By Gabriele Bammer.
As the importance of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research approaches becomes more widely recognised, how can we overcome the danger that they are seen to be all that is needed for tackling complex problems? What are the limitations of these approaches? What else might be required?
My starting point is that improved understanding of, and action on, a complex societal or environmental problem usually requires a number of research questions to be addressed. Different questions require different kinds of research approaches. Let’s illustrate this by considering the following complex problem:
As effort goes into making cities more sustainable, how can we incorporate illicit drug users into a more sustainable city X?
Here I review six approaches, each through an example of a research question it is well suited to address. The approaches are interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, monodisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, systems thinking and action research. Each of these approaches encompasses a range of practices, so to keep things simple, I focus on only one practice here.
Interdisciplinarity
Practice considered: experts in two or more disciplines working together to address a research question.
Example research question: How does the illicit drug market work in city X?
Insight into this question could be produced by a combination of economists, sociologists and anthropologists, combining the economists’ interest in markets with the sociologists’ and anthropologists’ interest in the activities and behaviours of users and dealers.
Transdisciplinarity
Practice considered: disciplinary experts, along with stakeholders (those affected by the problem and those in a position to do something about the problem), work together to understand the problem and make improvements.
Example research question: Can we make illicit drug use safer in city X?
Insight into this question could be produced by a combination of:
- epidemiologists and criminologists looking, respectively, at health and criminal problems and their frequency
- illicit drug users providing lived experience of health and criminal problems and ideas for change
- social service providers and police providing insights into the practical impact of, respectively, health and criminal problems and ideas for change
- government policy makers providing an assessment of what is possible from a policy perspective.
The disciplines and stakeholders work together to define the approach/es to the problem, as well as to conduct the research and bring about improvements.
Monodisciplinarity
Practice considered: demography.
Example research question: How many illicit drug users are there in city X?
Insight into this question could be produced by demographers with specific skills in estimating hidden populations.
Multidisciplinarity
Practice considered: experts from a number of different disciplines, along with various stakeholders, each independently address a common research question, with some process at the end of the research that brings these insights together.
Example research question: What would life for illicit drug users look like in a sustainable society in city X?
A range of useful insights into this question could be produced, independently, by anthropologists, criminologists, sociologists, drug users, parents of drug users, ex-users, service providers, police, government policy makers, and non-government organisational leaders. The perspectives could come from individuals or small groups. A common multidisciplinary practice is to produce a book with a chapter from each of these perspectives. It can then be up to readers to integrate the insights in their own way. Another possible end point is to bring the contributors together to see what joint understandings they can come up with. For more on multidisciplinarity, see my i2Insights contribution In praise of multidisciplinarity.
Systems thinking
Practice considered: system dynamics mapping and modelling.
Example research question: How can the use of needles and syringes be made more sustainable?
Insight into this question could be produced by a system dynamics expert working with those who have specific insights into this question, such as researchers who have investigated needle and syringe use, illicit drug users, needle and syringe manufacturers, services that provide needles and syringes to illicit drug users, garbage collectors, government policy makers overseeing relevant policies, and police and others charged with implementing the policies. The system dynamics expert would use these inputs to map different “life cycles” of needles and syringes, looking particularly for reinforcing and balancing feedback loops. Models to look at the effects of possible changes in policy or practice among any of the involved groups could also be built.
Action research
Practice considered: researchers work with marginalised groups to empower them to find effective ways of addressing specific issues.
Example research question: How can the stigma associated with illicit drug use be reduced?
Insight into this question could be produced by illicit drug users being empowered to identify sources of stigma and develop countervailing strategies. This requires one or more researchers trusted by illicit drug users and skilled in supporting them in an empowering way to undertake their own research into stigma and ways to counteract it, as well as to implement the findings.
Conclusion
The aim of this i2Insights contribution is to demonstrate that understanding and acting on complex societal and environmental problems requires a range of research questions, with different questions suited to different research approaches. In particular, while interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are important, those approaches cannot address all of the relevant research questions.
Furthermore, the research landscape would be immeasurably poorer if any of these approaches was not available. And finally, only some of the useful approaches to tackling complex societal and environmental problems are considered here. For more see my i2Insights contribution Finding expertise in research integration and implementation to tackle complex problems.
What do you think? How can we ensure that all useful approaches are recognised and maintain a healthy balance among them?
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.)
Biography: Gabriele Bammer PhD is Professor of Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) at the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at The Australian National University in Canberra. i2S provides theory and methods for tackling complex societal and environmental problems, especially for developing a more comprehensive understanding in order to generate fresh insights and ideas for action, supporting improved policy and practice responses by government, business and civil society, and effective interactions between disciplinary and stakeholder experts. She is the inaugural President of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity.
Very helpful as always. I would like to add that for these approaches to be working, the issue of “space” needs to be visited. While generic characterization of an interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary space is not difficult to envision, I have always wanted to see 1. clearer archetypes of how different institutional contexts manage such a space, and 2. concrete pathways for such a space to be initiated and sustained.
I have these thoughts trying to guide a research capacity development effort at a Chinese private applied university.
Thanks for the comment and the context. As far as I am aware, you are right, discussion of space has been limited. Mostly I am aware of emphasis on people being able to “bump into each other” for serendipitous exchange of ideas, as discussed by Catherine Lyall in “Facilitating serendipity for interdisciplinary research” https://i2insights.org/2020/01/21/serendipity-for-interdisciplinarity/.
It would be great to hear more from you on this!
Thanks for your response (and email), Gabriele!
Other than “bumping into each other”, I am also familiar with a “whole campus” model at Duke Kunshan University (China) where structurally academic departments are eliminated to encourage interdisciplinary “mobility” within and across three divisions, i.e., Arts and Humanities, Natural and Applied Sciences, and Social Sciences. Happy to share my two published studies on this:
Ye, H. (2024). Setting off the dominoes: A theory of change for scaled interdisciplinarity at a Sino-American joint-venture liberal arts and sciences University in China. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 25, 1451–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-024-09987-w.
Ye, H. (2024), “Interdisciplinary mobility: An approach to measuring interdisciplinary learning outcomes by using curricular checkpoints”, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-02-2024-0125.
Great – thanks!
This blog post raises important questions about differences and potential synergies among various types of research in relation to complex societal problems.
Echoing Colin Sanderson’s comment, I’m curious about the i2S perspective on complex-problem solving outside the realm of (academic) research, for example by members of civil society, activists and professionals. Does complex problem-solving always require research? What advantages do research-based approaches offer over practice-driven or experimental ones, and in what contexts are these advantages most significant?
Those who are wondering about complex problem-solving beyond academia might be interested in a paper I recently published:
Mennes, J. (2025). Not all who integrate are academics: zooming in on extra-academic integrative expertise. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), Article No. 333 (Open Access).
Thanks for the comment and question, as well as for alerting readers to your important paper.
I would quibble with the word “solving,” as I suggest that complex problems can’t be “solved” (see Dealing with imperfection in tackling complex problems https://i2insights.org/2025/02/25/dealing-with-imperfection/).
Given the complexity, researchers would, I expect, always have something to contribute, but that doesn’t mean they always have to be involved.
Having said that, improving researcher capabilities for tackling complex problems is the focus on my work through i2S (https://i2insights.org/i2s/) and i2Insights blog and repository. Your question: “What advantages do research-based approaches offer over practice-driven or experimental ones, and in what contexts are these advantages most significant?” is not the focus of my work – but that, of course, doesn’t mean it’s not an important question. Good luck with your endeavours in that direction!
Great read, Gabriele! Thanks for sharing these examples – it is helpful to reflect and consider which mix of approaches is most useful in a certain context. Maybe all are needed, maybe some are needed, maybe you start with inter- and transdisciplinary, and realise action research is needed along the way… I think we also musn’t forget the flexibility and adaptability needed as well to pivot and embed multiple approaches to tackle complex problems as more becomes known and situations evolve.
Thanks Lisa. Your point about the need for on-going flexibility and adaptability is critical. Fortunately funders are starting to realise that too.
Dear Professor Bammer, I think your essay title implies or entails that whereas interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are necessary, they are not sufficient to tackle complex problems. Please allow me to add another viewpoint: that is, that most of your examples refer to knowledge or science, whereas another combination requires the integration of those with arts – arts as actions, making, or doing, or performing.
So, for example, policy might be produced by an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary process, but implementing the policy requires other skills, which arguably are properly arts. These may be performed by medical health professionals, law officers, or parents of users, inter al. So, public health as it relates to drug use, requires multidisciplinary sciences, but also, for example, clinical practice, therapy derived from the science of therapeutics, possibly psychotherapy from psychology. It is for this reason that I have sought another term to indicate what is wanted. Interfacultative is the best I have come up with as yet, and I offered an essay on that to a recent publication but was not accepted (tant pis!, but no matter).
These comments I have written “off the cuff” so to speak, but I hope they begin to make some sense.
Thanks for those comments. Although not explicitly stated, the “art” of practice is key in the involvement of service providers and police in some of the examples provided in the current blog post. So we agree on that point. And we also agree more broadly on the importance of the arts and of arts-science collaboration.
It may be worth pointing out that i2Insights blog posts are restricted to 1000 words, and as you correctly surmised the main point of this one is to highlight “that whereas interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are necessary, they are not sufficient to tackle complex problems.” Reading i2Insights blog and repository as a whole, with contributions from more than 700 authors from more than 60 countries, gives a much more detailed and nuanced set of concepts, methods, processes and other tools for tackling complex societal and environmental problems.