Abstract
A transdisciplinary approach serves the dual aim of delivering new knowledge about a situation at hand, and actually interacting with and, hopefully, ameliorating that situation. This ‘action-orientation’ comes with many methodological and practical challenges as to the ‘how’ of transdisciplinary research, but also with a moral obligation to keenly look into the ‘who’-question: whose knowledge counts and comes to bear on dealing with a specific situation? As for those who are included, the question is how they can make their multiple identities come to bear on the issue at hand and how they can effectively use the room for maneuvering that their community of practice or epistemic culture allows them, in contributing to the (transient) transdisciplinary collective. This chapter sets the stage for a close scrutiny of challenges and opportunities in the light of openness and ‘closures’ of knowledge co-production that the chapters collected together in Part 2 of this book deal with, offering a selection of empirical studies that illuminate pertinent conceptual and practical ways forward to inclusive and diverse forms of transdisciplinarity in a variety of contexts. The chapter gives an overview of lessons from the literature on what including diverse groups of actors in transdisciplinary work entails in practice, contemplates the questions of whom to include, when, under what conditions, and to what end, and looks into some of the challenges implied in answering these. The chapter concludes with introducing the empirical chapters collected in this second Part of the book for practical illustrations of how such challenges can be dealt with in practice.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Probably the most dangerous thing about an academic education […] is that it enables my tendency to over-intellectualize stuff, to get lost in abstract argument inside my head, instead of simply paying attention to what is going on right in front of me, paying attention to what is going on inside me.
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.Footnote 1
In brief, the function of knowledge is to make one experience freely available to other experiences.
John Dewey.Footnote 2
1 Introduction
Transdisciplinary approaches serve the dual aim of delivering new knowledge about a situation at hand, and actually interacting with and, hopefully, ameliorating that situation. This ‘action-orientation’ comes with many methodological and practical challenges as to the ‘how’ of transdisciplinarity, but also with a moral obligation to keenly look into the ‘who’-question: whose knowledge counts and comes to bear on dealing with a specific situation? As for those who are included, the question is how they can make their multiple identities come to bear on the issue at hand and how they can effectively use the room for maneuvering that their community of practice or epistemic culture allows them, in contributing to the (transient) transdisciplinary collective. This chapter sets the stage for a close scrutiny of challenges and opportunities in the light of openness and ‘closures’ of knowledge co-production that the chapters collected together in Part 2 of this book deal with, offering a selection of empirical studies that illuminate pertinent conceptual and practical ways forward to inclusive and diverse forms of transdisciplinarity in a variety of contexts. A reason to do so is the conviction that the complex and persistent problems that are center stage in transdisciplinary work require the use of embodied, tacit and situated experiential knowledge of people’s life-world that Ngozi Adichie’s quote in the epigraph directs our attention to, which tends to be absent from most academic knowledge production in efforts at promoting societal transformation.
In this chapter we first give an overview of lessons from the literature on what including diverse groups of actors in transdisciplinary work entails in practice. Then we will contemplate the questions whom to include, when, under what conditions, and to what end, and look into some of the challenges implied in answering these. In conclusion, we briefly introduce the empirical chapters collected in this second Part of the book for practical illustrations of how such challenges can be dealt with in practice.
2 Dealing with Diversities
Various authors have elaborated the why-question posited above, amounting to four ‘canonical’ arguments for including wide varieties of actors in research and innovation (Schmidt, 2020). First, incorporating multiple perspectives in knowledge production on a problem at hand, it is often argued improves research quality (the substantive argument; Lang et al., 2012; Nowotny et al., 2003). Second, legitimacy of and trust in solutions of societal problems will increase, many authors assume, if multiple types of stakeholders contribute substantially to the knowledge that feeds into it (the instrumental argument; Owen et al., 2012; Stilgoe et al., 2013; Von Schomberg, 2013). Third, there is a normative argument stating that whoever will be affected by the outcomes of research or innovation practices deserves to have a say in these (alternatively dubbed, the democratic argument; Cash et al., 2003; Dryzek, 2002; Habermas, 1981; Jasanoff, 2003). Fourth, the inclusion of a wide variety of actors will result in social learning, enabling participants to come to a mutual understanding of diverse relevant values, problem understandings, interests and the like, which will enable them to act in congruence with one another to resolve a situation (the actionable knowledge argument; Hadorn et al., 2006; Innes & Booher, 2004; Klaassen et al., 2018; Loeber et al., 2007).
For these reasons, transdisciplinarity for transformation is about including a diversity of actors, integrating different bodies of knowledge and bringing a diversity of values and perspectives to bear on efforts at ameliorating a problem situation. Transdisciplinarity effectively informs practice because it ties together what Aristotle distinguishes as episteme, praxis and poiesis (Hadorn et al., 2008, p. 31), that is, science, life-world action and production, in a way that informs phronesis: the practical wisdom needed to decide on just and effective actions in the face of some complex, contextually defined issue. For that, such knowledge (‘wisdom’) must enable situated judgment in view of a concrete problem-solving action, and of the ethical choices involved, in a way that does justice simultaneously to the situation at hand and to a more generic understanding as to what is just or wise to do for the community and for humankind (Loeber &Vermeulen, 2007, 2016). While mono- and interdisciplinary work respects the boundaries between the spheres of experiential knowledge holders and practitioners on the one hand and academic experts on the other, transdisciplinary work deliberately transgresses such boundaries—in recognition of the moral and political character of scientific and life-world knowledge.
The development of transformation-oriented knowledge relevant to complex and persistent problems, including the question of how to apply that knowledge in a particular real-life context, often takes place among representatives of a variety of actor groups. In so doing, insights can be unlocked that are vital to finding or co-creating practicable changes for the better, while avoiding exclusion, a priori, of certain groups and the insights these bring to the table, that is, avoiding ‘epistemic injustice’, defined by Fricker (2007) as ‘harming others in their capacity as a knower’.
The recognition of a transdisciplinary approach’s distinctive value also means that more (young) researchers need to get acquainted with doing transdisciplinarity—something also elaborated in the third Part of this volume. The chapters in this second Part of the book are all concerned with a specific, particularly difficult, aspect to this, namely with how to appropriately deal with all sorts of diversities. This comes with challenges concerning the design of transdisciplinary projects and the process of inviting or selecting co-creators. Furthermore, there are challenges in putting transdisciplinarity into practice, enacting inclusivity by making space to genuinely listen to each other and by breaking free from the constraints of one’s epistemic culture, to accommodate information from one’s sparring partners and their needs and values and associate with these through one or more of one’s multiple identities that are less tied in with the dominant epistemic culture.
As for the diversities that deserve to be included, these are many. There is diversity in terms of knowledge and access thereto, diversity in terms of access to resources, distance to and relation with academia, practice, policy and power, diversity in terms of the degree to which one is conventionally allowed to articulate one’s needs, diversity in one’s capacity to articulate one’s needs, desires, problem framings or preferred solutions, diversity in terms of ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation—and so on. The various types of differences can exist both between and within actor groups or even individuals and call for a diverse set of approaches to organizing and practicing inclusion. Each of these comes with distinct challenges. The four chapters in Part 2 bring together all have something distinctive to say on the issue of inclusion, and all share a range of lessons for future ‘transdisciplinarians’ to build on. Moreover, since transdisciplinarity yields context-sensitive knowledge, it brings along additional challenges in regard to knowledge sharing. The question is how to communicate insights across contexts in a way that makes ‘experience become available to other experiences’, as John Dewey (1916) put it.
One might think that the type of challenge we are singling out here is not necessarily distinctive to transdisciplinarity. And indeed, as was also discussed in Chapter 1 we find that under various labels and in widely diverging contexts, over the past decades, a wide variety of researchers, practitioners and communities have engaged in building bridges between academic disciplines and practices that go beyond both. We come across terms like co-creation (Mauser et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2022), co-production (Simon et al., 2018; Turnhout et al., 2020), participatory action research (Díaz-Arévalo, 2022; Gorashi & Ponzoni, 2014; Masson et al., 2021), engaged scholarship (Franklin, 2022) and transdisciplinary research (Klein, 2014; Pohl & Hadorn, 2007)—all used to refer to knowledge production in which disciplinary and academic borders are transgressed. Whether such work is concerned with health system reform (Javadi et al., 2018; Schuitmaker et al., 2021) or nature conservation (Torkar & McGregor, 2012), with the energy transition (Heaslip & Fahy, 2018) or with gender-based violence (Adelman et al., 2012), such efforts tend to be guided by comparable sensitivities and seek to encompass similar values and goals: contributing to positive societal change, in ways that are just and that take into account the needs of those who and that which are most vulnerable and most conventionally ignored—from marginalized groups to threatened wild-life habitats. Of course, this generic characterization leaves plenty of room for variations in all sorts of practical and philosophical details. There are several historical overviews and attempts at analytical description of transdisciplinary research (Balsiger, 2015; Max-Neef, 2005; Popa et al., 2015), so we will not rehearse these here. Rather, we will underscore a small number of observations and lessons to be drawn from past work on transdisciplinary research that we think are relevant for understanding what it means to deal with different actor groups in such work. This includes considering the implications of the fact that all of us are simultaneously member of different professional, personal, cultural or academic communities, and that transdisciplinarity is simultaneously complicated and enriched when it is acknowledged that and how our intersectional positionalities bear on our transdisciplinary practices (Kim, 2023).
We therefore focus on the question on the ‘how’ of inclusive transdisciplinary practices, and on how to do so appropriately. Assessing the level of ‘appropriateness’ of inclusion can be determined on the basis of three themes: (i) the level of integration of different knowledges (Godemann, 2008), (ii) the efficacy or promise of proposed knowledge and solutions to complex persistent problems (Fritz et al., 2019; Lux et al., 2019) and (iii) the contribution to (epistemic) justice as shown by its success in bringing solutions into the world that go beyond the reproduction of existing systems and (power) structures (Loorbach, 2007; Turnhout et al., 2020).
Building on the analysis presented by Vermeulen and Witjes (2020), we can see that these themes correspond with the three strands of scholarly work, promoting the different ‘flavours’ or ‘modes’ of or approaches to transdisciplinarity (see also Regeer et al., 2024). Each flavor is dedicated to the inclusion of different sets of actors and promotes engaging them differently and at different phases of the process of transdisciplinary research.
First, several scholars associate the ‘how’ of transdisciplinary research with the complexity of the problems to be addressed (e.g., Max-Neef, 2005; Nicolescu, 2014). These scholars consider inclusion and diversity issues in seeking to combine a broad range of disciplinary knowledges of academic experts, as a basis for formulating scenarios and policy options. Initial analytic steps, such as problem analysis, problem-definition and preliminary research need to be completed before bringing in actors from practice, and then these actors may well be industry representatives, policymakers and, possibly, civil society organizations (CSOs). The knowledge that citizens might have to offer does not warrant inviting them (Kua, 2016; Rotmans, 1998; Salem et al., 2018). If research is to lead to real-life solutions, however, some degree of integration of different forms of knowledge appears necessary—at least in order to understand the problem being addressed. Despite this, doing transdisciplinary research in this way, even if it is only modestly inclusive and hardly meets the approach to transdisciplinarity that is central to this book, is already quite hard.
A second group of scholars working on sustainability issues in the domain of transition studies (e.g., Geels, 2012; Smith et al., 2005) stress problem solving and ‘implementation support, closely linked to local, regional, national and sometimes even supranational policy making’ (Vermeulen & Witjes, 2020, p. 16). The relative emphasis these scholars place on the efficacy of transdisciplinarity-based solutions to urgent, complex and persistent problems goes alongside more extensive engagement policies. In other words, although it involves very much the same type of actors who are engaged as in the previously discussed ‘flavour’ of transdisciplinary research, which largely excludes for instance citizens, in this type of work these actors take part in more of the transdisciplinary process, and hence, often help co-produce the delineation and definition of the problem.
Third, some scholars have the explicit goal of contributing to increasing (epistemic) justice in doing transdisciplinary work aimed at transforming existing unfair or unsustainable practices (Rodriguez, 2022; Temper & Del Bene, 2016). Empowering vulnerable, marginalized, or other poorly represented and/or heard groups is part and parcel of transdisciplinary work, and itself an aspect of the transformation(s) to work toward. Engaging citizens or bottom-up networks is a much more conventional part of this type of transdisciplinary research than it is of the other two types and in that sense builds on better-known approaches like Participatory Action Research (see Chapter 1).
This volume presents a range of approaches to and practices of transdisciplinary research. Most of the chapters fall squarely within this third type of scholarly work, and those included in Part 2 address the question of how to deal with differences in the distance to or in the boundedness by science, policy, practice and politics that characterize different groups and individuals, and with the associated differences in the language used to articulate needs, values, insights and knowledges. There is no reason to think that there is only one answer to such how-questions. However, the literature draws attention to sensitivities and sensibilities that can help transdisciplinarians think through what does or does not work, what is appropriate and how one might successfully deal with challenges associated with transgressing disciplinary and academic boundaries justly and effectively. The next section briefly discusses some of these challenges.
3 Challenges, Proposed Solutions and This Volume’s Contributions
Arguably, the focus on ‘how’ in discussing the three ‘flavours’ or approaches in transdisciplinarity should also contend with the questions of whom to include, when, under what conditions, to what end—questions that all ‘transdisciplinarians’ will confront at some point. And, of course, also the question how anyone engaged in transdisciplinarity can deal with the different ways in which they are differently bound by different aspects of their positionality, including their ethnic or gender identity, the epistemic culture they were raised in, the community of practice they are member of, and so on, belongs in this list. Answering such questions is deeply political, as any answer will imply including some and excluding other voices (whether they are your own or others’), and relegating different types or degrees of agency and responsibility to groups of differentially interested, affected, distanced, or knowledgeable parties (Chilvers & Kearnes, 2020; Kok, 2021; Soneryd, 2016). We focus on particular challenges that arise and present proposals for dealing with these from each of the different approaches to transdisciplinarity.
3.1 Integrating Knowledges in Efforts to Define the Problem
The main challenge in integrating different forms of knowledge concerns how a problem is framed, finding a common currency in delineating a problem, reaching agreement on what values are (most) relevant and the methods that might be appropriate for developing the necessary knowledge and including the languages each actor uses to realize a shared understanding that many would consider meaningful (Schön & Rein, 1994). All transdisciplinary constellations must contend with these issues. For those focusing on the complexity of the problems (the first ‘flavour’ in transdisciplinary work), this presents the biggest concern. Power differentials among the diverse actors complicate matters considerably. One solution is to set strict ‘rules for closure’, restricting the problem-definition phase to those who have been involved from the outset, and relegating further engagement to ‘end-of-pipe’—arguably at the cost of both the efficacy of proposed solutions and of (epistemic) justice of the research processes and outcomes.
Further complicating issues in integrating knowledge have to do with the composition of the group: how diverse is a transdisciplinary research consortium in terms of disciplinary backgrounds, practical expertise and other forms of knowledge (tacit, experiential, indigenous, et cetera)? Communication skills may also differ, as well as reflexive capacities to support collaboration in inter- and transdisciplinary groups. The emerging group dynamics also matters—especially as often groups are unstable and compositions change over time, and group dynamics tends to be influenced by the degree of the of the group’s heterogeneity in terms of, e.g., (social, epistemic) status and power (Thomas-Hunt et al., 2003).
Given its grounding in distinct real-world problems and its aim to offer practicable solutions to those, groups conducting transdisciplinary projects almost by definition have to develop not just a shared and common knowledge base, but also one that is uniquely geared to the specific situation. Crucially, exchanges within transdisciplinary collectives should not be seen as forms of knowledge transfer, but rather as activities contributing to the expansion of each participant’s perspective and perception of problems and solutions (Godemann, 2008; Regeer & Bunders, 2003). Reflexivity, open-mindedness and responsiveness to other perspectives are necessary but not sufficient conditions for successful knowledge integration (Klaassen et al., 2018).
Difficult and demanding as this might seem, of course the different forms of disciplinary and practical knowledge that various contributors bring is first and foremost a resource. Yet, clearly, different forms of knowledge are structured differently, and communication and cooperation across sub-groups with different knowledges, backgrounds, values and needs complicate knowledge integration (Godemann, 2008). The contribution by Brouwers, Egberts and de Hoop (2024, this volume) illustrates how what they dub a walkshop (Wickson et al., 2015) offers a particular research method that can help bring to life a shared reality in order to support the construction of a common object and research aim. Similarly, in their chapter on the Frame Reflection Lab, Horn and van der Meij outline a hands-on approach to nurturing reflexivity and transdisciplinary collaboration, and to ways to strengthen relevant communication skills.
3.2 Effective Solutions
Issues that result from power differentials among knowledge holders are difficult to brush aside. ‘Transdisciplinarians’ aiming to create a better understanding of real-world and complex problems, as well as at contributing to instigating transformative dynamics, face the challenge of finding ‘ways of working with and around the power relations, which shape and are being shaped by the emerging community’ of the transdisciplinary collective’ (Van Breda & Swilling, 2019, pp. 834–5). The intricacies vary and arguably become notably complex and sensitive if transdisciplinary research also aims to contribute to (epistemic) justice (as is the case in the third ‘flavour’ of transdisciplinarity). Even if we leave aside justice-related issues out of the equation for now, there is a risk that powerful and vested-interest actors use transdisciplinary settings to reproduce the status quo and/or wittingly or unwittingly promote their own self-interest.
This critical risk (see also Stirling, 2008) has been discussed, for instance in relation to participatory experiments in the governance of nuclear waste. Chilvers (2008, p. 1881) discussed the issue, stating that ‘[u]nless [the] often tacit power relations are acknowledged, accounted for, and exposed by all involved, but especially vested interests, [transdisciplinary] analytic-deliberative institutions may well undermine public trust, credibility, and legitimacy rather than promote these democratic virtues as is widely claimed’. As a remedy, there is a need for reflexive and responsive research, as well as governance cultures that authentically support the emancipatory aspirations of transdisciplinarity.
This draws attention to necessary institutional conditions that are, however, seldomly in place. The question is how transdisciplinary research practice can contribute to the normalization of reflexivity and responsiveness in a way that these serve to counter vested interests that reproduce undesirable structures (see also Bourdieu, 1977). The chapter by Ramaswami, Seshadri and Bunders (this volume) shows that phasing transdisciplinary work offers a way forward in this respect, as it enables different actor groups to contribute separately. This makes it possible to make explicit choices about whom to engage at which phase of a project, for what purpose, and together with or apart from which other actors (Lynch et al., 2017; Verwoerd et al., 2023). Thus, separating groups of actors who have more or less power or higher or lower status has proven effective in dealing with this issue (Regeer et al., 2011).
Discussions on power in transdisciplinary processes are inevitably entangled with the debate on how to ensure, without being paternalistic, that vulnerable and marginalized groups are properly engaged. Even if such groups do not pro-actively demand a seat at the table and do not have the same authority or status as other participants—such as corporate representatives, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), policymakers or academic researchers—how can one ensure they fully reap the benefits of transdisciplinary projects? Let us turn to that theme now.
3.3 Epistemically Just Research in Transformation Practices
Among the main challenges in transdisciplinary research is to ensure that it is not only its outcomes that serve those who are less likely to articulate their needs, values and perspectives, but also the research process itself. Co-creation by actors among whom there are obvious power imbalances challenges researchers’ ability to see the less-privileged groups’ knowledges and viewpoints represented in knowledge- and decision-making, without alienating influential stakeholders. As Turnhout and colleagues (2020, p. 16) succinctly put it:
Literature on participation has demonstrated that elite actors, for example from government, large NGOs, or scientists, have more time and resources available, often initiate these processes, define the scope for participation, have more knowledge and skills, and are, for all these reasons that resonate with social-cultural biases, better able to articulate a contribution that is considered relevant and important. Consequently, elite actors are able to shape these processes to serve their interests. In a co-production context, these power inequalities are further compounded by the strong authority that is attributed to scientific expertise vis-a-vis other knowledge systems.
Ignoring power differentials is not an option, as this risks simply reproducing inequities rather than contributing to transforming the status quo (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). And although, fortunately, there are strategies to circumvent this risk, the difficulty of applying these should not be underestimated. Capacity-building initiatives might be useful to ensure equitable access to resources and information, thus empowering groups, but this can only make a substantial difference when also other proactive measures are taken, including learning how to listen well to people whom one does not easily identify with, creating safe spaces for marginalized groups, fostering partnerships or hybrid forums that enable actors to on-line contribute meaningfully to deliberations (Bruhn et al., 2024; Canel et al., 2022; Fritz & Binder, 2020; Mascarenhas et al., 2021; Stark, 2024, this volume). However, another complicating factor is that not everyone whose knowledge, values and perspectives would be pertinent to resolving a given issue is able and willing to participate in a transdisciplinary project. Some people distrust science, or the public authorities that share responsibility for funding or implementing transdisciplinary research and hence might not wish to participate. The chapters by Holle, Ponzoni and Ghorashi and De Weger, Fraaije, Harambam and Willems (this volume) address these issues. These authors show that fostering a culture of mutual respect, and acknowledging the privileges or disadvantages that characterize certain actors is a starting point for dealing with such challenges, although it does not in itself resolve them.
Power is clearly the central theme in all these challenges (and in the chapters addressing them), namely the intricacies in dealing with power differentials. The different ‘flavours’ of doing transdisciplinarity show that dealing with power differentials is a complex process in such research, but is essential to achieve equitable outcomes and engage in equitable practices. As these chapters illustrate, there may be many reasons to navigate power differentials in different ways, depending on the circumstances.
4 Outlook: Signposting Challenges
The challenges discussed above cannot be resolved but must nevertheless be addressed in practice. ‘Transdisciplinarians’ who are dedicated to including diverse actors and factors in their work to help ensure it plays a transformative and emancipatory role have to articulate their own response to such challenges, tailored to the particular circumstances in which their project unfolds. There is not and cannot be one single, universally applicable answer to the question what it entails to include all relevant voices when co-creating practicable knowledge for transformation, just like, as Regeer et al. (2024) discussed, more generally there are no one-size-fits-all guidelines to transdisciplinarity.
As we have already seen, there are many reasons for this. First, diversity in what are regarded complex and persistent problems is too large—just think of the commonalities and differences between institutional racism, biodiversity loss, faltering healthcare systems, climate change, child abuse, food insecurity societal polarization and so on. Second, we must consider the possibility that problems are structured differently, calling for the input of different knowledges, different relevant (epistemic) communities, in which there will be different values at play and so on, and so the goals with which various actor groups engage in transdisciplinary co-creation will also differ. Therefore, ways of making knowledge collaboratively, finding meanings and developing solutions will be different from one context to the next. Third, the institutional, epistemic or governance culture one finds oneself in when engaging in transdisciplinary research can vary significantly, being less or more appropriate for the type of reflexivity and responsiveness required to successfully pool knowledge integration and solution formulation and implementation in just and inclusive ways.
This does not mean, though, that we are forever lost in the dark. On the contrary, we hope that structuring some of the challenges as we have outlined here can be of help to everyone who travels the interesting, complex and (hopefully) ultimately rewarding road of transdisciplinarity.
Much as the analysis we have set out in this introductory chapter acts as signpost to challenges that merit close attention, each of the four chapters in Part 2 present some pointers to what including the right voices at the right time, and using the right engagement practices could mean—or: could for instance mean. None of the authors makes any claim to be comprehensive, or to give recipes for doing things right in terms of inclusion and diversities—to once again touch upon the theme of Chapter 3 of this book. But these chapters do aim to inspire a wide range of readers, practitioners of transdisciplinary work or budding transdisciplinarians.
In their chapter ‘Taking the landscape into conversations’, Brouwers, Egberts and de Hoop show how their development and execution of a walkshop led to more inclusive conversations on preventing wildfires in the Netherlands. The added value of doing inclusivity becomes clear in the way their walkshop promotes engaging with different knowledges and values, while also allowing for the appropriate recognition of the embodied, situated knowledge that emerges in landscape-human interactions, which more conventional and often sterile formats like round-table discussions or one’s everyday post-it session.
The chapter by Ramaswamy, Seshadri and Bunders discusses how transdisciplinarity has enabled systemic transformation in child and youth issues in India, specifically in the area of children’s interface with the criminal justice system, in relation to sexual abuse—in particular the substantial power differences in that system and the conventional disregard for children’s testimonies. Despite these complexities, the chapter celebrates the transformative potential of transdisciplinary work, which becomes clearly visible in the capacity building it supports and in the policy changes it helped advance.
Similarly focusing on a stigmatized, silenced and marginalized community, the chapter by Holle et al. presents three conditions for co-creative research with refugees in the Netherlands. These are creativity, ‘holding space’ for change and transformation and the fluid combination of ‘decentering and recentering’. Using creative workshops to share stories and content through art practices, the researchers aimed at decentering their own perspectives and alleged leading role to allow the group’s desires, knowledges and practices to remain central, recentering when needed—for instance when too much openness risks flowing over into chaos and lack of direction—and incorporating academic insights throughout the process. The chapter illustrates how in transdisciplinary research collectives one can develop ways of working on conducive conditions for fertile co-creation, even when such conditions are not in place.
The final chapter by de Weger, Fraaije, Harambam and Willems presents three different cases, all with different stakeholder groups holding different positions in relation to the interface between science, innovation, policy and practice. The authors focus on the question how to meaningfully engage citizens who experience a distance from, and distrust of, science and government, and who for that reason tend to be excluded in, or choose not to engage in, participatory projects. They discuss pitfalls and (possible) remedies, and once again the authors underscore that ‘transdisciplinarians’ reflexivity is key, as there are no fail-safe solutions.
Notes
- 1.
TED talk: The danger of a single story. Accessible through https://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_ngozi_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story. Last accessed 13/12/2023.
- 2.
Dewey J. (1916). Democracy and Education. Project Gutenberg.
Literature
Adelman, M., Haldane, H., & Wies, J. R. (2012). Mobilizing culture as an asset: A transdisciplinary effort to rethink gender violence. Violence against Women, 18(6), 691–700. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212454121
Balsiger, J. (2015). Transdisciplinarity in the class room? Simulating the co-production of sustainability knowledge. Futures, 65, 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.005
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
Bruhn. (2024). Safe Spaces in Unsafe Environments—Experiences from COP26 About Hosting Inclusive Spaces for Deep Encounters and Reflection. In Transdisciplinarity for Transformation. Palgrave Macmillan. (Ahead of Print).
Canel, M. J., Barandiarán, X., & Murphy, A. (2022). What does learning by listening bring to citizen engagement? Lessons from a government program. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102132
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., et al. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(14), 8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100
Chilvers, J. (2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 155–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907307594
Chilvers, J., & Kearnes, M. (2020). Remaking participation in science and democracy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 45(3), 347–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919850885
Ciesielski, T. H., Aldrich, M. C., Marsit, C. J., Hiatt, R. A., & Williams, S. M. (2017). Transdisciplinary approaches enhance the production of translational knowledge. Translational Research, 182, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trsl.2016.11.002
Code, L. (2006). Ecological thinking: The politics of epistemic location. Oxford University Press.
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny?. Zed books.
Dewey J. (1916). Democracy and dducation. Project Gutenberg.
Díaz-Arévalo, J. M. (2022). In search of the ontology of participation in participatory action research: Orlando Fals-Borda’s participatory turn, 1977–1980. Action Research, 20(4), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503221103571
Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press.
Fam, D., Palmer, J., Riedy, C., & Mitchell, C. (Eds.). (2016). Transdisciplinary research and practice for sustainability outcomes. Taylor & Francis.
Franklin, A. (Ed.). (2022). Co-creativity and engaged scholarship: Transformative methods in social sustainability research. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84248-2
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Fritz, L., Schilling, T., & Binder, C. R. (2019). Participation-effect pathways in transdisciplinary sustainability research: An empirical analysis of researchers’ and practitioners’ perceptions using a systems approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.010
Fritz, L., & Binder, C. R. (2020). Whose knowledge, whose values? An empirical analysis of power in transdisciplinary sustainability research. European Journal of Futures Research, 8(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-020-0161-4
Geels, F. W. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021
Ghorashi, H., & Ponzoni, E. (2014). Reviving agency: Taking time and making space for rethinking diversity and inclusion. European Journal of Social Work, 17(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2013.777332
Godemann, J. (2008). Knowledge integration: A key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation. Environmental Education Research, 14(6), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802469188
Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Vol. 2, pp. 1049–1054). Suhrkamp.
Hadorn, G. H., Biber-Klemm, S., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Hoffmann-Riem, H., Joye, D., Pohl, C., Wiesmann, U., & Zemp, E. (2008). The emergence of transdisciplinarity as a form of research. Handbook of transdisciplinary research (pp. 19–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6699-3_2
Hadorn, G. H., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S., & Wiesmann, U. (2006). Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 119–128.
Heaslip, E., & Fahy, F. (2018). Developing transdisciplinary approaches to community energy transitions: An island case study. Energy Research & Social Science, 45, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.013
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Breaking the waves in science studies: comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, The third wave of science studies. Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 389–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127030333004
Javadi, D., Tran, N., & Ghaffar, A. (2018). Building a workforce for future health systems: Reflections from health policy and systems research. Health Services Research, 53, 4024–4033. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12978
Jones, T. & Loeber, A. (in review). Responding to power relations in knowledge co-productions: Taking inspiration from original participatory action research as a transformative and liberatory way of learning and doing in EU-funded research.
Kim, S. (2023). Intersectional positionalities across gender, race, ethnicity and immigrant status in qualitative interviews. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2023.2181448
Klaassen, P., Rijnen, M., Vermeulen, S., Kupper, F., & Broerse, J. (2018). Technocracy versus experimental learning in RRI: On making the most of RRI’s interpretative flexibility. In Responsible Research and Innovation (pp. 77–98). Routledge.
Klein, J. T. (2014). Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future. Futures, 63, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.08.008
Kok, K. P. W., Gjefsen, M. D., Regeer, B. J., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2021). Unraveling the politics of ‘doing inclusion’ in transdisciplinarity for sustainable transformation. Sustainability Science, 16, 1811–1826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-01033-7
Kua, H. W. (2016). A new integrated framework for stakeholder involvement in sustainability policymaking—a multidisciplinary approach. Sustainable Development, 24(5), 281–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1629
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., et al. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
Loeber, A. (2004). Practical wisdom in risk society. Methods and practice of interpretive analysis on questions of sustainable development. [Doctoral thesis, University of Amsterdam].
Loeber, A. (2007). Designing for phronèsis: Experiences with transformative learning on sustainable development. Critical Policy Analysis [critical Policy Studies], 1(4), 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2007.9518528
Loeber, A. V., Mierlo, B., & Leeuwis an, C., & Grin. J. (2007). The practical value of theory: Conceptualizing learning in the pursuit of a sustainable development. In A. Wals & T. van der Leij (Eds.), Social learning toward a more sustainable world: Principles, perspectives, and praxis (pp. 83–98). Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Loeber, A., & Vermeulen, T. (2016). Reflexive project management in high-ambition projects: Exploring the competencies for managing innovative sustainable designs. Social Business, 6(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1362/204440816X14636485174877
Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management. In New mode of governance for sustainable development. International Books.
Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340
Lux, A., Schäfer, M., Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Marg, O., Nagy, E., Ransiek, A., & Theiler, L. (2019). Societal effects of transdisciplinary sustainability research—How can they be strengthened during the research process?. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.012
Lynch, D. H., Klaassen, P., & Broerse, J. E. (2017). Unraveling Dutch citizens’ perceptions on the bio-based economy: The case of bioplastics, bio-jetfuels and small-scale bio-refineries. Industrial Crops and Products, 106, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.10.035
Mascarenhas, A., Langemeyer, J., Haase, D., Borgström, S., & Andersson, E. (2021). Assessing the learning process in transdisciplinary research through a novel analytical approach. Ecology and Society, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12631-260419
Masson, J. E., Soustre-Gacougnolle, I., Perrin, M., Schmitt, C., Henaux, M., Jaugey, C., Teillet, E., Lollier, M., Lallemand, J., & Schermesser, F. (2021). Transdisciplinary participatory-action-research from questions to actionable knowledge for sustainable viticulture development. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00693-7
Mauser, W., Klepper, G., Rice, M., Schmalzbauer, B. S., Hackmann, H., Leemans, R., & Moore, H. (2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(3–4), 420–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.07.001
Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of Transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014
Nicolescu, B. (2014). Methodology of Transdisciplinarity. World Futures, 70(3–4), 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.934631
Nilsen, P. (2015). Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10(1), article 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0
Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., & Österblom, H. et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature sustainability, 3(3), 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41821245
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093
Popa, F., Guillermin, M., & Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2015). A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, 65, 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002
Pohl, C. (2010). From transdisciplinarity to transdisciplinary research. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.22545/2010/0006
Pohl, C., & Hadorn, G. H. (2007). Principles for designing transdisciplinary research (pp. 36–40). Oekom.
Regeer, B. J. et al. (2024). Structuring Design & Evaluation in Transdisciplinarity for Transformation. In Transdisciplinarity for Transformation. Palgrave Macmillan. (Ahead of Print).
Regeer, B. J., & Bunders, J. F. (2003). The epistemology of transdisciplinary research: From knowledge integration to communities of practice. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review, 5(2), 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1504/IER.2003.053901
Regeer, B. J., Mager, S., & Van Orsouw, Y. (2011). Licence to grow: innovating sustainable development by connecting values.
Rodriguez, D. (2022). Transdisciplinarity and epistemic communities: Knowledge decolonisation through university extension programmes. Geographical Research, 60(1), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12524
Rotmans, J. (1998). Methods for IA: The challenges and opportunities ahead. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 3, 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019019024003
Salem, M. A., Shawtari, F., Shamsudin, M. F., & Hussain, H. B. I. (2018). The consequences of integrating stakeholder engagement in sustainable development (environmental perspectives). Sustainable Development, 26, 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1699
Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books.
Schuitmaker-Warnaar, T. J., Gunn, C. J., Regeer, B. J., & Broerse, J. E. (2021). Institutionalizing reflexivity for sustainability: Two cases in health care. Sustainability, 13(21), 11712. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111712
Simon, D., Palmer, H., Riise, J., Smit, W., & Valencia, S. (2018). The challenges of transdisciplinary knowledge production: From unilocal to comparative research. Environment and Urbanization, 30(2), 481–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247818787177
Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34(10), 1491–1510.
Soneryd, L. (2016). Technologies of participation and the making of technologized futures. In J. Chilvers & M. Kearnes (Eds.), Remaking participation: Science, environment and emergent publics (pp. 144–161). Routledge.
Stark. (2024). Beyond Interdisciplinary Research: Transdisciplinarity and Transformative Literacy Through Artistic Thinking and Research. In Transdisciplinarity for Transformation. Palgrave Macmillan. (Ahead of Print).
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.
Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down” power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), 262–294.
Temper, L., & Del Bene, D. (2016). Transforming knowledge creation for environmental and epistemic justice. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 20, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.05.004
Thomas-Hunt, M., Ogden, T., & Neale, M. (2003). Who’s really sharing? Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups. Management Science, 49(4), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.464.14425
Taylor, M., Eriksen, S., Vincent, K., Brooks, N., Scoville-Simonds, M., & Schipper, L. (2022). Putting ‘vulnerable groups’ at the centre of adaptation interventions by promoting transformative adaptation as a learning process. Report for Norad. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.
Torkar, G., & McGregor, S. L. (2012). Reframing the conception of nature conservation management by transdisciplinary methodology: From stakeholders to stakesharers. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20(2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2011.10.002
Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., & Louder, E. (2020). The politics of co-production: Participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009
Van Breda, J., & Swilling, M. (2019). The guiding logics and principles for designing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: Learning experiences and reflections from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement, South Africa. Sustainability Science, 14, 823–841.
Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51–74). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch3
Vermeulen, W. J., & Witjes, S. (2020). History and mapping of transdisciplinary research on sustainable development issues: Dealing with complex problems in times of urgency. In M. M. Keitsch & W. J. V. Vermeulen (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity for sustainability: Aligning diverse Practices. Routledge.
Verwoerd, L., Brouwers, H., Kunseler, E., Regeer, B., & de Hoop, E. (2023). Negotiating space for knowledge co-production. Science and Public Policy, 50(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scac045
Wickson, F., Strand, R., & Kjølberg, K. L. (2015). The walkshop approach to science and technology ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9526-z
Wilde, K., & Hermans, F. (2021). Innovation in the bioeconomy: Perspectives of entrepreneurs on relevant framework conditions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 314, article 127979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127979
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klaassen, P., Loeber, A. (2024). Challenges for Inclusion and Diversities: Opening up and Closing Down in Collaborative Research and Practice. In: Regeer, B.J., Klaassen, P., Broerse, J.E.W. (eds) Transdisciplinarity for Transformation. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60974-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-60974-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-60973-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-60974-9
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)