7 Transdisciplinary Research in Land Use Science …
129
2000). The term “transdisciplinarity” was used to elaborate the concept of “interdisciplinarity”, because the latter was previously inadequately explained and superficially
used. Völker (2004) called it a “terminological rescue attempt”.
2
The resulting notion of TDR as “perfected interdisciplinarity” persists to this
day, which is especially apparent in regional differences between Europe and the
US (Klein 2008). In the North American debate, the notion of TDR refers back
to the “taxonomy of cross disciplinary research” after Rosenfield (1992) used the
lexical morpheme “trans” to describe a collaborative research approach differing
from interdisciplinarity where researchers “work jointly but still from disciplinaryspecific basis”, transcending disciplinary boundaries by “using shared conceptual
framework drawing together disciplinary-specific theories, concepts, and approaches
to address common problems.” In contrast, the meaning of “trans” in the “European”
concept is related to the North American concept of transdisciplinarity,
3 but it is
extended by the science-to-society transgression. Hence, the main difference between
the two definitions lies in the involvement of non-academics, which is a distinguishing
aspect of the “European” definition. Finally, these different meanings of TD and the
relating confusion partly resulted in neologisms such as the “co-design” and the “coproduction of knowledge” (e.g. Mauser et al. 2013). In addition, it can be claimed that
these terms more clearly illustrate the core idea of TD as it is mainly understood today,
namely an equal collaboration between science and practice in the development and
design of a research project, and in the production and dissemination of knowledge.
This extended meaning of “transdisciplinarity” can be traced back to the diagnosis
of Gibbons et al. (1994), and later Nowotny et al. (2001), who described a new type
of knowledge production resulting from a changed relationship between science and
society. According to the authors, this new mode of knowledge production (Mode-2)
differs from the traditional Mode-1 by the context of application and the involved
relation to societal problems. The heterogeneity and organisational diversity of societal responsibility was highlighted via the TDR approach. While Mode-1 science was
characterised by academia having a monopoly on knowledge production, Mode-2
science also allowed the integration of further knowledge types from extra-scientific
actors. Thus, the claim for the existence of a different type of knowledge production stressed not only the integration of different disciplinary perspectives but also
perspectives from outside academia. In addition, the authors regarded the two modes
of knowledge production as not mutually exclusive, but as complementary.
At around the same time that Gibbons et al. (1994) observed and described
a “new production of knowledge”, the concept of “post-normal science” outlined
by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) gained attention. Funtowicz and Ravetz consider
science as in an ongoing process of change that is primarily shaped by the focused
problem constellations and definitions. The demand for a new type of knowledge
production is made plausible against the backdrop of new political challenges by a
perceived global ecological crisis and new societal risks
4 : “To characterize an issue
2 Translated from German “terminologischer Rettungsversuch”.
3 Often referred to as “transdisciplinary team science”.
4 In 1986, Ulrich Beck published his highly acclaimed book “Risk Society”.
129
2000). The term “transdisciplinarity” was used to elaborate the concept of “interdisciplinarity”, because the latter was previously inadequately explained and superficially
used. Völker (2004) called it a “terminological rescue attempt”.
2
The resulting notion of TDR as “perfected interdisciplinarity” persists to this
day, which is especially apparent in regional differences between Europe and the
US (Klein 2008). In the North American debate, the notion of TDR refers back
to the “taxonomy of cross disciplinary research” after Rosenfield (1992) used the
lexical morpheme “trans” to describe a collaborative research approach differing
from interdisciplinarity where researchers “work jointly but still from disciplinaryspecific basis”, transcending disciplinary boundaries by “using shared conceptual
framework drawing together disciplinary-specific theories, concepts, and approaches
to address common problems.” In contrast, the meaning of “trans” in the “European”
concept is related to the North American concept of transdisciplinarity,
3 but it is
extended by the science-to-society transgression. Hence, the main difference between
the two definitions lies in the involvement of non-academics, which is a distinguishing
aspect of the “European” definition. Finally, these different meanings of TD and the
relating confusion partly resulted in neologisms such as the “co-design” and the “coproduction of knowledge” (e.g. Mauser et al. 2013). In addition, it can be claimed that
these terms more clearly illustrate the core idea of TD as it is mainly understood today,
namely an equal collaboration between science and practice in the development and
design of a research project, and in the production and dissemination of knowledge.
This extended meaning of “transdisciplinarity” can be traced back to the diagnosis
of Gibbons et al. (1994), and later Nowotny et al. (2001), who described a new type
of knowledge production resulting from a changed relationship between science and
society. According to the authors, this new mode of knowledge production (Mode-2)
differs from the traditional Mode-1 by the context of application and the involved
relation to societal problems. The heterogeneity and organisational diversity of societal responsibility was highlighted via the TDR approach. While Mode-1 science was
characterised by academia having a monopoly on knowledge production, Mode-2
science also allowed the integration of further knowledge types from extra-scientific
actors. Thus, the claim for the existence of a different type of knowledge production stressed not only the integration of different disciplinary perspectives but also
perspectives from outside academia. In addition, the authors regarded the two modes
of knowledge production as not mutually exclusive, but as complementary.
At around the same time that Gibbons et al. (1994) observed and described
a “new production of knowledge”, the concept of “post-normal science” outlined
by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) gained attention. Funtowicz and Ravetz consider
science as in an ongoing process of change that is primarily shaped by the focused
problem constellations and definitions. The demand for a new type of knowledge
production is made plausible against the backdrop of new political challenges by a
perceived global ecological crisis and new societal risks
4 : “To characterize an issue
2 Translated from German “terminologischer Rettungsversuch”.
3 Often referred to as “transdisciplinary team science”.
4 In 1986, Ulrich Beck published his highly acclaimed book “Risk Society”.