Abstract
During the past decades, a variety of approaches have emerged to understand and explain transformation processes at the science-society interface. Under different labels, these concepts have propagated a shift from academic, investigator-initiated, discipline-based research to more context-driven, problem-focused, and multidisciplinary research. These approaches provide the core motivational background for specific transdisciplinary initiatives. This article provides an overview of the different understandings and divergent styles of transdisciplinary research, its multifaceted dimensions, pathways, and challenges. Practical examples illustrate the emergence of approaches and programs in response to new intellectual and pragmatic developments. It is concluded that transdisciplinarity gathers heterogeneous sets of relationships between epistemic ends and epistemic means. The authors recommend paying more attention to the qualities necessary for an understanding of practical knowledge that enable knowledge realization, and the abilities that make the implementation of findings possible. It is believed that the need for openness, flexibility, and attention to the diversity and uncertainty in knowledge will inspire further democratic ways to re-organize the science-society nexus.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The order of appearance is chronological and does not reflect any judgment about their quality or importance.
- 2.
Germany, Austria and Switzerland are also known as the D-A-CH countries.
- 3.
The Institute of Science Index (ISI) offers bibliographic database services, e.g., maintenance of citation databases and citation indexing (for more information see, e.g., http://isi-thomsomreuters.net/).
References
Balsiger, P. W. (2005). Transdisziplinarität [Transdisciplinarity]. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Bechmann, G., & Frederichs, G. (1996). Problemorientierte Forschung: Zwischen Politik und Wissenschaft [Problem-oriented research: Between policy and science]. In G. Bechmann (Ed.), Praxisfelder der Technikfolgenforschung: Konzepte, Methoden, Optionen (pp. 11–37). Frankfurt: Campus.
Böhme, G., van den Daele, W., & Krohn, W. (1973). Die Finalisierung der Wissenschaft [Finalization of science]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 2(2), 128–144.
Böhme, G., van den Daele, W., & Krohn, W. (1976). Finalization of science. Social Science Information, 15(2–3), 307–330.
Böhme, G., van den Daele, W., Krohn, W., Hohlfeld, R., & Schäfer, W. (1983). Finalization in science. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., Keil, F., Pohl, C., Scholz, R. W., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In R. J. in ‘t Veldt (Ed.), Knowledge democracy (pp. 125–152). Heidelberg: Springer.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cash, D. W., & Clark, W. C. (2001). From science to policy: Assessing the assessment process (John F. Kennedy School of Government Faculty Research Working Paper RWP01-045). Cambridge: Harvard University.
Cash, D. W., & Moser, S. C. (2000). Linking global and local scales: Designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change, 10(2000), 109–120.
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086–8091.
Cebon, P., Dahinden, U., Davies, H., Imboden, D., & Jaeger, C. (1998). Views from the Alps: Regional perspectives on climate change. Boston: MIT Press.
Conrad, J. (2002). Limitations to interdisciplinarity in problem oriented social science research. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 1. http://www.journal-tes.dk/vol%201%20no%201/jobst%20conrad.html. Accessed 12 Aug 2012.
Costanza, R., Daly, H. E., & Bartholomew, J. A. (1991). Goals, agenda and policy recommendations for ecological economics. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 1–20). New York: Columbia University Press.
Defila, R., Di Giulio, A., & Scheuermann, M. (2006). Forschungsverbundmanagement: Handbuch für die Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinärer Projekte [Management of research networks: Handbook for the design of inter- and transdisciplinary projects]. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.
Dilling, L., & Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change, 21, 680–689.
ESF/COST (2011). Responses to environmental and societal challenges for our unstable earth (RESCUE). ESF forward look – ESF-COST ‘Frontier of Science’ joint initiative. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation/European Cooperation in Science and Technology. http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/rescue.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2012.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 137–152). New York: Columbia University Press.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 251–274). London: Praeger.
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Häberli, R., Gessler, R., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., & Lehmann-Pollheimer, D. (2002). Vision Lebensqualität. Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Ökologisch notwendig, wirtschaftlich klug, gesellschaftlich möglich [Vision quality of life. Sustainable development: Ecologically necessary, economically wise, socially possible]. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.
Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740–760.
Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2002). Vom Sagufnet zum transdisciplinarity-net. GAIA, 11(3), 227–231.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hulme, M. (2010). Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 558–564.
ICSU (2010). Earth system science for global sustainability: The grand challenges. Paris: International Council for Science.
ICSU (2011). ICSU foresight analysis report 1: International science in 2031 – Exploratory scenarios. Paris: International Council for Science.
Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10.
Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policy makers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (2010). A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 233–253.
Kasperson, R. E., & Berberian, M. (Eds.). (2011). Integrating science and policy: Vulnerability and resilience in global environmental change. London: Earthscan.
Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth (pp. 275–305). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lövbrand, E. (2011). Co-producing European climate science and policy: A cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 225–236.
Maasen, S., & Lieven, O. (2006). Transdisciplinarity: A new mode of governing science? Science and Public Policy, 33, 399–410.
Maasen, S., Lengwiler, M., & Guggenheim, M. (2006). Practices of transdisciplinary research: Close(r) encounters of science and society. Science and Public Policy, 33(6), 394–398.
Max-Neef, E. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5–16.
Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin, F. S., III, & Redman, C. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 46.
Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., & Dickson, N. M. (Eds.). (2006). Global environmental assessments: Information and influence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Naustdalslid, J. (2011). Climate change: The challenge of translating scientific knowledge into action. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(3), 243–252.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194.
Pohl, C. (2011). What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures, 43(16), 618–626.
Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for designing transdisciplinary research: Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. München: Oekom.
Pohl, C., Perrig-Chiello, P., Butz, B., Hirsch Hadorn, G., Joye, D., Lawrence, R., Nentwich, M., Paulsen, T., Rossini, M., Truffer, B., Wastl-Walter, D., Wiesmann, U., & Zinsstag, J. (2010). Questions to evaluate inter- and transdisciplinary research proposals (Working Paper). Bern: td-net.
Reid, W. V., Chen, D., Goldfarb, L., Hackmann, H., Lee, Y. T., Mokhele, K., Ostrom, E., Raivio, K., Rockström, J., Schellnhuber, H. J., & Whyte, A. (2010). Earth system science for global sustainability: Grand challenges. Science, 330(6006), 916–917.
Rip, A. (2004). Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training. Higher Education Policy, 17, 153–166.
Salter, L. (1988). Mandated science: Science and scientists in the making of standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Schneidewind, U., & Augenstein, K. (2012). Analyzing a transition to a sustainability-oriented science system in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 3, 16–28.
Scholz, R. W. (2001). The mutual learning sessions. In J. Thompson-Klein, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Haberli, A. Bill, R. W. Scholz, & M. Welti (Eds.), Joint problem solving among science, technology and society: An effective way of managing complexity (pp. 117–129). Basel: Birkhäuser.
Schot, J. W., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2–3), 251–268.
Stehr, N. (2009). What is socially relevant science? Society, 3, 262–266.
Truffer, B. (2007). Wissensintegration in transdisziplinären Projekten: Flexibles Rollenverständnis als Schlüsselkompetenz für das Schnittstellenmanagement [Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary research projects: The importance of reflexive interface management]. GAIA, 16(1), 41–45.
Weichselgartner, J. (2013). Risiko – Wissen – Wandel: Strukturen und Diskurse problemorientierter Umweltforschung [Risk – knowledge – change: Structures and discourses of problem-oriented environmental research]. München: Oekom.
Weichselgartner, J., & Kasperson, R. E. (2010). Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: Toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 266–277.
Weichselgartner, J., & Marandino, C. A. (2012). Priority knowledge for marine environments: Grand challenges at the society-science nexus. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(3), 323–330.
Weingart, P. (1997). From “finalization” to “mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591–613.
Weingart, P. (2008). How robust is “socially robust knowledge”? In M. Carrier, D. Howard, & J. Kourany (Eds.), The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited (pp. 131–145). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Winiwarter, V. (2012). 20 Jahre GAIA: Zurück und in die Zukunft. GAIA, 21, 1–4.
Winowiecki, L., Smukler, S., Shirley, K., Remans, R., Peltier, G., Lothes, E., et al. (2011). Tools for enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 7(1), 74–80.
Wood, R. (1964). Scientists and politics: The rise of an apolitical elite. In R. Gilpin & C. Wright (Eds.), Scientists and national policy-making (pp. 50–72). New York: Columbia University Press.
Zierhofer, W., & Burger, P. (2007). Disentangling transdisciplinarity: An analysis of knowledge integration in problem-oriented research. Science Studies, 20(1), 51–74.
Ziman, J. M. (1987). Knowing everything about nothing: Specialization and change in scientific careers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ziman, J. M. (1996). “Postacademic science”: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies, 9(1), 67–80.
Ziman, J. M. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weichselgartner, J., Truffer, B. (2015). From Knowledge Co-production to Transdisciplinary Research: Lessons from the Quest to Produce Socially Robust Knowledge. In: Werlen, B. (eds) Global Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16477-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16477-9_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16476-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16477-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)