Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
(Brown and Goodman, 2001; Allmendinger, 2009). In transdisciplinarity, as in an ideal
speech situation advocated by Habermas, all participants are equal, in other words there is
no difference in the value of 'hard' and 'soft' knowledge (Lawrence and Després, 2004),
and have the opportunity to share reasoned debate towards the goal of human emancipation
or sustainability. The role of the researcher in this context is, therefore, to maintain an open
dialogue and build close contacts with non-academic interests, as well as to participate in
the research process themselves as 'stakeholders'.
However, as already highlighted in the 'traditional' participatory literature of previous
decades (see Arnstein, 1969), careful attention needs to be paid to the scope of integration,
with recognition that not all knowledge transfer exercises can be labelled transdisciplinary.
As Arnstein's ladder demonstrates, there are 'levels' of non-participation that are contrived
by some to represent genuine participation, for example, approaches which only 'inform'
participants (or even manipulate them) without providing a platform for participant
feedback or integration of views and ideas (Arnstein, 1969). Furthermore, it may be argued
that transdisciplinarity is simply a research 'trend', promoting a rhetoric which can tend to
fall low on Arnstein's ladder, given the fact that stakeholder involvement in an established
research project is typically at the invitation of 'power-holding' researchers. In the era of
'post-participation', there are lessons for transdisciplinarity: to reduce ambiguity, confusion
and disillusionment amongst practitioners and stakeholders, and reinforce the benefits of
participation (Reed, 2008; Reed
et al.
, 2009). Further constraints arise, however, due to
academic systems, limiting co-opportunities due to the research funding framework, and
the perceived threat to disciplinary credibility through transdisciplinary research (disputed
by Höchtl
et al.
, 2006). The movement to incorporate transdisciplinarity as a norm in
professional practice is advocated in the literature, but with an acknowledged need to match
aspirations held by academic publishers and funders, and an anticipation of inherent
complexity (Klein, 2004).
The research reported in this volume provides support for, and rich insights into, the
necessary requirements for participatory transdisciplinarity, co-construction in the research
process and shared social learning to occur. These requirements emerge from an assessment
of the participatory transdisciplinary process applied to a discussion on sustainability
pathways, in different regions of Europe, and with different traditions for participatory
processes and the science-practice dialogue.
Transdisciplinarity in practice
As explained in the introduction to this chapter, a participatory 'visioning' process
supported by a transdisciplinary perspective was adopted. There were, however, underlying
limitations to this approach, as the questions addressed and the methods selected did not
emerge directly from practice, but were decided within the context of a pre-defined
research project. Nevertheless, the research questions framing the project were defined in
accordance with: (i) dialogue with practitioners and problem-solving research undertaken
by the researchers; and (ii) concerns expressed by stakeholders at different governance
scales in Europe, including the European Commission, which were the basis for the project
calls. The method underpinning the visioning process is described below.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search