Transdisciplinarity in the Practice of Research
Copy/paste this URL to link to this paper
Abstract : Research practice, socio-ecological research, definitions of transdisciplinarity
The experience of practices of research, especially in the socio-ecological context, has led us to the conception of transdisciplinarity that we present in the rest of this article, a conception that reflects the real state of transdisciplinary research as it is practiced currently, while, at the same time, opening up the possibility of a better understanding of transdisciplinarity,one that can lead to a wider agreement on its nature and purposes.
Introduction
The term ‘transdisciplinarity’ was first used in a way similar to today’s meaning by Erich Jantsch (1972), a physicist and early complexity researcher, at an OECD conference in 1970 in Nice. For Jantsch the term referred to the targeted coordination of a group of disciplines and inter-disciplines, which together are involved in a complex scientific system, and which have a common purpose, with this coordination based on a general system of axioms that are considered binding on all concerned. Which system of axioms should serve as the basis for such a coordinated effort was not explained by Jantsch. Despite this conceptual lack of clarity the term was successful, leading to discussions and debates within the philosophy and sociology of science concerning possible different forms of discipline-spanning scientific practice. A milestone in the German debate was reached at a symposium in the Center for Interdisciplinary Research, Bielefeld (Kocka 1987). There the attempt was made to link inter-and transdisciplinarity to ‘dis-ciplinarity’ in order to reduce conceptual ambiguity. To this end the psychologist Heinz Heckhausen proposed drawing a distinction between ‘academic subjects’ and ‘disciplines.’ By ‘aca-demic subject’ he understood an organizational unit combining teaching and research (e.g., a ‘professorship’), while ‘disciplinarity’ refers to a “theoretical level of integration” (Heckhausen 1987). The philosopher Juergen Mittelstraß then moved the discussion further by also linking transdisciplinarity to disciplinarity, while at the same time relating it to “problems that techno-logical cultures, i.e., modern industrial societies, have in great numbers (Mittelstraß 1987: 154). Some years later he went on to define ‘transdisciplinarity’ as a form of research practice that “has freed itself from disciplinary boundaries, defining and solving its problems independently of any discipline (Mittelstraß 1998: 44).
In the beginning of the 1990’s the discussion of the meaning of ‘transdisciplinarity’ became heated with the publication of the work of Michael Gibbons et al. (1994), which sparked a lively controversy. In Gibbons et al. certain aspects of transdisciplinarity (heterogeneity, social responsibility and contextuality) were generalized into a new mode of production of scientific knowledge (mode 2), with this being contrasted to the older, traditional academic mode (mode 1). Mode 2 knowledge production refers to the production of knowledge in a context of application in which the interests of societal, economic and political actors are constitutive for the research process.
The controversy surrounding this distinction has cooled for the most part but it has had the salutary effect, precisely because of its heatedness, of making an important contribution to a better understanding of inter- and transdisciplinarity. At the same time a heterogeneous form of research practice came into being, first in research institutions outside of the universities, then in environmental, sustainability, health and development research, which considered itself ‘trans-disciplinary.’
The two discussions, the discussion within the philosophy and sociology of science concerning new forms of the societal production of scientific knowledge and the practical discussion arising within research practices concerning the goals, criteria and methods of research described as transdisciplinary, met for the first time at a conference in Zurich in February 2001, organized by the Swiss National Science Foundation (cf. Thompson-Klein et al. 2001). The controversies that marked this conference gave impetus to a renewed discussion of transdisciplinarity, particularly within the German-speaking world, a discussion that has lasted until the present.
This discussion has not, however, led to a commonly accepted understanding of transdisciplinarity, and even less so to a canonical definition, and such a generally recognized definition is not to be expected in the foreseeable future (nor, indeed, does it seem to be possible). No scientific community (e.g., a university subject area in the sciences) nor even a given research joint venture will be able to canonize one particular understanding of transdisciplinarity. On the contrary, such a result will only be reached, if at all, through a long process of creating a common understanding, a process that will require as its precondition building a tradition of transdisciplinary research and establishing better institutionalization (e.g., with journals and a place in university teaching). This process cannot be steered; it is evolutionary and requires time.
But one cannot also make the mistake of assuming that all one needs to do is waiting for the practical experience to emerge and then compare the results. Transdisciplinary research needs to be tried out now in various projects, then evaluated and improved. However, we are not here at the beginning, for there has already been important empirical experience that has been analyzed, with the results published in numerous journals and books.
The range of conceptions of transdisciplinary research stemming from the Zurich conference mentioned above has, precisely because of their diversity and inconsistency, made the key issues of the controversy clear for the first time:
– Is transdisciplinarity really something different than interdisciplinarity? To what extent, and in relation to which categories, does it make sense to stress differences between the two?
– Does transdisciplinarity mean anything more than establishing a relationship to societal practices while doing research? Is it really a matter of doing cooperative research in which societal actors are equal partners in research?
– Is it necessary and sufficient to tap into societal pools of knowledge during the research process, and what effects does this have on interdisciplinary cooperation within the sciences?
Arising at the end of the conference, this controversy opened the way to an understanding of different conceptions of transdisciplinary research, an understanding that holds any conception of transdisciplinary research must be adequate both to research practice and to the criteria of the philosophy of science. The conflicts over the direction to follow that arose during this controversy can be seen, above all, as proof of the extent to which transdisciplinarity research has become a key reference point in funding proposals, in particular in the German-speaking world. It is becoming clear – and not only in sustainability and environmental research, but also more and more in areas of research into the consequences of climate change, in research in the health sciences, in biotechnology and gene technology, as well as in nanotechnology and development policies - that a narrowly disciplinary or academic mode of research cannot deal adequately with the problems that are facing us; or, put differently, an overwhelmingly disciplinary or academic approach to research is no longer held to be appropriate by the numerous societal actors affected (including many societal policy makers) as a means for finding solutions to the problems facing society, and will therefore not be acceptable to them.
Simultaneously, individual institutions of higher education (e.g., in Luneburg and Oldenburg) and established non-university research centers are beginning to use the idea of transdisciplinar-ity as a selling point for their schools and institutions. This of course also has an effect on the discussion of transdisciplinarity. The peculiarities of transdisciplinary research, as well as the question of its scientific status and its quality, gain in practical importance given this greater interest on the part of large institutions.
What we have seen in this sketch of the wider research landscape, stretching from climate change research to development policies, can be seen in concentrated form in the development and spread of social-ecological research (cf. Jahn et al. 2000). In this development we find a high degree of reflexivity within research practices, particularly concerning access to problems and discipline-spanning forms of dealing with problems (cf. Becker/Jahn 2006). This experience has led to the conception of transdisciplinarity presented in the rest of this article, a conception that reflects the real state of transdisciplinary research as it is practiced currently, while, at the same time, opening up the possibility of a better understanding of transdisciplinarity, one that can lead to a wider agreement
In the beginning of the 1990’s the discussion of the meaning of ‘transdisciplinarity’ became heated with the publication of the work of Michael Gibbons et al. (1994), which sparked a lively controversy. In Gibbons et al. certain aspects of transdisciplinarity (heterogeneity, social responsibility and contextuality) were generalized into a new mode of production of scientific knowledge (mode 2), with this being contrasted to the older, traditional academic mode (mode 1). Mode 2 knowledge production refers to the production of knowledge in a context of application in which the interests of societal, economic and political actors are constitutive for the research process.
The controversy surrounding this distinction has cooled for the most part but it has had the salutary effect, precisely because of its heatedness, of making an important contribution to a better understanding of inter- and transdisciplinarity. At the same time a heterogeneous form of research practice came into being, first in research institutions outside of the universities, then in environmental, sustainability, health and development research, which considered itself ‘trans-disciplinary.’
The two discussions, the discussion within the philosophy and sociology of science concerning new forms of the societal production of scientific knowledge and the practical discussion arising within research practices concerning the goals, criteria and methods of research described as transdisciplinary, met for the first time at a conference in Zurich in February 2001, organized by the Swiss National Science Foundation (cf. Thompson-Klein et al. 2001). The controversies that marked this conference gave impetus to a renewed discussion of transdisciplinarity, particularly within the German-speaking world, a discussion that has lasted until the present.
This discussion has not, however, led to a commonly accepted understanding of transdisciplinarity, and even less so to a canonical definition, and such a generally recognized definition is not to be expected in the foreseeable future (nor, indeed, does it seem to be possible). No scientific community (e.g., a university subject area in the sciences) nor even a given research joint venture will be able to canonize one particular understanding of transdisciplinarity. On the contrary, such a result will only be reached, if at all, through a long process of creating a common understanding, a process that will require as its precondition building a tradition of transdisciplinary research and establishing better institutionalization (e.g., with journals and a place in university teaching). This process cannot be steered; it is evolutionary and requires time.
But one cannot also make the mistake of assuming that all one needs to do is waiting for the practical experience to emerge and then compare the results. Transdisciplinary research needs to be tried out now in various projects, then evaluated and improved. However, we are not here at the beginning, for there has already been important empirical experience that has been analyzed, with the results published in numerous journals and books.
The range of conceptions of transdisciplinary research stemming from the Zurich conference mentioned above has, precisely because of their diversity and inconsistency, made the key issues of the controversy clear for the first time:
– Is transdisciplinarity really something different than interdisciplinarity? To what extent, and in relation to which categories, does it make sense to stress differences between the two?
– Does transdisciplinarity mean anything more than establishing a relationship to societal practices while doing research? Is it really a matter of doing cooperative research in which societal actors are equal partners in research?
– Is it necessary and sufficient to tap into societal pools of knowledge during the research process, and what effects does this have on interdisciplinary cooperation within the sciences?
Arising at the end of the conference, this controversy opened the way to an understanding of different conceptions of transdisciplinary research, an understanding that holds any conception of transdisciplinary research must be adequate both to research practice and to the criteria of the philosophy of science. The conflicts over the direction to follow that arose during this controversy can be seen, above all, as proof of the extent to which transdisciplinarity research has become a key reference point in funding proposals, in particular in the German-speaking world. It is becoming clear – and not only in sustainability and environmental research, but also more and more in areas of research into the consequences of climate change, in research in the health sciences, in biotechnology and gene technology, as well as in nanotechnology and development policies - that a narrowly disciplinary or academic mode of research cannot deal adequately with the problems that are facing us; or, put differently, an overwhelmingly disciplinary or academic approach to research is no longer held to be appropriate by the numerous societal actors affected (including many societal policy makers) as a means for finding solutions to the problems facing society, and will therefore not be acceptable to them.
Simultaneously, individual institutions of higher education (e.g., in Luneburg and Oldenburg) and established non-university research centers are beginning to use the idea of transdisciplinar-ity as a selling point for their schools and institutions. This of course also has an effect on the discussion of transdisciplinarity. The peculiarities of transdisciplinary research, as well as the question of its scientific status and its quality, gain in practical importance given this greater interest on the part of large institutions.
What we have seen in this sketch of the wider research landscape, stretching from climate change research to development policies, can be seen in concentrated form in the development and spread of social-ecological research (cf. Jahn et al. 2000). In this development we find a high degree of reflexivity within research practices, particularly concerning access to problems and discipline-spanning forms of dealing with problems (cf. Becker/Jahn 2006). This experience has led to the conception of transdisciplinarity presented in the rest of this article, a conception that reflects the real state of transdisciplinary research as it is practiced currently, while, at the same time, opening up the possibility of a better understanding of transdisciplinarity, one that can lead to a wider agreement
State of the Art : Everyday experience and the tasks of science
Globalization, climate change, demographic changes or environmental pollution are all current examples of problems with a new kind of structure: social action and ecological effects are so tightly linked within these problems that the borderline between society and nature, up to now felt to be clearly demarcated, increasingly blurs. Characteristically, such hybrid problems are marked by a high degree of complexity with respect to casual processes, with the latter running along different spatial, temporal and social scales – from local to global, from current events to long term consequences, from action in everyday contexts to the policies of worldwide regimes and multinational organizations. A way of dealing with these problems based on an informed process of societal decision making and intervention is only possible, however, if society’s capacity for taking action is at the same time increased in a sustainable manner and its knowledge base is deepened and broadened. This demands new approaches and new forms of the production of scientific knowledge, forms of knowledge production capable of adequately grasping these complex societal problems. This will only be possible, however, if the organization of science according to disciplines is transcended in an orderly fashion.
At the same time these new kinds of problems, with their novel structures, demands a new way of dealing with knowledge, one oriented towards specific problems. Processes within complex system contexts can only be described with a limited preciseness. For that reason the long term development of societies may be predicted only with great difficulty, if at all. The question of whether, for example, the creation of new technological options or societal institutions will in the future lead to an easing or heightening of a problem can only be made accessible to analysis by making assumptions which drastically reduce complexity. Yet despite such reductions, cate-gories such as uncertainty, (scientific) non-knowledge and contested knowledge continue to play a decisive role in the process of dealing with problems.
Which state of affairs is considered problematic, and in what way, will not, given the foregoing, be decided solely according to the traditional criteria of scientific objectivity; rather, interests and values will play a role as well. What is perceived as problematic in a society or sub-area of a society depends on to what extent and in what manner the knowledge relevant to the state of affairs in question is made accessible and evaluated by various societal actors, including those from the sciences. Here it is a matter of knowledge in a threefold sense: knowledge in terms of an understanding of a state of affairs (system knowledge), knowledge as used to determine the shape and scope of decision making and intervention process (orientation knowledge) and the knowledge needed to put decisions and planned interventions into practice (transformation knowledge).
Here we may speak of critical knowledge base which deals with certain fundamental questions: How does one decide between the problematic and the non-problematic (problem definition)? Who is responsible for a problem (problem ownership)? And what are the preconditions of the practical action needed to deal with a problem (problem agency)?
Stressing the uncertainty of knowledge, however, goes against the expectations society has with respect to research – that it provide uncontested and certain knowledge for use in political and economic decision making processes and in individual behavior and action. For how a particular piece of knowledge is evaluated – as certain or uncertain – will play an decisive role in the process of deciding what is problematic and what is not (and thereby determining whether action is needed or not). But such evaluations of the certainty or uncertainty of knowledge are themselves contested, both within societal negotiation processes and within scientific debates. (cf. Keil/Stieß 2007). Despite this uncertainty, however, this problem of knowledge has not, for the most be, been confronted within the process of research itself. This lack of explicit confrontation with the problem leads to an unclear orientation on the part of the sciences and to an in-sufficient practical orientation, which prevents solutions suggested by the sciences from being put to societal use.
Another catchword in this discussion is the debate over the relationship between the truth and the usefulness of scientific knowledge, a debate which has become prominent in Germany since at least the advent of the Excellence Initiative and the latter’s demand for both scientific excellence and societal relevance. The relationship between truth and usefulness can no longer be segued without further ado into a distinction between basic and applied research; rather, this relationship raises the possibility of dramatic changes in the relationship between science and society (cf. Maasen/Lieven 2006).
At the same time these new kinds of problems, with their novel structures, demands a new way of dealing with knowledge, one oriented towards specific problems. Processes within complex system contexts can only be described with a limited preciseness. For that reason the long term development of societies may be predicted only with great difficulty, if at all. The question of whether, for example, the creation of new technological options or societal institutions will in the future lead to an easing or heightening of a problem can only be made accessible to analysis by making assumptions which drastically reduce complexity. Yet despite such reductions, cate-gories such as uncertainty, (scientific) non-knowledge and contested knowledge continue to play a decisive role in the process of dealing with problems.
Which state of affairs is considered problematic, and in what way, will not, given the foregoing, be decided solely according to the traditional criteria of scientific objectivity; rather, interests and values will play a role as well. What is perceived as problematic in a society or sub-area of a society depends on to what extent and in what manner the knowledge relevant to the state of affairs in question is made accessible and evaluated by various societal actors, including those from the sciences. Here it is a matter of knowledge in a threefold sense: knowledge in terms of an understanding of a state of affairs (system knowledge), knowledge as used to determine the shape and scope of decision making and intervention process (orientation knowledge) and the knowledge needed to put decisions and planned interventions into practice (transformation knowledge).
Here we may speak of critical knowledge base which deals with certain fundamental questions: How does one decide between the problematic and the non-problematic (problem definition)? Who is responsible for a problem (problem ownership)? And what are the preconditions of the practical action needed to deal with a problem (problem agency)?
Stressing the uncertainty of knowledge, however, goes against the expectations society has with respect to research – that it provide uncontested and certain knowledge for use in political and economic decision making processes and in individual behavior and action. For how a particular piece of knowledge is evaluated – as certain or uncertain – will play an decisive role in the process of deciding what is problematic and what is not (and thereby determining whether action is needed or not). But such evaluations of the certainty or uncertainty of knowledge are themselves contested, both within societal negotiation processes and within scientific debates. (cf. Keil/Stieß 2007). Despite this uncertainty, however, this problem of knowledge has not, for the most be, been confronted within the process of research itself. This lack of explicit confrontation with the problem leads to an unclear orientation on the part of the sciences and to an in-sufficient practical orientation, which prevents solutions suggested by the sciences from being put to societal use.
Another catchword in this discussion is the debate over the relationship between the truth and the usefulness of scientific knowledge, a debate which has become prominent in Germany since at least the advent of the Excellence Initiative and the latter’s demand for both scientific excellence and societal relevance. The relationship between truth and usefulness can no longer be segued without further ado into a distinction between basic and applied research; rather, this relationship raises the possibility of dramatic changes in the relationship between science and society (cf. Maasen/Lieven 2006).
Central Claim : The answer: A transdisciplinary approach to research
New kinds of problems such as globalization, climate change, demographic changes or environmental pollution demand new kinds of responses. A transdisciplinary approach to research can provide the pools of critical knowledge needed to deal with these and related problems in a structured way.
Problems arise in social situations in which there is a discrepancy between the interests of specific actors and the conditions of their action. Goals desired cannot be achieved under the given conditions and with the knowledge available, the methods at hand and the natural, temporal and social resources that are accessible. Considering problems of knowledge, we may view these as an opposing of statements and questions: statements about a problem situation held to be valid face questions concerning not yet acquired but desired knowledge – this is what characterizes a problem of knowledge. If either the statements or the questions change then so too does the problem (Becker 2006).
Transdisciplinary research actively intervenes in the societal process of problematizing or de-problematizing statements concerning states of affairs and interpretations of specific sets of knowledge. At a particular point in time an active field of societal discourse is ‘frozen’ in order to make it accessible to scientific treatment under controlled conditions in the course of a process of research.
What this means is two things. First, societal actors who are affected by a problem must be drawn into the research process. And second, the problem must be turned into a scientifically valid question in the course of an exchange between concerned societal actors and scientific actors. Here the clarification of interpretive claims and claims of validity, and of conflicts of interests, play a decisive role. This translation of a problem from its meaning in an everyday context into a scientifically valid research question means defining the goals of research in such a way that their contribution to practical solutions of a societal problem is narrow enough to be useful. At the same time, this process of defining research goals in a manner useful for everyday life points to the structures deemed essential that need to be examined, thus providing researchers with their object of scientific investigation in the first place. In this way transdisciplinary research conceives and organizes research as a common learning process involving both society and science, a process that proceeds reflexively.
Problems that are characterized by complex structures and an uncertain knowledge base are becoming more and more prevalent. Along with these problems the number of areas of societal action and of scientific research organized along transdisciplinary lines is also growing. These take shape at the edges of disciplines and academic departments, or may be found within large scale (national or international) research programs, or located in research organizations developed just for that purpose. Research areas where one finds examples of this growing field of transdisciplinary research include molecular biology, gene technology, health care and pharmaceutical research, development research, climate change, risk research and, above all, environ-mental and sustainability research.
A general model of the process of transdisciplinary research
In the process of transdisciplinary research we can distinguish, ideal typically, among three modes of access to a problem situation:
– a mode of access oriented towards everyday life (everyday life mode of access)
– a mode of access oriented towards science (scientific mode of access)
– an integrative mode of access.
In research processes with an everyday life mode of access, following a participative approach (cf. Pohl/Hirsch Hadorn 2006), pressing societally defined problems, which are being pushed to the fore by recognized societal actors and which are in need of practical solutions, form the starting point. These kinds of problems, in short, involve the knowledge and interests of societal actors.
The sciences accept, so to speak, an order from society (political sphere, economic sphere) to produce practical solutions to these problems; translate this then into a set of research questions; work on these normally in a multidisciplinary manner; and then present society or its representatives with the results of their research in the form of a set of proposed solutions. Research here aims primarily to generate applied, useful knowledge and presents its results to the ‘user’ for evaluation. An important research output here can be the identification of a new need for action, so that the circle can close in on itself.
Fig. 1: Everyday life mode of access
In research processes with a scientific mode of access, following an epistemological approach, the starting point is a complex problem internal to science (e.g., evaluation of contested or non-knowledge, of insufficient or missing methods, of the problem of generalizing and transferring the results of case studies and so on), which involve the theories, concepts and general conceptions emerging from the borders of the disciplines trying to understand these problems. Results here are intended to enhance scientific understanding and lead to the development of new methods, models, concepts, general conceptions and, above all, new questions for research – here the circle must close.
Fig. 2: Scientific mode of access
When dealing with research problems involving societal problems that contain, in turn, problems of knowledge and, conversely, with scientific problems marked by their societal relevance – that is, those problems with the kind of structure described above– it is particularly important to first work on them as analytically separate items. This, however, means that the object of research, constituted by its related statements and questions, has been changed.
In research processes with an integrative mode of access (Jahn/Keil 2006) it is decisive for their success that at the beginning of the process a common research object be constituted and that an appropriate research team is assembled. This phase is normally marked by a high degree of ten-sion caused by a mix of different interests, individual and institutional goals, claims and norms concerning what is good science, and disciplinary backgrounds. The extent to which the re-search team succeeds in balancing all of these conflicting pressures and makes use of them pro-ductively will be decisive for the output of the research project. In the meantime a wide range of experience has been gathered with respect to methods, procedures and methods of operation useful for such a ‘transdisciplinary’ constitution of a common research procedure (most recently, Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008; Hummel 2008; Schäfer et al. 2006).
Fig. 3: Integrative mode of access
In a second phase, in which new (disciplinary) knowledge is to be generated, the emphasis is on interdisciplinary integration. Here it is a question of assuring the transferability of the new disciplinary knowledge within the overall process and of working on a common ‘object of knowledge’ (models, theoretical concepts, etc.). In this phase there is a particular need to avoid the dangers of turf building based on individual interests and the problem of language differences, particularly between disciplines. It is important, therefore, to foresee the need for early integration measures (e.g., interface workshops, facilitated discussions in working groups or cross-disciplinary projects), as symbolized above in the model by the cross bars to the ‘disciplinary’ or sub-project columns, and to plan for these.
In the end phase, that is, at the end of the research process, there are two methodologically linked integration steps. First, the results of the previous phases are summarized in an initial version of the project’s results. After this the validity and relevance of the results (new scientific/theoretical knowledge or practical knowledge useful for solving problems.) are checked by means of, for example, a dual critique procedure (cf. Becker/Jahn 2006) or assessment methods, and also evaluated in terms of their range of efficacy and their appropriateness for the scientific or practical problem selected at the outset. This may lead to the results of the first integration step being subjected to a (partial) ‘de-integration,’ followed by their reintegration in a new, second consolidation of problem components and their possible solutions, bringing about a stronger integration of the overall results in the end.
From the model it is clear how important the integration work – represented by the middle columns – is: here are the specifically scientific challenges. How well one responds to these will determine the quality of the so-called ‘inter’- or ‘transdisciplinary added value’ of a given set of research results, the value won, that is, for both societal and scientific praxis, as each follows its own epistemic path.
In the first phase (again, represented by the middle columns) the constitution of a common re-search object (and research team), so-called problem framing, is of particular importance right from the outset. What happens here is that problem descriptions, whether formulated in every-day language or in the language of a discipline, are reworked into an ‘epistemic object’ (following Rheinberger 2001), that is, into a scientific object that we can investigate and understand in a discipline-spanning manner.
Integration problems in inter- and transdisciplinary research
The process of transdisciplinary research involves integration problems at its very core. These integration problems may be distinguished analytically into several dimensions, although in the actual practice of research these dimensions are always interwoven.
– To begin with there is a cognitive-epistemic (or knowledge) dimension. Here knowledge components from different disciplines are both distinguished from one another and also linked, while, at the same time, scientific knowledge is differentiated and linked to everyday knowledge. Here being able to understand the methods and concepts of other disciplines, to recognize the limits of ones own knowledge and to move on towards building common methods and theories are called for.
– Next we can speak of a social and organizational dimension. Here it is a matter of distinguishing and connecting different interests, the activities of participating researchers, and sub-projects and larger organizational units. Bargaining over and balancing of interests are in order here, taking place in a field of tension constituted in the space between the two poles, the truth of statements and the usefulness of results, often influenced as well by the appear-ance of research and funding opportunities.
– Further, there is a communicative dimension in which different linguistic means of expression and communication practices are distinguished and coupled during the routine acts of carrying on research. In this way, something like a common mode of speaking develops (al-lowing for mutual understanding and agreement), which is a prerequisite for producing common publications.
– Finally, there is a material or technical dimension. Here it is a matter of redesigning the different material or technical elements of proposed solutions into socially and normatively embedded and functional material systems.
Thus inter- and transdisciplinary integration does not only have a cognitive but also a social aspect, and the two are tightly entangled. The social dimension is, however, often underestimated, although, in particular at institutions of higher learning with their divisions of knowledge into academic departments, it is extremely important. Trans- and interdisciplinary research assumes willingness to learn to a high degree, as well as being a deeply personal process. It demands, moreover, the readiness on the part of individual scientists to be open to new experiences and processes, while at the same time requiring that the individual interests of each participant be taken into account and promoted.
Problems arise in social situations in which there is a discrepancy between the interests of specific actors and the conditions of their action. Goals desired cannot be achieved under the given conditions and with the knowledge available, the methods at hand and the natural, temporal and social resources that are accessible. Considering problems of knowledge, we may view these as an opposing of statements and questions: statements about a problem situation held to be valid face questions concerning not yet acquired but desired knowledge – this is what characterizes a problem of knowledge. If either the statements or the questions change then so too does the problem (Becker 2006).
Transdisciplinary research actively intervenes in the societal process of problematizing or de-problematizing statements concerning states of affairs and interpretations of specific sets of knowledge. At a particular point in time an active field of societal discourse is ‘frozen’ in order to make it accessible to scientific treatment under controlled conditions in the course of a process of research.
What this means is two things. First, societal actors who are affected by a problem must be drawn into the research process. And second, the problem must be turned into a scientifically valid question in the course of an exchange between concerned societal actors and scientific actors. Here the clarification of interpretive claims and claims of validity, and of conflicts of interests, play a decisive role. This translation of a problem from its meaning in an everyday context into a scientifically valid research question means defining the goals of research in such a way that their contribution to practical solutions of a societal problem is narrow enough to be useful. At the same time, this process of defining research goals in a manner useful for everyday life points to the structures deemed essential that need to be examined, thus providing researchers with their object of scientific investigation in the first place. In this way transdisciplinary research conceives and organizes research as a common learning process involving both society and science, a process that proceeds reflexively.
Problems that are characterized by complex structures and an uncertain knowledge base are becoming more and more prevalent. Along with these problems the number of areas of societal action and of scientific research organized along transdisciplinary lines is also growing. These take shape at the edges of disciplines and academic departments, or may be found within large scale (national or international) research programs, or located in research organizations developed just for that purpose. Research areas where one finds examples of this growing field of transdisciplinary research include molecular biology, gene technology, health care and pharmaceutical research, development research, climate change, risk research and, above all, environ-mental and sustainability research.
A general model of the process of transdisciplinary research
In the process of transdisciplinary research we can distinguish, ideal typically, among three modes of access to a problem situation:
– a mode of access oriented towards everyday life (everyday life mode of access)
– a mode of access oriented towards science (scientific mode of access)
– an integrative mode of access.
In research processes with an everyday life mode of access, following a participative approach (cf. Pohl/Hirsch Hadorn 2006), pressing societally defined problems, which are being pushed to the fore by recognized societal actors and which are in need of practical solutions, form the starting point. These kinds of problems, in short, involve the knowledge and interests of societal actors.
The sciences accept, so to speak, an order from society (political sphere, economic sphere) to produce practical solutions to these problems; translate this then into a set of research questions; work on these normally in a multidisciplinary manner; and then present society or its representatives with the results of their research in the form of a set of proposed solutions. Research here aims primarily to generate applied, useful knowledge and presents its results to the ‘user’ for evaluation. An important research output here can be the identification of a new need for action, so that the circle can close in on itself.
Fig. 1: Everyday life mode of access
In research processes with a scientific mode of access, following an epistemological approach, the starting point is a complex problem internal to science (e.g., evaluation of contested or non-knowledge, of insufficient or missing methods, of the problem of generalizing and transferring the results of case studies and so on), which involve the theories, concepts and general conceptions emerging from the borders of the disciplines trying to understand these problems. Results here are intended to enhance scientific understanding and lead to the development of new methods, models, concepts, general conceptions and, above all, new questions for research – here the circle must close.
Fig. 2: Scientific mode of access
When dealing with research problems involving societal problems that contain, in turn, problems of knowledge and, conversely, with scientific problems marked by their societal relevance – that is, those problems with the kind of structure described above– it is particularly important to first work on them as analytically separate items. This, however, means that the object of research, constituted by its related statements and questions, has been changed.
In research processes with an integrative mode of access (Jahn/Keil 2006) it is decisive for their success that at the beginning of the process a common research object be constituted and that an appropriate research team is assembled. This phase is normally marked by a high degree of ten-sion caused by a mix of different interests, individual and institutional goals, claims and norms concerning what is good science, and disciplinary backgrounds. The extent to which the re-search team succeeds in balancing all of these conflicting pressures and makes use of them pro-ductively will be decisive for the output of the research project. In the meantime a wide range of experience has been gathered with respect to methods, procedures and methods of operation useful for such a ‘transdisciplinary’ constitution of a common research procedure (most recently, Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008; Hummel 2008; Schäfer et al. 2006).
Fig. 3: Integrative mode of access
In a second phase, in which new (disciplinary) knowledge is to be generated, the emphasis is on interdisciplinary integration. Here it is a question of assuring the transferability of the new disciplinary knowledge within the overall process and of working on a common ‘object of knowledge’ (models, theoretical concepts, etc.). In this phase there is a particular need to avoid the dangers of turf building based on individual interests and the problem of language differences, particularly between disciplines. It is important, therefore, to foresee the need for early integration measures (e.g., interface workshops, facilitated discussions in working groups or cross-disciplinary projects), as symbolized above in the model by the cross bars to the ‘disciplinary’ or sub-project columns, and to plan for these.
In the end phase, that is, at the end of the research process, there are two methodologically linked integration steps. First, the results of the previous phases are summarized in an initial version of the project’s results. After this the validity and relevance of the results (new scientific/theoretical knowledge or practical knowledge useful for solving problems.) are checked by means of, for example, a dual critique procedure (cf. Becker/Jahn 2006) or assessment methods, and also evaluated in terms of their range of efficacy and their appropriateness for the scientific or practical problem selected at the outset. This may lead to the results of the first integration step being subjected to a (partial) ‘de-integration,’ followed by their reintegration in a new, second consolidation of problem components and their possible solutions, bringing about a stronger integration of the overall results in the end.
From the model it is clear how important the integration work – represented by the middle columns – is: here are the specifically scientific challenges. How well one responds to these will determine the quality of the so-called ‘inter’- or ‘transdisciplinary added value’ of a given set of research results, the value won, that is, for both societal and scientific praxis, as each follows its own epistemic path.
In the first phase (again, represented by the middle columns) the constitution of a common re-search object (and research team), so-called problem framing, is of particular importance right from the outset. What happens here is that problem descriptions, whether formulated in every-day language or in the language of a discipline, are reworked into an ‘epistemic object’ (following Rheinberger 2001), that is, into a scientific object that we can investigate and understand in a discipline-spanning manner.
Integration problems in inter- and transdisciplinary research
The process of transdisciplinary research involves integration problems at its very core. These integration problems may be distinguished analytically into several dimensions, although in the actual practice of research these dimensions are always interwoven.
– To begin with there is a cognitive-epistemic (or knowledge) dimension. Here knowledge components from different disciplines are both distinguished from one another and also linked, while, at the same time, scientific knowledge is differentiated and linked to everyday knowledge. Here being able to understand the methods and concepts of other disciplines, to recognize the limits of ones own knowledge and to move on towards building common methods and theories are called for.
– Next we can speak of a social and organizational dimension. Here it is a matter of distinguishing and connecting different interests, the activities of participating researchers, and sub-projects and larger organizational units. Bargaining over and balancing of interests are in order here, taking place in a field of tension constituted in the space between the two poles, the truth of statements and the usefulness of results, often influenced as well by the appear-ance of research and funding opportunities.
– Further, there is a communicative dimension in which different linguistic means of expression and communication practices are distinguished and coupled during the routine acts of carrying on research. In this way, something like a common mode of speaking develops (al-lowing for mutual understanding and agreement), which is a prerequisite for producing common publications.
– Finally, there is a material or technical dimension. Here it is a matter of redesigning the different material or technical elements of proposed solutions into socially and normatively embedded and functional material systems.
Thus inter- and transdisciplinary integration does not only have a cognitive but also a social aspect, and the two are tightly entangled. The social dimension is, however, often underestimated, although, in particular at institutions of higher learning with their divisions of knowledge into academic departments, it is extremely important. Trans- and interdisciplinary research assumes willingness to learn to a high degree, as well as being a deeply personal process. It demands, moreover, the readiness on the part of individual scientists to be open to new experiences and processes, while at the same time requiring that the individual interests of each participant be taken into account and promoted.
Discussion/Conclusions : Transdisciplinary Added Value
The transdisciplinary research process drives scientific progress within new areas of science it itself opens up. It is characterized by integration problems (epistemological, social, communicative and technological) and participative research arrangements (the inclusion of those affected, of users or stake holders, all in a process of mutual learning). Transdisciplinary research pro-poses useful societal interventions and is normally conducted in the form of projects, financed with project-bound funds and carried out by temporary teams assembled for the purpose at hand. The goal of such research is to have a practical effect on the world beyond science. Transdisciplinary research, in contrast to disciplinary research, contains a specific potential for reflective monitoring of the research process in certain areas:
– The transdisciplinary research provides an opportunity for ‘provisional thinking’ about both the design of the research process and the course of the accompanying societal negotiation process. In this way model solutions can be formulated, leading to better societal decision making.
– Integrative problem-solving may in many cases lead to a situation in which the original problem is resolved without further intervention.
– The transdisciplinary research process can also contribute in many ways to a strengthening of the societal capacity to act by feeding back into subjective perceptions of problems (reducing restrictions, increasing options).
– The transdisciplinary research process produces both scientifically validated knowledge and pragmatic knowledge usable for the societal praxis in question.
– The transdisciplinary research process can provide new impulses to the development of methods for integrating knowledge.
– Finally, the transdisciplinary research process can lead to new, integrative forms of working together for the societal actors involved.
Corresponding to these objectives there is a critical epistemic interest involving cognitive processes of differentiation and linkage and the development of methods. This process occurs in three dimensions in that there is a differentiation and linkage
– of the pools of knowledge found in various disciplines , as well as a differentiation and link-age of scientific and non-scientific knowledge;
– of action-oriented and knowledge-oriented goals;
– of the claims, wishes, and expectations of individuals, institutions and groups with respect to proposed solutions to problems;
– of considerations of the usefulness of results of research projects and the claims made by disciplines with respect to the validity of knowledge.
A working definition of the ‘Transdisciplinary Research Process’
Those research processes may be called ‘transdisciplinary’ which have the goal of expanding the research process beyond the normal limits of disciplinary, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research to include a problem-oriented integration of knowledge and methods. In a disciplinary context, integration occurs at the level of (discipline) internally defined research questions. With multidisciplinary research, on the other hand, integration occurs at the level of practical goals and problems, while in an interdisciplinary research process integration takes place at the level of the posing of research questions in the overlapping areas between various disciplines. In contrast to these research processes, the transdisciplinary research process involves integration at the level of the overlapping areas between scientifically posed questions and societally important problems.
In a transdisciplinary research process societal states of affairs are understood in terms of complex problems of the life world, and are treated as such scientifically. To formulate a description of such complex problems transdisciplinary research draws on both knowledge drawn from the Transdisciplinarity in the appropriate academic departments and scientific disciplines and knowledge won from everyday praxis. Both everyday practical knowledge and scientific knowledge also play a role in the process of transforming a societal problem into a scientific problem and in the formulation of the resulting research question. Transdisciplinary research, when working on a problem, is continually crossing the borders between disciplines and departments, as well as those between scientific knowledge and everyday knowledge, with both of these kinds of knowledge being necessary to the process of dealing with the research question at hand.
In addition, during the course of a project transdisciplinary research assures the coordination of sub-projects, while carrying out a discipline-spanning integration of scientific knowledge and, at the same time, bringing in everyday knowledge in an appropriate way so that new scientific knowledge and questions are produced and proposals for action and problem solutions are formulated. In this way it is guaranteed that knowledge and strategies won through the process of transdisciplinary research can appropriately influence the discourses found in both everyday praxis and in the sciences.
Both aspects, the contribution to solving practical problems for societal actors and the contribution to scientific progress, are understood as essential parts of the research dynamic – here we speak of a “problem transformation” (Becker/Jahn 2006: 290). Within this research dynamic it is possible to distinguish among various types of transdisciplinary research projects – for example, more strongly theory oriented or application oriented projects; or projects with a focus more on scientific or on societal problems –depending on the object of research and the latter’s goals, as well as on the degree to which a problem under investigation is embedded in the larger societal and science policies debates of moment.
References
Bammé, A. (2004): Science Wars. Von der akademischen zur postakademischen Wissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main
Becker, E. (2004/2006): Problem Transformations in Transdisciplinary Research. In: G. Hirsch Hadorn (Hg.): Unity of Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Research for Sustainability. In: Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Oxford. http://www.eolss.net (20.12.2007)
Becker, E./Th. Jahn (2006): Soziale Ökologie. Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Frankfurt am Main
Bergmann, M./Th. Jahn (2008): Transdisciplinary Integration in Sustainability Research – The Case of CITY:mobil. In: G. Hirsch Hadorn et al. (Hg.): Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Dordrecht, 57–68
Bergmann, M./B. Brohmann/E. Hoffmann/M.C. Loibl/R. Rehaag/E. Schramm/J.-P. Voß (2005): Qualitätskriterien transdisziplinärer Forschung. Ein Leitfaden für die formative Evaluation von Forschungsprojekten. ISOE-Studientexte, Nr. 13. Frankfurt am Main
Gibbons, M./C. Limoges/H. Nowotny/S. Schwartzman/P. Scott/M. Trow (1994): The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London
Heckhausen, H. (1987): »Interdisziplinäre Forschung« zwischen Intra-, Multi- und Chimären-Disziplinarität. In: J. Kocka (Hg.): Interdisziplinarität. Praxis – Herausforderung – Ideologie. Frankfurt am Main, 129-145
Hirsch Hadorn, G./H. Hoffmann-Riem/S. Biber-Klemm/W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy/D. Joye/C. Pohl/U. Wiesmann/E. Zemp (Hg.) (2008): Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Dordrecht
Hummel, D. (Hg.) (2008): Population Dynamics and Supply Systems. A Transdisciplinary Approach. Frankfurt am Main/New York
Jahn, Th. (2005): Soziale Ökologie, kognitive Integration und Transdisziplinarität. Technikfol-genabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 2(14): 32–38
Jahn, Th./F. Keil (2006): Transdisziplinärer Forschungsprozess. In: E. Becker/Th. Jahn (Hg.): Soziale Ökologie. Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Frankfurt am Main, 319–329
Jahn, Th./E. Sons/I. Stieß (2000): Konzeptionelles Fokussieren und partizipatives Vernetzen von Wissen. Bericht zur Genese des Förderschwerpunkts Sozialökologische Forschung des BMBF. ISOE-Studientexte, Nr. 8. Frankfurt am Main
Jantsch, E. (1972): Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Education and Innova-tion. In: CERI (Hg.): Interdisciplinarity. Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities. Paris
Keil, F./I. Stieß (2007): Wissen, was wir nicht wissen: Umweltforschung als gesellschaftlicher Lernprozess. GAIA, 16(3): 193–199
Kocka, J. (Hg.) (1987): Interdisziplinarität. Praxis – Herausforderung – Ideologie. Frankfurt am Main
Maasen, S./O. Lieven (2006): Transdisciplinarity: A New Mode of Governing Science? Science and Public Policy, 33: 399–410
Mittelstraß, J. (2005): Methodische Transdisziplinarität Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 2(14): 18–23
Mittelstraß, J. (1998): Die Häuser des Wissens. Frankfurt am Main
Mittelstraß, J. (1987): Die Stunde der Interdisziplinarität? In: J. Kocka (Hg.): Interdisziplinarität. Praxis – Herausforderung – Ideologie. Frankfurt am Main, 152–158
Pohl, C./G. Hirsch Hadorn (2006): Gestaltungsprinzipien für die transdisziplinäre Forschung. Ein Beitrag des td-net. München
Rheinberger, H.-J. (2001): Experimentalanalyse und epistemische Dinge. Eine Geschichte der Proteinsynthese im Reagenzglas. Göttingen
Schäfer, M./I. Schultz/G. Wendorf (Hg.) (2006): Genderperspektiven in der sozialökologischen Forschung. Ergebnisse sozial-ökologischer Forschung, Bd. 1. München
Thompson-Klein, J./W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy/R. Häberli/A. Bill/R.W. Scholz/M. Welti (Hg.) (2001): Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology and Society. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity. Basel
Weingart, P. (2001): Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Göttingen
– The transdisciplinary research provides an opportunity for ‘provisional thinking’ about both the design of the research process and the course of the accompanying societal negotiation process. In this way model solutions can be formulated, leading to better societal decision making.
– Integrative problem-solving may in many cases lead to a situation in which the original problem is resolved without further intervention.
– The transdisciplinary research process can also contribute in many ways to a strengthening of the societal capacity to act by feeding back into subjective perceptions of problems (reducing restrictions, increasing options).
– The transdisciplinary research process produces both scientifically validated knowledge and pragmatic knowledge usable for the societal praxis in question.
– The transdisciplinary research process can provide new impulses to the development of methods for integrating knowledge.
– Finally, the transdisciplinary research process can lead to new, integrative forms of working together for the societal actors involved.
Corresponding to these objectives there is a critical epistemic interest involving cognitive processes of differentiation and linkage and the development of methods. This process occurs in three dimensions in that there is a differentiation and linkage
– of the pools of knowledge found in various disciplines , as well as a differentiation and link-age of scientific and non-scientific knowledge;
– of action-oriented and knowledge-oriented goals;
– of the claims, wishes, and expectations of individuals, institutions and groups with respect to proposed solutions to problems;
– of considerations of the usefulness of results of research projects and the claims made by disciplines with respect to the validity of knowledge.
A working definition of the ‘Transdisciplinary Research Process’
Those research processes may be called ‘transdisciplinary’ which have the goal of expanding the research process beyond the normal limits of disciplinary, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research to include a problem-oriented integration of knowledge and methods. In a disciplinary context, integration occurs at the level of (discipline) internally defined research questions. With multidisciplinary research, on the other hand, integration occurs at the level of practical goals and problems, while in an interdisciplinary research process integration takes place at the level of the posing of research questions in the overlapping areas between various disciplines. In contrast to these research processes, the transdisciplinary research process involves integration at the level of the overlapping areas between scientifically posed questions and societally important problems.
In a transdisciplinary research process societal states of affairs are understood in terms of complex problems of the life world, and are treated as such scientifically. To formulate a description of such complex problems transdisciplinary research draws on both knowledge drawn from the Transdisciplinarity in the appropriate academic departments and scientific disciplines and knowledge won from everyday praxis. Both everyday practical knowledge and scientific knowledge also play a role in the process of transforming a societal problem into a scientific problem and in the formulation of the resulting research question. Transdisciplinary research, when working on a problem, is continually crossing the borders between disciplines and departments, as well as those between scientific knowledge and everyday knowledge, with both of these kinds of knowledge being necessary to the process of dealing with the research question at hand.
In addition, during the course of a project transdisciplinary research assures the coordination of sub-projects, while carrying out a discipline-spanning integration of scientific knowledge and, at the same time, bringing in everyday knowledge in an appropriate way so that new scientific knowledge and questions are produced and proposals for action and problem solutions are formulated. In this way it is guaranteed that knowledge and strategies won through the process of transdisciplinary research can appropriately influence the discourses found in both everyday praxis and in the sciences.
Both aspects, the contribution to solving practical problems for societal actors and the contribution to scientific progress, are understood as essential parts of the research dynamic – here we speak of a “problem transformation” (Becker/Jahn 2006: 290). Within this research dynamic it is possible to distinguish among various types of transdisciplinary research projects – for example, more strongly theory oriented or application oriented projects; or projects with a focus more on scientific or on societal problems –depending on the object of research and the latter’s goals, as well as on the degree to which a problem under investigation is embedded in the larger societal and science policies debates of moment.
References
Bammé, A. (2004): Science Wars. Von der akademischen zur postakademischen Wissenschaft. Frankfurt am Main
Becker, E. (2004/2006): Problem Transformations in Transdisciplinary Research. In: G. Hirsch Hadorn (Hg.): Unity of Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Research for Sustainability. In: Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Oxford. http://www.eolss.net (20.12.2007)
Becker, E./Th. Jahn (2006): Soziale Ökologie. Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Frankfurt am Main
Bergmann, M./Th. Jahn (2008): Transdisciplinary Integration in Sustainability Research – The Case of CITY:mobil. In: G. Hirsch Hadorn et al. (Hg.): Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Dordrecht, 57–68
Bergmann, M./B. Brohmann/E. Hoffmann/M.C. Loibl/R. Rehaag/E. Schramm/J.-P. Voß (2005): Qualitätskriterien transdisziplinärer Forschung. Ein Leitfaden für die formative Evaluation von Forschungsprojekten. ISOE-Studientexte, Nr. 13. Frankfurt am Main
Gibbons, M./C. Limoges/H. Nowotny/S. Schwartzman/P. Scott/M. Trow (1994): The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London
Heckhausen, H. (1987): »Interdisziplinäre Forschung« zwischen Intra-, Multi- und Chimären-Disziplinarität. In: J. Kocka (Hg.): Interdisziplinarität. Praxis – Herausforderung – Ideologie. Frankfurt am Main, 129-145
Hirsch Hadorn, G./H. Hoffmann-Riem/S. Biber-Klemm/W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy/D. Joye/C. Pohl/U. Wiesmann/E. Zemp (Hg.) (2008): Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Dordrecht
Hummel, D. (Hg.) (2008): Population Dynamics and Supply Systems. A Transdisciplinary Approach. Frankfurt am Main/New York
Jahn, Th. (2005): Soziale Ökologie, kognitive Integration und Transdisziplinarität. Technikfol-genabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 2(14): 32–38
Jahn, Th./F. Keil (2006): Transdisziplinärer Forschungsprozess. In: E. Becker/Th. Jahn (Hg.): Soziale Ökologie. Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Frankfurt am Main, 319–329
Jahn, Th./E. Sons/I. Stieß (2000): Konzeptionelles Fokussieren und partizipatives Vernetzen von Wissen. Bericht zur Genese des Förderschwerpunkts Sozialökologische Forschung des BMBF. ISOE-Studientexte, Nr. 8. Frankfurt am Main
Jantsch, E. (1972): Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Education and Innova-tion. In: CERI (Hg.): Interdisciplinarity. Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities. Paris
Keil, F./I. Stieß (2007): Wissen, was wir nicht wissen: Umweltforschung als gesellschaftlicher Lernprozess. GAIA, 16(3): 193–199
Kocka, J. (Hg.) (1987): Interdisziplinarität. Praxis – Herausforderung – Ideologie. Frankfurt am Main
Maasen, S./O. Lieven (2006): Transdisciplinarity: A New Mode of Governing Science? Science and Public Policy, 33: 399–410
Mittelstraß, J. (2005): Methodische Transdisziplinarität Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 2(14): 18–23
Mittelstraß, J. (1998): Die Häuser des Wissens. Frankfurt am Main
Mittelstraß, J. (1987): Die Stunde der Interdisziplinarität? In: J. Kocka (Hg.): Interdisziplinarität. Praxis – Herausforderung – Ideologie. Frankfurt am Main, 152–158
Pohl, C./G. Hirsch Hadorn (2006): Gestaltungsprinzipien für die transdisziplinäre Forschung. Ein Beitrag des td-net. München
Rheinberger, H.-J. (2001): Experimentalanalyse und epistemische Dinge. Eine Geschichte der Proteinsynthese im Reagenzglas. Göttingen
Schäfer, M./I. Schultz/G. Wendorf (Hg.) (2006): Genderperspektiven in der sozialökologischen Forschung. Ergebnisse sozial-ökologischer Forschung, Bd. 1. München
Thompson-Klein, J./W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy/R. Häberli/A. Bill/R.W. Scholz/M. Welti (Hg.) (2001): Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology and Society. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity. Basel
Weingart, P. (2001): Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft. Göttingen
Start a new discussion thread (are you logged in ?)
Write a review (are you logged in ?)
Moderator(s): Gloria Origgi , Veronica Boix-Mansilla , Britt Holbrook , Julie Klein , Jennifer Dellner , Machiel Keestra
- The Production of New Critical Knowledge Bases (3 contributions)
Julie Klein, Apr 16 2012 01:11 UTC
We are fortunate to have Thomas Jahn’s thoughtful work as a framework for talking about the meaning and practice of transdisciplinarity (TD). He proposes a definition: “research process involved integration at the level of the overlapping areas between scientifically posed questions and societally important problems.” I agree with this core definition, while inviting us to think broadly about the range of areas where the term is now being adopted. Increased use of the term is an important benchmark of the limits of both disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, and not only in the most frequently cited areas of sustainability and health. Its adoption as a marker of difference in other areas such as feminist theory and in new paradigms of culture in humanities mark a widening expression of the need for what Jahn calls a “critical knowledge base.” I urge us to consider, again to echo Jahn, both similarities and differences across areas of TD problem definition, ownership, and agency.- Social Dimensions and Conditions of Integration (2 replies)
Jennifer Dellner, Apr 18 2012 18:11 UTC
This is a brief comment to add to what Julie Klein has set out for us. I also very much like this chapter for its open problematization of the processes of integration. While I am very much taken with the idea (and still thinking about) the relationship of "problem framing" in the integrative process (or "mode of access") and the resulting new epistemic object, I am intrigued by the discussion of the need for a certain kind of social climate or milieu, a certain kind of openness, that also needs to be present or to be created. I wonder if repeated engagement in interdisciplinary and/or transdisciplinary projects or research ultimately permits a deeper capacity for integration, both as a cognitive and social practice (or habit). In this sense, the social, I wonder if we would find new ways of thinking about the communicative dimensions of integration as well.
So I am curious about what others think. Amid the struggle for definition (inter- and trans- disciplinarity), it does seem that thinking about integration serves as common ground.- Post SciTS Reflection on Deepening Jennifer (1 reply)
Julie Klein, Apr 22 2012 22:32 UTC
Jennifer calls attention to an important challenge for the current discourse of integration: differences and similarities in conditions for integration in individual and collaborative contexts, as well as interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary forms. At the same time, she touches on a crucial need: "repeated engagement in ... projects or research." Jennifer and I know from years of attempting to help students learn to write that one experience alone does not do the job. If the pervasive mantra of interdisciplinarity, and today transdisciplinarity as well, is to have any significance, immersion across the educational process at all levels is crucial. On the heels of last week's Science of Team Science conference in Chicago, as well (attended by a number of members of the INIT network), she reminds us of how important communicative dimensions. At the same time, they differ by context.- The Integration and Communication Point, continuing Julie and Jennifer (no reply)
Thomas Jahn, Apr 26 2012 12:18 UTC
First, I'd like to thank Julie and Jennifer for their comments. They have focused the discussion on a critical point which I would like to pursue further. Both Julie and Jennifer point to the need for a “certain kind of social climate or milieu” within, and for the necessity of the “repeated engagement” or “immersion” in, transdisciplinary projects in order to further the process of the integration of knowledge and the creation of an transdisciplinary knowledge base. We at ISOE see these two points – an open and critical social milieu in which researchers can work and ongoing collaborative engagement in project work – as key to the integration work necessary for sustaining transdisciplinary research. Integration in all its dimensions here means bringing together researchers from very different backgrounds – physics, biology, geography, psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, economics, philosophy and so on – to work on concrete social-ecological problems. The different methods, theoretical assumptions, ontological commitments and working languages that these researchers bring with them produce differences in how they will approach the project– differences in how they see “the” problem at hand, in how they analyze it, in how they work on it and in what they will accept as satisfactory “solution” – which must be “overcome” if the project is to be successful. But this “overcoming” can not, and must not, involve a loss of the individual perspectives of the participating disciplines. Difference and common point of view must both be sustained throughout the course of transdisciplinary work. This is why the analytical (interlinked) operations of differentiation and integration as the key of the cognitive dimension is so crucial.
I see here a point of contact with the discussion on Wolfgang Krohn's contribution. Transdisciplinary research always involves working on concrete problems. Yet science is, as a rule, thought of as involving general knowledge. So the question arises: how can transdisciplinary research generate general knowledge when it is always bound up with concrete, specific situations. At ISOE we find the practical answer to this question in the process of the integration work needed to sustain a successful transdisciplinary project. It is then through the process of integrative communication among researchers from various disciplines, a process supported and sustained by established methods and procedures, that the knowledge generated achieves a level of generality beyond the immediate objectives of the project – that is, the knowledge generated is both practically useful and scientifically valid.
- The Integration and Communication Point, continuing Julie and Jennifer (no reply)
- Post SciTS Reflection on Deepening Jennifer (1 reply)
- Social Dimensions and Conditions of Integration (2 replies)
- What do we mean by mutual learning? (11 contributions)
Gabriele Bammer, Apr 20 2012 18:20 UTC
Even though it is only a small piece of this important contribution, I would be very interested in a discussion that unpacks mutual learning: what it means, what it involves and how we would evaluate it.
When I think about my own research, I find that I am not sure what mutual learning really means. Certainly I learn a lot from seeing the world through the eyes of other disciplines, stakeholders and end-users, but I am uncertain about their learning from the project involvement or what I can or should do about it.
On the other hand, I am always concerned that the various participants are rewarded for their contributions. For those from other disciplines, authorship or co-authorship of a piece of the research is generally appropriate, and this works for some stakeholders and end-users too, but not for all. Sometimes payment is appropriate, but I have also done other things for those closely involved in a research project I have led, like write letters of reference for drug users going to court or provided long-term moral support to stakeholders injured at work.
One of the things that has interested me from Veronica Boix-Mansilla’s research is the emotional component, and I have to say that learning about other perspectives is generally tremendous fun. It becomes more challenging trying to learn from and respect the views of people one dislikes or profoundly disagrees with, but I see that as an important task in trying to get a detailed view of a problem. Nevertheless where does one draw the line – when is the behaviour so bad or the view so intolerable – and what should one do in those situations? Perhaps the philosophers can help here.
To return to my earlier theme of ensuring that all participants in research are rewarded, this becomes particularly important when the desired social change does not occur for whatever reason (it may be blocked politically or by more powerful interests or simply by lack of follow-through). There is a potential danger that the suggestion that the participants have learnt from their involvement may become an excuse not to think about adequate rewards.- The Affective and The Political in Mutual Learning (10 replies)
Julie Klein, Apr 22 2012 22:47 UTC
I appreciate Gabriele's contribution very much because she calls attention to Veronica's important new work on the emotional component. In discussions of "communication" their dynamics loom large, reinforced by attention to dispute resolution in the US National Institutes of Health field guide on collaboration in team science. A clear political/power dynamics also lurks in this topic: in underlying questions about who is/not listened to and rewarded. Hierarchies of power continue to undermine even the best intentions and joy in our personal learning from others. Philosophers aid in illuminating why disagreement truncates projects, but management studies indicate leaders must play a major role in managing communication. Alas, as I talked with several people about at last week's Science of Team Science conference in Chicago, that's why we need more leaders who understand the weighty responsibilities that leadership carry.- Mutual learning and deference to authority (9 replies)
Gloria Origgi, Apr 27 2012 10:40 UTC
This is really interesting, because one of the key component of the learning process is the necessary deferential attitude that the "pupil" has towards the teacher. But mutual learning means, if I understand well, a egalitarian relation, and this, of course, implies very different emotions and attitudes.
I am interested in understanding better how is is possible to be in a "learning" mode while keeping an egalitarian epistemic attitude. Does anyone have ideas of that?- Mutual learning is an openness for the difference (8 replies)
Matthias Bergmann, Apr 29 2012 00:17 UTC
Gabriele will possibly know what I am going to answer on her question about the mutual learning process since most of the time I refer to the very beginning of research processes when somebody asks me anything about how to do this or that best in td research. You lay the foundations for almost everything during the first phase in the "Integrative mode of access" (Fig. 3 in Thomas' text). And this is also true for Glorias question on the 'teacher' 'pupil' relation in the learning process. Let me go a bit more into detail (and I do this on the basis of my own experience as a participant or a lead researcher of rather complex td research projects during the last 20 years).
In our concept of transdisciplinarity at ISOE we describe four aspects of the task of integration (cf. Thomas' chapter on "integration problems"). If you want to be successful in knowledge integration you have to take care about the social integration in the group and this again is a matter of communicative integration – to take it very very short. Succeeding regarding these three aspects of integration is a question of how and by whom (!) the project was conceptualized in the very beginning.
There are a number of steps to be taken there, one after the other as soon as the research team has been constituted:
i) Jointly (!) describe the societal/real-world problem that is the starting point. If this is missing the common research will not be a joint process for long since everybody will follow his or her own perception of the problem – according to the own scientific field and/or, even worse, according to the personal experience made in the societal problem field.
ii) After having agreed upon the problem it has to be translated/transformed into a research object that can be treated by scientific means (methods etc.). This has to be a common process among all participants as well.
iii) Then specific research questions jointly have to be formulated to provide the team with a number of sub-questions that can be treated easier than the complete object. This is a very critical point because at this moment everybody tends to grab a small part of the problem he or she is able to treat with the means of the own specialization. If this happens (and it happens very often) then the td or even id process is completely lost because the team will completely lose sight of the initial problem. Instead, research questions have to be formulated that are closely related to the real-world problem. Consequently – and this is the important point – these questions have then to be treated by an inter- or transdisciplinary sub-team and not by a single field only.
I describe these crucial processes at the very beginning of a td project because it is exactly these steps that lay the foundations for the knowledge integration and the social integration as well. If a research team successfully went through these steps (and this usually takes a lot of time and can be supported by appropriate integration methods) then everybody will discover the interdependencies between the team members. Then it will be completely clear that mutual learning is urgently needed to accomplish the research task. Problem related research questions can only be treated in a kind of an openness. If you formulate research questions along the participating scientific fields, then you do not have to learn from each other. But then, you will lose the experts from the societal field (since their questions got lost) and you will most probably not find strategies for solving or transforming the problem at hand.
Thus, Gloria, it is not a question of being in a learning mood or not. Of course it is crucial that there is an egalitarian mood in the team and that there is not a leading discipline that rules the complete process. Mutual learning is an openness for the difference. Only acknowledging the difference makes it possible to learn (and) to integrate. No teacher, no pupil – just listening and finding out what it is that can compensate the shortcomings of my discipline with respect to the real-world problem.- Is 'Openness' Something that Must be Arrived at through a Method? (4 replies)
Britt Holbrook, Apr 30 2012 04:15 UTC
I am not asking in a usual contrarian way (always against method), but rather to ask about whether the method is thought to be required because we are dealing with groups. That is, is there something about the group dynamic that actually requires such a method to develop openness? So that we are dealing with a question not of individual attitudes, but rather of group attitudes?- not a method but a regulated process (3 replies)
Matthias Bergmann, May 2 2012 00:07 UTC
My answer on Britts' question if a method is needed is: not a method but a regulated process. And this process is the comprehensive accomplishment of what is called 'problem framing' by the complete research team (steps i) to iii) in my former contribution). In this phase of the 'construction' of a research project, the basis for learning the mutual learning is laid as well.
And of course individual and group attitudes come in during this – usually time-consuming – process. Veronica describes the numerous aspects of this process in detail (thank you, this is very helpful!). And these details of course appear in a lot of variations in different research projects and groups. In my eyes it therefore is essential to have something to hold on. And therefore these steps in the procedure of problem framing, that are part of Thomas' scheme of the td research process, are so important. They help to retain the general orientation in the common research process "while the common space for collaboration is being constructed through the blow by blow of group interactions", as Veronica describes it.
However, these well organized procedures can be supported by methods. (This is the core idea of our book on the methods for transdisciplinary research that will be out in an English edition in September.) Integrative (learning / common knowledge producing) procedures can substantially be supported by methods that can be brought into an epistemological order, i.e. into an order that serves the epistemological, analytical functions of these integrative methods during the different phases of the research process. But this is another topic …- The process as boundary object? (2 replies)
Britt Holbrook, May 2 2012 05:11 UTC
Matthias, would you then feel comfortable with the idea of thinking of this process as a boundary object in the sense of Star and Griesemer (1989)? The point, in that case, would be less about the details of the particular process, and more about the fact of (or the practice of) the process. I also wonder whether Gabriele would feel comfortable with such a formulation.- It ends up with a boundary object (1 reply)
Matthias Bergmann, May 3 2012 00:14 UTC
Yes, Britt, there is kind of a relation: but, this process IS not a boundary object, but indeed this process very often ends up with a common boundary object. What Thomas calls an "epistemic object" can be, in an ideal case, a boundary object. Boundary objects enable cooperation in a heterogeneous group of actors – that is the idea of Star/Griesemer. They are "flexible enough to accommodate individual perspectives and meanings while at the same time maintaining an identity that is recognized by all parties involved" (as Thomas formulated in his speech given at the Sustainability Summit held in Lueneburg University a few weeks ago). And so the 'problem framing' – if it proceeds successfully – will create a boundary object that possibly then has to be translated into an epistemic object for making it accessible with scientific methods. By the way, consciously or pointedly creating a boundary object I would call an integration method that supports the process of 'mutual learning'. And here I again enter the field of integration methods for td research.- Entering the field of integration methods (no reply)
Britt Holbrook, May 3 2012 00:51 UTC
Yes, regarding your last claim, Matthias -- that is precisely why I mentioned Gabriele in my last post. We are on the same page.
- Entering the field of integration methods (no reply)
- It ends up with a boundary object (1 reply)
- The process as boundary object? (2 replies)
- not a method but a regulated process (3 replies)
- A Time Slot for Mutual Learning in TD Projects? (1 reply)
Gloria Origgi, Apr 30 2012 08:58 UTC
Thanks Matthias, in my experience with interdisciplinary projects at EC level, I think that was was lacking was an appropriately define phase of the project dedicated to "mutual learning" in your sense, that is, to develop the appropriate openness among participants. I was involved as a Principal Investigator in a EC project called "LiquidPublications", a strongly interdisciplinary research project on re-thinking the format of scholarly communication, and we lost a lot of time in the first year to understand who was doing what.
I felt completely lost at the beginning as someone coming from "social science", because it was very difficult to be heard and to make the other partners understand that social sciences should be present even in the "design phase" of the process, and not only in the end, as a mean of testing the usability of the project.
I think we need at least two phases of "mutual learning":
1. A phase of understanding the mutual relevance of different fields and the temporality of their interaction (we cannot work "in parallel" because we need results from another discipline in order to go on with our part of the project)
2. A phase of "habituation" to new scientific languages (when it is possible) and style of presentation and of data gathering. That would be, for example, crucial, for PhD students and Post Docs hired on specific interdisciplinary projects. We are probably too old to change our mode of functioning, and point 1 could be enough for senior researchers, but point 2 is crucial for junior researcher who join complex research projects and may feel lost in the cacophony of disciplines and objectives.- What exactly is learned in mutual learning and how much of it is necessary? (no reply)
Veronica Boix-Mansilla, May 1 2012 00:33 UTC
I find this exchange on mutual learning fascinating as it touches on a central dimension of inter-transdisciplinary exchange. In our own research on interdisciplinary collaborations (Interdisciplinary research networks that remain working together over time) I can detect a few core learning contents- in individual group learning. For example: Individuals learn to position their disciplinary perspectives in larger intellectual landscapes, they develop interactional expertise (talk other people's disciplinary languages), they re-represent they problem under study ontologically (the kinds of object the phenomenon is) as well as epistemologically (the kinds of perspectives that illuminate the issue in interesting ways). They learn tacit or explicit norms for conflict resolution favored by the group as well as part of the group's unique working style. Interestingly, and much in line with the "mutual" in "mutual learning" the learning here described takes place while the common space for collaboration is being constructed through the blow by blow of group interactions. Positioning one's disciplinary perspective can only happen interactively as does a more or less shared representation of an object of study. The process of learning and calibration is dynamic and mutually constitutive.
Up to this point, and perhaps predictably, the examples of learning I listed involve cognitive and social dimensions and address the ways in which researchers changed their minds or social practices. However, and responding to Gabrielle's comment above, it was fascinating for us to come to recognize how much social and cognitive learning were mediated by emotions. Admiration for a colleagues' intellectual accomplishments, pride in group membership, envy of proximal relations, anguish at cognitive overload, joy of discovery, excitement in a shared mission viewed as larger than themselves set the emotional substrate of learning and involved emotional learning in its own right--managing ones emotions ("dopamine management" as one informant put it) became part of the enterprise and part of learning as well.
- What exactly is learned in mutual learning and how much of it is necessary? (no reply)
- A Good Beginning (no reply)
Julie Klein, May 1 2012 21:33 UTC
Thank you, Matthias, for your thoughtful reply. The importance of paying close attention at the beginning to conditions for integration and collaboration is underscored by problems of conflict that arise in later stages. It is no accident that the US National Institute of Health's field guide to Collaboration and Team Science pays close attention to conflict and dispute resolution. In my own work helping teams, I've also been struck by their sense that current conflicts would have been lessened if they had heeded principles of the The Collaborator's PreNup.
- Is 'Openness' Something that Must be Arrived at through a Method? (4 replies)
- Mutual learning is an openness for the difference (8 replies)
- Mutual learning and deference to authority (9 replies)
- The Affective and The Political in Mutual Learning (10 replies)
- Integrative Mode of Access: Who Defines the Challenges? (5 contributions)
Gloria Origgi, Apr 27 2012 11:17 UTC
I am very intrigued by your Fig. 3, The "Integrative Mode of Access".
What happens exactly in the circle in the middle above: "Constitution of a Common Research Object?" Who defines the new object? What does it mean to constitute a common research object, given that science should be able to pave the way and discover new questions that society was unable to foresee...How the process of "constitution" takes place? How risk taking is? Is society "making a bet", and deciding to invest ressources on a new scientific breakthrough question that is only potentially relevant (if successful) to solve societal problems, or does society "impose" its own agenda by clearly telling to scientists: "We have pollution and traffic and multicultural societies to deal with, and so and so...Please, give us the means to dealt with all this!"
It seems to me that the graphic representation of the integrative mode may leave the impression of a pragmatic "alliance" between society and science, and then, as the arrows on the two sides show, each one re-use the knowledge obtained for its own purposes. But an integrative approach should end up in new objects of knowledge that generate new societal AND scientific challenges...
Can you tell us a bit more about all this?- The Boundary Work of Common Ground (4 replies)
Julie Klein, Apr 27 2012 16:01 UTC
Gloria's query raises a number of important points in the boundary work of creating commonality in collaborative ID and TD work. Collaboration requires some surrender of individual disciplinary constructions around a new and shared focus. Disinclination to surrender, and take the risk Gloria rightly notes is involved, retards the process, often for deeply held psychological and sociological reasons. Yet, the institutionalizing push of funding programs, coupled with the societal demand that universities fulfill their social mission to solve problems, drives pragmatic alliance. Much of the discourse of collaborative ID and TD in recent decades exposes escalating coupling of societal and scientific motivations.- "escalating coupling of societal and scientific motivations" (3 replies)
Gloria Origgi, Apr 27 2012 16:09 UTC
Thanks Julie for your reply,
Just a quick question: Does your last remark on "escalating coupling of societal and scientific motivations" have a negative nuance? Should we avoid this escalation?- A Good Thing or a Bad Thing? (2 replies)
Julie Klein, Apr 27 2012 17:33 UTC
Good question, Gloria. I did not take a position on whether the escalating push of societal motivations and expectations for research is a positive or a negative development. Historians of science would tell us that the coupling is not new. In the current era, though, external problem-focus has attained heightened priority in both research and education. As ID and TD are also more tightly coupled with pragmatic justification, other purposes become marginalized. I support the press of problem solving: who, for example, would oppose solving challenges of health and of environmental sustainability? The danger, though, is reductive equation of ID and TD with quick-fix approaches absent of critique of underlying assumptions and capacity building in both individuals and institutions.- ID and TD research is NOT only societal problem solving (1 reply)
Gloria Origgi, Apr 27 2012 17:42 UTC
I agree. I think that the equation between interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary research and urgent societal-driven needs is somehow too persistent and it ends up sometimes in misrepresenting the effort in ID/TD research, which is also to rethink our scientific objectives in the light of a new conception of knowledge.
But we can't deny the central argument in Thomas' paper, that is, that the most successful results of ID/TD research have been driven by an interplay between science and society that disciplines often miss.- The Interplay between science and society: taking up some considerations of Gloria and Julie (no reply)
Thomas Jahn, Apr 30 2012 16:52 UTC
Gloria and Julie raise an important issue: the relation between TD's practical and scientific/theoretical/critical dimensions. As we see it at ISOE, the relation between science and society is undergoing dramatic changes, although, as Julie points out, this relation has always existed. TD research is needed in many areas in order to solve practical problems. But for that very reason TD research must be sound by scientific standards. Otherwise it will not produce the scientifically grounded knowledge societal actors are demanding.
For that reason I don't think that the word 'egalitarian' is the right one to describe the relation between researchers and societal actors. Certainly, the practical knowledge that societal actors bring to the research process is of equal value to the TD research process, and this process requires a culture of collaboration with an egalitarian spirit. But there remain (at least) two important differences between societal actors' practical knowledge and TD researchers' scientific knowledge.
TD is an autonomous mode of knowledge production with its own methodology (and quality criteria) which follows scientific standards and not the rules of societal bargaining.
TD researchers (and not societal actors) have the expertise to distinguish between different forms of knowledge.
For example, at ISOE we employ the concept of 'societal relations to nature' (SRN) (gesellschaftliche Naturverhältnises) to understand the research objects we work on, however these objects may be understood by the societal actors with whom we are working. SRN is a theoretical concept we employ, and as such its use must be justified according to the standards of good theory building in science and not those governing the practical activities of our clients.
The need for justification of knowledge claims, or of the use of theoretical concepts, in TD research by reference to the standards of good scientific research and theory construction means that the research process will involve a reflexive and critical dimension: all participants, scientific researchers as well as societal actors, will be engaged in an ongoing process of reflection and mutual critique – each according to their own standards, as well as according to the common standards of good TD research practice. This reflective, critical process seems to me to be less the result of a 'pragmatic' relation between science and society and more a constitutive element of the TD research process as such.
Moreover, TD is not merely a passive recipient of societal requests for scientifically grounded knowledge. TD is interventionist: it methodically frames, structures and organizes societal discourse about an increasing number of pressing problems having complex structures. In doing so, it is also 'interventionist' with respect to scientific discourse by introducing new concepts, methods and forms of research (for example, the concept of SRN). Thus TD is an active participant in the development of both societal and scientific discourse.
- The Interplay between science and society: taking up some considerations of Gloria and Julie (no reply)
- ID and TD research is NOT only societal problem solving (1 reply)
- A Good Thing or a Bad Thing? (2 replies)
- "escalating coupling of societal and scientific motivations" (3 replies)
- The Boundary Work of Common Ground (4 replies)
- On the relevance of relevance and TDR (3 contributions)
Veronica Boix-Mansilla, Apr 30 2012 23:48 UTC
As Thomas Jahn eloquently proposes, TDR, with its goal of having a practical effect on the world beyond science, opens a fertile ground for the advancement of relevant and collaboratively constructed knowledge. Of special interest is his attention to the “added value” of TD knowledge production. Knowledge advanced through TD means, it is argued, is both scientifically validated and praxis-ready. The very participatory process of TD knowledge production can strengthen society’s capacity to act on matters of significance, enable the development of novel TD methods and working styles. These proposed markers of added value are well aligned with the transformative mission of TD knowledge production.
Jahn’s attention to the relevance of knowledge in times marked by uneven globalization, unprecedented migration, a digital revolution and environmental instability is compelling. Faced with challenges of cultural and environmental survival, putting knowledge production to the service of planetary well-being seems visibly ethically defensible. And yet while some, including myself, might share his preference for such socio-cultural-environmental relevance, others might assign relevance to knowledge on very different grounds. How do we discern among more and less relevant research?
Arguably, what counts as “relevant” research, TD or not, is associated with the narratives we hold about the kind of world in which we live and the direction in which we view such world as moving. It speaks to our assumptions about the relationship between knowledge, society, and scientific precedent. While some of us might favor a narrative of increased global interdependence, environmental fragility and inequality, others may tell the story of our times, for instance, as one of ever-growing computational capacity. In this case, investigators might attribute “relevance” to research that can capitalize on such capacity to craft predictive models of the world. Still others-in the realm of practice may cast their own narratives in local terms (e.g., shifting soil qualities, growing tropical diseases). In this case relevance is associated with the implementation of effective preventive measures.
“Relevance” itself, it seem, is a construct worth examining. How can we productively problematize “relevance” in Disciplinary, Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary research? TDR appears in the knowledge production scene as visibly privileging relevant work—a welcome development. And yet even here the question remains: Is a local/practical knowledge perspective relevant “by nature,” so to speak? Or is it rather the case that we co-construct relevance attributions through complex dialog across selected disciplines and stakeholders? Is relevance case-bound and case-dependent or should we strive for attributing greater relevance to what can be learned and done across and beyond cases? How do we navigate the tensions between our search for broad reach and local adequacy; our principled research motivations and our practical needs? Arguably a pluralistic approach to discerning relevance may be necessary, one in which relevance is explicitly deliberated about case by case are participants adjust the purpose of a research project and thus determine parameters for assessment. And while many "forms of relevance" might bloom, we may do well in attending to our shared need for open deliberation about the nature of relevance and the calibration of criteria that move us viably forward.- An Argument for History (1 reply)
Julie Klein, May 1 2012 21:43 UTC
Veronica's eloquent response raises so many important points. I especially appreciate her calling attention to local knowledge. I would like to add the importance of historical knowledge. Emphasis on urgent contemporary problems often blinds us to the importance of historical understanding. As someone who taught historiography as an interdisciplinary methodology for years, I continue to be concerned about a dangerous presentism coupled with bias against local and indigneous forms of knowledge. Local memory not captured in traditional forms of historical narrative and documentation can be a powerful warrant for an expanded notion of knowledge and action. I'm reminded of the role that Aborigines' memory of dream songs and tracks played in settling land disputes in Australia.- The case of "Altruism" (no reply)
Gloria Origgi, May 2 2012 00:51 UTC
I wholly agree with Julie. I remember a panel discussion with two eminent scientists, an evolutionary biologist and a cognitive psychologist on altruism. I had the feeling that they were talking about altruism as a concept hat had always existed. So I have asked them if they knew when the word "altruism" was used the first time. They did not. It was the French positivist philosopher Auguste Comte who coined the word in 1848 in his "Discours sur l'ensemble du Positivisme". A little history, or sometimes just a little awareness of the context in which a phenomenon or a concept emerged can indeed help in better defining it in ID and TD research contexts.
- The case of "Altruism" (no reply)
- 'Relevance' alone is not enough (no reply)
Britt Holbrook, May 3 2012 01:04 UTC
I'm glad you highlight this topic, Veronica. At the Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarty, this is precisely what we are investigating. All of our research on impact criteria in the peer review of grant proposals is relevant to the topic of relevance. But I think we need to be careful of thinking we know what the word 'relevance' means in a TD context. After all, some might argue that 'relevance' can apply to disciplinary knowledge, as well. What I mean is that we could think of 'relevance' as being defined on disciplinary terms and by disciplinary standards -- relevance to a particular disciplinary problem. That is often far removed from 'relevance' to real-world problems. It is this latter sort of 'relevance' that TD research is concerned with, which is why non-academic involvement in the research is important.
This raises all sorts of interesting questions. Who should count as a peer, for instance, in TD research? How do we evaluate non-academic impact? I think this goes beyond the idea of looking at 'the context of application' as Gibbons et al. talk about. It does involve an extension of the notion of who should count as a peer, as Gibbons and company suggest. But we also need to think about the academic reward structure, which focuses almost exclusively on academic 'relevance'.
I discuss this issue in greater detail in my chapter on "Peer Review" in the Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity.
- An Argument for History (1 reply)
- “Socio-ecological” approaches are also showing up in healthcare research and teamwork, as well as education (3 contributions)
Angus McMurtry, May 2 2012 00:27 UTC
I just finished reading this chapter. Lots of interesting stuff that parallels. But what really struck me is the growing use of the term and approach of "socio-ecological". I have seen this described in healthcare research and teamwork literature in North America and Britain, as well as educational literature. In all these case, it flags both the importance (and mutual entanglement) of multiple levels of phenomena in complex problems (from 'cells to society') and the recognition and integration of multiple disciplines and/or social actors. In education, I would use it to describe multiple, entangled levels of learners: Individuals, teams, disciplinary bodies, society, ecosystems and so on.- On the use of the term 'socio-ecological' (1 reply)
Britt Holbrook, May 3 2012 01:13 UTC
I agree, the term is being used quite a bit. What's interesting is that some ecologists conducting what I would classify as TD research are using the term 'biocultural' to describe what they are doing. See, for instance: http://secure.pdcnet.org/enviroethics/content/enviroethics_2008_0030_0003_0325_0336 and http://www.ecostudies.org/reprints/Rozzi_2012_Bioscience.pdf.- true, that (no reply)
Angus McMurtry, May 3 2012 16:51 UTC
I can't log onto that protected website, but I will keep my eyes open for the term (bio-cultural) too. Fits the same perspective. Thanks, angus
- true, that (no reply)
- Social Ecology in Frankfurt and UCIrvine (no reply)
Julie Klein, May 6 2012 23:30 UTC
Thanks to Angus for focusing attention on Social Ecology. We are fortunate to have three members of the INIT network – Dan Stokols as well as Thomas and Matthias in this forum – who have been involved in building this interdiscipline. The programs at the University of California-Irvine and in Frankfurt are important exemplars of forging new research and teaching areas, even in the face of undermining forces and shifts in emphasis over time.
- On the use of the term 'socio-ecological' (1 reply)
- the 'socio-ecological' in healthcare and education (no contribution)
Angus McMurtry, Oct 1 2012 18:49 UTC
I just finished reading this chapter. Lot's of interesting stuff that parallels. But what really struck me is the growing use of the term and approach of "socio-ecological". I have seen this described in healthcare research and teamwork literature in North America and Britain, as well as educational literature. In all these case, it flags both the importance (and mutual entanglement) of multiple levels of phenomena in complex problems (from 'cells to society') and the recognition and integration of multiple disciplines and/or social actors. In education, I would use it to describe multiple, entangled levels of learners: Individuals, teams, disciplinary bodies, society, ecosystems and so on. - socio-ecological approaches in health and education (no contribution)
Angus McMurtry, Oct 1 2012 18:50 UTC
Not sure if this is the way to participate, but here I go:
I just finished reading this chapter. Lot's of interesting stuff that parallels. But what really struck me is the growing use of the term and approach of "socio-ecological". I have seen this described in healthcare research and teamwork literature in North America and Britain, as well as educational literature. In all these case, it flags both the importance (and mutual entanglement) of multiple levels of phenomena in complex problems (from 'cells to society') and the recognition and integration of multiple disciplines and/or social actors. In education, I would use it to describe multiple, entangled levels of learners: Individuals, teams, disciplinary bodies, society, ecosystems and so on. - socio-ecological (no contribution)
Angus McMurtry, Oct 1 2012 18:50 UTC
I just finished reading this chapter. Lot's of interesting stuff that parallels. But what really struck me is the growing use of the term and approach of "socio-ecological". I have seen this described in healthcare research and teamwork literature in North America and Britain, as well as educational literature. In all these case, it flags both the importance (and mutual entanglement) of multiple levels of phenomena in complex problems (from 'cells to society') and the recognition and integration of multiple disciplines and/or social actors. In education, I would use it to describe multiple, entangled levels of learners: Individuals, teams, disciplinary bodies, society, ecosystems and so on. - Transdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity (no contribution)
Joseph Brenner, Oct 29 2012 12:28 UTC
Re: Transdisciplinarity in the Practice of Research by Thomas Jahn
It is still a matter of some scientific interest that 10 years after the Zurich Congress (which I attended), major papers like that of Jahn fail to even mention Transdisciplinarity in the acceptation of Basarab Nicolescu (Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity, 2002; Transdisciplinarity - Theory and Practice, 2008, 2nd International Conference on Transdisciplinarity, Brazil, 2005, etc).
Nicolescu and his associates assign a perfectly respectable role to the Transdisciplinarity of Gibbons, Novotny and their followers, such as Jahn, namely, that of a phenomenological transdisciplinarity focused on solving of practical problems. The more theoretical transdisciplinarity of Nicolescu (what lies in, between and beyond disciplines), however, defines a scientific grounding for the practice of transdisciplinarity as an ethical process, one that can incorprate esthetic considerations and a non-dogmatic unity of knowledge.
The two approaches to Transdisciplinarity (should) complement and inform one another. The Nicolescu approach offers significant advantages for the rigorous analysis of complex real systems, information and ethics. To the extent such subjects are currently addressed in phenomenological transdisciplinarity, the debate could only benefit by incorporation of this further dimension.
Thank you.
Joseph E. Brenner, Ph.D.
open sourced and designed by Collective Developments
