Abstract
In any society, a wide diversity of actors has relevant knowledge concerning important societal problems. In a knowledge democracy both dominant and non-dominant actors have equal access and ability to put this knowledge forward in the process of solving societal problems. In order to enable these actors to contribute meaningfully to decision-making around public policy and research agendas, we argue that a transdisciplinary research process is needed. In this chapter we critically reflect on the principles, concepts and core methods of transdisciplinary research. We first look at the national historical roots of transdisciplinary research, specifically focussing on two countries – Switzerland and The Netherlands. Next we develop a typology of transdisciplinary research. From the perspective of knowledge democracy, we can distinguish two important dimensions in research approaches: the degree of knowledge input of lay groups that is included in a specific transdisciplinary project and the degree in which non-dominant actors are explicitly involved in the decision-making of the development process of policies or research agendas. This results in two different styles of transdisciplinary research. We discuss the similarities and differences of these different styles and approaches. We close this chapter with a discussion on transdisciplinary research styles in relation to forms of democracy – on the one hand basic and representative democracy and on the other hand deliberative democracy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
In ’t Veld, R.J. (2009). Towards Knowledge Democracy. Consequences for Science, Politics and the Media. Paper for the international conference Towards Knowledge Democracy, 25–27 August, Leiden.
Kant, I. (1781–1787). The Critique of Pure Reason , 341–363.
Thompson Klein, J. (Ed.), Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W. , Häberli, R. , Bill, A. , Scholz, R.W. et al. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity. Basel: Birkhauser.
De Cock Buning, T. , Regeer , B.J. and Bunders , J. (2008b). Biotechnology and Food – Towards a Societal Agenda in 10 Steps. The Hague: RMNO .
Sheppard, S.R.J. and Meitner, M. (2004). Using Multi-Criteria Analysis and Visualisation for Sustainable Forest Management Planning with Stakeholder Groups, Vancouver: University of British Columbia.
Driessen, P.P.J. , Glasbergen, P. and Verdaas, C. (2001). Interactive policy-making: a model of management for public works. European Journal of Operational Research, 128, 322–337.
Rip, A. , Schot, J.W. and Misa, T.J. (1995). Constructive technology assessment: a new paradigm for managing technology in society. In: Rip, A. , Schot, J.W. and Misa, T.J. (Eds.), Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. Londen, New York: Pinter Publishers, 1–12.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action Research Planner (3rd edition). Geelong: Deakin University.
Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds.) (1990). Handbook for Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage.
Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755.
Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C. , Nowotny, H. , Schwartzman, S. , Scott, P. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Pohl, C. and Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for Designing Transciplinary Research, Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. München: Oekom.
Nicolescu, B. (1996). La transdisciplinarité, manifeste. Monaco: Le Rocher.
Mittelstraß, J. (1992). Auf dem Weg zur Transdisziplinarität. GAIA, 1(5), 250.
Jantsch, E. (Ed.) (1972). Towards Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Education and Innovation, in Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities. Paris: OECD, 97–121.
Häberli, R. and Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W. (1998). Transdisziplinarität zwischen Förderung und Überforderung. Erkenntnisse aus dem SPP Umwelt. GAIA, 7(3), 196–213.
Defila, R. , and Di Guilio, A. (1999). Evaluating trandisciplinary research. PANORAMA, 1, 1–28.
Defila, R. , and Di Guilio, A. (1999). Evaluating trandisciplinary research. PANORAMA, 1, 1–28.
Thompson Klein, J. (1996). Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities and Inter disciplinarities. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Gieryn, T. (1995). Boundaries of Science. In: Jasanoff, S. , Markle, G.E. , Petersen, J.C. and Pinch, T. (eds). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage, 393–443.
Gibbons, M. , Limoges, C. , Nowotny, H. , Schwartzman, S. , Scott, P. et al. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Lawrence , R.J. and Despres, C. (2004). Futures of transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36, 397–405.
Perrig-Chiello, P. and Darbellay, F. (2002). Interdisciplinarité et Analyse des Discours. In: Perrig-Chiello, P. and Darbellay, F. (Eds.), Qu'est-ce l'interdisciplinarité? Les nouveaux défis de l'enseignement. Lausanne: Editions Réalités Sociales, 91–113.
Defila, R. , and Di Guilio, A. (1999). Evaluating trandisciplinary research. PANORAMA, 1, 1–28.
Burger, P. and Kamber, R. (2003). Cognitive integration in transdisciplinary science: knowledge as a key notion. Issues in integrative Studies, 21, 43–73.
Maasen, S. and Lieven, O. (2006). Socially robust knowledge. Transdisciplinarity: a new mode of governing science? Science and Public Policy, 33(6), 399–410.
Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2002). Unity of knowledge in transdisciplinary research for sustainability. In: UNESCO-EOLSS. Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Oxford: Eolss Publishers.
Scholz, R.W. and Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pohl, C. and Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for Designing Transciplinary Research, Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. München: Oekom.
Hirsch Hadorn, G. , Hoffmann-Riem, H. , Biber-Klemm, S. , Grossenbacher, W. , Joye, D. et al. (2008a). The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. In: Hirsch Hadorn, G. , Hoffmann-Riem, H. , Biber-Klemm, S. , Grossenbacher, W. , Joye, D. et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research. Dordrecht: Springer, 19–39.
Smits, R. and Leyten, A. (1991). Technology Assessment: waakhond of speurhond? Naar een integraal technologiebeleid. Zeist: Kerckebosch.
Schot, J.W. and Rip, A. (1997). The Past and the Future of Constructive Technology Assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2–3), 251–268.
Bijker , H.G. (1995). Een doelmatige en goed gespreide GGZ dankzij de WZV? ZM Magazine, 10.
Fischer, F. (1991). Risk assessment and environmental crisis. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 2(5), 113–132.
In ’t Veld, R.J. and Verhey, A.J.M. (2000/2009). Willingly and knowingly: about the relationship between values, knowledge production and use of knowledge in environmental policy. In: In ’t Veld, R.J. (Ed.), Willingly and Knowingly: The Roles of Knowledge About Nature and Environment in Policy Processes. The Hague: RMNO , 105–145.
In ’t Veld, R.J. (Ed.) (2001/2008). The Rehabilitation of Cassandra. A methodological Discourse on Future Research for Environmental and Spatial Policy. The Hague: WRR /RMNO /NRLO (English version available at www.rmno.nl).
De Cock Buning, T. , Broerse , J. and Bunders , J. (2008a). Public perception of prenatal genetic testing: arguments put forward by the public during an innovative participatory policy project in the Netherlands. Community Genetics, 11, 52–62.
De Bruin , J. and Bunders , J. (1987). Evaluatie van de perspectieven voor samenwerking van plantenbiotechnologen en milieu-, Derde Wereld en boerenorganisaties. Amsterdam: Department of Biology and Society, VU University.
Zweekhorst , M.B.M. (2004). Institutionalising an Interactive Approach to Technological Innocation. The Case of the Grameen Krishi Foundation. Amsterdam: Thesis VU University.
Scholz, R.W. , Koller, T., Mieg, H.A. and Schmidlin, C. (Eds.) (1995). Perspektive “Grosses Moos”: Wege zu einer nachhaltigen Landwirtschaft. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 1994. Zürich: ETH.
Scholz, R.W. , Lang, D.J., Wiek, A. , Walter , A.I. and Stauffacher, M. (2006). Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 226–251.
Stauffacher, M. , Flüeler, T. , Krütli, P. and Scholz, R.W. (2008). Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21, 409–422.
Stauffacher, M. , Walter , A. I., Lang, D. J., Wiek, A. and Scholz, R. W. (2006). Learning to research environmental problems from a functional socio-cultural constructivism perspective: the transdisciplinary case study approach. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(3), 252–275.
Scholz, R.W. and Stauffacher, M. (2007). Managing transition in clusters: area development negotiations as a tool for sustaining traditional industries in a Swiss prealpine region. Environment and Planning A, 39, 2518–2539.
Walter, A. , Helgenberger, S. , Wiek, A. and Scholz, R.W. (2007). Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 325–338.
Scholz, R.W. (2010/in press) . Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to Decision. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46.
Scholz, R.W. , Stauffacher, M. , Bösch, S. , Krütli, P. and Wiek, A. (Eds.) (2007). Entscheidungsprozesse Wellenberg – Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle in der Schweiz. ETH-UNS Fallstudie 2006. Zürich: Rüegger.
Jahn, T. and Keil, F. (2006). Transdisziplinärer Forschungsprozess. In: Becker, E. and Jahn, T. (Eds.), Soziale Ökologie. Grundzüge einer Wissenschaft von den gesellschaftlichen Naturverhältnissen. Frankfurt, New York: Campus, 319–329.
Jahn, T. (2008). Transdisziplinarität in der Forschungspraxis. In: Bergmann, M. and Schramm, E. (Eds.), Transdisziplinäre Forschung. Integrative Forschungsprozesse verstehen und bewerten. Frankfurt, New York: Campus, 21–37. (English version available at www.isoe.de).
Broerse, J.E.W. and Bunders, J.F.G. (2000). Requirements for biotechnology development: the necessity of an interactive and participatory innovation process, Journal of Biotechnology, 2(4), 275–296.
Bunders , J. and Broerse , J. (Eds.) (1991). Appropriate Biotechnology in Small-Scale Agriculture: How to Reorient Research and Development. Wallingford: CAB International.
Schon, D.A. and Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Regeer , B.J. and Bunders , J. (2009). Knowledge Co-creation: Interaction Between Science and Society. A transdisciplinary Approach to Complex Societal Issues. RMNO : The Hague.
Van Mansfeld , M.J.M. (2003). The need for knowledge brokers. In: Tress, B. , Tress, G. , Van der Valk, A.J.J. and Fry, G. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Landscape Studies: Potential and Limitations. Wageningen: Alterra.
Dammers, E. , Klijn, J.A. , Kranendonk, R.P. , Van der Windt, N.P. and Kroon, H.J.J. (2002). Innoveren in de groene ruimte: een verkenning van methoden. Wageningen: Alterra.
Hajer, M. (2003). Policy without polity: policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 175–195.
Meuleman, L. and In ’t Veld, R.J. (2009). Sustainable Development and the Governance of Long-Term Decisions. The Hague: RMNO /EEAC .
Thompson Klein, J., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R. and Bill, A. (Eds.) (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. An Effective Way for Managing Complexity. Basel: Birkhauser.
Acknowledgements
We specifically like to thank Tjard de Cock Buning for taking the first steps in realizing this collaborative partnership. In addition, Mariëtte van Amstel’s intellectual support in the writing of this chapter is warmly acknowledged. Also we would like to thank the anonymous reviewer who made some highly valuable comments on an earlier draft of the chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bunders, J.F., Broerse, J.E., Keil, F., Pohl, C., Scholz, R.W., Zweekhorst, M.B. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy?. In: in 't Veld, R. (eds) Knowledge Democracy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-11380-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-11381-9
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)