The paradox of transformative research

On a daily basis we, as scientists, face the dual challenge of addressing the climate crisis and responding to urgent transformative change using knowledge co-production. There is an unrealistic expectation that better science alone can drive policy action [1], which reinforces stereotypes of the “scientist” as the “problem solver” while increasing the responsibility of researchers as “drivers of change”.

However, most researchers operate within a narrow landscape shaped by numerous constraints, including predefined project scopes, tight deadlines, unstable working conditions, and internal and external academic pressures [2]. Additionally, rigid institutional structures often prioritize productivity and competition as criteria for ‘academic excellence’ over the personal and collective well-being of researchers and their environments, i.e., the “ego” over the “ethos” [3].

The prevailing solution-focused approach in co-production often constrains the agency of non-academic actors in defining problems and risks, perpetuating the very extractive practices that co-production seeks to change. Grand promises of transformative change through co-production may even worsen power imbalances by legitimizing them through participation when higher-level political decisions cannot realistically be changed [4].

We argue that a culture of care that prioritizes support, collaboration, and well-being within academic spaces ought to be a condition for knowledge co-production to ensure all societal actors are meaningfully engaged [5,6]. With María Puig de la Bellacasa, we understand care from a process-relational ontology as the "necessary yet mostly dismissed labors of everyday maintenance of life, an ethico-political commitment to neglected things (and beings), and the affective remaking of (knowledge) relationships" (p.66, parenthesis added) [7].

This piece suggests the idea of caring spaces in transformative climate research by foregrounding: (i) honesty and humility, (ii) commitment, (iii) embracing uncertainty, (iv) epistemic caring, as well as (v) an optimistic outlook while navigating complex and chaotic realities (Fig 1). Despite the bleak panorama, we wholeheartedly believe that collective care can be embraced as a radical strategy for sustaining ourselves, our professional environments and our research.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Five pillars of caring spaces in transformative climate research.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000620.g001

Humility and honesty: Cultivating care as a relational quality requires humility and honesty in balancing hopeful visions for the future with realistic awareness of our limited capacity to effect change [8]. We need to envision alternative futures and transformative capacities while remaining grounded in the realities of our situated practices, openly acknowledging both our potential and the inherent limits of our influence. We also need to be more transparent about our constraints — for instance, setting clear expectations on researchers and actors’ roles and capacities.

Commitment: Commitment is showing up on a regular basis, ensuring the “everyday maintenance of life” [7] through taking time out of the busy academic schedule and dedicating it to cultivating bonds within care collectives. It also highlights our pledge as researchers to keep transformation as a compass for our practice. This practice needs to be intentional and consistent throughout researchers’ interactions, collaborations, and engagements within their institutions and beyond in their entanglements with the broader socio-ecological context.

Embracing uncertainty: Grandiose promises for transformative change might rest on an overconfidence in steering change in a specific direction and an underestimation of the large doses of uncertainty involved in societal transformations [9]. Rather than attempting to eliminate uncertainty, it is essential for caring spaces to embrace it as an opportunity to value plural knowledge and experiences in reflexivity and adaptive learning [10].

Epistemic caring: Block reconceptualizes co-production as co-constitution, a ‘practice of relationally rendering each other capable of collaboratively constituting knowledge’ (p. 10), a practice of epistemic caring [6]. This involves: becoming more aware of inequalities in research design and of our hegemonic positions as researchers — for instance engaging potential collaborators in project scoping and formulation of research questions; and becoming more sensitized to onto-epistemological differences, to the transformative potential of generating new knowledge out of caring relations between different ways of knowing — for instance by dedicating sufficient space to deep listening to others [11] or to visualizing the diversity of knowledge systems in co-constitution in our research [12].

An optimistic outlook and beacons of hope: Rather than dwelling on challenges and losses, we are encouraged to focus on the positive outcomes of our actions, even though they may not be immediately apparent [13]. Therefore, within caring spaces, we feel an urgent need for consciously creating beacons of hope—apertures where visions of possible and desirable futures become articulated; where we can narrate our place in research, collective struggles and transformative change; and where we experience that our actions matter [14]. These openings are not merely symbolic; they are shaped by material conditions, social infrastructures, and relational practices that sustain a sense of agency and possibility. They provide environments in which hope is not just an abstract emotion but a lived and shared experience, nurtured through everyday interactions, shared commitments, and practices of care.

Collective care as a radical act

Transformation begins with small-scale shifts in culture, which can start with creating caring spaces infused with optimism and hope. bell hooks discusses hope and optimism not as wishful thinking but as an active, transformative force involving resilience and a commitment to healing, even when faced with adversity [15]. Our strategy going forward is to embrace collective care as a radical act of transforming our academic relations. By collective care, we understand group solidarity and support for each other on our journeys, disruption of competitive demands, collective healing from oppressive structures and commitment to an ethics of care in our daily interactions. While not a silver bullet to structural issues, caring spaces can become the seed of inner and collective transformations that permeate and allow us to conduct co-production of knowledge for deep transformative change. At least in our experience, as a group caring for knowledge co-production practices and transformations, we perceive differences in research quality and outcomes when aiming for caring spaces, as this piece outlines.

Acknowledgments

This opinion piece has been co-authored collectively and equally by the Participatory Care Collective at BC3. Authors are listed in alphabetical order.