Implications of Transdisciplinarity for Sustainability Research

In ecological economics the terms sustainable development and transdisciplinarity are closely related. It is shown that this close relation is due to the fact that research for sustainable development has to be issue oriented and reflect the diversity, complexity and dynamics of the processes involved as well as their variability between specific problem situations. Furthermore, the knowledge of people involved and their needs and interests at stake have to be taken into account. There are three basic and interrelated questions about issues to be addressed in sustainability research: (1) In which way do processes constitute a problem field and where are the needs for change? (2) What are more sustainable practices? (3) How can existing practices be transformed? To treat them properly, transdisciplinary research is needed. The emergence of transdisciplinary research in the North and the South is described. By distinguishing analytically among basic, applied and transdisciplinary research the challenges that have to be tackled in transdisciplinary projects are analyzed.

Multi- and Transdisciplinarity as a Challenge for Environmental Psychology (Symposium)

Since 2008 the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) has been funding ten transdisciplinary research projects within the thematic focus ‘From Knowledge to Action - New Paths towards Sustainable Consumption’. A particular challenge which is faced with the programm is the task to build a bridge between individual activities and ecological and social framework conditions. Environmental psychologists are involved in half of the ten transdisciplinary projects. The symposium gives an insight into the new thematic focus and the variety of psychological contributions. The presentations will focus on the specific competence of psychology within the broader research focus of the transdisciplinary projects. An invited discussant will reflect on the role of psychology within the field of sustainable consumption and about challenges of transdisciplinary research in general.

Scientists’ situated knowledge: Strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity

Although transdisciplinary research has started addressing important epistemological challenges, as evidenced by the discussion about ‘mode 2’ knowledge production, its relation with postulations of ‘scientific objectivity’ is not yet well clarified. A common way of dealing with the epistemological challenge of situated knowledge production, as proposed by transdisciplinarity, is to point to the fundamental aspect of reflexivity. But reflexivity also includes being aware that power and control over the object is derived from the social position of researchers, an issue not often explicitly discussed in transdisciplinary research. Reflexivity thus represents an important but insufficient principle for guaranteeing appropriate levels of self-reflection within a process of knowledge coproduction. We therefore hypothesize that transdisciplinary research could greatly benefit from feminist scientific tradition, in particular the insights of standpoint theory and the concept of ‘strong objectivity’. We analyse, and reflect upon, how a recent transdisciplinary research initiative – conducted together with civil society organizations in (CSOs) in six countries: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ecuador and India – has benefited from the use of ‘strong objectivity’. We analyse how the social position of all stakeholders, including ourselves as the scientific actors in this initiative, influence the process and conditions of transdisciplinary knowledge co-production, and we discuss how power and control by scientists affects the process and conditions of interaction. Thereby we argue for the necessity of explicitly assuming sides in contested contexts for reaching objectivity in transdisciplinary research.

Transdisciplinarity – An Option for Applied Landscape Ecology in Complex and Uncertain Contexts.

Applied landscape ecology is considered to have a limited impact on decision-making. To improve the effectiveness of research, above all, closer cooperation between researchers and nonacademic actors is needed. We argue that a suitable research approach in this context is transdisciplinarity (td). We refer to td as interdisciplinary research that takes place in a complex environment-society context with a strong involvement of non-academic actors during the entire research process. A brief synthesis of a case study focusing on ‘Off-site Effects of Soil Erosion on the Swiss Plateau’ illustrates a promising application of a td approach.

Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS): Experience with a transdisciplinary tool in the NCCR North-South programme

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) are small transdisciplinary projects which bring scientific research insights from the NCCR North-South into policy and practice. They are implemented by researchers from different disciplines in collaboration with non-scientific actors. PAMS aim to implement and test approaches, methods and tools developed in research, in order to identify promising strategies and potentials for sustainable development. In this sense, they are solution-oriented. This paper will provide insights into our experience with PAMS, with a special focus on the implementation of transdisciplinarity and its outcomes. From 2001 to 2010, 77 PAMS were implemented in Africa, Asia and Latin America. An internal evaluation of the first 55 projects was conducted in 2006. Results of this evaluation led to a refinement and improvement of the tool. A second internal evaluation is currently underway in the NCCR North-South. This evaluation will provide an overview of 22 new PAMS. We will look at partners involved, project beneficiaries, activities implemented, outcomes achieved, and lessons learnt. In the first evaluation, transdisciplinarity was considered as “a form of collaboration within scientific fields … and as a form of continuous dialogue between research and society” (Messerli et al., 2007). The evaluation report concluded that this understanding of transdisciplinarity was not satisfactorily applied in the 55 projects. Only about half of the PAMS addressed mutual exchange between researchers and society. Some involved only one specific field of research and clearly lacked interdisciplinary co-operation, and most often knowledge was transferred mainly unilaterally from the scientific community to society, without society having any effect on science. It was therefore recommended to address transdisciplinarity more carefully in Phase 2 PAMS. The second evaluation, which is currently under way, is analysing whether and how this recommendation has been met, based on criteria defined in the NCCR North-South’s Outcome Monitoring Strategy. The analysis is focusing on partners with whom researchers interact and investigating whether practices have changed both in research and society. We are also exploring the role of researchers in PAMS. Preliminary results show that researchers can assume different roles, from direct implementation, mediation, and promotion of social learning between different actors, to giving advice as neutral outsiders.

Peer Review Processes for Transdisciplinary Articles: A Reflection on Journal's Practices

Publishing is an essential means of validation and communication of research. This is no different in transdisciplinary research, where publishing also aims at contributing to the development of society through sharing of knowledge. In the scientific world, authors need to disseminate and validate results, reflect on issues, and participate in debates. On the other hand, institutions and individuals are assessed according to their publication record – as probably the most influential of all current evaluation criteria. Occupying the space between article production and counting impact factors, journal editors and reviewers play an important role in defining and using rules to assess and improve the work submitted to them. Publishing transdisciplinary research poses specific challenges, in particular with regard to peer-review processes, as it addresses different knowledge communities with different value systems and purposes.

Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in the development of organic agriculture in Switzerland

The present study analyses transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in the development of organic farming in Switzerland by using Fleck's theory of thought styles and thought collectives. Three different phases can be identified throughout the historical development. The initial phase lasting from the beginning of the 1920s to the early 1970s contains numerous characteristics of diverse well-established definitions and concepts of transdisciplinarity and represents a successful transdisciplinary process, which has not been perceived as such in the past and present scientific discussion. The second and third phases show an increasing segregation of thought collectives, caused by internal changes such as the establishment of specialised research institutions and external processes like agriculture policy and market development. These developments led to a decreasing degree of transdisciplinarity. We observe an ambiguous trend: the continuously growing and today well-established positive societal recognition of an initially rather little accepted newcomer movement is associated with the gradual loss of its very valuable forms of knowledge co-production and the related philosophical background. In order to maintain the various forms of transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge, one has to reflect not only their results or outcome but also the whole cooperation process, which has led to these results. The understanding of the historical development and characteristic features of knowledge co-production as presented in this study will help to reinforce transdisciplinary research in organic agriculture and research on transdisciplinarity in general.

Evaluating Integration. Research contributions for a gender sensitive migration policy: Research contributions for a gender sensitive migration policy

The integration of academic and non-academic knowledge is a key concern for researchers who aim at bridging the gap between research and policy. Researchers involved in the sustainability-oriented NCCR North-South programme have made the experience that linking different types of knowledge requires time and effort, and that methodologies are still lacking. One programme component was created at the inception of this transdisciplinary research programme to support exchange between researchers, development practitioners and policymakers. After 8 years of research, the programme is assessing whether research has indeed enabled a continuous communication across and beyond academic boundaries and has effected changes in the public policies of poor countries. In a first review of the data, we selected two case studies explicitly addressing the lives of women. In both cases – one in Pakistan, the other in Nepal – the dialogue between researchers and development practitioners contributed to important policy changes for female migration. In both countries, outmigration has become an increasingly important livelihood strategy. National migration policies are gendered, limiting the international migration of women. In Nepal, women were not allowed to migrate to specific countries such as the Gulf States or Malaysia. This was done in the name of positive discrimination, to protect women from potential exploitation and harassment in domestic work. However, women continued to migrate in many other and often illegal and more risky ways, increasing their vulnerability. In Pakistan, female labour migration was not allowed at all and male migration increased the vulnerability of the families remaining back home. Researchers and development practitioners in Nepal and Pakistan brought women’s shared experience of and exposure to the mechanisms of male domination into the public debate, and addressed the discriminating laws. Now, for the first time in Pakistan, the new draft policy currently under discussion would enable broadly-based female labour migration. What can we learn from the two case studies with regard to ways of relating experience- and research-based knowledge? The paper offers insights into the sequence of interactions between researchers, local people, development practitioners, and policy-makers, which eventually contributed to the formulation of a rights-based migration policy. The reflection aims at exploring the gendered dimension of ways to co-produce and share knowledge for development across boundaries. Above all, it should help researchers to better tighten the links between the spheres of research and policy in future.