Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes
Introduction
Research activities are increasingly organized as large programs that involve a variety of individual projects and a diversity of actor groups (Adler et al., 2009). In the field of sustainability research, these programs are often expected to contribute to solving today’s key sustainability problems (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2006). Due to the complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty of these problems, such programs often apply a transdisciplinary research approach (Jahn et al., 2012, König et al., 2013). This approach, which transcends disciplinary boundaries and bridges between science and practice, is intended to create a more comprehensive understanding of sustainability-related problems and develop practice-oriented solutions to deal with them (de Jong et al., 2016, Jahn et al., 2012, König et al., 2013, Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2008, Polk, 2014).
An increasing number of such large research programs produce a synthesis, mainly toward the end of the program. The synthesis takes stock of individual project results and generates new knowledge by integrating results to establish novel (i.e., previously unrecognized) connections between them (Jahn et al., 2012, Specht et al., 2015). To contribute to societal problem solving, program synthesis often includes targeted products tailored to the specific knowledge needs of intended audiences (Campbell et al., 2015, Defila et al., 2006, Lang et al., 2012, Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2007). Although “synthesis is increasingly recognized as an essential component of the scientific endeavor” (Carpenter et al., 2009; Hampton and Parker, 2011, p. 900), very few empirical studies examine how synthesis processes are structured (Bechtel, 1986, Bruce et al., 2004, Defila and Di Giulio, 2015, Enengel et al., 2012, Loibl, 2006), specifically to identify the knowledge types generated, the actor groups involved at different synthesis stages as well the extent of their involvement. There are even fewer studies (Lang et al., 2012) analyzing challenges that different synthesis stages pose in terms of knowledge integration and actor involvement.
We suggest that a detailed understanding of synthesis processes would support leaders in successfully designing and implementing transdisciplinary integration within large research programs. Exploring the challenges posed by synthesis processes should reveal critical aspects to consider when leading such processes. This could, in turn, minimize time-consuming ‘learning by doing’ processes, “which may unfortunately lead to a ‘re-inventing the wheel’ phenomenon, frequently experienced by researchers involved in inter- and transdisciplinary research projects” (König et al., 2013, p. 262; Tress et al., 2007).
Hence, this empirical study addressed three research questions:
- 1)
How are synthesis processes structured, who is involved and to what extent?
- 2)
What challenges do synthesis processes pose in terms of knowledge integration and actor involvement?
- 3)
What recommendations can be derived for future synthesis processes?
We addressed these questions by analyzing four thematic synthesis processes, which were capstone projects within the Swiss National Research Programme (NRP 61) on Sustainable Water Management. This paper first presents the conceptual framework underlying our empirical study and then describes the materials and methods used. The four synthesis processes are compared and similarities and differences with regard to knowledge types and actor groups as well as levels of actor involvement at different stages of the process are identified. Based on a structured ex-post self-evaluation of the four synthesis processes, core challenges of transdisciplinary integration as perceived by leaders (e.g. core team members) of transdisciplinary integration at different stages of the processes are presented. Finally, empirically-derived recommendations for designing future synthesis processes are formulated.
Section snippets
Conceptual framework
Previous research has mainly focused on transdisciplinary integration within research projects (Bechtel, 1986, Bruce et al., 2004, Enengel et al., 2012, Klein, 2012, Loibl, 2006) or on methods and procedures to support transdisciplinary integration (Bammer, 2008, Bergmann et al., 2012, Defila and Di Giulio, 2015, Karl et al., 2007, McDonald et al., 2009, Repko et al., 2012, Vogel et al., 2013). Less attention has been directed, however, toward transdisciplinary integration within large research
The NRP 61 case study
NRPs funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) represent coordinated research efforts, in which individual research projects with a common goal apply inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to contribute to the solution of contemporary problems of national importance (SNSF, 2010a). Information on NRP 61 on Sustainable Water Management is available on the SNSF website (http://www.nrp61.ch/en) and elsewhere (Hoffmann et al., 2017).
Program synthesis was conceived from the outset as a
Structure of synthesis processes
In this section, we follow Enengel et al. (2012) by first characterizing the different types of knowledge generated in the four synthesis processes and the different types of actors involved at different stages of the processes. We then identify the different levels of actor involvement throughout the processes.
Challenges of transdisciplinary integration
In this section, we will present empirical observations from the four TS processes and their overall framework conditions as derived from the interviews and the ex-post self-evaluation (see Section 3.2). First, we will illustrate challenges in terms of knowledge integration and actor involvement as perceived by core team members of the four TS. The challenges are assigned to the particular stage at which core team members experienced them (Fig. 1). Second, we will present challenges related to
Recommendations for future synthesis processes
Our study aimed at reflecting on transdisciplinary integration within large research programs. Interviews and workshops with different actor groups (i.e. core team members, experts from science and practice, steering committee presidents, program coordinators, and implementation officers of past and current NRPs including NRP 61, and representatives of the SNSF, see Section 3.2) allowed us to deliberate jointly on the four synthesis projects and reflect on the aspects that went well (or less
Conclusions
Empirical studies on synthesis processes within large research programs are lacking. By adapting Enengel et al. (2012)’s analytical framework, we describe, analyze, and compare transdisciplinary integration across four thematic synthesis processes. On this basis, we present core challenges of transdisciplinary integration as perceived by those leading the four processes and formulate recommendations for designing and implementing future synthesis processes. Our results are embedded in the
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation within the Swiss National Research Programme (NRP 61) on Sustainable Water Management, project number 406140_147458. We are grateful to all core team members of the four thematic synthesis projects, the NRP 61 steering committee, program manager and implementation officer for their participation in interviews and workshops and their insightful comments on two earlier versions of this paper. We thank the editor and two anonymous
References (77)
- et al.
The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: experiences from the Swedish context
Res. Policy
(2009) Enhancing research collaborations: three key management challenges
Res. Policy
(2008)- et al.
Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability
Ecol. Econ.
(2007) - et al.
A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science
Ecol. Econ.
(2013) - et al.
Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework Programme
Futures
(2004) - et al.
Designing environmental research for impact
Sci. Total Environ.
(2015) - et al.
Integrating knowledge: challenges raised by the Inventory of Synthesis
Futures
(2015) - et al.
Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: a quantitative study of two climate research programmes
Res. Policy
(2016) - et al.
Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development—An analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases
Landscape Urban Plann.
(2012) - et al.
Implications of transdisciplinarity for sustainability research
Ecol. Econ.
(2006)
Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators
Res. Policy
An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research
Futures
Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization
Ecol. Econ.
A framework for structuring interdisciplinary research management
Res. Policy
Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. A Literature Review
Am. J. Prevent. Med.
From science to policy through transdisciplinary research
Environmental Science & Policy
What is progress in transdisciplinary research?
Futures
Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management
J. Environ. Manage.
Catalysing transdisciplinary synthesis in ecosystem science and management
Sci. Total Environ.
Analysis of the barriers to integration in landscape research projects
Land Use Policy
The team science toolkit: enhancing research collaboration through online knowledge sharing
Am. J. Prev. Med.
A framework for clarifying participation in participatory research to prevent its rejection for the wrong reasons
Ecol. Soc.
The nature of scientific integration
Risikogesellschaft auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne
Quality Criteria of Transdisciplinary Research
A Guide for the Formative Evaluation of Research Projects
Methods for Transdisciplinary Research
A Primer for Practice.Campus Verlag, Frankfurt
The challenges of interdisciplinarity
Policy Sci.
Visions by Swiss Researchers. Research on Sustainability and Global Change ?Visions in Science Policy by Swiss Researchers
A New Voice in Science. Patient Participation in Devision-making on Biomedical Research
Accelerate synthesis in ecology and environmental sciences
Bioscience
Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research
Ecol. Soc.
Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know
Evaluation criteria for inter- and transdisciplinary research
Panorama Special Issue
Forschungsverbundmanagement. Handbuch für die Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinärer Projekte
The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research
The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies
Science's new social contract with society
Nature
Cited by (64)
Navigating force conflicts: A case study on strategies of transformative research in the current academic system
2023, Journal of Cleaner ProductionConceptualising global water challenges: A transdisciplinary approach for understanding different discourses in sustainable development
2021, Journal of Environmental ManagementMental models of a social-ecological system facilitate social learning among a diverse management team
2021, Environmental Science and PolicyCitation Excerpt :Oftentimes, the challenges facing social-ecological systems are multidimensional problems that lack clear definitions or solutions (Chapin et al., 2008). Managing these complex systems and challenges increasingly requires collaboration among diverse teams with a range of knowledge types and worldviews so that the boundaries of the problem can be understood from multiple perspectives, and the scope of potential solutions can be expanded (Tengö et al., 2014; Hoffmann et al., 2017). In practice however, the benefits of collaborative environmental management have proven difficult to achieve, and research shows this failure is often due to insufficient attention to the social and cultural factors that shape environmental outcomes (McCusker and Carr., 2006).
Science with society: Evidence-based guidance for best practices in environmental transdisciplinary work
2021, Global Environmental ChangeCitation Excerpt :Disagreement and conflicts among SWS participants are common (Lang et al., 2012; Cundill et al., 2019), and not always avoidable given the diversity of values, worldviews, and organizational structures involved (Jahn et al., 2012). Most SWS projects focus on mitigating conflict among participants, relying on strong leadership to anticipate and resolve disputes (Hoffmann et al., 2017). However, there is some evidence that conflict is necessary for learning to occur; a disorienting dilemma (Pennington et al., 2013) or cognitive struggle (Bransford et al., 2006) can challenge SWS participants’ understandings and pave the way for meaningful learning.
Investigating Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity: How Meta-Ethnography Contributes to the Study of Collaborative Research Practices
2024, International Journal of Qualitative Methods