Abstract
AbstractParticipatory and collaborative approaches in sustainability science and public health research contribute to co-producing evidence that can support interventions by involving diverse societal actors that range from individual citizens to entire communities. However, existing philosophical accounts of evidence are not adequate to deal with the kind of evidence generated and used in such approaches. In this paper, we present an account of evidence as clues for action through participatory and collaborative research inspired by philosopher Susan Haack’s theory of evidence. Differently from most accounts of evidence for use in policies and interventions, our account combines action-oriented (the how) and actors-oriented (the who) considerations. We build on Haack’s theory and on the analysis of examples of participatory and collaborative research in sustainability science and public health research to flesh out six procedural criteria for the generation and mobilization of evidence in and from participatory research. Action-oriented criteria invite to look at evidence from a (a) foundherentist, (b) gradational and (c) quasi-holistic perspective. Actors-oriented criteria point out that evidence generation and utilization are (d) social, (e) personal, and (f) embedded. We suggest that these criteria may reinforce participatory and collaborative approaches to evidence co-production when addressing complex problems in sustainability science and public health allowing for the generation of a kind of practical objectivity.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),History
Reference93 articles.
1. Avelino, F. (2017). Power in sustainability transitions: Analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(6), 505–520.
2. Balazs, C. L., & Morello-frosch, R. (2013). The three Rs : How community-based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance, and reach of science. Environmental Justice, 6(1), 9–16.
3. Barrotta, P., & Montuschi, E. (2018). Expertise, relevance and types of knowledge expertise, relevance and types of knowledge. Social Epistemology, 32(6), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2018.1546345
4. Belone, L., Lucero, J.E., Duran, B., Tafoya, G., Baker, E. A., & Chan, D. (2016). HHS public access. 26(1), 117–135.
5. Buyx, A., Del Savio, L., Prainsack, B., & Völzke, H. (2017). Every participant is a PI. Citizen science and participatory governance in population studies. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(2), 377–384.