Linking transdisciplinary research projects with science and practice at large: Introducing insights from knowledge utilization

Abstract

Recent empirical studies show a persistent gap between 'socially robust' knowledge produced by transdisciplinary research projects and its ability to promote change on a large scale. Current discourses about the 'project-to-science-and-practice-at-large gap' have focused mainly on exploring various conditions that need to be fulfilled to produce 'socially robust' knowledge. Yet, those discourses have rarely built on the broader literature of knowledge utilization, which Greenhalgh and Wieringa (2011) emphasize acknowledges 'the fundamentally social ways in which knowledge emerges, circulates, and gets applied in practice.' Their insights are helpful in advancing our understanding of why transdisciplinary research projects do or do not contribute to sustainability on a large scale. Expanding Jahn et al. (2012) model of transdisciplinary research, we present a revised conceptual model of an ideal-typical, interactive, and iterative transdisciplinary research process that adds two new phases from the field of knowledge utilization to their original three-phase model and accounts for the social and relational nature of knowledge utilization. The revised model includes five phases through which transdisciplinary projects operate in different order: (i) defining sustainability problems, (ii) producing new knowledge, (iii) assessing new knowledge, (iv) disseminating new knowledge in realms of both science and practice, and (v) using new knowledge in both realms.

Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change

“…This should bring together different forms of knowledge in a transdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral approach, giving indigenous and local knowledge due representation (Chazdon, 2020; Lavorel et al, 2019; Meselhe et al, 2020). Researchers and research‐users should agree on research aims and co‐produce the evidence base needed to support well‐designed NbS (Hoffmann et al, 2019; Knapp et al, 2019), and researchers must communicate their findings in clear, policy‐relevant ways (Neßhöver et al, 2013). Genuine collaboration between researchers and research users increases the legitimacy, ownership and accountability of the solutions (Mauser et al, 2013).…”

“…Currently, few of the studies reporting adaptation outcomes of NbS also consider mitigation and broader social outcomes, and biodiversity outcomes in particular are often only implied or rudimentarily studied (Chausson et al, 2020). Robust monitoring and evaluation of the multiple benefits of NbS across landscapes and societies demand a transdisciplinary approach to research that can capture environmental, economic and social impacts (Hoffmann et al, 2019; Scholz & Steiner, 2015) and this must be tailored to local value systems and perspectives (Sterling et al, 2017). Integrated valuation can promote more equitable and inclusive governance of NbS (Liquete et al, 2016; Pascual et al, 2017); scenario analyses can help to identify policies that minimize trade‐offs (Metzger et al, 2017) and quantification of trade‐offs can be used support participatory approaches for dealing with conflicts (King et al, 2015).…”

Indicators to evaluate organisational knowledge brokers: a scoping review

“…Knowledge translation (KT)a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge [3] has been advocated in high level policy meetings and echoed in practice by major health policy actors like WHO as a key approach for linking research and policy [4][5][6][7]. KT has been implemented in a variety of disciplines using several different, often overlapping frameworks [8][9][10][11][12][13]. The Lavis et al [14] framework developed to assess country-level efforts to link research to action has been widely adopted in the health policy arena [14][15][16][17].…”

Informal settlements in a COVID-19 world: moving beyond upgrading and envisioning revitalisation

“…A planetary health framing lends itself to a transdisciplinary approach. Transdisciplinarity, as distinct from inter-disciplinarity, involves not only various academic disciplines but also non-academic sectors such as industry, government, and communities, to codefine problems and co-deliver integrated solutions (Hoffmann et al 2019). Transdisciplinarity broadens the scope for non-academic knowledge systems and understanding, such as community and indigenous knowledge.…”