No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Scientists’ Situated Knowledge: Strong Objectivity in Transdisciplinarity
Abstract
Although transdisciplinary research has started addressing important epistemological challenges, as evidenced by the discussion about ‘mode 2’ knowledge production, its relation with postulations of ‘scientific objectivity’ is not yet well clarified. A common way of dealing with the epistemological challenge of situated knowledge production, as proposed by transdisciplinarity, is to point to the fundamental aspect of reflexivity. But reflexivity also includes being aware that power and control over the object is derived from the social position of researchers, an issue not often explicitly discussed in transdisciplinary research. Reflexivity thus represents an important but insufficient principle for guaranteeing appropriate levels of self-reflection within a process of knowledge coproduction. We therefore hypothesize that transdisciplinary research could greatly benefit from feminist scientific tradition, in particular the insights of standpoint theory and the concept of ‘strong objectivity’. We analyse, and reflect upon, how a recent transdisciplinary research initiative – conducted together with civil society organizations in (CSOs) in six countries: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ecuador and India – has benefited from the use of ‘strong objectivity’. We analyse how the social position of all stakeholders, including ourselves as the scientific actors in this initiative, influence the process and conditions of transdisciplinary knowledge co-production, and we discuss how power and control by scientists affects the process and conditions of interaction. Thereby we argue for the necessity of explicitly assuming sides in contested contexts for reaching objectivity in transdisciplinary research.
... Where technology is used exclusively to mediate public service delivery, that technology becomes an enabler or a barrier to effective and accountable service delivery to the people, due to existing power dynamics between different actors (Rosendahl et al. 2015;Ndaka & Majiwa 2024). It is possible, therefore, that the earliest digital interventions in the electoral process exhibit clear challenges in the inclusion of 'lay people' in the design of technology used. ...
... Contrary to the public framings and expectations, evidence has proved that technologies use and rely on very complex procedures that are not only invisible in sophistication (Dieffenbach et al 2022), but are intrinsically liable to break down (Cheeseman et al., 2018;Mathe, 2020;Mosero, 2022) and/or exhibit other socio-ethical and socio-legal issues. For instance, emerging technologies like AI have been shown to carry biases that emanate from design and training data (Diefenbach et al. 2022;Rosendahl et al. 2015;Boulamwaini & Gebru 2018). In many instances, therefore, digital technology has not only failed to achieve the promised outcomes and hence failed to meet situated public expectations (Fazey & Fischer 2009). ...
... This raises an intrinsic challenge in the digital system that must question how high the barriers of IP should be if an electoral system has to remain 'trustworthy' within situated socio-material dynamics. IP practices are, however, rhetorically framed questions around specific pieces of intellectual property and are dominantly defined by dominant knowledge groups who have historically dictated how scientific processes and related practices take shape (Ayris & Rose, 2023;Rosendahl et al., 2015). These circles argue that low barriers offer low protection, while high barriers offer protection against competitors (Bartow 2007). ...
Globally, people widely regard technology as a solution to global social problems. In a democratic society, its citizens view technology as a way to ensure commitment and sustaining the nation's democracy by allowing them to participate actively in the democratic process. However, despite the hype surrounding technology and development, many developing countries still experience democratic challenges. The democratic challenges have further led to barriers that shape the political landscape, resulting in delusion, disappointment, and failures in the democratic and public good processes, such as the electoral process. This paper explores the relationship between intellectual property (IP) practices and the adoption of digital technologies used in democratic electoral processes. Specifically, it examines how the prioritisation of IP by technology service providers can disrupt socio-material relationships in democratic electoral processes and outcomes. Because of the hard boundaries associated with IP it creates an environment where the systems are controlled solely by technology IP owners, while the consequences of electoral processes are borne by citizens. This questions the response-ability and trust-ability of digital technologies in running democratic processes. Drawing from the parallels in Kenya's general elections of 2017 and 2022, this paper illustrates how IP practices form a hard boundary that impels technology owners to micromanage electoral processes, leading to tensions that potentially create conflict. This finding can be used by decision-makers to adopt digital technologies and protect IP without compromising electoral processes and disrupting relationships in the wider society.
... In recent years, scholars conducting transdisciplinary research in the Global South have identified numerous challenges attached to this method. Both generally and in specific relation to this book, three sets of challenges are of great significance: (1) the technical problems of language, funding, and discontinuous participation; (2) the local particularities of authoritarian political governance and social norms; and (3) the power relations between stakeholders (Rosendahl et al. 2015;Siew et al. 2016;Schmidt and Pröpper 2017;Djenontin and Meadow 2018;Bréthaut et al. 2019). In commenting on the goal of knowledge coproduction, Laura Schmidt and Michael Pröpper noted just how hard such challenges can be to anticipate, overcome, and acknowledge: "the realisation of this ideal proves more difficult than expected-and often, more difficult than is admitted in the literature" (2017: 366). ...
... The report argues that the challenges of transdisciplinary studies, as cited in the literature, emerged during the SSRCL, making the project often laborious and the knowledge copro-In recent years, many scholars have reviewed transdisciplinary projects in the Global South. The targeted issues in the projects range from environmental to societal problems: water pollution (Tempelhoff 2013), natural-resource management (Rosendahl et al. 2015;Siew et al. 2016;Schmidt & Michael Pröpper 2017), climate change (Djenontin and Meadow 2018), biodiversity conservation (Bréthaut et al. 2019), and food security (Shilenge 2016). Many these cited scholars discussed the challenges that emerged in the course of these transdisciplinary studies. ...
... These researchers identified the technical challenges mentioned above and observed that the interactions between German stakeholders and African stakeholders "reproduced North-South power asymmetries and dependencies" (2017: 376). In addition, Judith Rosendahl et al. (2015) reviewed the Pro-Poor Resource Governance under Changing Climates (ProPoorGov) Project, conducted by the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) with six civil society organisations (CSOs) in six countries: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ecuador, and India (Rosendahl et al. 2015: 19). Similar to Schmidt and Pröpper, Rosendahl and her colleagues noted power relations between academic and non-academic stakeholders (Rosendahl et al. 2015). ...
... A number of TPGSs have been undertaken in recent years (Br ethaut et al., 2019;Djenontin & Meadow, 2018;Rosendahl et al., 2015;Schmidt & Pr€ opper, 2017;Siew et al., 2016). In overseeing these projects, scholars have identified such challenges as language barriers and unexpected funding expenses (Djenontin & Meadow, 2018, pp. ...
... Transdisciplinarian scholars discussing the challenges besetting TPGSs focus mainly on the methodological dimension (Br ethaut et al., 2019;Djenontin & Meadow, 2018;Rosendahl et al., 2015;Schmidt & Pr€ opper, 2017;Siew et al., 2016). In other words, we have been practicing the very simplification and reductionism that transdisciplinarity opposes. ...
... In recent years, scholars have extended the transdisciplinary paradigm to the Global South by collaborating with local stakeholders. The collaborations have usually dealt with problems such as environmental degradation, natural-resource management, and climate change (Br ethaut et al., 2019;Djenontin & Meadow, 2018;Rosendahl et al., 2015;Schmidt & Pr€ opper, 2017;Siew et al., 2016). Tuck Fatt Siew et al. (2016) reviewed four projects in China, the Philippines, and Vietnam. ...
... The construction of scientific research questions from complex sustainability problems from every day realities allows the objects of study to be clearly identified and solutions specific enough to work and be useful to be developed (Jahn, 2008;Schneidewind, 2001). As a result, "win-win" situations can be created for all parties involved while dealing with issues that cannot be solved individually while creating a sense of ownership, accountability, and legitimacy (Lang et al., 2012;Rosendahl et al., 2015;Wamsler, 2017). Hence, 4 Deliberate process of structural change in a normative direction (Feola, 2015). ...
... Through transdisciplinary research, socially robust and situated knowledge is co-created, fostering a sense of ownership and legitimacy (Gibbons et al., 1994;Mauser et al., 2013;Rosendahl et al., 2015;Spangenberg, 2011). It is expected that over time transdisciplinarity will mainstream the research world as a new science. ...
... Rosendhal et al. (2015) in a transdisciplinarity research project about pro-poor resource governance in six countries (including Bolivia), adopted the Harding (1991) Standpoint Theory and strong objectivity. Adopting Standpoint Theory and strong objectivity rather than a "neutral objectivity", will give researchers a greater reflection on power relations and their influence on the research process (Rolin, 2009;Rosendahl et al., 2015). This will result in a greater contribution to resource governance. ...
... However, the dismantling of hierarchies in transdisciplinary teams -be it between scientific actors or between science and practice -is a very demanding and lengthy challenge. It is particularly so in transnational teams, in which gendered, professional, and racialized hierarchies are complicated by the North-South divide, and postcolonial axes of domination and marginalization (Rosendahl, Zanella, Rist, & Weigelt, 2015;Schmidt & Neuburger, 2017; see also Dannecker, 2020, this issue). A successful reorganization of knowledge production under transdisciplinarity will crucially depend on whether the team is able to become a collaborative team. ...
... Many publications seem to offer some kind of application instructions for participative social science research (Gaziulusoy & Boyle, 2013;Polk, 2015). In their evaluation of transdisciplinary projects, Rosendahl et al. (2015) examine the practice of collaboration and relations on equal footing across power imbalances from a critical, feminist perspective. They argue for a refined distinction of the different steps, which, they say, will enable researchers to pay more attention to different perspectives and power imbalances throughout the project and hence increase the likelihood of strong objectivity in the research outcomes. ...
... Contextualization through communication and translation (Nowotny, 2006) and what Rose (1997) has termed reflexive positionality 6 are stressed as necessary preconditions to identify and formulate shared problems. However, Rosendahl et al. (2015) claim that this often remains at the level of lip service. In a relationship that is characterized by power imbalance, the establishment of formal equality seems to be not enough. ...
... Of those, even fewer address the relevance (and provide examples) of dialogue and exchange between science and indigenous knowledge (Athayde et al., 2017;Lahsen & Nobre, 2007), science and local knowledge in the urban context (Souza et al., 2020), and science and the arts (Athayde et al., 2017). Some addressed the potential interplay of methods, such as Rosendahl et al. (2015), who propose that transdisciplinary research, a mainstay of sustainability science, could greatly benefit from the feminist scientific tradition of self-reflexivity, by employing concepts such as situated knowledge and strong objectivity (Ribeiro, 2016). ...
... Lastly, by gathering organizers and participants of the movements in the co-authorship of this paper, together with sustainability science teachers and academics who participate in one or more of these movements, we dealt with the data by using the transdisciplinary mode of knowledge production. Following Michael Gibbons, this includes five components: (1) multiple interactions between a larger number of experts and sites of expertise; (2) different forms of knowledge and actors representing them; (3) science leaving the academic field and 'meeting the public'; (4) allowing this exercise to speak back to science, with peoples' interests, concerns, and perspectives entering science; and (5) providing essential data for every aspect of the research process (Gibbons, 2000;Rosendahl et al., 2015). We approached these components by establishing a reflexive conversation among ourselves, looking for consents and dissents, based on the evidence gathered in steps one and two of our methodology (Lang et al., 2012). ...
Non-technical summary
Brazil – one of the world's largest biocultural diversities – faces high rates of habitat loss, social inequality, and land conflicts impacting indigenous and local peoples. To challenge that, Brazilian sustainability science and education needs to be strengthened. We searched for elements in ongoing bottom-up sustainability social movements that can help serve that purpose. We found values, contents, and attitudes that, if incorporated into Brazilian sustainability science and education, can assist its transformative potential by reflecting local voices and critically engaging with (often-hegemonic) northern concepts.
Technical summary
In Brazil, a strong sustainability science and education is required to confront ‘glocal’ issues such as zoonotic pandemics and climate change, which are worsened by rampant ecosystem loss and social vulnerability. However, a largely disciplinary university system has been slow to meet these urgent needs. To address if and how dialogical processes with non-academics can prompt integration between distinct types of knowledge, we analyze four bottom-up sustainability initiatives that promote dialogues between science, the arts, religion, youth, and indigenous and local knowledge, and reflect on lessons learnt with movement organizers, scientists, and educators – the authors of this paper. Although sustainability science produced in dialogue with other forms of knowledge is still emerging in Brazil, we find that bottom-up initiatives outside academia can inspire science and education to approach sustainability as wholeness – a state of balance to be fulfilled when reached individually, collectively, and cosmically. We discuss how to approach a transdisciplinary and reflexive attitude in Brazilian sustainability science and education, and highlight its unique contribution to frontier topics in global sustainability debates.
Social media summary
Social movements’ values, contents, and attitudes can inspire transformative Brazilian sustainability science and education.
... In the African context for instance, AI systems will likely continue historical legacies and enforce dominant knowledge systems and norms . Thus, different populations will be impacted differently by AI for many reasons including privileges, or lack of thereof , their socio-political positioning, their ubercapital, missing voices in STEM and decision making spaces (Fourcade & Healy, 2017;Rosendahl et al., 2015). ...
... Lack of diversity in AI development teams may lead to homogeneous teams transferring their assumptions and cognitive biases in the development process, resulting in unbalanced and unfair outcomes (Ndaka & Majiwa 2024;Hall & Ellis, 2023;Rosendahl et al.,2015). While text and voice-based conversational agents (CAs) have become increasingly popular (Feine et al., 2020), the design of most commercial voice-based CAs leans more towards specific gender as highlighted by UNESCO study . ...
The study examines how ontonorms propagate certain gender practices in digital spaces through character and the norms of spaces that shape AI design, training and use. Additionally the study explores the different user behaviours and practices regarding whether, how, when, and why different gender groups engage in and with AI driven spaces. By examining how data and content can knowingly or unknowingly be used to drive certain social norms in the AI ecosystems, this study argues that ontonorms shape how AI engages with the content that relates to women. Ontonorms specifically shape the image, behaviour, and other media, including how gender identities and perspectives are intentionally or otherwise, included, missed, or misrepresented in building and training AI systems.
... Individual configurations of the same unfold, helping visualize researchers' positionality with regard to their situatedness within knowledge fields, paradigms, and personal situated accounts that inform study and research (Rose 1997). Within transdisciplinary research and learning, this procedure also takes on cultural and social situatedness while taking values and norms into consideration (Rosendahl et al. 2015). Boundary work allows for visualizing situated relations of researchers or learners with each other (Klein 2010). ...
... Lux et al. 2019); and the normative dimension of transdisciplinary research (e.g. Popa et al. 2015;Rosendahl et al. 2015). ...
What is transdisciplinarity – and what are its methods? How does a living lab work? What is the purpose of citizen science, student-organized teaching and cooperative education? This handbook unpacks key terms and concepts to describe the range of transdisciplinary learning in the context of academic education. Transdisciplinary learning turns out to be a comprehensive innovation process in response to the major global challenges such as climate change, urbanization or migration. A reference work for students, lecturers, scientists, and anyone wanting to understand the profound changes in higher education.
Join the book launch event on 8 September 2023 in Berlin!
https://www.tu.berlin/en/go218779
... Values plurality, however, can lead to tensions about how to account for and manage value expressions underpinned by different knowledge systems at the science-policy interface . Especially the inter-and transdisciplinary methods utilized in science-policy processes require researchers and experts involved to contemplate their own and others' social positions and epistemic beliefs (Rosendahl et al., 2015) and to reflect on how to engage diverse actors towards a common understanding of the problem at hand, while also taking power dynamics into account (Hakkarainen et al., 2022). Indeed, despite its aim to weave together scientific, Indigenous, and local knowledge (ILK), even the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has been critiqued for not having adequate mechanisms in place to navigate the power relations and potential dissonance among participants with diverse epistemologies, given that the platform's current focus on consensus and standardisation may come at the expense of plurality (Díaz-Reviriego, 2019;Dunkley et al., 2018;Löfmarck and Lidskog, 2017;Turnhout et al., 2014). ...
... The literature has highlighted the need of researchers to reflect the concept of 'strong objectivity' and the social positions of themselves and others involved in any inter-and transdisciplinary processes (Hakkarainen et al., 2022;Rosendahl et al., 2015). We advance this literature by demonstrating how different epistemic worldviews learned to reflect their social positions. ...
This longitudinal study explores evidence of learning and reflexivity among experts involved in the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Values Assessment from 2018 to 2022. As part of an online survey administered at yearly intervals, experts self-reported their views on: i) the aims they attributed to the Values Assessment, ii) their epistemic worldviews, iii) the definition of the multiple values of nature, and iv) their personal learning experiences in the assessment process. The represented epistemic worldviews corresponded to Constructivist, Transformative, Pragmatist, and Post-positivist. Across the three surveys, 59% of the respondents shifted their epistemic worldviews. However, these same experts did not change their core perspectives regarding the motivation behind the Values Assessment. At the same time, experts holding a Post-positivist worldview came to express more engagement-inclined themes and openness to dialogue with diverse knowledge systems. While enhanced reflexivity stimulated overall learning, cutting across all learning dimensions, it was itself a multilayered learning outcome. This study illustrates how diverse experts critically reflected and changed their own underlying assumptions during the inter- and transdisciplinary process of the Values Assessment. It further reveals that learning experiences in the Values Assessment were embedded in epistemic worldviews and connected to cognitive, relational, and transformative dimensions of learning. Our findings have broader implications for the design of inclusive and reflexive learning processes in future work of organisations aiming to facilitate inter- and transdisciplinary practices at the science-policy interface.
... Research studies also highlight the role of socio-political factors on reflexivity [14,15,[27][28][29]. As such, researchers argue that unequal power relations among diverse groups (across age, class, gender, ethnicity, race, and politics) could affect research participants' engagement and reflection in the knowledge co-production processes [14,15,[27][28][29]. ...
... Research studies also highlight the role of socio-political factors on reflexivity [14,15,[27][28][29]. As such, researchers argue that unequal power relations among diverse groups (across age, class, gender, ethnicity, race, and politics) could affect research participants' engagement and reflection in the knowledge co-production processes [14,15,[27][28][29]. For example, Bojórquez-Tapia, Eakin, Hernández-Aguilar, and Shelton [27] contend that in the presence of influential actors and sectors in participatory meetings, there is little room for marginalized views to be reflected and incorporated into projects. ...
In sustainability science, the research is expected to go beyond disciplinary thinking and incorporate different concepts, methods, and data to explore nature–society interactions at different levels and scales. In realizing these expectations, reflexivity is often noted as an influential factor in inter- and transdisciplinary research processes in sustainability science, wherein researchers reflect on their assumptions, judgments, roles, and positions in the research processes, rethink their ways of knowing and doing, and open up new possibilities for actions. Despite the growing literature on the notion of reflexivity in sustainability science and how it emerges during the research processes, the debates and discussions are often based on lessons learned from sustainability research projects, drawing on individuals’ experiences and motivations. This paper aims to grapple with the notion of reflexivity from a structural point of view, which is less discussed in sustainability research, by drawing on critical realist literature. The paper first presents how reflexivity is understood and analyzed in inter- and transdisciplinary research processes by reviewing the recent studies of reflexivity in sustainability science research. Second, it highlights the knowledge gaps and the need to engage with an alternative view on reflexivity offered by Margaret Archer, one of the leading critical realist scholars. Third, it takes Archer’s framework on reflexivity into sustainability research to explain the causal mechanisms impeding the emergence of meta-reflexivity in the process of knowledge integration and production in contemporary marketized and managerialized universities. Finally, the paper argues that in establishing practices (modus vivendi) that could address the structural barriers (not observable challenges), we need collective agency. To this end, it discusses different collective initiatives and courses of action that could lead to the emergence of collective agency, capable of tackling the cultural and material barriers to reflexivity.
... Autoethnography is a combination of biography (lived experiences) and ethnography (study of the cultural context in which these experiences happened) [44]. The first draft of this manuscript was the result of deep self-reflective work [45] by the first and second authors, who had been involved as facilitators and observers in the co-creation process that became the collaborative autoethnography [46]. These two authors organised and attended numerous live and online community meetings and co-creation sessions in Brussels in 2019 and 2021 that were related to sustainable care, plant medicine, environment, biodiversity and health, nature connection, and nature-based health practices. ...
... Thus, the co-creation approach with different stakeholders implies stepping beyond one's comfort zone, tolerating discomfort, and transcending individualist interests to form a shared collective purpose by co-evolving or transforming the relationships by creating new identities and knowledge. Hence, before proceeding to the experimental stages, the BHG project highlighted the need for self-reflection about its position and the preconceptions about situated knowledge it brought [45] as well as for mutual understanding and agreement on common definitions (e.g., health, garden, nature, resilience, community, sustainability). This implied creating a collective safe space that allowed addressing topics with transparency and care; unlearning humancentric blindness to realities; and rediscovering the plurality and different worldviews, even within a city. ...
The main purpose of this study was to provide a critique of the depoliticising funding call for co-creation research on urban resilience and sustainability while advocating that urban sustainability should remain political and require a political sphere. This study illustrated the invisible costs of undertaking co-creation research and, more specifically, the power imbalance between different groups of co-researchers, which creates tensions. Our research on the case study of the Brussels Health Gardens (BHG) project illustrated how a policy instrument such as a funding call depoliticised urban sustainability and nature-based health knowledge and failed to integrate sufficient resources, such as the time needed to care for science, society, and the self. While previous research focused on successful applications across different scales and places, we illustrated the costs and tensions created by an application that was accepted and funded in the first stage and rejected in the second stage. Vulnerable groups, immigrants, and women tried to access the financial resources that were provided by a regional funding application to communicate nature-based health knowledge in their cities, neighbourhoods, and communities while working together with academic institutions. Two authors were involved in all phases of this project and contributed a collaborative autoethnography of the tensions that were experienced during the project co-creation and their perceived causes. The third author interviewed other co-researchers and focused on the tensions. Several tensions were linked with those observed in other co-creation research (inclusion versus control; impact versus solution; and the research topic of health, which is a boundary object), whereas some tensions were linked with the systems of Brussels (and beyond), ecological modernist priorities, and academic entrepreneurial system. The empirical data of both the lived experiences of the first and second authors, enriched with findings of interviews, contribute to the underexplored body of knowledge and critiques on the depoliticisation by ecological modernist research and policy priorities in Europe.
... Transdisciplinary pedagogy followed thereafter with the intent of better preparing students, especially those at the graduate level, to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries and with diverse stakeholder groups beyond the academy (Klein, 2008;Neuhauser and Pohl, 2015). Transdisciplinarity comes with concerns over power differentials that favor some disciplinary and/or stakeholder agendas, while marginalizing others (Rosendahl et al., 2015). Rosendahl and colleagues point out that "different stakeholders necessarily bring their preexisting power to the transdisciplinary process, creating a situation of power asymmetry" (p. ...
... In the current case, we introduced entrepreneurship as an iterative and agentic process and mentored students about the importance of mitigating transdisciplinary power asymmetries through consistent reflection and flexibility (McGregor, 2017;Rosendahl et al., 2015). Such reflection should spur students to explore how they contribute to and are influenced by perspectives, positions and privileges that are rooted in disciplinary fields and organizational settings. ...
Purpose
There is pressure to transform graduate education in ways that better prepare and socialize students for academic careers that require entrepreneurial activities and/or professional pathways outside of academia. The inclusion of entrepreneurial learning in graduate curricula and programs is one strategy for responding to such calls. Yet, there lacks an understanding of how graduate students outside of the business fields make sense of entrepreneurial content relevant to their academic interests and career aspirations. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to explore entrepreneurial sensemaking by non-business graduate students enrolled in a transdisciplinary entrepreneurship course.
Design/methodology/approach
A single case study design was used to explore how seven nonbusiness graduate students in a transdisciplinary entrepreneurial leadership course made sense of entrepreneurial content relevant to their academic interests and career aspirations. Data were collected through direct observations, semi-structured interviews and the administration of an entrepreneurial leadership proclivity assessment tool.
Findings
Through experiential learning intentionally centering entrepreneurship, graduate students acquire entrepreneurial knowledge in ways that enhance their agency and sense of empowerment without diluting or overriding their academic and/or professional intentions.
Practical implications
Sensemaking is framed as a pedagogical resource for fostering the integration of entrepreneurial content in transdisciplinary graduate courses and experiences in ways that align with and support the academic interests and career aspirations of individual students.
Originality/value
A novel entrepreneurial sensemaking approach to the integration of entrepreneurial content with transdisciplinary curricula that is directly responsive to calls for graduate education transformation is introduced.
... Values plurality, however, can lead to tensions about how to account for and manage value expressions underpinned by different knowledge systems at the science-policy interface . Especially the inter-and transdisciplinary methods utilized in science-policy processes require researchers and experts involved to contemplate their own and others' social positions and epistemic beliefs (Rosendahl et al., 2015) and to reflect on how to engage diverse actors towards a common understanding of the problem at hand, while also taking power dynamics into account (Hakkarainen et al., 2022). Indeed, despite its aim to weave together scientific, Indigenous, and local knowledge (ILK), even the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has been critiqued for not having adequate mechanisms in place to navigate the power relations and potential dissonance among participants with diverse epistemologies, given that the platform's current focus on consensus and standardisation may come at the expense of plurality (Díaz-Reviriego, 2019;Dunkley et al., 2018;Löfmarck and Lidskog, 2017;Turnhout et al., 2014). ...
... The literature has highlighted the need of researchers to reflect the concept of 'strong objectivity' and the social positions of themselves and others involved in any inter-and transdisciplinary processes (Hakkarainen et al., 2022;Rosendahl et al., 2015). We advance this literature by demonstrating how different epistemic worldviews learned to reflect their social positions. ...
... All knowledge is inevitably situated and partial, and management strategies that are limited to a few forms of knowledge have limited capacity to generate innovative solutions to complex problems (Haraway, 1988;Matos, 2015;Rosendahl et al., 2015). Transdisciplinary knowledge co-production that embeds scientific and non-scientific knowledge into research and decision-making processes has become a popular, yet difficult, objective within water governance (Brugnach and Özerol, 2019). ...
... Restructuring e-flows management to acknowledge researchers and agency representatives as distinct stakeholders akin to community and Indigenous peoples opens new avenues of collaboration and creates space for dialogue between the groups. Researchers and agency representatives can play a meaningful role in knowledge creation when framed as stakeholders with unique sets of values, data, and knowledge (Rosendahl et al., 2015). Placing researchers and agency reps amongst other stakeholders allows them to make their values and perspectives explicit. ...
Rivers are dynamic social-ecological systems that support societies and ecosystems in a multitude of ways, giving rise to a variety of user groups and competing interests. Environmental flows (e-flows) programs developed to protect riverine environments are often conceived by water managers and researchers. This is despite continued calls for increased public participation to include local communities and Indigenous peoples in the development process. Failure to do so undermines social legitimacy and program effectiveness. In this paper, we describe how adaptive management of e-flows allows an opportunity to incorporate a diversity of stakeholder views through an iterative process. However, to achieve this, stakeholder engagement must be intentionally integrated into the adaptive management cycle. Stakeholder engagement in e-flows allows for the creation of a shared understanding of a river and opens collaborative and innovative management strategies that address multiple axes of uncertainty. Here, we describe a holistic framework that unifies current participatory engagement attempts and existing technical methods into a complete strategy. The framework identifies the primary steps in an e-flows adaptive management cycle, describes potential roles of various stakeholders, and proposes potential engagement tools. Restructuring e-flows methods to adequately include stakeholders requires a shift from being driven by deliverables, such as reports and flow recommendations, to focusing on people-oriented outcomes, such as continuous learning and fostering relationships. While our work has been placed in the context of e-flows, the intentional integration of stakeholder engagement in adaptive management is pertinent to natural resources management generally.
... In this sense, the participation of different actors in sustainability transformation projects adds consequentiality to the process, which refers to the possibility of the participants influencing the outcomes (Dryzek, 2009;Wamsler, 2017). Going beyond consultation, participation then also means participation in knowledge co-creation, as well as in decision-making (Polk, 2015;Rosendahl et al., 2015). "Research knowledge" can broadly refer to the knowledge that emerges from research projects in different forms and expressions. ...
... This relationship is made possible through the integration of different forms of knowledge represented by different actors, both academic and non-academic. Since we understood sustainability transformation as a structural change involving alterations of worldviews, values, agency, power relations, social networks, ecosystems, and physical infrastructure (Schneider et al., 2019a(Schneider et al., ,2019b, such a transformation can only occur when there is a reflection on researchers' roles and power relations that influence co-creation as well as the utilization of research knowledge in a process of empowerment (Rosendahl et al., 2015;Clark et al., 2016;Schmidt and Pröpper, 2017;Marshall et al., 2018). Empowerment in our sample was related to project activities and actors at the local level (4.2.2). ...
Our study aimed at understanding the utilization of research knowledge generated in sustainable development research. Drawing on a sample of 54 recent research projects, we investigated how and by whom the knowledge was used, what changes were achieved, and how non-academic actors were involved. As a conceptual framework we combined a concept of "stages of knowledge utilization" with a spiral model that co-creates three forms of knowledge - systems knowledge, target knowledge, and transformation knowledge, and which spans from joint problem definition to concrete sustainability transformations. We analysed questionnaires from 94 academic and non-academic actors using cross-tabulation, chi-squared tests, and qualitative content analysis. The early involvement of non-academic actors from key groups such as local enterprises was positively related to the utilization of research knowledge, as was their involvement in diverse roles. However, only little of the research knowledge generated has so far resulted in changes in policy and practice, partly because sustainability transformations are larger societal processes. Utilization of research knowledge for sustainability transformations cannot be achieved without employing a transdisciplinary approach that brings together academic and non-academic actors in a setting that enables discussions on an even footing and the empowering of actors who are often not heard. In such settings, researchers are also part of the change rather than mere observers, an additional factor that came up in our participatory results validation activities and that requires further research. For more influence on policies and practice, research for development requires active participation of non-academic actors from the outset, when the project contents are defined.
... Meinherz 2020,Herberg und Vilsmaier 2020, Rosendahl et al. 2015. Das gilt auch für konzeptuelle und analytische Ansätze, wie für Forschung zu Methoden(Lawrence 2015, Defila und Di Giulio 2019, zu Qualitätskriterien, Wirkung und Evaluation(Lux et al. 2019, Schneider et al. 2019 sowie zum normativen Gehalt transdisziplinärer Forschung(Popa et al. 2015, Rosendahl et al. 2015). ...
... Meinherz 2020,Herberg und Vilsmaier 2020, Rosendahl et al. 2015. Das gilt auch für konzeptuelle und analytische Ansätze, wie für Forschung zu Methoden(Lawrence 2015, Defila und Di Giulio 2019, zu Qualitätskriterien, Wirkung und Evaluation(Lux et al. 2019, Schneider et al. 2019 sowie zum normativen Gehalt transdisziplinärer Forschung(Popa et al. 2015, Rosendahl et al. 2015). Die Bearbeitung von Schnittstellen zu verwandten oder benachbarten Forschungstraditionen dynamisiert den Diskurs ebenso. ...
Was genau ist ein Reallabor? Wie funktioniert Service Learning? Wozu dienen Praktikum, Citizen Science und Duales Studium? Dieses Handbuch erläutert zentrale Begriffe der jüngeren wissenschaftstheoretischen Debatte in ihren Auswirkungen auf Hochschullehre und Bildungsperspektiven. Transdisziplinarität erschließt sich auf diese Weise als umfassendes Innovationsgeschehen in Reaktion auf die großen globalen Herausforderungen dieser Tage – etwa Klimawandel, Urbanisierung oder Migration. Ein praktisches Nachschlagewerk für Studierende, Lehrende und alle, die die tiefgreifenden Veränderungen der Hochschulbildung im Zuge transformativer Wissenschaft verstehen wollen.
... Allerdings greifen jüngere Arbeiten zunehmend die Verkürzung und Abschattung wesentlicher epistemologischer, methodologischer und ethisch-politischer Fragestellungen auf. Arbeiten zu Machtverhältnissen sowie zum Zusammenhang sozialer und epistemischer Kontrolle in transdisziplinären Forschungsprozessen tragen zur Auf hellung dieser blinden Flecken bei , Fritz und Meinherz 2020, Herberg und Vilsmaier 2020, Rosendahl et al. 2015. Das gilt auch für konzeptuelle und analytische Ansätze, wie für Forschung zu Methoden (Lawrence 2015, zu Qualitätskriterien, Wirkung und Evaluation sowie zum normativen Gehalt transdisziplinärer Forschung (Popa et al. 2015, Rosendahl et al. 2015 ...
... Arbeiten zu Machtverhältnissen sowie zum Zusammenhang sozialer und epistemischer Kontrolle in transdisziplinären Forschungsprozessen tragen zur Auf hellung dieser blinden Flecken bei , Fritz und Meinherz 2020, Herberg und Vilsmaier 2020, Rosendahl et al. 2015. Das gilt auch für konzeptuelle und analytische Ansätze, wie für Forschung zu Methoden (Lawrence 2015, zu Qualitätskriterien, Wirkung und Evaluation sowie zum normativen Gehalt transdisziplinärer Forschung (Popa et al. 2015, Rosendahl et al. 2015 ...
Was genau ist ein Reallabor? Wie funktioniert Service Learning? Wozu dienen Praktikum, Citizen Science und Duales Studium? Dieses Handbuch erläutert zentrale Begriffe der jüngeren wissenschaftstheoretischen Debatte in ihren Auswirkungen auf Hochschullehre und Bildungsperspektiven. Transdisziplinarität erschließt sich auf diese Weise als umfassendes Innovationsgeschehen in Reaktion auf die großen globalen Herausforderungen dieser Tage – etwa Klimawandel, Urbanisierung oder Migration. Ein praktisches Nachschlagewerk für Studierende, Lehrende und alle, die die tiefgreifenden Veränderungen der Hochschulbildung im Zuge transformativer Wissenschaft verstehen wollen.
* hrsg. unter gleicher Beteiligung (Equal Contribution)
... Clarifying asymmetries in project ownership and control can help mitigate inequitable stakeholder 264 participation, potentially improving the quality of the research and building societal ownership of research 265 outcomes (Goven et al. 2015;Rosendahl et al. 2015;Bornemann and Christen 2020). ...
Transdisciplinary sustainability science is increasingly applied to study transformative change. Yet, transdisciplinary research involves diverse actors who hold contrasting and sometimes conflicting perspectives and worldviews. Reflexivity is cited as a crucial capacity for navigating the resulting challenges, yet notions of reflexivity are often focused on individual researcher reflections that lack explicit links to the collective transdisciplinary research process and predominant modes of inquiry in the field. This gap presents the risk that reflexivity remains on the periphery of sustainability science and becomes ‘unreflexive’, as crucial dimensions are left unacknowledged. Our objective was to establish a framework for reflexivity as a transformative capacity in sustainability science through a critical systems approach. We developed and refined the framework through a rapid scoping review of literature on transdisciplinarity, transformation, and reflexivity, and reflection on a scenario study in the Red River Basin (US, Canada). The framework characterizes reflexivity as the capacity to nurture a dynamic, embedded, and collective process of self-scrutiny and mutual learning in service of transformative change, which manifests through interacting boundary processes – boundary delineation, interaction, and transformation. The case study reflection suggests how embedding this framework in research can expose boundary processes that block transformation and nurture more reflexive and transformative research.
... Our approach retains essential co-design elements such as collaboration, problem-focused, solution-oriented, inclusive, reflexive, iterative and stakeholder engagement (Rosendahl et al., 2015). In a recent meta-analysis of 88 publications, Busse et al. (2023) categorized intervention-oriented co-design approaches into four subtypes namely the "researcher-led and model-based" and "social sciencedriven intervention" studies that use a rigorous, predefined study design in which scientists are the dominant actors. ...
Agroecology, as a holistic approach to sustainable food systems, is gaining momentum globally as a key approach to addressing current challenges in agricultural and food production. In sub-Saharan Africa, despite numerous efforts to address declining soil productivity, water scarcity, and increasing pest pressure through agroecological soil, water, and integrated pest management (IPM) practices, the adoption of such practices remains low. As part of the CGIAR Agroecology Initiative, we conducted a collaborative rapid innovation assessment of existing soil, water, and pest management practices in two Agroecological Living Landscapes (ALLs) in Makueni and Kiambu counties, Kenya. The assessment also included an evaluation of the performance of these practices and identified farmer preferences. Using a multi-stage approach, we applied stratified random sampling to identify 80 farmers for farm assessments and in-depth interviews. A total of 31 practices were identified, of which 26 were further evaluated. The evaluation revealed a heterogeneous set of socio-economic and biophysical contextual factors influencing practice performance. Respondents identified 19 strengths, and 13 challenges associated with the practices, highlighting opportunities for innovation to improve or adapt performance. Farmers also expressed preferences for future adoption of 31 practices, 77% of which were listed in one of the three focus areas, namely soil management, water management, or IPM. The other 33% were associated with multiple functions and were listed under two or three of the focus areas. The results of the collaborative assessment informed a broader co-design cycle that included participatory prioritization and selection of innovative practices, experimental design, and monitoring protocols. This collaborative and systematic approach was taken because innovative practices often fail to be adopted due to a lack of co-design and inclusion of local perspectives in innovation design, and a disconnect between science and practice. Our study highlights the importance of integrating stakeholder input and transdisciplinary technical expertise in the co-design and implementation of agroecological innovations. It also emphasizes the importance of using a structured methodology to understand farmers’ options, context, and preferences while co-designing locally relevant agroecological practices, which promotes holistic and inclusive adoption, successful implementation and long-term sustainability of agroecological practices.
... If so, this would mean that all stakeholders should have access to and the same right to benefit from scientific knowledge. By contrast, there is the position that scientists may function as activists (Loorbach, 2014;Rosendahl et al., 2015) who produce advocacy science and, primarily, should co-produce knowledge and solutions that meet a scientist's understanding of sustainability. ...
Transdisciplinary processes deal with transdisciplinary problems that are (i) complex, (ii) societally relevant, (iii) ill-defined, and (iv) real-world problems which often show a high degree of ambiguity resulting in contested perceptions and evaluations among and between scientists and practitioners. Therefore, they are susceptible to multiple trade-offs. Transdisciplinary processes construct socially robust orientations (SoROs) particularly for sustainable transitioning. The integration of science and practice knowledge on equal footing (1) is considered the core of transdisciplinary processes. Yet other forms of knowledge integration contribute essentially to construct SoROs. Individuals may (2) use different modes of thought; (3) refer to various cultures with diverse value and belief systems; and (4) problems are perceived and prioritized based on roles and interests. Coping with transdisciplinary problems, (5) purposeful differentiation and integration and (6) an integration of evolutionary evolving codes of representing knowledge are necessary. Finally, (7) what systems to integrate requires consensus-building among participating scientists and practitioners. This paper is Part I of a two-part publication. It provides a conceptualization of the different types of knowledge integration. Part II analyzes tasks, challenges, and barriers related to different types of knowledge integration in five transdisciplinary processes which developed SoROs for sensitive subsystems of Germany affected by the irresponsible use of digital data.
... Individual configurations of the same unfold, helping visualize researchers' positionality with regard to their situatedness within knowledge fields, paradigms, and personal situated accounts that inform study and research (Rose 1997). Within transdisciplinary research and learning, this procedure also takes on cultural and social situatedness while taking values and norms into consideration (Rosendahl et al. 2015). Boundary work allows for visualizing situated relations of researchers or learners with each other (Klein 2010). ...
... Lux et al. 2019); and the normative dimension of transdisciplinary research (e.g. Popa et al. 2015;Rosendahl et al. 2015). ...
... Lux et al. 2019); and the normative dimension of transdisciplinary research (e.g. Popa et al. 2015;Rosendahl et al. 2015). ...
What is transdisciplinarity - and what are its methods? How does a living lab work? What is the purpose of citizen science, student-organized teaching and cooperative education? This handbook unpacks key terms and concepts to describe the range of transdisciplinary learning in the context of academic education. Transdisciplinary learning turns out to be a comprehensive innovation process in response to the major global challenges such as climate change, urbanization or migration. A reference work for students, lecturers, scientists, and anyone wanting to understand the profound changes in higher education.
... Individual configurations of the same unfold, helping visualize researchers' positionality with regard to their situatedness within knowledge fields, paradigms, and personal situated accounts that inform study and research (Rose 1997). Within transdisciplinary research and learning, this procedure also takes on cultural and social situatedness while taking values and norms into consideration (Rosendahl et al. 2015). Boundary work allows for visualizing situated relations of researchers or learners with each other (Klein 2010). ...
What is transdisciplinarity - and what are its methods? How does a living lab work? What is the purpose of citizen science, student-organized teaching and cooperative education? This handbook unpacks key terms and concepts to describe the range of transdisciplinary learning in the context of academic education. Transdisciplinary learning turns out to be a comprehensive innovation process in response to the major global challenges such as climate change, urbanization or migration. A reference work for students, lecturers, scientists, and anyone wanting to understand the profound changes in higher education.
... Furthermore, in introductory interviews, some researchers expressed hesitation about including community members in some aspects of the project, citing concerns that community members might not have adequate background or that the ecological objectives would not be a high priority. Given that researchers often have considerable experience with technical, top-down approaches to e-flows assessments, it will take time to shift the culture around how different types of knowledge are valued and expand the role of community participation (Rosendahl et al. 2015, Anderson et al. 2019). This shift can be facilitated by water managers and interdisciplinary researchers who design and implement participatory approaches, not only in e-flows but in all areas of natural resource management. ...
Environmental flows (e-flows) management takes place within a complex social-ecological system, necessitating the involvement of diverse stakeholders and an appreciation of a range of perspectives and knowledge types. It is widely accepted that incorporating participatory methods into environmental flows decision-making will allow stakeholders to become meaningfully involved, improving potential solutions, and fostering social legitimacy. However, due to substantial structural barriers, implementing participatory approaches can be difficult for water managers. This paper assesses the effectiveness of an e-flows methodology that combines elements of structured decision-making and participatory modeling, whilst constrained by project resources. Three process-based objectives were identified by the group at the start of the process: improving transparency, knowledge exchange, and community ownership. We evaluated the success of the approach according to those objectives using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. In evaluating how well the participatory approach achieved the process objectives, we found that at least 80% of respondents expressed positive sentiment in every category (n = 15). We demonstrate that the values-based process objectives defined by the participant group are an effective tool for evaluating participatory success. This paper highlights that participatory approaches can be effective even in resource-constrained environments when the process is adapted to fit the decision-making context.
... It is important to reflect on the implicit power relations which may cause asymmetries, e.g., if science frames the process by certain methods. Rosendahl et al. (2015) refer to feminist standpoint theory and stress that transdisciplinary processes require "the explicit and transparent positioning of oneself: this also holds true for scientists." (Rosendahl et al. 2015, p. 26). ...
The complexity and importance of environmental, societal, and other challenges require new forms of science and practice collaboration. We first describe the complementarity of method-driven, theory-based, and (to the extent possible) validated scientific knowledge in contrast to real-world, action-based, and contextualized experimental knowledge. We argue that a thorough integration of these two modes of knowing is necessary for developing ground-breaking innovations and transitions for sustainable development. To reorganize types of science–practice collaborations, we extend Stokes’s Pasteur’s quadrant with its dimensions for the relevance of (i) (generalized) fundamental knowledge and (ii) applications when introducing (iii) process ownership, i.e., who controls the science–practice collaboration process. Process ownership is a kind of umbrella variable which comprises leadership (with the inflexion point of equal footing or co-leadership) and mutuality (this is needed for knowledge integration and developing socially robust orientations) which are unique selling points of transdisciplinarity. The extreme positions of process ownership are applied research (science takes control) and consulting (practice takes process ownership). Ideal transdisciplinary processes include authentic co-definition, co-representation, co-design, and co-leadership of science and practice. We discuss and grade fifteen approaches on science–practice collaboration along the process ownership scale and reflect on the challenges to make transdisciplinarity real.
... Due to the particularities outlined above (goal-orientation, clear system boundaries, roles attributed to actors), networks as policyinstrument are very similar to knowledge co-producing projects (Beers and Geerling-Eiff, 2014). The underlying collaboration practices essentially refer to the concept of transdisciplinary knowledge production, i.e., ''situated knowledge production'' (Rosendahl et al., 2015) following what has been termed a 'Mode 2 knowledge production'' (Nowotny et al., 2001;Gibbons et al., 1994). Therefore, in the context of environmental governance, the focus is on collaborative multi-actor learning processes, from which collective problem-solving strategies are expected, which, in turn, are believed to enhance innovation diffusion leading to enhanced environmental effectiveness . ...
The European regulations on Rural Development of the last two decades brought Agricultural Advisory Systems back onto the political agenda. Along with the introduction of Cross Compliance (CC), Member states were obliged to review their Farm Advisory System or to build up new infrastructure. The importance of innovation generation, knowledge dissemination and on-going learning in rural areas has been emphasized, and Agricultural Advisory Systems are regarded one important partner. A further development over the last 30 years has been a wave of privatization of Agricultural Advisory Systems (AAS) in Europe due to the pressure of decreasing public budgets. This cumulative dissertation examines the dialectic of increased and changing demands on Farm Advisory Systems on the one hand and the effects of privatization on the other hand. Privatization of agricultural advisory services in European Member States has been a process for decades. Both within Europe and Germany, the German federal state of Brandenburg has an Agricultural Advisory System with a comparatively high level of privatization and commercialization. It was therefore selected as an excellent case to address the development and the impacts of privatization. The goal of this dissertation is to answer the following leading research questions i) What were the consequences of privatization specifically for the situation of advisors, their capacities and competences?, ii) What are the responsibilities of public authorities to steer a (privatized) advisory system and innovation networks within pluralistic Agricultural Knowledge and Innovations Systems (AKIS)?, iii) How was the EUs obligation to establish Farm Advisory Systems (FAS) implemented and thus, how is advice on Cross Compliance with Farm Management Systems (FMS) as a policy-induced innovation implemented and adopted in Brandenburg and Germany?, iv) How successful are innovation networks as an instrument to fill the interaction gap of the AAS in Brandenburg?. This dissertation contributes to the empirical evidence on the functioning of AKIS and Advisory Systems and provides public authorities in Brandenburg with longitudinal information to be used for future farm advice- and innovation-related policies. The cumulative thesis builds on 4 articles published from 2013 till 2018. The articles analyze qualitatively and discuss the view of agricultural advisors and farmers through a series of semi-structured interviews, analyze applied Farm Management Tools and assess new cooperation forms like innovation networks. Chapter 2 describes the development of the situation of private farm advisors in Brandenburg over a longer period of more than 15 years, from before until complete commercialization of the service in 2000. It shows which topics advisors (can) address and which they cannot, which clients they work with and which they do not, and it provides data on their basic work situation. It also gives insights on their networking activities. The following chapter 3 provides recommendations for public authorities regarding their responsibilities in pluralistic AKIS in Europe, which can also be applied to Brandenburg. Chapter 4 provides an analysis of Cross Compliance advice to farmers with Farm Management Systems (FMS) as one public responsibility in AKIS. A special focus is pointed to farmers usage of FMS in Brandenburg and qualitative comparison of FMS in Germany. In chapter 5 the cooperation of various actors from science and practice in Brandenburg is examined using the example of the innovation network for climate change adaptation. Innovation networks can be considered as one important instrument to cope with the challenges of AKIS privatization in Brandenburg by filling the interaction gap. This chapter presents an analysis of collaboration success factors and shows how crucial repeated participation, appropriate information management, and inclusive as well as responsive network practices are. Chapter 6 discusses the results regarding the development of Brandenburgs AKIS and its Agricultural Advisory System (AAS) during the period of complete privatization (2002 until 2017), in which the research of chapter 2 thru 5 was conducted. Chapter 7 gives an update of Brandenburgs AKIS and advisory system development from 2017 on, when AKIS and advisory services returned on the political agenda, and new policies emerged, which support innovation networks and advisory services. Chapter 8 concludes policy and research recommendations.
... Para tales efectos, hemos puesto en práctica un campo de trabajo entre arqueología y bioarqueología (González-Ramírez, Pacheco Miranda, Sáez-Sepúlveda y Arregui Wunderlich, 2019;, que se nutre de la sintonía entre la filosofía de la biología materialista (Levins y Lewontin, 1985;Lewontin y Levins, 2007), el feminismo interseccional (Arruzza, Fraser y Bhattacharya, 2019;Davis, 2005) y la perspectiva del conocimiento situado (Haraway, 1988;Rosendahl, Zanella, Rist y Weigelt, 2015). Desde esas fuentes, es posible trabajar al cuerpo como factor y producto de relaciones sociales, y no como ideal programado de la biología del desarrollo, ni como fitness maximalista, ni como síntesis biocultural, sino como intersección dialéctica entre resultado y condición de relaciones y afectaciones en un proceso de constitución recíproca (Lewontin, 2000;Walsh, 2015). ...
La investigación feminista ha demostrado cómo el contractualismo capitalista desplazó el asunto de la reproducción social al orden biomédico o del parentesco, esencializando la diversidad de su manifestación y, por lo tanto, la estructura, factores y consecuencias de su variación. Al contrario, se argumenta que las actividades de mantenimiento y reproducción de la vida a nivel cotidiano e intergeneracional son movilizadas por el trabajo y están afectadas por la economía política, destacando la tensión que sostienen con los modos de producción. Sobre dicha propuesta, se ofrecen algunos elementos teóricos en los que se conjuga una ciencia de vocación interseccional, situada y materialista para la práctica de una investigación transdisciplinaria de la economía política de la vida en arqueología.
... However, transdisciplinary approaches also entail new challenges such as the involvement of practitioners, normativity and biases in existing knowledge, the evaluation of the impacts of a transdisciplinary project (see Lawrence et al., 2022), as well as Multistage system modeling the question of control and power balances within the entire process of knowledge integration (see, e.g. Rosendahl et al., 2015). Accordingly, an important principle that should be regarded as a part of a transdisciplinary approach relates to the "equal appraisal" of knowledge from science and practice (Scholz, 2020). ...
Purpose
The dynamics of modern life lead to societal changes that affect innovation systems. Entrepreneurship is an important driver for fostering adaptive capacities of innovation systems in such uncertain and complex environments. This study aims to gain a detailed understanding of how (innovative) entrepreneurship can promote innovation systems, leading to more sustainable societies. A particular focus is placed on migrant entrepreneurship in the digital economy, as a concrete implication of innovative entrepreneurship, and its role within the Austrian innovation system.
Design/methodology/approach
In order to develop a shared system understanding from a scientific and practical perspective, transdisciplinary multistage system modeling was applied. The transdisciplinary discourse involved 14 experts, and several system models were iteratively co-created during the course of the research.
Findings
The main result demonstrates the interrelationship between the innovation system and migrant entrepreneurship in the digital economy, which includes six core reinforcing loops: (1) the mindsets of entrepreneurs, (2) the role of international collaboration, (3) the role of entrepreneurial education, the financial sphere in regard to (4) government and (5) private funding, as well as (6) the impact of formal procedures.
Originality/value
The authors present and discuss the relational dynamics of this complex phenomenon as well as the applied transdisciplinary approach, with the aim of identifying a potential way to improve the sustainable impact of (migrant) entrepreneurship considering the case of the Austrian innovation system.
... Para tales efectos, hemos puesto en práctica un campo de trabajo entre arqueología y bioarqueología (González-Ramírez, Pacheco Miranda, Sáez-Sepúlveda y Arregui Wunderlich, 2019;, que se nutre de la sintonía entre la filosofía de la biología materialista (Levins y Lewontin, 1985;Lewontin y Levins, 2007), el feminismo interseccional (Arruzza, Fraser y Bhattacharya, 2019;Davis, 2005) y la perspectiva del conocimiento situado (Haraway, 1988;Rosendahl, Zanella, Rist y Weigelt, 2015). Desde esas fuentes, es posible trabajar al cuerpo como factor y producto de relaciones sociales, y no como ideal programado de la biología del desarrollo, ni como fitness maximalista, ni como síntesis biocultural, sino como intersección dialéctica entre resultado y condición de relaciones y afectaciones en un proceso de constitución recíproca (Lewontin, 2000;Walsh, 2015). ...
La investigación feminista ha demostrado cómo el contractualismo capitalista desplazó el asunto de la reproducción social al orden biomédico o del parentesco, esencializando la diversidad de su manifestación y, por lo tanto, la estructura, factores y consecuencias de su variación. Al contrario, se argumenta que las actividades de mantenimiento y reproducción de la vida a nivel cotidiano e intergeneracional son movilizadas por el trabajo y están afectadas por la economía política, destacando la tensión que sostienen con los modos de producción. Sobre dicha propuesta, se ofrecen algunos elementos teóricos en los que se conjuga una ciencia de vocación interseccional, situada y materialista para la práctica de una investigación transdisciplinaria de la economía política de la vida en arqueología.
... Hence, from this perspective, inclusion of all relevant societal actors, and articulation of different perspectives remains a key goal of TDR, but creation of open encounters of joint reflection is only one way of achieving this aim. Alternatively, researchers might begin by working with different groups independently, and strive afterwards to act as neutral mediators, or they might adopt a bottomup strategy that offers support to disadvantaged people in expressing their voice (Rosendahl et al. 2015;Ott and Kiteme 2016). ...
Unlabelled:
Transdisciplinary research (TDR) has been developed to generate knowledge that effectively fosters the capabilities of various societal actors to realize sustainability transformations. The development of TDR theories, principles, and methods has been largely governed by researchers from the global North and has reflected their contextual conditions. To enable more context-sensitive TDR framing, we sought to identify which contextual characteristics affect the design and implementation of TDR in six case studies in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, and what this means for TDR as a scientific approach. To this end, we distinguished four TDR process elements and identified several associated context dimensions that appeared to influence them. Our analysis showed that contextual characteristics prevalent in many Southern research sites-such as highly volatile socio-political situations and relatively weak support infrastructure-can make TDR a challenging endeavour. However, we also observed a high degree of variation in the contextual characteristics of our sites in the global South, including regarding group deliberation, research freedom, and dominant perceptions of the appropriate relationship between science, society, and policy. We argue that TDR in these contexts requires pragmatic adaptations as well as more fundamental reflection on underlying epistemological concepts around what it means to conduct "good science", as certain contextual characteristics may influence core epistemological values of TDR.
Supplementary information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-022-01201-3.
... Empirical research-mostly singlecase studies or comparative case studies involving a small number of projects-has flourished over the past two decades, providing us with a better understanding of collaborative processes or producing guidelines on how to (or how not to) design and implement such projects (e.g. Filipe et al. 2017;Lux et al. 2019;Pohl 2008;Pohl et al. 2010;Rosendahl et al. 2015;Zingerli et al. 2009). Yet, little empirical knowledge is actually available about the impact of RPCs on social change, how they bring about change (or not) and how they compare to alternatives (Oliver et al. 2019;Wyborn et al. 2019). ...
The cooperation between researchers and practitioners during the different stages of the research process is promoted as it can be of benefit to both society and research supporting processes of ‘transformation’. While acknowledging the important potential of research–practice–collaborations (RPCs), this paper reflects on RPCs from a political-economic perspective to also address potential unintended adverse effects on knowledge generation due to divergent interests, incomplete information or the unequal distribution of resources. Asymmetries between actors may induce distorted and biased knowledge and even help produce or exacerbate existing inequalities. Potential merits and limitations of RPCs, therefore, need to be gauged. Taking RPCs seriously requires paying attention to these possible tensions—both in general and with respect to international development research, in particular: On the one hand, there are attempts to contribute to societal change and ethical concerns of equity at the heart of international development research, and on the other hand, there is the relative risk of encountering asymmetries more likely.
... in the case of North-South collaborations, or the global education system in which such collaborations or border crossing often do take place (Nagar 2014). All these dimensions influence collaborations, cooperation, participation, and mutual learning on one hand, and as important, the transformative potential of the produced knowledge on the other (Rosendahl et. al. 2015). ...
This response is focusing on the various power structures influencing research–practice–collaborations, transdisciplinary projects, and participation. It will be discussed how power asymmetries globally as well as locally influence and structure collaborations and participation between the involved actors and, thus, the expected transformative potential of the produced knowledge. Based on experiences and challenges encountered during a North–South capacity building project, it will be shown how funding schemes as well as the positionalities of the involved actors produce and reproduce historical, social, or cultural power structures which influence research–practice–collaborations. The main argument put forward is that instead of focusing in the current scientific as well as science-policy debates primarily on how research–practice–collaborations and/or participation could be improved ‘technically,’ the respective contexts and/or power structures and relations have to be considered and reflected in each phase of collaborative endeavors. This especially, but not exclusively, in the context of North–South collaborations.
... In order to avoid ineffective debates, the TD researcher sought to consistently focus the discussion back on the selection criteria and to maintain a high degree of transparency around how and why the criteria had been derived. As is customary in TD research, fine-tuning how much control to exercise in the research process (Rosendahl et al., 2015;West et al., 2019) and how much control to cede to joint leadership was a tightrope walk. Specifically, the TD researcher sought to find balance between meeting the needs of project members who wished for more outside guidance and leadership, and simultaneously addressing the concerns of those who believed their autonomy, creativity, and freedom were being hampered Table 3 Cross-cutting lessons for implementing Phase 0. ...
Both within science and society, transdisciplinary approaches are increasingly employed to address today’s sustainability challenges. Often transdisciplinary research processes are structured in three core phases: a) problem identification and formation of a common research object; b) co-production of solution-oriented and transferable knowledge; c) embedding co-produced knowledge through transdisciplinary reintegration. In all phases of this ideal-typical model, the involvement of non-academic actors is essential to meet the challenges of real-world problems, and of transformative research practices. Despite existing guidance for the core transdisciplinary process, its initiation often remains an uncharted area because of its strong context dependency. Based on a concrete transdisciplinary case study addressing sustainability transformation in Transylvania, we bring together our learned experience with initiating a transdisciplinary process using a research-driven approach. To this end, we introduce the notion of Phase 0, as an initiating phase prior to beginning an ideal-typical transdisciplinary process. Within Phase 0, we propose three empirically and literature informed sub-phases: Sub-Phase 0.1) selecting the case study; Sub-Phase 0.2) understanding the case study context from a transdisciplinary perspective; Sub-Phase 0.3) fostering premises for coming together. We outline the general rationale behind these sub-phases, and we illustrate how we carried out each sub-phase in practice. By deriving cross-cutting lessons from the three sub-phases, we enhance the practice of transdisciplinary sustainability research with the aim to leverage its transformative potential.
... This is founded in an underlying assumption that science is objective and unbiased. However, all knowledge is partial and situated within a specific perspective and context (Rosendahl et al., 2015;Haraway, 1988). Individuals who contribute knowledge to the environmental flows process will bring their own perspectives and unique values, and evidence suggests that our perceptions of risk influence decision making in water resources (Kosovac et al., 2019). ...
The numerous environmental flows assessment methods that exist typically assume a stationary climate. Adaptive management is commonly put forward as the preferred approach for managing uncertainty and change in environmental flows. However, we contend that a simple adaptive management loop falls short of meeting the challenges posed by climate change. Rather, a fundamental rethink is required to ensure both the structure of environmental flows assessments, along with each individual technical element, actively acknowledges the multiple dimensions of change, variability and complexity in socio-ecological systems. This paper outlines how environmental flow assessments can explicitly address the uncertainty and change inherent in adaptively managing multiple values for management of environmental flows. While non-stationarity and uncertainty are well recognised in the climate literature, these have not been addressed within the structure of environmental flows methodologies. Here, we present an environmental flow assessment that is structured to explicitly consider future change and uncertainty in climate and socio-ecological values, by examining scenarios using ecological models. The environmental flow assessment methodology further supports adaptive management through the intentional integration of participatory approaches and the inclusion of diverse stakeholders. We present a case study to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach, highlighting how this methodology facilitates adaptive management. Rethinking our approach to environmental flows assessments is an important step in ensuring that environmental flows continue to work effectively as a management tool under climate change.
... Transdisciplinary co-production ("co-production" hereafter) is an important point of departure for climate services development and its eventual use. Transdisciplinarity is considered to be collaborative and participatory, transformative, transcending traditional disciplinary boundaries and hierarchical societal structures (Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015;Polk, 2015;Rosendahl et al., 2015;Simon et al., 2018). Transdisciplinarity approaches might consider the inclusion of multiple actors affected and/or affecting a particular issue, including actors from private and public sectors (Choi and Pak, 2006;Polk, 2015;Stock and Burton, 2011). ...
This publication can be quoted as: Máñez Costa, M.; Oen, A.M.P.; Neset, T.-S.; Celliers, L.; Suhari, M; Huang-Lachmann, J-T.; Pimentel, R.; Blair, B.; Jeuring, J.; Rodriguez-Camino, E.; Photiadou, C.; Columbié, Y.J.; Gao, C.; Tudose, N.-C.; Cheval, S., Votsis, A.; West, J.; Lee, K.; Shaffrey, L.C.; Auer, C.; Hoff, H.; Menke, I.; Walton, P.; Schuck-Zöller, S. (2021). Co-production of Climate Services.
... Power issues may lead to conflicts or marginalization of some voices. In addition, power dynamics influence how the processes are shaped and as well the the roles different actors see as acceptable to adopt in TD (Bulten et al., 2021;Mobjörk, 2010;Rosendahl et al. 2015; see also Mach et al., 2020, 31 andWyborn et al., 2019, 319).We acknowledge that multiple perceptions and definitions of the co-concepts can and will co-exist and we concurrently emphasize the plurality of possibilities embedded in the co-concepts. What is deemed a coherent view in one project might look different in another. ...
Transdisciplinary research often utilizes collaborative ways of knowledge production to enable deliberate transformations towards sustainability. Multiple concepts with varying definitions are applied, leading to confusion in the aims and uses of these concepts. In this article, we review five concepts relevant to the current debate on the new collaborative ways of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research. We focus on the concepts of co-creation, co-production, co-design, co-learning, and adaptive co-management in the context of natural resources management (NRM). This study couples a literature review and a conceptual analysis, and aims to clarify definitions, use, the interlinkages of these concepts and to shed light on their intertwined nature. We propose an integrative understanding of the concepts to facilitate collaborative modes and to enable the transformative aims of research processes. To this end, we discuss how to harvest the transformative potential of the “co-concepts” by focusing on reflexivity, power analysis and process orientation.
... Hesse-Biber and Piatelli 2012; Lumsden 2019); a practice less developed in Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science (but see e.g. Balvanera et al. 2017;Caniglia et al. 2021;Norström et al. 2020;Rosendahl et al. 2015). This power-critical practice involves disclosing the normative assumptions, values and concepts underlying the research processes, problematising differences in the status and effectiveness of different forms of knowledge at various research stages, as well as power differentials between non-academic actors and us scientists. ...
Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science has emerged as a viable answer to current sustainability crises with the aim to strengthen collaborative knowledge production. To expand its transformative potential, we argue that Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science needs to thoroughly engage with questions of unequal power relations and hierarchical scientific constructs. Drawing on the work of the feminist philosopher María Puig de la Bellacasa, we examine a feminist ethos of care which might provide useful guidance for sustainability researchers who are interested in generating critical-emancipatory knowledge. A feminist ethos of care is constituted by three interrelated modes of knowledge production: (1) thinking-with, (2) dissenting-within and (3) thinking-for. These modes of thinking and knowing enrich knowledge co-production in Transdisci-plinary Sustainability Science by (i) embracing relational ontologies, (ii) relating to the 'other than human', (iii) cultivating caring academic cultures, (iv) taking care of non-academic research partners, (v) engaging with conflict and difference, (vi) interrogating positionalities and power relations through reflexivity, (vii) building upon marginalised knowledges via feminist standpoints and (viii) countering epistemic violence within and beyond academia. With our paper, we aim to make a specific feminist contribution to the field of Transdisciplinary Sustainability Science and emphasise its potentials to advance this field.
... This is founded in an underlying assumption that science is objective and unbiased. However, all knowledge is partial and situated within a specific perspective and context (Rosendahl et al., 2015, Haraway, 1988. Individuals who contribute knowledge to the environmental flows process will bring their own perspectives and unique values, and evidence suggests that our perceptions of risk influence decision making in water resources (Kosovac et al., 2019). ...
Adaptive management has become the preferred approach for managing environmental flows globally, and successful implementation recognizes multiple dimensions of variability and complexity in socio-ecological systems. This paper outlines an environmental flow assessment methodology that explicitly addresses the uncertainty and change inherent in adaptively managing multiple values for management of environmental flows. While non-stationarity and uncertainty are well recognised in the climate literature, these have not been addressed within the structure of environmental flows methodologies. Here, we present an environmental flow assessment that is structured to explicitly consider future change and uncertainty in climate and socio-ecological values, by examining scenarios using ecological models. The environmental flow assessment methodology further supports adaptive management through the intentional integration of participatory approaches and the inclusion of diverse stakeholders. We present a case study to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach, highlighting how this methodology facilitates adaptive management. Rethinking our approach to environmental flows assessments is an important step in ensuring that environmental flows continue to work effectively as a management tool under climate change.
... It is considered a more democratic process for knowledge production, particularly for policy-making, and for enhancing sustainability (Callon, 1999;Whatmore and Landström, 2011;Polk, 2015;Bulkeley et al., 2018). It is collaborative and participatory, transformative, and transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries and hierarchical societal structures (Polk, 2015;Rosendahl et al., 2015;Lotz-Sisitka et al., 2015;Simon et al., 2018). Transdisciplinarity as an approach includes the participation and contributions from academia, state actors and nonstate actors such as, land managers, user groups, communitybased organisations, non-governmental organisations, business and the public (Choi and Pak, 2007;Stock and Burton, 2011;Polk, 2015). ...
Hybrid science-society approaches for knowledge production are often framed by a transdisciplinary approach. Most forms of “linear” progression of science informing policy or the “production” of knowledge as a one-way process are increasingly being challenged. This is also true for coastal and marine sciences informing decision-making to support sustainable development of coastal areas. From the early 2010s, South Africa had one of the most progressive and well-structured frameworks for the establishment of integrated coastal management (ICM) in order to achieve societal objectives for its valuable coastal area. Even so, the implementation of the legislation, policies and guidelines remain a challenge, especially at the local level in municipalities. This paper reports on a social experiment that was intended to examine the possibility for a new knowledge negotiation process to unsettle the highly structured, nested and regular policy process, which forms the basis of ICM in South Africa. This paper reflects on an experimental application of a participatory methodology known as a “competency group” to co-produce knowledge for coastal and marine management. The group members, a combination of codified, tacit and embedded knowledge holders, agreed to serve on a competency group and met on six occasions over a 12-month period in 2013. This group “negotiated” amongst themselves to achieve a common understanding of knowledge useful for the management of beach water quality on the Golden Mile, the prime beachfront of Durban, a South African city. The paper provides a novel lens into a potentially distinctive, challenging and imminently useful approach of co-producing knowledge for coastal governance, especially in a middle-income country where the social and political context is complex.
... Advocacy science activists often include only those stakeholder groups that meet the scientists' social values. For instance, one may include only those who explicitly declare themselves to be committed to sustainability or decide to collaborate with those stakeholders who consider themselves as working for and with the poor (Rosendahl et al. 2015). This leads to, second, a principal value-based exclusion of certain stakeholders. ...
There is increasing demand for science to contribute to solving societal problems (solutionism). Thereby, scientists may become normative activists for solving certain problems (advocacy). When doing this, they may insufficiently differentiate between scientific and political modes of reasoning and validation (de-differentiationism), which is sometimes linked to questionable forms of utilizing the force of facts (German: Faktengewalt). Scientific findings are simplified and communicated in such a way that they acquire a status as unfalsifiable and absolutely true (truth to power). This becomes critical if the consistency and validation of the findings are questionable and scientific models underlying science activists' actions are doubtful, oversimplified, or incorrect. Herein, we exemplarily elaborate how the integrity of science is endangered by normative solutionist and sociopolitically driven transition management and present mineral scarcity claims that ignore that reserves or resources are dynamic geotechnological-socioeconomic entities. We present the main mineral scarcity models and their fallacious assumptions. We then discuss the phosphorus scarcity fallacy, which is of particular interest as phosphorus is non-substitutable and half of all current food production depends on fertilizers (and thus phosphorus). We show that phosphorus scarcity claims are based on integrating basic geoeconomic knowledge and discuss cognitive and epistemological barriers and motivational and sociopolitical drivers promoting the scarcity fallacy, which affects high-level public media. This may induce unsustainable environmental action. Scientists as honest knowledge brokers should communicate the strengths but also the constraints and limits of scientific modeling and of applying it in reality.
Supplementary information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-021-01006-w.
Ambiguity is often recognized as an intrinsic aspect of addressing complex sustainability challenges. Nevertheless, in the practice of transdisciplinary sustainability research, ambiguity is often an ‘elephant in the room’ to be either side-stepped or reduced rather than explicitly mobilized in pursuit of solutions. These responses threaten the salience and legitimacy of sustainability science by masking the pluralism of real-world sustainability challenges and how research renders certain frames visible and invisible. Critical systems thinking (CST) emerged from the efforts of operational researchers to address theoretical and practical aspects of ambiguity. By adapting key concepts, frameworks, and lessons from CST literature and case studies, this paper aims to establish (1) an expansive conceptualization of ambiguity and (2) recommendations for operationalizing ambiguity as a valuable means of addressing sustainability challenges. We conceptualize ambiguity as an emergent feature of the simultaneous and interacting boundary processes associated with being, knowing, and intervening in complex systems, and propose Reflexive Boundary Critique (RBC) as a novel framework to help navigate these boundary processes. Our characterization of ambiguity acknowledges the boundary of a researcher’s subjective orientation and its influence on how ambiguity is exposed and mediated in research (being), characterizes knowledge as produced through the process of making boundary judgments, generating a partial, contextual, and provisional frame (knowing), and situates a researcher as part of the complexity they seek to understand, rendering any boundary process as a form of intervention that reinforces or marginalizes certain frames and, in turn, influences action (intervening). Our recommendations for sustainability scientists to operationalize ambiguity include (1) nurturing the reflexive capacities of transdisciplinary researchers to navigate persistent ambiguity (e.g., using our proposed framework of RBC), and (2) grappling with the potential for and consequences of theoretical incommensurability and discordant pluralism. Our findings can help sustainability scientists give shape to and embrace ambiguity as a fundamental part of rigorous sustainability science.
The science of urban planning has drawn on a wide range of disciplines and research perspectives. This makes it
challenging to define the boundaries and directions of the field. Here, nearly 100,000 articles on urban planning
are analysed to objectively determine divisions, temporal trends and influential references and actors of urban
planning. In terms of the structural composition, four broad divisions are identified: (1) governance and policy,
(2) economics and markets, (3) housing and (4) built and natural environment. In terms of the temporal evolution,
the earliest trends were related to “welfare economics”, “agglomeration economies”, “urban economics”,
and “urban growth machine”. During the 1980s and 1990s, the focus moved towards “regional policy and
development”, “social welfare”, and “urban renaissance”. This trend continued during the 2000s and 2010s,
heading to “urban morphology”, “participatory planning”, “urban sociology”, “global cities”, and “political
economy”. The field has recently headed towards areas of “resilience”, “smart cities” and “urban green space”.
These transitions have been derivative, and the paradigm shifts have been very gradual. Another key observation
is a notable increase in author connectivity and international collaboration. The results provide objective insights
into how the science of urban planning has historically transitioned and where it is headed.
Culture and cultural heritage can be understood as powerful marketing tools that are increasingly used in urban development processes. Placemaking and the creation of a new place identity as an own brand accompanies such processes. In the case of the redevelopment of Kaka'ako, the culture and history of the neighborhood and of the islands of Hawai'i resonates in the discourse of the stakeholders. While landowners and developers claim to invite all residents and visitors to "discover the most desirable and sustainable urban place in Hawai'i to work, live, learn and play", in reality not everyone is privileged to participate, and even more some histories are excluded in the process. This paper zooms in on the inclusion of more marketable cultural elements and lifestyles in the spatial fix of Kaka'ako during the past decades at the expense of other "histories". Culture-led development means to find a balance between improving the place and respecting as many histories of this place as possible.
Emerging sustainability research has called for scaling up co-production because sustainability challenges span administrative, institutional, cultural, and physical boundaries and often occur at different scales than co-production tends to happen. To scale up co-production equitably, any such efforts must center the power dynamics intrinsic to rescaling. We highlight how scale itself is constructed by different actors and that the reconfiguration of scale has implications for power asymmetries among different stakeholders and communities. We call for new knowledge infrastructures to support and sustain multi-scalar and multi-stakeholder networks that reflect the impacts of sustainability challenges. We propose four principles to guide the development of knowledge infrastructure that will delineate the values, relationships, and power dynamics among different actors that produce knowledge, with the goal of building the capacity of local communities to reconfigure science and governance relationships that prioritize local needs in regional and global partnerships.
Collaborative research approaches emphasise the need to transform the way the academic community produces science by integrating knowledge from different disciplines, but also by including non-academic knowledge in order to address the challenges of sustainability and social justice. This approach – known in the literature on sustainability science as transdisciplinarity – has been used increasingly in research to resolve sustainability problems, including those related to poverty and socio-economic inequalities. This article seeks to shed light on the power dynamics that exist and emerge in transdisciplinary processes by analysing a case study on food poverty. Following Fritz and Meinherz’s (2020) approach, I use Amy Allen’s (1998) typology of power to track and trace the way that power played out between and within actor groups in a project that applied a transdisciplinary methodology known as the ‘Merging of Knowledge’. Although the Merging of Knowledge model seeks to identify and address power differentials between the participating groups, power relations remain complex, dynamic and – to some extent – inevitable. Collaborative processes would benefit from an analysis of the way that power dynamics emerge, persist and evolve to enhance awareness of different forms of power that coexist in research, and to ensure that imbalances present outside the research process are not reproduced within it.
The concept of 'sustainable livelihoods' is increasingly important in the development debate. This paper outlines a framework for analysing sustainable livelihoods, defined here in relation to five key indicators. The framework shows how, in different contexts, sustainable livelihoods are achieved through access to a range of livelihood resources (natural, economic, human and social capitals) which are combined in the pursuit of different livelihood strategies (agricultural intensification or extensification, livelihood diversification and migration). Central to the framework is the analysis of the range of formal and informal organisational and institutional factors that influence sustainable livelihood outcomes. In conclusion, the paper briefly considers some of the practical, methodological and operational implications of a sustainable livelihoods approach.
When Roderick Lawrence and Carole Després introduced a special issue of the journal Futures on transdisciplinarity in 2004, they called it a word ‘à la mode’ (Lawrence and Després,2004). More attention has been paid in the literature to research practice. From the beginning, however, the concept was linked with the goal of changing higher education and its relationships to society. This chapter presents an overview of theoretical and conceptual frameworks for transdisciplinary (TD) education, curriculum models, in situ modes of learning in professional practice and community settings, and a culminating reflection on transdisciplinary skills.
Competing water demands for household consumption as well as the production of food, energy, and other uses pose challenges for water supply and sustainable development in many parts of the world. Designing creative strategies and learning processes for sustainable water governance is thus of prime importance. While this need is uncontested, suitable approaches still have to be found. In this article we present and evaluate a conceptual approach to scenario building aimed at transdisciplinary learning for sustainable water governance. The approach combines normative, explorative, and participatory scenario elements. This combination allows for adequate consideration of stakeholders’ and scientists’ systems, target, and transformation knowledge. Application of the approach in the MontanAqua project in the Swiss Alps confirmed its high potential for co-producing new knowledge and establishing a meaningful and deliberative dialogue between all actors involved. The iterative and combined approach ensured that stakeholders’ knowledge was adequately captured, fed into scientific analysis, and brought back to stakeholders in several cycles, thereby facilitating learning and co-production of new knowledge relevant for both stakeholders and scientists. However, the approach also revealed a number of constraints, including the enormous flexibility required of stakeholders and scientists in order for them to truly engage in the co-production of new knowledge. Overall, the study showed that shifts from strategic to communicative action are possible in an environment of mutual trust. This ultimately depends on creating conditions of interaction that place scientists’ and stakeholders’ knowledge on an equal footing.
There is emerging agreement that sustainability challenges require new ways of knowledge production and decision-making. One key aspect of sustainability science, therefore, is the involvement of actors from outside academia into the research process in order to integrate the best available knowledge, reconcile values and preferences, as well as create ownership for problems and solution options. Transdisciplinary, community-based, interactive, or participatory research approaches are often suggested as appropriate means to meet both the requirements posed by real-world problems as well as the goals of sustainability science as a transformational scientific field. Dispersed literature on these approaches and a variety of empirical projects applying them make it difficult for interested researchers and practitioners to review and become familiar with key components and design principles of how to do transdisciplinary sustainability research. Starting from a conceptual model of an ideal–typical transdisciplinary research process, this article synthesizes and structures such a set of principles from various strands of the literature and empirical experiences. We then elaborate on them, looking at challenges and some coping strategies as experienced in transdisciplinary sustainability projects in Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia. The article concludes with future research needed in order to further enhance the practice of transdisciplinary sustainability research.
Transdisciplinarity has a long history of academic discourse. Promoted as an adequate scientific response to pressing societal problems like climate change, it has recently received common currency in science policy rhetoric. Nevertheless, despite its increasing popularity, transdisciplinarity is still far from academically established and current funding practices do not effectively support it at universities and research institutions. One reason for this deficit is that a universally accepted definition for transdisciplinarity is still not available. Consequently, quality standards that equally guide researchers, program managers and donors are widely lacking. Therefore, a rhetorical mainstreaming of transdisciplinarity prevails which risks marginalizing those who take seriously the integrative efforts creative collaboration requires. The aim of this paper is thus to find common ground in the transdisciplinarity discourse. Based on an analysis of current scientific literature, we first identify main features of an emerging shared framework of transdisciplinarity. Second, building upon this framework, we present a conceptual model of transdisciplinarity that can be used by science and science policy to characterize different types of transdisciplinarity and their corresponding demands on integration. We also address the way in which ecological economics could benefit from adopting this model. To conclude, we propose a general definition of transdisciplinarity.
This article provides a comparative institutional analysis between El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forecasting systems in the Pacific and southern Africa with a focus on how scientific information is connected to the decision-making process. With billions of dollars in infrastructure and private property and human health and well-being at risk during ENSO events, forecasting systems have begun to be embraced by managers and firms at multiple levels. The study suggests that such systems need to consciously support the coproduction of knowledge. A critical component of such coproduction seems to be managing the boundaries between science and policy and across disciplines, scale, and knowledges to create information that is salient, credible, and legitimate to multiple audiences. This research suggests institutional mechanisms that appear to be useful in managing such boundaries, including mechanisms for structuring convening, translation, collaboration, and mediation functions.
This paper analyses transdisciplinarity and discusses the conceptual changes it has undergone during the past decade. Transdisciplinarity is currently perceived as an extended knowledge production including a variety of actors and with an open perception of the relevance of different forms of scientific and lay knowledge. By stressing scope of collaboration, a clearer distinction can be established between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity than was possible with the former focus on degree of integration. However, integration is still an essential feature of transdisciplinarity and in emphasising the need to acknowledge the different roles actors can play in knowledge production a distinction can be identified between two different forms of transdisciplinarity; consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity. This distinction draws upon the qualitative difference between research conducted including all kinds of actors on equal terms in the knowledge production process (participatory transdisciplinarity) or having actors from outside academia responding and reacting to the research conducted (consulting transdisciplinarity). Both forms fulfil the basic requirements of transdisciplinarity but differ regarding the challenges involved, and thus a distinction needs to be made between them when discussing, commissioning or evaluating research.
Interdisciplinary scientific knowledge is necessary but not sufficient when it comes to addressing sustainable transformations, as science increasingly has to deal with normative and value-related issues. A systems perspective on coupled human-environmental systems (HES) helps to address the inherent complexities. Additionally, a thorough interaction between science and society (i.e., transdisciplinarity = TD) is necessary, as sustainable transitions are sometimes contested and can cause conflicts. In order to navigate complexities regarding the delicate interaction of scientific research with societal decisions these processes must proceed in a structured and functional way. We thus propose HES-based TD processes to provide a basis for reorganizing science in coming decades.
"Innovations are introduced in the hope that they will have positive impacts on their targets, but also in the certain knowledge that there will be negative and unintended effects as well. In time, these less desired effects may also come to generate innovative and adaptive responses in a continuous, "reflexive" process. This book sets out to analyse the consequences for sustainability research and policy analysis. This collection, by many of the leading thinkers in the field, blends sophisticated theoretical discussion with practical perspectives on how to deal with the conundrum - the only thing certain about the future is that you'll be wrong about it! - Frans Berkhout, Vrije University, The Netherlands This book deals with the issue of sustainable development in a novel and innovative way. It examines the governance implications of reflexive modernisation - the condition that societal development is endangered by its own side-effects. With conceptualising reflexive governance the book leads a way out of endless quarrels about the definition of sustainability and into a new mode of collective action." © Jan-Peter Voß, Dierk Bauknecht and René Kemp 2006. All rights reserved.
There are already a variety of contributions focusing on the aspect of knowledge generation in transdisciplinary research. Along the same lines, this article analyses the features of knowledge generation in transdisciplinary case studies initiated at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich and conducted in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and Sweden. The article starts with the description of what kind of knowledge is generated when and how in transdisciplinary case studies. On this basis, the quality of the underlying social interactions in terms of challenges, pitfalls and good practices is critically reflected against normative guidelines derived from the literature. Promoting the concept of transdisciplinary research as a "third epistemic way" - demarcated from involving laypersons in scientific research ("the primacy of science") as well as from classical decision support ("the primacy of practice") - four challenges of joint knowledge generation are discussed: "confounded agendas", "separate data philosophies", "reluctance to face exposure", and "co-existing values". A new type of mediated negotiation, so-called "epistemediation", is proposed at the transdisciplinary interface between scientists and local experts, incorporating a new type of multi-layered peer review of expertise.
Projects for the long‐term disposal of radioactive waste have often been hampered by strong local and regional opposition. Public participation has been recognized as a means to cope with this problem. Advocates promoting extensive public participation suggest various, mostly distinct, involvement techniques that are claimed to cover all needs. However, public participation is still a controversial issue. Several key questions need to be answered: why and when should who be involved, by whom, using which technique, and with which expected outcome? Here, a procedure with a functional‐dynamic view of public participation is proposed that combines the decision‐making process (DMP) with specific types and extents of public participation. We distinguish four discrete levels of public participation, namely information, consultation, collaboration, and empowerment. We argue that these levels of participation must fit the corresponding technical and non‐technical requirements of the different phases of the DMP and illustrate our arguments using a proposed site selection process for nuclear waste. This means that the type and the extent of public participation vary over the time span of a long‐term DMP.
The meaning of land and land policies is diverse and contested across and within local and (inter)national settings. The phrase ‘land policy’, used to refer to all policies that have anything to do with land, may be convenient, but it masks the actual complexity of issues. Meanwhile, concern for ‘pro-poor’ land policy has coincided with the mainstream promotion of efficient administration of land policies, leading to the concept of ‘land governance’. Such concepts have enriched discussion on land issues, but they also complicate further an already complex terrain. In response, this paper offers possible analytical signposts, rather than an actual in-depth and elaborated analytical exploration of this terrain. It hopes to be a modest step forward and towards a better understanding of contemporary policy discourses and political contestations around land and land governance.
The global land grab is causing radical changes in the use and ownership of land. This ‘foreignization’ of space is driven primarily by the acquisition of land for growing biofuels, food crops and/or nature conservation. In addition, pressure on the land is rapidly increasing due to entrepreneurs investing in tourism development (including residential tourists buying properties at ‘exotic’ locations); expanding mining concessions; governments developing business parks or urban extensions and acquiring new territories ahead of the rise in sea level and/or REDD; and migrants purchasing land in their areas of origin. Annelies Zoomers argues that this has important implications for equitable and sustainable development: local peoples must either endure enclosure or move to marginal locations.
The birth of science is based on a strict dissociation of scientific knowledge from the various aspects of practical knowledge.
The ideal of scientific knowledge as it was shaped in antiquity is still influential today, although the conception of science
and the relationship between science and the life-world has undergone major changes. The emergence of transdisciplinary orientations
in the knowledge society at the end of the 20th century is the most recent step. The Handbook focuses on transdisciplinarity
as a form of research that is driven by the need to solve problems of the life-world. Differences between basic, applied and
transdisciplinary research, as specific forms of research, stem from whether and how different scientific disciplines, and
actors in the life-world, are involved in problem identification and problem structuring, thus determining how research questions
relate to problem fields in the life-world. However, by transgressing disciplinary paradigms and surpassing the practical
problems of single actors, transdisciplinary research is challenged by the following requirements: to grasp the complexity
of the problems, to take into account the diversity of scientific and societal views of the problems, to link abstract and
case specific knowledge, and to constitute knowledge with a focus on problem-solving for what is perceived to be the common
good. Transdisciplinary research relates to three types of knowledge: systems knowledge, target knowledge and transformation
knowledge, and reflects their mutual dependencies in the research process. One way to meet the transdisciplinary requirements
in dealing with research problems is to design the phases of the research process in a recurrent order. Research that addresses
problems in the life-world comprises the phase of problem identification and problem structuring, the phase of problem investigation
and the phase of bringing results to fruition. In transdisciplinary research, the order of the phases and the amount of resources
dedicated to each phase depend on the kind of problem under investigation and on the state of knowledge.
The involvement of stakeholders and the public in societal decision processes has lately received increased attention. We
suggest that appropriate and tailored techniques should be selected and integrated to provide the prerequisites for inclusive
involvement depending on the issue, type, goals and phase of the decision process in question, i.e. an analytic, systematic
and dynamic approach to collaboration. In a transdisciplinary case study design we integrate diverse analytical methods whereby
a process of mutual learning between science and people from outside academia is strived for. Our framework for collaboration
is illustrated by a case study on sustainable landscape development in the Swiss prealpine region of Appenzell Ausserrhoden.
This volume offers an exploration of major changes in the way
knowledge is produced in science, technology, social science,
& humanities, arguing that a new mode of knowledge production
promises to replace or radically reform established
institutions, disciplines, practices, & policies. A range of
features - reflexivity, transdisciplinarity, heterogeneity -
associated with the new mode of knowledge production are
identified to illustrate the connections between them & the
changing role of knowledge in social relations.
Methodological difficulties inherent in attempts to describe
a new mode of knowledge production are discussed, &
implications of this mode for science policy & international
economic competitiveness, collaboration, & globalization are
treated. The book is particularly relevant for those
concerned with educational systems, the changing nature of
knowledge, the social study of science, & the connections
between research & development, & social, economic, &
technological development. The book is presented in 7 Chpts
with a Preface & an Introduction. (1) Evolution of Knowledge
Production. (2) The Marketability and Commercialisation of
Knowledge. (3) Massification of Research and Education. (4)
The Case of the Humanities. (5) Competitiveness,
Collaboration and Globalisation. (6) Reconfiguring
Institutions. (7) Towards Managing Socially Distributed
Knowledge. References accompany each Chpt. 2 Tables. W.
Howard (Copyright 1995, Sociological Abstracts, Inc., all
rights reserved.)
In ecological economics the terms sustainable development and transdisciplinarity are closely related. It is shown that this close relation is due to the fact that research for sustainable development has to be issue oriented and reflect the diversity, complexity and dynamics of the processes involved as well as their variability between specific problem situations. Furthermore, the knowledge of people involved and their needs and interests at stake have to be taken into account. There are three basic and interrelated questions about issues to be addressed in sustainability research: (1) In which way do processes constitute a problem field and where are the needs for change? (2) What are more sustainable practices? (3) How can existing practices be transformed? To treat them properly, transdisciplinary research is needed. The emergence of transdisciplinary research in the North and the South is described. By distinguishing analytically among basic, applied and transdisciplinary research the challenges that have to be tackled in transdisciplinary projects are analyzed.
Over the past fifteen years, a new dimension to the analysis of science has emerged. Feminist theory, combined with the insights of recent developments in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science, has raised a number of new and important questions about the content, practice, and traditional goals of science. Feminists have pointed to a bias in the choice and definition of problems with which scientists have concerned themselves, and in the actual design and interpretation of experiments, and have argued that modern science evolved out of a conceptual structuring of the world that incorporated particular and historically specific ideologies of gender. The seventeen outstanding articles in this volume reflect the diversity and strengths of feminist contributions to current thinking about science.
Scitation is the online home of leading journals and conference proceedings from AIP Publishing and AIP Member Societies
Just as the concept “paradigm”energized the human sciences in spite of its manydefinitions and uses, so now does the concept“reflexive” seem to be of increasingsalience, again with many definitions and uses. It is argued thatreflexivity, as a fundamental human quality underliesvarious attempts to understand and intervene in humanrelationships. By juxtaposing paradigms, reflexivity, and therapeutic progression it is possible toset out several types of reflexivity, some relativelyself-contained and others at the edge of our possible“knowledges.”
Science always evolves, responding to its leading challenges as they change through history. After centuries of triumph and
optimism, science is now called on to remedy the pathologies of the global industrial system of which it forms the basis.
Whereas science was previously understood as steadily advancing in the certainty of our knowledge and control of the natural
world, now science is seen as coping with many uncertainties in policy issues of risks and the environment. In response, new
styles of scientific activity are being developed. The reductionist, analytical world-view which divides systems into ever
smaller elements, studied by ever more esoteric specialties, is being replaced by a systemic, synthetic and humanistic approach.
The old dichotomies of facts and values, and of knowledge and ignorance, are being transcended. Natural systems are recognized
as dynamic and complex; those involving interactions with humanity are “emergent,” including properties of reflection and
contradiction. The science appropriate to this new condition will be based on the assumptions of unpredictability, incomplete
control, and a plurality of legitimate perspectives.
A review of the book "Rising Global Interest in Farmland: Can It Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits?," by Klaus Deininger and Derek Byerlee is presented.