Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233561936
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
31
39
114
1 AUTHOR:
Arnim Wiek
Arizona State University
86 PUBLICATIONS 1,746 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
52_57_Wiek
52
18.02.2007
11:25 Uhr
Seite 52
SCHWERPUNKT: TRANSDISZIPLINARITT
Arnim Wiek
The paradigm of transdisciplinarity (or mode-2 knowledge production) has evolved due to a revised positioning of science in
society. It claims to outperform disciplinary and interdisciplinary research in addressing complex societal challenges such as depletion of resources, disposal of nuclear waste or governing controversial technologies.1 Nowadays, the term transdisciplinary
labels a variety of programmes and projects in which scientists
and persons from business, administration, government and the
public to put it carefully interact intentionally and purposefully to generate socially robust and scientifically reliable knowledge
(Brand 2000, Nowotny et al. 2001, Thompson Klein et al. 2001,
Burger and Kamber 2003, Balsiger 2005, Scholz et al. 2006; see
for an overview: Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2006). The aspect of
knowledge generation is of core interest, as transdisciplinarity
is regarded as a research paradigm (Balsiger 2005, Zierhofer and
Burger 2007, in this issue). During the past two decades, a wide
variety of transdisciplinary research programmes and projects have
been conducted in Europe, such as the Swiss Priority Programme
Environment (SPPU) in Switzerland, the Austrian Landscape Research programme (KLF) in Austria, and the Social-Ecological Research programme (SF) in Germany. Some of the transdisciplinary programmes and projects have already been studied (partly
in vivo) or even evaluated with regard to knowledge generation
(Brand 2000, Gisler et al. 2004, Balsiger 2005, Maasen and Lieven
2006, Robinson and Tansey 2006, Zierhofer and Burger 2007, in
this issue).
A smaller but internationally conducted programme is the
International Transdisciplinary Network on Case Study Research and
Teaching (ITdNet) initiated at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich (Scholz et al. 2006). Since 1993, about 20
transdisciplinary case studies on regional development, urban mobility, industrial networks, and technology governance have been
conducted at the network nodes in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and Sweden (Scholz and Posch 2006). In line with the reflex-
Abstract
There are already a variety of contributions focusing on the aspect
of knowledge generation in transdisciplinary research. Along the
same lines, this article analyses the features of knowledge generation in transdisciplinary case studies initiated at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology (ETH) Zurich and conducted in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and Sweden. The article starts with the
description of what kind of knowledge is generated when and how
in transdisciplinary case studies. On this basis, the quality of the
underlying social interactions in terms of challenges, pitfalls and
good practices is critically reflected against normative guidelines
derived from the literature. Promoting the concept of transdisciplinary research as a third epistemic way demarcated
from involving laypersons in scientific research (the primacy of
science) as well as from classical decision support (the primacy
of practice) four challenges of joint knowledge generation are
discussed: confounded agendas, separate data philosophies,
reluctance to face exposure, and co-existing values. A new type
of mediated negotiation, so-called epistemediation, is proposed
at the transdisciplinary interface between scientists and local experts,
incorporating a new type of multi-layered peer review of expertise.
Keywords
case study research, epistemology, extended peer review,
interactive knowledge generation, mediated negotiation,
transdisciplinarity
Contact: Dr. Arnim Wiek | ETH Zurich | Institute for Environmental Decisions | Natural and Social Science Interface |
CHN K 73.1 | ETH Zentrum | 8092 Zurich | Switzerland |
Tel.: +41 44 6325260 | E-Mail: wiek@env.ethz.ch
52_57_Wiek
18.02.2007
11:25 Uhr
Seite 53
SCHWERPUNKT: TRANSDISZIPLINARITT
53
FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH
>
54
18.02.2007
11:25 Uhr
Seite 54
FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH
BOX:
Arnim Wiek
as usual, active marketing, fusion to one major company, diversification specialised products, and intensive co-operation). The scenarios were subsequently assessed by experts and by representatives of
relevant stakeholder groups (e.g., sewers, woodworking industry, administration, and forestry). The assessments interactively co-produced normative knowledge in terms of desired and undesired scenarios (e. g., for
the wood industry, the scenarios business as usual and fusion to one
major company were rated to be less favourable when compared to each
of the other scenarios. Moreover, the results indicate that the most desirable future state is a mix of the scenarios active marketing, diversification specialised products, and intensive co-operation).
Relying on normative knowledge in terms of latent, yet unstructured problem perceptions and general preferences, three environmentally relevant
and economically vulnerable business sectors, namely the textile industry, wood industry, and dairy farming, were selected as case facets (cf.
figure).
Based on the insights of the scenario assessment, action-guiding knowledge was jointly generated in terms of strategic orientations, such as joint
events (e. g., annual public wood day for active marketing) and specific networking activities (e. g., regional clustering of textile companies,
and chain-building activities towards a wood chain).
FIGURE: Sawmill in Appenzell Ausserrhoden. Practitioners and researchers interactively collaborated in the case study on traditional regional
small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) challenged by structural change and its socio-economic as well as environmental implications.
52_57_Wiek
52_57_Wiek
18.02.2007
11:25 Uhr
Seite 55
SCHWERPUNKT: TRANSDISZIPLINARITT
receiving group (learning). Typical settings for level-1 interactions are expert or stakeholder hearings, focus or advisory groups,
or information panels (Van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp 2002, Rowe
and Frewer 2005).
Level 2: Mutual One-Way Information
On this level, scientists and local experts constitute a bi- or multidirectional relation to exchange relevant information. Discussions
may take place to a minimal extent for clarification purposes. The
transferred information may be distributed and confirmed by the
receiving groups on both sides (mutual learning: Thompson
Klein et al. 2001). The typical settings for level-2 interactions are
similar to those on level 1.
Level 3: Collaborative Research
On this level, scientists and local experts not only exchange relevant information but jointly generate (new) knowledge on the
basis of their scientific as well as local expertise (joint research).
It might be useful to depart from Rossini and Porter (1979), who
propose four forms of collaborative research (socio-cognitive
research frameworks), focusing on how the research output is
determined by inter-individual interactions (cf. Pohl and Hirsch
Hadorn 2006). In this concept, intensive group interactions (e.g.,
common group learning) are presented alongside more indirect interactions (e. g., integration by leader). The latter, however, do not go beyond the levels of information (level 1 or 2). Contrary to that, interactive/collaborative research includes various
collective and social processes such as collective reasoning, disputation, negotiation and consensus building, in which various
interaction tools and media (e. g., models, questionnaires, focus
groups) are applied (Gisler et al. 2004). Observing such processes
in vivo (Maasen and Lieven 2006) reveals the imperfect reality
of transdisciplinary research. Pressures of content, time and social context as well as stereotypical images about participation,
stakeholders, etc. lead to different forms of controlling and management, e. g. for affirming expertise or facilitating the processes (cf. Brand 2000). These measures strongly predetermine the
scope, type, and range of interactions and thus play a major role
regarding the quality of the knowledge-generation process, and,
therefore, of the generated knowledge (cf. Gisler et al. 2004, Maasen and Lieven 2006). For instance, due to the aforementioned
pressures, in the majority of the transdisciplinary case studies
analysed, the involvement of stakeholders in the scenario-assessment phase displays two shortcomings. First, it relied rather on
an established and to some extent contingent network of agents
than on a criteria-based stakeholder analysis. Second, the assessment procedure was rather a static than an interactive and collaborative procedure that would have allowed for in-depth discussions and negotiations among stakeholder groups and experts
(cf. Scholz et al. 2003).
Evidently, (mutual) learning (levels 1/2) is a prerequisite for
collaboration. Typical settings for level-3 interactions are interactive workshops, consensus conferences, collaborative planning,
or cooperative discourses (Van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp 2002,
55
FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH
Gisler et al. 2004, Rowe and Frewer 2005, Defila et al. 2006, Pohl
and Hirsch Hadorn 2006).
Level 4: Joint Decision-Making
The interactions outlined on the levels 13 are restricted to prototypical constellations between the scientists and local experts,
thus neglecting the role of (prototypical) strategic agents, e. g.,
policy and decision makers. On level 4, scientists and local experts
not only jointly generate (new) knowledge, and pass the new insights on to strategic agents, who may use them in their decisionmaking process (level 3). Going beyond this situation, on level 4,
strategic agents are an integral part of the joint research, that is,
deeply implicated in the knowledge-generation process and not
only embedded in the contextual decision-making process. Interactions on this level replace decision support or policy advice in
their classic forms (cf. Rowe and Frewer 2005). Coined as responsibilisation of all actors involved (Maasen and Lieven 2006), this
stage of interactive research not only purposefully disturbs the
epistemic asymmetry but also the normative asymmetry between science and policy, or society (cf. Gisler et al. 2004). The
idea of pure science is eventually replaced by the idea of concerned science which is not only legitimised but obliged to contribute
to the generation of normative and action-guiding knowledge,
in particular. Conceptualised for rationalising decision-making
(Zierhofer and Burger 2007, in this issue), instead of adjusting,
accompanying or providing political fig leaves, this level of interaction strives for a balanced constellation among the agents
involved in the knowledge-generation process (Guimares Pereira
and Funtowicz 2006).
Evidently, (mutual) learning (levels 1 and 2) and collaboration
(level 3) are prerequisites for joint decision-making. The typical
settings for level-4 interactions are similar to those on level 3.
>
52_57_Wiek
56
18.02.2007
11:25 Uhr
Seite 56
FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH
Arnim Wiek
52_57_Wiek
18.02.2007
11:25 Uhr
Seite 57
SCHWERPUNKT: TRANSDISZIPLINARITT
References
Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planning 35: 216224.
Balsiger, P. W. 2005. Transdisziplinaritt. Munich: Fink.
Brand, K. W. 2000. Nachhaltige Entwicklung und Transdisziplinaritt. Berlin:
Analytica.
Burger, P., R. Kamber. 2003. Cognitive integration in transdisciplinary science:
Knowledge as a key notion. Issues in Integrative Studies 21: 4373.
CASS (Conference of the Swiss Scientific Academies), ProClim (Forum for
Climate and Global Change, Swiss Academy of Science). 1997. Research
on sustainability and global change Visions in science policy by Swiss
researchers. Bern: ProClim.
Defila, R., A. Di Giulio, M. Scheuermann. 2006. Forschungsverbundmanagement.
Handbuch zur Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinrer Projekte. Zurich: vdf.
Gisler, P., M. Guggenheim, A. Maranta, C. Pohl, H. Nowotny. 2004. Imaginierte
Laien Die Macht der Vorstellung in wissenschaftlichen Expertisen. Weilerswist:
Velbrck Wissenschaft.
Grunwald, A. 2004. Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: The need
for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society.
International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1: 150167.
Guimares Pereira, A., S. Funtowicz. 2006. Knowledge representation and
mediation for transdisciplinary frameworks: Tools to inform. International
Journal of Transdisciplinary Research 1: 3450.
Krtli, P., M. Stauffacher, T. Fleler, R. W. Scholz. 2006. Public involvement in
repository site selection for nuclear waste: A dynamic view. In: Proceedings
of the 2006 VALDOR Conference VALues in Decisions On Risk. Edited by
K. Andersson. Stockholm: Congrex. 97106.
Maasen, S., O. Lieven. 2006. Transdisciplinarity: A new mode of governing
science? In: Discipline and research: Practices of inter-/transdisciplinary
cooperations in science. Special Issue. Science and Public Policy 33/6.
Herausgegeben von S. Maasen, M. Lengwiler, M. Guggenheim. 399410.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science. Knowledge and
the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
Pohl, C., G. Hirsch Hadorn. 2006. Gestaltungsprinzipien fr die transdisziplinre
Forschung. Ein Beitrag des td-net. Munich: oekom.
Pregernig, M. 2007. Wirkungsmessung transdisziplinrer Forschung: Es fehlt
der Blick aus der Distanz. GAIA 16/1: 4651.
FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH
Arnim Wiek
Born in 1972 in Loma Linda, CA, USA. Master in
Philosophy from Free University Berlin, PhD
in Environmental Sciences from ETH Zurich.
20052006 senior researcher at the Institute for
Human-Environment Systems at ETH Zurich.
From Spring 2007, visiting researcher at the
University of British Columbia (Vancouver),
Harvard University, and the Australian
National University. Research interests:
transdisciplinarity, integrated methodology of
modelling, scenario construction and assessment.
57