We often talk about climate change in terms of the natural world – rising sea levels, drought, and melting glaciers. But because society is intertwined with the natural world, climate change is also about the economy, reconciliation, politics, culture, and more. For example, temperature change affects the farming industry, drought causes poverty and mass migration, economic dependency on fossil fuels contaminates our politics. Every society everywhere on earth is wrestling with this issue. In short, climate change can best be described as a “wicked problem”i – we don’t know where we are going, how we will get there, and there are no known solutions.
Just thinking about it makes my head hurt.
Transdisciplinarity is a way to approach complex issues such as climate change. It embraces complexity by transcending individual issues and looking for common themes (Cormon and Cox, 2020)ii. When applied to climate adaptation, it brings together strange bedfellows from across all parts of society and from many disciplinesiii. At the root of this approach is the need for cross sectoral dialogue and this is “one of the most challenging interpersonal processes of human interaction” (Cormon and Cox, 2020, p14).
I find transdisciplinarity fascinating. It takes the complex problem of solving climate change and, by flipping it on its head, makes complexity the strength for finding solutions.
But what happens once people are in a room together? As Indigenous scholar Melanie Goodchild states, “Cross-culture dialogues help us to see that there are as many ways of seeing, hearing, feeling, and understanding as there are members in a group” (Goodchild p 99)iv. Corman and Cox explain that “to come to the kind of understanding required in transdisciplinarity, dialogue is an essential element” (2020, p14). However, we are living in a time of polarized conflict. How to transition to dialogue can often seem insurmountable.
Cognitive Adaptive Mapping (CAM) is a technique developed to understand the world view of individuals and groups by depicting “ in a half-page illustration much of what is most important about a given dispute” (Homer-Dixon et al, 2014, p16)v. CAM is an exciting approach however, while this tool increases understanding of why parties are in conflict, it does not necessarily result in a solution and has the potential to further polarize conflict as parties learn more about each other (Homer-Dixon et al, 2014, p16).
Design Thinking centers the different worldviews of participants in the decision making process. At the root of all possible solutions is a deep examination of and dialogue about the values and beliefs of everyone involved. It is not about getting to a decision quickly but, instead, getting to the solution that works for everyone involved. Using the steps outlined in the by the Institute of Design at Stanfordvi, participants empathize, ideate, and design solutions not in a linear fashion but through an iterative process that requires returning to the beginning until the right solutions are found.
I have dipped my toe into the world of Design Thinking in a few projects. I am fascinated by the permission it gives participants to explore their beliefs and values and step outside their worldview to find solutions. And while a CAM analysis allows for understanding why there is conflict, I am less sure of how useful it will be in practical applications.
I am not yet convinced that these approaches will help with reconciliation. While Goodchild describes how Western and Indigenous worlds can coexist (pg 82), scholar Kyle Whyte purports that we may have run out of time. Whyte (2019) describes how the inability to build relationships with Indigenous Peoples built on trust and consent combined failure to reduce emissions has put us on the edge of both ecological and relational tipping points. The urgency we need to pull back from the brink of ecological disaster further harms relations with Indigenous Peoples because we need to move faster than the speed of trustvii. This tension has been lurking in the back of my mind for many years and Whyte’s writings brought me the insight needed to understand the challenge deeply.
With these insights I believe I am at the beginning of a long journey to finding how I can be a leader in these uncertain times. And while the journey is daunting, I am heartened by the words of Dr. Susanne Mosser (2020) that “hope requires uncertainty”viii
So as I continue to navigate the uncertain paths to a climate safe future, I remain hopeful.
Jen
References
[1] Rittel, H.W.J., Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4, 155–169 (1973).
[ii] Corman, I. Cox R. (2020) Transdisciplinarity: A Primer. Paper produced for the Masters’ in Claimate Action Leadership Royal Roads https://commons.royalroads.ca/macal/wp-content/uploads/sites/88/2021/04/MACAL_Transdisciplinary_Thinking03-31-21-3.pdf
[iii] Michigan Technical University. (2017, July 28) The Transdisciplinary Approach https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5xGi9EFCSY
[iv] Goodchild, M. (2021). Relational Systems Thinking: That’s How Change Is Going to Come,from Our Earth Mother.Journal of Awareness Based Systems Change. Volume 1, Issue 1, pp75-103
[v] Honer-Dixon, T. Milkoreit,M. Mocj, S.J. Schroder,T. Thagard,P. (2014) The Conceptual Structure of Social Disputes:Cognitive-Affective Maps as a Tool for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. Sage Open January-March 2014, 1-20
[vi] Institute of Design (2019, Oct 21). Stanford Design Thining Virtual Crash Course, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmjyZPibH14
[vii] Whyte, K. (2019, October 23). Too late for indigenous climate justice: Ecological and relational tipping points. Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.603.
[viii] Robin, V. (2020, July 2) What Could Possibly Go Right: Hope Requires Uncertainty. Post Carbon Institute. https://www.postcarbon.org/what-could-possibly-go-right-series/episode-5-susanne-moser/