Short abstract:

Over the past 30 years inter and transdisciplinary international, comparative, global environmental change research has evolved. This paper reviews the changes, the advances, the challenges, and the path forward. While the challenge is daunting, the outcome is necessary.

Long abstract:

Evolving from ‘climate change’ to ‘global environmental change’ (GEC), the challenges of this field constantly redouble becoming more complex, and transcending the natural sciences to encompass material and symbolic human dimensions. It is no longer just a scientific field, but also a matter of interest for non-academic actors, who increasingly recognize themselves as having a stake in adaptation decisions. GEC’s wicked problems increasingly require interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary methods for producing knowledge that achieves transformation, but experience shows that it is easier said than done effectively. What are the missing links in understanding across disciplines and in the encounter -or clash- of worldviews of scientists and people from diverse backgrounds? How to operationalize concepts such as relevance, team-building/partnership, co-learning and co-production in the framework of comparative research involving countries and regions with similar GEC problems but different scientific milieus, societies, and local communities? Are there real trade-offs? How to overcome the opposing tensions without losing scientific quality or social/policy relevance and usefulness for users? How have these inter/transdisciplinary projects changed over time?

The authors bring their experience in management of international comparative science projects over the past three decades, in scientific management of international science funding organizations, in participation in the IPCC, and in the involvement with non-academic actors to make a new assessment of the burning issues that continue to be renewed as progress is made in achieving (or persistently seeking) inter and transdisciplinarity, as they are being tackled in the BWAG project (#895-2022-1016) developed in the framework of the Partnership Grant from the SSHRC, Canada.

Short abstract:

Three PhD students found themselves at the intersection of QUANT and QUAL research paradigms. Despite departmental encouragement for mixed methods research, we had no map to navigate the positivist/constructivist chasm. We reflect on our experience building bridges among disciplines.

Long abstract:

Transdisciplinary approaches are considered necessary to address the wicked problems of the modern healthcare landscape. In this article, we reflect on the day-to-day practices of navigating transdisciplinary research from the perspectives of three late-stage PhDs from multiple fields in healthcare research. Despite our shared belief in the value of transdisciplinarity, and departmental encouragement for mixed methods and multi-paradigm research, we found ourselves navigating the positivist/constructivist chasm inherent to this work with insufficient support.

Our article explores the practices involved in conducting such research, and how this work has shaped academic identities, through a reflexive analysis of the diary entries and meetings of PhD students. Major themes include identity shifts; valuing and validating our work in new paradigms and as transdisciplinary interpreters in collaborations; learning to think and speak in multiple research languages; and a sense of risk, loneliness, and being unmoored due to lack of belonging. Through open dialogue, and bi-weekly discussions in a self-founded “Mixed Methods Anonymous” group for transdisciplinary PhD students, we developed an emergent practice of "doing" mixed methods out of a need for substantive discussions about mixing paradigms, practical support for this kind of work, and empathy from others in similar situations. We hope our insights will stimulate other researchers to reflect on practices of transdisciplinary research especially within academic hierarchies. We offer practical insights and recommendations to PhD students, senior university staff, and research funders on how to support transdisciplinary PhD students in future.

Short abstract:

This contribution seeks to engage in joint explorations of the histories, values and practices of transdisciplinary research and education from an STS perspective.

Long abstract:

As STS scholar experienced in collaborating in as well as devising transdisciplinary (td) research settings, I am intrigued by the panel’s invitation to engage in an open conversation across disciplines, fields, topical and regional dimensions, on the past and future trajectories of td research.

My proposed contribution draws on a range of insights e.g., from an extended collaborative ethnography in the realm of smart urbanism, practical experience of devising tools and processes for participatory technology design and sustainability transformation, teaching of theoretical and methodological aspects of transdisciplinary collaboration for social science and engineering students, and most recently the efforts of institutionalizing td research in the German Higher Education landscape.

I hope to participate in the suggested sessions, looking forward to the interactive formats in lieu of or in addition to traditional paper presentations. I am especially interested in jointly exploring some of the following questions: Which understandings, methods and goals of td research circulate? What do they have in common and where do they differ in crucial, possibly irreconcilable ways? Which roles and relations among participants in td research do they entail? How is td research made valuable, (e)valuated, and for/ by whom? And how are td research practices supported by (institutional) infra/structures or not, in different local contexts?

As a seed paper, I suggest the STS classic: Callon, M. (1999). The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge. Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172189900400106

Short abstract:

How can transdisciplinary research contribute to the democratization of socio-technical lifeworlds? The contribution discusses methodological considerations for dealing with normative tensions and democratic conflicts that arise in the context of transdisciplinary research.

Long abstract:

How can and should transdisciplinary research contribute to the democratization of socio-technical lifeworlds and ongoing transformations? The contribution discusses methodological considerations for dealing with normative tensions and democratic conflicts that arise in the context of transdisciplinary research. To this end, the contribution aims to discuss various conflict theories and their usefulness for transdisciplinary research. From an agonistic perspective, conflicts could not be seen as a malfunction to be eliminated. Instead, conflicts evolving in transdisciplinary research could be seen as an epistemically valuable source of knowledge generation and an integral, ethically relevant part of responsible research in the context of socio-technical transformation (Horváth 2018). From such a perspective, further questions arise: What could hierarchy-sensitive transdisciplinary research look like? (Strumińska-Kutra und Scholl 2022) Under which conditions can epistemic practices in transdisciplinary research be understood as democratic practices? (Zonta et al. 2023) Should it be possible to speak for others when relevant stakeholders are not or cannot be present – and under what circumstances? Does moral and epistemic pluralism lead to more democratic attempts and solutions? (Fricker 2007) How should value conflicts be dealt with in the face of phenomena such as the “ignorance” (e.g. of facts) or “refused knowledge” communities? (Proctor und Schiebinger 2008; Neresini 2024). This contribution aims to invite discussion of these and similar questions and problems.

Short abstract:

I will discuss how shifts in institutional strategies of universities towards societal impact can be seen as an attempt to re-enter the agora. If so, what does that mean for what inclusion or exclusion of societal and scientific problems?

Long abstract:

In the Netherlands, many universities explicitly position themselves as engaging with societal challenges, most prominently in a third mission context. Slogans like ‘science with impact’ or ‘creating a positive societal impact’ indicate that impact is on the agenda of universities, not only in terms of their respective institutional strategies, but also as part of their public identity. However, transdisciplinary research has a complex relationship to societal impact, as different understandings of TDR can lead to diverse types of impact. The aim of this study is to explore how universities understand, shape, and institutionalize societal impact in transdisciplinary research. We do so by means of a diagnostic study into recent emerging cross-university collaborations that have societal impact as their main objective. Our focus is on power strategies of universities in terms of agenda setting; which research questions and collaboration partners are included or excluded in transdisciplinary research in these cross-university collaborations, and with what effect?

Our findings indicate that societal impact was framed as contributing to problem solving in predefined research areas such as health, artificial intelligence, or resilience. We argue that universities exercise a form of discursive power by pre-defining research domains, while preventing other research domains to enter the stage. Moreover, universities set financial thresholds for collaboration and by doing so, exercise a form of instrumental power as well. We conclude by discussing how attempts to change institutional practices at universities in a top-down fashion might lead to reproducing and even reinforcing existing power imbalances in transdisciplinary research settings.