Sustainability Science

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 439–451 | Cite as

Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving

Special Feature: Original Article New Directions in Sustainability Science

Abstract

Transdisciplinarity is often presented as a way to effectively use scientific research to contribute to societal problem solving for sustainability. The aim of this paper is to critically explore this statement. This is done in two ways. First, a literature survey of transdisciplinary research is used to identify the assumptions that underlie the positive relationship between transdisciplinarity and societal problem solving for sustainability. This mapping identifies the claim that in-depth participation of users and the integration of relevant knowledge from both practice and research in real-world problem contexts produce socially robust results that contribute to sustainability. Second, the ability to live up to this claim is presented and discussed in five case study projects from Mistra Urban Futures, a transdisciplinary center in Göteborg, Sweden. The conclusions show that transdisciplinary processes, which fulfill the above conditions, do produce different types of socially robust knowledge, but this does not necessarily result in the ability to influence change in a sustainable direction. This instead creates a paradox in that the participation of stakeholders and the integration of knowledge from diverse sources require spaces that are both embedded in and insulated from practice and science proper. Such spaces produce results that are not easily aligned with sector-based target groups and formal policy processes. Institutionalizing transdisciplinarity in a boundary organization therefore solves some problems regarding participation and balanced problem ownership. However, it also creates new, hybrid problems, regarding knowledge transfer and scalability, which bridge the boundaries and challenge the praxis of planning and policy making.

Keywords

Transdisciplinary research Sustainability Symmetrical participation 

References

  1. Bammer G (2013) Disciplining interdisciplinarity: integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. ANU e-press, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2012) Methods for transdisciplinary research: a primer for practice. Campus Verlag, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  3. Billger M, Alfredsson K, Lindkvist J, Myren P, Clase K (2012) Urbana spel (Urban Games). Mistra Urban Futures working paper, Mistra Urban Futures, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackstock KL, Carter CE (2007) Operationalising sustainability science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot projects. Geogr J 173(4):343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Devloping and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainbility. Ecol Econ 60:726–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro C (2004) Sustainable development: mainstream and critical perspectives. Organ Environ 17(2):195–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Earth Charter (2000) Values and principles for a sustainable future. Accessed on the web at: http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html
  8. Elias K, Forsemalm J, Gustafsson J, Johansson M, Lilled L, Montin S, Löf Y (2011) Governance: att styra med insikt snarare än avsikt. En studie om flernivåstyrning och sektorssamverkan i Göteborg och Malmö (Governance: to govern by insight instead of by intent, a study of multi-level governance and cross-sector collaboration in Göteborg and Malmö), Mistra Urban Futures Pilot Project Report, Mistra Urban Futures, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  9. Eriksson E, Sandoff A, Värmby G, Rönnborg P, Jensen C, Molnar S, Bergstrand BO, Antonsson AB, Elias K, Kildsgaard I, Bolin L, Wolf C (2011) Affärsdriven hållbar stadsutveckling: Goda exempel och potential (Business driven sustainable urban development: good examples and potential). Mistra Urban Futures Policy Project Report, Mistra Urban Futures, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  10. Frodeman R (ed) (2010) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 society. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Healey P, de Magalhaes C, Madanipour A, Pendlebury J (2003) Place, identity and local politicis: analyzing initiatives in deliberative governance. In: Hajer M, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 60–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hellström T, Jacob M (2003) Boundary construction in science: from discourse to construction. Sci Public Policy 30(4):235–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffman-Reim H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansury W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, BerneGoogle Scholar
  16. Holden E (2007) Achieving sustainable mobility: everyday and leisure-time travel in the EU. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  17. Hopwood B, Mellor M, O’Brien G (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain Dev 13:38–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Innes J, Booher D (2003) Collaborative policy making: governance through dialogue. In: Hajer M, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacob M (1996) Sustainable development: a reconstructive critique of the United Nations debate. Department of Theory of Science and Research, Göteborgs University, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  20. Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainble development: goals, indicators, values and practice. Environment 47(3):9–21Google Scholar
  21. Klein JT (2010) A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R (ed) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–30Google Scholar
  22. Klein JT, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M (eds) (2001) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology and society. Birkhäuser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  23. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrison G, Knutsson P, Buhr K, Thörn P, Moback U, Areslätt H (2012) Climate adaptation and sustainability strategies for a waterfront development, Mistra Urban Futures Working paper, Mistra Urban Futures, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  25. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Owen S, Cowell R (2011) Land and limits: interpreting sustainability in the planning process, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Parr A (2009) Hijacking sustainability. The MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom, MunichGoogle Scholar
  29. Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F, Speranza CI, Kiteme B, Boillat S, Serrano E, Hadorn GH, Wiesmann U (2010) Researchers roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Policy 37(4):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Polk M (2010) Sustainability in practice: the interpretation of sustainable development in a regional planning arena for dialogue and learning in Western Sweden, Planning. Theory Pract 11(4):473–489Google Scholar
  31. Polk M (2011) Institutional capacity building in urban planning and policy making for sustainable development: success or failure? Plan Pract Res 26(2):185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Polk M, Malbert B, JH Kain (2009) The Göteborg Center of excellence for sustainable urban futures, Göteborg, Mistra Center ApplicationGoogle Scholar
  33. Polk M, Kain JH, Holmberg J (2013) Mistra Urban Futures: a living laboratory for urban transformations in regenerative sustainable development of universities and cities. In: Ariane König (ed) The role of living laboratories, Chapter 9. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  34. Redclift M (1987) Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robinson J (2008) Being undisciplined: transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures 40:70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roth S, Thörn P, Buhr K, Moback U, Morrison G, Knutsson P, Areslätt H (2011) Frihamnen i ett förändrat klimat Klimatanpassningsstrategiers påverkan på hållbar utveckling (The influence of climate adaptation strategies on sustainable development) Mistra Urban Futures Pilot Project Report. Mistra Urban Futures, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  37. Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spangenberg J (2011) Sustainability science: a review, an analysis and some empirical lessons. Environ Conserv 38(3):275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Krütli P, Scholz RW (2008) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. Syst Pract Action Res 21:409–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stenberg J, Fryk L, Bolin E, Borg P, Castell P, Evenås U, Larberg V (2011) Urban empowerment: cultures of participation and learning. Mistra Urban Futures Working Paper, Mistra Urban Futures, Göteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  41. Stokols D, Hall KL, Moser MP, Feng A, Misra S, Taylor BK (2010) Cross-disciplinary team science initiatives: research, training, and translation. In: Frodeman R (ed) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 471–493Google Scholar
  42. Tabàra J, Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Sustainability learning in natural resource use and management. Ecol Soc 12(2):3Google Scholar
  43. Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38(5):379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. UNCED (1992) Agenda 21. United Nations conference on environment and developmentGoogle Scholar
  45. Walter AI, Helgenberger S, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2007) Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Eval Program Plan 30(4):325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Weingart P (2008) How robust is socially robust knowledge? In: Carrier M, Howard D, Kourany JA (eds) The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice. Science and values revisited. University of Pittsburg Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  48. Wiek A, Ness B, Schweizer-Ries P, Band FS, Farioli F (2012) From complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(Supplement 1):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wiek A, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Robinson J (2014) Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Res Eval 23:1–16 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Ecology, School of Global StudiesThe University of GothenburgGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.Mistra Urban FuturesChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations