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.

From «Pflantz-Gart» to «Stammregister». On the history of knowledge of fruit cultivation in the canton of Bern

Among the efforts for the improvement of agricultural productivity, the cultivation of useful plants is particularly at the center of the Economic Enlightenment. In contrast to fodder and textile plants, cereals and potatoes, fruit trees are not included among its favoured subjects. This may be considered as astonishing in view of the significance that fruit has acquired in the contemporary diet. Be that as it may, efforts to improve fruit cultivation go back to even before the classical period of the Economic Enlightenment. The example of Bern in particular is suited to such an analysis over the Longue durée that covers the time from Daniel Rhagor’s «Pflantz-Gart» (1639) to the «Register of varieties of excellent species of pome fruits for the canton of Bern» (Stammregister, 1865). From the perspective of the history of knowledge, the connections between scholarly knowledge and local experience on the one hand and the changing actors in these knowledge systems on the other hand are of special interest here

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Knowledge as a resource: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Refugee Settlement in Australia: Policy, Scholarship and the Production of Knowledge, 1952 − 2013

Since 1947, Australia has formally resettled more than 750,000 refugees. During that time, researchers have successfully completed more than 150 Masters and doctoral theses and published more than 900 articles, books and reports about issues of refugee settlement in Australia, with about half of them being published in the past 10 years. In this paper, we discuss the development of the production of knowledge about refugee resettlement. We identify trends in the literature, such as the emergence of an ethno-specific focus, and the concern with settlement's psychological and emotional impact, and relate them to policy changes. We suggest that scholars need critically to take stock of the knowledge produced so far and be more cognisant of the international scholarly debate.