Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA)

John Van Breda

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14

| Peer-Reviewed

Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA)

John Van Breda

Published in International Journal of Sustainable Development Research (Volume 8, Issue 2)

Received: 17 May 2022 Accepted: 6 June 2022 Published: 16 June 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Methodological agility refers to a new meta-level research strategy of switching between mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity when facing the global societal challenges in the context of the Anthropocene today. When imagined in complexity terms as a polycrisis – consisting of multiple interconnected planetary crises – the Anthropocene cannot be approached in terms of any one of the said four methodologies only. This is so for two important reasons: firstly, there is not just one dominant crisis to which all the other crises can be reduced, and, secondly, not all the planetary crises we are facing today are necessarily complex problems. Some challenges are indeed complex; others complicated; still others chaotic. As a caveat, this new research strategy of methodological agility employs the construct of synergic methods, which is related to but different from synergistic or using methods synergistically in the mixed methods sense of the word when referring to the practice of using many different methods reciprocally. Herein, synergic is taken to mean a one-to-many relationship of using single methods for achieving multiple epistemological ends simultaneously. By combining some of the main features of action research and narrative theory, narrative action research (NAR) is presented in this paper as an example of how a particular synergic method can be used in transformative transdisciplinary processes (TTDR) for co-producing systems, target, and transformation knowledge – epistemologically speaking three very different kinds of knowledge each with their own (internal) logics, principles, practices, and research questions (epistemic objects).

Published in	International Journal of Sustainable Development Research (Volume 8, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14
Page(s)	52-65
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Methodological Agility, Synergic Methods, Mixed Methods, Transdisciplinarity, Complexity, Narrative Action Research

References

[1]	Aidichie, C. N., 2009. The Danger of a Single Story [video]. TED Conferences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ihs241zeg&ab_channel=TED
[2]	Althusser, L., 2005. For Marx. Verso, London.
[3]	Anidjar, G., 2013. Acts of Religion. Routledge.
[4]	Aristotle, 1961. Aristotle’s Physics. U of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
[5]	Bai, Z., Wong, W.-K., Zhang, B., 2010. Multivariate linear and nonlinear causality tests.
[6]	Bateson, G., 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[7]	Beck, U., 2015. Emancipatory catastrophism: What does it mean to climate change and risk society? Current Sociology 63, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/001139211455995
[8]	Bergman, M. M., 2012. Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications, Limited.
[9]	Bhaskar, R., 2019. Metatheory for the Anthropocene: Emancipatory Praxis for Planetary Flourishing. Routledge.
[10]	Boulton, J. G., Allen, P. M., Bowman, C., 2015. Embracing Complexity: Strategic Perspectives for an Age of Turbulence. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[11]	Bourdieu, P., 2008. Structures, Habitus, Practices.
[12]	Braidotti, R., 2005. Rhizomes: Issue 11/12: [WWW Document]. URL http://www.rhizomes.net/issue11/braidotti.html (accessed 10.19.16).
[13]	Byskov, M. F., 2020. What Makes Epistemic Injustice an “Injustice”? Journal of Social Philosophy.
[14]	Camic, C., Gross, N., Lamont, M., 2012. Social Knowledge in the Making. University of Chicago Press.
[15]	Cetina, K. K., 2009. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press.
[16]	Cetina, K. K., Schatzki, T. R., Savigny, E. von, 2005. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Routledge.
[17]	Chandler, D., 2018. Ontopolitics in the Anthropocene: An Introduction to Mapping, Sensing and Hacking. Routledge.
[18]	Ciborra, C. U., Lanzara, G. F., 1994. Formative contexts and information technology: Understanding the dynamics of innovation in organizations. Accounting, management and information technologies 4, 61–86.
[19]	Cilliers, P., 2008. 3.1 Knowing Complex Systems: The Limits of Understanding. A Vision of Transdisciplinarity: Laying Foundations for a World Knowledge Dialogue 43.
[20]	Code, M., 2007. Process, Reality, and the Power of Symbols: Thinking with A. N. Whitehead. Springer.
[21]	Cohen, M. D., Axelrod, R., 2000. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. Simon and Schuster, New York City.
[22]	Colchester, J., 2016. Nonlinear System. Complexity Labs. URL http://complexitylabs.io/nonlinear-system/ (accessed 5.4.18).
[23]	Costa, C., Murphy, M., 2015. Bourdieu, Habitus and Social Research: The Art of Application. Springer, New York City.
[24]	Crawford, J. B., Mills, A. J., 2009. The Formative Context of Organizational Hierarchies and Discourse: Implications for Organizational Change and Gender Relations. Gender, Work & Organization. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00470.x
[25]	Creswell, J. W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
[26]	Crutzen, P. J., others, 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415, 23–23.
[27]	Deleuze, G., 2004. Difference and Repetition. A&C Black.
[28]	Ehlers, E., Krafft, T., 2006. Earth System Science in the Anthropocene: Emerging Issues and Problems. Springer Science & Business Media.
[29]	Elden, S., 2002. Mapping the present: Heidegger, Foucault and the project of a spatial history. A&C Black.
[30]	Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P., 2017. Distributed Agency. Oxford University Press.
[31]	Feyerabend, P., 1993. Against Method. Verso.
[32]	Freire, P., 2014. Pedagogy of the Oppressed: 30th Anniversary Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
[33]	Funtowicz, S. O., Ravetz, J. R., 1994. Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: An International Journal 13, 1881–1885.
[34]	Garfinkel, H., 1991. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Wiley, New Jersey.
[35]	Genosko, G., 2001. Deleuze and Guattari: Deleuze and Guattari. Taylor & Francis, Oxfordshire.
[36]	Goh, Z., 2020. Aporetic Meditations. Cognitive Edge. URL https://www.cognitive-edge.com/aporetic-meditations/ (accessed 9.22.21).
[37]	Goh, Z., 2012. Understanding Cynefin through Social Theory. Gognitive-Edge Vol. 10.
[38]	Greene, B., 2005. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality. Penguin UK.
[39]	Hadorn, G. H., Pohl, C., 2008. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht.
[40]	Hagan, T., Smail, D., 1997. Power-mapping—I. Background and basic methodology. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 7, 257–267.
[41]	Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., Kirsh, D., 2000. Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 7, 174–196.
[42]	Horton, M., Freire, P., 1990. We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change. Temple University Press.
[43]	Hutchins, E., 1991. The social organization of distributed cognition. American Psychological Association 283–307.
[44]	Jahn, T., 2008. Transdisciplinarity in the Practice of Research. In: Matthias Bergmann/Engelbert Schramm (Hg.): Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten., German (No English translation yet) 21–37.
[45]	Juarrero, 1998. Causality as Constraint, in: Evolutionary Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 233–242.
[46]	Juarrero, A., 2010. Complex dynamical systems theory. Cognitive Edge Network.
[47]	Juarrero, A., 2002. Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System. MIT Press.
[48]	Kauffman, S., 2017. The’adjacent Possible’is Relational, in: 43 VISIONS FOR COMPLEXITY. World Scientific, pp. 23–24.
[49]	Knorr Cetina, 2001. Objectual practice. Routledge.
[50]	Knorr-Cetina, K. D., 2013. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Elsevier.
[51]	Kurtz, C. F., Snowden, D., 2007. Bramble bushes in a thicket: Narrative and the intangibles of learning networks. Strategic networks: Learning to compete 121.
[52]	Latour, B., 2017. Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. John Wiley & Sons.
[53]	Latour, B., 2012. We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press.
[54]	Latour, B., 2007. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. OUP Oxford.
[55]	LLC, B., LLC, G. B., 2010. Reductionism: Occam’s Razor, Reductionism, Monism, Reduction, Type Physicalism, Dialectical Monism, Separation of Concerns. General Books.
[56]	Madigan, A., 1999. Metaphysics: Book B and Book K 1-2. Clarendon Press.
[57]	Magnani, L., 2017. The Abductive Structure of Scientific Creativity: An Essay on the Ecology of Cognition. Springer.
[58]	Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A., Hopenhayn, M., 1991. Human Scale Development. The Apex Press.
[59]	Morin, E., Kern, A. B., 1999. Homeland Earth: A Manifesto for the New Millennium. Hampton Press, Incorporated.
[60]	Pearl, J., 2009. Causality. Cambridge University Press.
[61]	Pearl, J., Mackenzie, D., 2018. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. Penguin UK.
[62]	Peirce, C. S., 1974. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press.
[63]	Pohl, C., Hadorn, G. H., 2007. Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Oekom.
[64]	Popper, K., 2005. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
[65]	Popper, K. R., 1979. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Clarendon Press.
[66]	Prigogine, I., Stengers, I., 2018. Order Out of Chaos. Verso Books.
[67]	Processual Case Research, 2010. SAGE Publications, Inc., 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n273
[68]	Prosser, S., 2012. Emergent causation. Philosophical studies 159, 21–39.
[69]	Rosen, R., 2005. Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry Into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. Columbia University Press.
[70]	Schiffer, E., 2007. The power mapping tool: a method for the empirical research of power relations.
[71]	Schiffer, E., Hauck, J., 2010. Net-Map: collecting social network data and facilitating network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field methods 22, 231–249.
[72]	Scholz, R. W., 2011. Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to Decisions. Cambridge University Press.
[73]	Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., Stauffacher, M., 2006. Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: Historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 7, 226–251.
[74]	Seibt, J., 2018. Process Philosophy, in: Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
[75]	Simons, D. J., Chabris, C. F., 1999. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. perception 28, 1059–1074.
[76]	Snowden, 2016a. Ethnography Part I [WWW Document]. Cognitive Edge. URL /blog/ethnography-part-i/ (accessed 6.11.18).
[77]	Snowden, 2016b. Ethnography Part II [WWW Document]. Cognitive Edge. URL /blog/ethnography-part-ii/ (accessed 6.11.18).
[78]	Snowden, 2010. snowden narrative resaearch - Google Search [WWW Document]. URL https://www.google.com/search?q=snowden+narrative+resaearch&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b (accessed 4.18.18).
[79]	Snowden, D., 2016. The adjacent possible [WWW Document]. Cognitive Edge. URL /blog/the-adjacent-possible/ (accessed 6.23.18).
[80]	Snowden, D., 2011. Signification [WWW Document]. Cognitive Edge. URL /resources/glossary/ (accessed 2.7.19).
[81]	Snowden, D., 2010. Naturalizing sensemaking. Informed by knowledge: Expert performance in complex situations 223–234.
[82]	Snowden, D., Blignaut, S., Goh, Z., 2021. Cynefin. Cognitive Edge Pte Ltd, Singapore.
[83]	Snowden, D. J., Boone, M. E., 2007. A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard business review 85, 68.
[84]	Sober, E., 2015. Ockham’s Razors. Cambridge University Press.
[85]	Strathern, M., 2020. Relations: An Anthropological Account. Duke University Press.
[86]	Surowiecki, J., 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor Books.
[87]	Thagard, P., 1997. Abductive reasoning [WWW Document]. URL http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/%7FAbductive.html (accessed 10.30.17).
[88]	Unger, R. M., 2014. The Religion of the Future. Harvard University Press.
[89]	Unger, R. M., 1998. Democracy Realized: The Progressive Alternative. Verso.
[90]	Van Breda, J., Goh, Z., 2022. Methodological agility for sustainability transitions in the Anthropocene. IJSDR.
[91]	Van Breda, Swilling, 2018. The guiding logics and principles for designing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: Learning experiences and reflections from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement, South Africa. Sustainability Science.
[92]	Whitehead, A. N., 2010. Process and Reality. Simon and Schuster.
[93]	Wood, D., 2021. The art of deep mapping, in: Making Deep Maps. Routledge, pp. 17–37.
[94]	Zlomislic, M., Zlomislić, M., 2007. Jacques Derrida’s Aporetic Ethics. Lexington Books.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

John Van Breda. (2022). Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA). International Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 8(2), 52-65. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

John Van Breda. Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2022, 8(2), 52-65. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

John Van Breda. Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA). Int J Sustain Dev Res. 2022;8(2):52-65. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14,
  author = {John Van Breda},
  title = {Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA)},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development Research},
  volume = {8},
  number = {2},
  pages = {52-65},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsdr.20220802.14},
  abstract = {Methodological agility refers to a new meta-level research strategy of switching between mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity when facing the global societal challenges in the context of the Anthropocene today. When imagined in complexity terms as a polycrisis – consisting of multiple interconnected planetary crises – the Anthropocene cannot be approached in terms of any one of the said four methodologies only. This is so for two important reasons: firstly, there is not just one dominant crisis to which all the other crises can be reduced, and, secondly, not all the planetary crises we are facing today are necessarily complex problems. Some challenges are indeed complex; others complicated; still others chaotic. As a caveat, this new research strategy of methodological agility employs the construct of synergic methods, which is related to but different from synergistic or using methods synergistically in the mixed methods sense of the word when referring to the practice of using many different methods reciprocally. Herein, synergic is taken to mean a one-to-many relationship of using single methods for achieving multiple epistemological ends simultaneously. By combining some of the main features of action research and narrative theory, narrative action research (NAR) is presented in this paper as an example of how a particular synergic method can be used in transformative transdisciplinary processes (TTDR) for co-producing systems, target, and transformation knowledge – epistemologically speaking three very different kinds of knowledge each with their own (internal) logics, principles, practices, and research questions (epistemic objects).},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA)
AU  - John Van Breda
Y1  - 2022/06/16
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
SP  - 52
EP  - 65
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1832
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14
AB  - Methodological agility refers to a new meta-level research strategy of switching between mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity when facing the global societal challenges in the context of the Anthropocene today. When imagined in complexity terms as a polycrisis – consisting of multiple interconnected planetary crises – the Anthropocene cannot be approached in terms of any one of the said four methodologies only. This is so for two important reasons: firstly, there is not just one dominant crisis to which all the other crises can be reduced, and, secondly, not all the planetary crises we are facing today are necessarily complex problems. Some challenges are indeed complex; others complicated; still others chaotic. As a caveat, this new research strategy of methodological agility employs the construct of synergic methods, which is related to but different from synergistic or using methods synergistically in the mixed methods sense of the word when referring to the practice of using many different methods reciprocally. Herein, synergic is taken to mean a one-to-many relationship of using single methods for achieving multiple epistemological ends simultaneously. By combining some of the main features of action research and narrative theory, narrative action research (NAR) is presented in this paper as an example of how a particular synergic method can be used in transformative transdisciplinary processes (TTDR) for co-producing systems, target, and transformation knowledge – epistemologically speaking three very different kinds of knowledge each with their own (internal) logics, principles, practices, and research questions (epistemic objects).
VL  - 8
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

John Van Breda

Centre for Sustainability Transitions (CST), Stellenbosch University (SU), Stellenbosch, South Africa

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

John Van Breda. (2022). Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA). International Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 8(2), 52-65. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

John Van Breda. Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2022, 8(2), 52-65. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

John Van Breda. Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA). Int J Sustain Dev Res. 2022;8(2):52-65. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14,
  author = {John Van Breda},
  title = {Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA)},
  journal = {International Journal of Sustainable Development Research},
  volume = {8},
  number = {2},
  pages = {52-65},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsdr.20220802.14},
  abstract = {Methodological agility refers to a new meta-level research strategy of switching between mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity when facing the global societal challenges in the context of the Anthropocene today. When imagined in complexity terms as a polycrisis – consisting of multiple interconnected planetary crises – the Anthropocene cannot be approached in terms of any one of the said four methodologies only. This is so for two important reasons: firstly, there is not just one dominant crisis to which all the other crises can be reduced, and, secondly, not all the planetary crises we are facing today are necessarily complex problems. Some challenges are indeed complex; others complicated; still others chaotic. As a caveat, this new research strategy of methodological agility employs the construct of synergic methods, which is related to but different from synergistic or using methods synergistically in the mixed methods sense of the word when referring to the practice of using many different methods reciprocally. Herein, synergic is taken to mean a one-to-many relationship of using single methods for achieving multiple epistemological ends simultaneously. By combining some of the main features of action research and narrative theory, narrative action research (NAR) is presented in this paper as an example of how a particular synergic method can be used in transformative transdisciplinary processes (TTDR) for co-producing systems, target, and transformation knowledge – epistemologically speaking three very different kinds of knowledge each with their own (internal) logics, principles, practices, and research questions (epistemic objects).},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Using Synergic Methods for Being Methodologically Agile (SM4BMA)
AU  - John Van Breda
Y1  - 2022/06/16
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14
T2  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JF  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
JO  - International Journal of Sustainable Development Research
SP  - 52
EP  - 65
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1832
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsdr.20220802.14
AB  - Methodological agility refers to a new meta-level research strategy of switching between mono-, multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinarity when facing the global societal challenges in the context of the Anthropocene today. When imagined in complexity terms as a polycrisis – consisting of multiple interconnected planetary crises – the Anthropocene cannot be approached in terms of any one of the said four methodologies only. This is so for two important reasons: firstly, there is not just one dominant crisis to which all the other crises can be reduced, and, secondly, not all the planetary crises we are facing today are necessarily complex problems. Some challenges are indeed complex; others complicated; still others chaotic. As a caveat, this new research strategy of methodological agility employs the construct of synergic methods, which is related to but different from synergistic or using methods synergistically in the mixed methods sense of the word when referring to the practice of using many different methods reciprocally. Herein, synergic is taken to mean a one-to-many relationship of using single methods for achieving multiple epistemological ends simultaneously. By combining some of the main features of action research and narrative theory, narrative action research (NAR) is presented in this paper as an example of how a particular synergic method can be used in transformative transdisciplinary processes (TTDR) for co-producing systems, target, and transformation knowledge – epistemologically speaking three very different kinds of knowledge each with their own (internal) logics, principles, practices, and research questions (epistemic objects).
VL  - 8
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download