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.

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.