Advertisement

Learning to collaborate while collaborating: advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research

  • Rebecca FreethEmail author
  • Guido Caniglia
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Sustainability Science Innovation and Capacity Development

Abstract

Interdisciplinary collaboration has become mainstream practice for sustainability researchers. However, interdisciplinary research teams encounter numerous challenges for which they may find themselves under-prepared. In this article, we challenge the often-held assumption that researchers already know how to collaborate when entering interdisciplinary research teams and argue that, if we want to enhance interdisciplinary sustainability research, we need to take collaboration and its challenges seriously. First, we suggest thinking about interdisciplinary research collaborations as spaces that comprise epistemic, social, symbolic, spatial, and temporal dimensions and that produce different degrees of comfort and discomfort for researchers. Thinking about collaborations in this way supports a more systematic understanding of collaborative challenges. Second, we make a proposal for learning to collaborate while collaborating, so as to tackle challenges of interdisciplinary research. Drawing on a literature review and on experiences in the project Leverage Points for Sustainability Transformation, we argue for advancing collaborative interdisciplinary research for sustainability by creating and engaging in collaborations in ways that prioritize learning to collaborate. We outline a strategy for learning to collaborate while collaborating, which implies: (1) creating conditions for learning to take place, which includes paying attention to discomfort as a trigger for learning and (2) engaging in collaborations in ways that strengthen researchers’ collaborative capacities by cultivating particular orientations, knowledge and skills. The fundamental inquiry is whether and how learning to collaborate has a role in more fully realizing the inspiring potentials and ambitious goals of interdisciplinary research for sustainability.

Keywords

Collaborative teams Learning Epistemic living spaces Sustainability science Comfort and discomfort Collaborative capacities 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors warmly thank the Leverage Points research team for creating the formative accompanying research role and for their unstinting openness. We thank Ulli Vilsmaier and Daniel Lang for their feedback on previous drafts of this article. This research is supported by the Volkswagenstiftung and the Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur (Grant number A112269) as well as by a Marie Curie fellowship (Grant number 752135).

References

  1. Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J et al (2016) Leverage points for sustainability transformation: institutions, people, knowledge. Ambio 46(1):30–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker AC, Jensen PJ, Kolb D (2002) Conversational learning: an experiential approach to knowledge creation. Quorom Books, WestportGoogle Scholar
  3. Balvanera P, Daw TM, Gardner T et al (2015) Key features for more successful place-based sustainability research on social-ecological systems. Ecol Society 22(1):14.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08826-220114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bammer G (2017) Should we discipline interdisciplinarity? Palgrave Commun 3(1):30.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0039-7 (Springer US) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barzilai S, Chinn CA (2017) On the goals of epistemic education: promoting apt epistemic performance. J Learning Sci 8406:1–37.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1392968 (Routledge) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bettencourt LMA, Kaur J (2011) Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(49):19540–19545.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102712108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boix Mansilla V (2006) Assessing expert interdisciplinary work at the frontier: an empirical exploration. Res Eval 15(1):17–29.  https://doi.org/10.3152/147154406781776075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boix Mansilla V, Lamont M, Sato K (2016) Shared cognitive–emotional–interactional platforms: markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. Sci Technol Hum Values 41(4):571–612.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915614103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bozeman B, Gaughan M, Youtie J et al (2016) Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: dispatches from the front lines. Sci Public Policy 43(2):226–244.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bracken LJ, Oughton EA (2006) “What do you mean?” The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research. Trans Inst Br Geogr 31:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bränstrom-Öhman A (2013) Elation (envy): Exploring the “unhappy archives” of feminist research collaboration. In: Griffin G, Bränström-Öhman A, Kalman H (eds) The emotional politics of research collaboration. Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), London and New York, pp 113–129Google Scholar
  12. Brown VA, Lambert JA (2013) Collective learning for social change: a guide to collaborative action. Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), OxonGoogle Scholar
  13. Callard F, Fitzgerald D, Woods A (2015) Interdisciplinary collaboration in action: tracking the signal, tracing the noise. Palgrave Commun 1(15019):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caniglia G, John B, Kohler M, Bellina L, Wiek A, Rojas C, Laubichler MD, Lang, D (2016) An experience-based learning framework: Activities for the initial development of sustainability competencies. Inter J Sustain High Educ 17(6):827–852.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0065
  15. Caniglia G, John B, Bellina L et al (2018) The glocal curriculum: a model for transnational collaboration in higher education for sustainable development. J Cleaner Prod 171:368–376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carr G, Loucks DP, Blöschl G (2018) Gaining insight into interdisciplinary research and education programmes: a framework for evaluation. Res Policy 47(1):35–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8086–8091.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheruvelil KS, Soranno PA, Weathers KC et al (2014) Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Front Ecol Environ 12(1):31–38.  https://doi.org/10.1890/130001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cilliers P (2001) Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems. Int J Innovat Manag 05(02):135–147.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919601000312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cilliers P (2006) On the importance of a certain slowness: stability, memory and hysteresis in complex systems. Emerg Complex Organ 8(3):105–112Google Scholar
  21. Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L et al (2016) Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. PNAS 113(17):4570–4578.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2782651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cosley B, Mccoy SK, Gardnen SK (2014) Collaborative voice: examining the role of voice in interdisciplinary collaboration. Int J Organ Theory Behav 17(2):139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Defila R, Di Giulio A (2017) Sidebar: managing consensus in inter-and transdisciplinary teams: tasks and expertise. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Pacheco RC (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Defila R, Di Giulio A (2018) What is it good for? Reflecting and systematizing accompanying research to research programs. Gaia 27(1):97–104.  https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. do Mar Pereira M (2012) Uncomfortable classrooms: rethinking the role of student discomfort in feminist teaching. Eur J Women’s Stud 19(1):128–135.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506811426237c CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Donovan PJ (2014) Leaders behaving badly: using power to generate undiscussables in action learning sets. Action Learn Res Pract 11(2):179–197.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2014.908766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q 44(2):350.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD et al (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57(1):55.  https://doi.org/10.1641/B570109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fazey I, Schäpke N, Caniglia G et al (2018) Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research. Energy Res Soc Sci 40:54–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Felt U (2009) Introduction: Knowing and living in academic research. In: Felt U (ed) Knowing and living in academic research: convergence and heterogeneity in the European context. Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences in the Czech Republic, PragueGoogle Scholar
  31. Felt U (2010) Transdisciplinarity as culture and practice| Transdisziplinarität als wissenskultur und praxis. Gaia 19(1):75–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Felt U (2016) The temporal choreographies of participation: thinking innovation and society from a time-sensitive perspective. In: Chilvers J, Kearnes M (eds) Remaking participation: science, environment and emergent publics. Routledge, London/New York, pp 178–198.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203797693 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Felt U (2017) “Response-able practices” or “New bureaucracies of virtue”: the challenges of making RRI work in academic environments. In: Asveld L, van Dam-Mieras R, Swierstra T et al (eds) Responsible innovation 3. Springer, Cham, pp 49–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64834-7_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Felt U, Fochler M (2012) Re-ordering epistemic living space: On the tacit governance effects of the public communication of science. In: Rödder S, Franzen M, Weingart P (eds) The sciences’ media connection—communication to the public and its repercussions. Springer, Dortrecht, pp 133–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Felt U, Cervinková A, Garforth L et al (2009) Knowing and living in academic research: convergences and heterogeneity in research cultures in the European context. Felt U (ed) Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, PragueGoogle Scholar
  36. Felt U, Fochler M, Müller R (2012) Biography and/or career? Young researchers’ perspectives on knowing and living in contemporary research, Department of Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna. Vienna. http://sts.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_sciencestudies/pdf_files/Preprints/Biography_Career_Preprint.pdf. Accessed 5 Apr 2016
  37. Felt U, Schumann S, Schwarz CG (2015) (Re)assembling natures, cultures, and (nano)technologies in public engagement. Sci Culture 24(4):458–483.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2015.1055720 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fischer J, Ritchie EG, Hanspach J (2012) An academia beyond quantity: a reply to Loyola et al. and Halme et al. Trends Ecol Evol 27(11):587–588.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.009 (Elsevier Ltd) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fitzgerald D, Brunner E, Koellinger P et al (2012) “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”: understanding collaboration between the social sciences and the life sciences. LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Gardner SK, Jansujwicz JS, Hutchins K et al (2014) Socialization to interdisciplinarity: faculty and student perspectives. High Educ 67(3):255–271.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9648-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gieryn TF (2000) A space for place in sociology. Ann Rev Sociol 26:463–496.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gleed A, Marchant D (2016) Interdisciplinarity: survey report for the Global Research Council 2016 annual meeting. Stockport, England. http://djsresearch.co.uk
  43. Griffin G, Bränström-Öhman A, Kalman H (eds) (2013) The emotional politics of research collaboration. Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Hackett EJ, Rhoten DR (2010) The snowbird charrette: integrative interdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research design. Minerva 47(4):407–440.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9136-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Haider LJ, Hentati-Sundberg J, Giusti M et al (2017) The undisciplinary journey: early-career perspectives in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 13(1):191–204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0445-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hampton SE, Parker JN (2011) Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. Bioscience 61(11):900–910.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.11.9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Harris F, Lyon F, Clarke S (2009) Doing interdisciplinarity: motivation and collaboration in research for sustainable agriculture in the UK. Area 41(4):374–384.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00859.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hoggett P, Randall R (2016) Socially constructed silence? Protecting policymakers from the unthinkable. Available at: https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/paul-hoggett-rosemary-randall/socially-constructed-silence-protecting-policy. Accessed 8 June 2016
  49. Holm P, Goodsite ME, Cloetingh S et al (2013) Collaboration between the natural, social and human sciences in global change research. Environ Sci Policy 28:25–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Holthoff S, Harbo LJ (2011) Key concepts in social pedagogy — or How to see everyday life in children’s residential homes from a social pedagogical perspective. Children Australia 36(4):214–218.  https://doi.org/10.1375/jcas.36.4.214
  51. Horst M (2013) Learning from discomfort: science communication experiments between diffusion, dialogue and emergence. In: Philips L, Kristiansen M, Vehviläinen M et al (eds) Knowledge and power in collaborative research: a reflexive approach. Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Huutoniemi K, Klein JT, Bruun H et al (2010) Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Res Policy 39(1):79–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Irwin EG, Culligan PJ, Fischer-Kowalski M et al (2018) Bridging barriers to advance global sustainability. Nat Sustain 1(7):324–326.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0085-1 (Springer US) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ives CD, Freeth R and Fischer J (2019) Inside-out sustainability: The neglect of inner worlds. Ambio. Springer Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w
  55. Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B et al (2011) Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6(1):69–82.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jing L (2015) An investigation of workplace characteristics influencing knowledge workers’ sense of belonging and organizational outcomes. Dresden Technical University, DresdenGoogle Scholar
  57. Johansson A, Söderberg E, Fahlgren S (2013) The emotional politics of belonging. In: Griffin G, Bränström-Öhman A, Kalman H (eds) The emotional politics of research collaboration. Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group), London/New York, pp 99–112Google Scholar
  58. John B, Caniglia G, Bellina L et al (2017) The glocal curriculum: a practical guide to teaching and learning in an interconnected world. Baden–Baden: [sic!]. Critical Aesthetics Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.207
  59. Kalman H (2013) Challenges to trust in research collaboration. In: Griffin G, Bränstrom-Öhman A, Kalman H (eds) The emotional politics of research collaboration. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, theory and practice. Wayne State University Press, DetroitGoogle Scholar
  61. Klein JT (1996) Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia, CharlottesvilleGoogle Scholar
  62. Klein JT, Falk-Krzesinski HJ (2017) Interdisciplinary and collaborative work: framing promotion and tenure practices and policies. Res Policy 46(6):1055–1061.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Knorr Cetina K (1999) Epistemic Culture: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  64. Kolb D (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  65. Ledford H (2015) Team science. Nature 525:308–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lotrecchiano GR, Mallinson TR, Leblanc-Beaudoin T et al (2016) Individual motivation and threat indicators of collaboration readiness in scientific knowledge producing teams: a scoping review and domain analysis. Heliyon 2:5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00105 (Elsevier Ltd) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lyall C, Meagher LR (2012) A Masterclass in interdisciplinarity: research into practice in training the next generation of interdisciplinary researchers. Futures 44(6):608–617.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lyall C, Bruce A, Tait J et al (2011a) Interdisciplinary research journeys: practical strategies for capturing creativity. Bloomsbury Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Lyall C, Bruce A, Marsden W et al (2011b) Identifying key success factors in the quest for interdisciplinary knowledge. Report to NERC Google Scholar
  70. MacMynowski D (2007) Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: power and knowledge at the meeting of social and biophyscial science. Ecol Society 12(1):20. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art20/ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Meadows DH (2008) Thinking in systems: a primer. In: Wright D (ed) White river junction. Chelsea Green Publishing, VermontGoogle Scholar
  72. Mezirow J (2009) Transformative learning theory. In: Mezirow J, Taylor EW (eds) Transformative Learning in Practice: Insights from Community, Workplace and Higher Education. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  73. Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8(2):279–293.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0180-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Morin E (1992) From the concept of system to the paradigm of complexity. J Social Evol Syst 15(4):371–385.  https://doi.org/10.1016/1061-7361(92)90024-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; Institute of Medicine (2005) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. The National Academies Press, Washington.  https://doi.org/10.17226/11153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Norris PE, O’Rourke M, Mayer AS et al (2016) Managing the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socio-ecological systems. Landsc Urban Plan.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. O’Rourke M, Crowley SJ (2013) Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: the story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese 190(11):1937–1954.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0175-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Palmer MA, Kramer JG, Boyd J et al (2016) Practices for facilitating interdisciplinary synthetic research: the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC). Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19:111–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.01.002 (Elsevier B.V.) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Parker JN, Hackett EJ (2012) Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements. Am Sociol Rev 77(1):21–44.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411433763 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rabinow P (2011) The accompaniment: assembling the contemporary. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rau H, Goggins G, Fahy F (2018) From invisibility to impact: recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research. Res Policy 47(1):266–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Reich SM, Reich JA (2006) Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: a method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. Am J Community Psychol 38(1–2):51–62.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9064-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rhoten D, O’Connor E, Hackett EJ (2009) The act of collaborative creation and the art of integrative creativity: originality, disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity. Thesis Eleven 96(1):83–108.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513608099121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Roy ED, Morzillo AT, Seijo F et al (2013) The elusive pursuit of interdisciplinarity at the human–environment interface. Bioscience 63(9):745–753.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.9.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schmieg G, Meyer E, Schrickel I et al (2017) Modeling normativity in sustainability: a comparison of the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, and the papal encyclical. Sustain Sci 13(3):785–796.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0504-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Senninger T (2000) Abenteuer leiten - in Abenteuer lernen. Münster, ÖkotopiaGoogle Scholar
  88. Sipos Y, Battisti B, Grimm K (2008) Achieving transformative sustainability learning: engaging head, hands and heart. Int J Sustain Higher Educ 9(1):68–86.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370810842193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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):387–420.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Stokols D (2014) Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley SJ, Eigenbrode SD et al (eds) Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, pp 56–81.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199608000-00020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Strober M (2011) Interdisciplinary conversations: challenging habits of thought. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  92. Tauritz RL (2012) How to handle knowledge uncertainty: learning and teaching in times of accelerating change. In: Wals AEJ, Corcoran PB (eds) Learning for sustainability in times of accelerating change. Wageningen, Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp 299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van Mierlo BC, Regeer B, van Amstel M, Arkesteijn MCM, Beekman V, Bunders JFG, de Cock Buning T, Elzen B, Ch Hoes A, Leeuwis C (2010) Reflexive monitoring in action. A guide for monitoring system innovation projects. Communication and Innovation Studies, WUR; Athena Institute, VUGoogle Scholar
  94. van Breda J, Swilling M (2018) The guiding logics and principles for designing emergent transdisciplinary research processes. Sustain Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0606-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. van den Bossche P, Gijselaers W, Segers M et al (2011) Team learning: building shared mental models. Instr Sci 39(3):283–301.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9128-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. van der Leeuw S, Wiek A, Harlow J et al (2012) How much time do we have? Urgency and rhetoric in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 7(SUPPL. 1):115–120.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0153-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. van Kerkhoff L (2014) Developing integrative research for sustainability science through a complexity principles-based approach. Sustain Sci 9(2):143–155.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0203-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vilsmaier U, Engbers M, Luthardt P et al (2015) Case-based mutual learning sessions: knowledge integration and transfer in transdisciplinary processes. Sustain Sci 10(4):563–580.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0335-3 (Springer Japan) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Vilsmaier U, Brandner V, Engbers M (2017) Research In-between: the constitutive role of cultural differences in transdisciplinarity. Transdiscip J Eng Sci 8(1):169–179.  https://doi.org/10.22545/2017/00093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wals AEJ, Corcoran PB (2012) Re-orienting, re-connecting and re-imagining: learning-based responses to the challenges of (un)sustainability. In: Wals AEJ, Corcoran PB (eds) Learning for sustainability in times of accelerating change. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wasser JD, Bresler L (1996) Working in the interpretive zone: conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. Educ Res 25(5):5–15.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X025005005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6(2):203–218.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wiek A, Bernstein MJ, Foley RW, Cohen JM, Forrest N, Kuzdas C, Kay B, Withycombe Keeler L (2015) Operationalising competencies in higher education for sustainable development. In: Barth M, Michelsen G, Rieckmann M, Thomas I (eds) Routledge Handbook of Higher Education for Sustainable Development. Routledge, London, pp 241–260Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leuphana University, Faculty of Sustainability Methodology CenterLüneburgGermany
  2. 2.Leuphana University, Faculty of SustainabilityLüneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations