Suchergebnisse

This paper presents a heuristic tool aiming at bringing the multiple dimensions of interdisciplinarity (ID) and transdisciplinarity (TD) into direct conversation for researchers, funders, and policymakers. These societal actors have divergent conceptions, definitions, and practices of ID and TD that can be fruitfully put into dialogue to prosecute successful projects and programs. We anchor our study on the concept of "knowledge regime" and its three components (ideologies and myths, shared beliefs and practices, and imaginaries and values) to develop a comprehensive view of the heterogeneous understandings of ID and TD that goes beyond the cognitive dimension. Founded on a qualitative methodology, we designed a heuristic tool to disentangle this heterogeneity and bridge the different understandings in a comparable way. Through a semi-structured dialogue, users of the tool discuss ten questions that guide reflections on understandings of ID and TD used in projects, funding programs, and policy processes and their implications to reveal differences and increase mutual understanding. The findings offer details on the tool and systematize insights from those users who tested it in different contexts. We conclude by discussing the contribution this heuristic tool makes when considering ID and TD as knowledge regimes in the scientific and policy domains.

Introduction essay and Chapter 1 are available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence.

This groundbreaking reader is designed to lower the barriers to interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in research. Edited by experienced researchers from a range of different fields, it paves the way for future scholarship and effective research collaborations across disciplines.

Chapters offer extracts from key academic texts on topics such as the design, funding, evaluation and communication of research, providing those new to the field with a thorough grounding. They highlight examples of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary triumphs – and challenges. Concluding each chapter is a commentary provided by practitioners from diverse backgrounds, many of whom are themselves developing new approaches to inter- and transdisciplinarity.

The book is:

• the first ever comprehensive reader for interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity;
• essential reading for those seeking to become effective collaborative researchers;
• complete with concise introductions, extracts, commentary and further reading in each chapter.

This is a much-needed primer that improves our understanding of the characteristics of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, unlocking their exciting potential in research and teaching within and beyond academia.

Introduction essay and Chapter 1 are available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence.

This groundbreaking reader is designed to lower the barriers to interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in research. Edited by experienced researchers from a range of different fields, it paves the way for future scholarship and effective research collaborations across disciplines.

Chapters offer extracts from key academic texts on topics such as the design, funding, evaluation and communication of research, providing those new to the field with a thorough grounding. They highlight examples of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary triumphs – and challenges. Concluding each chapter is a commentary provided by practitioners from diverse backgrounds, many of whom are themselves developing new approaches to inter- and transdisciplinarity.

The book is:

• the first ever comprehensive reader for interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity;
• essential reading for those seeking to become effective collaborative researchers;
• complete with concise introductions, extracts, commentary and further reading in each chapter.

This is a much-needed primer that improves our understanding of the characteristics of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, unlocking their exciting potential in research and teaching within and beyond academia.

Abstract
Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are seen as promising ways to address societies' grand challenges and so have become important topics in academic and policy discourses, particularly as part of discussions about mission-oriented knowledge production and research funding processes. However, there is an important disconnect between the way these terms are defined and used in the academic literature and the way they are defined and used in the policy literature. Academic writing on interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity offers plural understandings of both terms, whereas policy documents argue for concrete and simplified definitions. In this paper, we analyse the implications of these differences for research and funding. On the basis of an extensive literature review, we argue that the heterogeneity of understandings in interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity constitutes an asset. We advocate for the plurality of understandings to be used constructively in order to strengthen and promote effective research and research funding.

Through a qualitative survey among European researchers and interviews with policy makers we hope to enhance knowledge about interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration. The survey and interviews were carried out as part of Work Package 2 of the SHAPE-ID Horizon 2020 project (https://www.shapeid.eu), which is also conducting a systematic literature review. We aim to serve the research community and relevant stakeholders in society with new insights, examples of good practice and tips on how to overcome difficulties that might help their current and future interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary endeavours. We focus on Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS), but are also interested in the growing collaboration between these fields and the so-called STEMM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine and Mathematics). We address two main questions: (i) When developing a European interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary project, what are the main difficulties people encounter in realising a good research team that is balanced in terms of the various interests and goals of the different participants, and (ii) Which factors of success and failure do researchers integrating AHSS in larger projects consider relevant for their daily practice of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research? ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 822705.

Acknowledgments: We are indebted to Jo?l Graf (National Contact Point, Euresearch, Switzerland) for comments and advice on an early version. ; This policy brief presents key issues and challenges for fostering interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research in Europe, focusing on the participation of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences in such research. It provides concrete guidance to policy makers and funding organisations on how to tackle those issues and maximise the participation of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 822705.

Quantitative systems modelling in support of climate policy has tended to focus more on the supply side in assessing interactions among technology, economy, environment, policy and society. By contrast, the demand side is usually underrepresented, often emphasising technological options for energy efficiency improvements. In this perspective, we argue that scientific support to climate action is not only about exploring capacity of "what", in terms of policy and outcome, but also about assessing feasibility and desirability, in terms of "when", "where" and especially for "whom". Without the necessary behavioural and societal transformations, the world faces an inadequate response to the climate crisis challenge. This could result from poor uptake of low-carbon technologies, continued high-carbon intensive lifestyles, or economy-wide rebound effects. For this reason, we propose a framing for a holistic and transdisciplinary perspective on the role of human choices and behaviours in influencing the low-carbon transition, starting from the desires of individuals and communities, and analysing how these interact with the energy and economic landscape, leading to systemic change at the macro-level. In making a case for a political ecology agenda, we expand our scope, from comprehending the role of societal acceptance and uptake of end-use technologies, to co-developing knowledge with citizens from non-mainstream and marginalised communities, and to defining the modelling requirements to assess the decarbonisation potential of shifting lifestyle patterns in climate change and action.

Quantitative systems modelling in support of climate policy has tended to focus more on the supply side in assessing interactions among technology, economy, environment, policy and society. By contrast, the demand side is usually underrepresented, often emphasising technological options for energy efficiency improvements. In this perspective, we argue that scientific support to climate action is not only about exploring capacity of "what", in terms of policy and outcome, but also about assessing feasibility and desirability, in terms of "when", "where" and especially for "whom". Without the necessary behavioural and societal transformations, the world faces an inadequate response to the climate crisis challenge. This could result from poor uptake of low-carbon technologies, continued high-carbon intensive lifestyles, or economy-wide rebound effects. For this reason, we propose a framing for a holistic and transdisciplinary perspective on the role of human choices and behaviours in influencing the low-carbon transition, starting from the desires of individuals and communities, and analysing how these interact with the energy and economic landscape, leading to systemic change at the macro-level. In making a case for a political ecology agenda, we expand our scope, from comprehending the role of societal acceptance and uptake of end-use technologies, to co-developing knowledge with citizens from non-mainstream and marginalised communities, and to defining the modelling requirements to assess the decarbonisation potential of shifting lifestyle patterns in climate change and action. ; ISSN:2214-6296

This report presents emerging findings from a literature review being undertaken as part of the SHAPE-ID Horizon 2020 project (https://www.shapeid.eu), which addresses the challenge of improving interdisciplinary research (IDR) and transdisciplinary research (TDR) between Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS) disciplines and other scientific disciplines. The report describes efforts to build a robust sample of literature, aligning qualitative and quantitative methodologies and beginning to map understandings and factors for success and failure in the literature. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 822705.

Acknowledgments: The team wants to specially thank: Dr. Sabine Hoffmann (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, EAWAG, Switzerland), Professor em. Julie Thompson Klein, and Dr. Flurina Schneider (Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Switzerland) for their support and input in different phases of the study. We are grateful to the OpenAire team (Harry Dimitropoulos and Claudio Atzori) for providing the metadata for the analysis and to Pozna? Supercomputing and Networking Center (Juliusz Pukacki and Cezary Mazurek) for providing the virtual R-Studio machine capable of crunching data analysed in this project. ; This report presents findings from a literature review and survey undertaken as part of the SHAPE-ID Horizon 2020 project (https://www.shapeid.eu), which addresses the challenge of improving interdisciplinary research (IDR) and transdisciplinary research (TDR) between Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS) and Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) disciplines. One of SHAPE-ID?s first objectives was to review existing research on IDR/TDR. Through an extensive evidence-scanning exercise drawing on previous work undertaken and complemented by a survey and interviews, the project aimed: (i) to disentangle the different understandings of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity; (ii) to identify the factors that hinder or help inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration; (iii) to clarify which understandings of IDR/TDR and which factors of success and failure are specifically relevant for integrating AHSS in IDR/TDR. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 822705.

© 2020, The Author(s). Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into 'knowing-that' and 'knowing-how.' We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining 'when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,' we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering 'where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,' we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring 'what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,' we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so ...

Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into 'knowing-that' and 'knowing-how.' We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining 'when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,' we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering 'where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,' we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring 'what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,' we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained.