Methods for Coproduction of Knowledge Among Diverse Disciplines and Stakeholders



To address complex issues, knowledge and experts of different fields have to be brought together. Experts come with expectations and assumptions, for instance, about the knowledge that other fields might provide, how trustworthy this knowledge will be, or how important it might be for the issue at stake. Td-net’s toolbox for coproducing knowledge provides tools that help uncover these expectations and assumptions. We consider the disclosure of expectations and assumptions a key precondition for successful collaboration.


Coproduction of knowledge Tools Uncovering expectations and assumptions Collaborative research Transdisciplinary research Interdisciplinarity Thought styles 


  1. Anonymous. New job for psychiatry. Sci News. 1966;89(22):426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apostel L. Interdisciplinarity; problems of teaching and research in universities. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 1972.Google Scholar
  3. Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E. Methods for transdisciplinary research: a primer for practice. Frankfurt/Main: Campus Verlag; 2012.Google Scholar
  4. Elkana Y. Science as a cultural system: an anthropological approach. In: Bonetti N, editor. Scientific culture in the contemporary world, Special Volume published in Collaboration with UNESCO. Milano: SCIENTIA – International Review of Scientific Synthesis; 1979. p. 269–90.Google Scholar
  5. Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KL, Kane C, Keyton J, Klein JT, Spring B, Stokols D, Trochim W. Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. Res Eval. 2011;20(2):145–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fleck L. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Frodeman R, Thompson Klein J, Mitcham C, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E, editors. Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008.Google Scholar
  9. Jantsch E. Inter- and transdisciplinary university: a systems approach to education and innovation. Policy Sci. 1970;1(4):403–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klein JT. Crossing boundaries. Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia; 1996.Google Scholar
  11. Klein JT, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M, editors. Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag; 2001.Google Scholar
  12. Lemos MC, Morehouse BJ. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob Environ Change. 2005;15(1):57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McDonald D, Bammer G, Dean P. Research integration using dialogue methods. Canberra: ANU E Press, The Australian National University; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. NAS/NAE/IOM. Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, The National Academies Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  15. National Research Council. Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  16. Pielke RA Jr. The honest broker making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pohl C. What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures. 2011;43(6):618–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pohl C, Wuelser G, Bebi P, Bugmann H, Buttler A, Elkin C, Grêt-Regamey A, Hirschi C, Le QB, Peringer A, Rigling A, Seidl R, Huber R. How to successfully publish interdisciplinary research: learning from an ecology and society special feature. Ecol Soc. 2015;20(2):23.Google Scholar
  19. Polk M. Transdisciplinary co-production: designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures. 2015;65:110–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rittel HWJ. Second-generation design methods. In: Cross N, editor. Developments in design methodology. Chichester: Wiley; 1984. p. 317–27.Google Scholar
  21. Robinson J, Tansey J. Co-production, emergent properties and strong interactive social research: the Georgia Basin futures project. Sci Public Policy. 2006;33(2):151–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smit A. The facilitator’s toolkit, vol. 45. Stellenbosch: Centre for Business in Society, University of Stellenbosch; 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP. The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2 Suppl):S77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stokols D, Hall KL, Vogel AL. Defining transdisciplinary research and education. In: Haire-Joshu D, McBride TD, editors. Transdisciplinary public health: research, education, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2013. p. 3–30.Google Scholar
  25. Vogel AL, Hall KL, Fiore SM, Klein JT, Michelle Bennett L, Gadlin H, Stokols D, Nebeling LC, Wuchty S, Patrick K, Spotts EL, Pohl C, Riley WT, Falk-Krzesinski HJ. The team science toolkit: enhancing research collaboration through online knowledge sharing. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(6):787–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Winch RF. Heuristic and empirical typologies: a job for factor analysis. Am Sociol Rev. 1947;12(1):68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transdisciplinarity Lab, Institute for Environmental DecisionsETH ZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Network for Transdisciplinary ResearchSwiss Academies of Arts and SciencesBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations