Conference Agenda

Studying complex sustainability transformations on multiple levels (Abson et al., 2017; Geels, 2002) requires interdisciplinary research as “a mode of research by teams or individuals that integrates perspectives/concepts/theories, and/or tools/techniques, and/or information/data from two or more bodies of specialized knowledge or research practice” (Porter, 2006, p. 189). A persistent challenge in collaborative interdisciplinary research is that researchers need to understand how their own disciplinary research connects to research in other disciplines less familiar to them in terms of concepts and methods (Klein, 2005). Mixed methods literature has outlined possible combinations of qualitative and quantitative research methods (Johnson et al., 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), which have been specified and applied in fields such as agri-food research (Akimowicz et al., 2018; Strijker et al., 2020). Inter- and transdisciplinary research literature has identified integrative methods at different research stages, from conceptualization to synthesis (Bergmann et al., 2013; Hoffmann et al., 2017). More recently, scholars have explored the space in between these two streams with respect to systematizing interdisciplinary method combinations and collaborations in the research process (Kinnebrew et al., 2021).

In this paper, we develop a typology of interdisciplinary collaborations at different stages of the research process that shall support the implementation of such collaborations on project level. The typology seeks to systematize the thinking about interdisciplinary collaborations by identifying options for combining research from different disciplines to achieve interdisciplinary integration throughout the research process. We propose a parsimonious typology distinguishing three types of interdisciplinary collaborations: (1) common base, (2) common destination, and (3) sequential link. Common base refers to an interdisciplinary collaboration at one stage (e.g., data collection) that separates into parallel disciplinary work at the next stage (e.g., analysis). Common destination denotes a collaboration where separate disciplinary work at one stage (e.g., analysis) feeds into joint interdisciplinary work at the next stage (e.g., interpretation). Sequential link means that one completed stage of disciplinary research (e.g., analysis) provides the basis for a research stage in another discipline (e.g., operationalization).

We empirically illustrate the typology with a case study of interdisciplinary collaborations in a four-year research project that studies the potential for an evidence-based sustainability transformation of pesticide governance and use in the agri-food sector. The researchers in this project, who come from seven natural, health, and social science disciplines, developed a process that has supported formation and continuity of interdisciplinary collaborations to investigate interactions between evidence, actor preferences, and policy/practice decisions. We present selected examples of different types from a total of five interdisciplinary collaborations in the project, explaining their practical implementation, contribution to overall research goals, and challenges encountered. Our empirical examples show that the typology can be a starting point for critical reflection about interdisciplinary research design and implementation that could be valuable for other project contexts too. We conclude that the typology allows for deriving lessons that can inform future interdisciplinary projects aimed at delivering new insights into transformation processes in the agri-food sector and beyond.

There is a growing need to assess the transformative potential of transdisciplinary research on biodiversity, with a specific focus on the role of value pluralism. In this contribution, we assess the potential effects of the inter-/transdisciplinary research project “ValPar.CH – Values of the ecological infrastructure in Swiss parks” on Switzerland’s biodiversity. We use a self-reflexive approach focusing on how the project's team thinks about the potential impact of its research. To do so, we collected data through semi-structured interviews and workshops held with the project's researchers and stakeholders. These data were analysed based on two complementary frameworks used in the international biodiversity and sustainability debate: the theory of change and the values-centred leverage points. We identified 11 pathways linking the project outputs to potential outcomes in a theory of change. Most of the statements about ValPar.CH's potential effects on Swiss biodiversity targeted intermediate levels of leverage, in particular the embedding of plural valuation in decision-making. Our results show that the team's way of thinking is largely based on the knowledge deficit model, which assumes that communicating better information to stakeholders will make their decisions more sustainable regarding biodiversity. However, other ways of thinking are also present that highlight the importance of competence building and social learning to address biodiversity loss, as well as the politicized nature of ValPar.CH. Based on our results, we ask what priority actions could be designed to realize the potential outcomes. For this, we consider stakeholders with both favourable and unfavourable positions regarding biodiversity conservation. We also launch some ideas to turn potential outcomes into measurable impacts. This reflection can be useful for ValPar.CH researchers, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment and other stakeholders to design follow-up activities that maximize the project's transformative capacity for Swiss biodiversity.

How to enhance interdisciplinarity in fields of research where there are inherent imbalanced structures and power relations between scientific perspectives? This kind of imbalance characterizes research on ‘the triple planetary crisis’: climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss. All three of them have distinct natural science profiles, however, the need for increased interdisciplinarity to address the challenges has been widely expressed as the integration of social sciences and humanities (SSH) is required if we are not just to map the problems, but to find solutions.

This presentation focus on biodiversity loss, with the aim to present and discuss strategies and possible ways forward for improving interdisciplinarity. Of certain interest is the role of SSH scholars in scientific projects and science-policy organizations. The presentation relates to my own experiences from long-term of engagements in projects, funding bodies, government advisory boards and multilateral platforms on local to global levels.

The problematic situation for biodiversity all over the globe emerged and evolved as an issue within nature conservation and the discipline of biology. Notwithstanding the growing recognition that knowledge about humans and the human society must be included to change the negative trends, the remaining natural science dominance poses a challenge in many ways for SSH scholars entering the field. Such experiences are presented in numerous publications where obstacles as well as opportunities for taking interdisciplinary work forward are pointed out. Issues raised are eg. oblivousness of SSH and the great variety within; studies of humans and the human society carried out with little of appropriate competence in approaches, theories and methods; the lack of reflective understandings of concepts such as power, values, knowledge. The challenging issues relate to scientific collaboration as well as to interprofessional collaboration, as the nature conservation sector is largely populated by people with their education from biology.

Strategies for improving interdisciplinarity in the field of biodiversity include continued research on and critical analysis of how the challenge of biodiversity loss is addressed and institutional changes in academia, in governments and among funders, to facilitate and enhance interdisciplinary approaches. Crucial is also that SSH scholars engage in collaborative biodiversity research and in organisations addressing biodiversity loss. In many cases, this demands some braveness to question what is taken for granted, to demand reflection on key concepts and wordings such as ‘nature’, ‘wild’, ‘authentic’, and to argue for the recognition of qualitative methods. SSH researchers in biodiversity research also often find it necessary to consider issues like – What gaps to start handle?; How to assure enough scientific quality from SSH perspectives, also those outside one’s own competence?; How to recognize if ones influence is little more than an ‘SSH-alibi’?; How to balance between the urgency for actions and the need for complex analysis not to compromise other global challenges such as global justice and wellbeing for all?

Networking with SSH peers is, then, constructive and helpful for addressing those matters.