Abstract
This article considers the role that transdisciplinary research can play in the development of cultures of sustainability. Transdisciplinary research aims to resolve real-world problems, involves the participation of diverse stakeholders, and is a key methodology for a more sustainable future. Fundamental cultural change is needed if the general public is to adopt more sustainable lifestyles. From experience, we know that extensive media campaigns are not effective in bringing about such change, partly because of the complexity of the change required and partly due to widespread mistrust of the media. Polls and research have shown that the public mistrust the media, politicians, and governments. Scientists are considered to be relatively trustworthy, making them the preferred communicators of scientific knowledge and allowing them to facilitate change processes. Transdisciplinary research is occurring within a more traditional culture of academic knowledge, has a number of guiding principles, and diverse approaches which allow it to play a role in the development of sustainability cultures. Lessons have been learned from the practical implementation of transdisciplinary research and its application in biotechnology, which the Interactive Learning and Action approach illustrates. These cases illustrate the need for a comprehensive practical toolkit that can deal with highly complex, culturally embedded problems. They also highlight the potential contribution of transdisciplinary research. In this context, the emphasis needs to be on the development of even more robust processes, such as quality controls, transparency standards and reproducible results, if transdisciplinary research is to meet the societal challenge with which it is confronted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
For an explanation of ‘knowledge democracy,’ see, e.g., Bunders et al. (2010).
- 3.
In the 1990s, many experiments with a participatory approach were undertaken with an explicit emancipatory goal in mind. Mayoux (1995, p. 235) for instance, mentions “meeting the demands of poor women in the South.”
- 4.
The publication Participatory governance and the millennium development goals (MDGs) (United Nations 2008) aims to “identify and examine various tools, innovations, best practices and possible areas of cooperation needed to strengthen the capacities of governments and civil society groups for a participatory approach to governance and to the implementation of the MDGs” (United Nations 2008, iii).
- 5.
Even common terms such as ‘sector’ and ‘intersectoral’ are used in a significantly differing way in the USA and western Europe.
- 6.
In the Netherlands, the ERiC (Evaluating Research in Context) institute, part of the government body that funds most innovative research, is tasked with defining evaluation criteria for and evaluate scientific research regarding its societal relevance.
- 7.
- 8.
In the literature, what we call ‘reflection’ and ‘emergent design’ are often called ‘action research’ (Regeer and Bunders 2009). We prefer the terms we use here in order to make a clear distinction.
- 9.
The following text is a summary of the introductory chapter of De Cock Buning et al. (2008, 9–18).
References
Abma, T. A., Nierse, C. J., et al. (2009). Patients as partners in responsive research: Methodological notions for collaborations in mixed research teams. Qualitative Health Research, 19(3), 401–415.
Broerse, J. E. W., Zweekhorst, M. B. M., van Rensen, A. J., & de Haan, M. J. (2010). Involving burn survivors in agenda setting on burn research: An added value? Burns, 36(2), 217–231.
Brown, V. A., Harris, J. A., & Russell, J. Y. (2012). Tackling wicked problems: Through the transdisciplinary imagination. London: Earthscan.
Brundtland, G. H. (Chairman). (1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future, UN document
Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (1999). The triple helix enriched with the user perspective: A view from Bangladesh. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2–3), 235–246.
Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., Keil, F., Phol, C., Scholtz, R. W., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In R. In ‘tVeld (Ed.), Knowledge democracy, consequences for science, politics and media (pp. 125–152). Dordrecht: Springer.
Caron-Flinterman, F. (2005). A new voice in science. Patient participation in decision-making on biomedical research. Zutphen: Wohrmann Print Service.
Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), 141–142.
Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester: Wiley.
Council of Europe. (2008). White paper on intercultural dialogue. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/whitepaper_interculturaldialogue_2_EN.asp. Accessed 20 May 2013.
De Cock Buning, T. J., Regeer, B. G., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2008). Biotechnology and food. The Hague: The Netherlands Advisory Council for Spatial Planning, Nature and the Environment (RMNO).
Defila, R., & Di Guilio, A. (1999). Evaluating trandisciplinary research. PANORAMA Special Issue, 1, 1–28. http://www.ikaoe.unibe.ch/forschung/ip/Specialissue.Pano.1.99.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2012.
Do Well Do Good. (2012). Second annual public opinion survey on sustainability. http://dowelldogood.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Second-Annual-Report-on-Sustainability-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2013.
Edelman. (2012). Edelman trust barometer 2012, executive summary. http://de.scribd.com/doc/79026497/2012-Edelman-Trust-Barometer-Executive-Summary. Accessed 12 Nov 2012.
European Commission. (2009). Flash Eurobarometer 256 (Europeans’ attitudes towards the issue of sustainable consumption and production). Brussels: The GALLUP Organisation. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_256_en.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2013.
European Commission. (2011). Innovation union competitiveness report 2011, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.
Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167–187.
Grin, J., & van de Graaf, H. (1994). Handelingstheorieën en beïnvloeding in netwerken: Ongelijksoortige rationaliteiten en congruente betekenissen. Beleidswetenschap, 8(4), 349–366.
Habermas, J. (1971). Theorie und Praxis. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Hagendijk, R., & Kallerud, E. (2005). Changing conceptions and practices of governance in science and technology in Europe: A framework for analysis. In R. Hagendijk, P. Healey, M. Horst, & A. Irwin (Eds.), Science, technology and governance in Europe: Challenges of public engagement (Vol. 1, Annex 2, pp. 155–180). Online report available at: http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/34380488/STAGE_Final_Report.pdf
Hajer, M. A. (2003). Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 175–195.
Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 1–18.
Jantsch, E. (1972). Technological planning and social futures. Chichester: Wiley.
Jensen, P. (2000). Public trust in scientific information. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Center, European Commission.
Kagan, S. (2010). Cultures of sustainability and the aesthetics of the pattern that connects. Futures, 42(10), 1094–1101.
Kalegaonkar, A., & Brown, L. D. (2000). Intersectoral cooperation: Lessons for practice. Boston: IDR.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Geelong: Deakin University.
Kettle, D. F. (2002). The transformation of governance. Public administration for twenty-first century America. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Lang, D., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., et al. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1 Supplement), 25–43.
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., & Roser-Renouf, C. (2010). Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in January 2010. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven: Yale Project on Climate Change. http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/AmericansGlobalWarmingBeliefs2010.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2013.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2007). Playing it forward: Path dependency, progressive incrementalism, and the ‘super wicked’ problem of global climate change, International Studies Association Convention Chicago.
Mayoux, L. (1995). Beyond naivety: Women, gender inequality and participatory development. Development and Change, 26(2), 235–258.
Mittelstraß, J. (1992). Auf dem Weg zur Transdisziplinarität. GAIA, 1(5), 250.
Moens, N. (2010). Innovation in sectoral governance and development with ICT in agriculture, education and health. Amsterdam: VU University Press.
Mooney, C. (2005). The Republican war on science. New York Times
Nicolescu, B. (1996). Levels of complexity and levels of reality. In: The emergence of complexity in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. Proceedings of the Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Casina Pio IV, Vatican, 27–31 October 1992. Pontificia Academia Scientiarum Editions, Vatican City (distributed by Princeton University Press).
Nurse, K. (2006). Culture as the fourth pillar of sustainable development. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. http://www.fao.org/sard/common/ecg/2785/en/Cultureas4thPillarSD.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2012.
Platt, S. (Ed.). (1993). Respectfully quoted: A dictionary of quotations. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for designing transdisciplinary research, proposed by the swiss academies of arts and sciences. München: Oekom.
Poll, M. (2009). Threat of global warming to grow, say Americans. http://maristpoll.marist.edu/threat-of-global-warming-to-grow-say-americans/. Accessed 4 Apr 2013.
Regeer, B. J. (2009). Making the invisible visible. Oisterwijk: Boxpress.
Regeer, B. J., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2003). The epistemology of transdisciplinary research: From knowledge integration to communities of practice. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 5(2), 98–118.
Regeer, B. J., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2009). Knowledge co-creation: Interaction between science and society. A transdisciplinary approach to complex societal issues. Den Haag: RMNO/COS.
Regeer, B. J., Hoes, A. C., Van Amstel-Saane, M., Caron-Flinterman, J. F., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2009). Six guiding principles for evaluating mode-2 strategies for sustainable development. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(4), 515–537.
Regeer, B. J., Mager, S., & van Oorschouw, Y. (2011). Licence to grow, innovating sustainable development by connecting values. Amsterdam: VU University Press.
Rittel, H. J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730.
Roelofsen, A. (2003). Een maatschappelijke agenda biotechnologie, verslag eerste en tweede fase, maart – september 2003. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Biologie en Samenleving (report of internship).
Sainsbury, D., & Dexter, M., (2000). Foreword. In The UK Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust to Science and the Public (Eds.), Science and the public. A review of science communication and public attitudes to science in Britain. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtd003419.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2012.
Scholz, R. W., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Walter, A. I., & Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning; historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 226–251.
Schot, J. W., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and the future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2–3), 251–268.
Smits, R., & Leyten, A. (1991). Technology assessment: Waakhond of speurhond? Naar een integraal technologiebeleid. Zeist: Kerckebosch.
The UK Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust (Eds.). (2000). Science and the public, a review of science communication and public attitudes to science in Britain. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/documents/web_document/wtd003419.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2012.
The Yale project on Climate Change Communication. (2012). Public support for climate and energy policies in September 2012. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/publications/Policy-Support-September-2012/ . Accessed 4 Apr 2013.
Thompson Klein, J., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R., & Bill, A. (Eds.). (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Basel: Birkhauser.
UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2001a, November 2). UNESCO universal declaration on cultural diversity. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/435cbcd64.html Accessed 6 Nov 2012.
UNESCO. (2001b). UNESCO universal declaration on cultural diversity. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13179&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed 21 May 2013.
United Nations. (2008). Participatory governance and the millennium development goals (MDGs). http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028359.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2012.
van de Graaf, H., & Grin, J. (2001). Variëteit in rationaliteit en de legitimiteit van beleid. In T. Abma & R. In’t Veld (Eds.), Handboek Beleidswetenschap (pp. 208–221). Amsterdam: Boom.
Weber, M., & Hemmelskamp, J. (Eds.). (2005). Towards environmental innovation systems. Heidelberg: Springer.
Wellcome Trust Monitor 1: Key Points. (2010). London: The Wellcome Trust. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_grants/documents/web_document/wtx058869.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov 2012.
Williams, R. (1981). Culture. Glasgow: Fontana Paperbacks.
Zweekhorst, M. B. M., Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2001). Innovations for sustainable development: The need for transdisciplinary knowledge integration. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 3(1), 75–94.
Zweekhorst, M. B. M., Broerse, J. E. W., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2002). Institutionalising a transdisciplinary approach to technology development in a Bangladeshi NGO. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 4(1), 43–65.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the editorial contributions of Sarah Cummings, in particular in the first section on culture, with gratitude.
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
Bunders, J.F.G., Bunders, A.E., Zweekhorst, M.B.M. (2015). Challenges for Transdisciplinary Research. In: Werlen, B. (eds) Global Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16477-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16477-9_2
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)