IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v74y2017icp30-39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions

Author

Listed:
  • Thompson, Mary Anne
  • Owen, Susan
  • Lindsay, Jan M.
  • Leonard, Graham S.
  • Cronin, Shane J.

Abstract

Transdisciplinary approaches are becoming increasingly adopted as a way to research complex socio-environmental problems. Conceptually, transdisciplinarity aims to foster meaningful knowledge co-production through integrative and participatory processes that bring together diverse actors, disciplines, and knowledge bases. In practice, transdisciplinarity is more ambiguous. While there is a growing body of literature on such approaches, there remains no widely-accepted definition, concrete framework, or empirical strategy for how to carry out a transdisciplinary project. We propose that this lack of explicit structure and entrenched meaning leaves space for transdisciplinary approaches to be shaped by the evolving network of participating scientists and stakeholders, according to their perspectives of the approach and what it embodies. Here, we examine the perspectives of a diverse group of actors (n=42) embarking on a 10-year transdisciplinary research project focused on building resilience to natural hazards and disasters in New Zealand. We present the findings of qualitative surveys and group interviews that investigate stakeholders’ and scientists’ early perspectives of transdisciplinary, or co-created, research. The study represents the first stage of longitudinal research that will continue over the course of the project. Results show that early actors in the project share an overall consistent understanding of co-created research. Participants described a process that integrated diverse people and knowledge; created benefits on both a social and personal level; fostered clear, two-way dialogue; and overcame pragmatic and intrinsic challenges. Collectively, participants agreed with adopting transdisciplinary approaches to natural hazard, risk, and resilience research, with stakeholders showing a stronger degree of agreement than scientists. While attitudes towards transdisciplinarity were overall positive, a number of underlying conflicts emerged in regards to carrying out new modes of knowledge production within traditional social and institutional structures. These conflicts result in a tension that is felt by actors involved in transdisciplinary projects early on, and in some cases, influences perception of their ability to fully participate in such an approach. Evaluating actor perspectives and expectations early in the transdisciplinary process can give insight into how attitudes, expectations, and conflicts might shape transdisciplinary efforts, and can provide relevant parameters for assessing change over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Thompson, Mary Anne & Owen, Susan & Lindsay, Jan M. & Leonard, Graham S. & Cronin, Shane J., 2017. "Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes, expectations, and tensions," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 30-39.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:74:y:2017:i:c:p:30-39
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116307493
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Fleming, Aysha & Stitzlein, Cara & Jakku, Emma & Fielke, Simon, 2019. "Missed opportunity? Framing actions around co-benefits for carbon mitigation in Australian agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 230-238.
    2. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Jakku, E. & Fleming, A. & Espig, M. & Fielke, S. & Finlay-Smits, S.C. & Turner, J.A., 2023. "Disruption disrupted? Reflecting on the relationship between responsible innovation and digital agriculture research and development at multiple levels in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Josep Lloret & Rafael Abós-Herràndiz & Sílvia Alemany & Rosario Allué & Joan Bartra & Maria Basagaña & Elisa Berdalet & Mònica Campàs & Arnau Carreño & Montserrat Demestre & Jorge Diogène & Eva Fontde, 2020. "The Roses Ocean and Human Health Chair: A New Way to Engage the Public in Oceans and Human Health Challenges," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Nicholas A Cradock-Henry & Joanna Fountain & Franca Buelow, 2018. "Transformations for Resilient Rural Futures: The Case of Kaikōura, Aotearoa-New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Sophie Mok & Ernesta Mačiulytė & Pieter Hein Bult & Tom Hawxwell, 2021. "Valuing the Invaluable(?)—A Framework to Facilitate Stakeholder Engagement in the Planning of Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, March.
    7. Robert Axelsson & Magnus Ljung & Malgorzata Blicharska & Michael Frisk & Marianne Henningsson & Grzegorz Mikusiński & Lennart Folkeson & Görgen Göransson & Sofia Jönsson-Ekström & Anders Sjölund & Jan, 2020. "The Challenge of Transdisciplinary Research: A Case Study of Learning by Evaluation for Sustainable Transport Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-24, August.
    8. Viola Hakkarainen & Katri Mäkinen‐Rostedt & Andra Horcea‐Milcu & Dalia D'Amato & Johanna Jämsä & Katriina Soini, 2022. "Transdisciplinary research in natural resources management: Towards an integrative and transformative use of co‐concepts," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 309-325, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Fielke, Simon J. & Kaye-Blake, William & Mackay, Alec & Smith, Willie & Rendel, John & Dominati, Estelle, 2018. "Learning from resilience research: Findings from four projects in New Zealand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 322-333.
    11. Livia Fritz & Claudia R. Binder, 2018. "Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-29, August.
    12. Yonat Ivzori & Dalia Sachs & Shunit Reiter & Naomi Schreuer, 2020. "Transition to Employment Program (SUPER) for Youth at Risk: A Conceptual and Practical Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-16, May.
    13. Katja Bender, 2022. "Research–Practice–Collaborations in International Sustainable Development and Knowledge Production: Reflections from a Political-Economic Perspective," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(4), pages 1691-1703, August.
    14. Siebenhüner, Bernd, 2018. "Conflicts in Transdisciplinary Research: Reviewing Literature and Analysing a Case of Climate Adaptation in Northwestern Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 117-127.
    15. Maria Bårdsen Hesjedal & Heidrun Åm, 2023. "Making sense of transdisciplinarity: Interpreting science policy in a biotechnology centre," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 219-229.
    16. Megan J. Grace & Jen Dickie & Phil Bartie & Caroline Brown & David M. Oliver, 2023. "Understanding Health Outcomes from Exposure to Blue Space Resources: Towards a Mixed Methods Framework for Analysis," Resources, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-20, 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:eee:enscpo:v:74:y:2017:i:c:p:30-39. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    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.