Getting to the heart of transformation

Critical examination of resilience and resistance in African American families: Adaptive capacities to navigate toxic oppressive upstream waters

African American families navigate not only everyday stressors and adversities but also unique sociocultural stressors (e.g., "toxic upstream waters" like oppression). These adverse conditions are consequences of the historical vestiges of slavery and Jim Crow laws, often manifested as inequities in wealth, housing, wages, employment, access to healthcare, and quality education. Despite these challenges, African American families have developed resilience using strength-based adaptive coping strategies, to some extent, to filter these waters. To advance the field of resilience research, we focused on the following questions: (1) what constitutes positive responses to adversity?; (2) how is resilience defined conceptually and measured operationally?; (3) how has the field of resilience evolved?; (4) who defines what, when, and how responses are manifestations of resilience, instead of, for example, resistance? How can resistance, which at times leads to positive adaptations, be incorporated into the study of resilience?; and (5) are there case examples that demonstrate ways to address structural oppression and the pernicious effects of racism through system-level interventions, thereby changing environmental situations that sustain toxic waters requiring acts of resilience to survive and thrive? We end by exploring how a re-conceptualization of resilience requires a paradigm shift and new methodological approaches to understand ways in which preventive interventions move beyond focusing on families' capacity to navigate oppression and target systems and structures that maintain these toxic waters.

Placing diverse knowledge systems at the core of transformative climate research

We argue that solutions-based research must avoid treating climate change as a merely technical problem, recognizing instead that it is symptomatic of the history of European and North American colonialism. It must therefore be addressed by decolonizing the research process and transforming relations between scientific expertise and the knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples and of local communities. Partnership across diverse knowledge systems can be a path to transformative change only if those systems are respected in their entirety, as indivisible cultural wholes of knowledge, practices, values, and worldviews. This argument grounds our specific recommendations for governance at the local, national, and international scales. As concrete mechanisms to guide collaboration across knowledge systems, we propose a set of instruments based on the principles of consent, intellectual and cultural autonomy, and justice. We recommend these instruments as tools to ensure that collaborations across knowledge systems embody just partnerships in support of a decolonial transformation of relations between human communities and between humanity and the more-than-human world.

Beyond "blah blah blah": exploring the "how" of transformation

Calls for transformations are clear and multiple pathways and alternative visions for the future have been defined. Yet, there is very little shared understanding of how such transformations come about and how knowledge-action gaps will be filled. This Special Feature focuses on how we can go beyond talking about transformation-the "blah blah blah"-and moving toward action for results. It does so by distinguishing between the means of transformation and the manner of transformation, two key dimensions to answering the question of "how." The means can be understood as the many solutions, technical and practical methods, or actions that are presented as significant to transformative change. The manner, in contrast, represents the ways in which something is done, i.e., ways of acting. It describes the core values, principles, qualities, and relationships that not only underpin and motivate transformative change, but shape the process. Integrating rather than conflating the means and the manner is important to better understand how transformations come about. We then present insights from the collection of papers that focus on the "how" of transformation. The papers describe different ways of integrating the means and the manner in transformation processes. We have organized them thematically as follows: papers that draw on the integration of meaning making, the integration of learning and listening, and the integration of different ways of being and becoming. Drawing on both science and alternative ways of knowing, they weave together new narratives and stories about nature, society, and the future, inviting us to embark on the journey of creating sustainability pathways.

Transforming environmental governance: critical action intellectuals and their praxis in the field

Over the past decade, widespread concern has emerged over how environmental governance can be transformed to avoid impending catastrophes such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and livelihood insecurity. A variety of approaches have emerged, focusing on either politics, technological breakthrough, social movements, or macro-economic processes as the main drivers of change. In contrast, this paper presents theoretical insights about how systemic change in environmental governance can be triggered by critical and intellectually grounded social actors in specific contexts of environment and development. Conceptualising such actors as critical action intellectuals (CAI), we analyze how CAI emerge in specific socio-environmental contexts and contribute to systemic change in governance. CAI trigger transformative change by shifting policy discourse, generating alternative evidence, and challenging dominant policy assumptions, whilst aiming to empower marginalized groups. While CAI do not work in a vacuum, nor are the sole force in transformation, we nevertheless show that the praxis of CAI within fields of environmental governance has the potential to trigger transformation. We illustrate this through three cases of natural resource governance in Nepal, Nicaragua and Guatemala, and Kenya, where the authors themselves have engaged as CAI. We contribute to theorising the 'how' of transformation by showing the ways CAI praxis reshape fields of governance and catalyze transformation, distinct from, and at times complementary to, other dominant drivers such as social movements, macroeconomic processes or technological breakthroughs.