A rose by any other name? Transdisciplinarity in the context of UK research policy

This paper assesses developments in transdisciplinary research in the UK. While we support the thesis that transdisciplinarity is still not mainstream and is rarely supported per se by funders of research, this paper examines the extent to which UK research policy has embraced the concept of transdisciplinarity. Five empirical case studies provide data about the interrelationship between the interdisciplinary and impact or knowledge exchange aspirations of Research Council UK (RCUK) investments. We find evidence that, to an extent, UK research funding policy is achieving some elements of transdisciplinarity in practice, if not in name.Drawing on broader debates about the limitations of knowledge mobilisation and the challenges of conducting interdisciplinary research, we reflect on how the situation has changed since our original 2004 paper. The evidence suggests that the absence of the ‘transdisciplinary’ label is not necessarily impeding the framing of research funding schemes oriented towards societal issues. Nevertheless, several areas where capacity-building is required, including training for early career interdisciplinary researchers; improved research leadership skills; and the capacity to evaluate the quality of transdisciplinary processes and to learn from such evaluations, are identified.     

Transdisciplinarity in urban South Africa

The ideals and assumptions associated with a transdisciplinary approach to environmental issues are investigated through the experience of a three-year research project in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa focused on low-cost housing. Through this work, transdisciplinarity was conceptualised not as a panacea to create an all-encompassing research approach, but as an attempt to move away from paradigm isolation and allow researchers to integrate and develop a synthesis from their separate contributions. The paper discusses aspects of transdisciplinarity including definitions, methodologies, team-building, paradigmatic rigidities, the negotiation of power in the production of knowledge with stakeholders and community partners, and institutional challenges. Trade-offs include loss of data resolution at times, but are offset by deeper understanding of the complexities and constraints of applied environmental and social research in contemporary South Africa.     

Trapped between privileges and precariousness: Tracing transdisciplinary research in a postcolonial setting

In its conception, transdisciplinarity turns its back on traditional academic knowledge production valuing different bodies of knowledge to be of relevance for the issue at hand regardless of their discipline or academic education. The question of how transdisciplinary practise can manage to break with existing structures to realize its envisaged co-production is hardly addressed, however, crucial acknowledging inherent power dynamics. Using a transdisciplinary project as a case study, we picture the structures that position those involved regarding their influence on and benefit of (a) the research setup, (b) resource allocations, (c) project discourses, (d) project output and (e) decision-making and steering. By combining quantitative with qualitative data, we reveal the herein materialised power imbalances between social and natural sciences, academic degrees, science and society and, in our specific setup, between the Global North and South. Our results indicate a pervasive reproduction of hierarchical, academic, postcolonial knowledge orders that make doing transdisciplinarity a privilege for some, although not without risk. In conclusion, we emphasise the high need for, first, serious attempts of self-critical processes of reflexivity in transdisciplinary practise and, second, a fundamental reorientation in the academic and funding system in order to challenge existing knowledge hegemonies.     

Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: the case of urban studies

This article clarifies the distinction between unidisciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research about environment and human behaviour. One objective is to consider the challenges and opportunities transdisciplinarity offers in terms of the emergence of new ideas for theory and application. The costs and benefits, as well as the advantages and constraints of a transdisciplinary approach in the field of urban studies are then considered, and compared with multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches. First, a brief history of the concept of transdisciplinarity is presented. Second, the scientific context (the unit of analysis, application and theoretical goal) is identified. Third, conclusions are drawn about the perspective that researchers need to adopt if a transdisciplinary approach is to be effective (looking for coherence versus paradoxes). All of these reflections on transdisciplinarity are supported by the research experience gained in studies on Canadian (Quebec) and French (Strasbourg) suburbs. The paper focuses on the representation and perception of urban space.     

The reflective futures practitioner: Balancing salience,credibility and legitimacy in generating foresight knowledge with stakeholders

This paper explores how foresight researchers involved in environmental, nature and planning issues attempt to balance salience, credibility and legitimacy while generating knowledge in interaction with policy-makers and other social actors. Engaging stakeholders in foresight processes can increase the robustness of foresight knowledge, broaden the spectrum of issues addressed, and create ‘ownership’ of the process. While in foresight practices stakeholder participation becomes more and more popular to resort to as enabling factor for generating salient, legitimate and credible foresight knowledge, participation can also compromise these qualities. We analysed two foresight projects conducted at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, one that developed future visions for Dutch nature policy and another that focused on future pathways for Dutch urban sustainable development policy. We illustrate that the dynamics of the research setting – changes in the socio-political context and the internal dynamics of the participatory efforts – complicated the balancing process. We conclude that one of the main challenges for futures practitioners is, therefore, to work within the dynamics of the research setting, and to position themselves strategically in this setting; by acting as ‘reflective futures practitioners’.     

Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production

Participatory approaches in environmental knowledge production are commonly propagated for their potential to enhance legitimacy and quality of decision-making processes, especially under conditions of uncertainty. This paper describes the development of the Stakeholder Participation Guidance for the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency as an attempt to put the rather theoretical ambitions of the participation literature into practice. The study includes an analysis of theories of ‘new production of knowledge’ and of the agency's position as an intermediary organization between science and policy, together with its participatory activities, to date. The Guidance is meant to suit different contexts, products and modes of assessments by the agency. Therefore, it cannot be a like a recipe book, but is intended to support and guide project leaders in their choices around stakeholder participation. The paper emphasizes the context dependency of participatory knowledge production and stresses the importance of reflection and transparency regarding the role of scientific advisors in the science-policy process.     

Future of indigenous knowledge research in development

Indigenous knowledge (IK) research should help to militate against top-down development strategies out of touch with diverse cultural values and knowledge, seeking to incorporate an understanding of local socio-cultural contexts within which know-how and practices are set. A major endorsement for IK initiatives in the context of participatory development is that these will likely facilitate more successful interventions. Such research, for example, may inform and better guide scientific understanding and so assist in the formulation of policy in a way that can relate to local realities. Nevertheless, there are many obstacles to its acceptance within mainstream development. Indeed according to some such research has no future, falling out of favour alongside growing critiques of the misappropriation of participatory ideology and methods.In this paper we explore the challenges facing IK research as it continues to seek real alternatives that advance a prominent place for local perspectives. We address the problems of developing and refining methodologies to facilitate more effective realisation of participatory approaches and consider the possible limits of the IK approach when set within current development ideologies, heavily influenced by politically dominant western nations and their changing agendas. In examining these concerns we envisage possible futures for the IK initiative. We highlight that its growth partly depends on the continued promotion of a holistic approach through the advancement of interdisciplinary skills, combining the technical know-how of natural scientists with the cultural empathy of social scientists and facilitating communication and collaboration between all actors. However, bolder steps are required in the future if we are to convince authorities that there are benefits to be gained by giving more opportunity to local communities to determine their own destinies, and to advocate the inclusion of alternative diverse views of development onto the political agenda.     

Towards Analytic‐deliberative Forms of Risk Governance in the UK? Reflecting on Learning in Radioactive Waste

While participatory forms of risk assessment and management have been the focus of much conceptualisation, experimentation, and evaluation, relatively less effort has gone into understanding how so called ‘analytic‐deliberative’ processes are developing across policy‐for‐real decision contexts. This paper develops a novel typology of citizen‐science interaction as a basis for analysing the nature and extent of recent participatory risk assessment practice in the UK. It draws on the reflections of professional actors operating across the UK environmental risk domain, focusing down on practice in the area of radioactive waste between 1998 and 2003. Compared with past science‐centred approaches, analysis shows an ‘opening up’ of risk decision processes to extended actors, knowledges, and values, with particular importance placed on public involvement in front‐end framing. This is being constrained by a failure to integrate engagement throughout decision processes, the exclusion of publics from assessing/evaluating environmental risks, and the upholding of a strict separation between citizens/science. These patterns of analytic‐deliberative practice — determined by contextual influences, barriers and challenges operating across UK environmental risk issue‐areas — highlight the need for further methodological development and systematic evaluation of relations between processes and outcomes.     

The validity of management accounting language games – A pragmatic constructive perspective

To support the development of a pragmatic practice-based theory for management accounting, practice theory offers valuable avenues for understanding the development, role, and effects of tools and techniques used by practitioners. Scholars have identified communication as a critical dimension for analysis, as discourse can govern the production of knowledge and power structures. However, previous research has mainly focused on the role of actors within static environments; how actors justify their actions and goals, compared with other actors; and how they are aligned with or justify new practices relative to existing practices. The pragmatic constructivist framework that underpins this special issue builds on this research but recognises that previous research has paid little attention to how people—when interacting within a dynamic environment—develop and create new types of constructive causality. Importantly, the necessary conditions for people's actions to construct what they intend to remain largely unexplored. Pragmatic constructivism is founded on the recognition that any theory of management accounting must include conceptual devices representing the notion of success, as well as techniques for evaluating the truth aptness of local practices of reality construction, such as those represented by managemen accounting. This special issue aims to theoretically and empirically explore the potential in management accounting for the measurement and governance of constructed causality. The central topic is the role of management accounting in supporting individual and collective actors to effectively construct causal chains that make organisations work. The three articles in this special issue adopt different approaches to combining the pragmatic constructivist framework with additional theoretical frameworks, as well as using different research methodologies. The papers' findings point to the importance of co-authorship in the creation of functioning organisational practices, and suggest that this might be threatened by information technology. Co-authorship involves language games in the form of dialogical interaction between the accountants and other involved actors. This process develops a shared understanding anchored in a fusion of conceptual models that is tied to individual collaborators' local practice.     

The practice turn in organization research: Towards a disciplined transdisciplinarity

This paper comments on Fauré and Rouleau (2011) and draws out implications for practice-theoretic research in organizations more generally. In particular, it points to the potential for the transdisciplinary application of practice theory, allowing issues, insights and methods to be transferred between all the organization disciplines, not just accounting and strategy. Responding to some recent criticisms of practice-theoretic research in organizations, the paper argues that transdisciplinarity will be fostered by a disciplined approach to practice theory, based on a commitment to social practices, and respect for agency, materiality, discourse, the limits of social scientific knowledge and a refusal of reductionism.     

Urban planning: an ‘undisciplined’ discipline?

The need for cross disciplinary boundaries appeared in scientific research at least twenty years ago. Since its foundation, at the beginning of the 20th Century, urban planning has been claiming the assets of multidisciplinarity. It is particularly concerned with transgressing disciplinary boundaries. However, multidisciplinarity may weaken urban planning as a discipline, because it is a recent knowledge domain that has borrowed without questioning from the knowledge acquired in both the social and engineering sciences. Urban planning may forget to formulate an inventory and to build its own theoretical and practical assets. This article argues that it is only when a dsicipline has acquired its own identity that it can implement a fertile transdisciplinarity contribution.     

What role for social scientists in risk expertise?

When it comes to risks – health and environmental risks, like those linked to the use of nanotechnologies, pesticides, etc. – three main groups of actors are easily identified, brought together through boundary organisations such as environmental and sanitary risk agencies: the natural and technical scientists, who provide their expertise to assess risks (especially toxicologists, epidemiologists and microbiologists); the policy makers, who take decisions regarding risk management and risk regulation; the lay public, who are more and more involved in participatory frameworks. Sometimes three other groups of actors are added: the ‘economists’ who can for instance conduct cost–benefit assessments or multi-criteria analyses (especially ecological economists, public economists, political economists and social economists); the ‘philosophers’/‘ethicists’ who can use ethics to highlight moral choices and responsibilities in face of risks; and the ‘jurists’/‘legal experts’ who can justify authorisation or interdiction according to law. Inversely, there is a group of actors which is not clearly identified, that of social scientists, even though a considerable quantity of social science knowledge on risk has been produced. Why is there such a discrepancy? This article, based on a critical review of the literature, aims to make sense of the fuzziness surrounding the involvement of social scientists when it comes to risk expertise. The article shows that one reason for this puzzling situation is to be found in the gap between what social scientists often want to do when they are called in as risk experts and what natural scientists and public policy makers actually expect from them.     

Managing group processes in transdisciplinary future studies: How to facilitate social learning and capacity building for self-organised action towards sustainable urban development?

Challenges for future urban development are complex and characterised by ambiguous problem definitions or unclear, conflicting and dynamically changing goals. Transdisciplinary research promises new ways of dealing with uncertainty and complexity by including non-academic actors into the research process and fostering social learning for better and more effective research. Depending on the level of participation and the number and heterogeneity of actors involved, appropriate designs for group processes but also associated skills are essential. In this article, we scrutinise the dynamics of groups to better understand how to effectively promote social learning and capacity building for selforganised action beyond project enc. Based on experiences of a participatory scenario planning process in the city of Korneuburg and substantiated with theories on groups and their development, we conclude with five propositions emphasising researchers’ responsibility in processes of societal change, the role of external facilitators, the scope and time needed for group building, the acknowledgement of various phases of group processes as well as requirements for social learning.     

Modelo de asociatividad en la cadena productiva en las Mipymes agroindustriales

This research aims to propose an associativity model in the production chain of citrus agro industrial micro, small and medium enterprises in the northern part of the state of Veracruz, Mexico. The goal is to explain to what degree direct actors, support services, environment, government relations and policies determine associativity in the production chain. The problem frame which gives rise to this study is the lack of knowledge about citrus agro industrial micro and SME's in this region of the country. The outcome of the research is a model which represents functioning of these businesses in associativity with the production chain considering elements which make it up, and the proposal of alternatives to generate a greater cooperation or coalition of interacting industries in order to obtain mutual benefits.     

Prospects for transdisciplinarity

The word “prospects” connotes the probability of success. The authors in this special issue of FUTURES have provided a broad view of the existing knowledge base, organizational structures, and strategies for implementing transdisciplinarity. At the same time, they were mindful of the remaining impediments. This closing reflection builds on their insights in two parts: (1) by defining the key imperatives of transdisciplinarity and (2) by reflecting on the requirements for a genuinely human science and transdisciplinary capacity.     

Designing the future—A reflection of a transdisciplinary case study in Austria

The paper presents a transdisciplinary case study which aimed to encourage a vital regional process for building more sustainable structures and regional networks in the future. The case study looks at the industrial city of Steyr which is located in a highly dynamic region in Upper Austria and has to compete with other regional industrial centres and on the global market with internationally acting companies in the automotive sector. For finding local strategies to cope with globally induced pressures and changes several foresight techniques and transdisciplinary approaches have been applied such as interviews, photo elicitation, workshops and scenario building. The transdisciplinary case study is reflected by exploring three major research questions: first, how does transdisciplinarity work in practice, second, what are the benefits and limitations of transdisciplinary research in regional foresight processes and third, how can transdisciplinary research contribute to initiating a long-term process for building sustainable networks and structures in the region. Some answers can be given from the empirical example of Steyr. The case study shows that particularly in regions with a long industrial history and tradition and where existing paradigms cannot easily be overcome, a transdisciplinary procedure provides clear advantages over sole expert solutions. Transdisciplinarity can be the key to get through to the local actors, to develop perfectly fitting strategies for the region and to initiate joint learning and in an ideal situation a long-term change process. New ideas, structures and networks are established which are essential for improving the long-term development of a region.