Transdisciplinarity in Research about Agrifood Systems Transitions

18 Pages·2017·0.4 MB·English

sustainability
Article
Transdisciplinarity in Research about Agrifood
Systems Transitions: A Pragmatist Approach to
Processes of Attachment
ClaireLamine
INRA-SADEcodeveloppement,84914Avignon,France;[email protected];Tel.:[phone]
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)
Received:27March2018;Accepted:11April2018;Published:18April2018
Abstract: Themuch-neededtransformationsofagrifoodsystemscallfornovelapproachesthatare
abletobringtogetheradiversityofactors’andinstitutions’knowledgeandvisions. Whilewithinthe
literatureaboutparticipatoryresearchandtransdisciplinarity,manyarticleshavediscussedtheissue
ofactorinvolvement,fewhaveaddresseditregardingagrifoodsystemtransitions,whicharethefocus
ofthispaper. Inspiredbyrecentworksuggestingapragmatistapproachtostakeholderinvolvement
andcollectiveprocessesofproblemframingandsolving,thisstudy(basedonareflexiveanalysis
ofsixdifferentprojectsinvolvingdifferentapproachestostakeholderinvolvement)developedan
actor-orientedapproachfocusedonwhatthemotivationstoenrollactorsandforthemtobeenrolled
are,andontheanalysisofthediversevisionsandcontroversiesatplay. Themainoutcomeofthis
analysisisthatakeyissueregardingstakeholderinvolvementappearstobewhetherthediverse
stakeholdersandresearchersinvolvedsharethesenseofbeingpartofa“communityoffate”that
makesthemfeelindividually“affected”butalsocollectively“attached”toasharedproblemandpossibly
toasharedfuture. Thisisnotfixedandstablebutcanbereinforcedthroughtheresearch–action
processitself,whichshouldproducethiscollectiveattachment.
Keywords:agroecologicaltransitions;researchaction;foodsystems;pragmatism;sustainabilityscience
1. Introduction
Inthesustainabilitysciences,transdisciplinarityisincreasinglyadoptedasakey(ifnotbuzz)word.
However,theliteraturetendstoadoptnormativestancesonthedesignofappropriateapproaches
and/orthedefinitionofdifferent“degrees”oftransdisciplinarityorparticipatoryresearch(aterm
that seems to be favored by NGOs, international bodies and policy makers) [1]. Some authors
contrast consulting versus “real” participatory transdisciplinarity [2], or “simple” versus “real”
transdisciplinarity [3]. By focusing on the degree of stakeholder involvement, this literature most
oftendoesnotaddressthemotivationsofeitherresearchersoractorsforthisinvolvement,northeir
transformationsovertime.
In a recent article on transdisciplinarity in sustainability research, Popa et al. [4] suggested
consideringthisissueofstakeholderinvolvementthroughapragmatistperspectivewhichemphasizes
theroleofsociallearningprocessesandsocialexperimentationingeneratingreflexivityonvaluesand
understandingsinconcreteproblemframingandsolvingcontexts,forresearchersandactorsalike.
Theyalsosuggestedaddressingtheissueofstakeholderinvolvementbasedonadistinctionbetween
theanalyticalandtransformationaldimensionsoftransdisciplinaryresearch,whichcan,respectively,
betranslatedintocomplex-systemapproachesandextended-peercommunityones,butareindeed
entangledandmutuallyreinforcingaspects.
Drawingonthisarticleandcombininganactor-orientedapproachinspiredbyrecentEuropean
scholarshipinpragmatistsociology,thisstudy,basedonareflexiveanalysisofsixdifferentresearch
Sustainability2018,10,1241;doi:10.3390/su10041241 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability2018,10,1241 2of18
projectsdealingwithagrifoodsystemtransitions,adoptedanactor-orientedapproachfocusedonthe
motivationstoenrollactorsandforthemtobeenrolled.
Theissueofstakeholderinvolvementhastakenaprominentplaceinthe“sustainabilitysciences”
literature,buthasbeenlessexploredregardingagrifoodsystems.Indeed,mostrecentliteraturereviews
abouttransdisciplinaritydealwithurbantransition,landscapetransformation,energy,transportand
naturalresourcemanagement[5–7].Althoughsomedealwithparticipatoryresearchintheagricultural
sector,fewtackleagrifoodsystemtransitions. Thesemakeitnecessarytobringtogetheradiversity
of actors’ knowledge, visions and practices to tackle the interdependencies between the different
componentsofthesaidagrifoodsystemsthatimpedeorfavorsustainabletransitions,anapproach
thatisonlyseeninrecentarticles[8].
How are conversely transdisciplinarity and stakeholder involvement tackled in the literature
dealing with agricultural and agrifood systems? The need to consider farmers and local actors’
knowledgehaslongbeenadvocatedbycertainauthors[9,10],especially(butnotonly)inthecontext
of “developing countries”. However, it remained quite marginal in wider agricultural and rural
developmentsystems,mostlycharacterizedbytop-downprocesses,eventhoughmoreparticipatory
andtransdisciplinaryapproacheshaveprogressivelybeenlegitimatedwithinthisfield(asinothers)
asrecentevolutionsininternationalpolicycirclesandinstitutionsacknowledge[11]. Thishasoften
ledtoimposingdevotedprinciples,buthasnotalwaysbroughtactualchangesinresearchpractices.
Within the agrifood studies, agroecology is one of the areas of research and action where
transdisciplinarityhasaparticularplace. Forexample,agooglescholarrequestbasedonthekeywords
“agri/o/foodsystems”and“transdisciplinarity”showsamajorityofworksdealingwithagroecology
andfeaturingitsmaintheorists[12–14]. Infact,whiletherearedifferentnarrativesoftheemergence
andinstitutionalizationofagroecologyanddifferentvisionsofitsinternaldiversityanditsborders[15],
commontoallistheideathattheagroecologicalparadigm(whetherconsideredasaformofagriculture,
or as a larger vision of agrifood systems) goes hand in hand with specific visions of knowledge
construction processes and of research itself, where wider communities of knowledge-building
andpracticeshouldinvolvefarmers,advisors,researchersandcivilsociety[16–18]. Someauthors
have argued that different visions of agroecology also correspond to different visions of inter-
or transdisciplinarity, showing for example that there is a “weak” vision of agroecology mainly
based on a combination of agronomy and ecology and a “strong” one that involves not only a
diversityofotherdisciplines,includingsocialsciences(enlargedinterdisciplinarity),butalsoother
actors (transdisciplinarity) [19]. However, this leads to the reproduction of the normative stance
that the author specifically wants to avoid here, by adopting a pragmatist stance focused on how
transdisciplinarityisputinpractice.
Agrifood system transitions, which will be the focus of this article, hold certain specificities
that have an impact on the kind of knowledge that can be produced and therefore on the kind of
transdisciplinaritythatcanbeputinplace. Whilecertainspecificitiessuchastheexistenceofstrong
societaldemandsandthediversityofactorsinvolvedarecommontodifferentfields,agrifoodsystem
transitions also hold intrinsic features such as uncertainty or context-dependency. This has been
arguedespecially,onceagain,regardingagroecologicaltransitions[20]. Anotherimportantaspect,
thoughlesscommented,isthatcomparedtofieldslikeenergy,forestconservation,landscapeorwater
management, food production and consumption are characterized by the fact that any individual
(whether producer or consumer) has a potential “hold” or ”grasp” [21,22]. In that respect, one of
themainparadoxesofagrifoodsystemtransformationsisthataproductiveactivitythatwasfully
“controllable”byitsusershasbeenindustrializedtoapointwheremostusershaveactuallylostmost
ofthecontroltheyhadontheirfood—atthelevelofbothproductionandconsumption. Forthesame
reason,agrifoodsystemsarealsoafieldwithalargediversityofinitiativesandattemptsto“regain
control”throughalternativefoodsystems,participatorycertificationschemes,etc. Thesespecificities
havetobetakenintoaccountwhendealingwithstakeholderinvolvement.
Sustainability2018,10,1241 3of18
Based on a reflexive analysis of the transdisciplinarity approaches carried out in six different
researchprojectsdealingwithagrifoodsystemtransitions,thisarticlediscussesthreekeyissuesof
recentdebatesaboutstakeholderinvolvementwithinthesustainabilitysciences.Thefirstoneistherole
ofstakeholdersinknowledgeproductionandintheorientingofresearch[4]. Theanalysisofthesesix
situationswillshowthatthetypeofmotivationforthisinvolvementisalsoakeyissue: doresearchers
involvestakeholdersbecausetheyconsiderthemasrepresentativeorbecausetheyseethemaslegitimate
totacklethe“sharedproblem”? Dostakeholdersacceptgettingenrolledbecausetheyareappointed
bytheirorganizationorbecausetheyfeelaffectedbythequestionand(individually)“attached”toit?
Dothedifferentactors,whetherresearchersorstakeholders,(collectively)sharethesenseofbeinga
“communityoffate”[23]thatreinforcestheircollective“attachment”totheproblem[24]? Basedon
thecharacterizationofthesesixprojectsintermsofthenatureandprocessofstakeholderinvolvement,
thisarticleshowshowimportantitisforthediversestakeholdersandresearchersinvolved,tofeel
notonlyindividually“affected”butalsocollectively“attached”toasharedproblemandpossiblytoa
sharedfuture. Italsoshowsthatthesemotivationsandformsofattachmentarenotpre-given: theyare
dynamicandcanbereinforced(ornot)throughtheresearch-actionprocessitself.
The second key issue discussed based on this reflexive analysis of these six projects is the
combination of analytical and transformational postures in transdisciplinarity. The pragmatist
approachappliedhereshowshowtheconstructionofsharednarrativesandsharedexperimentations
allowstoproducebothanalysesandtransformativeactions.
The third key issue is the kind of interdisciplinarity which is in question in transdisciplinary
approaches: Whataretheinteractionsbetweenthedifferentdisciplines? Whataretheirrespective
roles? Thisissueisoftenoverlookedinthetransdisciplinarityliterature,whichleadstoblackboxing
thespecificitiesofinterdisciplinaritythatareinvolvedindifferentformsoftransdisciplinarity. The
studyanalyzedthetypeofinterdisciplinarityinvolvedineachofthesixprojectsandthecombinations
ofdifferentformsofinterdisciplinarityandtransdisciplinarity. Theoutcomeistosuggestthatsome
combinationsmightbemoreappropriatetospecific“sharedproblems”dependingonthedegreeof
collectiveattachmenttoa“sharedfuture”ofthesaid“communityoffate”.
The second section presents a short and focused literature review and then the author’s own
approach; the third section describes the methods that were used, the fourth section presents
the six projects and the way each one views transdisciplinarity and stakeholder involvement and
translatesthisintospecificapproachesandprocesses. Thediscussionaddressesthethreekeyissues
raisedbythereflexiveandcomparativeanalysisoftheseprojects: themotivationsforstakeholder
involvement, the way analytical and transformational postures can be combined in a pragmatist
approach(throughsharednarrativesandsharedexperimentations),andthepossiblecombinationsof
interandtransdisciplinaritythatrelatetodifferentconfigurationsofproblem-framing.
2. TransdisciplinarityinSustainabilitySciences: TowardsanActor-Oriented
PragmatistApproach
Transdisciplinarity,whichcansimplybedefinedasresearchapproachesthatincludemultiple
scientific disciplines and practitioners from outside academia focusing on problems of common
concern[25],isaddressedbyagrowingliterature,especiallywithin“sustainabilitysciences”,even
thoughtransdisciplinaryapproachesareusedinvariousotherfields(e.g.,socialissuessuchaspoverty
andsocialinequalities,cityplanning,agriculture,etc.). Thisfield,aproblemandsolution-oriented
researchfieldthatemergedinthelate1990sandactuallyencompassesdiversestrandsanddisciplines,
has recently given place to vivid debates and strong renewals in methodological approaches to
transdisciplinarity[6,7].Wethuscouldconsider,inan“evolutionist”perspective,thattransdisciplinary
approacheshavebeenrefinedovertime,notonlybecauseoftheproperdynamicsofscientificdebates
intheliteraturedealingwithscienceandsocietyinteractions(exemplifiedintheMode2turn[26]),but
alsoduetoactors’criticismsandtoinstitutionsandfunders’injunctions. Thisisattestedbythe“triple
helix”concept,presentinallkindsofinstitutionalreportsandprogramssinceitsappearanceinthe
Sustainability2018,10,1241 4of18
early2000s[27]. Inthatview,“weak”transdisciplinaritywouldprogressivelyhavebeenreplacedby
strongerforms.
However,wecouldalsocontendthatdiverseepistemologiesandontologieshavelongbeenat
thebasisofcontrastingvisionsoftransdisciplinarity,whichledcertainauthorstoassessanorth-south
divide [28] rather than a uniform evolution. On the one hand, according to this vision, there is a
“northern”traditionofactionresearch,consideredtohaveemergedwiththeworkofK.Lewinandhis
notionof“socialengineering”[29]andwhichcanbedefinedas“pragmatic”(andnotpragmatistas
wewilllaterseeinotherapproaches). Itischaracterizedbyworkingoncontextswhereimmediate
actionisneeded[30]aswellasbyconsensusandconflictavoidance,andcanevenbeconsideredas
workinghandinhandwithexistingstructuresofdominanceinsociety[28]. Transitionmanagement
approaches, as they are developed in several policy fields in the Netherlands and other countries,
partlyderivefromthisnortherntradition[31]. Ontheotherhand,ina“southern”perspectivethatcan
bedefinedas“critical”,researchersengagethemselvesintheemancipationofunderprivilegedgroups
byhelpingthemthroughreflectiontounveildominantideologiesandcoercivestructures. Thisis
exemplifiedbytheworkandwritingsoftheBrazilianP.Freireandhis“Pedagogyoftheoppressed”,
butalsobysomeperspectivesadoptedbyEuropeancriticalthinkerssuchasM.FoucaultorP.Bourdieu,
insituationswheretheywereinvolvedwithfragilizedand/oroppressedsocialgroups(prisoners,
AIDS patients, and the poor), and could be discussed today in the light of the notion of southern
epistemologiessuggestedbyB.deSousaSantos[32]. Therefore,differenttypesoftransdisciplinarity
andaction-researchperspectivesneedtoberelatedtothespecifichistoricalandsocio-politicalcontexts
wheretheyemergedandaredeveloped.
Despitethisneedforcontextualization,alargepartofthetransdisciplinaryliterature,whether
intheacademiaoronthe“actors”side, adoptsanormativeperspectiveandsuggestshierarchical
classifications of transdisciplinarity or participatory research. These are based on the nature and
degreeofstakeholderinvolvementand/orthemethodsusedtoinvolvethemintheresearchprocess.
Inthe1990s,thefirstcriticalappraisalsofparticipatoryresearchwerebasedontheargumentlinked
totheriskof“depoliticizingdevelopment”,andthussuggesteddifferent“degrees”ofparticipatory
research: nominal participation (when legitimation is the main goal), instrumental participation
(when an efficiency or cost-effectiveness goal is dominating), representative participation (when
appropriation is aimed at), and transformative participation (when empowerment is the main
goal)[33]. Suchahierarchicalvisionofformsoftransdisciplinarityremainspresentinrecentscientific
literature,withclassificationsoftransdisciplinaryapproachesthroughnormativehierarchiessuchas
information-consultation-collaboration-empowerment[1]. Someauthorscontrastconsultingversus
“real”participatorytransdisciplinarity: consultingtransdisciplinaritywouldapplytosituationswhere
actorsfromoutsideacademiarespondandreacttotheresearchconducted(onceitisdone),while
participatorytransdisciplinaritydefinessituationswheredifferentkindsofactorsareincludedonequal
termsintheknowledgeproductionprocess[2]. Otherscontrast“simple”participatoryresearchand
“real”transdisciplinarity,theformerincludingpractitionersintheprocessofknowledgeproduction,
butnotintheco-leadershipofresearch[3].
Thearticle’saimisnottosuggestanotherdistinctionbetweenthesecategories,butrathertofocus
on the question of why and how stakeholders are involved. In other words, the motivations and
processesofstakeholderinvolvement.
Toaddressstakeholderinvolvementintransdisciplinaryprojectsonagrifoodsystemtransitions,
I adopted a pragmatist stance drawing on a recent article on transdisciplinarity in sustainability
research[4]andcombinedamoreactor-orientedapproachinspiredbyrecentscholarshipinpragmatist
sociology. Againstavalue-neutralpositivistvisionofscienceandarelativistskepticismaboutthe
possibilityofdiscriminatingbetweencompetingknowledgeclaims,Popaetal. suggesttwocontrasted
butalsocomplementaryperspectives. First,adeliberativeperspective(àlaHabermas)emphasizing
theimportanceofcollaborativedeliberationinbuildingasharedunderstandingoftheproblemanda
sociallyrelevantframingofit. Theobjectiveofsuchdeliberationistoreachconsensus,anaimwhich
Sustainability2018,10,1241 5of18
can be criticized as an unwarranted attempt at reducing the irreducible pluralism of perspectives
andvalues[34]. Incontrast(orincomplement)tothisdeliberativeperspective,thepragmatistone
“emphasizestheroleofsocialexperimentationandsociallearningprocessesingeneratingreflexivity
onvaluesandunderstandingsinconcreteproblem-solvingcontexts”[4:48]. Inapragmatistapproach,
theaimshouldnotbetosubsumethediversityofvaluesandvisionstoanyformofconsensusthat
riskssilencingdissentingvoices,butrathertopayattentiontoovertdisagreementaswellastryingto
tracecovertdisagreement[30].
Popaetal.[4]alsoproposedadistinctionbetweentheanalyticalandtransformationaldimensions
oftransdisciplinaryresearch. Descriptive-analyticalapproachesare,forexample,complex-system
approaches such as socio-ecological systems, and can be combined (or not) with transformational
orientationswheretheaimistodirectlycontributetothesustainabletransitionprocess. Inthereflexive
transdisciplinaryapproachthattheseauthorssuggest,theanalyticalandtransformationaldimensions
of research are entangled and mutually reinforcing aspects [4]. In its descriptive-analytical mode,
reflexivity calls for a critical acknowledgement of the values and assumptions, as well as of the
institutionalandpowerstructuresthatshapethecurrentepistemologicalmodelsandtheorganization
ofscience. Initstransformativemode,itcallsforbuildingasharednormativevision(forexample,a
desiredtransitionpathway)whichcanchallengedominantpowerstructures,andguidesocialchange.
Finally,toqualifytheroleofstakeholders,theseauthorssuggestanotherdistinction: between
asocialandanepistemicroleofstakeholderinvolvementintransdisciplinaryresearch. Thesocial
roleemphasizesdemocraticparticipation,socialrelevanceandlegitimacy-building,inlinewiththe
idea of a “new social contract for science” [26] and the objective of ensuring a “socially robust”
scientific production. The epistemic role emphasizes the epistemic potential of co-production of
knowledge,byextendingthepeer-communityinordertobetteraddresscomplexity,uncertaintyand
valuecommitments,inlinewiththenotionof“post-normalscience”[35].
In this article, and based on the comparison of different projects, I argue that this pragmatist
stance can be enriched by adopting a more actor-oriented sociological vision of pragmatism that
relies on the analysis of visions and controversies over current and possible transitions [36,37].
Thispragmatist-sociologicalstancenotonlyaimsataFoucaldianinterpretationofpowerandorder
inadistancedandcriticalposturebut,inamore“engaged”way[38],alsoconstitutesapartofthe
transdisciplinaryresearchprocessitself. Thispragmatistapproachisclearlyactor-orientedinthat
itleadstoassessthemotivationofparticipants(bothresearchersandstakeholders)totakepartin
aprojectandfortheprojectteamtoenrollthem. Aretheytherebecausetheyareappointedbytheir
organization(whichisconsideredasrepresentative),becausetheyareasindividualsconsideredbythe
researchteamaslegitimate,becausetheyfeelaffectedbythequestioneitherindividuallyorcollectively,
orforacombinationofthesereasons? Here,Irelyonsociologicalanalysesofengagedexperiences
ofparticipation[38]andonrecentpragmatistapproachesofparticipationinFrenchphilosophyand
sociology[39]. Basedonareflexiveanalysisofthesixprojects,Ishowthatakeydistinctivefeature
betweendifferentsituationsiswhetherthediversestakeholdersandresearchers,share(ornot)asense
of“communityoffate”.Thismakesthemfeelindividually“affected”butalso“holds”themtogether[40],
becausetheyarecollectively“attached”toasharedproblemandpossiblytoasharedfuture. Indeed,
beingaffectedallowsthemtofeelanattachmenttothispublicorsharedproblem[24]. Thisnotionof
attachmentwassuggestedbyB.Latourasan“alternative”tothatofnetwork[41]andwascommented
onbyA.Hennioninhisrecentwork[24]. Ishowthatthisattachmentandthissenseofcommunityof
fatearenotpre-given: theyarenotnecessarilypresentrightfromthebeginningofaresearch-action
processbutaretheresultoftheprocessitself.
3. Methods
Thisexploratoryreflectionabouthowresearchersandactorsareinvolvedintransdisciplinary
projects was based on the author’s experience in six recent projects dealing with agricultural and
agrifoodsystemtransitions,allinvolvingdifferentdisciplinesandstakeholders,althoughtodifferent
Sustainability2018,10,1241 6of18
degreesandthroughvariousmodalities. Alltheseprojectsdealwith“wicked”problems—inthesense
that there might be disagreement over their nature, as well as varying interests and perspectives
involved, which might lead to frame the problem differently [42]. All these projects involved
stakeholders and researchers from different disciplines, even though the nature and stage of their
implicationwasdifferentacrossprojects,asthearticle’sobjectivewaspreciselytodiscussdifferent
and contrasted situations. These projects tackled a very specific problem within agrifood system
transitions(suchastheexperimentationandpossibleadoptionofanalternativebiologicalproduct
insteadofachemicalfungicideinProject1),orconsideredthesetransitionsinamoreencompassing
andtransversalway(suchasacollectivereflectionaboutagroecologicaltransitionsattheterritorial
scaleinProject6). Oneoftheminvolvedstakeholders“only”atalatephaseofconsultationaboutthe
project’sfindings,whiletheothersinvolvedthemalongtheresearchprocess.
Partly based on the article by Popa et al. [4], I defined several key questions that guide this
reflexiveanalysisoftheapproachestostakeholderinvolvementthathavebeenadoptedinthesesix
researchprojects(seethedetaileddescriptionsbelowandthesynthetictableinAppendixA):
- Whatisthe“sharedproblem”definedwithintheprojectandhowwastheinitialquestion(coming
fromoneormorespecificdisciplinesoractors)possiblydiscussedandredefined?
- What disciplines are involved and which one(s) is (are) leading the project? What form of
interdisciplinaritydidthisdefine?
- How are actors chosen and involved in the project? What is their motivation/driver to get
involvedormobilized? (Isitbecausetheyareappointedbyrepresentativeorganizations,because
they are considered legitimate or because they feel concerned and maybe even affected by the
problem?)
- Aretheseactorsinvolvedintheproductionofknowledge?How?
- Aretheyinvolvedintheorientationofresearch?How?
- Doestheprojectimplyananalyticaloratransformationalapproach(orboth)?
- Doparticipants(researchersandactors)shareacommonfuture? Whatisthecentralobjectof
theircollectiveattachmentwhichpossiblyledtothesenseofbeingpartofa“communityoffate”?
Thisanalysiswasprimarilybasedontheauthor’sownparticipationontheconstructionandthe
coordinationoftheseprojects,aswellasontheproductionoftheirdiverseoutputs(scientificarticles,
widerpublications,publicconferences,discussions,etc.) butalsoonformalandinformaldiscussions
heldduringoraftertheseprojectswiththeinvolvedresearchersandactors. Ineachoftheseprojects,
between20and40interviewswerecarriedoutwithdiverseactorsoftheagrifoodsystemsunderstudy
(includingresearchersthemselves). Asacoordinatorand/orparticipantoftheseprojects,Itookpart
inaseriesofmeetingsinvolvingresearchersandstakeholders.
4. SixResearchApproachestoAgrifoodSystemTransitionswithVariousFormsof
InterdisciplinarityandTransdisciplinarity
4.1. TheBotrytisProject: CanWeDefineaSharedProblemStartingfroman“Adoptionofthe
InnovationProblem”?
TheBotrytisprojectwaslaunchedin2007tosetupanon-farmexperimentationofanewbiological
product (not yet marketed). It was started by a team of scientists in plant pathology who were
alreadyworkinginstrongcollaborationwitharangeofagriculturalstakeholders(farmers,market
intermediaries,technicaladvisors,andmanufacturersofbiologicalproducts),whomtheyinvolved
throughaworkinggroupthatregularlymetanddiscussedresultsduringthelengthoftheproject.
Thesestakeholdersallworkinthesamesector(tomatoproduction)andmostofthemarelocatedin
thesameregioninSouthernFrance(Provence). Theywereatthesametimerepresentative,legitimate
andaffectedbytheresearchproblem. Atthetimeofwritingtheproject,thescientificleader(aplant
pathologist)decidedtoenrollsocialscientiststoaddresstheissueofthefutureproduct’sadoptionby
Sustainability2018,10,1241 7of18
thefarmers. Whataretheobstaclesandleverstotheadoptionofanewbiologicalproductthatwould
allowtoreducepesticideuse? Areformulationofthisinitialproblemwassuggestedbythesociologists
whoarguedthatitwasnecessarytostudythewaythisinnovationwouldinterferewithandpossibly
influencefarmers’trajectoriesandtheircurrentpracticesandvisionsofcropprotection. Thisledto
carryingoutaqualitativesurveythatallowedidentifyingthreemainvisionsalsolinkedtodifferent
typesofpractices. However,the“sharedproblem”wasnotcollectivelyreframed,leavingagricultural
andsocialscientistsondifferentsidesandadjustingonlymarginallytheirrespectiveresearchquestions
andapproaches. Theexperimentalapproachledbytheagriculturalscientistsandthesociological
approachremaineddisconnectedexceptinthediscussionswithinthemulti-stakeholdersworking
group. Expressly anchored in a transformational posture as the goal was to assess the possible
adoptionofatechnologicalinnovation,thisprojectwasbasedon(andreinforced)thelinksbetween
theagriculturalscientistsandthestakeholders,whofeltstronglyaffectedbythisproblemandhad
beenworkingtogetherforalongerperiod. Itdidnot,however,positivelyleadtoan“attachment”of
thesocialscientiststothe“sharedproblem”whichremainedmainlythatoftheothertwoparties[43].
4.2. TheGedupicProject: StrongInterdisciplinarityandLowTransdisciplinarity
Thisprojectwassetupin2006withinawiderresearchprogramoftheFrenchResearchAgency
(ANR) about sustainable agriculture. Right from the beginning, agricultural and social scientists
workedtogethertowritetheproposalanddefinetheapproachestobeused. Theprojecthaddifferent
work packages dealing with input reduction in cereal and fruit production, one of which started
fromthesamequestionthanthepreviousproject,i.e.,an“adoptionofinnovationproblem”. Infact,
theinitialquestionaddressedtothesocialscientistsbytheagriculturalscientistswastohelpthem
understand why, despite their good agronomic and economic results, rustic (resistant) wheat and
applecultivarswerenotselectedinlowinputpractices. Inthiscase,thequestionwasreformulated
collectivelyduringtheproposalelaborationphaseandledtothearticulationoftheperspectivesof
agronomists,economistsandsociologiststostudythefactorsthatwouldeitherfavororimpedethe
use of these cultivars, which became the “shared problem”—one whose framing did not involve
stakeholders at this early stage. A common theoretical framework was elaborated, based on an
evolutionaryeconomicsapproach(pathdependency,lock-in),andledtostudyinganddiscussingthe
convergenttrajectoriesofthedifferentcomponentsofthewheatandfruitproductionsocio-technical
systemsandtheireffectsintermsofmarginalizationofalternativeoptions(suchastheuseofresistant
cultivarsinlowinputpractices—asmostoftenthesecultivarsaregrownwithinconventionalcrop
managementtechniques)[44,45]. Inparalleltothisinterdisciplinarywork,sociologicalanalysesof
farmers’trajectoriesandfarmersgroupdynamicswerealsocarriedout. Incontrasttotheprevious
project, the Gedupic one was anchored in an analytical posture (as opposed to a transformational
one). Within a complex system approach, the objective was to understand transition mechanisms
atthescaleofthewholesocio-technicalsystem. Stakeholderswereonlyinvolvedthroughaformal
“steeringcommittee”thatgatheredinstitutional,foodchainandagriculturalstakeholdersconsidered
asrepresentativeoftheirprofessionorinstitutionatthenationalscaleandweremostlyappointedby
theirrespectiveorganizations. Thiscommitteediscussedtheresultsoftheresearchandwasaskedto
establishprioritiesforfuturepublicpolicies,butdidnottakepartintheorientationoftheresearchor
intheproductionofknowledge. Eventhoughallofthecommitteememberscontendedthattheywere
alsoaffectedbytheissuesraisedwithintheproject,theircollectiveattachmentwasweakcomparedtothe
Botrytisproject,partlyduetothescaleoftheperspective,whichwasmuchlesssituated. Thismade
moststakeholdersconsiderthattheyhadnoholdonthetransitionsthatwerediscussed.
4.3. ThePrunusProject: TheCo-ConstructionofaSharedDiagnosticasaStartingPoint
ThePrunusproject(2013–2015)wassetupwiththeaimofextendingtheanalysiscarriedout
withinthepreviousprojecttoacomponentandadisciplinethatappearedaskeytoagroecological
transitions,i.e.,geneticinnovation. Basedontheacknowledgementofthelimitsofthechoiceofthe
Sustainability2018,10,1241 8of18
largescalemadeinthepreviousproject,especiallyintermsofresearchers/stakeholdersinteractions,
theworkwasfocusedonaspecificareaofpeachandapricotproduction,thatofthemiddleRhone
Valley in southern France. The agronomists and geneticists were already strongly involved there.
Thefactthatalltheresearchersfeltastrongattachmenttothisproductionareaandtoitsstakeholders
wasanimportantmotivationforthemtolaunchtheprojectandframeitinaslightlydifferentwaythan
thepreviousone,i.e.,withinamoresituatedandlocalizedperspectiveandwithstronginvolvement
ofthesestakeholders. Themainquestionoftheprojectreflectshowthe“sharedproblem”wasdefined:
Howcanfruitproductionbecomemoreecological,consideringthescaleoftheregionalsocio-technical
systemoffruitproductionandtheinterdependenciesbetweenitsactors? Aninterdisciplinaryteam
wasestablishedtocarryoutasocio-historicalanalysisoftheevolutionofthefruitchain(socio-technical
system)aswellastwosurveys: oneoffarmsandoneofthemainregionalactors. Areflectiongroup
was created in the beginning of the project, gathering researchers, farmers, advisers, and market
intermediaries, and meeting regularly all through the duration of the project. In contrast to the
previousproject,thesewerelegitimateandconcernedactorsratherthanrepresentativeones,inthesense
thattheyhadexpressedastronginterestintheissuesdebatedandhadanongoingcollaborationwith
partoftheresearchteam. Thiswasalsoexpressedinsociologicalinterviewsthatwerecarriedout
inthebeginningoftheprojectandshowedthattheyfeltaffectedbytheresearchproblem. Theytook
part both in the orientation of the research and in the production of knowledge: the surveys and
sampleswereco-constructedwiththem,whilethesocio-historicalanalysiswasdiscussedinseveral
meetingsandbasedonareportcirculatedamongthemandthatwascommentedandcompletedby
them. Thislaterledtothepublicationofaco-authoredarticle[46].
4.4. FutureSustainableFruitCultivars: TheCo-ConstructionofInnovation
ThelastphaseofthePrunusprojectledtotheorganizationofspecificworkshopsdevotedto
the co-conception of future sustainable fruit cultivars (in 2015), funded through another program
within the Ardu project (2014–2016). Within the above reflection group, a more specific shared
problemwasdefined: Whatshouldbethecriteriaforsustainablefruitcultivarsandhowshouldthe
innovationsystemberedefinedtofavorthem? Thisphasecombinedtwoapproaches. Ontheone
hand,ananalyticalapproachaimedatanalyzingtheevolutionofthegeneticinnovationsystembased
on qualitative interviews with nursery operators, geneticists, and breeders. On the other hand, a
transformationalandparticipatoryapproachaimedatco-constructingcriteriaandthencharacteristics
offuturecultivars. Thiswasbasedonacycleofthreeworkshopswherealargerangeofcriteriawas
discussedandhierarchized(suchasadaptationtoclimatechange,tolow-inputororganicagriculture,
toadiversityofmarketingoutlets,etc.). Duringtheseworkshops,differentscenariosforfuturefruit
productionsystems(includingmarketingandconsumptionissues)werediscussedandtranslated
intodescriptionofadapted“ideotypes”. Fortheseworkshops,theinitialworkinggroup(aboutten
people,researchersandstakeholdersaltogether)wasextendedtoadozenmorepeoplewhoembodied
theothermaincomponentsoftheinnovationsocio-technicalsystem(nurseryoperators,geneticists,
evaluators,breeders,seedregulatoryinstitutions).Theywerechosen(anddecidedtoparticipate)based
ontheirpersonalimplicationintheseissuesattheregionalscale. Ifsomeofthesewererepresentative
actors,allofthemwerelegitimateandfeltconcernedandindividuallyaffected. Theyalsosharedastrong
collectiveattachmenttothefutureviabilityoftheregionalfruitproductionsystem. Thesestakeholders
wereinvolvedbothintheorientationoftheresearchprocessandintheproductionofknowledge,as
theideotypesproducedintheworkshopswereconsideredacollectiveproduction[47].
4.5. TheRethinkProject: TheChallengeofInvolvingLocallyAnchoredStakeholdersinanEuropeanProject
The Rethink project (2013–2016) was forged by a consortium of different European teams in
socialandagriculturalsciences,withtheaimtorethinkthelinksbetweenfarmmodernization,rural
developmentandresilience. Thesharedproblem,definedinveryambitiousandgeneralterms(How
canagriculturalmodernizationberedefined?),wasforgedbythesedifferentteamsintheprocessof
Sustainability2018,10,1241 9of18
elaboratingtheproposal. Fourteencasestudieswerecarriedoutinthe14countriestakingpartinthe
project,diverseenoughtoaddresstheambitionoftheaboveresearchquestion—theFrenchcasestudy
wasabouttheecologizationoftheagrifoodsystemandfocusedonfruitandvegetableproduction
andontheregionalgovernanceoftheorganicsector. Resultswerediscussedatthescaleofthewhole
projectbasedonfourcrosscuttingthemes(resilience, prosperity, governanceandknowledgeand
learning). Intermsofstakeholderinvolvement,anadvisoryboardwascreatedattheproject’sscale,
gatheringexpertssuchasEuropeanNGOsorexternalresearchers,while“StakeholderPartnership
Groups”wereestablishedbythedifferentnationalteams. Thetheoreticalframeworkestablishedat
thebeginningoftheprojectfocusedonsystemsthinkingaswellasonreflexivityandparticipation,
andgavenationalteamsguidingquestionstheyhadtokeepinmindwhencomposingtheirnational
stakeholdergroups: “HowwillyouselectthemembersoftheStakeholderPartnershipGroup? What
implicationswillthischoicehave: whomdoyouexclude? Whosepowerdoyoureinforce?”Inthe
French case, a group of ten people (farmers, local authorities, organic organizations, and market
operators)wascomposedbasedonthecriteriathattheywerelegitimatetotackletheissue,feltconcerned
andwerepotentialityinterestedbythecomparisonwithothercountries(whichwasthespecificityof
thisproject);someofthemweredefactoalsorepresentativeoftheirdifferentprofessionsandinstitutions
(forexample,onefarmerwasamemberoftheorganicfarmerorganization). Inthisgroup’smeetings,
theresearchorientationsandresultswerediscussed,withtheactorscontributingalsotothechoiceof
relevanttargetpeopleforaqualitativesurveyaboutthegovernanceoforganicsattheregionalscale.
Nonetheless,theydidnotreallyorientatetheresearch,exceptforthefactthataco-ledPhDprojectwas
elaboratedbytheresearchersandthelocal“departmentalcouncil”duringtheproject.
4.6. TerritorialAgrifoodSystemTransition: TheLongandProgressiveElaborationofa
TransdisciplinaryApproach
Inrecentyears,researchcallshavetendedtoincreasetheplaceofparticipatoryresearchintheir
goalsandrequests,forexamplebyincludingCSOsorSMEsamongthepossible(orrequested)partners
ofresearchprojects.Inthiscontext,neworongoingpartnershipsbetweenresearchersandstakeholders
foundanewgroundtoexpandandgaininlegitimacy.Thisiswhatwasaimedatwhenin2015,agroup
ofadozenresearchers(sociologists,geographers,andagronomists)andCSOemployeesandactivists
decided to set up an action-research project on agroecological transition at the scale of their small
region(insouthernArdèche,France). Throughseveralmeetingsduringtheproposal’selaboration
phase,asharedquestionwasprogressivelydefined,i.e.,howcantheterritorialagrifoodsystembe
ecologizedinaninclusiveway,consideringnecessarytransitionsinagriculturalandfoodpractices
together? Whileagroecologicaltransitionprocesses(theirfactors,motivations,mechanisms,theneed
totackleboththeproductionandtheconsumptionside)wasaquestionalreadysharedbythedifferent
researchersandlocalactors,“inclusiveness”andsocialjusticeissueswereraisedbysomeactorswho
hadworkedonlow-incomefamilies’accesstolocalqualityproductsandyoungand/ornewfarmers’
accesstoland,agriculturalknowledgeandsupport. Thefactthattheseresearchersandactorshad
alreadyworkedtogether(orregularlymetindiversenetworks)andthatmostofthemwereliving
andworkinginthissmallregionmadethemfeelconcernedandevenattachedtothissharedproblem.
Landscape, ruralvividness, farmresilienceandsociallinkswerethebuildingblocksofacollective
attachment. Thesharedproblemwasdeclinedindifferenttasksoftheresearchproposalthatcombined
agronomic and social experimentation “at the real scale” (that of the farm or of a box scheme for
example)aswellasareflexiveanalysisaboutaccesstofood,tutorshipsystemsbetweenexperienced
andnewfarmers,andon-farmseedproduction. Inthisproject,stakeholdersweresupposedtotake
part in both the orientation of research and the production of knowledge. However, the funding
bodydecidednottofundthisprojectpartlybecauseitconsideredtheparticipatingstakeholderstobe
“non-representative”. Althoughthiswaspreciselywhattheresearch-actionteamaimedat—involving
concernedandattachedratherthan(only)representativeactors—thisevaluationcriteriaremindsus
thateveninaction-researchprograms,largeanddominantstakeholders(whetherinstitutions,CSOs,
Sustainability2018,10,1241 10of18
oragriculturalorganizations)areconsideredmorelegitimatethansmalllocalCSOs—evenwhenthese
arepartoflargernationalnetworksaswasthecaseoftwooutofthethreemainCSOstakingpartin
theproject,nottheleastbecausetheexpectedeffectsoftheresearchintermsofdiffusionaresupposed
tobebetterwhenso-called“representative”organizationsareinvolved(astheycanallegedlyreach
morefarmersorconsumers).
5. Discussion
5.1. TheMotivationforandofStakeholderInvolvement: FromRepresentativenesstoAttachment
Thecomparisonofthesedifferentprojectsbringstoconsiderationthreekeyquestionsregarding
stakeholderinvolvement: theirchoice, theroletheyaregiven, andthemotivationstoenrollthem
and for them to be enrolled. While the first two questions represent two classical issues in the
transdisciplinarityliterature,thethirdonehasbeenlesstackled. Thequestionofthechoiceofthe
stakeholderswhoareenrolledtotakepartinaresearchprojectshouldnotbereducedtoitsfinalresult
orexpression,i.e.,whoisin,whoisout,whoisincludedandwhoisexcluded. Theprocessofchoice
(howpeoplearechosen)appearsasevenmoreimportantbecauseitreveals,first,howparticipationis
conceivedbytheprojects’leadersand,second,theirvisionofthesocialsystemunderstudy(andofits
boundaries). InthecaseofGepudic,theprocessofchoiceamongtheproject’sleadersmainlyconsisted
ofdiscussingwhoweretherepresentativeand“inescapable”actorsand/ororganizations: thus,it
reflectedavisionofthesocialsystemdefinedbytheinclusionofthemainfarmingorganizations,the
mainfoodchainandpublicpolicyactors,aswellasthelargestFrenchenvironmentalNGOwhichwas
supposedtorepresentenvironmentalissuesandsocietaldemands. Bycontrast,inthePrunusproject
thechoiceofstakeholderswastheresultofaniterativeprocesswherebystakeholderswereselected
basedonresearchers’pastandcurrentcollaborationsandcouldthensuggesttoalsoinvolveother
personsandinstitutions. Sincesuchaprocessofchoicecarriestheriskofrelyingonlyonanetworkof
“usualsuspects”[6],theteam’ssociologist(alsoprojectcoordinator)metindividuallywithmembers
ofthestakeholders’grouptoreinforcethemutualtrustaswellastakeintoaccountthediversityof
interestsandvalueswithinthegroupitselfandwithactorsoutsidethegroup.
Thesecondquestionrelatestotheroletheactorstakeand/oraregivenintheresearchprocess,
once they are “chosen”. As explained above, many authors highlight low versus strong forms of
transdisciplinarity,dependingonwhetherstakeholdersare“only”consultedabouttheresearchresults
ortakepartintheproductionofknowledgeorevenintheorientationoftheresearch. IntheGedupic
project,actorsweremostlyconsultedabouttheresearchresults;theydidnottakepartintheorientation
oftheresearchorintheproductionofknowledge(exceptwithinspecificsurveys). Towardstheend
oftheproject,theywereaskedtocontributetotheconstructionofahierarchyoffutureprioritiesfor
researchandpublicaction,althoughthiswasbutaside-outputoftheprojectratherthanaproper
collective knowledge production. In contrast, in the Prunus project actors took part both in the
orientation of the research and in the production of knowledge, especially the elaboration of the
socio-historicalanalysis(seeabove). Thisimplicationinknowledgeproductionimpliedaniterative
processandadjustments(e.g.,thearticleco-authoredbytheresearchersandactorswastheresultof
dozensofsuccessiveversionsandinteractions). Italsoledtodifferentmodesofcommunicationand
publicationscorrespondingtodifferent“layers”ofknowledgeanddetails[48]andco-authorships[49].
Thethirdquestionisthatofthemotivationstoenrollthestakeholdersandforthemtobeenrolled.
Assaidabove,insomeprojects,actorsand/ororganizationsarechosenbecausetheyareconsidered
asrepresentativeoftheissues(the“spokesmen”oftheseissues). Inotherones,theyarechosenbecause
theyareconsideredtobelegitimatetotackletheseissuesand/orbecausetheyfeelconcernedbythem,
eventhoughtheymightnotberepresentativeoftheirorganizationorformallyappointedbyitandmight
notbeinfluentialinthedecisionsystem. Pastandcurrentcloseinteractionswiththesestakeholders
(throughpastcollaborationsand/orinterviewsinthebeginningoftheprojectashasbeendoneinthe
caseofthePrunusproject)allowtheresearcherstoacknowledgewhethertheseactorsfeelconcerned