Methodological challenges of trans-disciplinary research: some systemic reflections

Abstract

-This essay was written in response to an invitation by the editors of NSS issued after the author had reviewed the paper entitled "Methodological challenges of trans-disciplinary research" submitted by Christian Pohl and Gertrude Hirsch-Hadorn (see . The essay provides an accounting for the transformation in my emotioning as I read the submitted paper by introducing three sets of distinctions: (i) a model of research practice; (ii) an explication of the nature of research situations and (iii) an exploration of the different intellectual lineages that give rise to contemporary systems approaches. I then return to the paper that was under review through the lens of trans-disciplinary research as social learning. Mots-clés :pratiques de recherche ; transdisciplinarité ; apprentissage social ; démarche système Résumé -Défis méthodologiques de la recherche transdisciplinaire : quelques réflexions systémiques. Cet essai résulte d'une invitation des rédacteurs de NSS à Ray Ison qui lui a été faite à la suite de ses commentaires sur l'article intitulé « Methodological Challenges of trans-disciplinary Research » proposé par Christian Pohl et Gerturde Hirsch-Hadorn (voir Pohl et , qui lui avait été soumis pour lecture. L'essai qui suit rend compte, dans un premier temps, de ses réactions à la lecture de cet article à partir de trois entrées : a) un modèle des pratiques de recherche, issu de sa propre tradition venant de la Soft Systems Methodology britannique, b) Une explication de la nature des « situations de recherche », qu'il présente comme des situations non banales, à aborder avec précaution, c) Une exploration des différentes filiations intellectuelles à l'origine de la démarche systémique contemporaine. Il revient ensuite à l'article de Pohl et Hirsch-Hadorn, qu'il commente en l'abordant par l'angle de la recherche transdisciplinaire en tant qu'apprentissage social. Il développe ainsi un point de vue conceptuel d'un ordre différent de celui choisi par les auteurs de l'article, pointant là où ces approches divergent et là où elles se rencontrent.My experience of reviewing the paper by Pohl and Hirsch-Hadorn gave rise to two contrasting emotionsthe first was one of excitement that the methodological basis of trans-disciplinarity was being taken seriously by this group of researchers and that it was a debate that NSS considered worthy of fostering. This emotion also triggered a sense of anticipation -I was struck by the relevance of their opening questions:

Experiential Science; Towards an Integration of Implicit and Reflected Practitioner-Expert Knowledge in the Scientific Development of Organic Farming

“…It can also be used to provide a framework of orientation for the various scientific disciplines and scientific approaches and to reflect on the different attitudes and foci of a researcher (Baars 2002). Ison (2008) therefore warns about the existing lack of epistemological awareness amongst scientists; unable to cross the disciplinary boundaries, they remain unaware that they are acting out of their own, unique traditions of understanding. Such a framework might be a helpful tool to help them reflect on their contradicting epistemological awareness.…”

Beginning at the end: The outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research

“…Bammer, 2013). Ison (2008) notes that the existence of this variance brings with it a special responsibility: as authors and practitioners contributing to the development of transdisciplinary research Fig. 1.…”

Sustainable Catchment Managing in a Climate Changing World: New Integrative Modalities for Connecting Policy Makers, Scientists and Other Stakeholders

“…Reflexivity, we suggest negates the emerging claims in some circles for an 'integration science'; what is missing from most of these accounts is evidence and guidance about how to practice and institutionalise integration (see Pohl et al 2008;Ison 2008c for issues associated with integration and transdisciplinarity). Anon (2007) exemplifies how integration is essentially a form of reflexive practice: "integration .. is most successful when there is a process of interaction rather than a one-way delivery of knowledge on the doorstep of the policy maker.…”

“…Practice of any form is more than the method or approach employed and a reason why 'new tool' development in and of itself often fails as a research and policy strategy. Practice is better understood as an unfolding relational dynamic between a practitioner (a person or group, with a history and an implicit or explicit set of theoretical framings), a method (tool, technique, approach) and a situation (which can also be understood as having a history ;Ison 2008cIson , 2010 ) and Italy (Toderi et al 2007). (iii) Intermediary objects: living and non-living objects of mutual interest can be used as focal points of reference in identifying stakeholders and co-deliberating on stakeholdings.…”

“…Within the second metaphor it is the conservation over time of the dynamic relationship of a structurally coupled system that is important-a dynamic in which human understandings and practices, including human designed institutions, mediate the relationship. When a shift in perspective occurs concerned with understanding our understandings then a second-order understanding is generated (Ison 2008c).…”