132
J. Zscheischler
The Zurich definition describes TD “as a new form of learning and problem solving
involving cooperation among different parts of society and academia in order to meet
complex challenges of society” (Häberli et al. 2001).
7.3 The Impact of TDR, Criticism and Open Questions
The increasing launch and funding of TDR projects over the last two decades (see
Bergmann et al. 2005; Defila et al. 2008) sparked an ongoing debate on adequate
evaluation approaches. A large part of the literature on TDR is now dedicated to
questions about quality criteria, impact measurement and evaluation frameworks
(e.g. Carew and Wickson 2010; Jahn et al. 2012; Klein 2008; Roux et al. 2010;
Walter et al. 2007; Wickson et al. 2006; Zscheischler et al. 2018). Nonetheless, since
Klein (2008) claimed that the evaluation of TDR is “one of the least-understood
aspects”, this statement continues to be highly relevant.
Difficulties in identifying consistent evaluation criteria result from the high degree
of context specificity of TDR, the non-projectable changes, the high degree of
uncertainty and the comparability of various projects (Wickson et al. 2006). Nonlinear interdependencies, multiple interacting drivers of change and long-time lags
(Roux et al. 2010) require varying approaches and criteria compared to conventional
research efforts. Consequently, several articles have discussed potential evaluation
principles for TDR (e.g. Klein 2008; Loibl 2005; Spaeth 2008). Nonetheless, no
generally accepted quality standards have been implemented to date.
This lack of quality standards is a major criticism against TDR (Goebel, Hill,
Fincham and Lawhon 2010). Although the development of quality criteria, as a
kind of guiding principle, makes a valuable contribution to supporting researchers
who apply TD, greater effort needs to be made to prove the effects of TDR. The
highly complex question of verifying societal effects becomes especially important
considering the backdrop of an increasingly output-oriented, competitive science.
Greater focus on the societal effects of TDR and a more outcome-oriented approach
are regarded as important (Russell et al. 2008; Walter et al. 2007) to substantiate the
added value of TDR. Until recently, there were few considerations of the effects and
outcomes beyond the TDR process.
Beyond numerous plausible explanations justifying TDR, there is little knowledge about its (true) performance. Doubts and a critical attitude are reflected by
the question of whether transdisciplinarity is simply a “word à la mode” (Lawrence
2004; Mittelstraß 2005). In this context, the broad interest in adequate evaluation
approaches can be interpreted as a legitimacy crisis.
TDR is time-consuming, and requires a large amount of resources. Effect analyses
that justify these higher levels of effort are lacking. The additional expense incurred
by TDR has not yet been justified by an established improvement in results. This
deficit can be linked to a lack of empirical findings (e.g. Lieven & Maasen 2007;
Tress et al. 2007). The few empirical studies on TDR projects are dispersed over
several disciplines, application fields and case studies.
J. Zscheischler
The Zurich definition describes TD “as a new form of learning and problem solving
involving cooperation among different parts of society and academia in order to meet
complex challenges of society” (Häberli et al. 2001).
7.3 The Impact of TDR, Criticism and Open Questions
The increasing launch and funding of TDR projects over the last two decades (see
Bergmann et al. 2005; Defila et al. 2008) sparked an ongoing debate on adequate
evaluation approaches. A large part of the literature on TDR is now dedicated to
questions about quality criteria, impact measurement and evaluation frameworks
(e.g. Carew and Wickson 2010; Jahn et al. 2012; Klein 2008; Roux et al. 2010;
Walter et al. 2007; Wickson et al. 2006; Zscheischler et al. 2018). Nonetheless, since
Klein (2008) claimed that the evaluation of TDR is “one of the least-understood
aspects”, this statement continues to be highly relevant.
Difficulties in identifying consistent evaluation criteria result from the high degree
of context specificity of TDR, the non-projectable changes, the high degree of
uncertainty and the comparability of various projects (Wickson et al. 2006). Nonlinear interdependencies, multiple interacting drivers of change and long-time lags
(Roux et al. 2010) require varying approaches and criteria compared to conventional
research efforts. Consequently, several articles have discussed potential evaluation
principles for TDR (e.g. Klein 2008; Loibl 2005; Spaeth 2008). Nonetheless, no
generally accepted quality standards have been implemented to date.
This lack of quality standards is a major criticism against TDR (Goebel, Hill,
Fincham and Lawhon 2010). Although the development of quality criteria, as a
kind of guiding principle, makes a valuable contribution to supporting researchers
who apply TD, greater effort needs to be made to prove the effects of TDR. The
highly complex question of verifying societal effects becomes especially important
considering the backdrop of an increasingly output-oriented, competitive science.
Greater focus on the societal effects of TDR and a more outcome-oriented approach
are regarded as important (Russell et al. 2008; Walter et al. 2007) to substantiate the
added value of TDR. Until recently, there were few considerations of the effects and
outcomes beyond the TDR process.
Beyond numerous plausible explanations justifying TDR, there is little knowledge about its (true) performance. Doubts and a critical attitude are reflected by
the question of whether transdisciplinarity is simply a “word à la mode” (Lawrence
2004; Mittelstraß 2005). In this context, the broad interest in adequate evaluation
approaches can be interpreted as a legitimacy crisis.
TDR is time-consuming, and requires a large amount of resources. Effect analyses
that justify these higher levels of effort are lacking. The additional expense incurred
by TDR has not yet been justified by an established improvement in results. This
deficit can be linked to a lack of empirical findings (e.g. Lieven & Maasen 2007;
Tress et al. 2007). The few empirical studies on TDR projects are dispersed over
several disciplines, application fields and case studies.