Short abstract:

In this study we aim to understand impact creation in TDR, through the emergence of impact practices in a project. We theorize impact practices in the context of TDR and empirically follow the emergence of impact practices and their potential for facilitating integration processes in TDR.

Long abstract:

Transdisciplinary research projects (TDR) are increasingly expected to create societal impact, particularly through the integration of different bodies of knowledge (Hessels et al., 2009; Hoffmann et al., 2019). Recently, the notion of impact practices has been introduced to better understand how impact is created in research projects (De Jong & Balaban, 2022). Nevertheless, understanding how impact practices emerge and facilitate integration processes in TDR is lacking. In this study we further theorize impact practices in the context of TDR.

Our contribution is twofold. First, we contribute to conceptualizing impact practices building upon a constructivist notion of impact, in which we understand that scientific and societal impact are actively constructed by knowledge producers and evaluators in highly related networks (Smit & Hessels, 2021). Thus, researchers continuously create scientific or societal impact through highly related practices (Brenninkmeijer, 2022). Second, we adopt a process ontology to study the emergence of impact practices in a longitudinal study.

Empirically, we followed the emergence of impact practices over two years in a large-scale TDR, and studied how these practices facilitate integration processes. We show that impact practices can facilitate or obstruct integration processes, and hence are important to understand in TDR projects. Furthermore, we observed that the emergence of impact practices is driven by values of knowledge producers and evaluators (what impact is important), through which strategies (what should be done), and with whom (which interactions), are pursued (Brenninkmeijer, 2022). We observe that knowledge producers strive for different impact practices grounded in different scientific disciplines.

Short abstract:

This paper presents results from a literature review on values in inter- and transdisciplinary research and evaluation. We argue that understanding values sheds light on the expectations inter- and transdisciplinary research face and reveals the resulting power imbalances emerging from evaluation.

Long abstract:

Inter- and transdisciplinary research (IDR/TDR) are promoted for their collaborative approach to tackling societal challenges. Yet, IDR/TDR face a range of barriers, notably in research evaluation. Despite calls to approach the challenge of evaluation from a perspective of values, literature on this topic is scarce. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review of IDR/TDR practice and evaluation, where we use ‘values’ as a sensitising concept during the qualitative analysis. Adopting a cultural approach, we bridge normative and pragmatic perspectives. Analysing how values shape IDR/TDR discourses, we identify two guiding rationales, ‘societal relevance’ and ‘accountability’, with implications for evaluation. IDR/TDR are fostered to meet the demand for societal relevance in research. Societal relevance is achieved by involving diverse disciplinary and societal actors, necessitating the navigation of value pluralism. Thus, calling for increased levels of reflexivity, societal relevance ostensibly results in higher accountability. However, to ensure accountability, funding and policy institutions intensify measures of evaluation and monitoring. These measures tend to disadvantage IDR/TDR, as their practices and outputs may depart from disciplinary definitions of values like ‘quality’, ‘excellence’, or ‘impact’. Consequently, evaluation often inadequately addresses IDR/TDR’s needs, reducing chances for their successful implementation. Highlighting this disconnect between the value systems of research evaluation and those guiding IDR/TDR practices, we reveal a double expectation placed on IDR/TDR and expose the power dynamics at play when scientific excellence and societal relevance clash in the case of IDR/TDR evaluation. Understanding values is thus crucial to addressing the barriers research evaluation poses to IDR/TDR.

Short abstract:

This paper reflects on methodological practicalities, disciplinary divisions and interdisciplinary expectations within a research project on urban heat. It discusses a research process enacted within this particular project in the context of a wider academic system and its challenges.

Long abstract:

There is a growing scientific recognition of the need and urgency to conduct interdisciplinary research on climate and environmental change. There are, however, many epistemic difficulties and institutional challenges in conducting such research. 'Interdisciplinarity' often remains just a buzzword, something that is preached but not practiced. This paper discusses the research process enacted within a project “Embodying Climate Change: Transdisciplinary Research on Urban Overheating” (EmCliC), which combined social anthropology, sociology, economics, physics, climate science and epidemiology to study older adults’ vulnerability and adaptation to urban heat in two European cities.

The paper showcases, first, the practicalities of conducting mixed-methods research, focusing on what did and did not work and why. Second, the paper demonstrates that it is the people – the researchers and their established relationships – who are the most important ‘tools’ in continued interdisciplinary collaboration and analysis. Third, I situate the project and our collaboration within a broader context of academic system, which underappreciates the role of people and relationships in the research process. I reflect on balancing between disciplinary and interdisciplinary expectations of different team members, our institutions, project funders, and journal editors.

Short abstract:

We conducted dialogues among participants from different disciplines and proposed a method to visualize knowledge integration in the dialogues. The proposed method aims to understand the integration of perspectives and identify the factor of consensus building in the dialogues.

Long abstract:

Interdisciplinary research is expected to solve complex societal problems by integrating the perspectives of multiple disciplines. We conducted dialogues among participants from different disciplines and proposed a method to visualize knowledge integration in the dialogues. This study aimed to quantitatively and qualitatively understand the integration of perspectives from various disciplines by analyzing networks between ideas in the dialogues.

We conducted ten workshops on interdisciplinary dialogues from September 2021 to October 2022, and investigated the effectiveness of the proposed method. Most of the participants were graduate students and early career researchers, and they engaged in group dialogues under the moderation of group facilitators, divided into groups of about 5 to 6 participants. In the workshops, all participants present their opinions on the topic of each workshop before and after the group dialogues. In the reflection phase after the dialogues, each participant drew lines between the ideas in the dialogues and confirmed the influence of the other participants in forming their thinking during the dialogues.

We analyzed the ideas connected by lines as networks to understand how participants changed their thinking and which ideas were influential during the dialogues. From the result of the pre-analysis, we observed the structural difference of the networks between the groups (Ohki et al., 2022 [in Japanese]). In addition to network analysis, we identified the factor of knowledge integration among different disciplines during the dialogues using qualitative text analysis. Based on the findings, we discuss a possible application of the proposed method to interdisciplinary research management.

Short abstract:

This study explores a facilitator's role in addressing challenges of interdisciplinary research, aligning methods, bridging gaps, and guiding research teams. Interviews assess feasibility, sparking a conversation on balancing disciplinary and interdisciplinary needs.

Long abstract:

As research questions addressing multi-level challenges become more complex, interdisciplinary collaboration becomes imperative. This prompts an examination of how science responds to the management of interdisciplinary research projects. Similar challenges are observed in other public sector domains, where adaptive methodologies like agile management, design thinking, and service design are employed for organizational transformation. Notably, frameworks such as Scrum leverage roles, like the scrum master, to facilitate and harness synergies in response to complexity (Bass, 2014; Shastri et al., 2021).

In previous research, we’ve identified a need in interdisciplinary research for a role akin to a facilitator to support achieving common understanding, agreement on disciplinary methods, overcoming hierarchies, and guiding interdisciplinary teams in their research processes (Schmitt et al., 2023).

Scientific concepts like 'boundary spanning' (Tushman, 1977) and 'knowledge brokers' (Chan et al., 2017) involve facilitating the creation and sharing of knowledge, aligning with our call for a 'facilitator' in digital transformation research. This facilitator would bring organizational expertise into interdisciplinary research processes. To explore potentials and challenges of introducing facilitators, I conducted expert interviews across private sector and academic institutions. The findings delve into applicability, transferability, common challenges, and specific differences. I aim to engage the audience in a discussion around the new role's potential of addressing interdisciplinary research needs and to debate how this role can effectively balance interdisciplinary collaboration with maintaining room for necessary disciplinary expertise. The focus is on finding a productive way to navigate and oscillate between disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity rather than adopting an either/or approach.