IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i11p1926-d116446.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Adoption and Implementation of Transdisciplinary Research in the Field of Land-Use Science—A Comparative Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Jana Zscheischler

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Institute of Socio-Economics, Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany
    Centre for Technology and Society (ZTG), Technische Universität Berlin, Hardenberg Str. 16-18, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Sebastian Rogga

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Institute of Socio-Economics, Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany)

  • Maria Busse

    (Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Institute of Socio-Economics, Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany)

Abstract

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) is discussed as a promising approach in land-use science and spatial research to address complex multifaceted “real-world problems” and to design strategies and solutions for sustainable development. TDR has become a widespread research approach in sustainability science and is increasingly promoted by research programmes and agencies (e.g., Future Earth and Horizon 2020). Against this backdrop, TDR can be considered a (social) innovation in the academic system, which is currently in the midst of an up-scaling diffusion process from a rather small TDR-advocating expert community to a broader science-practice community. We argue that this up-scaling phase also places TDR in a critical state as the concept potentially risks a type of “rhetorical mainstreaming”. The objectives of this study were to analyse how the challenging approach of TDR is currently adopted and implemented in the field of land-use research and to identify potential influencing factors. We studied 13 transdisciplinary research projects from Germany by performing qualitative interviews with coordinators, document analysis and participatory observation during meetings over a period of five years. Results show that the adoption level of the TDR concept varied widely among the studied projects, as did the adoption of the TDR indicators used in our analysis. In many of the investigated projects, we identified a clear lack of conceptual knowledge of TDR. In addition, we found that current academic structures limit the ability of researchers to thoroughly adapt to the requirements of TDR. We conclude that further communication and educational efforts that promote TDR are required. In addition, we advocate for the development of suitable funding instruments that support sustained research structures.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:1926-:d:116446
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/1926/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/1926/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baumgärtner, Stefan & Becker, Christian & Frank, Karin & Müller, Birgit & Quaas, Martin, 2008. "Relating the philosophy and practice of ecological economics: The role of concepts, models, and case studies in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 384-393, October.
    2. Rosenfield, Patricia L., 1992. "The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1343-1357, December.
    3. Jahn, Thomas & Bergmann, Matthias & Keil, Florian, 2012. "Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-10.
    4. Vandermeulen, V. & Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2008. "Designing trans-disciplinary research to support policy formulation for sustainable agricultural development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 352-361, October.
    5. Cajaiba-Santana, Giovany, 2014. "Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 42-51.
    6. Luk Van Langenhove, 2012. "Make social sciences relevant," Nature, Nature, vol. 484(7395), pages 442-442, April.
    7. Geoff Mulgan, 2006. "The Process of Social Innovation," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 1(2), pages 145-162, April.
    8. Ana Viseu, 2015. "Integration of social science into research is crucial," Nature, Nature, vol. 525(7569), pages 291-291, September.
    9. Hirsch Hadorn, Gertrude & Bradley, David & Pohl, Christian & Rist, Stephan & Wiesmann, Urs, 2006. "Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 119-128, November.
    10. Alice B. M. Vadrot & Jens Jetzkowitz & Lindsay C. Stringer, 2016. "IPBES disciplinary gaps still gaping," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7589), pages 160-160, February.
    11. van der Have, Robert P. & Rubalcaba, Luis, 2016. "Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1923-1935.
    12. 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.
    13. Aeberhard, Andrea & Rist, Stephan, 2009. "Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in the development of organic agriculture in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1171-1181, February.
    14. Leydesdorff, Loet & Gauthier, Elaine, 1996. "The evaluation of national performance in selected priority areas using scientometric methods," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 431-450, May.
    15. Anthony Hodgson, 2012. "A Transdisciplinary World Model," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(5), pages 517-526, September.
    16. Laurens K Hessels & John Grin & Ruud E H M Smits, 2011. "The effects of a changing institutional environment on academic research practices: three cases from agricultural science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(7), pages 555-568, August.
    17. Peter Weingart, 2005. "Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(1), pages 117-131, January.
    18. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    19. Brandt, Patric & Ernst, Anna & Gralla, Fabienne & Luederitz, Christopher & Lang, Daniel J. & Newig, Jens & Reinert, Florian & Abson, David J. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2013. "A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-15.
    20. Jakobsen, Christine Haugaard & Hels, Tove & McLaughlin, William J., 2004. "Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analyses: a cross-country comparison," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 15-31, January.
    21. Schneidewind, Uwe & Singer-Brodowski, Mandy & Augenstein, Karoline & Stelzer, Franziska, 2016. "Pledge for a transformative science: A conceptual framework," Wuppertal Papers 191, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Busse, Maria & Zscheischler, Jana & Zoll, Felix & Rogga, Sebastian & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2023. "Co-design approaches in land use related sustainability science – A systematic review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Barbara Schröter & Claudia Sattler & Jean Paul Metzger & Jonathan R. Rhodes & Marie-Josée Fortin & Camila Hohlenwerger & L. Román Carrasco & Örjan Bodin, 2023. "Exploring the role of boundary work in a social-ecological synthesis initiative," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(2), pages 330-343, June.
    3. Cheng-Yu Yu & Yi-Chang Chiang, 2017. "Designing a Climate-Resilient Environmental Curriculum—A Transdisciplinary Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Eduardo Gomes, 2020. "Sustainable Population Growth in Low-Density Areas in a New Technological Era: Prospective Thinking on How to Support Planning Policies Using Complex Spatial Models," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Sabine Hoffmann & Lisa Deutsch & Julie Thompson Klein & Michael O’Rourke, 2022. "Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Fumihiko Yokota & Manish Biyani & Rafiqul Islam & Ashir Ahmed & Mariko Nishikitani & Kimiyo Kikuchi & Yasunobu Nohara & Naoki Nakashima, 2018. "Lessons Learned from Co-Design and Co-Production in a Portable Health Clinic Research Project in Jaipur District, India (2016–2018)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    7. Laurens K. Hessels & Stefan P.L. De Jong & Stijn Brouwer, 2018. "Collaboration between Heterogeneous Practitioners in Sustainability Research: A Comparative Analysis of Three Transdisciplinary Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Paul Stock & Rob J.F. Burton, 2011. "Defining Terms for Integrated (Multi-Inter-Trans-Disciplinary) Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(8), pages 1-24, July.
    3. Schmidt, Laura & Falk, Thomas & Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna & Spangenberg, Joachim H., 2020. "The Objectives of Stakeholder Involvement in Transdisciplinary Research. A Conceptual Framework for a Reflective and Reflexive Practise," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Ana Guzmán Ruiz & Meredith Dobbie & Rebekah Brown, 2017. "Insights and future directions of transdisciplinary practice in the urban water sector," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(2), pages 251-263, June.
    5. Jahn, Thomas & Bergmann, Matthias & Keil, Florian, 2012. "Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1-10.
    6. Hoffmann, Sabine & Pohl, Christian & Hering, Janet G., 2017. "Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 678-692.
    7. Arora-Jonsson, Seema, 2016. "Does resilience have a culture? Ecocultures and the politics of knowledge production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 98-107.
    8. Hubeau, Marianne & Marchand, Fleur & Coteur, Ine & Mondelaers, Koen & Debruyne, Lies & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2017. "A new agri-food systems sustainability approach to identify shared transformation pathways towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 52-63.
    9. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & K. Matthias Weber, 2022. "Innovation Studies, Social Innovation, and Sustainability Transitions Research: From mutual ignorance towards an integrative perspective?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2227, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    10. Chiara Certomà, 2020. "Digital Social Innovation and Urban Space: A Critical Geography Agenda," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(4), pages 8-19.
    11. 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.
    12. Evelien de Hoop, 2020. "More Democratic Sustainability Governance through Participatory Knowledge Production? A Framework and Systematic Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-30, July.
    13. Stephanie Jahn & Jens Newig & Daniel J. Lang & Judith Kahle & Matthias Bergmann, 2022. "Demarcating transdisciplinary research in sustainability science—Five clusters of research modes based on evidence from 59 research projects," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 343-357, April.
    14. Wendy Phillips & Elizabeth A. Alexander & Hazel Lee, 2019. "Going It Alone Won’t Work! The Relational Imperative for Social Innovation in Social Enterprises," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 315-331, May.
    15. Adena R. Rissman & Lori Barrow, 2019. "Characteristics of collaborative, interdisciplinary, and engaged research among graduate students in environmental conservation," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(3), pages 297-310, September.
    16. Francisco Adro & Cristina I. Fernandes, 2020. "Social innovation: a systematic literature review and future agenda research," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 17(1), pages 23-40, March.
    17. Troullaki, Katerina & Rozakis, Stelios & Kostakis, Vasilis, 2021. "Bridging barriers in sustainability research: Α review from sustainability science to life cycle sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    18. Christian Omobhude & Shih-Hsin Chen, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability: The Case of Oil Producing Communities in the Niger Delta region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-26, November.
    19. Joana Dias & Maria Partidário, 2019. "Mind the Gap: The Potential Transformative Capacity of Social Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Wenyuan Li & Mohammed Abubakari Sadick & Abdul-Aziz Ibn Musah & Salisu Mustapha, 2018. "The Moderating Effect of Social Innovation in Perspectives of Shared Value Creation in the Educational Sector of Ghana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, November.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:1926-:d:116446. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.