ITD24 Arichve: Sessions 121-150

by Ria Lambino

This networking session aims to bring together academics and practitioners who are undertaking or have interest in transdisciplinary research in Asia. We want to stimulate discussion on the various modalities of transdisciplinarity and other similar collaborative forms of research and education in the region through information exchange and sharing from participants about their experiences. We aim to build an understanding of the differences and variations of TD with regard to design, conceptualization and implementation as well as looking at challenges due to specificities of the local context. Participants can also discuss trends of the adoption of inter- and transdisciplinaty in universities and higher education systems in the region.

The session will be flexibly organized, but will mainly be an interactive space, inviting free-flowing dialogues. It can be lightly structured if needed, with some discussion points outlined in advance.

This activity will be connected to the ITD Alliance as it aspires to develop regional nodes. Participants who are interested to be part of a community of practice in Asia can connect and join the network.

by Garbielle Bammer, Michael O'Rourke, Jason Prior and Dena Fam

The academic literature is full of stories of research success, while failures are less frequently shared, even though much research is abandoned before completion. Better understanding failure can be highly valuable, particularly in complex research modes like interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. This keynote session will explore the critical yet often overlooked topic of failure in inter- and transdisciplinary research. Drawing on insights from over 100 experts in the field who report on their failure in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research, this session maps and provides unique insight into the underlying norms and rules that explain failure. By studying these failures through the lens of norms and rules, we can identify root causes that may be overlooked and develop more resilient and aware research practices, enabling teams to anticipate and navigate potential pitfalls more effectively. Ultimately, better understanding failure is essential for turning it into a stepping stone toward more successful and impactful research outcomes. After an introduction by the session chair, the panelists will present a theoretical framework for inter- and transdisciplinary research failure, a description of the empirical study of failure in this context, and an analysis of data generated by this study in terms of norms and rules.

Video replay

by Harri Kettunen, Maijaliisa Erkkola, Mika Rekola, Päivi Salmesvuori, Anna-Maija Virtala, Risto Willamo

Higher education is facing major challenges as the nature of the problems facing humanity has changed dramatically. However, the challenges reflected, e.g., in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals cannot be understood or solved using discipline-specific education alone.

Nonetheless, while holistic and inter- and transdisciplinarity approaches are essential, is university education up to the challenge? Time and again, interdisciplinarity in practice, is overshadowed by tensions between holistic and reductionistic approaches. Although interdisciplinarity is supported in various areas, educational structures accustomed to keeping disciplines separate have found it challenging to approach complex issues. In this presentation, we examine these challenges from the perspective of thesis supervision and assessment.

We present the results of a survey, examining the supervision and assessment of interdisciplinary theses at the University of Helsinki. The authors are members of the Teachers’ Academy of the University of Helsinki, representing six different disciplines and five faculties.

The main objective of this study was to contribute to the ongoing pedagogical debate on the key challenges and development proposals for the supervision and assessment of interdisciplinary theses at the university. Based on the data, we particularly assessed the challenges, their causes, and ideas for development.

The survey covered theses at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degree levels. The answers were analyzed via close reading and data-driven content analysis. We compared the age, gender, and faculty distribution of the students with the entire student body of the University of Helsinki within ten years.

We identified six major themes, three of which were from the responses of both students and supervisors. (1) Both groups stressed that interdisciplinarity should be openly encouraged and efforts made to create a tradition of interdisciplinarity; (2) Both emphasized the importance of cooperation and of lowering barriers at all levels; (3) Both underlined the desire for pedagogical coherence in guidance and assessment, and the need to clarify the criteria for assessing interdisciplinary theses; (4) Students stressed that sufficient time should be given to refining the research focus of interdisciplinary theses early in the research process; (5) Supervisors pointed out the importance of understanding their positions and resulting constraints; (6) Supervisors pointed out their workload, stress, and available resources.

The study raises several challenges that, to our knowledge, have not been similarly articulated in previous studies based on such empirical evidence. There are also many suggestions for improvement, which are summarized in the presentation.

by Marie Stenseke

How to enhance interdisciplinarity in fields of research where there are inherent imbalanced structures and power relations between scientific perspectives? This kind of imbalance characterizes research on ‘the triple planetary crisis’: climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss. All three of them have distinct natural science profiles, however, the need for increased interdisciplinarity to address the challenges has been widely expressed as the integration of social sciences and humanities (SSH) is required if we are not just to map the problems, but to find solutions.

This presentation focus on biodiversity loss, with the aim to present and discuss strategies and possible ways forward for improving interdisciplinarity. Of certain interest is the role of SSH scholars in scientific projects and science-policy organizations. The presentation relates to my own experiences from long-term of engagements in projects, funding bodies, government advisory boards and multilateral platforms on local to global levels.

The problematic situation for biodiversity all over the globe emerged and evolved as an issue within nature conservation and the discipline of biology. Notwithstanding the growing recognition that knowledge about humans and the human society must be included to change the negative trends, the remaining natural science dominance poses a challenge in many ways for SSH scholars entering the field. Such experiences are presented in numerous publications where obstacles as well as opportunities for taking interdisciplinary work forward are pointed out. Issues raised are eg. oblivousness of SSH and the great variety within; studies of humans and the human society carried out with little of appropriate competence in approaches, theories and methods; the lack of reflective understandings of concepts such as power, values, knowledge. The challenging issues relate to scientific collaboration as well as to interprofessional collaboration, as the nature conservation sector is largely populated by people with their education from biology.

Strategies for improving interdisciplinarity in the field of biodiversity include continued research on and critical analysis of how the challenge of biodiversity loss is addressed and institutional changes in academia, in governments and among funders, to facilitate and enhance interdisciplinary approaches. Crucial is also that SSH scholars engage in collaborative biodiversity research and in organisations addressing biodiversity loss. In many cases, this demands some braveness to question what is taken for granted, to demand reflection on key concepts and wordings such as ‘nature’, ‘wild’, ‘authentic’, and to argue for the recognition of qualitative methods. SSH researchers in biodiversity research also often find it necessary to consider issues like – What gaps to start handle?; How to assure enough scientific quality from SSH perspectives, also those outside one’s own competence?; How to recognize if ones influence is little more than an ‘SSH-alibi’?; How to balance between the urgency for actions and the need for complex analysis not to compromise other global challenges such as global justice and wellbeing for all?

Networking with SSH peers is, then, constructive and helpful for addressing those matters.

by Roman Seidl, Cord Drögemüller, Pius Krütli, Clemens Walther

Engaging citizens in participatory processes to solve complex sustainability challenges such as nuclear waste disposal, is for a variety of reasons (e.g., legitimacy, substantive, normative) a well-established approach. Citizens (stakeholders, ‘lay people’) contribute to science through e.g., citizen science by collecting data or posing their own research questions, or by co-producing knowledge in transdisciplinary projects.

In this presentation, we report on an approach that falls between the above and was implemented in a research project on high-level nuclear waste management in Germany. The aim was to engage citizens with diverse profiles (age, gender, profession; but no particular stake in nuclear issues) in a Citizens’ Working Group (CWG) in the scientific process. The central question revolved around how to build trust between the CWG and the project researchers, and to explore the underlying mechanisms at play (enabling factors and barriers). In addition to this social science research focus, other more technical inquiries explored citizens’ attitudes towards various concepts related to near-field monitoring of a deep geological repository.

The CWG was recruited in a comprehensive multi-step process based on a representative online survey in Germany. Acting as an ‘extended peer community’ providing an outsider perspective, this group contributed with experiential knowledge, their perceptions and attitudes. Currently, the CWG consists of fourteen individuals who have participated in the research process through workshops and project meetings for almost four years.

The work process was monitored through structured methods, including observation (using a self-developed matrix) and repeated surveys. The results suggest that the approach has boosted trust: The collaboration was characterized by a relaxed atmosphere, interpersonal respect, and support; this was achieved through the openness of the researchers and CWG members, and sustained through continuous interaction over time.

In terms of the research process itself, the involvement of the CWG in the project was highly beneficial: The CWG has contributed to the research in many ways over the years, focusing on political and social processes and target knowledge. It has fulfilled the role of an extended peer community, as its members' contributions have led to corrections of some researchers' views, highlighted value issues, and initiated new topics themselves.

Where the workshops’ guiding questions were adapted to value issues and trade-offs (e.g., safety reduction vs. knowledge gain from monitoring; note that monitoring to some extent compromises the impermeability of a repository’s host rock), the CWG was able to provide valuable insights. However, for specific scientific research questions, the innovation and knowledge gain was limited. Obviously, for narrow disciplinary research questions, a group of individuals with more specialized knowledge is more appropriate.

The focus of the presentation is on our observations and experiences from the collaborative work (e.g. workshop results).

by Carien Lansink, Karin van Look, Judith Loopers

Introduction

Socially engaged education has been a focus of Utrecht University for several years. Utrecht University (UU) finds it important that her graduates have the knowledge and the skills to make a substantial contribution to society. To prepare students for taking such role, UU has for several years promoted innovative education in which teachers and students join forces with a partner organization or community from outside the university to develop en project around a socially relevant theme. At UU, this is called Community Engaged Learning (CEL) but elsewhere it is also known as service learning, community based learning or civic learning.

Within UU, the term CEL was chosen, as this emphasises the importance of close cooperation with society, such as (semi)public organisations, citizens and other social partners. CEL may engage different communities outside of the university, such as underserved or underprivileged groups, NGO’s, or government agencies. Teachers, students and societal partner organizations interact on a basis of mutual exchange and equality. Together, they are working on - issues of shared concern, including the systemic aspects of those issues. In CEL, this process of discovery is at least as important as any product delivered. In the process, students will strengthen typical CEL competencies such as collaboration, connection of academic and professional points of view, and reflection as a way of learning. But most of all, they will have the transforming learning experience of actively working for and with others in society towards solutions for current challenges.

Developing and teaching a CEL course is challenging for teachers, because it is very different compared with regular education (Tijsma et al., 2020). CEL assumes a mutual and equal collaboration between teachers, students and external partner organizations. This requires different teachers competencies, such as establishing a relationship with community partners. Another major difference is that the process of project development is more important than the results or products that will be delivered. This has major implications for the way in which assessment will take place in a CEL course. Also, implementing reflection strategies is an important part of designing a CEL course.

To support teachers in taking their roles in the development and teaching CEL courses, the UU offers an elaborate training program. It consists of tailored, individual and short term support, next to two CEL courses. In the regular CEL course, teachers work on designing and developing their own CEL course. Together they explore the characteristics of CEL and what cooperation with social partners can look like. Topics such as assessment, reflection and ethical questions are also covered. Participants learn with and from each other by studying CEL together, exchanging experiences and developing into a network of teacher-experts in the field of CEL. In this way, the course aids the teachers in gaining CEL competences and contributes directly to the implementation of CEL courses in the UU educational programs. The advanced CEL course is intended for CEL teachers who have experience in developing and teaching CEL courses, and are a course coordinator of a CEL course. In the advanced course teachers explore together a CEL specific theme in depth by using an approach that capitalizes on the CEL competences. In this way, teachers become masters in CEL education and can support starting CEL teachers. In addition, in depth knowledge of CEL becomes available to the teaching community.

The workshop

In this workshop we aim for an inspiring exchange of ideas on teacher professionalization on CEL. What are the challenges for teachers? What are the challenges and opportunities in supporting teachers? The educational support program at the UU will serve as an example.The proposed workshop consists of three parts:

1. Introduction about CEL
   First we introduce our participants to CEL, including literature and the Utrecht University approach. Sharing components and goals of CEL activities, we will discuss what CEL entails and how it can look like.

2. Challenges for teachers
   Second, we focus on challenges for teachers involved in CEL. What competencies are needed? How is it different from other courses? We invite participants to share their own experiences.

3. The CEL educational support program at Utrecht University: sharing good practices
   The last part of our workshop is about the educational support programme at Utrecht University. We aim to inspire participants as well as collect their input on our activities for teachers.

by Lars Heuver, Caspar Schoevaars, Jelle de Swart, Wiebe Bor, Siebren Teule

With increased attention and efforts towards further integration of interdisciplinary educational methods in higher education curricula, it has become clear that designing and implementation of interdisciplinary education activities is challenging. Literature on this topic attributes this to problems of aligning and changing the institutional practices (such as university structures, disciplinary cultures and funding schemes).

This project aims to widen the problem analysis by looking beyond institutional level and by focusing on the more practical organisational difficulties.

The Interdisciplinary Education Program of Utrecht University facilitated 5 “incubators” in which new interdisciplinary education programmes within the university were developed. In each of these incubators, an “integration experts” (IEs) was assigned. The function and role of these "integration experts" were based on the call by Hoffmann et al. (2022). The goal of the IEs in these incubators was twofold: to assist and improve the process of designing and implementing interdisciplinary educational activities, and to gather insight into the organisational challenges and tensions that arise during this process. In this presentation, the contributors, who were also the IEs, reflect on their experiences and lessons learned.

Intervening in the current literature, the findings of the IEs in this project highlight three additional focus areas in addition to institutional tensions. First, teamwork tensions, which focus on group dynamics, decision making processes, and coordination and collaboration management. Second, the interdisciplinary knowledge base of all participants within or involved with these new programmes (staff, students, educational designers and university management), which affects educational organisation processes.

Third, uncertainty about demand for interdisciplinary education arises as a tension, as unclarity about the popularity of new courses hinders the commitment and makes formulating entry requirements difficult.

Additionally, the presenters will look at their own position as IEs within the incubators. The presenters will briefly discuss the activities and contributions they made, and the expertise and institutional support required for efficient and effective educational organisation processes. The IE-experience shows how the educational development context - i.e. the status of the project, team dynamics, as well as the institutional and team culture - both enhanced and limited the abilities of the IE.

We argue that organisers of interdisciplinary educational activities should pay more attention towards the three previously not highlighted areas, as they are frequently expected to ‘just happen’ while they prove to be a precondition for more efficient and effective educational organisation processes. An IE could play several roles in countering these issues: informing all involved actors on the merits, methodological approaches and possible applications of interdisciplinary education activities; or acting as a teamwork and collaboration coordinator.

Key reading

• Hoffmann, S., Deutsch, L., Klein, J.T. et al. ‘Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts’ Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9, 147 (2022).

by Elena Grace Siegrist, Sabin Bieri, Matthias Bürgi

Landscapes, understood as a manifestation of the action and interaction of natural and human factors (Council of Europe, 2000), form an important basis for high quality of life and are considered an important resource for humankind. Climate change significantly impacts landscapes and the services they provide. This paper argues that, due to their inherently relatable and tangible characteristics, landscapes support creating common visions, collaboratively identifying pathways towards these and participatory solution-orientated experimentation.

To support our argument, we present the concept and some initial findings of the transdisciplinary research project “Climate change – landscapes: designing sustainable futures (KLANG)”, which investigates the development and use of participatory landscape scenarios focussed on climate change in transformative regional processes towards sustainable development. Within KLANG, local landscape scenarios in the form of landscape visualisations and stories of landscape change are being developed in a transdisciplinary process involving local stakeholders and scientists in three case study regions in Switzerland. Embedded in a co-design process, these scenarios are being specifically tailored to contribute to ongoing future-oriented processes in the regions, such as devising strategies and actions for climate-resilient regional development, planning adaptation and mitigation measures, incorporating climate change into landscape management policies or devising regional energy strategies.

By combining visualisations and storytelling, we (1) strive to facilitate the integration of local knowledge on the landscape system, including regional identity, with scientific knowledge on the impacts of climate change, adaptation and mitigation strategies. In working at the local landscape scale, we (2) aim to contribute to the audience-orientated climate change communication and, in doing so, enable stakeholders to forge connections between the global phenomenon of climate change and everyday life, identity and personal scope of action. By using futuring techniques, our goal is to (3) foster a solution-oriented mindset and allow individuals, regional stakeholder groups and decision-makers to discover options to influence future landscape development under climate change.

Overall, this transdisciplinary social learning process aims to collaboratively envision solutions to real-world problems at the landscape level and empower those involved to actively shape the(ir) future.

• Council of Europe. (2000). Council of Europe Landscape Convention as amended by the 2016 Protocol (European Treaty Series No. 176). https://rm.coe.int/16807b6bc7

by Frédéric Darbellay, Sarah Zerika, Zoe Moody

In inter- and transdisciplinary studies, the significance of fostering dialogue between different fields is underscored. Researchers and teachers are encouraged to apply the analytical skills inherent to their own disciplines as well as to adopt concepts and methodologies from other fields. This approach involves an appreciation for the intricacy of issues, cultivating values such as openness, empathy, and tolerance, and the ability to formulate innovative frameworks beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries.

The reconceptualisation of education as a dialogue between content and process within an inter- and transdisciplinary framework entails incorporating knowledge, principles, and methods from various disciplines, along with the capability for intricate problem analysis. These theoretical foundations are pivotal for comprehending the pedagogical strategies implemented in the University of Geneva’s interdisciplinary master’s program in Children’s Rights, where inter- and transdisciplinarity are integrated into the curriculum as an object of study. This integration is particularly evident in two foundational courses: 1) The Inter- and Transdisciplinary Approach: Theories and Practices; and 2) Methodology and Ethics of Research in Children’s Rights Studies. Since 2015, these courses have significantly shaped an educational framework that nurtures students’ deeper inter- and transdisciplinary understanding, aligning with the evolving demands of complex societal issues such as children’s rights.

These courses’ pedagogical devices and teaching methods are crafted to prompt students to approach children’s rights from an inter- and transdisciplinary standpoint. For example, the project-based evaluation method aligns with the emphasis on the dialogue between content and process. In this context, students apply theoretical concepts to research projects, testing their understanding and fostering collaboration skills. As highlighted by the literature, the intentional formation of diverse student groups aims to cultivate transdisciplinary values of openness and empathy. These research projects encompass an interdisciplinary theme, a defined problem, and a planned methodology. Though structured like authentic research projects, they serve as academic exercises rather than empirical studies, encouraging the creative application of theoretical knowledge within an interdisciplinary framework.

To exemplify the practical application of these courses, this contribution will delve into various student outputs, such as collective project works and individual reflective assignments. These outputs offer insights into how students initially perceive and gradually integrate inter- and transdisciplinarity into their learning. Student evaluations of these courses provide additional perspectives on the reception of these methods. The primary focus of this contribution centres on pedagogical devices and their outputs while also contributing to the broader discourse on enhancing inter- and transdisciplinary education at the university level. It demonstrates how theoretical concepts can be translated into practical teaching and learning experiences.

by Florentine Marnel Sterk

Interdisciplinary projects give insight into wicked problems and complex societal issues – thus it is pivotal that the results also reach non-expert audiences. Popularization (science communication and science journalism) is an important skill for researchers conducting interdisciplinary research, and ideally, this skill should be taught in interdisciplinary university training. In this talk, I will elaborate upon interdisciplinary students’ perceived learning experiences with training in written popularization.

Students took part in one four-hour intervention about popularization writing skills at the end of their undergraduate training, as part of their thesis capstone course. This course tests students’ integration and collaboration skills, as well as their popularization writing skills. The latter is tested in the form of a newspaper article which is written collaboratively by the multidisciplinary student research team and counts for 10% of the grade.

Data from pre-post intervention questionnaires and self-reflections was analyzed both quantitatively, using a Wilcoxon signed rank test, and qualitatively, using thematic analysis. The quantitative analysis shows a statistically significant increase in report for popularization knowledge, but not for skills or attitudes. The qualitative analysis shows twenty themes, including structure, writing style, text strategies, the target audience, and genre demands. This thematic analysis also shows a perceived increase in knowledge, a perceived interest in skills for some but not all students, and no discernible change in attitude.

Taken together, one training in popularization already has a positive effect on students learning experiences, and specifically on their popularization knowledge. Yet students state that more and longer training, including more opportunities to practice their writing skills, would create more beneficial learning outcomes.

Key readings

• Sterk, F. M., & Van Goch, M. M. (2023). Re-presenting research: A guide to analyzing and using popularization strategies in science journalism and science communication. Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/97 8-3-031-28174-7

• Sterk, F. M., Van Goch, M. M., Burke, M., & Van der Tuin, I. (2022). Baseline assessment in higher education: A case study of popularization writing skills in first-year undergraduate students. Journal of Writing Research, 14(1), 35–76. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2022.14.01.02

by Katusha Sol, Rosanne van Wieringen, Guido Knibbe

by Antonietta Di Giulio, Leila Ahmadi Mardakhi, Rico Defila, Sabine Toussaint

During the last decades, much knowledge has been accumulated about the challenges and problems of inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations, about how to approach the set-up and design of such collaborations, and how to support the processes of knowledge-integration. There has also been a considerable body of research about which mindsets are favourable with regard to people engaging in inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations and about the competences people should acquire in order for such collaborations to be satisfying and yield the expected added-value.

However, something has not yet been investigated, although everybody that has either participated in inter- or transdisciplinary projects or has been in charge of such projects knows the phenomenon through personal experience: the almost magic moment in which someone throws the lever because they suddenly know 'yes, it will work, it is worthwhile to invest time, energy, and creativity in this collaboration', the moment in which the quality and dynamic of the collaboration is set on track towards succeeding in developing integrated knowledge, towards achieving added-value. The contrary happens too – that there is a moment in which someone opts out, the moment of quiet quitting. Such moments are decisive for whether people actually engage in a project or not – they are tipping points.

Tipping points are the critical moments and experiences of significant change – positive ones propel the collaboration forward and negative ones initiate a downward spiral. Tipping points are invisible phenomena, they are very much related to individual experiences, emotional knowledge, and to what we tend to call 'gut feeling'. When we are in charge of a project, we want positive tipping points to happen, and we fear negative tipping points.

By reflecting and discussing tipping point experiences in a project team, the participants can improve and deepen their understanding of what drives successful inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations, and they can develop more effective strategies for fostering productive and innovative team environments.

In a running research project “Collaborative Convergence: Positive Tipping Points of Interdisciplinary Research Dynamics”, we are exploring the benefits of applying a tipping point approach in (individually and collectively) reflecting interdisciplinary experiences, and we are delving into the realm of these critical junctures by examining the collaborative processes within a research consortium (qualitative interviews). The project is a collaboration between the Office for Research Association Management (LMU Munich) and the Research Group Inter-/Transdisciplinarity (University of Basel).

The aim of the project is twofold: we want to uncover and identify positive tipping points of interdisciplinary collaboration (including the factors leading to them), and we want to provide an accessible and easy tool for the self-evaluation of interdisciplinary collaborations. The project is designed to provide knowledge about, and to facilitate the identification of key success factors within interdisciplinary research. One of the questions we want to discuss in ITD24 is whether the approach of tipping points can be used also in transdisciplinary collaborations.

In our planned workshop, we will introduce the approach of tipping points, present empirical results of our project, and introduce the Tipping Points Reflection Tool. The tool provides a set of questions and a methodical procedure to be used in a structured reflection on personal and collective experiences of tipping points in inter- and/or transdisciplinary research collaborations. Participants will apply the tool and we will discuss the potentials and limitations of the approach as well as reflect the tool.

Our objective for the ITD24 is to apply the approach and tool in a workshop setting and to thus gain an additional validation of the approach specifically with regards to its use in transdisciplinary settings. The participants will in turn get to know an innovative approach as well as an accessible and easy-to-apply tool for reflecting upon pivotal points in their inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations. By now, we already know that the approach is suited to uncover deeper aspects of interdisciplinary collaborations and to discuss their impact on team dynamics and success. Hence, participants will engage in reflecting, comparing, and discussing factors that support successful collaboration across different disciplines on a deep level. By comparing key positive turning points and experiences about the dynamics that they have perceived as being crucial for reaching such points, participants will identify critical success factors in inter- and transdisciplinary research processes and discuss how to promote them.

The dialogue-oriented approach that is applied in the workshop aims not only to provide insights into the nuances of inter- and transdisciplinary research but also to equip participants with actionable knowledge they can implement in their ongoing scholarly endeavors. Participants will be provided with handouts explaining the Tipping Points Reflection Tool. As such, directly after the workshop, the participants will be able to apply the tool in their own teams.

Workshop Design

For the conference, we suggest to schedule a tipping points workshop, in order to allow for a dynamic and engaging 90-minute session. Our workshop design is dedicated to reflection, dialogue, and mutual learning. To guide the discussion, dedicated handouts will be provided.

Schedule of the workshop (chair: Antonietta Di Giulio)

1. Welcome and Setting the Stage (10-15 minutes, depending on the number of participants)

• Brief outline of the workshop's goals and schedule

• Presentation of the research team (LMU Munich: Leila Ahmadi & Sabine Toussaint; University of Basel: Rico Defila & Antonietta Di Giulio)

• Short round of presentation of participants

2. Introduction (20-25 minutes)

• Research design of the project “Collaborative Convergence: Positive Tipping Points of Interdisciplinary Research Dynamics”

• Tipping points approach

• Empirical results of the project (exemplary cases from the research consortium which was examined in the project)

3. Exploring the Tipping Points Reflection Tool (35 minutes)

• Introducing the Tipping Points Reflection Tool

• Individual reflection (personal experiences of crucial positive tipping points especially in transdisciplinary projects that include both academic and non-academic partners).

• Group Discussion (sharing and comparing of personal 'tipping-point-experiences', possibly clustering tipping points, identifying strategies for how to reach positive tipping points)

(Number of break out groups depends on number of participants; ideally, discussion takes place in groups of 4-5)

4. Collecting and discussing insights in the Plenary (20 minutes)

• Groups report key insights about tipping points or strategies from their discussions

• Groups report their experience in applying a tipping point approach

• Discussion about suitability of the approach in transdisciplinary settings

by Kirsi Cheas

The workshop begins with a brief presentation of what the Global Inter- and Transdisciplinary (henceforth ID-TD) Mentorship Initiative is/was all about, and how and why I perceive that this Initiative, which I started in 2021, has failed. Participants would then proceed to jointly discuss important aspects of global ID-TD mentoring, and brainstorm how we could create tools and communities for mentorship that would not be limited by the kind of struggles my original initiative experienced; i.e. conceptualizing the past struggles as productive failures enabling future success. Ideally, the workshop will be followed by an action plan and call to gather interested people to contribute and make it happen beyond the workshop and conference.

Background:

In 2021, I started developing the so-called Global Inter- and Transdisciplinary Mentorship Initiative, the main idea of which was to develop a wide-encompassing and inclusive network of mentors and mentees with an ID-TD focus:

• The Initiative aimed to extend access to sustainable and context-sensitive mentoring and peer-support for ID-TD early-career researchers (henceforth ECRs) and students, as they pursued their paradoxical and risky role as change-makers (see Dooling et al. 2017), pushing academia to become more open for ID-TD approaches.

• The initiative placed special emphasis on regions where ID-TD programs and centers are still relatively marginal, especially across the Global South.

• The Initiative also aimed to increase understanding about the specific challenges and forms of discrimination experienced by ID-TD students and ECRs in different regional and other contexts.

Many ID-TD networks and scholars at different career stages and regions expressed immediate or gradual interest in the initiative. However, by late 2023, I decided to stop advancing the Initiative for the following reasons:

• Lack of collaboration and integration between the networks and people involved. The Initiative was planned with the same idea as the ITD Alliance: a network of networks, which support one another in the development of similar goals in different contexts. In practice, each network that expressed interest in the Initiative wanted to create its own working group, to develop the initiative building on its specific interests and context and needs, quickly starting to dismiss needs and contexts of the other groups. Within months of starting the initiative, the “global” collaborative aspect of the initiative was lost; the forest was not seen for the trees. At the same time, I find that the existence of local groups is important, as it is only in this way that we can learn about context-specific needs and challenges. I.e. the Initiative failed to develop a functional glocal approach.

• Lack of leadership and coordination. As the person who had started the initiative, I was expected to lead the [non-existent] global network and all the different local groups at the same time. My time went into navigating endless meetings with each organization and its subgroup, each of which also expected me to fully understand and prioritize their specific needs and context, even if I often had no prior experience with their organization. I ran out of time, energy, and motivation within weeks from starting. This was especially the case considering that my own research focuses on journalism studies, not research on ID-TD; henceforth the initiative or nothing I do for these groups counts towards my own research career at all. I felt as though none of this was considered by the groups involved in the initiative. Lesson learned: From the start, I should have appointed someone to lead each group, vs. trying to assume that responsibility myself. I tried, but there really weren’t any volunteers. I still should have spoken up much more clearly about my own boundaries and position from the start.

• Lack of communication, as to what it takes to launch and create this initiative (vs. expecting results and benefits right away). Many of the ECRs and students who wished to become involved wanted me to provide them with their ideal mentor right away, without considering that the initiative and the pool of potential mentors first needs to be developed with the help of everyone. It was as though within weeks of starting, some of the people involved were annoyed that I couldn’t just give them what they were personally after, without even wanting to give anything in return. At the same time, I fully understand the despair I sensed – many of these students and ECRs had been looking for a suitable ID-TD mentor for years, and when spotting the Initiative, they no longer had the time or energy to consider what they themselves still needed to contribute to gain what should be considered a basic right in academia: a suitable mentor. Lesson learned: Whenever launching this kind of initiative, it is important to consider the needs – including emotional – and resources of the participants from the start, rather than assuming that everyone is on the same page and with resources to contribute and patience to wait.

Ethical considerations:

This workshop does NOT seek to blame or shame any person or organization who was involved in the initiative. The only person who will be “named” at all is Kirsi Cheas, who planned and organized the initiative, and is happy to look in the mirror for the fore-described failures. The goal of the workshop is not to point a finger at absolutely anyone, the goal is to openly share past errors so we can learn from them collectively, rather than repeating them in the future. If this proposal is accepted, I would appreciate dialogue with the organizers of the ITD Conference in advance of the workshop, as to how to make sure the workshop feels like a safe place for all the participants (especially those who might have been involved in the development of the original Initiative), and no-one feels guilt-tripped in any way.

Organization of workshop:

The workshop will start with a brief presentation of what the Initiative was (if pre-registration is possible, the description of the workshop on Google Drive can be shared to participants in advance), how it failed, and what is meant by the concept of Productive failure (e.g., Pearce 2020, Kapur 2016). The joint discussion can then begin. The participants will be first asked to spontaneously react to the ideas and failures presented, and how we could perceive them productively in the development of global ID-TD mentorship and related networking. Participants will then be divided into smaller groups, where they will be invited to brainstorm alternative initiatives/solutions for extending mentorship for ID-TD students and scholars in different global contexts. The ideas will be written on Miro Whiteboard. Participants interested in developing mentorship further will be asked to add their contact info on a separate sheet, which will then be shared amongst the interested participants, who can continue brainstorming beyond the workshop, continuing to build on the Miro board.

Contributors:

The principal responsible person for the workshop is Kirsi Cheas, who will be in charge of the initial presentation and overseeing the conversations and brainstorming. In addition, I have spoken with various colleagues from my original organization Finterdis – the Finnish Interdisciplinary Society, who are planning to attend the ITD2024 conference in person and are willing to support the organization of the workshop (e.g. guiding small groups in conversation, helping with tech, etc.) if need be. The final composition of the workshop group will be decided upon learning the results of each willing participant’s individual submissions and conference travel grant application results.

by Felix Beyers, Thomas Bruhn, Valerie Voggenreiter, Philip Bernert, Carolin Fraude, Mark Lawrence

With this article we aim to conceptually deepen the notion of process knowledge for transdisciplinary research and create a framework for process design and facilitation of transdisciplinary events.

Transdisciplinary research represents a collective process in which societal actors together with scientists, do not act as recipients of academic results, but also come together in transdisciplinary events or workshops to pursue both their own and joint research questions through a collaborative process. Transdisciplinary research events and gatherings are thus of great importance for sustainability transformation, but also sensitive to heated human dynamics because of the diverse political and cultural perspectives and value systems that end up mingling in these processes. The concept of process design for transdisciplinary events, however - what it means, and especially how it is adequately executed - has hardly been addressed in the transdisciplinary literature. It is simply often assumed that events of participation, knowledge integration and co-creation are straight forward, without recognizing that enabling, hosting, and facilitating transdisciplinary spaces is an expertise. Hereby, psycho-dynamic insights are crucial aiming to be sensitive towards and drawing from social human dynamics as well as constantly questioning the very purpose of the process.

We therefore investigate the transdisciplinary literature and search for the very purpose of transdisciplinary research to better understand what to accomplish during these events. We find that there is no unified understanding of transdisciplinarity with a great difference in purposes. Although they stem from various schools with differences in ontology and epistemology, we argue that a transformative research methodology may start from here to distinguish process purposes of transdisciplinary events.

Building on this, the authors propose a pragmatic framework for designing and facilitating transdisciplinary events that foregrounds the purposes of transdisciplinarity. It undergoes three steps of opening, deepening, and closing the transdisciplinary space and proposes specific questions for the group and the individual.

The authors then highlight examples from illustrative transdisciplinary events embedded in research projects, including sessions at the UN Climate Change Conference, a workshop for initiating transdisciplinary projects, a community of practice, and an urban real-world lab. Finally, the importance of process knowledge and studying facilitation expertise for transdisciplinary research is emphasized.

by Mikko Salmela, Bianca Vienni-Baptista, Kirsi Cheas

Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research are widely considered necessary to solving complex, often called ´wicked´, problems, and national and international funding schemes, institutional structures, and education programs have been created to foster interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. However, there is a largely silenced ´wicked´ problem in the heart of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: the precarious situation of researchers engaging in such research in their individual work. Relying on extant STS and ITD research, we identify the institutional, social, cultural, and psychological challenges of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary researchers in the contemporary scientific community. Based on Caniglia and Vogel (2023), we compare the position of these researchers to that of queer people in a heteronormative and sexually binary society. We argue that the challenges of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary scholars, and their queer-like status, should be conceptualised as a problem of recognition of these scholars. Following Fraser (2003), we understand denial of recognition –either through maldistribution of resources, or misrecognition of identity, or both– as a set of obstacles in equal participation in academic life. We then illustrate these challenges in the context of a debate on the Finnish translation of the term “transdisciplinary”. Finally, we distinguish between social and institutional recognition, concluding that while researchers can contribute to social recognition through their own actions, institutional recognition requires science policy interventions by research institutions and funders.

by Martina Ukowitz

The question of adequate relations between science and practice is a timeless issue. Transdisciplinary approaches to research have proven useful to overcome thinking in dichotomies and bridge the gap with methodological arrangements. Forces toward more practice-oriented conceptions of science in the 1990s led to the development of an elaborate research methodology beginning in the early 2000s. Nowadays, transdisciplinary methodology provides sophisticated methodical concepts, and mature research practices can be found in several fields. Still, transdisciplinary research is a niche program in science; its potential is not fully utilized, and it appears contested in some discourses. The proposed contribution focuses on transdisciplinary research in economic contexts, namely management and organization research. For many years now, the research-practice gap has been discussed in that field. A few contributions promote transdisciplinary approaches, but the concepts can hardly prevail against the warnings, particularly about the rigor-relevance gap. To promote transdisciplinarity in economy-near research, it is essential to understand the characteristics of the field and adapt transdisciplinary strategies to the specific environment. A literature review on practices of bridging the science-practice-gap in management and organization research and the reflection of empirical experiences in two transdisciplinary research projects with enterprises, one on inter-organizational cooperation and personnel development, the other on knowledge and technology transfer between science and companies, are the basis of the contribution. The following three dimensions are elaborated:

1. The systemic dimension: It considers the involved stakeholders and the specific system logic in economic contexts. Apart from enterprises and, eventually, political institutions and administrative bodies, intermediary institutions like economic promotion funds come into play. Consulting organizations (themselves enterprises or individual entrepreneurs) appear besides research. The field is strongly influenced by economic constraints like efficiency or competition, which in turn influences possibilities of cooperation between researchers and enterprises.

2. The methodological dimension: It considers the field-specific prerequisites in positioning transdisciplinary research with an overall research strategy and in implementing the different phases of research. The self-understanding of research and eventual differentiation between research and counseling are important issues to be reflected. Given the oversupply of various services, research has to assert itself among the many actors in the field, and the strong utility orientation in enterprises requires a particular understanding of co-creation and mutual learning. Consequently, in research practice, problem framing, knowledge generation, and transdisciplinary integration follow their own rules.

3. The institutional dimension and the issue of research culture: It considers the legitimation and reputation of transdisciplinary research practice, publishing, and teaching in business schools. While the many endeavors to raise the legitimation and reputation of transdisciplinary research projects are partly fruitful, the publication culture is still challenging, particularly in management and organization research where deductive thinking prevails. Transdisciplinarity in teaching faces the challenge of providing knowledge and competencies valuable in the professional fields and providing a solid basis for (a few) future researchers.

To sum up, transdisciplinary approaches have much potential for research in economic contexts, and the mature methodology, adapted to the specific field, could solve the theory-practice and rigor-relevance problem.

by Hussein Zeidan, Frederique Demeijer, Anne Loeber

Since its inception in the 1970s, the concept of transdisciplinarity has gained considerable attention and interest in scholarly circles and beyond as a research approach. This attention has stimulated, amongst others, a considerable amount of scholarly literature that explores the required preparation of researchers to navigate transdisciplinary environments and be properly prepared for adequately engaging with the complex societal issues of our time. Drawing inspiration from Dewey's work on experiential learning approaches such as problem-based learning and community service learning are transforming educational contexts from a knowledge-based to a competencies-based approach (Tarrant & Thiele, 2016). However, the conversations among scholars regarding the competencies necessary to adequately engage in transdisciplinary settings and, hence, deal with complex societal issues, remain ongoing.

Although there is a sense of convergence emerging from these discussions, the list of competencies attributed to transdisciplinarity continues to expand (e.g. Redman & Wiek, 2021). Consequently, designing courses to prepare students for transdisciplinary environments can be overwhelming due to the lack of shared understanding the interconnected nature of these competencies, and their reliance on each other to formulate the overarching set of transdisciplinary competencies. A significant issue that we observed is that discussions about competencies typically occur at the course level, with transdisciplinary competencies rarely being viewed as part of a scaffolding process.

In this presentation, we will examine the development of transdisciplinary competencies as a "leerlijn," which literally translates from Dutch to “Learning Path”. Our case study focuses on a re-evaluation of an ongoing 2-year master's program offered by the Athena Institute, known as Management, Policy Analysis, and Entrepreneurship in the Health & Life Sciences (MPA). Our intention was not to iterate the curriculum or its learning activities but rather to highlight the aspects of the program that contribute to the development of transdisciplinary competencies. To achieve this, we conducted bilateral interviews with course coordinators and facilitated two focus group discussions to explore how the program can foster the cultivation of transdisciplinary competencies.

This dialogue revealed that while course coordinators may interpret transdisciplinarity differently, their courses converged in fostering a set of competencies that align with the competencies discussed in scholarly work as suitable for transdisciplinary settings. However, it prompts us to ponder the depth of mastery that students achieve on the course level and how various courses can serve as building blocks to strategically guide students through their development. Here, we distil reflections and insights gained from these practitioners regarding crafting transdisciplinary curricula, the obstacles they encounter, and key factors to contemplate when structuring educational programs to nurture transdisciplinary competencies

Reference:

• Redman, A., & Wiek, A. (2021). Competencies for Advancing Transformations Towards Sustainability. Frontiers in Education, 6, 785163. https://doi.org/10.3389/FEDUC.2021.785163/BIBTEX

• Tarrant, S. P., & Thiele, L. P. (2016). Practice makes pedagogy – John Dewey and skills-based sustainability education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-09-2014-0127

Key readings (optional)

• Margolis, A. A. (2020). Zone of Proximal Development, Scaffolding and Teaching Practice. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 16(3). https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2020160303

by Annette Markham, Sarah Barns

Across all sectors, diverse stakeholders are coming to the table to address matters of planetary crisis. We agree with the conference organizers that the challenges of working productively together across incompatible and sometimes even hostile domains do not disappear simply because the issues are dire. The urgent call for inter- and trans-disciplinary approaches to address planetary problems presents not only the potential clash or combination of epistemologies, but conundrums around the co-presence of multiple scales of action.

Malcolm Gladwell (2000) popularized the idea that large-scale change was a (simple) matter of crossing a threshold, beyond which accumulative effects would prompt cascading systemic shifts. This notion is alluring, but assumes the presence of singularly-focused energies that move together toward a tipping point. Yet, if we consider that the experiential enactments of anything we might call “global” or “planetary” have never been a matter of scale, in the way these terms suggest on the surface, how might we change the terms or the lens to find new pathways and energies?

Relatedly, although interdisciplinarity seems wise and is still the most common ‘go to’ orientation, we share the concern of scholars such as Des Fitzgerald and Felicity Callard (2015) about “the regime of the inter-,” whereby “certain visions of territory – along with the corollary concepts of borders, incursions, and empire-building – tend to loom large.” In turn, we invite alternate epistemologies of practice that disrupt notions of scale, size, and territory, to create connections borne out of conditions of vulnerability and presence.

This paper proposes to think through this challenge through the lens of vulnerability, as both site and direction of practice and collaboration. We ask: if diverse stakeholders disciplinarity (inter- or trans-) shift to how we pay attention, or how attention is being directed or even mined, what new factors appear? What new experimental meeting points arise? Among the many directions one could take in thinking about this question, we pose questions close to the premises of our own approaches: First, how might a starting point of “vulnerability” be a generative tool for working with diverse stakeholders to address ‘planetary’ or ‘global’ or ‘local’ concerns? Then, and being inspired by Kuran, et al (2020), we combine this with another question: in what ways can the complexities of polycrisis be reconfigured by taking more deliberately intersectional perspectives?

Literature

• Fitzgerald, D., and Callard, F. (2015). Rethinking Interdisciplinarity across the Social Sciences and the Neurosciences. Palgrave.

• Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown.

• Kuran, C.H.A., et al (2020). Vulnerability and vulnerable groups from an intersectionality perspective. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50.

by Susan Thieme, Johanna Paschen, Mirko Winkel, Riikka Tauriainen, Yvonne Schmidt

Fridays for Future, climate crisis, – the debate about climate change and ecological sustainability has moved to the centre of society. The question is what options for action exist and what conditions must be in place for a societal transformation towards greater sustainability.

In this process scientific research, artistic practice and society are increasingly intertwined. Climate researchers seek exchange with artists or adapt artistic processes, while artistic practice is turning to ecological themes. However, it is debated to what extent the arts can generate sustainable ecological effects by fuelling a thematic debate without questioning structures and logics of production in the sense of a critical practice. More and more initiatives and funding bodies are also trying to bring artists together with climate researchers.

Unlike traditional science communication, these approaches foster new ways of co-creation by engaging with different communities. Yet, our understanding of their impact is limited. Questions remain about equal collaboration, exchange formats, quality criteria, funding structures as well as perceptions about and experiences of blurring boundaries of science communication, knowledge co-creation and activism.

Our inter- and transdisciplinary project ‘Relational Encounters between the Arts and Climate Research’ is a collaboration between two institutions (EcoArtlab, Academy of Arts University of Applied Science Bern and mLAB, Institute of Geography, University of Bern). The project investigates the interactions between artistic research, geography, critical sustainability research and climatology and opens new approaches to knowledge co-creation and several dimensions of justice.

One aim is to develop, in dialogue with practitioners, evaluation criteria and a set of promising factors and lessons learned for future climate-art collaborations.

In the conference presentation we wish to exchange on methodological challenges of such applied research by reflecting on two of our selected tools, namely residencies and a design lab workshop format.

Residencies are climate and sustainability thematic-led collaborations between artists, scientists, and activists. They work together for a period of up to eight months and produce a dialogue-based output that does justice to the various disciplines and practices involved. The conception of the residency is carried out by the researchers. The residents have all the freedom for the development of research and artistic positions. The projects, the collaboration and the external impact are monitored and evaluated by the project team.

The second method is a workshop format with representatives of research, the arts and funding bodies. We explore in a first step productive, frustrating, and unusual experiences made so far in various art/science collaborations within existing structures. The second step is a moderated design lab, where we develop possible new forms of collaborations with new ideas and questions that can be utilized for our own work and feed back to the funding institutions.

With our presentation we contribute to the general conference theme of the advancement of inter- and transdisciplinary concepts and processes. Research results will provide a better understanding of how collaborations between different knowledge systems such as research, activism and arts function, the potential power structures they are embedded in, and resulting potentials and challenges for project implementations and possible implications for evaluation criteria of integration in transdisciplinary projects.

by Hanna Salomon, Benjamin Hofmann, Sabine Hoffmann

Core aspects of inter- and transdisciplinary research are knowledge co-creation and integration (Adelle et al., 2020; Bulten et al., 2021; Hoffmann et al., 2017; Lang et al., 2012). A precondition for successful co-creation and integration is that researchers take on new and/or different roles within inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) teams. Being aware of researchers’ different roles in ITD teams supports the joint research endeavor in many ways, such as making expectations about own and others’ roles transparent (Bulten et al., 2021; Hilger et al., 2021). To raise this awareness, our workshop, based on a paper in preparation by the contributors, introduces a new tool we developed for mapping researchers’ roles in ITD research teams in a parsimonious and accessible way and for sparking reflection on the role profiles on individual and team level. Workshop participants apply the tool, thereby getting to know the tool and reflecting on their own roles in ITD research.

Based on literature in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability science (e.g. Bulten et al., 2021; Hoffmann et al., 2022; Wittmayer & Schaepke, 2014), the mapping and reflection tool covers six typical roles of researchers in ITD projects: traditional scientist, self-reflexive scientist, knowledge integrator, knowledge broker, process facilitator, and change agent. The design of our tool considers that researchers may take on multiple roles to varying degrees at the same time. Application of the tool consists of a role survey for researchers, instant visualization of the resulting role profiles, and a list of individual and group-level reflection questions. We empirically tested the tool in two four-year ITD research projects in the fields of sustainable food systems and watershed management. Based on results from this multi-case study, we discuss the value of our tool and derive suggestions on how to advance the mapping of and reflection on researchers’ roles in ITD research projects.

In our two cases, the mapping tool detected a broad diversity of roles of researchers. In both ITD projects, the roles of traditional scientists and knowledge integrator were rather strong, whereas the role of change agent was weakest. Furthermore, notable differences exist for role profiles of senior and junior researchers as well as between natural and social scientists. The individual and group reflection revealed numerous opportunities and challenges related to role profiles of individual researchers as well as the ITD project team as a whole. Overall, the mapping and reflection tool proved to be an easy-to-apply tool for making researchers’ roles in ITD projects transparent. This enabled a discussion about role self-perception and perception by others in the project team and sparked discussions about how roles in the team should develop. It also allowed project members to reflect on coping strategies for the challenges they experienced in connection with their role profiles.

Outline of workshop content

In this workshop, we will introduce participants to a mapping and reflection tool for researchers’ roles in ITD research projects, which we developed and applied in a multi-case study. The workshop kicks-off with a short presentation of the basic design of the tool and its embedding in the growing literature on researchers’ roles. Notably, we set the tool in the context of debates about (1) the number and granularity of researchers’ roles that need to be distinguished and (2) the possibility of taking on several roles simultaneously. We explain why our tool focuses on the limited number of six roles and considers that researchers assume several roles simultaneously but to varying degrees.

The core of the workshop is a guided, interactive application of the tool by participants to map and reflect on their own roles in ITD research. The application proceeds as follows: (1) participants fill out a short survey that operationalizes six common roles in ITD research; (2) based on the survey, participants map their scores for the six roles on a spider web visualization; (3) using guiding questions provided in the end of the survey, participants reflect individually on opportunities and challenges of their role profile; (4) in breakout groups, participants present and compare their role profiles and jointly reflect on the opportunities and challenges they identified for their role profiles.

Following the application, we briefly present the results of our test of the tool in two ITD research projects. We show patterns in the role profiles of both projects and present the opportunities and challenges identified in connection with these role profiles.

The workshop concludes with a plenary discussion of participants about the value of the presented mapping and reflection tool and its potential use in ITD projects in which participants are involved. The discussion compares the insights gained from our empirical results from two ITD projects with insights gained from the application of the tool by participants in the workshop session. Especially, participants discuss to what extent the use of the tool can contribute to knowledge co-creation and integration in ITD research.

The aims of the workshop are:

• Participants become familiar with the mapping and reflection tool through theoretical introduction and own practical application

• Participants reflect on their own roles in ITD research and related opportunities and challenges based on their application of the tool

• Participants discuss the value of the tool for making researchers’ roles in ITD research transparent based on empirical results from two projects and participants’ own reflections

Outline of workshop design

• 10’ Introduction to tool and literature context

• 40’ Contributors guide participants through tool application [Individual exercise: mapping your own role profile (10’). Discussion in breakout groups: opportunities and challenges of role profiles (30’)]

• 10’ Presentation of results from previous tool applications within two inter- and transdisciplinary research projects

• 30’ Plenary discussion and wrap-up

Key readings

• Bulten, Ellen, Laurens K. Hessels, Michaela Hordijk, and Andrew J. Segrave. 2021. “Conflicting Roles of Researchers in Sustainability Transitions: Balancing Action and Reflection.” Sustainability Science 16 (4): 1269–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00938-7.

• Hoffmann, Sabine, Lisa Deutsch, Julie Thompson Klein, and Michael O’Rourke. 2022. “Integrate the Integrators! A Call for Establishing Academic Careers for Integration Experts.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9 (1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01138-z.

• Wittmayer, Julia M., and Niko Schäpke. 2014. “Action, Research and Participation: Roles of Researchers in Sustainability Transitions.” Sustainability Science 9: 483–96.

by Lisa Deutsch, Sabine Hoffmann, Christof Stückelberger

If you have no tragedy, you have no comedy (Sid Caesar). Despite the promising potential of inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) integration for addressing urgent wicked problems (Palmer, 2018), it remains a challenge – for both project or program leaders and team members - to make integration happen in practice (Hoffmann, Deutsch, et al., 2022; O'Rourke et al., 2016; Polk, 2014). Integration can be defined as a multidimensional interactive process during which previously unrelated perspectives and expertise are connected with each other (cognitive dimension), different expectations and working routines are accommodated (social dimension) and a respectful atmosphere for learning and collaborating among project or program leaders and members is created (emotional dimension) (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016; Pohl et al., 2021). To what extent integration can be achieved depends on the overall conditions under which it is pursued (Deutsch et al., under review), and on what kind of behaviours and attitudes project or program leaders and members display during the creative process of integration. Hence, integration across disciplines as well as across science, policy and practice can bear rewarding, but also frustrating moments for all the parties involved.

Based on empirical insights from an accompanying research to three ITD research programs in Switzerland (Deutsch et al., under review) and our own experiences of leading integration processes within ITD projects and programs (Hoffmann, Weber, et al., 2022), we created a series of cartoons in collaboration with a professional cartoonist to capture scenes from ITD integration processes. The cartoon series is particular based on the results from a reversal technique – the headstand strategy – (Lungershausen, 2017) which we employed in a workshop setting in several project and program contexts in order to approach the emotionally charged challenge of integration (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016) from a different and ‘lighter’ angle. We asked participants to brainstorm concrete behaviours and attitudes and develop specific strategies to make sure that ITD integration fails in their projects or programs. Capturing the results of these workshops in a series of cartoons, the exhibition provides action-oriented knowledge for project or program leaders and members about how to actively hinder integration in practice. However, the exhibition doesn’t intend to stop there: it invites visitors to reflect upon the displayed scenes from ITD integration and think about how they can be modified or reversed in order to allow integration to happen, and share their thoughts on a “wall of ideas” at the end of the exhibition. Overall, the exhibition presents a visual and humorous take on the challenges of ITD integration and provides a space to digest frustrating experiences via the best medicine: laughter.

The exhibition could be displayed during the entire duration of the conference and attendees can visit the exhibition themselves. However, as organizers of this exhibition we will join the exhibition from time to time during the conference and be happy to discuss open questions with visitors. The exhibition would require a space for about 10-15 framed Cartoon pictures (size A3).

by Gemma O'Sullivan, Simon Scott

This workshop seeks to examine which competencies are uniquely developed in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary (ITD) learning approaches and how these approaches sit in relation to each other. We are part of the Working Group ‘Integration Experts and Expertise’ of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (ITD Alliance), gathered on the topic of integrative teaching and learning on integration in ITD higher education. As a result of the joint work in the Working Group, we have identified the need for a competency framework that articulates what capacities are developed in inter- and transdisciplinarity. Therefore, in this workshop, we seek to draw on our research and practice to put interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity into a dialogue to delineate the differences between them and explore how they complement each other. We will use this dialogue to propose a competency framework that articulates what capacities are developed in inter- and transdisciplinarity. Our aim is to develop a competency framework that supports educators and researchers to further strengthen and develop inter- and transdisciplinary practices.

Within the history of education, inter- and transdisciplinary learning approaches are still in their infancy albeit growing in prevalence and popularity (OECD, 2020; European Commission, 2021). For this workshop, we understand interdisciplinarity to be ‘instrumentalist interdisciplinarity.’ Instrumentalist interdisciplinarity is directed towards achieving practical goals or solving particular, complex problems (contrast with critical interdisciplinarity, which asks more fundamental questions, such as about the nature of disciplines and their relation with interdisciplinarity). It is the most common type of interdisciplinarity taught in higher education and is similar to transdisciplinarity, inviting a productive comparison between the two. Both are seen as a means, for example, to develop sustainability competencies in students or transversal skills to work with complex societal challenges or as a means to develop the ability to integrate different perspectives and support justice, diversity and inclusion.

What is common to both inter- and transdisciplinarity, is that they bring together students/researchers and academics to interact in a defined, problem-solving process and learn as a group to develop or enhance competencies to integrate knowledge and bridge the knowledge-action gap thereby contributing to the development of solutions to complex societal challenges (Fam et al., 2018; Gibbs, 2017; Klein, 2018; O'Sullivan, 2023).

There are also significant differences between them, most significantly, that transdisciplinarity includes extra-academic actors. We define extra-academic actors as those actors who are connected to transdisciplinary work on challenges ̶ for example, sectoral experts or individuals directly impacted by a complex problem ̶ but who are external to the academy (O’Sullivan, 2023). However, interdisciplinarity can be practiced individually or as part of a team, whereas transdisciplinarity is almost always a collaborative endeavor. In addition, interdisciplinarity can be practiced in order to discover new problems or to view something in a new, interdisciplinary way; transdisciplinarity is almost always practiced to solve complex problems.

The question for many practitioners and policymakers who work with inter- and transdisciplinary learning approaches is not only has learning taken place but what learning has taken place and what was the role of the practitioner, extra-academic, and student in this learning? Adopting the language of educational science can contribute to creating a shared, community-led evidence base to answer these questions. Increasingly, the holistic concept of a competency, which involves the mobilization of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values to meet complex demands (OECD, 2019) has been adopted by both inter- and transdisciplinary researchers and educators to describe what takes place in these practices, and how. In a review of the literature on inter- and transdisciplinary curricula development and teaching (O’Sullivan, 2023), inter- and transdisciplinary learning is most commonly expressed by practitioners in terms of competencies they seek to develop in students. However, which content, pedagogical approach or learning activity explicitly develops these competencies and how these can be assessed (at a student level) and evaluated (at an institutional level) is not always clear and remains somewhat challenging to articulate and identify.

Our discussion aims to expand on these similarities and differences with two aims in mind:

1. To delineate the difference between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.

2. To identify the competencies that are common to both, as well as competencies that are unique to one or the other.

The ITD24 conference is a potent opportunity to seek the input from a community of ITD specialists and practitioners on how to meaningfully tackle this issue and provide guidance on next steps for ITD researchers. The goal of the workshop is ultimately to think together to work towards a white paper and possible academic publication (see, for example, Brundiers et al., 2021) issued by the ITD Alliance as guidance for educators and policymakers on what competencies can be developed by inter- and transdisciplinary learning approaches.

Workshop Format

This workshop will begin with a plenary presentation on inter- and transdisciplinary definitions with an overview of the competencies present in the literature.

For example, a selection of competencies present in the literature on transdisciplinary learning (O’Sullivan, 2023) are as follows:

• Intrapersonal: academic humility, self-reflection, competency for deliberation, empathy, open-mindedness, sensitivity, flexibility, adaptability, attitude, assertiveness

• Interpersonal: learning from each other, development of meaningful social relations with group members, social skills, facilitation, the ability to build trust, perform in a flat structure, communication, collaboration, team knowledge (e.g., task understanding, role knowledge); and team attitudes (e.g., team orientation, trust, cohesion)

• Cognitive: problem solving, knowledge brokerage, shared mental models

Participants will be divided into two groups. In the first group, interdisciplinarity, Simon Scott will lead a critical thinking exercise to surface which competencies in the literature can be considered as foundational. In the second group, Gemma O’Sullivan will examine transdisciplinarity and lead a critical thinking exercise to identify which competencies are needed to develop both integrative and actionable knowledge capacity in students and practitioners.

As a plenary, participants will be invited to contrast the competencies listed in the two groups. The resulting comparison will form the basis of a draft framework identifying which competencies are developed uniquely in each approach (inter- and transdisciplinarity) and which may only be specific to one. The key output of the workshop is a draft framework on inter- and transdisciplinary competencies. This framework will be iteratively reviewed at a series of follow-up virtual meetings through which an ITD Alliance position paper on inter- and transdisciplinary learning approaches and competency development will be co-created. This will support educators globally who wish to collaborate on multiple case studies and build a community of practice. It provides a common language through which educators and institutions can benchmark education initiatives. It also supports educational scientists seeking to build an evidence base to support the development of inter- and transdisciplinary learning, its evaluation and concomitant assessment methods, for example, competency-based assessment. Finally, it will provide an empirical basis for reflecting on the value and purpose of interdisciplinarity, and the ability to identify clear pedagogical goals associated with this kind of interdisciplinarity in contradistinction to the growing popularity of transdisciplinarity.

References

• Brundiers, K., Barth, M., Cebrián, G. et al. Key competencies in sustainability in higher education—toward an agreed-upon reference framework. Sustainability Science 16, 13–29 (2021). https://doi-org.proxy.library.uu.nl/10.1007/s11625-020-00838-2

• European Commission. (2021). European Universities Initiative. Available from: https://education.ec.europa.eu/document/european-universities-initiative-factsheet

• Fam, D., Neuhauser, L. & Gibbs, P. (Eds.), (2018). Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education. Dordrecht: Springer.

• Gibbs, P. (Ed.). (2017). Transdisciplinary higher education: A theoretical basis revealed in practice. London: Springer.

• Klein, J. T. (2018). Learning in transdisciplinary collaborations: A conceptual vocabulary. In D. Fam, L. Neuhauser & P. Gibbs, P. (Eds.), Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education (pp. 11-23). Dordrecht: Springer.

• OECD. (2019). OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 concept note. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-andlearning/learning/skills/Skills_for_2030_concept_note.pdf

• OECD. (2020). Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research.

• O’Sullivan, G. (2023). Shaping transdisciplinary, challenge-based education using knowledge creating teams from five European universities: A realist evaluation. University of Dublin Trinity College. Dublin, Ireland.

• Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. (2020). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Sage Publications.

• Schmidt, J. C. (2021). Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity: Studies in Science, Society and Sustainability. Routledge.

by Marieke Schoots, Yvette Drissen

Tilburg University (TiU) is a humanities and social sciences university in the Netherlands. In TiU’s 2022-2027 Strategy Weaving Minds and Characters, the university explicitly chooses to strengthen the societal impact of its research. The implementation of this ambition is carried out through Academic Collaborative Centers (ACCs). In the ACCs, researchers work together intensively with a range of societal organizations, businesses, governments etc. Key to this collaboration in the ACCs is co-creation: a collaborative and participatory approach involving multiple stakeholders (researchers, societal partners, businesses, students, the civil community) in a process where (academic) research and practical and social initiatives mutually enrich each other. Via co-creation, the Centers bring together different perspectives and expertise, including academic and practice-derived knowledge required to address complex problems and generate meaningful and useful outcomes. The ACCs target pressing societal issues such as sustainability transitions, inequality and wellbeing and health. The collaboration with partners is long-term and structural. ACCs provide a place for interaction between societal partners and TiU’s interdisciplinary research-communities, creating room for transdisciplinarity to thrive.

To build robust and durable ACCs, TiU appointed multiple professors to act as Academic Leads. These professors are rooted in different faculties, thus securing the interdisciplinary nature of the Centers. Dedicated post-doctoral researchers, appointed within the ACCs, carry out research while operating in a highly innovative transdisciplinary environment. Their perspective is central to this conference presentation. We aim to present the opportunities and challenges that a transdisciplinary environment poses on these early career researchers (ECRs), using their experiences as a case study.

We define early career researchers as researchers who defended their PhD thesis up to 6 years ago. For them, working in the context of an Academic Collaborative Center comes with both pros and cons.

To name a few pros: participation in transdisciplinary teams exposes early career researcher to various perspectives and domains of knowledge, broadening their understanding. It provides networking opportunities to expand the researcher's professional network, as they interact with experts and professionals from different fields. In terms of capacity building, their creative problem-solving-skills are stimulated, which is beneficial when tackling complex problems.

However, the emphasis on transdisciplinary research within ACCs can be at odds with the way science has been conducted traditionally, that is, within the boundaries of their own discipline. This can create uncertainty for early career researchers. Working in a transdisciplinary team could result in ECRs spending less time on becoming an expert in a specific field. Furthermore, co-creation processes simply take time and making impact demands different types of (academic and non-academic) outputs, both of which can entail a decreased emphasis on traditional academic outputs such as scientific publications. This can lead to career path ambiguity.

In the presentation we will focus on the important role of ECRs in developing the ACCs. After a short introduction on the ACCs, our ECR Yvette Drissen will elaborate on how she shapes her research in a transdisciplinary context.

by Kirsten Vegt, Janneke Elberse, Laurens Hessels

Inter- and transdisciplinary approaches in science are recognized for their potential to address complex societal challenges comprehensively. Collaborative efforts between citizens, scientists, and policymakers are often advocated to enhance mutual trust and develop more socially robust scientific knowledge. However, empirical evidence supporting these claims remains limited. In this study, we explore the potential advantages of employing an inter- and transdisciplinary approach to science through two case studies on noise pollution.

Noise pollution poses a significant concern for Dutch communities residing near railroads and airports. Despite well-documented adverse health effects, the anticipated increase in rail freight traffic and air travel suggests that the problem is likely to exacerbate in the near future. For instance, the EU plans to double rail freight traffic by 2050 for sustainable transportation, while long-standing proposals aim to expand Schiphol airport.

Safeguarding the health and well-being of citizens is as a paramount goal of policymaking. Therefore, accurately assessing noise pollution is crucial for effective policymaking and enforcement. However, current methods in the Netherlands primarily rely on modeling and calculating long-term mean noise levels and -annoyance. These do not sufficiently address local experiences and concerns, such as short-term peak noise levels, leading to criticism and distrust.

In response to these challenges, concerned citizens have embraced the role of citizen scientists, measuring noise levels with affordable yet quality sound meters and reporting on the impact of noise on their well-being. Despite originating from frustration and distrust, this citizen science approach has the potential to bridge gaps between science, society, and policy.

Our study focuses on two interconnected case studies: noise pollution from freight train traffic in the village of America (Limburg), where a busy railroad is situated close to residential houses, and aircraft noise pollution around Schiphol Airport (North-Holland). Residents near the railroad experience increased annoyance due to longer and heavier freight trains, especially at night. Similarly, air traffic growth around Schiphol Airport intensifies noise pollution, causing annoyance and concern in neighboring communities.

Both citizen science projects involved scientists and citizens collaboratively conducting research in virtually every stage of the scientific process, including formulating research questions, data collection, and interpretation. Drawing on experiences from both case studies, we highlight the valuable impact of citizen participation in scientific research. Through interviews and project documentation, we explore the impact of citizen science on the social robustness of policy-relevant science regarding noise pollution. The results emphasize that acquiring "real-world knowledge" at a local level, employing a transdisciplinary approach, and using an iterative research process contribute to the social robustness of scientific knowledge in this field.

by Bianca Vienni Baptista, Isabel Fletcher, Ulrike Kuchner, María Goñi Mazzitelli

Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (ITD) are seen, among other uses, as important means of producing knowledge for transformation, e.g through addressing societies’ grand challenges. However, disconnects between different communities who undertake collaborative research are evident in the literature and in practice. This disconnect is particularly puzzling in the case of Science and Technology Studies (STS) and ITD scholars who often share research topics –day-to-day practices of knowledge production, the influence of funding on the knowledge produced, etc. Yet, with some notable exceptions and efforts, there is little articulation between these communities. We see this as problematic as knowledge and recognised good practice on how to better foster inter- and transdisciplinary research are rendered invisible, causing unnecessarily fragmented approaches to shared knowledge domains.

This session will explore the many conceptual and methodological intersections between ITD and STS scholarships. We seek to discuss their mutual enrichment and their contributions to the advancement of research in these domains.

Workshop design

In this session, we aim at exploring the following questions:

• What are the ways and means by which ITD and STS research enrich each other?

• What are the roles researchers and practitioners perform when working in the intersections of ITD and STS? How are these roles transformed when working in the boundaries between ITD and STS?

• How can problem spaces be methodologically and conceptually defined when combining ITD and STS perspectives?

• How can ITD and STS unite to contribute to the making and doing of transformations?

• How does the emergence of new techniques of producing, distributing, evaluating and experiencing knowledge contribute to transformative ways of ITD and STS?

• How can science-society interfaces be more inclusive when STS and ITD work together?

The session (90 minutes) will take the format of a participatory forum in which small groups will discuss the questions guiding the session and build a rich map. Therefore the session is open to papers contributions from the community.

During the first part of the session (20 minutes), we will showcase impactful ITD and STS interactions from our own research and experience. We will also include a short provocation in this slot to guide the discussion in the rest of the session. If any papers are to be assigned to this session by the organizers, we will allocate enough time for that.

In the second half of the session (40 minutes), participants will respond to these presentations based on their own research practice. We will invite participants to work in small groups to identify best practices from their own expertise which can be further developed in collaborations between these fields.

The mapping exercise will be organized by convenors who will collect responses from the small group conversations (30 minutes). Responses can be words-focused, or creative and/or interpretative for a free-hand drawn map and will focus on the lived experiences of the participants before moving to change. Simultaneously, convenors will organize an artistic output and interaction including an artist who will respond to what they hear by drawing/painting/creating (through abstraction). This output will be projected onto another piece of paper/canvas on the wall. Then, participants will interact and respond freely to this representation by drawing onto the canvas or talking/clarifying when the representation doesn’t capture what they mean. If possible, a small usb microscope will be used for this projection, in order to “zoom in” on sticky points (figuratively and literally) and spend more time each relevant aspect.

The final outcome of the panel is to map the actions, pathways and intersections of STS and ITD brokering, employing design thinking or speculations/story-telling. We will explore visual representations and understandings of the landscape including overlaps and divergences. It is important to mention that a similar session will be held at the next EASST (European Association for the Study of Science and Technology) 2024 Conference in July, in which we seek to collect insights on the same questions by the STS community.

by Charlotte van Tuijl, Irene Fierloos, Ilse van de Groep, Lysanne te Brinke, Milene Gonçalves, Susanna Osinga

Healthy Start, a convergence programme, integrates social, medical and technical sciences to examine complex societal challenges for youth, from conception to young adulthood. The overall goal is to realize scientific and societal impact in order to improve physical, mental and social health of children and adolescents. The programme is a collaboration between the Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus Medical Centre, Delft University of Technology and a wide range of societal partners, such as youth associations, civil society organizations and healthcare professionals. The convergence programme consists of six ambitions.

One of the Healthy Start’s ambition programmes is to improve the participation and involvement of unheard youth in Rotterdam (https://convergence.nl/healthy-start/youth-participation-and-involvement-2/). Research shows that youth participation and involvement may have positive outcomes for young people’s well-being, self-confidence, and development of new skills (1, 2). In addition, it may

by Roosmarijn van Woerden, Merel M. van Goch, Sandra G. L. Schruijer, Iris van der Tuin

The great challenges of the modern age such as climate change or global inequality are complex problems that transcend disciplinary boundaries. Multidisciplinary teamwork is needed to bring together disciplinary insights and to create a more comprehensive understanding of these complex problems. Higher education should prepare students for working in multidisciplinary teams, but relatively little is known about how students interact in multidisciplinary student teams (MSTs). This study analysed teamwork behaviour of students in MSTs (conducting interdisciplinary research), using observational data. Our findings show that tendencies vary across different teams, but that general trends can be identified across teams. Students struggle to have structured meetings in which they work together on one task, have in-depth integrative discussions and reach quality decisions. They shy away from addressing suboptimal team processes and frustrations, but spend much time on task division, planning, uncertainty reduction and distractions during meetings. Our research implies that students may need more time in class to do teamwork and they need more guidance in all aspects of the process, such as their role as disciplinary and interdisciplinary expert, going through diverging and converging integration processes, critical decision-making, engaging with feedback in a meaningful way, addressing frustration and tension, and reflecting on team product and processes.

by Line Horgen Thorstad, Sigrid Hauge Nustad, Julie Natland Bjørnstad

As humanity faces increasingly complex challenges there is a rising demand for students and professionals with interdisciplinary competence. The Center for Interdisciplinary Education, INTED, addresses these needs by helping students, teachers, leaders, and stakeholders develop the skill set needed to tackle these challenges, and in leading change at the university level. The main goal is to become an international hub for research-based integration of interdisciplinary competence in education. We will do this by developing approaches and pedagogies and establishing a research basis for them, developing a culture for interdisciplinary teaching and learning, and disseminating the results. Students are at the heart of INTED, bringing together students from the Faculty of Humanities, the Faculty of Social Sciences, and the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at UiO to develop students' interdisciplinary competence. Students are included in the center's leadership team, making them key partners in every aspect of the center. The center started its activity in 2023 and has employed three student co-leaders, with backgrounds in different disciplines. These students were involved in shaping the center's strategic plans and ambitions, even in writing the center application, as well as designing and participating in the center’s interdisciplinary activities. Our student leaders also have responsibilities in the interdisciplinary facilitator program, in interdisciplinary workshops as both facilitators and leaders, in research projects, development teams, recruiting students, and with dissemination.

In our presentation, we describe the activities that the student leaders are involved in, such as workshops, summer projects, facilitator programs, and other center activities. We will also discuss our vision for student participation. We believe student involvement benefits the center in different ways. Students have resources that the center builds on in shaping the center and its activities to better fit the needs of both today’s students and the future demands of the world. Further, the center benefits from having a continuous dialogue with students, enabling us to tap into students' engagements and interests in order to develop interdisciplinary workshops and student activities. It also provides students with a unique opportunity to develop into leaders and representatives for their discipline, enabling them to take charge of both their own and their peers' education.

We wish to share our experience as student leaders and share how students partake in INTED’s goals and leadership. By highlighting our experiences, we hope to give insights into how one can involve students more proactively in the leadership of an interdisciplinary center. For the second half of the presentation, we wish to invite the audience to give input, share ideas, and reflect upon student involvement and leadership in academic centers. What are the challenges of giving students the leading position in developing interdisciplinary processes in a higher education institution?

by Lena Theiler, Emilia Nagy, Oskar Marg, Martina Schäfer

According to ideal type models, transdisciplinary (TD) processes are assumed to generate effects in science and practice (Jahn et al. 2012, Lang et al. 2012). However, striving for both societal and scientific effects during a research process is considered challenging. This workshop will explore the implications of this challenge.

The pursuit of an ideal-typical realization of transdisciplinary research may lead to synergies or trade-offs between scientific and societal effects. We define synergies as positive effects in science and practice resulting from the essential qualities of a typical TD research process. Examples of synergies include cooperation between science and practice, societal problem orientation, or knowledge integration. On the one side, science benefits from both context-specific and generalized knowledge contributions as well as phenomenological and strategic knowledge of professional practice experts and local actors (Enengel et al. 2011, Hegger and Dieperink 2015, Marg and Theiler 2023). On the other side, societal actors benefit from improved evidence for societal decisions and the implementation of evidence-based policies and action programs generated (Stauffacher et al. 2008, Hegger and Dieperink 2015, Schäfer et al. 2021).

We define trade-offs as negative effects or the absence of effects in science or practice resulting from TD research processes. In the literature, trade-offs have primarily been described from the perspective of science, highlighting the correlation between increased interactions with practitioners and reduced academic output and impact (e.g. Zscheischler et al. 2018, Newig et al. 2019, Jahn et al. 2022). Other authors suggest that the promises of the TD research mode do not always fulfill the expectations of practitioners, e.g. because the produced knowledge is not compatible with their needs (Stauffacher et al. 2008, Polk 2014).

In the context of the project tdAcademy funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), we empirically explored the paradox that the "very conditions that presume the success of transdisciplinary processes are the same ones that potentially reduce their effectiveness and reintegration back into the practical and scientific realms where such results can be used" (Polk 2014: 450). The objectives of our empirical endeavor were to systematize common synergies and trade-offs in science and practice, and to identify the most important factors at individual, structural, and project levels that influence the emergence of synergies and trade-offs. Another central focus of our research was to identify strategies for individuals or project teams to deal with these factors to promote synergies and minimize trade-offs.

During the session, we will present our empirical results based on a secondary analysis of two types of data: 1) qualitative interviews with 22 researchers experienced in transdisciplinary and disciplinary research and 2) seven half day-workshops on planning and monitoring the social effectiveness of four transdisciplinary projects involving partners from science and practice. These data resulted in preliminary findings that were further discussed and supplemented in focus group interviews with participants from academia and practice.

In the ITD24 session, we would like to discuss the following two key questions:

1. Are the presented results plausible and comprehensive for the TD community?

2. What kind of guidance is helpful for developing strategies to strengthen synergies and to mitigate trade-offs between scientific and societal effects, and thus improving TD research?

The aim of the session is to exchange experiences with TD researchers on synergies and trade-offs between scientific and societal effects as well as strategies to deal with this tension. The exchange with the TD community is valuable to make our research results more applicable to research practice, e.g. in form of a guideline.

Description of the session design (in person / 60 min): In the first 20-25 minutes of the session, we will present our research findings. The remaining 35-40 minutes will provide space for in-depth discussion along the key questions mentioned above.

Key readings

• Marg, O. and Theiler, L. (2023) ‘Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity‘, Research Evaluation, 32/4: 635–47.

• Newig, J., Jahn, S., Lang, D. J. and Kahle, J. et al. (2019) ‘Linking modes of research to their scientific and societal outcomes. Evidence from 81 sustainability-oriented research projects‘, Environmental Science & Policy, 101: 147-55.

• Polk, M. (2014) ‘Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving‘, Sustainability Science, 9/4: 439-51.

References

• Enengel, B., Muhar, A., Penker, M. and Freyer, B. et al. (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: 106-17.

• Hegger, D. and Dieperink, C. (2015) ‘Joint knowledge production for climate change adaptation: what is in it for science?‘, Ecology and Society, 20/4.

• Jahn, S., Newig, J., Lang, D. J. and Kahle, J. et al. (2022) ‘Demarcating transdisciplinary research in sustainability science-Five clusters of research modes based on evidence from 59 research projects‘, Sustainable Development, 30/2: 343-57.

• Jahn, T., Bergmann, M. and Keil, F. (2012) ‘Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization‘, Ecological Economics, 79: 1-10.

• Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M. and Stauffacher, M. et al. (2012) ‘Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges‘, Sustainability Science, 7/S1: 25-43.

• Marg, O. and Theiler, L. (2023) ‘Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity‘, Research Evaluation, 32/4: 635–47.

• Newig, J., Jahn, S., Lang, D. J. and Kahle, J. et al. (2019) ‘Linking modes of research to their scientific and societal outcomes. Evidence from 81 sustainability-oriented research projects‘, Environmental Science & Policy, 101: 147-55.

• Polk, M. (2014) ‘Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving‘, Sustainability Science, 9/4: 439-51.

• Schäfer, M., Bergmann, M. and Theiler, L. (2021) ‘Systematizing societal effects of transdisciplinary research‘, Research Evaluation, 30/4: 484–99.

• Stauffacher, M., Flüeler, T., Krütli, P. and Scholz, R. W. (2008) ‘Analytic and Dynamic Approach to Collaboration: A Transdisciplinary Case Study on Sustainable Landscape Development in a Swiss Prealpine Region‘, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 21/6: 409–22.

• Zscheischler, J., Rogga, S. and Lange, A. (2018) ‘The success of transdisciplinary research for sustainable land use: individual perceptions and assessments‘, Sustainability Science, 13/4: 1061-74.

by Julie Kurris, Lidwien Jacobs, Marca Wolfensberger

The research group transdisciplinary collaboration in education of Avans University of Applied Sciences gathered multiple interesting practices of educational programs including transdisciplinary collaborations. Researching in which the common pitfalls and successes of transdisciplinary collaborations become visible, as this type of projects generally start with enthusiastic individuals, often teachers, who face similar challenges (Tijsma, Urias, Zweekhorst, 2023). Through interesting transdisciplinary practices, the pioniers can gather inspiration and build upon lessons learned and already existing knowledge.

An interesting practice is the minor ‘take back the economy’ of Avans UAS, in which students are challenged to think about the current economic system and how this system could be transformed. In the minor, students from multiple disciplines are working together on a complex economic challenge, in which they are encouraged to work together with stakeholders outside academia. This complies with the definition of transdisciplinary education in which transdisciplinary education is defined by the integration of researchers from various disciplines with teachers, students, and non-academic participants who, in co-creation, gain insights, generate new knowledge, or produce products to achieve a common goal (OECD, 2020).

For the minor, students are working on a HELIO (Hybrid External Learning and Innovation Environment), which means that the place where they work, research, and learn, is located outside of the regular classrooms. The location of this case is De Kleine Aarde, a centre of sustainability where experiments with food sustainability, circular economy and soil health are conducted.

In the video, Lidwien Jacobs, one of the teachers and researchers in the minor, is talking about the learning outcomes of the students, the expectations, and the collaborations with external stakeholders on an external site outside of Avans UAS. Her story relates to the intangible, the development of transversal competences and the inner development that participants of a transdisciplinary project experience, and sometimes outweighs the final result the team members have come to. Through working on a wicked problem from different perspectives, both interdisciplinary and cross sectoral, people learn about their own expertise by the reflections of others and about the others' experience and expertise. These developments can be small – like the example in the video – but are truly essential for building new knowledge over the boarders of different domains, what transdisciplinarity ultimately about (Mokiy, 2019).

In the video, Lidwien Jacobs discusses her experience as a teacher in the transdisciplinary project, the attitudes she brought in to support the learning process of the students most effectively. The video thus also functions an interesting practice for other teachers in transdisciplinary projects.

References

• Mokiy, V. S. (2019). International standard of transdisciplinary education and transdisciplinary competence. Informing Science, 22, 73.

• OECD (2021), Embedding Values and Attitudes in Curriculum: Shaping a Better Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aee2adcd-en

• Tijsma, G., Urias E., & Zweekhorst M. (2023). Embedding engaged education through community service learning in HEI: a review. Educational Research, 65(2), 143-169.