📄 social_science

Constructing sustainability science: a reflexive analysis of the boundary problem to define a scientific field

This paper analyzes 22 scientometric mappings of Sustainability Science to reveal that their reliance on nominalist boundary-setting strategies and weak validation practices leads to wildly divergent field portraits, thereby arguing for a reflexive, transparent, and multi-method approach to delineating interdisciplinary domains.

Original authors: Julien Vanhulst, Alejandro Espinosa-Rada

Published 2026-07-02

📖 5 min read🧠 Deep dive

CC BY 4.0

Original authors: Julien Vanhulst, Alejandro Espinosa-Rada

Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ✨ This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer

Imagine you are trying to draw a map of a new, bustling city called "Sustainability Science." This city is unique because it wasn't built by a single architect; it grew organically, with people from engineering, biology, economics, and sociology all building houses next to each other to solve shared problems.

The paper you provided is a critique of how researchers have tried to draw the borders of this city over the last two decades. The authors, Julien Vanhulst and Alejandro Espinosa-Rada, argue that the way we draw the map doesn't just describe the city; it actually creates the city we see.

Here is the breakdown of their findings using simple analogies:

1. The "Magic Search Box" Problem (The Boundary Issue)

Most researchers tried to map this city by using a giant "Magic Search Box" (a computer keyword search). They typed in words like "sustainability" or "green" and grabbed every document that popped up.

The Analogy: Imagine trying to find everyone in a city who cares about "food." If you just search for the word "food," you might grab recipes, grocery store ads, and biology textbooks about digestion. You get a massive, messy pile of papers.
The Finding: The authors found that 77% of the studies used this simple keyword method. They treated the field as if it were a pre-existing object waiting to be found, rather than realizing that their choice of words decided who got included and who got left out.

2. The "Size Illusion" (Why the Maps Look Different)

Because everyone used different "Magic Search Boxes," the maps they drew looked completely different.

The Analogy: Imagine three people trying to measure the size of a cloud.
- Person A uses a wide net and catches the whole cloud (500,000 papers).
- Person B uses a small sieve and only catches the dense rain in the center (200 papers).
- Person C uses a specific color filter and only catches the blue parts (2,000 papers).
The Finding: The authors showed that depending on the method used, the estimated size of "Sustainability Science" can vary by 300 times (from ~200 papers to over 500,000). The field didn't actually grow that fast; the definition of the field just changed.

3. The "Blind Spot" (Lack of Validation)

When you build a map, you should check if it's accurate. Do the people living in the city agree with your borders?

The Analogy: It's like a tour guide drawing a map of a neighborhood but never asking the residents, "Hey, is this street actually part of the neighborhood?"
The Finding: The authors were shocked to find that 64% of the studies did zero checks to see if their map was right. They didn't ask experts, they didn't test their search terms, and they didn't compare their results to other methods. They just assumed their "Magic Search Box" was perfect.

4. The "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy"

The paper argues that by constantly using the same keywords and journals, researchers are accidentally trapping the field in a box of their own making.

The Analogy: If you only look for "Sustainability Science" in a specific set of magazines, you will only find articles that look like they belong in those magazines. You will miss the brilliant ideas happening in other places. Over time, the field starts to look exactly like the magazines you chose, not like the complex reality of the world.
The Finding: Most studies just copied the search terms from previous studies without questioning them. This created a "cycle" where the same narrow view of the field kept getting repeated, making it seem like that was the only way to see it.

5. The Solution: The "Multi-Lens" Approach

The authors don't say "stop mapping." Instead, they say "stop using just one lens."

The Analogy: Instead of using one pair of glasses, you should wear three different pairs at once:
1. The Keyword Glasses: To catch the broad, messy, new ideas (Discourse).
2. The Venue Glasses: To look at the established journals and institutions (Institutions).
3. The Network Glasses: To see who is actually citing whom and working together (Relationships).
The Recommendation: They propose a simple checklist for future researchers:
- Be honest about your assumptions (e.g., "I am using keywords, so I might miss some things").
- Show your work (publish your search strings).
- Compare your map with a different method to see how much the picture changes.
- Ask experts to double-check your list.

The Bottom Line

The paper concludes that how you look determines what you find.

"Sustainability Science" is a real, growing field, but it is messy and interdisciplinary. If you try to force it into a neat, single definition, you distort the truth. The authors want scientists to stop pretending there is one "correct" map. Instead, they should admit that every map is a choice, show their work, and use multiple methods to get a clearer, more honest picture of the field.