ITD24 Arichve: Sessions 031-060

by Katrine Ellemose Lindvig, Rianne van Lambalgen, Merel van Goch, Bianca Vienni-Baptista

We are delighted to announce the impending release of our collaborative effort, the book titled "Interdisciplinary Practices in Higher Education” (Routledge, 2024). The genesis of this book can be traced back to the discussions held at the ITD conference in Gothenburg in 2019. Over the subsequent years, more than 40 scholars, developers, and practitioners have contributed their insights, resulting in a comprehensive exploration of the everyday experiences surrounding teaching, learning, and collaboration across borders and boundaries within higher education.

This symposium, conceived as a live embodiment of one of the book's chapters, is meant to serve as a celebratory platform for the collaborative network that emerged during the collective writing process. The structure of the symposium is designed to mirror the interactive nature of the book, fostering a dynamic exchange of ideas and experiences.

Beginning with a brief overview of the book's background, we will present a real-world case illustrating interdisciplinary teaching experiences. The audience will then actively engage in providing diverse interpretations and understandings of the presented case. Subsequently, a collective discussion will ensue, encompassing suggestions, solutions, and valuable advice. The author of the case will receive feedback, fostering a participatory and inclusive environment. The symposium will culminate with reflections from select book contributors, offering unique insights into their participation in the collaborative process.

The symposium aims to achieve three key objectives: firstly, to share knowledge and practices related to interdisciplinary teaching, learning, and collaboration, particularly targeting individuals new to the field; secondly, to acknowledge the genuine challenges associated with planning and executing inter- and transdisciplinary activities; and finally, to showcase the wealth of existing knowledge and good practices. By doing so, we hope to foster a community that actively shares insights, mitigating the need to repeatedly reinvent the wheel in the pursuit of effective interdisciplinary education. Join us in this celebration of collaboration, knowledge sharing, and the collective empowerment of practitioners of inter- and transdisciplinarity in the field of higher education.

by Valerie Imbruce, Kyra Ricci, Jaime Garcia-Vila, Jessica Hua, Marisa Rinkus

Diversity in organizations is shown to improve creativity and innovation if members identify as part of the group and teams are able to leverage the unique perspectives of all individuals. For interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research teams, supporting diverse disciplinary perspectives is imperative. However, disciplinary differences are only one aspect of diversity in any team that needs to be considered. To improve demographic diversity in research environments, it is important to create inclusive spaces that encourage, see, hear, and support the unique, personal perspectives that researchers bring. In this study, we build upon a dialogic intervention that fosters interdisciplinary consciousness to elicit discussion on identities in research. We conduct this intervention with undergraduate researchers as a means to stimulate thinking about diversity of disciplinary, epistemological, and individuals’ personal perspectives in a group of students who are likely to continue working in research environments through graduate school and careers beyond. Undergraduate research programs are ripe for integrating interdisciplinary training because they are growing in number as a well-supported high impact learning experience, and they often bring together students practicing different forms of disciplinary inquiry. We argue that we can create more inclusive research spaces by centering students’ perspectives and facilitating open dialogue on how identity, privilege, and access shape decision-making and interactions with others. Between 2021 and 2022, we facilitated four dialogue-based workshops with students (n=59) participating in summer undergraduate research programs at Binghamton University, a doctoral granting institution classified as R1 with very high research activity within the State University of New York system, where peers discussed how identity influences access to research opportunities, choices in research, research process, and relationships. Through transcription and coding of these dialogues, we thematically analyzed how students discussed their experiences in research, factors surrounding their entry into research spaces, and perceptions of their own identities in relation to others while conducting research across disciplines and epistemologies. We found that undergraduate researchers view research as highly personal as they are consistently discovering, iterating, and embodying their unique identities throughout the research process. We highlight these student perspectives to better understand how we can adapt our practice as educators and research mentors to prioritize student interests towards the goal of creating inclusive research environments to support diversity—disciplinary as well as individual identities—in its many forms.

by Heleen van Ravenswaaij

Introduction

There is increasing acknowledgement of the need for university students to develop knowledge and skills to work on societal and global problems that traditional disciplinary frameworks cannot effectively address (e.g., Biberhofer & Rammel, 2017). One response to this need is to stimulate the development of innovative inter- and transdisciplinary courses, which have challenges of their own. Understanding these challenges and the factors that support the success of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary educational innovation in the Netherlands can inform strategy for higher education policy, both locally and nationally, as Dutch universities make the transition to forms of education that prepare students for addressing the wicked problems of the 21st century.

Method

First, a literature overview including challenges and successes of inter- and transdisciplinary education was created. Themes were student perceptions, faculty perceptions, institutional embedding, and broader collaboration within and outside of the educational institutes. Secondly, the relevance of these themes where evaluated in a qualitative survey distributed among stakeholders (e.g., students, course designers and coordinators, and educational leaders) for inter- or transdisciplinary education at Dutch higher education institutes and associate societal partners. In addition, participants were asked to provide solutions for the challenges that they identified. In total, 41 surveys were completed, of which the majority were (among others) teaching inter- and/or transdisciplinary education.

Results

Of all survey participants, 31 participants reported on the challenges they identified, which were in subsequent order of frequency:

1. There is no financial embedding, making interdisciplinary/ transdisciplinary education financially unviable or unstable (67.7%).

2. There is no stability in staff who are assigned to the courses and will continue participation (54,8%).

3. The collaboration between programs and departments within higher education institutes is lacking or too difficult to set-up or maintain (48,4%).

4. Staff lacks the knowledge and skills to engage in interdisciplinary/ transdisciplinary education (48,4%).

5. The collaboration between higher education institutes and external partners is lacking or too difficult to set-up or maintain (35.5%).

6. Lecturers and program directors don't see the value of interdisciplinary/ transdisciplinary education, or don't want to spend money on it (29,0%).

7. Students don't see the value for their professional and career development (19,4%).

Solutions lie according to the participants in expectation management and training and supporting staff in their inter- and transdisciplinary teaching skills development.

Conclusion and discussion

University staff recognize many of the challenges presented in the literature and their suggestions are translated into concrete advice to support the long-term viability of inter- and transdisciplinary courses. For universities, this could result in a better return on investment as development costs are high. The benefits for students include lasting inter- and transdisciplinary education, which will support them in their professional development. The next step is to add in-depth interviews with stakeholders to make the advice even more concrete and usable for other universities as well.

Reference

• Biberhofer, P. and Rammel, C. (2017). Transdisciplinary learning and teaching as answers to urban sustainability challenges. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 18(1): 63-83, doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-04-2015-0078.

by Florian Knutzen, Paul Averbeck, Karsten Haustein, Diana Rechid, Markus Groth

Climate change poses significant challenges to the German forestry sector, affecting ecosystems, biodiversity, and the overall vitality of forests. Warmer temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events contribute to the complex set of challenges. To address these challenges, the German forestry sector is exploring various adaptation strategies. This includes developing the cultivation of more climate-resilient tree species, implementing sustainable forest management practices, and developing early warning systems for pest outbreaks and extreme weather events. Additionally, efforts are underway to enhance public awareness and engagement, fostering a collaborative approach to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Against this background, our research employs a trandisciplinary approach combining stakeholder dialogues to understand stakeholder needs and co-creation processes to develop climate service products. The study focuses on climate extremes, including drought, heat, strong wind/storm, and heavy rain. Thereby we also aim to examine the differences in perception among authorities, scientists, and other forest users.

As part of the ClimXtreme project, a total of 27 semi-structured stakeholder interviews with an average duration of 90 minutes were conducted with 22 forest practitioners. Additionally, two workshops with three key practitioners eachhave been carried out. In addition to the project team's own expertise, the tdAcademy was also involved in parts of the project for questions relating to transdisciplinarity, co-creation and stakeholder participation in general. The main aim here was to monitor and evaluate the intended and achieved social impact of the transdisciplinary work.

Stakeholders acknowledged the increasing frequency and severity of climate extremes, with particular concern for drought and heatwaves. They stressed the necessity of proactive and context-specific adaptation measures. The importance of resilient tree species and species mixture was underscored, with an added emphasis on strategies tailored to address the specific challenges posed by drought and heat events. The findings reveal growing climate change-induced conflicts among forestry stakeholders, particularly exacerbated by water scarcity and rising temperatures. Proposed management techniques of the interviewed forest practitioners led partly to contradictory conclusions depending on the orientation of the forestry operation.

Stakeholders expressed an increased demand for more region-specific climate information, especially those providing early warning systems for droughts and heatwaves. Needs were also recognized to be able to better deal with increasing pressure from a critical public and to make forest decision-making processes more understandable to e.g. local forest visitors. To comply with this, a flyer for public relations was co-created with the Karlsruhe City Forestry Office (cf. Poster session).

Overall, this project has shown the promising potential of integrative research, especially since a better understanding of the challenge can be achieved through a plurality of perspectives. Furthermore, the active participation of stakeholders in co-creative research processes can lead to a stronger commitment to and identification with the relevant topic. In addition, mutual understanding and knowledge is improved by new opportunities for participation and involvement in knowledge generation.

by Giedre Kligyte, Jacqueline Melvold, Susanne Pratt, Bella Bowdler

In the context of an evolving polycrisis, universities play a crucial role in preparing individuals to navigate significant social and environmental transitions. Despite sustained efforts to incorporate transferrable skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking, communication, and teamwork into education programs in recent decades, it has become apparent that these generic skills alone are insufficient for facilitating the transition to a more sustainable and equitable global society. New types of capabilities, such as transdisciplinarity, systems and futures thinking, change-making and reflexivity, have been proposed as necessary for addressing contemporary challenges (see OECD, 2020; UNESCO, 2017; Jordan et al., 2021; Kligyte et al., in progress). However, significant shifts enabled by these capabilities are yet to be realised.

Through this workshop, we advocate for a more holistic conception of futures-making capabilities, in contrast to prevailing educational paradigms that emphasise individual capacity development. From a transdisciplinary perspective, it is particularly evident that sustainable and equitable societal futures cannot be achieved by lone individuals working in siloed sectors. Thus, we conceptualise futures-making capabilities as dynamic, contextually contingent, and action-oriented rather than static attributes possessed by individuals. To support our thinking, we draw upon the capabilities approach conceptualised by Sen (1999) and Nussbaum (2011). Emerging from the human development field, the concept of capability to function encompasses not only what individuals are ‘able to do and be’ (Robeyns, 2017, p. 24) but also considers the environmental conditions necessary for individuals to exercise their capabilities (Walker & McLean, 2015). As an area relatively underexplored in mainstream higher education literature, our workshop aims to advance the conversation and develop a collective understanding of essential aspects of situated and contextualised relational futures-making capabilities and how they might be articulated and evidenced.

We will begin by sharing our work developing futures-making capabilities, drawing on a decade of transdisciplinary education practice at an Australian University and an extensive literature review and surveys with 73 alumni of our transdisciplinary education programs. Using this work as a springboard, we invite transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary educators and practitioners to co-create a glossary and atlas exploring how these futures-making capabilities might be conceptualised across different contexts. Particularly, we seek to examine the contextual and relational aspects of individuals’ capacity to apply capabilities in real-world situations. Our aim is to develop a language that differentiates, positions and legitimises these futures-making capabilities in diverse academic and professional settings, rather than relegating them to mere ‘soft skills’ like ‘teamwork’ or ‘collaboration.’ Drawing from our experience in transdisciplinary education, we recognise these capabilities as ‘hard’ skills that demand dedicated attention, practice, and development.

Workshop description

1. Introduction
   The workshop will begin with an introduction to the authors’ journey in developing a transdisciplinary future-making capability framework as an approach to sensemaking and grappling with their own transdisciplinary education practice. We will also explore the participant’s experience in transdisciplinary and future-focused education.

2. Co-creation
   Drawing on The CreaTures Glossary approach and toolkit (https://glossary.languagin.gs/), participants will be invited to contribute their own terms and interpretations used in their practice to co-create a glossary, lexicon and atlas of future-making capabilities. Through conversation, free association, and real-time creation of situated word collections, participants will actively shape the lexicon of capabilities required for societal transitions by contributing to, editing, and refining the definitions of these capabilities. By focusing on the fluid evolution of meanings and definitions, we will explore how contextualised language reflects our worldviews and seek helpful ways to articulate a shared terminology that might help differentiate and legitimise future-making capabilities across further academic and professional contexts to support social and environmental transitions.

3. Reflection
   The workshop will conclude with a reflection on the experience of collaboratively defining future-making capabilities and consideration of its implications for community-building and change-making. Together, we will explore how this approach can be applied in various contexts beyond the workshop, fostering inclusivity and empowering diverse voices in defining the meaning and practices of transdisciplinary futures-making capabilities. Workshop participants will be invited to continue their contribution to the co-created glossary, lexicon, and atlas after the workshop as the project progresses as part of an ongoing research project.

References

• Jordan, T., Reams, J., Stålne, K., Greca, S., Henriksson, J. A., Björkman, T., & Dawson, T. (2021). Inner Development Goals: Background, method and the IDG framework. Growth that matters. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/600d80b3387b98582a60354a.

• Kligyte, G., Melvold, J., Pratt, S. Bowdler, B. (in progress). Transdisciplinary capabilities framework: developing students’ capacity to thrive in an uncertain future. Futures.

• Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating Capabilities. The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

• OECD (2020). Education at a Glance 2020. Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development. Paris.

• Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Open Book Publishers.

• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• UNESCO (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals - Learning Objectives. Paris.

• Walker, M., & McLean, M. (2015). Professionals and public good capabilities. Critical studies in Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 60–82.

by Dennis Frans Rune Andreasson

The paper explores the potential power of mapping in relation to transdisciplinary knowledge production by unpacking what “Co-Creative Mapping” is and how it can be used. Maps are fundamental yet underutilized in landscape architecture, planning and design where they are often seen as mere static and objective representations of data rather than as active agents in relation to the perception, representation and production of landscapes. Acknowledging the agency of mapping, as a knowledge production process in itself, is therefore suggested as a first step towards untangling the power of maps. To further elaborate on this, Co-Creative Mapping will be contextualized in relation to tackling complex societal – so called “wicked” – problems (e.g. “sustainability”), while drawing inspiration from existing concepts such as for example deep mapping, social cartography and community geography. Thus, the aim of the paper is to explore what role mapping can play as a catalyst for transdisciplinary knowledge exchange and/or production. The objective is to develop a conceptual framework, which will then be deployed in a real-world setting through a series of workshops involving relevant – to a given site: in this case a university campus, and its ongoing development process – stakeholders where the main focus is the boundary spanning, perspective shifting and mutual learning opportunities provided through Co-Creative Mapping. A stakeholder, in this context, should be understood as an actor that has or should have interest in being actively involved in a process where the transdisciplinary setup can allow for existing power structures and conflicts to be set aside, handled or at the least acknowledged and thereby made visible. By revisiting the potential of mapping, the paper suggests that approaching mapping creatively has the capacity to become a collaborative design process by which disciplinary boundaries can be bridged allowing for inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge exchange and/or production, which can then be further developed into a method for research. Specifically, using a transdisciplinary approach provides the intrinsic opportunity to, other than involving none academic actors, also rethink, renegotiate and/or redraw boundaries that might otherwise limit the scope of identifiable interests and/or questions among the disciplines and perspectives of the actors involved. From a research(ers) perspective, the knowledge and experiences gained are expected, although (always) site-specific, to be transferable back to, and made actionable within, the participants own disciplinary domicile – while also allowing to contribute to an expanded understanding of how a deeper/broader scientific and/or societal impact can be achieved. The paper concludes by summarizing the experiences gained from the workshops in relation to the framework and suggests future adaptations to both the theoretical contributions of Co-Creative Mapping and to knowledge about what kind of transformative outcomes it can be expected to produce when deployed.

by Kathrin Wieck, Juliana Canedo, Natacha Quintero, Toni Karge, Fernanda Petrus, Manuel Meyer

Facing the serious interwoven local and planetary urbanization problems in Latin America self-organized occupations have been used as a tool by social movements to address issues of inadequate access to housing and services and to pressure for sustainable and responsible public policies. Recently these social activities have built cooperation with academics and technical advisory from different study fields to critically approach and develop collective formats of labour, building and living together as well as to promote a debate on human-nature relationships and transdisciplinary research and teaching activities.

This paper reflects on our methodology and engagement in science and society cooperation and as a practice of transformative research and teaching for societal transformation. Based on experiences in a set of “collective experiments” (Latour 2012, 225) the COLLOC collaborative workshop series has been stablished as an experimental transdiciplinary research and teaching practice since 2018 with a self-organized occupation in Brazil. The transdisciplinary practices which we developed and adapted in the workshop series are based on three principles:

1. The COLLOC self-image: We carry out our transdisciplinary activities on site in the role of co-researchers in order to support and develop existing socio-technical projects. It is carried out with and in an existing network of actors and their different knowledge types that includes researchers and students from Universities in Germany and Brazil, international alumni (from different disciplines), residents of the Brazilian occupation, activists and socio-technical initiatives as well as non-human actors like the Atlantic rainforest, kitchen, food, waste, water, a state law on land use etc.

2. The COLLOC objective: With the perspective of the Anthropocene, insurgent urbanism and a counter-hegemonic approach, the COLLOC workshops strive for a collaborative and interactive knowledge integration. The aim is to create a mutual learning and teaching environment (common ground) for the development and reflection of short and long term systemic and sustainable solutions for housing, food systems, collective spaces and water systems.

3. The COLLOC umbrella methodology: In order to stimulate sustainable change in a social context, a transdisciplinary format - the Dual Design Strategy - has been developed and implemented. It involves two simultaneous, interconnected levels of co-production: the development of systemic scenarios by linking material flows and actors and the generation of hands-on micro interventions at a 1:1 scale. This strategy is oriented toward localized problem-solutions and reflection on their implications, combining conceptual approaches from the disciplines of planning and engineering with practices and experienced knowledge of non-scientific actors responding to everyday needs of the community.

Based on the principles we position and critically discuss the methodology of the COLLOC experiments as transdisciplinary research and teaching format in order to stimulate transformative learning for societal transformation. As a practice to co-create mutual learning environments we reflect how the different knowledge types from the different participant groups are merged to new integrated common ground knowledge, which is materialized and continuously experienceable, accessible and reflectable for all participants in different scales of space and time. Learning, planning, and acting together can lead to more socially and spatially just transformation.

by Wilma Coetzee, Roelien Goede

As society evolves, we are faced with increasingly challenging and intricate problems. These problems usually involve intricate systems where an alteration to one component can impact other components. Researchers working in silos struggle to address such complex issues. Interdisciplinary research, where multiple academic disciplines are combined and thinking takes place across boundaries, presents opportunities to address pressing issues of our day.

In this study, we present a flexible framework (the CSH-3W tool) that can be used by both industry and academia to guide an interdisciplinary project. The framework combines critical systems thinking, action research and the three worlds of Habermas to form a practical tool for interdisciplinary research and problem solving. The CSH-3W tool guides the researcher to systematically identify and reflect on a research problem and its various facets. It ensures that various viewpoints and the interplay between different subsystems are considered. It challenges researchers to explicitly reflect critically on the boundaries of their research design and engage in dialogue with various stakeholders that may question these boundaries, possibly leading to the broadening of boundaries. This aspect can be of particular value in interdisciplinary research. Problem-solvers are guided to first take a step back, consider the bigger picture and then zoom in to examine the details. This process is repeated to generate innovative solutions.

The problem of how to enhance the employability of data science students will be used to demonstrate the CSH-3W tool. Disciplines that were involved in this study, included psychology, education, industrial psychology, operations research and data science. Each of these disciplines contributed to a better understanding of the problem and how to address it holistically.

The tool is not only easy to use but also versatile. It can assist in research planning, project planning in industries, and can be used to teach students problem-solving skills. The tool provides a valuable resource for researchers, educators, and industries to tackle the various challenges of our time through interdisciplinary initiatives.

by Doriam Camacho Rodríguez, Elizabet Lilia Estallo, Gabriel Para Henao, Milena Sergeeva, Javier Rodriguez, Constanza Cuellar

The dengue virus affects human health and is transmitted mainly in the Americas by the urban mosquito Aedes aegypti. The distribution and abundance of this species is associated with the growing increase in urbanization, the movement of people, sociocultural practices, the Climate change and state policies. These conditions multifactorial conditions require an ecosystem approach, which considers the eco-bio-social, political and gender factors with an effort transdisciplinary that allows scientists to be associated with decision makers decision and community members in joint action. For such reason it is proposed to develop a participation strategy community for the prevention and management of risk factors in dengue transmission with perspectives on climate, environment, society and culture.

The notion of participation takes on a double importance in the face of this problem due to the importance of the development of democratic processes in communities and the need to involve them in actions strategic approaches to the problem of the disease dengue fever.

The proposal is being addressed through a mixed methodology study, with a transdisciplinary approach, based on the analysis of the occurrence of dengue cases with respect to climatic and environmental variables, the analysis of the risk perception of vulnerable communities, and the co-production of knowledge and solutions with the actors of the territory.

The study is being carried out simultaneously in Córdoba (Argentina) and Santa Marta (Colombia), with the participation of the territorial entities and national institutions involved in the climate and health nexus.

by Tessel Wijne, Jarno Hoekman, Wouter Boon, Ellen Moors

Scientific projects are increasingly expected to create societal impact. These expectations are particularly present in transdisciplinary research (TDR), where it is assumed that different bodies of knowledge and perspectives need to be integrated as to be able to create societal impact (Hessels et al., 2009; Hoffmann et al., 2019). Recently, the notion of impact practices has been introduced to better understand how researchers create societal impact in research projects (De Jong & Balaban, 2022). Nevertheless, there is a deficiency in understanding how impact practices emerge and potentially facilitate integration processes, which are considered essential for impact creation in TDR. In this study, we advance the theoretical framework of impact practices in the context of TDR and empirically study the emergence and facilitative role of impact practices in integration processes.

The contribution of our study is twofold. First, we add to conceptualizing impact practices, building upon a constructivist notion of impact, which implies that scientific and societal impact are actively constructed by knowledge producers and evaluators in highly related networks (Smit & Hessels, 2021) and practices (Brenninkmeijer, 2022). Second, we adopt a process ontology to study the emergence of impact practices in a longitudinal study. Consequently, we understand impact practices not as stable ‘things’, but as the embodiment of a process through which researchers continuously aim to create societal impact. Adopting such a process ontology thus allows to focus on the mechanisms of impact creation by researchers. To our knowledge adopting a process ontology is new to the impact studies and TDR literature.

Empirically, we followed the emergence of impact practices over two years in a large-scale TDR project, and studied how these practices facilitate integration processes. We show that different impact practices emerge during a research project, of which some become collectively shared. Besides, we observe that some impact practices become less important during a research project. Collectively shared impact practices can facilitate or obstruct integration processes, and hence are important to understand in TDR projects.

Furthermore, we observed that the emergence of impact practices is driven by combinations of values of knowledge producers and evaluators (what impact is important), strategies (what should be done), and exchanges between actors (which interactions are needed) (Brenninkmeijer, 2022). Thus, knowledge producers shape impact practices in a deliberate process in which they, driven by their values, pursue different strategies and interactions. Consequently, starting from different values, we observe that knowledge producers strive for different impact practices grounded in different scientific disciplines, which can obstruct the integration processes necessary in TDR. Concluding, in our study we further theorize the concept of impact practices, and show the importance of impact practices in understanding the creation of societal impact and integration processes in TDR projects. Through this, we facilitate the understanding of scientific and societal impact of collaborative research.

by Arif Miralay, Anna Ben Shalom, Sheetal Shah, Anupama Menon

In this community project, students and teachers at Utrecht University work together with a non-profit foundation, TheBridge2Hope in a transdisciplinary team to help integrate survivors of human trafficking into the Dutch society. TheBridge2Hope is dedicated to aiding survivors of human trafficking, particularly those who have been sexually exploited and brought to the Netherlands from foreign countries. It aims to empower survivors to rebuild their lives with dignity and independence. TheBridge2Hope Academy offers digital literacy courses within their curriculum, which aim to equip participants with crucial skills for reintegration into society. However, it has been established by the foundation that there is a need for a digital literacy program within the curriculum to address the specific learning challenges faced by this population that often suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, limited attention spans, and cognitive difficulties. In addition, there are significant cultural differences between their home cultures in the Global South and the Dutch culture. This project aims to bridge this gap by creating a curriculum that empowers participants at TheBridge2Hope with the technological skills necessary for independent living.

The project explores the intersection of participatory action research (PAR) and community-engaged learning (CEL) to redesign a digital literacy curriculum. It is based on a mutual partnership between TheBridge2Hope and Utrecht University. The university offers its expertise in educational sciences and TheBridge2Hope provides expertise in the field and an understanding of the impact of trauma as a result of the trafficking experience. In the PAR, stakeholders create a democratic and mutual learning community in which participants learn from each other and together to make a positive impact in their community. This approach allows us to work closely with the stakeholders to ensure that the curriculum is not only effective but also sensitive and responsive to the diverse needs of learners. PAR emphasizes action and reflection which is particularly valuable in this project, where the goal is not just to create a curriculum but to make a meaningful impact on the lives of survivors.

The community engagement function of TheBridge2Hope is a vital aspect of its efforts to support survivors of human trafficking and exploitation. By fostering a sense of community and creating opportunities for survivors to engage with one another, the organization helps survivors build a support network and develop a sense of belonging. The safe and inclusive space allows participants to feel comfortable expressing themselves, fostering a sense of community and shared purpose which is critical for learning and healing.

This project demonstrates the cross-fertilization between PAR and CEL in the following ways: (1) engages actively stakeholders and fosters an environment of co-creation in a transdisciplinary team of experts, including criminal psychologists, educational scientists, volunteers and employees working at the organization and participants of the Academy; (2) it empowers survivors to take ownership of their learning journey; (3) the iterative nature of PAR allows for continuous refinement based on participant feedback, ensuring the curriculum remains relevant and responsive to participants needs.

by Hussein Zeidan, Sarju Sing Rai, Marjolein Zweekhorst

Transdisciplinarity has attracted significant attention since its inception, particularly in research circles, but discussions have expanded to include education and its reform. However, existing discourses on transdisciplinarity in education often sidestep crucial questions regarding the formation of transdisciplinary concepts, their interrelations, and critical examination (Osborne, 2015). Instead, these discussions tend to focus disproportionally on the organizational aspects to prepare individuals to navigate the research processes. This approach poses a problem, as it creates a misleading impression of convergence that transdisciplinarity is resolving historical disciplinary siloes and their limited engagement with societal complexities. It overlooks the conceptual divergence, which spans various directions: as an approach to addressing societal challenges (Klein et al., 2001), a catalyst for new forms of knowledge production (Gibbons et al., 1994), a model of unity in complexity (Nicolescu, 2002), or even a meta-discipline (Mokiy, 2019).

This paper reconstructs the discourse surrounding transdisciplinarity, highlighting significant blind spots and nuances in its conceptualization. Through a critical examination of existing narratives, it challenges the prevailing notion of disciplinary isolation and the reductionist portrayal of transdisciplinarity as a corrective measure. Additionally, it explores the implications of these narratives on the competencies and skills valued in transdisciplinary education, advocating for a reexamination of transdisciplinary concepts and their interaction with societal needs.

Engaging with scholarly literature reveals a dominant discourse on transdisciplinary education, primarily situated within the realms of mixed disciplines and social sciences. However, this dialogue often overlooks active involvement from disciplines with well-defined boundaries, such as engineering and physics, as well as non-academic stakeholders. This study presents a reconstruction of a transdisciplinary narrative that promotes a balanced dialogue, capable of defining meaningful learning experiences and essential competencies necessary for students to effectively navigate transdisciplinary environments.

Reference:

• Compagnucci, L., & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161, 120284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284

• Gibbons, M. (2000). Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and public policy, 27(3), 159-163.

• Klein, J. T. (Ed.). (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: An effective way for managing complexity. Springer Science & Business Media.

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

• Nicolescu, B. (2002). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. suny Press.

• Osborne, P. (2015). Problematizing disciplinarity, transdisciplinary problematics. Theory, culture & society, 32(5-6), 3-35.

by Tessa van Charldorp, Hanneke Willemen, Mienke Rijsdijk, Janny de Grauw, Sylvia Brugman, Frank Meye, Madelijn Strick, Laura Winkens and Yoeri van de Burgt

Interdisciplinary research is increasingly recognized as a key method to tackle complex societal challenges and stimulate creativity to find innovative solutions. However, interdisciplinary research in practice can be uneasy and will not always be successful.

In this presentation we will take you through our journey of becoming an interdisciplinary team, doing research on chronic pain. Our key goal when starting our collaboration, funded by the Center for Unusual Collaborations, was to come to innovative ways of treating chronic pain. An ambitious goal that requires out-of-the-box and high-risk-high-gain research. One of the most important lessons is that researchers from different disciplines may think they speak a universal ‘language of science’, but a thorough understanding of each other’s ways of working, research paradigms, methods, and concepts is necessary before they can start working together on solving scientific questions. And, in our case, if researchers cannot understand each other’s language, they cannot expect patients to understand scientific language either. For scientists to engage with a non-scientific audience and vice-versa, we need to find and create places to meet and find ways to interact effectively. Language is the medium through which all these interactions take place. It is therefore essential that language takes a central place in the process of multidisciplinary collaboration, interdisciplinary research, patient participation and public engagement.

In this case story we share our experiences in creating a common language, summarized in five steps: 1: creating the team; 2: metaphor-forced introduction to disciplines; 3: creating common ground; 4: outreach; 5: integration. Metaphors play an important role in this process. We will demonstrate how we reflectively progressed through these steps while enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration, (scientific) innovation and public engagement. This five-step journey can be used as a process-tool for any other high-risk-high-gain multidisciplinary research team seeking to innovate through interdisciplinarity – with the risk of becoming a brilliant failure.

by Ilija Rašović, Kylee Goode

The future of doctoral training is interdisciplinary. This is certainly the message put across by UK Research and Innovation’s (UKRI) Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) via its growing portfolio of Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs). These offer to students a cohort-based PhD training programme that expects projects to come from and span different disciplines. In the CDTs for Topological Design and Formulation Engineering at the University of Birmingham, we have grappled with how to ensure that interdisciplinarity is not merely a buzzword but actually helps mould a coherent cohort identity that enhances the doctoral education experience. We want to do this to open students’ eyes to diverse career perspectives within and beyond academia, and to get staff and students challenging the academic status quo. In the case of doctoral education, a status quo that has persisted from 19th century Germany.

In this talk we will demonstrate how we are achieving this by actually extending the interdisciplinary expectations of physical science and engineering students via a transdisciplinary assessment experience in a module that explicitly addresses the interface between science and society through the lens of responsible research and innovation (RRI). After a learning experience on the module characterised by a flipped classroom approach and involving guest lecturers from non-scientific academic disciplines (Law, History of Science) and external partners (lawyers, entrepreneurs, industrial collaborators), students are then assessed by running their own citizens’ assembly on deliberative democratic principles, exploring a controversial scientific issue of their choosing. Through survey and interview data, we will show that this is a distinctly novel and transformative mode of assessment for students, and their overwhelmingly preferred one (of two in the module). We will also present data collected by the students themselves in the course of the assemblies, demonstrating their self-directed learning as a cohort as well as the impact their deliberations have had. We are lucky to have two distinct student bodies taking this module from two different CDTs, only one of which has had previous explicit training on the theory of interdisciplinarity—this offers us the unique opportunity to compare them and explore whether such priming in interdisciplinary scholarship affects the learning experience in a subsequent transdisciplinary assessment, as well as outcomes regarding views on careers and challenges to the academic status quo.

Running this module and assessment for five cohorts of students has provided a rich seam of data and experience to influence further impacts beyond those immediate ones on our students. At its most basic, we have produced a template for embedding a novel and exciting assessment method in other education programmes. But the explicitly transdisciplinary experience—unusual for most physical science and engineering students and staff members—provides a unique mechanism by which staff and students can shine a light on the very processes of the academic enterprise within which they find themselves. It encourages critical self-reflection and can lead to tangible impact across an institution. We will outline our plans to include more external stakeholders for even wider positive impact.

by Barbara Röckl

At Kiel University we strongly believe that in the light of today’s grand societal and ecological challenges universities are called upon to expand their commitment to inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration with content, adequate support formats, and resources.

With the innovative DenkRaum pilot, we have developed a new collaborative space for postdoctoral researchers. Despite the often-discussed risks, we believe that inter- and transdisciplinary training can be an effective tool to diversify the qualification of postdocs and thus improve their difficult situation within the academic system. Notwithstanding the legitimate concerns about the academic benefits of inter- and transdisciplinary work for early career researchers in a largely disciplinary academic environment, we have therefore set out to provide these training opportunities for them.

In the DenkRaum - which is also a physical space - excellent young researchers, who have to prove their capacity for teamwork in a selection process, work together as DenkRaum fellows for two years alongside their main academic work on societally relevant projects - currently on one of our key future topics "Energy in Changing Times and a Changing World". They cooperate closely with each other, exchange with other researchers and engage in a dialog with business, politics and society.

In my talk, I will describe how we developed the DenkRaum as a physical space and an innovative format for early career researchers from different disciplines who are open to an inter- and transdisciplinary team experiment. I will outline how previous experiences have led us to the rather complex design of the fellowships, to the way we find topics, select fellows, set up the physical space, and involve critical friends. I will give an impression of how the pandemic and a new university leadership influenced the first DenkRaum round. I will also share what we learned during this initial phase, and how we adapted procedures and roles to improve the DenkRaum experience for the fellows, and what ideas we have for the future.

We are convinced that the ability to work goal oriented in heterogeneous teams is an essential skill for academics, which will become even more important in the future.

The format, selection process and support structures of DenkRaum offer postdoctoral researchers the opportunity to deal with the challenges of inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration and to acquire the skills to master them. In addition, DenkRaum promotes the independence of early career researchers and supports networking beyond academia to open up career opportunities in other sectors.

By Flore Nonchez, Maryline Crivello

Aix-Marseille University is a multidisciplinary university, with a variety of interdisciplinary programs and projects in research and education supported since 2012. Despite a series of successes and achievements supported by the "excellence initiative" label awarded to our University, in 2020 the newly-elected governance came to the realization that pushing interdisciplinarity further required a more proactive and encompassing approach to promote lasting change.Therefore, a new Mission for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity was launched in 2021 with four strategic complementary objectives. One of them focuses on providing practical support for the implementation of interdisciplinary projects by the community, by offering guidance, facilitation and evaluation tools. Indeed, as far as interdisciplinary research projects are concerned, we found that to fully achieve their objectives and optimize collaboration between disciplines while avoiding the pitfall of interdisciplinary washing and the sprinkling of buzzwords, they needed to demonstrate greater methodological rigor than standard disciplinary research projects, insofar as they had to meet both disciplinary and interdisciplinary requirements.

Based on our real "learn by doing" experience, we would like to explain in our presentation how we combined theory (i.e. literature review on the specificities of interdisciplinary research and evaluation) and practice (i.e. our own experience of facilitating multidisciplinary groups and interdisciplinary research programs) in an empirical approach to develop a new support tool for setting up interdisciplinary research projects. Indeed our practice of internal calls for interdisciplinary projects (from writing the framework to critically reviewing applications) enabled us to observe three frequent types of shortcomings (that we will present), corresponding to either expressed needs or implicit expectations on the part of researchers: this tool is an attempt to provide a full answer. It takes the form of a checklist of essential questions to be asked at every stage of any interdisciplinary research project, from the initial thought process through to the exploitation of results, in response to the sine qua non key success criteria we have identified for any interdisciplinary research project. It reminds projects’ leaders that interdisciplinarity cannot be improvised, and requires time and method to reach its full potential.

Our grid has been designed as a self-assessment practical tool, given that research projects are often set up in a short space of time (especially when participating in a call for proposals), and that we wanted to target all those involved in interdisciplinary research projects, whatever their knowledge and experience of interdisciplinarity.

In a nutshell, the vade-mecum that we will share at the conference is intended to be both a useful tool to improve the relevance, design and successful implementation of interdisciplinary projects, whether or not in response to calls for proposals, and an educational tool (to reinforce skills in setting up interdisciplinary projects, as a support for doctoral training...). We will also present how we disseminated this tool within our community of project leaders so far, and how we currently support and monitor its use within an action-research approach. We also plan to capitalize on our experience in other types of projects, in order to build up a comprehensive interdisciplinary toolkit. With a view to continuous improvement, we hope to enhance this grid with feedback from our colleagues, including during its presentation at this conference.

by Lisa Babette Diedrich, Andrea Kahn

Transdisciplinarity strives to establish new practice domains, dissolve boundaries and found new social and cognitive spaces. It involves creative and synthetic integration of multiple perspectives, knowledge production practices and disciplinary expertise. This session explores how critical thinking, and criticality, can play a role in opening up such new territories by encouraging active reflection on how ‘other’ ways of working, and alternate working knowledges constructively destabilize and broaden one’s own.

Between 2017-2023, the “Criticality in Research/Criticality as Praxis” PhD course series, hosted by the research platform SLU Urban Futures/ Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, explored the potential of criticality to enrich and help evolve epistemological norms and normative research methods toward new forms of knowledge production. Critical thinking, critical theory and criticality transcend any single disciplinary domain or practice-based arena, tendering tools for observing and gleaning understandings from the many forums and formats whereby useful knowledge gets generated and applied. The series had three pedagogical aims: provide a framework for understanding criticality in research and practice using various models of critical research writing; afford a space to rehearse interactive and synthetic peer-to-peer critical thinking processes; and deliver shared tools to enrich the constructive criticism toolbox and sharpen critical thinking, listening, reading, and writing skills.

Courses were open to PhD students with diverse disciplinary backgrounds (e.g. design, planning, environmental science, sustainability studies, landscape architecture, urban history, heritage, ecology, architecture) working on questions directly or indirectly related to the landscape field. A composite knowledge area, landscape cross-fertilizes spatial, scientific, cultural, sociological, historical, and regulatory perspectives, interweaving theoretical frameworks and practical know-how. As such, it offers many opportunities for testing synthetic critical thinking and working in inter- and trans-disciplinary modes.

Each landscape-adjacent discipline and practice operates according to, and organizes, its own normative work methods, beliefs, and value-sets. What matters to one (deemed worth examining, ‘critical’ in the sense of crucial) does not necessarily hold equivalent importance to another. The Criticality courses are consciously designed to set up a recognized TD and ID challenge: in any collective work setting what ‘catches one eye’, sparks interest, motivates one thinker/actor to question and respond to another, as well as to shared materials such as project-related literature or report documents, will depend on individual learned – disciplined – frames of reference.

To illuminate how disciplinarity impacts working methods that shape understanding and knowledge generation, the Criticality course pedagogy deploys shared tools and techniques designed to initiate a practice of socially situated thinking, reflection, and action. The educational approach includes modeling techniques for critical listening and critical conversation, to foreground how ‘disciplined’ mindsets inform interlocution. It uses literature from a mix of fields not necessarily associated with landscape (see 3 key readings below) and adopts shared critical reading and writing tools to highlight how disciplinary and professional training predisposes actors to interpret these materials, and formulate research questions in particular ways. The rhetorical précis tool focuses a reader’s attention on the relation between what a piece of writing says (its content), and how that message gets conveyed (its form). Less neutral than a simple summary, rhetorical précis-writing builds analytic and critical reading skills by exposing value frameworks that inform the development of arguments made by authors and readers/interpreters. Similarly, the critical précis tool focuses a writer’s attention on the motivated “why”, rather than the objective “what” and “how” of research work. Less neutral than an abstract, critical précis-writing asks authors to articulate their critical positions in a brief statement synopsizing the intention and argument driving their PhD project.

These shared tools and techniques set up the precondition for discussions that foreground contrasting and even conflicting understandings of course content. Participants actively rehearse how knowledge gets produced when individuals with shared concerns but differing value-sets and backgrounds converse, work and think critically, together.

Adhering strictly to a common writing format immediately and vividly demonstrates the breadth of interpretative, value-based, disciplinary, and critical positions distinguishing each reader and writer. It also helps them discern how their respective academic disciplines “work”. Identifying these preferred and established disciplinary methods makes it possible to recognize how such work methods inform pedagogical practices, learned and learning behaviors, and epistemological outcomes. The Criticality courses reveal research – often associated with theoretical “academic” endeavors – as a practice, or praxis, in its own right.

Workshop design

The proposed workshop gathers participants in a seminar room around a big table covered with a sheet of paper. Seated in the “1st circle”, around the table, are the initiators and teachers of the Criticality PhD course series Andrea Kahn and Lisa Diedrich, alongside 9 invited young researchers of assorted disciplinary and professional backgrounds who enrolled and completed various iterations of the course between 2017 and 2023. (Participant disciplinary backgrounds include landscape architecture to architecture, urban design, urban planning, regional management, heritage, environmental design, human ecology, biology). Arranged in outer circles around this table are ITD24 conference participants registered for this workshop.

• The workshop is structured around three live conversational ‘rounds’, ‘real-time notetaking’ on pre-distributed cards, and in situ ‘epistemic drawing’ on the paper covered table. It involves no digital presentation technology:

• 1st round (20min): Andrea presents the theoretical foundations, practical tools, and ID-TD relevance of “critical conversation tools” used in their Criticality PhD courses. Lisa starts drawing and annotating the main concepts on the table’s paper.

• 2nd round (40 min): The 9 young researchers share their answers to the question “What was the critical moment you experienced in the PhD course, and how has it influenced your work?” This question will be circulated in advance, giving researchers time to prepare a 3-4min response and select an object to place on the table in support of their statement (e.g. a book, a printed or handwritten text, a drawing, a photo, or similar artifact that doesn’t use a computer screen). The 9 responses will be delivered one immediately after another, while fellow participants join Lisa in drawing and annotating take-aways from the statements, so that an epistemic map starts surfacing. Prior to the 2nd round, everyone (invited researchers and ITD24 workshop participants) will be asked to listen carefully and record their thoughts about the researchers’ statements and ‘supporting objects’ on distributed cards, reflecting on how the pedagogical approach tested by the Critically course invites the meta-cognitive and a meta-disciplinary stance associated with synthetic, integrative research.

• 3rd round (30 min): Andrea and Lisa moderate a conversation on the approach and how modelling critical conversation tools supports ID-TD research. They first open the discussion to the invited presenters, referring to their findings, objects and evolving epistemic map. Then they invite ITD24 participants to place their notes on the map while sharing their reflections.

• Wrapping up, Andrea and Lisa ask ITD24 participants to leave all their notes on the table. They photograph the constellation of notes, objects, and the map, for postproduction purposes.

Key readings (optional)

• Escobar, Arturo (2016) “Thinking-feeling with the Earth: Territorial Struggles and the Ontological Dimension of the Epistemologies of the South”, Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana, Vol 11 issue 1, 11-32

• Nowotny, Helga (2017) An Orderly Mess (Budapest, CEU Press)

• Pickstone, J.V. (2007) “Working Knowledges Before and After circa 1800: Practices and disciplines in the history of science, technology, and medicine”. Isis Vol. 98 issue 3, 489-516

by Eva Kalmar, Steven Flipse, Grant Perry, Erna Engelbrecht

Engineering problems are not naturally restricted to artificial discipline-oriented boundaries (Ertas et al. 2003). To solve such complex problems, future engineers need to collaborate with both (academic) experts and non-academic stakeholders from different fields and backgrounds and take various perspectives into account. Societal stakeholders can contribute valuable input to support the creation of engineering solutions. Addressing big challenges (as the 14 grand engineering challenges formulated by the National Academy of Engineering) demands a joint effort of diverse teams, different disciplines, different companies, people viewing and tackling the problems from different perspectives and angles. The students we are educating now are likely to be part of such teams, which are not separated from the economic, societal and political aspects of our society. One of the main questions that we thus need to ask, whether we are educating students now to be part of such inter- and transdisciplinary teams and whether they can navigate in the societal trends.

As a result, in any engineering development, future engineers must consistently be aware of the size and extent of the impact. The fact that this comes with major uncertainties implies that future engineers should not only be educated in the “hard” technique and management of stakeholders but also in how to deal with uncertainty. Technical and social systems in society have become complex or wicked; consequently, a planned and control-focused approach will invariably fail. Even when not designing them themselves, engineers need skills to cope with unanticipated events, values and stakeholder positions.

This requires students to learn how to anticipate the social, technical, societal and environmental impact of their actions. For this, they need skills that transcend the ‘hard’ scientific and technical skills related to disciplinary education and focus also on e.g. transdisciplinary skills. Tan et al. (2019) listed systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, and open-mindedness as essential for reaching transdisciplinarity.

Much has been written about the necessity of such skills, but less about how these could be translated to effective learning and teaching strategies for specific, dedicated and desired learning outcomes fitting to the development level (1st to 5th year students) of the students within their respective programs (BSc, Minor, Master) that are also assessable in an educational context.

In this session, we will briefly discuss the necessity of an approach to dissecting transdisciplinary tools into their basic concepts, collecting already existing pedagogical methods, and designing new ways to practice these skills. Then, we will ask the audience to participate in a quick brainstorm session to generate ideas for how systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, or open-mindedness could be incorporated in educational programmes. After sharing the results of the brainstorming, our panel will discuss some important aspects of transdisciplinary education we came across during or university-wide research on teaching practices, led by statements and dilemmas.

Panel sessions setup

• 10 minutes impulse talk by the session leaders

• 30 minutes interactive format with input from the audience (brainstorming in small groups of participants facilitated by the contributors, with materials brought by the session leaders)

• 20 minutes panel discussion by involving the audience, asking for choosing from dilemmas and agreeing or disagreeing with statements, with a panel of available experts in engineering education, to be invited later.

Key readings

• Ertas, A., Maxwell, T., Rainey, V. P., & Tanik, M. M. (2003). Transformation of higher education: The transdisciplinary approach in engineering. IEEE Transactions on Education, 46(2), 289-295.

• Tan, T., Nesbit, S., Ellis, N., & Ostafichuk, P. (2019). Crossing Boundaries: Developing Transdisciplinary Skills in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA).

• Wolff, K. (2018). A language for the analysis of disciplinary boundary crossing: insights from engineering problem-solving practice. Teaching in Higher Education 23(1): 104-119., 23(1), 104-119.

by TinhTam Nguyen, Jan-Peter Sandler, Jorge Ricardo Nova Blanco, Anne-Mieke Vandamme

In an era characterized by unprecedented complex and multifaceted sustainability challenges, we need to move beyond traditional discipline-specific knowledge dissemination in higher education. It necessitates the integration of diverse perspectives and collaborative strategies that prepare students to navigate the ever-evolving complex societal realities of our time. Transdisciplinary education, which seeks to train students in collaborating with people representing multiple academic fields of expertise, cultures, and epistemological approaches, has the potential to help students make sense of these complexities, co-create plans which consider different worldviews, and take actions towards transformative change. However, implementing a fruitful transdisciplinary learning environment can be challenging. Theoretical frameworks can provide a compass for educators and students to co-create a transdisciplinary learning experience that fosters holistic understanding of complex issues, facilitates active stakeholder interaction, and inspires critical reflection on personal assumptions.

This presentation will introduce the "Designing Feasible Futures Framework (DF3)", which is developed by the Institute for the Future – KU Leuven in collaboration with coordinators, coaches, and participants of the Transdisciplinary Insights (TDI) Honours Programme. It is used as a guiding tool for student teams of TDI to address complex sustainability challenges. The DF3 incorporates triple loop learning. By following the DF3, students can acquire new knowledge (single loop), question underlying assumptions (double loop), and experience a shift in norms and values that frame thinking and actions (triple loop) (Flood & Romm, 2018). To bring about this shift, this iterative approach encourages students to understand current societal realities, envision desired futures, and come up with adaptive approaches to bridge the gap between current realities and futures.

The framework is structured around four main building blocks – 1. problem framing, 2. complexity, 3. stakeholder collaboration, and 4. futures – each designed to foster systems knowledge, target knowledge, and/or transformation knowledge (Kueffer et al., 2019). In TDI, these blocks are explored through workshops in the first semester, guiding students through a comprehensive learning journey. Starting with "problem framing", students identify and delineate the scope of their assigned complex challenge (systems knowledge), setting the stage for a deep dive into the interconnected layers of this challenge in the "complexity" block. Here, the focus changes to understanding the dynamics and relationships that define the problem, paving the way for the development of target knowledge. Once students move to the "stakeholder collaboration" block, engagement with societal actors becomes a priority, emphasizing the importance of diverse perspectives and the social dynamics at play in effecting change. Finally, the "futures" block pushes students to envision and articulate viable pathways to desired outcomes, highlighting the role of innovative thinking and strategic planning in transformative initiatives.

Through following the DF3 within the TDI program, students are equipped with tools and experiences necessary to address the complexities of real-world problems. This approach not only enriches their academic journey but also prepares them for active participation in a world that increasingly values collaborative, inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to pressing issues. By combining concepts and theories from triple loop learning, complexity science, and futures thinking, the DF3 provides a blueprint towards a more integrated and impactful transdisciplinary educational experience.

by Carolin Seiferth, Maria Tengö, Erik Andersson

Despite an increasing number of scholars and practitioners engaging with diverse actor groups to co-produce knowledge, we need to better understand how we can purposefully design and facilitate these processes to support taking action to move towards more sustainable futures.

To contribute to a better understanding of the drivers and mechanisms behind successful knowledge co-production, this oral presentation focuses on how a careful and deliberate design helps dialogue-based processes achieve their intended outcomes. We structured a dialogue process around systems, target, and operational knowledge as the conceptualization and guiding framework for understanding and addressing sustainability problems in complex social-ecological systems. Different complementary activities invited actors to look at these problems through multiple lenses and reflect on their own positions, perspectives, knowledge, and values.

Through a carefully designed and documented workshop series on Öland, Sweden, as our empirical case study, we trace how actors’ perceptions of problems and solutions changed during three sequential and aggregative workshops. We also demonstrate how we moved from exploring the multifunctionality of landscapes and understanding actors’ different values, preferences, and priorities, to developing four strategies for effectively accelerating and expanding adaptation efforts. We reveal how the process of mobilizing, articulating, and connecting individually held systems, target, and operational knowledge nurtures collective action.

We believe that insights on how a careful and deliberate design helps dialogue-based processes achieve their intended outcomes would be of timely interest and relevance to attendants of the International Transdisciplinarity Conference 2024. With a detailed account of the different sequential phases and complementary activities of our workshop series, we provide guidance for other scholars, practitioners, and policymakers, who wish to engage a variety of actors in addressing sustainability challenges in inclusive and equitable ways.

by Jake Rowan Byrne, Ádám Tóth, Marjanneke Vijge

In response to the urgent need for innovative approaches to address complex global challenges, the Master’s programme of Global Challenges for Sustainability offers a pioneering model for inter- and transdisciplinary education. This joint degree Master’s programme is run by the European University Alliance CHARM-EU and taught simultaneously at 5 universities in Europe by means of hybrid classrooms with physical student mobility across the programme’s 3 phases. This presentation explores the pedagogical and didactic elements embedded within the CHARM-EU Master’s curriculum, highlighting key strategies for fostering individual, social, and societal learning processes essential for developing inter- and transdisciplinarity competencies. It reflects on the key elements and lessons learned in the 3 phases of the Master’s programme, that are each represented by one co-author.

The CHARM-EU Master’s programme is designed to strengthen students' inter- and transdisciplinary "muscles" by cultivating integrative research methodologies and promoting collaborative learning environments. Through a three-phase programme encompassing preparatory skill development, thematic exploration, and real-world application with stakeholders, it provides a spiral curriculum structure where students get to develop and improve their transdisciplinary practices as they engage in challenges in greater depth in each phase. This provides students with engaging and transformative learning experiences that prepare them to navigate complex sustainability challenges.

Central to the CHARM-EU Master’s approach are pedagogical strategies that encourage collective thinking and action, leading to mutual learning and transformation. Emphasising fluid identities, both students and teachers/supervisors assume roles as integration experts, fostering peer-to-peer training and collaborative knowledge exchange. Educational tools and digital platforms are leveraged to facilitate interdisciplinary and transnational collaboration and equip students with the vocabularies and toolkits necessary for effective transdisciplinary work.

The CHARM-EU Master’s programme serves as a living laboratory for the research of inter- and transdisciplinary education, offering valuable insights into design principles and best practices. It was designed by Knowledge Creating Teams of various (inter)disciplinary experts and educationalists across the 5 universities. By utilising research-based education and practice-informed educational research, the programme continually shares educational approaches across the alliance. Through rigorous evaluation and reflection, CHARM-EU Master’s contributes to the growing body of knowledge on the science of team-science as applied to educational contexts.

The CHARM-EU Master’s programme exemplifies a forward-thinking approach to inter- and transdisciplinary education, providing a blueprint for values-driven educational research, implementation, and evaluation. By exercising transdisciplinary muscles and fostering a culture of collaboration and innovation, CHARM-EU Master’s prepares both students and teachers to become catalysts for societal transformation in an increasingly complex world.

by Tobias Buser, Margaret Krebs, Lorrae Van Kerkhoff

How can we develop Transdisciplinary Teaching cases?

The Transdisciplinary Training Collaboratory: Building Common Ground is a project that brings together pioneering researchers and trainers from regional centers across the globe working within their regions to:

1. Synthesize existing knowledge on the key concepts, competencies, common language, and accepted phases of different types of transdisciplinary research; and

2. Create a TDR training design guide for trainers, accompanied by resources cataloged by theframework developed from the synthesis work.

To complement this work, there is a need for a broad range of teaching cases to illustrate the process and concepts and to jointly or individually work on specific concepts and challenges.

There are currently only few cases available that describe how a transdisciplinary research (TDR) project works throughout the phases towards a specific overarching societal goal in a specific context. An example are the five cases in the TD MOOC ´Partnering for change – linking research to societal challenges´. However, to cover different contexts and topics, there are many more cases needed, as well as a general outline on how to produce teaching cases.

In this workshop, we aim to lay the ground to work on and test an outline to develop TDR teaching cases.

Workshop Design

Introduction and setting the ground:
Presentation of the Transdisciplinary Training Collaboratory and specifically the TDR training design guide with its sections on:

• a checklist of questions that enable trainers to systematically think through how each training element supports a specific purpose, and audience;

• the proficiencies at three levels: understanding, participating, and leading TDR

• a summary of TD phases and tasks, key concepts, attributes of TD, and other essential content

Interactive Part 1:
We start with a draft outline of key questions to be answered/ addressed by TDR teaching cases. The draft outline is based on the phases and key tasks in the TDR training design guide and includes societal and scientific aims of the project, context conditions, team, partners and other important actors, and process milestones throughout the phases of a TDR project. The group works on improving specific aspects of the outline.

Interactive Part 2:
In part 2 we apply the outline on 2-4 cases of Transdisciplinary Training Collaborative members and participants that will be selected before the workshop. According on the number of cases we work in 2-4 subgroups. Case providers are interviewed by the other group members using the key questions of the outline.

Interactive Part 3:
In part 3 we jointly reflect on the outline in the light of how well it allowed to highlight key aspects of transdisciplinary research projects taking place in different contexts and addressing different societal challenges. A particular focus is on how the case narratives along the key questions can be used for training and teaching transdisciplinarity.

With the input of this workshop, the teaching case outline will be further developed and made available.

by Roos de Jonge, Tess ten cate, Naomi Steenbergen, Willem Jan Renger, Bald de Vries

Introduction:

The health domain is increasingly confronted with complex challenges such as the (medical) consequences of climate change, pandemics, an aging population, and rising healthcare costs. They are so-called ‘wicked problems’. Problems which are very difficult to solve and, in any case, require interdisciplinary perspectives to solve them. The stakeholders of a wicked problem have different views to understand the problem and to find a solution. It means that future health professionals should be trained to work in this stakeholder environment.

We have developed an interdisciplinary course called: Dimensions on Societal Issues. In this course, we train students from the medical field, law, pharmacy, and humanities to think not only from their own disciplinary perspective but also from other perspectives to come to an integrative approach to complex societal issues.

In the course, students explore a set of complex societal challenges, for example how to address the consequences and problems caused by pollution of powerful companies.

Learning objectives of the course are:

1. Students learn to approach complex problems systematically and critically to identify the underlying causes of the issues.

2. 2) In analyzing complex societal issues the students take on multiple disciplinary perspectives, such as medicine, law, and philosophy.

3. 3) Students learn to communicate effectively and collaborate with colleagues from different fields.

4. 4) Students reflect on their role and responsibility as a citizen and as a future professional in society.

To achieve the learning objectives, students approach the challenge from various perspectives. They learn that what from one perspective may be a solution, can, from another perspective, be a problem in itself. This contributes to making the problem complex or ‘wicked’. Students learn to analyse the dynamics inherent in complex problems, including the motivation behind the solution/problem, the impact on the different stakeholders and the difficulties in and prospects for coming to a shared solution.

In the presentation we take the audience along our educational design and use their feedback to improve our course.

by Anna Ben Shalom, Danielle Vlaanderen, Marlon Renes, Marieke Jonkman-Bakker

This case study aims to explore partnership relationships and models in community-engaged learning, by presenting a case study about a Community-Engaged Learning (CEL) course entitled I am Utrecht. Some research has been conducted on exploring existing partnership relations and partnership models. The existing literature focuses on the characteristics that make the partnership work or the type of partnership models that CEL can offer, including course-driven, partner-driven, and theme-driven partnership models. However, in the course I am Utrecht we experience a new and more complex type of partnership, in which teachers of Utrecht University (UU) and an MDT societal partner (Serve the City Utrecht ) are co-designing the CEL course, whilst participating students and other societal partners form theme-driven partnerships during the course. This innovative case study explores the integrated curriculum co-design of the CEL course by exploring the co-creation process in the transdisciplinary team of teachers from the educational science department of Utrecht University and the MDT societal partner, responsible for the MDT (Maatschappelijke Diensttijd) trajectory of the students. MDT is a governmental scheme of voluntary work for young people from ages 12 to 30 to contribute to society. Participants and stakeholders gain experience with connecting to people outside their regular living environment. Upon completion of the requirements of the MDT, the volunteering students receive an MDT certificate. During the course, the MDT partner is primarily interested in capturing the personal learning goals and growth of students to ensure the MDT goals are met whilst UU teachers focus the class activities on both the personal learning goals of students and on creating meaningful social change in the local communities. In our experience, and according to sociocultural theory (Vygotsky & Rieber, 1997, Rogoff, 2003) the two are inseparable: personal growth takes place in a social and cultural context. Social change takes place when all parties are committed to learning. (Greenwood, D. J. & Levin, M., 2007). This project aims to integrate personal learning and social change by capturing the co-design of the course which is the product of the co-learning process of the transdisciplinary team of UU teachers and the MDT partner. All stakeholders (students, teachers, partners, and MDT partner) are striving for social impact and are open to personal and collective learning to achieve this. With this case study, we aim to develop a co-learning framework at the teacher-MDT partner level to capture the intensive co-learning process that takes place in this course as we believe that a more integrated curriculum design is a result of a collaborative learning process which in turn creates a more powerful learning environment for the participants of the course.

by Marije van Braak, Carien Lansink, Margot van den Berg, Berteke Waaldijk

In this session, we will discuss various opportunities, pitfalls and best practices for interdisciplinary approaches to thesis writing for students who have not participated in interdisciplinary education. How can we make interdisciplinary research more accessible to all students interested, including those from disciplinary programs? We input the discussion with findings from our pilot study conducted at Utrecht University (UU), working towards answers to questions like ‘What does it take to make an interdisciplinarian?’ ‘How can disciplinary learning prepare for interdisciplinarity?’

Relevance and pilot description

At (Utrecht University), students write a discipline-based bachelor thesis – except when they participate in an interdisciplinary program. With the growing interest of students in joining interdisciplinary master programs, the increasing number of those programs, and the wicked questions that society poses, we felt the need to give bachelor students from all bachelor programs the opportunity to experiment with an interdisciplinary approach to their bachelor thesis. Specifically, we aimed to explore how we can help students from various humanities programs to adopt an interdisciplinary approach while their program did not offer extensive education on interdisciplinarity and interdisciplinary research. The challenge for them is to get a grip on what interdisciplinary approaches might entail, to fit that into their program’s idea of disciplinary thesis quality, and still have space to experience what an interdisciplinary approach means while already working on their thesis.

To explore the potential for a thesis construction where students with no or very little experience with interdisciplinary research could write a thesis with interdisciplinary approach, we designed two pilot programmes for students of various Humanities bachelor programs. The design followed the principles of constructive alignment. First, students were invited to join a pressure cooker workshop on interdisciplinary research. During this three-hour workshop, we discussed students’ disciplinary grounding, reasons for doing interdisciplinary research, we practiced formulating an interdisciplinary research question, and possible routes for integrating two or more disciplines to answer such question. Students and their supervisors, who sometimes also joined the pressure cooker workshop, were then given guidance for reflection throughout the thesis process and assessment guidelines to help grasp what was expected of them (in comparison to the disciplinary guidelines). We also offered students and supervisors online consultation moments to help solve problems or answer questions. Students used those opportunities, for example, to brainstorm about their research topic and question. At the end of the thesis writing period, students handed in their thesis and a reflection document in which they present how they have dealt with issues and questions arising during the thesis writing. Students received a certificate for participating and filled out an evaluation form.

Throughout all parts of the pilot, we took notes on the process, students’ reactions, etc. and held intervision sessions with supervising teachers. Carien, who is an educational advisor, evaluated the final writing products (thesis, reflection report) to see what kind of theses resulted from the pilot programme and what the difficulties and gains were for students.

Summary of findings and ways toward impact

We present a few key results of the pilot rounds. We discuss next questions and steps during the conference session:

1. Cooperation between various bachelor programs helped to see the various needs and restrictions of students throughout Humanities programs.

2. The pressure-cooker interdisciplinarity workshops worked well. Participation of faculty and students together was very helpful for supervisors. The complete list of integration techniques we used seemed too high for students who had never done disciplinary reflection (see 3). We are looking for an appropriate workshop format for specific educational contexts (e.g. basic research courses).

3. Students find it difficult to talk about their field as a discipline. The disciplinary self-reflection turned out to be completely new way of looking at their own field. Our project seems to make clear that consciously and explicitly speaking about what binds and distinguishes disciplines is a prerequisite for the next step. In a follow-up, extra attention is needed for exploring disciplinary grounding.

4. We have experimented with approaches to interdisciplinarity in professional literature (e.g. Repko & Szostak 2021). We translated that for the pressure cooker workshop in pilot round 2 into a new list of components of a disciplinary perspective: phenomena, theory of knowledge, assumptions, concepts, theories, methods, societal relevance.

5. We created an overlay to help teachers assess an interdisciplinary perspective in BA theses in disciplinary programs. We set the bar feasibly low: students are required to explain what different disciplines contribute to answering a (sub-)question and when they reflect on the process of considering, comparing and perhaps integrating some of the components from the above list. We are still evaluating this, but it seems that no new criteria are needed

6. Reflection by students on the process seems promising. The results of the second round will be in by June 2024.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SESSION DESIGN

The session is interactive, which affords exchange of ideas between everyone present.

• Introduction (5 min.).

• Visual exercise (5 min.): participants choose one association card from a range of cards (available from the game Dixit) which fits their experience or association with interdisciplinary approaches to thesis writing. They discuss their chosen cards in small groups.

• Interactive round to gain insight into participants’ relation to the topic (15 min.): Have they been involved in interdisciplinary thesis writing, if so, how? We start to make a list of pitfalls and best practices if those come up, to be added to throughout the session.

• Presentation pilot results (10 min.): those results (foreshadowed in the abstract) will link with the issues raised just before and will also input the following discussion.

• Discussion (25 min.): Based on the input so far, we have a plenary discussion around the following questions:

• 1. How can we make students aware of their disciplinary basis, which is prerequisite for integration of disciplines of some sort?

• 2. The differences between full-fledged interdisciplinary research and a thesis with an interdisciplinary approach are subtle and layered. When is an interdisciplinary approach successful?

• Rounding off (5 min.).

by Corinne Lamain, Helma van Luttikhuizen

Please watch the trailer of a documentary that was made by the Centre for Unusual Collaborations the Centre for Unusual Collaborations. It follows a group of diverse and very enthusiastic mid-career academics ( coming from TU/e, WUR, UU and UMC Utrecht) that collaborates around the topic of ‘porous materials’. They range from geologists, to art historians, to medical scientists, and beyond. Such unusual collaborations across disciplines support addressing complex societal challenges. They offer opportunity for academics to further explore their curiosity, by encountering other perspectives.

Despite their enthusiasm and the availability of funding, the group runs into a lack of recognition and reward for their ground-breaking work. And they learn that it takes a specific set skills to make their collaborative work meaningful and effective. The documentary ‘1+1=3’ takes you on a journey with this research team to explore barriers as well as ways to overcome them.

Watch the trailer here! Any questions about the Centre for Unusual Collaborations? Let us know!

If you would like to watch the full documentary please find it here

by Debby Gerritsen

The escalating complexity of global challenges drives a shift in higher education towards educational programs that foster transformative competencies and transdisciplinary learning. To address 'wicked problems' students need to become able to integrate a wide variety of lay and scientific knowledge sources and as such there is a need for novel tools and methods to empower students to integrate these perspectives in education as well as in future profession. The innovative transdisciplinary education presented in this session provides a comprehensive approach to provide students with required competences to guide transformations. Furthermore, as students experience the benefits and limits of scientific disciplines, they become open to the added value of other knowledge sources, which supports them to collaborate with each other and societal partners on identifying problems and solutions. In this session we make the case for prioritizing education that aims at fostering transformative and transdisciplinary competences and show the learning outcomes of the Transition Cycle Method.

The Transition Cycle Method, evaluated in the honors course 'The Next Great/Small Transformation', offers a structured approach to learning basic skills for managing complex transition challenges. This method, inspired by Transitions Research, Design Thinking, and Experiential Learning, iteratively connects four phases: imagine, connect, act, and assess. Our action research evaluates this method's effectiveness in developing students' skills to address complexity, uncertainty and resistance. Through transdisciplinary teamwork, students engage in a transformative process, starting from envisioning innovative 'what if' scenarios to executing and reflecting on interventions, thereby fostering a deep understanding of and engagement with societal transition challenges.

Building on this educational approach, our session aims to provide a structured example on embedding transformative competencies and transdisciplinary collaboration within higher education curricula. By highlighting the necessity of aligning educational practices with real-world challenges and fostering a reflective, responsive, and caring learning environment, we contribute to the ongoing discourse on preparing students for the complexities of future societal roles. This abstract presents a collective call for a pedagogical shift towards fostering the inner capacities of students to navigate and influence an increasingly complex world, thereby aligning with frameworks such as the OECD Learning Compass 2030 and the Inner Development Goals. Through this educational approach, we aspire to cultivate future generations of professionals equipped to transcend disciplinary boundaries and drive meaningful societal change.

by Oskar Marg, Lena Theiler

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) is ideally designed to not only have societal effects but also to benefit science (Jahn et al. 2012). However, recent literature on the evaluation of TDR has focused almost entirely on the societal effects of TDR (e.g. Hansson and Polk 2018; Lux et al. 2019; Schäfer, Bergmann and Theiler 2021; Pärli 2023). In comparison, the scientific effects of transdisciplinary research has been studied far less (for exceptions, see Hegger and Dieperink 2015; Belcher et al. 2019; Newig et al. 2019; Jahn et al. 2022), although we believe this topic is crucial to do justice to the potential of this research mode.

In an exploratory study, we addressed this gap empirically by investigating the effects of transdisciplinary research on science. We define scientific effects broadly as changes in research practice or scientific results. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 scientists who have experience in transdisciplinary research and are anchored in one of the following sub-disciplines: Environmental Sociology, Sustainable Chemistry and Participatory Health Research. In this way, our findings are based on various different contexts in which transdisciplinary research is conducted.

We identify three main effects:

1. TDR changes the understanding of scientific problems: The integration of different bodies of knowledge from practitioners and scientific disciplines in transdisciplinary research processes has the effect of extending the research subject and correcting and sharpening the definition of the problem.

2. TDR changes the quality of scientific insights: Working on a research subject over an extended period of time and in close proximity to practice leads to methodological innovations, broad data, and up-to-date findings.

3. TDR promotes a reflexive turn in science: Confrontation with other disciplines and the perspectives of practice partners promotes the reflexivity of researchers at a personal level, with regard to their disciplines and with regard to the responsibility and power of science.

We also draw attention to open issues and challenges related to the processing of scientific insights from TDR.

Key reading:

Oskar Marg, Lena Theiler (2023): Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity. Research Evaluation, Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 635–647. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad033

by Martin Führ, Kilian Bizer, Aaron Rittmeier, Anna Lena Lesch, Anna Zeitler, Silke Kleihauer, Dario Goedecke

Introduction

Simulation games have proved to be a helpful method for researchers in several inter- and transdisciplinary projects in order to gain insights into real-world dynamics and to test the effectiveness and societal impact of organisational arrangements as well as legislative and other institutional framework conditions. The proposed interactive session offers a forum for researchers and practitioners who have already gained experience with simulations games or who are interested in familiarising themselves(?) with their potential benefits. Furthermore, the session aims to define preconditions and jointly develop guidance on how to use simulation games to shape collaboration between experts and stakeholders from diverse disciplines and knowledge systems. The contributors will summarise the elaborated results as a freely accessible method profile. The session therefore contributes to topic 1. Enhancing the theoretical foundations of inter- and transdisciplinary.

Experience & State of Research

The research group sofia (engl.: Society for Institutional Analysis) applied simulation games in the fields of impact assessment in new organisational and legislative frameworks, particularly in the context of prospective legislative impact assessment, as well as in the realms of transformation research and behavioural insights for the assessment multi-actors dynamics.

As stated in the publication Simulation Games in Impact Assessment for Law, simulation games are relatively complex but offer high learning effects. They facilitate risk-free collection of practical experience, since practitioners participate in the simulation of future reality and test the effects of decisions in a controlled/protected environment. Participants may then fully understand both, single policy options and the interactions between them. The multi-stakeholder setting stimulates the homo ludens, thus minimise strategic behaviour: The dynamic interaction and change of perspectives during the simulation promote mutual understanding and facilitate joint problem framing, which in turn supports goal-orientated collaboration.

In a nutshell, a simulation game provides insights into how actors react to changing framework conditions and reveals their interactions and the related dynamic processes. This allows to uncover obstacles in the interaction and find suitable solutions.

Motivation and Objectives

The research group sofia, led by Prof. Dr. Kilian Bizer and Prof. Dr. Martin Führ, has conducted a dozen simulations games in the last years. Based on this experience a structure is offered to systemise different approaches for this interactive tool. Other researchers are invited to describe their experience using the proposed structure well ahead of the session.

The session functions as a platform for structured knowledge exchange between practitioners and supports sharing of best practices and mutual learning across disciplines and knowledge systems. Moreover, the session collaboratively validates, further develops and refines the common understanding of the applications, the potential and the limitations of simulation games in different settings. More specifically, it aims for co-creation of innovative solutions regarding the organisation and design of simulation games suitable for different types of wicked problems. Based on the results the hosts intend to create a method profile (e.g., via td-net toolbox). This aligns with the overriding objective to enhance the toolbox of researchers and organisations facing inter- and transdisciplinary challenges.

In addition, participants with less experience can familiarise themselves with the benefits of using this method to test solutions to wicked problems by sharing experiences, research results and insights with researchers from different disciplines.

Focus of Content

The session will critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, limitations, opportunities, and risks associated with the use of simulation games, fostering a deep understanding of their potential for collaborative research. Furthermore, the session will elaborate the use of simulation games for different types of inter- and transdisciplinary challenges, problem constellations, and stages of a project. On the basis of this, contributors and participants derive effective strategies for a purposeful design and meaningful implementation of simulation games into inter- and transdisciplinary projects.

Concept of the session

The proposed session will feature a combination of discussions and presentations from the hosts as well as contributors interested in sharing knowledge and experiences, ensuring a diverse and engaging experience for all participants. The session is committed to fostering an inclusive environment that encourages the integration of contributors from diverse backgrounds and the exploration of innovative formats. A Miro-Board facilitates the interactive nature of the session, allowing for active participation and collaboration among attendees. The board will be open for editing and contributions by participants both before and after the session, accompanying the whole process. It will provide templates for systematic knowledge exchange and presentations. Ideally, a preparatory online meeting with those who handed in their experience will help streamline the agenda for the session. This has proven to be the recipe for success in a recent collaborative workshop on "Modes of Change”.

Description of the session design

1. Presentation by our project team on experiences and takeaways from conducting simulation games in inter- and transdisciplinary projects (12-15 minutes)

2. Presentations of case studies from other institutions on their use of gaming simulations (15-20 minutes)

3. Jointly distinguish types and categories of simulation games (5 minutes)

4. Discuss Strenghts, Weaknesses, Opportunities and risks of the use of simulation games in inter- and transdisciplinary projects (10 minutes)

5. Development of strategies for the efficient and effective design of simulation games (10 Minutes)

6. Summary and conclusions (5 minutes)

Call for Participation

The hosting-team is looking for participants for this interactive session. If you would like to share your experience and insights regarding simulation games in different application scenarios, please feel to join our Miro-Board and to contact Anna (anna.zeitler@h-da.de). Your contribution is greatly appreciated and valuable to the session!

Key readings

• Simulation games in the Regulatory Impact Assessment – Simulation of the implementation of the EIA Amending Directive 2014/52/EU

• Führ, M./Balla, S./Dopfer, J./Bunge, T. et al., elni Review 2018, 1: 17-24; https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2018.004

• https://www.elni.org/fileadmin/elni/dokumente/Archiv/2018/Heft_1/elni_2018-01_Fuehr.pdf

• Simulation Games in Impact Assessment for Law – Part 2 – Recommendations from Selected Simulation Games (in german)

• Führ, M./Balla, S./Dopfer, J./Bunge, T. et al., UVP-Report 2018, 32 (2): 79-86

• https://www.uvp.de/de/uvp-report/jg32/jg32h2/1079-uvp-report-032-10

by Rebecca Laycock Pedersen, Varvara Nikulina

Sustainability science aims to bring together different disciplines and non-academic stakeholders to support transformative change. As a relatively new field without established methodological norms, there is a need to explore the role of different research modes in realizing transformative change. Action research and transdisciplinary research are two main emerging research modes in sustainability science. Both value the societal impact of research and invite non-academic knowledge-holders into the research process. However, it is unclear how these research modes are distinct from one another. We aim to provide a better understanding of the differences between these research modes in the context of sustainability science to better understand how they can be best employed for transformative change. We conducted a comparative systematic literature review of over 1,400 scientific articles to explore aims, areas of use, influential ideas, and main methodological approaches in action and transdisciplinary research. We found that, aside from using different terminology, action and transdisciplinary research modes are overwhelmingly similar in terms of the processes they employ. Differences between the two include that action research emphasises action and transdisciplinary research knowledge production. The transdisciplinary literature was also found to be much more coherent than the diffuse action research contributions. This difference can be traced to their theoretical and methodological development. Transdisciplinary research developments have been contained largely within sustainability science, whereas action research has roots in a wide range of disciplines. Our review shows how siloed thinking, even within the same field, can lead to duplication of efforts and the development of parallel scholarly communities working in the same way but using different vocabulary. There is a need for reorganization within sustainability science to promote sharing and learning between scholars using these modes. We suggest that re-evaluating how research is conducted, and its impact evaluated is needed to allow for more care-full, thorough inquiry in which scholars can engage with the unfamiliar. We also discourage scholars from developing strong semantic attachments and advocate for openness to alternative and diverse linguistic expression. Through these means, greater sharing and learning between action and transdisciplinary researchers may be possible in order to realise the transformative potential of their work.