Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research are widely considered necessary to solving complex, often called ´wicked´, problems, and national and international funding schemes, institutional structures, and education programs have been created to foster interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. However, there is a largely silenced ´wicked´ problem in the heart of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: the precarious situation of researchers engaging in such research in their individual work. Relying on extant STS and ITD research, we identify the institutional, social, cultural, and psychological challenges of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary researchers in the contemporary scientific community. Based on Caniglia and Vogel (2023), we compare the position of these researchers to that of queer people in a heteronormative and sexually binary society. We argue that the challenges of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary scholars, and their queer-like status, should be conceptualised as a problem of recognition of these scholars. Following Fraser (2003), we understand denial of recognition –either through maldistribution of resources, or misrecognition of identity, or both– as a set of obstacles in equal participation in academic life. We then illustrate these challenges in the context of a debate on the Finnish translation of the term “transdisciplinary”. Finally, we distinguish between social and institutional recognition, concluding that while researchers can contribute to social recognition through their own actions, institutional recognition requires science policy interventions by research institutions and funders.

Scientific and societal problem and goal

Contemporary academia places a significant emphasis on impact assessment in the realms of research, education, and public engagement. However, the ubiquity of the term "impact" has transformed it into a buzzword that warrants critical examination and thoughtful action.

On one side of the spectrum, the prevalence of metrics, benchmarking, and indexing systems has contributed to the legitimization and consolidation of institutional and disciplinary hierarchies. The detached approach to impact measurement often results in grand claims lacking systemic understanding. It is needed to dissect these issues and propel a critical reflection on how we perceive and communicate impact within academia. We believe in the urgency of reevaluating our approach to impact assessment to facilitate a transition towards regenerative practices.

Researchers and educators grapple with the dilemma of assessing individual impact through metrics like the H-Index, or quantitative indicators like the size of grants and the scores in students' evaluation, which may undermine the collaborative and dialogic dimensions inherent in research and education. The tension between individual and collective impact is further exacerbated by varying interpretations of the concept across disciplines. Additionally, positive impact within one perspective may be perceived as negative from another, necessitating a more nuanced and inclusive evaluation framework. Despite our best intentions, the broader implications of our work often go unnoticed, as inter- and transdisciplinary perspectives are frequently neglected.

This presentation stems from a project supported by Centre for Unusual Collaboration (CUCO), a consortium of TU Eindhoven, Wageningen University, Utrecht University, and University Medical Center Utrecht. Our goal is to unravel the complexities surrounding impact assessment, particularly its role in reinforcing hierarchies, power dynamics, and disciplinary boundaries within higher education and research. We aim to foster a dialogue on reconceptualizing impact beyond narrow disciplinary confines. By acknowledging shared approaches and values, we strive to transform impact into a unifying concept that transcends disciplinary boundaries. Through critical reflection and collaborative efforts, we aspire to pave the way for understandings of impact beyond the academic sphere that leads to, so needed right now, regenerative practices (i.e practices that adopt a system, holistic, or more than human approach).

Our proposal can address stream 2 “Growing the capacity for inter- and transdisciplinarity” and in particular the topic “Transformation of universities for enabling inter- and transdisciplinary education”

Research process and methods

Embarking on our transdisciplinary research journey brought together a dynamic blend of different cultural backgrounds and academic expertise. Hailing from the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Italy, and Poland, our team comprises Peter, a Physicist studying complex, nonlinear systems in particular fluid dynamics; Petra, a Cell Biologist delving into the science of lab grown organs, more specific human penises; Emanuele, a political scientist exploring the cultural and political significance of rivers through collaborations with journalists and artists; and Ewelina, an Industrial Designer with a penchant for ecosystemic approach to design practices and radical sharing of aliveness. This diverse team, with members open to observing and learning through a mix of academic and non-academic methods, ignites a unique yet significant spark in exploring ways to rethink impact.

Driven by a desire to fundamentally re-imagine the impact assessment within, across and beyond academic disciplines, our process advocates for an unconventional collaboration to unearth insights overlooked by traditional methods. Departing from conventional approaches, we adopt a transdisciplinary perspective, integrating embodied experiences, art, connection with nature's wisdom, and diverse ways of knowing. This collaborative endeavour involves sharing values, motivations, and societal impact goals, melding academic and non-academic methodologies.

In our presentation, we will share insights from our journey to rethink academic impact:

- storytelling as a way to find coherence in our cross-disciplinary and not always linear professional paths;

- visual arts and storytelling to foreground the affective dimension of academic work;

- warm data/system thinking to decenter our anthropocentric gaze and rethink our impact on ecosystems and other species;

- podcasting as a space to nurture dialogic conversations and find common ground on understandings and practices of academic impact.

1–3 key readings (optional)

Brown, R., Werbeloff, L., & Raven, R. (2019). Interdisciplinary research and impact. Global Challenges, 3(4).

Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S116-S123.

Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D., Seifert, T. A., Reason, R. D., & Liu, Q. (2017). Examining the impact of interdisciplinary programs on student learning. Innovative Higher Education, 42, 337-353.

With increased attention and efforts towards further integration of interdisciplinary educational methods in higher education curricula, it has become clear that designing and implementation of interdisciplinary education activities is challenging. Literature on this topic attributes this to problems of aligning and changing the institutional practices (such as university structures, disciplinary cultures and funding schemes).

This project aims to widen the problem analysis by looking beyond institutional level and by focusing on the more practical organisational difficulties.

The Interdisciplinary Education Program of Utrecht University facilitated 5 “incubators” in which new interdisciplinary education programmes within the university were developed. In each of these incubators, an “integration experts” (IEs) was assigned. The function and role of these "integration experts" were based on the call by Hoffmann et al. (2022). The goal of the IEs in these incubators was twofold: to assist and improve the process of designing and implementing interdisciplinary educational activities, and to gather insight into the organisational challenges and tensions that arise during this process. In this presentation, the contributors, who were also the IEs, reflect on their experiences and lessons learned.

Intervening in the current literature, the findings of the IEs in this project highlight three additional focus areas in addition to institutional tensions. First, teamwork tensions, which focus on group dynamics, decision making processes, and coordination and collaboration management. Second, the interdisciplinary knowledge base of all participants within or involved with these new programmes (staff, students, educational designers and university management), which affects educational organisation processes.

Third, uncertainty about demand for interdisciplinary education arises as a tension, as unclarity about the popularity of new courses hinders the commitment and makes formulating entry requirements difficult.

Additionally, the presenters will look at their own position as IEs within the incubators. The presenters will briefly discuss the activities and contributions they made, and the expertise and institutional support required for efficient and effective educational organisation processes. The IE-experience shows how the educational development context - i.e. the status of the project, team dynamics, as well as the institutional and team culture - both enhanced and limited the abilities of the IE.

We argue that organisers of interdisciplinary educational activities should pay more attention towards the three previously not highlighted areas, as they are frequently expected to ‘just happen’ while they prove to be a precondition for more efficient and effective educational organisation processes. An IE could play several roles in countering these issues: informing all involved actors on the merits, methodological approaches and possible applications of interdisciplinary education activities; or acting as a teamwork and collaboration coordinator.

Key reading: Hoffmann, S., Deutsch, L., Klein, J.T. et al. ‘Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts’ Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9, 147 (2022).

Evaluating interdisciplinarity poses many challenges (Laursen, Motzer & Anderson, 2022), particularly building consensus on appropriate measures. Quantitative measures such as co-productions, collaborations, and studies of citation patterns get the most attention, leaving gaps in qualitatively understanding the role of social dynamics in knowledge integration, a recognized element of interdisciplinarity (Wagner, et al, 2011). Not understanding such social processes occurs at different granularities: institutional, community, team, and groups. These social processes all involve interactions with the interdisciplinary individual, but with varying aspects of context being foregrounded. Measures not only evaluate interdisciplinarity per se, but also conditions that may favor or hinder it.

Some gaps concerning social dynamics in this area are wider than others. Regarding institutions, requests for funding may require multiple disciplines, yet institutional criteria for promotion tend to remain discipline centred (Klein & Falk-Krzesinski, 2017), leading to social dynamics at cross-purposes. Similarly, implicit community rules may prod researchers to highlight work from their own community at the expense of more pertinent research published elsewhere (Porter, Roessner & Heberger, 2008), thus promoting having conversations with the “right people” over better citing practices. There is a vast body of work on groups involving the social processes by which people behave and how their characteristics may influence achieving group goals but fewer papers focus on the social dynamics specifically regarding knowledge integration from team members’ viewpoints vs. group members’. For example, Brodbeck, et al (2020) capture how complex decision-making profits from differentiation and integration of diverse perspectives and knowledge, but their experimental study does not give detail on how group social processes are related to knowledge integration. Molinari & Lund (2012) show how a power game shapes public recognition of knowledge integration between two students in a classroom but again, data did not involve scientific teams.

We propose emergent thematic coding analyses (Stemler, 2000), carried out on three datasets involving practicing interdisciplinary teams: 1) application documents for funding, 2) team-produced visualizations of interdisciplinarity and 3) two rounds of transcribed interview data with co-leaders. Each team co-leader is trained in different disciplines/subfields, mainly from human and social sciences, but not exclusively. Data is from 8 interdisciplinary projects, each financed at 230K€, and within a 5-year 4,3M€ project at crossroads involving overall more than 10 disciplines/subfields. We aim to develop a broadly based, team-level descriptive model on the role of social dynamics in knowledge integration, beginning with project planning, and moving through phases of research operationalization. We detail how ways of interacting between team members lead to specific types of integration, targeting ways of communicating with stakeholders in and out of academia, developing research questions, bringing to bear theories and concepts on project work, making decisions about gathering data, using analytical methods and tools, and disseminating results, all of which need socially based knowledge integration.

This area’s literature lacks precise definitions of social dynamics and social processes, and how, for example, social pressures, or emotional positioning of arguments (Polo, et al, 2016) play out in team-level interdisciplinary interactions in different phases. Our findings will allow us to build a descriptive model that fleshes out what is behind the label “social” through relevant and justified examples. The potential impact of such an exemplified model lies first in better understanding social paths to integration and secondly, in its use for interdisciplinary training.