138
J. Zscheischler
7.4.8 Challenges and Barriers to Applying TDR Are Often
Underestimated, but Need Professionalisation
Most of the few empirical contributions found in the literature are dedicated to barriers
and facilitators of applying TDR. An examination of the material and the results
from participatory observation during many events leads to the assumption that the
implementation of TDR remains a difficult challenge; therefore, the practice of TDR
cannot keep pace with the progress of the theoretical discourse. Most mentioned
barriers and challenges generally result from a lack of resources (time, labour) and
problems that arise from habitual, mental and cognitive differences among people
who are part of heterogeneous research teams, i.e. differences in ontological models,
expectations, levels of commitment to and engagement in the process, and levels of
skill and experience. In a small number of cases, the lack of the capacity to adapt to a
changing context (personnel issues) is noted. Communication is widely considered
to facilitate the transdisciplinary process and is therefore accepted as a strategy to
overcome interpersonal differences. In this regard, the implementation gap appears
to be twofold, characterised by both operational and cognitive inconsistencies.
The observed gap between theory and practice can be attributed to the short
history of the TDR concept. As evident from the statistical distribution of the literature sample (Zscheischler and Rogga 2015), the publication output merely started to
increase during the past decade. Another reason can be identified in the heterogeneity
of the concept. In fact, over the stretch of the last two decades, the (mainly normative) debate on TDR revealed a highly fragmented discourse that led to multiple
understandings.
Finally, the demands for the application of TDR in a real-world setting may be
underestimated on a regular basis. According to our investigations and others (cf.
Tress et al. 2007), researchers’ struggles to implement TDR do not depend on their
professional experience with the concept, but might rather be justified by a lack of
opportunities for reflection within respective projects.
7.4.9 Scholarliness Runs the Risk of Falling Behind
The results also indicated that scholarliness runs the risk of falling behind in TDR
projects (Zscheischler et al. 2017, 2018). There were difficulties in balancing scientific claims against practical orientation in TDR projects. Coordinating scientists
appear to have been particularly affected, and they complained about a lack of time
to conduct their own research activities and write publications. Moreover, the pressure to publish hampers scholars’ openness to a time-intensive transdisciplinary
process. In this regard, extra-academic organisations (often spin-off companies) have
appeared to be better positioned to assume the coordination of transdisciplinary
projects. However, such projects have tended to deprioritise scientific aspects, and
risked becoming pure consulting projects.
J. Zscheischler
7.4.8 Challenges and Barriers to Applying TDR Are Often
Underestimated, but Need Professionalisation
Most of the few empirical contributions found in the literature are dedicated to barriers
and facilitators of applying TDR. An examination of the material and the results
from participatory observation during many events leads to the assumption that the
implementation of TDR remains a difficult challenge; therefore, the practice of TDR
cannot keep pace with the progress of the theoretical discourse. Most mentioned
barriers and challenges generally result from a lack of resources (time, labour) and
problems that arise from habitual, mental and cognitive differences among people
who are part of heterogeneous research teams, i.e. differences in ontological models,
expectations, levels of commitment to and engagement in the process, and levels of
skill and experience. In a small number of cases, the lack of the capacity to adapt to a
changing context (personnel issues) is noted. Communication is widely considered
to facilitate the transdisciplinary process and is therefore accepted as a strategy to
overcome interpersonal differences. In this regard, the implementation gap appears
to be twofold, characterised by both operational and cognitive inconsistencies.
The observed gap between theory and practice can be attributed to the short
history of the TDR concept. As evident from the statistical distribution of the literature sample (Zscheischler and Rogga 2015), the publication output merely started to
increase during the past decade. Another reason can be identified in the heterogeneity
of the concept. In fact, over the stretch of the last two decades, the (mainly normative) debate on TDR revealed a highly fragmented discourse that led to multiple
understandings.
Finally, the demands for the application of TDR in a real-world setting may be
underestimated on a regular basis. According to our investigations and others (cf.
Tress et al. 2007), researchers’ struggles to implement TDR do not depend on their
professional experience with the concept, but might rather be justified by a lack of
opportunities for reflection within respective projects.
7.4.9 Scholarliness Runs the Risk of Falling Behind
The results also indicated that scholarliness runs the risk of falling behind in TDR
projects (Zscheischler et al. 2017, 2018). There were difficulties in balancing scientific claims against practical orientation in TDR projects. Coordinating scientists
appear to have been particularly affected, and they complained about a lack of time
to conduct their own research activities and write publications. Moreover, the pressure to publish hampers scholars’ openness to a time-intensive transdisciplinary
process. In this regard, extra-academic organisations (often spin-off companies) have
appeared to be better positioned to assume the coordination of transdisciplinary
projects. However, such projects have tended to deprioritise scientific aspects, and
risked becoming pure consulting projects.