Environmental Science and Policy 153 (2024) 103683 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Environmental Science and Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci Can we talk? Disrupting science circles with narrative-led dialogs Sina Leipold a, b, *, Anran Luo a, Machteld Simoens c, Hanna Helander d, Anna Petit-Boix e a Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Environmental Politics, Permoserstr. 15, Leipzig 04318, Germany b University of Jena, Chair of Environmental Politics, Bachstr. 18k, Jena 07743, Germany c University of Basel, Social Transitions Research Group, Rheinsprung 24, Basel 4051, Switzerland d University of Kassel, Center for Environmental Systems Research, Wilhelmshöher Allee 47, Kassel 34109, Germany e Sostenipra Research Group (SGR 00734), Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Unidad de excelencia “María de Maeztu” (CEX2019-0940-M), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra, Barcelona 08193, Spain A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Sustainability scientists are increasingly expressing concerns about the lack of creativity and reflexivity, vital Narratives elements for driving sustainability transformations, in their profession. We argue that these concerns stem from Disruption established scientific practices of knowledge accumulation and interdisciplinary research, often neglecting the Interdisciplinarity influence of group values and disciplinary paradigms. In response, we propose the narrative-led dialog as a tool Group values for sustainability scientists to recognize, analyze and engage with such values and paradigms within interdis­ Sustainability transformation Reflexivity ciplinary scientific practice. Building upon existing methods, the use of narratives offers scientists an additional way to identify and address the complexities of conflicts, overlaps, and uncertainties inherent in the values and paradigms that guide scientific research and collaboration. This process of revelation can assist sustainability scientists in disrupting traditional academic boundaries, fostering an environment that better nurtures sustain­ ability transformation. Through the narrative-led dialog, scientists can achieve several crucial objectives; they can (1) deepen their scientific practice, (2) identify, discuss and negotiate the underlying values shaping their research, and (3) create an environment conducive to breakthrough ideas, both within their specific fields and across broader sustainability science communities. 1. Introduction often not anchored in established concepts and theories (Newig and Rose, 2020; Kuhlicke et al., 2023). When we are young, our circle of friends means the whole world to We argue that these concerns about scientific progress and contri­ us. As soon as we meet new people through school, travel or hobbies, we bution arise in part from established practices of doing science. Sus­ realize how small and incomplete that world was. Sometimes this real­ tainability scientists use two core practices to enable scientific progress ization can trigger a change of direction in our lives. Sustainability with new, potentially disruptive ideas. One is knowledge accumulation, science thrives on such disruptive insights that can initiate and shape a using literature reviews, expert panels, surveys or other tools to collect, change of direction towards sustainability. However, Park et al. (2023) synthesize and analyze existing knowledge. It allows an overview of argue that such reorientations have become alarmingly rare. Similarly, what has already been achieved, thereby facilitating learning, problem sustainability scholars increasingly perceive their profession as insuffi­ solving and reasoning (e.g. Jensen & Rodgers, 2001). However, under ciently contributing to informing and shaping societal change. Scholars current conditions of rapidly expanding knowledge and information, have attributed such shortcomings to a lack of reflection on overarching there is an increasing danger that accumulation will focus only on problematizations as well as disciplinary and theoretical paradigms "narrow slices of existing knowledge" and that the overall picture will be (Giampietro, 2023; similarly Grabs et al., 2021; Cashore, 2022). Addi­ overlooked (Park et al., 2023, p. 142; Drupp et al., 2020). A second tionally, they point out the proliferation of partly overlapping or con­ common practice in sustainability science is to engage with different tradictory concepts and bodies of knowledge (Geissdoerfer, 2017; disciplines. These interdisciplinary interactions promote the expansion Apetrei et al., 2021), as well as an inflation of highly specialised, frag­ of scientists’ ’comfort zones’ and the integration of different ideas and mented empirical studies (Pauliuk, 2020; Kirchherr, 2023), which are bodies of knowledge. While this practice has proven to be crucial in * Corresponding author at: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Environmental Politics, Permoserstr. 15, Leipzig 04318, Germany. E-mail address: sina.leipold@ufz.de (S. Leipold). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103683 Received 20 July 2023; Received in revised form 18 January 2024; Accepted 21 January 2024 Available online 26 January 2024 1462-9011/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). S. Leipold et al. Environmental Science and Policy 153 (2024) 103683 fostering ground-breaking sustainability science, it risks disorientation or diverge, for example in relation to societal change. by mixing diverse concepts, problematizations and paradigms, some of Through their morals, narratives serve as value carriers (Stone, 1989; which challenge each other or may “crowd out” more marginal views Hajer, 1995). They help get everyone on the same page and establish (Pearce and Ejderyan, 2020; Lawrence et al., 2022; Leipold et al., 2023). acceptable behavior. At the same time, dominant narratives legitimize We argue that bypassing the role of values and paradigms limits the existing scientific conventions and power relations, supporting them or potential of knowledge accumulation and interdisciplinary research to making them seem natural. By giving specific attention to the narratives enable new ideas and scientific progress. Scholars have long argued that of research communities, the narrative-led dialog offers a hands-on tool the scientific endeavor is as much based on rational arguments as on for researchers to become more aware of their own as well as others’ group-specific paradigms and values (Kuhn, 1962; Stephan, 2015; Lah­ underlying values and paradigms that influence collective scholarship. sen and Turnhout, 2021). A widely accepted paradigm in sustainability The set of narratives encourages exploration and reflection beyond our science, for instance, is the balancing of environmental conservation ‘circle of friends’ and helps scientists realize the full potential of with human material interests. This paradigm rests on anthropocentric knowledge accumulation and interdisciplinary research. (human-centered) values, e.g. resource efficiency, economic prosperity. In particular, the narrative-led dialog offers three steps to use nar­ While these values shape the work of entire research communities (see, ratives for bringing values to light and creating the environment for for instance, Cashore, 2022), sustainability scholars repeatedly criticize open and engaging communication (see Fig. 1 as well as Section 3 for a the lack of consideration of normative assumptions in their field (e.g., detailed description). The goal is to create an environment for different van der Hel, 2018; Norström et al., 2020; Caniglia et al., 2021). They see communities to recognize and reflect on their underlying values and this as particularly problematic for a scientific field that aims to shape paradigms. Similar to the quantitative story-telling approach, the social change, inherently fusing science with policy, knowledge with narrative-led dialog identifies the narratives that are used to inform values, and experts with the public. Certainly, addressing values and policy, but its aim is not to “check the quality of an elected story-telling paradigms will not solve all problems in sustainability science, e.g. those and related policy narratives” (Renner and Giampietro, 2020, p. 2). Our related to scientific (mis)incentive systems. Nevertheless, the engage­ proposal provides a space where different communities can engage with ment and reflection of scientists on their values and paradigms is a the overlaps and differences between their narratives, illuminating new crucial step to foster fruitful interdisciplinary exchange and potentially ways of seeing the world and fostering potentially disruptive ideas. The disruptive ideas that could initiate and shape societal changes of di­ creation of the narrative-led dialog is based on our experiences, learn­ rection towards sustainability (Miller et al., 2014; Horcea-Milcu et al., ings, and challenges as an interdisciplinary team focusing on narratives 2019; Hazard et al., 2020). and the circular economy (CE) (Leipold et al., 2023; Luo et al., 2023; Drawing inspiration from existing practices, we introduce an Petit-Boix and Leipold, 2018; Helander et al., 2019; Simoens et al., approach – the narrative-led dialog – that further enables sustainability 2022). CE is a topic emblematic of many debates in sustainability sci­ scientists to recognize, analyze and engage with the role of values in an ence, where scientists often hold diverse and sometimes conflicting academic and interdisciplinary setting. By studying the narratives of views, based on disciplinary ontologies as well as diverse values towards communities in sustainability science, the dialog reorganizes knowledge sustainability problems and potential solutions. In Box 1, we illustrate along underlying values, which we understand as an entanglement of the narrative-led dialog with experiences collected during an interdis­ cognitive, relational, and political values (Chan et al., 2018; Longino, ciplinary project in this field. 1996). Its originality lies in its ability to (1) deepen existing scientific practices to address the role of values, (2) discover, discuss and nego­ 2.1. The narrative-led dialog tiate the values and value conflicts underlying their research, and (3) generate an environment for new ideas within and beyond research In order to use the benefits of narratives and to enable a more value- communities and disciplines. While we cannot control or predict new aware sustainability science, a new approach is needed. Ideally, this perspectives on paradigms and values in science, the narrative-led approach will help interdisciplinary research communities recognize dialog can help to create an environment that makes them more likely. their own narratives, analyze underlying values and paradigms, as well as realize their implications when addressing sustainability issues. Team 2. Using narratives to recognize, analyze and engage values and science has shown that teams that agree on common research principles paradigms in science and are able to reach consensus face fewer collaboration challenges (e.g. Stokols et al., 2008). However, interdisciplinary teams in sustainability The narrative-led dialog uses narrative as a human communication science may encounter conflicts due to different goals and expertise device that uniquely highlights values and paradigms underlying social (Hall et al., 2018). processes like scientific integration and collaboration (Hajer, 1995; In this context, there is an emerging literature on paradigms and Kaplan, 1993, Feldman et al., 2004). The human brain can process in­ values in sustainability science (Raymond et al., 2019). Most articles formation in a more complex way when it is presented as a story (Hardy, suggest to “consider the ways values are studied or operationalized in 1968; Graesser and Ottati, 1995). transformational sustainability science” (Horcea-Milcu et al., 2019) and In this paper, we use the term ’narrative’ to describe stories that give propose frameworks for organizing how values are/can be considered in meaning to social or physical phenomena. They make sense of these sustainability science (e.g. van der Hel, 2018, Horcea-Milcu, 2022). phenomena by condensing and structuring complex information, offer­ What is missing from these works is a hands-on tool to create a sys­ ing interpretations of who or what is considered significant (Hajer, tematized scientific practice that helps realize these goals. Hazard et al. 1995; similarly Dahlstrom, 2014). These stories typically involve a (2020) propose one of the few practical tools for reflecting on values in setting in which sentient and emotional characters engage in a sequence the research process by providing a heuristic for researchers to of events that form a coherent plot. This plot often culminates in a self-reflect on research positions in sustainability transitions. Similarly, conclusion - or moral - that provides guidance for future action or Crouzat et al. (2018) emphasize scientists’ self-awareness at the behavior (Fischer and Forester, 1993, Roe, 1994). In science, such science-policy interface, providing a decision tree to help highlight the stories reveal the foundations of disciplines and theories. These onto­ intertwining of personal values and scientific neutrality. Both ap­ logical and epistemological foundations describe varied interpretations proaches agree on the importance of reflexivity in scientific disciplines of what is real in the world and the concepts and categories deemed that influence policy. While we argue for team-based introspection and essential for studying physical and social phenomena (Smith, 1999; value negotiation in interdisciplinary contexts, Hazard et al. and Crouzat Oxford Dictionary, 2022). Through narrative analysis, new perspectives et al. emphasize an individual’s ethical-political stance. Finally, Wino­ emerge that show how ontological and epistemological views converge wiecki et al. (2011) propose collective exercises like mind mapping, 2 S. Leipold et al. Environmental Science and Policy 153 (2024) 103683 Fig. 1. A narrative-led dialog for sustainability science. Image credit: Icons created by Freepik available through Flaticon. cross-impact analysis, and backcasting to create common research ob­ should drive the transformation (e.g. corporations), and to the best ways jectives and questions in interdisciplinary teams. of doing so (e.g. environmental stewardship) (Carolan, 2006; Rosenlund In contrast, our tool uses narrative (de)construction to reveal and et al., 2017, Horcea-Milcu, 2019). highlight concepts and categories that researchers consider relevant to How can we reflect on these values? Inspired by the existing efforts in societal transformation. This means that the narrative-led dialog focuses the literature outlined above as well as building on our collective ex­ not only on identifying common goals and questions, but also on deep- periences of interdisciplinary sustainability and narrative research, we rooted contradictions, and on unpacking and understanding the un­ suggest six specific strategies: 1) identification, 2) contextualization, 3) derlying values and paradigms that might inform and shape these contradiction, 4) synthesis, 5) connection, and 6) partialization (Fig. 1). research goals. In doing so, the narrative-led dialogue builds on existing These strategies are suggested as a facilitation roadmap for value-aware work on provoking radical or disruptive reframing in social learning and dialog between scholars, going through three stages of recognition, futures studies. For example, Stompff, Smulders, and Henze (2016) analysis and engagement The dialog is intended to be an iterative pro­ highlight the impact of cognitive disruption and reframing in social in­ cess. The facilitators of this process can choose to focus on all or just a fluence and design. Similarly, Sol et al. (2013) focus on trust and few of the strategies, depending on the goal and setting of their appli­ reframing in social learning, which aligns with our emphasis on inter­ cation in practice, as well as time and resources available. Leipold et al. disciplinary collaboration. Heinonen and Ruotsalainen (2013) introduce (2023) provide one first example of its application possibilities.Overall, Futures Clinique, a method for promoting foresight and radical futures. the narrative-led dialog encompasses diverse goals of interdisciplinary The narrative-led approach shares common themes with these works, projects such as development of sustainability concepts at the theoret­ such as the importance of reframing and collaborative processes. How­ ical and practical levels, interdisciplinary engagement as well as the ever, it differs in its specific application to sustainability science and its identification of future research directions. It suggests an alternative focus on deepening current scientific practices through engagement approach for disclosing and addressing the variety of scholarly insights. with underlying values and paradigms, and fostering interdisciplinary As such, we propose that interdisciplinary research project teams understanding and innovation. As Horcea-Milcu (2022) argues, investigating sustainability concepts (e.g. circular economy, ecosystem “increasing evidence highlights that it is less about revisions in value services, climate mitigation, resilience) as ideal facilitators of the systems, but about the imperative to reflect on and engage with diverse narrative-led dialog, as they have the motivation, time, and resources. and plural values” (p. 8, similarly Wiek et al., 2011). We argue that We also recommend sustainability scholars working in consortia, part­ narratives are an appropriate means to this end. The narrative-led dialog nerships or any interdisciplinary environments to try out the provides a practical guide to enable a reflection of diverse and plural narrative-led dialog. Facilitating this process may not only lead to an values because it is tailored to group-level (rather than individual) increased understanding and acceptance between the scholars involved, reflection and engagement. but the results and outcome of the process can also be published jointly. What values need to be reflected on? Research communities need to This would make the narratives and debates transparent for the broader ask themselves what conclusions - or morals - their collective plots ul­ sustainability community (and other communities). It would also serve timately reach, and what messages they convey about how to behave in to reflect on and further develop the narrative-led dialog and help the future. To do this, we need to reflect on the normative assumptions establish regular narrative-led dialogs at conferences and workshops that underline scientific practices (e.g. the selection of research topics). within the community. These assumptions are always based on the attribution of values to the phenomena to be transformed (e.g. valuing waste), to the actors who 3 S. Leipold et al. Environmental Science and Policy 153 (2024) 103683 2.2. Recognition stage access underlying ontologies and discuss latent ontological choices within and across disciplines. Narratives enable explaining which 2.2.1. Identification viewpoints underpinned a certain research question, a specific com­ The first strategy is the identification of both the narratives on the parison or the choice of system boundaries. Doing so facilitates quality topic (e.g. CE) or field (e.g. industrial ecology) at hand as well as the assurance and evaluation (Eisenhardt, 1989). More importantly, it re­ agents who reproduce them within science. This strategy is a crucial duces the risk of “adverse ontological selection, whereby certain ap­ prerequisite for the other stages of the narrative-led dialog. The identi­ proaches and insights are systematically ignored and certain problem fication of the narratives and agents can be done through a traditional conceptions are prioritized over others” (Grabs et al., 2021). Delineating literature review focused on underlying narratives or through a survey areas of agreement and disagreement on the underlying goals that we of key scholars about their assumptions or values related to their work. want our research to contribute to opens up a new level of scholarly Based on this data, the narratives underpinning the findings and transparency and enhances science’s transformative potential. research needs can be illuminated, using established methods of narra­ tive research (e.g. Hajer, 1995, 2006; Leipold and Winkel, 2017). This 2.4. Engagement stage strategy, thus, uses narratives to organize large amounts of research along the assumptions the findings are based on. The respective morals 2.4.1. Connection these narratives present will then disclose the underlying normative and In this last stage, we move from analyzing the narratives to realizing political assumptions that we all carry. the potential of the narrative-led dialog. With the strategy of engage­ ment, it is crucial to reflect and discuss the narratives in an in-person 2.2.2. Contextualization setting. We argue that this form of engagement can contribute sub­ The following strategy enables contextualizing the identified narra­ stantially to the scholarly advancement of topics and fields. One tives within more general meta-discourses of sustainability science (see outcome of this strategy could be the development of a research agenda for example Dryzek, 2021; Bäckstrand & Lövbrand, 2006). Especially covering gaps and contradictions but also overlaps between narratives. when focusing on a rather specific topic or small subfield, or aiming for Another outcome could be the joint formulation of key take-aways for accumulation across various topics or subfields, contextualization is key. decision-makers and practitioners about a topic or research field. An By relating these narratives to larger sustainability debates (e.g. on important outcome could be building a joint language across disciplines economic transformation in the case of CE), the normative un­ and narratives as well as substantial trust-building within the derpinnings and assumptions become clearer. The contextualization can community. be integrated with the identification strategy and build on the existing literature in the field. 2.4.2. Partialization With the strategy of partialization, we suggest taking the mis­ 2.3. Analysis stage alignments of narratives and related findings during the contradiction strategy a step further. The specific disagreements can be identified and 2.3.1. Contradiction placed next to each other. Without aiming to integrate, this strategy can Building on the findings of the recognition stage, the following better illuminate why some findings do not fit together and, thus, show strategy focuses on comparing and contrasting the narratives. This gaps and blind spots. This can be done as an individual step or as part of generates more transparency about how the ontological differences in the “connection” strategy. Eventually, partialization can help to disciplinary and theoretical paradigms also form an explanation for formulate new research questions or a research agenda covering areas in different perspectives on the topic or field (e.g. in different un­ between the misaligned parts. This strategy follows the argument that derstandings of the relationship between CE and policy). At this stage, “refining partial paradigms, and specifying the classes of actions for narratives help to manage disciplinary divides and use them produc­ which they are relevant, may be a more fruitful path to limited theory tively by enabling a common language among diverse groups. Narra­ and propositions than the route of instant generalization” (Allison, tives overcome disciplinary language more easily than epistemology, 1971, p. 275; in Grabs et al., 2021). This recognition of different classes theory and assumptions. While these concepts provide a necessary depth of action and the available knowledge about them may be particularly and exactness for scientific advancement, they demand an understand­ relevant when it comes to decision-making that may cut across diverse ing of distinct disciplines. Expressing research ontologies in the form of classes of action. narratives provides an easy-to-understand baseline that is graspable for scientists working across disciplines. Narratives are particularly helpful 2.4.3. The pilot case: interdisciplinary narrative-led dialog in circular to see whether and how different disciplinary viewpoints correlate, economy research overlap, or contradict each other – opening new questions and revealing The narrative-led dialog emerged from our experiences, learnings, blind spots. and challenges as an interdisciplinary team of three social scientists and two industrial ecologists collaborating on the circular economy (CE) 2.3.2. Synthesis within the five-year research project “Circulus”. In the project, we un­ The recognition stage also provides the basis for highlighting points dertook a first effort to accumulate knowledge on CE across disciplines. of overlap between the narratives and to present an integrated overview This exercise was conducted in a Delphi-style format (see Leipold et al., or synthesis. This synthesis can be done either in conjunction with 2023 for a full publication) that inspired the structure of the “contradiction” or as an individual exercise. Once major overlaps and narrative-led dialog. Building on this experience, we provide a first complementarities between the narratives have been delineated, it is example of how the different stages of the narrative-led dialog can be advisable to also discuss these with the identified scholars of the topic or applied and the findings it can offer. For more practical details on field to verify their plausibility and make sure that no overlaps have timing, facilitator requirements, etc., see the methods section of (Leipold been missed or misrepresented. Again, this verification and feedback et al., 2023). can be achieved via a workshop or written feedback. THE ISSUE: CE makes a good illustrative example for the narrative- At this stage, narratives increase research transparency. Research led dialog strategies as it is a major normative and political paradigm for transparency includes terms, definitions, methods or data. Underlying sustainability transformations (Korhonen, 2018, Blomsma and Brennan, ontologies and disciplinary traditions (e.g. how to formulate meaningful 2017; Genovese and Pansera, 2021). CE provides a toolbox for sus­ research questions) are equally important. We must know and recognize tainability innovations (Lazarevic and Valve, 2017) while being our own biases and blind spots. With the help of narratives, we can increasingly concerned with actions, practical solutions and societal 4 S. Leipold et al. Environmental Science and Policy 153 (2024) 103683 change (Geissdoerfer, 2017; Kirchherr et al., 2017). The interdisci­ addressing the risk of bypassing scholars’ values and paradigms; (2) plinary nature of the CE concept provides a unique opportunity to offering tools to discover, discuss and negotiate values underlying connect technological, economic, social, and behavioral disciplines of different scholar’s research; and (3) breaking down barriers, encour­ science. However, the assumptions and values of CE scholars may aging creativity and generating an environment that enables disruptive lead to different kinds of study designs and policy ideas. recommendations. THE RECOGNITION: We surveyed the scholarly community work­ 2.6. Deepen current practices to address values underlying sustainability ing on CE across disciplines to gather their lessons learned and their research perspectives on future research needs for policy-relevant research. To do so, we systematically selected key CE scholars based on publication re­ Current practices used in sustainability science to enable disruptive cords. These scholars were invited to participate in an online survey and ideas, such as knowledge accumulation and interdisciplinary research, discussion rounds. We asked for three policy-relevant lessons learned hold the risk of providing an overly narrow or shallow perspective and throughout their careers as well as three pressing research questions. 54 bypassing the role of values in these processes of integration and scholars participated in the overall process. Based on this data, we collaboration. With the narrative-led dialog, the values and paradigms identified the narratives underpinning the findings, illuminating an underlying the research that is being accumulated or underlying the optimist, reformist, and skeptical narrative (also contextualized various research communities and disciplines engaging in an interdis­ within larger sustainability debates) on the potential of CE for sustain­ ciplinary process are brought to light. In this way, the narrative-led ability transformations. dialog does not aim to replace existing scientific practices in sustain­ THE ANALYSIS: Subsequently, we compared the optimist, reformist ability science. Rather, the tool aims to deepen current practices by and skeptical narratives, which generated more transparency about how navigating their risks and overcoming their limitations. Moreover, with ontological differences informed contradictions in perspectives on the the narrative-led dialog, a common language and mutual understanding CE. The optimist narrative perceives CE as a crucial foundation of a can be created without the need for a deep understanding of other dis­ sustainability transformation and the research building on this ciplines’ ontological and epistemological basis. Instead of addressing the perspective often presents concrete actions. This narrative is mainly underlying scientific theories, narratives disclose and highlight relevant built around values of trust in technology, resource efficiency, and aspects for societal transformation, showing overlaps as well as differ­ business opportunities. The reformist narrative takes a more cautious ences between scholars and scientific communities. This helps scholars perspective, arguing that CE holds potential but sustainability trans­ navigate and learn from diverse values in order to facilitate interdisci­ formations can only be met if current societal structures are overcome plinary understanding and collaboration as well as knowledge accu­ and addressed, attaching greater value to, for example, social di­ mulation across a plurality of theories and approaches. mensions of the CE concept. Lastly, the skeptical narrative questions the usefulness of CE for sustainability in general. It argues that the concept 2.7. Discover, discuss and negotiate values of sustainability science lacks a critical reflection on the distributional and environmental con­ sequences of economic growth as well as the feasibility of decoupling The recognition, analysis and engagement with scholarly narratives economic and environmental impact, and reinforces business-as-usual create the opportunity to discover, discuss and negotiate values and practices. As such, the skeptical narrative is driven by values of de­ paradigms underlying current research. In other words, the recognition mocracy, community and justice. The study also applied a second of narratives sheds light on value-based assumptions underlying analytical strategy, using the points of overlap between the 3 master research, which increases transparency across disciplines. The analysis narratives to synthesize an integrated overview and outline a concrete stage helps scholars position themselves in a broader knowledge land­ research agenda, making the disciplinary findings more accessible for scape, increase awareness of their assumptions and foster self-reflection. policy and practice. This has both an intrinsic value for scientific advancement and also THE ENGAGEMENT: The process and findings of the study were paves the way for an engagement with other scholars’ narratives. The brought together in an academic publication (Leipold et al., 2023), thus realization step enables this engagement. It enables scholars to negotiate engaging the wider research community in a dialog on the contradic­ the values and value conflicts underlying their research. Facilitating tions in the three narratives. Due to the mobility limitations during the engagement with value conflicts and negotiating shared values can COVID-19 pandemic, the participants engaged in online discussions and break down barriers and encourage creativity. High levels of partici­ written feedback rounds to voice their opinions on the narratives, how pation and knowledge sharing are critical precursors of creative work they contradict one another and how they are best synthesized to be environments (Schepers & Van Den Berg, 2007). The narrative-led comprehensive and transparent. A deep partialization process could dialog enables broad scientific participation to unpack shared values, not be conducted due to time and resource restrictions but the CE paradigms and deeply held assumptions. By sharing this knowledge and scholars did engage with their own and others’ positioning within the reflecting on its implications openly and inclusively, the narrative-led three narratives, which facilitated a communication process among dialog facilitates creative and new ideas as well as shared decisions disciplines and worldviews. By focusing on conflicting and disintegrat­ about future research needs. ing findings, a deeper reflection would illuminate that the narratives One of the most important benefits of a narrative-led dialog is that it contain partial knowledge and reveal specific disagreements and blind enables the reorganization of knowledge along underlying normative spots. and political assumptions. Structuring knowledge along narratives highlights aspects relevant for societal transformation. If scholars 2.5. Contributions of the narrative-led dialog to sustainability discover that they share a certain narrative with others, they can use this transformations shared narrative to communicate their assumptions, paradigms and values more clearly and understandably. This not only allows scholars To support paradigm shifts and disruptive ideas for sustainability from opposing edges of a research field to engage in trust-building transformations, the engagement and reflection among scholars on the despite disagreements. More importantly, it allows them to take values underpinning their research is critical. With the narrative-led ownership of shared narratives. Researchers can refer to these shared dialog, we present three steps and six specific strategies to recognize, narratives in future research, easing the task to position their research in analyze and engage with the role of values in scientific projects and a topic or field and to summarize what has (not) been done before. communities. Concretely, we see three core contributions of the Referring to (a) shared narrative(s) may also help scholars to find a narrative-led dialog: (1) deepening current scientific practices by common voice towards society. It highlights the societal implications of 5 S. Leipold et al. Environmental Science and Policy 153 (2024) 103683 research and encourages reflective advocacy towards a more sustainable claims of value-neutrality and non-engagement with paradigmatic plu­ future. ralities. We also face an academic system that is built on professional incentives that reward quantity of results and publications rather than 2.8. Generate an environment for disruptive ideas and new directions deepening scientific practices (Van Dalen & Henkens, 2012). The di­ alog’s three steps - recognition, analysis and engagement - could help The contributions discussed above show how the narrative-led dialog facilitate discussions on how to overcome such structural barriers. At the helps to 1) break down barriers between research communities and 2) same time, we recognize that the tool is not designed to address all the reorganize existing knowledge along paradigms and values as a foun­ structural issues facing academia. Therefore, the narrative-led dialog dation for novel and creative ideas (Lewis et al., 2018). These two can only be one of many efforts to move sustainability science towards characteristics make the narrative-led dialog a promising tool to paradigm shifts and disruptive ideas for sustainability transformations. generate a fruitful environment for disruptive ideas in sustainability In its current form, the narrative-led dialog is proposed for inter­ science and to support sustainability transformations by fostering open disciplinary academic settings. While we believe there is potential to discussions on values. broaden its scope towards transdisciplinary contexts involving policy, We envisage that the tool will be most effective within interdisci­ industry and civil society actors, this requires integrating principles and plinary project teams, research communities or organizations. In these activities of knowledge co-production (e.g. Norström et al., 2020; settings, a variety of academic perspectives converge, making the Chambers et al., 2021). identification of shared or conflicting narratives particularly powerful. In these settings, individuals are also likely to have greater leverage to 3.1. Expanding our world to transform sustainability science influence the collective direction in terms of research questions, frameworks and methodologies. In life, as in science, our exploration and understanding can some­ For optimal results, project or organizational leaders might consider times be hampered by existing paradigms and a narrow focus on including the dialog as part of a dedicated work package or organiza­ particular problems. Echoing the sentiments of interdisciplinary tional change process. Specific commitments may include hiring a collaboration underscored in the literature, the narrative-led dialog is an narrative analyst experienced in facilitation techniques for a series of invitation to interdisciplinary project teams, research communities or workshops and/or training to familiarize team members with the dialog organizations to take the time to recognize, analyze and engage with approach, with appropriate time and financial resources allocated. For their own perspectives, possibly inviting (former) opponents. The ulti­ the preparation and delivery of workshops or training, various methods mate goal is to foster an environment that will keep us open to a change can be used, such as Delphi study (Linstone and Turoff, 1975), and of direction. The narrative-led dialog is original in that it uses narrative scenario-building (Durance and Godet, 2010). The development of a to create shared understanding between interdisciplinary researchers methodological guide is underway, but its completion will depend on without requiring a detailed understanding of the theoretical un­ more extensive implementation and testing of the tool. derpinnings of each discipline. Current practices of knowledge accu­ mulation and inter-disciplinary research often invite scientists to reflect 3. Challenges and limitations on their research by presenting their findings and contextualizing their significance in their respective disciplines with its established methods No useful tool can be built without significant investment. Applying of data collection and analysis (Hazard et al., 2020; van der Hel, 2018). the dialog regularly will require time, a critical number of participants to Informed by previous research in sustainability science, we believe that span a topic or field, substantial preparation for identifying all relevant narratives can help make these practices more adaptable to the varied knowledge strands, skilled facilitators, and resources for physically needs of interdisciplinary contexts, less focused on narrow problems and bringing people together. Therefore, the tool will be significantly shaped disciplinary perspectives, and more transparent. In the long run, nar­ - and limited - by its settings and agents. Gaining experience with ratives have great potential to generate trust and open environments applying the narrative-led dialog will help create best-practice examples that support creativity, break out of groupthink and enable more and develop the practical implementation of the tool. Furthermore, the disruptive sustainability science. If sustainability science is to engage dialog’s outcome also depends on how successful the strategies support with society to inform and shape societal change, it needs to become breaking out of groupthink and disrupt hierarchical thinking to enable more self-reflective about overarching questions, values and paradigms. an environment for disruptive ideas. Well-established facilitation methods (e.g. anonymizing participants, small group work) and facili­ CRediT authorship contribution statement tators with skills that strengthen participation and effectively respond to power imbalances can have a significant influence on the process (Lind Leipold Sina: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodol­ and Kaner, 2007). As in any participatory process, creating inclusive ogy, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Luo Anran: spaces requires that all participants feel comfortable. To achieve this, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – the facilitator must be sensitive to existing inequities, reflect their own review & editing, Visualization. Simoens Machteld: Conceptualization, social biases and be well selected both in terms of skills and social at­ Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. tributes (e.g. age and gender) that impact group dynamics (Zaremba Helander Hanna: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original et al., 2021). draft, Writing – review & editing. Petit-Boix Anna: Conceptualization, It is worth noting that the tool was developed in a Western context by Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & an all-female team. Although we had a diverse group of participants editing. during the Delphi study (see Leipold et al., 2023) that inspired the development of the narrative-led dialog, including individuals from Declaration of Competing Interest non-Western cultures, these participants were primarily based at West­ ern universities. Facilitation techniques need to be adapted for suc­ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial cessful use of the tool in different contexts and institutional settings (for interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence examples and principles see, e.g. Zaremba et al., 2021). the work reported in this paper. If successful, the dialog holds the potential to foster a greater democratization of critical community-specific and disciplinary intelli­ Data Availability gence across academic status, discipline, and academic age. Certainly, the lack of disruptive ideas in sustainability science is not only a result of No data was used for the research described in the article. 6 S. Leipold et al. Environmental Science and Policy 153 (2024) 103683 Acknowledgements Hardy, B., 1968. Towards a poetics of fiction: 3) An approach through narrative. In: In Novel: A forum on fiction, Vol. 2. Duke University Press,, pp. 5–14. Hazard, L., Cerf, M., Lamine, C., Magda, D., Steyaert, P., 2020. A tool for reflecting on We thank Mariana de Brito for her thoughtful comments on an earlier research stances to support sustainability transitions. Nat. Sustain. 3 (2), 89–95. draft of this paper and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable Heinonen, S., Ruotsalainen, J., 2013. Futures clinique—method for promoting futures feedback. We express our gratitude for the financial support of this learning and provoking radical futures. Eur. J. Futures Res. 1, 1–11. Helander, H., Petit-Boix, A., Leipold, S., Bringezu, S., 2019. How to monitor research by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, environmental pressures of a circular economy: an assessment of indicators. J. Ind. research group ‘Circulus – Opportunities and challenges of transition to Ecol. 23 (5), 1278–1291. a sustainable circular bio-economy’ [031B0018], the European Horcea-Milcu, A.I., 2022. Values as leverage points for sustainability transformation: two pathways for transformation research. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 57, 101205. Research Council Horizon 2020 programme (MAT_STOCKS, grant Horcea-Milcu, A.I., Abson, D.J., Apetrei, C.I., Duse, I.A., Freeth, R., Riechers, M., Lang, D. agreement No 741950), and the Horizon Europe programme (CircEUlar, J., 2019. Values in transformational sustainability science: four perspectives for grant agreement No 101056810). A. Petit-Boix acknowledges the sup­ change. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1425–1437. Jensen, J.L., Rodgers, R., 2001. Cumulating the intellectual gold of case study research. port of the María Zambrano grant (MZ 2021-19) under the European Public Adm. Rev. 61 (2), 235–246. Union’s “NextGenerationEU” program, funded through the Spanish Kaplan, T.J., 1993. Reading Policy Narratives: Beginnings, Middles, and Ends. In: Ministry of Universities; the Catalan agency AGAUR through its research Fischer, F., Forester, J. (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: UCL Press, Taylor and Francis. group support program (2021 SGR 00734), and the Spanish Ministry of Kirchherr, J., 2023. Bullshit in the sustainability and transitions literature: a provocation. Economy, Industry and Competitiveness for funding the “María de Circ. Econ. Sustain. 3 (1), 167–172. Maeztu” program for Units of Excellence in R&D (CEX 2019-0940-M). Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 221–232. Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., Birkie, S.E., 2018. Circular economy as an References essentially contested concept. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 544–552. Kuhlicke, C., de Brito, M.M., Bartkowski, B., Botzen, W., Doğulu, C., Han, S., Rufat, S., Allison, G.T., 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Harper 2023. Spinning in circles? A systematic review on the role of theory in social Collins,, New York. vulnerability, resilience and adaptation research. Glob. Environ. Change 80, 102672. Apetrei, C.I., Caniglia, G., von Wehrden, H., Lang, D.J., 2021. Just another buzzword? A Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, vol. 111. University of Chicago systematic literature review of knowledge-related concepts in sustainability science. Press,, Chicago. Glob. Environ. Change 68, 102222. Lahsen, M., Turnhout, E., 2021. How norms, needs, and power in science obstruct Bäckstrand, K., Lövbrand, E., 2006. Planting trees to mitigate climate change: contested transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2), 025008. discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic Lawrence, M.G., Williams, S., Nanz, P., Renn, O., 2022. Characteristics, potentials, and environmentalism. Glob. Environ. Polit. 6 (1), 50–75. challenges of transdisciplinary research. One Earth 5 (1), 44–61. Blomsma, F., Brennan, G., 2017. The emergence of circular economy: a new framing Lazarevic, D., Valve, H., 2017. Narrating expectations for the circular economy: towards around prolonging resource productivity. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (3), 603–614. a common and contested European transition. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 31, 60–69. Caniglia, G., Luederitz, C., von Wirth, T., Fazey, I., Martin-López, B., Hondrila, K., Leipold, S., Winkel, G., 2017. Discursive agency:(Re-) conceptualizing actors and Lang, D.J., 2021. A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge practices in the analysis of discursive policymaking. Policy Stud. J. 45 (3), 510–534. for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4 (2), 93–100. Leipold, S., Petit-Boix, A., Luo, A., Helander, H., Simoens, M., Ashton, W.S., Xue, B., Carolan, M.S., 2006. Scientific knowledge and environmental policy: why science needs 2023. Lessons, narratives, and research directions for a sustainable circular values. Environ. Sci. 3 (4), 229–237. economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 27 (1), 6–18. Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., 2022. Bringing the Environment Back in: Overcoming the Lewis, P.A., Knoblich, G., Poe, G., 2018. How memory replay in sleep boosts creative Tragedy of the Diffusion of the Commons Metaphor. Perspectives on Politics, problem-solving. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22 (6), 491–503. pp. 1–24. Lind, L., Kaner, S., 2007. Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-making, second Chambers, J.M., Wyborn, C., Ryan, M.E., Reid, R.S., Riechers, M., Serban, A., edition.,. Jossey Bass Inc,. Pickering, T., 2021. Six modes of co-production for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4 Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M., 1975. The Delphi method: Techniques and Applications. (11), 983–996. Addison-Wesley,, Reading, MA. Chan, Kai M.A., Gould, Rachelle K., Pascual, Unai, 2018. Editorial overview: relational Longino, H.E., 1996. Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 35, Dichotomy. In: Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science. Springer,, A1–A7. Dordrecht, pp. 39–58. Crouzat, E., Arpin, I., Brunet, L., Colloff, M.J., Turkelboom, F., Lavorel, S., 2018. Luo, A., Rodríguez, F., Leipold, S., 2023. Explanations of the political gridlock behind Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services international circular economy: Waste Ban narratives in the China-EU cooperation. science and policy. Ambio 47, 97–105. Ambio 52 (1), 126–139. Dahlstrom, M.F., 2014. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with Miller, T.R., Wiek, A., Sarewitz, D., Robinson, J., Olsson, L., Kriebel, D., Loorbach, D., nonexpert audiences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111 (Suppl. 4), 13614–13620. 2014. The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Drupp, M.A., Baumgärtner, S., Meyer, M., Quaas, M.F., von Wehrden, H., 2020. Between Sustain. Sci. 9, 239–246. Ostrom and Nordhaus: the research landscape of sustainability economics. Ecol. Newig, J., Rose, M., 2020. Cumulating evidence in environmental governance, policy Econ. 172, 106620. and planning research: towards a research reform agenda. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 22 Dryzek, J.S., 2021. The Politics of the Earth. Oxford university press,. (5), 667–681. Durance, P., Godet, M., 2010. Scenario building: uses and abuses. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Norström, A.V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M.F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Change 77 (9), 1488–1492. Österblom, H., 2020. Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of research. Nat. Sustain. 3 (3), 182–190. management review 14 (4), 532–550. Oxford Dictionary (2022) Ontology. https:// www. lexico. com/ definition/ ontol ogy. Feldman, M.S., Sköldberg, K., Brown, R.N., Horner, D., 2004. Making sense of stories: a Accessed 12 Aug 2022. rhetorical approach to narrative analysis. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 14 (2), Park, M., Leahey, E., Funk, R.J., 2023. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive 147–170. over time. Nature 613 (7942), 138–144. Fischer, F., Forester, J., 1993. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Pauliuk, S., 2020. Making sustainability science a cumulative effort. Nat. Sustain. 3 (1), Duke University Press,, Durham, NC. 2–4. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The circular economy–a Pearce, B.J., Ejderyan, O., 2020. Joint problem framing as reflexive practice: honing a new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768. transdisciplinary skill. Sustain. Sci. 15 (3), 683–698. Genovese, A., Pansera, M., 2021. The circular economy at a crossroads: technocratic eco- Petit-Boix, A., Leipold, S., 2018. Circular economy in cities: reviewing how modernism or convivial technology for social revolution? Capital. Nat. Social. 32 (2), environmental research aligns with local practices. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 1270–1281. 95–113. Raymond, C.M., Kenter, J.O., van Riper, C.J., Rawluk, A., Kendal, D., 2019. Editorial Giampietro, M., 2023. Reflections on the popularity of the circular bioeconomy concept: overview: theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability. Sustainability. the ontological crisis of sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 1–6. Science 14, 1173–1185. Grabs, J., Auld, G., Cashore, B., 2021. Private regulation, public policy, and the perils of Renner, A., Giampietro, M., 2020. Socio-technical discourses of European electricity adverse ontological selection. Regulat. Govern. 15 (4), 1183–1208. decarbonization: Contesting narrative credibility and legitimacy with quantitative Graesser, A.C., Ottati, V., 1995. Why stories? Some evidence, questions, and challenges. story-telling. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 59, 101279. Knowl. Mem.: Real. Story 8, 121–132. Roe, E., 1994. Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice. Duke University Press,. Hajer, M.A., 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization Rosenlund, J., Notini, P., Bravo, G., 2017. Exploring attitudes to societal relevance: the and the Policy Process. Clarendon Press,, Oxford. effects of reflection on research practices among Swedish environmental scientists. Hajer, M.A. (2006). Doing discourse analysis: coalitions, practices, meaning. Netherlands J. Responsible Innov. 4 (3), 337–353. geographical studies (ISSN 0169–4839), (344). Schepers, P., Van Den Berg, P.T., 2007. Social factors of work-environment creativity. Hall, K.L., Vogel, A.L., Huang, G.C., Serrano, K.J., Rice, E.L., Tsakraklides, S.P., Fiore, S. J. Bus. Psychol. 21, 407–428. M., 2018. The science of team science: a review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. Am. Psychol. 73 (4), 532–548. 7 S. Leipold et al. Environmental Science and Policy 153 (2024) 103683 Simoens, M.C., Fuenfschilling, L., Leipold, S., 2022. Discursive dynamics and lock-ins in Stone, D.A., 1989. Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Sci. Q. socio-technical systems: an overview and a way forward. Sustain. Sci. 17 (5), 104 (2), 281–300. 1841–1853. Van Dalen, H.P., Henkens, K., 2012. Intended and unintended consequences of a publish- Smith, B. (1999). An introduction to ontology. In: Peuquet D, Smith B, Brogaard B (eds) or-perish culture: a worldwide survey. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 63 (7), The ontology of fields, report of a specialist meeting held under the auspices of the 1282–1293. Varenius Project. NCGIA, Bar Harbour, Maine, USA. van der Hel, S., 2018. Science for change: a survey on the normative and political Sol, J., Beers, P.J., Wals, A.E., 2013. Social learning in regional innovation networks: dimensions of global sustainability research. Glob. Environ. Change 52, 248–258. trust, commitment and reframing as emergent properties of interaction. J. Clean. Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., Redman, C., Mills, S.B., 2011. Moving forward on competence Prod. 49, 35–43. in sustainability research and problem solving. Environment 53 (2), 3–13. Stephan, P., 2015. How Economics Shapes Science. Harvard University Press,. Winowiecki, L., Smukler, S., Shirley, K., Remans, R., Peltier, G., Lothes, E., Alkema, L., Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R.P., Hall, K.L., Taylor, B.K., 2008. The ecology of team 2011. Tools for enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Sustain.: Sci. Pract. science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am. Policy 7 (1), 74–80. J. Prev. Med. 35 (2), S96–S115. Zaremba, H., Elias, M., Devi, J.T., & Priyadarshini, P. (2021). Inclusive participatory Stompff, G., Smulders, F., Henze, L., 2016. Surprises are the benefits: reframing in approaches: A facilitator’s guide. multidisciplinary design teams. Des. Stud. 47, 187–214. 8