Sustainability Science

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 385–397 | Cite as

The role of learning in transdisciplinary research: moving from a normative concept to an analytical tool through a practice-based approach

Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Concepts, Methodology, and Knowledge Management for Sustainability Science

Abstract

Transdisciplinary (TD) research is an example of a participatory research approach that has been developed to address the complexity of societal problems through the exchange of knowledge and expertise across diverse groups of societal actors. The concept of knowledge exchange is central to the ability of TD research to produce usable knowledge. There is, however, limited theoretical attention to the processes that enable knowledge exchange, namely learning. In this article, we analyze the “transferability” of knowledge generated in TD research settings from a practice-based approach. In this approach, learning and knowing are seen as situated in social practices, in meaning making processes where the involved participants make sense of what they do and why they do it. We describe and analyze three TD projects, and discuss the role of practitioners’ perspectives in the interpretation of the tasks and realization of TD, and in the consequences this has for the organization of the research process and the usability of its results. The analysis shows that while the project teams were given the same task and framework, they did not understand or enact TD in a similar fashion. The three projects created different goals and organizations. They also resulted in different challenges, which could be identified and analyzed by the use of a practice-based approach to learning. In the conclusions, we identify aspects for both practice and research that are important for creating sufficient conditions for learning in TD research processes so that they can better promote contributions to societal change.

Keywords

Transdisciplinary research Situated learning Sociocultural theory Sustainability 

References

  1. Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ Sci 14(3):312–330CrossRefGoogle 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. Blackstock KL, Carter CE (2007) Operationalizing sustainability science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot projects. Georgr J 173(4):343–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown JS, Duguid P (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organ Sci 12(2):198–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlile PR (2002) A Pragmatic view on knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci 13(4):442–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chaiklin S, Lave J (eds) (1993) Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Contu A (2014) On boundaries and difference: communities of practice and power relations in creative world. Manag Learn 45(3):289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Contu A, Willmott H (2003) Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory. Organ Sci 14(3):283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crang M, Cook I (2007) Doing ethnographies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Engeström Y, Middleton D (eds) (1996) Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Gherardi S (2001) From organizational learning to practice based knowing. Hum Relat 54(1):131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gherardi S, Nicolini D (2003) To transfer is to transform: the circulation of safety knowledge. In: Nicolini D, Gherardi S, Yanow D (eds) Knowing in organizations, a practice-based approach. M.E Sharpe, London, pp 204–224Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Hallgren L, Westberg L (2015) Adaptive management? Observations on the role of understanding-orientated communication practice in wildlife management. Wildl Biology 21(3):165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heizmann H (2011) Knowledge sharing in a dispersed network of HR practice: zooming in on power/knowledge struggles. Manag Learn 42(4):379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hellström T (2015) Formative evaluation at a transdisciplinary research center. In: Polk M (ed) Co-producing knowledge for sustainable cities: joining forces for change. Routledge, London, pp 146–165Google Scholar
  17. Hotho J, Saka-Helmhout A, Becker-Ritterspach F (2014) Bringing context and structure back into situated learning. Manag Learn 1:57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hughes J (2007) Lost in translation: communities of practice. The journey from academic model to practitioner tool. In: Hughes J, Jewson N, Unwin L (eds) Communities of practice, critical perspectives. Routledge, New York, pp 30–40Google Scholar
  19. Hughes J, Jewson N, Unwin L (eds) (2007) Communities of practice, critical perspectives. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Jahn T, Keil F (2015) An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research. Futures 65:195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development: goals, indicators, values and practice. Environment 47(3):8–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorback D (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nicolini D (2012) Practice theory, work, & organization, an introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Nicolini D, Gherardi S, Yanow D (2003) Introduction: towards a practice-based view of knowing and learning in organizations. In: Nicolini D, Gherardi S, Yanow D (eds) Knowing in organizations, a practice-based approach. M.E Sharpe, London, pp 3–31Google Scholar
  27. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle 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, Hirsch Hadorn G, 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 (2014) Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinarity research and societal problem solving. Sustain Sci 9:439–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Polk M (2015) Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65:110–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2015) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robinson J (2008) Being undisciplined: transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures 40:70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schauppenlehner-Kloyber E, Penker M (2015) Managing group processes in transdisciplinary future studies: how to facilitate social learning and capacity building for self-organised action towards sustainable urban development? Futures 65:57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015a) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part I—theoretical foundations. Futures 10:527–544Google Scholar
  36. Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015b) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part II—what constraints and obstacle do we meet in practice? Futures 10:653–671Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Swan J, Scarbrough H, Newell S (2010) Why don’t (or do) organizations learn from projects? Manag Learn 41(3):325–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38(5):379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wertsch JV (1991) Voices of the mind: sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  42. Westberg L, Powell S (2015) Participate for women’s sake?—A gender analysis of Swedish deliberative NRM projects. Soc Nat Recourses. doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1014594 Google Scholar
  43. Whittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9:483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Wiek A, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Robinson J (2014) Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Res Eval 23:117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yanow D (2003) Seeing organizational learning: a “Cultural” view. In: Nicolini D, Gherardi S, Yanow D (eds) Knowing in organizations, a practice-based approach. M.E Sharpe, London, pp 33–52Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban and Rural DevelopmentSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLUUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.School of Global Studies, University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations