Transdisciplinarity for Environmental Literacy

Discussions

• Is a "transdisciplinary process" a "case study"? (6 contributions)
  Gloria Origgi, Sep 15 2012 14:54 UTC
  
  In this very rich chapter (Ch. 15) Rolans Scholz distinguishes between TD research and TD processes. TD processes are typically historically embedded and reflect a unique complex reality in which the problem to be solved is experienced under a special angle. Does this mean that transdisciplinary processes are not general processes and the way in which they are realized is always linked to a special "case study"? Roughly, I'd like to understand better the distinction between a TD process and a case study.

  • Following up on distinctions (3 replies)
    Julie Klein, Sep 16 2012 22:51 UTC
    
    This forum offers a welcome opportunity to bridge the intellectual discourse of definition and the lived practices of inter- (ID) and trans-disciplinary (TD) research. Taking as a first thread of conversation the fundamental difference between ID and TD, it is crucial not to blur lines of distinction that have evolved historically. Chapter 15:1 delineates key differences in definitions of TD in the current moment. Together, they have a cumulative force of moving beyond interdisciplinary to generate transcending theories and practices. In the process, new keywords and conditions enter the discourse of integration: mutual, joint, participatory, socially robust, post-normal, and capacity building. A danger lies, however, in the notion of “fundamentally different,” so I hope that we will explore complementary relationships across major strands of discourse, as well as differing imperatives. Gloria has launched an excellent beginning in asking whether TD processes are historically embedded and reflect a unique complex reality under special angles. Her call to better understand the distinction between process and case study is right on the mark for discussion in this forum.

    • "Authentic Collaboration" (1 reply)
      Jennifer Dellner, Sep 16 2012 23:10 UTC
      
      Not to get us too far afield of the content of Chapter 15, but I do find these two questions, Gloria's about whether these TD processes are historically embedded as well as Julie's caution about he phrase "fundamentally diifferent" to be linked. I think we are finally back to (?) questions about best practices and methodologies about which Roland's chapters may provide a new framework for discussion and exploration. I am interested in the connections between processes and the different kind of "agencies." As I think I made clear in the previous seminar, I am interested in the types and role(s) of agency/-ies at work in various forms of collaboration, and so am intrigued also by the claims about "authentic" collaboration. Julie highlights "different strands of discourse" and their attendant imperatives--- these, one would imagine, are historically motivated. How does one achieve authentic collaboration out of this space ? Do other readers/does the author claim that the method presented here is *not* historically embedded, or that it can transcend its own embeddedness ? I am thinking the latter.

      • "Authentic Collaboration" ctd (no reply)
        Chris Moore, Oct 1 2012 18:49 UTC
        
        This phrase jumped out at me as well. Whether the the collaboration was authentic is bound to be contended over in situations where values diverge and scientific uncertainty is high. This process may transcend historical embeddedness because it is something of an ideal. Participants are able put aside their fears (and fear is all that separates us) and science is able to characterize the situation and rationality prevails. That I do think the chapters characterize this ideal well, and it is a worthy ideal that can probably be close to realized in situations where participants have sufficient common perspectives and power and where science is able to characterize and to some extent reconclie the differences that do exist. I think you'd have a very hard time applying this to environmental issues such as hydrofracturing or mountaintop mining where common ground is almost nonexistent between opposing sides.
    • Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are fundamantally different (Roland's comment on Julie's remarks) (no reply)
      Roland Scholz, Oct 1 2012 18:49 UTC
      
      Julie, thanks fort your helpful comment. I am very much in line with most of your statements and comments.
      But, I think the statement „first, we define transdisciplinarity and show how it fundamentally differs from disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity” (p. 373) is o.k. and also necessary.
      Let me provide some arguments.
      Why do we need a new/additional term if we can identify “fundamental differences”. I know that there are historically different notions of transdisciplinarity and they may all have their right. But, each of these definitions should make clear in what way they are essentially/fundamentally different from interdisciplinarity or multidisciplinarity.
      If you look at the use of transdisciplinarity in the papers written by North-America scientists, I guess in about half of the cases the authors use the term transdisciplinary in the meaning of “very interdisciplinary. Naturally, you may find this also among Central-European scientists, but I suspect this is a little less frequent.
      ” Chapter 15 has been written to overcome this "imprecise" and sloppy use of scientific terms. The basic difference for me is that in interdisciplinary research knowledge is established by the “by the fusion of concepts and methods from different disciplines“ (p. 374) and in transdisciplinary processes by an integration of knowledge from practice (in the best case „experiential wisdom“) with substantiated (disciplinary or interdisciplinary) scientific knowledge.
      
      Given this understanding, not every interdisciplinary process is a transdisciplinary process.
      The other way round is more tricky as „real world cases“ are complex and one may argue that they ask always for interdisciplinarity. But one may theoretically think about a transdisciplinary process on the definition/understanding of the concept of „god“ in which theologists collaborate with a group of (non-scientific) „believers“. And think about that -- even if knowledge from different disciplines is used -- it must by no means be an interdisciplinary study, as this asks (see above) for a fusion of concepts and methods. We also have to distinguish multidisciplinary studies from interdisciplinary studies. Though, in practice, it may be (and is) often difficult to unanimously decide exactly whether a study is multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary (the is no mere 0/1 classification i), it is important to stress the fundamental difference in the scientific definition of the essence of the concepts.
  • The generic and the specific in transdisciplinary processes (Roland W. Scholz) (1 reply)
    Roland Scholz, Oct 1 2012 18:48 UTC
    
    Gloria, first some remarks on td research and td processes:
    Your input touches some key concepts of how the “Zurich 2000” conception of Td. And it also deals with the differentiation of “(real)-world case based” transdisciplinary research and “topic/thematic” driven research.
    You are right that a thorough theory-practice cooperation in td-processes starts from a case. This has to do with the assumption that practitioners and scientists or both considered as experts of a different kind. Simplified and idealized, on the one side, there is the practitioner who has experiential knowledge with a case (in which a certain problem arises which may be of theoretical interest). The practitioner takes an insider perspective and is interested in practical problem solving as he lives with the case. Thus he/she may own “experiential wisdom”. Contrary, a scientist is interested in building theories which show consistency, are free of contradictions and which are „verified“. Here, of course, we have to acknowledge that different disciplines have different types of (more or less gentle) verification.
    You may find this in the Glossary of the Environmental Literacy book:
    „Transdisciplinarity: Approach of study organizing processes that link scientific, theoretic, and abstract epistemics with real-world factors that are based on experiential knowledge from outside academia. Information about real-world factors comes from relating human experiential wisdom to the analytical rigor of science and academic methodology.“ (p. 549)
    The assumptions of the last paragraph are important as knowledge integration or “capacity building” by relating or integrating different types of epistemics is essential for a td-process (see the section “Why transdisciplinarity”, p. 374; “Functions of transdisciplinary processes”, p. 384).
    Thus, to summarize, as transdisciplinary process includes some “practical problem solving” or preparation for decision making, for which in the end the legitimized decision maker takes responsibility and transdisciplinary research for which in the end the researcher takes responsibility.
    
    The generic and the specific
    You further ask a very fundamental question: “Does this mean that transdisciplinary processes are not general processes and the way in which they are realized is always linked to a special "case study"?
    Here, it is important to distinguish between the generic and specific of a case and of the knowledge.
    Let us first look for a definition of a case:
    “A case is unique, one among others … , and always related to something general. Cases are empirical units, theoretical constructs …, and subject to evaluation, as scientific and practical interests are tied to them.” [1] Thus real world cases transdisciplinary processes are always specific and – among others – featured by different contexts. The transdisciplinary researcher must master the art to select a specific case so that he may extract generic knowledge about structures, causal-mechanisms etc. of a case.
    In principle, finding something generic is the opposite as generalizing for a population in statistics. We are looking for a “case for something”. This means that after the case we have to think about for what “population of cases” we may think that what we have investigated may hold true. Contrary in statistics, you start from a population which is a infinite set of homogeneous (in principle structurally identical) elements (e.g. all female CEOs from companies) from which you draw a random sample. Based on the study of the (specific) sample you have drawn, you infer to the whole population (in case of significance …).
    Thus, cases and td-processes are always specific (unique, …). But we may extract general knowledge or try to build up general theories (which may or have to be adapted for a specific case)
    
    Scholz, R.W. and O. Tietje, Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge2002, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    • Transdisciplinarity and power relations (no reply)
      Britt Holbrook, Oct 1 2012 19:19 UTC
      
      To me, the most interesting aspect of Roland's distinction between the 'transdisciplinary process' and 'transdiscipilnary research' is the question of who's in charge: in the TD process, this seems to be more open to question, with the non-academic knowledges having some say; in TD research, on the other hand, the researchers regain control -- though presumably, they have also been influenced by the TD process. I wonder, then, if TD research slips back into interdisciplinarity or even disciplinarity.
• researching transdisciplinary processes (no contribution)
  Stephanie Jo Kent, Oct 1 2012 18:49 UTC
  
  Hello everyone,
  
  May I pose a hypothesis for your consideration?
  
  What if we (scientists and lay stakeholders of any/every stripe) could instigate transformative research by researching transdisciplinary processes?
  
  The challenge is gaining authorization to research transciplinarity itself; something which I've found scientists (in particular) to be hesitant to allow. Perhaps that reluctance is due to uncertainty about the kinds and types of findings? (That's another hypothesis, ha.)
  
  Just look at the words used to distinguish between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (wish I could insert a chart!):
  
  INTERdisciplinarity = "transfer," "integration," "fusion," "merger"
  
  TRANSdisciplinarity = "organizes," "relates," "links," "mutual learning"
  
  The distinction between "research" and "processes" is vital. Is anyone talking about trans-reflective research that involves participant observation of when teams (or some members of teams) do (or do not) "[notice] joint interests" and what modes of "cooperation" occur at various stages. (From the disciplinary viewpoint of Communication, we are always "cooperating" - whether it is to generate the conditions for disagreement (up to and including justifications for war) or to generate the conditions for non-violent and equitable resolutions for persistent problems.)
  
  Thanks, btw, for opening this forum to the SciTS listserv; I'm grateful for the chance to participate.
  
  best regards,
  steph
• Authentic collaboration, trust, and acceptance of the otherness of the other – preparing for and not making decisions in td-processes (no contribution)
  Roland Scholz, Oct 1 2012 22:43 UTC
  
  Your comments, Jennifer (Dellner) and Stefanie (Jo Kent) touch highly sensitive issues. My following remarks are based on being the science leader in about 20 regional transdisciplinary processes between 1993 and 2000 (see http://www.uns.ethz.ch/translab/cs_former) and an ongoing large-scale global transdisciplinary case study (http://www.globaltraps.ch/).
  
  Stefanie asks: “What if we (scientists and lay stakeholders of any/every stripe) could instigate transformative research by researching transdisciplinary processes?”
  My response: You are invited to do so; a group of td-researches just prepare a Mutual Leaning Session and Dialogue Session in the Global TraPS project (see Newsletter 9: http://www.globaltraps.ch/tl_files/pdf/newsletters/GT_Newsletter_9.pdf). You are invited to analyze, participate and evaluate under certain constraints, which are partly explained below.
  
  The key question is under what constraints/pre-requisites a td-process (with authentic collaboration) may emerge. The terms of the heading “authentic collaboration, trust, and acceptance of the otherness of the other” is important. The last (accepting the otherness of the other) also has to do with accepting the roles we assume as legitimized decision maker and of course as different stakeholders (look at the Figures 15.1 and 15.5-15.8 of Chapter 15).
  
  I can see two types of prerequisites:
  (a) The personal constraints: The first is on the side of the researcher and the participants. ’You’ must be willing to go to a true td-process with true co-leadership. This means that – after having chosen the case – you only have very limited control on what will be in the focus of research as the case (and its barriers to sustainable transition, for instance) and what the co-leaders and the participating stakeholders are interested defines what is at focus.
  Thus, scientists are loosing at least some control about the specific disciplinary knowledge, a necessary loss. The most weird story is that my classes of (natural) environmental science students ended in an analysis of survival strategies of the small alpine Canton Appenzell AR, when we were looking for sustainable transitions (http://www.uns.ethz.ch/translab/cs_former/2002; see (1)).
  
  As for “authentic” involvement (unfortunately I did not use this term before, but it expresses what is needed), I think that it is linked to the idea that the “case becomes the student’s and researcher’s” case (without changing roles …) and that (some) accountability and responsibility is taken. Unfortunately - and this is the experience of twenty years - there are not too many scientists who are willing to step out. I call those, who do so “transdisciplinarians”. A good practical test for authentic collaboration is when a scientist (who may be have personally a left or right political views) is approached in a td-process by stakeholders from all political directions to get access to scientific knowledge.
  
  (b) The organizational constraints: We have to frame the td-process properly. It is not making decisions but preparing for decisions In the current Global TraPs project, for instance, we have to “make sure” (or to “organize“ as Stefanie mentioned, or else to facilitate) that different stakeholders (for instance phosphorus traders or mining companies go into mutual leaning with NGOs, for instance Greenpeace). There are three strategies which we may apply.
  One is that we secure a Habermas-like protected discourse arena in which no one is allowed to quote anybody’s statement which has been made in internal meeting of the td-process. You should not blame someone who is making “improper statements” in mutual learning process. If this principle (mutual trust as a prerequisite of mutual learning) is believed, even tabooed topics may be touched,
  
  The second is that we do not deal with “day-to-day” politicized topics. This means, that some abstraction is necessary. We are thinking about options and evaluate them from different perspectives. E.g. in a regional study ‘on what traffic connections’ we rather discuss what advantages or disadvantages between A and B; but not on whether one solution is the best. The study provides socially robust orientations (see 15.4.1, page 378).
  
  Now, back (Stephanie) to the “instigation of transdisciplinary research”. Of course, the above three issues also must hold true for new researchers who join. Just, taking the td-process as The issue here is that you have to follow (even as an evaluator) the above three issues and you must convince the stakeholders and the researchers that the they will not be harmed. I guess, the common „subject-object“ relationship, prevalent in classical (evaluation) research may not always be applied in td-research. [By the way, we did it once. But his was a „post-td process“ evaluation.]
  
  
  (1) Walter, A.I., et al., Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: Design and application of an evaluation method. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2007. 30: p. 325-338.
  (2) Scholz, R.W. and M. Stauffacher, Managing transition in clusters: area development negotiations as a tool for sustaining traditional industries in a Swiss prealpine region. Environment and Planning A, 2007. 39(10): p. 2518-2539.
• The university - not just a change agent, but a critical change agent in transdisciplinary processes? (no contribution)
  Machiel Keestra, Oct 2 2012 16:47 UTC
  
  The fascinating chapter from Scholz’s book on transdisciplinarity presents a differentiated view of science’s roles in transdisciplinary processes, from which specific topics for subsequent transdisciplinary –academic- research can emerge. It describes several ways in which the science community can engage with the public at large or with legitimized decision-makers along the multiple processes that range from problem definition through system analysis up to the evaluation and recreation of different scenario’s that have been formulated with regard to handling the problem. These ways of engagement of scientists vary from mere consultancy to community-based participatory research.
  
  One question that seems to me pertinent to this comprehensive treatment of transdisciplinary research is what the responsibility and role of scientists – or perhaps rather the university – is in such situations with regard to those interests or values that are not (yet) represented by the public stakeholders or decision-makers. Scientific research or modeling can demonstrate, for example, that a particular technological innovation or environmental modification will affect future generations or a particular animal species or even a vulnerable ecosystem at a time & place that is remote from the parties involved in the transdisciplinary process. Where public participants and decision-makers will generally feel responsible for future generations of their own off-spring, it may well be that they don’t accept such responsibility for interests that are more remote from their own interests.
  
  It seems to me that in such cases, scientists may have to reconsider their involvement in such (restricted) transdisciplinary processes not only because of ethical reasons, but even should reconsider this because of the probability that their scientific contributions may be impeded seriously if an adequate representation of those future/absent/remote interests is not accepted. That is, however, if the scientists involved are at all aware of those interests and are not themselves overlooking them or ignorant of them. Since the university as a comprehensive community of scientists likely harbours the knowledge and expertise about remote interests that individual scientists may be ignorant of, there would in such cases be probably other academic community members who could defend the expansion of the transdisciplinary process as a whole.
  
  My suggestion then would be that the university should conceive its role as a ‘change agent’ in this context not only by participating in and contributing to the kind of transdisciplinary processes as described in this chapter. Indeed, it may be extremely valuable and necessary for the university to take up the responsibility of initiating a critical discourse about any transdisciplinary process its academic community is involved. In parallel to such a process, the university could then invite critical reviews of it by peer and non-peer scientists. A result of such a parallel and critical discourse could then be an appeal to not just redefine the problem at hand but also to reorganize the process as a whole, including inviting contributors to the table that were absent untill then. In such a situation, the university really becomes not just a change agent but indeed a critical change agent.
  
  How does this proposal of a more critical role of the university relate to the description of the transdisciplinary process and university’s role as given in the chapter?