Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Knowledge Co-production to Transdisciplinary Research: Lessons from the Quest to Produce Socially Robust Knowledge

  • Chapter
Global Sustainability

Abstract

During the past decades, a variety of approaches have emerged to understand and explain transformation processes at the science-society interface. Under different labels, these concepts have propagated a shift from academic, investigator-initiated, discipline-based research to more context-driven, problem-focused, and multidisciplinary research. These approaches provide the core motivational background for specific transdisciplinary initiatives. This article provides an overview of the different understandings and divergent styles of transdisciplinary research, its multifaceted dimensions, pathways, and challenges. Practical examples illustrate the emergence of approaches and programs in response to new intellectual and pragmatic developments. It is concluded that transdisciplinarity gathers heterogeneous sets of relationships between epistemic ends and epistemic means. The authors recommend paying more attention to the qualities necessary for an understanding of practical knowledge that enable knowledge realization, and the abilities that make the implementation of findings possible. It is believed that the need for openness, flexibility, and attention to the diversity and uncertainty in knowledge will inspire further democratic ways to re-organize the science-society nexus.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The order of appearance is chronological and does not reflect any judgment about their quality or importance.

  2. 2.

    Germany, Austria and Switzerland are also known as the D-A-CH countries.

  3. 3.

    The Institute of Science Index (ISI) offers bibliographic database services, e.g., maintenance of citation databases and citation indexing (for more information see, e.g., http://isi-thomsomreuters.net/).

References

  • Balsiger, P. W. (2005). Transdisziplinarität [Transdisciplinarity]. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechmann, G., & Frederichs, G. (1996). Problemorientierte Forschung: Zwischen Politik und Wissenschaft [Problem-oriented research: Between policy and science]. In G. Bechmann (Ed.), Praxisfelder der Technikfolgenforschung: Konzepte, Methoden, Optionen (pp. 11–37). Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhme, G., van den Daele, W., & Krohn, W. (1973). Die Finalisierung der Wissenschaft [Finalization of science]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 2(2), 128–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhme, G., van den Daele, W., & Krohn, W. (1976). Finalization of science. Social Science Information, 15(2–3), 307–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhme, G., van den Daele, W., Krohn, W., Hohlfeld, R., & Schäfer, W. (1983). Finalization in science. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., Keil, F., Pohl, C., Scholz, R. W., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In R. J. in ‘t Veldt (Ed.), Knowledge democracy (pp. 125–152). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D. W., & Clark, W. C. (2001). From science to policy: Assessing the assessment process (John F. Kennedy School of Government Faculty Research Working Paper RWP01-045). Cambridge: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D. W., & Moser, S. C. (2000). Linking global and local scales: Designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environmental Change, 10(2000), 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086–8091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cebon, P., Dahinden, U., Davies, H., Imboden, D., & Jaeger, C. (1998). Views from the Alps: Regional perspectives on climate change. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, J. (2002). Limitations to interdisciplinarity in problem oriented social science research. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, 1. http://www.journal-tes.dk/vol%201%20no%201/jobst%20conrad.html. Accessed 12 Aug 2012.

  • Costanza, R., Daly, H. E., & Bartholomew, J. A. (1991). Goals, agenda and policy recommendations for ecological economics. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 1–20). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defila, R., Di Giulio, A., & Scheuermann, M. (2006). Forschungsverbundmanagement: Handbuch für die Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinärer Projekte [Management of research networks: Handbook for the design of inter- and transdisciplinary projects]. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dilling, L., & Lemos, M. C. (2011). Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Global Environmental Change, 21, 680–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ESF/COST (2011). Responses to environmental and societal challenges for our unstable earth (RESCUE). ESF forward look – ESF-COST ‘Frontier of Science’ joint initiative. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation/European Cooperation in Science and Technology. http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/rescue.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 137–152). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 251–274). London: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häberli, R., Gessler, R., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., & Lehmann-Pollheimer, D. (2002). Vision Lebensqualität. Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Ökologisch notwendig, wirtschaftlich klug, gesellschaftlich möglich [Vision quality of life. Sustainable development: Ecologically necessary, economically wise, socially possible]. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2002). Vom Sagufnet zum transdisciplinarity-net. GAIA, 11(3), 227–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, M. (2010). Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 558–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICSU (2010). Earth system science for global sustainability: The grand challenges. Paris: International Council for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICSU (2011). ICSU foresight analysis report 1: International science in 2031 – Exploratory scenarios. Paris: International Council for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policy makers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2010). A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 233–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson, R. E., & Berberian, M. (Eds.). (2011). Integrating science and policy: Vulnerability and resilience in global environmental change. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth (pp. 275–305). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lövbrand, E. (2011). Co-producing European climate science and policy: A cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 225–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maasen, S., & Lieven, O. (2006). Transdisciplinarity: A new mode of governing science? Science and Public Policy, 33, 399–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maasen, S., Lengwiler, M., & Guggenheim, M. (2006). Practices of transdisciplinary research: Close(r) encounters of science and society. Science and Public Policy, 33(6), 394–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Max-Neef, E. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin, F. S., III, & Redman, C. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., & Dickson, N. M. (Eds.). (2006). Global environmental assessments: Information and influence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naustdalslid, J. (2011). Climate change: The challenge of translating scientific knowledge into action. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 18(3), 243–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, C. (2011). What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures, 43(16), 618–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for designing transdisciplinary research: Proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. München: Oekom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, C., Perrig-Chiello, P., Butz, B., Hirsch Hadorn, G., Joye, D., Lawrence, R., Nentwich, M., Paulsen, T., Rossini, M., Truffer, B., Wastl-Walter, D., Wiesmann, U., & Zinsstag, J. (2010). Questions to evaluate inter- and transdisciplinary research proposals (Working Paper). Bern: td-net.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, W. V., Chen, D., Goldfarb, L., Hackmann, H., Lee, Y. T., Mokhele, K., Ostrom, E., Raivio, K., Rockström, J., Schellnhuber, H. J., & Whyte, A. (2010). Earth system science for global sustainability: Grand challenges. Science, 330(6006), 916–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2004). Strategic research, post-modern universities and research training. Higher Education Policy, 17, 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter, L. (1988). Mandated science: Science and scientists in the making of standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schneidewind, U., & Augenstein, K. (2012). Analyzing a transition to a sustainability-oriented science system in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 3, 16–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, R. W. (2001). The mutual learning sessions. In J. Thompson-Klein, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Haberli, A. Bill, R. W. Scholz, & M. Welti (Eds.), Joint problem solving among science, technology and society: An effective way of managing complexity (pp. 117–129). Basel: Birkhäuser.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J. W., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54(2–3), 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehr, N. (2009). What is socially relevant science? Society, 3, 262–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truffer, B. (2007). Wissensintegration in transdisziplinären Projekten: Flexibles Rollenverständnis als Schlüsselkompetenz für das Schnittstellenmanagement [Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary research projects: The importance of reflexive interface management]. GAIA, 16(1), 41–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weichselgartner, J. (2013). Risiko – Wissen – Wandel: Strukturen und Diskurse problemorientierter Umweltforschung [Risk – knowledge – change: Structures and discourses of problem-oriented environmental research]. München: Oekom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weichselgartner, J., & Kasperson, R. E. (2010). Barriers in the science-policy-practice interface: Toward a knowledge-action-system in global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 266–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weichselgartner, J., & Marandino, C. A. (2012). Priority knowledge for marine environments: Grand challenges at the society-science nexus. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(3), 323–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (1997). From “finalization” to “mode 2”: Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (2008). How robust is “socially robust knowledge”? In M. Carrier, D. Howard, & J. Kourany (Eds.), The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited (pp. 131–145). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winiwarter, V. (2012). 20 Jahre GAIA: Zurück und in die Zukunft. GAIA, 21, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winowiecki, L., Smukler, S., Shirley, K., Remans, R., Peltier, G., Lothes, E., et al. (2011). Tools for enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 7(1), 74–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. (1964). Scientists and politics: The rise of an apolitical elite. In R. Gilpin & C. Wright (Eds.), Scientists and national policy-making (pp. 50–72). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zierhofer, W., & Burger, P. (2007). Disentangling transdisciplinarity: An analysis of knowledge integration in problem-oriented research. Science Studies, 20(1), 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. M. (1987). Knowing everything about nothing: Specialization and change in scientific careers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. M. (1996). “Postacademic science”: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies, 9(1), 67–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. M. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Juergen Weichselgartner

  2. Department of Geography, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany

    Juergen Weichselgartner

  3. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Dübendorf, Switzerland

    Bernhard Truffer

  4. Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Bernhard Truffer

Authors
  1. Juergen Weichselgartner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernhard Truffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juergen Weichselgartner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, University of Jena, Jena, Germany

    Benno Werlen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Weichselgartner, J., Truffer, B. (2015). From Knowledge Co-production to Transdisciplinary Research: Lessons from the Quest to Produce Socially Robust Knowledge. In: Werlen, B. (eds) Global Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16477-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation