ITD24 Arichve: Sessions 061-090

by Federica Russo, Guido Caniglia

Generating and using evidence has never been an easy task. But what makes it extra hard, when we try to address interconnected health-environmental challenges? Public health emergencies such as the Covid Pandemic, climate change, obesity epidemics, all show that our current tools for generating evidence are insufficient. Transdisciplinary research approaches at the intersection of public health and sustainability science are showing new ways of generating evidence in practice. Yet, these are undertheorized. On the one hand, the notion of evidence is often used as a black box (such as when talking about evidence-based solutions or evidence-based policies). On the other hand, often the notion is considered as obsolete or too deterministic to account for the complexities of transdisciplinary knowledge co-production processes and actions.

In this contribution, we present a notion of evidence that is based on and serves transdisciplinary approaches addressing interconnected health-environmental challenges. These challenges are timely and relevant, and likely to frequently occur in the near future. We synthesise our approach in the phrase ‘HOW is WHO’, to signal that the modes of explanation and of action to address interconnected challenges (the HOW), is deeply interconnected with the various actors involved (the WHO). While the importance of actors will be no news to transdisciplinary scholars, we submit that the way we reconstruct the intertwinement with the HOW is extremely important when we think about and theorise evidence in participatory and action-oriented research.

We sketch the contours of an approach to evidence that supports decision-making and action-oriented research. We do this through the idea of ‘evidence as clues’, like in a crossword puzzle, inspired by the approach of philosopher and legal theory Susan Haack. This view helps address several aspects of evidence: it relates to worlds and also to our beliefs, it is a product of social processes and institutional constraints and also of modelling practices, it requires that researchers interact with citizens/patients/policy makers. With this approach, we can connect the ‘WHO’ and the ‘HOW’. We can account for the role agents play in the process of generating and using knowledge, and this is highly intertwined with the processes in which we fit clues and existing entries.

Thinking about evidence as clues for action in collaborative and participatory research, we hope, may help trans-disciplinary scholars to develop methodological and procedural approaches to integrating the mutual learning processes that underpin transdisciplinary research processes with more objectivist modes of explanations about the world.

by Christine Hobelsberger, Antje Michel, Cornelia Kühn, Gregor Schmidt

Transdisciplinary research can generate positive effects not only for society, but also added value for science by contributing to a better understanding of the scientific problem, improving the quality of scientific insight, and increasing the reflexivity of the researchers involved (Marg; Theiler 2023). Levering this potential, however, requires specific knowledge, skills, and not least mindsets. While a wide range of tools, methods, and other resources is already available for the design and implementation of inter- and transdisciplinary research processes (see e.g. ITD Toolkits Inventory by ITD Alliance or Open Online Course on Transdisciplinary Research by td-net | Network for Transdisciplinary Research), these resources yet have to reach the researchers and practitioners (to be) involved. Likewise, inter- and transdisciplinary mindsets, skills and attitudes do not arise on their own. Finally, there is great scope for shared learning from the practical experience of researchers and practitioners working in inter- and transdisciplinary settings, not least concerning the handling of challenges associated with the transdisciplinary research mode. In the course of the “InNoWest”-project, the authors of this abstract have taken on the task to tackle the above-named challenges.

“InNoWest – Just do it! Sustainable and Digital together in North-West Brandenburg” (2023 – 2027) is a German inter- and transdisciplinary joint project of Brandenburg University of Technology (THB), Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development (HNEE), and Potsdam University of Applied Sciences (FHP). Together with regional actors from politics, administration, municipalities, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and civil society, the network partners develop solutions for specific problems in the North-West Brandenburg region, Germany. The development and implementation of these projects is carried out by so-called innovation teams, which comprise scientists from different disciplines, levels of experience, and hierarchies. As part of the strategic-structural sub-project “Knowledge transfer for regional learning processes”, the authors provide the innovation teams and their practice partners with support for inter- and transdisciplinary competence development along all phases of transdisciplinary project work. To this end, the current repertoire comprises collegial advice and (external) coaching, the provision of spaces for resonance, reflection and the exchange of experiences, as well as formats such as “ttt – testing transdisciplinary tools”, where the innovation teams are invited to try out and discuss transdisciplinary tools for specific issues and project phases. The repertoire is continually developed, extended and adapted, depending on emerging or anticipated needs. In a second strand, the authors use the example of “InNoWest” to enrich the body of knowledge on success factors for transdisciplinary research projects. The findings made are then fed back into the joint project´s ongoing work in the sense of a continuous learning and improvement process. In the context of the activities described, the authors continuously develop further not only the expertise of their fellow researchers and practitioners, but also significantly broaden their own stock of knowledge and experiences. Thus, in this process, the authors consider themselves as coaches and learners at the same time. In the proposed workshop, we would like to share and discuss our experiences along these blurred lines between teaching and learning in capacity building in transdisciplinarity, and invite the participants to share their experiences and ideas on specific questions in this context.

The workshop is scheduled for 90 minutes and up to 18 participants, and designed as follows: The workshop starts with a 20 minutes report on our structural sub-project “Knowledge transfer for regional learning processes“, its role, objectives and so-far activities in the joint project “InNoWest“, as well as our findings, experiences made and lessons learned in the then nearly two-year project work. We would then invite the participants to an interactive part, which follows the logic of a World Café (Brown & Isaacs 2005).

• Explaining the procedure and its ettiquette (5 minutes)

• • Three discussion rounds (total 50 minutes with 15 minutes for each round and buffer time to change the tables) with up to six persons per table. Each table will be moderated by one of the authors. Based on our so-far experiences in the course of the “InNoWest”-project, we suggest the follwing three topics. However, topics may still be subject to change according to the authors experiences in the following months as well as potential suggestions by the conference committee:

• Table 1: Why? – How to create motivation for capacity building in transdisciplinarity? Capacity building requires the investment of time and other resources, and not least the openness towards learning processes and new approaches, even among experienced researchers and practitioners. As the authors´ so-far experience has shown, the readiness to engage in such learning processes may vary considerably. At this table, we will discuss the question of how motivation for capacity building and continuous learning in transdisciplinarity can be created.

• Table 2: How? – What features should resources for transdisciplinary research comprise to make them easily applicable? Even though there are plenty of transdisciplinary tools and other resources available, the material is provided in different forms and formats. As the authors´ experiences have shown, details do matter in this context, and potential pitfalls only become apparent at second sight or in the actual application. At this table, we will discuss how resources on transdisciplinary research may be prepared and shared in such way, that they can smoothly be imparted or applied even by inexperienced users.

• Table 3: Who? How to provide impetus for and guidance in capacity building in transdisciplinarity? As already written above: resources for inter- and transdisciplinary research do not automatically reach researchers and practitioners, nor do inter- and transdisciplinary mindsets, skills and attitudes arise on their own. As the authors´ experiences have shown, their offers and formats for capacity building and reflection are increasingly requested and appreciated, and indeed have triggered processes of learning and reflection, which otherwise would not have found their space in daily business. At this table, we will therefore discuss formats of by whom and how impetus for and guidance in capacity building in/reflection on transdisciplinary research may be provided.

• Summary of ideas and results from all three tables and discussion rounds (15 minutes), closure of the workshop. The workshop´s results (fotolog) may lateron be shared with the workshop´s participants.

Key Readings

• Brown, J. and Isaacs. D. (2005). The World Café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

• Marg, O.; Theiler, L. (2023). Effects of transdisciplinary research on scientific knowledge and reflexivity. In: Research Evaluation, 2023, 32, pp. 635-647

by Jesse Hoffman, Kelly Streekstra, Peter Pelzer

In the light of pressing issues like climate change, existing educational repertoires are increasingly seen as not fit for purpose. The ‘knowledge-deficit model’ implied in most forms of education places strict limitations on the social engagement that may be fostered. Therefore, in this workshop, we will together map alternative, hope-oriented educational repertoires, and explore their strengths and weaknesses in fostering social engagement.

Awareness is growing that educational institutes not just play a role in studying problems and worldly processes; they can also activate engagement with real-world contexts and help envision and build new pathways for sustainable futures. But, what precisely such a future- and society-oriented educational system can look like, is still unclear. Therefore, in this workshop we will explore what an academy of hope might look like.

This workshop is organized by researchers from the action-research project called The Academy of Hope. From this project we take two insights into the design of the workshop. The first is that by experimenting and redesigning education, teachers play an important role in inspiring students to perceive change as possible and within reach, and to become more proactive and reflective in their orientation to change. Secondly, our findings suggest that ‘hope’ is best conceived as an active practice, and a movement between something that is aspired and longed for, and something that is critiqued and to-be-changed.

The starting point for the workshop is the recognition that there is not one silver bullet: an Academy of Hope will have to consist of a plethora of activities that in different ways connect real-world contexts, expertise, imagination, and diverse participants (from students in initial education, practitioners, researchers to communities). Looking beyond the level of a course, an Academy of Hope will also have to reconsider the broader educational ecologies in which learning takes place, and consider the long-term learning lines through which learners can start to see themselves as active participants in processes of change. Across educational institutions, educators already experiment with novel forms of education that can contribute to such aims. From introducing creative methods like theater to allowing students to engage with real-world settings by bringing societal practitioners into the classroom. Getting a feel for the diversity and the contours of academies of hope, can empower our inspiration and ability to create such alternative educational repertoires.

Therefore, as a modest first step, the purpose of this workshop is to stage an interactive exploration of how an Academy of Hope may look like. To do so, we will collaborate with the participants in this session to first i) explore what we critique and see as important flaws in present educational repertoires, as well as the kind of educational elements we imagine to be most valuable. Drawing on our undertsanding of hope, we believe that it is in moving back and forth between these critiqued- and longed-for forms education where change becomes conceivable and hope possible. To do so, we will ii) ‘map’ a landscape of educational initiatives of change, thereby co-creating an impromptu exhibition space. To inspire this part of the workshops, the hosts will share a few initiatives of change that inspire them. After having mapped innovative practices, we will iii) use techniques from ‘system constellations’ to interactively explore the relationships between them and identify the contours of diverse Academy of Hopes.

Draft setting of the workshop:

In the room for this workshop, we will co-create a landscape of educational initiatives change, to discuss the contours of academies of hope. To do so, the room is divided into various spaces. On the top/North wall, we collect the educational repertoires participants are most critical about, into a collage of the ‘absurdities of the present’. At the opposing wall, we collect educational repertoires that participants imagine to be valuable for societal engagement and change-making. The middle is where educational change takes place in practice. Here we co-create ‘exhibits’ of initiatives of change, drawing on pillars, posterboards, or high tables. On a third wall in the room, we create a pre-made exhibit, displaying quotes, diagrams, and photo’s of how we understand the practice of hope might work for teachers and students.

Draft workshop outline:

1. Walk-in. As participants are walking in, we imagine they can already take a look around, and read some pre-made quotes and ideas that the hosts have added to the ‘empty’ exhibition spaces.

2. Opening: setting up the ‘edges’ of the room

3. After welcoming the participants to this co-creative space with a brief introduction, we invite participants to move to one side of the room. We ask participants to consider the thing they’re most critical of in their educational practices and environments. What do you want to see change? Why is that? In pairs, participants get a black sheet of paper and white pencil/pen, and listen carefully to one another as they shares their critique, and write it down. Thereby, we create a wall of critique, exhibiting the absurdities of the present.

4. On the other side of the room, we ask participants to imagine a direction of education that truly inspires them, that feel meaningful. On colourful sheets of paper, we collect these ideas, exhibiting our space of longing.

5. Then, we sit down in the middle of the room. Here, at this discontinuity between what we critique and what we long for, is where we image an academy of hope to thrive. It is an uncertain space to be in, but a space full of potential. By building an exhibit of our actions and doubts within this space, we collect a reflective and vulnerable exhibit of the initiatives of educational changes we’re (aiming to) work on.

6. Tour of 2-3 ‘initiatives of change’: We then offer a brief ‘tour’ across a few initiatives of change, that the hosts wish to share with the participants. These examples might spark inspiration for participants to see what they wish to contribute to the exhibits.

7. Co-creating initiatives of change: Then, we break up into small groups, and invite participants to discuss and add initiatives of change- or ideas of change, to the space.

8. Freely moving time to ‘visit’ other groups and their exhibited initiatives of change. Participants can, with paper and pen, keep adding thoughts throughout the exhibition space, and reflect with other participants.

9. Plenary ‘system constellation’: Plenary, we ask one person of each group to share an initiative of change they discussed. We then invite them to position themselves within the room at a spot they think fits best, in relation to the walls of critique and imagination, and in relation to the other initiatives of change that are shared. Thereby, they’re forming a ‘system constellation’, through which we explore the contours of what might characterize academies of hope.

10. Plenary closing – collective insights. In a final reflective moment, we collectively make sense of the session and the exhibition, and harvest short words of insights from the participants.

by Sabine Hoffmann, Paul Hirsch, Christian Pohl, Maria Guimaraes, Catarina Isidoro

Integration experts are academics who lead, administer, manage, monitor, assess, accompany, and/or advise others on integration within inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) projects or programs (Hoffmann et al. 2022). We here define integration as the process of constructively combining a wide range of perspectives from different disciplines (i.e., interdisciplinary integration) as well as from science, policy and practice (i.e., transdisciplinary integration) with the aim of developing a more comprehensive understanding of complex problems and generating more promising solutions. It is a multidimensional process that involves cognitive, social, and emotional dimensions (Pohl et al. 2021). We likewise refer to integration as the integrated output that emerges from this process (O'Rourke et al. 2016).

Integration experts play a range of different roles within ITD projects or programs which we consider a role in itself (Hoffmann et al. 2022). These roles change over time and depend on the specific purpose, scale and scope of integration as well as the specific context in which integration takes place (Hoffmann et al. under review). They are socially constructed within a project or program shaped by the overarching contextual conditions for integration at different levels – individual, team, project, program, institutional and societal (Deutsch et al. under review-b). Integration experts play such roles purposefully (‘role-taking’), or they develop them gradually depending on the purpose, scale and scope of integration, the contextual conditions for integration as well as the personal qualities and expertise they bring in (‘role-making’) (Hilger et al. 2021, Hoffmann et al. under review). Some of these roles (e.g., contributors) align well with the roles academics usually play, while others (e.g., bridge builders, boundary crossers) transcend existing roles (Hoffmann et al. 2022) and require other personal qualities and expertise than those academics usually possess (Hoffmann et al. under review).

Notwithstanding the range of different roles which integration experts play, they are often miscategorized as merely facilitators, coordinators, administrators or managers of ITD projects or programs (Hoffmann et al. 2022), who render solely ‘supportive’ contributions to such projects or programs (e.g., providing psychological, social and material support for creativity). Such miscategorizations obscure the very important creative contributions that integration experts provide (e.g., generating, refining and linking creative ideas, including their own). Building on Mainemelis et al. (2015)’s definition of integrative leadership as an interplay of supportive and creative contributions from both leaders and team members (Deutsch et al. under review-a), the question arises of the interplay of supportive and creative contributions that integration experts make to ITD projects or programs, while assuming the range of different roles described above. Addressing this question will enable us to make the nature and extent of supportive and creative contributions linked to the various roles that integration experts play visible and tangible.

We aim at organising an interactive workshop to disscuss this question of the interplay of supportive and creative contributions with participants interested in exploring the different roles of integration experts in ITD projects or programs. The proposed workshop design has been tested in a virtual pilot workshop organised as part of the ITD Alliance Working Group on Integration Experts and Expertise on February 6, 2024, and further developed based on the insights gained from the pilot workshop. Building on the existing conceptual and empirical insights on integration experts and integrative leadership (Deutsch et al. under review-a, Hoffmann et al. 2022, Hoffmann et al. under review, Lash-Marshall et al. 2017, Mainemelis et al. 2015), the workshop aims at:

• Exploring the range of different roles integration experts play in ITD projects or programs

• Discussing the interplay of supportive and creative contributions integration experts make to ITD projects or programs, and potential tensions and opportunities related to such interplay

• Exploring discrepancies between self-perception and perception of others related to the interplay of supportive and creative contributions.

Workshop design (90 min)

The workshop starts with a short discussion of the role(s) of integration experts in ITD projects or programs and the interplay of supportive and creative contributions integration experts make (max. 10 min). The discussion is followed by structured activities involving all workshop participants to reach the aims listed above, whilst generating empirical insights for a joint peer-reviewed publication on this topic co-authored by all participants interested in embarking on this collaborative writing endeavour.

We expect all participants to be interested in exploring integration experts’ different roles and the interplay of supportive and creative contributions, while being diverse in their motivations for participating. For example, participants may be more interested in practice, or in theory, or in the relationship between practice and theory; or they may have different kinds of integration experiences (from novice leaders to experts; from participants to leaders of integrative efforts). Our workshop design will account for this diversity. We will use various devices (individual reflections, small group discussions, whole group reflections) to enable mutual learning between and amongst novices, theoreticians, practitioners, experts, leaders, participants:

• To explore the range of different roles of integration experts in ITD projects or programs we will ask participants to first think individually on their role in a particular ITD project or program, then give such role a name (e.g., ‘bridge builder’) and finally specify that role by describing 3-5 key tasks related to such role (15 min).

• To discuss the interplay of supportive and creative contributions that integration experts make we will first introduce a specially developed chart based on Mainemelis et al. (2015) which will be displayed on the floor; we will then then discuss the x-axis (integrators’ supportive contributions) and y-axis (integrator’s creative contributions) of this chart. Based on this discussion, we will ask participants to first position themselves physically in the chart and then discuss with participants being positioned next to them: (a) the role’s name, (b) the specific 3-5 key tasks related to such role, (c) the interplay of creative and supportive contributions attached to such role and (d) the potential tensions and opportunities related to such interplay (20 min). After this group discussion, we will invite participants to share insights from their discussion with all participants (15 min).

• To explore discrepancies between self-perception and perception of others related to the interplay of creative and supportive contributions, we will ask participants to first place a sign on the chart where they position themselves (self-perception) and then place a sign where ITD project or program members would position them in the chart (perception of others), then discuss with participants next to them: (a) the potential tensions and opportunities related to potential discrepancies between self-perception and perceptions of others, and (b) the strategies they use to navigate such discrepancies (20 min). After this group discussion, we will invite participants to share insights from their discussion with all participants (15 min).

Workshop outcomes

The workshop culminates in planning a joint peer-reviewed publication on “The roles of integration experts in inter- and transdisciplinary research: The interplay of creative and supportive contributions” (working title) with all workshop participants interested in this collaborative endeavour.

References

• Deutsch L, Björnsen A, Fischer AM, Hama MA, Zimmermann NE, Zurbrügg C, Hoffmann S. under review-a. Herding cats - Integrative leadership strategies in inter- and transdisciplinary programs. Sustainability Science.

• Deutsch L, Pohl C, Bresch D, Hoffmann S. under review-b. Creating favorable conditions for inter- and transdisciplinary integration – an analytical framework and empirical insights. Global Environmental Change.

• Hilger A, Rose M, Keil A. 2021. Beyond practitioner and researcher: 15 roles adopted by actors in transdisciplinary and transformative research processes. Sustainability Science 16: 2049-2068.

• Hoffmann S, Deutsch L, Klein JT, O’Rourke M. 2022. Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9.

• Hoffmann S, Deutsch L, O’Rourke M. under review. Integration Experts and Expertise in Darbellay F, ed. Elgar Encyclopedia of Inter- and Transdisciplinarity. Edward Elgar Publishing

• Lash-Marshall WG, Nomura CT, Eck K, Hirsch PD. 2017. Facilitating Collaboration across Disciplinary and Sectoral Boundaries: Application of a Four-Step Strategic Intervention. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 35: 200-220.

• Mainemelis C, Kark R, Epitropaki O. 2015. Creative leadership: A multi-context conceptualization. The Academy of Management Annals 9: 393-482.

• O'Rourke M, Crowley S, Gonnerman C. 2016. On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: A philosophical framework. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 56: 62-70.

• Pohl C, Klein JT, Hoffmann S, Mitchell C, Fam D. 2021. Conceptualising transdisciplinary integration as a multidimensional interactive process. Environmental Science & Policy 118: 18-26.

by Giulia Isetti, Zoe Weisel

The world is facing increasing inequalities in a variety of domains, including the distribution of wealth, social justice, access to healthcare, educational opportunities, environmental conditions, and cultural representation. The complexity of tackling these challenges requires strategic partnerships and synergies. In this context, the integration of art and science stands out as a particularly promising avenue to foster societal transformation and the development of creative solutions. The present paper draws on the experiences gained from an art-science project - exCHANGE - born from the collaboration between a local artist association and a research institution in South Tyrol (Italy). exCHANGE brings together six artists and six researchers from different disciplines selected to collaboratively explore and address specific aspects of inequalities. The project takes place from March to September 2024, spanning six months during which the six transdisciplinary tandems are asked to work together to create novel insights and tangible outcomes through the fusion of artistic expression and scientific inquiry. exCHANGE utilizes a meta-research lens to continuously monitor the progress and dynamics within the six parallel projects. A multi-method qualitative approach is employed, which includes participant observation, reflective diaries, and focus groups with the participants to foster a comprehensive understanding of the collaborative processes within the project. The meta-research lens applied to the collaborative processes within the project provides a rich tapestry of insights, contributing to the growing body of findings on interdisciplinary collaboration. By sharing lessons learnt, best practices, and possible pitfalls, this contribution aims to inspire future endeavours that harness the power of art-science integration to break down barriers between disciplines and generate new ideas and solutions to pressing problems.

Furthermore, exCHANGE aims to monitor the impact of such collaborations on society. The project concludes with a final exhibition that will be open for two weeks in October 2024. During this period, the impact of the collaboration, the generated output, and the public reception will be evaluated through focus groups and interviews with the public. exCHANGE’s comprehensive assessment aims thus to shed light not only on the collaborative process but also on the broader societal implications of art-science integration, providing valuable insights for future initiatives in this domain.

by Marisa Rinkus, Chet McLeskey, Michael O'Rourke

Convergence has been at the heart of recent efforts to encourage crossdisciplinary synthesis within several programs funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF), including Growing Convergence Research (GCR) and the Convergence Accelerator. By encouraging crossdisciplinary synthesis, these programs encourage substantive responses to grand challenges confronting humanity in the 21st century. NSF defines convergence research as involving “deep integration across disciplines” that is driven by a “specific and compelling problem” (NSF 2024). Meaningful convergence requires working out how different researchers and their perspectives relate to one another, and in particular where they are similar and where they differ. Convergence research is difficult due, in part, to the contextual nature of convergence projects (cf. Klein 2012) and a lack of training in conducting it (Lélé & Norgaard 2005). Experts are trained in their own domains, but they are not typically trained to integrate their expertise with that of others in ways that are responsive to the specific and variable characteristics of their research and the team. The NSF GCR program, in particular, encourages the creation of a convergence culture that emphasizes supporting relationship building and information transfer through dynamic communication, building common ground through deep integration, establishing a shared language, and extending that culture beyond the team.

This presentation will discuss findings from the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative (TDI) Center’s work convergence teams funded by the NSF GCR Program, deriving specifically from exploratory research to identify convergence practices and processes that support a convergence culture. TDI Center has been conducting structured dialogue-based workshops with newly funded GCR teams since 2020 (N=20 teams), employing the Toolbox dialogue method, an evidence-informed facilitation approach developed by TDI, to surface implicit perspectives for joint consideration and coordination by complex, crossdisciplinary research teams (Hubbs et al. 2020). We collected data from the Toolbox dialogue-based workshops with each funded cohort from 2020-2023, from interviews with project leaders in the mid-to-late stage of their funding (N=20), and from a survey of project team members of funded projects at all stages of funding (N=200) in 2024. All data were collected virtually, with Zoom video conferencing used for the Toolbox workshops and interviews, and Qualtrics online software for the surveys. Our findings identify the barriers faced by convergence research teams and illustrate how team leaders and teams are being intentional in fostering a convergence culture that exhibits a commitment to epistemic humility, mutual understanding, and shared learning.

• Hubbs, G., O’Rourke, M., Orzack, S. H. (Eds.). (2020). The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: The Power of Cross-Disciplinary Practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

• Klein, J. T. (2012). Research integration: A comparative knowledge base. In A. F. Repko, W. W. Newell, & R. Szostak (Eds.), Case studies in interdisciplinary research (pp. 283-298). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

• Lele, S., Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55: 967-975.

• National Science Foundation (NSF). (2024). Growing Convergence Research (GCR): Program Page. Available online: https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/growing-convergence-research-gcr

by Annick de Witt

Good conversations are central to (transformative) learning, problem-solving, and change-making; to the general well-being of humans; and to the well-functioning of society and democracy at large. However, in our divided cultural climate, the focus is often on polarized debate, aimed at winning the argument, rather than on generative dialogue, which I define as conversations that foster a respectful exchange of perspectives, enhance relationships, and produce novel insights. In this paper I present the design of a practice called stream-of-consciousness dialogues, which aims to create conducive conditions for such conversations. In this practice, learners take turns spontaneously speaking in response to prompts, and deep listening. I tested this practice in the period 2020-2021 in both Bachelor and Master’s sustainability courses at our University, using qualitative student evaluations (n = 360). Analyzing the data using a grounded theory approach, I coded ten distinct learning outcomes, which I grouped into three major categories: 1) learning how to dialogue more meaningfully; 2) experiencing interpersonal connection and/or personal expansion; and 3) coming to new insights and perspectives. Though further research is needed, the data suggest that this practice creates conducive conditions for generative dialogues to emerge and may therefore be of support in ameliorating societal polarization and existential alienation, while also holding potential for fostering positive social-systemic change. Because the practice is simple in format and easily usable in group settings, I argue it may be widely applied in a diversity of collective learning, change-making, and other group contexts.

by Florian Verbeek, Rianne van Lambalgen

Organizing and designing an interdisciplinary thesis project requires difficult choices and working around the limitations of your institutional context. To help those academics in a position of responsibility regarding this topic, this presentation will touch on 7 current interdisciplinary thesis programs at Utrecht University and the University of Amsterdam, with the addition of a brief reflection on 2 UU pilots in development in 2024. The program distribution includes humanities, medical science, social science, university colleges, and beta science. The information was collected informally as part of multiple educational innovation projects in order to advise project leaders and educational directors. The presentation will begin by highlighting selected issues of interest particular to the individual context of each program. The presentation will close by providing a general overview of what to pay attention to when seeking to reform or organize your own interdisciplinary thesis or education program. Example topics include: how to manage and prepare your supervision pool, the variable degrees of incorporating interdisciplinary theory in the program and assessment, the baseline purpose of your thesis and your interdisciplinarity, and how to prepare and support students. The project advisor (Dr. Florian Verbeek) and the educational director of the 3-year Liberal Arts and Science bachelor program (Dr. Rianne van Lambalgen) will be present to answer questions and exchange experiences.

by Mollie Anne Chapman, Bianca Vienni-Baptista, Lars Schöbitz, Christian Pohl, Franziska Mohr

In the last decades, participatory qualitative and transdisciplinary (Td) research are on the rise. Td research allows for co-production of knowledge between societal and scientific actors in order to tackle sustainability challenges. This turn into more participatory and dialogical research settings has strong implications for qualitative methods, and therefore for the data produced. Data is no longer collected and/or analyzed solely by the researcher, but an active role from practitioners and other societal actors is expected. How to then deal with accessibility and management of this data and secure a fair and equitable access to it? In this way, transdisciplinary research implies a new frontier to qualitative methods and data as it poses new questions on who has the power to create and manage such data, who is entitled to access it and how.

Currently, many transdisciplinary researchers using qualitative methods face a quandary: Standard research ethics practices dictate that all human subjects’ data should be strictly confidential. Yet increasing demand from journals and even in cases from the project participants themselves, suggests that in many cases, the sharing of qualitative data could be valuable. While Td research involves many different methods and scientific disciplines, qualitative research often plays a central role—either to facilitate the Td process or as part of the scientific study itself. Sharing of data could allow important learning and insights to be more broadly shared and create the opportunity to compare across cases and over time. Beyond this, there may be cases where Td projects themselves would benefit from greater sharing of data, e.g., to build support for a new initiative or to increase the possibility of participation from diverse stakeholders.

The promise of confidentiality creates an atmosphere of trust, allowing the researcher to obtain an authentic and deep understanding of the research topics. Yet we are curious about the necessary ubiquity of the principle for all qualitative research. There are cases for semi-structured interviews where anonymisation of participants is possible, and the interview content itself does not contain sensitive information. Or there may be cases where participants want to be named and have their perspectives openly shared. In these cases, the research data can be made available for other researchers to use. This is a common practice in quantitative research where data is made available in a data repository such as Zenodo.

In the same fashion, transdisciplinary research might have greater societal impact and collaborative potential if FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Resuable) principles are clearly and systematically integrated in processes in which qualitative methods are applied. FAIR principles are applied to both human-driven and machine-driven activities, however they emphasize machine-actionality to allow computational systems to find, access, interoperate, and use data with minimal human intervention. Confidentiality of the data itself does not imply that FAIR principles cannot be achieved, as metadata can still be published under FAIR principles. Some of the principles can be achieved with low effort, for example, principle F1: (Meta)data are assigned globally unique and persistent identifiers. This solely requires the generation of a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) by a trusted provider. Other principles require more effort, as community standards need to be identified or may not exist. For example, F2: Data are described with rich metadata, which in the context of qualitative research need to be be generous and extensive, including descriptive information about the context, quality and condition, or characteristics of the data. This principle focuses on the human-driven activity of discovering data and learning about how it was generated. In this workshop, we will begin a dialoge on the conditions under which qualitative data collected as part of Td processes can or should be shared following FAIR principles; consider best practices for doing so; and begin to build a community of practice for the sharing of data within the Td field.

Our workshop addresses all three conference themes, though with an emphasis on the first theme of enhancing the theoretical foundations of ITD. Within this our workshop considers the entanglement of knowledge and technology by examining tricky questions about sharing of qualitative data in online repositories and the risks and benefits for Td research. With the growing importance of large language models, qualitative data may become more accessible to re-use. In this context we seek to harness experiences and knowledge to develop guidelines and practices for navigating this new terrain. At the same time, we see our workshop and larger project as growing capacity for ITD both by providing guidance to an emerging challenge and by growing collaborative networks, connecting ITD and open science communities. We also see educational potential for our workshop, such as a longer-term goal to create digital tools to help train and guide ITD education on how to navigate the tricky questions of open science and data management.

Description of the workshop design (90 minutes)

We will base the workshop on an experiential component by working with case studies from the participants’ tricky and/or challenging experiences. For each case, we will show the problem and then decide on options to cope. A key outcome will be adapting the FAIR principles for qualitative data in Td research. An additional activity will be to consider ways to re-use such data. We will provide participants with information on qualitative datasets and identify what kinds of metadata (in other words, what key contextual information) would be needed to re-use the data. To achieve these aims, we will facilitate an interactive dialogue about the challenge and potential of sharing qualitative data from Td research. We will use the td-net toolbox (e.g. tell your story by means of an object; soft systems methodology) to share participants’ experiences and ideas, to identify the main challenges and to develop ways to address them.

We will use the cases and participants experiences as the basis to discuss questions such as:

1. Under what conditions does sharing of qualitative data generated during Td research provide benefits for a) research participants, b) the Td project itself, or c) the Td community?

2. What are the risks of sharing Td data openly? How can these be mitigated?

3. What kinds of concerns or benefits are specific to particular kinds of data? In other words, how is interview data different from workshop data?

The proposed agenda for the workshop will be: 15 minute to introduce open science and FAIR princples, providing some examples; 40 minutes activity to work through case studies of tricky experiences; 20 minutes activity to evaluate contextual (metadata) for re-use of qualtiative data; 15 minutes for knowledge harvesting and wrap-up. The results of this workshop will be shared with participants and feed into a larger project to develop guidelines for how and when to share and re-use qualitative data collected as part of Td research.

Key readings:

• Alexander, Steven M., Kristal Jones, Nathan James Bennett, Amber Budden, Michael Cox, Mercamp x000E8 Crosas, Edward T. Game, et al. “Qualitative Data Sharing and Synthesis for Sustainability Science.” Nature Sustainability, November 13, 2019, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0434-8.

• Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, et al. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data 3, no. 1 (March 15, 2016): 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.

by Roos de Jonge, Rene van Donkelaar, Anneke Berendts, Bert Arets, Sanne ter Meulen-de Jong

Interdisciplinary education has emerged as a valuable approach to foster holistic learning and to address complex challenges by integrating knowledge and perspectives from multiple disciplines. Moreover, it is acknowledged that education based on authentic open-ended challenges motivates students. Since 2019, the elective project ‘Bio-Tech-Med-Nutrition Interdisciplinary Team Training’ (BITT), takes place within the Alliance EWUU. The course aims to help students to develop their

interdisciplinary competences by cross-boundary (research) collaboration within the health domain.

Interdisciplinary groups consisting of 4-6 students are introduced to a real-life disease-related problem by a patient and physician. The students are challenged to collaborate in to identify an aspect associated with the clinical problem or the quality of life of the patient, which they target in their project. The final deliverable can range from a proposal to address their target or a prototype of a product. The main goal of the BITT-project is that students experience the various steps in interdisciplinary collaboration and are able to reflect on their individual disciplines, in order to equip them with the interdisciplinary skills needed to address the world’s complex problems as a professional.

The course started with 18 students working on three patient related challenges guided by three tutors and two institutes. Over the past five years, it has expanded to around 100 students working on approximately ten different challenges guided by 10-20 tutors and four different institutes. During this expansion and the fact that we changed from elective to mandatory education, we have experienced several hurdles.

During the presentation at the ITD conference 2024, we intend to exchange experiences and thoughts with other educators. The following points will be open for discussion:

1. Upscaling of interdisciplinary challenge-based learning

2. The recruitment, support, and training of tutors in interdisciplinary challenge-based learning

3. Finding appropriate challenges

4. Creation of common ground, assuring all students can contribute equally

5. Financial issues in interdisciplinary challenge-based learning

6. Best practices & challenges within the BITT project

7. Running a project with several institutes, each with a different organization and distinct planning of their regular education.

by Sofía Vargas - Payera, Carolina Geoffroy, Maria Contreras

Geological events such as eruptions are natural phenomena that occur as a result of the Earth's activity. Chile has unique geological conditions, which include the Los Andes mountain range that runs almost the entire length of the country, 90 active volcanoes, and a millennia-long history of numerous volcanic eruptions. The impact of these eruptions on communities living near volcanoes is influenced not only by natural conditions, but also by social, gender, political and economic factors. This scenario requires a process of knowledge integration to address the challenges of risk reduction and the integration of different types of disciplines, perceptions and attitudes to promote a more resilient society.

This presentation describes the results of the project 'Following the Giants in Kütralkura UNESCO Park'. It is based on the idea that disasters are not natural and that women and girls are more impacted by socio-natural disasters than men due to social norms, gender roles, and socio-economic differences. The project aims to make visible the diverse knowledge of women living around the six active volcanoes, which are referred to as 'the giants'. The motivation behind this project was to increase awareness of volcanic hazards and to highlight several types of knowledge, including scientific and indigenous knowledge of the Mapuche people, who have historically inhabited the area.

The project was developed over a period of 15 months, from 2023 to 2024. The participants were 63 women, including geologists, public school students, teachers, communicators, psychologists, and traditional teachers from the indigenous community. The project comprises nine workshops and a four-day field trip.

This project is inspired by a transdisciplinary approach, integrating co-creating knowledge activities and spaces. The result of this process has been materialised in a book, which allow to reflect about the intersection between art and science. This applied project offers an opportunity to discuss the challenges of integrating empirical and risk information with social perceptions into scientific knowledge. It also involves social actors, such as young people and the elderly, in the process.

by Martina Schäfer, Emilia Nagy, Oskar Marg, Michael Kreß-Ludwig, Stephanie Moser

With increasing expectations for research to address complex real-world problems and to achieve societal impact, there is a corresponding need for appropriate methods to conceptualize, assess and analyze how research projects contribute to change processes (Belcher et al, 2020). During the last years, reflection on possible impact pathways, which connect research activities and outputs with desired societal effects, has gained relevance in different strands of transdisciplinary sustainability research (Schneider et al., 2019, Muhonen et al., 2019, Kreß-Ludwig et al., 2024). Pathways approaches support creating new futures, and provide plausible narratives about how changes can happen without the specificity of a single roadmap that assumes the ability to control all the complex web of influencing factors (Sharpe et al., 2016). Co-productive, recursive development of pathways and regular reflection on them foster the common understanding of the envisioned transformation. Discussing the assumptions about the impact mechanisms within the pathways can reveal possible feedback loops as well as uncertainties and risks as a basis for impact-oriented adjustments of the research design (Mayne, 2020; Belcher et al., 2020). Becoming aware of the influence that contextual conditions have on the occurrence of societal impact helps to avoid the trap of linear and causal transfer models.

In this workshop session, we are going to introduce and discuss results of international studies on impact pathways conducted in different thematic fields, e.g. sustainable urban and rural development, and socio-technical and social innovations for sustainable regional development:

Michael Kreß-Ludwig and Oskar Marg will reflect on societal impact dimensions and their interrelationships in terms of impact pathways based on a research project that accompanied 50 urban transdisciplinary research projects (Kreß-Ludwig et al. 2024). They will show which kind of societal impact the projects addressed, which methods they used to achieve these impacts (considering also the role of contextual factors), and general theses on how to generate impact in transdisciplinary urban research. On the basis of six in-depth studies, three exemplary patterns of impact pathways were made visible, which start at different points: a) learning and networking in society, b) learning or network effects of key governance actors or c) experimental changes in the physical environment. These exemplary impact pathways show that "direct" impacts (directly triggered by project activities) can lead to various "indirect" or mediated impacts. It will be shown that it is necessary to think about these different possible impact pathways and their respective starting points to be able to plan and strengthen social impacts.

Martina Schäfer and Emilia Nagy will introduce a generalized impact pathway they drafted based on formative evaluation of four transdisciplinary research projects on establishing innovations for sustainable regional development (Nagy et al. 2023). As direct effects they differentiate between network and learning effects which occur related to establishing the project team and joint problem formulation and those that go along with iterative testing and improving solution-oriented knowledge. In a later phase of the project – and beyond project duration – they focus on indirect effects which occur due to activities aiming at long term establishment of the regional innovations as well as transfer of results to other contexts. They also identified supporting conditions and risks that should be considered in planning impact-oriented research. For example, additional actors are often necessary for the continuation and scaling-up of the innovation, with whom contacts must first be established. In general, it is important to realistically assess and provide the necessary resources for the learning processes and network activities.

Stephanie Moser will deal with the question of how societal effects of transdisciplinary and transformative research can be established and consolidated beyond the duration of projects. The results are based on a joint reflection process with non-scientific stakeholders in a transdisciplinary research project in a rural, alpine region in Switzerland. In this joint societal reflection and learning process (cf. the social learning pathway in Schneider et al., 2019) key factors to building ownership and willingness to consolidate ongoing collective action were identified: shared understanding, deliberative values, changing roles and responsibilities of the academic and non-scientific stakeholders involved, and institutionalization of further support processes (Moser et al., forthcoming; Poelsma et al., forthcoming). These insights raise the question of how these key factors could be considered and addressed at an early stage in future transdisciplinary projects.

The central results on impact pathways in transdisciplinary sustainability research and questions that arise from the comparison of these results will be presented and discussed in the session. In working groups, participants will deepen and broaden their understanding of the following questions:

• Which forms of societal effects are dominant in transdisciplinary sustainability research?

• Is it possible to identify general patterns of impact pathways in transdisciplinary sustainability research?

• What elements make up a general impact pathway of research modes, which aim at testing possible solutions?

• Which preconditions and risks must be considered to increase the potential for building up impact pathways?

• Which similarities and differences can be seen between the different presented results on impact pathways in different thematic fields?

• Is the reflection of impact pathways considered useful for fostering transformation-oriented research?

The workshop results are intended to help participants reflecting on how to align their future research in an impact-oriented manner.

Description of the workshop design (in person / 90 min):

• 30 min: 2-3 Inputs by the conveners and Q&A

• 25 min: Working in groups on the proposed questions

• 25 min: Discussion of the key insights of the group discussion

• 10 min: Main implication for further research on impact pathways in transformation-oriented research

Key readings

• Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., ... & Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 26-35.

• Kreß-Ludwig, M., Marg, O., Schneider, R., Lux., L. (2024): Lessons from transdisciplinary urban research to promote sustainability transformation in real-world labs. Categories, pathways, and key principles for generating societal impact. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 33/S1 (2024): 10 – 17.

• Wiefek, J., Nagy, E., & Schäfer, M. (2024). Systematic Impact-Orientation in Real-World Laboratories: Introducing a Framework for Designing Formative Evaluation of Transdisciplinary Research. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 33/S1: 94-101.

References

• Belcher, B. M, Davel R., Claus, R. (2020): A refined method for theory-based evaluation of the societal impacts of research. In: MethodsX 7: 100788

• Kreß-Ludwig, M., Marg, O., Schneider, R., Lux., L. (2024): Lessons from transdisciplinary urban research to promote sustainability transformation in real-world labs. Categories, pathways, and key principles for generating societal impact. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 33/S1 (2024): 10-17.

• Mayne, J. (2020). Sustainability analysis of intervention benefits: A theory of change approach. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 35(2), 204-221.

• Muhonen, R., Benneworth, P., Olmos-Peñuela, J. (2020). From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 34-47.

• Nagy, E., Schäfer, M., Roth, C. (2023): Innovative Ideen aus dem ländlichen Raum. Barnim & Uckermark im Wandel. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10572384

• Sharpe, B., Hodgson, B., Leicester, G., Lyon, A., Fazey, I. (2016). Three horizons: A pathways practice for transformation. Ecology and Society, 21, 2: 47.

• Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., ... & Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 26-35.

by Alexandra Lux, Flurina Schneider, Katrin Böhning-Gaese

This talk provides an overview of how science can inform policy- and decision-making in the face of accelerating biodiversity loss and its wide-ranging consequences. Among the characteristics various science-policy-society interfaces (SPSIs) share is that they transcend disciplinary boundaries, reflect diverse bodies of knowledge and contribute to the development of capacities, agencies, and tangible policies and measures to halt biodiversity loss. However, interfaces that inform or shape biodiversity-related decisions in policy, business, or other societal spheres vary in terms of the intensity of collaboration between science and societal actors, the level of knowledge integration, and formats of outputs and outcomes.

Starting point for the talk is a comparison of existing SPSIs, their targets and functions, but also their shortcomings and the criticism. Mechanisms like the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) or the European Mechanism Eklipse, TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity are considered as well as national SPSI bodies. Against this background, the Senckenberg Synthesis and Solutions Labs, which are currently being set up, are introduced as an institutionally anchored programme. This programme aims to contribute significantly to the integration and evaluation of knowledge and the development of evidence-based options for action to protect and recover biodiversity. The programme is problem- and issue-oriented, contextualised, and stakeholder-based. As a research institution, Senckenberg has already received a high level of trust as an authentic and credible place for dialogue, science communication and knowledge transfer through its research, natural history collections and museum exhibitions. With the Synthesis and Solutions Labs, Senckenberg aims to achieve a new level of bilateral knowledge transfer between science and society, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The Synthesis and Solutions Labs are intended to promote social-ecological transformations and contribute to the development of a democratic knowledge society. The implementation of the labs is expected to have impacts on society and politics and, additionally, to enhance Senckenberg's research agenda, collection development, and exhibition practice with the structured identification of societal knowledge needs.

by Yuanyuan Zhu, Diana Dolmans, Latifa Abidi, Rashmi Kusurkar, S. Eleonore Köhler, Hans Savelberg

Background:

Fostering autonomous motivation is conducive for students’ experiences in their study programmes since it is associated with many positive outcomes. This study designed and evaluated an extracurricular project called the ‘Societal Impact Project’ designed on the combination of three educational principles: authentic societal problems, collaborative learning, and scaffolding. The project aimed to explore how these principles could support students’ basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence, which according to the Self-determination Theory, facilitate students’ autonomous motivation.

Methods:

First-year bachelor’s students in the studies of Biomedical Sciences and Health Sciences participated in the project. Students as well as coaches participated in focus groups conducted after the project. We adopted thematic analysis. The project lasted for eight months. Students worked in small groups with the guidance of coaches to address societal problems relevant to their study fields.

Results:

We synthesized three main themes. First, students felt motivated to have freedom in choosing societal problems of interest and self-pacing their work, but they needed guidance from the project and the coaches. Second, working in groups could be motivating or demotivating depending on group dynamics and connections with peers, but communication made a difference, especially in challenging situations. Third, society-relevant problems stimulated student’s motivation and learning, and helped students to see a bridge between university and society; however, such problems also posed challenges such as difficulty in contacting stakeholders and identifying an optimal extent to which the problems were directly relevant to their studies. All three themes were interconnected in facilitating students’ motivation.

Conclusion:

Working in small groups with the support of coaches on authentic societal problems influenced student’s motivation. Students felt autonomously motivated when they had autonomy with support, relatedness based on active collaboration and effective communication, and competence through structured activities in the project, support from coaches, and group work on authentic problems. This study provided insights for future curriculum designers to use societal problems to develop curricula that foster student’s autonomous motivation.

by Anastasia Hacopian

Interdisciplinary practice is hard to teach. While disciplinary differences are easy to identify, teaching the integration of conflicting insights is a challenging move from theory into practice. For students, the practice and products of interdisciplinarity remain abstract ideas until they achieve academic maturity. This maturity proceeds coursework in disciplinary history, philosophy of science, multidisciplinarity, and finally, interdisciplinary theory. Even then, students’ successful interdisciplinary experience depends on a precarious synthesis of case study, discipline, conflicts, and techniques.

The process and products of interdisciplinary practice can seem, in this sense, a distant pie in the sky. Yet cross-disciplinary practices are commonplace outside the university classroom. Method mixing, concept borrowing, and the solving of conflicts through techniques like redefinition and extension occur regularly among innovators who can critically reflect on their own tried traditions and systems.

The success stories of these innovators have been popularized as “out of the box” thinking after their innovations led to paradigmatic shifts in policy, new areas, or new organizations. The popularization of their stories translates their innovative experience for the masses. An interdisciplinary eye, however, might recognize “out of the box” thinking as a stepping beyond the boundaries of one’s own discipline, tradition, or episteme. The interdisciplinarian might identify an application of new methods or the adoption of other vocabulary as an extension of theory or a redefinition of concepts.

Parallels between innovation outside of the academy and interdisciplinary theory can provide concrete examples of successful interdisciplinary practices for the novice interdisciplinarian. By referencing relevant examples of innovation, teachers can show students that successful interdisciplinary practice is attainable and useful. Furthermore, the principles governing interdisciplinary collaboration -- perspective taking, empathy, flexibility, creativity, and compromise – come to the foreground as indispensable skills for successful integration.

The 2017 Netflix series “Mindhunter,” based on the book by John Douglas (1995), is an accessible tool for teaching students about the fruits of creating common ground, resulting in innovative forensic practice and a new FBI department. The 2011 film “Moneyball,” based on the book by Michael Lewis (2003), documents the unprecedented implementation of statistical methods for player selection, resulting in innovative baseball management practice that has even been expanded for use in soccer. Finally, the “living paintings” of Refik Anadol integrate artificial intelligence and data science into art practice.

This video will present parallels between innovative practice and interdisciplinary practice through references toward innovators outside the academy. The goal of this video is to familiarize a non-academic public with the principles and techniques of interdisciplinary science. The video will ask the question: What can we learn from these examples of innovative practice? By framing “out of the box” thinking as cross-disciplinary activity, viewers will be stimulated to concretize interdisciplinary practice through baseball, criminal profiling, or “living paintings.” Because the content will be directed toward a non-academic public, it will be accessible for students in a novice stage of interdisciplinary education.

by Mona F Giersberg

In the field of veterinary and animal sciences, most research activities are situated in a societal context that is characterized by discussions on animal use, welfare, public health and environmental sustainability. Complex challenges like this can only be tackled by real collaboration between different disciplines and partners outside academia. Research teams needs to move beyond discipline-specific perspectives to create outcomes that are both scientifically sound and problem-solving oriented.

This need for transdisciplinarity has been recognised by many national and European research funding programmes relevant to veterinary and animal sciences. Project consortia are not only required to collaborate with different academic disciplines but also to explicitly include non-academic partners. Some universities have also reformed their evaluation schemes for researchers to take account of these developments (e.g. Utrecht University’s Recognition and Rewards Vision). This has led to most of us already working in multi-actor teams in such transdisciplinary research projects.

Transdisciplinary research does not imply a novel theory of knowledge or one specific method; it is rather characterised by more general normative aspirations. In recent years, several frameworks have been developed that embrace these aspirations. However, to researchers outside the community of those who study transdisciplinary processes, these concepts often seem vague and lack a connection to their daily workflow. This is particularly true for researchers from veterinary and animal sciences, two fields which are often grounded in radical positivism. As a result, researchers retreat to their own disciplinary niches and work on their own questions within joint research projects. External stakeholders often pursue different interests than the academic researchers or regard themselves more as research subjects than as equal research partners. A common example for this problem is to truly integrate work packages dealing with ethical aspects of animal topics into the whole project and to create functional outcomes together with the veterinary work packages.

Additional efforts of facilitation are necessary to practically implement transdisciplinary collaboration in these research consortia. In my presentation I introduce an exercise which I used to facilitate collaboration on socio-ethical questions in research and innovation among a team consisting of philosophers, biologists, animal scientists, veterinarians, engineers, R&D team members of breeding companies and representatives of animal protection NGOs. The stakeholder tokens exercise is a participatory, playful and holistic approach to stakeholder analysis adapted by Yoo (2021). It employs a style of role play, enables participants to make sense of complex stakeholder networks and relationships related to their research topic and stimulates reflection. By seeking out a robust set of stakeholders, legitimizing their inclusion and reflecting on their dynamic relationships, the participants gained a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the societal context in which their investigations take place. During the exercise it became for instance clear that all project partners regarded animals as stakeholders in their own right and that institutional ethics committees were not seen as sufficient to stimulate genuine reflection. The exercise paved the way for a number of collaborative follow-up activities and student projects within the consortium, which are still underway.

by Franziska Ehnert, Neelakshi Joshi, Marina Novikova, Katrin Beer, Kristina Bogner, Stefanie Burkhart, Esther Jansen, Jules Rochielle Sievert, Eveline Wandl-Vogt

Abstract

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) seeks to address pressing and complex sustainability challenges by bringing together academic and societal partners. These new forms of co-creation require a re-evaluation of principles of ethics in research. TDR might reproduce or create new social, economic, environmental and intersectional injustices if it lacks concepts, methods and ethical guidelines to reflect upon and address justice. If unattended, justice implications may run the risk of ultimately reproducing and exacerbating divides e.g. within or between species (non-/human), social groups (gender, class, ethnicity, religion, age, ability, etc.), urban and rural communities, or between the Global South and the Global North.

In the conceptual debate, different dimensions of justice are being explored such as distributive justice, procedural justice, recognition justice, retributive justice, reparative justice or epistemic justice or ecological justice (Newell et al. 2021; Williams and Steil 2023; Ohlsson and Przybylinski 2023). These dimensions seek to shed light on the distribution of costs and benefits across space and time and between different communities, procedures of participation and transparency, the recognition of histories, values, worldviews and culture, the historical and continuing extractive colonial violence, and unfairness in systems of knowledge production and the co-production of knowledge in contexts of unequal knowledge and power relations. In particular epistemic justices calls for decolonizing existing scholarship on justice and foregrounding research from different communities. There is a need to further debate the universalistic vs. vernacular understandings of justice (Newell et al. 2021). This also asks for acknowledging experiential and practical forms of knowing, which is to give back the power of interpretation to the local communities and storytellers. Despite the exploration of conceptions and dimensions of justice, we have to acknowledge that justice and sustainability are deeply socially embedded and contested concepts and cannot be defined in absolute terms (Ulrich 1994).

While the conceptual debate on justice abounds, there is still a gap in methods and experiences on how to do justice. Such challenges urge for reflexivity to engage with the concept of justice and its practice in and for TDR. The organisers and the invited speakers of this proposed dialogue session are a group of researchers working towards collaboratively creating a set of reflection criteria for practicing justice in transdisciplinary research.

The participants will be invited to join the Doing Justice Collective in their conversation on a set of action-reflection criteria for practicing justice in TDR. This timely session is highly relevant for the community of the ITD Alliance that is increasingly engaging with TDR and justice. The session is designed as a reflexive intervention to move from the theories of justice to the active practice of justice in academia.

Additionally, for sessions, workshops and trainings: description of the session/workshop design

Objectives of the workshop:

• To enhance reflexivity in transdisciplinary research practice

• To deepen understanding of conceptions of (in)justice

• To develop and share reflection criteria and guiding questions on (in)justice in TDR

• To encourage a conversation on a co-created document to support knowledge transfer on reflecting on and incorporating justice in TDR

The session will be divided into three parts:

a) Understanding and practicing justice in TDR: The three invited speakers will provide short impulses on:

• How to define justice? Concepts and dimensions of justice in TDR

• How to apply justice in TDR? Methods on how to do justice and undo injustices in TDR

• How to reflect on justice in TDR? Guiding questions and criteria for reflecting on practising justice in TDR

b) Intervention (peer consulting): We will present three cases highlighting injustices in transdisciplinary research designs. Participants will be invited to explore different dimensions of (in)justices in the particular case and collectively propose methods and well as compile reflection criteria for TDR. The participants will form break-out groups, which will be facilitated by the workshop conveners, to investigate a particular case.

c) Weaving: The three groups will share their findings. These will be synthesized into overarching principles of justice in TDR, guiding questions for reflection and methods to practice justice in TDR.

Indicative schedule:

• Introduction (0:00 – 0:05)

• Presentation of conceptions of (in)justice, facilitation methods and reflection criteria (informed by the co-created document) (0:05 – 0:30)

• Explanation of the tasks for the break-out groups (0:30 – 0:35)

• Break-out groups: peer consulting on case examples highlighting injustices in transdisciplinary research designs (0:35 – 1:10)

• Synthesis (1:10 – 1:30)

Key readings (optional)

• Caniglia, G., Freeth, R., Luederitz, C., Leventon, J., West, S.P., John, B., Peukert, D., Lang, D.J., von Wehrden, H., Martín-López, B., Fazey, I., Russo, F., von Wirth, T., Schlüter, M., Vogel, C., 2023. Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science. Nat Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

• Gaard, G., 2022. Queering Environmental Justice Through an Intersectional Lens. Am J Public Health 112, 57–58. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306489

• Yaka, Ö., 2019. Rethinking Justice: Struggles For Environmental Commons and the Notion of Socio-Ecological Justice. Antipode 51, 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12422

References

• Newell, P., Srivastava, S., Naess, L. O., Torres Contreras, G. A., & Price, R. (2021). Toward transformative climate justice: An emerging research agenda. WIREs Climate Change, 12(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.733

• Ohlsson, J. and Przybylinski, S. Theorising Justice: A Primer for Social Scientists, Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.56687/9781529232233Ulrich, W. (1994). Can We Secure Future-Responsive Management Through Systems Thinking and Design? Interfaces, 24(4), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.24.4.26

• Williams, R., Steil, J., 2023. “The Past We Step Into and How We Repair It”: A Normative Framework for Reparative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2022.2154247

by Keith Levesque, Pascale Ropars, Marie-France Gévry, Henrique Pinheiro, Alexandre Bédard-Vallée, David Campbell, Étienne Vignola-Gagné

The integration of interdisciplinarity into the core mission of research-intensive academic institutions is rapidly emerging as a key strategy to increase research relevance and impact. This highlights the growing recognition of interdisciplinarity's central role in advancing knowledge that addresses complex societal issues. Climate warming in the Arctic and Subarctic regions is a complex issue that requires integrated research efforts across disciplines. To help generate the knowledge needed to improve our understanding of the changing northern environment and its impact on humans and their health, Université Laval in Quebec City, Canada, launched the Sentinel North research strategy in 2015. This institution-wide initiative fosters interdisciplinary collaborations across faculty and department structures, spanning the engineering, natural, social and health sciences.

In this presentation, the Sentinel North institutional research strategy is introduced as a case study, focusing on key considerations in implementing, and evaluating a large-scale challenge-led interdisciplinary initiative. The preliminary scientific outputs of the strategy were assessed using a mixed approach and an assessment framework that prioritized a ‘self-controlled’ difference-in-difference method. A range of bibliometric indicators were used to capture the knowledge integration and impact of Sentinel North’s research outputs. Additionally, we present an innovative chord visualization approach to capture the multidimensional construct of interdisciplinarity. This visualization uses co-citation linkages between pairs of subfields in publications as a graphic implementation of the Rao-Stirling bibliometric indicator of interdisciplinarity.

This preliminary assessment and novel visualization approach revealed a notable increase in interdisciplinary knowledge integration in Sentinel North's scholarly outputs compared to those of the self-control set. In conclusion, the study examines the strategy's implementation and impact on researcher collaboration, network dynamics, and interdisciplinary knowledge production. It highlights the importance of monitoring and evaluating interdisciplinary strategies to drive meaningful change, providing valuable insights for implementing large-scale interdisciplinary research initiatives.

by Karin Rebel, Britta Ricker, Julia Swart, Joost Vervoort

by Lakshmi Srinivasan, Dheeksha Rajakumar, Anudi Bhosle, Purvi Prashant Patil, Danica Martins

Mainstream design and architectural education have traditionally emphasized material-embedded knowledge and "designerly ways of knowing" (Cross, 2010). However, contemporary discourse emphasizes the need to reconsider these paradigms within the context of global socio-political and socio-economic inequalities, signaling a shift towards the infusion of diverse disciplinary perspectives into design pedagogy, particularly those capable of shifting design away from a material-centric, designer-focused ethos towards one that is human-centered and co-produced (Norman, 2024) (Busciantella-Ricci et al., 2022)(Herriott, 2023) . Pioneers, eg- (Awan, 2020) (Bridle, 2015) (Forensic Architecture, 2010) engage with design practice in a manner that authentically addresses socio-political issues unlike the mainstream outcome-driven design culture.Their contributions often manifest not as preconceived designable objects, but as direct outcomes of empathetic and intuitively transdisciplinary lenses. This evolution in design culture calls for its integration into education, necessitating diverse disciplinary perspectives to foster inclusive and socially responsible design practices.

This paper aims to illustrate the centrality and crucial need for transdisciplinary perspectives and interdisciplinary methodologies when designing for a more inclusive and equitable world. Through academic case studies of student work produced by the authors in the University of Sheffield (UK) and in Srishti Institute of Art, Design & Technology (India), it demonstrates how adopting gendered perspectives acted as a provocation and a catalyst to create interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches within the design research. Based on academic case studies conducted in the public realm, it demonstrates this through two directions:

How gendered perspectives necessitate and influence the implementation of transdisciplinary contextual understanding of mobility in cities, and

How theoretical concepts in sociology, psychology and other domains of study pertaining to gendered exclusions were required in the study. Therefore, they had to be translated and embedded creatively into design processes resulting in multiple interdisciplinary methodologies and actionable tools.

Interdisciplinary approaches evolved based on needs identified when conducting transdisciplinary contextual studies with gendered lenses. This understanding prompted the exploration into two primary trajectories: a) Female fear and its cyclic creation in public transit spaces, and b) Diversity and inequality in mobility experiences among women due to intersectional identities.

To articulate the impact of fear on spatial navigation, especially among women, cognitive mapping, rooted in psychology, was reintroduced as a tool in spatial studies. This methodology proved effective in evaluating how physical spaces catalyze experiences of exclusion. Additionally, ethnographic studies were utilized to facilitate articulation of fear experienced by women due to public behavior like man-spreading and the male gaze. These studies provided foundational data for subsequent participatory activities.

While exploring gendered perspectives, the need for intersectional explorations became evident in various ways. Dramatic differences in wayfinding experiences based on gender were observed, deepening in complexity for individuals with intersectional identities, particularly women from lower socio-economic backgrounds or with lower literacy levels. A unique study investigated "mothering" as a practice influenced by the intersectional identity of being a woman and a parent, considering nuances such as trip chaining. Furthermore, in one project, cognitive mapping, lead to the emergence of gendered intersectionalities as a new perspective to examine the decision-making process shaping the journey of working women.

Through these case studies of academic projects, the paper reflects on and proposes two pathways of synthesis - Pedagogic frameworks for transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary gender studies in design and the implications of such methodologies in education on design practice.

by Eefje Aarnoudse, Meed Mbidzo, Zarina Patel, Cory Whitney, Dirk Schories, Maria Jose Restrepo

Sustainable land management and agricultural development in Africa have been a major German research and development funding focus. Funders expect research on these topics to contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. To foster the sustainable transformation of African agri-food systems, the research and development community calls for the integration of local knowledge and gendered realities in research (Cordingley et al. 2015; Ogunyiola et al. 2022; Kingiri 2013; Kristjanson et al. 2017). A transdisciplinary research (TDR) approach is put forward to address this by involving relevant perspectives from various scientific disciplines and societal actors (Brandt et al. 2013; Cordingley et al. 2015; Kristjanson et al. 2017). Moreover, African researchers emphasize the need for more attention to relationship-building with local stakeholders in the research process (Chilisa 2017; Kalinga 2019). They also warn of “research fatigue” (i.e., tiredness from answering lengthy surveys without direct benefit) among local stakeholders in highly frequented rural areas in Africa. Ideally, a TDR approach would offer the framework for the inclusion of societal actors and the co-production of knowledge that benefits local stakeholders to solve real-world problems.

Funding agencies have been responsive to the call for TDR approaches. At the forefront are public funders who are driven by their policy strategies to contribute to sustainable development through their research funding programmes (e.g. the Research for Sustainability (FONA) Strategy of the German Ministry of Education and Research). Different German funding agencies associated with different ministries have been following distinct trajectories in implementing the TDR concept. Over the years, they moved from including the term “transdisciplinarity” in research calls to making more fundamental changes in the design of funding programs. The policy mission of the supervising ministry plays a significant role in defining this trajectory (Schwachula 2019; Jahn et al. 2022). For example, while the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development focuses primarily on solution-oriented research, the German Ministry of Research and Education has a stronger focus on promoting German science and innovation as such. As a result, there is a large diversity in funding frameworks through which the German government funds TDR in Africa.

Although the idea of TDR has been advocated for more than two decades, it is becoming increasingly clear that institutional changes, including in research funding programmes, are needed to enable truly transdisciplinary research (Schneider et al. 2023; Paulavets et al. 2023). The diversity of funding frameworks offered by German funding agencies allows to take stock of the progress made in adapting funding frameworks to the needs of transdisciplinary research. At the same time, funding agencies are strongly willing to adapt and experiment with funding programmes and instruments to support TDR. To capitalize on this momentum, it is crucial to engage in dialogue and learn from each other.

The panel session will reflect on good practices in funding transdisciplinary research in a Global North-South collaborative context. The panel will discuss what innovative measures funders have introduced to enable a transdisciplinary research approach (e.g. seed grants for proposal writing or TDR capacity building as part of the funding programme) and what needs to be done to make such measures more widely available in funding programmes. The panel will draw on their own experiences from a wide range of research projects in Africa funded by Germany and other Northern countries.

The panel brings together two panellists from Africa, who will convey the African science policy and researcher perspective, and two panellists from Germany, who will convey the German funder and researcher perspective. The discussion will be informed by an ongoing dialogue between African and German researchers, practitioners and research funding agencies initiated by the INTERFACES project (INTERFACES – sustainable-landmanagement-africa.net). The dialogue aims to identify and validate good practices in funding transdisciplinary research projects for sustainable development in Africa and to share experiences between funders, researchers, and practitioners.

The panel discussion will provide an opportunity to take stock of new perspectives on funding practices developed during previous workshops and to engage a broad audience interested in TDR in a Global North-South collaborative context. The panellists will discuss some of the innovative measures to adapt TDR funding and explore their impact on integrating local knowledge and gender perspectives in the research conducted. Questions from the audience will further explore the relevance and feasibility of the proposed measures to adapt funding practices.

Description of the Session

• Introduction (8 min)

• The moderator will introduce each panellist in an elevator pitch style.

• Video summarizing the workshops (2 min)

• A short video will present visionary ideas on funding TDR in a Global North-South collaborative context from expert workshops held in Germany and Ghana in 2024.

• Panel discussion (30 min)

• The panellists will engage in a moderated discussion, focusing on their own experiences with innovative measures to change funding practices.

• Open discussion (20 min)

• The audience will be engaged to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of innovative measures in funding TDR.

by Ainhoa Garayar, Maider Aldaz, Irati Labaien, Alberto Díaz de Junguitu

The scientific literature on the role that higher education institutions –HEI- should play in the context of sustainability has increased considerably since the second decade of the 21st century (Hallinger and Nguyen, 2020), showing the interest and concern that this field of study arouses. Previous works have analysed how HEI is a key element in the sustainability paradigm being education for sustainable development -ESD the pedagogical approach that has more acceptance in the literature (Grosseck et al., 2019) and that has become one of the international frameworks of reference when including the sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals -SDGs- in research and teaching in HEI (Lukas, 2018). However, according to Wamsler et al. (2021), facing this situation from HEI in an adequate way will not be possible only by applying technical and/or technological innovations (Wals, 2014). Feeney et al. (2023) emphasize that a deeper social and cultural transformation is still lacking. Additionally this emerging social paradigm (Loorbach & Wittmayer, 2023) also reinforces the need for a new model of HEI that ensures the transmission of knowledge and tools needed to address the sustainability dilemma, but also the development of internal skills and capacities of students (Lilja et al 2022) and teachers (Zguir et al., 2021; Wiek et al., 2011), facilitating opportunities for participation to all involved in the teaching-learning process through new pedagogical approaches or teaching and learning models. In this research, we present the results of an experiential and experimental educational project of master degree co-created by multidisciplinary and international educators in order to deploy knowledge, values, principles and competences for sustainability in the framework of the Inner Development Goals -IDG- and adding value to SDG 4.7. Taken as reference the framework of Transformative Learning for Sustainability (Sipos et al., 2008), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNECE 2012 framework, Theory U (Scharmer, 2017) and Systemic Thinking (Senge, 1993, 2006) we apply action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Kemmis, 1983) as a systematic learning process where students have conducted critical analysis of the experiential learning situations in which they have been immersed through metacognitive reflections. We also present evidence about the impact that this pedagogical approach has had on students (individually and collectively), on their professional context and on the system levels. Based on our research results, head, hands and heart approach, collectively, can enable perspective and possibly behavioural transformation (Sipos et al., 2008). Regarding the metacognitive reflection it can assist students explore critical thinking and developing the skills that will allow them to address sustainability dilemmas (Singel-Brodowski et al., 2022). In addition, experiential learning can help students to understand what they learn by reconceptualizing it and applying it to their daily life (Bianchi, 2020).

by Flurina Schneider, Tobias Buser, Eefje Aarnoudse, Petra Biberhofer, Rico Defila, Antonietta Di Giulio, Stefan Gröschner, Laurens Hessels, Carthage Smith, Michiel van den Hout, Helen Buckley Woods, Gabriela Wuelser, Pascal Walther

As the field of transdisciplinary research (TDR) has developed, many scholars have pointed out how the prevailing research context is persistently unfavourable to TD modes of knowledge production; TDR requires conditions that differ from those needed for basic disciplinary research (Dedeurwaerdere 2013; Kläy et al. 2015; Kueffer et al. 2012; Schneidewind 2009). For example, there is much evidence that interdisciplinary and TDR proposals have difficulty obtaining funding, since reviewers typically apply disciplinary perspectives and quality criteria instead of considering the integrated whole (Bromham et al. 2016; Mansilla 2006; Woelert and Millar 2013). Moreover, (classic) academic careers are still typically built on measuring scientific impact according to publication in peer-reviewed journals – journals that are more interested in the scientific part of TDR, not in the efforts of such research to contribute to actual societal transformations (Kueffer et al. 2012; Rhoten and Parker 2004). Consequently, for TDR to reach its full potential, experts and scholars argue that far-reaching structural and institutional changes are needed in how TDR is treated by research funding bodies (Dedeurwaerdere 2013; Defila and Di Giulio 1999; Kläy et al. 2015; Kueffer et al. 2012; Schneidewind 2009).

However, in recent years, funding bodies increasingly acknowledge the importance of TDR and rethink their funding approaches and practices. Some funders started to experiment with punctual changes in review and evaluation processes; others are designing entirely novel funding programmes and funding schemes. In some cases, these efforts have been accompanied by TDR specialists (e.g. Lira 2030 in Africa programme or the programme funding real-world laboratories of the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts Baden-Württemberg in Germany) or evaluated by independent researchers (e.g. DFG, FWF) or explored in a researcher funder collaborative project (RoRi Initiative - https://researchonresearch.org/project/undisciplined/.).

In order to learn from these efforts and unravel potentials and limitations of the different approaches, this session brings together researchers who investigated how research funding bodies enhanced transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in different contexts.

The session starts with a short introductionary talk, followed by a series of moderated impulses addressing specific questions. In each impulse, two researchers with similar research questions are interviewed by a moderator (one slide is allowed for each researcher). In the last impulse, representatives of funding bodies and science policy organisations discuss the research and report about their own experiences. Each impulse is followed by an open discussion with all session attendees. The session ends with a structured exercise summarising the key lessons learned across the investigated funding programmes.

Session 1

• Introduction – Flurina Schneider, 10min

• Slot 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of different models, methods and design options for transdisciplinary research funding programmes (Gabriele Wülser and Helen Buckley Woods, moderated by Tobias Buser, 25min)

• Slot 2: Starting a transdisciplinary funding programme – about new methodologies for consortium formation and approaches to define review criteria (Laurens Hessels, Rico Defila und Antonietta Di Giulio, moderated by Flurina Schneider)

• Session 2 (4:30-5:30pm, Wed 6. November)

• Slot 3: Promising approaches for funding transdisciplinary research in the Global South (Eefje Aarnoudse and Flurina Schneider, moderated by Tobias Buser, 25min)

• Slot 4: Funders perspectives – key interests, strategies, opportunities and challenges regarding TDR funding (Petra Biberhofer, Tobias Buser, Stefan Gröschne, Carthage Smith, Michiel van den Hout , moderated by Flurina Schneider, 25min)

• Conclusion – Tobias Buser, 10 min

Key readings

• Defila, R.; Di Giulio, A. (2020): Science policy recommendations for funding real-world laboratories and comparable formats. In: GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 29, 1, S. 63–65.

• Hessels, L.; van den Broek, J.; van Elzakker, I.; van Drooge, L.; Deuten, J. (2021): Research programmes with a mission. https://www.rathenau.nl/sites/default/files/2022-03/Research_programmes_with_a_mission_Rathenau_Instituut.pdf (20.04.2022).

• OECD [Hrsg.] (2020): Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research - OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 88.

• Schneider, F., Patel, Z., Paulavets, K., Buser, T., Kado, J., Burkhart, S. (2023). Fostering transdisciplinary research for sustainability in the Global South: Pathways to impact for funding programmes. In: Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 (1), S. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02138-3

• Wuelser, G.; Edwards, P. (2023): Lighthouse Programmes in Sustainability Research and Innovation. Swiss Academies Reports 18 (2).

by Flurina Schneider, Tobias Buser, Eefje Aarnoudse, Petra Biberhofer, Rico Defila, Antonietta Di Giulio, Stefan Gröschner, Laurens Hessels, Carthage Smith, Michiel van den Hout, Helen Buckley Woods, Gabriela Wuelser, Pascal Walther

As the field of transdisciplinary research (TDR) has developed, many scholars have pointed out how the prevailing research context is persistently unfavourable to TD modes of knowledge production; TDR requires conditions that differ from those needed for basic disciplinary research (Dedeurwaerdere 2013; Kläy et al. 2015; Kueffer et al. 2012; Schneidewind 2009). For example, there is much evidence that interdisciplinary and TDR proposals have difficulty obtaining funding, since reviewers typically apply disciplinary perspectives and quality criteria instead of considering the integrated whole (Bromham et al. 2016; Mansilla 2006; Woelert and Millar 2013). Moreover, (classic) academic careers are still typically built on measuring scientific impact according to publication in peer-reviewed journals – journals that are more interested in the scientific part of TDR, not in the efforts of such research to contribute to actual societal transformations (Kueffer et al. 2012; Rhoten and Parker 2004). Consequently, for TDR to reach its full potential, experts and scholars argue that far-reaching structural and institutional changes are needed in how TDR is treated by research funding bodies (Dedeurwaerdere 2013; Defila and Di Giulio 1999; Kläy et al. 2015; Kueffer et al. 2012; Schneidewind 2009).

However, in recent years, funding bodies increasingly acknowledge the importance of TDR and rethink their funding approaches and practices. Some funders started to experiment with punctual changes in review and evaluation processes; others are designing entirely novel funding programmes and funding schemes. In some cases, these efforts have been accompanied by TDR specialists (e.g. Lira 2030 in Africa programme or the programme funding real-world laboratories of the Ministry of Science, Research and Arts Baden-Württemberg in Germany) or evaluated by independent researchers (e.g. DFG, FWF) or explored in a researcher funder collaborative project (RoRi Initiative - https://researchonresearch.org/project/undisciplined/.).

In order to learn from these efforts and unravel potentials and limitations of the different approaches, this session brings together researchers who investigated how research funding bodies enhanced transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in different contexts.

The session starts with a short introductionary talk, followed by a series of moderated impulses addressing specific questions. In each impulse, two researchers with similar research questions are interviewed by a moderator (one slide is allowed for each researcher). In the last impulse, representatives of funding bodies and science policy organisations discuss the research and report about their own experiences. Each impulse is followed by an open discussion with all session attendees. The session ends with a structured exercise summarising the key lessons learned across the investigated funding programmes.

Session 1

• Introduction – Flurina Schneider, 10min

• Slot 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of different models, methods and design options for transdisciplinary research funding programmes (Gabriele Wülser and Helen Buckley Woods, moderated by Tobias Buser, 25min)

• Slot 2: Starting a transdisciplinary funding programme – about new methodologies for consortium formation and approaches to define review criteria (Laurens Hessels, Rico Defila und Antonietta Di Giulio, moderated by Flurina Schneider)

Session 2

• Slot 3: Promising approaches for funding transdisciplinary research in the Global South (Eefje Aarnoudse and Flurina Schneider, moderated by Tobias Buser, 25min)

• Slot 4: Funders perspectives – key interests, strategies, opportunities and challenges regarding TDR funding (Petra Biberhofer, Tobias Buser, Stefan Gröschne, Carthage Smith, Michiel van den Hout , moderated by Flurina Schneider, 25min)

• Conclusion – Tobias Buser, 10 min

Key readings

• Defila, R.; Di Giulio, A. (2020): Science policy recommendations for funding real-world laboratories and comparable formats. In: GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 29, 1, S. 63–65.

• Hessels, L.; van den Broek, J.; van Elzakker, I.; van Drooge, L.; Deuten, J. (2021): Research programmes with a mission. https://www.rathenau.nl/sites/default/files/2022-03/Research_programmes_with_a_mission_Rathenau_Instituut.pdf (20.04.2022).

• OECD [Hrsg.] (2020): Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research - OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 88.

• Schneider, F., Patel, Z., Paulavets, K., Buser, T., Kado, J., Burkhart, S. (2023). Fostering transdisciplinary research for sustainability in the Global South: Pathways to impact for funding programmes. In: Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 (1), S. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02138-3

• Wuelser, G.; Edwards, P. (2023): Lighthouse Programmes in Sustainability Research and Innovation. Swiss Academies Reports 18 (2).

by Jochem Zuijderwijk, Lotte Krabbenborg, Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner, Laurens Hessels

Policy makers and research funding bodies have increasingly embraced the potential of inter- and transdisciplinary research (ITDR) to tackle larger societal challenges. However, academic literature and funding agency reports show serious concerns and doubts about how best to assess ITDR proposals, as well as a lack of understanding of how particular funding calls and assessment procedures can shape ITDR practice. There is currently a pressing funding policy question on how best to assess ITDR to facilitate research with the optimal capacity to tackle complex problems. Answering this question requires a better understanding of how the interaction between funders and research teams informs the reality of funded ITD research, particularly when it comes to the composition and integration of transdisciplinary research teams involving non-academic actors.

This paper presents results from research commissioned by the Dutch research funder NWO around the assessment of ITDR proposals. The project was aimed at studying the current NWO practices of assessment of ITDR research proposals and using insights from the literature on ITDR and ITDR evaluation to make recommendations for improvement of assessment procedures. A combination of document analysis, semi-structured interviewing and observation was used to study current assessment practices in the context of three different funding calls to which ITDR proposals were submitted. The findings were compared to best practices presented in the existing literature and used to make recommendations for improvements and identify possible barriers for effective reforms.

The results point to two aspects of the assessment that are key to assessing ITDR proposals: The composition and degree of integration of review committees, and the degree to which alignment is achieved between funders, reviewers and applicant researchers concerning their understanding of key concepts such as ‘interdisciplinarity’, ‘quality’, and the formulated goals of funding calls and research proposals. Both factors are also shown to affect how uncertainties and tough decisions are resolved at different stages of the review process.

To add to these results, the research team is conducting interviews with the researchers who successfully applied for funding, in order to gain insight into how research teams and plans were (re-)shaped through interaction with the funding procedures, and how these took practical form once the grants were awarded. By combining this with the existing data, we will present a multidimensional picture of how the interaction between funding agency and the applying research consortia shapes transdisciplinary research teams, proposals, and the early phases of the research itself. Special attention will be given to the roles accorded to non-academic partners in funding applications, their prescribed roles in proposals, and their practical roles in the actual research.

In terms of capacity building for ITDR, this study adds both to the knowledge on the assessment of ITDR proposals and the role of funders in shaping research. In addition, the research also deepens our theoretical understanding of how transdisciplinary research, forms of integration, and the practical role of non-academic research partners are actually given shape in the process of reviewing processes, research development, and the interaction between researcher and funder.

• Empowering Inter and -transdisciplinary competence of bachelor students through teaching and learning by doing
  Tigran Keryan, Elisabeth Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Verena Radinger-Peer

• ETHZ MSc Course “Integration in science, policy and practice: Inter- and transdisciplinary concepts, methods, tools”, Switzerland
  Sabine Hoffmann, Bianca Vienni-Baptista

• Creating learning spaces to foster students’ integration competence: insights from an online international summer school on sustainable development
  Brigitte Portner, Isabelle Providoli

• Fostering Reflective Impact Orientation in Transdisciplinary Research – a Multi-Method Workshop Format
  Emilia Nagy, Martina Schäfer, Josefa Kny

• Fostering Integration in Interdisciplinary Sustainability Education: Insights from the ETH Sustainability Startup Seminar
  Anais Sägesser

• Impact Space: impact driven minor
  Sake Zijlstra,, Giuseppe Binetti 

• tdMOOC: Partnering for Change: Link Research to Societal Challenges
  Minea Susanne Mäder, Theres Paulsen

• UNSPEAKABLE: hidden curriculum of transdisciplinary skills
  Sake Zijlstra, Saskia Postema, Fransje Hooimeijer, Julia Schasfoort, Femke Snel, Kim Schneider

• Integrating beyond the Surface: Facilitating Conceptual Integration in Interdisciplinary Teamwork among Master Students
  Annemarie Horn, Eduardo Urias

by Emanuele Fantini, Petra de Graaf, Peter Dung, Ewelina Schraven

Contemporary academia places a significant emphasis on impact assessment in the realms of research, education, and public engagement. However, the ubiquity of the term "impact" has transformed it into a buzzword that warrants critical examination and thoughtful action.

On one side of the spectrum, the prevalence of metrics, benchmarking, and indexing systems has contributed to the legitimization and consolidation of institutional and disciplinary hierarchies. The detached approach to impact measurement often results in grand claims lacking systemic understanding. It is needed to dissect these issues and propel a critical reflection on how we perceive and communicate impact within academia. We believe in the urgency of reevaluating our approach to impact assessment to facilitate a transition towards regenerative practices.

Researchers and educators grapple with the dilemma of assessing individual impact through metrics like the H-Index, or quantitative indicators like the size of grants and the scores in students' evaluation, which may undermine the collaborative and dialogic dimensions inherent in research and education. The tension between individual and collective impact is further exacerbated by varying interpretations of the concept across disciplines. Additionally, positive impact within one perspective may be perceived as negative from another, necessitating a more nuanced and inclusive evaluation framework. Despite our best intentions, the broader implications of our work often go unnoticed, as inter- and transdisciplinary perspectives are frequently neglected.

This presentation stems from a project supported by Centre for Unusual Collaboration (CUCO), a consortium of TU Eindhoven, Wageningen University, Utrecht University, and University Medical Center Utrecht. Our goal is to unravel the complexities surrounding impact assessment, particularly its role in reinforcing hierarchies, power dynamics, and disciplinary boundaries within higher education and research. We aim to foster a dialogue on reconceptualizing impact beyond narrow disciplinary confines. By acknowledging shared approaches and values, we strive to transform impact into a unifying concept that transcends disciplinary boundaries. Through critical reflection and collaborative efforts, we aspire to pave the way for understandings of impact beyond the academic sphere that leads to, so needed right now, regenerative practices (i.e practices that adopt a system, holistic, or more than human approach).

Our proposal can address stream 2 “Growing the capacity for inter- and transdisciplinarity” and in particular the topic “Transformation of universities for enabling inter- and transdisciplinary education”

Research process and methods

Embarking on our transdisciplinary research journey brought together a dynamic blend of different cultural backgrounds and academic expertise. Hailing from the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Italy, and Poland, our team comprises Peter, a Physicist studying complex, nonlinear systems in particular fluid dynamics; Petra, a Cell Biologist delving into the science of lab grown organs, more specific human penises; Emanuele, a political scientist exploring the cultural and political significance of rivers through collaborations with journalists and artists; and Ewelina, an Industrial Designer with a penchant for ecosystemic approach to design practices and radical sharing of aliveness. This diverse team, with members open to observing and learning through a mix of academic and non-academic methods, ignites a unique yet significant spark in exploring ways to rethink impact.

Driven by a desire to fundamentally re-imagine the impact assessment within, across and beyond academic disciplines, our process advocates for an unconventional collaboration to unearth insights overlooked by traditional methods. Departing from conventional approaches, we adopt a transdisciplinary perspective, integrating embodied experiences, art, connection with nature's wisdom, and diverse ways of knowing. This collaborative endeavour involves sharing values, motivations, and societal impact goals, melding academic and non-academic methodologies.

In our presentation, we will share insights from our journey to rethink academic impact:

• storytelling as a way to find coherence in our cross-disciplinary and not always linear professional paths;

• visual arts and storytelling to foreground the affective dimension of academic work;

• warm data/system thinking to decenter our anthropocentric gaze and rethink our impact on ecosystems and other species;

• podcasting as a space to nurture dialogic conversations and find common ground on understandings and practices of academic impact.

Key readings (optional)

• Brown, R., Werbeloff, L., & Raven, R. (2019). Interdisciplinary research and impact. Global Challenges, 3(4).

• Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: a literature review. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S116-S123.

• Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D., Seifert, T. A., Reason, R. D., & Liu, Q. (2017). Examining the impact of interdisciplinary programs on student learning. Innovative Higher Education, 42, 337-353.

by Yuko Onishi

As various social and environmental problems become more serious and complex, research through collaboration and co-creation, in which researchers conduct research in collaboration with stakeholders in society, is attracting attention. However, many researchers are trained in disciplinary science and do not have much experience in carrying out research with researchers in different disciplines or societal stakeholders.

Research Institute for Humanity and Nature in Japan is a unique institute, which focuses on environmental research using inter- and trans-disciplinary research. From 2020-2023, I carried out a research project named ‘co-creation project’, which aimed at collecting and summarising knowledge of researchers engaged in TD research or participatory action research. Over 400 ideas of good practices were collected from 13 researchers (living and working in Asia), which were then summarised as 30 patterns of co-creation classified in 10 categories. After several iterations of workshops with experts, four overarching patterns were identified, which can be considered as key elements of co-creation.

As a result of this research, the ‘co-creation pattern’ cards and booklet have been developed, which are being used for education for graduate school students. In this presentation, I will describe the development process of ‘co-creation pattern’ and how it has been applied in education for inter- and trans-disciplinarity.

by Marina Knickel, Guido Caniglia

There is increasing awareness of the need to pay attention to the ethical-political dimensions of knowledge co-production in transdisciplinary (TD) research. These dimensions are ethical as they require judgement about what is right and wrong to do in specific situations (e.g. inclusion of marginalised groups in all project phases). They are also political, as actions and decisions taken in a TD project are intertwined with complex and dynamic socio-political processes. Despite the good intentions, knowledge co-production processes might often reproduce or generate new social, epistemic or environmental injustices. The latter is particularly likely if no concepts and methods are in place to explicitly reflect upon whether and how justice is embedded in and through TD processes and practices.

While the topic of justice in research and practice is discussed more generally in the sustainability transitions and transformations literature, to date little attention is paid to how to actively foster ethics and justice in the context of TD research. Limited evidence is available on how to identify and incorporate considerations of ethics and justice in research and practice and how these considerations are connected to climate adaptation and biodiversity strategies (Juhola et al., 2022). Recent studies indicate that beside the development of justice-oriented indicators to evaluate the progress in achieving justice in these contexts, we also need (a) to better understand perceptions and attitudes towards (in)justices of those involved in TD research (Hülle et al., 2018) and (b) to establish processes to build capacities to navigate the ethical-political complexities of TD research (Caniglia et al., 2023)

In our presentation, we will show how we are addressing these needs in the EU transdisciplinary project PLUS Change, which aims to develop more sustainable land use strategies in 12 European regions. We will talk about how we are explicitly attending to the role of ethics and justice in TD research and practice.

First, we will show how we a) foreground ethics and justice aspects in TD research on land use change processes in PLUS Change, b) foster reflexivity on challenges and opportunities of including an ethics and justice lens when working on climate change and biodiversity goals, and, finally, c) build capacities to navigate ethical and justice-related matters in TD practices. Second, we will present our mixed method approach consisting of surveys, interviews, and focus groups as well as how it allows us to conduct formative evaluation and support reflexivity in the project. Third, we will present some of the preliminary results, including insights from a baseline survey and from a series of three ethics webinars to illustrate: research and practice partners’ perceptions of justice, related experiences in their work across different geographies and disciplines, and strategies to address them.

We hope that by drawing on the data analysis and discussions in the project we will inspire the TD community to explicitly engage with ethical aspects and complex power dynamics between different knowledge forms at the intersection of research and practice.

References

• Caniglia et al. (2023). Practical wisdom and virtue ethics for knowledge co-production in sustainability science. Nature Sustainability 2023, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01040-1

• Hülle et al. (2018). Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale. Social Indicators Research, 136(2), 663–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11205-017-1580-X/TABLES/15

• Juhola, (2022). Connecting climate justice and adaptation planning: An adaptation justice index. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2022.07.024

by Dora Loes van Duijvendijk, Jeffery Kodjo Arhin, Koiwah Koi-Larbi, Kwame Adu-Bonsaffoh, Titus Kofi Beyuo, Emmanuel Srofenyoh, Roos van Vliet, Solomon Boamah Amponsah, Dorotheah Obiri, Joyce Browne

Background:

Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy (HDP) account for up to 50% of Ghana’s disproportionally high maternal mortality rate. Research on HDP in Ghana is of vital importance to improve the quality of care for women suffering from HDP and their newborns. Historically, the direction of research has largely been determined by stakeholders with indirect experience with HDP. Stakeholders with lived experience (patients with/survivors of HDP, their carers and healthcare professionals) are insufficiently consulted, even though their first-hand insights are invaluable for the establishment of a conscientious research agenda. This problem is addressed by the development of Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs), in which patients, carers and clinicians jointly identify and prioritize needs for future research.

Aim:

to identify and prioritize topics for future research on the management of HDP in Ghana based on the opinions of stakeholders, especially those of patients, their carers and healthcare professionals.

Methods:

The Severe Preeclampsia adverse Outcome Triage (SPOT) Consortium and the NGO Action on Preeclampsia (APEC) Ghana initiated this transdisciplinary collaborative project, which is taking place from February until August 2024. The process largely follows the James Lind Alliance method for PSPs, however tailored to the Ghanaian context. The Research for Health Justice Ethical Toolkit is furthermore used throughout the process as a reflective aid to identify and apply the necessary ethical considerations. An Advisory Committee, consisting of thirteen survivors, their carers and relatives, community representatives, healthcare professionals and a policy maker, holds the decisive power throughout the project and oversees the operations team. A first survey is developed and spread to identify unknowns and concerns of relevant stakeholders regarding HDP. The responses are summarized and reformulated and checked against existing evidence, and a second survey round follows to establish an interim priority list from these responses. In a final prioritization workshop, stakeholders discuss and agree on the final top 10 research priorities. The project is disseminated through the networks of all stakeholders involved and an open access publication. Throughout the process, the PSP project team engages with stakeholders with the potential to support the translation of the top 10 priorities into actual research projects.

Expected results and impact:

through ongoing extensive dissemination and support of PSP partners, we expect translation of the top 10 priority list into research projects, preferably led by Ghanaian research teams. We also plan to share our lessons learned throughout the PSP process, which can inform future PSPs in similar contexts. Thereby, we hope to stimulate research groups in other sub-Saharan African or lower-middle income countries to use the PSP method as an approach for the development of research agendas.