Today, transdisciplinary research is an established research mode in sustainability sci-ence that integrates knowledge from diverse domains to address problems of societal relevance and to generate knowledge that contributes to sustainability transformations. Over the last decade, several approaches have been developed in this context that build on transdisciplinarity and adopt a transformative research understanding: Real-world labs, urban living labs, and other kinds of sustainability-oriented labs represent formats that aim for the establishment of long-term transdisciplinary partnerships between sci-entific and societal actors. In these settings, a central goal is, to contribute to actual sus-tainability transformations through real-world experimentation and enable learning about these needed processes of transformation. Consequentially, these labs are not primarily designed with the focus to enable the generation of scientific results. The activi-ties of these labs typically follow a strongly context-oriented logic. While this orientation can be easily criticized as unscientific, we argue that here lies a crucial learning oppor-tunity to explore new formats of research needed for a scientific system that is asked to address societal problems of global proportions.

In this context, we ask the question ‘how can real-world labs contribute to advancing a transdisciplinary and transformative science?’. By addressing this question, we aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of how these new scientific approaches can fur-ther enable science to address current and future sustainability challenges.

In this paper, which is based on a cumulative dissertation, we answer the question by drawing from several years of research in real-world lab settings. We present four out-puts of this work that aim to advance transformative science through educational, re-search-practical, and conceptual contributions:

1) In a real-world lab-based teaching project, we have developed a set a of design principles to support the development and practice of sustainability-oriented transformative teaching formats.

2) In an international research-consortium of seven urban living labs, we have de-veloped a case reporting approach to foster cross-case knowledge learning and knowledge transfer.

3) By exploring a seven-year collaborative real-world lab process, we suggest a new understanding of impacts of these processes. Here, we offer a perspective com-plementary to a cause-and-effect logic and instead conceptualize impacts as emergent from diverse design elements of real-world lab processes.

4) In a real-world experiment with a local coffee shop and roastery, we showcase how analogy-based knowledge transfer and conceptual replication of an experi-ment foster the generation of societally relevant and methodologically robust transdisciplinary research outcomes.

We then synthesize these results to provide a new perspective on real-world labs com-plementing the existing understanding of these labs as settings for societal outputs and evidence on solutions. Through their transformative orientation and from a traditional science perspective, real-world labs can be understood to operate in a ‘fringe zone’ of science and society. With the distinct goal to enable societal change, many of the activi-ties of and within these labs do not follow established scientific methodologies and theories. However, as we argue, the research and activities in and of real-world laborato-ries provide a setting in which not only sustainability solutions can be developed, im-plemented, and analyzed: Besides the opportunity to provide new understandings and evidence about these solution strategies, real-world labs can be understood as settings for methodological, conceptual and research-practical innovations. Located at the sci-ence-society interface, real-world labs allow researchers to explore what science can be and thus advance transformative research.

Transformative research projects that aim at changing complex (sub-)systems face the challenge of addressing critical societal problems that cannot be solved by themselves. Rather, the active engagement by and shared problem framing by relevant stakeholders is key in order to come up with effective and feasible solutions which eventually might have an impact on the system at hand. Furthermore, these solutions need to be implemented by the stakeholders themselves to become effective in the long run.

This paper outlines the application of a transdisciplinary approach for transformative research projects – the Transment Approach, developed at Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences. It does so by firstly, illustrating the proceedings, evaluation and lessons learned of a five-year transformative research projects aiming for more sustainable leather chemistry in the global supply chains. Incorporating several global actors from the leather supply chains, such as chemical companies, tanneries, brands and others the project faced various obstacles and eventually resulted in a number of outputs whose systemic effect can only be measured by time. Applying the framework from Luederitz et al. we found it to be particularly useful for the clusters “processes” and “outputs”. In the case of this transdisciplinary project, we found further indicators especially in the cluster “input” as both the characteristics of actors from industry as well as the actual interdisciplinary scientific team need to be considered separately.

Secondly, these insights were used to inform the conceptualisation of a newly initiated transdisciplinary project dealing with traceability of chemicals along the global textile supply chains. The project addresses challenges for businesses created by the Green Deal transition towards a climate-neutral, resource-preserving and non-toxic Circular Economy (CE). Traceability of chemicals in materials is a key enabler for the CE. In this project a European consortium of actors from the textile industry, government agencies and academia will deal with the challenges regarding the implementation of chemical traceability along global supply chains from various perspectives.

Both projects have in common, that they aim at changing complex (sub-)systems by addressing specific context factors through co-creational process with relevant stakeholders. In both cases normative orientation and a sufficient societal pressure could be used to gain momentum and stakeholders commitment. While both project apply methods such as scenario technique and theory of change, lessons learned from the former project included among other aspects the specific selection of relevant stakeholders, the conceptual design of the project plan and several measures to increase ownership and commitment by the stakeholders involved. At the same time the fundamental role of the regulatory context in which a project is set becomes obvious by the latter being set during the dynamic developments on European levels (e.g. Geen Deal, Ecodesign Requirements Regulation).

With this paper, we aim at sharing insights from a formative evaluation process to inform new transformative processes and to test the usability of the Transment Approach as a methodology for transdisciplinary projects that is iteratively being adjusted and extended.

Transdisciplinary research is linked to the goal of developing knowledge for social transformation. Its process of co-design, co-production and re-integration (Jahn et al. 2012) is widely accepted in transdisciplinary research. Even if there are various deviations in the exact designation and also the number of process phases (Lawrence et al. 2022). It is generally assumed that the impetus and also the setting of the topic for transdisciplinary research comes from the sciences, which raise or have already raised funds for it.

But do the sciences actually set the right topics to initiate social transformation? Does the pre-analysis of system, target and transformation knowledge by the sciences meet the actual social needs for research? In two pilot processes, the TD-Lab - Laboratory for Transdisciplinary Research of the Berlin University Alliance - has researched what a collaborative phase of topic identification before the start of a transdisciplinary project might look like. We call this phase co-exploration.

We define co-exploration as a method-guided joint search for relevant research topics and joint agenda-setting by science and society before the actual project development and application process. We distinguish between two types of co-exploration: research area-related co-exploration (1) and thematic field-related co-exploration (2).

With the poster we present two pilot processes: Youth participation process in finding the Next Grand Challenge (1) and The Thematic Workshops on Urban Health (2). We give insights in specific challenges of co-exploration that distinguish it from other initial phases of transdisciplinary processes described in the literature (Pearce and Ejderyan 2020; Horca-Milcu et al. 2022): great uncertainty due to a high degree of process and open-endedness with a simultaneous high level of commitment on the part of the management levels. We describe approaches to dealing with these challenges and discuss why and for whom co-exploration might be relevant.

Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana/ Leventon, Julia/ Lang, Daniel J. (2022): Making Transdisciplinary happen: Phase 0, or before the beginning. In: Environmental Science and Policy 136, 187 -197.

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

Lawrence, M. G., Williams, S., Nanz, P., Renn, O. (2022): Characteristics, potentials, and challenges of transdisciplinary research. In: One Earth, 5 (1), 44 - 61.

Pearce, B.J. and Ejderyan, O. (2020): Joint problem framing as a reflexive practice: honing a transdisciplinary skill. In: Sustainability science, 15, 683 – 698.

The importance of interdisciplinary education at universities is increasingly recognized. In particular environmental assessments of products, processes or systems are an excellent example for a topic that benefits greatly from interdisciplinary knowledge and approaches. By integrating knowledge and methods from various disciplines, environmental assessments can be made more effective to develop comprehensive and sustainable solutions to environmental problems.

This study presents a roadmap for implementing a didactic guide for teaching environmental assessments with an emphasis on interdisciplinarity. It is developed in the context of a project, funded by the city of Vienna, to foster integration of environmental assessment methods in STEM programs at the UAS Technikum Vienna. The roadmap offers structured instructions for teachers of different study programs and disciplinary backgrounds to successfully integrate environmental assessment methods into their curricula. By providing a systematic approach to implementation, the roadmap supports teachers to plan, implement and evaluate the teaching process. This not only promotes efficient use of resources, but also enables more flexible adaptation to the individual needs and requirements of individual courses.

The roadmap is based on a thorough needs analysis of lecturers at the UAS Technikum Vienna. In addition, experts from different disciplines are involved to include a broader range of perspectives and pilot tests are conducted to test and validate the practical applicability and effectiveness of the roadmap in real-world teaching environments.

Context

Hasselt University wants to shape its students into critical citizens with a sustainable mindset who are prepared to take on complex societal challenges. An emphasis on inter- and transdisciplinary education is crucial for preparing students to navigate the interconnected nature of these societal challenges. We envision our students to be T-shaped professionals, who possess in-depth disciplinary expertise on the one hand and transversal competencies on the other hand. T-shaped professionals are able to look across different perspectives and disciplines to find new solutions (Bierema, 2019).

Approach and methodology

In order to prepare our students for the wicked problems of society and to become T-shaped professionals, we developed an university-wide competencies framework focussed on sustainability. The goal is that every student acquires these sustainability competencies, so this sustainability competencies framework must be implemented in all curricula at our university by 2029. This sustainability competencies framework is inspired by literature such as Ploum et al. (2018) and Wiek et al. (2015), as well as the GreenComp Framework (Bianchi et al., 2022). The framework consists of 4 interrelated competencies, namely:

- Inclusive collaboration

- Systems thinking

- Ethical and sustainable reflection

- Sustainable action

This framework has been established by a reciprocal exchange of perspectives and expectations with the study programmes, as well as the input of an expertise panel.

Inter- and transdisciplinary education is essential if we want our students to acquire these sustainability competencies. We aim to broaden students' perspectives so that they can take on their societal role and reflect on the impact of their role and actions.

Imlementation

To achieve this, we know that the role of teachers is crucial. Therefore, we aim to professionalize our teachers on the themes of sustainability and inter- and transdisciplinary education. During the poster presentation, we will give an overview of our implementation process as well as the various initiatives we undertake for teachers. For the sustainability competencies framework, we provide an online toolbox with content related to education for sustainable development and specific tools for the implementation of the competencies framework in curricula and courses. Moreover, thematic professionalisation sessions are offered. For the theme of inter- and transdisciplinary education, we developed a framework with a clarification of multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary education as well as a roadmap for teachers in order to implement this into their educational practice.

Follow-up

The integration of the sustainability competencies framework is monitored yearly by meetings with every program, followed by feedforward. These meetings can also be used to discuss the implementation of multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary education in each programs, as well as specific needs programs and teachers may have concerning this theme.

In addition, we are in search of a way of monitoring the student side, more specifically:

- How can we assess if the students have acquired these competencies?

- Which criteria are relevant for this assessment?

- Which tools can we use for this assessment?

- How can we involve the workings field and the broader society in the assessment of our students?

These questions will guide the discussion during our poster presentation.

Sustainability efforts, such as eco-friendly production and the efficient energy management, are becoming increasingly important for companies. To address these efforts, different occupational disciplines, such as technical and management disciplines, need to combine their knowledge and expertise. One solution to foster these interdisciplinary competencies early on is to establish these competencies during vocational education and training (VET).

In Germany, a dual system of VET offers students the possibility of an apprenticeship. During this apprenticeship, students acquire job relevant competencies based on occupation specific curricula. However, these curricula currently lack the promotion of interdisciplinary competencies (Sloane et al. 2018, 13). While business managers and technicians must work together daily in most companies, German schools within the dual system of vocational education and training currently do not prepare their students for this task so far.

Applying the model of interdisciplinary competencies by Claus & Wiese (2021), this study examines the interdisciplinary collaboration of business and technical teachers in a setting where they jointly work on implementing lessons for both - business and technical students. The authors define the interdisciplinary competencies in four dimensions: “initiative of exchange”, “target group-specific communication”, “integration of knowledge” as well as the “reflection on one's own discipline”. Their model integrates previous interdisciplinary competencies models (Bromme 2000; Steinheider et al. 2009; Lattuca et al. 2012). However, all these approaches have all been tested in the context of higher education or in interdisciplinary company teams, but not in the VET context.

Following a design-based research approach, the teachers' cooperation was documented and analysed with a research portfolio. Its entries documented each meeting and reflected to the teachers the way they worked together. While, lesson planning is influenced by a variety of factors and decisions (Sloane 2021), these steps must now be organised jointly for both groups of students. This involves identifying overlaps in curricula and school-related agreements. Three business and two technical teachers are involved in the process over a period of one year.

Preliminary results show that the "initiative to exchange" dimension was present from the beginning, even if it was one-sided at first. The clear structuring of the cooperation meeting and the moderation by an independent mediator were helpful. A first challenge is "target group specific communication". Both business and technical teachers struggled with the vocabulary specific to their professions. Scaffolding strategies, repetition, and an accompanying glossary significantly improved communication within the team. In terms of 'knowledge integration', initial results showed that finding cross-connections between the two professions was challenging. This is because, over time, teachers have outgrown their current practical relevance. "Reflection on one's own discipline" also seems to be a challenge. As teachers generally do not have their own practical experience, they find it difficult to recognise the limits of their own discipline.

Finally, the aim of this study is to implement a long-term partnership between teachers to promote interdisciplinary thinking. But also, to gain insights into the conditions under which teams from different occupations can work together.

Imagine the following three pressing societal issues with differences in individual and collective relevance: nutrition, climate change, and animal welfare. Four researchers from different academic disciplines share a common challenge: effectively disseminating scientific information on these issues to non-academic audiences, empowering them to make informed decisions in their daily lives. When these researchers and their ideas converge in an unusual collaboration hub, the stage is set for our interdisciplinary learning journey centred around the project ‘My choice matters!’. In this contribution, we outline several opportunities and challenges encountered during our collaboration. Our aim is to not only motivate other researchers to co-create similar initiatives but also to inspire funding bodies to develop more appropriate grant schemes for interdisciplinary research.

‘My choice matters!’ is a so-called Spark project funded by the Centre for Unusual Collaborations (CUCo). CUCo serves as a learning hub within the strategic alliance of three Dutch universities and one university medical center (EWUU alliance), focusing on interdisciplinary cooperation without predetermined limitations. The Spark grant scheme is framed as a two-phase co-learning journey providing funding for societally relevant, outside-the-box interdisciplinary research that may not easily secure funding through traditional schemes. Phase one involves workshops designed to acquire interdisciplinary research competencies and establish multidisciplinary research teams to explore and develop ideas collaboratively. In phase two, initial teams receive support in the form of seed money to expand their team, further develop the research idea, and work towards a joint proposal for a larger project supported by CUCo.

The workshop structure of the Spark programme allowed us to collectively define the problem we seek to address with our research. This form of co-development fostered trust among team members and a real sense of team spirit right from the start. The seed allowed us to hire student assistants who were naturally integrated into our team and provided continuity and the necessary commitment during times in which the rest of the team was occupied with other obligations. The assistants also played a crucial role in facilitating the timely setup of a pilot study, allowing us to experiment with real-life scenarios by interviewing individuals from our target audience. This provided a boost of motivation within the team to continue and develop the project further.

However, we also faced several challenges during our collaboration. Initially, it was challenging to make the complementarity of the team members explicit in terms of their expertise beyond content areas and to expand the team accordingly with members who were not part of Spark phase one. Additionally, motivation dipped when we did not secure a larger grant after the seed funding phase, necessitating continued work on limited funds in preparation for the next funding opportunity. Through our journey, we learned that formulating clear goals and intermediate outputs is essential to keep up the motivation within the team. Similarly, effective leadership and facilitation are key to ensure continuity and progress.

Participatory and interactive modes of scientific knowledge production have become promising concepts to tackle the multiple risks of a changing climate. Especially in climate services co-creation approaches are increasingly applied. Climate services are a broad and interdisciplinary field, related to the translation of climate research results for various applications in different sectors and the society in all. The aim is to tailor data and knowledge into customized information and products to support society in their attempts to deal with a changing climate.

In consideration of the fact that, above all, research processes in co-creation are estimated crucial for societal impacts (Maag 2018) the project NorQuATrans (Normativity, Objectivity and Quality of Transdisciplinary Processes, https://www.hicss-hamburg.de/projects/NorQuATrans/index.php.en) was implemented. The idea was – amongst others – to accompany transdisciplinary research projects and identify together quality aspects of the co-creation of climate services. Quality criteria and indicators for this mode of research processes were identified. As one of the results a formative evaluation scheme was developed by the NorQuATrans researchers together with colleagues from the project ADAPTER (ADAPT tERrestrial systems; https://adapter-projekt.org/) (Schuck-Zöller et al., 2022). To integrate the practitioners’ view, some of the most important quality criteria were reviewed by practitioners in an empirical study. Thus, the criteria can be further validated, and information will be gained about practitioners’ priorities. Which criteria do they see as most important, which ones as less? The work aimed at quality aspects mirroring the view of both, science of practice, and thus enhancing the acceptance of the evaluation scheme and related criteria.

The poster will present the study, its methodology and results. A pretest consisted of nine cognitive interviews applying different inquiry techniques. Thus, the practitioners ‘understanding of different terms related to the evaluation criteria was ascertained. On this basis a questionnaire was created, and the survey conducted. Pretest and survey delivered interesting results on how the practitioners rate the relevance of key quality criteria. And what is more, the study shed some light on the different ways of using terms and language. It, thus, delivered a basis for further studies on different language use and communicative behaviour in co-creative research processes. The results help to assure the quality of transdisciplinary scientific product development and contribute to an equitable integration of practitioners into the evaluation endeavours

Societies today are facing major global challenges, including climate change, loss of biodiversity, the energy system transformation, and complex interdependencies of critical supply-chains. Many of these challenges lead to so-called “wicked problems”, which are characterized as ill-defined, where different actors see problems and their potential solutions differently. Transdisciplinarity has proven to be key to address such challenges and to generally accelerate the transition towards a sustainable society. Through a transdisciplinary approach, solutions to sustainability problems, jointly defined by stakeholders and scientists, can be designed such that they are adapted to the specific needs of people who are affected. To enable this approach, research carried out in the last two decades at ETH Zurich’s Transdisciplinary Lab (TdLab) provides a broad set of concepts, methods and tools that have been successfully applied in various projects on a diversity of topics. To make these concepts and tools more widely applicable, especially outside the academic world, we are currently establishing a TdLab spin-off with the expertise to co-design, facilitate, support, and evaluate sustainability transformation projects.

Deploying Td approaches and Living Labs are possible in many fields. One of the fields where we want to offer our knowledge and tools by summer 2024 is the reduction of business flights in different contexts, such as academia, organizations, and businesses. Greenhouse gas emissions from business flights play a significant role in most organizations. Technological solutions and adjustments to internal travel guidelines are important, but not sufficient. On the way to a climate-neutral society, demand reduction, i.e. a reduction of flights, is also necessary. To be competitive in a net-zero world, a cultural change concerning mobility is needed in every organization. However, this is not an easy process, as it also requires a cultural change and a change in the framework conditions. We therefore offer to accompany this cultural change. We support in analyzing and adapting the current processes, defining a reduction path, and implementing it to reduce business flights. This happens in a participatory process so that the organization and employees are part of the transformation. Furthermore, reducing flights can also serve as a blueprint for further transformation processes on the way to a sustainable society.

Our activities are based on a set of concepts and tools developed at the USYS TdLab of ETH Zurich, which enables us to actively contribute to the quality of projects encompassing science and society. This entails tools e.g. to enable a joint problem framing process with different stakeholder groups, to integrate different worldviews, perspectives, knowledge types, and to experiment innovative solutions in the real world. To implement these science-based solutions, we emphasize the broad application of these methods as a complement to the theory-based development work carried out at TdLab. The overarching goal of the Spin-off is therefore to find and co-design sustainable solutions that are based on science, through a participatory process.

Developing and implementing transdisciplinarity in higher education is a pathway with many challenges (Idsøe, 2019). We urgently need innovative pedagogies for students, teachers and stakeholders to collaborate, learn and explore complex societal issues by integrating various viewpoints, leading to alternative ways of understanding and innovative approaches (Pohl, 2018; Roy et al., 2020). Meanwhile, our traditional education models are limited in fostering the necessary competencies for transdisciplinary research (Bernstein, 2015; Kawa et al. 2021).

We propose a classical A0 poster of the STEAM-TRAIL map (https://steam-plus.vercel.app/trail). The STEAM-TRAIL map is visualised as a metro-map to make it attractive for viewers. We will add a QR code to access and navigate the map directly on viewers’ phones.

The STEAM-TRAIL map was created by the European STEAM+ project (steamtalent.eu). The collaborative effort of the project partners highlighted the importance of transdisciplinary education in preparing students for future challenges, advocating a shift towards more integrative, innovative educational practices. The STEAM-TRAIL map serves as a knowledge repository and guide for higher education institutes across Europe to start and enhance their own transdisciplinary courses.

STEAM+ aimed to connect STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education and addressing the complexity of societal challenges holistically by integrating STEM with all other fields (the A in STEAM) through transdisciplinary innovation labs (TRAIL). These labs promote hands-on, innovative approaches to teaching and learning based on the three pillars of honours pedagogy operationalised by Wolfensberger (2012): (1) offering bounded freedom (see also: Kingma et al., 2018), (2) engendering academic competences (see also: Canrinus et al., 2020), and (3) creating committed community (see also: Heijne-Penninga & Wolfensberger, 2018; Canrinus et al., 2021).

Our comprehensive guide for integrating transdisciplinary innovation labs addresses a need for a collaborative and transdisciplinary approach in higher education to tackle complex societal challenges like climate change and pandemics, which cannot be solved by STEM disciplines alone. The STEAM-TRAIL map provides guidance to European Higher Education Institutes on the design and implementation of transdisciplinary education. The map provides a structured framework based on talent program experimentation for educators, students, policymakers, and higher education institutes to co-create a transdisciplinary innovation lab. Talent programs or honours programs play a pivotal role as laboratories for educational innovation (Wolfensberger et al., 2012; Kolster, 2021; van Eijl, 2023).

Our poster will present the STEAM-TRAIL map as a valuable guide for higher education institutes to enhance STEM education with STEAM labs to foster talent development across Europe. It will emphasize the necessity for closer collaboration between educators, students, policymakers, and higher education institutes using clear examples and actionable steps for implementation. The map has inspired the development of the TRAIL-tool by the Avans Transdisciplinary Cooperation in Education research group. They have submitted a workshop proposal to the conference about the tool.

“Inclusivity” and “transformation” are commonly used descriptors in research proposals, but there is a gap in translating the words into action, of “walking the talk.”

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is an approach that prioritizes the inclusion and leadership of the involved communities in all stages of research, aiming for non-extractive research and the co-production of knowledge with community researchers and practitioners (Cornish et al, 2023). Horizon Europe funding calls explicitly specify employing a multi-actor approach, requiring “genuine and sufficient involvement of [practitioners and (end) users] (…) over the whole course of the project” (p. 21-22, Horizon Europe Work Programme 2023-2024). However, the Horizon Europe project proposals are largely conceived, developed, and written by academics, perpetuating and recreating the status quo of the academic research ecosystem. This creates a seeming paradox, a tension between the stated goals of the research project and the means by which the research project came into being. Can a Horizon Europe project “add on” PAR to create space for inclusivity and transformation?

The Horizon Europe project currently under study is FOSTER (Fostering food system transformation by integrating heterogeneous perspectives in knowledge and innovation within the European Research Area). Begun in 2022, a status assessment and a needs assessment of six partner community organizations have been completed, and the third phase of the project (engagement in joint action) is beginning (actual stand, March 2024). PAR has been selected (by the academic researchers) as the methodology for the third phase. There is an opportunity and a hope for co-creation, but real systemic challenges to radical collaboration exist.

Muhar and Penker’s framework offers a possibility for analyzing the co-production of knowledge, asking the question, “Who can contribute what kind of knowledge in which phase of a transdisciplinary project and why?” In answering this question, we will analyze post hoc the initial (pre-PAR) phases of the project and examine the rollout of PAR in the third phase. Existing data sets (e.g. focus group transcripts) and new data (e.g. interviews) will be used in the analysis, with the goal of examining how structures and contexts can permit or restrict knowledge co-production between academic and community researchers.

High-quality transdisciplinary research is critical for advancing knowledge and contributing to societal progress. Research evaluation influences the decisions about which research projects receive funding. However, defining quality for research approaches that transcend traditional disciplinary and professional boundaries presents challenges. Consequently, inter and transdisciplinary research that aims to make societal contributions can be disadvantaged in science policy decisions to grant research funding (Guthrie, Gigha & Wooding, 2018). Given the lack of well-established criteria for evaluating transdisciplinary research, there is an opportunity to learn lessons from practice and identify areas for improvement (Hug & Aeschbach, 2020). The success of the grant review process in encouraging and funding high-quality transdisciplinary research depends on how quality is defined, interpreted, and evaluated. To support a transparent grant peer review process that assesses transdisciplinary research fairly, the quality criteria that provide reference points for research proposal quality evaluation must be examined.

This poster presents ongoing doctoral research on the quality criteria for evaluating research proposals in an international research for development context. It presents the results of an analysis of quality criteria used by the top 10 financial contributors to CGIAR and outlines the next steps for the research. The study aimed to determine the alignment between the quality criteria applied in international research for development and a common transdisciplinary quality assessment framework. It addresses the question: what quality criteria are used by leading international research for development funders? The criteria were collected from funding agency websites for CGIAR-eligible grants and subsequently analyzed in NVivo using an open coding approach, referencing Belcher et al., (2016)’s transdisciplinary quality assessment framework. Consistent with Falk-Krzenski & Tobin (2015), funders are primarily interested in whether the proposed project aligns with their mission, addresses a significant knowledge gap with a rigorous approach, and whether the researchers are sufficiently competent to complete the study. The criteria reviewed variably include and emphasize transdisciplinary research qualities, and use a variety of formats and appraisal methods. Criteria that do not adequately capture the qualities of transdisciplinary research may explain why such proposals are disadvantaged for funding. The study has the potential to be replicated across research contexts and funding agencies to inform improvements to the criteria that guide proposal development and peer review practice to encourage and reward high-quality transdisciplinary research.

References

Belcher, B. M., Rasmussen, K. E., Kemshaw, M. R., & Zornes, D. A. (2016). Defining and assessing research quality in a transdisciplinary context. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 1-17.

Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., & Tobin, S. C. (2015). How do I review thee? Let me count the ways: A comparison of research grant proposal review criteria across US federal funding

agencies. The journal of research administration, 46(2), 79.

Guthrie, S., Ghiga, I., & Wooding, S. (2018). What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?. F1000Research, 6.

Hug, S. E., & Aeschbach, M. (2020). Criteria for assessing grant applications: A systematic review. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1-15.

For the governance of technologies, societal complexities rooting in the advancement of technologies need to be addressed not only within the concrete resulting problems but also in their ways of emergence. Inter- and transdisciplinary research is in high demand to address the manifold dimensions of such complex problems. Furthermore, a socio-technical study of the technical areas that provide the basis for such emerging problems is strongly called for. Despite existing policies, however, inter-and transdisciplinarity are still not fully mainstreamed in the scientific community concerned with such emergent problems. Besides, socio-technical governance, including through policy and standardization, is not yet responsive enough to address arising complex problems.

This study is anchored in Science and Technology Studies and embedded in the broader research project “Investigating interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: intersections of practices, culture(s) and policy in collaborative knowledge production (INTERSECTIONS)" (funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation). The project aims at improving the theoretical foundations of both inter- and transdisciplinarity by taking a meta-research perspective. It is studying underlying sociocultural patterns of research and development processes that are revealed in such intersections.

This poster presentation will approach the problem by assessing the role of norms in inter- and transdisciplinary research and development of socio-technical systems. Norms can be understood as an approved standard or a form of behavior or action that is accepted by a majority of people. Norms allow me to target gradations of system-theoretical causes and action-theoretical reasons for behavior in science and technology cultures on institutional levels. I will show how existing institutional epistemic and technical norms lead to a disciplinary normalization in science and technology, and, in consequence, to challenges for inter- and transdisciplinary research.

The poster will address the research question: How do norms lead to normalization and governance processes? And what are the roles norms play in understanding inter- and transdisciplinary socio-technical settings? To approach it, I will focus on socio-technical systems and imaginaries in inter- and transdisciplinary cultures of technical domains, zooming in on the role of norms that can be observed in the practices and policies of technical domains. Balancing both a system- and action-theoretical approach helps to address the high complexity of socio-technical systems and their dynamics while human agency in the form of a pragmatist space for governance and transdisciplinary engagement is empowered.

In this study, qualitative methods are used. A comprehensive literature review provides the position and framework of the study, inter- and transdisciplinarily grounding the topic of norms in the field of Science and Technology Studies. Participant observations and semi-structured interviews in a Swiss center for competence in research conducting inter- and transdisciplinary research while encompassing different socio-technical systems contribute empirically to the conceptual approach.

My findings indicate that inter- and transdisciplinary research practices, epistemic cultures, and policies as well as their intersections can be understood and reconstructed through the lens of norms. An in-depth understanding of such norms can lead to an improved foundation of inclusive governance mechanisms in research and development processes, e.g., in the case of emerging technologies.

The relationship between the social sciences and philosophy has historically been close, with each field influencing the other. However, in our experience, a phenomenon we call "philosophy-hesitancy" – a general doubt or scepticism towards philosophy on the part of social scientists – can make constructive collaboration between the disciplines difficult. This project aims to deepen our understanding of the reservations that social scientists might have about philosophy in order to address the question: How does one best explain the usefulness of philosophy to empirically oriented social scientists?

Existing literature attempts to address philosophy-hesitancy by emphasizing the relevance of philosophical knowledge to the social sciences. We’ve identified three kinds of approaches: highlighting subject matter overlap (e.g. Thagard 2009), showcasing historical successes (e.g. Laplane et al. 2019), and using metaphors to explain the relationship between philosophical and scientific knowledge (some examples of this approach are listed by Thagard 2009).

However, we suggest that these approaches to addressing philosophy-hesitancy fall short because they do not explain why philosophical research is trustworthy or reliable. In particular, we hypothesise that a root cause of philosophy-hesitancy is a lack of knowledge about the inner workings of philosophical research amongst social scientists. Unlike philosophers whose curriculums typically cover the methods of empirical sciences, social scientists often lack clarity on the methods employed in philosophy. If this knowledge gap about methods is indeed a driving factor behind philosophy-hesitancy, then relevance-oriented approaches to overcoming it are unlikely to be effective.

This project aims to rectify the perceived shortcomings of existing approaches to explaining the usefulness of philosophy by focusing on how we should communicate the reliability of philosophical research to social scientists. It proceeds in two phases:

In Phase I we develop an account of philosophical methods that centres around reasoned arguments, which we break down into conceptual analysis, logical reasoning, and genealogical analysis. This account is designed to underscore the reliability of philosophical methods by stressing their continuity with those of the social sciences.

In Phase II, we empirically investigate the accuracy of our analysis of philosophy-hesitancy, and the effectiveness of the solution developed in Phase I. We will conduct surveys and focus groups with participants from an interdisciplinary collaboration between social sciences and philosophy in the Netherlands – these will conclude in April 2024.

The case this project focuses on is how philosophers should communicate about their discipline’s methods. But the insights it produces have more general applications. Problems analogous to philosophy-hesitancy appear to be a hallmark of many interdisciplinary collaborations. Presenting the background and motivation behind our project, our analysis of the problem, the setup and results of our empirical work, and our conclusions will therefore be instructive for those in other disciplines who face similar challenges in their interdisciplinary collaborations.

References:

Laplane, Lucie et al. 2019. “Why Science Needs Philosophy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (10): 3948–52.

Thagard, Paul. 2009. “Why Cognitive Science Needs Philosophy and Vice Versa.” Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (2): 237–54.

Our rapidly evolving society presents many complex and persistent sustainability that are dynamic and affect and involve many stakeholders with different values, perspectives and needs. There is increasing pressure on higher education to contribute to addressing these complex issues, as well as training our future professionals. This requires new and experimental approaches to teaching. We present a case study of interconnectedness between community engagement via street art practice in higher education curriculum. Our work showcase several pathways how the non-traditional approach facilitated unexplored opportunities for experiential learning in higher education setting.

As part of the Interdisciplinary Community Service Learning course (iCSL, Athena Institute, n.d.), in November and December 2023, 16 master students from different backgrounds and disciplines focused on real-world challenges, related to urban transitions in local neighbourhoods in Amsterdam. To support the students in this journey, at the beginning of the course the students visited Street Art Museum Amsterdam (SAMA) to gain more insights about the street art as a science communication approach. SAMA as a community-based, contemporary eco-museum applies street art as a tool for dialogue between stakeholders (SAMA, n.d.) and thus holds several case studies for the students to be inspired by. After the first visit the students engaged in various street interviews with residents about how they perceive urban transitions in their local neighbourhoods. Subsequently, students again joined a session facilitated by SAMA artist where they in groups made several street art-pieces using spray paint which aimed capture and represent the community voices of their focus neighbourhood (iCSL - Spray paint workshop, 2023).

Three main student learnings emerged from the analysis, namely, street-art was viewed from the students point of view as a bridge of (cultural) differences, as contributor to team building, and to incite new perspectives/values. When connecting these learnings to the situational factors of the course we found that using a format (in our case street art) that was new to the students eliminated hierarchy and biases and nurtured an equal learning context. Also, the two interaction moments (especially the tour) with SAMA were crucial to understand the value and potential of street art. Moreover, the freedom of the students in the design and how they gave meaning to the art piece was important as it allowed them for self-regulated learning. Finally, authors also noticed how crucial the nature of the community partner, namely, SAMA. The fact that SAMA applies street art as a tool for dialogue between stakeholders enabled and inspired the learnings of the students because they truly practice the combination of creativity and community building.

This paper indicates various values generated by engaging with street art as a tool for knowledge exchange thus going beyond the standard competency framework. We however also include some critical notes on our learning and what we might improve based on our students reflections. We aim to bring new breath of learnings where art (street art in our case) facilitates knowledge co-creation. The authors believe that the presented case study will serve as a real-world case study which holds a potential for other practitioners to replicate in different context.

references:

Athena Institute. (n.d.) Interdisciplinary community service learning course. Available at: https://vu.nl/en/education/more-about/interdisciplinary-csl-course-1

iCSL. (2023). Spray paint workshop. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb4Y7GX22qc

SAMA. (n.d.). Street Art Museum Amsterdam. Available at: https://www.streetartmuseumamsterdam.com/

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) is one method where scientific and societal actors, each with various backgrounds, collaborate to address complex problems through knowledge co-creation. Despite its widespread use, TDR still lacks a common definition and methodology which makes it challenging to define clear mechanisms for knowledge co-creation that facilitate impact. Many authors across complementary bodies of literature provide lists of principles, best practices and approaches for TDR, but in practice these are rarely applied consistently. In this conceptual paper, we fill this gap and increase methodological coherence for sustainability TDR by consolidating these bodies of literature into a list of suggested activities for scientists and practitioners across contexts to apply to enhance the impact of their work. We consolidate primary and secondary literature from the fields of TDR, sustainability, complexity, research impact, stakeholder engagement, project management, boundary work and knowledge systems with our own practical experience in sustainability TDR projects. This synthesis leads to our conceptual and analytical framework of twelve boundary work activities that enhance credible, salient and legitimate (CSL) knowledge. Our assumption is that if boundary work activities are successfully implemented across the phases of a TDR project and enhance CSL knowledge, then there will be cascading effects that support a higher likelihood of knowledge use and outcomes that lead to impactful sustainability transformations.

This is a novel conceptualisation as, to the best of our knowledge, no other scholars have outlined potential relationships between this list of boundary work activities and how they enhance CSL as a proxy for leading to impact in TDR projects. This list can be used and further operationalised by practitioners and researchers in TDR projects. By contributing to further conceptualising boundary work activities, our research supports sustainability related TDR projects across contexts, but also projects, programmes, organisations, or companies where knowledge co-creation across boundaries and disciplines is required to support CSL knowledge co-creation. Given the urgency of the complex sustainability problems of our time, we call for research to rethink how we design, implement, and evaluate TDR projects globally to ensure more effective knowledge use and impact. Future research should further unpack and operationalise our list of boundary work activities and how they enhance CSL knowledge to deliver impact.

Belcher, B., Davel, R., & Claus, R. (2020). A refined method for theory-based evaluation of the societal impacts of research. MethodsX, 7, 100788. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2020.100788

Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., . . . Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25-43. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Walter, A. I., Helgenberger, S., Wiek, A., & Scholz, R. W. (2007). Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: design and application of an evaluation method. Evaluation and program planning, 30(4), 325-338. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.002