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.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Reprint of “Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future”

The current ascendancy of transdisciplinarity (TD) is marked by an exponential growth of publications, a widening array of contexts, and increased interest across academic, public and private sectors. This investigation traces historical trends, rhetorical claims, and social formations that have shaped three major discourses of TD: transcendence, problem solving, and transgression. In doing so, it also takes account of developments that have emerged or gained traction since the early 21st century when a 2004 issue of Futures on the same topic was being written.The epistemological problem at the heart of the discourse of transcendence is the idea of unity, traced in the West to ancient Greece. The emergence of transdisciplinarity was not a complete departure from this historical quest, but it signalled the need for new syntheses at a time of growing fragmentation of knowledge and culture. New synthetic frameworks emerged, including general systems, post/structuralism, feminist theory, and sustainability. New organizations also formed to advance conceptual frameworks aimed at transcending the narrowness of disciplinary worldviews and interdisciplinary combinations of approaches that did not supplant the status quo of academic structure and classification.The discourse of problem solving is not new. It was fundamental to conceptions of interdisciplinarity in the first half of the 20th century. Heightened pressure to solve problems of society, though, fostered growing alignment of TD with solving complex problems as well as trans-sector participation of stakeholders in society and team-based science. The discourse of transgression was forged in critique of the existing system of knowledge and education. TD became aligned with imperatives of cultural critique, socio-political movements, and conceptions of post-normal science and wicked problems that break free of reductionist and mechanistic approaches. It also became a recognized premise in interdisciplinary fields, including cultural studies, women's and gender studies, urban studies, and environmental studies. And, calls for TD arrived at a moment of wider crisis in the privileging of dominant forms of knowledge, human rights accountability, and democratic participation.Even with distinct patterns of definition, though, discourses are not air-tight categories. Transcendence was initially an epistemological project, but the claim of transcendence overlaps increasingly with problem solving. The imperatives of transgression also cut across the discourses of transcendence and problem solving. Broadly speaking, though, emphasis is shifting from traditional epistemology to problem solving, from the pre-given to the emergent, and from universality to hybridity and contextuality.     

Recent environmental research in the Netherlands: towards post-normal science?

Dutch environmental sciences have a tradition of multi- and interdisciplinarity and are developed in close interaction with Dutch environmental policy. Interdisciplinarity and policy relevance, two elements that are also prominent in the climate change scientific and policy debate, form highly important issues within the theory of post-normal science. The greater part of the Dutch climate research is organised in the National Research Programme (NRP), a research programme that explicitly focuses on delivering a contribution to the policy process. This paper uses four criteria for post-normal science (namely the management of uncertainty, the management of inter- and transdisciplinarity, the management of policy relevance and the management of quality) to detect a trend towards post-normal science. These criteria are useful for indicating long-term shifts but they do not (yet) provide measurable standards to assess scientific programmes like the NRP. The paper concludes that the NRP can not be typified as a post-normal research activity, but that it undoubtedly contains post-normal aspects. Especially the growing attention that is paid to the involvement of different stakeholders and divergent perspectives refers to a post-normal scientific practice.     

Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity

Transdisciplinarity has been hailed as a potentially effective means of addressing increasingly complex societal problems, the nature of which cut across the boundaries between orthodox disciplinary knowledges. In this paper we are concerned with an approach to achieving a form of transdisciplinarity which entails making linkages between scholarship and practice, as well as across disciplinary boundaries. Such ‘border-work’, we suggest, provides important options for engaging with a range of practical economic and quality of life related problems. Moreover, it offers new and challenging possibilities for scholarly work and understanding. We discuss some practical and conceptual difficulties associated with discipline-based investigations, and illustrate these difficulties by focusing on risk-related phenomena. Here we argue that much of what is interesting and important about the character of risk tends to be lost by the generalising, decontextualising and reductionist tendencies of discipline-based research. Finally we consider two existing approaches to establishing a practice for border-work. These have both attempted to combine an appreciation of the active character of practical reasoning by human agents with the constraining and affording nature of social and material contexts.     

Building bridges: Institutional perspectives on interdisciplinarity

There have been a number of contributions to this journal (Futures) that discuss interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (see our reference list), several of which refer to the institutional character of academic disciplines. The exact nature of this institutional character, however, is generally not discussed in great detail. Our contribution draws on W. Richard Scott's synthetic reconstruction of the many approaches to institutional analysis, aiming to elucidate what an institutional perspective on interdisciplinarity would entail.Without knowledge from several academic disciplines, important problems in contemporary society cannot be solved. Consequently, the quest for interdisciplinary is gaining support among many scientists and funding agencies. In this article, we argue that even if we can understand the ambitions of interdisciplinarity, we also need to be aware of the barriers involved. Interdisciplinary approaches to framing and solving problems will almost inevitably stumble into barriers that are of a structural, cultural and a cognitive nature and problems related to disciplines as social institutions. The question to be discussed is if and how these barriers can be overcome. We claim that it is the structural barriers that are the easiest ones to address, whereas the cultural barriers are more difficult to overcome because they require more than a regulatory fix.     

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.     

Eco-logical education for the long emergency

In its inadvertent creation of multiple ecological crises including climate change, humanity as a whole appears caught in a lemmings loop, racing toward a probable future identified as The Long Emergency. One might think that even the possibility of this future scenario should be sufficient to effect a revolution in education. Yet overall there appears to be insufficient depth of respons-ability in this regard, of taking heed of ecological educational discourse. The paper advocates a deeply ecological education through identifying the significance of ecoliteracy as involving a critical contrast between two worldviews (modernism and a prospective ecological worldview). The paper advances futures of ecological thinking through a deep interpretation of ecology and related terms including ecosystem and eco-logics. The complex integrative character of conceptual ecology is foregrounded and extended through associating it with transdisciplinarity, integralism and critical realism under the overarching orientation of Boyer's scholarship of integration.     

Rethinking science for sustainable development: Reflexive interaction for a paradigm transformation

If we postulate a need for the transformation of society towards sustainable development, we also need to transform science and overcome the fact/value split that makes it impossible for science to be accountable to society. The orientation of this paradigm transformation in science has been under debate for four decades, generating important theoretical concepts, but they have had limited impact until now. This is due to a contradictory normative science policy framing that science has difficulties dealing with, not least of all because the dominant framing creates a lock-in. We postulate that in addition to introducing transdisciplinarity, science needs to strive for integration of the normative aspect of sustainable development at the meta-level. This requires a strategically managed niche within which scholars and practitioners from many different disciplines can engage in a long-term common learning process, in order to become a “thought collective” (Fleck) capable of initiating the paradigm transformation. Arguing with Piaget that “decentration” is essential to achieve normative orientation and coherence in a learning collective, we introduce a learning approach—Cohn's “Theme-Centred Interaction”—which provides a methodology for explicitly working with the objectivity and subjectivity of statements and positions in a “real-world” context, and for consciously integrating concerns of individuals in their interdependence with the world. This should enable a thought collective to address the epistemological and ethical barriers to science for sustainable development.     

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.     

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.