The Transdisciplinary Living Lab Model (TDLL)
171
cling Scheme, Western Sydney University Farm and the historically significant River
Farm, championed by the University’s Office of Sustainability. This history provides
an ideal context for TDLL initiatives to build on, particularly across the University’s
multiple urban campuses. It also offers a unique setting for cross-institutional collaboration. For example in 2010–11 the Design and Agriculture faculties collaborated
on the project ‘Transitioning to Sustainable Sanitation Futures’ (Mitchell et al. 2012),
which had a proto-TDLL format involving academics, industry and students from
a range of disciplines in a journey of complex and collaborative problem solving
(Lopes et al. 2012).
2 Translating Commitment to the SDGs into Practice: The
Transdisciplinary Living Lab
In defining the TDLL, we must first define transdisciplinarity. The term ‘transdisciplinarity’ (TD) has no single unified meaning (Jahn et al. 2012), it can, as Pohl (2011,
p. 98) suggests, be perceived as a ‘structured plurality of definitions’. Reiterating this
idea, Ison (2017) observes that different histories have given rise to different understandings of TD. Riedy (2017) defines transdisciplinary research as a ‘bundle of
interwoven social practices that takes different forms in different local and historical
contexts’. While there is no single definition, there are overarching characteristics of
TD research and practice (Jahn 2012). Wickson et al. (2006) identify three primary
characteristics of transdisciplinary research, that is (1) it is problem focused, (2) it
has an evolving methodology and (3) it is highly collaborative and participatory in
nature.
Mobjork (2010) observes there are close similarities between transdisciplinarity
and sustainable development research. They are both multi-faceted and problem
focused, interested in action, deploy participatory approaches, and aim to address
values and normative judgments in the name of the common good (Klein 2017). Jahn
et al. (2012, p. 9) goes further, noting that TD is also ‘interventionist’ in the way that
it frames, structures, and organizes the societal discourse about the problem being
addressed.
While observation may provide a way of examining ‘what is’, research taking
an interventionist approach goes further to ask ‘what could be’ (Brown 2010). In
the context of the TDLL, the question is what could a sustainable food (waste)
system look like in the future, and how might this be achieved? In developing educational programs a key distinction between observation and intervention is how
the researcher/student reflexively understands their position in the field of research,
representing a shift from ‘observer’ of social reality to agent of change (Fam et al.
2015).
In developing the TDLL model, the authors took the view that for a student/researcher to develop a rich enough understanding of the problem being investigated to ultimately find a point of intervention, they needed to work from inside the
171
cling Scheme, Western Sydney University Farm and the historically significant River
Farm, championed by the University’s Office of Sustainability. This history provides
an ideal context for TDLL initiatives to build on, particularly across the University’s
multiple urban campuses. It also offers a unique setting for cross-institutional collaboration. For example in 2010–11 the Design and Agriculture faculties collaborated
on the project ‘Transitioning to Sustainable Sanitation Futures’ (Mitchell et al. 2012),
which had a proto-TDLL format involving academics, industry and students from
a range of disciplines in a journey of complex and collaborative problem solving
(Lopes et al. 2012).
2 Translating Commitment to the SDGs into Practice: The
Transdisciplinary Living Lab
In defining the TDLL, we must first define transdisciplinarity. The term ‘transdisciplinarity’ (TD) has no single unified meaning (Jahn et al. 2012), it can, as Pohl (2011,
p. 98) suggests, be perceived as a ‘structured plurality of definitions’. Reiterating this
idea, Ison (2017) observes that different histories have given rise to different understandings of TD. Riedy (2017) defines transdisciplinary research as a ‘bundle of
interwoven social practices that takes different forms in different local and historical
contexts’. While there is no single definition, there are overarching characteristics of
TD research and practice (Jahn 2012). Wickson et al. (2006) identify three primary
characteristics of transdisciplinary research, that is (1) it is problem focused, (2) it
has an evolving methodology and (3) it is highly collaborative and participatory in
nature.
Mobjork (2010) observes there are close similarities between transdisciplinarity
and sustainable development research. They are both multi-faceted and problem
focused, interested in action, deploy participatory approaches, and aim to address
values and normative judgments in the name of the common good (Klein 2017). Jahn
et al. (2012, p. 9) goes further, noting that TD is also ‘interventionist’ in the way that
it frames, structures, and organizes the societal discourse about the problem being
addressed.
While observation may provide a way of examining ‘what is’, research taking
an interventionist approach goes further to ask ‘what could be’ (Brown 2010). In
the context of the TDLL, the question is what could a sustainable food (waste)
system look like in the future, and how might this be achieved? In developing educational programs a key distinction between observation and intervention is how
the researcher/student reflexively understands their position in the field of research,
representing a shift from ‘observer’ of social reality to agent of change (Fam et al.
2015).
In developing the TDLL model, the authors took the view that for a student/researcher to develop a rich enough understanding of the problem being investigated to ultimately find a point of intervention, they needed to work from inside the