ÖREBRO UNIVERSITYMÄLARDALEN UNIVERSITY

Centre for Housing and Urban Research SeriesISBN: 978-91-7668-708-6

ISSN: 1653-1531Report number 64

2009

Crossing boundaries

the framing of transdisciplinarity

Malin Mobjörk

1

Crossing boundaries: the framing of transdisciplinarity Summary .....................................................................................................................................3 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................5

1.1 Aim and research questions..............................................................................................6 1.2 Method, material and approaches for analysis .................................................................6

1.2.1 Literature review, document analysis and interviews ..............................................7 1.2.2 Analytical approach .................................................................................................9

1.3 Conceptual clarifications..................................................................................................10 1.4 Outline..............................................................................................................................11

2. Crossing disciplines: history and concepts ..............................................................................12 2.1 History of cross-disciplinarity ..........................................................................................12 2.2 Core concepts for describing cross-disciplinary approaches ............................................17

2.2.1 Multidisciplinarity....................................................................................................21 2.2.2 Interdisciplinarity.....................................................................................................22 2.2.3 Transdisciplinarity ...................................................................................................25

2.3 An analytical framework for cross-disciplinary approaches.............................................29 3 Transdisciplinary research........................................................................................................32

3.1 Drivers for transdisciplinarity ..........................................................................................33 3.1.1 Knowledge economy ...............................................................................................34 3.1.2 Environmental imperative........................................................................................35 3.1.3 Engaged population .................................................................................................36

3.2 Characteristic features of transdisciplinarity ....................................................................37 3.2.1 Problem focus ..........................................................................................................39 3.2.2 Collaboration ...........................................................................................................43 3.2.3 Evolving methodology.............................................................................................47

3.3 ‘Transdisciplinarity’ and the embryo of two different kinds ............................................52 4. Urban Futures: A call for a transdisciplinary research programme .........................................57

4.1 Mistra call for Sustainable Urban Futures........................................................................58 4.2 Research group responses to the Mistra call.....................................................................59

4.2.1 International Centre for Urban Transformation, Stockholm ....................................60 4.2.2 Centre for Sustainable Urban Transformation, Malmö ............................................62 4.2.3 The Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures.........................64

4.3 Actors, methods and the transdisciplinary approach ........................................................68 4.3.1 Actors, actors’ roles and work on methods ..............................................................68 4.3.2. The transdisciplinary approach ...............................................................................72

5. Transdisciplinary research of two kinds? ................................................................................74 PostScript ....................................................................................................................................76 Literature .....................................................................................................................................77 Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................85

3

Summary This report deals with the establishment of transdisciplinary research, a research approach that is pivotal in contemporary knowledge produc-tion. In clarifying the meaning of transdisciplinarity, the history of cross-disciplinary approaches is acknowledged. Three major approaches towards cross-disciplinarity (multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity) are identified and an analytical framework is presented for distinguishing between these three approaches. Although these three concepts are interrelated, it proved possible to outline fundamental differences between them with respect to the form of cooperation. The transdisciplinary approach appeared to deal with cooperation of two kinds; between disciplines and between researchers and practitioners. In the following analysis, the emphasis is placed on transdisciplinarity. Three different apparent drivers behind transdiscip-linarity are acknowledged: knowledge economy, environmental impera-tive and engaged population. The main features compromising the problem-focused approach, the nature of collaboration, and the methodological approaches are also investigated.

This analysis, which is grounded in international literature on trans-disciplinarity, emphasises the need to distinguish between various kinds of transdisciplinarity. This need emerges from the implications of different interpretations on how collaboration with practitioners should be pursued. A distinction is thus made between a responding approach and a participatory approach, and the two forms of transdisciplinarity are labelled responding and participatory transdisciplinarity. These two forms of transdisciplinarity form the basis for a final analysis of the three proposals for a transdisciplinary research centre for urban futures, which reinforces the interpretation of different kinds of transdisciplina-rity.

5

1. Introduction Transdisciplinarity and other forms of cross-disciplinary approaches have risen to prominence during recent decades. This is evident not least in literature on research policy and can be considered a global trend.1 Besides using a concept for something that could be distinguished from disciplinary research, theories of contemporary knowledge production also emphasise a changing relationship between science and society, e.g. expressed through stakeholder involvement in research activities.2 This orientation of knowledge production is for instance labelled Mode 2 or post-academic knowledge production.3

In the latest government bill on research policy in Sweden, ‘lack of interdisciplinarity’ is perceived as one of six major challenges for Swedish research.4 In the research strategies from Swedish funding agencies, interdisciplinarity is called for or acknowledged as being of major importance or even as the path-breaking approach to new, innovative knowledge.5 Great hopes are attached to the concept of ‘transdisciplinarity’, but what is ‘transdisciplinarity’ and how is it related to other concepts describing a cross-disciplinary approach, e.g. multidisciplinarity or interdisciplinarity? Historically, the foundation for defining different approaches to cross-disciplinarity has been the degree of integration. However, there are also other approaches emphasising, for instance, the motives or drivers behind research, or the relationship between science and society (or researchers and practitioners).6 Depen- 1 See e.g. Jacob & Hellström 2000; Delanty 2001; Hessels & van Lente 2008. 2 Stakeholder involvement is possibly an even stronger characteristic than transdisciplinarity in contemporary knowledge production, see Hessels & van Lente 2008. 3 Gibbons et al. 1994; Ziman 2000. 4 Governmental Bill 2008/09:50 p. 19. The other five challenges are: insufficient quality, insufficient commercialisation, fragmentisation, threat against research independence and objectivity, and insufficient strength to make long-term and jointly strategic investments. 5 See e.g. Vetenskapsrådets forskningsstrategi 2009-2012 p. 1; Formas forsknings-strategi 2009-2012 p. 4; Strategisk plan, SSF, p. 4. 6 See e.g. Thompson-Klein 1990; Thompson-Klein 1996; Schmidt 2008; Wiengart and Stehr (eds.) 2000.

6

ding on the aspects taken into consideration, different understandings and definitions can be outlined on the concept of transdisciplinarity. This report aims to clarify the meaning of these understandings and definitions. It also examines drivers for, and features of, transdisciplina-rity, and discusses methodological approaches for carrying out trans-disciplinary research. Besides analysing literature on transdisciplinarity, we analyse the formation of research programmes aimed at being transdisciplinary, using three proposals responding to the funding agency Mistra’s call for Urban Futures.

1.1 Aim and research questions The aims of this report were to clarify the meaning of transdisciplinarity and analyse the formation of it in contemporary research practice. Basic questions were: • Which motives and drivers are there for cross-disciplinarity in

general and transdisciplinarity in particular? • How should we understand transdisciplinarity on the basis of inter-

national literature? • Which different approaches are taken in order to establish a trans-

disciplinary research programme and how do these relate to the understanding expressed in international literature on transdiscipli-narity?

1.2 Method, material and approaches for analysis This report is primarily based on literature dealing with cross-disciplinarity in general and interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in particular. Cross-disciplinary approaches have a long history and the amount of literature in the area is far beyond what a single person can read, so restrictions had to be placed on the scope of this study. The main focus here is on recent literature (i.e. 2004 onwards) published in English-speaking journals or books that is either generally about trans-disciplinarity or its comparative concepts, or deals with the interconnec-tions between transdisciplinarity and sustainable development. The year 2004 was chosen because in 2003 I carried out a review of the literature about cross-disciplinary approaches and as such had a foundation to rely

7

upon as regards earlier literature. Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplina-rity are well-used concepts in many other areas besides environmental and sustainable development. Although the use of transdisciplinarity in these other fields – for instance medicine, literature, education – lies beyond the scope of this work, the thoughts expressed in this report are to certain degree applicable to these fields, where there is definitely common ground concerning the understanding of transdisciplinarity.7 As a complement to analysing literature on transdisciplinarity, a smaller empirical investigation was made of the funding agency Mistra’s call for a transdisciplinary research programme in the area of Urban Futures. This analysis encompassed the three main proposals and focused on the approach to interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. The different forms of material and my approach to the analysis are described in detail in the following section.

1.2.1 Literature review, document analysis and interviews Literature on transdisciplinarity was mainly sought through using the full-text database ‘science direct’ and through reading titles and keywords in journals that frequently publish articles about the subject. The keywords used were transdisc* and interdisc*, while for finding articles on methods, concepts such as method*, backcasting, scenario-meth*, case-study were added. The most important journals were Futures, Ecological Economics, Research Policy, and Environmental Science & Policy. Besides these, some specialist journals were also included, e.g. Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews and International Journal of Trans-disciplinary Research.8 These journals publish articles twice a year and are not available in ‘science direct’, but post their publications openly on their respective websites.9 Furthermore, the Swiss td-net was significant, since it lists e.g. what it considers to be key articles from the 7 For an overview in medicine, Kessel & Rosenfield 2008; in literature, Moran 2002; in education, science, humanities Thompson-Klein 1990. 8 For an overview of publication culture in relation to transdisciplinarity, see Kueffer et al. 2007. 9 See http://www.journal-tes.dk/ , http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/isr , http://www.ijtr.org/

8

period 2005-2008.10 Besides these ways of searching for literature, the snowball effect is also very important, i.e. that one source gives other sources to read through its reference list. This provided substantial references from the early 2000s.

Besides analysing literature, I surveyed Swedish funding agencies’ con-ception of transdisciplinarity and other cross-disciplinary approaches. I collected strategic documents and/or guidebooks for applying research funding from Swedish funding agencies, analysed the concepts used and examined whether any further descriptions are given on how to interpret or work with cross-disciplinary approaches. Due to Sweden’s multi-faceted field of funding agencies, the analysis had to be limited to larger research agencies and research agencies important for sustainable deve-lopment or environmental research. The agencies investigated were: Swedish Research Council, The Swedish Research Council Formas, Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, Research and Innovation for Sustainable Growth, Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, and The Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra). The intention was to carry out a thorough analysis of these documents, but the funding agencies use a variety of concepts without giving any further descriptions or definitions and thus a deeper analysis of the funding agencies’ conceptions required substantial amounts of other forms of empirical material. The project manager and I decided to adopt another approach and instead focused on the formation of transdisciplinary research. The empirical data were taken from Mistra’s call for the establishment of a research centre on Urban Futures. The centre is intended to be interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary and should have ‘a clear geographical centre of gravity in one city or urban region and be organised by a local or regional consortium composed of one or more Swedish universities, at least one city, public bodies and business stakeholders’.11 This call came in May 2008 and from seven pre-proposals Mistra chose three, which received grants to develop

10 http://www.transdisciplinarity.ch/e/Publications/ 11 Urban Futures – call for pre-proposal, 5 May 2008, Mistra, p. 1.

9

major proposals.12 The major proposals were submitted to Mistra in April 2009 and it is these three proposals that were investigated here.

The focus for the analysis of the three proposals was their respective orientation towards transdisciplinarity in terms of content and methodo-logical approaches. As a complement to reading the proposals, I inter-viewed the main author of each proposal by telephone and recorded their responses. The interviews lasted approximately 40 minutes and aimed to clarify thoughts expressed in the proposal, as well as obtaining each author’s view on the main features in transdisciplinary research and suitable methods for performing it.

1.2.2 Analytical approach Within the empirical data used for this report, there were three different forms of data – literature, research proposals and interviews. Each of these is described below with respect to the analytical approach used.

Literature. The literature review was carried out in order to describe the field of cross-disciplinarity in general and transdisciplinarity in particu-lar. This review focused on (1) how to define transdisciplinarity and relate this concept to other concepts used for categorising a cross-disciplinary approach, and (2) methodological approaches for working transdisciplinary. Huge numbers of scientific articles are available in the area of transdisciplinarity, so limitations in time or in relation to a speci-fic subject area (e.g. sustainable development) were established. Hence, the aim was not to conduct a complete review of literature but to identify common terminology that could be used to distinguish various forms of cross-disciplinary approaches, but also concerning the core features of transdisciplinarity. The reading material revealed the patterns of different approaches to cross-disciplinarity and transformed this pattern into an analytical framework that helped to distinguish between different approaches towards transdisciplinarity (and related concepts of multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity). This analytical framework should not to be regarded as definitive, since transdisciplinarity – as most other concepts – is under continuous change.

12 See Mistra homepage: www.mistra.org

10

Research proposals. Analysing the research proposals, the investigation centred on the formation of transdisciplinary research and the different approaches used. The analysis should not be regarded as an evaluation of the proposals but as a way to understand the notion of transdisciplina-rity and the approaches chosen to match this notion. I therefore exami-ned the proposals in terms of the following themes: how interdiscip-linarity and transdisciplinarity are defined and described; the actors that are mentioned as being important for cooperation in the programme and the roles they are ascribed; and the methods that are pointed out as being important for the transdisciplinary approach.

Interviews. In the interviews, the emphasis lay on the meaning of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity and methodological approach-es for transdisciplinarity, as well as asking specific questions in order to clarify obscurities in the proposals.

Overall, the examination of the different forms of empirical data resulted in a final categorisation of the different approaches towards transdisciplinarity taken in the proposals and in literature.

1.3 Conceptual clarifications Science: In this report science is used to refer to natural, technical and social sciences, as well as the humanities.

Cross-disciplinary: This term is used to denominate an overall approach for interdisciplinary research. Another term sometimes used for this general approach is supradisciplinary.13 I prefer the term cross-disciplinary due to its more neutral connotation; supradisciplinary can be associated with a superior approach, while cross-disciplinary is orien-tated towards crossing some boundary (in this context, discipline boundaries). The disadvantage with cross-disciplinary is that the term is sometimes used for labelling a particular form of interdisciplinary activity,14 although the concept has not received wide acceptance.

13 Balsiger 2004. 14 See e.g. Jantsch 1972.

11

1.4 Outline In the following, section 2 deals with the history of cross-disciplinary approaches and various concepts for categorising these. It ends with an analytical framework for outlining the different approaches to cross-disciplinarity. Section 3 probes deeper into the concept of transdiscipli-narity. This section is based on international literature on trans-disciplinarity and begins with depicting three different motives behind transdisciplinarity. Thereafter, core features of transdisciplinarity are investigated: problem focus, collaboration and evolving methodology. Section 3 ends by outlining two different forms of transdisciplinarity, which constitute the foundation for analysing the responses of three research groups to the Mistra call for a transdisciplinary research centre. This analysis is conducted in Section 4 and is orientated towards how the transdisciplinary approach is defined, with whom collaboration is intended to be conducted and the methods that ought to support the transdisciplinary research process. Section 5 summarises the main points in Sections 2-4 and combines these with the experiences from the literature review and the empirical findings. The focus lies on clarifying the different interpretations made on transdisciplinarity and how the two different forms of transdisciplinarity can help clarify the conception of transdisciplinarity in contemporary knowledge production.

12

2. Crossing disciplines: history and concepts This section provides an overview of the history of cross-disciplinarity, as well as describing the different approaches to cross-disciplinarity that have made a substantial impact in the literature. The section concludes with a presentation of how to understand and relate to the three major concepts used for labelling various forms of cross-disciplinarity, namely multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. The sec-tion is based on literature on cross-disciplinary approaches and provides a foundation for the following section, where we will probe deeper into the concept of transdisciplinarity. Due to the close relationship between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity the emphasis lies on these two concepts.

2.1 History of cross-disciplinarity Crossing disciplines – what does it mean? In literature about cross-disciplinarity a basic question refers to the idea of what a discipline is.15 There is no single or easy answer to that question, but several authors acknowledge that a discipline is delineated by differences in theory, methods and conceptual framework, as well as in institutional settings, which includes organisational, social and cultural dimensions.16 Buanes and Jentoft, for instance, put the institutional settings in the foreground and analyse ‘interdisciplinarity’ from the regulative, the cognitive and the normative perspective.17 Salter and Hearn emphasise that a discipline ought to be understood simultaneously as a branch of knowledge and as a means for social control.18 Talking about cross-disciplinarity is thus relative to the notion of a discipline; nevertheless, the division of disciplines is not static and changes over time. One driving force behind the development of disciplines is specialisation.

15 Salter & Hearn 1996 pp. 16-25; Thompson-Klein 1996 pp. 38-42; Moran 2002 p. 2. 16 See e.g. Thompson-Klein 1996 pp. 46-47; Sandström 2003 p. 240. 17 Buanes & Jentoft 2009. 18 Salter & Hearn 1996 p. 17-18. See also Moran 2002 who argues that interdisciplinarity presupposes some kind of critical awareness of the relationship between power and control inherent in the disciplinary structure (p. 2).

13

The disciplinary structure as an effect of division and specialisation was conceived as problematic already in Ancient Greek philosophy, according to Moran.19 The underlying notion is that scientific activities divide and structure the world in a reductionist way in order to be able to acquire specialist knowledge on single parts, and that this approach undermines the possibility of acquiring knowledge on the whole. Cross-disciplinary research is called for with the perceived aim of being capable of transcending the disciplinary boundaries and dealing with complex issues.20 This argument is based on a conception that societal problems are complex and need cross-disciplinary investigations in order to be better understood and managed. Hence, within the call for cross-disciplinary research there is an underlying criticism of the modern conception of science, particularly its tendency to specialisation, with this specialisation having led to scientific knowledge becoming detached from the life-world.21 We look further into this notion below.

One major reason behind the call for cross-disciplinarity is the tendency for modern science towards specialisation and fragmentation. The counterpart would be to search for a more holistic approach, which cross-disciplinarity could fulfil. However, this does not imply that all cross-disciplinary research takes a scientific approach in another conception of science; a more common notion is instead orientated towards adjusting the negative effects from this specialisation through synthesising research and integrating knowledge from different disciplinary perspectives. How this synthesising work can or ought to be done has a major impact on the notion of cross-disciplinarity, its meaning and challenges. To simplify, a major difference lies in whether we aim to integrate the research process and jointly develop synthesised knowledge or whether our goal is to synthesise research results. Nevertheless, independently of the interpretation made, a joint driving force behind the call for cross-disciplinarity concerns complexity; cross-

19 Moran 2002, introduction. 20 See e.g. Thompson-Klein 1996 pp. 7-8; Thompson-Klein et al 2000 pp. 8-10; Thompson-Klein 2004b, passim; Ramadier 2004 p. 425; Schmidt 2008 p. 57. 21 See e.g. Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2006 p. 122; Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008b p. 20; Schmidt 2008 pp. 57-58; Pohl 2008 p. 47.

14

disciplinarity is considered able to manage complexity. There are tendencies to talk about complexity when it comes to issues in society, which involves an implicit thought that disciplinary problems are less complex. However, issues (or problems) in society ought not to be understood as more complex than disciplinary problems, which can also be essentially complex, and cross-disciplinarity ought not to be reduced to an approach that is adequate when it comes to societal problems. Cross-disciplinarity must instead be adequate when it comes to dealing with problems (of all kinds) that are beyond the scope of a single discipline.22 Nevertheless, societal problems are evident in literature on cross-disciplinarity, but one should not unreservedly call for cross-disciplinary research as a better way of dealing with societal problems (or problems in the life-world). As Thompson-Klein argues, the conceived fragmentation in science is not unique to science; all activities emanate from a perspective and all activities set up borders – boundaries – for what to include and exclude. In academia and in research, these boundaries form the disciplinary structure, in society the different sectors.23 We thus have a specialisation both in public life and in science, but the boundaries are different between the two.

It is well established that cross-disciplinary approaches involve a criticism of modern society, but this is expressed in at least two different ways, which can be illustrated through the two currents calling for cross-disciplinarity. Thompson-Klein attributes these two currents to the French philosopher Nicolescu and his followers and to a problem solving approach.24 We acknowledge both these, beginning with the ideas (or philosophy) formulated by Nicolescu.

In 1996 Nicolescu published ‘A Manifesto for Transdisciplinarity’ which fundamentally involves a critique of modern science and its reductionism. Thompson-Klein describes Nicolescu’s work as a broad-

22 Andreasen & Brown eds. 2004 p. 26. 23 Thompson-Klein 1996 p. 13. As Thompson-Klein has emphasised, our language and logic imply that we do classify and thus establish borders (boundaries), which thus creates disciplines, Thompson-Klein 1990 p. 77. 24 Thompson-Klein 2004a pp. 515-518. See also Max-Neef 2005 pp. 9-10; Pohl 2008 p. 47; Schmidt 2008 pp. 56-57.

15

based scientific and cultural approach facilitating a dialogue between specialists.25 Transdisciplinary research, in Nicolescu’s conception, ought not to be understood as a new discipline or superdiscipline; it is a complementary form of research focusing on the correspondence between the external and internal world, i.e. between Object and Subject.26 It is described as a ‘science and art of discovering bridges between different areas of knowledge and different beings’.27 The vision of transdisciplinarity is described as transcultural and transnational, and it encompasses ethics, spirituality and creativity. Essential in trans-disciplinary research is the notion of scientific knowledge as contextua-lised,28 and the researcher as an active, ethical participant in the world.29 As such, it has connections to a more general development concerning the epistemology of science. However, the explicit connection between these two fields of research is seldom elaborated. The idea of a contex-tualised scientific knowledge includes a major epistemological shift. For instance, it breaks with the idea of universal knowledge, stresses the importance of language in our perceptions of the world and includes a criticism of the conventional view of scientific knowledge as a superior form of knowledge. Essential in social science literature on contextua-lised knowledge is the path-breaking idea of a constructionist approach, i.e. the notion of scientific knowledge as part of how the world is perceived.

The above described notion of transdisciplinarity can be contrasted to the problem solving approach, which is grounded in an idea of solving societal problems. We have already touched upon this approach and acknowledge that it has had a major influence. The problem solving approach has a practical focus, but it also includes a criticism of modern science. The two approaches to cross-disciplinarity have different aims. In the approach symbolised by Nicolescu, science ought to be transformed from its foundation into ‘a new scientific and cultural

25 See description in Thompson-Klein 2004a p. 516. 26 Nicolescu 2008 p. 3, 11. 27 Thompson-Klein 2004a p. 516. 28 Thompson-Klein 2004a p. 516. 29 Montuori 2008 p. ix.

16

approach’. In this, a new epistemology is needed, which for instance could cope with the world’s complexity, but could also involve the multiple levels of reality.30 This approach can be described by stressing the idea of contextualised knowledge. The problem solving approach also emphasises the need for contextualised knowledge, but does not call for a fundamental transformation of science in general. Instead, the need for this transformation is at stake when it comes to pressing problems in society. The contextualisation is mainly expressed through the call for involving stakeholders in knowledge production, so that the researchers come to focus on the problems identified by actors in society.31

Recalling the Jantsch article from 1972, which has had a major impact on the view of the various concepts labelling cross-disciplinary approaches, the internal drivers within the scientific community for transforming the approaches in the education-innovation system can be considered pivotal. Cross-disciplinary research has become something called for by non-academia and problem solving is mostly considered an external demand on the scientific community.32 Balsiger argues that the proponents of the problem solving approach have a tendency to be driven by a pragmatic concern, and that their starting point is taken from the societal perspective which leads to them neglecting the fundamental epistemological core of the whole debate on the changing relationship between science and society.33 Nevertheless, problem solving ought not to be reduced to this pragmatic orientation, but could also be driven by internal (scientific) reasons; as such it could come very close to the conception of Nicolescu.34 Hence, problem solving includes various approaches and is a core feature in cross-disciplinary research in general, as well as in relation to transdisciplinarity. 30 See e.g. Thompson-Klein 2004c p. 15. 31 Notice that the concept ‘stakeholder’ includes a connotation of “owing a problem”, which could be contrasted to the use of a concept like “practitioners”; the latter opens up for a wider group of interests. 32 See e.g. Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2006 p. 121. 33 Balsiger 2004 p. 408. 34 Nicolescu argue for instance that problem-solving is one of the aims in transdisciplinary research, but it is not the only aim, see Nicolescu 2008 p. 12.

17

Summarising this description of the history of cross-disciplinary approaches it is important to acknowledge the dual process behind the growth of these approaches. On one hand we have an underlying criticism of modern science and the notion that cross-disciplinarity could lead to a transformation of science. On the other hand we have a problem-solving approach, which is considered adequate for addressing both theoretical and/or practical problems. The problem-solving approach ought not to be reduced to a pragmatic, orientated approach emanating from external actors, but regarded as also being connected to a critical stance towards modern science. Hence, there is room for substantial criticism of modern science in this approach too and, depending on the case, the two streams could merge into each other. With this in mind we turn to core concepts used for classifying different forms of cross-disciplinary approaches.

2.2 Core concepts for describing cross-disciplinary approaches In the literature on cross-disciplinarity it is evident that there are inconsistencies in the terminology used and that various authors define the same concept differently. However, as Schmidt emphasises, the concepts are not used arbitrarily.35 Despite differences – either in exact definition or in the concept used for describing a certain phenomena – there is common ground for describing and categorising various approaches to cross-disciplinarity. The aim in this section is to clarify this unity, with the focus on the three main concepts used to delineate various forms of cross-disciplinary approaches (multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity). Concepts, and the phenomena to which they refer, are not static, however. We must also examine whether a transformation has recently occurred or is at hand. Before turning to the three concepts, we consider two distinguished and important systems for classifying the specific terms for cross-disciplinary research; the integrative approach and the main motive behind the research.

35 Schmidt 2008 p. 55

18

In the literature on cross-disciplinarity from the 1970s and 1980s, the main feature used for outlining various approaches was the integrative approach between the disciplines involved. This is evident not least in e.g. Jantsch hierarchical classification system for classifying various approaches to education and innovation, a system that has had a major influence in literature on cross-disciplinary research.36 The core aspects lie in the degree of coordination/integration of the approaches and the system stretches from multidisciplinarity as a form of cooperation without integration, to transdisciplinarity as the ultimate degree of cooperation described as transcending the disciplinary backgrounds.37 Having the integrative approach as the crucial point for defining various approaches to cross-disciplinarity is fundamental, but it is not the only approach for outlining various approaches to cross-disciplinarity, nor is it unproblematic. Below, we first deal with the problems of having the integrative approach as a key aspect in distinguishing various concept of cross-disciplinarity and then describe other (complementary) approach-es.

Integration is of major importance when dealing with cross-disciplinarity. It refers to what it is that ought to be integrated (theory, methods, concepts), as well as to how that integration should be done, and by whom.38 Integration is thus essential in all cross-disciplinary approaches and raises substantial methodological questions. However, there is a tendency to give integration a value of its own and not consider it simply as a methodology.39 Having integration as the essence for outlining different approaches to cross-disciplinarity leads to a hier-archical system, where each concept – multidisciplinarity, interdiscip-linarity and transdisciplinarity – involves a higher degree of integration, which makes them more ultimate. However, valuing one form more than the other without recognising the aim of the research is proble-

36 See e.g. Balsiger 2004; Hirch Hadorn et al. 2006; Robinson 2008; Schmidt 2008. 37 Jantsch 1972, passim. 38 Bruun 2000 p. 16-17. See also Pohl et al. 2008. 39 Pohl et al. 2008 p. 412.

19

matic. Furthermore, the hierarchical approach has led to difficulties in distinguishing between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.40

The use of a hierarchical typology has historically dominated literature on cross-disciplinarity, but is today challenged. This challenge does not include a resistance to using the degree of integration as important for distinguishing between different concepts, but emphasises that integra-tion needs to be complemented with other aspects as well. In order to describe this challenge, we can use Thompson-Klein’s distinction between critical and instrumental approaches to interdisciplinarity.41 This distinction copes with the driving forces behind the cross-discip-linary approach as well as the goal for performing cross-disciplinary research. In instrumental interdisciplinarity (interdisciplinarity is used here as an overall concept for crossing boundaries between disciplines), the cross-disciplinary activity is considered a means to achieve certain goals, e.g. solving a problem or leading to something innovative. The motive could be considered a technological interest and the guiding metaphor is bridge building. Thompson-Klein points out that this app-roach dominates the contemporary discourse on cross-disciplinarity.42 In the other approach – critical interdisciplinarity – epistemological issues are in the foreground. The metaphor used by Thompson-Klein is restructuring and she underlines that this approach involves a reinter-pretation of the prevailing discourse and involves critical reflections.43 This latter approach is also labelled ‘conceptual interdisciplinarity’ and/or ‘reflexive interdisciplinarity’.44 Notice that both approaches – instrumental and critical – to some extent have an instrumental goal, i.e. the cross-disciplinary approach is intended to lead to something particular, but depending on what the goal is – solving a problem or changing the knowledge production – different issues are more or less

40 This has e.g. led to some authors not distinguishing transdisciplinarity as a concept of its own, while just acknowledging it as a sub-part in interdisciplinarity, see Sandström et al. 2005 p. 16-17. 41 See Thompson-Klein 1996 p. 10-11; Thompson-Klein 2000 p. 5. 42 Thompson-Klein 1996 pp. 10-11. 43 Thompson-Klein 1996 pp. 10-11. 44 Thompson-Klein 2000 p. 5; Salter & Hearn 1996 pp. 8-9.

20

acknowledged. Furthermore, in both approaches the relationship between science and society could also be reinterpreted, e.g. concerning the actors that ought to be involved in knowledge production (only researchers or researchers and other actors).45 However, critical interdisciplinarity is considered to be more diverse and could have various goals and purposes: it could be aimed at changing the discip-linary structure or overcoming the disciplinary structure.46 Overall, distinguishing between various concepts of cross-disciplinarity integra-tion is of major importance, but this must be complemented by other approaches that e.g. acknowledge the driving forces behind research. Notice that the two concepts used for this, i.e. critical and instrumental interdisciplinarity, illustrate the ideas from Nicolescu as well as the problem-solving approach mentioned above (section 2.1).

Besides considering the two complementary approaches for distin-guishing between various approaches towards cross-disciplinarity, it should be borne in mind that all discussions on cross-disciplinarity take their starting point in the notion of what a discipline is. As Salter and Hearn argue, there is a strong tendency to simplify the conception of what a discipline is when discussing cross-disciplinary approaches; the simplification makes it easier to talk about crossing disciplinary boundaries.47 The question is thus how ‘discipline’ ought to be under-stood in this report. In my opinion, disciplines are genuinely multiface-ted and I have opted to use the concept ‘discipline’ in line with the subjects that exist in academia. This means that some disciplines, for instance Human Ecology or Gender Studies, have much more similari-

45 There are possible differences between the reasons behind this: in instrumental interdisciplinarity “stakeholders” and others should be included in the knowledge production as a means to bridge the research process and implementation phase, and to steer the research to what “stakeholders” perceive as their main issues to be solved. In critical interdisciplinarity the motive to include the public in the research process is epistemological, i.e. science does not have a superior role in producing knowledge of the world. 46 Salter and Hearn elaborate on this and use the concepts critical interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity for differentiating these two approaches/goals, see Salter and Hearn 1996 p. 31. 47 Salter & Hearn 1996 pp. 17-25. See also Thompson-Klein 1996 pp. 38-41.

21

ties as regards the challenges expressed in relation to cross-disciplinarity than, for instance, Economics or Chemistry. What is fundamental is the need for dealing with the philosophical, epistemological and methodolo-gical approaches in all kinds of research, independently of whether it is of a disciplinary or cross-disciplinary nature.48

We now turn to the three most frequently used concepts for denomina-ting different cross-disciplinary approaches, multidisciplinarity, inter-disciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Multidisciplinarity is a rather unproblematic concept and only merits a short description. The major challenge lies in describing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity and particularly the difference between these two. As a concept, interdisciplinarity can be traced back to the 1920s and 1930s.49 Trans-disciplinarity, on the other hand, emerged in the early 1970s but explicit discussions occurred first during the last decades of the 20th century.50 Transdisciplinarity is thus a concept in formation, which has effects on understanding interdisciplinarity. Accordingly, a major goal is to acknowledge this transformation and describe how we ought to consider these two concepts in contemporary discourse.

2.2.1 Multidisciplinarity On a general level, there is definitely a common view that one form of cross-disciplinary activity is characterised as a number of disciplines investigating a specific problem from their respective perspectives. The investigation is made using each discipline’s ordinary methods and each of them gives adequate knowledge of the problem under study. This approach has been described as ‘a side by side of disciplines’, where the different disciplines analyse the same subject matter but they do so

48 Some authors argue that there is a tendency for these questions to be neglected in cross-disciplinary research, see e.g. Salter & Hearn 1996; Balsiger 2004; Schmidt 2008. 49 See e.g. Moran 2002, introduction. 50 Balsiger 2004 pp. 410-411.

22

independently of each other.51 Multidisciplinarity is mainly understood as a form of cooperation which preserves the boundaries between disciplines: in multidisciplinarity ‘disciplinary specialists work together maintaining their disciplinary approaches and perspectives’52, and ‘the implication [of multidisciplinarity] is a division of labour in which different disciplinary frames survey separate aspects of the same whole.’53 Consequently, a multidisciplinary approach means that a certain phenomenon is investigated and that this investigation is made by several researchers from different disciplines, working from their respective discipline (for instance its methodological approach). Hence, multidisciplinarity preserves the idea of disciplinary autonomy.

A notion in general discussions of cross-disciplinary approaches is that cross-disciplinarity emanates from a problem-solving approach (see section 2.1), but as Balsiger stresses, multidisciplinarity has no intention of problem solving. It should instead be considered thematically orien-tated.54 This means that the contribution to a given theme is produced from disciplinary perspectives and collaboration is not necessary. This point is worth acknowledging, but must be further developed depending on the approach of synthesising research. Depending on who is involved in this process, various degrees of cooperation are necessary, but the cooperation is not fundamental and problem-solving is not necessarily the goal. Hence, it is crucial to reflect upon how synthesis can (and should) be made. We will come back to this in section 3.2.3.

2.2.2 Interdisciplinarity Using the hierarchical approach to distinguish between different approaches of cross-disciplinarity gives interdisciplinarity a higher

51 Baumgärtner et al. 2008 p. 386. Notice that the authors use a three-partial categorisation of interdisciplinary approaches and the first one is called “side by side”; the authors note that this approach is sometimes labelled multidisciplinarity. 52 Russel et al. 2008 p. 460. 53 Horlick-Jones & Sime 2004 p. 444. 54 Balsiger 2004 p. 412.

23

degree of integration than multidisciplinarity.55 However, since inter-disciplinarity is also used for labelling a general approach to crossing disciplines, authors are either not defining the concept used56 or are defining ‘interdisciplinarity’ with given sub-categories in order to be more precise.57 However, taken together these we can acknowledge some similarities; they include a notion that cooperation exists between researchers from various disciplines involved in the process and that they develop a shared problem formulation. Russel et al. emphasise for instance that interdisciplinarity is devoted to research in which scholars from two or more disciplines are working together in areas that overlap or in areas that intersect between disciplines,58 and interdisciplinarity could be understood as constructing ‘a common model for the discip-lines involved’.59 Interdisciplinary research thus demands a shared problem formulation and, at least to some extent, a common methodological framework for the investigation of the different themes or aspects of the research problem.60

Balsiger argued that multidisciplinarity should not be characterised as problem-solving, and instead he claimed that interdisciplinarity has this goal. Balsiger described multidisciplinarity as orientated toward a theme

55 Note, however, that in the classical Jantsch publication from 1972 there are two concepts between multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, which are plural-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary. Neither of these has received any substantial influence in the literature on cross-disciplinarity and I thus omitted them from this description of core concepts. 56 See e.g. Buanes & Jentoft (2009) who use the metaphor of ’building bridges’ and analyse the institutional settings from this approach; Lengwiler (2006) analyses interdisciplinarity in compromising multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity; while Max-Neef (2005) is approaching that it concerns coordination and the difference from other concepts lies in the levels that are included. 57 Schmidt (2008) distinguishes between strong and weak interdisciplinarity; Robinson (2008) separates discipline-based interdisciplinarity from issue-driven interdisciplinarity, and Thompson-Klein (2000) use instrumental versus critical interdisciplinarity. 58 Russel et al 2008 p. 460. 59 Ramadier 2004 p. 433. 60 Wickson et al. 2004 p.1050.

24

that is investigated from different disciplinary approaches, but since solving the problem investigated is not the goal, collaboration is not a necessity. In interdisciplinarity, however, the solution is the goal and collaboration is thus a necessity.61 This collaboration could, according to Balsiger, be of two kinds: interdisciplinary (if the solution that is sought is purely of scientific matter), or between disciplines as well as between scientists and individuals.62 Accordingly, we have two different forms of collaboration depending on those who are cooperating. This distinction overlaps with the distinction of the kind of problem that is at stake, i.e. that cooperation between scientists is considered appropriate when it comes to scientific queries, while practitioners need to be included when societal problems are investigated. This is for instance evident in Robinson’s distinction between ‘discipline-based interdisciplinarity’ and ‘issue-driven interdisciplinarity’.63 A similar approach is taken by Schmidt, who uses the concepts of strong versus weak interdiscipli-narity. Strong interdisciplinarity is motivated internally to sciences and ‘is based on the wish to integrate patchworks of disciplinary know-ledge’,64 while weak interdisciplinarity is orientated towards solving pressing societal problems.65

A slightly different approach is taken by Baumgärtner et al., who make a distinction between three sub-categories of interdisciplinarity. The first is characterised as ‘side by side’, the second as ‘division of labour between disciplines’, and the third as a ‘fully integrated’ approach. The second approach is characterised by each discipline addressing the same subject matter but the investigation is conducted so that the researchers stay in their own disciplinary set of concepts, methods and theories. Exchange is conducted with clearly defined data or the results are used as input in a subsequent integrative analysis (the authors exemplify this with multi-criteria decision analysis). The coordination and cooperation pertain to the input and output of data and results and do not cover the

61 Balsiger 2004 p. 412. 62 Balsiger 2004 p. 412. 63 Robinson 2008 pp. 71-72. 64 Schmidt 2008 p. 58. 65 Schmidt 2008 pp. 57-58.

25

internal elements and structure of the disciplinary analysis.66 The third form, which is described as a fully integrated approach, is characterised by the concepts, methods and theories of the disciplines involved being closely related and adjusted to each other with regard to the joint interdisciplinary scientific aims and subject matter. This cooperation ‘requires from all scientists the ability to transcend the boundaries of their own discipline’.67 The first form – side by side – should be referred to as multidisciplinarity, which Baumgärtner et al. do. The latter two concepts, however, show the wide range that could be included in an interdisciplinary approach. The second form – a division of labour between disciplines – would in some contexts be characterised as multidisciplinarity due to the researchers only cooperating on the results (the research process having been conducted in their respective disciplinary structure). The third form has a character more in line with interdisciplinarity or even transdisciplinarity, due to its emphasis on ‘transcending’ the disciplinary boundaries. Before turning to a clarifi-cation of these approaches and setting up a conceptual framework for cross-disciplinary approaches in general, we need to focus on the concept of transdisciplinarity and observe the transformation that is at hand.

2.2.3 Transdisciplinarity In Jantsch terminology transdisciplinarity is the highest form of cross-disciplinary approach. Focusing on the degree of integration for defining the concept ‘transdisciplinarity’, it is described as a ‘practice that trans-gresses and transcends disciplinary boundaries’,68 and ‘transdisciplinari-ty extends beyond disciplinary thinking’.69 Crucial in transdisciplinary research seems to be the development of a common language and the novel or unique methodologies needed.70 Wickson et al. compare interdisciplinarity with transdisciplinarity and emphasise that inter- 66 Baumgärtner et al. 2008 p. 386. 67 Baumgärtner et al. 2008 p. 386. 68 Russel et al 2008 p. 461. 69 Ramadier 2004 p. 424. 70 Wickson et al. 2006 p. 1050. See also Balsiger 2004; Thompson-Klein 2004a; Ramadier 2004; Schmidt 2008.

26

disciplinary research involves a development of the common framework within distinct epistemological approaches that are used, while the transdisciplinary approach requires a ‘development of methodology that involves an interpenetration or integration of different methodologies and, ideally, epistemologies.’71 Hence, the major difference consists of whether there are methodologies or epistemologies that need to be developed. Using this as the crucial distinction is doubtful, however, since methodologies cannot be totally separated from epistemologies. Moreover, using the degree of integration can also be criticised for pragmatic reasons, since it is difficult to set up clear boundaries between the two forms and the distinction easily becomes blurred. Balsiger also argues that the hierarchical (and evolutionary) approach for classifying concepts of cross-disciplinarity is problematic due to the transdisciplina-ry approach being considered to be the ultimate form. Instead, he stresses that each cross-disciplinary approach has its own value, which depends on the problem in focus.72 As Nicolescu argues, cross-disciplinary research ought to be valued depending on the problem at stake and be considered a complement to disciplinary research and not an ultimate form of research.73 There are thus several reasons for play-ing down the term transdisciplinarity, a point often made in literature on cross-disciplinary approaches.74 However, drawing upon the literature about contemporary knowledge production, we find a slightly different way of using the concept of transdisciplinarity and can in this context discern a more consistent definition of it and a clearer distinction between the concepts of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.

71 Wickson et al. 2004 p.1050. 72 Balsiger 2004 p. 409. Note also the contrary, i.e. that the reverse hierarchical approach that sets disciplinary research highest is just as devastating. It is worth reflecting that cross-disciplinary research is sometimes (or even often) less valued in academic circles than disciplinary research. 73 Nicolescu 2008 pp. 10-13. 74 That interdisciplinarity is used substantially more than transdisciplinarity is evident when using these concepts in searching for literature. In some reports/articles it is also argued that transdisciplinarity has a minor role and that the focus hence lies on multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity, see e.g. Sandström et al. 2005.

27

In contemporary knowledge production transdisciplinarity, as we have already acknowledged, is a core characteristic, besides a problem-solving approach and context of application.75 In the use of the term by Gibbons et al., transdisciplinarity has four distinct features: it develops a framework to guide problem-solving efforts; it develops its own distinct theoretical structures, methods and modes of practice (which do not necessarily depend on disciplinary knowledge); the communication extends the conventional institutional channels and is orientated to those who have participated in the research; and finally, it is dynamic and the process cannot be predicted as in discipline-based research.76 Even though some of these features are criticised, e.g. the argument that transdisciplinarity does not necessarily depend on disciplinary know-ledge,77 one can discern a common approach that clearly distinguishes transdisciplinarity from interdisciplinarity if one emphasises that the research is done in cooperation between researchers (from different disciplinary backgrounds) and between researchers and practitioners.78 As Russel et al. argue, transdisciplinarity, in comparison to multidiscip-linarity and interdisciplinarity, has the ‘most potential to respond to new demands and imperatives’.79

This potential springs from the characteristic features of transdisciplinarity, which include problem focus (research originates from and is contextualised in ‘real-world’ problems), evolving methodology (the research involves iterative, reflective processes that are responsive to the particular questions, settings, and research groupings) and collaboration (including collaboration between transdiscip-linary researchers, disciplinary researchers and external actors with interests in the research).80

75 Gibbons et al. 1994 pp. 3-4. 76 Gibbons et al. 1994 p. 5. 77 See e.g. Balsiger 2004 p. 413. 78 Hollaender et al. 2008 highlight that transdisciplinarity involves both researchers from different disciplines and non-academic actors and that without this, research is not transdisciplinary (p. 386). 79 Russel et al. 2008 p. 461. 80 Russel et al 2008 p. 461 (citing Wickson et al. 2006).

28

Hence, transdisciplinarity is understood as having much potential for collaborative and responsive problem solving and promises to bring ‘universities into line with the new knowledge landscape and in meeting global challenges of the 21st century’.81 A similar understanding is held by Balsiger, who argues that transdisciplinarity comes to the fore when the problem investigated is generated in ‘an extra scientific field’, ‘a solution to the problem is urgently required’, the ‘public opinion considers these fields relevant’, and ‘when it is brought to science in an institutional way’.82 Defining transdisciplinarity like this, one can observe that the main feature besides collaboration is that someone is asking for the research, which correlates to the thesis of ‘context in application’ in contemporary knowledge production. Nevertheless, Balsiger emphasises that transdisciplinarity is also at stake when researchers themselves have identified a socially relevant problem and need to inform the public. It is thus appropriate to recall the discussion above about the different approaches for making classifications. We had integration as one (dominant) aspect, but where we also need to acknowledge the driving forces behind cross-disciplinarity as well as the actors involved in knowledge production. Using all these three approaches we can discern a difference between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity that particularly emphasises the difference in who is involved in the knowledge production, but also includes a difference in the driving forces, i.e. a more instrumental or critical/conceptual approach.

81 Russel et al. 2008, p. 461. Notice that Russel et al. argue that transdisciplinarity is not a new practice and that there have been a number of internal drivers for transdisciplinarity earlier, as well as external drivers, e.g. from military activities. However, they claim that there has been an increased interest recently in transdisciplinarity and cross-disciplinary approaches in general and this initially came from practitioners and theorists within a variety of disciplines in academia and was later taken up by government, industry and non-government sector. 82 Balsiger 2004 p. 413.

29

2.3 An analytical framework for cross-disciplinary approaches Summarising the standpoints from the above sections, we can outline general conceptions of the three most influential concepts of cross-disciplinarity. The approach emerges from the view that integration alone is not sufficient for defining the concepts multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, while the definitions need to be complemented with the driving forces behind the research as well as with the notion of the relationship between science and society, i.e. those who seem to be relevant actors within the knowledge production process. In order to summarise and outline the main differences between the three concepts, I set up five questions that can be used for categori-sing the essence of each concept. Notify that there are blurred boundaries and that the features are not unique for any specific cross-disciplinary approach or cross-disciplinary approach in general (they are thus to a certain degree applicable for disciplinary research as well). However, the search for boundaries is important for clarifying the discussion on cross-disciplinary research and for reducing misunder-standing.

Multidiscip-

linarity

Interdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity

Which is the main motive?

(instrumental vs. critical)

Mainly

instrumental

Both instrumental

and critical

Both instrumental

and critical

Is there any cooperation

between disciplines?

To some extent. Yes. Yes.

Is there (active) cooperation

between researchers and

practitioners during the

research process?

No. No. Yes.

Are methodologically chal-

lenging issues addressed?

To some extent. Yes, to a certain

degree.

Yes, to a certain

degree.

Are epistemologically chal-

lenging issues addressed?

To a minor degree. To some extent,

but not necessary.

Yes, to a certain

degree.

30

Using these questions as an analytical framework, multidisciplinarity can best be described as cooperation between various disciplines but the investigation is made using each discipline’s ordinary concepts and methods. Integration, with its epistemological and methodological challenges, is particularly addressed in the synthesis phase, which in multidisciplinarity is not necessarily a main goal. The synthesis also particularly examines the results from each investigation and the synthesising work could be made less challenging through setting up in advance a framework for how studies ought to be made (e.g. that each investigation only uses quantitative methods). From an analytical standpoint there is nothing preventing involvement from practitioners in the research process, but their involvement does not seem to be of major importance in multidisciplinary research. In interdisciplinary research, cooperation between disciplines is a focal point and cooperation should be conducted during the research process, which presupposes the addressing of methodological and epistemological issues. The extent to which this is done seems to be related to the driving force behind the research; if research is conducted with instrumental motives, epistemological and methodological challenges appear to be less treated, while they are pivotal with a critical or conceptual approach. Coopera-tion between researchers and practitioners could be the case in inter-disciplinarity, but particularly in relation to distinctions made between two different forms of interdisciplinarity (e.g. strong and weak inter-disciplinarity or between discipline-based and issue-driven interdiscip-linarity). This is the foundation for suggesting that interdisciplinarity should be reserved to categorise an approach focusing on cooperation between disciplines, i.e. discipline-based interdisciplinarity or strong interdisciplinarity, and that we let transdisciplinarity categorise a cross-disciplinary approach including both cooperation between different disciplines and between researchers and practitioners. In the literature, it is evident that this kind of cooperation is an indispensable feature of transdisciplinarity. Raising methodological and epistemological issues is also essential for transdisciplinarity, and the approach could be motivated by both instrumental and critical/conceptual reasons.

31

Essential in this framework is the notion of cooperation and there are reasons for distinguishing transdisciplinarity from the other two app-roaches emphasising cooperation, both between disciplines and between researchers and practitioners. Searching for a unique distinction, I suggest that we use this feature as the defining element. However, it is important to note that practitioners could also be included in multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, as in disciplinary research, but their role would never be of a prominent character in the knowledge production process. In these research practices, their role is more likely to be of a responsive or discussional nature, not as an active knowledge producer. Will this interpretation survive a deeper penetration of transdisciplinarity? Could we distinguish a more precise standpoint regarding the motive behind transdisciplinarity? How should we interpret the challenges concerning methodology and epistemology? In order to acquire a better understanding of transdisciplinarity, we must probe deeper into the literature, particularly that dealing with trans-disciplinary research. The aim is to obtain a deeper understanding of how to interpret the notion of transdisciplinarity, which can then act as the foundation for analysing research practice.

32

3. Transdisciplinary research In Section 2 we outlined the main differences between the three approaches to cross-disciplinarity. Relying upon the integrative element, a hierarchical structure could be discerned moving from the multidisciplinary approach to the interdisciplinary approach and finally ending up in the transdisciplinary approach. However, recent conceptual change has emphasised the form of collaboration as a defining feature in distinguishing transdisciplinarity from interdisciplinarity. The main difference between these two approaches thus lies in the role held by non-academic actors; in transdisciplinary research practitioners have an active role in the research process. This approach includes a new relationship between science and society, bringing us to one of the core issues in theories of contemporary knowledge production. In both Mode 2 knowledge production and Triple Helix, which are the two theories mostly discussed,83 cooperation between researchers and practitioners is an essential feature. Besides cooperation, transdisciplinarity is also one of the pivotal characteristics in Mode 2 knowledge production,84 which describes contemporary knowledge production as a problem- and solution-orientated approach that includes participatory approaches for addressing societal problems.85 How should we interpret this problem and solution orientation? How should we interpret the role practitioners are perceived to have in transdisciplinary research? How are we going to meet the methodological and epistemological challenges in transdiscipli-nary research? We address these issues below. Transdisciplinarity is a heterogeneous field but the ambition is to find whether there is a pattern in how to understand transdisciplinarity or whether we can distinguish different approaches included in transdisciplinary research. We begin by highlighting the driving forces – motives – behind the call for

83 These two theories are also those that have had an influence in research funding agency concepts, see e.g. Strategisk plan, SSF; Forskningsstrategi, Vinnova; and Verksamhetsstrategi, Mistra. See also Benner & Persson 2002, passim; Hellström & Jacob 2005. 84 Gibbons et al. 1994 p. 5; Horlich-Jones & Sime 2004 pp. 442-443; Pohl 2008 p. 47. 85 Robinson 2008 p. 71.

33

transdisciplinarity, and turn thereafter to the characteristic features and investigate these.

3.1 Drivers for transdisciplinarity In the history of cross-disciplinarity, there are at least two major approaches to the call for cross-disciplinary approaches. On one hand there is the criticism of modern science, particularly its tendency to specialisation, which leads to a separation from life-world; and on the other hand a pragmatic approach aiming at solving pressing societal problems. The two streams overlap, but the pragmatic orientation, which dominates contemporary knowledge production, has argue Pohl played down systematic studies on methodological and theoretical aspects as well as investigating the practice of transdisciplinarity.86 Considering transdisciplinarity as a collaborative research aimed at solving pressing societal problem is a core feature in contemporary knowledge produc-tion theories. In these theories, whether labelled Mode 2, Post-normal Science or Triple Helix, there is talk about a shifting context for knowledge production, which is considered a practice involving actors both within academia and outside. As Russel et al. argue, there are (mainly) three major drivers behind this shifting context. Transdiscipli-narity is a feature in all of these, but depending on context the practice of transdisciplinarity differs. The three drivers are ‘knowledge economy’, ‘environmental imperative’ and ‘engaged population’.87 We examine these three drivers, which could give a better foundation for interpreting the meaning of transdisciplinarity. We treat them separately, even though in reality they are intertwined (with more or less focus on different parts). We also look briefly at the main issues within each driver. Although these could be much further explored, a brief review is sufficient to show how the drivers together shape the call for transdisciplinary approaches and the implications of each driver.

86 Pohl 2008 p. 47. 87 Russel et al 2008 p. 461. Russel et al. use the term “populace”, while I prefer “population”.

34

3.1.1 Knowledge economy As Russel et al. claim, ‘knowledge economy’ is a feature of global capitalism and knowledge and innovation are considered increasingly essential to economic growth and international competitiveness.88 As various authors from different perspectives have argued, this focus challenges the perceptions of the university’s role in contemporary society,89 and it has also resulted in a shifting approach to university funding. Competitiveness is today a core motive for funding.90 One expression of this change is the increasing focus on the ‘third role’ of universities, which today is mainly understood to be researchers applying their knowledge and contributing to economic growth. Univer-sities must market themselves in a competitive environment which pushes for a focus on building strong research environments. At the same time, governments tend to take an interventionist approach in steering the university research by identifying and funding priority areas.91 A further characteristic of the economic driver is the call for ‘partnership’, particularly between university and industry. This trend is described as a triple helix of university, industry and government relations.92 Such partnership aims at ‘transferring’ knowledge and innovation from the universities to the industrial sector. Central to this concept of ‘knowledge economy’ is the reconceptualisation of knowledge as a tradable commodity. As Russel et al. claim:

This reconceptualisation has been a driver for transdisciplinarity in increasing demand for knowledge that is problem-focused, relevant and communicable to stakeholders outside the university and generated through collaborative partnerships. A key feature of the transdisciplinarity that

88 Russel et al 2008 p. 461. 89 See e.g. Slaughter & Leslie 1997; Ziman 2000; Delanty 2001; Russel et al 2008. 90 Russel et al. 2008 pp. 461-462. See also Slaugther & Leslie 1997; Jacob & Hellström 2000; Delanty 2001. 91 Russel et al. 2008 p. 462. For similar analyses, see also Sandström & Harding 2002. 92 See Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1997.

35

responds to this driver is that problems are defined by knowledge consumers and partners.93

The idea of knowledge economy as influencing and reshaping the university structure is well-established and there is a flourishing literature exploring this.94 We do not dig deeper into this argument, but acknowledge that this change is occurring and that knowledge produc-tion at universities is affected by it. The call for partnership also enhances the call for transdisciplinary research, which emphasises collaboration between various actors and has a problem focus.

3.1.2 Environmental imperative This driver takes its starting-point in the increased concern for environment; an area that has growth forth both in research and politics since the 1960s. In the beginning, environmental research focused on biology, geology, hydrology, geography etc. However, social scientific research, as well as cross-disciplinary approaches, has become more established and is considered essential in relation to the vision of sustainable development. Russel et al. even claim that the need for inter-connection between different spheres of knowledge rises to prominence alongside the growth of the sustainable development concept (and vision).95 Cross-disciplinary approaches were evident in 1970s environ-mental research and one can recall the influence system analysis has had on many branches of knowledge, for instance UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Programme initiated in 1970.96 However, there are also strong reasons for emphasising a close relationship between transdiscip-linarity and sustainable development research. The characteristic features of ‘sustainable development research’ (or its familiar concepts sustainability research or sustainability science) correspond to the features of transdisciplinarity. Similarities are for instance the multi-faceted and problem-based focus, the action interest, the participatory

93 Russel et al. 2008 p. 463. 94 See e.g. Slaugther & Leslie 1997; Jacob & Hellström 2000; Ziman 2000; Delanty 2001. 95 Russel et al. 2008 p. 463. 96 Thompson-Klein 2004a pp. 518-519.

36

approaches and the need to address values and normative judgement on the common good.97

3.1.3 Engaged population The changing societal context of knowledge production is driven not only by economic reasons, but also by a changing view of the public and their possible role in knowledge production. The background behind this lies in a higher level of education (at least in OECD-countries) and in a weakening authority of science and academia in society (which could be partly related to increased educational levels). These two features – a high level of education and a weakening authority – are central in the Mode 2 conception of contemporary knowledge production. Even though the proponents of Mode 2 have a tendency to overemphasise this development, they argue that science has become democratised,98 there is a development that draws upon a changing relationship between researchers and the public, which involves an engagement of the public not necessarily seen before. Independently, we draw upon sociological or epistemological reasons for this development, since as Russel et al. argue, an engaged population creates new demands for knowledge as well as providing new opportunities for collaboration in knowledge production.99 This trend – the engaged population – is influencing trans-disciplinarity both internally and externally, internally since research needs to reconsider the place for ordinary people in the knowledge production, externally because the engaged population demands ‘knowledge that is responsive, relevant, translatable into different languages and context, and problem-focused’.100 Accordingly, there are increasing demands for public participation both from a bottom-up and top-down perspective; this has given rise to the concept of ‘mutual learning’ and an approach emphasising a consultative, deliberative and participatory knowledge production.101 97 See e.g. Robinson 2008 p. 72; Baumgärtner et al. 2008 p. 385; Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2006 pp. 122-123. 98 Nowotny et al. 2000, passim. 99 Russel et al 2008 p. 464. 100 Russel et al 2008 p. 464. 101 Russel et al 2008 pp. 464-465.

37

To summarise, these three drivers could be seen as lenses that focus on different aspects and give different perspectives for transdisciplina-rity.102 A relevant question is what implication each of them has on the transdisciplinary approach. As Russel et al. argue the knowledge economy driver leads mainly to problem-orientated or applied research geared to the needs of the knowledge consumer. The environmental imperative, in contrast, prompts recognition and consideration of the problem in its context and promotes a systems approach to research, while the engaged population calls for researchers to take a more consultative approach and recognize other sources of knowledge.103 Altogether Russel et al. give a broad perspective for transdisciplinarity, while also highlighting significant contradictions and tensions that exist between the different drivers. Nevertheless, they do address, at least to some extent, the well-established notion of the increasing complexity of society; complexity as a complementary key word describing the call for transdisciplinarity.104

3.2 Characteristic features of transdisciplinarity We have already acknowledged in section 2.2.3 (transdisciplinarity) a number of characteristic features of transdisciplinarity. They were expressed in a context focusing on outlining an all-embracing approach to transdisciplinarity, which could be contrasted to the other two concepts to cross-disciplinarity, namely multidisciplinarity and inter-disciplinarity. In order to develop a better understanding of transdiscipli-narity we must probe deeper into the meaning and content. We do this through analysing the main features established in the literature on transdisciplinarity. Due to the variety of features dependent on the author, I have made a selection of those features which I consider

102 As concluded by Schild and Sörlin, cross-disciplinary approaches in Swedish research are mainly motivated by ”research driven technology development”, which is a motive correlating to the driver of knowledge economy, see Schild & Sörlin 2005 pp. 324-326. 103 Russel et al 2008 p. 465. 104 Recall that complexity is a joint driver in the call for cross-disciplinarity in general, see section 2.1. For discussion on complexity in relation to transdisciplinarity, see Andreasen & Brown 2004; Thompson-Klein 2004b.

38

fundamental in the literature. In this introduction, we first identify some different lists of features. However, we begin by reflecting upon the difference between a driver and a feature; drivers that were prominent in the former section. There is evidently a close relationship between drivers and features; I would say that the drivers shape the features, but because the drivers are intertwined one could discern features covering the general conception of transdisciplinarity. It is those features on which I intend to focus.

In Gibbons et al.’s description of the Mode 2 concept that shape contemporary knowledge production, transdisciplinarity is a main attribute and the features of transdisciplinarity are considered to be:

• a problem-solving approach, • a distinct theoretical structure and method, • communication with the public, and • dynamic.105

I do not probe deeper into the content of these features, which are more fully described in section 2.2.3. Instead I turn to another list of features presented by Wickson et al. Their focus also lies on the changing context for research, which includes a changing relationship between science and society, and they outline the three following key features of transdisciplinarity:

• problem focus, • evolving methodology, and • collaboration.106

The concepts differ between these two, but they raise similarities considering the content. Transdisciplinarity is problem focused or problem solving in its approach, it involves collaboration with various actors – communication is important – and it needs a theoretical structure and methods of its own (methods that are under formation). In sum, the field has a dynamic character. I consider that these two lists have many similarities and that the core concepts – problem focus/solving, collaboration and evolving methodology – can be used as 105 Gibbons et al. 1994 p. 5. 106 Wickson et al. 2006 p. 1048.

39

a foundation for exploring the features of transdisciplinarity. Before exploring these concepts we need to turn our attention to the fact that neither Gibbons et al. nor Wickson et al. deal with the empirical investigation of transdisciplinarity or contemporary knowledge produc-tion. Hence, my ambition is to include experiences from research into the description of features and take the discussion further. This is particularly the case when it comes to methodological issues in relation to transdisciplinarity.

Exploring the features of transdisciplinary, we start with the problem solving/focus, because problem focus is a feature in all research and we need to acknowledge the specific meaning it is given in the context of transdisciplinarity. Thereafter we turn to collaboration, which encom-passes both collaboration between researchers from different disciplines, and collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Finally we turn to the field of methodology and acknowledge both a general, theoretical approach, to methodology in relation to transdisciplinarity, and take into account the methodologies chosen in transdisciplinary research projects.

3.2.1 Problem focus In literature on transdisciplinary ‘problem focus’ or ‘problem solving’ is a feature frequently used.107 Wickson et al. for instance describe transdisciplinary research as it ‘is performed with the explicit intent to solve problems that are complex and multi-dimensional [and the] founding idea here is that society is facing problems manifest in the real world that are complex, multi-dimensional and not confined by the boundaries of a single disciplinary framework’.108 Considering that problem solving is a metaphor used for describing research practice in general,109 it must be something particular that is in mind when talking about it in relation to transdisciplinarity. The search for this notion is the focal point in this section.

107 See e.g. Gibbons et al. 1994; Wickson et al. 2006; Robinson 2008: Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn 2008. 108 Wickson et al. 2006 p. 1048. 109 Which is most famous in the sense of Kuhn, see Kuhn 1992/62, passim.

40

In literature on transdisciplinarity a common notion is held that transdisciplinary research is adequate when it comes to deal with complex (societal) problems. Schmidt for instance talks about a ‘real-world’ perspective, Wickson et al. about ‘societal problems’, and Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn about ‘life-world problems’.110 Consequently, an underlying notion is that transdisciplinarity differs in respect to the problem that is addressed, where life-world problems could be used as a joint denomination. Using life-world as a specific feature for trans-disciplinary research could help distinguish this research practice from ordinary research in terms of which problems that are in the foreground. Nevertheless, distinguishing some problems as ‘life-world orientated’ is problematic and we can use Schmidt’s distinction between internal and external problems to show why. Schmidt distinguishes between a strong and a weak position to interdisciplinarity where the strong position aims to integrate the ‘various patchworks of disciplinary knowledge’; the basic goal is to obtain synthesis and restore what is lost through the differentiation and specialisation of disciplines.111 Weak interdisciplinarity is, on the other hand, orientated towards a local context and is ‘developed from a ‘problem-orientated’ or ‘real-world’ perspective; their goal is to address and to solve pressing problems of society’.112 The first position – strong interdisciplinarity – is described as mainly motivated internally to sciences; the second – weak interdisciplinarity – is motivated externally. A shortcoming of this approach is its incorporation of a distinction between what could be considered internal scientific problems and external problems, i.e. problems in society. A demarcation line is set up between science and society. The deficit with this is well described in literature on sociology of science and we only point out that this demarcation line correlates to the notion that science can inform society and bring adequate

110 Schmidt 2008 p. 57; Wickson et al. 2006 p. 1048; and Pohl & Hirch Hadorn 2008 s. 112. 111 Schmidt 2008 pp. 56-57. 112 Schmidt 2008 p. 57.

41

knowledge into society.113 Bringing transdisciplinarity in line with this notion is evidently wrong; transdisciplinarity is more likely to be related to the notion of mutual learning between science and society. Accordingly, transdisciplinarity is closely attached to a notion of a collaborative and reflexive knowledge production process in which all kinds of actors can take part. This is for instance described by using the notion of ‘post-normal science’, which breaks with the idea of linear thinking and is characterised by a high degree of system uncertainties and a strong need for political decision.114 Transdisciplinarity is furthermore attached, as we have recognized, to the Mode 2 knowledge production which dissociates itself from the ‘informative’ role science ideally has had. Hence, we need another way of describing the kind of problems that are in the foreground in transdisciplinary research.

Another attempt to describe the approach to problem solving is done by using the distinction between hard and soft systems thinking.115 In systems thinking, which has inspired cross-disciplinarity in general, a core feature concerns modelling the world; i.e. models that describe a certain phenomena in the world. In hard systems thinking these models are considered ‘models of the world’, while in soft systems thinking they are ‘models which embody a particular stated way of viewing the world’.116 This has major importance for the notion of how disciplines may contribute to the model of the world; in hard systems thinking, disciplines contribute with parameters that play a role in the issue and help to enhance the model of the problem. The integration is dependent on each parameter being correlated to each other, which presupposes that the disciplines work in a similar manner, for instance either qualitatively or quantitatively.117 Soft systems thinking, on the other hand, takes into account that scientific findings are meaningful only in

113 For an overview on this demarcation line and criticism of it, see e.g. Jasanoff & Wynne 1998. 114 See Funtowitcz & Ravetz 1993, passim; Funtowitcz & Ravetz 2008 p. 362-263; Thompson-Klein 2004b p. 4. 115 Horlick-Jones & Sime 2004 pp. 444-445; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn 2008 p. 114. 116 Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn 2008 p. 114, with references to Peter Checkland. 117 Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn 2008 p. 114.

42

relation to the conceptual and methodological framework. The integrative work concerns the disciplinary perspectives and not e.g. the data. It is this latter approach of soft systems thinking that could be used as a foundation for outlining the particular notion in transdisciplinarity on the problem-solving approach. This approach could be described by ‘openness’, which includes, firstly, that the problem in focus lacks evident system boundaries, i.e. the problem is of an open character which could be contrasted with an artefact; secondly, there is an openness to the disciplines and actors that are relevant to the analysis of the problem, and, thirdly, there is an openness to the (methodological) approaches that are relevant in the analysis. To use ‘openness’ as a main understanding of the kinds of problems that are in focus in transdisciplinary research implies, accordingly, that there are no clear borders between disciplinary or transdisciplinary problems; it is instead the approach to the problem that distinguishes transdisciplinary from disciplinary research (for instance including the choice of methods, actors and perspectives relevant for the knowledge production process). Hence, one cannot set up limitations on the kind of problems that can be investigated from a transdisciplinary point of view beforehand. Nevertheless, we can point out that problems investigated with a trans-disciplinary approach often deal with life-world problems, which lack evident system boundaries and thus have an inherently open character.

To summarise, I suggest that we use ‘openness’ as a key to understand the feature of ‘problem focus’ in transdisciplinary research. With ‘openness’ we draw on soft systems thinking and understand that transdisciplinary research has an open attitude towards the problem at stake, who the knowledge producer is and the (methodological) app-roaches that are adequate. As one can recognise, problem solving is also used to describe transdisciplinarity. However there are strong reasons to prefer ‘problem focus’. Firstly, problem solving is a concept used to characterise normal science in Kuhn’s terminology and is as such inflated with research practice in general. Secondly, problem solving has a connotation of solution which is problematic in relation to that most problems inherently include values and as such cannot be solved in a definite way. However, neither ‘openness’ nor ‘problem focus’ are

43

unique for transdisciplinarity and could be features of other kinds of research practices as well. Hence, we must consider this feature together with others shaping transdisciplinarity and turn next to the feature ‘collaboration’.

3.2.2 Collaboration Talking about collaboration in relation to research practice and cross-disciplinary approaches in general one could easily discern two distinct forms: collaboration between researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds and collaboration between researchers and practitioners. These two different forms of collaboration could definitely be used in all kinds of research practice and should not be considered unique to trans-disciplinarity. Nevertheless, collaboration is crucial in transdisciplinarity and one need to ask why collaboration is essential.

One motive behind the call for collaboration emerges from a focus on complex and multidimensional problems; in order to manage these problems, different forms of collaboration are considered necessary.118 Another motive behind emphasising collaboration emerges from the goal of transferring research results to society. A similarity between these two approaches concerns mutual learning; if practitioners are involved in the research process mutual learning can be achieved using the problem at hand, interests shaping the problem, various forms of knowledge about the problem and different conception of how to manage the problem. Notice that the essence is mutual learning, which should not be confused with communication. Communication is decisive in transdisciplinary research (and for collaboration in general), but communication itself is not the method for achieving transdiscipli-narity. Communication is, as Elzinga recognised, not necessarily seen as a question of dialogue, but rather ‘a uni-directional flow where scientists speak to the public’.119 Once again, the linear model between science and society is considered inadequate.120

118 Wickson et al. 2006 p. 1051. See also Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn 2008b. 119 Elzinga 2008 p. 355. 120 Recognise though that today probably no-one would defend this linear model and reflexivity is a core concept in all kinds of theories on knowledge production.

44

Collaboration is a critical feature of transdisciplinarity, but as noted it is not only the case when it comes to transdisciplinarity. Collaboration in various forms is a feature in all kinds of research (disciplinary and cross-disciplinary). However, one could argue that collaboration in transdisciplinarity research could be distinguished from collaboration in for instance multidisciplinarity or interdisciplinarity in terms of how it is managed and regarding who is involved in the process.121 A trans-disciplinary research distinguishes and emphasise collaboration both between researchers from different disciplines and between researchers and practitioners:

collaboration is requested not only among disciplinary scientific programs but also among scientists and individuals who represent the group of affected persons. This second form of collaboration not only transgresses scientific disciplines because it will also implements external expertise in defining a solution to a given problem.122

Thompson-Klein uses this notion and suggests that transdisciplinarity includes an involvement of stakeholders in the definition of problems and those criteria, objectives and resources, used to analyse and resolve them.123 Collaboration is considered essential in giving a ‘reality check’ for the research process, and is pivotal in realising the goal of addressing life-worlds’ problems.124 Collaboration in transdisciplinary research, furthermore, includes an idea of mutual understanding, i.e. a notion that all kinds of actors have (equal) competence to provide substantial knowledge to the problem in focus. As Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn emphasise ‘the first step in mutual learning and integration is to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives and to explore and clarify

Nevertheless, one should acknowledge what notions that are lying behind the use of certain concepts; the concepts could have changed, but not the underlying idea. 121 Wickson et al. 2006 p. 1051. See also Thompson-Klein 2004a. 122 Balsiger 2004 p. 412. 123 Thompson-Klein 2004a p. 517. 124 Wickson et al. 2006 p. 1051. See also Horlick-Jones & Sime 2004; Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008b.

45

their differences’.125 Accordingly, collaboration is pivotal in transdiscip-linary research and the involvement of actors from life-world must be the case already during the problem identification phase of the research project.126 Nevertheless, cooperation could differ depending on where we are in the research process and taking starting points in the three phases, acknowledged by Hirch Hadorn et al., the cooperation seems to be strongest in the first and last phase.127 We will look further into this.

Hirsch Hadorn et al. distinguish between three basic phases in projects: problem identification and structuring, problem analysis, and bringing results to fruition (implementation).128 In the first phase – problem identification and structuring – researchers and actors in the life-world work jointly on identifying and understanding the nature of the specific problem. In this phase one takes into account the state of knowledge that exists in relevant disciplines and among actors in society, identifying important aspects and determining the research questions.129 Hirsch Hadorn et al. emphasises that this phase is resource demanding and that ‘a broad range of participants and competences have to be involved to properly identify the relevant scientific disciplines and actors in the life-world’.130 In the second phase, problem analysis, research questions are structured in more detail and investigated in a way that lets diverse aspects and perspectives be integrated. This second phase is more focused and characterised by the fact that different sub-projects are running. Finally, in the third phase the projects are taken back to the social and scientific contexts. The iteration between this step and the two former is utterly critical.131 Hirsh Hadorn et al. emphasise that the transformation compromises new insights and alters the perceptions of the problem matter.132 Considering the experiences from transdiscipli-nary research one could, as Elzinga does, conclude that participation is 125 Pohl & Hirch Hadorn 2008 p. 114. 126 Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008b p. 32. 127 Elzinga 2008 p. 350. See also Pohl et al. 2008, p. 415. 128 Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008b p. 35; Elzinga 2008 p. 350. 129 Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008b p. 35. 130 Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008b p. 36. 131 Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008b p. 36. 132 Hirsch Hadorn et al. 2008b pp. 36-37.

46

more prominent in the first and last phase, while the second phase is more focused on internal interaction, i.e. collaboration between members of different disciplinary tribes.133 In the first and third phase participation is instead held with a variety of actors, but each project differs with respect to which actors are (or need) to be involved, how the project is managed and the way the project is initiated. However, Elzinga points out two important aspects concerning participation. First, we need to distinguish between effective participation and symbolic (or token) participation: ‘The former leads to empowerment while the latter involves would-be participants going through the motions of being consulted without really having any bearing on the problem definition, analysis, or ultimate implementation of the results’.134 Second, we need to address the question of who gets invited to participate and who is simply left out. This latter issue can be addressed by acknowledging the criteria used for defining target groups (the relevant participants) as well as those who make these definitions, but also by reflecting upon who gets empowered by the research and if there are any marginalised groups.

To summarise, collaboration is a self-evident feature in transdisciplinary research and has the double meaning of collaboration between researchers from different disciplines and between researchers and practitioners. When and how this collaboration is going to be conducted varies from project to project, but a crucial issue is whether this means that transdisciplinary research cannot be conducted by a lone researcher. Wickson et al. argue whether a lone researcher could adopt transdiscip-linary approaches; the most important aspect is not the various disciplinary perspectives, but the ability to fuse knowledge from diffe-rent disciplines and engage practitioners in the process of generating knowledge.135 Further to this, one could understand collaboration between research and practice to be the most important form of collabo-ration in transdisciplinarity. Moreover, collaboration is described in line with an idea of mutual learning between the involved actors, which

133 Elzinga 2008 p. 350. 134 Elzinga 2008 p. 357. 135 Wickson et al. 2006 pp. 1051-1052.

47

involves an idea that all actors are equal in the research process (regarding their thoughts, interests and knowledge). However, we must also consider the process, or criteria used, for including actors, as well as whether participation is authentic, i.e. aiming at empowerment and that the actors are truly involved in the process from problem identification to implementation. As Elzinga concludes, we need to be sensitive to the power relations that prevail in the transdisciplinary endeavours (and in all research) and search for a greater degree of reflexivity.

3.2.3 Evolving methodology Ending last section with a plea for looking beyond the buzz words and acknowledging what is the matter in each project, we now enter the field of methodologies appropriate for transdisciplinary research. Notably, there is no single methodology for transdisciplinary research, which can address all kinds of problems and combine various forms of collabora-tion. What is emphasised in the literature is that transdisciplinary research needs to respond and reflect the problem and context under investigation.136 Reflection is a matter in all research, and could, in relation to transdisciplinarity, be understood in line with Balsiger’s call for revitalising Feuerabendt’s ‘anything goes’. According to Balsiger, should one interpret Feuerabendt’s plea for plurality as a refusal to any form of methodological reductionism and to the idea that we can set up a given methodological rule or principle for guaranteeing a scientific approach. The argument ends with the statement that ‘the way we handle the solving of a specific problem or public interest /…/ is more important than the dogmatically correct use of rules and tests of theories. This is precisely what transdisciplinary is about!’137 Hence there is no single methodology or set of methodologies that can be used to distinguish transdisciplinarity from other research practices, and methodology is not the feature that can be used to distinguish transdisciplinarity from interdisciplinarity. As Wickson et al. emphasise,

136 The essential concern of reflexivity is e.g. acknowledged by Elzinga 2008; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn 2008; Robinson 2008. 137 Balsiger 2004 p. 419.

48

transdisciplinarity – in contrast to multidisciplinarity and interdisciplina-rity – is ‘characterised by an interpenetration of epistemologies in the development of methodology’.138 Hence, transdisciplinarity presents profound epistemological challenges and calls for a pluralistic approach to methodology.139

In literature on transdisciplinarity it is evident that there is no single methodological approach or set of methodologies that belongs to transdisciplinary research itself. Nevertheless there are a number of goals, skills and approaches that are stressed as pivotal for transdiscipli-nary research. These could be elaborated upon using Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn’s description of transdisciplinarity:

[Transdisciplinary research] deals with problem fields in such a way that it can: (a) grasp the complexity of problems, (b) take into account the diversity of life-world and scientific perceptions of problems, (c) link abstract and case-specific knowledge, and (d) develop knowledge and practice that promote what is perceived to be the common good.140

The four requirements above emerge from the goal to provide ‘descriptive, normative and practice-orientated knowledge’141 and they can be used to show how the different drivers and approaches are interrelated in the concept of transdisciplinarity. Pivotal in transdiscipli-nary research is its aim to grasp complexity, and hence trans-disciplinarity needs approaches that could deal with uncertainty and take into account the diversity of perceptions from various forms of actors. Accordingly adequate methods for doing transdisciplinarity must support these requirements and we could recall the notion expressed by the soft systems thinking approach above. Essential to this, in relation to transdisciplinarity, is the perception of the world, which in soft system

138 Wickson et al. 2006 p. 1050. 139 Wickson et al. 2006 p. 1050. 140 Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn 2007 p. 20, see also Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn 2008 p. 112. 141 Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn 2008 p. 112.

49

thinking draws upon the view that scientific findings only receive meaning in relation to a conceptual and methodological framework. Another way of describing this is by using ‘context-dependence’. If knowledge is considered context-dependent we inevitably need to acknowledge the knowledge producers’ different interests, methods and goals for producing knowledge. Consequently, methods appropriate for transdisciplinary research need to support the inclusiveness of different actors (the actors that are considered relevant to the problem matter) and promote discussion between these actors concerning their respective goals, interests and values. However, there is one more aspect that is needed in transdisciplinary research and that is the aim of contributing to managing the problem at stake. The actors involved cannot only have their own perceptions and conclude their research by describing these (when it would be some sort of multidisciplinary research), but must be willing to adjust them, i.e. to be involved in a process of mutual learning and find ways of handling the problem at stake. This process can be described as ‘integration’.

Integration is an essential feature of cross-disciplinary approaches in general and has been used to distinguish between various approaches to cross-disciplinarity including a hierarchy from multidisciplinarity, through interdisciplinarity, over to transdisciplinarity; the latter conside-red the ultimate approach. Integration is furthermore described as one of the major challenges of transdisciplinarity142 and could be focused on different aspects, for instance theoretical concepts, mutual understan-ding or products (administrative rules or regulations, technical devices etc.).143 Depending on the object of integration the challenges differ, which has consequences for who is adequate to do the integrative work.144 This has been shown in relation to the evaluation of research.145 I have for instance shown that lack of integration has been a fundamental motive in both ex ante and ex post evaluation and, together

142 Wickson et al. 2006 pp. 1052-1053. An example of this pivotal role of integration is that the td-net conference for 2009 will focus on integrative work. 143 Pohl & Hirch Hadorn 2008 p. 115. 144 See e.g. Bruun 2000 p. 16-17; Pohl et al. 2008 p. 412. 145 See for instance Langfeldt 2002; Mobjörk 2004; Sandström et al. 2005.

50

with failing leadership, has been the most important argument for reject-ing funds.146 Moreover this criticism from the funder to the research programme mainly concerned research programmes that spanned the boundaries between social science and natural sciences.147 Remembe-ring the approaches of hard and soft systems thinking, there is different emphasis of how it ought to be integrated; for instance results or concepts. Integration of results presupposes (or is at least facilitated by) a coherent structure and a joint methodological framework; and integration could also be performed by a limited number of people. Integration of concepts, on the other hand, includes not only reflections of the methodologies used, but also a development of a coherent epistemological and methodological framework adequate for the research at stake; in such integration all participants need to be involved.148 We stated earlier that transdisciplinarity mainly concerns an approach similar to that of soft systems thinking; an effect of this being that the integrative approach in transdisciplinary research takes its starting point in the conceptual framework used in the research process.

Integration is pivotal in transdisciplinary research, but is not unique to transdisciplinarity and is not necessarily the same thing in all kinds of transdisciplinary research. The statement that integration in transdiscip-linary research is mainly characterised as being a process framing the whole research process and something that includes all participants is supported by Ramadier, who talks about ‘deconstruction’,149 Wickson et al., who characterise transdisciplinarity as an interpretation of the epistemologies in the development of methodologies150, and Thompson-Klein, who states that transdisciplinarity is something more than integrating ‘objects’ (i.e. research results).151 Thompson-Klein refers to the idea of synthesis, which is based on the principle that an object has

146 Mobjörk 2004 pp. 80-81. 147 Mobjörk 2004 pp. 146-147. 148 For discussions on these issues, see e.g. Bruun 2000; Pohl et al. 2008; Mobjörk 2004. 149 Ramadier 2004 passim. 150 Wickson et al. 2006 p. 1050. 151 Thompson-Klein 2004a p. 524.

51

one reality that research needs to reconstitute. However, this conception is considered inadequate when it comes to transdisciplinarity, which ‘accepts that an object can pertain to different levels of realty, with attendant contradictions, paradoxes and conflicts’.152 Thompson-Klein thus draws on Nicolescu’s ideas and interprets transdisciplinarity as involving a ‘capacity to take into the account the flow of information circulating between various branches of knowledge’153 and has similarities with the premises of soft system analysis. To use synthesis to describe the integrative work could therefore be misleading due to the connotation synthesis has to integrating objects, i.e. research results. Instead, one should understand transdisciplinarity as requiring a deconstruction of the whole research process and aiming at a systematic and holistic approach (which not should be confused with unity). Consequently, integration in transdisciplinary research is something that concerns the whole research process and concerns all participants. Hence, an adequate method for transdisciplinarity needs to be capable of:

(1) including a variety of actors from different disciplines but also actors outside academia,

(2) allowing different (theoretical) approaches and perspectives (and not setting up prior limits on what kind of knowledge is considered relevant),

(3) dealing with context-specific issues, i.e. dealing with issues or problems that arise from a local context.

Which methodologies fulfil these requirements? Drawing from literature describing methodological approaches in relation to transdisciplinarity and from literature describing research experiences epitomised as transdisciplinary, we can distinguish: case studies,154 scenario-methodo-logies,155 and back-casting.156 In other cases researchers do not

152 Thompson-Klein 2004a p. 524. 153 Thompson-Klein 2004a p. 524. 154 Schwaninger et al. 2008; Walter et al. 2008. 155 Messerli & Messerli 2008; Tompkins et al. 2008. 156 Robinson 2003; Carlsson-Kanyama et al. 2008.

52

denominate the approaches used,157 or give labels specifically related to their project.158 Despite the term used, one can easily discern that all these approaches leave room for joint learning between the participants and that the research practice strives for a mutual learning process between the participants. Within each methodological approach a multitude of methods are used, of both a qualitative and a quantitative nature, and as Robinson, for instance, acknowledges, triangulation is of great importance. Besides workshops, scenario analysis and back-casting are frequently referred to as being appropriate for bringing together a diverse range of actors. Hence we can witness a gradual change, letting back-casting come close to ‘interactive social science’.159 Back-casting has a quantitative framework and the stakeholders’ role in the scenario articulation has been indirect; the researchers have themselves articulated the scenarios and could have made formal investigations on the stakeholders’ notions of the issue. In the experien-ces expressed by Robinson, a major shift has though occurred, letting different stakeholder groups and the public at large be directly included in the process of defining and evaluating the scenarios.160

3.3 ‘Transdisciplinarity’ and the embryo of two different kinds We have now addressed the major drivers behind the call for transdisciplinarity – knowledge economy, environmental imperative and engaged population – as well as three features characterising trans-disciplinarity – problem focus, collaboration and evolving methodology. We now come to the moment of summarising this and acknowledge core aspects important in analysing research practice. For this I suggest a distinction between two different kinds of transdisciplinary research, which take the same standpoints using the analytical framework above, but could be distinguished when analysing ‘transdisciplinarity’ more

157 Höchtl et al. 2006; Bergman & Jahn 2008. 158 Baccini & Oswald 2008 label their approach as Synoikos method and Netzstadt model. 159 For a historical development of back-casting, see Robinson 2008, passim. 160 Robinson 2008 p. 844. See also Carlsson-Kanyama et al. 2008.

53

closely. The analytical framework is hence restricted to make a rough distinction (and thus distinguish between different approaches such as multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity), but cannot address refined distinctions. We begin with summarising the essence of transdisciplinary research.

Transdisciplinary research is considered successful when it integrates different views, perspectives and interests, besides addressing problems considered important. In addition to this goal, we can conclude that transdisciplinary research has a diffuse body of content, i.e. it can address diverse problems, include a variety of actors and use a multitude of methods. Note that we have not being able to identify any driver or feature unique to transdisciplinarity. Instead, we have found that transdisciplinary research can be best described by using the notion of ‘openness’; openness towards methodologies used, actors involved and problems at hand. We have furthermore stated that theoretical and methodological issues are closely related and that the research demands a highly reflexive process including reflection on the epistemological foundation and world view.

The notion of reflexivity is not only essential in transdisciplinarity, but also pivotal in Mode 2 knowledge production and in Beck’s ‘risk society’161 and we can acknowledge that the need for reflexivity is closely related to the complexity of the problem investigated. Problems that for instance span the boundaries between nature and society or emerge from the negative side-effects from modern society’s technological development are qualitative of another character and call for a transformation of science in its basic conception (what science is and how it ought to be conducted). How to do this could be considered a problem, and we could describe this using a problem-solving approach. However, when we addressed this issue above we concluded that problem solving at least had two weaknesses; firstly, problem solving is a concept characterising most research and hence does not in itself distinguish transdisciplinary research from other kinds of research. Secondly, emphasising problem solving has a tendency to limit

161 Beck 1992/1986.

54

transdisciplinary research to problems that are considered important by an actor in society and that the research task is to present solutions that the actor considers adequate. In this latter approach, which particularly emerges from (or correlates to) the driver ‘knowledge economy’, science should take a bigger role in the knowledge intensive production and contribute to society’s economic development. This is rhetorically expressed as science having to solve stakeholder’s problems. Accor-dingly there is a risk that the problem-solving approach is closely attached to a research process that circumscribes the epistemological and methodological challenges involved, and as such becomes alienated from the essence of transdisciplinarity. As argued in section 3.2.1, problem focus was considered more appropriate, as well as using the idea of openness in order to understand the feature of a transdisciplinary problem. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge the different effects the drivers seem to have on the research approach to the problem, where ‘knowledge economy’ is attached to an instrumental role in which science ought to address stakeholder’s problems and deliver solutions considered adequate by these. This can be compared with the driver ‘environmental imperative’, which is more closely related to the call for a major transformation of science and as such to a context-dependent, reflexive and interactive science. These two notions are evidently illu-minating the two currents shaping cross-disciplinarity, i.e. Nicolescu’s philosophy and the problem-solving approach (see section 2.1).

Considering the third driver – engaged population – we can recall that this notion creates new demands for knowledge as well as providing new opportunities for collaboration in knowledge production (section 3.1.3). In contemporary knowledge production, demands for public participation are evidently increasing and the notion of ‘mutual learning’ is essential. Considering collaboration in relation to transdisciplinarity we identified that collaboration concerns both between disciplinary perspectives (which does not necessarily imply that there needs to be several researchers involved) and between academia and practitioners. This latter form of collaboration is indispensable in transdisciplinary

55

research and is a mean to achieve integration.162 Nevertheless, we also recognised that collaboration, participation and mutual learning are key words in contemporary knowledge production theories. As such, we must pay attention to the meaning behind the use of single words and not only take for granted the use of a specific word and its content (see section 3.2.2). In order to address this I consider that the word used to denominate the participants – the collaborative partners – could indicate the underlying idea. Using the word ‘stakeholder’, for instance, has a connotation of ‘ownership’, i.e. that someone owns a problem which researchers should contribute to solve. Such research is easily strangled in terms of testing ideas that are not considered important by the participants. Using words like practitioners or societal actors are instead much more open in character in terms of who is included in the research process. Another issue to take into account is the roles the actors (independently of the word used for naming these) are considered to take, i.e. the extent to which are they actively involved in the research process (in knowledge production). To conclude, acknowledging the feature ‘collaboration’ we need to take into consideration the actors included and the roles they are given (or can take).

Turning to the feature evolving methodology, we concluded that an adequate method for transdisciplinarity needs to be capable of: (a) including a variety of actors from within and outside academia, (b) allowing different (theoretical) approaches and perspectives, and (c) dealing with context-specific issues (section 3.2.3). Consequently, there is no single method or set of methodologies that is self-evident in transdisciplinary research, but experience shows that methods such as social learning approaches, scenario analysis and back-casting are used because they promote mutual learning, can include a variety of methods (both qualitative and quantitative) and can address life-word problems. As was the case with collaboration, is it important to pay attention to what is expressed on the one hand and what is supported by the framework chosen on the other. As noted in relation to scenario analysis, these can be articulated with more or less active participation

162 Pohl et al. 2008 p. 415.

56

from various actors. This can also be the case when it comes to transdisciplinary research where actors can be more of a responsive or active participant. This role that the actor is given (or is allowed to take) is pivotal in addressing the challenges of transdisciplinary research and is of such a qualitative nature that it can be used for distinguishing between two different forms of transdisciplinarity. The first, responding transdisciplinarity, fulfils the requirements set up in the analytical framework above (section 2.3), but is delineated through the goal and process of conducting the research. The second, participatory transdisciplinarity, fulfils the open character on all levels (actors involved, methods chosen and the problem addressed). The difference between the two forms has substantial implications on the integrative work and as such on the whole idea of what successful transdisciplinary research comprises. Integrating a wide range of actors’ views, notions and ideas of the common good is a much more delicate task than restricting the actors included and/or circumscribing their role in the research process. With this distinction in mind, we now turn to the three programme proposals and from these empirical examples we develop this notion of transdisciplinarity further.

57

4. Urban Futures: A call for a transdisciplinary research programme Among the Swedish funding agencies is the Foundation for Environmental Strategic Research, Mistra, definitely one that particular-ly stresses the need for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. In May 2008, Mistra issued a call in the area of Urban Futures and in April 2009 three proposals were submitted to Mistra for appraisal. A decision on these is expected to come in August 2009. I use these three proposals here as a foundation for analysing different approaches in response to a call emphasising interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. I was particularly interested in how transdisciplinarity is interpreted, the actors considered important (and that are or should be included), and the methods considered appropriate. I did not use the call itself or its pre-study as data for analysis, but examined the main points in the call. Evidently these texts are important for the three research groups and we will touch upon their interpretations in the analysis. The main goal with the analysis was threefold:

(1) To analyse the actors considered pivotal for collaboration and the roles they are going to have.

(2) To describe which methods suggested and discuss these with emphasis on how they can contribute to establishing and main-taining cooperation between various kinds of actors.

(3) To interpret each proposal’s conception of transdisciplinarity in the light of the description in the former section, with particular emphasis on discussing the distinction between responding and participatory transdisciplinarity.

Before turning to the results, I would like to emphasise that the analysis did not seek to evaluate the proposals. My focus was rather to examine how three research groups responded to one particular research call and to contribute to an analysis of how transdisciplinary research is under formation in contemporary knowledge production. I also wanted to test the fruitfulness of the distinction between responding and participatory transdisciplinarity.

58

4.1 Mistra call for Sustainable Urban Futures Mistra’s call ultimately concerns the establishment of ‘an interdiscip-linary and transdisciplinary centre in collaboration with Swedish cities and other stakeholders, including international partners, on the following theme: Rethinking Sustainable Urban Development in an Era of Globalization, Resource Constraints and Climate Change’.163 The long-term vision is ‘to make a difference to sustainable development by building an international network of knowledge and innovative platforms for urban development’.164 The network is entitled ‘Mistra Interaction Platforms’ and is to be coordinated by a ‘Mistra Centre’. Ultimate deliverables are ‘new and deeper understanding of the challenge and dynamic complexity of cities, but also new approaches, mindsets and innovative solutions, methods, tools and instruments’.165 Mistra emphasises that conventional ways of separating research from policy and practice are not adequate for building a network. The goal is to promote ‘knowledge, learning, innovation and creativity by linking research more closely with education and training as well as with urban policy and action, and by using methods that emphasise cross-fertilization among these activities’.166 For this, Mistra is prepared to fund a programme for a period of 10-12 year, including phases for start up and finish, and with a total amount of approximately 140 million SEK (13 million Euros).

The call refers to key challenges to cities in terms of sustainable urban development, which deals with resource constraints and climate change; social and cultural resilience; urban governance and management; and a high-quality urban environment.167 With reference to the pre-study made before the call, five research clusters were identified with the headings concerns on urban metabolism, climate change, resilience, landscape and governance. Mistra emphasises that the challenges in urban environ-mental sustainability are truly diverse in scale, location and character

163 Urban Futures – call for pre-proposal, 5 May 2008, Mistra, p. 1. 164 Ibid. p. 1. 165 Ibid. p. 1. 166 Ibid. p. 2. 167 Ibid. p. 4.

59

and that ‘mutual learning’ is an important way forward; ‘mechanisms for mutual exchange and learning need to be strengthened at both national and international level, among stakeholders in different countries and various parts of the world’.168 Accordingly, key tasks are ‘bridging the divide between urban research and practice and strengthening the local capacity’.169 Mistra’s own assessment is that the funding is generous enough and sufficiently long lasting to generate ‘a critical mass for in-depth and qualified interdisciplinary, transdiscipli-nary interaction, and progress in building knowledge and capacity’.170 In relation to this, interdisciplinarity is defined as ‘the mingling of scientific disciplines’, and transdisciplinary as ‘a fusion of scientifically based knowledge with experience-based knowledge and know-how from practice and policy-making’.171 With this as background, we now turn to the three proposals.

4.2 Research group responses to the Mistra call What could be of importance when responding to a call that emphasises interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity? Considering the experiences and knowledge expressed in literature on cross-discipli-narity in general, I would say that achieving and maintaining collabo-ration is essential; it is a fundamental prerequisite for achieving integration, which is the main concern when it comes to inter-disciplinarity and/or transdisciplinarity. The analysis thus particularly stressed this issue, which includes acknowledging which actors are chosen to be collaborative partners and the role they are intended to have in knowledge production (recall that the challenges of integra-tion are shaped to a certain degree by the actors included, the roles they have and the areas to be integrated). In addition, this illustrates the interpretation of the concept used for labelling the research in terms of the cross-disciplinary approach, as well as the methods considered pivotal for realising the vision of transdisciplinarity. We

168 Ibid. p.5. 169 Ibid. p. 6. 170 Ibid. p. 7. 171 Ibid. p. 7, footnote.

60

begin with an overview of the three proposals describing the goal, the approach to (transdisciplinary) research, forms of collaboration, and methods. Thereafter, the transdisciplinary approaches are analysed, core questions being the actors considered pivotal in the process, the roles these actors are intended to have, the methods regarded as crucial and how transdisciplinarity is defined.

4.2.1 International Centre for Urban Transformation, Stockholm In the proposal from the International Centre for Urban Transformation, the mission is ‘to provide knowledge and inspire change processes that will enable urban governments, stakeholders and citizens to make transformation towards sustainability’.172 The proposers emphasise that ‘all members in our international consortium have a strong interest in sustainable urban development, a commitment to inter- and transdiscip-linary research and a willingness to actively engage in the build-up and operation of the Centre’.173 The proposers identify three ‘interrelated sustainability gaps hindering the transformation towards urban sustainability’ as being:

• A knowledge gap concerning insufficient data and isolated theories

• An interaction gap between sectors in both academia and practice, and between scientists and practitioners, and

• A mindset gap reflecting the persistence of values formed during an era when human consumption and production were smaller and mainly local.174

The research aims at closing these gaps and developing ‘better theoretical basis for the study of sustainable urban transformations’.175 New knowledge will be gathered by ‘systematically observing and reflecting upon the outcome of the work in the Centre’ and theoretical findings will be developed from game theory, institutional theory,

172 International Centre for Urban Futures, Stockholm 2009 p. 5. 173 Ibid. p. 6. 174 Ibid. pp. 6-7. 175 Ibid. p. 7.

61

theories of governance and negotiation theories.176 The proposers identify four basic areas that must be addressed in order to transform the current urban policies and practices towards sustainability. These are: vertical and layered coordination, interaction with stakeholders and citizens, ongoing experimentation and learning, and reformulation of traditional questions.177 Furthermore, they stress that these four areas result from a number of dialogues held during the preparation of the proposal with the aim of identifying the challenges and conflicts.

To achieve transformative change one must, according to the proposers, ‘ask both new and deeper questions and enable inter- and transdisciplinary learning so that our approaches to urban intervention can be reframed’.178 They recognise that ‘we lack theories that could help guide urban development towards sustainability’ and accordingly the programmes long-term goal is to develop ‘a new theory and understanding of urban transformations’.179 The scientific programme ‘has a primary interest in generating innovative solutions for urban transformation’ and the programme will ‘apply insights from the study of transitions and transformations to a transdisciplinary integration of three primary research perspectives: innovation theory, institutional theory, and resilience science’180 which are the perspectives that will be the hub for the synthesising research.

Concerning partners, the proposers stress close interaction between ‘several university departments, governments and industry’, and emphasise that the research will be action-orientated.181 Nevertheless, citizens are also mentioned, as well as stakeholders. Furthermore, they bring about ‘far reaching ambitions for integrating disciplines, sectors, and urban stakeholders’, and the guiding principles are transdiscip-linarity and innovation.182 Many of the common projects will have a

176 Ibid. p. 8. 177 Ibid. p. 10. 178 Ibid. p. 14. 179 Ibid. p. 22. 180 Ibid. p. 23. 181 Ibid. p. 23, 25. 182 Ibid. p. 25.

62

variety of case studies and the consortium is convinced that ‘unless we are actively involved in the same projects, we will not achieve transdisciplinarity in practice’.183 Two general research tasks emerged: first, ‘how to scientifically analyse the different aspects of the relation between designed space and lived space’, and second, ‘how to synthesise knowledge on different dimensions of live space in the process of urban planning and design into a successful whole’.184 The first task is described as a ‘typically interdisciplinary task’ while the second is considered ‘transdisciplinary’.185

4.2.2 Centre for Sustainable Urban Transformation, Malmö The mission for the Centre for Sustainable Urban Transformation is to apply the concept of sustainable urban transformation in an active sense – ‘that is to bring about a more sustainable future’.186 ‘Through cross-boundary research and the development and use of new and innovative methods and models for intensive collaborating and learning the Centre will contribute substantially to the progress in research and practice on sustainable urban development’.187 The proposers emphasise that the core idea of the Centre concerns ‘the mode and organization of work, where researchers and practitioners participate in activities on more equal terms and where the meeting between scientific disciplines and other stakeholders generates projects and initiatives at the Centre, which will promote learning and a mainstreaming of sustainable urban transformation’.188 The Centre will cover ‘interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary projects, which are organized as co-labs and do-tanks, involving both researchers and practitioners’.189 These collaborative studio environments, called co-labs and do-tanks, are the foundation for achieving the transdisciplinary approach and aim to bring together

183 Ibid. p. 28. 184 Ibid. p. 51. 185 Ibid. p. 51. 186 Centre for Urban Transformation, Malmö 2009 p. 3. 187 Ibid. p. 3. 188 Ibid. p. 1. 189 Ibid. p. 1.

63

researchers and practitioners as well as the business sphere and urban citizens.

The proposers emphasise the pluralism that characterises research on sustainable urban development and argue that interdisciplinary research and collaborative planning are still rare phenomena and that transdiscip-linary cooperation is even more ‘exotic’.190 The main problem originates from the imbalance between the ‘constantly increasing number of research areas and the need for synthesis within action-orientated planning practice’.191 The proposers also argue that there is a need for connecting knowledge and experience, to bridge the private/public dichotomy, and to enhance the involvement of the urban citizen in the planning process. Consequently, a necessary condition is to ‘develop functional knowledge exchange, communication and learning processes around key aspects of ecological, social and economic sustainability’.192

It is emphasised that both researchers and practitioners have been active in identifying the state of art and that the partners see huge opportunities for developing and applying methods that enhance collaboration, com-munication and learning in order to support change of urban practice, planning and governance. The Centre aims at developing methods and approaches that ‘move away from linear models of knowledge production and dissemination – from researchers to practitioners – and towards intensive collaboration’.193 This demands, firstly, ‘advancing interaction and collaboration between researchers, disciplines, depart-ments and universities through methods and models for interdisciplinary interaction, and with linkages to transdisciplinary approaches’, and, secondly, ‘advancing beyond ‘traditional’ methods for transdisciplinary interaction to greatly enhance collaboration between academia and practitioners (as well as urban citizens and the business sector)’.194

190 Ibid. p. 9. 191 Ibid. p. 9. 192 Ibid. p. 10. 193 Ibid. p. 13. 194 Ibid. p. 14.

64

A devising task for the Centre will be the development of new methods for working and researching that allows collaboration between various actors and integrates knowledge build-up between and within different specialist areas. Co-labs and do-tanks are in this respect the organisational basis for the Centre. Co-labs and do-tanks ‘will have a strong task or theme and distinct field of studies that permit and stimulate the development of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches’.195 The proposers emphasise that ‘it is within and through co-labs and do-tanks that the meeting between research and practice and cross-fertilisation of ideas and knowledge from different sources will take place’.196 This approach is extensively described and is considered important due to its ‘process-orientated and cross-disciplinary nature’. The inspiration behind co-labs and do-tanks are think-tanks, but the former are considered to be more capable of providing insights from ‘real problems’ and include the creativity of ‘real people’. Co-labs and do-tanks are considered fundamental for the aim of harnessing ‘the creativity of users (namely the perspective of individuals and communi-ties) and practitioners to co-create and co-produce new services, systems and policies that better address complex problems’.197 The user perspective, which is fundamental for the consortium’s approach, is defined as the ‘urban citizens’ perspective; it is emphasised that this approach differs fundamentally from a customer-orientated perspective. A user perspective ‘could involve significant re-thinking of buildings, cities, public space, transport systems etc’198 and the user should accordingly be an active part in the knowledge production.

4.2.3 The Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures The focus for the Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures is the critical issues hindering sustainable urban development. These include urban liveability and health, urban structures and growth,

195 Ibid. p. 33. 196 Ibid. p. 33. 197 Ibid. p. 34. 198 Ibid. p. 60.

65

and urban environment and climate change. Innovative solutions and knowledge will be developed through: promoting mutual learning between cities in different development stages and in geographical and culturally diverse contexts; involving stakeholders from academia, public and private sectors, NGO and others for joint learning and capacity; and mobilising and integrating research capacity and expertise for innovative transdisciplinary knowledge production.199 The proposers argue that the partners in the consortium offer a unique opportunity for fulfilling Mistra’s call and that the consortium during the planning process has ‘worked together on mapping out the current state of affairs by sharing knowledge/experience and shaping ideas’.200 They point out that the work included a process of ‘building respect and commitment’, ‘building trust and confidence’, and ‘shaping the common platform’.201

Four research themes are outlined: socio-economy and culture, urban metabolism and land use, understanding urban complexity, and urban governance. These four themes are considered ‘interdisciplinary, but also potential locations for transdisciplinary knowledge production. Integrating knowledge and experience from both practice and research poses particular challenges regarding content, theoretical and methodo-logical approaches, and assessment criteria’.202 It is acknowledged that the missing points in the research themes so far concern the ‘links and systematic integration’. The Centre will thus build ‘capacity to initiate, facilitate and sustain such integration (interdisciplinary)’.203 From experience it has also been seen that knowledge, context and action are often left unconnected. A major issue for the Centre is to create context in which knowledge and action can interact more effectively. The proposal states that knowledge production focuses specifically on ‘transdisciplinary knowledge production, and includes the collaborative initiation of problem-solving processes, which lead to work with

199 The Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures, 2009, p. 1. 200 Ibid. p. 3. 201 Ibid. pp. 3-4. 202 Ibid. p. 9. 203 Ibid. p. 23.

66

transdisciplinary research, transdisciplinary projects, and practical test sites applications and demonstrations’.204

Transdisciplinary knowledge production will take place in the main activities of the Centre: research, projects and applications. Transdiscip-linary problem solving means that ‘traditional roles and responsibilities of academics and professionals must be brought into another type of activity, namely collaboration over academic disciplines, practitioner and business sectors, as well as across different decision-making and planning activities’.205 Success requires ‘that participants actively develop and implement new mindsets, are open to change and learning, are self reflecting and are able to develop the capacity to integrate experiences and knowledge from different sources’.206 The proposers emphasise the importance of understanding what is meant by collabora-tion in different contexts and the different roles participants could have. Concerning transdisciplinary research, it is furthermore underlined that a main feature is ‘to re-contextualise transdisciplinary knowledge production back into more mainstream interdisciplinary and disciplinary scientific debates’, and a major challenge is to integrate conceptual, theoretical and practical approaches and expertise as well as methods.207 Transdisciplinary knowledge production not only involves co-production of knowledge, it includes also social learning and negotiation between multiple actors. Mutual learning and joint activities are thus pivotal in the research projects. Supporting the transdisciplinary approach organisation is critical and the Centre will be concentrated around ‘a Knowledge Hub, where information is translated to active intelligence for different types of users’.208

The ‘transdisciplinary paradigm’ that frames the Centre is expanded upon extensively in the proposal. The proposers distinguish between two main interpretations of the concept; the first is orientated towards the ‘transcendence of separate disciplinary perspectives’, the second is a 204 Ibid. p. 23. 205 Ibid. p. 24. 206 Ibid. p. 24. 207 Ibid. p. 25. 208 Ibid. p. 26.

67

‘problem-orientated, socially responsive and inclusive transdisciplinary knowledge production’.209 The latter refers to Mode 2 knowledge production and is the definition that forms the foundation for the Centre’s approach. However, the proposers also acknowledge that other forms of knowledge production go under the banner of transdisciplina-rity, for instance commercial partnerships and triple helix. They emphasise that ‘to our understanding, however, such activities seldom fully represent issues related to public interest, such as sustainable urban development’ and note that there is a risk that the growing focus on the market ‘will marginalize other types of transdisciplinary work’.210

The conceptual framework that will be used for guiding the Göteborg Center is based on three key areas: factual knowledge and experience; social goals and values; and strategies and know-how for promoting change. These are referred to in the proposal as: Systems, Target and Transformative Knowledge.211 The transdisciplinary research is there-after described through three different levels of research: the first level focusing on integrating knowledge needs; the second as supporting functions so that transdisciplinary knowledge production can become active in research, projects and application/demonstration; the third as facilitating the practice orientation of the research activities. For supporting the latter, methods and tools emerging from real life settings are considered crucial and important methods are observation and parti-cipatory observation, action-orientated research, comparative studies and evaluation.212 All activities in the Göteborg Center aim to increase ‘understanding of how the different conceptual frameworks of different stakeholders (researchers, policy-makers, practitioners, company managers, etc.) can be transgressed and integrated in transdisciplinary knowledge production’.213

209 Ibid. pp. 52-53. 210 Ibid. p. 53. 211 Ibid. pp. 53-54. 212 Ibid. pp. 56-57. 213 Ibid. p. 53.

68

4.3 Actors, methods and the transdisciplinary approach We can begin by noting that all three proposers emphasise that the proposal is the result of a joint process between the actors in the consortium behind the proposal. Joint meetings and workshops have been held and each consortium consists of a variety of actors considered important for urban development and urban transformation. All proposers stress the need for new questions and approaches to the field of research and point out that interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are important in this respect. Furthermore, one emphasises the need to integrate different fields of knowledge and different sectors (particularly academic research and planning practices) and talks about the need for innovative approaches. Action research and case studies are also considered important for stimulating links between research and practice and for achieving participation from important stakeholders or practitio-ners. All of this is rather self-evident considering the call. However, we take these descriptions further and focus on (1) the actors to be included in the programme, (2) the roles these actors are intended to have, (3) the methods regarded as crucial (for achieving cooperation), and (4) the conceptions concerning the transdisciplinary approach. To facilitate the analysis, I refer to each proposal by the city behind it in the following text. Note also that it is only intentions that is analysed, not research practice.

4.3.1 Actors, actors’ roles and work on methods In the proposal from Stockholm the relation to practice is considered a core feature and the proposers argue the need to bridge between academic research and planning practice. All kinds of actors are mentioned – institutions, stakeholders, professions, interest groups, citizens – but when the proposers explicitly describe which actors ought to be involved, these are the following three: university, governance and industry.214 The proposers argue that some partners are co-partners and contribute to the work by being co-leaders of projects, as well as having

214 International Centre for Urban Futures, Stockholm 2009 p. 25, cf. pp. 10-11.

69

representatives on the board.215 These co-partners have to be engaged in environmental (urban) issues and partners are chosen to represent important areas (energy, communication, building, planning).216 At the moment, no non-government organisation is included as a co-partner and it is unclear whether there are any special obligations on the partners with respect to how they are going to contribute (e.g. through co-funding), but the issue is utterly important in terms of how actors can fulfil the role of co-partner (it is a matter of dealing with the power relationship). From one hand it looks as though the Stockholm proposal particularly emphasises the three main bodies in the Triple Helix approach, i.e. university, governance and industry. On the other hand, citizens are also acknowledged as important. However, the citizens’ role seems to have another character. Regarding participation by citizens’, Hårsman argued in his interview that their involvement is motivated to a certain degree from a democratic point of view (it is important to engage citizens about issues on their future). Moreover, he stated that inter-action with citizens is needed to obtain their knowledge. The impression I acquired is that it is considered important to include citizens’ knowledge in the research projects, but the citizens themselves are not regarded as important actors within the research process. We can thus recall the discussion above of the different roles that participants can have (are allowed to have) and that the Stockholm proposal particularly includes established partners, but also includes sub-groups for applying research activities. Accordingly, they are narrowing the group essential in the integrative work.

In Lund’s proposal a great variety of actors are mentioned – academia, public, private and non-governmental organisations – and the word particularly used to talk about the partners are ‘practitioners’. Furthermore they emphasise the need to involve citizens, which is considered crucial for transforming urban life in line with the sustainability vision. The ‘citizen-perspective’ is contrasted with a ‘consumer-perspective’ and the former aims to ‘place users at the core

215 Interview Björn Hårsman, KTH. 216 Interview Björn Hårsman, KTH.

70

of the planning process rather than on the periphery’.217 This indicates that the intention is to actively involve citizens (and practitioners of all kinds) in the knowledge production process. The proposers also emphasise that each research team will develop cooperation with practi-tioners. An important tool for strengthening the collaborative approach is the co-labs and do-tanks, which together with an action research approach are intended to promote mutual learning processes between the actors involved.218 Essential attributes for being a partner include an interest in participating in the activities, time and an ability to dispose of resources for participating: whether the Centre will support groups that are considered important but not able to join without economic support has not been settled, but is discussed.219

In the proposal from Gothenburg, private and public organisation is addressed as well as non-governmental organisation and the need to take the ‘public interest’ in the first place is emphasised. The proposers discuss different approaches to transdisciplinarity and collaboration and argue that the ‘public interest’ is played down in many approaches, but is pivotal to address the sustainable urban future.220 The experiences of practitioners are considered necessary when dealing with the societal problems we are facing today and thus we need knowledge production to promote this. Mutual learning is considered essential and the Centre will be organised around ‘a Knowledge Hub’, where information can be transferred between different types of users.221 In the proposal from Gothenburg, participants are mostly labelled users or practitioners, but the term stakeholder is also used and the proposers exemplify these as being researchers, policy-makers, practitioners, company managers. Even though the proposal does not specifically establish who the participants are or which role they have, it is evident the centre aims at a high degree of inclusiveness of who these are and their crucial role for the knowledge production process. The proposers for instance

217 Centre for Urban Transformation, Malmö 2009 p. 60. 218 Interview Lena Neij, Lunds University. 219 Interview Lena Neij, Lunds University. 220 The Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures, 2009, p. 53. 221 The Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures, 2009, p. 26.

71

emphasise the need to take the public interest as a starting point, which is contrasted with approaches taken by commercial partnerships and the Triple Helix approach.222 They furthermore talk about mutual learning, and argue for a problem-orientated, socially responsive and inclusive knowledge production, and link these goals to the methodological approaches for the centre.

Interaction is evidently an issue in all three proposals and we have already touched upon ways of promoting this. In the case of Gothenburg’s proposal, ‘Knowledge Hub’ is suggested as a foundation for transferring knowledge between different kinds of users. The proposers argue that transdisciplinary knowledge production not only involves co-production of knowledge, but also includes social learning and negotiating between various actors. A successful process requires that the participants develop and implement a new mindset, are open to change and learning, are self-reflecting, and able to develop a capacity to integrate experience and knowledge from different sources. Hence, the choice of methods mainly concerns the skills and goals that are promoted but otherwise this is an open issue.223 Examples of adequate methods are given and they are similar in that they emerge from real world settings, examples being observational and participatory observa-tion, action research, case studies, comparative studies, scenario analysis and back-casting.224

The inspiration of action research is evident in all three proposals. The three proposals suggest different organisational approaches, which could be regarded as virtual or actual spaces for joint activities. In the proposal from Gothenburg it is labelled ‘Knowledge Hub’, in Lund’s proposal ‘Co-labs and Do-tanks’, and in Stockholm’s proposal ‘Urban Labora-tory’. The organisational principles are particularly elaborated on in the proposals from Lund and Gothenburg (they are not neglected in the proposal from Stockholm, but not elaborated on to the same extent). 222 The Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures, 2009, p. 53. 223 Interview Merritt Polk, Gothenburg University. 224 Interview Merritt Polk, Gothenburg University. She also underlined that in the first two years of operation, the Centre (if funded) will work extensively on developing methods adequate for the research tasks.

72

What is particularly emphasised in the Gothenburg and Lund proposals is the need for developing a shared vision, identifying and talking about assumptions and values, the iterative process between problem analysis and research, and on-going evaluations that can provide feedback into the process. The approaches suggested for organising each centre are also motivated by their relevance for a transdisciplinary approach.

4.3.2. The transdisciplinary approach Approaching the issue on how the three proposals have defined transdisciplinarity we inevitably need to take into account the content of Mistra’s call. In the call, both interdisciplinarity and transdiscipli-narity are called for, and interdisciplinarity is defined as a ‘mingling of scientific disciplines’ and transdisciplinarity as ‘a fusion of scientifically based knowledge with experience-based knowledge and know-how’. Accordingly, these definitions are well in line with international literature on interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity and the major difference between interdisciplinarity and transdiscipli-narity lies in the form of collaboration, with transdisciplinarity including actors outside academia. Turning to the proposals we begin with Stockholm’s. This proposal is characterised by thorough descrip-tions of the theoretical perspectives that are shaping the research and the proposers emphasise the need to develop theories that could help to guide urban development towards sustainability.225 The Centre’s long-term goal is also emerging from this notion and is to develop ‘a new theory and understanding of urban transformation’.226 The research will particularly include three research perspectives and these constitute the hub for synthesising research. In general, when these descriptions are made and when the goal is set up there is a strong focus on scientific activities, i.e. activities that are shaped by academia. My interpretation of this, taken together with the approach towards the actors considered pivotal and the role actors ought to have, is that here we have ‘responding transdisciplinarity’. However, we must also take into account the tactical thoughts that can lie

225 International Centre for Urban Futures, Stockholm 2009 p. 7, 22. 226 International Centre for Urban Futures, Stockholm 2009 p. 22.

73

behind a research proposal. Hårsman expressed the he believed that Mistra particularly will evaluate the scientific content, even though its call on transdisciplinarity.227 The extent to which this notion affected the choice of words and formulations in the proposal is impossible to determine, but it is evident that the Stockholm proposal emphasises the development of (scientific) theories and argues a need to synthesise research (which is not particularly pivotal in trans-disciplinarity). Recalling the history of cross-disciplinary perspec-tives in general and the investigation of transdisciplinarity in particu-lar, it can be seen that two distinct streams of ideas have been shaping the research agenda: a focused, solution-orientated approach, scaling down the perspectives and facilitating the possibility to reach a certain goal, and an approach emphasising openness and reflexi-vity. The two types of transdisciplinarity – responding and participa-tory – to a certain degree correspond to these two streams, and if the Stockholm proposal is to be placed in one of these, it would be the former.

The Gothenburg and Lund proposals both deal with cooperation between researchers and practitioners, which is considered pivotal in transdisciplinary research. In both these proposals much effort is also devoted to describing how this cooperation is going to be organised; in Lund’s proposal it is through the co-labs and do-tanks, and in Gothenburg’s through the Knowledge Hub. Crucial in the Gothenburg proposal is its comprehensive descriptions on the transdisciplinary approach; this is taken with reference to international literature in the field. The theoretical and methodological challenges in carrying out transdisciplinary research are considered,228 as is the need for reflexivity (for instance expressed by the need to self-reflect over one’s own values and mindset as well as over one’s own notion of collaboration and the different roles various actors can have).229 Transdisciplinarity is referred to as a paradigm influencing contemporary knowledge production and in

227 Interview Björn Hårsman, KTH. 228 The Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures, 2009, p. 9. 229 See e.g. The Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures, 2009, pp. 23-26.

74

the Gothenburg proposal a distinction is made between two different forms; the first is orientated towards the ‘transcendence of separate disciplinary perspectives’, the second is a ‘problem-orientated, social responsive and inclusive transdisciplinary knowledge production’.230 The latter is referred to as Mode 2 and an appropriate question is whether this approach is more or less attached to responding or participatory transdisciplinarity. To answer that question without deeper analysis of how the research would be set up is too speculative. Recalling earlier discussions on Mode 2 we can discern a tendency to being normative and the theory itself has not emerged from research experiences. However, I conclude that the Lund and the Gothenburg proposals differ from the Stockholm proposal in that they contain a more thorough description of how to realise the vision of trans-disciplinarity. They are also more unequivocal in their call for including practitioners of all kinds, including the public. This, therefore, indicates an approach closer to participatory transdisciplinarity, but without analysis of the research practices a definite conclusion cannot be drawn on the Lund, Gothenburg or Stockholm proposals.

5. Transdisciplinary research of two kinds? In this report, the main emphasis was placed on investigating literature on transdisciplinarity with the aim of outlining how we ought to understand this concept. In the description of the different approaches to cross-disciplinarity in general, i.e. multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (section 2.2), we identified a changing discourse concerning the meaning of transdisciplinary research. In literature from the 1970s the degree of integration was essential in the categorisation between different approaches towards cross-disciplinarity, but alongside the growth of contemporary knowledge production theories like Mode 2 there has been a gradual shift in notion and a complementary pers-pective acknowledging the relationship between science and society. A consequence of this is a notion of transdisciplinarity that emphasises collaboration of two kinds; between disciplines and between researchers

230 The Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures, 2009, pp. 52-53.

75

and practitioners. This can be compared with interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research, which deals with collaboration of various kinds between disciplines. Drawing upon this notion of different kinds of collaboration, a more precise distinction emerges between interdiscip-linarity and transdisciplinarity, which is evident not least in the analyti-cal framework set-up (section 2.3). Nevertheless, the deeper investigation of transdisciplinarity shows that this concept itself is of a comprehensive nature. For instance two drivers – knowledge economy and environmental imperative – can be regarded as particularly impor-tant and are shaping different kinds of approaches. The drivers, together with the notion of the actors considered important for collaboration and their roles in knowledge production, lay the foundation for distingui-shing between different kinds of transdisciplinarity, namely responding transdisciplinarity and participatory transdisciplinarity. I think this distinction is important, even though it raises questions on how to understand and distinguish transdisciplinarity.

Integration is essential in transdisciplinary research. However, the integrative work differs fundamentally depending on what it is that should be integrated, which affects who should be included to do the integration. We elaborated briefly on the challenges (section 3.2.3) and concluded that integration is something that particularly shapes the whole research process. If a broad variety of actors are included, this definitely makes the integrative work more challenging due to the fact that a wider spectrum of world-views, interests and goals need to be dealt with. The three approaches to reach integration discussed by Pohl et al. clearly show that integration differs depending on whether it is common group learning, deliberation amongst experts (which can include experts from academia and outside academia), or integration by sub-groups.231 We also concluded that collaboration can diverge depen-ding on the phase in the research process. Taking these factors together, it is evident that we can have an inclusive approach on who the collaborative partners are (and thus fulfil the requirements of being transdisciplinarity), while still placing restrictions on the roles they are

231 Pohl et al. 2008 p. 415.

76

allowed to take (or have). An intricate question is how much restriction can be imposed on cooperating actors and their roles while still maintaining transdisciplinarity. At the moment I have no answer to that question. However, I consider that it is possible to fulfil the require-ments in the analytical framework and thus be considered transdiscip-linary, while at the same time having huge variety regarding the kind of actors included and their roles, which are of great importance in meeting the challenges in reaching integration. I therefore suggest that we should try to distinguish between various kinds of transdisciplinarity. The distinction between responding and participatory transdisciplinarity could be appropriate for this purpose since it emphasises the form of cooperation without incorporating a valuation. Both forms can be fruitful and the valuation ought to be taken in relation to the goal.

PostScript Before printing this report Mistra came with its decision regarding its call on Urban Futures. Mistra’s board argues that the proposal from Gothenburg had advantages in comparison to the other two proposals regarding reflection, the critical discussion of the concept of sustainable urban development, how to concretize the transdisciplinary approach, and the proposed strategies for securing the aspect of utility of the research conducted.232 The proposal had furthermore, according to Mistra’s board, a more precise notion of which research areas that are most urgent from a user perspective and has a strong support from proposed cooperation partners. Mistra’s board thus decided to grant (with some reservations not clarified in the decision) the proposal from the Gothenburg consortium. The next step is now consultation between Mistra’s staff and the Gothenburg consortium. A detailed work plan and budget for 2010-2012 will be delivered before Mistra’s board meeting in December 2009.

232 Urban Futures, Dnr: FOR 2008/024-026, Sammanträde Mistra 2009-08-19, punkt 5

77

Literature Articles and books Andreasen, Nancy C. & Brown, Theodore L. eds. 2004 Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National Academy Press: Washington.

Baccini, Peter & Oswald, Franz 2008. Designing the Urban: Linking Physiology and Morphology, in Hirsch Hadorn et al. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

Balsinger, Philip W., 2004. Supradisciplinary research practices: history, objectives and rationale, Futures vol. 36, pp. 407-421.

Baumgärtner Stefan, Becker, Christian & Frank, Karin et al. 2008. Relating the philosophy and practice of ecological economics: The role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research, Ecological Economics vol. 67, pp. 384-393.

Baunes, Arild & Jentoft, Svein 2008. Building bridges: institutional perspectives on interdisciplinarity. Futures in press.

Beck, Ulrich 1992/1986 Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, SAGE Publication: London.

Benner, Mats & Persson, Bo 2002. Forskningssamverkan i akademisk form, in Sandström (ed.) Det nya forskningslandskapet: Perspektiv på vetenskap och politik, Bokförlaget Nya Doxa: Göteborg.

Bergman, Matthias & Jahn, Thomas 2008. CITY:mobil: A Model for Integration in Sustainability Research, in Hirsch Hadorn et al. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

Bruun, Henrik 2000. Epistemic Encounters: Intra- and Interdisciplinart Analyses of Human Action, Planning Practices and Technological Change, Humanekologiska skrifter 18 Göteborg University (diss.).

Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika, Dreborg, Karl Henrik, Moll, H.C & Padovan, Dario 2008. Participative backcasting: A tool for involving stakeholders in local sustainability planning, Futures vol. 40 p. 34-46.

Checkland, Peter 1999. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-year retrospective, Wiley: Sussex.

78

Delanty, Gerhard 2001. Challenging Knowledge: The University in the Knowledge Society, Open University Press: Buckingham.

Elzinga, Aant 2008. Participation, in Hirsch Hadorn et al. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

Etzkowitz, Hebry & Leydesdorff, Loet (eds.) 1997. Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, Pinter: London.

Funtowitz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age, Futures September.

Funtowitz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 2008. Values and Uncertainties, in Hirsch Hadorn et al. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

Gibbons, Michael, Limoges, Camille, & Nowotny, Helga et al. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, SAGE Publication: London.

Hellström, Tomas & Jacob, Merle 2005. Taming unruly science and saving national competitiveness, Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 443-467.

Hessels Laurens K. & van Lente, Harro 2008. Re-thinking knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda, Research Policy vol. 37, pp. 740-760.

Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude, Biber-Klemm, Susette & Grossenbacher-Mansuy, Walter et al. 2008b. The emergence of Transdisciplinarity as a Form of Research, in Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude et al. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude, Bradley, David & Pohl, Christian et al., 2006. Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research, Ecological Economics vol. 60 pp. 119-128.

Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude, Hoffmann-Riem, Holger & Biber-Klemm, Susette et al. 2008a. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

79

Hollaender, Kirsten, Loibl, Marie Céline & Wilts, Arnold 2008. Management, in Hirsch Hadorn et al. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

Horlick-Jones, Tom & Sime, Jonathan 2004. Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity, Futures vol. 36, pp. 441-456.

Höchtl, Franz, Lehringer, Susanne & Konold, Werner 2006. Pure theory or useful tool? Experiences with transdisciplinarity in the Piedmont Alps, Environmental Science & Policy vol. 9, p. 322-329.

Jacob, Merle & Hellström, Thomas 2000. The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy, Open University Press: Buckingham.

Jantsch, Erich 1972. Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Education and Innovation, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities OECD: Paris.

Jasanoff, Sheila & Wynne, Brian 1998. Science and decisionmaking, in Rayner, S. & Malone, E. L. (eds.) Human Choice and Climate Change, vol. 1. The Societal Framework, Batelle Press: Columbus, Ohio.

Kessel, Frank & Rosenfield, Patricia 2008. Toward transdisciplinary research: Historical and contemporary perspectives, Am J Prev Med 2008:35.

Kueffer, Christoph, Hirch Hadorn, Gertrude & Bammer, Gabriele et al. 2007. Towards a Publication Culture in Transdisciplinary Research, GAIA vol. 16, no. 1.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1992/1962. De vetenskapliga revolutionernas struktur, Thales: Stockholm.

Langfeldt, Liv 2002. Decision-making in expert panels evaluating research: Constraints, processes and bias, Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og utdanning, NIFU: Oslo.

Lawrence, Roderick J. & Després, Carole 2004. Introduction, Futures vol. 36, pp. 397-405.

Lengwiler, Martin 2006. Research cooperation: Between charisma and heuristics: four styles of interdisciplinarity, Science and Public Policy vol. 33 no. 6, p. 423-434.

80

Luks, Fred & Siebendhüner, Bernd 2007. Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability governance, Ecological Economics vol. 63, pp. 418-426.

Max-Neef, Manfred A., 2005. Foundations of transdisciplinarity, Ecological Economics vol. 53. pp. 5-16.

Messerli, Bruno & Messerli, Paul 2008. From Local Projects in the Alps to Global Change Programmes in the Mountains of the World: Milestones in Transdisciplinary Research, in Hirsch Hadorn et al. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

Mobjörk, Malin 2004. En kluven tid? En studie av idéer och föreställningar om vetenskap och kunskap i Stiftelsen för miljöstrategisk forskning, MISTRA, Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences no. 299.

Montuori, Alfonso 2008. Foreword: Transdisciplinarity, in Nicolescu, Basarab Transdisciplinarity. Theory and Practice, Hamton Press: Cresskill.

Moran, Joe 2002. Interdisciplinarity: the new critical idiom, Routledge: London.

Nicolescu, Basarab 2008. In Vitro and In Vivo Knowledge – Methodology of Transdisciplinarity, in Nicolescu, Basarab (ed.) Transdisciplinarity. Theory and Practice, Hamton Press: Cresskill.

Nolmark, Henrik 2007. Re-thinking Sustainable Urban Development in an Era of Globalisation, Resource Constraints and Climate Change, November 2007, Mistra.

Nowotny, Helga, Scott, Peter & Gibbons, Michael 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity Press: Cambridge.

Pohl, Christian & Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude 2007. Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research, Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences.

Pohl, Christian & Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude 2008. Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary research, Natures Sciences Sociétés vol. 16, p. 111-121.

Pohl, Christian 2005. Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research, Futures vol. 37, pp. 1159-1178.

81

Pohl, Christian 2008. From science to policy through transdisciplinary research, Environmental Science & Policy vol. 11 pp. 46-53.

Pohl, Christian, van Kerkhoff, Lorrae, Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude & Bammer, Gabriele 2008. Integration, in Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude et al. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

Ramadier, Thierry 2004. Transdisciplinarity and its challengers: the case of urban studies, Futures vol. 36, pp. 423-439.

Robinson, John 2003. Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning, Futures vol. 35, p. 839-856.

Robinson, John 2008. Being undisciplined: Transgressing and intersections in academia and beyond, Futures vol. 40 pp. 70-86.

Russel, Wendy A., Wickson, Fern & Carew, Anna L., 2008. Transdisciplinarity: Contexts, contradictions and capacity, Futures vol. 40, pp. 460-472.

Salter, Liora & Hearn, Alison 1996 Outside the lines: Issues in Interdisciplinary Research, McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal/Kingston.

Sandström, Ulf & Harding, Tobias 2002. Tvärvetenskap och forskningspolitik, in Lennart Sturesson et al. 2002 Spänningsfält: Tekniken, Politiken, Framtiden, Carlsson: Stockholm.

Sandström, Ulf (ed.) 2002. Det nya forskningslandskapet: Perspektiv på vetenskap och politik, Bokförlaget Nya Doxa: Göteborg.

Sandström, Ulf 2003. Tvärvetenskap med förhinder, in Lars J Lundgren (ed) Vägar till kunskap: Några aspekter på humanvetenskaplig och annan miljöforskning, Symposion: Stockholm/Stehag.

Sandström, Ulf, Friberg, Magnus & Hyenstrand, Per et al. 2005. Tvärvetenskap – en analys, Vetenskapsrådet, report no. 10:2005, Uppsala.

Schildt, Ingrid & Sörlin, Sverker 2005. Mer tvärvetenskap?, in Sörlin (ed.) 2005. ‘I den absoluta frontlinjen’: En bok forskningsstiftelserna, konkurrenskraften och politikens möjligheter, Bokförlaget Nya Doxa: Göteborg.

82

Schmidt, Jan C. 2008. Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity: An attempt to provide a classification and clarification, Poiesis Prax vol. 5, pp. 53-69.

Schwaninger, Markus, Ulli-Beer, Silvia & Kaufmann-Hayoz, Ruth 2008. Policy Analysis and Design in Local Public Management: A System Dynamics Approach, in Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude et al. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

Slaugther, Sheila & Leslie, Larry L. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University, The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Thompson-Klein, Julie 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory & Practice, Waine State University Press: Detroit.

Thompson-Klein, Julie 1996. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities, University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville.

Thompson-Klein, Julie 2000. A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science, in Peter Weingart & Nico Stehr, Practising Interdisciplinarity, University of Toronto Press: Toronto.

Thompson-Klein, Julie 2004a. Prospects for transdisciplinarity, Futures vol. 36, pp. 515-526.

Thompson-Klein, Julie 2004b. Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship, E:CO Special Double Issue vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 2-10.

Thompson-Klein, Julie 2004c. Unity of Knowledge and Transdisciplinarity: Contexts of Definition, Theory and the New Discourse of Problem Solving, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, EOLSS Publishers: Oxford.

Tompkins, Emma, Few, Roger & Brown, Katrina 2008. Scenario-based stakeholder engagement; Incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change, Journal of Environmental Management vol. 88, pp. 1580-1592.

Walter, Alexander, Wiek, Arnim & Scholz Roland 2008. Constructing Regional Development Strategies: A Case Study Approach for Integrated

83

Planning and Synthesis, in Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude et al. (eds.) Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Springer: Bern.

Wickson, Fern, Carew, Anna L. & Russel, A. Wendy 2006. Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality, Futures vol. 38, pp. 1046-1059.

Wiek, Arnim & Walter, Alexander 2008. A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated planning and decision-making in complex systems, European Journal of Operational Research in press.

Wiengart, Peter and Stehr, Nico (eds.) 2000. Practising Interdisciplinarity, University of Toronto Press: Toronto.

Ziman, John 2000. Real Science: What it is, and what it means, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Programme call, proposals and decision Centre for Sustainable Urban Transformation, April 2009, Lund University, Malmö University, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Alnarp) etc.

The Göteborg Center of Excellence for Sustainable Urban Futures, April 2009, University of Gothenborg, Chalmers University of Technology, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd etc.

Proposal to develop an International Centre for Urban Transformations, April 2009, KTH, Stockholm University, etc.

Urban Futures – Call for pre-proposal, Mistra May 2008.

Urban Futures, Dnr: FOR 2008/024-026, Sammanträde Mistra 2009-08-19, punkt 5.

84

Interviews Björn Hårsman, Royal Institute of Technology, June 5th, 2009, 40 minutes.

Merritt Polk, Gothenburg University, June 2 th, 2009, 45 minutes.

Lena Neij, Lunds University, June 10th, 2009, 40 minutes.

Homepages www.mistra.org

www.journal-tes.dk

www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/isr

www.ijtr.org

www.transdisciplinarity.ch/e/Publications

85

Acknowledgements This report is an outcome from a cooperative project in the field of sustainable development between Örebro University and Mälardalens University College. I attended the start-up process for this project which was aimed at supporting and strengthening research addressing sustainable development issues. After leaving my position at Mälardalen University in June 2008 and as a new employee at the Swedish Defence Research Agency I was asked to come back to conduct an investigation on the formation of ‘transdisciplinarity’. I am grateful to my present employer for regarding this project as interesting and as such allowing me partial leave for five months during 2009.

In setting up the project I had fruitful discussion with Peter Dobers, Karl-Henrik Dreborg, Katarina Eckerberg and Ingemar Elander. You have helped me to identify and address core issues within this report in different ways. I am also grateful to the three proposers on Mistra’s call on Urban Future, i.e. Björn Hårsman, Lena Neij and Merrit Polk, who allowed me to read the proposals during Mistra’s evaluation process of these. Thank you also for taking time for the interviews.

During my work with this report I held two seminars which gave me valuable comments, thoughtful questions and ideas for managing the gathering dark clouds a project like this has. The first seminar was held on 25 May 2009 at the Swedish Defence Research Agency, where Henrik Carlsen and Daniel Jonsson gave particularly valuable comments. The second seminar was held on 28 May 2009 at Örebro University, where Ingemar Elander, Erik Hysing, Stig Montin and Ulrika Ulausson gave strong support and valuable comments. I am also grateful to Bengt Johansson at FOI who read the paper and gave comments in its final phase.

Stockholm, August 2009

Malin Mobjörk

87

Reports from the Centre for Housing Research (titles in English and Swedish) (ISSN 1653-1531) (ISSN 1101-9093, number 1-57) Stadsmiljögruppen (1991) Samhälle, Natur och Byggd miljö. En programskrift. 37 s. Gratis. 1. Danermark, B. och Ekström, M. (1989) Forskning om sambandet mellan flyttning och hälsa. En översikt. 56 s. 50 kr. 2. Ekström, M. (1989) Konflikt, samverkan och boendeinflytande. Erfarenheter från ett utvecklingsarbete i samband med ombyggnaden av Stjärnhusen i Rosta. 56 s. 50 kr. 3. Schéele, A. och Elander, I. (1989) Evaluating Housing Renewal Policy. An interest-oriented approach. 21 s. Slutsåld. 4. Vintheimer, S. och Danermark, B. (1989) Ombyggnad i bostadsrätt. Projektbeskrivning och situationsanalys. Arbetsrapport 1: Sånglärkan – forskning om ombyggnad i bostadsrätt. 33 s. 40 kr. 5. Holm, L. (1989) Visioner och byggande – om fyrtiotal och framtid i Örebro. 25 s. 40 kr. 6. Strömberg, T. (1989) Mönsterstaden. Mark- och bostadspolitik i efterkrigstidens Örebro. 38 s. 40 kr. 7. Borgegård, L-E, Ekström, M. & Schéele, A. (1989) Flyttningar och lokalt förändringsarbete i Bergslagen. 35 s. 40 kr. 8. Elander, I. (1989) New Trends in Social Housing. The Case of Sweden. 28 s. Slutsåld. (Reviderad version publicerad i Housing Studies vol 6, 1991). 9. Elander, I. & Montin, S. (1989) Decentralization and Control. Central and Local Government in Sweden. 28 s. Slutsåld. (Reviderad version publicerad i Policy and Politics vol 18 1990).

88

10. Holm, L., Kaul, S., Lundqvist, L. & Strandberg, L. (1990) Stadsbyggnad, bostadsförsörjning och vardagsmiljö. En rapport från temaveckan “Stadsbyggnad i utveckling”, Örebro. 47 s. 60 kr. 11. Lidskog, R. & Elander, I. (1990) Beslut och konflikt i samband med lokalisering av miljöfarligt avfall. En projektbeskrivning. 20 s. 40 kr. 12. Lidskog, R. (1991) Ideell, kommersiell eller offentlig service? En utvärdering av projektet “Samordnad boendeservice i Gamla Hjärsta, Örebro”. 41 s. 50 kr. 13. Strömberg, T. (1991) Housing Strategies in Europe, c. 1880-1930. The Case of Sweden. 24 s. 40 kr. 14. Sandell, K. (1991) The Role of Outdoor Life and “friluftsliv” in Shaping Environmentalism. 16 s. 40 kr. 15. Lekare, K. (1991) Livet lät sig inte läggas till rätta. En utvärdering av projektet Hemservice i Mellringe, Örebro. 45 s. Slutsåld. 16. Elander, I. & Gustafsson, M. (eds.) (1991) The Re-emergence of Local Self-government in Central Europe: the First Experience 117 s. 100 kr. 17. Regnås, A. (1992) Det svenska miljöengagemangets framväxt 1960-90. 22 s. 50 kr. 18. Strömberg, T. & Elander, I. (1992) Från citysanering till den måttfulla staden. Utgång punkter för en studie av stadsförnyelse i svensk efterkrigspolitik. 21 s. 50 kr. 19. Gustafsson, M. (1993) From Biocides to Sustainability. Swedish Environmentalism 1962-1992. 43 s. 50 kr. 20. Gustafsson, M. & Lidskog, R. (1992) State, Market and Civil Society. Some Considerations on the Concept of Civil Society. 55 s. 70 kr. 21. Hjorth Aronsson, C. (1993) Markbacken – ett bostadsområde från 1960- talets början. En empirisk studie. 30 s. 50 kr. 22. Green, A. (1993) Daggmaskar och råttor – en uppsats om kompostering. 37 s. 50 kr.

89

23. Brikell, B. (1993) Ozon & Politik – processtudie av en internationell regim. 64 s. 75 kr. 24. Tsenkova, S. (1993) From Planning to Markets: Bulgarian Housing Policy Reform. 78 s. 80 kr. 25. Lidskog, R. (1994) On Studying Social Movements, A Methodological Perspective. 30 s. 50 kr. 26. Brikell, B. (1994) The Politics of Ozone. 30 s. 50 kr. 27. Elander, I., Zikharevich, B. and Wikström, A-C. (eds) (1994) Local Selfgovernment, Housing and Urban Policy in Russia and Sweden. Report from a conference at the University of Örebro 18-24 April 1994. 180 s. 100 kr. 28. Hjorth Aronsson, C. (1994) Ladugårdsängen – en stadsdel från 1990-talets början. En empirisk studie. 75 kr. 29. Schéele, A. (1994) Så vill vi bo. Om gemensamt och särskiljande i våra bostadsdrömmar. 75 kr. 30. Åquist, A-C. (1994) “Så lite besvär för så mycket nytta”! En utvärderingsstudie av sophanteringen och komposteringen i kollektivhuset på Ladugårdsängen. 40 s. 50 kr. 31. Johansson, M. & Uddin, T. (1994) Frihet & Tolerans. Debatt och konflikt kring lokaliseringen av en syriansk-ortodox kyrka och ett islamiskt kulturcentrum i Örebro. 45 s. 50 kr. 32. Hjorth Aronsson, C. (1995) Boendeplanering och kommundelsnämnder. Teoretiska utgångspunkter. 33 s. 50 kr. 33. Rouba, H. & Markowski, T. (1995) Town Planning under Post-Communism. The Case of Poland. 38 s. 50 kr. 34. Ilshammar, L. & Persson, G. (1995) Riva eller bevara? Fallen Hållstugan och Wadköping i Örebro. 97 s. 75 kr. 35. Lidskog, R. & Hjalmarsson, B. (1995) Gift – avfall – resurs? Framväxten av den svenska politiken för miljöfarligt avfall 1960-94. 59 s. 75 kr.

90

36. Lekare, K. (1995) Boendeform och sociala kontakter. En beskrivning av det sociala livet i tre bostadsområden ur några barnfamiljers perspektiv. 120 s. 100 kr. 37. Lidskog, R. (1996) Kommunikation, kunskap och konflikt. Samrådets väsen och villkor. 37 s. 65 kr. 38. Åquist, A-C. (1996) The Form of Cities in an Ecological Perspective. 20 s. 50 kr. 39. Lidskog, R. (1997) Bringing Communication back in? 41 s. 80 kr. 40. Fahlén, A. (1998) Urban regimteori – I perspektiv av debatten om ‘community power’. 104 s. 80 kr. 41. Johansson, M. (1998) Stadsförnyelse, invandrare och social exkludering. 95 s. 80 kr. 42. Ambrose, P., Danermark, B. och Grinchel, B. et al (1998) A Comparative Study of Housing Privatisation in Russia, Sweden and the UK. 123 s. 80 kr. 43. Sandberg, A. (1998) Veteranjärnväg och turism längs järnvägen mellan Otterbäck och Ervalla. 90 s. 60 kr. 44. Granberg, M. och von Sydow, Å. (1999) Vart tog den rationella planeringen vägen? Om planeringstänkande i Sverige under tre årtionden. 90 s. 90 kr. 45. Khakee, A. och Low, N. (1999) The Urban Policy Domain in Sweden and Australia: the Transition from Fordism to Liberal Productivism. 74 s. 90 kr. 46. Lidskog, R. (2000) Staten, våldet och samhället ur liberalt, kommunitarianskt och postmodernt perspektiv. 110 s. 100 kr. 47. Martinsson, L. (2000) Gated Communities – framtidens boende? 78 s. 90 kr. 48. Larsson, J. (2000) Formal Consensus and Democracy. 82 s. 100 kr. 49. Åquist, A-C. (2001) Den miljövänliga staden. En forskningsöversikt. 64 s. 80 kr.

91

50. Scherlund, E. (2001) SAP och kommunalpolitiken 1928-1940. En studie av Örebro socialdemokraters väg mot makten. 129 s. 110 kr. 51. Larsson, J. (2001) Förrättning konsensus och demokrati. 119 s. 100 kr. 52. Lekare, K. (2001) Område och brott. En studie om variationer i brottslighet i tre bostadsområden i Örebro. 140 s. 110 kr. 53. Sandström U. (2002) Green Structure and Biological Diversity in Swedish Urban Environment. 84 s. 100 kr. 54. Khakee, A. & Johansson, M. (2002) Berättelser om invandrares inflytande i Örebros stadspolitik. 109 s. 100 kr. 55. Centre for Housing and Urban Research and Man-Technology-Environment Research Centre. (2003) Local implementation of national and global environmental goals. Platform for research within the profile area: Human environment, communicative processes and democracy. 46 s. 50 kr. 56. Elander, I., Montin, S., Granberg, M. & Gustavsson, E. (2003) Climate change, mitigation and adaptation. The local arena. 123 s. 100 kr. 57. Granberg, M. (2003) Kommunikativ process eller beslutsentreprenad. Politiker, planerare och medborgare i samhällsplaneringen. 195 s. 110 kr. 58. Centrum för Urbana och Regionala Studier/Institutionen för fysisk planering, Blekinge Tekniska Högskola (2005) Lärande om regioner och städer. Forskning, Utbildning, Praktik. 64 s. 50 kr. 59. Andersson, A. & Elander, I. (2005) Staden som livsmiljö – vision och verklighet. Slutrapport från ett forskningsprogram. 89 s. 50 kr. 60. Uggla, Y. & Lidskog, R. (2006) Att planera för en osäker framtid. Kommuners arbete inför hotet om ett förändrat klimat. 58 s. 50 kr. 61 Lundgren Alm E., Sandström U. G. & Elander, I. (2007) Biologisk mångfald i staden. Teori, politik, praktik. 74 s. 50 kr. 62. Montin, S., Hansén, C., Lennqvist Lindén, A., Olsson, J., Åborg, C. (2008) Mellan kontinuitet och förändring. Utvärdering av den nya nämndorganisationen i Uppsala kommun. 319 s. (Finns som pdf på www.oru.se/cures)

92

63. Hedlund, G. (2008) Regionala partnerskap, kön och demokrati. 43 s. 50 kr. 64. Mobjörk, M. (2009) Crossing boundaries: the framing of transdisciplinarity. 92 s. 50 kr.