Search results

Interdisciplinary inquiry has been increasingly adopted to address issues of growing complexity in the biophysical and social sciences, as for example in agricultural research and rural development. The purpose of this article is to trace the origins of a Postgraduate Programme in Agroecosystems (PGA) in Brazil in order to discuss how its interdisciplinary practices have been enacted and epistemologically and institutionally constrained in just over 25 years of teaching and research activities.

Conceptualized as a systemic inquiry, the study reported here builds upon participant observation, empirical evidence and literature-based analysis.

Some of the academic features of the PGA introduced to facilitate interdisciplinary integration are presented and discussed, as well as their main challenges and obstacles, notably those emerging from “disciplinary imperialism” hindering individuals to work towards interdisciplinary inquiry and collaborative learning.

Raising epistemological awareness and building systems literacy are critical aspects to be addressed to foster the embodiment of interdisciplinary inquiry practices. This might also lead to new understandings and to new and productive forms of joint teaching and research practices, fostering interdisciplinary integration.

Collaborative research projects are highly complex organizational settings with specific needs and inherent risks that can endanger project success if not managed well. The purpose of this paper is to enlarge the knowledge of operational challenges in collaborative research projects to improve both project and conflict management.

On the basis of the concept of systemic conflict, this study conducts a conflict analysis of a collaborative research project on food security to establish how multiple conflict drivers interact.

The results show that multiple conflict drivers affect the operation of collaborative research projects and the drivers also interact and do not function in isolation. The study also finds that the importance of some drivers differs when comparing project members’ perceptions with the number of interlinkages between drivers. A conflict map is provided to visualize the results.

The empirical evidence provided in this study is limited because it relies on a single case study and on project members’ perceptions.

The research can help not only the research community and, in particular, project management but also funding bodies in dealing with the unpredictability of outcomes created by project dynamics. In addition, the results can feed into future research, project design and management strategies.

The study applies multidimensional conflict analysis to a field that is understudied.

The governance of the relationship between humans and the biophysical world has been based on a paradigm characterized by dualistic thinking and scientism. This has led to the Anthropocene. The purpose of this paper is to reframe human-biosphere governance in terms of “cyber-systemics”, a neologism that is useful, the authors argue, not only for breaking out of this dualistic paradigm in human-environmental governance but also of the dualism associated with the use of systems and cybernetics.

In this paper the authors draw on their own research praxis to exemplify how the intellectual lineages of cybernetics and systems have been mutually influencing their doings, and how new forms of governance practices that explore different framing choices might contribute to building innovative governance approaches attuned to the problematique of the Anthropocene, for instance through institutional designs for cyber-systemic governance.

The growing popularity of the Anthropocene as a particular framing for the circumstances, if it is to transformative and thus relevant demands informed critique if it is to help change the trajectory of human-life on earth. The authors offer arguments and a rationale for adopting a cyber-systemic perspective as a means to avoid the dangers in pursuing the current trajectory of our relationship with the biophysical world as, for example, climate change. The essay frames an invitation for a systemic inquiry into forms of governance more suited to the contemporary circumstances of humans in their relationships with the biophysical world.

The research essay challenges many taken-for-granted epistemological assumptions within the cybernetics and systems intellectual communities. A case for radical change is mounted; the means to effect this change, other than through changes in discourse remain unclear though it is apparent that changes to praxis and institutional forms and arrangements will be central.

Cyber-systemic capabilities need to be developed; this requires investment and new institutions that are conducive to cyber-systemic understandings and praxis.

Understanding the global environmental crisis as an emergent outcome of current commitments to dualistic governance choices demands a reframing of much of what humans have done, re-investment in cyber-systemics offers a moral and practical response.