From left to right: Evelyne de Leeuw, Guido Caniglia, Alfred Rütten, Oskar Marg, Lena Theiler, Richard Beecroft, Chantal Krumm, Jana Semrau, Alexandra Lux; Launch Workshop at ISOE, Feb 2024; circle: Jinhee Kim, Scientia academic at the Cities Institute, UNSW, Australia (Credit: Jana Semrau)
The mode of transdisciplinary research (TDR) has increased in importance in recent years. A key driver is growing political interest in TDR and its potential contribution to transformational change in the light of complex societal problems. These problems include interconnected health-environmental challenges in the fields of Sustainability Research (SR) and Health Research (HR). Furthermore, TDR aspires to generate both societal as well as scientific impact. While the societal impact of TDR has been the focus of scientific discourse on TDR in recent years, the scientific impact of TDR has received less attention, both from conceptual and empirical perspectives. Deeper insights into the scientific impact of TDR are important not only as a key issue in a “self-reflective” system of science, but also for the future scientific development of TDR.
In this fellow group, we therefore proposed a first mapping of this field at the interface between SR and HR. In addition, we aimed to explore the processes that allow for the generation of scientific impact through TDR. The following blog post will give an overview of some key findings of our fellow group which include a) bibliometric analysis, b) a workshop on the nexus of sustainability research and health research, as well as c) a workshop at the Institute for Social-Ecological Research.
Bibliometric analysis
The aim of the bibliometric analysis with document co-citation analysis was to map the landscape of TDR and to identify the most important research communities. The second aim was to compare the conceptualizations and research practices of TDR between the research fields of sustainability and health.
We administered a search term to collect publications on TDR within the Web of Science Core Collection database (Step 1). The search term was based on a published search strategy in sustainability research. In the next step, we carried out a bibliometric analysis with document co-citation analysis within the publications to identify key communities in the TDR mode (Step 2). Afterwards, we conducted an in-depth document co-citation analysis separately within the key communities of SR and HR (Step 3).
The search within the Web of Science Core Collection database yielded 40,880 publications (Step 1). The bibliometric analysis with document co-citation analysis resulted in 96 articles in four clusters. Cluster one was the biggest cluster with 34 articles, followed by cluster 2 with 25 articles, cluster 3 with 20 articles and cluster 4 with 17 articles (Step 2). The search within the key communities of SR and HR yielded 13.529 publications with four clusters as well as 10.330 publications with four clusters (Step 3.) An in-depth analysis of these key communities is currently being prepared for peer-reviewed publication.
The bibliometric analysis with document co-citation analysis reveals that the number of publications and citations within the TDR mode is increasing rapidly. The first results show that TDR is mainly applied in the fields of sustainability, health and social innovation. These clusters mainly operate alone in a mode of "epistemic elitism". This is in contrast to the existing diversity of conceptual approaches at the intersection of the research fields of sustainability and health. Furthermore, the initial results may indicate that the full potential of TDR to address interconnected complex health and sustainability challenges has not yet been realized.
Launch workshop on the nexus of sustainability research and health research
With this workshop, we aimed to explore collaborative approaches at the intersection of SR and HR, as well as their scientific impact. Finally, the Launch workshop took place May 21, 2024 with the fellow group members, one participant from the ISOE and two external participants.
The workshop started with an introduction of all participants and a brief presentation of their main experiences and working areas which included areas such as one urban health, sustainability research, health promotion research, philosophy of science, sociology of science, geography and engineering.
Within the workshop the moderated discussion raised different questions such as which role do participatory approaches and co-production play in philosophy of science within research about healthy environments? Is there a difference in the methods and what does this difference mean? So, what is the specificity of methods in TDR and how is this related to social change? What is your experience and how do you perceive the scientific impact of your research when you are doing TDR? What are successful strategies to change a science system?
Most of the participants were involved in large-scale projects in Europe, North America and Australia with a variety of different actors from politics, science and practice, aimed at tackling complex real-world challenges. These ranged, for example, from urban ecosystem health and zoonoses, a transformation towards more sustainable everyday practices, a large project on land use change, a knowledge integration of heatwave adaptation concepts from the global South to the European context, the establishment of a rural urban health network and noise action planning in a city, to the implementation of community-based physical activity promotion in rural and urban municipalities with a focus on health equity.
A variety of methods and methodologies were used, including participatory approaches to building networks with different actors, citizen science approaches, real-world laboratories, the cooperative planning approach, historical epistemological methods to conceptual engineering and conceptual analysis. In addition, the role of governance was discussed in terms of who does what, why, when and how and who decides it, as well as the role of negotiation and adaptation, and finding a common language. The image of a triangle was developed, with the research task, the task of changing reality and the task of promoting learning processes, with transdisciplinary methods and methodology put in the middle. It was highlighted that the three parts of a triangle connect in a methodology of research for and in change processes. A critical point was raised with regard to the “toolification” of methods and methodologies while at the same time the focus on theories and on other dimensions of TDR is less prominent.
With regard to scientific impact, it was emphasized that the focus is on the impact of TDR on the scientific system. TD researchers could be more conscious and more strategic in changing the academic system in the direction that TDR and transformative research can flourish. There is no space for TDR in established systems of research classification. Instead of seeing the scientific impact of TDR in a conservative way (e.g. in which scientific results are reintegrated in the existing science system with publications), we could emphasize more the transformative impact that TDR might have on the science system. Instead of asking how transdisciplinary research impacts the science system, we could emphasize that in order for TDR to thrive, the science system needs to be different and this difference needs to be described.
The Workshop at ISOE
The aim of the workshop at ISOE was to reflect on the results of the bibliometric analysis, and to discuss the next steps of the fellow group. The workshop involved nine participants—five fellows and four members of ISOE—who addressed the intersection of health and environment/sustainability, commonalities and differences in methods, and the scientific impact of TDR.
Sustainability as well as health are defined in various ways with numerous schools of thought. Public health and health promotion are crucial for the environment. Sustainability is a key issue in public health. Several concepts at the intersection of health and sustainability were discussed. For example, the concepts of complexity and systems thinking, the concept of well-being and well-being economies, One Planet Regions, Urban Health, as well as Indigenous health, cosmology and religion. Furthermore, the role of insurance companies regarding how long-term risk management and econometric analyses can predict future health and sustainability challenges was also discussed. All of these concepts include context-specific practices at the intersection of health and sustainability. Practice theory was explored as one potential theoretical approach to analyze the intersection of health and sustainability.
There is a need to define what scientific impact specifically refers to—whether it's the impact on science itself, society, or both. Scientific research aims to produce new knowledge. This involves both theoretical advancements and practical applications, impacting both scientific institutions and society.
However, it is also a challenge to identify scientific knowledge, and it would be helpful to identify specific case studies from the field of TDR at the interface of sustainability and health that have produced scientific knowledge. The relationship between scientific knowledge and associated practices was highlighted and established practices can be transformed through scientific knowledge. A better understanding of scientific impact also ties into the legitimization of transdisciplinary approaches and the broader definition of scientific excellence.
Defining the boundaries between health research and sustainability research is challenging. Both fields are deeply interconnected and complex, involving various layers of societal and environmental factors. The discussion concluded with reflections on the overlapping goals of health and sustainability research, acknowledging the need for a more integrated approach to address complex societal and environmental issues.
Summary/ Conclusion
We would like to summarize three findings and insights that we consider particularly noteworthy.
- We found it interesting that the TDR mode is mainly applied in research communities from sustainability research, health research and social innovation, and these research communities coexist but do not cooperate closely as the initial results of the bibliometric analysis revealed. Further results of the bibliometric analysis will help us to better understand this phenomenon.
- Interestingly, our discussion did not highlight specific differences between the use of participatory and collaborative approaches in the fields of health research and sustainability research. In both fields, complex real-world challenges were addressed, a variety of actors were involved, and different methods, including different participatory and collaborative approaches, were used to develop alternative solutions and promote change. However, this does not imply that there are no differences, and further research in this area would improve our understanding of what works for whom in what context.
- More research on the transformative impact that TDR can have on the science system could open up new ways of doing science that can in turn transform the science system. A normative approach would be insightful, where we define what is needed from the science system to enable TDR. For the institutionalization of transdisciplinary and transformative science in the academic system, the analysis of cases where TDR is already being implemented can provide valuable insights.