Tensions in transdisciplinary practice

Dr. Frances HarrisCentre for Earth and Environmental Sciences Research

School of Geography, Geology and the EnvironmentKingston University

Prof. Fergus Lyon,CEEDR,

Middlesex University

Transdisciplinary environmental research: a review of approaches to knowledge co-production

Focus on food, water, energy and environment.

NEXUS network think piece

“Our incapacity to deal with the above-mentioned problems [climate change, health, land use, forestry management, renewable and non-renewable resources, housing, poverty and urban planning] is related to their complexity, to the compartmentalisation of science and professional knowledge, to the sectoral division of responsibilities in contemporary society, and to the increasingly diverse nature of the societal context in which people live”.

Lawrence and Depres (2004)

Engagement with stakeholders

promoting collaboration between research and industry, between different disciplines in research, and between different types of research organisations.

crossing the boundaries between different disciplines Engagement with different types of knowledge:

scientific knowledge, lay knowledge and practitioners’ experience

participants become co-creators of knowledge Search of unity of knowledge beyond disciplines

Transdisciplinary research

Pursuit of sustainability: an inter and trans-disciplinary goal sustainability science

Society’s increasing role in science: Deliberative turn in science: involving publics in debates about

science priorities and setting agendas

Participative approaches: move from top down to involvement of stakeholders

Recognition of lay knowledge and experiential knowledge

Governments and funders address complex problems of real world issues research relevant to society’s needs Research impact

Driving forces

Framing problems from range of disciplinary perspectives

Valuing different types of knowledge: experiential, commercial, academic, practice-based

Democratising science – allowing non-academic scientists to participate in problem identification, framing, research, data collection and analysis, dissemination of findings

Participation – levels of engagement (see Arnstein’s ladder, and parallels from Transdisciplinary literature: information, consultation, collaboration, empowerment (Brandt et al 2013))

Theoretical challenges

Prioritising research methods and forms of data Qualitative vs Quantitative methods Experimental vs less structured forms of data

collection

Merging data from different scales and disciplines

Power struggles within research teams – valuing knowledge forms

Communication among team

Methodological

Managing diverse teams from diverse organisational backgrounds

Agreeing on the end point / outcome desired (how far does “research” go?)

Identifying desired outcomes Papers Policies Behaviour change

Practical

Gathering diverse perspectives and players but aiming to align towards a common project goal and research outcomes

Greater diversity within the team can stimulate more new knowledge, but too much diversity creates challenges for communication (mutual understanding). Boon et al, 2014;

The tension between diversity and alignment

Bringing together multiple perspectives and methods can result in some ambiguity between different groups.

“multiple simultaneous ways of understanding” Dewulf et al (2007)

Bruce et al (2004): good interdisciplinary research has high tolerance for ambiguity

Boon et al (2014) what levels of uncertainty are acceptable among research collaborators?

Accepting ambiguity ?

Who writes funding bids and is gatekeeper to research funds? What framing is required to gain funds? What language is used in project

documentation?

Power asymmetries

Stepping out of disciplinary focus Valuing transdisciplinary vs discipline-

centred research Training disciplinary researchers Career progression for disciplinary

researchers

Challenges for academia

Cannot exist in terms of data collection methods, but perhaps can in terms of recommendations for practice

demands “freedom of choice” in methods to correspond with problems and group of people participating (Brandt et al, 2013)

A transdisciplinary method?

From the perspective of the individual Satisfaction Achievements in alignment with goals of host

organisation (publications or other) Career advancement Willingness to engage again

Evaluating transdisciplinary projects

From the perspective of the project team Social learning Creation of a team that will work together

again

Evaluating transdisciplinary projects

From the perspective of the funders Outcomes achieved in terms of research,

timing and sticking to budget Production of results which are meaningful to

society at large

Evaluating transdisciplinary projects

A new form of researcher?

A non-entity because cannot fit into any system or structure?

The transdisciplinarian

Living with tensions Formation of team Framing of project Negotiation of research approach Knowledge creation Room to fail and learning from mistakes

(Hegger et al (2010) Outputs for all participants and stakeholders

Recommendations for transdisciplinary processes

Anticona, C., Coe, A., Bergdahl, I. A. and San Sebastian, M. (2013) 'Easier said than done: challenges of applying the Ecohealth approach to the study on heavy metals exposure among indigenous communities of the Peruvian Amazon.(Correspondence)(Report)', BMC Public Health, 13 pp. 437.

Attwater, R., Booth, S. and Guthrie, A. (2005) 'The role of contestable concepts in transdisciplinary management of water in the landscape', Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22 (3), pp. 185-192.

Boon, W. P. C., Chappin, M. M. H. and Perenboom, J. (2014) 'Balancing divergence and convergence in transdisciplinary research teams', Environmental Science and Policy, 40 pp. 57-68.

Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson, D. J. and Von Wehrden, H. (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science.

Dewulf, A., Francois, G., Pahl-Wostl, C. and Taillieu, T. (2007) 'A framing approach to cross-disciplinary research collaboration: Experiences from a large-scale research project on adaptive water management', ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY; Ecol.Soc., 12 (2), .

Enengel, B., Muhar, A., Penker, M., Freyer, B., Drlik, S. and Ritter, F. (2012) 'Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development-An analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases', Landscape and Urban Planning, 105 (1-2), pp. 106-117.

Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A. and Völker, T. (2012) 'Growing into what? The (un-)disciplined socialisation of early stage researchers in transdisciplinary research', Higher Education, pp. 1-14.

Giri, A. K. (2002) 'The calling of a creative transdisciplinarity', Futures, 34 (1), pp. 103-115. Harris, F. and Lyon, F. (2013) 'Transdisciplinary environmental research: Building trust across professional cultures',

Environmental Science and Policy, 31 pp. 109-119. Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A. and Dieperink, C. (2012) 'Conceptualising joint knowledge production in

regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action', Environmental Science and Policy, 18 pp. 52-65.

Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S. and Wiesmann, U. (2006) 'Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research', Ecological Economics, 60 (1), pp. 119-128.

Lawrence, R. J. and Despres, C. (2004) 'Futures of transdisciplinarity', Futures, 36 (4), pp. 397-405. Pohl, C. (2005) 'Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research', Futures, 37 (10), pp. 1159-1178. Renner, R., Schneider, F., Hohenwallner, D., Kopeinig, C., Kruse, S., Lienert, J., Link, S. and Muhar, S. (2013) 'Meeting the

Challenges of Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production for Sustainable Water Governance', Mountain Research and Development (Online), 33 (3), pp. 234-247.

Roux, D. J., Stirzaker, R. J., Breen, C. M., Lefroy, E. C. and Cresswell, H. P. (2010) 'Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs', Environmental Science and Policy, 13 (8), pp. 733-741.

 

References