IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v33y2006i6p399-410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transdisciplinarity: a new mode of governing science?

Author

Listed:
  • Sabine Maasen
  • Olivier Lieven

Abstract

What exactly does it mean to integrate extra-academic types of knowledge, interests and values into the procedures of scientific knowledge production? In this paper, we shall approach these questions from a ‘lab study perspective’, investigating the discourses and practices that constitute doing transdisciplinarity. Based upon an ongoing empirical research project, we call for a novel perspective: the task of producing ‘socially robust knowledge’, often couched in terms of extended responsibility of science vis-á-vis society, can also be regarded as a specific instance of neo-liberal rationality in research practice and science policy, at large. As scientific claims to accountability and truth have come under critique throughout the last decades, they now have to be reworked on the micro-level of transdisciplinary projects. Transdisciplinarity is thus revealed as a new mode of governing science in society. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Sabine Maasen & Olivier Lieven, 2006. "Transdisciplinarity: a new mode of governing science?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(6), pages 399-410, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:6:p:399-410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154306781778803
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jana Zscheischler & Sebastian Rogga & Maria Busse, 2017. "The Adoption and Implementation of Transdisciplinary Research in the Field of Land-Use Science—A Comparative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Jahn, Thomas & Bergmann, Matthias & Keil, Florian, 2012. "Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-10.
    3. Benedikt Fecher & Freia Kuper & Nataliia Sokolovska & Alex Fenton & Stefan Hornbostel & Gert G. Wagner, 2021. "Understanding the Societal Impact of the Social Sciences and Humanities: Remarks on Roles, Challenges, and Expectations," RatSWD Working Papers 276, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    4. Serna M., Edgar, 2015. "Maturity model of transdisciplinary knowledge management," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 647-654.
    5. Stefan Thomas & David Scheller & Susan Schröder, 2021. "Co-creation in citizen social science: the research forum as a methodological foundation for communication and participation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Melissa Robson-Williams & Bruce Small & Roger Robson-Williams & Nick Kirk, 2021. "Handrails through the Swamp? A Pilot to Test the Integration and Implementation Science Framework in Complex Real-World Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, May.
    7. Wiek, Arnim & Zemp, Stefan & Siegrist, Michael & Walter, Alexander I., 2007. "Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 388-406.
    8. Kerstin Sell & Franziska Hommes & Florian Fischer & Laura Arnold, 2022. "Multi-, Inter-, and Transdisciplinarity within the Public Health Workforce: A Scoping Review to Assess Definitions and Applications of Concepts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-23, September.
    9. Marina Knickel & Karlheinz Knickel & Francesca Galli & Damian Maye & Johannes S. C. Wiskerke, 2019. "Towards a Reflexive Framework for Fostering Co—Learning and Improvement of Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:6:p:399-410. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.