Incorporating pragmatism in a behaviour change-led climate adaptation project: a collaborative reflection

IF 0.8 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Qualitative Research Journal Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI:10.1108/qrj-11-2023-0168
Kien Nguyen-Trung, Alexander K. Saeri, Stefan Kaufman
{"title":"Incorporating pragmatism in a behaviour change-led climate adaptation project: a collaborative reflection","authors":"Kien Nguyen-Trung, Alexander K. Saeri, Stefan Kaufman","doi":"10.1108/qrj-11-2023-0168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>This article argues the value of integrating pragmatism in applying behavioural science to complex challenges. We describe a behaviour change-led knowledge co-production process in the specific context of climate change in Australia. This process was led by an interdisciplinary research team who struggled with the limitations of the prevailing deterministic behaviour change paradigms, such as the “test, learn, adapt” model, which often focuses narrowly on individual behaviours and fails to integrate multiple interpretations from diverse stakeholders into their knowledge co-production process.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>This article uses collaborative reflection as a method of inquiry. We document the team’s experience of a recent challenge-led, programatic research initiative that applied behaviour change strategies to reduce climate vulnerabilities. We demonstrate the necessity of critical reflection and abductive reasoning in the face of the complexities inherent in knowledge co-production addressing complex problems. It underscores the importance of accommodating diverse perspectives and contextual nuances over a one-size-fits-all method.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The article shares lessons learnt about integrating collaborative and critical reflection throughout a project cycle and demonstrates the capacity of abductive reasoning to ease the challenges arising from the tension between behaviour change paradigms and knowledge co-production principles. This approach allows for a more adaptable and context-sensitive application, acknowledging the multiplicity of understandings and the dynamic nature of behavioural change in relation to climate adaptation.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This reflection contributes original insights into the fusion of pragmatism with behaviour change strategies, proposing a novel framework that prioritises flexibility, context-specificity and the recognition of various stakeholder perspectives in the co-production of knowledge.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":47040,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research Journal","volume":"2014 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-11-2023-0168","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This article argues the value of integrating pragmatism in applying behavioural science to complex challenges. We describe a behaviour change-led knowledge co-production process in the specific context of climate change in Australia. This process was led by an interdisciplinary research team who struggled with the limitations of the prevailing deterministic behaviour change paradigms, such as the “test, learn, adapt” model, which often focuses narrowly on individual behaviours and fails to integrate multiple interpretations from diverse stakeholders into their knowledge co-production process.

Design/methodology/approach

This article uses collaborative reflection as a method of inquiry. We document the team’s experience of a recent challenge-led, programatic research initiative that applied behaviour change strategies to reduce climate vulnerabilities. We demonstrate the necessity of critical reflection and abductive reasoning in the face of the complexities inherent in knowledge co-production addressing complex problems. It underscores the importance of accommodating diverse perspectives and contextual nuances over a one-size-fits-all method.

Findings

The article shares lessons learnt about integrating collaborative and critical reflection throughout a project cycle and demonstrates the capacity of abductive reasoning to ease the challenges arising from the tension between behaviour change paradigms and knowledge co-production principles. This approach allows for a more adaptable and context-sensitive application, acknowledging the multiplicity of understandings and the dynamic nature of behavioural change in relation to climate adaptation.

Originality/value

This reflection contributes original insights into the fusion of pragmatism with behaviour change strategies, proposing a novel framework that prioritises flexibility, context-specificity and the recognition of various stakeholder perspectives in the co-production of knowledge.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
将实用主义纳入以行为改变为主导的气候适应项目:合作反思
本文论证了在将行为科学应用于复杂挑战的过程中结合实用主义的价值。我们描述了在澳大利亚气候变化的特定背景下,以行为变化为主导的知识共同生产过程。这一过程是由一个跨学科研究团队领导的,该团队努力克服流行的决定性行为改变范例的局限性,如 "测试、学习、适应 "模式,该模式往往狭隘地关注个人行为,未能将来自不同利益相关者的多种解释纳入知识共同生产过程。我们记录了团队在最近一项以挑战为主导的计划性研究项目中的经验,该项目采用行为改变策略来降低气候脆弱性。我们展示了面对解决复杂问题的知识共同生产过程中固有的复杂性,进行批判性反思和归纳推理的必要性。文章分享了在整个项目周期中整合合作和批判性反思的经验教训,并展示了归纳推理的能力,以缓解行为改变范式和知识共同生产原则之间的矛盾所带来的挑战。这种方法使应用更具适应性和背景敏感性,承认了与气候适应相关的行为变化的多重理解和动态性质。原创性/价值该反思对实用主义与行为变化战略的融合提出了独到见解,提出了一个新颖的框架,该框架在知识共同生产中优先考虑灵活性、特定背景和对各种利益相关者观点的认可。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Qualitative Research Journal
Qualitative Research Journal SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research Journal (QRJ) is an international journal devoted to the communication of the theory and practice of qualitative research in the human sciences. It is interdisciplinary and eclectic, covering all methodologies that can be described as qualitative. It offers an international forum for researchers and practitioners to advance knowledge and promote good qualitative research practices. QRJ deals comprehensively with the collection, analysis and presentation of qualitative data in the human sciences as well as theoretical and conceptual inquiry.
期刊最新文献
Home–school interactions relating to students with disability: a document analysis of Australian policy and guidelines Entrepreneurial mindset strategies in times of crisis: a qualitative study on street food vendors Métissage – somewhere between hope and happening The door opens inward: meeting Linda Tuhiwai Smith Relationships with horses and humans: Smith’s legacy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1