Advertisement

Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: finding the common ground of multi-faceted concepts

  • Henrik von Wehrden
  • Maria Helena Guimarães
  • Olivia Bina
  • Marta Varanda
  • Daniel J. Lang
  • Beatrice John
  • Fabienne Gralla
  • Doris Alexander
  • Dorit Raines
  • Allen White
  • Roderick John Lawrence
Case Report
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Concepts, Methodology, and Knowledge Management for Sustainability Science

Abstract

Inter- and transdisciplinarity are increasingly relevant concepts and research practices within academia. Although there is a consensus about the need to apply these practices, there is no agreement over definitions. Building on the outcomes of the first year of the COST Action TD1408 “Interdisciplinarity in research programming and funding cycles” (INTREPID), this paper describes the similarities and differences between interpretations of inter- and transdisciplinarity. Drawing on literature review and empirical results from participatory workshops involving INTREPID Network members from 27 different countries, the paper shows that diverse definitions of inter-and transdisciplinarity coexist within scientific literature and are reproduced by researchers and practitioners within the network. The recognition of this diversity did not hinder the definition of basic requirements for inter- and transdisciplinarity. We present five basic units considered as building blocks for this type of research. These building blocks are: (1) creation of collective glossaries, (2) definition of boundary objects, (3) use of combined problem- and solution-oriented approaches, (4) inclusion of a facilitator of inter-and transdisciplinary research within the team and (5) promotion of reflexivity by accompanying research. These were considered five basic units for effective inter- and transdisciplinary research although the 4th building block was also considered as “matrix” that holds all the others together.

Keywords

Interdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity Research-practice Collaboration INTREPID 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the EU for funding the COST INTREPID Workshop (TD 1408). We are grateful to the University of Lisbon for hosting the workshop on which this paper is based and for all the members of INTREPID cost action that are listed in http://www.intrepid-cost.eu/. The work of Helena Guimarães was supported by the Portuguese National Foundation for Science and Technology (Grant Number SFRH/BPD/95556/2013). We are extremely grateful for the reviewers and the editor who substantially helped to improve the quality and framing of this paper.

Supplementary material

11625_2018_594_MOESM1_ESM.docx (302 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 302 kb)

References

  1. Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Baumgartner S et al (2014) Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol Econ 103:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergmann M, Brohmann B, Hoffmann E, Loibl MC, Rehaag R, Schramm E, Voss J-P (2005) Quality criteria of transdisciplinary research. In: A guide for the formative evaluation of research projects. Institut fuer sozial-oekologische Forschung (ISOE), p 76Google Scholar
  3. Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2010) Methoden transdisziplinärer Forschung. Ein Überblick mit Anwendungsbeispielen. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2012) Methods for transdisciplinary research. A primer for practice. Campus Verlag, s.lGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandt P, Ernst A, Gralla F et al (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol Econ 92:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broto VC, Allen A, Rapoport E (2012) Interdisciplinary perspectives on urban metabolism. J Ind Ecol 16(6):851–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruce A et al (2004) Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme. Futures 36(4):457–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Change P-FfCaG (1997) Research on sustainability and global change—visions in science policy by Swiss Researchers. http://www.proclim.unibe.ch/visions.html
  9. Childers DL, Pickett STA, Grove JM, Ogden L, Whitmer A (2014) Advancing urban sustainability theory and action: challenges and opportunities. Landsc Urban Plan 125:320–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi S, Richards K (2017) Interdisciplinary discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen DR, Hansen LE, Krøgholt I, Stage C (2016) The participatory researcher: developing the concept of ‘accompanying research’. Nord J Cult Policy 19(1):116–136Google Scholar
  12. Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):703–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Grandis G, Efstathiou S (2016) Introduction—grand challenges and small steps. Stud Hist Philos Sci C Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 56:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Vos MG, Janssen PHM, Kok MTJ et al (2013) Formalizing knowledge on international environmental regimes: a first step towards integrating political science in integrated assessments of global environmental change. Environ Model Softw 44:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeFries RS, Ellis EC, Chapin FS et al (2012) Planetary opportunities: a social contract for global change science to contribute to a sustainable future. Bioscience 62(6):603–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dufrene M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  17. EUCO (2013) Council Decision establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020—the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020), 3 December 2013, European Council (EUCO) (2013/743/EU)Google Scholar
  18. Fischer EV, Mackey KRM, Cusack DF et al (2012) Is pretenure interdisciplinary research a career risk? Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 93(32):311–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbons M (2011) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, Reprinted. Sage, Los Angeles  Google Scholar
  20. Harris JA, Russell JY, Brown VA (eds) (2010) Tackling wicked problems through the transdisciplinary imagination. Earthscan, London, Washington, DC  Google Scholar
  21. Hart DD, Bell KP, Lindenfeld LA, Jain S, Johnson TR, Ranco D, McGill B (2015) Strengthening the role of universities in addressing sustainability challenges: the Mitchell Center for Sustainability Solutions as an institutional experiment. Ecol Soc 20(2):4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Reim H, Biber-Klemm S, Gorssenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (eds) (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Jahn T (2008) Transdisziplinarität in der Forschungspraxis. In: Matthias Bergmann/Engelbert Schramm (eds) Transdisziplinäre Forschung, Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/New York, pp 21–37Google Scholar
  24. Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jakobsen CH, Hels T, McLaughlin WJ (2004) Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: a cross-country comparison. For Policy Econ 6(1):15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kajikawa Y, Tacoa F, Yamaguchi K (2014) Sustainability science: the changing landscape of sustainability research. Sustain Sci 9(4):431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R et al (2001) Environment and development—sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity. History, theory, and practice. Wayne State Univ. Press, Detroit  Google Scholar
  29. Klein JT (2008) Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. Am J Prev Med 35(2):S116–S123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kueffer C, Hadorn GH, Bammer G, van Kerkhoff L, Pohl C (2007) Towards a publication culture in transdisciplinary research. Gaia 16(1):22–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kueffer C, Underwood E, Hirsch Hadorn G, Holderegger R, Lehning M, Pohl C, Schirmer M, Schwarzenbach R, Stauffacher M, Wuelser G, Edwards P (2012) Enabling effective problem-oriented research for sustainable development. Ecol Soc 17(4):8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lang D, Wiek A, Bergmann M et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science—practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 7(1):25–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lawrence RJ (2015) Advances in transdisciplinarity: epistemologies, methodologies and processes. Futures 65(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawrence RJ (2017) A trans-anthropo-logic of transdisciplinarity. In: Fam D, Palmer J, Riedy C, Mitchell C (eds) Transdisciplinary research and practice for sustainability outcomes. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames, pp. 253–259Google Scholar
  35. Lawrence RJ, Despres C (2004) Futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures 36(4):397–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Matson P (2009) The sustainability transition. Issues Sci Technol 25(4):39–42Google Scholar
  37. Meadows DH, Wright D (2011) Thinking in systems. A primer. Chelsea Green Pub, White River Junction, Vt  Google Scholar
  38. Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D et al (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9(2):239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Research Council (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Okhuysen GA, Eisenhardt KM (2002) Integrating knowledge in groups: how formal interventions enable flexibility. Organ Sci 13(4):370–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Palmer MA, Kramer JG, Boyd J, Hawthorne D (2016) Practices for facilitating interdisciplinary synthetic research: the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19:111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piso Z, O’Rourke M, Weathers KC (2016) Out of the fog: catalyzing integrative capacity in interdisciplinary research. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 56:84–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pohl C (2011) What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures 43(6):618–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2008) Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary research. Nat Sci Soc 16(2):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pombo O (2004) Interdisciplinaridade. Ambições e Limites. Relógio d’Água (edição apoiada pelo IPLB), LisboaGoogle Scholar
  46. Porter A, Rafols I (2009) Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81(3):719–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ProClim—Forum for Climate and Global Change (1997) Research on sustainability and global change—visions in science policy by Swiss researchers. Swiss Academy of Science, BernGoogle Scholar
  48. Repko AF, Szostak R (2017) Interdisciplinary research. Process and theory, 3rd edn. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  49. Robinson J (2008) Being undisciplined: transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures 40(1):70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roman CE, Lynch AH, Dominey-Howes D (2011) What is the Goal? Framing the climate change adaptation question through a problem-oriented approach. Wea Clim Soc 3(1):16–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part II-what constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice? Sustain Sci 10(4):653–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods. Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CalifCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stauffacher M, Valsangiacomo A, Pohl C (2008) The interaction between science and society in transdisciplinary environment research. Gaia 17(4):396–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stokols D (2011) Transdisciplinary action research in landscape architecture and planning: prospects and challenges. Landsc J 30(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, Hall KL, Taylor BK (2008) The ecology of team science. Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med 35(2 Suppl):96–115Google Scholar
  57. Tuana N (2013) Embedding philosophers in the practices of science: bringing humanities to the sciences. Synthese 190(11):1955–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Rijnsoever FJ, Hessels LK (2011) Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Res Policy 40(3):463–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vilsmaier U, Engbers M, Luthardt P, Maas-Deipenbrock RM, Wunderlich S, Scholz RW (2015) Case-based mutual learning sessions: knowledge integration and transfer in transdisciplinary processes. Sustain Sci 10(4):563–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wagner F, Ertner S (2016) Reallabore für nachhaltiges Wissen-Forschung für und mit Zukunft. GAIA-Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 25(1):57–58Google Scholar
  61. Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K et al (2011) Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. J Inf 5(1):14–26Google Scholar
  62. Wiek A (2007) Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive knowledge generation—experiences from transdisciplinary case study research. GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 16:52–57Google Scholar
  63. Wiek A, Kay B (2015) Learning while transforming: solution-oriented learning for urban sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 16:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henrik von Wehrden
    • 1
  • Maria Helena Guimarães
    • 2
  • Olivia Bina
    • 3
    • 4
  • Marta Varanda
    • 5
  • Daniel J. Lang
    • 1
  • Beatrice John
    • 1
  • Fabienne Gralla
    • 1
  • Doris Alexander
    • 6
  • Dorit Raines
    • 8
  • Allen White
    • 9
  • Roderick John Lawrence
    • 7
  1. 1.Faculty of SustainabilityLeuphana University LüneburgLüneburgGermany
  2. 2.LInstituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais Mediterrânicas (ICAAM)University of Évora, Núcleo da MitraÉvoraPortugal
  3. 3.Instituto de Ciências SociaisUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Geography and Resource ManagementThe Chinese University of Hong KongSha TinHong Kong
  5. 5.SOCIUS/Instituto Superior de Economia e GestãoUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  6. 6.Trinity College DublinUniversity of DublinDublinIreland
  7. 7.Geneva School of Social SciencesUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  8. 8.Dipartimento di Studi UmanisticiUniversità Ca’ FoscariVeniceItaly
  9. 9.College of Arts, Celtic Studies and Social SciencesUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations