By Lisa Andrews, Bárbara Willaarts, Andreas Panagopoulos, Radhika Kanade, Nelson Odume, Bodil Ankjær Nielsen and Ingrīda Brēmere.
Are there similar challenges, responsibilities, and methods in transdisciplinarity across countries, scales, contexts and actor types?
In exploring five transdisciplinary case studies from projects on the topics of the water-energy-food-environment nexus and climate change adaptation, we identified three main lessons learned. These were common across the cases from South Africa, India, Greece, Latvia and Denmark, despite their different contexts, types of actors and project structures. These lessons were shared in a workshop at the 2024 Sustainability, Research and Innovation (SRI) Congress in Finland.
Lesson #1 Trust and relationship-building are essential
Trust is a pivotal factor in enabling collaboration across different kinds of actors. Those leading transdisciplinary approaches must show respect and value all actors, which can be done through relationship-building activities, but also by actively listening and ensuring their opinions are being taken seriously within the project. Building trust and relationships early on supports a fruitful collaboration for the long-term and may lead to new project ideas and implementation of practical outcomes. This lesson is also linked to Lesson #2, as “using” stakeholders or actors for their data or validation of solutions (extractive research or one-way relationship) should be avoided at all costs. Otherwise, trust can quickly disintegrate and lead to ineffective projects and outcomes.
Lesson #2: Fairness and positionality need to be explicit
Considerations about fairness need to be made explicit at the beginning and throughout a transdisciplinary project. This means ensuring that all knowledge types are valued in a collaborative process, avoiding extractive research as much as possible. There can sometimes be power imbalances across transdisciplinary project actors, and this needs to be addressed to ensure all voices can be heard. This requires project actors to reflect on their own positionality, perceptions and background, which in turn requires time and specific skills. If the time is available, project actors may wish to participate in such grounding activities early on in projects to create an even playing field, build trust and promote collaboration across disciplines.
Lesson #3: Reaching stakeholders where they are
Involving actors such as regional authorities and policy-makers may help to ensure that knowledge is taken up beyond project timelines and supports solving the societal challenges the project aims to contribute to. However, it can take time and effort to ensure that these particular stakeholders are brought along on the journey. First, information must be tailored to their needs and levels of understanding of the topic to enable co-creation and transfer. It is essential to start with such actors “where they are” and to find ways to reach them that might not be within the usual framework of workshops or meetings, but rather gathering their insights and ideas through phone calls, one-on-one meetings or visiting their offices. It is also important to update them in a timely manner to keep them engaged and interested, as well as to reflect on how the messages you want to share fit into their current agendas and areas of interest.
Conclusions
Transdisciplinary collaboration across disciplines and sectors is no simple task and reflecting on these lessons reminds us that we require empathetic, adaptive and flexible approaches to transdisciplinary research and practice, underpinned by an open and supportive project setting. This can happen within the framework of some project structures, but often it is challenging to engage stakeholders and actors effectively within research project timelines.
Do these three sets of lessons resonate with you? Are there other key lessons that you would draw from your work?
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence).
Lisa Andrews is a PhD candidate, currently working at KWR Water Research Institute in Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, and is conducting her PhD in affiliation at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development at Utrecht University. Her research focuses on how transdisciplinary research projects can enable impact in the fields of water and climate. This i2Insights contribution is based on her involvement in the project “Turning climate commitments into action” (IMPETUS) funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
Bárbara Willaarts PhD is currently Scientific Project Manager and research scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Laxenburg, Austria. Her research covers various topics relevant to water and food governance and sustainability transitions. This i2Insights contribution is based on her involvement in the projects “Managing Resilient Nexus Systems Through Participatory Systems Dynamics Modelling” (REXUS) funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, “fairSTREAM” (where researchers aim to understand and reconcile issues of fairness, a key aspect for managing risks in food-water-biodiversity nexus) funded by IIASA, and “SDG (Sustainable Development Goals)-Pathfinding: Co-Creating Pathways for Sustainable Development in Africa” (SDG-Pathfinding) funded by the Belmont Forum.
Andreas Panagopoulos PhD is a research director at Hellenic Agricultural Organisation Soil and Water Resources Institute based in Thessaloniki, Greece. His research interests include water resources management, monitoring of their quality and quantity, groundwater flow and pollution transport modelling, synthesis of nexus management policies through participatory approaches, hydrogeology, and climate change impacts on groundwater systems. This i2insights contribution is based on his involvement in the project “Managing Resilient Nexus Systems Through Participatory Systems Dynamics Modelling” (REXUS) funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
Radhika Kanade PhD is a post-doctoral researcher at the Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM) in Pune, India. Her main research interests include forest ecology and biodiversity, community governance and management of natural resources, and human dimensions of environmental change such as landcover change. This i2insights contribution is based on her involvement in the “fairSTREAM” project (where researchers aim to understand and reconcile issues of fairness, a key aspect for managing risks in food-water-biodiversity nexus) funded by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA).
Nelson Odume PhD is currently a professor at Rhodes University and Director of the Institute for Water Research in Grahamstown, South Africa. His areas of interest include water resources, particularly in aquatic ecology, freshwater ecosystem health, water quality, pollution studies, water governance, biomonitoring, integrated water resource management and ethics, and transdisciplinary water science. He has led several collaborative, large transdisciplinary research projects. This i2insights contribution is based on his involvement in the “SDG (Sustainable Development Goals)-Pathfinding: Co-Creating Pathways for Sustainable Development in Africa” (SDG-Pathfinding) funded by the Belmont Forum.
Bodil Ankjær Nielsen is currently the Climate Adaptation Coordinator at Esbjerg Kommune in Denmark. She aims to prepare the city for climate change impacts, predominantly related to too much or too little water. This i2Insights contribution is based on her involvement in the project “Climate-resilient regions through systemic solutions and innovations” (ARSINOE) funded by the European Union’s Horizon H2020 innovation action programme.
Ingrīda Brēmere MSc is a project manager and environmental expert from the Baltic Environmental Forum in Riga, Latvia. There, she works on climate change mitigation and adaptation; urban environment, water management, stakeholder participation. This i2Insights contribution is based on her involvement in the project “Turning climate commitments into action” (IMPETUS) funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
Dear colleagues, thank you for your message.
With your permission, I will philosophize a little on the subject of your message.
I think that these lessons will be more in demand by specialists if you explain the meaning that you put into the term “transdisciplinarity”. It seemed to me that now this term corresponds to the following scheme:
Interdisciplinarity is the designation of the interaction of specialists from two complementary disciplines;
Transdisciplinarity is a designation for the interaction of specialists from three or more complementary disciplines.
In this scheme, the emphasis is on the interaction of people and their human qualities: tolerance, a sense of justice, human trust and faith in the professionalism of disciplinary colleagues, etc. If this is the case, then this perception of transdisciplinarity and its definition can add to the collection of possible definitions of transdisciplinarity that the respected Gabriele Bammer is gradually accumulating.
In the context of the multifactorial problems that you are trying to explore, it may be interesting for you to consider transdisciplinarity as “the interaction of knowledge of three or more complementary disciplines.” In this case, the focus shifts from human interaction to the search for methodological approaches to maximize integration and/or generalization of knowledge of complementary disciplines that are involved in transdisciplinary research. My experience shows that if a successful transdisciplinary methodological approach is found for conducting transdisciplinary research, which will allow a specialist to successfully integrate his knowledge into the context of general research, then his human qualities will not fundamentally affect the results of the study.
I hope this opinion will perhaps allow you to expand the number of lessons on the introduction of transdisciplinarity. Thank you.
Thank you Vmokiy for your comment. Our understanding and definition of transdisciplinarity is that it is about researchers collaborating with non-researchers. In this case, non-researchers could be municipal leaders, local associations, farmers, engineers, etc. So for us in these types of projects where collaboration across research and non-researchers is prevalent, it is indeed about generalising knowledge, building trust, communicating effectively and getting everyone on the same page. For us, interdisciplinarity could be collaboration across 2 or more disciplines in academia, but transdisciplinarity is really about collaboration across disciplines AND beyond academia / research, not merely a third or more disciplines. However, that being said, I believe that our lessons learned could be generalisable enough to be for interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity. Let us know what you think!
Lisa, it seemed to me that this understanding of the term “transdisciplinarity” creates the illusion that “researchers” are carriers of disciplinary knowledge, and “non-researchers” are not carriers of disciplinary knowledge. In fact, this is not true. Municipal leaders, heads of local associations, farmers, engineers, etc. all of them, as a rule, have graduated from educational institutions and carry out their practical activities in accordance with the acquired disciplinary knowledge.
A scientist I know from Austria gave an example of a typical, in his opinion, “transdisciplinary project.” He and his colleagues developed, based on theoretical disciplinary knowledge, a fence for a herd of cows on a farm. When getting acquainted with the fence project, a local farmer criticized this project. He said that with such a fence and its fragility, the cows would certainly destroy this fence and run away from the farm. Thus, in the process of communication between researchers (theorists) and non-researchers (practitioners), theoretical disciplinary knowledge was supplemented with practical disciplinary knowledge.
I think that based on the above, it is possible to correct your idea of transdisciplinarity.
Transdisciplinarity is the collaboration of “researchers” who have theoretical (academic) disciplinary knowledge with “non–researchers” who have the skills to use this disciplinary knowledge in practice.
It is known that the term transdisciplinarity consists of two words “trans” and “discipline”. In this definition, the essence of disciplinary knowledge and its boundaries are not violated, but their mutual enrichment occurs.
Vladimir Mokiy
Dear Vladimir,
Thank you for your comment. Indeed, you are right! And I was just reading a new open-access book Transdisciplinarity for Transformation which also alludes to your points as well https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/93235 – I did not mean to say that non-researchers do not possess important and vital disciplinary knowledge, I was just trying to make the distinction of the types of actors. I suppose in my understanding, the term disciplines for me refers more to academic disciplines – but as you rightly put it, there are more than just academic disciplines. It is all about how you use the language and understand the terminology. So thank you for this discussion, it will surely be useful for my ongoing journey in the field of transdisciplinarity.
I also really like what the editors for the aforementioned book say, and captures the essence of our discussion: “…scientists do not have the monopoly on knowledge and knowledge production, and that, on the contrary, the knowledges of policymakers, practitioners and citizens should be included in attempts to resolve the major problems facing contemporary societies. Thus, it is through these associations and uses that the concept of ‘transdisciplinarity’ acquires meaning, not through its definition. At the same time, there is a group of people (within and outside academia)—notably a much larger group—that engages in co-creative practices around complex societal issues, with roots that long predate the current upsurge of transdisciplinary academic literature, and also far beyond the hegemony of the Western academic community, but that do not self-identify as ‘transdisciplinary’ researchers or practitioners. And yet again, it is the practices, rather than the naming of them, that are of relevance here, particularly because they seem to share a philosophy of embracing epistemological plurality, valuing the importance of contextualisation, facilitating multi-stakeholder collaboration across boundaries (whether they are disciplinary, sectoral, or multi-level), and experimental governance within an overarching orientation towards a more sustainable, just and equitable society—notwithstanding the pluriform normativity that is inherently part of each transdisciplinary endeavour.”
Let me know your thoughts on this and I look forward to continuing the discussion!
Dear Lisa,
Thank you for allowing us to continue our common “ongoing journey in the field of transdisciplinarity”.
I suggest discussing the text of the editors of the book “Transdisciplinarity for Transformation”, which you liked.
1. The editors write that “scientists do not have a monopoly on knowledge and knowledge production, and that, on the contrary, the knowledge of politicians, practitioners and citizens should be included in attempts to solve the main problems faced by modern societies.” In my opinion, this is an unfortunate stereotype. It is correct to state that “scientists do not have a monopoly on all types of knowledge about the world.” But, it is correct to say that “scientists have a monopoly on scientific knowledge.” I would like to remind us that in addition to “scientific” knowledge, which must meet certain criteria, there is knowledge of myth, philosophy and intuition. Such knowledge is usually obtained in ways that differ from scientific ones. Each type of knowledge supports the lives and activities of various numerous groups of people. That’s good!
However, the concept of “discipline” is the basic concept of science. Within the framework of the relevant scientific discipline, new approaches, methodologies are being formed, and relevant disciplinary knowledge is being systematized. In this case, it is appropriate to use the term “monopoly on disciplinary knowledge”. It is for this reason that the term “transdisciplinarity”, according to E. Jantsch, is associated with “the basis of generalized disciplinary axiomatics and the emerging epistemological model” or, according to J. Piaget, with “the highest form of interdisciplinary interactions in the performance of complex scientific research.”
The results of the associative thinking of these outstanding scientists, in my opinion, have determined two different directions in the development of transdisciplinarity. The first (according to E. Jantsch) is the transdisciplinarity of higher education, as a specialized discipline “systemic transdisciplinarity”. The second (according to J. Piaget) is the transdisciplinarity of multidisciplinary scientific research. Mokiy, V.S., & Lukyanova, T.A. (2022). Modern transdisciplinarity: Results of the development of the prime cause and initial ideas. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 19, 97-120. https://doi.org/10.28945/4951
2. The editors write that, “the knowledge of politicians, practitioners and citizens should be included in attempts to solve the main problems faced by modern societies.” In my opinion, this is a bold, but not entirely responsible statement. Nowadays, before our eyes, the knowledge of politicians plunges countries into domestic economic and political crises, as well as into global conflict. For their part, citizens’ knowledge of the social structure of society, the state and municipalities often does not correspond to the socio-political realities and economic capabilities of the state. As a result, citizens strike and protest, and politicians leave their posts without even having time to implement their ideas and knowledge. All this happens because the truth of such knowledge requires verification in practice and the test of time.
However, it is a bad and irresponsible idea to conduct experiments with real society and people, as well as to test the environmental sustainability of the planet. In these cases, the “monopoly on scientific knowledge” implies modeling, planning and forecasting of socio-economic development based on the laws of nature, which are discovered by science. Therefore, the practice is accepted in science – if problems are not solved or are solved inefficiently, then they should be rethought. A new scientific paradigm is being used for rethinking. The new paradigm leads to the emergence of new scientific (meta) disciplines that can unify and generalize the knowledge of various scientific disciplines. It is important that such disciplines allow you to perform a risk analysis of the proposed ways to solve problems. An example of such scientific practice is the article by Mokiy, V. S. (2024). Global conflict: Analysis of non-political factors and possible non-violent solutions in the context of sustainable development. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 15, 355-380. https://doi.org/10.22545/2024/00261
However, I agree that the knowledge of politicians, practitioners and citizens should be included in attempts to solve the main problems faced by modern societies. But it should be the knowledge of “time-tested” politicians, for example, the practical knowledge of Henry Kissinger, as well as the practical knowledge of citizens, participants in the Great French Revolution (September 1792), who solved the problem of forming a liberal society.
I hope that this short critical analysis by the editor of the book “Transdisciplinarity for Transformation” will be interesting to you and will allow you to continue our most interesting discussion.
Vladimir
Thanks for this contribution and highlighting these areas. Trust and relationship-building are key for non-extractive collaborations, but how? I’m very curious what approaches you have tried to build trust and relationship-building activities in different research and cultural contexts.
Hi Jillian, thanks for your comment! This one I will redirect to Barbara and Nelson, as they were the ones who brought up this point in projects in South Africa. However, you can find more information here on the webpage for that project, including a video from Nelson about the project: https://iiasa.ac.at/projects/sdg-pathfinding and more information in a paper cited by Nelson here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328717301301
Hi Jillian,
Thanks for your comment. Building trust is a long-term process and to me combines both, professional and personal relationships with your stakeholders. My experience is that when you engage in a TD process, you need to ensure that there is something in there for everyone, and that the time and efforts invested by everyone turn into win-win situations for all. You also need to be reliable and accountable even if this means investing extra time you haven’t accounted for. Is about being generous and using the opportunity not just to achieve your project objectives, and do the best possible work, but also to be able to support/listen to those who are gifting you with their time and knowledge. All in all is a about being generous and conscious that the best outcomes is when everyone benefits from the process. I hope this helps!
Thank you,
I appreciate how much you packed into a short article.
Two additional considerations are assumptions and cross cultural communication. It is useful to explicitly address assumptions early in the process and they range from a simple assumptions exercise to more in-depth surveys and sense-making through stories. This helps build trust and also “reaching stakeholders where they are.”
Understanding or, probably more accurately, trying to understand cross cultural communications can be useful. I have found that even when using the same language there can be different interpretations of the same word or phrase. A sometimes useful technique is to create a project charter that includes “active listening.”
Thank you again for this thoughtful article.
Jim
Hi Jim! Thanks for the comment, you are absolutely right! I completely agree with you and your examples of activities that help to identify assumptions and the cross cultural communication. I have definitely come across those challenges in practice across other projects. Indeed, this blog captured a few key items to consider but of course was limited to the main experiences in these specific cases we presented at the conference. Thanks for the additional reflections!
Thank you for sharing these insightful lessons! I fully recognize and resonate with them. In addition, I think consistent interaction, attentive listening, and staying aligned with stakeholders’ current issues are crucial to further enhance the effectiveness of transdisciplinary approaches and help in navigating the complexities of collaboration across diverse contexts. Consistency in interactions throughout the project lifecycle via regular and meaningful engagement not only helps in maintaining the momentum but also reinforces the trust and relationships established early on. Actively listening to stakeholders and staying connected with their evolving concerns and priorities ensures that the project remains relevant and adaptive to real-time issues faced by the stakeholders, ultimately leading to more impactful and sustainable outcomes.
Thanks Stefania for your comment! I’m glad this blog resonated with you.
Thanks, Stefania. I could not agree more with you. I believe that in order to develop and maintain trust and to make the project as relevant as possible as you suggested, it is crucial that research teams internalize that such level of engagement requires: 1) deep expertise (engagement is not just organizing three workshops throughout the project); and 2) lots of resources (way more than modeling sometimes). Overall, if we want to take engagement and TD serious, we need to put the required resources and capacities, and until recently engagement and co-creation has been more of “tick the box”. But luckily we are evolving, research teams are becoming more interdisciplinary and hopefully all in all we are moving in the right direction