SpringerLink
Log in

Transdisciplinary research for systemic change: who to learn with, what to learn about and how to learn

  • Special Feature: Original Article
  • Sustainability Science for Meeting Africa’s Challenges
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A key aim of transdisciplinary research is for actors from science, policy and practice to co-evolve their understanding of a social–ecological issue, reconcile their diverse perspectives and co-produce appropriate knowledge to serve a common purpose. With its concurrent grounding in practice and science, transdisciplinary research represents a significant departure from conventional research. We focus on mutual learning within transdisciplinary research and highlight three aspects that could guide other researchers in designing and facilitating such learning. These are: “who to learn with”, “what to learn about” and “how to learn”. For each of these questions, we present learning heuristics that are supported by a comparative analysis of two case studies that addressed contemporary conservation issues in South Africa but varied in scale and duration. These were a five-year national-scale project focusing on the prioritisation of freshwater ecosystems for conservation and a three-year local-scale project that used ecological infrastructure as a theme for advancing sustainability dialogues. Regarding the proposed learning heuristics, “who to learn with” is scale dependent and needs to be informed by relevant disciplines and policy sectors with the aim of establishing a knowledge network representing empirical, pragmatic, normative and purposive functions. This emergent network should be enriched by involving relevant experts, novices and bridging agents, where possible. It is important for such networks to learn about the respective histories, system processes and drivers, values and knowledge that exist in the social–ecological system of interest. Moreover, learning together about key concepts and issues can help to develop a shared vocabulary, which in turn can contribute to a shared understanding, a common vision and an agreed way of responding to it. New ways of group learning can be promoted and enhanced by co-develo** outputs (boundary objects) for application across knowledge domains and creating spaces (third places) that facilitate exchange of knowledge and knowledge co-production. We conclude with five generic lessons for transdisciplinary researchers to enhance project success: (a) the duration, timing and continuation potential of a project influences its prospects for achieving systemic and sustainable change; (b) bridging agents, especially if embedded within an implementing agency, play a critical role in facilitating transdisciplinary learning with enhanced outcomes; (c) researchers need to participate as co-learners rather than masters of knowledge domains; (d) purposeful mixed-paradigm research designs could help to mend knowledge fragmentation within science; and (e) researchers must be vigilant for three pitfalls in mutual learning initiatives, namely biases in participant self-selection, perceived superiority of scientific knowledge and the attraction of simple solutions to wicked problems that retain the status quo.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R (2008) Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob Environ Change 18:86–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Change 21:995–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audouin M, Preiser R, Nienaber S, Downsborough L, Lanz J, Mavengahama S (2013) Exploring the implications of critical complexity for the study of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(3):12. doi:10.5751/ES-05434-180312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR (2011) The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol Monogr 81(2):169–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnosky AD, Hadly EA, Bascompte J, Berlow EL, Brown JH, Fortelius M, Getz WM, Harte J, Hastings A, Marquet PA (2012) Approaching a state shift in Earth/’s biosphere. Nature 486:52–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berbés-Blázquez M, González JA, Pascual U (2016) Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19:134–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR (2003) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school, Expanded edn. The National Academies Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown J, Isaacs D (2008) The World Café: awakening collective intelligence and committed action. In: Steele R (ed) Collective Intelligence: creating a prosperous world at peace. Earth Intelligence Network, USA, pp 47–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckle D (2016) Media and communication influences on farmers’ views of water conservation in the Garden Route, South Africa. MA Dissertation, School of Language, Media and Culture, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth

  • Carwardine J, Klein CJ, Wilson KA, Pressey RL, Possingham HP (2009) Hitting the target and missing the point: target-based conservation planning in context. Conserv Lett 2:4–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2011) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Targets. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers R (2006) Participatory map** and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? Electron J Inf Syst Dev Countries 25

  • Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging research program. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8059–8061

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clark WC, Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin GC (2016) Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(17):4570–4578

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook CN, Mascia MB, Schwartz MW, Possingham HP, Fuller RA (2013) Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conserv Biol 27:669–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J, Chabay I, De Wit B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environ Sci Policy 28:60–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisp AG (2015) Development role players’ knowledge of ecological infrastructure in Eden District, South Africa. MTech Dissertation, School of Nature Conservation, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, George

  • Cundill G, Roux DJ, Parker JN (2015) Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research. Ecol Soc 20:22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson A, Lodge D, Alder J, Cumming GS, Keymer J, McGlade J, Mooney H, Rusak JA, Sala O, Wolters V, Wall D (2006) Habitat loss, trophic collapse, and the decline of ecosystem services. Ecology 87(8):1915–1924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver A, Nel JL, Snaddon K, Murray K, Roux DJ, Hill L, Swartz ER, Manuel J, Funke N (2011) Implementation manual for freshwater ecosystem priority areas. Water Research Commission, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver A, Sink KJ, Nel JN, Holness S, Van Niekerk L, Daniels F, Jonas Z, Majiedt PA, Harris L, Maze K (2012) National biodiversity assessment 2011: an assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria

  • DWS (2013) National water resource strategy 2. Department of Water and Sanitation, South Africa, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Esler KJ, Downsborough L, Roux DJ, Blignaut J, Milton S, Le Maitre D, De Wit MP (2016) Interdisciplinary and multi-institutional higher learning: reflecting on a South African case study investigating complex and dynamic environmental challenges. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19:76–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funke N, Nienaber S (2012) Promoting uptake and use of conservation science in South Africa by government. Water SA 38(1):105–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwell M (2000) The tip** point: how little things can make a big difference. Little Brown

  • Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values 26:399–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton G (2004) Enhancing public participation through narrative analysis. Policy Sci 37:261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris F, Lyon F (2013) Transdisciplinary environmental research: building trust across professional cultures. Environ Sci Policy 31:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn G, Pohl C, Bammer G (2010) Solving problems through transdisciplinary research. In: Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 431–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Impson D (2016) Have our provincial aquatic scientists become critically endangered? The Water Wheel Sept/Oct: 20–23

  • Inkomati (2013) A first generation catchment management strategy for the Inkomati catchment management water management area. Inkomati Catchment Management Agency, South Africa

  • Ison R (2010) Systems practice: how to act in a climate change world. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jantsch E (1972) Toward interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In: Apostel L, Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G (eds) Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research in universities. Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation, Paris, pp 97–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW (2011) What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:19449–19450

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kemper NP (2001) Riparian Vegetation Index. Report 850/3/01, Water Research Commission, Pretoria

  • Knight AT, Cowling RM, Rouget M, Balmford A, Lombard AT, Campbell BM (2008) Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap. Conserv Biol 22:610–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability Science: Building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krütli P, Stauffacher M, Flüeler T, Scholz RW (2010) Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories. J Risk Res 13(7):861–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukkala AS, Moilanen A (2013) Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biol Rev 88:443–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7:25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • MA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Max-Neef MA (2005) Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecol Econ 53:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mc Culloch SJ (2016) Absorptive capacity for responding to environmental change: an assessment of three public-sector agencies. MTech Dissertation, School of Nature Conservation, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, George

  • Mobjörk M (2010) Consulting versus participatory transdisciplinarity: a refined classification of transdisciplinary research. Futures 42(8):866–873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollinga PP (2010) Boundary work and the complexity of natural resources management. Crop Science 50:S-1–S-9

  • Murray K, Roux DJ, Nel JL, Driver A, Freimund W (2011) Absorptive capacity as a guiding concept for effective public sector management and conservation of freshwater ecosystems. Environ Manage 47(5):917–925

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nel JL, Driver A, Strydom W, Maherry A, Petersen C, Hill L, Roux DJ, Nienaber S, Van Deventer H, Swartz E, Smith-Adao LB (2011a) Atlas of Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas in South Africa: maps to support sustainable development of water resources. Water Research Commission, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Nel JL, Murray KM, Maherry AM, Petersen CP, Roux DJ, Driver A, Hill L, Van Deventer H, Funke N, Swartz ER, Smith-Adao LB, Mbona N, Downsborough L, Nienaber S (2011b) Technical report for the National freshwater ecosystem priority areas project. Water Research Commission, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Nel JL, Roux DJ, Driver A, Hill L, Maherry AC, Snaddon K, Petersen CR, Smith-Adao LB, Deventer H, Reyers B (2016) Knowledge co-production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans. Conserv Biol 30:176–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Farrell P, Nel J, Roux D, Fabricius C, Le Maitre D, Sitas N, Reyers B, McCulloch S, Smith-Adao L, Petersen C, Buckle T, Kotze I, Crisp A, Cundill G, Schactschneider K (2015) Building resilient landscapes by linking social networks and social capital to ecological infrastructure. Final report of Project K5 2267. Water Research Commission, Pretoria

  • Oelofse E, Cady SH (2012) The World Café in South Africa: a case study on improving performance and commitment. Organ Dev J 30(1):79–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldenburg R (1989) The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Paragon House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Paschen JA, Ison R (2014) Narrative research in climate change adaptation: exploring a complementary paradigm for research and governance. Res Policy 43:1083–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F, Speranza CI, Kiteme B, Boillat S, Serrano E, Hadorn GH, Wiesmann U (2010) Researchers roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Policy 37(4):267–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polk M (2014) Achieving the promise of transdisciplinarity: a critical exploration of the relationship between transdisciplinary research and societal problem solving. Sustain Sci 9(4):439–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyers B, Roux DJ, Cowling RM, Ginsburg AE, Nel JL, O’Farrell P (2010) Conservation planning as a transdisciplinary process. Conserv Biol 24:957–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reyers B, Nel JL, O’Farrell PJ, Nel DC (2015) Navigating complexity through knowledge coproduction: mainstreaming ecosystem services into disaster risk reduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112(24):7362–7368

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers KH (2006) The real river management challenge: integrating scientists, stakeholders and service agencies. River Res Appl 22:269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos A (2015) Perspectives of stakeholders on engagement around benefits and use of the Wilderness and Swartvlei Lakes. MSc Dissertation, Department of Botany, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth

  • Roux DJ, Nel JL (2013) Freshwater conservation planning in South Africa: milestones to date and catalysts for implementation. Water SA 39:151–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Roux DJ, Nel JL, MacKay HM, Ashton PJ (2006) Cross-sector policy objectives for conserving South Africa’s inland water biodiversity. Report No TT 276/06. Water Research Commission, Pretoria

  • Roux DJ, Ashton PJ, Nel JL, MacKay HM (2008) Improving cross-sector policy integration and cooperation in support of freshwater conservation. Conserv Biol 22(6):1382–1387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roux DJ, Stirzaker RJ, Breen CM, Lefroy EC, Cresswell HP (2010) Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. Environ Sci Policy 13:733–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roux DJ, Nel JL, Fisher R, Barendse J (2016) Top-down conservation targets and bottom-up management action: creating complementary feedbacks for freshwater conservation. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 26:364–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell AW, Wickson F, Carew AL (2008) Transdisciplinarity: context, contradictions and capacity. Futures 40(5):460–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stauffacher M, Flu¨eler T, Kru¨tli P, Scholz RW (2008) Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. Syst Pract Action Res 21:409–422

  • Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M (2014) Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43:579–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout E, Hisschemöller M, Eijsackers H (2007) Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Ecol Ind 7:215–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vance-Borland K, Holley J (2011) Conservation stakeholder network map**, analysis, and weaving. Conserv Lett 4(4):278–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westley FR, Tjornbo O, Schultz L, Olsson P, Folke C, Crona B, Bodin Ö (2013) A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(3)

  • White DD, Wutich A, Larson KL, Gober P, Lant T, Senneville C (2010) Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Sci Public Policy 37:219–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhill J (2010) Capacities for institutional innovation: a complexity perspective. IDS Bull 41:47–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JC, Waylen KA, Sarkki S, Albon S, Bainbridge I, Balian E, Davidson J, Edwards D, Fairley R, Margerison C (2014) Improving the science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers Conserv 23:387–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Water Research Commission [project numbers K5/1800 and K5/2267]. The paper was inspired by discussions of the Southern African Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (SAPECS). We thank three anonymous reviewers for their time and comments that directed us in revising an earlier version of the paper, and are grateful for the exceptionally constructive guidance provided by handling editor Alexandros Gasparatos.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Scientific Services, South African National Parks, Private Bag X6531, George, 6530, South Africa

    Dirk J. Roux

  2. Sustainability Research Unit, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Private Bag X6531, George, 6530, South Africa

    Dirk J. Roux, Jeanne L. Nel & Christo Fabricius

  3. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Natural Resources and the Environment, P.O. Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599, South Africa

    Jeanne L. Nel & Patrick O’Farrell

  4. Department of Environmental Science, Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Grahamstown, 6130, South Africa

    Georgina Cundill

  5. International Development Research Centre, P.O. Box 8500, Ottawa, K1G 3H9, Canada

    Georgina Cundill

  6. Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa

    Patrick O’Farrell

Authors
  1. Dirk J. Roux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeanne L. Nel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Georgina Cundill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick O’Farrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christo Fabricius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dirk J. Roux.

Additional information

Handled by Alexandros Gasparatos, IR3S, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roux, D.J., Nel, J.L., Cundill, G. et al. Transdisciplinary research for systemic change: who to learn with, what to learn about and how to learn. Sustain Sci 12, 711–726 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0446-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0446-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation