Transdisciplinarity in deriving sustainability pathways for agriculture - Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe - page 173

transdisciplinary processes, and to discuss how they function and where they lead in
different situations.
Transdisciplinarity is a demanding form of knowledge integration (Spangenberg,
2011), in part due to its time-consuming nature and the extent of stakeholder interaction
necessary, and in part also due to its dependence on reflexivity (the process of dialogue and
personal consideration that requires honesty, sincerity, and openness to diverse viewpoints
and available knowledge) (Habermas, 1981; Healey, 2006; Spangenberg, 2011).
Transdisciplinarity can be characterized by three elements: the integration of disciplinary
paradigms; the use of participatory methods; and the application to real-life problems (Pohl
and Hirsch Hadorn, 2007). It is understood that transdisciplinarity is not yet a theory or an
institution (Jahn et al. , 2012), but instead simultaneously may be considered an attitude and
a form of action, dealing with context specific, real world problems (Klein, 2004).
Innovation in methodologies for collaborative work is central to transdisciplinarity
(Mobjörk, 2010). The reported goals and outcomes of transdisciplinary practice include
greater accountability through integration (Mobjörk, 2010), mutual learning and trust
building (Klein, 2004), and improved disciplinary practice (Höchtl et al. , 2006). These are
the criteria which can best be used for assessing a transdisciplinary process.
Mobjörk (2010) identifies two central approaches to transdisciplinarity in practice.
First, that of consultative transdisciplinarity, where non-academic involvement is restricted
to responding to research plans or results, rather than playing an active role in the research
process. The second approach, participatory transdisciplinarity, emphasizes the integration
of all actors in the knowledge production process. Others have differentiated the two
extremes as 'symbolic' or tokenistic ('consultative') versus 'effective' ('participatory')
processes (Elzinga, 2008 in Mobjörk, 2010). Transdisciplinarity processes, thus, fall on a
continuum from weak to strong. These two extremes are distinguished by the level of
integration and scope of the non-academic actors' roles (Mobjörk, 2010), with the latter
approach more demanding and involving challenges inherent to the participatory processes
(see, for example, Reed, 2008). There may be transdisciplinarity even with weak
participatory processes, but when these are based on strong participation they play a key
role in stakeholder integration and knowledge production, and therefore promote greater
interaction. As an illustration, the analysis of the initiatives presented in this volume
corresponds more closely to a consultative transdisciplinarity process, whereas the
visioning

process addressed in this chapter is much closer to a participatory

transdisciplinary process.
Mobjörk (2010) highlights further key characteristics of transdisciplinary research
projects in practice, not least the use of openness and soft-systems thinking in participant
recruitment and the selection of methodologies. Similarly, soft skills are vital for the
facilitation of participatory approaches in transdisciplinary research, and practitioners are
also encouraged to promote reflexivity in order to respond to changes in the research
context (see, for example, Mobjörk, 2010). In addition to participatory guidance, there is
significant correspondence of transdisciplinarity in practice with the ideal of
Communicative Action, as described by Habermas (1981). Habermas argues that social
coordination relies on communication, with the aim of mutual understanding between two
or more actors (Habermas, 1981; Fast, 2013). Mutual understanding is, thus, supported
through the creation of an 'ideal speech situation', which ensures that all participants have
the opportunity to express their views and contribute to democratic decision-making