News

„What can we learn from each other in order to carry out a successful inter- and/or transdisciplinary research process (IR/TR) in the field of natural resource use?“, this was the main question of the workshop organised by the Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research UFZ and by the specialist group Dryland Research of the German Society of Ecology at the Leipziger KUBUS. 

50 junior and senior scientists from a variety of different fields (ranging from ecology and agriculture to institutional economics and philosophy) met for an open exchange and discussion at this workshop funded by the Helmholtz Interdisciplinary GRADuate School for Environmental Research (HIGRADE) at the UFZ. 

The concept of the workshop was an attempt to integrate knowledge and experiences from different perspectives on inter- and transdisciplinary research. It aimed at (1) providing an open exchange forum on good and bad experiences learned in case studies of sustainable resource use, (2) reflecting on their theoretical prerequisites with respect to inter- und transdisciplinarity and (3) training appropriate instruments and methodologies that facilitate the management of the actual research process. The explicit consideration and integration of these three dimensions – experiences, methods & instruments - turned out to be quite worthwhile.  

The workshop approach was reflected in the following four workshop components of which each is of very specific character: (1) World Café, (2) keynote lectures, (3) parallel working groups, and (4) seminar on instruments. In detail:

World Café is a type of moderated small round table conversation that facilitates profound thematic discussions in a rather informal atmosphere. As a communication methodology it provides a frame for the exchange of experiences, opinions and expectations towards the workshop theme and it therewith helped to form an open and enriching exchange on the workshop topic from the very beginning.

(2) Keynote lectures: Three scientists with long term research experiences in the field of inter- and transdisciplinary research provided a knowledge basis and current crucial research questions as a starting point for the subsequent parallel working groups.

Thomas Jahn (Director of the Institute for Social Ecological Research (ISOE), Frankfurt) presented in his lecture “Dealing with critical knowledge – Basic understanding and criteria of transdisciplinary research” his ideal of an integrative transdisciplinary research process and discussed in particular the challenge of integration as well as the added value of transdisciplinarity for the research output.

Susanne Stoll-Kleemann (Chair of Applied Geography and Sustainability Science, University Greifswald) gave a presentation on “Transdisciplinary Research in Theory and Practice ‐ Case Studies from Socio-economic Biodiversity Research”. She discussed general implementation challenges by the example of GoBi, an inter- and transdisciplinary research project with focus on biodiversity.

Christoph Görg (Chair of Environmental Governance at the University of Kassel, Dept. of Social Sciences at the Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig) reflected in his lecture “Science and Politics in Transdisciplinary Research” on the different roles scientists can take when involved in decision making support. 

To integrate the experiences of development organisations, Benjamin Mohr from the “Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit – GTZ” (German Technical Cooperation) reported about a development project run by the GTZ in rural Nigeria. He emphasised the importance of a transdisciplinary multi-level approach which builds up on joint decisions of all stakeholders and takes the capacity development of the parties involved into account.

Parallel working groups: The participants of the workshop presented and discussed their experiences and knowledge in IR/TR by the example of own research projects and case studies, mostly dealing with natural resource use in drylands but also with other resource use systems (e.g. rain forests). In order to structure the parallel working groups and their output the following three aspects had been suggested by the organising team: (1) essential elements (good and bad factors) of IR/TR in the presented research project/case study, (2) lessons learned which may be of general importance for other inter- and transdisciplinary projects/case studies, and (3) open research questions derived from one’s own experiences in IR/TR.

The working group presentations in the plenum provided a number of factors which are essential for successful IR/TR and pitfalls which make IR/TR difficult. In short workshop summaries Christoph Görg and Mi-Yong Lee-Peuker (both Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ) attempted to structure these important factors:

Constraints: It is crucial to differentiate between external conditions which are very difficult to influence (e.g. spatial or time constraints) and internal conditions which may be subject to change (e.g. different languages of researchers involved in the project). Frustrations about given external constraints may be avoided and motivation for changing those factors which can be changed should be focused for the enhancement of the research process. 

Stakeholder integration and science-policy interface: The accurate integration of stakeholders is considered indispensable from the very beginning, i.e. during the proposal preparation period. The integration of stakeholders in the research process is very time and resource consuming on all levels and stages of the research process. Funding agencies should be aware of this circumstance and should hence include resources for stakeholder integration also for the pre-proposal stage. The appreciation of local knowledge and the consideration of different cultural perception are of particular importance.

Open questions in science-policy interface: How can we enhance existing types of scientist roles? The ideal type of the “honest broker”, a type of scientist who clarifies options, but leaves all decisions to decision makers, seems to be quite popular, but now appears to be in need for further investigation.

Education: A new and specific education is needed for the demanding challenges of IR/TR. It is to be offered on the undergraduate and graduate level as well as a part of further education for senior scientists. An adequate curriculum for each stage / target group should be developed.

Project management /Leadership and coaching of a project: Possible limits/constraints of a project should be analysed already on the planning stage. Furthermore, it is strongly indicated from various experiences that the involvement of external mediators/coaches is extremely fruitful to the management of the research process.

Open questions (miscellaneous): (1) How to make tools, methodological developments and pitfalls learned from case studies available for interested colleagues? One promising platform for an exchange of information and ideas is offered by td-net:  www.transdisciplinarity.ch. (2) What kind of scientist is eligible for IR/TR projects? Which abilities and qualifications are required? (3) Could a general guide on how to design and carry out  IR/TR projects be useful? How should such a guide be conceptualized? 

A seminar on instruments for the development & organisation of IR/TR held by Hubert Schübel completed the workshop. In the interactive part the emphasis was put on the classification of good and bad factors extracted during the parallel working groups as external constraints versus internal aspects, divided in three parts: content, coordination and social-emotional aspects, according to Katz. It has been identified that although social-emotional issues (such as mutual understanding, respect or recognition of diversity of interests) are of high importance for successful research collaboration, almost no time and effort is in the current research practise usually spent on this aspect.  

The workshop succeeded in encouraging in particular young scientists to put emphasis on the potentials of IR/TR and in motivating them to address problems of natural resource use. However, it was unanimously stated that there is still a strong need for more exchange and discussion about concepts and successful realization of IR/TR processes.

Ideas for a future follow-up included the provision of a report of the workshop results, the establishment of IR/TR working groups at home institutes and of an online exchange platform as well as the organisation of further workshop concerning this topic and international summer schools which would also address researchers from international partner institutes.

As this is only a rough summary, there remain many important aspects we could not address here and hence would like to apologize for any shortcomings and incompletion of this workshop report. 

Birgit Müller, Jenny Eisold, Mi-Yong Lee-Peuker, Katja Sigel and Karin Frank

(Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig)