1. Introduction
Societies are increasingly beset by complex wicked problems that require input from a range of academic disciplines and professional practices to prepare for and effectively manage the challenges of the Anthropocene. Such collaborations have been said to require ‘transdisciplinary efforts to generate the understanding needed to underpin robust policy decisions for human and planetary health’ (Ebi et al., Reference Ebi, Harris, Sioen, Wannous, Anyamba, Bi, Boeckmann, Bowen, Cissé, Dasgupta, Dida, Gasparatos, Gatzweiler, Javadi, Kanbara, Kone, Maycock, Morse, Murakami and Capon2020). Managing complex problems requires systems-based approaches that transcend disciplinary compartmentalization, identifying solutions that address changes in the context of ongoing social, economic, and political change, and recognizing the interconnections across, for example, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Hills & Maharaj, Reference Hills and Maharaj2023; Wardani et al., Reference Wardani, Bos, Ramirez-Lovering and Capon2022). The search for ways of flourishing within environmental limits (Jackson, Reference Jackson2017) and earth system boundaries (Rockström et al., Reference Rockström, Gupta, Qin, Lade, Abrams, Andersen, Armstrong McKay, Bai, Bala, Bunn, Ciobanu, De Clerck, Ebi, Gifford, Gordon, Hasan, Kanie, Lenton and Zhang2003) cannot be left to single disciplinary specialists. There are calls to bring different perspectives and disciplines together to solve problems that are complex and interdependent (e.g. Wuelser & Pohl, Reference Wuelser and Pohl2016). The projects require a focus on systemic change, rather than isolated missions (Lieberknecht et al., Reference Lieberknecht, Houser, Rabinowitz, Pierce, Rodríguez, Leite, Lowell and Gray2022). This is resulting in a growing recognition of the need for transdisciplinary collaboration involving representation from multiple disciplines and practice (Hölsgens et al., Reference Hölsgens, Wascher, Bauer, Boll, Bund, Dankwart-Kammoun, Heese, Schrot, Schultze and Tenambergen2023; Norris et al., Reference Norris, O'Rourke, Mayer and Halvorsen2016).
Applying science to solve environmental problems of the Anthropocene in ways acceptable to society also requires aligning the goals of research, policy options, and public acceptability. People who can work across disciplines and across sectors (academia, government, business, community groups, public) have been termed transdisciplinarians.
Transdisciplinary science has been promoted for over 20 years; yet researchers adopting its methods often have to contend with challenges due to misconceptions and the institutional structures under which researchers function (Shackleton et al., Reference Shackleton, Taylor, Gammage, Gillson, Sitas, Methner, Barmand, Thorn, McClure, Cobban, Jarre and Odume2023). Transdisciplinary research processes are more complex because research team members negotiate goals, priorities, problem framing, research approaches, methods, and stakeholder input prior to collecting data (Crowston et al., Reference Crowston, Specht, Hoover, Chudoba and Watson-Manheim2015; Lang et al., Reference Lang, Wiek, Bergmann, Stauffacher, Martens, Moll, Swilling and Thomas2012). Justice and all its components within transdisciplinary projects are also brought to the foreground. Who is part of a project and who is not? Who is it for and who might be impacted by its implementation? (Juhola et al., Reference Juhola, Heikkinen, Pietilä, Groundstroem and Käyhkö2022). Further, teams need to agree on the analysis and implications of results and the implementation of findings. The processes include stages of ‘learning, experimentation, reflexivity, and monitoring by depending on continuous feedback loops from the environment and between different organizational levels’ (Strand et al., Reference Strand, Ortega-Cisneros, Niner, Wahome, Bell, Currie, Hamukuaya, La Bianca, Lancaster, Maseka, McDonald, McQuaid, Samuel and Winkler2022).
This paper contributes to understanding of transdisciplinary research by exploring how these challenges can be usefully conceptualized as tensions between opposing pressures. By examining tensions, the paper explores how transdisciplinary team members cope with being pulled in different directions as they navigate through the tensions and paradoxical positions arising when aiming to meet multiple objectives. Through a scoping review of the literature, this paper addresses the research question: How are the tensions between scientists and non-scientists managed at different stages of a transdisciplinary research project?
We define transdisciplinary research as research conducted with actors from different sectoral and disciplinary backgrounds to work together on a common mission. We analyze the process of transdisciplinary research through the lens of institutional logics (Thornton et al., Reference Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury2012), exploring the values and motivations of collaborators as they address the tensions of collaborative processes. The paper contributes to theories of knowledge generation for sustainability by showing how tensions in transdisciplinary research lead to particular challenges that can be overcome if individuals within projects have the competencies to navigate their way through complex relationships. By drawing on the theories of institutional logics, we are able to identify specific challenges for building competencies.
Much writing on transdisciplinary research related to sustainability has been normative, presenting the arguments for this alternative approach to research (Thorén & Breian, Reference Thorén and Breian2016). We go further and explore the capabilities for managing transdisciplinary activity and the tensions between the different actors involved. This sheds light on the black box of the transdisciplinary process. The theoretical lens of institutional logics helps identify perspectives, drivers, goals and institutional limitations of collaboration so we can then identify how to develop more effective transdisciplinary projects to address the challenges of sustainability development. We do this by answering the research question: How do those involved in transdisciplinary research navigate the tensions between different perspectives and goals?
The paper starts by exploring the transdisciplinary turn in sustainability-related science before introducing the concept of institutional logics and the methods used. Through a scoping review of the literature, we analyze the different challenges at different stages of transdisciplinary sustainability research projects. We particularly focus on the process of combining logics and the strategies used to navigate between competing logics. We conclude by outlining an agenda for facilitating the success of future multi-actor transdisciplinary initiatives.
2. The transdisciplinary turn?
Transdisciplinary research approaches draw on a range of paradigms and emerging processes shaping the generation of knowledge and the concern with sustainability (Hirsch Hadorn et al., Reference Hirsch Hadorn, Bradley, Pohl, Rist and Wiesmann2006; Klein, Reference Klein2015). At the same time, there was a drive for academic research to demonstrate value for money and the translation of research into practical outcomes. Transdisciplinarity therefore draws on ideas of co-production (Jasanoff, Reference Jasanoff2004; Lemos & Morehouse, Reference Lemos and Morehouse2005) and the generation of knowledge from a range of stakeholders, what some term Mode 2 knowledge (Gibbons et al., Reference Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott and Trow2004; Thorén & Breian, Reference Thorén and Breian2016). Rather than prioritizing the role of academia in knowledge production processes, such approaches envision a wider range of actors collaborating together, thus offering alternatives beyond the traditional perspective of the nature of science. Transdisciplinary research is therefore conceptualized in contrast to academic disciplinary focused research that fits within the boundaries of research that are used to delineate subject areas, university departments, research associations, and journals.
There are rising numbers of transdisciplinary research projects where academics from a range of fields engage in collaborative research in teams that include representatives from other sectors and from businesses, civil society, the state and other citizens (Klein, Reference Klein2015). Transdisciplinary research and systems thinking approaches are needed in which basic and applied research are combined to generate effective actionable, solution-oriented knowledge to inform and guide decisions by policy makers and practitioners at all levels of governance (Future Earth, 2021). These transdisciplinary approaches are a more deliberative form of science that pays attention to the complexity of working across multiple disciplinary perspectives and scales, as well as moving across the divides between academic science and professional knowledge. Further, literature on sustainability science indicates that transdisciplinary approaches are seen as the best way to tackle interconnected issues (Clark, Reference Clark2007; Clark et al., Reference Clark, van Kerkhoff, Lebel and Galloin2016; Scholz & Steiner, Reference Scholz and Steiner2015a; Siew et al., Reference Siew, Aenis, Spangenberg, Nauditt, Doll, Frank, Ribbe, Rodriguez-Labajos, Rumbaur, Settele and Wang2016).
The different actors involved in collaborative research can come from different professional as well as disciplinary backgrounds (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013; Siew et al., Reference Siew, Aenis, Spangenberg, Nauditt, Doll, Frank, Ribbe, Rodriguez-Labajos, Rumbaur, Settele and Wang2016). As the impact of science on society has grown, a deliberative turn has encouraged engagement of the public with debates about science, priorities and setting agendas (Hegger et al, Reference Hegger, Lamers, Van Zeijl-Rozema and Dieperink2012; Wilsdon, Wynne & Stilgoe, Reference Wilsdon, Wynne and Stilgoe2005). Much research in innovation studies has focused on business-academia relationships (Katz & Martin, Reference Katz and Martin1997) with further research also emphasizing the role of other professions such as civil society (Geels, Reference Geels2014) and professional practice experts (Enengel et al., Reference Enengel, Muhar, Penker, Freyer, Drlik and Ritter2012).
Within professions there are common cultures, values, methods, and expectations (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013; Pohl et al., Reference Pohl, Rist, Zimmermann, Fry, Gurung, Schneider, Ifejika Speranza, Kiteme, Boillat, Serrano, Hirsch Hadorn and Wiesmann2010). These shape the reward systems and conceptual approaches (Thornton et al., Reference Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury2012). They come together from different sectors and disciplines in what we call the transdisciplinary space (see Figure 1). It is this black box of transdisciplinarity (Thorén & Breian, Reference Thorén and Breian2016) that requires further explanation and theorization. This transdisciplinary space can be a space where limitations from scientific knowledge can be overcome (Barry et al., Reference Barry, Born and Weszkalnys2008). The processes to conduct transdisciplinary work allow for different types of knowledge to be given equal weight in the project development and execution (Shackleton et al., Reference Shackleton, Taylor, Gammage, Gillson, Sitas, Methner, Barmand, Thorn, McClure, Cobban, Jarre and Odume2023). Fundamental to this is the recognition of lay and experiential knowledge, arising from commercial, practice-based, or personal experience and empowerment, where practitioners are given authority to implement findings (Brandt et al., Reference Brandt, Ernst, Gralla, Luederitz, Lang, Newig, Reinert, Abson and Von Wehrden2013). Where relevant, knowledge from different types of knowledge holders, also referred to as knowledge that is ‘otherwise’ (Rinaldi, Reference Rinaldi2023), and systems such as those from indigenous communities can also be specifically considered to further impact (Strand et al., Reference Strand, Ortega-Cisneros, Niner, Wahome, Bell, Currie, Hamukuaya, La Bianca, Lancaster, Maseka, McDonald, McQuaid, Samuel and Winkler2022). Participative approaches can vary in their level of engagement, interaction, and power sharing between researchers and the participants (Arnstein, Reference Arnstein1969).
Figure 1. Indication of the transdisciplinary space where transdisciplinarians navigate institutional tensions to solve wicked problems in the Anthropocene. The Figure contains a selection of actors for illustration purposes. Each actor can make contributions or move into the transdisciplinary space, as indicated by the dashed arrows. We recognize that within each group of actors there is much diversity to be considered.
Thus, the drive towards transdisciplinary research also comes from governments and funding agencies, seeking to ensure that research has impact, that is, is relevant and salient to real world challenges, and makes a difference to lives, livelihoods, and society. This has resulted in a growing body of research programs and a requirement of some funders for research programs to have an element of transdisciplinary research (examples include: the Belmont Forum, the European Union's 7th Framework Programme (FP7), US National Science Foundation funded Engineering Research Centers). Others have been highlighted in academic literature (see Jahn et al., Reference Jahn, Newig, Lang, Kahle and Bergmann2022; Mertens et al., Reference Mertens, Távora, Santandreu, Luján, Arroyo and Saint-Charles2022) and research programs focused on global challenges (Lieberknecht et al., Reference Lieberknecht, Houser, Rabinowitz, Pierce, Rodríguez, Leite, Lowell and Gray2022) and ‘knowledge exchange’ (Lyall et al., Reference Lyall, Meagher and Bruce2015; Phillipson et al., Reference Phillipson, Lowe, Proctor and Ruto2012). In the case of the Belmont Forum, impact is ensured by a minimum of at least one end-user for every stage of the project who is in a position to implement changes in society. In a study of ten transdisciplinary agri-environment research projects, more than six cited criteria from funders as shaping the move to a transdisciplinary approach (Harris et al., Reference Harris, Lyon and Clarke2009).
Outputs from these research programs include papers reflecting on the transdisciplinary research process itself (see examples Table 1). This growing literature seeks to learn from transdisciplinary research processes, to identify ‘best practices’, lessons learned, and ways forward. As transdisciplinary research projects have varied goals, academic expertise, and participating collaborators, it is not realistic to aim for a single ‘approach’ or method (e.g. Benham & Daniell, Reference Benham and Daniell2016; Butt & Dimitrijević, Reference Butt and Dimitrijević2023; Howarth & Monasterolo, Reference Howarth and Monasterolo2016; Price et al., Reference Price, Bowyer, Büker, Gray, Hahn, Lambe, Loh, Medcalf, Njoora, Waelde, Wainwright and West2023; Rinaldi, Reference Rinaldi2023; Scholz & Steiner, Reference Scholz and Steiner2015a; Tschakert et al., Reference Tschakert, Tuana, Westskog, Koelle and Afrika2016; Van der Hel, Reference van der Hel2016).
Table 1. Learning to navigate tensions in different stages of transdisciplinary research projects
A fundamental challenge within transdisciplinary research is finding ways of guiding the diverse perspectives towards a common goal. While the vision or goal of the project may be common, identifying the best routes and methods to achieve it are more challenging when combining fundamentally different epistemologies, ontologies, and cultures of the varying participants. Toomey et al. (Reference Toomey, Knight and Barlow2017) consider not only research impact, but also the quality of the research implementation space, considering values, ethics, attributes, and institutional and personal dynamics within transdisciplinary projects.
We reject the notion of a single transdisciplinary method, but rather identify key factors at each stage of the research process. We offer the lens of institutional logics, recognizing the differing practices and values of each participant (Scholz & Steiner, Reference Scholz and Steiner2015b), the different tensions found in transdisciplinary research, and the way transdisciplinary researchers can learn to navigate through such challenges.
3. Institutional logics and transdisciplinary research
We argue that there is a need for an analytical framework that contributes to understanding tensions in transdisciplinary research deriving from the different values and motivations of actors as they come together from different professions, traditions, and cultures. We therefore explore the different institutional logics shaping individual and organizational action. Institutional logics can be defined as ‘socially constructed, historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices, including assumptions, values and beliefs, by which individuals and organisations provide meaning to daily activity, organize time and space, reproduce lives and experiences’ (Thornton et al., Reference Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury2012). They can be experienced as sets of organizing principles, practices and objectives that influence individual behavior.
Transdisciplinary research involves bringing together people shaped by different situations and institutional logics (Swan et al., Reference Swan, Bresnen, Robertson, Newell and Dopson2010). Of particular importance are the logics of different professions, but there are also the logics of markets, the logics of the public sector (DiMaggio & Powell, Reference DiMaggio and Powell1983), and the logics of corporations (businesses, universities, NGOs). For example the sphere of the market shapes how employees of businesses may be driven by the profit motive, but this is tempered by professions with concerns for reputation, relationships, and the quality of their craft (Thornton et al., Reference Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury2012). Within academia, the dominant logic is around knowledge generation through applying scientific approaches with established methods to collect and analyze information, particular motivations around publishing in journals ranked according to particular criteria (Felt et al., Reference Felt, Igelsböck, Schikowitz and Völker2012), conceptions of rigor that also shape the length of time needed for research, as well as non-codified sets of values such as particular writing and communication styles (Bartunek & Rynes, Reference Bartunek and Rynes2014). These logics set academics apart from other non-academics involved in transdisciplinary research resulting in potential tensions. Such cultural differences and tensions between players can lead to disincentives to work across professional boundaries (Hicks & Katz, Reference Hicks and Katz1996). In transdisciplinary research, the different actors and individuals find ways of bringing different logics together in ways that help them navigate the tensions. An understanding of the process of transdisciplinary research requires an exploration of these different logics and how they interplay.
4. Method
We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature concerning the process of collaboration in transdisciplinary research projects. The review drew on literature identified using Scopus. Scopus was selected among different databases, given its broad coverage of quality peer-reviewed literature relevant to the theme of environmental management and sustainability science. The search terms ‘transdisciplinary’ or ‘transdisciplinarity’ were used to identify documents with relevant terms in the title and keywords, published between January 1979 and June 2023 in peer reviewed English language journals. The resulting list of 582 manuscripts was divided among the two leading authors for a deductive screening. The purpose of the screening was to remove duplicates, and to remove papers not relating to the theme using the title, keywords, and reading through the abstracts. We paid particular attention to manuscripts that reviewed transdisciplinary programs or analyzed the process of transdisciplinary research collaboration from the perspective of practitioners and academic researchers. The lead author checked for consistency in the screening process and went through all the titles, keywords, and abstracts to confirm suitability of the manuscripts for the study. This resulted in 221 papers focused on transdisciplinary research practice related to the theme of environment and sustainability science, which were read in depth.
We analyzed the literature through a two stage process of coding. As a first stage, we coded material using the common categorization of the innovation/research process to provide a structural framework drawn from the reviews of research programs and specific transdisciplinary projects reported in the literature. This starts with problem identification, before moving to building teams, setting methods and data collection, analyzing results, and sharing findings. A second more inductive stage of coding identified sub-categories of tensions and approaches to navigate them which were emerging in the literature. This framework for analysis allowed us to identify and differentiate the challenges and tensions at each stage of the research process. We categorized the tensions and approaches within the framework as they have been described in the manuscripts. This gave us an overview of the state-of-the art and the framework allowed us to identify and differentiate the challenges and tensions at each stage of the research process. We documented this structure in Table 1 and derived key overarching messages with a focus on indicating tensions between institutional logics and learning how to navigate these tensions. While this was useful for reviewing the growing literature base and identifying the different contexts for exploring the tensions between logics, we want to highlight that this is a simplification of a messier reality of research practices with overlapping stages and feedback from one stage impacting on others (Lang et al., Reference Lang, Wiek, Bergmann, Stauffacher, Martens, Moll, Swilling and Thomas2012).
This framework was then analyzed through the lens of institutional logics, focusing on how institutional logics and perspectives can shape the debates and discussions within transdisciplinary research. Finally, our analysis informed a discussion on the development of a research and practice agenda for how to move forward in dealing with tensions and building capabilities for a future of transdisciplinary research that can tackle the wicked problems of the Anthropocene.
5. Navigating the tensions in transdisciplinary research
Through identifying how to manage and navigate the different tensions, the projects reported in the literature built the capacity of team members and provided valuable insights into capability building of transdisciplinarians. Each set of actors have their own multiple logics (values, assumptions and practices) derived from the logics of their professional or disciplinary backgrounds coupled with the multiple logics of the project and their individual beliefs and value systems. They may have a dominant logic (e.g. knowledge generation for academia, social/environmental impact and public benefit for civil society and financial objectives for business) and also share other logics to varying degrees. Our analysis identified these different logics as they are reported at different stages of the innovation and research process.
Table 1 summarizes our analysis of the literature on the process of transdisciplinary research focusing on sustainability, and sets out a framework for understanding how transdisciplinary projects can overcome the tensions between logics at different stages of the research process. The table sets out the tensions reported by practitioners and academics at each stage, and the ways that projects reported overcoming the tensions and making transdisciplinarity work. We include indicative literature here but recognize that there could be many more references included for each point raised.
5.1 Problem identification and framing
Often transdisciplinary research projects found that those involved may each have different logics and values that shape their perceptions of a research problem or ways of framing it, which can result in the need to address conflict among team members (Dewulf et al., Reference Dewulf, Francois, Pahl-Wostl and Taillieu2007; Hegger et al., Reference Hegger, Lamers, Van Zeijl-Rozema and Dieperink2012). This conflict comes from different personal and organizational goals. Pohl (Reference Pohl2005) distinguishes between pure intellectual research and problem driven and action oriented research. Academics with their dominant logic of knowledge generation through scientific methods may see collaboration as a as a route to the production of new knowledge, whereas practitioners may see the collaboration as an approach to steer research towards the implementation of solutions to real world problems (Polk, Reference Polk2015).
Transdisciplinary research can encompass many forms of knowledge including practice based and experiential knowledge alongside academic/scientific knowledge that may be quantitative, qualitative, large scale, micro scale, or case studies (Lyon, Reference Lyon1996; Raymond et al., Reference Raymond, Fazey, Reed, Stringer, Robinson and Evely2010; Shrivastava et al., Reference Shrivastava, Ivanaj and Persson2013). Further, transdisciplinary research can engage with other sectors in ways that allows for the generation of new knowledge and mutual learning, resulting in impacts beyond academic advancements (Strand et al., Reference Strand, Ortega-Cisneros, Niner, Wahome, Bell, Currie, Hamukuaya, La Bianca, Lancaster, Maseka, McDonald, McQuaid, Samuel and Winkler2022). Transdisciplinary research challenges academic protectionism (Nicolescu, Reference Nicolescu2002) and can result in conflictual relationships between different professions or disciplines.
Analysis and reflections on transdisciplinary projects in practice identify ways of managing the tensions between logics (Brink et al, Reference Brink, Wamsler, Adolfsson, Axelsson, Beery, Bjorn, Bramryd, Ekelund, Palo, Sjeldrup, Stalhammar and Thiere2018). Non-reductionist and holistic approaches include multiple theoretical approaches and attention to the dynamics of whole systems (Alvargonzalez, Reference Alvargonzalez2011; Attwater et al., Reference Attwater, Booth and Guthrie2005). Such holistic approaches are found in research on sustainability science, sustainable livelihoods and community conservation where boundaries between disciplines and approaches are blurred (Belsky, Reference Belsky2002).
5.2 Building the transdisciplinary research team
A paradox inherent in transdisciplinary research is that its strength lies in gathering a diverse group of perspectives and players, but they must then be aligned towards common goals and research outcomes, with some authors calling for ‘convergence on univocal statements’ (Boon et al., Reference Boon, Chappin and Perenboom2014, p. 64). While diversity within teams can stimulate creation of new knowledge, too much diversity brings new challenges impacting communication and mutual understanding within the team, and may result in transdisciplinary team members being on different ‘wavelengths’ (Boon et al., Reference Boon, Chappin and Perenboom2014). Higher cognitive dissonance (i.e. from a broader range of backgrounds) offers more opportunities for generation of knew knowledge and transdisciplinary learning (Boon et al., Reference Boon, Chappin and Perenboom2014; Nooteboom, Reference Nooteboom1999) but also greater tensions.
Analyses of transdisciplinary projects report that few concepts are self-evident to all members of the research team, and differing concepts and meanings are not neutral (Bruce et al., Reference Bruce, Lyall, Tait and Williams2004). Communication among team members is a crucial aspect to facilitate collaboration and navigate the tensions between logics, avoiding the boundaries created by profession specific or disciplinary jargon that inhibits mutual understanding (Binder et al., Reference Binder, Absenger-Helmli and Schilling2015; Bracken & Oughton, Reference Bracken and Oughton2006; Broto et al., Reference Broto, Gislason and Ehlers2009; Hackett, Reference Hackett2005; Harris et al., Reference Harris, Lyon and Clarke2009; Mauz et al., Reference Mauz, Peltola, Granjou, van Bommel and Bujis2012; Price et al., Reference Price, Bowyer, Büker, Gray, Hahn, Lambe, Loh, Medcalf, Njoora, Waelde, Wainwright and West2023). Communication issues are even greater when international projects have to cope with language barriers (Siew et al., Reference Siew, Aenis, Spangenberg, Nauditt, Doll, Frank, Ribbe, Rodriguez-Labajos, Rumbaur, Settele and Wang2016).
Building relationships to encourage deeper connection among participants is important, although this can take time and resources (Bracken & Oughton, Reference Bracken and Oughton2006; Jones & MacDonald, Reference Jones and Macdonald2007). Some argue that inherently this means transdisciplinary projects cannot be achieved in one or even three years and thus require long-term commitment and funding (Lieberknecht et al., Reference Lieberknecht, Houser, Rabinowitz, Pierce, Rodríguez, Leite, Lowell and Gray2022). As individual participating organizations change and develop, representatives attending meetings may change over the course of the project, creating greater challenges in terms of building personal relationships (Harris et al., Reference Harris, Lyon and Clarke2009). Long term amicable relations engender openness and trust, allowing research teams to raise questions and challenge ideas in a mutually constructive way (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013). Strong ties between members of research teams result in exchange of more ‘fine-grained’ information and hence more intensive collaboration (Boon et al., Reference Boon, Chappin and Perenboom2014, p. 54).
Facilitators are important in building relationships between actors and ensuring that all voices are encouraged to speak out and be heard (Renner et al., Reference Renner, Schneider, Hohenwallner, Kopeinig, Kruse, Lienert, Link and Muhar2013; Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Pretorius, McClure, Iipinge, Mwalukanga and Mamombe2021). Where the cultural distance between parties is great, these intermediaries can bridge the boundaries by recognizing and working with the competing logics (Schauppenlehner-Kloyber & Penker, Reference Schauppenlehner-Kloyber and Penker2015; Yusuf, Reference Yusuf2008). This allows 'boundary spanners' (Williams, Reference Williams2002) to bring diverse institutional logics and cultures from practice and academia together. They can support communication (Horlick-Jones & Sime, Reference Horlick-Jones and Sime2004), and some projects have engaged ‘embedded researchers’ with the specific goal of bridging between practice and academia (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Pretorius, McClure, Iipinge, Mwalukanga and Mamombe2021). Similarly, boundary organizations are designed to mediate between different communities and build links between intellectual neighbors (Cundill et al., Reference Cundill, Roux and Parker2015).
5.3 Agreeing the methods and managing data collection
As transdisciplinary research teams bring together people with widely differing institutional logics and approaches to the concept of knowledge, challenges arise concerning the selection of methods for investigating problems. These challenges relate to the nature of knowledge (or epistemology) as well as the approaches to collecting evidence. Theoretical and methodological pluralism challenges the concept of a single view of quality as defined against disciplinary standards (Guggenheim, Reference Guggenheim2006). There can be tensions with opposing views concerning the type of data (qualitative or quantitative data), sample frames (size and location), and the means of collection (practitioner or researcher led). Furthermore, there can be differences between practitioners and academia in terms of the rigor required behind particular evidence (Harris et al., Reference Harris, Lyon and Clarke2009). Where problem identification and framing calls for a holistic approach that allows for the exploration of the interaction of variables, there are challenges for researchers looking to isolate particular variables and identify causality. Academic researchers may be looking for evidence to satisfy a peer review process whereas business and civil society organizations may want to know what works in a particular location (Houser et al., Reference Houser, Sullivan, Smiley, Muthukrishnan, Browning, Fudickar, Title, Bertram and Whiteman2021). This raises particular challenges with regard to the nature of ‘proof’ that affects how a transdisciplinary research project designs data collection and how it shares any results. While transdisciplinary research can be challenging for some, others find a sense of freedom as they abandon constraints and move to new disciplines (Giri, Reference Giri2002; Houser et al., Reference Houser, Sullivan, Smiley, Muthukrishnan, Browning, Fudickar, Title, Bertram and Whiteman2021) so transcending boundaries and avoiding the ‘institutional and conceptual straight-jacket of the disciplines’ (Horlick-Jones & Sime, Reference Horlick-Jones and Sime2004, p. 453).
5.4 Analyzing and integrating results
With multiple sources of data from different actors each shaped by different institutional logics, there are tensions within a transdisciplinary project between holistic approaches that examine a wide range of variables and reductionist approaches that seek to isolate variables. Reflections on managing transdisciplinary research projects show the importance of finding ways of synthesizing such material and examining the interconnections of ecological processes (Huber & Rigling, Reference Huber and Rigling2014). What distinguishes inter and transdisciplinary studies from multidisciplinary studies is that synthesizing and interpreting complex data from multiple scales and disciplines happens as research is formulated and undertaken, rather than as an afterthought (Lacy et al., Reference Lacy, Miller, Nyhus, Pollak, Raboy and Zeigler2013). The more challenging component for transdisciplinarians is translating results from one case to another, and building strong arguments by analogy for this are key (Eigi-Watkin & Koskinen, Reference Eigi-Watkin and Koskinen2023). Working across sectors can also mean continuity of a project beyond the conventional period that research is funded, with some actors being better positioned to continue implementation (Hölsgens et al., Reference Hölsgens, Wascher, Bauer, Boll, Bund, Dankwart-Kammoun, Heese, Schrot, Schultze and Tenambergen2023).
5.5 Publishing, dissemination, and implementing results
The different goals and institutional logics of business, civil society, policy makers and academics require careful management of the project outputs (Boon et al., Reference Boon, Chappin and Perenboom2014). Some team members may prioritize academic publications, while others may desire outputs which are more relevant to public goals (Boon et al, Reference Boon, Chappin and Perenboom2014). Other stakeholders, including NGOs, may want outputs more relevant to their own organizations (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013). Buizer et al. (Reference Buizer, Arts and Westerink2016) identify the challenges of co-authoring outputs with government departments that may require approval, or with communities, for whom publication may not be a priority. Furthermore, academics are driven by the institutional logics of universities demanding publications that ‘score’ highly for research assessment, and are not as richly rewarded for other types of outputs (Schmidt & Pröpper, Reference Schmidt and Pröpper2017). Some researchers note that academics feel a project is finished when academic research is completed and published, whereas practitioners feel the project is not complete until findings are implemented into practice and evaluated (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013). Successful collaborations that overcome tensions were found to consider the needs of different audiences of the research. Outputs need to be relevant to all the stakeholders involved (Bracken et al., Reference Bracken, Bulkeley and Whitman2015).
Transdisciplinarity as a research approach is supported by practices that use the simplest language possible and produce results that are widely understandable (Brandt et al., Reference Brandt, Ernst, Gralla, Luederitz, Lang, Newig, Reinert, Abson and Von Wehrden2013). Quality is therefore not only judged on traditional academic conceptions of research rigor, but also by the salience to citizens, civil society, and businesses involved (Boon, et al., Reference Boon, Chappin and Perenboom2014; Brandt et al., Reference Brandt, Ernst, Gralla, Luederitz, Lang, Newig, Reinert, Abson and Von Wehrden2013; Guggenheim, Reference Guggenheim2006).
5.6 Evaluating the research practice
Evaluating transdisciplinary projects cannot be done with a single framework for all projects. Each project works with multiple perspectives, knowledge systems, and types of evidence, which requires an adjusted co-learning performance assessment and impact evaluation framework (Plummer et al., Reference Plummer, Blythe, Gurney, Witkowski and Armitage2022). Transdisciplinary projects described in the literature frequently report an element of reflection within the project (Bracken & Oughton, Reference Bracken and Oughton2006; Fry, Reference Fry2001; Jones & Macdonald, Reference Jones and Macdonald2007; Plummer et al., Reference Plummer, Blythe, Gurney, Witkowski and Armitage2022; Podesta et al., Reference Podesta, Natenzon, Hidalgo and Toranzo2013; Pohl, Reference Pohl2008; Romero-Lankao et al., Reference Romero-Lankao, Borbor-Cordova, Abrutsky, Gunthers, Behrenz and Dawidowsky2013; Roux et al., Reference Roux, Stirzaker, Breen, Lefroy and Cresswell2010) that, if done early in the project, can feed into improvements of project design throughout the process (Podesta et al., Reference Podesta, Natenzon, Hidalgo and Toranzo2013; Roux et al., Reference Roux, Stirzaker, Breen, Lefroy and Cresswell2010).
Managing transdisciplinary projects can be complex, with each partner having different expectations (Plummer et al., Reference Plummer, Blythe, Gurney, Witkowski and Armitage2022); therefore allowing time and space for ‘room to fail’ and the opportunity to learn from mistakes is needed. If challenges emerge during the research process (Gaziulusoy et al., Reference Gaziulusoy, Ryan, McGrail, Chandler and Twomey2016), commissioners of transdisciplinary research may be asked to recognize the potential uncertainties (Simon & Schiemer, Reference Simon and Schiemer2015) and be flexible with research plans. Successful collaboration occurs when there is time for co-reflection and social learning, and needs to be written into the project (Hegger et al., Reference Hegger, Lamers, Van Zeijl-Rozema and Dieperink2012; Plummer et al., Reference Plummer, Blythe, Gurney, Witkowski and Armitage2022; Radinger-Peer et al., Reference Radinger-Peer, Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Penker and Gugerell2022). However, funders want a clear plan and budget for a project, whereas transdisciplinary projects often involve negotiation along the way, which means that proposals contain an element of uncertainty that is hard to plan for and cost in proposals. Face to face meetings and communication are reported to be better than written reports for exploring differences and fostering social learning (Bruce et al., Reference Bruce, Lyall, Tait and Williams2004; Crowston et al., Reference Crowston, Specht, Hoover, Chudoba and Watson-Manheim2015; Guimarães et al., Reference Guimarães, McKee, Lima, Vasconcelos, Boski and Dentinho2015; Renner et al., Reference Renner, Schneider, Hohenwallner, Kopeinig, Kruse, Lienert, Link and Muhar2013). Experiences throughout the COVID-19 pandemic era also underlined that online meetings were challenging for transdisciplinary work (highlighted in the Sustainability, Research and Innovation 2023 Congress session titled: Just transition and climate change resilience in coastal communities). Furthering the evaluation of research practices, going beyond journal publications and impact factors will require new types of impact assessments such as interviews or surveys in society and uptake in policy (Beyond the Academy, 2022). Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis (PIPA) approach is one other way for measuring impact (Radinger-Peer et al., Reference Radinger-Peer, Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Penker and Gugerell2022). At a wider scale, there is a need to evaluate transdisciplinarity at a funding program level (Holzer et al., Reference Holzer, Carmon and Orenstein2018) to ensure learning from individual projects is fed into future programs.
6. Managing tensions arising within transdisciplinary processes: A research and practice agenda
Having identified the tensions arising within transdisciplinary research teams at each stage of the research process, and approaches to navigate those tensions, this paper now sets out an agenda for further consideration in future research on transdisciplinary efforts.
6.1 Accepting ambiguity
Overcoming or working with tensions requires individuals and organizations with the capacity to accept and be open to a diversity of perspectives, and hold multiple logics at one time in what has been referred to as ambidexterity and managing paradox (Andriopoulos & Lewis, Reference Andriopoulos and Lewis2009; Besharov & Smith, Reference Besharov and Smith2014). Managing transdisciplinary research entails finding ways of working with the multiple logics that may be in conflict and managing the tensions that may arise. Within the transdisciplinary space, the clashes of logics co-exist with collaborative working. Some may view this space as a zone of trade-offs where benefits are perceived to outweigh the challenges of collaboration. However, in some instances this space becomes a ‘sweet spot’ where, released from the ‘straight jackets’ of disciplines and institutional logics, groups are able to tackle challenges in new and innovative ways to investigate complex systems and co-produce new knowledge and insights into sustainability. Shared vision among all partners of the project is at the heart of building trust and working for a goal that is bigger than the sum of the parts.
6.2 Supporting meaningful collaboration: moving from diversity to inclusion
While much research has reflected on the transdisciplinary process from the perspective of academia, there is less research that presents the voice of other participants (Bracken et al., Reference Bracken, Bulkeley and Whitman2015; Maynard, Reference Maynard2013 and Lane et al., Reference Lane, Odoni, Landstrom, Whatmore, Ward and Bradley2011). It is these actors, drawn from business, civil society, policy makers, the wider public, and other knowledge holders whose contributions make interdisciplinary research transdisciplinary (See Figure 1). Research with these stakeholders would inform wider debates about the benefits, pitfalls, and future directions of transdisciplinary research. Research is also needed to explore the best approaches for building capacity of boundary spanners, partners in think tanks, public sector and businesses such as consultancies, as well as universities.
6.3 Fostering relationships
Relationships and trust (Fry, Reference Fry2001; Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013) are at the heart of transdisciplinary research with real challenges in terms of shared understanding and communication when cognitive distance and major epistemological and ontological differences exist across the research team and contrasting institutional logics. The experience of projects reported in the literature highlights the importance of compromise, flexibility and negotiation (Horlick-Jones & Sime, Reference Horlick-Jones and Sime2004), as well as creating bridges where there is distance (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013; Reed & Abernethy, Reference Reed and Abernethy2018; Yusuf, Reference Yusuf2008). Competencies of trust building are thus identified to be important.
6.4 Acknowledging and managing power within collaborative teams
Relationships are shaped by power relations (Cundill et al., Reference Cundill, Roux and Parker2015; Kareem et al., Reference Kareem, McClure, Walubwa, Koranteng, Mukwaya and Taylor2022; Schmidt & Pröpper, Reference Schmidt and Pröpper2017; Simon & Schiemer, Reference Simon and Schiemer2015). An analysis from 59 transdisciplinary projects in Germany by Jahn et al. (Reference Jahn, Newig, Lang, Kahle and Bergmann2022) found this to be an important challenge. Power shapes both who is involved, as well as how they are involved. Those who control funding are also able to exert power (Schimidt & Pröpper, Reference Schmidt and Pröpper2017), sometimes through subcontracts to partners, or even peer pressure (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2014). If there are considerable imbalances of power, participation may be tokenistic, and some stakeholders not represented at all (Botha et al., Reference Botha, Klerkx, Small and Turner2014; Renner et al., Reference Renner, Schneider, Hohenwallner, Kopeinig, Kruse, Lienert, Link and Muhar2013).
Research funding exerts the most explicit form of power within projects. The source of funding (academic research councils, government bodies or non-academic sources) often dictates who is eligible to apply (or at least lead a bid), as well as the nature of the goals and outputs. Research councils generally require academic institutions to play a lead, in which case they become gatekeepers to funding. So this influences projects from the initial call and formation of the project team. Funding programs identify research priorities, eligibility of research partners, types of activity or role (e.g. postdoc, PhD) which may be funded, and any co-funding requirements. These can impact on research priorities and research team membership, and potentially shape proposed outputs from the project, so impacting right through the project to when final outputs are prepared and disseminated. Project proposals require a particular academic style and language which may be more accessible to some partners than others.
A variety of methods have been used to tackle imbalances of power, such as stakeholder workshops, face-to-face team meetings, data collection methods, reporting, and knowledge exchange with the many audiences for transdisciplinary research (public, practitioners, industry, media, academic). The relative costs of using such methods to address power imbalances should be acknowledged.
Imbalances of power within projects are often noticed when projects reach the stage of sharing outputs. Different stakeholders may desire different outputs, with some desiring academic publications, others wanting outputs more suited to public goals (Boon et al, Reference Boon, Chappin and Perenboom2014) and others (e.g. NGOs and other stakeholders) wanting outputs suitable for distribution by their own organizations (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2013). Jahn et al. (Reference Jahn, Newig, Lang, Kahle and Bergmann2022) encourages ‘research to increase efforts to mitigate the tradeoffs between societal and academic impacts and outputs’.
6.5 Building capabilities for a future of transdisciplinary research
Transdisciplinarians require the specific skills and competencies to enable them to engage with the multiple logics found in such projects (academic knowledge generation, commerce, policy change etc). We argue that there is a clear role for transdisciplinary research but more attention has to be given to building capabilities of all those involved (in academia, business, civil society, public sector). This can include learning through experience on projects but also requires higher education to train the transdisciplinarians of the future.
As demand for transdisciplinary research increases there is growing interest in what makes a good transdisciplinary researcher. Research on the competencies of what make good transdisciplinarians are still limited (Trencher et al., Reference Trencher, Yarime, McCormick, Doll and Kraines2014; Wiek et al., Reference Wiek, Withycombe and Redman2011). In particular, what ‘softer skills’, qualities, or characteristics a researcher needs to enable them to work within the tensions of transdisciplinary research (Schönenberg et al., Reference Schönenberg, Boy, Hartberger, Schumann, Guggenberger, Siebold, Lakes, Lamparter, Schindewolf, Schaldach, Nendel, Hohnwald, Meurer, Gerold and Klingler2017). Jay (Reference Jay2013) described the key competencies of individuals and teams in such boundary spanning spaces is the ability to find ways of working together and navigating the different tensions to foster synergistic relationships rather than perpetuating situations of clashing cultures. This competency can be seen at all stages of the research process from problem identification and defining the goals of the project, through the research process, to delivering outputs.
Transdisciplinary research is seen as an academic borderland with academics uncertain whether it is an ‘in-between space’ or a ‘cross-cutting’ space (Felt et al., Reference Felt, Igelsböck, Schikowitz and Völker2012; Lau & Pasquini, Reference Lau and Pasquini2004). Some may feel a transdisciplinarian is an excluded non-entity who does not fit into the structure and systems of academia, whereas others see transdiscplinarians as a new form of researcher. It requires a particular set of skills to act as a transdisciplinarian, and there are further challenges to working across the boundaries of research and practice, and at the interface of science – policy. This therefore raises questions regarding the types of training and education required to cope with the challenges and tensions discussed in the previous sections. Central to this debate is the mono-disciplinary focus of academia.
Max-Neef (Reference Max-Neef2005) called for a reorientation in higher education to support transdisciplinarity to occur within an individual's thinking processes. Increasingly, transdisciplinary masters and doctoral programs are offered that seek to foster an ethos of engagement among disciplines and beyond academia from the outset of academic careers (Felt et al., Reference Felt, Igelsböck, Schikowitz and Völker2012). These programs have a role to play in creating alternative academic spaces and a sense of belonging. Such programs seek to foster an ethos of engagement among disciplines and beyond from the outset of academic careers, recognizing that transdisciplinary communities of practice must be nurtured (Cundill et al., Reference Cundill, Roux and Parker2015). These programs are considering wider professional development (Cianelli et al., Reference Cianelli, Hunsicker, Beaudreau, Bailey, Crowder, Finley, Webb, Reynolds, Sagmiller, Anderies, Hawthorne, Parrish, Heppell, Conway and Chigbu2014) and bridging skills (Goven et al., Reference Goven, Langer, Baker, Ataria and Leckie2015). Fam et al. (Reference Fam, Smith, Cordell, Fam, Palmer, Riedy and Mitchell2016) identify 6 C's of a transdiscplinarian (curiosity, creativity, commitment, critical awareness, communication and connectedness). Team building has been brought forward as an important element for the success of a transdisciplinary project (Radinger-Peer et al., Reference Radinger-Peer, Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Penker and Gugerell2022). This ‘non-science expertise’ (Popa et al., Reference Popa, Guillermin and Dedeurwaerdere2015) includes practices of reflexivity and social learning, all skills required to achieve transdisciplinary outcomes of mutual transformational learning (Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Moore, Clement, Lockwood, Anderson, Gaynor, Gilfedder, Rowe, Norman and Lefroy2017). Emerging research acknowledges that these skills, including innate abilities, are part of the characteristic of a transdisciplinarian (Augsberg, Reference Augsberg2014; Fam et al., Reference Fam, Smith, Cordell, Fam, Palmer, Riedy and Mitchell2016).
6.6 Creating reward structures to support those engaging in transdisciplinary research
Transdisciplinary research presents challenges to PhD and postdoctoral researchers who are seeking permanent posts within universities as academic appointments are largely based on having a track record of publications in high impact journals which are central to specific disciplines (Houser et al., Reference Houser, Sullivan, Smiley, Muthukrishnan, Browning, Fudickar, Title, Bertram and Whiteman2021). However, those who seek to move into employment outside of academia have found that the transdisciplinary research experience and the links to practice that were involved have facilitated their transition to new roles (Felt et al., Reference Felt, Igelsböck, Schikowitz and Völker2012). Thus, there is a debate as to whether training in transdisciplinary research should build the capacity of those seeking to stay within the academic world, or encourage those with experience and understanding of academic research to move toward work in civil society, the public sector, or business.
The requirement to publish in top ranked journals leads to an emphasis on mono-disciplinarity and is formalized by ‘Indicator driven assessment policies that foster disciplined mainstream research’ (Rafols et al., Reference Rafols, Leydesdorff, O'Hare, Nightingale and Stirling2012). Earlier reviews of sustainability science (Brandt et al., Reference Brandt, Ernst, Gralla, Luederitz, Lang, Newig, Reinert, Abson and Von Wehrden2013) found that papers were generally published in journals with low impact factors (defined by the average citations per paper) although in recent years there is an increasing trend of journals with a sustainability science focus increasing their impact factors.
Transdisciplinarity can create alternative norms, implicit values, and institutions (funding arrangements, publication outlets, conferences, and network) (Felt et al., Reference Felt, Igelsböck, Schikowitz and Völker2012). However, such an alternative space can impact on the traditional models of career progression (Duberley et al., Reference Duberley, Cohen and Mallon2006; Harris et al., Reference Harris, Lyon and Clarke2009).
7. Conclusions
This paper sought to explore the tensions in transdisciplinary approaches at different stages of research and innovation projects. We also reviewed the skills, knowledge and attributes required of transdisciplinary researchers to navigate the tensions. This work will support the development of a cadre of researchers able to work effectively to address the wicked problems of global sustainability in the Anthropocene using transdisciplinary approaches.
Through our review we found that transdisciplinary research is perceived to be more challenging than traditional research, due to the wider breadth of knowledge required, and the time required to get to know fellow team members and develop relationships and negotiate projects. In this paper we argue that learning to work with the different logics and values of all members of the project team is fundamental. Negotiation is required to address power imbalances between disciplines, and between scientists and lay practitioners. While this can require trade-offs, transdisciplinary research can also lead to new forms of innovation that meet multiple goals (e.g. both knowledge generation, community benefits, and financial profit).
Academic researchers may also have concerns about maintaining the quality of research while compromising with multiple research partners, and the potential impact this may have on academic publications and subsequent promotion within academic institutions. While some feel high levels of personal satisfaction and find the process of transdisciplinary research rewarding and stimulating, others find negotiation and perceived trade-offs off-putting, and return to their disciplinary bases (Guggenheim, Reference Guggenheim2006).
We believe there is a need for continued learning in transdisciplinary research and our scoping review highlighted the value of documenting lessons learned in peer-reviewed literature to advance the learning curve across organizations. In doing so, we also advance transformations to environmentally safe and socially just societies.
Acknowledgements
This paper draws on and develops an earlier working paper prepared for the ESRC Nexus Network (Harris & Lyon, Reference Harris and Lyon2014). The authors would like to acknowledge the Future Earth Health Knowledge-Action Network for the space it provided to discuss the development of this manuscript.
Authors’ contributions
FH and FL designed and initiated the project. FH, FL, GS, and KE conducted the review and wrote subsections. FH and FL wrote the first concise draft and GS and KE contributed to the further development. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding statement
This research was supported by a grant from the UK's ESRC Nexus Network program and ESRC Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity.
Competing interests
None.
