Christian Pohl

Researchers' roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal

Co-production of knowledge between academic and non-academic communities is a prerequisite for research aiming at more sustainable development paths. Sustainability researchers face three challenges in such co-production: (a) addressing power relations; (b) interrelating different perspectives on the issues at stake; and (c) promoting a previously negotiated orientation towards sustainable development. A systematic comparison of four sustainability research projects in Kenya (vulnerability to drought), Switzerland (soil protection), Bolivia and Nepal (conservation vs. development) shows how the researchers intuitively adopted three different roles to face these challenges: the roles of reflective scientist, intermediary, and facilitator of a joint learning process. From this systematized and iterative self-reflection on the roles that a researcher can assume in the indeterminate social space where knowledge is co-produced, we draw conclusions regarding training. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The Emergence of Transdisciplinarity as a Form of Research

The birth of science is based on a strict dissociation of scientific knowledge from the various aspects of practical knowledge. The ideal of scientific knowledge as it was shaped in antiquity is still influential today, although the conception of science and the relationship between science and the life-world has undergone major changes. The emergence of transdisciplinary orientations in the knowledge society at the end of the 20th century is the most recent step. The Handbook focuses on transdisciplinarity as a form of research that is driven by the need to solve problems of the life-world. Differences between basic, applied and transdisciplinary research, as specific forms of research, stem from whether and how different scientific disciplines, and actors in the life-world, are involved in problem identification and problem structuring, thus determining how research questions relate to problem fields in the life-world. However, by transgressing disciplinary paradigms and surpassing the practical problems of single actors, transdisciplinary research is challenged by the following requirements: to grasp the complexity of the problems, to take into account the diversity of scientific and societal views of the problems, to link abstract and case specific knowledge, and to constitute knowledge with a focus on problem-solving for what is perceived to be the common good. Transdisciplinary research relates to three types of knowledge: systems knowledge, target knowledge and transformation knowledge, and reflects their mutual dependencies in the research process. One way to meet the transdisciplinary requirements in dealing with research problems is to design the phases of the research process in a recurrent order. Research that addresses problems in the life-world comprises the phase of problem identification and problem structuring, the phase of problem investigation and the phase of bringing results to fruition. In transdisciplinary research, the order of the phases and the amount of resources dedicated to each phase depend on the kind of problem under investigation and on the state of knowledge.

Enabling Effective Problem-oriented Research for Sustainable Development

Environmental problems caused by human activities are increasing; biodiversity is disappearing at an unprecedented rate, soils are being irreversibly damaged, freshwater is increasingly in short supply, and the climate is changing. To reverse or even to reduce these trends will require a radical transformation in the relationship between humans and the natural environment. Just how this can be achieved within, at most, a few decades is unknown, but it is clear that academia must play a crucial role. Many believe, however, that academic institutions need to become more effective in helping societies move toward sustainability. We first synthesize current thinking about this crisis of research effectiveness. We argue that those involved in producing knowledge to solve societal problems face three particular challenges: the complexity of real-world sustainability problems, maintaining impartiality when expert knowledge is used in decision making, and ensuring the salience of the scientific knowledge for decision makers. We discuss three strategies to meet these challenges: conducting research in interdisciplinary teams, forming research partnerships with actors and experts from outside academia, and framing research questions with the aim of solving specific problems (problem orientation). However, we argue that implementing these strategies within academia will require both cultural and institutional change. We then use concepts from transition management to suggest how academic institutions can make the necessary changes. At the level of system optimization, we call for: quality criteria, career incentives, and funding schemes that reward not only disciplinary excellence but also achievements in inter-/transdisciplinary work; professional services and training through specialized centers that facilitate problem-oriented research and reciprocal knowledge exchange with society; and the integration of sustainability and inter-/transdisciplinary research practices into all teaching curricula. At the level of system innovation, we propose radical changes in institutional structures, research and career incentives, teaching programs, and research partnerships. We see much value in a view of change that emphasizes the complementarity of system innovation and system optimization. The goal must be a process of change that preserves the traditional strengths of academic research, with its emphasis on disciplinary excellence and scientific rigor, while ensuring that institutional environments and the skills, worldviews, and experiences of the involved actors adapt to the rapidly changing needs of society.

Enhancing Transdisciplinary Research: A Synthesis in Fifteen Propositions

The debate on transdisciplinarity is still fairly young and the process of transdisciplinary research is still being developed. This final chapter is an attempt to stimulate the debate on, and the development of, transdisciplinary research. With the 15 propositions, the editors of the Handbook take a position on the definition, scope and process of transdisciplinary research; then we give hints on how to deal with some of the most persistent stumbling blocks in transdisciplinary practice; and finally, we highlight the corner stones needed to face the scientific, the institutional and the societal challenge.

Core Terms in Transdisciplinary Research

The following explanations of core terms in transdisciplinary research are meant to guide readers who are not familiar with transdisciplinary research or who are confused by the variety of meanings given to terms. It is important to keep in mind that the explanations refer to the use of terms in the context of transdisciplinary research – they do not provide general definitions. For instance the meaning of ‘actor’ as described below may not hold from a sociological or psychological perspective and is wrong in the context of a theatre. The explanations are taken from the ‘Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research’ (citeauthor*ch28:pohl2007, citeyearch28:pohl2007) and from the Handbook (Chapter 2). Authors of the Handbook were invited to refer to a preliminary and shorter version of term descriptions when writing their contributions, but they were free to use the terms in their own way.

How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy

In any society, a wide diversity of actors has relevant knowledge concerning important societal problems. In a knowledge democracy both dominant and non-dominant actors have equal access and ability to put this knowledge forward in the process of solving societal problems. In order to enable these actors to contribute meaningfully to decision-making around public policy and research agendas, we argue that a transdisciplinary research process is needed. In this chapter we critically reflect on the principles, concepts and core methods of transdisciplinary research. We first look at the national historical roots of transdisciplinary research, specifically focussing on two countries – Switzerland and The Netherlands. Next we develop a typology of transdisciplinary research. From the perspective of knowledge democracy, we can distinguish two important dimensions in research approaches: the degree of knowledge input of lay groups that is included in a specific transdisciplinary project and the degree in which non-dominant actors are explicitly involved in the decision-making of the development process of policies or research agendas. This results in two different styles of transdisciplinary research. We discuss the similarities and differences of these different styles and approaches. We close this chapter with a discussion on transdisciplinary research styles in relation to forms of democracy – on the one hand basic and representative democracy and on the other hand deliberative democracy.

Structuring complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable development: a framework

Research aiming at generating effective contributions to sustainable development faces particular complexity related challenges. This article proposes an analytical framework disentangling and structuring complexity issues with which research for sustainable development is confronted. Based on theoretical conceptions from fields like policy sciences and transdisciplinary research as well as on an in-depth analysis of the concept of sustainable development, three meta-perspectives on research for sustainable development are introduced and elaborated. The first perspective focuses on notions of sustainable development, sorting out the problem of unclear or ambiguous interpretations of the general sustainability objectives in specific contexts. The second perspective introduces a broad conception of the policy process representing the way societal change towards sustainable development is brought about. It supports identifying those academic and non-academic actors and stakeholders that are relevant for coming up with effective knowledge contributions. The third perspective identifies different forms of knowledge that are needed to tackle sustainability problems as well as the significance of their mutual interrelations. How the framework perspectives support reflecting on the fundamental complexity issues research for sustainable development is confronted with is illustrated using a case example from natural scientific research in the field of land use. We argue that meeting the complexity inherent in the concept of sustainable development requires joint learning in policy processes, working out shared visions being in line with the core objectives of sustainable development and generating knowledge about empirical, normative and pragmatic aspects.

The team science toolkit

Introduction Research teams, ranging from pairs of collaborators to large networks, are becoming the dominant paradigm in knowledge production. Across all research fields, teams now produce more frequently cited and higher impact research than individual authors. This trend—known as “team science” or “team-based research”—has emerged as a strategy to address increasingly complex scientific problems, often by applying sophisticated conceptual and methodologic approaches that draw on multiple disciplines, fields, and professions. Science teams bring together collaborators with a combined set of expertise that is uniquely suited to address particular scientific problems in innovative and effective ways. These specialized teams may be large in size; may include collaborators distributed across geographic space and organizational boundaries and with expertise that spans multiple disciplines, fields, and professions; and may involve academic, community, and translational partners. These complexities contribute to the potential added value

Idea of the Handbook

Transdisciplinary orientations in research, education and institutions try to overcome the mismatch between knowledge production in academia, and knowledge requests for solving societal problems. Addressing societal knowledge demands by designing research processes in a transdisciplinary way has several major implications. It becomes necessary to transgress boundaries between different academic cultures, such as between the humanities and the natural sciences. Furthermore, researchers have to step into problem fields and engage in mutual learning with people in the life-world. In doing so, disciplinary standards of knowledge production are sacrificed. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a state of the art for transdisciplinary forms of research. This is best done by learning from experiences. The Handbook is intended to enable learning from exemplary experiences in research and to provide a more systematic account of some cross-cutting issues. This chapter describes the idea behind the Handbook and the contents of the Handbook.

Editorials and CommentaryThe Team Science Toolkit: Enhancing Research Collaboration Through Online Knowledge Sharing

Introduction Research teams, ranging from pairs of collaborators to large networks, are becoming the dominant paradigm in knowledge production. Across all research fields, teams now produce more frequently cited and higher impact research than individual authors. This trend—known as “team science” or “team-based research”—has emerged as a strategy to address increasingly complex scientific problems, often by applying sophisticated conceptual and methodologic approaches that draw on multiple disciplines, fields, and professions. Science teams bring together collaborators with a combined set of expertise that is uniquely suited to address particular scientific problems in innovative and effective ways. These specialized teams may be large in size; may include collaborators distributed across geographic space and organizational boundaries and with expertise that spans multiple disciplines, fields, and professions; and may involve academic, community, and translational partners. These complexities contribute to the potential added value