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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The terms ‘practitioner’, ‘user’, and ‘policy’ are used to refer to individuals and activities that fall within the professional mandates of public and private spheres of activity. This includes employees from public bodies such as any municipal and regional officials, planners and administrators as well as business and community group representatives and the general public.

  2. 2.

    This does not include the discourse on education in sustainability science.

References

  1. Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ Sci 14(3):312–330

    Article  Google 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, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blackstock KL, Carter CE (2007) Operationalizing sustainability science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot projects. Georgr J 173(4):343–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown JS, Duguid P (2001) Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organ Sci 12(2):198–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carlile PR (2002) A Pragmatic view on knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci 13(4):442–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chaiklin S, Lave J (eds) (1993) Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  7. Contu A (2014) On boundaries and difference: communities of practice and power relations in creative world. Manag Learn 45(3):289–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Contu A, Willmott H (2003) Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory. Organ Sci 14(3):283–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Crang M, Cook I (2007) Doing ethnographies. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  10. Engeström Y, Middleton D (eds) (1996) Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gherardi S (2001) From organizational learning to practice based knowing. Hum Relat 54(1):131–139

    Article  Google 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 204–224

    Google 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, London

    Google 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):165–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Heizmann H (2011) Knowledge sharing in a dispersed network of HR practice: zooming in on power/knowledge struggles. Manag Learn 42(4):379–393

    Article  Google 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 146–165

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hotho J, Saka-Helmhout A, Becker-Ritterspach F (2014) Bringing context and structure back into situated learning. Manag Learn 1:57–80

    Article  Google 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 30–40

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hughes J, Jewson N, Unwin L (eds) (2007) Communities of practice, critical perspectives. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jahn T, Keil F (2015) An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research. Futures 65:195–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kates RW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable development: goals, indicators, values and practice. Environment 47(3):8–21

    Article  Google 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):25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google 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 9:239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nicolini D (2012) Practice theory, work, & organization, an introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google 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 3–31

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2007) Principles for designing transdisciplinary research. Oekom, Munich

    Google 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):267–281

    Article  Google 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 9:439–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Polk M (2015) Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65:110–122

    Article  Google 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 65:45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Robinson J (2008) Being undisciplined: transgressions and intersections in academia and beyond. Futures 40:70–86

    Article  Google 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 65:57–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Scholz RW, Steiner G (2015a) The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part I—theoretical foundations. Futures 10:527–544

    Google 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 10:653–671

    Google 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 471–493

    Google Scholar 

  38. Swan J, Scarbrough H, Newell S (2010) Why don’t (or do) organizations learn from projects? Manag Learn 41(3):325–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Talwar S, Wiek A, Robinson J (2011) User engagement in sustainability research. Sci Public Policy 38(5):379–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice. Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wertsch JV (1991) Voices of the mind: sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press, Harvard

    Google 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 9:483–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman CL (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustain Sci 6:203–218

    Article  Google 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):5–24

    Article  Google 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 23:117–132

    Article  Google 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 33–52

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merritt Polk.

Additional information

Handled by Yuya Kajikawa, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Westberg, L., Polk, M. The role of learning in transdisciplinary research: moving from a normative concept to an analytical tool through a practice-based approach. Sustain Sci 11, 385–397 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0358-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Transdisciplinary research
  • Situated learning
  • Sociocultural theory
  • Sustainability