Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science

Nature Sustainability volume 6, pages 493–501 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Since antiquity, philosophers in the Western tradition of virtue ethics have declared practical wisdom to be the central virtue of citizens involved in public and social life. Practical wisdom is of particular importance when values are conflicting, power is unequal and knowledge uncertain. We propose that practical wisdom and virtue ethics can inform the practice of sustainability researchers by strengthening their capacity to engage with the normative complexities of knowledge co-production when aspiring to contribute to transformative change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Metaphorical visualization of the learning journey that allows sustainability researchers to develop the capacity to wisely navigate the normative complexities of knowledge co-production.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chambers, J. M. et al. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 983–996 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Norström, A. V et al. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190 (2020).

  3. Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. & Louder, E. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 15–21 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fazey, I. et al. Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 54–70 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vogel, C. & O’Brien, K. Getting to the heart of transformation. Sustain. Sci. 17, 653–659 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lemos, M. C. et al. To co-produce or not to co-produce. Nat. Sustain. 1, 722–724 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fazey, I. et al. Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70, 101724 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lang, D. J. et al. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7, 25–43 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wyborn, C. et al. Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 319–346 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kenter, J. O. et al. Loving the mess: navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1439–1461 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chambers, J. et al. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Glob. Environ. Change 72, 102422 (2022).

  12. Schneider, F. et al. How can science support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Four tasks to tackle the normative dimension of sustainability. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1593–1604 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Guillemin, M. & Gillam, L. Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘ethically important moments’ in research. Qual. Inq. 10, 261–280 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carter, L., Cosijn, M., Williams, L. J., Chakraborty, A. & Kar, S. Including marginalised voices in agricultural development processes using an ethical community engagement framework in West Bengal, India. Sustain. Sci. 17, 485–496 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eikeland, O. Ethics and action research. Nurse Res. 2, 49–59 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Russell, D. C. The Cambridge Companion to Virtue Ethics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  17. Hursthouse, R. & Pettigrove, G. Virtue Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed 1 October 2008); https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/

  18. Nussbaum, M. C. The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).

  19. Zagzebski, L. T. & Zagaebski, L. T. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).

  20. Annas, J. Intelligent Virtue (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  21. Macintyre, A. After Virtue: A Study of Moral Theory (Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1983).

  22. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  23. Scoones, I. et al. Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 65–75 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Caniglia, G. et al. A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 93–100 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schmieg, G. et al. Modeling normativity in sustainability: a comparison of the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, and the papal encyclical. Sustain. Sci. 13, 785–796 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Horcea-Milcu, A. I. et al. Values in transformational sustainability science: four perspectives for change. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1425–1437 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mouffe, C. On the Political (Routledge, 2005).

  28. Popa, F., Guillermin, M. & Dedeurwaerdere, T. A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65, 45–56 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Djoudi, H. et al. Beyond dichotomies: gender and intersecting inequalities in climate change studies. Ambio 45, 248–262 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pohl, C. et al. Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci. Public Policy 37, 267–281 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bulten, E., Hessels, L. K., Hordijk, M. & Segrave, A. J. Conflicting roles of researchers in sustainability transitions: balancing action and reflection. Sustain. Sci. 16, 1269–1283 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schlüter, M. et al. Why care about theories? Innovative ways of theorizing in sustainability science. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 54, 101154 (2022).

  33. Freeth, R. & Caniglia, G. Learning to collaborate while collaborating: advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research. Sustain. Sci. 15, 247–261 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Leventon, J., Abson, D. J. & Lang, D. J. Leverage points for sustainability transformations: nine guiding questions for sustainability science and practice. Sustain. Sci. 16, 1769 (2021).

  35. Molinengo, G. Flows of power: an analytical framework for the study of collaboration. Crit. Policy Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2037005 (2022).

  36. Pereira, L. M., Karpouzoglou, T., Frantzeskaki, N. & Olsson, P. Designing transformative spaces for sustainability in social-ecological. Ecol. Soc. 23, 32 (2018).

  37. Vallor, S. Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

  38. Grossmann, I. et al. The science of wisdom in a polarized world: knowns and unknowns. Psychol. Inq. 31, 103–133 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Flyvbjerg, B. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it can Succeed Again (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).

  40. Schwartz, B. & Sharpe, K. Practical Wisdom: The Right Way to do the Right Thing (Penguin, 2010).

  41. Nonaka, I. & Toyama, R. Strategic management as distributed practical wisdom (phronesis). Ind. Corp. Chang. 16, 371–394 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kosanic, A., Petzold, J., Martín-López, B. & Razanajatovo, M. An inclusive future: disabled populations in the context of climate and environmental change. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 55, 101159 (2022).

  43. Freeth, R., Clark, E. & Fam, D. in Independent Thinking in an Uncertain World: A Mind of One’s Own (eds Brown, V. A. et al.) 262–283 (Routledge, 2019).

  44. Staffa, R. K., Riechers, M. & Martín-Lopez, B. A feminist ethos for caring knowledge production in transdisciplinary sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 17, 45–63 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. West, S. et al. Stewardship, care and relational values. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, 30–38 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. de La Bellacasa, M. P. Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds (Univ. Minnesota Press, 2017).

  47. Schlüter, M., Haider, J., Lade, S. J., Lindkvist, E. & Martin, R. Capturing emergent phenomena in social-ecological systems—an analytical framework. Ecol. Soc. 24, 11 (2019).

  48. Roberts, R. C., Wood, W. J. & Wood, W. J. Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology (Oxford Univ. Press on Demand, 2007).

  49. Lachman, V. D. Strategies necessary for moral courage. Online J. Issues Nurs. 15, 3 (2010).

  50. Sellberg, M. M. et al. Towards a caring transdisciplinary research practice: navigating science, society and self. Ecosyst. People 17, 292–305 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Martín-López, B. Plural Valuation of Nature Matters for Environmental Sustainability and Justice (The Royal Society, 2021).

  52. Dewey, J. The Quest for Certainty (Minton Balch And Company, 1929).

  53. Fritz, L. & Meinherz, F. Tracing power in transdisciplinary sustainability research: an exploration. Gaia 29, 41–51 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Avelino, F. Power in sustainability transitions: analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environ. Policy Gov. 27, 505–520 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gehman, J., Ferraro, F. & Etzion, D. in Resilient Systems, Resilient Communities (eds Kinder, J. B. & Stewart-Harawira, M.) 180–204 (Intersections of Sustainability, 2018).

  56. Blok, V., Gremmen, B. & Wesselink, R. Dealing with the wicked problem of sustainability in advance. Bus. Prof. Ethics J. 34, 297–327 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  57. van Kerkhoff, L. E. & Lebel, L. Coproductive capacities: rethinking science–governance relations in a diverse world. Ecol. Soc. 20, 14 (2015).

  58. Maggs, D. & Chabay, I. The algebra of the protagonist: sustainability, normativity and storytelling. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2022.2062304 (2022).

  59. Simpson, L. B. Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation. Decolonization Indig. Educ. Soc. 3, 1–25 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Care, O. et al. Creating leadership collectives for sustainability transformations. Sustain. Sci. 16, 703–708 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Kinsella, E. A. & Pitman, A. (eds) Phronesis as Professional Knowledge: Practical Wisdom in the Professions (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012).

  62. Maxwell, N. From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution in the Aims and Methods of Science (Basil Blackwell, 1987).

Download references

Acknowledgements

G.C. wants to thank C. Hu and E. Mermans for the numerous conversations that contributed to shaping the ideas in this Perspective. S.P.W. was funded by a Mobility Starting Grant (2017-01631) from The Swedish Research Council Formas.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research, Klosterneuburg, Austria

    Guido Caniglia

  2. Reos Partners, Johannesburg, South Africa

    R. Freeth

  3. Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    C. Luederitz

  4. Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, CzechGlobe, Prague, Czech Republic

    J. Leventon

  5. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    S. P. West & M. Schlüter

  6. Adelphi, Berlin, Germany

    B. John

  7. Tomorrow University of Applied Sciences, Berlin, Germany

    D. Peukert

  8. Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    D. J. Lang, H. von Wehrden & B. Martín-López

  9. Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, UK

    I. Fazey

  10. Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    F. Russo

  11. Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, London, UK

    F. Russo

  12. Erasmus School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    T. von Wirth

  13. Global Change Institute, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

    C. Vogel

Authors
  1. Guido Caniglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Freeth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Luederitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Leventon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. P. West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. B. John
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. Peukert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. D. J. Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. H. von Wehrden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. B. Martín-López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. I. Fazey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. F. Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. T. von Wirth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. M. Schlüter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. C. Vogel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.C. developed the idea, laid the conceptual foundations and led the writing and revision process. R.F. and C.L. contributed to the development of the main arguments and to the structuring of the paper. J.L., S.P.W., B.J., D.P., D.J.L., H.v.W., B.M.-L., I.F., F.R., T.v.W., M.S. and C.V. contributed to the conceptual development and to the writing process. R.F., J.L., S.P.W. and B.J. contributed the examples in Boxes 1–4 and engaged in multiple iterations in the development of the text. D.P. developed Fig. 1.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido Caniglia.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Liezl van Zyl, Michiru Nagatsu and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Caniglia, G., Freeth, R., Luederitz, C. et al. Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science. Nat Sustain 6, 493–501 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing