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.     

The TD Wheel: A heuristic to shape,support and evaluate transdisciplinary research

Transdisciplinary approaches to research are increasingly touted for the messy social and environmental problems of our time. Such problems transcend disciplinary boundaries, are intertwined with sociopolitical context, and require participation of stakeholders to generate socially acceptable outcomes. A substantial barrier to transdisciplinary (TD) research is devising and applying evaluative criteria or schemas for an approach that is recognized as necessarily tailored, flexible and evolving. This paper addresses the challenge of shaping, supporting and evaluating transdisciplinary research. Firstly, we synthesise the literature on TD research characteristics, highlighting areas of emerging consensus and some implications of these for research design, execution and quality evaluation. Secondly, we present an adaptable heuristic called the TD Wheel (TDW). The TDW is a synthesis of the disparate insights available within the current literature, and is presented as an organizing graphic for TD research. We explain how the TDW has utility at three stages of the research process: shaping (planning and proposing research); supporting (guiding research in-train); and evaluating (planning for evaluation, periodically documenting/checking progress, and reporting on outcomes). The TDW is a provocative graphic geared to help researchers visualize and discuss the elements and process of TD research.     

Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving

Transdisciplinary research is often promoted as a mode of knowledge production that is effective in addressing and solving current sustainability challenges. This effectiveness stems from its closeness to practice-based/situated expertise and real-life problem contexts. This article presents and tests one approach within transdisciplinary research, which specifically focuses on increasing the participation of actors from outside of academic in knowledge production processes, called transdisciplinary (TD) co-production. The framework for TD co-production focused on five focal areas (inclusion, collaboration, integration, usability, and reflexivity) in three research phases (Formulate, Generate, Evaluate). This paper tests and evaluates the use of this framework in five research projects. The results discuss how the focal areas and research phases dealt with many crucial issues in transdisciplinary knowledge production. They stimulated a high level of stakeholder participation and commitment to the research processes, and promoted knowledge integration and reflexive learning across diverse sectors and disciplines. The approach, however, came up against a number of practical barriers stemming primarily from institutional, organizational and cognitive differences of the participating organizations. While TD co-production increased the usability of the results in terms of their relevance and accessibility, it paradoxically did not ensure their anchoring in respective institutional and political contexts where societal change occurs.     

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.     

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 in the class room? Simulating the co-production of sustainability knowledge

Despite its many advantages, teaching transdisciplinary is a costly enterprise. Transferring diverse theoretical, methodological, and practical skills may require several teaching staff; developing meaningful stakeholder interaction is time-intensive; and managing the research process demands significant efforts in logistics and coordination. This article seeks to make two distinct contributions. Conceptually, it introduces a framework for distinguishing between soft, inclusive, reflexive, and hard transdisciplinarity, based on the notion that there are diminishing returns to all features of the practice. Empirically, it examines a classroom simulation – the Sustainable Development Indicator Exercise (SDIE) – as an example of soft transdisciplinarity. In the SDIE interdisciplinary student groups play the role of policy advisers. Building on a concrete transdisciplinary research project, they explore their understanding of sustainability, develop a multi-criteria decision making method for assessing sustainability criteria and indicators, elaborate and present their results, and reflect on their experience. All aspects of the exercise follow the logic of role playing: organizing group interaction, distributing responsibilities, interacting with their political principal, presenting their findings, and evaluating their progress. Experience from the simulation reveals insights into ways students address and express concerns with objectivity, transparency, deliberation, and balancing sustainability; it also points to ways for moving beyond soft transdisciplinarity.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Prompting transdisciplinary research: Promising futures for using the performance metaphor in research

Transdisciplinary research is increasingly recognised as important for investigating and addressing ‘wicked’ problems such as climate change, food insecurity and poverty, but is far from commonplace. There are structural impediments to transdisciplinarity such as university structures, publication requirements and funding preferences that perpetuate disciplinary differences and researchers often lack transdisciplinary experience and expertise. In this paper we present a heuristic that aims to encourage researchers to think about their current research as performance and then imagine different performances, with the view to encouraging reflection and creativity about the transdisciplinary potential and dilemmas. The heuristic is inspired by the metaphor of performance that Erving Goffman uses to understand everyday, face-to-face interactions. The heuristic includes scaffolding for imagining research as performance through a transdisciplinary lens, a suggested process for using the tool, and examples based on the every day research projects. The paper describes the application of the heuristic in a graduate masterclass, reflecting on whether it does indeed ‘prompt’ transdisciplinary research. Limitations and lessons learned for further refinement of the heuristic are also included. The authors conclude that the heuristic has a range of uses including for self-reflection, and as a practical learning tool that can also be used at the start of integrative research projects.     

Advances in transdisciplinarity: Epistemologies,methodologies and processes

There has been a proliferation of contributions about transdisciplinarity during the last decade. Today transdisciplinarity is known and referenced in the natural and social sciences, and the humanities, as well as numerous professions. Hence it is appropriate to take stock of what has been achieved in both education and research during the last 10 years. These achievements include development of conceptual and analytical frameworks, a diversification of methods and approaches in precise localities, specific cases showing the creative, reflexive and transformative capacity of transdisciplinary inquiry, and concerns about the asymmetries of power and control of participants during processes of the co-production of knowledge. However, conceptual and institutional barriers for transdisciplinary inquiry are still common whereas incentives remain rare. This is not only due to the scepticism of decision makers in academic institutions, in conventional funding agencies and in policy decision making but also to the formal education and personal motives of scientific researchers in academic institutions.     

An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research

Transdisciplinarity has a long tradition – both in terms of academic discourse and research practice. The proliferation of transdisciplinary research (TDR) has, however, only progressed moderately up until now. The main reason for this is the lack of a generally accepted quality standard for TDR. In addition to meeting the quality standards of excellence of ‘normal science’, TDR is supposed to respond to a variety of societal demands. Establishing a quality standard that incorporates these requirements would only be possible in the long-term as it calls for far reaching changes on both an institutional level as well as that of science as a whole. Building up a practice of quality assurance in TDR today lays the necessary foundation to bring about such changes. The aim of this paper is to present a ready-to-use quality guideline which we intend will contribute to that foundation. The guideline is customized to such TDR that aims to bring specific knowledge to bear on policy issues relating to sustainable development. The guideline addresses three groups of actors: researchers, program mangers or donors and policymakers. It shows these actors what they can do specifically to assure the quality of the transdisciplinary research process.     

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.     

Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: A refined classification of transdisciplinary research

This paper analyses transdisciplinarity and discusses the conceptual changes it has undergone during the past decade. Transdisciplinarity is currently perceived as an extended knowledge production including a variety of actors and with an open perception of the relevance of different forms of scientific and lay knowledge. By stressing scope of collaboration, a clearer distinction can be established between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity than was possible with the former focus on degree of integration. However, integration is still an essential feature of transdisciplinarity and in emphasising the need to acknowledge the different roles actors can play in knowledge production a distinction can be identified between two different forms of transdisciplinarity; consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity. This distinction draws upon the qualitative difference between research conducted including all kinds of actors on equal terms in the knowledge production process (participatory transdisciplinarity) or having actors from outside academia responding and reacting to the research conducted (consulting transdisciplinarity). Both forms fulfil the basic requirements of transdisciplinarity but differ regarding the challenges involved, and thus a distinction needs to be made between them when discussing, commissioning or evaluating research.     

Solving/understanding/evaluating the e-waste challenge through transdisciplinarity?

Transdisciplinarity has been accepted as a promising research approach to respond to complex real-world problems such as electronic waste (e-waste). Already one of the fastest growing waste streams, e-waste is a sustainability challenge that shadows the pervasive uses of electronic devices in contemporary society. Previous studies have not only shown the toxicity and risks inherent in the hazardous waste but also economic value generated from its reuse and recycling and the environment justice implications of the existing transboundary movement of e-waste to developing countries. Responding to this multifaceted issue requires a transdisciplinary attempt at synthesis understandings, if not solutions. This paper reflects on an educational experiment to encourage disciplinary boundary crossing in the e-waste community through a summer school. The NVMP-StEP E-waste Summer School housed young researchers from diverse disciplines with a common research interest in e-waste. The event is evaluated against three sets of criteria that underpin successful transdisciplinary ventures: (i) clear, problem-oriented goals, (ii) careful preparation, institutional support and competent management, and (iii) communication and collaboration. Based on understandings and insights gained from the participation in the Summer School, participant surveys, and communications with organizers, six recommendations are outlined to help making similar events a better ground for transdisciplinarity in the future.     

Knowing the unknowable and contested terrains in accounting

Creating visibilities and breaking silences are powerful legacies of critical accounting research and education. This paper, promoting that we further develop our understandings of how ideas are created, reveals how language is nuanced, power is embed in accounting technology, and accounting education crafts and restricts meaning. Particular ways of knowing in accounting education are appraised as well as emerging approaches to critical and ethical accounting education in order to deliberate: how can we foster a truly critical framework by which educators and students can “think different” and what can be done to promote sustainable, principled, and nuanced business practices? Our views of the morality of our world, how social structures affect ways of knowing, and what disrupts and challenges the status quo are particularly of concern to promote social transformation and justice.     

A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science

The importance of questioning the values, background assumptions, and normative orientations shaping sustainability research has been increasingly acknowledged, particularly in the context of transdisciplinary research, which aims to integrate knowledge from various scientific and societal bodies of knowledge. Nonetheless, the concept of reflexivity underlying transdisciplinary research is not sufficiently clarified and, as a result, is hardly able to support the development of social learning and social experimentation processes needed to support sustainability transitions. In particular, the concept of reflexivity is often restricted to building social legitimacy for the results of a new kind of ‘complex systems science’, with little consideration of the role of non-scientific expertise and social innovators in the design of the research practice itself.The key hypothesis of the paper is that transdisciplinary research would benefit from adopting a pragmatist approach to reflexivity. Such an approach relates reflexivity to collective processes of problem framing and problem solving through joint experimentation and social learning that directly involve the scientific and extra-scientific expertise. To test this hypothesis, the paper proposes a framework for analysing the different types of reflexive processes that play role in transdisciplinary research. The main conclusion of the analysis is the need to combine conventional consensus-oriented deliberative approaches to reflexivity with more open-ended, action-oriented transformative approaches.     

An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions

We address the following overarching questions: What kind of accountability framework could regulators use to (a) motivate auditors to improve audit quality, and (b) evaluate how well auditors have carried out their duties? We draw on research in accounting, economics, psychology, and neuroscience to critique the accountabilities, incentives, and learning opportunities embedded in auditors’ extant regulatory environment. We first establish that forward-looking estimates are the basis for most financial statement information and that some of these estimates are highly uncertain, which increases the challenges faced by auditors. We propose an accountability framework with two dimensions: rewards versus penalties and processes versus outcomes. We show that auditors’ current regulatory accountabilities generally are in the form of penalties rather than rewards and primarily depend on audit outcomes rather than attributes of auditors’ judgment processes. We provide evidence from a range of disciplines that questions the suitability of the present system for improving the quality of auditors’ judgments and the quality of evaluations of those judgments made by inspectors. We identify four potential changes for improvement in audit quality based on our framework. Each of these identified changes has an impact on one or both of the two dimensions in our framework. For each of these changes, we outline JDM research questions that could be addressed to inform our overarching questions and to provide empirical evidence to help refine our accountability framework and improve audit quality.