Skip to main content
View expanded cover

Communicating Climate Change Information for Decision-Making pp 105–118Cite as

Integrating Research and Practice in Emerging Climate Services—Lessons from Other Transdisciplinary Dialogues

Part of the Springer Climate book series (SPCL)

Abstract

Because of their social and ecological impacts, complex issues of climate and broader environmental change have taken centre stage in public discourses and public policy. These issues typically transcend disciplinary problem-solving and call for cross-disciplinary as well as transdisciplinary research approaches, i.e. approaches that include practice partners and aim for solving real-world problems. A case in point are climate services, a newly emerging field that aims at delivering customised climate information , products and other services in relation to climate. This chapter proceeds on the assumption that climate services can benefit from experiences of integrating research and practice to solve real-world problems in other fields such as public health and social inequality. Based on this assumption, the aim of this chapter is twofold: we firstly describe selected results of a literature study that systematically reviewed and compared the use of transdisciplinary approaches across fields. We secondly derive a list of quality criteria for transdisciplinary dialogues from the literature and from the outcome of a workshop with practitioners that we organised in November 2014. Both may inform good transdisciplinary practice for climate services.

Keywords

  • Transdisciplinary research
  • Practice partner participation
  • Climate change
  • Climate services
  • Literature review
  • Quality criteria

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-74669-2_8
  • Chapter length: 14 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-74669-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   149.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 8.1
Fig. 8.2

Notes

  1. 1.

    We use the terms cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary interchangeably to refer to research collaboration across disciplinary boundaries but among scientists only.

  2. 2.

    These practitioners are often labelled ‘stakeholders’ in the literature. The term originates from the management literature where it denotes ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of a corporation’s purpose’ (Freeman 2010 [1984], vi). In transdisciplinary contexts, however, the term stakeholder is problematic in our view because it obscures the fact that scientists are as much stakeholders in this context as is everyone else. We therefore propose and use the term ‘practice partner/practitioner’ to denote non-scientific actors.

  3. 3.

    A leading institutional player is the ‘Institute for Social-Ecological Research’ (ISOE) in Frankfurt/Main, Germany.

References

  • Argyris C, Schön DA (1989) Participatory action research and action science compared. Am Behav Sci 32(5):612–623

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bammer G (2013) Disciplining interdisciplinarity. Integration and implementation sciences for researching complex real-world problems. Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann M, Jahn T, Knobloch T, Krohn W, Pohl C, Schramm E (2012) Methods for transdisciplinar research. Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann C, Bergmann M, Huang-Lachmann JT, Rödder S, Schuck-Zöller S (2015) Zur Integration von Wissenschaft und Praxis als Forschungsmodus - Ein Literaturüberblick. Report 23, Climate Service Center. Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC (2007) Sustainability science: a room of its own. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(6):1737–1738

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cuppen E (2012) Diversity and constructive conflicts in stakeholder dialogue. Consideration for design and methods. Policy Sci 4:23–46

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbos J (1999) Design and management of participatory public policy making. Public Manage Rev 1(4):569–576

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015) A European research and innovation roadmap for climate services http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?pg=events&eventcode=552E851C-E1C6-AFE7. Accessed 3 Feb 2017

  • Freeman RE (2010) Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Froggatt K (2013) Demonstrating quality and rigour in action research. In: Hockley J, Froggatt, K, Heimerl K (eds) Participatory research in palliative care. Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Future Earth. no date. http://www.futureearth.org. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Häberli R, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Klein JT (2001) Summary. In: Klein JT, Grossenbacher- Mansuy W, Häberli R, Bill A, Scholz RW, Welti M (eds) Transdisciplinarity. Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: an effective way for managing complexity. Basel, Boston, pp 3–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimerl K (2012) Methodik in der palliativmedizinischen Forschung. Partizipative und aktionsorientierte Forschung in Palliative Care. Teil 1 Zeitschrift für Palliativmedizin 13(3):116–118

    Google Scholar 

  • I2S (no date) Integration and implementation sciences: improving research impact on complex real-world problems. Accessed February 3, 2017 at http://i2s.anu.edu.au/

  • IAP2 International Association of Public Participation (2014) IAP2’s Public participation spectrum. At https://www.iap2.org.au/Tenant/C0000004/00000001/files/IAP2_Public_Participation_Spectrum.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2017

  • Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ et al (2005) Introduction to methods in Community-based participatory research for health. In: Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA (eds) Methods in community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco, pp 3–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger J (2008) Foreword. In: Hirsch Hadorn G (ed) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn T (2005) Soziale Ökologie, kognitive Integration und Transdisziplinarität. Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis 14:32–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn T, Bergmann M, Keil F (2012) Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecol Econ 79:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch E (1972) Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) (ed) Interdisciplinarity. Problems of teaching and research in universities, pp 97–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein JT (2008) Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. A literature review. Am J Prev Med 35(2S):S116–S123

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 7:25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Leemans R, Moore H (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:420–431

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer IS, Van Daalen, CE, Bots P, Pieter WG (2013) Perspectives on policy analysis. A framework for understanding and design. In: Thissen WAH, Walker WE (eds) Public policy analysis. New developments. New York, pp 41–64

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald D, Bammer G, Deane T (2009) Research integration using dialogue methods, Canberra. At http://library.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/1235/1/227154_Research_Integration_Using_Dialogue_Methods.pdf. Accessed 16 Jun 2016

  • McNie E (2013) Delivering climate services. Organizational strategies and approaches for producing useful climate-science information. In American Meteorological Society (ed) Weather, climate, and society, January. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-11-00034.1

  • Nevens F, Frantzeskaki N, Gorissen L, Loorbach D (2013) Urban Transition Labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J Clean Prod 50:111–122

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl C, Hirsch GH (2006) Gestaltungsprinzipien für die transdisziplinäre Forschung. oekom München

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage 90:1933–1949

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Reitinger E, Ukowitz M (2014) Emotionen und Qualitäten in der transdisziplinären Forschung. In: Dressel, Berger, Heimerl, Winiwarter (eds) Interdisziplinär und transdisziplinär forschen. Praktiken und Methoden. Bielefeld

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans J, Kemp R, van Asselt M (2001) More evolution than revolution. Foresight 3(1):15–31

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Scherhaufer P, Grüneis H (2014) Herausforderungen und Grenzen partizipativer Projektarbeit—Zwei Beispiele aus der transdisziplinären Klimawandelanpassungsforschung und erste Lösungsansätze. Umweltpsychologie, 18(2):189–210, ISSN 1434–3304

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW (2011) Environmental literacy in science and society. From knowledge to decisions. Cambridge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods. Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz RW, Mieg HA, Oswald JE (2000) Transdisciplinarity in groundwater management—towards mutual learning of science and society. Water Air Soil Pollut 123:477–487

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Schuck-Zöller S, Bowyer P, Jacob D, Brasseur G (2014) Inter- und transdisziplinäres Arbeiten im Klimaservice. In: Beese K, Fekkak M, Katz C, Körner C, Molitor H (eds) Anpassung an regionale Klimafolgen kommunizieren. oekom München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuck-Zöller S (ed) (2015) Dialoge zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis. In: Proceedings vom gleichnamigen workshop. Climate Service Center Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuck-Zöller S, Cortekar J, Jacob D (2017) Evaluating co-creation of knowledge: from quality criteria and indicators to methods. Adv Sci Res 14:305–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Krütli P, Scholz RW (2008) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration. Syst Pract Action Res 21(6):409–422

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Steinke I (2000) Gütekriterien qualitativer Forschung. In: Flick U, von Kardorff E, Steinke I (eds) Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Reinbek, pp 319–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll-Kleemann S, Pohl C (eds) (2007) Evaluation inter-und transdisziplinärer Forschung. Edition Humanökologie 5, Oekom, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Swantz ML (2008) Participatory action research as practice. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) The SAGE handbook of action research. Participative inquiry and practice. Los Angeles, London, pp 31–48

    Google Scholar 

  • td-net. no date. Network for transdisciplinary research. http://transdisciplinarity.scnat.ch/d/About/. Accessed 23 June 2016

  • Thissen W, Twaalfhoven P (2001) Towards a conceptual structure for evaluating policy analytic activities. Eur J Oper Res 129(2):627–649

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wall TU, Meadow AM, Horganic A (2017) Developing evaluation indicators to improve the process of coproducing usable climate science. Weather Clim Soc 9(1):95–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Welp M, de la Vega-Leinert A, Stoll-Kleemann S, Jaeger Carlo C (2006) Science-based stakeholder dialogues: theories and tools. Glob Environ Change 16:170–181

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Climate Service Center Germany, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Hamburg, Germany

    Susanne Schuck-Zöller & Carina Brinkmann

  2. Institute of Sociology, Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Simone Rödder

Authors
  1. Susanne Schuck-Zöller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carina Brinkmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simone Rödder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Schuck-Zöller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Silvia Serrao-Neumann

  2. Unité de recherche ESPACE-DEV, IRD, Universités UM UR UG UA, Maison Teledetect, Montpellier, France

    Anne Coudrain

  3. Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Liese Coulter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schuck-Zöller, S., Brinkmann, C., Rödder, S. (2018). Integrating Research and Practice in Emerging Climate Services—Lessons from Other Transdisciplinary Dialogues. In: Serrao-Neumann, S., Coudrain, A., Coulter, L. (eds) Communicating Climate Change Information for Decision-Making. Springer Climate. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74669-2_8

Download citation