Advertisement

The Emergence of Transdisciplinarity as a Form of Research

  • Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn
  • Susette Biber-Klemm
  • Walter Grossenbacher-Mansuy
  • Holger Hoffmann-Riem
  • Dominique Joye
  • Christian Pohl
  • Urs Wiesmann
  • Elisabeth Zemp

Abstract

The birth of science is based on a strict dissociation of scientific knowledge from the various aspects of practical knowledge. The ideal of scientific knowledge as it was shaped in antiquity is still influential today, although the conception of science and the relationship between science and the life-world has undergone major changes. The emergence of transdisciplinary orientations in the knowledge society at the end of the 20th century is the most recent step. The Handbook focuses on transdisciplinarity as a form of research that is driven by the need to solve problems of the life-world. Differences between basic, applied and transdisciplinary research, as specific forms of research, stem from whether and how different scientific disciplines, and actors in the life-world, are involved in problem identification and problem structuring, thus determining how research questions relate to problem fields in the life-world. However, by transgressing disciplinary paradigms and surpassing the practical problems of single actors, transdisciplinary research is challenged by the following requirements: to grasp the complexity of the problems, to take into account the diversity of scientific and societal views of the problems, to link abstract and case specific knowledge, and to constitute knowledge with a focus on problem-solving for what is perceived to be the common good. Transdisciplinary research relates to three types of knowledge: systems knowledge, target knowledge and transformation knowledge, and reflects their mutual dependencies in the research process. One way to meet the transdisciplinary requirements in dealing with research problems is to design the phases of the research process in a recurrent order. Research that addresses problems in the life-world comprises the phase of problem identification and problem structuring, the phase of problem investigation and the phase of bringing results to fruition. In transdisciplinary research, the order of the phases and the amount of resources dedicated to each phase depend on the kind of problem under investigation and on the state of knowledge.

Keywords

Knowledge society Problem fields in the life-world Conception of science Research process Knowledge forms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Argyris, C. and Schön, D.: 1996, Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 305pp.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle: 2003, The Nicomachean Ethics (H. Rackham, trans.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 650pp.Google Scholar
  3. Bacon, F.: 2000, The New Organon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 252pp.Google Scholar
  4. Bechtel, W. (ed.): 1986, Integrating Scientific Disciplines, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 354pp.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, U.: 1992, Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity (M. Ritter, trans.), Sage Publications, London, 260pp.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, E. and Jahn, Th. (ed.): 2006, Soziale Oekologie. Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen, Campus, Frankfurt, 521pp.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, E., Jahn, Th., and Stiess, I.: 1999. Exploring Uncommon Ground: Sustainability and the Social Sciences. In: E. Becker and Th. Jahn (eds.), Sustainability and the Social Sciences, Zed Books, London, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
  8. Böhme, G., van den Daele, W., Hohlfeld, R., Krohn, W., and Schäfer, W.: 1983, Finalization in Science: The Social Orientation of Scientific Progress (P. Burgess, trans.), Reidel, Dordrecht, 315pp.Google Scholar
  9. Bruce, A., Lyall, C., Tait, J., and Williams, R.: 2004, Interdisicplinary Integration in Europe: The Case of the Fifth Framework Programme, Futures 36, 45–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, T.W.: 1999, Interdisciplinary Problem Solving: Next Steps in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, Pol Sci 32, 393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, T.W.: 2002, The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resource Professionals, Yale University Press, New Haven, 215pp.Google Scholar
  12. Costanza, R., Cumberland, J., Daly, H., Goodland, R., and Norgaard, R.: 1997, An Introduction to Ecological Economics, St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, 275pp.Google Scholar
  13. Deppert, W.: 1998, Problemlösen durch Interdiszplinarität. In: W. Theobald (ed.), Integrative Umweltbewertung. Theorie und Beispiele aus der Praxis, Springer, Berlin, pp. 3–64.Google Scholar
  14. Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., and Holdren, J.P.: 1973, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, Freeman, San Francisco, 304pp.Google Scholar
  15. Elzinga, A.: 1996, Shaping Worldwide Consensus: The Orchestration of Global Climate Change Research. In: A. Elzinga and C. Landström (eds.), Internationalism and Science, Taylor Graham Publishing, Cambridge, pp. 22–253.Google Scholar
  16. Forrester, J.W.: 1961, Industrial Dynamics, M.I.T. Press Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 464pp.Google Scholar
  17. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R.: 1993, Science for the Post-Normal Age, Futures 25, 739–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibbons, M., Limoge, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow P.: 1994, The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage Publications, London, 179pp.Google Scholar
  19. Groβ, M.: 2004, Human Geography and Ecological Sociology: The Unfolding of a Human Ecology, 1890–1930 and Beyond, Soc Sci Hist 28, 57–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guston, D.H. and Sarewitz, C.: 2002, Real-Time Technology Assessment, Tech Soc 24, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Habermas, J.: 1968, Erkenntnis und Interesse. In: J. Habermas (ed.), Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 146–168.Google Scholar
  22. Habermas, J.: 1984, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Beacon Press, Boston, 465pp.Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, J.: 1987, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 2, Lifeworld and System, A Critique of Functionalist Reason, Beacon Press, Boston, 457pp.Google Scholar
  24. Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, St., and Wiesmann, U.: 2006, Implications of Transdisciplinarity for Sustainability Research, Ecol Econ 60, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hubert, B. and Bonnemaire, J.: 2000, La construction des objets dans la recherche interdisciplinaire finalisée: de nouvelles exigences pour l’évaluation, Nat Sci Soc 8, 5–19.Google Scholar
  26. Jantsch, E.: 1972, Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Education and Innovation. In: L. Apostel et al. (eds.), Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), Paris, pp. 97–121.Google Scholar
  27. Kates, R.W., Clark, W.C., Corell, R., Hall. J.M., Jaeger, C.C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J.J., Schellnhuber, H.J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N.M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G.C., Grübler, A., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore, B.I., O’Riordan, T., and Svedin, U.: 2001, Sustainability Science, Science 292, 641–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein, J.T., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R.W., and Welti, M.: 2001, Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 332pp.Google Scholar
  29. Kockelmans, J.J.: 1979, Why Interdisciplinarity? In: J.J. Kockelmans (ed.), Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park and London, pp. 125–160.Google Scholar
  30. Krohn. W. and van den Daele, W.: 1998, Science as an Agent of Change: Finalization and Experimental Implementation, Soc Sci Inform 37, 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuhn, Th.: 1963, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 172pp.Google Scholar
  32. Lewin, K.: 1951, Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York, 346pp.Google Scholar
  33. Max-Neef, M.A.: 2005, Foundations of Transdisciplinarity, Ecol Econ 53, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Meadows, D.L, Meadows, D.H., Randers, J., and Behrens, W.W., III, 1972: The Limits to Growth, Universe Books, New York, 205pp.Google Scholar
  35. Mittelstraβ, J.: 1992, Auf dem Weg zur Transdisziplinarität, GAIA 5, 250.Google Scholar
  36. National Academies (eds): 2005, Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, The National Academies Press, Washington, 306pp.Google Scholar
  37. Nicolescu, B.: 1996, La Transdisciplinarité – Manifeste, Éditions du Rocher Monaco, Retrieved November 1, 2006, from www.nicol.club.fr/ciret/english/visionen.htm.Google Scholar
  38. Nowotny, H.: 1999, The Need for Socially Robust Knowledge, TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten 8, 12–16.Google Scholar
  39. Parsons, T.: 1968, The Structure of Social Action. Vols. I & II, The Free Press, New York, 775pp.Google Scholar
  40. Pohl, C. and Hirsch Hadorn, G.: 2007, Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, oekom, München, 124pp.Google Scholar
  41. ProClim: 1997, Research on Sustainability and Global Change – Visions in Science Policy by Swiss Researchers. CASS/SANW, Bern, Retrieved December 3, 2006, from http://www. proclim.ch/Reports/Visions97/Visions_E.html.Google Scholar
  42. Rescher, N.: 1979, Cognitive Systematization. A Systems-theoretic Approach to a Coherentist Theory of Knowledge, Blackwell, Oxford, 211pp.Google Scholar
  43. Schütz, A. and Luckmann, T.: 1973, The Structures of the Life-World (R.M. Zaner and T. Engelhardt, trans.), Northwestern University Press, Evanston and Heinemann, London, 335pp.Google Scholar
  44. Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.D. (eds.): 1969, Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, Aldine, Chicago, 360pp.Google Scholar
  45. Stichweh, R.: 1992, The Sociology of Scientifc Disciplines: On the Genesis and Stability of the Disciplinary Structure of Modern Science, Sci Context 5, 3–15.Google Scholar
  46. Weber, M.: 1949, The Methodology of the Social Sciences (E.A. Shils and H.A. Finch, trans.), The Free Press, New York, 188pp.Google Scholar
  47. World Commission on Environment and Development: 1990, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 400pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gertrude Hirsch Hadorn
    • 1
  • Susette Biber-Klemm
  • Walter Grossenbacher-Mansuy
  • Holger Hoffmann-Riem
  • Dominique Joye
  • Christian Pohl
  • Urs Wiesmann
  • Elisabeth Zemp
  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations