Call for Abstracts for International Sustainability Transitions Conference Hope - In challenging times  [23.02.26]

Call for abstracts for the International Sustainability Transitions Conference 2026

Key dates:

6 Mar 2026, 23:59 CET  – Deadline for abstract submissions

End of Apr 2026 – Notification of decisions to authors 

Early May 2026 – Conference registration opens

26 Jun 2026, 23:59 CET  – Deadline for early-bird registration

26 Jun 2026, 23:59 CET  – Conference registration deadline for presenting authors

26 June 2026, 23:59 CET – Full paper submissions deadline

CULEST is co-organizing Track 12: "Navigating The Meta Level: Worldviews, Sensemaking, and Cultural Evolution in Sustainability Transitions"

For details and link to abstract submission system, please go to https://www.transitionsnetwork.org/ist-2026/call-for-abstracts-ist-26/. 

Track description:

While transitions research has prioritized socio-technical and economic dimensions, a growing body of work argues that transformation requires addressing the cultural “meta” level (Göpel, 2016; Hedlund-de Witt, 2013; Schlaile et al., 2022; 2023).

This includes humans’ worldviews, paradigms, mindsets, and (religious and secular) value systems, which are often considered both a deep cause for unsustainability as well as a potential deep leverage point for systemic change (Ives et al., 2020, 2024; Koehrsen & Ives, 2025; Taveras-Dalmau et al., 2025; Woiwode et al., 2021). As overarching systems of meaning, worldviews shape what people consider to be true, worthwhile, and possible, as well as how they perceive problems, solutions, and their causal relations (De Witt et al., 2015; Schlaile et al., 2017; van den Broek et al., 2024). As Tarnas (2007) put it, “worldviews create worlds”, and as such, they are crucial to sustainability transitions.

While worldviews and paradigms tend to be stable and slow to change, sensemaking is the more dynamic process of giving meaning to events in the world, often expressed in (micro-)narratives, discourses, memes, mental models, or religious repertoires – which may enable or inhibit sustainability transitions (Hector et al., 2025; Riedy & Waddock, 2022; Schlaile et al., 2023, 2024; Stacey, 2024; van den Broek et al., 2024). Differences in sensemaking can therefore help explain why conflicts over transition pathways persist (Bruehwiler et al., 2025; Köhrsen, 2025; Schlaile et al., 2022). Collective sensemaking processes, for example, supported by generative dialogue or transformative learning (De Witt et al., 2024a,b), may also be a vital pathway to worldview change for more sustainable futures.

This relates to an understanding of culture as evolutionary (e.g., McCaffree, 2022; Schlaile et al., 2022), also meaning that humans can develop in the ways they make sense of the world – with their understanding over time increasing in breadth, depth, and complexity, thus becoming more expansive and inclusive, as well as less distorted, egocentric, and reactive (e.g., Kegan & Lahey, 2016; Mezirow, 2009). This evolutionary understanding connects culture to fields like developmental psychology, adult development, transformative education, and the ‘inner dimensions’ of sustainability (e.g., Schlaile et al., 2017; 2022; 2023; Wamsler et al., 2021; Waring & Tremblay, 2016), as well as to transitions research’s intellectual roots in evolutionary theory (e.g., Köhler et al., 2019; van den Bergh et al., 2011).

A related issue is the role of ‘crisis’ in instigating cultural change. This is of growing relevance as humanity faces crises on all fronts, thus potentially constellating at scale the experiences long known to foster profound changes in worldviews and sensemaking (Weber, 1963/1922; Mezirow, 2009; Schlaile et al., 2024). Therefore, transitions research must better understand when and under which conditions crises can open “windows of opportunity” for change in a more sustainable direction.

Contributions and questions
We welcome submissions from all disciplines contributing to these debates, for example, by addressing questions like:

• How do worldviews (paradigms, values, mindsets, etc.) and sensemaking (narratives, memes, discourses, religious repertoires, etc.) obstruct or enable sustainability transitions?
• How do worldviews and sensemaking relate to one another, and how can insights into this relationship be used to foster positive change towards more sustainable futures?
• How can an evolutionary understanding of culture help us facilitate positive change towards more sustainable futures?
• How do worldviews change, and how can change processes be supported?
• How does the experience of crisis instigate changes in culture, worldviews, and sensemaking, and how may this be leveraged for sustainability transitions?
• And what are the differences and overlaps in concepts and frameworks – with different scholarly communities using distinct terminologies for related concepts – that help us navigate the cultural “meta level” of transitions?

Format: Mixed – Full paper presentations and speed talks, ideally with a dedicated synthesis session or panel discussion at the end (the format of this synthesis session depends on the final number of submissions)

Track conveners:
Annick de Witt (Worldview Journeys Foundation, Utrecht University), Jens Köhrsen (University of Oslo), Maja Kofod Jensen (University of Oslo), Michael P. Schlaile (University of Hohenheim), Adrian Wagner (Complexity Partners, Witten/Herdecke University)

Corresponding conveners:
Annick de Witt – annick@worldviewjourneys.com
Michael P. Schlaile – schlaile@uni-hohenheim.de

References

• Bruehwiler, N., Koehrsen, J., Malin, J., Roysen, R., & Kos, L. (2025). Does religious difference have an impact on the diffusion of sustainable innovations? A mixed-methods analysis of ecovillages worldwide. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 57, 101024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2025.101024 
• De Witt, A., Hedlund, N. H., & De Boer, J. (2015). Climate change and the clash of worldviews: An exploration of how to move forward in a polarized debate. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 50(4), 906–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12226 
• De Witt, A., Bootsma, M., Dermody, B.J., & Rebel, K. (2024a). Designing transformative interventions for a world in crisis: How the ‘Worldview Journey’ invites for personal, cultural, and systems transformation. Environmental Science and Policy, 162, 103896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103896 
• De Witt, A., Bootsma, M., Dermody, B.J., & Rebel, K. (2024b). The Seven-Step Learning Journey: A learning cycle supporting design, facilitation, and assessment of transformative learning. Journal of Transformative Education, 22(3), 229-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/15413446231220317 
• Göpel, M. (2016). The great mindshift. Springer.
• Hector, V., Friedrich, J., Schlaile, M.P., Panagiotou, A., & Bieling, C. (2025). From farm to table: Uncovering narratives of agency and responsibility for change among actors along agri-food value chains in Germany. Agriculture and Human Values, 42, 1805–1827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-025-10732-1 
• Hedlund-de Witt, A. (2013). Worldviews and their significance for the global sustainable development debate. Environmental Ethics, 35(2), 133–162. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics201335215 
• Ives, C. D., Freeth, R., & Fischer, J. (2020). Inside-out sustainability: The neglect of inner worlds. Ambio, 49, 208–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w 
• Ives, C.D., Kidwell, J.H., Anderson, C.B., Arias-Arévalo, P., Gould, R.K., Kenter, J.O., & Murali, R. (2024). The role of religion in shaping the values of nature. Ecology and Society, 29(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-15004-290210 
• Kegan, R., & Lahey, L.L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business School Publishing.
• Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S., … Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 
• Köhrsen, J. (2025). Innovation and religion. In I. Schulz-Schaeffer, A. Windeler, & B. Blättel-Mink (Eds.), Handbook of innovation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25143-6_5-1 
• Koehrsen, J., & Ives, C. (2025). The multiple roles of religious actors in advancing a sustainable future. Ambio, 54, 1318–1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-025-02166-0 
• McCaffree, K. (2022). Cultural evolution: The empirical and theoretical landscape. Routledge.
• Mezirow, J.(2009). An overview on transformative learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 90-105), Routledge.
• Riedy, C., & Waddock, S. (2022). Imagining transformation: Change agent narratives of sustainable futures. Futures, 142, 103010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103010 
• Schlaile, M.P., Hector, V., Peters, L., Bäuerle, L., Smith, B., Hilt, A., & Graupe, S. (2024). Innovation amidst turmoil: A SenseMaker study of managerial responses to the COVID-19 crisis in Germany. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 43(1), 285-318. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.pr1.0154 
• Schlaile, M.P., Kask, J., Brewer, J., Bogner, K., Urmetzer, S., & De Witt, A. (2022). Proposing a cultural evolutionary perspective for dedicated innovation systems: Bioeconomy transitions and beyond. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 38(2), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.pr1.0108 
• Schlaile, M.P., Urmetzer, S., Blok, V., Andersen, A.D., Timmermans, J., Mueller, M., Fagerberg, J., & Pyka, A. (2017). Innovation systems for transformations towards sustainability? Taking the normative dimension seriously. Sustainability, 9(12), 2253. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122253 
• Schlaile, M.P., Veit, W., & Boudry, M. (2023). Memes. In K. Dopfer, R.R. Nelson, J. Potts, & A. Pyka (Eds.), Routledge handbook of evolutionary economics (pp. 235-248). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429398971-20 
• Stacey, T. (2024). Religious repertoires of sustainability: Why religion is central to sustainability transitions, whatever you believe. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 50, 100821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100821 
• Tarnas, R. (2007). Cosmos and psyche. Plume Printing.
• Taveras-Dalmau, V., Becken, S., & Westoby, R. (2025). From paradigm blindness to paradigm shift? An integrative review and critical analysis of the regenerative paradigm. Ambio, 54, 1985-2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-025-02232-7 
• van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Truffer, B., & Kallis, G. (2011). Environmental innovation and societal transitions: Introduction and overview. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.04.010 
• van den Broek, K. L., Negro, S. O., & Hekkert, M. P. (2024). Mapping mental models in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 51, 100855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100855 
• Wamsler, C., Osberg, G., Osika, W., Herndersson, H., & Mundaca, L. (2021). Linking internal and external transformation for sustainability and climate action: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Global Environmental Change, 71, 102373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102373 
• Waring, T.M., & Tremblay, E. (2016). An evolutionary approach to sustainability science (with comment). Cliodynamics, 7(1), 119-167. https://doi.org/10.21237/C7clio7131139 
• Weber, M. (1922/1963). The sociology of religion. Beacon Press.
• Woiwode, C., Schäpke, N., Bina, O., Veciana, S., Kunze, I., Parodi, O., Schweizer-Ries, P., & Wamsler, C. (2021). Inner transformation to sustainability as a deep leverage point: fostering new avenues for change through dialogue and reflection. Sustainability Science, 16, 841-858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00882-y 

Back to News