IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i2p219-229..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making sense of transdisciplinarity: Interpreting science policy in a biotechnology centre

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Bårdsen Hesjedal
  • Heidrun Åm

Abstract

Transdisciplinarity is a much-used concept in research policy to emphasize a need for new collaborations beyond scientific disciplines to solve societal challenges. However, how do scientists interpret transdisciplinarity and what do transdisciplinarity policies mean for their work? This paper focuses on researchers’ definitions of transdisciplinarity. It is based on an empirical study of a Norwegian biotechnology centre founded to stimulate a transition in biotechnology research towards transdisciplinarity. Drawing on interpretive methods, we identify three interpretations of transdisciplinarity. In our case, the science policy idea of ‘transdisciplinarity’ faded away in practice in terms of collaboration with non-academic actors, but boosted the establishment of new interdisciplinary teams. By pointing to the multiplicity of ways in which policy recipients can interpret science policy, this study contributes to scholarship analysing the relation between transdisciplinarity in policy and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:219-229.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac055
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Flink, Tim & Kaldewey, David, 2018. "The new production of legitimacy: STI policy discourses beyond the contract metaphor," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 14-22.
    2. Robert Evans & Simon Marvin, 2006. "Researching the Sustainable City: Three Modes of Interdisciplinarity," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1009-1028, June.
    3. Hackett, Edward J. & Leahey, Erin & Parker, John N. & Rafols, Ismael & Hampton, Stephanie E. & Corte, Ugo & Chavarro, Diego & Drake, John M. & Penders, Bart & Sheble, Laura & Vermeulen, Niki & Vision,, 2021. "Do synthesis centers synthesize? A semantic analysis of topical diversity in research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    4. Gisle Solbu, 2021. "Frictions in the bioeconomy? A case study of policy translations and innovation practices [‘Don’t Make Nanotechnology Sexy, Ensure Its Benefits, and Be Neutral’: Studying the Logics of New Intermed," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(6), pages 911-920.
    5. Irene Ramos-Vielba & Pablo D’Este & Richard Woolley & Nabil Amara, 2018. "Introduction to a special section: Balancing scientific and societal impact—A challenging agenda for academic research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 749-751.
    6. 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.
    7. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    8. Susana Borrás & Sylvia Schwaag Serger, 2022. "The design of transformative research and innovation policy instruments for grand challenges: The policy-nesting perspective [Transformative Innovation Policy Approach to E-waste Management in Ghan," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(5), pages 659-672.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Carlos Martin-Rios, 2016. "Innovative management control systems in knowledge work: a middle manager perspective," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 181-204, May.
    2. Elena Antonacopoulou, 2018. "Energising critique in action and in learning: The GNOSIS 4R Framework," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 102-125, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Guiette, Alain & Vandenbempt, Koen, 2017. "Change managerialism and micro-processes of sensemaking during change implementation," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 65-81.
    5. Martina Linnenluecke & Andrew Griffiths & Peter Mumby, 2015. "Executives’ engagement with climate science and perceived need for business adaptation to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 321-333, July.
    6. Jeffery S. McMullen & Dimo Dimov, 2013. "Time and the Entrepreneurial Journey: The Problems and Promise of Studying Entrepreneurship as a Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1481-1512, December.
    7. Emil Evenhuis, 2017. "Institutional change in cities and regions: a path dependency approach," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 10(3), pages 509-526.
    8. Stea, Diego & Foss, Nicolai J. & Christensen, Peter Holdt, 2015. "Physical separation in the workplace: Separation cues, separation awareness, and employee motivation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 462-471.
    9. Tiina J. Peltola & Hanna Tiirinki, 2020. "More Than Numbers: Discourses of Health Care Quality in Finland," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    10. Rydén, Pernille & Ringberg, Torsten & Wilke, Ricky, 2015. "How Managers' Shared Mental Models of Business–Customer Interactions Create Different Sensemaking of Social Media," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 1-16.
    11. Amal Aouadi & Sylvain Marsat, 2018. "Do ESG Controversies Matter for Firm Value? Evidence from International Data," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(4), pages 1027-1047, September.
    12. Joseph McManus, 2021. "Emotions and Ethical Decision Making at Work: Organizational Norms, Emotional Dogs, and the Rational Tales They Tell Themselves and Others," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 153-168, February.
    13. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban & Maria Nedeva, 2022. "From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’: The role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research [One Size Does Not Fit All! New Perspectives on the University ," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 643-645.
    14. Tongyu Meng & Jamie Newth & Christine Woods, 2022. "Ethical Sensemaking in Impact Investing: Reasons and Motives in the Chinese Renewable Energy Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(4), pages 1091-1117, September.
    15. Hyunha Shin & Dieter F. Kogler & Keungoui Kim, 2024. "The relevance of scientific knowledge externalities for technological change and resulting inventions across European metropolitan areas," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 44(2), pages 193-209, June.
    16. Sandra Waddock, 2019. "Shaping the Shift: Shamanic Leadership, Memes, and Transformation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 931-939, April.
    17. Elfenbein, Hillary Anger, 2007. "Emotion in Organizations: A Review in Stages," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt2bn0n9mv, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    18. Chris Tennant & Susan Howard & Sally Stares, 2021. "Building the UK vision of a driverless future: A Parliamentary Inquiry case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Emmanuel Laffort & Emmanuelle Cargnello-Charles, 2014. "Reducing the Risk of Fraud in Financial Market: Psychosocial Drivers and Enactment-Based Perspective," Post-Print hal-02010166, HAL.
    20. Helka Kalliomäki & Johanna Kalliokoski & Thomas Woodson & Leena Kunttu & Jari Kuusisto, 2024. "Inclusion as a science, technology, and innovation policy objective in high-income countries: the decoupling dilemma," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(5), pages 795-807.

    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:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:2:p:219-229.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.