Suchergebnisse

The aim of the paper is to discuss and to reflect on the experiences and challenges encountered during the North-South capacity building project on transdisciplinarity, KNOTS (Fostering Multi-Lateral Knowledge Networks of Transdisciplinary Studies to Tackle Global Challenges), which was financed by the EU through the Erasmus+ Capacity Building in Higher Education program. Despite the large body of literature on transdisciplinary approaches and projects, not many studies exist that discuss both the political and the power dimensions within transdisciplinary endeavors, especially not from a social science perspective. Based on the experiences, challenges, and progress over the course of the project, I will analyze how power relations influenced and structured KNOTS. I argue that the success of transdisciplinary North-South collaborations depends very much on awareness of power hierarchies, reflexivity, and positionality as well as different understandings of knowledge. Although differences will be highlighted regarding, for example, the aims of transdisciplinarity or the role of different understandings of science and knowledge, the paper does not aim to increase skepticism regarding transdisciplinarity. Instead, the intent of the reflections is to increase awareness of the influences of power structures and relations in transdisciplinarity projects, especially North-South collaboration projects.

The paper intends to contribute to an international understanding of transdiciplinarity (TD) from the perspective of Latin America. The basic argument is that TD is a research practice that can foster knowledge democracy within the framework of decoloniality as a social and academic praxis. The first part of the paper highlights some historical and contemporary practices that are important to shape a decolonizing approach to transdisciplinarity. The second section discusses issues involved in the development of transdisciplinary political, contextual and institutional conditions, besides the researcher's personal and professional commitment and preparedness.

On September 29 th , REMAKE Research Program (or REMAKE – Website: http://remake.osug.fr/) held an international workshop called Interdisciplinarity / Transdisciplinarity: from announcement to implementation, the example of the geo-hazards in the Andes. REMAKE's WP6 aims at improving Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster Prevention Policies (DPP) through both knowledge and action. WP6 was in charge of the organization of the workshop. Workshop's insights relate with one of the 2 objectives of REMAKE's WP6 (" cognitive objective " – see website), which is " how to turn ID & TD into actual research practices in REMAKE research program? " According to international assessments (like GAR, 2015), fragmentation of knowledge, risk governance, or low integration of different kinds of actors involved in DRR initiatives are among the main shortcomings for achieving better and more efficient DPP policies on the ground. To solve part of these problems, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (ID & TD) are acknowledged as appropriate approaches for assessing risks and how it is managed. We can find many definitions of what ID and TD are. In our case, and in line with a clear distinction coming from various international institutions as with the Swiss EAWAG :-ID corresponds to the articulation of different disciplines (concepts, methodologies, viewpoints, or data) in risk assessment-TD refers to the integration of different kinds of actors (scientists, policy-makers, inhabitants, political representatives, or leaders from the private sectors) in the ways problems and assessments are framed, as well as in the manners options are chosen, or initiatives are implemented on the ground. Yet, limits and obstacles for achieving both ID & TD are also well acknowledged in the literature. This is the issue at the heart of this REMAKE Workshop. First, we introduce a synthesis of the main elements of the discussion regarding ID & TD in risk assessments. We present definitions elements, the reason why ID & TD approaches are critical in risk studies, and some of the key obstacles put forward during the workshop.

On September 29 th , REMAKE Research Program (or REMAKE – Website: http://remake.osug.fr/) held an international workshop called Interdisciplinarity / Transdisciplinarity: from announcement to implementation, the example of the geo-hazards in the Andes. REMAKE's WP6 aims at improving Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster Prevention Policies (DPP) through both knowledge and action. WP6 was in charge of the organization of the workshop. Workshop's insights relate with one of the 2 objectives of REMAKE's WP6 (" cognitive objective " – see website), which is " how to turn ID & TD into actual research practices in REMAKE research program? " According to international assessments (like GAR, 2015), fragmentation of knowledge, risk governance, or low integration of different kinds of actors involved in DRR initiatives are among the main shortcomings for achieving better and more efficient DPP policies on the ground. To solve part of these problems, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (ID & TD) are acknowledged as appropriate approaches for assessing risks and how it is managed. We can find many definitions of what ID and TD are. In our case, and in line with a clear distinction coming from various international institutions as with the Swiss EAWAG :-ID corresponds to the articulation of different disciplines (concepts, methodologies, viewpoints, or data) in risk assessment-TD refers to the integration of different kinds of actors (scientists, policy-makers, inhabitants, political representatives, or leaders from the private sectors) in the ways problems and assessments are framed, as well as in the manners options are chosen, or initiatives are implemented on the ground. Yet, limits and obstacles for achieving both ID & TD are also well acknowledged in the literature. This is the issue at the heart of this REMAKE Workshop. First, we introduce a synthesis of the main elements of the discussion regarding ID & TD in risk assessments. We present definitions elements, the reason why ID & TD ...

On September 29 th , REMAKE Research Program (or REMAKE – Website: http://remake.osug.fr/) held an international workshop called Interdisciplinarity / Transdisciplinarity: from announcement to implementation, the example of the geo-hazards in the Andes. REMAKE's WP6 aims at improving Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster Prevention Policies (DPP) through both knowledge and action. WP6 was in charge of the organization of the workshop. Workshop's insights relate with one of the 2 objectives of REMAKE's WP6 (" cognitive objective " – see website), which is " how to turn ID & TD into actual research practices in REMAKE research program? " According to international assessments (like GAR, 2015), fragmentation of knowledge, risk governance, or low integration of different kinds of actors involved in DRR initiatives are among the main shortcomings for achieving better and more efficient DPP policies on the ground. To solve part of these problems, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (ID & TD) are acknowledged as appropriate approaches for assessing risks and how it is managed. We can find many definitions of what ID and TD are. In our case, and in line with a clear distinction coming from various international institutions as with the Swiss EAWAG :-ID corresponds to the articulation of different disciplines (concepts, methodologies, viewpoints, or data) in risk assessment-TD refers to the integration of different kinds of actors (scientists, policy-makers, inhabitants, political representatives, or leaders from the private sectors) in the ways problems and assessments are framed, as well as in the manners options are chosen, or initiatives are implemented on the ground. Yet, limits and obstacles for achieving both ID & TD are also well acknowledged in the literature. This is the issue at the heart of this REMAKE Workshop. First, we introduce a synthesis of the main elements of the discussion regarding ID & TD in risk assessments. We present definitions elements, the reason why ID & TD approaches are critical in risk studies, and some of the key obstacles put forward during the workshop.

On September 29 th , REMAKE Research Program (or REMAKE – Website: http://remake.osug.fr/) held an international workshop called Interdisciplinarity / Transdisciplinarity: from announcement to implementation, the example of the geo-hazards in the Andes. REMAKE's WP6 aims at improving Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster Prevention Policies (DPP) through both knowledge and action. WP6 was in charge of the organization of the workshop. Workshop's insights relate with one of the 2 objectives of REMAKE's WP6 (" cognitive objective " – see website), which is " how to turn ID & TD into actual research practices in REMAKE research program? " According to international assessments (like GAR, 2015), fragmentation of knowledge, risk governance, or low integration of different kinds of actors involved in DRR initiatives are among the main shortcomings for achieving better and more efficient DPP policies on the ground. To solve part of these problems, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity (ID & TD) are acknowledged as appropriate approaches for assessing risks and how it is managed. We can find many definitions of what ID and TD are. In our case, and in line with a clear distinction coming from various international institutions as with the Swiss EAWAG :-ID corresponds to the articulation of different disciplines (concepts, methodologies, viewpoints, or data) in risk assessment-TD refers to the integration of different kinds of actors (scientists, policy-makers, inhabitants, political representatives, or leaders from the private sectors) in the ways problems and assessments are framed, as well as in the manners options are chosen, or initiatives are implemented on the ground. Yet, limits and obstacles for achieving both ID & TD are also well acknowledged in the literature. This is the issue at the heart of this REMAKE Workshop. First, we introduce a synthesis of the main elements of the discussion regarding ID & TD in risk assessments. We present definitions elements, the reason why ID & TD approaches are critical in risk studies, and some of the key obstacles put forward during the workshop.

This report describes the transdisciplinary framework for the UNISECO project and provides 'structures' to facilitate meaningful interactions for shared learning, synthesis, integration and co-construction of innovative, actionable knowledge for practical outcomes. Material has been drawn from resources of academia and practice, including the personal experience of the UNISECO consortium partners. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement N° 773901.

This Special Issue aims to reflect on knowledge co-production and transdisciplinarity, exploring the mutual interaction between water governance and water research. We do so with contributions that bring examples from diverse parts of the world: Bolivia, Canada, Germany, Ghana, Namibia, the Netherlands, Palestine, and South Africa. Key insights brought by these contributions include the importance of engaging the actors from early stages of transdisciplinary research, and the need for an in-depth understanding of the diverse needs, competences, and power of actors and the water governance system in which knowledge co-production takes place. Further, several future research directions are identified, such as the examination of knowledge backgrounds according to the individual and collective thought styles of different actors. Together, the eight papers included in this Special Issue constitute a significant step toward a better understanding of knowledge co-production and transdisciplinarity, with a common thread for being reflective and clear about their complexity, and the political implications and risks they pose for inclusive, plural and just water research and governance.

What happens when well-defined disciplines meet or are confronted with transdisciplinary discourses and concepts, where transdisciplinary concepts are analytical tools rather than specifications of a field of objects or a class of entities? Or, if disciplines reject transdisciplinary discourses and concepts as having no part to play in their practice, why do they so reject them? This essay addresses these questions through a discussion of the relationship between philosophy – the most tightly policed discipline in the humanities – and what I will argue is the emblematically transdisciplinary practice of feminist theory, via a discussion of interdisciplinarity and related terms in gender studies. It argues that the tendency of philosophy to reject feminist theory in fact correctly intuited that the two defining features of feminist theory – its constitutive tie to a political agenda for social change and the transdisciplinary character of many of its central concepts – are indeed at odds with, and pose a threat to, the traditional insularity of the discipline of philosophy. It argues, further, that feminist theory operates with what we should now recognise as a set of transdisciplinary concepts – including, sex, gender, woman, sexuality and sexual difference – and that the use of these concepts (particularly 'gender') in feminist philosophy has been the most far-reaching continuation in the late 20th/early 21st centuries of the critique of philosophy initiated by Marx and pursued by 'critical theory'. This puts feminist philosophy in a difficult position: its transdisciplinary aspects open it up to an unavoidable contradiction. Nonetheless, this is a contradiction that can and must be endured and made productive. In order to draw out the specificity of the concept of transdisciplinarity at issue the essay begins with a discussion of attempts to define inter- and transdisciplinarity, particularly in gender studies. Arguing for the transdisciplinary origin of the concept of gender, it then suggests one way of ...

Transdisciplinarity has shaped the development of both conservation science and conservation-restoration. The history of conservation science demands the commitment of all involved specialists to follow a common vision in the field. The present article highlights some key lessons to assist in closing the gap between the promotion of high-level research projects and the development and assessment of proficient professional practice in conservation science and conservation-restoration. The necessary framework conditions should also be brought to the attention of responsible politicians.Reflecting on conservation theory and practice "at the turn of the millennium" I propose to take a closer look at interdisciplinary work devoted to maintenance of Cultural Heritage since the beginning of the 20th century. ; Transdisciplinarity has shaped the development of both conservation science and conservation-restoration. The history of conservation science demands the commitment of all involved specialists to follow a common vision in the field. The present article highlights some key lessons to assist in closing the gap between the promotion of high-level research projects and the development and assessment of proficient professional practice in conservation science and conservation-restoration. The necessary framework conditions should also be brought to the attention of responsible politicians.Reflecting on conservation theory and practice "at the turn of the millennium" I propose to take a closer look at interdisciplinary work devoted to maintenance of Cultural Heritage since the beginning of the 20th century.

Since 2017, IAIN Manado has embraced multiculturalism as a core value for its vision to become an excellent Islamic higher education institution in Southeast Asia in 2035. This policy has however been taken without prior wide scholarly discussions. Consequently, the internalization and translation of this value into IAIN's processes of education are facing some difficulties. This paper proposes a conceptual framework around multiculturalism and transdisciplinarity for IAIN Manado in its attempt to develop competitiveness. It argues that the notion of multiculturalism is always political so that IAIN Manado may develop its own concepts and practices of multiculturalism. It also argues that in order for IAIN Manado to accomplish the implementation of its multiculturalism as a culturally epistemological vision, it should consider the espousal of transdisciplinarity as an academically epistemological vision. Keywords: Multiculturalism; Transdisciplinarity; Vision; IAIN Manado Sejak 2017, IAIN Manado telah memilih multikulturalisme sebagai nilai utama dari visinya untuk menjadi perguruan tinggi Islam unggul di Asia Tenggara pada tahun 2035. Namun demikian, kebijakan ini telah diambil tanpa didahului diskusi-diskusi luas yang melibatkan para ahli. Akibatnya, internalisasi dan realisasi nilai ini ke dalam proses pendidikan di IAIN Manado mengalami berbagai kesulitan. Artikel ini mengajajukan kerangka konseptual tentang multikulturalisme dan transdisiplinaritas untuk IAIN Manado dalam usahanya mengembangkan daya saing. Artikel ini berargumen bahwa konsep multikulturalisme selalu bersifat politis sehingga IAIN Manado dapat mengembangkan konsep dan praktik multikulturalnya sendiri. Selain itu, untuk menyempurnakan implementasi visi multikuluralnya sebagai sebuah visi epistemologis secara budaya, IAIN Manado sebaiknya mempertimbangkan untuk mengadopsi transdisiplinaritas sebagai sebuah visi epistemologis secara akademik. Kata Kunci: Multikulturalisme; Transdisiplinaritas; Visi; IAIN Manado

Transdisciplinary research and innovation (R&I) efforts have emerged as a means to address challenges to sustainable transformation. One of the main elements of transdisciplinary efforts is the 'inclusion' of different stakeholders, values and perspectives in participatory R&I processes. In practice, however, 'doing inclusion' raises a number of challenges. In this article, we aim to contribute to re-politicizing inclusion in transdisciplinarity for transformation, by (1) empirically unraveling four key challenges that emerge in the political practice of 'doing inclusion', (2) illustrating how facilitators of inclusion processes perform balancing acts when confronted with these challenges, and (3) reflecting on what the unfolding dynamics suggests about the politics of stakeholder inclusion for societal transformation. In doing so, we analyze the transdisciplinary FIT4FOOD2030 project (2017–2020)—an EU-funded project that aimed to contribute to fostering EU R&I systems' ability to catalyze food system transformation through stakeholder engagement in 25 Living Labs. Based on 3 years of action-research (including interviews, workshops and field observations), we identified four inherent political challenges to 'doing inclusion' in FIT4FOOD2030: (1) the challenge to meaningfully bring together powerful and marginalized stakeholders; (2) combining representation and deliberation of different stakeholder groups; (3) balancing diversities of inclusion with directionalities implied by transformative efforts; and (4) navigating the complexities of establishing boundaries of inclusion processes. We argue that by understanding 'doing inclusion' as a political practice, necessitating specificity about the (normative) ambitions in different inclusion settings, facilitators may better grasp and address challenges in transdisciplinarity for transformation.

Transdisciplinary research and innovation (R&I) eforts have emerged as a means to address challenges to sustainable transformation. One of the main elements of transdisciplinary eforts is the 'inclusion' of diferent stakeholders, values and perspectives in participatory R&I processes. In practice, however, 'doing inclusion' raises a number of challenges. In this article, we aim to contribute to re-politicizing inclusion in transdisciplinarity for transformation, by (1) empirically unraveling four key challenges that emerge in the political practice of 'doing inclusion', (2) illustrating how facilitators of inclusion processes perform balancing acts when confronted with these challenges, and (3) refecting on what the unfolding dynamics suggests about the politics of stakeholder inclusion for societal transformation. In doing so, we analyze the transdisciplinary FIT4FOOD2030 project (2017–2020)—an EU-funded project that aimed to contribute to fostering EU R&I systems' ability to catalyze food system transformation through stakeholder engagement in 25 Living Labs. Based on 3 years of action-research (including interviews, workshops and feld observations), we identifed four inherent political challenges to 'doing inclusion' in FIT4FOOD2030: (1) the challenge to meaningfully bring together powerful and marginalized stakeholders; (2) combining representation and deliberation of diferent stakeholder groups; (3) balancing diversities of inclusion with directionalities implied by transformative eforts; and (4) navigating the complexities of establishing boundaries of inclusion processes. We argue that by understanding 'doing inclusion' as a political practice, necessitating specificity about the (normative) ambitions in diferent inclusion settings, facilitators may better grasp and address challenges in transdisciplinarity for transformation. ; This work was supported by the European project FIT4FOOD 2030, which received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 774088. ; publishedVersion

Academia and industry increasingly recognise the need for multifunctional urban spaces. But how do we meet this need? Emerging responses point to the promise of transdisciplinarity. We critically reflect on this claim by analysing the role of transdisciplinary practice in the successful conversion of a Sydney laneway into a multifunctional urban space. We trace the co-existence of different disciplinary practices throughout the project stages, to better understand how much transdisciplinarity contributed to its success. A tentative explanatory framework emerges from our analysis and is offered to map the enabling conditions, disciplinary dynamics and strategies that allowed this laneway's transformation into a multifunctional space. Enabling conditions were the municipality had institutionalised a concern for the environment; an organisational change programme ensured the project's independence from the capital budget; and an environmentally aware community group played a core role. The disciplinary dynamics observed were diverse. Planning and design were transdisciplinary, but implementation and maintenance were not. Finally, practitioners used various strategies to bring actors together: they understood the political nature of the organisation; they recognised the different types of actors involved in the project, and then used appropriate language to communicate ideas and to manage risks and expectations.

I argue that our discipline is caught in a rut of irrelevancy on the grander scale. Much of our research is focussed on refining the basics of what we essentially already know well. While there will always be processes to understand, species to describe, and relationships to measure, our discipline can no longer afford to avoid the biggest sustainability issues, including inter alia increasing agricultural production without further destruction of ecosystem integrity, low-impact energy provision for electricity and fuels, human overpopulation and how to reduce it ethically and fairly, and massive ecosystem restoration at meaningful scales. While we argue about the best ways to conserve species, we are still losing our forests, coral reefs, climate regulation, and food-production efficiency with increasing speed. Most of us become comfortable with what we know, and therefore spend most of our time refining our area of expertise. Instead, more of us should jump out of our comfort zones and learn some physics, engineering, climatology, economics, and political science to expand our limited world view. This means that we must do more than just 'engage with stakeholders' post-publication; instead, we need to generate and test hypotheses that explicitly attempt to solve complex problems that transcend mere biological processes. Multidisciplinary teams can assist, but more relevant progress will require biologists themselves to adopt data, approaches, and communication strategies from other fields (many of them not residing within the sciences). Including policy implementers from the outset will potentially increase the probability of uptake in government and industry provided we examine the questions they deem most pertinent. This approach will probably require compromises, but tangible changes in policy arising from dedicated research will be more easily measured and demonstrated following this approach. With a little more effort, I think conservation biologists would be far more relevant and successful in turning some of the threatening unsustainability tide back towards more acceptable outcomes. ; peerReviewed