Abstract
Addressing “wicked” socio-ecological problems necessitate the integration of knowledge and methods from multiple disciplines. Transdisciplinarity (TD) is one such strategy; its focus is to enhance the comprehensiveness, robustness, and relevance of science via cross-disciplinary team science (CDTS). What separates TD from other forms of CDTS (e.g., multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary) is the meaningful inclusion of a diverse set of nonacademic stakeholders. In collaboration, the TD team draws on tacit and explicit knowledge to co-develop new understandings of vexing “real-world” problems. However, guidance for TD is scant and it leaves open, for instance, questions about how to develop an appropriate team, acquire essential team-based skills, manage the costs of participation, develop individual and group readiness, and satisfy organization expectations, while also attempting to build the trust-based relationships that are fundamental to the approach. Needed are “boundary players” with multi-dimensional skills who transcend the science, facilitate cooperation, and reduce transaction costs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The direct quotes from research participants come from a study approved by the Auburn University Office of Human Research, IRB# 20–207 EX 2004.
References
Arnold, Markus. 2013. Transdisciplinary research. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ed. Elias G. Carayannis, 1819–1828. New York, NY: Springer New York.
Arnott, James C., J. Rachel Neuenfeldt, and Maria Carmen Lemos. 2020. Co-producing science for sustainability: Can funding change knowledge use? Global Environmental Change 60: 101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101979.
Patric, Brandt, Anna Ernst, Fabienne Gralla, Christopher Luederitz, Daniel J. Lang, Jens Newig, Florian Reinert, David J. Abson, and Henrik von Wehrden. 2013. A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics 92: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008.
Carayannis, Elias G., F.J. David, and Campbell. 2013. Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems: Quintuple helix and social ecology. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ed. Elias G. Carayannis, 1293–1300. New York, NY: Springer.
Collien, I. 2021. Concepts of power in boundary spanning research: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 23: 443–465. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12251.
Conner, David. in press. Transdisciplinary research for wicked problems: A transaction costs approach Agriculture and Human Values 39.
Cooke, Steven J. 2018. From frustration to fruition in applied conservation research and practice: ten revelations. Socio-Ecological Practice Research 1: 15–23. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-018-0002-x.
Delozier, Jodi, Mark Burbach, and Weston M. Eaton. 2022. Boundary spanning behavior in stakeholder engagement for water-agricultural challenges. Under review.
Gibbons, Michael. 2013. Mode 1, Mode 2, and Innovation. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ed. Elias G. Carayannis, 1285–1292. New York, NY: Springer.
Hegger, Dries, and Machiel Lamers, Annemarie Van Zeijl-Rozema and Carel Dieperink. 2012. Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science & Policy 18: 52–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.002.
Holzer, Jennifer M., Naomi Carmon, and Daniel E. Orenstein. 2018. A methodology for evaluating transdisciplinary research on coupled socio-ecological systems. Ecological Indicators 85: 808–819. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.10.074.
Hubeau, Marianne, Fleur Marchand, and Ine Coteur, Lies Debruyne and Guido Van Huylenbroeck. 2018. A reflexive assessment of a regional initiative in the agri-food system to test whether and how it meets the premises of transdisciplinary research. Sustainability Science 13: 1137–1154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0514-5.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. [1962]. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
National Academies of Sciences. 2019. A systems approach. Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/25059.
National Research Council. 2014. Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Science Foundation. 2021. Growing Convergence Research (GCR). Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. https://beta.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/growing-convergence-research-gcr. Accessed 17 November 2021.
Natural Resources Conservation Service and Commodity Credit Corporation. 2019. Announcement for Program Funding for NRCS’ Conservation Innovation Grants On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials for Federal fiscal year (FY) 2019: U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/financial/cig/?cid=stelprdb1046235. Accessed 07 September 2022.
Norris, Patricia E., Michael O’Rourke, Alex S. Mayer, and Kathleen E. Halvorsen. 2016. Managing the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socio-ecological systems. Landscape and Urban Planning 154: 115–122. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.008.
O’Rourke, Michael, and Stephen Crowley and Chad Gonnerman. 2016. On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: A philosophical framework. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56: 62–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.003.
O’Rourke, Michael, Stephen Crowley, Bethany Laursen, Brian Robinson, and Stephanie E. Vasko. 2019. Disciplinary diversity in teams: Integrative approaches from unidisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity. In Strategies for Team Science Success: Handbook of Evidence-Based Principles for Cross-Disciplinary Science and Practical Lessons Learned from Health Researchers, ed. Kara L. Hall, Amanda L. Vogel, and Robert T. Croyle, 21–46. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Polk, Merritt. 2015. Transdisciplinary co-production: Designing and testing a transdisciplinary research framework for societal problem solving. Futures 65: 110–122. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.001.
Popa, Florin, Mathieu Guillermin, and Tom Dedeurvvaerdere. 2015. A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65: 45–56. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002.
Prell, Christina, Christine D. Miller, Katherine Hesed, Michael Johnson, Jose Daniel Paolisso, and Teodoro and Elizabeth Van Dolah. 2021. Transdisciplinarity and shifting network boundaries: The challenges of studying an evolving stakeholder network in participatory settings. Field Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x20983984.
Priaulx, N., and M. Weinel. 2018. Connective knowledge: What we need to know about other fields to “envision’ cross-disciplinary collaboration. European Journal of Futures Research 6: 18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-018-0150-z.
Reed, M. S., A. C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing, J. Newig, B. Parrish, C. Prell, C. Raymond, and L. C. Stringer. 2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15(4): r1. [online] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/.
Reed, M. S., L. C. Stringer, I. Fazey, A. C. Evely, and J. H. J. Kruijsen. 2014. Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Managment 146: 337–345. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.021.
Schmidt, Laura, Thomas Falk, Marianna Siegmund-Schultze, H. Joachim, and Spangenberg. 2020. The objectives of dtakeholder involvement in yransdisciplinary research: A conceptual fFramework for a reflective and reflexive practise. Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106751.
Turnhout, Esther, Tamara Metze, and Carina Wyborn, Nicole Klenk and Elena Louder. 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 42: 15–21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009.
Funding
This work was supported by the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (CIG #NR203A750013G016), and the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
Data used in this paper was obtained according to an approved protocol that included stakeholders’ informed consent (Auburn University Office of Human Research, IRB# 20–207 EX 2004).
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Worosz, M.R. Transdisciplinary research for wicked problems. Agric Hum Values 39, 1185–1189 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10371-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10371-w