Concepts – Page 14 – Integration and Implementation Insights

How is transformative knowledge ‘co-produced’?

February 18, 2025April 3, 2018

By Andy Stirling, Adrian Ely and Fiona Marshall

authors_andy-stirling_adrian-ely_fiona-marshall — 1. Andy Stirling (biography)
2. Adrian Ely (biography)
3. Fiona Marshall (biography)

It’s often said that knowledge to tackle big problems in the world – food, water, climate, energy, biodiversity, disease and war – has to be ‘co-produced’. Tackling these problems is not just about solving ‘grand challenges’ with big solutions, it’s also about grappling with the underlying causal social and political drivers. But what does co-production actually mean, and how can it help to create knowledge that leads to real transformation?

Here’s how we at the Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability (STEPS) Centre approach this challenge of co-production.

Interdisciplinarity and evil – Understanding incommensurability

September 10, 2024March 27, 2018

By J. Britt Holbrook

Incommensurability is a recognized problem in interdisciplinary research. What is it? How can we understand it? And what can we do about it?

What is it?

Incommensurability is best illustrated by a real example. I once co-taught a class with a colleague from another discipline. Her discipline depends on empirical analysis of data sets, literally on counting things. I, on the other hand, am a philosopher. We don’t count. One day she said to our students, “If you don’t have an empirical element in what you’re doing, it’s not research.” I watched the students start nodding, paused for half a beat, and volunteered, “So, I’ve never done any research in my entire career.” “That’s right!” she replied, immediately, yet hesitating somewhere between a discovery and a joke.

Lessons from “real-world laboratories” about transdisciplinary projects, transformative research and participation

December 19, 2024March 22, 2018

By Antonietta Di Giulio and Rico Defila

authors_antonietta-di-giulio_rico-defila — 1. Antonietta Di Giulio (biography)
2. Rico Defila (biography)

In Germany there has recently been a heated debate about the need for, and the justification of, so-called “transformative research”. At the same time, German funders are increasingly supporting research in “real-world laboratories” and these explicitly aim to bring about social change. We lead an accompanying research project (“Begleitforschung” in German) in a real-world laboratory program of research in Baden-Württemberg (see Schäpke et al., (2015) for more information). This has led us to reflect upon the relationship between transdisciplinary research and transformative research, and how this impacts on how we think about participation in research. We share some preliminary ideas here.

Is it legitimate for transdisciplinary research to set out to change society?

December 19, 2024March 15, 2018

By Antonietta Di Giulio and Rico Defila

An unspoken and unchallenged assumption underpinning much discourse about transdisciplinary research is that it must change society.

The assumption goes beyond whether research should contribute to change, or whether research impacts developments in society, or whether research should investigate societal problems and provide solutions, or anything similar – it is that research should actively and intentionally be transformative. This generally goes hand-in-hand with a deep conviction that researchers are entitled to actually change society according to what they believe to be right. For many this conviction allows researchers to impose their interventions and solutions on other societal actors by, if necessary, being manipulative.

Non-certified experts, stakeholders, practitioners… What participants are called defines transdisciplinarity

December 19, 2024March 13, 2018

By Antonietta Di Giulio and Rico Defila

In an actor-oriented understanding of transdisciplinary research, there are basically two types of actors: those in the academic system who ensure scientific rigor and who are responsible for project outcomes, usually called ‘researchers’ – and ‘the others’. ‘The others’ lacks precision and even a superficial review of the literature reveals multiple ways of describing them. We highlight a selection of these below (the emphasis in the quotations is ours).

What makes research transdisciplinary?

September 11, 2024January 9, 2018

By Liz Clarke

What do we mean by transdisciplinarity and when can we say we are doing transdisciplinary research? There is a broad literature with a range of different meanings and perspectives. There is the focus on real-world problems with multiple stakeholders in the “life-world”, and a sense of throwing open the doors of academia to transcend disciplinary boundaries to address and solve complex problems. But when it comes to the practicalities of work in the field, there is often uncertainty and even disagreement about what is and isn’t transdisciplinarity.

Let me give an example.

Why we should not ignore interdisciplinarity’s critics

May 5, 2020November 7, 2017

By Rick Szostak

A handful of recent books have made surprising and misguided critiques of interdisciplinarity. How should interdisciplinarians respond? It is tempting simply to ignore such works. As academics, we too often encounter publications that are sadly ignorant of relevant literatures. Yet it seems to me that there are a couple of key reasons not to ignore them.

First, there is clearly an audience for these works, or they would not be published.

Sharing integrated modelling practices – Part 1: Why use “patterns”?

September 12, 2024May 30, 2017

By Sondoss Elsawah and Joseph Guillaume

authors_sondoss-elsawah_joseph-guillaume — 1. Sondoss Elsawah (biography)
2. Joseph Guillaume (biography)

How can modellers share the tacit knowledge that accumulates over years of practice?

In this blog post we introduce the concept of patterns and make the case for why patterns are a good candidate for transmitting the ‘know-how’ knowledge about modelling practices. We address the question of how to use patterns in a second blog post.

In broad terms, a pattern links a solution to a problem and its context. As a means of externalizing understanding of practices, the concept has been used productively in various fields, including architecture, computer science, and design science. For a more general introduction to patterns, see Scott Peckham’s blog post. While a “pattern” is ultimately a simple idea, there tends to be disagreement about a precise definition. This poses a problem for this blog post.

Looking for patterns: An approach for tackling tough problems

October 9, 2023May 23, 2017

By Scott D. Peckham

What does the word ‘pattern’ mean to you? And how do you use patterns in addressing complex problems?

Patterns are repetitions. These can be in space, such as patterns in textiles and wallpaper, which include houndstooth, herringbone, paisley, plaid, argyle, checkered, striped and polka-dotted.

The pattern concept can also be applied to repetitions in time, as occur in music. Those who know the temporal patterns can classify a piece of music as a blues, waltz or salsa. For each of these types of music, there are also classic dance steps, that usually go by the same name; these are patterns of movement in space and time.

These examples get to the idea that patterns can be viewed more generally as any type of repetitive structure or recurring theme that we can look for and potentially recognize or discover and then assign a memorable name to, such as “houndstooth” or “waltz”.

Going beyond ‘context matters’: A lens to bridge knowledge and policy

December 18, 2024April 25, 2017

By Leandro Echt and Vanesa Weyrauch

authors_leandro_echt_vanesa-weyrauch — 1. Leandro Echt (biography)
2. Vanesa Weyrauch (biography)

The role and importance of context in the interaction between research and policy is widely recognized. It features in general literature on the subject, in case studies on how research has successfully influenced policy (or not), and in practitioners´ reflections on the results of their work. But how does context specifically matter? Can we move beyond generic statements?

To find some answers to these complex questions, Purpose & Ideas and the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP) embarked on a joint knowledge systematization effort, combining a literature review with in-depth interviews with 48 experts and policymakers, mostly in developing countries.

What do we mean by context?

Our first challenge was to define what we concretely mean by context.

Team science glossary

February 11, 2025March 16, 2017

By Sawsan Khuri and Stefan Wuchty

authors_sawsan-khuri_stefan-wuchty — 1. Sawsan Khuri (biography)
2. Stefan Wuchty (biography)

As team science gains momentum, we present this glossary to standardize definitions for the most frequently used terms and phrases in the science of team science literature, and to serve as a reference point for newcomers to the field. Source material is provided where possible.

Co-authorship
When team members are given due credit by co-authoring publications from the project. There are various co-authorship models, some are dependent on disciplinary or departmental practices, and some are negotiable. This is an issue that needs to be clarified and documented very early on in a collaborative effort (Bennet et al., 2010).

Collaboration, or Collaborative project
When two or more scientists work together on a project that is expected to end with a joint publication, and maybe even a grant proposal for more collaborations.

Whose side are we on and for whom do we write?

December 18, 2024February 14, 2017

By Jon Warren and Kayleigh Garthwaite

authors_jon-warren_kayleigh-garthwaite — 1. Jon Warren (biography)
2. Kayleigh Garthwaite (biography)

In 1967 Howard Becker posed the question – to academics – “Whose side are we on?”.

Becker was discussing the question during the time of civil rights, the Vietnam war and widespread social change in the US. He sparked a debate about objectivity and value neutrality which had long featured as part of the social sciences’ methodological foundations and which has implications beyond the social sciences for all academics.

What relevance do these ideas have now, in an era when academics and their research are becoming increasingly commodified? Academics are increasingly pressured by their own institutions and fellow professionals to gain more funding, publish more papers and make more impact. Questions of social justice and professional integrity are at risk of being swamped by these forces allied to unscrupulous careerism.

We argue that the question now is not only who academics serve but also who we write for.