No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Research In-between: The Constitutive Role of Cultural Differences in Transdisciplinarity
... Existen diferentes corrientes de la transdisciplina, las cuales caracteriza en tres ramos: 1) la trascendencia en el conocimiento intraacadémico desde una mirada teórica, 2) la solución de problemas y la colaboración multiactoral desde un enfoque pragmático, y 3) la transgresión y transformación de la ciencia con un enfoque ético-político. La transdisciplina se puede también entender como una práctica integradora que se basa en la diferencia y genera un nuevo espacio entre las fronteras de diferentes formas de conocer, actuar y ser (Vilsmaier et al., 2017), o bien como un modo de colaboración entre diferentes formas de conocimiento, prácticas, valores e intereses que construye lo común desde la diferencia (Merçon et al., 2018). ...
... Las culturas distintas de las que provenimos han sido el punto de partida de un proceso de aprendizaje mutuo que ha enriquecido nuestras visiones del mundo y la agricultura. Ulli Vilsmaier et al. (2017) han identificado la diferencia cultural como esencia de la transdisciplina crítica. Nosotros tenemos un com promiso especial con la diversidad cultural. ...
... En este sentido, y pese a sus limitaciones, esta investigación es un pequeño paso en el reconocimiento de sistemas de conocimiento subalternizados, de su poder y potencial colectivo, del derecho humano a investigar, y una opor tunidad única de explorar las diferencias y "negociar significados" (Vilsmaier et al., 2017). ...
Cuidar la vida ante las problemáticas socioambientales que enfrentamos es una tarea cada vez más desafiante. Para ello se torna indispensable aprender a construir saberes y acciones colectivas desde la diversidad de cosmovisiones, sentipensares, intereses y prácticas que sostenemos las personas implicadas.
Este libro presenta el resultado de un proceso de aprendizajes y diálogos detonados a partir de la sistematización de once experiencias de investigación interdisciplinaria, transdisciplinaria e investigación-acción participativa que tienen o han tenido lugar en la frontera sur de México. Expone un tejido de reflexiones autocríticas que invitan a repensar la investigación colaborativa desde la mirada del sur global y soñar otra academia posible, capaz de contribuir a la construcción de un mundo más justo, sustentable e inclusivo.
... Transdisciplinary research approaches complex problems of sustainable futures with high degrees of uncertainties and unknowns (Bammer, 2019) by incorporating heterogeneous perspectives and different forms of knowing and knowledge production (Bammer et al., 2020;Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008;Mitchell et al., 2015), and by linking epistemic with transformative objectives (Vilsmaier, Brandner, & Engbers, 2017). This can lead to constellations of research teams, comprising representatives of different scientific and societal realms (Polk, 2015;Stokols et al., 2013). ...
... This contribution is based on a research mode of critical transdisciplinarity (Vilsmaier, Brandner, & Engbers, 2017;Meyer & Vilsmaier, 2020). At the level of practice, it strongly relates to problem-oriented discourses as developed in transdisciplinary sustainability sciences (Jahn et al., 2012;Lang et al., 2012) and takes up the joint production of knowledge with actors from different societal realms. ...
... Such transdisciplinary research spaces are constituted in difference and created through integration. For analysing the integration of diverse ways of knowing, acting, and being (Vilsmaier, Brandner, & Engbers, 2017), a distinction is made between epistemic, socio-organizational, and communicative dimensions of integration (Jahn et al., 2012). Epistemic integration refers to the identification and linkage of different scientific and non-scientific bodies of knowledge (Förster et al., 2018;Pohl et al., 2021). ...
This paper provides insights into the practice of design-based interventions in transdisciplinary research and demonstrates how design prototyping can be made fruitful in processes of transformation and collaborative knowledge production. It shows how heterogeneous perspectives and stocks of knowledge can be related to each other and moments of integration generated by working with conceptual designs. Due to their open character, design methods are discussed as particularly promising when dealing with a high degree of complexity, uncertainties, and unknowns. After a characterization of design research and prototyping, common strategies of design research and transdisciplinary research for addressing heterogeneity and unknowns will be explored. This serves to frame the transfer of design practices to support integration processes in transdisciplinary teams. Using an example from a transdisciplinary case study in Transylvania, the implementation of design prototyping will be demonstrated and initial findings presented. Different integration dimensions from transdisciplinary sustainability research serve as a basis for investigating the epistemic, social-organizational, and communicative integration performance of design prototyping. For transdisciplinary research, design practice expands the methodical canon for working in heterogeneous teams and tackling uncertainty and unknowns in openness.
... Its current ascendancy is characterized by an increased interest across academic, public and private sectors (Klein, 2014). The concept of transdisciplinarity has emerged due to the cooperation between different disciplines and social actors in the pursuit of solving social problems Klein, 2010;Lang et al., 2012;Spoun & Kölzer 2014;Vilsmaier & Lang;Vilsmaier, Brandner & Engbers, 2017; to name a few). Transdisciplinarity has emerged as a solution to problems related to grand challenges, such as described in Lang et al. (2012) and Vilsmaier and Lang (2015). ...
... Disciplines, sub-disciplines, and -considered in a wider societal context-academia, are epistemic communities (Rist, Chiddambaranathan, Escobar, & Wiesmann, 2006) that vary according to their cultures of knowing and acting and serve as references for personal and professional identities. Transdisciplinary knowledge production, therefore, can be considered as an activity developed in an intercultural endeavour (Vilsmaier et al., 2017) that poses questions on how these cultural differences determine the way we understand science and its development. ...
... The co-production of knowledge establishes specific communicative processes and shares with transdisciplinarity the goal of transgressing (Klein, 2004) the concept of traditional research and teaching (Vilsmaier et al., 2017). These types of practices are observed in CIEN and the MCISur, as part of their objectives and work methodology. ...
To define integrality in the context of a Uruguayan university and to provide relevant lessons for fostering transdisciplinary research and communication at other universities and contexts. To better understand how transdisciplinary research is being developed in Uruguay and how it relates to other research practices, such as integral activities, oriented towards the resolution of real world problems. To open new spaces for communication among researchers from different regions and countries as a way of reflecting not only on concepts, but also on research practices. The call for a theoretical-methodological discussion that promotes new formats of knowledge production, yet that also recognizes other formats of great academic validity that have been developed for more than thirty years in Latin American countries such as Uruguay. To value the legitimacy of non-traditional practices of doing science, which are often simplified as multi-or interdisciplinary, because they use those terms as a way to identify themselves. Communication in Transdisciplinary Teams 254 Introduction to the Chapter This chapter assesses developments in transdisciplinary communication in research teams in the Uruguayan academic context, specifically at the Universidad de la República (Ude-laR). While we support the thesis that transdisciplinarity (TD) is still not mainstream and is rarely supported in different countries, this chapter examines the extent to which a Uru-guayan university has embraced the concept of transdisciplinarity. We seek to contribute to the conceptual discussion on transdisciplinary research, taking UdelaR as our unit of analysis. We will focus our attention on the definition of transdisciplinarity, and discuss the nuances and distinctions in its understanding. We will also analyze contextual circumstances of transdisciplinarity, including larger structural factors and the different types of communicative formats developed by research teams. Our guiding questions are the following: (i) How is transdisciplinarity conceptualized in these academic centres in the Uruguayan context? (ii) How are the communicative processes with diverse social actors defined and practiced in these four centres? (iii) What can we learn about transdisciplinary communicative processes in different cultural contexts? We analyze four case studies that provide empirical data about the communicative processes developed between academia and diverse social actors aiming to address real-world or multidimensional problems (Bunders et al., 2010). We address how transdisciplinarity develops within a specific cultural context. We find evidence that research in Uruguay is achieving some elements of transdisciplinarity in research but these practices are termed differently as extension, outreach, or integral activities. These characteristics shared by most Latin American universities guide the communicative processes among actors. We further expand the concept of transdisciplinarity and propose a revised definition that is better suited to this context. This definition should include the ways in which scientific knowledge is produced, who participates in its production, and who is authorized to state the objectives and research questions put in motion an interaction among different actors, types of knowledge and experiences. The evidence suggests that transdisciplinarity in Uruguayan research is developing under other labels, and this fact does not necessarily impede the framing of research oriented towards societal issues. Our study also acknowledges that there is a growing capacity among interdisciplinary groups to evaluate the quality of transdisciplinary communicative processes and to learn from such evaluations. We aim to build bridges among researchers conducting transdisciplinary research in different countries and continents and show that there are practices and discourses that share a common understanding of this concept. The empirical frame of reference is the experience gained in the construction and consolidation of four Interdisciplinary Centres (ICs) at UdelaR, between 2009 and 2017. The four Centres work on complex problems and address grand challenges, namely, (i) This chapter is structured as follows. First, we describe the theoretical framework used to conceptualize transdisciplinarity. Second, we present the characteristics of UdelaR's model in the shared historical context of the Centres analysed in this research. Third, we describe the four case studies in detail and discuss each space by analyzing their similarities and differences. Fourth, we conceptualize our findings in light of the rationale introduced in the second section. Finally, we present conclusions regarding the lessons learned from the analysis of the four Centres and the future research challenges.
... Previous and current studies have called for transforming and restructuring higher education while arguing that universities' potential to solve societal problems has not been fully reached (Jantsch 1972a;Klein 2004;Schneidewind 2001;Weingart 2014). In this context, transdisciplinarity (TD) has emerged as a solution to related problems (Lang et al. 2012;Vilsmaier, Brandner, and Engbers 2017;Vilsmaier and Lang 2015). ...
... The definition of transdisciplinarity has been developed mainly related to the cooperation between different disciplines and actors from the social praxis with the intention of dealing and solving social problems Fam, Neuhauser, and Gibbs 2018;Klein 2014;Lang et al. 2012;Spoun and Kölzer 2014;Vilsmaier, Brandner, and Engbers 2017;Vilsmaier and Lang 2015 to name a few). Transdisciplinary research, education and institutions aim at addressing societal knowledge demands by designing processes combining knowledge produced in academia, and knowledge requests for solving societal problems (Hadorn et al. 2008). ...
... Lang et al. (2012) focused their attention on the construction of a framework used for TD research and how to improve it. Vilsmaier, Brandner, and Engbers (2017) understand TD as an intercultural endeavor and study the 'inbetween' space created in this environment. For its part, Spoun (2017) argues that the substantial feature of TD is the relationship among different disciplines and actors with the goal of solving social challenges. ...
In this paper, we focus on the institutionalization of transdisciplinarity (TD) in higher education institutions and how they institutionalize Transdisciplinarity (TD). As such, universities have engaged in different activities to enact TD policies that aim at incorporating TD in their research and teaching. We take the Methodology Center at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg as a case study. We analyze the institutionalization process of TD to shed light on the obstacles that TD faces to become a widespread policy and practice at universities. In adopting a neo-institutionalist approach in our research, we develop a two-level analysis that allow us to compare the formal characteristics given to TD policies with the actual TD practices taking place in universities. Our findings reveal that TD institutionalization at the Methodology Center is at a mid-level and that overall TD institutionalization is an iterative process, in which the two levels mutually can reinforce or hinder each other.
... En lo que sigue, vamos a esbozar el potencial de la investigación transdisciplinaria en sustentabilidad, para contribuir a un discurso crítico y diferenciado, que genere estrategias alternativas. Esta forma de investigación acoge explícitamente las diferencias, considerando perspectivas heterogéneas y auto-determinaciones culturales (VILSMAIER et al., 2017;ENGBERS venidero), está orientada hacia la cooperación y el aprendizaje mutuo, intentando con ello contrarrestar la marginalización y satisfacer las exigencias éticas de la sustentabilidad. 8 ...
... En línea con el trabajo de Bhabha (2004), una investigación transdisciplinaria y crítica en sustentabilidad puede comprenderse como un campo en el que las "estructuras, relaciones de poder y dependencias existentes se cancelan, al menos temporalmente, cuando las diferencias cognoscibles se articulan y con ello se vuelven tangibles" (VILSMAIER et al., 2017;traducción propia). Los espacios transdisciplinarios recurren y pretenden superar, las estructuras sociales establecidas, en tanto se crean espacios de investigación cooperativos entre los miembros de diferentes dominios sociales (ibid.). ...
... El desafío intelectual es investigar de forma colaborativa e intercultural, y aprender unos de otros sobre la dinámica discursiva y contra-hegemónica de sustainability, entre distintos espacios y culturas, entre diferentes contextos históricos socioculturales, económicos y políticos en los distintos continentes (ibíd.) para apoyar proyectos autónomos basados en la diferencia cultural (VILSMAIER et al., 2017). ¿Cómo problematizamos, por ejemplo, global modernity? ...
A pesar del aumento mundial de discursos y políticas sobre sostenibilidad, los significados del concepto
varían en diferentes comunidades lingüísticas. Esto puede debilitar la multidimensionalidad y la dimensión
ética del concepto y poner en peligro la política. El artículo tiene como objetivo destacar los hilos teoréticos
del discurso sobre la sostenibilidad y la sustentabilidad de diferentes comunidades lingüísticas en una
orientación intercultural. Presenta una revisión meta-analítica de trabajos analíticos del discurso y un
propio análisis. Los resultados muestran discursos hegemónicos de conceptualizaciones economicistas,
así como alternativas. Aspiramos a contribuir a un intercambio y una discusión en profundidad entre
los discursos lingüísticos y a la reflexión metódica de la investigación analítica-discursiva desde una
perspectiva intercultural. Concluimos que la investigación transdisciplinaria fortalece, ya sea como ciencia
de la sustentabilidad o como investigación transformadora, la fractura de los órdenes hegemónicos y, por
lo tanto, complementa la comprensión de formas de vida (no) sustentables.
... In what follows, we will outline the potential of transdisciplinary sustainability research, to contribute to a critical and differentiated discourse that generates alternative strategies. This form of research explicitly embraces differences, considering heterogeneous perspectives and cultural self-determinations (VILSMAIER et al., 2017;ENGBERS 2020), and is oriented towards cooperation and mutual learning, thereby trying to counter marginalization and satisfy the ethical demands of sustainability. 8 ...
... In transdisciplinary research, scientists investigate societal problems -and their solutions -in a joint process with individuals or groups (political, economic, civil society) not involved in academic fields (ibid.). In critical transdisciplinarity, all participants are considered as researchers and jointly contribute -with different knowledges and in different roles -to the research process (VILSMAIER et al. 2017). moments and the question of alternatives Sustainability in Debate -Brasília, v. 11, n.1, p. 98-110, apr/2020 ISSN-e 2179-9067 This type of process seeks to generate different forms of knowledge (PROCLIM, 1997;VILSMAIER and LANG 2014): ...
... By positioning critical transdisciplinary sustainability research in the space between different societal institutions and highlighting its search for political and meditative ways of producing understandings and practices, a place can be created where epistemic and transformative goals can be intertwined (VILSMAIER et al. 2017). In this way, research results can take into account certain scientific quality criteria and at the same time gain social and cultural robustness (GIBBONS, 1999;NOWOTNY, 2000;VILSMAIER et al., 2015). ...
The dissemination of sustainability has worldwide increased significantly in discourses and politics since the UN-resolution of the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ in 2015. Nevertheless, the meanings of the concept vary in different linguistic communities and cultures. The present article comprises a meta-analytic revision of discourse-analytic work and a own discourse analysis of sustainability concepts in an intercultural orientation. The results show hegemonic discourses of economistic conceptualizations as well as alternatives, which are constituted in different linguistic communities. The article wants to contribute to an exchange and a profound discussion between the linguistic groups as well as to a methodological reflection on discourse analysis from an intercultural perspective.
... Similar to the lifeboat scenario, one needs to consider both situated imbalances and a general predicament: First, it is at the fringes of social and epistemic sectors or 150 disciplines that we can best reflect upon the conditions, epistemologies, theories, or practices that facilitate social rank and epistemic authority. In these interstices, where conventional rules lose their binding effect, the co-creation of emancipatory research collectives is most likely to succeed (Herberg 2018;Vilsmaier, Brandner, and Engbers 2017). Second, the role of the sciences must be accepted as a manifestation of the history of control regimes. ...
... Being the somewhat academic version of Burroughs' life-boat scenario, the unwanted involvement in techno-economic control regimes has impelled diverging pathways of collaborative research. Some seek to carve out a research practice from in-between institutionalized fields that are grounded in 250 difference (Vilsmaier, Brandner, and Engbers 2017) while others struggle for a counter-hegemony against the epistemological and ontological regime of techno-science (Escobar 2018). Most of these responsesincluding those gathered in this special issuedo not prioritize a particular way of producing knowledge, but instead explore social, political, and epistemic conditions, spaces and temporalities, and methodological responses. ...
... Most of these responsesincluding those gathered in this special issuedo not prioritize a particular way of producing knowledge, but instead explore social, political, and epistemic conditions, spaces and temporalities, and methodological responses. This becomes particularly relevant where research crosses not only disciplinary boundaries but the boundaries of science itself, thereby creating research spaces that span different ways of knowing, acting, and being (Vilsmaier, Brandner, and Engbers 2017). ...
In this article we argue that the notion of control poses a critical conceptual and historical connection between scientific and political power. While many meanings of control originate in the sciences, concepts of experimentation, care, and learning currently translate into increasingly decentralized govern-ance concepts, be it through market-logics or surveillance technologies. That is, epistemic and social control is co-constituted. Collaborative research plays a transformative but paradoxical role in this interplay: Science and Technology Studies scholars have leveraged powerful critiques against techno-scientific control and have shaped practical modes of transdisciplin-ary research. However, the critique of techno-scientific control is increasingly mixed up with post-truth controversies, and the appeal to inter-and trans-disciplinary collaboration has been appropriated by neoliberal science policy. The historical conundrum culminates in a practical dilemma: Collaborative researchers seek to overcome the very regimes of techno-scientific control that the sciences are bound to co-produce. Can they shift the control regimes that they are part of? Collaborative research requires a critical and pragmatic standpoint with regard to both the methods of politics and the politics of methodology. This special issue seeks to come to terms with the inherent contradictions of collaborative research and make useful proposals with regard to its political potential.
... Against this background, in this paper, we explore issues of landscape change and people's emotional responses towards it through engaging with art-based research called social land art within a transdisciplinary case study [20] in the district of Oldenburg, Germany. Social land art links art, society and science and builds on a strong notion of participation [21,22] that in this study was fostered through intensive workshop settings that included discussion and the creation of art itself. ...
... Our study was part of a transdisciplinary collaboration [21] with the artecology_network, a German-wide collective of artists. In the district of Oldenburg, the involved artists seek to create awareness and possible solutions for land-use and nature conservation through close interaction with local actors. ...
... Our study was based on a close collaboration between an artist and an academic researcher on the topic of favourite places in public spaces. The art form used by the artist was social land art which sees itself as a link between art, society and science and entails a strong notion of participation [21]. The process of data collection was based on previous art workshops conducted by the artist. ...
Understanding emotions is necessary to analyse underlying motivations, values and drivers for behaviours. In landscapes that are rapidly changing, for example, due to land conversion for intensive agriculture, a sense of powerlessness of the inhabitants can be common, which may negatively influence their emotional bond to the landscape they are living in. To uncover varied emotional responses towards landscape change we used an innovative approach that combined transdisciplinary and artistic research in an intensively farmed landscape in Germany. In this project, we focused on the topic of favourite places in public spaces, and how change in such places was experienced. Drawing on workshops and interviews, we identified themes of externally driven societal and internal personal influences on the public favourite places. "Resilient" emotional responses towards landscape change showed a will to integrate the modifications, while "non-resilient" responses were characterised by frustration and despair. We argue that identifying emotions towards change can be valuable to strengthen adaptive capacity and to foster sustainability.
... Individual and collective innovation and transformation processes are often triggered less by cognitive knowledge than by life-world-motivated needs for change and reform, which can be commu-nicated and implemented in an exploratory, improvisational, experimental way (Epstein 1994, 711;WBGU 2011, 242;West 2019West , 2023, whereby ref lexivity increases. The (future) modus operandi of knowledge societies can then be understood as continuous experimentation, in which scientifically and socially defined problems can hardly be separated (Välimaa and Hoffman 2008;Vilsmaier et al. 2017;West 2023). ...
... In research approaches at the science-society interface we can observe two fundamentally different ways of dealing with epistemic-political questions regarding the value and legitimization of different knowledges: An additive understanding of transdisciplinarity is that scientific knowledge production is embedded in larger social research constellations, but scientific rationality remains unaffected. An entangled understanding of transdisciplinarity, however, is grounded in an open relationship between epistemic cultures that does not grant primacy to any specific form of knowledge generation, which raises significant epistemological, methodological, and ethical-political questions, and opens up a space between institutions and knowledge cultures (Merçon 2022;Vilsmaier et al. 2017). ...
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
... Action research and participative research follow the iterative-cyclic research and development logics. Thus, action and reflection constitute the dualistic core of this kind of research, comprising both epistemic and transformative aims (Vilsmaier, Brandner, & Engbers, 2017). ...
... In addition, mutual learning also requires the adoption of mutual perspectives and the elaboration of a common understanding (Bayerl & Steinheider, 2009). To do so, the recognition of the differences in ways of perceiving, knowing, acting, and being becomes essential (Vilsmaier, Brandner, & Engbers, 2017). Co-constructive knowledge integration fosters a comprehensive understanding of the others' viewpoints, needs, and working methods and serves to consolidate the common ground (Bayerl & Steinheider, 2009). ...
This doctoral thesis contributes to the vibrant discourse on boundary-crossing collaboration in the German teacher education system. It offers theoretical advancements, programmatic guidelines, and empirical findings which advocate for a transdisciplinary perspective. In order to do so, the framing paper critically links persistent challenges and current reform processes in the teacher education system with theoretical foundations and conceptual positions of transdisciplinarity. Against this backdrop, four articles provide further insights on: a) how to expand the prevalent systematic of innovation and transfer approaches (top-down, bottom-up, cooperative) by a transdisciplinary perspective, b) outlining guiding principles for the realization of transdisciplinary collaboration in the context of a boundary-crossing research and development project, c) providing empirical findings on effect relationships between transdisciplinary dimensions of integration characteristics, and d) identifying empirical types of actors based on specific assessment patterns towards these characteristics.
... Transdisciplinary research practices differ significantly in terms of how those aspirations are realized. While some propose and apply a science-centered approach, in which scientific knowledge production is complemented by participatory processes and contributions from so-called non-scientific actors [28,29], we call for a critical and culturally sensitive transdisciplinarity where analysis and activism, research and decision-making as well as knowledge production and societal transformation at large are no longer separated, but considered and articulated as constitutive components of the same process [30][31][32][33]. This can be seen in knowledge alliances [34] where different cognitive frames, motives and objectives are explored, articulated and debated to produce socially [35] and culturally [30] robust knowledge and action. ...
... In this way, the permeability of cognitive frames also becomes important for understanding and achieving diffusion. Spaces of knowledge articulation can emerge "[i]n which the own, the uncertain and the differences can perpetually be fathomed, interpreted and negotiated" [31] (p. 174); i.e., spaces that are constituted through different ways of approaching sustainability challenges. ...
Community-based approaches to natural resource management are being discussed and experienced as promising ways for pursuing ecological conservation and socio-economic development simultaneously. However, the multiplicity of levels, scales, objectives and actors that are involved in sustainability transformations tends to be challenging for such bottom-up approaches. Collaborative and polycentric governance schemes are proposed for dealing with those challenges. What has not been fully explored is how knowledge from local contexts of community-based initiatives can be diffused to influence practices on higher levels and/or in other local contexts. This study explores how theoretical advances in the diffusion of grassroots innovation can contribute to understanding and supporting the diffusion of knowledge and practices from community-based initiatives and proposes a transdisciplinary approach to diffusion. For that aim, we develop an analytical perspective on the diffusion of grassroots innovations that takes into consideration the multiplicity of actors, levels and scales, the different qualities/types of knowledge and practices, as well as their respective contributions. We focus on the multiplicity and situatedness of cognitive frames and conceptualize the diffusion of grassroots innovations as a transdisciplinary process. In this way three different diffusion pathways are derived in which the knowledge and practices of grassroots initiatives can be processed in order to promote their (re)interpretation and (re)application in situations and by actors that do not share the cognitive frame and the local context of the originating grassroots initiative. The application of the developed approach is illustrated through transdisciplinary research for the diffusion of sustainable family farming innovations in Colombia. This conceptualization accounts for the emergence of multiplicity as an outcome of diffusion by emphasizing difference as a core resource in building sustainable futures.
... This emergent mode of research is aiming at the plurality of knowledges and perspectives, as well as process orientation combined with a normative orientation towards sustainability or SD. It is criticising modern institutionalised demarcations and understandings of research, such as scientific objectivity and progress (Vilsmaier et al. 2017;Vilsmaier 2018). Research in td sustainability sciences may open up a platform on which the boundaries that constitute research are shifted (Schmidt 2011). ...
... The epistemological concept of problematic designing, as a thinking practice, together with the methodological design canon, is an invitation to expand the methodological canon of td sustainability research. 11 Epistemologies of the problematic start at the relation to uncertainties, be they the past, the other or the future (Vilsmaier et al. 2017) and regard 'the effects themselves (as) the cause of the world's development' (Aicher 1991: 186, my translation;Harrasser/Sohldju 2016;Moore 2016). The (future as) playful-speculative remains tied back to its conditions, namely (preservation of) life itself and its 'pre-individual nature' (Voss 2018: 96). ...
The notion of »the problematic« has changed its meaning within the history of power and knowledge since the early 20th century, leading up to today's performative, neocybernetic fascination with generalized management ideas and technocratic models of science. This book explores central scenes, conceptual elaborations, and practical affiliations of what historically has been called »the problem« or »the problematic«. By way of considering modes of problematization as modes of inhabitation, intervention, and transformation the contributions map its current conceptual-political uses as well as onto-epistemological challenges. Thus, »problematization« is positioned as a critical concept that links, often in intricate ways, several currents from speculative philosophy to the formation of interdisciplinary fields. The »problematic«, as it turns out, has been the source of change in philosophy and the sciences all along.
... However, these transdisciplinary endeavours differ significantly with respect to the role and status of scientific and societal actors, the type and quality of relations, and represent different modes of knowledge production. The main differences consist of the valuation of knowledge production and the power over the design and implementation processes (Fritz & Meinherz, 2020;Vilsmaier et al., 2017). Despite transdisciplinary researchers seeking to overcome the techno-scientific domination in knowledge co-production, social and epistemic control often remains with the scientists (Herberg & Vilsmaier, 2020). ...
... For the formation and development of transdisciplinary knowledge regimes and their institutional incorporation and manifestation in research cultures and communities at universities, it makes a significant difference whether an additive or entangled approach to TD is pursued. While an additive approach requires communication and collaboration structures, but does not necessarily tackle institutional and epistemic logics, an entangled approach calls for changes in the logic and landscape of institutions and a reframing of values of different practices of knowledge production, and ultimately of the concept of research (Appadurai, 2006;Vilsmaier et al., 2017). Felt et al. (2016) take a closer look at the different imaginaries of science-society relationships that are performed by research participants and reflect on how they frame the potential knowledge relations developed in transdisciplinary research projects. ...
The main objective of this study is to better understand the challenges of transdisciplinary knowledge production processes and its institutionalisation at universities. Transdisciplinary research is considered a collaborative and integrative praxis grounded in different ways of knowing, acting and being. However, transdisciplinary research practices differ significantly in the relations between institutions and actors. These differences have an impact on how transdisciplinarity is institutionalised. There is a need to incorporate them into a larger framework of ongoing transformations of scientific timescales and spaces at universities. We present the results of a case study developed at Babes-Bolyai University (Romania). We discuss it against the background of three models of transdisciplinary knowledge production and two approaches of transdisciplinary problem-solving research. We apply a qualitative methodology of micro level analysis that explores research practices and their embeddedness in the institutional environment. We analyse conditions that enable transdisciplinary knowledge production and show how transdisciplinary institutionalisation can be better understood using the proposed framework applied to the case study. It could be shown that taking into consideration the differences in the models of transdisciplinary knowledge production proved to be useful to gain a deeper understanding of processes of institutionalising transdisciplinarity at universities.
... This emergent mode of research is aiming at the plurality of knowledges and perspectives, as well as process orientation combined with a normative orientation towards sustainability or SD. It is criticising modern institutionalised demarcations and understandings of research, such as scientific objectivity and progress (Vilsmaier et al. 2017;Vilsmaier 2018). Research in td sustainability sciences may open up a platform on which the boundaries that constitute research are shifted (Schmidt 2011). ...
... The epistemological concept of problematic designing, as a thinking practice, together with the methodological design canon, is an invitation to expand the methodological canon of td sustainability research. 11 Epistemologies of the problematic start at the relation to uncertainties, be they the past, the other or the future (Vilsmaier et al. 2017) and regard 'the effects themselves (as) the cause of the world's development' (Aicher 1991: 186, my translation;Harrasser/Sohldju 2016;Moore 2016). The (future as) playful-speculative remains tied back to its conditions, namely (preservation of) life itself and its 'pre-individual nature' (Voss 2018: 96). ...
The notion of »the problematic« has changed its meaning within the history of power and knowledge since the early 20th century, leading up to today's performative, neocybernetic fascination with generalized management ideas and technocratic models of science. This book explores central scenes, conceptual elaborations, and practical affiliations of what historically has been called »the problem« or »the problematic«. By way of considering modes of problematization as modes of inhabitation, intervention, and transformation the contributions map its current conceptual-political uses as well as onto-epistemological challenges. Thus, »problematization« is positioned as a critical concept that links, often in intricate ways, several currents from speculative philosophy to the formation of interdisciplinary fields. The »problematic«, as it turns out, has been the source of change in philosophy and the sciences all along.
... Action research and participative research follow the iterative-cyclic research and development logics. Thus, action and reflection constitute the dualistic core of this kind of research, comprising both epistemic and transformative aims (Vilsmaier, Brandner, & Engbers, 2017). ...
... In addition, mutual learning also requires the adoption of mutual perspectives and the elaboration of a common understanding (Bayerl & Steinheider, 2009). To do so, the recognition of the differences in ways of perceiving, knowing, acting, and being becomes essential (Vilsmaier, Brandner, & Engbers, 2017). Co-constructive knowledge integration fosters a comprehensive understanding of the others' viewpoints, needs, and working methods and serves to consolidate the common ground (Bayerl & Steinheider, 2009). ...
This article contributes to the discourse of innovation and transfer strategies in German teacher education by (1) providing a conceptual analysis of prevalent approaches and (2) introducing a transdisciplinary perspective. The conceptual analysis indicates that top-down and bottom-up approaches lack either transformative momentum or scientific rigor. Collaborative approaches aim to mitigate this dilemma, but remain biased towards unidirectional innovation and transfer processes. In contrast, transdisciplinary approaches advocate for integrative and systemic pathways for educational change, which interlinks research and practice in teaching and teacher education. Illustrating examples from a boundary-crossing research and development project support this perspective.
... In this paper, we explain the philosophical concept of the problematic, 5 which has been developed in a twentieth-century French epistemological tradition. The concept of the problematic emphazises French theory's differentiation of the subject-object dichotomy (Maniglier 2012), which makes it interesting for transdisciplinary research (Nicolescu 2010), where research collectives go beyond the traditional divide of an active researcher and a passive object of research (Vilsmaier, Brandner, and Engbers 2017). Thus, the concept of the problematic contributes to our goal of epistemologically substantiating the discourse. ...
... In openness, with regard to the manifold dimensions of transformation, lies the potential for political work in and through transdisciplinary research projects. By political work we mean work on interests and epistemologies that are based on experiences, and in which nothing matters except the moment of the differentiating encounter of these differences (Maguire 2018;Vilsmaier, Brandner, and Engbers 2017). This work also relates to different interests and epistemological understandings, and thus the future of transdisciplinary (sustainability) research itself; for example, the intercultural exploration of what is understood by transdisciplinarity. ...
This paper elaborates on the question of how to design an epistemological foundation for problem-oriented, collaborative forms of research, such as transdisciplinary sustainability research. It picks up approaches of twentieth-century European philosophy to the concept of the problematic and design research. The problematic is explained as a historical epistemological effort. Design research shows parallels to the epistemological thinking of the problematic by contributing to a differentiation and historicity of knowledge and knowledge production itself. Designing is constituted by a nexus of conceptual thinking and creative making, and so designs are drafts themselves. We interweave the thinking of the problematic with the practice of designing in order to open an epistemological perspective in and for transdisciplinary sustainability research. We call this a ‘thinking practice of problematic designing,’ which describes an epistemological tool as well as a transformative process. Problematic designing is characterized by always being in the making – its designs can grow beyond their conditions of production. By opening up manifold dimensions of transformation, this epistemological approach is oriented towards complexity, enabling the generation of sound and future-relevant knowledge.
... Трансдисциплінарні дослідження виникли як відповідь на зростаючі потреби наукоємних технологій, щоб забезпечити більш швидкі та відчутні результати й переваги для добробуту суспільства. Значний внесок зроблено в багатьох галузях діяльності, зокрема у наукових і технологічних дослідженнях, науках про Землю та сталому розвитку суспільства, сфері охорони здоров'я та біомедицини, урбаністичних, гендерних і медіадослідженнях тощо [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. ...
The main goal of this study is to better understand the challenges of building transdisciplinary knowledge bases and their formalization in digital education. The article substantiates the need to develop mechanisms for building transdisciplinary knowledge bases to ensure the educational and research activities of student youth. The essence of the concept of transdisciplinarity and its importance in the educational process, scientific research for the construction of digital knowledge bases are analyzed. The transdisciplinary nature of ontologies in scientific research is determined. The methodology of transdisciplinarity of the knowledge base in terms of the development of network systems for managing information sources accompanying the process of supporting the educational and research activities of students is described. The e‑scenario is defined as a means of forming a transdisciplinary knowledge base of educational and research activities of students. The principles of the ontological approach to designing a transdisciplinary knowledge base are presented and the procedure for its formation in the format of operationally structured e‑scenarios is described. The general ontological graph-structure of the e‑scenario of the transdisciplinary knowledge base is provided. It analyzes the conditions that enable transdisciplinary knowledge production and shows how transdisciplinary institutionalization can be better understood using an ontological approach. It can be argued that the ontological approach in the models of transdisciplinary knowledge production proved to be useful for a deeper understanding of the processes of institutionalization of transdisciplinarity. Prospective conclusions of the practical application of the given methodology and the described principles of building transdisciplinary knowledge bases to ensure the educational and research activities of student youth have been made.
... De esta forma, dar una carga interdisciplinaria a la educación científica no ha de surgir de manera casual y caprichosa, sino por la necesidad de comprender un acontecer desde diferentes ópticas. Configurar una visión de esta naturaleza demanda pluralidad y una postura más naturalista que dé valía al contexto y que demande la confluencia de diversas disciplinas (Follari, 2022;Vilsmaier et al., 2017). Este sentido es fundamental para reconocer a la ciencia que enseña como un componente cognoscible y cognoscitivo de la cultura. ...
Elementos epistemológicos o para a Cultura Científica: contribuições para repensar a prática docente Resumen Este artículo de reflexión forma parte de los avances teóricos de la Tesis Doctoral titulada "La cultura científica en la formación docente en ciencias. Aproximación a modelos intersubjetivos" desarrollada en el marco del Doctorado en Ciencias Humanas de la Universidad de Talca (Chile). En este, se caracterizan y analizan rasgos epistemológicos y didácticos que, desde la práctica del docente, podrían tributar de manera sustancial a la cultura científica. Desde un ejercicio hermenéutico surgieron elementos epistemológicos que asignan un papel trascendente al docente y su práctica educativa: 1) reconocer lo latente: educar en ciencias, teniendo como fin la construcción de la cultura científica implica superar las interacciones y experiencias que ocurren en el plano experiencial fenoménico, y dar mayor importancia a las estructuras profundas que contienen los mode-los culturales, patrones interpretativos que soportan la didáctica; 2) promover la Verstehen: la comprensión de la ciencia y el conocimiento científico debe darse de manera inductiva; es decir, partiendo de la realidad y no de la teoría; 3) complejizar e integrar disciplinas: implica superar la visión parcial o segmentada de la realidad, dando paso a perspectivas complejas e interdisciplinarias; 4) valorar la unicidad: convoca a considerar a la ciencia que se enseña como un componente cognoscitivo de la cultura permeada de contexto e historia. Estos son rasgos que robustecen lo pertinente de una educación donde el docente es un intelectual público que emplea competencias dialógicas, ubicando al conocimiento científico en el marco de los desafíos actuales, entre ellos, la construcción de la cultura científica.
... Individual and collective innovation and transformation processes are often triggered less by cognitive knowledge than by life-world-motivated needs for change and reform, which can be commu-nicated and implemented in an exploratory, improvisational, experimental way (Epstein 1994, 711;WBGU 2011, 242;West 2019West , 2023, whereby ref lexivity increases. The (future) modus operandi of knowledge societies can then be understood as continuous experimentation, in which scientifically and socially defined problems can hardly be separated (Välimaa and Hoffman 2008;Vilsmaier et al. 2017;West 2023). ...
... En términos generales, la investigación acción tiende a excluir más explícitamente el conocimiento disciplinar, mientras que no lo hace la transdisciplina (Tempelhoff, 2010). Sin embargo, existen también abordajes a la investigación acción transdisciplinaria (Stokols, 2006) o propuestas como el intercambio de saberes que es una mirada con raíces Latinoamericanas y siendo más culturalmente sensibles (Delgado & Rist, 2016); Vilsmaier et al., 2017). Este grupo de prácticas tienen un foco más transgresor dado que la búsqueda, como plantea Merçon (2022, p.4), es "la coconstrucción de saberes, prácticas y también de poderes orientados a la transformación… no se trata de realizar una integración instrumental de conocimientos sino de co-construir un proceso capaz de criticar, reimaginar y transformar las relaciones de poder y, por ende, el status quo." ...
Responding to the call to preserve and/or transform our food ecosystems to secure life unequivocally requires a transdisciplinary approach. Although the term transdisciplinarity has been linked to design for more than four decades, it is currently vaguely debated in design – especially absent design curricula. It is not surprising then, that the term generates multiple ambiguities and concerns. In fact, as an academic term, transdisciplinarity is understood in multiple ways, which refer not only to how to describe or carry it out, but also about who the agents and protagonists are, and the types of knowledges that are articulated or generated. The way in which we approach defining and practicing transdisciplinarity implies a series of values that nourish it and, ultimately, shape a specific paradigm or worldview. This deep dimension inevitably defines the types of practices and knowledges that are amassed to make up what we later call actions, thoughts and feelings within food design. To avoid turning it into a buzzword emptied of meaning, it is essential that we clarify what we mean by transdisciplinarity in our practice and our theorizing, particularly when we work with the goal of shaping plural worlds that enhance life. This reflection essay will debate some of the key ideas linked to transdisciplinarity by presenting a conceptual review of ways of understanding and practicing it. It will be exemplified with a case of a transdisciplinary process anchored in the Latin American Southern Cone with the intention of inspiring other actions from fellow food designers.
... In research approaches at the science-society interface we can observe two fundamentally different ways of dealing with epistemic-political questions regarding the value and legitimization of different knowledges: An additive understanding of transdisciplinarity is that scientific knowledge production is embedded in larger social research constellations, but scientific rationality remains unaffected. An entangled understanding of transdisciplinarity, however, is grounded in an open relationship between epistemic cultures that does not grant primacy to any specific form of knowledge generation, which raises significant epistemological, methodological, and ethical-political questions, and opens up a space between institutions and knowledge cultures (Merçon 2022;Vilsmaier et al. 2017). ...
... In research approaches at the science-society interface we can observe two fundamentally different ways of dealing with epistemic-political questions regarding the value and legitimization of different knowledges: An additive understanding of transdisciplinarity is that scientific knowledge production is embedded in larger social research constellations, but scientific rationality remains unaffected. An entangled understanding of transdisciplinarity, however, is grounded in an open relationship between epistemic cultures that does not grant primacy to any specific form of knowledge generation, which raises significant epistemological, methodological, and ethical-political questions, and opens up a space between institutions and knowledge cultures (Merçon 2022;Vilsmaier et al. 2017). ...
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 and collective innovation and transformation processes are often triggered less by cognitive knowledge than by life-world-motivated needs for change and reform, which can be commu-nicated and implemented in an exploratory, improvisational, experimental way (Epstein 1994, 711;WBGU 2011, 242;West 2019West , 2023, whereby ref lexivity increases. The (future) modus operandi of knowledge societies can then be understood as continuous experimentation, in which scientifically and socially defined problems can hardly be separated (Välimaa and Hoffman 2008;Vilsmaier et al. 2017;West 2023). ...
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.
... Para Merçon et al., (2018) la transdisciplina es un proceso que "integra diferentes tipos de conocimiento, prácticas, valores e intereses para transitar hacia la sustentabilidad y la transformación de estructuras de poder". Retomando el asunto de la participación, a partir de la transdisciplina se han hecho grandes contribuciones incorporando formas distintas de investigar y desarrollar procesos como la Investigación acción participativa (Vilsmaier et al., 2017). Seguramente habrá que seguir explorando formas alternativas para resolver los problemas ambientales actuales. ...
... Creating safe spaces supports co-learning, raises team members' motivation to engage in TD collaboration processes, and helps to achieve joint goals. Collegial and supportive work relationships, mutual recognition of the partners' expertise and experiences, knowledge sharing and listening to each other's needs help to build trust which means that different views can be voiced openly, and that tensions can be managed without avoiding conflict as described by Donovan (2014) or seeking a premature consensus referred to by Vilsmaier et al. (2017). These findings are in line with the findings of Haire-Joshu & McBride (2013). ...
“The fact that we do have different backgrounds and different approaches to things is actually the big- gest strength of what we were doing because you are playing to the strengths of partners.” This quote from one of the practice partners in the EU-funded project ROBUST captures well what my PhD research is about. I argue that diversity is an asset, and that differences can be seen as an opportunity – differences in perspectives, experiences, competences, knowledge repertoires, available resources, and in socio-cultural contexts. The overarching question that I asked in my PhD is what the conditions are that allow us to “play to the strengths of partners”.
There is another major reason why we need to “play to the strengths of partners” and integrate differ- ent kinds of knowledge: the challenges societies are facing today, and potential solutions, have become multidimensional. Issues such as the climate crisis or biodiversity decline cannot be understood and addressed in isolation. Overly simplified and siloed solutions risk reproducing and intensifying existing problems. The same applies to the challenges faced by the agri-food sector and the question of its further development. Social and economic pressures resulting from the concentration in upstream and downstream sectors, environmental problems like soil degradation, the problem of ensuring food quality and food safety in global food chains, and global challenges related to food and nutrition insecurity are the reasons for increasing demands for more sustainable, equitable, fair and resilient agri-food sys- tems. A common conclusion, also for the agri-food sector, is that new forms of collaboration between academia, the private sector and civil society can help to foster transformational change.
Both, challenges and solutions, are transcending disciplinary boundaries, are multi-sector, multi-actor, connecting local and global, and they are intertwined with diverse and dynamic socio-cultural and political contexts. While rigorous disciplinary and interdisciplinary research approaches remain important, they tend to have limited impact if detached from decision-making processes. For many challenges, new transdisciplinary (TD) research approaches are necessary that allow science-society collaboration, including engagement of societal actors in generating innovative solutions, supporting decision-making and implementing the necessary changes. At the same time, it needs to be noted that TD approaches are not meant to replace disciplinary and interdisciplinary research – all three are essential and often they alternate throughout a project timeframe.
To date, the potential of TD research approaches in supporting sustainability transformations at different scales and in different contexts has more widely been recognised. At the same time there remains a range of epistemic, methodological, and practical challenges that limit their effectiveness.
Collaboration is an essential component, and at the same time one of the most challenging in TD sustainability research. Mutual learning is a fundamental principle of TD sustainability research and one of the key success factors in addressing the inherent collaborative challenges. Learning – more specifically learning to collaborate – can enhance the individual and collective capacity to deal with different per- spectives, priorities and approaches, and can thus foster the achievement of transformative objectives. Learning therefore needs to be seen as inseparable from TD collaboration. Unfortunately, learning does not naturally evolve from mere ‘co-existence’ of diverse practices and perspectives. Rather, it needs to be intentionally and continuously fostered.
The main aim of my PhD research was to better understand preconditions for and the obstacles to effective TD sustainability research. A particular interest is to understand how mutual learning between researchers and with practice partners occurs, and how learning can foster research-practice collaboration.
This overarching aim is operationalised into three research questions:
(1) How can the effectiveness of TD innovation-oriented research be assessed?
(2) What are the factors that limit and enable successful TD innovation-oriented research?
(3) How can the capacity to co-learn and collaborate be nurtured in TD innovation-oriented projects?
To answer the first research question, I developed a TD co-learning framework for assessing the effec- tiveness of TD sustainability research. The framework enables systematic monitoring, supports reflexive activities and facilitates co-learning. It is structured along four dimensions found to be the most essential when assessing the functioning of TD research processes: context, approach, process and out- comes. The framework includes 44 criteria with related references to the literature and guiding ques- tions for each criterion. The TD co-learning framework can be used to assess the progress made in joint work and it encourages continuous improvement. The framework can also be used to track change over time, for example over the course of a project.
The second and third research questions are addressed in the second scientific article which is central for this PhD (Chapter 5). Through three in-depth case studies, I have systematically examined how research and practice partners engage in complex collaborative processes and how learning to collaborate can help to navigate the challenges of collaborative work. The research I am presenting in my second article is one of the first analytical and empirical investigations of mutual learning processes taking place in TD research collaboration. In this article, I draw on social learning theory to frame transdisciplinary research as an approach that emphasises the processual nature of learning to collaborate and define Living Labs as collaborative epistemic living space. By doing so, I integrate two bodies of literature: TD sustainability research and practice, with a focus on theories of experiential learning and social learning; and literature on Living Labs with a focus on experimentation, co-creation, innovation and transformation. Two concepts guide the empirical analysis in this article:
(1) the concept of learning operationalised through knowledge, actions and relations to examine whether and how researchers and practice partners learn to collaborate; and,
(2) the concept of an epistemic collaborative living space operationalised into four dimensions – epistemic, social, symbolic and temporal – and a learning zone model to understand what shapes research and practice partners’ engagement and learning in collaborative processes.
A diverse range of research methods is used to analyse the data. They include semi-quantitative longitudinal data based on three sets of online surveys (baseline, progress and final), mid-term semi-structured interviews to check how likely the Living Lab teams will achieve their goals and to explore collaboration dynamics, and three in-depth case studies comprised of six interviews and three reflexive work- shops.
In the analysis of the three cases a ‘learning history’ is presented for each case. All three cases show that learning does not necessarily occur when partners with diverse perspectives and approaches are brought together and equipped with resources and a broad research frame. The position of each Living Lab in the learning zone where discomfort is ‘manageable’ was indicative of higher learning and more effective collaboration (e.g. in terms of outcomes, partners’ satisfaction). All three case studies illustrate too how much can be learned from challenging experiences and crisis situations. That the presence of crisis is sometimes perceived as failure is therefore not helpful. Through the detailed analysis of mutual learning processes in the three Living Labs I reaffirm the importance of “learning to collaborate” for the success of teams while I also show how it can be operationalised and further investigated in other projects and contexts.
In the same article, four groups of limiting and enabling factors for successful TD innovation-oriented research were distinguished (2nd research question of this PhD): project design, project management, professional facilitation and the capacity to co-learn and collaborate. The lessons learned also contribute to the further development of the research and practice of TD research and, more specifically, Living Labs. Key recommendations relate to the benefits of professional facilitation, the role of co-leadership and joint decision-making, the importance of reflexivity and ‘safe space’ for learning and teamwork, and the connections between learning, adaptive management and a well-functioning internal communication. One important conclusion is that the way research and practice partners worked together in the past, and the related expectations, including of a hierarchical relationship, still have a major influence. Thus, parties need to be prepared a priori for a different type of working relationships because when there is a lack of guidance, they tend to fall back into previous routines.
Outside of the ROBUST project, a separate case study was conducted as part of the Interreg project Food Pro·tec·ts in a Dutch-German cross-border region. The main aim of this case study was to scrutinise how innovation processes in the public sector differ from innovation processes in the private agri-food sector. I found that differences in the mindset of actors in relation to business practices and innovation played a major role. The hybridisation concept developed in this article for a cross-border setting embodies acknowledging mutual differences in economic, institutional and social structures, knowledge and technological capacity, political visions and cultural identities, and valorising them by applying a more strategic approach towards raising innovation capacity, and by factoring in contextual specificities (Chapter 6).
I would like to conclude on when and how precisely differences become an asset, and what it is needed to realise the potential of bringing different kinds of knowledge together. In my PhD research, I investigated this question in two very different contexts: in the context of a transdisciplinary research project, and in the regional context of cross-border innovation-oriented cooperation. In both cases, the capacity to learn from and with each other, and to collaborate was key to valorising differences. First of all, there is a need to recognise, and appreciate, partners’ strengths. Beyond that, there is a whole range of epistemic, methodological, and practical challenges that need to be overcome and some of those I have highlighted in my work.
... • Epistemic: How knowledge should be generated, what defines 'good knowledge' ; levels of uncertainty, complexity, and novelty associated with the problem, and/or lack of consensus (Carew & Wickson, 2010). • Social: Team members' relations in knowledge co-production , including emotional dynamics (Boix-Mansilla et al., 2012); psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999); ability to manage interpersonal tensions, conflicts, and consensus (Vilsmaier et al., 2017). • Symbolic: Implicit and explicit power asymmetries, e.g. from those responsible for policy towards researchers, or researchers towards stakeholders (MacMynowski, 2007); differing and competing expectations, interests and values (Jahn et al., 2012); top-down approaches in governing research, expectations of research excellence or accountability . ...
... The shared content shows a partial perspective from broad, complex, and multilayered realities within sociocultural processes. Recognized partiality can contribute to the intersubjective construction of knowledge and view of social realities and intercultural transdisciplinarity [74]. Collaborative and qualitative methodologies stress the relevance of recognizing that realities are shaped socially, revealing the ethical-political dimensions of cognitive processes [42,72,73,[75][76][77]. ...
... The shared content shows a partial perspective from broad, complex, and multilayered realities within sociocultural processes. Recognized partiality can contribute to the intersubjective construction of knowledge and view of social realities and intercultural transdisciplinarity [74]. Collaborative and qualitative methodologies stress the relevance of recognizing that realities are shaped socially, revealing the ethical-political dimensions of cognitive processes [42,72,73,[75][76][77]. ...
Intercultural transdisciplinary research reinforces sustainable social-ecological systems in Latin America. Social learning (SL) is a crucial process within this type of research as it fosters collaboration among diverse groups of people, communities of practice, and cultures. Buen vivir (‘well living’), of the popular movements in America, promotes collective responsibility and respect for life. Yeknemilis (‘a good life’) is a value framework of the Masewal people of the Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico. Members of Tosepan, an organization of the Masewal and other indigenous peoples of this region, reflected on their cultural roots, ways of life, and relations with the territory to strengthen their alternative and self-determined lifeway. Involvement in participatory research within the transdisciplinary process allowed us to focus on the learnings and conditions that foster values and strategies for yeknemilis. Through participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and participatory activities, we identified five key social learning areas that foster conditions for yeknemilis and life-sustaining relationships in intercultural transdisciplinary collaboration (ITC): collective action agenda, community capacities, intercultural transdisciplinarity, creative reflexivity, and a relational ontology horizon. Finally, we show how the collaborative construction of yeknemilis and social learning practices can be crucial in scaling up collective action toward sustainability.
... Given the dual knowledge system foundation of A-NZ, we ask how would mātauranga Māori fit in a science-centric conceptualisation of TDR like mode-2 (Cole 2006, Vilsmaier et al. 2017) such as shown in figure 1? It is neither science nor simply a stakeholder perspective, but a knowledge system with its own ontologies and epistemologies, and knowledge development ap-FIGURE 1: A conceptual model of a Mode-2 transdisciplinary research process reproduced from Scholz and Steiner (2015, p. 529). ...
Aotearoa-New Zealand (A-NZ) faces growing complex environmental challenges and a persistent knowledge-action gap that leaves many social and environmental problems unresolved. The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, a major science funder, has called for transdisciplinary modes of research to address increasingly complex problems in an integrated and collaborative fashion. We explore what is needed for transdisciplinary research (TDR) to achieve societal collaboration and impact in A-NZ. We introduce mātauranga Māori , A-NZ’s Indigenous and foundational knowledge system, and discuss how mātauranga Māori and Western science currently interact. We examine some social and environmental consequences when mātauranga Māori is marginalised and conclude by discussing how TDR must evolve in order to help tackle complex social and environmental problems in such contexts.
... A critical issue here is that, by having control regarding the methods, "the researcher is the ultimate authority" (Berbés-Blázquez et al. 2016, p. 134). Thus, we need formal means (i.e., methods) for mitigating potential imbalances between science and practice and ensuring that all stakeholders may speak freely and will be heard (Vilsmaier et al. 2017). The discourse between scientist and is and practitioners is organizes, knowledge is integrated, conflicts mitigated, and common language for knowledge integration is identified 1.4 Equal footing of science and practice (co-leadership) 2.4 Science for serving the public good ...
This paper addresses the need for effective and fair codes of conduct for public-good-oriented transdisciplinary processes. These processes are characterized by the production of socially robust orientations (SoROs) through mutual learning and developing better action strategies by merging knowledge from practice and science. We argue that transdisciplinary processes should be governed by an appropriate social rule system that comprises codes of conduct for collaboration (CCC) in transdisciplinary discourses. In our view, participants in a transdisciplinary process must (1) follow rules of mutuality between science and practice (accepting the otherness of the other) and (2) enable the use and integration of knowledge from science and practice (e.g., through responsibility and/or co-leadership at all levels of a project). This requires (3) a protected discourse arena similar to an expanded Chatham House Rule that facilitates the generation of groundbreaking, novel ideas for sustainable transition. In transdisciplinary processes, CCC are based on these three perspectives and can be explicitly introduced yet require cultural and situational adaptations. Many aspects of transdisciplinary processes, such as legal status (e.g., who owns the data generated, whether it is a group or formal organization), are often unclear and need further investigation.
... However, there is still limited understanding and agreement about how the multiple perspectives of different actors can be made more visible (Miller et al., 2014;van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2015). To realise the full potential of transdisciplinary research, different cultures (Vilsmaier et al., 2017), power constellations (Fritz and Meinherz, 2020;Herberg and Vilsmaier, 2020), theoretical concepts, methodological and epistemic approaches, and different bodies of knowledge need to be differentiated and integrated . This diversity is foundational for co-producing actionable knowledge (Mach et al., 2020;Caniglia et al., 2020) towards sustainability transformation (Messerli et al., 2019;Norström et al., 2020), yet requires an extended range of methods that foster and support collaboration. ...
... En este contexto, la transdisciplina ofrece una metodología participativa crítica y cohesiva, basada en la diferencia cultural para los procesos de investigación y cocreación de estrategias educativas Lang et al., 2012;Vilsmaier et al., 2017). 6 La transdisciplina busca la participación de actores fuera de la academia para integrar la pluralidad de saberes, los actuares y las maneras de ser; así como conciliar valores y preferencias, junto con generar apropiación y empoderamiento para retos y oportunidades de solución (Lang et al., 2012). ...
Presentamos una iniciativa y proponemos una metodología transdis-ciplinaria para cultivar la memoria biocultural, basada en los proce-sos de participación y materialización en comunidades de práctica (educativas). Presentamos el proyecto «Escuchando a los abuelos», que buscó facilitar diálogos intergeneracionales en tres escuelas mapuche (~ 90 niños y niñas) en Wallmapu, Chile. «Escuchando a los abuelos» utilizó a las aves como protagonistas de narrativas locales sobre el territorio. Cocreamos un ciclo de cinco pasos para promover la participación y la materialización. Los niños y niñas desarrollaron un ejercicio de abstracción para dar significado a las narrativas que ellos mismos recopilaron para crear memes positivos sobre las aves. Estos memes fueron comunicados dentro y más allá de sus comunidades. Concluimos que la experiencia de los abuelos debe ser honrada para contrarrestar la actual extinción de la experiencia biocultural. Escuchando a los abuelos: transdisciplina, aves y gente para cultivar la memoria biocultural R e v. l a t i n o a m. c i e n c. s o c. n i ñ e z j u v. · Vo l. 2 0 , n. º 3 , s e p .-d i c. d e 2 0 2 2 E-I S S N : 2 0 2 7-7 6 7 9 · h t t p s : / / d x. d o i. o r g / 1 0. 1 1 6 0 0 / r l c s n j. 2 0. 2. 4 8 6 1 ESTUDIO DE CASO
... On the other hand, the aim was to contribute actively to mitigating its negative social effects and stimulate learning for post-crisis futures (henceforth called the transformative objective). The tripartite title of this article to 'explore, engage, empower,' reflects the epistemic and transformative objectives (Vilsmaier et al., 2017) that guided this research endeavor. ...
Action-oriented, transformative, and transdisciplinary approaches are increasingly heralded as promising tools that enable researchers not only to produce new knowledge about a situation, but also to actively engage in tackling it; however, such approaches raise critical questions about the methodological implications and conflicts involved in pursuing multiple objectives concurrently. This article seeks to advance this debate by examining the methodological implications of pursuing both knowledge production-oriented (epistemic) and action-oriented (transformative) objectives in urgent and uncertain situations. It asks how far a transformative mixed methods research design can leverage the potential of research to achieve multiple objectives in times of crisis. This methodological inquiry is based on a transformative mixed methods study on housing conditions and well-being which was initiated during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Switzerland. The study was composed of a country-wide survey, mobile crowdsourcing, interviews and Citizen Think Tanks. The results of this methodological reflection illustrate how this research design made it possible to (i) explore the effects of the crisis on domestic living spaces, (ii) engage with the crisis in a joint research space, and (iii) stimulate empowerment through reflection and mutual learning. These insights suggest the multidimensional orientation of the transformative mixed methods approach is appropriate for acting upon urgent crises. However, it challenges core methodological values and research constellations including (i) tackling unequal engagement opportunities, (ii) navigating social and epistemic control, and (iii) paying attention to situatedness and positionality. The article concludes that, in anticipation of future crises, favorable conditions for multi-targeted, collaborative research need to be fostered, both on the institutional and on personal levels. These conditions should enable fast and adequate team formation, as well as reflection and negotiation of positionalities, and divergent interests and objectives, of both scientists and citizens.
... Outcomes are then disseminated to peer academic researchers. Since IDR explores in-between spaces between established research areas (Vilsmaier et al., 2017), applied research methods are often cutting edge. In contrast, the TDR process is open to society, so characterized by co-design of a research agenda, co-production of knowledge, and co-dissemination (or co-delivery) of results with diverse societal actors, including research experts and practitioners (Mauser et al., 2013). ...
... We acknowledge that this study has two main challenges: (i) the UCH constitutes an example of a LAPU, and as such, it shares the features that this type of university has in Latin America, and (ii) UCH also represents the struggle to confront the pervasive drubbing from marketization processes that the region faces. Taking these aspects into consideration, our analysis shows the relevance of TD at UCH as a turning point that can give rise to a phenomenon opposed to the marketization of education mainly through the construction of "in-between" spaces (Bhabha, 2012;Vilsmaier et al., 2017). These constitute "interstices -the overlap and displacement of domains of difference -[in which] the intersubjective and collective experiences of (…) community interest or cultural values are negotiated" (Bhabha, 1994;p. ...
Although transdisciplinarity has taken hold in many areas, it is still a concept in its early stages of development in Latin America. We see an emergent opportunity to contribute to the current discussion on transdisciplinarity and its institutionalization at universities. Our specific interest in this paper is to disentangle the conditions under which transdisciplinarity is developed in Latin American contexts and how it can be better implemented within those contexts. Our study focuses on the context of “Latin American Public Universities.” We examine the following research questions: (i) How is transdisciplinarity conceptualized in university policy and what are the conditions for its institutionalization? (ii) What lessons can be drawn more broadly from the role of university policy in the process of institutionalizing transdisciplinarity? To address these questions, we take the Universidad de Chile as a case study and apply a qualitative methodology of content analysis of university policy documents in the period 2006–2021. Grounded on empirical data, we elaborate on the concept of “situated transdisciplinarity” that emerges from the interplay between practices and policy at the Universidad de Chile and serves as a tool for future institutionalizing processes. We conclude that the concept of “situated transdisciplinarity” can orient transdisciplinary research policy, by problematizing discourses and perceptions.
... However, there is still limited understanding and agreement about how the multiple perspectives of different actors can be made more visible (Miller et al., 2014;van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2015). To realise the full potential of transdisciplinary research, different cultures (Vilsmaier et al., 2017), power constellations (Fritz and Meinherz, 2020;Herberg and Vilsmaier, 2020), theoretical concepts, methodological and epistemic approaches, and different bodies of knowledge need to be differentiated and integrated (Jahn et al., 2012). This diversity is foundational for co-producing actionable knowledge (Mach et al., 2020;Caniglia et al., 2020) towards sustainability transformation (Messerli et al., 2019;Norström et al., 2020), yet requires an extended range of methods that foster and support collaboration. ...
This article explores the application of design prototyping as a creative method to support collaborative processes within transdisciplinary sustainability research and to meet the challenges they pose. By drawing on discourses on integration, mutual learning and co-production, we identified six different interrelated challenges, concerning: (1) diversity; (2) communication; (3) power; (4) epistemology; (5) personal and team; and (6) focus. We applied design prototyping in four workshops that pertained to different phases of a transdisciplinary research process and represented typical collaborative research activities. Our analysis illustrates how design prototyping contributes to addressing the challenges of collaboration, thereby expanding the methodological canon of transdisciplinary research. In particular, it helps to create conditions for future-oriented transformations and their prerequisites, such as trust, common understanding and appreciation of the other. Consequently, we argue that design prototyping can be used to facilitate knowledge integration and collaboration among the variety of actors involved in transdisciplinary processes.
... Succinctly stated, the main qualities of transdisciplinarity include the following: (a) focus on socially relevant issues, (b) aim for a creative synthesis of disciplinary perspectives, (c) make research participatory and inclusive, and (d) pursue a unity of knowledge (Pohl, 2010). Consistent with this perspective, transdisciplinarity asserts that no one discipline sits in a privileged position for meeting the many problems and threats facing humanity (Vilsmaier, Brandner, & Engbers, 2017). ...
Aim/Purpose: This paper introduces a Social Machine for collaborative sensemaking that the developers have configured to the requirements and challenges of transdisciplinary literature reviews. Background: Social Machines represent a promising model for unifying machines and social processes for a wide range of purposes. A development team led by the author is creating a Social Machine for activities that require users to combine pieces of information from multiple online sources and file types for various purposes. Methodology: The development team has applied emergent design processes, usability testing, and formative evaluation in the execution of the product road map. Contribution: A major challenge of the digital information age is how to tap into large volumes of online information and the collective intelligence of diverse groups to generate new knowledge, solve difficult problems, and drive innovation. A Transdisciplinary Social Machine (TDSM) enables new forms of interactions between humans, machines, and online content that have the potential to (a) improve outcomes of sensemaking activities that involve large collections of online documents and diverse groups and (b) make machines more capable of assisting humans in their sensemaking efforts. Findings: Preliminary findings suggest that TDSM promotes learning and the generation of new knowledge. Recommendations for Practitioners: TDSM has the potential to improve outcomes of literature reviews and similar activities that require distilling information from diverse online sources. Recommendation for Researchers: TDSM is an instrument for investigating sensemaking, an environment for studying various forms of human and machine interactions, and a subject for further evaluation. Impact on Society: In complex areas such as sustainability and healthcare research, TDSM has the potential to make decision-making more transparent and evidence-based, facilitate the production of new knowledge, and promote innovation. In education, TDSM has the potential to prepare students for the 21st century information economy. Future Research: Research is required to measure the effects of TDSM on cross-disciplinary communication, human and machine learning, and the outcomes of transdisciplinary research projects. The developers are planning a multiple case study using design-based research methodology to investigate these topics.
... In addition, these extensively participatory processes of knowledge generation can also have emancipatory effects, namely, if the involved forms of knowledge (necessarily different) are considered to be of equal value during the co-creation of knowledge (Bialakowski et al. 2011). Provided that intercultural transdisciplinary dialogue is successful, not only will hegemonic forms of knowledge be called into question and powerful dominances (such as between experts and lay people) broken; knowledge production will be fundamentally politicised and fields of learning overall opened up to allow for a possible transformation of the system of knowledge (Vilsmaier et al. 2017). ...
This final report of the working group “Sustainable Work” in the German Committee Future Earth focusses on the presentation of key points, central topics and questions that are part of a research agenda on sustainable work and the related socio-ecological transformation of current working societies. With this, the working group joins international and national discourses on the Sustainable Development Goals and their implications in relation to work.
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.
El proceso transdisciplinario de educación-investigación-acción campesina, analizado en el presente artículo, ha tenido por objetivo la construcción de la agroecología en la teoría y la práctica por parte de la organización campesina OCEZ-CNPA en Chiapas, México. Aplicando una metodología basada en la Educación Popular y la Investigación-Acción Participativa, se han regenerado conocimientos agri-culturales, que poseen un potencial de transformación agroecológica. Estos conocimientos se sostienen en identidades y modos de vida campesinos que, a pesar de haber sido colonizados y fragmentados, siguen teniendo raíces profundas que resisten al paradigma de la modernidad. A partir del análisis colectivo de las vivencias y las memorias bioculturales campesinas se comprende el cambio agri-cultural, inducido por la ‘revolución verde’, como una ruptura ontológica y epistemológica. Con una praxis de investigación campesina decolonial se reivindicaron conocimientos, prácticas y valores, que han caracterizado la agricultura maya por milenios. Este análisis condujo a la concepción de una agroecología profunda que reconoce y rescata las ontologías y epistemologías campesinas, constitutivas de paradigmas otros, correspondientes a formas de pensar y habitar el mundo, que difieren del paradigma moderno.
Problems are a major focal point in transdisciplinary sustainability research (TSR). As a text analysis shows, the term “problem” is most commonly used in the context of analyzing research processes that are directed towards societal problem-solving. At the same time, these findings imply that TSR does not follow the idea that problems are solvable. Instead, TSR should transgress the general tension between the solution imperative and the insolvability of complex problems by rather tackling each problem as situated and specific.Problem orientation plays a significant role in emerging transdisciplinary sustainability research (TSR), where the assumption of solvability resonates with the term “problem” yet is not questioned from a sustainability perspective. This paper questions the meaning of “problems” in and for TSR from a discourse studies perspective. The results of a collocation and concordance analysis of the term “problem(s)” in GAIA articles show that sustainability-oriented problem-solving is explicated normatively as a key research goal. In the analyzed articles, emphasis is put on how to proceed towards this goal through research process analysis. This paper begins by analyzing the meaning of “problems” before seeking to orientate TSR in terms of how knowledge could be conceptualized. This is supported by the epistemological concept of the problematic, which originates from 20th century French philosophy. It proves helpful to discuss how TSR can be epistemologically grasped, and thereby strengthened in its transformative potential.
Knowledge production is not free of political connotations. The researcher defines and moulds the research situation in which she will be gathering the data. Simultaneously, she will be also conditioned by the ways the situation is constructing her as a researcher. I shall elucidate some of aspects that influence how research situations are constructed based on the examples of my own empirical work. I will show some of the multiple negotiations contained in the process, influenced by the fact that I was a Spanish urban young woman doing research in a rural region of Bolivia for the German international cooperation for development (DED). Two sorts of control will be outlined and an argument for control juggling within a decolonial move of humanizing research will be sketched. I shall argue that Kathy Charmaz’s constructivist Grounded Theory is flexible and systematic enough to make space for other ways of knowing, to grasp these subtle multifaceted processes of constructing a research situation while facilitating the necessary reflexivity for transformation purposes, contributing to a wider project of decolonizing knowledge production.
Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into ‘knowing-that’ and ‘knowing-how.’ We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining ‘when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,’ we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering ‘where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,’ we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring ‘what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,’ we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained.
The very beginning of collaborative research endeavors often lies in politically difficult and practically challenging entanglements. The purpose of this paper is to empirically capture and theoretically conceptualize these entanglements. I trace the power-driven prefiguration of my own role in a transdisciplinary project and argue that the early moments (the 'phase zero') of collaborative research are entwined with a tacit, tactical, and relational form of control. In a process that I call 'scripting control,' actors seek to co-determine what a project may become, without being able to forecast or backcast a pathway to get there. Collaborators mutually launch counter-scripts and tacitly shape the possibility space that constrains or enables subsequent interactions. My own transdisciplinary involvement illustrates, however, that counter-scripts proposed by latecomers can fail if the project has passed the phase zero. This argument extends the current use of scripts in Science and Technology Studies to also involve temporal power dynamics. Moreover, in sustainability studies, my argument contributes to a growing critique against the imaginary of co-design, which promotes a managerial idea of ordering collaborative processes in a socially and epistemically inclusive way.
This paper discusses how open science can be interlinked with community-based participatory research (CBPR) to address socio-environmental issues. By reviewing three case studies in Japan, the authors developed a theoretical framework to span these inter-actor boundaries by (1) discovering and sharing goals that actors with different interests could tackle together (the transcend method); (2) considering ethical equity with special attention to empowering marginalized (or ‘small voice’) actors; (3) developing fair data visualization based on the FAIR Data Principles and (4) facilitating dialogue. A civic tech approach, in which civic engineers develop a solution to local issues by using open governmental data and information and communication technologies, is applied. This framework will reflectively be tested using case studies.
‘Energy regions’ are regional initiatives, which are engaged in becoming energy self-sufficient by using regionally available energy sources. They support the overall transition towards renewable-based energy and are of key interest to understand how the energy systems and institutional settings in these energy regions changed over time. In this article, a historical and integrative perspective is employed in analyzing the transition process of an Austrian energy region towards energy self-sufficiency. Specifically, (i) an Energy Flow Analysis (EFA) was performed for three points in time (1990, 2000, and 2010); (ii) the institutionalization process was analyzed in terms of the key actors, key milestones, and key factors influencing the transition process; and (iii) an integrative analysis was performed to indicate how the technical and social systems are interrelated. It was found that the most significant changes in the energy region were the efforts made in setting up a decentralized energy system. The co-action of actors from all spheres of society is crucial for aiding energy transition while this process needs to be supported by activities fostering awareness, generate acceptance, and engage the public at large. While there is a clear correspondence between improvements in energy self-sufficiency and the requisite effort at institutionalization, there is also a noticeable time delay between the development of an ‘energy vision’ and the subsequent impact on energy infrastructure.
Mutual learning is a fundamental element in transdisciplinary (Td) sustainability research. It allows for integrating knowledge and experiences gained in different contexts, including the building of consensus about necessary transformations to reach sustainability solutions. To successfully achieve mutual learning, appropriate conditions are required. These range from providing boundary objects that serve knowledge integration, the development of a common language and knowledge, and shared experiences to transparency concerning the objectives and motives of all those involved. Mutual learning is particularly challenging from an intercultural perspective in both local and global processes. Interaction among the participants is based on experiential, educational, and cultural dimensions that induce different types of knowledge and cognition, thought styles, socializations, constraints and preferences in socio-political structures and day-to-day practices. In this article, formats of case-based Mutual Learning Sessions (cbMLS) that organize mutual learning based on a single case or a set of cases are presented. The different formats have been developed and studied in the context of a global Td process on phosphorus management (i.e., the Global TraPs project). After presenting the formats of cbMLS, the paper presents the first results from an empirical, integrated qualitative study based on interviews and observations, and discusses potentials and limitations of cbMLS, in particular their application in an international context. We further highlight challenges and learning experiences that have to be met in Td mutual learning processes.
This article situates current debates about transdisciplinarity within the deeper history of academic disciplinarity, in its difference from the notions of inter- and multi-disciplinarity. It offers a brief typology and history of established conceptions of transdisciplinarity within science and technology studies. It then goes on to raise the question of the conceptual structure of transdisciplinary generality in the humanities, with respect to the incorporation of the 19th- and 20th-century German and French philosophical traditions into the anglophone humanities, under the name of 'theory'. It identifies two distinct - dialectical and anti-dialectical, or dialectical and transversal - transdisciplinary trajectories. It locates the various contributions to the special issue of which it is the introduction within this conceptual field, drawing attention to the distinct contribution of the French debates about structuralism and its aftermath - those by Serres, Foucault, Derrida, Guattari and Latour, in particular. It concludes with an appendix on Foucault's place within current debates about disciplinarity and academic disciplines.
The rise and uncertainty in energy prices in recent years has widened the solution search space by industry to understand the full impacts on operations and to develop a range of workable solutions to reduce risk. This has involved companies exploring alternative approaches to co-create solutions with different groups comprising varying intellectual capital, e.g. consultants, NGOs, and academia. This paper presents the small-scale transdisciplinary process adopted by Nestlé UK in partnership with the University of Surrey as part of an Engineering Doctorate (EngD) programme to co-develop a heat integration framework to improve the energy efficiency of a confectionery factory. The small-scale co-creation process—between industry and academia—for a heat integration framework is described and includes a set of criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the process. The results of the evaluation process and a reflection of the key challenges and implications faced when trying to implement a small-scale transdisciplinary process are reported which covers the role of an EngD researcher as a manager, facilitator and researcher, time management, finance, communication, knowledge integration, mutual learning, and conflict. Some of the key recommendations for industrial practitioners include: actively engaging in the transdisciplinary process on a consistent basis, staying open minded to developing a solution even when there is a lack of progress, and building relationships with academics by supporting university activities, e.g. lecturing, research projects and funding proposals. For scientists, PhD students, research institutes, and private and public R&D, some of the key recommendations include: communicating expert knowledge to a few points rather than opening out into a lecture, contributing to the transdisciplinary process even if it is on a non-expert level but provides objective and critical input, and visiting industrial sites to gain exposure to industrial problems first-hand. Overall, the range of recommendations provided can help both industrial practitioners and scientists, especially doctoral students seeking to operate in the industry–academia domain on a small—practically manageable—scale.
Transdisciplinarity integrates or relates different epistemics from science and practice (Mode 2 transdisciplinarity) or from branches of disciplines if interdisciplinary integration is impossible (Mode 1 transdisciplinarity). The paper explains, based on an analysis of the historical development of the Mode 2 transdisciplinarity concept, how transdisciplinary processes link interdisciplinary applied research and multi-stakeholder discourses by facilitating methods. We elaborate on what type of problems may be managed using what knowledge, how this might be accomplished, what types of objectives are desired, and by what organizational means. Thus the paper presents ontology, epistemology, methodology, functionality, and organization of an ideal type of transdisciplinary process. Socially robust orientations are the expected outcomes of this process. These orientations provide science-based, state-of-the-art, socially accepted options of solutions which acknowledge uncertainties and the incompleteness of different forms of epistemics (i.e., of knowing or thought), in particular within the sustainable transitioning of complex real-world problems.
Reaktion auf A.Grunwald. 2015. Transformative Wissenschaft ‐ eine neue Ordnung im Wissenschaftsbetrieb? GAIA 24/1: 17‐20
In this article, I will describe the methodology of transdisciplinarity. My analysis will be divided in several parts: what means “beyond disciplines”; the distinction between multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, indisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity; the definition of disciplinary boundaries; the axioms of the methodology of transdisciplinarity: the notion of “levels of Reality”; the logic of included middle; and the universal interdependence. I will conclude by asserting that we are at the threshold of a New Renaissance.
In an era where humans affect virtually all of the earth's processes, questions arise about whether we have sufficient knowledge of human-environment interactions. How can we sustain the Earth's ecosystems to prevent collapses and what roles should practitioners and scientists play in this process? These are the issues central to the concept of environmental literacy. This unique book provides a comprehensive review and analysis of environmental literacy within the context of environmental science and sustainable development. Approaching the topic from multiple perspectives, it explores the development of human understanding of the environment and human-environment interactions in the fields of biology, psychology, sociology, economics and industrial ecology. The discussion emphasises the importance of knowledge integration and transdisciplinary processes as key strategies for understanding complex human-environment systems (HES). In addition, the author defines the HES framework as a template for investigating sustainably coupled human-environment systems in the 21st century.
Environmental challenges are complex and require expertise from multiple disciplines. Consequently, there is growing interest
in interdisciplinary environmental research that integrates natural and social science, an often arduous undertaking. We surveyed
researchers interested and experienced in research at the human—environment interface to assess perspectives on interdisciplinary
research. Integrative interdisciplinary research has eluded many of our respondents, whose efforts are better described as
additive multidisciplinary research. The respondents identified many advantages and rewards of interdisciplinary research,
including the creation of more-relevant knowledge. However, they also reported significant challenges and obstacles, including
tension with departments (49%) or institutions (61%), communication difficulties, and differing disciplinary approaches, as
well as institutional barriers (e.g., a lack of credit in promotion and tenure). Most (52%) believed that developing interdisciplinary
breadth should begin as early as the undergraduate level. We apply our results to recommendations for successful interdisciplinary
endeavors.
The challenges formulated within the Future Earth framework set the orientation for research programmes in sustainability science for the next ten years. Scientific disciplines from natural and
social science will collaborate both among each other and with relevant societal groups in order to define the important integrated research questions, and to explore together successful pathways towards global sustainability. Such collaboration will be based on transdisciplinarity and integrated research concepts. This paper analyses the relationship between scientific integration and transdisciplinarity, discusses the dimensions of integration of different knowledge and proposes a platform and a paradigm for research towards global sustainability that will be both designed and conducted in partnership between science and society. We argue that integration is an iterative process that involves reflection among all stakeholders. It consists of three stages: co-design, coproduction and co-dissemination.
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 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.
Transdisciplinarity is a word a` la mode. However, few of us are aware of the context of its origins, of what it meant at that time, and how it has evolved as aconcept in recent decades. In what ways do transdisciplinary contributions differfrom the more familiar interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary ones? Is transdisciplinarity applied frequently, and if so by whom? For what reasons and types of problemscan it be used? Last, but not the least, how is transdisciplinarity operationalized in research and professional practice? This special issue is an attempt to answer these kinds of questions. Collectively, the contributions provide a picture of what transdisciplinaryresearch is, as well as why and how it is being conducted in Europeanand North American countries.
Co-production of knowledge between academic and non-academic communities is a prerequisite for research aiming at more sustainable
development paths. Sustainability researchers face three challenges in such co-production: (a) addressing power relations;
(b) interrelating different perspectives on the issues at stake; and (c) promoting a previously negotiated orientation towards
sustainable development. A systematic comparison of four sustainability research projects in Kenya (vulnerability to drought),
Switzerland (soil protection), Bolivia and Nepal (conservation vs. development) shows how the researchers intuitively adopted
three different roles to face these challenges: the roles of reflective scientist, intermediary, and facilitator of a joint
learning process. From this systematized and iterative self-reflection on the roles that a researcher can assume in the indeterminate
social space where knowledge is co-produced, we draw conclusions regarding training.
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.
Tremendous progress has been made in understanding the functioning of the Earth system and, in particular, the impact of human
actions (1). Although this knowledge can inform management of specific features of our world in transition, societies need knowledge
that will allow them to simultaneously reduce global environmental risks while also meeting economic development goals. For
example, how can we advance science and technology, change human behavior, and influence political will to enable societies
to meet targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous climate change? At the same time, how can we
meet needs for food, water, improved health and human security, and enhanced energy security? Can this be done while also
meeting the United Nations Millennium Development Goals of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger and ensuring ecosystem integrity?
Das Thema »Raum« ist äußerst populär, die Vielfalt der Methoden und Gegenstandsbereiche wird jedoch zunehmend unüberschaubar. Hier setzt der Band an: Er versammelt Beiträge verschiedener Disziplinen, die eine ausdrücklich relationale oder ortsspezifische Beschreibung von Räumlichkeit vornehmen. Hierzu wird die aktuelle Raumdebatte in den Kultur- und Medienwissenschaften rekonstruiert und die Entstehung der Topologie im Kontext der Mathematik nachgezeichnet. Einzelanalysen widmen sich verschiedenen Anwendungsgebieten wie Architektur, Film- und Literaturwissenschaft, Kunst, Psychologie oder Soziologie und gehen auf die Schlüsselfunktion phänomenologischer und strukturalistischer Ansätze ein.
In this interview, Homi Bhabha outlines some of his famous concepts that have been influential in post-colonial theory. He critiques multiculturalism as an attempt to control cultural difference by creating consensus. This consensus always leads to exclusion and eradicates difference in the name of incorporating difference. Another concept is hybridity. For Bhabha, hybridity occurs when two original moments combine to create a new, third moment or phenomenon. This hybrid creation takes the place of the previous concepts that inhabited its current space and establishes new political potential. The hybrid is also referred to as the "third space," a concept similar to Derrida's differance, where alterity is accepted and new modes of thought are possible.
What kind of science do we need today and tomorrow? In a game that knows no boundaries, a game that contaminates science, democracy and the market economy, how can we distinguish true needs from simple of fashion? How can we distinguish between necessity and fancy? whims How can we differentiate conviction from opinion? What is the meaning of this all? Where is the civilizing project? Where is the universal outlook of the minds that might be capable of counteracting the global reach of the market? Where is the common ground that links each of us to the other? We need the kind of science that can live up to this need for univer sality, the kind of science that can answer these questions. We need a new kind of knowledge, a new awareness that can bring about the creative destruction of certainties. Old ideas, dogmas, and out-dated paradigms must be destroyed in order to build new knowledge of a type that is more socially robust, more scientifically reliable, stable and above all better able to express our needs, values and dreams. What is more, this new kind of knowledge, which will be challenged in turn by ideas yet to come, will prove its true worth by demonstrating its capacity to dialogue with these ideas and grow with them.
The current ascendancy of transdisciplinarity (TD) is marked by an exponential growth of publications, a widening array of contexts, and increased interest across academic, public and private sectors. This investigation traces historical trends, rhetorical claims, and social formations that have shaped three major discourses of TD: transcendence, problem solving, and transgression. In doing so, it also takes account of developments that have emerged or gained traction since the early 21st century when a 2004 issue of Futures on the same topic was being written.The epistemological problem at the heart of the discourse of transcendence is the idea of unity, traced in the West to ancient Greece. The emergence of transdisciplinarity was not a complete departure from this historical quest, but it signalled the need for new syntheses at a time of growing fragmentation of knowledge and culture. New synthetic frameworks emerged, including general systems, post/structuralism, feminist theory, and sustainability. New organizations also formed to advance conceptual frameworks aimed at transcending the narrowness of disciplinary worldviews and interdisciplinary combinations of approaches that did not supplant the status quo of academic structure and classification.The discourse of problem solving is not new. It was fundamental to conceptions of interdisciplinarity in the first half of the 20th century. Heightened pressure to solve problems of society, though, fostered growing alignment of TD with solving complex problems as well as trans-sector participation of stakeholders in society and team-based science. The discourse of transgression was forged in critique of the existing system of knowledge and education. TD became aligned with imperatives of cultural critique, socio-political movements, and conceptions of post-normal science and wicked problems that break free of reductionist and mechanistic approaches. It also became a recognized premise in interdisciplinary fields, including cultural studies, women's and gender studies, urban studies, and environmental studies. And, calls for TD arrived at a moment of wider crisis in the privileging of dominant forms of knowledge, human rights accountability, and democratic participation.Even with distinct patterns of definition, though, discourses are not air-tight categories. Transcendence was initially an epistemological project, but the claim of transcendence overlaps increasingly with problem solving. The imperatives of transgression also cut across the discourses of transcendence and problem solving. Broadly speaking, though, emphasis is shifting from traditional epistemology to problem solving, from the pre-given to the emergent, and from universality to hybridity and contextuality.
Zusammenfassung
Der Aufsatz entwickelt einen analytischen Rahmen für vergleichende Forschungen zur Herstellung, Überlagerung und Außerkraftsetzung kultureller Differenzierungen von Menschen - für das ‚doingʻ und ‚undoingʻ sozialer Zugehörigkeiten. Er diskutiert allgemeine Aspekte von Humankategorisierungen, das Konzept des ‚boundary making ʻ sowie Ansätze zum Denken von Mehrfachzugehörigkeiten (Intersektionalität, Differenzierungstheorie und multikulturelle Hybridität). Ins Zentrum der Betrachtung stellt er die Kontingenz sozialer Zugehörigkeiten, d. h. die Konkurrenz und Temporalität solcher Kategorisierungen. Kontingent sind diese nicht nur, weil sie sozial hergestellt und aufgebaut, sondern auch, weil sie gebraucht, übergangen und abgebaut werden können. Ein jedes ‚Doing Differenceʻ ist eine sinnhafte Selektion aus einem Set konkurrierender Kategorisierungen, die erst einen Unterschied schafft, der einen Unterschied macht. ‚Un/doing differencesʻ markiert einen flüchtigen Schwebezustand, einen Moment der Ununterschiedenheit und In-Differenz zwischen der Relevanz und Irrelevanz sozialer Unterscheidungen.
Tanja Stähler and Alexander Kozin's elegant translation of Bernhard Waldenfels's Phenomenology of the Alien (Grundmotive einer Phänomenologie des Fremden) introduces the English readership to the philosophy of alien-experience, a multifaceted and multidimensional phenomenon that permeates our everyday experiences of the life-world with immediate implications for the ways we conduct our social, political, and ethical affairs. With impressive erudition Waldenfels weaves in xenological themes from classical philosophy, contemporary phenomenology, literature, linguistics, sociology, and anthropology to address the boundaries of experience that unite and separate human beings, their collectives, their perceptions, and aspirations. While the debate has long raged in German-speaking circles, Waldenfels's work is largely unavailable to the English-speaking audience, with the only other translation being The Order in the Twilight (1996). Phenomenology of the Alien is a superb introduction to both xenological phenomenology, and the the question of the alien as it has been unfolding in contemporary thought. Copyright
Transdisciplinarity (TD) is a participatory research approach in which actors from science and society work closely together. It offers means for promoting knowledge integration and finding solutions to complex societal problems, and can be applied within a multiplicity of epistemic systems. We conducted a TD process from 2011 to 2014 between indigenous Mayan medical specialists from Guatemala and Western biomedical physicians and scientists to study cancer. Given the immense cultural gap between the partners, it was necessary to develop new methods to overcome biases induced by ethnocentric behaviors and power differentials. This article describes this intercultural cooperation and presents a method of reciprocal reflexivity (Bidirectional Emic–Etic tool) developed to overcome them. As a result of application, researchers observed successful knowledge integration at the epistemic level, the social-organizational level, and the communicative level throughout the study. This approach may prove beneficial to others engaged in facilitating participatory health research in complex intercultural settings.
Transdisciplinarity as a mode of addressing sustainability challenges was a guiding principle in establishing Germany's first Faculty of Sustainability at Leuphana University of Lüneburg in 2010. The different study programs offered by the Faculty embody this principle in different ways, but they all rely on the idea that it is important for students to constitute learning spaces in-between established scientific and societal fields. Students have to identify boundaries, understand different cultures of knowing and practice, and conduct integrative research by bridging gaps between knowledge fields, practices and related values as well as interests and objectives. In this paper, we focus on one module in the Master's Program in Sustainability Science and present how students constitute and learn in these in-between spaces through boundary-work with the aim to gain capacities required to contribute to sustainability transitions.
Interdisciplinarity has become all the rage as scientists tackle climate change and other intractable issues.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
Transformative Wissenschaft will den Wissenschaftsbetrieb gegenüber gesellschaftlichen Problemlagen öffnen, um so Antworten auf dringende Zukunftsfragen zu finden. Die Initiative erhielt viel Zustimmung und Unterstützung ‐ bei Vertreter(inne)n etablierter Forschungseinrichtungen
stößt sie aber auf Kritik. Die Kritiker unterstellen den neuen Akteuren, die Forschungslandschaft komplett umbauen zu wollen, dabei soll diese nur erweitert werden. Dass von der Erweiterung das gesamte Wissenschaftssystem profitieren kann, zeigt der Erfolg der Technikwissenschaften,
die zu Beginn ebenfalls und mit ähnlichem Gegenwind zu kämpfen hatten.
Rethinking questions of identity, social agency and national affiliation, Bhabha provides a working, if controversial, theory of cultural hybridity - one that goes far beyond previous attempts by others. In The Location of Culture, he uses concepts such as mimicry, interstice, hybridity, and liminality to argue that cultural production is always most productive where it is most ambivalent. Speaking in a voice that combines intellectual ease with the belief that theory itself can contribute to practical political change, Bhabha has become one of the leading post-colonial theorists of this era.
The contribution aims at reflecting on the need to focus on people in (research on) regional planning and development. We see participatory planning process as state of the art on different levels of spatial planning and development since decades now. Most of national and European programs do not only require participation in (regional) planning and development but regard it as a common principle of democratic societies. Looking deeper into practice however, the situation is not as brilliant as it appears to be. Participation is often used synonymously to integrating people at a certain step of a planning process (e.g. local people in general or groups of people affected by a planning project). The way people are integrated is often determined and designed by experts. But participation in terms of equal association, cooperation, joint contribution and control points to a quality of relation between people that can not be simply "calculated", "planned" or "executed". The objectivation of people – "parametrisised" as "stakeholders" or "actors" – often turns out to be a (much hidden) epistemological problem of research and planning process. Transdisciplinary research seeks to overcome the dichotomies (disparities, divides) by turning them into complementarities realizing the need of co-operation between different qualities of knowledge. Following Gibbons et al. (1996) and Nowotny (1999) in their definition of transdisciplinarity as "mode 2" of research process, the presentation will discuss the consequences of focussing on people in research on spatial planning and development. It will point out the opportunities of transdisciplinarity in uncovering hidden potentials. Rezumat. Depăşirea frontierelor: abordările transdisciplinare în dezvoltarea regională. Articolul îşi propune să reflecteze asupra necesităţii de a se concentra pe oameni în (cercetarea) planificării şi dezvoltării regionale. Considerăm procesul planificării participative ca cel mai avansat nivel al planificării spaţiale şi al dezvoltării de decenii deja. Cele mai multe programe naţionale şi europene nu prevăd în mod special participarea în planificarea şi dezvoltarea regională, deoarece o consideră un principiun uzual al societăţilor democratice. Privind mai cu atenţie practica, rezultă că realitatea nu este nici pe departe atât de strălucită cum s-ar părea. Participarea este adesea folosită sinonim cu integrarea oamenilor într-o anumită etapă a procesului de planificare (de exemplu populaţia locală în geeral sau grupuri de oameni afectate de un anumit proiect de planificare). Modul în care oamenii sunt integraţi este adesea stabilit şi desemnat de experţi. Dar participarea în termeni de asociere egală, cooperare, contribuţie şi control face referire la un anumit tip de relaţie ăntre oameni, care nu poate fi simplu "alculată", "planificată" sau "executată". Obiectivarea oamenilor – "parametrizaţi" drept "beneficiari" sau "actori" – se transformă adesea într-o problemă epistemologică a cercetării şi a procesului de planificare. Cercetarea transdisciplinară urmăreşte să depăşească dihotomiile (disparităţile, sciziunile) transformându-le în complementarităţi, prin conştientizarea nevoii de cooperare dintre diferitele calităţi de cunoaştere. Urmând lui Gibons et al. (1996) şi Nowotny (1999) în ce priveşte definiţia transdisciplinarităţii ca "mod 2"al procesului de cunoaştere, articolul va pune în discuţie consecinţele concentrării pe oameni în cercetarea asupra planificării şi dezvoltării. Aceasta va evidenţia oportunităţile transdisciplinarităţii în a dezvălui potenţiale ascunse.
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.
Transdisciplinarity is an approach for research on the complex real-world problems our societies are facing. During the research process new knowledge is produced by integrating different problem perceptions and knowledge bases from sciences and societal practice; the aim is to contribute to both societal and scientific progress.
The authors systematically describe scholarly methods for the task of knowledge integration in transdisciplinary research and provide examples from research practice. This book supports scholars in the conceptualization and execution of transdisciplinary research projects and is of high relevance for teaching.