140
J. Zscheischler
7.5 Conclusion and Outlook
The results highlight that TDR is an approach with a high potential for complex land
use issues, where normative discourses, conflicting interests, sectoral and disciplinary
viewpoints, and different knowledge types are increasingly integrated in the search
for sustainable solutions. Scientists who apply TD mainly have an appreciative attitude towards the concept, when asked about their opinion on TD. However, in spite
of this acknowledgement, a crucial gap between the theoretically described “ideal
type” of TDR and its “real-world” application was identified. This gap is accompanied
by a vague understanding of what TD precisely constitutes among researchers who
apply TD. The simplified conceptualisation of TD, meaning an instrument of transfer
that harmonises research results with requirements from practice, may help explain
the observation of a prevailing multidisciplinarity and an often-found low level of
involvement of practitioners. In this context, it emerged that the benefits, especially
regarding the scientific knowledge gain, are rarely reflected on, and therefore go
unnoticed. As a social innovation in the academic system, it can be argued that TDR
is currently undergoing an upscaling process, risking “rhetorical mainstreaming”. It
will therefore be important in future to assure the quality of TDR processes, and to
narrow the misfit between prevailing academic structures and increasing professionalisation and profound knowledge among researchers who apply TD. And yet TDR
methods and the underlying theoretical foundations are rarely taught at university.
Greater consideration of these methods and foundations in higher education would
make a significant contribution to the better adoption and quality of TDR processes
and outcomes.
References
Bammer, G. (2005). Integration and implementation sciences: Building a new specialization. In
Ecology and Society (Vol 10 No 2). Baumgartner 2010.
Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt a M: Suhrkamp.
Bergmann, M., Brohmann, B., Hoffmann, E., Loibl, M. C., Rehaag, R., Schramm, E., & Voß, J.
P. (2005). Quality criteria of transdisciplinary research. A guide for the formative evaluation of
research projects. ISOE-Studientexte (13).
Braimoh, A. K., & Osaki, M. (2010). Land-use change and environmental sustainability. Sustainability Science, 5(1), 5.
Carew, A.L. & Wickson, F., 2010. The TD Wheel: A heuristic to shape, support and evaluate
transdisciplinary research. Futures 42 (10, SI), 1146–1155.
Catton Jr, W. R. & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American
Sociologist, 41–49.
Goebel, A., Hill, T., Fincham, R. A., & Lawhon, M. (2010). Transdisciplinarity in urban South
Africa. Futures, 42(5), 475–483.
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine,
41(12), 1667–1676.
Costanza, R. (1989). What is ecological economics? Ecological Economics, 1(1), 1–7.
J. Zscheischler
7.5 Conclusion and Outlook
The results highlight that TDR is an approach with a high potential for complex land
use issues, where normative discourses, conflicting interests, sectoral and disciplinary
viewpoints, and different knowledge types are increasingly integrated in the search
for sustainable solutions. Scientists who apply TD mainly have an appreciative attitude towards the concept, when asked about their opinion on TD. However, in spite
of this acknowledgement, a crucial gap between the theoretically described “ideal
type” of TDR and its “real-world” application was identified. This gap is accompanied
by a vague understanding of what TD precisely constitutes among researchers who
apply TD. The simplified conceptualisation of TD, meaning an instrument of transfer
that harmonises research results with requirements from practice, may help explain
the observation of a prevailing multidisciplinarity and an often-found low level of
involvement of practitioners. In this context, it emerged that the benefits, especially
regarding the scientific knowledge gain, are rarely reflected on, and therefore go
unnoticed. As a social innovation in the academic system, it can be argued that TDR
is currently undergoing an upscaling process, risking “rhetorical mainstreaming”. It
will therefore be important in future to assure the quality of TDR processes, and to
narrow the misfit between prevailing academic structures and increasing professionalisation and profound knowledge among researchers who apply TD. And yet TDR
methods and the underlying theoretical foundations are rarely taught at university.
Greater consideration of these methods and foundations in higher education would
make a significant contribution to the better adoption and quality of TDR processes
and outcomes.
References
Bammer, G. (2005). Integration and implementation sciences: Building a new specialization. In
Ecology and Society (Vol 10 No 2). Baumgartner 2010.
Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt a M: Suhrkamp.
Bergmann, M., Brohmann, B., Hoffmann, E., Loibl, M. C., Rehaag, R., Schramm, E., & Voß, J.
P. (2005). Quality criteria of transdisciplinary research. A guide for the formative evaluation of
research projects. ISOE-Studientexte (13).
Braimoh, A. K., & Osaki, M. (2010). Land-use change and environmental sustainability. Sustainability Science, 5(1), 5.
Carew, A.L. & Wickson, F., 2010. The TD Wheel: A heuristic to shape, support and evaluate
transdisciplinary research. Futures 42 (10, SI), 1146–1155.
Catton Jr, W. R. & Dunlap, R. E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American
Sociologist, 41–49.
Goebel, A., Hill, T., Fincham, R. A., & Lawhon, M. (2010). Transdisciplinarity in urban South
Africa. Futures, 42(5), 475–483.
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine,
41(12), 1667–1676.
Costanza, R. (1989). What is ecological economics? Ecological Economics, 1(1), 1–7.