252
S. Rogga
referred to as “transdisciplinary research”, “transformative science” or “intervention
science”) seeks to change the current (non-sustainable) state of our societies by
different means (and intervention levels), backed up by scientific evidence.
Not only is it necessary to generate new sets of knowledge that—unlike disciplinary knowledge—are “different” and are fed from society to science. It is also
necessary to adequately communicate and feed back knowledge, and vice versa, if it
is to be effective. This is at least the inherent claim of many sustainability-oriented
research activities (cf. Jong et al. 2016).
From a systems theory perspective, the trend towards transdisciplinary science
can be summarised as follows: The boundaries between the scientific subsystem and
the other subsystems of society become more permeable. At the intersections of these
subsystems, new intra- and inter-directional communication patterns are established
that work bi-directionally. Transdisciplinary research projects can be located at these
intersections. They form boundary organisations (Guston 2001) in which knowledge
is produced and transferred to multiple subsystems such as science, politics, economy
and administration.
If we continue the notion that transdisciplinary research is accompanied by new
patterns of communication, then it follows that research outputs change as well
since they reflect the changing mode of communication. Modern science, as it has
evolved since the nineteenth century, has developed elaborated media channels for
communicating within its own system boundaries. However, these communication
channels may have changed in the digitised world, yet the supposed output of science
has remained the same: the production of truth. As the outcomes of sustainability
research change, so does the adaptation of what science has previously considered
the output of a research project. Thus, concrete questions arise for the areas of T&I
in the context of changing research, since T&I forms the bridge between “output”
and “outcome”.
13.3 From the “Loading Dock” to Reflexive
Discourses—A Short Anthology of T&I as Objects
of Scientific Investigation
The term implementation is used primarily in the fields of computer science, data
processing and, most prominently, in the fields of politics and administration (Nohlen
1998). In the innovation context, implementation refers to the phase in which innovation has reached “market maturity” and is distributed to anticipated customer groups
accordingly (cf. Ibert 2003). This applies in modified form to non-economically
exploitable innovations, too. The innovation will be linked to certain goals, but these
may have unintended consequences.
and “stakeholders” when I mention actors or actor groups affected by the issue under investigation.
Stakeholders may become part of the research process (via participatory methods, public hearings,
exhibitions, etc.), but are not bound to the project by contract.
S. Rogga
referred to as “transdisciplinary research”, “transformative science” or “intervention
science”) seeks to change the current (non-sustainable) state of our societies by
different means (and intervention levels), backed up by scientific evidence.
Not only is it necessary to generate new sets of knowledge that—unlike disciplinary knowledge—are “different” and are fed from society to science. It is also
necessary to adequately communicate and feed back knowledge, and vice versa, if it
is to be effective. This is at least the inherent claim of many sustainability-oriented
research activities (cf. Jong et al. 2016).
From a systems theory perspective, the trend towards transdisciplinary science
can be summarised as follows: The boundaries between the scientific subsystem and
the other subsystems of society become more permeable. At the intersections of these
subsystems, new intra- and inter-directional communication patterns are established
that work bi-directionally. Transdisciplinary research projects can be located at these
intersections. They form boundary organisations (Guston 2001) in which knowledge
is produced and transferred to multiple subsystems such as science, politics, economy
and administration.
If we continue the notion that transdisciplinary research is accompanied by new
patterns of communication, then it follows that research outputs change as well
since they reflect the changing mode of communication. Modern science, as it has
evolved since the nineteenth century, has developed elaborated media channels for
communicating within its own system boundaries. However, these communication
channels may have changed in the digitised world, yet the supposed output of science
has remained the same: the production of truth. As the outcomes of sustainability
research change, so does the adaptation of what science has previously considered
the output of a research project. Thus, concrete questions arise for the areas of T&I
in the context of changing research, since T&I forms the bridge between “output”
and “outcome”.
13.3 From the “Loading Dock” to Reflexive
Discourses—A Short Anthology of T&I as Objects
of Scientific Investigation
The term implementation is used primarily in the fields of computer science, data
processing and, most prominently, in the fields of politics and administration (Nohlen
1998). In the innovation context, implementation refers to the phase in which innovation has reached “market maturity” and is distributed to anticipated customer groups
accordingly (cf. Ibert 2003). This applies in modified form to non-economically
exploitable innovations, too. The innovation will be linked to certain goals, but these
may have unintended consequences.
and “stakeholders” when I mention actors or actor groups affected by the issue under investigation.
Stakeholders may become part of the research process (via participatory methods, public hearings,
exhibitions, etc.), but are not bound to the project by contract.