This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.

Unclaimed
Livia Fritz
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland

Basic Info

Basic Info is private.

Honors and Awards

The user has no records in this section


Career Timeline

The user has no records in this section.


Short Biography

The user biography is not available.
Following
Followers
Co Authors
The list of users this user is following is empty.
Following: 0 users

Feed

Research article
Published: 19 May 2021 in Mobilities
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Reducing the modal share of car travel in commuting implies challenging meanings of everyday mobility that tie commuting to driving. Existing research has focussed on describing ways in which everyday mobility is meaningful. However, why shifts in meanings occur remains largely unexplored. This article asks how meanings become ascribed to everyday mobility and identifies dynamics that play a role in shifts in those meanings. We analysed interviews with short distance commuters in two Swiss cities. Combining the analytical foci of the mobilities turn and practice theories, we developed a typology of four registers through which meaning is ascribed to everyday mobility (functional, hedonic, representative, habitual) and identified three sets of dynamics that play into shifts between these registers: i) dynamics related to the spatio-temporal complexity of everyday life, ii) dynamics emerging from different and changing social representations of mobility, and iii) dynamics tied to subjective experiences of everyday mobility. Our findings indicate that shifts in meanings and performances of everyday mobility must be analysed together, and that differences in how commuters ascribe meaning to everyday mobilities can reveal structural dynamics inhibiting the spread of pleasurable low-carbon everyday mobilities.

ACS Style

Franziska Meinherz; Livia Fritz. ‘Ecological concerns weren’t the main reason why I took the bus, that association only came afterwards’: on shifts in meanings of everyday mobility. Mobilities 2021, 1 -18.

AMA Style

Franziska Meinherz, Livia Fritz. ‘Ecological concerns weren’t the main reason why I took the bus, that association only came afterwards’: on shifts in meanings of everyday mobility. Mobilities. 2021; ():1-18.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Franziska Meinherz; Livia Fritz. 2021. "‘Ecological concerns weren’t the main reason why I took the bus, that association only came afterwards’: on shifts in meanings of everyday mobility." Mobilities , no. : 1-18.

Journal article
Published: 24 February 2020 in European Journal of Futures Research
Reads 0
Downloads 0

The participation of practitioners in transdisciplinary sustainability research has been heralded as a promising tool for producing ‘robust’ knowledge and engendering societal transformations. Although transdisciplinary approaches have been advanced as an effective avenue for generating knowledge positioned to question and transform an unsustainable status quo, the political and power dimensions inherent to such research have hardly been discussed. In this article, we scrutinise the constitution of participation in transdisciplinary research through a power lens. Guided by social theories of power and a relational understanding of participation, we analyse how diverse actors equipped with a variety of material and ideational sources wield power over the subjects, objects, and procedures of participation. We applied a qualitative meta-analysis of five transdisciplinary projects from a major German research funding programme in the field of sustainability to unveil the ways in which the funding body, researchers, and practitioners exercise instrumental, structural, and discursive power over (i) actor selection and (re-)positioning, (ii) agenda setting, and (iii) rule setting. We found that researchers primarily exert instrumental power over these three elements of participation, whereas practitioners as well as the funding body wield primarily structural and discursive power. By elucidating tacit and hidden power dynamics shaping participation in transdisciplinary research, this article provides a basis for improving process design and implementation as well as developing targeted funding instruments. The conclusions also provide insights into barriers of participatory agenda setting in research practice and governance.

ACS Style

Livia Fritz; Claudia R. Binder. Whose knowledge, whose values? An empirical analysis of power in transdisciplinary sustainability research. European Journal of Futures Research 2020, 8, 1 -21.

AMA Style

Livia Fritz, Claudia R. Binder. Whose knowledge, whose values? An empirical analysis of power in transdisciplinary sustainability research. European Journal of Futures Research. 2020; 8 (1):1-21.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Livia Fritz; Claudia R. Binder. 2020. "Whose knowledge, whose values? An empirical analysis of power in transdisciplinary sustainability research." European Journal of Futures Research 8, no. 1: 1-21.

Journal article
Published: 21 October 2019 in Environmental Science & Policy
Reads 0
Downloads 0

In sustainability research, transdisciplinary (TD) approaches that involve practitioners in the research process have emerged as promising tools for enhancing real-world knowledge and engendering societal change. However, empirical insights into how such participation can contribute to the societal effects of TD research are scant and largely rely on single case studies, neglecting practitioners’ perceptions. In this article, we empirically investigate the perceptions of both researchers and practitioners on how practitioners’ participation in TD research might instigate societal changes. We present the results of a qualitative meta-level study of participation processes in seven TD sustainability research projects from a large German research funding programme. Applying a systems approach, we (i) uncover direct, indirect and interlinked participation-effect pathways; and (ii) highlight feedback effects that shape a dynamically evolving participation process. By elucidating both researchers’ and practitioners’ perceptions of participation-effect pathways, this article contributes empirical insights to an emerging scholarship on theories of change in sustainability research and provides ideas on how to better include systems thinking into TD research and future studies of societal effects.

ACS Style

Livia Fritz; Thorsten Schilling; Claudia R. Binder. Participation-effect pathways in transdisciplinary sustainability research: An empirical analysis of researchers’ and practitioners’ perceptions using a systems approach. Environmental Science & Policy 2019, 102, 65 -77.

AMA Style

Livia Fritz, Thorsten Schilling, Claudia R. Binder. Participation-effect pathways in transdisciplinary sustainability research: An empirical analysis of researchers’ and practitioners’ perceptions using a systems approach. Environmental Science & Policy. 2019; 102 ():65-77.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Livia Fritz; Thorsten Schilling; Claudia R. Binder. 2019. "Participation-effect pathways in transdisciplinary sustainability research: An empirical analysis of researchers’ and practitioners’ perceptions using a systems approach." Environmental Science & Policy 102, no. : 65-77.

Journal article
Published: 11 August 2018 in Sustainability
Reads 0
Downloads 0

In the field of sustainability, scholars, and policy-makers herald the transformative power of participation in knowledge production. However, a discrepancy between these expectations and the limited understanding of the complex interactions constituting participation processes can be observed. With the aim of critically analysing these complex interactions, this paper develops a conceptual perspective on participation as a relational space which is formed in the interplay of structures and processes. This perspective is applied to the analysis of empirical literature in sustainability research, development research, and science and technology studies. The literature review guided by the proposed conceptualisation systematically draws together the rich experience with participation in knowledge production. Elements constituting participation spaces along the dimensions ‘structures’ and ‘actors’ are identified and discussed in relation to ‘processes’ of space-making: (i) (in)coherences with reference system, (ii) resources, (iii) timing, (iv) expectations, (v) mutual trust, and (vi) worldviews and values. Power relations are found to pervade the three dimensions. Enhanced conceptual-analytical clarity of the elements constituting participation spaces provides a differentiated basis for discussing the transformative power of participatory knowledge production. By stimulating reflexivity on the making of participation, this approach contributes to better understanding when spaces of participation have the capacity to become spaces of transformation.

ACS Style

Livia Fritz; Claudia Binder. Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2853 .

AMA Style

Livia Fritz, Claudia Binder. Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (8):2853.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Livia Fritz; Claudia Binder. 2018. "Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research." Sustainability 10, no. 8: 2853.