Post on 18-Nov-2014
description
Tensions in transdisciplinary practice
Dr. Frances HarrisCentre for Earth and Environmental Sciences Research
School of Geography, Geology and the EnvironmentKingston University
Prof. Fergus Lyon,CEEDR,
Middlesex University
Transdisciplinary environmental research: a review of approaches to knowledge co-production
Focus on food, water, energy and environment.
NEXUS network think piece
“Our incapacity to deal with the above-mentioned problems [climate change, health, land use, forestry management, renewable and non-renewable resources, housing, poverty and urban planning] is related to their complexity, to the compartmentalisation of science and professional knowledge, to the sectoral division of responsibilities in contemporary society, and to the increasingly diverse nature of the societal context in which people live”.
Lawrence and Depres (2004)
Engagement with stakeholders
promoting collaboration between research and industry, between different disciplines in research, and between different types of research organisations.
crossing the boundaries between different disciplines Engagement with different types of knowledge:
scientific knowledge, lay knowledge and practitioners’ experience
participants become co-creators of knowledge Search of unity of knowledge beyond disciplines
Transdisciplinary research
Pursuit of sustainability: an inter and trans-disciplinary goal sustainability science
Society’s increasing role in science: Deliberative turn in science: involving publics in debates about
science priorities and setting agendas
Participative approaches: move from top down to involvement of stakeholders
Recognition of lay knowledge and experiential knowledge
Governments and funders address complex problems of real world issues research relevant to society’s needs Research impact
Driving forces
Framing problems from range of disciplinary perspectives
Valuing different types of knowledge: experiential, commercial, academic, practice-based
Democratising science – allowing non-academic scientists to participate in problem identification, framing, research, data collection and analysis, dissemination of findings
Participation – levels of engagement (see Arnstein’s ladder, and parallels from Transdisciplinary literature: information, consultation, collaboration, empowerment (Brandt et al 2013))
Theoretical challenges
Prioritising research methods and forms of data Qualitative vs Quantitative methods Experimental vs less structured forms of data
collection
Merging data from different scales and disciplines
Power struggles within research teams – valuing knowledge forms
Communication among team
Methodological
Managing diverse teams from diverse organisational backgrounds
Agreeing on the end point / outcome desired (how far does “research” go?)
Identifying desired outcomes Papers Policies Behaviour change
Practical
Gathering diverse perspectives and players but aiming to align towards a common project goal and research outcomes
Greater diversity within the team can stimulate more new knowledge, but too much diversity creates challenges for communication (mutual understanding). Boon et al, 2014;
The tension between diversity and alignment
Bringing together multiple perspectives and methods can result in some ambiguity between different groups.
“multiple simultaneous ways of understanding” Dewulf et al (2007)
Bruce et al (2004): good interdisciplinary research has high tolerance for ambiguity
Boon et al (2014) what levels of uncertainty are acceptable among research collaborators?
Accepting ambiguity ?
Who writes funding bids and is gatekeeper to research funds? What framing is required to gain funds? What language is used in project
documentation?
Power asymmetries
Stepping out of disciplinary focus Valuing transdisciplinary vs discipline-
centred research Training disciplinary researchers Career progression for disciplinary
researchers
Challenges for academia
Cannot exist in terms of data collection methods, but perhaps can in terms of recommendations for practice
demands “freedom of choice” in methods to correspond with problems and group of people participating (Brandt et al, 2013)
A transdisciplinary method?
From the perspective of the individual Satisfaction Achievements in alignment with goals of host
organisation (publications or other) Career advancement Willingness to engage again
Evaluating transdisciplinary projects
From the perspective of the project team Social learning Creation of a team that will work together
again
Evaluating transdisciplinary projects
From the perspective of the funders Outcomes achieved in terms of research,
timing and sticking to budget Production of results which are meaningful to
society at large
Evaluating transdisciplinary projects
A new form of researcher?
A non-entity because cannot fit into any system or structure?
The transdisciplinarian
Living with tensions Formation of team Framing of project Negotiation of research approach Knowledge creation Room to fail and learning from mistakes
(Hegger et al (2010) Outputs for all participants and stakeholders
Recommendations for transdisciplinary processes
Anticona, C., Coe, A., Bergdahl, I. A. and San Sebastian, M. (2013) 'Easier said than done: challenges of applying the Ecohealth approach to the study on heavy metals exposure among indigenous communities of the Peruvian Amazon.(Correspondence)(Report)', BMC Public Health, 13 pp. 437.
Attwater, R., Booth, S. and Guthrie, A. (2005) 'The role of contestable concepts in transdisciplinary management of water in the landscape', Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22 (3), pp. 185-192.
Boon, W. P. C., Chappin, M. M. H. and Perenboom, J. (2014) 'Balancing divergence and convergence in transdisciplinary research teams', Environmental Science and Policy, 40 pp. 57-68.
Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson, D. J. and Von Wehrden, H. (2013) A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science.
Dewulf, A., Francois, G., Pahl-Wostl, C. and Taillieu, T. (2007) 'A framing approach to cross-disciplinary research collaboration: Experiences from a large-scale research project on adaptive water management', ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY; Ecol.Soc., 12 (2), .
Enengel, B., Muhar, A., Penker, M., Freyer, B., Drlik, S. and Ritter, F. (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), pp. 106-117.
Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A. and Völker, T. (2012) 'Growing into what? The (un-)disciplined socialisation of early stage researchers in transdisciplinary research', Higher Education, pp. 1-14.
Giri, A. K. (2002) 'The calling of a creative transdisciplinarity', Futures, 34 (1), pp. 103-115. Harris, F. and Lyon, F. (2013) 'Transdisciplinary environmental research: Building trust across professional cultures',
Environmental Science and Policy, 31 pp. 109-119. Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A. and Dieperink, C. (2012) 'Conceptualising joint knowledge production in
regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action', Environmental Science and Policy, 18 pp. 52-65.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, S. and Wiesmann, U. (2006) 'Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research', Ecological Economics, 60 (1), pp. 119-128.
Lawrence, R. J. and Despres, C. (2004) 'Futures of transdisciplinarity', Futures, 36 (4), pp. 397-405. Pohl, C. (2005) 'Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research', Futures, 37 (10), pp. 1159-1178. Renner, R., Schneider, F., Hohenwallner, D., Kopeinig, C., Kruse, S., Lienert, J., Link, S. and Muhar, S. (2013) 'Meeting the
Challenges of Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production for Sustainable Water Governance', Mountain Research and Development (Online), 33 (3), pp. 234-247.
Roux, D. J., Stirzaker, R. J., Breen, C. M., Lefroy, E. C. and Cresswell, H. P. (2010) 'Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs', Environmental Science and Policy, 13 (8), pp. 733-741.
References