ITD24 Arichve: Sessions 181-189

by Anne Kristiina Salmi, Aarne Mämmelä, Mirjami Jutila, Tekla Maria Heinonen, Christine Ogilvie Hendren, Bianca Vienni Baptista, Donata Dettwiler, Sabine Hoffmann, Lisa Deutsch

Inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) research and education are often seen as a way to respond to major global challenges (e.g. European University Association, EUA, A Green Deal Roadmap for the Universities, 2023). The current polycrises demand universities and research institutes to transform and renew themselves in order to have societal impact for research and to obtain adequate skills for future specialists (OECD, 2016; EUA Green Deal Roadmap for the Universities, 2023). Transforming universities and research institutes requires also attitude changes from researchers, universities, and funders, as well as efforts for creating a shared language, recognizing individual researchers' contributions, and reforming recruitment and evaluation practices (see e.g. Guimarães et al. 2019; Loorbach and Wittmayer, 2023; Hall et al. 2019).

Interdisciplinary work between specialists requires generalists with broad historical knowledge to define a common vision and then identify a research problem that cannot be solved within a single discipline (Repko and Szostak, 2020). The specialists solve the problem interactively, but for efficient work, they must have a common vocabulary and a shared understanding of the vision. It is known that similar concepts have been independently defined in different disciplines, but the terminology may vary. Among other requirements, higher education organizations and research institutes need vocabularies that establish links between the terms and concepts. Systems thinking may be one of the useful concepts required (Checkland, 1999). The need for the system and feedback concepts in social sciences has also been discussed early (Richardson, 1991).

Despite the recognized potential of and requirements for ITD, universities and research institutes still change slowly to the demand of more collaborative research and teaching. The new Times Higher Education (THE) initiative for a specific Interdisciplinary Science Ranking (ISR) category may push the development if enough universities participate in the new category (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/content/interdisciplinary-science-rankings-participation?cmp=1). Researchers Christopher Daley and Linda Hantrais, however, argue in a recent blog post that interdisciplinarity “should not be used as a measure of the quality of research and teaching in global university rankings” (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/01/17/a-ranking-for-interdisciplinarity-is-a-poor-measure-for-the-quality-of-research-and-teaching-in-universities/). Strategy-level changes, common vocabulary and adequate funding models for ITD might hasten the transformation in a more sustainable manner.

Many universities have developed and are testing different models for promoting and governing inter- and transdisciplinarity. Organizing events, master’s and PhD courses and different trainings and even establishing particular institutes to enhance ITD knowhow have become at least somewhat common (LERU position paper, 2023). Examples of these institutions have been discussed in previous editions of this conference (Vienni-Baptista and Klein, 2022). Out of a comparative study of seventeen cases, a heuristic framework has been elaborated to promote and assess inter- and transdisciplinary research and teaching in higher education (Vienni-Baptista and Klein, 2022). The Global ITD Alliance has also e.g. called upon a need for a particular integration experts role in the academia (Hoffmann et al. 2022). The integration experts could act as bridge builders and knowledge-brokers in their roles. Using this expert role, however, awaits recognition and trial. Generally, “there is a lack of expertise in integrating ITD across universities” (Bammer et al. 2020 in LERU position paper, 2023).

In this workshop, we address the above-described transformation challenge of universities in a practice-oriented manner. The workshop’s aim is to give university administrators, practitioners, teachers, researchers, funders and developers insights into the different models of transforming universities. We will share university-level examples for ITD promotion and governance and best practices, as well as strategy-level transformation processes.

The workshop will consist of five minute presentations followed by small group discussions and joint thinking. We’ll present contributions from Finland, United States and Switzerland (ETH Zurich & Eawag). Practical examples that will be presented include e.g. an action guide targeted at directors of research organizations with 12 practical strategies to fully incorporate inter- and transdisciplinarity in research organizations based both on literature and empirical insights from leading ITD processes at Eawag (Switzerland). For its part, a practical and heuristic framework for designing and assessing institutionalizing processes offers pathways to best practices in research and teaching. Additionally, heuristics derived from developing interdisciplinary systems thinking training for doctoral researchers will be shared. The University of Oulu's training program aims to provide a coherent understanding of science and to motivate participants to extend this coherence across all disciplines. Another pragmatic example included in this session is a suite of approaches to support transdisciplinary and convergent collaborative research being introduced at Appalachian State University. A combination of institutionally supported roles dedicated to integration, experimental course-based research experiences, and an intentional investment on shared research infrastructures that can serve as boundary objects for growing transdisciplinary research in areas of excellence will be presented.

The facilitated exchange in small groups aims to discuss the four inputs and respective guides, tools and heuristics. Each group will reflect on one “appetizer” input by focusing on four aspects: 1) relevancy: To what extent are the presented guides, tools and heuristics relevant for transforming universities?, 2) usefulness: To what extent are the guides, tools and heuristics useful for participants’ contexts and informing their actions?, 3) expected consequences: What are the intended and unintended consequences of suggested actions?, and 4) next steps: What is the one “low-hanging fruit” action and one “high-hanging fruit” action the participants can take to jump-start or support transforming universities in their own contexts.

We are part of the Working Group “Integration Experts and Expertise” of the Global ITD Alliance, gathered on the topic of integrative teaching and learning in ITD higher education. The workshop has been discussed and prepared in collaboration with the working group.

Description of the workshop design:

Length: 90 minutes

Workshop design:

1. Menu: Opening the workshop and guidance, 5 min
   Salmi, Jutila, Heinonen, Hendren, Vienni Baptista, Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.

2. Appetizer 1: Enhancing inter- and transdisciplinarity oriented culture – heuristics from developing interdisciplinary systems thinking training for doctoral researchers, 5 min
   Presenters: Salmi, Jutila, and Heinonen.

3. Appetizer 2: A practical framework for transforming academia through inter- and transdisciplinarity, 5 min
   Presenters: Vienni Baptista.

4. Appetizer 3: Building shared research infrastructures to scaffold transdisciplinary scholarship: Dedicated integrator roles, seed funding, and managed boundary objects, 5 min
   Presenters: Hendren.

5. Appetizer 4: Action Guide: Strategies to establish inter- and transdisciplinarity in your organization, 5 min
   Presenters: Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.

6. Main course: Investigating the common ground – an interactive workshop. A facilitated discussion in small groups with guiding questions, 45 min
   Facilitators: Salmi, Jutila, Heinonen, Hendren, Vienni Baptista, Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.
   Contributors: All workshop participants.

7. Dessert: The icing on the cake. Sharing the key discussion points and findings from all small groups, 20 min.
   Contributors: All workshop participants.
   Facilitators: Salmi, Jutila, Heinonen, Hendren, Vienni Baptista, Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.

by Michael Jordan Bernstein, Lauren Lambert, Fern Wickson

Climate disasters, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation continue to impact people and the planet in acute (e.g., extreme weather events), prolonged (e.g., sustained drought) and anticipated (e.g., future sea level rise) exposures. Increasingly, researchers from across disciplines are drawing attention to the emotional distress and mental health impacts of these increasingly frequent and prominent features of living in the Anthropocene. Concepts like ecological grief and eco-anxiety, solastalgia (the distress of lived experience of direct local environmental change) are well documented among people of all ages. Students within higher education and researchers working with sustainability, too, are grappling with these distressing emotions. Yet to date, educational frameworks for sustainability – designed to support inner and societal transformation – do not account for the competences needed to recognize, hold, and process these distressing emotions.

In this presentation, we briefly highlight key sustainability competence frameworks from the past decade and identify the need for a new competence set related to emotional recognition, holding, processing, and integration. We first present a synthesis of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes characterizing key competences for sustainability education. Key sustainability competence frameworks converge around the need for people to be able to work together to address complex, value-laden challenges in socio-ecological systems with vision, self-awareness, collaboration, and strategic intent. We then present a synthesis of this review based on the transformative sustainability learning model of head, heart, hands. The presentation will focus on our proposed fourth aspect: gut competence. Gut competences focus on absorption and digestion of distressing emotions to support constructive responses in service of enhanced metal health and motivation for sustained action for societal transformation.

Engaging with this expanded set of sustainability competences requires growing offerings related to the inner transformative work associated with recognizing, holding, processing, and integrating emotions. Although work to address eco-anxiety and related emotional issues linked to global environmental crises is expanding and there have been some recent exploratory efforts broaching how to approach such issues within higher education, there remains a pressing need to further engage emotional dimensions when teaching on sustainability for societal transformation. We close with an elaboration of ways in which gut competences can be better integrated in higher education by drawing on transformative learning theory, pedagogies from contemplative practice, and experiences from social movements. Leaning into the pains of societal transformation by recognizing the importance of emotional competences and developing appropriate ways to cultivate them will better position educational programs to spark the inner and outer transformations they aspire to support.

by Jaime Staples King, Marie McEntee

In 2020, the University of Auckland | Waipapa Taumata Rau’s strategic plan, Taumata Teitei, emphasised the importance of complementing students’ deep engagement in the discipline of their choice, with enriched and expanded knowledge and skills to enable them to be transdisciplinary, innovative, and entrepreneurial in their thinking. To bring this plan to fruition, Professor Jaime King and Dr. Marie McEntee led the development and now implementation of a university-wide, transdisciplinary learning requirement in all undergraduate degree programmes at the University of Auckland | Waipapa Taumata Rau, in Aotearoa New Zealand. This presentation provides an overview of the development of a broad transdisciplinary undergraduate offering that at scale will serve 7000 undergraduate students each year and offer key lessons and insights to help guide other universities considering incorporating transdisciplinary pedagogy at the undergraduate level. The Transdisciplinary Futures courses are a suite of twelve foundational courses that will enable students to engage with a complex societal issue from diverse and novel perspectives. Each Transdisciplinary Futures course draws together staff and students from different faculties across the University as well as community expertise and perspectives to examine the complex societal issue in depth.

Like many new initiatives, transdisciplinary learning does not always fit neatly into typical university structures of disciplinary faculties, schools, and departments. Its goals are not easily aligned with university funding systems, which allocate funds for course enrolments to a single faculty or department and enable them to be used to cross-subsidise other courses, faculty members, or faculty needs. Nor do its goals always resonate with traditional norms of disciplinary education and the academic staff that teach within a single discipline. This presentation will explore the challenges faced and the lessons learned at three different phases of development: 1) Blue Sky - establishing the context for change and initial ideation; 2) Hard Yards – aligning administrative and academic structures; and 3) Brass Tacks - individual course development and implementation.

Professor Jaime King and Dr Marie McEntee bring understanding and insights from their experience establishing this transformational change across all programmes at the University of Auckland. They share their learning on how to build momentum and deliver implement impactful change within financial, administrative, and human resource constraints.

By Thies Johannsen

TU Berlin's new transfer certificate is awarded to students who have dealt with knowledge and technology transfer issues during their regular studies and can demonstrate practical skills. The program is inter- and transdisciplinary and open to all students.

The contribution presents the certificate programme and explains how it contributes to the institutionalization of transdisciplinary approaches, provides more visibility for them and enables the university to fulfil its mission of pursuing science for the benefit of society. The certificate program ties in with the discourse about the Third Mission. According to this, universities not only have the task of conducting teaching and research, but should also fulfil their social responsibility through the transfer of scientific knowledge into application or the co-creative generation of new knowledge in transdisciplinary formats. The Third Mission is thus a problem-solving strategy for complex social challenges, above all the SGDs.

As part of the program, participating students acquire relevant competencies and develop them further. In addition, the program offers students a wide range of networking opportunities. They get to know TU Berlin experts and exchange innovative ideas with committed students from various disciplines. In this way, participating students train to meet the demands of a changing job market in knowledge-intensive fields of work. Transfer activities of outstanding students are promoted and given visibility, e.g. by publishing students works.

The certificate program consists of 18 credit points. It combines elements from the STEM disciplines with elements from the humanities. A special focus is placed on the application dimension. In a basic module, students learn theoretical references, methods and tools and develop their own approaches to solving social challenges. During this process, students are coached by practitioners from different fields and work with established approaches from practice.

As a complement to the professional expertise that students acquire in their fields of study, the certificate program emphasizes the importance of inter- and transdisciplinary approaches in the sciences and beyond in business, politics and society. Based on an analysis of overarching competence requirements following Future Skills, Key Competences, Education for Sustainable Development and Professional Skills, the program guides students to reflect on their own competences and their role as academic professionals in their careers. Openness to all students, not only within the university but also from other universities, contributes to a critical reflection of disciplinary perspectives and promotes an understanding of ethical issues of responsibility. This reflection also has an impact on the university, as students carry new perspectives into their respective subject cultures and thus themselves act as change agents in a transformation process that integrates inter- and transdisciplinary perspectives.

by Dan Lockton, Jillian Student, Jonas Torrens, Merijn Bruijnes, Federico Andreotti, Kuangyi Xing, Niva van de Geer

We often use metaphors when talking about collaboration—they can be a way to bridge disciplinary boundaries, assumptions, and worldviews, grow the capacity for inter- and transdisciplinarity, and (hopefully) ensure people from different backgrounds are ‘on the same page’. The word project itself hides a metaphor: it derives from the Latin proicere, to throw forward. It is common to use metaphors such as ‘milestones’, ‘building blocks’, ‘goals’, ‘horizons’, ‘work packages’, and ‘missions’ in projects, just as we use ‘fields’ and ‘areas’ to discuss disciplines or types of work. Metaphors have lots of advantages as a form of shared vocabulary. However, metaphors are a form of model, and the models used can trap us in particular ways of thinking and working, reproducing assumptions and structures, and often lacking representation of some of the most important parts of collaboration: forming inter- and transdisciplinary teams, building relationships, co-creation, and integrating diverse knowledge.

Materialising (through physical artefacts) and expanding the variety of metaphors available to teams, and doing so via a playful-yet-meaningful process, offers the potential for exploration of new ways of thinking and working, putting knowledge into the world (Kirsh, 2010; Tversky, 2015) as a form of tangible ‘visual prosthesis’ (Jonassen and Cho, 2008). The concept of maps as metaphorical spaces, which serve as contexts for related metaphors to be used and explored together (rather than in isolation), adds the possibility of explicitly treating these spaces as a form of boundary object (Star & Griesemer, 1989) into which collaborators from different backgrounds in inter- and transdisciplinary teams can enter and together explore, navigate, and experience. Equally, a co-creative process of creating—and debating—new metaphors (Bateson, 2000; Lockton et al, 2019a) together can be part of a team integrating their collective knowledge and expectations.

In this workshop at ITD 24, we introduce Unbox, a game-like tangible toolkit which allows teams to ‘open’ the ‘black box’ of collaborative processes, through supporting participants in examining, discussing, and refining issues they encounter in the course of collaborations. The overall aim of knowledge (and expectation) integration through tangible experience together aligns well with the theme of growing the capacity for inter- and transdisciplinarity; Unbox specifically aims to be helpful for inter- and transdisciplinary teams.

Unbox comprises elements that materialise metaphors (from elephants-in-the-room to sea monsters, wormholes to lighthouses) within metaphorical spaces, to visualise and probe emerging assumptions and create a reflexive dialogue among participants from different backgrounds, so they can quickly understand (dis)agreements, align expectations, and learn about collaborative process design. Unbox aims to support flexible and reflexive approaches for (dis)assembling existing and prospective collaboration processes, especially in research projects but also with application in education, facilitation, and other contexts.

Workshop participants will explore applying Unbox to their own existing or potential future projects, to open up thinking about the roles of metaphors in collaborations, as well as providing direct inspiration for how games (Andreotti et al, 2020), maps (Student et al, 2020), and tangible thinking tools (Rygh & Clatworthy, 2019; Merl et al, 2023; Lockton et al 2019b) could be used in their projects, in research, education, and knowledge exchange contexts.

Our development process

Our project has engaged with participants in ‘unusual collaborations’ supported by the Centre for Unusual Collaborations in Utrecht, an initiative of an alliance between four universities, as well as making use of the experience of our team. We are an unusual yet cohesive group, with a shared interest in understanding and supporting collaborative research processes. Our experiences range from inter- and transdisciplinary research, design, games, and creative facilitation methods, albeit from different disciplinary starting points (Transitions Studies, Tourism, Governance, Farming Systems Ecology, Industrial Design), and with two professional designers and strategic visualisers as part of the team. We have all engaged with innovating in research methods, processes, and mindsets for bridging across disciplines, stakeholder groups, and societal issues.

Through the development of Unbox, including reflexive application to our projects, and working with other teams funded through the Centre for Unusual Collaborations’ initiatives, we arrived at a series of insights and propositions, including:

• Collaborations often inherit outdated/unspecific assumptions and language, hindering their effectiveness (e.g., assuming they are projects with milestones).

• Materialised metaphors can operate as boundary objects, pulling participants in and triggering genuine dialogue about individuals’ perspectives and what is collectively at stake.

• ‘Metaphorical spaces’, i.e., maps evoking particular metaphors, can also operate as boundary objects themselves, and deepen these conversations (e.g., a ‘treasure island’ map engages with discussion around goals, expectations (what is expected to be discovered?), routes to the goal, risks and surprises along the way, challenges to leadership, and so on.

• Representing decisions about collaborations with physical objects facilitates ‘materialising social learning.’

• A playful-yet-serious environment allows teams to discuss fraught issues while fostering cohesiveness and trust. By entering the ‘magic circle’ (Huizinga, 1949’ Salen and Zimmerman, 2003) there can be suspension of some mundane concerns, and the opening up of imagination, while still retaining connections to the real world.

The metaphorical spaces maps are used in conjunction with ‘quests’—cards prompting specific questions for a team to consider as they explore the map. For example, an ‘outer space’ map enables quests around how a project ‘ventures into the unknown’, through questions of priorities (with limited resources), exploration versus exploitation, uncertainties about the future, existential risks, critical junctures, and points of no return. A ‘forest’ map may engage quests around paths (how did we get here? how do we get out of the woods?), wider ecosystems of projects, patterns of light and shade within a project, shelter and clearings, and so on. A team can progress through a series of different spaces as their collaboration progresses—arriving ultimately at a reflective ‘crystal palace’—or create their own spaces. One emergent feature of Unbox is that teams will co-create often unexpected (to an outside observer) new metaphors together with associations that make sense for their shared context, but would have been unlikely to have been arrived at without having gone through the process of playing together. For example, in one of our own workshops, we arrived at seeing our own skills as being propellers for the project, after boat metaphors led to discussions of sailing (and what winds, favourable or otherwise, we experienced) versus powered propulsion.

While our Unbox game is currently being developed and tested, by November it will be in a more mature form, and we would see ITD 24 as an event where we can get feedback and insight from the wider community studying and working within inter- and transdisciplinarity, and share ideas within this community of practice.

Workshop outline

Our proposal for a 90-minute workshop comprises:

• An introductory ‘metaphorical gift’ exercise or ritual in which participants use objects to get to know each other

• A short (10-minute) introductory presentation on metaphors and metaphorical spaces, processes, and the Unbox project and activity

• Working in small groups, participants will try out the Unbox game, applying it to their own contexts or imagining new trans- or interdisciplinary collaborations. The process involves using ‘metaphorical space’ game boards as canvases or maps and selecting physical artefacts from a selection provided to tell stories and respond to quests around different challenges that collaborative projects can face.

• The workshop is aimed at all ITD participants—they do not need to know each other, or have existing collaborations.

• We would aim for participants to try out at least two different metaphorical spaces in the time available

• A closing discussion where participants can share their experiences, and broader implications, insights, and opportunities can be explored.

The balance of plenary and small-group discussions and exercises will depend on the number of participants. The workshop will be facilitated by a subset of the authors.

by Amber Deirdre Liva Mers, Jeroen Meulenbrugge, Sarju Sing Rai, Marjolein Zweekhorst

Introduction

The world is faced with a complex set of global health challenges that require multistakeholder and transdisciplinary efforts to address them. In this context, future global health professionals must be able to navigate disciplinary boundaries, engage with society, and acquire the competencies needed to tackle complex challenges. Consequently, higher education institutions (HEIs) are tasked to prepare global health students by infusing transdisciplinary values and skills into their educational programs.

At VU Amsterdam, we redesigned the global health minor program open for all Bachelor level students by embedding a Transdisciplinary Global Health Challenge (TGHC) developed using the challenge-based learning (CBL) approach. In this initiative, a diverse group of students from different disciplines, universities, and countries worked with societal partners on real-life health-related projects for five months to address societal challenges.

Objectives

This article describes the design, implementation, and evaluation of the TGHC, showcasing how educational programs can integrate and scaffold transdisciplinarity, and create meaningful partnerships between HEIs and society to tackle complex challenges.

Methods

An action-research approach was used to implement, evaluate, and improve the design of the TGHC. Through continuous learning cycles of planning, acting, and reflecting, we closely monitored the project's progress, stakeholder experiences, and design elements at different stages. A variety of qualitative methods, including FGDs, reflections, and narrative documentation were used to capture the inputs and experiences of students, community partners, and teachers.

Results

Throughout the implementation of the TGHC, stakeholders (students, partners, teachers) navigated a complex journey of transdisciplinary collaboration, resulting in diverse co-learning experiences and lessons on design considerations. Our findings revealed two intricately connected facets of learning: (1) learning about and through transdisciplinary collaboration, and (2) learning related to designing transdisciplinary education. Whilst stakeholders initially encountered challenges in collectively navigating the collaborative process, including managing expectations, defining project goals, and establishing effective communication channels; iterative cycles of action and reflection led to the identification of key areas for improvement in both the collaboration and the design and execution of the pilot. This process facilitated positive transformations among all stakeholders. For students, the project helped develop essential competencies in Transdisciplinary collaboration and instilled a sense of civic responsibility. Community partners benefited from strengthened connections with the University, and teachers acquired new teaching skills related to transdisciplinary education. Furthermore, the implementation of the TGHC highlighted valuable lessons on embedding educational innovation within existing frameworks, highlighting the need for sustainable solutions to cater to the resource-intensive nature of transdisciplinary programs.

Implications

This pilot project underscores both the opportunities and challenges associated with embedding transdisciplinarity into educational programs. It emphasizes the importance of finding a balance between different learning formats (open vs closed/guided), allowing stakeholders ample freedom to shape their collaboration, and providing a supportive framework to facilitate learning and understanding of new concepts. The pilot project generated valuable lessons and insights on design principles for transdisciplinary education with important implications for further practice and research.

by Kristine Lund

Evaluating interdisciplinarity poses many challenges (Laursen, Motzer & Anderson, 2022), particularly building consensus on appropriate measures. Quantitative measures such as co-productions, collaborations, and studies of citation patterns get the most attention, leaving gaps in qualitatively understanding the role of social dynamics in knowledge integration, a recognized element of interdisciplinarity (Wagner, et al, 2011). Not understanding such social processes occurs at different granularities: institutional, community, team, and groups. These social processes all involve interactions with the interdisciplinary individual, but with varying aspects of context being foregrounded. Measures not only evaluate interdisciplinarity per se, but also conditions that may favor or hinder it.

Some gaps concerning social dynamics in this area are wider than others. Regarding institutions, requests for funding may require multiple disciplines, yet institutional criteria for promotion tend to remain discipline centred (Klein & Falk-Krzesinski, 2017), leading to social dynamics at cross-purposes. Similarly, implicit community rules may prod researchers to highlight work from their own community at the expense of more pertinent research published elsewhere (Porter, Roessner & Heberger, 2008), thus promoting having conversations with the “right people” over better citing practices. There is a vast body of work on groups involving the social processes by which people behave and how their characteristics may influence achieving group goals but fewer papers focus on the social dynamics specifically regarding knowledge integration from team members’ viewpoints vs. group members’. For example, Brodbeck, et al (2020) capture how complex decision-making profits from differentiation and integration of diverse perspectives and knowledge, but their experimental study does not give detail on how group social processes are related to knowledge integration. Molinari & Lund (2012) show how a power game shapes public recognition of knowledge integration between two students in a classroom but again, data did not involve scientific teams.

We propose emergent thematic coding analyses (Stemler, 2000), carried out on three datasets involving practicing interdisciplinary teams: 1) application documents for funding, 2) team-produced visualizations of interdisciplinarity and 3) two rounds of transcribed interview data with co-leaders. Each team co-leader is trained in different disciplines/subfields, mainly from human and social sciences, but not exclusively. Data is from 8 interdisciplinary projects, each financed at 230K€, and within a 5-year 4,3M€ project at crossroads involving overall more than 10 disciplines/subfields. We aim to develop a broadly based, team-level descriptive model on the role of social dynamics in knowledge integration, beginning with project planning, and moving through phases of research operationalization. We detail how ways of interacting between team members lead to specific types of integration, targeting ways of communicating with stakeholders in and out of academia, developing research questions, bringing to bear theories and concepts on project work, making decisions about gathering data, using analytical methods and tools, and disseminating results, all of which need socially based knowledge integration.

This area’s literature lacks precise definitions of social dynamics and social processes, and how, for example, social pressures, or emotional positioning of arguments (Polo, et al, 2016) play out in team-level interdisciplinary interactions in different phases. Our findings will allow us to build a descriptive model that fleshes out what is behind the label “social” through relevant and justified examples. The potential impact of such an exemplified model lies first in better understanding social paths to integration and secondly, in its use for interdisciplinary training.

by Helen Buckley Woods, Aniek van den Eersten, Petra Biberhofer, Lesley Alborough, Laetitia Aerts

In this 60 minute panel discussion we will present and discuss the findings from the Undisciplined project, a recent programme of co-produced work conducted by the Research on Research Institute (RoRI). RoRI is an international consortium of researchers, funders and data providers. Our mission is to accelerate transformative research on research systems, cultures and decision-making. Our panel session at the ITD conference will reflect RoRI’s co-productive working model and consist of researchers and research funders who took part in Undisciplined; which investigates how transdisciplinary research (TDR) is defined and evaluated in a number of TDR research funding programmes.

Description of the session/workshop design

This session is practically oriented and designed to share learning from a project investigating how funders deliver TDR programmes, with a dual focus on how TDR is defined and classified and how peer reviewers are guided in evaluating research proposals of this type. The session will consist of five 5 minute presentations: firstly the research team will present the aims, process and findings of the Undisciplined project followed by four presentations by research funders giving insight into TDR funding programmes. The funder presentations will be based on organisational case studies which featured in the Undisciplined project and tackled questions such as: ‘When setting up this TDR funding programme, how important was it to define transdisciplinary research? And what definition(s) did you use?’ The presentations will be followed by a 30 minute discussion with the audience and panel.

Background

Collaboration between researchers and users in producing and combining different types of knowledge is nothing new., But in research environments and cultures that remain largely geared towards mono-disciplinary work, it is increasingly recognised that single disciplinary approaches are ill equipped to address complex, interconnected challenges. Different approaches have arisen in response to this using multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. Transdisciplinary research not only integrates expertise from across academic disciplines, but also involves users and stakeholders in the design stage, and throughout the research process. Of particular relevance to RoRI is the increasing role of research funders in devising and delivering TDR programmes and the impact of this enhanced role on knowledge use., In this project we investigate and compare support for, practice, definitions and evaluation of TDR from a funder’s perspective, across different research systems.

Research project and methods

The questions, methods and outputs of the project were decided through discussions within the project Working Group which consists of representatives of RoRI’s partners (research funders) and researchers from Leiden and UCL Universities. The project was conducted in a recursive fashion, moving from discussions within the working group, to the literature, to collection and analysis of secondary evidence and primary data. The project adhered to the governance and reporting frameworks of RoRI and was overseen by the RoRI Partnership Board.

The Undisciplined project consists of two modules of work. The first investigates how funders define and classify TD research, the second focuses on methods of evaluating TDR proposals and explores how to better support reviewers and commissioners in this task. The first module has three distinct elements: a literature review, analysis of funding solicitation documents for 6 funding programmes, and a set of organisational case studies describing specific TDR funding schemes. These elements were collated and discussed in a project working paper. This process was also mediated through a mid-project workshop of researchers and funders who shed light on early findings, and discussed key literature. These activities informed the design of the case studies and documents analysis. The second module of work centres on two elements, the collation of guidance provided to evaluators of transdisciplinary research proposals, and a set of in-depth interviews with a sample of peer reviewers (in both practice and research roles). This piece of work is exploratory in nature and produced a collation of the different tools funders use to evaluate TDR proposals, and insight into reviewers’ perspectives on these processes including barriers and facilitators to their use.

Likely impact

The project is ongoing at the time of writing. However, we strongly anticipate, due to the project’s co-produced methods, that the findings will contribute useful evidence for RoRI’s funder partners and the research funding community, in addition to wider stakeholders interested in transdisciplinary research. All RoRI’s outputs are open access thereby minimising barriers to the discovery and use of our work.

by Beverley Foulks McGuire

This presentation will discuss findings from a university-wide initiative to enhance undergraduate students’ critical thinking about diversity and global issues through interdisciplinary learning experiences. It will briefly describe the approach we took towards learning design and assessment, and it will then share quantitative and qualitative data from ten upper-level undergraduate courses that incorporated interdisciplinary learning experiences addressing a variety of topics, including Artificial Intelligence and Digital Literacy. Pre- and post- surveys of students and faculty, as well as signature assignments where students demonstrated interdisciplinary skills of disciplinary grounding, perspective-taking, and integration, showed significant improvement in critical thinking, diversity, and global citizenship learning outcomes. It will conclude by discussing the implications of such findings for those engaged in inter- and transdisciplinary education at other universities and colleges.

no Contributor mentioned

History is there for the taking in Utrecht. Utrecht Time Machine brings old times to life with innovative techniques and places them in the middle of our world.

Utrecht Time Machine (UTM) aims to make the rich Utrecht history visible and experienceable through a combination of linked data and visualization technology. This results in innovative interactive presentation formats for a wide audience. Participants in UTM make sources and resources available. They also encourage other interested designers and developers to get started with the combined data from various heritage partners.

Utrecht Time Machine (UTM) takes countless historical artifacts and data and makes them accessible to everyone, intuitively connecting them to their location and making them accessible with innovative technology. In this way, UTM contributes to digital and cultural literacy in Utrecht. With any smartphone and a special app, interested parties can look at who lived, worked, traded and consumed where, up to two thousand years ago.

Consortium

Utrecht Time Machine is a consortium in which various Utrecht heritage institutions participate: The Utrecht Archives, Historical Association Oud-Utrecht, the Municipality of Utrecht and Utrecht University. Together we want to connect and present open data about Utrecht history in a form accessible to everyone; a kind of time machine. The products and pilots for Utrecht Time Machine are developed in the ‘ Living Pasts ‘ course at Utrecht University.

Utrecht Time Machine is part of the European Time Machine FET Flagship initiative. The project aims to map 2,000 years of European history.

by Anne-Sophie Schaltegger

Current research evaluation systems are said to disadvantage interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research (IDR/TDR), leading to lower success rates in grants and publications. This is often due to the divergence of IDR/TDR problem definitions, timeframes, and outputs from typical categories considered in research evaluation. Consequently, researchers face structural barriers in evaluation procedures despite the supportive rhetoric from funding institutions.

To address these challenges, it is crucial for scholars to develop a comprehensive understanding of how inter- and transdisciplinary researchers perceive and navigate the evaluation systems they are embedded in. I contribute to this body of knowledge through an ongoing study of IDR/TDR practices and how they are immersed in funders’ evaluation and monitoring systems in Switzerland. Using the concept of ‘values’, I examine how differing value systems affect the performance of IDR/TDR. Thus, I aim to understand the value systems guiding researchers through inter- and transdisciplinary practices and those promoted by funders and evaluators, as for example through their definitions of concepts such as 'success,' 'impact,' and 'quality'.

With this aim, I carry out an ethnographic study at a national interdisciplinary research centre in Switzerland. I conduct participant observation of everyday research collaborations, as well as interactions between researchers and evaluation and monitoring panels. Employing a qualitative, cultural approach, I further gather data by means of document analysis and semi-structured interviews with principal investigators, directors, and consortium leaders of large, inter- and/or transdisciplinary projects in Switzerland. The collected data will inform the analysis of how inter- and transdisciplinary researchers navigate evaluation systems that may not always accommodate the specific needs of IDR/TDR, how they adapt practices to fit funding structures and which practices are consequently abandoned. I will contrast these insights with findings from research conducted simultaneously among evaluation and monitoring panels, as well as representatives of funding institutions to gain a comprehensive understanding of the design of evaluation for IDR/TDR. Moving forward, I envision facilitating exchange between researchers and funders through focus groups and workshops in future phases of this study.

This research represents a pioneering effort in systematically investigating the dynamic of IDR/TDR practice and evaluation in Switzerland. With this study I aim to contribute to relevant policy discussions on the impacts and funding for IDR/TDR. During my presentation I will share findings that invite exploration into evaluation schemes which consider values and valuations of IDR/TDR based on the lived practices of researchers. I will conclude by arguing that the notion of values can inform our understanding of barriers IDR/TDR face and guide our strategies for overcoming them.

by Maria Schmukler, Laila Sandroni

In this presentation, we will discuss the innovative initiatives of the InterAmerican Institute (IAI) for Climate Change Research. The IAI is an intergovernmental entity that serves 19 member states in the Americas, each with its unique context. The IAI aims to cultivate and disseminate knowledge that deeply understands and addresses global environmental change in a context-specific manner. The institution is dedicated to promoting transdisciplinary research and sharing its findings to create actionable knowledge for policymakers. The ultimate goal is to play a crucial role at the science-policy interface by producing not only robust but also practical knowledge.

This presentation will offer two concrete examples of the transdisciplinary activities developed over the last year by the IAI: the training program titled “Tropical Forests in the Americas: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Changing Environments” and the “Handbook of Recommendations for Transdisciplinarity”. The IAI Transdisciplinary Academy aims to advance transdisciplinary knowledge and practice of global environmental change research and to inform decision-making in the public and private sectors. The academy also facilitates sharing information, best practices, and regional dialogue on priority issues in the Americas, such as climate change, biodiversity loss and sustainable food production. Following this line, this initiative will foster research collaboration at the regional level by linking researchers across disciplines, policymakers, and locally based leaders from different countries, thus strengthening a regional Americas transdisciplinary network on tropical forests.

The Handbook of Recommendations for Transdisciplinarity emerged from a workshop in Panama in 2023, a collaborative effort involving academics and stakeholders from six transdisciplinary projects under the Small Grants Program: The Role of Ecosystem Services in Adaptation to Global Change for Human Wellbeing (SGP-HW). This manual responds to the explicit needs and demands of social actors, offering a toolkit for community organizations and researchers interested in embracing a horizontal, inclusive approach to transdisciplinary research. It encapsulates a wealth of perspectives formed from interviews and participatory workshops with non-academics across the Americas, reflecting the rich tapestry of views on climate change and related challenges.

In conclusion, our presentation aims to highlight the IAI's pioneering efforts in promoting a transdisciplinary paradigm, where diverse knowledge systems and stakeholder engagement converge to create meaningful, context-aware solutions to the pressing climate challenges facing the Americas.

by Doireann Wallace, Claes-Fredrik Helgesson, Celia Lury

Inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) research is increasingly called for by policy makers and encouraged by funders, usually to address complex societal challenges in collaborative teams. In this context inter- and transdisciplinarity too often seem like just buzzwords - they are poorly or not defined, with unclear expectations, evaluation criteria and guidance for evaluators. In addition to these research policy-oriented contexts, ITD appears as “a reflexive orientation within the academy and an object of knowledge” in its own right (Barry & Born 2013). Just as there are several different modalities to ITD, there are different dimensions such as the cognitive, emotional, and the interactional (Boix Mansilla et al. 2015). The SHAPE-ID project found that there was a disconnect between how academic and policy communities understand ITD (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2020). Signs of such disconnect are also evidenced in the struggle to effectively evaluate and monitor the integration of Social Sciences and Humanities within European funding framework programmes, despite a desire to do so. Overall, there are both bottom-up inclinations and top-down pressures suggesting to researchers and universities that there is a need to undertake and become more supportive of ITD in some shape or form. Yet, there is often lack of clarity around resourcing and pathways within universities, coupled with the significant challenges of providing meaningful support and capacity building for researchers taking part in different kinds of ITD research at different career stages.

In our own professional experience, efforts to support ITD are often fragmented within universities, and those tasked with doing so occupy very diverse positions across academic, professional and hybrid roles.

In recent years there has been emerging interest in the role of integration experts, which Hoffmann et al. (2022) defined as academics or other experts who ‘lead, administer, manage, monitor, assess, accompany, and/or advise others on ITD integration’. Separately, the role of research managers, broadly understood as the diverse professionals supporting the research ecosystem, from researcher training and development to project and programme management, has received increased attention, with newly funded EU projects exploring their contribution. Burgess and Wallace (2023) argued that this community can play a significant role in supporting ITD development within universities and ongoing research (preliminary results presented in Wallace et al., 2023) is exploring the role research managers play in supporting ITD research in different contexts across Europe. Meanwhile, the potential knowledge base is exploding in ways that further stress the possible need for intermediary research support staff. There are many tools and methods available (e.g., through td-net, SHAPE-ID and i2insights) as well as scholarly discussions on the use of compound methods (Lury 2018) for interdisciplinary research, yet fragmentation remains a challenge.

This workshop aims to draw these concerns together, exploring the diverse contexts and opportunities for supporting ITD research across a university and the varied roles those who integrate and build capacity for integration play.

• What roles do research developers, facilitators, research directors, project managers and others play in supporting ITD?

• What contexts do we work in and what challenges [cognitive, emotional, interactional, etc.] do we encounter when working with researchers in different contexts?

• What are the interactional and motivational implications of how integrators are positioned vis-a-vis those they help and the overall university power-structures?

• How can we simultaneously understand the needs of researchers and develop our own skills and knowledge as integrators?

• What supports do researchers need at different stages in their careers or project life cycle? What are their positive experiences of such support and where are there gaps in support?

• How can the extensive knowledge base, tools and perspectives be adopted and translated to the diverse contexts in which we work as integrators and/or researchers?

• How can we identify when we as integrators have made a valuable contribution to the development of research?

Through scene-setting presentations from integration experts supporting ITD research in diverse contexts, including facilitation, training, proposal development, mentoring and centre leadership, followed by a world café to explore participants’ experiences and challenges, the workshop aims to create a space for sharing experience, knowledge, challenges and good practice. We welcome those who work as integrators in academic, professional or hybrid roles, as well as researchers who are interested in how universities support, and can better support, the development of integration expertise. The above questions and their framing in the world café will be tailored to the audience in attendance, with those who identify as integrators invited to directly reflect on their roles, and researchers invited to consider their experience of supports or the contexts in which they need support to develop integration skills.

The workshop will contribute a new perspective to the work of the ITD Alliance Working Group on Integration Experts and Expertise, including its aims to generate shared resources and approaches for addressing common challenges and discussing lessons learned across different contexts.

Outcomes: the outcomes of the world café will be written up as a concise briefing to be shared with the ITD Alliance Working Group on Integration Experts and Expertise and with the proposers’ professional networks including University Networks (e.g., LERU, Coimbra Group), European University Alliances, RMA Associations (EARMA) and projects pursuing the development of Research Manager career frameworks to support ERA Action 17 dedicated to research management in Europe (RMA Roadmap, CARDEA). This will allow insights on integration expertise to inform considerations of research management at European level.

Workshop design

The workshop is designed to facilitate practice-sharing among attendees. It will begin with a brief introduction to the topic and 3-4 short scene-setting presentations from the proposers on their experiences supporting ITD capacity building in their professional roles and contexts. This will be followed by a world café (2 rounds) to allow participants to discuss and share their experiences, concluding with feedback to the group and a wrap-up.

by Jana Semrau, Lena Theiler, Richard Beecroft, Guido Caniglia, Evelyne de Leeuw, Oskar Marg, Alfred Rütten

The integrative model of transdisciplinary research incorporates societal and scientific problems and is designed to produce both societal and scientific results (Bergmann et al. 2012). A lot of work has been done on understanding the social and societal effects of transdisciplinary research (TD) (Pärli 2023). However, less attention has been paid to understand what we mean by scientific impact of TD research, which is often referred to also as scientific effect or results of TD research. Rather, conceptual vagueness, the narrow focus and limited research on scientific impact in TD research were described. In order to capture the consequences of TD research in certain parts of the scientific system, different terms such as results, outputs, outcomes, and effects have been used. In addition to these terms, we use the term impact to evaluate potential changes in the (social) structures of the scientific system and its links to other social systems that are influenced by TD research. This forms the basis for investigating whether and how certain outputs, outcomes or effects of TD research affect structural dimensions of the science system (e.g. research modes, methodologies and mechanisms of resource allocation). The Fellow Group "Transdisciplinary Research and its Scientific Impact" of the tdAcademy aimed to address these conceptual issues related to scientific impact in TD research.

Therefore, we conceptualized the impact of TD on science through the epistemic dimension, the ethical dimension, and the organizational dimension, which evolve and influence each other over time (Rütten et al. 2024). The epistemic dimension refers to everything that is connected to knowledge generation and validation. The ethical dimension pertains to whether and to what extent TD research has an impact on the values and norms that underpin the scientific knowledge production system. The organizational dimension relates to the organization of the TD research practice itself, the institutional embedding of this practice in the scientific system as well as certain structures of the wider social and political environment of TD research.

We assume a dynamic interplay between social and scientific impact of TD research. Knowledge exchange and collaborative action, on the one hand, may lead to new interorganizational coalitions in order to solve social problems in a sustainable way. On the other hand, a long lasting participation in such coalitions may have several implications for changing practices in participating scientific organizations that in turn may affect the capacities of future TD research and its social impact again. In addition, more reflections on scientific impact may stimulate strategic considerations how to better position TD research in the context of the scientific system.

Session design: The aim of this session is to use the opportunity of ITD24 to further elaborate our conceptual framework of scientific impact with the international community in the field of TD research, to learn from each other and to broaden our perspective on the scientific impact of TD research.

We will start with a brief introduction on the role of scientific effects in TD research (3min).We will then present a question related to the conceptualization of scientific impact and will use the 1-2-4 method (10min). People will first think alone about the question, then in a group of two people and finally two groups will discuss their ideas related to the question together. In the next round, each group of four people will present their results (2-3min per group). Afterwards we will present the conceptual framework of the scientific impact with the epistemic dimension, the ethical dimension and the organizational dimension as well as experiences and first results of the working group within the Society for Transdisciplinary and Participatory Research (12min). Finally, we will discuss commonalities, differences and open questions with all participants in a moderated group discussion (15min).

In addition, we will record important results of the discussion visually and in writing and share with the TD research and practice community via a blog post.

References

• Bergmann, M., T. Jahn, T. Knobloch, W. Krohn, C. Pohl, E. Schramm. 2012. Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus Verlag.

• Pärli, R. 2023. How input, process, and institutional factors influence the effects of transdisciplinary research projects. Environmental Science & Policy 140: 80–92.

• Rütten, A., Caniglia, G. Semrau, J., de Leeuw, E., Beecroft, R. (under review). The other side of the coin: What do we mean by “scientific impact” of transdisciplinary research? GAIA.

by Melissa Robson-Williams, Flo van Noppen, Suzanne Vallance, Ronlyn Duncan

“If nature set our research strategy, would we do the same research?” It is this question that led a group of social and environmental researchers at New Zealand’s Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, to develop an experiment in empathy with nature. In this contribution will examine how growing the capability of a research institution for seeing from the perspective of nature and its elements can help transcend disciplinary boundaries when planning the direction of research and how research is done.

In this contribution we describe and reflect on the experimental design and methods, and their value for building the empathy of participants with nature. In particular, we reflect on: the importance of the experiment’s setting, choosing and connecting with nature’s elements, and enabling the interaction of elements.

We conclude with reflections from participants on the experience and what this experiment might mean for shifting human-nature relations

by Peraphan Jittrapirom, Femke Bekius, Sietske Veenman

In the face of global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and social inequality, achieving sustainable transformation has become an imperative goal for societies worldwide. Navigating the complexities of sustainability transformations requires innovative approaches that transcend disciplinary boundaries and have the capacity to support decision-makers and practitioners in handling the uncertainty associated with futures and pathways toward sustainable transformation.

Sustainable transformations, encompassing areas such as climate change, transport, agriculture and food, healthcare, etc., pose several challenges. One of the key challenges is that sustainable transformation is concerned with the future with a long-term scope spanning several decades. However, stakeholders involved in the transformation can implicitly perceive the future in different ways, four possible epistemologies of futures are (Muiderman et al., 2020):

1. The future is categorized into probable and improbable futures to mitigate future risks in strategic policy planning. Futures can be partially knowable through scientific exploration. Assessment of the future in terms of probable and improbable futures is made possible using methods such as forecasting, Delphi methods, horizon scanning, future commissions, strategic visioning, and backcasting.

2. Plausible futures are explored to navigate the future reflexively and develop adaptive capabilities. Due to fundamental and ineradicable uncertainties, future scenarios cannot be prioritized or reduced to just one most likely future. Uncertainty must be acknowledged, necessitating the exploration of several futures for which preparedness should be ensured. Methods such as probabilistic foresight, simulation modeling, weak signal-type approaches, scenarios, strategic visioning, and backcasting are utilized for this purpose.

3. Futures are construed as a social construct, expanding the view on possible futures beyond the probable and plausible futures because possibility depends on the perception of the audience. Methods employed include narratives, visions, scenarios, and back-casted pathways, as well as simulation gaming, community dialogues, training, education, and experimentation.

4. Futures are conceptualized as performative futures that analyze the performative power of futures, critically examining the political implications on the present. The future is characterized by unanswerable questions and uncertainties. Future statements or claims are seen as political interventions, as representations or "fabrications of the future". Methods used include prefiguration, critical application analysis of future narratives and images, interrogation of the political implications of future visions and pathways for the present, as well as theories on the framing of futures.

Transdisciplinary Research (TD) approaches offer numerous contributions to address the sustainable transformation challenges. For example, TD approaches can enhance understanding of the current state, identify desirable goals and vision, capture stakeholders’ preferences, opinions, expected futures, etc. and formulate transformation pathways toward the desirable goals. However, the areas that are less explored, or perhaps not explicitly, are how TD approaches and methods can help handle uncertainties associated with sustainable transformations and in what ways should TD address what constitutes 'Future'. This line of research can build on co-production of diverse knowledge systems, thereby promoting more inclusive, democratic, and transparent decision-making processes.

This workshop session brings together researchers and practitioners to explore the potential contributions of transdisciplinary approaches of methods in addressing the complexity concerning sustainable transformations, with a particular focus on different perspectives on futures. This workshop aims to explore four future epistemologies, used by different disciplines, and analyzes how different epistemologies might be an obstacle for or strengthen interactions between stakeholders. The workshop builds on the different contributions of TD to navigate the complexity of sustainable transformations and addresses the following research questions.

The overarching research question is In what ways can different the understating of epistemologies of futures in combination with different methods that are applied, accelerate sustainable transformation? We explore this through the following research questions:

• What is the current state of the art in TD fields concerning conceptualizing futures and methods to address futures in sustainable transformation?

• What are default modes of envisioning or anticipating futures when discussing sustainable transformations in different domains and roles?

• What are the research methods used and how do they relate to these different types of future epistemologies?

• What are ways to enhance our integration of and build upon the four epistemologies and methods?

• And how can we find synergies between certain epistemologies and methods to foster and accelerate sustainable transformations?

Organization of the workshop (90 min)

We ask participants to think about the following questions beforehand:

• What is/are your field(s) of work and research? What methods/approaches do you use to support sustainable transformation in your fields, particularly in dealing with the future aspects of the transformation?

• What is the current state of the art in your research field to deal with futures in sustainable transformation?

We ask participants to fill in a short survey at the entrance of the workshop (or even beforehand if possible) to find out what is their “default” epistemology and transdisciplinary method(s) they use or are familiar with. We use these results to infer the types of epistemology that the participants are most familiar with and use the information to distribute them to the groups for the next parts of the workshop. Ideally, participants do not work with the epistemology they are most familiar with, and the same for the method. Moreover, we aim to form groups with high diversity in disciplines. We show the results also to the participants to show the diversity in the group.

The workshop starts with a presentation on future epistemologies and how different epistemologies reflect different perspectives toward the future (10-15 min.). The presentations also show which transdisciplinary methods are commonly used in each epistemology to design/support sustainability transformations.

Participants are divided in different groups to explore the future epistemologies to a certain (assigned) sustainability transformation (e.g. transformations toward a sustainable train system, sustainable food production and consumption, and a sustainable healthcare system). Each group takes one of the four epistemologies, according to the four epistemologies mentioned before, and is assigned a transdisciplinary method to support sustainability transformation (30 min.). Each group is facilitated by one of the workshop organizers and they assist the group in working according to a given method with a future epistemology.

After working in the different groups, each group presents in a plenary session their findings/answers to the central question (35 min). Moreover, we ask the groups to reflect on the epistemology, the methods, and the implications of the sustainable transformations they were assigned to. We conclude the workshop with closing remarks (10 min.) and end with a short survey to ask what participants have gained/learned in terms of new methods/epistemologies.

Potential outputs and outcomes

• Knowledge sharing: enhance understanding of the contributions of Transdisciplinary approaches and methodologies in dealing with Future in Sustainable Transformations.

• Skill development: Support participants with practical methods to help them be mindful of the different epistemology of futures, their default modes of operation, and the possible implications in their works.

• Research agenda setting: Identify the current status of the field and potential research gaps in how transdisciplinary research approaches deals with uncertainty, and establish potential future research areas to address the gaps

• Networking and community building: Bring together transdisciplinary researchers and practitioners in the field of sustainable transformations to broaden their networks. Organisers of this workshop are embedded in the Transformations, fUTures and jusTIce for Sustainability and the Transformative sustainable change in Action (TransAct) of Radboud University.

by Jasper ter Schegget, Belle Jansen, Dimitra Mousa, Gwenda Frederiks

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals requires not only technological advancements but also a shift in attitudes, values and behaviours. There is a growing realisation of the need to equip students in higher education with skills and attitudes next to specific knowledge to drive change. The Inner Development Goals (IDGs) offer a valuable framework for acquiring these skills and attitudes.

In a collaboration between the Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Amsterdam and the alliance TU/e, WUR, UU and UMC Utrecht, we launched the Transition Makers Toolbox in June 2023. This freely available educational resource is based on the IDGs and aims to equip educators with tools to teach students to navigate societal change effectively. All tools are created according to constructive alignment with meaningful assessment in mind. With interdisciplinary tools such as Navigating Uncertainty, Exchanging Perspectives and Fostering Resilience, educators can empower their students with societal transformation skills to contribute to complex challenges.

Developed in co-creation with a community of practice of teachers and educational developers across 10 higher education institutions, the Toolbox is the place for knowledge sharing, inspiration, ready-to-use educational materials and guidance on teaching how to contribute to shaping societal transitions.

During our interactive workshop, we will delve into the Inner Development Goals and the Transition Makers Toolbox. Join us if you want to get inspired, shape educational practices, and equip your students with the skills and attitudes required to make a positive impact on our world.

by Melanie Kryst

Yes, the Berlin University Alliance has proven it: With a new concept we involved young people in the topic identification process for the next research fields of the Alliance (‘Next Grand Challenge’). The young people themselves were able to develop research topics that were relevant to them. The scientists present actively supported them as Coaches in specifying and formulating the topics. This allowed them to come up with future-oriented topics that really matter to young people.

In a joint process of participants from science and society, we were seeking to identify the topic for the Berlin University Alliance’s so called ‘Next Grand Challenge’. The selected topic will be researched by the BUA scholars and scientists in an inter- and transdisciplinary approach. We consciously relied on this open and innovative approach to topic identification and sought topics from the existing research priorities as well as from emerging and new fields of research. We were therefore particularly curious to find out which global issues are currently of most interest to young people, researchers, and students in Berlin.

More information at: bua-calling.de

Videos:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-SrycDbF2w

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyG77HR0kvU