13 Transcending the Loading Dock Paradigm—Rethinking …
251
Even though the knowledge base about the question of “how to transfer knowledge” is growing annually, the “loading dock approach” is still pervasive in many
academic areas. However, I consider it to be outdated for the purposes of research on
sustainability issues, which places communication and social learning in the centre
of research activities (Fazey et al. 2013).
Clearly, the discussion on transfer and implementation is played out against the
background of a new understanding of a reflexive, engaged and process-minded
form of science that faces unknown challenges and seeks to gather new forms of
knowledge. Thus, in Sect. 13.2, I briefly describe this new mode of science and how
it differs from other (more conventional) approaches. Against that backdrop, I argue
in Sect. 13.3 how transfer and implementation can be understood in transdisciplinary
science approaches in contrast to prevailing transfer models. In Sect. 13.4, I present
a T&I framework for transdisciplinary research projects, and apply this framework
to SLM in Sect. 13.5.
13.2 Science, Society and the Drive Towards
Transformation
New demands have recently been placed on science as an institution. Science is
increasingly called on to serve society and justify the resources invested in it
(“return on investment”). Academia is to make a greater contribution to solving
real-world issues that society expects from science. These real-world issues, such as
climate change and demographic change, differ from conventional scientific questions. They entail normative dimensions (i.e. human values, norms and preferences);
they are complex (i.e. factors influencing the systems under investigation are manifold and sometimes unknown); they must be solved within democratically legitimised
processes; and they call for a synthesised approach that incorporates the knowledge
of many perspectives. Consequently, this new mode of science is asked to “produce”
different forms of knowledge (Pohl and Hirsch-Hadorn 2006; Zscheischler et al.
2017), namely:
• systems knowledge about systemic interrelations in a given research context (the
real-world issue),
• target knowledge about desired future developments in society, and
• transformative knowledge about strategies and instruments on how to approach
the desired future.
Whereas the production of systems knowledge may be provided by established
research methods, the production of target knowledge and transformative knowledge
calls for entirely new methods that incorporate multiple scientific disciplines as
well as so-called practitioners or stakeholders.
1 This novel mode of science (often
1 For easier understanding, I refer in this text to “practitioners” as non-academic project partners
(i.e. they represent non-academic institutions, but are contractually bound to the project consortium)
251
Even though the knowledge base about the question of “how to transfer knowledge” is growing annually, the “loading dock approach” is still pervasive in many
academic areas. However, I consider it to be outdated for the purposes of research on
sustainability issues, which places communication and social learning in the centre
of research activities (Fazey et al. 2013).
Clearly, the discussion on transfer and implementation is played out against the
background of a new understanding of a reflexive, engaged and process-minded
form of science that faces unknown challenges and seeks to gather new forms of
knowledge. Thus, in Sect. 13.2, I briefly describe this new mode of science and how
it differs from other (more conventional) approaches. Against that backdrop, I argue
in Sect. 13.3 how transfer and implementation can be understood in transdisciplinary
science approaches in contrast to prevailing transfer models. In Sect. 13.4, I present
a T&I framework for transdisciplinary research projects, and apply this framework
to SLM in Sect. 13.5.
13.2 Science, Society and the Drive Towards
Transformation
New demands have recently been placed on science as an institution. Science is
increasingly called on to serve society and justify the resources invested in it
(“return on investment”). Academia is to make a greater contribution to solving
real-world issues that society expects from science. These real-world issues, such as
climate change and demographic change, differ from conventional scientific questions. They entail normative dimensions (i.e. human values, norms and preferences);
they are complex (i.e. factors influencing the systems under investigation are manifold and sometimes unknown); they must be solved within democratically legitimised
processes; and they call for a synthesised approach that incorporates the knowledge
of many perspectives. Consequently, this new mode of science is asked to “produce”
different forms of knowledge (Pohl and Hirsch-Hadorn 2006; Zscheischler et al.
2017), namely:
• systems knowledge about systemic interrelations in a given research context (the
real-world issue),
• target knowledge about desired future developments in society, and
• transformative knowledge about strategies and instruments on how to approach
the desired future.
Whereas the production of systems knowledge may be provided by established
research methods, the production of target knowledge and transformative knowledge
calls for entirely new methods that incorporate multiple scientific disciplines as
well as so-called practitioners or stakeholders.
1 This novel mode of science (often
1 For easier understanding, I refer in this text to “practitioners” as non-academic project partners
(i.e. they represent non-academic institutions, but are contractually bound to the project consortium)