We propose to organise a networking event of the ITD Alliance Working Group on Integration Experts and Expertise on Monday (4th November) to meet with all interested active and passive members and discuss ongoing activities of the Working Group:

(a) exchanging on innovative teaching and learning formats on integration

(b) establishing a typology of integration experts and expertise

(c) developing Theories of Change to institutionalise integration experts and expertise in different contexts (e.g., the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland)

Inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) research is increasingly valued for its contribution to solving complex problems (Leitao 2023), by crossing the boundaries not only of different scientific disciplines, but also of science, policy and practice (Nowotny et al. 2001). Integration across such boundaries is widely seen as the core challenge of ITD research (Bergmann et al. 2005, Klein 2008, Pohl et al. 2008). Integration here refers to a multidimensional interactive process that involves cognitive, social, and emotional dimensions, in which worldviews come together to address the complexities and uncertainties of real-world problems (Pohl et al. 2021). It also refers to the integrated output that results from such a process (O'Rourke et al. 2016).

Yet, integration is also a core challenge in ITD higher education (Vienni-Baptista and Hoffmann forthcoming). In the last few years, a plethora of initiatives have been developed to cope with the increasing demand to embed ITD in higher education. These have mostly flourished out of individual or collective efforts, with a bunch of well-planned and institutionalized programs across different regions (Vienni-Baptista and Klein 2022). Given the importance of integration for ITD research, lecturers, administrators and students are confronted with the challenges of how to integrate integration in ITD higher education programs to train students in leading or engaging in integration across multiple boundaries, i.e. how to design, implement, explore and assesss integration in such programs. Puzzling questions such as what do we teach and learn? why? and how? are then deemed relevant.

We address these questions through a poster exhibition of innovative teaching and learning formats on integration designed and implemented at different higher education institutions across different regions. The exhibition will consist of posters from invited and selected experiences according to a template designed by the convenors. We have already confirmed posters from the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Armenia, Georgia, Mexico, Canada and the USA. The exhibition aims at providing state-of-the-art insights into current formats, specifying key competencies, learning objectives and learning activities as well as first lessons learned from designing and implementing such formats. Providing such insights in a standardized way will facilitate cross-comparison and integration of key insights from different formats, and enable final synthesis (preparing the ground for a potential publication on innovative teaching and learning formats on integration across different regions). If possible, the poster exhibition will be accompanied by an interactive session (30-60 min) in which interested trainers, researchers, practitioners and students will have the opportunity to exchange with lecturers about their particular teaching and learning format.

We are part of the Working Group on Integration Experts and Expertise of the Global ITD Alliance, gathered on the topic of integrative teaching and learning on integration in ITD higher education. As an output of the joint work done in the Working Group, we have identified a set of innovative teaching and learning formats on integration. This selection is not exhaustive and we welcome other contributions from different geographical regions.

Poster Template

• Overview: Our course in facts and figures…

• Key competencies in integration: Our course fosters…

• Learning objectives for integration related to key competencies: At the end of our course students will be able to…

• Learning activities: How do our students explore integration in theory and practice?

• Lessons learned: What are our lessons learned so far?

In an era marked by pandemics, escalating sea levels, and growing wealth disparity, innovative solutions are needed now more than ever, which requires a new and radical approach to understanding and addressing complex societal problems. Since it is unlikely that these problems can be tackled by experts alone, it is worthwhile to seek a radical new approach that puts integration expertise at center stage. To accelerate collaborative learning across different forms of expertise, the Resilient Delta initiative is experimenting with the gluon researcher,, a new and complementary role in the knowledge ecosystem. The mission of the ‘gluon approach’ is to help build shared understandings across diverse perspectives and mobilize transformative learning through integrative leadership, diversification of academic projects, collective validation, and conscious integration of knowledge in a collaborative learning setting. To do so, the gluon researcher tailor-makes an integrative approach for different types of knowledge consortia based on the combination of ITD literature with engineering and design-thinking. This exhibition presents how the gluon approach has been operationalized so far (in consortia such as ReDesigning Deltas, Red & Blue, SPRING, Resilience on the Labour Market and JUST GREEN) and what the gluon does through a diverse range of mediums such as posters, digital animation, and various publication formats. This is also an opportunity to launch the limited booklet series's first issue on the gluon researcher to the ITD community and the diverse integration experts in it.

If you have no tragedy, you have no comedy (Sid Caesar). Despite the promising potential of inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) integration for addressing urgent wicked problems (Palmer, 2018), it remains a challenge – for both project or program leaders and team members - to make integration happen in practice (Hoffmann, Deutsch, et al., 2022; O'Rourke et al., 2016; Polk, 2014). Integration can be defined as a multidimensional interactive process during which previously unrelated perspectives and expertise are connected with each other (cognitive dimension), different expectations and working routines are accommodated (social dimension) and a respectful atmosphere for learning and collaborating among project or program leaders and members is created (emotional dimension) (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016; Pohl et al., 2021). To what extent integration can be achieved depends on the overall conditions under which it is pursued (Deutsch et al., under review), and on what kind of behaviours and attitudes project or program leaders and members display during the creative process of integration. Hence, integration across disciplines as well as across science, policy and practice can bear rewarding, but also frustrating moments for all the parties involved.

Based on empirical insights from an accompanying research to three ITD research programs in Switzerland (Deutsch et al., under review) and our own experiences of leading integration processes within ITD projects and programs (Hoffmann, Weber, et al., 2022), we created a series of cartoons in collaboration with a professional cartoonist to capture scenes from ITD integration processes. The cartoon series is particular based on the results from a reversal technique – the headstand strategy – (Lungershausen, 2017) which we employed in a workshop setting in several project and program contexts in order to approach the emotionally charged challenge of integration (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016) from a different and ‘lighter’ angle. We asked participants to brainstorm concrete behaviours and attitudes and develop specific strategies to make sure that ITD integration fails in their projects or programs. Capturing the results of these workshops in a series of cartoons, the exhibition provides action-oriented knowledge for project or program leaders and members about how to actively hinder integration in practice. However, the exhibition doesn’t intend to stop there: it invites visitors to reflect upon the displayed scenes from ITD integration and think about how they can be modified or reversed in order to allow integration to happen, and share their thoughts on a “wall of ideas” at the end of the exhibition. Overall, the exhibition presents a visual and humorous take on the challenges of ITD integration and provides a space to digest frustrating experiences via the best medicine: laughter.

The exhibition could be displayed during the entire duration of the conference and attendees can visit the exhibition themselves. However, as organizers of this exhibition we will join the exhibition from time to time during the conference and be happy to discuss open questions with visitors. The exhibition would require a space for about 10-15 framed Cartoon pictures (size A3).

Contributors: Morten Strömme, Jasper ter Schegget, Linda de Greef, Students and Teaching Assistants from the minor Science Technology & Innovation: Biomimicry,

Keywords: Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, Technical Education, Maker Culture, Inner Development Goals, Student Experiences, publications

Abstract: This session introduces attendees to several aspects of the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies’ Education Lab through three showcases: a Mini-Makerspace, a Literature Corner, and the Transition Makers Toolbox. By setting up one stage with three areas — each reflecting different facets of our approach to interdisciplinary education — we showcase the theoretical underpinnings, student experiences, and personal development tools. Our goal is to offer a comprehensive perspective on educational innovation, enabling participants to explore each element within a shared and freely accessible area of the conference floor. This informal experience aims to bridge theoretical insights with practical examples, allowing for an open dialogue on effective education strategies and inter- and transdisciplinary initiatives.

Session Design: We can be present for up to three days of the conference, highlighting a different area during each of the daily lunch breaks. All areas will be open for exploration and conversation throughout the conference.

Miniature Makerspace:

Presenting Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary projects from the minor ST&I: Biomimicry, where students utilize insights from nature to develop technological solutions by constructing bio-inspired prototypes within the UvA Makerspace. The minor, welcoming students from natural sciences, engineering, and related disciplines, employs both Design Thinking and Open Inquiry education methods to balance freedom with structure in the student design process.

The Open Inquiry aspect represents a collaborative effort between the University of Amsterdam, TU Eindhoven, Amsterdam University College and Leiden University, as part of a larger initiative led by Dr. Forrest Bradbury. Supported by a significant subsidy from DUS-I/SURF, this approach emphasizes giving students considerable autonomy in their projects, encouraging them to engage deeply with every stage of the empirical research cycle. This model aims to enhance critical thinking, self-efficacy, and an understanding of the scientific process, allowing students to create their own learning experiences while still adhering to the learning goals. We will also offer practical solutions for organising this type of education without overburdening the education staff.

IIS Literature Corner:

We aim to have an open and informal conversation with the attendants, starting off from the expertise we’ve developed and brought together in a variety of IIS publications, that ground all our initiatives educational theories. These books include:

• Meaningful Assessment in Interdisciplinary Education: A Practical Handbook for University Teachers (2021)

This handbook calls for an assessment strategy with greater emphasis on assessment for and as learning, focusing on giving powerful feedback and using authentic assessment tasks aligned with intended learning outcomes. It provides inspiring examples of assessing integration, collaboration, reflection, and critical thinking.

• Designing Interdisciplinary Education: A Practical Handbook for University Teachers (2017)

This guide offers practical advice for university teachers who want to develop, implement, and sustain interdisciplinary courses and programs. It covers topics like formulating interdisciplinary learning outcomes, embedding integration in program design, engaging faculty, and exploring teaching philosophies and methods.

• Interdisciplinary Learning Activities (2018)

This publication contains concrete examples of interdisciplinary learning activities that encourage students to step across disciplinary boundaries. It provides inspiration for developing service-learning courses, honors programs, and other interdisciplinary initiatives.

Transition Makers Toolbox Area:

Through the innovative use of our specially designed Conversation Starter cards, attendants will experience the power of introspective dialogue and collaborative exploration first-hand. Whether they’re a seasoned educator or new to the concept of Inner Development Goals (IDGs), participants will discover inspiring ways to ignite enthusiasm and foster deep, meaningful growth in their students with the Transition Makers Toolbox.

These areas combined create an environment for attendees to engage with students, teachers, and the education developers from the IIS and UvA Science Faculty, facilitating an open exchange of ideas and strategies for integrating several interdisciplinary approaches.

Flexibility and Scalability: Recognizing the varying nature of conference spaces, our setup is designed to be adaptable. We can expand to include a comprehensive array of educational materials or condense it to fit smaller spaces without sacrificing content quality.

As society evolves, we are faced with increasingly challenging and intricate problems. These problems usually involve intricate systems where an alteration to one component can impact other components. Researchers working in silos struggle to address such complex issues. Interdisciplinary research, where multiple academic disciplines are combined and thinking takes place across boundaries, presents opportunities to address pressing issues of our day.

In this study, we present a flexible framework (the CSH-3W tool) that can be used by both industry and academia to guide an interdisciplinary project. The framework combines critical systems thinking, action research and the three worlds of Habermas to form a practical tool for interdisciplinary research and problem solving. The CSH-3W tool guides the researcher to systematically identify and reflect on a research problem and its various facets. It ensures that various viewpoints and the interplay between different subsystems are considered. It challenges researchers to explicitly reflect critically on the boundaries of their research design and engage in dialogue with various stakeholders that may question these boundaries, possibly leading to the broadening of boundaries. This aspect can be of particular value in interdisciplinary research. Problem-solvers are guided to first take a step back, consider the bigger picture and then zoom in to examine the details. This process is repeated to generate innovative solutions.

The problem of how to enhance the employability of data science students will be used to demonstrate the CSH-3W tool. Disciplines that were involved in this study, included psychology, education, industrial psychology, operations research and data science. Each of these disciplines contributed to a better understanding of the problem and how to address it holistically.

The tool is not only easy to use but also versatile. It can assist in research planning, project planning in industries, and can be used to teach students problem-solving skills. The tool provides a valuable resource for researchers, educators, and industries to tackle the various challenges of our time through interdisciplinary initiatives.

The Horizon 2020 funded SHAPE-ID project (Shaping Interdisciplinary Research in Europe) addressed the challenge of how to strengthen the integration of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences in inter- and transdisciplinary research. In June 2021, the project’s online toolkit was launched. This web-based toolkit was designed to provide guidance for those engaged in or supporting inter- and transdisciplinary research: researchers, research performing organisations, research policymakers and funders, and societal partners.

SHAPE-ID’s funding ended in October 2021 but interest in our toolkit remains high, and project members continue to use its resources in their daily work to help grow the capacity for inter- and transdisciplinarity, including through the work of the ITD Alliance Toolkits and Methods Working Group. The continuing use of our resource illustrates the importance of institutionalising inter- and transdisciplinary research within universities and other higher education institutions.

In this short video we focus on the vital role that research professionals play in capacity building and talk to two former project members, Dr Doireann Wallace, Senior Interdisciplinary Research Funding Specialist, Trinity College Dublin and Dr Giovanna de Moura Rocha Lima Impact Officer at Eramus University, Rotterdam. We ask them about the ways in which they promote best practice in the conduct of inter- and transdisciplinary research using the Toolkit, and what further resources are needed to improve the support they provide to researchers and other research professionals.

Interdisciplinary practice is hard to teach. While disciplinary differences are easy to identify, teaching the integration of conflicting insights is a challenging move from theory into practice. For students, the practice and products of interdisciplinarity remain abstract ideas until they achieve academic maturity. This maturity proceeds coursework in disciplinary history, philosophy of science, multidisciplinarity, and finally, interdisciplinary theory. Even then, students’ successful interdisciplinary experience depends on a precarious synthesis of case study, discipline, conflicts, and techniques.

The process and products of interdisciplinary practice can seem, in this sense, a distant pie in the sky. Yet cross-disciplinary practices are commonplace outside the university classroom. Method mixing, concept borrowing, and the solving of conflicts through techniques like redefinition and extension occur regularly among innovators who can critically reflect on their own tried traditions and systems.

The success stories of these innovators have been popularized as “out of the box” thinking after their innovations led to paradigmatic shifts in policy, new areas, or new organizations. The popularization of their stories translates their innovative experience for the masses. An interdisciplinary eye, however, might recognize “out of the box” thinking as a stepping beyond the boundaries of one’s own discipline, tradition, or episteme. The interdisciplinarian might identify an application of new methods or the adoption of other vocabulary as an extension of theory or a redefinition of concepts.

Parallels between innovation outside of the academy and interdisciplinary theory can provide concrete examples of successful interdisciplinary practices for the novice interdisciplinarian. By referencing relevant examples of innovation, teachers can show students that successful interdisciplinary practice is attainable and useful. Furthermore, the principles governing interdisciplinary collaboration -- perspective taking, empathy, flexibility, creativity, and compromise – come to the foreground as indispensable skills for successful integration.

The 2017 Netflix series “Mindhunter,” based on the book by John Douglas (1995), is an accessible tool for teaching students about the fruits of creating common ground, resulting in innovative forensic practice and a new FBI department. The 2011 film “Moneyball,” based on the book by Michael Lewis (2003), documents the unprecedented implementation of statistical methods for player selection, resulting in innovative baseball management practice that has even been expanded for use in soccer. Finally, the “living paintings” of Refik Anadol integrate artificial intelligence and data science into art practice.

This video will present parallels between innovative practice and interdisciplinary practice through references toward innovators outside the academy. The goal of this video is to familiarize a non-academic public with the principles and techniques of interdisciplinary science. The video will ask the question: What can we learn from these examples of innovative practice? By framing “out of the box” thinking as cross-disciplinary activity, viewers will be stimulated to concretize interdisciplinary practice through baseball, criminal profiling, or “living paintings.” Because the content will be directed toward a non-academic public, it will be accessible for students in a novice stage of interdisciplinary education.

In the current academic landscape, the pursuit of sustainability transcends disciplinary boundaries. As the challenges of the Anthropocene intensify, the imperative of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches becomes increasingly evident.

In this context, the Future Earth Research School (FERS) was launched in 2022 by the Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Climate Change Foundation (CMCC), with the support of the Emilia-Romagna Region in order to foster collaboration and innovation through transformative educational pathways dedicated to young researchers and professionals committed to addressing global environmental challenges from diverse disciplinary perspectives. How does the innovative approach employed by the Future Earth Research School (FERS) transcend disciplinary research silos to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and education among young scholars and better respond to the vast and multifaceted challenges of climate change?

As humanity grapples with the ramifications of climate change and strives for equitable access to resources, the role of research is no longer simply the production of knowledge for knowledge's sake but the urgency to provide solutions to these upcoming challenges. With this aim, FERS School emerges as a catalyst for this purpose, poised to shape the transition to sustainability in the years to come, from science to decision-making and from decision-making to action.

Providing intensive two week-courses at the premises of the CEUB venue on the background of the amazing Italian lanscape, FERS School aims to equip participants with the knowledge and tools necessary for building a fertile ground for innovative research pathways and navigating the complexities of the impact of climate change. It offers a unique opportunity for early-career researchers to meet and collaborate with international experts and engaging in a dialogue that transcends existing academic boundaries and aims to forge lasting collaborations that extend in time and space beyond the program timeline.

This video presents the perspective of international participants from the thematic course based on Adaptation and sustainable risk management held on October 2022, as well as the dialogue it has facilitated between different disciplines. It shows how FERS aggregates an international community of motivated, open-minded participants who are eager to deepen the scientific foundation that is needed to address the most advanced challenges of the future, to cultivate the necessary systemic and multidisciplinary approach, to improve their ingenuity to identify solutions and drive change. Site visits, practical activities and seminars have been unique opportunities for young professionals, PhD students and post-docs to work together and share experiences.

Aquatic ecosystems play a crucial role in global well-being, providing essential services such as drinking and irrigation water, food, livelihoods, and recreational opportunities. However, these ecosystems are under threat from climate change and anthropogenic pressure, leading to a decline in their services. Armenian aquatic ecosystems, in particular, have a high vulnerability due to the dense population, lack of water treatment plants, and increased water demands from agriculture. These circumstances coupled with climate change increase negative impacts on local communities and the environment of Armenia. Urgent actions are required to establish sustainable aquatic ecosystem management practices. For this purpose, a comprehensive understanding and assessment of ecosystem services (ES) are necessary. Nevertheless, this task is complex given the diverse perspectives of various stakeholders involved in their valuation and management of aquatic ecosystems. To address these challenges, there is a critical need for the integration of knowledge from multiple disciplines and practical knowledge from local community members. Moreover, the traditional use of ES and local stakeholders' participation in decision-making processes are needed to facilitate the implementation of place-based strategies for sustainable aquatic ecosystem management.

In the frame of the EcoServ (Ecosystem Services Assessment through a Participatory Approach for Sustainable Water Resources Management in Armenia) project, we elaborate a participatory approach that is rooted in the inter- and transdisciplinary methodology where locals actively participate in research project co-design, co-implementation, systematic observations and evaluation to bridge this gap. Our contribution addresses three key research questions: 1) What participatory approaches are evident in scholarly literature for valuing aquatic ecosystem services? and 2) What are the challenges and benefits of engaging citizens in aquatic ecosystem services assessment? 3) How can these participatory approaches be applied to the Armenian context? Our study is based on a systematic literature review, based on which a conceptual framework and methodological approach for participatory approaches in the ES assessment of Armenian aquatic ecosystems is elaborated. The framework will be tested in the summer of 2024 on the EcoServ project case study areas comprising stakeholder workshops, teacher workshops, as well as transdisciplinary case studies with the students and university teachers from different disciplines together with local stakeholders.

This research contributes to the broader discourse on aquatic ecosystem management and services assessment with participatory approaches in the Armenian context. At the same time, it critically examines varying stakeholder perspectives on participation in project implementation and decision-making processes for sustainable governance of aquatic ecosystems.

Yes, the Berlin University Alliance has proven it: With a new concept we involved young people in the topic identification process for the next research fields of the Alliance (‘Next Grand Challenge’). The young people themselves were able to develop research topics that were relevant to them. The scientists present actively supported them as Coaches in specifying and formulating the topics. This allowed them to come up with future-oriented topics that really matter to young people.

In a joint process of participants from science and society, we were seeking to identify the topic for the Berlin University Alliance’s so called ‘Next Grand Challenge’. The selected topic will be researched by the BUA scholars and scientists in an inter- and transdisciplinary approach. We consciously relied on this open and innovative approach to topic identification and sought topics from the existing research priorities as well as from emerging and new fields of research. We were therefore particularly curious to find out which global issues are currently of most interest to young people, researchers, and students in Berlin.

More information at: bua-calling.de

Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-SrycDbF2w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyG77HR0kvU

The research group transdisciplinary collaboration in education of Avans University of Applied Sciences gathered multiple interesting practices of educational programs including transdisciplinary collaborations. Researching in which the common pitfalls and successes of transdisciplinary collaborations become visible, as this type of projects generally start with enthusiastic individuals, often teachers, who face similar challenges (Tijsma, Urias, Zweekhorst, 2023). Through interesting transdisciplinary practices, the pioniers can gather inspiration and build upon lessons learned and already existing knowledge.

An interesting practice is the minor ‘take back the economy’ of Avans UAS, in which students are challenged to think about the current economic system and how this system could be transformed. In the minor, students from multiple disciplines are working together on a complex economic challenge, in which they are encouraged to work together with stakeholders outside academia. This complies with the definition of transdisciplinary education in which transdisciplinary education is defined by the integration of researchers from various disciplines with teachers, students, and non-academic participants who, in co-creation, gain insights, generate new knowledge, or produce products to achieve a common goal (OECD, 2020).

For the minor, students are working on a HELIO (Hybrid External Learning and Innovation Environment), which means that the place where they work, research, and learn, is located outside of the regular classrooms. The location of this case is De Kleine Aarde, a centre of sustainability where experiments with food sustainability, circular economy and soil health are conducted.

In the video, Lidwien Jacobs, one of the teachers and researchers in the minor, is talking about the learning outcomes of the students, the expectations, and the collaborations with external stakeholders on an external site outside of Avans UAS. Her story relates to the intangible, the development of transversal competences and the inner development that participants of a transdisciplinary project experience, and sometimes outweighs the final result the team members have come to. Through working on a wicked problem from different perspectives, both interdisciplinary and cross sectoral, people learn about their own expertise by the reflections of others and about the others' experience and expertise. These developments can be small – like the example in the video – but are truly essential for building new knowledge over the boarders of different domains, what transdisciplinarity ultimately about (Mokiy, 2019).

In the video, Lidwien Jacobs discusses her experience as a teacher in the transdisciplinary project, the attitudes she brought in to support the learning process of the students most effectively. The video thus also functions an interesting practice for other teachers in transdisciplinary projects.

References

Mokiy, V. S. (2019). International standard of transdisciplinary education and transdisciplinary competence. Informing Science, 22, 73.

OECD (2021), Embedding Values and Attitudes in Curriculum: Shaping a Better Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aee2adcd-en

Tijsma, G., Urias E., & Zweekhorst M. (2023). Embedding engaged education through community service learning in HEI: a review. Educational Research, 65(2), 143-169.

Please watch the trailer of a documentary that was made by the Centre for Unusual Collaborations the Centre for Unusual Collaborations. It follows a group of diverse and very enthusiastic mid-career academics ( coming from TU/e, WUR, UU and UMC Utrecht) that collaborates around the topic of ‘porous materials’. They range from geologists, to art historians, to medical scientists, and beyond. Such unusual collaborations across disciplines support addressing complex societal challenges. They offer opportunity for academics to further explore their curiosity, by encountering other perspectives.

Despite their enthusiasm and the availability of funding, the group runs into a lack of recognition and reward for their ground-breaking work. And they learn that it takes a specific set skills to make their collaborative work meaningful and effective. The documentary ‘1+1=3’ takes you on a journey with this research team to explore barriers as well as ways to overcome them.

Watch the trailer here! Any questions about the Centre for Unusual Collaborations? Let us know!

If you would like to watch the full documentary please find it here

Patience and a step-by-step approach are essential for working with students in interdisciplinary and intercultural educational projects. Sounds easy, but how do you do it? In 2016 an intensive collaboration between Konkuk University in Seoul, South Korea and Fontys Academy of Creative Economy in Tilburg, the Netherlands started. One-time hackathons and workshops were set up, in which students from different disciplines (eg software - and computer engineering, communication, lifestyle, creativity & trend research) worked together in the Netherlands and South Korea to create digital social design concepts. The concepts focused on improving the quality of life of citizens addressed to the Sustainable Development Goals. Due to the corona pandemic, the physical educational environment was converted into an online educational environment in 2021. Since then stepwise and on ‘a learning-by-doing’ way an online semester programme Living Lab Good Life has been carried out. In this programme working closely together lead to mutual learning and practices, such as the very succesful weekly stand-up meeting between the participating lecturers. Besides, including the reflective principles of the action research methodology appreciative inquiry helped the students to obtain a more collective way of thinking and actions. In a short video (5 - 7 min) we will show our best practices regarding the design principles for an interdisciplinary educational programme and “our boundary-crossing” insights on how to work and learn in it from both lecturer and student perspective.

As various social and environmental problems become more serious and complex, research through collaboration and co-creation, in which researchers conduct research in collaboration with stakeholders in society, is attracting attention. However, many researchers are trained in disciplinary science and do not have much experience in carrying out research with researchers in different disciplines or societal stakeholders.

Research Institute for Humanity and Nature in Japan is a unique institute, which focuses on environmental research using inter- and trans-disciplinary research. From 2020-2023, I carried out a research project named ‘co-creation project’, which aimed at collecting and summarising knowledge of researchers engaged in TD research or participatory action research. Over 400 ideas of good practices were collected from 13 researchers (living and working in Asia), which were then summarised as 30 patterns of co-creation classified in 10 categories. After several iterations of workshops with experts, four overarching patterns were identified, which can be considered as key elements of co-creation.

As a result of this research, the ‘co-creation pattern’ cards and booklet have been developed, which are being used for education for graduate school students. In this presentation, I will describe the development process of ‘co-creation pattern’ and how it has been applied in education for inter- and trans-disciplinarity.

“If nature set our research strategy, would we do the same research?” It is this question that led a group of social and environmental researchers at New Zealand’s Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, to develop an experiment in empathy with nature. In this contribution will examine how growing the capability of a research institution for seeing from the perspective of nature and its elements can help transcend disciplinary boundaries when planning the direction of research and how research is done.

In this contribution we describe and reflect on the experimental design and methods, and their value for building the empathy of participants with nature. In particular, we reflect on: the importance of the experiment’s setting, choosing and connecting with nature’s elements, and enabling the interaction of elements.

We conclude with reflections from participants on the experience and what this experiment might mean for shifting human-nature relations.

At Kiel University we strongly believe that in the light of today’s grand societal and ecological challenges universities are called upon to expand their commitment to inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration with content, adequate support formats, and resources.

With the innovative DenkRaum pilot, we have developed a new collaborative space for postdoctoral researchers. Despite the often-discussed risks, we believe that inter- and transdisciplinary training can be an effective tool to diversify the qualification of postdocs and thus improve their difficult situation within the academic system. Notwithstanding the legitimate concerns about the academic benefits of inter- and transdisciplinary work for early career researchers in a largely disciplinary academic environment, we have therefore set out to provide these training opportunities for them.

In the DenkRaum - which is also a physical space - excellent young researchers, who have to prove their capacity for teamwork in a selection process, work together as DenkRaum fellows for two years alongside their main academic work on societally relevant projects - currently on one of our key future topics "Energy in Changing Times and a Changing World". They cooperate closely with each other, exchange with other researchers and engage in a dialog with business, politics and society.

In my talk, I will describe how we developed the DenkRaum as a physical space and an innovative format for early career researchers from different disciplines who are open to an inter- and transdisciplinary team experiment. I will outline how previous experiences have led us to the rather complex design of the fellowships, to the way we find topics, select fellows, set up the physical space, and involve critical friends. I will give an impression of how the pandemic and a new university leadership influenced the first DenkRaum round. I will also share what we learned during this initial phase, and how we adapted procedures and roles to improve the DenkRaum experience for the fellows, and what ideas we have for the future.

We are convinced that the ability to work goal oriented in heterogeneous teams is an essential skill for academics, which will become even more important in the future.

The format, selection process and support structures of DenkRaum offer postdoctoral researchers the opportunity to deal with the challenges of inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration and to acquire the skills to master them. In addition, DenkRaum promotes the independence of early career researchers and supports networking beyond academia to open up career opportunities in other sectors.

The question of adequate relations between science and practice is a timeless issue. Transdisciplinary approaches to research have proven useful to overcome thinking in dichotomies and bridge the gap with methodological arrangements. Forces toward more practice-oriented conceptions of science in the 1990s led to the development of an elaborate research methodology beginning in the early 2000s. Nowadays, transdisciplinary methodology provides sophisticated methodical concepts, and mature research practices can be found in several fields. Still, transdisciplinary research is a niche program in science; its potential is not fully utilized, and it appears contested in some discourses. The proposed contribution focuses on transdisciplinary research in economic contexts, namely management and organization research. For many years now, the research-practice gap has been discussed in that field. A few contributions promote transdisciplinary approaches, but the concepts can hardly prevail against the warnings, particularly about the rigor-relevance gap. To promote transdisciplinarity in economy-near research, it is essential to understand the characteristics of the field and adapt transdisciplinary strategies to the specific environment. A literature review on practices of bridging the science-practice-gap in management and organization research and the reflection of empirical experiences in two transdisciplinary research projects with enterprises, one on inter-organizational cooperation and personnel development, the other on knowledge and technology transfer between science and companies, are the basis of the contribution. The following three dimensions are elaborated:

1. The systemic dimension: It considers the involved stakeholders and the specific system logic in economic contexts. Apart from enterprises and, eventually, political institutions and administrative bodies, intermediary institutions like economic promotion funds come into play. Consulting organizations (themselves enterprises or individual entrepreneurs) appear besides research. The field is strongly influenced by economic constraints like efficiency or competition, which in turn influences possibilities of cooperation between researchers and enterprises.

2. The methodological dimension: It considers the field-specific prerequisites in positioning transdisciplinary research with an overall research strategy and in implementing the different phases of research. The self-understanding of research and eventual differentiation between research and counseling are important issues to be reflected. Given the oversupply of various services, research has to assert itself among the many actors in the field, and the strong utility orientation in enterprises requires a particular understanding of co-creation and mutual learning. Consequently, in research practice, problem framing, knowledge generation, and transdisciplinary integration follow their own rules.

3. The institutional dimension and the issue of research culture: It considers the legitimation and reputation of transdisciplinary research practice, publishing, and teaching in business schools. While the many endeavors to raise the legitimation and reputation of transdisciplinary research projects are partly fruitful, the publication culture is still challenging, particularly in management and organization research where deductive thinking prevails. Transdisciplinarity in teaching faces the challenge of providing knowledge and competencies valuable in the professional fields and providing a solid basis for (a few) future researchers.

To sum up, transdisciplinary approaches have much potential for research in economic contexts, and the mature methodology, adapted to the specific field, could solve the theory-practice and rigor-relevance problem.

Many universities have the ambition to learn students to collaborate in interdisciplinary teams to prepare students for addressing wicked problems. Interdisciplinary collaboration crosses boundaries of disciplines to achieve common goals (Huibers et al., 2012). Four processes are involved in interdisciplinary collaboration (Boix Mansilla et al., 2010;2016): establishing common goals, value disciplinary knowledge present in the team, integrating relevant insights and remaining critical to different (and one's own) disciplines. These processes are not always observed in interdisciplinary student teams (Van Harmelen e.a, 2021). In order to improve interdisciplinary education it is important to gain insight in the collaboration process and what makes students work interdisciplinary.

In this study seven project teams of 6 to 8 third-year students working on a wicked problems, such as the design of a bottle disinfector, were followed during a semester. Students collaborated for the first time with students from at least two other disciplines, like health, arts, economics or engineering. Each team is guided by a tutor. To gain insight in the content and research-related knowledge they integrated, two sessions were conducted (in week 5 and 15). The team created a mindmap to illustrate the knowledge each discipline contributed to the issue and indicated the intersections where integration took place between disciplines. Next, students individually responded to statements that revealed how the team organized collaboration. Additional interviews were conducted with students and tutors with the central question: What caused/hindered the project group to start working together interdisciplinary?

Results showed that students from three teams started in subgroups with disciplines that are closely related. Within these subgroups interdisciplinary integration occurred, such as Mechatronics and Mechanical Engineering students collaborating on a technical solution. However, there was a lack of criticism between subgroups. Subgroups seemed to respect each other's expertise and took information from the other group for granted.

In only one team, integration took also place between disciplines that were further apart.

Two other teams realized with help of their tutor that interdisciplinary collaboration is also about integrating knowledge of research methodologies. These teams made eventually use of each other's expertise in research. In the last two teams, there was hardly any use of each other's expertise. They merged sub-tasks into a final product without cohesion.

Attention to interdisciplinary collaboration by the tutor or through structural feedback moments resulted in students’ awareness around their interdisciplinary competencies. It also proved helpful for interdisciplinary collaboration when groups adopted a common approach such as SCRUM or design thinking. Finally, the mindmap-activity used in the research sessions appeared to have given students insight into each other's expertise.

In conclusion, students working on wicked problems in interdisciplinary teams, did not automatically use each other's knowledge and research skills. It appeared to be important to guide students in interdisciplinary collaboration and doing learning activities focused on interdisciplinary collaboration. Furthermore, we advise to start with narrow interdisciplinary collaborations, as broad interdisciplinary collaborations seems to too difficult or to offer students more support in broad interdisciplinary collaborations.

In this community project, students and teachers at Utrecht University work together with a non-profit foundation, TheBridge2Hope in a transdisciplinary team to help integrate survivors of human trafficking into the Dutch society. TheBridge2Hope is dedicated to aiding survivors of human trafficking, particularly those who have been sexually exploited and brought to the Netherlands from foreign countries. It aims to empower survivors to rebuild their lives with dignity and independence. TheBridge2Hope Academy offers digital literacy courses within their curriculum, which aim to equip participants with crucial skills for reintegration into society. However, it has been established by the foundation that there is a need for a digital literacy program within the curriculum to address the specific learning challenges faced by this population that often suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, limited attention spans, and cognitive difficulties. In addition, there are significant cultural differences between their home cultures in the Global South and the Dutch culture. This project aims to bridge this gap by creating a curriculum that empowers participants at TheBridge2Hope with the technological skills necessary for independent living.

The project explores the intersection of participatory action research (PAR) and community-engaged learning (CEL) to redesign a digital literacy curriculum. It is based on a mutual partnership between TheBridge2Hope and Utrecht University. The university offers its expertise in educational sciences and TheBridge2Hope provides expertise in the field and an understanding of the impact of trauma as a result of the trafficking experience. In the PAR, stakeholders create a democratic and mutual learning community in which participants learn from each other and together to make a positive impact in their community. This approach allows us to work closely with the stakeholders to ensure that the curriculum is not only effective but also sensitive and responsive to the diverse needs of learners. PAR emphasizes action and reflection which is particularly valuable in this project, where the goal is not just to create a curriculum but to make a meaningful impact on the lives of survivors.

The community engagement function of TheBridge2Hope is a vital aspect of its efforts to support survivors of human trafficking and exploitation. By fostering a sense of community and creating opportunities for survivors to engage with one another, the organization helps survivors build a support network and develop a sense of belonging. The safe and inclusive space allows participants to feel comfortable expressing themselves, fostering a sense of community and shared purpose which is critical for learning and healing.

This project demonstrates the cross-fertilization between PAR and CEL in the following ways: (1) engages actively stakeholders and fosters an environment of co-creation in a transdisciplinary team of experts, including criminal psychologists, educational scientists, volunteers and employees working at the organization and participants of the Academy; (2) it empowers survivors to take ownership of their learning journey; (3) the iterative nature of PAR allows for continuous refinement based on participant feedback, ensuring the curriculum remains relevant and responsive to participants needs.

Scientific projects are increasingly expected to create societal impact. These expectations are particularly present in transdisciplinary research (TDR), where it is assumed that different bodies of knowledge and perspectives need to be integrated as to be able to create societal impact (Hessels et al., 2009; Hoffmann et al., 2019). Recently, the notion of impact practices has been introduced to better understand how researchers create societal impact in research projects (De Jong & Balaban, 2022). Nevertheless, there is a deficiency in understanding how impact practices emerge and potentially facilitate integration processes, which are considered essential for impact creation in TDR. In this study, we advance the theoretical framework of impact practices in the context of TDR and empirically study the emergence and facilitative role of impact practices in integration processes.

The contribution of our study is twofold. First, we add to conceptualizing impact practices, building upon a constructivist notion of impact, which implies that scientific and societal impact are actively constructed by knowledge producers and evaluators in highly related networks (Smit & Hessels, 2021) and practices (Brenninkmeijer, 2022). Second, we adopt a process ontology to study the emergence of impact practices in a longitudinal study. Consequently, we understand impact practices not as stable ‘things’, but as the embodiment of a process through which researchers continuously aim to create societal impact. Adopting such a process ontology thus allows to focus on the mechanisms of impact creation by researchers. To our knowledge adopting a process ontology is new to the impact studies and TDR literature.

Empirically, we followed the emergence of impact practices over two years in a large-scale TDR project, and studied how these practices facilitate integration processes. We show that different impact practices emerge during a research project, of which some become collectively shared. Besides, we observe that some impact practices become less important during a research project. Collectively shared impact practices can facilitate or obstruct integration processes, and hence are important to understand in TDR projects.

Furthermore, we observed that the emergence of impact practices is driven by combinations of values of knowledge producers and evaluators (what impact is important), strategies (what should be done), and exchanges between actors (which interactions are needed) (Brenninkmeijer, 2022). Thus, knowledge producers shape impact practices in a deliberate process in which they, driven by their values, pursue different strategies and interactions. Consequently, starting from different values, we observe that knowledge producers strive for different impact practices grounded in different scientific disciplines, which can obstruct the integration processes necessary in TDR. Concluding, in our study we further theorize the concept of impact practices, and show the importance of impact practices in understanding the creation of societal impact and integration processes in TDR projects. Through this, we facilitate the understanding of scientific and societal impact of collaborative research.

Sustainability science aims to bring together different disciplines and non-academic stakeholders to support transformative change. As a relatively new field without established methodological norms, there is a need to explore the role of different research modes in realizing transformative change. Action research and transdisciplinary research are two main emerging research modes in sustainability science. Both value the societal impact of research and invite non-academic knowledge-holders into the research process. However, it is unclear how these research modes are distinct from one another. We aim to provide a better understanding of the differences between these research modes in the context of sustainability science to better understand how they can be best employed for transformative change. We conducted a comparative systematic literature review of over 1,400 scientific articles to explore aims, areas of use, influential ideas, and main methodological approaches in action and transdisciplinary research. We found that, aside from using different terminology, action and transdisciplinary research modes are overwhelmingly similar in terms of the processes they employ. Differences between the two include that action research emphasises action and transdisciplinary research knowledge production. The transdisciplinary literature was also found to be much more coherent than the diffuse action research contributions. This difference can be traced to their theoretical and methodological development. Transdisciplinary research developments have been contained largely within sustainability science, whereas action research has roots in a wide range of disciplines. Our review shows how siloed thinking, even within the same field, can lead to duplication of efforts and the development of parallel scholarly communities working in the same way but using different vocabulary. There is a need for reorganization within sustainability science to promote sharing and learning between scholars using these modes. We suggest that re-evaluating how research is conducted, and its impact evaluated is needed to allow for more care-full, thorough inquiry in which scholars can engage with the unfamiliar. We also discourage scholars from developing strong semantic attachments and advocate for openness to alternative and diverse linguistic expression. Through these means, greater sharing and learning between action and transdisciplinary researchers may be possible in order to realise the transformative potential of their work.

In the coming decades, global society is anticipated to weather multiple protracted polycrises stemming from a changing climate, disruptive technologies, and social, economic, and political instability. There is a consensus that universities are vital in preparing individuals to navigate these future challenges and contribute their knowledge and capabilities to foster thriving communities. This involves graduates developing transdisciplinary capabilities such as systems thinking, knowledge integration across disciplinary domains and change-making, among others (UNESCO, 2017; Jordan et al., 2021; Kligyte et al., in progress).

Transdisciplinary education is underpinned by an assumption that acquiring transdisciplinary capabilities equips graduates with the skills and tools necessary to achieve positive social and environmental impact. Yet, research into the outcomes and impact of this type of education remains lacking. While it is reasonable to assume that transdisciplinary capabilities may enhance graduates’ capacity to innovate, integrate knowledge across disciplines, and span boundaries across industries and professions, the link between these capabilities and graduates’ ability to achieve social and environmental impact in their professional settings is not well-established (Lewis et al., in progress).

In this presentation, we share preliminary findings from a study on alumni perceptions of the value of transdisciplinary capabilities gained by completing undergraduate transdisciplinary degrees at an Australian university. These alumni, with 1-6 years of workplace experience, were invited to reflect on: (1) the capabilities enabling them to address complex problems and create positive social and environmental impact in their professional lives; and (2) their conceptualisation of this impact. In Phase 1 of the study, graduates were invited to share their perspectives on transdisciplinary capabilities through an alumni survey. Phase 2 delved deeper into the survey themes through focus groups, offering insights into the value of these capabilities in organisational contexts and identifying barriers and enablers to their application.

The survey results (n=121) validated the importance of transdisciplinary capabilities, highlighting graduates' recognition of the significance of relational skills and the capacity to engage with and integrate diverse perspectives for achieving impact in practical contexts. Interestingly, practical and technical expertise were perceived as less significant, with ethical and socially responsible practices not being encouraged in many organisational settings. In the focus groups, participants provided rich accounts of the organisational challenges encountered by graduates seeking to create positive social and environmental impact and drive systems change. A notable disparity was revealed between graduates' aspirations to prioritise societal needs and narrow organisational priorities, often centred on profit and improved efficiency, with less emphasis on broader social responsibility.

These findings can enhance our understanding of the impact of transdisciplinary future-oriented capabilities and inform the development of transdisciplinary university programs. We invite more critical empirical examination and rigorous analysis of the practical impact of transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary education initiatives. Gaining more nuanced insights into the outcomes of these capabilities in fostering broader systems transformation will build the evidence base necessary to support our transdisciplinary education efforts.

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.

This presentation will discuss findings from a university-wide initiative to enhance undergraduate students’ critical thinking about diversity and global issues through interdisciplinary learning experiences. It will briefly describe the approach we took towards learning design and assessment, and it will then share quantitative and qualitative data from ten upper-level undergraduate courses that incorporated interdisciplinary learning experiences addressing a variety of topics, including Artificial Intelligence and Digital Literacy. Pre- and post- surveys of students and faculty, as well as signature assignments where students demonstrated interdisciplinary skills of disciplinary grounding, perspective-taking, and integration, showed significant improvement in critical thinking, diversity, and global citizenship learning outcomes. It will conclude by discussing the implications of such findings for those engaged in inter- and transdisciplinary education at other universities and colleges.

The great challenges of the modern age such as climate change or global inequality are complex problems that transcend disciplinary boundaries. Multidisciplinary teamwork is needed to bring together disciplinary insights and to create a more comprehensive understanding of these complex problems. Higher education should prepare students for working in multidisciplinary teams, but relatively little is known about how students interact in multidisciplinary student teams (MSTs). This study analysed teamwork behaviour of students in MSTs (conducting interdisciplinary research), using observational data. Our findings show that tendencies vary across different teams, but that general trends can be identified across teams. Students struggle to have structured meetings in which they work together on one task, have in-depth integrative discussions and reach quality decisions. They shy away from addressing suboptimal team processes and frustrations, but spend much time on task division, planning, uncertainty reduction and distractions during meetings. Our research implies that students may need more time in class to do teamwork and they need more guidance in all aspects of the process, such as their role as disciplinary and interdisciplinary expert, going through diverging and converging integration processes, critical decision-making, engaging with feedback in a meaningful way, addressing frustration and tension, and reflecting on team product and processes.

Interdisciplinary projects give insight into wicked problems and complex societal issues – thus it is pivotal that the results also reach non-expert audiences. Popularization (science communication and science journalism) is an important skill for researchers conducting interdisciplinary research, and ideally, this skill should be taught in interdisciplinary university training. In this talk, I will elaborate upon interdisciplinary students’ perceived learning experiences with training in written popularization.

Students took part in one four-hour intervention about popularization writing skills at the end of their undergraduate training, as part of their thesis capstone course. This course tests students’ integration and collaboration skills, as well as their popularization writing skills. The latter is tested in the form of a newspaper article which is written collaboratively by the multidisciplinary student research team and counts for 10% of the grade.

Data from pre-post intervention questionnaires and self-reflections was analyzed both quantitatively, using a Wilcoxon signed rank test, and qualitatively, using thematic analysis. The quantitative analysis shows a statistically significant increase in report for popularization knowledge, but not for skills or attitudes. The qualitative analysis shows twenty themes, including structure, writing style, text strategies, the target audience, and genre demands. This thematic analysis also shows a perceived increase in knowledge, a perceived interest in skills for some but not all students, and no discernible change in attitude.

Taken together, one training in popularization already has a positive effect on students learning experiences, and specifically on their popularization knowledge. Yet students state that more and longer training, including more opportunities to practice their writing skills, would create more beneficial learning outcomes.

Key readings

Sterk, F. M., & Van Goch, M. M. (2023). Re-presenting research: A guide to analyzing and using popularization strategies in science journalism and science communication. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/97 8-3-031-28174-7

Sterk, F. M., Van Goch, M. M., Burke, M., & Van der Tuin, I. (2022). Baseline assessment in higher education: A case study of popularization writing skills in first-year undergraduate students. Journal of Writing Research, 14(1), 35–76. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2022.14.01.02

The "Cycling to Care" (c2c) project, funded by a MSCA individual fellowship, exemplifies how integrating diverse knowledges within inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) frameworks can catalyze significant societal and environmental transformations.

Rooted in the need to address the twin crises of declining mental health among youth and environmental degradation, the c2c project leverages the innovative "Cycling Without Age" (CWA) initiative. By engaging young volunteers and senior citizens in guided cycling tours, c2c fosters intergenerational dialogue and direct interaction with urban and natural landscapes, serving as a living lab for exploring the efficacy of ITD approaches in real-world settings.

The c2c project is grounded in theories of transformative learning and sustainability education. It draws upon a diverse theoretical base, integrating concepts from environmental psychology, public health, and urban planning. The project's theoretical framework underscores the importance of emotional resilience, community-oriented action, and participatory research methods in fostering sustainable behaviors and attitudes.

c2c employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative research to evaluate the impact of intergenerational cycling on participants' mental health and environmental attitudes. The methodology includes pre- and post-engagement surveys, interviews, and focus groups, facilitating an in-depth understanding of the participants' experiences and the socio-environmental impacts of the initiative.

A significant component of the c2c project is its focus on building ITD capacity by training young volunteers as both researchers and activists. This dual role enables participants, selected among UPC engineering students, to contribute to the project's research objectives while simultaneously gaining skills relevant to their personal and professional development. The project thus exemplifies how ITD projects can serve as powerful platforms for experiential learning and capacity building.

c2c integrates scientific knowledge with local and experiential knowledge through its community-based approach. By involving participants from different backgrounds and ages, the project facilitates a rich exchange of perspectives, enhancing the relevance and applicability of its findings. This integration is critical in addressing the often complex and localized nature of sustainability challenges.

The project includes a robust evaluation component, assessing the effectiveness of its ITD approach in achieving intended educational and environmental outcomes. This involves analyzing changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding sustainability and mental health, providing valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of ITD projects in fostering real-world change.

The c2c project offers insights into the practical challenges of implementing ITD projects, including issues related to participant recruitment, data collection, and stakeholder engagement. The project's experiences highlight the importance of adaptability and responsiveness to local conditions and needs in the success of ITD initiatives.

c2c's findings have significant implications for policy and practice, particularly in urban planning, public health, and education. By demonstrating the benefits of intergenerational and interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability education, the project provides a model that can be replicated and scaled up in other contexts.

Building on its successes and lessons learned, the c2c project aims to expand its scope by incorporating more diverse community groups and exploring additional environmental and social themes. Future research will focus on refining ITD methodologies and developing more comprehensive frameworks for assessing the impact of such projects on participants and communities.

The c2c project illustrates the transformative potential of ITD projects that integrate diverse knowledges to address complex societal challenges. By fostering an environment of learning, action, and reflection, c2c contributes to the growing body of knowledge on how ITD approaches can be effectively employed to promote sustainable change and enhance community well-being.

Utrecht University wants to offer students an environment in which they are able to develop their talents to the greatest possible extent, so that, upon graduation, they are able to contribute to resolving the challenges facing society (Strategic Plan 2025, Utrecht University). Such challenges are often complex and defy straightforward solutions. To prepare students for these challenges, we want students to learn beyond the boundaries of their discipline and the boundaries of the university. To this end, Utrecht University has launched several educational innovation programmes to encourage and support this transition: Interdisciplinary Education, which aims to foster the integration of disciplinary insights and perspectives within education, and Community Engaged Learning, which aims to facilitate education in which students, teachers and external partners work together on shared social issues

This session will be an interactive exploration of the institutionalization of intersdisciplinary and community engaged learning (or other transdisciplinary) practices. What are must haves and nice to haves to structurally embed these educational innovations within higher education? During the session we will share lessons learned from the Interdisciplinary Education programme and Community Engaged Learning programme at Utrecht University. Topics we will discuss are:

• Mission and vision

• Faculty support

• Student support

• Institutional support

Session Objectives:

1. To share the institutionalization process of interdisciplinary education and community-engaged learning programs at Utrecht University.

2. To identify key challenges and successes encountered during the implementation of these initiatives.

3. To facilitate reflective discussions on lessons learned and best practices for promoting inter- and transdisciplinarity within higher education institutions.

Session Structure:

Introduction (10 minutes)

• Provide an overview of the institutional context of Utrecht University and the significance of interdisciplinary education and community engagement initiatives within this context.

Panel Presentation (25 minutes)

• Invited speakers, involved in the interdisciplinary and community engaged learning programme, share their experiences and insights on the institutionalization journey of these educational innovations.

• Speakers discuss key milestones, challenges, successes, and transformative moments encountered during the implementation phase. Speakers can give recommendations for fostering inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration within higher education settings.

Interactive Discussion (20 minutes)

• Facilitate a guided discussion among participants to reflect on the panel presentations and share their own experiences, challenges, and insights related to interdisciplinary education and community engagement. Dependent on group size this can be done plenary or in break-out groups.

Our aim is to explore questions such as:

• What are the common challenges faced by your institutions when implementing interdisciplinary education and community engagement initiatives?

• How can institutional structures and policies be adapted to better support these initiatives?

• What strategies have proven effective in fostering collaboration between academic disciplines and community partners?

5. Wrap-Up and Closing Remarks (5 minutes)

• Summarize key takeaways from the session.

• Provide resources for further reading and support on interdisciplinary education and community engagement.

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) is ideally designed to not only have societal effects but also to benefit science (Jahn et al. 2012). However, recent literature on the evaluation of TDR has focused almost entirely on the societal effects of TDR (e.g. Hansson and Polk 2018; Lux et al. 2019; Schäfer, Bergmann and Theiler 2021; Pärli 2023). In comparison, the scientific effects of transdisciplinary research has been studied far less (for exceptions, see Hegger and Dieperink 2015; Belcher et al. 2019; Newig et al. 2019; Jahn et al. 2022), although we believe this topic is crucial to do justice to the potential of this research mode.

In an exploratory study, we addressed this gap empirically by investigating the effects of transdisciplinary research on science. We define scientific effects broadly as changes in research practice or scientific results. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 scientists who have experience in transdisciplinary research and are anchored in one of the following sub-disciplines: Environmental Sociology, Sustainable Chemistry and Participatory Health Research. In this way, our findings are based on various different contexts in which transdisciplinary research is conducted.

We identify three main effects:

1) TDR changes the understanding of scientific problems: The integration of different bodies of knowledge from practitioners and scientific disciplines in transdisciplinary research processes has the effect of extending the research subject and correcting and sharpening the definition of the problem.

2) TDR changes the quality of scientific insights: Working on a research subject over an extended period of time and in close proximity to practice leads to methodological innovations, broad data, and up-to-date findings.

3) TDR promotes a reflexive turn in science: Confrontation with other disciplines and the perspectives of practice partners promotes the reflexivity of researchers at a personal level, with regard to their disciplines and with regard to the responsibility and power of science.

We also draw attention to open issues and challenges related to the processing of scientific insights from TDR.

Key reading:

Oskar Marg, Lena Theiler (2023): Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity. Research Evaluation, Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad033

The Theory of Change is a recognised approach in transdisciplinarity, known for its ability to facilitate transformative learning processes. Recognizing serious games as effective tools for navigating transitions toward sustainability, the Theory of Change Game applies its principles to transdisciplinary projects dedicated to sustainable development. The game combines elements of both board and card games and is centred around collaborative discussions.

Acknowledging the game's potential, we have customised its application in a real-world situation. In this context, 22 participants utilised the game to plan the future of Tertúlias do Montado—a long term and permanent problem framing platform that aims to contribute to the sustainability of the Montado silvo-pastoral system.

To discern any variances, we implemented an experimental approach, where the participants rotated between the Theory of Change Game and two other tools, all addressing a common overarching question. Consequently, all three tools aimed to foster discussions about the future actions of Tertúlias do Montado.

The results show that the three tools made it possible to achieve the objective proposed. However, despite some similarities in the topics discussed, each tool led to different approaches regarding the future of the Tertúlias.

The Theory of Change Game tool prompted a more comprehensive discussion regarding both the societal problem to be addressed—the decline of the Montado—and the primary objective of the initiative, which is to serve as a dialogue platform in tackling this challenge. Proposals for the future are strongly associated with the creation and transfer of knowledge, either as an expected result that the initiative intends to achieve, or as a way to strengthen the capacity of those involved to solve problems related to the Montado.

In the case of the other two tools, one induced a reflection in operational terms and very specific actions were suggested. Most actions focus on improving the management and information sharing. Meanwhile, in the other tool, the discussion focused almost exclusively on the proposal of themes that should be tackled in the Tertúlias.

Although the participants evaluation of all tools was positive, the Game Theory of Change, in particular, drew interest for introducing a novel concept and facilitating visual exploration of diverse perspectives. Nevertheless, it faced criticisms about the perceived ambiguity in the rules and a sense of monotony.

From our experience in implementing these tools and the outcomes achieved we conclude that the circular dynamics embedded in the Theory of Change Game will have contributed to an in-depth discussion and a constant review of the fundamental objective of the initiative, and helped to counteract a common tendency to seek simplistic and immediate solutions to complex problems. Ultimately, the Theory of Change Game elicited a collaborative approach to co-construction of solutions, which can encompass the measures identified in the other tools.

Future empirical studies using a similar design should consider the cognitive burden of participants and decrease the number of tools used or plan the engagement on different days, since participants show some tiredness related to the engagement using three different tools.

Since the discussions on choice of methods, epistemology and rigour that took place in the workshop "Methods of knowledge integration in inter- and transdisciplinary research – what about epistemology and rigour?" at ITD21, the working group "toolkits&methods" of the ITD Alliance has been advancing its Rigour Project on addressing the criteria, indicators and dimensions for assessing the appropriateness, robustness, scientific rigour, and effectiveness of (combinations of) tools and methods. In 2022, 2023 and 2024 a set of discussion sessions took place to present and discuss single methods, and several workshops took place to collect, compare, and document experiences and perspectives from the ITD community. The time has come to reflect upon the developments and learnings and discuss how the question about epistemology and rigour could be advanced such as to benefit the entire TD community. To expand the group of people and perspectives included, we propose an innovative asynchronous discussion throughout the duration of the ITD 2024 conference. Knowledge, experiences, and contributions will be added to a living document, accessible via a QR code provided on a poster during the conference or through the link provided on the working group's website: https://itd-alliance.org/working-groups/toolkits_methods/rigour-project/

In this presentation, we will frame the contents and aim of the poster to open up the discussion and invite all contributors. This invitation is extended to all working group members and any ITD24 participant interested in the topic. The results will be documented and distributed after the conference.

Since the early 1990s, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) has been applied to diverse projects across contexts that include development, conservation and agriculture. PRA has many inherent characteristics of a transdisciplinary method, including the way it treats rural people as co-producers of knowledge and the opportunities it offers for researchers and rural community members to practice reflexivity. However, PRA can be undertaken within disciplinary silos where expertise from diverse disciplinary backgrounds is not included. It has also attracted criticism for preferencing some local perspectives over others and lacking the rigour found in other qualitative and quantitative approaches to social research.

In this paper, we reflect on more than 15 years of applying PRA in collaborative teams across multiple rural research projects. The insights generated through this process offer guidance to researchers seeking to make their own approaches to PRA more transdisciplinary and have been used to refine how we educate emerging researchers at our universities. Key factors include the deliberate selection of a diverse researcher team, inclusive approaches to ensure that marginalised voices are heard, and carefully-designed reflexive processes to unpack assumptions, values and worldviews informed by different disciplinary backgrounds and life experiences.

Aside from offering practical advice to researchers seeking to apply PRA, we also identify ways in which the methods and strategies that are typically employed in PRA may provide value for transdisciplinary research in other contexts. These include the pairing of outside researchers with local stakeholders when conducting interviews, workshop formats that enable co-reflexivity between researchers and community members, and opportunities for sensemaking in the ‘third spaces’ created by travel. While some of these approaches have emerged from the unique characteristics of rural environments, they can be applied or adapted to transdisciplinary research in urban and other contexts. Accordingly, we have begun to consider how they can be used to educate emerging researchers in transdisciplinary practice at our institutions.

Tilburg University (TiU) is a humanities and social sciences university in the Netherlands. In TiU’s 2022-2027 Strategy Weaving Minds and Characters, the university explicitly chooses to strengthen the societal impact of its research. The implementation of this ambition is carried out through Academic Collaborative Centers (ACCs). In the ACCs, researchers work together intensively with a range of societal organizations, businesses, governments etc. Key to this collaboration in the ACCs is co-creation: a collaborative and participatory approach involving multiple stakeholders (researchers, societal partners, businesses, students, the civil community) in a process where (academic) research and practical and social initiatives mutually enrich each other. Via co-creation, the Centers bring together different perspectives and expertise, including academic and practice-derived knowledge required to address complex problems and generate meaningful and useful outcomes. The ACCs target pressing societal issues such as sustainability transitions, inequality and wellbeing and health. The collaboration with partners is long-term and structural. ACCs provide a place for interaction between societal partners and TiU’s interdisciplinary research-communities, creating room for transdisciplinarity to thrive.

To build robust and durable ACCs, TiU appointed multiple professors to act as Academic Leads. These professors are rooted in different faculties, thus securing the interdisciplinary nature of the Centers. Dedicated post-doctoral researchers, appointed within the ACCs, carry out research while operating in a highly innovative transdisciplinary environment. Their perspective is central to this conference presentation. We aim to present the opportunities and challenges that a transdisciplinary environment poses on these early career researchers (ECRs), using their experiences as a case study.

We define early career researchers as researchers who defended their PhD thesis up to 6 years ago. For them, working in the context of an Academic Collaborative Center comes with both pros and cons.

To name a few pros: participation in transdisciplinary teams exposes early career researcher to various perspectives and domains of knowledge, broadening their understanding. It provides networking opportunities to expand the researcher's professional network, as they interact with experts and professionals from different fields. In terms of capacity building, their creative problem-solving-skills are stimulated, which is beneficial when tackling complex problems.

However, the emphasis on transdisciplinary research within ACCs can be at odds with the way science has been conducted traditionally, that is, within the boundaries of their own discipline. This can create uncertainty for early career researchers. Working in a transdisciplinary team could result in ECRs spending less time on becoming an expert in a specific field. Furthermore, co-creation processes simply take time and making impact demands different types of (academic and non-academic) outputs, both of which can entail a decreased emphasis on traditional academic outputs such as scientific publications. This can lead to career path ambiguity.

In the presentation we will focus on the important role of ECRs in developing the ACCs. After a short introduction on the ACCs, our ECR Yvette Drissen will elaborate on how she shapes her research in a transdisciplinary context.

In this presentation, we will discuss the innovative initiatives of the InterAmerican Institute (IAI) for Climate Change Research. The IAI is an intergovernmental entity that serves 19 member states in the Americas, each with its unique context. The IAI aims to cultivate and disseminate knowledge that deeply understands and addresses global environmental change in a context-specific manner. The institution is dedicated to promoting transdisciplinary research and sharing its findings to create actionable knowledge for policymakers. The ultimate goal is to play a crucial role at the science-policy interface by producing not only robust but also practical knowledge.

This presentation will offer two concrete examples of the transdisciplinary activities developed over the last year by the IAI: the training program titled “Tropical Forests in the Americas: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Changing Environments” and the “Handbook of Recommendations for Transdisciplinarity”. The IAI Transdisciplinary Academy aims to advance transdisciplinary knowledge and practice of global environmental change research and to inform decision-making in the public and private sectors. The academy also facilitates sharing information, best practices, and regional dialogue on priority issues in the Americas, such as climate change, biodiversity loss and sustainable food production. Following this line, this initiative will foster research collaboration at the regional level by linking researchers across disciplines, policymakers, and locally based leaders from different countries, thus strengthening a regional Americas transdisciplinary network on tropical forests.

The Handbook of Recommendations for Transdisciplinarity emerged from a workshop in Panama in 2023, a collaborative effort involving academics and stakeholders from six transdisciplinary projects under the Small Grants Program: The Role of Ecosystem Services in Adaptation to Global Change for Human Wellbeing (SGP-HW). This manual responds to the explicit needs and demands of social actors, offering a toolkit for community organizations and researchers interested in embracing a horizontal, inclusive approach to transdisciplinary research. It encapsulates a wealth of perspectives formed from interviews and participatory workshops with non-academics across the Americas, reflecting the rich tapestry of views on climate change and related challenges.

In conclusion, our presentation aims to highlight the IAI's pioneering efforts in promoting a transdisciplinary paradigm, where diverse knowledge systems and stakeholder engagement converge to create meaningful, context-aware solutions to the pressing climate challenges facing the Americas.

Serious planning problems still persist in Sweden despite years of initiatives targeting their resolution. Such ‘wicked’ problems are characterized by causal complexity often with broad temporal and spatial reach, a high degree of politization and uncertainty, and the involvement of multiple agencies and societal actors. One approach to handling such problems is through discrete platforms and arenas that are designed to enable different forms of collaboration. Given that these arenas are situated between different organizations and decision-making levels, we refer to them here as boundary spaces since they have no one organizational base, but work at the boundaries between different organizations. If boundary spaces are promoted as a viable solution to wicked problems, then we need a better understanding of how they work, especially regarding the dilemmas and tensions that such spaces face. This paper presents a transdisciplinary investigation of the dilemmas that arise in four examples of boundary spaces dealing with wicked problems in Swedish planning on sustainable urban development, safe communities (2 cases), and transport infrastructure. The overall aim of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of how boundary spaces can contribute to sustainable transitions, using an innovative method which we call Learning Dialogues (LD). Through a transdisciplinary analysis of the interview material, the practitioners involved in the cases together reflected with an interdisciplinary team of researchers on the challenges that arose in the boundary spaces as well how they could be addressed. Four LDs were organized around four themes. These include dilemmas arising (1) in the context including places outside and before the boundary room is staged, i.e. in society at large and within the organizations that want to collaborate; (2-3) in the boundary space itself in their relations and processes; and (4) in the zone between the boundary space and the home organization and the surrounding society, where transformation and influence take place. Each LD discussed dilemmas which arose in the boundary spaces within these four themes and, through a variety of workshop methods, reflected upon and exchanged experiences across these four cases. This paper presents the TD design of the overall project, the results of the LD and preliminary results regarding how the LD results can be transformed into different types of pedagogical material that can be used by the participating agencies to increase the effectiveness of their work with wicked problems in different collaborative arenas.

In this 60 minute panel discussion we will present and discuss the findings from the Undisciplined project, a recent programme of co-produced work conducted by the Research on Research Institute (RoRI). RoRI is an international consortium of researchers, funders and data providers. Our mission is to accelerate transformative research on research systems, cultures and decision-making. Our panel session at the ITD conference will reflect RoRI’s co-productive working model and consist of researchers and research funders who took part in Undisciplined; which investigates how transdisciplinary research (TDR) is defined and evaluated in a number of TDR research funding programmes.

Description of the session/workshop design

This session is practically oriented and designed to share learning from a project investigating how funders deliver TDR programmes, with a dual focus on how TDR is defined and classified and how peer reviewers are guided in evaluating research proposals of this type. The session will consist of five 5 minute presentations: firstly the research team will present the aims, process and findings of the Undisciplined project followed by four presentations by research funders giving insight into TDR funding programmes. The funder presentations will be based on organisational case studies which featured in the Undisciplined project and tackled questions such as: ‘When setting up this TDR funding programme, how important was it to define transdisciplinary research? And what definition(s) did you use?’ The presentations will be followed by a 30 minute discussion with the audience and panel.

Background

Collaboration between researchers and users in producing and combining different types of knowledge is nothing new., But in research environments and cultures that remain largely geared towards mono-disciplinary work, it is increasingly recognised that single disciplinary approaches are ill equipped to address complex, interconnected challenges. Different approaches have arisen in response to this using multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. Transdisciplinary research not only integrates expertise from across academic disciplines, but also involves users and stakeholders in the design stage, and throughout the research process. Of particular relevance to RoRI is the increasing role of research funders in devising and delivering TDR programmes and the impact of this enhanced role on knowledge use., In this project we investigate and compare support for, practice, definitions and evaluation of TDR from a funder’s perspective, across different research systems.

Research project and methods

The questions, methods and outputs of the project were decided through discussions within the project Working Group which consists of representatives of RoRI’s partners (research funders) and researchers from Leiden and UCL Universities. The project was conducted in a recursive fashion, moving from discussions within the working group, to the literature, to collection and analysis of secondary evidence and primary data. The project adhered to the governance and reporting frameworks of RoRI and was overseen by the RoRI Partnership Board.

The Undisciplined project consists of two modules of work. The first investigates how funders define and classify TD research, the second focuses on methods of evaluating TDR proposals and explores how to better support reviewers and commissioners in this task. The first module has three distinct elements: a literature review, analysis of funding solicitation documents for 6 funding programmes, and a set of organisational case studies describing specific TDR funding schemes. These elements were collated and discussed in a project working paper. This process was also mediated through a mid-project workshop of researchers and funders who shed light on early findings, and discussed key literature. These activities informed the design of the case studies and documents analysis. The second module of work centres on two elements, the collation of guidance provided to evaluators of transdisciplinary research proposals, and a set of in-depth interviews with a sample of peer reviewers (in both practice and research roles). This piece of work is exploratory in nature and produced a collation of the different tools funders use to evaluate TDR proposals, and insight into reviewers’ perspectives on these processes including barriers and facilitators to their use.

Likely impact

The project is ongoing at the time of writing. However, we strongly anticipate, due to the project’s co-produced methods, that the findings will contribute useful evidence for RoRI’s funder partners and the research funding community, in addition to wider stakeholders interested in transdisciplinary research. All RoRI’s outputs are open access thereby minimising barriers to the discovery and use of our work.

With the ‘polycrisis’ looming, humanity is facing unprecedented social-ecological challenges at planetary scale, which demands transformation of unsustainable societies. But who gets to define what a “good transformation” is? In line with power and justice scholars (Bennett et al. 2019; Cousins 2021; Massarella et. Al 2021; Newell et al. 2021; Sovacool et al. 2023), we argue that a “good transformation” cannot be pursued without considering issues of power, agency, and justice. For example, the way in which the problem is defined, by whom, and with what interests already shapes the thinking about the problem’s causes and how to tackle them. Thus, power relations shape the problem framing with fundamental consequences for the process and outcome of the transformation. In so doing, power relations influence from the start which actors and interests will be considered, which reinforces unjust structures and conditions instead of transforming them. Such insights from research on power in sustainability transformations offer important learnings also for the design of transdisciplinary research (e.g., Avelino et al. 2019; Avelino, 2021; Newell et al., 2021; Turnhout & Lahsen 2022).

In order for academic research to be part of a larger societal transformation, it is widely understood that the scientific community needs to go beyond traditional research approaches (Fougères et al. 2022). In this context, transdisciplinary approaches have been identified as a particularly promising research mode. Many methods, approaches and tools exist to support transdisciplinary research processes. For instance, methods for problem framing, mutual learning, scenario development, and actor analysis have greatly improved transdisciplinary research practices in the last decades. Transdisciplinary research methods and tools are meant to help shape collaboration between experts and stakeholders from science, policy, and practice in knowledge co-production processes in heterogeneous groups. They help bridge different thought styles and allow jointly producing knowledge and research outcomes.

Considering the fundamental importance of power and agency in all stages of the transdisciplinary research process, we—the contributors to this workshop—see a need to reflect on, and potentially improve, the ability of existing transdisciplinary research tools to address power imbalances explicitly (Chambers et al. 2022; Deutsch et al. 2023; Fritz & Meinherz 2020). Transdisciplinary research builds on the assumption that it is possible to shift and share power. A central idea is the empowerment of marginalized actors through capacity-building and involvement in knowledge coproduction processes, which, however, may lead to unintended disempowerment effects (e.g., by creating new dependence relationships) (Avelino 2017; Avelino et al. 2019).

With the exploration of particular transdisciplinary research tools in a workshop format, we want to enhance reflexivity and identify how power and agency can be better considered in transdisciplinary research practice.

Additionally, for sessions, workshops and trainings: description of the session/workshop design

The objectives of the workshop are:

• To enhance reflexivity on power and agency in transdisciplinary research practice

• To improve critical social science skills of transdisciplinary researchers

• To foster exchange on transdisciplinary research tools that address power and agency

To achieve these objectives, the workshop consists of three elements: (1) introduction to power and agency concepts relevant for transdisciplinary research, (2) exploration and discussion of transdisciplinary research tools in breakout groups, and (3) plenary synthesis.

(1) Introduction to power and agency concepts in transdisciplinary research: We briefly introduce different conceptions of power over, power to, and power with and illustrate how these can be applied to transdisciplinary processes. We argue that unveiling the often tacit ways in which power affects TD processes and outcomes provides a first step towards dealing with them in a constructive manner.

(2) Exploration and discussion of transdisciplinary research tools in breakout groups: In the workshop, and depending on the number of participants, we want to explore three to four transdisciplinary research tools in depth with respect to their ability to address issues of power and agency:

• actor constellation (https://naturwissenschaften.ch/co-producing-knowledge-explained/methods/td-net_toolbox/actor_constellation_final_),

• emancipatory boundary critique (https://naturwissenschaften.ch/co-producing-knowledge-explained/methods/td-net_toolbox/emancipatory_boundary_critique_final_),

• multi-stakeholder discussion group (https://naturalsciences.ch/co-producing-knowledge-explained/methods/td-net_toolbox/multi_stakeholder_discussion_group), and

• principled negotiation to deal with differences in interests (https://i2insights.org/2022/11/15/principled-negotiation/)

For this, participants split into breakout groups facilitated by the contributors. In the beginning, each breakout group is asked to take 15 minutes to familiarize themselves with the tool (one for each group) and briefly discuss it based on material and guidance provided by the contributors. Next, participants are given 30 minutes to discuss the following questions with respect to their tool:

- To what extent does the tool encourage reflection in transdisciplinary research, e.g., regarding the origins of the transformation concept, embeddedness in a system that might be problematic, and different problem framings?

- To what extent does the tool help decolonize established knowledge production systems and empower actors with different voices who previously might not have been heard?

- What are you struggling with when linking the tool to a context of transdisciplinary research, and how can the tool be enhanced to better engage with agency and power?

The contributors facilitate the group discussion around these questions and encourage participants to think about how to adapt the tool to a specific situation and context, particularly concerning power relations. Supported by the contributors, each group will prepare a very short embodied intervention on how to improve the chosen tool (e.g., a short scene from their discussion or on an applied example) to be presented in the plenary synthesis.

(3) Plenary synthesis on tool exploration: In the final phase, we want to bring together the group discussions and synthesize their reflections in the plenum. The breakout groups will present their short embodied intervention on how to enhance their chosen tool to better consider agency and power. Afterwards, the other participants can share their thoughts in view of their personal experiences with the tool or generally with power and agency in transdisciplinary research.

Indicative schedule:

• Introduction (0:00 – 0:05)

• Presentation on power and agency in sustainability transformations (0:05 – 0:20)

• Explanation of the tasks for the break-out groups (0:20 – 0:25)

• Break-out groups: familiarization with one transdisciplinary research tool (0:25 – 0:40)

• Break-out groups: reflection on power and agency issues regarding this tool (0:40 – 1:10)

• Synthesis (1:10 – 1:30)

Abstract

This workshop invites to discuss applied formats that foster and build inter- and transdisciplinary capacities to offer an inspiration and experience to develop a model/formats for similar work in participants’ organisations. Here the four strategic units, so-called SLU Future Platforms, at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) are one reference frame. They are tasked to strengthen inter- and transdisciplinary (ID & TD) competence to support SLU in taking on complex issues and generate knowledge to contribute to creating sustainable systems and living environments for the future. During the workshop all participants collectively assess and further develop formats using a set of critical questions to strengthen their impact. The four+ formats that will be shared at the workshop are Research Residency, Interdisciplinary Academy, Climate Conversations (themed series), Seed Funding Models, & a Wildcard (an open format to capture emerging ideas during the session).

Workshop Design

The four Future Platforms

The mission of SLU’s four Future Platforms is to strengthen SLU's inter- and transdisciplinary competence, to engage in complex societal questions and knowledge generation to contribute to creating sustainable systems and living environments for the future. Activities are characterised by a focus on complex scientific issues and an interdisciplinary approach. The platforms act as a bridge between subjects, departments, faculties and different SLU activities in a more comprehensive and continuous way than individual project collaborations can do. The overarching goals shared by all SLU Future Platforms are to:

 ascertain where knowledge is needed through synthesis and analysis projects, and operations to generate academic support for societally relevant issues;

 identify and develop new lines of research to support solving future problems through transdisciplinary collaboration with relevant societal partners; and

 develop interdisciplinary working methods by initiating and coordinating cooperation across academic disciplines.

A few of the formats that the Future Platforms offer collectively are listed below. At this workshop we would like to engage in them to explore their value and possible further development to support a strengthened inter- and transdisciplinary belonging at SLU as an agricultural university, which traditionally and historically represents a disciplinary siloed university. This can be used as a model/example for similar work in other organisations.

The workshop design

The workshop starts with a short introduction on the workshop team and their strategic units (A) before engaging participants in an interactive session on different formats (B). Finally, participants will collectively synthesize and reflect on the take aways and novel integration for those and/or new formats (C).

A) Presentation of the overall strategy of the Future Platforms (10min), describing their working model embedded in a context were natural science meets social science and agricultural science is explored in a reflexive modernity.

B) Exploring ID/TD formats in an interactive session (60min) engaging participants to further develop/ think anew platform formats used to introduce, build and anchor inter- and transdisciplinary capacities for the long-term. At this workshop all present will circulate from format to format and co-shape ‘reflection spaces’ with the help of critical questions in different corners/sections in the room. Those questions concern e.g. mandate, ownership, incentives and right encounters for ID/TD:

a. How to develop a long-term interest in working ID/TD? (e.g. ownership, identity shaping)

b. How to better shape a mandate for ID/TD? (e.g. affiliations to the platforms, organizational structures, funding)

c. How & when to introduce people to ID/TD (researchers, teachers, students)? (e.g. create right encounters, allow moving beyond the comfort zone, events, shared questions)

d. How to create a stable institutional anchoring to target efforts? (e.g. platform responsibilities, incentives through seed funding)

e. How to speculate and explore future directions for IT/TD at the organization? (pilots, partnerships, prototypes)

C) Synthesizing collectively (20min) the main take aways on (novel) integration for those and/or new formats

The formats that are offered to be explored are Research Residency, Interdisciplinary Academy, Climate Conversations (themed series), Seed Funding Models, & any Wildcards (formats to capture, emerging ideas during the session) and are described below.

Description of formats that can act as inspiration and offer examples to develop a model/ formats for similar work in different organisations:

Research Residency – is an annual match-making event that has the purpose to strengthen inter- and transdisciplinary research at SLU and to identify new links and research collaborations between SLU’s knowledge fields. The discussions will be focused on sustainability combined with forestry, food production, urban landscapes and One Health. Senior as well as junior SLU researchers can apply and are welcome to inspirational talks and open scientific discussions, while being served good food at a stay in a beautiful environment.

>> How can this match-making format impact beyond the meet-up, what are incentives to reconnect?

Interdisciplinary Academy (IDA) - is a programme at SLU where the university's researchers are offered the opportunity to collaborate for 8 months on 20% of their time in interdisciplinary teams across disciplinary boundaries on complex issues in the broad field of green transformation. IDA also arranges open webinars to inspire and promote more interdisciplinary across the university.

>> How does/can this long-term collaboration shape mandate and target efforts? Is there a new ownership growing to anchor IT-TD at an organization?

Climate Conversations (CC) – promote cross-disciplinary scientific climate conversations at SLU through webinars and seminars that are open for all and/or inviting SLU staff only. This series with its open and internal dialogues started when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) launched its sixth assessment report in 2021 and 2022 to shape an arena for critical reflections and ways forward.

>> How can this series of conversations highlight the ID-TD critical questions of the future?

Seed Funding Models – are used by all four platforms to realize, anchor, support, target ID/TD collaborations, consortium building, applications, research projects, publications, etc. Seed funding models support various multi-/ inter- and transdisciplinary research activities aiming at enhancing sustainable futures in the field of the four future platforms representing relevant foci for SLU.

>> How can seed funding stimulate the right incentives and shape encounters that have long-lasting impact?

Wildcard – the opportunity to co-create and identify emerging new formats and new guiding questions that fall into the workshop’s curiosity.

1–3 key readings (optional)

SLU Urban Futures | Externwebben

SLU Future Food | Externwebben

SLU Future Forests | Externwebben

SLU Future One Health | Externwebben

Researcher residency at Philipssonska gården | Externwebben (slu.se)

Interdisciplinary Academy (IDA) | Externwebben (slu.se)

Climate conversations at SLU | Externwebben

The world is facing increasing inequalities in a variety of domains, including the distribution of wealth, social justice, access to healthcare, educational opportunities, environmental conditions, and cultural representation. The complexity of tackling these challenges requires strategic partnerships and synergies. In this context, the integration of art and science stands out as a particularly promising avenue to foster societal transformation and the development of creative solutions. The present paper draws on the experiences gained from an art-science project - exCHANGE - born from the collaboration between a local artist association and a research institution in South Tyrol (Italy). exCHANGE brings together six artists and six researchers from different disciplines selected to collaboratively explore and address specific aspects of inequalities. The project takes place from March to September 2024, spanning six months during which the six transdisciplinary tandems are asked to work together to create novel insights and tangible outcomes through the fusion of artistic expression and scientific inquiry. exCHANGE utilizes a meta-research lens to continuously monitor the progress and dynamics within the six parallel projects. A multi-method qualitative approach is employed, which includes participant observation, reflective diaries, and focus groups with the participants to foster a comprehensive understanding of the collaborative processes within the project. The meta-research lens applied to the collaborative processes within the project provides a rich tapestry of insights, contributing to the growing body of findings on interdisciplinary collaboration. By sharing lessons learnt, best practices, and possible pitfalls, this contribution aims to inspire future endeavours that harness the power of art-science integration to break down barriers between disciplines and generate new ideas and solutions to pressing problems.

Furthermore, exCHANGE aims to monitor the impact of such collaborations on society. The project concludes with a final exhibition that will be open for two weeks in October 2024. During this period, the impact of the collaboration, the generated output, and the public reception will be evaluated through focus groups and interviews with the public. exCHANGE’s comprehensive assessment aims thus to shed light not only on the collaborative process but also on the broader societal implications of art-science integration, providing valuable insights for future initiatives in this domain.

Fridays for Future, climate crisis, – the debate about climate change and ecological sustainability has moved to the centre of society. The question is what options for action exist and what conditions must be in place for a societal transformation towards greater sustainability.

In this process scientific research, artistic practice and society are increasingly intertwined. Climate researchers seek exchange with artists or adapt artistic processes, while artistic practice is turning to ecological themes. However, it is debated to what extent the arts can generate sustainable ecological effects by fuelling a thematic debate without questioning structures and logics of production in the sense of a critical practice. More and more initiatives and funding bodies are also trying to bring artists together with climate researchers.

Unlike traditional science communication, these approaches foster new ways of co-creation by engaging with different communities. Yet, our understanding of their impact is limited. Questions remain about equal collaboration, exchange formats, quality criteria, funding structures as well as perceptions about and experiences of blurring boundaries of science communication, knowledge co-creation and activism.

Our inter- and transdisciplinary project ‘Relational Encounters between the Arts and Climate Research’ is a collaboration between two institutions (EcoArtlab, Academy of Arts University of Applied Science Bern and mLAB, Institute of Geography, University of Bern). The project investigates the interactions between artistic research, geography, critical sustainability research and climatology and opens new approaches to knowledge co-creation and several dimensions of justice.

One aim is to develop, in dialogue with practitioners, evaluation criteria and a set of promising factors and lessons learned for future climate-art collaborations.

In the conference presentation we wish to exchange on methodological challenges of such applied research by reflecting on two of our selected tools, namely residencies and a design lab workshop format.

Residencies are climate and sustainability thematic-led collaborations between artists, scientists, and activists. They work together for a period of up to eight months and produce a dialogue-based output that does justice to the various disciplines and practices involved. The conception of the residency is carried out by the researchers. The residents have all the freedom for the development of research and artistic positions. The projects, the collaboration and the external impact are monitored and evaluated by the project team.

The second method is a workshop format with representatives of research, the arts and funding bodies. We explore in a first step productive, frustrating, and unusual experiences made so far in various art/science collaborations within existing structures. The second step is a moderated design lab, where we develop possible new forms of collaborations with new ideas and questions that can be utilized for our own work and feed back to the funding institutions.

With our presentation we contribute to the general conference theme of the advancement of inter- and transdisciplinary concepts and processes. Research results will provide a better understanding of how collaborations between different knowledge systems such as research, activism and arts function, the potential power structures they are embedded in, and resulting potentials and challenges for project implementations and possible implications for evaluation criteria of integration in transdisciplinary projects.

Interculturality refers to ‘the relations that exist between culturally diverse human groups in a given society’. This concept is applicable to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research projects because they consist of expert members from diverse fields of research with different terminologies, values for evaluation, and ways of thinking. Therefore, we should address interculturality for better directions of inter- and transdisciplinary projects, particularly when cognitive or epistemological discrepancies exist among project members. Here, we show the results of in-project participatory observation and action research in two large-scale interdisciplinary projects on the evolution and dispersal of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and discuss how interculturality works for better collaboration.

The first case was the Cultural History of PaleoAsia project (Fiscal year 2016–2020), which aimed to understand the distinct patterns in the formation of modern human cultures across Asia. More than 50 researchers, including archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, mathematical biologists, and palaeoenvironmental scientists, collaborated in this project. As the project progressed, the members found it difficult to share key concepts such as culture, environment, and technology with them. Therefore, we attempted to span conceptual and cultural boundaries among the different domains involved by applying lexical analysis, network graphs, and questionnaire surveys. First, a lexical analysis of the full text of the project’s conference proceedings, annual reports, and website revealed that the term ‘culture’ was used in the context of materials (e.g. lithic culture, ceramic culture, etc.), geography (e.g. cultural zones), temporality (e.g. Aurignacian culture) and dynamics (e.g. cultural ecology). Second, the progress of interdisciplinary co-authorship was monitored through a network graph analysis of conference proceedings; the number of co-authors was high in the archaeology groups and low in the cultural anthropology group. Third, a questionnaire survey (N=52) revealed that cultural anthropologists prefer single authorships over other researchers. Regarding the fundamental concept of culture, 70% of the archaeologists chose’ behaviour. Among cultural anthropologists and mathematical biologists, there was no poll for ‘materials’, while the numbers for ‘behaviour’ and ‘information’ were almost equal. Based on this observation, we facilitated scholarly communication among researchers with different values and thoughts for better collaboration.

The second case was the Out of Eurasia project (FY 2019–2023), which conducted an integrative historical science of the human dispersal and cultural development out of Eurasia, namely, the Japanese archipelago, North and South Americas, and Oceania, with an involvement of more than 80 researchers in seven research groups ranging from archaeology, arts, ethnology, neurobiology, genomics, and informatics. The initiative aims to foster the creation of a new academic discipline, ‘Integrative Human History’, beyond traditional interdisciplinary approaches, by encouraging knowledge exchanges between diverse fields to transcend existing academic boundaries. One of the authors (Ōnishi) was principal investigator of an ethnology group and conducted a network analysis of joint research relationship among participating members in terms of academic specialty, role, and research method. The resultant graphs revealed the increasing magnitude of the interdisciplinary interactions. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic forcing a shift to online meetings, the initiative facilitated meaningful discussions across fields with a notable effort to understand and engage with other disciplines that collectively contribute to the project's goals. This study concludes that the initiative succeeded in promoting interdisciplinary dialogue, contributing to the construction of an integrative approach to human history.

*Across all sectors, diverse stakeholders are coming to the table to address matters of planetary crisis. We agree with the conference organizers that the challenges of working productively together across incompatible and sometimes even hostile domains do not disappear simply because the issues are dire. The urgent call for inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches to address planetary problems presents not only the potential clash or combination of epistemologies, but conundrums around the co-presence of multiple scales of action.

*Malcolm Gladwell (2000) popularized the idea that large-scale change was a (simple) matter of crossing a threshold, beyond which accumulative effects would prompt cascading systemic shifts. This notion is alluring, but assumes the presence of singularly-focused energies that move together toward a tipping point. Yet, if we consider that the experiential enactments of anything we might call “global” or “planetary” have never been a matter of scale, in the way these terms suggest on the surface, how might we change the terms or the lens to find new pathways and energies?

*Relatedly, although interdisciplinarity seems wise and is still the most common ‘go to’ orientation, we share the concern of scholars such as Des Fitzgerald and Felicity Callard (2015) about “the regime of the inter-,” whereby “certain visions of territory – along with the corollary concepts of borders, incursions, and empire-building – tend to loom large.” In turn, we invite alternate epistemologies of practice that disrupt notions of scale, size, and territory, to create connections borne out of conditions of vulnerability and presence.

*This paper proposes to think through this challenge through the lens of vulnerability, as both site and direction of practice and collaboration. We ask: if diverse stakeholders disciplinarity (inter- or trans-) shift to how we pay attention, or how attention is being directed or even mined, what new factors appear? What new experimental meeting points arise? Among the many directions one could take in thinking about this question, we pose questions close to the premises of our own approaches: First, how might a starting point of “vulnerability” be a generative tool for working with diverse stakeholders to address ‘planetary’ or ‘global’ or ‘local’ concerns? Then, and being inspired by Kuran, et al (2020), we combine this with another question: in what ways can the complexities of polycrisis be reconfigured by taking more deliberately intersectional perspectives?

- --

Fitzgerald, D., and Callard, F. (2015). Rethinking Interdisciplinarity across the Social Sciences and the Neurosciences. Palgrave.

Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown.

Kuran, C.H.A., et al (2020). Vulnerability and vulnerable groups from an intersectionality perspective. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101826

Mainstream design and architectural education have traditionally emphasized material-embedded knowledge and "designerly ways of knowing" (Cross, 2010). However, contemporary discourse emphasizes the need to reconsider these paradigms within the context of global socio-political and socio-economic inequalities, signaling a shift towards the infusion of diverse disciplinary perspectives into design pedagogy, particularly those capable of shifting design away from a material-centric, designer-focused ethos towards one that is human-centered and co-produced (Norman, 2024) (Busciantella-Ricci et al., 2022)(Herriott, 2023) . Pioneers, eg- (Awan, 2020) (Bridle, 2015) (Forensic Architecture, 2010) engage with design practice in a manner that authentically addresses socio-political issues unlike the mainstream outcome-driven design culture.Their contributions often manifest not as preconceived designable objects, but as direct outcomes of empathetic and intuitively transdisciplinary lenses. This evolution in design culture calls for its integration into education, necessitating diverse disciplinary perspectives to foster inclusive and socially responsible design practices.

This paper aims to illustrate the centrality and crucial need for transdisciplinary perspectives and interdisciplinary methodologies when designing for a more inclusive and equitable world. Through academic case studies of student work produced by the authors in the University of Sheffield (UK) and in Srishti Institute of Art, Design & Technology (India), it demonstrates how adopting gendered perspectives acted as a provocation and a catalyst to create interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches within the design research. Based on academic case studies conducted in the public realm, it demonstrates this through two directions:

How gendered perspectives necessitate and influence the implementation of transdisciplinary contextual understanding of mobility in cities, and

How theoretical concepts in sociology, psychology and other domains of study pertaining to gendered exclusions were required in the study. Therefore, they had to be translated and embedded creatively into design processes resulting in multiple interdisciplinary methodologies and actionable tools.

Interdisciplinary approaches evolved based on needs identified when conducting transdisciplinary contextual studies with gendered lenses. This understanding prompted the exploration into two primary trajectories: a) Female fear and its cyclic creation in public transit spaces, and b) Diversity and inequality in mobility experiences among women due to intersectional identities.

To articulate the impact of fear on spatial navigation, especially among women, cognitive mapping, rooted in psychology, was reintroduced as a tool in spatial studies. This methodology proved effective in evaluating how physical spaces catalyze experiences of exclusion. Additionally, ethnographic studies were utilized to facilitate articulation of fear experienced by women due to public behavior like man-spreading and the male gaze. These studies provided foundational data for subsequent participatory activities.

While exploring gendered perspectives, the need for intersectional explorations became evident in various ways. Dramatic differences in wayfinding experiences based on gender were observed, deepening in complexity for individuals with intersectional identities, particularly women from lower socio-economic backgrounds or with lower literacy levels. A unique study investigated "mothering" as a practice influenced by the intersectional identity of being a woman and a parent, considering nuances such as trip chaining. Furthermore, in one project, cognitive mapping, lead to the emergence of gendered intersectionalities as a new perspective to examine the decision-making process shaping the journey of working women.

Through these case studies of academic projects, the paper reflects on and proposes two pathways of synthesis - Pedagogic frameworks for transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary gender studies in design and the implications of such methodologies in education on design practice.

In the last decades, participatory qualitative and transdisciplinary (Td) research are on the rise. Td research allows for co-production of knowledge between societal and scientific actors in order to tackle sustainability challenges. This turn into more participatory and dialogical research settings has strong implications for qualitative methods, and therefore for the data produced. Data is no longer collected and/or analyzed solely by the researcher, but an active role from practitioners and other societal actors is expected. How to then deal with accessibility and management of this data and secure a fair and equitable access to it? In this way, transdisciplinary research implies a new frontier to qualitative methods and data as it poses new questions on who has the power to create and manage such data, who is entitled to access it and how.

Currently, many transdisciplinary researchers using qualitative methods face a quandary: Standard research ethics practices dictate that all human subjects’ data should be strictly confidential. Yet increasing demand from journals and even in cases from the project participants themselves, suggests that in many cases, the sharing of qualitative data could be valuable. While Td research involves many different methods and scientific disciplines, qualitative research often plays a central role—either to facilitate the Td process or as part of the scientific study itself. Sharing of data could allow important learning and insights to be more broadly shared and create the opportunity to compare across cases and over time. Beyond this, there may be cases where Td projects themselves would benefit from greater sharing of data, e.g., to build support for a new initiative or to increase the possibility of participation from diverse stakeholders.

The promise of confidentiality creates an atmosphere of trust, allowing the researcher to obtain an authentic and deep understanding of the research topics. Yet we are curious about the necessary ubiquity of the principle for all qualitative research. There are cases for semi-structured interviews where anonymisation of participants is possible, and the interview content itself does not contain sensitive information. Or there may be cases where participants want to be named and have their perspectives openly shared. In these cases, the research data can be made available for other researchers to use. This is a common practice in quantitative research where data is made available in a data repository such as Zenodo.

In the same fashion, transdisciplinary research might have greater societal impact and collaborative potential if FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Resuable) principles are clearly and systematically integrated in processes in which qualitative methods are applied. FAIR principles are applied to both human-driven and machine-driven activities, however they emphasize machine-actionality to allow computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and use data with minimal human intervention. Confidentiality of the data itself does not imply that FAIR principles cannot be achieved, as metadata can still be published under FAIR principles. Some of the principles can be achieved with low effort, for example, principle F1: (Meta)data are assigned globally unique and persistent identifiers. This solely requires the generation of a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) by a trusted provider. Other principles require more effort, as community standards need to be identified or may not exist. For example, F2: Data are described with rich metadata, which in the context of qualitative research need to be be generous and extensive, including descriptive information about the context, quality and condition, or characteristics of the data. This principle focuses on the human-driven activity of discovering data and learning about how it was generated. In this workshop, we will begin a dialoge on the conditions under which qualitative data collected as part of Td processes can or should be shared following FAIR principles; consider best practices for doing so; and begin to build a community of practice for the sharing of data within the Td field.

Our workshop addresses all three conference themes, though with an emphasis on the first theme of enhancing the theoretical foundations of ITD. Within this our workshop considers the entanglement of knowledge and technology by examining tricky questions about sharing of qualitative data in online repositories and the risks and benefits for Td research. With the growing importance of large language models, qualitative data may become more accessible to re-use. In this context we seek to harness experiences and knowledge to develop guidelines and practices for navigating this new terrain. At the same time, we see our workshop and larger project as growing capacity for ITD both by providing guidance to an emerging challenge and by growing collaborative networks, connecting ITD and open science communities. We also see educational potential for our workshop, such as a longer-term goal to create digital tools to help train and guide ITD education on how to navigate the tricky questions of open science and data management.

Description of the workshop design:

90 minutes

We will base the workshop on an experiential component by working with case studies from the participants’ tricky and/or challenging experiences. For each case, we will show the problem and then decide on options to cope. A key outcome will be adapting the FAIR principles for qualitative data in Td research. An additional activity will be to consider ways to re-use such data. We will provide participants with information on qualitative datasets and identify what kinds of metadata (in other words, what key contextual information) would be needed to re-use the data. To achieve these aims, we will facilitate an interactive dialogue about the challenge and potential of sharing qualitative data from Td research. We will use the td-net toolbox (e.g. tell your story by means of an object; soft systems methodology) to share participants’ experiences and ideas, to identify the main challenges and to develop ways to address them.

We will use the cases and participants experiences as the basis to discuss questions such as:

1. Under what conditions does sharing of qualitative data generated during Td research provide benefits for a) research participants, b) the Td project itself, or c) the Td community?

2. What are the risks of sharing Td data openly? How can these be mitigated?

3. What kinds of concerns or benefits are specific to particular kinds of data? In other words, how is interview data different from workshop data?

The proposed agenda for the workshop will be: 15 minute to introduce open science and FAIR princples, providing some examples; 40 minutes activity to work through case studies of tricky experiences; 20 minutes activity to evaluate contextual (metadata) for re-use of qualtiative data; 15 minutes for knowledge harvesting and wrap-up. The results of this workshop will be shared with participants and feed into a larger project to develop guidelines for how and when to share and re-use qualitative data collected as part of Td research.

Key readings:

Alexander, Steven M., Kristal Jones, Nathan James Bennett, Amber Budden, Michael Cox, Mercamp x000E8 Crosas, Edward T. Game, et al. “Qualitative Data Sharing and Synthesis for Sustainability Science.” Nature Sustainability, November 13, 2019, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0434-8.

Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, et al. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3, no. 1 (March 15, 2016): 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.

During the last decades, much knowledge has been accumulated about the challenges and problems of inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations, about how to approach the set-up and design of such collaborations, and how to support the processes of knowledge-integration. There has also been a considerable body of research about which mindsets are favourable with regard to people engaging in inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations and about the competences people should acquire in order for such collaborations to be satisfying and yield the expected added-value.

However, something has not yet been investigated, although everybody that has either participated in inter- or transdisciplinary projects or has been in charge of such projects knows the phenomenon through personal experience: the almost magic moment in which someone throws the lever because they suddenly know 'yes, it will work, it is worthwhile to invest time, energy, and creativity in this collaboration', the moment in which the quality and dynamic of the collaboration is set on track towards succeeding in developing integrated knowledge, towards achieving added-value. The contrary happens too – that there is a moment in which someone opts out, the moment of quiet quitting. Such moments are decisive for whether people actually engage in a project or not – they are tipping points.

Tipping points are the critical moments and experiences of significant change – positive ones propel the collaboration forward and negative ones initiate a downward spiral. Tipping points are invisible phenomena, they are very much related to individual experiences, emotional knowledge, and to what we tend to call 'gut feeling'. When we are in charge of a project, we want positive tipping points to happen, and we fear negative tipping points.

By reflecting and discussing tipping point experiences in a project team, the participants can improve and deepen their understanding of what drives successful inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations, and they can develop more effective strategies for fostering productive and innovative team environments.

In a running research project “Collaborative Convergence: Positive Tipping Points of Interdisciplinary Research Dynamics”, we are exploring the benefits of applying a tipping point approach in (individually and collectively) reflecting interdisciplinary experiences, and we are delving into the realm of these critical junctures by examining the collaborative processes within a research consortium (qualitative interviews). The project is a collaboration between the Office for Research Association Management (LMU Munich) and the Research Group Inter-/Transdisciplinarity (University of Basel).

The aim of the project is twofold: we want to uncover and identify positive tipping points of interdisciplinary collaboration (including the factors leading to them), and we want to provide an accessible and easy tool for the self-evaluation of interdisciplinary collaborations. The project is designed to provide knowledge about, and to facilitate the identification of key success factors within interdisciplinary research. One of the questions we want to discuss in ITD24 is whether the approach of tipping points can be used also in transdisciplinary collaborations.

In our planned workshop, we will introduce the approach of tipping points, present empirical results of our project, and introduce the Tipping Points Reflection Tool. The tool provides a set of questions and a methodical procedure to be used in a structured reflection on personal and collective experiences of tipping points in inter- and/or transdisciplinary research collaborations. Participants will apply the tool and we will discuss the potentials and limitations of the approach as well as reflect the tool.

Our objective for the ITD24 is to apply the approach and tool in a workshop setting and to thus gain an additional validation of the approach specifically with regards to its use in transdisciplinary settings. The participants will in turn get to know an innovative approach as well as an accessible and easy-to-apply tool for reflecting upon pivotal points in their inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations. By now, we already know that the approach is suited to uncover deeper aspects of interdisciplinary collaborations and to discuss their impact on team dynamics and success. Hence, participants will engage in reflecting, comparing, and discussing factors that support successful collaboration across different disciplines on a deep level. By comparing key positive turning points and experiences about the dynamics that they have perceived as being crucial for reaching such points, participants will identify critical success factors in inter- and transdisciplinary research processes and discuss how to promote them.

The dialogue-oriented approach that is applied in the workshop aims not only to provide insights into the nuances of inter- and transdisciplinary research but also to equip participants with actionable knowledge they can implement in their ongoing scholarly endeavors. Participants will be provided with handouts explaining the Tipping Points Reflection Tool. As such, directly after the workshop, the participants will be able to apply the tool in their own teams.

Workshop Design

For the conference, we suggest to schedule a tipping points workshop, in order to allow for a dynamic and engaging 90-minute session. Our workshop design is dedicated to reflection, dialogue, and mutual learning. To guide the discussion, dedicated handouts will be provided.

Schedule of the workshop (chair: Antonietta Di Giulio)

1. Welcome and Setting the Stage (10-15 minutes, depending on the number of participants)

• Brief outline of the workshop's goals and schedule

• Presentation of the research team (LMU Munich: Leila Ahmadi & Sabine Toussaint; University of Basel: Rico Defila & Antonietta Di Giulio)

• Short round of presentation of participants

2. Introduction (20-25 minutes)

• Research design of the project “Collaborative Convergence: Positive Tipping Points of Interdisciplinary Research Dynamics”

• Tipping points approach

• Empirical results of the project (exemplary cases from the research consortium which was examined in the project)

3. Exploring the Tipping Points Reflection Tool (35 minutes)

• Introducing the Tipping Points Reflection Tool

• Individual reflection (personal experiences of crucial positive tipping points especially in transdisciplinary projects that include both academic and non-academic partners).

• Group Discussion (sharing and comparing of personal 'tipping-point-experiences', possibly clustering tipping points, identifying strategies for how to reach positive tipping points)

(Number of break out groups depends on number of participants; ideally, discussion takes place in groups of 4-5)

4. Collecting and discussing insights in the Plenary (20 minutes)

• Groups report key insights about tipping points or strategies from their discussions

• Groups report their experience in applying a tipping point approach

• Discussion about suitability of the approach in transdisciplinary settings

This workshop seeks to examine which competencies are uniquely developed in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary (ITD) learning approaches and how these approaches sit in relation to each other. We are part of the Working Group ‘Integration Experts and Expertise’ of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (ITD Alliance), gathered on the topic of integrative teaching and learning on integration in ITD higher education. As a result of the joint work in the Working Group, we have identified the need for a competency framework that articulates what capacities are developed in inter- and transdisciplinarity. Therefore, in this workshop, we seek to draw on our research and practice to put interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity into a dialogue to delineate the differences between them and explore how they complement each other. We will use this dialogue to propose a competency framework that articulates what capacities are developed in inter- and transdisciplinarity. Our aim is to develop a competency framework that supports educators and researchers to further strengthen and develop inter- and transdisciplinary practices.

Within the history of education, inter- and transdisciplinary learning approaches are still in their infancy albeit growing in prevalence and popularity (OECD, 2020; European Commission, 2021). For this workshop, we understand interdisciplinarity to be ‘instrumentalist interdisciplinarity.’ Instrumentalist interdisciplinarity is directed towards achieving practical goals or solving particular, complex problems (contrast with critical interdisciplinarity, which asks more fundamental questions, such as about the nature of disciplines and their relation with interdisciplinarity). It is the most common type of interdisciplinarity taught in higher education and is similar to transdisciplinarity, inviting a productive comparison between the two. Both are seen as a means, for example, to develop sustainability competencies in students or transversal skills to work with complex societal challenges or as a means to develop the ability to integrate different perspectives and support justice, diversity and inclusion.

What is common to both inter- and transdisciplinarity, is that they bring together students/researchers and academics to interact in a defined, problem-solving process and learn as a group to develop or enhance competencies to integrate knowledge and bridge the knowledge-action gap thereby contributing to the development of solutions to complex societal challenges (Fam et al., 2018; Gibbs, 2017; Klein, 2018; O'Sullivan, 2023).

There are also significant differences between them, most significantly, that transdisciplinarity includes extra-academic actors. We define extra-academic actors as those actors who are connected to transdisciplinary work on challenges ̶ for example, sectoral experts or individuals directly impacted by a complex problem ̶ but who are external to the academy (O’Sullivan, 2023). However, interdisciplinarity can be practiced individually or as part of a team, whereas transdisciplinarity is almost always a collaborative endeavor. In addition, interdisciplinarity can be practiced in order to discover new problems or to view something in a new, interdisciplinary way; transdisciplinarity is almost always practiced to solve complex problems.

The question for many practitioners and policymakers who work with inter- and transdisciplinary learning approaches is not only has learning taken place but what learning has taken place and what was the role of the practitioner, extra-academic, and student in this learning? Adopting the language of educational science can contribute to creating a shared, community-led evidence base to answer these questions. Increasingly, the holistic concept of a competency, which involves the mobilization of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values to meet complex demands (OECD, 2019) has been adopted by both inter- and transdisciplinary researchers and educators to describe what takes place in these practices, and how. In a review of the literature on inter- and transdisciplinary curricula development and teaching (O’Sullivan, 2023), inter- and transdisciplinary learning is most commonly expressed by practitioners in terms of competencies they seek to develop in students. However, which content, pedagogical approach or learning activity explicitly develops these competencies and how these can be assessed (at a student level) and evaluated (at an institutional level) is not always clear and remains somewhat challenging to articulate and identify.

Our discussion aims to expand on these similarities and differences with two aims in mind:

1. To delineate the difference between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.

2. To identify the competencies that are common to both, as well as competencies that are unique to one or the other.

The ITD24 conference is a potent opportunity to seek the input from a community of ITD specialists and practitioners on how to meaningfully tackle this issue and provide guidance on next steps for ITD researchers. The goal of the workshop is ultimately to think together to work towards a white paper and possible academic publication (see, for example, Brundiers et al., 2021) issued by the ITD Alliance as guidance for educators and policymakers on what competencies can be developed by inter- and transdisciplinary learning approaches.

Workshop Format

This workshop will begin with a plenary presentation on inter- and transdisciplinary definitions with an overview of the competencies present in the literature.

For example, a selection of competencies present in the literature on transdisciplinary learning (O’Sullivan, 2023) are as follows:

Intrapersonal: academic humility, self-reflection, competency for deliberation, empathy, open-mindedness, sensitivity, flexibility, adaptability, attitude, assertiveness

Interpersonal: learning from each other, development of meaningful social relations with group members, social skills, facilitation, the ability to build trust, perform in a flat structure, communication, collaboration, team knowledge (e.g., task understanding, role knowledge); and team attitudes (e.g., team orientation, trust, cohesion)

Cognitive: problem solving, knowledge brokerage, shared mental models

Participants will be divided into two groups. In the first group, interdisciplinarity, Simon Scott will lead a critical thinking exercise to surface which competencies in the literature can be considered as foundational. In the second group, Gemma O’Sullivan will examine transdisciplinarity and lead a critical thinking exercise to identify which competencies are needed to develop both integrative and actionable knowledge capacity in students and practitioners.

As a plenary, participants will be invited to contrast the competencies listed in the two groups. The resulting comparison will form the basis of a draft framework identifying which competencies are developed uniquely in each approach (inter- and transdisciplinarity) and which may only be specific to one. The key output of the workshop is a draft framework on inter- and transdisciplinary competencies. This framework will be iteratively reviewed at a series of follow-up virtual meetings through which an ITD Alliance position paper on inter- and transdisciplinary learning approaches and competency development will be co-created. This will support educators globally who wish to collaborate on multiple case studies and build a community of practice. It provides a common language through which educators and institutions can benchmark education initiatives. It also supports educational scientists seeking to build an evidence base to support the development of inter- and transdisciplinary learning, its evaluation and concomitant assessment methods, for example, competency-based assessment. Finally, it will provide an empirical basis for reflecting on the value and purpose of interdisciplinarity, and the ability to identify clear pedagogical goals associated with this kind of interdisciplinarity in contradistinction to the growing popularity of transdisciplinarity.

References

Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G. et al. Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustainability Science 16, 13–29 (2021). https://doi-org.proxy.library.uu.nl/10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2

European Commission. (2021). European Universities Initiative. Available from: https://education.ec.europa.eu/document/european-universities-initiative-factsheet

Fam, D., Neuhauser, L. & Gibbs, P. (Eds.), (2018). Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education. Dordrecht: Springer.

Gibbs, P. (Ed.). (2017). Transdisciplinary higher education: A theoretical basis revealed in practice. London: Springer.

Klein, J. T. (2018). Learning in transdisciplinary collaborations: A conceptual vocabulary. In D. Fam, L. Neuhauser & P. Gibbs, P. (Eds.), Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education (pp. 11-23). Dordrecht: Springer.

OECD. (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 concept note. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-andlearning/learning/skills/Skills_for_2030_concept_note.pdf

OECD. (2020). Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research.

O’Sullivan, G. (2023). Shaping transdisciplinary, challenge-based education using knowledge creating teams from five European universities: A realist evaluation. University of Dublin Trinity College. Dublin, Ireland.

Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2020). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Sage Publications.

Schmidt, J. C. (2021). Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity: Studies in Science, Society and Sustainability. Routledge.

Inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) research is increasingly called for by policy makers and encouraged by funders, usually to address complex societal challenges in collaborative teams. In this context inter- and transdisciplinarity too often seem like just buzzwords - they are poorly or not defined, with unclear expectations, evaluation criteria and guidance for evaluators. In addition to these research policy-oriented contexts, ITD appears as “a reflexive orientation within the academy and an object of knowledge” in its own right (Barry & Born 2013). Just as there are several different modalities to ITD, there are different dimensions such as the cognitive, emotional, and the interactional (Boix Mansilla et al. 2015). The SHAPE-ID project found that there was a disconnect between how academic and policy communities understand ITD (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020). Signs of such disconnect are also evidenced in the struggle to effectively evaluate and monitor the integration of Social Sciences and Humanities within European funding framework programmes, despite a desire to do so. Overall, there are both bottom-up inclinations and top-down pressures suggesting to researchers and universities that there is a need to undertake and become more supportive of ITD in some shape or form. Yet, there is often lack of clarity around resourcing and pathways within universities, coupled with the significant challenges of providing meaningful support and capacity building for researchers taking part in different kinds of ITD research at different career stages.

In our own professional experience, efforts to support ITD are often fragmented within universities, and those tasked with doing so occupy very diverse positions across academic, professional and hybrid roles.

In recent years there has been emerging interest in the role of integration experts, which Hoffmann et al. (2022) defined as academics or other experts who ‘lead, administer, manage, monitor, assess, accompany, and/or advise others on ITD integration’. Separately, the role of research managers, broadly understood as the diverse professionals supporting the research ecosystem, from researcher training and development to project and programme management, has received increased attention, with newly funded EU projects exploring their contribution. Burgess and Wallace (2023) argued that this community can play a significant role in supporting ITD development within universities and ongoing research (preliminary results presented in Wallace et al., 2023) is exploring the role research managers play in supporting ITD research in different contexts across Europe. Meanwhile, the potential knowledge base is exploding in ways that further stress the possible need for intermediary research support staff. There are many tools and methods available (e.g., through td-net, SHAPE-ID and i2insights) as well as scholarly discussions on the use of compound methods (Lury 2018) for interdisciplinary research, yet fragmentation remains a challenge.

This workshop aims to draw these concerns together, exploring the diverse contexts and opportunities for supporting ITD research across a university and the varied roles those who integrate and build capacity for integration play.

• What roles do research developers, facilitators, research directors, project managers and others play in supporting ITD?

• What contexts do we work in and what challenges [cognitive, emotional, interactional, etc.] do we encounter when working with researchers in different contexts?

• What are the interactional and motivational implications of how integrators are positioned vis-a-vis those they help and the overall university power-structures?

• How can we simultaneously understand the needs of researchers and develop our own skills and knowledge as integrators?

• What supports do researchers need at different stages in their careers or project life cycle? What are their positive experiences of such support and where are there gaps in support?

• How can the extensive knowledge base, tools and perspectives be adopted and translated to the diverse contexts in which we work as integrators and/or researchers?

• How can we identify when we as integrators have made a valuable contribution to the development of research?

Through scene-setting presentations from integration experts supporting ITD research in diverse contexts, including facilitation, training, proposal development, mentoring and centre leadership, followed by a world café to explore participants’ experiences and challenges, the workshop aims to create a space for sharing experience, knowledge, challenges and good practice. We welcome those who work as integrators in academic, professional or hybrid roles, as well as researchers who are interested in how universities support, and can better support, the development of integration expertise. The above questions and their framing in the world café will be tailored to the audience in attendance, with those who identify as integrators invited to directly reflect on their roles, and researchers invited to consider their experience of supports or the contexts in which they need support to develop integration skills.

The workshop will contribute a new perspective to the work of the ITD Alliance Working Group on Integration Experts and Expertise, including its aims to generate shared resources and approaches for addressing common challenges and discussing lessons learned across different contexts.

Outcomes: the outcomes of the world café will be written up as a concise briefing to be shared with the ITD Alliance Working Group on Integration Experts and Expertise and with the proposers’ professional networks including University Networks (e.g., LERU, Coimbra Group), European University Alliances, RMA Associations (EARMA) and projects pursuing the development of Research Manager career frameworks to support ERA Action 17 dedicated to research management in Europe (RMA Roadmap, CARDEA). This will allow insights on integration expertise to inform considerations of research management at European level.

Workshop design

The workshop is designed to facilitate practice-sharing among attendees. It will begin with a brief introduction to the topic and 3-4 short scene-setting presentations from the proposers on their experiences supporting ITD capacity building in their professional roles and contexts. This will be followed by a world café (2 rounds) to allow participants to discuss and share their experiences, concluding with feedback to the group and a wrap-up.

What is the role of transdisciplinary research and learning in policy processes for navigating societal challenges? This session guides the complex terrain where transdisciplinarity converges with policy by clarifying, questioning, and suggesting transdisciplinary approaches which would support a co-productive model of science-policy practice.

In our session, we discuss with the researchers who have been or currently involved in four transdisciplinary research projects which include the participation of one or more of the four “policy cultures” for decision making (Elzinga, 1996). Most of these projects are PhD projects which had the freedom to explore innovative forms of collaboration in science-policy practice, while being embedded in an academic environment with a longstanding tradition of participatory policy analysis, with actors from diverse policy cultures. Through the exploration of the stories from each of the researchers in domains spanning from the co-design of coastal water management, energy citizenship, social business models for coastal landscapes and living labs, we discuss the existing frameworks for understanding the various types of science-policy practices as they relate to transdisciplinary research. We reflect on our how the latest approaches are pioneering in this space and on what still might be missing. We also welcome the audience to share their experiences in this endeavour. The aim of the session is to collectively identify next steps in addressing the societal challenges that require a rethinking of our collective values and goals for the future. The discussion will build on existing models on the role of transdisciplinary research in science-policy practices. We will be building on the distinction between “type one” and “type two” transdisciplinary research (Pohl, 2008) which is either primarily focused on reorganizing knowledge or facilitates a co-production of knowledge between various ‘policy cultures’ (Elzinga and Jamison, 1995). We will also be referring to the delineation between “linear” and a “co-productive” model of science-policy practices (Maas et al., 2022). This distinction stems from the context of interaction and result in different expectations, competencies needed by the researchers involved.

The panel starts with a reflection on the interaction between transdisciplinary research and the policy processes. We then take stock of where the arena of interaction is currently and where it needs to go in order to more effectively contribute to societal challenges, in particular related to those where social, ecological and technological systems converge.

The discourse continues with a comprehensive exploration of policy-spanning concepts and methods to inform transdisciplinary research. The panellists will dissect how policy concepts can be employed as tools, methods, and frameworks within transdisciplinary settings and how transdisciplinary approaches can be adapted for policy arenas.

Grounded in the overarching theme of enhancing theoretical foundations, this panel invites participants to engage in a transformative dialogue, reshaping our perceptions, challenging assumptions, and forging new paths at the intersection of transdisciplinarity and policy. Join us as we embark on a journey through the Looking Glass, envisioning a future where theory becomes the bedrock for innovative, collaborative, and impactful research endeavours.

Description

Panel discussion of four participants and a moderator. We will open with a brief 5-minute introduction. Each participant will give a 3-5 min introduction of their project before we continue with a discussion. The last 15 minutes of the session will be reserved for question-and-answer session. We will need around six chairs and two microphones if the room is too big.

Suggested stream topic for panel: 1. Enhancing the theoretical foundations of inter- and transdisciplinary (from a policy perspective)

Questions for the panel:

- What was the context and rationale of each of the TD projects and how are they positioned between transdisciplinary research and policy objectives?

- How did you apply policy concepts and methods in a transdisciplinary setting and vice versa?

- What implications do you think TD has for policy and vice versa?

- What can we learn from policy research (methods/concepts) for transdisciplinary settings?

- In your role as a pioneering researcher in the intersection of these fields, where do you see the main contribution of your work in reconsidering the role of diverse actors in society in both bottom-up and top-down decision-making?

Key readings:

Pohl, C. (2008). From science to policy through transdisciplinary research. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.06.001

Maas, T. Y., Pauwelussen, A., & Turnhout, E. (2022). Co-producing the science–policy interface: Towards common but differentiated responsibilities. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01108-5

Format of the Session:

Our session will include short presentations of three chapters (10x3=30 minutes presentation time in total) of a new PPE textbook, co-edited by Jan Pieter Beetz and Selin Dilli, followed with feedback, questions and a general discussion (30 minutes for general discussion). We are keen to hear feedback from interdisciplinary and educational experts on our textbook.

The title of the presentations in the session are:

Presentation 1. Chapter 2: Interdisciplinary Research Process: How to systematically analyze PPE challenge? (Jan Pieter Beetz)

Presentation 2. Chapter 4: Closing the Gender Equality at Work: How does the diversity of women's work matter? (Selin Dilli)

Presentation 3. Chapter 5: Democracy in Crisis: Is polarization a problem? (Stefanie Beyens)

Content of the Session:

Despite the growing education initiatives on interdisciplinarity between the humanities and social sciences, such as the bachelors (Philosophy Politics and Economics (PPE)), IoS minor and UU-wide courses, teaching materials tailored to interdisciplinary programmes such as PPE are still missing. There are two major issues. First, so far, the standard textbooks on interdisciplinary research and education provide a general framework. Yet, these models of interdisciplinarity remain rather universal models and abstract for students and ‘disciplinary’ teachers with limited experience teaching interdisciplinary courses. For example, the distinction between the last two stages of interdisciplinarity - finding common ground and integration - remains blurry and as a result, is often used interchangeably both in the reference books as well as in our teaching practices. Second, while the literature provides integration tools on how to integrate different disciplines, such as redefinition, transformation or extension, they remain inaccessible without real-life application to PPE related themes. The few standard textbooks on interdisciplinarity are skewed towards with examples from natural sciences and social sciences (e.g, Repko, Szostak and Buchberger 2020; Menken and Keestra 2016), which makes it less suitable for the purpose of PPE like studies drawing upon closely related, yet distinct disciplines in the humanities and social sciences.

This co-edited textbook aims to address these issues. The textbook has three goals:

1) Offer a more simplified and student friendly approach to interdisciplinarity for PPE+ Programmes. In the introduction of the book, we will first provide an innovative interdisciplinary framework. The current literature continues to firmly rely on Repko’s groundbreaking work. However, this approach remains suboptimal for PPE teaching purposes. We present a six-step interdisciplinary research method to systematically integrate insights, while addressing challenges particular to PPE like programs. After presenting this framework, each chapter will demonstrate this approach when applied to PPE related research themes, such as democracy, inequality, and sustainability.

2) Fill the dearth of materials for PPE education. On the one hand, most interdisciplinary textbooks are not tailored to the specifics of PPE programs with their focus on the humanities and social sciences as well as normative and empirical insights. On the other hand, one of the few PPE texts – the handbook on Philosophy Politics and Economics (Melenovsky, 2022) – introduces topics relevant to PPE students but it is silent on the challenges of interdisciplinarity. Moreover, this reference book seems more aimed at advanced students and fellow scholars rather than bachelor students. By bringing interdisciplinary education and PPE strands together, our goal is to address an important gap in the interdisciplinary PPE education.

3) Provide an interdisciplinary teaching book that properly represents the humanities, in particular disciplines such as history and philosophy. As touched upon above, the dominant textbooks on interdisciplinarity remain skewed towards examples from natural sciences and social sciences (e.g, Repko, Szostak and Buchberger 2020; Menken and Keestra 2016). We aim to address this gap in the literature. The book should therefore not only be of interest to PPE educational programmes but also have potential in other interdisciplinary studies that are/will be set up in the humanities and social sciences, such as UCU and PPLE.

Presentation 1:

This presentation introduces our six-step approach to interdisciplinary analysis of societal problems. The chapter aims to walk students through the interdisciplinary research process without requiring any additional resources. In addition, it lays the foundation for the subsequent applications in the thematic chapters (Chapters 3-10). The six steps are: (1) problem definition; (2) disciplinary analysis; (3) perspective taking (4) analyzing common ground; (5) integrating insights; and (6) a comprehensive understanding. We built upon the groundbreaking work of scholars in interdisciplinary studies (e.g. Repko and Szotsak 2016; Repko et al. 2017; Menken and Keestra 2016), however we simplify the existing approach for a tailored problem-driven PPE+ research.

Presentation 2.

Current economic approaches to gender equality primarily focus on women's wage labor, offering limited insights into less 'traditional' forms of work women engaged historically that continues to be relevant globally today. To develop a more comprehensive definition of women’s work, we integrate the disciplines of economics and history, using ‘redefinition’ as an integration technique to define women’s work. This involves considering not only women’s wage work but also their contributions in family businesses as co-workers and business owners where they historically contributed to the economy and continue to do so globally today.

Presentation 3.

This chapter aims to answer these questions through an interdisciplinary approach integrating research from political science and political philosophy. While both literatures offer unique insights into divided democracies, as lone disciplines both also face important limitations. Comparative and quantitative political science research provides an empirically rich description of polarization across various contexts and the impacts of such trends on public attitudes and satisfaction with democracy. However, empirical work often adopts a minimal conception of democracy, which does not always account for the full range of democratic values we may find important. Philosophical research, alternatively, provides a deeper normative account of democracy and how it relates to concepts of difference, disagreement, and identity. By operating at a high level of abstraction, however, this work rarely engages with issues of polarization or the dynamics of party politics. By integrating the insights of both disciplines, the chapter aims to offer a more sophisticated discussion of polarization's relationship to democracy. Combining empirical and normative strands of research, it distinguishes between polarisation based on political preferences on the one hand, and polarisation based on social identity on the other. Through multiple integration techniques, it analyses the implications of these different forms of polarization, arguing that they are likely to have very different consequences for democratic values.

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

As humanity faces increasingly complex challenges there is a rising demand for students and professionals with interdisciplinary competence. The Center for Interdisciplinary Education, INTED, addresses these needs by helping students, teachers, leaders, and stakeholders develop the skill set needed to tackle these challenges, and in leading change at the university level. The main goal is to become an international hub for research-based integration of interdisciplinary competence in education. We will do this by developing approaches and pedagogies and establishing a research basis for them, developing a culture for interdisciplinary teaching and learning, and disseminating the results. Students are at the heart of INTED, bringing together students from the Faculty of Humanities, the Faculty of Social Sciences, and the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at UiO to develop students' interdisciplinary competence. Students are included in the center's leadership team, making them key partners in every aspect of the center. The center started its activity in 2023 and has employed three student co-leaders, with backgrounds in different disciplines. These students were involved in shaping the center's strategic plans and ambitions, even in writing the center application, as well as designing and participating in the center’s interdisciplinary activities. Our student leaders also have responsibilities in the interdisciplinary facilitator program, in interdisciplinary workshops as both facilitators and leaders, in research projects, development teams, recruiting students, and with dissemination.

In our presentation, we describe the activities that the student leaders are involved in, such as workshops, summer projects, facilitator programs, and other center activities. We will also discuss our vision for student participation. We believe student involvement benefits the center in different ways. Students have resources that the center builds on in shaping the center and its activities to better fit the needs of both today’s students and the future demands of the world. Further, the center benefits from having a continuous dialogue with students, enabling us to tap into students' engagements and interests in order to develop interdisciplinary workshops and student activities. It also provides students with a unique opportunity to develop into leaders and representatives for their discipline, enabling them to take charge of both their own and their peers' education.

We wish to share our experience as student leaders and share how students partake in INTED’s goals and leadership. By highlighting our experiences, we hope to give insights into how one can involve students more proactively in the leadership of an interdisciplinary center. For the second half of the presentation, we wish to invite the audience to give input, share ideas, and reflect upon student involvement and leadership in academic centers. What are the challenges of giving students the leading position in developing interdisciplinary processes in a higher education institution?

Complexity is perhaps the most essential characteristic of our present world and societies. Reality has rendered multilayered and multi-leveled. This is the reality of the times in which we live; this is the complex actuality in which we must live, work, and lead. Thus, the current complexity that societies face requires leaders and people in general to embrace a more appropriate mindset since mindsets guide how we interpret what we observe from the world and from our interactions because every mindset represents a theory from which one interprets the world. Numerous scholars, thinkers, and researchers have agreed that many of the current knowledge-systems that guide leaders’ mindsets tend not to be appropriate to understand and to respond to the complexity of our multi-levelled and multi-dimensional relationship with the world.

It has been my experience that many graduate programs that claim to be interdisciplinary, are interdisciplinary mainly/only in name because they do not include much regarding the development of the necessary abilities to carry out interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary practice. Even though there has a been a lot of talking regarding the urgent need for collaborative work and research to address the complex problems that the world and our societies are facing today, educators, researchers, professionals, and people in general still struggle engaging in effective interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary practice. With that in mind, I embarked in the task to design and create of a course that introduces doctoral students to the necessary abilities, attitudes, and transformation for interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary practice.

My presentation will address the current lack of clarity regarding the application of interdisciplinary theory and practice within interdisciplinary doctoral programs. I will present the various models and frameworks that have been intricately woven together to assist students develop the necessary abilities, attitudes, and identities that they need to increasingly become interdisciplinary beings/individuals. Key components include reflexive practices, the need for integrative worldviews, the role of intercultural development in interdisciplinary practice, the importance of intellectual and cultural humility, and interdisciplinary leadership.

As part of the presentation, I will include videos of conversation with some of the students who have taken the course. This will be a creative way to integrate contributors from all sorts of backgrounds in my presentation. I will also present/show how journeying with the students throughout the duration of the course (and beyond) render a journey of collaboration and interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary practice and transformation.

Diversity in organizations is shown to improve creativity and innovation if members identify as part of the group and teams are able to leverage the unique perspectives of all individuals. For interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research teams, supporting diverse disciplinary perspectives is imperative. However, disciplinary differences are only one aspect of diversity in any team that needs to be considered. To improve demographic diversity in research environments, it is important to create inclusive spaces that encourage, see, hear, and support the unique, personal perspectives that researchers bring. In this study, we build upon a dialogic intervention that fosters interdisciplinary consciousness to elicit discussion on identities in research. We conduct this intervention with undergraduate researchers as a means to stimulate thinking about diversity of disciplinary, epistemological, and individuals’ personal perspectives in a group of students who are likely to continue working in research environments through graduate school and careers beyond. Undergraduate research programs are ripe for integrating interdisciplinary training because they are growing in number as a well-supported high impact learning experience, and they often bring together students practicing different forms of disciplinary inquiry. We argue that we can create more inclusive research spaces by centering students’ perspectives and facilitating open dialogue on how identity, privilege, and access shape decision-making and interactions with others. Between 2021 and 2022, we facilitated four dialogue-based workshops with students (n=59) participating in summer undergraduate research programs at Binghamton University, a doctoral granting institution classified as R1 with very high research activity within the State University of New York system, where peers discussed how identity influences access to research opportunities, choices in research, research process, and relationships. Through transcription and coding of these dialogues, we thematically analyzed how students discussed their experiences in research, factors surrounding their entry into research spaces, and perceptions of their own identities in relation to others while conducting research across disciplines and epistemologies. We found that undergraduate researchers view research as highly personal as they are consistently discovering, iterating, and embodying their unique identities throughout the research process. We highlight these student perspectives to better understand how we can adapt our practice as educators and research mentors to prioritize student interests towards the goal of creating inclusive research environments to support diversity—disciplinary as well as individual identities—in its many forms.

Much of the existing research on transdiciplinarity in education has focused on the student experience: that is, ways to scope transdisciplinary projects, as well as strategies to encourage students to think across disciplinary boundaries and integrate multiple perspectives when tackling a complex problem. An area that is still under researched is the role of the teacher in facilitating a transdisciplinary module or project – in particular, the extent of agency they have in the classroom. This is important because the teacher must play an active role in enacting the curriculum to suit the needs of a transdisciplinary class, where students come from diverse backgrounds.

Teacher agency is the extent of control that teachers have in their classroom and in their professional development. It is enhanced when there is personal and shared meaning of the curriculum, a sense of personal mastery over the subject, and a sense of connection and collaboration to develop change agentry (Hoban, 2002; Fullan, 2007; Ngyuen and Bui, 2016). This presentation will focus on the role of teacher agency in the following two aspects of a transdisciplinary classroom:

(i) Co-creation of lesson materials and classroom experiences: teachers should be empowered to adapt lesson materials, pacing and modes of delivery to suit the diversity of students in a transdisciplinary classroom;

(ii) Differentiating assessments: teachers should be empowered to adapt assessments and negotiate standards with students to allow for innovation and emergence to take place.

Using Singapore Polytechnic’s Media, Arts & Design School as a case study, this presentation will share the experiences of lecturers who developed and taught a series of three transdisciplinary project-based modules. In particular, how teacher agency is deliberately built into the lesson plans and assessments (based on the dimensions mentioned above), the ways teachers responded to and enacted their agency in their lesson materials and assessments, and finally, how teacher agency may have impacted learning outcomes. It is hoped that this presentation will generate greater discussion and research into the area of teacher agency and its impact on learning outcomes in a transdisciplinary classroom.

The co-production of new integrated knowledge by transgressing boundaries between science and society is one major principle of transdisciplinarity. Against the background of the planetary grand challenges and therefore on simultaneous scales of societal and scientific transformation, the implementation of participatory, transdisciplinary and transformative research and how it is embedded in the field of research practice by various sets of formats, methods and tools can no longer be called into question. However, it is still struggling to become a regular and natural part of the scientific system of research institutions as an established mode of research (alongside basic research and interdisciplinarity). This is necessary in order to initiate transdisciplinary projects in a more targeted manner and to support them in an advisory capacity, to link them in research and teaching and to establish long-term collaborations between research and society. An institutional transformation is essential at the strategic level of higher education policies, rules and processes. How can we overcome boundaries and create a common knowledge base to better enable and support transdisciplinarity as a research principle at Universities?

In the framework of the ENHANCE alliance and following the research and innovation dimension seven European Technical Universities aim to develop such a transformation agenda which enact the universities as drivers for sustainable development. Therein the knowledge exchange between science and society is one building stone of the transformation modules – named as sustainable development through transdisciplinary research. Both, common aspects and the diversity of practices, universities cultures and methodologies, are taken into account to develop synergies among the European network. Beyond this background, the following objectives has been followed:

1) to taken into account different status of experiences with transdisciplinarity, different universities policies and strategies as well as different practices,

2) to develop an integrative process for achieving a joined knowledge and working base and

3) to generate recommendations for institutional change within the alliance in terms of a gradual instituationalisation of transdisciplinarity.

Two key paths have been conducted and stimulate future implementation into practice: firstly, the development of a shared understanding of transdisciplinarity addressing interaction, societal challenges, co-production of new knowledge and aiming to societal transformation. Secondly, the development of a concept of good practices by identyfying and analysing a variety of different approaches of transdisciplinary initiatives. They represent all ENHANCE partners and the connection between the strategic and practice level of transdisciplinary projects, the different levels of societal engagement and a broad scope on societal impacts.

With this paper we want to represent how we step-by-step developed this mutual learning impact, discuss what triggers and barriers we identified and how we integrated them in the toolbox for institutional transformation. In doing so, we want to critically reflect on how we have worked through the process together, what different perspectives have been brought in and how synergies have been realised in the ENHANCE network. We want to show what we have learnt from this field of experimentation at the strategic level of institutional transformation and how it can possibly be transferred.

With this article we aim to conceptually deepen the notion of process knowledge for transdisciplinary research and create a framework for process design and facilitation of transdisciplinary events.

Transdisciplinary research represents a collective process in which societal actors together with scientists, do not act as recipients of academic results, but also come together in transdisciplinary events or workshops to pursue both their own and joint research questions through a collaborative process. Transdisciplinary research events and gatherings are thus of great importance for sustainability transformation, but also sensitive to heated human dynamics because of the diverse political and cultural perspectives and value systems that end up mingling in these processes. The concept of process design for transdisciplinary events, however - what it means, and especially how it is adequately executed - has hardly been addressed in the transdisciplinary literature. It is simply often assumed that events of participation, knowledge integration and co-creation are straight forward, without recognizing that enabling, hosting, and facilitating transdisciplinary spaces is an expertise. Hereby, psycho-dynamic insights are crucial aiming to be sensitive towards and drawing from social human dynamics as well as constantly questioning the very purpose of the process.

We therefore investigate the transdisciplinary literature and search for the very purpose of transdisciplinary research to better understand what to accomplish during these events. We find that there is no unified understanding of transdisciplinarity with a great difference in purposes. Although they stem from various schools with differences in ontology and epistemology, we argue that a transformative research methodology may start from here to distinguish process purposes of transdisciplinary events.

Building on this, the authors propose a pragmatic framework for designing and facilitating transdisciplinary events that foregrounds the purposes of transdisciplinarity. It undergoes three steps of opening, deepening, and closing the transdisciplinary space and proposes specific questions for the group and the individual.

The authors then highlight examples from illustrative transdisciplinary events embedded in research projects, including sessions at the UN Climate Change Conference, a workshop for initiating transdisciplinary projects, a community of practice, and an urban real-world lab. Finally, the importance of process knowledge and studying facilitation expertise for transdisciplinary research is emphasized.

The future of doctoral training is interdisciplinary. This is certainly the message put across by UK Research and Innovation’s (UKRI) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) via its growing portfolio of Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs). These offer to students a cohort-based PhD training programme that expects projects to come from and span different disciplines. In the CDTs for Topological Design and Formulation Engineering at the University of Birmingham, we have grappled with how to ensure that interdisciplinarity is not merely a buzzword but actually helps mould a coherent cohort identity that enhances the doctoral education experience. We want to do this to open students’ eyes to diverse career perspectives within and beyond academia, and to get staff and students challenging the academic status quo. In the case of doctoral education, a status quo that has persisted from 19th century Germany.

In this talk we will demonstrate how we are achieving this by actually extending the interdisciplinary expectations of physical science and engineering students via a transdisciplinary assessment experience in a module that explicitly addresses the interface between science and society through the lens of responsible research and innovation (RRI). After a learning experience on the module characterised by a flipped classroom approach and involving guest lecturers from non-scientific academic disciplines (Law, History of Science) and external partners (lawyers, entrepreneurs, industrial collaborators), students are then assessed by running their own citizens’ assembly on deliberative democratic principles, exploring a controversial scientific issue of their choosing. Through survey and interview data, we will show that this is a distinctly novel and transformative mode of assessment for students, and their overwhelmingly preferred one (of two in the module). We will also present data collected by the students themselves in the course of the assemblies, demonstrating their self-directed learning as a cohort as well as the impact their deliberations have had. We are lucky to have two distinct student bodies taking this module from two different CDTs, only one of which has had previous explicit training on the theory of interdisciplinarity—this offers us the unique opportunity to compare them and explore whether such priming in interdisciplinary scholarship affects the learning experience in a subsequent transdisciplinary assessment, as well as outcomes regarding views on careers and challenges to the academic status quo.

Running this module and assessment for five cohorts of students has provided a rich seam of data and experience to influence further impacts beyond those immediate ones on our students. At its most basic, we have produced a template for embedding a novel and exciting assessment method in other education programmes. But the explicitly transdisciplinary experience—unusual for most physical science and engineering students and staff members—provides a unique mechanism by which staff and students can shine a light on the very processes of the academic enterprise within which they find themselves. It encourages critical self-reflection and can lead to tangible impact across an institution. We will outline our plans to include more external stakeholders for even wider positive impact.

Climate change poses significant challenges to the German forestry sector, affecting ecosystems, biodiversity, and the overall vitality of forests. Warmer temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events contribute to the complex set of challenges. To address these challenges, the German forestry sector is exploring various adaptation strategies. This includes developing the cultivation of more climate-resilient tree species, implementing sustainable forest management practices, and developing early warning systems for pest outbreaks and extreme weather events. Additionally, efforts are underway to enhance public awareness and engagement, fostering a collaborative approach to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Against this background, our research employs a trandisciplinary approach combining stakeholder dialogues to understand stakeholder needs and co-creation processes to develop climate service products. The study focuses on climate extremes, including drought, heat, strong wind/storm, and heavy rain. Thereby we also aim to examine the differences in perception among authorities, scientists, and other forest users.

As part of the ClimXtreme project, a total of 27 semi-structured stakeholder interviews with an average duration of 90 minutes were conducted with 22 forest practitioners. Additionally, two workshops with three key practitioners eachhave been carried out. In addition to the project team's own expertise, the tdAcademy was also involved in parts of the project for questions relating to transdisciplinarity, co-creation and stakeholder participation in general. The main aim here was to monitor and evaluate the intended and achieved social impact of the transdisciplinary work.

Stakeholders acknowledged the increasing frequency and severity of climate extremes, with particular concern for drought and heatwaves. They stressed the necessity of proactive and context-specific adaptation measures. The importance of resilient tree species and species mixture was underscored, with an added emphasis on strategies tailored to address the specific challenges posed by drought and heat events. The findings reveal growing climate change-induced conflicts among forestry stakeholders, particularly exacerbated by water scarcity and rising temperatures. Proposed management techniques of the interviewed forest practitioners led partly to contradictory conclusions depending on the orientation of the forestry operation.

Stakeholders expressed an increased demand for more region-specific climate information, especially those providing early warning systems for droughts and heatwaves. Needs were also recognized to be able to better deal with increasing pressure from a critical public and to make forest decision-making processes more understandable to e.g. local forest visitors. To comply with this, a flyer for public relations was co-created with the Karlsruhe City Forestry Office (cf. Poster session).

Overall, this project has shown the promising potential of integrative research, especially since a better understanding of the challenge can be achieved through a plurality of perspectives. Furthermore, the active participation of stakeholders in co-creative research processes can lead to a stronger commitment to and identification with the relevant topic. In addition, mutual understanding and knowledge is improved by new opportunities for participation and involvement in knowledge generation.

Capacity for transdisciplinary approaches in integrated assessment modelling (IAM) teams is largely lacking and if addressed, such capacity could tackle the many criticisms and challenges IAMs face at a systemic level. IAMs are computer simulations showing complex interactions between human systems and natural systems and their results increasingly inform sustainable development and climate policies (van Beek et al. 2020). This major role explains why IAMs encounter growing scepticism and criticism (Skea et al. 2021) about lack of transparency on limitations and assumptions (Royston et al. 2023), and not adequately considering the complexity and uncertainty of societal dynamics (Beckage et al. 2020). To address these criticisms, participatory modelling has underscored the importance of stakeholder participation to legitimise model results and increase their uptake (Doukas et al. 2018) for the last two decades. However, the degree of participation has been limited, and mostly entails engaging stakeholders to validate results and research questions (Braunreiter et al. 2021), therefore not addressing criticisms systemically. Additionally, IAMs commonly integrate diverse knowledge (van der Sluijs 2001) and modelling teams often span institutions, disciplines, countries and fields of interest. Therefore, not only does stakeholder participation need to be more in-depth to address criticisms of IAMs, but effective integration of diverse teams and their knowledge is also needed. This raises the question, what transdisciplinary principals and processes could be introduced to IAM teams build the capacity to address these challenges at a systemic level?

The DIAMOND project–Delivering the next generation of open integrated assessment models for net zero, sustainable development– aims to design and implement a transdisciplinary approach to develop IAMs to better inform decision-making around achieving net zero emissions and sustainable development. Taking the DIAMOND project as a case study, this paper presentation delves into how to build transdisciplinary competences among modellers, researchers and stakeholders in creating more open, robust and relevant IAMs, and what highlights which competencies are vital. With these principals and processes in mind, the paper presents the first phase of the DIAMOND’s transdisciplinary approach that focused on building transdisciplinary capacity using joint problem framing, focus groups, online workshops and surveys. Ethnography was also used to make observations on what challenges and barriers to adopt transdisciplinary principles and processes were present during the first phase.

The paper shows how capacity for transdisciplinarity is being reached in the DIAMOND case to achieve more effective stakeholder engagement, and successful acquisition and integration of diverse knowledge into model development. I will elaborate on how the team is expanding the scope of participatory modelling to implement a transdisciplinary approach into IAMs, as DIAMOND’s main goal is to develop models that are codesigned, coproduced and co-owned by the consortium and stakeholders alike. The paper underpins what key transdisciplinary principles and processes are important for IAM teams to build capacity around, concluding that such transdisciplinary capacity could improve the quality, societal robustness and practical relevance of IAMs to inform sustainable development policies.

The dengue virus affects human health and is transmitted mainly in the Americas by the urban mosquito Aedes aegypti. The distribution and abundance of this species is associated with the growing increase in urbanization, the movement of people, sociocultural practices, the Climate change and state policies. These conditions multifactorial conditions require an ecosystem approach, which considers the eco-bio-social, political and gender factors with an effort transdisciplinary that allows scientists to be associated with decision makers decision and community members in joint action. For such reason it is proposed to develop a participation strategy community for the prevention and management of risk factors in dengue transmission with perspectives on climate, environment, society and culture.

The notion of participation takes on a double importance in the face of this problem due to the importance of the development of democratic processes in communities and the need to involve them in actions strategic approaches to the problem of the disease dengue fever.

The proposal is being addressed through a mixed methodology study, with a transdisciplinary approach, based on the analysis of the occurrence of dengue cases with respect to climatic and environmental variables, the analysis of the risk perception of vulnerable communities, and the co-production of knowledge and solutions with the actors of the territory.

The study is being carried out simultaneously in Córdoba (Argentina) and Santa Marta (Colombia), with the participation of the territorial entities and national institutions involved in the climate and health nexus.

The integrative model of transdisciplinary research incorporates societal and scientific problems and is designed to produce both societal and scientific results (Bergmann et al. 2012). A lot of work has been done on understanding the social and societal effects of transdisciplinary research (TD) (Pärli 2023). However, less attention has been paid to understand what we mean by scientific impact of TD research, which is often referred to also as scientific effect or results of TD research. Rather, conceptual vagueness, the narrow focus and limited research on scientific impact in TD research were described. In order to capture the consequences of TD research in certain parts of the scientific system, different terms such as results, outputs, outcomes, and effects have been used. In addition to these terms, we use the term impact to evaluate potential changes in the (social) structures of the scientific system and its links to other social systems that are influenced by TD research. This forms the basis for investigating whether and how certain outputs, outcomes or effects of TD research affect structural dimensions of the science system (e.g. research modes, methodologies and mechanisms of resource allocation). The Fellow Group "Transdisciplinary Research and its Scientific Impact" of the tdAcademy aimed to address these conceptual issues related to scientific impact in TD research.

Therefore, we conceptualized the impact of TD on science through the epistemic dimension, the ethical dimension, and the organizational dimension, which evolve and influence each other over time (Rütten et al. 2024). The epistemic dimension refers to everything that is connected to knowledge generation and validation. The ethical dimension pertains to whether and to what extent TD research has an impact on the values and norms that underpin the scientific knowledge production system. The organizational dimension relates to the organization of the TD research practice itself, the institutional embedding of this practice in the scientific system as well as certain structures of the wider social and political environment of TD research.

We assume a dynamic interplay between social and scientific impact of TD research. Knowledge exchange and collaborative action, on the one hand, may lead to new interorganizational coalitions in order to solve social problems in a sustainable way. On the other hand, a long lasting participation in such coalitions may have several implications for changing practices in participating scientific organizations that in turn may affect the capacities of future TD research and its social impact again. In addition, more reflections on scientific impact may stimulate strategic considerations how to better position TD research in the context of the scientific system.

Session design: The aim of this session is to use the opportunity of ITD24 to further elaborate our conceptual framework of scientific impact with the international community in the field of TD research, to learn from each other and to broaden our perspective on the scientific impact of TD research.

We will start with a brief introduction on the role of scientific effects in TD research (3min).We will then present a question related to the conceptualization of scientific impact and will use the 1-2-4 method (10min). People will first think alone about the question, then in a group of two people and finally two groups will discuss their ideas related to the question together. In the next round, each group of four people will present their results (2-3min per group). Afterwards we will present the conceptual framework of the scientific impact with the epistemic dimension, the ethical dimension and the organizational dimension as well as experiences and first results of the working group within the Society for Transdisciplinary and Participatory Research (12min). Finally, we will discuss commonalities, differences and open questions with all participants in a moderated group discussion (15min).

In addition, we will record important results of the discussion visually and in writing and share with the TD research and practice community via a blog post.

References

Bergmann, M., T. Jahn, T. Knobloch, W. Krohn, C. Pohl, E. Schramm. 2012. Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus Verlag.

Pärli, R. 2023. How input, process, and institutional factors influence the effects of transdisciplinary research projects. Environmental Science & Policy 140: 80–92.

Rütten, A., Caniglia, G. Semrau, J., de Leeuw, E., Beecroft, R. (under review). The other side of the coin: What do we mean by “scientific impact” of transdisciplinary research? GAIA.

In this session we will discuss how an interdisciplinary culture is reflected among the students, teachers and staff at Utrecht University. Three separate empirical research projects will be presented, and a discussion will be facilitated to compare and contrast these findings with other (monodisciplinary) educational contexts. For this discussion, we have invited several experts in the research field as a discussion panel, including Katrine Lindvig. With this session we aim to facilitate an insightful exchange that will help attendees understand how interdisciplinary educational cultures develop at Utrecht University and other higher education institutions.

Although Utrecht University has a longer history of creating interdisciplinary education, it has only recently again been fore fronted as an important strategical goal. Reasons mentioned for desiring ‘more and better’ interdisciplinary education include, for example, how it might aid students in addressing complex societal problems, such as climate change and migration. In line with this strategic aim, Utrecht University has endeavoured to promote the development and maintenance of interdisciplinary education through funding programmes for educational innovation and professionalisation. However, for a university with a mostly disciplinary organisational structure and tradition, setting up interdisciplinary education necessitates major changes in the following areas:

• governance structures,

• teaching roles and skills,

• student expectations and learning.

Research has shown that in order to achieve sustainable interdisciplinary education, a holistic cultural change is required, with recognition and appreciation of interdisciplinary education in many aspects (Cai, 2017; Klein, 2009). In other words, we adopt this idea of an ‘interdisciplinary culture’ in an attempt to go beyond research that looks at a shift towards interdisciplinary education as one course, minor or degree and its impact on either teachers, students or managers. Instead, we want to take a broader perspective on how interdisciplinary education is (not) developed and sustained within a university at these different levels. Moreover, by examining what an interdisciplinary culture entails, we hope to understand how Utrecht University aims to change its educational structure in such a way that interdisciplinary education can become more than a trendy buzzword of the 2020s but an integral part of the university’s educational structures. This session will explore this cultural shift from three perspectives: organisational perspective, teacher perspective and student perspective.

To study interdisciplinary culture from a governance perspective within the broader organisation, Zowi Vermeire conducted an organisational ethnography of three projects within Utrecht University that aim to implement (more) interdisciplinary education. She specifically looked at these projects through the lens of pedagogical governance: the ways in which the university structures, recognizes and values education. Such a perspective has enabled us to analyse how social relations and infrastructures are or are not changing around a cultural transition towards (more) interdisciplinary education. At the same time, this perspective has enabled us to look at who is (held) responsible and given power for such (lack of) changes. In other words, this research maps a cultural shift towards (more) interdisciplinary education by paying specific attention to the underlying, normative ideas about the educational role of the university.

To explore teachers’ perspectives on interdisciplinarity and to investigate the facilitators and barriers teachers perceive in obtaining an interdisciplinary culture among their colleagues and within their discipline, Jessica Oudenampsen conducted a vignette study at Utrecht University. Based on an exploratory survey study several vignettes have been created, to study; 1) What stimulates or hampers teachers to teach or develop interdisciplinary education at UU, 2) What actions or changes would help to overcome these barriers, and 3) What actions or changes would help to make the interdisciplinary culture more prevalent among colleagues. By analysing the results, Oudenampsen was able to map what is needed for teachers to be able to implement interdisciplinary education and to create an interdisciplinary culture amongst colleagues and within their discipline.

To explore students’ perspectives on interdisciplinarity, Jael Draijer has interviewed students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds at Utrecht University about their views on interdisciplinary education. At Utrecht University, much of the interdisciplinary education is set up as optional minors and courses (i.e., electives), which means that students have to actively choose to pursue this type of education in their elective spaces. Most of the students that were interviewed had no previous experience with interdisciplinary education and had different interpretations of the term. While some were interested in the idea of interdisciplinarity, most explicitly linked their choice of minor to their future educational choices (i.e., which minor will I need to get into my chosen Masters programme?) and hence did not prioritise interdisciplinary education in their choices.

Bringing together the insights from these three separate empirical studies, we present overarching themes relating to the development of an interdisciplinary culture, e.g., commonalities and differences in the way interdisciplinarity is understood at different levels in the organisation. Furthermore, we have identified key opportunities and barriers towards creating and sustaining an interdisciplinary educational culture at a traditionally disciplinary organised university. By providing a discussion with participants from different backgrounds and different universities, using our research results obtained from different perspectives, we aim to place our results in a broader context so that both we and the participants will obtain useful insights about developing and sustaining interdisciplinary cultures at traditionally disciplinary-organised universities.

Session design

During the session, the researchers will present their research in an integrated way, by highlighting themes that emerged from the three studies (15 min). After that, the panellists will react on the results from their own (interdisciplinary) perspectives (15 min). After these introductions, we will start a discussion about fostering interdisciplinary cultures at universities across the globe, and possible consequences that emerge from the results (30 min).

Universities and other research institutions have been the target of demonstrations, petitions, and occupations in recent years. Citizens, students, and staff alike have called for revision of existing research connections with the carbon industry, with surveillance and AI companies, with warring countries like Russia and Israel and so on. The contents of academic programs have also been scrutinized from this same critical perspective, raising questions about how their contents should be determined and who should be involved. Such concerns about science and academia’s complicity in or resistance against ethically undesirable engagements are becoming louder and more prevalent across the globe.

These developments show a decisive rift from the traditional view of academia and science harboring in their ivory tower. This position seemed more in line with Merton’s influential 1942 analysis of the ‘ethos of science’, it being determined by its universalism, the common ownership of its goods, its organized skepticism and its disinterestedness (Merton 1942). That position had already lost much of its appeal and persuasiveness, due to increasing awareness of the interdependencies between science and societal domains like the military, industry, government, politics and so on. In addition, science’s role in war, in oppression and surveillance, in climate change and other crises has extensively been documented.

In parallel to this increasing awareness of science’s societal position and its ‘dirty hands’, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary (ID/TD) science have become ever more prominent in addressing these crises and other real-world problems. Indeed, their apparent greater societal relevance appears to be a main reason for the attractiveness of these new modes of science (cf. (National Academy of Sciences 2005). This relevance is partly due to the fact that ID/TD projects explicitly foster not only scientific pluralism but also require the integration of social and societal actors. As such, they bolster the integration of the interests, norms and values these actors bring. Yet it remains to be seen whether doing ID/TD projects are by their very nature better placed to respond to the calls against complicity and for resistance, as some suggest.

This panel addresses these issues by elaborating how ID/TD research and education navigate the spectrum between complicity and resistance. Does the explicit integration of societal interests and moral norms and values protect against the complicity in the production of crises or injustices? If not, how could the resistance against these be enhanced in ID/TD projects? Is the integration not often being misunderstood as a form of synthesis or consensus such that it undermines necessary critique? Does the real-world nature of ID/TD projects lead in some cases to losing the bigger -moral- picture of their contribution to crises and injustices? Who should be accepted as stakeholders in such projects, including future generations or natural entities like rivers or species? In other words, what angles and instruments are available to ensure that ID/TD projects don’t ignore their responsibility in navigating explicitly between complicity and resistance?

This interactive workshop aims to explore these questions, leading to an articulation of how ID/TD projects can and should explicitly position themselves on the spectrum between complicity and resistance. What questions should be raised when; what actors and stakeholders should be included; what options for actions are available? The workshop will start with brief presentations by the panelists, who will all present on the following elements:

1. reference to a particular perspective or case (study) from their ID/TD expertise, illustrating their account of this spectrum between Complicity and Resistance

2. indicate how their account addresses particular features of ID/TD research that allows certain decisions or actions regarding this Complicity-Resistance spectrum

3. close with one recommendation for ID/TD projects generally to address and navigate this Complicity-Resistance spectrum.

A plenary and moderated conversation will explore how we can turn the collected positions on the Complicity-Resistance spectrum into an instrument that helps ID/TD researchers to reflect on and articulate their own position.

Workshop presenters are:

- Dr. Machiel Keestra (University of Amsterdam; m.keestra@uva.nl ; https://www.uva.nl/profiel/k/e/m.keestra/m.keestra.html - convener)

- Prof.dr. Steve Fiore (University of Central Florida; sfiore@ucf.edu ; https://csl.ist.ucf.edu/People )

- Dr. Paul Hirsch (SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry; pahirsch@esf.edu ; https://www.esf.edu/faculty/hirsch/index.php )

- Prof.dr. Jan Schmidt (Hochschule Darmstadt; jan.schmidt@h-da.de ; https://wipsy.h-da.de/ueber-uns/lehrende/jan-schmidt )

- Prof.dr. Ulli Vilsmaier (Responsive research; vilsmaier@responsiveresearch.org ; https://responsiveresearch.org/team-2/#ulli-vilsmaier )

Merton, R. K. (1942). ´The normative structure of science [1942]. The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. R. K. Merton. Chicago, Chicago University Press: 267-.

National Academy of Sciences, E. a. M. N. (2005). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research: 332.

Despite an increasing number of scholars and practitioners engaging with diverse actor groups to co-produce knowledge, we need to better understand how we can purposefully design and facilitate these processes to support taking action to move towards more sustainable futures.

To contribute to a better understanding of the drivers and mechanisms behind successful knowledge co-production, this oral presentation focuses on how a careful and deliberate design helps dialogue-based processes achieve their intended outcomes. We structured a dialogue process around systems, target, and operational knowledge as the conceptualization and guiding framework for understanding and addressing sustainability problems in complex social-ecological systems. Different complementary activities invited actors to look at these problems through multiple lenses and reflect on their own positions, perspectives, knowledge, and values.

Through a carefully designed and documented workshop series on Öland, Sweden, as our empirical case study, we trace how actors’ perceptions of problems and solutions changed during three sequential and aggregative workshops. We also demonstrate how we moved from exploring the multifunctionality of landscapes and understanding actors’ different values, preferences, and priorities, to developing four strategies for effectively accelerating and expanding adaptation efforts. We reveal how the process of mobilizing, articulating, and connecting individually held systems, target, and operational knowledge nurtures collective action.

We believe that insights on how a careful and deliberate design helps dialogue-based processes achieve their intended outcomes would be of timely interest and relevance to attendants of the International Transdisciplinarity Conference 2024. With a detailed account of the different sequential phases and complementary activities of our workshop series, we provide guidance for other scholars, practitioners, and policymakers, who wish to engage a variety of actors in addressing sustainability challenges in inclusive and equitable ways.

Landscapes, understood as a manifestation of the action and interaction of natural and human factors (Council of Europe, 2000), form an important basis for high quality of life and are considered an important resource for humankind. Climate change significantly impacts landscapes and the services they provide. This paper argues that, due to their inherently relatable and tangible characteristics, landscapes support creating common visions, collaboratively identifying pathways towards these and participatory solution-orientated experimentation.

To support our argument, we present the concept and some initial findings of the transdisciplinary research project “Climate change – landscapes: designing sustainable futures (KLANG)”, which investigates the development and use of participatory landscape scenarios focussed on climate change in transformative regional processes towards sustainable development. Within KLANG, local landscape scenarios in the form of landscape visualisations and stories of landscape change are being developed in a transdisciplinary process involving local stakeholders and scientists in three case study regions in Switzerland. Embedded in a co-design process, these scenarios are being specifically tailored to contribute to ongoing future-oriented processes in the regions, such as devising strategies and actions for climate-resilient regional development, planning adaptation and mitigation measures, incorporating climate change into landscape management policies or devising regional energy strategies.

By combining visualisations and storytelling, we (1) strive to facilitate the integration of local knowledge on the landscape system, including regional identity, with scientific knowledge on the impacts of climate change, adaptation and mitigation strategies. In working at the local landscape scale, we (2) aim to contribute to the audience-orientated climate change communication and, in doing so, enable stakeholders to forge connections between the global phenomenon of climate change and everyday life, identity and personal scope of action. By using futuring techniques, our goal is to (3) foster a solution-oriented mindset and allow individuals, regional stakeholder groups and decision-makers to discover options to influence future landscape development under climate change.

Overall, this transdisciplinary social learning process aims to collaboratively envision solutions to real-world problems at the landscape level and empower those involved to actively shape the(ir) future.

Council of Europe. (2000). Council of Europe Landscape Convention as amended by the 2016 Protocol (European Treaty Series No. 176). https://rm.coe.int/16807b6bc7

The inherent complexity of sustainability challenges calls for the collaboration among scientific disciplines and between science and society to co-create knowledge and solutions. Inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) research methods and tools have gained significant attention as a means to bridge disciplinary boundaries and foster collaboration within research processes aiming for societal impact. However, organizing impact-driven ITD research programs remains a challenge, due to the complexity of the sustainability problems and the need of integrating different types of knowledge and disciplines. One tool often employed in ITD research is the Theory of Change (ToC). Traditionally used for ex-post impact evaluation, a ToC has the potential to guide the design of impact-driven ITD programs, yet its application in this context is relatively unexplored. This paper illustrates and reflects on the process of collaboratively designing an ITD research program using a ToC, thus contributing to the theory and practice of ITD research. The ToC approach was implemented in the Joint Research Program of the Dutch and Flemish drinking water sector for the period 2024-2029. The drinking water sector increasingly faces societal responsibilities encompassing a broad range of interconnected sustainability challenges associated with drinking water production. In response, Dutch water utilities and one Flemish utility have been transitioning towards more impact-oriented research. In 2021, a two-year co-creation process involving ITD researchers, program managers and water utility professionals was initiated to redesign the Joint Research Program, which undergoes renewal every six years. The result of the process is a program ToC with short and long-term outcomes and pathways to 7 types of impact (health; environmental; economic; scientific and technological; political; social and cultural; and educational) that inform the identification of the program’s research themes and research lines. In our presentation, we will illustrate the iterative co-creation process, reflect on its challenges and lessons learned, and discuss future developments for monitoring and evaluation of the program. In so doing, we present a comprehensive approach to using ToC, how it can contribute to impact-driven ITD research, and the process of fostering impact-awareness among researchers and professionals.

The workshop begins with a brief presentation of what the Global Inter- and Transdisciplinary (henceforth ID-TD) Mentorship Initiative is/was all about, and how and why I perceive that this Initiative, which I started in 2021, has failed. Participants would then proceed to jointly discuss important aspects of global ID-TD mentoring, and brainstorm how we could create tools and communities for mentorship that would not be limited by the kind of struggles my original initiative experienced; i.e. conceptualizing the past struggles as productive failures enabling future success. Ideally, the workshop will be followed by an action plan and call to gather interested people to contribute and make it happen beyond the workshop and conference.

Background:

In 2021, I started developing the so-called Global Inter- and Transdisciplinary Mentorship Initiative, the main idea of which was to develop a wide-encompassing and inclusive network of mentors and mentees with an ID-TD focus:

- The Initiative aimed to extend access to sustainable and context-sensitive mentoring and peer-support for ID-TD early-career researchers (henceforth ECRs) and students, as they pursued their paradoxical and risky role as change-makers (see Dooling et al. 2017), pushing academia to become more open for ID-TD approaches.

- The initiative placed special emphasis on regions where ID-TD programs and centers are still relatively marginal, especially across the Global South.

- The Initiative also aimed to increase understanding about the specific challenges and forms of discrimination experienced by ID-TD students and ECRs in different regional and other contexts.

Many ID-TD networks and scholars at different career stages and regions expressed immediate or gradual interest in the initiative. However, by late 2023, I decided to stop advancing the Initiative for the following reasons:

- Lack of collaboration and integration between the networks and people involved. The Initiative was planned with the same idea as the ITD Alliance: a network of networks, which support one another in the development of similar goals in different contexts. In practice, each network that expressed interest in the Initiative wanted to create its own working group, to develop the initiative building on its specific interests and context and needs, quickly starting to dismiss needs and contexts of the other groups. Within months of starting the initiative, the “global” collaborative aspect of the initiative was lost; the forest was not seen for the trees. At the same time, I find that the existence of local groups is important, as it is only in this way that we can learn about context-specific needs and challenges. I.e. the Initiative failed to develop a functional glocal approach.

- Lack of leadership and coordination. As the person who had started the initiative, I was expected to lead the [non-existent] global network and all the different local groups at the same time. My time went into navigating endless meetings with each organization and its subgroup, each of which also expected me to fully understand and prioritize their specific needs and context, even if I often had no prior experience with their organization. I ran out of time, energy, and motivation within weeks from starting. This was especially the case considering that my own research focuses on journalism studies, not research on ID-TD; henceforth the initiative or nothing I do for these groups counts towards my own research career at all. I felt as though none of this was considered by the groups involved in the initiative. Lesson learned: From the start, I should have appointed someone to lead each group, vs. trying to assume that responsibility myself. I tried, but there really weren’t any volunteers. I still should have spoken up much more clearly about my own boundaries and position from the start.

- Lack of communication, as to what it takes to launch and create this initiative (vs. expecting results and benefits right away). Many of the ECRs and students who wished to become involved wanted me to provide them with their ideal mentor right away, without considering that the initiative and the pool of potential mentors first needs to be developed with the help of everyone. It was as though within weeks of starting, some of the people involved were annoyed that I couldn’t just give them what they were personally after, without even wanting to give anything in return. At the same time, I fully understand the despair I sensed – many of these students and ECRs had been looking for a suitable ID-TD mentor for years, and when spotting the Initiative, they no longer had the time or energy to consider what they themselves still needed to contribute to gain what should be considered a basic right in academia: a suitable mentor. Lesson learned: Whenever launching this kind of initiative, it is important to consider the needs – including emotional – and resources of the participants from the start, rather than assuming that everyone is on the same page and with resources to contribute and patience to wait.

Ethical considerations: This workshop does NOT seek to blame or shame any person or organization who was involved in the initiative. The only person who will be “named” at all is Kirsi Cheas, who planned and organized the initiative, and is happy to look in the mirror for the fore-described failures. The goal of the workshop is not to point a finger at absolutely anyone, the goal is to openly share past errors so we can learn from them collectively, rather than repeating them in the future. If this proposal is accepted, I would appreciate dialogue with the organizers of the ITD Conference in advance of the workshop, as to how to make sure the workshop feels like a safe place for all the participants (especially those who might have been involved in the development of the original Initiative), and no-one feels guilt-tripped in any way.

Organization of workshop: The workshop will start with a brief presentation of what the Initiative was (if pre-registration is possible, the description of the workshop on Google Drive can be shared to participants in advance), how it failed, and what is meant by the concept of Productive failure (e.g., Pearce 2020, Kapur 2016). The joint discussion can then begin. The participants will be first asked to spontaneously react to the ideas and failures presented, and how we could perceive them productively in the development of global ID-TD mentorship and related networking. Participants will then be divided into smaller groups, where they will be invited to brainstorm alternative initiatives/solutions for extending mentorship for ID-TD students and scholars in different global contexts. The ideas will be written on Miro Whiteboard. Participants interested in developing mentorship further will be asked to add their contact info on a separate sheet, which will then be shared amongst the interested participants, who can continue brainstorming beyond the workshop, continuing to build on the Miro board.

Contributors: The principal responsible person for the workshop is Kirsi Cheas, who will be in charge of the initial presentation and overseeing the conversations and brainstorming. In addition, I have spoken with various colleagues from my original organization Finterdis – the Finnish Interdisciplinary Society, who are planning to attend the ITD2024 conference in person and are willing to support the organization of the workshop (e.g. guiding small groups in conversation, helping with tech, etc.) if need be. The final composition of the workshop group will be decided upon learning the results of each willing participant’s individual submissions and conference travel grant application results.

This case study aims to explore partnership relationships and models in community-engaged learning, by presenting a case study about a Community-Engaged Learning (CEL) course entitled I am Utrecht. Some research has been conducted on exploring existing partnership relations and partnership models. The existing literature focuses on the characteristics that make the partnership work or the type of partnership models that CEL can offer, including course-driven, partner-driven, and theme-driven partnership models. However, in the course I am Utrecht we experience a new and more complex type of partnership, in which teachers of Utrecht University (UU) and an MDT societal partner (Serve the City Utrecht ) are co-designing the CEL course, whilst participating students and other societal partners form theme-driven partnerships during the course. This innovative case study explores the integrated curriculum co-design of the CEL course by exploring the co-creation process in the transdisciplinary team of teachers from the educational science department of Utrecht University and the MDT societal partner, responsible for the MDT (Maatschappelijke Diensttijd) trajectory of the students. MDT is a governmental scheme of voluntary work for young people from ages 12 to 30 to contribute to society. Participants and stakeholders gain experience with connecting to people outside their regular living environment. Upon completion of the requirements of the MDT, the volunteering students receive an MDT certificate. During the course, the MDT partner is primarily interested in capturing the personal learning goals and growth of students to ensure the MDT goals are met whilst UU teachers focus the class activities on both the personal learning goals of students and on creating meaningful social change in the local communities. In our experience, and according to sociocultural theory (Vygotsky & Rieber, 1997, Rogoff, 2003) the two are inseparable: personal growth takes place in a social and cultural context. Social change takes place when all parties are committed to learning. (Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M., 2007). This project aims to integrate personal learning and social change by capturing the co-design of the course which is the product of the co-learning process of the transdisciplinary team of UU teachers and the MDT partner. All stakeholders (students, teachers, partners, and MDT partner) are striving for social impact and are open to personal and collective learning to achieve this. With this case study, we aim to develop a co-learning framework at the teacher-MDT partner level to capture the intensive co-learning process that takes place in this course as we believe that a more integrated curriculum design is a result of a collaborative learning process which in turn creates a more powerful learning environment for the participants of the course.

Transdisciplinarity has attracted significant attention since its inception, particularly in research circles, but discussions have expanded to include education and its reform. However, existing discourses on transdisciplinarity in education often sidestep crucial questions regarding the formation of transdisciplinary concepts, their interrelations, and critical examination (Osborne, 2015). Instead, these discussions tend to focus disproportionally on the organizational aspects to prepare individuals to navigate the research processes. This approach poses a problem, as it creates a misleading impression of convergence that transdisciplinarity is resolving historical disciplinary siloes and their limited engagement with societal complexities. It overlooks the conceptual divergence, which spans various directions: as an approach to addressing societal challenges (Klein et al., 2001), a catalyst for new forms of knowledge production (Gibbons et al., 1994), a model of unity in complexity (Nicolescu, 2002), or even a meta-discipline (Mokiy, 2019).

This paper reconstructs the discourse surrounding transdisciplinarity, highlighting significant blind spots and nuances in its conceptualization. Through a critical examination of existing narratives, it challenges the prevailing notion of disciplinary isolation and the reductionist portrayal of transdisciplinarity as a corrective measure. Additionally, it explores the implications of these narratives on the competencies and skills valued in transdisciplinary education, advocating for a reexamination of transdisciplinary concepts and their interaction with societal needs.

Engaging with scholarly literature reveals a dominant discourse on transdisciplinary education, primarily situated within the realms of mixed disciplines and social sciences. However, this dialogue often overlooks active involvement from disciplines with well-defined boundaries, such as engineering and physics, as well as non-academic stakeholders. This study presents a reconstruction of a transdisciplinary narrative that promotes a balanced dialogue, capable of defining meaningful learning experiences and essential competencies necessary for students to effectively navigate transdisciplinary environments.

Reference:

· Compagnucci, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284

· Gibbons, M. (2000). Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and public policy, 27(3), 159-163.

· Klein, J. T. (Ed.). (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: An effective way for managing complexity. Springer Science & Business Media.

· Mokiy, V. S. (2019). International standard of transdisciplinary education and transdisciplinary competence. Informing Science, 22, 73.

· Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. suny Press.

· Osborne, P. (2015). Problematizing disciplinarity, transdisciplinary problematics. Theory, culture & society, 32(5-6), 3-35.

Tokyo College is an institute for advanced studies and academic think tank that was founded as a new and independent unit at The University of Tokyo, Japan in 2019.

Its three missions are transdisciplinary research, international network building, and public engagement. Its overarching research theme "The Earth and Human Society in 2050" is broken down into six transdisciplinary research themes surrounding digitization, sustainability, Japan's role in the world, the future of knowledge, the value of life, and identity.

Currently, the College is comprised of between fifty to sixty members with two directors, four tenured faculty, five project assistant professors, five project researchers, fifteen postdocs, ca. ten senior invited members, ca. five visiting scholars, and twelve staff members, as well as number of affiliated researchers inside the university and abroad.

As one of the first persons to join the College and its first tenured member, I aim to share and discuss in this contribution my experience and challenges in setting up a transdisciplinary institute and experimenting with transdisciplinary forms of collaboration.

The presentation will introduce five aspects of the transdisciplinary work at Tokyo College:

- fostering a culture of transdisciplinarity

- hiring for transdisciplinarity

- innovating transdisciplinary formats

- transdisciplinary teaching

- enhancing conceptual foundations and skills for transdisciplinary research

The presentation equally aims to share an example of good practice for capacity building for transdisciplinarity while also inviting a discussion with other practitioners and academic managers about challenges and limitations of a transdisciplinary basis for an institute of advanced studies on the institutional, practical, and conceptual levels.

Challenge

Life, disease prevention, and health(care) are rapidly evolving. This demands for future professionals that can address grand challenges to reach societal impact. For this, so-called 4C skills (collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creative problem-solving) are essential. The existing curricula in higher education have to be expanded so students are connected to a wide spectrum of disciplines, (inter)national partners, and (extra-academic) stakeholders. We believe that the transition towards globally-oriented transdisciplinary challenge-based education as an innovative framework in higher education is the appropriate way forward. We aimed to develop a novel transdisciplinary, international, challenge-based educational concept, grounded in the theoretical framework of research-based education, to improve transdisciplinarity, academic skills, and motivation in higher education. Research question: “How does this novel educational concept improve student perception of 4C skills, transdisciplinary mindset, and motivation?”

Methods

The novel EU-funded joint-degree Master’s program in Global Challenges for Sustainability, CHARM-EU1 meets this demand. CHARM-EU is a European University that started in September 2021, formed by an alliance of five research-based universities. During the first edition of the CHARM-EU module Health Challenges & Solutions (six-week full-time elective module), we briefed a group of international students through a plenary session with researchers, medical specialists, patients, and stakeholders who all came together in Barcelona2. We posed students the grand challenge: ‘How should the world deal with future pandemics?’. Subsequently, students were divided over three universities to frame hypotheses and execute research from different disciplinary perspectives. To facilitate this, we have developed multiple designated Student Research HUBs – physical and interdisciplinary innovation spaces within the heart of university faculties that have short lines to local research, researchers, faculty, and stakeholders. Transdisciplinary collaboration among these HUBs is reinforced by weekly online plenary work meetings, workshops, lectures, and symposia. This innovative European Student Research HUB network allows students from different disciplinary backgrounds, researchers, faculty, and stakeholders to collaborate transdisciplinary and internationally on a single major societal challenge in the health domain2.

Results

The module was evaluated by anonymized written questionnaires and focus groups focused on transdisciplinarity, academic skills, and motivation. Students appreciated the relevance of the global health challenge and the transdisciplinary collaboration. The educational framework inspired, motivated, and stimulated development of academic skills. Additionally, students valued the journey of doing authentic research and the autonomy they were given during this module.

Conclusion

Altogether, we have showcased a transdisciplinary, challenge-based, international concept in education that positively stimulates student perception of 4C skill development. The current module Health Challenges & Solutions of CHARM-EU has generated synergy between research and education in the life & health domain. The module of European-oriented transdisciplinary challenge-based education allows further upscaling towards a larger Student Research HUB network within and outside Europe with larger variety of disciplines and students.

References

1. CHARM-EU. https://www.charm-eu.eu/

2. Schakelaar MY, Bassat Q, Comiskey CM, Felvinczi K, Haarhuis JCM, Bovenschen N. Linked research hubs train students to tackle societal challenges. Nature. 2022 Nov;611(7936):449. doi: 10.1038/d41586-022-03665-w. PMID: 36380041.

This talk provides an overview of how science can inform policy- and decision-making in the face of accelerating biodiversity loss and its wide-ranging consequences. Among the characteristics various science-policy-society interfaces (SPSIs) share is that they transcend disciplinary boundaries, reflect diverse bodies of knowledge and contribute to the development of capacities, agencies, and tangible policies and measures to halt biodiversity loss. However, interfaces that inform or shape biodiversity-related decisions in policy, business, or other societal spheres vary in terms of the intensity of collaboration between science and societal actors, the level of knowledge integration, and formats of outputs and outcomes.

Starting point for the talk is a comparison of existing SPSIs, their targets and functions, but also their shortcomings and the criticism. Mechanisms like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) or the European Mechanism Eklipse, TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity are considered as well as national SPSI bodies. Against this background, the Senckenberg Synthesis and Solutions Labs, which are currently being set up, are introduced as an institutionally anchored programme. This programme aims to contribute significantly to the integration and evaluation of knowledge and the development of evidence-based options for action to protect and recover biodiversity. The programme is problem- and issue-oriented, contextualised, and stakeholder-based. As a research institution, Senckenberg has already received a high level of trust as an authentic and credible place for dialogue, science communication and knowledge transfer through its research, natural history collections and museum exhibitions. With the Synthesis and Solutions Labs, Senckenberg aims to achieve a new level of bilateral knowledge transfer between science and society, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The Synthesis and Solutions Labs are intended to promote social-ecological transformations and contribute to the development of a democratic knowledge society. The implementation of the labs is expected to have impacts on society and politics and, additionally, to enhance Senckenberg's research agenda, collection development, and exhibition practice with the structured identification of societal knowledge needs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that processes of knowledge exchange between researchers and policymakers present various challenges (i.e., lack of institutions, routines and trust). These challenges partially result from the nature of wicked societal problems such as pandemics or climate change that involve a lot of scientific uncertainty, expert disagreement and political contestation. Professionals who design and implement science-policy interactions face the challenge of selecting suitable formats to facilitate knowledge exchange under those conditions. Despite the acknowledged need for innovative co-productive formats to address wicked societal problems, linear formats persist in practice.

The study systematically categorizes science-policy interaction activities into distinct formats. The proposed typology differentiates between different actor constellations (Who is involved?), the function of the format (What is the aim?), the degree of co-production and transparency (How is the process?). For each format we describe aspects relevant for carrying it out, including specific strengths, resources needed, sub-activities, possible impact pathways and considerations for implementation.

The systematization helps to structure these activities, identify recurring patterns among them and foster cross-learning among organizers of different formats. Another aim of the systematization is to make innovative approaches available to a broader audience. For practitioners at the science-policy interface, the systematization serves as a tool for evaluating and optimizing existing formats or developing new ones.

We draw on cases of science-policy activities in Switzerland and Finland, covering diverse formats such as round tables, workshops, fora, fellowship programs and funding programs. Desktop research and semi-structured interviews with the organizers are used to analyse those activities.

The presentation addresses the enhancing the theoretical foundations of inter- and transdisciplinary stream of the conference. We present our framework, the systematized formats as well as first learnings from our own piloting of those formats. We thereby aim to share both theoretical as well as practical insights into the specific challenges and possible methodological solutions of the science-policy interface to the ITD community.

Policy makers and research funding bodies have increasingly embraced the potential of inter- and transdisciplinary research (ITDR) to tackle larger societal challenges. However, academic literature and funding agency reports show serious concerns and doubts about how best to assess ITDR proposals, as well as a lack of understanding of how particular funding calls and assessment procedures can shape ITDR practice. There is currently a pressing funding policy question on how best to assess ITDR to facilitate research with the optimal capacity to tackle complex problems. Answering this question requires a better understanding of how the interaction between funders and research teams informs the reality of funded ITD research, particularly when it comes to the composition and integration of transdisciplinary research teams involving non-academic actors.

This paper presents results from research commissioned by the Dutch research funder NWO around the assessment of ITDR proposals. The project was aimed at studying the current NWO practices of assessment of ITDR research proposals and using insights from the literature on ITDR and ITDR evaluation to make recommendations for improvement of assessment procedures. A combination of document analysis, semi-structured interviewing and observation was used to study current assessment practices in the context of three different funding calls to which ITDR proposals were submitted. The findings were compared to best practices presented in the existing literature and used to make recommendations for improvements and identify possible barriers for effective reforms.

The results point to two aspects of the assessment that are key to assessing ITDR proposals: The composition and degree of integration of review committees, and the degree to which alignment is achieved between funders, reviewers and applicant researchers concerning their understanding of key concepts such as ‘interdisciplinarity’, ‘quality’, and the formulated goals of funding calls and research proposals. Both factors are also shown to affect how uncertainties and tough decisions are resolved at different stages of the review process.

To add to these results, the research team is conducting interviews with the researchers who successfully applied for funding, in order to gain insight into how research teams and plans were (re-)shaped through interaction with the funding procedures, and how these took practical form once the grants were awarded. By combining this with the existing data, we will present a multidimensional picture of how the interaction between funding agency and the applying research consortia shapes transdisciplinary research teams, proposals, and the early phases of the research itself. Special attention will be given to the roles accorded to non-academic partners in funding applications, their prescribed roles in proposals, and their practical roles in the actual research.

In terms of capacity building for ITDR, this study adds both to the knowledge on the assessment of ITDR proposals and the role of funders in shaping research. In addition, the research also deepens our theoretical understanding of how transdisciplinary research, forms of integration, and the practical role of non-academic research partners are actually given shape in the process of reviewing processes, research development, and the interaction between researcher and funder.

Inter- and transdisciplinary approaches in science are recognized for their potential to address complex societal challenges comprehensively. Collaborative efforts between citizens, scientists, and policymakers are often advocated to enhance mutual trust and develop more socially robust scientific knowledge. However, empirical evidence supporting these claims remains limited. In this study, we explore the potential advantages of employing an inter- and transdisciplinary approach to science through two case studies on noise pollution.

Noise pollution poses a significant concern for Dutch communities residing near railroads and airports. Despite well-documented adverse health effects, the anticipated increase in rail freight traffic and air travel suggests that the problem is likely to exacerbate in the near future. For instance, the EU plans to double rail freight traffic by 2050 for sustainable transportation, while long-standing proposals aim to expand Schiphol airport.

Safeguarding the health and well-being of citizens is as a paramount goal of policymaking. Therefore, accurately assessing noise pollution is crucial for effective policymaking and enforcement. However, current methods in the Netherlands primarily rely on modeling and calculating long-term mean noise levels and -annoyance. These do not sufficiently address local experiences and concerns, such as short-term peak noise levels, leading to criticism and distrust.

In response to these challenges, concerned citizens have embraced the role of citizen scientists, measuring noise levels with affordable yet quality sound meters and reporting on the impact of noise on their well-being. Despite originating from frustration and distrust, this citizen science approach has the potential to bridge gaps between science, society, and policy.

Our study focuses on two interconnected case studies: noise pollution from freight train traffic in the village of America (Limburg), where a busy railroad is situated close to residential houses, and aircraft noise pollution around Schiphol Airport (North-Holland). Residents near the railroad experience increased annoyance due to longer and heavier freight trains, especially at night. Similarly, air traffic growth around Schiphol Airport intensifies noise pollution, causing annoyance and concern in neighboring communities.

Both citizen science projects involved scientists and citizens collaboratively conducting research in virtually every stage of the scientific process, including formulating research questions, data collection, and interpretation. Drawing on experiences from both case studies, we highlight the valuable impact of citizen participation in scientific research. Through interviews and project documentation, we explore the impact of citizen science on the social robustness of policy-relevant science regarding noise pollution. The results emphasize that acquiring "real-world knowledge" at a local level, employing a transdisciplinary approach, and using an iterative research process contribute to the social robustness of scientific knowledge in this field.

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.

How can transdisciplinary transformative change initiatives (TTCIs) be adapted to better address the global polycrisis of biodiversity loss, climate change, and intensifying social inequality? We suggest operationalizing critical social theory and centering Indigenous understandings of relationality and responsibility in co-productive collaborations aimed to (re)visibilize human interdependencies with each other and the rest of nature. We are a team of Indigenous stewardship specialists, academics, and Swiss nature conservation practitioners working on the coproduction of a novel adaptive transformative change approach that combines sustainability science, political ecology theory, and Indigenous and practitioner knowledge.

Although designed to initiate a “fundamental, system-wide reorganization across” society, “including paradigms, goals and values” (IPBES, 2019, p. XVIII), TTCIs rarely achieve the paradigmatic effects needed to address the polycrisis and two major critiques have been leveraged at practitioners and academics to explain why. The former are accused of creating apolitical solutions without incorporating theoretical lessons on the core causes of the polycrisis (Abson et al., 2017; Turnhout and Lahsen, 2022), while the latter are criticized for failing to translate theoretical knowledge into practical solutions (Chambers et al., 2022; Deutsch et al., 2023). Additionally, while some TTCIs have had success with redefining human-nature relations, the focus is usually on ‘reconnecting’ with (an external) nature (West et al., 2020), rather than on (re)visibilizing the inherent interdependencies emphasized by holistic worldviews. Finally, other TTCIs have engaged Indigenous perspectives, but often without an understanding of ontological politics, within the confines of conventional Western funding schemes, and/or too late in the process, resulting in problematic knowledge extraction or ancillary positioning of such perspectives (Lam et al., 2020; Latulippe and Klenk, 2020).

In our project, we counteract potential shortcomings of TTCIs by employing a project design that is groundbreaking in at least 3 ways: it (1) pairs the experiences and knowledge of Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics and practitioners from the outset to co-design practical solutions that address the polycrisis; (2) invites the intervention of Indigenous peoples in Western lands and practices, rather than the other way around (‘flip it’); and (3) aims to center holistic understandings of the world in dichotomous contexts (e.g. nature/culture) in order to reverse both the colonial flow of power/knowledge and the (imagined) disconnection among humans and the rest of nature (‘reverse it’). The project is carried out in three phases (Lang et al., 2012):

A) Problem framing and team building

B) Coproduction of generalized methods, practices, and protocols (MPPs) for (re)visibilizing socioecological connections, and a contextually adaptable prototype and assessment methods based on these MPPs for testing in a Swiss context in a follow-up stage

C) Analysis and (re)integration and application of created knowledge

In this (ITD24) workshop, we present our initial findings from our first project workshop held in Switzerland in May 2024. We will explain our progress towards creating MPPs for (re)visibilizing socioecological connections, as well as our process of ‘flipping’ the intervenor/intervened relationship, and ‘reversing’ the colonial flow of knowledge and the disconnection of humans and the rest of nature. We will then work with participants to apply our lessons-learned to specific cases brought to us by participants.

Additionally, for sessions, workshops and trainings

Workshop objectives

• Testing methods, practices, and protocols (MPPs) for (re)visibilizing socioecological connections

• Exploring what it means to decolonize ITD research in different contexts, using specific cases

• Thinking through what it means to ‘(re)visibilize’ humans’ connections among each other and the rest of nature, and how this might change approaches to ‘reconnecting’ with nature

Proposed schedule

1. (0’-15’)  Introduction to the project/concept

2. (15’-30’)  Group designations and project selection

3. (30’-60’)  Application of concepts to the selected project

4. (60’-85’)  Plenary and synthesis

5. (85’-90’)  Wrap-up

Detailed Description

1) Introduction to the project/concept. We will provide information on the background of the project and the concept of (re)visibilizing human interdependencies with each other and the rest of nature through decolonizing transdisciplinary transformative change initiatives (TTCIs). We will then introduce the MPPs we developed in our May 2024 project workshop.

2) Group designations and project selection. Participants will be asked to form groups of 4-5 and share their current projects with each other. Each small group will then decide on one of their projects to use as a case study for the rest of the workshop.

3) Application of concepts to the selected project. Each group will then be instructed to apply the MPPs to help them think about what practical steps would be needed to ‘decolonize’ the chosen project, as well as to shift from a goal of reconnecting with nature to one of (re)visibilizing inherent interdependencies among humans and the rest of nature.

4) Plenary and synthesis. We will bring everyone back together in a plenary to discuss their experiences with applying the MPPs/concepts. For this discussion, we will offer guided questions such as:

a. To what extent did you find the MPPs useful for your particular project? How could the MPPs be improved?

b. What was a key realization for you during the workshop?

c. To what extent do you think your plan to decolonize the project would be effective?

d. What do you think are the key differences in approaches to ‘reconnect’ vs '(re)visibilize’ human connections with each other and the rest of nature?

5) Wrap-up. We will summarize the main findings and thank participants for their participation and insights.

1–3 key readings (optional)

Smith, C., Diver, S., Reed, R., 2023. Advancing Indigenous futures with two-eyed seeing: Strategies for restoration and repair through collaborative research. Environ. Plan. F 26349825221142292. https://doi.org/10.1177/26349825221142292

Theriault, N., Leduc, T., Mitchell, A., Rubis, J.M., Jacobs Gaehowako, N., 2020. Living protocols: Remaking worlds in the face of extinction. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 21, 893–908. 10.1080/14649365.2019.1619821

Whyte, K.P., Brewer, J.P., Johnson, J.T., 2016. Weaving Indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 11, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6

References cited

Abson, D.J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., Von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C.D., Jager, N.W., 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39. 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

Chambers, J.M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N.L., Ryan, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N.J., Brennan, R., Charli-Joseph, L., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Galvin, K.A., 2022. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Glob. Environ. Chang. 72, 102422. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422

Deutsch, S., Keller, R., Krug, C.B., Michel, A.H., 2023. Transdisciplinary transformative change: An analysis of some best practices and barriers, and the potential of critical social science in getting us there. Biodivers. Conserv. 1–26. 10.1007/s10531-023-02576-0

IPBES, 2019. UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating.’ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/

Lam, D.P.M., Hinz, E., Lang, D., Tengö, M., Wehrden, H., Martín-López, B., 2020. Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transformations research: A literature review. Ecol. Soc. 25. 10.5751/ES-11305-250103

Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., Swilling, M., Thomas, C.J., 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7, 25–43. 10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Latulippe, N., Klenk, N., 2020. Making room and moving over: Knowledge co-production, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global environmental change decision-making. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 42, 7–14. 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.10.010

Turnhout, E., Lahsen, M., 2022. Transforming environmental research to avoid tragedy. Clim. Dev. 1–5. 10.1080/17565529.2022.2062287

West, S., Haider, L.J., Stålhammar, S., Woroniecki, S., 2020. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosyst. People 16, 304–325. 10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417

Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (ITD) are seen, among other uses, as important means of producing knowledge for transformation, e.g through addressing societies’ grand challenges. However, disconnects between different communities who undertake collaborative research are evident in the literature and in practice. This disconnect is particularly puzzling in the case of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and ITD scholars who often share research topics –day-to-day practices of knowledge production, the influence of funding on the knowledge produced, etc. Yet, with some notable exceptions and efforts, there is little articulation between these communities. We see this as problematic as knowledge and recognised good practice on how to better foster inter- and transdisciplinary research are rendered invisible, causing unnecessarily fragmented approaches to shared knowledge domains.

This session will explore the many conceptual and methodological intersections between ITD and STS scholarships. We seek to discuss their mutual enrichment and their contributions to the advancement of research in these domains.

Workshop design

In this session, we aim at exploring the following questions:

- What are the ways and means by which ITD and STS research enrich each other?

- What are the roles researchers and practitioners perform when working in the intersections of ITD and STS? How are these roles transformed when working in the boundaries between ITD and STS?

- How can problem spaces be methodologically and conceptually defined when combining ITD and STS perspectives?

- How can ITD and STS unite to contribute to the making and doing of transformations?

- How does the emergence of new techniques of producing, distributing, evaluating and experiencing knowledge contribute to transformative ways of ITD and STS?

- How can science-society interfaces be more inclusive when STS and ITD work together?

The session (90 minutes) will take the format of a participatory forum in which small groups will discuss the questions guiding the session and build a rich map. Therefore the session is open to papers contributions from the community.

During the first part of the session (20 minutes), we will showcase impactful ITD and STS interactions from our own research and experience. We will also include a short provocation in this slot to guide the discussion in the rest of the session. If any papers are to be assigned to this session by the organizers, we will allocate enough time for that.

In the second half of the session (40 minutes), participants will respond to these presentations based on their own research practice. We will invite participants to work in small groups to identify best practices from their own expertise which can be further developed in collaborations between these fields.

The mapping exercise will be organized by convenors who will collect responses from the small group conversations (30 minutes). Responses can be words-focused, or creative and/or interpretative for a free-hand drawn map and will focus on the lived experiences of the participants before moving to change. Simultaneously, convenors will organize an artistic output and interaction including an artist who will respond to what they hear by drawing/painting/creating (through abstraction). This output will be projected onto another piece of paper/canvas on the wall. Then, participants will interact and respond freely to this representation by drawing onto the canvas or talking/clarifying when the representation doesn’t capture what they mean. If possible, a small usb microscope will be used for this projection, in order to “zoom in” on sticky points (figuratively and literally) and spend more time each relevant aspect.

The final outcome of the panel is to map the actions, pathways and intersections of STS and ITD brokering, employing design thinking or speculations/story-telling. We will explore visual representations and understandings of the landscape including overlaps and divergences. It is important to mention that a similar session will be held at the next EASST (European Association for the Study of Science and Technology) 2024 Conference in July, in which we seek to collect insights on the same questions by the STS community.

The escalating complexity of global challenges drives a shift in higher education towards educational programs that foster transformative competencies and transdisciplinary learning. To address 'wicked problems' students need to become able to integrate a wide variety of lay and scientific knowledge sources and as such there is a need for novel tools and methods to empower students to integrate these perspectives in education as well as in future profession. The innovative transdisciplinary education presented in this session provides a comprehensive approach to provide students with required competences to guide transformations. Furthermore, as students experience the benefits and limits of scientific disciplines, they become open to the added value of other knowledge sources, which supports them to collaborate with each other and societal partners on identifying problems and solutions. In this session we make the case for prioritizing education that aims at fostering transformative and transdisciplinary competences and show the learning outcomes of the Transition Cycle Method.

The Transition Cycle Method, evaluated in the honors course 'The Next Great/Small Transformation', offers a structured approach to learning basic skills for managing complex transition challenges. This method, inspired by Transitions Research, Design Thinking, and Experiential Learning, iteratively connects four phases: imagine, connect, act, and assess. Our action research evaluates this method's effectiveness in developing students' skills to address complexity, uncertainty and resistance. Through transdisciplinary teamwork, students engage in a transformative process, starting from envisioning innovative 'what if' scenarios to executing and reflecting on interventions, thereby fostering a deep understanding of and engagement with societal transition challenges.

Building on this educational approach, our session aims to provide a structured example on embedding transformative competencies and transdisciplinary collaboration within higher education curricula. By highlighting the necessity of aligning educational practices with real-world challenges and fostering a reflective, responsive, and caring learning environment, we contribute to the ongoing discourse on preparing students for the complexities of future societal roles. This abstract presents a collective call for a pedagogical shift towards fostering the inner capacities of students to navigate and influence an increasingly complex world, thereby aligning with frameworks such as the OECD Learning Compass 2030 and the Inner Development Goals. Through this educational approach, we aspire to cultivate future generations of professionals equipped to transcend disciplinary boundaries and drive meaningful societal change.

Since its inception in the 1970s, the concept of transdisciplinarity has gained considerable attention and interest in scholarly circles and beyond as a research approach. This attention has stimulated, amongst others, a considerable amount of scholarly literature that explores the required preparation of researchers to navigate transdisciplinary environments and be properly prepared for adequately engaging with the complex societal issues of our time. Drawing inspiration from Dewey's work on experiential learning approaches such as problem-based learning and community service learning are transforming educational contexts from a knowledge-based to a competencies-based approach (Tarrant & Thiele, 2016). However, the conversations among scholars regarding the competencies necessary to adequately engage in transdisciplinary settings and, hence, deal with complex societal issues, remain ongoing.

Although there is a sense of convergence emerging from these discussions, the list of competencies attributed to transdisciplinarity continues to expand (e.g. Redman & Wiek, 2021). Consequently, designing courses to prepare students for transdisciplinary environments can be overwhelming due to the lack of shared understanding the interconnected nature of these competencies, and their reliance on each other to formulate the overarching set of transdisciplinary competencies. A significant issue that we observed is that discussions about competencies typically occur at the course level, with transdisciplinary competencies rarely being viewed as part of a scaffolding process.

In this presentation, we will examine the development of transdisciplinary competencies as a "leerlijn," which literally translates from Dutch to “Learning Path”. Our case study focuses on a re-evaluation of an ongoing 2-year master's program offered by the Athena Institute, known as Management, Policy Analysis, and Entrepreneurship in the Health & Life Sciences (MPA). Our intention was not to iterate the curriculum or its learning activities but rather to highlight the aspects of the program that contribute to the development of transdisciplinary competencies. To achieve this, we conducted bilateral interviews with course coordinators and facilitated two focus group discussions to explore how the program can foster the cultivation of transdisciplinary competencies.

This dialogue revealed that while course coordinators may interpret transdisciplinarity differently, their courses converged in fostering a set of competencies that align with the competencies discussed in scholarly work as suitable for transdisciplinary settings. However, it prompts us to ponder the depth of mastery that students achieve on the course level and how various courses can serve as building blocks to strategically guide students through their development. Here, we distil reflections and insights gained from these practitioners regarding crafting transdisciplinary curricula, the obstacles they encounter, and key factors to contemplate when structuring educational programs to nurture transdisciplinary competencies

Reference:

• Redman, A., & Wiek, A. (2021). Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability. Frontiers in Education, 6, 785163. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEDUC.2021.785163/BIBTEX

• Tarrant, S. P., & Thiele, L. P. (2016). Practice makes pedagogy – John Dewey and skills-based sustainability education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-09-2014-0127

key readings (optional)

Margolis, A. A. (2020). Zone of Proximal Development, Scaffolding and Teaching Practice. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2020160303

Humankind is currently facing a large number of global, societal problems, many of which are extremely complex. In order to solve these problems, interdisciplinary collaboration is crucial. Scientific research is riddled with examples of a lack of knowledge due to a lack of diversity in academic research teams, clinical trial participants, laboratory animals and cell lines. Additionally, there is an increasing demand for ethics and methodology of science by life scientists and clinicians.

To address this need and these gaps in our education, an interdisciplinary, six-month program was developed within the Graduate School of Life Sciences (GSLS) of Utrecht University, where students from 16 different life sciences disciplines come together. The Life Sciences & Society program aims to teach students the importance of incorporating the societal perspective into research design, thereby increasing the impact of their work, and really meeting our society’s needs.

The main component of the program is the Capstone project, a transdisciplinary research project into a societal problem from an external partner, forming a bridge between science and society. Parallel to the project, students follow different theoretical modules during which they acquire knowledge about relevant topics, such as History & Philosophy of Life Sciences, Ethics and Research Integrity, Open Science, Diversity Perspectives, and Global & Planetary Health. The structure of the program gives them the unique opportunity to incorporate the new theoretical knowledge and perspectives into their Capstone project and to reflect on their project and methodology within the theoretical modules. The lecturers and teachers are from several schools within the university, giving the students an interdisciplinary perspective on the topics at hand.

The program also includes a series of workshops to train and develop the students’ personal and professional skills, allowing students to progress in their personal development. Students learn about collaboration, intercultural communication, personal working styles and conflict management, to name a few examples.

According to feedback from alumni, the Life Sciences & Society program’s emphasis on personal and professional development along with hands-on experience, was not only beneficial for their personal and professional growth, but also aided them in defining how they wanted to dedicate their careers as a life science professional.

Our study aims to investigate the impact of our program on past students’ professional identity formation. The study will use qualitative research methods, using semi-structured interviews with past participants of the program, one, two, and three years after completion. By exploring the alumni’s views on their role as scientists within society and how the different components of the program may have influenced their professional identity, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of our program. This includes the possible effects the transdisciplinary nature of the program may have on the professional identity of alumni. The information gleaned from the study will be used to improve the curriculum of the program, and additionally, we hope that the findings will inspire other organizations to provide their students with similar opportunities to bridge the gap between academia and society.

To navigate complex societal challenges, numerous scholars advocate for the use of transdisciplinary (TD) methods. According to the definition provided by Lang et al. (2012), the complexity of these challenges can be tackled by "differentiating and integrating knowledge from various scientific and societal bodies of knowledge", including academic, experiential, cultural and spiritual ways of knowing. To acquire the competencies necessary to contribute to TD-projects, Transdisciplinary Education (TDE) facilitates their development.

Knowledge integration is widely accepted by scholars to be one of the key components, if not the key component of transdisciplinarity (Pohl et al. 2021), making the ability to integrate different ways of knowing a crucial competency for students, teachers and co-learners in a TD-process. However, knowledge integration is a challenging competency to acquire (Godemann, 2008) and its development can be supported by educational tools. However, developing these tools requires a deep understanding of knowledge integration and most of the time teachers themselves do not know what knowledge integration is or how it may be achieved. While several scholars have attempted to conceptualize the integration process (e.g. Pohl et al., 2021), we do not yet know exactly when knowledge integration occurs and under what conditions. Therefore, we ask: how can the knowledge integration process be characterized in TDE? and what are conditions that influence whether knowledge integration takes place in TDE?

To address these explorative questions, an in-depth qualitative analysis of a single case was conducted. The context of the Transdisciplinary Master Insert (TDMI) program at the University of Twente, winner of the Dutch Higher Education Award 2022, was selected. TDMI is a 30 EC extra-curricular program where students with different disciplinary backgrounds collaborate with societal partners in TD-projects. A mixed method approach was used, including observations during TDMI workshops, interviews with students, stakeholders and staff involved in the TDMI program.

Preliminary findings show that there may be a tendency of co-existence of different ways of knowing and understanding within projects that are intended to be transdisciplinary. In this case, different, potentially contradicting, perspectives exist next to each other without integration taking place. Three potential conditions that influence whether integration or co-existence occurs were identified. The first condition is the extent to which participants feel that they have a stake in the project, as this drives them to either push their own perspective or go along with another perspective. The second condition is, how tangible the developed solution is, bringing out potential disagreements on what the solution(s) may look like. Lastly, the third condition is moments of reflection, in which participants become aware of their own and others ways of knowing.

Next steps in the research are, gathered and analysing further data to validate the findings thus far and potentially identify additional influencing conditions. The final results, presented at the conference, will contribute to a conceptual understanding of knowledge integration in TDE and informs the development of educational tools that stimulate knowledge integration.

Background: Fostering autonomous motivation is conducive for students’ experiences in their study programmes since it is associated with many positive outcomes. This study designed and evaluated an extracurricular project called the ‘Societal Impact Project’ designed on the combination of three educational principles: authentic societal problems, collaborative learning, and scaffolding. The project aimed to explore how these principles could support students’ basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence, which according to the Self-determination Theory, facilitate students’ autonomous motivation.

Methods: First-year bachelor’s students in the studies of Biomedical Sciences and Health Sciences participated in the project. Students as well as coaches participated in focus groups conducted after the project. We adopted thematic analysis. The project lasted for eight months. Students worked in small groups with the guidance of coaches to address societal problems relevant to their study fields.

Results: We synthesized three main themes. First, students felt motivated to have freedom in choosing societal problems of interest and self-pacing their work, but they needed guidance from the project and the coaches. Second, working in groups could be motivating or demotivating depending on group dynamics and connections with peers, but communication made a difference, especially in challenging situations. Third, society-relevant problems stimulated student’s motivation and learning, and helped students to see a bridge between university and society; however, such problems also posed challenges such as difficulty in contacting stakeholders and identifying an optimal extent to which the problems were directly relevant to their studies. All three themes were interconnected in facilitating students’ motivation.

Conclusion: Working in small groups with the support of coaches on authentic societal problems influenced student’s motivation. Students felt autonomously motivated when they had autonomy with support, relatedness based on active collaboration and effective communication, and competence through structured activities in the project, support from coaches, and group work on authentic problems. This study provided insights for future curriculum designers to use societal problems to develop curricula that foster student’s autonomous motivation.

There are great challenges in current times such as climate change and energy transition. To prepare our future professionals to deal with these wicked problems (Marshall, 2008; Rittel & Webber, 1973) and be changemakers, education should move through a pathway from mono-disciplinary teaching to a more transdisciplinary approach of learning (Montesano-Montessori et al., 2019; Tijsma et al., 2023) which goes beyond academia (Augsburg, 2014). In transdisciplinary education, students, teachers, stakeholders from the work field and researchers come together to combine their knowledge and collaborate to solve wicked challenges of the future (Steam+, 2024).  

Today, we notice that there are multiple pioneering educational projects involving transdisciplinary collaboration. However, these initiatives are little interwoven with regular education programs and there are still little overarching initiatives who support the pioneering projects (Horn et al., 2022). Because these pioneering projects pursue the development of transdisciplinary education without much structural knowledge exchange and guiding frameworks, similar findings, mistakes and questions can arise (Tijsma, Urias & Zweekhorst, 2023). In addition, the development of education in/around transdisciplinary collaboration is not always addressed collectively from all perspectives. Different stakeholders go through this process individually, with their own interest, expectations, and approaches, rather than working collectively towards embedding transdisciplinary education (Budwig & Alexander, 2020).

This gap was addressed in a large-scale European project called STEAM+ consisting of 18 partners from 9 countries. The consortium developed the STEAM-TRAIL map (TRAnsdisciplinary Innovation lab): an online instrument that encapsulates insights from existing transdisciplinary labs and three newly established ones, emphasizing the necessity for closer collaboration, clear examples, and actionable steps for implementation. The map serves as a repository of knowledge, guiding universities across Europe in initiating their own labs, thereby facilitating structured knowledge exchange and experience sharing. The map itself is envisioned as a metro map, guiding users through different stages of implementing labs. It addresses the needs of diverse stakeholders by providing role-specific lines and stops, offering general information and practical advice at each stage. The map reflects the project's iterative approach to improving education through transdisciplinary methods and the importance of stakeholder collaboration (Steam+, 2024).

The uniqueness of the tool is grounded in an innovative approach to shaping educational developments through a transdisciplinary lens involving all stakeholders. Therefore, the Avans UAS Research Group on Transdisciplinary Collaboration in Education is developing this STEAM-TRAIL map further into a new online tool called the TRAILtool (Transdisciplinary Innovative Learning) in which the focus shifted from transdisciplinary labs to all educational learning environments and focused on the Netherlands. In collaboration with the University of Twente, the TRAILtool will be enhanced by a physical tool, presented in the proposed workshop.

A new TRAILtool

The new online TRAILtool (www.trailtool.org) symbolizes a more nature-oriented journey, illustrated by the metaphor of a mountain trail in which different stakeholders collaborate to reach the top of the mountain. During this expedition, participants gather information, interesting practices and questions to take into account to create, perform and evaluate transdisciplinary education. During the exploration, the participants learn about the advantages of transdisciplinary collaboration in education, how they can design it, what to consider while running it and how to reflect on it. On the journey to the top, every participant brings their unique perspectives (“backpack”). In camps along the route, data is gathered about the participants, to continue the research about the pains and gains of transdisciplinary education. Furthermore, they can apply reflection tools to reflect on the steps they have taken already.

The content of this instrument is created based on analyzed data gathered through interviews with experts on transdisciplinary education, focus groups with teachers, students, researchers, and policy makers in which the pains and gains on transdisciplinary education were mapped. A major part of the content is also based on existing literature, including the content of the STEAM-TRAILmap developed during STEAM+.

A physical game: the workshop

Based on and contributing to the TRAILtool, a physical game is created that we will play at the conference with participants. The participants are invited to embark on a transdisciplinary journey together to reach the summit. The goal of the game is to collectively determine the type of education needed on a particular wicked problem stated by the workshop leaders. An example used in previous workshops was a wicked problem proposed by a centre of expertise of Avans University of Applied Sciences on the subversion of Youth Criminality. The municipality of Gorinchem requested a transdisciplinary learning community, including students to tackle the problem.

The participants receive a persona based on the four different stakeholders, namely researchers, students, teachers and non-academic partners. To help participants empathize with their given role, the persona's motivations, characteristics, and professional information are provided. From this role and perspective, participants collaboratively explore a metaphorical mountain path, in which they discuss the common goal, which stakeholders should be involved, and which collaborative activities they could embed. Before they start the dialogue, they write down their individual perspective. In this way individual reflection precedes inclusive dialogues with diverse voices.

This physical game explicitly ensures that all interests are heard and more importantly creates a common language to collectively develop education. In this way, a new educational approach is envisioned. The expected outcome of this workshop is to gain insights and inspiration around establishing transdisciplinary education by engaging relevant stakeholders. After the workshop, all participants have access to a website which guides them through similar steps of the workshop to implement this within their own institution.

Collaboration to reach the top

The tool is both original and innovative since it uses a transdisciplinary approach for the development of transdisciplinary education. The key lies in bringing together all relevant stakeholders, enabling them to collaboratively cross boundaries and construct transdisciplinary education that provides all stakeholders with an optimal learning experience. Through the workshop around the TRAILtool, all stakeholders are learning from each other and are challenged to cross boundaries, focusing on the co-creation of a new learning experience. Ultimately, we aim to build transdisciplinary education to educate changemakers of the future through gathering different disciplines and perspectives. 

Practicalities

The workshop is scheduled to last 1,5 hours in which there will be time to explain the STEAM-TRAILmap, presented by an international team of collaborators of STEAM+ and the further developments of the new TRAILtool, presented by researchers from Avans University of Applied sciences (20 minutes). Afterwards, the workshop itself (60 minutes) will take place with a reflection moment on the workshop (10 minutes). We intend to invite various participants from academia such as researchers, teachers, policy makers and preferably also students. Moreover, if societal or industry partners could join, it would be even more interesting. Depending on the number of tables, we intend to have 20 participants (more is negotiable).

Augsburg, T. (2014). Becoming Transdisciplinary: The Emergence of the Transdisciplinary Individual. World Futures, 70(3–4), 233–247.

Budwig, N., & Alexander, A. J. (2020). A transdisciplinary approach to student learning and development in university settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.

Horn, A., Scheffelaar, A., Urias, E., & Zweekhorst, M. (2022a). Training Students for Complex Sustainability Issues: A Literature review on the design of inter- and transdisciplinary Higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(1), 1–27.

Marshall, T. (2008). Wicked Problems. In M. Erlhoff & T. Marshall (Eds.), Design Dictionary: Perspectives on Design Terminology (pp. 447-447). Basel: Birkhäuser Basel.   

Montesano-Montessori, N., Schipper, M., Andriessen, D., & Greven, K. (2019). Bewegen in complexiteit : Voorbeelden voor onderwijs, onderzoek en praktijk.

 Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Steam+. (2024). TRAIL map. Steam Plus. Consulted on 15 january 2024, van https://steam-plus.vercel.app/trail 

Tijsma, G., Urias E., & Zweekhorst M.(2023). Embedding engaged education through community service learning in HEI: a review. Educational Research,65(2), 143-169.

We often use metaphors when talking about collaboration—they can be a way to bridge disciplinary boundaries, assumptions, and worldviews, grow the capacity for inter- and transdisciplinarity, and (hopefully) ensure people from different backgrounds are ‘on the same page’. The word project itself hides a metaphor: it derives from the Latin proicere, to throw forward. It is common to use metaphors such as ‘milestones’, ‘building blocks’, ‘goals’, ‘horizons’, ‘work packages’, and ‘missions’ in projects, just as we use ‘fields’ and ‘areas’ to discuss disciplines or types of work. Metaphors have lots of advantages as a form of shared vocabulary. However, metaphors are a form of model, and the models used can trap us in particular ways of thinking and working, reproducing assumptions and structures, and often lacking representation of some of the most important parts of collaboration: forming inter- and transdisciplinary teams, building relationships, co-creation, and integrating diverse knowledge.

Materialising (through physical artefacts) and expanding the variety of metaphors available to teams, and doing so via a playful-yet-meaningful process, offers the potential for exploration of new ways of thinking and working, putting knowledge into the world (Kirsh, 2010; Tversky, 2015) as a form of tangible ‘visual prosthesis’ (Jonassen and Cho, 2008). The concept of maps as metaphorical spaces, which serve as contexts for related metaphors to be used and explored together (rather than in isolation), adds the possibility of explicitly treating these spaces as a form of boundary object (Star & Griesemer, 1989) into which collaborators from different backgrounds in inter- and transdisciplinary teams can enter and together explore, navigate, and experience. Equally, a co-creative process of creating—and debating—new metaphors (Bateson, 2000; Lockton et al, 2019a) together can be part of a team integrating their collective knowledge and expectations.

In this workshop at ITD 24, we introduce Unbox, a game-like tangible toolkit which allows teams to ‘open’ the ‘black box’ of collaborative processes, through supporting participants in examining, discussing, and refining issues they encounter in the course of collaborations. The overall aim of knowledge (and expectation) integration through tangible experience together aligns well with the theme of growing the capacity for inter- and transdisciplinarity; Unbox specifically aims to be helpful for inter- and transdisciplinary teams.

Unbox comprises elements that materialise metaphors (from elephants-in-the-room to sea monsters, wormholes to lighthouses) within metaphorical spaces, to visualise and probe emerging assumptions and create a reflexive dialogue among participants from different backgrounds, so they can quickly understand (dis)agreements, align expectations, and learn about collaborative process design. Unbox aims to support flexible and reflexive approaches for (dis)assembling existing and prospective collaboration processes, especially in research projects but also with application in education, facilitation, and other contexts.

Workshop participants will explore applying Unbox to their own existing or potential future projects, to open up thinking about the roles of metaphors in collaborations, as well as providing direct inspiration for how games (Andreotti et al, 2020), maps (Student et al, 2020), and tangible thinking tools (Rygh & Clatworthy, 2019; Merl et al, 2023; Lockton et al 2019b) could be used in their projects, in research, education, and knowledge exchange contexts.

**Our development process**

Our project has engaged with participants in ‘unusual collaborations’ supported by the Centre for Unusual Collaborations in Utrecht, an initiative of an alliance between four universities, as well as making use of the experience of our team. We are an unusual yet cohesive group, with a shared interest in understanding and supporting collaborative research processes. Our experiences range from inter- and transdisciplinary research, design, games, and creative facilitation methods, albeit from different disciplinary starting points (Transitions Studies, Tourism, Governance, Farming Systems Ecology, Industrial Design), and with two professional designers and strategic visualisers as part of the team. We have all engaged with innovating in research methods, processes, and mindsets for bridging across disciplines, stakeholder groups, and societal issues.

Through the development of Unbox, including reflexive application to our projects, and working with other teams funded through the Centre for Unusual Collaborations’ initiatives, we arrived at a series of insights and propositions, including:

- Collaborations often inherit outdated/unspecific assumptions and language, hindering their effectiveness (e.g., assuming they are projects with milestones).

- Materialised metaphors can operate as boundary objects, pulling participants in and triggering genuine dialogue about individuals’ perspectives and what is collectively at stake.

- ‘Metaphorical spaces’, i.e., maps evoking particular metaphors, can also operate as boundary objects themselves, and deepen these conversations (e.g., a ‘treasure island’ map engages with discussion around goals, expectations (what is expected to be discovered?), routes to the goal, risks and surprises along the way, challenges to leadership, and so on.

- Representing decisions about collaborations with physical objects facilitates ‘materialising social learning.’

- A playful-yet-serious environment allows teams to discuss fraught issues while fostering cohesiveness and trust. By entering the ‘magic circle’ (Huizinga, 1949’ Salen and Zimmerman, 2003) there can be suspension of some mundane concerns, and the opening up of imagination, while still retaining connections to the real world.

The metaphorical spaces maps are used in conjunction with ‘quests’—cards prompting specific questions for a team to consider as they explore the map. For example, an ‘outer space’ map enables quests around how a project ‘ventures into the unknown’, through questions of priorities (with limited resources), exploration versus exploitation, uncertainties about the future, existential risks, critical junctures, and points of no return. A ‘forest’ map may engage quests around paths (how did we get here? how do we get out of the woods?), wider ecosystems of projects, patterns of light and shade within a project, shelter and clearings, and so on. A team can progress through a series of different spaces as their collaboration progresses—arriving ultimately at a reflective ‘crystal palace’—or create their own spaces. One emergent feature of Unbox is that teams will co-create often unexpected (to an outside observer) new metaphors together with associations that make sense for their shared context, but would have been unlikely to have been arrived at without having gone through the process of playing together. For example, in one of our own workshops, we arrived at seeing our own skills as being propellers for the project, after boat metaphors led to discussions of sailing (and what winds, favourable or otherwise, we experienced) versus powered propulsion.

While our Unbox game is currently being developed and tested, by November it will be in a more mature form, and we would see ITD 24 as an event where we can get feedback and insight from the wider community studying and working within inter- and transdisciplinarity, and share ideas within this community of practice.

**Workshop outline**

Our proposal for a 90-minute workshop comprises:

- An introductory ‘metaphorical gift’ exercise or ritual in which participants use objects to get to know each other

- A short (10-minute) introductory presentation on metaphors and metaphorical spaces, processes, and the Unbox project and activity

- Working in small groups, participants will try out the Unbox game, applying it to their own contexts or imagining new trans- or interdisciplinary collaborations. The process involves using ‘metaphorical space’ game boards as canvases or maps and selecting physical artefacts from a selection provided to tell stories and respond to quests around different challenges that collaborative projects can face.

- The workshop is aimed at all ITD participants—they do not need to know each other, or have existing collaborations.

- We would aim for participants to try out at least two different metaphorical spaces in the time available

- A closing discussion where participants can share their experiences, and broader implications, insights, and opportunities can be explored.

The balance of plenary and small-group discussions and exercises will depend on the number of participants. The workshop will be facilitated by a subset of the authors.

In the face of global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and social inequality, achieving sustainable transformation has become an imperative goal for societies worldwide. Navigating the complexities of sustainability transformations requires innovative approaches that transcend disciplinary boundaries and have the capacity to support decision-makers and practitioners in handling the uncertainty associated with futures and pathways toward sustainable transformation.

Sustainable transformations, encompassing areas such as climate change, transport, agriculture and food, healthcare, etc., pose several challenges. One of the key challenges is that sustainable transformation is concerned with the future with a long-term scope spanning several decades. However, stakeholders involved in the transformation can implicitly perceive the future in different ways, four possible epistemologies of futures are (Muiderman et al., 2020):

1. The future is categorized into probable and improbable futures to mitigate future risks in strategic policy planning. Futures can be partially knowable through scientific exploration. Assessment of the future in terms of probable and improbable futures is made possible using methods such as forecasting, Delphi methods, horizon scanning, future commissions, strategic visioning, and backcasting.

2. Plausible futures are explored to navigate the future reflexively and develop adaptive capabilities. Due to fundamental and ineradicable uncertainties, future scenarios cannot be prioritized or reduced to just one most likely future. Uncertainty must be acknowledged, necessitating the exploration of several futures for which preparedness should be ensured. Methods such as probabilistic foresight, simulation modeling, weak signal-type approaches, scenarios, strategic visioning, and backcasting are utilized for this purpose.

3. Futures are construed as a social construct, expanding the view on possible futures beyond the probable and plausible futures because possibility depends on the perception of the audience. Methods employed include narratives, visions, scenarios, and back-casted pathways, as well as simulation gaming, community dialogues, training, education, and experimentation.

4. Futures are conceptualized as performative futures that analyze the performative power of futures, critically examining the political implications on the present. The future is characterized by unanswerable questions and uncertainties. Future statements or claims are seen as political interventions, as representations or "fabrications of the future". Methods used include prefiguration, critical application analysis of future narratives and images, interrogation of the political implications of future visions and pathways for the present, as well as theories on the framing of futures.

Transdisciplinary Research (TD) approaches offer numerous contributions to address the sustainable transformation challenges. For example, TD approaches can enhance understanding of the current state, identify desirable goals and vision, capture stakeholders’ preferences, opinions, expected futures, etc. and formulate transformation pathways toward the desirable goals. However, the areas that are less explored, or perhaps not explicitly, are how TD approaches and methods can help handle uncertainties associated with sustainable transformations and in what ways should TD address what constitutes 'Future'. This line of research can build on co-production of diverse knowledge systems, thereby promoting more inclusive, democratic, and transparent decision-making processes.

This workshop session brings together researchers and practitioners to explore the potential contributions of transdisciplinary approaches of methods in addressing the complexity concerning sustainable transformations, with a particular focus on different perspectives on futures. This workshop aims to explore four future epistemologies, used by different disciplines, and analyzes how different epistemologies might be an obstacle for or strengthen interactions between stakeholders. The workshop builds on the different contributions of TD to navigate the complexity of sustainable transformations and addresses the following research questions.

The overarching research question is In what ways can different the understating of epistemologies of futures in combination with different methods that are applied, accelerate sustainable transformation? We explore this through the following research questions:

● What is the current state of the art in TD fields concerning conceptualizing futures and methods to address futures in sustainable transformation?

● What are default modes of envisioning or anticipating futures when discussing sustainable transformations in different domains and roles?

● What are the research methods used and how do they relate to these different types of future epistemologies?

● What are ways to enhance our integration of and build upon the four epistemologies and methods?

● And how can we find synergies between certain epistemologies and methods to foster and accelerate sustainable transformations?

Organization of the workshop (90 min)

We ask participants to think about the following questions beforehand:

● What is/are your field(s) of work and research? What methods/approaches do you use to support sustainable transformation in your fields, particularly in dealing with the future aspects of the transformation?

● What is the current state of the art in your research field to deal with futures in sustainable transformation?

We ask participants to fill in a short survey at the entrance of the workshop (or even beforehand if possible) to find out what is their “default” epistemology and transdisciplinary method(s) they use or are familiar with. We use these results to infer the types of epistemology that the participants are most familiar with and use the information to distribute them to the groups for the next parts of the workshop. Ideally, participants do not work with the epistemology they are most familiar with, and the same for the method. Moreover, we aim to form groups with high diversity in disciplines. We show the results also to the participants to show the diversity in the group.

The workshop starts with a presentation on future epistemologies and how different epistemologies reflect different perspectives toward the future (10-15 min.). The presentations also show which transdisciplinary methods are commonly used in each epistemology to design/support sustainability transformations.

Participants are divided in different groups to explore the future epistemologies to a certain (assigned) sustainability transformation (e.g. transformations toward a sustainable train system, sustainable food production and consumption, and a sustainable healthcare system). Each group takes one of the four epistemologies, according to the four epistemologies mentioned before, and is assigned a transdisciplinary method to support sustainability transformation (30 min.). Each group is facilitated by one of the workshop organizers and they assist the group in working according to a given method with a future epistemology.

After working in the different groups, each group presents in a plenary session their findings/answers to the central question (35 min). Moreover, we ask the groups to reflect on the epistemology, the methods, and the implications of the sustainable transformations they were assigned to. We conclude the workshop with closing remarks (10 min.) and end with a short survey to ask what participants have gained/learned in terms of new methods/epistemologies.

Potential outputs and outcomes

● Knowledge sharing: enhance understanding of the contributions of Transdisciplinary approaches and methodologies in dealing with Future in Sustainable Transformations.

● Skill development: Support participants with practical methods to help them be mindful of the different epistemology of futures, their default modes of operation, and the possible implications in their works.

● Research agenda setting: Identify the current status of the field and potential research gaps in how transdisciplinary research approaches deals with uncertainty, and establish potential future research areas to address the gaps

● Networking and community building: Bring together transdisciplinary researchers and practitioners in the field of sustainable transformations to broaden their networks. Organisers of this workshop are embedded in the Transformations, fUTures and jusTIce for Sustainability and the Transformative sustainable change in Action (TransAct) of Radboud University.

We are delighted to announce the impending release of our collaborative effort, the book titled "Interdisciplinary Practices in Higher Education” (Routledge, 2024). The genesis of this book can be traced back to the discussions held at the ITD conference in Gothenburg in 2019. Over the subsequent years, more than 40 scholars, developers, and practitioners have contributed their insights, resulting in a comprehensive exploration of the everyday experiences surrounding teaching, learning, and collaboration across borders and boundaries within higher education.

This symposium, conceived as a live embodiment of one of the book's chapters, is meant to serve as a celebratory platform for the collaborative network that emerged during the collective writing process. The structure of the symposium is designed to mirror the interactive nature of the book, fostering a dynamic exchange of ideas and experiences.

Beginning with a brief overview of the book's background, we will present a real-world case illustrating interdisciplinary teaching experiences. The audience will then actively engage in providing diverse interpretations and understandings of the presented case. Subsequently, a collective discussion will ensue, encompassing suggestions, solutions, and valuable advice. The author of the case will receive feedback, fostering a participatory and inclusive environment. The symposium will culminate with reflections from select book contributors, offering unique insights into their participation in the collaborative process.

The symposium aims to achieve three key objectives: firstly, to share knowledge and practices related to interdisciplinary teaching, learning, and collaboration, particularly targeting individuals new to the field; secondly, to acknowledge the genuine challenges associated with planning and executing inter- and transdisciplinary activities; and finally, to showcase the wealth of existing knowledge and good practices. By doing so, we hope to foster a community that actively shares insights, mitigating the need to repeatedly reinvent the wheel in the pursuit of effective interdisciplinary education. Join us in this celebration of collaboration, knowledge sharing, and the collective empowerment of practitioners of inter- and transdisciplinarity in the field of higher education.

In an era characterized by unprecedented complex and multifaceted sustainability challenges, we need to move beyond traditional discipline-specific knowledge dissemination in higher education. It necessitates the integration of diverse perspectives and collaborative strategies that prepare students to navigate the ever-evolving complex societal realities of our time. Transdisciplinary education, which seeks to train students in collaborating with people representing multiple academic fields of expertise, cultures, and epistemological approaches, has the potential to help students make sense of these complexities, co-create plans which consider different worldviews, and take actions towards transformative change. However, implementing a fruitful transdisciplinary learning environment can be challenging. Theoretical frameworks can provide a compass for educators and students to co-create a transdisciplinary learning experience that fosters holistic understanding of complex issues, facilitates active stakeholder interaction, and inspires critical reflection on personal assumptions.

This presentation will introduce the "Designing Feasible Futures Framework (DF3)", which is developed by the Institute for the Future – KU Leuven in collaboration with coordinators, coaches, and participants of the Transdisciplinary Insights (TDI) Honours Programme. It is used as a guiding tool for student teams of TDI to address complex sustainability challenges. The DF3 incorporates triple loop learning. By following the DF3, students can acquire new knowledge (single loop), question underlying assumptions (double loop), and experience a shift in norms and values that frame thinking and actions (triple loop) (Flood & Romm, 2018). To bring about this shift, this iterative approach encourages students to understand current societal realities, envision desired futures, and come up with adaptive approaches to bridge the gap between current realities and futures.

The framework is structured around four main building blocks – 1. problem framing, 2. complexity, 3. stakeholder collaboration, and 4. futures – each designed to foster systems knowledge, target knowledge, and/or transformation knowledge (Kueffer et al., 2019). In TDI, these blocks are explored through workshops in the first semester, guiding students through a comprehensive learning journey. Starting with "problem framing", students identify and delineate the scope of their assigned complex challenge (systems knowledge), setting the stage for a deep dive into the interconnected layers of this challenge in the "complexity" block. Here, the focus changes to understanding the dynamics and relationships that define the problem, paving the way for the development of target knowledge. Once students move to the "stakeholder collaboration" block, engagement with societal actors becomes a priority, emphasizing the importance of diverse perspectives and the social dynamics at play in effecting change. Finally, the "futures" block pushes students to envision and articulate viable pathways to desired outcomes, highlighting the role of innovative thinking and strategic planning in transformative initiatives.

Through following the DF3 within the TDI program, students are equipped with tools and experiences necessary to address the complexities of real-world problems. This approach not only enriches their academic journey but also prepares them for active participation in a world that increasingly values collaborative, inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to pressing issues. By combining concepts and theories from triple loop learning, complexity science, and futures thinking, the DF3 provides a blueprint towards a more integrated and impactful transdisciplinary educational experience.

Facing the serious interwoven local and planetary urbanization problems in Latin America self-organized occupations have been used as a tool by social movements to address issues of inadequate access to housing and services and to pressure for sustainable and responsible public policies. Recently these social activities have built cooperation with academics and technical advisory from different study fields to critically approach and develop collective formats of labour, building and living together as well as to promote a debate on human-nature relationships and transdisciplinary research and teaching activities.

This paper reflects on our methodology and engagement in science and society cooperation and as a practice of transformative research and teaching for societal transformation. Based on experiences in a set of “collective experiments” (Latour 2012, 225) the COLLOC collaborative workshop series has been stablished as an experimental transdiciplinary research and teaching practice since 2018 with a self-organized occupation in Brazil. The transdisciplinary practices which we developed and adapted in the workshop series are based on three principles:

1_The COLLOC self-image: We carry out our transdisciplinary activities on site in the role of co-researchers in order to support and develop existing socio-technical projects. It is carried out with and in an existing network of actors and their different knowledge types that includes researchers and students from Universities in Germany and Brazil, international alumni (from different disciplines), residents of the Brazilian occupation, activists and socio-technical initiatives as well as non-human actors like the Atlantic rainforest, kitchen, food, waste, water, a state law on land use etc.

2_The COLLOC objective: With the perspective of the Anthropocene, insurgent urbanism and a counter-hegemonic approach, the COLLOC workshops strive for a collaborative and interactive knowledge integration. The aim is to create a mutual learning and teaching environment (common ground) for the development and reflection of short and long term systemic and sustainable solutions for housing, food systems, collective spaces and water systems.

3_The COLLOC umbrella methodology: In order to stimulate sustainable change in a social context, a transdisciplinary format - the Dual Design Strategy - has been developed and implemented. It involves two simultaneous, interconnected levels of co-production: the development of systemic scenarios by linking material flows and actors and the generation of hands-on micro interventions at a 1:1 scale. This strategy is oriented toward localized problem-solutions and reflection on their implications, combining conceptual approaches from the disciplines of planning and engineering with practices and experienced knowledge of non-scientific actors responding to everyday needs of the community.

Based on the principles we position and critically discuss the methodology of the COLLOC experiments as transdisciplinary research and teaching format in order to stimulate transformative learning for societal transformation. As a practice to co-create mutual learning environments we reflect how the different knowledge types from the different participant groups are merged to new integrated common ground knowledge, which is materialized and continuously experienceable, accessible and reflectable for all participants in different scales of space and time. Learning, planning, and acting together can lead to more socially and spatially just transformation.

The complex challenges of today's world, including climate change, social inequality, and rapid urbanization, necessitate innovative educational approaches that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries. This presentation explores a groundbreaking educational model implemented in the Interdisciplinary Project module for the 4th semester of the 2nd Undergraduate Degree in Design at IED, facilitated by Giulia Sonetti. It reflects on the integration of inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) methods to cultivate future designers equipped to address these multifaceted challenges.

The Interdisciplinary Project module serves as a pioneering platform where students engage in design projects through an inter/transdisciplinary lens. This approach not only broadens their perspective but also enhances their capacity for creative problem-solving within complex socio-environmental contexts. The module's structure is informed by the principles of design thinking, emphasizing a process that is both a tool for creative thinking and a framework for organizing the design process.

A significant aspect of the module involves collaboration with external stakeholders, such as NGOs and industry partners, to work on real-world challenges. This collaboration is exemplified in the partnership with Schwalgien Yacht Design & Waterproof Consulting and Open Arms, aiming to introduce an NGO into the superyacht industry to foster awareness and long-term cooperation. Through this engagement, students learn to navigate the dynamics of client-supplier-collaborator relationships, thereby gaining insights into the practical aspects of design beyond the confines of the classroom.

The module's learning outcomes are directly aligned with the skills required for sustainability and design leadership, including market, societal, and technological analysis; strategic and innovative thinking; and the application of inter/transdisciplinary design projects. The methodology employed in the module—ranging from experiential exercises to creative prototyping and feedback incorporation—embodies the essence of ITD education by fostering a deep understanding of the interplay between design, society, and sustainability.

Drawing on insights from the ITD Alliance Workshop, this presentation will highlight the effectiveness of incorporating ITD methods in design education. The workshop underscored the critical need for academic structures that support the development of integration experts who can lead, monitor, and assess ITD projects. Through the lens of the Interdisciplinary Project module, we will explore practical interventions and strategies that facilitate the integration of ITD competencies in higher education, thereby preparing students to contribute meaningfully to sustainable development.

This case study exemplifies a transformative educational approach that not only equips students with the necessary skills to engage in ITD projects but also instills a sense of responsibility towards sustainability and social inclusion. By embedding ITD methods into the curriculum, the Interdisciplinary Project module at IED represents a forward-thinking model that bridges the gap between disciplinary silos, fostering a new generation of designers capable of addressing the complex challenges of our time with creativity, empathy, and a transdisciplinary mindset.

In conclusion, the presentation will propose recommendations for further integrating ITD methods into design education, inspired by the successes and lessons learned from the Interdisciplinary Project module. These insights are invaluable for educators, administrators, and policymakers aiming to enhance the relevance and impact of design education in addressing global sustainability challenges.

Courses in higher education institutions tend to focus on teaching students about solution spaces: theories and methods that have been accrued to address disciplinary problems and research questions. Research assignments are often integrated into such courses, in which students are challenged to apply the solution space to compatible problem spaces. This educational set-up has proven immensely valuable in passing on the knowledge and tools of a field, and has rightly earned its commonplace presence. However, we also observe that many authentic problems, especially those connected to societal issues like healthy and sustainable urban living, are rarely constrained within disciplinary solution spaces - instead, multidisciplinary research teams are needed to address them. This underscores a need for students to be prepared to effectively participate and learn in such teams, which is increasingly being picked up by universities and policymakers

Living Pasts Exploring Futures is an interdisciplinary co-design course at Utrecht University (UU), the Netherlands, that challenges students from different programmes and faculties to work beyond their own expertise and place acquired knowledge into social context. By combining historical, ecological and socio-cultural data, students develop and design innovative pilot applications in collaboration with societal stakeholders. This goal is purposefully broad, to allow any student enrolled in the course to find an angle of interest within these design boundaries. In the process of community-engaged learning, students learn how to cooperate across disciplinary borders, take charge of their own learning process and experimentally assess the added value of new media and ICT. The course takes place over ten weeks.

Sustainable land management and agricultural development in Africa have been a major German research and development funding focus. Funders expect research on these topics to contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. To foster the sustainable transformation of African agri-food systems, the research and development community calls for the integration of local knowledge and gendered realities in research (Cordingley et al. 2015; Ogunyiola et al. 2022; Kingiri 2013; Kristjanson et al. 2017). A transdisciplinary research (TDR) approach is put forward to address this by involving relevant perspectives from various scientific disciplines and societal actors (Brandt et al. 2013; Cordingley et al. 2015; Kristjanson et al. 2017). Moreover, African researchers emphasize the need for more attention to relationship-building with local stakeholders in the research process (Chilisa 2017; Kalinga 2019). They also warn of “research fatigue” (i.e., tiredness from answering lengthy surveys without direct benefit) among local stakeholders in highly frequented rural areas in Africa. Ideally, a TDR approach would offer the framework for the inclusion of societal actors and the co-production of knowledge that benefits local stakeholders to solve real-world problems.

Funding agencies have been responsive to the call for TDR approaches. At the forefront are public funders who are driven by their policy strategies to contribute to sustainable development through their research funding programmes (e.g. the Research for Sustainability (FONA) Strategy of the German Ministry of Education and Research). Different German funding agencies associated with different ministries have been following distinct trajectories in implementing the TDR concept. Over the years, they moved from including the term “transdisciplinarity” in research calls to making more fundamental changes in the design of funding programs. The policy mission of the supervising ministry plays a significant role in defining this trajectory (Schwachula 2019; Jahn et al. 2022). For example, while the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development focuses primarily on solution-oriented research, the German Ministry of Research and Education has a stronger focus on promoting German science and innovation as such. As a result, there is a large diversity in funding frameworks through which the German government funds TDR in Africa.

Although the idea of TDR has been advocated for more than two decades, it is becoming increasingly clear that institutional changes, including in research funding programmes, are needed to enable truly transdisciplinary research (Schneider et al. 2023; Paulavets et al. 2023). The diversity of funding frameworks offered by German funding agencies allows to take stock of the progress made in adapting funding frameworks to the needs of transdisciplinary research. At the same time, funding agencies are strongly willing to adapt and experiment with funding programmes and instruments to support TDR. To capitalize on this momentum, it is crucial to engage in dialogue and learn from each other.

The panel session will reflect on good practices in funding transdisciplinary research in a Global North-South collaborative context. The panel will discuss what innovative measures funders have introduced to enable a transdisciplinary research approach (e.g. seed grants for proposal writing or TDR capacity building as part of the funding programme) and what needs to be done to make such measures more widely available in funding programmes. The panel will draw on their own experiences from a wide range of research projects in Africa funded by Germany and other Northern countries.

The panel brings together two panellists from Africa, who will convey the African science policy and researcher perspective, and two panellists from Germany, who will convey the German funder and researcher perspective. The discussion will be informed by an ongoing dialogue between African and German researchers, practitioners and research funding agencies initiated by the INTERFACES project (INTERFACES – sustainable-landmanagement-africa.net). The dialogue aims to identify and validate good practices in funding transdisciplinary research projects for sustainable development in Africa and to share experiences between funders, researchers, and practitioners.

The panel discussion will provide an opportunity to take stock of new perspectives on funding practices developed during previous workshops and to engage a broad audience interested in TDR in a Global North-South collaborative context. The panellists will discuss some of the innovative measures to adapt TDR funding and explore their impact on integrating local knowledge and gender perspectives in the research conducted. Questions from the audience will further explore the relevance and feasibility of the proposed measures to adapt funding practices.

Description of the Session

Introduction (8 min)

The moderator will introduce each panellist in an elevator pitch style.

Video summarizing the workshops (2 min)

A short video will present visionary ideas on funding TDR in a Global North-South collaborative context from expert workshops held in Germany and Ghana in 2024.

Panel discussion (30 min)

The panellists will engage in a moderated discussion, focusing on their own experiences with innovative measures to change funding practices.

Open discussion (20 min)

The audience will be engaged to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of innovative measures in funding TDR.

In inter- and transdisciplinary studies, the significance of fostering dialogue between different fields is underscored. Researchers and teachers are encouraged to apply the analytical skills inherent to their own disciplines as well as to adopt concepts and methodologies from other fields. This approach involves an appreciation for the intricacy of issues, cultivating values such as openness, empathy, and tolerance, and the ability to formulate innovative frameworks beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries.

The reconceptualisation of education as a dialogue between content and process within an inter- and transdisciplinary framework entails incorporating knowledge, principles, and methods from various disciplines, along with the capability for intricate problem analysis. These theoretical foundations are pivotal for comprehending the pedagogical strategies implemented in the University of Geneva’s interdisciplinary master’s program in Children’s Rights, where inter- and transdisciplinarity are integrated into the curriculum as an object of study. This integration is particularly evident in two foundational courses: 1) The Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approach: Theories and Practices; and 2) Methodology and Ethics of Research in Children’s Rights Studies. Since 2015, these courses have significantly shaped an educational framework that nurtures students’ deeper inter- and transdisciplinary understanding, aligning with the evolving demands of complex societal issues such as children’s rights.

These courses’ pedagogical devices and teaching methods are crafted to prompt students to approach children’s rights from an inter- and transdisciplinary standpoint. For example, the project-based evaluation method aligns with the emphasis on the dialogue between content and process. In this context, students apply theoretical concepts to research projects, testing their understanding and fostering collaboration skills. As highlighted by the literature, the intentional formation of diverse student groups aims to cultivate transdisciplinary values of openness and empathy. These research projects encompass an interdisciplinary theme, a defined problem, and a planned methodology. Though structured like authentic research projects, they serve as academic exercises rather than empirical studies, encouraging the creative application of theoretical knowledge within an interdisciplinary framework.

To exemplify the practical application of these courses, this contribution will delve into various student outputs, such as collective project works and individual reflective assignments. These outputs offer insights into how students initially perceive and gradually integrate inter- and transdisciplinarity into their learning. Student evaluations of these courses provide additional perspectives on the reception of these methods. The primary focus of this contribution centres on pedagogical devices and their outputs while also contributing to the broader discourse on enhancing inter- and transdisciplinary education at the university level. It demonstrates how theoretical concepts can be translated into practical teaching and learning experiences.

In response to the urgent need for innovative approaches to address complex global challenges, the Master’s programme of Global Challenges for Sustainability offers a pioneering model for inter- and transdisciplinary education. This joint degree Master’s programme is run by the European University Alliance CHARM-EU and taught simultaneously at 5 universities in Europe by means of hybrid classrooms with physical student mobility across the programme’s 3 phases. This presentation explores the pedagogical and didactic elements embedded within the CHARM-EU Master’s curriculum, highlighting key strategies for fostering individual, social, and societal learning processes essential for developing inter- and transdisciplinarity competencies. It reflects on the key elements and lessons learned in the 3 phases of the Master’s programme, that are each represented by one co-author.

The CHARM-EU Master’s programme is designed to strengthen students' inter- and transdisciplinary "muscles" by cultivating integrative research methodologies and promoting collaborative learning environments. Through a three-phase programme encompassing preparatory skill development, thematic exploration, and real-world application with stakeholders, it provides a spiral curriculum structure where students get to develop and improve their transdisciplinary practices as they engage in challenges in greater depth in each phase. This provides students with engaging and transformative learning experiences that prepare them to navigate complex sustainability challenges.

Central to the CHARM-EU Master’s approach are pedagogical strategies that encourage collective thinking and action, leading to mutual learning and transformation. Emphasising fluid identities, both students and teachers/supervisors assume roles as integration experts, fostering peer-to-peer training and collaborative knowledge exchange. Educational tools and digital platforms are leveraged to facilitate interdisciplinary and transnational collaboration and equip students with the vocabularies and toolkits necessary for effective transdisciplinary work.

The CHARM-EU Master’s programme serves as a living laboratory for the research of inter- and transdisciplinary education, offering valuable insights into design principles and best practices. It was designed by Knowledge Creating Teams of various (inter)disciplinary experts and educationalists across the 5 universities. By utilising research-based education and practice-informed educational research, the programme continually shares educational approaches across the alliance. Through rigorous evaluation and reflection, CHARM-EU Master’s contributes to the growing body of knowledge on the science of team-science as applied to educational contexts.

The CHARM-EU Master’s programme exemplifies a forward-thinking approach to inter- and transdisciplinary education, providing a blueprint for values-driven educational research, implementation, and evaluation. By exercising transdisciplinary muscles and fostering a culture of collaboration and innovation, CHARM-EU Master’s prepares both students and teachers to become catalysts for societal transformation in an increasingly complex world.

Dimensions of Societal Issues, an interdisciplinary course

Introduction:

The health domain is increasingly confronted with complex challenges such as the (medical) consequences of climate change, pandemics, an aging population, and rising healthcare costs. They are so-called ‘wicked problems’. Problems which are very difficult to solve and, in any case, require interdisciplinary perspectives to solve them. The stakeholders of a wicked problem have different views to understand the problem and to find a solution. It means that future health professionals should be trained to work in this stakeholder environment.

We have developed an interdisciplinary course called: Dimensions on Societal Issues. In this course, we train students from the medical field, law, pharmacy, and humanities to think not only from their own disciplinary perspective but also from other perspectives to come to an integrative approach to complex societal issues.

In the course, students explore a set of complex societal challenges, for example how to address the consequences and problems caused by pollution of powerful companies.

Learning objectives of the course are:

1) Students learn to approach complex problems systematically and critically to identify the underlying causes of the issues.

2) In analyzing complex societal issues the students take on multiple disciplinary perspectives, such as medicine, law, and philosophy.

3) Students learn to communicate effectively and collaborate with colleagues from different fields.

4) Students reflect on their role and responsibility as a citizen and as a future professional in society.

To achieve the learning objectives, students approach the challenge from various perspectives. They learn that what from one perspective may be a solution, can, from another perspective, be a problem in itself. This contributes to making the problem complex or ‘wicked’. Students learn to analyse the dynamics inherent in complex problems, including the motivation behind the solution/problem, the impact on the different stakeholders and the difficulties in and prospects for coming to a shared solution.

In the presentation we take the audience along our educational design and use their feedback to improve our course.

Over 80 higher education professionals, including rectores magnifici, have signed their name in agreement with a call for a ‘Sigma’ future of higher education in a ScienceGuide article written by Wild and Uijl (2023). These higher education professionals call for more attention for inter- and transdisciplinary education at higher educational institutions in the Netherlands. The critically acclaimed article demonstrates that there is a felt need and urgency to transform disciplinary higher education into (also facilitating) interdisciplinary higher education. However, such needed changes bring challenges for governance structures of universities that are often built on disciplinary traditions. In this research, we have mapped what is felt by interviewing Dutch university employees, including several signees, who are at the forefront of changing educational governance for the benefit of developing and sustaining interdisciplinary education. In these interviews, we ask such ‘frontrunners’ not only about their experiences with the current governance of interdisciplinary education at their university, but also how they would ideally see such governance. We have done a critical discourse analysis of these interviews to map underlying relations of power present in their expressions about governance. To do this, we have used the concept of pedagogical governance, drawing on work by Bernstein (2000), Foucault (1995), and Negri (2000), understanding it as a form of nurturing and disciplining power to develop, sustain and change ways to recognise, value and structure learning. Our results provide insight into:

- different governance structures for interdisciplinary education at Dutch universities

- barriers and opportunities those structures provide for governing interdisciplinary education

- future scenarios for the governance of interdisciplinary education

Though it was neither the aim nor possible to be complete in mapping governance structures at Dutch universities, we have seen how governance structures differ across and within universities and the opportunities and barriers for interdisciplinary education that arise from those differences. Additionally, we have sketched several existing and future concepts for governing interdisciplinary education, which will aid policy makers in making informed decisions about governing interdisciplinary education. We add to existing work on governance concepts (see e.g. Cai & Lönnqvist, 2022; Lindvig, 2022) our pedagogical perspective, which shows how important it is for policy makers and educators to realise how governance choices for interdisciplinary education come with normative ideas about what learning is valued and recognised, and what learning is not.

References

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. Rowman & Littlefield.

Cai, Y., & Lönnqvist, A. (2022). Overcoming the Barriers to Establishing Interdisciplinary Degree Programmes: The Perspective of Managing Organisational Innovation. Higher Education Policy, 35(4), 946–968. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-021-00242-0

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books.

Lindvig, K. (2022). Loud and soft voices of interdisciplinarity in higher education. In Configurations of Interdisciplinarity Within Education. Routledge.

Negri, A. (2000). The Savage Anomaly: The Power of Spinoza’s Metaphysics and Politics. U of Minnesota Press.

Wild, U., & Uijl, S. (2023). Niet alfa, bèta of gamma: Onderwijs van de toekomst is sigma. ScienceGuide. https://www.scienceguide.nl/2023/06/niet-alfa-beta-of-gamma-onderwijs-van-de-toekomst-is-sigma/

Knowledge integration is essential in inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) education and research. However, integration looks different wherever it emerges (Klein 2012), which makes it difficult to learn about integration from multiple cases. ITD theorists and practitioners long to answer questions such as these: What conditions make integration more likely to succeed or fail? How can we describe integration in ways that others can understand? What are the minimal markers of successful integration? We sense that somehow integration is both one thing and myriad things at once, and this paradox stymies our attempts to understand and reliably facilitate integration.

In this presentation, we contribute to what we call the "philosophy of integration" by characterizing a "general use of the concept" of integration (O'Malley 2013) that does justice both to the fact that the term ‘integration’ is broadly used in very similar ways across the crossdisciplinary literature and the fact that this literature describes a rich variety of integrative cases in inter-, trans- and other crossdisciplinary work. We argue that, for certain purposes, this general use of ‘integration’ can be characterized in terms of a simple, customizable model that is a development of the Input-Process-Output (IPO) approach to crossdisciplinary integration introduced by O'Rourke and colleagues (2016).

After describing the simple model using example cases, we demonstrate how it can be combined with structures imported from other frameworks (e.g., levels of organization in biology, timescales in sociology of science). We show how such combinations enable new research questions about integration across cases and within cases over time and space. Like the original IPO model, inputs, process, and outputs remain essential features of the simple model. However, unlike the IPO model, which includes all possible ways integration can vary, the simple model is customized to include only the variables needed to describe the integrative case(s) under consideration. Modeling integration in this way preserves enough commonalities (inputs, processes, and outputs) to be able to recognize integration in vastly different cases while also being able to capture the sources of their variation–certain features about the inputs, processes, and outputs.

We demonstrate how the model can be customized and applied using nine accounts of integration in the life sciences that were published in 2013 as part of a special collection of Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. These accounts summarize a diverse array of life sciences research activity, and the model distills these accounts to highlight the main sources of variability in the set. In this example application, the sources are mainly features of the inputs and outputs. We show how the model is therefore a concise tool for describing and analyzing key components of integration within and across cases. We conclude by indicating some ways the model could be further customized to support future work, especially deeper examination of integrative processes that include “microintegrations”, or local events of integration that ground larger integrative achievements.

One of our most important technologies is the research discipline, i.e., the “quasi-institutional” structure that produces knowledge in a limited range through organized, social interaction (O’Rourke et al. 2019). Research disciplines and their problems grow up together: on the one hand, a discipline’s problems are described in its language and are amenable to its methods; on the other, a discipline grows and changes as it grapples with the problems it takes on. Thus, the problems that occupy a discipline tend to be discipline-sized problems. Unfortunately, the problems that confront our communities, our countries, and our planet are not discipline-sized problems. While they overlap with disciplinary problems, they have no respect for disciplinary boundaries.

Complex problems like these require complex responses, where that involves assembling different epistemic perspectives on a problem and combining them to address its dynamically interrelated characteristics. A number of research modalities have been described going back to the 1920s that are motivated by the need to meet complex problems with complex responses, such as multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. As a research modality, convergence is a relatively recent entry. Over the past two decades, there has been an increasing amount of work on convergence, spurred on by interest from the US National Academies, the National Research Council, and National Science Foundation (e.g., NASEM 2019). Despite increased attention to convergence, there has been no consensus about the concept, although not for lack of trying (see Frechtling et al. 2021). This lack of consensus means that no standardized conception of convergence grounds the systematic development of convergence programs and projects or the consistent evaluation of convergence proposals or products. Of course, convergence could simply be a banner that agencies and investigators wave to indicate their support for more expansive, boundary-spanning research, in which case standardization would be unnecessary; in this presentation, though, we assume that it is a technical concept for classifying a specific type of scientific activity, and as such it should be developed with enough precision to be rigorously applied.

In this presentation we will briefly summarize the literature on convergence to reveal different senses and streams of thought that underscore the lack of conceptual consensus. We will also address two theoretical research questions: what is convergence? and how does convergence compare with interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity? In doing so, we present a perspective on the nature of convergence and then describe four models of convergence as a process, drawn from the literature, that we relate to the standard spectrum of crossdisciplinary research modalities (e.g., multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinarity). We close by considering the theorist’s challenge when it comes to convergence and the implications that has for the empirical investigation of convergence research.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2019). Fostering the culture of convergence in research: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

O’Rourke, M., Crowley, S., Laursen, B. K., Robinson, B., Vasko, S. E. (2019). Disciplinary diversity in teams, integrative approaches from unidisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity. In K. L. Hall, A. L. Vogel, and R. T. Croyle (Eds.), Advancing Social and Behavioral Health Research through Cross-Disciplinary Team Science: Principles for Success. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 21–46.

Historically, the design discipline has been acknowledged for its integrative capacity in addressing complexity by crafting cohesive and aesthetically appealing perspectives, thereby informing planning, decision-making, and policy (Ovink & Boeijenga, 2018). However, despite its recognized integrative nature, design has not received adequate acknowledgment within the discourse of knowledge integration, particularly within the Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary (ITD) community. With an increasing demand for integrative approaches to address complex spatial development questions, the Resilient Delta initiative, led by a Gluon researcher, developed and applied a design-based interdisciplinary knowledge integration methodology to transform expert knowledge into action-oriented insights to support the complex development ambitions of Maasterras in Doredrecht.

This presentation will illustrate agency of design in the shaping of integrated perspectives, while also addressing the constraints that impede its effectiveness.. Through a detailed examination of a case study, it unveils a series of enabling and disabling factors that influenced the agency of design within the integrative process. These factors encompass disciplinary biases, power dynamics, conventional business paradigms, and siloed administrative structures. These factors underscore thats there are real barriers and bottlenecks in inter and transdisciplinary integration and collaboration.

By shedding light on these challenges, this research emphasizes the necessity of both recongizing the limitations and influences of a design based knowledge integration framework. Moreover it unveils realities of inter- and trandiscplinarity collaboration, and the potential gap from theory to practice. Ultimately this presentation aims to provide critical insights into to the inherent value of a design-based knowledge integration approach in tackling complex development questions, while also fostering awareness of potential disbaling factors that many hinder integration efforts within inter- and trandsciplinary collaboration.

Henk Ovink, & Jelte Boeijenga. (2018). Too big : Rebuild by Design : a transformative approach to climate change. Nai010 Publishers.

In the field of veterinary and animal sciences, most research activities are situated in a societal context that is characterized by discussions on animal use, welfare, public health and environmental sustainability. Complex challenges like this can only be tackled by real collaboration between different disciplines and partners outside academia. Research teams needs to move beyond discipline-specific perspectives to create outcomes that are both scientifically sound and problem-solving oriented.

This need for transdisciplinarity has been recognised by many national and European research funding programmes relevant to veterinary and animal sciences. Project consortia are not only required to collaborate with different academic disciplines but also to explicitly include non-academic partners. Some universities have also reformed their evaluation schemes for researchers to take account of these developments (e.g. Utrecht University’s Recognition and Rewards Vision). This has led to most of us already working in multi-actor teams in such transdisciplinary research projects.

Transdisciplinary research does not imply a novel theory of knowledge or one specific method; it is rather characterised by more general normative aspirations. In recent years, several frameworks have been developed that embrace these aspirations. However, to researchers outside the community of those who study transdisciplinary processes, these concepts often seem vague and lack a connection to their daily workflow. This is particularly true for researchers from veterinary and animal sciences, two fields which are often grounded in radical positivism. As a result, researchers retreat to their own disciplinary niches and work on their own questions within joint research projects. External stakeholders often pursue different interests than the academic researchers or regard themselves more as research subjects than as equal research partners. A common example for this problem is to truly integrate work packages dealing with ethical aspects of animal topics into the whole project and to create functional outcomes together with the veterinary work packages.

Additional efforts of facilitation are necessary to practically implement transdisciplinary collaboration in these research consortia. In my presentation I introduce an exercise which I used to facilitate collaboration on socio-ethical questions in research and innovation among a team consisting of philosophers, biologists, animal scientists, veterinarians, engineers, R&D team members of breeding companies and representatives of animal protection NGOs. The stakeholder tokens exercise is a participatory, playful and holistic approach to stakeholder analysis adapted by Yoo (2021). It employs a style of role play, enables participants to make sense of complex stakeholder networks and relationships related to their research topic and stimulates reflection. By seeking out a robust set of stakeholders, legitimizing their inclusion and reflecting on their dynamic relationships, the participants gained a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the societal context in which their investigations take place. During the exercise it became for instance clear that all project partners regarded animals as stakeholders in their own right and that institutional ethics committees were not seen as sufficient to stimulate genuine reflection. The exercise paved the way for a number of collaborative follow-up activities and student projects within the consortium, which are still underway.

Many German non-university research organizations –in particular institutes of the Max Planck society, Fraunhofer society, Leibniz association, and Helmholtz association– have a long history of engaging in some types of collaborative knowledge creation and transdisciplinary research. However, research disciplines and methodologies, organizational approaches as well as individual mindsets differ widely across and within the four organizations and their independent member institutes, making it particularly hard to incentivize research teams to tackle current challenges by co-producing actionable knowledge jointly with practice partners from both the public and the private sector. We take a step back and measure the preferences of scientists in these German key research organizations regarding knowledge co-production and more. Administered online and distributed via internal communication departments, we conducted a discrete choice experiment accompanied by further survey questions. 917 respondents completed our survey. We asked participants to choose one out of two hypothetical research projects characterized by six attributes (funding volume, academic success, societal impact, knowledge transfer, knowledge co-production, and practice partner type), of which most had three levels (low, medium, high). Respondents were randomly allocated into two blocs, both of which were asked to make eight choices. Standard logistic regressions produce highly significant coefficients for virtually almost all attribute levels. Obvious preference rankings were all confirmed (i.e. researchers prefer high over low academic success, ceteris paribus). Contrasting organization-specific sub-samples reveals clear preferential differences between researchers from different research associations, in particular Max Planck vs Fraunhofer, where the former prefer knowledge transfer to the public sector, while the latter are keener to engage in knowledge co-production with the private sector. However, a latent class analysis shows that there are also intricate differences of preferences within research societies, rendering blanket policies to encourage research-practice collaboration too simplistic. Based on the results of our survey we discuss approaches how to foster transdisciplinarity among the thousands of top scientists in German non-university research and to what degree our findings are transferable to other national contexts.

The most pressing research topics of our time are too complex for a single discipline to tackle. This also holds true for sustainable development – the topic of a 5-year transdisciplinary transformative research project at the Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences (2018-2022). Yet, we experienced issues of e.g., problem framing, mental models, and prejudices against other disciplines that hampered our interdisciplinary collaboration and led to frustration. From a collective identification of ‘pain points’, to a cross impact analysis of influencing factors and team workshops, we administered different formats to help address the arising issues. Here, two main topics of “attitude” and “leadership” emerged. From there, based on the latest state of the art in science of cross-disciplinary team science, we developed key criteria for successful interdisciplinary collaboration. These encompass an interplay of a) three dimensions (epistemic, social, and psychological) and b) three levels (person, team, university). This framework not only underlines the importance of a holistic approach to knowledge integration, but also explicitly recognizes the role of social and psychological elements in interdisciplinary collaboration. In our case, those were less accessible – also due to remote working during the COVID19-pandemic. This perspective helped us in understanding the given issues and guided us through the remaining time of the project, opening new ways of thinking and interacting. By the end of the project, we administered an online survey among the team members to gather relevant learnings for future projects. The survey revealed that most team members were newcomers to the field of transdisciplinary transformative research and that conflict management, rules of decision-making, and active reflection of team processes could have been improved. However, overall, team members indicated a pronounced psychological safety in the subgroups. With these insights, we would like to share our experiences and stimulate a discussion on how to actively shape inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration and how to sensitize team members for this task.

Abstract

The presentation will present findings of a survey and structured interviews whose main objectives were to, firstly definitional, to understand understand what researchers in Africa define and consider as transdisciplinary research. Secondly, gain deeper insights into the perceptions of transdisciplinary research as a research approach, the state of readiness of researchers in Africa to conduct transdisciplinary research. Thirdly, to guage the extent of transdisciplinary research that is already taking place and challenges. Fourthly, draw insights on how transdisciplinary research could be assessed and evaluated and what if at all is different about assessing TD research from traditional disciplinary research. Lastly, determine training and other support needs of researchers with regards to transdisciplinary research.

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.

Co-design in transdisciplinary research projects (Jahn et al. 2012) is associated with various challenges for the actors involved. The different interests and perspectives of the scientific actors as well as the practitioners should be uncovered and integrated to develop a common transdisciplinary research question. Here, Pearce and Ejderyan (2020) distinguish between (a) content-oriented and (b) process-oriented challenges.

As support to meet challenges at the beginning of a transdisciplinary collaboration, such as (a) inclusion and visualization of different perspectives on a topic or (b) establishing a good quality of communication, we, the TD-Lab of the Berlin University Alliance, have developed the TransImpro workshop format. This applies improvisational theater techniques to reveal and integrate the plurality of perspectives, expertise, personal references and values of the participants. Using exercises adapted from improvisational theatre, participants are encouraged to draw out their respective implicit knowledge through associations and enter into lively interaction with each other. Central to this is the positive reference to others inherent in improvisational theatre through the basic attitude and application of the initial sentence "Yes, and ..." (Richter 2022). This communication emphasizes and acknowledges the strengths of each other while building onto another person’s storytelling. Besides, improvisation requires active listening and can thereby enhance collaborative working.

Our 90-minute training at ITD 2024 will introduce the TransImpro workshop format with its aims, methods and results. Above all, participants will be given the opportunity to experience the potential of improvisational theatre for transdisciplinary by means of a practical exercise.

After a short introduction to the TransImpro workshop format, the participants will get to know and use the improvisation technique collaborative storytelling with "Yes, and ...". After this, participants will reflect on their experiences in relation to the question of what improvisational theatre can achieve in the co-design phase of transdisciplinary research and on conclusions they can draw for their own research.

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

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

Richter, D. (2022): Improvisationstheater. Band 1: Die Grundlagen. Theater der Zeit, Berlin.

Relevance

In designing interdisciplinary education, teachers often struggle with what pedagogical approach(es) and which design propositions to choose in order to guide students in attaining the learning outcomes as foreseen (Spelt et al., 2015). Interdisciplinary teaching can indeed take many different forms, based on the motivation that teachers have for their teaching (e.g. societal relevance), the level of integration they aim for and the disciplines that are combined (Klein, 1990).

Interdisciplinary education, whether a course or a whole bachelor or masters’ curriculum, when designed properly, is student-centered and guides students in their development towards becoming ‘integrators’, possessing both the cognitive and affective skills needed to integrate insights and perspectives in their future studies and jobs (Hoffmann et al., 2022). Learning outcomes associated with interdisciplinary learning environments are, however, diverse and can range from lower order thinking to higher order thinking levels. Moreover, learning outcomes can be both cognitive, affective and adaptive. Recently an overview of outcomes associated with the interdisciplinary learning process has been published (Oudenampsen et al., 2024), however in most cases interdisciplinary education is still designed based on its’ pedagogy instead of the possible learning outcomes (Oudenampsen, 2024).

As discussed in Spelt et al. (2015), it would therefore help teachers to focus on designing outcome-based interdisciplinary education, based on the principles of constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang). This is why we are developing a teacher tool at Utrecht University that can support teachers in designing constructively aligned interdisciplinary learning environments. The tool guides teachers in the designing process by providing information, good practice examples and tailored assignments in answering questions like: what are the intended learning goals I would like students to achieve? What assessment as well as teaching and learning elements are needed to guide students towards these intended goals? The tool brings together the existing (empirical) literature on interdisciplinary education, best practices in the educational field and the resulting design principles. It, therefore, provides the so-needed guide for teachers to develop interdisciplinary education.

Content tool

Teachers who are developing, or implementing a multi- inter or transdisciplinary course can use the tool to attain their goals. At the same time, educational professionals who want to evaluate and improve existing interdisciplinary education can use the tool to redesign their education and educational professionals who seek inspiration are also welcome to use the tool.

The tool consists of 5 ‘building blocks’/ steps for designing interdisciplinary learning environments:

1. Preparing for design: what is interdisciplinary education and why is it relevant?

2. Design step 1: Learning outcomes of interdisciplinary education

3. Design step 2: Learning activities in interdisciplinary education

4. Design step 3: Assessment forms for interdisciplinary education

5. Design step 4: Completing the interdisciplinary learning environment for my course

Teachers who are (re)designing a course go through the steps in a sequential manner, thereby being guided through the constructive alignment process, but it is possible to go back and forth in the tool in order to allow it to be an iterative process.

Furthermore, it is also possible to navigate to a desired section of the tool, for teachers with a specific question or specific interest concerning the design of interdisciplinary education.

For each building block, the following components are provided:

- Each building block starts with background information on this particular section, with the possibility to proceed to more extensive information with associated literature references. Special attention is paid to existing empirical research in the research field.

- Thereafter, the user is presented with questions regarding the design of interdisciplinary education concerning this building block, following from the background information provided earlier. This challenges the user to become aware of the design principles regarding their interdisciplinary education, to make choices regarding the design process, and to reflect on existing education.

- Furthermore, each building block contains examples of best practices that can inspire users for their own interdisciplinary education.

Workshop design

During the workshop, we will provide a presentation of 10-15 minutes to demonstrate the content of the educational design tool. In this introduction to the tool, we will provide information about the design-process of the tool, we explain the design choices that we made in the tool, and we will clarify the scientific basis of the tool. Furthermore, we will demonstrate the tool so that participants will be able to actively test the tool in the next part of the workshop.

Afterwards, participants will be able to actively test the tool (in pairs)(45 minutes). For that, they can use an existing or fictitious course. Participants will be able to go through the tool in a sequential manner, starting from the beginning, or search for specific information regarding specific design principles for interdisciplinary education. The workshop leaders will be available for guiding through the tool and answering questions.

In the final half hour, we will gather feedback about the design and content of the tool itself, and answer questions with the entire group of participants. Participants can save the results of this test session and use them in their teaching practice.

References

1. Spelt, EJH., Luning, PA., van Boekel, MAJS., Mulder, M. (2015) Constructively aligned teaching and learning in higher education in engineering: What do students perceive as contributing to the learning of interdisciplinary thinking? European Journal of engineering education, 40(5):459-475.

2. Klein, JT. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, theory and practice. Wayne State University Press (23).

3. Hoffman, S., Deutsch, L., Klein, JT. & O’Rourke, M. (2022) Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(147). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01138-z

4. Oudenampsen, J., Das, E., Blijlevens, NMA., van de Pol, MHJ. (2024). The state of empirical evidence for interdisciplinary learning outcomes in higher education: a systematic review. The Review of Higher Education, ahead of print. 10.1353/rhe.0.a920416

5. Oudenampsen, J. (2024) Unraveling interdisciplinarity. Changing perspectives on interdisciplinary education, learning and learning outcomes. Radboud University. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/302724

6. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2020) Constructive alignment: An outcomes-based approach to teaching anatomy. In: Chan, LK., Pawlina, W. (eds) Teaching Anatomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43283-6_3

In the light of pressing issues like climate change, existing educational repertoires are increasingly seen as not fit for purpose. The ‘knowledge-deficit model’ implied in most forms of education places strict limitations on the social engagement that may be fostered. Therefore, in this workshop, we will together map alternative, hope-oriented educational repertoires, and explore their strengths and weaknesses in fostering social engagement.

Awareness is growing that educational institutes not just play a role in studying problems and worldly processes; they can also activate engagement with real-world contexts and help envision and build new pathways for sustainable futures. But, what precisely such a future- and society-oriented educational system can look like, is still unclear. Therefore, in this workshop we will explore what an academy of hope might look like.

This workshop is organized by researchers from the action-research project called The Academy of Hope. From this project we take two insights into the design of the workshop. The first is that by experimenting and redesigning education, teachers play an important role in inspiring students to perceive change as possible and within reach, and to become more proactive and reflective in their orientation to change. Secondly, our findings suggest that ‘hope’ is best conceived as an active practice, and a movement between something that is aspired and longed for, and something that is critiqued and to-be-changed.

The starting point for the workshop is the recognition that there is not one silver bullet: an Academy of Hope will have to consist of a plethora of activities that in different ways connect real-world contexts, expertise, imagination, and diverse participants (from students in initial education, practitioners, researchers to communities). Looking beyond the level of a course, an Academy of Hope will also have to reconsider the broader educational ecologies in which learning takes place, and consider the long-term learning lines through which learners can start to see themselves as active participants in processes of change. Across educational institutions, educators already experiment with novel forms of education that can contribute to such aims. From introducing creative methods like theater to allowing students to engage with real-world settings by bringing societal practitioners into the classroom. Getting a feel for the diversity and the contours of academies of hope, can empower our inspiration and ability to create such alternative educational repertoires.

Therefore, as a modest first step, the purpose of this workshop is to stage an interactive exploration of how an Academy of Hope may look like. To do so, we will collaborate with the participants in this session to first i) explore what we critique and see as important flaws in present educational repertoires, as well as the kind of educational elements we imagine to be most valuable. Drawing on our undertsanding of hope, we believe that it is in moving back and forth between these critiqued- and longed-for forms education where change becomes conceivable and hope possible. To do so, we will ii) ‘map’ a landscape of educational initiatives of change, thereby co-creating an impromptu exhibition space. To inspire this part of the workshops, the hosts will share a few initiatives of change that inspire them. After having mapped innovative practices, we will iii) use techniques from ‘system constellations’ to interactively explore the relationships between them and identify the contours of diverse Academy of Hopes.

Draft setting of the workshop:

In the room for this workshop, we will co-create a landscape of educational initiatives change, to discuss the contours of academies of hope. To do so, the room is divided into various spaces. On the top/North wall, we collect the educational repertoires participants are most critical about, into a collage of the ‘absurdities of the present’. At the opposing wall, we collect educational repertoires that participants imagine to be valuable for societal engagement and change-making. The middle is where educational change takes place in practice. Here we co-create ‘exhibits’ of initiatives of change, drawing on pillars, posterboards, or high tables. On a third wall in the room, we create a pre-made exhibit, displaying quotes, diagrams, and photo’s of how we understand the practice of hope might work for teachers and students.

Draft workshop outline:

0. Walking in

As participants are walking in, we imagine they can already take a look around, and read some pre-made quotes and ideas that the hosts have added to the ‘empty’ exhibition spaces.

1. Opening: setting up the ‘edges’ of the room

After welcoming the participants to this co-creative space with a brief introduction, we invite participants to move to one side of the room. We ask participants to consider the thing they’re most critical of in their educational practices and environments. What do you want to see change? Why is that? In pairs, participants get a black sheet of paper and white pencil/pen, and listen carefully to one another as they shares their critique, and write it down. Thereby, we create a wall of critique, exhibiting the absurdities of the present.

On the other side of the room, we ask participants to imagine a direction of education that truly inspires them, that feel meaningful. On colourful sheets of paper, we collect these ideas, exhibiting our space of longing.

Then, we sit down in the middle of the room. Here, at this discontinuity between what we critique and what we long for, is where we image an academy of hope to thrive. It is an uncertain space to be in, but a space full of potential. By building an exhibit of our actions and doubts within this space, we collect a reflective and vulnerable exhibit of the initiatives of educational changes we’re (aiming to) work on.

2. Tour of 2-3 ‘initiatives of change’: We then offer a brief ‘tour’ across a few initiatives of change, that the hosts wish to share with the participants. These examples might spark inspiration for participants to see what they wish to contribute to the exhibits.

3. Co-creating initiatives of change: Then, we break up into small groups, and invite participants to discuss and add initiatives of change- or ideas of change, to the space.

4. Freely moving time to ‘visit’ other groups and their exhibited initiatives of change. Participants can, with paper and pen, keep adding thoughts throughout the exhibition space, and reflect with other participants.

4 Plenary ‘system constellation’: Plenary, we ask one person of each group to share an initiative of change they discussed. We then invite them to position themselves within the room at a spot they think fits best, in relation to the walls of critique and imagination, and in relation to the other initiatives of change that are shared. Thereby, they’re forming a ‘system constellation’, through which we explore the contours of what might characterize academies of hope.

5 Plenary closing – collective insights. In a final reflective moment, we collectively make sense of the session and the exhibition, and harvest short words of insights from the participants.

Healthy Start, a convergence programme, integrates social, medical and technical sciences to examine complex societal challenges for youth, from conception to young adulthood. The overall goal is to realize scientific and societal impact in order to improve physical, mental and social health of children and adolescents. The programme is a collaboration between the Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus Medical Centre, Delft University of Technology and a wide range of societal partners, such as youth associations, civil society organizations and healthcare professionals. The convergence programme consists of six ambitions.

One of the Healthy Start’s ambition programmes is to improve the participation and involvement of unheard youth in Rotterdam (https://convergence.nl/healthy-start/youth-participation-and-involvement-2/). Research shows that youth participation and involvement may have positive outcomes for young people’s well-being, self-confidence, and development of new skills (1, 2). In addition, it may

Transdisciplinary approaches have emerged as important avenues for addressing complex societal problems. These approaches transcend disciplinary boundaries, fostering connections among different disciplines and engaging non-academic stakeholders in problem-solving (Klein, 2015). A considerable scholarly effort has been dedicated to identifying and recommending the essential skills and competencies that are needed for transdisciplinary endeavours (Redman & Wiek, 2021). Consequently, there is a notable shift in educational paradigms towards transdisciplinary learning, to equip future researchers with the necessary competencies to effectively navigate and engage in transdisciplinary endeavours.

Within the literature, there is an increasing focus on developing lists of competencies for successful transdisciplinary engagements. However, this poses challenges as it can conceal the convergence of skills, mastering skill sets, and navigating the dynamic trade-offs. Moreover, current studies often overlook the role of individual identities in competency development for transdisciplinarity. The multifaceted array of values, beliefs, skills, knowledge, attitudes, and background of individual identities greatly influence one’s participation in and contributions to transdisciplinary endeavours.

To move beyond the prevailing focus in transdisciplinary education solely on acquiring lists of competencies to navigate complex problems, we aim to broaden the discourse by emphasizing the significance of the individual identity of researchers in the development of these skills. Hence, it is essential to delve into the aspects of their identity that researchers deem critical for their engagement within transdisciplinary environments. In light of this, we propose organizing a workshop at the ITD-24 conference, inviting scholars, researchers, and practitioners to reflect on their individual (research) identities and share how these shape their engagement in transdisciplinary endeavours. The workshop will focus on uncovering the elements of their (research) identity that participants consider vital in supporting their roles as inter- and transdisciplinary researchers and/or practitioners. We are eager to capitalize on the conference theme of "Inter- and Transdisciplinarity Beyond Buzzwords," anticipating an audience interested in exploring beyond surface-level narratives and delving deeper into the complexities of inter- and transdisciplinary work.

We believe that participating in a creative reflection exercise, which draws upon personal experiences and development toward transdisciplinary competencies, can lead to the emergence of intriguing insights and contribute to the reflective mindset that we champion in the inter- and transdisciplinary journey. It will also help us to tap into the key milestones and challenges of our fellow researcher's transdisciplinary journey. The proposed outline of the workshop exercise is described below. Throughout the workshop session, a metaphorical "backpack" will be utilized to represent what participants have accumulated during their life's journey. This includes essential items they have chosen to carry with them and rely on, reflecting on why their backpacks appear as they do. Furthermore, participants will explore how their backpacks can be further filled with essentials to continue their transdisciplinary journey.

Keywords: transdisciplinarity; competencies; identity

Reference:

Klein, J. T. (2015). Reprint of “Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future”. Futures, 65, 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.01.003

Redman, A., & Wiek, A. (2021). Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability. Frontiers in Education, 6, 785163. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEDUC.2021.785163/BIBTEX  

Outline of the workshop exercise

Introduction (10 minutes)

• The session will start with a brief introduction of ourselves and our motivation for conducting this work, followed by a brief round of introductions from the participants (i.e., name and position).

• Afterwards, the outline of the workshop exercise will be briefly explained.

Part 1: Reflecting on the individual (both professional & personal) identity

• Mapping the journey: What is in your backpack? (20 minutes)

o First, participants will be asked to individually create a visual representation of their (professional & personal) journey up until now. They will be encouraged to consider moments or experiences that shaped their journey. These could for instance include life events, academic achievements, career shifts, challenges etc. The visual representation could be a timeline, mind map, story or any other creative format that seems suitable for participants.

o Subsequently, in pairs, participants will briefly share (the highlights of) their journey with each other.

• Reflecting on the journey: Why does your backpack look the way it is? (20 minutes)

o Second, to further illustrate each plotted point on the journey map, participants are asked to write a brief reflective annotation. Participants are encouraged to do so, by considering questions such as:

 What was the context or situation that contributed to that specific moment in the journey?

 What challenges did you encounter, and how did you overcome them?

 What insights or lessons did you gain from this experience?

 What traits, characteristics, skills, knowledge, or other developments have you cultivated throughout this experience or series of moments?

o In pairs they will share this journey

Part 2: Connecting the dots with transdisciplinarity

• Connecting your journey to transdisciplinarity: What is essential in your backpack to engage in transdisciplinarity? (20 minutes)

o First, it's essential to understand how participants perceive transdisciplinarity and what they view as its connected elements. Participant are asked to express their thoughts and associations when they hear the term “transdisciplinarity”. Once more, participants are encouraged to individually express their interpretations through either a drawing or a story.

 What does transdisciplinarity mean for you?

 What do you consider to be transdisciplinary competencies?

o Second, in pairs, participants are required to share and brief discussion on the definition of transdisciplinarity and essential transdisciplinary competencies. They are encouraged to explore questions such as:

 Where does this understanding originate from?

 Why do you deem these competencies significant?

o Third, participants are asked to go back to their journey map, attempting to identify which transdisciplinary competencies were developed during the pivotal moments as earlier indicated on their journey map. Participants will be stimulated to use different colours of post-its corresponding to, for instance, attitudes, skills, values, and competencies, to create insight into the various elements collected in their backpacks.

Part 3: Sharing and exchanging

• Unpacking: Show us what is inside your backpack (20 minutes)

o First, Participants will be divided into groups of four, allowing a space to share and exchange their journey map. To stimulate discussion, participants are encouraged to explore similarities and differences in their experiences and reflections.

o As a next step, participants will engage in discussions in small groups on how the insights gained in this workshop can inform their future approaches to transdisciplinary learning and practice.

o To close our session, each group will be asked to share their main key takeaway of the workshop session.

Abstract

We’ve got to integrate; but how?! While knowledge integration is considered a key characteristic of interdisciplinarity, it is also widely acknowledged as one of its biggest mysteries and challenges. We may not be able to provide a recipe, but how can we learn to cook?

In this workshop, we’ll peek inside the black box of knowledge integration. Through engaging in creative exercises, participants will reflect on their own experiences with knowledge integration. The insights that emerge from those reflections as well as the experiences with the creative exercises are intended to support participants in future integration processes. While knowledge integration is contextual, complex and open-ended, reflective practices can help foster conditions for knowledge integration. Besides practicing with tools that participants can bring home, we’ll also share insights from ongoing action research into knowledge integration processes in interdisciplinary collaboration practices at the Centre for Unusual Collaboration.

Workshop outline

Knowledge integration is often considered a key characteristic of inter- and transdisciplinary research, distinguishing it from other forms of cross-disciplinary approaches such as multidisciplinarity (Klein 2017; Pohl et al. 2021). As such, conducting inter- and transdisciplinary research demands knowledge integration in practice. However, integration is often highly challenging and a bottleneck to engage in inter- and transdisciplinary research (Godemann 2008; Lawrence et al. 2022; Cairns, Hielscher, and Light 2020). Therefore, guiding, leading, supporting, and facilitating inter- and transdisciplinary research asks for support in knowledge integration (Hoffmann, Weber, and Mitchell 2022). Several tools and approaches that support knowledge integration processes in practice have been developed and are described in the literature, such as the CoNavigator tool (Lindvig, Hillersdal, and Earle 2017) and Dialogue Toolbox (Hubbs, O’Rourke, and Orzack 2021; Eigenbrode et al. 2007), and step-wise integration process detailed by Repko & Szostak (2020). However, integration is also understood as a complex, open-ended, contextual, and plural phenomenon (Pohl et al. 2021), that can be described in terms of its inputs, processes and outcomes (O’Rourke, Crowley, and Gonnerman 2016). This raises the question how to support inter- and transdisciplinary teams in knowledge integration by providing practical support while also doing justice to this complex and plural understanding of knowledge integration.

The Centre for Unusual Collaborations (CUCo) also observed challenges with knowledge integration in the inter- and transdisciplinary projects they support. CUCo provides training, coaching, and tools to the teams that they support through seed funding (Spark) and funding for research projects (UCo). The CUCo training and support underscores disciplinary grounding, perspective taking, common ground and integration as key processes and competencies. Especially in relation to how to ‘do’ as well as stimulate, facilitate and support integration many questions remain. Challenges among the Spark and UCo team include: how to bring together knowledges that are far removed rom each other, how to organize and ensure integration as a continuous process throughout the projects, and how to ensure integration (degrees, forms) that are appropriate for research objectives. In response to those observations, CUCo decided to make knowledge integration a central theme in 2024 and we conducted accompanying action research on how integration emerges and can be further facilitated and supported in unusual collaborations.

For the ITD conference, we provide a 90-minute workshop based on interactive workshops about knowledge integration that we ran with UCo and Spark teams in March 2024. We take the metaphor of “knowledge integration as cooking” as a red thread. How can distinct ingredients be turned into a cohesive and tasty dish, and how can one engage in and learn this art beyond recipe following? As the proof of the pudding is in the eating, participants to the ITD workshop will be put to work to engage in reflections on inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge integration. Moreover, we will provide preliminary insights from our experiences with the Spark and UCo teams to inform participants of the workshop about the insights on knowledge integration that those sessions brought us. Representatives of Spark and/or UCo teams will be present and actively participate in the workshop to share their experiences with knowledge integration as well as more generally with engaging in ‘unusual collaboration’.

The workshop will be offered with roughly the following schedule:

1. Opening and introduction

- Introduction to the CUCo approach

- Introduction to interdisciplinary knowledge integration in unusual collaborations

- Rationale behind and goals for the workshop

2. WHAT do you integrate? - Interactive “building blocks”-based exercise on making sense of, and reflecting on, experienced team diversity and its implications for collaboration and integration.

3. WHO integrates? - interactive exercise on organizing integration responsibility in inter- and transdisciplinary teamwork.

4. HOW to integrate? - interactive exercise on aspired and actual degrees of knowledge integration and reflection on their implications for knowledge integration and collaboration.

5. Joint reflection and preliminary insights:

- participants to the workshop are invited to reflect on their experiences with the interactive activities about the WHAT, WHO and HOW of knowledge integration in inter- and transdisciplinary teamwork.

- Participants from UCo and Spark teams share their experiences.

- The organizers share some aggregated insights from all UCo and Spark teams based on the sessions in March 2024.

6. Wrap-up

Through this set-up we aim to bring participants to the workshop the following:

- The opportunity to engage in reflection on knowledge integration practices in their own inter- and transdisciplinary research activities;

- Inspiration on creative tooling for reflection on inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge integration that they may want to also implement in their own inter- and transdisciplinary research context; and

- Insight into inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge integration practices by exchange with and learning from the experiences of other participants in the workshop and the UCo and Spark teams.

This workshop is offered in a collaboration between Annemarie Horn and CUCo. Annemarie Horn is an Assistant Professor at Utrecht University who studies practices of inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration and integration in projects and teams. She conducts – among others – research in the context of the UCo and Spark teams that receive support from CUCo. From CUCo, Anke de Vrieze is involved in her role of Knowledge and Learning Officer. The collaborative nature of this workshop is also representative of the collaborative nature of this research and its dual goal of improving as well as understanding knowledge integration practices in inter- and transdisciplinary teamwork. This collaboration allows us to combine the practical knowledge, experiences, and creative tooling from CUCo with empirical analysis and theoretical underpinnings from the research perspective.

References

Cairns, Rose, Sabine Hielscher, and Ann Light. 2020. “Collaboration, Creativity, Conflict and Chaos: Doing Interdisciplinary Sustainability Research.” Sustainability Science 15 (6): 1711–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00784-z.

Eigenbrode, Sanford D., Michael O’rourke, J. D. Wulfhorst, David M. Althoff, Caren S. Goldberg, Kaylani Merrill, Wayde Morse, et al. 2007. “Employing Philosophical Dialogue in Collaborative Science.” BioScience 57 (1): 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570109.

Godemann, Jasmin. 2008. “Knowledge Integration: A Key Challenge for Transdisciplinary Cooperation.” Environmental Education Research 14 (6): 625–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802469188.

Hoffmann, Sabine, Christine Weber, and Cynthia Mitchell. 2022. “Principles for Leading, Learning, and Synthesizing in Inter- and Transdisciplinary Research.” BioScience 72 (10): 963–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac057.

Hubbs, Graham, Michael O’Rourke, and Steven Hecht Orzack, eds. 2021. The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: The Power of Cross-Disciplinary Practice. First edition. Boca Raton London New York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Klein, Julie Thompson. 2017. “Typologies of Interdisciplinarity: The Boundary Work of Definition.” In Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by Robert Frodeman, Julie T. Klein, and Roberto C.S. Pacheco, 2nd ed., 21–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lawrence, Mark G., Stephen Williams, Patrizia Nanz, and Ortwin Renn. 2022. “Characteristics, Potentials, and Challenges of Transdisciplinary Research.” One Earth 5 (1): 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.010.

Lindvig, Katrine, Line Hillersdal, and David Earle. 2017. “Interdisciplinary Tool Helps Fast-Track Interdisciplinary Learning and Collaboration.” Integrative Pathways 39 (2): 3–6.

O’Rourke, Michael, Stephen Crowley, and Chad Gonnerman. 2016. “On the Nature of Cross-Disciplinary Integration: A Philosophical Framework.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56 (April): 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.003.

Pohl, Christian, Julie Thompson Klein, Sabine Hoffmann, Cynthia Mitchell, and Dena Fam. 2021. “Conceptualising Transdisciplinary Integration as a Multidimensional Interactive Process.” Environmental Science & Policy 118 (April): 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.005.

Repko, Allen F., and Rick Szostak. 2020. Interdisciplinary Research Process and Theory. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

The scientific literature on the role that higher education institutions –HEI- should play in the context of sustainability has increased considerably since the second decade of the 21st century (Hallinger and Nguyen, 2020), showing the interest and concern that this field of study arouses. Previous works have analysed how HEI is a key element in the sustainability paradigm being education for sustainable development -ESD the pedagogical approach that has more acceptance in the literature (Grosseck et al., 2019) and that has become one of the international frameworks of reference when including the sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals -SDGs- in research and teaching in HEI (Lukas, 2018). However, according to Wamsler et al. (2021), facing this situation from HEI in an adequate way will not be possible only by applying technical and/or technological innovations (Wals, 2014). Feeney et al. (2023) emphasize that a deeper social and cultural transformation is still lacking. Additionally this emerging social paradigm (Loorbach & Wittmayer, 2023) also reinforces the need for a new model of HEI that ensures the transmission of knowledge and tools needed to address the sustainability dilemma, but also the development of internal skills and capacities of students (Lilja et al 2022) and teachers (Zguir et al., 2021; Wiek et al., 2011), facilitating opportunities for participation to all involved in the teaching-learning process through new pedagogical approaches or teaching and learning models. In this research, we present the results of an experiential and experimental educational project of master degree co-created by multidisciplinary and international educators in order to deploy knowledge, values, principles and competences for sustainability in the framework of the Inner Development Goals -IDG- and adding value to SDG 4.7. Taken as reference the framework of Transformative Learning for Sustainability (Sipos et al., 2008), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNECE 2012 framework, Theory U (Scharmer, 2017) and Systemic Thinking (Senge, 1993, 2006) we apply action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Kemmis, 1983) as a systematic learning process where students have conducted critical analysis of the experiential learning situations in which they have been immersed through metacognitive reflections. We also present evidence about the impact that this pedagogical approach has had on students (individually and collectively), on their professional context and on the system levels. Based on our research results, head, hands and heart approach, collectively, can enable perspective and possibly behavioural transformation (Sipos et al., 2008). Regarding the metacognitive reflection it can assist students explore critical thinking and developing the skills that will allow them to address sustainability dilemmas (Singel-Brodowski et al., 2022). In addition, experiential learning can help students to understand what they learn by reconceptualizing it and applying it to their daily life (Bianchi, 2020).

Good conversations are central to (transformative) learning, problem-solving, and change-making; to the general well-being of humans; and to the well-functioning of society and democracy at large. However, in our divided cultural climate, the focus is often on polarized debate, aimed at winning the argument, rather than on generative dialogue, which I define as conversations that foster a respectful exchange of perspectives, enhance relationships, and produce novel insights. In this paper I present the design of a practice called stream-of-consciousness dialogues, which aims to create conducive conditions for such conversations. In this practice, learners take turns spontaneously speaking in response to prompts, and deep listening. I tested this practice in the period 2020-2021 in both Bachelor and Master’s sustainability courses at our University, using qualitative student evaluations (n = 360). Analyzing the data using a grounded theory approach, I coded ten distinct learning outcomes, which I grouped into three major categories: 1) learning how to dialogue more meaningfully; 2) experiencing interpersonal connection and/or personal expansion; and 3) coming to new insights and perspectives. Though further research is needed, the data suggest that this practice creates conducive conditions for generative dialogues to emerge and may therefore be of support in ameliorating societal polarization and existential alienation, while also holding potential for fostering positive social-systemic change. Because the practice is simple in format and easily usable in group settings, I argue it may be widely applied in a diversity of collective learning, change-making, and other group contexts.

Transition scholars are increasingly confronted with overwhelming emotions in and around transformative change. Be this in class, when students express eco-anxiety and how this freezes their ability to engage in sustainability transitions (Pihkala 2020a), emotions related to researching climate change up until traumatic experiences (Pihkala 2020b), or emotions of the societal groups they are engaging with (Bogner et al. 2024, Quigley 2023). It becomes clear that we shape transformations as much as we are shaped by them (Vaughn et al. 2021), which is why the sustainability transitions research (STR) community increasingly calls for investigating ‘transitions in everyday life’ (Köhler et al. 2019), where emotions are an undeniable part of meaning-making (e.g., Bogner et al. 2024, Feola and Jaworska 2019, Coops et al. 2024, Martiskainen and Sovacool 2021).

However, our current ways of researching, teaching, and living in and with transformations might not be sufficiently explored to engage with the emotional dimensions of these transformations beyond researching discrete emotions from a distance. One of the reasons is the active academic disengagement with transformations, that is, approaching and researching them as if we were not part of society or unfolding transformations, closely related to Haraway’s god trick of “seeing everything from nowhere” (Haraway 1988, p. 581).

Explicitly embracing this, in this project, we argue that the only way of understanding and acting within these transformations is by acknowledging our deep entanglements with transformations, which is what Blanche Verlie (2022) calls ´living-with´. This means paying attention to the intimate ways we are enmeshed with transformations (Verlie 2022) and cultivating the emotional capacities and affordances required for ‘living-with’ transformations. Living-with involves "the cultivation of appropriate ways of relating to and engaging that world" (p. 114) - and "continuing to act for a future which is desirable despite being different" (p. 114). Describing transformations as ‘living-with’ allows us to see and experience them as “patterns of affect; as flows of feeling; as repertoires of relating; as a sensational phenomenon; as multispecies enmeshment” (Verlie 2022, p. 6). To cultivate collective action, we need to understand how we as humans are ‘living-with’ transformations. And for this, we need to afford emotions.

That´s why we ask:

How do we, as transition and transformation scholars in our varieties of roles, experience emotions when ‘living with’ transformations? How do these emotions move or stop us from ‘acting-with’ transformations?

In order to explore these questions, we engage in a collective auto-ethnographic process (Chang et al. 2016) for encountering, witnessing and storying transformations individually and collectively with stakeholders. From this study, we develop a ‘cultural probe for engaging with emotions in transformative change’, that is a toolbox for scholars, students and societal stakeholders that can help them to collectively afford their emotions and meaning-making of the deep changes, thereby ‘living-with’ climate change.

This paper presents a critical examination of the contemporary academic environment, highlighting the profound disconnection between the foundational aspirations of academia and the prevailing systemic challenges that undermine its potential for societal transformation. Drawing from a survey sent to 100 ITD scholars working across Europe, it presents deep insights into the world of concerns of academics who are deeply committed to leveraging their work for societal betterment yet find themselves constrained by a neoliberal academic system characterized by precarious working conditions, unrealistic workloads, and a counterproductive emphasis on quantitative metrics of success.

The paper underscores the urgent need for academia to realign its practices with its core values of curiosity, freedom, and societal impact, advocating for a paradigm shift towards inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations that transcend traditional academic boundaries and foster meaningful engagement with societal stakeholders. It proposes educational pathways that prioritize creativity, curiosity-driven research, and the holistic valuation of teaching and learning processes. The envisioned transformation calls for abandoning the prevailing publish-or-perish mentality, rejecting extractivist knowledge production, and cultivating long-term, transformative partnerships with societal actors. This paper argues that such a shift is not only critical for revitalizing the academic vocation but is also essential for addressing the complex challenges facing our world today, ultimately suggesting that the future of academia—and by extension, societal progress—depends on our collective ability to foster a more inclusive, collaborative, and impact-oriented academic culture.

The results of this work are presented in a transformative transdisciplinary way.

In 2020, the University of Auckland | Waipapa Taumata Rau’s strategic plan, Taumata Teitei, emphasised the importance of complementing students’ deep engagement in the discipline of their choice, with enriched and expanded knowledge and skills to enable them to be transdisciplinary, innovative, and entrepreneurial in their thinking. To bring this plan to fruition, Professor Jaime King and Dr. Marie McEntee led the development and now implementation of a university-wide, transdisciplinary learning requirement in all undergraduate degree programmes at the University of Auckland | Waipapa Taumata Rau, in Aotearoa New Zealand. This presentation provides an overview of the development of a broad transdisciplinary undergraduate offering that at scale will serve 7000 undergraduate students each year and offer key lessons and insights to help guide other universities considering incorporating transdisciplinary pedagogy at the undergraduate level. The Transdisciplinary Futures courses are a suite of twelve foundational courses that will enable students to engage with a complex societal issue from diverse and novel perspectives. Each Transdisciplinary Futures course draws together staff and students from different faculties across the University as well as community expertise and perspectives to examine the complex societal issue in depth.

Like many new initiatives, transdisciplinary learning does not always fit neatly into typical university structures of disciplinary faculties, schools, and departments. Its goals are not easily aligned with university funding systems, which allocate funds for course enrolments to a single faculty or department and enable them to be used to cross-subsidise other courses, faculty members, or faculty needs. Nor do its goals always resonate with traditional norms of disciplinary education and the academic staff that teach within a single discipline. This presentation will explore the challenges faced and the lessons learned at three different phases of development: 1) Blue Sky - establishing the context for change and initial ideation; 2) Hard Yards – aligning administrative and academic structures; and 3) Brass Tacks - individual course development and implementation.

Professor Jaime King and Dr Marie McEntee bring understanding and insights from their experience establishing this transformational change across all programmes at the University of Auckland. They share their learning on how to build momentum and deliver implement impactful change within financial, administrative, and human resource constraints.

Drawing upon the transdisciplinary approach as notably outlined by Darbellay (2015), this presentation integrates interested parties’ viewpoints, understandings, and knowledge throughout the research process, highlighting the work of Moody (in press) that emphasises children’s roles as agentic co-researchers. It underscores the ethical imperative of recognising children’s agency and rights in research, in line with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly articles 12 and 13, which assert children’s rights to be heard and express their opinions freely. James (2007) discusses the importance of authentic, diverse children’s perspectives in research, beyond merely affirming established views. The model of “children’s research advisory group” (‘CRAG’) by Lundy et al. (2011) illustrates how children’s involvement in research processes enhances findings’ validity and applicability, a viewpoint supported by Gillett-Swan (2018) for its quality impact on results.

Proposing an extension of CRAGs within a transdisciplinary framework, this presentation focuses on their design and implementation. Transdisciplinarity offers a broad and cohesive strategy treating participatory methods as a subset of its inclusive philosophy which fosters integration of children’s voices into research and policymaking, ensuring their perspectives are not merely included but are instrumental in shaping outcomes. Building upon this foundation, the research underpinning this discussion is drawn from a doctoral study that employs a case-based and comparative approach across three alternative schools in French-speaking Switzerland. Utilising multi-informant and multi-method strategies to capture the dynamic nature of school climate, as suggested by Wang & Degol (2016), the study includes observations, interviews with teachers, headmasters, and parents, and drawings with children (4 to 12). Emphasis is placed on the children’s perspectives on school climate, as elaborated by Cohen et al. (2009), examining how relationships, safety, pedagogical approaches, and the institutional environment contribute to the overall experience of learning and socialisation in these schools.

An insightful component of this study is the active participation of children aged around 10-11 as co-researchers. They participated in four sessions of approximately one hour each, spread throughout the 2023-2024 school year, across each of the three schools involved. These sessions were dedicated to discussing concepts, methodologies employed, and data analysis. This highlighted the need to consider practical, organisational, and temporal aspects for children as co-researchers. Balancing the power dynamic and ethically navigating the willingness of children and parents to participate were interesting challenges in these classroom and school settings. Reflections from the study underscore the importance of designing activities that accommodate the logistical and temporal realities of children’s lives. Building trust with participants, being prepared to adapt to the unexpected, and continuously reflecting on and adjusting methods to suit the needs and preferences of child participants were important. One of the main advantages was the authentic engagement with students, fostering a reciprocal learning environment and enriching data through their creative contributions. This involvement not only provided valuable data about school climate but also empowered the children as active participants in the research process.

Interdisciplinary research is increasingly recognized as a key method to tackle complex societal challenges and stimulate creativity to find innovative solutions. However, interdisciplinary research in practice can be uneasy and will not always be successful.

In this presentation we will take you through our journey of becoming an interdisciplinary team, doing research on chronic pain. Our key goal when starting our collaboration, funded by the Center for Unusual Collaborations, was to come to innovative ways of treating chronic pain. An ambitious goal that requires out-of-the-box and high-risk-high-gain research. One of the most important lessons is that researchers from different disciplines may think they speak a universal ‘language of science’, but a thorough understanding of each other’s ways of working, research paradigms, methods, and concepts is necessary before they can start working together on solving scientific questions. And, in our case, if researchers cannot understand each other’s language, they cannot expect patients to understand scientific language either. For scientists to engage with a non-scientific audience and vice-versa, we need to find and create places to meet and find ways to interact effectively. Language is the medium through which all these interactions take place. It is therefore essential that language takes a central place in the process of multidisciplinary collaboration, interdisciplinary research, patient participation and public engagement.

In this case story we share our experiences in creating a common language, summarized in five steps: 1: creating the team; 2: metaphor-forced introduction to disciplines; 3: creating common ground; 4: outreach; 5: integration. Metaphors play an important role in this process. We will demonstrate how we reflectively progressed through these steps while enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration, (scientific) innovation and public engagement. This five-step journey can be used as a process-tool for any other high-risk-high-gain multidisciplinary research team seeking to innovate through interdisciplinarity – with the risk of becoming a brilliant failure.

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 application. 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. Co-creative research processes are important to know the needs of practitioners and enhance the applicability of products. Therefore, productive relationships, knowledge integration as well as mutual learning between experts of practice, scientists of all relevant fields and users of climate services have to be advanced.

As evaluation research is increasingly stressing the relation between good co-creation processes and their success and impact (Maag 2018) the improvement of these processes becomes a key issue and was the focus of the project NorQuATrans (Normativity, Objectivity and Quality Assurance of Transdisciplinary Processes; https://www.hicss-hamburg.de/projects/NorQuATrans/index.php.en). The project aimed for concepts of quality assurance for co-creative research in all its facets.

Using the case study approach, we started in NorQuATrans with identifying the phases and steps of a co-creative product development process within the project ADAPTER (ADAPT tERrestrial systems; https://adapter-projekt.org/). After intensive dialogues with key agricultural practitioners ADAPTER delivered innovative simulation-based products to support adaptation to climate change.

The colleagues from the ADAPTER project contributed with their practical experience facilitating co-creation processes to identify the different process steps in different grades of detail. As a result, we identified a complex course of dialogues, research activities, reconcilement processes and many iteration loops to re-adjust the development of climate service products (Schuck-Zöller et al. 2022). From this empiric activity we gained a sequence of process steps and activities. These process steps and sub-processes, originating from ADAPTER, were compared to descriptions in literature (i.e. Maag et al. 2018, Jahn et al. 2015). In this way we added a theoretical background to the empiric results and generalized them.

The aims of the cooperation between NorQuATrans and ADAPTER were threefold:

a) Improving the co-creation processes in the development of climate service products,

b) creating a sequence that could be transferable to other thematic fields of transdisciplinary research, and

c) developing the basis for a kind of manual “How to organize co-creative product development processes successfully”.

In our contribution we want to present our methodology as well as the results. Challenges for researchers in adapting their routines in conducting research to expectations and needs of practitioners shall be discussed.

References

Jahn, Thomas, Keil, Florian (2015). An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research. Futures 65, p. 195-208

Maag, Simon, Alexander, Timothy J., Kase, Robert, Hoffmann, Sabine (2018). Indicators for measuring the contributions of individual knowledge brokers. Environmental Science & Policy 89, p. 1-9

Schuck-Zöller, S.; Bathiany, S.; Dressel, M.; El Zohbi, J.; Keup-Thiel, E.; Rechid, D.; Suhari, M. (2022): Process indicators in transdisciplinary research and co-creation. A formative evaluation scheme for climate services. In: fteval Journal for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, 53, p. 43-56. doi: 10.22163/fteval.2022.541

Suhari, M.; Dressel, M.; Schuck-Zöller, S. (2022): Challenges and best-practices of co-creation: A qualitative interview study in the field of climate services. In: Climate Services, 25. doi: org/10.1016/j.cliser.2021.100282

The paper explores the potential power of mapping in relation to transdisciplinary knowledge production by unpacking what “Co-Creative Mapping” is and how it can be used. Maps are fundamental yet underutilized in landscape architecture, planning and design where they are often seen as mere static and objective representations of data rather than as active agents in relation to the perception, representation and production of landscapes. Acknowledging the agency of mapping, as a knowledge production process in itself, is therefore suggested as a first step towards untangling the power of maps. To further elaborate on this, Co-Creative Mapping will be contextualized in relation to tackling complex societal – so called “wicked” – problems (e.g. “sustainability”), while drawing inspiration from existing concepts such as for example deep mapping, social cartography and community geography. Thus, the aim of the paper is to explore what role mapping can play as a catalyst for transdisciplinary knowledge exchange and/or production. The objective is to develop a conceptual framework, which will then be deployed in a real-world setting through a series of workshops involving relevant – to a given site: in this case a university campus, and its ongoing development process – stakeholders where the main focus is the boundary spanning, perspective shifting and mutual learning opportunities provided through Co-Creative Mapping. A stakeholder, in this context, should be understood as an actor that has or should have interest in being actively involved in a process where the transdisciplinary setup can allow for existing power structures and conflicts to be set aside, handled or at the least acknowledged and thereby made visible. By revisiting the potential of mapping, the paper suggests that approaching mapping creatively has the capacity to become a collaborative design process by which disciplinary boundaries can be bridged allowing for inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge exchange and/or production, which can then be further developed into a method for research. Specifically, using a transdisciplinary approach provides the intrinsic opportunity to, other than involving none academic actors, also rethink, renegotiate and/or redraw boundaries that might otherwise limit the scope of identifiable interests and/or questions among the disciplines and perspectives of the actors involved. From a research(ers) perspective, the knowledge and experiences gained are expected, although (always) site-specific, to be transferable back to, and made actionable within, the participants own disciplinary domicile – while also allowing to contribute to an expanded understanding of how a deeper/broader scientific and/or societal impact can be achieved. The paper concludes by summarizing the experiences gained from the workshops in relation to the framework and suggests future adaptations to both the theoretical contributions of Co-Creative Mapping and to knowledge about what kind of transformative outcomes it can be expected to produce when deployed.

As the field of transdisciplinary research (TDR) has developed, many scholars have pointed out how the prevailing research context is persistently unfavourable to TD modes of knowledge production; TDR requires conditions that differ from those needed for basic disciplinary research (Dedeurwaerdere 2013; Kläy et al. 2015; Kueffer et al. 2012; Schneidewind 2009). For example, there is much evidence that interdisciplinary and TDR proposals have difficulty obtaining funding, since reviewers typically apply disciplinary perspectives and quality criteria instead of considering the integrated whole (Bromham et al. 2016; Mansilla 2006; Woelert and Millar 2013). Moreover, (classic) academic careers are still typically built on measuring scientific impact according to publication in peer-reviewed journals – journals that are more interested in the scientific part of TDR, not in the efforts of such research to contribute to actual societal transformations (Kueffer et al. 2012; Rhoten and Parker 2004). Consequently, for TDR to reach its full potential, experts and scholars argue that far-reaching structural and institutional changes are needed in how TDR is treated by research funding bodies (Dedeurwaerdere 2013; Defila and Di Giulio 1999; Kläy et al. 2015; Kueffer et al. 2012; Schneidewind 2009).

However, in recent years, funding bodies increasingly acknowledge the importance of TDR and rethink their funding approaches and practices. Some funders started to experiment with punctual changes in review and evaluation processes; others are designing entirely novel funding programmes and funding schemes. In some cases, these efforts have been accompanied by TDR specialists (e.g. Lira 2030 in Africa programme or the programme funding real-world laboratories of the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts Baden-Württemberg in Germany) or evaluated by independent researchers (e.g. DFG, FWF) or explored in a researcher funder collaborative project (RoRi Initiative - https://researchonresearch.org/project/undisciplined/.).

In order to learn from these efforts and unravel potentials and limitations of the different approaches, this session brings together researchers who investigated how research funding bodies enhanced transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in different contexts.

The session starts with a short introductionary talk, followed by a series of moderated impulses addressing specific questions. In each impulse, two researchers with similar research questions are interviewed by a moderator (one slide is allowed for each researcher). In the last impulse, representatives of funding bodies and science policy organisations discuss the research and report about their own experiences. Each impulse is followed by an open discussion with all session attendees. The session ends with a structured exercise summarising the key lessons learned across the investigated funding programmes.

Session 1 (3.00-4.00pm, Wed 6. November)

- Introduction – Flurina Schneider, 10min

- Slot 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of different models, methods and design options for transdisciplinary research funding programmes (Gabriele Wülser and Helen Buckley Woods, moderated by Tobias Buser, 25min)

- Slot 2: Starting a transdisciplinary funding programme – about new methodologies for consortium formation and approaches to define review criteria (Laurens Hessels, Rico Defila und Antonietta Di Giulio, moderated by Flurina Schneider)

Session 2 (4:30-5:30pm, Wed 6. November)

- Slot 3: Promising approaches for funding transdisciplinary research in the Global South (Eefje Aarnoudse and Flurina Schneider, moderated by Tobias Buser, 25min)

- Slot 4: Funders perspectives – key interests, strategies, opportunities and challenges regarding TDR funding (Petra Biberhofer, Tobias Buser, Stefan Gröschne, Carthage Smith, Michiel van den Hout , moderated by Flurina Schneider, 25min)

- Conclusion – Tobias Buser, 10 min

Key readings

Defila, R.; Di Giulio, A. (2020): Science policy recommendations for funding real-world laboratories and comparable formats. In: GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 29, 1, S. 63–65.

Hessels, L.; van den Broek, J.; van Elzakker, I.; van Drooge, L.; Deuten, J. (2021): Research programmes with a mission. https://www.rathenau.nl/sites/default/files/2022-03/Research_programmes_with_a_mission_Rathenau_Instituut.pdf (20.04.2022).

OECD [Hrsg.] (2020): Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research - OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 88.

Schneider, F., Patel, Z., Paulavets, K., Buser, T., Kado, J., Burkhart, S. (2023). Fostering transdisciplinary research for sustainability in the Global South: Pathways to impact for funding programmes. In: Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 (1), S. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02138-3

Wuelser, G.; Edwards, P. (2023): Lighthouse Programmes in Sustainability Research and Innovation. Swiss Academies Reports 18 (2).

Interdisciplinary research is an integrative form of scholarship. Since it was institutionalized in education policy, integration has been hailed as the guiding research method of interdisciplinarity. In recent years, important systematic work has been done to distil general criteria for cross-disciplinary collaboration and coordination from successful cases of local research activity and design. However, emphasis on integration as the method through which interdisciplinary outputs are generated has not yet led to codifying the processes and techniques for integrating knowledge in practice.

This is particularly relevant in the context of research assessment tasks, funding allocation and distribution, and science policy. For example, the final report of the UK’s 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF) concluded that a codified system of quality markers should now be developed to provide more accurate, fairer, and actionable guidance for future quality assessment. At a time when ever more work is recognised and classed as being interdisciplinary, the need for clear and shared evaluative standards is a pressing concern in the academic and policy world.

The failure to establish valid markers can be accounted in ways that make appeal to two distinct, though related, causes. One is lack of a shared theoretical framework that would capture the distinctive attributes of interdisciplinary integration beyond immediate references to the non-reductive, inclusive, contextual, and serendipitous nature of the process. In fact it can be argued that any project aimed at constructing valid indicators is hostage to fortune without a proper methodology of integration. The second cause is a more practical concern about the need to design consistent measures for distinguishing good from bad interdisciplinary research, locally, nationally, and internationally.

In the absence of agreed upon metrics, decisions for allocating interdisciplinary research funding is most likely to be suboptimal. While scientometricians have made strides in attempting to measure interdisciplinarity, the inherently complex nature of interdisciplinary research poses significant challenges. In addition to conceptual issues, criticisms also include the simplistic nature of current measures. Calls have thus been made for better theoretically founded, more sophisticated, and dynamic approaches to more accurately capture the essence of interdisciplinary research.

This is a proposal for a Panel Session to contribute to ITD24 stream #1: “Enhancing the theoretical foundations of inter- and transdisciplinarity”. In response to the Call for proposals, we aim at contributing to the current debate on the “nature, implementation, and evaluation of integration”, based on experience with the “evaluation and assessment” of “multi-case studies”. The purpose is therefore twofold. In the first part, we diagnose, reconstruct, and critique the two causes of the current lack of consistent measures, by presenting joint work that engages philosophical understandings of concepts of integration with the demand for scientometric operationalisations of interdisciplinarity. In the second part of the session, we broaden the scope of the discussion by putting our framework to the test in the context of sharing and discussing direct experience of research evaluations with a relevant stakeholder and the wider public alike.

Introduction

Socially engaged education has been a focus of Utrecht University for several years. Utrecht University (UU) finds it important that her graduates have the knowledge and the skills to make a substantial contribution to society. To prepare students for taking such role, UU has for several years promoted innovative education in which teachers and students join forces with a partner organization or community from outside the university to develop en project around a socially relevant theme. At UU, this is called Community Engaged Learning (CEL) but elsewhere it is also known as service learning, community based learning or civic learning.

Within UU, the term CEL was chosen, as this emphasises the importance of close cooperation with society, such as (semi)public organisations, citizens and other social partners. CEL may engage different communities outside of the university, such as underserved or underprivileged groups, NGO’s, or government agencies. Teachers, students and societal partner organizations interact on a basis of mutual exchange and equality. Together, they are working on - issues of shared concern, including the systemic aspects of those issues. In CEL, this process of discovery is at least as important as any product delivered. In the process, students will strengthen typical CEL competencies such as collaboration, connection of academic and professional points of view, and reflection as a way of learning. But most of all, they will have the transforming learning experience of actively working for and with others in society towards solutions for current challenges.

Developing and teaching a CEL course is challenging for teachers, because it is very different compared with regular education (Tijsma et al., 2020). CEL assumes a mutual and equal collaboration between teachers, students and external partner organizations. This requires different teachers competencies, such as establishing a relationship with community partners. Another major difference is that the process of project development is more important than the results or products that will be delivered. This has major implications for the way in which assessment will take place in a CEL course. Also, implementing reflection strategies is an important part of designing a CEL course.

To support teachers in taking their roles in the development and teaching CEL courses, the UU offers an elaborate training program. It consists of tailored, individual and short term support, next to two CEL courses. In the regular CEL course, teachers work on designing and developing their own CEL course. Together they explore the characteristics of CEL and what cooperation with social partners can look like. Topics such as assessment, reflection and ethical questions are also covered. Participants learn with and from each other by studying CEL together, exchanging experiences and developing into a network of teacher-experts in the field of CEL. In this way, the course aids the teachers in gaining CEL competences and contributes directly to the implementation of CEL courses in the UU educational programs. The advanced CEL course is intended for CEL teachers who have experience in developing and teaching CEL courses, and are a course coordinator of a CEL course. In the advanced course teachers explore together a CEL specific theme in depth by using an approach that capitalizes on the CEL competences. In this way, teachers become masters in CEL education and can support starting CEL teachers. In addition, in depth knowledge of CEL becomes available to the teaching community.

The workshop

In this workshop we aim for an inspiring exchange of ideas on teacher professionalization on CEL. What are the challenges for teachers? What are the challenges and opportunities in supporting teachers? The educational support program at the UU will serve as an example.The proposed workshop consists of three parts:

1) Introduction about CEL

First we introduce our participants to CEL, including literature and the Utrecht University approach. Sharing components and goals of CEL activities, we will discuss what CEL entails and how it can look like.

2) Challenges for teachers

Second, we focus on challenges for teachers involved in CEL. What competencies are needed? How is it different from other courses? We invite participants to share their own experiences.

3) The CEL educational support program at Utrecht University: sharing good practices

The last part of our workshop is about the educational support programme at Utrecht University. We aim to inspire participants as well as collect their input on our activities for teachers.

The integration of arts, social sciences, and humanities (ASSH) into energy modeling has gained significant traction over the past years, with researchers increasingly recognizing their potential to enhance reality and transparency in energy models. Efforts of energy research and inter- and transdisciplinary research communities have started to produce results seen in the institutional changes towards transdisciplinary energy research as in Switzerland. To assess the possible contribution of ASSH into energy modeling and potential benefits of it, in this poster I aim to answer the questions what is current representation of social aspects in the energy models, what social aspects are not yet represented sufficiently in models, and what implications for imaginable energy futures it brings? My research is framed in the project Co-evolution and coordinated simulation of Swiss Energy System and Swiss Society (CoSi, funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy, period 2023-2033), which aims to deliver energy models integrating social sciences and humanities within techno-economic research, to address the complexities of the energy transition.

Within Cosi, I conduct a systematic literature review to identify social aspects of the energy transition that are contributed by AHSS. After identifying sets of keywords, I created query using Boolean and proximity operators and gathered data from Web of Science and Scopus. The selected 60 records represent the most relevant articles which were subjected to a qualitative content analysis.

Social aspects, referred here as social factors of the energy transition, typically encompass quantifiable parameters integrated into models at various stages of the modeling process or narratives used in scenario preparation. These parameters and narratives are predominantly grounded in economics, with occasional inputs from behavioral and political sciences. This reliance emphasizes a positivist view of human behavior and optimization for least-cost solutions, and shapes many energy models' assumptions and outcomes.

In my research, I enquire on an alternative approach to this narrow understanding of social factors, i.e., a cultural perspective on energy transition. The cultural perspective focuses on the human dimension of the energy transition. It delves into the symbolic meanings, but also cognition and motives of societal actors. It allows, among others, insight into socio-cultural context and power structures. Moreover, the cultural perspective encourages a more reflexive and critical approach, and examining differences between dominant and alternative energy narratives and imaginaries.

In this poster, I will present the findings of the literature review and provide a rich picture of the social aspects that are identified as main contributions from AHSS in energy modelling. I will elaborate on a classification that shows the relevance of the cultural approach to better understand how to integrate AHSS contributions into energy research. The application of the cultural perspective suggests a broader and more critically oriented role for ASSH in future energy modeling. This broader perspective enables the exploration of diverse energy narratives and imaginaries, shedding light on complex socio-cultural aspects and power structures influencing energy transition.

In the dynamic landscape of contemporary research, fostering transdisciplinary collaboration and cultivating a synergistic environment are imperative for advancing knowledge. This poster presents the methods of transdisciplinary thematic workshops as a series of events designed to co-explore topics within a research field as well as in an integrated research environment. The workshops were carried out by the Berlin University Alliance’s TD Lab – Laboratory for transdisciplinary research with the aim to strengthen transdisciplinary research within the core research areas of the newly established alliance.

Transdisciplinary thematic workshops are dynamic forums that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries, fostering an inclusive and collaborative ethos. They function as incubators for ideas, providing a platform where researchers from various domains can converge to explore shared interests, methodologies, and potential avenues for collaborative projects. These workshops serve as catalysts for innovation, bringing together diverse expertise and perspectives to address complex challenges. This presentation will shed light on the key attributes and methodologies employed in organizing and executing successful transdisciplinary thematic workshops.

During the thematic workshops, a variety of interactive formats and tools are employed, such as a thematic card game, plenum discussions, breakout sessions, and collaborative exercises. These formats are strategically designed to stimulate engagement, foster dialogue, and encourage the cross-pollination of ideas. Participants are encouraged to share their expertise, insights, and challenges, fostering a culture of open communication and mutual learning.

One distinctive feature of thematic workshops is their iterative nature. Rather than standalone events, they are organized as a series, allowing participants to build upon previous discussions and delve deeper into specific aspects of the overarching theme. This iterative approach not only strengthens the collaborative bonds formed during the workshops but also facilitates the development of sustained, long-term collaborations that transcend the confines of individual events. In between-workshop communication channels are established to facilitate networking among participants and to encourage the exchange of preliminary ideas, setting the stage for a vibrant and productive workshop.

The impact of thematic workshops extends beyond the immediate research community, influencing policy, practice, and future research directions. This poster will showcase case two series of thematic workshops by the TD-Lab of the Berlin University Alliance that have initiated transdisciplinary research collaborations, both as an example and as a concept to build on.

How can we bridge the gap between social science and policy? Public policy design and implementation benefits greatly from knowledge about citizens’ attitudes, living conditions and behaviour. The Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP) is a governmental research institute that has a mission to contribute to policy with social and societal knowledge, by conducting and collecting research. Collaboration with academic researchers from universities and with policy makers is vital for this mission, but no easy task. In the current project, researchers from academic and governmental institutes were interviewed to collect experiences from participants’ previous collaborative projects and extract important lessons for the future. Why do researchers set up transdisciplinary collaborations, what are important barriers to overcome and which factors lead to successful collaborations?

From a combination of interviews and scientific literature, we have comprised a number of key insights to take into account when bridging the gap between social science and policy. Namely, 1) the importance of knowledge of the policy domain, 2) taking differences between institutes into account, 3) appreciating different perspectives, 4) looking for a shared goal and 5) creating commitment in all parties. Difficulties arise when differences in goals and priorities between organisations are overlooked, and commitment and appreciation for the collaborative effort are lacking. These important lessons are considered in further shaping the collaboration between the SCP and social psychology at Utrecht University, which is the focus of my postdoc project. In this poster presentation, I give examples of how academic and policy research can strengthen each other in the shared goal of contributing to better social policy and a resilient society.

This project is funded by the gravitation project Sustainable Cooperation (SCOOP), and the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP).

Interdisciplinary science and education are essential to tackle complex societal and academic problems. With increasing complex problems such as globalization, climate change and digitalization, the call for interdisciplinary approaches is pressing. Moreover, interdisciplinary collaboration is key to inspiring new research approaches and education. However, many research and education structures in Dutch academia are organized in a monodisciplinary manner. The monodisciplinary origins are explained by disciplinary departments often being the administrative units within universities on which financing structures are based.

The monodisciplinary structures could hamper interdisciplinary ambitions and ultimately jeopardize impact. First insights into potential barriers show that these pertain to be practical, epistemological, and are constituted by power structures. In a practical sense it might be difficult to find academics from a different discipline. Once you work together it is difficult to continue collaborations due to varying schedules, time-allocation for research and teaching, or physical distance. Interdisciplinary projects require explanation of its relevance to disciplinary colleagues and supervisors to make sure you receive support, time, or funds. This might be complicated due to differences in epistemologies that are present in different disciplines. Due to varying epistemologies, fields may use and value certain topics, methods or approaches differently (Oudenampsen, 2024). This can lead to conflicting or diverging beliefs about the quality of research or scientific rigor. Ultimately, this can result in or facilitate differences in power structures and power imbalances (Looman et al., 2022). Potential enablers on an individual level can be found in different coping strategies (Woiwode and Froese, 2021). We expect enablers to exist also at team, faculty, university and national level. An example are the Radboud Young Academy Cross-Faculty Catapult Grants.

In this project, we aim to explore the enablers and barriers of interdisciplinary collaboration in a monodisciplinary setting. We take a system perspective and focus particularly on cross-faculty interdisciplinary collaborations. Moreover, we aim to find possible angles to approach this issue given the monodisciplinary environment. By researching these aims we envision empowering researchers both at individual and group level to find pathways to successful interdisciplinary collaborations. Additionally, we plan to advise university and faculty boards on how to support interdisciplinary collaborations in a monodisciplinary environment.

We start with developing a mapping of enablers and barriers of interdisciplinary collaboration based on a purposeful selection of literature in which we consider individual, team, and structural factors. In short interviews with academics from different faculties, who are currently working in networks or on projects that have an interdisciplinary nature but take place in a monodisciplinary environment, we expand, refine, and verify the mapping. This will enable us to consider structural factors at the between-faculty level.

The mapping is a starting point for suggestions and interventions. The poster is an extension of the study itself. We will present an update of the theoretical framework and present the findings from interviews. Conference participants are invited to contribute to this by adding novel enablers, novel barriers, ways to address the barriers and ways to implement the enablers.

The new Master of Materiomics (started in the academic year 2022-2023) aims to equip students with the skills and knowledge necessary to confront some of the most complex and urgent societal challenges, including climate change, energy transition, global pandemics, …. Rooted in the nexus of physics and chemistry, this interdisciplinary programme fosters the creation of innovative and sustainable materials through integration of experimental and theoretical approaches. At the heart of the master’s lies a commitment to interdisciplinary learning, realized through an interdisciplinary learning line, building on the principles of boundary-crossing theory (identification, coordination, reflection, and transformation). This theoretical framework guides the programme’s design, implementation, and assessment.

This contribution reports on the first results of a larger design-based research aimed at monitoring and refining the implementation of interdisciplinary education, and more particularly the interdisciplinary learning line, within the Materiomics’ programme. The key research questions addressed in this study are: a) How do teachers experience (the implementation of) interdisciplinarity in the programme? What can be improved?, b) How do the courses position themselves regarding the four learning mechanisms of boundary-crossing theory?, and c) Which factors and teaching methods can hinder or promote the implementation of the interdisciplinary learning line? To address these questions, the study employed a qualitative approach, combining focus group discussions with teachers and input from students enrolled in the Materiomics master's programme. Throughout these interviews, several themes emerged, offering valuable insights into the complexities and opportunities inherent in interdisciplinary education.

This study confirmed that the courses within the Materiomics’ master's are positioned along the interdisciplinary learning line as conceptualized during the programmes’ design phase. While most courses focus on identification and coordination, there are opportunities to broaden the scope toward reflection and transformation already in the first master’s year. In the second master’s year, the curriculum contains elective courses aiming at all of the four interdisciplinary learning phases. It depends on the student's own programme to what extent they progress on the interdisciplinary learning line, although enough opportunities are provided for the students to grow towards reflection and transformation. The master thesis, in particular, is an important course in this aspect, as here, the students need to integrate their acquired knowledge from different disciplines to solve a particular material problem.

Teachers and students shared challenges and successes in teaching and learning in this interdisciplinary master’s programme. Challenges stemmed primarily from the diverse disciplinary backgrounds of teachers and students, as well as difficulties in balancing the breadth of knowledge and depth of specialization. Teaching methods such as team teaching, expert lectures, and interdisciplinary projects are identified by teachers and students as effective means of fostering interdisciplinary competencies and enhancing the overall learning experience.

The findings of this study contribute to further understanding of a) the teachers’ and students’ views on issues to be tackled when implementing a new interdisciplinary curriculum, and b) promoting factors and good practices in this regard, which may also generalize, irrespective of the study programme at hand.

Many of today's grand challenges, such as climate change, social and gender inequalities, disruptive technologies, urbanization and migration, pose wicked problems: pressing societal issues characterized by their inherent complexity, uncertainty and political dimension. Wicked problems are ill-structured, involve diverse interest groups, cut across various disciplines and sectors as well as public and private spheres. They can jeopardize transdisciplinary research projects in the initial phase of joint problem framing. Stakeholders’ (including researchers’) divergent perceptions, values and worldviews may not only significantly constrain the space of possible outcomes, but also thwart any progress due to disagreements on a problem definition. In the worst case, political dynamics intensify or the project comes to a halt. Faced with this challenge: How can we facilitate joint problem framing to expand or transform the space of possible outcomes?

A common practice is to employ dialog-based workshops that foster mutual understanding and learning. Dialog-based approaches rely mainly on rational discourse and methods to articulate and elaborate different stakeholder perspectives. However, rational discourse can be severely limited when values and worldviews of stakeholders strongly diverge. In addition, the potential of non-rational ways of knowing may not be realized and their proponents marginalized.

To address these shortcomings, we draw on insights from recent developments in cognitive science and propose to understand joint problem framing from a radical enactive view of cognition. We thus challenge the priority of rationality by shifting attention to basic, i.e., non-linguistic/non-conceptual forms of cognition. In this way, we include non-rational factors like bodily feelings, emotions and intuitions as well as experiential, presentational and practical knowledge.

According to a radical enactive view of cognition, knowledge is not the result of information about the world that is processed inside people’s brains. Rather, knowledge emerges through people’s dynamic bodily interactions with their material and social environment. Technically speaking, an agent and its environment co-emerge and co-develop through interaction as a complex dynamical system. An agent enacts its own lifeworld and is simultaneously shaped by it in a circular process.

Adopting this view of cognition has immediate consequences for facilitating joint problem framing: There are no ‘mental models’ inside the brains of the stakeholders that ‘represent’ their perspectives on ‘the’ wicked problem in the outside world. Rather, there are as many wicked problems as there are different stakeholders; they exist only together as dynamical systems. Thus, methods for externalizing and updating mental models to better correspond to reality do not make sense anymore. Instead, the goal of joint problem framing becomes finding ways to coordinate new interaction patterns between stakeholders in fruitful ways. Facilitating this process means to employ methods that support stakeholders in jointly exploring and learning new ways of interacting and thereby transforming and coordinating their lifeworlds.

Beyond a theoretical elaboration on joint problem framing from a radical enactive view of cognition, we will derive general design principles that can be applied and tested by workshop facilitators.

The frequency and intensity of weather extreme events are increasing worldwide. Vulnerability to heat waves, heavy rains and flash floods is heightened by mismanagement of local governments, institutional vulnerabilities, lack of implementation plans, ineffective warning systems. To face these social and environmental challenges is fundamental to coproduce organisational and institutional capacities for extreme events preparedness. One way to enhance capacities is through people-centred warning systems. This presentation shares interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary methods (participatory mapping, educommunication, citizen science) to engaging various audiences (high schools students, graduate students, NGOs representatives, and local civil defence units) in four axes of local warning systems ( risk knowledge, monitoring, communication and emergency response). There is a lack of comprehension of data and information used in warnings. People are developing their own networks of risk communication. There is a need for intergenerational dialogue to enhance people’s preparedness for extreme events, since experiences and memories about previous disasters are not being shared between young and older people. This action research project aims to finding ways to enhance institutional capacities to be prepared for extreme weather events.

Interdisciplinary collaboration is difficult, and it requires explicit training to prepare students for addressing wicked problems in an interdisciplinary team (Di Giulio & Defila, 2017). Students underestimate interdisciplinary work (Velthuis & van Harmelen, 2021). Therefore, it is important to provide students with an insight into what interdisciplinary collaboration entails, why it is important to learn, and to teach students interdisciplinary skills like: (1) setting a common goal; (2) understand and value different relevant disciplinary understandings; (3) integrating relevant insights; and (4) maintaining critical towards different (and one's own) disciplines (Boix-Mansilla et al., a.o., 2010, 2016). Several toolboxes have already been developed with various examples of learning activities/tools that teachers and students can use to support interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g. Edelbroek et al., 2014 Educational Consultancy & Professional Development, 2021 & The Twente Toolbox, 2024). Despite all these tools, it appears to be difficult for teachers to support learning in interdisciplinary teams (Visscher-Voerman & van Harmelen, 2019). Therefore, the research question in this study focuses particularly on the teacher. Based on what reasons do teachers choose learning activities to enhance interdisciplinary collaboration in interdisciplinary teams? How should interdisciplinary learning activities be designed so that they suit teachers' needs? And how do they experience the implementation of the learning activity and has it contributed to interdisciplinary cooperation of students?

For this research, we selected activities from various toolboxes that meet the following criteria: the learning activity (1) can be used as a mean to enhance collaboration while working on a wicked problem within different modules, (2) supports the learning of an interdisciplinary skill and (3) encourages dialogue between students. The research is conducted with teachers within modules in various years of study (year 2, 3 and 4) in which students work in interdisciplinary teams on wicked problems.

The selection and implementation of learning activities and the redesign so that the learning activities suits the needs of teachers within their modules will take place from now until the summer 2024. The execution of the modules with the interdisciplinary learning activities will take place from February 2024 till December 2024.

The first experiences show that teachers have a strong need to strengthen their interdisciplinary teaching. In particular, learning activities to get to know each other's discipline better are chosen, such as knowledge-based concept mapping task (The Twente Toolbox, 2024) or spending a day with students from another discipline. Knowledge-based concept mapping asks students (individually or in the group) to visually represent their existing knowledge relevant to the wicked problem. This can help students make connections between disciplines and identify contradictions. The poster will share results about teacher needs in using learning activities in interdisciplinary teams and first experiences will be shared of performing the learning activities and whether it actually resulted in students getting to know each other’s discipline better and integrating knowledge from different disciplines. In addition, we expect to have a better view on how we will further develop the learning activity so that teachers and students will use it properly.

Initiated in 2018, the Sustainability Methods Wiki (sustainabilitymethods.org) at Leuphana Center of Methods offers a broad overview of the multiverse of inter- and transdisciplinary methods. It is written and curated by an extensive team with diverse disciplinary backgrounds and experience ranging from students to professors. The ambition of the wiki is to foster a postdisciplinary agenda, i.e. contributing to a radical yet constructive change to the current scientific agenda in recognizing the normativity of scientific methods. Within the growing plurality of methodological toolboxes, there is a need to systematically discuss the “better” or “worse” of certain methods within a given context and to make sense of the variety of terms and concepts used differently and in overlap creating a messy discourse. With the Sustainability Methods Wiki, we present an integrative, diverse, reflexive, and interactively accessible platform to support a new generation of scientists that can navigate the plurality of methods representing inter- and transdisciplinary approaches. Entries in the wiki bridge practical advice for the empirical use of specific methods and critical perspectives on the philosophy of science. Addressing linguistic challenges between disciplines in the wiki, we set different contexts of empirical research in relation to each other and discuss the drawbacks, challenges, and benefits of the diverse methodological approaches and their potential combinations. Structured by design criteria for methods and defined methods competencies, the wiki provides a platform for students, researchers, and teachers to systematically reflect on learning, applying, and teaching methods beyond the boundaries of disciplines and academia.

The poster presents an overview of the wiki landscapes of methods and introduces the underlying systematizing logic as well as access points for using the wiki’s potential.

To move towards a sustainable society, significant transitions are needed within industry, ranging from greening energy consumption to using more sustainable raw materials and products. The multi-faceted nature of this industry transition poses complex questions of justice regarding aspects such as intergenerational justice, decision-making procedures and the redistribution of profits. Despite a flourishing scholarship on just transitions, these questions have so far not been precisely investigated in the context of the industry. As policymakers are currently developing new policy instruments to accelerate the sustainable industry transition, now is the time to uncover relevant justice implications. Instead of only addressing justice issues once they have materialized, it is necessary to find ways in which justice implications can be identified to inform and guide policies beforehand.

I propose that the creation of a transdisciplinary dialogue can function as a tool to do so. Dialogues allow for knowledge co-production and can foster collaboration in a participatory and inclusive way. The Sustainable Industry Lab, a transdisciplinary initiative that brings together different stakeholders to unlock and synthesize knowledge, is thus organizing a dialogue on the justice implications of the sustainable industry transition. The dialogue will be held between the Dutch government, industry and societal as well as environmental organizations. As the sustainable industry transition presents a wicked problem, which means that its inherent complexity and uncertainties do not allow for clear-cut solutions, the main goal of the dialogue is identifying and structuring justice-related issues, rather than solving them. Accordingly, the dialogue utilizes problem structuring methods, which are participatory modelling approaches for addressing complex problems that entail multiple actors who may have conflicting interests. My research focuses on (i) how transdisciplinary dialogues should be organized to ensure fruitful collaboration and (ii) how the outcomes and impacts of this dialogue can be evaluated and utilized. Therefore, it aligns with the conference stream ‘enhancing the foundations of inter- and transdisciplinary’ and addresses the topic ‘harnessing experience and knowledge gained from inter- and transdisciplinary projects and programs’.

The first round of the dialogue will be held from March-September 2024. Afterwards, further dialogue sessions will be held on more specific topics that have emerged out of the first round. The ITD Conference would be a great opportunity to present the insights and results of the first round of the dialogue and discuss how these insights can be evaluated and used for the next round of dialogue sessions.

The enduring impacts of colonialism and slavery have become prominent themes across various academic fields, prompting the need for interdisciplinary efforts. As society grapples with contentious monuments and the restitution of colonial artefacts, the discipline of heritage studies has assumed a crucial role in confronting these issues and fostering novel collaborations across disciplinary boundaries and global divides. By drawing upon methodologies and perspectives from anthropology, cultural history, and art history, heritage studies have devised strategies and guidelines for addressing colonial heritage through collaborative and inclusive approaches. Acquiring the requisite skills and expertise necessitates hands-on experience and experimentation, posing challenges for integrating such practices into the current educational frameworks of heritage studies and cultural history.

Using an international community-engaged educational (iCEL) framework, we formulated a teaching format for teaching decolonial heritage practices and fostering collaborative skills among students. Through collaboration with a heritage partner in the Global South (Terramar Museum), we devised a museum-based project centred on exhibition design and co-curation. The project's focal point was navigating the complexities of colonial heritage, requiring students to negotiate their roles as trained experts in heritage and museum studies while acknowledging their position within the context of colonial power.

Through seminars, pressure-cooker sessions, and fieldwork conducted in collaboration with our partner, we developed an educational framework with several key objectives:

a) Training students to acquire intercultural reflexive and collaborative skills;

b) Assisting lecturers in establishing and learning from interconnected networks with partners in the Global South;

c) Integrating critical systems thinking and visions of societal transformation within the academic program;

d) Supporting the development of resilient cultural heritage institutions in the Global South.

Our model originates from participatory involvement in a collaborative project involving students and lecturers from Utrecht University, the Terramar Museum in Bonaire, and Bonairean formerly enslaved communities. Operating within the framework of a Cultural History and Heritage Master’s programme at Utrecht University, we collectively crafted a teaching model for decolonial heritage practices in an intercultural setting, utilizing CEL as both a method and a tool. Through the integration of diverse bodies of knowledge—ranging from academic to societal, and from personal to professional—all project participants adopted fluid identities as both educators and learners. Additionally, they encountered intersectional challenges, leading to instances of 'misunderstandings and confusion' (Cf. Agar), yet also yielding 'rich moments' of cultural immersion and profoundly meaningful learning experiences (Cf. Agar, Deardorff, Onosu).

By exploring and analysing this iCEL project, we aim to present an inspiring and illuminating example of a transdisciplinary model for education in the field of heritage studies. We hope that this project, in which confrontational sensitive topics were at the centre of the academic context, and this educational format, in which cross-cultural co-creative collaborations were at the heart, can function as an educational design of change.

Key readings

Agar, M. (1994). Language shock. Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: HarperCollins.

Deardorff, D.K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of studies in international education, 10(3), 241-266.

Onosu, O.G. (2020). Cultural immersion: a trigger for transformative learning. Social Sciences, 9(20), doi:10.3390/socsci9020020

We all know the nature of card games from our individual experiences: They strengthen the sense of community, the ability to communicate, concentration and, depending on the card game, increase vocabulary or specific knowledge. Why not using these positive characteristics to foster the integration of different stocks of knowledge – from specialist knowledge and everyday experiential knowledge to scientific knowledge? Knowledge integration poses to be the core of transdisciplinary research. At the same time, the step of knowledge integration is a major challenge: How can we create new knowledge on complex societal challenges that goes beyond the addition of existing knowledge and that, in particular, leads to action?

The card game was a tool that we developed for a complex process in which scientific and non-scientific actors from the field of urban health came together to jointly define challenges of urban health in the Berlin living space and to explore research topics in an early, initiating stage of transdisciplinary research. The poster outlines the origins of the card game as documentation of a previous process stage. In addition, the poster shows the exact instructions for the game, highlighting the individual phases of the game reflecting different stages of knowledge integration: from individual understanding, through shared explanations and shared understanding, to the co-production of new knowledge and the development of research ideas.

We have had very positive experiences with the use of the game - and received very encouraging feedback from both academics and practitioners. The card game was able to make different professional and disciplinary languages and styles of thinking visible as a basis to create a common understanding. Above all, the card game addressed the cognitive level in particular in order to move beyond habitual ways of working and to promote creativity.

While literature exists on challenges facing transdisciplinary research practices (Lang et al., 2012; Scholz & Steiner, 2015), group dynamics is rarely mentioned as a significant factor for the outcome and success of transdisciplinary processes. Group dynamics is a complex social phenomenon described as the interpersonal relationships that emerge in small groups of people engaging in a common activity (Merlin et al., 2020). Research shows that group dynamics has a clear impact on level of creativity and overall group performance in collaborative settings (Chung & Meenely, 2012; Dörnyei & Malderez, 1997). Thus, this study aims to explore the interrelation between group dynamics and quality of outcome in transdisciplinary processes, as well as how group dynamics can be influenced to improve problem-solving for sustainability.

Through ethnographic field research, this study explored the working processes and outcomes of five student groups applying the so-called modular participatory backcasting (mPB) framework (Pereverza et al., 2019) to an urban sustainability challenge within a transdisciplinary-oriented university course at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. By learning from the ongoing work of Stockholm municipality, students were to formulate a vision, creative solutions and a pathway for achieving a sustainable city center by 2050. Qualitative data about the students’ group dynamics, performance, and creativity was collected through observations, interviews, surveys, and workshops. For the evaluation of group dynamics, a theoretical framework was constructed, involving factors such as group composition, engagement, leadership, and communication, which were observed using qualitative indicators. The theoretical framework was based on literature on group dynamics related to performance and creativity. Evaluation of group performance and creativity was done through the course teacher's judgment based on grading criteria.

The results indicate that group dynamics are in fact related to the creativity and performance of transdisciplinary student groups. For example, groups displaying lower engagement, unsupportive communication and negative-dominant behavior were associated with poorer task outcomes, while groups applying shared leadership, intermember positive reinforcement and high engagement performed higher. Further, the study concludes that while it is hard for individual group members to fundamentally change the group dynamics of a group, increased awareness about the significance of group dynamics could help groups foster group dynamics that are favorable to problem-solving.

Naturally, the fact that the study takes place in an educational setting limits the transferability to real-life transdisciplinary research processes. However, the particular focus on group dynamics and the theoretical framework proposed in this study can be of interest for deepening the insights into what factors contribute to successful transdisciplinary collaborations.

Chung & Meenely (2012), ‘Profiling Group Dynamics Within Business and Design Student Teams: Relationships Among Personality Traits, Problem-Solving Styles, and Creative Performance’, Journal of Interior Design, 37(3), pp. 23–45

Dörnyei & Malderez (1997), ‘Group dynamics and foreign language teaching’, System, 25(1), pp. 65-81

Lang et al. (2012), ‘Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges’, Sustainability Science, 7, pp. 25-43

Merlin et al. (2020), 'Elements of group dynamics that influence learning in small groups in undergraduate students: A scoping review', Nurse Education Today, 87, pp.104362

Pereverza et al. (2019), 'Modular participatory backcasting: A unifying framework for strategic planning in the heating sector', Energy Policy, 124, pp.123–134

Scholz & Steiner (2015), ‘The real type and ideal type of transdisciplinary processes: part II—what constraints and obstacles do we meet in practice?’, Sustainability Science, 10, pp. 653–671

User experience (UX) designers familiar with Jakob’s Law understand that users tend to value the familiar over innovations, even when those innovations are useful, beneficial, and necessary. In response to the expected challenge of familiarity bias, UX designers have often implemented what they call progressive disclosure design. For example, advanced features in software may sometimes be hidden from beginning users, only to be revealed as users gain more expertise. Similarly, video games are often designed in much the same way: gamers advance through levels such that skills are learned and acquired as the game progresses. Otherwise, beginners may initially feel overwhelmed with too much information and may not adopt the software or continue playing the game.

When practically realizing theoretical aspirations, inter- and transdisciplinary work can encounter something similar to familiarity bias. If researchers have been trained in a particular discipline, then they may not realize that they prefer to apply discipline-specific methods to problems for which those methods may not be (or may no longer be) best-suited. Put differently, even though more useful methods may exist, researchers might gravitate toward the disciplinary comfort of the already known. A strength of inter- and transdisciplinary work, then, is to seek to offer useful, beneficial, and necessary innovations. As such, could something like progressive disclosure design be used in inter- and transdisciplinarity? If so, can this principle be applied when teaching and learning methods and methodologies in higher education, as well?

Here, there seems to exist a classic chicken and egg challenge. When training new researchers, an efficient solution is to make new researchers very saliently aware that methods and methodologies are problem-specific, and that particular tools are designed to accomplish particular aims. However, if not trained under these inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to curricula, the problem is that the designers of inter- and transdisciplinary curricula will have their own familiarity biases to overcome, as many of us have advanced degrees in very narrow disciplinary content areas. So if an overarching goal of higher education is to move toward inter- and transdisciplinary work in this historical present and what is yet to come—and we know that Jakob’s Law still applies—then buy-in will most likely be accomplished successfully through something like progressive disclosure design alongside change management and change leadership approaches.

This presentation will outline several sequential actions toward achieving inter- and transdisciplinarity in higher education, including inviting all of the interested parties to create a shared and collaborative vision; involve task-oriented (versus discipline-oriented) workgroups; design an integration of the workgroups; implement the design; and then evaluate the design. This sequence of actions, too, draws on something very close to UX design with modifications: program evaluation. In other words, to overcome the challenges of implementing inter- and transdisciplinarity, we should always already be inter- and transdisciplinary ourselves, drawing on anything we know to be useful, beneficial, and necessary along the way.

Since the Ottawa Charter (World Health Organization, 1986) a core argument for health promotion action is the need for collaborative efforts in order to change existing social structures which are harmful for population health (Potvin & Jourdan, 2022). Despite the importance of structural change as key health promotion strategy, however, there is little consensus about what structural change is. Moreover, there is a lack of theory-driven approaches on how to implement it. To our understanding, such approaches should be able to explain why to do what and when in order to achieve structural changes. Therefore, this presentation introduces a cooperative planning approach as an innovative practice of community action that functions as a driving force for changes in both everyday life practice (e.g. creating healthy environments) and political practice (e.g. developing healthy public policies) (Rütten et al. 2023). The aim is to show how a “cooperative planning”-approach works as a mechanism of structural change.

We apply a theory-based conceptual model that covers fundamental dimensions of health promotion action and position cooperative planning as a driving force within the model. Data from a case study in the field of community-based health promotion with a focus on people in difficult life situations are used to explain how health-promoting structural change can be achieved through this collaborative intervention approach.

Cooperative planning takes into account the intervention context and the participation of relevant stakeholders as “inputs”. The “process” itself is participatory, collaborative and moderated towards concrete actions. The "outputs" of cooperative planning are various measures implemented to improve both everyday life practice (e.g. through infrastructure development) and political practice (e.g. healthy public policies). We distinguish the effects of cooperative planning on individuals and populations (e.g. enabling of participating stakeholders) as "outcomes" from the structural effects that we call "impact". The latter refers to changes in rules and resources that underlie social practice. For example, those “structural changes” are decipherable from the changed patterns of behavior and social interaction that different stakeholders employ as new or modified routines in their everyday life practice.

The cooperative planning approach has been proven an effective mechanism of structural change in certain case studies. Future research and application should further test and develop this approach on a broader basis and in new application areas.

References

World Health Organization (1986). Ottawa charter of health promotion. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/teams/health-promotion/enhanced-wellbeing/first-global-conference

Potvin, L., & Jourdan, D. (Eds.). (2022). Global Handbook of Health Promotion Research, Vol. 1: Mapping Health Promotion Research (1st ed. 2022). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97212-7

Rütten, A., Semrau, J. & Wolff, A. R. (2023). Entwicklung gesundheitsförderlicher Strukturen durch kooperative Planung. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. Onlinepublikation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11553-023-01045-4

Navigating a world that constantly bombards us with images of individualistic practices, fragmented thinking, exclusion, dominant perspectives, separation, and polarization will affect how view the world, affect our aptitude for connecting, and even weaken our ability for integration. Clearly, this may happen without being fully aware of it. There is a great deal of literature stating how easy is to end up aligning with individualistic practices, exclusion, separation, and the imposing of dominant perspectives. As a matter of fact, individualism has been categorized as a global megatrend and polarization as tendency that is spreading globally.

As someone who has been able to see and experience the beauty of differences, I have been exploring creative ways to expose the people with whom I relate in my academic, professional, ministerial, and personal life to the beauty of integrating, connecting, including, etc., i.e., the beauty of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.

In this presentation I will share the creative strategies and ways that I have been developing and using to expose and inspire the students of our online Doctoral Program in Interdisciplinary Leadership to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary images/practices/thinking. Because of the nature of online programs, it becomes a bit more challenging to instill interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in students. Thus, one has to be rather intentional about exposing them and inspire them to see the beauty and the need for interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. In this presentation I will share my efforts to be intentional about living out interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.

Climate change presents severe challenges to the German forestry sector, impacting ecosystems, biodiversity, and overall forest vitality. Efforts are underway to elevate public awareness and collaboration to effectively respond to climate change impacts. Our research adopts a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach, integrating transdisciplinary processes and co-creation, to understand stakeholder needs and develop climate service products. Focusing on climate extremes such as drought, heat, strong wind/storm, and heavy rain, we investigate diverse perceptions among authorities, scientists, and forest users. Drawing insights from the ClimXtreme project (cf. Conference talks), we engaged in a collaborative case study with stakeholders from the city forest Karlsruhe. The transdisciplinary research aims to address specific climate information needs, inform society about climate change impacts and adaptation strategies, and facilitate communication with various forest users.

The resulting first climate service product – an easy understandable and scientifically sound informative flyer of eight pages - covers a range of topics from climate scenarios to specialized climate indices for forestry as well as practical adaptation measures initiated by the city forestry office of Karlsruhe. To support the usability and enhance the societal and scientific impacts based on our case-study, a multi-level approach has been chosen. Thus, in addition to the published flyer, all data and methods used are comprehensively explained and additional indices, analyses, methods, data, and literature will be made freely accessible online.

The outcome of our efforts emphasizes the important role of co-creation to enhance inter- and transdisciplinary capacities for climate change adaptation in a city forest. By fostering dialogues with key stakeholders and co-creating practice-specific climate information, particularly tailored for a city forestry office in southwestern Germany, our efforts inform society about climate change impacts and adaptation strategies and facilitate communication with diverse forest users (e.g. local forest visitors or hunters). This integrated approach ensures a meaningful contribution to climate resilience in the German forestry sector and beyond.

Investigative journalism interrogates the use and misuse of power. It is the most expensive and time-consuming genre of journalism, resembling academic rigor in its methods and complex data. Journalism has generally been characterized by competition, rather than cooperation, between newsrooms. In the 21st century, media outlets finally discovered that by sharing resources, they can lower expenses and enhance the ambition and societal impact of their investigations (Birnbauer, 2019).

Collaborative investigative journalism remains under-researched (Carson 2021). Existing research has discovered that the most important elements by which journalistic collaborations are organized are the duration of time and degree of integration among partner organizations. Using these two variables, Stonbely (2017) identified six models of collaborative journalism: 1) Temporary and separate, 2) Separate and co-creating, 3) Temporary and integrated, 4) On-going and separate, 5) On-going and co-creating, and 6) On-going and integrated, mentioning that the models require more attention as to managing unequal power dynamics. Issues of inequality in North-South journalistic collaborations have since persisted (Center for Cooperative Media 2022).

My work takes on the challenge of extending pre-existing models and creating new models of collaborative investigative journalism, mindful of inequality and power relations between the Global South and the North and between journalists and their investigative partners. The development of these models is, first, rooted in empirical analysis of collaborative investigative coverage across the U.S.-Mexico (Global North-South) border, co-produced between Guatemalan, Salvadoran, Honduran, Mexican, and US investigative journalists and academic researchers exposing abuses against Central American asylum-seekers.

Second, my work draws from typologies of collaboration and integration in multi-, inter- and transdisciplinarity (Klein 2017, 2021). Based on these models and empirical analysis, my presentation argues that some journalistic collaborations resemble multidisciplinarity in that the different specializations remain separate throughout the investigative and publication process. Contra Stonbely’s (2017) models, longer duration of collaboration does not guarantee integration in the multidisciplinary model.

Other journalistic collaborations resemble interdisciplinarity in that the boundaries between disciplines and investigative methods blur, while hierarchies between academic and journalistic professions and regions persist. The finest journalistic collaborations resemble the transdisciplinary model, radically permeating professional and regional boundaries and empowering investigators from the South to lead the way in the integration of voices of relevant stakeholders (in this case, Central American asylum-seekers), showcasing potential for decolonizing investigative practice.

Overall, my paper argues that typologies of multi- inter- and transdisciplinarity provide an important and novel path for the development of models of collaborative investigative journalism, preventing a reinvention of the wheel. Multi- inter- and transdisciplinary research and investigative journalism share many goals: they investigate complex challenges that cannot be understood let alone solved by any individual discipline or media outlet. Both investigative journalists and academics are struggling to maintain their roles as fact-checkers and truth-tellers in the world filled with misinformation. Both journalism and academia have also struggled with lack of diversity and inclusion of voices from the Global South. Yet dialogue between communities specialized in investigative journalism and inter- and transdisciplinarity has been almost non-existent. This paper pushes for further connections.

The sustainability crisis is one of the greatest challenges of our times. At Utrecht University, the strategic theme 'Pathways to Sustainability' aims to foster the radical innovation needed to address this societal challenge in the university's practices, of research, education, public engagement, and operational affairs. For this, a transdisciplinary approach is fundamental. To facilitate academics, staff, and graduate students in navigating this transdisciplinary journey and to cultivate capacity, the Transdisciplinary Field Guide has been developed. Serving as a compendium of valuable resources, training opportunities, funding avenues, and toolkits, it also endeavours to foster a sense of community; a place where experiences, both good and bad, are shared through field stories and where peers can act as guides.

During this presentation, we aim to elucidate our process in establishing the guide, focusing on two primary challenges pertinent to the conference stream 'Growing the Capacity for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity'.

First, we will address the question on how to reach all those who might wish to use (or those that should be using) the field guide. Although many academics are involved in transdisciplinary research, not all recognise the requisite competences required to do so successfully. Often the wheel is reinvented, one is unaware of the available support and the project objectives overshadow the importance of the process itself. Merely existing as a website, the field guide has proven insufficient in addressing this challenge. It needs to be taken one step further; by thoroughly embedding and connecting the community behind the guide with the community of practice within the university though the existing communication channels, support structures, such as the research support office, and educators.

Second, we address the challenge on how to grow this community of practice and on how to strengthen the connectivity between theorists and practitioners. We will share examples from the field stories we have created that highlight important lessons learned during transdisciplinary research projects taking place at our university.

This presentation also serves as a call for feedback on our field guide, aiming to refine its content, invite innovative ideas, and enrich available resources with initiatives from the inter- and transdisciplinarity community.

The socio-ecological challenges the world is currently facing demand to innovate our ways to approach, deal and build reality for a more sustainable future. In academic cooperation, development initiatives, and research reflections, transdisciplinarity has been encouraged as an innovative perspective to co-create answers for complex problems through a dialogue between a diversity of academic and non-academic actors. Thus, transdisciplinarity challenges former ways of conducting research and producing knowledge.

In this presentation, I would like to disclose my experience as a first-person action researcher in making sense along with the other actors involved in the process towards transdisciplinarity, within an academic cooperation program for development in Bolivia.

My relation as a researcher with academic actors of other disciplines, and with non-academic actors, with different cultural backgrounds and ways of knowledge production, was decisive for my personal journey to become more engaged, through transdisciplinarity, with the local development of the world of which I’m part.

The data considered for this self-reflective analysis come from 10 personal research notebooks and 30 pictures, taken during the 5-year research period (2017-2022). The analysis revealed how symmetrical interactions and shared experiences among the actors contribute to gradually learning to make sense of transdisciplinarity.

Grounded on this analysis, I would like to present how these two key elements (symmetrical interactions/shared experiences) contributed to building a new sense of being a researcher: "a relational academic" that aims to enhance inter and transdisciplinarity initiatives.

Following Einstein's observation that "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them," there is an urgent need for collaborative problem-solving across diverse disciplines, especially in the face of complex global challenges. This necessitates the adoption of new leadership practices to transform both thinking processes and approaches to address these intricate problems. Aligned with the theme of the ITD conference on broadening and deepening education and training in inter- and transdisciplinarity, and focusing on guiding principles for teacher professionalization in this context, we will present our interdisciplinary leadership development model. This framework aims to teach integrative thinking and collaboration across differences, nurturing leaders capable of navigating the complexities of the evolving global landscape.

The core focus of our interdisciplinary leadership development model is to prepare practitioner-scholars to tackle complex issues in today's global context. Over the past 12 years, we have refined this model within our EdD in Interdisciplinary Leadership Program. Tailored for graduate education, the model is rooted in foundational learning theories, particularly andragogy, recognizing the distinct characteristics of adult learners. We contend that successful interdisciplinary collaboration requires more than the mere convergence of individuals from various disciplines; it demands a nuanced, situated mindset practiced by individuals who understand the emergent nature of collaboration across differences. Drawing on leadership-as-practice perspectives, our model emphasizes viewing interdisciplinarity as a holistic concept, transcending individual focus to consider collective and systemic dimensions of leadership development.

Our presentation will address the current lack of clarity within the leadership literature on interdisciplinarity. By exploring the interdisciplinary roots of leadership, our model enriches leadership development by fostering capabilities to address real-world complexities. We will present the interdisciplinary leadership model as a tapestry, intricately weaving together and cultivating leadership identities, practices, and outcomes through intentional mission, structure, curriculum, and instructional strategies. The model underscores the need for educators to move beyond reductionist views of leadership and embrace an emergent, process-oriented approach. Key components include diverse student cohorts, critical reflection across coursework, using an andragogical approach to student engagement, and emphasizing the importance of high-quality teaching and the recruitment and retention of faculty with diverse backgrounds. Our presentation will provide practical insights and examples for scholars and educators interested in implementing the interdisciplinary leadership development model.

Organizing and designing an interdisciplinary thesis project requires difficult choices and working around the limitations of your institutional context. To help those academics in a position of responsibility regarding this topic, this presentation will touch on 7 current interdisciplinary thesis programs at Utrecht University and the University of Amsterdam, with the addition of a brief reflection on 2 UU pilots in development in 2024. The program distribution includes humanities, medical science, social science, university colleges, and beta science. The information was collected informally as part of multiple educational innovation projects in order to advise project leaders and educational directors. The presentation will begin by highlighting selected issues of interest particular to the individual context of each program. The presentation will close by providing a general overview of what to pay attention to when seeking to reform or organize your own interdisciplinary thesis or education program. Example topics include: how to manage and prepare your supervision pool, the variable degrees of incorporating interdisciplinary theory in the program and assessment, the baseline purpose of your thesis and your interdisciplinarity, and how to prepare and support students. The project advisor (Dr. Florian Verbeek) and the educational director of the 3-year Liberal Arts and Science bachelor program (Dr. Rianne van Lambalgen) will be present to answer questions and exchange experiences.

This presentation illustrates an intelligent tutoring system-prototype which uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) to enhance interdisciplinary student collaboration. We present the methodology and system, as well as its potential application to the DaVinci Project, a Bachelor honors course where students work in teams on a transdisciplinary research project.

Theoretical Framework

Teachers can facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration in student teams using various approaches, but it is important that they apply a structured approach (van den Beemt et.al., 2020). However, coaching interdisciplinary teams can be demanding and the teacher has limited amount of time to facilitate the team. An automated method and tool can help students anytime, anywhere, and in this way democratize and personalize interdisciplinary education even further. However, there is little research available on supporting interdisciplinary teams using AI-methods, with most current research focusing on other collaborative settings such as crowdsourcing or business (see Zhou et al, 2018).

Intelligent Tutoring system

In this project, we aim to address aspects of team performance, using Tuckman’s theory that identifies different stages of team performance (Tuckman, 2001) This is relevant during the interdisciplinary problem solving process, in case of creating interdisciplinary teams (forming), but also when students need to address their frictions for epistemic stability (Horn et.al., 2022). Through the methodology and accompanying tool, we aim to encourage functional disagreement as defined by Horn et.al. (2022) by addressing misunderstanding, disagreement and conflict.

The proposed methodology and digital coach will be applied to enable students to learn from each other during the interdisciplinary life cycle. The tool will support teams on two crucial elements of their collaboration, i) team formation, where it will use optimization algorithms to match students from different disciplines into harmonious teams, and ii) collaboration, where it will use generative-AI to coach those teams have more effective conversations about their disciplinary perspectives.

Prototype

In this presentation we will present an overview of the methodology and a prototype of the intelligent tutoring system, and present a case study of its application in the DaVinci Project. We evaluate the use of this prototype in forming multidisciplinary groups for transdisciplinary teamwork and we assess how the students can benefit in their interdisciplinary conversation from support through Generative-AI and what important properties should be added to the intelligent tutoring system to encourage constructive conflict. Finally we will reflect on how the system can be used to mobilize the role of the teacher as coach to facilitate interdisciplinary learning.

References

Van den Beemt, A., MacLeod, M., Van der Veen, J., Van de Ven, A., Van Baalen, S., Klaassen, R., & Boon, M. (2020). Interdisciplinary engineering education: A review of vision, teaching, and support. Journal of engineering education, 109(3), 508-555.

Horn, A., Urias, E., & Zweekhorst, M. (2022, September 15). Epistemic stability and epistemic adaptability: interdisciplinary knowledge integration competencies for complex sustainability issues. Sustainability Science, 17, 1959–1976.

Tuckman, B. W. (2001). Developmental sequence in small groups. Group Facilitation, (3), 66.

S. Zhou, M. Valentine, and M. S. Bernstein, “In search of the Dream Team: Temporally constrained multi-armed bandits for identifying effective team structures,” 2018, doi: 10.1145/3173574.3173682

Higher education is facing major challenges as the nature of the problems facing humanity has changed dramatically. However, the challenges reflected, e.g., in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals cannot be understood or solved using discipline-specific education alone.

Nonetheless, while holistic and inter- and transdisciplinarity approaches are essential, is university education up to the challenge? Time and again, interdisciplinarity in practice, is overshadowed by tensions between holistic and reductionistic approaches. Although interdisciplinarity is supported in various areas, educational structures accustomed to keeping disciplines separate have found it challenging to approach complex issues. In this presentation, we examine these challenges from the perspective of thesis supervision and assessment.

We present the results of a survey, examining the supervision and assessment of interdisciplinary theses at the University of Helsinki. The authors are members of the Teachers’ Academy of the University of Helsinki, representing six different disciplines and five faculties.

The main objective of this study was to contribute to the ongoing pedagogical debate on the key challenges and development proposals for the supervision and assessment of interdisciplinary theses at the university. Based on the data, we particularly assessed the challenges, their causes, and ideas for development.

The survey covered theses at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree levels. The answers were analyzed via close reading and data-driven content analysis. We compared the age, gender, and faculty distribution of the students with the entire student body of the University of Helsinki within ten years.

We identified six major themes, three of which were from the responses of both students and supervisors. (1) Both groups stressed that interdisciplinarity should be openly encouraged and efforts made to create a tradition of interdisciplinarity; (2) Both emphasized the importance of cooperation and of lowering barriers at all levels; (3) Both underlined the desire for pedagogical coherence in guidance and assessment, and the need to clarify the criteria for assessing interdisciplinary theses; (4) Students stressed that sufficient time should be given to refining the research focus of interdisciplinary theses early in the research process; (5) Supervisors pointed out the importance of understanding their positions and resulting constraints; (6) Supervisors pointed out their workload, stress, and available resources.

The study raises several challenges that, to our knowledge, have not been similarly articulated in previous studies based on such empirical evidence. There are also many suggestions for improvement, which are summarized in the presentation.

ABSTRACT

In this session, we will discuss various opportunities, pitfalls and best practices for interdisciplinary approaches to thesis writing for students who have not participated in interdisciplinary education. How can we make interdisciplinary research more accessible to all students interested, including those from disciplinary programs? We input the discussion with findings from our pilot study conducted at Utrecht University (UU), working towards answers to questions like ‘What does it take to make an interdisciplinarian?’ ‘How can disciplinary learning prepare for interdisciplinarity?’

Relevance and pilot description

At (UU), students write a discipline-based bachelor thesis – except when they participate in an interdisciplinary program. With the growing interest of students in joining interdisciplinary master programs, the increasing number of those programs, and the wicked questions that society poses, we felt the need to give bachelor students from all bachelor programs the opportunity to experiment with an interdisciplinary approach to their bachelor thesis. Specifically, we aimed to explore how we can help students from various humanities programs to adopt an interdisciplinary approach while their program did not offer extensive education on interdisciplinarity and interdisciplinary research. The challenge for them is to get a grip on what interdisciplinary approaches might entail, to fit that into their program’s idea of disciplinary thesis quality, and still have space to experience what an interdisciplinary approach means while already working on their thesis.

To explore the potential for a thesis construction where students with no or very little experience with interdisciplinary research could write a thesis with interdisciplinary approach, we designed two pilot programmes for students of various Humanities bachelor programs. The design followed the principles of constructive alignment. First, students were invited to join a pressure cooker workshop on interdisciplinary research. During this three-hour workshop, we discussed students’ disciplinary grounding, reasons for doing interdisciplinary research, we practiced formulating an interdisciplinary research question, and possible routes for integrating two or more disciplines to answer such question. Students and their supervisors, who sometimes also joined the pressure cooker workshop, were then given guidance for reflection throughout the thesis process and assessment guidelines to help grasp what was expected of them (in comparison to the disciplinary guidelines). We also offered students and supervisors online consultation moments to help solve problems or answer questions. Students used those opportunities, for example, to brainstorm about their research topic and question. At the end of the thesis writing period, students handed in their thesis and a reflection document in which they present how they have dealt with issues and questions arising during the thesis writing. Students received a certificate for participating and filled out an evaluation form.

Throughout all parts of the pilot, we took notes on the process, students’ reactions, etc. and held intervision sessions with supervising teachers. Carien, who is an educational advisor, evaluated the final writing products (thesis, reflection report) to see what kind of theses resulted from the pilot programme and what the difficulties and gains were for students.

Summary of findings and ways toward impact

We present a few key results of the pilot rounds. We discuss next questions and steps during the conference session:

1. Cooperation between various bachelor programs helped to see the various needs and restrictions of students throughout Humanities programs.

2. The pressure-cooker interdisciplinarity workshops worked well. Participation of faculty and students together was very helpful for supervisors. The complete list of integration techniques we used seemed too high for students who had never done disciplinary reflection (see 3). We are looking for an appropriate workshop format for specific educational contexts (e.g. basic research courses).

3. Students find it difficult to talk about their field as a discipline. The disciplinary self-reflection turned out to be completely new way of looking at their own field. Our project seems to make clear that consciously and explicitly speaking about what binds and distinguishes disciplines is a prerequisite for the next step. In a follow-up, extra attention is needed for exploring disciplinary grounding.

4. We have experimented with approaches to interdisciplinarity in professional literature (e.g. Repko & Szostak 2021). We translated that for the pressure cooker workshop in pilot round 2 into a new list of components of a disciplinary perspective: phenomena, theory of knowledge, assumptions, concepts, theories, methods, societal relevance.

5. We created an overlay to help teachers assess an interdisciplinary perspective in BA theses in disciplinary programs. We set the bar feasibly low: students are required to explain what different disciplines contribute to answering a (sub-)question and when they reflect on the process of considering, comparing and perhaps integrating some of the components from the above list. We are still evaluating this, but it seems that no new criteria are needed

6. Reflection by students on the process seems promising. The results of the second round will be in by June 2024.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SESSION DESIGN

The session is interactive, which affords exchange of ideas between everyone present.

- Introduction (5 min.).

- Visual exercise (5 min.): participants choose one association card from a range of cards (available from the game Dixit) which fits their experience or association with interdisciplinary approaches to thesis writing. They discuss their chosen cards in small groups.

- Interactive round to gain insight into participants’ relation to the topic (15 min.): Have they been involved in interdisciplinary thesis writing, if so, how? We start to make a list of pitfalls and best practices if those come up, to be added to throughout the session.

- Presentation pilot results (10 min.): those results (foreshadowed in the abstract) will link with the issues raised just before and will also input the following discussion.

- Discussion (25 min.): Based on the input so far, we have a plenary discussion around the following questions:

1. How can we make students aware of their disciplinary basis, which is prerequisite for integration of disciplines of some sort?

2. The differences between full-fledged interdisciplinary research and a thesis with an interdisciplinary approach are subtle and layered. When is an interdisciplinary approach successful?

- Rounding off (5 min.).

Introduction

Simulation games have proved to be a helpful method for researchers in several inter- and transdisciplinary projects in order to gain insights into real-world dynamics and to test the effectiveness and societal impact of organisational arrangements as well as legislative and other institutional framework conditions. The proposed interactive session offers a forum for researchers and practitioners who have already gained experience with simulations games or who are interested in familiarising themselves(?) with their potential benefits. Furthermore, the session aims to define preconditions and jointly develop guidance on how to use simulation games to shape collaboration between experts and stakeholders from diverse disciplines and knowledge systems. The contributors will summarise the elaborated results as a freely accessible method profile. The session therefore contributes to topic 1. Enhancing the theoretical foundations of inter- and transdisciplinary.

Experience & State of Research

The research group sofia (engl.: Society for Institutional Analysis) applied simulation games in the fields of impact assessment in new organisational and legislative frameworks, particularly in the context of prospective legislative impact assessment, as well as in the realms of transformation research and behavioural insights for the assessment multi-actors dynamics.

As stated in the publication Simulation Games in Impact Assessment for Law, simulation games are relatively complex but offer high learning effects. They facilitate risk-free collection of practical experience, since practitioners participate in the simulation of future reality and test the effects of decisions in a controlled/protected environment. Participants may then fully understand both, single policy options and the interactions between them. The multi-stakeholder setting stimulates the homo ludens, thus minimise strategic behaviour: The dynamic interaction and change of perspectives during the simulation promote mutual understanding and facilitate joint problem framing, which in turn supports goal-orientated collaboration.

In a nutshell, a simulation game provides insights into how actors react to changing framework conditions and reveals their interactions and the related dynamic processes. This allows to uncover obstacles in the interaction and find suitable solutions.

Motivation and Objectives

The research group sofia, led by Prof. Dr. Kilian Bizer and Prof. Dr. Martin Führ, has conducted a dozen simulations games in the last years. Based on this experience a structure is offered to systemise different approaches for this interactive tool. Other researchers are invited to describe their experience using the proposed structure well ahead of the session.

The session functions as a platform for structured knowledge exchange between practitioners and supports sharing of best practices and mutual learning across disciplines and knowledge systems. Moreover, the session collaboratively validates, further develops and refines the common understanding of the applications, the potential and the limitations of simulation games in different settings. More specifically, it aims for co-creation of innovative solutions regarding the organisation and design of simulation games suitable for different types of wicked problems. Based on the results the hosts intend to create a method profile (e.g., via td-net toolbox). This aligns with the overriding objective to enhance the toolbox of researchers and organisations facing inter- and transdisciplinary challenges.

In addition, participants with less experience can familiarise themselves with the benefits of using this method to test solutions to wicked problems by sharing experiences, research results and insights with researchers from different disciplines.

Focus of Content

The session will critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, limitations, opportunities, and risks associated with the use of simulation games, fostering a deep understanding of their potential for collaborative research. Furthermore, the session will elaborate the use of simulation games for different types of inter- and transdisciplinary challenges, problem constellations, and stages of a project. On the basis of this, contributors and participants derive effective strategies for a purposeful design and meaningful implementation of simulation games into inter- and transdisciplinary projects.

Concept of the session

The proposed session will feature a combination of discussions and presentations from the hosts as well as contributors interested in sharing knowledge and experiences, ensuring a diverse and engaging experience for all participants. The session is committed to fostering an inclusive environment that encourages the integration of contributors from diverse backgrounds and the exploration of innovative formats. A Miro-Board facilitates the interactive nature of the session, allowing for active participation and collaboration among attendees. The board will be open for editing and contributions by participants both before and after the session, accompanying the whole process. It will provide templates for systematic knowledge exchange and presentations. Ideally, a preparatory online meeting with those who handed in their experience will help streamline the agenda for the session. This has proven to be the recipe for success in a recent collaborative workshop on "Modes of Change”.

Description of the session design

1) Presentation by our project team on experiences and takeaways from conducting simulation games in inter- and transdisciplinary projects (12-15 minutes)

2) Presentations of case studies from other institutions on their use of gaming simulations (15-20 minutes)

3) Jointly distinguish types and categories of simulation games (5 minutes)

4) Discuss Strenghts, Weaknesses, Opportunities and risks of the use of simulation games in inter- and transdisciplinary projects (10 minutes)

5) Development of strategies for the efficient and effective design of simulation games (10 Minutes)

6) Summary and conclusions (5 minutes)

1–3 key readings

Call for Participation

The hosting-team is looking for participants for this interactive session. If you would like to share your experience and insights regarding simulation games in different application scenarios, please feel to join our Miro-Board and to contact Anna (anna.zeitler@h-da.de). Your contribution is greatly appreciated and valuable to the session!

Simulation games in the Regulatory Impact Assessment – Simulation of the implementation of the EIA Amending Directive 2014/52/EU

Führ, M./Balla, S./Dopfer, J./Bunge, T. et al., elni Review 2018, 1: 17-24; https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2018.004

https://www.elni.org/fileadmin/elni/dokumente/Archiv/2018/Heft_1/elni_2018-01_Fuehr.pdf

Simulation Games in Impact Assessment for Law – Part 2 – Recommendations from Selected Simulation Games (in german)

Führ, M./Balla, S./Dopfer, J./Bunge, T. et al., UVP-Report 2018, 32 (2): 79-86

https://www.uvp.de/de/uvp-report/jg32/jg32h2/1079-uvp-report-032-10

Appropriate definitions and measures of quality are needed to guide research design and evaluation. Traditional disciplinary research is built on well-established methodological and epistemological principles and practices. Disciplines have their own evaluation criteria and processes in which research quality is often narrowly defined, with emphasis on scientific excellence and scientific relevance. Emerging transdisciplinary approaches are highly context specific and problem oriented, they integrate disciplines and include societal actors in the research process. Standard research assessment criteria are simply inadequate for evaluating change-oriented transdisciplinary research (TDR), and inappropriate use of standard criteria may disadvantage TDR proposals and impede the development of TDR. There is a need for a parallel evolution of principles and criteria to define and evaluate research quality in a TDR context. In 2015, we developed a TDR quality assessment framework consisting of twenty-five criteria organized under four principles. Since that time, the literature on TDR and TDR assessment has grown, other TDR research assessment frameworks have been published and tested, and we have further tested and refined our own assessment framework. This talk will present the underlying principles and approach of the TDR Quality Assessment Framework and review lessons learned from testing the framework in evaluations of several completed research for development projects. It will then review two other frameworks in use: RQ+ and the CGIAR Quality of Research for Development Framework. Based on this, we have developed a revised version of the assessment framework and the scoring system. The revised principles are: 1. Relevance. The importance, significance, and usefulness of the research problem(s), objectives, processes, and findings to the problem context (6 criteria); 2. Credibility. The research findings are robust and the sources of knowledge are dependable (12 criteria). 3. Legitimacy. The research process is perceived as fair and ethical (4 criteria). 4. Positioning for Use. The research process is designed and managed to enhance sharing, uptake, and use of research outputs and stimulates actions that address the problem and contribute to solutions (7 criteria). The main changes from the original version are in: the definition and naming of the fourth principle (from “Effectiveness” to “Positioning for Use”); filling gaps, eliminating overlap and refining definitions in individual criteria; replacing rubric statements with guidance notes. The QAF is designed for a range of users, including: research funders and research managers assessing proposals; researchers designing, planning, and monitoring a research project; and research evaluators assessing projects ex post. We present the key components of the revised framework and describe how to apply it.

Aix-Marseille University is a multidisciplinary university, with a variety of interdisciplinary programs and projects in research and education supported since 2012. Despite a series of successes and achievements supported by the "excellence initiative" label awarded to our University, in 2020 the newly-elected governance came to the realization that pushing interdisciplinarity further required a more proactive and encompassing approach to promote lasting change.Therefore, a new Mission for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity was launched in 2021 with four strategic complementary objectives. One of them focuses on providing practical support for the implementation of interdisciplinary projects by the community, by offering guidance, facilitation and evaluation tools. Indeed, as far as interdisciplinary research projects are concerned, we found that to fully achieve their objectives and optimize collaboration between disciplines while avoiding the pitfall of interdisciplinary washing and the sprinkling of buzzwords, they needed to demonstrate greater methodological rigor than standard disciplinary research projects, insofar as they had to meet both disciplinary and interdisciplinary requirements.

Based on our real "learn by doing" experience, we would like to explain in our presentation how we combined theory (i.e. literature review on the specificities of interdisciplinary research and evaluation) and practice (i.e. our own experience of facilitating multidisciplinary groups and interdisciplinary research programs) in an empirical approach to develop a new support tool for setting up interdisciplinary research projects. Indeed our practice of internal calls for interdisciplinary projects (from writing the framework to critically reviewing applications) enabled us to observe three frequent types of shortcomings (that we will present), corresponding to either expressed needs or implicit expectations on the part of researchers: this tool is an attempt to provide a full answer. It takes the form of a checklist of essential questions to be asked at every stage of any interdisciplinary research project, from the initial thought process through to the exploitation of results, in response to the sine qua non key success criteria we have identified for any interdisciplinary research project. It reminds projects’ leaders that interdisciplinarity cannot be improvised, and requires time and method to reach its full potential.

Our grid has been designed as a self-assessment practical tool, given that research projects are often set up in a short space of time (especially when participating in a call for proposals), and that we wanted to target all those involved in interdisciplinary research projects, whatever their knowledge and experience of interdisciplinarity.

In a nutshell, the vade-mecum that we will share at the conference is intended to be both a useful tool to improve the relevance, design and successful implementation of interdisciplinary projects, whether or not in response to calls for proposals, and an educational tool (to reinforce skills in setting up interdisciplinary projects, as a support for doctoral training...). We will also present how we disseminated this tool within our community of project leaders so far, and how we currently support and monitor its use within an action-research approach. We also plan to capitalize on our experience in other types of projects, in order to build up a comprehensive interdisciplinary toolkit. With a view to continuous improvement, we hope to enhance this grid with feedback from our colleagues, including during its presentation at this conference.

As an intermediary institution working in transdisciplinary project contexts, the social design lab experienced the demands to enable strategic project iteration in open ended processes and real-world experimentation settings. Small, barely perceptible changes within the project context often seemed to be the drivers for societal change and transformations. In order to empirically prove this perception and efficiently prompt adjustment of resources and the research/project design, a real-time impact observation methodology was developed within the social design lab. This methodology seeks to identify impacts, potentials, and changing needs during the project, complemented by an ex-ante and ex-post analysis. The presentation will provide an explanation of this methodology.

The framework of the impact observation is set in the ex-ante impact orientation phase. In this phase a vision and the transformation tracks are formulated. Transformation tracks are strategic corridors, which the project team defines as crucial for reaching the desired societal transformation. For each transformation track qualitative short-term objectives, so-called transformation qualities are defined.

Within the operative work of transdisciplinary projects, the real time impact observation Is the heart of the developed methodology. It is carried out by collecting and evaluating information on (presumed) impacts or small changes, so called impact particles that could potentially lead to impacts. To foster feasibility, impact particles are noted by the observing team members in a questionnaire shortly after the observation. These notes are always taken in a standardized template (context, occurring change, assumptions about long term consequences, actors, date). If possible, all information about occurring change is directly assigned to the transformation track and transformation qualities to which they are presumably contributing. In frequent cycles the collected impact particles are presented, discussed and checked for data quality. Based on clustered impact particles and complemented by insights from discussions in the team, recommendations for action and adjustments to the strategy are developed. The recommendations for action lead to instructions and to-dos for the project team, making the impact observation a central method for project management.

After completing a long-term project cycle, or a whole project, an ex-post analysis is conducted. During a half-day workshop, the conclusions of each transformation quality are reviewed and impact narratives are formulated. These narratives describe impact patterns and chains that became visible throughout a longer time period, connecting different transformation qualities.

The methodology helps to observe impact in the sdl projects, yet this approach is not without flaws. Detailed notetaking of impact observation is time consuming, creating a trade-off between addressing real-world problems and gaining insights about impact. However, as the impact observation is producing knowledge for social transformation processes and helps the sdl to better process and pass on experiences, this effort is considered worthwhile. Regular reflection cycles help not overlooking small but important refinements in the daily routine. In order to efficiently carry out impact observation on a daily basis, the sdl developed some feasible and easily implementable approaches and techniques.

How can we ensure that transdisciplinary research is ultimately funded when reviewing transdisciplinary research proposals? We were faced with this question at the end of 2020. For us as dedicated supporters of transdisciplinary research, it was initially quite simple: by bringing experts with transdisciplinary knowledge into the review process in form of a transdisciplinary peer review. However, this alone was not the success factor. In our presentation, we will discuss which factors we consider to be important for selecting projects which demonstrate a convincing transdisciplinary research design.

Although there is a great wealth of research and empirical findings on the evaluation of existing research projects, there are hardly any findings in the literature on transdisciplinary review processes for research proposals. With our contribution we want to draw attention to this gap and share our experiences. Thus, we target the conference stream 1) Enhancing the theoretical foundations of inter- and transdisciplinary with special contribution to: "Harnessing experience and knowledge gained from inter- and transdisciplinary projects and programs" with focus on "Evaluation and assessment".

With our presentation we want to answer the following five questions:

1. What are the preconditions for implementing a transdisciplinary review process?

2. What ingredients are needed for a transdisciplinary review process?

3. What positively surprised us in the overall process - from the conception to the implementation of the review process?

4. Where would we make improvements?

5. What advice can we give to those who want to set up such a transdisciplinary review process?

Our experience of setting up a call for proposals for transdisciplinary projects and their evaluation is based on two calls for proposals for transdisciplinary research projects of the Berlin University Alliance. The Berlin University Alliance is a cooperation of four Berlin partners – Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Technische Universität Berlin, and Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin – that receives funding in the line of the German government’s Excellence Strategy. The four partners aim to overcome institutional and disciplinary boundaries in order to create an integrated research environment. In this context, the Berlin University Alliance promotes transdisciplinary research projects, which we actively support as the Alliance's TD-Lab - Laboratory for Transdisciplinary Research.

As the field of transdisciplinary research (TDR) has developed, many scholars have pointed out how the prevailing research context is persistently unfavourable to TD modes of knowledge production; TDR requires conditions that differ from those needed for basic disciplinary research (Dedeurwaerdere 2013; Kläy et al. 2015; Kueffer et al. 2012; Schneidewind 2009). For example, there is much evidence that interdisciplinary and TDR proposals have difficulty obtaining funding, since reviewers typically apply disciplinary perspectives and quality criteria instead of considering the integrated whole (Bromham et al. 2016; Mansilla 2006; Woelert and Millar 2013). Moreover, (classic) academic careers are still typically built on measuring scientific impact according to publication in peer-reviewed journals – journals that are more interested in the scientific part of TDR, not in the efforts of such research to contribute to actual societal transformations (Kueffer et al. 2012; Rhoten and Parker 2004). Consequently, for TDR to reach its full potential, experts and scholars argue that far-reaching structural and institutional changes are needed in how TDR is treated by research funding bodies (Dedeurwaerdere 2013; Defila and Di Giulio 1999; Kläy et al. 2015; Kueffer et al. 2012; Schneidewind 2009).

However, in recent years, funding bodies increasingly acknowledge the importance of TDR and rethink their funding approaches and practices. Some funders started to experiment with punctual changes in review and evaluation processes; others are designing entirely novel funding programmes and funding schemes. In some cases, these efforts have been accompanied by TDR specialists (e.g. Lira 2030 in Africa programme or the programme funding real-world laboratories of the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts Baden-Württemberg in Germany) or evaluated by independent researchers (e.g. DFG, FWF) or explored in a researcher funder collaborative project (RoRi Initiative - https://researchonresearch.org/project/undisciplined/.).

In order to learn from these efforts and unravel potentials and limitations of the different approaches, this session brings together researchers who investigated how research funding bodies enhanced transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in different contexts.

The session starts with a short introductionary talk, followed by a series of moderated impulses addressing specific questions. In each impulse, two researchers with similar research questions are interviewed by a moderator (one slide is allowed for each researcher). In the last impulse, representatives of funding bodies and science policy organisations discuss the research and report about their own experiences. Each impulse is followed by an open discussion with all session attendees. The session ends with a structured exercise summarising the key lessons learned across the investigated funding programmes.

Session 1

- Introduction – Flurina Schneider, 10min

- Slot 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of different models, methods and design options for transdisciplinary research funding programmes (Gabriele Wülser and Helen Buckley Woods, moderated by Tobias Buser, 25min)

- Slot 2: Starting a transdisciplinary funding programme – about new methodologies for consortium formation and approaches to define review criteria (Laurens Hessels, Rico Defila und Antonietta Di Giulio, moderated by Flurina Schneider)

Session 2

- Slot 3: Promising approaches for funding transdisciplinary research in the Global South (Eefje Aarnoudse and Flurina Schneider, moderated by Tobias Buser, 25min)

- Slot 4: Funders perspectives – key interests, strategies, opportunities and challenges regarding TDR funding (Petra Biberhofer, Tobias Buser, Stefan Gröschne, Carthage Smith, Michiel van den Hout , moderated by Flurina Schneider, 25min)

- Conclusion – Tobias Buser, 10 min

Key readings

Defila, R.; Di Giulio, A. (2020): Science policy recommendations for funding real-world laboratories and comparable formats. In: GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 29, 1, S. 63–65.

Hessels, L.; van den Broek, J.; van Elzakker, I.; van Drooge, L.; Deuten, J. (2021): Research programmes with a mission. https://www.rathenau.nl/sites/default/files/2022-03/Research_programmes_with_a_mission_Rathenau_Instituut.pdf (20.04.2022).

OECD [Hrsg.] (2020): Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research - OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 88.

Schneider, F., Patel, Z., Paulavets, K., Buser, T., Kado, J., Burkhart, S. (2023). Fostering transdisciplinary research for sustainability in the Global South: Pathways to impact for funding programmes. In: Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 (1), S. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02138-3

Wuelser, G.; Edwards, P. (2023): Lighthouse Programmes in Sustainability Research and Innovation. Swiss Academies Reports 18 (2).

Interdisciplinary education has emerged as a valuable approach to foster holistic learning and to address complex challenges by integrating knowledge and perspectives from multiple disciplines. Moreover, it is acknowledged that education based on authentic open-ended challenges motivates students. Since 2019, the elective project ‘Bio-Tech-Med-Nutrition Interdisciplinary Team Training’ (BITT), takes place within the Alliance EWUU. The course aims to help students to develop their

interdisciplinary competences by cross-boundary (research) collaboration within the health domain.

Interdisciplinary groups consisting of 4-6 students are introduced to a real-life disease-related problem by a patient and physician. The students are challenged to collaborate in to identify an aspect associated with the clinical problem or the quality of life of the patient, which they target in their project. The final deliverable can range from a proposal to address their target or a prototype of a product. The main goal of the BITT-project is that students experience the various steps in interdisciplinary collaboration and are able to reflect on their individual disciplines, in order to equip them with the interdisciplinary skills needed to address the world’s complex problems as a professional.

The course started with 18 students working on three patient related challenges guided by three tutors and two institutes. Over the past five years, it has expanded to around 100 students working on approximately ten different challenges guided by 10-20 tutors and four different institutes. During this expansion and the fact that we changed from elective to mandatory education, we have experienced several hurdles.

During the presentation at the ITD conference 2024, we intend to exchange experiences and thoughts with other educators. The following points will be open for discussion:

1) Upscaling of interdisciplinary challenge-based learning

2) The recruitment, support, and training of tutors in interdisciplinary challenge-based learning

3) Finding appropriate challenges

4) Creation of common ground, assuring all students can contribute equally

5) Financial issues in interdisciplinary challenge-based learning

6) Best practices & challenges within the BITT project

7) Running a project with several institutes, each with a different organization and distinct planning of their regular education.

Introduction

There is increasing acknowledgement of the need for university students to develop knowledge and skills to work on societal and global problems that traditional disciplinary frameworks cannot effectively address (e.g., Biberhofer & Rammel, 2017). One response to this need is to stimulate the development of innovative inter- and transdisciplinary courses, which have challenges of their own. Understanding these challenges and the factors that support the success of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary educational innovation in the Netherlands can inform strategy for higher education policy, both locally and nationally, as Dutch universities make the transition to forms of education that prepare students for addressing the wicked problems of the 21st century.

Method

First, a literature overview including challenges and successes of inter- and transdisciplinary education was created. Themes were student perceptions, faculty perceptions, institutional embedding, and broader collaboration within and outside of the educational institutes. Secondly, the relevance of these themes where evaluated in a qualitative survey distributed among stakeholders (e.g., students, course designers and coordinators, and educational leaders) for inter- or transdisciplinary education at Dutch higher education institutes and associate societal partners. In addition, participants were asked to provide solutions for the challenges that they identified. In total, 41 surveys were completed, of which the majority were (among others) teaching inter- and/or transdisciplinary education.

Results

Of all survey participants, 31 participants reported on the challenges they identified, which were in subsequent order of frequency:

1. There is no financial embedding, making interdisciplinary/ transdisciplinary education financially unviable or unstable (67.7%).

2. There is no stability in staff who are assigned to the courses and will continue participation (54,8%).

3. The collaboration between programs and departments within higher education institutes is lacking or too difficult to set-up or maintain (48,4%).

4. Staff lacks the knowledge and skills to engage in interdisciplinary/ transdisciplinary education (48,4%).

5. The collaboration between higher education institutes and external partners is lacking or too difficult to set-up or maintain (35.5%).

6. Lecturers and program directors don't see the value of interdisciplinary/ transdisciplinary education, or don't want to spend money on it (29,0%).

7. Students don't see the value for their professional and career development (19,4%).

Solutions lie according to the participants in expectation management and training and supporting staff in their inter- and transdisciplinary teaching skills development.

Conclusion and discussion

University staff recognize many of the challenges presented in the literature and their suggestions are translated into concrete advice to support the long-term viability of inter- and transdisciplinary courses. For universities, this could result in a better return on investment as development costs are high. The benefits for students include lasting inter- and transdisciplinary education, which will support them in their professional development. The next step is to add in-depth interviews with stakeholders to make the advice even more concrete and usable for other universities as well.

Reference

Biberhofer, P. and Rammel, C. (2017). Transdisciplinary learning and teaching as answers to urban sustainability challenges. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 18(1): 63-83, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0078.

The London Interdisciplinary School (LIS) was founded to offer new models of learning that focus on the teaching and combination of diverse disciplines and methods, to further capabilities to tackle complex problems. Alongside “BASc” (Bachelor’s in Arts and Sciences) and “MASc” (Master’s in Arts and Sciences) degrees, LIS has been engaged in developing short courses for professional learners. The first of these, now called Cross-Functional Leadership, came about through a partnership with the Leadership Academies of the U.K. National Health Service (NHS), and was created to prepare professional managers and clinicians working on increasing integration across domains of Health and Social Care. The Cross-Functional Leadership course has since developed into an open-cohort programme with participants in management roles across the private, public and third sectors.

A key intention of the course design is to introduce theoretical concepts that can support more integrated working, in practical ways that are accessible and usable for professional actors in the course of fast-paced daily work. Feedback from participants has highlighted the hunger for ways to manage the conceptual and epistemological challenges that come with contemporary knowledge work that is inherently inter- and transdisciplinary, yet rarely recognised as such.

This session would offer an overview and taster of the content of the course and invite critical academic scrutiny and shared learning. This session speaks directly to the theme of growing capacity for inter- and transdisciplinarity, by illustrating what this capacity-building can look like and creating a space for inter- and transdisciplinary academics to discuss our special role in educating knowledge actors working outside of universities.

Questions of power and justice are increasingly discussed as important levers for social-ecological transformations. By centering the knowledge of those concerned and integrating different ways of knowing, transdisciplinarity also aims at transformative outcomes. However, transdisciplinary knowledge production on the ground is always prone to reproducing existing power relations and knowledge hierarchies. How can transdisciplinary practice tackle the challenge of unjust knowledge production? The concept of epistemic justice can help navigate questions of knowledge, power and justice. It specifically addresses whose knowledge counts, whose knowledge is considered valid and whose knowledge is included or excluded. Based on a literature synthesis of how epistemic justice has been operationalized in sustainability science so far, I developed reflection criteria to unpack the concept of epistemic justice. In my presentation, I will introduce these criteria and guiding questions for transdisciplinary practice. I will discuss aspects to consider when designing the conditions in which transdisciplinary knowledge production takes place as well as during knowledge production processes as such, but also deeper interpersonal capabilities and structural constraints that can be addressed individually and collectively. By systematically reflecting on these criteria, researchers and other societal actors are not only able to address normative aims of justice but might also strengthen the transformative potential of transdisciplinary knowledge production.

The ‘EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change’ has four main objectives: to make adaptation smarter, faster, more systemic, and to step up international actions for climate resilience. However, there is a tension between the necessity for fast adaptation and the challenge of implementing systemic changes, which require slower, more deliberative negotiations, and debate. This tension is particularly pertinent for the integration of local knowledge into adaptation strategies, which has only recently been acknowledged by the latest IPCC reports and EU climate policies. The integration of local knowledge in policymaking has a direct impact on epistemic justice, which is a principle that ensures fair and equal representation and participation in processes of knowledge production among diverse stakeholders.

In this paper, we propose and justify a process indicator for integrating local knowledge into EU policymaking that seeks to advance epistemic justice in processes of climate adaptation. The indicator is designed to overcome weaknesses in the EU Adaptation Strategy and to close gaps in the European Commission Better Regulations Toolbox through coordination with territorial and local stakeholders. The indicator aims to advance epistemic justice along three main dimensions, namely distributive, participatory, and recognitional epistemic justice. As a regulatory tool, the indicator consists of a checklist to assess and evaluate critical ex-ante (problem framing) and ex-post (appraisal of the policy’s initial design) aspects of epistemic justice in policymaking. In addition, the indicator also enhances political accountability, facilitates the implementation of more just policies, and fosters efficient management, thus facilitating more successful climate change adaptation. Currently, the indicator prototype consists of approximately 30 questions for assessing policy design and implementation.

This paper brings together a diverse range of scholars from geoethics, geological risks, philosophy, science and technology studies, and political science. We have put together this interdisciplinary team to identify and assess - from multiple conceptual and methodological perspectives – the key components of epistemic justice that are relevant for implementing local knowledge into adaptation strategies. Based on this process, we have established an interdisciplinary consensus to substantiate our claim that epistemic justice and local knowledge are mutually dependent factors that underpin fair, actionable, and efficient climate adaptation policies. Two disparate, yet related, bodies of literature guide our policy recommendation, namely i) transdisciplinary research on local, traditional, and indigenous knowledge, and ii) philosophical research on epistemic justice. In addition to this theoretical knowledge, we use our combined experiences in the field in terms of i) direct engagement with local communities, especially in terms of communication and management of geological hazards, ii) the development of practical geoethical principles to guide interactions with local communities, iii) involvement in policymaking processes at the EU level, and iv) political lobbying.

There is increasing awareness of the need to pay attention to the ethical-political dimensions of knowledge co-production in transdisciplinary (TD) research. These dimensions are ethical as they require judgement about what is right and wrong to do in specific situations (e.g. inclusion of marginalised groups in all project phases). They are also political, as actions and decisions taken in a TD project are intertwined with complex and dynamic socio-political processes. Despite the good intentions, knowledge co-production processes might often reproduce or generate new social, epistemic or environmental injustices. The latter is particularly likely if no concepts and methods are in place to explicitly reflect upon whether and how justice is embedded in and through TD processes and practices.

While the topic of justice in research and practice is discussed more generally in the sustainability transitions and transformations literature, to date little attention is paid to how to actively foster ethics and justice in the context of TD research. Limited evidence is available on how to identify and incorporate considerations of ethics and justice in research and practice and how these considerations are connected to climate adaptation and biodiversity strategies (Juhola et al., 2022). Recent studies indicate that beside the development of justice-oriented indicators to evaluate the progress in achieving justice in these contexts, we also need (a) to better understand perceptions and attitudes towards (in)justices of those involved in TD research (Hülle et al., 2018) and (b) to establish processes to build capacities to navigate the ethical-political complexities of TD research (Caniglia et al., 2023)

In our presentation, we will show how we are addressing these needs in the EU transdisciplinary project PLUS Change, which aims to develop more sustainable land use strategies in 12 European regions. We will talk about how we are explicitly attending to the role of ethics and justice in TD research and practice.

First, we will show how we a) foreground ethics and justice aspects in TD research on land use change processes in PLUS Change, b) foster reflexivity on challenges and opportunities of including an ethics and justice lens when working on climate change and biodiversity goals, and, finally, c) build capacities to navigate ethical and justice-related matters in TD practices. Second, we will present our mixed method approach consisting of surveys, interviews, and focus groups as well as how it allows us to conduct formative evaluation and support reflexivity in the project. Third, we will present some of the preliminary results, including insights from a baseline survey and from a series of three ethics webinars to illustrate: research and practice partners’ perceptions of justice, related experiences in their work across different geographies and disciplines, and strategies to address them.

We hope that by drawing on the data analysis and discussions in the project we will inspire the TD community to explicitly engage with ethical aspects and complex power dynamics between different knowledge forms at the intersection of research and practice.

References

Caniglia et al. (2023). Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science. Nature Sustainability 2023, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

Hülle et al. (2018). Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale. Social Indicators Research, 136(2), 663–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11205-017-1580-X/TABLES/15

Juhola, (2022). Connecting climate justice and adaptation planning: An adaptation justice index. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2022.07.024

The project “Juarpark Aargau as a Real-world lab for Sustainable Development” is funded by ETH domain to strengthen engagement and dialogue of ETH domain researchers with partners from civil society, the private and the public sector. The project’s aim is that residents of Jurapark Aargau and ETH domain researchers jointly identify sustainability challenges and explore measures to address them in real-world experiments. We understand “experiments” in a broad sense as “jointly developing and exploring measures to strengthen sustainable development of the Jurapark region”.

The Jurapark Aargau is a regional nature park in a peri-urban and rural area. Regional nature parks must balance nature conservation and regional economic development. In the Jurapark Aargau, 55’000 residents live on an area of 299 km2, organised in 31 municipalities. Municipali-ties become members of the Jurapark by public vote.

We used the first year of the three-year project exclusively for joint problem framing. The first challenge was to identify topics to start with. Suitable topics had to match (a) ETH domain’s ex-pertise, (b) the strategic planning of Jurapark and (c) Jurapark residents’ interest. Based on Ju-rapark’s survey among community mayors, intensive discussions in the project team and with the project’s Steering Board, we selected “Water management”, “Climate adaptation”, “Sus-tainable development of municipalities” and “Circular economy” as starting topics.

For each topic, we have used our approach to joint problem framing. It takes residents and re-searchers in three workshops of 2h over a period of 4-6 months from the first encounter to teams that want to explore real-world experiments. Workshops usually bring together 15-25 participants, a mix of researchers and municipal councils, farmers, local companies, NGO repre-sentatives, and cantonal authorities. To make residents feel safe, we schedule the workshops on workdays between 16-18h after work and before dinner and in local facilities. We offer coffee and cake for those who come early and end the workshop with an Apéro with regional products. In the workshops we combine methods of soft systems methodology, design thinking and knowledge co-production. The first workshop served to develop rich pictures of the current situation and to identify points to intervene within the pictures. In the second workshop these points for interventions were developed into concrete measures, which were then ranked. In the third workshop, highly ranked measures were developed to real-world experiments.

We will present and discuss (a) the design of the overall problem framing approach and of the three workshops, (b) pathways that topics took over the process and (c) our underlying theory of change and our measures of success. Furthermore, we will link the pathways that the topics took over the process of problem framing with the expertise and interest of researchers and residents who worked on them.

Geological events such as eruptions are natural phenomena that occur as a result of the Earth's activity. Chile has unique geological conditions, which include the Los Andes mountain range that runs almost the entire length of the country, 90 active volcanoes, and a millennia-long history of numerous volcanic eruptions. The impact of these eruptions on communities living near volcanoes is influenced not only by natural conditions, but also by social, gender, political and economic factors. This scenario requires a process of knowledge integration to address the challenges of risk reduction and the integration of different types of disciplines, perceptions and attitudes to promote a more resilient society.

This presentation describes the results of the project 'Following the Giants in Kütralkura UNESCO Park'. It is based on the idea that disasters are not natural and that women and girls are more impacted by socio-natural disasters than men due to social norms, gender roles, and socio-economic differences. The project aims to make visible the diverse knowledge of women living around the six active volcanoes, which are referred to as 'the giants'. The motivation behind this project was to increase awareness of volcanic hazards and to highlight several types of knowledge, including scientific and indigenous knowledge of the Mapuche people, who have historically inhabited the area.

The project was developed over a period of 15 months, from 2023 to 2024. The participants were 63 women, including geologists, public school students, teachers, communicators, psychologists, and traditional teachers from the indigenous community. The project comprises nine workshops and a four-day field trip.

This project is inspired by a transdisciplinary approach, integrating co-creating knowledge activities and spaces. The result of this process has been materialised in a book, which allow to reflect about the intersection between art and science. This applied project offers an opportunity to discuss the challenges of integrating empirical and risk information with social perceptions into scientific knowledge. It also involves social actors, such as young people and the elderly, in the process.

Hazardous cultural landscapes are complex sites where natural and cultural agencies are interwoven.

As we see an occurrence of natural hazards due to climate change, a wholesome management of these landscapes depends on comprehensive and integrated adaptation strategies based on site-specific knowledge. This means that natural processes need to be understood in their complexity, along with the cultural practices and communities that are part of the landscape. By doing so, solutions can be developed that are not monofunctional or generic, but that address the specific complexities of a particular site.

It has been widely acknowledged that climate action should depend on collaboration across multiple levels and sectors, and transdisciplinary approaches. Nevertheless, siloed infrastructural approaches to climate risk remain dominant in Norway, especially within the geo-engineering disciplines. In order to properly respond to the pressing challenges presented to us by Norwegian landscapes, I want to highlight the critical role landscape-architects can play in connecting different disciplines. The increasing complexity of hazardous cultural landscapes demands that professionals are equipped with new methods to engage with scientific knowledge from earth sciences. I argue novel ways of describing and acknowledging the intricacies of these landscapes are needed.

This contribution is based on landscape architectural practice and site exploration of a hazardous pastoral valley in Norway and aims to contribute to this issue. My practice-based research experiments with novel cartographic methods and seeks to collate and communicate data from different disciplines to unravel complex landscape agencies.

Based on posthuman theories, the work relies on recent anthropological concepts that can foster new professional landscape-architecture methods and renew natural entities' status as potential actors. I weave scientific datasets (collected through interdisciplinary fieldwork, interviews, and surveys) with local knowledge and my own site experience to draw interpretative cartographies. These various types of knowledge are combined, incorporated and visually translated with the help of various cartographic data in an overlay drawing process. These empathetic cartographies highlight nonhuman agencies' unseen or unknown behaviors, revealing hidden features beneath the landscape's surface.

By visualizing living processes that are absent from our traditional maps and thought patterns, I reveal and address tensions between humans and nonhuman actors. In a transdisciplinary endeavor that combines science, drawing, and speculation on future climate, my hybrid approach provides tools to mediate between communities and their rapidly changing landscapes. The research aims to make explicit the landscape-architect's transdisciplinary weaving skills and their role as a mediator in climate action.

Our societies face deadlocks at several scales when it comes to transitioning to more sustainable food systems. These deadlocks manifest, to mention a few, in the inability to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, or to change power structures and path dependencies hindering the transformation of our currently unsustainable food systems. Underlying causes for this, are grounded in persisting inequalities in terms of wealth and influence on decision making between and within societies. This is also seen in challenges to implement the UN Agenda 2030, where indicators show that we are not on track in implementing many of the Sustainable Development goals.

Promoting structural changes in our societies becomes a central theme. How can we re-enchant the earth? What are the economic, ecological, political, and therapeutic tools to recompose a system broken by the concentration of power? Perspectives of indigenous peoples and their movements remind us of the value of traditions, thought, and the cultural, political, and historical wealth of peoples coexisting with multiple systems of life (McNee 2021). These perspectives provide important alternatives to Western ontologies and ways of living through appealing to values such as diversity, integrity, co-dependency, and associability.

Addressing deadlocks in food systems demands deep reflections about the underlying structures and normative assumptions of unsustainable systems. Disruptions in such systems are required to change course (Benton 2023). The leverage points framework highlights points to intervene in systems. The framework defines deep leverage points as those targeting the design and intent of systems, whereas shallow leverage points address parameters and feedback (Abson et al. 2016). Deep leverage points include aspects of power (ways of knowledge distribution, governance, and interfering with system structures) and normative assumptions (goals of a system, underlying paradigms influencing the system structures, and the power to transcend these paradigms). Thus, the leverage points framework presents an entry point to the demanded deep reflection.

Furthermore, deep reflection opens space for creative narratives that respond to the required changes and proliferate images of care for a world that nourishes us and that we nourish.

In this workshop, we want to exchange among different epistemic communities and cultures from different world regions about beneficial ways of disrupting food systems for transformation. With a focus on the deep leverage points, we want to explore ways of working in different systems. The discussions will address such topics as normative assumptions of the different communities, scientific frameworks and paradigms in dealing with existing deadlocks, and the collaboration with societal actors in transdisciplinary transformative research. More specifically, we will work with the following guiding questions:

• What are the normative traditions, assumptions, worldviews that guide your research?

• What scientific frameworks and paradigms have you found to be particularly useful when working with complex sustainability problems and societal deadlocks in food systems?

• Which approaches have helped you in addressing these deadlocks in policies, markets or civic action?

• In what ways would you frame these approaches as levers for change?

The workshop applies a combination of mapping assumptions and research traditions in a first step to get an overview of the normative landscape of the involved participants; and the nomadic concepts method in a second step to more deeply reflect on different understandings of the participants.

Workshop design

First, the workshop starts off with 2-3 short input talks addressing the above-mentioned guiding questions. We strive for a variety of research and cultural traditions to open up the discussion. Second, we will collect the participants’ views on these questions on individual post-its and map them on a white board. Third, we will divide into 2-3 sub-groups depending on the number of participants and discuss the different understandings of key concepts such as the meaning of disrupting a system, role of research in and for sustainability transitions/transformations, influence of research in and its relations with societal processes. A short summary of each of the groups in the plenary will conclude the workshop.

Transdisciplinarity strives to establish new practice domains, dissolve boundaries and found new social and cognitive spaces. It involves creative and synthetic integration of multiple perspectives, knowledge production practices and disciplinary expertise. This session explores how critical thinking, and criticality, can play a role in opening up such new territories by encouraging active reflection on how ‘other’ ways of working, and alternate working knowledges constructively destabilize and broaden one’s own.

Between 2017-2023, the “Criticality in Research/Criticality as Praxis” PhD course series, hosted by the research platform SLU Urban Futures/ Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, explored the potential of criticality to enrich and help evolve epistemological norms and normative research methods toward new forms of knowledge production. Critical thinking, critical theory and criticality transcend any single disciplinary domain or practice-based arena, tendering tools for observing and gleaning understandings from the many forums and formats whereby useful knowledge gets generated and applied. The series had three pedagogical aims: provide a framework for understanding criticality in research and practice using various models of critical research writing; afford a space to rehearse interactive and synthetic peer-to-peer critical thinking processes; and deliver shared tools to enrich the constructive criticism toolbox and sharpen critical thinking, listening, reading, and writing skills.

Courses were open to PhD students with diverse disciplinary backgrounds (e.g. design, planning, environmental science, sustainability studies, landscape architecture, urban history, heritage, ecology, architecture) working on questions directly or indirectly related to the landscape field. A composite knowledge area, landscape cross-fertilizes spatial, scientific, cultural, sociological, historical, and regulatory perspectives, interweaving theoretical frameworks and practical know-how. As such, it offers many opportunities for testing synthetic critical thinking and working in inter- and trans-disciplinary modes.

Each landscape-adjacent discipline and practice operates according to, and organizes, its own normative work methods, beliefs, and value-sets. What matters to one (deemed worth examining, ‘critical’ in the sense of crucial) does not necessarily hold equivalent importance to another. The Criticality courses are consciously designed to set up a recognized TD and ID challenge: in any collective work setting what ‘catches one eye’, sparks interest, motivates one thinker/actor to question and respond to another, as well as to shared materials such as project-related literature or report documents, will depend on individual learned – disciplined – frames of reference.

To illuminate how disciplinarity impacts working methods that shape understanding and knowledge generation, the Criticality course pedagogy deploys shared tools and techniques designed to initiate a practice of socially situated thinking, reflection, and action. The educational approach includes modeling techniques for critical listening and critical conversation, to foreground how ‘disciplined’ mindsets inform interlocution. It uses literature from a mix of fields not necessarily associated with landscape (see 3 key readings below) and adopts shared critical reading and writing tools to highlight how disciplinary and professional training predisposes actors to interpret these materials, and formulate research questions in particular ways. The rhetorical précis tool focuses a reader’s attention on the relation between what a piece of writing says (its content), and how that message gets conveyed (its form). Less neutral than a simple summary, rhetorical précis-writing builds analytic and critical reading skills by exposing value frameworks that inform the development of arguments made by authors and readers/interpreters. Similarly, the critical précis tool focuses a writer’s attention on the motivated “why”, rather than the objective “what” and “how” of research work. Less neutral than an abstract, critical précis-writing asks authors to articulate their critical positions in a brief statement synopsizing the intention and argument driving their PhD project.

These shared tools and techniques set up the precondition for discussions that foreground contrasting and even conflicting understandings of course content. Participants actively rehearse how knowledge gets produced when individuals with shared concerns but differing value-sets and backgrounds converse, work and think critically, together.

Adhering strictly to a common writing format immediately and vividly demonstrates the breadth of interpretative, value-based, disciplinary, and critical positions distinguishing each reader and writer. It also helps them discern how their respective academic disciplines “work”. Identifying these preferred and established disciplinary methods makes it possible to recognize how such work methods inform pedagogical practices, learned and learning behaviors, and epistemological outcomes. The Criticality courses reveal research – often associated with theoretical “academic” endeavors – as a practice, or praxis, in its own right.

Workshop design

The proposed workshop gathers participants in a seminar room around a big table covered with a sheet of paper. Seated in the “1st circle”, around the table, are the initiators and teachers of the Criticality PhD course series Andrea Kahn and Lisa Diedrich, alongside 9 invited young researchers of assorted disciplinary and professional backgrounds who enrolled and completed various iterations of the course between 2017 and 2023. (Participant disciplinary backgrounds include landscape architecture to architecture, urban design, urban planning, regional management, heritage, environmental design, human ecology, biology). Arranged in outer circles around this table are ITD24 conference participants registered for this workshop.

The workshop is structured around three live conversational ‘rounds’, ‘real-time notetaking’ on pre-distributed cards, and in situ ‘epistemic drawing’ on the paper covered table. It involves no digital presentation technology:

• 1st round (20min): Andrea presents the theoretical foundations, practical tools, and ID-TD relevance of “critical conversation tools” used in their Criticality PhD courses. Lisa starts drawing and annotating the main concepts on the table’s paper.

• 2nd round (40 min): The 9 young researchers share their answers to the question “What was the critical moment you experienced in the PhD course, and how has it influenced your work?” This question will be circulated in advance, giving researchers time to prepare a 3-4min response and select an object to place on the table in support of their statement (e.g. a book, a printed or handwritten text, a drawing, a photo, or similar artifact that doesn’t use a computer screen). The 9 responses will be delivered one immediately after another, while fellow participants join Lisa in drawing and annotating take-aways from the statements, so that an epistemic map starts surfacing. Prior to the 2nd round, everyone (invited researchers and ITD24 workshop participants) will be asked to listen carefully and record their thoughts about the researchers’ statements and ‘supporting objects’ on distributed cards, reflecting on how the pedagogical approach tested by the Critically course invites the meta-cognitive and a meta-disciplinary stance associated with synthetic, integrative research.

• 3rd round (30 min): Andrea and Lisa moderate a conversation on the approach and how modelling critical conversation tools supports ID-TD research. They first open the discussion to the invited presenters, referring to their findings, objects and evolving epistemic map. Then they invite ITD24 participants to place their notes on the map while sharing their reflections.

• Wrapping up, Andrea and Lisa ask ITD24 participants to leave all their notes on the table. They photograph the constellation of notes, objects, and the map, for postproduction purposes.

1–3 key readings (optional)

• Escobar, Arturo (2016) “Thinking-feeling with the Earth: Territorial Struggles and the Ontological Dimension of the Epistemologies of the South”, Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana, Vol 11 issue 1, 11-32

• Nowotny, Helga (2017) An Orderly Mess (Budapest, CEU Press)

• Pickstone, J.V. (2007) “Working Knowledges Before and After circa 1800: Practices and disciplines in the history of science, technology, and medicine”. Isis Vol. 98 issue 3, 489-516

With increasing expectations for research to address complex real-world problems and to achieve societal impact, there is a corresponding need for appropriate methods to conceptualize, assess and analyze how research projects contribute to change processes (Belcher et al, 2020). During the last years, reflection on possible impact pathways, which connect research activities and outputs with desired societal effects, has gained relevance in different strands of transdisciplinary sustainability research (Schneider et al., 2019, Muhonen et al., 2019, Kreß-Ludwig et al., 2024). Pathways approaches support creating new futures, and provide plausible narratives about how changes can happen without the specificity of a single roadmap that assumes the ability to control all the complex web of influencing factors (Sharpe et al., 2016). Co-productive, recursive development of pathways and regular reflection on them foster the common understanding of the envisioned transformation. Discussing the assumptions about the impact mechanisms within the pathways can reveal possible feedback loops as well as uncertainties and risks as a basis for impact-oriented adjustments of the research design (Mayne, 2020; Belcher et al., 2020). Becoming aware of the influence that contextual conditions have on the occurrence of societal impact helps to avoid the trap of linear and causal transfer models.

In this workshop session, we are going to introduce and discuss results of international studies on impact pathways conducted in different thematic fields, e.g. sustainable urban and rural development, and socio-technical and social innovations for sustainable regional development:

Michael Kreß-Ludwig and Oskar Marg will reflect on societal impact dimensions and their interrelationships in terms of impact pathways based on a research project that accompanied 50 urban transdisciplinary research projects (Kreß-Ludwig et al. 2024). They will show which kind of societal impact the projects addressed, which methods they used to achieve these impacts (considering also the role of contextual factors), and general theses on how to generate impact in transdisciplinary urban research. On the basis of six in-depth studies, three exemplary patterns of impact pathways were made visible, which start at different points: a) learning and networking in society, b) learning or network effects of key governance actors or c) experimental changes in the physical environment. These exemplary impact pathways show that "direct" impacts (directly triggered by project activities) can lead to various "indirect" or mediated impacts. It will be shown that it is necessary to think about these different possible impact pathways and their respective starting points to be able to plan and strengthen social impacts.

Martina Schäfer and Emilia Nagy will introduce a generalized impact pathway they drafted based on formative evaluation of four transdisciplinary research projects on establishing innovations for sustainable regional development (Nagy et al. 2023). As direct effects they differentiate between network and learning effects which occur related to establishing the project team and joint problem formulation and those that go along with iterative testing and improving solution-oriented knowledge. In a later phase of the project – and beyond project duration – they focus on indirect effects which occur due to activities aiming at long term establishment of the regional innovations as well as transfer of results to other contexts. They also identified supporting conditions and risks that should be considered in planning impact-oriented research. For example, additional actors are often necessary for the continuation and scaling-up of the innovation, with whom contacts must first be established. In general, it is important to realistically assess and provide the necessary resources for the learning processes and network activities.

Stephanie Moser will deal with the question of how societal effects of transdisciplinary and transformative research can be established and consolidated beyond the duration of projects. The results are based on a joint reflection process with non-scientific stakeholders in a transdisciplinary research project in a rural, alpine region in Switzerland. In this joint societal reflection and learning process (cf. the social learning pathway in Schneider et al., 2019) key factors to building ownership and willingness to consolidate ongoing collective action were identified: shared understanding, deliberative values, changing roles and responsibilities of the academic and non-scientific stakeholders involved, and institutionalization of further support processes (Moser et al., forthcoming; Poelsma et al., forthcoming). These insights raise the question of how these key factors could be considered and addressed at an early stage in future transdisciplinary projects.

The central results on impact pathways in transdisciplinary sustainability research and questions that arise from the comparison of these results will be presented and discussed in the session. In working groups, participants will deepen and broaden their understanding of the following questions:

- Which forms of societal effects are dominant in transdisciplinary sustainability research?

- Is it possible to identify general patterns of impact pathways in transdisciplinary sustainability research?

- What elements make up a general impact pathway of research modes, which aim at testing possible solutions?

- Which preconditions and risks must be considered to increase the potential for building up impact pathways?

- Which similarities and differences can be seen between the different presented results on impact pathways in different thematic fields?

- Is the reflection of impact pathways considered useful for fostering transformation-oriented research?

The workshop results are intended to help participants reflecting on how to align their future research in an impact-oriented manner.

Description of the workshop design (in person / 90 min):

- 30 min: 2-3 Inputs by the conveners and Q&A

- 25 min: Working in groups on the proposed questions

- 25 min: Discussion of the key insights of the group discussion

- 10 min: Main implication for further research on impact pathways in transformation-oriented research

1–3 key readings

- Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., ... & Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 26-35.

- Kreß-Ludwig, M., Marg, O., Schneider, R., Lux., L. (2024): Lessons from transdisciplinary urban research to promote sustainability transformation in real-world labs. Categories, pathways, and key principles for generating societal impact. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 33/S1 (2024): 10 – 17.

- Wiefek, J., Nagy, E., & Schäfer, M. (2024). Systematic Impact-Orientation in Real-World Laboratories: Introducing a Framework for Designing Formative Evaluation of Transdisciplinary Research. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 33/S1: 94-101.

References

Belcher, B. M, Davel R., Claus, R. (2020): A refined method for theory-based evaluation of the societal impacts of research. In: MethodsX 7: 100788

Kreß-Ludwig, M., Marg, O., Schneider, R., Lux., L. (2024): Lessons from transdisciplinary urban research to promote sustainability transformation in real-world labs. Categories, pathways, and key principles for generating societal impact. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 33/S1 (2024): 10-17.

Mayne, J. (2020). Sustainability analysis of intervention benefits: A theory of change approach. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 35(2), 204-221.

Muhonen, R., Benneworth, P., Olmos-Peñuela, J. (2020). From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 34-47.

Nagy, E., Schäfer, M., Roth, C. (2023): Innovative Ideen aus dem ländlichen Raum. Barnim & Uckermark im Wandel. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10572384

Sharpe, B., Hodgson, B., Leicester, G., Lyon, A., Fazey, I. (2016). Three horizons: A pathways practice for transformation. Ecology and Society, 21, 2: 47.

Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., ... & Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 26-35.

Aix-Marseille University is a multidisciplinary university, with a variety of interdisciplinary programs and projects in research and education supported since 2012. Despite a series of successes and achievements supported by the "excellence initiative" label awarded to our University, in 2020 the newly-elected governance came to the realization that pushing interdisciplinarity further required a more proactive and encompassing approach to promote lasting change. Indeed, a political and strategic undertaking still lacked to give substance to this cross-cutting priority as a whole, through a genuine mainstreaming approach enabling Aix-Marseille University to capitalize on its multi-disciplinary potential in interdisciplinary production and community of practices.

Therefore, on the basis of an in-depth inventory and consultation with the actors, together with an international comparative analysis of governance models, a new Mission for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity was launched in 2021 with four strategic objectives. We will present this benchlearning, the Mission’s four objectives and their applications at this conference, in an attempt to identify the (replicable) keys to success of an institutional strategic approach to interdisciplinarity. We believe our prime ambition to address these four complementary objectives simultaneously at an institutional level, down to the operational level, i.e. from supporting implementation to gaining visibility (far from buzzwords and interdisciplinary washing) makes our approach quite relevant and efficient.

This is a pilot mission and a unique initiative among French universities, launched and carried out with the support of CNRS and IRD, two national research organizations at the forefront of interdisciplinary approaches and sustainability sciences. Aix-Marseille University therefore works together with these partners and benefits from their expertise in inter- and transdisciplinary research, while also tackling the challenges of interdisciplinarity in higher education. The level of achievement of the Mission’s goals is measured yearly, with a more detailed review after 3 years, in a "reflexive" perspective inspired by the quality approach. The Mission for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity thus aims to transform reality as much as to produce and disseminate knowledge about these transformations, thanks to its evaluative workstream. As Kurt Lewin wrote: "If you really want to understand something, try to change it." The issue of structural obstacles to interdisciplinarity is indeed as complex as it is fundamental: addressing it demands willpower, boldness, creativity and resources (in terms of time, HR and funding).

Thanks to the "learn by doing" approach enabled by this full-scale implementation, we will share with the conference’s audience how the Mission boosted interdisciplinary change in the last 3 years, what challenges we faced (trying to distinguish between those linked to the particularities of French universities and those that are generic obstacles to interdisciplinary transformation) and how we intend to overcome them in the coming years, in order to further support cultural change and spread interdisciplinary innovation within our University.

Science and Technology has played an important role in the production of knowledge and the development of technologies to tackle societal emergencies and challenges. Currently, there is a debate regarding the necessity of placing more emphasis on collaborative research ways due to the complexity of societal problems and concerns. Transdisciplinary research entails interaction between researchers from many scientific fields and non-academic actors, identifying and structuring research problems, and determining how research questions relate to real-world problems. The co-production of knowledge that arises from transdisciplinary research is critical for bridging the gap between science and society and generating scientific and social progress. Research funding agencies play an important role in promoting transdisciplinary research, providing financial resources and supporting researchers and institutions that can contribute to the advancement of science and tackle societal issues. However, this approach has not been adopted at the necessary scale and speed, largely due to the conservatism of these organizations, strongly anchored in the linear model of doing science. The aim of this study is to analyze how the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) – an important government agency dedicated to fostering scientific and technological research and training human resources for research activities in Brazil – has been dealing with the issue of transdisciplinarity in its guidelines and strategic orientations, as well as in its instruments and practices for funding research. Therefore, it is an exploratory and qualitative investigation, which makes use of a bibliographical review, desk research and the realization of a structured panel according to the focus group technique with some CNPq’s civil servants involved in the construction and management of programs and public calls for proposals for research, to seek evidences that allows us a greater understanding of how transdisciplinary research has been treated by CNPq. This group dynamics aimed to promote a structured conversation process for sharing ideas and knowledge in order to create collective intelligence. Through it, the participants debated three structured topics on the theme of the research: 1) the technical staff's understanding of the promotion of transdisciplinary research at the CNPq; 2) their perception about the institutionalization of the theme of transdisciplinary research in institutional capacity-building efforts; and 3) obstacles and challenges to increasing the CNPq's contribution to solving socially relevant problems by promoting transdisciplinary co-production. An analysis of the CNPq’s official planning and strategy documents revealed that transdisciplinarity has been considered as a future driver for the institution, and that fostering it would boost that institution's social impact. However, according to the results of the focus group meeting, although some inter and transdisciplinary research projects have been supported in recent years, few transdisciplinary calls have been launched, indicating that the institution has taken little practical and effective action to promote transdisciplinary co-production.

TU Berlin's new transfer certificate is awarded to students who have dealt with knowledge and technology transfer issues during their regular studies and can demonstrate practical skills. The program is inter- and transdisciplinary and open to all students.

The contribution presents the certificate programme and explains how it contributes to the institutionalization of transdisciplinary approaches, provides more visibility for them and enables the university to fulfil its mission of pursuing science for the benefit of society. The certificate program ties in with the discourse about the Third Mission. According to this, universities not only have the task of conducting teaching and research, but should also fulfil their social responsibility through the transfer of scientific knowledge into application or the co-creative generation of new knowledge in transdisciplinary formats. The Third Mission is thus a problem-solving strategy for complex social challenges, above all the SGDs.

As part of the program, participating students acquire relevant competencies and develop them further. In addition, the program offers students a wide range of networking opportunities. They get to know TU Berlin experts and exchange innovative ideas with committed students from various disciplines. In this way, participating students train to meet the demands of a changing job market in knowledge-intensive fields of work. Transfer activities of outstanding students are promoted and given visibility, e.g. by publishing students works.

The certificate program consists of 18 credit points. It combines elements from the STEM disciplines with elements from the humanities. A special focus is placed on the application dimension. In a basic module, students learn theoretical references, methods and tools and develop their own approaches to solving social challenges. During this process, students are coached by practitioners from different fields and work with established approaches from practice.

As a complement to the professional expertise that students acquire in their fields of study, the certificate program emphasizes the importance of inter- and transdisciplinary approaches in the sciences and beyond in business, politics and society. Based on an analysis of overarching competence requirements following Future Skills, Key Competences, Education for Sustainable Development and Professional Skills, the program guides students to reflect on their own competences and their role as academic professionals in their careers. Openness to all students, not only within the university but also from other universities, contributes to a critical reflection of disciplinary perspectives and promotes an understanding of ethical issues of responsibility. This reflection also has an impact on the university, as students carry new perspectives into their respective subject cultures and thus themselves act as change agents in a transformation process that integrates inter- and transdisciplinary perspectives.

Current research evaluation systems are said to disadvantage interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research (IDR/TDR), leading to lower success rates in grants and publications. This is often due to the divergence of IDR/TDR problem definitions, timeframes, and outputs from typical categories considered in research evaluation. Consequently, researchers face structural barriers in evaluation procedures despite the supportive rhetoric from funding institutions.

To address these challenges, it is crucial for scholars to develop a comprehensive understanding of how inter- and transdisciplinary researchers perceive and navigate the evaluation systems they are embedded in. I contribute to this body of knowledge through an ongoing study of IDR/TDR practices and how they are immersed in funders’ evaluation and monitoring systems in Switzerland. Using the concept of ‘values’, I examine how differing value systems affect the performance of IDR/TDR. Thus, I aim to understand the value systems guiding researchers through inter- and transdisciplinary practices and those promoted by funders and evaluators, as for example through their definitions of concepts such as 'success,' 'impact,' and 'quality'.

With this aim, I carry out an ethnographic study at a national interdisciplinary research centre in Switzerland. I conduct participant observation of everyday research collaborations, as well as interactions between researchers and evaluation and monitoring panels. Employing a qualitative, cultural approach, I further gather data by means of document analysis and semi-structured interviews with principal investigators, directors, and consortium leaders of large, inter- and/or transdisciplinary projects in Switzerland. The collected data will inform the analysis of how inter- and transdisciplinary researchers navigate evaluation systems that may not always accommodate the specific needs of IDR/TDR, how they adapt practices to fit funding structures and which practices are consequently abandoned. I will contrast these insights with findings from research conducted simultaneously among evaluation and monitoring panels, as well as representatives of funding institutions to gain a comprehensive understanding of the design of evaluation for IDR/TDR. Moving forward, I envision facilitating exchange between researchers and funders through focus groups and workshops in future phases of this study.

This research represents a pioneering effort in systematically investigating the dynamic of IDR/TDR practice and evaluation in Switzerland. With this study I aim to contribute to relevant policy discussions on the impacts and funding for IDR/TDR. During my presentation I will share findings that invite exploration into evaluation schemes which consider values and valuations of IDR/TDR based on the lived practices of researchers. I will conclude by arguing that the notion of values can inform our understanding of barriers IDR/TDR face and guide our strategies for overcoming them.

Since starting operations in 2021, the School for Transdisciplinary Studies (STS) at the University of Zurich (UZH) has been encouraging students to explore real-world challenges by going beyond disciplinary boundaries and engaging with practice partners. In this proposal, we will share two examples of our teaching programs, including the upcoming Minor "Digital Skills" set to launch in the fall semester of 2024, and highlight our challenges and strategies in transdisciplinary higher education at UZH.

Teaching Programs Illustrating Transdisciplinary Practices and Approaches

1. Course "Study Week: Sustainable Development and Transformation": Centered around sustainable development, this Study Week engages students in real-world projects through a multi-stakeholder process. Working in interdisciplinary groups with peers and teachers from different disciplines, students create strategies for achieving sustainability goals with guidance from practice partners serving as coaches. Evaluation findings show that participants develop a deeper understanding of sustainability issues and demonstrate enhanced problem-solving skills.

2. Minor "Digital Skills": The 30 ECTS Master's minor program "Digital Skills" designed by the Digital Society Initiative at UZH is the first inter- and transdisciplinary minor, open to all students regardless of their bachelor's background. This program equips students with an interdisciplinary understanding of digitalization, fostering critical reflection on its societal impact. Individualized learning paths enhance digital skills in areas like programming, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity, applied to transdisciplinary projects that integrate ethical, legal, and social knowledge. Evaluation findings from some modules that have already been piloted show that students gain a robust competency in digital technologies and their societal implications.

Strategies to Meet the Challenges of Transdisciplinary Higher Education at UZH

Traditional educational institutions often struggle to adapt their structures and curricula to accommodate transdisciplinary teaching programs, as illustrated by the examples mentioned above. Such programs require collaboration across departments and faculties, which are often in contrast to the traditionally discipline-oriented structures and governance in university education. To address these challenges, UZH has taken significant steps, most notably through the establishment of the School for Transdisciplinary Studies that plays a crucial role in supporting educators in the conception, planning, and implementation of transdisciplinary teaching. In a recent development, the STS has allocated a modest budget to award teaching assignments for selected courses offered by the School. In addition to that, UZH also leverages the UZH Teaching Fund to strategically advance the portfolio of offerings in transdisciplinary education. While this funding serves as a catalyst for the initial stages of implementation, a persistent challenge remains: Traditional discipline-oriented structures lack established mechanisms to seamlessly integrate and sustain these transdisciplinary teaching approaches beyond the initial stages.

Lessons Learned and Conclusion

Inter- and transdisciplinary practices and approaches to learning and teaching are desired, but not easy to implement at a comprehensive university. The University of Zurich acknowledges the hurdles and is actively working to create incentives and opportunities for transdisciplinary teaching. The establishment of the School for Transdisciplinary Studies and the strategic use of the UZH Teaching Fund are crucial steps in overcoming these challenges, although further efforts are required to seamlessly integrate these initiatives into the broader framework of university education. We look forward to sharing our experiences at the ITD24, contributing to a dynamic discussion on the challenges of transdisciplinary higher education in the ever-evolving landscape of academia.

Environmental and societal challenges require responses that integrate a wide range of perspectives from different disciplines (i.e., interdisciplinary integration), as well as from research, policy, and practice (i.e., transdisciplinary integration). Integration in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research is a multidimensional process that involves cognitive, social, and emotional dimensions, in which worldviews come together to approach the complexities of real-world problems.

When integration is embedded in learning and teaching activities, lecturers are confronted with the challenge of teaching the theories, concepts, methods, and tools of integration at the interface of science, practice, and/or policy. They also coach and guide students to design, plan, and implement their own integration process and generate an integrated output. However, there are few tools that help lecturers to design and implement integration processes and assess the integrated outputs in teaching and learning processes.

In this training we offer an approach coined as integrative teaching and learning, to support lecturers and trainers into how to integrate integration in their courses. Elaborating on the concept of integrative teaching, we present practical lessons from a master’s course titled “Integration in Science, Policy and Practice: Inter- and Transdisciplinary Concepts, Methods, Tools” that is offered within the master’s program “Environmental Sciences” at ETH Zurich (Switzerland). We use case studies to offer students the opportunity to explore the theories, concepts, methods, and tools of integration in a hands-on experimental setting. The aim is for students to systematically analyze and cross-compare these cases and critically reflect on the experienced challenges and opportunities in designing, planning, and implementing their own integration process and generating a final integrated output based on their consolidated analysis and comparison.

To approach integrative teaching and learning successfully, we applied different strategies that we will explore together with participants in this training:

• methods and tools of integration applied to case studies,

• reflection on the challenges and opportunities in designing, planning and implementing an integration process with students and generating an integrated output.

• personal teaching and learning journal with individual reflections on the group work and the opportunities students and lecturers experience in bringing their different perspectives together and developing a shared perspective as a group. Participants will be invited to use a teaching and learning journal to adapt their own courses into integrative formats.

Outline of the training (90 minutes)

1. Welcome and Introduction (10 min.)

2. Input by the convenors on the concept of integrative teaching and learning and how to integrate integration into teaching and learning formats. This will be accompanied by an overview of (i) concepts of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary integration across different scientific communities, (ii) methods and tools of integration and (iii) researchers’ roles in integration processes at the interface between science, policy and practice. (30 min.)

3. Teaching and Learning Journal: based on a template provided by the convenors, participants will reflect on integration in teaching and learning contexts. Building on the input provided by the convenors, participants will use their journal to design and implement how to restructure their course to account for integration (20 minutes). A group discussion will follow to enrich the exchange (20 minutes).

4. Wrap-up and final feedback (10 min.)

References

Hoffmann, S., Deutsch, L., Klein, J. T. & O’Rourke, M. (2022). Integrate the integrators! A

call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9, 147. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01138-z

Vienni-Baptista B, Hoffmann S. forthcoming. Integrative Teaching and Learning in Szostak

R, ed. Elgar Handbook of Interdisciplinary Teaching and Administration.

Vienni-Baptista B, Klein JT. 2022. Institutionalizing Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity.

Collaboration across Cultures and Communities. Routledge.

Introduction

The workshop explores how design thinking and systems thinking can be brought together in transdisciplinary settings to enable students to grow beyond what is expected of them in academia and to make the contribution to society that they long to do. The deployment of such an approach also aims to bolster the problem-solving capacity of the community in which students’ learning takes place. In bringing design and systems thinking together, students learn not only to analyse the complexities and interconnections of system they are studying, but also to act within the system given these complexities. The iterative approach in design thinking also allows actors’ perspectives to be incorporated into problem framing and the co-design of prototypes. For transdisciplinary learning approaches, this enables students to empathize and value different ways of knowing through concrete actions rather than intention only.

Relating systems thinking and design is not a new idea, as the label “systemic design” has been adopted by a growing number of scholars and practitioners. Starting from Buchanan’s (1992) “design thinking for wicked problems”, to Norman and Stapper’s (2015) “DesignX” and the development of the Systemic Design Toolkit – identification of conceptual links has led to concrete tools and methods for realizing this integration. While acknowledging and incorporating the inputs of actors and stakeholders has been implicitly important to many systemic design approaches, references to transdisciplinary mindsets, processes and practices have not been made explicit nor have they been fully explored.

This is the chasm we aim to cross in developing a textbook for complex problem-solving integrating systems thinking, design thinking and transdisciplinary approaches. The context of our work is to guide Master’s students with engineering and policy backgrounds to work through wicked problems within complex socio-technical systems (i.e., energy, transportation and ICT). The approach builds on both innovative curriculum that was developed at TU Delft for the Master’s programme on Complex Systems Engineering and Management and for the Bachelor’s programme at ETH Zurich on Environmental System Science (Pohl et. al 2020). However, the new developments take previous learnings and implements them for complex, socio-technical systems and taking into account both policy and engineering perspectives.

Goal of workshop

The aim of the workshop is to share an integrated systems and design thinking methodology that could be adapted for a variety of transdisciplinary contexts. Together with a community practitioner working at the interface of the university and communities, we share lessons learned about applying this approach. We look forward to receiving feedback from participants who will themselves experience specific methods and tools from an upcoming book for integrating systems and design thinking. As an outcome of the workshop, we hope to initiate a network of people who are interested in future collaborations in further developing design, systems thinking and TD approaches for education.

Target group

Our target audience are for all who are interested or curious about incorporating systemic design approaches in their educational activities, as well as practitioners who would like to provide insights into how to improve these activities with the communities in mind.

We would like to broaden our point of view by inviting other educators and practitioners through three specific explorations:

- How might an integrated systems and design approach enable students to develop skills for joint problem framing?

- How might this approach be used to help students develop knowledge for implementation of transformative solutions?

- How might this approach help students to consider the unintended consequences of designed actions?

The proposed format of the workshop:

15 min Introduction to Integrated Systems and Design Thinking

10 min Educational context from a community practitioner's perspective

50 min Exercises on joint problem framing and exploring unintended consequences. Then, debrief of exercises: What are your insights about these exercises and their intended purpose?

15 min Next steps for collaboration and feedback

Key readings:

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637

Pohl, C., Pearce, B., Mader, M., Senn, L., & Krütli, P. (2020). Integrating systems and design thinking in transdisciplinary case studies. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 29(4), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.29.4.11

Transformative change, defined as a “fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values” (IPBES, 2019, p. XVIII), is now widely acknowledged as being best supported through transdisciplinary collaborations (Caniglia et al., 2021; Fisher et al., 2022). However, transdisciplinary transformative change initiatives (TTCIs) rarely achieve the paradigmatic changes they aim to deliver (Chambers et al., 2022; Turnhout and Lahsen, 2022). A major cause of this failure has been identified as a lack of common framing of the problem (Brandt et al., 2013; Fisher et al., 2022; Fougères et al., 2022). In other words, due to the different ‘languages’ understood by participants in TTCIs, such initiatives rarely achieve common understandings of the problem they seek to address, and therefore the solutions they aim to develop. While TTCIs have had success in reaching common understandings among natural scientists and non-academic partners, the role of social scientists continues to elude such initiatives (Abson et al., 2017; Chambers et al., 2022). And while some forms of social science (e.g. psychology, economics) are increasingly successfully integrated, critical social scientists – those who use critical theoretical perspectives on structural knowledge/power dynamics and their causal links with socioecological problems - continue to find themselves on the outside of TTCIs (Massarella et al., 2021).

As a part of the Swiss National Science Foundation funded project “Translating Transformations” we are combining sustainability science with political ecology and practitioner knowledge to devise strategies and tools for promoting critical social science (CSS) literacy in TTCIs. We are currently in the first phase of the project where we are conducting ex-post analyses, via questionnaires and interviews, of the transdisciplinary elements of two Swiss programs (ValPar.CH and the University Research Priority Program on Global Change and Biodiversity [URPP GCB]). In our next phase, we plan to develop CSS literacy tools and strategies (henceforth ‘tools’) based on our findings. In this workshop, we hope to test some initial tools that help transdisciplinary researchers think about the role of systems of power in defining a problem and consequently how this limits our ability to co-develop unconventional solutions.

Additionally, for sessions, workshops and trainings:

Workshop objectives

• Advancing understandings of critical social science (CSS) and its potential for enhancing ITD research and practices

• Testing and exchanging on initial CSS literacy tools as part of our iterative co-development process

• Improving reflexivity on structural power dynamics that act as barriers to transformative change

• Initiating collaborations and long term exchanges on the continued development and dissemination of open source CSS literacy tools

Proposed schedule

1. (0’-15’)  Introduction to the project/concept

2. (15’-25’)  Pre-assessment survey

3. (25’-35’)  Introduction to tool(s) and instructions

4. (35’-60’)  Experimenting with the tool(s)

5. (60’-85’)  Guided discussion/feedback/wrap-up

6. (85’-90’)  Post-assessment survey

Detailed description

1) Introduction to the concept. We will provide information on the background of the project, the definition of “critical social science,” and the concept behind the CSS literacy tools.

2) Pre-assessment survey. We will ask participants to take a brief questionnaire on their experience with CSS, and their understanding of structural power dynamics and how these effect ITD processes and outcomes.

3) Introduction to tool(s) and instructions. We will divide the participants into groups of 4-6 and will provide specific information and instructions for each tool.

4) Experimenting with the tool(s). We will allow the participants to work with their assigned tool as we circulate and answer questions.

5) Guided discussion/feedback/wrap-up. We will bring everyone back to the plenary to discuss their experiences with each tool and ask for feedback with guided questions such as:

a. To what extent do you think the tool accomplished its purpose?

b. Which aspects of the tool added to its success and which did not?

c. How could the tool be improved?

d. How comfortable did you feel using the tool and how might we improve users’ ability to provide a safe space for experimenting with the tool?

We will then wrap-up the discussion and thank the participants before asking them to fill out another brief questionnaire.

6) Post-assessment survey. We will ask participants to take another brief questionnaire that we will design to assess any changes in perceptions on CSS and understandings of structural power dynamics and their role in creating barriers to transformative change.

1–3 key readings (optional)

Deutsch, S., Keller, R., Krug, C.B., Michel, A.H. (2023). Transdisciplinary transformative change: An analysis of some best practices and barriers, and the potential of critical social science in getting us there. Biodivers. Conserv. 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02576-0

Turnhout, E., Lahsen, M., 2022. Transforming environmental research to avoid tragedy. Clim. Dev. 1–5. 10.1080/17565529.2022.2062287

References cited

Abson, D.J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., Von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C.D., Jager, N.W., 2017. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39. 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y

Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D.J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson, D.J., Von Wehrden, H., 2013. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecol. Econ. 92, 1–15. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008

Caniglia, G., Luederitz, C., von Wirth, T., Fazey, I., Martin-López, B., Hondrila, K., König, A., von Wehrden, H., Schäpke, N.A., Laubichler, M.D., 2021. A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 93–100. 10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z

Chambers, J.M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N.L., Ryan, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N.J., Brennan, R., Charli-Joseph, L., Fernández-Giménez, M.E., Galvin, K.A., 2022. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Glob. Environ. Chang. 72, 102422. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422

Fisher, E., Brondizio, E., Boyd, E., 2022. Critical social science perspectives on transformations to sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 55, 101160. 10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101160

Fougères, D., Jones, M., McElwee, P.D., Andrade, A., Edwards, S.R., 2022. Transformative conservation of ecosystems. Glob. Sustain. 5. 10.1017/sus.2022.4

IPBES, 2019. UN Report: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating.’ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedented-report/

Massarella, K., Nygren, A., Fletcher, R., Büscher, B., Kiwango, W.A., Komi, S., Krauss, J.E., Mabele, M.B., McInturff, A., Sandroni, L.T., 2021. Transformation beyond conservation: How critical social science can contribute to a radical new agenda in biodiversity conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 49, 79–87. 10.1016/j.cosust.2021.03.005

Turnhout, E., Lahsen, M., 2022. Transforming environmental research to avoid tragedy. Clim. Dev. 1–5. 10.1080/17565529.2022.2062287

This session aims to dissect and address the enduring challenges and emerging opportunities in implementing inter- and transdisciplinary education across diverse academic landscapes, including financial constraints, capacity limitations, expertise distribution, and commitment inconsistencies. Drawing from recent experiences at the University of Amsterdam, Wageningen University & Research, Maastricht University, Radboud University, University of Twente, and University of Utrecht, this panel discussion seeks to forge a comprehensive understanding of the institutional, cultural, and logistical barriers that hinder interdisciplinary integration in higher education. Emphasizing practical solutions and real-world applications, the session will explore innovative strategies to foster collaborative environments, enhance resource allocation, and solidify institutional commitment across faculties. By expanding the dialogue to include perspectives from various universities, this session aims to cultivate a transdisciplinary approach to education that aligns with contemporary societal and academic needs, promoting a cohesive model for future academic restructuring and collaboration.

Additionally, for sessions, workshops and trainings: The 60-minute session will feature a panel of approximately five members representing the participating universities. Each panelist will present key challenges and opportunities encountered in their respective institutions, followed by a moderated discussion focusing on collaborative strategies for overcoming institutional silos and enhancing inter- and transdisciplinary capacity. Audience engagement will be encouraged through a structured Q&A segment, aimed at facilitating an exchange of ideas, experiences, and best practices across academic and geographical boundaries.

Engineering problems are not naturally restricted to artificial discipline-oriented boundaries (Ertas et al. 2003). To solve such complex problems, future engineers need to collaborate with both (academic) experts and non-academic stakeholders from different fields and backgrounds and take various perspectives into account. Societal stakeholders can contribute valuable input to support the creation of engineering solutions. Addressing big challenges (as the 14 grand engineering challenges formulated by the National Academy of Engineering) demands a joint effort of diverse teams, different disciplines, different companies, people viewing and tackling the problems from different perspectives and angles. The students we are educating now are likely to be part of such teams, which are not separated from the economic, societal and political aspects of our society. One of the main questions that we thus need to ask, whether we are educating students now to be part of such inter- and transdisciplinary teams and whether they can navigate in the societal trends.

As a result, in any engineering development, future engineers must consistently be aware of the size and extent of the impact. The fact that this comes with major uncertainties implies that future engineers should not only be educated in the “hard” technique and management of stakeholders but also in how to deal with uncertainty. Technical and social systems in society have become complex or wicked; consequently, a planned and control-focused approach will invariably fail. Even when not designing them themselves, engineers need skills to cope with unanticipated events, values and stakeholder positions.

This requires students to learn how to anticipate the social, technical, societal and environmental impact of their actions. For this, they need skills that transcend the ‘hard’ scientific and technical skills related to disciplinary education and focus also on e.g. transdisciplinary skills. Tan et al. (2019) listed systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, and open-mindedness as essential for reaching transdisciplinarity.

Much has been written about the necessity of such skills, but less about how these could be translated to effective learning and teaching strategies for specific, dedicated and desired learning outcomes fitting to the development level (1st to 5th year students) of the students within their respective programs (BSc, Minor, Master) that are also assessable in an educational context.

In this session, we will briefly discuss the necessity of an approach to dissecting transdisciplinary tools into their basic concepts, collecting already existing pedagogical methods, and designing new ways to practice these skills. Then, we will ask the audience to participate in a quick brainstorm session to generate ideas for how systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, or open-mindedness could be incorporated in educational programmes. After sharing the results of the brainstorming, our panel will discuss some important aspects of transdisciplinary education we came across during or university-wide research on teaching practices, led by statements and dilemmas.

Panel sessions setup

• 10 minutes impulse talk by the session leaders

• 30 minutes interactive format with input from the audience (brainstorming in small groups of participants facilitated by the contributors, with materials brought by the session leaders)

• 20 minutes panel discussion by involving the audience, asking for choosing from dilemmas and agreeing or disagreeing with statements, with a panel of available experts in engineering education, to be invited later.

1–3 key readings

• Ertas, A., Maxwell, T., Rainey, V. P., & Tanik, M. M. (2003). Transformation of higher education: The transdisciplinary approach in engineering. IEEE Transactions on Education, 46(2), 289-295.

• Tan, T., Nesbit, S., Ellis, N., & Ostafichuk, P. (2019). Crossing Boundaries: Developing Transdisciplinary Skills in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA).

• Wolff, K. (2018). A language for the analysis of disciplinary boundary crossing: insights from engineering problem-solving practice. Teaching in Higher Education 23(1): 104-119., 23(1), 104-119.

Generating and using evidence has never been an easy task. But what makes it extra hard, when we try to address interconnected health-environmental challenges? Public health emergencies such as the Covid Pandemic, climate change, obesity epidemics, all show that our current tools for generating evidence are insufficient. Transdisciplinary research approaches at the intersection of public health and sustainability science are showing new ways of generating evidence in practice. Yet, these are undertheorized. On the one hand, the notion of evidence is often used as a black box (such as when talking about evidence-based solutions or evidence-based policies). On the other hand, often the notion is considered as obsolete or too deterministic to account for the complexities of transdisciplinary knowledge co-production processes and actions.

In this contribution, we present a notion of evidence that is based on and serves transdisciplinary approaches addressing interconnected health-environmental challenges. These challenges are timely and relevant, and likely to frequently occur in the near future. We synthesise our approach in the phrase ‘HOW is WHO’, to signal that the modes of explanation and of action to address interconnected challenges (the HOW), is deeply interconnected with the various actors involved (the WHO). While the importance of actors will be no news to transdisciplinary scholars, we submit that the way we reconstruct the intertwinement with the HOW is extremely important when we think about and theorise evidence in participatory and action-oriented research.

We sketch the contours of an approach to evidence that supports decision-making and action-oriented research. We do this through the idea of ‘evidence as clues’, like in a crossword puzzle, inspired by the approach of philosopher and legal theory Susan Haack. This view helps address several aspects of evidence: it relates to worlds and also to our beliefs, it is a product of social processes and institutional constraints and also of modelling practices, it requires that researchers interact with citizens/patients/policy makers. With this approach, we can connect the ‘WHO’ and the ‘HOW’. We can account for the role agents play in the process of generating and using knowledge, and this is highly intertwined with the processes in which we fit clues and existing entries.

Thinking about evidence as clues for action in collaborative and participatory research, we hope, may help trans-disciplinary scholars to develop methodological and procedural approaches to integrating the mutual learning processes that underpin transdisciplinary research processes with more objectivist modes of explanations about the world.

Boundary work in academic activities is both useful and obstructive. On one hand, there has been significant practical and theoretical effort to overcome academic boundaries, as demarcations are often ideological and frame a political academic standpoint (cf. Gieryn, 1983). For participatory or interdisciplinary research, it is nearly common sense that boundaries should be reflected upon to facilitate collaborations and deal with different knowledge bases. On the other hand, academia has learned from recent multiple crises that scientific knowledge must be protected against encroachment from phenomena such as ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’. Boundaries delineating academic activities and defining their scope are becoming a necessity to shape science in terms of knowledge transfer and transformation through exchange.

Boundaries are the results of dynamic negotiation processes. They are to be understood more as shared spaces than concrete borders (Susan Leigh Star). Different methodological concepts, ranging from boundary objects (cf. Leigh Star, 1988), travelling concepts (cf. Bal, 2002), to actor networks (Bruno Latour), seek to define the practical interactions between different knowledge bases. These concepts, originating from engaged empirical researchers, aim to understand collaborations between differences and encounters. What do they offer us today in times of crisis of academic knowledge? And when transdisciplinary and participatory research approaches are seen as the future for addressing societal challenges, where do we, as individuals working in and with TDR, have to draw the line? Moreover, where is it essential to create contact zones between academia and non-academic (future) partners?

In my brief theoretical overview, I seek to re-examine various dynamic knowledge concepts from an anthropological point of view: I assume that academic knowledge is confronted with a ‘vote of confidence’ regarding expertise and academic knowledge. Therefore, I aim to expand upon the referenced concepts and identify a space of possibilities between closing and opening knowledge in participatory research requirements. This space delineates a field of negotiation where differences become dynamic and hybrid. Through two practical examples from research projects in Berlin, I would like to illustrate how this space, which lies within different knowledge concepts, can be made fruitful for transdisciplinary approaches.

Convergence has been at the heart of recent efforts to encourage crossdisciplinary synthesis within several programs funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), including Growing Convergence Research (GCR) and the Convergence Accelerator. By encouraging crossdisciplinary synthesis, these programs encourage substantive responses to grand challenges confronting humanity in the 21st century. NSF defines convergence research as involving “deep integration across disciplines” that is driven by a “specific and compelling problem” (NSF 2024). Meaningful convergence requires working out how different researchers and their perspectives relate to one another, and in particular where they are similar and where they differ. Convergence research is difficult due, in part, to the contextual nature of convergence projects (cf. Klein 2012) and a lack of training in conducting it (Lélé & Norgaard 2005). Experts are trained in their own domains, but they are not typically trained to integrate their expertise with that of others in ways that are responsive to the specific and variable characteristics of their research and the team. The NSF GCR program, in particular, encourages the creation of a convergence culture that emphasizes supporting relationship building and information transfer through dynamic communication, building common ground through deep integration, establishing a shared language, and extending that culture beyond the team.

This presentation will discuss findings from the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative (TDI) Center’s work convergence teams funded by the NSF GCR Program, deriving specifically from exploratory research to identify convergence practices and processes that support a convergence culture. TDI Center has been conducting structured dialogue-based workshops with newly funded GCR teams since 2020 (N=20 teams), employing the Toolbox dialogue method, an evidence-informed facilitation approach developed by TDI, to surface implicit perspectives for joint consideration and coordination by complex, crossdisciplinary research teams (Hubbs et al. 2020). We collected data from the Toolbox dialogue-based workshops with each funded cohort from 2020-2023, from interviews with project leaders in the mid-to-late stage of their funding (N=20), and from a survey of project team members of funded projects at all stages of funding (N=200) in 2024. All data were collected virtually, with Zoom video conferencing used for the Toolbox workshops and interviews, and Qualtrics online software for the surveys. Our findings identify the barriers faced by convergence research teams and illustrate how team leaders and teams are being intentional in fostering a convergence culture that exhibits a commitment to epistemic humility, mutual understanding, and shared learning.

Hubbs, G., O’Rourke, M., Orzack, S. H. (Eds.). (2020). The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: The Power of Cross-Disciplinary Practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Klein, J. T. (2012). Research integration: A comparative knowledge base. In A. F. Repko, W. W. Newell, & R. Szostak (Eds.), Case studies in interdisciplinary research (pp. 283-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Lele, S., Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55: 967-975.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2024). Growing Convergence Research (GCR): Program Page. Available online: https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/growing-convergence-research-gcr

Core aspects of inter- and transdisciplinary research are knowledge co-creation and integration (Adelle et al., 2020; Bulten et al., 2021; Hoffmann et al., 2017; Lang et al., 2012). A precondition for successful co-creation and integration is that researchers take on new and/or different roles within inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) teams. Being aware of researchers’ different roles in ITD teams supports the joint research endeavor in many ways, such as making expectations about own and others’ roles transparent (Bulten et al., 2021; Hilger et al., 2021). To raise this awareness, our workshop, based on a paper in preparation by the contributors, introduces a new tool we developed for mapping researchers’ roles in ITD research teams in a parsimonious and accessible way and for sparking reflection on the role profiles on individual and team level. Workshop participants apply the tool, thereby getting to know the tool and reflecting on their own roles in ITD research.

Based on literature in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability science (e.g. Bulten et al., 2021; Hoffmann et al., 2022; Wittmayer & Schaepke, 2014), the mapping and reflection tool covers six typical roles of researchers in ITD projects: traditional scientist, self-reflexive scientist, knowledge integrator, knowledge broker, process facilitator, and change agent. The design of our tool considers that researchers may take on multiple roles to varying degrees at the same time. Application of the tool consists of a role survey for researchers, instant visualization of the resulting role profiles, and a list of individual and group-level reflection questions. We empirically tested the tool in two four-year ITD research projects in the fields of sustainable food systems and watershed management. Based on results from this multi-case study, we discuss the value of our tool and derive suggestions on how to advance the mapping of and reflection on researchers’ roles in ITD research projects.

In our two cases, the mapping tool detected a broad diversity of roles of researchers. In both ITD projects, the roles of traditional scientists and knowledge integrator were rather strong, whereas the role of change agent was weakest. Furthermore, notable differences exist for role profiles of senior and junior researchers as well as between natural and social scientists. The individual and group reflection revealed numerous opportunities and challenges related to role profiles of individual researchers as well as the ITD project team as a whole. Overall, the mapping and reflection tool proved to be an easy-to-apply tool for making researchers’ roles in ITD projects transparent. This enabled a discussion about role self-perception and perception by others in the project team and sparked discussions about how roles in the team should develop. It also allowed project members to reflect on coping strategies for the challenges they experienced in connection with their role profiles.

Outline of workshop content

In this workshop, we will introduce participants to a mapping and reflection tool for researchers’ roles in ITD research projects, which we developed and applied in a multi-case study. The workshop kicks-off with a short presentation of the basic design of the tool and its embedding in the growing literature on researchers’ roles. Notably, we set the tool in the context of debates about (1) the number and granularity of researchers’ roles that need to be distinguished and (2) the possibility of taking on several roles simultaneously. We explain why our tool focuses on the limited number of six roles and considers that researchers assume several roles simultaneously but to varying degrees.

The core of the workshop is a guided, interactive application of the tool by participants to map and reflect on their own roles in ITD research. The application proceeds as follows: (1) participants fill out a short survey that operationalizes six common roles in ITD research; (2) based on the survey, participants map their scores for the six roles on a spider web visualization; (3) using guiding questions provided in the end of the survey, participants reflect individually on opportunities and challenges of their role profile; (4) in breakout groups, participants present and compare their role profiles and jointly reflect on the opportunities and challenges they identified for their role profiles.

Following the application, we briefly present the results of our test of the tool in two ITD research projects. We show patterns in the role profiles of both projects and present the opportunities and challenges identified in connection with these role profiles.

The workshop concludes with a plenary discussion of participants about the value of the presented mapping and reflection tool and its potential use in ITD projects in which participants are involved. The discussion compares the insights gained from our empirical results from two ITD projects with insights gained from the application of the tool by participants in the workshop session. Especially, participants discuss to what extent the use of the tool can contribute to knowledge co-creation and integration in ITD research.

The aims of the workshop are:

• Participants become familiar with the mapping and reflection tool through theoretical introduction and own practical application

• Participants reflect on their own roles in ITD research and related opportunities and challenges based on their application of the tool

• Participants discuss the value of the tool for making researchers’ roles in ITD research transparent based on empirical results from two projects and participants’ own reflections

Outline of workshop design

• 10’ Introduction to tool and literature context

• 40’ Contributors guide participants through tool application [Individual exercise: mapping your own role profile (10’). Discussion in breakout groups: opportunities and challenges of role profiles (30’)]

• 10’ Presentation of results from previous tool applications within two inter- and transdisciplinary research projects

• 30’ Plenary discussion and wrap-up

Key readings

Bulten, Ellen, Laurens K. Hessels, Michaela Hordijk, and Andrew J. Segrave. 2021. “Conflicting Roles of Researchers in Sustainability Transitions: Balancing Action and Reflection.” Sustainability Science 16 (4): 1269–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00938-7.

Hoffmann, Sabine, Lisa Deutsch, Julie Thompson Klein, and Michael O’Rourke. 2022. “Integrate the Integrators! A Call for Establishing Academic Careers for Integration Experts.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01138-z.

Wittmayer, Julia M., and Niko Schäpke. 2014. “Action, Research and Participation: Roles of Researchers in Sustainability Transitions.” Sustainability Science 9: 483–96.

Climate disasters, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation continue to impact people and the planet in acute (e.g., extreme weather events), prolonged (e.g., sustained drought) and anticipated (e.g., future sea level rise) exposures. Increasingly, researchers from across disciplines are drawing attention to the emotional distress and mental health impacts of these increasingly frequent and prominent features of living in the Anthropocene. Concepts like ecological grief and eco-anxiety, solastalgia (the distress of lived experience of direct local environmental change) are well documented among people of all ages. Students within higher education and researchers working with sustainability, too, are grappling with these distressing emotions. Yet to date, educational frameworks for sustainability – designed to support inner and societal transformation – do not account for the competences needed to recognize, hold, and process these distressing emotions.

In this presentation, we briefly highlight key sustainability competence frameworks from the past decade and identify the need for a new competence set related to emotional recognition, holding, processing, and integration. We first present a synthesis of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes characterizing key competences for sustainability education. Key sustainability competence frameworks converge around the need for people to be able to work together to address complex, value-laden challenges in socio-ecological systems with vision, self-awareness, collaboration, and strategic intent. We then present a synthesis of this review based on the transformative sustainability learning model of head, heart, hands. The presentation will focus on our proposed fourth aspect: gut competence. Gut competences focus on absorption and digestion of distressing emotions to support constructive responses in service of enhanced metal health and motivation for sustained action for societal transformation.

Engaging with this expanded set of sustainability competences requires growing offerings related to the inner transformative work associated with recognizing, holding, processing, and integrating emotions. Although work to address eco-anxiety and related emotional issues linked to global environmental crises is expanding and there have been some recent exploratory efforts broaching how to approach such issues within higher education, there remains a pressing need to further engage emotional dimensions when teaching on sustainability for societal transformation. We close with an elaboration of ways in which gut competences can be better integrated in higher education by drawing on transformative learning theory, pedagogies from contemplative practice, and experiences from social movements. Leaning into the pains of societal transformation by recognizing the importance of emotional competences and developing appropriate ways to cultivate them will better position educational programs to spark the inner and outer transformations they aspire to support.

Societal Problem:

Like most other countries in the global south, there is a significant shortage of quality teachers in primary and secondary schools in Bangladesh. This issue persists because top students often opt against teaching careers due to low pay and societal status associated with the profession. Protissruti Residential School has been established in Bangladesh as a Living Lab School by two Professors of Dhaka University to address the gap of quality education which is crucial yet often inaccessible to disadvantaged children and orphans. This Living Lab School is committed to exploring new methods for inclusive education, particularly emphasizing gender-transformative practices for sexual and reproductive health, climate adaptation, and sustainability. The focus extends to developing effective strategies for addressing the challenge of quality teachers to engaging high-achieving university students in volunteer teaching roles. The proposed workshop aims to garner support and collaboration from experts in sustainable education to further develop and enhance this pioneering project drawing university students as volunteers for teaching in the schools.

Goal and Objectives:

To introduce the concept and initiatives of the Living Lab School in Bangladesh.

To present and discuss three innovative approaches developed through action research: bravemen campaign , campus hero café and captain climate campaign.

To facilitate knowledge exchange and co-creation of effective approaches for sustainability education through evidence-based learning and contextual insights on how to mobilize volunteer teachers from the university level students in and out of the country.

To foster collaboration among participants for ongoing support and development of the Living Lab School and similar initiatives in the global south.

Workshop Structure:

Introduction to the Living Lab School:

Overview of the school's mission, vision, and objectives. Highlight the importance of sustainable education and the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged children and orphans in Bangladesh.

Presentation of Innovative Approaches:

a. Bravemen Campaign: Discuss the objectives and outcomes of this campaign aimed at promoting gender-transformative approaches to sexual and reproductive health education.

b. Campus Hero Café: Explore the concept and impact of creating a supportive environment for inclusive education through the Campus Hero Café initiative.

c. Captain Climate Campaign: Present the strategies and results of this campaign focused on climate adaptation and sustainability education.

Interactive Session: Co-creation and Knowledge Exchange:

Engage participants in group discussions to share their own experiences, evidence-based practices, and contextual insights related to sustainability education.

Facilitate co-creation sessions to identify additional effective approaches that can be adopted and tested in the Living Lab School.

Panel Discussion: Lessons Learned and Future Directions:

Invite a panel of experts to share their reflections on the presented approaches and offer recommendations for scaling up and sustaining the impact of the Living Lab School. Encourage dialogue among participants and panelists to explore potential collaborations and support mechanisms.

Conclusion and Next Steps:

Summarize key insights and outcomes from the workshop. Discuss potential avenues for ongoing collaboration and support for the Living Lab School and similar initiatives in Bangladesh and beyond.

Expected Outcomes:

a. Increased awareness and understanding of innovative approaches to sustainability education.

b. Enhanced collaboration and knowledge exchange among experts and practitioners.

c. Identification of new strategies and opportunities for advancing inclusive education and sustainability initiatives in Bangladesh maximizing university level students involvement in school level teaching.

d. Concrete plans for ongoing support and development of the Living Lab School and its programs.

Conclusion:

The Living Lab School in Bangladesh represents a groundbreaking effort to address the complex challenges of sustainable education for disadvantaged children and orphans. Through this workshop, we aim to harness the collective intelligence and expertise of participants to further enhance and expand the impact of this innovative initiative. Together, we can work towards building a more inclusive and sustainable future for all.

The purpose of this presentation is to showcase the learnings of two years of a new lifelong learning educational programme on Climate Innovation offered at ETH Zurich. The focus is on transformative learning for societal transformation, the roles of peers, as well as career perspectives. Mitigation of and adaptation to climate change requires deeply transformative changes of all systems and overall society towards net zero emissions. With these wicked challenges in mind, we designed a new programme, with the intend to equip climate leaders with the adequate skills and knowledge to lead the transition in their own institutions/sectors, and beyond. We believe that the CAS participants are not only learners but experts and that they can provide important insights to other participants by sharing their own experience on the path to net zero. The Certificate of Advanced Studies (CAS) in Climate Innovation is offered by the Department of Environmental Systems Science (D-USYS) at ETH Zurich. It is a “Science into Practice” programme, which is based on: System knowledge, Transformational learning experience, Network activation, with an emphasis on Dialogue and Exchange. Methodologically, the CAS combines the theory of change (Belcher et al. 2020) and design thinking methods (Taimur et al. 2023) with the application to the systemic issues (Rich Picture, Checkland and Poulter 2020) associated with the path towards net zero emissions, thereby using inputs from relevant stakeholders and practitioners in the field of Climate Innovation. The CAS builds on knowledge, concepts and lessons learned from many educational offerings at ETH Zurich. It also benefits from the problem-solving methodology developed by the TdLab at D-USYS, which has been honed for many years in the BSc course “Umweltproblemlösen” (Pohl et al. 2020). This methodology not only catalysed the transformative process and experience of the participants, but it also enables the participants to analyse the causes of and factors relevant to complex problems, as well as to develop relevant and impactful solutions related to them. We are also employing a 10-step approach to stimulate explicit reflections around ways to render research more societally relevant (Pohl et al. 2017). Based on the collected feedback, as well as testimonials, the first edition of the CAS was a success in terms of knowledge transfer. The participants felt equipped with the necessary tools to lead the transition in their own context. In 2024, peer-coaching sessions will be introduced so to strengthen the leadership component of the programme, as well as pre-/post-assessments based on the Inner Development Goals for the learning diaries. Secondly, we will continue to investigate the springboard effect of attending the CAS. Many alumni have already transitioned to new roles, such as taking on a leading position in a political party in Switzerland. We will continue to learn from the pathways taken by the alumni, grow a community of like-minded individuals with an affinity for societal transformation with the goal in mind to find new formats to catalyse the transition towards net zero emissions.

Climate change in the Arctic and Subarctic regions is a complex issue, and addressing its multifaceted impacts and formulating mitigation and adaptation strategies requires that the next generation of researchers develop proficiencies that transcend disciplinary boundaries. Université Laval in Quebec City, Canada, launched in 2017 the Sentinel North program to help generate the knowledge needed to improve our understanding of the changing northern environment and its impact on humans and their health. As part of this research strategy, a major training program was designed to train a new generation of interdisciplinary researchers who will be leaders in their field, with the skills and collaborative mindset to actively contribute to solving complex scientific problems in a changing North.

Over the years, the Sentinel North program has recruited and trained over 680 graduate students and post-docs, affiliated with eight faculties and 40 different departments. The strategy builds on the diversity of its community, international opportunities, and experiential activities to foster the development of five key competencies in interdisciplinary collaboration: critical thinking, adaptability, communication, creative problem-solving and teamwork and collaboration.

In this presentation, we outline the objectives and main elements of the program's interdisciplinary training strategy, as well as some of the results of our evaluation framework. We will present the aggregated results of a survey of Sentinel North graduates after their participation in the program to assess their satisfaction, measure the impact of the program on their professional development and skills level and gather outcome data concerning their status and employability. The results include information gathered from 154 respondents out of 293 alumni who completed their research projects during the 2017-2023 period.

Preliminary results reveal a positive contribution of the program on the development of interdisciplinary competencies, the development of professional networks within and outside their discipline and show that the programs enable people to specialize while gaining a broader understanding of an issue. The results also highlight the importance of particular activities for the training of graduate students and post-docs and identify the main challenges they encountered when conducting a project in an interdisciplinary context.

Based on our experience, the design and implementation of an effective interdisciplinary training program in academia should take into consideration the following elements: 1) Nurture a collaborative research learning community; 2) Tailor activities on a competency-based approach; 3) Regularly assess the program and adapt the framework to the community; and 4) Beyond individual, train collaborative teams. We will conclude by discussing the future direction of this initiative.

Evaluation plays a pivotal role in transdisciplinary (TD) research, often discussed during funding stages or when assessing project impacts. A few studies delve into the participant perspective when examining the quality of transdisciplinarity. Our

work contributes to this area of assessment. Rather than providing a definitive definition of transdisciplinarity, we developed a questionnaire to evaluate a set of TD principles within a specific TD initiative. We collected insights from 100 individuals

out of a pool of 200 participants engaged in a TD initiative since 2016. Given the long-term nature of the case study, our sample included both frequent and occasional participants. Using non-parametric statistical, we concluded that frequent

participants express higher satisfaction with their involvement, identify more outcomes stemming from their participation, and assign greater importance to TD principles. These findings highlight the significant impact of investing in long-term

TD initiatives. Additionally, our questionnaires featured open-ended questions to capture participants’ individual definition of the initiative, along with their perceived benefits and drawbacks. Through content analysis, we identified two distinct

discourses: positivism and postpositivism. The positivist discourse predominantly features male participants over 60 years of age, primarily from the research community. These participants express lower satisfaction with their participation and assign less value to TD principles. We found no association between positivism/postpositivism and participation frequency (i.e., frequent/casual). This suggests that these two discourses can coexist and interact within a TD environment. Nevertheless, the perceived value of TD is not uniform across these groups, indicating that TD may not align with everyone’s objectives, even in complex contexts where the approach is considered essential.

Patient participation in health research is growing, and the experiential knowledge of patients helps to shed light on their perspectives and preferences. In the context of cancer, challenges they face extend beyond pathology and treatment to encompass physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs. The improvement of treatments and life expectancy brings new challenges similar to chronic diseases. It is therefore of societal interest to tackle the quality of life aspects throughout the cancer journey of some 18 million new patients per year. In this context, the overall objective of the research project "Symphony-of-Us" is to question what matters to patients, to conceptualize and improve the Patient Value in oncology research. Taking a transdisciplinary approach, the "Symphony-of-Us" project aims to promote cancer patient’s participation at all stages of research.

We have set up and trained a team of patient-researchers through a methodological process allowing the involvement of the people concerned and their experiential knowledge mobilization in quality of life-related research in oncology. The objective of this process was threefold: 1) build a transdisciplinary research team and ensure its member’s true engagement; 2) build a common language and a shared knowledge base necessary for the implementation of participatory research; 3) launch a participatory approach based on a relationship of mutual trust.

This process was built over +/- 3-months including a recruitment phase combining information, self-selection, and co-construction of the patient-researcher group, a training phase, and an evaluation phase. The training phase aims at providing the necessary tools to patient-researchers to acquire theoretical, practical and legitimacy skills to allow their involvement at all stages of research. The training is built around several modules addressing (1) theoretical aspects of research, the challenges of research on quality of life in oncology; and the transdisciplinary approach; and (2) practical aspects of research applied to the Symphony-of-Us project (co-construction of interview guides, survey forms and conduction of semi-structured interviews). The last part of the process will be devoted to a collective reflection on the research project and its methodological process.

We will present the different stages of building the team of co-researchers and the training as well as the first results of the implementation of this personalized learning process and its ongoing evaluation. We will also provide feedback on the commencement of this transdisciplinary research team.

Participatory research offers new perspectives by combining expert and experiential knowledge, which requires specific modes of organization. Co-research can present many challenges and requires a constant questioning of one's practices and personal posture. There are practical, ethical, and emotional issues involved in the participation of patients. It is therefore necessary to build a solid, committed and mutually trusting team by promoting a reflexive capacity that allows adjustment of the scientific approach and project design. The process presented here is the first step of the Symphony-of-Us project. By exploring the possibility of incorporating patient’s perspectives and multiple stakeholder knowledge in the research questions to define the barriers and levers, we aim at co-building possible future outlines while improving Patient Value in oncology research.

Challenge

Translational medicine (TM) is an interdisciplinary branch of biomedicine that bridges the gap between (fundamental) biomedical research and patients from bench-to-bedside1,2. The goal of TM is to improve global health by combining disciplines, resources, expertise, and techniques in biomedicine. Fundamental TM skills include interdisciplinary collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creative problem-solving (so-called 4C’s)1,2. TM is currently limited in undergraduate (bio)medical education programs -which are mainly designed towards educating future professionals- with limited opportunities for collaboration between disciplines. In this study, we aimed to develop a novel interdisciplinary challenge-based educational concept, grounded in the theoretical framework of research-based education, to implement TM in undergraduate (bio)medical education.

Methods

Medicine and biomedical students were introduced to an authentic clinical problem through an interdisciplinary session with patients, medical doctors, scientists and other (extra-)academic stakeholders. Next, students collaborated in mixed groups to design unique laboratory-based research proposals addressing this problem. Finally, the best proposal was executed hands-on by mixed student teams in a consecutive interdisciplinary laboratory course. For this, we founded the Bachelor Research Hub, a dedicated wet laboratory within the UMC Utrecht where students can do biomedical research together with researchers, medical doctors, and patients. Written questionnaires and focus groups were used to evaluate the efficacy of the educational concept on student perception on learning, especially regarding the 4C’s and student motivation.

Results

Evaluation results revealed that students found that they developed 4C skills and acquired a 4C mindset. Working on an authentic patient case positively contributed to communication, critical thinking and creative problem-solving skills. Working in an interdisciplinary setting helped students to develop collaboration and communication skills. Furthermore, students were motivated by (i) the relevance of their work that made them feel taken seriously and competent, (ii) the patient involvement that highlighted the societal relevance of their work, and (iii) the acquisition of a realistic view of science.

Discussion

We have showcased a widely applicable challenge-based undergraduate (laboratory) concept fostering TM in education that positively stimulates the development of 4C skills. Students find working on an authentic patient case and interdisciplinary working motivating because they feel competent, they feel taken seriously, and they understand the social relevance better. Additionally, in the laboratory course, medical students were motivated by the technical skills and biomedical knowledge of biomedical students, while biomedical students valued the clinical perspective of the medicine students. The concept allows further upscaling towards a Student Research HUB network with larger variety of disciplines and students.

References

1. Bovenschen N, et al. Towards Bachelor Research Hub networks to foster transdisciplinary challenge-based education in Translational Medicine | Nature Portfolio Bioengineering Community. (2021)

https://bioengineeringcommunity.nature.com/posts/towards-bachelor-research-hub-networks-to-foster-transdisciplinary-challenge-based-education-in-translational-medicine

2. Drost RH, et al. How a four-year-old boy connects healthcare, biomedical research and undergraduate education. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37(9):1092‐1095. doi:10.1038/s41587-019-0245-5

Background: Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy (HDP) account for up to 50% of Ghana’s disproportionally high maternal mortality rate. Research on HDP in Ghana is of vital importance to improve the quality of care for women suffering from HDP and their

newborns. Historically, the direction of research has largely been determined by

stakeholders with indirect experience with HDP. Stakeholders with lived experience (patients with/survivors of HDP, their carers and healthcare professionals) are insufficiently consulted, even though their first-hand insights are invaluable for the establishment of a conscientious research agenda. This problem is addressed by the development of Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs), in which patients, carers and clinicians jointly identify and prioritize needs for future research.

Aim: to identify and prioritize topics for future research on the management of HDP in

Ghana based on the opinions of stakeholders, especially those of patients, their carers and healthcare professionals.

Methods: The Severe Preeclampsia adverse Outcome Triage (SPOT) Consortium and the NGO Action on Preeclampsia (APEC) Ghana initiated this transdisciplinary collaborative project, which is taking place from February until August 2024. The process largely follows the James Lind Alliance method for PSPs, however tailored to the Ghanaian context. The Research for Health Justice Ethical Toolkit is furthermore used throughout the process as a reflective aid to identify and apply the necessary ethical considerations. An Advisory Committee, consisting of thirteen survivors, their carers and relatives, community representatives, healthcare professionals and a policy maker, holds the decisive power throughout the project and oversees the operations team. A first survey is developed and spread to identify unknowns and concerns of relevant stakeholders regarding HDP. The responses are summarized and reformulated and checked against existing evidence, and a second survey round follows to establish an interim priority list from these responses. In a final prioritization workshop, stakeholders discuss and agree on the final top 10 research priorities. The project is disseminated through the networks of all stakeholders involved and an open access publication. Throughout the process, the PSP project team engages with stakeholders with the potential to support the translation of the top 10 priorities into actual research projects.

Expected results and impact: through ongoing extensive dissemination and support of PSP partners, we expect translation of the top 10 priority list into research projects, preferably led by Ghanaian research teams. We also plan to share our lessons learned throughout the PSP process, which can inform future PSPs in similar contexts. Thereby, we hope to stimulate research groups in other sub-Saharan African or lower-middle income countries to use the PSP method as an approach for the development of research agendas.

Engaging citizens in participatory processes to solve complex sustainability challenges such as nuclear waste disposal, is for a variety of reasons (e.g., legitimacy, substantive, normative) a well-established approach. Citizens (stakeholders, ‘lay people’) contribute to science through e.g., citizen science by collecting data or posing their own research questions, or by co-producing knowledge in transdisciplinary projects.

In this presentation, we report on an approach that falls between the above and was implemented in a research project on high-level nuclear waste management in Germany. The aim was to engage citizens with diverse profiles (age, gender, profession; but no particular stake in nuclear issues) in a Citizens’ Working Group (CWG) in the scientific process. The central question revolved around how to build trust between the CWG and the project researchers, and to explore the underlying mechanisms at play (enabling factors and barriers). In addition to this social science research focus, other more technical inquiries explored citizens’ attitudes towards various concepts related to near-field monitoring of a deep geological repository.

The CWG was recruited in a comprehensive multi-step process based on a representative online survey in Germany. Acting as an ‘extended peer community’ providing an outsider perspective, this group contributed with experiential knowledge, their perceptions and attitudes. Currently, the CWG consists of fourteen individuals who have participated in the research process through workshops and project meetings for almost four years.

The work process was monitored through structured methods, including observation (using a self-developed matrix) and repeated surveys. The results suggest that the approach has boosted trust: The collaboration was characterized by a relaxed atmosphere, interpersonal respect, and support; this was achieved through the openness of the researchers and CWG members, and sustained through continuous interaction over time.

In terms of the research process itself, the involvement of the CWG in the project was highly beneficial: The CWG has contributed to the research in many ways over the years, focusing on political and social processes and target knowledge. It has fulfilled the role of an extended peer community, as its members' contributions have led to corrections of some researchers' views, highlighted value issues, and initiated new topics themselves.

Where the workshops’ guiding questions were adapted to value issues and trade-offs (e.g., safety reduction vs. knowledge gain from monitoring; note that monitoring to some extent compromises the impermeability of a repository’s host rock), the CWG was able to provide valuable insights. However, for specific scientific research questions, the innovation and knowledge gain was limited. Obviously, for narrow disciplinary research questions, a group of individuals with more specialized knowledge is more appropriate.

The focus of the presentation is on our observations and experiences from the collaborative work (e.g. workshop results).

The presentation introduces a coherent methodological concept, the Transment Approach: It draws on 25 years of experience in td-research (still fundamental Jahn et al. 2012/ Lang et al. 2012) with transformative ambition (Wiek and Lang 2016 ). It was further refined in the 5-years project "System innovations for sustainable development" in which it was tested in four different regional and transnational problem constellations:

- Future-orientated urban development

- Sustainable chemistry in the leather supply chains

- Interactive local heating networks

- Innovative regional mobility

The Transment Approach takes up sustainability challenges and related socio-ecological problems discussed in public and for which a general normative orientation already exists (Wuelser et al. 2012); e.g. in the context of the “European Green Deal” or the United Nations.

When addressing these real-word challenges change processes in the societal practices (Hirsch Hardorn et al. 2006) towards the “safe operating space” according to the planetary boundary concept are needed (Rockström et al. 2009; Richardson et al. 2023).

The challenge is, on the one hand, to integrate different interests and goals, but on the other hand also to overcome the established routines of the status quo. This involves the problem of managing a process that starts with a large number of mental models (Pearce & Ejderyan (2020).

For scientists who have not grown into the necessary procedure through trial and error, the roles and tasks associated with these processes are uncharted territory. A variety of roles have been identified (c.f. Hilger et al. 2021, Bulten et al. 2021, Wittmayer et al. 2014).

In our five-year project, we realised that there was a need to simplify this diversity of tasks and to formulate clear role expectations that can be fulfilled in day-to-day research. The Transment Approach responds to this demand by accompanying the actors step-by-step from the definition of the problem to joint solution generation. In doing so, the actors from science take on three different roles:

- Member of an interdisciplinary team: A common set of categories and criteria can help an interdisciplinary research group to develop a joint understanding of the problem. The Transment Approach draws on the heuristic of the interdisciplinary institutional analysis (Bizer & Führ 2015).

- expert in a transdisciplinary team: The process is based on the three-phase research approach that has emerged over the last 30 years in the context of sustainability research (still fundamental: Jahn et al. 2012)

- navigator of the team dynamics: Not only cognitive processes need to be taken into account, but also beneficial emotional and social-interactional conditions need to be created so that joint integration processes can succeed. Methods such as the scenario technique combined with a cross-impact analysis and a theory of change can help to constructively steer a transdisciplinary process.

The presentation will highlight the challenges in phases A to C of a transdisciplinary project. Understanding and practising these three roles helps scientists in the process to orientate themselves better and makes it easier to manage their own expectations and those of others adequately.

We would be delighted to exchange ideas with td-researchers who are dealing with similar problem constellations. What are their experiences, what do they do differently, what is similar? What results do they achieve?

key readings

Kleihauer, S./Führ M./Niebler R.: The Transment Approach. Scrollytelling https://itp.h-da.de/themen/transformative-prozesse-gestalten/transment-ansatz/scrollytelling.

The integration of interdisciplinarity into the core mission of research-intensive academic institutions is rapidly emerging as a key strategy to increase research relevance and impact. This highlights the growing recognition of interdisciplinarity's central role in advancing knowledge that addresses complex societal issues. Climate warming in the Arctic and Subarctic regions is a complex issue that requires integrated research efforts across disciplines. To help generate the knowledge needed to improve our understanding of the changing northern environment and its impact on humans and their health, Université Laval in Quebec City, Canada, launched the Sentinel North research strategy in 2015. This institution-wide initiative fosters interdisciplinary collaborations across faculty and department structures, spanning the engineering, natural, social and health sciences.

In this presentation, the Sentinel North institutional research strategy is introduced as a case study, focusing on key considerations in implementing, and evaluating a large-scale challenge-led interdisciplinary initiative. The preliminary scientific outputs of the strategy were assessed using a mixed approach and an assessment framework that prioritized a ‘self-controlled’ difference-in-difference method. A range of bibliometric indicators were used to capture the knowledge integration and impact of Sentinel North’s research outputs. Additionally, we present an innovative chord visualization approach to capture the multidimensional construct of interdisciplinarity. This visualization uses co-citation linkages between pairs of subfields in publications as a graphic implementation of the Rao-Stirling bibliometric indicator of interdisciplinarity.

This preliminary assessment and novel visualization approach revealed a notable increase in interdisciplinary knowledge integration in Sentinel North's scholarly outputs compared to those of the self-control set. In conclusion, the study examines the strategy's implementation and impact on researcher collaboration, network dynamics, and interdisciplinary knowledge production. It highlights the importance of monitoring and evaluating interdisciplinary strategies to drive meaningful change, providing valuable insights for implementing large-scale interdisciplinary research initiatives.

Abstract: This research delves into the challenges and potential of decolonial practices in transdisciplinary research, emphasizing the necessity to enhance the foundations of inter- and transdisciplinary and grow the capacity for such methodologies. It critically examines power dynamics and the opportunity for decolonial praxis within engineering and research. It advocates for equitable collaborations that engage diverse knowledge systems on the same foot and promote sustainable practices.

Scientific and Societal Problem: The structural unsustainability and power imbalances rooted in traditional engineering and research paradigms are critically evaluated. Decolonial thinkers argue that such paradigms perpetuate coloniality insofar as design and research practices exclude or undermine "ways of being" outside Western epistemological norms (Escobar, 2018; Quijano, 2000) This exclusion extends to indigenous populations and marginalized communities, often disregarding their self-determination and rights in the name of development (Smith, 2021).

Purpose: To develop a decolonial framework to address the power imbalance between different knowledge systems for equitable collaboration towards sustainable practices between the Global South and Globa Norht research projects.

Workshop Goals:

1. Understand decolonial narratives through storytelling.

2. Implement decolonial practices across different levels of research: researcher positionality, project/research agenda, and community reciprocity.

Research Process and Methods: Employing participatory design methodologies, this research will empower marginalized communities to co-create solutions. It integrates decolonial theories with practical engineering approaches, challenging existing power structures and advocating epistemic justice through a conceptual framework addressing relationality and positionality in Global South research projects.

This involves critically examining and transforming the researcher's positionality and developing a conceptual framework for decolonial practices at four levels of relationality and positionality: researcher, research project/research agenda, community, and society in the Global South.

Expected Findings: The workshop will showcase the transformative potential of decolonial practices for research projects in the Global South, highlighting case studies of community-engaged projects that have enhanced sustainability, social justice, and community empowerment.

Expected contribution: The workshop will emphasize the importance of shifting researcher ontology and perception toward communities, highlighting the necessity of engaging with communities as research subjects and partners in a decolonial research process. It will call for a commitment to decolonial practices within engineering and research to align with social and environmental justice principles.

Description of the Session/Workshop Design:

The "Learnings from the South to North: The Decolonial Transdisciplinary Research Process in Latin America" workshop is a 90-minute interactive session to engage participants in critical discussions and practical exercises. It will feature a brief presentation on decolonial theory and case studies, followed by group activities encouraging participants to apply decolonial lenses to their work. The session aims to facilitate a profound reflection on personal and institutional practices, enabling the development of actionable strategies for incorporating decolonial approaches in engineering and research.

The workshop design is based on the following theories:

a. Decolonial Options and Challenges: This chapter explores the "Buen Vivir" philosophy as a foundational shift in societal values towards communal well-being and environmental stewardship. It challenges traditional development paradigms and advocates a socio-biocentric development model (Gudynas, 2011; Walsh, 2010).

b. Unveiling the Impact: It addresses the need for a better balance between community visions and academic research agendas, advocating for systemic change within academic and professional institutions to recognize and support decolonial practices.

The workshop structure is as follows:

1. Part 1 - Dancing Icebreaker (5 minutes): Expand the narrative connection between Ghana and Colombia, and by extension, Africa and Latin America, through a storytelling session that explores the shared colonial history and the role of slave trade triangulation. Introduce music as a symbol of unity and resistance, inviting participants to share their cultural experiences or songs representing their history or current social struggles. This sets a tone of shared humanity and interconnected histories.

2. Part 2 - Presentation of Workshop & Case Studies Videos (10 minutes): Dive deeper into the conceptual framework by linking decolonial theory directly to practical examples from the case studies. For each case (Colombia, Galápagos, MOVE Gaming Project – Ecuador & Costa Rica), provide a brief overview of the community engagement process, the challenges faced, and the decolonial strategies applied. Use multimedia elements such as videos or interactive maps to give a vivid sense of the communities and landscapes involved.

3. Part 3—Group Activity: Scanning the Room (Individual Mind mapping) (5 minutes): Use an interactive silent activity to scan and observe the experiences with traditional and participatory research methods. After gathering responses, facilitate a quick reflection on the diversity of practices and the potential gaps between researcher intentions and community perceptions.

4. Part 4 - Decolonial Lenses Exploration - Free Group Work (30 minutes): Break down this session into smaller, focused discussions on each level of decolonial transdisciplinary lenses (Mindset, Project, Community Relationship, and Systems of Knowledge). Use case studies as a base for participants to identify and discuss specific instances where decolonial practices could be integrated or where colonial dynamics were challenged. Encourage the unrestricted use of different materials (e.g., flip charts, painting, modeling clay, magazines, mindmaps, free writing techniques, music, poetry) to articulate and embody the free expression of emotions, thoughts, and statements to answer each praxis level. Decolonial lens exploration operates at three levels; groups will choose only one level for discussion.

4.a. The praxis reflection exercise at the individual level is "First level – Decolonial Mindset": What is my level of decolonial perspective in these case studies regarding my mindset and positionality as a researcher, and how do I become aware of this? (i.e., When social research is applied, I view the other not as a subject but as an object of research. When I work with a community and think of it as an object of research, I need to quantify it by categories. Be conscious of ingrained prejudices that dismiss others as "less developed" in your concept of progress).

4.b.The praxis reflection exercise at the project level is: Second level – Decolonial Project: What are my decolonial lenses on these case studies regarding my positionality and predominant system knowledge towards the project? (i.e., when I designed "here in the Netherlands," it led to asymmetrical relations or disregarded locals' best interests. Acknowledge that knowledge is for "someone" and is not free from interests/historical circumstances.)

4.c.The praxis reflection exercise at the community level is the third level—Decolonial Community Relationship: What are my decolonial lenses on these case studies regarding my positionality and predominant system knowledge regarding my relationship with the community? ( i.e., I take seriously the knowledge and ways of living of people, local communities, and local professionals. Self-implicate (also in harm) in participatory design processes with the knowledge and life of the (historically colonized) other).

5. Part 5—Discussion Round and Wrap-Up (20 minutes): Implement a meditation closure by guiding participants through a reflective exercise centered on empathy, understanding, and commitment to action. Prompt participants to think about how they can carry the insights from the workshop into their research practices. Conclude with a collective affirmation or commitment statement crafted by the group, emphasizing the move towards more equitable and just research methodologies.

6. Part 6 - Conclusion (10 minutes): Summarize key insights and encourage participants to consider how they can apply decolonial perspectives in their work. Discuss the concept of permeable positionalities and the importance of engaging with communities as research subjects and partners. Highlight the necessity of challenging one's positionality and power structures within academia and research. Invite participants to commit to one action or change they will implement in their work to support decolonial practices.

This enriched workshop design aims to create a dynamic and participatory experience that imparts knowledge and empowers participants to critically engage with and apply decolonial methodologies in their research practices.

Key Readings: Castro-Gómez, S., & Grosfoguel, R. (2007); Escobar, A. (2015); Smith, L. T. (2021).

It goes without saying, that the challenges faced by societies in transforming into more sustainable and resilient futures affect and engage a variety of stakeholders across multiple decision-making levels and sectors, including various knowledge domains and scientific disciplines. There is an urgent need for better collaborative spaces for the transformative science partnerships that are needed for solving large-scale sustainability challenges, so called ‘wicked’ problems. Wicked sustainability problems defy resolution because they are characterized by very heterogeneous problem features. For example, they are highly contested and often politically explosive, engaging a diverse array of societal values and actors. They have a high degree of knowledge complexity, that not only transcends disciplines and areas of expertise, but also have no temporal or spatial limits/boundaries, resulting in multiple causalities and effects and making future trends highly uncertain. To capture and address such features requires multi-scalar, multi-generational and multi-sectoral transformation processes across a diversity of disciplines, sectors, organizations, stakeholder groups and locations.

Many innovative projects have been undertaken to address the systemic nature of sustainability problems and to develop different types of collaborative processes to address them. However, less systematic knowledge has been gathered on how science itself can be better positioned to support transdisciplinary processes on a wider scale, to impact societal transformations more effectively.

This workshop will focus on building a better understanding of the support functions and mechanisms that create the institutional conditions needed for supporting, legitimizing, and scaling up transdisciplinary and co-production research and practice within both academia and practice. The underlying motivation is the need for universities and research institutions to develop a diversity of functions for involving a heterogeneous set of societal actors, values, and knowledge in collaborative research, incentivize participation, and create the skills and competencies needed to systematically address sustainability challenges.

A 20-minute introduction will exemplify existing support structures within a transdisciplinary platform – The Centre for sustainable urban futures in Gothenburg, Sweden – and associated success factors, challenges, and perceived gaps. The Centre for sustainable urban futures is a collaborative partnership between eight organisations in West Sweden, representing both research and practice. It is tasked to address complex social challenges in the context of urban development, and to facilitate the building of integrated knowledge and capacity that can transform cities and communities in a sustainable manner. Examples will also be given from associated attempts to facilitate transdisciplinary co-production in project settings.

Following, participants of this workshop will be invited to co-reflect on existing support mechanisms and how these fit into the idea of a “TD ecosystem”, based on the following questions:

1. The university's role and responsibility in contributing to societal change:

a) What characterizes a university that contributes to positive/sustainable development in the surrounding society?

b) To what extent and how is TD collaboration one of the activities that universities should be undertaking?

2. Mapping and reflecting on existing support mechanisms for transdisciplinary collaboration and co-production:

a) What experiences do you have with different types of TD support?

b) What already existing mechanisms can we build on?

3. Exploring future support mechanisms:

a) What functions or mechanisms should a TD support structure have?

b) What could a 'TD ecosystem' bring?

We will look to harvest the experiences in the room through a co-creation method consisting of individual reflection, beehive discussions and open space. Building upon the experiences and competences within the group, we will seek to explore the potential design of elements and mechanisms that appear to be missing. The outcome will be a co-designed preliminary outline of a TD ecosystem prototype, designed to capture the diversity of functions that a local support system for need to involve.

We welcome all participants interested in developing support functions for capacity building in and for inter- and transdisciplinarity, and in achieving learning for societal transformation. Particularly, we reach out to those who have experiences from linking such functions in a composed system, conceptually as well as in practice.

In the context of an evolving polycrisis, universities play a crucial role in preparing individuals to navigate significant social and environmental transitions. Despite sustained efforts to incorporate transferrable skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, communication, and teamwork into education programs in recent decades, it has become apparent that these generic skills alone are insufficient for facilitating the transition to a more sustainable and equitable global society. New types of capabilities, such as transdisciplinarity, systems and futures thinking, change-making and reflexivity, have been proposed as necessary for addressing contemporary challenges (see OECD, 2020; UNESCO, 2017; Jordan et al., 2021; Kligyte et al., in progress). However, significant shifts enabled by these capabilities are yet to be realised.

Through this workshop, we advocate for a more holistic conception of futures-making capabilities, in contrast to prevailing educational paradigms that emphasise individual capacity development. From a transdisciplinary perspective, it is particularly evident that sustainable and equitable societal futures cannot be achieved by lone individuals working in siloed sectors. Thus, we conceptualise futures-making capabilities as dynamic, contextually contingent, and action-oriented rather than static attributes possessed by individuals. To support our thinking, we draw upon the capabilities approach conceptualised by Sen (1999) and Nussbaum (2011). Emerging from the human development field, the concept of capability to function encompasses not only what individuals are ‘able to do and be’ (Robeyns, 2017, p. 24) but also considers the environmental conditions necessary for individuals to exercise their capabilities (Walker & McLean, 2015). As an area relatively underexplored in mainstream higher education literature, our workshop aims to advance the conversation and develop a collective understanding of essential aspects of situated and contextualised relational futures-making capabilities and how they might be articulated and evidenced.

We will begin by sharing our work developing futures-making capabilities, drawing on a decade of transdisciplinary education practice at an Australian University and an extensive literature review and surveys with 73 alumni of our transdisciplinary education programs. Using this work as a springboard, we invite transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary educators and practitioners to co-create a glossary and atlas exploring how these futures-making capabilities might be conceptualised across different contexts. Particularly, we seek to examine the contextual and relational aspects of individuals’ capacity to apply capabilities in real-world situations. Our aim is to develop a language that differentiates, positions and legitimises these futures-making capabilities in diverse academic and professional settings, rather than relegating them to mere ‘soft skills’ like ‘teamwork’ or ‘collaboration.’ Drawing from our experience in transdisciplinary education, we recognise these capabilities as ‘hard’ skills that demand dedicated attention, practice, and development.

Workshop description

1. Introduction

The workshop will begin with an introduction to the authors’ journey in developing a transdisciplinary future-making capability framework as an approach to sensemaking and grappling with their own transdisciplinary education practice. We will also explore the participant’s experience in transdisciplinary and future-focused education.

2. Co-creation

Drawing on The CreaTures Glossary approach and toolkit (https://glossary.languagin.gs/), participants will be invited to contribute their own terms and interpretations used in their practice to co-create a glossary, lexicon and atlas of future-making capabilities. Through conversation, free association, and real-time creation of situated word collections, participants will actively shape the lexicon of capabilities required for societal transitions by contributing to, editing, and refining the definitions of these capabilities. By focusing on the fluid evolution of meanings and definitions, we will explore how contextualised language reflects our worldviews and seek helpful ways to articulate a shared terminology that might help differentiate and legitimise future-making capabilities across further academic and professional contexts to support social and environmental transitions.

3. Reflection

The workshop will conclude with a reflection on the experience of collaboratively defining future-making capabilities and consideration of its implications for community-building and change-making. Together, we will explore how this approach can be applied in various contexts beyond the workshop, fostering inclusivity and empowering diverse voices in defining the meaning and practices of transdisciplinary futures-making capabilities. Workshop participants will be invited to continue their contribution to the co-created glossary, lexicon, and atlas after the workshop as the project progresses as part of an ongoing research project.

References

* Jordan, T., Reams, J., Stålne, K., Greca, S., Henriksson, J. A., Björkman, T., & Dawson, T. (2021). Inner Development Goals: Background, method and the IDG framework. Growth that matters. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/600d80b3387b98582a60354a.

* Kligyte, G., Melvold, J., Pratt, S. Bowdler, B. (in progress). Transdisciplinary capabilities framework: developing students’ capacity to thrive in an uncertain future. Futures.

* Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities. The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

* OECD (2020). Education at a Glance 2020. Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development. Paris.

* Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Open Book Publishers.

* Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

* UNESCO (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals - Learning Objectives. Paris.

* Walker, M., & McLean, M. (2015). Professionals and public good capabilities. Critical studies in Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 60–82.

Integration experts are academics who lead, administer, manage, monitor, assess, accompany, and/or advise others on integration within inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) projects or programs (Hoffmann et al. 2022). We here define integration as the process of constructively combining a wide range of perspectives from different disciplines (i.e., interdisciplinary integration) as well as from science, policy and practice (i.e., transdisciplinary integration) with the aim of developing a more comprehensive understanding of complex problems and generating more promising solutions. It is a multidimensional process that involves cognitive, social, and emotional dimensions (Pohl et al. 2021). We likewise refer to integration as the integrated output that emerges from this process (O'Rourke et al. 2016).

Integration experts play a range of different roles within ITD projects or programs which we consider a role in itself (Hoffmann et al. 2022). These roles change over time and depend on the specific purpose, scale and scope of integration as well as the specific context in which integration takes place (Hoffmann et al. under review). They are socially constructed within a project or program shaped by the overarching contextual conditions for integration at different levels – individual, team, project, program, institutional and societal (Deutsch et al. under review-b). Integration experts play such roles purposefully (‘role-taking’), or they develop them gradually depending on the purpose, scale and scope of integration, the contextual conditions for integration as well as the personal qualities and expertise they bring in (‘role-making’) (Hilger et al. 2021, Hoffmann et al. under review). Some of these roles (e.g., contributors) align well with the roles academics usually play, while others (e.g., bridge builders, boundary crossers) transcend existing roles (Hoffmann et al. 2022) and require other personal qualities and expertise than those academics usually possess (Hoffmann et al. under review).

Notwithstanding the range of different roles which integration experts play, they are often miscategorized as merely facilitators, coordinators, administrators or managers of ITD projects or programs (Hoffmann et al. 2022), who render solely ‘supportive’ contributions to such projects or programs (e.g., providing psychological, social and material support for creativity). Such miscategorizations obscure the very important creative contributions that integration experts provide (e.g., generating, refining and linking creative ideas, including their own). Building on Mainemelis et al. (2015)’s definition of integrative leadership as an interplay of supportive and creative contributions from both leaders and team members (Deutsch et al. under review-a), the question arises of the interplay of supportive and creative contributions that integration experts make to ITD projects or programs, while assuming the range of different roles described above. Addressing this question will enable us to make the nature and extent of supportive and creative contributions linked to the various roles that integration experts play visible and tangible.

We aim at organising an interactive workshop to disscuss this question of the interplay of supportive and creative contributions with participants interested in exploring the different roles of integration experts in ITD projects or programs. The proposed workshop design has been tested in a virtual pilot workshop organised as part of the ITD Alliance Working Group on Integration Experts and Expertise on February 6, 2024, and further developed based on the insights gained from the pilot workshop. Building on the existing conceptual and empirical insights on integration experts and integrative leadership (Deutsch et al. under review-a, Hoffmann et al. 2022, Hoffmann et al. under review, Lash-Marshall et al. 2017, Mainemelis et al. 2015), the workshop aims at:

• Exploring the range of different roles integration experts play in ITD projects or programs

• Discussing the interplay of supportive and creative contributions integration experts make to ITD projects or programs, and potential tensions and opportunities related to such interplay

• Exploring discrepancies between self-perception and perception of others related to the interplay of supportive and creative contributions.

Workshop design (90 min)

The workshop starts with a short discussion of the role(s) of integration experts in ITD projects or programs and the interplay of supportive and creative contributions integration experts make (max. 10 min). The discussion is followed by structured activities involving all workshop participants to reach the aims listed above, whilst generating empirical insights for a joint peer-reviewed publication on this topic co-authored by all participants interested in embarking on this collaborative writing endeavour.

We expect all participants to be interested in exploring integration experts’ different roles and the interplay of supportive and creative contributions, while being diverse in their motivations for participating. For example, participants may be more interested in practice, or in theory, or in the relationship between practice and theory; or they may have different kinds of integration experiences (from novice leaders to experts; from participants to leaders of integrative efforts). Our workshop design will account for this diversity. We will use various devices (individual reflections, small group discussions, whole group reflections) to enable mutual learning between and amongst novices, theoreticians, practitioners, experts, leaders, participants:

• To explore the range of different roles of integration experts in ITD projects or programs we will ask participants to first think individually on their role in a particular ITD project or program, then give such role a name (e.g., ‘bridge builder’) and finally specify that role by describing 3-5 key tasks related to such role (15 min).

• To discuss the interplay of supportive and creative contributions that integration experts make we will first introduce a specially developed chart based on Mainemelis et al. (2015) which will be displayed on the floor; we will then then discuss the x-axis (integrators’ supportive contributions) and y-axis (integrator’s creative contributions) of this chart. Based on this discussion, we will ask participants to first position themselves physically in the chart and then discuss with participants being positioned next to them: (a) the role’s name, (b) the specific 3-5 key tasks related to such role, (c) the interplay of creative and supportive contributions attached to such role and (d) the potential tensions and opportunities related to such interplay (20 min). After this group discussion, we will invite participants to share insights from their discussion with all participants (15 min).

• To explore discrepancies between self-perception and perception of others related to the interplay of creative and supportive contributions, we will ask participants to first place a sign on the chart where they position themselves (self-perception) and then place a sign where ITD project or program members would position them in the chart (perception of others), then discuss with participants next to them: (a) the potential tensions and opportunities related to potential discrepancies between self-perception and perceptions of others, and (b) the strategies they use to navigate such discrepancies (20 min). After this group discussion, we will invite participants to share insights from their discussion with all participants (15 min).

Workshop outcomes

The workshop culminates in planning a joint peer-reviewed publication on “The roles of integration experts in inter- and transdisciplinary research: The interplay of creative and supportive contributions” (working title) with all workshop participants interested in this collaborative endeavour.

References

Deutsch L, Björnsen A, Fischer AM, Hama MA, Zimmermann NE, Zurbrügg C, Hoffmann S. under review-a. Herding cats - Integrative leadership strategies in inter- and transdisciplinary programs. Sustainability Science.

Deutsch L, Pohl C, Bresch D, Hoffmann S. under review-b. Creating favorable conditions for inter- and transdisciplinary integration – an analytical framework and empirical insights. Global Environmental Change.

Hilger A, Rose M, Keil A. 2021. Beyond practitioner and researcher: 15 roles adopted by actors in transdisciplinary and transformative research processes. Sustainability Science 16: 2049-2068.

Hoffmann S, Deutsch L, Klein JT, O’Rourke M. 2022. Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9.

Hoffmann S, Deutsch L, O’Rourke M. under review. Integration Experts and Expertise in Darbellay F, ed. Elgar Encyclopedia of Inter- and Transdisciplinarity. Edward Elgar Publishing

Lash-Marshall WG, Nomura CT, Eck K, Hirsch PD. 2017. Facilitating Collaboration across Disciplinary and Sectoral Boundaries: Application of a Four-Step Strategic Intervention. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 35: 200-220.

Mainemelis C, Kark R, Epitropaki O. 2015. Creative leadership: A multi-context conceptualization. The Academy of Management Annals 9: 393-482.

O'Rourke M, Crowley S, Gonnerman C. 2016. On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: A philosophical framework. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 56: 62-70.

Pohl C, Klein JT, Hoffmann S, Mitchell C, Fam D. 2021. Conceptualising transdisciplinary integration as a multidimensional interactive process. Environmental Science & Policy 118: 18-26.

Introduction

The world is faced with a complex set of global health challenges that require multistakeholder and transdisciplinary efforts to address them. In this context, future global health professionals must be able to navigate disciplinary boundaries, engage with society, and acquire the competencies needed to tackle complex challenges. Consequently, higher education institutions (HEIs) are tasked to prepare global health students by infusing transdisciplinary values and skills into their educational programs.

At VU Amsterdam, we redesigned the global health minor program open for all Bachelor level students by embedding a Transdisciplinary Global Health Challenge (TGHC) developed using the challenge-based learning (CBL) approach. In this initiative, a diverse group of students from different disciplines, universities, and countries worked with societal partners on real-life health-related projects for five months to address societal challenges.

Objectives

This article describes the design, implementation, and evaluation of the TGHC, showcasing how educational programs can integrate and scaffold transdisciplinarity, and create meaningful partnerships between HEIs and society to tackle complex challenges.

Methods

An action-research approach was used to implement, evaluate, and improve the design of the TGHC. Through continuous learning cycles of planning, acting, and reflecting, we closely monitored the project's progress, stakeholder experiences, and design elements at different stages. A variety of qualitative methods, including FGDs, reflections, and narrative documentation were used to capture the inputs and experiences of students, community partners, and teachers.

Results

Throughout the implementation of the TGHC, stakeholders (students, partners, teachers) navigated a complex journey of transdisciplinary collaboration, resulting in diverse co-learning experiences and lessons on design considerations. Our findings revealed two intricately connected facets of learning: (1) learning about and through transdisciplinary collaboration, and (2) learning related to designing transdisciplinary education. Whilst stakeholders initially encountered challenges in collectively navigating the collaborative process, including managing expectations, defining project goals, and establishing effective communication channels; iterative cycles of action and reflection led to the identification of key areas for improvement in both the collaboration and the design and execution of the pilot. This process facilitated positive transformations among all stakeholders. For students, the project helped develop essential competencies in Transdisciplinary collaboration and instilled a sense of civic responsibility. Community partners benefited from strengthened connections with the University, and teachers acquired new teaching skills related to transdisciplinary education. Furthermore, the implementation of the TGHC highlighted valuable lessons on embedding educational innovation within existing frameworks, highlighting the need for sustainable solutions to cater to the resource-intensive nature of transdisciplinary programs.

Implications

This pilot project underscores both the opportunities and challenges associated with embedding transdisciplinarity into educational programs. It emphasizes the importance of finding a balance between different learning formats (open vs closed/guided), allowing stakeholders ample freedom to shape their collaboration, and providing a supportive framework to facilitate learning and understanding of new concepts. The pilot project generated valuable lessons and insights on design principles for transdisciplinary education with important implications for further practice and research.

In contemporary society, the need to address pressing and complex problems, requires a new generation capable of driving change to influence the future. Education serves as an essential building block for knowledge and skills for this new generation (Jensen-Pennington, 2021). Transdisciplinary education - where students, teachers, researchers, and societal partners from different disciplines learn, work, and research together on an equal footing - provides a response to these challenges (Bernstein, 2015; Mauser et al., 2013). It encourages innovation and the generation of new knowledge (Mokiy, 2019), and integrates different disciplines by working towards a shared common goal (Max-Neef, 2005).

This research investigates major organizational and pedagogical challenges for this transdisciplinary education. It focusses specifically on transdisciplinary collaborations in Dutch higher education, incorporating perspectives of teachers, students, policy makers, and researchers. The research also contributes to the development of TRAIL, a new online tool for the development and implementation of higher transdisciplinary education, that builds on the results of the European project STEAM+. Matching the broad scope of TRAIL, this research covers a high variety of themes, as formulated in the research question: What are the main pitfalls and successes in establishing, implementing, and evaluating transdisciplinary higher education for teachers, students, policy makers, and researchers, both in terms of pedagogy and organization, and in collaboration with societal partners? 

In order to identify these pitfalls and successes, two methods were employed. In eight focus groups with teachers, policy makers, researchers and students, the pains and gains of transdisciplinary education were identified through a Value Proposition Canvas (Fransen, 2022). Additionally, ten semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts and experienced individuals in the Dutch field of transdisciplinary higher education. The focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analysed using Atlas-ti. 

Respondents commonly identify the positive effects on students' development aligning with the Inner Development goals (Jordan, et al, 2021), as particular important merits of transdisciplinary education. These gains exist among others of practical experience in addressing complex societal issues and an increased intrinsic motivation for all involved project participants. Organizational pitfalls relating to space, time, and reconciling interests of different parties involved, are identified as possible pains during the development of transdisciplinary education.

The final results can contribute to an understanding of the organizational implementation and design of transdisciplinary collaboration in higher education, about which literature is still limited (Horn et al., 2022). Relating to the lack of pedagogical frameworks for transdisciplinary educations, such as for assessment methods and learning objectives, (Horn et al., 2022), the results of this study seem to offer broad insights which can contribute to the identification of specific follow-up research questions.

Often, transdisciplinary projects start with enthusiastic individuals, often teachers, who are facing the same challenges (Tijsma, Urias, Zweekhorst, 2023). The results contain insights into these challenges, which can be beneficial for different parties which seek to develop or implement transdisciplinary education. By initially incorporating the research findings in the new TRAIL tool, this study can serve as a foundational resource for initiators in transdisciplinary education. 

The need for more transdisciplinary collaborations to tackle society's complex challenges is widely acknowledged in theory. However, the empirical landscape lacks substantial examples of how to operationalize such collaborations effectively. The SPRING Consortium, an initiative aimed at addressing health inequalities in Rotterdam neighbourhoods under the Resilient Delta Initiative, serves as a pertinent case study, providing insights into the challenges inherent in establishing and sustaining transdisciplinary research consortia. Since its inception, the SPRING consortium has undergone significant evolution. While it garners considerable interest from various sectors of society eager to engage in transdisciplinary research on health inequalities and well-being, its growth trajectory resembles that of Frankenstein, making it difficult for the initial partners to maintain a clear connection with its original vision. Drawing from participant experiences within the initiative since 2021, the proposed presentation will delve into systemic, design, and interpersonal aspects of developing a transdisciplinary consortium. Employing qualitative methods and a joint timeline mapping approach, the research unveils pivotal milestones in the consortium’s development, shedding light on some enabling and inhibiting factors for transdisciplinary collaborations. Key enabling factors identified include co-creating a shared vision, securing funding, establishing good governance, and aligning research approaches. Conversely, the absence or lack of clarity in these areas manifests as various challenges within the consortium. The findings also underscore the importance of experiential learning and knowledge integration as essential elements for ensuring continuous learning and shaping the consortium. The evolving nature of SPRING underscores the critical role of shared visioning in laying the foundation for constructive governance arrangements and collaborative endeavours. This presentation provides a reflection that will provide lessons for the ITD research community, emphasizing the need for adaptable governance structures and intentional collaboration in addressing complex societal challenges, thereby guiding future initiatives toward meaningful societal impact.

In this session, we will explore the insights drawn from our collective experiences as a design and teaching team involved in the interdisciplinary and interfaculty undergraduate minor program at Utrecht University known as the minor Language, Law, and Culture. The focus of this session is on discussing methodologies aimed at developing sustainable interdisciplinary education initiatives that connect various faculties. Our goal is to foster an open dialogue surrounding the promises and challenges inherent in designing interdisciplinary undergraduate teaching initiatives. We'll candidly discuss both the successes and areas for improvement, reflecting on what worked well and where we could have done things differently. Essentially, we'll explore the lessons learned from the process of designing this minor.

The iconic scene from Alice in Wonderland, the Mad Hatter’s tea party, serves as a metaphor for the sense of discovery and creativity we encountered as a collaborative team of educators and designers from Law, Humanities, the Centre of Academic Teaching and Interdisciplinary Education. Much like the Mad Hatter's Tea Party symbolises unconventional thinking, we argue that creativity is pivotal in interdisciplinary teaching, serving as a conduit for tackling problems from diverse perspectives and fostering innovation. Emphasising creativity as a cornerstone of success, the session delineates the iterative design, testing, and revision process underpinning the minor's evolution.

In Utrecht University's minor Language, Law, and Culture students discover new perspectives on societal matters influenced by linguistic, legal, and cultural dynamics. Essential themes encompass storytelling, interpretation, forensic linguistics and human rights. Graduates of this program can apply the acquired knowledge and skills to diverse career paths, including legal practice, academia, policymaking, communication strategies, journalism, and education.

The minor is affiliated with a broader theme at Utrecht University known as the 'strategic theme' Institutions for Open Societies, with more than 600 academics from various faculties and social partners. The minor aligns with its key objective, to foster interdisciplinary collaborations and growth as academics and students to effectively tackle the challenges of our time and contribute to the advancement of open and resilient societies worldwide.

This session embarks on a reflective journey through the design and execution of the minor from 2018 to 2024. Theoretical underpinnings and practical challenges are scrutinized. From navigating administrative hurdles to celebrating incremental victories, the session offers insights into the intricacies of interdisciplinary education design and implementation. The session also highlights the imperative of continuous lobbying for support and recognition, emphasizing the value of team cohesion, trust and collaboration. We also share our experience of having an integration expert on our design team, as proposed in the article by Hoffmann, S., Deutsch, L., Klein, J.T. et al (2021). We provide tangible examples highlighting the valuable contribution of an integration expert in our design endeavours. We eagerly anticipate the insights and opinions of session participants on this aspect.

We acknowledge the significance of creativity and play within the design process as well as within the minor itself. Various learning activities are implemented to encourage the further development of students’ creative thinking skills. Creative thinking is identified as an important aspect of interdisciplinary research. Creativity is needed to connect disciplinary insights towards a more comprehensive understanding of complex problems (Repko and Szostak 2021, 329-331). Hence, we’ve employed innovative approaches that complement the minor's objectives and will share some examples. For instance, we incorporated role-playing centered on an 18th-century court case regarding freedom of speech. Additionally, we utilize an escape room activity to immerse students from various disciplines in personal narratives concerning human rights issues.

Creative writing also plays a crucial role in our minor. The minor teaches students to not only reflect on the versatility of language in their future practice within a legal and societal context but also to develop their voice as writers. It equips them with a toolkit to employ language as a grammatical, literary, social and communicative medium in the context of law, thus enhancing their communicative skills. Inspired by the core principles of the well-known study book Habits of the Creative Mind, our goal is to elevate students' writing abilities by reshaping their thinking habits. Following the book's philosophy, we aspire for our students to evolve as writers who exhibit curiosity and creativity in their future career paths. Participants of this session will therefore engage in a playful creative writing exercise mirroring the interdisciplinary teaching style of the minor, delving into disciplinary overlaps and differences. We will discuss writing assignments tailored for students to explore ways to harness the narrative power within legal contexts.

Take a sip from a teacup and join us as we discuss both accomplishments and possible failures in the field of crafting interdisciplinary education, exemplified by designing and implementing the minor Language, Law, and Culture. Let’s step into the whimsical ambience of the Mad Hatter's tea party, where creativity knows no bounds.

Key readings

• Hoffmann, S., Deutsch, L., Klein, J.T. et al (2022). ‘Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts.’ Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9, 147. [DOI: https://doi-org.proxy.library.uu.nl/10.1057/s41599-022-01138-z]

• Miller, Richard E. & Ann Jurecic (2020), Habits of the Creative Mind: A Guide to Reading, Writing & Thinking. 2nd edition. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's: Macmillan Learning.

• Repko, A.F. and R. Szostak (2021). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Transdisciplinary collaborations require distinct and increased efforts compared to traditional forms of research, including particular skills, sensitivity and attitudes (e.g., humility, tolerance to difference, empathy, adaptability, power awareness). As the group of session organizers we understand transdisciplinary collaborations as ‘processes of mutual learning between science and society, (...) which embodies a mission of science with society rather than for society’ (Seidl et al. 2013). More specifically we understand transdisciplinary collaborations as processes that integrate knowledge across academic disciplines and societal sectors, to address societal challenges. It is guided by the principle that ‘scientific rigor meets societal relevance’ (free to the Transdisciplinary Field Guide, Utrecht University and van Paassen, et al, 2023).

Enriching the training options offered for transdisciplinary collaborations is key for elevating the quality of the research processes involved. Ample experience and literature demonstrates that bringing together a group of people around a topic or a joint aim is not sufficient for achieving the intended purposes of knowledge integration that should lead to the desired transformations. Attention is needed not just for ‘topic’, but also for ‘team’ and ‘process’, which requires competences, attitudes ad approaches that are distinct from more disciplinary research.

The skills required for transdisciplinary collaborations apply to defining the focal question or problem, determining who, how and why people are involved, and how the collaborative process should develop to account for the distinct backgrounds and needs of the people involved. Excluding relevant voices, or not including them in meaningful ways, could lead to epistemic (in)justice. It could also lead to the failure of the research achieving its potential in terms of transformation, which could for example be achieved through changes in policy frameworks or institutional practices.

In this session we build on four principles for transdisciplinarity that is fair, inclusive and equitable (van Paassen et al., 2023) , which we broaden so as to include ‘transformative’.

1. Address (context-specific) societally relevant issues while maintaining scientific relevance.

2. Embrace complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty.

3. Value and harness plural ways of knowing via co-creating and co-learning.

4. Involve relevant actors in inclusive, fair, and equitable ways.

To do transdisciplinarity that aligns with these principles the collaborators will need to learn and unlearn attitudes and skills that are not commonly trained for in academia and other sectors. The session organisers distinguish different roles in research teams, requiring different (levels of) skills. Teams typically require specific attention for the collaborative process, so that it can indeed contribute to transformation. In the literature it is suggested that a dedicated person should fulfil these roles, a ‘transacademic interface manager (TIM)’ that fulfils the role of a facilitator, mediator, translator, and process innovator (Brundiers, et al, 2013) . A team may also expect all its members to require some level of training.

The Centre for Unusual Collaborations (part of an alliance between Technical University Eindhoven, Wageningen University and Research, Utrecht University and University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands) and Pathways to Sustainability (one of the Strategic Themes of Utrecht University, The Netherlands) and other funding schemes supporting transdisciplinary collaborations can offer training to help initiate engagements and deepen collaborative processes. We propose training modules to strengthen competences for transdisciplinary collaborations. Key competences are:

- listening

- reflecting

- understanding of one's own perspective and biases, which includes exercise on positionality, power balance reflection and stakeholder mapping

- perspective-taking

- integration of different types of knowledge

- systems approaches/holistic thinking

- collaboration (including barriers to participate)

- communication across sectors

- ‘managing’ conflicts

In addition, some more ‘general’ skills are key, such as team work and management, project management, adaptivity, managing expectations and interests, risk assessment, openness and curiosity. We understand learning to be strongly facilitated by embodied and creative approaches.

The session will take the form of a training, in which we will test some of the modules with the participants, followed by a round of reflections.

References

- Seidl, R., Brand, F.S., Stauffacher, M. et al. Science with Society in the Anthropocene. AMBIO 42, 5–12 (2013). https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0363-5

- Barbara van Paassen, Nina de Roo, Jillian Student, Jonas Torrens, Annisa Triyanti (2023) Scoping transdisciplinary collaborations: A principled approach to meaningfully fund and support unusual transdisciplinary encounters, engagements, and collaborations, Centre for Unusual Collaborations. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14AFtnnOznj1aTNhu_egqB-1CU6zkQNAB/view

- Brundiers, K.; Wiek, A.; Kay, B. The Role of Transacademic Interface Managers in Transformational Sustainability Research and Education. Sustainability 2013, 5, 4614-4636. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5114614

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires not only technological advancements but also a shift in attitudes, values and behaviours. There is a growing realisation of the need to equip students in higher education with skills and attitudes next to specific knowledge to drive change. The Inner Development Goals (IDGs) offer a valuable framework for acquiring these skills and attitudes.

In a collaboration between the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Amsterdam and the alliance TU/e, WUR, UU and UMC Utrecht, we launched the Transition Makers Toolbox in June 2023. This freely available educational resource is based on the IDGs and aims to equip educators with tools to teach students to navigate societal change effectively. All tools are created according to constructive alignment with meaningful assessment in mind. With interdisciplinary tools such as Navigating Uncertainty, Exchanging Perspectives and Fostering Resilience, educators can empower their students with societal transformation skills to contribute to complex challenges.

Developed in co-creation with a community of practice of teachers and educational developers across 10 higher education institutions, the Toolbox is the place for knowledge sharing, inspiration, ready-to-use educational materials and guidance on teaching how to contribute to shaping societal transitions.

During our interactive workshop, we will delve into the Inner Development Goals and the Transition Makers Toolbox. Join us if you want to get inspired, shape educational practices, and equip your students with the skills and attitudes required to make a positive impact on our world.

How can we develop Transdisciplinary Teaching cases?

The Transdisciplinary Training Collaboratory: Building Common Ground is a project that brings together pioneering researchers and trainers from regional centers across the globe working within their regions to:

1) Synthesize existing knowledge on the key concepts, competencies, common language, and accepted phases of different types of transdisciplinary research; and

2) Create a TDR training design guide for trainers, accompanied by resources cataloged by the

framework developed from the synthesis work.

To complement this work, there is a need for a broad range of teaching cases to illustrate the process and concepts and to jointly or individually work on specific concepts and challenges.

There are currently only few cases available that describe how a transdisciplinary research (TDR) project works throughout the phases towards a specific overarching societal goal in a specific context. An example are the five cases in the TD MOOC ´Partnering for change – linking research to societal challenges´. However, to cover different contexts and topics, there are many more cases needed, as well as a general outline on how to produce teaching cases.

In this workshop, we aim to lay the ground to work on and test an outline to develop TDR teaching cases.

Workshop Design

Introduction and setting the ground:

Presentation of the Transdisciplinary Training Collaboratory and specifically the TDR training design guide with its sections on:

a) a checklist of questions that enable trainers to systematically think through how each training element supports a specific purpose, and audience;

b) the proficiencies at three levels: understanding, participating, and leading TDR

c) a summary of TD phases and tasks, key concepts, attributes of TD, and other essential content

Interactive Part 1:

We start with a draft outline of key questions to be answered/ addressed by TDR teaching cases. The draft outline is based on the phases and key tasks in the TDR training design guide and includes societal and scientific aims of the project, context conditions, team, partners and other important actors, and process milestones throughout the phases of a TDR project. The group works on improving specific aspects of the outline.

Interactive Part 2

In part 2 we apply the outline on 2-4 cases of Transdisciplinary Training Collaborative members and participants that will be selected before the workshop. According on the number of cases we work in 2-4 subgroups. Case providers are interviewed by the other group members using the key questions of the outline.

Interactive Part 3

In part 3 we jointly reflect on the outline in the light of how well it allowed to highlight key aspects of transdisciplinary research projects taking place in different contexts and addressing different societal challenges. A particular focus is on how the case narratives along the key questions can be used for training and teaching transdisciplinarity.

With the input of this workshop, the teaching case outline will be further developed and made available.

Transdisciplinary research can generate positive effects not only for society, but also added value for science by contributing to a better understanding of the scientific problem, improving the quality of scientific insight, and increasing the reflexivity of the researchers involved (Marg; Theiler 2023). Levering this potential, however, requires specific knowledge, skills, and not least mindsets. While a wide range of tools, methods, and other resources is already available for the design and implementation of inter- and transdisciplinary research processes (see e.g. ITD Toolkits Inventory by ITD Alliance or Open Online Course on Transdisciplinary Research by td-net | Network for Transdisciplinary Research), these resources yet have to reach the researchers and practitioners (to be) involved. Likewise, inter- and transdisciplinary mindsets, skills and attitudes do not arise on their own. Finally, there is great scope for shared learning from the practical experience of researchers and practitioners working in inter- and transdisciplinary settings, not least concerning the handling of challenges associated with the transdisciplinary research mode. In the course of the “InNoWest”-project, the authors of this abstract have taken on the task to tackle the above-named challenges.

“InNoWest – Just do it! Sustainable and Digital together in North-West Brandenburg” (2023 – 2027) is a German inter- and transdisciplinary joint project of Brandenburg University of Technology (THB), Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development (HNEE), and Potsdam University of Applied Sciences (FHP). Together with regional actors from politics, administration, municipalities, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and civil society, the network partners develop solutions for specific problems in the North-West Brandenburg region, Germany. The development and implementation of these projects is carried out by so-called innovation teams, which comprise scientists from different disciplines, levels of experience, and hierarchies. As part of the strategic-structural sub-project “Knowledge transfer for regional learning processes”, the authors provide the innovation teams and their practice partners with support for inter- and transdisciplinary competence development along all phases of transdisciplinary project work. To this end, the current repertoire comprises collegial advice and (external) coaching, the provision of spaces for resonance, reflection and the exchange of experiences, as well as formats such as “ttt – testing transdisciplinary tools”, where the innovation teams are invited to try out and discuss transdisciplinary tools for specific issues and project phases. The repertoire is continually developed, extended and adapted, depending on emerging or anticipated needs. In a second strand, the authors use the example of “InNoWest” to enrich the body of knowledge on success factors for transdisciplinary research projects. The findings made are then fed back into the joint project´s ongoing work in the sense of a continuous learning and improvement process. In the context of the activities described, the authors continuously develop further not only the expertise of their fellow researchers and practitioners, but also significantly broaden their own stock of knowledge and experiences. Thus, in this process, the authors consider themselves as coaches and learners at the same time. In the proposed workshop, we would like to share and discuss our experiences along these blurred lines between teaching and learning in capacity building in transdisciplinarity, and invite the participants to share their experiences and ideas on specific questions in this context.

The workshop is scheduled for 90 minutes and up to 18 participants, and designed as follows: The workshop starts with a 20 minutes report on our structural sub-project “Knowledge transfer for regional learning processes“, its role, objectives and so-far activities in the joint project “InNoWest“, as well as our findings, experiences made and lessons learned in the then nearly two-year project work. We would then invite the participants to an interactive part, which follows the logic of a World Café (Brown & Isaacs 2005).

• Explaining the procedure and its ettiquette (5 minutes)

• Three discussion rounds (total 50 minutes with 15 minutes for each round and buffer time to change the tables) with up to six persons per table. Each table will be moderated by one of the authors. Based on our so-far experiences in the course of the “InNoWest”-project, we suggest the follwing three topics. However, topics may still be subject to change according to the authors experiences in the following months as well as potential suggestions by the conference committee:

Table 1: Why? – How to create motivation for capacity building in transdisciplinarity? Capacity building requires the investment of time and other resources, and not least the openness towards learning processes and new approaches, even among experienced researchers and practitioners. As the authors´ so-far experience has shown, the readiness to engage in such learning processes may vary considerably. At this table, we will discuss the question of how motivation for capacity building and continuous learning in transdisciplinarity can be created.

Table 2: How? – What features should resources for transdisciplinary research comprise to make them easily applicable? Even though there are plenty of transdisciplinary tools and other resources available, the material is provided in different forms and formats. As the authors´ experiences have shown, details do matter in this context, and potential pitfalls only become apparent at second sight or in the actual application. At this table, we will discuss how resources on transdisciplinary research may be prepared and shared in such way, that they can smoothly be imparted or applied even by inexperienced users.

Table 3: Who? How to provide impetus for and guidance in capacity building in transdisciplinarity? As already written above: resources for inter- and transdisciplinary research do not automatically reach researchers and practitioners, nor do inter- and transdisciplinary mindsets, skills and attitudes arise on their own. As the authors´ experiences have shown, their offers and formats for capacity building and reflection are increasingly requested and appreciated, and indeed have triggered processes of learning and reflection, which otherwise would not have found their space in daily business. At this table, we will therefore discuss formats of by whom and how impetus for and guidance in capacity building in/reflection on transdisciplinary research may be provided.

• Summary of ideas and results from all three tables and discussion rounds (15 minutes), closure of the workshop. The workshop´s results (fotolog) may lateron be shared with the workshop´s participants.

Key Readings

Brown, J. and Isaacs. D. (2005). The World Café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Marg, O.; Theiler, L. (2023). Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity. In: Research Evaluation, 2023, 32, pp. 635-647

From Unspoken to Outspoken: Making voices heard and practicing justice in transdisciplinary and transformative research

Abstract

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) seeks to address pressing and complex sustainability challenges by bringing together academic and societal partners. These new forms of co-creation require a re-evaluation of principles of ethics in research. TDR might reproduce or create new social, economic, environmental and intersectional injustices if it lacks concepts, methods and ethical guidelines to reflect upon and address justice. If unattended, justice implications may run the risk of ultimately reproducing and exacerbating divides e.g. within or between species (non-/human), social groups (gender, class, ethnicity, religion, age, ability, etc.), urban and rural communities, or between the Global South and the Global North.

In the conceptual debate, different dimensions of justice are being explored such as distributive justice, procedural justice, recognition justice, retributive justice, reparative justice or epistemic justice or ecological justice (Newell et al. 2021; Williams and Steil 2023; Ohlsson and Przybylinski 2023). These dimensions seek to shed light on the distribution of costs and benefits across space and time and between different communities, procedures of participation and transparency, the recognition of histories, values, worldviews and culture, the historical and continuing extractive colonial violence, and unfairness in systems of knowledge production and the co-production of knowledge in contexts of unequal knowledge and power relations. In particular epistemic justices calls for decolonizing existing scholarship on justice and foregrounding research from different communities. There is a need to further debate the universalistic vs. vernacular understandings of justice (Newell et al. 2021). This also asks for acknowledging experiential and practical forms of knowing, which is to give back the power of interpretation to the local communities and storytellers. Despite the exploration of conceptions and dimensions of justice, we have to acknowledge that justice and sustainability are deeply socially embedded and contested concepts and cannot be defined in absolute terms (Ulrich 1994).

While the conceptual debate on justice abounds, there is still a gap in methods and experiences on how to do justice. Such challenges urge for reflexivity to engage with the concept of justice and its practice in and for TDR. The organisers and the invited speakers of this proposed dialogue session are a group of researchers working towards collaboratively creating a set of reflection criteria for practicing justice in transdisciplinary research.

The participants will be invited to join the Doing Justice Collective in their conversation on a set of action-reflection criteria for practicing justice in TDR. This timely session is highly relevant for the community of the ITD Alliance that is increasingly engaging with TDR and justice. The session is designed as a reflexive intervention to move from the theories of justice to the active practice of justice in academia.

Additionally, for sessions, workshops and trainings: description of the session/workshop design

Objectives of the workshop:

• To enhance reflexivity in transdisciplinary research practice

• To deepen understanding of conceptions of (in)justice

• To develop and share reflection criteria and guiding questions on (in)justice in TDR

• To encourage a conversation on a co-created document to support knowledge transfer on reflecting on and incorporating justice in TDR

The session will be divided into three parts:

a) Understanding and practicing justice in TDR: The three invited speakers will provide short impulses on:

• How to define justice? Concepts and dimensions of justice in TDR

• How to apply justice in TDR? Methods on how to do justice and undo injustices in TDR

• How to reflect on justice in TDR? Guiding questions and criteria for reflecting on practising justice in TDR

b) Intervention (peer consulting): We will present three cases highlighting injustices in transdisciplinary research designs. Participants will be invited to explore different dimensions of (in)justices in the particular case and collectively propose methods and well as compile reflection criteria for TDR. The participants will form break-out groups, which will be facilitated by the workshop conveners, to investigate a particular case.

c) Weaving: The three groups will share their findings. These will be synthesized into overarching principles of justice in TDR, guiding questions for reflection and methods to practice justice in TDR.

Indicative schedule:

• Introduction (0:00 – 0:05)

• Presentation of conceptions of (in)justice, facilitation methods and reflection criteria (informed by the co-created document) (0:05 – 0:30)

• Explanation of the tasks for the break-out groups (0:30 – 0:35)

• Break-out groups: peer consulting on case examples highlighting injustices in transdisciplinary research designs (0:35 – 1:10)

• Synthesis (1:10 – 1:30)

1–3 key readings (optional)

Caniglia, G., Freeth, R., Luederitz, C., Leventon, J., West, S.P., John, B., Peukert, D., Lang, D.J., von Wehrden, H., Martín-López, B., Fazey, I., Russo, F., von Wirth, T., Schlüter, M., Vogel, C., 2023. Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science. Nat Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

Gaard, G., 2022. Queering Environmental Justice Through an Intersectional Lens. Am J Public Health 112, 57–58. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306489

Yaka, Ö., 2019. Rethinking Justice: Struggles For Environmental Commons and the Notion of Socio-Ecological Justice. Antipode 51, 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12422

References

Newell, P., Srivastava, S., Naess, L. O., Torres Contreras, G. A., & Price, R. (2021). Toward transformative climate justice: An emerging research agenda. WIREs Climate Change, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.733

Ohlsson, J. and Przybylinski, S. Theorising Justice: A Primer for Social Scientists, Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.56687/9781529232233Ulrich, W. (1994). Can We Secure Future-Responsive Management Through Systems Thinking and Design? Interfaces, 24(4), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.24.4.26

Williams, R., Steil, J., 2023. “The Past We Step Into and How We Repair It”: A Normative Framework for Reparative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2022.2154247

Transformative, transdisciplinary research aims to integrate scientific inquiry and societal impact by working across disciplines and with non-academic partners. The transdisciplinary research (TDR) process is often divided into three phases: a) problem identification and framing; b) co-creation of (solution-oriented and transferable) knowledge; and c) implementation and integration (Lang et al. 2012; Lawrence et al. 2022). Horcea-Milcu, Leventon and Lang (2022) add an additional phase, phase 0, at the beginning of the project, focused on building collaboration and understanding the (case study) context.

Phase 0 can be seen as building the preconditions to start a TDR project, for which the framework developed three principles: 1) selecting the case study based on content and process criteria; 2) understanding the case study context from a TDR perspective, including reflective discussions to understand the perceptions, expectations and priorities of partners; and 2) fostering premises for coming together by managing expectations, breaking boundaries and negotiating goals (Horcea-Milcu, Leventon, and Lang 2022). In practice however, transdisciplinary projects are often messy and non-linear, making designing and implementing this first stage of the process challenging.

In this workshop we will explore this first phase of the TDR process. We will start the workshop with an introduction to the guiding principles for phase 0 of TDR enriched with some examples from practice from two TDR projects from different national contexts. This will be followed by an interactive timeline activity based on a workshop that we conducted in the WildlifeNL project to better understand the choices that were made in the early stages and how those shaped the implementation and collaboration later in the project. In line with the joint effort of undertaking TDR, we will aim to include one of the non-academic partners in the WildlifeNL consortium to join the session to share experiences from their perspective.

The goals of the workshop are:

- Exchange experiences and learn from each other; inspire participants to devote attention to phase 0 and provide handles on how this can be done in running and how it can be included in design of future projects.

- Jointly reflect on experiences – challenges and strategies - with phase 0 to identify recurring patterns that help us distill generalizable lessons for the design and implementation of early stages of TDR.

- Explore possibilities to collaborate as organizers and participants in reporting those lessons, for example in a joint publication or special issue.

The workshop will be structured in three parts:

1. Introduction to Phase 0 and two examples of TDR projects, WildlifeNL & The Leverage Point project (20 min).

WildlifeNL is a TDR project that is dedicated to transitioning to a wildlife management system that enables low-conflict coexistence between humans and large mammals in the Netherlands. It brings together eighteen partners, including researchers from different disciplines and institutions and societal parties, such as nature conservation organizations, hunting association and farmers organization. WildlifeNL was deliberately designed with extensive time and resources allocated to phase 0 to deal with the anticipated diversity of knowledge and views represented in the consortium.

The Leverage Points project had a transdisciplinary case study dedicated to supporting and enabling sustainability-transformation processes in Southern Transylvania by identifying leverage points and amplifying beyond the local scale. A group of 15 researchers from Leuphana University Lueneburg sought to increase the impact of sustainability initiatives led by 32 local non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Phase 0 lasted for ten months and helped to transition from a mere proposal that aimed at transdisciplinarity to a set-up ready for transdisciplinary collaboration.

2. Interactive timeline visualization (50 min)

In groups, participants will visualize a timeline of a TDR process based on their experiences from running projects, past projects, or projects that they are currently developing. We will focus on design choices in the early phases of the projects, considering the process from project idea to kick-off. In particular, we will provide guiding questions to discuss (1) project goal setting; (2) case selection; (3) consortium composition; and (4) project governance in the design and early implementation stages. In doing so, we aim to identify both challenges and strategies that participants deployed to overcome them.

The workshop will center around a physical timeline in the form of a string that we will span across the room. Participants will first collect, exchange and formulate their experiences in small groups, writing down challenges and strategies relating to the four themes mentioned above on four different colours paper. As a next step, the participants will hang their insights on the timeline to arrange them from project idea to kick-off.

3. Joint wrap-up and reflection (20 min)

At the end of the session, we will engage in a plenary discussion and wrap-up with all participants by looking at and walking along the timeline. The aim is to explore whether we can distill general patterns of repeatedly recurring challenges and approaches to deal with those challenges in the early stages of TDR. We will discuss whether some or all participants are interested in jointly reporting our experiences with early stages of TDR, for instance in a joint publication or special issue.

References

Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana, Julia Leventon, and Daniel J. Lang. 2022. ‘Making Transdisciplinarity Happen: Phase 0, or before the Beginning’. Environmental Science & Policy 136 (October): 187–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.019.

Lang, Daniel J., Arnim Wiek, Matthias Bergmann, Michael Stauffacher, Pim Martens, Peter Moll, Mark Swilling, and Christopher J. Thomas. 2012. ‘Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainability Science: Practice, Principles, and Challenges’. Sustainability Science 7 (1): 25–43.

Lawrence, Mark G., Stephen Williams, Patrizia Nanz, and Ortwin Renn. 2022. ‘Characteristics, Potentials, and Challenges of Transdisciplinary Research’. One Earth 5 (1): 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.010

This networking session aims to bring together academics and practitioners who are undertaking or have interest in transdisciplinary research in Asia. We want to stimulate discussion on the various modalities of transdisciplinarity and other similar collaborative forms of research and education in the region through information exchange and sharing from participants about their experiences. We aim to build an understanding of the differences and variations of TD with regard to design, conceptualization and implementation as well as looking at challenges due to specificities of the local context. Participants can also discuss trends of the adoption of inter- and transdisciplinaty in universities and higher education systems in the region.

The session will be flexibly organized, but will mainly be an interactive space, inviting free-flowing dialogues. It can be lightly structured if needed, with some discussion points outlined in advance.

This activity will be connected to the ITD Alliance as it aspires to develop regional nodes. Participants who are interested to be part of a community of practice in Asia can connect and join the network.

“Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally relevant” is a workshop format of TdLab which we use in teaching and research (Pohl et al., 2017). Students or researchers bring their project to the workshop and reflect and discuss, for instance, (a) whether the knowledge they provide matches the current societal knowledge need; (b) for what reason (e.g. power, interest, expertise) they want to collaborate with specific disciplines and actors of civil society, the public or the private sector; or (c) when in the research process they should involve which disciplines or further societal actors in what form and intensity.

The ten steps workshop usually takes 4-8 hours. Steps 1-4 focus on the knowledge produced, steps 5-9 on disciplines and further societal actors to be involved. Individual thinking alternates with pairwise and plenary discussions as well as theoretical inputs. For the training we will run through all steps in 90 minutes. To manage, we will ask participants to prepare steps 1-2 in advance and skip the theoretical input. The training schedule is as follows (‘ means Minutes):

Welcome and introduction (Moderator, 3’)

Which knowledge to produce

Step 1: Formulate your research question(s) (Prepared individual work, 5’)

Step 2: Formulate the societal problem you want to help solve (Prepared individual work, 5’)

Step 3: Specify the stage of the policy cycle (Individual work, 10’)

Step 4: Clarify the form of knowledge required (short explanation by Moderator, step is left out, 5’)

Discussion (in groups of 2-3, 10’)

Who to involve, why and how

Step 5: Identify relevant disciplines and societal actors (Individual work, 5’)

Step 6: Position disciplines and societal actors in relation to the research question (Individual work, 10’)

Step 7: Carry out an actor constellation (short explanation by Moderator, step is left out, 5’)

Step 8: Clarify disciplines’ and societal actors’ expected contributions (Individual work, 5’)

Step 9: Plan a functional-dynamic interaction (Individual work, 10’)

Reflecting the use of the 10 steps

Step 10: Think about main lessons learned (collecting most important insights, 15’)

Closure and thank (Moderator, 2’)

Learning goal(s): Participants are able

• to decide whether the 10 steps are relevant for their work.

• to use individual steps or all 10 steps to better embed their projects in the broader societal context and to improve the project’s science-practice interfaces.

• (if they are experienced in moderating) to adapt the 10 steps to their own needs and/or to moderate a 10 steps workshop.

Pohl, C., Krütli, P., & Stauffacher, M. (2017). Ten reflective steps for rendering research societally

Inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) research and education are often seen as a way to respond to major global challenges (e.g. European University Association, EUA, A Green Deal Roadmap for the Universities, 2023). The current polycrises demand universities and research institutes to transform and renew themselves in order to have societal impact for research and to obtain adequate skills for future specialists (OECD, 2016; EUA Green Deal Roadmap for the Universities, 2023). Transforming universities and research institutes requires also attitude changes from researchers, universities, and funders, as well as efforts for creating a shared language, recognizing individual researchers' contributions, and reforming recruitment and evaluation practices (see e.g. Guimarães et al. 2019; Loorbach and Wittmayer, 2023; Hall et al. 2019).

Interdisciplinary work between specialists requires generalists with broad historical knowledge to define a common vision and then identify a research problem that cannot be solved within a single discipline (Repko and Szostak, 2020). The specialists solve the problem interactively, but for efficient work, they must have a common vocabulary and a shared understanding of the vision. It is known that similar concepts have been independently defined in different disciplines, but the terminology may vary. Among other requirements, higher education organizations and research institutes need vocabularies that establish links between the terms and concepts. Systems thinking may be one of the useful concepts required (Checkland, 1999). The need for the system and feedback concepts in social sciences has also been discussed early (Richardson, 1991).

Despite the recognized potential of and requirements for ITD, universities and research institutes still change slowly to the demand of more collaborative research and teaching. The new Times Higher Education (THE) initiative for a specific Interdisciplinary Science Ranking (ISR) category may push the development if enough universities participate in the new category (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/content/interdisciplinary-science-rankings-participation?cmp=1). Researchers Christopher Daley and Linda Hantrais, however, argue in a recent blog post that interdisciplinarity “should not be used as a measure of the quality of research and teaching in global university rankings” (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/01/17/a-ranking-for-interdisciplinarity-is-a-poor-measure-for-the-quality-of-research-and-teaching-in-universities/). Strategy-level changes, common vocabulary and adequate funding models for ITD might hasten the transformation in a more sustainable manner.

Many universities have developed and are testing different models for promoting and governing inter- and transdisciplinarity. Organizing events, master’s and PhD courses and different trainings and even establishing particular institutes to enhance ITD knowhow have become at least somewhat common (LERU position paper, 2023). Examples of these institutions have been discussed in previous editions of this conference (Vienni-Baptista and Klein, 2022). Out of a comparative study of seventeen cases, a heuristic framework has been elaborated to promote and assess inter- and transdisciplinary research and teaching in higher education (Vienni-Baptista and Klein, 2022). The Global ITD Alliance has also e.g. called upon a need for a particular integration experts role in the academia (Hoffmann et al. 2022). The integration experts could act as bridge builders and knowledge-brokers in their roles. Using this expert role, however, awaits recognition and trial. Generally, “there is a lack of expertise in integrating ITD across universities” (Bammer et al. 2020 in LERU position paper, 2023).

In this workshop, we address the above-described transformation challenge of universities in a practice-oriented manner. The workshop’s aim is to give university administrators, practitioners, teachers, researchers, funders and developers insights into the different models of transforming universities. We will share university-level examples for ITD promotion and governance and best practices, as well as strategy-level transformation processes.

The workshop will consist of five minute presentations followed by small group discussions and joint thinking. We’ll present contributions from Finland, United States and Switzerland (ETH Zurich & Eawag). Practical examples that will be presented include e.g. an action guide targeted at directors of research organizations with 12 practical strategies to fully incorporate inter- and transdisciplinarity in research organizations based both on literature and empirical insights from leading ITD processes at Eawag (Switzerland). For its part, a practical and heuristic framework for designing and assessing institutionalizing processes offers pathways to best practices in research and teaching. Additionally, heuristics derived from developing interdisciplinary systems thinking training for doctoral researchers will be shared. The University of Oulu's training program aims to provide a coherent understanding of science and to motivate participants to extend this coherence across all disciplines. Another pragmatic example included in this session is a suite of approaches to support transdisciplinary and convergent collaborative research being introduced at Appalachian State University. A combination of institutionally supported roles dedicated to integration, experimental course-based research experiences, and an intentional investment on shared research infrastructures that can serve as boundary objects for growing transdisciplinary research in areas of excellence will be presented.

The facilitated exchange in small groups aims to discuss the four inputs and respective guides, tools and heuristics. Each group will reflect on one “appetizer” input by focusing on four aspects: 1) relevancy: To what extent are the presented guides, tools and heuristics relevant for transforming universities?, 2) usefulness: To what extent are the guides, tools and heuristics useful for participants’ contexts and informing their actions?, 3) expected consequences: What are the intended and unintended consequences of suggested actions?, and 4) next steps: What is the one “low-hanging fruit” action and one “high-hanging fruit” action the participants can take to jump-start or support transforming universities in their own contexts.

We are part of the Working Group “Integration Experts and Expertise” of the Global ITD Alliance, gathered on the topic of integrative teaching and learning in ITD higher education. The workshop has been discussed and prepared in collaboration with the working group.

Description of the workshop design:

Length: 90 minutes

Workshop design:

1. Menu: Opening the workshop and guidance, 5 min

• Salmi, Jutila, Heinonen, Hendren, Vienni Baptista, Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.

2. Appetizer 1: Enhancing inter- and transdisciplinarity oriented culture – heuristics from developing interdisciplinary systems thinking training for doctoral researchers, 5 min

• Presenters: Salmi, Jutila, and Heinonen.

3. Appetizer 2: A practical framework for transforming academia through inter- and transdisciplinarity, 5 min

• Presenters: Vienni Baptista.

4. Appetizer 3: Building shared research infrastructures to scaffold transdisciplinary scholarship: Dedicated integrator roles, seed funding, and managed boundary objects, 5 min

• Presenters: Hendren.

5. Appetizer 4: Action Guide: Strategies to establish inter- and transdisciplinarity in your organization, 5 min

• Presenters: Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.

6. Main course: Investigating the common ground – an interactive workshop. A facilitated discussion in small groups with guiding questions, 45 min

• Facilitators: Salmi, Jutila, Heinonen, Hendren, Vienni Baptista, Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.

• Contributors: All workshop participants.

7. Dessert: The icing on the cake. Sharing the key discussion points and findings from all small groups, 20 min.

• Contributors: All workshop participants.

• Facilitators: Salmi, Jutila, Heinonen, Hendren, Vienni Baptista, Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.