TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH,
SUSTAINABILITY, AND SOCIAL
TRANSFORMATION
This book addresses the gap in the existing literature on the governance of
transdisciplinary research partnerships in transformational sustainability research by
exploring the governance of knowledge co production in coupled socio ecological
system dynamics.
Multiple social and ecological crises raise new cross sectoral research questions
that call for an evolution in contemporary science in the direction of society wide
knowledge co production on sustainability transformations of interdependent social
and ecological systems. This book proposes a new approach to this based on enabling
capacities for collaboration among scientifc researchers and societal actors with
diverse values, perspectives, and research interests. By drawing upon the thriving
literature on the conditions for community and multistakeholder driven collective
action, the analysis sheds new light on the governance arrangements for organizing
so called transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainability. This book identifes
robust conditions that lead to efective collaborative research with societal actors and
digs deeper into capacity building for partnership research through fostering social
learning on sustainability values among research partners and organizing training and
knowledge exchange at institutions of higher education.
The book proposes solutions for addressing collective action challenges in
transdisciplinary partnerships in an accessible and broadly interdisciplinary manner
to a large audience of sustainability scholars and practitioners. It will be of interest
to students and researchers in the felds of sustainable development, social ecological
transitions, and science policy, while also being a useful resource for engineers, QSE
managers, and policymakers.
Tom Dedeurwaerdere is Professor of the Theory of Governance and Philosophy of Science
at the Université catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), Louvain la Neuve, Belgium. He
has extensively published in scholarly journals on the organization of scientifc research
commons and collective action for sustainability transformations. His previous books
include Social Innovation in the Service of Social and Ecological Transformation: The
Rise of the Enabling State (with Olivier de Schutter, 2022), Governing Digitally Integrated
Genetic Resources, Data, and Literature: Global Intellectual Property Strategies for a
Redesigned Microbial Research Commons (with Jerome H. Reichman and Paul F. Uhlir,
2016) and Sustainability Science for Strong Sustainability (2014).
Routledge Studies in Sustainability
Rural Governance in the UK
Towards a Sustainable and Equitable Society
Edited by Adrienne Attorp, Sean Heron and Ruth McAreavey
The Environmental Impact of Cities
Death by Democracy and Capitalism
Fabricio Chicca, Brenda Vale and Robert Vale
Reimagining Labour for a Sustainable Future
Alison E. Vogelaar and Poulomi Dasgupta
Waste and Discards in the Asia Pacific Region
Social and Cultural Perspectives
Edited by Viktor Pál and Iris Borowy
Digital Innovations for a Circular Plastic Economy in Africa
Edited by Muyiwa Oyinlola and Oluwaseun Kolade
Critical Sustainability Sciences
Intercultural and Emancipatory Perspectives
Edited by Stephan Rist, Patrick Bottazzi and Johanna Jacobi
Transdisciplinary Research, Sustainability, and Social Transformation
Governance and Knowledge Co Production
Tom Dedeurwaerdere
For more information on this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge Studies in
Sustainability/book series/RSSTY
TRANSDISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH,
SUSTAINABILITY,
AND SOCIAL
TRANSFORMATION
Governance and Knowledge
Co-Production
Tom Dedeurwaerdere
Designed cover image: © Getty Images
First published 2024
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2024 Tom Dedeurwaerdere
The right of Tom Dedeurwaerdere to be identifed as author of this work has
been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis.com, has
been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial
NoDerivatives (CC BY NC ND) 4.0 International license. Funded by Université
Catholique de Louvain.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent
to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Dedeurwaerdere, Tom, author.
Title: Transdisciplinary research, sustainability, and social transformation :
governance and knowledge co production / Tom Dedeurwaerdere.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifers: LCCN 2023036189 (print) | LCCN 2023036190 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781032624273 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032624242 (paperback) |
ISBN 9781032624297 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Social change. | Social action. | Community development. |
Political participation.
Classifcation: LCC HM831 .D43 2023 (print) | LCC HM831 (ebook) |
DDC 303.44—dc23/eng/20230901
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023036189
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023036190
ISBN: 978 1 032 62427 3 (hbk)
ISBN: 978 1 032 62424 2 (pbk)
ISBN: 978 1 032 62429 7 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781032624297
To Brice, Mathilde and Samuel,
for their love and inspiration,
may they see the timely advance of
pathways to just and sustainable futures
CONTENTS
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgments
1
x
xi
xii
Introduction
1
Transdisciplinary research partnerships for environmental
justice and citizenship within planetary boundaries
5
1.1 Organizing research on integrated social and
ecological systems 8
1.2 The promises of transdisciplinary sustainability
research 10
1.3 Addressing governance challenges in partnerships
between scientifc researchers and societal actors 16
2
Overcoming collective action failures in knowledge
co production practices
2.1 Governance failures in transdisciplinary research 27
2.2 Theoretical building blocks from the multilevel approach to governing scientifc research
commons 33
2.3 Promoting synergies among various styles of
transdisciplinary research practice 40
24
viii Contents
3
Generating actionable knowledge outputs through
collaborative research co design
49
3.1 Usable knowledge production on sustainability
transformations 50
3.2 Collaborative research co-design across
technological, socioeconomic, and cultural levers of
sustainability transformations 61
3.3 A pragmatist constructivist approach to knowledge
co-production 88
4
Social learning among actors with incommensurable
value perspectives on sustainability transformations
100
4.1 Building common perspectives for research
collaboration in highly diverse societal value
settings 102
4.2 Amartya Sen’s deliberative approach to social choice
with incommensurable societal values 104
4.3 Illustrating the various types of social learning in
transdisciplinary research practices 108
4.4 Fostering critical engagement across diferences 117
5
Developing integrated boundary crossing organizational
networks
123
5.1 From disciplinary divisions and departments to
fexible network organizations 124
5.2 Embedding knowledge co-production and
social learning in the institutional enabling of
transdisciplinary research 129
5.3 Implementing integrated boundary-crossing
networks for teaching, knowledge exchange, and
team formation 131
5.4 New management functions for boundary-crossing
network integration 138
6
Implementing knowledge co production on sustainability
transformations in academia and beyond
144
Conclusion
153
Contents ix
Annex 1: Glossary of key conceptual terms
Annex 2: Case study list
Annex 3: Coding scales
Index
160
167
176
179
FIGURES
1.1
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.1
5.1
5.2
Comparison of key features of interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary research
Research styles within transdisciplinary research contributing
to sustainability transformations
Key conditions for governing collective action in each of the
three styles of transdisciplinary research practice
Research co design among researchers in multi method
disciplinary research
Research co design among researchers in
interdisciplinary research
Research co design between researchers and societal actors
in transdisciplinary research
Core variables of the comparative case study design of
transdisciplinary research projects
Aggregate results of the coding of the case studies of
transdisciplinary sustainability research
Examples of types of transdisciplinary research in the case
study sample, with varying degrees of strength of co design,
co management and social learning
Process standards for authentic deliberation in heterogeneous
actor networks
Ideal types of organizational forms for dealing with diferent
types of task environments
Co produced transdisciplinary research enabling functions
13
41
43
52
52
54
55
59
61
119
125
130
TABLES
1.1
1.2
Illustration of sustainability research topics addressing
situations with diferent degrees of socio ecological
interdependency and heterogeneity of societal value perspectives
Categories of sustainability problems typically
addressed through disciplinary, multi disciplinary, and
transdisciplinary research
15
17
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The project for this book began as a side activity of a starting grant of the
European Research Council (ERC) in 2013. With a group of research fel
lows, we started to refect on the integration of knowledge from academic
research with knowledge from societal actors involved in real world sustain
ability transformations. The journal publication from this side activity, with
Florin Popa and Mathieu Guillermin, sparked the interest of many societal
actors and colleagues at the university and led us into a much deeper investi
gation into the broad feld of transdisciplinary sustainability research, which
is the topic of this book.
Since then, I have had the pleasure of discussing these issues with the large
community of scholars and societal actors who have made seminal contribu
tions over the last three decades in trying to understand the many challenges
to overcome in the building of research partnerships for transformational
sustainability research.
The debts incurred in writing this book therefore started to accumulate
well before the actual writing. A major impetus for the work is the personal
experience of facing knowledge co production challenges in large scale fun
damental research programs based on partnerships between researchers and
societal actors. This personal experience—and the possibility for trial and
error learning in this relatively young feld—would not have been possible
without being part of the research environment at the Centre for Philosophy
of Law, Université catholique de Louvain. I take this opportunity to thank
the co directors of the Centre, Jacques Lenoble—now emeritus—and
Marc Maesschalck, for their confdence and pathbreaking work in under
standing the conditions of critical and transformational partnership based
research. Two prominent scholars of the digital knowledge commons, Jerome
Acknowledgments
xiii
Reichman and Paul Uhlir, directly participated in several of these collabora
tive research projects. Their insights and their important role in connect
ing high profle research on global knowledge commons to the international
negotiations around the implementation of the Access and Beneft Sharing
provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity was enormously helpful
in the present endeavor. I also had the incredible chance to co direct many of
the research projects on social innovation for social and ecological transition
with my colleague at the Centre for Philosophy of Law, Olivier De Schutter. I
would like to thank him for this long standing collaboration and the fruitful
exchanges that contributed to many of the ideas on knowledge co produc
tion with societal actors developed in this book.
Further, being hosted, in 2018 and 2019, by many colleagues during my
“video interviews” trip on transdisciplinary research throughout Europe
was a life changing experience, which provided many of the examples dis
cussed and analyzed in the book (videos available at www.lptransition.be/td).
A warm thanks for the many stimulating discussions, during these project
visits, on innovative approaches to implementing transdisciplinarity part
nership research in practice: Michael Staufacher and Chistian Pohl at the
ETH Zürich, Switzerland; Adrian Ely at the University of Sussex, United
Kingdom; Ariane König at the University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg;
Derk Loorbach at the University of Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Anna
Kramers at the KTH, Sweden; Uwe Schneidewind at the Wuppertal Institute
for Climate, Environment and Energy, Germany; Simon De Muynck at the
Centre d’écologie urbaine, Belgium; Sandra Lavorel at the University of
Grenoble, France; Mathieu Berger at the UCLouvain, Belgium; Pierre Stassart
at the Université de Liège, Belgium; Fabienne Barataud at INRAE Mirecourt,
France; and all the other colleagues I met during these research visits.
The various versions of the manuscript benefted greatly from many dis
cussions and comments, which made for an improved manuscript. In particu
lar, I gratefully acknowledge the feedback on earlier drafts and the assistance
with cross checking the case studies on transdisciplinary research described in
the book by many fellow researchers: Agathe Osinski, Selim Louaf, Michael
Madison, Laurent Hazard, Gill Ainsworth, Brendan Coolsaet, Bianca Vienni
Baptista, Stéphane Ginestet, Merritt Polk, Flurina Schneider, Audrey Podann,
Suzanne Smit Luyt, and Joseph Maxwell. My gratitude is also due to Caroline
Van Schendel for her help with editing the manuscript.
I certainly forgot some of the colleagues and fellow travelers on the jour
ney who contributed to the book; let me thank them here. Finally, many gaps
and mistakes might remain, in spite of all this support, and I take full respon
sibility for these. And, of course, I want to thank my family, Brice, Mathilde,
Samuel, and Anne Sophie, who made it all so much more meaningful and
enjoyable.
INTRODUCTION
The current crisis of the resource intensive development model has had a
major impact on how human societies envision sustainable and global
futures. In particular, the convergence of multiple social and ecological cri
ses in the frst decades of the new millennium raises new challenges that
necessitate an evolution in our modes of living, a deepening of democratic
decision making processes, and society wide knowledge mobilization to fos
ter long term social and ecological sustainability. In this context, citizens,
entrepreneurs, and public officials place great hope in collaborative research
and innovation to improve our comprehension of scientifcally credible and
socially desirable sustainability transformations.
Much transformative research has addressed specifc sustainability issues
and proposed solutions for specifc actors. However, many of the problems
we face today defy settlement because they are characterized by very hetero
geneous and boundless problem features (Polk, 2014). For this reason, they
are often referred to as “wicked” (Rittel and Webber, 1973). They involve
multiple and often strongly contested societal values, are causally complex,
and engage actors from multiple sectors and societal spheres of activity
(Harris et al., 2010; Polk, 2015).
These diferent features of wicked problems suggest that the traditional
division of labor between scientifc and societal actors’ expertise in societal
responses to the crisis is insufficient to address complex sustainability prob
lems (Haasnoot et al., 2013). In particular, wicked problem situations have
led to a set of research questions on sustainability challenges that cannot be
addressed through conventional multidisciplinary and academic expert led
only approaches.
DOI: 10.4324/9781032624297 1
This chapter has been made available under a CC BY NC ND 4.0 international license.
2
Introduction
A study directed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) on “Addressing Societal Challenges” (OECD, 2020)
stated that engaging societal actors across the boundaries of science and
practice will be crucial to addressing urgent social and ecological challenges.
As highlighted in the report, the impacts of global warming, biodiversity loss,
natural disasters, economic migration, and health pandemics are manifested
at multiple scales and require both technological and social innovations”
(ibid, p. 9). To achieve such innovations, “diferent scientifc disciplines,
including natural and social sciences and humanities need to work together
and fully engage other public and private sector actors, including policy
makers” (ibid).
In response to these new societal demands for collaborative research and
social innovation, scientifc researchers and societal actors have initiated
diferent forms of knowledge co production and partnerships for interdisci
plinary socio ecological research in all felds of sustainability, in both basic
and applied research. However, less efort has been made to understand the
institutional conditions for moving beyond the myriad of these incipient and
piecemeal eforts toward a more systematic reform of social practices and
institutional rules within the modern science fabric. Nevertheless, to address
the scale and urgency of contemporary socio ecological challenges, research
ers, societal actors, and science officials underline the need for such system
atic reform.
Therefore, the discussion in this book proposes taking a fresh look at the
collective action challenges involved in building large scale boundary crossing
interdisciplinary research collaborations among researchers and societal
actors—including citizens, members of associations, teachers, entrepreneurs,
public officials, and policymakers. These collaborative research practices
are described in scholarly literature under the umbrella of “transdisciplinary
research.” Indeed, transdisciplinary research has been promoted as a novel
approach to produce societally relevant, value laden, and scientifcally robust
knowledge on sustainability transformations that transcends established
boundaries among scientifc disciplines and between science and society.
The objective of the investigation of transdisciplinary research in this book
is to identify the appropriate mix of governance mechanisms for organiz
ing knowledge co production processes that contribute to the generation of
actionable knowledge outputs in real world sustainability transformations.
Two core lessons emerged from our inquiry into the governance challenges.
First, to generate actionable knowledge outputs, researchers and societal
actors must look beyond knowledge integration and actively co design
research questions, frameworks, and approaches. Second, to build capaci
ties for research co design in transdisciplinary research, funders and research
managers must build a fexible, polycentric institutional organizational
environment for boundary crossing knowledge exchange, the acquisition of
Introduction
3
competencies for knowledge co production beyond academia, and transdis
ciplinary team formation.
By addressing the issue of governance of knowledge co production in
transformational sustainability research through the lens of the theory of col
lective action, our analysis intends to add value to the existing literature both
theoretically and practically. First, at the level of tools for theoretical analy
sis, this book presents an innovative framework for successfully navigating
collective action challenges in boundary crossing collaborations, based on
insights from the literature on the governance of knowledge commons. This
framework is introduced by discussing various types of collective action fail
ures encountered in building partnerships between scientifc researchers and
societal actors involved in value laden and multifaceted sustainability trans
formations. To highlight the signifcance of institutional rules for knowledge
co production in overcoming these collective action failures, the framework
is applied to various institutional rules for organizing research co design,
social learning on sustainability values, and the institutional enabling of
boundary crossing collaboration.
Second, to examine the practical implementation challenges of these collec
tive action arrangements, this study adopts a bottom up empirical approach.
Through a comparative assessment of the process design of transdisciplinary
research in a sample of 44 projects, we analyze the conditions for the success
ful co production of usable knowledge on value laden socio ecological trans
formations. This sample is constructed through a “most diferent” case study
selection, with the view to encompassing a broad diversity of research tradi
tions ranging from technological and biophysical research to socioeconomic
and sociocultural research approaches. This comparative assessment aims to
identify robust combinations of conditions that lead to efective collaborative
research with societal actors. Subsequently, the analysis delves deeper into
capacity building for partnership research through fostering social learning
about sustainability values among research partners and organizing transdis
ciplinary training and knowledge exchanges at higher education institutions.
To present the fndings of the analysis, various governance mechanisms
are illustrated with a wealth of in depth case studies from various thematic
areas of sustainability transformations. The overall aim is to present col
lective action challenges in transdisciplinary research in an accessible and
broadly interdisciplinary manner to a large audience of sustainability schol
ars and practitioners. Indeed, writing this book would not have been possible
without the intensive experimentation and collective learning on transdis
ciplinary research by a growing community of societal actors and scholars
from all scientifc disciplines and professional backgrounds over the last
three decades. The upscaling of transdisciplinary research on society wide
sustainability transformations is therefore likely to beneft from the mutual
learning that occurs between researchers and societal actors across all these
4
Introduction
disciplinary backgrounds and across diferent types of science and society
interfaces. This book also aims to invite its readers to embark on that mutual
learning journey with transdisciplinary scholars and practitioners.
References
Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J. H., Walker, W. E. and ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adap
tive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain
world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485–498.
Harris, J., Brown, V. A. and Russell, J. (Eds.). (2010). Tackling wicked problems:
Through the transdisciplinary imagination. Thames: Taylor and Francis.
OECD. (2020). Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research. OECD
Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 88, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Polk, M. (2014). Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: A critical exploration
of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solv
ing. Sustainability Science, 9, 439–451.
Polk, M. (2015). Transdisciplinary co production: Designing and testing a transdis
ciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures, 65, 110–122.
Rittel, H. W. and Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.
Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
1
TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
PARTNERSHIPS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE AND CITIZENSHIP WITHIN
PLANETARY BOUNDARIES
The increase in human knowledge and advances in technological innova
tion, along with the expansion of globally integrated economic activities,
have allowed advanced industrial societies to evolve into mass consumption
societies during the second half of the 20th century (Matsuyama, 2002).
This transformation, especially strong during the so called golden 1960s,
yielded considerable growth in material well being and was accompanied by
improved social welfare provisions in many countries worldwide. In the fol
lowing decades, emerging and developing economies adopted many features
of this development model (Stearns, 2006).
This model is now in crisis. As extensively documented by researchers and
international organizations, the current path of resource intensive growth is
rapidly exhausting non renewable resources and already disrupting global
life supporting processes on the planet, such as the global carbon cycle or
the ecosystems serving as habitats for many endangered species (Rockström
et al., 2009). Further, the current development model raises important global
and local social equity issues as the average per capita resource use of the
people living in the advanced economies cannot be generalized to the entire
world population without further aggravating the ecological crisis (Chancel
and Piketty, 2015). Moreover, multi scale and multi sectoral sustainability
problems raise new governance challenges that call for new forms of multi
stakeholder collective action at local, regional, and global scales (Jordan
et al., 2015; Dorsch and Flachsland, 2017).
Some interdependencies in socio-ecological systems*1 are not new fea
tures of human societies. Historical agro pastoral land use practices directly
impacted many of the ecosystems we know today. Further, natural resources
have been exploited on a large scale by all major empires (Costanza et al.,
DOI: 10.4324/9781032624297 2
This chapter has been made available under a CC BY NC ND 4.0 international license.
6
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
2007). However, the current planetary challenges seem to dwarf these histori
cal examples of socio ecological interdependencies by the scale of the impacts,
the speed of the process, the scope of the potential risks, and the diversity of
stakeholders involved and impacted from various sectors of human activity
(Aarts and Drenthen, 2020). Moreover, the current interaction path between
the natural dynamics of planetary ecosystems and the dynamics of social
systems has produced irreversible exhaustion of natural resources and living
organisms and a lock in of socio ecological systems in development paths
that further promote the overexploitation of the stock of exhaustible nature
resources (Norgaard, 1984).
Although necessary in the short term, piecemeal adaptations to address
the undesirable consequences of the development model are likely to be insuf
fcient to address the large scale and society wide interdependencies between
social and ecological systems. As shown in many models of resource use,
if human beings wish to live within safe planetary boundaries now and for
future generations, human societies must transform society wide systems of
production and consumption, including the felds of energy, housing, mobil
ity, and agrifood production, among others (Falk et al., 2020).
In response to this challenge of society wide sustainability transforma
tions, researchers, social movements, social entrepreneurs, and policymakers
have developed a broad array of new approaches to human progress and
well being around an alternative narrative of living within planetary bound
aries, ecological justice, and environmental citizenship (Petit et al., 2022).
These three societal value frameworks aim to address social and ecological
sustainability* challenges in a just and socially legitimate manner.
First, the mobilization around planetary boundaries acknowledges the
need for urgent action to maintain the functioning of basic life supporting
systems and processes on Earth (Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Folke et al.,
2002; Rockström et al., 2009; du Plessis, 2012). This call for action is moti
vated by the awareness of potential risks generated by major system insta
bilities and the wish to preserve the diversity of human and non human life
forms and social practices that co evolved with and depended on the plan
etary processes (Larrère, 1997, pp. 83–84).
Second, the overall objective of environmental justice regards the need to
address the specifc social justice issues that arise in interdependent socio
ecological systems (Larrère and Larrère, 2014, p. 320). Indeed, the growth
in intensity and scale of socio ecological interactions has important conse
quences for social justice and equity. The emergence of new ecological and
technological risks induces distributional issues between those who endure
the consequences of these risks and those who are not impacted or who can
pay for adaptation measures. Such distributional issues also involve the ques
tion of who benefts from the new opportunities created by sustainability
transformations. In short, societies face an array of choices to make between
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
7
various sustainability transformation pathways to overcome the current cri
ses, with diferent costs and benefts for diferent social groups (UN, 2019).
More generally, environmental justice scholars highlight three important
justice related concerns for sustainability transformations (Fraser, 2009;
Schlosberg, 2013; Schlosberg et al., 2019; Coolsaet, 2016, 2020). They are
often labeled in shorthand as the three concerns of “distribution, process, and
recognition.” They relate to individual distributive concerns based on the cri
teria of socioeconomic justice (distribution), concerns over the fairness of the
process of collective decision making (process), and recognition of the contri
bution of all concerned sociocultural groups to the process of change (recogni
tion). Further, environmental justice scholars also highlight power issues as an
important cross cutting category (Schlosberg, 2013). As will be seen in the case
studies on sustainability research, addressing power asymmetries in knowledge
co production processes is crucial to promoting just sustainability solutions
and the efective involvement of disenfranchised social groups in knowledge
production on desirable and feasible sustainability transformations.
Third, promoting environmental citizenship addresses innovations toward
forms of collaborative governance and collective decision making that are
needed to advance the objectives of sustainable development within Earth’s
planetary boundaries and in accordance with environmental justice (Dobson,
2007). Indeed, the current crisis involves a broad area of collective goods,
such as human life supporting climate, air quality, biodiversity, or sustain
able management of plant and crop diseases, that require collective action
beyond the conventional nation state, involving societal actors at various
scales and from highly diverse sectors of activity.
This third core value framework partially overlaps with the second, as it
underlines the importance of building capacities for meaningful participation
of all parties beyond merely formal process guarantees for inclusive govern
ance of all parties in societal transformations (Arnstein, 1969). However, the
framework of environmental citizenship emphasizes the role of participation
beyond situations of environmental injustice and stresses the importance of
new forms of participation by citizens and stakeholders in all forms of public
and private collective action that are required to address the current sustaina
bility crises in an efective manner (De Schutter and Dedeurwaerdere, 2022).
As this short overview shows, the current crisis of the resource intensive
growth model has major impacts on the relationship between the evolution
of human societies and the various ecological and natural resource systems
on Earth. The unprecedented scope of social and ecological interdependen
cies, if left on an unsustainable trajectory, can have disastrous consequences
for the future survival of humankind on Earth. In response, societal actors
and policymakers actively elaborate new value frameworks to envision a sus
tainable and socially just future within planetary boundaries, which, how
ever, remain under intense social debate.
8
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
In this context, there is an urgent need to provide scientifcally credible
and socially legitimate perspectives on the feasible and desirable sustain
ability transformations required to address the crisis (UN, 2019). As will
be argued in this introductory chapter, conventional specialized disciplinary
science and expert led advice are largely insufficient in providing the body
of usable knowledge—applied and basic—needed to accelerate the incipient
societal transformations toward a sustainable evolution of natural and social
systems. Indeed, the achievement of sustainable human development objec
tives in interdependent social and ecological systems requires new modes of
knowledge generation. These new modes must cross the boundaries of vari
ous disciplines to produce an improved understanding of the complex social
and ecological interdependencies. Moreover, they must involve the concerned
societal actors and researchers in mutual learning on the overall sustainabil
ity values that can guide human action in various specifc societal transfor
mation pathways.
1.1 Organizing research on integrated social and
ecological systems
Over the last three decades, science policy officials and sustainability
researchers have developed major new modalities for organizing scientifc
research (Kates, 2011). These new modes of knowledge mobilization aim to
overcome the failures of conventional disciplinary research for addressing
cross sectoral and value laden sustainability issues. Two major features char
acterize this emerging landscape of scientifc research in support of sustain
ability research: (1) an integrated* interdisciplinary approach encompassing
social and ecological system dimensions and (2) a partnership approach
based on knowledge co-production* and social learning* among scientifc
researchers and societal actors. The end goal of this combination of inter
disciplinary and partnership approaches is the production of knowledge on
specifc sustainability transformations that is scientifcally credible, socially
legitimate, and socially relevant.
First, as per many scholars, the mere aggregation of specialized disciplinary
expertise is insufficient to provide usable knowledge on sustainability trans
formations (Fernandes and Philippi, 2017). However, such interdisciplinary
approaches do not constitute a new kind of “interdisciplinary discipline.”
Rather, integrated interdisciplinary approaches to interdependent social
and ecological systems require combining perspectives that mobilize radi
cally heterogeneous epistemological, conceptual, and empirical perspectives
(Norgaard, 1989; Goddard et al., 2019). Therefore, for each specifc transfor
mation pathway, researchers must actively collaborate to integrate heteroge
neous perspectives into common research frameworks (Ostrom, 2007).
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
9
Second, the analysis of the integrated socio ecological systems cannot be
separated from the value related discussions on the core sustainability values
regarding environmental sustainability, justice, and citizenship (Brandt et al.,
2013; Dedeurwaerdere, 2014). Indeed, in interdependent social and ecologi
cal system dynamics, the analysis of the biophysical, socioeconomic, and
sociocultural levers of societal transformations cannot be conducted inde
pendently of a discussion on value related considerations, which co defne
the basic orientations of the sustainability transformations of these systems.
One set of examples that will be further illustrated in this book relates to
the research on the thresholds for sustainable resource use. Defning such
thresholds involves biophysical analysis, socioeconomic considerations, and
value related positions in environmental or social ethics. For instance, how
much territory do we reserve for pristine nature, which plays an important
role in rare species protection? How much territory do we dedicate to carbon
capture in forests or wetlands relative to other possible land use purposes?
Further, how do we consider the diverse societal actors’ perspectives on social
justice when analyzing various sustainable practices of natural resource use
with diferent distributional impacts?
In practice, the discussions on the overall orientation of sustainability
transformations involve a set of heterogeneous societal values or societal val
ues that remain under intense debate. Therefore, reliable scientifc knowledge
production on the transformation pathways depends on involving societal
actors in clarifying the various values at stake in framing a specifc feld of
sustainability transformations.
The transgression of the conventional boundaries of academic disciplinary
and interdisciplinary science—by integrating knowledge from societal actors in
the research process—has three important purposes in the context of sustain
ability research (see Pohl et al., 2021). First, this collaboration with societal
actors aims to construct a more integrative and complete approach to sustain
ability transformations by integrating empirical and analytic knowledge from
scientifc research with experiential knowledge on specifc feasible and desirable
pathways from societal actors. Second, the partnership with societal actors has
a transformational purpose by producing usable knowledge directly related to
the social possibilities of change in specifc interdependent social and ecological
systems. Third, the partnership also has a critical dimension. Indeed, whenever
societal or scientifc debates over sustainability value are fraught with distorted
communication processes, given rent seeking or power imbalances, a critical
approach is needed to deconstruct dominant structures of knowledge that per
petuate unsustainable development paths. This critical aspect of the knowledge
integration from societal actors calls for appropriate governance mechanisms
for the collaborative practice within the research partnerships, which is at the
heart of the analysis of sustainability research in this book.
10
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
As will be illustrated through the various case studies, to improve our
understanding of feasible and desirable possibilities of change, societal actors
and scientists embarked on innovative boundary crossing research endeav
ors that combined interdisciplinary knowledge integration and collaborative
research partnerships. Over the last three decades at least, these approaches
have been designated more generally under the umbrella of transdisciplinary
sustainability research* (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008). The latter designates
basic and applied sustainability research practices based on knowledge co
production among researchers from various scientifc disciplines (for the
interdisciplinary analysis of interdependent socio ecological systems) and
knowledge co production among scientifc researchers and societal actors
(the partnership research aspect).
In this context, some transdisciplinary research approaches may give the
impression that the mobilization of societal actors for improved contextual
information gathering is sufficient to induce the efective production of usable
knowledge on sustainability transformations. However, as discussed at length
in this book, such a focus on knowledge integration, although an impor
tant aspect, is insufficient to successfully organize transdisciplinary research.
The organization of knowledge co production in transdisciplinary research
requires dedicated governance mechanisms to overcome a set of hurdles that
can hamper collaboration among research partners. Major potential hurdles
to be discussed include the lack of involvement in co constructing common
frameworks and the failures in mutual learning on socially legitimate and
relevant sustainability values. To introduce these issues, this chapter further
presents the sustainability problems that motivate transdisciplinary sustain
ability research, introduces the key components of the transdisciplinary
research process, and gives a short overview of the various book chapters.
1.2 The promises of transdisciplinary sustainability research
Throughout human history, science has played a key role in fostering pro
gress in human well being. One paradigmatic case is the contribution of the
oretical knowledge in mathematics, physics, and biology to improvements in
many areas of human activity, to cite just one well known feld of research
with large scale impacts. For instance, ancient knowledge of mathematics
and physics played a key role in developing public infrastructure to channel
drinking water into cities and organize complex irrigation systems in ancient
civilizations from China and India to the Middle East and Europe (Swetz,
1979; Koutsoyiannis and Angelakis, 2003). In the 19th century, the control
of many infectious diseases became possible with the pioneering work of
Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur on the microbial theory of disease (Satcher,
1995). In the 1970s, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research set up a scientifc crop breeding program in collaboration with
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
11
research centers throughout the world, which majorly contributed to reduc
ing global hunger through the huge increase in crop yields of cereals such as
rice, wheat, and maize (Byerlee and Dubin, 2009).
Scholars document similar broad impacts of science on progress in human
well being throughout history, ranging from the biophysical sciences to the
social sciences and humanities (Mokyr, 2011). In the process, the feld of sci
ence evolved from operating within small networks of well connected indi
viduals to large scale collective endeavors (Ravetz, 2006). Especially after the
Second World War, public sector science underwent a rapid transformation,
evolving toward so called big science, organized around large scale research
consortia that address various societal missions through publicly funded
research (Nelson, 1993; Stokes, 1997; Mazzucato, 2018).
The reform of the science fabric by setting up large scale expert driven
research consortia by national and international governments, however, falls
short of addressing the knowledge needs for cross sectoral and multistake
holder sustainability issues. Indeed, except for specifc research niches, post
war innovations in multi disciplinary and interdisciplinary research consortia
remain characterized by functional autonomy from society, are led by inde
pendent scientists, and are largely self governing in their scientifc priorities,
their procedures for information gathering, and the quality assurance of the
produced knowledge (Kitcher, 2011). Even though science policy increas
ingly requires democratic accountability and proof of the societal relevance
of functionally autonomous, so called ivory tower science, overall, the strict
division of labor between scientifc expertise and societal actors’ knowledge
remains strong. In particular, the design of the scientifc methods, the fram
ing of the research approaches, and the organization of research processes
remain outside of the remit of collaboration with societal actors (ibid).
Among the noted large scale science eforts is the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). This Panel organizes the writing of a report in
intervals of approximately six years with a community of over 700 scien
tists (for the 2021–2023 sixth assessment report) to deliver state of the art
knowledge on climate change to policymakers. Despite being an authori
tative and essential resource for decision making on climate change, IPCC
reports remain largely insufficient to guide specifc societal transformations
to address climate change. The latter is mainly because of the strong focus on
the biophysical basis and impacts of climate change in the report (Bjurström
and Polk, 2011). Indeed, rather than investigating in depth the various inter
dependencies between biophysical, socioeconomic, and sociocultural drives
for reaching efective climate change adaptation and mitigation, the main
purpose of the report is to map the biophysical trends and discuss the policy
targets for mitigation and adaptation action. Nevertheless, without inte
grated knowledge on specifc feasible, socially relevant, and legitimate sus
tainability transformation pathways, such multi disciplinary expert reports
12 Transdisciplinary research partnerships
are unlikely to provide the necessary guidance to address the current social
and ecological crises.
As noted, the emergence of new cross sectoral research questions on sus
tainability transformations of interdependent social and ecological systems
calls for the next stage in the contemporary science evolution in the direc
tion of transdisciplinary knowledge co production. Relative to functionally
autonomous “ivory tower” science, transdisciplinary research involves soci
etal actors in research partnerships with scientifc researchers in a much more
encompassing way.
Scholars have provided a more specifc defnition of the key components
of transdisciplinary research projects. While multi disciplinarity has been
described as the mere juxtaposition of disciplinary perspectives, transdisci
plinarity goes a step further (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008), in particular by
1 integrating information from diferent disciplines and types of knowledge
(from scientifc researchers and societal actors) to address a common spe
cifc problem and research question through a jointly constructed frame
work and
2 organizing a partnership between researchers and societal actors for co
managing the knowledge integration process and organizing social learn
ing on the diversity of societal values
In short, transdisciplinary research is based on interdisciplinary knowledge
integration and organizing knowledge co production partnerships between
researchers and societal actors, as illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Over the last decades, to navigate this emerging landscape of multi disci
plinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research approaches, national
and international research agencies have organized various international
meetings with science and stakeholder communities. First, as per a state of
the art report based on a workshop organized by the United States National
Academies of Sciences, interdisciplinarity is a research, education, and prob
lem solving mode that integrates methods, tools, concepts, and theories from
one or more disciplines to address common problems (National Academy of
Sciences, 2005, p. 306). According to the report, the concept of interdisci
plinary research emerged in the early 20th century in response to the need
to address complex problems or develop comprehensive general views of a
problem area. As underlined by Klein (2010), the scope varies from narrow
interdisciplinarity, involving disciplines with compatible methods and epis
temologies (e.g., physics and molecular biology), to broad interdisciplinarity
that bridges disparate approaches (e.g., combining sociocultural history of
land use practices and biophysical analysis of ecosystem functions).
This form of broad interdisciplinarity is most relevant (Pohl et al., 2021)
to understanding society wide sustainability transformations. Indeed,
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
13
Interdisciplinarity
• Crosses disciplinary boundaries
• Common goal setting
• Integration of disciplines
• Development of integrated knowledge and theory
Disciplinary research participants
Goal of research project
Transdisicplinarity
• Crosses disciplinary and academic/non-academic
boundaries
• Common goal setting
• Integration of disciplines and non-academic participants
• Development of integrated knowledge and theory
among science and society
Disciplinary research participants
Non-academic research participants
Goal of research project
FIGURE 1.1
Comparison of key features of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
research
Figure by the author, based on an adaptation of the ideas developed in Tress et al. (2005).
sustainability transformations require bridging disparate sources of knowl
edge on social and ecological system dynamics to cross boundaries between
various sectoral and often disconnected decision making processes in public
and private organizations, which often address distinct aspects of social and
biophysical systems. This requirement to develop broad interdisciplinarity
research practices is strongly underlined in the frst generation of transdisci
plinary research in the 1970s by scholars such as Jean Piaget, Leo Apostel,
and Erich Jantsch, who focused on the elaboration of overarching syntheses
in specifc domains of reality (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008; Klein, 2010).
The second generation of transdisciplinary research moved the analysis
of socio ecological systems beyond the walls of conventional academic and
expert led interdisciplinary science by involving societal actors and citizens
in knowledge mobilization and social learning on society wide sustainabil
ity transformations (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008). A major historical land
mark event showcasing, for the frst time, the broad international uptake of
this move toward partnership based research approaches to sustainability
issues was the International Transdisciplinary Conference in 2000, organ
ized in Zürich by the Priority Program Environment of the Swiss Academy of
Sciences. This conference gathered over 700 participants from 57 nations to
discuss their success and challenges in conducting transdisciplinary research.
Although this research feld is broad and shaped by various lines of thinking
14
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
and heterogeneous approaches to research, participants widely shared the
concern for transcending disciplinary paradigms and various types of knowl
edge to address real world sustainability problems (ibid, p. 29).
In general, this second generation of transdisciplinary research practices
additionally focused on building partnerships with societal actors to consider
the diversity of legitimate value perspectives on sustainability transforma
tions in the design of the research process. Indeed, the goal of reaching a
socially robust understanding of sustainability transformations requires that
sustainability researchers move from a general interdisciplinary analysis of
all theoretically possible socio ecological dynamics to an analysis of specifc
socio ecological transformation pathways that are socially desirable and sci
entifcally valid. The latter implies the identifcation of the problems that are
considered most relevant by concerned societal actors and the matching of
the research framework to real world social possibilities of change. Hence,
research partners must co construct the research design in a way all partners
consider relevant and socially legitimate.
Accordingly, per the study directed by the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) on “Addressing Societal Challenges”
(OECD, 2020)—referred to in the introduction—transdisciplinarity is
defned as “the integration of academic researchers from unrelated disci
plines and non academic participants in creating new knowledge and the
ory to achieve a common goal, involving the creation of new knowledge
and theory.” According to the study, drawing upon the breadth of scientifc
and non scientifc knowledge domains, such as local and traditional knowl
edge, practitioners’ know how, and cultural norms and values, knowledge
co production aims to supplement and transform scientifc insights. Thus, it
ofers a way to address issues involving diverse societal values being debated.
Further, expanding on existing scientifc evidence and organizing social learn
ing processes can generate more innovative solutions and holistic understand
ing (ibid, p. 9).
Given the importance of the disciplinary organization of research in many
research institutions and universities, science policy officials and research
evaluators may face considerable challenges in situating transdisciplinary
research in the current institutional landscape. In this context, it is impor
tant to highlight some possible misunderstandings. First, some scholars
might tend to equate transdisciplinary research with more applied research.
Nevertheless, the diference between transdisciplinary research and discipli
nary research is not situated in the production of more direct, applicable
research results relative to more theoretical and basic approaches to reality.
On the contrary, transdisciplinary and disciplinary research share basic and
applied research strands (Mittelstrass, 2018, p. 72). Regarding transdiscipli
nary research for sustainability, practices may range from applied knowl
edge co production within an action research setting to more basic strands of
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
15
strategic research, foresight studies, or general theoretical syntheses of com
plex socio ecological interdependencies that cannot be apprehended through
disciplinary or multi disciplinary approaches.
Furthermore, not all situations justify investment in transdisciplinary
research. The choice of multi disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdis
ciplinary research hinges on the type and representation of the research
problem the research partners aim to address (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2006,
pp. 123–124). The latter can be illustrated schematically through the case
of sustainability problems regarding water management in a river basin, as
in Table 1.1. Water management might concern local and isolated problem
features or more encompassing, interdependent socio ecological problem
features. For instance, the inhabitants and users of a river basin may focus
on a set of well defned problems, such as building a bridge over the river or
solving a pollution problem caused by a local actor. Alternatively, they may
be concerned with water management problems in so called river basin con
tracts for addressing various interrelated social demands around biodiversity
protection, recreation, and industrial use of water (Huitema and Meijerink,
2014). Such diferent problem situations have implications for organizing
multi disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary research. Indeed, it
may be that the involved partners prioritize solving some technical problems
related to a well identifed local problem. In such a case, they likely opt for
conducting disciplinary or multi disciplinary research. Conversely, the focus
may be on the problems generated by the dynamics of interdependencies
and value laden controversies in the river basin contract, which are more
adequately addressed through modes of transdisciplinary research.
TABLE 1.1 Illustration of sustainability research topics addressing situations with dif
ferent degrees of socio ecological interdependency and heterogeneity of
societal value perspectives
Research questions related Rather homogeneous
to river basin management societal value perspective
Heterogeneous societal
value perspectives
Various rather independent Research question on
social and ecological
the architecture of a
dynamics
pedestrian bridge to
cross the river
Strongly interdependent
Research on the
social and ecological
adaptation of legal
dynamics
frameworks to new
threats to valuable
biodiversity in the river
basin
Solving a contentious local
river pollution issue
afecting diverse actors
Research on balancing
objectives of recreational
use, industry
development, and
biodiversity in the river
basin
16
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
In this context, Spangenberg (2011) suggests the distinction between sci
ence for incremental sustainability change (technical and disciplinary) and
science of system wide sustainability transformations (interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary). Regarding “science for incremental sustainability
change,” scientifc research aims to bridge technical knowledge gaps that
must be addressed to solve problems within a given sustainability transfor
mation pathway. For such purposes, disciplinary knowledge and methods
are well adapted to provide in depth knowledge of a system component from
a highly specialized perspective on sub system features. In contrast, regard
ing the “science of system wide sustainability transformations,” the research
process is designed to understand the overall dynamics of interaction between
the social and ecological system features in given sustainability transforma
tions. The latter is the specifc object of analysis of transdisciplinary sus
tainability science, as illustrated in the lower right box of Table 1.2. Both
interdisciplinary analyses of coupled socio ecological systems and partner
ships for knowledge co production between societal actors and researchers
are involved in this undertaking.
In general, transdisciplinary sustainability research aims to produce bet
ter knowledge and a better general understanding of sustainability problems
characterized by strong system interdependencies and diverse societal values
that play a role at multiple scales of socio ecological interactions. As is the
case with all scientifc research, such knowledge will be provisional and sub
ject to further refnement. Nevertheless, as the many case studies in this book
show, integrating processes of transdisciplinary knowledge co production in
sustainability research is a key requirement to advance the undertaking of
scientifcally credible and socially robust knowledge production on multi
scale and multistakeholder sustainability challenges.
1.3 Addressing governance challenges in partnerships between
scientific researchers and societal actors
Scholarly discussions on transdisciplinary research have produced a wealth
of research on approaches to knowledge integration among researchers
from various disciplines and societal actors (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008;
Bergmann et al., 2012). Subsequently, with the proliferation of researcher
and social actor partnerships in transdisciplinary sustainability research,
scholars furnished insights into various aspects of knowledge co production
and social learning. However, except for some notable exceptions (e.g., Pohl
et al., 2021), few systematic studies probe the overall institutional design of
knowledge co production in transdisciplinary research.
What is often implicit in this scant regard for governance issues of knowl
edge co production is the assumption that the conventional disciplinary mech
anisms of journal based peer review, community building through scientifc
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
17
TABLE 1.2 Categories of sustainability problems typically addressed through discipli
nary, multi disciplinary, and transdisciplinary research
Application
domains of
sustainability
science
Rather homogeneous societal
value perspective
Heterogeneous societal value
perspectives
Various rather
independent
social and
ecological
dynamics
• Analyze components
of social and ecological
systems and their
interactions
• Well-identified research
problems and purposes
Typically addressed through
disciplinary (one main
system component) or
multi disciplinary research
(parallel or sequential
analysis of components)
• Analyze emergent system
patterns resulting from the
reciprocal relationships
between social and
ecological system
components
• Well-identified research
problems and purposes
Typically addressed
through interdisciplinary
approaches
• Analyze components of social
and ecological systems and
their interactions
• Multiple diverging
perspectives on the research
problems and purposes
Typically addressed through
multi disciplinary research, to
take into account the diversity
of diverging perspectives
Strongly
interdependent
social and
ecological
dynamics
• Analyze emergent system
patterns resulting from the
reciprocal between social and
ecological system components
• Multiple diverging
perspectives on the research
problems and purposes
Typically transdisciplinary
research when values have
a strong impact on the
research design of the socio
ecological system; sometimes
interdisciplinary if the
research design can be settled
outside the discussions on the
value framing
conferences, and dedicated training will also provide the key mechanisms for
consolidating transdisciplinary research into larger communities and organi
zational frameworks (Benkler, 2008). However, through such imitation of
existing organizational mechanisms, although useful to partially address
issues of quality management of research outputs and training of young
scholars, among others, major organizational issues remain unaddressed.
Transdisciplinary research raises major questions regarding designing
appropriate institutional rules* for governing research partnerships at vari
ous levels. First, the organization of the knowledge co production process
18 Transdisciplinary research partnerships
between societal actors and scientifc researchers requires rules for collabo
ration among research partners mobilizing heterogeneous knowledge types
(Pohl et al., 2021). Second, transdisciplinary research requires appropriate
rules for organizing social learning on sustainability values among actors
from diferent sectors of activity involved in society wide transformations
(Herrero et al., 2019). Finally, to consolidate transdisciplinary research
eforts beyond small niche projects, transdisciplinary research requires
organizational support for competency and capacity building for research
ers, students, and societal actors to allow them to successfully participate
in boundary crossing knowledge co production eforts (Pearce et al., 2018).
The frst two governance challenges for building transdisciplinary research
partnerships are situated at the project level and can be illustrated through
a set of questions that must be addressed by the project partners. Given het
erogeneous knowledge interests in transdisciplinary research partnerships,
how can one avoid each of the partners pursuing their own research agenda
once a project proposal has been approved and funded? In particular, how
can one create mechanisms such that research partners invest time and
resources in research methods and data gathering priorities that best suit the
joint boundary crossing research issues? What tools can be used to foster a
mutual understanding of how knowledge is constructed in each of the dis
ciplines or practitioners’ communities? Moreover, how can one create the
appropriate balance between acknowledging the diversity of societal values
developed in diferent communities and organizing a dialogue on the possible
convergence or accommodation between these values as a basis for successful
collaboration?
Thus, to tackle these questions, beyond methodological innovations in
transdisciplinary knowledge integration, transdisciplinary research will
require new forms of collaboration and partnership building, along with pro
cesses of social learning among the partners to foster mutual understanding
of diverse societal values and methodological perspectives. Indeed, transdis
ciplinary research projects generate new governance challenges as they gather
scientifc researchers or societal actors with diferent research agendas and
interests who are often involved in diferent project contexts. For instance,
a project on biodiversity in inhabited agricultural landscapes may assemble
historians, sociologists, and biologists to understand the social legitimacy
of various landscape management options. Hence, to successfully integrate
such diverse knowledge, participating disciplinary scientists or non academic
experts must look beyond the methodologies that, at best, satisfy their inter
est (quantitative for some, interpretative or qualitative for others) and agree
upon a set of research tasks that, at best, serve the common purpose.
Further, at a second level, transdisciplinary research faces governance
challenges regarding consolidating transdisciplinary research projects in
larger organizational units and capacity building eforts. Indeed, how can
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
19
one involve interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary researchers beyond small
niche networks of jointly defned but specifc research issues? What kind of
networking activities can contribute to creating new interactions beyond
such small niche networks? How can one decrease search costs to fnd new
partners beyond the already well known partners from prior collaborations?
Finally, what kind of research resources can be shared across a heterogene
ous network of boundary crossing projects to build capacities for training
and joint quality management on issues of common concern?
Indeed, to consolidate transdisciplinary research in more diverse and com
prehensive research networks, researchers and science policy officials require
a set of institutional mechanisms to build transdisciplinary research compe
tences and research networks in larger communities. As will be discussed in
depth in Chapter 5, such larger organizational units can be organized around
cross cutting thematic areas of sustainability transformations, be it in the
felds of mobility, energy, or agrifood systems, or directly integrate research
ers of various thematic communities in more generic research enabling
platforms.
To develop the various features of the enabling knowledge ecosystem for
transdisciplinary research, this book is organized as follows. As highlighted
throughout this chapter, research partnerships are prone to a set of govern
ance failures. Chapter 2 reviews some of these failures and discusses the key
concepts proposed to overcome them by building upon the core insights from
the literature on collective action challenges in building scientifc knowledge
commons. Chapter 3 presents a comparative analysis of a broad set of cases
of transdisciplinary research partnerships, with the view to identify core
features of the knowledge co production process that contribute to efec
tive usable knowledge production on specifc sustainability transformations.
Chapter 4 probes the question of the various strategies for social learning on
sustainability values among the project partners, by extending the typology
of social learning situations proposed by Amartya Sen in his work on social
choice. Chapter 5 uses the results of the comparative analysis at the project
level in Chapters 3 and 4 to tackle the question of the institutional design
of the consolidation of transdisciplinary research in larger organizational
architectures. Chapter 6 briefy discusses some limits and extensions of the
analysis by highlighting the importance of building synergies between vari
ous modes and types of knowledge production within and beyond academia.
As announced in the introduction, through analyzing these various aspects
of the enabling knowledge ecosystem, this book aims to provide added value
to both the theoretical perspectives for analyzing the governance of knowledge
co production and the comparative analysis of collective action challenges
encountered in transdisciplinary sustainability research. First, in relation to the
theoretical approaches, this book develops a multi level approach to the insti
tutional design of transdisciplinary research partnerships, building upon and
20 Transdisciplinary research partnerships
extending the literature on the governance of scientifc research commons*.
Second, for deepening the analysis of institutional design principles, the book
provides a comparative assessment of the conditions for the successful produc
tion of usable knowledge based on a large sample of transdisciplinary research
projects that encompass a broad diversity of research traditions in academia,
ranging from biophysical research to socioeconomic and cultural sciences.
Finally, the book uses these insights to provide an analysis of the most appro
priate organizational architectures, drawing upon governance mechanisms
from the literature on fexible network organizations. Overall, these diferent
strands aim to analyze the building blocks for constructing a consistent account
of the new transdisciplinary modes for organizing scientifc research, where the
integration of societal actors’ knowledge and social learning on societal values
is an indispensable part of the knowledge generation process.
Note
1 Terms defned in the glossary are marked in italic and with an asterisk upon their
frst appearance in the text.
References
Aarts, N. and Drenthen, M. (2020). Socio ecological interactions and sustainable
development. Introduction to a special issue. Sustainability, 12(17), 6967.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Benkler, Y. (2008). The wealth of networks. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C. and Schramm, E. (2012).
Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice. Frankfurt: Campus
Verlag.
Bjurström, A. and Polk, M. (2011). Climate change and interdisciplinarity: A co
citation analysis of IPCC third assessment report. Scientometrics, 87(3), 525–550.
Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Ab
son, D. J. and Von Wehrden, H. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in
sustainability science. Ecological Economics, 92, 1–15.
Byerlee, D. and Dubin, H. J. (2009). Crop improvement in the CGIAR as a global
success story of open access and international collaboration. International Journal
of the Commons, 4(1), 452–480.
Chancel, L. and Piketty, T. (2015). Carbon and inequality: From Kyoto to Paris.
Trends in the global inequality of carbon emissions (1998–2013) and prospects for
an equitable adaptation fund. Paris: Paris School of Economics.
Coolsaet, B. (2016). Towards an agroecology of knowledges: Recognition, cognitive
justice and farmers’ autonomy in France. Journal of Rural Studies, 47, 165–171.
Coolsaet, B. (Ed.). (2020). Environmental justice: Key issues. Abingdon: Routledge.
Costanza, R., Graumlich, L. J. and Stefen, W. (2007). Sustainability or collapse? An
integrated history and future of people on Earth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
21
Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2014). Sustainability science for strong sustainability. Chelten
ham: Edward Elgar.
De Schutter, O. and Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2022). Social innovation in the service of
social and ecological transformation. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dobson, A. (2007). Environmental citizenship: Towards sustainable development.
Sustainable Development, 15(5), 276–285.
Dorsch, M. J. and Flachsland, C. (2017). A polycentric approach to global climate
governance. Global Environmental Politics, 17(2), 45–64.
du Plessis, C. (2012). Towards a regenerative paradigm for the built environment.
Building Research and Information, 40(1), 7–22.
Falk, J., Gafney, O., Bhowmik, A. K., Bergmark, P., Galaz, V., Gaskell, N., . . . and
Shalit, T. (2020). Exponential roadmap 1.5.1. Stockholm: Future Earth.
Fernandes, V. and Philippi Jr., A. (2017). Sustainability sciences: Political and epis
temological approaches. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, and R. Pacheco (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 370–407). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S. and Walker, B.
(2002). Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a
world of transformations. Ambio, 31(5), 437–440.
Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalising world.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Goddard, J. J., Kallis, G. and Norgaard, R. B. (2019). Keeping multiple antennae up:
Coevolutionary foundations for methodological pluralism. Ecological Economics,
165, 106–420.
Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. London: Island Press.
Herrero, P., Dedeurwaerdere, T. and Osinski, A. (2019). Design features for social
learning in transformative transdisciplinary research. Sustainability Science, 14(3),
751–769.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Bradley, D., Pohl, C., Rist, St. and Wiesmann, U. (2006). Implica
tions of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research. Ecological Economics, 60,
119–128.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hofmann Riem, H., Biber Klemm, S., Grossenbacher Mansuy,
W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., . . . and Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Huitema, D. and Meijerink, S. V. (2014). The politics of river basin organisations:
Coalitions, institutional design choices and consequences. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Jordan, A. J., Huitema, D., Hilden, M., van Hasselt, H., Rayner, T. J., Schoenefeld,
J. J., . . . and Boasson, E. L. (2015). Emergence of polycentric climate governance
and its future prospects. Nature Climate Change, 5(11), 977–982.
Kates, R. W. (2011). What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 108(49).
Kitcher, Ph. (2011). Science in a democratic society. New York: Prometheus.
Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein
and C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
Koutsoyiannis, D. and Angelakis, A. N. (2003). Hydrologic and hydraulic science and
technology in ancient Greece. In B. A. Stewart, T. A. Howell (Eds.), The encyclopedia of water science (pp. 415–417). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Larrère, C. (1997). Les philosophies de l’environnement. Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France.
Larrère, C. and Larrère, R. (2014). Penser et agir avec la nature. Paris: Editions la
découverte.
Matsuyama, K. (2002). The rise of mass consumption societies. Journal of Political
Economy, 110(5), 1035–1070.
Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented research and innovation in the European Union. Final Report. Publications Office of the European Commission, Luxembourg.
Mittelstrass, J. (2018). The order of knowledge: From disciplinarity to transdiscipli
narity and back. European Review, 26(S2), 68–75.
Mokyr, J. (2011). The gifts of Athena. In The gifts of Athena. Princeton, NJ: Prince
ton University Press.
National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Wash
ington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Norgaard, R. B. (1984). Coevolutionary development potential. Land Economics,
60(2), 160–173.
Norgaard, R. B. (1989). The case for methodological pluralism. Ecological Economics, 1(1), 37–57.
OECD. (2020). Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research. OECD
Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 88, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187.
Pearce, B., Adler, C., Senn, L., Krütli, P., Staufacher, M. and Pohl, C. (2018). Mak
ing the link between transdisciplinary learning and research. In Transdisciplinary
theory, practice and education (pp. 167–183). Cham: Springer.
Petit, O., Froger, G. and Bauler, T. (2022). Economie écologique. Une perspective
européenne. Louvain la Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur SA.
Pohl, C., Klein, J. T., Hofmann, S., Mitchell, C. and Fam, D. (2021). Conceptualising
transdisciplinary integration as a multidimensional interactive process. Environmental Science and Policy, 118, 18–26.
Ravetz, J. (2006). The no-nonsense guide to science. Oxford: New Internationalist.
Rockström, J., Stefen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . .
and Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263),
472–475.
Satcher, D. (1995). Emerging infections: Getting ahead of the curve. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 1(1), 1–6.
Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorising environmental justice: The expanding sphere of a
discourse. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 37–55.
Schlosberg, D., Bäckstrand, K. and Pickering, J. (2019). Reconciling ecological and
democratic values: Recent perspectives on ecological democracy. Environmental
Values, 28(1), 1–8.
Spangenberg, J. H. (2011). Sustainability science: A review, an analysis and some
empirical lessons. Environment Conservation, 38, 275–287.
Transdisciplinary research partnerships
23
Stearns, P. N. (2006). Consumerism in world history: The global transformation of
desire. New York: Routledge.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Swetz, F. (1979). The evolution of mathematics in ancient China. Mathematics Magazine, 52(1), 10–19.
Tress, G., Tress, B. and Fry, G. (2005). Clarifying integrative research concepts in
landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology, 20(4), 479–493.
UN. (2019). The future is now: Science for achieving sustainable development. Global
Sustainable Development Report 2019. Independent Group of Scientists appointed
by the Secretary General of the United Nations, New York.
2
OVERCOMING COLLECTIVE ACTION
FAILURES IN KNOWLEDGE
CO-PRODUCTION PRACTICES
At the heart of transdisciplinary sustainability research projects lies the
organization of collective action in research groups or consortia to gener
ate common knowledge that is scientifcally credible and socially relevant
for addressing specifc sustainability challenges. In particular, understand
ing real world interdependent social and ecological system dynamics requires
organizing research collaborations among specialized expert communities
and societal actors involved in various felds of sustainability transforma
tions. This chapter introduces the main collective action challenges encoun
tered in organizing collaborative research with heterogeneous groups of
knowledge holders and the proposed design principles to address gaps within
the literature on the governance of knowledge commons.
Collective action problems in community provided public goods have
been studied in depth in the context of the theory of the commons. Famously,
Elinor Ostrom, in her work on the governance of the commons, for which
she was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, showed that
groups of actors can efectively self organize to produce rules to overcome
collective action failures in public good provision without centralized rule
making by a state.
The approach developed in the theory of the commons shows the soundness
of pursuing an alternative road to the centralized management of collective
action problems and decentralized market governance based on case by case
transactions over proprietary goods. A well known promoter of the central
ized management option is Mancur Olson (1965), who predicted the col
lapse of community provided public goods without state based supervision.
Prominent examples of the alternative road of community or network based
collection action are common pool resources, such as community forests or
DOI: 10.4324/9781032624297 3
This chapter has been made available under a CC BY NC ND 4.0 international license.
Overcoming collective action failures 25
community irrigation systems. However, Elinor Ostrom and her co workers
also broadened the study of the commons beyond the natural resource com
mons to so called new commons, which include scientifc research commons
as an important sub category (Hess and Ostrom, 2007).
The study of the knowledge commons boomed in the mid 1990s with the
rapid spread of digital tools for conducting and disseminating research. As
documented in the landmark book Understanding Knowledge as a Commons
(ibid), scholars from various disciplines became concerned with the new
collective action problems arising from large scale collaboration in digital
networks. Especially in legal scholarship, “commons” became a buzzword
for the new possibilities of collaboration opened up by globally distributed
information, despite the countervailing trends of the global expansion of
intellectual property rights over digital network tools and the spread of pass
word protected fences on the Internet (Reichman et al., 2016).
More generally, within this feld of the knowledge commons, scholars
noticed many similarities between collective action problems encountered
in governing research commons and community managed natural resources
(Hess and Ostrom, 2007). In both cases, non state actors not only provide
collective goods in the general interests that are publicly accessible on a
non exclusive basis but also exhibit so called partial rivalry among the user
communities. Such rivalry, which characterizes “impure” public goods in
the standard economic approach of public goods, means that making the
good available for consumption by one person might decrease its future
availability for other persons (Sandler, 2004). The latter can be because the
public good is depleted through use or because there is a cost for making it
available in a way that corresponds to the needs or demands of given user
communities.
Regarding community managed natural resources, this rivalry can lead to
the well known “tragedy of the commons,” where the absence of appropri
ate rules for the use of the common resource depletes the resource through
overconsumption. Regarding the knowledge commons, rivalry may similarly
induce a diverse set of collective action failures. As there is a cost to deliver
ing knowledge in an appropriate format for targeted users, the lack of rules
for collective action may lead to poor quality knowledge, a delay in dissemi
nating new fndings, withholding research data, or a lack of investment in
new lines of research.
Scholars have extensively noted the collective action mechanisms for
addressing these challenges in the case of disciplinary knowledge com
mons. Disciplinary communities gather researchers around a relatively
similar set of core concepts and methodological approaches (Jacobs, 2017).
As widely noted by scholars in science studies, such a division of labor in
communities organized around common disciplinary purposes and its fur
ther specialization in sub disciplines are highly successful in reaching a
26 Overcoming collective action failures
critical mass for quality assessment and review, an efficient organization of
education and training, and consolidating general results in specifc felds
of inquiry (ibid).
The main collective action mechanism for organizing collaboration in sub
disciplinary and disciplinary communities are the disciplinary journals and
disciplinary conferences that channel the contributions around a set of key
approaches, concepts, and methods of inquiry (Benkler, 2008). Further, the
various social networks built around the disciplinary conferences, the jour
nals, and the informal networking of researchers from disciplinary depart
ments of diferent universities contribute to building strong social norms
around the so called epistemic values or thought styles of the community
(Fleck, 1979). Additionally, the institutionalization of the various disciplines
and sub disciplines into larger organizational structures is achieved through
the conventional organization of research universities and research organiza
tions in disciplinary departments. This organization is supported through
available funding streams by national research foundations and other
research bodies along disciplinary lines (König and Gorman, 2017).
As this short overview of the approach to collective action in disciplinary
knowledge commons shows, research partners in consortia and research net
works can address collective action failures in a decentralized manner via var
ious governance mechanisms. As shown by Benkler and Nissenbaum (2006),
disciplinary communities can overcome collective action failures through a
combination of rules for quality assurance managed by the research commu
nities (for peer review and research evaluation, among others) and the devel
opment of social norms. Such social norms support the sharing of research
results and teaching materials among scientists based on the intrinsic motiva
tions of individual researchers to contribute to public science (Macfarlane
and Cheng, 2008; Stromberg et al., 2013).
However, even if the specifc set of design rules reviewed by Benkler is
also important in the transdisciplinary knowledge commons, they fail to
address some of the new collective action problems that emerge in the organ
ization of knowledge co production. Few of the recommendations indeed
specifcally address challenges for governing the hybrid interdisciplinary and
co produced knowledge commons typical for transdisciplinary research.
Unlike disciplinary and multi disciplinary research consortia and communi
ties, transdisciplinary research includes collective action arrangements with
non academic societal actors that directly afect the design of the scientifc
research framework and processes of social learning over societal values that
are specifc to each research partnership. The next sections address some of
these specifc governance challenges for organizing transdisciplinary knowl
edge co production, which will be analyzed in the subsequent chapters.
Overcoming collective action failures 27
2.1 Governance failures in transdisciplinary research
This section discusses some of the main hurdles researchers and societal
actors may encounter in building efective boundary crossing research part
nerships for sustainability research. According to some scholars, part of the
difficulty in further expanding the transdisciplinary research practice regards
inertia, misunderstandings, and, in some cases, resistance from the existing
disciplinary practices. These barriers are certainly pivotal, given the recent
growth of transdisciplinary research practices relative to the long time his
tory of modern science. However, an important part is also related to a set
of new challenges regarding the innovative nature of the collective action
and decision making arrangements required to conduct transdisciplinary
research.
As documented in the general scholarly literature on knowledge commons
(Benkler, 2008; Frischmann et al., 2014), efective collective action to build
the scientifc knowledge commons results from action at two main levels,
which are also present in other forms of collective action for the decentral
ized provision of collective goods:
1 The frst level of action is situated at the community, project, or network
level (comprising research groups, research consortia, and larger research
networks). At this level, scholars underline two important mechanisms
that contribute to fostering decentralized collective action:
a. The collective action agreements to guarantee the contribution of all
participants to common research purposes
b. The development of common societal value perspectives that allows for
building trust, strengthening intrinsic motivations to take part in the
commons, and facilitating coordinated action.
2 The second level is the consolidation of the decentralized knowledge com
mons in larger organizational architectures through a supportive insti
tutional environment. As the collective action for collaborative research
mainly results from action on a decentralized basis (the frst level), the
institutional environment does not have a “steering” or “controlling” role
but mainly assumes an enabling role of decentralized dynamics. The lat
ter can be fostered through capacity building and knowledge exchange
networks.
The two levels of decentralized collective action and an enabling institutional
environment are also present in the case of the transdisciplinary knowl
edge commons. Based on the action strategies at these two levels, one can
28 Overcoming collective action failures
distinguish three categories of hurdles that have to be overcome in the spe
cifc case of transdisciplinary research:
1 The lack of contribution to common boundary-crossing research purposes
The organization of collective action to work around common purposes is
hampered by the presence of individuals with heterogeneous knowledge
interests who might use the transdisciplinary process instrumentally to
foster their own knowledge interests. Indeed, disciplinary research
ers might use the transdisciplinary research environment merely to
facilitate access to new feld research within their disciplinary research
agenda, or societal actors might be mainly interested in advocacy for
pre given advocacy positions.
2 The fragmentation in an unstructured diversity of values perspectives
The lack of relatively homogeneous societal values requires additional
mechanisms to reach mutual understanding and forms of collaboration
among research partners. These mechanisms are not meant to reach a
consensus but to use diversity in a structured way as an asset for an
improved understanding of the social possibilities of change in interde
pendent social and ecological systems.
3 The isolation of many context-specifc and situated research partnerships
Innovative institutional mechanisms must be developed to bridge the many
niche networks of tailor made partnerships and foster an enabling envi
ronment of common teaching, training, and research resources for
transdisciplinary research. Overcoming small niche approaches is key if
researchers and societal actors aim to reach a more general understand
ing of system interdependencies and desirable system orientations in
specifc domains of sustainability transformations and types of collabo
rative governance arrangements.
The next sections will briefy review each of these challenges and present
some ways to overcome them, as per the literature.
2.1.1
The curse of instrumentalization of the research partnership
A frst set of collective action failures is related to the proneness of research
partners to pursue only their own knowledge interests or habitual ways
of working instead of embedding their work within a common research
endeavor. This failure was, for instance, clearly identifed in early experi
ences with transdisciplinary research on environmental risk assessment,
Overcoming collective action failures 29
where societal actors were mobilized in a purely instrumental way to provide
increased legitimacy to expert led knowledge generation.
According to the seminal analysis by Daniel Fiorino, such an instrumental
role of stakeholder involvement in risk assessment mainly served to make
the decisions based on research results more legitimate to the general public
(Fiorino, 1990). Indeed, as per Fiorino (ibid), in the early 1990s, research
institutions working on environmental risks were confronted with a crisis of
confdence, as the lay public was increasingly unwilling to delegate decisions
to experts and administrative authorities. In response, societal actors were
included in risk assessment procedures to restore confdence by acknowledging
societal actors’ value perspectives in the expert led assessments and reducing
the probability of error through additional inputs of data and information.
More generally, in a situation of instrumental mobilization of societal
actors’ knowledge, the latter provides additional information or advice to
a research team, but the researchers judge if these contributions are relevant
or useful within their pre defned research protocol (Mobjörk, 2010). From
the point of view of disciplinary and expert led science, the instrumental use
of contextual information from societal actors is not necessarily a problem
if such use is intended by and based on clear agreements among the parties.
Indeed, in situations where the aim is to provide technical knowledge on
system components, and the knowledge is relatively independent of specifc
path dependent features and societal value choices, science can operate in
a relatively autonomous sphere from the input of societal actors. In these
cases, several instrumental roles may contribute to the quality of the research
process, such as providing extra technical information and know how from
practice or contributing to research dissemination by translating the research
results to the specifc needs of certain social groups.
Importantly, even the case of instrumental participation requires transpar
ent prior agreements with societal actors and should be distinguished from
window dressing forms of participation, where societal actors are manipu
lated such that researchers can more easily obtain data and information or
legitimize their funding demands. A positive case in point for such transpar
ency requirements is the international agreement on prior informed consent
of indigenous and local communities in research projects on the discovery of
new drugs or plant varieties for agriculture (Dedeurwaerdere et al., 2016). In
other commendatory cases, such as in collaborative research projects funded
by national or international research bodies, societal actors are involved in
formal consultative bodies or even in the consortia agreements such that
their contribution is explicitly acknowledged in the overall research process
(Ahrweiler et al., 2019). Obviously, these kinds of agreements may also be
important in transdisciplinary research—especially if certain societal actors
are mobilized in some project components for instrumental purposes, for
30 Overcoming collective action failures
example, when gathering contextual information to improve the overall
quality of the research outputs.
However, the involvement of societal actors in transdisciplinary partner
ship research is substantially diferent from the instrumental mobilization of
contextual knowledge. The main diference with the instrumental role is that,
for those parts of the research that are co produced, societal actors contrib
ute as substantively to the design of the research framework and the interpre
tation of the results as scientifc researchers. The reasons for such substantive
co production are multiple. For instance, as discussed in one of the case stud
ies in Chapter 3 regarding a living lab for the renovation of the historical city
center of Cahors in Southern France, the knowledge of old building tech
niques by local craftsmen was essential to co develop a research protocol
for designing locally adapted bio based materials (see the Cahors living lab
project, Section 3.2.1.2). In another case to be discussed, the implementation
of a vaccination campaign in Chad, researchers and nomadic pastoralists co
designed a joint human and animal vaccination campaign. This collaboration
mobilized the knowledge gained from anthropological feld research on the
traditional communities’ integrated approach to human and animal health
and livestock holders’ knowledge about the efficacy of the livestock vacci
nation campaigns (see the Chad healthcare delivery project, Section 4.3.4).
In both these examples, the combination of laboratory research and joint
experimentation in real world situations allowed for integrating scientifc
knowledge with detailed practitioners’ knowledge of technical know how
within a co designed research framework.
2.1.2
The pitfalls of unstructured pluralism of societal values
The frst governance failure shows the consequences of unequal contributions
of research partners to the commonly agreed research purpose. However,
successful and efective knowledge co production also depends on mutual
understanding among societal actors and scientifc researchers on the specifc
value laden perspectives on sustainability transformation pathways. Indeed,
research partners might agree on the division of labor to address the common
research questions but fail to organize a discussion on how to resolve the dif
ference in opinion on the sustainability values used to assess the social desir
ability of the envisioned transformation pathways or the contextual validity
of the research outcomes (Russel, 2010).
In practice, sustainability values can be highly diverse. Indeed, societal
actors and researchers might each envision diferent ways to create syner
gies and co benefts among the interrelated sustainability goals, inducing a
plurality of distinct transformation pathways considered socially legitimate
and relevant by the project partners (Fam and O’Rourke, 2020). Thus, to
allow for efective coordination among the project partners in this situation,
Overcoming collective action failures 31
a minimum level of mutual understanding is required that acknowledges the
diversity and employs this diversity to explore areas where converging value
perspectives or common action strategies can be formulated.
Beyond the minimum level, research partners might strive for stronger
forms of partial convergence around core sustainability values, depending on
the history of collaboration and the perceived need for enhanced coordina
tion to tackle the given problem situation. To designate the failure of reach
ing a situation of minimum mutual understanding, or of reaching the desired
level of partial convergence on core sustainability values, some scholars refer
to this second governance failure as “unstructured pluralism.” As such,
unstructured pluralism refers to a situation where a more advanced stage
of social learning on sustainability values is required to address coordina
tion needs among partners with highly diverse heterogeneous values (Spash,
2012; Popa et al., 2015).
An example of the lack of social learning in each of the core sustainability
value perspectives around planetary boundaries, environmental justice, and
environmental citizenship can give an initial insight into the possible conse
quences of the failure to structure these societal values.
For instance, regarding the planetary boundaries, in a vast fve year multi
stakeholder research project, researchers and societal actors collaborated on
understanding waste management transitions in Flanders, Belgium, without
concluding the research project given value disagreements (Paredis, 2011).
In this case, the partners discovered quite late in the project (the last year
out of fve) that one group understood waste management transition as the
creation of a market for reused and recycled materials, while the other aimed
for reducing waste intensive consumption practices and, thus, waste produc
tion. In this case, despite the successful knowledge integration among difer
ent societal actors, the project partners used this knowledge to understand
and promote two disjointed pathways. Given these disagreements, one of the
societal actor partners decided to leave the project consortium before pen
ning the conclusion.
A second example regarding the Chad healthcare delivery project to be
discussed in Chapter 4 (see Section 4.3.4) shows the challenge of a large scale
project consortium to address environmental justice issues. In this long term
research project on healthcare delivery to nomadic pastoralists in Chad, the
project researchers initially failed to recognize the livelihood concerns of the
pastoralist community (Bergmann et al., 2012, ch. 3; Hirsch Hadorn et al.,
2008, ch. 17). This project was set up after observing that the nomadic pas
toralists did not visit the state organized local health centers. In this case,
healthcare services were organized in a form that the nomads did not use,
given a diferent cultural understanding of the organization of healthcare;
hence, in practice, most of them were excluded from primary social services.
As analyzed in depth in Chapter 4, it is only through partial convergence
32 Overcoming collective action failures
around a set of values addressing both animal and human health that the
research team could set up a coordinated research approach with the pasto
ralists. On this basis, the program adopted a so called one health approach
to the delivery of health services, which organizes healthcare delivery for
humans and livestock in an integrated manner.
Further, the lack of clarifcation of environmental justice concerns of local
communities in research partnerships might also be related to issues of pro
cess fairness. A telling illustration of such a situation is the transdisciplinary
research on the improvement of education and access to basic social services
among an immigrant population in Albuquerque, United States (Goodkind
et al., 2011). In that research project, researchers evaluated the contribution of
a godfathering program to the improvement of the situation of the immigrant
population. However, when selecting individuals to participate in this action
research project, some individuals declined to participate, as they estimated
that other members of the community should frst be involved and beneft from
the godfathering, even if they were not originally part of the group targeted
through the research protocol. Overall, the community members highlighted
the lack of dialogue in the selection process of possible participants in the
action research program. In response, the research team adapted the sampling
procedure to these requirements of process fairness by better integrating com
munity members in organizing the data gathering process.
2.1.3
Beyond small niche networks for boundary-crossing research
The frst two governance failures of instrumentalization of the knowledge
generation process and the failure of unstructured pluralism are situated at the
project level. Nonetheless, to successfully build transdisciplinary knowledge
commons on sustainability challenges, there is also a need to look beyond the
project level. Indeed, without additional institutional eforts, project partners
may remain in small niche networks around practical or theoretical problem
solving on highly specifc research issues.
The small niche networks for transdisciplinary research, although already
useful for addressing selected research puzzles that cannot appropriately
dealt with through disciplinary methods, may fail to contribute to reliable
and comprehensive transdisciplinary research commons on sustainability
transformations. Indeed, if limited to small niche networks, these research
projects do not address some important objectives that are part of the
more general purposes of scientifc research (Singleton and Straits, 2005;
Willis, 2007). First, small niche projects lack a more general perspective
on thematic areas of sustainability transformations and fail to contribute
to a more generic understanding of human and natural interdependencies.
Second, they lack the means to verify the validity of research results and
Overcoming collective action failures 33
research approaches in other similar contexts of sustainability challenges.
Further, they do not contribute to building more generic approaches to
knowledge co production and social learning that can be used in a broader
set of problem situations.
Therefore, to strengthen the overall scientifc knowledge base and meth
odological approach that are relevant for addressing a broad diversity of
sustainability issues in society wide transformations, the small niche projects
must be embedded in a larger institutional ecosystem of boundary crossing
research projects. In the context of transdisciplinary research, characterized
by a heterogeneous set of highly diverse boundary crossing projects, mov
ing beyond small niche projects might be quite challenging. Various mecha
nisms to address this challenge to be discussed in more detail throughout
this book include the organization of knowledge exchange in hybrid knowl
edge networks, social networking for identifying potential opportunities for
knowledge co production with societal actors, and training for the building
of transdisciplinary research competences.
2.2 Theoretical building blocks from the multi-level approach to
governing scientific research commons
This section further develops the multi level approach for overcoming the
identifed collective action failures. Indeed, as underlined more generally by
scholars of knowledge commons, to address the possible collective failures,
appropriate strategies at, at least, two main levels (the level of decentralized
collective action and the enabling institutional environment) are necessary
(Ostrom, 2005, pp. 99–133).
Based on this basic model, this book will analyze three core sets of strat
egies for the organizational and institutional design of transdisciplinary
knowledge co production. These three strategies and the related research
questions will be addressed.
First, two core strategies at the level of decentralized collective action
1 Decentralized collaborative governance strategies at the research commu
nity level (research groups, consortia, and larger research networks)
• Analysis of the collaboration mechanisms for knowledge co-production
(knowledge integration, co management of the knowledge co produc
tion, and co construction of the research design)
2 Decentralized social learning mechanisms at the research community level
• Analysis of the mechanisms of social learning over sustainability values
in knowledge co production
34 Overcoming collective action failures
Second, a third strategy at the level of the enabling institutional environment
3 Enabling and consolidating the decentralized dynamics through a support
ive institutional environment
• Analysis of the integration of the boundary-crossing project networks
into broader enabling networks for transdisciplinary research
Given the historical importance of the scholarship on collective action based
on the rational actor perspective, this chapter will introduce these various
strategies from the perspective of the so called second generation theory
of collective action (Ostrom, 1998). This perspective helps to introduce a
simplifed model of the two level approach, which will then be gradually
enriched and broadened in the specifc chapters dedicated to each of the col
lective action strategies and mechanisms.
The proposed model does not address the higher level of the overarch
ing institutions of research policy that impact the choices that can be made
in universities and research organizations for building the enabling environ
ments and organizing transdisciplinary project work. This does not mean
that this overarching higher level is not important, as clearly shown in the
systematic review of multi level institutional analysis by Hollingsworth
(2000). However, to address the issues of reform of research policy, a deeper
understanding of the design requirements at the level of the organization of
boundary crossing research projects and the level of the enabling environ
ment in research organizations is frst required. Except for some short indica
tions in Chapter 5, the analysis of governance and institutional design in this
book will therefore mainly focus on the levels of the project organization and
the enabling institutional environment at institutions of higher education.
2.2.1
Organizing collaboration mechanisms for knowledge
co-production
Based on the similarities of the collective action challenges between natural
resource and knowledge commons, scholars have adopted a broad approach
to community produced collective goods. From a theoretical perspective,
commons can be defned as resources that are jointly used and managed by
groups of varying sizes and interests (Hess and Ostrom, 2007, p. 5). This
approach also applies to the case of transdisciplinary knowledge co pro
duction, where the research partners collaborate in the production, use, and
dissemination of usable knowledge on specifc sustainability transformation
pathways.
The previous section highlighted an important collective action fail
ure in the case of transdisciplinary knowledge commons, which is the
Overcoming collective action failures 35
instrumentalization of the partnership for one’s research purposes. This fail
ure is related to the challenge of overcoming the tendency of research part
ners to follow their own disciplinary or practical knowledge interests instead
of contributing their eforts and resources to solving common boundary
crossing research questions.
This collective action failure of common knowledge production, which
may induce under provision of the common good, is a feature that is also
somewhat present in interdisciplinary research consortia. In the case of inter
disciplinary consortia, neglecting to invest time and resources in the common
interdisciplinary research questions is in part related to the lack of incentives
to produce knowledge beyond disciplinary interests. Two main hurdles can
be mentioned. First, the expected contributions to the common interdisci
plinary research framework do not necessarily contribute to the state of the
art in the disciplinary specialization, and, second, they do not always ft the
specialized disciplinary standards for data gathering.
This so called under provision is an important collective action challenge
recognized in the broader scholarship on the building of knowledge com
mons in large scale collaborative research. Michael Madison highlights the
latter in the case studies of the companion volume on Governing Knowledge
Commons (Frischmann et al., 2014). As stated by Madison, without proper
governance mechanisms, producers of knowledge resources “will fail to
invest in creating new goods or in preserving them, either on their own or
in combination with others, because of uncertain[ty] [in] their ability (either
individually or collectively) to earn returns that justify the investment”
(Madison, 2014, p. 219).
Hence, to address these problems in interdisciplinary research collabora
tions, researchers have set up various governance mechanisms to foster col
lective action around standards of open science, research accreditation, and
joint eforts in common quality management. For instance, Yochai Benkler
shows in his landmark work on “the power of networks” how scientists in
interdisciplinary felds of research follow common standards of open science
and joint quality standards by participating in various social networks at
scholarly conferences and expert groups (Benkler, 2008). Another leading
political economy scholar of the historical emergence of the science com
mons, Joel Mokyr, highlights the crucial role of formal and informal peer
review practices as a tool for collective quality management ever since the
emergence of the modern scientifc societies in the 17th and 18th centuries
(Mokyr, 2011).
Nevertheless, regarding the transdisciplinary research commons, these
governance mechanisms are not sufficient to build an efective knowledge
commons. Indeed, regarding transdisciplinary research projects, a single sci
entist does not operate within a larger community, as in the case of disci
plines or interdisciplinary felds of research. Rather, they are involved in a set
36 Overcoming collective action failures
of diferent research projects, each of which comprises members of distinct
disciplinary communities and societal actor groups.
For instance, a researcher on the transition toward sustainable food sys
tems may collaborate in one project with health professionals and researchers
in bio medical and nutrition sciences; in another project, they may collabo
rate with agronomists and economists, and in yet another project, with a
representative of the local municipality and a political scientist. Each pro
ject mobilizes diferent combinations of disciplinary and practical knowledge
that require building agreements on the contribution of partners with difer
ent knowledge interests to the common knowledge co production process.
A centralized, top down solution to this challenge is unlikely to provide
sufficient guarantees to ensure the collaboration of all partners to contribute
to common research endeavors. For instance, research funding bodies may
require evidence for efective collaboration with societal actors in knowledge
production as a condition for the allocation of funding. However, as shown
in comparative analyses of climate change research projects by de Jong et al.
(2016), such contractual obligations may attract projects that involve soci
etal actors as window dressing, assigning them a role while not necessarily
giving them infuence. It forms part of the general issues with participation,
as highlighted by Sherry Arnstein in her classic work on citizen involvement
in planning processes in the United States: “There is a critical diference
between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real
power needed to afect the outcome of the process” (Arnstein, 1969, p. 216).
As per de Jong et al. (2016), true participation in joint knowledge genera
tion requires more direct co management by the participating scientists and
societal actors of the various aspects of the research process, similar to the
co management arrangements to overcome collective action problems in the
natural resource commons. For instance, scientifc researchers and societal
actors as project partners can collaborate on the joint defnition of research
goals and core research questions. Regarding research design, both partners
can make valuable contributions to the selection of cases and data sources.
During the research, they may contribute data that would otherwise be chal
lenging to obtain and provide access to facilities and study sites. In com
municating research results, their involvement may help to consider local
contexts and communicate research results clearly. Ideally, all research part
ners should play a role in each phase of the process, as the impact on the
production of usable knowledge has been shown to increase with the number
of phases in which they have a role (Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2007; Peer and
Stoeglehner, 2013).
Notably, scholars of transdisciplinary research distinguish diferent degrees
of involvement in the co management of the knowledge co production pro
cess. This involvement can be quite strong, as in the case of co decision
making in a common governing board or joint supervision by scientifc
Overcoming collective action failures 37
researchers and societal actors of the Ph.D. research fellows of the project.
It can also rely on weaker forms, such as through specifc collaborations on
agreed upon real world test cases or agreements for joint involvement in data
gathering. Per the perception of the danger of a lack of dedication of time
and resources to the common endeavor, the partners might decide to invest
in stronger (thus, more demanding) or weaker and less demanding forms of
co management.
In some cases, when the initial motivations of all partners to address a
common research question are strong, they may consider that the risk of
instrumentalization is not high. For instance, in a well documented suc
cessful large scale transdisciplinary research project on community health
approaches in the province of North Karelia, Finland, there was a clear
intrinsic motivation of all partners to contribute knowledge to understand
ing the interdependencies between environmental factors, change in social
practices, and individual behavior and health outcomes (Puska et al., 2009).
In such cases, the co management processes may be lightweight. In this case,
the co management process was mainly organized around specifc tasks for
joint data gathering on the common research issues and joint analysis of the
research results.
When the risk of instrumentalization is high, as in the case of the partici
pation of disenfranchised social groups, research partners are likely to make
stronger investments in co managing various components of the research pro
cess. One prominent example of such a situation of strong power diferentials
will be discussed in Chapter 4, regarding the project co led by ATD Quart
Monde on food assistance in Brussels, Belgium. In this case, the research
partners adopted a strong co decision making approach called “merging of
knowledge,” developed by the non proft association ATD Quart Monde. It
is used for building transdisciplinary research partnerships to overcome situ
ations of extreme poverty. In this methodology, given the important power
diferentials, persons living in poverty are involved at all stages through co
decision on the question to be addressed, joint data gathering, permanent
discussion and adjustment on the research methods to be chosen, and com
mon writing of the research outputs. By involving persons living in poverty as
“situational experts,” this project contributed to a more multi dimensional
approach to food assistance, in particular by underlining the importance of
respect for the dignity of each recipient of food assistance as a key “soft”
value that is often not at the heart of poverty research.
Overall, the main lesson of the literature on collective action for invest
ment in common knowledge production in transdisciplinary research is the
importance of the collaboration of scientifc researchers and societal actors
in the governance of the research process. As analyzed in depth in Chapter 3,
this collaboration process goes beyond the conventional stage of knowledge
integration between science and practice. The collaboration also includes the
38 Overcoming collective action failures
co management of various steps of the co production process and the active
involvement in research co design (Lang et al., 2012; Norström et al., 2020).
Per the perceived danger of instrumentalization, the research partners may
decide to invest more time and resources in the deliberation on one or several
of these aspects of the collaboration process.
2.2.2
Social learning on the sustainability values
The organizational perspective on the partnership among scientifc researchers
and societal actors is only one lens through which one can approach the chal
lenges of collaborative governance of the research process. A second impor
tant aspect that contributes to the efective governance of the commons is the
mutual learning on partially convergent or at least mutually compatible soci
etal values perspectives. As shown in several review papers on knowledge inte
gration by leading scholars in sustainability research, social learning that seeks
to reach mutual understanding on a diversity of societal values plays a key role
in successful transdisciplinary knowledge co production (Pohl et al., 2021).
In her later work during the mid 1990s, Ostrom (1998) developed the role
of convergence around societal values in contributing to in depth collective
action. For instance, in the review paper on the “Second generation theory
of collection action,” Ostrom (ibid) shows how communities that develop
mutual learning around societal values successfully decrease the costs (regard
ing time, organizational means, and material resources) invested in organ
izing coordination among the community members. Indeed, these societal
values create patterns of behavior that, if recognized by the other members,
allow for anticipating behavior and common action strategies around the
agreed upon rules more efectively. In the case of the community manage
ment of natural resource commons analyzed by Ostrom (1990), societal val
ues evolve through two types of mechanisms. First, communities gradually
adopted societal values through a process of trial and error experimentation
throughout the history. Second, when societal values became more diverse,
they further evolved through processes of public deliberation to impartially
assess their respective validity through rational argumentation.
This second type of evolution of societal values through deliberation is
most relevant to the case of transdisciplinary research partnerships. Indeed,
regarding transdisciplinary research commons, the role of deliberation among
the research partners is likely to be crucial, as the actor networks are highly
heterogeneous and changing. As will be discussed in depth in Chapter 4, this
deliberation on societal values among the project partners can strive to reach
stronger or weaker forms of partial convergence over key sustainability val
ues. The latter hinges on the perceived need for convergence—which depends
on the complexity of the coordination needs among the project partners—
and on the history of trust building through previous collaborations.
Overcoming collective action failures 39
For instance, convergence among societal values can be absent at the begin
ning of a project amid strong conficting interests. In such cases, partners may
decide to focus frst on creating the conditions for mutual understanding of
the legitimate and relevant perspectives of the various project partners. In
other situations, the partnership may start with high levels of mutual under
standing, but the addressed sustainability transformations may nevertheless
require identifying the areas of convergence on societal values for organizing
coordinated action. In the latter case, the social learning process may strive
to identify such areas of convergence and clarify the remaining areas of diver
gence. These diferent mechanisms will be analyzed in depth in Chapter 4.
2.2.3
Collaborative platforms for enabling the integration of
polycentric knowledge networks
The second level of collective action strategies reaches beyond the decentral
ized strategies at the project level to the building of larger organizational archi
tectures for enabling transdisciplinary research. As argued, to build a more
encompassing knowledge base on sustainable interdependent social and eco
logical system dynamics, an appropriate institutional environment is required
to enable the building of generic capacities for transdisciplinary research.
The challenge of fostering interactions among a broad diversity of knowl
edge co production activities, beyond the individual boundary crossing
project networks, shows many similarities to the general idea of building
a polycentric network of commons in Elinor Ostrom’s analysis. According
to Ostrom (2010), beyond the level of specifc commons based initiatives,
a major governance feature of successful and enduring commons is their
embedding in larger polycentric networks. These networks provide a higher
level of integration among the local commons that contributes to their long
term successful operation through various collaborative arrangements.
As shown in the broader research on network governance (Sørensen and
Torfng, 2007), such institutional arrangements can be limited to only parts
of the overall network, such as the creation of network clusters for the shar
ing of knowledge, or be more generic, such as through the building of generic
competences for collaboration and co management.
Regarding transdisciplinary research, the challenge is to build capacities
for researchers and societal actors to conduct transdisciplinary research in
highly diverse problem contexts involving diferent combinations of con
ceptual approaches and partners with diferent knowledge backgrounds.
Therefore, the enabling institutional environment must create incentives for
research partners to look beyond their specialized project networks and to
build bridges with other feld specifc knowledge co production processes.
For instance, the review papers by Veronica Boix Mansilla et al. (2016)
on interdisciplinary collaborations and the review paper by Christian Pohl
40 Overcoming collective action failures
et al. (2021) on transdisciplinary research underline the importance of such
boundary crossing institutional enabling mechanisms. First, they underline
the importance of decentralized learning by research partners across hybrid
boundary crossing initiatives through the creation of so called trading zones
or boundary objects (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016, p. 573; Pohl et al., 2021,
p. 23). These spaces for decentralized learning cluster participants around
overlapping research activities in a way that is “plastic enough to be inter
preted diferently by relevant actors yet robust enough to maintain . . . unity
across contexts” (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016, p. 580). Further, participation
in these bridging networks promotes the acquisition of transdisciplinary
research competences via mastering a diversity of socio ecological research
methods and frameworks that can be used to analyze a broad set of context
specifc transformation pathways.
Despite the similarities between the various enabling mechanisms for
polycentric networking in the cases of natural resource commons and trans
disciplinary knowledge commons, it is important to highlight an important
diference between these two cases. Natural resource commons addresses
communities that manage well identifed natural resource systems with
rather homogeneous shared societal values that evolved gradually to adapt
resource management strategies to local contexts. Regarding transdiscipli
nary research projects, the defnition of the socio ecological system is not
identifed in advance, as it strongly depends on the problem framing, and
societal values tend to be highly heterogeneous among the project partners.
Further, to apply the polycentric network concept developed by Ostrom
and other scholars of network based governance to the case of transdiscipli
nary research commons, the collaboration agreements must involve a strong
degree of active deliberation on the network boundaries, the co construction
of the topics to be addressed, and the value perspectives to be included.
Therefore, the various proposed network bridging and competence building
activities must also be actively co constructed with both societal actors and
scientifc researchers. As will be discussed in depth in Chapter 5, the lat
ter can be implemented via practicing interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
research co design in the teaching of transdisciplinary methods, the involve
ment of societal actors in identifying potential research topics or creating
thematic clusters for the sharing of knowledge.
2.3 Promoting synergies among various styles of
transdisciplinary research practice
The multi level analysis of collective action for contributing to knowledge
commons shows that the building of transdisciplinary research commons
relies on a distinct set of design principles. These design principles are dif
ferent from the case of specialized disciplinary research commons, as they
Overcoming collective action failures 41
introduce new standards of evidence, such as the integration of societal actor
knowledge in the co construction of research design and social learning on
societal values at the project level. Likewise, at the level of the supporting
institutional environment, the accent is more on the development of capaci
ties for boundary crossing work and network bridging instead of the consoli
dation of research results around relatively consistent common disciplinary
concepts and methodological approaches.
As shown in the discussion of three main strategies to overcome collective
action failures, transdisciplinary scholars mobilize a variety of mechanisms
to ensure the efective contribution of all research partners to knowledge co
production. In theory, research projects that combine each of these strategies
show the highest chance of efective co production of usable knowledge on
sustainability transformations. In practice, however, given limits of resources
or diferent initial experiences among the project partners, projects often
focus on one of the strategies or a combination of strategies deemed most
relevant for improving upon the problem situation.
The choice of these strategies and mechanisms is infuenced in large part
by a broader understanding of the relationship between knowledge gen
eration in transdisciplinary research projects and the contribution to solv
ing sustainability issues in interdependent socio ecological systems. In this
context, based on a literature review and an analysis of a representative set
of 31 transdisciplinary research projects at their research institute, Flurina
Schneider and her colleagues identifed three main pathways of impact gen
eration (Schneider et al., 2019) (see Figure 2.1).
The most well known pathway is rooted in the assumption that transdis
ciplinary co production of knowledge is a cognitive process leading to new
knowledge, understanding, and propositions that can subsequently be used
Research projects oriented towards knowledge
co-production on socio-ecological system
dynamics
Transdisciplinary
co-production of
knowledge
Research projects oriented towards social
learning on sustainability values within
societal transformation processes
Sustainability
transformations
Workshops and training involving the building
of transdisciplinary competences within coproduced socio-ecological analysis
FIGURE 2.1
Research styles within transdisciplinary research contributing to sus
tainability transformations
Figure by the author, based on an adaptation of theoretical concepts developed in Schneider
et al. (2019).
42
Overcoming collective action failures
to inform societal actors for decision making. As stated by Schneider et al.
(2019), in this pathway, the generated knowledge is seen as “a substance to
be transferred from the project to other people,” where it can trigger action
(ibid, p. 29).
The project review by Schneider et al. (2019) identifed two other impor
tant understandings of impact pathways that play a role in transdisciplinary
research practices. The second pathway is the generation of societal impact
by promoting capacities for collaborative governance among research part
ners with heterogeneous societal values. In this understanding, transdisci
plinary knowledge is “conceived as the emergent property of interactions
and is situated in coordinated actions rather than as a substance that can be
removed from the social context where it was created” (ibid, p. 30). The third
pathway focuses on the building of individual competences for boundary
crossing analysis via transformative educational practices or shared learn
ing in communities of practice (ibid, p. 31). The research partners can use
the acquired competences in various research projects or decision making in
societal practices.
Given these diferent understandings of the impact pathways, the spread
of transdisciplinary research practices does not induce a well identifable
and unifed new research practice. Rather, researchers developed diferent
approaches and research traditions within the enterprise of transdisciplinary
research. As in the case of disciplinary research commons, these diferent
approaches and research traditions can be understood as diferent research
styles.* Following the historical epistemology approach of Ian Hacking
(2012), research styles are characterized by common problem interests and
approaches to tackle research problems. That is, via the diferentiation in
diferent research styles, the key organizing concepts of transdisciplinary
sustainability science (interdisciplinary analysis of interdependent social
and ecological dynamics and partnership research with societal actors) yield
various research traditions with interrelated but distinct research interests
(Sciortino, 2017).
Obviously, the various collective action challenges play a role in each of
the three research styles identifed by Schneider et al. (2019). However, some
challenges are more critical in certain research styles than others. Therefore,
in the subsequent chapters, we will analyze each of the collective action chal
lenges in the context of one research style (see Figure 2.2).
First, as noted, the most well known research style is related to the pro
duction of usable knowledge outputs that can subsequently be transferred
to support societal actors in decision making. Moreover, this research style
is formulated in one of the most cited papers in the feld (Lang et al., 2012),
which defnes transdisciplinary research as a “refexive, integrative, method
driven scientifc principle aiming at the solution or the transition of societal
problems and concurrently of related scientifc problems by diferentiating
Overcoming collective action failures 43
Conditions for governing collective action in
transdisciplinary knowledge commons
• Research co-design
• Co-management of
the partnership
Research styles contributing to
research impact
Knowledge co-production
on socio-ecological system
dynamics
• Impartial dialogue on
societal values
Transdisciplinary
co-production of
knowledge
• Non-coercive dialogue
• Broad inclusive
Social learning on sustainability
values within societal
transformation processes
Sustainability
transformations
perspective
o Enabling of formation of
flexible, adaptive boundary
crossing teams
Competences and capacity
building for co-produced
socio-ecological analaysis
o Enabling of decentralized
research goal setting
+ generic conditions common to
disciplinary / interdisicplinary /
transdisciplinary research: peer review of
research results and community building
through workshops and conferences.
FIGURE 2.2
Key conditions for governing collective action in each of the three
styles of transdisciplinary research practice. The detailed analysis of
each condition is the subject of Chapters 3, 4 and 5.
and integrating knowledge from various scientifc and societal bodies of
knowledge” (ibid, p. 27). In particular, as highlighted by many scholars,
understanding issues and solving problems in the practical life world of soci
etal actors through transdisciplinary research requires matching the knowl
edge co knowledge process with legitimate actors’ purposes in the problem
feld and the available real world options for change. Therefore, transdisci
plinary research in this perspective must integrate three main types of knowl
edge: (1) systems knowledge, (2) target knowledge (regarding the purposes
of social practices), and (3) transformation knowledge (regarding the real
world options for change) (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008, p. 28; Lang et al.,
2012, p. 26; Schneider et al., 2019, p. 29; Karrasch et al., 2022).
Although researchers can encounter a diverse set of governance challenges,
a core collective action challenge to tackle in this frst research style is the
tendency toward the instrumentalization of the usable knowledge focus. As
noted in the analysis in this chapter, research partners can instrumentalize the
common endeavor for their scientifc or advocacy purposes without dedicat
ing time and resources to co producing a common problem understanding,
research approach, and methodological framework. Disciplinary research
ers may be confronted with diferent methodological requirements for feld
research, laboratory work, or modeling. Societal actors may also have dif
ferent priorities when mobilizing resources for promoting action strategies
that address diferent aspects of desirable sustainability transformations. In
this context, organizing deliberation throughout the research process to align
44
Overcoming collective action failures
the partners around a common research design is crucial to provide usable
knowledge on feasible and scientifcally reliable options for society wide
transformations.
The overall objective of the frst style of transdisciplinary research prac
tice is to produce scientifcally reliable and usable knowledge that matches,
at best, the legitimate and most relevant sustainability value perspectives in
the specifc problem area. Although social learning on sustainability values
occurs during such research projects, the main focus in the analysis of this
frst research style is on collective action for matching the usable knowledge
to the given set of sustainability values in the problem area. An important
presupposition of the analysis of this frst style of research is the existence
of a sufficient level of mutual understanding of the given value perspectives
among the research partners.
When the mutual understanding is insufficient, the collaboration between
the actors may be seriously hampered and research partners may decide to
focus the research partnership in the frst instance on improving this mutual
understanding as a condition of fruitful collaboration before embarking upon
usable knowledge production. The second style of research practice identi
fed by Schneider et al. (2019) addresses this second challenge by organizing a
“social learning process that enhances the participants’ collective agency and
potential for joint action toward sustainability” (ibid p. 30). In this under
standing of transdisciplinary research practice, one major collective action
challenge is organizing deliberation to foster mutual understanding among the
project partners on sustainability values. An important goal of this second style
therefore is to overcome the collective action problems regarding the unstruc
tured diversity of societal value perspectives. As noted, such unstructured
diversity may lead to fragmentation or the unrefective uptake of certain nor
mative orientations based on path dependent habits (potentially perpetuating
existing rent seeking behavior). The main issue is the establishment of mutual
understanding through a process of impartial and inclusive dialogue, where
the societal value positions are submitted to public argumentation and critical
deconstruction of ideology and dominant knowledge structures.
Finally, the research styles directed toward usable knowledge production
and social learning within societal transformation processes can beneft from
a supportive institutional environment. Such an environment is especially
important to further disseminate transdisciplinary practices beyond small
niche projects. Important features of this institutional capacity building for
transdisciplinary research can also be the specifc target of research projects,
for instance, via organizing competence building or knowledge exchange on
research in diferent situations of sustainability transformations. This third
concern is addressed in part through the third research style identifed by
Schneider et al. (ibid), directed toward building transdisciplinary research
competences.
Overcoming collective action failures 45
As stated by Schneider et al. (ibid, p. 31), the underlying assumption in
this third style of research practices is that when research partners “engage
in transdisciplinary work, including joint experimentation, learning, and
self refection, they develop competences (knowledge, skills, values, and atti
tudes) that enable them to better tackle sustainability challenges and oppor
tunities in their life and work.” Obviously, the example of transdisciplinary
teaching, where students must design and implement a partnership research
project (e.g., as a part of their master thesis) is a good case in point of such
competence building research practices.
In the analysis in Chapter 5, this third research style will be considered
more broadly as designating transdisciplinary research practices that con
tribute to various kinds of capacity building in the institutional environment.
Competence building is one of the mechanisms; other enabling mechanisms
to be considered include research practices to consolidate knowledge, such as
meta research for a better understanding of certain transdisciplinary process
features and exploratory research projects or workshops to connect interested
actors and initiate new co production or social learning processes. Regarding
the collective action problems discussed, these practices specifcally presup
pose the formation of integrated polycentric networks that can support
research activities in a larger ecosystem of boundary crossing research and
knowledge exchanges.
As noted from this short outline, each of the subsequent chapters will
address the collective action challenges in the context of one style of trans
disciplinary research practice, respectively organized around one aspect
of the impact pathways of transdisciplinary research. As mentioned, in
practice however, research partners often combine various aspects of the
research styles to organize successful transdisciplinary research. The lat
ter can be the case within a given project or through a sequence of difer
ent projects that build upon the outcomes of the previous project work.
Therefore, the analysis of the diferent research styles must be considered
in the context of a broader research ecosystem, where, through the crea
tion of synergies and interactions among research teams involved in various
transdisciplinary research practices, the diferent knowledge co production,
social learning, and institutional capacity building challenges can be suc
cessfully addressed.
References
Ahrweiler, P., Gilbert, N., Schrempf, B., Grimpe, B. and Jirotka, M. (2019). The role
of civil society organisations in European responsible research and innovation.
Journal of Responsible Innovation, 6(1), 25–49.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.
Benkler, Y. (2008). The wealth of networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46
Overcoming collective action failures
Benkler, Y. and Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons based peer production and virtue.
Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419.
Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C. and Schramm, E. (2012).
Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice. Frankfurt: Campus
Verlag.
Boix Mansilla, V., Lamont, M. and Sato, K. (2016). Shared cognitive—emotional—
interactional platforms: Markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary
collaborations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 41(4), 571–612.
Dedeurwaerdere, T., Melindi Ghidi, P. and Broggiato, A. (2016). Global scientifc
research commons under the Nagoya Protocol: Towards a collaborative economy
model for the sharing of basic research assets. Environmental Science and Policy,
55, 1–10.
de Jong, S. P., Wardenaar, T. and Horlings, E. (2016). Exploring the promises of trans
disciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes.
Research Policy, 45(7), 1397–1409.
Fam, D. and O’Rourke, M. (Eds.). (2020). Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
failures: Lessons learned from cautionary tales. Abingdon: Routledge.
Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of in
stitutional mechanisms. Science, Technology and Human Values, 15(2), 226–243.
Fleck, L. (1979 [1935]). Genesis and development of a scientifc fact. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Frischmann, B. M., Madison, M. and Strandburg, K. (Eds.). (2014). Governing
knowledge commons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodkind, J. R., Githinji, A. and Isakson, B. (2011). Reducing health disparities ex
perienced by Refugees Resettled in Urban areas: A community based transdisci
plinary intervention model. In M. Kirst et al. (Eds.), Converging disciplines: A
transdisciplinary research approach to urban health problems (pp. 41–55). New
York; Dordrecht; Heidelberg; London: Springer Science and Business Media.
Hacking, I. (2012). Language, truth and reason’ 30 years later. Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science, 43(4), 599–609.
Hess, C. and Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons:
From theory to practice. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hofmann Riem, H., Biber Klemm, S., Grossenbacher Mansuy,
W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., . . . and Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hollingsworth, J. R. (2000). Doing institutional analysis: Implications for the study
of innovations. Review of International Political Economy, 7(4), 595–644.
Jacobs, J. A. (2017). The need for disciplines in the modern research university. In R.
Frodeman, J. T. Klein and R. Pacheco (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 35–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Karrasch, L., Grothmann, T., Michel, T. A., Wesselow, M., Wolter, H., Unger, A., . . .
and Siebenhüner, B. (2022). Integrating knowledge within and between knowledge
types in transdisciplinary sustainability research: Seven case studies and an indica
tor framework. Environmental Science and Policy, 131, 14–25.
König, Th. and Gorman, M. E. (2017). The challenge of funding interdisciplinary. In
R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein and R. Pacheco (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (pp. 513–524). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Overcoming collective action failures 47
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Staufacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., . . . and
Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice,
principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25–43.
Macfarlane, B. and Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, universalism and disinterested
ness: Re examining contemporary support among academics for Merton’s scien
tifc norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6(1), 67–78.
Madison, M. J. (2014). Commons at the intersection of peer production, citizen sci
ence, and big data: Galaxy Zoo. In B. M. Frischmann et al. (Eds.), Governing
knowledge commons (pp. 209–254). New York: Oxford University Press.
Mobjörk, M. (2010). Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: A refned
classifcation of transdisciplinary research. Futures, 42(8), 866–873.
Mokyr, J. (2011). The gifts of Athena. In The gifts of Athena. Princeton, NJ: Prince
ton University Press.
Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., . . .
and Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co production in sustainabil
ity research. Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 182–190.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of
groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective
action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex
economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672.
Paredis, E. (2011). Transition management as a form of policy innovation. A case
study of Plan C, a process in sustainable materials management in Flanders. Work
ing Paper. Flemish Policy Research Centre on Sustainable Development, Ghent
University, Ghent.
Peer, V. and Stoeglehner, G. (2013). Universities as change agents for sustainability−
framing the role of knowledge transfer and generation in regional development
processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 44, 85–95.
Pohl, C. and Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for designing transdisciplinary
research. Munich: Oekom Verlag.
Pohl, C., Klein, J. T., Hofmann, S., Mitchell, C. and Fam, D. (2021). Conceptualising
transdisciplinary integration as a multidimensional interactive process. Environmental Science and Policy, 118, 18–26.
Popa, F., Guillermin, M. and Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2015). A pragmatist approach to
transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to re
fexive science. Futures, 65, 45–56.
Puska, P., Vartiainen, E., Laatikainen, T., Jousilahti, P. and Paavola, M. (2009). The
North Karelia project: From North Karelia to national action. Helsinki: National
Institute for Health and Welfare.
Reichman, J. H., Uhlir, P. F. and Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2016). Governing digitally
integrated genetic resources, data, and literature: Global intellectual property
48
Overcoming collective action failures
strategies for a redesigned microbial research commons. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Russell, J. Y. (2010). A philosophical framework for an open and critical transdisci
plinary inquiry. In V. A. Brown, J. A. Harris and J. Russell (Eds.), Tackling wicked
problems (pp. 31–60). Abingdon: Routledge.
Sandler, T. (2004). Global collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., . . . and
Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co production of knowledge and sus
tainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science and Policy, 102, 26–35.
Sciortino, L. (2017). On Ian Hacking’s notion of style of reasoning. Erkenntnis,
82(2), 243–264.
Singleton, R. A. and Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sørensen, E. and Torfng, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Heidelberg: Springer.
Spash, C. L. (2012). New foundations for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 77, 36–47.
Stromberg, P. M., Dedeurwaerdere, T. and Pascual, U. (2013). The heterogeneity of
public ex situ collections of microorganisms: Empirical evidence about conserva
tion practices, industry spillovers and public goods. Environmental Science and
Policy, 33, 19–27.
Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
3
GENERATING ACTIONABLE
KNOWLEDGE OUTPUTS THROUGH
COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
CO-DESIGN
To respond to the urgent sustainability challenges, scientifc researchers
organize a wealth of projects based on integrating contextual knowledge
from societal actors in the production of knowledge outputs (Norström et al.,
2020). This efort is refected in the vast amount of scientifc journal papers
produced on knowledge integration in sustainability research. However, such
research eforts do not always induce the production of usable knowledge on
real world sustainability transformation pathways.
The hypothesis in this chapter is that to produce usable knowledge outputs
for sustainability transformations, sustainability researchers must strengthen
the collective action arrangements to co construct a common research frame
work for socio ecological analysis. This investment in research co design is
needed to provide additional guarantees for the alignment of heterogeneous
knowledge interests and value laden perspectives around a common research
purpose. These guarantees extend beyond the well researched conditions of
the integration of societal actors’ knowledge and perspectives in knowledge
generation processes.
Thus, to test the hypothesis on the importance of co constructing the
research design, this chapter considers a broad sample of cases that covers
diferent levers of transformation in socio ecological systems, ranging from
technological and socioeconomic levers to policy and sociocultural change.
Covering the various levers of societal transformation aims to provide evi
dence of the organization of research co construction with societal actors
that are, potentially, of concern to a broad set of transdisciplinary research
traditions on interdependent social and ecological system dynamics.
The analysis in this chapter will proceed in three steps. The frst sec
tion presents a sample of in depth case studies of transdisciplinary research
DOI: 10.4324/9781032624297 4
This chapter has been made available under a CC BY NC ND 4.0 international license.
50 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
and applies a basic model of research co design to the comparative analysis of
success or failures in usable knowledge production. The second section deep
ens this preliminary analysis via an overview of knowledge co production in
fve research clusters dealing with distinct levers of sustainability transforma
tions. The third section concludes by showing how this analysis of knowl
edge co production fts with the more general epistemological framework of
pragmatist constructivism.
3.1 Usable knowledge production on sustainability
transformations
3.1.1
A model of research co-design for delivering usable
knowledge outputs
To conduct a preliminary analysis of the production of usable knowledge,
this section discusses the key features of research co design and a basic
model of various types of usable knowledge outputs developed from the
existing scholarly literature on the societal impacts of transdisciplinary
research.
3.1.1.1
Collaboration for knowledge integration, process
co-management, and research co-design
As acknowledged by scholars of transdisciplinary research, efective produc
tion of usable knowledge outputs requires intensive collaboration among sci
entifc researchers and societal actors for knowledge integration from various
sources in combination with a form of co management of the knowledge
generation and dissemination processes. These two types of collaboration
mechanisms are also highlighted in a review paper by 36 co authors work
ing on sustainability research published in Nature Sustainability (Norström
et al., 2020). Norström et al. (ibid) frst highlight various mechanisms of
knowledge integration between scientifc researchers and societal actors. This
frst type respectively aims at producing knowledge situated in a particular
context or issue (context based), integrating multiple ways of knowing and
doing (pluralistic) and articulating shared goals related to the challenge at
hand (goal oriented). The second type of mechanism relates to the iterative
and collaborative character of the co management process. As stated by the
authors, the “act of engagement across domains and disciplines can be as
important for the pursuit of sustainability as the production of knowledge.”
This mechanism of “process co management” emphasizes that co production
produces more than just knowledge. It develops capacity, builds networks,
fosters social capital, and implements actions that contribute to sustainability
(ibid, p. 2).
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 51
The need to combine mechanisms for knowledge integration with the
co management by the scientifc researchers and societal actors is a com
mon thread in the literature on transdisciplinary co production (see also sec
tion 2.2.1). However, this perspective on knowledge co production does not
specify the conditions under which the collaboration leads to elaborating a
common framework for analyzing interdependent socio ecological transfor
mation dynamics. The contextual and pluralist knowledge integration mech
anisms identifed by Norström et al. (ibid) may be successfully implemented
without co designing the interdisciplinary framework for the analysis of the
socio ecological system dynamics. Thus, such a process might produce usable
knowledge outputs that are co produced among the scientifc researchers and
societal actors in a pluralist and context specifc way but that only address
separate components of the overall sustainability issues.
To address the challenge of common knowledge production on specifc
interdependent dynamics between social and ecological system dynamics,
this chapter considers an additional type of mechanism to be considered in
the knowledge co production process: the co construction of the interdisci
plinary research design among the scientifc researchers and societal actors.
Indeed, to understand the specifc coupled dynamics between the social and
ecological dimensions of sustainability transformations, scientifc researchers
and societal actors must match the research design to the real world pos
sibilities of interdependent socio ecological transformations. Therefore, the
design of interdisciplinary frameworks cannot be separated from the under
standing of the given value related perspectives on real world transformation
pathways.
The key additional challenge, therefore, is to understand how heterogene
ous knowledge sources and research styles can ft into a common research
design that refects specifc feasible and desirable sustainability transforma
tion pathways. In this context, researchers can beneft from the systematic
analysis of research design practices in the broad feld of mixed methods
research. Mixed methods are used in many specifc areas of interdisciplinary
research, such as geography or landscape ecology. However, in transdiscipli
nary research on socio ecological systems, they are omnipresent.
In a review paper on mixed methods research, Joseph Maxwell and Diane
Loomis summarize fve key ingredients of successful mixed methods research
that can be adapted to the purposes of transdisciplinary co design (Maxwell
and Loomis, 2003). Figures 3.1 and 3.2 schematically represent them, respec
tively, for the cases of disciplinary and interdisciplinary research.
The central component of the research design with mixed methods is the
design of interrelated and compatible research question among the research
partners: What specifcally do the researchers want to understand by con
ducting the research? What questions will the researcher attempt to answer?
However, as illustrated in Figure 3.1, to fruitfully combine various methods
52 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
Conceptual
framework
Purposes
Interrelated/compatible research
questions
Validity
Methods
FIGURE 3.1
Research co design among researchers in multi method disciplinary
research
Figure by the author, based on an adaptation of the concepts developed in Maxwell and Loomis
(2003).
Conceptual
framework
Purposes
Research
questions
Methods
Conceptual
framework
Purposes
Validity
Research
questions
Research
questions
Methods
FIGURE 3.2
Conceptual
framework
Purposes
Validity
Methods
Validity
Research co design among researchers in interdisciplinary research
in a common research design, the researchers must agree upon a set of other
design elements. Four additional design elements are underlined in the review
by Maxwell and Loomis (ibid): (1) the conceptual framework that gathers
the contributions of the various disciplines in a common model, (2) the crite
ria of validity and the limits of each of the knowledge types, (3) the available
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 53
approaches and techniques to collect and analyze the data, and (4) the com
monly agreed upon goals of the study.
Regarding interdisciplinary research on sustainability problems, the co
construction of the diferent design elements must be coordinated among
the diferent disciplines. Indeed, to be relevant, interdisciplinary framework
research must look beyond the analysis of the single components, which are
often better addressed through purely disciplinary research, and look at the
interactions between the natural, social, and human science features of the
problem at hand.
In this context, to make the heterogeneous knowledge perspectives among
the various disciplines mutually consistent, the research partners must organ
ize a form of reciprocal learning between the various disciplines, sometimes
qualifed as reciprocal reference (Jaeger and Scheringer, 1998) or reciprocal
critique (Becker and Jahn, 2003). This reciprocal learning can take the form
of adjustments at the level of selection of methods that allow for knowledge
transfer from one discipline or knowledge type to another or adjustments at
the level of conceptual background assumptions, data collection methods,
and sampling strategies.
Without such reciprocal adjustment of knowledge perspectives, there is
no guarantee for an efective contribution to a common research endeavor.
Indeed, scholars approaching the same socio ecological reality through dif
ferent disciplinary approaches use diferent conceptual frameworks to build
their research objects, even when addressing the same real world phenom
ena (Sciortino, 2017). In such a context there is a danger that the various
disciplines focus on one aspect of reality per the disciplinary state of the art
and the skills of the disciplinary researchers involved, instead of selecting the
disciplinary variables and the various research questions in the function of
the common transdisciplinary framework (Ostrom, 2007; Wuelser and Pohl,
2016). Therefore, the diferent conceptual choices by the project partners
in constructing their research objects must be adjusted to bring them in line
with a common object of inquiry.
In the context of transdisciplinary research, the research co design must
satisfy an additional requirement, as the co design must consider the research
participation of societal actors. Indeed, the various aspects of the research co
design must accord with the societal actor and scientifc researcher perspec
tives on the identifcation of the socio ecological problem situation and their
perspectives on sustainability values. Figure 3.3 illustrates the additional
requirements.
In summary, the key question scientifc researchers and societal actors
must address for successful co design is to clarify and collectively decide how
the various approaches to methodology, validity, research purpose, concep
tual framing, and the identifcation of the most relevant research questions
can be integrated into a common transdisciplinary framework. Failure to do
54
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
Conceptual
framework
Purposes
Research co-design
amongst social actors and
researchers in
transdisciplinary research
Research
questions
Methods
Grey: interdisciplinary
framework
Black : societal actors
partnership
Validity
RESEARCHERS and SOCIETAL ACTOR
perspectives on the sustainability value
orientations of the socio-ecological
transformations pathways
Conceptual
framework
Purposes
Research
questions
Methods
FIGURE 3.3
Conceptual
framework
Purposes
Research
questions
Validity
Methods
Validity
Research co design between researchers and societal actors in trans
disciplinary research
so may still yield interesting knowledge on disjointed aspects of the over
all socio ecological system dynamics, which might be of interest to individ
ual disciplinary researchers or societal actors. However, such a disjointed
approach is likely to be of poor use to understanding the dynamics of change
in interdependent social and ecological systems in a socially relevant and
legitimate manner.
3.1.1.2
Factoring in a broad variety of societal efects of
transdisciplinary research
The short review on collaboration mechanisms for usable knowledge pro
duction on specifc socio ecological transformation pathways shows the
importance of combining collaboration for knowledge integration, process
co management, and research co design. To analyze their contribution to
efective transdisciplinary research, the basic model used in this chapter con
siders three main categories of knowledge outputs to analyze the contribu
tion of the various mechanisms of collaboration. The frst category covers
scientifc research outputs on socio ecological relationships, and the second,
the dissemination through peer reviewed scientifc publications. The third
category covers diferent usable knowledge outputs that can support deci
sion making by societal actors, as illustrated in Figure 3.4.
First, as in the case of interdisciplinary research on sustainability issues, the
goal is to produce knowledge to better understand the world in a scientifcally
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 55
Explanatory variables
Outcome variables
1. One of the following usable knowledge outputs
Knowledge integration through information
gathering and interactive communication
Research co-management
Research co-design
Social learning on background
values/representations
Control variables
• Types of societal actors involved
• Types of disciplines
• Thematic field of sustainability
FIGURE 3.4
New solutions implemented
Societal actors’ action plan at
implementation stage
Govt action plan at implementation stage
New organisational mechanisms
established (hierarchies/networks)
2. Published in peer reviewed journals
3. New knowledge on socio-ecological
relations resulting from knowledge
integration in the project
Core variables of the comparative case study design of transdiscipli
nary research projects. For details on the scales used for coding the
variables, see Annex 3.
reliable manner. Such usable knowledge can be produced through applied
and basic research. As highlighted in the introduction, both applied and
basic research practices are present in transdisciplinary research. Applied
transdisciplinary research provides knowledge that contributes directly to
improving the understanding of specifc problem situations. On the other
hand, basic transdisciplinary research contributes by building more general
knowledge on socio ecological dynamics, which may yield new approaches
and problem solving in the long term (Rosenberg, 2010). In the case studies
below, the contribution to such improved understanding from applied and
basic research will be assessed through evidence of peer reviewed publications
from the projects that address social and ecological system interdependencies.
Second, to assess the contribution of the improved understanding to usa
ble knowledge for decision making by societal actors, this chapter considers
a broad variety of usable knowledge outputs. The analysis will evaluate the
possible contribution to three distinct categories of usable knowledge out
puts highlighted in a series of review papers on usable knowledge production
in transdisciplinary research (Walter et al., 2007; Wiek et al., 2014; Mitchell
et al., 2015; Schneider et al., 2019). These categories include contributions
to (1) new knowledge for the implementation of solutions and improvement
of the situation; (2) promoting knowledge integration among the actors by
translating the research results in integrated strategy and planning docu
ments, for both societal actors and policy makers; and (3) building new actor
networks, leading to new organizational initiatives.
An important feature of this basic model of usable knowledge outputs
must be mentioned before proceeding. Following other authors, for the
56 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
consistency of the comparison among the projects, the analysis considers
essentially so called frst order efects. Such frst order efects can be directly
linked to the project activities, occur within the spatial scope of the project,
and produce the efect within the immediate temporal context—that is, dur
ing or shortly after the end of the project (Lux et al., 2019, p. 184). However,
the projects also produce more difuse, so called second or third order social
efects, which extend beyond the temporal and spatial scope of a given pro
ject (ibid). However, the analysis of these latter efects falls outside the scope
of the comparative project assessment. Nevertheless, one can reasonably pre
sume that projects that show strong frst order efects on the direct produc
tion of usable knowledge outputs also contribute to enhancing the likelihood
of the production of second and third order efects.
3.1.2
A sample of in-depth case studies on transdisciplinary
research processes
To grasp the contribution of the various mechanisms of knowledge co
production, this chapter presents a comparative assessment of a sample of
well documented transdisciplinary research projects via a unique “most dif
ferent” case study sampling process covering a broad variety of thematic
areas of sustainability research.
The initial cases in the sample were identifed through a keyword search
on “transdisciplinarity and sustainability” and “participatory research and
sustainability” in four scholarly journals. The purpose of the keyword search
was to identify publications on case studies of research projects that were
based on interdisciplinary sustainability analysis and involved research col
laborations among scientifc researchers and societal actors. Based on an ini
tial reading of the journal publications and the available project documents,
a further selection was made to keep only projects that (1) were interdisci
plinary across the natural and social or the natural and human sciences and
(2) efectively integrated knowledge from societal actors on the sustainability
transformations into the analysis. Only journal publications that provide an
in depth analysis of the organizational features of the full research process in
the journal publication (in addition to the presentation of the results) or in
the supplementary material were selected. For the selected projects, all avail
able project materials (other journal publications and web documents) were
consulted to complete the analysis.
In a second step, to cover a variety of diferent thematic approaches to sus
tainability transformations, the sample considered cases that address fve dif
ferent levers of change, ranging from technological and socioeconomic levers
to policy and sociocultural change, as detailed below. Whenever the initial
selection process did not yield a sufficient number of papers dealing with one of
these levers (with a minimum of fve in each lever), the sample was completed
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 57
based on a general keyword search in a broader set of journals on that spe
cifc lever of change combined with the keyword “transdisciplinary” in Google
Scholar. Annex 2 lists the cases that resulted from the sampling process.
As can be seen, the sampling process used a minimalistic characterization
of transdisciplinary sustainability research based on the two core features
of (1) interdisciplinary modeling of interdependent socio ecological systems
and (2) integration of scientifc and practitioner knowledge in the research
process. The sample from this process contained a sufficiently broad variety
of failed and successful cases, with diferent degrees of success, in usable
knowledge production to allow for a qualitative comparative analysis of the
institutional design features for overcoming collective action failures (see,
e.g., Rihoux and Ragin (2008) for an analysis of sample size for Medium N
qualitative comparative analysis).
Further, the sampling of a set of highly diverse cases from within the fve
levers of change decreases the potential bias from an overly strong represen
tation in the sample of a specifc methodological approach or thematic feld
of society wide transformation. In particular, the sample covers a diversity of
methodological approaches for integrated boundary crossing research that
are mobilized to analyze the various levers of change, including technology
living labs, multi criteria analysis, community based survey methods, and
participatory qualitative research. The projects in the sample also covered a
broad variety of thematic felds of sustainability transformations, including
sustainable food and agriculture, sustainable mobility, energy, and housing.
As noted, to analyze successful knowledge co production, the sample
addresses cases from within fve clusters that focus on a specifc lever of sus
tainability transformations in socio ecological systems. These clusters are
based on the knowledge based sustainability transformations framework
elaborated in the 2019 Global Sustainability Report (UN, 2019). According
to this report, societal transformations can be accelerated through actions
based on diferent levers, respectively:
Biophysical levers
1 Fostering technological innovation from a socio technical systems
perspective
2 Planning sustainable resource use in society wide sectors of activity (e.g.,
energy, mobility, and housing)
Socioeconomic and policy levers
3 Designing socioeconomic regimes for sustainability transformations
4 Developing policy and governance for implementing new socioeconomic
regimes
58 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
Sociocultural levers
5 Including the diversity of sociocultural perspectives in the sustainability
transformation pathways
The consideration of these diferent levers allows covering a broad diversity
of knowledge integration challenges in the case study sample. For instance,
the analysis of the frst lever requires combining technical knowledge with
socioeconomic and sociocultural variables. Other cases, dealing with the ffth
cluster, require combining knowledge of sociocultural practices with knowl
edge of the broader socio ecological system wide changes and challenges that
impact the transformation of these practices.
The challenges encountered in organizing research co design can difer per
lever of change. For instance, in transdisciplinary research on socio technical
transitions, researchers may fnd it relatively easy to integrate general ethical
perspectives as a constraint on the choices of future technological innovation
pathways. Indeed, such considerations do not necessarily directly impact the
technical component of the research design, as long as the envisioned innova
tions stay within the set of socially acceptable ethical perspectives. However,
addressing the change in habits and impacts on social meanings of each of the
technological pathways is likely to require a more in depth reciprocal learn
ing process between disciplines. In the latter case, the question of patterns of
the use of technology in specifc sociocultural contexts and technical choices
must be analyzed in close relation to each other. In other cases, the co design
of the sociocultural dimensions of the socio ecological pathway may be the
frst entry point for the research partners, while the integration of the techni
cal or economic system dimensions requires stepping outside of the research
partners’ comfort zone.
Although most scholars recognize the importance of these fve levers of
change in addressing major sustainability challenges, they often fail to organ
ize efective co design processes with the various disciplines and societal
actors involved. Therefore, the remainder of this chapter discusses the chal
lenges of organizing a broad interdisciplinary approach to the analysis of
levers, the benefts from research co design in the building of partnerships
among researchers and societal actors, and organizing appropriate forms of
co management for conducting such transdisciplinary partnership research.
3.1.3
Aggregate results from the in-depth case study analysis
An elementary coding of the key explanatory and usable knowledge outcome
variables (see Figure 3.4) of the case studies of the sample confrms, at an
aggregative level, the overall importance of knowledge co production pro
cesses. In particular, the analysis strongly supports the role of the two mech
anisms of research co design and co management with the societal actors
reviewed above.
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 59
Even though the authors of the publications on these case studies labeled
the projects explicitly as transdisciplinary sustainability research or participa
tory sustainability research, some projects in the sample are, in reality, at the
level of a pure aggregation of diferent types of knowledge for academic sci
entifc research purposes without signifcant knowledge co production with
societal actors. Indeed, all the projects in the sample used contextual infor
mation from societal actors and resulted in peer reviewed publications, but
not all led to one or several co produced usable knowledge outputs related
to common research questions among the partners on socio ecological trans
formation dynamics.
The analysis shows that, of the 44 transdisciplinary research projects, only
29 co produced at least one of the types of usable knowledge outputs on spe
cifc socio ecological transformation pathways that resulted from the integra
tion of knowledge from the scientifc researchers and societal actors. In this
sub sample of 29 projects, all projects explicitly organized co construction
activities of the research design with societal actors and a form of co man
agement among researchers and societal actors in the knowledge produc
tion process. Specifcally, the amount and strength of usable knowledge
outputs increase with the strength of the knowledge co production features,
as illustrated in Figure 3.5 (for an overview of the average results on the
Strong collaborative and transformative
• Very strong and comprehensive co-design
• Very strong and multi-pronged co-management
• Both Informal and explicitly organized social learning
Strong collaborative
• Strong co-design
• Strong co-management
• Informal and regular social learning
Moderate collaborative
• Moderate co-design
• Moderate co-management
• Moderate and sporadic social learning
Consultative
• Information from social actors
• No co-design, no co-management
• Informal and sporadic social learning
• comprehensive usable knowledge outcomes
• with clear context specific (local or global)
implementation strategies at the end of the project
and
• evidence of broad acceptance by a large part of the
intended user group/beneficiaries
Science and societal
actors co-production
of credible and
legitimate usable
knowledge outcomes
(short term/long
term)
• No or very few usable knowledge outcomes
• reaching very few of the intended user
group/beneficiaries
FIGURE 3.5
Aggregate results of the coding of the case studies of transdiscipli
nary sustainability research. Co produced knowledge outputs (right
side of the fgure) resulting from increasing comprehensiveness of the
science and societal actors partnership (left side of the fgure). The
ladder schematically represents the increasing strength of the part
nership, according to comparative case study analysis (for a detailed
overview, see Annex 2).
60
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
importance of these features and the detailed coding scale used for the analy
sis, see Annex 2). In practice of course, not all individual projects have the
means to organize comprehensive research co design and/or social learning.
Nevertheless, the analysis clearly indicates the beneft of doing so and the
need to imagine diferent means to strengthen the knowledge co production
features, including through the networking of diferent projects (sequen
tially or in clusters) or through the integration of knowledge co production
in training activities at institutions of higher education. Therefore, even if
the analysis in this chapter is based on the comparison of individual pro
ject outcomes, the fndings also show the need to explore the embedding of
these projects in broader polycentric networks for transdisciplinary knowl
edge co production. The latter will be further developed in the discussion
on the building of integrated boundary crossing organizational networks in
Chapter 5.
The other 15 transdisciplinary research projects did not produce any of
the usable knowledge outputs within the time frame of the project in direct
relation to specifc socio ecological transformations in a signifcant manner.
Some mention this explicitly as a failure or a challenge that remains to be
addressed. All these projects produced peer reviewed scientifc publications
from the partnership processes and mentioned the contextual information
gathering with societal actors as an appropriate defnition of transdiscipli
nary research. None of the projects in this sub sample of 15 mentions co
construction of research design or co management as a governance feature
of the partnership.
A note of caution for the correct interpretation of these results needs to be
mentioned, however. As we only selected projects in our case study sample
that explicitly provide an in depth analysis of the knowledge co production
process, and as we consulted a broad set of supplementary material for each
of the cases, we assume that the omission of co management or research co
design with societal actors is an indication that these features were absent
or in any case considered not sufficiently signifcant in the overall process.
In case of doubt on the completeness of the available information on these
process features in the project publication and supplementary material, pro
jects were excluded from our sample for the outset (cf. the explanation of the
sampling process above). Nevertheless, in spite of the careful analysis of the
provided documents on the process design and its evaluation, the results pre
sented in this section should be considered as an average trend over the entire
sample of 44 cases. This trend is clearly strongly signifcant but needs to be
further substantiated through additional comparative analyses and in depth
qualitative research on isolated cases. The presentation of in depth research
on illustrative cases presented in the subsequent section aims to contribute to
this deepening of the results.
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 61
Levels of comprehensiveness of science and social actors
participation in transd. sust. research
Strong collaborative and transformative
• Very strong and comprehensive co-design
• Very strong and multi-pronged co-management
• Both Informal and explicitly organized social learning
Strong collaborative
• Strong co-design
• Strong co-management
• Informal and regular social learning
Moderate collaborative
• Moderate co-design
• Moderate co-management
• Moderate and sporadic social learning
Multi-stakeholder user/beneficiary driven science,
with active co-design, co-interventions and coresearch (ex. Community health case §3.2.4)
Multi-stakeholder user/beneficary driven
science, with active co-design and cointerventions (ex. Enkanini §3.2.5)
Multi-stakeholder research alliance with active
research co-design (ex. Street design §3.2.2; Climpol
§3.2.3)
Participatory action research: co-interventions
with active research co-design (ex. Cahors § 3.2.1)
Consultative
• Information from social actors
• No co-design, no co-management
• Informal and sporadic social learning
FIGURE 3.6
Examples of types of transdisciplinary research in the case study sam
ple, with varying degrees of strength of co design, co management
and social learning; case study names refer to the detailed case study
sections in Annex 2.
The next section will therefore further build on this elementary compar
ative analysis to better understand the benefts of various components of
knowledge co production in transdisciplinary research through a series of
selected cases out of the sample of 29 transdisciplinary projects that pro
duced efective, usable knowledge outputs. Obviously, the various trans
disciplinary research projects are extremely diverse, as they cover diferent
areas of sustainability transformations and involve highly diverse societal
actors. Thus, as one can expect, there is no optimal design of the process for
organizing knowledge co production with societal actors but rather a set of
diverse types of approaches, as illustrated in the right column of Figure 3.6.
Nevertheless, all successful projects in the sample show strong evidence of
the explicit organization of research co management and research co design
with the view to developing integrated interdisciplinary frameworks of socio
ecological system dynamics that match legitimate and relevant societal value
perspectives in the specifc feld of sustainability transformations.
3.2 Collaborative research co-design across technological,
socioeconomic, and cultural levers of sustainability
transformations
The next sections illustrate cases of research co design across various levers
of change to foster sustainability transformations, ranging from the analy
sis of technological and biophysical levers of change to socioeconomic and
62 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
sociocultural levers. For each lever, scholars widely documented the failures
of the mere aggregation of disciplinary approaches for understanding inter
dependent social and ecological dynamics and proposed specifc methodolo
gies for interdisciplinary analysis of sustainability transformation pathways.
Therefore, each section frst presents a specifc methodology of interdiscipli
nary analysis before discussing the various attempts in the selected cases for
integrating knowledge co production processes with societal actors in this
interdisciplinary approach.
Moreover, to illustrate the role of co design in transdisciplinary research,
each section addresses a diferent aspect of the co design framework devel
oped based on the analysis of Maxwell and Loomis (2003) (see Figure 3.2).
Specifcally, the selected case studies respectively show the role of co con
struction of the following aspects of the research design:
Co-designing “Validity of data collection and analysis”
• Historic City Centre Living Lab case study: Co-design of data collection
from various methodological perspectives to match available data sources
on social possibilities to use bio based materials (in Section 3.2.1).
Co-designing “Research purposes”
• Future Streets case study: Co-design of the research purposes of dynamic
systems modeling to match the research framework to diverse sociocul
tural perspectives (in Section 3.2.2).
Co-designing “Methods”
• Sustainable Mobility case study: Co-design of a research method to match
this method to the analysis of the feasible transformation options of the
sustainable mobility strategy of a municipality (in Section 3.2.3).
Co-designing “Research questions”
• Environmental Health case study: Iterative co-design of research questions
through diferent rounds of community surveying that reveal the case spe
cifc social and ecological interdependencies (in Section 3.2.4).
Co-designing “Conceptual frameworks”
• Energy Poverty in Informal Urban Settlements: Co-design of a new con
ceptual framework that better matches the key societal actors’ perspec
tives on sustainable energy transformations (in Section 3.2.5).
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 63
Each of the case study sections is structured as follows. The section frst reca
pitulates some of the key arguments for moving toward an interdisciplinary
and social actor partnership based approach to the sustainability problems
in the analysis of a given lever of change. In the second step, a case study
illustrating a specifc aspect of research co design in that lever of change is
presented. In the third step, other cases from the case study sample are pre
sented to further illustrate the contribution of co design processes around
the diferent sustainability value orientations of planetary resilience, environ
mental justice, and environmental citizenship.
3.2.1
3.2.1.1
User and citizen co-design of technological levers of change
From the laboratory to interdisciplinary socio-technical
transformation research
The frst lever of society wide sustainability transformations, also promi
nently present in the popular media and policy debates on sustainability, is
technological innovation and product development (UN, 2019). However,
technological innovation on its own is neutral toward achieving sustaina
bility objectives. On the one hand, well designed technologies can increase
resource efficiency and contribute to transformation pathways for living
within the boundaries of the planet. On the other hand, technological innova
tion is a major driver of the development of ever new products for individual
consumption, which might further add to the already existing dependency on
the use of natural resource inputs, such as energy or non renewable materials
in contemporary mass consumption societies.
For instance, innovations in consumer products, such as digital platforms
for car sharing, LED lighting systems, or less energy consuming water boil
ers, have brought important cost benefts to consumers but without a proven
shift in behavior toward overall less resource intensive consumption patterns
(Ceschin and Gaziulusoy, 2016). In particular, researchers estimate that 78%
of discarded products still function properly when replaced (Van Nes, 2003).
The reasons include new trends in fashion, the desire for societal status, or
changing user needs (Van Nes, 2003; Cooper, 2004, 2016). Moreover, for
products that consume energy, user behavior mainly determines the level of
energy consumption (Tang and Bhamra, 2009). Further, regarding industry
led innovations, emission and waste reduction technologies in industrial pro
duction processes, even when they ofer cost efective alternatives to current
practice, often fail to engage the company shareholders or to mobilize the
technical staf in developing new competences to implement the envisioned
changes on a wider scale (Stindt et al., 2016).
Therefore, the frst challenge for sustainability research focused on techno
logical innovation and product development is to move from a disciplinary
64
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
product centered research approach to an interdisciplinary analysis of inter
dependent technological and social dynamics. How can sustainable product
or service innovations be developed that address environmental challenges
and promote sustainable behavior by producing co benefts with social and
economic sustainability dimensions? How can new technologies be developed
for the factory foor while generating efective participation of all the relevant
actors in the re organization of production and supply chains? Further, how
can the broad range of concerned societal stakeholders be associated with
the dissemination of technologies that promote environmental, social, and
economic sustainability in an integrated manner?
In response to these challenges, researchers in engineering and biophysical
sciences and societal actors have developed a broad set of interdisciplinary
methods for user centered research and technological innovation processes.
Indeed, given the initial impetus in the 1990s by early initiatives, such as the
living lab initiated at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology in the United
States (ENoLL, 2019), researchers have developed user centered technologi
cal innovation methods to orient these toward advancing social, environmen
tal, and economic sustainability in an integrated socio technological systems
approach. Labeled in the literature with diferent terms such as “sustainable
living labs,” “design for sustainability,” or “product service system” innova
tions, these approaches share a focus on involving users and other relevant
actors along value chains in technological design and innovation processes
(Ceschin and Gaziulusoy, 2016)
The interdisciplinary challenge of the socio technological systems approach
to address sustainability issues is to integrate product related improvements
with other sustainability dimensions, such as through an analysis of behav
ioral changes, psychological factors, business models, governance of innova
tion, and inclusive economic development goals. Nevertheless, to produce
usable knowledge in specifc transformation pathways, societal actors must
be involved in this integrated and multi dimensional approach. Indeed, each
research project must zoom in on a subset of these sustainability dimensions
when building the research partnership. Per the most urgent challenges iden
tifed, to promote desirable and feasible real world sustainability transfor
mations, researchers and societal actors must prioritize certain scientifc and
societal outcomes and organize the various phases of the knowledge co pro
duction process accordingly.
3.2.1.2
A living lab for sustainable renovation in the historic city center
of Cahors, France
The research on energy refurbishment technologies in the historic city
of Cahors in France aptly illustrates the contribution of co constructing
research design in user centered research on technological innovation
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 65
(Cruchon, 2019). As in many other cities, the development in recent decades
of suburban areas has led to the depopulation of the city center and a lack of
investment in the refurbishment of historic dwellings (Claude et al., 2017).
In response, to revitalize the city center, the municipality launched in 2015 a
renovation program while promoting sustainable building techniques based
on the sourcing of locally available bio based materials and the conservation
of valuable historical heritage.
Even though the project partners agreed on the general sustainability
values that guided the project (around the use of bio based materials and
preservation of historical heritage), they still faced the challenge of match
ing the activities in the research project to real world social possibilities for
transformation in the local building sector that refects these values. Indeed,
in the broader context of the building sector, many refurbishment solutions
are based on conventional solutions with mass produced non renewable
materials proposed by the industrialized building sector (ibid). In this con
text, a more systematic integration of artisan knowledge with expertise in the
refurbishment of a historical building remains a considerable challenge to be
addressed. Moreover, government programs for fnancial support of energy
refurbishment are based on a theoretical diagnosis of energy performance,
which is not well adapted to the situation of old buildings (ibid, p. 122).
The standard governmental energy performance requirements can encourage
renovators to favor solutions that contradict the preservation of the histori
cal heritage, for instance, by changing windows and doors. Finally, despite
being one of the green energies with high economic potential and the broad
availability of these materials, the industry and market for bio based materi
als remain poorly coordinated and lack overall recognition.
Thus, to address these issues, the municipality and the researchers from
the University of Toulouse established a living lab on new refurbishment
technologies that are better adapted to the thermal renovation of old historic
buildings while enhancing the skills of local craftsmen. This living lab imple
mented a knowledge co production process by involving local artisans, end
users, local authorities, and material producers in the design of an interactive
process of data gathering combining refurbishment of buildings in real world
test sites in Cahors, laboratory measurement, and socio historical analysis.
In contrast with classical interdisciplinary and expert based approaches, par
ticipants in the living lab could develop sustainable technologies in a real
life context, where political, ecological, socioeconomic, and technological
dimensions must be integrated.
The overall research process included a frst phase of more conventional
interdisciplinary framework building and a second transdisciplinary phase of
knowledge co production and research co design. First, to involve the stake
holders in the defnition of the research frame and the choice of the materials
to be tested, the Cahors living lab organized a set of co creation workshops
66 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
during the 2017–2018 period in the context of the overall ENERPAT project
(2018). They yielded an interdisciplinary framework that considered vari
ous theoretical aspects to implement the bio based sustainable building path
way. This specifc socio ecological pathway required considering multiple
dimensions in the choice of the materials and energy, such as the moisture
regulation efficiency of the bio based materials, the shape and orientation of
the building on the test sites, the climate and geographical conditions of the
region, and socioeconomic and cultural factors of historical building prac
tices (Claude et al., 2017).
Second, to match these choices to the real world possibilities for imple
mentation in the specifc context of the Cahors living lab, the partners
designed a process of data collection that integrated the various constraints
of the test sites. Given the collaboration with local artisans and their
empirical knowledge of vernacular techniques, the partners designed an
iterative process of on site prototyping of bio based materials, laboratory
measurements, and feld testing of using the materials in building renova
tion. The archaeologist from the city council brought expert knowledge
on the architectural and socioeconomic features of the historical building
practices. Based on these combined inputs, various on site experiments
were performed (e.g., moisture measurements and testing the sealing of the
doors) by researchers and students to improve the proposed refurbishment
solutions.
The project resulted in some direct exploitable research results, such as
the development of mixes of Earth and natural fber with the desired proper
ties for use in historical buildings. These results were communicated through
public events in 2018 and 2019 with various researchers and actors in the
sustainable building sector. Beyond these events and the scientifc publica
tions on the properties of bio based building materials, the project team also
notes more indirect results that impact the social practices in the building
sector. First, the project produced guidelines on various aspects of improv
ing the energy efficiency of buildings in historic city centers. Second, for the
federation of artisans and the local small building frms, the project allowed
for upgrading the status and the recognition of their work. In particular, the
project has shown that the artisans can contribute to solutions with many
co benefts for the environment, the creation of new social bonds in old city
centers, and the conservation of historic patrimony.
3.2.1.3
Co-designing socio-technical research for understanding
real-world sustainability transformations
The living lab approach in Cahors is part of the cases in the sub sample on
the technological lever of change. Within this sub sample, other successful
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 67
cases also consider the need for co construction of various aspects of the
research design with societal actors.
A frst group of cases in this sub sample focuses—in line with the Cahors
case—on sustainability values regarding planetary boundaries and responsi
bility for living beings and ecosystems. These cases clearly show the limits of
purely technical eco design to foster sustainability transformations (Tofolini
et al., 2021). For instance, the twin research projects, Capfor (2011–2020)
and SALSA (2013–2015) (Goutiers et al., 2016; Lacombe et al., 2017), by
the French National Agricultural Research Institute clearly show the need for
partnership research to consider societal actors’ perspectives on understand
ing diferent pathways that integrate planetary boundaries in agro ecological
innovations.
The Capfor project started when a group of farmers aimed to limit the
external inputs of feed for their livestock by promoting “on farm” fodder
production on the surrounding grasslands while decreasing the use of fer
tilizers on these grasslands. In this context, the farmers sought a seed mix
that would be more productive, biodiverse (for pollination services), and
include legumes, such as clover and alfalfa (for nitrogen fxation). Given the
absence of a tradition of using complex mixed grasslands in France, they
resorted to buying complex seed mixes from Switzerland, where research
ers and farmers at Agroscope developed seed mixes through a user driven
research platform with farm test felds. However, this initial attempt failed,
as the seeds were not adapted to the specifcities of the local farming prac
tices and the understanding of desirable sustainability transformations by
the local farmers.
A more integrated understanding that is more sensitive to the local con
text of feasible and desirable socio technical innovations was needed to
transition toward diverse grassland management. Hence, the twin projects
Capfor and SALSA organized a set of workshops among researchers, farm
ers, and local organizations to identify the key agronomic, environmen
tal, economic, and social decision making criteria that should be used in
designing and evaluating a transition to a diversifed grassland system. The
project organized feld experiments with the farmers, which led to develop
ing seed mixes adapted to the local context that better matched the desir
able transformation pathways.
For instance, the research team was able to broaden the set of sustainabil
ity targets for sustainable grassland management. The resulting pathways
did not only consider diversifed grassland systems with high biodiversity
outcomes but also consider other pathways of grassland diversifcation
with lower biodiversity outcomes, which provided an equally high level of
fodder autonomy but higher perceived work satisfaction by the involved
farmers. Another tangible output of this knowledge co production process
68 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
is the efective uptake of more sustainable grassland management by the
farmers in the area, relative to a much lower uptake in other areas where
no partnership research has been conducted (Ribeiro et al., 2017, p. 34;
Apaba, 2014).
Other cases in this sub sample on the technical lever of change focus on
research co design between the researchers and societal actors to frame the
environmental justice issues. Indeed, many socio technical innovations do
not apply to all income groups or low income markets (Crul and Diehl,
2008, p. 129). In the latter contexts, researchers highlight the need to focus
on specifc issues that are diferent from the high income markets, such as
the desirability of the technical innovations by low income groups, capac
ity building for efective use, and afordability (Gomez Castillo et al., 2012,
p. 129; Ehrenfeld, 2008, p. 135).
For instance, in Tanzania, a research project on the installation of local
of grid photovoltaic solar cell systems induced a re framing of the problem
issue to investigate from a purely technical one to a socioeconomic evalua
tion of the adaptation of the photovoltaic system to the local energy needs.
Through this project, the of grid solar system was combined with build
ing a locally managed and owned biomass generator operating during peak
electricity demand, using vegetable oil from local jatropha nuts (Chionidou,
2008). Similar initiatives of of grid or micro grid electricity provision have
been promoted worldwide. However, as illustrated by many failures, to be
successful, they should be designed around local needs and capacities instead
of promoting specifc products or technologies (Wilson and Zarsky, 2009).
Overall, as shown by various reviews of sustainable living labs (Ceschin
and Gaziulusoy, 2016; McCrory et al., 2020), the researchers involved in co
construction processes for socio technical research have gradually expanded
their sustainability focus. The earlier approaches mainly dealt with environ
mental aspects. Subsequently, social and economic sustainability aspects,
such as labor conditions, integration of marginalized people, or inclusive
governance of socio technical change, were increasingly integrated (Ceschin
and Gaziulusoy, 2016, p. 145).
What these evolutions show is that the development of transdisciplinary
partnership research on the technical levers of change is not just based on a
rejection of conventional scientifc methods. Rather, the evolution shows an
integration of existing tools and methods in a new way of organizing the
research process. Therefore, the failures of “ivory tower” science to ana
lyze the role of technical levers of sustainability transformations should not
induce a call for less science and less knowledge but more and better science by
enhancing existing methods with new principles of knowledge co production.
As illustrated by the cases, such co production involves knowledge integration
among researchers and societal actors and research co design to consider the
socially relevant and legitimate perspectives on sustainability values.
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 69
3.2.2
3.2.2.1
Participatory modeling of sustainable resource use in societywide sustainability transformations
From optimization modeling to participatory modeling of
socio-ecological system dynamics
The second biophysical lever highlighted in the 2019 Report (UN, 2019)
regards actions for improving the sustainable use of natural resources in
society wide sustainability transformations (e.g., transformations in the
mobility, energy, or housing sector). In this context, to produce biophysical
analyses of resource use that also provide a match to knowledge on specifc
socially desirable and feasible transformation pathways, researchers devel
oped a broad range of participatory modeling approaches. This section dis
cusses how knowledge co production can be successfully integrated into this
brand of sustainability research.
Since the publication in 1972 of the infuential computational models in
the book The Limits to Growth by Dennis Meadows and her co authors at
MIT, computational modeling of system dynamics has been improved and has
become a key research tool for understanding the evolution of resource use
in complex socio ecological systems (Meadows, 2009). Grounded in systems
theory, system dynamics models typically analyze networks of cause–efect
relations among the elements of a system and feedback loops that stabilize or
amplify changes in the system through time. This simulation of system wide
efects of networks of causal relations and feedback processes makes system
dynamics modeling well suited to exploring emergent system level behavior
of integrated socio ecological systems and assessing the implications of man
agement or policy interventions in these systems (Schlüter et al., 2019).
In practice however, the use of these models may yield fancy simulations
and sophisticated results of resource use at the expense of a proper under
standing of the value related perspectives of researchers and societal actors
on the overall orientation of the system dynamics (Vennix, 1999). Indeed,
researchers who produce computational models may have trouble organiz
ing the active involvement of societal actors in the co design of the research
framework, analysis, or interpretation of the results. In such circumstances,
even though the models may formally consider technically feasible pathways
for sustainable resource use in society wide transformations, they are likely
to fail to match the socially legitimate and relevant perspectives of societal
actors on real world transformation processes.
Hence, to answer these concerns, participatory modeling aims to address
a double challenge. First, it aims to combine the respective strengths of
quantitative and qualitative dynamic modeling tools, as these approaches
complement each other (Smetschka and Gaube, 2020). On the one hand,
quantitative computational models used in socio ecological analyses provide
70 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
accurate measurable results on the general system level results that can be
compared across cases. On the other hand, many of the core social sustaina
bility concerns, such as strengthening social bonds or work life balance, can
not be captured in quantitative measures and are better approached through
qualitative research. Second, participatory modeling also actively involves
societal actors in the research design. As will be shown through the below
case studies in our sample, by co designing the quantitative and the qualita
tive variables of the system models, participatory modeling allows for reach
ing a better understanding of the real world outcomes of the action strategies
envisioned by societal actors to tackle specifc sustainability issues.
3.2.2.2 Self-explaining people-friendly street design in Auckland,
New Zealand
The Future Streets project in Auckland, New Zealand, is a good illustration
of the outcome of a series of transdisciplinary research projects based on par
ticipatory systems dynamic modeling and community surveying. The project
was headed by a multistakeholder consortium from the regional transporta
tion planning authority (Auckland Transport), the New Zealand Transport
Agency, local community leaders, various local transportation consultancies,
and university researchers (Mackie et al., 2018). The Future Streets project
was inspired by a previous pilot project on traffic calming in Point England,
Auckland. The pilot project modifed local streets by making them more
environmentally friendly, removing line marking, placing plants and artwork
to slow motorists, and reinforcing a sense of place. Five years after this pilot
project, the likelihood of accidents had more than halved, with more pedes
trians and cyclists using local streets (ibid, 2018).
The idea of broadening this pilot project to a set of social interventions
for redesigning the streets in the Mãngere neighborhood in Auckland stems
from several years of collaborative research. The Mãngere area has a large
indigenous population. The area was selected because of the high number of
fatal and serious car crashes in the neighborhood. The choice of the various
priority interventions in the area was based on intensive community consul
tation and insights from a series of projects that were conducted from 2014
to 2016.
The main result from the research co design processes in the project was a
broadening of the initial research purpose of the pilot project (initially mainly
related to road safety) toward addressing biodiversity related and sociocul
tural objectives in the street design proposals that were subsequently ana
lyzed in the participatory modeling exercise. In particular, based on a vast
number of community engagement meetings, the project identifed the main
social well being factors highly valued by the community: environmental
health, neighborhood connections, a sense of neighborhood safety, and ease
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 71
of access to employment, goods, and services (Macmillan and Mackie, 2016).
Through this process, the researchers also engaged with cultural values that
are important to the indigenous communities of the neighborhood. The lat
ter led to road improvements that refect the identity of the Mãngere people.
Some of these improvements are colored pathways that refer to shark oil
traditionally used by Mãori (Kōkowhai—yellow), the use of endemic plant
species to slow traffic, and signposts for wayfnding and culturally relevant
landmarks (Mackie et al., 2018).
For the initial participatory systems dynamics study in 2014, the research
team created a stakeholder group of 16 people from public authorities, citi
zens from various social groups, researchers, and representatives of indig
enous communities from the Mãori and Pacifc people (Macmillan et al.,
2014). The constitution of a representative, comprehensive stakeholder
group, with connections to the local and regional policy was considered a
key condition of a successful participatory modeling process. Among others,
the creation of a comprehensive stakeholder group allowed for a continuous
process of confdence building with societal actors.
On this basis, the project team organized two rounds of dynamic system
modeling. First, in 2014, the team developed a detailed quantitative model
of the impacts of three diferent active mobility infrastructures on bicycle
use, cyclist injuries, and air pollution (Macmillan et al., 2014). Second, in
2016, the team integrated this analysis into a broader dynamic system model
that also considers the economic, environmental, and sociocultural drivers of
sustainable mobility solutions. This model helped to build a common under
standing of a multi dimensional approach to the proposed transformations
(Macmillan et al., 2016, 2020).
From a societal perspective, self explaining road design in the Mãngere
area of Auckland is the most visible project outcome. This street design aims
to calm traffic on local roads via self explanatory features that refect the
sociocultural concerns of the research partners, particularly the local indig
enous communities. Overall, through careful selection and ongoing collabo
ration with the non academic project partners in a socially inclusive way, the
project team could generate a high level of uptake of the research results by
the local actors.
3.2.2.3 Co-designing participatory modeling frameworks for matching
feasible and socially desirable transformation pathways
Some additional cases for this second sub sample on biophysical levers of
change in socio ecological systems allow for illustrating the importance of
research co construction among scientifc researchers and societal actors.
One project that ranked high in matching the research design with the
diversity of the sustainability values of the key societal actors was the
72 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
NATCAP project in Belize, Central America. The NATCAP project provided
data intensive modeling of ecosystem health and fsheries revenue in Belize, a
coastal state in Central America (Verutes et al., 2017; Arkema et al., 2019).
A six year collaboration (2010–2016) between the research consortium of
NATCAP and the Coastal Zone Management Body allowed for building
relationships, making scientifc advances, and strengthening local planning
capacity. The latter was especially challenging, as it involved addressing the
competition among societal actors for limited space, mainly for oil explora
tion, aquaculture, fsheries, coastal real estate development, and conservation
of unique mangrove ecosystems.
Through joint data gathering among scientists and various Coastal
Advisory Committees, the project could explore alternative strategies to
over intensive coastal real estate development. These strategies focused on
two sustainability transformation pathways considered desirable and feasi
ble by the main societal actors. The frst pathway was protecting sensitive
habitats in the unique mangrove ecosystem. The second pathway aimed at
safeguarding the operations of the small scale coastal lobster fsheries, which
is the economic activity in the area that is most compatible with the various
sustainability values.
In other projects in this sub sample, the research co design resulted in the
revision of the overall strategies to be prioritized through the modeling exer
cise. For instance, the TERIM project provided an agent based model that
simulated the interactions of various stakeholders in the energy system in the
Weiz Gleisdorf region in Austria (Binder et al., 2014). The discussion on the
project design induced a strong shift in the understanding of action priorities
by the multistakeholder steering board of the energy region Weiz Gleisdorf.
Initially focused on reaching regional energy sufficiency through local bio
mass, the research team gradually shifted the focus toward reducing energy
demand through renovation as the main action priority. Moreover, within
this new research purpose, the project gathered new evidence on the impor
tance of social networking among house owners for motivating sustainable
energy choices and fostering behavioral change, which was not foreseen in
the initial research design.
The sub sample of participatory biophysical modeling cases also highlights
the role of research co design in considering environmental justice values. A
potential beneft of research co design among societal actors and researchers
on sustainability values is promoting equity in participation and empowering
more marginal actors to bring their knowledge to the modeling process. For
instance, the participatory design of a computational model for the sustain
able management of a community forest in Larzac, Southern France, revealed
the contribution of practices of woodcutting by small scale farmers, as it
contributes to their economic subsistence and provides tangible biodiversity
benefts. In the frst round of simulations, such practices were not included,
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 73
as they were considered contrary to science based rational forest manage
ment by the regional forest administration (Simon and Etienne, 2010).
In general, the various cases in this sub sample show that participatory
systems dynamics modeling can create a better match of the modeling frame
works with socially desirable and feasible transformation pathways. In prac
tice, as the understanding of the appropriate action strategies may evolve with
the intermediary results of the participatory modeling process, researchers
must update and adjust the computational models in various rounds of model
design. The frst phase, building the model, requires input from a broad range
of people and an initial understanding of the main causal interactions in the
socio ecological system. In the next phases, the computation of the model
in a series of test runs allows for tackling the limitations and faws of the
initial intuitive mental models of societal actors and researchers to capture
the dynamics of complex systems (Videira et al., 2010). Therefore, research
co design in the feld of participatory modeling shows the importance of the
ongoing commitment of the researchers and societal actors throughout the
process in a series of iterations between computational modeling and partici
patory workshop discussions.
3.2.3
3.2.3.1
Multi-criteria assessment of socioeconomic levers of change
From quantitative cost-beneft analysis to participatory
multi-criteria assessment
As can already be seen in the discussion of the biophysical levers of change,
socioeconomic policies are key to the dissemination or upscaling of tech
nical solutions for accelerating sustainability transformations. Therefore,
developing an appropriate framework of socioeconomic policy planning and
decision making is a key to achieving the social transformations necessary
for implementing sustainable development goals. It is the third major lever of
change in the 2019 Global Sustainability Report (UN, 2019).
As shown by economics and sustainability science scholars, conventional
quantitative cost beneft analysis fails to provide an adequate framework for
analyzing multi dimensional economic policy and decision making (Scrieciu,
2007; Salas Molina, 2019). In the context of economic theorizing, the limits
of quantitative approaches have been extensively documented in the literature
on social cost beneft analysis (Nussbaum, 2000; Masur and Posner, 2011).
Indeed, conventional cost beneft analysis adopts a quantitative approach to
the economic and social dimensions, for example by calculating a monetary
equivalent to assess societal values. At best, this approach can provide infor
mation on the efficiency of a policy measure at a certain moment of time
in a given context of consensual societal values (Masur and Posner, 2011).
Nevertheless, the approach is less well equipped to account for the broad
74
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
scope of intangible social benefts that drive sustainability transformations,
such as the building of more inclusive and just societies (ibid).
In response to these well known failures of conventional cost beneft anal
ysis to address broader social dimensions of sustainability transformations,
scholars have developed a set of multi criteria decision support tools (Abaza
and Baranzini, 2002). These tools consider quantitative and qualitative crite
ria, and, through an interactive and structured knowledge gathering process
on the criteria, organize a dialogue among researchers and societal actors on
the value laden choices among the many social welfare and social well being
outcome targets. This section draws upon the sub sample cases within the
thriving research tradition of multi criteria assessment to illustrate the role
of research co design processes in usable knowledge production on socioeco
nomic levers of change in sustainability transformations.
3.2.3.2 Sustainable mobility in Potsdam, Germany
The ClimPol research group at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability
Studies in Potsdam, Germany, provides a good illustration of a highly suc
cessful research partnership on socioeconomic mobility planning from an
integrated sustainability perspective. The group developed a study in cooper
ation with international research partners, the federal government, the state
of Brandenburg, and local business and society partners. The team worked
from 2015 to 2016 on a multi criteria assessment of policies to address wide
spread air pollution in the Potsdam area, while recognizing the importance
of the social dimension of mobility transitions beyond the more conventional
technological and economic perspectives.
Much research on transport and pollution is still conducted through expert
led multi disciplinary science. As shown in a review of scholarly work by
the ClimPol project team, most mobility decision support tools are based on
researches that analyze the various aspects of mobility planning through sepa
rate research frameworks, whether through models for analyzing traffic plan
ning, air quality, or carbon emissions mitigation (von Schneidemesser et al.,
2017, p. 3). For instance, time efficiency surveys in traffic planning focus on
individual route planning, which places a heavy focus on time gains that can
be made by various mobility choices, without considering measures to stop the
circle of increasing travel speed, travel distances, and energy consumption (BFS
and ARE, 2017; Hoppe and Michl, 2017). Other studies use cost beneft anal
ysis to compare the costs of mobility choices with various benefts regarding
the satisfaction of individual mobility needs and pollution impacts but without
considering the broader benefts on urban welfare or quality of life, which can
not be captured entirely in quantitative measures (Delhaye et al., 2017). Given
this separate analysis of the various dimensions, the results fail to provide an
integrated understanding of society wide mobility transformations.
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 75
Thus, to support multi dimensional decision making on mobility transi
tions, the research group on mobility and climate developed a multi criteria
assessment jointly with scientists, practitioners, and decision makers, between
2015 and 2017 (Schmale et al., 2015, 2016). This assessment included envi
ronmental considerations and considerations for road safety, eco mobility,
and quality of life.
As stated by the project team, to successfully address complex urban trans
portation challenges, it is necessary to adapt the multi criteria assessment
methods to include available sources of knowledge on local and regional fea
sible sustainability transformation options. Practical knowledge can be used
to judge, for example, the feasibility of local travel options, while discus
sions with societal actors can play a role in clarifying value choices regarding
social equity in urban planning. On the other hand, scientifc knowledge can
contribute to the various quantitative and qualitative assessments of environ
mental, economic, and social impacts.
In the frst phase, the project team gathered roughly 10 representatives
from various departments of the municipality’s administration, one person
from the state province, one from the ministry of environment, and two natu
ral scientists. This working group framed collaboratively the main research
questions and developed the multi criteria assessment process.
The project worked with a list of socioeconomic policy measures in the
municipalities’ planning stage. The measures were assessed by a set of criteria
that considered impacts on six categories: air quality, climate change, noise
emissions, road safety, eco mobility, and quality of life. The integrated par
ticipatory assessment was applied in a one day workshop. Before the work
shop, the team studied the indicators for assessing the various criteria and
gathered the best available scientifc data on these indicators. At the work
shop, breakout groups ranked the various measures. The resulting scores
were statistically analyzed by the scientists and presented to the participants
in the various working groups. Further discussions, adjustments, plausibil
ity checks, and decisions on weighting the various criteria were conducted
within the plenary workshop meetings.
Initially, the city’s “urban and climate friendly mobility” initiative identi
fed over 75 specifc measures in the planning or pre implementation stage in
2013. With so many measures, it was challenging to maintain an overview
of the synergies, overlaps, or counter productivity of the measures and assess
the priorities within the limited city’s budget.
At the end of the project, the research team listed the measures of the ini
tiative that were ranked as very high and high priority. The very high priority
group included extensions of park and ride facilities (connecting to public
transport and cycling walking paths), the overall enhancement of infrastruc
ture for public transport and cycling, limiting parking spaces in the city to
discourage driving, and creating a mobility agency. Most measures were
76
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
assessed based on the reference data and previous experience. Through the
participatory process, expert input was combined with other considerations,
such as the public acceptance of the new policies and contextual features
related to the real world options for urban re design. Based on the project
results, the municipality adjusted its planning to implement all the high and
very high priority measures from the fnal project ranking.
3.2.3.3 Co-designing sustainability evaluation frameworks for
participatory multi-criteria assessments
In the ClimPol research project, the key focus is on the design of sustain
able mobility that integrates social and environmental value concerns. In this
case, most of the criteria related to desirable city development were assessed
through qualitative scales, while the air pollution data was gathered through
quantifed pollution measurements.
The quantitative part of the multi criteria assessment is more prominent
in its other applications. For instance, one case in the Transport Innovation
Deployment for Europe (TIDE) Handbook on Impact Assessment addresses
a multi criteria assessment of congestion charging measures, introduced in
cities such as London, Stockholm, or Milan (TIDE, 2015, p. 35). In this
multi criteria assessment, even many behavioral impacts, such as changes in
travel time or the share of walking and cycling, could be quantifed, based on
structured surveys on the impact of congestion charging measures introduced
in various pilot cities. However, other research aspects, such as the equity of
the scheme regarding the various population groups could not be quantifed,
as they involved value related choices. Thus, even though the project was
focused on the quantitative criteria, this key societal value required involving
the societal actor partners in the design of the empirical methodology of the
project, dealing with data collection on the social equity implications of the
congestion charging measures.
As shown in the various case studies presented in the TIDE handbook, by
involving societal actors in co designing quantitative and qualitative data col
lection methods, multi criteria assessment has evolved into a powerful tool
for integrated sustainability assessment of the socioeconomic lever of change.
Scholars developed improvements to make the weighting of the various crite
ria more reliable. The direct weighting of the importance of the criteria, as in
the ClimPol case, has the advantage of very low resource requirements and
high transparency of the process. More resource intensive techniques intro
duce pairwise comparisons of the criteria in the weighting procedure and sev
eral techniques to check the consistency among the assessment scales, often
using a software (for an overview, see, for instance, Németh et al., 2019).
For complex assessment processes, some of the technical improvements
will be useful. However, regardless of the choice among these techniques,
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 77
the participatory nature of the process remains an essential attribute and the
improvements must be evaluated accordingly. Therefore, when co designing
the research protocol, the research partners must carefully consider the bal
ance between the increasing complexity of the computational algorithms
that can be used with the transparency and the quality of the research
co construction.
3.2.4
3.2.4.1
Multistakeholder policy implementation research
From idealized sampling standards to real-world feld research
on policy impacts
Sustainability scholars highlight innovations in public sector governance
toward increased stakeholder participation as an important fourth lever
to address the current global ecological and social crisis (UN, 2019). This
strengthening of multistakeholder governance aims to foster enhanced coop
eration among a multitude of actors who drive sustainability transforma
tions, often operating at diferent scales of governance.
According to the outcomes of an international expert workshop on
multistakeholder governance, held in Zürich in June 2017, the capacity of
multistakeholder governance can be best enhanced by integrating the vari
ous knowledge inputs at the various stages of the policy cycle. It can be
achieved through a combination of strategies, such as considering system
characteristics at the policy formulation stage, building confict resolution
and leadership skills at the implementation stage, and fostering adaptive
and generic learning at the evaluation stage of the policy cycle (Hitziger
et al., 2019). Conventional disciplinary ivory tower science seems ill
equipped to generate the knowledge base to support such highly inter
active and evolving multistakeholder policy design and implementation
processes.
A stylized paradigmatic case of a classic disciplinary ivory tower science
approach can illustrate the challenges of analyzing multistakeholder policy
implementation processes in interdependent social and ecological systems.
For instance, prominent research tools in the social sciences for obtaining
data on the impacts of policy interventions, so called random controlled
trials, have become popular to analyze the impact of policy interventions
over the last decades (Banerjee and Dufo, 2011). In these methods, scientists
randomly allocate individuals to several groups that are subject to diferent
interventions and compare the measured responses. Copied on the model
of laboratory science, these real world trials, while appropriate to analyze
the efect of specifc measures on specifc groups, fail to capture the multiple
interdependent socio ecological features and the heterogeneous perspectives
of multiple societal actors in real world sustainability policies.
78
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
First, in random trials, to control for possible bias between diferent situ
ations of various individuals, the number of individuals to include rapidly
increases with the number of policy measures or variables to be included in
the analysis (Black, 1996). Therefore, in practice, to keep the number of indi
viduals to include in the study within reasonable limits, random controlled
trials must focus on one or a few dimensions of the problem to be addressed.
The case of the successful North Karelia health prevention research on cor
onary heart diseases in the sub sample of cases is a good example of the
importance of this methodological constraint. Indeed, in this case, a ran
dom approach to sampling was abandoned in favor of a more feasible and
robust multi dimensional case study approach to health surveying (Puska
et al., 1983). Second, for rigorous control, the researchers must apply the
interventions to a unique and complete group of people belonging to a given
category (e.g., school students, members of associations, and inhabitants of a
region) and in similar contexts (Melia, 2015). The latter is rarely the case in
the implementation of policy measures for multi dimensional sustainability
transformations. Finally, the method requires comparing the results with a
control group that does not beneft from the envisioned policy interventions.
Nevertheless, in some situations, isolating a control group that does not ben
eft from proposed policy interventions is ethically inappropriate (Goodkind
et al., 2011; cf. the Montréal case study in the sub sample) or unrealistic
(Puska et al., 1983).
In contrast to the laboratory like random controlled trials, to understand
multistakeholder policy implementation processes, researchers must address
the multiple dimensions of sustainability transformations in an integrated
manner (Poteete et al., 2010). Typically, such integrated approaches will use
tools that combine quantitative and qualitative feld surveying over multiple
dimensions or rely on thick and contextual feldwork. Indeed, to analyze
multistakeholder policies for sustainability, researchers must consider the
impact of policy interventions on interdependent social and ecological system
features, which cannot be separated from each other as in random controlled
trials. Overall, to gather reliable scientifc data and information and support
efective policy implementation of integrated sustainability transformations,
researchers and societal actors must integrate knowledge on multiple system
dimensions and from the perspective of a diversity of evolving societal actor
perspectives
3.2.4.2 Community health surveying of asthma prevalence in
New York
A well documented case illustrating the failures of ivory tower, disciplinary
research for data gathering on policy implementation in multistakeholder
governance contexts is Jason Coburn’s study of environmental health in the
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 79
Williamsburg neighborhood of New York City, in southeast Manhattan
(Corburn, 2005). The context of this study is the involvement of disenfran
chised population groups in policies for addressing the increase of asthma
prevalence in urban areas with high levels of pollution (Flies et al., 2019).
Gathering data on asthma prevalence can be challenging, as patients
do not systematically search for or have access to formal medical care,
especially in low income urban neighborhoods. In this context, through
improvements in mix methods research (i.e., combining conventional quan
titative surveys and qualitative community led data collection and interven
tion studies), public health researchers have identifed general trends in the
evolution of asthma prevalence. They established correlations with envi
ronmental factors such as exposure to major traffic and industry related
pollutants (New York City Mayor’s Office, 2015, p. 190). Nevertheless, as
shown in the Williamsburg neighborhood case, documented by Corburn,
such general aggregated data must be refned with the knowledge of the
specifc socio ecological path dependent evolutions in the problem feld if
policymakers and societal actors want to understand the specifc causal
pathways leading to high asthma incidence and formulate policies for the
most impacted social groups.
In 1992, a confict over the operation of an incinerator in the heavily
industrialized Williamsburg neighborhood led to a highly contested neigh
borhood health study. In this study, researchers from the City University of
New York Medical School (CUNY CHASM), along with the New York City
Department of Health (DOH), analyzed the statistics produced by the local
neighborhood hospital (Kaminsky et al., 1993). Accordingly, the research
team concluded that there may not be a major asthma problem in the neigh
borhood. As noted by Corburn in his feldwork on the 1992 study, from the
outset, the residents dismissed the methodology of the epidemiological study
for using hospitalization data from a local hospital, which many residents
from local communities rarely, if ever, visited, and for failing to disaggregate
results by age, gender, ethnicity or type of daily activities (Corburn, 2005,
p. 119).
By ignoring crucial local knowledge, the CUNY CHASM/DOH study
compiled poor scientifc evidence and, more importantly, failed to identify
the appropriate research questions to understand the causes of the health con
cerns in the community. In response to the community concerns, El Puente,
a local community organization, together with Community Information and
Epidemiological Technologies (CIET), a non proft research consultant spe
cialized in community based survey tools, organized three community wide
surveys between 1995 and 1999. Through these surveys, the researchers
could show high asthma rates among sub groups of the community, most
prominently among school children and women aged over 45, which previ
ously did not appear in any statistics. Follow up focus groups could relate
80 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
this high prevalence to the women’s occupations in laundries, dry cleaners,
beauty salons, or sweatshop like textile factories.
As documented by Corburn, none of the major scientifc results of the
study could have been obtained by a traditional top down, principal inves
tigator led, epidemiological study into asthma prevalence and its environ
mental causes. Two processes served the successful generation of reliable and
usable knowledge: the organization of collaborations between researchers
and societal actors in the production of various types of knowledge and the
organization of efective research co design.
First, the collaboration between researchers and societal actors at all stages
of the project was crucial in reaching successful scientifc and societal out
comes of the project. The main reason is that the research team, trained by
El Puente and CIET, had to act as community health workers, not just survey
administrators, to overcome distrust (Corburn, 2005, p. 127). Particularly,
to organize the collaboration in data gathering, El Puente recruited 10 com
munity members with a personal or family stake in asthma and trained them
with the help of the New York City DOH and public health professionals
from Hunter College at the City University of New York.
Second, per Cecilia Iglesias Garden, one of the coordinators of the research
team, to understand the specifc causal pathways leading to health concerns,
health workers must speak credibly about more issues than just asthma and
pollution. If the researchers could not address questions related to health and
social issues other than asthma and pollution, the residents were not going
to trust them or talk to them. Therefore, the survey team decided to focus
the frst round of surveying on the multi dimensional social welfare and well
being issues of the community.
The results of the survey in the frst year were discussed with the com
munity members, which led to the identifcation of topics for investigation
for the next year of feldwork (Corburn, 2005, p. 121). Using this kind of
iterative process, the information gathered during one phase provided the
starting point for a critical dialogue on the analysis of the results, their local
relevance, and the selection of follow up research questions. It led to three
major surveys, conducted between 1995 and 1999. The frst focused on the
general community problems related to environmental health issues and gen
eral community concerns. The second targeted specifc categories of the pop
ulation with identifed asthma problems, such as women and school children.
The third helped improve the understanding of the efficacy of traditional
remedies widely used in the immigrant communities of the neighborhood.
The results of these studies were widely publicized and induced a series
of peer reviewed publications in high profle medical journals (Ledogar
et al., 1999, 2000). Beyond these scientifc results, the project induced vari
ous health interventions that signifcantly advanced the situation of the
population. For instance, after learning from the second round of surveying
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 81
that adults, particularly women, exposed to pollution in laundries and dry
cleaning in the community also sufered from asthma, an asthma plan for
adults was developed by the community organization. Another innovative
community outcome was the initiation of a program addressed to profes
sional healthcare providers to inform them about asthma home remedies
and their cultural signifcance in immigrant communities. Further, beyond
the community specifc initiatives, the research project also contributed
to advancing the research tradition of community health surveys, adding
to the body of the partnership methodologies in public health research
worldwide.
3.2.4.3 Co-designing socio-ecological systems analysis in policy
implementation research
As shown in the case study of community health surveys documented by
Corburn (2005), involving societal actors in research co design at various
moments of the research process contributes to successful usable knowl
edge production in multistakeholder governance contexts. In general, such
transdisciplinary co design helps societal actors to address the integration
challenge of the various knowledge types mobilized in multistakeholder gov
ernance at various moments of the policy cycle (Hitziger et al., 2019).
Another transdisciplinary research project on multistakeholder policy
implementation cases that illustrates this challenge is the so called cascade
model of ecosystem services (Spangenberg et al., 2014). Typically, as shown
through a review of recently published studies, most research on ecosystem
services starts with the identifcation of natural processes that support the
production of various ecosystem services (Menzel and Teng, 2010). Only
in a later phase are stakeholders included to discuss the recommendations
from the analysis (see, e.g., Cowling et al., 2008). By separating the biophysi
cal identifcation of ecosystem services from their social valuation by local
stakeholders, researchers suggest that the ecosystem services can be defned
without reference to ongoing societal debates on societal values in the specifc
implementation context. However, to make ecosystem service research useful
in highly diverse multistakeholder policy implementation contexts, the values
and the needs of local users should guide the process from the beginning.
Therefore, as illustrated by the cascade model developed by Spangenberg
et al. (2014), users of the ecosystem should be engaged early in the design
of the research process. In the cascade model, societal actors are directly
involved in a sequence of research steps with the scientifc researchers in
attributing the use value to various ecosystem functions, identifying real
world ecosystem service potentials related to these use values, and analyzing
how the potentials can be mobilized and appropriated via appropriate policy
planning and implementation.
82 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
Similarly, regarding environmental justice concerns, multistakeholder
policy implementation research should combine objective measurements of
the distribution of outcomes for the various social groups with an improved
understanding of how individuals perceive justice and injustice of distribu
tional outcomes. For instance, in a research project on implementing pay
ment schemes for ecosystem services, Adrian Martin and his team at Sussex
University found that local respondents mostly preferred an egalitarian
approach to distributing the payments (each household receiving the same
amount). Such a contextual understanding is contrary to dominant utilitar
ian ideas, which hold that payments according to the household’s contribu
tion to the service provision would be fairer (Martin, 2017, p. 158). This
context based analysis of local conceptions of justice is crucial to understand
how social legitimacy can be built around the contextual implementation of
general and more abstract principles of justice. The organization of broad
stakeholder participation in defning the general framework for assessing
various approaches to equity and justice can contribute to strengthening the
social legitimacy of the envisioned policies for ecosystem service provision
(ibid).
As highlighted in the introduction to this section, multistakeholder gov
ernance approaches raise a set of challenges that must be addressed for efec
tive policymaking on multi sectoral and multi actor sustainability issues.
These challenges are related to building capacities for knowledge integration
among the involved actors. As illustrated through the case studies, trans
disciplinary research approaches that actively organize research co design
can contribute to building such knowledge integration capacity required for
improved coordination and cooperation among various stakeholders.
3.2.5
3.2.5.1
Including the diversity of sociocultural perspectives on
sustainability transformations
From expert-driven qualitative data collection to
community-based qualitative research
The ffth lever of change identifed in the Global Sustainability report is the
inclusion of the diversity of sociocultural perspectives on change (UN, 2019).
Thus, to strengthen the science base to understand the sociocultural perspec
tives on sustainability transformations, scientists mobilize the broad diver
sity of qualitative sources at their disposal, ranging from direct statements
contributed by the participants in workshops, textual sources in paper and
online media, informal reports by civil society and policy organizations, and
photo and video material (Singleton and Strait, 2005, ch. 11).
Although this is sometimes less obvious, qualitative research is not auto
matically based on knowledge co production processes nor easily integrated
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 83
within interdisciplinary research frameworks. A key undertaking in this con
text for researchers is to integrate qualitative research methods with knowl
edge co production processes on the various social and ecological dimensions
of the ongoing sustainability transformations. To successfully use these
methods in transdisciplinary sustainability research, qualitative research on
sociocultural levers of change must consider how global and system wide
social and ecological issues interact with the sociocultural dynamics. Indeed,
through the multi level and multi sectoral nature of sustainability issues, such
as climate change or the biodiversity extinction crisis, civil society and organ
ized collectivities are increasingly confronted with evolutions in other sectors
of activity that question their value perspectives and problem understand
ings. Thus, the sociocultural perspectives of such actors are continuously
questioned, applied, and evaluated from the perspective of multi sectoral and
multi level system wide changes.
Further, similar to the analysis of the other levers of change, to produce
usable knowledge on the various sociocultural drivers and barriers, schol
ars must integrate these conventional qualitative research methodologies
in partnership research processes that contribute to a socially relevant and
legitimate research framing of the sustainability issues. Indeed, qualitative
research methods are also used in conventional expert led research processes
without research co design (Willis, 2007). A quick “Google Scholar” search
for publications that use methods such as focus groups or qualitative systems
modeling shows that many non participatory uses and expert led uses of such
tools have been developed. A prominent example of non participatory uses
includes the so called focus groups used in marketing research (Belk, 2007).
Group based assessment of new consumer products in focus groups is a pow
erful method to uncover participants’ emotional and nonverbal reactions and
observe group based imitation behavior. In such cases, the focus group is not
used in the context of knowledge co production but as an improved data col
lection method for the marketing researcher and a useful qualitative comple
ment to statistical user surveys.
3.2.5.2 Energy poverty in the informal urban settlements of Enkanini,
South Africa
The case of qualitative research on energy poverty in an informal urban set
tlement in South Africa aptly illustrates the role of research co design in qual
itative research on sociocultural perspectives on change (Smit et al., 2018,
2019). In this case, a follow up research project of a successful public private
partnership for small scale of grid solar energy provision led to deepen the
engagement with the potential community of benefciaries.
The initial framework of the of grid solar energy project focused on
the lack of technical infrastructure as the key explanatory factor of energy
84
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
poverty. Through a process of co construction in a series of follow up research
projects, this perspective was reframed in terms of a lack of involvement of
all social groups in social innovations related to energy infrastructure, energy
saving, and access to afordable technologies. These follow on projects lead
to highlight the importance of strengthening community control and deci
sion over energy choices (so called energy democracy) (Bloem et al., 2021).
In particular, a set of participatory workshops with energy poor households
showed the potential benefts for the community of a more meaningful and
representative engagement of women in co designing socio technological
innovations (Smit at al., 2018, 2019).
The Enkanini informal settlement in South Africa is an illegal settlement at
30 km from Cape Town, established in 2006 on land owned by the municipal
ity of Stellenbosch. By 2015, approximately 8,000 people lived in Enkanini
in approximately 2,000 rudimentary shacks (Van Breda and Swilling, 2019).
They provide labor to the neighboring cities, mainly in services and govern
ment, such as cleaning and security work. Moreover, the inhabitants organ
ize a small but vibrant informal economy ofering a range of products and
services, such as the sale of food and beverages, hair and beauty salons, and
childcare facilities (Smit et al., 2018).
The crux of the Enkanini case is the lack of provision of basic infrastruc
ture services to this informal settlement by the local government, mainly
in the areas of electricity, water, and waste management (Van Breda and
Swilling, 2019). The problems from this lack of services include high levels
of vermin invasions (especially rats), indoor air pollution from paraffin and
candle use, frequent fres and foods, and the associated increased health risks
mentioned earlier.
Since 2010, a group of Master students and researchers at the Centre for
Sustainability Transitions of Stellenbosch University have partnered with
inhabitants of the settlement to set up a series of research projects on improv
ing basic services (Bloem et al., 2021). After two years of applied research
in Enkanini, iShack (which stands for “improved shacks”), a social enter
prise, was established. This initiative brought solar panels to 767 households
between 2011 and 2016 and was widely advertised as a major solution to
decentralized renewable energy provision in of grid settlements (Ambole
et al., 2019). It beneftted from a two year funding for a pilot project by the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and was subsequently supported by a
zero interest loan of the Development Bank of Southern Africa and a subsidy
from the municipality of Stellenbosch.
In spite of the success of this social enterprise, major challenges for
addressing the energy poverty in the community remain. Indeed, the focus
on a single technological solution has failed to generate a broader uptake
by the community. Only 27% of the dwellings stepped into the solar panel
scheme, and most inhabitants who took part in the scheme continued to rely
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 85
on gas or kerosene (so called paraffin) for their main energy needs. Second,
by providing support to this initiative through a basic electricity subsidy for
solar energy, the municipality has awakened fears in the population that this
support would be used to postpone a more structural solution to the needs of
developing basic infrastructure services in the informal settlement.
Hence, to better understand these issues, researchers conducted a series
of follow up research projects, which illustrate the use of research co design
with societal actors in qualitative research methods. These projects aimed
at better understanding the local energy system in the Enkanini settlement,
from the point of view of the various social groups. The following projects
highlighted, in particular, the potential benefts of a more meaningful repre
sentation of women in local social innovation: the participatory integrated
assessment project (PARTICIPIA, 2013–2016); the qualitative systems
dynamic mapping project, funded by the Southern African Systems Analysis
Centre (2016–2018); and the project on Co Designing Energy Communities
with Energy Poor Women (funded by “Leading Integrated Research for
Agenda 2030” from 2017 to 2019) (Smit et al., 2018, 2019).
In the frst project, PARTICIPIA, researchers organized a three day work
shop together with the community members to collaboratively design a
framework for analyzing the possible pathways to address the energy pov
erty situation. These workshops involved the main energy user groups: solar
users, users with contracts for indirect access to the grid of the neighbor
ing township, and users of traditional of grid sources of gas and kerosene.
The main shift in the design of the conceptual framework realized by the
mutual learning in this initial workshop was a shift from a focus on techni
cal solutions for energy provision to a recognition of the sociocultural and
aspirational factors that drive the energy behavior of these various groups of
inhabitants.
For instance, women are searching for solutions that are afordable and
less time consuming regarding access to fuel sources for livelihood activities
such as cooking to free time for income generating activities. Other inhab
itants sought alternatives to kerosene (paraffin), as it “smokes and burns
the eyes” (Smit et al., 2019, table 3). Thus, despite divergent opinions on
the (dis)advantages of the solar solution, the participants converged on the
importance of a deeper engagement of the population in social innovations
around energy use and the strengthening of the community organization to
involve all members in these social innovations.
These insights were further deepened in the subsequent research projects.
A qualitative systems design mapping (Hovmand, 2014) helped identify a set
of interrelated feedback loops in the local energy system between energy sav
ing behavior, access to technologies, and infrastructure improvements, which
indicate possible pathways for improving upon the current situation (Batinge
et al., 2021). These pathways integrate the idea of a deeper engagement of the
86 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
main users of the energy solutions in innovation, such as via the involvement
of women in community co design of appliances for cooking and refrigerat
ing that generate energy savings and address their main livelihood concerns.
Combined with governmental support for making the solutions accessible to
the largest number, a dynamic of change can be initiated.
The results of the initial participatory assessment of the problem dimen
sions and the qualitative systems dynamic mapping project led to a series of
peer reviewed publications (Smit et al., 2018, 2019). Moreover, the research
results were used in various strands of follow up research on the implementa
tion of the envisioned organizational changes. From a political perspective,
the results of the research project were used in the organization of a pol
icy seminar in 2017 in the context of the project on “Co Designing Energy
Communities with Energy Poor Women.” In this policy seminar, policymak
ers from diferent levels of government, community members, and research
ers discussed the various relations between energy, health, and gender that
were highlighted in the research project. One institutional proposition
that resulted from the seminar is to organize increased multi level coordi
nation between the regional government (Western Cape government) and
the Stellenbosch municipality to address the identifed livelihood challenges
(Ambole et al., 2019).
3.2.5.3 Co-designing socio-ecological systems analysis in
community-based qualitative research
Many of the case studies in the sub sample on understanding sociocultural
dynamics explicitly address environmental justice issues. Indeed, qualitative
research, combined with research co design of common relevant and legiti
mate research questions, ofers some key ingredients that are conducive to
promoting the efective participation of disenfranchised social groups in sus
tainability research.
Another example in this sub sample that addresses environmental justice
issues is the research project on food assistance and food waste in the Brussels
Region, Belgium. This project was conducted from October 2018 to March
2019 by ATD Quart Monde, the Federation of social services of the Brussels
Region, and an interdisciplinary research team at the University UCLouvain
and the University of Antwerp. The proposed protocol for organizing quali
tative research on food assistance for people living in poverty was based
on the method of “merging of knowledge” developed in various research
programs co conducted by ATD Quart Monde (Ferrand, 1999; ATD Quart
Monde, 2016; Godinot and Walker, 2020; Osinski, 2020). In this protocol,
persons living in poverty are directly involved as situation experts on equal
footing with co researchers from social assistance services and university
researchers (Joos Malfait et al., 2019).
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 87
Further, to co design the research framework, the project frst organized a
workshop to co construct the main research question. The discussion in this
workshop led to re framing the initial focus of the project, which initially
focused on new urban food sharing initiatives and their potential to con
tribute to food assistance. However, food donation often fails to address the
basic aspirations for social inclusion and improved livelihood opportunities
for persons living in poverty (ibid). In particular, this frst co design work
shop showed that the free provision of food cannot be separated from the
creation of spaces where persons living in poverty can access resources that
can contribute to lifting them out of poverty. Accordingly, the research pur
pose was reframed in terms of the question of the contribution of diferent
solutions of food assistance to enhanced dignity of the urban poor and access
to new opportunities to lift them out of poverty.
The ATD Quart Monde project on food assistance and food waste sub
sequently organized four successive workshops and a collaborative process
of writing the project report with the persons living in poverty and local
social welfare workers (ibid). One main result of this group based qualita
tive research is that an excessively strong conditionality in food aid delivery
creates competition for satisfying the eligibility conditions among groups of
people in poverty, which goes against the community spirit of solidarity and
mutual support that otherwise prevails. Further, the research shows that, even
though an increase in the diversity of food items is a real concern, the most
important demands are related to the defense of their broader socioeconomic
rights to work, housing, education, and culture. Finally, participants in the
workshops identifed alternative channels for distribution, such as neighbor
hood restaurants and social groceries, as places with a more humane way of
food distribution and ofering protective spaces for discussing opportunities
for multi dimensional learning and capacity building.
Other examples in the sub sample illustrate the contribution of the knowl
edge co production process in qualitative research to identifying sociocultural
perspectives that drive citizen engagements in sustainability transformation
processes. For instance, the methodology of future visioning workshops,
developed in particular by the scholars of the Dutch Research Institute for
Transition, is a well known research tool for organizing group based quali
tative research on the involvement of citizens and so called change agents
in disruptive innovations for sustainability (Loorbach and Rotmans, 2010).
The method of future visioning aims to elaborate new perspectives on sus
tainability transformations that are disruptive of the existing status quo by
combining the exploration of desirable futures and the analysis of social pos
sibilities of change. In the frst step, the research partners organize a work
shop on the visioning of a desirable long term future. This visioning process
is informed by existing system diagnosis and analysis and a discussion on
legitimate sustainability orientations. The key point of this workshop for
88 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
future visioning is that, by referring to the long term desirable future, the
group identifes research perspectives that go beyond business as usual and
are not constrained by vested interests (Roorda et al., 2014, p. 10, p. 30).
Next, starting from this common strategic vision, the research team organ
izes a group based qualitative research process for identifying solutions,
innovation pathways, and societal change agents that contribute to disrup
tive transformations. One tool often used in this context is “backcasting,”
which is an iterative method that takes the desired future as a starting point
(e.g., 50 years from now) and proceeds step by step back in time, identifying
at each time interval the incremental innovation needed to foster progress
toward the desired end goal.
One case of this sub sample of qualitative research projects on sociocul
tural levers applied a future visioning method, which is the MUSIC project
(Mitigation in Urban Context, Solutions for Innovative Cities, 2010–2015).
In this project, city officers, together with local stakeholders, organized
visioning workshops on climate change mitigation initiatives in six difer
ent cities to identify innovations and mobilize change agents for disruptive
transformation (Tillie et al., 2012). In the city of Ghent, the backcasting exer
cise led to embedding radical innovations such as neighborhood initiatives
for temporary car free streets into a larger narrative of Ghent as a climate
neutral city. Since this frst qualitative research project, the social movement
has spread to other neighborhoods, and the creation of temporary “living
streets” has now been recognized as a legitimate tool within sustainability
mobility policies in the city.
The examples of transdisciplinary research projects from the sub sample of
research on sociocultural levers of change illustrate the need to integrate dis
cussions on broader system wide transformations in the research co design of
qualitative approaches to sociocultural perspectives. This research co design
is conducive to better understanding the impact of system constraints on the
evolution of sociocultural perspectives on change and enhancing the capacities
of societal actors to address multi scale social justice issues and build more com
prehensive visions for supporting multi scale civic activism. Further, from the
Enkanini energy poverty and the ATD Food Assistance case, partnership based
research approaches to qualitative research efectively empower disenfranchised
social groups to actively participate in knowledge co production. The latter top
ics, which concern the broader issues of capacity building for knowledge co
production, will be further developed in Chapters 4 and 5.
3.3 A pragmatist constructivist approach to knowledge
co-production
Research partners embarking upon usable knowledge production on sustain
ability transformations must mobilize diferent types of knowledge to cover the
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 89
coordination needs arising in the management of coupled social and ecological
systems. Indeed, the interdependent dynamics often cross diferent societal sec
tors of activities and involve very heterogeneous societal actors. Therefore, these
research endeavors are inherently collaborative and pluralist, as highlighted in
the review paper on knowledge co production in sustainability research by
Norström et al. (2020), discussed in the introduction to this chapter.
At frst glance, specialized multi disciplinary approaches seem to ade
quately address the needs for organizing such research on sustainability trans
formations involving heterogeneous types of knowledge and values. Indeed,
multi disciplinary collaborations can mobilize diferent types of specialized
expertise to understand the various social and natural system dimensions.
However, such multi disciplinary and multi method approaches, as shown
through the analysis of the case studies, are likely to be insufficient for, at
least, two reasons. First, the mere juxtaposition of specialized disciplinary
analysis of social and ecological system dimensions does not allow for cap
turing the case specifc systemic interaction processes among the dimensions.
The latter requires identifying the interactions at the overall system level
and focusing on a subset of desirable and feasible transformation pathways
within the space of possible interaction dynamics, and accordingly adjust
ing the research design in each of the mobilized disciplines in a coordinated
manner.
Second, the diferent value laden perspectives are not just diferent ways
of evaluating independently existing social and ecological interaction dynam
ics. Rather, the researchers and societal actors are active participants in the
debate over sustainability values, and how they frame the socio ecological
system dynamics is already a result of their prior value laden perspectives on
the unsustainable problem situation.
For instance, to conduct a survey or other forms of feld research or iden
tify key actors and societal values reliably, the project partners require a
research framework. Regarding interdependent social and ecological sys
tems, such a research framework will have a diferent focus per the specifc
pathways that the research team decides to analyze. The latter choice already
involves prior decisions on how to characterize the initial problem situation
and how to evaluate the sustainability values that defne the overall orienta
tion of the societal transformations analyzed in the research.
Transdisciplinary research aims to address this double need for analyz
ing specifc socio ecological interdependencies and understanding the value
laden orientations through knowledge co production between scientifc
researchers and societal actors. As discussed, this knowledge co production
involves knowledge integration and co management of the research process
and the co design of the various aspects of the research framework. The lat
ter includes identifying socially relevant research questions, the conceptual
framework, the legitimate purposes, and the research methodology.
90
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
This approach, which recognizes the pragmatic need for collaboration
among many perspectives and the co construction of a common framework
for collaborative research, has been characterized in the literature as an exam
ple of a pragmatist constructivist position to the learning of common frame
works for collaboration (Reich, 2009; Klein, 2018, p. 14; Boix Mansilla,
2017). From the pragmatist constructivist view, collaborative learning does
not yield a unifed fnal framework, such as in some theoretical approaches
to interdisciplinary research that foster methodological unifcation and the
building of new common conceptual categories (Klein, 2010). Rather, the
result is an inherently pluralistic framework, hence respecting the various
heterogeneous disciplinary research styles and non academic approaches to
knowledge. Further, the adopted framework is characterized as purposeful
and accepted by the partners regarding the purpose of a given inquiry into
unsustainable problem situations while remaining provisional (i.e., open for
further adjustment based on subsequent learning on the systems features and
the sustainability values).
In her literature review on learning from a perspective of philosophi
cal pragmatism, Boix Mansilla characterizes the validity of this pluralistic,
purposeful, and provisional framework as one of “refective equilibrium”
between prior perspectives of the partners and new insights gained through
social deliberation processes (Boix Mansilla, 2017). Other prominent schol
ars of philosophical pragmatism characterize the validity of these provisional
frameworks as based on the convergence of the perspectives to a position
that “cannot be improved under present circumstances” (see, e.g., Misak,
2000, p. 95).
In this perspective, both scientifc knowledge and knowledge from societal
actors infuence the purposeful learning of common perspectives that do jus
tice to the diversity of perspectives on sustainability transformations. Indeed,
pragmatist constructivism does not require a prior privileged perspective,
whether being a priority given to the perspective of the scientifc research
ers or societal actors. Therefore, various types of knowledge contribute to
improving the purposeful and provisional common framework, whether it
is scientifc knowledge on the social and natural system features, laypersons’
experiential knowledge on case specifc dynamics, or the deliberation on
value perspectives.
The over three decades of research on collaborative planning by Judith
Innes and David Booher allows for illustrating the role of the various types
of knowledge inputs in the pragmatist constructivist perspective. In their
review of 30 years of experience with research for collaborative planning,
Judith Innes and David Booher (2010) indicate at least three reasons that
knowledge co production between researchers and societal actors is needed
to understand sustainability transformations.
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 91
First, understanding ongoing system wide transformations in specifc
problem felds requires gathering lay knowledge from involved actors to
understand the unique characteristics of the interactions in the socio ecolog
ical systems. As elaborated by Innes and Booher, the latter is grounded in a
combination of “frst hand experience, conversations with those with direct
knowledge, conversations that help individuals to make sense of what is hap
pening, and logic based on familiarity with comparable situations” (Innes
and Booher, 2010, p. 171). Thus, to access this experiential knowledge,
quantitative surveying must be combined with qualitative research methods
that are better equipped to address thick case specifc knowledge and with
informal exchanges to access difficult to codify information on the system.
One example discussed by Innes and Booher aptly illustrates the contri
bution of such integration of experiential knowledge (ibid, pp. 176–177).
After the nuclear catastrophe of Chernobyl in 1986, researchers working
in the United Kingdom initially failed to anticipate the long term impact of
the radioactive fallout on lambs. They could only map the full extent of the
nuclear radiation fallout by integrating the knowledge of local sheep farm
ers. The farmers’ knowledge of the local soils was essential to understand
ing the dissemination of the radioactive cesium particles in the environment.
Similarly, as discussed in the case study on pollution related asthma in New
York City, researchers initially missed important context specifc local knowl
edge. In both cases, researchers only reached an integrated understanding of
the socio ecological interactions by combining scientifc analysis with par
ticipatory observation and informal exchange on experience based insights
of local societal actors.
The second reason highlighted by Innes and Booher on why knowl
edge co production is important is the need for learning on the plurality of
value related perspectives on interdependent socio ecological systems. Innes
and Booher provide a telling illustration of the failure to integrate difer
ent perspectives on desirable and feasible socio ecological pathways through
the case of research projects on Potato Farming in the Peruvian Andes. By
neglecting the contributions of indigenous knowledge systems and institu
tions for seed exchange and improvement, major studies failed to understand
how the knowledge from traditional innovation systems is a major resource
to build upon to overcome the current deadlocks of the high input industrial
farming system (ibid, p. 178).
The third reason knowledge co production is important, according to
Innes and Booher, directly touches on the issues of environmental justice and
the recognition of marginalized voices (ibid, p. 170). In practice, this third
reason often overlaps with the frst two arguments around knowledge co
production: the integration of experiential knowledge and the integration of
the plurality of value related perspectives on interdependent socio ecological
92
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
systems. In some cases, diferences in power between societal actors or soci
etal actors and researchers lead to overshadowing the voices of social groups
that are part of the research project. In other cases, researchers must factor
in the possible social or political consequences of the sharing of experiential
knowledge for the individuals afected by social transformation processes. In
these circumstances, to consider such marginalized knowledge perspectives,
Innes and Booher suggest that researchers mobilize less intrusive methods of
information gathering and “be proactive in encouraging and assisting those
marginalized populations to participate meaningfully and to recognize that
their local knowledge is useful” (ibid, p. 170).
The analysis by Innes and Booher of the various reasons for knowledge
co production with societal actors resonates with the broader pragmatist
constructivist perspective. Indeed, pragmatist constructivism underlines not
only the importance of knowledge co production but also the importance of
referring to the practical context of ongoing societal transformations to cre
ate transversality and dialogue among project partners with heterogeneous
disciplinary perspectives and diverging societal value orientations (cf. also
Hirsch Hadorn, 2004). Thus, both analyses call for a crucial complement of
abstract scientifc knowledge with knowledge coming from practice.
In short, pragmatist constructivism underlines the important role of soci
etal actors and researchers as active agents of transformations, who bring
specifc views to the research partnership on the most relevant problems and
the desirable sustainability orientations. As active agents, societal actors and
researchers introduce a pluralist and open ended perspective on the sustain
ability transformation pathways, which directly afects the enterprise of sus
tainability science (Klenk and Meehan, 2015). Therefore, to design adequate
scientifc frameworks for analyzing real world socio ecological dynamics,
research partners should mutually learn the various legitimate and relevant
perspectives on specifc transformation pathways. As discussed in this chap
ter, this can be achieved by combining the integration of diferent knowledge
types from scientifc researchers and societal actors, and by involving societal
actors in the co management of the research process and the active research
co design of the various aspects of the framework for analysis.
References
Abaza, H. and Baranzini, A. (Eds.). (2002). Implementing sustainable development:
Integrated assessment and participatory decision-making processes. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ambole, A., Musango, J. K., Buyana, K., Ogot, M., Anditi, C., Mwau, B., . . . and
Brent, A. C. (2019). Mediating household energy transitions through co design in
urban Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. Energy Research and Social Science, 55,
208–217.
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 93
Apaba. (2014). Recherche d’autonomie fouragère. Fiche technique 9. Association
pour la Promotion de l’Agriculture Biologique de l’Aveyron (APABA), Rodez; Fé
dération Régionale des Agriculteurs Biologiques Midi Pyrénées (FRAB), Toulouse.
Arkema, K. K., Rogers, L. A., Toft, J., Mesher, A., Wyatt, K. H., Albury Smith, S.,
. . . and Samhouri, J. (2019). Integrating fsheries management into sustainable
development planning. Ecology and Society, 24(2), 1.
ATD Quart Monde. (2016). La démarche du Croisement des savoirs et des pratiques
avec des personnes en situation de pauvreté. Montreuil sous Bois: Repères (août
2016).
Banerjee, A. and Dufo, E. (2011). Poor economics. A radical rethinking of the way
to fght global poverty. New York: PublicAfairs.
Batinge, B., Musango, J. K., Ceschin, F., Ambole, A., Smit, S. and Petrulaityte, A.
(2021). Modelling gendered innovation for the security of energy services in poor
urban environments. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 1–18.
Becker, E. and Jahn, T. (2003). Umrisse einer kritischen Theorie gesellschaftlicher
Naturverhältnisse. In Gernot Böhme und Alexandra Manzei (Hrsg.), Kritische
Theorie der Technik und der Natur (pp. 91–112). München: Fink.
Belk, R. W. (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing.
Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
BFS and ARE. (2017). Verkehrsverhalten der Bevölkerung. Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus Mobilität und Verkehr 2015. Neuchâtel: Bundesamt für Statistik (BFS) and
Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung (ARE).
Binder, C. R., Absenger Helmli, I., Bedenik, K., Chappin, E., Dijkema, G., Goetz, A.,
. . . and Vilsmaier, U. (2014). TERIM—Transition dynamics in energy regions: An
integrated model for sustainable policies. In Tagungsband 15. Klimatag: 2–4 April
2014 (pp. 78–79). Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck.
Black, N. (1996). Why we need observational studies to evaluate the efectiveness of
health care. British Medical Journal, 312(7040), 1215–1218.
Bloem, S., Swilling, M. and Koranteng, K. (2021). Taking energy democracy to the
streets: Socio technical learning, institutional dynamism, and integration in South
African community energy projects. Energy Research and Social Science, 72,
101906.
Boix Mansilla, V. (2017). Interdisciplinary learning: A cognitive epistemological
foundation. In R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein and R. Pacheco (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed., pp. 261–275). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ceschin, F. and Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of design for sustainability: From
product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies,
47, 118–163.
Chionidou, E. (2008). Power for Africa: Solar hybrid systems for rural electrifcation.
Solarmagazine (online brochure available through calaméo.com). Solarthemen
Media GmbH. https://fr.calameo.com/books/00142283957a4595c0712. Accessed
7 February 2023.
Claude, S., Ginestet, S., Bonhomme, M., Moulène, N. and Escadeillas, G. (2017). The
living lab methodology for complex environments: Insights from the thermal re
furbishment of a historical district in the city of Cahors, France. Energy Research
and Social Science, 32, 121–130.
94
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
Cooper, T. (2004). Inadequate life? Evidence of consumer attitudes to product obso
lescence. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27(4), 421–449.
Cooper, T. (2016). The signifcance of longevity. In T. Cooper (Ed.), Longer lasting
products: Alternatives to the throwaway society (pp. 3–38). Abingdon; New York:
Routledge.
Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health
justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cowling, R. M., Egoh, B., Knight, A. T., O’Farrell, P. J., Reyers, B., Rouget’ll, M.,
. . . and Wilhelm Rechman, A. (2008). An operational model for mainstreaming
ecosystem services for implementation. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 105(28), 9483–9488.
Cruchon, J. (Coord.). (2019). Retour d’expériences. Cahors, Porto, Vitoria-Gasteiz.
Brochure du projet ENERPAT SUDOE. https://www.envirobat oc.fr/IMG/pdf/
guide_retourexperience_enerpat_fr2.pdf.
Crul, M. and Diehl, J. C. (2008). Design for sustainability (D4S): Manual and tools
for developing countries. Proceedings of the 7th annual ASEE global colloquium
on engineering education, Cape Town (pp. 19–23). Washington: American Society
for Engineering Education.
Delhaye, E., De Ceuster, G., Vanhove, F. and Maerivoet, S. (2017). Internalisering van
externe kosten van transport in Vlaanderen: Actualisering 2016. Study Commis
sioned by Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij (MIRA). Transport and Mobility Leuven,
Leuven.
Ehrenfeld, J. (2008). Sustainability by design: A subversive strategy for transforming
our consumer culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
ENERPAT. (2018). Expérimentation en matière d’éco-rénovation du patrimoine bâti
ancien. https://enerpatsudoe.fr/. Accessed 11 January 2023.
ENoLL. (2019). Short history of living labs-research and policy context. European
Network of Living Labs, 29 August 2019. ENoLL Office, Brussels.
Ferrand, F. (1999). Le croisement des savoirs—Quand le Quart Monde et l’Université
pensent ensemble. Ivry sur Seine: Editions de l’atelier.
Flies, E. J., Mavoa, S., Zosky, G. R., Mantzioris, E., Williams, C., Eri, R., . . . and
Buettel, J. C. (2019). Urban associated diseases: Candidate diseases, environmen
tal risk factors, and a path forward. Environment International, 133, 105–187.
Godinot, X. and Walker, R. (2020). Poverty in all its forms: Determining the dimen
sions of poverty through merging knowledge. In Dimensions of poverty (pp. 263–
279). Cham: Springer.
Gomez Castillo, L., Diehl, J. C. and Brezet, J. C. (2012). Design considerations for
base of the pyramid (BoP) projects [Conference presentation]. Cumulus Confer
ence 2012, 24–26 May, Helsinki, Finland [s.l., s.n.].
Goodkind, J. R., Githinji, A. and Isakson, B. (2011). Reducing health disparities
experienced by refugees resettled in urban areas: A community based transdis
ciplinary intervention model. In M. Kirst et al. (Eds.), Converging disciplines: A
transdisciplinary research approach to urban health problems (pp. 41–55). New
York; Dordrecht; Heidelberg: Springer Science and Business Media.
Goutiers, V., Charron, M. H., Deo, M. and Hazard, L. (2016). Capfor®: un outil
pour concevoir des mélanges de prairies à fore variée. Fourrages, 228, 243–252.
Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2004). Unity of knowledge in transdisciplinary research for sus
tainability. In Encyclopedia of life support system (EOLSS-UNESCO). Oxford:
EOLSS Publishers Co.
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 95
Hitziger, M., Aragrande, M., Berezowski, J. A., Canali, M., Del Rio Vilas, V., Hof
mann, S., . . . and Rüegg, S. R. (2019). EVOlvINC: Evaluating knowledge integra
tion capacity in multistakeholder governance. Ecology and Society, 24(2), art36.
Hoppe, M. and Michl, T. (2017). Transforming the Swiss mobility system towards
sustainability. Working Paper. Zurich University of Applied Science, ZHAW
School of Engineering, Zurich.
Hovmand, P. S. (2014). Group model building and community based system dynam
ics process. In P. S. Hovmand (Ed.), Community based system dynamic (pp. 17–
30). Heidelberg: Springer.
Innes, J. E. and Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to
collaborative rationality for public policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jaeger, J. and Scheringer, M. (1998). Transdisziplinarität. Problemorientierung ohne
methodenzwang. Global Astrometric Interferometer for Astrophysics, 7(1),
10–25.
Joos Malfait, V., Myaux, D. and Osinski, A. (Coord.) (2019). L’expérience de l’aide
alimentaire. Quelles alternatives. Rapport d’une recherche en croisement des
savoirs. Fédération des Services Sociaux (FdSS), Bruxelles.
Kaminsky, M., Klitzman, S., Michaels, D. and Stevenson, L. (1993). Health profle
of cancer, birth defects, asthma, and childhood lead poisoning in Greenpoint/Williamsburg. Second Report, June 1993. Greenpoint Environmental History Project,
Brooklyn Public Library, Center for Brooklyn History, New York City.
Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. Thomp
son Klein and C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity
(pp. 15–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klein, J. T. (2018). Learning in transdisciplinary collaborations: A conceptual vo
cabulary. In Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education (pp. 11–23). Cham:
Springer.
Klenk, N. and Meehan, K. (2015). Climate change and transdisciplinary science:
Problematizing the integration imperative. Environmental Science and Policy, 54,
160–167.
Lacombe, C., Couix, N. and Hazard, L. (2017). Envisager l’accompagnement du
changement des systèmes agricoles vers l’agroécologie comme un processus coconçu. Cas de la co-conception locale d’un outil de diagnostic agroécologique des
fermes ovin-lait dans le Sud-Aveyron [Conference presentation]. 7ième Colloque
du réseau “Des Outils pour Décider Ensemble” (OPDE), 26–27 October (Montpel
ier). HAL Archive ouverte de l’Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture,
l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE), Paris.
Ledogar, R. J., Garden Acosta, L. and Penchaszadeh, A. (1999). Building interna
tional public health vision through local community research: The El Puente—
CIET partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 89(12), 1795–1797.
Ledogar, R. J., Penchaszadeh, A., Garden, C. C. and Garden, I. (2000). Asthma and
Latino cultures: Diferent prevalence reported among groups sharing the same en
vironment. American Journal of Public Health, 90(6), 929–935.
Loorbach, D. and Rotmans, J. (2010). The practice of transition management: Exam
ples and lessons from four distinct cases. Futures, 42(3), 237–246.
Lux, A., Schäfer, M., Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Marg, O., Nagy, E., Ransiek, A. C. and
Theiler, L. (2019). Societal efects of transdisciplinary sustainability research—
How can they be strengthened during the research process? Environmental Science
and Policy, 101, 183–191.
96
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
Mackie, H., Macmillan, A., Witten, K., Baas, P., Field, A., Smith, M., . . . and
Woodward, A. (2018). Te Ara Mua—Future Streets suburban street retroft: A
researcher community government co design process and intervention outcomes.
Journal of Transport and Health, 11, 209–220.
Macmillan, A., Connor, J., Witten, K., Kearns, R., Rees, D. and Woodward, A.
(2014). The societal costs and benefts of commuter bicycling: Simulating the ef
fects of specifc policies using system dynamics modeling. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 122(4), 335–344.
Macmillan, A., Davies, M., Shrubsole, C., Luxford, N., May, N., Chiu, L. F., . . . and
Chalabi, Z. (2016). Integrated decision making about housing, energy and wellbe
ing: A qualitative system dynamics model. Environmental Health, 15(1), 23–34.
Macmillan, A. and Mackie, H. (2016). Optimising low carbon mobility for health
and equity. In D. Hopkins and J. Higham (Eds.), Low carbon mobility transition.
Oxford: GoodFellow Publishers.
Macmillan, A., Smith, M., Witten, K., Woodward, A., Hosking, J., Wild, K. and
Field, A. (2020). Suburb level changes for active transport to meet the SDGs:
Causal theory and a New Zealand case study. Science of the Total Environment,
714, 136–678.
Martin, A. (2017). Just conservation: Biodiversity, wellbeing and sustainability.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Masur, J. S. and Posner, E. A. (2011). Climate regulation and the limits of cost beneft
analysis. California Law Review, 99, 1557.
Maxwell, J. A. and Loomis, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative ap
proach. In A. Tashakkori and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research (Vol. 1, pp. 241–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishing.
McCrory, G., Schäpke, N., Holmén, J. and Holmberg, J. (2020). Sustainability ori
ented labs in real world contexts: An exploratory review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123202.
Meadows, D. H. (2009). Thinking in systems: A primer. Abingdon: Earthscan.
Melia, S. (2015). Do randomised control trials ofer a solution to ‘low quality’ transport research? [Conference presentation]. 47th Annual Universities’ Transport
Study Group (UTSG) Conference, 1 January. University College London, London.
Menzel, S. and Teng, J. (2010). Ecosystem services as a stakeholder driven concept for
conservation science. Conservation Biology, 24(3), 907–909.
Misak, Ch. (2000). Truth, politics, morality. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, C., Cordell, D. and Fam, D. (2015). Beginning at the end: The outcome
spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research. Futures, 65,
86–96.
Németh, B., Molnár, A., Bozóki, S., Wijaya, K., Inotai, A., Campbell, J. D. and Kaló,
Z. (2019). Comparison of weighting methods used in multicriteria decision anal
ysis frameworks in healthcare with focus on low and middle income countries.
Journal of Comparative Efectiveness Research, 8(4), 195–204.
New York City Mayor’s office. (2015). One New York: The plan for a strong and
just city. Public Sector Information. New York Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene (DOHMH), New York.
Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., . . .
and Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co production in sustainabil
ity research. Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 182–190.
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 97
Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). The costs of tragedy: Some moral limits of cost beneft
analysis. The Journal of Legal Studies, 29(S2), 1005–1036.
Osinski, A. (2020). Evaluating transition pathways beyond basic needs: A transdisci
plinary approach to assessing food assistance. Food Ethics, 5(1), 1–34.
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187.
Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A. and Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together. Collective
action, the commons and multiple methods in practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Puska, P., Salonen, J. T., Tuomilehto, J., Nissinen, A. and Kottke, Th. E. (1983).
Evaluating community based preventive cardiovascular programs: Problems and
experiences from the North Karelia project. Journal of Community Health, 9,
49–64.
Reich, K. (2009). Constructivism: Diversity of approaches and connections with prag
matism. In L. A. Hickman, S. Neubert and K. Riech (Eds.), John Dewey between
pragmatism and constructivism. New York: Fordham University Press.
Ribeiro, E., Croisel, B. and Belleil, A. (2017). Les prairies à fore variée. La Grande
Motte: ABioDoc.
Rihoux, B. and Ragin, C. C. (2008). Confgurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.
Roorda, C., Wittmayer, J., Henneman, P., Van Steenbergen, F., Frantzeskaki, N. and
Loorbach, D. (2014). Transition management in the urban context: Guidance
manual. Rotterdam: Dutch Research Institute for Transition (DRIFT), Erasmus
University Rotterdam.
Rosenberg, N. (2010). Why do frms do basic research (with their own money)?
In N. Rosenberg (Ed.), Studies on science and the innovation process: Selected
works of Nathan Rosenberg (pp. 225–234). Singapore: World Scientifc Publish
ing Company.
Salas Molina, F. (2019). A formal specifcation of multicriteria economics. Operational Research, 21, 2627–2650.
Schlüter, M., Müller, B. and Frank, K. (2019). The potential of models and modeling
for social ecological systems research. Ecology and Society, 24(1), 31.
Schmale, J., Von Schneidemesser, E., Chabay, I., Maas, A. and Lawrence, M. G.
(2016). Building interfaces that work: A multi stakeholder approach to air pollu
tion and climate change mitigation. In J. L. Drake, Y. Y. Kontar, J. C. Eichelberger,
S. T. Rupp and K. M. Taylor (Eds.), Communicating climate-change and natural
hazard risk and cultivating resilience (pp. 65–76). Heidelberg: Springer.
Schmale, J., Von Schneidemesser, E. and Dörrie, A. (2015). An integrated assessment
method for sustainable transport system planning in a middle sized German city.
Sustainability, 7(2), 1329–1354.
Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., . . . and
Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co production of knowledge and sus
tainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science and Policy, 102, 26–35.
Sciortino, L. (2017). On Ian Hacking’s notion of style of reasoning. Erkenntnis,
82(2), 243–264.
Scrieciu, S. S. (2007). The inherent dangers of using computable general equilib
rium models as a single integrated modelling framework for sustainability impact
98 Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design
assessment. A critical note on Böhringer and Löschel (2006). Ecological Economics, 60(4), 678–684.
Simon, C. and Etienne, M. (2010). A companion modelling approach applied to
forest management planning. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25(11),
1371–1384.
Singleton, R. A. and Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Smetschka, B. and Gaube, V. (2020). Co creating formalized models: Participatory
modelling as method and process in transdisciplinary research and its impact po
tentials. Environmental Science and Policy, 103, 41–49.
Smit, S., Musango, J. K. and Brent, A. C. (2019). Understanding electricity legitimacy
dynamics in an urban informal settlement in South Africa: A community based
system dynamics approach. Energy for Sustainable Development, 49, 39–52.
Smit, S., Musango, J. K., Kovacic, Z. and Brent, A. C. (2018). Towards measuring
the informal city: A societal metabolism approach. Journal of Industrial Ecology,
23(3), 674–685.
Spangenberg, J. H., von Haaren, C. and Settele, J. (2014). The ecosystem service
cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating societal processes to ac
commodate social processes and planning, and the case of bioenergy. Ecological
Economics, 104, 22–32.
Stindt, D., Sahamie, R., Nuss, C. and Tuma, A. (2016). How transdisciplinarity can
help to improve operations research on sustainable supply chains—A transdiscipli
nary modeling framework. Journal of Business Logistics, 37(2), 113–131.
Tang, T. and Bhamra, T. A. (2009). Improving energy efciency of product use: An
exploration of environmental impacts of household cold appliance usage patterns
[Conference paper]. 5th International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Domes
tic Appliances and Lighting EEDAL’09, 16–18 June, Berlin, Germany. Deutsche
Energie Agentur GmbH (dena), Berlin.
TIDE. (2015). Impact assessment handbook. Practitioners’ handbook for cost beneft
and impact analysis of innovative urban transport measures. (Cré, I., Vancluysen,
K, coord.). Transport Innovation Deployment for Europe (TIDE). Tide innova
tion.eu.
Tillie, N., Aarts, M., Marijnissen, M., Stenhujs, L., Borsboom, J., Rietveld, E., . . .
and Lap, S. (2012). Rotterdam. People make the inner city. Rotterdam: Gemeente.
Tofolini, Q., Capitaine, M., Hannachi, M. and Cerf, M. (2021). Implementing agri
cultural living labs that renew actors’ roles within existing innovation systems: A
case study in France. Journal of Rural Studies, 88, 157–168.
UN. (2019). The future is now—Science for achieving sustainable development.
Global Sustainable Development Report 2019. Independent Group of Scientists
appointed by the Secretary General of the United Nations, New York.
Van Breda, J. and Swilling, M. (2019). The guiding logics and principles for design
ing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: Learning experiences and refec
tions from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement,
South Africa. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 823–841.
Van Nes, N. (2003). Replacement of durables: Infuencing product life time through
product design [PhD Thesis]. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Vennix, J. A. (1999). Group model building: Tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 15(4), 379–401.
Actionable knowledge outputs through collaborative research co-design 99
Verutes, G. M., Arkema, K. K., Clarke Samuels, C., Wood, S. A., Rosenthal, A., Ro
sado, S., . . . and Ruckelshaus, M. (2017). Integrated planning that safeguards eco
systems and balances multiple objectives in coastal Belize. International Journal of
Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 13(3), 1–17.
Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R. and Lopes, R. (2010). A participatory modelling
approach to support integrated sustainability assessment processes. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(4), 446–460.
Von Schneidemesser, E., Kutzner, R. D. and Schmale, J. (2017). A survey on the per
ceived need and value of decision support tools for joint mitigation of air pollution
and climate change in cities. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, 5, 68.
Walter, A. I., Helgenberger, S., Wiek, A. and Scholz, R. W. (2007). Measuring societal
efects of transdisciplinary research projects: Design and application of an evalua
tion method. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(4), 325–338.
Wiek, A., Talwar, S., O’Shea, M. and Robinson, J. (2014). Toward a methodological
scheme for capturing societal efects of participatory sustainability research. Research Evaluation, 23(2), 117–132.
Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Wilson, E. and Zarsky, L. (2009). Power to the poor: Sustainable energy at the base
of the pyramid. London: International Institute for Environment and Development
(IIED).
Wuelser, G. and Pohl, C. (2016). How researchers frame scientifc contributions to
sustainable development: A typology based on grounded theory. Sustainability Science, 11(5), 789–800.
4
SOCIAL LEARNING AMONG ACTORS
WITH INCOMMENSURABLE VALUE
PERSPECTIVES ON SUSTAINABILITY
TRANSFORMATIONS
The second research style in transdisciplinary research focuses on the mech
anisms for fostering social learning on societal values among the research
partners. As indicated by Schneider et al. (2019), even though social learning
also plays a role in the frst research style focused on usable knowledge pro
duction, there is a key diference with the research projects that specifcally
identify social learning as the key goal of the research partnership. In this
second research style, the learning is not only oriented toward matching pre
existing societal values that drive specifc sustainability transformation pro
cesses in the given problem context through collaborative co design. Rather,
societal values emerge from the interactions among the researchers and soci
etal actors who collaborate in the various stages of the research process.
A good illustration of this second research style is the agent based par
ticipatory modeling of an irrigation system with local farmers in Thailand
(Barnaud et al., 2008, 2010). The main purpose of the transdisciplinary
research project was to improve the mutual understanding among the par
ticipants of their value laden perceptions of a problem situation. In this case,
a proposed sustainability improvement method based on the introduction of
erosion resistant perennial crops exacerbated social tensions around equita
ble access to agricultural water, as these crops require intense irrigation. To
address this situation of high distrust among the farmers, the objective of the
participatory modeling was to “facilitate communication and coordination
among stakeholders across institutional levels while taking into account the
diversity of interests at the grassroots level” (Barnaud et al., 2008, p. 562). To
this purpose, the researchers organized a set of role playing games in various
villages that allowed to visualize and discuss the socio ecological relation
ships highlighted by the simulation model. This role playing game facilitated
DOI: 10.4324/9781032624297 5
This chapter has been made available under a CC BY NC ND 4.0 international license.
Social learning among actors on societal values 101
a “diferent form of communication, which allowed less powerful villagers
to raise their problem and to create a collective awareness of its existence”
(Barnaud et al., 2010, p. 66).
Therefore, in the context of this second style of transdisciplinary research,
social learning is not a product that can be separated from the social context
of interactions among the research partners, as was the case with the analy
sis of usable knowledge products. Rather, social learning aims to address
failures in mutual understanding among the project partners and create the
conditions for productive collaboration (Schneider et al., 2019).
The latter also accords with the general scholarly literature on social
learning. As stated, for instance, by Mark Reed and his colleagues in a
review paper on this literature, social learning is a process that is defned by
improved understanding and the embedding of this new understanding in
social networks (Reed et al., 2010). According to their review, social learning
can be defned through a combination of three process features: a process
(1) leading to a change in understanding; (2) resulting from the exchange of
ideas, arguments, and information; and (3) going beyond the individual and
becoming situated in wider social units and communities of practice.
The analysis in this chapter is based on the sub set of cases in our overall
sample, where social learning on sustainability values plays an important role
(see a detailed list in Annex 2). The selected cases explicitly reported failures
to collaborate given a lack of structuring of the diversity of societal value
perspectives among the project partners and the lack of organized processes
to overcome these failures. To analyze these cases, this chapter adopts a rep
resentative case study approach based on a clustering of the cases in difer
ent types of social learning processes. Indeed, instead of focusing on generic
features of social learning on sustainability values across all the cases, which
is unlikely to do justice to the diferent social learning needs in the difer
ent projects, it seems more relevant to cluster the cases according to distinct
learning needs and types of structuring of societal value perspectives among
the project partners.
Further, to investigate the observed types of social learning in the case
study sample, the chapter proceeds in two steps. First, the chapter reviews
the key theoretical insights from deliberative approaches to social learning
in complex social choice situations. These deliberative approaches are intro
duced through the work of Bryan Norton on environmental confict man
agement. Second, the various forms of social learning are further analyzed
through the deliberative approach to social choice in the framework of analy
sis elaborated by Amartya Sen. The choice of this latter framework is based
on the similarities between Amartya Sens’ diagnosis of social choice prob
lems and the social learning challenges in transdisciplinary research. In both
cases, societal actors are confronted with the need to structure the diversity
of societal value perspectives to improve collaboration among actors with
102
Social learning among actors on societal values
mutually incompatible value rankings. Based on these similarities, the types
of social learning elaborated in the deliberative approach to social choice by
Sen will be briefy reviewed and subsequently adapted to better match the
type of coordination failures observed in our case study sample of transdis
ciplinary research.
4.1 Building common perspectives for research collaboration in
highly diverse societal value settings
A key insight from the research on social learning in transdisciplinary sus
tainability research is that working with a diversity of societal values is not
necessarily an obstacle to successful collaboration among project partners
(Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2007). Nevertheless, comparative analysis of
social learning in transdisciplinary research projects shows that coordination
among the project partners is greatly facilitated by some level of agreement
on a part of these societal values, without necessarily striving for a consensus
over the entire value set (Herrero et al., 2019). Therefore, the focus on social
learning in transdisciplinary research aims to strengthen such agreements in
a collective and adaptive search for appropriate partnership composition and
areas of convergence among project participants.
As highlighted, the need for such deeper agreements on some sustainabil
ity values depends on the sustainability issues at hand and the type of actors
involved in the partnerships. Given this diversity of situations, no standard
of convergence can ft all situations beyond a diversity of degrees of conver
gence per project needs. This section aims to introduce the discussion on the
diversity of such agreements in the context of sustainability research to build
a typology that can guide further case study analyses.
The lively debates in environmental philosophy on the balancing of mul
tiple legitimate sustainability goals is a good starting point to introduce this
discussion. For instance, Bryan Norton, in his reference work on the philoso
phy of adaptive ecosystem management (Norton, 2005) develops a vision of
environmental management as a process of evaluating multiple goals, which
remains open for revision given further evidence. Precisely, this process of
evaluation is an iterative process. Adaptive ecosystem management is based
on evaluating various arguments for combining ecological and social system
values, and, subsequently, on a further refnement of these values, reviewing
the evidence of various impacts of decisions made based on these arguments.
The starting point of the analysis of Norton is his personal experience
with failures in the management of public programs of wetland management
at the US Environmental Protection Agency in the early 1970s. As stated
by Norton, given the functional specialization of the departments in the
Agency, only ecologists sat on the committee for the wetland policy (ibid,
p. 35). Therefore, the committee had no defnition of a wetland that included
Social learning among actors on societal values 103
considerations of economic value or sociocultural values associated with
the wetlands for the surrounding population. According to Norton, conse
quently, the management models used by the Agency failed to develop mod
els that are useful in complex public decisions, which include considerations
of ecology, economic opportunities, and social acceptance of environmental
regulations.
Moreover, to contrast this technocratic approach with an adaptive
approach to wetland management, Norton cites the case of a successful social
learning process on land and water use around the Platte River in Colorado,
United States. As in many situations of biodiversity protection, in this case,
the top down designation of river habitat to be protected resulted frst in over
a decade of protests by homeowners close to the river bank and water users,
including threats to multiply individual court cases to contest the application
of the habitat protection rulings to individual land plots. Given such threats,
the US Fish and Wildlife service granted a temporary continuance of activi
ties, provided that serious and fruitful negotiations were undertaken by all
interested parties to seek approval for a river basin wide solution (Norton,
2015, p. 242).
Norton highlights two main mechanisms that contributed to a successful
agreement on the key principles to organize habitat protection. First, par
ties identifed areas of convergence and divergence on the values that should
guide collective decision making. Such convergence does not mean all par
ties adhered to these values. However, at least, they could understand and
accept the provisional validity within the space of common action. One area
of agreement was the importance of protecting the rare species of Whooping
Crane whose river habitat was endangered. The other area was to orient the
choice of land acquisition for habitat protection frst to land plots with lower
economic development value.
Second, within this space of convergence, the parties still had diferent
perspectives on many details of habitat protection. Parties held diferent
views on the need (or not) to actively improve the river habitat, such as by
regulating the fow of the river or building small ponds. Moreover, opinions
diverged on house development plans on the riverbank, which contribute
to the tax revenues of the municipalities. Nevertheless, to explore common
action strategies within this diversity of perspectives, the parties adopted a
social learning approach based on scientifc experimentation and monitoring.
Through a common research protocol for real world testing of the proposi
tions made by the diferent parties, parties aimed at assessing if and how the
real world impacts of their proposed action strategies ftted the commonly
agreed upon minimum set of sustainability values.
Norton’s approach to social learning places the accent on the pragmatist
revision of societal values based on the deliberation over the consequences
of proposed action strategies. However, to understand the diversity of social
104
Social learning among actors on societal values
learning needs in transdisciplinary research, this approach must be broad
ened for at least two reasons.
First, the type of convergence, or “balancing” in the terms of Norton, on a
set of core sustainability values envisioned by Norton is not always possible
or needed in practice. A less ambitious objective, such as social learning for
building an agreement on process values might also be a desirable outcome
of the social learning process. In the example of the Platte River habitat, the
Fish and Wildlife service created a framework for negotiation among the par
ties. The parties implicitly used and accepted the process values embedded in
this framework. Without such an external institutional actor, learning might
be required to set up the key process values, such as social inclusiveness or
representation of citizens that can act as spokespersons for the non human
living world in the process.
Second, the main criterion proposed for evaluating the impact of the value
based management decisions is its practical impact on problem solving. It is
an important criterion that is grounded in well recognized approaches to
validity in philosophical pragmatism based on classical authors, such as John
Dewey and William James. In this perspective of philosophical pragmatism,
societal values are considered valid in a given community of inquiry if they
stand the test of practical experimentation with these values in concrete
problem solving at a given point in time and if there is a willingness to fur
ther submit them to this process of testing and possible revision.
Nevertheless, without entering a deep philosophical debate, the concept
of revision used by Norton, where the values are evaluated in terms of their
instrumental impact on problem solving, is too restrictive to cover all situa
tions of social learning that contribute to convergence over sustainable values
or process values in transdisciplinary research. In addition to the impact on
problem solving, debates over legitimacy and relevancy among project part
ners also play a role in the process of revision. This broader approach can be
captured through the concept of “comprehensive consequences” (Sen, 2009,
p. 215). From a comprehensive outcome perspective, societal actors assess
societal values regarding their impact on problem solving, their legitimacy as
part of a broader value framework, and the fairness of the process that led to
the acceptance of these values.
4.2 Amartya Sen’s deliberative approach to social choice with
incommensurable societal values
One of the merits of the work of Amartya Sen—who was awarded the 1998
Nobel Prize in economics for his work on social choice—is that it broadens
our understanding of the role of deliberation over societal values in com
plex social choice situations characterized by heterogeneous and sometimes
antagonistic societal values. In particular, the approach of Sen helps further
Social learning among actors on societal values 105
broaden the trial and error approach to partial convergence over societal
values discussed in the context of Bryan Norton’s environmental philosophy
to other types of social learning needs and mechanisms.
A key foundation of the work of Amartya Sen is the realization that so
called incommensurability* among societal values in a broad sense—the
impossibility to establish a comparison between the values that specify what
societal value choice is better or worse than another (Chang, 1997)—is not
a problem for everyday decision making. Indeed, incommensurability over
societal values is everywhere, despite which human actors can reach com
mon decisions on action strategies and broad societal orientations over many
collective issues.
The shift in perspective proposed by Sen to overcome many of the par
adoxes of social choice under diverse and incommensurable values is to
abandon the idea of the need for an absolute ranking of the values to reach
decisions considered reasonably valid by all. To paraphrase Sen (2009,
p. 102), when two mountains are within reach, one can use various clues
to validly affirm that one has climbed the highest mountain of these two
without requiring further investigation into the height of the absolute highest
mountain on Earth or even without agreeing on all the clues used to arrive
at this conclusion. Similarly, in everyday decision making, human actors can
take common decisions based on partially overlapping agreements or con
sider decisions that are provisionally valid and open for revision given the
availability of more information.
In his major works on social choice, Rationality and Freedom (Sen, 2002)
and The Idea of Justice (Sen, 2009), Sen further develops this idea of deci
sion making with partial ordering and incomplete information. These works
allow for distinguishing between three major ideal types of convergence over
values between actors with diferent or incomplete value rankings.
The frst ideal type concern situations where each of the individuals can
rank the societal values in a reasonably consistent manner, though the rank
ing between these individuals is not congruent. Sen considers two ideal types
of agreement that actors use to solve a situation of incompatible value rank
ings. The frst ideal type is based on a partial agreement on the ranking. The
most advanced form of agreement exists if the individuals have a shared belief
regarding the validity of some part of the ranking, which Sen calls a “fair
agreement on particular pairwise rankings” (ibid, p. 105). For instance, if two
individuals rank fve values respectively in the order V1 > V2 > V3 > V4 > V5
(for the frst individual) and V5 > V4 > V1 > V2 > V3 (for the second), they
share at least an agreement over the ranking V1 > V2 > V3. As stated by Sen, in
such cases, they can use this partial agreement to make common judgments on
how to “enhance justice” or “reduce injustice” in specifc problem situations.
The second ideal type is based on a minimum agreement on some core
values. Indeed, even if there is no advanced agreement on pairwise rankings,
106 Social learning among actors on societal values
some common judgments remain possible when rankings are incongruent
among individuals. Indeed, there may be one salient value that is so impor
tant that it is sufficient to motivate a common judgment of justice or injustice
in a situation, even if ambiguity remains over the other value rankings (ibid,
p. 397). For instance, in the example of fve values, V4 might represent acting
against famine or exclusion from access to healthcare. These values might be
recognized by all parties involved as a key value to defend, even if there is no
straightforward manner to compare the other values of the overall value set
in a mutually consistent way.
The third ideal type described by Sen concerns the situation where each
of the individuals expresses doubts or hesitation about his value ranking, as
they lack key information or clues on how to manage the available informa
tion to decide upon the ranking. In these situations, any value statement
would be provisional and should be accompanied by a shared understanding
of how and under what circumstances the value statements can be adjusted,
completed, re examined, or extended to include new problem features. This
type is labeled by Sen as “tentative incompleteness” (ibid, p. 107). As argued,
this tentative incompleteness requires agreements on “process values,” such
as acceptable means for assessing the credibility of new information or guar
antees for inclusiveness in the deliberation over the revision process.
In practice, these three ideal types must be combined to enhance over
all justice in society. However, depending on the situation, the actors might
consider that the most urgent social learning must occur frst within one of
the types. Based on the level of value incongruence or incompleteness, they
might consider that the priority lies in the identifcation of a set of minimum
substantial value agreements, a more advanced pairwise ranking of several
substantial values, or agreements on the process to gather and deliberate over
new information on a tentatively accepted common value framework.
To illustrate these various types, Sen discusses the hypothetical dilemma of
three individuals claiming a fute (ibid, p. 12; pp. 396–397). Although it is an
extreme case of incommensurability rarely encountered in real life, the case
shows how the various types of social learning might be mobilized to attenu
ate the incommensurability and converge on some common value judgments.
Similarly, the case is also a reminder of the gradual nature of the convergence
process through social learning, as per many contextual factors and prior
levels of collaboration and trust.
In the hypothetical dilemma constructed by Sen, three children “Anne,
Bob, and Carla” quarrel about a fute. Each refers to a diferent social justice
value to substantiate their demand for the fute. The frst, Anne, is the only
one who can play the fute, and she claims the fute on the basis that it would
be unjust to deny the fute to the only one who can play it. The second, Bob,
defends his case by pointing out that he is so poor that he has no toys of his
own, and the other two concede that they are richer and already well of. The
Social learning among actors on societal values 107
third, Carla, is the person who made the fute, and one might be inclined to
give the fute to her in recognition of her understandable claim to something
she has made.
Indeed, there is no real good solution to the dilemma, as one can mobilize
arguments from various ethical traditions to justify each of these positions.
However, Sen highlights that there remains some room for further learning,
which shows some possible ways out of the dilemma.
First, a possibility regards the minimum level of congruence. It could be
the case that Bob is extremely poor such that the arguments based on eco
nomic fairness prompt one to opt for ranking the inequality considerations
highest to judge the situation. A second possibility suggested by Sen regards
some fuzzy boundaries between the societal values perspectives. For instance,
the diference between the three children might be not as strict as in the theo
retical dilemma, and not only Bob but also Carla is poor. If the deliberation
would lead to ranking both economic inequality and the right to the fruits of
one’s labor above utilitarian arguments, then this would lend some support
to give the fute to Carla.
Finally, a third possibility (not explicitly mentioned by Sen) could use
the incompleteness argument and organize processes of further information
gathering and testing of provisional solutions. Indeed, to decide upon the
allocation of the fute, one might temporarily give it to Anne but also ask for
further information regarding the arguments over the other societal values.
For instance, it might be unclear how challenging it is for the others to learn
to play the fute, and Anne could help in this regard, including any other
means available to overcome the poverty gap between Bob and the two other
children. Further information on these issues might lead to a diferent appre
ciation of what societal values has the highest relevance in the given problem
situation.
The interesting point in the example of the three children given by Sen
is that the diference between the children’s arguments does not represent
divergences about what constitutes individual advantage (getting the fute is
considered advantageous by each of the children) but about the societal val
ues that can generally justify decisions (here, about the allocation of goods).
As underlined by Sen, the arguments are about “how social arrangements
should be made and what social institutions should be chosen, and through
that, about what social realizations would come about.” According to Sen,
“it is not simply that the vested interests of the three children difer (though,
of course, they do), but that the three arguments each point to a diferent type
of impartial and non arbitrary reason” (ibid, p. 15).
The strength of Sen’s analysis, in line with many other scholars of public
deliberation, is how it shows the working of a framework for social learning
over societal values that do not need an absolute viewpoint but still aim at
a strong level of the objective validity of the structuring of the diversity of
108
Social learning among actors on societal values
value perspectives. Indeed, the societal values under discussion are not the
subjective values of individual participants but publicly shared values that
can withstand critical scrutiny by a community of discussants. The end goal
is to reach a level playing feld for communication on an intersubjective basis
such that the various statements about partial rankings or process values
are not inescapably confned to a subjective appraisal that others may not
understand.
4.3 Illustrating the various types of social learning in
transdisciplinary research practices
The analysis of some key insights of the literature on the deliberative
approach to social choice shows the diversity of possible outcomes of social
learning processes over issues of common concern in situations of hetero
geneous societal values. At frst glance, sustainability transformations with
highly heterogeneous values leave few opportunities for consensus around
the basic values or organizing the process for building new common val
ues perspectives. However, when abandoning the viewpoint of reaching a
consensus over complete value rankings and adopting a bounded rational
perspective on the real world situations of collaboration with incomplete and
partial agreements, societal actors have at their disposal a much wider set of
opportunities for social learning.
From a general perspective, based on the analysis by Sen, one can expect
various types of social learning with varying degrees of demanding targets.
The more demanding targets can strive for pairwise agreements on several
value rankings adopted by societal actors. The less demanding targets may
focus on one clear case of a societal value to which all parties adhere. Further,
beyond these two contrasted outcomes, one might expect situations where
the rankings of societal actors are so incomplete that no agreement on the
ranking is possible. In such situations, societal actors may aim to adopt pro
visional common action strategies that can support further learning and com
pletion of the value framework.
Moving from the analysis of the literature on social choice to the con
text of building transdisciplinary research commons requires more infor
mation from real world practices of transdisciplinary research deliberation.
Therefore, this section proceeds along two steps to analyze the mechanisms
of social learning. First, the various types discussed by Sen will be confronted
with the mechanisms of social learning processes documented in the case
study sample of transdisciplinary research projects presented in Chapter 3.
Through a cluster analysis of the sub sample of cases with strong investment
in social learning, the cases from this sub sample will be grouped around the
most similar social learning mechanisms. Second, for each identifed type, one
example of a transdisciplinary research process will be discussed in depth.
Social learning among actors on societal values 109
The selection of cases is based on more and less successful research pro
jects. Both cases with a high and low direct impact on usable knowledge
production will be used. Indeed, for the analysis of social learning, both
are potentially useful. In cases with high direct impact, specifc eforts for
deliberation may not be vital to overcoming situations of divergence over
key sustainability values. However, in the cases with low impact, partners
may have implemented social learning processes for fostering convergence
that successfully laid the groundwork for further collaboration in follow
up research.
Overall, the screening of the 44 cases in the overall sample led to identify
ing 12 transdisciplinary research projects that actively implemented delib
erative mechanisms for social learning and where these mechanisms are
documented in research publications (see the detailed list in Annex 2, column
“SL”). For each of the 12 cases, the key variables used by Sen in his analysis
of the types of social learning processes were coded based on the information
available in the research publications and accompanying project documents.
These key variables include (1) the level of agreement targeted by the social
learning process, from minimal agreements to partial overlapping rankings;
(2) the defnition of some or various common action strategies that satisfy the
societal value perspectives of the partners; and (3) the use of specifc tools for
confict resolution.
The clustering of the most similar cases based on these variables induces
a modifcation of the key types identifed by Sen. The modifcation can be
accommodated by including a fourth type of convergence process. The clus
ter analysis confrms the relevancy of the two paradigmatic cases of agree
ment in pairwise rankings and minimal agreement over salient societal value
categories. Even so, the analysis of the situation of absence of agreement
over the ranking or absence of individual consistent rankings yields two sub
types. The frst sub type concerns situations where actors, despite divergence,
adopt common action strategies that support further learning. A second sub
type concerns situations where no such common action strategy is identifed
through the research, but social learning still allows for agreeing on a set of
process values to organize collaboration for trust building and improving
mutual understanding.
Hence, the cluster analysis of the social learning cases in the overall sample
leads to identifying the following four types:
1 Agreement on process values for common inquiry into the problem
identifcation
• Cases where social learning yields an agreement over the process val
ues that should lead the interaction among the partners (no common
action, no agreement on ranking)
110
Social learning among actors on societal values
2 Common action strategies accommodating divergent perspectives
• Cases where social learning yields a common strategy that satisfies the
key societal values of the partners (only specifc common action, no
agreement on ranking)
3 Identifying converging and diverging perspectives
• Cases where social learning leads to identifying some area of conver
gence around one or some salient societal values (one or some specifc
common actions, based on the convergence around one or some sali
ent societal values and divergence on the ranking of the other societal
values)
4) Common action programs with a substantial overlap in value rankings
• Cases where social learning leads to identifying substantial overlaps in
value rankings—so called partial ordering—and a set of specifc com
mon action strategies that satisfy the overlapping societal values
An important caveat applies to this presentation of key features of social
learning. As noted, in practice, many projects combine diferent social learn
ing types, whether by implementing one type after another or by combining
features of various types. Nevertheless, the analysis of specifc types can pro
vide important insights. Each of the ideal types addresses specifc social learn
ing challenges and mobilizes diferent deliberative mechanisms. Furthermore,
knowledge of these types can fulfll a heuristic role in shaping and adjusting
expectations among the research partners. Indeed, the identifcation of these
types by the research partners allows them to clarify the social learning needs
and the level of social learning appropriate for the given project resources,
the history of collaboration among the partners, and the problem situation
at hand.
The remainder of this section illustrates each of the four types through an
example from the case study sample. Each of these cases mainly addresses
one of the social learning types and explicitly discusses this type in the project
publications.
4.3.1
Agreement on process values for common inquiry
The frst example illustrates the absence of congruent value rankings on the
core sustainability values in a situation of persistent distrust among the pro
ject partners. Social learning corresponds to the needs identifed in the frst
social learning type, which is the creation of a community of inquiry that
respects agreed upon process values to improve mutual understanding.
Social learning among actors on societal values 111
The research partnership of the multistakeholder “working group for
waders” that emerged from a research project on ground nesting birds in
Scottish Moorlands is a good illustration of the use of various capacity build
ing tools to foster the building of a community of inquiry (Ainsworth et al.,
2020). The case mainly relies on insights from the confict transformation
literature, particularly regarding the role of a protected or informal environ
ment in trust building among the parties (Redpath et al., 2013; Van Breda
and Swilling, 2019).
The Moorlands are well known for high conservation value habitats for
several ground nesting birds. All stakeholders and scientists agree that bird
populations are declining in Scotland at an alarming rate but disagree about
the solutions and the evidence behind diferent proposed solutions (Hodgson
et al., 2018, 2019). However, in the Moorlands, there is a lack of data on the
causes of the near extinction of a bird of prey, the hen harrier. This decline
may stem from the change in habitat management or the illegal shooting of
the hen harrier. The latter occurs to increase the presence of one of its preys,
the red grouse, which is a ground nesting bird specifcally managed for rec
reational hunting. Further, for other ground nesting birds, such as the curlew,
the nesting habits are not well known, and their protection requires close col
laboration between farmers, hunters, and nature protection organizations.
In response to this dispute over the available knowledge on the causes
of bird decline, the Scottish Government provided funding support to a
stakeholder group—the Moorland Forum—to organize and supervise the
“Understanding Predation” project, whose objective was to initiate a confict
transformation process. The Forum decided to organize a transdisciplinary
research project, involving hunters, recreationists, farmers, and members of
environmental associations.
According to Ainsworth et al. (2020), two major shifts in the framing
of the confict played an important role in successfully overcoming the lack
of collaboration. First, the focus on gathering evidence on predator prey
dynamics of ground nesting birds more generally allowed the research team
to take a step back from the more acute confict around hen harrier conser
vation and red grouse management. As stated by the team: “we aimed to
build a publicly accessible evidence base . . . from science and stakeholders’
local knowledge . . . highlighting where these forms of knowledge agreed
or disagreed and analyzing the reasons for any diferences” (ibid, p. 47).
Accordingly, the stakeholders and scientists realized that conservation man
agement of ground nesting birds was a priority objective for almost all par
ticipants. Moreover, the defnition of healthy populations of predator and
prey species was crucial, despite diferent ideas on the appropriate manage
ment methods to reach this objective among scientists and conservationists
and recreational users and hunters.
112
Social learning among actors on societal values
Second, based on insights from the confict transformation literature, the
research team used small group and plenary meetings to build trust among
stakeholder groups. For instance, before gathering all the stakeholders and
scientists in a formal plenary workshop, the research team organized a set
of nine small scale group meetings in a more confdential environment. At
the start of each meeting, the participants agreed on a confdentiality state
ment and could approve the workshop report before the analysis or dis
semination by the research team. Further, as the confict was too acute in
the earlier stages of the project, the research team only invited stakeholders
from like minded organizations to the small group meeting by using the
results of an online survey that allowed for a prior mapping of the main
stakeholder values and areas of confict. The research team asked the par
ticipants in the small peer groups to compare their sources of data with
the data from literature reviews to understand the potential disagreements
between the two sources of knowledge. This approach enabled participants
to engage in meaningful deliberations while maintaining overall consist
ency by covering the same topics in all the groups and referring to the com
mon literature review and prior survey.
The combination of small group “safe space” and regular plenary co pro
duction workshops did not aim to reach a consensus on all the issues but to
create the conditions for trust and mutual understanding. In the frst plenary
meeting, participants with diferent interests were voluntarily seated next to
each other to encourage informal confdence building. In the fnal seminar,
stakeholders mutually prioritized a list of future collaboration actions in the
Moorlands. The continuing collaboration for knowledge gathering in the
“Working for Waders” program around a set of shared goals for conserva
tion management is also a clear indication of the success of the research
project.
4.3.2
Common action strategies accommodating divergent
perspectives
The second example regards the emergence of common action strategies
around a core objective in a situation with highly divergent social actor per
spectives. The case aims to identify income generation activities from coastal
ecosystems in a sustainable manner in Southern Kenya.
In the coastal ecosystems in Southern Kenya, the local communities expe
rience major security issues regarding illegal fshing techniques and cross
border robbery and trafficking along the Kenya Tanzania border. In response
to these challenges, the SPACES project consortium set up a group based
qualitative research in four villages each in Southern Kenya and Mozambique
to better understand the opportunities for men and women to improve their
Social learning among actors on societal values 113
well being through the sustainable use of the coastal ecosystem services
(Galafassi et al., 2018).
From the beginning of the project, it was clear that the community mem
bers diverged on two possible implementation paths for poverty alleviation
in the coastal ecosystem (Galafassi et al., 2018). Some members saw the lack
of economic opportunities and the lack of security as issues related to indi
vidual capacities. Therefore, they asserted the need to access education and
capacity building as promoted by external actors. Other members highlighted
historical social inequalities in the community as a major barrier, especially
regarding gendered access rules to ecosystem resources that induce difer
ent access to capital, education, and mobility for men and women (Fortnam
et al., 2019).
The proposed protocol for social learning in this situation was based on
a combination of concept mapping and storytelling. The concept mapping
aimed to identify the main factors afecting the well being of the community
members and the strengths and direction of causal relations between these
factors. A team of professional facilitators accompanied the process, organiz
ing some of the prior knowledge through participants’ surveys and engaging
the community members in assessing the main fndings. However, as shown
in an in depth analysis of the workshop recordings and transcripts, the major
learning in the workshops occurred through the sharing of lived stories and
narratives. The latter provided insights into the diverse meanings given by
the community members to key concepts such as insecurity and well being
(Galafassi et al., 2018).
Despite a lack of convergence among participants around the main path
ways to poverty alleviation in the coastal ecosystems, the “shared conceptual
repertoire” (ibid) that emerged from the research process allowed for iden
tifying some common action strategies that are relevant from the perspec
tive of diferent societal values. These common areas of action include the
organization of the sustainable use of products from the fragile mangrove
forests and coral reefs (Directorate, E.S.P.A., 2018) and the empowering of
women who are currently excluded in this area from developing key income
generation activities regarding ecosystem services from the mangrove ecosys
tem (Galafassi et al., 2018).
For instance, in the case of one of the project villages in Southern Kenya,
situated along the Tsunza Mangrove, the increased mutual understanding
among community members and associations resulting from the research
process induced a set of new initiatives. Among these initiatives are the for
mation of joint saving groups by women, the submission of funding applica
tions for community forest conservation programs, and training for women
entrepreneurship activities related to identifed small scale business oppor
tunities such as oyster trading and traditional poultry farming (Daw, 2018).
114
4.3.3
Social learning among actors on societal values
Identifying converging and diverging perspectives
The third example corresponds to a situation of high initial trust among the
project partners and a willingness to build collaboration around common
values identifed through a set of multistakeholder deliberative workshops.
The case is a research project to understand the options for sustainable mobil
ity in the large metropolitan area of Stockholm, Sweden.
Initially, this project had an important focus on technical solutions for so
called smart mobility, which can lower car use and improve multi modality.
Indeed, digitalization and electrifcation of mobility are likely to be key com
ponents of any energy efficient mobility future. Digitalization enables more
efficient transport logistics, the development of integrated booking systems
among diferent modes of transport, better known as mobility as a service
(MAAS), and social networking. Electrifcation, if based on renewable energy
provision, can lower the carbon footprint of cars and trucks and lower air
pollution.
As noted in the previous chapters, the transformation toward more sus
tainable mobility will require more than just proposing an array of techni
cal solutions. Nevertheless, existing research and development remain biased
toward technical dimensions for reaching possible sustainability outcomes,
while user perspectives and institutional dimensions are seldom explored in
depth. Thus, to overcome this research gap, the Mistra SAMS research center
in Stockholm has set up two living labs that combine the development of
digital innovations with behavioral, environmental, and economic analysis
of sustainability choices (Bieser et al., 2021; Sjöman et al., 2020; Vaddadi
et al., 2022). One living lab organizes a space for telework from a co work
ing space in Tullinge, located 20 km south of Stockholm, in a neighborhood
center where this type of service did not yet exist. This so called telecommut
ing center ofers 14 workplaces plus conferencing facilities. The second living
lab explores the use of smartphone applications to improve mobility choices.
As mentioned on its project website, Mistra SAMS used a deep trans
disciplinary approach, which involves interdisciplinary analysis and close
collaboration with users and practitioners. Specifcally, as explained by the
project coordinator Anna Kramers (personal interview, October 3, 2019),
the choices of the technology to be tested and the specifc research questions
to be addressed in the living lab research were not all specifed in advance at
the start of the project. In a workshop with the 16 partners from academia,
industry, and the public sector, the project participants tried to understand
what the living lab research would contribute to solving the problems of
Stockholm city. As observed by the stakeholders, there were many co
working places; so, how could this project afect the ongoing transforma
tion of work and workplace organization in a positive way? An important
question raised by the city of Stockholm was the inclusive nature of the
Social learning among actors on societal values 115
proposed digitalization of mobility and work solutions. The partners con
verged on investigating the sustainability impacts of the co working space
from the perspective of a more diversifed public, including both the work
ers from the company and the freelance workers in the neighborhood, and
the broader relation with the revitalization of the neighborhood (personal
interview, September 19, 2019).
Overall, the social learning among the scientifc researchers and soci
etal actors was important to further deepen the research question beyond
the technological innovations. This situation led Mistra SAMS to address
research questions around the societal values of the two main social actor
partners, which were the Ericsson Company and the city. In particular, the
living labs allowed for mapping a set of strategies for more efective energy
saving through teleworking at a hub: providing energy efficient transport
options at the hub, such as bike sharing services; creating local destina
tions, such as local groceries or lunch places; and energy savings at the
hub (Vaddadi et al., 2022). Nevertheless, despite the convergence around
the issues of behavioral change for sustainable mobility, the project did
not dig deeper into the broader social equity questions around mobility,
as the living lab was situated in a well of neighborhood. The project not
only achieved behavioral change of both neighborhood inhabitants and
participants of the Erickson company but also called for further research to
analyze the type of impact telecommuting hubs might have for instance in
a poorer neighborhood.
Thus, the project laid the groundwork for further learning beyond the
issue of smart mobility solutions and multi modality. A follow up project
awarded to Mistra SAMS (2021–2024) further explored these questions, in
particular through setting up a third Living Lab at a remote location, in the
municipality of Botkyrka. In the case of Mistra SAMS, the secret of the suc
cessful gradual learning process seems to lie in the strong partnerships with
some key societal partners, the systematic consultation of the partners before
moving to the next step, and the agile adaptation of the research tasks based
on new inputs and insights from the research (Kramers and Akerman, 2019).
4.3.4
Common action program with a substantial overlap in the
value rankings
The fourth example illustrates a complete social learning process that can
structure the diversity of value perspectives of diferent societal actors from
the public sector, local communities, and associations and from diferent cul
tural backgrounds. Based on this social learning, the partners could open up
new opportunities for collaboration within a strong mutual understanding
of each other’s value perspectives and an identifcation of areas of overlap
between the respective value rankings.
116
Social learning among actors on societal values
The case concerns a long term and well documented research project on
healthcare delivery to nomadic pastoralists in Chad (the health intervention
project) with diferent phases running from 1996 to 2006 (Bergmann et al.,
2012, ch. III.F; Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008, ch. 17). This project was set up
in Chad after the observation in the early 1990s that nomadic pastoralists did
not visit the local health centers. It revealed a social justice problem: health
care services were organized by the State in a form that the nomads did not
use; thus, in practice, they were virtually excluded from primary social ser
vices. According to a report by the Swiss Tropical Institute, polio vaccination
coverage was 11.6% among mobile pastoralists communities, against 80%
among settled communities (Lechthaler and Abakar, 2015). Notably, among
mobile pastoralist communities, vaccination coverage among livestock was
signifcantly higher than vaccination coverage for children (Abakar et al.,
2018). As shown in a qualitative focus group study, major barriers to vacci
nation uptake by the nomadic population were mistrust and access to health
system challenges (ibid).
Therefore, the research tasks were defned as follows. The frst aim was to
get an overall picture of the traditional forms of healthcare practiced by the
nomads. Second, the team wanted to understand the barriers to the use of
medical services ofered by the State and develop healthcare services nomads
would efectively use. Hence, the project combined anthropological feld
work into the traditional health system of the pastoralists with clinic surveys
to map the main needs for interventions and socio geographical surveys to
understand their daily livelihood concerns.
The health intervention project illustrates a successful knowledge integra
tion process based on an iterative research design. In this project, similar to
the New York asthma study, after each phase of feld research and survey
ing, the researchers organized a workshop with the main societal actors to
discuss the results and set the priorities for the next phase of research. The
main diference with the New York study is that, in addition, at the start of
the research project, the research team organized an explicit social learning
process among the project members to foster a mutual understanding of the
diferent value oriented perspectives on healthcare delivery.
Indeed, the frst rounds of research diagnosed many health problems
within the population and revealed the importance of animal health for
nomadic pastoralists. Livestock is the basis of the pastoralists’ economic
wealth and social respect. Moreover, relative to Western medicinal practice,
in the nomads’ traditional healthcare approach, the same health practitioners
treat animals and humans. Thus, to address these diferent value frameworks,
the project organized social learning among the partners to implement a so
called one health approach to the delivery of health services, which considers
the animal human health improvement synergies and promotes the collabo
ration between human health and veterinary services (Schwabe, 1984).
Social learning among actors on societal values 117
The involved researchers mention three main reasons for the success of the
research program. First, the research team took the perspectives of the tradi
tional community on the organization of the health system seriously, which
created trust and provided an entry point for the development of the new
healthcare services. Second, the research was based on a solid institutional
partnership between the Swiss Tropical Institute, the Chadian Veterinary
Laboratory, and the Chadian Ministry of Health, which secured a long term
commitment of all partners. This commitment allowed for a highly fexible
and adaptive research design. Third, efective knowledge sharing among all
partners facilitated knowledge integration between livestock owners, tradi
tional healers, and scientists. For instance, the detailed monitoring by the
traditional livestock owners of animal health resulted in doubts about
the efficacy of one of the livestock vaccines. This knowledge was taken up
by the research team and later confrmed by laboratory analysis. The latter
led to the replacement of the vaccine with a new one and an increase in trust
in the usefulness of vaccination.
Overall, the knowledge co production process was highly structured, with
a clear division of work and well identifed moments of sharing of results
and joint planning, especially during the fve national workshops held during
the entire project. The formulation of the problem was gradually broadened
from problems of capacity building for health care delivery infrastructure to
a broader concern for livelihood problems of the pastoralists, such as access
to safe migration routes for the livestock and access to grazing lands allowing
for improved management of animal health and milk production. In subse
quent rounds of research and intervention, the program was further extended
and eventually embedded in government health schemes for the entire pas
toralist community, which represents around 10% of the total population
in Chad.
4.4 Fostering critical engagement across differences
As the examples in this chapter show, without appropriate procedures
for social learning among the partners, transdisciplinary research pro
cesses can fail to organize efective collaboration among project partners.
Examples of failures in generating efective collaboration are the lack of
common purpose when co constructing the initial research design or mis
understandings that emerge later in the project when discussing the inter
mediary research results. In such cases of efective or potential failure,
research partners might decide to invest in diferent social learning pro
cesses among the partners.
The four types of social learning analyzed in this chapter aim to illus
trate various mechanisms for structuring the diversity of value perspectives.
Project partners can decide to invest in one or several of the mechanisms as a
118 Social learning among actors on societal values
condition for successful knowledge co production. The choice of the appro
priate type of social learning process depends on the perceived complexity
of the coordination needs among the partners and the initial levels of trust.
Indeed, not all situations of divergence are conducive to collaboration failure
in all felds of sustainability research or for all research purposes. In some
projects, minimal convergence over some process values may be sufficient. In
other cases, more encompassing substantial agreements over key sustainabil
ity values may be required, such as when the scale of common actions to be
undertaken is especially broad. In the latter case, where enhanced coordina
tion is required, what seems essential is not to reach a convergence over all
social values but to structure the diversity of societal values such that partici
pants can explore the opportunities for workable compromises on common
action strategies.
Furthermore, as shown in some of the case studies in our sample, the
history of collaboration among partners or the experience of the individual
partners with social learning has a strong impact on the degree to which
partners are willing to invest in fostering social learning. Partners with diver
gent views but with positive experiences from social learning processes in
other projects are more likely to adopt a collaborative attitude at the onset
than other participants who may need more time to build trust and embark
on a collaborative research endeavor (Innes and Booher, 2010). Therefore,
social learning in some cases can be a gradual process, where the progress
in one research project, even if quite modest, can lay the ground for further
social learning and more ambitious collaborative undertakings in subsequent
research eforts.
A common thread from this analysis of social learning in transdiscipli
nary research is the importance of a critical engagement of research part
ners to refect on their own societal value backgrounds. Indeed, to engage in
social learning, partners must adopt a critical approach to their value related
positions.
In this context, scholars highlight a set of process standards to embed
the critical role of social learning in heterogeneous actor networks (Sørensen
and Torfng, 2007; Dryzek, 2007). In his work on network governance in
highly pluralistic and multi scale problem settings, John Dryzek proposes
an adaptation of the Habermasian principles of authentic deliberation to the
organization of fair and inclusive communication within heterogeneous actor
networks. Specifcally, Dryzek highlights three important process standards
that apply to the governance of heterogeneous actor networks (Dryzek,
2002, 2007, p. 268): impartiality, non coercive dialogue, and generality (see
Figure 4.1). Satisfying these process standards contributes to fostering efec
tive engagement of all participants in discussing the multiplicity of points
raised by diferent concerned actors.
Social learning among actors on societal values 119
Different social learning targets
depending on the perceived needs for
improved trust building and/or
coordination
Institutional conditions for effective
social learning in collaborative
research
Common action program within a
substantial overlap in the value
rankings
Impartiality
Rational
authentic
dialogue
Non-coercive dialogue
Broad inclusive perspective
Social learning
outcomes amongst
scientists and social
actors
Identifying converging and
diverging perspectives
Common action strategies
accommodating divergent
perspectives
Agreement on process values
for common inquiry
FIGURE 4.1
Process standards for authentic deliberation in heterogeneous actor
networks
The frst standard concerns the organization of impartial refection on
one’s value position and the value related positions of each of the partici
pants. This attitude has been described in various terms in the literature,
such as “open impartiality” (Sen, 2009, p. 123), “neutrality” (Misak, 2000,
p. 109), or “cooperative efort to reach intersubjective validity” (Habermas,
1986, pp. 88–89) among others. What is common between these diferent
notions is the idea that each participant must be capable of being reason
able in taking note of other people’s perspectives. Indeed, to efectively create
engagement with a multiplicity of discourses, each participant must articu
late their perspective in the debate and welcome information and arguments
from the perspective of others.
The second standard goes beyond the condition of impartiality and
addresses power related issues more explicitly. This standard requires a criti
cal attitude to guarantee the non coercive character of the dialogue, requiring
equality in the capacity to raise and challenge points. This second standard
aims to overcome the potential undue exercise of power and rent seeking
strategies of participants in public deliberation. For instance, in situations
of strong confict or power diferentials between partners, social learning is
not necessarily geared toward overcoming the antagonism between societal
actors. Instead, when deep diferences are entrenched, at least during the
research period, establishing respectful engagement requires a critical atti
tude to the undue exercise of power or rent seeking.
Further, guaranteeing the non coercive character of the dialogue is more
important in situations with less direct power diferentials. This perspective
is, for instance, refected in critical theory perspectives on social learning,
120
Social learning among actors on societal values
which aim to unearth relationships involving distorted communication pro
cesses, in particular by understanding how manipulation of information con
tributes to resistance to mutually benefcial change (Willis, 2007, pp. 81–87).
In general, in this critical role of social learning, partners aim to deconstruct
unquestioned societal value perspectives that perpetuate dominating relation
ships and fow from unequal capacities to participate in the debate (Fraser
and Honneth, 2003).
The third standard—the generality of the common perspectives—requires
that the participants are capable of connecting the particular experiences to
some general point that applies to a broad diversity of stakeholder groups. As
stated by Dryzek, “if communications cannot connect the particular to the gen
eral, they may reinforce and harden the position of an enclave or a subculture
but not reach those with diferent viewpoints” (Dryzek, 2007, p. 268).
The relevance of these process standards for organizing procedures for
critical analysis of the various value perspectives depends on the available
capacities for social learning and how these capacities are perceived by partici
pants. Overall, as in the discussion of co management and research co design
in Chapter 3, the choice among various ways for organizing the procedures
for social learning will be highly context specifc and might change during
the course of the project. Indeed, divergence in societal values is not a prob
lem per se for successful collaboration. On the contrary, as mentioned in the
introduction to this chapter, diversity can be a source of innovation and may
broaden the possibilities for fnding workable compromises around common
value perspectives on sustainability orientations that satisfy the mutual inter
ests of the participants.
However, given the absence of an external benchmark on the desired
level of divergence and convergence, the project partners must adjust
their expectations for social learning based on their appreciation of social
learning needs. As argued in this chapter, research partners can use vari
ous indications for evaluating the required intensity of social learning.
These indications do not only include the complexity of the coordination
needs in the problem feld. Other factors play a role as well, such as the pre
vious experience of the research partners with boundary crossing research
collaborations, which may lead to high or low levels of initial trust among
the partners. Moreover, as highlighted in the more general literature on
public deliberation, social learning may be motivated by the aspiration to
strengthen the general process standards of authentic deliberation in het
erogeneous actor networks.
References
Abakar, M. F., Seli, D., Lechthaler, F., Schelling, E., Tran, N., Zinsstag, J. and Muñoz,
D. C. (2018). Vaccine hesitancy among mobile pastoralists in Chad: A qualitative
study. International Journal for Equity in Health, 17(1), 1–10.
Social learning among actors on societal values 121
Ainsworth, G. B., Redpath, S. M., Wilson, M., Wernham, C. and Young, J. C. (2020).
Integrating scientifc and local knowledge to address conservation conficts: To
wards a practical framework based on lessons learned from a Scottish case study.
Environmental Science and Policy, 107, 46–55.
Barnaud, C., Trebuil, G., Dumrongrojwatthana, P. and Marie, J. (2008). Area study
prior to companion modelling to integrate multiple interests in upper watershed
management of northern Thailand. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 45(4),
559–585.
Barnaud, C., van Paassen, A., Trébuil, G., Promburom, T. and Bousquet, F. (2010).
Dealing with power games in a companion modelling process: Lessons from com
munity water management in Thailand highlands. The Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension, 16(1), 55–74.
Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C. and Schramm, E. (2012).
Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice. Frankfurt: Campus
Verlag.
Bieser, J. C., Vaddadi, B., Kramers, A., Höjer, M. and Hilty, L. M. (2021). Impacts of
telecommuting on time use and travel: A case study of a neighborhood telecom
muting center in Stockholm. Travel Behaviour and Society, 23, 157–165.
Chang, R. (Ed.). (1997). Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Daw, T. (2018). Uncovering the amazing behind the scenes achievements by Tzunza
community to build on SPACES knowledge and dialogues. www.espa spaces.org/
uncovering the amazing behind the scenes achievements by tzunza community
to build on spaces knowledge and dialogues/. Accessed 26 February 2023.
Directorate, E.S.P.A. (2018). Mangrove conservation is protecting both livelihoods
and carbon stores. Report on Impact Stories. Research into Results, Edingburgh.
Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2007). Networks and democratic ideals: Equality, freedom, and com
munication. In E. Sørensen and J. Torfng (Eds.), Theories of democratic network
governance (pp. 262–273). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fortnam, M., Brown, K., Chaigneau, T., Crona, B., Daw, T. M., Gonçalves, D., . . .
and Schulte Herbruggen, B. (2019). The gendered nature of ecosystem services.
Ecological Economics, 159, 312–325.
Fraser, N. and Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition?: A political-philosophical exchange. New York: Verso Books.
Galafassi, D., Daw, T. M., Thyresson, M., Rosendo, S., Chaigneau, T., Bandeira, S.,
. . . and Brown, K. (2018). Stories in social ecological knowledge cocreation. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 23.
Habermas, J. (1986). Morale et communication (translated by Christian Bouchind
homme). Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Herrero, P., Dedeurwaerdere, T. and Osinski, A. (2019). Design features for social
learning in transformative transdisciplinary research. Sustainability Science, 14(3),
751–769.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hofmann Riem, H., Biber Klemm, S., Grossenbacher Mansuy,
W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., . . . and Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hodgson, I. D., Redpath, S. M., Fischer, A. and Young, J. (2018). Fighting talk:
Organisational discourses of the confict over raptors and grouse moor manage
ment in Scotland. Land Use Policy, 77, 332–343.
122
Social learning among actors on societal values
Hodgson, I. D., Redpath, S. M., Fischer, A. and Young, J. (2019). Who knows best?
Understanding the use of research based knowledge in conservation conficts.
Journal of Environmental Management, 231, 1065–1075.
Innes, J. E. and Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to
collaborative rationality for public policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kramers, A. and Akerman, J. (2019). Mistra Sams annual report 2018. KTH Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
Lechthaler, F. and Abakar, M. F. (2015). Étude de base sur l’utilisation des services
de santé maternelle et infantile au Tchad : une enquête en milieu rural auprès des
populations sédentaires et nomades à Yao et à Danamadji [Unpublished report].
Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel.
Misak, Ch. (2000). Truth, politics, morality. London: Routledge.
Norton, B. (2015). Sustainable values, sustainable change. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Pohl, C. and Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2007). Principles for designing transdisciplinary
research. Munich: Oekom Verlag.
Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse,
A., . . . and Gutierrez, R. J. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation
conficts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(2), 100–109.
Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., . . . and Stringer,
L. C. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4).
Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., . . . and
Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co production of knowledge and sus
tainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science and Policy, 102, 26–35.
Schwabe, C. W. (1984). Veterinary medicine and human health. Philadelphia: Wil
liams and Wilkins.
Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sjöman, M., Ringenson, T. and Kramers, A. (2020). Exploring everyday mobility in a
living lab based on economic interventions. European Transport Research Review,
12(1), 5.
Sørensen, E. and Torfng, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Heidelberg: Springer.
Vaddadi, B., Ringenson, T., Sjöman, M., Hesselgren, M. and Kramers, A. (2022). Do
they work? Exploring possible potentials of neighbourhood telecommuting centres
in supporting sustainable travel. Travel Behaviour and Society, 29, 34–41.
Van Breda, J. and Swilling, M. (2019). The guiding logics and principles for design
ing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: Learning experiences and refec
tions from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement,
South Africa. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 823–841.
Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
5
DEVELOPING INTEGRATED
BOUNDARY-CROSSING
ORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS
As argued throughout the book, to successfully produce usable knowledge
on interdependent social and ecological system dynamics within basic and
applied transdisciplinary research, research partners must engage actively in
various knowledge co production and social learning activities. Important
aspects of these activities are the co construction of research design, the co
management of the knowledge co production process, and social learning
on sustainability values by researchers and societal actors. To consolidate
transdisciplinary research in more diverse and comprehensive research net
works, researchers and science policy officials must, however, look beyond
the level of these collaborations within research projects and develop a set of
higher level institutional mechanisms for building transdisciplinary research
competences and research networks in larger communities.
This chapter aims to take a fresh look at this question of the institution
alization of transdisciplinary research partnerships into larger organizational
structures for research capacity building. The key hypothesis of this chapter
is that the capacity building can be organized by involving researchers and
societal actors in larger polycentric organizational networks. The acquisition
of competences in these larger networks can be organized through a diversity
of exploratory research activities, which are part of the regular repertoire of
activities at institutions of higher education. For instance, teachers can organ
ize initiations in co constructed research in the context of courses on sustain
ability issues, or researchers can gather in open ended workshops to identify
new transdisciplinary research strands. Furthermore, capacity building for
research can rely on well known mechanisms such as organizing discussion
platforms in larger clusters of thematic research or organizing meta analyses
of general process principles for transdisciplinary research.
DOI: 10.4324/9781032624297 6
This chapter has been made available under a CC BY NC ND 4.0 international license.
124
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
What is key in the implementation of these well known mechanisms in
the context of transdisciplinary sustainability research is the need to con
sider the requirements of knowledge co production and social learning at
the level of larger organizational networks. Hence, the institutional mecha
nisms for building the larger networks should also foster the acquisition of
competences that are not always part of the regular academic curricula, such
as broad interdisciplinary competences spanning the social and ecological
dimensions and competences for research co design and research co manage
ment with societal actors.
Building upon contemporary research in organizational theory, this chap
ter frst discusses the general institutional logic behind the design of fexible,
polycentric networks. As highlighted, this organizational approach is only
a frst step to understand the specifc needs for the institutionalization of
transdisciplinary research. In a second step, the institutional analysis of the
networks will be broadened to consider knowledge co production and trans
formational and critical social learning within the piloting, clustering, and
networking of transdisciplinary project work.
5.1 From disciplinary divisions and departments to flexible
network organizations
The work of Oliver Williamson on governance networks (for which he was
awarded the 2009 Nobel Laureate in Economics jointly with Elinor Ostrom)
provides a good starting point for the institutional analysis of building fex
ible network organizations. Indeed, the now classical synthesis by Oliver
Williamson of the key economic aspects of large scale organizational archi
tectures allows for understanding why networks can provide a third alter
native to the classical forms of organizational hierarchies and case by case
market like interactions (Williamson, 1996). First, Oliver Williamson shows
how, under certain conditions, actors go beyond case by case interactions by
integrating a set of tasks in an organization with a common purpose, instead
of solving all problems by case by case contracting over such tasks between
individual agents, such as in freelance labor or decentralized bargaining
between competing groups. Second, Williamson shows that the alternative
to case by case contracting is not only large scale centralized organizations
(so called functional hierarchies) but that this organization can take a more
decentralized form with the building of autonomous teams or fexible net
works (see Figure 5.1).
Williamson’s economic analysis hints neither at one best organiza
tional form to overcome the insufficiencies of market like cases by case
transactions nor at a pure form. In practice, actors build hybrids between
the abstract categories of hierarchies and networks. The key insight of
Williamsons’ synthesis is that there is no unifed theory of organization
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
Func˙onal hierarchy
125
Autonomous team work in an
organisational hierarchy
Flexible network organisation embedded in an
organisational hierarchy
Legend
General direction and
generic staff support
Division heads and
middle management
Operational
units and teams
Enabling of boundary
crossing network
collaborations
Research groups
Societal actor groups
FIGURE 5.1
Ideal types of organizational forms for dealing with diferent types of
task environments
126
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
forms nor is there a silver bullet to be found. Instead, the advantage of one
organizational type over another, whether it be diferent types of hierar
chies or networks or various hybrids between these two forms, depends on
many factors. Important factors include the nature of the task environment
of the organization, which can be somewhat fxed or evolving, and the
complexity of the interaction processes between the actors that are needed
to achieve the common organizational purpose. In this context, as shown
in the work of Williamson, actors search for improvements by aligning the
organizational structure to the specifcities of the organizational context
and exploiting opportunities for organizational innovation within the con
straints of past organizational choices (ibid).
Regarding science commons, organizations must address highly specifc
knowledge creation processes by researchers and societal actors that are
challenging to work out and monitor on a centralized basis. Thus, the more
decentralized forms of organizations such as networks or hybrids between
networks and hierarchies are especially relevant in this context, though the
type of networked organizational forms is diferent between disciplinary and
transdisciplinary science commons.
The overview of the main alternatives to conventional organizational
structures by Kuipers et al. (2018), in their companion volume on new
organizational forms, allows for disentangling the diferent organizational
choices in decentralized modes of organization. Kuipers et al. (2018) con
trast two main types of decentralized organizations that are distinct from
the conventional functional hierarchy, as illustrated in Figure 5.1. The frst is
the division into functionally autonomous units, which closely refects how
disciplinary science commons are organized, and the second is the fexible
network organization, which considers many of the key features of transdis
ciplinary science commons. According to Kuipers et al. (2018), the benefts to
choose one of these organizational forms depend on the degree of variation
of the tasks of the organization at various points in time and the complexity
to monitor their execution.
A short snapshot of the key features of functional hierarchies allows for
understanding why the science commons radically departs from this central
ized mode of organization. As specifed by Kuipers et al. (ibid), in its pure
form, a conventional functional hierarchy is characterized by centralized
management and specialization of tasks in a set of separate operational divi
sions whose execution is planned and monitored by the general managers
(ibid, p. 164, see also upper left part of Figure 5.1). Such an organization
is especially appropriate and efective in the context of a well specifed and
only moderately evolving task environment. Paradigmatic examples of such
task environments are the mass production of basic consumption goods by
a frm or the delivery of standard administrative services to citizens by a
municipality.
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
127
A key feature of functional hierarchies is the layered nature of the organi
zation, typically comprising a minimum of three layers (Miller, 2005, p. 357).
Indeed, monitoring the contribution of all individuals to a common purpose
in a large organization is not a trivial task, and there is no special reason to
believe the central manager is the best person to supply all the monitoring
services. Someone else, a specialist, typically the division head in an organiza
tion with several divisions, is often better placed to provide the monitoring
more expertly than the principal herself. The result is a three level (at least)
hierarchy, in which the managers attempt to guide the division heads to act
in the organizations’ interest, while the latter regards monitoring the agents
within the organizational divisions.
The second type of large scale organization, the so called functional
specialization in autonomous teams, departs from this conventional model
(Kuipers et al., 2018, p. 136). In the organization through autonomous
teams, the managers delegate part of the supervision of tasks and defni
tion of strategy directly to the teams themselves. The resulting organizational
architecture is diferent. Instead of a top down organization in organizational
divisions that execute tasks defned by the central managers, in this second
type, each team has a large autonomy in setting its goals and monitoring the
execution of tasks. Obviously, the decentralized defnition of tasks and strat
egies is much more appropriate for the complex and highly evolving knowl
edge environments researchers face in their respective areas of expertise.
In the structure of decentralized autonomous teams, for those func
tions that are delegated to the teams, the role of the manager shifts from a
command and control role to a role of enabler of decentralized coordina
tion and cooperation processes (ibid). Therefore, in practice, the functional
specialization in autonomous teams is a hybrid between pure networks, as
the researchers have a large autonomy in goal setting and execution, and
hierarchies. Indeed, how the units are divided and resources are allocated
in a research organization remains structured in an identifable functional
hierarchy by the central management. The latter is typically the case in the
conventional disciplinary organization of universities and public research
institutions for instance.
The third organization type, the fexible network organization, is closer
to a pure network organization. Indeed, in this case, the organizational
hierarchy does not specify the boundaries of the decentralized networks of
researchers involved in autonomous teamwork (ibid, p. 138). The topics
addressed by the teams are much more open ended and teams can compose
and re compose constantly to adapt to a highly changing and diverse task
environment. In this context, as in the second type, the manager also has
an enabling role in decentralized collaboration dynamics. However, addi
tional management tasks need to be fulflled regarding the constant forma
tion of new teams with diferent combinations of competences to address
128
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
case specifc issues and the building of boundary crossing competences such
that actors can fexibly operate in several teams.
In general, the organization of publicly funded scientifc research fts most
of the features of the decentralized modes of organization (the second and the
third organizational type). Indeed, the standard economic analysis of pub
licly funded research shows that research organizations must satisfy a set of
constraints that imply a decentralized organizational architecture.
As shown in the seminal contributions of Kenneth Arrow and Richard
Nelson in the economics of knowledge, knowledge produced in basic and
applied research share important public good characteristics, such as non
rivalry in use and non divisibility (Antonelli, 2005). Hence, the case for
undersupply through markets or voluntary action alone arises. This poten
tial undersupply is a major argument for public intervention in scientifc
research, such as through public endowments to universities and other
public research institutes. Therefore, public authorities and (by delegation)
authorities at universities have a key role to play in the centralized funding
of research and monitor the overall productivity of researchers in the use
of these funds.
However, public research funders who distribute the funding to the
researchers (directly or indirectly) through the research organizations are
not best placed to judge the allocation of the funds. Indeed, the informa
tion about promising avenues of research and the best available scientifc
knowledge is not centralized but dispersed among scientifc researchers and
professionals in their specifc felds of investigation (Dasgupta, 1988). Hence,
research funding bodies delegate a large part of the project assessment and
research evaluation to peer review panels of scientists (Li and Agha, 2015).
Thus, a major part of the quality management of publicly funded scientifc
research is organized at the level of the autonomous disciplinary units and
communities. Moreover, the disciplinary communities are organized on a
decentralized basis to conduct the peer review of the research outputs, mainly
through peer reviewed scholarly journals, to organize knowledge exchange
on further theory development within the respective disciplines.
The transdisciplinary research commons inherit many of the basic organi
zational features of this public sector science. However, instead of a fairly
stable set of autonomous teams organized along disciplinary and sub disci
plinary boundaries, it is based on a fexible network structure along the lines
of the third type identifed in the overview by Kuipers et al. (2018). Indeed,
the research topics are not merely clustered according to similar specialized
expertise within given disciplines. Instead, for each specifc transformation
pathway, understanding the key social and ecological system interdependen
cies and identifying the legitimate and relevant societal values perspectives
results from a co production process among researchers and societal actors’
partners of the project.
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
129
Further, concerning disciplinary research, the task environment of the
researchers is defned relative to a set of evolving research questions that
emerge from the advancement in scientifc understanding within the dis
cipline. In this context, team formation can be organized by looking for
researchers interested in such closely related research questions and who have
the right competences per the standards of the discipline. In transdisciplinary
research, as the research tasks are co produced in interdisciplinary networks
of researchers and societal actors, the task environment is much more open
when forming new research teams. The match with the required competences
of potential research partners is also less defned, as the evolving nature of the
research tasks might require the mobilization of knowledge types or process
competences not foreseen at the start of the co production process. Further,
transdisciplinary research requires also a set of new competences, such as
competences for research co design and research co management with soci
etal actors.
5.2 Embedding knowledge co-production and social learning in
the institutional enabling of transdisciplinary research
The literature on fexible networks, reviewed by Kuipers et al. (ibid), iden
tifes three core enabling functions of decentralized fexible networks that
directly apply to the creation of an institutional environment for transdis
ciplinary research at universities and institutions of higher education. They
include the generic functions of training, knowledge exchange, and building
social networks. This section briefy presents the challenge of embedding the
knowledge co production features of transdisciplinary research in these three
research enabling functions. The next section will zoom in on the implemen
tation and present some illustrative examples.
First, for the training functions, innovative teaching formats will be
required to foster the building of co production and social learning com
petences. Moreover, the teaching must propose methods and approaches
for the learning of interdisciplinary knowledge integration across social
and ecological system aspects. Typically, it will involve teaching programs
that mobilize multi disciplinary expertise in specifc felds of sustainabil
ity transformations but involve students in the transdisciplinary research
design of common integrated frameworks for socio ecological systems
analysis. Per the arguments developed in Chapter 3 on knowledge co pro
duction on sustainability challenges in integrated socio ecological systems,
these frameworks cannot be defned in advance, as they cannot be speci
fed independently from the choice of feasible and desirable sustainability
transformation pathways. Thus, part of the innovative teaching on trans
disciplinary sustainability research involves real world analysis of specifc
transformation pathways by co constructing common frameworks among
130
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
Enabling platform level
• Building competences for co-produced socio•co-production of enabling initiatives for
ecological analysis in teaching curricula and
boundary crossing research collaborations
research training
• Organizing boundary crossing knowledge
exchange in thematic or generic
clusters/networks/workshops
• Exploring opportunities for knowledge coproduction/social learning among potential
project partners
Research projects Level
• Usable knowledge co-production on
sustainability transformations
• Social learning on sustainability
values in transdisciplinary research
FIGURE 5.2
Co produced transdisciplinary research enabling functions.
Legend: project boundaries—full line; boundary crossing interactions—dotted line; black circles
designate research groups, and white circles, social actor groups.
disciplinary perspectives, along with deliberation over societal values with
concerned societal actors.
The second enabling function addresses the organization of the exchange
of knowledge on the transdisciplinary processes and methods in the fex
ible organizational networks. Given the diverse nature of the research activi
ties involving diferent combinations of disciplines and types of social actor
partnerships, it is unlikely to fnd a reasonably uniform approach to the
main process features of transdisciplinary research across these activities.
Nevertheless, knowledge exchange can be organized in a multitude of net
work clusters. This clustering across various networks allows researchers and
societal actors to gather around topics of common interest for transdiscipli
nary research, while still acknowledging the broad heterogeneity of knowl
edge types that are mobilized. Therefore, the goal of the knowledge exchange
in these clusters is to strengthen the capacity of the potential research part
ners to address knowledge co production and social learning challenges in
a wide range of partnership types and possible combinations of disciplinary
knowledge.
Given the central role of knowledge co production and social learning
with societal actors, these network clusters for knowledge exchange should
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
131
strive to actively include societal actors’ perspectives on sustainability trans
formations. Indeed, even though processes for improving social legitimacy
and social relevancy likely difer from one project to another, research
ers and societal actors involved in various projects can learn from each other
and broaden the possible perspectives on likely causes of success and failure.
Moreover, the knowledge exchange clusters may ofer new opportunities for
pursuing discussions on the validation of results from various social actor
viewpoints and contribute to more efective knowledge transfer.
Finally, a key enabling function for transdisciplinary research concerns
social networking among potential research partners. Indeed, in capacity
building for transdisciplinary sustainability research, the research topics can
only partially be defned independently of the constitution of the research
team and the choices made by the members of the team on the framing of the
plurality of possible interdependent social and ecological system dynamics.
Therefore, the programming of new research topics also partially depends
on their co production in a gradual learning process among disciplinary
researchers and societal actors on possible avenues for collaborative research.
One interesting tool that integrates such elements of enabling knowledge
co production at the stage of exploring team formation is documented in
management studies on fexible network organizations. They are the so called
search conferences (Weisbord and Janof, 1995; Kuipers, 2018, pp. 347, 411,
431). In such meetings, diverse members of an organization gather to imag
ine common projects across boundaries of organizational tasks and areas of
expertise. Similarly, in the so called open space conferences (Owen, 2008),
cooperative arrangements are sought around a specifed topic among all the
relevant persons in an organization without a pre defned agenda or group
composition. These tools have been developed mainly in the context of busi
ness and non proft organizations. As described later, some research organi
zations have designed their version of these tools to enable social networking
for research programming in transdisciplinary research.
5.3 Implementing integrated boundary-crossing networks for
teaching, knowledge exchange, and team formation
This section discusses examples of implementing the three institutional ena
bling mechanisms discussed in the literature on fexible network organizations
(i.e., building competences, knowledge exchange, and strategic programming
of future research). As noted, in the case of transdisciplinary sustainability
research, the implementation of these mechanisms cannot be disconnected
from knowledge co production and social learning with societal actors on
feasible and desirable sustainability transformations in the various thematic
areas of concern.
132
5.3.1
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
Building transdisciplinary teaching and training curricula
The frst important task is building transdisciplinary collaboration and
research competencies in the teaching curricula at universities and institu
tions of higher education (Fam et al., 2018; Herweg et al., 2021; Ahrend
and Podann, 2021; Schmohl and Philipp, 2021; Griffin et al., 2022; Vienni
Baptista and Klein, 2022). Accordingly, various organizations have set up
transdisciplinary teaching programs. Such programs often build upon former
pedagogical innovations developed since the 1970s that included training
for research approaches that involve social actor partnerships, such as urban
studies or development cooperation (Nicolaides et al., 2022). Nevertheless,
not all innovative teaching programs are automatically transdisciplinary. In
many cases, they remain purely multi disciplinary or do not explicitly organ
ize deliberation around heterogeneous sustainability values to co construct
specifc socially legitimate and relevant transformation pathways.
Two prominent educational initiatives can illustrate the organization of
transdisciplinary education at the university that meets some of the chal
lenges. The frst is organized by the transdisciplinary research and teaching
group, TdLab, at ETH Zürich, and the second is piloted by Gothenburg
University in Sweden in the context of the Mistra Urban Futures research
consortium.
The TdLab at the polytechnical institute ETH in Zürich comprises a
group of professors, lecturers, researchers, and graduate students collectively
in charge of teaching and research activities across disciplinary and secto
ral boundaries. The TdLab organizes a series of teaching activities on issues
of sustainable development with societal stakeholders. As specifed in two
articles on building transdisciplinary competences through the TdLab cur
riculum, these courses actively address transdisciplinary research co design
and social learning on sustainability values (Krütli et al., 2018; Pearce et al.,
2018; Pohl et al., 2018).
First, the proposed teaching activities actively organize a discussion with
societal actors on the problem co construction and the co validation of the
research results. As stated in the presentation of the curriculum, “the stu
dents frame the problem, along with non academic actors who have an inter
est in the problem” (Pearce et al., 2018, p. 168). The authors directly link this
approach to the concept of transformational learning based on real world
problems developed by Meeth (1978, p. 173): “Whereas interdisciplinary
programs start with the discipline, transdisciplinary programs start with the
issue or problem and, through the processes of problem solving, bring to
bear the knowledge of these disciplines that contribute to a solution or reso
lution.” Such transformative learning assumes not only that learning is based
on personal experience but that learning often requires to be challenged by
the experiences and perceptions of others (König, 2015).
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
133
Second, the teaching activities directly address value related learning by
combining interdisciplinary system analysis with discussing the sustainability
targets and the social possibilities of change in the specifc thematic context
with the students. The various objectives are designated more theoretically
by referring to the three objectives of usable knowledge production intro
duced in Chapter 2, which are the production of systems knowledge, tar
get knowledge, and transformational knowledge. In the context of usable
knowledge production on sustainability transformations, systems knowledge
covers the interdisciplinary analysis of the socio ecological system interde
pendencies. The second, so called target knowledge, addresses the legitimate
goals that society “should set in order to create an improved or transformed
system” (Pearce et al., 2018, p. 168). The third, transformation knowledge,
deals with the strategy to adopt “to get where we want to go” (ibid), which
implies engaging with the perspectives of the change agents and identify
ing the socially most relevant value related orientations in the given feld of
sustainability transformations. As stated by the authors, this focus on value
related discussion in the courses represents a paradigm shift “from relying
on science to describe and to explain phenomena in the world to expanding
its use for also clarifying societal goals (target knowledge) and how to get to
those goals (transformation knowledge)” (ibid, p. 169; see also König et al.,
2021).
Two courses provide a good illustration of this approach to transdisci
plinary learning. The frst course is called “Transdisciplinary Case Study”
and can be selected by all the students of ETH. Within this program, the
students co construct a research item with stakeholders around solutions to
a society wide sustainability challenge. During the course, the students must
collaborate with stakeholders to defne the relevant research questions, work
in an interdisciplinary team, and frame the case and its content from a variety
of perspectives.
The second course was an eight day extracurricular course designed for
Ph.D. and post doc students, the so called TdLab Winter School “Science
meets practice,” organized nearly every year from 2011 to 2020 (Staufacher
et al., 2012; Pearce et al., 2018, 2022). In these Winter Schools, Ph.D.
and post doc students engaged during a full week with the residents of a
small town in Switzerland to collaboratively frame problems encountered
by these residents and learn from each other, using stakeholder workshops
and other transdisciplinary knowledge co production tools and methods.
Coached by experienced transdisciplinary researchers, the goal was to pro
vide an opportunity for the students to learn how to make a meaning
ful connection between their own research and the concerns of the wider
public.
The teaching program in Gothenburg, Sweden, connected to both
Gothenburg University and Chalmers University of Technology, shows a
134
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
second set of prominent initiatives on transdisciplinary teaching at the uni
versity in the context of the Mistra Urban Futures research consortium
(Hemström et al., 2021, ch3). The course for doctoral students organized
from 2017 to 2019 is a good illustration of initiation into knowledge co
production processes. The practice based core of the course was formed
by the case studies conducted in Gothenburg on just and sustainable city
development as part of the larger research program at the center. Each com
ponent of the course addressed one case study, developed through diferent
themes including holistic thinking, collaborative methods, border manage
ment, and transdisciplinary theory. Knowledge co production was fostered
by combining perspectives, literature, and lectures, from researchers and
practitioners in all of the themes. Joint deliberation over legitimate and rel
evant sustainability challenges was structured via group work and in a col
laborative writing process. In the collaborative writing process, researcher
and practitioner pairs focused on sustainability challenges in their current
work and an evaluation of the transdisciplinary research process (ibid,
p. 85).
A third example of active knowledge co production for enabling trans
disciplinary training is situated at the master’s thesis level. Since 2019,
UCLouvain University, Belgium, through the initiative of a university vice
president specifcally in charge of sustainability transformations, has adopted
an ambitious sustainability transition plan for the University (UCLouvain,
2023a). One core activity for promoting transdisciplinary research in the sus
tainability transition plan is the transdisciplinary “Oikos” master thesis pro
gram, launched at UCLouvain in 2021 by the Louvain Learning Lab and the
research platform for transdisciplinary research (LPTransition) (UCLouvain,
2023b).
The Oikos master theses are conducted by pools of students from difer
ent disciplines on topics co constructed with research directors from vari
ous disciplines and societal actors. In the context of this program, potential
research directors interested in the initiative are invited to participate in a
major “search conference” that takes place every year to form pools around
topics that cross the boundaries between the social and natural sciences and
provide a clear added value for understanding socio ecological interdepend
encies. Following the discussions in the search conference, the research direc
tors of a given pool meet in the next academic year to fne tune the proposed
research questions and propose these to the students in master 1. In master
2 and the second part of master 1, the students who have chosen the pro
posed topic form a group that regularly meets to foster synergies and mutual
enrichment of the work in their respective master theses. The originality of
these group based thesis projects is to give a large place to knowledge co
production and social learning in the formation of groups that work on a
common research topic.
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
5.3.2
135
Fostering knowledge exchange on transdisciplinary
process features
The second important task for the building of a truly integrated fexible net
work organization of transdisciplinary research is the organization of the
network clusters for knowledge exchange on transdisciplinary process fea
tures and project outcomes.
As stated earlier, these network clusters for knowledge exchange can be
quite specifc. However, they may address issues that are relevant to all kinds
of transdisciplinary research. For instance, researchers and societal actors
can work in thematic clusters that address specifc sustainability transforma
tion areas. In other cases, research partners may gather without specifed
thematic concern but organize knowledge exchange for a sub group of the
community such as doctoral students. They may build knowledge exchange
platforms around cross cutting meta issues, such as evaluating protocols or
certain features.
For instance, the Leuphana University in Lüneburg, Germany, actively
invested in such knowledge exchange platforms in the context of strengthen
ing its ecosystem of transdisciplinary research projects (Ahrend and Podann,
2021). Since 2006, the university reorganized its faculties and departments
in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary way around grand societal chal
lenges directly related to societal actors’ demands in the area around the
university.
According to scholars of transdisciplinarity, the success of this case espe
cially regards establishing an inter faculty center for transdisciplinary research
methods, which can raise transdisciplinary research at the heart of the uni
versities’ activities. In particular, the key strength of the inter faculty center
is related to the building of a high level joint understanding of transdiscipli
nary process values in Leuphana university, while fostering an increase in
the degree of formal institutionalization of the center (Vienni Baptista and
Rojas Castro, 2020). Indeed, instead of centralizing the sustainability issues
in a new overarching institute, which is challenging to integrate with the co
constructed nature of each transdisciplinary research perspective on specifc
sustainability transformations, the center established a research enabling
relationship with the existing disciplinary departments by organizing knowl
edge exchange and capitalization around ongoing transdisciplinary research
projects.
The example of Leuphana University is not a standalone initiative, even
though it is remarkable in the scope of the involvement of the universi
ty’s central management. Many research organizations established, on a
more decentralized basis, so called communities of practice to exchange
knowledge on key process features of transdisciplinary research. As stated
by Schneider et al. (2019, p. 31), such communities of practice “want to
136
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
improve their competences and practices through sharing experiences,
refecting on own practices and values, and engaging in or learning from
research.” Through its link with practice, knowledge co production with
societal actors is a key aspect of the communities of practice. For instance,
as suggested by Schneider et al. (2019), these communities can “create
refective spaces by connecting interested actors, enhance refexivity by mir
roring their practices, and presenting alternative perspectives or help actors
to better understand the context they are working in or causal relations
they are not aware of” (ibid).
Many network enabling initiatives explicitly refer to this concept. One
example is the Community of Practice on change oriented approaches in
Partnership Research in Agronomy, established in February 2021 at the
International Cooperation Center in Agronomic Research for Development
(CIRAD) (Louaf et al., 2023). This Community of Practice is directly
related to a CIRAD cross sectoral initiative on impact evaluation, which
also addresses issues regarding transdisciplinary research. In this context, the
Community of Practice organizes knowledge exchange on the ex ante design
of impact trajectories and their follow up (Barret et al., 2018; Blundo Canto
et al., 2020; and personal communication, coordinator of the Community
Practice, 13th June 2022, Agropolis International, Montpellier, France). A
key feature, in line with the general discussion on communities of practice,
is the active inclusion of practice partners in this initiative, such as the mem
ber organizations of the network of development cooperation organizations
F3E (2023).
A third initiative regards the “Louvain4” research clusters organized at
UCLouvain, Belgium. They are quite similar to the communities of practice
(UCLouvain, 2023c). The Louvain4 clusters stem from a bottom up team
formation around fagship themes for organizing integrated interdisciplinary
and practice related research on topics such as water governance, energy, or
food. Through this clustering in smaller well identifable thematic communi
ties, the idea is to develop knowledge transfer on transversal issues and build
specifc competences for transversal work. Telling examples of the success of
this process of building network clusters around integrated interdisciplinary
research are the follow up collaborations on the impact of extreme weather
events at the level of municipalities. Indeed, after the extreme weather of
2021, various municipalities contacted the university to update the maps for
the prediction of fooding, which are not adapted to the most recent data on
the likely impacts of climate change. The success in setting set up these new
collaborations in such a short time is a direct result of the preliminary work
on team identifcation and building synergies among various disciplinary
competences dealing with water governance issues at the university.
Further, to complete this overview of enabling knowledge exchange
in boundary crossing networks, it is important to mention the role of
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
137
inter university initiatives. Indeed, the illustrations in this section mainly
focused on internal organizational innovations at each university, as these
are likely to provide the best long term guarantee for the institutionaliza
tion of transdisciplinary research. Nevertheless, inter university initiatives
also play a key role in contributing to the consolidation of knowledge on
transdisciplinary processes. In Europe, the long standing involvement of the
Swiss Academy of Sciences in various enabling activities around the team
of the “Network for Transdisciplinary Research” (Swiss Academies of Arts
and Sciences, 2023) is a prominent example of such highly efective inter
university initiatives for promoting transdisciplinary research.
5.3.3
Knowledge co-production and social learning in social
networking among potential project partners
The third enabling function—social networking among potential project
partners—has a cross cutting nature, as it has an impact on the identifcation
of potential partners in the various teaching and knowledge clustering initia
tives and the programming of new research avenues in project work.
The initiatives organized at the Technical University of Berlin (TU Berlin)
provide a good example of the organization of open ended meetings for pro
spective team formation and strategic research programming. Since 2014,
TU Berlin promotes transdisciplinary research through a combination of cen
tralized management initiatives and enabling bottom up team formation and
knowledge exchange (Ahrend and Podann, 2021). As a frst step, the cen
tralized management of the university organized university wide discussion
arenas to defne fagship themes for transdisciplinary research. In the second
step, the researchers were invited to network their respective research pro
jects around these transdisciplinary research themes. Finally, in the third step,
the university launched a series of pilot projects on some of these themes. In
each of these pilots, societal actors play an active role as research partners to
co design the research frameworks and co validate the results through col
laborative knowledge transfer.
Along with the role of these open ended meetings in the gradual institu
tionalization of research clusters and transdisciplinary pilot projects, the TU
Berlin team has contributed to the transdisciplinary research program of the
Berlin University Alliance, comprising TU Berlin, Humboldt University, Freie
Universität, and Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin. A highly original activ
ity of the University Alliance in this context is the so called research fora on
grand challenges. These research fora, not unlike the “search conferences,”
gather researchers from partner universities to co construct socially relevant
and legitimate research perspectives with societal actors around selected top
ics of sustainability (University Alliance, 2022a). According to the organizers,
each forum contributes to more permanent structures for transdisciplinarity
138
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
in the Alliance by implementing “innovative formats, new collaborations and
networks” (University Alliance, 2022b).
5.4 New management functions for boundary-crossing network
integration
Studies on the governance of fexible networks and overcoming possible net
work failures provide key insights into the main ingredients for realizing an
organization wide institutionalization process of transdisciplinary research.
From the review in this chapter, a combination of a set of new horizon
tal network enabling functions, along with the adjustment of conventional
centralized management functions to the needs of transdisciplinary research,
is a promising way to successfully support the institutionalization process.
Distilling some of the key lessons of this literature (Kuipers et al., 2018,
pp. 272–304) and the examples reviewed, it is possible to highlight the fol
lowing governance features contributing to the efective institutionalization
of transdisciplinary research:
At the level of the adjustment of centralized management functions:
• Promote the hiring of professors with transdisciplinary research compe
tences in various specifc disciplinary felds of expertise
• Earmark funding streams for so-called strategic research on grand societal
challenges, which require transdisciplinary competences
• Develop specialized generic services for supporting transdisciplinary meth
odologies, such as training in specifc workshop formats with societal
actors on co constructing research designs
• Embed the promotion of transdisciplinary research within the more gen
eral procedures for democratic decision making and strategy formulation
within the organization
At the level of the enabling functions for fostering the integration of bound
ary crossing networks:
• Promote the building of transdisciplinary competences in the courses at
the Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Ph.D. levels by integrating
• active discussion with societal actors on problem co-construction
• learning on value-related issues that impact the design of the research
framework (for instance, on sustainability orientations in a specifc feld
of investigation)
• Organize knowledge exchange clusters on transdisciplinary process fea
tures by
• involving existing transdisciplinary researchers and teams that wish to
initiate transdisciplinary research
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
139
• involving academic research and societal actors in clusters on the
matic areas of concern in various specifc felds of sustainability
transformations
• Enable social networking for transdisciplinary team formation, in par
ticular through open ended workshop formats leading to the co design
of socially relevant and legitimate questions among emerging teams for
transdisciplinary teaching or research
Even though each of the three decentralized enabling functions of collabo
ration in a fexible network organization (focused on organizing training,
knowledge exchange, and social networking) results in diferent organi
zational tasks, it is important to underline the many synergies that exist
between them. These synergies create various opportunities for students
and researchers to become involved in transdisciplinary research at various
stages of their curriculum. For instance, an early experience with trans
disciplinary research to address a given sustainability issue at a master’s
student level can be a stepping stone for participating in a more in depth
transdisciplinary research project in the same feld at a later stage. Another
pathway for involvement runs from interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary
research. For example, a researcher who participates in a specifc task of
interdisciplinary mixed methods research in a transdisciplinary research
project may become interested in understanding the process of the research
co design in transdisciplinary collaborations better. In a workshop that
gathers research partners from several projects, they might subsequently
get involved in knowledge exchange on various process features of trans
disciplinary knowledge co production.
Further, to strengthen the possible synergies between the research enabling
functions, scholars underline the importance of the social interactive and
emotional features of collaboration across heterogeneous actors. Creating
a feeling of belonging to a group within a fexible network with very het
erogeneous members and diverse ongoing projects might be quite challeng
ing (Kuipers et al., 2018, pp. 428–429). Indeed, scholars of transdisciplinary
research underline the importance of emotional and social interactional
dimensions for building efective knowledge commons. Such features include
collaborative culture, a climate of conviviality, and promoting positive feel
ings about network members, including respect, admiration, and recogni
tion (Lux et al., 2019, p. 188; Pohl et al., 2017, p. 23). The emotional and
social interactional features can be especially challenging to promote in the
distributed network of heterogeneous and distributed boundary crossing
transdisciplinary research commons. Therefore, it is important to invest in
various mechanisms to improve these social interactional and emotional
dimensions of teamwork, such as the strengthening of “a climate of con
viviality, social interactive qualities of the participants, efective leadership,
140 Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
meaningful personal relations, group identity, complementary team roles and
socializing outside meetings” (Boix Mansilla et al., 2016, p. 589).
Finally, as also highlighted by Kuipers et al. (2018), introducing new tools
for fexible networking while staying under the general umbrella of a con
ventional functional hierarchy is unlikely to be sufficient to generate an efec
tive uptake of the fexible network architecture. On the contrary, members
can perceive new measures as just another constraint imposed by the central
managers who remain in their role of task supervision from a hierarchical
management perspective. This situation, in turn, might induce frustration or
loss of time among the members who invested their eforts in new horizontal
and fexible organizational practices.
Regarding transdisciplinary sustainability research, implementing the
various tools for transdisciplinary collaborations while under the general
umbrella of disciplinary research divisions and centralized monitoring may
induce similar frustrations regarding inconsistent institutional incentives.
Therefore, without actively integrating the envisioned measures for support
ing fexible boundary crossing networks in a comprehensive institutional
strategy, the practices of transdisciplinary co production and partnership
based social learning may remain limited to a few institutional niches. In such
cases, the investment in sustainability research may fail to reach a sufficiently
large critical mass of opportunities for learning by motivated researchers
from various disciplines or stakeholders with specifc thematic knowledge
interests.
Moreover, without a general institutional strategy, the niches for trans
disciplinary research may only survive in areas where they are promoted by
external incentives, such as business oriented partnerships or specifc advo
cacy coalitions, instead of organizing support for diferent groups of trans
disciplinary research partners on various topics of concern. Obviously, for a
broader involvement of various types of research partners and topics, special
attention should be given to empowering research and societal actors with
fewer resources and initial capacities to step into transdisciplinary research.
The possible failures of institutionalization of organizational networks
for transdisciplinary research hint at an important cross cutting challenge of
building fexible network based organizations. This challenge is the embed
ding of the networks in more general procedures for democratic decisions
within the organization by discussing the purposes of these networks within
the established collective decision making procedures of the organization.
There is extensive scholarship on the various approaches to this question
of organizing democratic governance of organizational networks (see for
instance Dryzek, 2002; Sørensen and Torfng, 2007). Some common princi
ples highlighted in this literature are the expansion of the concerned actors
to be involved in the collective decision making; that is, involving spokesper
sons of the transdisciplinary research communities, extending the scope of
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
141
the issues addressed in the deliberations, and promoting the efective partici
pation by all (Dryzek, 2007).
A more in depth analysis of the application of these democratic standards
to the institutionalization of fexible network architectures falls outside the
scope of the analysis of institutional design of transdisciplinary knowledge
co production in this book. However, a vital lesson of this scholarship for
our purposes is the need to accompany the implementation of the various
centralized and enabling functions for transdisciplinary research by an inclu
sive and organization wide deliberation process on its goals, scope, and allo
cation of means for fostering efective participation by all.
References
Ahrend, Ch. and Podann, A. (2021). Institutionalisierung. In T. Schmohl and Th.
Philipp (Hg.). Handbuch Transdisziplinäre Didaktik (pp. 141–150). Bielefeld:
Transcript Verlag.
Antonelli, C. (2005). Models of knowledge and systems of governance. Journal of
Institutional Economics, 1(1), 51–73.
Barret, D., Blundo Canto, G., Dabat, M. H., Devaux Spatarakis, A., Faure, G., Hain
zelin, E., Mathé, S., Temple, L., Toillier, A., Triomphe, B. and Vall, E. (Illus.).
(2018). ImpresS ex post. Methodological guide to ex post impact evaluation of
agricultural research in developing countries. Montpellier: CIRAD.
Blundo Canto, G., de Romémont, A., Hainzelin, E., Faure, G., Monier, C., Triomphe,
B., Barret, D. and Vall, E. (Illus.). (2020). ImpresS ex ante methodological guide to
ex ante co-construction of development-oriented research impact pathways (second version). Montpellier: CIRAD.
Boix Mansilla, V., Lamont, M. and Sato, K. (2016). Shared cognitive—emotional—
interactional platforms: Markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary
collaborations. Science, Technology and Human Values, 41(4), 571–612.
Dasgupta, P. (1988). The welfare economics of knowledge production. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 4(4), 1–12.
Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2007). Networks and democratic ideals: Equality, freedom, and com
munication. In E. Sørensen and J. Torfng (Eds.), Theories of democratic network
governance (pp. 262–273). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
F3E. (2023). Des ressources pour l’évaluation. Des repères pour l’action. https://f3e.
asso.fr/. Accessed 11 January 2023.
Fam, D., Neuhauser, L. and Gibbs, P. (Eds.). (2018). Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education: The art of collaborative research and collective learning. Basel:
Springer.
Griffin, D., Gallagher, S., Vigano, V., Mousa, D., Van Vugt, S., Lodder, A. and Byrne,
J. R. (2022). Best practices for sustainable inter institutional hybrid learning at
CHARM European University. Education Sciences, 12(11), 797.
Hemström, K., Simon, D., Palmer, H., Perry, B. and Polk, M. (2021). Transdisciplinary knowledge co-production: A guide for sustainable cities. Rugby: Practical
Action Publishing.
142
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
Herweg, K., Tribelhorn, Th., Lena Lewis, A., Providoli, I., Trechsel, L. J. and Stein
böck, C. (2021). Transdisciplinary learning for sustainable development. Bern:
Bern Open Publishing.
König, A. (2015). Towards systemic change: On the co creation and evaluation of
a study programme in transformative sustainability science with stakeholders in
Luxembourg. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 89–98.
König, A., Ravetz, J., Raber, B., Stankiewicz, J., Rojas Aedo, R., Hondrila, K. and
Pickar, K. (2021). Taking the complex dynamics of human—environment—
technology systems seriously: A case study in doctoral education at the University
of Luxembourg. Frontiers in Sustainability, 2, 673033.
Krütli, P., Pohl, C. and Staufacher, M. (2018). Sustainability learning labs in small
island developing states: A case study of the Seychelles. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 27(1), 46–51.
Kuipers, H., van Amelsvoort, P. and Kramer, E. H. (2018). Het Nieuwe Organiseren
(derde, volledig herziene druk). Leuven and Den Haag: Acco (translated: 2020,
New Ways of Organizing, Leuven and Den Haag: Acco).
Li, D. and Agha, L. (2015). Big names or big ideas: Do peer review panels select the
best science proposals? Science, 348(6233), 434–438.
Louaf, S., Thomas, M., Kankowski, F., Leclerc, Ch., Barnaud, A., Baufumé, S., . . .
and Temple, L. (2023). Communities of practice in crop diversity management:
From data to collaborative governance. In H. F. Williamson and S. Leonelli (Eds.),
Towards responsible plant data linkage: Data challenges for agricultural research
and development (pp. 273–288). Heidelberg: Springer.
Lux, A., Schäfer, M., Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Marg, O., Nagy, E., Ransiek, A. C. and
Theiler, L. (2019). Societal efects of transdisciplinary sustainability research—
How can they be strengthened during the research process? Environmental Science
and Policy, 101, 183–191.
Meeth, L. R. (1978). Interdisciplinary studies: A matter of defnition. Change: The
Magazine of Higher Learning, 10, 10.
Miller, G. J. (2005). Solutions to principal agent problems in frms. In Cl. Ménard and
M. M. Shirely (Eds.), Handbook of new institutional economics (pp. 349–370).
Heidelberg: Springer.
Nicolaides, A., Eschenbacher, S., Buergelt, P. T., Gilpin Jackson, Y., Welch, M. and
Misawa, M. (Eds.). (2022). The Palgrave handbook of learning for transformation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Owen, H. (2008). Open space technology: A user’s guide. Oakland, CA: Berrett
Koehler Publishers.
Pearce, B. J., Adler, C., Senn, L., Krütli, P., Staufacher, M. and Pohl, C. (2018). Mak
ing the link between transdisciplinary learning and research. In Transdisciplinary
theory, practice and education (pp. 167–183). Cham: Springer.
Pearce, B. J., Deutsch, L., Fry, P., Marafatto, F. F. and Lieu, J. (2022). Going beyond
the AHA! moment: Insight discovery for transdisciplinary research and learning.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1–10.
Pohl, C., Krütli, P. and Staufacher, M. (2017). Ten refective steps for rendering re
search societally relevant. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society,
26(1), 43–51.
Developing integrated boundary-crossing organizational networks
143
Pohl, C., Krütli, P. and Staufacher, M. (2018). Teaching transdisciplinarity appropri
ately for students’ education level. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and
Society, 27(2), 250–252.
Schmohl, T. and Philipp, Th. (2021). Handbuch Transdisziplinäre Didaktik. Berlin:
Transcript Verlag.
Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., . . . and
Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co production of knowledge and sus
tainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science and Policy, 102, 26–35.
Sørensen, E. and Torfng, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Heidelberg: Springer.
Staufacher, M., Zingerli, C., Fry, P., Pohl, C. and Krütli, P. (2012). Science meets
practice: A winter school ofers new perspectives. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives
for Science and Society, 21(2), 145–147.
Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. (2023). Network for transdisciplinary research.
https://transdisciplinarity.ch/en/about td net/. Accessed 4 January 2023.
UCLouvain. (2023a). Sustainability transition plan. https://uclouvain.be/en/discover/
university transition/plan transition.html. Accessed 4 January 2023.
UCLouvain. (2023b). Yearly workshop on the co-construction of interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary master theses on sustainable development. www.lptransi
tion.be/research. Accessed 4 January 2023.
UCLouvain. (2023c). Louvain4: UCLouvain interdisciplinary research initiative.
https://uclouvain.be/en/research/louvain4.html. Accessed 11 January 2023.
University Alliance. (2022a). Doing transdisciplinary research on the topic of global
health.
www.berlin university alliance.de/en/news/items/2021/210427 global
health call.html. Accessed 17 October 2022.
University Alliance. (2022b). Research forums. www.berlin university alliance.de/en/
commitments/knowledge exchange/research forums/index.html. Accessed 17 Oc
tober 2022.
Vienni Baptista, B. and Klein, J. T. (Eds.). (2022). Institutionalizing interdisciplinarity
and transdisciplinarity: Collaboration across cultures and communities. Abing
don: Routledge.
Vienni Baptista, B. and Rojas Castro, S. (2020). Transdisciplinary institutionaliza
tion in higher education: A two level analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 45(6),
1075–1092.
Weisbord, M. R. and Janof, S. (1995). Future search. New York: Berret Koehler.
Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. Oxford: Oxford Univer
sity Press.
6
IMPLEMENTING KNOWLEDGE COPRODUCTION ON SUSTAINABILITY
TRANSFORMATIONS IN ACADEMIA
AND BEYOND
The analysis in this book of over three decades of transdisciplinary sustain
ability research shows the urgent need for new modes of organizing scientifc
research. The reform of the science fabric is particularly urgent, given the
multiple social and ecological crises humanity is facing today. As aptly sum
marized by Christian Pohl et al. (2021, p. 19), these new modes of transdisci
plinary research can be characterized by (1) specifc process features based on
knowledge co production among partners who actively explore boundaries
as learning opportunities and (2) specifc research outputs regarding the pro
duction of transformative and critical knowledge on sustainability challenges.
The frst characteristic highlighted by Pohl et al. (2021) requires the organi
zation of knowledge co production processes that transcend the conventional
separation between various knowledge types, such as between practition
ers’ and researchers’ knowledge and between descriptive and normative per
spectives on societal transformation. Indeed, transdisciplinary sustainability
research aims to grasp the complex coupled dynamics of social and ecologi
cal systems at multiple scales with heterogeneous societal actors. Thus, trans
disciplinary research partners mobilize both case specifc knowledge, which
is often non codifed, and more generic interdisciplinary scientifc knowledge
frameworks to analyze feasible real world transformation pathways.
The organization of these boundary crossing knowledge generation pro
cesses is neither an attempt to produce an illusionary unity among hetero
geneous perspectives nor a means to highlight irreducible diferences that
stife all possibilities of collaboration. On the contrary, in transdisciplinary
research, boundaries are actively explored as opportunities for learning from
diferent perspectives. As underlined by Akkerman and Bakker (2011), based
on this mutual learning, participants in boundary crossing practices can
DOI: 10.4324/9781032624297 7
This chapter has been made available under a CC BY NC ND 4.0 international license.
Knowledge co-production in academia and beyond
145
develop various socially negotiated modes of interaction, ranging from the
simple recognition of a shared problem space to coordinated action, continu
ous joint work, or the co construction of new common action strategies.
The second characteristic, the production of transformative and critical
knowledge, regards the open ended and pluralistic nature of sustainability
challenges. Indeed, the coupled dynamics between social and ecological sys
tems can induce a plurality of feasible and desirable sustainability transfor
mation pathways. Therefore, researchers and societal actors must understand
the socially legitimate and relevant values that orient the context specifc
choices among this diversity of possible pathways. This understanding has
a transformative dimension for both societal actors and researchers. First,
understanding specifc sustainability transformations requires the identifca
tion of the most relevant sustainability challenges from the perspective of
the societal change agents that drive the societal transformations in the spe
cifc context. Second, addressing specifc sustainability transformations also
involves a critical stance from the researchers. Indeed, some of the necessary
changes may challenge the dominant value based frameworks that inform
socio ecological modeling practices. By disregarding social learning on these
value based frameworks, the research outcomes might perpetuate unsustain
able practices or maintain unbalanced power relationships to the beneft of
the incumbent actors.
However, for the individual researchers, societal actors, and research man
agers, given the long history of the specialized disciplinary organization of
research, a main challenge regards the implementation of such boundary
crossing and transformative knowledge generation processes in practice. For
sure, there is no single best way forward, and each research organization
must consider the local constraints in developing these tools and mechanisms.
Further research is therefore needed to document the various options to do
so and to build so called toolbox environments providing inspiration and
advice (see, e.g., https://itd alliance.org/ and https://transdisciplinarity.ch/en).
Nevertheless, the literature review and case study analysis in this book give
some indications of research questions on the measures that are needed to
further build a larger organizational network of transdisciplinary research
commons.
In the frst place, the analysis shows that regarding transdisciplinary knowl
edge co production, research funders, policy officials, and research managers
should strive to multiply the opportunities for knowledge co production by
researchers and societal actors in research projects on sustainability trans
formations. These opportunities can be quite modest, such as through the
inclusion of a transdisciplinary case study chapter in a Ph.D. project or a
transdisciplinary analysis of a sub topic by a researcher within a conven
tional multi disciplinary consortium. Alternatively, they can include more
comprehensive transdisciplinary initiatives, such as the funding of research
146 Knowledge co-production in academia and beyond
projects or consortia that orchestrate the co construction of research design
and co validation of results throughout the entire research cycle. Multiplying
such opportunities for the emergence and implementation of transdiscipli
nary initiatives is especially important, as no centralized approach to the
consolidation of transdisciplinary research is likely to cover the diversity of
societal actors and knowledge types mobilized in each case specifc transdis
ciplinary knowledge co production process.
Further, to meet the social learning needs on sustainability values, each
transdisciplinary research project should foresee the possibility of investing
time and resources in structuring the space of the diferent value perspec
tives of societal actors and researchers. Indeed, as in the various case stud
ies, the growing scope and impact of the interdependencies between social
and ecological systems imply the development of new environmental, social,
and civic value orientations that forsake the modern myth of continuous
growth with unlimited resources. Most of these values, such as the orienta
tion toward environmental justice or reconciliation of human prosperity with
planetary boundaries, are intensely debated. Depending on the specifc feld
of sustainability transformations and the involved societal actors, the disrup
tive learning of sustainability values can be somewhat consensual among the
partners, inducing various degrees of convergence. In other cases, the learn
ing will be more critical, such as when powerful interests attempt to perpetu
ate unsustainable development paths.
Moreover, a set of measures at the level of research organizations can
contribute to consolidating the transdisciplinary knowledge commons.
As discussed, important mechanisms for the integration of the boundary
crossing networks built around the transdisciplinary research projects are
the overall building of transdisciplinary competences, social networking for
partner identifcation, and systematization of knowledge exchange on modes
of organization of knowledge co production and social learning. Hence, to
support these cross cutting mechanisms, research organizations can create
new professional profles and promote transdisciplinary research skills.
For instance, research organizations can organize a supporting service to
accompany teachers who implement transdisciplinary competence building
in teaching curricula. Such a service could train a dedicated staf person to
assist organizational units and departments to promote teaching practices
based on knowledge co production with societal actors on specifc sustain
ability transformation topics. As discussed in Chapter 5, such teaching cur
ricula reform might include full fedged transdisciplinary partnerships with
real world actors, such as in the collaborative visioning exercises organized
with partners in the city of Gothenburg in the context of the course for doc
toral students organized at the University of Gothenburg. In other cases, it
may focus on specifc transdisciplinary competences, such as the analysis
Knowledge co-production in academia and beyond
147
of real world case studies in the courses on sustainable development at the
TdLab of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH).
Likewise, research organizations might organize supporting services for
social networking among potential project partners of transdisciplinary
research projects and teaching initiatives. These social network building
activities could take the form of so called search conferences discussed in
Chapter 5. The search conferences are open ended meetings to identify and
defne possible topics for knowledge co production among societal actors
and various disciplinary researchers. Examples of such meetings include
the sandpit workshops funded by the UK Research and Innovation Council
(Bridle et al., 2013; UKRI, 2021) or the transdisciplinary research fora on
grand challenges organized by the Berlin University Alliance (see Chapter
5), to cite just a few. Other initiatives for transdisciplinary network building
may be organized at the master’s student level, such as the interdisciplinary
and transdisciplinary master thesis project on sustainability development at
UCLouvain (see Chapter 5) or the master theses of the citizen academy organ
ized by the University of Ghent (Block et al., 2022). The distinguishing feature
of these various transdisciplinary network building activities is the fact that
the teams are constituted based on discussions to explore a common research
design on interdependent social and ecological system dynamics. Given the
partnership dimension of transdisciplinary research, network building activi
ties cannot be dissociated from the identifcation of potentially productive
areas of knowledge co production on sustainability transformations.
A third area of organizational support for consolidating transdisciplinary
research commons concerns the systematization of knowledge exchange
on transdisciplinary process features. By organizing knowledge exchange
on process features, research organizations can strengthen the capacities of
researchers and societal actors to conduct transdisciplinary research on a
broad variety of topics of concern. Moreover, by organizing various oppor
tunities for knowledge exchange in thematic clusters and in more generic
organization wide initiatives, research organizations can create additional
support for researchers and societal actors with less access to learning plat
forms on process features. An example of such a platform is the “Liaison
and Transfer Organisations on Social Innovation,” established at various
universities in Québec. These platforms connect societal actors and research
ers to create a discussion on the co validation of transdisciplinary project
results and transdisciplinary approaches in various thematic areas of socio
ecological research (Dagenais et al., 2008). As discussed in Chapter 5, the
cross cutting activities of knowledge exchange on process features allow
researchers and societal actors to identify further needs for co validation or
explore opportunities for using certain tools and mechanisms for knowledge
co production and social learning in new thematic areas of inquiry.
148 Knowledge co-production in academia and beyond
To wrap up this journey through these diferent organizational and insti
tutional measures, it is important to indicate some limits of our analysis and
highlight perspectives for future research. The analysis in this book focused
on transdisciplinary knowledge commons for sustainability research. Though
important, the analysis did not dig deeper into the contributions of the
purely disciplinary, multi disciplinary, and interdisciplinary research projects
that address sustainability issues. In many cases, these more conventional
approaches are mobilized to furnish more insight into well identifed sub
system components or operate within relatively well defned value orienta
tions, such as in calls for proposals on the implementation of policy measures
for sustainability transformations, as defned ex ante by research funders.
However, in practice, the boundary between purely transdisciplinary
research, where co constructing research design with societal actors plays
a central role throughout the research, and conventional research prac
tices is not always clear cut (Klein, 2010). Conventional research practices
often include consultation and feedback from societal actors, though with
out including them as full fedged partners in the knowledge co production
process. When researchers and societal actors intensify the consultation and
feedback activities, the research process may be gradually adjusted to include
transdisciplinary process features.
The case of so called broad interdisciplinarity can illustrate this point.
According to the analysis of Klein (ibid), broad interdisciplinarity is char
acterized by research that bridges disparate approaches—for instance ecol
ogy and history—and develops comprehensive general views or synthetic
frameworks (cf. also Pohl et al., 2021). In broad interdisciplinary research,
research partners face heterogeneous methodologies, distinct approaches to
problem identifcation, and a diversity of diferent conceptual frameworks.
Hence, even when societal actors are not directly involved in building a com
mon research design, the collective action challenges them to bridge the dif
ferent knowledge types that are often similar to the case of transdisciplinary
research. For instance, interdisciplinary knowledge co production can also
be hampered by the instrumentalization of the research process by one of the
partners who mainly focus on their disciplinary knowledge interests or by
unstructured diversity of conceptual approaches.
Given this proximity of the collective action problems, transdisciplinary
research can beneft from the lessons learned from knowledge co production
in such broad interdisciplinary research projects. Moreover, from the case
study analysis, broad interdisciplinarity is often a key ingredient of trans
disciplinary sustainability research. In such cases, learning about knowledge
co production in broad interdisciplinarity may directly contribute to the suc
cessful implementation of transdisciplinary research processes.
Another illustration of the gray zone between transdisciplinarity and some
more conventional modes of research organization is the case of so called
Knowledge co-production in academia and beyond
149
mission oriented research. As discussed in a widely disseminated discus
sion paper by Mariana Mazzucato (2018), mission oriented research is a
key problem solving centered research approach to innovation that is often
embedded in calls for proposals on grand societal challenges, such as cyber
security, mental health, or sustainability issues. Often these calls for propos
als do not formally require transdisciplinary knowledge co production with
societal actors. Moreover, these calls are often defned regarding measurable
and time bound targets or require project consortia to provide such targets
regarding so called key performance indicators.
However, as highlighted throughout the book, research funders can nei
ther always specify ex ante the full scope of relevant problems to address
nor identify the list of societal actors to include to discuss the value related
issues. It may be related to the value laden nature of the desirable societal
solutions to some of the grand societal challenges or path dependent con
straints on real world social possibilities for implementing these solutions.
Therefore, in practice, research funders often favor projects that also propose
some level of knowledge co production with societal actors throughout the
research process. In such cases (as in the case of broad interdisciplinarity), the
overlap between collective action problems encountered in mission driven
research and transdisciplinary research can create fruitful opportunities for
cross fertilization between successful research practices.
A second limit of the analysis in the book is related to the collaboration
with other transdisciplinary researchers beyond the feld of sustainability
research. Indeed, the book focuses on transdisciplinary sustainability research
and does not explore the many overlaps with other transdisciplinary areas
of investigation that do not have a specifc focus on sustainability (Hirsch
Hadorn et al., 2008). Although such exploration is beyond the scope of this
book, the general defnition of transdisciplinarity that is used for the analysis
hints at such a further dialogue.
Indeed, as specifed in the introduction, the book uses a general defnition
of transdisciplinarity as an approach that is broadly interdisciplinary and
based on a research partnership with societal actors. Moreover, as devel
oped in depth above, this partnership is characterized by a set of process
features (regarding knowledge co production for integrating diferent knowl
edge types) and the production of transformative and critical knowledge out
puts. This general defnition is highly relevant to the broad feld of research
on sustainability. As articulated through the various examples analyzed in
the book, the combination of broad interdisciplinarity and knowledge co
production with societal actors can efectively tackle socio ecological system
interdependencies with heterogeneous value perspectives on the overall ori
entation of the system dynamics.
However, as amply illustrated by the systematic review of transdiscipli
nary scholarship by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (2023), this
150
Knowledge co-production in academia and beyond
general approach is also highly relevant and widely used in other felds
of advanced research on society wide challenges. Some of the theoretical
discussions in the book already referred to some of these felds, such as
collaborative planning research in urban studies (see Section 3.1.1) or the
socio technical approach to living labs (see Section 3.2.1). The illustrations
in this book focused on cases in these felds of research that deal with sus
tainability issues in socio ecological systems. Nevertheless, many of these
cases also covered research felds that address other issues, such as social
welfare concerns in urban neighborhoods (see Section 3.2.4) or research
on socioeconomic distributional consequences of technological choice (see
Section 4.3.3).
Other prominent felds of research illustrate the use of this general
approach for transdisciplinarity based on combining broad interdisciplinar
ity and partnership research. One case in point is the feld of research in the
social economy in Québec, which develop a broad set of transdisciplinary
research practices through over two decades of research funding for so called
community research alliances (Hall and MacPherson, 2011). Other exam
ples, in a diferent feld, are partnerships between scientifc researchers and
societal actors for translation research in criminology, focusing on the pro
cess through which criminological research is generated and used by practi
tioners and policymakers (Pesta et al., 2019).
Obviously, even though these research felds all develop transdisciplinary
modes of organization, the organization of the knowledge co production
and social learning process will be based on choices that are specifc to each
area of investigation. Nevertheless, the use of broad interdisciplinarity and
partnership approaches in diferent felds creates cross fertilization opportu
nities. These opportunities cover knowledge exchange on transdisciplinary
process features and their usefulness to tackle various collective action chal
lenges in building transdisciplinary knowledge commons. Furthermore, at
the institutional level, the experience acquired from successful transdiscipli
nary research in these diferent felds may also contribute to the broad rec
ognition of transdisciplinarity as a promising mode of organizing scientifc
research on complex societal challenges. Therefore, this recognition may be
promoted by identifying, within a given research organization, the similari
ties between various felds of transdisciplinary research and jointly exploring
and supporting the design features for successful transdisciplinary knowledge
co production.
Finally, the analysis in the book mainly focused on transdisciplinary
research at universities, high schools, and national research organizations
as the key players for organizing transdisciplinary research of a more basic
and applied nature. However, along with the development of transdis
ciplinary research in the academic environment, a wealth of associations,
Knowledge co-production in academia and beyond
151
entrepreneurs, and managers in public administrations are using tools from
transdisciplinary research in applied settings (OECD, 2020).
The strength of the academic transdisciplinary research approaches is to
combine the production of transdisciplinary knowledge with an interest in
generic methodological and theoretical development and contribute to knowl
edge transmission, education, and competence building. On the other hand,
the strength of the applied and directly policy related approaches is the strong
motivation of societal actors to reach a broad critical mass of transdiscipli
nary research practices. Even though such approaches do not systematically
strive at peer review validation of the research outputs, as is the case in aca
demic research, policy related transdisciplinary research practices ofer invalu
able opportunities for further mutual learning on boundary crossing research
practices.
Overall, the entry point in this book on transdisciplinary sustainabil
ity research in academic research therefore hints at a much broader feld
of work, which includes broad interdisciplinary approaches with extensive
social actor interaction, related felds of transdisciplinary research on grand
societal challenges, and directly policy related transdisciplinary research
practices. Given the many complementarities between the approaches, the
best way forward to foster the urgently needed sustainability transformations
is to explore the many synergies between the diferent approaches to support
various collective learning processes on feasible and desirable interdependent
sustainability transformations of social and ecological systems.
References
Akkerman, S. F. and Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects.
Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.
Block, T., Prové, C., Dehaene, M., Abeele, P. V. and Beeckmans, L. (2022). Under
standing urban sustainability from mode 2 science and transdisciplinary educa
tion: How Master Thesis Ateliers of the Ghent Stadsacademie tackle wicked issues.
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–26.
Bridle, H., Vrieling, A., Cardillo, M., Araya, Y. and Hinojosa, L. (2013). Preparing
for an interdisciplinary future: A perspective from early career researchers. Futures, 53, 22–32.
Dagenais, C., Janosz, M. and Dutil, J. (2008). Étude des besoins des chercheurs de
l’Université de Montréal en matière de transfert des connaissances issues de la recherche. Bureau de la Recherche Développement Valorisation. Université de Mon
tréal, Montréal, Canada.
Hall, P. V. and MacPherson, I. (2011). Community-university research partnerships:
Refections on the Canadian social economy experience. Victoria, Canada: Uni
versity of Victoria.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hofmann Riem, H., Biber Klemm, S., Grossenbacher Mansuy,
W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., . . . and Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer.
152
Knowledge co-production in academia and beyond
Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. Thomp
son Klein and C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity
(pp. 15–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented research and innovation in the European Union. Final Report. Publications Office of the European Commission, Luxembourg.
OECD. (2020). Addressing societal challenges using transdisciplinary research. OECD
Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 88, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Pesta, G. B., Blomberg, T. G., Ramos, J. and Ranson, J. W. (2019). Translational
criminology: Toward best practice. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(3),
499–518.
Pohl, C., Klein, J. T., Hofmann, S., Mitchell, C. and Fam, D. (2021). Conceptualising
transdisciplinary integration as a multidimensional interactive process. Environmental Science and Policy, 118, 18–26.
Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences. (2023). Network for transdisciplinary research.
https://transdisciplinarity.ch/en/about td net/. Accessed 4 January 2023.
UKRI. (2021). Sandpits. www.ukri.org/councils/epsrc/guidance for applicants/types
of funding we ofer/transformative research/sandpits/. Accessed 1 February 2023.
CONCLUSION
Contemporary sustainability challenges, characterized by socio ecological
interdependencies of unprecedented scale, require new modes of knowledge
generation to identify feasible and desirable transformation pathways. In this
context, conventional disciplinary and expert led only modes of research
organization seem ill suited for managing the wicked problem features of
many sustainability issues, such as strongly coupled social and ecological
system dynamics, value controversies over sustainability orientations, and
the involvement of societal actors in cross sectoral and multi scale actor
networks.
Diferent types of transdisciplinary research have emerged over many
years in response to these challenges, labeled partnership research (Hoekstra
et al., 2020), community science (Khandor and Mason, 2011; Charles et al.,
2020), participatory action research (Wittmayer et al., 2014; Chevalier and
Buckles, 2013), mode 2 science (Nowotny et al., 2001), and team science
(Killion et al., 2018), among others. This book builds upon the experience
gained with these transdisciplinary research processes over the last three dec
ades, with the objective of strengthening the efectiveness of transdiscipli
nary research methods that are mobilized to improve our understanding of
society wide sustainability transformations.
The core hypothesis of this book is that researchers and societal actors
must overcome a series of collective action problems to meet the need for
knowledge integration from science and practice in transdisciplinary sustain
ability research. This book examined the institutional design of transdisci
plinary research processes from the perspective of the theory of knowledge
commons to disentangle the basic components of collective action challenges.
DOI: 10.4324/9781032624297 8
This chapter has been made available under a CC BY NC ND 4.0 international license.
154
Conclusion
In fact, the collective action problems in transdisciplinary research, such
as the instrumentalization of the collaborative process by one of the part
ners or the lack of coordination among heterogeneous value perspectives,
show a great deal of similarity to the problems examined in the theory
of decentralized collective goods production through non state collective
action, or the so called theory of commons based production. While the
theory of the commons initially focused on the community based manage
ment of natural resources, it has gradually broadened its scope to other
commons based production domains, including immaterial goods, such as
knowledge commons.
As discussed in Chapter 2, scholars of the commons highlight the impor
tance of three general design features that contribute to successfully over
coming collective action challenges, which also play a vital role in the case of
transdisciplinary knowledge commons. First, to efectively manage the provi
sion of common goods in decentralized settings—whether in the community
management of natural resources or in scientifc research commons—societal
actors need entitlements to develop and implement self organized strategies
for decision making and control over collective good provision. Second, as
elaborated in the so called second generation collective action theory by Elinor
Ostrom (1998), such self organized management is facilitated by the develop
ment of common value orientations. The latter contributes to building mutual
trust and reduces the efort required to coordinate the production of common
action strategies. Finally, decentralized solutions to collective action problems
require an appropriate supportive institutional environment. Such an environ
ment plays a signifcant role in building the generic competencies of actors who
wish to engage in decentralized collective action and social learning.
The transdisciplinary research practices reviewed in the diferent book
chapters highlight how each of these design features is relevant to transdis
ciplinary sustainability research. Specifcally, the qualitative comparative
analysis of cases of transdisciplinary sustainability research identifed the fol
lowing general design features that play an important role in enhancing the
likelihood of successful co production of usable knowledge on sustainability
transformations.
1) First, regarding collective action for collaborating on a common trans
disciplinary research purpose, the analysis of the various components of
knowledge co production in Chapter 3 indicates
i. the importance of efectively integrating societal actors’ knowledge
(along with the knowledge from scientifc researchers) in the analysis of
sustainability transformations of interdependent social and ecological
systems
Conclusion
155
ii. the importance of the co construction of the research design with soci
etal actors, particularly in building a common framework of analysis
between heterogeneous disciplinary perspectives and diferent types of
knowledge from science and practice
iii. the need to involve societal actors and scientifc researchers in co man
agement processes of various degrees of strength
2 Second, regarding the common understanding of diverse value orienta
tions, the analysis of social learning processes in Chapter 4 shows
i. the need to identify demands of societal actors and scientifc research
ers for social learning, including learning for reaching improved mutual
understanding of sustainability values and structuring of the various
perspectives on societal values
ii. the contribution of social learning processes on societal values to fos
tering processes of convergence over core values and critical decon
struction of value perspectives that perpetuate rent seeking and the
undue exercise of power
3 Third, regarding the supportive institutional environment, the analysis
of the building of larger organizational networks for transdisciplinary
research in Chapter 5 shows
i. the importance of building fexible boundary crossing networks among
diferent disciplines, researchers, and societal actors
ii. the contribution of the organization of cross cutting activities for
i. the development of transdisciplinary competences in the teaching
curricula
ii. the organization of knowledge exchange on transdisciplinary pro
cess features
iii. the networking of researchers and societal actors around copro
duced research frameworks on specifc sustainability transforma
tion topics.
The case studies of transdisciplinary research examined in this book and the
analysis of scholarly literature aim to improve our understanding of these
design principles. Nevertheless, additional comparative case study research,
further feldwork, and systematic surveying is needed to further develop this
analysis of the most salient governance mechanism for collective action in
transdisciplinary research.
Further work might also deepen the epistemological framework of pragma
tist constructivism discussed in Chapter 4, which summarizes the core guiding
principles of transdisciplinary research as an innovative mode of knowledge
156
Conclusion
generation. This epistemological framework combines the key strengths of
constructivism, refected in design features such as the co construction of
research among researchers and societal actors, and philosophical pragma
tism, refected in design features such as the practical building of commu
nities of collaborative inquiry through co management and social learning.
From a pragmatist constructivist perspective, both scientifc knowledge and
knowledge from societal actors contribute to knowledge generation about
wicked sustainability problems. Pragmatist constructivism allows searching
for a middle ground in transdisciplinary research between the risks of tech
nocratic excesses and scientifc dogmatism, on the one hand, and losing any
idea of robust and validated scientifc research outcomes as a common good,
on the other, through the risk of the reduction of the validity to the outcome
of power relationships and social conficts.
Finally, the organization of institutional support for transdisciplinary
research will involve the development of a new type of research enabling
environment, based on interactions within polycentric networks. In particu
lar, the enabling of transdisciplinary research places emphasis on crossing
disciplinary boundaries and building process competences for boundarycrossing learning* in hybrid networks of societal actors and researchers. The
latter competences are essential assets for dealing with diferent stakeholder
contexts and transitioning from projects with relatively consensual sustain
ability values to those that necessitate carefully managing value conficts.
The focus placed in this book on involving researchers and societal actors
in integrated polycentric networks as an important governance feature of
transdisciplinary research refects similar developments in the more general
analysis of polycentric approaches to deliberation in environmental gov
ernance. As emphasized by scholars of deliberation, such as John Dryzek,
Simon Niemeyer, and David Schlosberg, the institutionalization of delibera
tive processes on a larger scale needs to integrate deliberation at local sites
with a larger polycentric approach (Schlosberg et al., 2019; Niemeyer, 2020;
Dryzek, 2022). This polycentric approach organizes capacity building in a
system of nested governance, already called for by Elinor Ostrom in her work
on polycentric network governance. However, as underscored by scholars
of deliberation, for the wider activation of deliberative capacities, such a
polycentric system also needs to implement diferent governance mechanisms
for guaranteeing authentic deliberation in each of the problem solving and
social learning processes in local sustainability transformations (Owen and
Smith, 2015; Niemeyer, 2020; Niemeyer et al., 2023).
Although the above arguments on local deliberative capacities are devel
oped in a more general framework—analyzing the general conditions for
authentic deliberation—they nicely summarize the key message on capacity
building for transdisciplinary research in this book. Indeed, the more general
discussions on the conditions for efective deliberation hint at the danger of
Conclusion
157
dissociating the building of larger institutional systems of transdisciplinary
capacity building from the context specifc activities of research co design,
co management, and social learning. More specifcally, it allows us to pin
down, in a more general manner, the point made in Chapter 5 on combin
ing the institutional enabling of transdisciplinary research with activities of
knowledge co production and social learning. In short, building larger nested
polycentric institutional architectures relies on designing, testing and evalu
ating new modes of organization also through co produced activities and
processes by societal actors and researchers.
The articulation of knowledge co production activities and institutional
mechanisms for capacity building implies that a considerable upscaling
of transdisciplinary co production will only be possible by involving both
academic researchers and a broad array of diferent societal actors in this
endeavor. What is the role of citizens or professionals in contributing to
transdisciplinary research on society wide transformations in specifc sec
tors? What kind of policy mix do we need to promote these collaborative
processes that require intense social learning between the involved societal
actors around new values and modes of coordination? How can universities
support promising trends in transdisciplinary research and produce evidence
based knowledge to move from trial and error processes to robust and long
lasting societal transformations?
These questions are at the heart of initiatives by societal actors, scientists,
and policymakers worldwide, who are building new networks and research
partnerships to contribute to sustainable human development. Regarding
transdisciplinary sustainability research, citizens, members of social move
ments, and members of mission driven organizations are partners that con
tribute knowledge and information to scientifc endeavors. At the same time,
they operate as societal actors fully engaged in collective action in their com
munities and social networks. Through their privileged position as change
agents, societal actors acquire knowledge of possible solutions, frst hand
knowledge of social drivers, and motivations for implementing feasible and
desirable solutions for sustainability challenges. Hence, through knowledge
co production between scientifc researchers and societal actors, new solution
pathways actively promoted by societal actors can co evolve with innovative
scientifc perspectives and accelerate sustainability transformation processes.
Efective policies must support transdisciplinary research partnerships.
Public sector officials are directly involved in the design, planning, implemen
tation, and evaluation of the support measures for public research funding.
Moreover, through their expertise and access to various policies and social
networks, public sector officials provide and use many forms of expertise that
can promote sustainability transformations. Policymakers, governments, and
public administrators can play primary roles in supporting transdisciplinary
research. This role can include both the direct participation of public sector
158 Conclusion
officials in transdisciplinary partnership research and, more broadly, the
organization of institutional recognition and support for scientifc research
ers’ and societal actors’ knowledge co production through transdisciplinary
research.
Finally, universities play a pivotal role in the emergence and consolida
tion of relatively recent transdisciplinary research traditions. First, through
the university’s basic research mission, academic researchers add value to
transdisciplinary research projects by ofering innovative perspectives and
critical refections on transdisciplinary research methodologies. Second, and
even more importantly, by actively engaging in transdisciplinary partnership
research, universities can provide training and capacity building for a new
generation of young scholars and students, who are not yet acquainted with
the new set of tools and methods for scientifcally credible and socially robust
knowledge co production processes through transdisciplinary research.
Thus, universities can actively contribute to the integration of the various
approaches developed in transdisciplinary partnership science into the over
all science fabric.
However, the steps required to achieve these goals are challenging. Indeed,
to address multiple social and ecological crises, we need new knowledge to
understand the nature of large scale regenerative societal systems, such as
sustainable cities, rural territories, and production systems. Moreover, the
systemic, multi dimensional, and highly pluralistic nature of collaborative
eforts is required to resist the traditional disciplinary and ivory tower modes
of conducting scientifc research. Fortunately, as many examples in this book
show, researchers at universities and research organizations actively experi
ment and innovate with integrated and collaborative modes of transdiscipli
nary research to address these challenges. This book aimed to take stock of
these inspiring and crucial developments in the context of institutional chal
lenges to further consolidate transdisciplinary research in the organization of
contemporary scientifc research.
References
Charles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F. and Armitage, D. (2020). Community science: A
typology and its implications for governance of social ecological systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 106, 77–86.
Chevalier, J. M. and Buckles, D. J. (2013). Handbook for participatory action research, planning and evaluation. Ottawa: SAS2 Dialogue.
Dryzek, J. S. (2022). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Hoekstra, F., Mrklas, K. J., Khan, M., McKay, R. C., Vis Dunbar, M., Sibley, K. M.,
. . . and Gainforth, H. L. (2020). A review of reviews on principles, strategies, out
comes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: A frst step in synthesizing
the research partnership literature. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18, 1–23.
Conclusion
159
Khandor, E. and Mason, K. (2011). The street health report 2007: Community based
research for social change. In M. Kirst, N. Schaefer Mc Daniel, S. Hwang and P.
O’Campo (Eds.), Converging disciplines. A transdisciplinary research agenda to
urban health problems (pp. 57–68). New York: Springer.
Killion, A. K., Sterle, K., Bondank, E. N., Drabik, J. R., Bera, A., Alian, S., . . . and
Thayer, A. W. (2018). Preparing the next generation of sustainability scientists.
Ecology and Society, 23(4).
Niemeyer, S. (2020). Deliberation and ecological democracy: From citizen to global
system. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 22(1), 16–29.
Niemeyer, S., Veri, F., Dryzek, J. S. and Bächtiger, A. (2023). How deliberation hap
pens: Enabling and activating deliberative reasoning. American Political Science
Review, 1–18.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P. B. and Gibbons, M. T. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective
action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.
Owen, D. and Smith, G. (2015). Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the
systemic turn. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 213–234.
Schlosberg, D., Bäckstrand, K. and Pickering, J. (2019). Reconciling ecological and
democratic values: Recent perspectives on ecological democracy. Environmental
Values, 28(1), 1–8.
Wittmayer, J. M., Schäpke, N., van Steenbergen, F. and Omann, I. (2014). Making
sense of sustainability transitions locally: How action research contributes to ad
dressing societal challenges. Critical Policy Studies, 8(4), 465–485.
ANNEX 1
Glossary of key conceptual terms
Terms defned in the glossary are marked in italic and with an asterisk upon
their frst appearance in the text.
Boundary-crossing learning
The literature on boundary crossing learning defnes a boundary as socio
cultural diferences leading to discontinuities in interaction and action
(Akkerman and Bakker, 2011). Defning boundaries as discontinuities rather
than diferences without mutual interactions, it becomes clear how bounda
ries are real in their consequences while being malleable and dynamic con
structs. Diferent forms of dialogue between multiple perspectives can be
organized at the boundaries, which can induce boundary crossing learning.
Overall, people and objects that cross or stand between boundaries articu
late meanings and perspectives of various intersecting worlds while negotiat
ing meanings beyond the boundary from which something new may emerge
(ibid).
Incommensurability of societal values
In this book, we follow many authors who defne the incommensurability of
societal values in a broad sense. In this broad sense, it designates the impos
sibility to establish a comparison between the set of societal values at hand
that allows for specifying what societal value choice is better or worse for
each of the societal values (Chang, 1997). Thus, the term “measure” does
not strictly refer to quantitative measures but to all kinds of justifed choices
based on a ranking of the values according to a better worse scale. As argued
Annex 1 161
in Chapter 5 and the literature, incommensurability does not lead to the
impossibility of choice, as various other criteria can be used to make a justi
fed choice. One example among such justifcations is choosing the option
that is not overall better but improves the situation per one consideration of
importance to all actors (Levi, 2004). Another justifcation is to choose the
set of options that satisfes a partial ranking among the values, for which
there is a reasonable consensus among societal actors (Sen, 2009).
Institutional rules
The term “institutional rules” is used in this book according to the con
vention in institutional analyses in the social sciences to denote rules gov
erning the behavior of actors (Pahl Wostl, 2009). Formal institutional rules
are linked to the official channels of governmental bureaucracies. They are
codifed in regulatory frameworks or any kind of legally binding document.
Correspondingly, they can be enforced by legal procedures. Informal institu
tional rules refer to socially shared rules such as social or cultural norms. In
most cases, they are not codifed or written down. They are enforced outside
of legally sanctioned channels.
In this broad context, institutions can be defned as a structural feature of
social systems that provides a certain degree of order and stability to social
interaction by regulating and afecting the beliefs and behavior of the actors
(Sørensen and Torfng, 2007). This defnition covers various approaches in
institutional analysis. For instance, in so called rational choice institutional
ism, institutions are analyzed according to the rules of the game to which
individual actors respond based on their individual preferences (Ostrom,
1990; North, 1999). Sociological institutionalism refers to the set of rules,
norms, and cognitive paradigms that shape the identities, capacities, and
aspirations of societal actors (Hall and Taylor, 1996).
Integrated socio-ecological systems research
Socio ecological system research difers in the degree to which the social and
ecological are viewed as merely interacting sub systems or part of a single,
integrated system (Binder et al., 2013). The interactive approach considers
the social and ecological as relatively independent sub systems, with a one
way interaction between them, such as the impact of human behavior on eco
logical outcomes. The integrated systems approach focuses on the emergent
system patterns that result from the strong social ecological system inter
dependencies (Schlüter et al., 2019). The interdependencies can result from
diferent types of feedback between the social and ecological systems, such as
the relation between the impacts of human actions on the ecological systems,
the adaptation of the decision making process to the ecological impacts,
162
Annex 1
and the link back to new types of behavior and impacts (Binder et al., 2013).
In other approaches, interdependencies result in higher level system proper
ties, such as adaptive capacity building in the overall system by enhancing a
diversity of solutions to deal with external perturbations (Pahl Wostl, 2009).
Knowledge co-production in transdisciplinary research
It designates a mode of research based on collaboration between research
ers and societal actors to generate scientifcally sound, socially relevant, and
legitimate knowledge (Polk, 2015; Pohl et al., 2021). Hence, the collabora
tion includes knowledge integration between researchers and societal actors,
co designing various components of the research framework (Schneider
et al., 2019), and clarifying the societal background values of the research
participants (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2008; Herrero et al., 2019).
Research styles
The notion of research style is an analytical tool that allows for identifying
the emergence of specifc enduring approaches to scientifc inquiry (Hacking,
2012). Historical examples are the research styles of Greek geometry, con
trolled experimentation, and statistical analysis (Crombie, 1995). Each
research style introduces new types of objects and evidence related to these
objects and involves specifc standards of validity of the scientifc statements
about these objects (Sciortino, 2017). Moreover, each research style (an epis
temological notion) can further be diferentiated into so called community
related thought styles. The latter is characterized by the emergence within
specifc research styles of communities with a common knowledge base, style
of communicative behavior and literary expression, and approach to the
problem of interest (Fleck, 1979).
Scientific research commons
In the general commons based production framework, covering commu
nity managed natural resources, urban commons, and knowledge com
mons, commons refer to collective goods that are jointly shared, used,
and managed by groups of varying sizes and interests (Hess and Ostrom,
2007, p. 5). Especially since the mid 1990s, an increasing number of schol
ars started to analyze the conditions for commons based knowledge pro
duction to counter the increased production of knowledge behind digital
fences or privately owned knowledge providers with the rise of distributed,
digital information (Kranich, 2007). Regarding scientifc research, “sci
entifc research commons” refers to the many collective aspects of scien
tifc research that are jointly used and produced by research communities,
Annex 1 163
networks, and umbrella organization researchers (Benkler, 2008). These
collective aspects include the quality management of the research results,
such as research community managed peer review, the organization of the
dissemination of research results, the organization of sharing of pre pub
lication and post publication research data and information in research
consortia and beyond, and agenda setting of promising research topics to
advance research (Frischmann et al., 2014).
Social and ecological sustainability
This book defnes the sustainability of socio ecological systems from within
the framework of mere sustainability, which is the pursuit of environmen
tal sustainability while integrating environmental sustainability challenges
with wider issues of justice, equity, and governance (Agyeman and Evans,
2004; Coleman and Gould, 2019). The issue of environmental sustainabil
ity can be defned along the lines of the defnition of sustainable devel
opment by the 1987 United Nations Brundtland Commission as the goal
of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. The latter implies, as an impor
tant sustainability component, considering the planetary resource limits in
human development to maintain the functioning of basic life supporting
systems and processes on the planet Earth for present and future gener
ations (Rockström et al., 2009). However, reaching these goals requires
addressing the root causes of unsustainability, regarding the wider issues of
justice, equity, and governance. As shown in the literature on environmen
tal justice and environmental citizenship, socioeconomic and power related
distributive concerns, fair collective decision making processes, recognition
of the contribution of all sociocultural groups, and building capacities for
meaningful participation of all parties beyond merely formal process guar
antees for inclusive governance of all parties in societal transformations
(Dobson, 2007; Schlosberg, 2013).
Social learning
Studies on governing socio ecological systems conceptualize social learn
ing as a process of change of understanding in the individuals involved that
becomes situated in wider social units given the exchange of ideas, argu
ments, and information in social networks and communities of practice
(Reed et al., 2010). This defnition provides a criterion for evaluating whether
social learning occurred in certain groups and networks without confating
the social learning notion with broader expected results, such as generating
improved participation or governance outcomes that depend on contribu
tions from other factors (ibid).
164
Annex 1
Socio-ecological systems
Socio ecological systems are complex adaptive systems characterized by feed
back across multiple social and ecological dynamics scales (Fischer et al.,
2015). In the literature on socio ecological systems, the term “social” is used
in a broad sense to include various behaviors of individual human beings
in social contexts, the social relationships between human beings, and the
evolution of cultural cognitive meanings among human beings (Levin et al.,
2013; Hicks et al., 2016). Thus, the term “socio ecological systems” is used
as a synonym for coupled human environment systems (Scholz, 2011) or
coupled human and natural systems (Liu et al., 2007).
Transdisciplinary sustainability research
Transdisciplinary research is an integrative mode of organizing scientifc
research to solve or transition societal and related scientifc problems by dif
ferentiating and integrating knowledge from various scientifc and societal
bodies of knowledge (Lang et al., 2012). Transdisciplinary sustainability
research designates basic and applied research to solve sustainability issues
practices based on knowledge co production among researchers from vari
ous scientifc disciplines from the natural science and social science (humani
ties) for the interdisciplinary analysis of integrated socio ecological systems
(Klein, 2010) and (among scientifc researchers and societal actors) the
improved understanding of the socially legitimate and relevant perspectives
on the solution pathways (Lux et al., 2019).
References
Agyeman, J. and Evans, B. (2004). “Just sustainability”: The emerging discourse of
environmental justice in Britain? The Geographical Journal, 170(2), 155–164.
Akkerman, S. F. and Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects.
Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.
Benkler, Y. (2008). The wealth of networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P. W. and Pahl Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of frame
works for analyzing social ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 26.
Chang, R. (Ed.). (1997). Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Coleman, K. and Gould, R. (2019). Exploring just sustainability across the disciplines
at one university. The Journal of Environmental Education, 50(3), 223–237.
Crombie, A. C. (1995). Commitments and styles of European scientifc thinking. History of Science, 33(2), 225–238.
Dobson, A. (2007). Environmental citizenship: Towards sustainable development.
Sustainable Development, 15(5), 276–285.
Fischer, J., Gardner, T. A., Bennett, E. M., Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., . . .
and Luthe, T. (2015). Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social—
ecological systems perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
14, 144–149.
Annex 1 165
Fleck, L. (1979 [1935]). Genesis and development of a scientifc fact. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Frischmann, B. M., Madison, M. and Strandburg, C. (2014). Governing knowledge
commons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hacking, I. (2012). Language, truth and reason’ 30 years later. Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science, 43(4), 599–609.
Hall, P. A. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institution
alisms. Political Studies, 44(4), 936–957.
Herrero, P., Dedeurwaerdere, T. and Osinski, A. (2019). Design features for social
learning in transformative transdisciplinary research. Sustainability Science, 14(3),
751–769.
Hess, C. and Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a commons:
From theory to practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hicks, C. C., Levine, A., Agrawal, A., Basurto, X., Breslow, S. J., Carothers, C.,
. . . Levin, P. S. (2016). Engage key social concepts for sustainability. Science,
352(6281), 38–40.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hofmann Riem, H., Biber Klemm, S., Grossenbacher Mansuy,
W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., . . . and Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman, J. Thomp
son Klein and C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity
(pp. 15–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kranich, N. (2007). Countering enclosure: Reclaiming the knowledge commons. In
Ch. Hess and E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From
theory to practice (pp. 85–122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Staufacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., . . . and
Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice,
principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 25–43.
Levi, I. (2004). The second worst in practical confict. In P. Baumann and M. Betzler
(Eds.), Practical conficts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, S., Xepapadeas, T., Crépin, A. S., Norberg, J., De Zeeuw, A., Folke, C., . . . and
Walker, B. (2013). Social ecological systems as complex adaptive systems: Mod
eling and policy implications. Environment and Development Economics, 18(2),
111–132.
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., . . . and Ostrom, E.
(2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317, 1513–1516.
Lux, A., Schäfer, M., Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Marg, O., Nagy, E., Ransiek, A. C. and
Theiler, L. (2019). Societal efects of transdisciplinary sustainability research—
How can they be strengthened during the research process? Environmental Science
and Policy, 101, 183–191.
North, D. (1999). Understanding the process of institutional change. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pahl Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and
multi level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365.
Pohl, C., Klein, J. T., Hofmann, S., Mitchell, C. and Fam, D. (2021). Conceptualising
transdisciplinary integration as a multidimensional interactive process. Environmental Science and Policy, 118, 18–26.
166
Annex 1
Polk, M. (2015). Transdisciplinary co production: Designing and testing a transdis
ciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures, 65, 110–122.
Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., . . . and Stringer,
L. C. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4).
Rockström, J., Stefen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . .
and Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263),
472–475.
Schlosberg, D. (2013). Theorising environmental justice: The expanding sphere of a
discourse. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 37–55.
Schlüter, M., Haider, L. J., Lade, S. J., Lindkvist, E., Martin, R., Orach, K., . . . and
Folke, C. (2019). Capturing emergent phenomena in social ecological systems.
Ecology and Society, 24(3), 11.
Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., . . . and
Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co production of knowledge and sus
tainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science and Policy, 102, 26–35.
Scholz, R. W. (2011). Environmental literacy in science and society. From knowledge
to decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sciortino, L. (2017). On Ian Hacking’s notion of style of reasoning. Erkenntnis,
82(2), 243–264.
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sørensen, E. and Torfng, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Heidelberg: Springer.
ANNEX 2
Case study list
Case studies from the “most diferent” case study sampling of well docu
mented transdisciplinary research projects within the fve levers of change.
Initial sampling from a keyword search in four journals between 2005 and
2020 (Ecological Economics, Ecology and Society, Environmental Science
and Policy, Sustainability Science) and the case study volume by Bergmann
et al. (2012). In a second step, the sample was completed to reach a minimum
of fve papers for each lever of change through a general search in Google
Scholar on “transdisciplinary sustainability research” or “participatory sus
tainability research” and keywords representative of that lever of change (cf.
the detailed discussion of the sampling strategy in Section 3.1.2).
Projects with marked with “(*video*)” are documented with a short video
interview and background materials on www.lptransition.be/td
co-M co-D SL
C4 C5 C6
None or very few usable
knowledge outputs
Green infrastructure in
Eindhoven to combat
the summer heat, the
Netherlands
L1
Bodilis (2018)
Intensive grazing in mountain
landscapes, France
L2
Lamarque et al.
(2013)
Sustainable land use in the
Upper Valais mountain area,
Switzerland
L2
Brand et al. (2013)
(Continued)
168
Annex 2
(Continued)
co-M co-D SL
C4 C5 C6
Housing insulation for the
energy transition in Bottrop,
Germany (*video*)
L2
Bierwirth et al.
(2017)
Loss of peatland through
reforestation, Finland
L3
Saarikoski et al.
(2019)
Scenarios for biofuel use in
Europe
L3
Baudry et al.
(2018a, 2018b)
Sustainable energy options,
(electricity, heating) in
Ebhausen, Germany
L3
McKenna et al.
(2018)
Sustainable energy options
(electricity, heating) in
Urnach, Switzerland
L3
Trutnevyte et al.
(2011, 2012)
Nature conservation and
agricultural production in the
Elbe valley, Germany
L4
Bergmann et al.
(2012, ch. III.K)
Understanding values
and impacts of bicycle
infrastructure, Auckland,
New Zeeland
L5
Macmillan and
Woodcock
(2017)
A framework for housing
refurbishment, United
Kingdom
L5
Macmillan et al.
(2016)
Water management in an urban
context, Switzerland
L5
Pahl Wostl and
Hare (2004)
Sustainable mobility and urban
densifcation in Las Vegas,
Nevada, US
L2
Stave (2002, 2010)
Assessing the social and
environmental value of urban
green in Gothenburg, Sweden
L3
Klingberg
et al. (2017),
Andersson Sköld
et al. (2018)
Partnerships with housing
renovation companies in the
Rhine Main area, Germany
L4
Bergmann et al.
(2012, ch. III.G)
L1
Newman et al.
(2020)
Moderate to significant usable
knowledge outcomes, for a
limited part of the intended
users/beneficiaries
Citizen science in Manchester
neighborhoods with
industrial pollution, United
Kingdom
Annex 2 169
co-M co-D SL
C4 C5 C6
Scenario building and
empowerment in rural
development, India,
Philippines, and Indonesia
L5
Bourgeois et al.
(2017)
Farming activities in
biodiversity rich mountain
areas in the Piedmont, Italy
L4
Höchtl et al.
(2006)
Sustainable agriculture and
small scale tourism in a
mountain area, France
(*video*)
L4
Lavorel et al.
(2019)
Income generation activities
from mangrove ecosystems,
Kenya
SL
L5
78
Galafassi et al.
(2018), Fortnam
et al. (2019)
ATD Food assistance project
with the urban poor in
Brussels, Belgium (*video*)
SL
L5
64
Joos Malfait et al.
(2019), Osinski
(2020)
Mitigation in Urban Context,
Rotterdam, the Netherlands
(*video*)
L5
65
Roorda et al.
(2014), Tillie
et al. (2012)
Renewable energy options
through local/regional energy
sources, Austria
L2
co-M co-D SL
Binder et al. (2014)
C4 C5 C6
Moderate to significant project
outcomes, for a large part
of the intended users/
beneficiaries
Nuclear radiation around
mines, Niger and Namibia
L1
Renovation of historic houses
in the inner city of Cahors,
France
L1
47
Claude et al.
(2017)
L1
79
Bieser et al. (2021),
Sjöman et al.
(2020)
L3
55
Schmale et al.
(2015, 2016)
Digital services for sustainable
mobility solutions in
Stockholm, Sweden (*video*)
Public transport in park and
ride facilities for urban
mobility in Potsdam,
Germany
SL
Conde (2014)
(Continued)
170
Annex 2
(Continued)
co-M co-D SL
C4 C5 C6
Changing a rural diet with high
saturated fat, Finland
L4
Puska et al. (2009)
Mobility style analysis in
various cities, Germany
L4
Bergmann et al.
(2012, ch. III.B),
HirschHadorn
et al. (2008, ch.
6)
Indigenous knowledge of
basket weaving in the
Brazilian Amazon
L4
Athayde et al.
(2017)
Energy poverty in the informal
urban settlements of
Enkanini, South Africa
SL
Protection of lobster fsheries
and sensitive coastal habitats,
Belize
Community mapping of land
use and ecosystem based
plan, Xáxli’p community,
Canada
SL
Urban traffic slowing and
cultural identity, Australia
L5
62
Van Breda and
Swilling (2019)
L2
53
Verutes et al.
(2017), Arkema
et al. (2019)
L4
Diver (2017)
L2
51
Macmillan
et al. (2014),
Macmillan and
Mackie (2016),
Mackie et al.
(2018)
L1
49
Goutiers et al.
(2016), Lacombe
et al. (2017)
Very comprehensive usable
knowledge outcomes, for a
large part of the intended
users/beneficiaries
Seed selection for forage
autonomy, France
SL
Adding value to the food value
chain in small holder dairy
farming, Kenya
L1
Restrepo et al.
(2020)
Creation of a Nature Park
designation in the Black
Forest, Germany
L4
Rhodius et al.
(2020, ch. 6)
Small scale sustainable forestry
in Larzac, France
SL
L2
53
Simon and Etienne
(2010)
Annex 2
co-M co-D SL
C4 C5 C6
Conservation management in
Scottish Moorlands, United
Kingdom
SL
L4
Management and re use of
organic waste in Brussels,
Belgium (*video*)
SL
L2
Community health surveying
of asthma prevalence from
pollution in New York, USA
SL
L4
Urban homeless communities
feld surveys in Toronto,
Canada
171
77
Bortolotti et al.
(2019)
58
L4
Improved access to health
services for nomadic
pastoralists, Chad
SL
L4
River pollution and recreational
fshing, Switzerland
SL
L2
Ainsworth et al.
(2020)
Corburn (2005)
Khandor and
Mason (2011)
80
Bergmann et al.
(2012, ch. III.F);
Hirsch Hadorn
et al. (2008, ch.
17)
Burkhardt and
Zehnder (2018)
Legend
• List of case studies represented in 4 clusters of increasingly strong coproduction of usable knowledge outputs (cf. Annex 3 for the coding scale
that was used)
• Co-M (co-management), Co-D (co-design), SL (social learning): average
values of the Likert scale, for the cases listed in each of the 4 clusters (cf.
Annex 3 for the coding scale that was used)
very strong and comprehensive
very strong
strong
moderate
weak
• SL: in the column on social learning, cases with extensive documentation
of the social learning process (independently of the level of social learning)
are indicated with SL; these cases served as the basis for the cluster analy
sis in chapter 4.
• C4: Thematic field according to one of the five levers of change, as defined
in section 3.1.2: (L1) Socio technical levers of change, (L2) Biophysical
172
Annex 2
levers of change in socio ecological systems, (L3) Socioeconomic levers of
change, (L4) Multistakeholder governance for policy implementation, and
(L5) Including the diversity of sociocultural perspectives
• C5: Page number of discussion of the case in the main text
• C6: References of the project publications
References
Ainsworth, G. B., Redpath, S. M., Wilson, M., Wernham, C. and Young, J. C. (2020).
Integrating scientifc and local knowledge to address conservation conficts: To
wards a practical framework based on lessons learned from a Scottish case study.
Environmental Science and Policy, 107, 46–55.
Andersson Sköld, Y., Klingberg, J., Gunnarsson, B., Cullinane, K., Gustafsson, I.,
Hedblom, M., . . . and Thorsson, P. (2018). A framework for assessing urban
greenery’s efects and valuing its ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental
Management, 205, 274–285.
Arkema, K. K., Rogers, L. A., Toft, J., Mesher, A., Wyatt, K. H., Albury Smith, S.,
. . . and Samhouri, J. (2019). Integrating fsheries management into sustainable
development planning. Ecology and Society, 24(2), 1.
Athayde, S., Silva Lugo, J., Schmink, M., Kaiabi, A. and Heckenberger, M. (2017). Re
connecting art and science for sustainability: Learning from indigenous knowledge
through participatory action research in the Amazon. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 36.
Baudry, G., Macharis, C. and Vallee, T. (2018a). Range based multi actor multi crite
ria analysis: A combined method of multi actor multi criteria analysis and Monte
Carlo simulation to support participatory decision making under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(1), 257–269.
Baudry, G., Macharis, C. and Vallée, T. (2018b). Can microalgae biodiesel contribute
to achieve the sustainability objectives in the transport sector in France by 2030?
A comparison between frst, second and third generation biofuels though a range
based multi actor multi criteria analysis. Energy, 155, 1032–1046.
Bergmann, M., Jahn, T., Knobloch, T., Krohn, W., Pohl, C. and Schramm, E. (2012).
Methods for transdisciplinary research: A primer for practice. Frankfurt: Campus
Verlag.
Bierwirth, A., Augenstein, K., Baur, S., Bettin, J., Buhl, J., Friege, J., . . . and Vond
ung, F. (2017). Knowledge as transformative energy: On linking models and experiments in the energy transition in buildings. Wuppertal: Wuppertal Institute for
Climate, Energy and the Environment.
Bieser, J. C., Vaddadi, B., Kramers, A., Höjer, M. and Hilty, L. M. (2021). Impacts of
telecommuting on time use and travel: A case study of a neighborhood telecom
muting center in Stockholm. Travel Behaviour and Society, 23, 157–165.
Binder, C. R., Absenger Helmli, I., Bedenik, K., Chappin, E., Dijkema, G., Goetz, A.,
. . . and Vilsmaier, U. (2014). TERIM—transition dynamics in energy regions: An
integrated model for sustainable policies. Tagungsband 15. Klimatag: 2–4 April
2014 (pp. 78–79). Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck.
Bodilis, C. (2018). Integration and visualisation of urban sprawl and urban heating
indicators from complex data in a context of nature-based solutions [Master the
sis]. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro.
Annex 2 173
Bortolotti, A., Kampelmann, S., De Muynck, S., Papangelou, A. and Zeller, V. (2019).
Conditions and concepts for interdisciplinary urban metabolism research—the
case of an inter project collaboration on biowaste. Flux, 2, 112–127.
Bourgeois, R., Penunia, E., Bisht, S. and Boruk, D. (2017). Foresight for all: Co
elaborative scenario building and empowerment. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 124, 178–188.
Brand, F. S., Seidl, R., Le, Q. B., Brändle, J. M. and Scholz, R. W. (2013). Con
structing consistent multiscale scenarios by transdisciplinary processes: The case of
mountain regions facing global change. Ecology and Society, 18(2), 43.
Burkhardt Holm, P. and Zehnder, A. J. (2018). Fischnetz: Assessing outcomes and
impacts of a project at the interface of science and public policy. Environmental
Science and Policy, 82, 52–59.
Claude, S., Ginestet, S., Bonhomme, M., Moulène, N. and Escadeillas, G. (2017). The
Living Lab methodology for complex environments: Insights from the thermal re
furbishment of a historical district in the city of Cahors, France. Energy Research
and Social Science, 32, 121–130.
Conde, M. (2014). Activism mobilising science. Ecological Economics, 105, 67–77.
Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health
justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Diver, S. (2017). Negotiating Indigenous knowledge at the science policy interface:
Insights from the Xáxli’p Community Forest. Environmental Science and Policy,
73, 1–11.
Fortnam, M., Brown, K., Chaigneau, T., Crona, B., Daw, T. M., Gonçalves, D., . . .
and Schulte Herbruggen, B. (2019). The gendered nature of ecosystem services.
Ecological Economics, 159, 312–325.
Galafassi, D., Daw, T. M., Thyresson, M., Rosendo, S., Chaigneau, T., Bandeira, S.,
. . . and Brown, K. (2018). Stories in social ecological knowledge cocreation. Ecology and Society, 23(1), 23.
Goutiers, V., Charron, M. H., Deo, M. and Hazard, L. (2016). Capfor®: un outil
pour concevoir des mélanges de prairies à fore variée. Fourrages, 228, 243–252.
Hirsch Hadorn, G., Hofmann Riem, H., Biber Klemm, S., Grossenbacher Mansuy,
W., Joye, D., Pohl, C., . . . and Zemp, E. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Höchtl, F., Lehringer, S. and Konold, W. (2006). Pure theory or useful tool? Experi
ences with transdisciplinarity in the Piedmont Alps. Environmental Science and
Policy, 9(4), 322–329.
Joos Malfait, V., Myaux, D. and Osinski, A. (coord.). (2019). L’expérience de l’aide
alimentaire. Quelles alternatives. Rapport d’une recherche en croisement des
savoirs. Bruxelles: Fédération des Services Sociaux (FdSS).
Khandor, E. and Mason, K. (2011). The street health report 2007: Community based
research for social change. In M. Kirst, N. Schaefer Mc Daniel, S. Hwang and P.
O’Campo (Eds.), Converging disciplines. A transdisciplinary research agenda to
urban health problems (pp. 57–68). New York: Springer.
Klingberg, J., Broberg, M., Strandberg, B., Thorsson, P. and Pleijel, H. (2017). Infu
ence of urban vegetation on air pollution and noise exposure—a case study in
Gothenburg, Sweden. Science of the Total Environment, 599, 1728–1739.
Lacombe, C., Couix, N. and Hazard, L. (2017). Envisager l’accompagnement du
changement des systèmes agricoles vers l’agroécologie comme un processus
174 Annex 2
co-conçu. Cas de la co-conception locale d’un outil de diagnostic agroécologique
des fermes ovin-lait dans le Sud-Aveyron [Conference presentation]. 7ième Col
loque du réseau OPDE, Des Outils pour Décider Ensemble, 26–27 October, Mont
pelier, France. HAL Archive ouverte de l’Institut national de recherche pour
l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE), Paris.
Lamarque, P., Artaux, A., Nettier, B., Dobremez, L., Barnaud, C. and Lavorel, S.
(2013). Taking into account farmers’ decision making to map fne scale land man
agement adaptation to climate and socioeconomic scenarios. Landscape Urban
Plann, 119, 147–157.
Lavorel, S., Collof, M. J., Locatelli, B., Gorddard, R., Prober, S. M., Gabillet, M., . . .
and Peyrache Gadeau, V. (2019). Mustering the power of ecosystems for adapta
tion to climate change. Environmental Science and Policy, 92, 87–97.
Mackie, H., Macmillan, A., Witten, K., Baas, P., Field, A., Smith, M., . . . and
Woodward, A. (2018). Te Ara Mua—Future Streets suburban street retroft: A
researcher community government co design process and intervention outcomes.
Journal of Transport and Health, 11, 209–220.
Macmillan, A., Connor, J., Witten, K., Kearns, R., Rees, D. and Woodward, A.
(2014). The societal costs and benefts of commuter bicycling: Simulating the ef
fects of specifc policies using system dynamics modeling. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 122(4), 335–344.
Macmillan, A., Davies, M., Shrubsole, C., Luxford, N., May, N., Chiu, L. F., . . . and
Chalabi, Z. (2016). Integrated decision making about housing, energy and wellbe
ing: A qualitative system dynamics model. Environmental Health, 15(1), 23–34.
Macmillan, A. and Mackie, H. (2016). Optimising low carbon mobility for health
and equity. In D. Hopkins and J. Higham (Eds.), Low carbon mobility transition.
Oxford: GoodFellow Publishers.
Macmillan, A. and Woodcock, J. (2017). Understanding bicycling in cities using sys
tem dynamics modelling. Journal of Transport and Health, 7, 269–279.
McKenna, R., Bertsch, V., Mainzer, K. and Fichtner, W. (2018). Combining local
preferences with multi criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop
feasible energy concepts in small communities. European Journal of Operational
Research, 268(3), 1092–1110.
Newman, G., Shi, T., Yao, Z., Li, D., Sansom, G., Kirsch, K., . . . and Horney, J.
(2020). Citizen science informed community master planning: Land use and built
environment changes to increase food resilience and decrease contaminant expo
sure. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2),
486.
Osinski, A. (2020). Evaluating transition pathways beyond basic needs: A transdisci
plinary approach to assessing food assistance. Food Ethics, 5(1), 1–34.
Pahl Wostl, C. and Hare, M. (2004). Processes of social learning in integrated re
sources management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology,
14(3), 193–206.
Puska, P., Vartiainen, E., Laatikainen, T., Jousilahti, P. and Paavola, M. (2009). The
North Karelia project: From North Karelia to national action. Helsinki: National
Institute for Health and Welfare.
Restrepo, M. J., Lelea, M. A. and Kaufmann, B. A. (2020). Assessing the quality of
collaboration in transdisciplinary sustainability research: Farmers’ enthusiasm to
Annex 2
175
work together for the reduction of post harvest dairy losses in Kenya. Environmental Science and Policy, 105, 1–10.
Rhodius, R., Bachinger, M. and Koch, B. (Eds.). (2020). Wildnis, Wald, Mensch.
Forschungsbeiträge sur Entwicklung einer Nationalparkregion am Beispiel des
Schwarzwalds. Munich: Oekom Verlag.
Roorda, C., Wittmayer, J., Henneman, P., Van Steenbergen, F., Frantzeskaki, N. and
Loorbach, D. (2014). Transition management in the urban context: Guidance
manual. Rotterdam: Dutch Research Institute for Transition (DRIFT), Erasmus
University Rotterdam.
Saarikoski, H., Mustajoki, J., Hjerppe, T. and Aapala, K. (2019). Participatory multi
criteria decision analysis in valuing peatland ecosystem services—Trade ofs re
lated to peat extraction vs. pristine peatlands in Southern Finland. Ecological
Economics, 162, 17–28.
Schmale, J., Von Schneidemesser, E., Chabay, I., Maas, A. and Lawrence, M. G.
(2016). Building interfaces that work: A multi stakeholder approach to air pollu
tion and climate change mitigation. In J. L. Drake, Y. Y. Kontar, J. C. Eichelberger,
S. T. Rupp and K. M. Taylor (Eds.), Communicating climate-change and natural
hazard risk and cultivating resilience (pp. 65–76). Heidelberg: Springer.
Schmale, J., Von Schneidemesser, E. and Dörrie, A. (2015). An integrated assessment
method for sustainable transport system planning in a middle sized German city.
Sustainability, 7(2), 1329–1354.
Simon, C. and Etienne, M. (2010). A companion modelling approach applied to forest
management planning. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25(11), 1371–1384.
Sjöman, M., Ringenson, T. and Kramers, A. (2020). Exploring everyday mobility in a
living lab based on economic interventions. European Transport Research Review,
12(1), 5.
Stave, K. (2002). Using system dynamics to improve public participation in environ
mental decisions. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics
Society, 18(2), 139–167.
Stave, K. (2010). Participatory system dynamics modeling for sustainable environmen
tal management: Observations from four cases. Sustainability, 2(9), 2762–2784.
Tillie, N., Aarts, M., Marijnissen, M., Stenhujs, L., Borsboom, J., Rietveld, E., . . .
and Lap, S. (2012). Rotterdam. People make the inner city. Rotterdam: Gemeente.
Trutnevyte, E., Staufacher, M., Schlegel, M. and Scholz, R. W. (2012). Context spe
cifc energy strategies: Coupling energy system visions with feasible implementa
tion scenarios. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(17), 9240–9248.
Trutnevyte, E., Staufacher, M. and Scholz, R. W. (2011). Supporting energy initia
tives in small communities by linking visions with energy scenarios and multi
criteria assessment. Energy Policy, 39(12), 7884–7895.
Van Breda, J. and Swilling, M. (2019). The guiding logics and principles for design
ing emergent transdisciplinary research processes: Learning experiences and refec
tions from a transdisciplinary urban case study in Enkanini informal settlement,
South Africa. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 823–841.
Verutes, G. M., Arkema, K. K., Clarke Samuels, C., Wood, S. A., Rosenthal, A.,
Rosado, S., . . . and Ruckelshaus, M. (2017). Integrated planning that safeguards
ecosystems and balances multiple objectives in coastal Belize. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 13(3), 1–17.
ANNEX 3
Coding scales
Coding scales used to code the cases from the case study list for the core
explanatory variables (research co design, co management, social learning,
information gathering and communication) and the outcome variable (co
production of usable knowledge outputs). Similar scales were used to code
the control variables (types of involved societal actors, disciplines and the
matic felds); however, they did not lead to signifcant correlations with the
usable knowledge outcomes.
Explanatory variables
Research co-design
Did the project publication explicitly mention the co construction of research
questions or research frame as a core component of the research process?
Likert scale
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
not at all
on very little aspects of the produced knowledge
on a few key aspects
covering a substantial number of the aspects
covering nearly all aspects
Process co-management
Did societal actors participate in governing the research process at least
through one of the following types?
Annex 3 177
• co-research (societal actors jointly organizing the data gathering with the
researchers)
• co-intervention (joint organization of real-world interventions as part of
the research protocol)
• co-decision (joint supervision of doctoral or post-doctoral research or
joint decision making in the consortium board, if applicable).
Likert scale
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
not at all
on very little aspects of the produced knowledge
on a few key aspects
covering a substantial number of the aspects
covering nearly all aspects
Organized processes of social learning
Was there an explicit workshop for social learning among the project mem
bers, situated within one of the four social learning categories of the main
text, defned in Section 4.3:
• Agreement on process values for common inquiry into the problem
identifcation
• Common action strategies accommodating divergent perspectives
• Identifying converging and diverging perspectives
• Common action program with a substantial overlap in the value rankings
Likert scale
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
not at all
on very little aspects of the produced knowledge
on a few key aspects
covering a substantial number of the aspects
covering nearly all aspects
Consultation of societal actors for information gathering in the
research process
Was there science practitioners interaction through one of the following modes?
• Information gathering on context-specific (local or global) features of the
problem situation or the variables of the research framework
• Informing on the project and on outcomes and collect comments, for solic
iting feedback from societal actors
178
Annex 3
Likert scale
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
not at all
on very little aspects of the produced knowledge
on a few key aspects
covering a substantial number of the aspects
covering nearly all aspects
Outcome variable
Usable knowledge outputs
Did the project produce one of the following project outputs (if several out
puts, then code the sum of the evaluation on the Likert scale of each of the
output categories)?
• New solutions (technical solutions, but also diagnosis and evaluation tools)
used by societal actors during the project or within the two years that fol
low the project, beyond the interventions that were already planned in the
research protocol at the beginning of the project
• Common action plans (for societal actors, government) with clear imple
mentation plans accepted by the intended users and benefciaries of the
project
• New organizational mechanisms established (hierarchies/networks) dur
ing the project or within the two years that follow the project, beyond the
interventions that were already planned in the research protocol at the
beginning of the project
Likert scale
1 Not at all
2 A small project outcome, for a limited part of the intended users/
beneficiaries
3 Moderate to significant project outcome, for a limited part of the intended
users/beneficiaries
4 Moderate to significant project outcome, for a large part of the intended
users/beneficiaries
INDEX
Africa 83–86
applied research 14, 55
Asia 100
ATD Quart Monde 37, 86, 87
basic research 14, 55
Benkler, Yochai 26, 27, 35
boundary crossing knowledge exchange:
boundary objects 40; and
learning 160; trading zones 40
co design of research frameworks
62; interdisciplinary 52, 53;
multi disciplinary 17, 52;
reciprocal reference 53, 58;
transdisciplinary 54
collaborative governance 7;
multistakeholder governance
77–79
collective action 24–26, 148, 149;
institutional conditions 33, 34
co management between researchers and
social actors 36–38; common
governing board 36; joint data
gathering 36; joint research
supervision 36
commons 24, 25; centralized and
decentralized management 24;
digital knowledge commons 25;
knowledge commons 26; natural
resource commons 25; scientifc
research commons 33, 162
community science 153; community
based survey methods 79
confict situations 111–119; conficts
over values 103–110; confict
transformation 111, 112
deliberation 118–120; building
deliberation capacities 156; in
complex social choice situations
104; deliberative approaches to
social learning 102; impartiality
118, 119; inclusive perspective
118; non coercive dialogue 119;
process standards 118
disciplinary research 11; multi
disciplinary research 11; and
progress in human well being
10
Dryzek, John 118–120, 154
economics of knowledge 128; public
good characteristics 24, 25
energy 63–64; energy poverty 83–86;
housing renovation 64–66;
of grid photovoltaic solar cells
68
environmental justice 7; and ecosystem
services 112, 113; and
environmental health 78–81
failures of transdisciplinary research
partnerships 27–32; inconsistent
180
Index
institutional incentives 140;
instrumentalization 28, 29;
small niche research 32;
technocratic management 102,
103; unstructured value diversity
30, 31
Fleck, Ludwik 26
food and agriculture: food assistance 86,
87; participatory seed selection
67
Hacking, Ian 42
healthcare: asthma 78–81; coronary
heart disease 78; one health
approach 115–117
housing: bio based building materials
64–66
immigrant communities 32, 79, 80
impact 40–45; pathways of impact
generation 41
incommensurability 105; incompatible
value rankings 106; of societal
values 106–108, 160
indigenous communities 70, 71
institutional enabling mechanisms
129–131; capacity building 123,
138, 139; emotional features
139; knowledge exchange
135–137; social interactive
features 139; teaching 132–134;
team formation 137–138
institutional rules 17, 18, 161
Institutions of higher education 34, 60,
123, 129, 132
interdisciplinarity 52, 53; broad
interdisciplinarity 148, 149;
collective action failures 54
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change 11
knowledge co production 162; ladder
of knowledge co production 59,
61; in polycentric networks 39,
40; research co design 50–54;
research co management 36; and
social learning 38, 39
knowledge integration 50, 51
living lab 66–68; use centered
technological innovation 63,
64
mission oriented research 149
mobility 74–76; air pollution 71, 74, 84;
congestion charging 76; traffic
calming 70
multi criteria assesment 76
National research agencies: Swiss
Academy of Sciences 13,137;
United States National
Academies of Sciences 12
natural resource management:
ecosystem services 112, 113;
fsheries 72; irrigation systems
25, 100; wetland management
102, 103
organisational support: new professional
profles 146; promotion of
transdisciplinary skills 146,
147
organizational architectures:
autonomous team work 127;
democratic governance of
140, 141; fexible network
organization 127, 128;
functional hierarchies 126, 127
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) 2, 14
Ostrom, Elinor 24, 25, 38, 39
participation: companion modeling
72, 73; instrumental forms
of participation 37; ladder of
participation 36; participatory
modeling 69, 70; systems
dynamic modeling 85–86
partner identifcation 137, 138; search
conferences 131, 137, 147
polycentric governance 39, 156;
enabling functions 39, 40
power 7, 9; power imbalances in
transdisciplinary research 37,
92, 119
pragmatist constructivism 92; and
comprehensive consequences
104; and environmental justice
91; experiential knowledge
91; pluralism of value related
perspectives 91
qualitative research: concept mapping
113; focus group research 83;
Index 181
future visioning workshops
88; merging of knowledge
86; participatory qualitative
research 84–86; qualitative
systems dynamics mapping 85;
storytelling 113
random controlled trials 77
Reed, Mark 101
research styles 42, 162
risk assessment 28, 29
role playing games 100
Sen, Amartya 104–106
social choice: accommodation of
divergent perspectives 112, 113;
agreement over process value
110–112; pairwise agreement
over values 105; salient societal
values 106, 110
social learning 162; in adaptive
management 102; identifying
needs 120; typology of social
learning outputs 119
socio ecological systems 164; historical
interdependencies 5, 6; and
integrated research 161;
socio ecological
interdependency 9
sustainability: environmental citizenship
7, 8; environmental justice 7;
planetary boundaries 6, 7; social
and ecological 162
sustainability transformations 6; levers
of change 57, 58
thought styles 26, 162
transdisciplinarity: transdisciplinarity
beyond academia 149–151;
transdisciplinary sustainability
research 164
transdisciplinary teaching: doctoral
training 134; master courses
131–133; master theses 134
usable knowledge production:
actionable knowledge 2; frst
order efects 56; second order
efects 56; usable knowledge
outputs 54, 55
values: convergence amongst 110;
heterogeneity of societal
values 14, 15, 17; see also
incommensurability; social choice
wicked problems 1
Williamson, Oliver 124, 126