Chapter 6 examines the politics of scientific fields at the level of micro-social interaction by analyzing intellectual conflict between RA members and their detractors in sustainability science. Data include firsthand observations of contentious interactions at academic conferences and detailed analyses of public debates, online forums, and scholarly publications. I identify the main groups in sustainability science with whom RA clashed and provide high-resolution accounts of key episodes of intellectual conflict. I show how RA used conferences to assert their theoretical faith, recruit new adherents, and challenge existing disciplinary boundaries. Competitor groups staged public performances (or “anti-rituals”) to re-establish these boundaries by questioning RA’s scientific faith, publicly shaming them, and desecrating their most sacred symbols. I conclude by showing how these conflicts over legitimacy altered RA’s ideas and those of their critics, leading to creative advances for RA and its competitors.

Chapter 2 describes the Resilience Alliance, resilience theory, and the data and methods on which this investigation is based. It starts by detailing the discovery of resilience as narrated to me by C. S. “Buzz” Holling, RA’s charismatic leader and one of the twentieth century’s most influential ecologists. I then discuss Holling’s early collaborations where he developed, tested, and honed his own theory of group interaction and refined a set of socio-emotional practices for fostering creative group work – methods that he continued to use in RA. The chapter traces RA’s evolution from its beginning as the Resilience Network to becoming one of the main theory groups in sustainability science. Key aspects of resilience theory are outlined, and RA’s intellectual contributions and the immense influence of their ideas are highlighted to demonstrate their impact on sustainability science and how their theory and creative vision diverged from previous scientific understanding. The chapter closes by outlining the methods used in this study, the five longitudinal datasets underpinning this book, and discussing my relationship with RA.