/political dimensions that underlie management/governance interventions that are formulated on the basis of causal findings of research studies.

As sustainability scientists increasingly put forward the relevance of process-relational approaches to make sense of social-ecological phenomena, an inquiry on which methods would fit a process-relational approach is necessary. This paper discusses how a process-relational approach can be applied to traditional qualitative research methods, namely interviews and coding and the tensions associated with it. Process-relational perspectives share commonalities with interpretative approaches but also present specific characteristics, such as the importance of material aspects and the understanding of the phenomenon as a moment in which different elements become defined respective to each other. The paper uses data and researchers' experiences from an action research project seeking to support collective action among coastal communities affected by environmental changes in Kenya and Mozambique. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

In this paper we extend the use of a relational approach to simulation modelling, a widely used knowledge practice in sustainability science. Among modellers, there is awareness that model results can only be interpreted in view of the assumptions that inform model construction and analysis, but less systematic questioning of those assumptions. Moreover, current methodological discussions tend to focus on integrating social and ecological dynamics or diverse knowledges and data within a model. Yet choices regarding types of modelling, model structure, data handling, interpretation of results and model validation are not purely epistemic. They are entangled with values, contexts of production and use, power relations, and pragmatic considerations. Situated Modelling extends a relational understanding of the world to scientific knowledge production and with that to modelling itself in order to enable a systematic interrogation of these choices and to research social-ecological transformations relationally. To make tangible the situatedness of simulation modelling, we build on existing practices and describe the situatedness of three distinct modelling approaches. We then suggest four guiding principles for Situated Modelling: 1. attending to the apparatus of knowledge production that is socially and materially embedded and produced by e.g. research infrastructures, power relations, and ways of thinking; 2. considering how agency is distributed between model, world, data, modeller in model construction; 3. creating heterogenous collectives which together occupy the formerly individualised subject position; and 4. using agonism as an epistemic virtue to retain and work with significant differentiations of social-ecological dynamics throughout the modelling process.

When reasoning about causes of sustainability problems and possible solutions, sustainability scientists rely on disciplinary-based understanding of cause–effect relations. These disciplinary assumptions enable and constrain how causal knowledge is generated, yet they are rarely made explicit. In a multidisciplinary field like sustainability science, lack of understanding differences in causal reasoning impedes our ability to address complex sustainability problems. To support navigating the diversity of causal reasoning, we articulate when and how during a research process researchers engage in causal reasoning and discuss four common ideas about causation that direct it. This articulation provides guidance for researchers to make their own assumptions and choices transparent and to interpret other researchers’ approaches. Understanding how causal claims are made and justified enables sustainability researchers to evaluate the diversity of causal claims, to build collaborations across disciplines, and to assess whether proposed solutions are suitable for a given problem.