Navigating transdisciplinary research

Understand why transformative change research is value-laden. Influenced by motivations, preferences and assumptions. 

Different from a traditional scientific inquiry, which used to study "objects" or phenomena, sustainability science studies "problems", (e.g. biodiversity loss, pollution, hunger). Therefore, from the very beginning and at the early stage of the research when the inquiry is formulated, there is a desire for progression (Popa et al., 2015). In other words, a desire for change. 

Clarify and prepare the "problem" you want to study.  The characteristics of the problems under study (and under urgent transformation) are: uncertainty, complexity, instability, and value conflict (Loorbach, 2007; Popa et al., 2015).

To ensure it is a "problem" within the TC field, analyse whether it meets the characteristics described above.

Unsettled established assumptions related to the "problem" of study  (Lawhon et al., 2010). 

This means that each researcher involved, including you, regardless of discipline, needs to recognise the motivations for working on this problem, as well as the assumptions, desires, and perspectives. 

Remember that transdisciplinarity is not about putting together the pieces of a puzzle; it is about forming a coherent picture  (Lawhon et al., 2010)

You can use the following questions to guide the conversation and make sure everyone gets to share.

- Why is this problem ("object of study") important to me? 

- What is my principal concern regarding this research topic? 

- What are my aspirations, or how do I envision the resolution of these problems? 

- Which methods are more relevant to me for generating knowledge? Why? 

- What's the research pace I usually sustain? Do I strive for fast-paced experimentations or slow scene-making and engagement, or something else? 

Establish with all implied researchers' questions and problem-oriented goals. When engaging in this conversation, opinions and framing of the previous point might arise. Keep in mind that it is part of the process and that there will be friction between disciplines. But as Blaikie (2007) mentions, is this fiction that often provides the most exciting insights*

If you are working on a funded project with a pre-defined research question, timeline, and pre-established results, which is highly likely, then the exercise should be focused on sense-making. 

Useful questions can be:

What does this research question mean for each of us? 

How can my practice or research background contribute to this issue?

Are the words or concepts within the research delimitation that engage or disengage me in any way? Why? 

Spending time in "sense-making" is crucial 

Keep an active reflection practice to identify and analyse how institutional (university ways of working, academic rules) and power structures (financial influences, geography, culture, background) influence the way stakeholders within the research participate.

Mind the potential risks of transdisciplinarity and keep an active critical reflexivity process.

Based on  (Popa et al., 2015), some of the risks  are:

i) Becoming over-politicised at the expense of scientific soundness and reliability 

ii) Ambiguous epistemological and normative grounds undermining the capacity to find common ground and build knowledge

iii) Practical implementation of research results

Which others can you map? 

Ensure these three principles to guide your process 

- relevance, make sure the research process keeps the "problem" transformation at the core of the decision-making

- reliability, through  ongoing critical reflexivity, make sure that the produced knowledge is aware of biases, politization and power imbalance

- legitimacy, make sure the co-produced knowledge speaks to a broader audience, and this must be attained through the inclusion of diverse voices.