Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions

Abstract Transdisciplinary approaches are becoming increasingly adopted as a way to research complex socio-environmental problems. Conceptually, transdisciplinarity aims to foster meaningful knowledge co-production through integrative and participatory processes that bring together diverse actors, disciplines, and knowledge bases. In practice, transdisciplinarity is more ambiguous. While there is a growing body of literature on such approaches, there remains no widely-accepted definition, concrete framework, or empirical strategy for how to carry out a transdisciplinary project. We propose that this lack of explicit structure and entrenched meaning leaves space for transdisciplinary approaches to be shaped by the evolving network of participating scientists and stakeholders, according to their perspectives of the approach and what it embodies. Here, we examine the perspectives of a diverse group of actors ( n  = 42) embarking on a 10-year transdisciplinary research project focused on building resilience to natural hazards and disasters in New Zealand. We present the findings of qualitative surveys and group interviews that investigate stakeholders’ and scientists’ early perspectives of transdisciplinary, or co-created, research. The study represents the first stage of longitudinal research that will continue over the course of the project. Results show that early actors in the project share an overall consistent understanding of co-created research. Participants described a process that integrated diverse people and knowledge; created benefits on both a social and personal level; fostered clear, two-way dialogue; and overcame pragmatic and intrinsic challenges. Collectively, participants agreed with adopting transdisciplinary approaches to natural hazard, risk, and resilience research, with stakeholders showing a stronger degree of agreement than scientists. While attitudes towards transdisciplinarity were overall positive, a number of underlying conflicts emerged in regards to carrying out new modes of knowledge production within traditional social and institutional structures. These conflicts result in a tension that is felt by actors involved in transdisciplinary projects early on, and in some cases, influences perception of their ability to fully participate in such an approach. Evaluating actor perspectives and expectations early in the transdisciplinary process can give insight into how attitudes, expectations, and conflicts might shape transdisciplinary efforts, and can provide relevant parameters for assessing change over time.

[1]  S. Newell,et al.  When Policy meets Practice: Colliding Logics and the Challenges of ‘Mode 2’ Initiatives in the Translation of Academic Knowledge , 2010 .

[2]  P. Weingart,et al.  What’s New in Scientific Advice to Politics? , 2005 .

[3]  M. Albornoz Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[4]  Christine Kenney,et al.  A Māori love story: Community-led disaster management in response to the Ōtautahi (Christchurch) earthquakes as a framework for action , 2015 .

[5]  Judith Igelsböck,et al.  Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research in Practice , 2016 .

[6]  Jessica E. Leahy,et al.  Transdisciplinary research partnerships in sustainability science: an examination of stakeholder participation preferences , 2016, Sustainability Science.

[7]  D. Lang,et al.  A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science , 2013 .

[8]  Nicholas A. Cradock-Henry,et al.  Factors influencing successful collaboration for freshwater management in Aotearoa, New Zealand , 2017 .

[9]  Lindsey R. Barnes,et al.  A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters , 2008 .

[10]  M. Gibbons,et al.  Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty , 2003 .

[11]  V. Murray,et al.  Ensuring science is useful, usable and used in global disaster risk reduction and sustainable development: a view through the Sendai framework lens , 2016, Palgrave Communications.

[12]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  E. Penning‐Rowsell,et al.  Micro-political and related barriers to stakeholder engagement in flood risk management , 2012 .

[14]  M. Lengwiler Between charisma and heuristics: four styles of interdisciplinarity , 2006 .

[15]  J. Gaillard,et al.  From knowledge to action , 2013 .

[16]  U. Felt,et al.  Challenging Participation in Sustainability Research , 2012 .

[17]  D. Atkins,et al.  Making evidence from research more relevant, useful, and actionable in policy, program planning, and practice slips "twixt cup and lip". , 2009, American journal of preventive medicine.

[18]  M. Reed Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[19]  B. Kiteme,et al.  Researchers' roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal , 2010 .

[20]  D. King,et al.  Māori environmental knowledge and natural hazards in Aotearoa‐New Zealand , 2007 .

[21]  Peter Weingart The Social Assessment of Science, or the De-Institutionalization of the Scientific Profession* , 1982 .

[22]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .

[23]  Maryse M.H. Chappin,et al.  Balancing divergence and convergence in transdisciplinary research teams , 2014 .

[24]  Paul Burger,et al.  Disentangling Transdisciplinarity: An Analysis of Knowledge Integration in Problem-Oriented Research , 2007 .

[25]  Katie Meehan,et al.  Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative , 2015 .

[26]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[27]  Sabine Maasen,et al.  Transdisciplinarity: a new mode of governing science? , 2006 .

[28]  Thomas Thaler,et al.  Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management - A question of roles and power: Lessons from England , 2016 .

[29]  J. Handmer,et al.  A Typology of Resilience: Rethinking Institutions for Sustainable Development , 1996 .

[30]  Fern Wickson,et al.  Transdisciplinarity: Context, contradictions and capacity , 2008 .

[31]  W. Mauser,et al.  Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability , 2013 .

[32]  Pim Martens,et al.  Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges , 2012, Sustainability Science.

[33]  C. Pohl,et al.  Principles for designing transdisciplinary research : proposed by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences , 2007 .

[34]  C. Pohl,et al.  The Emergence of Transdisciplinarity as a Form of Research , 2008 .

[35]  Jennie C. Stephens,et al.  Diverse Perceptions of Stakeholder Engagement within an Environmental Modeling Research Team , 2013, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences.

[36]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Sustainability Science , 2019, Critical Skills for Environmental Professionals.

[37]  Christine J. Kirchhoff,et al.  Narrowing the climate information usability gap , 2012 .

[38]  G. Tress,et al.  Clarifying Integrative Research Concepts in Landscape Ecology , 2005, Landscape Ecology.

[39]  David Johnston,et al.  Towards disaster resilience: A scenario-based approach to co-producing and integrating hazard and risk knowledge , 2015 .

[40]  C. Pohl What is progress in transdisciplinary research , 2011 .

[41]  M. Steen-Adams,et al.  Professional development of interdisciplinary environmental scholars , 2011 .

[42]  B. Truffer,et al.  From Knowledge Co-production to Transdisciplinary Research: Lessons from the Quest to Produce Socially Robust Knowledge , 2015 .

[43]  S. Dessai,et al.  Actionable Knowledge for Environmental Decision Making: Broadening the Usability of Climate Science , 2013 .

[44]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[45]  J. Mittelstrass,et al.  What is transdisciplinarity ? , 2003 .

[46]  S. Rist,et al.  Scientists’ situated knowledge: Strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity , 2015 .

[47]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  The emergence of post-normal science , 1993 .

[48]  M. Polk Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving , 2015 .

[49]  Thomas M. Wilson,et al.  Research Engagement after Disasters: Research Coordination before, during, and after the 2011–2012 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, New Zealand , 2016 .

[50]  T. Dedeurwaerdere,et al.  A Pragmatist Approach to Transdisciplinarity in Sustainability Research: From Complex Systems Theory to Reflexive Science , 2015 .

[51]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[52]  Matthias Bergmann,et al.  Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization , 2012 .

[53]  Ken Gledhill,et al.  Evolution of the 2010–2012 Canterbury earthquake sequence , 2012 .