About transformation in transdisciplinary approaches

Abstract

Background

It is widely accepted today that various socio-ecological challenges, such as biodiversity loss, climate change, chemical pollution, populism, fake news and conspiracy theories, pose fundamental challenges to human societies and that these challenges reinforce each other. Transdisciplinary research is widely regarded as a promising approach to knowledge production for successfully addressing these challenges and contributing to transforming societies. However, the question of how different approaches conceptualise transdisciplinarity, and the contribution of transdisciplinary research to socio-ecological transformation is one that has rarely been asked to date. This research question is addressed by examining and comparing seven approaches.

Results

All of the approaches recognise the complex socio-ecological crisis, showing the limits of traditional understanding and highlighting issues and obstacles in universities and research institutions and ways to overcome them. We identify six distinct patterns across these seven approaches: (i) transforming universities into active institutions that serve society; (ii) overcoming the limitations of disciplinary scientific systems; (iii) creating favourable conditions for societal progress and sustainable development by developing a shared understanding of problems, integrating different types of knowledge, and fostering long-term collaboration between science and society; (iv) starting with the desired outcomes in mind and deliberately rethinking and aligning research designs, implementation, and evaluation with these outcomes; (v) cultivating spaces and relationships in which participants can explore the evolutionary potential of the present moment and generate new meanings, understandings, and practices; and (vi) mobilising alternative landscapes of transdisciplinary research by deconstructing academic power structures and privilege.

Conclusions

Despite significant epistemological and procedural differences, the analysis demonstrates that all examined approaches share a common underlying assumption: that transformation can be supported and achieved through the successful design and implementation of transdisciplinary processes. Whether emphasising institutional reform, structured knowledge integration, outcome-oriented design, emergent learning processes or epistemic justice, the approaches converge in attributing transformative potential primarily to the internal logic of TDR itself. In this sense, transformation is largely framed as an effect of ‘getting the process right’. The comparative analysis also reveals a critical blind spot: the approaches remain largely implicit with regard to the social-ontological pathways for societal change.