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.

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.

Approaching water stress in the Alps: Transdisciplinary co-production of systems, target and transformation knowledge

There is increasing recognition that transdisciplinary approaches are needed to create suitable knowledge for sustainable water management. However, there is no common understanding of what transdisciplinary research may be and there is very limited debate on potentials and challenges regarding its implementation. Against this background, this paper presents a conceptual framework for transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in water management projects oriented towards more sustainable use of water. Moreover, first experiences with its implementation are discussed. In so doing, the focus lies on potentials and challenges related to the co-production of systems, target and transformation knowledge by researchers and local stakeholders.

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.

Researchers' roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal

Co-production of knowledge between academic and non-academic communities is a prerequisite for research aiming at more sustainable development paths. Sustainability researchers face three challenges in such co-production: (a) addressing power relations; (b) interrelating different perspectives on the issues at stake; and (c) promoting a previously negotiated orientation towards sustainable development. A systematic comparison of four sustainability research projects in Kenya (vulnerability to drought), Switzerland (soil protection), Bolivia and Nepal (conservation vs. development) shows how the researchers intuitively adopted three different roles to face these challenges: the roles of reflective scientist, intermediary, and facilitator of a joint learning process. From this systematized and iterative self-reflection on the roles that a researcher can assume in the indeterminate social space where knowledge is co-produced, we draw conclusions regarding training.

On producing and sharing knowledge across boundaries: experiences from the interfaces of an international development research network

The number of large research networks and programmes engaging in knowledge production for development has grown over the past years. One of these programmes devoted to generating knowledge about and for development is National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North–South, a cross-disciplinary, international development research network funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Producing relevant knowledge for development is a core goal of the programme and an important motivation for many of the participating researchers. Over the years, the researchers have made use of various spaces for exchange and instruments for co-production of knowledge by academic and non-academic development actors. In this article we explore the characteristics of co-producing and sharing knowledge in interfaces between development research, policy and NCCR North–South practice. We draw on empirical material of the NCCR North–South programme and its specific programme element of the Partnership Actions. Our goal is to make use of the concept of the interface to reflect critically about the pursued strategies and instruments applied in producing and sharing knowledge for development across boundaries.

Promoting palliative care in the community: production of the primary palliative care toolkit by the European Association of Palliative Care Taskforce in primary palliative care

BACKGROUND A multidisciplinary European Association of Palliative Care Taskforce was established to scope the extent of and learn what facilitates and hinders the development of palliative care in the community across Europe. AIM To document the barriers and facilitators for palliative care in the community and to produce a resource toolkit that palliative care specialists, primary care health professionals or policymakers, service developers, educationalists and national groups more generally could use to facilitate the development of palliative care in their own country. DESIGN (1) A survey instrument was sent to general practitioners with knowledge of palliative care services in the community in a diverse sample of European countries. We also conducted an international systematic review of tools used to identify people for palliative care in the community. (2) A draft toolkit was then constructed suggesting how individual countries might best address these issues, and an online survey was then set up for general practitioners and specialists to make comments. Iterations of the toolkit were then presented at international palliative care and primary care conferences. RESULTS Being unable to identify appropriate patients for palliative care in the community was a major barrier internationally. The systematic review identified tools that might be used to help address this. Various facilitators such as national strategies were identified. A primary palliative care toolkit has been produced and refined, together with associated guidance. CONCLUSION Many barriers and facilitators were identified. The primary palliative care toolkit can help community-based palliative care services to be established nationally.