Elsevier

Research Policy

Volume 46, Issue 3, April 2017, Pages 678-692
Research Policy

Exploring transdisciplinary integration within a large research program: Empirical lessons from four thematic synthesis processes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.01.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We adapt a framework to compare integration across four synthesis processes.

  • We identify challenges and derive recommendations for future synthesis processes.

  • We recommend initiating synthesis processes concurrently with research projects.

  • We consider professional competences and management skills crucial for integration.

  • We recommend the promotion of communities of practice to support integration.

Abstract

What challenges do researchers face when leading transdisciplinary integration? We address this question by analyzing transdisciplinary integration within four thematic synthesis processes of the Swiss National Research Programme (NRP 61) on Sustainable Water Management. We adapt an existing analytical framework to compare transdisciplinary integration across the four synthesis processes regarding different types of generated knowledge (systems, target and transformation knowledge), different types of involved actors (core team, steering committee, advisory board, scientific experts and practice experts) and different levels of actor involvement (information, consultation and collaboration) at different stages of the processes. Based on a structured ex-post self-evaluation of the four synthesis processes, we present core challenges of transdisciplinary integration as perceived by core team members of the four synthesis processes and formulate empirically derived recommendations for designing and implementing future processes. We suggest that future synthesis processes should be conceptualized and initiated concurrently with all other individual research projects, involving a phasing-in stage where leaders conceptualize transdisciplinary integration, an intermediate stage of intense knowledge integration involving all relevant actor groups in a functional and dynamic way, and a final phasing out stage, where synthesis results are consolidated within the research program, validated by different actor groups and diffused to the target audiences. We argue that transdisciplinary integration requires professional competences, management skills and enough time. Finally, we suggest fostering communities of practice (CoP) to link committed leaders and enable mutual learning processes beyond the boundaries of individual synthesis projects or research programs.

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)

  • K. Huutoniemi et al.

    Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators

    Res. Policy

    (2010)
  • T. Jahn et al.

    An actor-specific guideline for quality assurance in transdisciplinary research

    Futures

    (2015)
  • T. Jahn et al.

    Transdisciplinarity: between mainstreaming and marginalization

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2012)
  • B. König et al.

    A framework for structuring interdisciplinary research management

    Res. Policy

    (2013)
  • J.T. Klein

    Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. A Literature Review

    Am. J. Prevent. Med.

    (2008)
  • C. Pohl

    From science to policy through transdisciplinary research

    Environmental Science & Policy

    (2008)
  • C. Pohl

    What is progress in transdisciplinary research?

    Futures

    (2011)
  • C.M. Raymond et al.

    Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (2010)
  • A. Specht et al.

    Catalysing transdisciplinary synthesis in ecosystem science and management

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2015)
  • G. Tress et al.

    Analysis of the barriers to integration in landscape research projects

    Land Use Policy

    (2007)
  • A.L. Vogel et al.

    The team science toolkit: enhancing research collaboration through online knowledge sharing

    Am. J. Prev. Med.

    (2013)
  • O. Barreteau et al.

    A framework for clarifying participation in participatory research to prevent its rejection for the wrong reasons

    Ecol. Soc.

    (2010)
  • W. Bechtel

    The nature of scientific integration

  • U. Beck

    Risikogesellschaft auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne

    (1986)
  • M. Bergmann et al.

    Quality Criteria of Transdisciplinary Research

    A Guide for the Formative Evaluation of Research Projects

    (2005)
  • M. Bergmann et al.

    Methods for Transdisciplinary Research

    A Primer for Practice.Campus Verlag, Frankfurt

    (2012)
  • Björnsen Gurung A., Stähli, M., 2014. Wasserressourcen der Schweiz: Dargebot und Nutzung – heute und morgen....
  • G.D. Brewer

    The challenges of interdisciplinarity

    Policy Sci.

    (1999)
  • CASS, ProClim

    Visions by Swiss Researchers. Research on Sustainability and Global Change ?Visions in Science Policy by Swiss Researchers

    (1997)
  • F. Caron-Flinterman

    A New Voice in Science. Patient Participation in Devision-making on Biomedical Research

    (2005)
  • S.R. Carpenter et al.

    Accelerate synthesis in ecology and environmental sciences

    Bioscience

    (2009)
  • G. Cundill et al.

    Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research

    Ecol. Soc.

    (2015)
  • T.H. Davenport et al.

    Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know

    (1998)
  • R. Defila et al.

    Evaluation criteria for inter- and transdisciplinary research

    Panorama Special Issue

    (1999)
  • R. Defila et al.

    Forschungsverbundmanagement. Handbuch für die Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinärer Projekte

    (2006)
  • N.K. Denzin et al.

    The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research

    (2005)
  • M. Gibbons

    The New Production of Knowledge: the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies

    (1994)
  • M. Gibbons

    Science's new social contract with society

    Nature

    (1999)
  • Cited by (64)

    • Mental models of a social-ecological system facilitate social learning among a diverse management team

      2021, Environmental Science and Policy
      Citation 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 Change
      Citation 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.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text