According to ideal type models, transdisciplinary (TD) processes are assumed to generate effects in science and practice (Jahn et al. 2012, Lang et al. 2012). However, striving for both societal and scientific effects during a research process is considered challenging. This workshop will explore the implications of this challenge.
The pursuit of an ideal-typical realization of transdisciplinary research may lead to synergies or trade-offs between scientific and societal effects. We define synergies as positive effects in science and practice resulting from the essential qualities of a typical TD research process. Examples of synergies include cooperation between science and practice, societal problem orientation, or knowledge integration. On the one side, science benefits from both context-specific and generalized knowledge contributions as well as phenomenological and strategic knowledge of professional practice experts and local actors (Enengel et al. 2011, Hegger and Dieperink 2015, Marg and Theiler 2023). On the other side, societal actors benefit from improved evidence for societal decisions and the implementation of evidence-based policies and action programs generated (Stauffacher et al. 2008, Hegger and Dieperink 2015, Schäfer et al. 2021).
We define trade-offs as negative effects or the absence of effects in science or practice resulting from TD research processes. In the literature, trade-offs have primarily been described from the perspective of science, highlighting the correlation between increased interactions with practitioners and reduced academic output and impact (e.g. Zscheischler et al. 2018, Newig et al. 2019, Jahn et al. 2022). Other authors suggest that the promises of the TD research mode do not always fulfill the expectations of practitioners, e.g. because the produced knowledge is not compatible with their needs (Stauffacher et al. 2008, Polk 2014).
In the context of the project tdAcademy funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), we empirically explored the paradox that the "very conditions that presume the success of transdisciplinary processes are the same ones that potentially reduce their effectiveness and reintegration back into the practical and scientific realms where such results can be used" (Polk 2014: 450). The objectives of our empirical endeavor were to systematize common synergies and trade-offs in science and practice, and to identify the most important factors at individual, structural, and project levels that influence the emergence of synergies and trade-offs. Another central focus of our research was to identify strategies for individuals or project teams to deal with these factors to promote synergies and minimize trade-offs.
During the session, we will present our empirical results based on a secondary analysis of two types of data: 1) qualitative interviews with 22 researchers experienced in transdisciplinary and disciplinary research and 2) seven half day-workshops on planning and monitoring the social effectiveness of four transdisciplinary projects involving partners from science and practice. These data resulted in preliminary findings that were further discussed and supplemented in focus group interviews with participants from academia and practice.
In the ITD24 session, we would like to discuss the following two key questions:
1) Are the presented results plausible and comprehensive for the TD community?
2) What kind of guidance is helpful for developing strategies to strengthen synergies and to mitigate trade-offs between scientific and societal effects, and thus improving TD research?
The aim of the session is to exchange experiences with TD researchers on synergies and trade-offs between scientific and societal effects as well as strategies to deal with this tension. The exchange with the TD community is valuable to make our research results more applicable to research practice, e.g. in form of a guideline.
Description of the session design (in person / 60 min): In the first 20-25 minutes of the session, we will present our research findings. The remaining 35-40 minutes will provide space for in-depth discussion along the key questions mentioned above.
1–3 key readings
Marg, O. and Theiler, L. (2023) ‘Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity‘, Research Evaluation, 32/4: 635–47.
Newig, J., Jahn, S., Lang, D. J. and Kahle, J. et al. (2019) ‘Linking modes of research to their scientific and societal outcomes. Evidence from 81 sustainability-oriented research projects‘, Environmental Science & Policy, 101: 147-55.
Polk, M. (2014) ‘Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving‘, Sustainability Science, 9/4: 439-51.
References
Enengel, B., Muhar, A., Penker, M. and Freyer, B. et al. (2012) ‘Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development-An analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases‘, Landscape and Urban Planning, 105/1-2: 106-17.
Hegger, D. and Dieperink, C. (2015) ‘Joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: what is in it for science?‘, Ecology and Society, 20/4.
Jahn, S., Newig, J., Lang, D. J. and Kahle, J. et al. (2022) ‘Demarcating transdisciplinary research in sustainability science-Five clusters of research modes based on evidence from 59 research projects‘, Sustainable Development, 30/2: 343-57.
Jahn, T., Bergmann, M. and Keil, F. (2012) ‘Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization‘, Ecological Economics, 79: 1-10.
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M. and Stauffacher, M. et al. (2012) ‘Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges‘, Sustainability Science, 7/S1: 25-43.
Marg, O. and Theiler, L. (2023) ‘Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity‘, Research Evaluation, 32/4: 635–47.
Newig, J., Jahn, S., Lang, D. J. and Kahle, J. et al. (2019) ‘Linking modes of research to their scientific and societal outcomes. Evidence from 81 sustainability-oriented research projects‘, Environmental Science & Policy, 101: 147-55.
Polk, M. (2014) ‘Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving‘, Sustainability Science, 9/4: 439-51.
Schäfer, M., Bergmann, M. and Theiler, L. (2021) ‘Systematizing societal effects of transdisciplinary research‘, Research Evaluation, 30/4: 484–99.
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, 21/6: 409–22.
Zscheischler, J., Rogga, S. and Lange, A. (2018) ‘The success of transdisciplinary research for sustainable land use: individual perceptions and assessments‘, Sustainability Science, 13/4: 1061-74.
