Suchergebnisse

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.