Awakening the epistemological and ontological dimension in climate adaptation research

by Admire Nyamwanza

Postdoctoral Researcher

Climate adaptation research is now at the forefront of scientific inquiry (Tschakert and Dietrich, 2010). Adaptation research in the context of climate change predominantly involves identifying possible and feasible adaptation options in response to future climate impacts, identifying criteria for selecting appropriate strategies, estimating outcomes, e.g. cost and/or effectiveness, and exploring responses to current climatic variability (Shepherd et al., 2006). Climate adaptation research has largely revolved around four dimensions, i.e. the ecological and physical, economic, technological, and social dimensions. There has, however, been scant attention to the explicit exploration of the epistemological and ontological dimension, yet it is this dimension which is directly concerned with (analysis of the) creation and dissemination of knowledge in any particular area of inquiry. Simply put, ontology refers to the nature of reality, or what is true whilst epistemology is about methods of figuring out those truths or how ‘reality’ can be known. A clear exploration of this dimension in climate adaptation research is, therefore, important in understanding the key philosophical and methodological issues impacting upon the creation of knowledge on and the actual design and implementation of the adaptation process in different regions, countries and communities around the world.

Ontological and epistemological perspectives on adaptation are implicitly heterogeneous – both in terms of underlying assumptions and practical implications (Weisser et al., 2013) – from studies based on the positivist metatheoretical stance emphasizing universalist, ‘objective’ and hegemonic framings around climate adaptation, to critical realist views on human-environment interactions, as well as integrative  perspectives which emphasize the acknowledging and combining of multiple approaches, narratives and methodologies in climate adaptation research. Clear ontological and epistemological reflections are, however, minimal in current research on adaptation. An explicit exploration of clear ontological and epistemological framings of adaptation brings into focus valuable insights on various critical issues – which include, for example, the contested nature of narratives and definition of concepts and issues within the adaptation discourse, appropriateness of different methodological approaches used in adaptation research at different scales, as well as concerns around the framing and design of adaptive strategies that are effective in different contexts.  

Climate adaptation research is at the intersection of various interrelated disciplines such as climatology, planning, risk governance, livelihoods etc; involving several experts who include climatologists, sociologists, meteorologists, economists, etc. (Diop and Lo, 2013). This inevitably raises problems not only with respect to good abstraction, for example, vis-à-vis concept definition and application, but also around integration of data and models across disciplines. There is thus an urgent need in climate adaptation research to build a solid reflexive theory-policy-practice community which subjects the systemic and long-term implications of various epistemological and ontological framings on adaptation to greater scrutiny.

References

Diop I and Lo M (2013) An ontology of the multidisciplinary and complex field of climate change. ACSIJ Advances in Computer Science: An International Journal. 2 (6): 104-113

Shepherd P, Tansey J and Dowlatabadi H (2006) Context matters: What shapes adaptation to water stress in the Okanagan? Climatic Change. 78: 31-62

Tschakert P and Dietrich K A (2010) Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecology and Society. 15 (2)

Weisser F, Bollig M, Doevenspeck M and Mahn-Muller D (2013) Translating the ‘adaptation to climate change’ paradigm: The politics of a travelling idea in Africa. The Geographical Journal. 180 (2): 111-119